Historic Hall House demolition discussed by Council Monday

The jumping off discussion area for the rest of the Deck. All things Lakewood.
Please check out our other sections. As we refile many discussions from the past into
their proper sections please check them out and offer suggestions.

Moderators: Jim DeVito, Dan Alaimo

Joan Roberts
Posts: 175
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 8:28 am

Postby Joan Roberts » Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:51 pm

Two quick comments.
One, I read the entire "Planning & Development" post, and the only thing I don't understand is, why all the moving parts? If the city wants to build a parking lot, why not just buy the property, put in the meters, and put the revenue against the debt? The issue of what to do with the structure is a side one and should be between the owner and the Historical Society.
Remember, there was no official designation on this property and it only got on the radar screen when the deal was announced. If anything, this is evidence for a comprehensive (private, non-profit) survey regarding exactly what buildings Lakewood wants to preserve,and what it's willing to pay to preserve them. Post facto protests are unfair to all parties.

Second comment is to Mr. Schrempf. With courtesy and all due respect, I disagree with your "back door" comment. This proposal was placed on its first reading March 20. A committee meeting is tonight. A second reading, presumably, would be April 6, and final action couldn't be earlier than April 20.
That's four opportunities for public comment and input over the disposition of private property If the owner had sold the building to Yum! Inc. (love that name) for constrruction of a new Taco Bell, there would have been no oiscussion.
The city certainly should conduct its business transparently, but it does need to be able to conduct business. This procedure seems pretty open and above-board to me. What would your recommendation have been?


Paul Schrimpf
Posts: 328
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:37 am

Postby Paul Schrimpf » Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:28 pm

Joan --

Yes, the city did have private meetings outside the public domain. But the emergency ordinance was placed in the docket and even many of the stakeholders were unaware that it was taking that step.

My problem with that aspect is, once you open lines of communication, you cut them off at your own risk. Every one of the stakeholders should have been informed of the docket entry immediately. Anything less is slipping it through the back door. And the parties got what they deserved -- a lot of hassle. And it's not over yet.

Yes, it could have been sold and turned around. But it wasn't. It was brought to the city's attention, and an MOU was drawn up and brought to council with only a handful of "stakeholders" in the know. We're talking about the spot where one of the most historic homes left in Lakewood stands, and the only stakeholders in the know were those in the area. The Hall House is a unique entity of historical significance, and I believe that the entire city is a stakeholder in the deal. We all should be aware of its potential demise. Even if it is sold to Taco Bell, there would be time to react because of permitting, etc.

Again, I've said it before, this city does not have the necessary respect for its history. It should be fully in the discussion whenever new development takes place, and placed on the continuum. On a 1 to 10 scale, with 10 being most significant historically, the Hall House is a clear 10. But it has not been treated as such. All I want is to have historic significance get its day in the discussion -- and carry some weight.


Joan Roberts
Posts: 175
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 8:28 am

Postby Joan Roberts » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:09 pm

Mr. Schrimpf.

Good points. Please accept my apology for the misspelling of your name. I appreciate the concern about "stakeholders." My question (and I don't want to be too esoteric about this) is "who are the stakeholders and what are their stakes?"

I agree that the entire city is a "stakeholder", but is our interest solely to preserve the past? If you have more of an affinity for history and old buildings, and I am more focused on here-and-now economic vitality that benefits Lakewoodites today, which of our "stakes" is more compelling? Is there a balance. And, if neither of us have plunked down our $$$$s, do either of us have any stake at all?

My interest isn't in arguing. It's practical. Lakewood's a tough place to do business, and historical "surprises" don't make things any easier.
My practical question. What ARE the 10s? Let's find them now, so we don't blindside any other property owners.


Charyn Varkonyi

Postby Charyn Varkonyi » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:37 pm

Paul:

How is it that you deem this individual absentee? It was stated that the condition of the other houses owned by this property owner are in code and this one was shelved due to the current negotiations to demolish it and replace it with a p-lot. Certainly, it only makes sense that one would not improve a lot that was being demolished?

I also have to say that I dont believe that anyone tried to back door anything. Considering that very few people gave a rodent's rectum about this property before there was an idea to move it - I really doubt that council, or any person, could've foreseen this opposition.

