This idea will not help Lakewood grow as an upscale community. The city needs to step up to the plate and pressure the owner to make a better choice. We already have a Mcdonalds only a few blocks away. That does not help the goal of up scale
community. As a resident of the area I want to see a better use of this site.

Perhaps Mr. Bullock and Mr. Siley could let residents-- the vast, vast majority of whom must oppose this horrible idea-- know where their opinions would be best received. Letters? Council meetings? ABR meeting?

If this plan does go through,
1) residents need to speak with their $$$. Don't patronize the store, and
2) the building department needs to be very vigilant in making certain there are NO violations. If the owner of the property chooses to ignore the city's recommendations re: best utilization, the owner needs to be very aware that the building itself will be closely monitored for code violations.

I love the idea of Dollar General coming to Lakewood. Family Dollar store is doing great and the patrons who will be closer to the Dollar General store will shop at Dollar General as not to have to go further to Family Dollar. Anyway... I see nothing wrong with an affordable department store compared to 2 McDonalds in our health conscious community. Curb appeal is my only concern for that location.

I agree with Andy. Please..please..let us know how we can best voice our opinions. I can't believe that ANYONE would consider Dollar General to be a kind of store that would be in an 'anchor' area of our city. We should encourage more locally owned, or destination businesses set up shop there. This is very discouraging after all the great directions I see happening in town. Please let us know what we can do!

Michael,
One of the reasons housing/building stock in so many cities, including Lakewood, is in disrepair and contributing to an overall decline in property values is absentee landlords, whether residential of commercial. If ANY property owner in a given city chooses to forge ahead with their own agenda, irrespective of the needs and mandates of that city, they need to be held accountable.
I know that Lakewood building inspectors have the daunting task of assuring that properties are kept up, and I think they need to pay special attention to those who have no interest in Lakewood other than as a 'cash cow'.
If you're not doing anything wrong, then you don't have anything to fear.

Barbara: "If ANY property owner in a given city chooses to forge ahead with their own agenda, irrespective of the needs and mandates of that city, they need to be held accountable."

What does that mean? The owner of the building has the right to sell his property to anyone he wants provided that it's zoned for that use. You may not like his choice, but my guess is that money talks, and the owner desires more of it. Maybe the other interested parties offered him too little to accept. How do you propose to hold the owner accountable for selling his property to DG? Unless the city changes some ordinance to disallow this type of business, the owner isnt doing anything wrong. For the record, I don't like dollar general, dollar tree, family dollar, or any store with the word dollar in it.

Funny how the building director will fight against this tooth & nail on the western end but the east end has these establishments (not THAT one but similar) and I never heard that he was horribly against them. Hmmmm. Makes you wonder.

Evan,
My issue is that the city of Lakewood directed several business to the new building owner. These businesses were more in line with the vision and goal of Lakewood; local people who have a vested interest in the growth, development, and maintenance of Lakewood as a community.

When an absentee landlord chooses to eschew all the recommendations of the city in which he/she bought property, I have to believe there is only self-interest working there. There are instances of absentee landlords who do doing to maintain their holdings; out of sight, out of mind...just as long as the rent money keeps rollin' in.

There are some of us that would like something different then trendy coffe shops and pricey stores selling used junk, and the idea that we should use underhanded tactics to chase any business out is the beginning of a slippery slope.

Just another of the way Lakewood embraces NIMBY (not i my backyard) when something goes against what Lakewood of 1955 or those who are naive as the day is long. I am also disappointed that Tom Bullock is getting involved in what is a private owner renting to a legit business....Please count the number of VACANT store fronts in Lakewood....City Hall will deny the large number but the facts are many, many store fronts have NO business going on behind the front door.....These are the same people who had no better idea or the cash to put what they wanted to replace Detroit Theatre......and when push came to shove, this city which should have a number of one way streets going north-south, should have considered that for Woodward south of Detroit......wow what a concept.....no motor traffic to Detroit but sidwalks to walk to the MAIN commercial avenue in the city.....you just wonder how many who live near Detroit considered that Detroit is the MAIN commercial avenue in the city rather than complain about possible increased traffic....this is the same city that denied Denny's because of its 24-hour open policy at most if not all other Denny's...somebody tell me when I can get in line to be the FIRST customer at the McDonald's Detroit Theater edition......Dollar General isn't an adult book store....you have to wonder if those who complain really know how silly they sound or how they remind others of being stuck in 1955...this isn't Back To the Future...this is real life.....

