Clevelander17

Well, no one really expected this team to make a deep playoff run, and this pretty much seals the deal. However I really do like the roster that has been put together and it will be nice to see how they grow and develop this year. I think they'll be sniffing around for a playoff spot come December but ultimately fall a bit short (maybe 7-9 or so). Next offseason the front office will know where their focus needs to be and that's on truly strengthening the WR position since it's becoming increasingly likely that Gordon won't be around.

It seems as if a lot if suburbs don't even report crime many years, at least according to City Data. Westlake has nothing reported past 2004 or so, and the last two years they have up were absurdly low (like 1/10th of even the previous years' stats for Westlake). And it's quite likely that once Crocker Park was completed, crime ballooned over there. And when did Crocker Park fully open? ;)

In which case, he can just go ahead and finish his career elsewhere. We want him in his prime, not on some pathetic farewell tour. Hopefully the Cavaliers don't sink to that...but seeing how the Tribe treated Thome, we're suckers in this town and really deserve better.

It's amazing that people that willingly chose to live far away from what has become one of the fastest-growing job centers in the region are now complaining about a lack of access. Get real. Those of us who have lived in the eastern suburbs and have been appreciating UC for decades have never had any problem getting there. This new highway is garbage.

Belgium...yeesh they're good. I hope they win it all now.

So what's the solution? When places like Mayfield Village or Brunswick or whatever outer-ring town you want to name has fireworks, there's rarely this type of a problem. I'm annoyed and sick of the fact that many of the region's most unique communities apparently can't have nice things.

Here's a nice piece on some of the hard decisions facing the CH community as it moves forward: http://www.cleveland.com/morris/index.ssf/2014/07/brennans_colony_offers_painful.html#incart_river Much of the same could be said about Shaker Heights, too, another community going through changes and dealing with issues at major community gatherings (i.e. the issues at the fireworks show in 2012 that led to the city deciding to cancel the long-running event).

I'll have to agree to disagree with the above posters. However to get this thread back on track, is there any word on whether or not the police have arrested anyone yet?

SH is in a similar position as CH, however perhaps his point might be that in recent years there has also been some very high profile violent crimes there as well. Not sure if statistically things have gotten worse in SH, but my suspicion is yes. Either way its perception has plummeted, too.

Let's see where the city has been building condos and if it was likely for any less desirable housing to be developed on each parcel: 1) Outskirts of Severance Town Center: Maybe, but I have my doubts. Other apartment developments around Severance have not gone that route. 2) The old JCC property: Unlikely, because it would have required a zoning change. 3) Fairmount-Cedar: Incredibily unlikely because CH would never agree to high-density apartment complexes in that area, but if they did, I suspect it would be filled quickly by CWRU students. Bottom line is this, if the demand was there, these lots would be developed regardless. But even if they were empty (and it meant that resources could be used to control supply in other parts of the city), the community would still be much better off because of what it could mean for crime and the schools. For every one of those houses that is torn down, that's one house that potentially means 3-5 very needy kids no longer enrolled in the CH-UH school system and 1-2 CHPD annual house calls. Of course that's just an example of the types of families that might be living in these homes, but the point is that getting rid as much of that as possible is a net gain for the city and its residents, much more IMO than a few tax abated condo units.

There are lots of suburbs with housing stock that is inferior to CH but home values that are much higher. The difference? It's almost always better-perceived schools and safety. Cleveland Heights is an urban suburb, so there's a limit to what can be done. But one thing that might really go a long ways towards improving both of those things would be limiting the supply of low-income rental properties. Look, the issue of poverty and its related symptoms (including crime) is not a local problem, not a state problem, it's a national problem. Cleveland Heights and its residents have done more than its share to try to help fix the situation, but it's becoming too burdensome for the community like this are becoming more frequent as a result (not to mention all of the lower-profile crime occurring elsewhere in CH). New condos are basically lipstick on a pig and do nothing for the average homeowner in the Heights.

CH already has a great variety of unique and attractive housing options. If you believe, as I do, that tax abatements do hit the budget (maybe not on a dollar for dollar basis, but in some regard), then what I'm saying is that that money would be better spent on getting under control dilapidated and nuisance properties. I see this as addition by subtraction: freeing up city resources to be used elsewhere, cutting down on housing supply, making the neighborhoods/schools more attractive and livable, etc. It doesn't how matter many new condos you build in Cedar-Fairmont or Severance, if you don't do something to stop the spread of the problem southward from East Cleveland, those shiny new units will depreciate in value faster than a new car the moment it's driven off the lot.

