The same David Bowen who claimed the Metroparks would chase him out of his house on Lake Ave because of a sidewalk?  I look forward to him being replaced by the new Mayor.  

 

 

"Daddy, what's a scumbag?"

"Well, son..."

 

 

45 minutes ago, KJP said:

"Daddy, what's a scumbag?"

"Well, son..."

 

 

This should probably be moved to the Ohio City Irishtown Bend Park thread to avoid duplicate posts and discussions.

 

That said, the Port Authority should just go ahead and file the ED action in Probate Court rather than just dragging their feet.

 

Also I hope in this CP action the Port Authority retains a top notch litigator who immediately files a notice of deposition for Tony George.  My gut tells me that George is much like his buddy President Trump.  Trump's attorneys try to avoid his deposition at all costs because they know he can't help lying, exaggerating and contradicting himself and a good lawyer can get him tied up in knots with little effort negatively effecting the case.

I am guessing forum members might not be able to answer this but I will throw this out in any event.

 

The first agenda item at today's Planning Commission meeting concerned various zoning changes for the area where Irishtown Bend Park is going as well as land surrounding the park.  No need to get into the details of the various changes but I will note that the PC had previously approved these zoning changes.  Today the zoning changes were back before the PC for the sole purpose of taking up an amendment that would remove a small parcel from the previously approved changes, that parcel being the one owned by Tony George at the corner of Detroit and West 25th.

 

There was a bit of discussion concerning the overall zoning changes and other related issue but not much since, again, the zoning changes had already been approved.  However, I found it strange that not one commission member asked why this parcel was being removed and there was absolutely no discussion of this point even though the sole reason for the amendment was the removal of this parcel.  My suspicious nature (although this is speculation on my part) is this may have been discussed off the record and members were told not to ask any questions during the meeting.  Just getting a strange vibe.

 

I'm wracking my brain try to come up with a reason for this amendment and wonder if it has anything to do with the George lawsuit, a future eminent domain action in Probate Court or possible settlement negotiations (although I don't know why this would have to happen to foster a settlement).  Anybody have any information or theories or am I just making a mountain out of a mole hill?

 

 

Edited December 3, 20213 yr by Htsguy

@Htsguy I think your points are well taken and I would like to find out more as well. If anyone has any insight, feel free to give me a shout either on- or off-forum and on- or off-record.

I am guessing forum members might not be able to answer this but I will throw this out in any event.
 
 

For those of us not in the weeds, what would the practical impacts of the proposed zoning change be? Would it expand or contract the number of allowable commercial uses on the parcel? That might be one way to ascertain which way the wind is blowing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

4 minutes ago, ASP1984 said:

 

For those of us not in the weeds, what would the practical impacts of the proposed zoning change be? Would it expand or contract the number of allowable commercial uses on the parcel? That might be one way to ascertain which way the wind is blowing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The amendment (which again just removed this small parcel from the previously approved new zoning for Irishtown Bend Park and surrounding land) just left the zoning for the parcel as it currently is which I think is general retail.

By the way, last week the Port Authority filed a motion to dismiss with a very detailed brief in support in the Tony George Common Pleas lawsuit.  All the other many defendants have just filed stipulations for leave to plead.

On 12/3/2021 at 11:47 AM, KJP said:

@Htsguy I think your points are well taken and I would like to find out more as well. If anyone has any insight, feel free to give me a shout either on- or off-forum and on- or off-record.

Maybe Matt Moss at the Planning Department has some insight.  He was the staff member that presented.  I don't know if he is allowed to speak to reporters without permission from higher up.

https://www.crainscleveland.com/real-estate/port-cleveland-offer-georges-360000-contested-corner-above-irishtown-bend

 

"The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority will offer $360,000 to buy an Ohio City corner that is the final piece of property required for a major hillside stabilization project.

