Hey all -

 

L&R owns the small parking lot next to the 310 Prospect building. It's just north of the Harry Buffalo, and it's easy to overlook -- plus, it's closed right now because of the city's concerns about safety. The address of the lot is 320 Prospect.

 

On the Historic Gateway front, the organization led the effort to put the Herold Building, Record Rendezvous and the Kendel Building on the National Register of Historic Places, and they've been involved with the predevelopment work for a potential mixed-use redevelopment of the block. It also happens that their board chairman, one of several directors, is an attorney, and L&R is one of his clients. I felt that fact was worth noting in the story; however, you'll notice that I also quoted the executive director of Historic Gateway, who talked about preservation of the block. So there is a mix of viewpoints here.

 

The attorney, Michael Swearengen, told me he is very supportive of historic preservation and disagreed with the demolition of the Stanley Block and the Columbia Building. But he believes 310 Prospect is not significant and not worth saving.

 

This is a strange Housing Court case, so it will be interesting to see what happens.

 

Michelle

Hey all -

 

L&R owns the small parking lot next to the 310 Prospect building. It's just north of the Harry Buffalo, and it's easy to overlook -- plus, it's closed right now because of the city's concerns about safety. The address of the lot is 320 Prospect.

 

On the Historic Gateway front, the organization led the effort to put the Herold Building, Record Rendezvous and the Kendel Building on the National Register of Historic Places, and they've been involved with the predevelopment work for a potential mixed-use redevelopment of the block. It also happens that their board chairman, one of several directors, is an attorney, and L&R is one of his clients. I felt that fact was worth noting in the story; however, you'll notice that I also quoted the executive director of Historic Gateway, who talked about preservation of the block. So there is a mix of viewpoints here.

 

The attorney, Michael Swearengen, told me he is very supportive of historic preservation and disagreed with the demolition of the Stanley Block and the Columbia Building. But he believes 310 Prospect is not significant and not worth saving.

 

This is a strange Housing Court case, so it will be interesting to see what happens.

 

Michelle

 

Michelle - do you have access to the case number so we can view the docket?

Wait, they own that large lot as well? Now I know it will never get developed! :(

 

I wouldn't jump off the bridge yet. The fact that they are willing to lease the big parking lot rather than just sell it (it's listed for both, sale or lease) dramatically improves the numbers for developing it. New construction is hard enough to get financing for in this town, so removing the upfront costs that come with a sale and instead spreading it out as a lease improves its chances. Think of it in terms of getting a new car -- you are able to afford a more expensive car by leasing it than you could by buying it. There's still going to have to be a ton of subsidies to make the numbers work, but the property owner has done what they could to help get the land used for something other than surface parking.

Michelle - do you have access to the case number so we can view the docket?

 

Welcome SixthCity. Sorry to jump in here, but I searched the docket using "L&R" and came up with this.....

 

https://pa.clevelandmunicipalcourt.org/pa/prodpa.urd/pamw2000.o_case_sum?3760851

 

Go to the "dockets" tab to read the disposition of the case.

Hey all -

 

L&R owns the small parking lot next to the 310 Prospect building. It's just north of the Harry Buffalo, and it's easy to overlook -- plus, it's closed right now because of the city's concerns about safety. The address of the lot is 320 Prospect.

 

On the Historic Gateway front, the organization led the effort to put the Herold Building, Record Rendezvous and the Kendel Building on the National Register of Historic Places, and they've been involved with the predevelopment work for a potential mixed-use redevelopment of the block. It also happens that their board chairman, one of several directors, is an attorney, and L&R is one of his clients. I felt that fact was worth noting in the story; however, you'll notice that I also quoted the executive director of Historic Gateway, who talked about preservation of the block. So there is a mix of viewpoints here.

 

The attorney, Michael Swearengen, told me he is very supportive of historic preservation and disagreed with the demolition of the Stanley Block and the Columbia Building. But he believes 310 Prospect is not significant and not worth saving.

