DefendCleve

Hello all... Attached are two letters from CCCPA CEO, William Friedman, one to "Friend of the Port", the other to the US Army Corps of Engineers: 2010.06.23 Friend of Port.pdf ("Today I am asking the Port Authority Board of Directors to take action to address both of these critical issues: 1. Eliminating E55th Street as the preferred site for dredge disposal. ... 2. Engaging port experts to help us obtain the information needed to plan the port's future.") 2010.06.23 USACE Letter FINAL.pdf("We acknowledge that the alternatives we would like to pursue must be more cost effective than the existing plans to construct 20 years of dredging capacity. ... Alternatives, such as beneficial re-use of dredged material, extension of existing but smaller CDFs, need to be pursued, as well as all other options that would provide environmentally acceptable and cost-effective interim and long-term capacity for the disposal of dredged material.") It appears as though a new day has dawned at CCCPA. ...Ken

Trust me, 3231, I realize I don't get a better grade by writing long posts. If it makes you and MyTwoSense feel any better, though, be assured it's probably been a lot more painful to write them than it's been to read them. It's definitely not my cup of tea to spend 3-4 hours researching and organizing/writing a response to this complex set of issues, but I feel that's what needs to be done to avoid just adding a baseless opinion to the discussion - which gets us nowhere. Focusing on complex and messy substance sometimes results in a complex and messy posting. Cliffnotes version of this post: "Yeah, I've been long-winded, but not because that's my goal. But I'll keep your suggestion in mind for the future :wink:" ...Ken

You are correct, Hootenany, that my current leaning is toward either the West Breakwall, or as mentioned by Etheostoma Caeruleum, expanding northward - if, as you say, the port should find it (based on true facts, this time) feasible to relocate. That’s the first million dollar (or, more accurately, multi-million dollar) question. So let’s tackle that one first. I have been tracking the annual audits for CCCPA (available at http://www.auditor.state.oh.us/auditsearch/search.aspx) for the years dating back to 1993 (the only ones available from the state’s site). From ’93 thru ’96, the Revenue and Expenses calculation showed a negative balance every year. Things improved from there, starting in '97 and peaking in 2003, with positive balances recorded each year during that period. Then there was a sharp drop back into the red in 2004 (4 years before the recession, mind you), and things have, not surprisingly, only gotten worse since then, with 2008 (the last year for which figures are currently available) being by far the lowest point ever (albeit, to be sure, the recession had a lot to do with that year's calamity). So, given that record, what does it portend for the future? The short answer is, who knows? Surely not I, although I do think it’s fair to say that there’s going to be some rough sailing, into a stiff head wind, for the foreseeable future. But let’s give CCCPA the benefit of the doubt and let’s presume that Mr. Friedman, the Port’s newest CEO, somehow, someway turns the Port’s maritime operations around, at least back to the breakeven point, sometime in our children’s lifetime (ok, ok, just a joke on that last part). What should the Port do in that case: should they stay, or should they go? First, let’s say up front, there is no urgency (to put it mildly) that the Port vacate its current premises - for fear of holding up the downtown waterfront development - anytime soon. And let me just add, if I see even the first phase of that development completed before the Tribe’s next world championship, I’ll consider myself (and the CCCPA, and the city) to be very lucky (and the beloved Tribe alas, as usual, unlucky). However, there is some sense of urgency regarding the City’s and Port’s problem of what to do with the river and harbor dredge materials, both in the short term and long. The city’s confined disposal facilities (CDFs) are nearly full. The Cleveland Harbor Dredge Task Force(http://www.portofcleveland.com/site.cfm/Maritime/Dredge-Task-Force.cfm) is currently prioritizing available options for the short term. The Kelley’s Island plan, as we’ve been reading recently, appears dead in its tracks, having been swiftly shot down by OEPA. The two favored alternatives (http://www.portofcleveland.com/assets/attachments/file/Preliminary%20Screening.pdf) at this time appear to be (1) trucking dredge material currently residing in Dike 10B to offsite locations for the purpose of remediating city brownfields (the first on the agenda being a Pershing Avenue site), thereby freeing up the vacated portions of 10B once again for new dredgings; and (2) recycling dredge material on parcels along the river. In the case of the