Bradley Epworth Land Grab
Buy now, ask later. Between Bradley University’s buyup of Maplewood and Dist 150’s purchases around Glen Oak Park, the ‘buy now, ask later’ process of expansion has been an all too common occurance around town lately.
In the Uplands, surrounded by the streets of Columbia Terrace, University and Elmwood is the Bradley-Epworth United Methodist Church. It is no secret that they’ve been interested in expanding for some time now. Quietly, they’ve purchased three adjacent properties along University and one next door on Elmwood. A few more on Elmwood and they’d really have a nice chunk of land.
The obvious objection to this is the loss of more historic houses and the shrinking of the neighborhood to put down more pavement. To be honest, the houses on University aren’t all that spectacular, but what really bothers me is their recent purchase on Elmwood and the fear that they are looking for more. Secondly, if this is allowed to happen, a precedent will have been set at which point Avanti’s will have the green light to tear down a few houses on the other end of the street to expand. A few houses here, a few houses there… I’m starting to feel a squeeze coming on.
A few years back Walgreens wanted to take out the Avanti’s corner at Main & University to build the bohemouth that now sits on Western. Bradley has been trying to peck away at us in the past along Main Street; for the most part their efforts failed. How is this current situation different, and why would anyone think it is a good idea? I, for one, don’t like the notion of selling off the Uplands, especially when it begins affecting interior streets.
September 24th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
This sounds like a job for the neighborhood association (have you been going to the meetings?).
Isn’t there a zoning issue in here somewhere? Bradley Epworth doesn’t have the clout of Bradley University or the autonomy of District 150 — I’d think we could stop them from putting in a parking lot through zoning if direct talks break down. Seriously, though, hasn’t the neighborhood association been in contact with the church?
September 25th, 2006 at 11:56 am
You mean pounding away on my keyboard isn’t enough, I actually should attend some meetings? My blogger manual didn’t mention that…
More seriously, I find it troubling, if it is true, that Lee Mehl sold her house to the church presumedly for demolition. Hey, it’s her house to do what she wants with it, and she certainly doesn’t have to answer to me, but I don’t believe the expansion of the church parking lot is worth it.
September 25th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
I agree. My church (Grace Presbyterian) at one time had bought up all the properties surrounding it so it could demolish them and expand our parking lot. When they added up the cost, however, it wasn’t worth it. It wouldn’t have added enough parking spaces to meet our current needs (let alone future growth), and the per-space cost would have been several thousand dollars.
It makes me wonder what Bradley Epworth would really be gaining by demolishing that house — another 8 spaces, maybe? Is that worth the acquisition and demolition costs? Will it meet their long-term needs? If they want to grow, I know a church building that’s for sale only a couple miles away that would give them plenty of parking and room to grow….
September 25th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
This might sound kinda out there, but why don’t you simply stop in and ask the pastor…you know, like a neighbor would?
He’s a nice, regular-kind-of guy named Tom. You might discover his intentions aren’t as explosive as you think.
Then again, maybe they’re worse.
I honestly don’t know. I don’t attend, but I do know and respect Tom quite a bit.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
It is my understanding that in the short run, the church wants to rezone 1216 Elmwood to Residential-Special-Use-Office. The long term is most unclear. In the past it has been voiced several ‘plans’. At the maximum they want up to 10 properties, plan to tear down the existing church, build a new one on the current green space and current parking lot, tear down the 10 houses and make them into the new parking lot for the new bigger better church. At the minimum they do nothing or even relocate. The church asserts they have no concrete plan but apparently it is concrete enough to buy houses (Bradley anyone?). In the meantime we have acquisition creep.
In talks, regarding the rezoning of 1215 N University, a deal was made whereby the church would need to provide a concrete plan before the URA or the city would consider any further zoning changes. To my knowledge this still has not occurred. It is also my understanding that some gentleman’s agreement existed that the church wasn’t going to buy houses on the Elmwood side, sticking to University only. Now the church is wanting to rezone 1216 Elmwood.
CJ.. sure BEMC does not have the clout of Bradley. They don’t need it if they have sympathetic officers and neighborhood ‘activists’ who seem far more willing to let the church go forward than the residents of Elmwood are comfortable with. When 1216 N University was up for rezoning 2 years ago, the officers sure sounded like they wanted to endorse the change. It was a struggle over a long meeting and a number of us got that changed to where the URA would neither endorse nor oppose the rezoning. I still think not opposing was a bad idea. The current move has been kept way to hush hush, which I surmise as an effort to keep participation low, therein begins the kernal of possible scandal.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
CJ,
“When they added up the cost, however, it wasn’t worth it. It wouldn’t have added enough parking spaces to meet our current needs (let alone future growth), and the per-space cost would have been several thousand dollars.”
Exactly… prior to the zoning change on 1215 N University, the Pastor gave a presentation making the case for what they wanted to do. He presented current attendance, the growth, and projected growth. By his own admission, if the church were to acquire all that it wanted, it would still not be enough. The possibility of BEMC relocating would still exist. This begs the question as to why they need to or want to go forward with this. I doubt the reasons have any benefit to the neighborhood. If anything, having a larger contiguous property would make it easier for them to move, not harder.
October 25th, 2006 at 11:13 am
Ok, there have been quite a few incorrect assumptions made already, understandably. The current goal of Bradley Epworth’s house acquisitions are to transform the houses into houses of ministry. They have already renovated the closest house to the church on University into a student ministry house. They would like to create a house for administration, a prayer house, a house for Bradley interns, a house for city pastoral retreats, etc. They currently have no intention of demolition. They would likely turn the backyards of the homes into added parking for the church, though. But, this would create no aesthetic eye-sore for most of the neighborhood. Hope this clears up the confusion.