It's been a while since Waterway infiltrated this blog under the name Bluestone4181. We, of course, recognized them very early. We were appalled by the fact that they didn't have the guts to sign themselves as Waterway, but that would have been what honest, caring, good neighbors would do. We learned that Bluestone, sorry Waterway, does not play "clean", forgive us the pun. They feel that now they have the upperhand because, at the moment, they have the permit. What they do not know, is that it's not over yet. They are already acting cocky and showing that they have a right to gloat. The thing that shows them for who they really are though, is that, under the assumed name of bluestone thay called the Author of this blog "nuts" (read it under the post "Waterway tries to sell a fairytale").
We personally think that it is a low blow, undignified of a company that claims to be about people. We are sorry for you Waterway, but the more you keep this up, the more you show your "littleness" the more sustainers you will call into our cause.
Now go ahead and have a blast with your comments. We are listening.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
I think having a meeting on Valentine's Day at John Carroll was a ploy to keep the citizens of UH out of the Zoning Board meeting.
1. If you aren't familiar w/John Carroll, it can be difficult to know which building to go to. Parking is terrible there. I think my husband and I took the last spot in the parking lot at 7:20 pm.
2. The resident who spoke at the Valentine's Day meeting made a big impression on me when he said he is a very private person, so coming to that meeting and speaking in front of all those people was not comfortable to him. But he did it anyway because of his convictions. He said he would have preferred to be at home with his wife and kids having a Valentine's Day meal than coming to that meeting. I agree. I don't have what it takes to get up there and speak, and I respect him very much for doing that.
Next subject: I had never been to a council meeting before this issue came up in our community. I am shocked at the rudeness, callousness, and incompetence of Mayor Beryl Rothchild. The law director had to correct her and rein her in throughout the entire meeting. It was extremely embarrassing when her cell phone rang and she actually answered it in the meeting!!! I could not BELIEVE that. It was a circus and the mayor was looked like a village idiot. I have no respect for her now.
Mr. Zucker should have done his homework before he spoke and made a complete fool of himself. He compared the Waterway project to the Costco project in Mayfield, when Costco sued the city so they could build near homes. The law director contradicted him and said UH is not in the same position as Mayfield was, and Waterway cannot sue the city. No way. Then, Zucker tried to make a comparison of this project to a project decades ago in which the building of "group homes" was opposed by many residents. This is ludicrous. As we all know, he was comparing apples and bananas, and he is bananas.
Mr. Cozzens did nothing but try to scare us, just as the Federal government does. All he said was that if we don't let Waterway build in that spot, we might get something even worse. Oh I am sooooo scared. What are they going to do? Build a dump for nuclear waste? Shame on you, Mr. Cozzens.
I agree with earlier comments on this website that said UH residents were treated like recalcitrant children. Those three old fossils sitting up there making decisions that will affect our lives for decades. At their age, they won't live long enough to see the effects of their stupid decisions.
We need some new leadership in this city. People who will work with us as neighbors instead of working against us.
It's time for Americans to stop letting government frighten us. It's a tactic that is not going to work anymore.
Thanks to Suzie Rivers for standing up to them and for standing up for us.
A Fenwood neighbor.
I can understand the proximity of living right next to commercial property, but whether its a gas station or an outdated strip mall its still commercial. I live on Bushnell Rd as well, and I would like the convenience of an automatic car wash nearby, Al Paul is way too overpriced.
Our taxes in UH are far too high and create a disincentive for people to move here when the taxes are close to their mortgage payment. Revenue has to come in to the city through income tax, property tax, or through business, and business is one thing the city sorely lacks.
Unless you can persuade the gas station to relocated inside the vacant TOPS space I think the proposed location is needed shot in the arm for the city.
We all agree that we need businesses in University Heights. However, we need to right businesses. Waterway is not the right type of business for this site. I appreciate what the people of this blog and web site had done. It is amazing work. Of course you will be called nuts or even worse but I suggest to keep focused. Keep Waterway off that site - that is the focus. Now on to the council persons. Lets express our "perceptions," lets express our thoughts. As long as we are tax paying citizens and residents of this city, we have a right to speak our mind. Some of us are lawyers and can use language accordingly. Others of us are just ordinary residents with a passion and a commitment to our city and the future of our families. So if you are called nuts or whatever else, remember its all for a good cause. Keep up the good work, you nutty people. I am with you!
Thank you Suzie Rivers for speaking out. You go Girl! Now on to the Urban Sprawl because apparently we cannot prevent it, its inevitable according to a certain zoning member. Inevitable? No! No! its not, we do have choices in this city and we will make sure the council listens to us.
From anon1
What is it about "sticks and stones" that we carry into our adulthood the need to call people names when we do not agree with them? Calling somebody "nuts" is as silly as calling someone an "old fossil". All this does is take the discussion somewhere that it does not need to be and certainly prevents us from coming to anywhere near rational decisions and discussions.
What is going on is complex but something that plays out in cities everywhere. The reality is when we purchase near a commercial establishment (or in UH case) near a school like JCU, we assume that what is there will remain there. Our real estate agents do not tell us, "now remember" other potential uses might be car washes, fast food places etc.... That isn't for them to do.
Then what happens is what happens here. Someone values the land more for their use -- like a waterway -- that is permitted and they make the property owner an offer that results in them being willing to sell the land for that use.
Notice here -- the city does NOT recruit the use. I doubt highly (and certainly would hope so) that anyone with the city would actually call a company like Waterway and say "come here".
The result is what we see now. Now, after the fact, we are having the discussion that we should have had years ago. That discussion is what uses will we allow in the district (how the land is zoned).
The reality is since the land was zoned for that use when it was "sold" or in this case I guess it is under contract, the city cannot change the zoning after the fact.
So the city and its citizens find themselves at odds. The citizens have the right to object and to bring to the table their concerns. The city needs to address those within the constraints of the law. It becomes in many cases, as it has here, an argument driven by frustration on both sides.
All of us are most fortunate to live in a country of laws. We have a constitution that protects our property rights -- both resident and commercial owner. What we need to be able to do, in my humble opinion, is to have a dialogue that is productive.
I respect the frustrations of the residents -- it is not easy discovering what uses are allowed after the fact. They are trying to protect the value of, in many cases, their largest investment. So calling them names reflects an inablilty to understand what they are going through. At the same time, I would hope that the residents would remember that name calling the other way also reflects an inability to understand the constraints the city might be under.
One thing for sure out of this is that the city needs to look at the zoning codes for all of these areas and to have a meeting where we all can find out what potential uses can end up there. If there are ones that we strongly object to then we can make changes for those sites. Unfortunately for this one I think it is too late.
To Evan:
I appreciate that you are contributing your comments, but....
#1
Do you realize that Waterway car wash will only bring in $58,000/yr to UH? This is a drop in the bucket compared to the taxes we all pay. Your taxes are not going to go down, trust me.
#2 Your taxes are going to go up anyway when the property value of the homes near the car wash decrease. Those residents won't be paying as much in property taxes. Don't support the Waterway project just because you want your taxes to go down. They aren't going to go down unless other measures are taken by the leadership of UH and surrounding cities.
#2
Are you prepared to pay $299.00 per year for a frequent-washer card at Waterway? (Check their website.)
You can get a card for 6 washes at Al Paul's UH location for $60. (You get one free car wash when you buy their card.) That's $10 per wash (buy 5, get 1 free). A regular car wash is $12.00 without a card. You'd have to buy 30 car washes in a year at Waterway, and you have to pay it all up-front to come out even. What if you move out of the area? Will you lose the up-front money you have paid to "Waterway?" What if you get sick, lose your job, or need $ for some other reason and you need the $ to pay your bills? Will they give you some of your $ back if you can't afford to have your car washed 30 times in a year? I don't know how much a single car wash costs at Waterway, but I bet it's more than $12.
#3
Look at the lines that form at Al Paul. Lines like that could form on Warrensville, obstructing traffic and creating hazards for pedestrians. How much $ is it going to cost you in auto and health insurance deductibles if you or someone in your family has a wreck at that intersection?
I think there is nothing wrong with Waterway as a company, and there is nothing wrong with it being located near UH. The problem is the exact location they have chosen is too close to our neighbors.
There is no other Waterway car wash close to such a densely populated area. They have one car wash that is close to one house. On their website, you see 2 photos from different perspectives of ONE house that is near the property. If you look at the aerial photos on Google Earth, you can see this house. In UH, there are dozens of homes very close to the proposed UH site that will be subject to the fumes and traffic (and other hazards and nuisances) from cars that would use the car wash.
