Cherokee Mural Artist Wants View Unobstructed
Edwin George writes to city leaders about mural at 237 N. Water St.
Photos
Pdfs
The artist of a mural adorning the building at 237 N. Water St. has lent his support to preserving the neighboring green space and the view of his art work.
Former Kent resident Edwin George, who now lives in North Carolina, wrote to members of Kent City Council and the Kent Planning Commission Aug. 21 regarding plans to locate the Kent Wells Sherman House on the lot next to the Scribbles Coffee Company building.
George, a full-blooded Eastern Band Cherokee, painted the mural in 2005. A former resident of Silver Oaks Place George moved out of Kent a few years later when an oil well threatened garden space at the former retirement complex.
His hand-written letter is attached to this article.
How the house is situated on the lot has been of concern for both city officials and members of the non-profit Kent Wells Sherman House Inc., which is organizing the house's relocation.
The planning commission approved a site plan Sept. 4 that puts the house 13.5 feet back from the sidewalk with the goal of preserving the view of George's mural.
Wilburforce
8:47 am on Saturday, September 29, 2012
Isn't there a better place for this house ? Really ?
Mars
9:02 am on Saturday, September 29, 2012
I agree.
Mars
9:08 am on Saturday, September 29, 2012
If you go to the KWSH's page you scroll down you'll see a photo of the wonderful "vacant" lot and directly below it you'll see a rendering of what it will supposedly look like with the ridiculous house plopped down. Notice the discrepencies in lot size. They make the lot bigger/wider to accomodate the house and make it seem like they can wedge it in there without removing trees. You can't just scoot the SRCA building over as they did in their new photo.
The photos:
http://kwsh.org/Images/VacantLot.jpg
and then:
http://kwsh.org/Images/kwshfinalclean.jpg
It's not even possible. What an inaccurate depiction of what will really happen. Goodbye trees, hello shady solar panels...
Eric M. Miller
11:11 am on Saturday, September 29, 2012
What about putting the house where the Robin Hood was? It will be much more visible.
Eric M. Miller
11:40 am on Saturday, September 29, 2012
...the Old Robin Hood lot is owned by Lincoln & Main LLC and valued at about $65,000. Other options are the northwest corner of the intersection of S. Lincoln and E. Summit, owned by DuBois, valued at about $35,000. Or the southeast corner of Franklin Ave. & W. College (in the open lot across from where the Farmer's Market sets up). It is three parcels that are owned by Charles Thomas & Gary Hewitt (Tomwitt Ltd.), and valued at about $45,000. There is also a nice space south W. Summit between Franklin and the railroad tracks, only valued at about $10,000 (lot owned by the Nypano Co., 200 W. Willians St., Kent., 330-673-4914).
Eric M. Miller
11:47 am on Saturday, September 29, 2012
Ooh... Best Spot Yet!.... Put it where the gazebo is downtown. There should be enough space there to move the gazebo down closer to the Pufferbelly (or across the street to Hometown plaza. Also, that lot is already owned by the City of Kent. There is probably no better place to showcase the historic home.
Traci Monroe
1:12 pm on Saturday, September 29, 2012
I am soooo sick of the whining about the "green space" where were all of you when Kamburoff's was essentially run off their farm and all that development went in, that was "green space" worth saving. This PRIVATLY OWNED dinky little lot downtown in a commercial district isn't. To think that this property would never be developed is short sighted to say the least. The city can and should do nothing but uphold it's zoning. SRCA had plenty of time to make a purchase offer in the last 20yrs, they did not.
jim francis
12:41 am on Sunday, September 30, 2012
now there's a good one
Patricia
9:17 pm on Sunday, September 30, 2012
I agree with you Traci. They have had the use of that lot for 20 years and never had to pay a thing.
Fritz Seefeldt
2:22 pm on Saturday, September 29, 2012
The Kambiroffs' sold the farm for a handsome profit and bought a farm near Ashland Ohio. Last I talked to Dan, he and Julia were quite happy running a drainage and irrigation company and still growing their sweetcorn for area farmers' markets. For a couple years Dan sold his corn at Haymaker to keep in touch with everyone.
We really need to find a better spot for this house soon.
Traci Monroe
7:31 pm on Saturday, September 29, 2012
That's good to hear, I'm glad they are doing well. I just don't remember the loss of the last working farm in Kent, to a new development with hundreds of houses and loss of acres of "green space" causing as much controversy as this tiny little lot downtown in a commercial district, surrounded by a bunch of businesses.
Fritz Seefeldt
2:28 pm on Saturday, September 29, 2012
The Kamburoffs' sold the farm to a housing developer for a handsome profit and bought a farm near Ashland Ohio. Last I talked to Dan, he and Julia were quite happy running a drainage and irrigation company and still growing their sweetcorn for area farmers' markets. For a couple years Dan sold his corn at Haymaker to keep in touch with everyone. We really need to find a better spot for this house soon.Want to leave a comment?
jim francis
12:48 am on Sunday, September 30, 2012
i still think Kent could take a lesson from Burton Ohios Century village,conglomerate all the old buildings in one location aside from the "New Kent" charge admission and make a few bucks in the process.
the house doesn't fit the Water Street neighborhood,it sticks out like a sore thumb.
Traci Monroe
7:55 am on Wednesday, October 3, 2012
The powers that be in the City of Kent are not interested in preserving Kent's history, they are only interested in helping Kent State expand and take over the City.
Fred Pierre
4:26 am on Monday, October 1, 2012
Listening to the crickets and katydids in the greenspace on North Water Street tonight. Nature brings with it so much life.
Traci Monroe
7:51 am on Monday, October 1, 2012
I sit and listen to crickets and katydids, on my own property not someone elses!!!
