Etheostoma Caeruleum

Good point..fair enough!

The parameters they set for deciding what is or what is not... Means nothing to me... Usually, when some national headline is touting some place as "thee place to be" for whatever...I usually take that a hint to do the opposite. when people are jumping onto a fad... I am usually already jumping off...But that's me... I also have to laugh at New York always being ranked and assumed to be number one in anything and everything... I have some friends there who live NOT in Manhattan, but in regular old New York...just the everyday resident.. They hate, get sick of seeing it rated so highly because they truly believe it is the world's most overrated city. I just had to laugh at that... "almost a hottie" In my day, well, school... we often called a hottie a "treats-a-saur-us" as in "Tyrannosaurus" But in my book, I see the worst city for singles as Warren, Ohio. I swear for a guy in his mid 20's to early 40's, it is the recruiting grounds for the Jerry Springer Show! With the communication opportunities today...why not see the entire world as chance to connect with someone....

Sprawl, especially in a state like Ohio, where we have numerous metro areas within a relatively small geographical area statewide, has big impacts and most from what I have learned are not good. There is a fantastic website that outlines and addresses the common misconceptions/myths that 'this growth will save us' (sprawl) and the deceptive propaganda that drives it. Check out "Sprawl Busters." There is some sobering well re-searched information throughout their website. The most baffling concept to me...is while population has dropped statewide...land consumption is higher than it has ever been. (shifting population) As for agriculture land, Ohio's biggest economy last I checked, we lose something like 300 acres per day on average...don't quote me on that...but it is a shocking number...and most falls out of production and into the hands of sprawl where zoning keeps getting shifted to commercial..even where it is not needed or wanted. Also, even Green City Blue Lake has a lot of information on the effects of Sprawl. Contact David Beach. He is excellent. Maybe he is on here already... Hope this helps...

Re: The church article above.... Moving story. A fully functional neighborhood/community which many have not had the privilege of experiencing...or the fond memories of what it was like. Hopefully this can be a seed to grow on. Buckeye Rd. actually has a lot of character.

Should I remove that photo?

This portion of the near east side is taking some really attractive strides. It is up and coming and underrated. Great for pointing all, this out!!! Thanks!

I'm not... I happen to know the people of whom I provide the information from...and for your information, not everyone who posts on the PD is a jerk... So can the UO better than thou attitude, please.

I said I would get some info. This is not about 'environmentalists' so please don't go there. It is about sustainable planning. And, I am small business and pro-Mom and Pop as it gets...ran and was a part of one for 25 plus years. Not like those who love living in Tremont and the like...and love the appeal of the small independent feel...then chose to spend their cash mostly at sprawl-mart...and must think the little shops are museums of some sort rather than real businesses who need support. I will share some information soon. Not today...have to go. There were some compelling letters for starters in my earlier post.

That statement could not be any farther from the truth if I stayed up nights trying to study how to not want Cleveland's best interest at heart. Just wrong wrong wrong.. How many people on here have heard arguments from other sources that were NOT chamber driven or part of the port's best interest...I plan on gathering up some and presenting them. But to say that someone does not have Cleveland's best interest at heart just because they do not think this location is appropriate long term.... is absurd and a broad brush generalization. Maybe I will just stop investing my effort in trying to bring to the table then, what I feel I can do in my part to make the community better. I can live anywhere I want... I chose here because I believe in it. I just do not believe in development at any cost, desperation development or piss poor planning with short sights. (this sort of thing has been the mainstay of my place of origin, Trumbull/Mahoning County) I am a perfectionist at heart who tries to go a step further to promote well planned economic development that does not have a negative impact on the environment. I believe it can be achieved with some vision. I will gather some information but I expect that it maturely be considered as this is why I chose this forum..and The NOT P.D. to discuss such..and not poo pooed just because someone has their mind set in concrete! Open them up!!!! Now I know how Columbus must have felt when he was trying to explain how the world was round, when the rest of the crowd thought it was flat.

I typically don't support plans that start invading/encroaching on public access points to the lake that were already set aside. There is always a better alternative.

Ohio City... Good choice... There are several side streets close enough to everything...5 10 minute stroll... if the main street is not preferred. Whitman is one of my favorite Ohio City Streets... Even south of Loraine, although not as popular, has some really decent streets.

You're missing the whole point. I think most only heard what information they were given from the Port's views. Such will possibly result in a dirtier Lake Erie, you can count on it.

