ccars

Apparently the study admitted defeat and simply asked local leaders to identify and tabulate population data from whatever they decided was their CBD. ColDayMan's estimate of the CBD population earlier in the thread seems to be fair to at least Cincinnati and Cleveland, if not Columbus. This might be closer to the truth than we want to think. According to the Sheriff's Office, the average daily population of the Justice Center correctional facility is 1,850, which interestingly enough seems to imply overcrowding if the facility capacity (since 1999) is 1749. (See link http://sheriff.cuyahogacounty.us/center.asp) Using the Brookings data, and assuming the jail was operating at capacity in 2000, we land at an inmate population of 19% of downtown. This number should probably go down considerably as of this year's census, considering they have not added any new cells since 2000. We're not in the same boat as Pittsburgh when it comes to inmate population growth, though. The Corrections Center has added 894 beds since 1994, which knocks "real" downtown growth rate from 32.2% to 19.9% from 1990-2000.

From the Brookings report: "Downtowns in the sample cities with high proportions of prisoners are: Pittsburgh (34 percent), Cleveland (23 percent), Indianapolis (23 percent), San Antonio (22 percent), Charlotte (16 percent), Milwaukee (12 percent)." Interestingly enough, Pittsburgh's downtown growth would be 5% instead of 26% when controlling for the increase in the incarcerated population. I wish this report had provided the raw data from which they drew. They only highlight the highest/lowest ranking cities in each category.

^^ The Brookings Institution data recorded highest and lowest tract median income for downtown populations, which I'm not sure is a terribly useful statistic. City Low Tract High MSA City Cincinnati 17,721 35,278 44,248 29,493 Cleveland 6,336 50,568 42,089 25,928 Columbus 16,636 29,864 44,782 37,897 I think this is based on the 2000 data. Interesting that the study claims that Cincinnati is declining when it clearly posted population growth between 1990-2000. I also note that it appears that Cleveland never had a burgeoning downtown population, at least in 1970, which kind of jives with my theory that since the turn of the 20th century, it took on a significantly suburban character with the aid of streetcars. It would be interesting to see downtown population numbers from the earliest days.

My mistake! Next time...I'll keep 'em buried until I know something. Maybe time for some investigative research?

^ You're right, he has a right to be mad. He's certainly done more to ingratiate himself with the fanbase with his reaction than anything else he's ever done. Until now, it seemed like he was always viewed as an outsider (which is what he _was_). I guess we'll have to put that rebuilding the team talk on hold until he sobers up, eh???

Sorry...just trying to get a feel for what's going on...

^ Well, that's awfully nice of him. I misread your post earlier and didn't see that you had a problem with the author's treatment of Gilbert. My reckoning, however, is that Gilbert overstepped the line this time. He's pouring gasoline on that fire that is Cleveland's perennial self-hate. But maybe it's a business decision--get the fans riled up against LeBron, and the Cavs will carry sold-out crowds even without him.

Anyone have any update on this project? Is it confirmed to be on hold or has it been ****canned?

That article doesn't seem as incendiary as the thousands that came before "the decision." You know, the ones that asked the rest of the world multiple times, "who wants to live in Cleveland, anyway?" It seems the author had more of a problem with Gilbert. And I don't blame him.

Has anyone heard of _any_ plans to at least partially infill the darned parking lots on W6th and W. St.Clair? They really take away from the atmosphere of the place, IMO. And the one north of St. Clair is half the reason why traffic is always so congested! I imagine though that those parking lots probably make more money than the bars do.

Word is they are moving into the old bank building caddy-corner from the Westside Market. Also, Johnny's owns the building Crop is currently in, so I wouldn't be too worried about what will be going there in the future, meaning, they would never allow a loud music-blarring club. I am disappoint. :( Where are us young music appreciator types to go now that there's no Flats? Ahh, just kidding. :)

No, no, Chef Boyardee's restaurant was on East 9th St. ;)

I understand that. However, why would any company currently located downtown need to build more parking space? If it's a cost issue, it would be more cost effective to negotiate leases with a structure already built withing close proximity. And with three garages VERY close, i'm sure a deal could be made. Look at it this way. Adding additional parking spaces downtown does two things: 1. Lowers the profit margins of parking lot operators across downtown. 2. Lowers the cost of parking for those coming downtown. These are both good things, at least if you're not a public transportation nazi (and I'm not, as my charitable use of the Green Line yesterday cost me an extra hour of my time due to inexplicable delay). Lowered parking costs will encourage people to use downtown resources, and lower profit margins will encourage the selloff and redevelopment of surface parking lots.

Actually, you're right. The waiver payment includes court costs. Here's a layout of court costs in Cleve. Hts., with waiver costs broken out to $95 in court costs and an additional fine. http://clevelandheightscourt.com/fees&costinfo.html So, really, there absolutely is no reason to plead guilty to a traffic citation, ever. You can't lose any more than you already have.

