No one from SRCA (Standing Rock Cultural Arts) was present at nor spoke to you at McDonald's at anytime recently. The individual you spoke with represents Kent Housing Co-Op.

In addition, the "SRCA supporter" that you quoted is not affiliated with SRCA and we cannot be held accountable for community remarks or sentiments. Our board members and executive director are listed on our website and only four board members and one advisory member have commented on the Kent Patch. Insinuating otherwise is not helpful to the situation.

Technically, the advisory member was quoted by another SRCA rep, our Executive Director.

The person quoted stated in the presence of others that he was "authorized to speak for them " (SRCA). I am trying to illustrate the tension around the manifold changes in Kent. Everyone is focused on the future right now but we should be mindful of the past and present. Housing rents may stay flat or perhaps decrease in reaction to the huge capacity of the new complexes opening this fall. Local landlords will have more difficulty filling their small building and older house aprartments while insurance, taxes and upkeep rise. At least the local property owners keep the money here whereas the new complexes extract rent and deposit (the profits) elsewhere. I don't know if anyone thought of it this way before encouraging the new projects. The downside could be more abandoned houses and expanding ghettoization. Although Kent's housing stock is aging I believe it, and the neighborhoods, could be dramatically improved by targeted block fix-up grants and loans (even for landlords). The commercial side is very worrying because the affordable available space has been decreasing steadily. Developing the AMETEK site as an offset could preserve and reinvigorate the creative and start-up entrepreneurs who have no place else to go for now and the forseeable future. Kent used to have plenty of such available ambient space.

Change, however, is inevitable but it can be anticipated and accommodated.

Why does this continue to be painted as an SRCA vs. FWSH issue? Many people in the town are concerned about green space preservation that have no affiliation with Standing Rock whatsoever. You're taking comments out of context, which is not just "illustrating the tension", it's fanning the flames.
The "rich dead white guys" comment was not a description of the FWSH, it was a statement about privileging one account of history over another. In other words, why is the preservation of an old building more important than the upkeep of an decades old organic garden? Because some people's history is more valued than others.

Since you've opened this matter up yet again in a forum, I'll post exactly what the concerns that have been expressed by the community are that are still unanswered that Council, the City Manager, and the community who hasn't already asked these should consider.

If FWSH are eager to be neighbors and are considering SRCA a problem for community dissent, why have they and their supporters suggested no less than a half-dozen locations for us to move including residential neighborhoods, distressed properties, shut-down factories with potential carcinogens, and out-of-town areas?

Why do FWSH keep referencing community questions and comments as being attributed to SRCA (except that I’ve culled together the community’s questions, admittedly many that we share, and posted them and am also a SRCA rep)?

Why won’t FWSH answer the community’s questions? Why won’t they schedule the meeting that they keep offering but never following through with SRCA to answer SRCA’s questions and discuss negotiations, instead sending multiple emails suggesting a meeting and moving spaces with no offered-up dates/times despite our responses that we’d gladly meet?

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 uncooperative’ 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)?

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?

In fact, what is planned to be housed in the building?

Is the amount of money to be borrowed and invested (almost $200,000 anticipated and an additional $100,000 for final phase) worth what appears to be for a few individuals’ stake, interest, 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 layout of the interior of the house and rental fees of the 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 and the move from its original foundation twice?

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

Why was another 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 coverage on the matter?

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?

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?

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?

What value do experts and enthusiasts in home restoration place in this particular structure given the level of investment, particularly in light of public loans?

Why are the only responses to legitimate intelligent probing questions to deflect to items that are not important (a campaign of misinformation, changing the subject, attempting to denigrate a community-based, community-supportive nonprofit and/or its board for supporting the community’s input and supporting what we stand for, to attack an organization about their landlord’s property rather than writing some complaints to the landlord who is responsible for the property, 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—even to Council and the City Manager to meet the needs or desires of an encroaching project or a few individuals (which highly suggests they’d like a hostile takeover of the gallery space and record store as well)?

