29 minutes ago, telefax said:

I was talking about the city as a whole. It means nothing if one neighborhood is everything and you have a struggling one a few blocks to the south where poverty, crime, poor schools, etc. inevitably affect the hot neighborhood just a few blocks away. As a city---not as "tremont"--we are walking. Not running. We need proper policies that benefit the whole city---and by proper, I mean well-written laws, not just a random number (350,000) that is used citywide. Take a bit of effort and use your brain. (Not you--I'm talking about council and the mayor.)

Right, and that's what this tiered abatement proposal is trying to do. The thought is the "hot" neighborhoods don't need the additional incentives in the forms of abatement, while the "opportunity" areas do. 

 

And do you know that the administration didn't do any sort of analysis to come of with the 350k cap? I would guess that they did and it wasn't a number pulled from a hat. 

16 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

Right, and that's what this tiered abatement proposal is trying to do. The thought is the "hot" neighborhoods don't need the additional incentives in the forms of abatement, while the "opportunity" areas do. 

 

And do you know that the administration didn't do any sort of analysis to come of with the 350k cap? I would guess that they did and it wasn't a number pulled from a hat. 

 

What's worse-- utter incompetence by Bibb or just laziness?

 

I'd say utter incompetence as we don't need an incompetent mayor.  As @Mendo said:  "I'd listen to the argument that a $350,000 cap is too low given the cost of housing at the moment. Only a quarter of the new build houses on the market are near or under the cap. Some of those so far under that I suspect they are subsidized."

 

So if they did an analysis and said, yeah, $350k is a good number, they are incompetent.  If they didn't, they are lazy for not thinking about a better policy. Actually, no one ever said Bibb was lazy, but there are many that say he doesn't really know what's what---so maybe there's truth to that and he's just plain incompetent, which is far worse than being lazy as he may adopt all kinds of bad policies.

You know telefax your comment about how some neighborhoods are doing great while many others struggle pretty much describes every American city. The situation is not unique to Cleveland by any means.

 

I get that you don't want to lose the tax abatement yet or limit the amount. It's a fair position. Its just that certain neighborhoods probably don't need tax abatement anymore. They are sufficiently stable (hot even) enough to begin to wean themselves from the abatement thereby increasing city revenue that can be used elsewhere. 

 

As for the struggling neighborhoods, developers are probably not looking to build too much high end housing there. Not yet. Of course the hope is, the good stable (hot) neighborhoods may even be able to increase their footprint so that struggling areas in between also see development. We've seen that exact same thing in Duck Island. Who would have thought even a few years ago that Ohio City and Tremont would cause that neighborhood to take off? 

 

Wean ourselves off of tax abatement? We could only hope this day would come. It's a sign of economic progress. I say we enjoy this small victory. Cheers Cleveland!

49 minutes ago, telefax said:

 

What's worse-- utter incompetence by Bibb or just laziness?

 

I'd say utter incompetence as we don't need an incompetent mayor.  As @Mendo said:  "I'd listen to the argument that a $350,000 cap is too low given the cost of housing at the moment. Only a quarter of the new build houses on the market are near or under the cap. Some of those so far under that I suspect they are subsidized."

 

So if they did an analysis and said, yeah, $350k is a good number, they are incompetent.  If they didn't, they are lazy for not thinking about a better policy. Actually, no one ever said Bibb was lazy, but there are many that say he doesn't really know what's what---so maybe there's truth to that and he's just plain incompetent, which is far worse than being lazy as he may adopt all kinds of bad policies.

I don't see the issue. You are still getting an 85 percent abatement up to 350k. That's covering over 80 percent of the price of most if not all of the housing in the city getting built.

 

If you're buying a million dollar house, trust me, you can afford the taxes. If you're building a million dollar house in the city, thalen it's because you want to be there.

 

This isn't going to slow any development down. It will probably accelerate building in Glenville which is already seeing a ton of movement. It might even accelerate parts of Fairfax. 

29 minutes ago, telefax said:

 

What's worse-- utter incompetence by Bibb or just laziness?

If you want to utter incompetence, we can discuss Mayor Jackson's bold initiatives. 

