Htsguy

Great news. Do you know which parcel?

Here is a website I found which lists the top ten endowments (it excludes the Getty...not clear why expect it might being suggesting that it is so far out of all the other museums league money wise that if was not fair to compare). It is as of June 2006. I find it very suspect as it can not give a figure for its number 1 (the Met although I have no doubt the Met is number 1) and it has Cleveland's endowment way too low (see above post which I believe gives correct figures for Cleveland). That said all the other estimates may also be low so it is the ranking that is most interesting. Anyway, who knows if this is accurate but for what it is worth: 1. Met (uncertain) 2. MFA-Houston (760 mil.) 3. National Gallery (600 mil.) 4. Art Inst. of Chicago (565 mil.) 5. MoMa (495 mil.) 6. Harvard Univ. Art Museum (470 mil.) 7. MFA Boston (440 mil.) 8. Cleveland (385 mil.) 9. Indianapolis Museum of Art (345 mil.) 10. Winterthur Mus. and Country Estate (330 mil.) Again I question the numbers but perhaps not the ranking. I am sure there is a more definitive list out there. the site is: artsjournal.com/man/archives200660901.shtml

I would also like to know what the terms of the lease are and the article should have expanded on this. I am currently in the process of executing a commercial retail lease and it provides that the lease more or lease terminiates upon successful eminent domain which I believe is a standard provision. The article at least suggests that the tenant's attorney really does not know what he is doing as he litigates the case as it appears he keeps introducing evidence which is not relevant to the issues in the case, which is frustrating the judge.

Some minor good news. It appears from the court docket that the court decided, rather than convert the trial date into oral arguments relating to the motion for summary judgment, to hold a hearing on the motion on March 21, 2007. As such, it looks as though the March 26, 2007 trial date is still a go, at least for now.

Please...this is absolutely ridiculous. This is a major intersection in the City of Cleveland close to highway transportation, right on a new major bus line that is costing millions and half way between Cleveland's two large employment centers (downtown and UC). Why in the world is Midtown focusing on this rather than attracting developers to build something (anything) which will create hundreds of jobs. I mean what is Midtown's mission? They seem lost on this one. This may be a worthwhile project (and I have nothing against green space in the area) but there are scores of locations where it would be more appropriate. It seems to me they are just tire of all those empty lots they can't seem to market.

I believe the city of Cleveland did the blight study a number of years ago for that portion of the Flats and I am sure you can get it at City Hall (what dept.???) as it is a public record. The whole thing or portions of it maybe kicking around in the Probate litigation file as it may have been made part of the record in connection with the motion for summary judgment which was filed. I am sure that file itself is huge and not well organized. You will find it at the Old County Courthouse where the Probate Court is located. I doubt the file is in the file room. It is probably in the judges chambers since the trial is so close and so much have been going on lately. Best bet would be city hall.

Pretty mundane list of tenants (standard corporate group you find everywhere) but never expected much from this development in the first place, so whatever. I eat at the Original in Woodmere at least twice a month and rarely have had any problem with the service.

I don't know about the CMA having the second largest endowment. While it large, and without doing any research on the point, I would imagine the Met and Getty have larger endowments. And that is just off the top of my head.

wow, not really cutting edge.

^I didn't say I thought the property owners had a great case. In fact, without knowing all the facts as uncovered in discovery I would have absolutely no idea. I said the property owners in "their own minds" must think they have a good case or they would not be spending so much $$ on attorney fees. That or their attorneys are really leading them around by their noses. Plus if they are trying to scare Wolstein to settle at a higher amount, whatever they get in settlement at this higher amount will probably go to their attorneys since they incurred so much in fees. Even if Wolstein decides to over pay he is not going to pay an unreasonable price.

