ccars

I find it hard to believe that surface parking would be a more profitable use than a handful of $400k new construction townhouses similar to the ones up Mayfield and Edgehill.

Hidden parking lots create opportunities for crime, especially in a neighborhood like this one. It would make more sense to completely dispense with the city zoning code's parking requirements and allow developers to rely on street parking alone.

^Much of the reason you see grass yards in new construction is because of drainage concerns. Too much impervious surface can cause premature foundation failures especially in a place like Cleveland where the storm drainage system is poor. In that area in particular, the streets are quite prone to flooding and pooling after a heavy rain. The grass keeps the water from infiltrating the foundations of those more inexpensive townhouses.

IMO, Orchard Hills isn't a very nice park. It looks more like they built a big parking lot in the middle of a hay field. Then again, Geauga County's goals are different because everyone has a mini park in their backyard there. Orchard Hills is basically a really expensive party pavilion. The tree-planting is a good idea, though, so I hope it'll make the space look a little less shabby.

An oil and gas lease is an interest in property. Every time it's sold, somebody -ought- to run a title search. A savvy home buyer is not going to forgo a title search just because the house changed hands a month ago. There's a lot of money at stake, and title searches are not terribly expensive. I suppose Chesapeake might warrant the sale, but who's to know whether they'll be in business to pay off the buyer for defects in a year?

^ Here you go. It's not in -all- of Ohio, just mostly in NEO / SE Ohio. This is where the bulk of the activity is. They're still proceeding in the Mahoning Valley and in the Canton area. I think they recently set up a downtown office campus in some of the available office space in downtown Canton. Chesapeake to Sell Utica Assets By: Zacks Equity Research June 06, 2012 | Comment(s): Embattled Chesapeake Energy Corp. (CHK) is trying hard to minimize capital expenditure through its divestiture program. The company plans to sell 337,481 net acres of Utica-Point Pleasant Trend acreage in Ohio, as per a prospectus released by Denver-based Meagher Energy Advisors. The to-be sold assets include drilling rights in 19 Ohio counties that are mainly situated to its north-east and south-east. Northeast Ohio counties comprise Huron, Lorain, Ashland, Wayne, Summit, Geauga, Portage, Asthabula and Trumbull counties. The southeastern counties are Licking, Muskingum, Fairfield, Perry, Morgan, Washington, Athens, Hocking, Vinton and Meigs. http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/76510/chesapeake-to-sell-utica-assets

They lost their main industry, but that loss did not result in the devastation we've seen here. Cleveland still has steel mills but so what. It's not always about jobs, look at Portland. The manufacturing economy is positively a red herring in this region. We fought and lost that battle in the 70s and 80s, and by that time the Rust Belt cities were already declining. Personally I think you'll find far more convincing evidence that city management in a post-integration society makes a much bigger difference than availability of certain types of jobs. White flight devastated most cities proper--some came back quickly, others didn't. What's the difference between Lakewood and Cleveland? Not much physically. The better schools in Lakewood are the primary driver for building a solid, stable resident population there--something that Cleveland still sorely lacks. Pittsburgh managed to root out corruption and reform its government years ago. We're following in their footsteps with county government reform, and we're now beginning to see the good benefits that they saw from good management.

^ I've got to hand it to them, they're a good example of smart urban renewal and it looks really nice in several places. It definitely has improved in the last five years, but I think Pittsburgh's perennial status as a second-tier city is going to impede a full recovery. It's still a wreck in a lot of places, crime is bad, and the housing stock is expensive and wrecked in most neighborhoods. And there are 18 bridges, 3 rivers, and all the roads are uphill. :>

I love Pittsburgh, but it has a surprising number of rednecks (count the confederate flags on Pittsburgh houses sometime). Yet it's urban density, enabled by its many developed valleys, exceeds that of any of Ohio's Big 3. It's transit is on par if not slightly better than Cleveland's. Its cultural offerings are equal to Cleveland's too. But that redneck thing really bothers me, something I also see too much of in Columbus and Cincy. All 3 C's have a pretty large population of Appalachians and Southerners that moved there for jobs, and Pittsburgh is pretty much the capitol of Appalachia, so yeah, they have it even more so. I deal with my fair share of hillbillies from Pittsburgh at work and I wholeheartedly agree. Every time I find myself in Pittsburgh, some mulleted jackass at a crowded bar eventually tries to pick a fight with me for no reason at all--a problem that simply does not exist in Cleveland. I don't care how nicely they've paved the streets; until their residents learn how to conduct themselves like urbanites who have triple-digit IQs, I'm never going to like the place. Call me a snob, but I feel like we have a lot more in common with New Englanders than we ever will with the Appalachian folk. There's good reason for that--this area was originally settled by people from Connecticut, whereas the original Appalachians were all fresh immigrants from Germany and Eastern Europe. I spent a few months in Marietta a while back and experienced a positive culture shock. Those are people who love Pittsburgh.