Please ask yourself "WOULD I WANT TO LIVE BEHIND A GAS STATION / CAR WASH"???
Your neighbor on Fenwood.
Wow. How does one reply to this. You're not going to believe me, but that's your choice.
I have no connection with Waterway. I have no connection with any persons associated with Waterway. The opinions I post under my assumed name are mine, and mine alone.
It doesn't suprise me that those that run this site feel there is a conspircy. I have posted under an alias due the backlash that would be directed to me.
Why don't you just address my comments? I think I have made some valid points. And I'm sure that you think you have vaild points too. I have tried to open discussion on this project. I think many of the concerns posted here are unfounded. I simply feel this could be a good business to have in the city.
I'll close this post the way it began, just so folks are clear, I am in no way associated with Waterway or administration of University Hts. Nor do I have any realitives or friends associated with these two bodies.
I can understand the proximity of living right next to commercial property, but whether its a gas station or an outdated strip mall its still commercial.
WOW, common sense. When you buy a home near commercial property, within a block of a huge intersection, there's a REASON you paid less than you would a few blocks further into the residential area. Evan realizes this, and understands that there are no free lunches.
However, we need to right businesses.
Who, and how, determines what is the RIGHT business? Are we Cuba, where appointed government overlords do this, or are we a free capitalist nation, where the INVESTORS determine the right business for a location based on their EXPERIENCED judgement of what will make a PROFIT there? Last I checked, the investors were the ones risking the capital, not you, not the city government.
Now on to the Urban Sprawl because apparently we cannot prevent it, its inevitable
It is if people like UHNOGAS continue pushing for paternalist government to step on the property rights of others to enforce their preferences. That's what drives urban sprawl, people yearning to be free are driven outward by an expanding wave of socialist, statist local government growing outward into the suburbs.
There is no other Waterway car wash close to such a densely populated area.
Well DUH. Haven't the inner ring suburbs been whining for years that no one will invest, that all the investment is going to places like Solon? Now someone tries to reverse that trend and you complain it's too close to a densely populated area. NEWSFLASH: ALL of UH, CH, and S. Euclid are densely populated. There's nowhere else in the city. There might have been room for it at Cedar Center, or where University Square is, but the govts. of UH and S.Euc. had to go and dictate the futures of those locations, booking them up. Now someone wants to invest WITHOUT Big Brother subsidizing them, and everybody's up in arms. No wonder inner ring suburbs are crumbling.
Please ask yourself "WOULD I WANT TO LIVE BEHIND A GAS STATION / CAR WASH"???
I did, when I bought my house, and that's why I live in Cleveland Heights. I would have preferred University Heights, but the only place I could afford a house of the size I wanted in University Heights was within 5 houses of the Cedar Warrensville commercial district. I realized that the tenants there could change at the drop of a hat, and growin up in Lyndhurst, I'd seen businesses on Mayfield absorb the houses immediately behind them, rendering the second house in line first. So I settled for Cleveland Heights, to affordably be well insulated from commercial districts by 3 blocks of residences. Why should the government step in and thwart everyone else's economic progress to ameliorate your lack of similar foresight in purchasing your home?
Just to avoid any similar assumptions, I've posted here as my initials BW. I'm now posting with my full last name and first initials. Local resident, born and raised here, Brush HS class of 81. I was responsible for the petition to repeal a CHUH school levy that over 2000 local residents signed, most of them from UH.
There, Bluestone4181, it's not that hard to solve. I agree with much of what you say, but I suggest that the only way you're going to dispel this is to take off the mask.
I'm disappointed to see that my comments have been deleted as well.
I drive down Fenwick almost every day. The "For Rent" signs are really starting to look shabby. For all the damage some people claim Waterway will do, many of you have already done a nice job making your street look like bunghole.
Bluestone, still waiting for you to unmask. What are you afraid of?
From anon1
Well now the discussion becomes interesting bw. You make a few good points but I think some have another side as well.
Yep, houses near commercial areas are less expensive (the discount). However, I would note the discount was for the current use. We cannot be sure that it would be the same for the new use... might be more.. might be the same... doubt it would be less.
Who determines what use go where? Well in either 1925 or 27 the US Supreme Court upheld the right of cities to zone their areas in the court case between the then village of Euclid, Oh and Ambler Realty. If you think about it, zoning makes good sense for both resident and developer. It, when done well, protects residents from unwanted uses and gives developers the stability to know that if they buy land it can be used for specific purposes.
Your comment about why you bought in CH is interesting... the developer who bought those houses took a risk because the city was in no way required to rezone the land to their needs. So the issue is a city question - how strongly will it protect its residents -more than one of a done deal.
Back to who determines what... well I would point out that the residents do have rights under that document that we call the US Constitution. The developers have their rights as well but neither one has more rights than the other. Oh heaven's :-)) it means the constitution is blind to money! I would also note that the residents also risked their capital to purchase their homes. Just because we have had a system in the US that helped to keep housing prices stable does not mean that there is not some form of risk.
While your comment about urban sprawl rings with the concept of individual freedom, the reality is more one of the booming success of two federal government programs -- Housing and transportation. Highways and the original secondary mortgage market made it possible for that to go where it has... in my humble opinion. As for free... well unless you move to the real country (not mentor etc) you will find zoning codes and over time the same problems we have here.
One final comment... over my time I lived in Cleveland (west side - shaker square area) Solon, Lyndhurst, Shaker Heights and Cleveland Heights. I purchased in University Heights because of the community here. There are a lot of great things about UH that we have and that we can build on. Is it perfect - no but no city is.
Again, whatever happens we need to get the city to spell out the possible uses for all land under current zoning. And we (the citizens) need to let them know what we think of what they currently show.
Dear Fenwood Resident,
I started following this thread with an open mind. Since I dont live near the proposed site, the concerns dont directly affect me.
First
The $58k in taxes is $20k more than is being paid now. To you that is "a drop in the bucket". So how about you make up the difference, and I'll support you in this cause.
Second
If you dont want to pay $299 for a frequent wash card, then dont. Many people in this town have some expendable income and can afford to wash their luxury car everyday. If having your car washed creates a financial strain, then wash it yourself. That simple.
Third
How can you possibly speculate that lines are going to back up to the point that accidents will occur and our insurance rates will rise? This one is a far strech and just makes it look like you are whining.
I have been quite and following this blog to see the reaction of people. People certainly have thier own convictions and beliefs but some people are just looking for a reason to cause trouble. I can see it could directly affect the people right behind the proposed site but we dont see them on here. To make valid points that put other people down, please make it fact based. No hypothiticals. And, No, I have no connections with Waterway. I currently dont see a reason to drastically hate a 6 million dollar renovation that I will probably use frequently.
Mr. Wagner, I choose an alias for my own reasons. I don't live in UH but I work in the city. (BTW, thank you to all those residents that voted to increase my income tax and not your own.) Anyway, I could just post as anonymous, but then that causes confusion.
I think it says something about the moderator that believes I'm a company rep. instead of a person with an opinion other than theirs. So be it.
I think Waterway would be an improvement for that site. I really don't know what the city can do to prevent it. The site is zonned commercial. The deal is between private parties. If the city owned that land, then the residents could argue not to sell, but that's not the case. Zonning allows a city to determine what types of occupancies are built where, it doesn't give a city the right to dictate a specific company over another.
Yep, houses near commercial areas are less expensive (the discount). However, I would note the discount was for the current use. We cannot be sure that it would be the same for the new use... might be more.. might be the same... doubt it would be less.
That's the uncertainty and risk in ANY investment. The risk is much greater next to a commercial district, and that's reflected in the discount. There's risk and uncertainty in the middle of a residential region as well - someone could move in next door who believes pro wrestling is real and has aspirations to be a guest on Jerry Springer - but it's a much more limited risk.
Who determines what use go where?
In a free society such as the founders envisioned, the property owner, and by extension, the market.
Well in either 1925 or 27 the US Supreme Court upheld the right of cities to zone their areas in the court case between the then village of Euclid, Oh and Ambler Realty. If you think about it, zoning makes good sense for both resident and developer.