latter, there is also the proposal to construct a sediment trap immediately to the south of the ship channel with adjacent shoreside processing of the dredged materials. Another very intriguing variation on that is the proposal, published in this week’s Crain’s Cleveland Business (http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20100614/SUB1/306149985/1074/TOC&Profile=1074 – requires subscription) by Dr. Charles E. Herdendorf, which outlines a plan to “develop a 20-acre dredged management processing facility in the vicinity of the Clark Avenue bridge. This facility could be built at the ArcelorMittal steel mill, where there is available land. This location is ideal because the river's current loses velocity here as it encounters a greater depth, dumping a large portion of sediment before it moves downstream and clogs the navigation channel.” One or more of these interim solutions could also turn into long term solutions, eliminating the need for additional CDFs, and in the process spawning a new, green industry in the valley as a further bonus. So, the big question long term is: do we need another CDF, bearing in mind that the Army Corps no longer pays the full costs for such endeavors and that local costs can easily exceed $100M merely for the construction of the dike walls (the filling, any construction of a port, etc is entirely local cost). Based on what I’ve heard at the original Dredge Summit last Fall and since, the Army Corps would be very happy to not be constructing CDFs at all anymore if other viable solutions can be implemented (as they have been in other cities, including Lorain). And it would seem, Port relocation aside, that processing, rather than dumping, of dredged materials is a more “21st century” solution in any case. The problem is, we don’t know whether or not the Port will need to be relocated. A large portion of their present site is currently underutilized (to put it mildly) and could be developed without any need for the Port to relocate at all. In addition, the Port’s current modest footprint could, as mentioned by Etheostoma Caeruleum, be extended northward if necessary – such plans have been on the books since as far back as Dec 4, 1970, when the Plain Dealer had a front-page spread, renderings included, entitled “Cleveland Harbor – 1990,” showing port expansion inside the east breakwall, just north of the current site. How about the West Breakwall Harbor site? Its advantages include (1) lower costs (as outlined in my reply to McCleveland), (2) adherence to the City Planning Commission’s approved Waterfront District Plan, (3) preservation of the existing State Parks and recreational facilities on the city’s east side (also in adherence to the WDP), (4) minimal impact on citizen access to the lake. Its disadvantages? (1) Cost – although less than the enormous E55th price tag, it will still be a very significant and shaky investment by a region strapped for money; (2) it would negatively impact the “viewshed,” most drastically from Wendy Park, but also to lesser degrees from Edgewater Park on the west and Voinovich Park on the east; (3) it will have its own impact on the environment (although again, not to the extent documented for the E55th St project). Given all of that, my personal preference? Stay put at least until (1) it has been demonstrated (by vastly improved maritime revenues, by detailed professional market analysis, by detailed professional cost-benefit and ROI analyses) beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Port truly needs more space, or (2) we see the completion, or near completion, of three of the four phases of the downtown development, and there is overwhelming support, and funding in place, for the final phase to proceed (requiring relocation of the Port at that point). None of this is easy, none of it is simple, and there's no magic bullet (although there are a lot of good and creative ideas being generated). In any case, for what it's worth, that's my take on where we currently stand. ...Ken

Not sure who exactly you were hearing from, but I can provide you the names of 1,203 citizens who signed a petition strongly opposing this plan; the petition was formally presented to Army Corps of Engineers and to Cleveland City Planning Commission. And just what exactly is the basis for that statement? Now that's something we can probably both agree on! ...Ken

