Who owns the land?

"Rick Hawksley and the Friends of the Wells-Sherman House" - sounds more to me as though he's starting a band.

Comments were removed for violating Patch's terms of use. http://kent.patch.com/terms Please stick to the issue.

I would like to clarify some things about this article and issue as a representative of Standing Rock Cultural Arts.

First, I would like to note that we oppose "fighting." We support restoration of the Kent Wells Sherman house but also support alternatives to destruction of green space. SRCA has always supported sustainability and this part of our by-laws. Therefore, we have always supported the preservation of green space. The Who's Your Mama? week of environmental events that is produced by SRCA is not merely lip service. We truly support sustainability and environmental efforts and greatly value green space. We incorporate sustainability principles in everything that we do. We would be in support of thriving, well-used green space next to the gallery or in any corner of our community. Again this issue of the green space is not just about past use of the space by SRCA but also about protecting green space, a sustainable example, and allowing for enrichment in natural spaces.

Secondly, not everyone in support of the green space (while appreciated) is a board member or staff of Standing Rock Cultural Arts. Our board members can easily be located quite visibly on our website and have been noted on the website with appropriate updates since 2010. Our Executive Director is well-established. Only four representatives of Standing Rock Cultural Arts have spoken out on the Patch or to any media to my knowledge. We cannot account for other comments.

Thirdly, SRCA did not author this petition. Petition originators are clearly listed on the petition site. Members have supported and shared the petition. However, it is composed as being by friends of SRCA, members of other groups, and community individuals and is not written as "We, Standing Rock Cultural Arts." It was neither a dreamchild nor suggestion of SRCA and should not be assumed as coming from SRCA or only SRCA individuals despite support. Thank you.

But seriously, let’s get back once again to the important (still unanswered) questions and reasons to question this move, folks:

Why was a nonprofit group’s name attached to something their own members-and even some of the directors-opposed?

In fact, why weren’t the membership and all of the directors informed (let alone in approval) prior to press on the coverage?

Why did it take public outcry to even have intended plans re-reviewed to give any consideration to its current uses? Is it because of the media game (the ‘Why is SRCA being outrageous’ stance)?

Why was the purchasing agreement for a space that’s been in use by a nonprofit organization for 20 years quickly and quietly drawn up before the organization that has been using it was even given a courtesy notice by those encroaching on its current permitted uses?

Why was no transparency about any of the plans even given until after council initially approved a loan at which point in time, it first appeared publicly in the Kent Patch following public and media outcry for more transparency?

What funding is secured to insure that this project will be a success at the expense/destruction of these environmental gardens that have been tended organically for as long as 20 years (depending on the plot)?

...to be continued...

How is moving a few lawyers from downtown and putting in a nonprofit office going to revitalize North Water Street or any neighborhood or bring in money when it’s introducing no new business to the area?

Is the amount of money to be borrowed and invested (almost $200,000) worth what appears to be for a few individuals’ stake and pride?

How will the renovated house taking sustainable green space and decimating thriving organic gardens be heated (fossil fuels, solar panels, etc)?

What will be the rental fees and spaces?

Why haven’t those speaking in support of the project indicated that this will be fee-based to its neighbors as well (which doesn’t matter except for transparency and non-misleading purposes since even if it were free, SRCA would not support the destruction of greenspace)?

How much money will be needed to bring this house to code? Where is that funding guaranteed?

Will the renovations ever truly allow the home to be registered as a historical home in the state of Ohio following the modern updates that have gone into it while it was a boarding house?

How will maintenance, upkeep, and long term restoration be assuredly financed?

...to be continued...

If the leader of an organization couldn’t get its own members to agree on a move or project like this and various sectors, groups, and individuals in the community are speaking out against it for a variety of reasons (interest in children’s enrichment that takes place there, environmental/sustainable, financial, ethical, community interest, beautification/neighborhood interest, etc.), shouldn’t the plan and individual interest versus community interest be rethought?

Was a nonprofit’s name that had not agreed to the plan attached merely to obtain the funding support behind the project for a few members’ interests?

Is the majority (or even half) of the money that is realistically needed secured in the bank and ready to support this project?

Why have some sizeable figures been missing from the budget or listed as “not known” when published in the media?

...to be continued...

