Why didn't the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Planning Commission have to vote on a site plan for the house the university set on the lot at 220 South Willow Street? A double standard here?

I must have missed the year when dictionary writers decided the word "compromise" would now mean that one side gets everything it wants, the other side makes all of the concessions, and then the side that gets everything it wants gets to tell the other side that it should feel fortunate that it only lost the game by 40 points, not 100.

Also, I remember a lot of people saying the lot used to have a house on it and we should be happy it's going back to the way it used to be. Well, not everything "back in the day" was great. Shall we go back to the way the river was 50 year ago, too?

At SRCA, we always knew that we could lose the use of the adjacent greenspace, and tried to find ways to purchase the property, but the cost was high and raising money for the arts is very difficult. The city has wholeheartedly supported Standing Rock Cultural Arts downtown cultural events, but as of yet, we have been unable to raise enough money from public and private donors for a proposed community cultural arts center which will offer art programs for youth, adults and senior citizens. Having this beautiful greenspace available made many outdoor programs possible, including poetry and crafting events, so we can only hope to find ways to keep those programs going and plan for a long-term cultural arts center that is both beautiful, functional and accessible to the Kent community. Treasurer of SRCA, Fred Pierre

I find it highly ironic that some of the same prominent Kent residents who fought so hard to keep senior citizens from being evicted from their homes are now fighting just as hard to evict other Kent citizens from the use of their shared community space. I guess everyone has his price, especially when it means getting a new office out of it.

Joseph, you could ask who is the better steward of the land, a brand new organization that is still creating a formal structure, or a long-established fixture of downtown culture. The city council chose to support the newbies, now they have to prove they can take care of the property. "There was nowhere else to put it." That's because this is the last bit of greenspace downtown.

Oh, Fred, I agree with you 1000%. That last post was pure sarcasm at the flimsy cause and patronizing nature of the pro-move-the-house side.

Is it any wonder that Kent has such an abysmal record of historic preservation? Recall that back in the 70s, everyone wanted the old Erie Depot torn down. Now we cannot imagine downtown without it. Rather than look at what IS, dream of what can BE.

Perhaps SRCA should stop complaining about what they will lose and stop to consider what they will gain by this project. Rather than spend all this energy on the negative, redirect your energy toward the positive. It might help to put things in perspective as well.

The two sides on this debate must be prepared to come to the negotiating table and be prepared for mindful listening and respectful discussion. That is the only real resolution to this issue. I hope that this can become a win-win for everybody involved.

Dear Transportage,
You state your mission as being:

"TransPORTAGE is part of the great adventure of learning to live more sustainably on a planet with finite resources. Across the country and around the world, Transition communities are becoming more resilient by growing their own food, re-learning basic skills, localizing economies, rethinking health care and transportation, installing solar panels, accessing the talents and energy of youth, honoring the wisdom of elders and reducing reliance on fossil fuels."

With the space (and SOIL!) that will be killed with a big house, they are currently growing their own food, already installed solar panels, are always accessing the talents and energy of youth and honoring the wisdom of elders and reducing reliance on fossil fuels... And Standing Rock is and always has been very centered in the community and is therefore localizing economies.

How in the world does plopping an old house in need of repair and inevitably in need of electricity and heat (oh my, from fossil fuels) onto a thriving, much used and love greenspace fit into the mission of Transportage? Or do they just need to be a little more honest about their true "mission"?

Do you know if TransPortage is a corporation? Or a non-profit?

I mean, like who is signing for the loan? Is it a corporation, a non-profit, or a sole proprietor?

It is my considered opinion that successful negotiations can happen if people come together prepared to mindfully and respectfully speak and listen to one another. This is not "patronizing", this is called the good old fashioned art of diplomacy. If people refuse to even consider negotiating in good faith with each other, then they are becoming a part of the problem instead of contributing to being a part of the solution.

I ask with all due respect that both sides come together at a neutral place and enter into respectful discussions to come up with a solution instead of continuing to be a part of the problem.

Oh, that's rich Lisa! The Transportage bylaws are totally impossible to read!

If SRCA had the $ to purchase the lot, would they have a right of first purchase over transportage?

Thanks for the information Lisa! They are a registered, non-profit corporation with three incorporating officers.

Officers are listed as Rick Hawksley, Jill Twark and Chris Carman.

@ "Native": Actually be aware of the issue before criticizing a group please. Our executive director has been in civil discussion with Mr. Hawksley for weeks. We are aware of suggested changes to the original plan. We feel the best win-win is preservation of the house at another location without destruction of the land and gardens and loss to the arts and youth enrichment. It's not so hard to understand if one is willing to be open-minded. We certainly are open-minded in understanding the desire to preserve the home. We don't call it preposterous, ridiculous, or publish blatant lies about the organization with which we are in talks as some users have done and been reported as doing. Why such desperation to convince us that our ideals are worthless? People involved in this decision were well aware of its use and did a lot to secure its purchase before ever informing us. It may be legal but I'm unsure about ethical or community-minded.