 

I agree with you, I think -- we should be encouraging more investment and attracting the higher incomes to afford more expensive properties.  At the same time, politically the people living in a neighborhood feel like they're getting shafted when the assessment comes around and boosts their property values (and taxes) because of the new construction that isn't paying the tax increase. 

 

One possible solution -- you get an abatement on the value of the improvement, but it erodes over time at the average rate of increase in the value of property in the neighborhood.  I'm not sure exactly how that would work, but if you're paying tax on an property that cost X to buy, but you put Y into it and increased the property value to Z (Z>X, but not necessarily = X+Y).  Under the current abatement program you only pay taxes on the value at purchase, X, not the increased value, Z.  Does the taxable amount ever change or does it stay at X for the full term of the abatement?

 

My proposal, which might not be workable, is to increase the basis for the tax that is actually paid using the non-rebated value as a starting point and increasing it at the community/neighborhood average rate.  If the neighborhood assessment goes up an average of 10%, you lose a bit of your abatement, now you pay X+10%, just like your average neighbor.  That way you're still likely going to be receiving some benefit from making improvements, but you also pay more, just as the neighborhood does, although hopefully Z<X+10%.  Particularly since the assessment only changes every few years and the rebate is for 15 years. 

 

Is there another way to at least make the residents facing the tax increases from new investments in the neighborhood feel better about the rebates?  Some people are going to be hurt by rising property values no matter what we do.  

 

I would also argue that although $350k isn't the right place for a cap, particularly across the entire city, but it's not an unreasonable starting point for the discussion.  The entire city isn't going to be rebuilt with $1M homes, those will be exceptions.  $350k is more than 10x the median household income in the city of Cleveland.

@telefax All I said is that the cap felt low given where the market is. But not substantially so, IMO.

 

Don't lump me in with the rest of that nonsense about Bibb.

I think @Forakeris on to something here! I like it on the value of improvements.  It also shows real thinking and understanding vs. just some blanket number across the city across neighborhoods of very different conditions, demand, and need. I agree with the need to incentivize development in some neighborhoods over others, but it must be done with thought and some deeper analysis than as proposed.

47 minutes ago, KFM44107 said:

 

This isn't going to slow any development down. 

 

It might. Isn't the opposite true? Abatement was put in place to incentive investment and look at Ohio City, Downtown, Little Italy, Univ Circle, and Tremont now. Why do think taking it away (as proposed) won't impact things?

 

If you have a store and put a particular product at 50% off, lots of people will buy it that didn't before. Take if off sale and you'll see the number of units sold decrease.

 

Yeah, some people will buy a property with no tax abatement. But some only will if that perk is there. While true, someone who buys a 500k house has some cash, at 3% property tax---that's still $1250 a month the person is NOT paying in taxes and could blow that on a car or stocks or savings, etc.  If someone makes $150k/yr they could buy a $500k house. $150k/yr is about $8700/month after taxes---so $1250 a month (14%) is a pretty big chunk of change to not have to pay to the man.

 

The person with the 500k house is still getting an abatement on 85% of 350k of the value of that house in a hot neighborhood, so your math is quite off.

49 minutes ago, X said:

The person with the 500k house is still getting an abatement on 85% of 350k of the value of that house in a hot neighborhood, so your math is quite off.

Ya. He seems to be missing that point. It's not like the abatement is going away completely or even significantly in my eyes. 

^Oh. It was written clearly that the cap is the "up to" amount for abatement. Generally it should be written as "the first 350,000 is abated at x%" As written it seemed like $349.999 got the 85% off but 350.001 got nothing.

2 hours ago, Mendo said:

@telefax All I said is that the cap felt low given where the market is. But not substantially so, IMO.

 

Don't lump me in with the rest of that nonsense about Bibb.

 

Hi Mendo, sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. If you are Bibb or work for him or wrote the legislation yourself. Its a decent start, but needs to be tweaked for the reasons mentioned here.

There is no question in my mind that this will have a chilling effect on multi family and smaller residential projects in the city long term.  Local developers, architects, engineers, contractors and related subs will now need to regroup and plan on doing less work in the City. The idea that any of these neighborhoods is considered “hot” on an objective level from a national perspective is pretty hilarious. A new 2,000sf house in Nashville, Austin and Atlanta would likely sell for 3x what is sells for in Tremont or Ohio City, despite construction costs being the same or more.