Why are the only responses to legitimate intelligent probing questions to deflect to items that are not important (insulting photos, abusive comments, changing the subject, or attempting to denigrate a community-based, community-supportive nonprofit by attacking its owner’s--not SRCA for those who haven’t caught on to that from various posts--building, to attack the nature of a nonprofit to fund its money back into programming rather than vanity of a building that isn’t even in its ownership, to indicate that those with an opposing opinion should remain silent and not dialogue nor debate about what they feel is right, and to even go so far as to begin suggesting places for SRCA to move its location of 20 years in order to meet the needs or desires of an encroaching project or a few individuals (which could suggest they’d like to take over the gallery space and record store as well)?

In fact, why all the defensiveness, negative energy, and lack of answers?

::Crickets continue, days later, to chirp::

Tina, I agree. Your questions should be clearly answered.

Like councilman John Kuhar said at the city meeting the other week: Where are the utilities that will actually get this house functioning? It seems you aren't the only one who sees the plan for moving this house as underdeveloped.

I am in no way a city planner, know next to nothing about buildings and understand there are bumps in any roapmap, but if respect is present in a relationship change is made through dialogue. As President of SRCA, Tina, are the Friends unwilling to answer your questions, unwilling to be transparent or are they still searching for their own answers?

If the purchase of the land is not a done deal, make an offer to the owner, with whom you seem to have a working relationship, to purchase it. Is the contract to purchase the land between TransPortage and the owner? If it is true that TransPortage is out of the picture, is there, in fact, a valid purchase contract on the property? If not, get in touch with the owner fast... like tomorrow! Or tonight!!! If the people who take care of the property and the people who use the property really care what happens, collect a lot of cash from them, and buy the place... real quick. If the people who use it won't give you money, they don't care enough. Get movin'; times a'wastin'.

Otherwise, since it is the owner's property, he can do with it what he wishes.

Kit, the agreement has a time limit that will need to expire before another offer can be accepted. The purchasing agreement was drawn up before SRCA was aware that a purchase would be needed to protect the green space that has been for the past two decades. We would have expressed interest sooner had we known.

Donors have stepped forward in interest of maintaining green space.

If the agreement is from TransPortage, since they are no longer in the picture, it is not valid. Get in there with an offer today. Get in there with an offer today anyway. Do it! Do it!

We've asked since knowing to be second in line for consideration if anything happens to the first purchasing agreement but the owner is still in the first agreement until expiration. He is aware of our interest if things are unable to move forward with the first agreement.

Elaine, these were community questions (many of which I also thought) that were never answered. I culled them together in one list but they've been posted for weeks by numerous members of the community so I can't take full credit for asking and I should say this is not just my questions or SRCA's questions but the community's questions. You may notice that I have tried to answer legitimate questions or clarify info about SRCA. Transparency is a plus I believe.

He who hesitates is lost. Write him an offer and hand him some earnest money. You have nothing to lose by so doing and perhaps everything to gain.

From whom is the offer under consideration? TransPortage? I ask again, is it valid? Do you have an attorney or realtor in your group? If so, talk to them, but get your offer in NOW! N-O-W!

I will say no more.

Kit, no one has been transparent about exactly who the agreement involves and we believe in behaving ethically despite the fact that after use of the land for 20 years, no one approached us prior to a purchase agreement going into place, which feels unethical to me personally since there was awareness of the uses. We have an attorney in our group and have followed his valued advice.

Thank you, Kit. :)

I would just like to note the question that Elaine earlier posted in response to the list of questions that Tina has compiled: "...are the Friends [of the Wells Sherman House] unwilling to answer your questions, unwilling to be transparent or are they still searching for their own answers?"

It is my hope that someone from the above mentioned group may feel prompted to reply. And if you have missed it, please read the list of questions (posted by Tina) that have been expressed by various community members, so that the dialogue might start to take look a bit more balanced, direct or...practical.

Sally Burnell's research has proved the provenance of this house and its very important relation to the history of Kent. It is an architectural gem which will enhance and improve the neighborhood of North Water. A setback of 15 feet has been recommened by the review commission which will provide SRCA some space for their activities. The backyard will also still be available for their usage and maintenance. Furthermore the interior space on the main floor can be used for public purposes such as a reception or gallery show for SRCA. A kitchenette and restrooms will also support these public usages. I communicated these accommodations directly and personally to Jeff Ingram. It is my view that the new house next door will not detract or deter SRCA's many worthwhile activities which are held throughout the community. The placement of the renewed historic structure will attract positive attention to that section of North Water and will benefit all its neighbors, including SRCA.

