CityVoiceCLE Local updates. Clear action.

CWRU Is Replacing Yost Hall

By Veronica Maciag

Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) has recently announced the details of its new project on the Case Quad. In place of the building formerly known as Yost Hall, CWRU is constructing the Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering Building (ISEB). Here’s everything you need to know about it.

What is Yost Hall?

Historically, Yost Hall functioned as a primary dormitory for the Case Institute for Technology—one of two universities that had later merged to form what is now Case Western Reserve University. Later, with the formation of CWRU, the building’s purpose shifted to house the university’s Department of Mathematics, Applied Mathematics, and Statistics. Yost Hall has now run its course with this purpose as well.

What will the ISEB be Used for?

CWRU’s President Eric W. Kaler has expressed his aspirations for this building to align directly with Case’s mission for fostering research and community engagement. The ISEB is meant to combine these two focuses in prioritizing several issues that are urgent to the globe, such being climate change, health disparities, and artificial intelligence applications and developments. Here, the building will promote intersectionality between students of all fields to explore such issues. CWRU is crafting the ideal place for its newly introduced major—experimental humanities—to thrive.

When Will it be Finished?

Now, the ISEB’s completion will take place by the end of the year 2026, which is in time for the bicentennial celebration of CWRU’s founding. Ultimately, the ISEB is the largest project on the Case Quad yet. Costing around $300 million dollars, this 200,000-square-foot building represents a new and eagerly anticipated development by the entire CWRU body.

Source: The Daily

Cleveland For Sale?

By Bruce Checefsky

An overwhelming number of vacant and abandoned properties in the city of Cleveland from decades of mortgage foreclosures, delinquent taxes, and people walking away has created a dramatic rise in properties acquired by in- and out-of-state investors buying single-family homes. The result of this rise in investor-ownership is a housing submarket that is largely rental and no longer controlled by locals, with limited opportunities for new homeowners and the associated benefits of stability, health, and wealth building. Local government is left to handle the resulting blight of an overwhelming number of vacant and abandoned properties. Lack of access to credit in low and moderate-income areas magnifies the problem.

Sally Martin, Director of Building and Housing for the City of Cleveland, addressed the issue at a recent Ohio Fair Lending Coalition and Cleveland State University Levin College of Urban Affairs forum, How Should ARPA Funds Address Housing Issues in Cleveland? Housing experts on the panel included Kevin Nowak (CHN Housing Network), Antoinette Smith, Empowering and Strengthening Ohio’s People (ESOP), Zach Germaniuk (Slavic Village Development), Chris Knestrick, Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless (NEOCH), and Ed Stockhausen, Cleveland Neighborhood Progress (CNP).

In 2021, the city of Cleveland received the eighth largest allocation of American Rescue Plan & Recovery Act (ARPA) funds, totaling $512 million over two years, with half of the funds received in fall 2021. The remaining balance is available for spending. The Building and Housing Department is seeking $50 million to incentivize housing and home repairs and create a revolving loan pool for small and minority contractors to build in underserved neighborhoods.

While reviewing the Center for Economic Recovery’s Process Overview, part of Mayor Bibb’s Rescue & Transformation Plan, Martin said there were several progressive stages in assessing applications for ARPA funding. The stages include developing a strategic framework to prioritize the funds, assessing and evaluating Center recommendations, strength proposals with input from the Center, reviewing legal ramifications, and reconciliation with City Council. The Center for Economic Recovery consists of eleven members from the Bibb administration—all chief officer and director level positions— and Brad Whitehead, Senior Fellow at Brookings Institute.

Evaluation criteria for ARPA funding include strategic alignment, measurable outcomes, racial equity & inclusion, community impact, global competitiveness, financial leverage, longevity, and environmental sustainability. The desired outcome, according to Martin, would be the development of 1,500 affordable housing units and 1,650 market-rate housing units. “We desperately need to fund housing development in southeast Cleveland,” said Martin. “We hope to leverage this money to entice developers.”