Chesapeake isn't the only player in this region; they just happen to have leased the most land. I've seen teams of their people in Mahoning, Columbiana, Tusc and Portage that are still running title on their leased lands. There's activity. Chesapeake recently announced that they were going to dump their holdings in NE Ohio which will mean that the purchasing company will have to perform the same due diligence on the leases as Chesapeake did when they signed them, and they'll only have a few years to drill them before they expire. So either something is going to happen within 5 years or someone is going to lose a ton of money.

The debate we're really having here is whether large public housing projects are an overall success or a failure. Whatever the answer, it's basically a matter of opinion. Personally, I think that the Section 8 program is a much better idea than completely restricted 100%-low-income apartments. An apartment complex like Lakeview Terrace is a "neighborhood" in itself, and it would benefit from a diversity of incomes. In any case, because it's agency-owned, the CMHA has a very limited set of choices as to how to handle the property, imposed by statute. As long as it remains as such, not much is going to be changed.

I saw a snippet on local news that the county executive was holding hearings on how to spend the casino revenue. FitzGerald was pushing a downtown spending agenda. Does anyone have any more detailed information as to what was discussed at that meeting?

With respect to the topic title, I have hard from a friend in commercial banking that several lenders are actually engaging in the practice in refusing to lend at all in entire counties. One such particular bank has stopped accepting lending applications for any house in all of Cuyahoga County, which I find to be quite a severe reaction.

I'm a little late to the game, but I have a few comments... I have no ready source, but I do remember reading that Cleveland and other rust belt cities suffered from a severe overcrowding problem in the first half of the 20th century, when the average home was occupied by 8 or more residents. Much of the "abandonment" that happened between 1950-2000 was the shrinkage of the household size, not the vacation of buildings. (The foreclosure crisis is more to blame for inner-city abandonment than population shrinkage, IMO). So it's important to look at our infrastructure in terms of property values and taxes instead of raw population numbers which can be quite misleading. The purchasing power of an average American is far greater than it was in 1920, allowing homes that once housed extended families to be occupied by a single resident or couple. It had to be. Before Fannie Mae was created in 1938, the most common mortgage was a 50% down payment, 5-year term with a balloon payment at the end. Essentially a homeowner had to seek refinancing every five years, which was one of the chief causes of the Great Depression--the housing credit party ran dry in 1929, just like it did in 2007. Large suburbs of Cleveland as well as the entire city of Miami were built thanks to easy credit and a home construction craze that ended exactly as it did 3 years ago.

FWIW, I've seen it done successfully in Europe. Take a look at Casino Wien, in the city center of Vienna, for instance: http://www.casino-urlaub.at/casino-vienna.en.htm It's very tastefully woven into the old-world style of the rest of the street, and if it weren't for the relatively smallish sign on the side of the building, one wouldn't even know it was a casino. Most large-scale developers in the U.S. (not just casino builders) still think the 1950s formula of shiny aluminum/glass office boxes surrounded by parking lots and fountains is the most successful one (for crying out loud, look at what they're _still_ putting up in Beachwood!), so I will be quite impressed if Gilbert's team is able to break the trend and create something truly revolutionary.

> Comparable suburbs in strong vs. weak metro areas do proportionately "better" given the health of their respective central city. I think the suburbs of Cleveland, Detroit and Cincinnati belie this statement. That having been said, urban planning of the 1920s has been displaced by autocentric planning of the 1940s--just look at Los Angeles, Houston, Charlotte, Miami and any Sun Belt city, but that's not to say that it won't bounce back. The trouble is that it will take years upon years upon years for this to happen, and this will be despite unlimited under-the-radar funding for public roads and highways. As was said above, most Ohioans live in suburbs, own a car, and don't even think about taking public transportation. For most people in this country, true urban living is something of a novelty. I think it will change as we slowly reevaluate the efficiency of our society, but it's going to take years to undo the damage of government kowtowing to the auto industry.