 

The port’s board of directors voted Thursday, Jan. 13, to authorize the overture to Tony and Bobby George, the father-and-son developer pair that owns the 0.41-acre site at West 25th Street and Detroit Avenue. Based on a recent appraisal, the offer is an early step in what could be an eminent domain fight — a battle over the taking of private property for public purposes.

 

The offer will start a roughly 30-day clock for the Georges. If they turn it down or don’t respond, the port will take its case to Cuyahoga County Probate Court, where the agency is likely to pursue swift control of the property based on concerns about the safety of the slope above Irishtown Bend."

And he paid 248,200 for it about four years ago...

 

They will turn it down but glad that the Port is finally moving forward with the statutory preliminaries so the ED action can finally be filed.  Also looks like the boys are spending a fortune in attorneys fees in their ridiculous common pleas action as the defendants are filing multiple motions including motions to dismiss.

I'm glad they're moving it forward! I'm confident the park will be built just a matter of how long the George family wants to drag it out for. I don't seem them winning this battle ever (I could be wrong). Hopefully they see that too and just decide to take the money now instead of delay this any longer.

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?  

 

They are about to start clearing trees and invasive species from the Irishtown bend in preparation for stabilization work:

 

I wish them good luck! I think there is bunch of knotweed down there.

So it really is happening, huh? lol

 

Always enjoyed biking down there, they recently (last time I was down there at least..December?) closed the gate on the northern section of the road. Going to be interesting seeing it all barren and as an active site.

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.

Edited March 5, 20223 yr by Htsguy

On 3/3/2022 at 12:21 PM, Boomerang_Brian said:

They are about to start clearing trees and invasive species from the Irishtown bend in preparation for stabilization work:

 

 

I'm not a CivE, my background's in materials engineering.   But I have a bad feeling that the stabilization isn't going to go as planned.   Similar to the one that CityView was going to be problematic wrt methane.

Pretty sure CityView's problem with methane was that it was a former landfill.  Irishtown Bend was not.  Not that there couldn't be some sort of environmental issue with previously built upon land- but that's always expected as a possibility.

46 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

I'm not a CivE, my background's in materials engineering.   But I have a bad feeling that the stabilization isn't going to go as planned.   Similar to the one that CityView was going to be problematic wrt methane.

That doesn’t seem like a relevant comparison. This is a significant project and there certainly could be unexpected challenges. But the stabilization HAS to done. In some ways I’m glad that shipping to the steel plant is a massive economic incentive for getting it done (as a reminder, this is happening because there is a sizable risk that the whole hillside would completely collapse, slide into the river, and block it) - I don’t know if they would have been able to find the funding if the ecological necessity was the only reason to do it. And then the fact that it will become a spectacular urban park is a huge bonus. 

3 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

I'm not a CivE, my background's in materials engineering.   But I have a bad feeling that the stabilization isn't going to go as planned.   Similar to the one that CityView was going to be problematic wrt methane.

 

Apples and oranges

3 hours ago, KJP said:

 

Apples and oranges

 

I'm saying it's a similar premonition.  Hoped I was wrong then, do now.

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.

Edited March 8, 20223 yr by Htsguy

Thank you for all the courtroom reporting @Htsguy. Very much appreciated! You seem to know a lot more than me so can you explain this part:

 

Quote

The order further provides that a hearing on the TRO and Motion for Preliminary Injunction will take place before April 15 2022.  

 

I googled what TRO stood for and all I found was Temporary Restraining Order and it just made me more confused lol. What is this hearing about?

1 hour ago, dwolfi01 said:

Thank you for all the courtroom reporting @Htsguy. Very much appreciated! You seem to know a lot more than me so can you explain this part:

 

 

I googled what TRO stood for and all I found was Temporary Restraining Order and it just made me more confused lol. What is this hearing about?

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.

 

 

 

Edited March 9, 20223 yr by Htsguy

^ Thanks for that thorough explanation but now my head hurts. 