 

This is a strange Housing Court case, so it will be interesting to see what happens.

 

Michelle

 

Michelle - do you have access to the case number so we can view the docket?

 

The new Cleveland Housing Court case is 13 CVG 0011713. You can find it through the Housing Court docket search, or search for LR 310 Prospect Investors. Interestingly, this is a civil case. The city usually pursues criminal cases against property owners in Housing Court. FYI - the hearing set for Aug. 30 has been turned into a pre-trial conference, so it likely will happen in a conference room, behind closed doors, instead of the courtroom. We'll see.

 

Michelle

Michelle - do you have access to the case number so we can view the docket?

 

Welcome SixthCity. Sorry to jump in here, but I searched the docket using "L&R" and came up with this.....

 

https://pa.clevelandmunicipalcourt.org/pa/prodpa.urd/pamw2000.o_case_sum?3760851

 

Go to the "dockets" tab to read the disposition of the case.

 

KJP - Thanks for looking this up, I appreciate it.  Its interesting to see that the City has fined them in the past.  I'm thinking, however, because this case was closed in 2010 - there is a pending case file floating around out there regarding the current lawsuit which is not closed.

Hey all -

 

L&R owns the small parking lot next to the 310 Prospect building. It's just north of the Harry Buffalo, and it's easy to overlook -- plus, it's closed right now because of the city's concerns about safety. The address of the lot is 320 Prospect.

 

On the Historic Gateway front, the organization led the effort to put the Herold Building, Record Rendezvous and the Kendel Building on the National Register of Historic Places, and they've been involved with the predevelopment work for a potential mixed-use redevelopment of the block. It also happens that their board chairman, one of several directors, is an attorney, and L&R is one of his clients. I felt that fact was worth noting in the story; however, you'll notice that I also quoted the executive director of Historic Gateway, who talked about preservation of the block. So there is a mix of viewpoints here.

 

The attorney, Michael Swearengen, told me he is very supportive of historic preservation and disagreed with the demolition of the Stanley Block and the Columbia Building. But he believes 310 Prospect is not significant and not worth saving.

 

This is a strange Housing Court case, so it will be interesting to see what happens.

 

Michelle

 

Michelle - do you have access to the case number so we can view the docket?

 

The new Cleveland Housing Court case is 13 CVG 0011713. You can find it through the Housing Court docket search, or search for LR 310 Prospect Investors. Interestingly, this is a civil case. The city usually pursues criminal cases against property owners in Housing Court. FYI - the hearing set for Aug. 30 has been turned into a pre-trial conference, so it likely will happen in a conference room, behind closed doors, instead of the courtroom. We'll see.

 

Michelle

 

Thanks!  That was a huge help!

A slight correction -- eminent domain is the taking of private property for public BENEFIT. For example, a blighted property where the owner has refused to comply with multiple attempts to rectify the blight can be taken, the property assessed, any structures beyond saving are demolished, and the property re-sold through a public bid or auction.

 

The Ohio Constitution uses the term public USE.  A public benefit may be considered in the analysis, but is not the determining factor in Ohio (although SCOTUS has ruled that public benefit alone is sufficient under the Federal Constitution).  And I don't know when the ED proceedings you cited took place, but the law here in Ohio was addressed in 2006 following Kelo....  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-3799.pdf..... in a case which dealt directly with the public taking of private property for the purpose of transferring it to a private entity for redevelopment.  The court was constrained by the Ohio GA's reaction to Kelo.

 

From the Norwood case:

 

"We hold that although economic factors may be considered in determining whether private property may be appropriated, the fact that the appropriation would provide an economic benefit to the government and community, standing alone, does not satisfy the public-use requirement of Section 19, Article I of the Ohio Constitution."

 

*  *  *  *  *

 

In this early period, “public use” was often equated to “public benefit.”

