natininja

Wow...just...odious.

Does the Beacon have a position this time around? Not that they have any influence on anyone -- I'm just curious.

Glad to see some good news for urban Dayton!

As the land the parking lot sits on increases in value, it's likely it will not remain a parking lot.

I heard experts are recommending something called "dynamic stretching". I also heard you should not do dynamic stretching in public, should you wish to maintain an ounce of dignity.

If COAST-types want to require ID for voting, why not for signing a petition? What is to stop one person from signing for their whole family? At least at the voting booth there are independent observers monitoring the act of voting. BOE officials can only retroactively look at signatures, while the act of signing is overseen by the wolf guarding the henhouse.

I get your overall point, but it's not restoration -- let alone "real restoration" -- when you turn a former tenement with ground floor retail into a luxury townhouse. You should refrain from using that terminology, as it detracts from the valid things you have to say. Especially as a professional in the field!

It's a very anti-rural bill, which is odd to see coming from Republicans. States like Alaska and Wyoming could really suffer if many states signed onto this.

Travis, I miss your podcast.

Does this mean the media's narrative is shifting, re: OTR?

Or to highlight the language and implications of what people are signing? Would that be an okay thing to do -- to try to inform people before they sign?

^^^ and ^^^^ Agreed. I'm not sure how I feel about the Vine building yet, but I'm more than okay with contemporary infill. I do agree with ProkNo5 regarding the Walnut building, though. At least in my gut reaction. Putting contemporary buildings in a cohesive historic neighborhood is a delicate and dangerous endeavor. However, completely forgoing contemporary styles in favor of faux-historic would be completely awful, IMO. The way to respect the historic character of the neighborhood is not by trying to mimic it, but by finding contemporary styles which complement it.

Yikes! That deserves a pet peeves entry!

Only because he thinks it maintains Texas' right to deny recognition of gay marriages performed in states that allow them. It goes back to the 'don't impose your Boston values on us' line of thinking. That might be why, but it also inhibits Texas's ability to bestow full marriage rights on its same-sex couples, should Texas choose to do so. A pure libertarian would not endorse a law (DOMA) which does both of those things. It also infringes upon churches' rights to perform SS legal weddings.

It would make my year if they come up short on signatures!

Ron Paul supports DOMA.

^ There's a thread about that. http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,25826.0.html

The silly part is that it's hard to imagine a county body would be willing to fight for the streetcar, let alone do it illegally.

There are two gay-interest articles on the Enquirer website. Both have comments disabled. That pisses me off. (Though I do wish they would get rid of comments on all articles) Are they too lazy to get rid of bad comments? Do they think gays are too sensitive to take the bullsh!t? One is about the census showing more gay couples in Ohio, the other is about a local couple getting married in NY. Neither are about gay bashing or some other already-negative issue. Maybe next they will close comments for all black- or Latino-related articles?

Unless the couple is same-sex. Then the church isn't allowed. At least not in Ohio. A couple I am friends with was one of the first gay couples in NYC to get married. I feel very proud of them!

Distaste for the magnet school system, I would think. Separating the "good" kids from the "bad" in an effort to make the "good" kids better, thereby making the "bad" kids worse and taking away opportunities for them. Separating the kids whose parents can afford to camp out for a couple days to enroll their kids from the kids whose parents can't afford such luxuries. Not that I am endorsing the view, and certainly not the behavior of the Cafe de Wheels guy. Nor am I boycotting CdW.

I like hot weather better, assuming there is air conditioning available. I hate shoveling snow.

^ Supporting gay rights would be necessary, but not sufficient, for my vote. I wouldn't vote for someone on that issue alone if I disagreed with them on other important things. Buuuuut if the term of office were short and there were a pending vote for some major gay rights issue, I might change my mind about that. Though I did vote for Obama who is anti-marriage rights, so I guess I can compromise on even that issue. Edit for ProkNo5 (I meant to imply something about the streetcar voting discussion, though I didn't mention it explicitly): Since the term of council office is short, and support by council of the streetcar might be crucial to the project, I don't think it's unreasonable for someone who strongly favors the project to vote based on this one issue.

I see both sides of the work attire issue, and I just don't really care one way or the other. That said, I usually err on the side of dressing up. Like wearing ties where it's fine just to wear a button-up shirt. (Unless it's hot, then I'd skip the tie and the first button.)

^ They didn't make birds-eye photos back in the day. The Wright bros. didn't even do their first test flight until 1903. This is the era's equivalent of Google Maps satellite view. The perspective has to be distorted some in order to capture the most information (especially making the most streets viewable). Why not use the distortion as an opportunity to stylize a bit and make it look nice? I don't believe there was much expectation for absolute precision on things like this in those days. Not even on official reference maps and whatnot. Can't really say I know what you mean by "real map", anyhow. I don't think this was meant to be used for navigation (I don't even see street names).