In fact, why all the continued attacks, defensiveness, negative energy, lack of community concern, and lack of answers?

If this project is of the value you state even at the destruction of something else worthy to the community, why can't you just answer the community's questions and garner support?

::Crickets continue, weeks later, to chirp::

The suggestion that SRCA should move to the Amatek building flies totally in the face of the SRCA role in downtown development. SRCA needs to be downtown so it can continue to stimulate sulture in Kent.. The presence of the open space next to the SRCA building makes their location more desirable and its absence will be missed. It would be possible to provide SRCA with another space, but it should include an open green space like it has now. A proposal was presented to make the old Dome building behind the old post office and this was rejected. The fact is that there are many talented artists in Kent who could be an asset if conditions were better. The SRCA is a wonderful facility as it is. It should not be dimished. But it could be replaced by a larger community center in a similar location with some green space. So instead of talk to diminish it, there should be discussion to expand it.

Thurman this article is total bs. You're writing a fluff piece about your own personal interest. Can we just shut down patch now? I haven't seen one article or blog worth it's weight since this terrible website started dividing our community. In fact I think patch's only goal is to get the natives squabbling amongst themselves. Shame on you kent patch. Please shut it down.

yeh i get it paxton, you're one of the good ones...but everyone should be ashamed to be part of this "news website" which does nothing to better the city we live in. THERE IS NO NEWS HERE. i'd rather read the kent stater....

This is just another example of people who can't have a civil discussion. Kent Patch is just a forum for discussion. Jeez calm down.

I started reading Roger Thurman's article and was immediately disturbed by unattributed direct quotes. A red flag went up right away. Roger, I don't know you, and before you label me an SRCA supporter, representative, or spokesperson, I'm not one.
It is irresponsible journalism to directly quote an unnamed person, as you have done, and then incorrectly state that this person is "the representative of SRCA". You attempt to weasel your way out of this gross mistake without an apology. Get your facts straight. Plain and simple. If you can't do that, then don't post this excrement on the internet. As I read it, your article is libelous.
Since you have posted your excrement on the internet, it has given an unintended insight to the problem here. It appears you have no respect for SRCA and you are willing to post hearsay and gossip online to shore up your opinion. Further, you come across as being totally intransigent, and as long as you have anything to do with FSWH, there will be no official meeting with the actual representatives of SRCA. To do so will only increase the likelihood that FSWH will fail to meet their August 4 deadline to relocate this house.
Somewhere it was written "Love thy neighbor." It's either in the Bible, or an SRCA representative in a McDonald's told that to me. I'd apologize for your journalistic mistakes if I were you, as well as "feverishly" find out if your old house is even welcome in the proposed new location.

For clarification, Roger is a member of the Kent community and a blogger on Kent Patch, not a staff writer or professional journalist. Any Kent resident has the freedom and ability to become a blogger for Kent Patch and write about what they choose to. I think what's getting lost in this discussion is his suggestion of creatively redeveloping the AMETEK site on Lake Street, which the city will own and eventually have to do.

There is a lot of negativity about the Esplanade project. I hope one day folks will see the benefit - a more walkable community, more foot traffic downtown, a renewed economic corridor on Erie Street, and higher real estate values for the surrounding houses. You can get worked up about Kent State's spending, but you have to admit that the campus looks great. The addition of Kent State-sponsored businesses in Acorn Alley has improved food choices downtown, and now you won't have to get in your car to go back and forth from campus. People are focusing on the details, and not seeing the bigger picture - blighted and crumbling infrastructure on Erie St. vs brand new transit facility, thriving restaurants, and no more fence blocking pedestrian traffic! I am excited to see Erie St. reborn! Look for benches and gardens in the near future. This is the opposite of urban sprawl. We are improving our core while increasing density in student housing - that reduces the student footprint in the residential neighborhoods.

