327

I'm not sure we can go from "they have cars and cellphones" to "their problem isn't money." Dropping cable gives you no TV at all these days, but nobody has to have TV. Fair enough. Cell phone is a different story... you pretty much need one to be economically competitive. Internet too. And there are entire threads here about how realistic it is to get by without a car in Ohio. People from bad neighborhoods cannot afford to be without basic transportation and communication capabilities in the 2010 job market. It's not the reason they're poor, it's not what makes their neighborhoods crime-ridden, and moreover it's not really a choice... in fact, these basic instumentalities of commerce are the only thing that prevents the situation from becoming much much worse.

^ Yes. There's no good way to get downtown from there, and it's the primary rich-people area in the county. Thus we have a second "downtown" for corporate HQ purposes along 271 from Harvard to Mayfield. This tide is already beginning to turn, and as time goes by I think we'll see younger executives abandoning Beachwood. All we're waiting on is attrition.

^ Despite my seething hate for BRT, I kinda like this Cedar Hill idea. Did that interurban of yore start somewhere down the hill? Did it go straight up Cedar? Was there one on Mayfield too? I'd still rather have rail going up Cedar and Mayfield to 271. But I'm less opposed to BRT for those routes, because it wouldn't compete with any existing rail like Buckeye would and like Euclid kinda does. It also wouldn't preempt any proposed rail like Clifton might... nor would it block any rail expansion, like that cockamamie Blue Line proposal.

Perception matters because the stats only go so far. A lot of petty crime and harassment goes unreported. Especially when the CPD is so averse to receiving complaints. In Mt. Pleasant, which nobody has mentioned yet, an entire horror movie unfolded over a period of years... years during which complaints from or about "crackwhore" victims were viewed as so routine that 2+2 never got added up.

A lot of the trash in Ohio landfills is trucked in from the east coast. I'm glad we're building one of these plants here, but we need to put a few in Jersey and Queens too.

Awesome on the Star Wars. I like how they put wings on top of the building's wings. This increases downforce on the back wheels during acceleration, which adds traction and helps prevent fishtailing. Is this an intentional metaphor? I believe Eaton does make rear differentials.

Someone should tell these people it takes years to move these things along. And that expanding rail may save money in the long run.

I would put East Cleveland a notch above anything else because of the dire lack of safety services there. After that, the aforementioned part of St. Clair, and after that the Clark/Denison area of the west side. I would put Central/Kinsman behind all of those in terms of immediate danger. The Central/Kinsman area takes the lead in absolute desparation, which may be why the perception there is so bad. In warmer months, there's a decent chance someone will approach your car at the light on 55th asking for money.

That Jeffersoninan vein was also openly anti-urban. I think we're better off having gone the Hamiltonian way. Not entirely better off, but pretty much.

Geometry problem. Lorain Ave doesn't go to Tremont. I-90 does. It's the only bridge that goes between Tremont and downtown... unless you count lift-bridges, which can leave you hanging and which aren't surrounded by the world's safest cityscape. The towpath option would be not be a direct route either; it could end up being longer than taking Lorain.

Good points clvlndr, especially #3. I'm in the it's-too-early camp... the recession makes 2009 an invalid test. And the healthline is nothing like what's being discussed for OC, so they really don't compare. What floors me is that the healthline is set up like a trolley system, one that is very likely to stimulate mixed-use and hi-density residential in the long term. But they're approving public-sector and industrial stuff along Euclid which will chase away everything else, and which match very poorly with the TOD potential of a trolley-like bus line. Meanwhile those developments are all ideal for OC. I say wait and put the mental hospital, tech center, and "transitional housing" along this new semi-industrial commuter boulevard. If the hospital can't wait, build it somewhere that would be along any reasonable OC routing plan.

I'm uncomfortable taking the pro-road "anti-neighborhood" side of any issue. But seriously. That area is just plain trashed. There are maybe 10-20 structures I'd keep in all of Fairfax... those that are mixed-use or multi-family. Everything else should come down.

