The Observation Deck

.

So, you want me to pay $4,000 in annual fees for my Lakewood rental properties?

This is money that I would be putting into my homes and you want to give it to other homeowners who’ve let theirs fall apart. Well, guess what will start happening to mine?

What about the owner occupied house that’s worth $75,000 and the city is threatening the homeowner that it must be brought up to code – garage, electric, foundation – which will cost $80,000?

David Anderson wrote:So, you want me to pay $4,000 in annual fees for my Lakewood rental properties?

This is money that I would be putting into my homes and you want to give it to other homeowners who’ve let theirs fall apart. Well, guess what will start happening to mine?

What about the owner occupied house that’s worth $75,000 and the city is threatening the homeowner that it must be brought up to code – garage, electric, foundation – which will cost $80,000?

David

First in the space of an interview, where you have no idea of the questions or the follow up
you go with what is asked, with little room for discussion.

My point, and let's be honest you and i are not the norm, and would pay more than we
should is that LAKEWOOD has got to stop thinking that "Downtown" "Burgers" "Empty
Buildings" or "Industry" will save us. Our industry is CLEAN SAFE HOMES, and that needs
to be spun off to its own mindset and action.

I have been through homes in Clifton Park, North of Edgewater, Off of Riverside, on Warren,
all over that are falling apart from the inside out. Right now there is a beautiful home
outside that the city will probably have to tear down, because it is literally melting from
the inside out. The neighborhood will be devastated the same way neighborhoods in
Cleveland and East Cleveland our devastated as home disappear, lots pop up, not one buys,
etc.

What I am referring to is a way for the Housing Industry to save itself in Lakewood. That
is just a very small part of a program out of the VAL that would see bulk buying, and
underwriting of paint, wood, drywall, roofing, etc. The $4 mill that could fund this comes
from that industry and would stay and grow in that industry with no interest loans secured
by the property. This is nothing more than doing one thing the city does now, but where
the city has no money in the game, this would give real strength,

We have to decide what is more important, flowers, safe clean streets. Burgers or the
homes of our neighbors. Let's be honest, neither you or I would pay that $1,000 it would
be passed onto the renters. And if this is really a cool/best city, than $87 a month is not
to much to ask for a person to pay that wants to live here.

Again this is a small part of a very large idea that interlocks to make it ALL work together.
Increasing property values, safety of the city, and appeal of the town. David, when you
hear the entire plan, you would say, damn that gives Lakewood a real chance for the next
20 years to compete in this region. Which is what we will always be doing no matter how
they spin it.

FWIW

.

Jim -

Some crazy cat a few years ago provided the "room for discussion." In fact, I think I'm conversing with him right now.

The concept of defining clean safe homes as “Lakewood’s leading industry” is an idea you and I have promoted ad nausea on this deck over the years. I have made my opinion known on this deck that I believe Lakewood has an inferiority complex when it comes to being referred to as a rental community. This is the first hurdle to be navigated by any out-of-the-box thinking housing policy.

Many residents don’t like this characteristic of Lakewood. They never have but I am not convinced they never will.

Many fail to see the connection of how the value of the double next door impacts the value of their single family home. "Tear it down" or "convert it into a single" tends to be the reaction not realizing that their water rates and tax burden goes up with every "tear down" and "conversion."

Without rental property, Lakewood’s tax burden would be through the roof. Point of fact: That abandoned three-family home I bought off a bank last November and put a ton of money and blood into now houses five tax paying citizens. Imagine the economic impact and tax revenue to Lakewood of having five tax paying citizens in one house that was previously completely empty.

How much tax is Lakewood collecting via folks who are employed and rent here? Maybe some of this income can be directed toward a "quality housing program" similar to how Ohio fuel taxes and car license fees can only be used for roads.

I agree that Lakewood’s leading industry is housing. I also want to take steps to protect the values of all properties and incentivize home owners to take their responsibility seriously. This is the conversation we should all be having and I appreciate you making it a big part of your “platform.” I just don’t agree that charging $1,000 per housing license is the way to go. What about the owner occupied single family homes (of which many are falling apart)? Shouldn’t they also have to pay into saving Lakewood’s leading industry as well?