 

*  *  *  *  *

 

In some jurisdictions, a belief has taken hold that general economic development is a public use *  *  * Kelo confirmed this view for purposes of federal constitutional analysis

 

*  *  *  *  *

 

In addressing the meaning of the public-use clause in Ohio’s Constitution, we are not bound to follow the United States Supreme Court’s determinations of the scope of the Public Use Clause in the federal constitution *  *  * and we decline to hold that the Takings Clause in Ohio’s Constitution has the sweeping breadth that the Supreme

Court attributed to the United States Constitution’s Takings Clause

^Does ED for blight removal still works under Ohio's constitution and any anti-Kelo statutes? I'm not up on Ohio law, but I thought the distinction between blight and economic development was meaningful.

If you look at the origins of Eminent Domain in this country it shows public benefit was never supposed to happen. Public Use is what it was strictly for, and only as a compromise.

^^Yes.  Kelo didn't require blight.  I'm not positive on the current and specific state of the law in Ohio, but have a general idea.  There are generally two aspects of 'blight' for the purpose of ED proceedings.  One would be a 'blighted area'.  In such cases, ED may be used if a substantial majority (approx. 75%?) of the area is properly considered blighted and individual properties can be taken regardless of their state of disrepair.  Assigning 'blight' to a particular property is more difficult.  To be considered 'blighted', the property must be unsafe for habitation, pose a threat to public safety, or have unpaid taxes exceeding its value IIRC.  The local government must also jumpt through some additional hoops by presenting a comprehensive plan of what would be done if the property was taken.  But the key factor for our discussion is that blight cannot be assigned simply because the government determines there is a better use comparatively (i.e. surface parking vs. structures) or that a different use would generate higher tax revenue.

^Thanks!  And yeah, I completely agree with your comments re. blight vs. econ dev in this case.  The fact that the owners are trying to remove the blight via demo pretty much kills that hypothetical legal justification for ED.

^Which is why the City should continue to keep denying the demo permits and all of you who rallied so hard for saving the Columbia building should be backing the City up on this RIGHT NOW...... not down the road when the wrecking balls are on their way.

With the Stanley Block, you had a historic, landmarked building that (one of) the owners wanted torn down for parking.  The city Landmarks commission came in and said it couldn't be torn down.  Then the owner let the building deteriorate, and claimed it was a danger to its parking business next door.

The city agreed and said that it had deteriorated to the point it was a threat to public safety, and ordered the building torn down, not to perform emergency repairs to the landmark building.

 

The Herold building's owners want to tear down a historic building for parking.  The city did not want them to tear it down, so the owners let the building deteriorate, to the point now that the city has classified it as a public safety hazard by not letting people use the parking next door.

This time the city is suing for renovations, not for an emergency tear down.  So, when these owners go to court and say they are in the exact same situation, in nearly the exact same location as the Stanley Block, the city will not have a leg to stand on.

^^ The city clearly played favorites with Gilbert versus the Columbia and Stanley buildings. I agree, it's going to bite them in court. The Stanley block was torn down in the interest of public safety. Why not the Herold?

 

In this case we have somebody actively trying to buy the building for renovation. I hope that's enough.

Is the Herold in nearly as bad shape as the Stanley Block was in prior to demo?  Is the Herold landmarked? 

1873

 

Is the Herold in nearly as bad shape as the Stanley Block was in prior to demo?  Is the Herold landmarked? 

It has to be in worse shape, because the city has prohibited the next door lot from operating.  They never did that with the Stanley. 

From Michelle's article, I don't think it's landmarked.

Yeah.... but the lot is the same owner, right?  It could just be a tactic the City is using to force the repairs.  With the SB, I think the biggest issue was that the building was no longer weather tight, leaving it exposed to the elements (recall the giant hole in the roof) and causing it to deterioriate beyond the point of feasible repair.

 

I see from the article that the building is on the national register, but does not appear to be landmarked by the City or State.

