I was originally going to post this in the TOD discussion, but as my topic broadened while I typed, a new thread seemed more appropriate. I've been very interested in a large piece of vacant property in Shaker Hts recently, particularly given its location along the RTA Green Line.

 

Along the north side of Shaker Blvd, to the west of Warrensville Center, its a large undeveloped parcel (screenshot below). I drive by pretty much every day on my way to and from work, and for awhile now have wondered why it remains undeveloped given its location. At first I thought it was possibly from the noise of the rapid station, but the south side of Shaker Blvd has homes all along it. Then I though it may be because of drainage. This makes sense, as it does appear to be a headwater, and Shaker Hts has other bio-retention basins for heavy rains. When I researched it though, even more questions were raised.

 

This parcel, which is much larger than I initially thought - stretching all along the south side of South Park to Courtland - is not privately owned, nor owned by the City of Shaker Hts. It is owned by the City of Cleveland, and has been since the only record for it was created and recorded in 1988, deeding it to the city from the County. Cleveland pays property taxes on it, and mows the grass. From the records, the parcel was given to Cleveland for $1 for the construction of the Warrensville Center Bridge over the rapid tracks, and the parcel extends into the center of Shaker Blvd north of the rapid tracks. The rest of the parcels in that intersection are owned, logically, by Shaker Hts, or privately. If it was part of the construction of the bridge, why does Cleveland still own and maintain it?

 

Not only does the City of Cleveland own this large parcel, they own at least ten others in Shaker Hts, all undeveloped, which they maintain and pay property taxes on. In addition, they have a similar set up in Cleveland Hts. Now, most of the parcels (excluding this one), comprise the Shaker and Horseshoe Lake parks, and the Doan Brook watershed - and shouldn't be developed. Why though, are these all still owned, maintained, and paid for by the tax payers of Cleveland? Why not the Metroparks, or the municipalities they are in? Some of these parcels are tax exempt, but many are not, and Cleveland is paying thousands of dollars a year in property taxes on them. Many even comprise the front yards of mansions along South Park Blvd, and would make much more sense being paid for by those property owners.

 

This parcel that initially piqued my interest and nascent investigating, would make incredible sense being developed. Its a prime location on a busy intersection, adjacent to a rapid station. I personally can'y see highrise buildings being allowed here, considering the mansions in close proximity - certainly a NIMBY fight - but high end townhouses would be perfect and blend in with the neighborhood. Cleveland could raise some money by selling the land and not having to pay to maintain it anymore, and the neighborhood wins by new homes and residents on a long time vacant lot. RTA wins by having more close in riders. Win-win-win.

 

The bigger point though, why is Cleveland holding on to, maintaining, and paying for so much land in the suburbs? And how much more do they have in other cities?

 

^Not sure why the cities continue to do it this way (inertia? deed restrictions?), but looks like those parcels are leased by the City of Cleveland to the City of Shaker Heights, which maintains them: https://case.edu/ech/articles/s/shaker-lakes

are you sure Cleveland pays taxes on them? its a governmental entity.

Not all of them have taxes - not the park parcels or "park like" parcels. The one along Shaker and Warrensville I highlighted has a tax bill of $829.30 a year. Two others along South Park which are essentially the front yards to 10 separate mansions, total $2007.22 a year. Five parcels along North Park are the front yards to another street of mansions that add up to $2685.84 a year. Not a whole lot of money in the grand scheme of the Cleveland budget, but certainly something these private homeowners could and should be responsible for.

 

Even with them protecting Doan Brook, it doesn't seem like the City of Cleveland - of all entities - should be the one owning and paying for these parcels. The City of Shaker Hts would make much more sense. Or a land conservation trust, if that was the main objective (though these parcels being manicured lawns, mowed grass fields, and a soccer pitch doesn't make that out to be the case).

It reminds me of this article I read a while back about how cities manage public assets.

 

https://www.citylab.com/solutions/2017/08/the-untapped-wealth-of-american-cities/536064/

There was a bit of a scandal back in the 90s where Voinovich secretly helped Jacobs develop the City-owned Chagrin Highlands plot of land out in Beachwood. Of course, the biggest thing to come out of it was Eaton taking its headquarters out of downtown and into the suburbs.

