Letters to the Editor
May 2010
Architectural Historian challenges points made
in article on historic district proposed for Scranton Rd.
To the editor: (Plain Press, May 2010) This letter is sent to you in response to the April 2010 Plain Press article pertaining to a recently proposed new Cleveland Historic District at Scranton and Seymour streets. I am the architectural historian referred to in this article, who actually made the nomination for this. There are numerous misconceptions in this article and the intent of this letter is to correct those misconceptions.
I will begin with the far-fetched suggestion that I was “in charge of drafting the legislation”. Firstly, there is no legislation; that would come only if and when this proposal would be fully approved by City Council. Secondly, only the City Council committee invested with this task can draft such legislation; I am an ‘outsider’, which disqualifies me. Thirdly, I could not do this even if I was asked; I simply do not possess that skill.
The major misconception of this article is the expressed belief that Historic District status would, overnight, increase Property Taxes. I decided to investigate this by calling the County Auditor’s office (216-443-7089 or 216-443-7092). I called on different days and talked to different persons, including a Supervisor. I specifically asked if Historic District status being added to a property, which previously did not have this status, would result in an automatic increase in Property Taxes. In both cases, I was told that this is NOT TRUE. I was told, in no uncertain terms, that there are only two factors that the Auditor uses for this calculation: the first is “Market Value”, and the second is the Tax Rate of your particular local Tax District. The former is nothing more than what other properties, similar in age and condition, located in close proximity to yours, have actually sold for within a relatively recent timeframe.
As a matter of fact, in nearly all of the established Local Historic Districts on Cleveland’s East Side, where deterioration and decay have continued to increase, the Property Taxes have declined.
Another misconception expressed in the April 2010 article is that Historic District status would somehow result in “requirements” that the limited incomes of the homeowners in question could not support. When contacting the staff of the Landmarks Commission (216-664-2531) regarding this, I was told that there are no “special” requirements associated with this status. The Maintenance Requirements are no different than the requirements pertaining to all properties in the city of Cleveland. Does this City send Inspectors to investigate the condition of properties within Historic Districts? The answer: absolutely NO. In fact, this is also true regarding any location. Inspectors do this on a complaint-only basis; the Division of Building & Housing does not hesitate to tell anyone this (216-664-2282). One needs to do no more than take a close look at properties all around the city, including those within established Local Historic Districts. For the homeowners in question, they need to go no farther than the Tremont Historic District, where they will find scores of properties not meeting at least some of the Maintenance Requirements.
I also wish to inform all parties as to (1) what circumstances led to this Historic District proposal, in the first place, and (2) what facts actually corroborate that this little fragment of a neighborhood (fourteen properties) should be considered ‘historic’. In 2006 a house at the corner of Scranton and Castle was suddenly, unexpectedly demolished by its owners, apparently due to damage from a fire. This alarmed at least a handful of property owners, some immediately nearby and some at least within the general area. The undeniable ‘plus’ of Historic District status is the guarantee that all major changes to the outward appearance of the district, including demolitions, would be reviewed by the City and the public – this house might not have been lost if this status was then in place.
In response to this concern and its inherent urgency, I researched the original histories of the nearby properties and submitted the nomination in January of 2007. Just a few of my discoveries were: (1) one of the oldest burial grounds in Cleveland, begun before this was part of Cleveland; (2) nearly all the houses on the east side of Scranton between Mentor and Castle having been built for Jacob B. Perkins, an occupant of Euclid Avenue’s “Millionaires Row” and one of the most prolific real-estate developers of late-19th-century Cleveland, who built them at a high-enough cost to attract only upper-middle-class buyers; (3) two apartment-type buildings on Seymour that were both built for a very prominent physician and surgeon named Charles Humiston, who also owned the simple house adjacent and occupied it for nearly twenty years.
I hope that this letter will help to clear up some of the misconceptions and myths that were expressed in the April 2010 article in the Plain Press.
Craig Bobby, Architectural Historian
RTA rider says service cuts have happened before
To the editor: (Plain Press, May 2010) I’ve read all your letters about RTA scaling back on the #25 Madison in Cleveland and not Lakewood and although I agree with the letters this isn’t the first time the RTA has screwed the Ohio City neighborhood and West Side residents.
They screwed us out of the 20B Route a few years back. I have to transfer to a 51 to get to Pearl & Biddulph when before I used to ride the 20B from Lorain & 25th all the way to Pearl & Biddulph. That made no sense to change that.
Bus service runs a lot better over on the east side than on the west side (been like that for years). My point is, we as Westsiders should be used to RTA screwing us in the you know what and the bad thing is, ya’ll just noticing it, when I’ve noticed it for years.
Richard C. Swartz, Jr.
Ohio City resident and regular rider of Routes #22, #20A, #35, #79, #81, as well as the Rapid Train.
Prevent diabetes with diet and healthy lifestyle
To the editor, (Plain Press, May 2010) UnitedHealth’s proactive new approach to reducing diabetes cases—and insurance premiums—by paying the Y.M.C.A. and pharmacists to help people lose weight or better manage their conditions may actually help “reform” many Americans’ health. By exercising and eating a healthy vegan diet, people can prevent—or control—diabetes and other life-threatening diseases.
According to the American Dietetic Association (ADA), vegetarians and vegans have lower rates of diabetes than meat-eaters do. One study, published in Diabetes Care, even found that 43 percent of the diabetics who ate a low-fat vegan diet reduced their need to take medications to manage their disease, compared to only 26 percent of those who followed the non-vegetarian diet recommended by the ADA. The vegan group also lost more weight and significantly lowered their cholesterol. For more information and a free vegetarian starter kit, see www.GoVeg.com.
Heather Moore
Research Specialist
PETA Foundation
News & Articles | Archives
|