I also get to see rabbits and deer and of course annoying little field mice that are nesting in my garage attic.
T
9:12 pm on Monday, October 1, 2012
Just to straighten out the assumptions that have been made here and other places, no, SRCA did not use this land at NO cost. The land was maintained for the last 20 years. Did SRCA receive payment for maintaining it? They received a reciprocal use of the land. Did the owner pay for the removal of invasive species at $200 a pop? No. Did the owner pay for the mower that was bought to care for the space? No. Did the owner pay for the maintenance of the mower? No. Did the owner pay for the gasoline for the mower? No. Did the owner pay for the rain gardens to prevent rainwater erosion? No. Did the owner pay for the organic gardens? No. Go ahead... Guess who did. (HINT: SRCA with zero reimbursement besides reciprocal use of the land, which most would call in-kind rent.) If you don't have the facts, please refrain from spreading presumptive misinformation.
Traci Monroe
9:43 pm on Monday, October 1, 2012
SRCA did not have to do all of that. They chose too. Why they didn't choose to buy the property is their loss. Who paid taxes on the lot? Who maintained insurance on the lot? There is no presumptive misinformation being spread. They had the privilege of using the lot which could have been revoked at anytime.
T
11:07 pm on Monday, October 1, 2012
It is presumptive misinformation to state that people were run off their farm if they willingly sold. To discuss the city upholding its zoning when it changed the zoning for this project is presumptive and not entirely informed. To state that SRCA had use of the lot for 20 years and never paid a thing is both presumptive and plainly incorrect. (In fact, everyone was criticizing SRCA for the invasive species that SRCA was apparently not to pay to have removed so wronged if they do, wronged if they don't. Pick which it is and then stick to that.) To presume that these are SRCA folks speaking out is also presumptively incorrect in most cases (Fred and I are it on this thread). You're forgetting hundreds of citizens in the equation, the mural artist (that's who the article actually was about if you reference back), or the fact that SRCA offered to buy (not force the owner to hold rent-free). Sure, SRCA did not HAVE to work the land but that wasn't what I was correcting and isn't really the point. It only further shows the intrinsic value that caretakers put into the land (at no profit or reimbursement except the reciprocal use for which SRCA has been grateful) but absolutely with expenses that SRCA chose to incur in the care for it. That's not without cost or investment as stated.
T
11:18 pm on Monday, October 1, 2012
The land was not purchased because the owner never had it for sale. SRCA believed that the owner wished to retain it as an asset, which would explain why he would continue to pay property taxes on it year after year. If he had approached us or advertised it for sale, this would all be different. Why didn't KWSH purchase the historic home all of these years? Because it wasn't in danger. It's no different except that green space supporters have had an attachment and investment for as long as 20 years while the house has been of interest for the past few months and no one has asked for public funding for the green space but they have for the house and a great number of the public want it elsewhere. KSU was willing to talk. According to City correspondence, the City was willing to talk. KWSH reps were not. There are (better) spaces. There are cost-effective alternatives. There's a public outside of SRCA who are not happy and they are speaking out, which is their right. Others don't have to agree. It's in poor taste that SRCA's name keeps being dragged into this and villainized every time a member of the public speaks.
Traci Monroe
8:06 am on Tuesday, October 2, 2012
It is presumptive misinformation to think that lot would remain undeveloped. I did not say they were "run off" I said "essentially they were run off", to explain this would digress too much. I think it is very presumptive of people to recommend other property for this house, unless they own the property they are recommending they have no right to essentially offer up that property. One thing has been made perfectly clear, at least to me, is that just because a property is undeveloped doesn't mean that it is up for grabs for anyone to do with what they wish. I myself was under the misconception, for decades, that the lot on Water street was a vacant City lot and not privately owned. In my opinion the only talking the City is willing to do is with Kent State, but that is also a different subject.
David Badagnani
4:27 pm on Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Why do 20 previous comments not even mention octogenarian master artist Edwin George or the content of his letter? Have some respect for one of our city's great artists, who is the subject of this Patch article. And thank you, Kent Patch, for giving Mr. George's point of view space to be heard. (Although I'm not sure any of the above people have actually read what he had to say.)
T
8:30 pm on Tuesday, October 2, 2012
One of my comments actually did because I'm not sure how it turned into an attack on SRCA when SRCA was not even mentioned in the article. Others who enjoy the mural and are supportive of Edwin George made comments regarding alternatives. I'm not sure why the article came now since the letter was from August but Kent Patch did allow him to have a voice and it does deserve to be respected and not called "whining."
T
8:14 pm on Tuesday, October 2, 2012
If someone can show me where anyone from SRCA stated that the lot would remain undeveloped forever, I will gladly concede that to be presumptive to say.
Unfortunately for those viewpoints that hold that people shouldn't have any input about how their tax dollars are spent (or who forget that's the case here), people do have rights. This same right may be fully appreciated if those same people ever want it. The offer of other locations is an effort to save 2 things instead of selfishly vying for 1 but no good deed goes unpunished in this issue. The house is being donated to the City (not KWSH) according to KSU reps but you won't read that in the Patch. KSU will confirm for you, however, as will the Stater.
Neither the house nor land appear to belong to KWSH at this point in time and public funds+in-kind support (i.e., free, absolutely no cost which I can see is a huge issue to folks) is being received from the City. City reps have been willing to speak and held a joint meeting with all parties involved so there's a little inside info for those who don't have it.
I'd appreciate if people would stop acting like SRCA and others are camping out like bandits on this land, rather than having used the land with the knowledge and gracious permission of the owner in return for reciprocal care at SRCA's expense. Let's have a little reality here. Statements here just sound anti-SRCA, rather than pro-preservation or pro-development. Disgust seems to be with the owner's charity.