The tax abatement changes as proposed have the potential to eliminate a large portion of the already barebones margins to Cleveland developers, especially with material and land costs still going through the roof. Eliminate the motivation and developers will be looking elsewhere if they haven’t already based on the jack ass NIMBY’s that pepper the environment. Developers certainly aren’t a group that needs sympathy, but those on this board that have enjoyed the amount of development that has occurred in the last five years will be disappointed after June 2023.

Also, the reality is this pushes high earning people from building higher priced homes in the City, the very people we should be trying to attract due to the outsized income tax they pay to the city by living here, which has dumped tons of cash into the general fund. God forbid council, the mayor, some on this board, or griping residents understand this simple point.
In an effort for equity city wide from a development perspective, I fear construction activity drops significantly to appease residents and policy makers that are ignorant to, or uninterested in the benefits to the current tax abatement guidelines. That hurts everyone in Cleveland, especially those looking for affordable housing.

It’s my opinion that this will negatively impact the City I enjoy working in. I hope I’m wrong.

1 hour ago, KFM44107 said:

Ya. He seems to be missing that point. It's not like the abatement is going away completely or even significantly in my eyes. 

Yeah it’s really a pretty toothless bill. The city should see more revenue without really impacting individual projects too drastically. Some people seem to be missing the actual math but I’m not sure if it’s due to laziness or incompetence. 

16 minutes ago, w28th said:

There is no question in my mind that this will have a chilling effect on multi family and smaller residential projects in the city long term.  Local developers, architects, engineers, contractors and related subs will now need to regroup and plan on doing less work in the City. The idea that any of these neighborhoods is considered “hot” on an objective level from a national perspective is pretty hilarious. A new 2,000sf house in Nashville, Austin and Atlanta would likely sell for 3x what is sells for in Tremont or Ohio City, despite construction costs being the same or more.

 

The tax abatement changes as proposed have the potential to eliminate a large portion of the already barebones margins to Cleveland developers, especially with material and land costs still going through the roof. Eliminate the motivation and developers will be looking elsewhere if they haven’t already based on the jack ass NIMBY’s that pepper the environment. Developers certainly aren’t a group that needs sympathy, but those on this board that have enjoyed the amount of development that has occurred in the last five years will be disappointed after June 2023.

 

Also, the reality is this pushes high earning people from building higher priced homes in the City, the very people we should be trying to attract due to the outsized income tax they pay to the city by living here, which has dumped tons of cash into the general fund. God forbid council, the mayor, some on this board, or griping residents understand this simple point.
In an effort for equity city wide from a development perspective, I fear construction activity drops significantly to appease residents and policy makers that are ignorant to, or uninterested in the benefits to the current tax abatement guidelines. That hurts everyone in Cleveland, especially those looking for affordable housing.

 

 

This. Exactly.

9 hours ago, telefax said:

 

A lot of suburban people are not working downtown like they were pre-covid, so income tax receipts will be way down.  But the larger point you're making seems to be that because income tax brings in more than property tax, we can afford to abolish it. Yeah, F#@$! the schools which use property tax and while the city is struggling with funds in so many areas, let's reduce the amount of money we bring in. 

 

The city's portion of the property tax is $41 million, a bit over 6% of a total revenue stream of $647 million, according to the 2022 Mayor's Estimate. This portion has nothing to do with schools. It could easily be eliminated.

 

Should also be considering the new abatement proposal in conjunction with this proposal as well. Allowing existing residents to improve their homes will hopefully help with retention in neighborhoods while improving the aesthetic of these neighborhoods. 

 

Cleveland to establish home repair fund with $4 million left over from decades-old program

 

Quote

The city of Cleveland intends to establish a revolving loan fund for home repairs by using at least $4 million left over from a decades-old housing program.

 

City Council on Monday gave Mayor Justin Bibb’s administration approval to establish the Residential Repair and Rehabilitation Revolving Loan Fund, which is meant to help residents make long-needed repairs to the city’s aging housing stock.

 

...