I note from the court docket that some of the property owner defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment and even more troublesome a motion to convert the March 26 trial date into oral arguments on the motion for summary judgment. As I don't believe the court would grant summary judgment in a million years (a first year law student could raise a question of fact resulting in the denial of such a motion), if the companion motion to convert is granted all this will end up doing is delay the trial even more (I believe the trial date has now been continued at least 3 times so this may be a 4th), perhaps into summer. I also cannot believe all the money the property owner defendants must be spending in connection with this case. The have filed almost 40 deposition transcripts with the court. Even if they were just average length transcripts (and I am sure they are not with all the attorneys involved), you are probably looking at almost $40,000.00 in costs just to have the depositions transcribed. Throw in another $20,000.00 (probably more) for the attendance of the court reporter at the depositions and for the preparation and service of subpoenas. Now throw in attorney time. I would guess attorney time for just ONE of the defendants (and of course each defendant will have representation at each of the depositions so multiple by the number of defendants) for depo prep and attendance at all these depositions at close to 100,000. Also note that this is attorney fees for just one aspect of the case, taking the depositions. They are also incurring fees for everything from taking phone calls, to conducting legal research to writing memos and briefs and court appearance among many other things. I would guess from the docket that just one property owner defendant has incurred fees and cost to date of close to 300,000 (may be on the low side especially since they all had to hire real estate experts to testify at trial as to valuation) and they still have not had a trial (where you really start running up the fees). They really must think they have a great case. All I can think is that if they lose the first part of the trial and go to valuation, they have blown any $$ they might have realized by securing a judgment in excess of the settlement offers. Does any one know if you can recover attorney fees if you win the first part (I mean the property owners). I would imagine there is a provision in the statute that allows for this or they would not be spending this kind of money.

It is true that Heartland really has done nothing much in Cleveland itself but they do focus on inner ring suburbs (primarily Shaker) which also have development challenges and I would imagine it is more costly to build in such areas rather than on virgin land in Streetsboro. Also, while the architecture they are putting up in not cutting edge, it does fit the neighborhoods where they are building and it appears to me (at least from the outside) that they do quality construction using high end materials. They certainly are no Ryan Homes. In general I like there direction and wish we had more like them.

^^And Carolina's "quick approval" process has not resulted in good urban planning in my opinion. I was in the Raleigh-Durham area last year for the first time (which is held up as a model of job growth) and could not believe the sprawl. Research Triangle is one campus after another with trees trees trees. You could hardly see the buildings. I imagine once you get to work it is alot like high school. You stay on campus to eat etc. Also it was one strip mall after another and building more and more. Residential was all your standard suburban subdivisions. The actually urban core of Durham was not much to write home about. The comments above about zoning seem to apply more to the suburbs (like solon which always seems to have zoning issues on the ballot). don't see much in the way of this in Cleveland. While I agree Cleveland can simplifiy matters (and the tax structure is an Ohio thing not Cleveland) as far as building permits and the like I still thing this panel was pro-developer. I have nothing against developers, I just want the ones who are building the great TODs in DC, not what we have (Like the guy buiding that magnificent house development off of Brainard in Pepper Pike after years of litigation).

Why do I get the impression that this panel was more interested in growth in the suburbs and ex-burbs than in the city of Cleveland. Their use of North Carolina as an example is telling as it is my impression the NC is a sprawl nightmare.

I have ridden underground lines in DC, New York, Boston, Chicago, San Fran., London, Paris and Barcelona and Toronto. Overall, taking everything into account, in my opinion DC has the best system of those I have experienced. It is very clean and architecturally attractive. It is easy to quickly understand the fare system which is important given all the tourist who are not familiar with the system. It really goes every where you need to go (and is still expanding as they will soon break ground for an extension of the Orange Line to Tyson's Corner and out to Reston and Dulles) including the tourist attractions, important federal offices, the downtown business district, most highly populated neighborhoods, the Pentagon, National Airport, Arlington Cemetery and Union Station to name a few. I disagree with the comment that it is mostly a commuter line although it serves that purpose well. There is great coverage in the city and you can easily live in DC and not own a car (I did it for 4 months way back when the Metro was still in its infancy...it has expanded significantly since then). The trains run very often and they are diligent about enforcing rules like no food which keeps the stations and cars clean. It does cost a fortune to run but you can see why. Also, DC, Northern VA and Maryland has experienced some of the best transit related development of any city in the nation. While the various governmental groups were a driving factor, you can tell that many private developers were and are on board and they have done an excellent job of urban planning. An amazing example is the Balston station in Norther VA on the Orange line. When I lived in DC in the early 80's the area around the station was a nondescript collection of strip malls and auto dealerships. Now it is a dense and extensive neighborhood with hundreds of mixed used buildings including offices, ground floor retail, apartments and condos in well designed buildings. The few negatives, the Metro does not run into Georgetown (you have to get of at GW and walk about a mile) as the residents did not want it when it was originally planned. Also don't like that the station at National Airport is not right in the terminal (although it has been a while since I have been there and they have renovated National so maybe it does now). Also, the Alexandria stations (especially King Street) are too far away from Old Town. As for the rest. Chicago really does not have that extensive an underground system that I can tell although their rail system in general is very good. Same with Boston and while it has been a while, I believe the underground train I took was actually light rail. San Fran.'s BART is actually primarily a commuter line that mostly serves Market Street. However, its overall transit system is great with extensive light rail that serves large portions of the city and a good bus system that is well used. New York is New York. What can you say. London's system is incredible (Mind the Gap) as is Paris and pretty easy to use (watch out for pick pockets in Paris). Barcelona's is not the extensive but serves a good portion of the city. It hooks up with the train stations which is smart. Toronto's is also somewhat limited but clean.