Where were all of the people demanding that it be fixed up and preserved BEFORE there were plans to build a parking lot? If people are soooo concerned, why are they not going to council meetings and lobbying for whatever other historical markers they think should be preserved? Have we really become such an apathetic community that we will only respond once plans are drawn and progress is begun?

Better yet, how many people are so devoted to preserving Lakewood that they would support a hike in the local tax rate? Oh yea... not many if I recall. It really is time for people to wake up and realize that there aint no such thing as a free lunch. You want parking? Structures will have to go and people will have to live next to that parking. You want historical preservation? Someone, somehow has to pay for that. Not only for the moving & restoration, but for the upkeep as well. It is not a one time cost - it will have ongoing liabilities that will need to be paid!

FFT

Peace,
~Charyn


Joan Roberts
Posts: 175
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 8:28 am

Postby Joan Roberts » Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:02 am

Ms. V.

You came pretty close to nailiing it. This is my second time around here, and the terrain has changed.
We don't want more taxes and we don't want to give anyone raises and we don't want fewer cops and we don't want to knock down old buildings and we don't want Dollar Trees and we don't want eminent domain and we don't want parking lots and we don't want Section 8 and we don't want chain stores and we REALLY don't want more taxes and we don't want bars and we don't want malls and we don't wantt things to stay the same and we don't want anything to change and we don't want.....
What the heck DO we want? And do we really think anything is going to be without a price?
Last edited by Joan Roberts on Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:11 am, edited 1 time in total.


User avatar
Jim O'Bryan
Posts: 14103
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:12 pm
Location: Lakewood
Contact:

Postby Jim O'Bryan » Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:10 am

Update

Strong challenges were made and strong concepts put forward. Tom Jordan came prepared, and a lively discussion was put out for all. Strongest contingent by far was Lakewood Historical. All made strong points about saving it, even if it meant moving it. Rick Sicha stole the show for Historical Society by mentioning simply, this is the start of another bigger project so why not wait.

On the owner, Mr. Coutris, who has been compared by some as a slumlord, or as Kevin Butler put it has come as close as possible, pointed out that all of his other properties are compliant, and that these properties only became a problem when the City started talking to him about the parking lot in 2004. At that point he quit fixing them up.

Michael Gill disputed that fact and proceeded to talk about many of the problems and the headaches of being Mr. Coutris neighbor.

As I understand the deal now which has changed since the first time I heard it. Mr. Coutris is paid $150,000 to tear down house and put up parking lot. Then the city pays for meters, insurance and maintenance. All money is split. the city estimated it would take in $5,700 or so a year. Some people thought it was a bad deal and the city would lose money. Tom Jordan pointed out that many things the city does is not for profit, but to generate help for business.

Cited was the parking lot next top Player's Pizza. Ryan Demro pointed out that that lot sits empty all day, and looses the city $1,700 a month. Mary Louise Madigan was very sharp, and kept on about the deal, the cost and how could the city do a deal in this financial climate. Citing the new budget.

Some asked about if a Bond would be needed and Tom Jordan said no, the money is in a special fund. However one city worker pointed out that the city borrows money right now, and like Issue 11. That still meant a bond would be needed to make up that money.

Meeting was sharp, and council was too.

Next Monday is the second reading.

My only points at this time are: The lot is obviously being built for McCarthy's, maybe Pannini's, possibly the Drink, and the YMCA. McCarthy's and Pannini's were just sold, so the new owners had to know there was little parking. The Drink is rarely occupied by many, and Tim at Malloy's would rather have a parking lot behind his bar and has tried to buy both houses and the building on the other street using his own money.

FWIW


Jim O'Bryan
Lakewood Resident

"The very act of observing disturbs the system."
Werner Heisenberg

"If anything I've said seems useful to you, I'm glad.
If not, don't worry. Just forget about it."
His Holiness The Dalai Lama
User avatar
Jim O'Bryan
Posts: 14103
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:12 pm
Location: Lakewood
Contact:

Postby Jim O'Bryan » Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:23 am

Joan

Let's look at it another way.

Is this the best use of $150,000 right now. Especially when the budget is so tight. I encourage you to go the the area and walk around. Mr. Coutris, mentioned if this fell through he would fix the house up and rent them. Another thing to come out was that Tea Cups and Thyme only closed when they got wind of the deal.

So questions. What are 1 commercial and 3 residential units worth in taxes and two the community. We know the parking lot with a best case scenario would only make $5,700 a year, and that means it could also loose money.

