Agreed!

Thanks for the clarification Tom.

i understand that SRCA rents and does not own the building on water st.

Jim, have you been to the property in question? It is not unkempt nor is it vacant. I was there yesterday and I counted at least 30 species of native plants and an organic garden. I also saw five different kinds of birds, a toad, several butterflies and honeybees, and a small garter snake in the 30 minutes I explored the site. This is indeed an entirely different type of green space than the esplanade will be and I think it has value in it's own right. I am not affiliated with SRCA in any way, I just think that there should be a consideration for an outdoor space in the town that is not landscaped and fertilized to within an inch of its life.

You know, you can't eat money.

Cy, yes, I've been by there, and while it's perhaps attractive to some, it still looks like an overgrown vacant lot to me, and I'd rather see it built. I'd also like to see the building in which SRCA exists brought up to the same level of repair as its neighbors before they take on an additional lot, regardless of who the owner is. I have a lot of respect for the innovative programming and general civic-mindedness of SRCA, but on this issue I just think they are missing the mark.

Not every piece of open space is an Eden, no matter how many species live there. Hell, I have most of the animals you mentioned in my little yard (so does most everybody). The key here is whether to hold this space open or put it to a more beneficial use to the city, and building on it would be a better answer, even if it weren't for the Sherman house.

Regarding outdoor space that isn't "landscaped and fertilized to within an inch of its life," I'd go back to the riverside park system, which is a natural wonder, and it's exactly as close to the heart of downtown as SRCA's adopted plot.

Finally, Mary, I have no idea what you mean by your comment, but while you "can't eat money," increasing the tax base through viable businesses can get roads repaired and provide money for things like, oh, giving grants to small arts organizations!

John, I, too, enjoy Riveredge Park, though I would hardly consider it a natural wonder. It is a man-made park with a spillway that is beside a river. It doesn't mean it's not a nice place to be and it doesn't mean it doesn't have great value. It certainly does. The lot on N. Water serves a different purpose and meets different needs (especially with regard to the organic food being grown there). And I guess that is my point: We can agree to disagree about the kinds of outdoor space we enjoy and value more. I value your opinion. But the difference is, I'm wouldn't be okay with removing Riveredge Park to put a house on it, just because it doesn't meet my definition of a natural place. There should be room for natural places that meet diverse needs and have different aesthetics. Places like Riveredge certainly increase the quality of life in Kent for a lot of people. The lot as it is currently used on N. Water does, as well.

The Water Street property (green space) is not unkempt. It is routinely mowed, is gardened, and is weeded. There are no 4-foot high (or even 2-foot high or even 1-foot high, etc.) weeds across the space as can be seen in urban areas where lots truly are vacant, unused, and left to waste and become a public hazard.

The building that houses the gallery is rented but owned by the landlord who has the investment (and equity) in it. SRCA has discussed repair and renovation efforts with the landlord throughout the years and has also attempted to create and establish a more spacious community center, even at one time trying to raise interest in and support of moving into an existing building (College Street Library) that was later torn down but we were unable to receive enough support to make it happen at the time.

The board has met and discussed repairs but is in agreement that the funds we do have (in a non-profit organization, our expenses must nearly meet our income as expected by a non-profit role in the community unless earmarked in special accounts that cannot be accessed) are most appropriate to fund the arts and cultural activities in our community, rather than use precious funds to add to the value of a building in our landlord's ownership. The expenses of maintaining a building are far more than for a green space and if we owned the green space, we would have ownership of this despite anything that might happen with our rented gallery location.

This space is also used for more than just a few SRCA activities. This space contains organic community gardens tended by individuals who are not on the SRCA board and other than the Executive Director. Often people buy a drink in Scribbles Cafe and then sit in the shade or sun of the yard and rest, relax, read, or study.

I am also intrigued by the idea that because there is a riverside park system (on the other side of downtown) that there, therefore, needs to be (and should not be?) additional green space in the community, particularly on the visually deadened North Water Street side of the community, where businesses, galleries, and residents are trying to revive the neighborhoods. We have a small plot of green space as you turn on to Crain from North Water Street and apparently that is enough to beautify the North side. In my honest opinion, no, it is not.

I stand by my original arguments. Cy ( I think I got your name right ), while "natural wonder" might be a minor overstatement, the work that was done to return the river to its channel and preserve the natural look and feel is an amazing feat of good community planning and management. And to you and Tina, I never stated this as an either/or debate, however the original letter referred to the lot as "one of the last green spaces in downtown Kent," which is utterly preposterous, as is referring to the river park as "on the other side of downtown." In my opinion, North Water Street exists as a business/commercial zone, and development is appropriate and necessary there to ensure the existing organizations, including SRCA, thrive. Again, while I'm not sure the Wells/Sherman house is really worth saving, having an additional, attractive commercial building on that block would be an improvement to the empty lot.

Lisa, I love what you wrote!!

