327

This was caused by the same anti-urban bias we're still fighting. All that 90s "development" was premised on downtown being a playground for area suburbanites. That's why Tower City was allowed to decline, that's how we got a ridiculous theme park ride of a "Waterfront Line," and that's why residential was ignored. Mismangement on a grand scale... all to please an uninterested suburban audience. Our current Flats East Bank project is a continuation of that same approach, as is most of the housing built here recently, as is Steelyard Commons. A slow motion sprint toward the 1950s ideal with Chariots of Fire playing in the background.

I'm beginning to think Litt only likes bland featureless boxes.

Open businesses are good for urban home values. A drive thru would be far less good, especially for adjacent residential, but still a net gain for most properties in the area. People like being able to go to things. Unless it refuses to serve pedestrians, a McDonalds would add something useful the neighborhood. And for many who live there, McJobs are infinitely better than no jobs. I'm sure there are better uses for this site... but a halfway house would be so much worse than an operational eatery of any kind.

The market for modern apartments is not the market for older apartments. The market for houses has nothing to do with either one. Different people want different things. I agree about the need for offices to balance things out more.

Some of the principles behind this make sense. Not all though... one guy in the comments said he opposed it because Lorain and Fulton is a fundamentally residential area. No it isn't. That sounds more like anti-urbanism. I'm curious how much opposition there would be if McDonalds hypothetically wanted to put 4 floors of upscale apartments above their store. Would that fly, or is the issue McDonalds itself. I'm all for sticking with a coherent development plan, but I don't believe a McDonalds (or any business) should be opposed by a poor city neighborhood on the sole basis of food snobbery.

Agreed. Note that many of my local policy suggestions could be described as having a conservative bent to them. Not all, of course, but many. I don't believe a century of one-sided thinking has gotten us anywhere good. But the community's hostility toward dissenters, toward anyone who questions blatant corruption, is the real core of our problem. And that's not ideological. Libertarians are still unlikely to support public transit in any form, or complex public-private financing arrangements. Or public goods generally. They just don't like these things, on principle, yet these things are inescapable parts of urban living.

I agree with most of this. Ultimately, I don't expect local suburbanites to come around. And I think Cleveland has done itself great harm trying to please them. I'm aiming elsewhere. That's why I always harp on how Cleveland compares competitively with other urban experiences. I believe our best hope is attracting new urbanists to the area.

^^ Good points. But urbanity may not ever mesh well with modern American conservatism. There is a degree of coordination (government) needed there that farmers can typically do without. And as the Agenda 21 protestors illustrate, there are folks who oppose the very idea of people living near each other. Hell is other people, they imply. Hell is you. I don't think that sort can be won over, but I really don't care. I just don't want them running around winning converts.

Assuming that's true, is there any reason to have cities at all? And is there any reason to consider efficient land use a value? I think I understand the local/non-local angle, but I don't foresee a moat getting dug. Part of the allure of cities, for those who like them, is that non-local people and ideas can be found there. Lets you feel like part of a greater whole. And if isolation is the only true freedom, 6 billion people would like to say hello.

We need more people with those attitudes living here. Eaton didn't help our cause, but there are still steps we can take to attract them.

Makes sense to start high, otherwise you have nowhere to go. But 1/3 above market is really high. Probably a trial balloon.

This Agenda 21 thing (i.e. people protesting it) is just anti-urbanism. Those who favor urbanism need to be as politically active as possible, because the vast majority really don't care and will accept the anti-urban position if it's all they hear. Also, it would be nice if city leaders, particularly those in marketing and tourism, would take up the cause.

If you can afford to quit a job because you don't like the office... you are a very special person.

E Rocc is right, we're not seeing a big push from suburban employees to be downtown. Why not? 1) There is a palpable shortage of retail and housing in our central city. 2) Urbanism is only popular among a certain subset of young people. They're somewhat rare here, as are young people in positions of power. 3) Anti-urban bias is taught to everyone in our region at an early age... this includes those growing up in the city. For many, getting a job in the suburbs is seen as more of a move up than a job in Key Tower. And more exotic.

I grudgingly like the way it looks from 271, up on that hill, matched with the new hospital.

Apartments over retail, plus a grocery store? Now we're talking.

Re-surfacing that road is a great plan. It's a mess. A lot of them are, and I would rather see our road funds concentrated on dealing with that. Every time we install more landscaping we make more work for landscapers ad infinitum. And they don't work for free. That reduces future maintenance monies, which leads to more bad roads. Overly simple? Perhaps.