^ We used to freeze distill beer in college to make "Natty shots." Nasty, nasty stuff. In a nutshell, just freeze the cans and let the alcohol drip down out of the can. At any rate, you can't really distill beer to make spirits. The hops taste comes through too strongly (whiskey is made with an unhopped wash of grains). Which makes me curious to try the 41% beer, although I could imagine it isn't all that good. Question for y'all: I have an old-school kegerator that only takes Coors-style 1/2 barrels, meaning that Sanke kegs are too big for it. Before, I stuffed my corny kegs in there but now I don't really have time to homebrew anymore. Does anyone know what good beer comes in a fat, short 1/4 bbl Sanke? I wonder if I can get ahold of a 1/4bbl and have GLBC fill it up...

This is the correct method. I'm a law student with lots and lots of citations, so I feel that I can speak with a bit of authority on the subject. In a nutshell, if you plead guilty, you will receive the penalty prescribed by the statute no matter how convincing your sob story is. If you plead not guilty, your potential of winning rises above 0%, but you may run the risk of an extra $70 or so in court costs if the case goes to trial. Now the prosecutor's door is open to you for a plea bargain. You can change your plea to guilty at any time before trial and avoid incurring any additional costs. Thus, there is absolutely no downside to pleading not guilty. I have never been to South Euclid's municipal court, but Lyndhurst, Mayfield, Shaker, and Geauga all cut plea bargains as a matter of course. In Geauga, they even direct plea-bargain seekers to sign up on a list outside the prosecutor's door and plead not guilty. More likely than not, you will not even need to provide an explanation. The prosecutor is busy. He will examine your record, examine the ticket, and offer you the "standard" plea bargain, which will likely be a no-points speed (40 in a 35) with a $30 fine (plus ~$100 in court costs, depending on where you are). If you convince him that you are serious about going to trial, they will lower the fine further. Generally, though, when the sole evidence supporting the citation is an officer's observation, it will be hard to impeach and you will probably lose. Hope that helps.

Party in the Park is supposed to be the largest free music festival in the country. And it's actually this coming weekend: July 16, 17, 18. http://www.parkpartyinfo.com/ Special events and festivals are perfect excuses to take a trip to visit a small town. My favorites are eastside biased since I was raised in CF, but I have spent a lot of quality time at the Apple Butter Festival (10/9 in Burton), Maple Sugar Festival (April in Chardon), and my all-time favorite, the Memorial Day Parade in Chagrin Falls. There are also concerts on the Triangle every Thursday in Chagrin Falls. Sidewalk sale is coming up too at the end of the month. And they're developing a mini-East 4th-esque little party district near the Little Theatre, although they need more liquor licenses to do this right. Well worth the visit anyway. :) EDIT: Just noticed the date on this topic. Well, here's to zombie threads and new info!

^ So does anyone know what the results of the BZA meeting were? I saw earlier in the thread that groundbreaking will start in July, but since that's here now, is the project postponed?

To my knowledge, the "conspiracy" started well before GM was a powerful corporate interest. It was more of a result of a sea change in popular opinion, characterized by the platform of the progressive party. Streetcar companies were started before the turn of the century by investors from all walks: some for profit, others for the purpose of selling their real estate. Many of the lines, especially interurbans, were built to compete with private turnpikes, of which there were many. This led to an interesting form of competition between different modes of transportation that led to a great deal of innovation and diversity at a time when the world was changing at a very rapid pace. Fast-forward to the early 1900s. Privately-owned streetcar/electric utility interests were fully developed, and millions of city dwellers relied upon them to get to work. Political figures began to point out that they have something of a monopoly power over consumers. As a result, popular culture labeled streetcar operators as exploitative opportunists. Free and open public roads were seen as necessary to prevent the corporate interests embodied by the greedy streetcar operator from taking advantage of the common man. The city of Cleveland passed many ordinances directly assailing the streetcar companies' bottom line early in and before the turn of the century. The three-cent fare was probably the most famous of these, getting national press: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9904E1DD1230EE32A25751C1A9679C946597D6CF For many years, progressive interests lobbied for this ordinance but failed in the courts. In 1904 they finally got their way. This was really only the beginning of the city government squeezing the heck out of the streetcar companies. They also required them to pave their right-of-way, sometimes light the streets, and pay exorbitant franchise fees. Then, as now, the word "profit" was considered a dirty word and activists felt no qualms about burdening the common carriers. Mayor Johnson's apparent goal during this period was to drive the companies into bankruptcy so that the municipality could purchase and operate them (at the time a municipal railway was already operating in competition). Additionally, streetcar strikes plagued the private interests at the time, incurring additional costs. About a year after the 3-cent-fare mandate went into effect, the main streetcar company declared bankruptcy and a compromise franchise grant charging fares at cost-plus-6%-return was put into place in 1910. Though the seeds for decay were planted, ridership would eventually double to a high of 450 million in 1920. But the system started to become neglected, service was spottier, and eventually things began to reach a head in the 1930s as maintenance costs became prohibitive. Just around that time, the Public Company Utility Holding Act was passed as a part of overarching New Deal regulatory legislation. This act required public utilities to divest themselves of all unregulated (non-utility) businesses. At the time, most streetcar companies were majority-owned by public utilities whose principal customers were electrified streetcar lines. They used the streetcar companies for tax deductions and ways to shore up their books in the face of increasing regulatory pressures. Without the utilities providing an influx of capital for operating, the streetcar companies were unprofitable. Thus began the wave of selloffs. National City Lines was the principal buyer in many cities, but the municipal government was probably a more frequent customer. The bus lobby more than likely found it much cheaper to bribe a mayor than to lay out the capital to purchase an entire streetcar system. The Van Sweringen brothers actually controlled the Cleveland system from 1930-1937, receiving that 6% return and integrating it into their railroad system. Since the Vans were already nearly broke around this time, they had no money to put the streetcar system on life support like the utilities were doing. The city entered negotiations to acquire the system in 1937 after O.P. died. The sale closed in 1942. Enter Cuyahoga County Engineer Albert Porter, mentioned earlier in this thread. His lifelong goal was to rid the city of streetcars, probably because he was in the pocket of special interests. This leads to years of mismangement and incomptence that led to the last streetcar service shutting down in the middle 1950s. That's what I know. One day I'll write a book. Edit: KJP already gave the cliff notes on this in an earlier post. Go figure! Well, here's some more in-depth information for you.

