Cleveland artist Steve Manka was selected to design and build a public art
installation for the City of Shaker Heights as part of its streetscape
modifications at Lee Road and Chagrin Boulevard district. Manka’s design
is a 12 x 180 ft. sculptural installation composed of giant blocks of Amherst
sandstone resting on steel piers. The stones will be elevated on the steel
structure and spaced every 50 ft. just above plantings of prairie grasses.
“Hopefully, it will appear as if the wall is floating, just above the grasses in
the summer,” says Manka. Manka, who won last year’s competition to
design and fabricate the ‘eco-fence’ at the Cleveland Environmental
Center, adds that the piece pays thematic homage to the historic Shaker
gristmills.
About 25 to 30 artists entered the competition, which was sponsored by
the city. Manka was awarded a $1000 stipend and will work with the head
of the Sculpture Department at the Cleveland Institute of Art to fabricate
the piece for installation in early fall 2004. The public art is the first step in
remaking the Lee-Chagrin shopping district into a lifestyle retail center with
new housing, traffic calmed, narrower roads and an avenue that cuts
through the giant parking lot.
Recently, the heads of all the major organizations housed in University
Circle were handed a roadmap to Peter B. Lewis’ heart -- and the key to
unlocking his millions in philanthropic dollars. Lewis explained that the UC
directors have to collaborate if a future proposal is to get his Benjamins.
The Progressive chief explained that he intends to support a mixed-use
development, i.e. one that includes commercial, residential, public uses
and retail such as restaurants, bars, bookstores, coffee houses, movies,
newsstands and fun things for people of all ages. Of course, with
developer Bert Wolstein committed to a mixed-use space at Ford and
Euclid Avenue, perhaps Lewis’ largess could be directed toward other
areas of Euclid or even a mixed-use development around a Rapid station.
A source informs Bruce blog that the directors have been meeting and
taking long walks in University Circle.
“This is one of the answers to sustaining affordable housing,” says Marge Misak, founder
and director of the Cuyahoga Community Land Trust. “The difference between a land
trust house and a traditionally subsidized home is the affordability.”
The time has never seemed more perfect for a land trust considering the recent debate
about the role of public money in residential development. If you doubt it, just try buying
a house in Ohio City these days. Misak is convinced that the land trust will change a few
minds about the supply side economics of affordable housing in Cleveland’s hottest
market area. And maybe even spur a slumbering giant in others. Read the full article
Recent moves in the urban planning, design and development community:
Ohio City Near West Development Corporation executive director John
Wilbur has left the nonprofit community development corporation for a job
as assistant director in the city of Cleveland’s Community Development
department. Wilbur (and development director Laura Noble, now assistant
director at OCNW) was the primary force behind the revitalization of the
Market Square district and storefront development on W. 25th Street.
Also, Starting in March 2004, Mandy Metcalf joined the Cleveland
EcoVillage as its new project director. She succeeds David Rowe, who
moved to a position in the City of Cleveland's Department of Community
Development.
Metcalf previously was an urban planner at Kent State University's Urban
Design Center of Northeast Ohio, where she worked on redevelopment
projects in the Broadway and Cudell neighborhoods. She also helped plan
improvements to RTA transit stops, including the recent Transit Waiting
Environment survey.
And Tim Russo, who has worked on political campaigns in Ohio including the
winning state senate campaign for Mahoning County’s Tim Ryan, joined the
Greater Ohio balanced growth campaign as the Northeast Ohio director. Russo
was most recently working with civic advocacy groups and political parties in the
UK, Eastern Europe, the former Soviet republics, and Central Asia on election
campaigns, legal reform, election observation missions, and citizen participation in
local government. Tim is a graduate of Cleveland State University and Case
Western Reserve University School of Law.
From: Michael A. Dolan
> > To: ohiocity@yahoogroups.com
> > Cc: winebar806@a...
> > Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 9:52 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ohiocity] West Side Sun News Article
> > on March 18,2004
> >
> >
> Tony:
>
>
A friend forwarded your email comments to the
> Ohio City News. For the record, I have attempted to
> conduct research into the who, what's and why's of
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
who is buying tax abated housing in Cleveland and
was incredibly suprised to find the our Dept. of
Community Dev. has no statistical information on
buyer's pre abatement address or where they work.