But please walk around and see if the lot makes any sense there. Or would it be better one block west? Or even two blocks west. If we went 2.5 we end up in the middle of the entertainment district, and can service 6 bars, and the lot is already there! Owned by the church, but there, and ready for meters.

Really a tough one, but I believe the words of Pat Ballasch sums it up best. With a budget you need to prioritize. With a budget as tight as ours you really need to. Is this parking lot the most important thing on that list?

The whole thing is very interesting. General feel by the neighbors and other residents. No thanks.


.


Jim O'Bryan
Lakewood Resident

"The very act of observing disturbs the system."
Werner Heisenberg

"If anything I've said seems useful to you, I'm glad.
If not, don't worry. Just forget about it."
His Holiness The Dalai Lama
dl meckes
Posts: 1474
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:29 pm
Location: Lakewood

Postby dl meckes » Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:26 am

Are you talking about the lot by Rosatti's?


“One of they key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace. Good people don’t go into government.”- 45
User avatar
Jim O'Bryan
Posts: 14103
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:12 pm
Location: Lakewood
Contact:

Postby Jim O'Bryan » Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:35 am

dl meckes wrote:Are you talking about the lot by Rosatti's?




Yes


Jim O'Bryan
Lakewood Resident

"The very act of observing disturbs the system."
Werner Heisenberg

"If anything I've said seems useful to you, I'm glad.
If not, don't worry. Just forget about it."
His Holiness The Dalai Lama
Kate McCarthy
Posts: 481
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:25 pm
Location: Lakewood

Postby Kate McCarthy » Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:32 pm

Unless the parking lot is metered in the evenings and on weekends, I don't see how the city would generate much revenue from any parking lots in western Lakewood. The idea of using a parking lot that is empty most evenings and doesn't encroach into a residential neighborhood makes much more sense if possible.

This shopping strip is the closest thing Lakewood has to an "antique row" and I always felt the Hall House, being antique, fit in nicely. Tea Cups in Time was a great asset that drew people into our community and is yet another business lost to Rocky River. I think it's a terrible shame if it's true that it was pushed out after getting wind of this plan. Does anyone know if the Antique Corner closed up shop for a similar reason?


User avatar
Jim O'Bryan
Posts: 14103
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:12 pm
Location: Lakewood
Contact:

Postby Jim O'Bryan » Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:29 am

Kenneth Warren wrote:Finally, the LO electronic bulletin board is a democratic and inclusive means for people in Lakewood to frame, critique, process, speculate and contest matters of interest and vision. At the LO observation deck real names are used, biases generally are acknowledged and subjected to critical pressure, and commitments are made to an open source and experiment sense of civic fair play. If an action, agent or issue has been mischaracterized and one knows or even feels otherwise, then one is compelled by decency to make the effort to correct the matter. Kenneth Warren


Ken

It should be noted that in this very democratic process called the Observation Deck that in the past other land owners entered the discussion and got more than fair treatment. Who can forget how Mr. O. L ombardo entered the Deck and earned respect if nothing else. However the man who claims to be very supportive of the city seems to be not willing to discuss the matter with residents.

FWIW


.
Last edited by Jim O'Bryan on Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.


Jim O'Bryan
Lakewood Resident

"The very act of observing disturbs the system."
Werner Heisenberg

"If anything I've said seems useful to you, I'm glad.
If not, don't worry. Just forget about it."
His Holiness The Dalai Lama
Paul Schrimpf
Posts: 328
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:37 am

Postby Paul Schrimpf » Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:32 pm

I'll make this real simple for those confused by my post to understand. What I said was that historic preservation needs to be a part of the discussion. There are probably only about a dozen or so residential structures left of any importance. Put them on a 1 to 10 continuum:

Nicholson House: 10
Oldest Stone House: 10
The double I lived in on Morrison in 1988: 1
The Hall House: my opinion, 10

We say we value our history. But we need to move forward. Let's decide what we absolutely must save, and when it's threatened let's get it out there and talk about solutions, both private and public. I never suggested that we raise taxes for preservation, or that I expect the city to be the source of the solution. But had I known back in 2004 that discussions were underway that might threaten the property, you bet I would have asked more questions. Let's at least discuss it, and do so in a fashion that leaves time for the people who care to react.



Return to “Lakewood General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 37 guests