first of all..let mr. siley state that these businesses steered to the former cvs location were serious, absolute options. then it would have been beautiful for this landlord..highest bidder gets the lease! just because possibilities were out there doesnt mean anything..unless mr. siley will state each one wanted to sign, now, on the dotted line. landlords & cities dont succeed on "possibilities" lakewood as an "upscale" city is a nice dream..a solid, balanced city is a more realistic goal if the whole of the city commits to a master plan..a smart master plan. but, that starts with solid companies wanting to locate & top-line companies want locations that reflect their image. lakewood is wide open for this with smart leadership. a dollar store on detroit isnt a deal breaker. the new businesses & their buildings, on whole are a plus..IHOP failed because its food & service were lousy..checkout its replacement. the fact that immediate neighbors protest a Mcdonalds or DDM is sad..commercial has to meet residential somewhere & proper steps should be taken to protect private property (see the signs at the new cvs). its sad that when progress is possible trivial* issues are created. think about what mr. meggas has framed or lakewood could soon be the next lorain, or euclid, or worse..there is a "tipping point"! good luck!!! *i know, "trivial" is subjective.

I wouldn't mind a dollar store nearer - and within walking distance- to my residence.

I could not agree more that the previous CVS site (now vacant) could be better used to serve the residents of Lakewood, and I fully support any effort to make it painfully clear to Dollar General that area residents will not patronize the business. Same goes for the McDonald's on the site of the now demolished Detroit Theater.

But it's also interesting to read the comments regarding the Family Dollar:

“This is just very underwhelming. Very underwhelming.” said Dru Siley (regarding the Dollar General store site).

“I will oppose it tooth and nail, since it represents not the highest and best use, but the lowest and worse use,” said Ward 2 City Councilman Tom Bullock.

East of the Dollar General, across from Garfield Middle School, a Family Dollar AND Discount Drug Mart are coming to our fair town. Underwhelming times two? Clearly. Worse is the possibility (if drug mart has its way) of residential parcels becoming commercial property for parking. No voice in opposition from City officials or politicians.

A strong neighborhood opposition is fighting to preserve the residential property but support from the City to preserve the residential property (which will be sacrificed for eleven parking spaces).

I would ask Lakewood residents to support Clarence, Grace and Cohassett residents by strongly opposing, and ultimately blocking the acquisition (and erosion) of residential property for commercially zoned purposes.

Michael, lower your blood pressure. The city already denied DDM from acquiring the residential property for their parking. That was in an article a couple weeks or so back.
you need to read more patch (Colin you can pay me later):
http://lakewood-oh.patch.com/articles/drug-mart-modifies-its-plans-at-ganley-site

How many dollars stores does Lakewood really need? Yes we have empty store fronts the majority are very small. How many large areas do we really have to develop? Should we not develop them wisely?
@ Dale NIMBY sometimes is true. But the true facts should be clear. For example Drug Mart project on the east part of old Ganley dealership. No one is opposed to this happening. Where the opposition is residential property being demolished for parking.
Drug Mart says they need a 24,000 sqf building then why do they keep proposing a 28,000 sqf plus building. They are required to have 70 parking spaces. Why did they want 92 and now 83? They stated they will have 20-23 delivery trucks per week. Perhaps you can find the time to get involved at the zoning & ARB meetings to see what is really going on. Easy to sit at your desk and write a few comments.How about standing up at tonight's ARB meeting @ 5:30 and truly getting involved, and voicing an opinion. Oh did I forget to mention the Family Dollar store being built on the west part of old Ganley dealership. Now let's really talk about traffic issues. Yes all across the street from Garfield Middle school.
@ dougmoore S. Trevor I challenge you also with getting involved, and knowing the true facts before you comment.