Couple of things. The Planning Commission's Waterfront District Plan does, as you indicate, envision a people-centered lakefront development at the current site of the port. Raskind is not saying that the downtown development is dead or that it should be abandoned. What he's saying is that "the Port Authority's plan to move the port to East 55th Street was ill conceived and built upon layers of questionable assumptions. Although it may be appealing to think about a very large new port and a wholly redeveloped waterfront, the East 55th Street plan was, unfortunately, never viable." Secondly. That same Waterfront District Plan that envisions a spiffy downtown lakefront development also envisions an enhanced recreational zone for the E55/Gordon Park shoreline; it most certainly does not envision a 200-acre port and all the accompanying road and rail reconfiguration across that entire area. The Port's plan to create a new port at this site, obliterating the shoreline between Burke and the Cleveland Lakefront Nature Preserve (formerly "Dike 14), was spawned behind closed doors and ignored the conclusions of a study by USACE and other entities that vetted 6 possible CDF/relocation sites. Two of those vetted sites, the two finalists at the time, were the east harbor breakwall and the west harbor breakwall, and these are still viable sites if a relocation is in fact determined to be feasible. In fact, these two sites are still cited in their late 2009 DMMP/EIS report as options (and, much cheaper ones at that). Lastly, the west harbor breakwall is actually the relocation site that appears in the approved Waterfront District Plan. It would appear to me that we've just wasted 3 years and untold sums of money in chasing the boondoggle at E55th. I commend Peter Raskind for having the courage to tell it like it is. Maybe the Port should hire interim CEOs as a policy so that they have the freedom, like Mr. Raskind does, to see things from a perspective free of political cronyism, and to make decisions based solely on what's best for the city and its taxpayers. ...Ken

Hi all... I wanted to share some comments on the PD editorial that appeared over the weekend (Nov 21: A Cleveland Port Authority board already wounded can't afford conflict-of-interest charges, http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/11/a_cleveland_port_authority_boa.html). While the PD over the past couple of months has finally begun to awaken from its years-long slumber regarding Port secretiveness, erratic leadership, irresponsible handling of public monies, extravagent hiring practices, and lack of a business plan to back up its ill-conceived relocation proposal, it still is missing the big picture regarding our lakefront. The editorial states that “If the port is to move, it has to move somewhere, and alternative locations have been ruled out one by one -- largely because of conflicts with other Cleveland priorities.” First, there is no evidence whatsoever that the perennially money-losing "ghost town" Port needs to triple its current facilities, or that it will suddenly and magically become profitable based on a highly speculative dream of container cargo business from the St. Lawrence Seaway. Consequently, its proposed move to East 55th can only be looked upon as an enormous ($500 million to $1+ billion) boondoggle having no foreseeable positive (or even break-even) return on investment. Second, how is it that the recreational district stretching from the east end of Burke to Dike 14 is suddenly no longer a "Cleveland priority"? The editorial stated that “Opening up that part [current Port location] of the Lake Erie shore for parks and open space is contemplated in nearly every city and lakefront plan[my emphasis].” That certainly is true, but not at the expense of something else that has also been contemplated in every city and lakefront plan, i.e., the expansion of lakefront recreational facilities and access to the lake from Burke to Dike 14. Briefly, In 1979, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) released its Master Plan for Cleveland Lakefront State Parks (Cleveland Lakefront State Park Master Plan, prepared by Behnke Dickson Tkach Landscape Architects/Architects/Engineers, Cleveland, OH) which shows expansion of E55th Street State Park and Marina and Gordon Lakefront State Park. In 1987, ODNR released an update to that Master Plan (Cleveland Lakefront Master Plan Update, prepared by Woolpert Consultants, Dayton, OH Associates) which, again, envisioned expansion of recreational facilities on the eastern lakefront and greater neighborhood access to those facilities. Most recently, and after 30 months of public input, the 2004 Connecting Cleveland: The Waterfront District Plan (WDP) was released. In this vision for the East Shoreline, WDP expands upon the ODNR plan and further details the improvements to this recreational district: “The eastern portion of the vision builds upon the expanded park system, creating a tremendous collection of inter-connected public open space…a continuous green ribbon that will thread the distance between the water’s edge and the boulevard.” It is inconceivable that the two aforementioned ODNR plans and the WDP are somehow not “Cleveland priorities,” and that they should suddenly and arbitrarily be tossed on the trash heap by a small group of unelected men making decisions behind closed doors. To destroy a mile-long stretch of existing recreational shoreline by dropping an obtrusive and poorly planned 200-acre industrial port into its midst would surely, once again, leave future Clevelanders to ponder: What were they thinking? ...Ken