I had the same concern. If you're still months away from doing anything...and if they need to be able to see what is underneath...then why not move small portions as you would do to carpet in a house where you want to see if the floors look decent underneath? This intersection, with the vacancies on large properties, is not as busy as it has been...Maybe that would be better during restoration to spare the sight of the process.

I feel the benefits are too speculative. It could very well turn out to be a white elephant...and the fact remains that it would present one of the biggest examples of shoreline abuse yet. You don't take something that is limited along a lakefront, stretches of open space that is as close to green buffer as we can get, habitat to much--which keeps the lake healthy/alluring in the first place......and turn it into industrial clutter, clang, and heap. That's just bass akwards in any language. This city cannot possible climb on this 'going green' bandwagon and do shortsighted planning like this. There is ALWAYS an alternative and better way... It is important to remember that. I feel all can be achieved without undermining that part of the lake. I am sure those at Quay 55 will love the views.

I am used to traveling 100's of miles for work related issues.....so yes, to me it seems a short drive to get on 480 and then head north on 71. It is not far from the airport area (BP Road) where you have the rapid station. It would be good if the rapid extended to OF, though. I can see how others would think this is far, though. I only mentioned it because Berea was mentioned. Just testing the waters to see how close or far someone needs to be.

There is one thing I have a problem with in 'over-marketing' of places like natural areas of Lake Erie--and I say this as a one time assistant naturalist--and that is, our park systems are barely scraping by. The funding for staff has been severely cut. What does this mean? It means we are placed in a position where we cannot handle the influx of people coming in as a result of increased marketing of a park. The problems this presents are as Hawaii national parks and many other national parks found out...is that we can 'love a place to death'...meaning you get a certain percentage of people coming in who could not give two poops about the place and do all kinds of inappropriate things like wandering off designated trails, littering, starting fires, vandalizing, making unnecessary noise, etc. I have seen it all. The end result is costly; a place that looks good on the marketing materials...but in reality, becomes a disappointment to the better money spending visitors that would truly appreciate and respect the place. Then, they don't return to spend money...and the parks are left with having to shell out a lot more money to clean up after their messes. A coordinated effort needs to be achieved with matching the promotional output of a particular park so it is proportionate to the amount of staff the given park can handle. Hocking Hills had to deal with this issue because of run-away marketing of the visitors Bureau, and the results have these parks not nearly as grand as they used to be. In this case...maybe some things are best...a best kept secret! I like to emphasize on quality...and not quantity..as sometimes 'less is more' On those parody marketing videos... They are amusing to those of us who see the hidden humor and know our area well....but still love it. But they used tired stereo-types and are really not creative in my opinion. And others who do not know as we know...may take it literally, which only escalates the same old same old....and then wonder why we cannot shed an image as we become forever economically type-cast.

Now that Berea is mentioned..... Olmstead Falls has that little historic area, easy access to highways and airport. It is sort of like the Chagrin Falls of the west side. This is only a suggestion of you want a closer suburb with access to all you like....and being minutes from downtown.

I thought this was a nice video of the Cleveland and Beyond area.... I have not found it on here yet.

So Cleveland's best kept secret is a gruesome, nationally-publicized killing spree? I kid, I kid Jack The Ripper-London....Some, especially those in forensics and CSI sort of work...find this a mystifying story.

Still no category to post this sort of information, but this is as close as I can find. The following link has to be one of the best efforts to preserve Ohio's Forested Arc Of Appalachia and its habitats--part of Ohio's natural heritage. There effort is an ambitions task that would link several miles of forests. If you have not been to this place. You should arrange a scheduled hike. I do not believe they allow cell phones on the hikes--so if you're someone who has to constantly have it with you and cannot do a digital de-tox for a couple hours, this is not for you. Anyway, check out the stunning forests, the temperates, indeed, really theee most endangered one in the world. I believe 98% of all revenue they collect goes towards purchase of land. http://www.highlandssanctuary.org/

Another surface lot off of Euclid Avenue, nicely done CSU. I know theyve done a lot recently and i just graduated this summer from CSU, but hopefully this isnt a "temporary" lot for long. And such is an institution of higher education. What a joke.