Yeah.... but the lot is the same owner, right?  It could just be a tactic the City is using to force the repairs.  With the SB, I think the biggest issue was that the building was no longer weather tight, leaving it exposed to the elements (recall the giant hole in the roof) and causing it to deterioriate beyond the point of feasible repair.

 

I see from the article that the building is on the national register, but does not appear to be landmarked by the City or State.

 

Exactly - like the article said: this shut down the property's only income stream.  Now L&R has to eat a loss on those parcels every tax day.

It should also be noted that L&R is not only trying to sell these buildings, but lease them --- not to mention the huge parking lot across the street which it also owns.

 

Some more interesting paragraphs from the article.....

 

City lawsuit over downtown Cleveland's Herold Building sets up restore-or-raze fight (slideshow, poll)

By Michelle Jarboe McFee, The Plain Dealer

on August 15, 2013 at 12:00 PM, updated August 15, 2013 at 5:18 PM

 

....Real estate records show that Weston Inc., a Warrensville Heights developer, and Bobby George, a real estate and restaurant investor, are trying to gain control of the block. In October, they paid $300,000 for the Record Rendezvous building. In July, a company affiliated with Weston bought the mortgage note on the Kendel Building -- a move that could position them to acquire the property through foreclosure.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/08/city_lawsuit_over_downtown_cle.html

 

FYI - Bobby George owns Barley House and I believe the newly opened restaurant/bar in W 25th, Town Hall. It would be pretty cool to see a place as busy at Town Hall go into this block. Also, if they plan on book ending the block in new construction, a portion of the Goldfish store would have to come down.

 

^ the Housing Court hearing is tomorrow

This was on the Sept. 6th CPC agenda.

 

DOWNTOWN/FLATS DESIGN REVIEW

1. DF2013-060- Proposed Demolition of Office Building

Project Address: 306-310 Prospect Avenue

Project Representative: Michael K. Swearengen, Esq.

Hi all -

 

Just an update on the Herold Building. I went to the Housing Court hearing (which was a behind-closed-doors conference). Nothing really happened -- they just set dates for future meetings and filings. Re: the Planning Commission item, I don't believe that will be on the agenda. An attorney for L&R told me last week that they don't plan to appear at design review or Planning Commission, and I heard Tuesday that the CPC agenda item has been pulled.

 

Michelle

Hi all -

 

Just an update on the Herold Building. I went to the Housing Court hearing (which was a behind-closed-doors conference). Nothing really happened -- they just set dates for future meetings and filings. Re: the Planning Commission item, I don't believe that will be on the agenda. An attorney for L&R told me last week that they don't plan to appear at design review or Planning Commission, and I heard Tuesday that the CPC agenda item has been pulled.

 

Michelle

 

Thanks Michelle,

 

In your opinion, what can we infer from the demolition request removal from the CPC and design review agendas?  Might it hint at a larger deal between the owner and Weston or do you view it as a routine move for a property tied up in litigation?

Hi all -

 

Just an update on the Herold Building. I went to the Housing Court hearing (which was a behind-closed-doors conference). Nothing really happened -- they just set dates for future meetings and filings. Re: the Planning Commission item, I don't believe that will be on the agenda. An attorney for L&R told me last week that they don't plan to appear at design review or Planning Commission, and I heard Tuesday that the CPC agenda item has been pulled.

 

Michelle

 

Thanks Michelle,

 

In your opinion, what can we infer from the demolition request removal from the CPC and design review agendas?  Might it hint at a larger deal between the owner and Weston or do you view it as a routine move for a property tied up in litigation?

 

Attorneys for L&R have said they believe going before the Planning Commission would be an exercise in futility. Since city officials have stated that they're opposed to demolition of the Herold Building, the attorneys believe they have no shot at getting CPC approval and would just end up going through a lengthy appeals process. That said, they have not tried. They believe they have a better chance of prevailing in Cleveland Housing Court, making the argument that the city's focus on renovation over demolition violates L&R's rights as a property owner. The next pre-trial hearing (also likely to take place in a conference room, behind closed doors) is set for early October. There's a November filing deadline for a motion for summary judgement.