This is why I urge that light industry NOT be the plan for University Circle or Euclid Avenue... even if it's bio-related. In its modern form light industry is inimical to street life. Better to concentrate it in areas (cough Opportunity Corridor cough) where desirable urban development seems comparatively remote. For the sake of the schools and everything else, I strongly agree we need to stimulate this sort of thing in the city. I just think we need to be careful about how we locate it. It needs to be concentrated, tucked away, and transit-accessible.

Many suburbs will credit a portion of what you paid to Cleveland... it varies, often 1/2 %. But other than that, yes, you do get double-taxed. That's a big reason why I live in the city. Saves me a few hundred bucks a year.

I usually agree with you clvlndr, but not on this one. I think the city as a whole needs this logistical solution. I also think it brings a lot more benefit to university circle and the near west side than it does to the suburbs. People who work in UC will drive there because they have to. This won't change that. But UC needs to be more accessible for its own sake. Tourists from Columbus (and elsewhere to the south and west) ultimately reach UC the same way commuters from Westlake do. Tourists from the east would probably also circle around to OC, rather than risk getting lost off another exit. So if you're looking for inner-city benefit, you have to look beyond Fairfax. This would also give the Heights areas much better access to downtown and to the near west side. It will also reduce the auto-orientation of Carnegie and Chester, encouraging more urban forms of development along that corridor. EDIT: Earlier in the thread I had thought traffic on other E-W arteries would be unaffected by OC, as they connect with downtown while OC wouldn't. But since then I realized most commuters probably take Chester/Carnegie east from the innerbelt anyway... even if you're coming up 77, the end of 490 is to be avoided. So that adds another benefit in my view: a noticeable traffic reduction for Chester that may help get some hi-density residential built there.

Great ideas Brad... gentrification would be a fine problem to have along Euclid. I couldn't tell you if Ohio would allow this sort of flexibility or not. Illinois has historically been good about letting Chicago do what it needs to do. Ohio not so much.

good rant

Missed him with a pair of shoes, but only narrowly.

What? No it doesn't. It provides for education, and it provides for freedom of religion, and it states that religion, knowledge and morality are important... but in no way does it provide for "a substantial religious presence in education." It just does not say what you're claiming it does, and why would it? How could there be religious freedom if the public schools are teaching a religion? That's inconsistent with the document's wording and with the founders' openly stated desire not to have government tell anyone what religious beliefs to hold.

Either way-- no soup for you!

You got that right.

TIFs could be used along Euclid to prepare individual sites for development. I suppose the entire road rebuild and transit project could have been done as a TIF but it wasn't. TIFs are usually much smaller in scope.

McCleveland I think you were right in the first place... but the only reason the negotiating tactic works is because the eminent domain threat is legit. That seems to be a separate controversy.

You mean this ORC? 163.021 (D) No agency shall appropriate property based on a finding that the parcel is a blighted parcel or that the area is a blighted area or slum by making that finding in, or in conjunction with, an emergency ordinance or resolution.

Tax abatements are not TIFs. TIFs don't always work the same in different states, and that link is specifically about Massachusetts. But there are some basic commonalities. A TIF is where the city takes out bonds to do improvements on land that help out a developer, improvements like curbs and utilities and beyond. The amount of increased tax revenue post-development (new value minus old value) is formally dedicated to paying off those bonds. This margin is the "tax increment." Once the bonds are paid off, the increased tax revenue can then go into the general fund, or wherever it would normally go. TIFs cannot be used to finance the development itself, only the traditionally govenrmental tidbits surrounding and supporting them. State and local government is prohibited from taking out General Obligation bonds for aid to business ventures. There are also debt limits on General Obligation. A TIF bond is not a G.O. bond because it is tied to a dedicated revenue stream (the increased tax margin). And a TIF does not directly involve the city in a business venture because of the limits on what it can pay for. I'm oversimplifying. There's a lot of constitutional kabuki dance involved with this stuff and it's needlessly complex. Key thing to remember: TIFs involve bonds taken out to do work that indirectly benefits development. The downside is that tax revenue gains reslting from this development are rendered unavailable until the bonds are paid off. This is why school systems often hate TIFs.