And how about putting an organization's name on something the entire organization itself hasn't heard about or agreed to in order to get the funding secured as I have heard from Transportage members happened? It's questionable at best. I think if supporters of taking over the green space were so sure of how right this is and secure in the community's desires for the space, they really would not need to protest so much and spread negativity or try to make SRCA sound like unreasonable individuals who have not reasonably and calmly entered into discussions from the time of knowing these plans.

And here's the original group that wanted to preserve the house. Note that it's a closed group, so not much is visible unless one is a member. Note also that many of the members were "Added by" and may or may not have joined of their own choosing.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/319877388062261/

With all due respect, how is a small conference room and a private office going to spark any kind of renaissance on North Water Street? And how many thousands of dollars will those saving this house have to spend before any room is heated?

As someone who does negotiation and has for years, what I am hearing is that one side is taking an "all or nothing" approach (SRCA) while the other side has been bending over backward to change plans and make accommodations for the concerned parties. How do you expect to be a part of the solution if you take that approach?

Bearing in mind the cost of moving a house, distance from its original site (the further away it must be moved, the more expensive it becomes), removal and moving of overhead wires and utilities, lay of land and repurposing of the house, and given an extremely short time frame in which to consider these variables, I wonder where people would suggest it be moved to.

For the last time, SRCA is not gaining a space but losing one and SRCA has heat.

They are going to put 190 grand in it? Well, I sure hope the city is smart enough to not release any of the 15 grand loan until all the money is in the bank. But... knowing the city...

Yes, Sally, we've heard your opinion before and agreed to disagree. We are entitled to opinions like anyone else and it doesn't mean they have to be the same. Incidentally, this isn't just about SRCA. It's about community and environmentalism and what we feel is right on behalf of those who have been using it, which isn't just SRCA members or directors.

And Sally, isn't there enough space in your mom's yard to put the Sherman house? We could put this house right there on the south facing corner. Not like they do anything but mow the grass. No garden. No solar panels. Nothing special. Sure, your mom's house wouldn't ever see the sun again, but there isn't any other suitable place in Kent to put it!!!! You'll learn to love it!

Shoot, me and my darn sarcasm strike again!

How about leave it on a truck bed or something, make it mobile, like a model home used by some developers? It can travel around to schools in the area for historic reenactments, or festival exhibits. Since nobody wants it in their own yard, apparently. I'm only half joking.

This is really sad. I redid two Kent houses, one on West Main and a complete gut and remodel on Dodge Street. I did not beg for money. I got bank loans and I tore out tons of plaster. I drywalled, I installed windows. I redid bathrooms and kitchens. I insulated. I sandblasted, I scraped, I painted, I resank nails, I leveled floors. I did it ALL except wiring. I DID IT WITH MY OWN TWO HANDS! If these people want this project as much as I wanted to redo those two houses, they would GO TO THE BANK for money, get out their shovels, their hammers and nails, and bust their cans far into the night just as I did.
A loan from the city without any definite plans, tenants, or anything concrete. Disgusting.
I'm sorry, but that's how I feel. I guess I'm getting old.

Thanks, Ms Brunstetter-Reynolds. It was very satisfying and I loved every minute of it. Saving those houses is my legacy to Kent, the town in which I was born almost seventy-six years ago.

This is not Sally, but someone who has been following the story and is familiar with the situation and is acquainted with people involved in it. You are presumptuous to assume that I am directly involved when I am merely someone who has been watching and listening and paying attention. You do not know who I am or what interest I may or may not have in this situation.

I will once again suggest that it is better to contribute to a solution as opposed to being a part of the problem.

Mary Lou, I am not this "Sally" that you apparently seem think I am, merely an observer of what has been going on who is acquainted with the situation at hand. Never presume that you think that you know to whom you are speaking.

I think his last name is Dancer, Mary Lou.

Mary Lou, I do not know why you keep asking for someone who apparently is not involved in this discussion. I have yet to see any comments from the person you are asking for. Do you know her? Why not drop her a line and ask her to post a comment here since you are so eager to speak to her.

Tina Puckett, I am not the "Sally" that you accuse me of being, nor have I ever denigrated SRCA for "bad behavior" as so accuse me of doing. I am merely pointing out what I am observing here. You make some very harsh and unjust accusations that I feel are unwarranted.

It is obvious to me that this situation has become so divisive, so untenable that it probably won't be resolved by anything but bringing in an outside third party negotiator to sit everyone down in a neutral location and find out if there is at all a workable solution. I strongly suggest this as the only way forward. Otherwise, a lot of angry words, hurtful accusations and bitterness will result in an unbreakable stalemate.