Some compelling arguments against port relocation... Thought I'd share. I tend to agree and just feel the 'moving it' bandwagon is another example of desperate 'development at any cost' Following Letter to Crain's Cleveland Business Magazine from Barbara Martin, chairman & Bill Gruber, vice chairman Dike 14 Nature Preserve Committee ■ We believe that it is important to clarify a number of points set forth in the Jan. 5, Page 3 story headlined, “Port Authority’s transformation begins long before move.” ■ Timing: The story says it will be nearly 10 years before the Port begins its move to its proposed new site at East 55th Street and 20 years for the move to be complete. In fact, the Army Corps hopes to begin filling a new Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) at East 55th in 2015. Considering the projected CDF capacity and the Corps’ actual annual dredge amount of at most 250,000 cubic yards, it will take about 28 years ― or 34 years from now ― to complete filling all 200 acres of the proposed CDF. The first phase is likely to be filled by about 2024 ― 16 years from today. Once the filling is done, the wet dredgings must dry out and settle, a process taking several years. The infrastructure work for utilities, roads, rail connections and structures will take additional years to complete. ■ Fill it faster: The Port says it will try to fill the CDF faster than the normal dredge deposit process would take. But it has no agreement with the Army Corps to allow the Port to fill the federal CDFs with non-dredge fill material, and for good reason. Federal law and regulations limit what the Army Corps may use its federal funds to build and fill. The Corps needs a new CDF for its harbor dredge program to keep shipping lanes open, not to build a new Port facility. If the Port seeks to build its own facility for fill, that cost will add greatly to the already immense projected cost of its proposed move. ■ Cost of a new port: As the article says, the new Port could cost up to $1billion of taxpayer money. But the Army Corps will only be paying 75% of the cost to build the dike that will hold the dredge material, which is projected to cost about $200 million. So the Port will have to come up with $50 million of the dike’s cost and a total of about $750 million (not the $250 million suggested in the article). ■ City lakefront plan: While the Port’s plan to move to East 55th might free up the existing Port’s downtown location for private development, as intended by the city of Cleveland’s comprehensive Lakefront Plan, that move would also obliterate the remainder of the city’s plan as to the entire East Side lakefront, which Cleveland’s residents and the city’s Planning Commission concluded just a few years ago should be reserved for parks, marinas, fishing piers and public access to the lake, not replaced by a 200-acre industrial facility. ■ Port attempted sell-off of public trust property: The Port wants to sell its current location for private development, but neither the Port nor the city owns that land. The Port is currently situated on formerly submerged (filled) lands that Ohio’s Constitution and Supreme Court say are held in trust for the public by the state of Ohio, and may not be sold off. The land can be developed for public access or water-related commercial use under submerged lands leases issued by the state, just like the leases issued for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Great Lakes Science Center and Browns Stadium. Expensive and protracted legal fights could result if the Port tries to raise funds for its move by trying to sell off this public land to private developers. ■ Growth in port business: The Port claims it needs to expand from the 70 acres it currently uses on the downtown lakefront to 200 acres at East 55th because of all the container shipping that is sure to come if the new site is built. But the Port’s own study of the possibility of container shipping coming to Cleveland projects the modest amount of one ship every two weeks and cautions that container shipping here is only of a “limited potential.” And for such a limited possibility the Port wants our community to invest $1billion of its limited resources. Barbara Martin, chairman Bill Gruber, vice chairman Dike 14 Nature Preserve Committee Another Letter submitted to Crain's Cleveland Business Magazine from Ken Vinciquerra Dear Messrs. Dodosh, Miller and Tucker, As a long-time subscriber of Crain’s and a concerned citizen of Cuyahoga County, I feel I must respond to the January 5, 2009 analysis “Port Authority’s transformation begins long before move.” There were a number of ironies in that article. In one breath, Mr. Wasserman berates “people haphazardly approaching the public sector for its land,” and in the next he proposes usurping public access to precious State parkland from E 55 to E 72 and beyond for a 200-acre industrial port. In approaching the public sector for this land and seizing it, the Port hopes to have found its new home. But in the process, the proposed move of Port facilities to E 55 will destroy E 55th St. Lakefront State Park and Marina, and dramatically and negatively impact InterCity Yacht Club, Gordon Lakefront State Park, and Dike 14 Nature Preserve. Mr. Wasserman also claims that “We think we have support from the community.” Does he have the support of the community? During the 32-month planning process conducted just a few short years ago, Connecting Cleveland: The Waterfront District Plan (WDP) attracted more than 5,000 people to over 200 community and stakeholder meetings, large and small, and generated thousands of ideas on how to best reshape Cleveland’s Lakefront and improve access between the shoreline and the adjacent neighborhoods. At the site of the Port Authority's proposed 200-acre CDF/Container Cargo site, the community consensus WDP envisions: · New land masses, not for a large, brightly lit, industrial zone, but for "water-related activities, specifically overlooks and fishing platforms, new marina, aquafilter, watercraft beach, relocated public boat launch, and fisherman's harbor." We’re talking same location, but two entirely different visions for our future dredged materials. · E. 55 St. State Park and Marina expansion and enhancements · Quay 55 residential complex expansion · Enhancement of nearby Gordon Lakefront State Park and Dike 14 Nature Preserve Then, last June 16, out of nowhere at just the second public meeting sponsored by the Port to share the 200-acre industrial port plan with the public, CPC Director Brown stood up at the microphone and stated that this port plan somehow fulfills the vision laid out in the Waterfront District Plan. Really? · What happened to the "continuous green ribbon at the water's edge”? · What happened to expansion of the E 55th St. Lakefront State Park and Marina? · What happened to the "new land masses that will provide opportunities for new beaches, expanded marinas, overlooks, fishing platforms, boat launches, and a fisherman's harbor, giving the city's residents an exciting variety of opportunities to access their waterfront?" · What happened to the collaboration with Quay 55 ownership to expand that beautiful development into "a gateway to a new celebratory promenade at the E55th Street Bridge?" · What happened to enhancement of Gordon State Park, "which long ago was severed in half by interstate highway infrastructure," but which will "enjoy a renaissance under the Waterfront District Plan?" · When was all of this abandoned, as if the (somewhat miraculous) public consensus forged by CPC had never even occurred? Who decided? Behind which closed doors was this scheme devised? Why weren't the citizens of Cleveland and Cuyahoga Co made aware of this and involved in the process? The WDP speaks of the legacy we've all lived with since the severing of Gordon Park. How will our children and future generations of Clevelanders feel about this latest, and most grievous, mistake on the lake? What could possibly be the rationale for a 180 degree about-face from the well-thought out consensus for lakefront development? Mr. Wasserman has promised jobs and economic opportunity. Your analysis states that “Mr. Wasserman said he also believes the existing docks are underused and that worldwide maritime conditions offer the opportunity to expand the port’s cargo operations immediately.” Did the Port president also mention the long term stagnation and/or decline in business at the existing port? Did he mention that the Port-financed feasibility study itself states "While these analyzes maintain that there may be a potential from a transit time and relative cost perspective, and that diversion to a feeder service serving the Port of Cleveland at this time appears to have some merit, …there are many key issues that need to be addressed in order for successful implementation," including but limited to "seasonality of shipping, relatively small local Cleveland market for shipped goods, and lack of growth of the Port of Halifax capacities relative to other coastal competitors." [my emphases] That is hardly a ringing endorsement for a proposal that will devastate the natural splendor one sees as one rounds the bend on I-90 at MLK heading west towards the city. It is also hardly a ringing endorsement for the inevitable exorbitant cost and the disregard of the voiced consensus of the tax-paying public. To the extent that Mr. Wasserman may have some level of community support, I would simply say: It is one thing to sell a publicly financed scheme when only one side of the debate is ever presented and when opposing opinions are limited to occasional LTEs and 3 minute shots at a microphone; it is a whole other challenge to bring it before the public in an honest and open public forum for rational debate on the merits. In the 10 months prior to his untimely death in November, Citizen Ed Hauser (the “Mayor of Whiskey Island”) was devoting all his considerable civic energies to stopping this latest insult to our shoreline (and the citizens who cherish it). Please honor his memory and the principles for which he fought, and for which many individuals continue to fight against all odds, by probing into the costs of this proposal (financial, environmental, recreational), as well as its prospects for ROI and purported benefits. This city has too long suffered from being a one-newspaper town, from having major decisions made behind closed doors, from having debate on important issues quashed. Crain’s has been a trusted and dependable source of unbiased reporting for many years, and I would encourage you not only to continue to follow this story very closely, but to initiate dialog and honest debate about its costs and realistic benefits. As always, keep up the fine work informing Northeast Ohioans of the business of Cleveland. I look forward each day to the appearance of “Today’s Headlines and Blogs”, “This Week’s Issue”, and “The Morning Roundup” in my Inbox! Ken Vinciquerra Cleveland Hts, OH January 20, 2009 Finally, here is a letter submitted to the Cleveland Plain Dealer commentary section: Cuyahoga County port's relocation proposal has serious flaws Sunday, January 25, 2009 Dominic A. LoGalbo Recently, on these pages, Michael Wagar, the out going chairman of the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, championed a vision of a new, 200-acre port he claims would be the catalyst for some 50,000 jobs, signaling an economic rebirth for the region. In a city struggling to attain a renaissance on so many levels, the message held out much needed hope. I believe, however, Wagar's projections should be taken with a dash of reality, for the plan may be more of a mirage than a manifestation of economic prosperity. To