327

Help me understand your position. If a provisional ballot is rejected because the voter who filled it out failed to understand the training they never actually received before attempting to do the pollworker's job, that voter has somehow disenfranchised himself?

Lovely. In the last part of the article people talk (in positive terms?) about all the truck traffic this place would get. Councilman Westbrook sees this as a good fit with existing area businesses. Technically those businesses need trash disposal too, so would a landfill also make a good fit here? I just have nothing good to say about these people. My oh my oh my. Good job author, in highlighting the truck thing.

I assumed we were arguing because I made a statement and you responded like WHAT ?!?

Totally agree, and that's why growth can't be based on real estate.

Increases in income do need to be permanent, if increases in housing prices are to be permanent. The latter is dependent on the former. I agree that rising incomes and tight lending standards would be a good way forward.

Data interpreted as "lending standards are too tight" could (and probably should) be interpreted as "people don't make enough money."

Not much said about the rail option, apparently. That's too bad.

Because the voter has never seen that form before, while the pollworker is trained on how to fill it out. It makes zero sense to have voters do paperwork on the spot at their voting location. That's why our law requires the pollworkers to do it. Husted broke that law and should be removed from office.

Hopefully he has made such an ass of himself that his plan for splitting our electoral votes is DOA.

Apartments over retail should be replaced by apartments over retail. Simple as pie. Vacant lot? How about apartments over retail. That sounds nice. If they were building a Dollar Tree in Pataskala or Ada or Muckymuck Township it would look just like this one. How is that not a problem? We're talking about Broadway in Cleveland. The road that goes to Pittsburgh. That should mean something. If we don't think so, how can we expect anyone else to ever think so?

Now we have victories and momentum.

I think an Acme would be great there too. Acme's schtick is they always have a sufficient number of people working the registers. It's marvelous, and no one else does that anymore. I live off West Market St in Akron, which (beyond Highland Square) is very similar to Clifton and seems to have a full scale grocery every couple miles. Some in Akron, some in Fairlawn, some past Fairlawn. And I'm not even counting Aldi or GFS type stuff. Giant Eagles and Acmes, with some upscale locals too. The housing is less dense and more upscale overall, but not by that much. And of course from Fairlawn out, it's the west side's main suburban commercial strip. But I don't see it being that much more deserving of grocery services than Clifton. It really seems like the Gold Coast area (alone) could support at least one top tier grocery on this corner, if the great and powerful Akron could be so well endowed. I know there's a huge new Giant Eagle up by the freeway, but considering how it works here, that shouldn't be a hindrance at all. It would add so much value to all the housing around there already, and it would justify adding more. But we're trying to add a small plaza and a GFS? Hogwash.

Uh, people that may not have the time right now to go to some of the places that you're talking about. I know I don't always have the time to go to OCB or Noodlecat. Sometimes I have to just grab what I can get when I'm on the go. The idea that you can say with absolute certainty what large groups of people do just because they frequent a McDonald's is absurd and snobbish. Everybody who goes to fast food restaurants don't litter. In fact, I would venture to say that most don't. Teenagers, that's a different story. But they're not the only ones that go to fast food restaurants. So yes that is stereotypical, yes that is snobbish, and yes that is a gross overgeneralization of people. Word. Not everyone can afford "craft food" all the time, nor can everyone always wait for it. More options are better than less. I don't want this area to look like W117th any more than anyone else does, but it would take a lot of fast food and a lot of demolition before that's a concern. Replacing a completely suburban empty video store with an urban-style McDonalds seems like a step forward here, however incremental. The trash problem is a legitimate one, but I think a SID can do wonders for that sort of thing. SID's require businesses with deep pockets.

White Hat.

Because profit motives have been shown to negatively impact critical services. If tomorrow's schools must be private, would it be a dealbreaker if they were also non-profit?

Property insurance typically excludes flood coverage. What purpose does this demo serve? Is that a question that's asked, when they request permission?

Changed my mind. They're trying to co-opt that term in order to neuter it. If you can call this New Urbanist, then you can call anything anything. Not a positive development in any way.

I don't think they know what urbanist means, but it's a start. Lip service is better than "urban what?"

Don't forget, the Aldi and the Sappells are both on Lakewood's side of the line. Therefore neither can serve as a feather in Cudell's cap. GFS is a horrible and redundant use for that site. But so what? Plan schman.

I've seen plenty of appropriately designed urban McDonalds stores. Shouldn't be too tough to get one. This city can no longer afford to be anti business (NO McDonalds!) but it still needs to be design conscious (proper McDonalds like the one above).

That looks so much better. At one point there was an apartment building planned for this project as well, but it got dropped. Any chance that comes back? Apartments are so sorely needed, I don't think anyone can seriously question the demand at this point.

So the main takeaway from this discussion is: don't poop on your audience, no matter how wrong they appear to be. People who question rail plans are not troglodytes, people who question traffic calming are not exurban tools, and people who question density are not small minded. Perhaps they have bad information. Perhaps you do. But no one is ever right enough to be mean about it. That does us no good when our goal-- so often-- is to persuade. All it takes is one "you all suck!" to lose people for good.

Sure but we're talking about a specific site. Based on your definitions, I'm not seeing a significantly different impact. What am I missing?

Useful ideas... but I can't believe we're so easily fooled by buzzwords that Tax vs Fee becomes a live issue. If you can rephrase the exact same policy and get a different reaction, you're either dealing with an imbecile or someone who's been throroughly brainwashed.

I read both definitions as "shouldn't be located in a commercial district we're trying to redevelop." Ideally we're able to help everybody. But most likely we can't help everybody in the exact same place at the exact same time in whatever manner they need. There are better locations for Permanent Supportive Housing and/or a Halfway House. Not the intersection of two key commercial streets.