327

One thing in our favor: Nashville's rendering sure is ugly. Like, wow. I wouldn't approve that design for salt storage. Still, Nashville's "drama" seems somewhat low-grade. We actually threw out the government that originated our medmart plan. That lends an air of chaos, don't you think? Per the MedCity piece, NY already has 11 tenant commitments. My view is unchanged... we need to start digging. We still have the advantage, but she ain't like she used to be.

Did we ever intend to promise that? Seemed like it. If not, then what did we ever intend to promise? On what grounds are we suggesting to vendors that they rent a showroom in Cleveland? If we're implying that doing so would lead directly to CCF accounts... 1) I don't think anyone but CCF can promise that, and 2) I doubt that would be sufficient anyway. Why not just send sales reps to CCF? Thus, the proximity of our local healthcare sector has very little bearing on all this. Actual product would seem far more important. As the competition releases news about what their projects WILL be, we keep seeing news from here about what ours WON'T be, and about all the machinations here blocking the way. Can't use this building, must use this building, can't build here or there. What are prospecitve tenants supposed to think of the business climate here? Compared with Nashville and NYC we have some ground to make up in that department and I don't see where we're even trying.

An unrelated story that's big in the news today gives me the impression that overconfidence is rarely productive. The exact value of first-to-market is debatable... but at the same time it seems inherent in the project's underlying concept. You can't offer one-stop-shopping when there's another stop in another city with different vendors. This would also prevent us from promising to vendors a convergence of the entire national market.

If nothing else, Nashville's plan SOUNDS more compelling than ours. And things that sound compelling have a better shot of lining up funding than things that don't. Sounds like their convention center alone will cost the city/county/state more than we've budgeted for our entire project, and like they have a fairly clear vision of their medical mart component. This is one series of stories I'm glad the PD is running. I hope our leadership gets on the ball. If our main advantage is having financing in the bag, we squander it every single day that we don't break ground.

There comes a point when "original intent" breaks down, as significant changes have occurred since that time. The 13th-15th are chief among those changes. There were a lot of people even at the time these original documents were drafted who wanted no federal power at all, who didn't want the confederation to end... and those people lost. Then in the Civil War, that line of thinking lost again in actual combat. One big reason why: States' rights are bad for business. States' rights lead to a jungle of conflicting regulations and fiefdoms. There is an argument to be made that in modern times, states as we know them are practically obsolete. We really don't want the US to have higher internal transaction costs than the entire continent of Europe... yet that's the way things seem to be headed.

Similarly, the Peter B. Lewis building conveys how American business has undergone a total meltdown... get it? The building looks melty, and it houses the business college? Ha ha! And Severance Hall should look like a giant trumpet. Just kidding around. As noted, my opinion is just an opinion.

Had to look that up... and I would say that in pari materia, the 2nd amendment can't possibly be a right of the state (the militia) sandwiched as it is among so many individual rights against the state. But we're getting awfully technical here.

Under that contention, so too can the feds... right? This is not a "congress shall pass no laws," this is a "shall not be abridged," passive voice, which seems universally applicable. Much has been written about the comma alone. To me, the phrase "well-regulated" applies only to the militia, before the comma, and not to the "right to keep and bear arms" which comes after. Exclusio unius. How can a "right" simultaneously be "well-regulated" and "not...abridged?"

Watered down version... the 14th amendment generally provides that no US government, including states, shall deny anyone rights granted in the constitution. Without that guarantee, the no-slavery and blacks-can-vote amendments would have been meaningless in the post-war South. States cannot opt out of the personal rights that make America what it is. I'm not trying to solve the gun question... countless books have been written that don't come close to solving it, and my own position is nuanced. I think the founders are happy we're still talking about it.

If that weren't true, what's the point of having federal rights? States would remove them as soon as they found it expedient to do so, i.e. yesterday.

But one of the chief criticisms for this overall style is that it comes off looking cheap. I recall that "sound wave" bit from when the renderings first came out, and I remember thinking "they better put a sign out front explaining all this, or people are gonna think they just used whatever remnants they had laying around... because that's what it looks like, sans explanation." And I can't believe critics are now saying that things are "richly endowed" with concrete and glass. As illustrated, not everyone considers these to be rich endowments in any quantity. Litt hated the Case dorms, I happen to love them. I wish those were on Euclid instead of this. Too jarring a contrast next to the Euclid Tavern.

The Bill of Rights is effective upon the states via 14th amendment incorporation, and typically states are allowed to expand federal rights but not reduce them.

One glance. If something looks poorly and cheaply constructed, yet isn't, one has to wonder why they went out of their way to make it look like that.

