In rejecting a $550,000 offer for the decaying Millikin School building by Orthodox-Jewish school Mosdos Ohr Hatorah, I think the CH-UH School Board might be making a mistake.
Millikin hasn’t been used as a public school since the ’70s; it was left vacant in 2006 when the Heights Parent Center moved out. The facility sits on the wooded boundary between a predominantly Orthodox neighborhood and Severance Center.
As the Cleveland Jewish News and other media reports indicate, the building was appraised at $2.4 million in 2006. With the value of hindsight, we now know that was at the height of the real estate bubble. In efforts to sell the building, the school district has never received an offer anywhere close to that amount. In fact, the recent offer by Mosdos Ohr Hatorah – which has wanted to buy the school from the first moment it came available – is the most anyone has offered.
But with the offer coming in at less than a quarter of the building’s appraised value, there is some logic behind the board’s rejection.
The school board and administration are showing a lot of concern lately about delivering high value to the community. Results of that effort are reflected in rising morale at the schools, improvements in standardized test scores, success in athletics and – very notably – support in the most recent school levy.
So when Superintendent Douglas Heuer says the district simply needs to get more money for the building, I accept the statement at face value. The next time the district needs to come to the community for money, nobody in the district wants to be accused of letting go of an asset at below-market value.
Instead, district officials have said they want to lease space in the building – turning it into a shared office facility, same as it has done with the former Coventry Elementary building, which closed in 2007. Keep in mind that the Millikin building is decaying badly; someone will have to spend good money for it to be useable. Mosdos Ohr Hatorah is prepared to spend $1.5 million after the purchase. The school district could probably get away with less to make it ready for office workers.
I’m sure they’ve done the math; it’s not that complicated. If the school district is rejecting a purchase offer, it’s because they believe they can generate a better return over a longer period of time by retaining the property for commercial use.
It raises the philosophical question whether a public school district should dedicate resources to being a landlord. The nationwide climate, which doesn’t favor public schools, may make such digressions a fiscal necessity. That doesn’t mean it’s wholly appropriate.
Anyway, value to the community doesn’t always have to be measured solely by money. There may be value in helping a residential neighborhood regain a community school (with a playground and ball field) – even if it’s not part of the public school system.
There may be value in helping a neighborhood fight commercial encroachment by giving it control over a facility that could serve as a non-commercial buffer.
There may be value in doing a good deed for a religious segment of our community that has not always found reason to be supportive of public school tax levies.
Right now, the school district is undergoing a facility review process that will result in a major overhaul of how each school building is used. A likely outcome will be a need for the district to borrow money to reconfigure some buildings while closing others – leaving the district with more dormant property to sell or lease.
Based on this, the district needs two things: 1) a recent record of fiscal prudence, and 2) lots of community goodwill.
This is the heart of the matter with respect to Millikin School. Fiscal prudence dictates holding out for a better price; community goodwill may mean selling it now.
In 2006, when the CH-UH School Board voted to close Coventry Elementary School, there was no such conflict. Nobody argued the need to close a school; the only issue was which one. A year-long process had patiently teased out the community’s decision on that question. And then the board ignored the community’s voice, making a decision that many still view as illogical and capricious.
As a direct result, Nancy Peppler and Eric Coble – both residents of the Coventry neighborhood – were elected to the school board on a platform of transparency and accountability to the community.
There has never been a thoughtful process to engage the community about disposal of the Millikin building. It’s not necessary; dealing with an empty building is not the same as closing a school.
But the school board has the same job: It must hear the voice of the community.
It seems to me that the community is speaking – saying that it’s OK to leave a few dollars on the table if it means Millikin will again become a school owned, maintained and cherished by the people who use it.
Well reasoned analysis. There’s more to life than $.
Good job, Bob!
Severance-Millikin Elementary School was closed in 1979, not the early 90’s. It was used until the beginning of the last decade (2006?) for a variety of District programs that were then moved to Gearity, meaning the building has sat vacant since then.
The real “value” in Millikin lays in its replacement costs and land costs, not its assessed value. With a new building without land easily costing 8MM+, that is what it would cost to build a new school. Since it is not in fact new, a serious renovation could easily cost 5MM, hence the 2.4MM valuation. To just assemble a site of equal size would require buying well over 3MM in homes to demolish and be next to impossible to do.
Where the District errs is in not maintaining the grounds and keeping the appearance of the building in better condition. This would reduce this portion of the argument in regard to the sale price and future of the structure. That someone wants the building at a low-ball price does not obligate the Board to sell it since it sits vacant. Logic like that says I would have to sell my car when it sits in my driveway since someone offered me money for it and I am not using it right now.
It would make more sense to see what the Facilities Plan is and what it suggests for Millikin, as opposed to going to Cleveland Heights City Hall and asking City Council to make the School Board sell the building.
As I have seen many similar proposals over the last 15 years for Millikin, this is really nothing new. I have often suggested leasing the building to Mosdos for $1/year with a 15-year lease, with them responsible for the entire building. Most of the things they have to do to the building have a lifespan where they would need to be replaced near the end of the lease anyway. Build into the lease the ability to renew after 15 years, as well as the ability for the BOE to buy them out (if need be during the course of the lease) but with adequate notice and compensation. Such a middle path allows the public to retain title to a public asset, while allowing a local institution to benefit from something that sits vacant.