I have never, and will never, buy the concept that any country's currency can be overvalued or undervalued. It is valued at exactly what it's worth. And I will never believe that China is somehow hurting us by "manipulating its currency," either. I'll tell you why. Because China sees a massive imbalance in capital flows (far more dollars flow in than RMB flow out) and indeed legislates to prevent outward capital flow, their currency should appreciate rapidly (high demand, fixed supply), but the Bank of China keeps the RMB on target at roughly 6.7:1. It does this by printing a ton of money and returning it to its Treasury. A currency is only valued based on its supply and the commensurate demand for it. Because China's economy is growing so fast, demand for the RMB is rising. The BoC's scheme will only work right if demand for its currency is rising; as soon as it drops we're looking at a 1994 Mexico crisis situation. Anyway, if the BoC let the currency float and appreciate, prices in China would drop through the floor in terms of RMB and the average Chinese worker would suddenly find himself a whole lot wealthier. But instead, the BoC appropriates that gain for government purposes in the form of an inflation tax (the only difference is that prices stay the same in RMB terms, but the private sector forgoes that gain they could realize by rapidly appreciating savings/assets and falling prices) That's how I see it. Mark my words, China is not selling us goods for less than what it costs for them to produce. No amount of currency tomfoolery would make that practice profitable or wise. Anyway, on point about exporting U.S. inflation: because we're trying to devalue our own currency, the Chinese must inflate their own currency to maintain the peg. They're now inflating to the point that prices are rising on the mainland, which is upsetting the central government. We don't really care, because the only thing that's happening from our standpoint is that the fat margins of importing Chinese goods are getting squeezed. Expect prices at Walmart to rise a bit, though.

China's currency peg means that the U.S. can't inflate against the RMB in order to spur exports. It's my hypothesis that we're exporting inflation to China via the peg (and probably to a lesser extent Canada due to menu costs and a psychological 1:1 peg). Some have speculated that the missile launch off the California coast was a Chinese warning in direct response to QE2, but I've seen no conclusive evidence of this.

Does anyone know what the procedure will be for reallocating the funds after Ohio rejects them? Who decides where it goes? Is it first-come, first-serve on an application basis? Personally, I have a much greater personal stake in improving service on the Capitol Limited to DC and the Lake Shore Limited to NY/Chicago, and I wonder how come the railfans have not injected it into the debate. The service through Cleveland is positively atrocious. I live in Cleveland, though, so I guess it's my selfish thought to not consider connecting Columbus to the network an important goal. :evil:

It's interesting that they're going to such lengths to ensure ample parking. At first blush, it seems odd, since most casinos treat their parking facilities as loss leaders: they offer free parking with validation inside the casino, so it drives foot traffic into the casino from those who don't care to pay for parking, even if their destination is not the casino (they do this in Detroit). This seems like an awfully expensive loss leader.

If that's how you feel, then by all means lobby your Assemblyman to ban that type of music in public clubs. I have never heard such disdain for the preferences of others as I have in this thread. I hope you don't style yourself open-minded after making this kind of statement: in this country, if we don't like certain types of expression, we are free to avoid them. None of us should abide the likening another's speech, music or expression to more serious crimes. Rap music is not rat food and catcalling is not rape. We must draw reasonable boundaries as to where our rights end and where others' begin--in this country, one has no reasonable expectation of privacy when words have been spoken; the balancing factor is that no one may similarly expect not to be offended by anyone's expression. I'm going to say this again: why is it such a hard concept for people to simply accept others' preferences and live and let live? If you are offended by the debauchery of West 6th Street, you have two options: (1) buy property there and try to make a concerted change, or (2) avoid exposing yourself to that atmosphere. The third option, to complain and clamor about rude people until the police are politically pressured to club and tazer people until no one shows up anymore, is not a legitimate option in my book.