 

Future loans made with the revolving loan fund will be limited to those making 80% or less of area median income. That puts the cap somewhere around $35,000 for a single-person household, said Neighborhood Services Commissioner Louise Jackson. Loans are expected to carry interest rates between 0% and 3%. Repayment may be required within five years, deferred for five years, or deferred until the property is sold or otherwise transferred.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2022/05/cleveland-to-establish-home-repair-fund-with-4-million-left-over-from-decades-old-program.html

The constant attacks on Bibb are maddening... everyone realizes that proposals to amend the tax abatement program have been around long before Bibb, right?

 

The last city sponsored study was conducted in 2020 under Mayor Jackson, the report can be read here: https://www.greaterohio.org/publications/2020/7/27/cleveland-tax-abatement-study At that time the recommended cap was supposed to be $300k. At least we have an administration and relevant stakeholders that realize the market has changed significantly since 2020... I don't have confidence that the previous admin would have done the same.

 

For high income people this is going to be a non-issue. The comments saying will just build elsewhere also seem to be extremely misguided... if your choice is build a $M home in Westlake or Cleveland, the $M home in Westlake will have a property tax bill of $19,107/yr. That same $M home in Cleveland, with $350k abated @ 85% will have an $18,356/yr bill. Basically an equal choice property tax wise. I understand that's not as good as the current policy, but all good things must come to an end.

Edited May 11, 20223 yr by dastler

Who is bashing Bibb?

The ultimate question is: what is this going to do cap rates in Cleveland and within specific neighborhoods? This isn't so much about one neighborhood competing with another or even Cleveland competing against suburbs. That's insular thinking. It's about how Greater Cleveland is going to compete with other mid-market metro areas for investment dollars from banks and especially equity partners who will put their money elsewhere if "elsewhere" can offer better cap rates.

So I guess what they're basically doing for multifamily development is keeping the current 100% 15-year abatement but adding a $20,000 x .25 the number of units penalty. So a 100-unit market-rate project is now $500,000 more expensive. To use some real world examples, this would make Bridgeworks about 1.2% more expensive, Treo about 2.2% more expensive, Church and State about 1.3% more expensive. And that's a maximum amount, to be clear, assuming that the developer is paying for the full credit as opposed to just paying the taxes. You'd obviously never pay for the credit if it would be more expensive than the taxes.

 

I gotta say I'm not knowledgeable enough to project the effects. But I've looked at tax incentive programs in a few other cities, and I'm surprised to find that the new plan is comparable or more generous than most of them. Is my impression correct, that in most of the U.S. a 100% 15-year exemption is not the norm? After looking at a few other midwest cities, the only other 100% 15-year incentive city I found is Cincinnati. Obviously, I didn't look at every city.

 

If the new tax incentive program is fairly standard for the midwest, are there market factors that make folks think Cleveland can't compete with, say, Pittsburgh, Detroit, or St. Louis on equal footing?

Error.

Edited May 11, 20223 yr by LlamaLawyer

Edit: data is a bit suspect since I couldn't find my own home sale in the data from NEOCANDO https://neocando.case.edu/cando/housingReport/interface.jsp

 

Here's some more data that should de-ruffle some feathers... Since 2004 (start of the abatement program) there have been a total of 25 1-6 family property sales over $M in wards 3 and 15 (downtown, ohio city, tremont, and detroit shoreway). Increasing that range to $500k+ and we only have 197 property transfers. The fact of the matter is that the new cap should still cover 50% or more of basically all small residential properties in even the very hot areas. (85% of $350k is ~$300k which would be half of anything $600k or cheaper).

Edited May 11, 20223 yr by dastler

Ultimately, I don't think this will do too much harm to new developments in Cleveland.

 

From my experience and discussions with others working in the real estate market, most people buying tax abated houses don't recognize just how much value the abatement provides. The new system won't do much harm to the new for-sale market.

 

The abatement has always been more important for apartment developers. It can seriously make or break a project since it provides a LOT of value. And this new system doesn't shrink that value too much. @LlamaLawyer's analysis shows how the impact is relatively small.

 

There are definitely a couple issues though. The $350k figure should be tied to inflation. And based on what I'm reading, the $350k cap applies to 2-4 unit properties too? There should definitely be separate caps for each of those unit counts. Cleveland is full of historic 2-4 unit buildings, and we shouldn't discourage people from developing more.

