This morning’s Plain Dealer had a story describing the condition of downtown’s Public Auditorium---conditions which have led the proposed Medical Mart developer to abandon plans to use that facility.
At first glance, I thought I was reading the report on the old church building that sits on the city hall property.
It turns out that both buildings have many of the same significant problems—problems that are a barrier to cost-effective renovation---including water leakage and outdated electrical and heating systems.
But according to a 2008 structural engineer’s report, the old church building is in even worse shape than Public Auditorium because it:
- has an unusable septic system and is not connected to the sanitary sewer system;
- is riddled with mold due to years of leaking roofs;
- most likely contains asbestos tile;
- has minimal insulation and substandard doors and windows that have to be replaced;
- lacks air conditioning; and
- has non-operational, substandard and/or non-repairable plumbing, electrical and heating systems
My October 2nd blog contains a detailed discussion of the structural engineer’s report and his cost estimates (based on 2008 dollars) for razing vs. renovating the building.
It is hard to read the engineer's report and not conclude that the tipping point has passed, as far as renovating the old church building.
The issue that council must decide is whether to spend a minimum of $ 775,000 in public tax dollars to restore a decrepit and substandard building—a building that the city has no current use for and which was purchased for a now-obsolete purpose (so Bass Energy could drill a gas well on city hall property).
Council's vote on the old church building will be very revealing. Residents will be able to see for themselves which council reps are practical, fiscally conservative decisionmakers and which ones are big spenders, who treat tax money like monopoly dollars.
About Face!
It was an unusually lively Committee of the Whole meeting last night---and an amusing one, as far as the about-faces pulled by Councilman Ted Anderson and Councilman Frank Legan.
Suffice it to say that I now have two names on my list, for the next time Old Navy has its annual sale on flip flops.
Councilman Anderson
In attempting to lessen the cost of his pet $ 300,000+ old pool house renovation project, Councilman Anderson has, in the past, suggested that some of the additional work resulting from the proposed construction plan--including the need to provide new electrical service for use during Home Days--should be dropped. At the Sept. 1st Committee of the Whole meeting he went so far as to say, “You take away Home Days and it all disappears.”
My, how things have changed.
Two months ago Councilman Anderson was willing to get rid of Home Days to save money on the old pool house renovation project. Last night, however, he was suddenly all about Home Days.
Although I have rarely seen him initiate ideas during council meetings, Councilman Anderson quite actively put forth several different suggestions for improving the Home Days festivities.
Flip flop
Was Councilman Anderson merely angling to stay in the public eye after he loses his council seat in January? I can’t say for sure, but regardless, Mayor Coleman promptly appointed him to a spot on the Home Days committee.
(Post-script: Anderson is quoted in the Nov. 26th edition of the Sun Messenger as saying, "I will be back running (for council) in two years..." so I guess that explains his sudden burst of interest in Home Days-- and Mayor Coleman's quick action in appointing Anderson to the Home Days committee.
In the same story Ted Anderson also---quite amusingly---blames party politics for getting in the way of his reelection on November 3rd. That makes me wonder. Do you suppose Ted he didn't realize that the election was, like, a political election (maybe because last time he simply walked into the Ward 4 council chair)? And do you suppose Anderson realized the irony of his statement---given that he himself included, in the only piece of campaign literature that he distributed, an endorsement from a locally prominent Republican party member?
Well, after attending council meetings for two years, all I can say is that with Ted Anderson, what you see (and hear) is what you get. )
Councilman Legan
There was discussion last night about both the Catalano’s property (it is still in litigation about the Marc’s lease) and the vacant Ron’s Shell gas station property (at the corner of Wilson Mills and Bishop).
In the past, several council members (including Councilmen Legan, Anderson, and Pilla) spoke on behalf of the current owner of the gas station property, who hoped to cash in on his speculative investment by getting approval to use the property for a drive-through food business.
The sticking point for that plan was that such businesses are not currently allowed in Highland Heights (under our zoning laws) and a traffic study indicated that it would not be advisable to put a drive-through business on that lot in any case.
Last July, during the July 7th Committee of the Whole meeting, Councilwoman Murphy suggested that members of the city’s economic development committee should sit down with both the gas station property owner and the owner of the adjoining little business strip, to see whether a deal could be brokered, allowing the strip business owner to buy the property.
According to my notes from the July 7th meeting, Councilman Legan was totally dismissive of Councilwoman Murphy’s idea. In fact, he went so far as to declare that it would be “antagonistic” to have the economic development committee get involved and that following such a course would “antagonize” the owner of the gas station property.
What a difference a few months make.
The discussion last night again turned to the gas station property. As before, council seemed to recognize (although perhaps the owner does not) that the gas station property has very limited commercial marketability, given its small size and location, and that a good solution might be to have one of the adjoining commercial business owners buy the lot to add to their properties.
Councilman Anderson, who favors having the city buy the gas station property (although with what money, he didn't say), asserted that the business strip owner was not interested in purchasing the property.
Councilwoman Murphy reported to council that she had talked to the business strip owner several times and that she was interested in buying the gas station property, but not for the purported $ 450,000 asking price demanded by the property's owner.
Councilwoman Murphy again brought up her idea of having the city’s economic development committee sit down with both property owners, to see if a deal could be worked out.
Now here's the amusing part.
When Councilwoman Murphy mentioned that this approach had previously been dismissed as “antagonistic”, Councilman Legan quickly replied, “Absolutely not.” He was now all for the idea.
Flip flop
To his credit, Councilman Legan and the rest of council now seem to be on board with having the economic development committee take a more proactive approach towards finding zoning-compliant solutions to economic development challenges in the city.
Councilwoman Murphy's suggestion was a sensible one. It's great that Councilman Legan has flipped positions and finally come to realize that.
end