Actually, zoning has several undesirable side effects. It perpetuates slums. It's been implicated http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/02/17/land-use-regulation-and-the-credit-crisis/ as contributing to the current mortgage crisis, and for the boom or bust volatility of the housing market http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/rappaport/downloads/policybriefs/glaeserhousing_final.pdf. But that's all beside the point - we're not talking about zoning - the property is already zoned commercial. There has been a gas station in the past and is a carwash presently in the same contiguous commercial zone. This has nothing to do with zoning. But if it DID involve zoning, it would be far more relevant to recall that, a few years ago, the Supreme Court awarded Costco 9 million in damages against Mayfield Heights, for an effective illegal taking, over refusal to rezone residential property commercial. Did it ever occur to anyone that this decision is in the forefront of the city leaders' minds when they think about this issue? What sort of tax increase would UH need to pay a judgement like that?
It, when done well, protects residents from unwanted uses and gives developers the stability to know that if they buy land it can be used for specific purposes.
Well, I'm glad you pointed that out. Waterway saw the land was zoned COMMERCIAL, so they should be able to know that if they buy the land it can be used for their purposes.
Your comment about why you bought in CH is interesting... the developer who bought those houses took a risk because the city was in no way required to rezone the land to their needs.
There was no developer, it was the current owner of the adjacent commercial property, Ianni's Bi-Rite, and it's obvious their offer was contingent on the rezoning, which was pretty much assured because the city wanted to retain a supermarket for residents' convenience. Anyway, that was a rezoning, which is not the issue here.The point was, that sort of thing happens all the time, and is something a well-informed home buyer should take into consideration. One need not be directly adjacent to commercial property to be affected by it. The second house in line was cheaper than the third, which was cheaper than the fourth, and so on. Why? Because with each incremental lot separation from the commercial zone, the probability of the commercial zone expanding to next door within the homeowner's tenure decreases. This is junior high school economics. The bottom line is, the people here want long term assurance of what they'll see at the end of their street, but they weren't willing to pay for it, otherwise, they'd have paid the premium to buy on Edgerton or Dysart where that assurance is pretty solid. They want the city to stifle economic development and the property rights of others in order to give them a free lunch. It's middle class welfare, and a pretty good argument could be made that educated professionals buying homes in UH are in a far better position to make informed decisions than some CHUH parents in trying to raise their kids to be academic successes, the very decisions of which CHUH's tax and spend policies seek to mitigate the consequences. We've seen UH residents' position on levies - it seems everyone is for limited government and fiscal restraint until it's their own ox being gored.
So the issue is a city question - how strongly will it protect its residents -more than one of a done deal.
No, because as you keep ignoring, in this case the zoning is already established. It's not the government's job to change the rules after the fact to guarantee your investments.
Back to who determines what... well I would point out that the residents do have rights under that document that we call the US Constitution. The developers have their rights as well but neither one has more rights than the other.
Right - each has property rights, foremost among them, the right to determine the disposition and use of their own property. Nowhere does the Constitution spell out a right to determine the disposition of someone ELSE'S property.
Oh heaven's :-)) it means the constitution is blind to money!
Careful, that's a two edged sword. That means it's blind to the class warfare agitprop that permeates UHNOGAS's rhetoric.
I would also note that the residents also risked their capital to purchase their homes. Just because we have had a system in the US that helped to keep housing prices stable does not mean that there is not some form of risk.
Bingo! and the residents are asking the government to mitigate their risk. Waterway is not asking for this - the equivalent request on their side would be to have the city force people to patronize their establishment.
While your comment about urban sprawl rings with the concept of individual freedom, the reality is more one of the booming success of two federal government programs -- Housing and transportation. Highways and the original secondary mortgage market made it possible for that to go where it has... in my humble opinion.
They certainly made it EASIER, but that doesn't address MOTIVATION. People don't choose to outmigrate simply because they CAN. For decades of I-71,. easy mortgages, AND cheap gasoline, people stopped at Parma, rather than heading out to Medina. The impetus for sprawl drops off precipitously not where highways end, but at the point where incorporated municipalities, with broad authority to overgovern, give way to strongly constrained townships, and the leading edge of sprawl stays one step ahead of the wave of incorporation.
As for free... well unless you move to the real country (not mentor etc) you will find zoning codes and over time the same problems we have here.
Eventually, but only because of the same thing we are seeing here - people who move to get away from overreaching government and its side effects, then, the first time someone ELSE'S freedom offends their sensibilities, they demand the very thing they fled. UHNOGAS is inviting the cause of urban blight, big government, into their midst. It ALWAYS turns on you, sooner or later.
Again, whatever happens we need to get the city to spell out the possible uses for all land under current zoning.
It IS spelled out. In a commercial zone, you can have legal commercial enterprises. That includes check cashing outlets, pager stores, and other businesses whose clientele don't share your values. This isn't the third reich, and you can't exclude "undesirables." Waterway is better than a lot of businesses you could have there - at the very least, their customers are people who take care of their cars.
And we (the citizens) need to let them know what we think of what they currently show.
Which may or may not be relevant. What you need to do is find ways to make this a win-win for you AND the investors. Set up an accountability system that ties being a good neighbor to Waterway's bottom line. They only prosper if they hold up their end of the social contract. Do that, and you'll send the right message to other potential investors about your community - we welcome your investment, but you'll have to be a good neighbor to profit here. You're going to NEED that message in investors' minds when University Square inevitably goes belly up, and the novelty of Whole Foods wears off with the carriage trade, and they remember that Wild Oats is only 1000 feet from the freeway exit.
I choose an alias for my own reasons.
Have it your way, but I know of no better way to conclusively respond to the accusations.
I think it says something about the moderator that believes I'm a company rep. instead of a person with an opinion other than theirs.
I agree, and in another thread, where she explained why she believes this, I found her case wanting. I've also pointed out that your identity is irrelevant to the validity of your points. However, nothing puts such nonsense to rest faster than irrefutable counter evidence.
I really don't know what the city can do to prevent it. The site is zonned commercial. The deal is between private parties.
I would ordinarily agree, and what you outline is as it should be in a free country, but the leases at Cedar Center were between private parties. City Hall has shown disdain for property and contract rights already, and UHNOGAS is asking for more such abuses.
If the city owned that land, then the residents could argue not to sell, but that's not the case.
That would be the Cleveland Heights methodology - buy up any commercial property that comes on the market, lest, (gasp) the free market have any influence on its use. Of course, UH hasn't the financial war chest for that strategy.
From anon1
There are a number of things I would like to respond to in your post but first I want to make a simple statement.
My comments have been consistent here…. Normally when we buy a house we do not consider that uses around us will change from what they are. You seem to feel that the residents who have mobilized are somehow lacking because they really did not know what potential uses there were for that site. I take exception to that. Their frustration and concern come from that reality. I have always noted that the problem for their quest is that the basic use is a legal one for the site. I have noted that there only way to stop the development legally has been based on the lack of a buffer (apparently solved) or on the basis that the special permit is issued on. The residents have the RIGHT to appeal the permit and to present their case at each step of the way. I will always support that right regardless of whether I agree with their argument or not. Those are constitutionally protected rights. The constitution protects free speech – doesn’t say the statement has to be absolutely correct.
Your contention seems to be that people should research everything and that the residents are somehow at fault for not having your point of view. You also seem to be more than willing to lecture them about even attempting to do something about what they perceive to be a problem.
Before I start the rest of this, I would note that you sound like someone who embraces a more libertarian point of view. I will say I do not agree with that perspective. Again, isn’t it wonderful that the founders came up with a constitution that allows us differing ideologies. The one that we agree to apply to our governance is the one that the majority holds – with protections for the minority view. I am noting this because it is clear we will not agree on parts of the discussion, and I do not have to embrace your view. ((In terms of ruling ideologies, libertarianism is not the ideology of majority choice and making statements as if they are mandated to be believed will not hold sway.)
You wrote… "This is junior high school economics. "
I will admit it bugs me when people make this kind of statement. It demeans the field of economics. Economic modeling is based on assumptions and those assumptions tend to reflect the ideology of the modeler. Hence, the Cato Institute can look at the same problem as any number of other think tanks and get very different results. Which ones we use to support our arguments will depend on the beliefs that we begin with. Again, I respectfully disagree with some of your beliefs and I choose not to change mine. I would hope we could agree to disagree.
You wrote - "There's risk and uncertainty in the middle of a residential region as well - someone could move in next door who believes pro wrestling is real and has aspirations to be a guest on Jerry Springer - but it's a much more limited risk."