This seems like a step in the right direction. Hopefully a change in zoning codes will allow for individual homeowners to build new infill housing which one would hope slows sprawl (at least a little...)

 

In the zone: Archaic zoning regulations can hamper construction of new infill housing

Freshwater Cleveland | Douglas J. Guth May 26, 2022

 

Quote

Infill housing is a powerful means for metro areas to revitalize communities, say proponents of the practice. But in some Cleveland inner-ring neighborhoods, archaic zoning laws are preventing this new single-family housing from coming to market, according to a recent report by the Cuyahoga County Planning Commission.

 

Modernizing zoning would not only increase infrastructure efficiency, observers say. It could also open up more affordable housing for empty-nesters and lower-income individuals.

 

The analysis—released by the planning commission in partnership with Cuyahoga Land Bank and the Northeast Ohio First Suburbs Consortium—identifies issues within municipal zoning regulations that hamper new infill.

 

https://www.ideastream.org/news/in-the-zone-archaic-zoning-regulations-can-hamper-construction-of-new-infill-housing

Ugh. Cleveland needs more density to support its infrastructure, businesses and access to jobs. Why Polensek doesn't get this is beyond me....

 

 

29 minutes ago, KJP said:

Ugh. Cleveland needs more density to support its infrastructure, businesses and access to jobs. Why Polensek doesn't get this is beyond me....

 

 

And it is mixed income which is key. They’ve done so many studies that show that concentrated low income housing is a disaster but this is not that. 

59 minutes ago, KJP said:

Ugh. Cleveland needs more density to support its infrastructure, businesses and access to jobs. Why Polensek doesn't get this is beyond me....

 

 

He's 73; he's still churning out the conventional wisdom of 50 years ago.

Devil's advocate:

 

Woodhill-Buckeye need people of middle, if not high, income levels. Is it really worth it to someone earning over $60k/yr to live in a relatively high crime, disinvested neighborhood in the first place period, nevermind your neighbor pays a fraction of your costs? 

 

And frankly it's so small scale, it really isn't that big a deal.

 

Mixed housing makes sense in the abstract, but in a neighborhood full of nothing but poverty, I don't see the incentive for those who can pay market rate to live in these complexes when there are so many alternatives. SFH may be ugly to some, but if it draws in people to otherwise rough areas, I'm all for it. Why should only suburbanites get their own places?

Edited September 28, 20222 yr by TBideon

26 minutes ago, TBideon said:

 

Mixed housing makes sense in the abstract, but in a neighborhood full of nothing but poverty, I don't see the incentive for those who can pay market rate to live in these complexes when there are so many alternatives.

Just a disclaimer, I’m not arguing or disagreeing with you, just raising another point balanced off of yours: 

Mixed housing is what built Cleveland. Places like Buckeye back in the day consisted of single family, multi-family, and apartment blocks to support not just transit, but the commercial businesses throughout the neighborhood. Growing up in Lakewood and other farther suburbs, the spouse and I decided to raise our family in Old Brooklyn/South Hills— we wanted to live in the city proper, with access to the traditional business corridors and neighborhood environment, not on some 1970s cul-de-sac in Brunswick. This neighborhood of Cleveland is what Buckeye will again look like in due time: mixed income, largely working and middle class, lots of young families. However, you know what it doesn’t have? Meaningful density. Back before the box stores, our store fronts all bustled with workers and shoppers; and while the community is building and growing again, we will never have the density we need to really forge neighborhood stability and independence if we hold with the mindset that we should be prioritizing single family housing. There are plenty of bungalows and 4-squares here and we maintain low vacancy rates, but we need to be diversifying our housing stock.
If Buckeye can rebuild with the same historical density as before or better, prioritizing multi-family structures, it would be able to support the transit and local businesses that build community wealth. I feel strongly about the city’s “15 minute city” initiative or however they’re branding it— and that should include every neighborhood, not just DT, UC, and OC. Polensek’s mindset, while I don’t think he’s being malevolent, is going to set our neighborhoods back in a way that doesn’t leverage the city against the suburbs, which it needs to do as the regional center to attract business, industry, and population. 