Jim O'Bryan wrote:We have to decide what is more important, flowers, safe clean streets. Burgers or the
homes of our neighbors. Let's be honest, neither you or I would pay that $1,000 it would
be passed onto the renters. And if this is really a cool/best city, than $87 a month is not
to much to ask for a person to pay that wants to live here.

As far as passing on the $1,000 fee to tenants, well, there is just a certain amount of price elasticity in the rental market. $20-$50/month for tenants can be a big deal. Also, this fee may be seen by some as a place not to invest should someone be in the market for a two- or three-family home (without a community-wide agreement that a comprehensive housing strategy and plan is needed).

You indicate that Lakewood’s budget currently has money devoted to issues of lesser priority. Let’s consider eliminating these and redirecting the funds toward some sort of public/private co-op before we license fee to death a few to benefit the whole.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:have been through homes in Clifton Park, North of Edgewater, Off of Riverside, on Warren,
all over that are falling apart from the inside out. Right now there is a beautiful home
outside that the city will probably have to tear down, because it is literally melting from
the inside out. The neighborhood will be devastated the same way neighborhoods in
Cleveland and East Cleveland our devastated as home disappear, lots pop up, not one buys,
etc.

Homes such as these, Jim, need tens of thousands of dollars of repairs - plumbing, electrical, HVAC, roofs, windows - not just some paint and wall board. But, I see where you're going here with the bulk buying, etc. Eventually, though, the city of Lakewood whould have to identify vendors that will take part in this program. Generally, homeowners aren't replacing windows and roofs on their own. They are using a contractor.

Let's try to get together sometime soon to discuss in person.

David Anderson wrote:The concept of defining clean safe homes as “Lakewood’s leading industry” is an idea you and I have promoted ad nausea on this deck over the years. I have made my opinion known on this deck that I believe Lakewood has an inferiority complex when it comes to being referred to as a rental community. This is the first hurdle to be navigated by any out-of-the-box thinking housing policy.

David

If we could get the city to actually understand this, and other groups that are now driving
the politics of this town, this city would be light years ahead of where it is now, and we are
in a pretty damn good place.

David Anderson wrote:I agree that Lakewood’s leading industry is housing. I also want to take steps to protect the values of all properties and incentivize home owners to take their responsibility seriously. This is the conversation we should all be having and I appreciate you making it a big part of your “platform.” I just don’t agree that charging $1,000 per housing license is the way to go. What about the owner occupied single family homes (of which many are falling apart)? Shouldn’t they also have to pay into saving Lakewood’s leading industry as well?

David

I have others plans for them. BUT, those that chose to invest money to make money, as
opposed to just living here, should be able to take up the slack easier and with far less
pain, then those just living here.

Again, Thomas asked me for something controversial in the question. Not what low
hanging fruit do you see, what fun... The point is this is controversial, but makes all the
sense in the world if you have what it takes to keep the money on housing, to direct
many more efforts to housing. It is one small part of a much larger idea that shores up
Lakewood for not one or two years, but for much longer.

David Anderson wrote:You indicate that Lakewood’s budget currently has money devoted to issues of lesser priority. Let’s consider eliminating these and redirecting the funds toward some sort of public/private co-op before we license fee to death a few to benefit the whole.

I believe we take immediate steps where we can. NOW, that buy us the ability to study
other ideas a little closer and longer. I have ZERO faith in the economy, the region and
the politicians and planners to pull this region out. After all much like the medical business
there is no future in curing anything, you just want to get them strung out on the meds.
Why cure the region when so many are making so much working on a cure? Luckily
Lakewood can do so much on their own, if we get the right mindset, and programs now.

David Anderson wrote:Homes such as these, Jim, need tens of thousands of dollars of repairs - plumbing, electrical, HVAC, roofs, windows - not just some paint and wall board. But, I see where you're going here with the bulk buying, etc. Eventually, though, the city of Lakewood whould have to identify vendors that will take part in this program. Generally, homeowners aren't replacing windows and roofs on their own. They are using a contractor.

Let's try to get together sometime soon to discuss in person.