My awareness of SRCA was confirmed in 2005 when I participated in their production of "Dawn Falls," an outdoor drama which was presented in the park down by the river behind the dam. It was a wonderful experience made possible by lots of people cooperating to convey a theatrical sense of Kent's fascinating history. SRCA initiated it and carried it through to success. At that time I had occasion to use their main facility on North Water as weil as the lot next door. We rehearsed the play twice on that lot. My impression was that it was too narrow and sloped to be of any value as a rehearsal space and there were distractions from people driving by honking and yelling at us. In my memory the trerrain surface was rough, unkempt and not a safe or useful surface space for the outdoor drama rehearsals. The main facility and gallery were also cause for concern at that time. The floors seemed very uneven, as though the boards were warped from years of moisture. The changing/restroom facilities can best be described as barely adequate. Indeed, in my meeting last week with Jeff Ingram he noted that the building's condition is mentioned as an issue at every SRCA board meeting. When I spoke with Jeff last week it appeared to me that that place was even worse than seven years prior.

Why then all this angst over a facility which is not up to the noble goals of the organization? Indeed, SRCA tried to move many years ago to the former Dome nite club which the county owned but would not provide a long term lease.

The Friends of the Wells Sherman House have a solid puchase agreement with a transfer clause. It is a private deal with a private owner. We never set out to cause damage to anyone but simply desired to save an important structure which has a timetable created by the KSU Esplanade in August. It seems that SRCA complaints about this move are ultimately motivated by the idea that they intend to occupy the corner of Portage and North Water in perpetuity -- that there is no intention of ever moving from an admittedly substandard facility that is rented from month to month. If they somehow prevented the Sherman-Weils House move and then later decided to move what would have been accopmplished? Nothing less than the destruction of an important vestige of Kent's past.

This is why some of us do not understand their position vis a vis the house move. They have only themselves to hold responsible for the condition of their tenancy and the attendant concerns for the building itself. The Friends of the Wells-Sherman House did not put SCRA in this position but we may have unwittingly exposed it for what it really is.

It is a restorative, natural space
where walkers might linger and appreciate Edwin George’s giant Cherokee
folk mural painting on the side of the Scribbles building. This space is
currently being used, for community and artistic purposes. It is not a
vacant lot.
Nor is it an empty space.

Why not move activities elsewhere such as Fred Fuller Park? Because it
is important that green space be integrated into the downtown planning
scheme, into the daily life of the Kent community. Green speaks for
itself. It also speaks to us and for us

Well, I went there yesterday and must say that any comparison to an urban garden is romantic fantasy at its finest, and I am surprised that the owner of the property has not been cited for allowing our-of-control grass, weeds, and the other sorts of scrub vegetation that sprout alongside buildings. Were I pre-Columbian Algonquin or a Cherokee or Henry David Thoreau, I think I would have to smoke a lot of funny cigarettes before I would be able to agree that it is what mother nature had in mind for a place of solace and introspection. Its apparance is indeed that of an urban vacant lot gone to seed. What is missing is an abandoned car.

But, that is not to say that I feel that the arts community should not have a space in the downtown for its present uses, but to me, a person with a lifelong appreciation of literature, the fine arts, and music, it just looks, well, rather ratty. But, who am I? After all, in the right frame of mind, "Stone walls do not a prison make,..."

I am all for it being kept for its present use but at present it is certainly not "A thing of beauty or a joy forever."

Whether or not people like the way the garden looks is a matter of personal preference. I personally value native plants over mulch and marigolds, but that's just my opinion. I value the community that this space supports, much of which is associated with SRCA, but some of which isn't. I am a person who has enjoyed this space for years, but I have no formal affiliation with SRCA.

What should be a point of contention for every taxpayer in this city (whether you enjoy the space as is or not) are the the very same questions that Tina Puckett and Lisa Regula have posed that have gone without answers. With TransPortage backing away from this project, it now is being spearheaded by Hawksley and FSWH, neither of which are sanctioned NPOs. Why is a private land deal being funded with public dollars? What plans are in place to repay the city, considering the other significant costs that will be incurred during the development of the site and restoration of the house? If the city is loaning money to this project, there must be transparency.