Thank you for coming to my TEDTalk™️ 
 

tl;dr : I like local businesses, density supports local businesses.

1 hour ago, ELaunder said:

Just a disclaimer, I’m not arguing or disagreeing with you, just raising another point balanced off of yours: 

Mixed housing is what built Cleveland. Places like Buckeye back in the day consisted of single family, multi-family, and apartment blocks to support not just transit, but the commercial businesses throughout the neighborhood. Growing up in Lakewood and other farther suburbs, the spouse and I decided to raise our family in Old Brooklyn/South Hills— we wanted to live in the city proper, with access to the traditional business corridors and neighborhood environment, not on some 1970s cul-de-sac in Brunswick. This neighborhood of Cleveland is what Buckeye will again look like in due time: mixed income, largely working and middle class, lots of young families. However, you know what it doesn’t have? Meaningful density. Back before the box stores, our store fronts all bustled with workers and shoppers; and while the community is building and growing again, we will never have the density we need to really forge neighborhood stability and independence if we hold with the mindset that we should be prioritizing single family housing. There are plenty of bungalows and 4-squares here and we maintain low vacancy rates, but we need to be diversifying our housing stock.
If Buckeye can rebuild with the same historical density as before or better, prioritizing multi-family structures, it would be able to support the transit and local businesses that build community wealth. I feel strongly about the city’s “15 minute city” initiative or however they’re branding it— and that should include every neighborhood, not just DT, UC, and OC. Polensek’s mindset, while I don’t think he’s being malevolent, is going to set our neighborhoods back in a way that doesn’t leverage the city against the suburbs, which it needs to do as the regional center to attract business, industry, and population. 

Thank you for coming to my TEDTalk™️ 
 

tl;dr : I like local businesses, density supports local businesses.

I have a very strong opinion about this as it will split up and demolish a really bad area that I police (Morris Black). Also this is much closer to Larchmere which is actually a very quiet area, and the only thing in my opinion that was holding back development west was the projects. It may even finally allow development to start to truly cross MLK to the west. South of Buckeye is and will probably continue to be a mess for some time. 

 

I guess my point is that the projects have such a negative connotation that it truly sucks the life out of the neighborhood around it. Single buildings spread out don't seem to be as big of an issue because they don't suck in violence like concentrated projects do. 

Edited September 28, 20222 yr by KFM44107

City Council is taking steps to address blight, hopefully it's effective. What I think will be more beneficial is Building and Housing committees next goal of limiting out of state absentee landlords that aren't reinvesting in their properties. 

 

Cleveland removes hurdle for code violations as part of efforts to better fight blight

Updated: Sep. 30, 2022, 2:59 p.m.|Published: Sep. 30, 2022, 2:45 p.m.

By Courtney Astolfi, cleveland.com

 

"CLEVELAND, Ohio – In one of what’s expected to be many changes aimed at improving how the city of Cleveland fights blight, City Council this week approved a cost-saving measure that’s intended to make it easier to prosecute code violations.

 

The ordinance, backed by Mayor Justin Bibb and Director of Building and Housing Sally Martin, removes a long-standing requirement that the city serve all code violations via certified mail – a step necessary for prosecution that could easily be dodged by property owners."

 

Later in the article:

 

"Council members and Martin readily acknowledged that there are a host of other changes that will likely need to be made to improve Cleveland’s code enforcement. Among the thorny housing issues that members said they want Building and Housing to address are companies who quickly transfer deeds to subsidiaries to avoid responsibility for code violations, and owners who collect rents, but don’t reinvest money into property improvements." 

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2022/09/cleveland-removes-hurdle-for-code-violations-as-part-of-efforts-to-better-fight-blight.html

It's a fine idea in theory, but it seems weekly there is a story about some postal carrier somewhere trashing or stashing mail. Or worse yet getting robbed. I pay my bills online, but it's laughable how my utility statements usually arrive a few days after their due date. Or I get ones from streets away. 