David

This gets extremely tricky but can be done. If you go back to the old Deck, and search VAL
you will see some of this spoken of. This is back when Ken and I were going to finance
Community Currency, and start a tool co-op lending library. At the time we went and talk
with many in the business in town. 1) You need to support local business, ALWAYS.
Something not always done especially by those preaching buy local, and buy downtown!
2) You need to be able to deliver bonuses to all in the program. You cannot force people
to say use an approved architect, who gouges the customer, because he has to pay to be
part of the program. That is a mafia shakedown.

OK David, $4 million shortfall. It is coming from somewhere, we cannot run the city in
deficit. 1) Where does it come from? 2) Does the city shoot for $4 million, or $12 million
and build a safety net of things that help to address the program while guaranteeing the
city most if not all of that money back?

I would love to talk about this anytime.

I am around.

.

Jim –

How come when the issue of housing and property is brought up, the discussion is hardly ever visited by anyone but you or me?

I can’t understand for the life of me how this isn’t regarded as the preeminent issue in this city. Is it simply due to foreclosure news fatigue?

May I ask for your reaction to this specific comment/idea.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Without rental property, Lakewood’s tax burden would be through the roof. Point of fact: That abandoned three-family home I bought off a bank last November and put a ton of money and blood into now houses five tax paying citizens. Imagine the economic impact and tax revenue to Lakewood of having five tax paying citizens in one house that was previously completely empty.

How much tax is Lakewood collecting via folks who are employed and rent here? Maybe some of this income can be directed toward a "quality housing program" similar to how Ohio fuel taxes and car license fees can only be used for roads.

Thanks.

Jim –

How come when the issue of housing and property is brought up, the discussion is hardly ever visited by anyone but you or me?

I can’t understand for the life of me how this isn’t regarded as the preeminent issue in this city. Is it simply due to foreclosure news fatigue?

May I ask for your reaction to this specific comment/idea.

David Anderson wrote:Without rental property, Lakewood’s tax burden would be through the roof. Point of fact: That abandoned three-family home I bought off a bank last November and put a ton of money and blood into now houses five tax paying citizens. Imagine the economic impact and tax revenue to Lakewood of having five tax paying citizens in one house that was previously completely empty.

How much tax is Lakewood collecting via folks who are employed and rent here? Maybe some of this income can be directed toward a "quality housing program" similar to how Ohio fuel taxes and car license fees can only be used for roads.

Thanks.

David

Wrote a book and will post later.

But one would ask you, where do you see nearly 90% of this city's focus from City Hall, and
the School Board?

Will answer later today.

Off to start our 12th and 13th paper, more outside this county!

.

David

You know as things get tighter, and they will I think some things really need to fall on those
industries or participants that benefit most. Lakewood does have a large base of work
out of the house, or work/live here. Many of them are renting.

Why do you never hear it?

Lakewood both City Hall and the residents took their eye off of the ball.

.

Jim -

Not meaning to split hairs but I don't know if anyone "took their eye off the ball." I just dont' think leaders in this city have ever really identified the housing market/industry as a "ball" in the first place.

So the question in my mind is how does an executive/Mayor elevate this issue above others when it's not even on the radar screen of most.

Where does the issue of diminished housing values sit on the list of issues of most concern to Lakewood residents? Crime/safety, schools, city services, others. Where does property value rank?

What are your insights on this?

David Anderson wrote:Jim -

Not meaning to split hairs but I don't know if anyone "took their eye off the ball." I just dont' think leaders in this city have ever really identified the housing market/industry as a "ball" in the first place.

So the question in my mind is how does an executive/Mayor elevate this issue above others when it's not even on the radar screen of most.

Where does the issue of diminished housing values sit on the list of issues of most concern to Lakewood residents? Crime/safety, schools, city services, others. Where does property value rank?

What are your insights on this?

David

They clearly took their eye off the ball, and have allowed other conversations and worst yet
illusions persist. The mayor and politicians always have the bully pulpit. They have the
power ot look and ask for studies, and put in place programs.

Lakewoodites have been told for over ten years, and reassured by our elected officials that
Economic Development will save this city.

You really have to look deeply into how other cities and groups perform, to see and
understand where, how and why Lakewood politicians lost sight of the facts, and then
started to chase the rabbit, so to speak.

No matter what you can and will be told, Economic Development and Livabilty/Housing
will always sooner or later be against each other, with the possible exception of major
metropolitan areas or "faux" cities like Crocker Park. Because of that real fact, it is deadly
for a city to allow one group to do both, and/or many other things.

