Htsguy

George (actually his LLC) is seeking a court order from the Court of Common Pleas to stop the Probate Court (a separate court with jurisdiction over eminent domain proceedings) from moving forward with the Port's eminent domain action to take George's property. At this point I have not read George's court filings and law in support. I was waiting for the Port's brief in opposition. I am curious if the common pleas court can actually interfere in the Probate Court proceeding but I am assuming, again without reading the brief or doing the research, that there are some instances where this can occur given a certain set of facts which must be proven at a hearing strictly before a judge. George want's to move fast so that the Probate Court does not rule before he can seek his desired relief, so he is seeking injunctions from the CP court by filing motions for a TRO and a Preliminary Injunction. A TRO, or temporary restraining order, is a way to get the court to act quickly. Sometimes a party can get a court to grant a TRO even without a hearing because the relief is temporary, until a preliminary injunction hearing can be held. In this case notice was provided to the opposing side and both sides appeared in CP within days of the filing for a hearing. If there had been a hearing and the court found it could and should enjoin the Probate Court from moving forward with the ED action, the CP would issue a temporary injunction that would only be in place until a hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction could be held, most likely in a couple of weeks. The court would have also probably made George file a bond if the TRO had been granted in order to protect the Port from possible damages arising from the TRO if it was found later that there were no grounds for it. Again the court today did not hold a hearing or grant a TRO because the opposing parities came to an understand that nothing would happen in Probate Court until at least April 15 while the motion for a Preliminary Injunction is considered by the court, basically the relief George was seeking in his motion for a TRO so he is happy. I imagine the Port was willing to do this as its wants time to prepare for the next hearing and it is not that important to the Port that the Probate Court proceeding move forward at this time. The follow up Preliminary Injunction hearing (again in this case to prevent the Probate Court from moving forward) is like a mini trial before the judge. One of the things the moving party (George) has to prove at such a hearing is that the he will more than likely prevail on the merits once the actual trial is held down the road where, if successful, a permanent injunction would probably be ordered as part of the granted relief. This is a pretty strict standard and while often TROs are easily secured, a preliminary injuction is much harder to win. Also, as you can see, failing to secure a PI does not bode well for a parties chances down the road as it seeks permanent relief. Again, I imagine the PI hearing will be held in a couple of weeks, probably in the original CP action due to the two motions to consolidate. I hope this helps.

Irishtown Bend Park litigation update. The parties appeared in Court today in the newly filed common pleas action for a TRO hearing. The hearing did not go forward as the parties agreed to a stipulated order. The stipulated order provides that the Port Authority will not take any steps to move the ED proceedings in Probate Court forward or interfere with George enjoyment of his property until April 15, 2022, when the order will expire (although the parties can agree to an extension). The order further provides that a hearing on the TRO and Motion for Preliminary Injunction will take place before April 15 2022. The Port also filed a motion to consolidate the new action with the old common pleas action. George had already filed a motion to consolidate so I imagine that there will be consolidation. I am sure the judge in the newly filed CP action does not want to touch this thing with a ten foot pole and will be more than happy to see it go to Judge Sutula. I am wondering what the Port is thinking. It clearly wants all the CP litigation before Judge Sutula even though there are so many pending motions in that case which have not been touched since the case was filed in October. All the blame for the delay cannot be shouldered by Judge Sutula however, as the case was only recently transfer to his docket. Maybe the Port hope its motion to dismiss is going to be granted soon which will make the Injunction motions filed by George moot. The attorneys for the Port and other defendants clearly have a better feel for all of this as I am only gleaming information from the docket and court filings. As of this posting there has not been consolidation of the CP cases but I imagine it will happen soon. At least the Injunction requests filed by George will force the court to act sooner than later.

Is there also an issue with burying lines in front of one building with the rest of the block staying overhead? I mean other than it looking funny.

Like the design as well and a fan of significant indoor parking rather than a huge surface lot in the back of the building.

So the litigation is starting to get really fun-and even more expensive. The port FINALLY filed its ED action in Probate Court on Feb 22, 2022. Quite naturally, still in the earlier stages-proper services of the complaint and such. Interesting response by our buddy Tony George (actually his LLC) in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. On March 4 George filed a separate/second action requesting injunctive relief to halt the probate court action and a motion to consolidate the new case with the original common pleas court action which was filed in October and which has multiple pending motions including motions to dismiss which are fully briefed but just sitting there waiting for rulings by the court. The stated rationale for a separate action with a companion motion to consolidate is that filing a motion to amend the original complaint with a count for injunctive relief would have taken too long under the rules of Civil Procedure (especially since the court is basically failing to rule on any motions so a motion to amend would have just sat there with all other pending motions), and immediate action is necessary. So it will be interesting to see what happens. It may be the new case requesting injunctive relief and consolidation just sits with the new judge. Or maybe the new judge in the newly filed case takes up the request for injunctive relief and holds a hearing (although I doubt the new judge wants to get involved in this mess and would want to just hands it off by granting the motion to consolidate). Or maybe there is actual consolidation. If that happens the court in the original action will probably have to finally get off its butt as hearings on injunctive relief are usually dealt with quickly. Will be interesting to see the Port's response to all this, probably next week. I will keep an eye out.