I don't see how it's a zero-sum game between buses and cars on Euclid. If one can go straight at a given time, why can't they all? What traffic issue would stop a westbound bus, but not a westbound car, or vice versa? The only cars who should be inconvenienced by a timing system favoring buses are those needing to cross the bus lanes, i.e. those turning left off of Euclid, those crossing Euclid, and those turning left onto Euclid from a side street. The timing system, if functional, should only have benefical effects on cars going the same way the bus is going. It becomes a little more complicated on the Case end of the system, as right turns are affected too, but straight is still straight for all vehicles. I don't recall the signal timing EVER working as planned, and I distinctly remember the explanation being that kinks and bugs were getting worked out and that the timing would improve. I also remember asking whether contract remedies with the vendor were being pursued, and I don't know if that was ever looked into. It ought to be front page news, along with the fare machines. I feel like we're getting ripped off by these vendors and our rights are not being advocated.

It's OK. I've seen worse recently, but that says more about "recently" than it does about this rendering. I wonder what to make of that booth-thing toward the front. What is that for?

At the time it was written, there was to be no standing army at all. So that really is a different context. But there was also a sense that everyone should be allowed to defend themselves on at least a base level. Technologcally speaking, the colonists should never have beaten the redcoats, the Afghans should never have beaten the Soviets, the Soviets should never have beaten the Germans, and so on. Stranger things have happened, and most people have a fighting chance in most situations if they have access to the most basic projectiles and explosives. But if you can get your populace separated from all practical weaponry, then resistance is perhaps truly futile. That is clearly not the situation desired for the US at any point, no matter how much military technology may advance. And no, there's nothing in the constitution about concealed weapons, nor is it clear that "to bear" is "to conceal," in fact I would think they're not the same thing at all. But if we're worried enough about a quantity and concentration of criminals so severe that respecting the 2nd amendment would be unthinkable... then we really need to address whatever problems got us to that point. They didn't have places like modern Cleveland in the 1780s, so they didn't make a ghetto exception. They probably assumed we'd never let it get like this. I can understand practical limits on guns and ordnance in urban areas, it only makes sense. But think about this... if everyone is packing, and most people are decent people, it would be tough to pull a robbery anywhere. I think this was part of the original idea too.

We need to look one step past the CRA. Why was it passed in the first place? Why was it that suddenly the typical worker (or family) could no longer afford housing that was essentially built to house them? CRA was a tiny bandage on a gushing amputation. The issue-- the only issue-- is exploding inequality in incomes and wealth. Real estate values, and prices generally, have failed to account for how drastically income has fallen throughout the consumer market. So... to an extent, CRA bashers may have a point. There's no sense in having people borrow for houses they can't possibly afford. But CRA bashers rarely proceed to the next analysis: how did it come to this stage, and how can this situation be anything but chaos in the making? Well, nobody can afford to live anywhere, sucks to be them... wrong! This is a problem for everyone, unless your perimeter defenses rival those of C. Montgomery Burns.

That's too bad, I thought the lunch there was OK. I'm surprised they served lunch as long as they did, really, with those union protests out front. It's hard to have sympathy for people who are getting paid to stand there and shut down other peoples' jobs.

Hi there Musky. I was unable to attend any of the meetings or demonstrations... what became of the bike/pedestrian lanes? Are they in or out?

Upon further review I'm with EC on this. Cleveland should not loan anyone $2 million to build a non-competitive asset. Let's do this right.

This discrepancy between what we were sold and what we received is an issue we simply must address. The idea of going forward with more of this "technology" before doing so is sheer madness.

The waterfront line is great, as long as it goes somewhere... which it doesn't. We just abruptly stopped with that project, after spending a ton on it, and swithced over to BRT. We've also spent a lot on other infrascructure like new stations and shelters, not to mention the infamous fare machines. Meanwhile that rail line just ends in a parking lot. This planning is all higgledy piggledy.

The Chagrin Lowlands.

It seems the positions are laid out, and both have considerable merit. Cleveland can only benefit from having so many people examine its possible paths with such a degree of depth and passion. With that said, EC, I think you might be barking up the wrong river. Should the Cuyahoga ever be as foul and embarassing as it was in the 60s? Hell no. One hopes we learned our lesson. But this section of the river is a heavy-industrial shipping channel and it will remain so. Those steel mills upstream aren't going anywhere... and even if they did, the abatement costs of that land would be staggering. Thus there's no feasible non-industrial use for it. What's done is done. It's sounding like the port isn't going anywhere either... and even if it did, the mills would still need regular shipments in and out, through that channel and no other. We can only operate within the framework history has given us. The area in question is an active industrial port, and I really don't think we're going to impress anyone, internationally or otherwise, by shoehorning a small amount of synthetic naturalism into it which-- due to its inescapable context-- cannot compare favorably with any beach or any greenspace anywhere. Those limitations do not apply to urban development in that same space, so why not put the urban development there and put a new park somewhere else where we can create something truly grand? There's a reason we don't grow oranges in Minnesota and wheat in Florida... it would result in less oranges AND less wheat. The fact that greenspace is good (which nobody doubts) does not mean greenspace is equally appropriate for every single plot of land. No matter how much virtue greenspace and beaches may have, there can never be world class greenspace or a world class beach at this particular location. Why not make everything in Cleveland-- our greenspace, our beaches, and our urban core-- the best it can possibly be? For that to happen, we need to be judicious about our site selections and make the most of every acre.