Here's the million dollar question: How do we control this? a) Aggressively crack down on Section 8 and other slumlords by all legal means possible. b) Aggressively pursue a policy of demolishing as many vacant and decaying homes as possible, including entire neighborhoods if necessary (Superior Triangle, for instance). c) Become zero tolerance on crime, and that includes moving officers away from parking enforcement and putting pressure on the court system to stop cutting breaks for violent offenders. d) Put up barriers, cul-de-sacs, and other means of separation of traffic along as much of the East Cleveland border as possible. (I don't care what signal this sends, Shaker Heights did this in the 1980s along its border with Warrensville Heights and I truly believe most of the riff-raff in CH is coming in from EC.) Cleveland Heights' problems stem directly from the fact that it has taken on more of the burden, proportionally, for a troubled segment of the population, than it ever should have. Because of this, city and school resources have become spread far too thin and too much of a burden has fallen on the rest of the city's residents. Cleveland Heights has always prided itself on being a peacefully and well-planned integrated suburb, and to a large extent I think it's true that that process played out in CH as well as it did in just about any suburb nationwide. But it seems like now that tolerant attitude has gone too far and it's putting the city's assets in jeopardy. This thing is in danger of collapsing under its own weight unless action is taken.

Sorry, while you and I may disagree on what exactly to call it, there's little doubt that CH and the other Heights suburbs have created situations where municipal/school district budgets must be planned while taking into consideration the lost revenue from tax abatements. Yep, Ferrise has a hard-on for Cleveland Heights. I agree on both points. My concern is that there are lots of seemingly more lucrative targets in other suburbs. What is it about Cleveland Heights that makes it such a magnet and how can we change that?

But let me also add this: I think the discussion of the police is mostly a red herring. The real issue is changing demographics on the eastside of Cleveland, in East Cleveland, and in parts of Cleveland Heights itself. Close proximity to areas that have changed for the worse have increased the chances (and actual occurrences) of these types of crimes in Cleveland Heights' otherwise safe neighborhoods.

Whether that's reality or not (and I think it's really only a small piece of what they're doing), it does seem to be the perception that many people both inside but especially outside of the community have on Cleveland Heights. This is potentially something that needs to be addressed. I really have no problem with them going after those committing traffic violations as they cruise along Fairmount Boulevard/Cedar Road/Mayfield Road, who are only using the city as a pass-through on their way to/from downtown. However the city probably does need to do something to make the business districts more accommodating for those who are spending their money at CH businesses.

Yeah that description of Merry Arts is exactly what I want to avoid. Same likely goes for Olde Angle. I'm looking for something either downtown or towards the eastern suburbs. Parnell's has been mentioned as a possibility, but my buddy and his girlfriend are looking for something that has food (not just nibbles).

They're ubiquitous in Coventry, but I haven't noticed their presence as much around Lee Road. I think that some city policy over the past few decades has been too lenient and accommodating to people that have in turn brought, um, stress to the community and its resources. However I also believe that much of the demographic change in CH was inevitable as it happened in just about every other eastern inner-ring suburb. Now what the city can do moving forward? I have some ideas, but they'd probably offend quite a few people and they'd also likely be cost prohibitive...though the city has seemed to have found money over the years for things like tax abatements for condo development.

I don't feel it's any worse than it was in the mid-2000s when I moved back to the area, but I don't really hang out in the areas where I suspect that it may have gotten worse (i.e. along the northern border--think Noble-Monticello area when there seems to be bar disturbances every few months).

This has always been one of my favorite low-key bars, very typical of what now exists up and down Lee Road, and probably the prototype for the vast majority of watering holes in that area. I've never felt unsafe around there, and this won't change things for me, but I have to believe that it's time for the city and residents to wake up and realize that they need to perhaps rethink some of its policies.

Hey everyone, so other than Olde Angle and Merry Arts, what might be some other good places to watch the USA game tomorrow? I'm looking for a nice crowd, but I imagine that those places will be overwhelmingly packed. Any ideas?

Good point. That circus we saw on Opening Day outside of the stadium seems to be becoming much more common (or at least drawing more media attention than in the past decade or two).

And for the record, I would have no problem using the actual "n-word" on this thread to prove a point, but I like posting here and don't want to be suspended. However, just because one slur has come to be taboo in our society, in part because the group at which it has been aimed is larger and more visible and refused to accept its common usage, and the other slur is still acceptable perhaps because the group its aimed at is not, does not mean that it's morally right to keep using it so casually.

Let's not conflate two discussions here. "Indians" is a geographically inaccurate but mostly benign nickname. Above I was talking about the term "redskins," which to many Native Americans (and non-Native Americans) is considered a slur. Under no circumstance in this country would we accept a professional sports team being nicknamed the "n-words," right? I mean, even the above posters seemingly supporting continued use of the "redskins" nickname would concede that point, right? So why would use of "redskins" be acceptable? Because it's tradition?

I've heard that the term "redskin" is considered in some circles as being a slur on par with the n-word. It probably then doesn't matter that some Native Americans have "reclaimed" the word, so to speak, somewhat similar to the way that blacks have taken back the n-word. It may be a double standard, and one that I don't fully understand, but I know better and have enough respect to realize that that doesn't make it right for me to use the word.