KJP I am confused why Aldi's would be putting up such a fight so they don't have to build up to the sidewalk. The store they just opened on Euclid is on the sidewalk.

If your reference is to the plant on I-90 between E 55 and E 72 (and I think it is because you mention the old HoJo which is an eyesore, not the birds) it is a power plant and not a sewer plant. The birds are attracted to the site, especially in the winter because of the warm waters surround the plant. I just happen to drive by the other day and was stunned and pleased to see the huge number of gulls. It was fun to watch them and certainly was in no manner a negative. Basically just nature. We can use a little of it in the city. And by the way the city has more important things to throw money at than trying to get rid of a bunch of birds. What nonsense.

Looks like the Student Center is going to be a wasted opportunity (hate many aspects including the bulge).

^what is the big deal with "improving the skyline". How does that make us a great city? Houston and Dallas have impressive skylines but in my opinion they are not impressive cities. Let's improve what is at the sidewalk level all over town.

I am very nervous about this given its prime location and would really like to see the design. The combined garages sound huge for that part of campus. This is something that could be done very well or very poorly. Also interesting to see how the car rule has changed since I was a student (when dinosaurs roamed the earth). The off campus student mentioned being able to drive to campus when he had a big project. In my day you could not have a car at all (there were a number of expections, I think one of them was if you lived more than 500 miles away or if you had a school related job in Hamilton or the like) even if you lived off campus. Of course this was a technicality with off campus students as I would guess about 50% actually did have cars. However, even if you did have a car off campus, you primarily used it to drive to and from your home town or tool around the out skirts of Oxford or drive to other cities (like College Corner for booze). You still had to walk to campus as you could never get a permit to park on campus, so most of the time it was just parked in your apartment complexes parking lot.

Wimwar, I think we are on the same page, I just was not very articulate (which is ironic since I felt the news blurb lacked clarity). Again I am guessing that the property owners lost the administrative appeal. They were objecting to the city's permission to allow the demolition of the buildings currently owned by Wolstein. Since they lost the appeal, Wolstein can begin demolition. Again my point is that this really does not have anything to do with the eminent domain proceedings which continue to drag on. I am really not up on the procedure so I am wondering if the property owners can continue to appeal the decision, perhaps to the Common Pleas court. I know appeals of decisions by state administrative agencies go that route. Again I am not sure if this is the end of the road (as far as the demolition issue is concerned) or whether the property owners (who have not been shy in doing what ever it takes to pursue their agenda, what ever that may really be...they have to be spending a fortune in legal fees) can still seek review. My best guess is that they can appeal further but again, not quite sure. Does anybody know?

That news blurb is very confusing. I am guessing (and just guessing at this point without having done further research) that what this is referencing is that an administrative appeal by the property owners of the Planning Commission's green light allowing demolition of certain buildings owned by Wolstein has been denied. This aspect of the "drama" really has nothing to do with the eminent domain action (which still has not been tried so how can there be an appeal).

^That is what the Probate Court docket indicates. This is the second trial continuance.

What a difference. It will bring significant life to a now morbid corner. Imagine having a class or a seminar in the second or third floor rooms which are floor to ceiling glass and almost on top of Euclid (at least as depicted). At night it should really be something and again the activity will give real life to Euclid as people pass by on foot, in cars or on buses. This would be my vision for the student center as well. A multi level glass box almost touching Euclid.

^I certainly would like to see you back this up with some credible sats. I find your comments about crime on Miami's campus very difficult to believe.