I am ignoring the biased view of people who like pro wrestling here :-) and will address the neighbor who chooses not to keep their house up. A great part of why that is a more limited risk is that we are a nation of laws that protects property values. Hence, if your next door neighbor does something that is declared a “nuisance” under the law there is recourse to help them correct the situation. Again, the willingness of the governmental entity to enforce the law is a major factor in the result. The Heights communities embraced exterior inspections to help deal with this issue years ago. While many of us complain mightily about it – most of us are delighted when the house that is bringing values down on the street finally gets fixed up.
I wrote: "So the issue is a city question - how strongly will it protect its residents -more than one of a done deal."
You responded "No, because as you keep ignoring, in this case the zoning is already established. It's not the government's job to change the rules after the fact to guarantee your investments. "
Go back and read where I wrote the comment – it was about the house behind DaVita’s. If the city had refused to do the rezone, the developer (DaVita’s owner) would not have purchased the homes. The action of the government here is not one of changing the rules after the fact but rather refusing to change the rules at all.
You wrote: "There has been a gas station in the past and is a carwash presently in the same contiguous commercial zone. This has nothing to do with zoning. But if it DID involve zoning, it would be far more relevant to recall that, a few years ago, the Supreme Court awarded Costco 9 million in damages against Mayfield Heights, for an effective illegal taking, over refusal to rezone residential property commercial. Did it ever occur to anyone that this decision is in the forefront of the city leaders' minds when they think about this issue? What sort of tax increase would UH need to pay a judgement like that?"
The law director already ruled that the Costco case and this case are NOT the same and you cannot apply the ruling in Costco to the legality of this issue. As you pointed out this in not about rezoning. However, there is a legal issue here that without “just cause” the council cannot overturn that special permit. They cannot just vote it down because the residents want it voted down – they have to be able to validate why the special permit should not have been granted in the first place.
You wrote - "Right - each has property rights, foremost among them, the right to determine the disposition and use of their own property. Nowhere does the Constitution spell out a right to determine the disposition of someone ELSE'S property."
If the residents can show legally why the permit should not have been issued according to the codes, then this is not a violation of anyone’s rights. The area is zoned for use with qualifications that have to be met and a permit issued. If the residents can show that the permit was issued incorrectly, then they have a case. Simple as that. I realize that you start your argument here from the basis that government should not zone and regulate the use, but remember I do not hold that perspective. We will continue to differ on this.
I wrote - "Oh heaven's :-)) it means the constitution is blind to money!"
You Responded - "Careful, that's a two edged sword. That means it's blind to the class warfare agitprop that permeates UHNOGAS's rhetoric".
I will agree that some of the rhetoric does go over the top and that does concern me. I would hope as they go along they can cut down on the “over the top stuff” and realize that their argument must be based on solid facts. I think all movements when they begin tend to go a bit over the top. Unfortunately, to get anyone to listen these days, shouting appears to be required. Think of how acclimated people have become to the “shock jocks” and how (a small shudder here) some of them actually believe these guys. That is why I noted that calling people fossils is just as bad as calling someone nuts.
You wrote - "Eventually, but only because of the same thing we are seeing here - people who move to get away from overreaching government and its side effects, then, the first time someone ELSE'S freedom offends their sensibilities, they demand the very thing they fled. "
Sorry, I think a lot of people move simply because the housing is newer and in our consumer society we are convinced that new is equal to good. The school systems are also a major factor. The highways and the housing policies make the move possible. I will grant you there are some people who do move for the reason that you give, but studies do not show that as being a major force.
What happens in the areas that they move to is that the density increases. As the density increases the offending actions become more apparent. They also begin to affect more people’s property values as well.
You wrote - "UHNOGAS is inviting the cause of urban blight, big government, into their midst. It ALWAYS turns on you, sooner or later. "
I really do believe that the group is trying, in their own way, to prevent what they perceive to be a factor in urban blight. As for big government, they actually are asking their government to take some specific actions and the group will have to in the end resolve their wants with the legal limitations that are on the city.
They need to keep pressure on the city to ensure that any of the conditions for that special permit are upheld if it is not overturned. That pressure would be very restricted if they had not organized and become a force. I am not saying the city would not have kept Waterway’s feet to the fire, but I am saying they may have slacked off a bit.
Finally, I live in UH. I decided to buy here. Both you and Bluestone 4181 have made it clear you do not live here. It is a bit tiresome to be lectured about how we must run our government here by someone who choose to live elsewhere. So please, if you feel a need to educate us to your point of view – fine but do not tell us we have to follow it.
My comments have been consistent here….
I don't dispute that.
Normally when we buy a house we do not consider that uses around us will change from what they are.
Normally - you got that right. The vast majority of Americans are not wise consumers. Let's face it, our current environmental and energy problems are largely the result of consumers treating cars more as status costume jewelry than transportation, and no one ever went broke underestimating the taste or intelligence of the buying public. The current mortgage foreclosure crisis stands as evidence that sound, rational. long term decision making is not the norm in home buying in this country. Normal is a statistical concept, and the bell curve demonstrates that normal and optimal are not the same. I never claimed that the shortsighted home investment decisions I outlined were unusual. Although smoking is now on the decline, at one time it was the "normal" thing to do - when people developed lung cancer, the normalcy of the choices leading up to it didn't help them.
You seem to feel that the residents who have mobilized are somehow lacking because they really did not know what potential uses there were for that site.
No, I find their home buying decisions inconsistent with, and counterproductive to realizing the goals they now claim matter to them. While I try to avoid doing so myself, that is purely out of self interest - I wish to avoid the consequences of such decision making. What I object to is turning around now and asking government to absolve them of the consequences of those choices by stepping on someone else's rights (I'll get to the contention about whether someone else's rights are being stepped on further down.)
I take exception to that.
Why? It's not a personal insult; it's a matter of fact observation. Unlike most people, I don't view disagreements in personal terms. You can tell me I'm full of crap on this issue, and I'll gladly break bread with you the next day.
I made some mistakes buying my house, and I'm still paying for some of them. It is what it is.
As for your initial point above about considering that uses change, commercial zones change uses more often than residential - residential living is a pretty homogeneous activity - people eat, sleep, play, etc., but one can hardly live in urban America long enough to become a home buyer without seeing many businesses vacate locations to be replaced by something radically different. A bank becomes a rug dealer which becomes a Starbucks. In our community we have a number of types of businesses that didn't exist when most home buyers were growing up. If stability of surroundings is a priority, then proximity to a commercial district is something to avoid.
Their frustration and concern come from that reality.
I agree with their frustration and concern, I just don't see a societal obligation to assuage it.
I SHARE their concerns, which is why I sacrificed certain other attributes to buy in a location that offered the stability they now covet. I resent that they desire something I sacrificed for to be handed to them for free.
I have always noted that the problem for their quest is that the basic use is a legal one for the site.
Here we agree. That's my point - it's commercial - there are any number of legal uses they might object to, not limited to gas stations and carwashes. The commercial zoning there was no secret.
I have noted that there only way to stop the development legally has been based on the lack of a buffer (apparently solved)
A concession made to their objections, not by the city, but by Waterway. Hence my statement that they should be seeking win-win resolutions that allow the business to prosper only if it's a good neighbor, rather than trying to stop a legal use of the property entirely.
or on the basis that the special permit is issued on.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that the setback concession eliminates the need for any special permit.
The residents have the RIGHT to appeal the permit and to present their case at each step of the way. I will always support that right regardless of whether I agree with their argument or not. Those are constitutionally protected rights. The constitution protects free speech
But it doesn't obligate the city govt. to listen or respond. There are government decisions not subject to appeal.
Your contention seems to be that people should research everything
When making what is likely to be the largest investment in their life, you bet. Do I believe six figure purchases require careful consideration? Heck yes. Maybe you can just toss hundreds of thousands of dollars around with no more consideration than buying a candy bar, but, to borrow your own characterization, that's not normal.
and that the residents are somehow at fault for not having your point of view.
It's not about fault. It's about accepting the consequences of sub-optimal decisions, freely made. Remember, no realtors in UH are extracting bids at gunpoint.
You also seem to be more than willing to lecture them about even attempting to do something about what they perceive to be a problem.
Yes, because they are asking the government to discourage investment in the community, in my opinion harming the long term prospects for the entire community, in order to absolve them of the consequences of their free choices, when I think I've demonstrated that making those choices so as to avoid this situation is not rocket science. They are asking the city to deprive a commercial property owner of his rights, and harm the local economy, to bail them out of their poor choices. As I said, it's middle class welfare.
I had the same problem when people who bought homes on Brainard in Pepper Pike, without considering that it was a primary route in their area, decided they wanted Ohio taxpayers to pay for turning that section of Brainard into a cul de sac and relocating the road 1/4 mile west.