The problem with the current debate is that it creates ill will that doesn’t need to exist.
-EJ
I appreciate your feedback and criticism. Note: I have changed the factual error (closed as a school in the ’70s) in the original post.
I couldn’t agree more with EJ’s comment: ” I have often suggested leasing the building to Mosdos for $1/year with a 15-year lease, with them responsible for the entire building.”
I support the long term lease as suggested.
The decision should take into account the needs and goodwill of the entire community, ALL of the taxpayers in the district.
Bob makes a good point: All congregations and non-profits are deserving of goodwill and all should collaborate more; this lack of collaboration has cost our community dearly.
It saddens me that the Mosdos community did not collaborate or help with the efforts to preserve Oakwood, or with neighborhood efforts to bring the Millikin playground back to the school.
Finally, as you can see from the picture, Millikin is on one of the small areas of green left in Cleveland Heights. The path from Millikin to the Severance Stables has a wetland. I urge everyone to walk around the grounds and visit the Severance Stables.
Certainly we should give a long term lease to the congregation. But, we should maintain public control of this important greenspace–we have very little left.
School boards handling of this makes the whole thing look very fishy. Mosdos should have the school – and the call center can now go in Walmart at Severance – which is being stripped by our friends at Oakwood – or put the call center in the old Finast location at University Square – what a shame that Severance will soon be a blighted ghost town –
I don’t agree that it looks fishy, even if I disagree with the current position. As for the call center, it’s not possible to draw a straight-line connection between space at Millikin – which the school district owns and has a right to use as it sees fit – and vacant real estate that other people own.
The school district’s goal in using Millikin to house a private business is to earn money as a landlord. It can’t do that by sending business to Severance or University Square. I raise the question whether the district should be in the business of managing commercial real estate, but make no mistake it is absolutely legal.
The point isn’t at all about the call center; that’s a private company which can choose to rent space from the school district, or from someone else.
The point is whether the school district is working in its own long-term interest by holding on to the building for now, or by selling it at a low price in exchange for community goodwill.
There is room for disagreement with the district’s position on that, but I strenuously argue with the idea that there is anything fishy or scandalous about it.
“As for the call center, it’s not possible to draw a straight-line connection between space at Millikin – which the school district owns and has a right to use as it sees fit – and vacant real estate that other people own.
The school district’s goal in using Millikin to house a private business is to earn money as a landlord. It can’t do that by sending business to Severance or University Square.”
Ahem… Indeed it is possible, Bob. All the school board has to do is drag their feet (or listen to the community and try to engender some goodwill for the $200 million makeover they have planned) and wait for Pinetree and Howard Thompson to see the light on the big concrete hulk that will remain when the jobs at Severance Walmart have crossed the border.
Or both entities could hem and haw until they get a note from the call center telling them that they’ve discovered the University Square property suits them just fine.
The property was appraised in 2006? Really?!? So was my house. It’s dropped in value since then. News flash: so has most property, particularly those that have been the victim of deferred maintenance. Back in the early days of HeightsArts, when it was still just a twinkle in the eyes of a few folks gathered around the idea of resurrecting the Severance Stables as an arts center, I toured the stables. Deferred maintenance was apparent then. I haven’t visited lately, but I haven’t heard that the district has done much with that building in the past decade. To hear tell, they haven’t done much for Millikin, either.
To hear Thompson’s version, a call center at Millikin would entail expanding Severance Town Center. My eyebrows raised and my jaw dropped. Expand Severance? Well, yes, so that neighbors wouldn’t have to have the traffic of the workers in a commercial business. If I lived in that neighborhood, I think I’d much rather have school children walking on my sidewalk than to have Millikin School extracted and walled off from the neighbors.
After we just passed a levy, I’d say $200 million is a lot of goodwill for the board to bank between now and the bond issue. Has anyone else noticed that there’s a foreclosure crisis still in full swing and properties continue to be devalued in this region? The school board has. They project the same level of enrollment in their new plan for the next 10 years as we have today. When a Heights High senior asked about the enrollment projections at the meeting the other night saying (I’m paraphrasing) “these new schools are gonna be so desirable and amazingly functional, many more people will be enrolling heir children”, the panel’s response might as well have been, “yeah, fat chance.”
The Patch article: http://clevelandheights.patch.com/articles/coventry-school-plan-may-be-applied-to-millikin
has some comments from the Mosdos community. ONe of them wants the school board to GIVE the property to them. And, they accuse those who do not agree with their point of view of being bigots.
So much for their goodwill to the rest of us.
La Shonda-
Yikes!! Only person among many comments said “sell or give” and who knows if that person is from the as you call it, “Mosdos community.” No one said to just give it away. It is the will of the Mosdos administration to initiate a business negotiation with the School Board, not to solicit a freebie. Please don’t create bad will yourself and go around saying “so much for ‘their’ goodwill.” Mosdos wants to acquire the school, build a playground, and strengthen the neighborhood in general- because that is in everyone’s interest.