All the uses you describe are there at the grace of the property owner, who has decided he would like his property used for the relocation of this house. What was the agreement Standing Rock had with the property owner to use this lot? Did it specify such uses would remain in perpetuity? Doesn't sound like it. It's not like the property owner is being strong-armed into selling this either. For whatever reasons, it seems some in this city have come to believe that long-term rental or other long-term use is equal to assuming property ownership.

In all honesty, if Standing Rock requires a yard for their programming to be complete, I would highly suggest *not* being downtown. There are many spaces in Kent that would suit their needs just as well (if not better) and not face the possibility of being developed (especially if Standing Rock actually owned its own property or at least rented a property that included its own yard). There are also things like rooftop gardens that could be utilized. Downtowns are designed to be high-density areas. The area where this empty lot sits isn't zoned for parkland, it's zoned for high-density commercial and residential development. It has sat as "green" space simply because up until now, no one wanted to develop it after demolishing what was previously there (like a lot of other lots downtown).

Jon, I don't think anyone's "assuming property ownership" and as has been stated before, Standing Rock and other people would like to buy that property. The argument that I'm making, and that I'm hearing the most, is that the good done to the neighborhood by saving this house is far less than the good that this space does as it currently stands. I fail to see how this house is going to increase density; it's 800 sq ft, I've seen no plans to house people there, at most it might have a handful of offices of people that are already downtown anyway, and maybe a person staffing the house. That's not an increase in density, considering how many people use that space on a daily basis- from the community, not just from Standing Rock. This is a classic case of the good of a few being given priority over the good of the many, but as Sally has stated in other comments, they have influential people that want this to happen.

In response to Jon, the agreement in the past twenty years was that SRCA could use the property as long as it was tended (no field of knee-high weeds, trash, etc.).

Also @ Jon: SRCA has a presence in the community and wishes, as such, to remain in the eye of the community. We also support sustainability and value it greatly. Our Executive Director lives an extremely sustainable life, which includes driving as little as possible. We believe in having a location in which the community can walk, rather than drive, in order to see us. Understandably, as an art gallery also, we wish to maintain a gallery space that has a window presence additionally, which is typical of art galleries, which are generally situated in either downtown areas, tourtist hotspots, or revitalized arts districts. I believe it is an organization that you're supporting that has indicated that no reasonable vacant lots exist to develop an arts center and accompanying green space or even to place a house-sized arts center.

I am not aware of any risk that the Pufferbelly will be closed. It's likely referring to the original effort in the early 1970s to save what is now the Pufferbelly from demolition. At the time, the old depot was in serious need of repair and many felt it was better to tear it down since there was no longer any need for it (passenger service had stopped by then). The near loss of that building was what got the Kent Historical Society started as they raised money to buy and renovate the building before the Pufferbelly moved in around 1981. That has been mentioned a few times in relation to saving the Wells-Sherman House.

I believe that Jeff is speaking of the repairs that the Pufferbelly is in need of now and for perpetuity to keep it preserved as it should be (not the original 1970's restoration effort).

Thanks!
Saving the old depot was clearly a good move!

Clearly, since Standing Rock Cultural Arts has been there for twenty years and is one of the greatest assets our community has to offer, there is a good relationship between the owner of the property and the management of SRCA. If by "losing their spot" you are implying that this long-standing and award-winning arts organization might be evicted for some reason (such as the possibility of increased dollars), the fact that this has not happened also indicates that the landlord is an ethical person, who would be unlikely to create a situation like last year's surprise eviction en masse of 250 elders of our Kent community by another Kent property owner. The fact that such a situation could even have been considered, let alone implemented, has brought enduring shame to our city, and is not soon to be forgotten, but it can be used as a learning experience, in order to avoid any further black marks on our treasured community.

SRCA has been renting the gallery space for 20 years but welcomes the development of a cultural center. As a non-profit organization, our expenses must nearly meet our income unless earmarked (and inaccessible once earmarked) for other purposes, such as a new building fund. Our landlord has the expense and equity in our building and its repairs, renovations, and value. We responsibly use our funding for cultural arts purposes, which is what our organization was developed to provide to the community. Please see my other comment regarding the building and repairs above.

Please see my comments toward the top of the article in response to your questions. Thank you.

Sarah, that location is under development for another venture.

SRCA is on a month-to-month lease because we earned it over the past 20 years and the landlord knows we're not going to suddenly pack up shop and skip out on him and the rent. It's interesting to know that landlords who own properties on Brady Street do not ever die or run into misfortune that would cause them to have to sell or abandon their properties despite a lease. That seems like some flawed logic. Again, our gallery benefits from having a storefront, not a house in a tucked-away neighborhood where no one would notice that an art gallery exists but thank you for the suggestions.

"he knows his claret from his beaujolais..."

For all the great things that Standing Rock does for Kent- the ice carving and apple cider festivals, Who's Your Mama?, sidewalk cinema, art exhibits, workshops, music, and much, much more- the thing you choose to critique is their building? Have you been to Columbus's Short North and seen the galleries there that aren't in good condition either? Would you rather they spend money on programming or renovations (many of which should be the building owner's responsibility)? Instead of running down SRCA, how about making a donation and investing in your community?