SANFORD ROSS LEE
10128 SOUTH BOULEVARD - CLEVELAND, OHIO 44108
(216) 791-4614
August 23, 1996
Dominic W. Sacco, Housing
Court Specialist
Cleveland Municipal Court
Justice Center- Level 13
1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Dear Mr. Sacco:
This letter
addresses concerns I have regarding the treatment accorded Mary V.
Rayford, owner of a property at 9805 South Boulevard. Mrs. Rayford
is my mother. We are contending that the above mentioned property
was illegally acquired by the Cleveland Restoration Society. Since
that time, no compensation has been offered or paid to Mrs.
Rayford.
During a meeting
with the Cleveland Landmarks Commission in 1993, Commission
Chairman Richard Schanfarber told Mrs. Rayford to stop repairs on
the exterior of the building and begin work on the plumbing,
heating or electrical wiring instead. He advised her to bring
either a plumber, an electrician or a heating contractor to the
next meeting. When I questioned why the Commission was concerning
itself with the building interior instead of the exterior, as only
exteriors fall within its purview, I was completely ignored.
When Mrs. Rayford
decided, upon the Chairman's insistence, that she would bring an
electrician, he told her that someone would notify her within
forty-five (45) to sixty (60) days when she could expect someone to
inspect the progress of the electrical work inside the house. No
one ever phoned or wrote to gain access to the inside of the house
for this inspection.
Mrs. Rayford
subsequently contacted Tanya Almond of Glenville Development
Corporation regarding her rights and obligations concerning the
property. Ms. Almond informed us that repairs should be proceeding
on the exterior, as that is the only part of the property that
concerns the Cleveland Landmarks Commission or the Cleveland
Restoration Society. Here I would like to add that Heather Rudge, a
Neighborhood Project Manager of the Cleveland Restoration Society,
sat in on our initial meeting with the Commission. Chairman
Schanfarber twice denied us permission to continue exterior repairs
on the property even though we had not violated any regulations
concerning the restoration of historic properties.
Housing Court
Specialist Mary Elliot, who was initially assigned to assist us in
bringing the property into compliance with housing code
regulations, gave us no real guidance in achieving this end. I
subsequently learned that Elliot and her spouse are in the business
of rehabilitating houses. There is a great possibility, I believe,
that my mentor may have a vested interest in acquiring the South
Boulevard property either for herself or for one of her
clients.
During our meeting
with the Cleveland Landmarks Commission, no reference was made
regarding the proposed interior changes to designated Landmark
buildings or to any other buildings in the designated Historic
Districts surrounding 9805 South Boulevard. However, Don Rice of
the Division of Redevelopment told me that interior work on the
house was expected to be in an advanced stage and that drywall
should be up and in place when the inspector arrived.
I also believe
that attempts were made to intimidate both Mrs. Rayford and myself.
1) I was advised by a prosecutor (???) to "Give it up!" (the house,
I guess). 2) Municipal Court employee Mike Foley suggested, after a
court hearing, that I donate 9805 South Boulevard to the City of
Cleveland. 3) After I had denied entry to a representative of the
Restoration Society before their formal involvement with the
property, the Landmarks Commission chairman intimidated my mother
into leaving her business and unlocking the property to admit a
group of more than a dozen people.
I trust I have
made our position clear in regards to this injustice that has been
visited upon us. Any assistance you may render us in our pursuit of
justice will be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your
consideration of this matter.
Sincerely
yours,
Sanford R.
Lee
Mary V.
Rayford