Kevin Nowak, executive director, CHN Housing Partner and CEO of CHN Housing Capitol, proposed three criteria for ARPA spending supporting Bibb administration housing incentives, including home ownership. Nowak said the best way for families to build wealth and for communities to stabilize and thrive is through home ownership, and efforts must be citywide, accessible, scaled, collaborative, and equitable. “We have to build upon the significant investments the city and county have made during the pandemic,” he said. “Access to the capital for developers to engage in acquisition rehabilitation on a much larger scale is needed. We need a holistic approach to housing. Purchase mortgages, down payment assistance, and home repair resources can lead to more home ownership.”

Antoinette Smith, a director at Empowering and Strengthening Ohio’s People (ESOP), said housing transition assistance is missing from the city-sponsored ARPA plan. As Director of Housing and Council, Smith said Market-rate housing rents are unaffordable for most seniors seeking housing assistance through ESOP. There is no senior housing available. The holistic approach is confusing for most seniors, with few resources for people caught in the complex, layered approach to financing. “We receive at least thirty calls a day asking for utility assistance alone,” she said. “Defaulting on utilities can lead to foreclosure.” Smith added that real estate investors outbid seniors looking to purchase a home. Rental and utility assistance and property tax assistance programs are underfunded. ARPA dollars should help with multiple problems, not just as a remedy for a single housing issue.

Zach Germaniuk, Director of Neighborhood Stabilization, at Slavic Village Development, explained that the Slavic Village neighborhood mirrors the population of Cleveland. What happens there happens throughout the city. Working with housing insecurity, as he does almost daily as a housing advocate, Germaniuk emphasized the importance of providing the necessary wrap-around services for households struggling with multiple housing issues. “Money is available to low and moderate-income homeowners for renovations. It does not necessarily have to be access to capital, but access to insurance is a barrier. Contractors will not work on a house without a homeowners insurance policy,” he said. “While many people have a roof over their head, support systems to help them keep it are not there.” Germaniuk encouraged the Center for Economic Recovery to proactively address tenant and landlord issues through early intervention between a landlord and tenant. With additional support, tenants can effectively assert their rights before eviction occurs.

“Housing is a human right,” said Chris Knestrick, Executive Director of the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless. “Over 90% of the people entering our homeless shelter are people of Color. We need to spend ARPA money to research how much wealth was lost by communities of Color, either through racist housing policy and land theft, and make reparations to them.” Knestrick added that empowering renters and enforcing fair housing with ARPA funding could go a long way to support city residents, whether homeless or not. With an abundance of poor housing stock in Cleveland, people live in condemned homes. Resources to relocate them are lacking. “We need emergency assistance for people to relocate out of these buildings more than we need more code inspections,” he said.

The final panelist was Ed Stockhausen, Senior Vice President of Advocacy & External Relations, and Cleveland Neighborhood Progress. With investments in housing high in the city, despite redlining, racist housing policies, and predatory lending, which has stolen wealth and held back Cleveland, he cited ARPA funding as a way to level the playing field. Gap financing and preservation of existing affordable housing top his list of recommendations. Down payment assistance will increase the number of homeowners and residents, and home repairs will follow, according to him. “Lower interest rates might encourage more home repairs,” said Stockhausen. “Add lines of credit to minority business owners to grow their businesses. It will strengthen our neighborhoods. We need to renovate old storefronts and invest in entrepreneurs. We should invest in the quality of life, from our recreation centers to multipurpose bike lanes. We want people to stay when they visit us.”

A portion of this article first appeared in the Plain Press.

City Council Needs to Fix the Development Process the Commissioners Can’t

By Ronald Calhoun

The city says there is a need for more population density. The Ward 7 community at a recent community meeting agreed to discuss concerns over Marous Development Group, which is building a 139-unit, five-story, market-rate apartment building on 82nd street in Hough. Throughout the room the consensus was not against development, but for the need for investment, engagement, and connection with the community by the city and the developers.  The City of Cleveland has ignored residents in Little Italy, University Circle ( Hessler Rd. ), Hough (Famico’s.), and once again in Hough (82nd St. development ).