 

https://cleveland.com/community/2022/09/postal-carrier-seen-dumping-mail-in-recycling-bin-beachwood-police-blotter.html

 

https://www.cleveland19.com/2021/06/30/cleveland-postal-worker-charged-with-stealing-over-4000-worth-mail-including-checks-marijuana-edibles/

 

https://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/northeast-ohio-mail-carrier-arrested

 

17 minutes ago, originaljbw said:

It's a fine idea in theory, but it seems weekly there is a story about some postal carrier somewhere trashing or stashing mail. Or worse yet getting robbed. I pay my bills online, but it's laughable how my utility statements usually arrive a few days after their due date. Or I get ones from streets away. 

 

https://cleveland.com/community/2022/09/postal-carrier-seen-dumping-mail-in-recycling-bin-beachwood-police-blotter.html

 

https://www.cleveland19.com/2021/06/30/cleveland-postal-worker-charged-with-stealing-over-4000-worth-mail-including-checks-marijuana-edibles/

 

https://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/northeast-ohio-mail-carrier-arrested

 

 

Maple Heights can top that:

https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2010/10/maple_heights_man_who_killed_a.html

On 9/28/2022 at 3:16 PM, KFM44107 said:

I have a very strong opinion about this as it will split up and demolish a really bad area that I police (Morris Black). Also this is much closer to Larchmere which is actually a very quiet area, and the only thing in my opinion that was holding back development west was the projects. It may even finally allow development to start to truly cross MLK to the west. South of Buckeye is and will probably continue to be a mess for some time. 

 

I guess my point is that the projects have such a negative connotation that it truly sucks the life out of the neighborhood around it. Single buildings spread out don't seem to be as big of an issue because they don't suck in violence like concentrated projects do. 

 

From what I understand, in Chicago breaking up the big projects spread the problems out even more.   But in principle I'd agree and I've heard the same thing about the West 25th area.

 

The problem with "mixed income" is usually it's mixed culture, and then it can become low income pretty quick.   My area probably qualifies as such. but plenty goes on that is going to make your typical suburbanite uncomfortable. 

 

I'm not talking about crime either, but stuff that isn't even mailcious, let alone criminal.   Things like late night noise and congregating in front of stores and even on sidewalks/street corners, with or without accompanying open containers.    I'm not sure these things can be prevented in a fair manner, but people with options won't live where they are uncomfortable.   Want them in the city limits?  They need to be comfortable where they live

 

Leaving New York for Cleveland? Here’s How Far Their Money Went.

By Debra KaminOct. 13, 2022

 

Until Cleveland called, Sarah Scaturro thought she had it all.

 

Ms. Scaturro had a plum position at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. She was renting a parlor-floor apartment in a brownstone in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn. And she was a year into a blossoming relationship with a fellow art enthusiast, Chris McGlinchey, a former conservationist at the Museum of Modern Art who now works remotely as a consultant.

 

But just as the pandemic was gaining speed in 2020, Ms. Scaturro, who was the head conservator at the Met’s Costume Institute, was offered the role of chief conservator at the world-renowned Cleveland Museum of Art. It was a dream job, but it would mean moving to Northeast Ohio, an unfamiliar area. Mr. McGlinchey had been to Cleveland only once, years before.

 

But the city, with its affordable housing and walkable inner-ring suburbs within a short drive of the Museum of Art, drew her. “People in the museum world know Cleveland, and know the Cleveland Museum of Art’s quality of programming,” said Ms. Scaturro, 46. “I was immensely intrigued, and I just decided to make the jump.”

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/10/13/realestate/cleveland-ohio-suburbs-houses.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20221015&instance_id=74733&nl=the-morning&regi_id=102158875&segment_id=110083&te=1&user_id=c9e72708f4bc66e6d64b23c3b36509c8

I was really pleasantly surprised that there weren’t any jabs or back handed compliments about Cleveland in that article.

OK, debate this....

 

 

Cleveland benefits from national migration shift

By Ken Prendergast / October 17, 2022

 

One of North America’s next big migrations may already be underway. And according to early data, it appears that Cleveland and other Great Lakes cities are among those benefitting from it. What’s driving this new migration? The basics — low cost, proximity to family, abundant fresh water and peace of mind from not worrying about your neighborhood catching on fire or washing out to sea.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2022/10/17/cleveland-benefits-from-national-migration-shift/

I was just talking to a friend from Miami yesterday.  He has a good friend that is being priced out of Miami and he was suggesting that she look at moving to Ohio.  She was open to the idea though admittedly didn't know much about Ohio.  

