taxpayer money+temporary location expired by three months+no public support+no way to generate income to pay back public money? time to shut this down.

how much time should the KWSHI be granted to generate income? they can't even relocate the house! this has been a tremendous waste of tax payer money.

I support the move of the Kent Wells Sherman House to the site, and I hope the city council renews its commitment to support this effort. I hope the court finally puts an end to this ridiculous lawsuit and allows the legal owners of the land to go forward with moving the house.

I agree the lawsuits have gone on way too long. Seems the garden folks lost and need to move on.

However, public money shouldn't be used to save this house. If someone wants to save it, KSU is selling it for practically nothing so there's plenty of cost savings there. The house is not architecturally appealing; it's a white square with no distinguishing features other than how the roof ties into the square. It was a rental house for years so the interior probably has no distinguishing design either, if it ever did. Just because a building is old is not a good reason to save it, especially with public funds. There are other older and more historically significant homes and buildings in Kent already being well preserved.

I completely agree with Sally! Is council taking tips from failing businesses? Isn't the point of all this to generate more income? Maybe I am wrong, but come on! The council needs to have a sense of urgency to get things done much quicker, or else they will also lose their sense of urgency when I run against them to do my part in making Kent a better place and acting quicker to citizen demands...

Yep, this is Kent. Of course it's tax payer money. Thanks.

And obviously a lot of people find this house to be a bad move. If not, none of this would be going on. The house would have been moved and found a home long ago. The people in love with the house have talked down with disdain at anyone who desires to run barefoot and love nature instead of worshipping a junky old college rental. After a couple hundred thousand dollars to bring it up to code, what's the grand plan with the house? What a waste. Next up, Rick Hawksley writing a blog on the need for greenspace. Oh, bring on Kent's blast of irony.

Can we put a moratorium on hearing about this issue? This story is such an irritation. The Standing Rock folk are out of line with their lawsuit claiming rights to something they don't own. The KWSH people seem to be delusional in thinking this house has the same kind of historical significance as Monticello. A lot of money and energy is being wasted, both private and public to feed into the inexplicable egos of these two organizations.

Please spare the community from more of this and let these outlier groups fight like children on their own time!

Sometimes I wish the Kent Patch had a like button! Some of these comments are spot on!

I agree that public funds should not be used for this house. It was used as a rental for a number of years & probably doesn't have any significant historical value.

The city has never had a problem loaning tax payers money before or buying property for a higher than normal amount only to resell it at a lower amount also using tax papers money. Give the group the money so they can start the work and get this beautiful home to it's new location. I know a lot of people will help redo this home free of charge--just give them the chance!

Here's a wonderful idea... How about moving the house to where the site of the Farmers Market and have it open when the market is open! This way, the farmers can rent a space inside to help cover maintenance, rent, utilities... and the poles and wires for electricity are already there!
DUH

I wish those Standing Rock people would stay out of this. They are the ones who have been holding this up. An overwhelming majority of the good people of Kent want to see the house on that lot. This is about preserving our history here folks not showing off our lawyers

Just to be clear, SRCA itself isn't involved in this lawsuit.

Also, I am curious where @Moral Woman's "overwhelming majority" was during any of the public discussion of this topic.

Let me clear up a few items here. People in the above comments state the Save the Standing Rock Garden lost and should allow this house move. Actually, the contrary occurred. The group won in the Planning Commission's July vote to deny the relocation of the house to the property. The group argued its case and presented petitions with 400 signatures of people opposing the move. KWSH presented their argument for the move, but lost. The law states the Planning Commission cannot reopen its decision for one year. Though KWSH does not want the house next to the sidewalk, they presented this alternative plan to a secret Architectural Review Board meeting in August/September. Two members of the ARB recused themselves from voting, since they play an active role in favor of moving the house, but violated the law by being involved in the discussions of the merits of the case.(continued below...)

The ARB rejected the next-to-the-sidewalk plan, which even KSWH didn't argue in favor of, and approved putting the house in the middle of the lot, which was a closed issue since the Planning Commission already vetoed that. The Save the Standing Rock group didn't attend the ARB meeting because the meeting was not announced to the public in accordance with well-established statewide "Sunshine" laws. The Planning Commission then violated the law by reconsidering the relocation proposal within less than one year of its prior denial, and the Planning Commission approved the plan they had just vetoed two months prior. The one-year law exists to prevent groups such as KWSH, McDonald's, Domino's Pizza etc. from presenting the same plan over and over again. However, where other developers abided by the one-year rule, KSWH received special treatment due to their connections with these people in city government. Because of these violations of the law and this corruption, the Save the Standing Rock group filed suit. They won the argument the first time around, and that victory was stolen from them through the corruption of the legal process.

"Next up, Rick Hawksley writing a blog on the need for greenspace."

$$$space must be more important to him than greenspace?