Clevelander17

What a waste. Oh well, good for Atlanta that they were able to swindle NBC and Olympic sponsors to pay for Turner Field. Perhaps if they had actually put more of their own skin in the game they would not be so quick to abandon it.

Nah, I disagree about needing to lengthen the school year. Not only is a long school year not a universal constant amongst countries that "outperform" us (cough*Finland*cough), our shorter year seems to work well with a huge chunk of students here. The problem is that some kids completely turn their brains off during the summer (mostly because their families do no enrichment with them, nothing at all to stimulate their brains). As one might expect, the direction-less summers most hurt students from low-income families. I think an optional, less-intense 6-8 week summer program would be more appropriate than a mandatory lengthening of the school year across the board. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/the-absurd-debate-about-length-of-school-year/2011/08/15/gIQAswc3HJ_blog.html

Is that freshmen on-campus residency rule new for OSU? I remember a buddy of mine lived off campus as a freshman there about ten years ago. My alma mater, Dayton, has had the freshmen/sophomore on-campus residency rule for quite some time.

We're talking past one another here I believe. While many would claim that they are not opposed to "effective" schools, there are many people (parents, citizens, politicians, etc.) that regularly put up roadblocks for educators. That's where the necessity of a strong voice for educators exists. There may be specific differences between these roadblocks and the ones that public safety employees face, but the general notion that such challenges exists is not all that different.

Along with Stanford and the Ivies as you mentioned, I'd add MIT, Duke, UChicago, Johns Hopkins, CalTech, Northwestern and perhaps a few others where it may be justified in taking on some debt. That said, a lot of those schools have big-time tuition assistance that makes attendance much more affordable (if not free) for those that are qualified academically and financially.

Yeah I knew it would and for the region as a whole it's for the best despite my personal feelings on its service to my particular area.

Heights ended up with a pretty tough draw for the playoffs. They can beat Wadsworth, but if anything I think the Grizzlies are the slight favorite, especially at home. This is actually one of the best first round matchups in DI in my opinion, unfortunately STO is picking up the Ignatius-McKinley game Saturday night. I believe the Wildcats should roll in that one.

That may be the view from the Cedar Road corridor, but I don't think Lakewood, West Park, Brooklyn, Parma, Newburgh Heights, Cuyahoga Heights, Garfield Heights, etc. would necessarily agree. You're right, I can't claim to speak for all inner-ring residents. In that regard we probably have more in common with other areas where regional park coverage is spotty, particularly large parts of Cleveland and maybe even parts of the Parma area. I realize that the county can't be one gigantic park, but I just don't agree with some of the decision-making and I think my community (and actually many others, as well) would be better off not participating.

With all due respect, I don't see your point. The damage is already done to those of us living in this community: Traffic along Warrensville Center has worsened and although I'm not sure what's going to happen to the other portion of Oakwood, the potential it had as part of something larger is now pretty much gone. All to convenience a large, shady retailer that already had a store located around the corner.

The Conservation Fund, located in Arlington, Virgnia. I have my own questions about their involvement in Acacia (and not Oakwood), but regardless the argument seems to be shifting a bit here. You were saying that Oakwood doesn't fit the type of property that the MetroParks usually looks to acquire/operate; my response to that was that Acacia is similar in that regard in breaking that mold. First off from looking at Google Maps with an overlay of the South Euclid borders, only about 30-35% of Euclid Creek is within the boundaries of South Euclid. That's nitpicking, but the reality is that Euclid Creek is most easily accessible to residents of northern South Euclid. Likewise, Acacia is most easily accessible to residents of northern Beachwood...and not without traversing the incredibly busy area around Beachwood Place, first, though. If you're a resident of central or southern Beachwood, the fact that Acacia is now a MetroPark may not be as big a deal. Second off, it's not about the amount of parkland within South Euclid or Lyndhurst (or Cleveland Heights, Shaker Heights, or University Heights). It's about who is paying for these parks. Residents of Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights have access to a number of very nice city-run parks, but the residents pay for these parks themselves. People from Rocky River, or Fairview Park, or Bedford, or Mayfield Village are not sending funds to Cleveland Heights or Shaker Heights to pay for parks in these cities, the reverse, however, is true. Although I think there is some sketchiness in how the MetroParks chooses to acquire and operate properties and in some of the developers with which they're choosing to associate, and although I think there is a problem when an organization that takes money from an entire region only benefits certain parts of that region, we can look at their actions, too. They operate more than a half dozen golf courses. Golf courses are a huge drain on the environment and they, themselves, only serve a small and specific portion of the populous. I think it's right to question whether more funding should be provided when a big chunk of it goes to pay for an expensive and wasteful recreation activity. I realize that it's not free to golf on these courses, but I also know that these courses don't break even, either. As a region, I see the MetroParks as an asset. However as a divided region with as much NIMBYism and concern about maintaining the walls that keep us separate from one another, I just believe that the MetroParks have evolved into another vehicle by which many inner-ring residents are getting fleeced to convenience outer-ring residents. It may come off as being petty, but I see it more as a matter of survival. Many outer-ring communities have devised schemes for keeping as much of their resources in their borders as possible when it comes to other matters (like education, public safety, etc.), but they seem to have no problem taking money from other communities for things like parks and preservation. I just think that inner-ring residents need to be more aware of what is happening and stop blindly supporting this system because it may not be to our net benefit when that money could stay here and support parks in our communities.

