Clevelander17

Bad examples, IMO (except for the last one, which I'll get to in a moment). In all but one of those situations, the victim cannot avoid being victimized. In the case of the smoking ban, if you, as a patron or employee don't like it, take your business/talents elsewhere. As for shooting up heroin, although it's not at all analogous with smoking, I do think very good arguments could be made (and have been made) that it should be legal.

It wasn't just your imagination:

Or.... you could say that Indiana gained 400,000 over 10 years and Ohio gained 200,000: it sounds sexier the way you said it, but the fact remains that neither state grew by leaps and bounds. I would also guess that the parts of Indiana which have comparable weather to NEO, such as South Bend and Gary, were not hotbeds of growth. Are you really tryying to say that the smoking ban is a bigger factor than the weather for our population trends? The smoking ban, as I stated earlier, has little to with our slower population growth. My point, especially as it relates to the theme of the thread, is that the smoking ban is typical of the type of nannying that occurs in Ohio by the government. Although I think it is damaging in its own right, it is far from the most important government overreach. Other examples would indeed be the gay marriage ban and the strict abortion laws. For fun, I was thinking that if I were to try to spin the latter restriction in the manner that some on this thread have tried to spin the smoking bans, I would say that Ohio's strict abortion laws give miniature human beings held captive in the womb of their mothers the freedom to escape those shackles. :drunk:

Well, Indiana grew four times as fast as Ohio in the past decade. Must be the nice weather. If the citizens in this state want to restrict the freedom of others through things like silly smoking bans, I guess the majority rules. But don't be shocked when we keep losing ground to other states and studies like these correctly point out our lack of freedoms. In some places there is a culture of personal choice and responsibility, and in others there is a culture of the nanny telling you what to do. We clearly live in the latter and as such suffer the consequences.

Any thoughts/reactions to possibly taking Kawhi Leonard at #4? Or is that too much of a reach? Of the two Euro centers, I think I'd prefer Valanciunas, though I'm not really excited about either one. Second round considerations: Maybe take a Flyer on one of the guys with Cleveland ties, either Lighty or Cole? I'd actually be excited to grab Lighty, not just because he went to Ohio State, but because I think he's a winner who's going to find a spot in some NBA team's rotation. He plays good D, can stroke the threeball, and do some other things off the bench that can help a team out. Unfortunately I'm not sure they can justify taking him at 32, and I doubt he'll drop to 54.

Sure. :whip: If we're talking public places, you have an argument. But when talking about businesses or private residences, the smoking ban overreaches. I'm not sure what being the majority of the population has to do with anything. We have a system in place to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority. Ding, ding, ding, ding! At the end of the day, the silly smoking ban is a bit of a red herring. It's a great example of the heavy-handed government we have in this state, but it's really one of the smaller problems. Why would anyone start a business here when there are states with a lower tax burden and less hoops to jump through?

No one was forcing you to go to those establishments before. But now you're forcing those businesses to comply to your demands. True or not, the government should not be deciding such a policy for businesses. If businesses feel like they make more money allowing smokers or not allowing smokers, either way, it should be their decision.

Why are they leaving? Why are businesses leaving? 1) weather 2) perception 3) loss of manufacturing (which affects every state, but Ohio even moreso given our roots) Those are the biggest factors. I've never heard anyone say they are moving away because they don't feel "free" here. Ohio is a lot more business friendly than most debbie downers would like to potray it as. Of course, it varies depending on how you do the analysis, but I have seen Ohio in the top 10 in some studies. http://www.ohiomeansbusiness.com/newsroom/press-releases/single-press-release.php?id=163 http://www.abjusa.com/features/features_april_10/spotlight_on_ohio.html ( If we were as unfriendly as you would like others to believe, we would not rank 5th in terms of fortune 500 companies. If weather and loss of manufacturing jobs are two of our three biggest problems, then we're completely screwed, because our destiny is out of our hands. By the way, how many Fortune 500 company HQs did we have 20 years ago? Do we have more or less now? Even if number of F500 companies was a key piece of the picture, which it's not, we're still losing them at a rate that should alarm you.

then show me research that says the ban has overall had a negative affect on restaurants and bars. Even if it has no effect on business (let's live in a fantasy world for a moment), even if the majority of people think it's right and thus voted the bill into place (sort of like Ohio's gay marriage ban) , it still restricts freedom. And that is exactly what this study measures.