Most times when a project is presented to Cleveland City Planning, Commission member August Fluker asks the same question, “have you talked to the community?” If you review the YouTube videos of the Cleveland City Planning Commissioner’s meetings, it’s amazing how many times the question is not answered.  It’s just not fair to any of the parties who are involved. It’s not fair to the developers, the Design and Review Committee, the City Planning Commissioners, and most importantly, the community.

Resident, LaJean Ray said, “We need to provide housing for our legacy homeowners and our seniors who are eventually going to downsize and can’t afford market-rate apartments.”

Rhonda Bowman-Raines, another resident, stated, “Essentially, my home will be surrounded by concrete. This is a complete change to the landscape of the neighborhood and the neighborhood appeal. This huge edifice will be sitting on the corner covering up homes that have been here for decades. This was not the trajectory anticipated for the Hough area.  It was anticipated that this area would once again thrive as a well-defined neighborhood, with a diversity of individuals, and a diverse housing stock entertaining home ownership in the heart of the City. This monstrous apartment does not add to that.  Homeownership that generally thrives in a neighborhood is lost on this type of edifice.  It also does not lend itself to a diverse background of people living in the area since these apartments will go for market rate. I deliberately chose this area because it reflected a diverse background of people; not just those who can afford to live in market-rate apartments.  I am not against development in the Hough area, but the development has to be done to MAINTAIN and INCREASE the neighborhood appeal, not OBLITERATE it.”

Several other residents expressed concern and were not hesitant to say they do not want this kind of development.

“I agree, the process for development in the city of Cleveland is broken,” said Council President Blaine Griffin.

The City of Cleveland wants more development to gain more population density. The community also wants development but on different terms, for example, development that is aesthetically comparable to the existing housing. Here in lies the clash.

Let’s take a look at the development landscape in the housing market in Cleveland and some solutions the city needs to consider.

Post-pandemic, the indicators show that the housing market is booming! Of the households in Cleveland, 55% are occupied by renters. This seems to indicate that the market is perfect for rental property investment. Rental property investment is usually based on single-family housing prices. When there is a surge in housing prices, generally there is a surge in availability in the rental market.

The reason Cleveland is so attractive is that homes are selling quickly, and the average price is affordable. The average price for a home in Cleveland is $115,000. The diversified economy also helps the surging housing market in Cleveland.  If the price of single housing grows, this will make the rental market strong in Cleveland.

There are a couple of things to consider, however. Cleveland has seen its population shrink by over 6% between 2010 and 2020. Secondly, the city’s population is nearly 373,000 and the metropolitan population is more than 2 million, ranking Greater Cleveland as the 34th-largest metro area in the U.S. The population of Cleveland has decreased 2% year-over-year but the median household income grew by 1.8%. That is the result of a job market that has increased.

The most affordable neighborhoods in Cleveland for renters include North Broadway, Mount Pleasant, and South Collinwood, where rent averages less than $850 per month.

The most expensive areas to rent include Downtown Cleveland, Hough, and Tremont, where average rent ranges between $2,250 and $2,550 per month.

Cleveland has an affordability index of 1 out of 10, meaning the metro area is one of the more affordable places to own a home in the U.S.

What does all this mean? The housing market has to increase for the rental market to increase. In effect, that is not happening enough to justify the number of new apartments and other multi-unit developments between 55th Street and 105th Street on the Chester Avenue corridor where there are older homes and new custom homes.  

There are many consequences to rental development without paying attention to the housing market. The following community considerations need to be addressed:

  • Lack of new housing
  • Lack of present owner Incentives
  • Access for lower income households
  • Reduced property values
  • Long-term effects of tax abatement
  • Lack of quality retail
  • Education disparity
  • Parking variance burden to adjacent houses

Ward 7 has a wide variety of family demographics which makes it very difficult to manage as a political leader. There are legacy homeowners who have never given up on the community. There are the new legacy owners who chose to build in Hough. Also, there are renters who would love to purchase a home in Ward 7. The community has come to realize that Ward 7 is becoming the best location in the “Best Location in the Nation.”