As a participant in downtown business, and a small business owner, I don't expect any handouts from the city (although the facade program is pretty cool). That the city encourages and supports redevelopment is OK by me. I am seeing increased business downtown (sales up 16% this year), and I'm not looking back.

The ability of the Kentoid population to argue endlessly about the derivation of the mold on the bark of a tree while the forest burns down around them always fascinates me.

Roger Thurman's editorial is very clearly written.

The comment stream that follows illustrates part of what has kept the city of Kent a "D" league college town since the 1970s. Lead, follow or get out of the way. Here is a hint, if you are leading and there is nobody following you - get out of the way.

I think it's pretty clear this isn't just an "empty lot". It's been maintained and utilized by SRCA since the early 90's, though SRCA doesn't own the title to it. And it isn't simply an organic garden either. I know SRCA has had a children's theater program for 20 years, and hundreds if not thousands of children have benefited from this program. I suspect those kids have taken breaks from their play-writing activities to enjoy the green grass there next door. The value of green space isn't immeasurable; the lack of it devalues a property and restricts its use. Imagine having a sheet metal stamping plant built right next to your house on what was your neighbor's field. Wouldn't you pipe up about that? Ever seen a school playground eliminated for a house? I haven't. So I suspect the loss of this green space would be a loss for the children in the children's theater program.

My friend's child was in this theater program, and Kent's musical pride and joy, Jessica Lea Mayfield, who has toured internationally, was also in this program as a child. Who knows, perhaps this children's theater program helped build her confidence to go onstage by herself and become a star. Perhaps stirring her creativity to help write a play as a child helped her grow in her creativity to write songs. Her album "Tell Me" was chosen as one of the top 20 albums of 2011 by American Songwriter magazine, no small feat. The value of such children's programs cannot be discounted -- many of us were influenced in our career choices by participation in such programs in our youth. Perhaps there are even people who went on to careers on Broadway or in Hollywood as a result of the SRCA children's theater program. And it's no stretch of the imagination to say it's an asset having some green space next door for children. If every school benefits from having a playground, then I suspect it's beneficial for the children's theater to have this bit of green next door preserved on which kids can relax and unwind. The lack of that green space won't mean that simply a bunch of organic carrots are uprooted. I think there's a danger that a lot more will be uprooted.

Now, the proposal is that if SRCA doesn't like it, they can relocate. Wait a minute, Kent's relocating a house and telling a cultural arts center to relocate to accomodate the relocated house? This doesn't make any sense to me.

So Kent, you have two organizations that right now are saying "this town ain't big enough for the two of us." I bet it is big enough.

Forget who owns what. Forget who has more money. Figure out instead what benefits the downtown community the most. To me, SRCA's statement that they need that green grass next to them holds water. Sending a cultural arts center to the outskirts of town reduces the cultural value of downtown. Standing Rock Cultural Arts center isn't exactly a beer joint, you know? I'm unfamiliar with all of their programs, and I think they have quite a few besides being an art gallery and a children's theater, so it and the space of green next to it are a valuable asset to Kent. Its proximity to the Kent Stage, where the kids perform their plays after they write them, build their own props, and meticulously rehearse them, is undeniably an asset.

I have one suggestion that may not have been considered: I know from my experience that there are many vacant plots in every city where the owners are delinquent for years and years in paying the property taxes. Often the back taxes exceed the value of the property, thus the owner will never pay the taxes, but counties never bother to take legal action to seize the property. Did FSWH review or ask Portage County to review such plots of land? This is not that labor-intensive of an undertaking anymore, as County real estate records are now computerized, and often even accessible via the internet. So the pool of available plots could easily be much larger than what FSWH considered. The property owners wouldn't fight seizure actions and would be happy to turn the title over to the county to be relieved of delinquent tax liability.

Another question is, if SRCA owned its neighboring green space, where would FSWH have proposed to relocate this house?

I don't buy into the argument that this is the only plot on the map -- that sounds too much like "Mom, I absolutely have to have $175 Air Jordans -- I can't go to school wearing $50 tennis shoes!"