 

Michelle

^And then a month for a response.... and then two weeks for a reply... and then 2-6 mos. (on average) for a decision.... and then another 2 years of appeals (at least).  As long as the City sticks to its guns, a deal should be able to come together during that timeframe.

 

Thanks for heading off the meltdown, Michelle.

From a practical standpoint this makes no sense to me.  They have an interested buyer.  They are generating no income (since they city closed the lot on East 4th) and they have costs associated with ownership (property taxes and I would hope insurance).  More significantly they are paying a Benisch attorney (that ain't going to be cheap) to defend litigation that might drag out forever with appeals.  Even if they are far apart in price why doesn't somebody do the math and deduct the attorney's fees from the price they want and avoid the aggravation of litigation.  The only people winning here are the lawyers (which of course is not a bad thing  :wink:)  Seems like your classic my b@#ls are bigger than yours.

From a practical standpoint this makes no sense to me.  They have an interested buyer.  They are generating no income (since they city closed the lot on East 4th) and they have costs associated with ownership (property taxes and I would hope insurance).  More significantly they are paying a Benisch attorney (that ain't going to be cheap) to defend litigation that might drag out forever with appeals.  Even if they are far apart in price why doesn't somebody do the math and deduct the attorney's fees from the price they want and avoid the aggravation of litigation.  The only people winning here are the lawyers (which of course is not a bad thing  :wink:)  Seems like your classic my b@#ls are bigger than yours.

 

Thanks Michelle.

 

Here's to hoping they'll cave.

It's a game.  If they are trying to dump a vacant building which is generating no income and, in fact, poses a potential financial liability in the form of violations and fines, their bargaining power is greatly reduced compared to trying to sell a parcel which they have the green light to put to a profitable use.  In the end, they will get a far greater offer than whatever they pay their attorneys.  If not, their attorneys are not doing a very good job.

 

Weston is now approaching them saying, "look, you can't demolish the building because the City won't let you, and you don't have the will nor the means to repurpose it, so why don't we take it off your hands for this (bargain) price"

 

They want Weston to have to say, "I know you have the wrecking ball scheduled, but we would like to buy the building from you and repurpose it ourselves.... name your price"

Michelle,

 

Do we know if Weston has made any progress with persuading these guys to sell them the building, or is it still the same situation? Your last article had mentioned the "talks" were still underway. This could be such an important development, but L&R is throwing a wrench in everything. They need to take their crappy parking lots back to California.

Michelle,

 

Do we know if Weston has made any progress with persuading these guys to sell them the building, or is it still the same situation? Your last article had mentioned the "talks" were still underway. This could be such an important development, but L&R is throwing a wrench in everything. They need to take their crappy parking lots back to California.

 

I have not heard about any new developments from any of the parties involved here.

 

Michelle

Does anyone know what is going on with the At&t building and The Clevelander?

It's a game.  If they are trying to dump a vacant building which is generating no income and, in fact, poses a potential financial liability in the form of violations and fines, their bargaining power is greatly reduced compared to trying to sell a parcel which they have the green light to put to a profitable use.  In the end, they will get a far greater offer than whatever they pay their attorneys.  If not, their attorneys are not doing a very good job.

 

Weston is now approaching them saying, "look, you can't demolish the building because the City won't let you, and you don't have the will nor the means to repurpose it, so why don't we take it off your hands for this (bargain) price"

 

They want Weston to have to say, "I know you have the wrecking ball scheduled, but we would like to buy the building from you and repurpose it ourselves.... name your price"

 

Isn't that pretty close to what happened with the Stanley?  One owner wanted to develop, had partners, one wanted the building leveled.

Does anyone know what is going on with the At&t building and The Clevelander?

 

I stare out at the AT&T building from my window and they've been sealing, replacing mortar and washing/painting the entire building. They've been at it for at least 6 months, hopefully they will be done soon and can get rid of all that ugly scaffolding and the annoying cherry picker.