As for the chart: life expectancy isn't really a good proxy for quality of health care, especially considering lifestyle choices and that a good percentage of the U.S. population self-medicates because they are not aware of their eligibility for Medicaid or Medicare. The JAMA has in fact made the claim that the U.S. health care system is the very best in the world for the elderly, and the chief problem is the uninsured and underinsured, which doesn't necessarily point out a problem with health care providers. As for "health care spending," there is no way to strip out the costs of medical research and development done at research hospitals; here the U.S. spends the lion's share of the world's medical research dollars. Canada's health care is provided mostly by private hospitals and doctors who bill the government, also known as single-payer health insurance. Canadian employers sometimes provide supplemental insurance to cover dental and other non-medically necessary needs, but the cost of this benefit is typically very low. This is a digression, though, so let me bring it back to the point: 90% of privately insured Americans have their health insurance tabs paid by their employers. The older and riskier their pool is, the higher the premiums will be (although typically insurance companies guarantee that premiums will not rise more than a given amount over the life of the insured, as long as they stick with that insurer). The tax code in the U.S. provides incentives for employers to provide health insurance to their employees. So our culture has grown around the idea that health insurance should be provided by the employer. It's my opinion that this destroys the pricing signals between the insurer and the insured, leaving the insured free to overconsume without regard to cost, and leaving the insurer free to provide terrible service at no consequence (the employee can't take their business elsewhere). As for the rest of payroll taxes, Congress did pass the HIRE Act, which gives a tax credit of 6.2% of a new employee's salary if the new hire was previously unemployed. This is a step in the right direction, but it's merely a drop in the bucket compared to the entitlement, payroll and other taxes that add up to 30% on top of an employee's salary. (Should I mention that the HIRE Act also authorized $20 billion in highway spending?)

On the contrary: most factories in China are very inefficient, dirty, and wasteful. I speak from personal experience in the printing equipment manufacturing industry. For what it's worth, most of these factories produced goods for domestic consumption within China, whose printing industry is about three times the size of the States'. They are able to turn a profit because they are not faced with crushing triangular regulation costs and have a much lower base wage cost. I mentioned triangular regulation--between this and crushing payroll taxes, it is one of the gravest obstacles to economic recovery in the United States today. In most social democracies (and China), the costs of regulatory compliance are absorbed by government bureaucracy. In the United States, most of these costs rest with the business owner, such as product testing costs, tax compliance, environmental surveys, etc. These all increase the implied cost of doing business in the States, driving businesses to more beneficial areas. There's no need to demonize corporations for outsourcing. They are profit-maximizing entities, without which we would be worse off. Enacting a protective tariff or stricter regulatory restrictions will simply accelerate the process and make us all less wealthy. The same argument is applicable to corporations who lobby government for special dispensation--when the horses are allowed to the government trough, they will drink. There is nothing nefarious about the act itself, but the only way to really put a check on it is to close the doors to the halls of government to everyone and give no special dispensation. Payroll taxes and other attendant social insurance costs have become crushing burdens on employers--they can raise the cost of employing a single worker by 30-40% over the cost of paying base wages. Look no further for this as the root cause of the incredible tightening of the U.S. labor force over the last 25 years. It is ironic and sad that this recession-conscious Congress continues to pile on the regulatory costs and throw up more barriers to new business starts. Every new regulation discourages more entrepreneurial types from contributing more value to society. And the larger organizations who created the condition requiring the regulation in the first place are able to dodge the consequences through its lobbying power. The result is that large corporations foreclose the potential competition from starting new businesses. The only way America is going to turn around its long decline is to stop killing its entrepreneurial spirit with onerous burdens.

^^ I suppose you feel the same way about off-duty police officers carrying their guns anywhere they please? If your guest is a police officer, you can't say mum to them. I'm tired of people making police officers out to be above the law. Many of those guys are very poorly trained on their firearms when compared to the average gun enthusiast. Either allow everyone the same rights or restrict the unreasonable special dispensation we give to police officers. I don't at all mind a private property owner dictating the terms of their invitation, but we seem to always ignore those who hide behind the badge or the state when it comes to discussing the extent property rights.

I didn't say it was innocent, nor did I say it was appropriate behaviour. Legislating or using police to strongarm "good morals" however is worse. I find myself turning the other cheek every day to rude people. It is a reality with which everyone who lives in a city must deal, especially when all the clubs close simultaneously. And although I can't produce any statistics in opposition, I take issue with your statement that this is not typical of "entertainment districts" in other areas.