Htsguy

The Crain's article states that Sutula wants to keep the entire eminent domain case in his courtroom (Common Pleas Court). I don't know how he can do this...only Probate Court has jurisdiction over ed cases. I think he is on very shaky legal grounds if he tries to do this. The article also states that Probate Judge Gallagher believes her hands are tied due to the CP action. She seems to be very timid in this regard for some strange reason. It would appear she has the ability to now proceed with a regular ed action as long as it is not a quick taking. Apparently the Port had already filed an action in the Court of Appeals try to force Sutula to rule on the injunctive relief rather than just sit on it which played into Georges hand. I was not aware of this action. It is quite an unusual step in my opinion and maybe it pissed Sutula off and as a result he quickly ruled on the injunction and in favor of George. I would think the Sutula ruling now makes the Court of Appeals suit moot but I would also imagine that the Port will quickly appeal the granting of the injunction and perhaps ask for an expedited hearing. I think the biggest problem for the Port right now is the reluctance of the Probate judge to move forward on a standard eminent domain as reported by Crains. As I stated above I find this very strange and maybe this is just Crains take and not the actual case given current events since the article quotes Gallagher as things stood in March. I don't believe they have current information from her office given the way the article reads. Indeed Gallagher might actually believe now that she can proceed with the standard ed action. Who knows.

I am not surprised that settlement negotiations broke down given it is the George's and quite frankly I am glad because I was not crazy about the terms of the settlement as presented in the media. I am surprised the injunction was granted as I have read the extensive briefing and thought the facts and law were strongly in favor of the the Port. Still have not read Sutula's opinion but am not really impressed by the way he has handled this matter to date, He clearly was pushing for a settlement. Also not impressed by how long he is taking to rule on motions in this matter, especially the injunctive relief which in the normal course is something which is handled quickly. The bottom line is that now that this "swift taking" is barred, there is nothing preventing the Probate Court from now moving forward with a standard taking action. Hopefully it will get the ball rolling as soon as next week since the matter has been pending so long. Quite frankly if the port had just moved forward with a standard taking in this matter, it might already be ready for trial in Probate Court given how long Sutula played around with the issues pending before him.

I don't think the design work for the actual park is even close to being done. Might not have even started yet. I also believe more money needs to be found for the park. I think the funding for the stabilization portion of the project borders on fully funded but not sure. I am guessing it all goes well (when does that ever happen) we can throw some frisbees in 4-5 years.

^I was wondering when this was finally going to break ground. It seems like it has been forever since first announced. And if I recall it is only Phase One.

It is what it is. I compare it to scores of apartment buildings built in the suburbs during the 60s, 70s and 80s that you drive by and really don't notice. They are just there. At least it meets a need and adds density to the area.

Plus a number of lower building conversions. Euclid Grand added a large number of apartments as did May Co

City Club is not a conversion. It is a new build. Read the original post again.

Well your post is just simply evil. 😉

As the NIMBYS use their usual tactic of throwing everything but the kitchen sink at a development (whether their arguments make sense or not...surprised nobody suggested that the development would destroy nesting sites for birds), I am curious what the NIMBYS mean by "affordable". I can pretty much guarantee you that it is not the same definition of affordable that social activists use. They would flip out it those kind of "affordable people" were moving into their neighborhood,

Wonder why there was no mention in the article of the extensive comments of Councilmen Slife (posted in the Detroit Shoreway thread). I would thing his views were would have been an important aspect of the story. Also. I am still wondering what's up with the developer taking the time and expense to demo the buildings on the site without city approval for the development. Maybe the holding costs for the vacant buildings are even more of a burden and this makes the property more marketable for a sale to developer who will bend over for the neighborhood NIMBYS. What I find really baffling is that a similar sized apartment building was approved for the site by the city a couple of years ago with similar NIMBY grossing (although I don't recall it being as vocal and organized as this go around)

My concern is that the placement, size and architecture will over shadow City Hall and the Old Courthouse.

No. Those condos are downtown in the Old National City Bank Building (where the Holiday Inn Express is).

Was driving down Mayfield in Little Italy for the first time in a while and was surprised to see the Primo Vino building has already been demoed and the lot fenced in. Cannot wait to see construction begin on the condos.

Great article Ken. Jammed packed with information. I hate the post office site. Always have (since it was first suggested years ago for a stadium) and always will. It is too isolated, is hemmed in by freeways and freeways access roads and has unattractive views looking over the industrial valley. For those who argue it can be made more walkable and connected to downtown with lots of ancillary development, I hate that idea as well since it will just pirate resources away form the center of the city which has scores of parking lots which still need to be filled in. I like the idea of locating it on the near east side but I am afraid I agree with Ken that land and building acquisition will be too much of a challenge. All of this will be fun to watch and discuss over the coming years.

It is a great view. And while I absolutely hate what they are doing on the Jacobs lot with that shack (welcome center), maybe the additional green space and landscaping in front of the building will help mitigate the huge mistake we made on the square by keeping Superior as a Cutthrough. That blunder is really telling in the above photo.

Are the last three pictures the site of the proposed Horton and Harper apartment building? If yes, I’m surprised to see work being done on the site. It is only up for schematic approval tomorrow before the planning commission and apparently is a opposed by the ward council person.

@KJP I believe the applications for the next round of TMUD credits are due sometime in early July. Have you heard any rumors relative to who may be submitting applications from Cleveland?

I recalled a large apartment building proposed by Marous but I believe it was proposed for the surface lot on the same side of the street just south of here, not this particular lot

I had a funny feeling a settlement might be in the works. I have been monitoring the Common Pleas and Probate Court dockets on a daily basis ( I know...I should get a life) and the motion for injunctive relief had been pending forever without a ruling by the court despite the fact the three day hearing on the motion was held almost a month and a half ago. Curious what the terms and amount of the settlement is. I believe the settlement agreement should be a public record. Don't believe it falls into one of the statutory exceptions. That said, reviewing what has occurred since the multiple lawsuits (four in total) were filed beginning last October, I bet George incurred over $200,000.00 in attorney fees and the case was really still in its infancy. Pocket change to him I am sure. As always in a case like this, the real winners are the many lawyers involved in the matter and of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. God Bless America.

I wonder if things like that will be incorporated into the RTA W. 25th St. project

While I am sure city officials in the Jackson administration had input, weren't most of the design decisions the responsibility of ODOT? Still think they made a mistake by not incorporating intersections into the design.

Thanks for all the pics. The street scape on Lorain, with the surface level planters and trees is what you see all over Chicago, both downtown and in the neighborhoods and it looks great if properly maintained. I could never understand why we don’t have more of this look in Cleveland instead of trees stuck into bulky planters.

I would sure like to know what the opposition was as well. I would especially like to know what Spencer‘s problem with the project is other than pandering to a few vocals. You are absolutely right about all the other projects going up in Detroit Shoreway. In fact there are huge buildings Just a few yards down the street going up in battery Park. Moreover, a similar sized building was approved for another developer a couple of years ago on that parcel I do remember some moaning from neighbors directly across the street in single-family homes to no avail at that time. If I lived in those houses I’d rather have a Horton and Harper designed apartment building across the street instead of vacant lots and worn out commercial buildings.

Well that’s not good news. Planning commission gives a lot of weight to a council person‘s opinion. This is ridiculous. If Horton and Harper gets screwed by another council person like they did in Ohio city I wouldn’t be surprised if they just pack their bags and moved to Streetsboro.

LOL