Clevelander17

Regardless of what happens tonight or on Thursday, let me once again reiterate my disdain for MLB's playoff format. Why bother playing 162 games if a team's excellence over that span can be nullified in just 5 games? For some perspective, the Indians finished with the best record in the American League this season, winning 11 more games than the Yankees. During one of the great eras in Yankees baseball (1949 through 1958), New York had the best record in the American League 9* times, earning them the right to represent the AL in the World Series during those seasons. In 7 of those 9 Yankees pennant-winning seasons, the Indians finished within 11 games of the Yankees. *The only team breaking up their run during that period was the 1948 and 1954 Cleveland Indians. The Yankees won the AL again in 1957 and 1958.

Wait...what? They beat four Top 15 opponents last season, including two on the road, and one at home by almost 60 points.

I was watching ESPN this morning and one of the commentator essentially made the same point. What a mess.

Wonderful...the Browns and Cleveland Police are at the center of a controversy that is now a national story: http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20562272/unions-refuse-hold-flag-cleveland-browns-opener

As a teenager, my friends and I would drive over to that house every once in a while to take a look and maybe dare each other to knock on the door. As I recall, the house was almost certainly abandoned, but my memory tells me that there was always a light on in the attic. The rumor was that if you looked into that room from the correct angle, you could see the shadow of a noose on the wall. The tale was that a lady that had lived there had committed suicide and that it was haunted. I'd like to know more about the real story behind the "Ghost House" and perhaps how some of these rumors began. Anyhow, I have driven by that area since the house has been torn down and the pocket park has been built. It's a nice asset for a really unique area.

Sorry, but no, that's an intentionally misleading characterization when the neighborhood putting up the divide is also majority-minority. The bigger picture here is that no inner-ring suburb should be criticized for instituting measures that help preserve safety and calm in the face instability in bordering communities. Particularly when thriving outer-ring suburbs have implemented barriers to access to some for decades. If Cleveland Heights, Shaker Heights, Lakewood, and others want to put into place policies that help keep peace in their communities but happen to limit access to others, so be it. These communities (and others like them) have already shouldered far more than their share of the burdens that come with concentrated poverty. Sorry, but yes. I'm not surprised that you post another response that shows absolutely no understanding of the issue. It's par for the course with your posts on pretty much everything. I understand the issue very clearly. Poverty and crime have been spreading into Cleveland Heights from Cleveland and East Cleveland for at least three decades now. There is absolutely no reason why the city should sit back and allow it to continue. At some point, the burden will become too great, and the consequences for even the more stable parts of the suburb will be dire.

Sorry, but no, that's an intentionally misleading characterization when the neighborhood putting up the divide is also majority-minority. The bigger picture here is that no inner-ring suburb should be criticized for instituting measures that help preserve safety and calm in the face instability in bordering communities. Particularly when thriving outer-ring suburbs have implemented barriers to access to some for decades. If Cleveland Heights, Shaker Heights, Lakewood, and others want to put into place policies that help keep peace in their communities but happen to limit access to others, so be it. These communities (and others like them) have already shouldered far more than their share of the burdens that come with concentrated poverty.

Hopefully CH will have an opportunity to annex that area in the next decade and be able to implement some larger plan for the area. Short of that, they could just turn Superior Road (and the other five roads leading north into East Cleveland) south-southeast of the East Cleveland border into a cul-de-sac.

Closing off the EC/CH borders isn't workable and would likely/justifiably raise cries of racial segregation. Shaker Heights has done it for decades on the Cleveland border, it's not a racial divide but an economic one, and that's legal. I believe Shaker justified their barriers on the basis of safety, as daily commuters used to use residential side streets to bypass busier main roads.

It's just one main artery that I'm suggesting would be closed off. This would be perfectly workable and part of a larger plan to expand the park to replace an area of both suburbs that is probably beyond repair. (In fact many structures in that area have already been torn down.) In terms of racial segregation, CH is more than 50% minority, so no, as long as there are areas of Greater Cleveland that are close to 100% white, CH is immune from any ridiculous criticism some might try to lob in regards to segregation. I believe that Cleveland Heights has to seriously start examining novel ways in which to isolate itself from the spillover of its struggling neighbors. I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all. Until we have widespread regional cooperation or consolidation, it's every suburb for itself and CH leaders need to play that game as well.

I don't have any stats or anything, but based on anecdotes I really don't think crime is much of a problem there, at least on the CH side (which is all that I can speak to). It's a recreational hub for The City of Cleveland Heights, with baseball and softball diamonds in the park that are used on a nightly basis during summer months, and of course the Cleveland Heights Pavilion (ice rink), technically on the park property, that has tens of thousands of visitors year-round. The other part of Forest Hill Park benefits from being located within what is essentially the most stable part of East Cleveland. Remember, this is where Rockefeller made his summer home, and where the Rockefeller-inspired Forest Hill Subdivision of very attractive homes were built and still exist, going on almost a century now. The sketchier areas are to the northwest as you get closer to Euclid Avenue and of course along the southwest border where the Superior Triangle is rotting.

My concern is the negative spillover that the blight in that neighborhood brings to the adjacent Cleveland Heights neighborhoods (Euclid Heights, Coventry Village, etc.). It's not a great situation for what could/should be some of Cleveland Heights' most stable neighborhoods. I tend to agree that, at the very least, closing off Superior would help. But I'd take it a step further and argue that dozing the whole neighborhood and making it into parkland (large-scale development there may be another option, but probably unlikely) would help the most. In fact, I was thinking about it again after posting yesterday, and I think that because Forest Hill is run by two municipalities (one of which simply does not have the resources to properly maintain it), perhaps the MetroParks would be willing to take over the East Cleveland portion or perhaps even the whole park.

Some of those buildings are currently boarded up, no? So much of the housing in that CH/EC border area, the "Superior Triangle" if you will (naming credit to Hts121), is in really bad shape. I just do not know what improvement renovating those nice old apartment buildings will really bring to the overall severely blighted surrounding neighborhood. I know I'm dreaming here, of course, but I'd like to see every structure in that area except those along Mayfield Road torn down and have Forest Hill Park extended south. That would also mean closing off every road to become parkland (including Coventry and Superior) at Mayfield Road. It would be addition by subtraction in many ways.

Although some may consider Columbus to be a suburb of Cleveland, that is still a mighty long trek for Clevelanders. Pittsburgh is in another state. No thanks.

I can't find a news article, but I have heard that CityView was sold recently. The property isn't in good shape and any new development will have to deal with the perception problem and the fact that Giant Eagle has used its veto power in the past to stifle just about every suggested use for the adjacent storefronts. Regardless of what happens with CityView, if Bridgeview is indeed going to be the location for Greater Cleveland's IKEA, Garfield Heights should finally complete the long discussed project of extending Transportation Boulevard to Rockside Road.