The neighbors opposed to the construction of a youth drop-in center in Ohio City owned by Lutheran Metropolitan Ministry have offered a concession to end the two-year-old court battle. The nonprofit calls the plan "absurd" and "self-serving."
The neighbors, who sued to block the center, have proposed that Lutheran Metropolitan Ministry temporarily operate the drop-in center on their street until the nonprofit finds a permanent site elsewhere.
The offer includes several other stipulations, including for LMM to redevelop the property into residential housing.
It's the most recent development in a two-year-old ongoing legal battle over the proposed drop-in center for young people facing homelessness.
In January 2025, LMM filed an appeal after a Cuyahoga County judge overturned a variance from city zoning code that the drop-in center project had received in 2023. The plan for the center was to provide food, showers, a place to rest and case management for young people experiencing housing instability.
Judge Brian Mooney ruled in December 2024 that LMM and its partners had failed to prove they would experience a "hardship" by not building the drop-in center at Lutheran Metropolitan Ministry's offices in the residential neighborhood in Ohio City.
Several neighbors, including local attorney and former Cleveland Housing Court Judge Ron O'Leary, initially filed the suit in 2023 to halt the project, arguing that while they were in favor of the drop-in center itself, they believed building it on their street would increase trash, crime and noise.
O'Leary wrote in an email this week that he and several other neighbors representing themselves had offered a potential resolution to the ongoing legal challenges during mediation in February 2025; LMM did not accept the terms.
- The neighbors would agree to allow LMM to operate the youth drop-in center on a "relatively short, temporary basis" at the Franklin Avenue location until LMM can identify a new permanent facility.
- LMM must put "adequate safeguards" in place around "nuisance activity" and criminal activity during the temporary operation.
- LMM would discontinue its "non-conforming commercial use" of the property on Franklin Avenue and eventually redevelop it as residential housing with "development guidelines" in place that the neighbors would agree to.
O'Leary argued this resolution would allow services to begin after more than two years of delays while ultimately giving neighbors what they want.
LMM spokesperson Anthony Burke said in an email that that offer is "not reasonable." LMM has no plans to redevelop its offices on Franklin Avenue to be anything other than the drop-in center, he said.
"The neighbors behind the lawsuit have made an 'offer' that is absurd, disrespects LMM and the young adults who chose 4100 Franklin as a site that would meet their needs, is privileged in its tone, and is self-serving," Burke wrote. "LMM’s building was built in 1965, long before Mr. O’Leary and his neighbors moved onto the block and has been used ever since as a place where people in need could obtain charitable social and family services. LMM, and its partners A Place 4 Me and the REACH Youth Action Board, will continue to fight for 4100 Franklin to be the location of the Youth Drop-In Center."
Burke said LMM had already created a safety plan with concessions built into it to address the neighbors' concerns about the drop-in center, which included new fencing, gates, security cameras and "trained safety personnel" present during operating hours.
He added that, during the mediation, the neighbors also floated other "demands:" A nine-foot wide strip of land next to O'Leary's property; $10,000 in attorney's fees; advance notice if LMM decides to sell its property; and that LMM would demolish the property if it couldn't sell it by the end of the year.
"These terms may be good for Mr. O’Leary, but they obviously are not for LMM or the young people experiencing homelessness who LMM intends to serve," Burke said.
O'Leary said those additional requests were all "negotiable;" the main concession was for the drop-in center to be placed elsewhere and for LMM to move its offices from Franklin Avenue.
"The main reason we want to see the property redeveloped as homes is that LMM does not maintain its property or control nuisance activity," O'Leary wrote in an email, echoing previous complaints he's made. "There is garbage on the property almost every day. There was a man sleeping behind the wall in front this morning who relieved himself before packing his belongings and leaving around the time that LMM's staff arrived. This is likely to become more frequent again as the weather gets warmer. LMM's lawyer responded with a rather snarky question asking what I did to help him. There is graffiti posts on the rear of the property that has been there for about three years, dead weeds several feet high that have not been cut since last fall, a severely deteriorated parking lot and rear fence, an unenclosed dumpster that people frequently go through or even take shelter in, and a brick wall that has bricks falling off.
"We have raised these issues over and over again, but LMM does nothing. These conditions would not be tolerated if they were in most of the suburbs. They would not be tolerated in the City if it was a McDonald's, a gas station, or a Dollar Store," O'Leary concluded.
LMM responded in previous legal filings to O'Leary's criticisms, arguing that none of those who have been allegedly causing trouble on the street are Lutheran Metropolitan Ministry or A Place 4 Me clients, nor has it received any notices or citations from the city of Cleveland regarding any code violations.
“The reality is that O’Leary purchased a property in an urban environment that is located steps away from St. Herman House men’s homeless shelter (4410 Franklin Blvd.) and the food pantry provided at St. Paul’s Community Church (4427 Franklin Blvd.),” the filing reads. “The activities of those entities and the conduct of their clients are irrelevant to LMM’s request for a modification of the Stay in this matter."
Additional briefs are due to the Court of Appeals this month and next. O'Leary said he expects oral arguments in the case won't be scheduled until later this year.