I actually have posted here already - see page 8 - but thanks anyway...'preciate it. ...Ken

The comment by Boreal, “and their foils in the Dike 14 group prevail on a $300/year budget,” made me chuckle, because we in the Dike 14 Nature Preserve Committee actually do basically operate on laughably minimal resources, but with one important exception: our personal time and commitment. After factoring in the time = $ paradigm, it sometimes feels as though our “spending” might actually be in the ballpark of some of the Port’s lavish expenditures. So what do we invest all that time into? I thought I’d take the opportunity to share with the forum a bit about this grassroots organization. First, our mission statement: The mission of the Dike 14 Committee is to advocate the protection, conservation and enhancement of Cleveland's 88-acre Dike 14, an essential Lake Erie coastal wildlife area that supports significant migratory bird activity as well as other wildlife, in order to benefit the children, families, residents and work force of Cleveland and Northeast Ohio with year-round lakefront access, nature experiences and environmental education opportunities; advance coastal eco-tourism in Cuyahoga County, which is a strategic goal of the State of Ohio; and ensure the conservation and management of important coastal habitats that provide sanctuary for birds year round, including significant numbers and diversity of migratory birds. Due to the impact that the CCCPA relocation would have on not only Dike 14 (recently renamed, by the way, Cleveland Lakefront Nature Preserve), but on the entire lakefront recreational district stretching from Burke eastward to Dike 14, the committee has in recent years also been researching and responding to the CCCPA proposal. We have been doing this by: Attending nearly every public meeting related to anything potentially impacting our lakefront, including, but not limited to, those sponsored by CCCPA, CCCPA Board of Trustees, Cleveland Planning Commission, Ohio Lake Erie Commission , CSU Levin College of Urban Affairs, NEO Watershed Council & individual watershed groups, Cleveland Lakefront Parks Conservancy, Cleveland City Club, and others. Researching and studying in great detail the reports that have been issued relevant to CCCPA reconfiguration and relocation, including (but not limited to) PA Consulting Group market analysis for mixed-use development of the downtown lakefront [“Cleveland Waterfront Market Demand & Development Options, October 15, 2009”] Here, by the way, is an interesting excerpt: “The space required for port functions is dependent on shipping and freight volumes. Under current (depressed) traffic volumes, the availability of space for retaining port operations on site is not an obstacle to beginning real estate development on the site. Taking into account the specifics of the Cleveland site, slips and related road infrastructure, it is possible to concentrate port functions on approximately 20 to 25 acres, while retaining functionality. It is also possible to further intensify use of a temporary site, to accommodate some increased freight volumes if traffic increasers to previous levels.” (Appendix C: Port Relocation Roadmap) To those who wonder how downtown lakefront development can occur if the Port is not relocated to the E55th area, here’s one option: consolidate its operations at its current site and use the remaining 100 acres for development! That, minus some parking that wouldn’t be needed at the downtown site, is enough to build nearly two Legacy Village / Crocker Park type developments. In short, it is more than enough land to successfully implement the impressive Eckstut vision. And additional CDF (Contained Disposal Facility) fill directly north of the Port could expand Port operations in the event that eventuality comes to pass. State of Ohio Audit documents related to the Port. Attached to this post is a PDF containing screenshots of a spreadsheet and accompanying chart that I constructed from data available at the State of Ohio Auditors website (http://www.auditor.state.oh.us). The spreadsheet & chart summarize CCCPA profit/loss figures going back to 1993. Bottom line: there is a reason why a recent Cleveland PD editorial described the Port as “a ghost town.” Which begs the question: does a Port that the PA Consulting market report describes as currently requiring only about 25 acres really need to expand to 200 acres at the expense of a Lakefront State Park, an existing lakefront recreational district, and upwards of $1 billion of public monies? As a cable news network might put it, “you decide.” The Martin Associates Final Report, “Analysis