Foraker

The marijuana initiative is just a statute -- can the Republican statehouse overturn it with a simple majority vote?

Interesting that Hartford's justification is impervious surface runoff has a cost. Our sewer district already imposes an impervious surface fee -- are parking lot owners paying that fee? They should.

That's correct. And here's the rule on valuing the improvements: https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-administrative-code/rule-5703-25-12 Neither of the administrative rules explicitly says anything about taxing land at a different rate than the improvements upon it. But it does seem to suggest that when read with other parts of the law and code that "land" is taxed based on the total value of the land plus improvements. In other words, real estate taxes are applied to the combination, not individual land/improvement elements. Since you cited the Ohio Constitution and the state law, I didn't provide citations to those sources. I'm no expert here, but without verifying or denying your claim Google suggests the following as being relevant (hopefully some real estate tax expert can weight in): https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-constitution/section-12.2a https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-constitution/section-12.5 https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-5713.01 https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-5713.03

https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-administrative-code/rule-5703-25-11

There are many on this thread who agree that Cuyahoga County has far too many municipalities and needs to consolidate -- consensus seems to be that it would be politically impossible at this time, but something worth working toward. I definitely would like to see a Land Value Tax applied to at least the downtown -- maybe bounded by I-90, the Cuyahoga River and Lake Erie. Give it a ten-year test. (I believe it was tried in Pittsburgh but it didn't last long.) A Land Value Tax is probably not permitted (and possibly prohibited) by state law in Ohio. And while we might be able to advocate for that in place of the usual property tax, I don't see the income tax going anywhere. But yes -- this forum is the perfect place for tilting at windmills!

And what is the maintenance cost going forward -- has it been decreased by this project? These are questions that should be asked up front in any new infrastructure project but rarely seem to be part of the discussion.

Ask the mayor. 😆

When is that grant likely to be awarded?

Sorry, but that is really disappointing. FutureHeights commissioned a landscape architecture firm to create a plan for the mini-park there between Boss Dog and Heights Arts/Cedar-Lee Theaters with a ramp replacing the steps. The plan was well received, but the city owns the land and wouldn't commit any funding for it. Subsequently, the city implied that they would work with the developer to implement the connection between the park and the Marquee development so hopefully that will come later and this was just a quicker fix for the crumbling steps to maintain pedestrian access.

So those triangular upper corners that are above the elevator core will only be accessible by stairs, or will there be one or two smaller elevators to the upper floors?

The "progressive class" has not had a majority in either Ohio or Congress since welfare reform was passed around 1996. However, there have been numerous Republican majorities in Congress since then.... and I can't name any changes to welfare that have been made by Republican legislators since 1996 that reduced deep poverty, which was not significantly improved by the 1996 welfare reforms. https://inequality.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Pathways_Winter2018_Employment-Poverty.pdf So yes, there were some positives from welfare reform. Those reforms, however, were not "undone" by progressives (who have not been in power since and would dramatically change the current welfare system if permitted to). More needs to be done, and Republicans have no plans to reduce poverty, only plans to reduce welfare payments (other than the corporate kind).

Then the programs need to be adjusted, not eliminated. Again, this is in the design of the programs not the programs themselves. Maybe what is needed is "here is your housing voucher for three years. After two years, make an appointment with a counselor and we will review how we can help you find better housing" or something -- rather than "if your income exceeds X we are going to take away your support." Maybe if we actually let people exceed the income threshold for a short period of time they can build up a nest egg, get a better car, get some bills paid off, whatever -- so that then they can stand on their own, rather than pulling the support the minute they get slightly ahead in life. Another alternative -- just give poor people the cash that all of these government programs cost to run. IF people truly want independence, then they won't want to stay on the dole.

I disagree with your suggested approach -- "Oh, that won't work. We should just keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere because it's cheaper." I agree that a better public transportation system would be a more cost-effective way to help the working poor travel around town -- to work and the grocery etc. And while a completely NYC-like rail/subway network would be awesome, we won't ever get there if we don't start somewhere and make investments in expanding the rail network (have I mentioned how much I want a downtown loop in Cleveland?) In the meantime, we could improve our bus network. 15-minute headways and comprehensive coverage of the city core does not require an investment in rail -- an expensive proposition but cheaper than rail. Natural-gas buses are far more efficient and less polluting than cars and are quite common. Electric buses with capacitor recharging at bus stops may be an option as well in the near future -- you don't have to carry as much battery around if you can recharge at stops. Electric bikes and bike lanes make cycling a far cheaper transportation option for many -- and you can stash a bike in your apartment or remove the battery to charge. You can get a good electric-assist bike for around $1,000 -- which is a lot, but really cheap compared to any used car, particularly right now. Saying that Democrats lost the working class because they didn't understand their needs is funny. Republican tax cuts and cuts to social programs made their lives better?!? Who pushes for programs that actually would make a difference in the lives of the working poor -- universal health insurance, higher minimum wage, subsidized childcare and after-school care, free school lunches, tuition subsidies, expanded food aid programs, expanded housing subsidies -- it's not Republicans. In my opinion, Democrats' problem is one of (1) marketing, and (2) lack of success in implementing their programs that actually would help the working poor, not in "not understanding" the working poor's needs as well as Republicans.