appreciate the potential folly of this project, one needs to consider the process that led to its birth and the arrogant manner in which it has been presented to a public that is expected to pay for it without questioning its feasibility. I have spent a lifetime of involvement with the lakefront, first managing Dock 20 for the Cleveland Stevedore Co., and later representing eight international steamship lines for F.C MacFarlane Steamship Co. My experience on the waterfront made me aware of the need for better planning if the city was ever to enjoy the acclaim and prosperity a beautiful shoreline would bring Cleveland. That planning seemed to take shape during Mayor Jane Campbell's administration. Like many others, I attended scores of meetings designed to draw ideas from the public and piece them into a master plan. Considerable time and money went into what would finally emerge after 200 meetings as the 2004 Lakefront District Plan. The remarkable thing about the plan was its consensus. In a city known for its contentious nature, virtually every business, civic and political entity endorsed the plan. In all probability, it was the most extensive study of the lakefront since Cleveland emerged from the wilderness in the 18th century. Then, in an astonishing move, made without public explanation or input, the plan was cast aside. It was replaced by a hastily conceived idea promising to be the largest public works project in the city's history, costing upwards of a billion dollars and adding a new ribbon of industrial clutter to the shoreline. At the meeting at which it was introduced a year ago, port officials explicitly stated that the public could not question officials about the plan. Since then, very little has been revealed about its progress. The plan coincided with the arrival of Adam Wasserman in 2007 as president of the port authority and was based on two sketchy studies by consultants without even a façade of public debate. One of the port's own studies concluded that the Wasserman plan was virtually a roll of the dice. Even more alarming than the further marring of the shoreline's aesthetic was the lack of economic data supporting such a costly endeavor. There was no projected return on investment on such a massive expenditure of public money. Compare that cost to the fact that - in a good year - the port makes only about $1 million annually from maritime use and recently has lost money in its operations. While the port claims to have created thousands of jobs through its efforts, studies find only a few thousand that can be associated with its maritime endeavors. At the crux of Wasserman's plan is the establishment of a new port that would handle such substantial container business that it would create an economic development zone adjacent to it that would ultimately create 50,000 jobs. This would be achieved in 20 years. Today, the Port of Toledo is in a position to handle all the container business available. But very little of this business exists, and there is little likelihood of any significant increase. The shipping business as a whole has fallen off here over the years. When I first started at the port in the 1960s, there were 21 steamship companies operating here, and the Port of New York maintained offices in the Terminal Tower. These companies are long gone. The loss of so much manufacturing in Ohio has had a serious effect on the port. Ships entering the Great Lakes from the St. Lawrence Seaway prefer not only to deliver cargo but to pick it up as well, but there is little to export here. Currently, rail and truck transport is favored by the container industry. No better example can be found than in Maple Heights where the Norfolk and Southern Railroad maintains a container facility. Each day some 1,400 containers pass through the facility, about 900 by truck and the rest by rail. The likelihood of Norfolk and Southern relocating its transportation hub to a downtown site is remote, and there is no dramatic increase in Great Lakes shipping anticipated in the future. In addition, the shipping season usually runs from April to late October, which means the port is idle for five months, hardly an encouraging factor for such a staggering investment. The concerns around this project are legion and include environmental and recreational issues as well as the quality of life available on our waterfront. The port needs to conceive a realistic facility as was presented in the 2004 Lakefront District plan. LoGalbo studied transportation at John Carroll University and served with the U.S. Army Transportation Corps. He was the first commodore of the E. 55th Street Marina.

Truth be told...that if someone were to actually do this renovation (Ho-Jo's)..... I would favor it instead of more demolition because of my concern for the environmental implications as Ohio receives enough of this crap in overspilling landfills. Do you think this demo material "just goes away?" No. I don't want my state looking like the landfill capital of the US.

Contrary to the jump-on-the-bandwagon popular belief that moving the port would be a good thing... Just one of many reasons I can point out, is that doing such would actually severely blight one of the last open green vistas of the lake within the city proper and prove one of the worst cases of shoreline abuse in this city's history. There are plenty of brownfields for them to prove their worth in an already under performing industry. If anyone wants to see some very good compelling professionally stated many reasons and arguments against it, and the many sensible alternatives for the port...pm me. Also, is that Cadillac Building destined to be another spectacular parking lot? Why do we tear this stuff down and leave crummy dime a dozen common red brick warehouses?

Is this the sports bar across from that little diner on the south corner?