The guiding principle in selling or purchasing a home is Location! Location! Location! That includes good schools, easy access to transportation, and good shopping.

Once the City of Cleveland starts to:

  • enforce housing, retail, and commercial laws,
  • limit tax abatements to potential homeowners,
  • focus on incentives to grow businesses and retail, and
  • continue to evolve the public schools to attract diversity, the density will follow.

Once Cuyahoga County

  • stops dragging its feet on foreclosures,
  • ends the favoritism of Community Development Companies (CDC) getting access to land before the public,

and the State of Ohio

  • stops giving out vouchers that kill the public school system;

everyone will want to live in Hough, Fairfax, Central, Glenville, and Buckeye.

The immediate solution?

  • Legislation is needed to hold community meetings before the developers submit a proposal. The present process is not fair to the developer or the community.
  • There should be 50% representation from the community on the City of Cleveland’s neighborhood design and review committees.

Residents should not fear expressing what they want from leadership. The question is, will the city respond to what the residents want?

The Money Picture

By Bruce Checefsky

Community Development Corporations (CDC) are nonprofit, community-focused entities whose mission is to support affordable housing, economic development, safety, and social services. CDCs work closely with a representative from the local government but are not a government entity.

The first CDC in Cleveland was the Hough Area Development Corporation, formed in 1968. By 1989, the City of Cleveland dedicated nearly $9 million to housing-focused nonprofit corporations through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program.

CDBG is a federally funded grant program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and provides annual grants for housing, and expanding economic opportunities for low and moderate-income individuals and families.

Cleveland Neighborhood Progress (CNP), created in 1987 by the Gund Foundation, Cleveland Foundation, and Mandel Foundation, leverages resources for a coordinated, strategic, and scaled approach to rebuilding the city. CNP works in partnership with members of the City Council to distribute federal CDBG funds to the local CDCs.

In 2021, more than $21 million in CBDG funds went to Burten, Bell, Carr Development in the Kinsman neighborhood, Famicos Foundation in Glenville and Hough neighborhoods, St. Clair – Superior Development, MidTown Cleveland, Inc., and twenty-two other city-wide CDCs.

CDCs are traditionally set up by community members or local groups like churches and civic associations and run by paid employees. For example, a review of Form 990 for the period ending June 2020 shows that Burten, Bell, Carr Development holdings include land, commercial and apartment buildings, and equipment totaling more than $9,746,359.

Former Executive Director Timothy Tramble had an annual salary of $151,896. Joesph Marinucci, the former President & CEO of Downtown Cleveland Alliance, had a base compensation of $269,045. When added to his deferred compensation and nontaxable benefits, Marinucci earned more than $303,000 in 2019.

Critics claim the spillover effects of CDCs hinder urban economic revival and threaten to keep the poor in poverty.

During a breakout session at the Cleveland City Council retreat last January, several council members expressed concern that CDCs need a better vision for the community. Repairs to commercial and residential properties often go unresolved. Processing claims is painstakingly slow, and contractors do not get paid on time.

CDBG funds are spread unevenly across the city, with some neighborhoods receiving disproportionally more than others.

“Historically, Cleveland proved that community development was possible at the hyper-local level,” said Molly Schnoke, Project Manager, Center for Community Planning and Development, Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University. “One of the consequences of funding is how CDBG dollars get allocated in Cleveland. The city decides where and at what level to support, and the CDCs have to operate within that limitation.”

Schnoke said residents need to understand how the city will use federal funds to support the Cleveland 2030: A Housing Equity Plan. The report states that 55,600 currently habitable homes need substantial repairs by 2030, and 20,000 units need replacing. A continuing population decline suggests that, without new investments in homes and neighborhoods, the city will lose 310 households every year between 2020 and 2030.“I do not know if the city has articulated that yet,” Schnoke said.