There was a bit of a scandal back in the 90s where Voinovich secretly helped Jacobs develop the City-owned Chagrin Highlands plot of land out in Beachwood. Of course, the biggest thing to come out of it was Eaton taking its headquarters out of downtown and into the suburbs.

 

I’m still not mad about Chagrin Highlands because the city gets some tax revenue from it. I like that type of arrangement much more than the rest of these leeches that we help sustain their community and we get nothing. I always wondered though why Cleveland just didn’t annex the places where it owns all of this land

When I was stationed on the East side with the Fire Department, we used to respond to the city owned treatment plant in Chagrin Highlands because it was city owned (which made for a ridiculous response time).  We never ever made it in because I believe there was a dual response, but it was a complete waste of time, money and resources. 

There was a bit of a scandal back in the 90s where Voinovich secretly helped Jacobs develop the City-owned Chagrin Highlands plot of land out in Beachwood. Of course, the biggest thing to come out of it was Eaton taking its headquarters out of downtown and into the suburbs.

 

I’m still not mad about Chagrin Highlands because the city gets some tax revenue from it. I like that type of arrangement much more than the rest of these leeches that we help sustain their community and we get nothing. I always wondered though why Cleveland just didn’t annex the places where it owns all of this land

 

i dk good question. maybe its just easier to pay the tax and let someone else worry about the upkeep?

When I was stationed on the East side with the Fire Department, we used to respond to the city owned treatment plant in Chagrin Highlands because it was city owned (which made for a ridiculous response time).  We never ever made it in because I believe there was a dual response, but it was a complete waste of time, money and resources.

 

You were with the east side of Cleveland?? And was responding all the way to Chagrin Highlands?! That’s insane. I would think the city would have some sort of arrangement with the communities that are right freakin there to respond smh

During the "Great Airport War" with Brookpark, I wondered why Cleveland didn't embark on a long-term campaign to buy all the houses.

That would have required long-term vision. The city was so corrupt back then, they didn't even apply for grants unless a company or criminal bribed them to act.

That would have required long-term vision. The city was so corrupt back then, they didn't even apply for grants unless a company or criminal bribed them to act.

 

That’s insane. Smh. Sure would’ve been helpful these days for the city of Cleveland to have a ton of developable land within its borders.

Well I received answers to my questions today from the Shaker Hts Housing Director. These parcels through Shaker and Cleveland Hts were deeded to Cleveland almost 200 years ago, with very stringent restrictions regarding transferring and developing. Like I suspected, it was for the protection of the Shaker Lakes and Doan Brook. While it makes sense for another entity to take on ownership of these parcels, its basically impossible with the deed restrictions.

 

These were given to the City of Cleveland before anyone even had an idea of forming and incorporating Shaker Hts, which brings up a bigger question to me. Why didn't this stretch just become a part of the city of Cleveland? Unincorporated land already owned by the city, yet it wasn't annexed. The only reason I can think of is because it couldn't be developed, they had no reason to want to - though many cities have land which can't be developed. Very interesting that it was able to be incorporated into another city though.

 

But alas, there goes my dream of a large townhouse development along Shaker Blvd at Warrensville.

Well I received answers to my questions today from the Shaker Hts Housing Director. These parcels through Shaker and Cleveland Hts were deeded to Cleveland almost 200 years ago, with very stringent restrictions regarding transferring and developing. Like I suspected, it was for the protection of the Shaker Lakes and Doan Brook. While it makes sense for another entity to take on ownership of these parcels, its basically impossible with the deed restrictions.

 

These were given to the City of Cleveland before anyone even had an idea of forming and incorporating Shaker Hts, which brings up a bigger question to me. Why didn't this stretch just become a part of the city of Cleveland? Unincorporated land already owned by the city, yet it wasn't annexed. The only reason I can think of is because it couldn't be developed, they had no reason to want to - though many cities have land which can't be developed. Very interesting that it was able to be incorporated into another city though.

 

But alas, there goes my dream of a large townhouse development along Shaker Blvd at Warrensville.

 

As the owner already, could the city of Cleveland encourage development of some sort as long as it fits the deed restrictions? They still maintain ownership but they could lease it out, similar to the set up downtown at the lake right now where they own the property but enter into long term leases with developers. And I completely agree that this land should’ve been annexed. Is there anything stopping them from finding a way to cut a deal to make that happen now?