of Port of Cleveland Container Market,” Prepared for: Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, March 12 2008. This is the Port-sponsored feasibility study from which I quoted in my July 30 2009 UO post on page 8 of this thread. (http://www.yourfutureport.com/Cleveland_report_03-12-2008.pdf) Advance Report Summary Port Relocation Study by URS, May 2008. (http://www.yourfutureport.com/Advance_Report_Summary_Final.pdf) The US Army Corp of Engineers Buffalo District Draft Cleveland Harbor Dredged Material Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, released this Fall (http://www.lrb.usace.army.mil/missions/cleveland/documents/ClevelandDMMP08_09.pdf). This report examines 6 possible configurations that would potentially meet the requirements for the Army Corps’ next Cleveland CDF. Even if the Port needs to expand and move entirely off its current site, there are still other viable options to E55, including 4 non-55th Street configurations identified in this report. Note: opponents of the Port’s preferred location (E55) have requested and received extension of the public comment period on this report to December 7, 2009. Read it and submit your own comments. Making dozens of public records requests from CCCPA, Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), and other pertinent public and governmental entities, and then poring over the stacks with fine-toothed combs. [*]Writing letters to innumerable public officials and organizations and sharing our concerns, along with our concrete suggestions, for simultaneously meeting the needs of the Port, the Army Corps of Engineers, lakefront development downtown, and preservation of the east side lakefront recreational district. Letters by Dike 14 members have been sent to, among others: CCCPA US Army Corps of Engineers Buffalo District Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Ohio Lake Erie Commission Governor Strickland, Senators Voinovich and Brown, Reps LaTourette and Kucinich, Mayor Jackson, various council members, Cleveland City Planning Commission members, Cuyahoga County Commissioners, and a variety of other current and former officials. Dike 14 Environmental Educational Collaborative (http://www.dike14.org/collaborative.html), a separate group from the Dike 14 Nature Preserve Committee. The EEC consists of representatives from the following organizations: Cleveland Botanical Garden, Cleveland Metroparks, Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cuyahoga Soil and Water Conservation District, Cuyahoga Valley National Park Association, Earth Day Coalition, Lake Erie Nature and Science Center, Nature Center at Shaker Lakes, and Western Cuyahoga Audubon Society. [*]Having numerous letters & op-ed columns published in various relevant media, including Cleveland Crain’s Business, Cleveland Magazine, Cleveland Plain Dealer, and Cleveland Scene. [*]Making our 45-minute, facts-based presentation, “Why the Port Relocation Plan to East 55th is NOT in the public interest” to any group that is willing to listen. To date, we have presented to NEO Watershed groups, various boating clubs and organizations, college classroom groups, League of Women Voters (where the Port was also scheduled to make their presentation the same evening but backed out two days prior when they became aware that we too were presenting), Cleveland Metroparks employees group, Langston Hughes Library (open to the general public), the Dike 14 EEC, and others. [*]Acquiring signatures (over 1130 to date) on a petition which reads as follows: “We, the undersigned, oppose the destruction of the East 55th Street Lakefront State Park & Marina for a proposed 200-acre Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) and future industrial port. We support the industrial port on non-recreational land only; and we support action that protects and improves Cleveland’s Lakefront State Parks, including the East 55th Street State Park & Marina, Gordon State Park and Dike 14 Nature Preserve, as is pledged in the Cleveland Lakefront Plan.” If you feel so inclined to take one easy step toward supporting our efforts, please find attached a copy of our petition. Attached is a short summary fact sheet (090915 Fact Sheet re Port Relocation to E55.pdf) which we make available to our email distribution and our presentation audience members. I encourage you to take the time to peruse and comment on this posting and its attachments, to read the linked studies, and to continue the dialogue. And, it goes without saying, we would be willing and happy to make our presentation to anyone from this forum who wishes to hear it – just let us know when it would be most convenient for you and your group. Ken Vinciquerra, Member, Dike 14 Nature Preserve Committee

Thanks, UF. Glad to be here...great to have come upon a forum where intelligent conversation, by informed and involved citizens, is the norm.