Did you notice that Detroit and Columbus made the list, but not Cleveland? I bet they factor in population of the city proper. And I'm shocked that Dallas made the list but not Austin. With the criteria they seem to use, Cleveland blows many of those cities out of the water, especially with respect to cultural, educational, and financial institutions. Of course, now that Jones Day and Ernst & Young have taken their "headquarters" plaques off their downtown buildings and shipped them to D.C. and N.Y., respectively, I suppose it's much harder for an outsider to really see what's going on in this city. And I need to set in my obligatory flame on Miami. I lived there for a year, and it was awful, awful, awful. The whole place is nothing but strip mall and traffic. I was so relieved to finally see some diverse urban character and non-crabgrass whenever I would make it back to CLE. And you can't even go outside for half the year, not even with a coat!

^ Wait, what? Did I read that wrong, or are there a "required" number of parking spots? Does the city zoning ordinance really require parking allocations for buildings? No wonder we've managed to destroy our home with parking lots. Boy, oh, boy, wouldn't I love to get into reformation of the zoning ordinance. Required setback? Why on earth would you need something like this in anything but a residential neighborhood?

Look through the trees to the forest. The more seeds we plant, the bigger our forest will grow. This is only a small part of a movement to chop away a tangled jungle full of unreasonable legislation. "It won't really change anything" is NO excuse to keep an unreasonable law on the books. And I'm trying to make it better by liberalizing liquor laws. I'm not one to roll over because the 1933 General Assembly told me to.

Are we talking open container outside of designated areas? If so I could see where that would be problematic. If we are talking about open container inside of designated areas then the only bars that would benefit are those within entertainment districts. Technically this could be, and is done now through F licenses. They are temporary but you can walk the street within the defined area with beer in hand. Why would we need to designate "drinking areas?" If I want to drink a bottle of wine with my girlfriend in the park and watch the sunset, is it really such a crime? The only special interest group I'm hurting here is the wine bar--but I'm also helping the wine store, maybe a nice restaurant later, something else. If I become drunk and unruly, certainly tell me to get off public property. But in the meantime, I'm minding my own business, and why should everyone else not extend me the same courtesy? Personally, I think all laws should be only honored in the breach, but that's far too broad of a topic for this thread. Drinking laws, however, generate a lot of "victimless crimes" on which we waste precious public safety resources to achieve nothing but annoyance and disturbance of those who otherwise are harming no one.

Definitely take a walk through Little Italy to Coventry! I used to walk it every day and I love taking people around this way. The Mint Cafe is my favorite "classy" spot, but there's Pacific East, Tree Country Bistro, Hunan, and the bars for the pub food. I've never really considered Cedar/Lee to be within walking distance unless I'm in a bind or drunk, but Brennan's Colony has really stepped up their food quality and The Tavern Co. has always been a favorite of mine although it recently changed hands.

I doubt you would find many bar owners or their attorneys who would agree with that. One, the bouncer is paid to protect the patrons and property of the bar and two, taking on of additional liability of sending out an employee outside of the private premises as opposed to calling in the police for public property just doesn't sound like a good idea. I don't mean to imply that we should shift legal responsibility. It is always in a business owner's financial interest to keep their street safe. A Good Samaritan statute could prevent the kind of legal liability you speak of from accruing. This is a digression, anyway, because I don't believe people drink less because they must do it in bars as opposed to in the park. Sure, cost is a factor, but it just doesn't seem like most people at the bar are all that concerned about finances.