OMG -- talk about alarmism. That is a reading comprehension fail -- I didn't say THE END IS NIGH; I said I didn't think that our current level of inflation is a bigger risk than climate change. Other experts in climate science disagree with you and are saying that the current "gradual shift" is far too slow and needs to happen a lot faster. Climate change means more weather chaos -- not just a few degrees warmer, but more frequent and severe weather events -- high rainfalls, tornadoes in places that don't normally see them, higher storm surges, more frequent and faster-intensifying hurricanes, longer droughts -- and even deeper cold snaps like we had last Christmas when the jet stream went well south of northern Ohio. "Natural disasters" are becoming more and more expensive. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2023/01/10/major-natural-disasters-cost-us-165-billion-last-year-here-are-the-5-priciest-weather-events/ and this is why "ordinary" Floridians are finding it harder and harder to insure their homes, not inflation. Nuclear may be helpful in helping us transition to a cleaner future, but it's not clean. Ask the miners. Ask the workers at nuclear processors. Ask the (former) residents of Fukushima. Multiple countries, and even industrial Germany, have made wind power a significant portion of their energy supply in just a few decades -- in other words they are showing us that solar and wind can work while we whine about how fast we are falling behind as we dither over the transition from oil. I agree that we will continue using oil for a long time - but we need to be using a lot less of it quickly, not continuing to burn the same or more oil while we wait for batteries to be perfected. The current battery technology is not very clean -- but there is a lot of money being spent on developing alternatives, and there are a lot of different types of batteries in use and under development around the world. I predict that lithium-ion batteries will become rarer in a decade. If you are really concerned with the pain of ordinary citizens, you could advocate for subsidizing electric or hybrid cars or investing in alternative transportation options. Republicans are not voting to help ordinary citizens -- but rather tax cuts for the wealthy and against subsidies for electric or hybrid cars or investments in intercity trains or intracity transit.

There was a debate on public radio tonight where the anti-amendment speaker argured that the amendment will take away a parent's right to control their child's sexuality (trans-fearmongering). She essentially wants the fetus's rights to trump the mother's. That all seems to flip post-birth. I can't imagine anyone in the anti-abortion camp saying that children have equal or greater rights than their parents. Democrats have to fight for free lunch for kids in school and other aid to children and parents in every budget. What happens to protecting and caring for the innocent children?

Strongly disagree on most of these as I don't see inflation as a bigger risk than climate change. (if you disagree, I strongly encourage you to invest in property insurers in Florida -- they need investors!) We need to dramatically reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, not increase them. We already heavily subsidize the fossil fuel industry -- and Exxon has seen record profits in the past few years -- it's not regulation that is preventing drilling/refining/building power plants (except nuclear, where I would argue that strong, clear regulations are key). Build better transit systems so fewer people have to invest in a personal car (almost always a depreciating asset) to be productive members of society (fewer cars should also mean less maintenance expense). We should be regularly reviewing and updating regulations for simplicity and clarity, yes, but capitalism requires regulation. Without regulation you get Too Big to Fail and other disasters.

We agree that the government should not be making decisions for a woman about her health choices, and yes, pregnancy is physically and emotionally difficult and risky (particularly risky for African Americans), and there is a long list of reasons why a pregnancy can ruin a woman's life and health. The decision should be between a woman and her doctor. But we disagree, and I think a large part of the coming "no" voters will agree with me, on whether abortion should be used as birth control. I continue to believe that a doctor who just gives "no questions asked" abortions isn't much better than a doctor who gives morphine to every patient who asks for it. And none of this requires the government to be involved -- the medical profession is self-regulated not government-regulated. (And while that is my opinion, I'm not advocating for new rules for doctors; I'm not seeking to impose my opinion on others. I'm not a doctor so my "opinion" that a doctor should lose their license in this situation is worth as much as my opinion about my local mechanic.)