44 minutes ago, cadmen said:

^ Thanks for that thorough explanation but now my head hurts. 

Yeah, my head hurt for three years straight during law school. 😉

I have a new litigation update.  I will try to keep it simple as this matter is really starting to get convoluted, even for those with a legal background.  What everybody on the forum can appreciate is that this whole sh*t show has to be costing a fortunate in attorneys fees and it is only in its early stages.  It is clear George does not care and now has a vendetta.

 

What I find fascinating is that there are currently THREE separate legal proceedings pending at this time, all basically dealing with the same bottom line issue.  Moreover, the litigation involves FOUR separate judges, and to date FIVE since October it you include Judge Matia who was the original judge in the first CP action filed by George.  

 

In a nutshell, the Port has now filed a motion to consolidate.  But it is not seeking to consolidate of the two CP actions as requested by George.  It wants the Administrative Judge of the Common Pleas court (thus the fourth judge) to appoint the Probate Court judge, pursuant to a court rule, as a temporary Common Pleas judge so she can take up George's injunctive relief and seeks to consolidate the new CP court action seeking injunctive relief with the Probate Court action.

Again I will not bore everybody with the law and arguments regarding all this but is it a clever and interesting move on the part of the Port and, as they argue will get things done in a more timely matter.  It will be interesting to see if George opposes this.

 

I would love to be a fly on the wall at the offices of George's attorneys.

 

 

10 minutes ago, Htsguy said:.

I would love to be a fly on the wall at the offices of George's attorneys.

 

 

I know ‘Downfall’ parody videos are beyond passé, but…

1 hour ago, Htsguy said:

In a nutshell, the Port has now filed a motion to consolidate.  But it is not seeking to consolidate of the two CP actions as requested by George.  It wants the Administrative Judge of the Common Pleas court (thus the fourth judge) to appoint the Probate Court judge, pursuant to a court rule, as a temporary Common Pleas judge so she can take up George's injunctive relief and seeks to consolidate the new CP court action seeking injunctive relief with the Probate Court action.

Again I will not bore everybody with the law and arguments regarding all this but is it a clever and interesting move on the part of the Port and, as they argue will get things done in a more timely matter.  It will be interesting to see if George opposes this.

 

I would love to be a fly on the wall at the offices of George's attorneys.

I think probate judges are common pleas judges. Probate is a division of common pleas. General civil cases don't get assigned to probate judges, but I believe probate judges technically have the same jurisdiction as other common pleas judges. Otherwise, I don't think the administrative judge could appoint a probate judge to the general division because it would violate the revised code. RC 2301.03 doesn't say anything about probate judges in Cuyahoga County.

 

That being said, do you have the docket number for the TRO case, because this is all just too weird to not take a look at.

 

22 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

I think probate judges are common pleas judges. Probate is a division of common pleas. General civil cases don't get assigned to probate judges, but I believe probate judges technically have the same jurisdiction as other common pleas judges. Otherwise, I don't think the administrative judge could appoint a probate judge to the general division because it would violate the revised code. RC 2301.03 doesn't say anything about probate judges in Cuyahoga County.

 

That being said, do you have the docket number for the TRO case, because this is all just too weird to not take a look at.

You are correct.  The Port's motion to consolidate and appoint is made citing Rule of Superintendence 3.01(B) allowing the administration judge of the Common Please court to temporarily appoint the judge from one "division" (in this case probate) to another division of the CP court (in this case the general division).

 

The first action filed by George in October is case no.  CV-21-954893

 

The complaint for TRO and other injunctive relief filed  last week is case no. CV-22-960323.  Apparently the reason George filed for the injunctive relief in a separate action with a companion motion to consolidate rather than move the court in the first action for leave to amend the complaint is because that process would have taken too long, which is probably true because the court in the first action has failed to rule on a whole host of motions which are just sitting there.

 

The  ED action in Probate court is 2022 AVD 267918.

