Donald Farris wrote:Hi,
Jim as you know our family has seen the waste created by attempted eminent domain abuse. Regardless if its legal in the case you mention here, it is morally wrong.
Savannah felt Lakewood did not need to cannibalize itself to get new development, it just needs to be more creative. That was one reason for the peninsula. While other towns can indeed become built out, Lakewood can grow by creating land out into the Lake which would add without taking away. Cleveland, New York City and Boston have done this many many years ago.
The sad aspect of her vision is it would take longer that a couple of years, and politicians, even local ones, have trouble seeing farther than an election into the future. Maybe a Leader will step up yet to champion this.
Don
While there is no doubt in my mind that waste and illegal use of eminent domain is
morally wrong, and should be stopped at all costs. Where you and I differ,
and I could
go into the questions I have asked you in the past, that in some extreme circumstances
it is needed. While even legal use of eminent domain is abuse, as Bill Call makes a valid
point of I-90 and other uses that actually devalue a community. In my many lunches with
Mary Anne Crampton and Jay Foran, they were able to help me understand that it is still a
tool, and a tool that has every right being in our tool box and could be used when it
benefits a community on the whole so much as to actually turn the city around. I would
have to say using it to secure the park at Clifton Beach is not only proper use, but it would
benefit Lakewood so much, I cannot believe that even they would not get behind it being
used here. I mean a 20% rise in property values across the board in Lakewood is better
than a 20% rise in taxes without the added value correct?
To me when we look at developments in a built out city we have a very complicated
formula of how do we guarantee what we put there is more valuable than what we took
down, and how can we do it while affecting the fewest number of residents. The single
best example of the biggest band for the least intrusion would have to be the Gold Coast.
The properties are worth hundreds of times more, than they would be as big stately
homes, and we even have larger income families living in those condos than ever lived in
the old big homes. This you would think would be a clue of some sort to those looking at
our future.
The gold coast has had zero negative impact in the city. The homes next have gone up in
value at nearly the same rate as home blocks away. So we could tear down 25-50 doubles
and increase property values maybe 5 times, while losing maybe 100 citizens and their
buying power, or we could tear down ten homes on the lake and increase that property
value maybe 25 times, bring in 200 well paid taxable families and increase the buying
power and tax base in Lakewood 100 times more. Is not one of our biggest problems
loss of families and their taxes and buying power? Or is it not enough burger places?
I would say the single biggest set back in looking at any of this is that most committees
that are looking to the future of Lakewood or looking for solutions have a large number of
people living on the lake or on the very land the city should be using to cash in big on our
coast line. It is time that like eminent domain we place everything on the table and see
first hand what could offer all citizens the biggest bang for the least amount of disturbances.
For all we know, as the Grow Lakewood Committee pointed out, that housing and offices
could be our future, and that it is certainly not more retail.
As for the land the high end condos would be built on of course that would have to be
purchased as it is being secured for private use.
It is time Lakewood went back to what has been proven to work 100% of the time.
Development on the lake. Just because a few will not consider the peninsula, does not
mean that our lakefront should not be developed for the betterment of the entire city.
If I were to consider running for mayor again, it would be on a platform of safe and clean
FOR REAL, stronger larger police force, transparency and accessability of government,
strong effort in housing stock, and the development and GREEN development of the
Lakefront for all. Of course no time while running the paper for higher office.
FWIW
Roy
Sorry no windmills, I do believe that when the technology really works, power companies
can apply rent the land and put them up. In 2010 windmills like regionalism, makes little
sense to us, the tax payers. I do believe he carbon footprint to make them is still larger
than anything they recoup in the first 5 years, which is when they start breaking down and
need more parts and create a larger carbon footprint again.
.