That's not very helpful in understanding your reasoning. Before Roe, we had a complete ban. After Roe we had that vague "viability" standard and the no-restrictions/state could restrict/state could ban trimesters. The current Republican super-majority and Governor authored and signed a six-week ban. This amendment takes us back to Roe and seems to protect contraception. Where is the "reasonable compromise"? What makes the proposed amendment too restrictive and what "floodgates" are you worried about? I'm with @YABO713, a woman's health should be between her and her doctor and the government should butt out. The OB doctors I know say that every abortion procedure is a heartbreaking decision for everyone involved, even when necessary. The loss is felt as strongly as a miscarriage. And (anecdotally, so maybe this means nothing) but they (both of them, and they're not in the same family) have said that they would never agree to perform an abortion on a healthy woman with a healthy fetus just because the woman didn't want a baby. A doctor (who takes an oath to "do no harm") who freely gives abortions without necessity and just as birth control should lose their license.

I don't think you understand my point. My point about people moving away from high-tax neighborhoods was not that they were running away from paying for infrastructure, but that they are anti-tax-- as evidenced by their moving away from higher local tax areas and the anti-tax (Republican)-leaning voting patterns in sprawling districts. They are affirmatively voting to keep more money for themselves rather than contribute to the public good -- and thus it seems unlikely that we'll ever get the sprawlers to pay their fair share of the cost. Your suggestion that voters are approving of that suggests that you, as an Ohio taxpayer, are willing to pay for that increased maintenance cost. And yet, you've elsewhere complained about high taxes and think we should pay less. You can look at a map and see the population density of Cleveland in 1950 vs. 2000 and see how the same population has spread. With every new development on former farmland Ohioans are agreeing to pay for more and more infrastructure maintenance -- you and me and everyone in between is paying for those added expenses. If the same population spreads the same amount by 2050, how many more roadway lane miles, miles of electric lines, miles of phone lines, miles of water lines, miles of sewer lines, will Ohioans want to maintain? I also question your presumption that voters understand that sprawl costs exponentially more to sustain and have chosen to spend the public money that way. I think the vast majority of the public is completely unaware -- the electricity and water "just works" and few have any idea how it is generated and delivered, or what it costs to maintain the system. The builders who would rather build on former farmland than do infill development aren't going to have to do the maintenance, and they're not going to tell them. The highway lobby isn't going to tell them. The utilities who get to build more power lines aren't going to tell them and can just pass along the cost to all of us without even our vote. Local officials are happy to have "growth" and don't calculate the 30-year maintenance costs or even want to know. People complain about potholes, but they don't complain about C- ratings from some national civil engineering group applied to all the roadways in the state. And they want their existing taxes to cover the cost. I'm advocating for (1) recognizing the problem and (2) figuring out a way to discourage further sprawl. Can you think of a way that capitalism could be used to discourage sprawl without raising taxes? Can you think of a way to spend more money on infrastructure maintenance without raising taxes and fees on all Ohioans?

You're making my point -- if people are fleeing higher local taxes, they are not paying extra for the increased cost of maintaining many more miles of infrastructure that serves the same number of people. "Extra elbow room" may be nice, but these new suburbanites aren't demanding to maintain the rural character of the places they're moving to -- they aren't advocating to keep septic tanks, personal wells, and dirt roads, installing solar panels and using satellite phones. They want more and better roadways, sewer hookups, water hookups, connections to the electrical grid, new highway interchanges, etc. -- and they're not paying the exponential increase in cost of running all of those services out to their low-density communities.

I wasn't able to attend -- any updates?

Never heard of it until just now. I looks like they only serve the Jewish community, so that may be why I hadn't heard of them.

And yet people who move out of the city frequently cite the high taxes as reasons to leave. That suggests that the sprawlers are actually paying lower taxes, and not paying their fair share for the extra infrastructure needed to reach them.

Unfortunately, it's really tough to make it as a farmer, it's a lot easier to manage as a second income. You never know how much you're going to make, year-to-year, but a big farm requires a big up-front investment so if you have a bad year you start the next year in debt. It really is a boom-bust business. Few family-size farms are hugely profitable. And it's hard work, physically. How many family farms are there in Cuyahoga County? Are we willing to subsidize some number of farms to keep the family farm from disappearing? Or are we ok with Walmart parking lots taking over more farmland? Or maybe we just need to find more ways to encourage 1-10 acre hobby farms. I think this misses the point of discussions on the cost of sprawl. In a moderately-dense neighborhood, it might cost $X to build and (more importantly) maintain all the infrastructure. But as that same population spreads out further and further the cost increase exponentially -- and the people spreading out to get "elbow room" are not paying exponentially more than the people still living in moderately-dense core of our cities. This is what we mean when we say that sprawl is being subsidized. And the exponentially increased maintenance costs are unsustainable. You say that people are willing to spend for their elbow room, and yet it's the sprawling suburbs that support the politicians seeking to cut taxes -- they don't want to pay for it. The system sort of works now, while the sprawl infrastructure is fairly new and doesn't need much maintenance. But eventually that maintenance cost is going to be a real problem for low-density communities. (See Appalachia -- @GCrites )

I found these two sentences to be most enlightening.