The Library’s question presents a false equivalency by asking whether funds should be spent on Coventry P.E.A.C.E. Building maintenance or on the Library’s own programming, without proposing what specific programs would be expanded or supported. This fails to acknowledge that the Coventry P.E.A.C.E. Building itself provides significant value to the community by housing nonprofits that offer educational, cultural, and social services, aligning with the Library’s mission. Additionally, the building generates rental income that offsets maintenance costs, making it a financially viable asset rather than a drain on resources. To resolve this, the Library and the City should collaborate on a solution that transitions ownership and management to Coventry P.E.A.C.E., Inc., ensuring the building remains a community hub without burdening the Library.

The statement from the Library regarding the projected $2.8 million investment in the Coventry PEACE building from 2024-2026 is misleading. It fails to mention that rental income from the nonprofits significantly offsets these costs. This estimate is unusually high compared to previous assessments and includes projects that are not immediately necessary for the building’s “life and safety.” Furthermore, replacing the HVAC system would result in substantial energy cost savings, mitigating the initial expense. There are also numerous state and federal grants available for making buildings more efficient, which the Library could pursue.

Our goal is to demonstrate that the building is a valuable asset to the community. If the Library no longer wishes to be the landlord, they should collaborate with the City to convey ownership and secure a long-term lease with Coventry P.E.A.C.E. This will save the building, the nonprofits it houses, and the vital programs serving our residents. The Coventry P.E.A.C.E. building aligns with the City’s Master Plan and the Library’s mission, fostering community engagement, cultural events, and educational programs that benefit the community. The closure of this building would be detrimental, particularly to vulnerable populations, and would contradict the city’s tagline, “Home to the Arts.”

We have a comprehensive plan to take over landlord responsibilities, ensuring the building remains a permanent facility for community nonprofits without relying on public funds. We seek good-faith dialogue with the Library and City leaders to achieve a solution that preserves this important community hub.

The question of whether to expand the mini-urban forest or maintain a lawn or meadow if the building is demolished raises critical environmental concerns. Demolishing the Coventry P.E.A.C.E. building not only involves significant waste and resource consumption but also negates the established environmental benefits of the existing structure, which include its role in community engagement and cultural enrichment. The environmental cost of demolition, including the energy required and the waste generated, often outweighs the potential benefits of replacing it with new green spaces. While planting grass or trees is a positive step, it does not offset the loss of the building’s existing sustainability attributes and its role in reducing the carbon footprint through the repurposing of its space. We urge the Library and the City to consider the broader environmental impact and sustainability of preserving the building through the ‘Keep The P.E.A.C.E.’ plan, which offers a way to enhance both community and environmental sustainability without resorting to demolition.”

Again, we find it odd that they are discussing survey findings before their survey is completed. Also again, the question lacks important details and leads the reader to think of onlly the final result and not the cost of that choice.

The biggest cost if the building is torn down is the void left by the dispresement of the community resources the 12 nonprofits in our collaborative provide for the residents of Cleveland Heights and beyond. However, there are real costs, as well, that add up to a much more significant amount than if the building is preserved – there is the environmental impact cost of demolishing a building, there is the financial cost of the demolition and then the re-grading of the land so it is not a potential danger to the park and playground. There is also a financial cost of the re-landscaping and maintenance. Potentially, there’s a safety cost to ensure that portion of the park is not being misused. There’s a cost to the business district who benefits from the visitors we draw to the area in the evenings and during the cold winter months.

For a building they purchased for $1 and for which they have received over $800,000 in rent, these costs don’t seem worth the price of all that will be lost.