They took their foot off the peddle before it got really ugly. Michigan State looked really good today. If the Buckeyes and Spartans meet in Indy, that could be an interesting game.

Point taken, but the MetroParks have gotten involved in taking over former golf courses that really don't fit that unique natural assets description. I don't see much difference between Oakwood and Acacia or even Mankiki. I mean, I'm not at all upset that they got involved with Acacia because I didn't want to see more retail at that intersection, but I just don't see the difference...except in who may have been pulling the strings behind the scenes in both cases.

I think my vote is partially out of spite; the other part (a not insignificant part, no less) is based on my frustration with the decisions being made by the organization. And yes I'm aware that they have made some investments in areas closer to the city core, but I still don't think it's serving all constituents, particularly when it's running parks in places like Willoughby Hills and Hinckley. In a lot of ways, residents of large portions of Beachwood, Cleveland Heights, and South Euclid, all of University Heights and Shaker Heights would be better off not paying into the MetroParks, instead keeping this money to fund parks in their own respective communities. Each of these cities already has or will have their own "park system," imagine what they could do with even more money. Not to harp on this, but perhaps Cleveland Heights and South Euclid could have pooled this saved money to pay for preservation of Oakwood. Parks are assets to communities and a positive contribution to quality of life. I support that completely, which is why I'm still upset about Oakwood which is within walking distance of my residence. What I don't support is the conflation of politics with conservation, and the MetroParks have failed to keep their nose clean in that regard. The bottom line is that as an inner-ring eastern suburban resident, I just don't see this organization as serving my interests at all. Before Oakwood, I was happy to support them even though I rarely used their parks. Now I'm just really questioning what benefit they bring to my neighborhood and the surrounding communities. We're essentially subsidizing recreation areas for outer-ring residents.

You don't think they are prepared? If they weren't mentally prepared, they would have given him a max contract. I mean his teammates. I guess my point is that even if he shows flashes of his old self at times during the season I think that they have to be careful about expecting to rely on that down the stretch and hopefully heading into the playoffs.

I'm voting "no" on Issue 80. I'm sure this thing is going to pass in a landslide regardless, and normally I support such initiatives myself, but I'm still very bitter about the whole Oakwood debacle and the Metroparks' refusal to step in and save that land. Now I get to drive by a Walmart two or three times a week instead of what could have been a beautiful park. As someone living in an inner-ring suburb, it bothers me that this organization maintains parks so far away from the core of the city and even parks in other counties (while residents in those counties don't pay a dime for them) and chose to do nothing to help people in my neighborhood out.

I'm skeptical about Bynum...mostly because of what some national talking heads are saying about what they hear from sources about his knees. I just think the Cavaliers need to be mentally prepared for the possibility that he may not be available at some point during the season.

Heights travels to Shaw tonight with a chance to clinch another Lake Erie League championship. They've already guaranteed at least a share, but a win tonight gives them the title outright. My sources are indicating that Cleveland Heights and perhaps even Euclid may not be in the LEL much longer. Elsewhere in the LEL, Warren Harding's home game against Lorain was cancelled due to safety concerns and recent shootings in Warren. http://www.wfmj.com/story/23853725/warren-harding-football-game-canceled-due-tension-in-the-city

And there are a lot of good, roughly similar reasons why educators need a strong voice as well. Of course they can go too far at times, but it's a give-and-take.

He's really in a great position right now. The legislature gives him cover as he pretends to be a moderate on a number of issues, while behind the scenes agreeing with or at least giving in to much of the legislature's demands. He can throw his hands up publicly exclaiming that he has no choice but to sign their extremist legislation into law. At some point moderate voters need to start seeing through this act.

Something like a Gateway Arch?

121, what's your take on the role of the court system in some of the crime problems facing inner-ring suburbs like CH? I've heard some argue that the courts can be too lenient at times with these criminals who eventually become repeat (oftentimes escalating) offenders. I actually think that the CHPD does a really admirable job in dealing with crime in the city, but I wonder if they're not being fully supported by the courts.

Oh I agree with this line of thinking. Do what's best for the neighborhood in the long-term, not for the commuters that bring nothing but pollution and headaches. Many of them would probably shift over to Fairmount, anyways. But I'm just thinking that such a change would create some serious issues--even for current area residents--in the short-term.

Absolutely. I was just explaining the likely cause of the stats being up in the last couple of years. Yeah I saw your post...such a change in reporting makes trend-spotting practically impossible further than a year or two back.

First off, part of the problem with that intersection as mentioned before is that the east side of Taylor Road is all located within the boundaries of University Heights. There does not seem to be much co-planning between CH and UH on what that intersection should look like. In regards to all of the traffic calming ideas, another issue is that Cedar Road is a main thoroughfare from further east suburbs into University Circle and downtown. I would love it if commuters traveling through that intersection were forced to slow down a bit and if the intersection as a whole became calmer, but I suspect that any efforts to do so would cause some major issues at certain times of the day. Lee Road through Cleveland Heights has the luxury of being one-lane each direction (with a center turning lane and in some places street parking) because it is not as widely used by commuters. It's no coincidence that many of the more pedestrian-friendly and calmer streets in the Heights are the ones running North-South, while many of the streets running East-West serve as opportunity (for faster commuting) corridors. ;)

The PD had an article on Cleveland Heights' misreporting of crime statistics. Although CH was caught and publicly called out on it, I am certain that this is not the only city engaging in that behavior.