Before I start the rest of this, I would note that you sound like someone who embraces a more libertarian point of view.
Indeed I do, and more so with each passing year.
I will say I do not agree with that perspective.
I've found that most people making that claim are part time libertarians - when THEIR liberty is constrained, they're libertarians, but when they want to control what OTHER people do, they're statists and authoritarians. Those who call themselves liberals are libertarians in the bedroom, and statists at the bank, and those who call themselves conservatives are vice versa.
The one that we agree to apply to our governance is the one that the majority holds – with protections for the minority view.
That's factually incorrect. Our nation was founded on the agreement to apply a fixed standard; that's why the Constitution was written down. The founders were rightfully wary of full democracy, and sought to limit what government could do, regardless of what the majority held. When the courts ruled against prayer in schools, if the matter had been up to a vote, it would have been the other way by a landslide. They didn't act to protect O'Hare's minority view, they acted to conform with the written document sitting in the national archives. Majority and minority were irrelevant.
In terms of ruling ideologies, libertarianism is not the ideology of majority choice and making statements as if they are mandated to be believed will not hold sway.)
I state my positions with conviction. Get over it. It is the ideology of majority choice, depending on whose ox is being gored. The difference between me and the majority is I support liberty even when it gores my own ox. Plenty of UH residents were very libertarian when we came around with that levy repeal petition. I'm just consistent about it.
I will admit it bugs me when people make this kind of statement. It demeans the field of economics.
If I point out that junior high school science students are expected to know that the earth's gravitationa pull causes objects to fall at 9.8 m/s/s, does that demean physics? If I say long division is grade school math, does it demean mathematics? The economic principles involved are basic supply and demand, which I learned in 6th grade social studies.
I am ignoring the biased view of people who like pro wrestling here :-) and will address the neighbor who chooses not to keep their house up.
But that's not what this is about. Any business, from an accountant to azipper repair shop, including a gas station or carwash, can do a good or poor job of maintaining their property, just as a Jerry Springer guest aspirant could keep a flawless yard and a county judge could let the weeds grow knee high. The objection here is to the TYPE of business, so I spoke to the TYPE of person next door, not the way they maintain their property, which you don't know until they've been there a while. I've said repeatedly I have no objection to requiring Waterway to be a clean, well maintained carwash - only to the exclusion of the type of business..
The Heights communities embraced exterior inspections to help deal with this issue years ago.
A major factor in a lot of people leaving the area.
While many of us complain mightily about it – most of us are delighted when the house that is bringing values down on the street finally gets fixed up.
Not really, because it seldom works that way. The worst homes typically have owners who cry poor, and the city lets them off, because fining them would only further diminish their ability to maintain their homes. That's straight from people at City Hall. The need for such programs is the result of earlier government meddling in the form of subsidies that enable people to buy homes they can't afford to maintain.
Go back and read where I wrote the comment – it was about the house behind DaVita’s. If the city had refused to do the rezone, the developer (DaVita’s owner) would not have purchased the homes. The action of the government here is not one of changing the rules after the fact but rather refusing to change the rules at all.
That example was not about what government should or should not do, but about the reality of what happens in commercial zones. In this case the residents ARE asking the government to change the rules after the fact - when they bought their homes, it was zoned commercial, and the past and current existence of a gas station and carwash in that zone shows us that those are established permissible uses in that zoning. Now they want the rules changed because someone decided to invest in accordance with the rules, awaking them from blissful ignorance that this was always a possibility.
The law director already ruled that the Costco case and this case are NOT the same and you cannot apply the ruling in Costco to the legality of this issue.
But if it was a zoning issue, you could.
However, there is a legal issue here that without “just cause” the council cannot overturn that special permit. They cannot just vote it down because the residents want it voted down
And if they did, then the Costco case would apply.
they have to be able to validate why the special permit should not have been granted in the first place.
And even that would not end it. The setback concession indicates that, if the special permit is revoked, they'll just alter the part of their plan that made it necessary.
If the residents can show legally why the permit should not have been issued according to the codes, then this is not a violation of anyone’s rights.
That establishes that it's not a violation of municipal law. It doesn't establish that Waterway's rights have been honored. Legislation violates rights on a daily basis, which is why there is judicial review, and even that isn't holy writ. Remember, SCOTUS once ruled Dred Scott wasn't a person because he was black. I didn't bring up the Costco ruling so much to say it was right, but rather to point out that when residents think city hall is being unresponsive, there may be realities that take priority over fulfilling voter's immediate demands.
I realize that you start your argument here from the basis that government should not zone and regulate the use,
That's not true; I support reasonable zoning. I never said someone should be able to put a gas station at the corner of Meadowbrook and Edgerton.
I raised the issue of downsides to zoning only to point out it wasn't necessarily the as wonderful as you implied it was.
I will agree that some of the rhetoric does go over the top and that does concern me.
I appreciate a good bit of bombast (could you tell?) but I am tired of the overworked "people good, business bad" paradigm.
Sorry, I think a lot of people move simply because the housing is newer
I know far too many people who left the Heights for similarly aged housing in the townships - Heights homeowners typically don't have the equity to upgrade to new housing in the sticks, I know of people who have closed sales of Geauga county homes to CH emigres by simply doing the math for them and showing that the tax savings would pay for the mortgage difference, but only on a 30-40 year old home.
I will grant you there are some people who do move for the reason that you give, but studies do not show that as being a major force.
The studies consist of city exit questionnaires - people fleeing invasive city government are loathe to answer still more of the city's nosy questions, so they end up studying self selected samples.
I really do believe that the group is trying, in their own way, to prevent what they perceive to be a factor in urban blight.
Except that they are misguided. When I look at what's happening in UH, it's exactly what CH was doing 20 years ago, and what Cleveland was doing 30-40 years ago. Urban sprawl always moves from regions of more government to regions of less.
They need to keep pressure on the city to ensure that any of the conditions for that special permit are upheld if it is not overturned.
That's what I said.
That pressure would be very restricted if they had not organized and become a force. I am not saying the city would not have kept Waterway’s feet to the fire, but I am saying they may have slacked off a bit.
Their past actions don't support that position.
It is a bit tiresome to be lectured about how we must run our government here by someone who choose to live elsewhere.
Yeah, free speech and differing views suck, don't they?
So please, if you feel a need to educate us to your point of view – fine but do not tell us we have to follow it.
Excuse me, but did I threaten you? Hold a gun to your head? Maybe kidnap your cat? No, I didn't think so either.
You're free to ignore me, and you well know it, so spare me the crap about telling you what you HAVE to do. I've characterized the situation, and UHNOGAS's demands, and spelled out likely long term detrimental results. I've pointed out that an environment hostile to investment will hurt when development directed by city hall rather than the market goes belly up - University Square is half empty and bleeding out tenants. You don't have to listen when I advise you to put yourself in the shoes of an investor weighing Cedar/Warrensville against Legacy Village, and look at UHNOGAS through those eyes.
From anon1
to update the issue of the special permit and the zoning.
1. The buffer requirement is in the code as a part of the commercial zoning. This is a totally separate issue from the special permit.
2. http://universityheights.com/downloads/waterwayappeal.pdf
has the law director's opinion of what the council must consider when deciding to either uphold or overturn the BZA's approval of a special permit.
3. Reading through this - the meeting will be great fun. I love the broad statements that anyone can argue both sides for....
like
"the use is not likely to be harmful to a residential area"
Now this just might get really interesting... go to the weblink and read it for yourself!
Thanks, that indirectly answered the question about the special permit, by referencing the ordinance.
On Feb. 20, Anon1 wrote: "Finally, I live in UH. I decided to buy here. Both you and Bluestone 4181 have made it clear you do not live here. It is a bit tiresome to be lectured about how we must run our government here by someone who choose to live elsewhere. So please, if you feel a need to educate us to your point of view – fine but do not tell us we have to follow it."
I work in UH. I pay the increased income tax that voters passed. You know, the increase the residents don't pay. The higher rate that the workers at Waterway may have to pay.
The reason I'm even in this discussion is because I read alot of 'Chicken Little, the sky is falling' stuff posted here.
I have tried to comment on those things. (I won't waste space repeating things folks can read in other threads.)
Frankly, I couldn't care less wether Waterway is built or not. I couldn't care less wether the city is sued or not. I just bugs me to read posts that are emotional not based on thought.
BTW, this is the world wide web. While it does facilite communication, it also allows anyone, anywhere, to read and post.