The Clevelander property will be a ugly dead zone as long as it is owned by the Knights Of Columbus. 

Isn't that pretty close to what happened with the Stanley?  One owner wanted to develop, had partners, one wanted the building leveled.

 

Not really.  With the Stanley, you had co-ownership.  Here, Weston does not have a stake in the building (yet).  Plus the co-owner of the Stanley is not comparable to Weston.  They didn't have the means/resources to get the job done.  Similarly, while I'm sure L&R is fine with the idea of making the parcel into a surface lot, it does not have the same burning desire to see the building demolished as the Casino folks had with the Stanley.  It's a very different situation.  What concerns me is that Weston is a very calculated development team.  They won't take any chances.  They seemingly feel they have to get the drastically better end of any deal to make anything happen.

Per the Campus District pdf ( http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2011/12022011/2011-08-15CampusDistrictTLCI_FINALl.pdf?bcsi_scan_0f1700ec298a9f1d=0&bcsi_scan_filename=2011-08-15CampusDistrictTLCI_FINALl.pdf ), the Gateway District TLCI is referenced (see page 32). Is there a seperate presentation for these improvements? The images are very small but look promising.

The Clevelander property will be a ugly dead zone as long as it is owned by the Knights Of Columbus. 

 

This is absolute truth.

I don't even understand what this means.  Why do you think The Clevelander is an ugly dead zone?  Who are the Knights of Columbus?  Why do they like ugly dead zones?

 

The Clevelander now does have a banner over that old signage that says something like 'pardon our dust, we're under construction'

 

 

Saw a "Keith Arian Construction" sign go up in the window at the Picadiilly artisan yogurt in OC.

THen a few days later the old Indigo restaurant-- Prospect ave side of the 5th street arcades -- evidently had some interior demo going on in that long-vacant space... the next day a Keith Arian Construction sign went up in the window. Wondering if there's a connection

This is a guess but I think Sushi 86 is moving into the old Indigo restaurant space.  I know they were one of the 5th Street Arcade grant winners and said they'd be using it to expand, offer classes, etc.  They can't expand their current spot.  Makes sense for them to move to another former restaurant space.  Lots more room in there. 

Sushi 86 is not moving, they are expanding though to have more space for their burgeoning catering business and sushi classes.  Current spot will be retained.

Sushi 86 is not moving, they are expanding though to have more space for their burgeoning catering business and sushi classes.  Current spot will be retained.

 

From http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/sushi-86-the-chef-s-cut:

 

"The time for expansion has come and rather than move our new facility off site we have decided to delve deeper into the facilities of the 5th Street Arcades and all it has to offer. We will be occupying a space across the hallway; our whole sale facilities will be in the back; and in the front we will have an all new expanded space for sushi classes, private dining room, and event space. This expansion will allow us to increase our capacity, helping us to sponsor more charitably and community building events around the area."

 

No real news here but just an update about the new businesses occcupying now-vacant storefronts.

On Prospect, Sushi 86 expansion will go in the Indigo space, and thensome. Of course, Red will fill a sizable front on Prospect.

On Euclid ave, the owner of Pour Cleveland said yesterday he was looking to open in about 3 weeks. And also on Euclid, the build-out of the prepared food/takeout place...CLE (Cmon Lets Eat) has started in the old Quiznno's space.

Great to see these street facing properties become active storefronts

Where is the Pour Cleveland space?

I think Pour Cleveland is going to be inside the 5th st Arcades, no?

It is going to be in the far east storefront on the Euclid side I believe. There is a tea place inside.

^Ah, got it.  So right near the driveway to the 668 Euclid auto ramp.  Great to hear it will have a street presence.  I'm really excited for another high quality coffee shop downtown.

what's Pour? a coffee place? Is there a place to get more info on C'mon Let's Eat? Thx for these updates.