Ridiculous...does this mean Kent loses another historic home?

A win for property owners!! Yay! I wouldn't dare tell my neighbor what to do with his yard. Most patriotic citizens of Kent that I talked to have been all for the move and relocation. Glad the move to North Water is imminent and also Kudos to KSU for not giving in to playing the "run the clock" game that "Save the Standing Rock Garden" was so desperately trying to play. Also turns out all that talk about the Sunshine Laws was irrelevant as most people already knew. Seems all the cards Standing Rock was playing turned out to be irrelevant. This really is a long term win/win for the community at large.

Enough about this dang house already........move it and get it over with.

Not a win for us :( My daughter will miss that space.

I heard there is a group of rare purple & yellow toads living underground in that garden!

Thanks Tom! You made me laugh instead of crying. Keep up the good work!

This is obviously the right decision. It is true that, as the ruling states, "Plaintiffs have no ownership ... no legitimate claim, and no express permission to exclude Wells-Sherman from improving its lot." I look forward to seeing the house moved to its new location. I hope the folks who used and tended the land for so many years with such care can continue to use the land around the house and perhaps the house itself. And I hope that folks can heal from all the bitterness that this has generated. The people on both sides of this dispute are good people. I hope there can be reconciliation.

What saddens me is that this "war" is between two groups whose memebers probably have more similarities than differences. I'm sure on many issues they would be on the same side. I know how important the lot is to SRCA and I'm sad for their community that this space is going to be different for them. However, KWSH has done nothing illegal or immoral. SRCA had no "right of first refusal" to that space (to my knowledge which albeit is next to nothing.) I believe KWSH has offered the house and yard for SRCA's use. So now we have so spin this and think about all the new and different things that SRCA can do with the house. Yes, it's going to look different than what past programs on that lot have looked like but different doesn't have to be bad. Maybe some new great thing will be possible for SRCA at the house that wasn't possible without the house. I hope these two groups can come together in peace and use their powers for good.

I live just up the street from the new location of the Wells Sherman House. I am THRILLED that such an historic home will now grace our neighborhood. Thank you!

More things the magistrate indicated in his decision according to the online scan on the court site were that two ARB board members involved with the project did violate their own ordinance by speaking before recusing themselves from the vote (Banker Boyle even voted before stepping back to recuse himself on record audio transcript). The magistrate just determined that the other 3 would vote the same despite this influence.

He also denied Fink's argument that Kent is not required to follow sunshine law which appears in Kent's own charter that Fink argued protected them from state law. He just determined that limited access to the meeting info is reasonable. He also essentially determined that even if/though codes were broken by the plan commission, there was a precedent of that so it was okay (but that one's paraphrasing of course). And he weighed heavily on ownership that happened after the appeal was filed. Yeah, Kent totally doesn't have egg on its face. Give me a break.

if the house is turned into a homeless shelter i might be convinced that it has anything to do with community or improvement. or perhaps kent's homeless can sleep under the eaves of one of the new fast food joints in our new downtown strip mall

A comment was removed for violating Patch's terms of use. http://kent.patch.com/terms

Kent State is paying to move the house which, we have been told, is the same or less than tearing it down. Otherwise, KWSH funding is all borrowed money and donations, not taxpayer funds. We closed on the property Oct. 19; the legal case was filed on Nov. 2. We did not know about legal threats when we bought the property but were following reasonable steps in the wake of the favorable decision from the Planning Commission. The purchase process began in early October and closed on the 19th. Our plans to share the main floor with the public-at-large remain in place although the delays have increased costs and altered our timetable. At greater expense we are creating a platform at the rear door to allow for wider public usage and occasional outdoor performances. Despite the expensive legal war waged by SRCA supporters we still intend to find ways to cooperate with our immediate neighbors, SRCA and Scribbles. There is also a new storefront church which has opened nearby and perhaps they could find some occasional use of our main floor facility when it is completed.

The decision has been made so people ought to figure out how to accomidate themselves to the new reality. While I understand SRCA's position, it was primarily their lack of foresight that cuased them to lose the place. Did they honeslty think that they could get a free ride forever? That, with the town changing as it has for the last few years that, maybe someone or some group would purchase the land? Did you ever make an effort to purchase the land and garner public support for such an effort, Did you ever fully imagine or even inform the public of your vision for this land? Or did you just react? As a resident of Kent for over 40 years and a supporter of the greater mission of Standing Rock, I have seen the land used in many ways, from Vince Packard's amazing display of endangered species art to an overgrown weed pit to party central. I really think that if SRCA had made it a major part of their agenda and had solicited support from the entire Kent community before the land was purchased they could have secured the land for themselves. But they didn't.

Comments were removed for violating Patch's terms of use. http://kent.patch.com/terms

Matt, you can delete all the comments you want, but the record is the record. You were at those meetings. You heard the two sides and what they had to say and how they said it.

i'm just trying to keep us on the issues and avoid personal attacks on other readers.

How about personal attacks on entire groups? Seems you're more lax on those.

I do not understand the reason for the attacks on SRCA here or direct questions leveled at SRCA (already answered months ago) when SRCA has not been a part of this since the September 4, 2012 Planning Commission decision. I reiterate again that the SRCA board voted against taking or participating in any legal action in September 2012 when the option for appeal was discussed. The issue was laid to rest for us once the land was no longer available (September 4, 2012 per Planning Commission approval) and it would be great if people would stop attempting to provoke SRCA or its supporters or anyone for that matter.

If Patch wasn't so interested in the web traffic being generated and was truly interested in avoiding drama and personal attacks, the comments on this would have been shut down a while ago like many other newspapers do because clearly it continues to be a hot topic and is only generating additional angst and frustration on the parts of all of the groups involved. If the groups want peace, their members will learn to have some graceful silence in the press as well.

Differences of opinions on the actions of various groups is not at all equivalent to attacking an individual who is expressing an opinion about that group. You may disagree with that opinion and therefore you should express why you disagree with it. Sounds like simple rules to follow.

Thank you, Roger, for clarifying the process you used. I support the move of the house. I suspect most Kent residents do. I look forward to this historic house being on its new and permanent site.

So whats the big deal with this house? I dont understand why this is such a big deal. Is the house safe?

Alec, the people who have raised their voices to oppose the move of the house are certainly passionate about it, but they are not most Kent residents. They are a vocal small group of residents. I admire their willingness to stand up for what they believe, even though I disagree with them on this issue. But they are not most people in the city. Most Kent residents have said nothing in public about the move of the house. I know many Kent residents who feel as I do, that the move of the house to the site will benefit the city. I think the move of the house can benefit SRCA also if they use the house and the grounds around it for community events and activities.