Even me.
Bluestone is right. The tax increase went to him/her. Regardless, we will all face an increase in taxes soon. UH residents need to understand that we have little tax base and every bit counts. I live in the city. I love the city. I hate the taxes. Every little bit helps. BTW, I have scene operations like Waterway in other cities and they are not that bad. I understand the concern from nearby residents, but let's be honest, you knew where you were buying. Quit being a victim. This is no worse than the psychic above Geraci's.
I understand the concern from nearby residents, but let's be honest, you knew where you were buying. Quit being a victim. This is no worse than the psychic above Geraci's.
Wow, you got that right. A car wash, serving people who keep their cars clean, versus a stupidity magnet.
I grew up with a gas station at the end of our street. We were the 10th house back, It meant kids in the neighborhood always had a place to put air in their bicycle tires. Now it's a combination pizza carry out and a drycleaner. Not a whole lot of difference on the street either way.
From Anon1
Sorry for the delay in responding to a few of your comments from the 20th. Been a little swamped… and finally catching up.
You wrote “The current mortgage foreclosure crisis stands as evidence that sound, rational. long term decision making is not the norm in home buying in this country. Normal is a statistical concept, and the bell curve demonstrates that normal and optimal are not the same. I never claimed that the shortsighted home investment decisions I outlined were unusual.”
Sorry can’t resist this…: -) actually there is more than one “normal” distribution than just the bell curve. Sometimes populations do not follow that and we do have the statistical tests to analyze those skewed distributions. Rational is what we (each person with their beginning perspective) believe to be rational. I would suggest that our consumer society has led to a situation where marketing determines what is “in” not the best. The other part of the problem is that we no longer teach our kids how to think critically – rather we teach them how to figure out what the person in authority wants and then to supply it. But our test scores are up!
You wrote “but one can hardly live in urban America long enough to become a home buyer without seeing many businesses vacate locations to be replaced by something radically different. A bank becomes a rug dealer which becomes a Starbucks. In our community we have a number of types of businesses that didn't exist when most home buyers were growing up. If stability of surroundings is a priority, then proximity to a commercial district is something to avoid.”
I agree but consider the sequence that you noted…. I would note that a bank, a rug dealer and Starbucks are not uses that people would squawk to much about. In this block, the toy store went to Hold It. I would say that knocking the building down for a rebuild and a totally different type of use is more unusual than normal in this area. (Although UH seems to do this more often than CH) My point simply is that we do not envision that big of a change. When it happens we react.
You wrote “Yes, because they are asking the government to discourage investment in the community, in my opinion harming the long term prospects for the entire community, in order to absolve them of the consequences of their free choices, when I think I've demonstrated that making those choices so as to avoid this situation is not rocket science. They are asking the city to deprive a commercial property owner of his rights, and harm the local economy, to bail them out of their poor choices. As I said, it's middle class welfare.”
If they are flatly asking the city not to allow any use here, then I would agree. What I have seen is that they are asking for another use. I agree that the use is legal as long as the codes are followed.
What, quite frankly, irritates me the most is the city’s zoning codes. Zoning usually does not allow ALL commercial uses in all areas. Rather, there are degrees of what can go where. (Areas zoned for offices, etc) Just looking at the law directors opinion it looks like UH has opted to allow uses based on special permits. So we end up with ambiguous sections that are open to a wide range of interpretation. I would argue that this makes the codes a joke to some degree. (My lawyer is better than your lawyer and if I can argue and win in court, then my use prevails.) I cannot believe that an experienced planner would write something as vague as this. So to some degree your concern regarding the residents just acting to block a commercial use is to some degree mitigated by these codes. (unfortunately) I think that clarity is important in zoning. Property owners need to be able to argue their case when the city adopts them so that the land will be designated for the highest and best use AT THAT TIME. Highest and best uses change over time. When codes are up for changing, the property owners have the ability to argue for those changes to occur then.
You wrote “I've found that most people making that claim are part time libertarians - when THEIR liberty is constrained, they're libertarians, but when they want to control what OTHER people do, they're statists and authoritarians. Those who call themselves liberals are libertarians in the bedroom, and statists at the bank, and those who call themselves conservatives are vice versa.”
Again, I just cannot resist : - ) Some conservatives might say that libertarians are people who have taken their good idea to an extreme. I personally see a role for government. However, once we all agree to the rules, I believe that government and the citizen need to take responsibility for their actions within those agreed to constraints. I do not see government as some monolithic top down determining what comes next form. (Just an aside – for a city where Republicans have been around, UH has some of the most restrictive ordinances. I actually think the city charter should be revised limiting what council can get its nose into.
You wrote “It is the ideology of majority choice, depending on whose ox is being gored. The difference between me and the majority is I support liberty even when it gores my own ox. Plenty of UH residents were very libertarian when we came around with that levy repeal petition. I'm just consistent about it.”
As I’ve noted once the rules are agreed to, then I accept the consequences as well. So the statement holds for many of us that are not necessarily libertarians.
You wrote: “If I point out that junior high school science students are expected to know that the earth's gravitationa pull causes objects to fall at 9.8 m/s/s, does that demean physics? If I say long division is grade school math, does it demean mathematics? The economic principles involved are basic supply and demand, which I learned in 6th grade social studies”
Your examples are natural science examples which follow the rules of science. Economics is a social science. Changing the assumptions will make those basic supply and demand curves model different results. When people argue that economics is 6th grade simply, there is the implied sense that this is so simple everyone will get the same answers – and here is my answer so you all should come to that same conclusion. My comment comes from the understanding that the reality can be quite different!
You wrote “I appreciate a good bit of bombast (could you tell?) but I am tired of the overworked "people good, business bad" paradigm.”
I would agree with this….I approach business from the perspective that they exist to make a profit. They will do what is necessary to make, and improve that profit. Anytime business says to me that they are very invested in social outcomes, I begin to chuckle. The only limitation on what can happen is based on if they might lose some of the consumers that they wants. Think about Waterway. If I am selling a car wash plan that costs (I think) about $ 300, then obviously my target group is a bit more upscale than the person who only will pay 10.00 for a wash and then only when they do not have time to wash their car themselves. So who I have to keep happy is a lot different than the people who might live right around the wash. Which is why I encourage the group to keep the city and its representatives to the fire to ensure the promises made are promises kept if this is approved.
You wrote “The studies consist of city exit questionnaires - people fleeing invasive city government are loathe to answer still more of the city's nosy questions, so they end up studying self selected samples.”
Just an FYI, the studies that I referenced have nothing to do with the mighty UH exit survey. These are studies done by researchers not associated with cities. As to the reason people leave UH – I have not seen a specific research study on that. The statement applies to out migration in general
Sorry can’t resist this…: -) actually there is more than one “normal” distribution than just the bell curve. Sometimes populations do not follow that and we do have the statistical tests to analyze those skewed distributions.
You'd be hard pressed to find a 'normal' distribution for human behavior where the majority of cases were optimal choices.
Rational is what we (each person with their beginning perspective) believe to be rational.
No, rational is when sound reasoning techniques are applied to evaluate a decision. Rational is realistically evaluating the likely consequences.
I would suggest that our consumer society has led to a situation where marketing determines what is “in” not the best.
Sure, but I'm not interested in bailing out those who allow themselves to be manipulated by marketing. When I'm at the gas pump on my 55 mpg motorcycle, and the guy on the other side of the pump is bemoaning the cost of filling up his Humvee, which the marketing people assured him would enhance his sexual prowess, should I give him some money to help pay for his gas?
The other part of the problem is that we no longer teach our kids how to think critically
SOME of us do. I know several people whose parents taught them that, in buying a house, they should never assume they will have any control over what happens past their property line, and why it's a bad investment to buy the nicest house on its block.
I agree but consider the sequence that you noted…. I would note that a bank, a rug dealer and Starbucks are not uses that people would squawk to much about.
THAT'S in the eye of the beholder. The last thing I want at the end of my street is a Starbucks, attracting trendy lemmings to the neighborhood.:) But let's change it up a bit - a bank becomes a check-into-cash business - that's a remarkably similar business in some ways, but a remarkable difference in impact upon the neighborhood and property values. The same can be said for a lot of similar businesses. One clothing store sells business attire while another sells gang regalia. The Alltel store opposite the Waterway site could become an independent wireless store selling mostly pre-paid phones and pagers - similar business, very different neighborhood impact.
I would say that knocking the building down for a rebuild and a totally different type of use is more unusual than normal in this area.