I thought the same thing. That would never make it through council so I was happy to see the actual amount in the article. Also glad that private funds will be included.

Suspicious of what?

By doing this aren't they violating the law?

Now analyzing what has occurred in the first round, especially the large number of applications, I believe an $80 million limit for large cities is too low, especially if a single applicant can request up to $40 mil. It could be more like $125 mil and still give you that competitive application process.

I don't know. Cross Country on Superior activates a whole new section of downtown and more or less extends the "active" Central Business District east and north.

I wish we could get a feel for the Authority's rationale. It of course could have been a whole host of reasons but maybe one of them was that its analysis revealed Bridgeworks really didn't need the credit to get the project done. I guess that would be a positive if true but who knows. The Crains article indicates that the next pot of money is available July 1 and it seems as though applications may be accepted before that date for the second round. Sounds like things will go a lot faster the next round now that they know what they are doing. Possible decisions by September or October, Also an indication that the Authority could work with past applicants to suggest potential modifications for round 2

The Crains article indicated that three Columbus area projects won awards but did not name them. Cleveland area projects received $57.9 million of the credits with a total of $42.1 going to three projects in Columbus and other smaller projects around the state.

I know I sound like a broken record, but again, an incredible job of reporting by Michelle. She just seems to have a knack for answering all ones questions in detail and then some.

Damn. This was one of my top two. My gut tells me this really hurts the project but who knows, Maybe they just try again. We will see once the others are announced.

Thanks for all the update photos. I know something that could cheer up a dreary day. Excavation work at the Library Loft site. Hopefully soon.

Michelle Jabore of Crains recently re-posted an article summarizing all the TMUD apps and Nucleus was not one of them. I am sure there was a deadline to submit this round which Stark missed even if they wanted to re-submit this round. I don't believe Stark "withdrew" an application. I don't believe they submit one in the first place.

I believe somebody recently posted a picture showing a construction fence already surrounding the property. I was surprised Knez moved so fast as the BZA decision was less than 2 weeks ago. I wondering if this action is purposeful to stymie a potential appeal. I believe there is some case law out there making an appeal more difficult if construction has already begun. Moreover, the necessary bond for a possible successful stay of construction during a pending appeal could get very expensive similar to what was happening in the Lakeside Supply matter in Little Italy. This could be another reason to start construction quickly as I cannot believe these neighbors have the resources, especially if they lose the appeal and Knez goes after the bond for delay costs.

edit

I wonder who thought those tree planters were a good idea. They remind me of those ugly concrete planters that lined Euclid for so many years with 50% leafless trees by July 1 but "decorated" with lots of discarded McDonalds garbage year round.

Maybe we should try to keep all this in one thread. Elements are being discussed in three different threads since early this morning: Downtown Office, Nucleus and Bedrock,

I was wondering the same thing. However, Michelle is a great reporter and is usually on top of things. @KJP some of what is contained in the article is in conflict with your initial reporting on the possible Bedrock purchase and redevelopment of the Nucleus site. Have things changed? I recall your sources suggesting that Benesch was a possible tenant in the new Bedrock office building. Also, as you noted above Ezra Stark was quoted by Michelle as saying Nucleus was still going forward in some form. I know the truth is not his best friend but he is really putting himself out there giving a quote like that to such a well respected reporter like Michelle.

^Love this. And actually, an extensive movie listing like this would have been around even into the very early 80s before the unfortunate decline of the houses for all the reasons of which we are aware. I can still remember where I saw certain seminal movies growing up. The Godfather at the Stillwell in Bedford and Mash at Mapletown. I even have strong memories of going to the Playhouse Square theaters with my grandmother and her "lady friend" for matinees of the just released Mary Poppins and the Sound of Music.

I hope "reviewing" also means "announcing". If not on March 2 then shortly thereafter.

There is a God. Landmarks approved the Primo Vino project 5-3. I was holding my breath the entire presentation. WXZ made changes to the design which definitely made it less bulky at top. Overall-high quality. Great for the neighborhood.

I am going to throw this out there and see if anybody bites....Does anybody know the status of the Port's possible eminent domain action in Probate Court in connection with the George property at the corner of Detroit and West 25th? Not the common pleas action filed by George's LLC which is dragging on with little to no court action despite many long pending motions. Some background. As part of the formal ED process the Port made an offer of $360,000 offer for the land building (billboard not included) on Jan 13, 2922 (receipt by certified mail was probably a few days after). Since the Port is an agency whose Board of Directors are appointed and not elected, the party subject to the the taking can appeal within 10 days pursuant to statute. The appeal is made to the appointing bodies, in this case the City of Cleveland and Cuyahoga County. The appealing party can request that a majority of the appointing bodies veto the project. An appeal was apparently submitted by George through counsel on Jan 27, 2022 to Bibb and Budish. I am guessing since there are only two appointing bodies, both Bibb and Budish would have to vote to veto since a tie vote is not a majority. It has been almost a month since the appeal. Has any action been taking by Bibb and Budish so the ED process can move forward. Who in the world is coordinating such a vote?