Clevelander17

Agreed on all points, but what now happens with the Severance land? If it's so poorly managed now, I can't imagine that there would be any innovative plan for the future when all of its stores have bolted. As for Walmart, net negative while it may be, it's not moving far enough away for me to be satisfied.

Sally Beauty Supply will be relocating to Oakwood Commons from, you guessed it...Severance! http://www.cleveland.com/lyndhurst-south-euclid/index.ssf/2013/02/coming_next_to_oakwood_commons.html#comments So much for this development bringing new jobs to the area. What a waste. Retail like this is a zero sum game that ruins neighborhoods with the only real point being that a few greedy jerks expand their wealth.

One way or another there may come a time when you are forced to stop being so apathetic about this issue. And if that time is years from now, I expect that even then, neither you nor 327 will have yet answered my question. What public policy changes do you propose to force upon the rest of us based upon the curious problem of too much productive technology in the economy? I don't know, I really don't. There are too many unskilled people in this country for the direction we seem to be headed. I don't think we're talking about changes like cars replacing horses or computers replacing typewriters. The changes that are on the horizon are much more significant and happening exponentially. I don't have a solution, but I do see a bifurcation of the labor force (which has already begun to happen, IMO) that will make this country very unstable and ripe for chaos.

Nein! Niet! Non! Nej! Nee! Nei! NO!!!

That's a negative.

One way or another there may come a time when you are forced to stop being so apathetic about this issue.

Most professions these days require almost constant retraining just to keep up. On-going, short-term professional development within a familiar field while still having steady employment is one thing. Asking middle-aged folks to undergo significant long-term retraining while being unemployed is a whole different discussion. The former is acceptable. The latter is a hit that most cannot sustain.

I don't understand how going into a career that appears lucrative now can be regarded as being a bad decision a decade or two down the road. There's a great chance that technology could make a great number of careers obsolete (or nearly so) in the very near future. This would concentrate wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people. The only folks who are safe would be those that have the capital to fund new ventures, those that are doing the grunt-work behind new ventures (which will be an increasingly smaller portion of people), and those guilds that have the influence to ensure that any decisions that governments make are beneficial to their line of work, even if these decisions encourage inefficiency (and I'm not even talking about traditional labor unions with that last one, just referring to the professional guilds that have cornered monopolies for themselves even when the information age makes their services less necessary).

All part of the gamble of life, my friend. The good news for those folks in future obsolete fields of employment is that thanks to the NRA they will have ready access to the tools that will allow for an easy transition to another field of employment, that of course being targeted armed robbery of the gilded elite.

A little disappointing that the Buckeyes let the Hawkeyes back into the game last night, but in fairness Iowa is better than most will concede and they have a good shot at making the dance this year.

I think that Arizona is a good choice, but IMO almost the entirety of metro Phoenix is essentially cookie-cutter. The most interesting parts of the state (Prescott, Flagstaff, Sedona, Grand Canyon), which are further north, are also the most likely to be chilly (if not downright cold) this time of year. I lived in Scottsdale for about a year and I don't think it's anything special. I guess Old Town Scottsdale might be sort of fun to explore while you're soaking in the sun. Tempe might be worth checking out, too.

And we need climate change to accelerate, too.

Right, that Illinois loss is looking more and more like a really bad one. The Illini are really struggling now.

You label these "immaculate" facilities? Have you been to any of these stadiums/arenas? I have been to and inspected many arenas and stadiums/domes and let me tell you The Q and CBS are on par with any stadium outside of Dallas, Lucas and Phoenix Stadium. I haven't seen Phoenix in person. The problem isn't our stadium infrastructure it's the lack of hotel rooms. I should have clarified. Many of the facilities that host these events are, indeed, dumps. However they're in the right locations (i.e. Southern cities). Lucas Oil Field is indeed immaculate and it seems to be the only Northern venue that is able to compete on a consistent basis with Southern venues in getting these events (and LOF has already been mentioned as a strong candidate to host the BCS National Championship Game in the future). The MetroDome has been out of the mix for over a decade, and the Edward Jones Dome is not slated to receive anything for the foreseeable future. In my opinion, particularly in regards to hosting the BCS title game or Super Bowl, Cleveland would already have a significant strike against it being a Northern city. I've read stories of disgruntled visitors who took issue with the fact that it snowed during the weekend when Detroit last hosted the Super Bowl in 2009. Fair or not, even with a dome, this will be a consideration.

Whether I'm right or wrong, defeatist or realist, it's all irrelevant if Haslam foots the bill. I'd support a dome if he's paying for it and from there we can worry about trying to attract marquee events. However if the taxpayers have to pick up a significant portion of the tab, it's a gamble that I'm not sure I'd like to see the county (because let's be honest, it wouldn't just be Clevelanders) take at this time.

I think it's a pipedream to believe that Cleveland would ever be considered for a Super Bowl, BCS Championship Game, or even NCAA Championship (hoops). Even with a roof, CBS is still a dump compared to the other immaculate facilities that these events usually go to. Beyond that, I just don't think that Cleveland has the allure to get one of these events. Maybe Haslam has some pull (money) to get one of them as a one-time thing, but I wouldn't get my hopes up. More realistically, I think that Cleveland could have a shot things like an NCAA hoops regional tournament, minor bowl games, etc.

What does that even mean? Will it be similar to the LaunchHouse in Shaker Heights?

I would be doubtful about the possibility of a Big Ten title game, though I wouldn't write the idea off completely. However I have to believe that the stadium (with a dome) would have a great shot at hosting a MAC title game considering the MAC is headquartered here AND Northeast Ohio almost certainly has the largest number of MAC alumni of any city anywhere.

I don't want to make your head explode, but there's actually another one: http://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/447

The heights is definitely nicer. But as a person who is been there, its closest comparison is East Cleveland. You mean the Oakhill/Hazel Road area? Yeah, I can see that. Although it appears that Forest Hill (NYC) is geographically larger than the similar areas in EC and CH/SH. Is that true, or no?

Fantastic architecture there. Sort of also reminds me of parts of the Heights, although much nicer.

I meant to say that the school districts don't automatically merge. In other words, the ECSD would likely remain independent and thus Shaw probably would not be rolled into CMSD. Although now that I think about it, I don't know how that would work with the whole mayor control situation. If it were two other cities merging, the school districts would still exist unless there was a separate merger of school districts.

Although this is a nice idea in theory, as I mentioned on the C-D thread, cities and municipalities are independent from one another. Just because cities may merge does not mean their districts automatically do.

We're arguing semantics here, but even a team full of "good players" (or one great one at the right position) can be enough to make a team competitive and a coach look good. I've yet to see an example of a coach that took a mediocre team and made them into a contender. Coaches are important, but even in football they're not as significant as you and others are implying. I can't even remember now, but I think my original point had to do with the fact that I don't think it's fair or accurate for anyone to refer to Lovie Smith or Ken Whisenhunt as second-hand "trash" because of their recent failures in coaching. I would have preferred both to the unproven Chudzinski.

Which coaches have consistently been able to win with marginal talent? Also, define "win."