mam178

https://twitter.com/mattm178/status/1691919162938110093

That's right. The form based code and other strategic updates will modify and improve the other processes as well.

@LlamaLawyerhere is the legislation: https://cityofcleveland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6283377&GUID=F8EBCBDE-93AE-4C7F-8F93-76FC88FD72E4&G=2EB18EF1-2C21-4D1D-85C9-B38100AB8FFD&Options=ID|Text|&Search=801-2023

This is Matt! :) We're defining the applicable zone as anywhere within 1/4 mile of a 15-minute service stop. So the "TOD Zone" could grow (or shrink) as service changes.

This "woodland" used to be homes as early as 1881. The trench was dug for the tracks in 1927.

I agree. I'm just commenting on how silly the dance the City does appears to be.

I generally love this project. However I can't help but feel bothered by this whole situation. The parking lot was used to convince BZA to grant variances for the Happy Dog across the street. The City's zoning code has minimum parking requirements, and UCI/Happy Dog were granted variances because of that lot. Then this project goes to BZA to get its own set a variances, and not a question is raised about parking for the businesses and the variances they got. Now, I'm not advocating for parking minimums, but it all seems like such a farce and waste of time.

As a resident in Cedar-Lee, I would visit Coventry much more often if I could hop on a direct shuttle outside the Cedar-Lee theatre.

Starting Oct. 1? But I saw one of them while at the intersection of Mayfield and Coventry this past Saturday evening. A training run, perhaps? It was probably Case Western's shuttle, not UCI's shuttle. Case commissions its own shuttles to the heights for students that specifically connect to campus: https://case.edu/access-services/media/caseedu/access-services/documents/ShuttleMap-2016-17.jpg It looks like the new circle link will be more Little Italy-Coventry route, which I am all for!

I live right behind this part of Cedar Lee and it is probably the slowest brewery project I have ever seen. They're well into a year on this.

Sorry for the delay, but I am a bit sad to say the wait was probably not worth it. Flaherty Collins presented a new conceptual site plan that is the same flavor we have all seen before, similar to this: http://realestate.cleveland.com/realestate-news/2017/05/cleveland_heights_will_pursue.html except with a parking garage wrapped in apartments and retail where it says "terrace" in the linked plan. They were very quick to say that this will likely change over time. Then they took comments from the community. About 50% were positive/cautious comments, as the developers asked to hear our concerns, suggestions for architecture, etc. 50% of the comments were generally unhelpful and negative ("I've seen development proposals here for 30 years..."), but I was a bit glad to get some historical perspective from the older residents. Some comments even bordered on scary ("I don't want any strangers moving into our community..."). Flaherty Collins said they will likely develop no more than 6 stories, and several residents liked that and several wanted 10-20 stories. It was nice to see some advocating for a bold statement to be made with this development (and I happen to agree with that sentiment). The City is exploring a TIF plan for assistance on the site, and will likely ground lease the whole property to Flaherty Collins. No details on mixed use breakdown such as ratio of apartments, for-sale, etc. More to come I hope... EDIT: Oh, I should probably mention parking. This was probably the most used word at the meeting. Parking, traffic, traffic study. Residents are nuts about parking, which I don't quite get because I have always seen CH as a leader in mixed-use district parking schemes. Cedar Fairmount, Cedar Lee, and Coventry all have public parking decks. In the comments I gave to the development team I implored them to examine the implication of self driving cars, as they plan to construct a massive parking deck for this project.

There is a community meeting on the Top of the Hill Project tonight at 7pm at the Cleveland Heights Community Center. I am planning to go and happy to post updates and notes from the meeting afterwards.

Not to put words in bumsquare's mouth, but these are terms of art in Cleveland, so you absolutely can get both. Abatement in this context is the as-of-right tax abatement of additional city-imposed property taxes for residential development. The same thing every new house and every new apartment building gets. The TIF is the discretionary exemption that applies to the additional city property taxes on the non-residential portion and, in this particular case, but few others, the additional school district property taxes on the whole project. Ur better at words than me. Like I said upthread from Michelle: "The city previously approved forgivable loans for nuCLEus to help with demolition and site clean-up. Apartments and condos in the complex will be eligible for 15 years of property-tax abatement under a widely used city program meant to encourage residential construction." I don't think this changes my point. The commercial components would be TIF'ed, residential abated. I am pretty sure the residential abatement is approved administratively, and the TIF has to be legislated each time. Stark could build a residential project here that would be successful (with an abatement). A more dynamic project requires more creative financing solutions, but they are still making payments under a TIF. An abatement means they don't owe anything due to any increased value. EDIT: Stated another way, my point is they can't have the privilege of not paying taxes and having the power to bond out tax payments on the entire project. I get that residential can be abated, but it would be abated no matter what because the administration would approve it. Plus the schools and the City are already getting tax revenue from the lots as-is. A TIF just means for the life of the bond their tax payments (on the commercial portion) service debt, not the schools or the City.