Actually, the E55th St site was not even among the original 8 proposed locations cited by the port relocation study group. It, consequently, was also not among the three "finalist" sites identified as this process proceeded through the latter half of 2007. Then, out of the blue, the PD announced in December 2007 that, lo and behold, E55 (??) was chosen. None of this has been an open, public process whatsoever. In contrast, the whole thing has been determined behind closed doors, out of the eye of the public. What had been a public process, however, was the City Planning Commission's Waterfront District Plan. Fact: The Cleveland City Planning Commission heard from over 5,000 citizens at 200-plus public meetings spanning 32 months (from 2003 to 2005), in a process that culminated in the recommendation report entitled "Connecting Cleveland: The Waterfront District Plan." This, in contrast to the billion dollar boondoggle facing us now (which would nullify major portions of that plan), was a true collaborative, consensus-driven, democratic process, nothing short of a minor miracle for NEO decision-making. Fact: June 16, 2008: CPC Director Robert Brown — speaking at the 2nd public meeting for presentation of the Port Authority's PowerPoint plans for setting up container cargo operations at E 55th — endorsed the Port's intention to scrap major portions of the Waterfront District Plan for an enormous (200-acre) lakefront industrial project that the Port Authority's own sponsored feasibility study casts doubts upon (detailed further below). Fact: Here is what the Waterfront District plan (http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/lakefront/iactive/flash/index.html) called for [my emphases]... Under the Port's plan, the "opportunities for new beaches, expanded marinas, overlooks, fishing platforms, boat launches, and a fisherman's harbor" are eliminated, along with existing State Park land and waters; Quay 55 would essentially be destroyed, and its expansion aborted; Cleveland's Gordon Lakefront State Park would be compromised by loss of greenspace to accommodate parking for hundreds of cars as the Port attempts to relocate the E55 St Marina to its proposed new location; Dike 14 Nature Preserve will also be compromised, again by the attempted "moving" of recreational facilities that already exist between 55th and 72nd. All of this at great public expense. And for what? Regarding the reference to the Port's own sponsored feasibility study that I referenced earlier above, here is what it had to say [my emphases]: That hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement for a hugely expensive public expenditure that will essentially destroy the recreational zone (including State Parks, held in the public trust for all citizens of Ohio) from E55 St to Dike 14. According to public audits (available at http://www.auditor.state.oh.us/AuditSearch/default.aspx), the Port has lost money for years 2004 through 2007 (and no doubt as well for 2008, not yet posted), and has lost money for 8 of the last 15 years (again, not including 2008; more like 9 of 16). They have about 100 acres now, and based on that record of achievement, they want to expand to 200 acres, destroy a lakefront recreational zone, and spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in the process? Is this sound public policy? Where is the cost/benefit analysis? Where is the projected Return on Investment? There's a reason why citizen hero Ed Hauser fought from 2001 until his untimely death in 2008 for greater transparency in the doings of the Port Authority. His efforts eventually led to the "Hauser Amendment," passed into law early this year, which requires port authorities to have master plans, describe how they will be financed, and then put the plans out for real public hearing and participation, before they are adopted — rather than the behind closed door decision-making and the PR charade that passes for public process that we're witnessing today. Ed was vigorously fighting this Port relocation when he died last November; it's now up to anyone who cares about our lakefront to, if not take up his mantel, to at least be as educated and engaged in the process as possible, and to hold our elected and unelected (port administrators) officials fully accountable for their actions and their use of public tax dollars. If we're not closely monitoring their every action, then we get what we deserve, and what we've had too many of in our city's history: another mistake on the lakefront. Let's not have future generations scratching their heads yet again, asking of us, what were they thinking?