SixthCity

Like a deep sea expedition, this franchise is exploring new depths.

You're right, it's not from the 1830s. The presentation said it was build around the 1860s/1870s or something like that.

Me? Hyperbolic? Never!

It's this little shack: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4816024,-81.7142362,3a,25.8y,115.68h,91.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svSCni1ISIBOxGDoIUctQ4w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 Take a good look because the Landmarks Commission thinks it's something worth unilaterally sinking a new townhome development for. Thank god for them! Seriously though. If that house is renovated and occupied in 10 years I will get on UO and say "I agree with everything 327[/member] says." :evil: In reality the developer will probably walk away and the house will fall in on itself in a couple years because it's a dumpy little shack in horrible shape and no one is going to pump $120k+ to gut rehab a 1,300 square foot house that has been neglected for 30 years. But hey the bureaucrats at the City have got it all under control!

Good luck!

Be interested to your heart's content. That should not create a legal right.

Nonsense. Consumers and producers would negotiate so that the product being offered was in measure with what the consumers are willing to spend. The idea that we need a 3rd party architectural review board to determine what is "good" and "bad" (as if such a thing exists based purely on aesthetics) is total BS. I agree with KJP - if builders are building and buyers are buying and both are happy, who cares? Who should insert themselves into that transaction and on by what criteria are they going to determine what should and should not be built? This comes on the heals of witnessing a truly horrifying Landmarks Commission meeting where the Commission's criteria was based on arbitrary feelings about how something looked and not on any clear principle of judgment.

They stuck to the first plan for the presentation as it was the one the City Planning staff and the architects decided on (a lot of help that was!). The others were just showing the different options that were talked about at one point. The criticism and basis for criticism and rejection were completely arbitrary and nonsensical. Cleveland is playing a very dangerous game here.

If you ever want to see the greatest impediment to Cleveland's redevelopment, attend a Landmarks Commission meeting. I understand the need for historic preservation in some circumstances. And I'm even willing to go far enough to say that quality architecture is something akin to a public good although I'd rather see the preservation done by voluntary easements purchased by a non-profit. But the Landmarks Commission all but nixed Knez's townhouse construction project because of a decrepit 1,300 sqft home that has been on the market for 10 years with no buyer. Throughout the meeting, the Commission offered the most arbitrary criticism I could imagine to developers and people who have invested their time, money, and livelihood to building quality housing in Cleveland. It was stunning. At one point, a Commission member's criticism of the Kline project was that the fourth floor "kinda made him uncomfortable." What's most disconcerting is the criticism and basis for approving or denying these projects is not based on any real observable standard. Another member praised Ohio City's diversity of buildings while in the next sentence attacking the Knez project because it was different from the surrounding buildings!!! The irony was too much. Governmental tyranny run amok.

It was pulled at the last minute. There was no presentation today at the Landmarks Commission.

Is it finally happening?

I saw it from afar. From what I saw, it looked like a pretty sizable vehicle fire in the bus lane right outside the E. 9th Healthline stop. It was not a structure fire, thankfully.

Mansfield Frasier seems to be responsible for generating 90% of coolcleveland.com's content.

I fail to recognize anything he did as wrong by the information in the article.

I saw that - that's completely insane!! He wasn't even caught in the crossfire...out and out targeted and killed because the killer's wanted to harm his father.

Bicyclist shot in chest early Friday in Cleveland's Gordon Square http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/11/bicyclist_shot_in_chest_early.html#incart_river_home

"We" shouldn't decide how tall buildings should or shouldn't be. The landowner/developer is the one who makes that decision. If Bobby Stark wants to build 50+ stories into the sky, then god bless him.

I like these a lot.

Vice's version of "Ruin Porn."

Sure - I think you've cut to the heart of the issue. Which is, that people label anything they like as "justice" or even "fairness" (which has arguably less curb appeal) and then want to enjoy the benefits of misusing a term that has real substance. Courts, criminal laws, and legal causes of action don't give rise to justice - it's exactly the opposite. The philosophical roots of "justice" have given rise to our criminal codes and common law, which over time, have been gently refined. "Justice" as commonly understood in our society is rooted in thousands of years of built upon philosophical debate that has been codified and I would argue, an innate sense of human morality. So I am wildly skeptical when someone claims that they should be able to live in their apartment at static rent levels in the name of "Justice" or "fairness." What is the principle that is founded upon?

The counterpoint to this is that development bans do exactly the opposite that their proponents think they will do. Rising rents and housing values follow from increased demand and not enough supply to meet that demand. Moratoriums on new units exacerbate this and the Bay has nearly choked itself to death by not allowing new supply. Still, I would have a hard time characterizing a building moratorium as "justice." i.e. redress for a particular harm. Ok, I hear ya a little clearer here but I still don't think it comes close to the concept of "justice." This just looks like contractual obligations to me. If the City is going to lend money to development projects, they are completely free to set the terms of the loan as they wish - that's just plain old contract negotiation. "Justice" would come from the redress if one side breached the terms of the agreement. One could make the argument that government shouldn't be involved in lending money to real estate developers at all but that's a whole different kettle of fish... I'd have to see some specific examples to get a better idea about this but the nuisance cause of action comes to mind here. Nuisance has provided people a way to successfully sue polluting factories for a long time - if I'm not mistaken, I think there are other tort actions that can cover this as well. "Environmental justice" seems vague and more akin to a political slogan than a concrete concept. But sure, if you can prove a particular injury and the proximate cause of that injury is a polluting factory, you have (and should have) a legal action that can mete out "Justice" (redress for a particular harm) provided the rest of the elements are met.

So what on earth is "housing justice?" The term came up in the University Circle thread and I would quote the comment but it's now locked. Call me cynical but I strongly suspect this is a case of adding the world justice to another word or phrase and then operating as if it is such. What is the standard, philosophy, and principles of "housing justice?" Would anyone care to indulge me?

D*mn, this is a classy project.

This sign went up very recently...advertising the building's receiver. Not entirely sure what to infer from that.

Are there any substantive limits to taxation in this type of case? i.e. arbitrarily high rates that fail a rational basis test. Also, is there a distinction to be made between legitimate taxes and penalties? (With the latter being unconstitutional) I know those concepts exist in federal constitutional law but I'm curious if you know how they translate to the state context.