Kent City Council will take another look at the $15,000 loan to Kent Wells Sherman House, Inc., for relocation and restoration of the historic house.
Council voted recently to put the issue back in to a future committee meeting to review the details of the loan, which was originally approved in June 2012.
Councilman Roger Sidoti, who suggested the review, said he wanted to see details such as when the city will release the money and the term of the loan hashed out.
"I think there are two issues here," Sidoti said. "In good faith we are extending a significant portion of taxpayer money to the house. Obviously they are sitting on some issues they haven’t quite got rectified ... for the placement of the house."
The Kent Wells Sherman House group recently received a permit from the city to build a new foundation for the house on land owned by the group at 247 N. Water St. That permit is just one of many that must be approved in order to relocate the house permanently to the lot from its temporary location on East College Avenue.
The relocation remains tied up in a legal battle as well.
Portage County Common Pleas Judge John Enlow set a hearing date in the court battle over the relocation for Friday morning on the permanent injunction request made by the Save the Standing Rock Garden, a group of residents who oppose moving the house to the greenspace on North Water Street.
Citing those two issues, Sidoti said it appears it will be some time before the house can start to generate income for the group to repay the loan.
"Obviously we want to protect the taxpayer investment while being fair to the Kent Wells Sherman House group to have time to get income from the house to pay back the loan," Sidoti said.
A specific meeting date for reviewing the loan has not yet been set.
However, public money shouldn't be used to save this house. If someone wants to save it, KSU is selling it for practically nothing so there's plenty of cost savings there. The house is not architecturally appealing; it's a white square with no distinguishing features other than how the roof ties into the square. It was a rental house for years so the interior probably has no distinguishing design either, if it ever did. Just because a building is old is not a good reason to save it, especially with public funds. There are other older and more historically significant homes and buildings in Kent already being well preserved.
And obviously a lot of people find this house to be a bad move. If not, none of this would be going on. The house would have been moved and found a home long ago. The people in love with the house have talked down with disdain at anyone who desires to run barefoot and love nature instead of worshipping a junky old college rental. After a couple hundred thousand dollars to bring it up to code, what's the grand plan with the house? What a waste. Next up, Rick Hawksley writing a blog on the need for greenspace. Oh, bring on Kent's blast of irony.
Please spare the community from more of this and let these outlier groups fight like children on their own time!
DUH
Also, I am curious where @Moral Woman's "overwhelming majority" was during any of the public discussion of this topic.
And someone should have been thinking about preserving history before it was a college rental. The house just isn't that historically relevant. And "those Standing Rock" people don't have anything to do with it. A good deal of "other people" have decided to take a stance against the house because they value nature in all forms over an old house.
$$$space must be more important to him than greenspace?