 

Again, right now four judges are involved if you include the administrative judge considering the motion to temporarily appoint the Probate Judge to the General Division.  By the way, I commonly indicate George is the plaintiff so lay people understand the context.  The actually plaintiff is Mortgage Investment Group LLC.

1 hour ago, Htsguy said:

You are correct.  The Port's motion to consolidate and appoint is made citing Rule of Superintendence 3.01(B) allowing the administration judge of the Common Please court to temporarily appoint the judge from one "division" (in this case probate) to another division of the CP court (in this case the general division).

 

The first action filed by George in October is case no.  CV-21-954893

 

The complaint for TRO and other injunctive relief filed  last week is case no. CV-22-960323.  Apparently the reason George filed for the injunctive relief in a separate action with a companion motion to consolidate rather than move the court in the first action for leave to amend the complaint is because that process would have taken too long, which is probably true because the court in the first action has failed to rule on a whole host of motions which are just sitting there.

 

The  ED action in Probate court is 2022 AVD 267918.

 

Again, right now four judges are involved if you include the administrative judge considering the motion to temporarily appoint the Probate Judge to the General Division.  By the way, I commonly indicate George is the plaintiff so lay people understand the context.  The actually plaintiff is Mortgage Investment Group LLC.

Any time a central issue hinges on the Rules of Superintendence, you know you're onto something good.

 

Thanks for the summary. I started trying to wrap my head around this, but I probably should leave it to the people getting paid to do so. My gut tells me there's no way all three of these judges can simultaneously have subject matter jurisdiction....

Great drone footage from Collier

 

 

Port of Cleveland approves more than $24 million in funding for Irishtown Bend and a lakefront study

 

https://www.crainscleveland.com/government/port-cleveland-approves-more-24-million-funding-irishtown-bend-and-lakefront-study

4 hours ago, freethink said:

@freethink

Are those meant to depict tree roots?   I can't quite grasp this rendering. 

41 minutes ago, DO_Summers said:

@freethink

Are those meant to depict tree roots?   I can't quite grasp this rendering. 

Not really sure there are different types. This explains it some

https://www.biohabitats.com/project/green-bulkheads-for-cuyahoga-river-navigation-channel/

Yes!! Way to go Cleveland. Not only do we have the vision and wherewithal to replace a dangerous eyesore with a wonderful urban park but we also have the good sense to replace old bulkheads with green ones. 

 

So we get a large park with sweeping vistas. We get a waterway that enables freighters to safely make their way to an important industrial property. And we get another stretch of river that promotes a healthy environment for aquatic life. That my friends is how a smart, progressive city does it. Congrats Cleveland.

Just a quick phone pic from this weekend. 

Never realized how great this view is on this road with all those trees usually covering it up! This park will have the best views in the city.

And I think the new SW tower will perfectly fill the gap just to the right of the Hilton from that perspective- should look impressive. 

On 2/3/2022 at 1:36 PM, Geowizical said:

Enjoy! Thanks @GISguyfor the pics!

Threw in a little Bedrock Site treat into the first one just for fun... 😎

 

@CleveFan, I think we can agree on that, here's a @Geowizicalrendering from a couple months ago.

Can we get that Gateway Tower, too? 

Good lord… Feedback on a plan to install massive green space includes calls for more… parking? Why even build a park at all? Just level the entire hillside and fill the river with concrete. Let’s create the world’s biggest surface lot!

 

I mean, I guess it is called a ”park?”

If he has to drive to a park, then that park probably wasn't meant for him. He might try consider walking to one of the parks in his own neighborhood. And if he doesn't have such a park, perhaps that's what he should be commenting on?

2 minutes ago, KJP said:

If he has to drive to a park, then that park probably wasn't meant for him. He might try consider walking to one of the parks in his own neighborhood. And if he doesn't have such a park, perhaps that's what he should be commenting on?

Maybe he needs to pay more in HOA fees to add a park to his development. 

Progress!!