HELLO??? "more unusual than normal in this area????" Have you SEEN what's happened at Cedar Center lately? Is it some optical illusion and Whole Foods is actually wedged into the old Pier One space? There's not a building facing on the Cedar Warrensville intersection that's less than 15 years old, and every structure in Cedar Center older than that has a wrecking ball hanging over it. Why is tearing down a vacant strip mall and putting up a gas station any more radical than tearing down a gas station and putting up a freestanding floral boutique, as we see not 500 feet south of the site in question?
My point simply is that we do not envision that big of a change.
That narrow vision in this respect probably has a lot to do with why you don't own a chain of carwashes like the Waterway investors. That's the thing here - if ALL the people opposed to this got together, they could probably collectively come up with the capital to make AND BACK a counterproposal. If they're all so convinced there are alternatives for this site, that would be profitable, let's see them bet on their own convictions like the Waterway people have bet on theirs.
When it happens we react.
Wouldn't it be better to live life acting rather than reacting? The site has been languishing mostly vacant for over a year. Where were all these people then?
If they are flatly asking the city not to allow any use here, then I would agree. What I have seen is that they are asking for another use.
They are flatly asking the city not to allow any use that anyone with proven business judgment and the willingness to back it up believes will succeed. For commercial property, that's effectively saying allow no use.
The property has had trouble keeping tenants for years, and no one's offered any other proposal. With the hundreds of people who have signed this petition, surely ONE of them might have the wherewithal to entice some investor to offer an alternative. I know for a fact that some very heavy hitters in local commercial development either live in UH or count many residents among their friends.
What, quite frankly, irritates me the most is the city’s zoning codes. Zoning usually does not allow ALL commercial uses in all areas. Rather, there are degrees of what can go where. (Areas zoned for offices, etc) Just looking at the law directors opinion it looks like UH has opted to allow uses based on special permits. So we end up with ambiguous sections that are open to a wide range of interpretation. I would argue that this makes the codes a joke to some degree.
I agree. They seem to have custom designed the zoning for each sub-district. Of course, in my view, that's just a further demonstration of the folly of government micromanagement.
I cannot believe that an experienced planner would write something as vague as this.
Welcome to local government in the inner ring, where passion for power trumps talent and skill.
Property owners need to be able to argue their case when the city adopts them so that the land will be designated for the highest and best use AT THAT TIME. Highest and best uses change over time
Proposing that a "highest and best" use exists is problematic though. That's what got us into the Kelo mess, where property rights exist only for those with connections. The highest and best use is that which serves the owner who put up the capital to buy the property. The minute you suggest any other standard for "highest and best" use, you open the door for anyone in power to impose their worldview upon others in ways far beyond mere zoning, such as dictating what relationships are acceptable for people sharing a residence, how many children a family can have, etc.
When codes are up for changing, the property owners have the ability to argue for those changes to occur then.
That's an even scarier prospect - changing the zoning out from under a property owner.
Again, I just cannot resist : - ) Some conservatives might say that libertarians are people who have taken their good idea to an extreme.
Those would be neocons.
I personally see a role for government.
So do I. Defend the coast, deliver the mail, and leave us alone. Actually, I see the government's role as enforcing the concept that your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose. I don't see an obligation for local government to insure my home value appreciates anymore than I see one for government to insure my stock holdings increase in value.
(Just an aside - for a city where Republicans have been around, UH has some of the most restrictive ordinances.
Yes, because party affiliation in UH government is largely meaningless - some Democrats on Council are extremely conservative, and the Republican mayor has, at times, made Howard Dean look like a card carrying John Bircher. That's why several elected officials in UH have run afoul of the county leadership of their officially affiliated parties.
I actually think the city charter should be revised limiting what council can get its nose into.
That's it - tap than inner libertarian that's in all of us. I agree of course.
As I’ve noted once the rules are agreed to, then I accept the consequences as well. So the statement holds for many of us that are not necessarily libertarians.
No, because it goes not to following the rules consistently, but rather, following the principle consistently in which rules you advocate for.
Changing the assumptions will make those basic supply and demand curves model different results.
Somewhat different, but the overall relationship between them is well established.
When people argue that economics is 6th grade simply,
I said the specific portion of economics involved. The point being that I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect an understanding of the broad principles of supply and demand from every literate adult, especially if they're going to be making six figure real estate purchase.
I would agree with this….I approach business from the perspective that they exist to make a profit. They will do what is necessary to make, and improve that profit.
Exactly, and if they can't make a profit in UH, then they'll take their marbles and go home.
Anytime business says to me that they are very invested in social outcomes, I begin to chuckle. The only limitation on what can happen is based on if they might lose some of the consumers that they want.
Absolutely. However, remember that good will is counted as an asset on the balance sheet. Whether Whole Foods' "green" initiatives are out of the goodness of their heart, or out of the greedy desire to woo green consumers doesn't impact the end result.
Think about Waterway. If I am selling a car wash plan that costs (I think) about $ 300, then obviously my target group is a bit more upscale than the person who only will pay 10.00 for a wash and then only when they do not have time to wash their car themselves. So who I have to keep happy is a lot different than the people who might live right around the wash.
Maybe, maybe not. The people living around the carwash are largely educated professionals. They may not be Waterway customer material now, but they will be in the not too distant future. Also, there is a certain amount of overlap between what goes into an upscale consumer experience and a pleasant neighbor experience - things like an clean, attractive, well maintained facility, and like a product service mix that doesn't attract shady characters. As the business models of Whole Foods, The Body Shop, Fair Trade coffee houses demonstrate, social responsibility is often a part of that miz.
My girlfriend has relatives in the carwash business. It's gone from being a price competitive industry to a value competitive one. Consumers are asking what sort of chemicals are in the soap, and what happens to the water after it's used.
Which is why I encourage the group to keep the city and its representatives to the fire to ensure the promises made are promises kept if this is approved.
I believe I said the same thing - tie the bottom line to being a good neighbor. There is an opportunity for a win-win, but UHNOGAS is treating it as a zero-sum game. That's part of what's making people view them as irrational - some of them seem more fixated on driving out Waterway, sticking it to the other side, than insuring that the site is redeveloped with a viable business that is a good neighbor. I heard remarks about Waterway people sneering, and I believe that's projection. There's nothing personal here for Waterway, no axe to grind. If they get rejected by the city, and find another location in, say South Euclid, and it's just as profitable, it's no skin off their nose, and UH loses tax revenue and jobs. Their willingness to go through this process tells me they see this as a winning investment, and residents should be pleased at such a vote of confidence in their local economy. The residents are the ones unwilling to compromise or discuss changes to the plan - they will only settle for total annihilation of Waterway. They're being petty and shortsighted, because if the owner can't sell the property, given the glut of newer spaces in the district, he'll be forced to rent to bottom tier businesses just to pay the property taxes, and when that happens, the psychic above Geraci's will be considered classy by comparison.
Just an FYI, the studies that I referenced have nothing to do with the mighty UH exit survey. These are studies done by researchers not associated with cities.
ANY study that looks at people's reason for doing something requires them supplying the information, since telepathy is not a recognized data gathering method. People who tell the city surveyors to MYOB are just as likely to tell non-city researchers the same thing. Those who hold a dim view of invasive government don't often hold social scientists in much higher esteem.
I think BWagner makes the key point here: They are flatly asking the city not to allow any use that anyone with proven business judgment and the willingness to back it up believes will succeed. For commercial property, that's effectively saying allow no use.
The property has had trouble keeping tenants for years, and no one's offered any other proposal. With the hundreds of people who have signed this petition, surely ONE of them might have the wherewithal to entice some investor to offer an alternative. I know for a fact that some very heavy hitters in local commercial development either live in UH or count many residents among their friends.
We can't allow the storefronts of UH (especially the vacant ones) to sit unused until we get to the point where our commercial districts are rented to anyone who can help the owner pay taxes. Go to the intersection of Northfield Rd and Miles Rd to see what happens when only low rent businesses operate out of dilapidated shopping malls. There is a strip mall much like the one at Bushnell and warrensville ctr road that today is occupied by a licquor store, a lottery ticket store, a check cashing store, and a cell phone store. That's the future of that strip mall unless someone reinvests in it.
By no means does it have to be a carwash, but that is up to the investors in the area to decide, if someone from UHNOGAS or any of their friends could offer the strip mall owner a comparable price to use the land for a better use, then by all means do it.