Blackwell would issue byzantine webs of conflicting orders, just to keep you on your toes. Or something. And this was during his own gubernatorial campaign, when you might think he'd want blacks to vote. Or not. It was a time of great confusion. I don't know if VFO submitted anything for this, since the ballot language is supposed to be done by an honest SOS. But they probably put a decent (albeit favorable) summary on their own petitions.

Have you? I wrote my note about Ohio ballot language standards. Cutting and pasting the text of a statute or amendment makes ballot language meaningless. It certainly does not constitute a summary by any available definition. All Husted needed to do was play games until press time. Didn't matter what ridiculous iteration we were on then, as long as we were on one. EDIT: Having now re-read that note, I can elaborate... The same standards, or “terms and conditions,” apply to ballot language for any purpose, whether statute or amendment. Most importantly, “(t)he ballot language shall properly identify the substance of the proposal to be voted upon.” Note that the actual ballot language is different from the three-hundred word “explanation” favoring or opposing an issue that may also be posted. Original jurisdiction in ballot language cases goes to the Ohio Supreme Court, and the Court may only invalidate language with an effect “such as to mislead, deceive, or defraud the voters.” Thus, Husted's first iteration of the ballot language (the short one) was seen by our 6-1 Republican Supreme Court as an attempt "to mislead, deceive, or defraud the voters." That's how we got to the point of needing another version close to press time. It would appear that Mr. Husted overcompensated, lest the Supreme Court find his actions to be fraudulent a second time. ORC 3505.06(E) states that "[a] condensed text that will properly describe the question, issue, or an amendment proposed by other than the general assembly shall be used as prepared and certified by the secretary of state for state-wide questions or issues or by the board for local questions or issues." I cannot see how Issue 2's final ballot language (the long one) was in any way a "condensed text" as required by statute. However, the same statute also allows the entire text of the proposal itself to be included on the ballot. I'm being generous by saying it's allowed, because the actual wording is that the ballot "need not contain" it. But I'm fairly certain that's not what Husted did either, and the statue does not appear to provide him with a third option.

What? The "summary" drafted by Husted's staff ran afoul of state law. Please see state law. BTW, interesting position taken by the OSBA on Issue 2. Another case of an orgainzation taking people's money and using it to make statements with which the donors disagree. http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/print-edition/2012/09/07/opposition-by-state-bar-garners.html?page=all

Pretty sure there's other bussy stuff being purchased besides the concrete pads. As to what Lakewood chose and why, you're aware that there's tangible popular opposition to this. Some of it was described above. If that's irrelevant...OK. Regarding allocations, I discussed above how one tends to recieve the allocations one applies for more often than one receives the allocations one does not apply for. Are you suggesting this was Washington's idea in the first place? I'm pretty sure it wasn't. So no, we do not both know that's wrong and there's nothing disingenuous about it, or about me. I never said Allocation A could be used for Project B, I'm saying we requested the wrong allocation. Interesting point you make about the lights. Earlier I thought they were to be timed, but you're saying they're to be controlled by sensors. That's a big difference and, I think, a much better choice. Could we maybe use sensors on Euclid too, and forget about trying to time them?

Ballot language is meant to be a summary; that was a novel and an off-spec absurdity. More shenanigans from Husted.

Lakewood's decision had a lot to do with what people in Lakewood thought about the concept. It makes no sense to develop atmosphere via medians and bus stops when we're planning to tear down commercial buildings along the same stretch, and we're planning to replace those buildings with garbage or nothing. Fancy landscaping won't help that situation, but $10 million could.

Whatever one thinks of me, one must admit that I'm consistent about which projects I pick on and why. In general I like to keep transit agencies out of the landscaping business. I'm wary of infrastructure investments for buses, a mode whose main advantage lies in its lack of special infrastructure requirements. If capital outlays are to take place, I favor rail over adding bus infrastructure. While I favor urban development over suburban, I oppose demonizing people based on where they live or how they view these issues. I do not believe anything is gained by impeding traffic. I do not believe in forced behavior modification through removal of options, instead I support creating or preserving as many options as possible.

That's not the issue though, willyboy. This earmark didn't come from rolling Earmark Dice or praying to the Random Earmark Fairy. And it's hard for me to believe the idea originated in congress. Local decision makers chose to pursue this and that's the origin of the earmark. Other ideas could have been pursued, ideas that other states and other agencies pursue, ideas that rhyme with grail.