Enough is enough. I am sure that the editor here is weary of this ongoing war of words that is solving nothing. Everybody here has said their piece and continuing to argue ad infinitum will solve nothing.

Stop. Please. Enough.

Most of the problems arise because the University is pushing for immediate removal of the house. That's why KSU is offering so much money for the move. Every delay is costing them on time on their Esplanade project. They are pushing TransPortage faster than its membership is ready to commit, so the directors of TransPortage were forced to act without consulting their membership, and without notifying all officers of the corporation. There was no time to figure out the funding, other than covering the costs of the immediate move. If the city is supportive, maybe the council will consider storing the property on city land near Mogadore Road, until the $120,000 for utility connection and restoration mentioned in the ProForma is collected.

Lisa, you do not know who I am and I resent your assuming that I am someone with whom you obviously have an axe to grind, but this has gone beyond being a productive discussion. You presume to accuse me of all kinds of heinous acts when you do not even know who I am or what, if any, involvement I have in this situation.

Has it ever occurred to you that other people might have a say as well? Do you presume that only one person might wish to comment, someone with whom you have apparently had some verbal sparring? How dare you accuse me of being someone else when you know nothing about me, who I am or what involvement I may or may not have in this project. The only thing I will say is that I am affiliated with the university. Beyond that, I will say no more.

You do yourselves no favors by continuing these useless attacks on supporters of the project. In point of fact, I can tell you that you are only hurting your cause instead of helping it. That is all I have to say. I am done trying to reason with you people.

I will reiterate that I am not who everyone thinks I am. I have no affiliation with TransPortage. I do not represent them, not do I speak for them. It's creepy that you are dragging someone into this and accusing me of being that person when you have no idea who I am. But you may go on believing what you will. That is, after all, your right.

I will say no more. It serves no good to continue what has obviously become a pointless argument.

I'll put my two cents in here...
I think a better and more useful location would have been down by the Farmers Market. Plop it on a small piece of land right next to the train tracks and river- and being by the Market there- the public can walk in and browse city memorabilia !

I've been reading the comments here and it makes me very sad to see a lack of civility in the ongoing conversation. I think it would be most appropriate for the editor to step in and close this conversation before it becomes more heated than it has already become.

But seriously, let’s get back to the important questions, folks:

Why is TransPORTAGE’s name attached to something their own members-and even some of the directors-oppose?

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

Why is this project being supported given its direct opposition to TransPORTAGE’s own mission statement?

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 ‘SRCA won’t negotiate or be reasonable’ 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 when it first appeared publicly in the Kent Patch after 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 TransPORTAGE 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 money worth running a self-proclaimed sustainable organization’s name through mud for individual stake and pride?

How will the renovated house in the ownership of a sustainable organization 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?

If an organization can’t get its own members to agree on a move or project like this, shouldn’t the plan and individual interest versus group interest be rethought?

Is the TransPORTAGE name attached merely to obtain the funding support behind the project for a few members interests?

(to be continued)

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

Why are some sizeable figures still missing from the budget or listed as “not known”?

Why are the only responses to legitimate intelligent probing questions to deflect to items that are not important or 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?

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

::Crickets chirp::

Let's try to keep the discussion on topic, which most people have done a great job of doing so far. Remember personal attacks violate Patch's terms of use and can warrant deletion of a comment. And posting under a pseudonym also violates our terms of use. Such posters have been reminded.

Here's a question: Isn't TransPortage a non-profit? Well, being a non-profit comes with many, many legal requirements in terms of financial reporting, transparency, and consensus-reaching, to say the least. I can't say I've seen much by way of those requirements in this process, have you? Has anyone? And asking for these isn't a philosophical question, it's an actual, legal one. Now, if I'm wrong about this — and I may be — I'll stand corrected. But seems to me that if you're going the way of incorporating into a non-profit, you've got to abide by the established rules.

Joseph - a non-profit must register with the government, seek a status - usually 501(c)3 for a charity, 501(c)7 for a social organization, then file an IRS 990. Non-profits are typically set up as corporations, typically "C Corps." to protect individual members from financial obligations taken on by the group. Corporations that do not have Federal Status as a non-profit (501c3) file regular corporate income statements with the IRS and pay taxes on their income. 501(c)3 status allows an organization to collect tax-deductible donations.

Readable Transportage bylaws at this link, just replace the 1 after the last underscore with 2 and so on. http://www.transportage.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/transportage-bylaws-8-18-11_Page_1.jpg

by all means, we need to knock down affordable housing (and move old houses) so the university can build an outrageously priced sidewalk. presumably all those college aged kids i see down at the bar must be from some other town, since students from ksu can't find their way with the normal pedestrian walkways. not digging the gentrification. perhaps once they replace green space with a house they can stick a bubble tea and skinny girl jeans store in it.
i for one hope the city does not start making plans for n. water st. - i'd rather not have the neighborhood destroyed further.