The land here was forest with, of course, lower growth plants native to the area. As a small child I spent hours in the woods which is now Silver Meadows. As teenager I spent hours in Davey Woods, and when I was old enough to drive I spent hours at Towner's Woods. I spend time to this day at Towner's Woods. I know what mother nature intended in northeastern Ohio. Why not get rid of the grass toward the front and plant native plants with a path leading to the rear open area.
I guess my question is, do you want what mother nature does to a lot that goes vacant or do you want what she did before it was built upon. If it is the latter, perhaps I can help, if, that is, you manage to retain control, which I hope you do.
Of course children like it as it is now. Children like any place where there is not a building.

Our preferred site was on the Esplanade but did not fit with KSU's plan. Next were by the Kent Free Library (gorgeous site) and then Tannery Park. Subsequently eleven more locations were researched and all were not available or infeasible because of the expense of moving (utility and tree removal). Lake Street is way beyond possible because of the expense. Once again, I must question the motivation of SRCA in their strident protest against a building placement which can only enhance and upgrade their neighborhood location. By resisting over an empty lot you don't own, and with your primary site in poor condition (by your own admission) it sounds to me as though you are making a covenant with the people of Kent to never move from that location. All this at the risk of disrupting the salvation of an important historic structure, the provenance of which is beyond dispute. The month-to-month status of your tenancy and now the uproar over something you don't own or properly care for makes people wonder about the wisdom and competence of your leadership and board which has put you where you are. Why not direct the enmity at them, where it really belongs, and not at a group which bears no malice of any kind toward SRCA? Here's my opinion: I don't believe you will be at that location very much longer because any rational observer will conclude you need a more appropriate facility commensurate with the long-term goals of your worthy organization.

::And crickets continue to chirp and chirp but the cash registers ding cha-ching cha-ching::

Heads up critics! The SRCA gallery was repainted and restored about nine years ago, with dozens of volunteers pitching in. Those "weeds" are native Ohio cultivars, specifically chosen for their beneficial uses in healing. Stones were hand set to create the garden areas, and lilacs were planted to strengthen the hill against erosion. Of course there are some weeds. Get real! There are weeds in the Home Savings Plaza as well, but we don't have to bulldoze it. There is now a $10,500 matching grant available to save this green space.

May I suggest that in view of the poor condition of your primary site and the lack of a lease you take that money and find a better location? You can buy one of the distressed properties in Kent (120 W. Elm) for $700 down and $300 per month. That's just one example.

Here's why it is important to place the Sherman-Wells house on N. Water: a). Context, it restores a Greek Revival to a lot which previously hosted a similar structure; b) Our Roots, a Kent family home is saved and placed on the same street as the original location; c) History, it will match other Civll War era houses in the neighborhood, d), Politics, located across from the John Brown Hotel (now JB's) it will remind us of how agrarian Kent appeared when people lived closer to the land and the town was a center of Abolitionist activity; e) Aesthetics and Revolution, the Greek Revival architecture itself was a effort by Americans to break from the Georgian styles which symbolized the era of British colonial rule.
Kent was full of such frame buildings before the advent of the larger masonry structures. Note how some masonry structures have crumbled while the timber framed Sherman-Wells house has remained strong with ten inch beams pegged and fitted together barn-style. It is a splendid example of this architecture and will grace the North Water neighborhood in a serene, classical style intertwined with the history of our country and your town.

We want to renew the history of Kent and this building will add to and restore the culture of Kent. Your organization needs a much better structure which it owns and can develop. Your bulk of your programs can carry on from anywhere in Kent and will not be affected in any way by this building. You are saying you intend to occupy that poor facility forever and I don't believe that to be the actual case given the real conditions of your situation there. This is a double dose of change and reality and you have not prepared for either, which is a fundamental responsibility of those who run an organization. Victimhood as a way of life is not attractive or productive. Our cost estimates are worst case. We will bring it in for far less.

On the plus side we're getting some rain finally!

We are in the process of setting up a meeting with the SRCA board through one of the intermediaries. I have met personally with Jeff last week. Other FSWH members have sent emails requesting a meeting but there has been no response. I bumped into somebody yesterday and McDonald's and he got back to me with the word that it would take a couple of days to set up a meeting. You can ask all your questions and we'll answer as best we can. I have tried to be factual and explain why we want to move this house.

i'm sure you have been factual about why you want to move the house. i also think other people affiliated with SRCA and not affiliated with them have been factual about not wanting to move it and or the costs associated with moving this "piece of history". so now what? both sides are being "factual", who wins?