Evan, Just to keep the record straight DDM still wants 18ft of lawn from the house on Grace as well as the residential apartment building next to that house as well as a lot on Cohassett that is zoned residential. They plan on razing the apartment building and extending a parking lot onto Grace . This is Mr. Siley's vision - a sprawling 2800sq ft Drug Mart ( the new CVS on Detroit is 1400sq ft.) that is completely out of scale with the neighborhood and the existing commercial footprint on Detroit. Down the road when the dust settles on the franchising of Detroit I hope all those who feel excluded and poorly represented by the city will push back politically.

A correction - I meant to say that DDM wants 18ft in down the length of the white house's property.

Thanks Mark, for the better detailed explanation on the DDM deal. Evan, as Mark noted, an entire residential parcel will be rezoned commercial, the multi-family building on the property will be demolished, building residents will be involuntary displaced (evicted) and a portion of a second, adjacent residential parcel will be reduced, carved out of the existing parcel. The century home on that, now reduced parcel, will be "preserved". Reducing the footprint of that residential parcel will likely result in that home remaining vacant, not marketable.

My blood pressure is fine Evan, but my tolerance for DDM's plan to spill over into our neighborhood is nil. If you agree that this is not appropriate action on the part of DDM, please let City Hall know, as we have quite strongly.

This is potentially a dangerous precedent for future commercial development in Lakewood.

Upset would be putting it mildly. And to answer your "depth of commercial lots vary" question, there is some degree of variance (not a fixed line if you look at the zoning map). But it is what it is, and it is adequate for development as currently zoned.

It's not about "NIMBY", truly (although in truth I am not aware of very many folks that are excited to see another drug store in Lakewood).

It's about chipping away at the residential neighborhood and consequently impacting the value/marketability of homes in the immediate area. And what then will stop the next developer from doing the same, just one or two (or one and a fourth) residential parcels needed to "expand our level of service and bring jobs to the area".

Bad precedent Evan, very bad precedent. Help us to keep DDM in the existing commercial footprint and preserve the existing residential neighborhood. And for what it's worth, this is a Century plus neighborhood, not a development that popped up thirty or forty years ago.

Thanks you for that acknowledgement and an objective perspective regarding the situation in our neighborhood. I am describing the situation openly and honestly, no smoke and mirrors. We simply want to protect our neighborhood from erosion and support our neighbors that will be negatively impacted.

I can also understand your points i.e., Dollar General, free market, landlord business decisions. I wish it were different (ultimate tenant in vacant space) but accept the 'choice' made by the building owner.

Did Dollar General offer more financially, or a longer lease ? Not aware, but if true, then the city should consider offering economic development incentives to property owners that are leasing space (to attract tenants that create more diverse retail opportunities for residents).

You know it's all about us when it comes to retail, without customers, no business. I also agree with your point on shopping at Dollar General if it meets your need. I on the other hand will not frequent the business, not with Marc's established and right around the corner.

Nor will I frequent the new micky dees at the Detroit Theater site, poor nutritional value and if I did have a fix on a Big Mac, I'm off to the W. 117th establishment.

I guess my point, what constitutes an over saturation of stores offering the same goods and services? A lack of business patrons I assume, and that's what I intend to promote on this influx of dollar and drug stores.

I went to the A.B.R. meeting last night concerning the new D.M. Towards the end the architect mentioned that Dru Siley had finally capitulated on the much needed Traffic Study. What is so glaring about this, is that the Study will be conducted while School is Out . So by stalling on a request we ( the residents of Grace ) made a month ago, Mr. Siley will be able to gift wrap a Traffic Study that can only approximate the traffic flow from the Dollar Store, can only approximate the traffic flow from the D.M and will either ignore or approximate the traffic flow from Garfield Middle School. This isn't just negligent , in the end it could be tragic. The Patch as well as The Observer should call Mr. Siley on this.

Totally agree with your suggestion... Very nice post and good information here... Thanks for posting that....

http://teavdrama.com/