And don't forget the huge amount of space vacant across the street that used to be TOPS either..
UH is a city gasping for tax dollars to keep up with its richer neighbors (Beachwood, Mayfield Hts) and isn't blessed with diverse retail districts like they are. UH has to try to get the most it can from what small areas are commercial.
A nedical building like the one Dr. Senders had, with an agreement to provide parking on yhr Dollar NAnk parking lot, that is usually empty, would work. I know that there are people that would be interested in that, What's wrong with that idea? Why can't be done? In this way everybody would be happy..., and richer. Medical professionistt bring good, clean, money
You'll probably remove this post but I might as well air it out anyway. Here is a few things you might consider.
1.) This is private property. It is also currently zoned as it needs to be for Waterway. You bought houses with that knowledge, presumably.
2.) We had Rossman's Sunoco on the corner of Silsby and Warrensville for decades. UH thrived during that time. This is a couple hundred yards away in a much nicer facility. I would venture to say UH was as nice or nicer than it is now. As gas stations go, they do not make or break a city. It is unreasonable to say they do. According to your supporting documentation on YOUR blog, "The only safe gas is no gas". If that does not smack of stupidity, I am not sure what does. I can only assume you put this on your blog b/c you to are cut from the same sort of reasoning.
3.) Consider what stands on that property today. No reasonable (emotionally detached) person would disagree this facility is better than the building that stands there today.
4.) TAXES. Folks, if you want to know what is going to break the back of the Heights, this is it. Young families cannot afford them and nobody has the appetite to pay more. This will help offset what we know is coming, a reduction in state funding. If this does not get built, you have nobody to blame but yourselves when we have a checks cashing establishment in its place.
This is not a "Disney" like structure as a prominent realtor in the area has stated in the Sun Press, it is what you see in most cities which are growing. Try driving to Hudson, Solon, Avon Lake, Westlake. Please, stop standing in the way of progress with zero data to back your emotionally charged claims up. I am really curious who is behind all this. I do not for a second believe that this is just some neighbors who got together to protest a gas station. On any given nice weekend in the spring, summer, or fall I can drive down Warrensville and see college students drinking (or already drunk), playing cornhole, in the front yard of their run down rentals. These same kids have children's pools setup to lounge in with their fold-out chairs. It looks HORRIBLE. That said, nobody seems to mind that when I bring it up, but god forbid we have a carwash / gas station that provides a service to fill a demand in our community. To those people who say this (Waterway) will negate UH's title of "City of Beautiful Homes", I am curious how this proposal, on Warrensville center road, in a existing shopping district, will cause this issue. I am curious how that works while we have Warrensville Center, between Silsby and Fairmount, looking like it does, more and more like a college slum. It is a free market and slumlords can buy those houses and student can live there, that is not my point. My point is that it is odd the things people choose to complain about considering other issues around them. Maybe because they are Carroll students and hence off limit to criticism by many of the same people I see leading this charge (including a certain recently elected councilman who is a JCU grad). Or maybe they have just gotten emotionally so wrapped up in this they cannot see the forrest for the trees. Either way, let the market dictate what happens to this COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTY, not the government or people who complain about it but have ZERO alternatives lined up.
You'll probably remove this post but I might as well air it out anyway. Here is a few things you might consider.
1.) This is private property. It is also currently zoned as it needs to be for Waterway. You bought houses with that knowledge, presumably.
2.) We had Rossman's Sunoco on the corner of Silsby and Warrensville for decades. UH thrived during that time. This is a couple hundred yards away in a much nicer facility. I would venture to say UH was as nice or nicer than it is now. As gas stations go, they do not make or break a city. It is unreasonable to say they do. According to your supporting documentation on YOUR blog, "The only safe gas is no gas". If that does not smack of stupidity, I am not sure what does. I can only assume you put this on your blog b/c you to are cut from the same sort of reasoning.
3.) Consider what stands on that property today. No reasonable (emotionally detached) person would disagree this facility is better than the building that stands there today.
4.) TAXES. Folks, if you want to know what is going to break the back of the Heights, this is it. Young families cannot afford them and nobody has the appetite to pay more. This will help offset what we know is coming, a reduction in state funding. If this does not get built, you have nobody to blame but yourselves when we have a checks cashing establishment in its place.
This is not a "Disney" like structure as a prominent realtor in the area has stated in the Sun Press, it is what you see in most cities which are growing. Try driving to Hudson, Solon, Avon Lake, Westlake. Please, stop standing in the way of progress with zero data to back your emotionally charged claims up. I am really curious who is behind all this. I do not for a second believe that this is just some neighbors who got together to protest a gas station. On any given nice weekend in the spring, summer, or fall I can drive down Warrensville and see college students drinking (or already drunk), playing cornhole, in the front yard of their run down rentals. These same kids have children's pools setup to lounge in with their fold-out chairs. It looks HORRIBLE. That said, nobody seems to mind that when I bring it up, but god forbid we have a carwash / gas station that provides a service to fill a demand in our community. To those people who say this (Waterway) will negate UH's title of "City of Beautiful Homes", I am curious how this proposal, on Warrensville center road, in a existing shopping district, will cause this issue. I am curious how that works while we have Warrensville Center, between Silsby and Fairmount, looking like it does, more and more like a college slum. It is a free market and slumlords can buy those houses and student can live there, that is not my point. My point is that it is odd the things people choose to complain about considering other issues around them. Maybe because they are Carroll students and hence off limit to criticism by many of the same people I see leading this charge (including a certain recently elected councilman who is a JCU grad). Or maybe they have just gotten emotionally so wrapped up in this they cannot see the forrest for the trees. Either way, let the market dictate what happens to this COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTY, not the government or people who complain about it but have ZERO alternatives lined up.
And don't forget the huge amount of space vacant across the street that used to be TOPS either
Which is a prime example of what I'm talking about. The University Square project never would have happened without the TIF deal, and that's why anyone with a decent head for business could have told you it wouldn't succeed. If a developer has a sound business plan, then it will attract private capital and financing. Those who are successful in business will be willing to risk their OWN money in the venture.
If they can't get private financing, it's because those in a position to know smelled something wrong with the business plan. That's why CH lost half a million dollars in a bad loan to the mayor's political patron, Steve Presser, so he could dabble in the restaurant business. Whenever a business venture is facilitated by government assistance, it's best not to bet on it succeeding, because it means no one else would bet their own money - the local officials always bet SOMEONE ELSE'S money, for which they are not truly accountable.
Waterway is willing to invest their own money in your community. The way the community is treating them is not the way to engender more such willingness in the future.
A nedical building like the one Dr. Senders had, with an agreement to provide parking on yhr Dollar NAnk parking lot, that is usually empty, would work I know that there are people that would be interested in that, What's wrong with that idea?
Clearly some people need a refresher course in capitalism. What's wrong with that idea is that no one with the necessary capital is interested in it. The money for something like that doesn't just fall from the sky - someone has to WILLINGLY invest it, and the fact that no one is interested in doing so is a strong indicator that it's not a viable business venture, maybe because there are two medical buildings within a block of Cedar/Warrensville that are underoccupied already.
People invest in such projects in order to make a profit, and apparently, no one with the necessary capital sees a potential for profit in that. I'm sure all the UHNOGAS people could come up with lots of other ideas what to do with the property, but if dreams/ideas were ponies, beggars would ride. Your idea is worth exactly as much as you have to invest in it. People with money to invest didn't accumulate that money by making bad investment decisions, so, in answer to your next question, yes, their estimation of what's a good investment is more credible than yours. When you've made as much as they have, then your ideas will carry the same weight, AND you'll have the capital to make them happen.
We all have ideas. I have TONS of ideas on what almost every business on the planet should do. Those ideas, and 3 dollars, will get me a cup of Starbuck's finest.
Adding to the glut of medical office space will only make things worse. If Dr. Senders was prospering, she could have offered enough rent to make it profitable for the building owner.
The people with the capital, who WANT to invest in your community, see a carwash succeeding there. No one else in a position to invest sees any other potential. With all the empty space at University Square, anything that CAN fit into that facility WILL, before going and rebuilding across the street. Thus, the first litmus test for any proposal is, can it be done in University Square. A carwash/gas station is one of the few businesses that just can't be done in University Square. The owner of the strip mall is between a rock called University Square and a hard place called Cedar Center - they've rendered his retail space worthless, and forced him to find a use that can't disdain his location for one of those two, or for any of the other newer, more suitable spaces currently available in the Cedar/Warrensville area.
Post a Comment