As a city councilman, my job, first and foremost, is
to deliver high quality municipal services --safety, public service and recreation to our
residents. Obviously, we are having difficulty
accomplishing this task. Indeed, I live on a
secondary street in Westpark. From mid December
through the end of January, not one snow plow
cleared the street. This spring my parks won't be
cut as frequently as they have in the past, making
it difficult for recreation leagues to run their
baseball, soccer or other activities. Why? Well,
simply put, we don't have the money.
So let's look at our tax abatement policy.
Residential tax abatement is designed to attract new
residents to Cleveland for the benefit of taxing
their income. If you already live and work in
Cleveland a 2% income tax is levied.
Residential
tax abatement for this group has negative value. If
you work in Cleveland and live in a suburb,
Cleveland levies a 2% tax upon your income. Tax
abatement for this group adds little to our bottom
line. If you live in Cleveland and work in a
suburb, Cleveland levies up to a 2% tax on your
income. Property tax abatement again adds little to
our general fund. Lastly, if you live and work
outside of the city, no income tax is levied.
Accordingly, since the city already levies an
income tax on all persons who live and/or work in
Cleveland, residential tax abatement's maximum
benefit is realized when individuals and families
who live and work outside the city build a home in
the city. Present policy attempts to attract large
numbers of middle, upper middle and high income
residents by offering a 15 year, 100% property tax
abatement on all new home construction.
Theoretically, new residents will move into
Cleveland to take advantage of tax abatement,
disregarding marginal municipal services and
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
non-competitive public high school graduation rates.
If our current policy works, individuals and
families who earn their livelihood in Hudson,
Westlake, Mayfield Heights or Beachwood will move
into Cleveland to save a few thousand dollars a year
in property tax. These new residents will move
into town and build expensive homes in a city with
marginal and declining municipal services. They
will conveniently ignore the public high school
graduation rates near 40%.
At the same time, the
stakeholders who have willingly paid property taxes
over the years won't move to the suburbs to enjoy
lower taxes and better schools and municipal
services. Moroever, these stakeholders will even
increase their property taxes by voting for new
school levies.
I believe our current tax abatement policy
sacrifices value for a developers marketing tool.
It ignores the fact that you cannot deliver the same
levels of service to more households without
increased funding, especially if the levels of
service are to improve or even remain constant. I
do not believe that these simple truths are lost or
ignored by middle, upper middle or upper income
familes, especially when they are considering where
to locate their single greatest investment --their home.
Given all that the city of Cleveland has to
offer, I don't think it is too much to ask that new,
upper middle and upper income homeowners (single
family homes) pay property taxes to support the
schools and services. Indeed, I believe that these
individuals and families are more concerned with
value ---- good police, fire, waste collection and
parks.
Property taxes are our "third largest revenue
source". This year alone, they will pay for $46.6
Million Dollars of service, hardly an irrelevant
sum.
Moreover, property tax importance has
increased substantially over the past few years as a
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
result of the State's drastic budget cuts to the
Local Government Fund ---- "our second largest
revenue source". It is no secret that fiscal
constraints have forced a reduction in basic
municipal services. At the same time, Cleveland
residents will face a 10-15 mil property tax levy
for the public schools that will raise property
taxes a staggering $500-$750 per $100,000 of home
value.
Perhaps our policy should be that abatement is
available to new residents (i.e. those who live and
work outside the city) only. Perhaps our policy
should limit residential tax abatement to the
increased fair market value of your home if you are
an existing Cleveland resident who moves from
traditional housing to tax abated housing. Perhaps,
tax abate policy should be made on a project by
project basis. For example, the administration
currently is proposing new high income housing
downtown along the lake front. Great. If a
mult-family high income project would actually draw
new residents whose income tax we have not already
captured, then I have no problem with a 15 year 100%
abate. If, however, the new residents already live
or work in Cleveland, I see no reason to abate such
housing, especially when its uniqueness creates a
uniquely marketable project.
The whole point is that we a a city need to fine
tuning our residential tax abatement policy to
maximize its value so that the local government can
properly fund service and education.
As for you and your neighbors living in new homes, I
think its great. Let me ask you though, would you
pay roughly $2,500.00 more a year to have high
levels of municipal service and increased funding
for the schools? To feel safer in your community?
To have a cleaner community with better amenities,
higher values and an increased local retail
presence? In my district, an overwhelming majority
of the constituents leaving for Westlake, Avon,
Medina, Solon, etc. all want lower taxes, better
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
schools, higher levels of service and better retail.