Adam Drue King, a technologist with a community development focus and owner of several properties in the Hough neighborhood, said CDCs could be good or bad depending on the leadership. People are leaving their jobs at the CDCs under the Bibb administration, and residents of Kinsman, Buckeye, and parts of Central feel the CDC is ineffective. “CDCs do not use enough resident voice and impact in the work that they do,” said King.

Public Meetings vs. Private Interest

By Bruce Checefsky

In May 2021, the Cleveland Planning Commission held a special meeting without taking steps to notify the public and reporters.

The Commission discussed a proposed elevated park on the Shoreway, and railroad tracks to connect the downtown area and the lakefront.

The Haslam Sports Group is behind plans to include housing and commercial development around the FirstEnergy stadium. Ohio Sun Law Guidelines, available on the Attorney General Office’s website, state that public bodies must establish a reasonable method of alerting the public to the time and location of special meetings. The purpose is to give at least 24-hours notice to media outlets that have requested it.

The City of Cleveland Euclid Corridor Design Review Committee approved a conceptual design for a 57-unit, market-rate apartment development in the Hough neighborhood, despite the lack of advance notice to the public. Famicos Foundation, a nonprofit community development corporation, is the developer for the project.

Chester75, located on the northwest corner of Chester Avenue and E. 75th Street, reportedly received approval from the local design review committee with two abstentions. A search on the Cleveland Planning Commission’s YouTube channel did not find a record of the meeting.

The City Planning Commission sets the agenda for meetings of each design review advisory committee. They work with the local community development corporations to prepare applicants for the meeting. Public notice is required. Any person or organization is allowed time to express their opinions.

Lillian Kuri, an architect, and Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Cleveland Foundation, was recently appointed new chairperson for the commission. Kuri is the first woman to serve as chair of the planning commission. She succeeds David Bowen, a principal of Richard L. Bowen & Associates, Inc., a Cleveland firm specializing in architecture, integrated engineering, and construction, over conflicts of interest with his role on the commission. Bowen served on the Cleveland City Planning Commission for 25 years.

“This is an opportunity of a lifetime,” Kuri said in a recent cleveland.com article. “I want to work with the administration to set an agenda.”

Terry McNeil relocated to Ohio after spending more than 30 years in Miami, where he worked in the restaurant and entertainment industry, organizing music festivals and corporate shows. In 2015, he returned to Cleveland to clean out the family house where his grandparents lived on E. 84th Street between Wade Park and Superior Avenue. McNeil visited his grandparents’ home every weekend until moving to Miami. After cleaning the house, McNeil knew he had to live there.

“It was amazing,” he said. “This is a mansion. There is no way we could build this same house for less than half a million dollars today.”

Once he finished with the house, McNeil decided to clean up the neighborhood by cutting grass on nearby abandoned lots and pressuring the city to fix the streets. He even has a Facebook page called Fix Our Streets 216. When it comes to new construction in the neighborhood, he has mixed feelings.

“I have no problem with new development. I have a problem with the design. Most of the homes in Ward 7 are old Victorian-style architecture. You lose the identity of a neighborhood when you start building futuristic buildings,” McNeil said, referring to Park Lamont, the proposed apartment complex on E. 97th Street and Lamont Avenue.

“The planning commission and design review need to be more demanding. City council members need to work harder. When the financial incentives flash in front of their faces, they forget everything about who they are and where they come from.”

Drive the $331.3 million Opportunity Corridor

Ohio Department of Transportation

OPPORTUNITY CORRIDOR:
The purpose of the Opportunity Corridor Project is to improve the transportation system and support planned economic development in the areas between I-490/I-77 and University Circle in Cleveland. The area between I-490 and University Circle includes a part of Cleveland known as the “Forgotten Triangle” due to the lack of economic activity. Aside from the transportation benefits it could bring to this part of Cleveland, this effort opens the potential for new economic development, new jobs and a new identity for the community.