You simply cannot serve two masters.

To understand what is going on in Lakewood, and the region, as I often say read
"Slaughter of Cities" We are living it right now. Then read Jane Jacobs "The Death and
Life of Great American Cities." Until you understand this, you have zero place in politics
in this or any city. One explains why Lakewood homes are the way they are, the other
explains just how valuable and RARE Lakewood is, RIGHT NOW.

The questions has always been. Do we want to be Crocker Park, with shopping, shopping,
shopping. Or do we want to be what Lakewood does best. The Best Place to raise a family.
They do not coexist at the levels being tried here. Please note, those pushing for ED live
nowhere near the areas they are developing. And when a development gets too close, like
the proposed 40 story hotel on Sloan, it gets shut down.

Housing has always been extremely successful in Lakewood. But is never looked at. The
most successful housing project in Lakewood has been the Gold Coast, but in this city,
every study that has been done since, NEVER LOOKS at developing more of our Lakefront.
Why? Look at where our leaders live?

No, this city has taken it eye off the target for some shiny objects, and false promises.

.

If those who own property in Lakewood were faced with paying an additional hefty tax on a yearly basis they would simply offload their properties. This would hasten the slow demise of housing in the city. It defies all economic theory for it to do anything other than that. You take the profit out of housing and housing then loses all value. What is very appropriate and very effective is strict and efficient housing guidelines and enforcement. A more effective method to improve housing would be to form private homeowner's associations throughout the city. Why don't neighborhoods governed by homeowner's associations fall into great disrepair? It's very simple. The neighbors take ownership, make their own rules, self-finance, and self-police. Now this runs counter to everything that people who believe in big government, big brother, and large overcompensated public workforces espouse. But hey, are we trying to save a city here or enforce an ideology?

The evidence that indicates that this would work is the block clubs that have formed over the past several years. If neighbors can look out for each other when it comes to safety, why can't they do the same for housing. Plus, who has the most interest in the aesthetics and safety of their neighborhood? Who could most quickly respond to the needs of their neighborhood? How much more diverse, attractive, and socially strong would the city become as neighborhoods of people with similar interests take shape? Why watch inept city government flounder at trying to create an artisan community for years when it is far more likely to rapidly form by itself? Jim, you know better as you have seen it happen in our commercial corridors and you have been a part of it yourself.

Ryan

I do no buy your premise at all.

It makes no sense.

The safest, coolest, best city in the county is worth $87 a month more in rent, and I
would just pass that on to my tenants.

I have already spoken with them, and they said they would stay. Actually they would
stay if it cost more than that.

ESPECIALLY if some of the money was guaranteed to stay in making the housing and
neighborhoods nicer, cleaner and safer.

Cutting taxes, or sitting still gets us nothing.

This is not like the Federal Government where you can cut, and cut and cut taxes and
still pay off a huge deficit. Cities cannot print money.

Well...


.

Ryan –

My hesitation about subscribing to the $1,000/year housing license tax idea it that this is just a bailout for those who haven’t maintained their homes financed by those who have. But, I think Jim’s point behind the notion is the same as yours: Are we trying to save a city or defend an ideology.

Your objection to Jim’s notion is that it would make the homes unattractive to owners who would sell rather than pay the $1,000/year fee. The mere prospect that the house could be sold to someone else means that the tax/fee does not make the house undesirable.

Homeowners’ Associations are an interesting model. Wouldn’t we want all neighborhoods to adhere to the same standards and enforcement of codes, etc.? Are you suggesting that different neighborhood association groups in different geographical areas of Lakewood all enforcing the same standards, codes, etc? Interesting.

David Anderson wrote:Your objection to Jim’s notion is that it would make the homes unattractive to owners who would sell rather than pay the $1,000/year fee. The mere prospect that the house could be sold to someone else means that the tax/fee does not make the house undesirable.

David/Ryan

I am not looking at home owner associations. But I would work to a keep a majority of the
funding serving those that pay it out. I mean right now home owners and residents are
paying out to support Lakewood businesses with our tax dollars. Because we have been
told, wrongly, that it is more important than housing.

So...

.