Yes. And the only reasonable answer is when Cleveland has a downtown housing market that is valuable enough to permit new construction of this scale with little to no subsidy. The fact is it doesn't right now. Generally urbanists and the supporters of this deal think it is OK to make these concessions now because the social return on re-urbanization is worth it in the long run. People want to live downtown. That's why downtown has had sub-5% vacancy for, like, 24 quarters or something. This is a bet that reinvestment in downtown Cleveland will hit a point where employers can't not be there or nearby. Once that happens economic growth can feed on itself. There are a lot of signs outside the scope of this thread that back that reasoning up. Also it feels good because it is a positive sentiment, not a negative one.

And this is a huge secondary consideration......once this happens, where does it end? In 15-30 years, when the financing plans expire...

It can't get both a tax abatement and a TIF. That is just not how tax financing works. If you don't understand it that's fine, but please don't advocate for a position you don't quite understand...

I am a fan of the plum, but to each their own I suppose.

Not really, the residual method I mentioned is meant to establish the baseline value for a land value tax system. The system itself inherently promotes development, because in a pure implementation land improvements do not increase tax burden. Practical implementations have taxed both land and improvements, but use separate and lower rates for those improvements. In other words, if the surface lot you own has a tax bill of $10,000 and the apartment building next door has a tax bill of $40,000, under LVT the ideal arrangement may be both are $25,000. That way: 1. the government doesn't lose tax revenue. 2. the developed property essentially gets a tax break of $15,000 3. the surface lot pays $15,000 more, spurring the owner to develop it for a more profitable use or selling it The reason why you don't see LVT everywhere in the US is for two reasons: 1. bureaucratic inertia and 2. its unclear how you "reset" people's property tax. Everyone will want it lower. Plus, in Ohio at least, what will the schools say? It would be a political nightmare.

This project is made possible by the City's Storefront Renovation Program, used to renovate and restore dilapidated retail and mixed use structures in the City. The end game for this building is to restore the storefront to a glass pane system and really open up that corner. I second the praise for Frank and his crew, they do great work. They just wrapped up the Literary Tavern (formerly the literary cafe). Attached is a before and after.

Wikipedia has a decent section on the practical issues of LVT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax#Practical_issues Personally I am a fan of the residual method. In Cuyahoga County both land and buildings are assessed. Buildings depreciate, so it is easy to find records of total property value and depreciate the structures on it. This is done very meticulously for insurance purposes, as every property owner has (or should) insurance. So: property value - deprecated building value = land value. Then assess the tax rate. What the wikipedia page states well is no matter how you slice it, the initial valuation is the most difficult. Afterwards you can more easily rely on market transactions to state value for tax purposes.

I worry about this as well.

Of course, but they are city owned and you have to work with Cleveland Heights. This is a huge red flag to developers who have to spend a bunch of time and money up front before a project even breaks ground.

This is the crux of it, especially if he is an attorney. Also, to the comments of others saying the opposition is because of apartments, I believe that to be 100% the issue. Woodhill supply is a dump. Who wouldn't want it cleaned up? But if you say renters will live here (renters who, by the way, will likely be college or med/graduate students), no thank you. I see it in Tremont. Unfortunately, it is usually dog whistle racism, the same kind of racism that hurt Cleveland back in the '50s, '60s' and '70s.

Could be. The name certainly matches, and he could probably afford a nice Coltman home.

I found the case. Suit was brought by a David D. Watson. He lives at 1876 E. 120th Street, across from the Woodhill supply site. David Watson sued saying the BZA decision for woodhill supply was arbitrary, capricious, etc. Common Pleas found for the City. He has appealed. The case is working through the appeals court: https://cpdocket.cp.cuyahogacounty.us/COA_CaseInformation_Docket.aspx?q=KTF6d_Iaw_ZPR1sWSiAlFw2