An Opportunity Corridor Steering Committee was formed which includes representatives from ODOT, the City of Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, Greater Cleveland Partnership, area Community Development Corporations (CDC), Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, business owners and other local stakeholders. The Steering Committee is staffed by Greater Cleveland Partnership (GCP) and is drafting a community and economic development plan for the corridor project area.

OPPORTUNITY CORRIDOR: Study Goals
In 2004, ODOT retained a consultant team led by HNTB to conduct the Opportunity Corridor Study. ODOT and its engineering consultants at HNTB continue to meet with various partners at the City of Cleveland, GCP and community stakeholders.

There are three primary needs that have been identified by the Opportunity Corridor study:
• Improving system linkage among the roads, neighborhoods, and businesses in the area
• Improving mobility between the Interstate system and University Circle
• Supporting planned economic development

OPPORTUNITY CORRIDOR: Project Overview
In working with local stakeholders and public officials, the purpose of the project was developed. The purpose is to improve the roadway network within a historically underserved, economically depressed area within the City of Cleveland.

The project follows ODOT’s Project Development Process (PDP) for major projects. The 14-step PDP is a project management and transportation decision-making procedure that outlines project development from concept through completion.

During steps 1 through 4, four conceptual alternative solutions were developed and analyzed. The Steering Committee and local stakeholders evaluated the alternatives. It was recommended that only two potential corridors be carried forward for further study.

In March 2010, the project team subdivided the two study area corridors and identified three distinct, geographical sections. The three sections are comprised of the Western section from E. 55th Street to East 75th St.; the Central section identified as E. 75th St. to Quincy Ave; and the Eastern section from Quincy Ave to Chester Ave along E. 105th St. In each geographical section (West, Central and East), three alternatives for each section were identified for further study.
In July 2011, the Steering Committee identified the Recommended Preferred Alternative based on input gathered from the City of Cleveland, CDCs, neighborhood stakeholders and the public.

The Recommended Preferred Alternative would build a boulevard-type road with a wide median and traffic signal. It would also include pedestrian and bicycle paths, tree lawns, landscaping and access to RTA busses and trains. A “No-Build” alternative continues to be evaluated.

OPPORTUNITY CORRIDOR: Next Steps in the Public Involvement Process
Based on public input, the study team continues to evaluate the Recommended Preferred Alternative in more detail as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). During the evaluation period, the study team will continue to investigate ways to avoid, minimize, and mitigate possible impacts. The findings of the DEIS will be presented to the public later this year and comments will be sought to develop the final alternative.

OPPORTUNITY CORRIDOR: Community Benefits Area
A development work group comprised of public, private, CDC representatives and neighborhood
stakeholders, facilitated by GCP, have worked together with a local architectural firm, and identified eight to ten potential development sites throughout the community benefit area of the project for future re-use. To date, two of the development districts have preliminary master land use plans. The conceptual roadway plans will be reviewed with each of the CDC partners for feedback to determine that the effort is moving in the right direction and remains consistent with the community’s overall master plan and the City of Cleveland proposed land use plan.

OPPORTUNITY CORRIDOR: Cost
In April 2013, the Federal Highway Administration coordinated a project Cost Estimate Review. Based
on this review, the total cost of the project is estimated to be $331.3 million. The project estimates consider all currently known work required to build the project including the costs of final design, project administration and management, land acquisition, utility relocation, implementation of environmental commitments and mitigation measures, and construction activities.

OPPORTUNITY CORRIDOR: Project Challenges
• Residential and Commercial property impacts (includes individual units in multi-resident
buildings) in an economically depressed area
• Rail issues: proposed corridors run along Norfolk Southern, GCRTA (all three lines) and
CSX tracks
• Funding Detail Design, Right of Way and Construction Phases
• Major Utility Relocation impacts