Peterlemonjello

Anyone on this forum move into one of the new apartments yet?

I know plenty of people who will want to take advantage of that tripspapa. There really aren't that many healthy breakfast options around.

Has anyone heard anything about the restaurant that is going to be in the building? I heard they're going to serve 3 meals a day which would obviously be a nice perk. I wonder if they'll have outdoor seating.

You tell me

Does anyone know if the prospect side of the building shares the 668 Euclid address with the Euclid side?

lionmilk, why the change of heart?

tripspapa, is it looking like January 1 is still a realistic goal for opening?

Did anyone on here move into their apt. on the 15th? If so, how is it?

Interesting. I wonder if the commecial stuff on the Prospect side will change at all. It seems like with new residential going in and E. 4th growing, we might be able to do a little bit better than check cashing joints on that side of the building.

Which parking garage is going to be the one for residents? I thought it was going to be the one that you can see from Euclid but then I realized that it doesn't actually connect to the building. The, I noticed the connected garage next to the building on the prospect side. I assume that's the resident garage?

Does anyone know how the two buildings will be connected?

I'm really not concerned about people being able to see where posts are coming from. For the record, I'm not exactly sure why it's so taboo for the future residents of this building to be discussing their legitimate concerns about the project on this forum. No one has given credence to anything posted on Cleveland.com. We've simply raised the issue as an area of concern and discussed how we might try to approach it with the building manager. It's not a legal issue. It's a community issue and we're trying to resolve it as a community of future residents.

It very well may have been an unfounded rumor . . . but then again, if it was bogus, you would think instead of coming on this forum and posting a bunch of meaningless PR drivel, K&D would've either just ignored it or said something to the effect of, "The allegations of water damage and mold are not true." If this rumor is in fact a lie, K&D has only itself to blame for causing it to spread.

In terms of K&D's statement being sufficient, if you can prove that the post actually came from K&D or one of its agents (and it sounds like K&D is admitting that it is in fact their statement) then I would think you have enough . . . . A question was posed. They chose to affirmatively respond to it, and even if they didn't directly address the issue, the fact that they gave assurances regarding the quality of the construction in the face of mold allegations, I would think, is enough. They could have elected to stay quiet and let things play out. Instead, they chose to respond to the allegations. As such, if they lied, they could end up in a pretty bad spot.

I'm not Peter Lawson Jones, I assure you (I actually had to google the name to figure out who Peter Lawson Jones is). Peter Lemonjello is a character from a movie. Anyway, I would imagine that your basic warranty of habitability would cover any mold that was toxic enough to make you leave your apartment, but still . . . It never hurts to lock someone, especially a landlord, into their story before they have a chance to explain it away. If K&D is asked about it now, before anyone has moved in, they have two options: 1) Deny it (and hopefully it isn't true anyway) and fraudulently induce people to sign their leases, or 2) Admit it, in which case prospective tenants (even ones who had already signed their leases, asuming K&D had really failed to disclose a material fact) could choose not to live there.