 

I was in Chicago last week and went to a bar in Wicker Park to watch game 1 of the ALDS. When I got there, the Astros-Mariners game was wrapping up and I got talking to a young woman at the bar who was watching the game intently. 
She was a Mariners fan from Seattle who has a medical degree. She told me she’s ‘desperate’ to move to Cleveland to work at CC, or at a push, UH. She already visited once and thought the city was great. It was very refreshing and encouraging to hear this from someone who currently lives in a city that many people would aspire to live in. 

https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/documents/indexnews/announcements/20221025-1457029/1457029_cshomeprice-release-1025.pdf

 

Cleveland's housing market the strongest of any in the 20-city Case Shiller composite that just released. Prices were flat from July to August on a seasonally adjusted basis. They fell in every other city except Charlotte.

 

Bit of speculation here, but I think we'll see the Cleveland Case Shiller fall a lot less than other places over the next year. If you look at the data, we're one of only three cities (Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago) with CS below 200. Three cities (Los Angeles, Miami, San Diego) are over 400, which just boggles my mind. U.S. GDP is currently 240% of what it was in 1999, which makes me think the U.S. average Case Shiller oughta be about 240. Obviously this is very back of napkin. But anything over 300 looks pretty bubbly to me and anything under 200 looks like value.

Here's an example of what I was just writing about in the Cleveland population thread. Go on Zillow and check out the asking prices of homes on the city's near-west side. If you can find a decent house for under $200,000 north of I-90, you're either a magician or a thief. Here's an example. This is in the Lincoln Heights section of Tremont where you could get a house for $50,000 in the 2010s. Now, this is what people are asking $200,000 for......

 

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1807-Brevier-Ave-Cleveland-OH-44113/33330655_zpid/

 

Seeing Cleveland houses sell for $200,000 or more just five years ago was remarkable. I remember posting on UO that there was an entire page of sales on the county website of Cleveland homes selling for $200,000. Now, that's the floor for the west side north of I-90, assuming you want to move right in rather than spend a few months and $50,000 fixing up the place.

The really shocking thing is that home values are up even more in other cities.

 

 

But I expect we'll get a much softer landing

 

 

 

Looks to me like lots of places out west are toast.

We're doing better than Pittsburgh, Columbus and Detroit. That's encouraging.

Cleveland is No. 2 on Zillow's list of hot housing markets in 2023

 

Cleveland has a prime spot on Zillow's annual predictions for the hottest housing markets of the year.

The tech-driven real estate marketplace just released its top 10 for 2023, and Cleveland is at No. 2, behind only top-ranked Charlotte, North Carolina.

 

The rest of the top 10, in order: Pittsburgh; Dallas; Nashville; Jacksonville, Florida; Kansas City, Missouri; Miami; Atlanta; and Philadelphia.

 

 

https://www.crainscleveland.com/scott-suttell-blog/zillow-puts-cleveland-no-2-list-hot-markets-2023

Edited January 16, 20232 yr by Clefan98

East vs. West.  And I don't mean the east side vs. the west side!  Interestingly, with the exception of Austin, you could literally draw a straight vertical line across the US. Cleveland is not labeled here, but we're somewhere between +3.5 and +6.8%:

 

 

 

WSJ:  A Tale of Two Housing Markets: Prices Fall in the West While the East Booms

"In an unusual pattern, the 12 major housing markets west of Texas, plus Austin, saw home prices fall in January, while the opposite happened in the rest of the country..."

 

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/home-prices-housing-market-trends-east-west-83c9eb56

In the 1970s, my father and I toured Roundwood, built by the Van Sweringens. I wished I was older when I saw it. I seem to remember it as cozy, not cold, yet luxurious. 

 

https://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/historic-roundwood-manor-hits-the-market-for-45-million/Slideshow/41896005

Sign of new times?  Fund That Flip, which mainly finances small to medium sized rehab projects, is offering a participation in a single-family house rehab in the Harvard Ave/E155th St neighborhood.  It's the first time I've seen them lending in this neighborhood.