Finally, I was amazed that City Hall did not track
the details on new residents in tax abated housing.
So we asked CSU Urban Studies what information they
had.
Amazingly, they had not tracked the
information either. The only study provided was the
"HERITAGE LANE PROJECT, a Market Analyis of Economic
and Demographic Characteristics". It was prepared
by The Center for Housing Research and Policy,
Maxine goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs, CSU
2002. Unfortunately, it doesn't quantify how many
new incomes the city has captured through tax
abatement policy. However, it quotes one developer
in the following manner. " One builder had readily
available data on buyers. Of 140 buyers, average
income was $48,270; average sale price was $124,900;
average household size was 2.5 persons; 87% of the
buyers were Cleveland residents; 13% moved into the
city. Most movers-in where from close-in suburbs."
No information is provided on whether the city
already captured the income tax of those moving in
from the suburbs.
To be fair, the report also states that "A mid west
side developer reported that 59% of homes and
townhouses average about $125,000 were from the
suburbs." Again, it doesn't say where these buyers
worked so it is not possible to determine whether
the City's financial position was improved.
--- winebar806@a... wrote:
>
> I was reading the front page of the West Side Sun
> News this evening and was
> really confused by Councilman Michael Dolan's (D-21)
> comments concerning tax
> abatements. The city's tax abatement policy does not
> need to be changed.
>
> Mr. Dolan needs to complete a little more research
> on the demographics of
> neighborhoods such as Tremont, Ohio City and Detroit
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Shoreway. Mr. Dolan states
that properties valued at more than $143,000 fail to
persuade high-income
people to move into the city. I beg to differ with
that statement. Where did he get
his research from to make this type of statement? I
am confident that if a
sample survey was completed in the new housing
developments in my neighborhood
that household incomes would surpass over $50,000 a
year.
An individual that works and lives in the City of
Cleveland is paying $2,000
per year in city taxes based on the annual salary
above.
Our neighbors are all young single professionals
that can afford to move
elsewhere. However, they made the choice to live,
and in most cases work in
Cleveland. In addition, they frequent the local
stores, restaurants, taverns,
grocery stores, dry cleaners etc. Thus, bringing
economic impact to an area where
drugs, abandoned homes and prostitution was rampant
just a few years ago.
I agree with Mayor Campbell's that tax abatements
attract people and it
rebuilds neighborhoods.
Yes, we need to get jobs in this town. However, if
we do not provide new
housing and give an incentive (tax abatement) forget
about bringing new job
opportunities. In addition, forget about the
construction jobs that come with these
jobs! If he wants jobs to come to the city, let's
pull out the plans for the
proposed convention center. Read John Long's column
in the Food Section of the
Cleveland Plain Dealer on Wednesday. We continue to
see restaurants and
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
businesses fail each week because we do not have
tourism to support these venues.
Do Mr. Dolan's comments have any merit? Absolutely
not! I really beg to
differ with his reasoning and he needs to bring more
facts to the table. I strongly
urge the City of Cleveland NOT to support Mr.
Dolan's proposed legislation.
Mr. Dolan is not making a whole bunch of sense to me
or to my neighbors that
live in these new homes!
Tony
Bridge Avenue
Ohio City "Heights"
Recently, the heads of each major organization housed in University Circle
were handed a roadmap to Peter B. Lewis’ heart, and the key to unlocking
his millions in philanthropic dollars. Lewis explained to the UC directors
that they will have to collaborate if a future proposal is to get his
benjamins. The Progressive chief explained that he wants to support a
mixed-use development, i.e. one that includes commercial, residential,
public uses and retail such as restaurants, bars, bookstores, coffee
houses, movies, newsstands and fun things for people of all ages. Of
course, with developer Bert Wolstein committed to a mixed-use space at
Ford and Euclid Avenue, perhaps Lewis’ largess could be directed toward
other areas of Euclid or even a mixed-use development around a Rapid
Station. A source informs Bruce blog that the directors have been meeting
and taking long walks in University Circle.
he cares about vibrancy, wrote a memo I conclude best way for me to help
Cleveland is multiuse development that attract people and greatly enhance
contribute toward multiuse projects or fix infrastructure (
He encourages walking
Right after he wrote email six directors got together and looked at Euclid
Ford East and want to
Focus efforts on make University Circle a more walkable district
Establish separate fund for paying world class architects
Gehry came to town and Hundert wrote a memo