Okay, so the decrease in business from bars/restaurants around the state due to the smoking ban is imaginary. For the first time in the history of mankind, a policy (in this case, the smoking ban) was put into place without any unintended consequences? I guess I stand corrected. Ay-oh, way to go Ohio!

Why are they leaving? Why are businesses leaving?

It's bad enough that it's causing us to fall behind other states. The smoking ban went way too far: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jun/9/toledo-restaurant-touted-obama-to-close/

Looks pretty accurate to me. Government definitely has too heavy a hand in this state and is a big reason why we're seeing an outmigration of people that have grown up here and overall now growing as fast as other states.

I'm really excited for this! If I can get tickets, I'll definitely be down there cheering on the Buckeyes!

Today, you are correct. Which is why people really should be encouraged to carefully examine the costs/benefits. There are always con's in any substantial modification of the status quo. People are going to focus on those con's until someone can demonstrate how they are outweighed, perhaps significantly, by the pro's. So, no matter how far fetched it seems, we should keep discussing the issue. You know Cleveland Heights, as do I. Let's throw Shaker Heights and Lakewood into the discussion as well, because I think they're relevant/similar as well. Sure these would be great additions to Cleveland, and sure, a lot of these citizens in these suburbs are "progressive" and might be open to a merger. But why? Although each one has significant problems/issues, they all do well enough governing themselves. I think their residents realize this and also would realize that by merging with Cleveland, necessarily they will lose some character (it's not a question of "if," but a question of "how much"). They will have to defer decision-making to a central authority and that will change things, perhaps drastically. Even for these suburbs, flaws and all, they have little to gain by rolling under the "Cleveland" umbrella. And I'm not sure why anyone who appreciates or boosts these suburbs would want them merge with Cleveland. If this is just about boosting Cleveland's numbers and improving Cleveland proper, I think the area loses out when suburbs like those are merged. Especially if further out, character-less suburbs like Solon or Strongsville are being "spared" their identity. Earlier in the day I was thinking about the above idea, and trying to figure out how to articulate it. I still don't think I explained my thought process correctly, but it's close enough. I just think that those areas have too much character as individual entities. And I know I may be criticized for saying this, but the inner-ring suburbs that I don't think will be a "loss" for the area if they lose independence would be ones like Brooklyn, Fairview Park, Garfield Heights, Maple Heights, Warrensville Heights, Euclid, East Cleveland, etc.

Let's be realistic here. By my count, there are ~15 suburbs with significant borders with Cleveland. Of those, I can see close to a dozen who, for one reason or another, would likely vote down a potential merger with Cleveland.

This would have to be a very short term thing and phased out after a few years, maybe with residents who have been in their homes longer being grandfathered in. If you want this thing to work, eliminate inequalities. How would it be fair to those living in some of the high-taxed, well-serviced inner-ring suburbs to see their level of services decrease, but still pay high taxes?

Not sure why we're being compared to Southern or Western cities that developed differently at different times, but yeah, we're really no worse than many of our true peer counties such as Allegheny, Erie, Hamilton, etc.

I see where you're coming from, but this line of thinking overlooks the amount of money that could be saved from the elimination of dozens, if not hundreds, of administration position. It also doesn't take into consideration the fact that many cities have a partial or full local income tax rebate (I don't think that's the right word, but the idea is that some localities, like Beachwood, don't make you pay two different full local income taxes). The income tax figures are extremely tricky because of the multitude of possible scenarios, with some giving full credit and others not. In terms of elimination of positions, is this really what we are striving for as a county? With high unemployment, eliminating jobs doesn't seem like a bonus to me. I look at the 59 municipalities that we have as boosts to the local economy. Mergers between companies almost always mean a loss of someone's job and the merger of a city is no different. In a region that is draining jobs and population, a city merger, which only perpetuates that problem will be a tough sell. This thought crossed my mind, as well, and I take no pleasure in seeing anyone lose their job. That said, in theory, tax savings allows for more freedom in the market and more job creation. If we're talking about a $100 million tax savings, hopefully that money would go back to taxpayers, and most of them would find ways to spend it. A large chunk of that would be spent locally, too. At the end of the day, I know this is probably an unpopular viewpoint here, but I think that the market is always better at creating jobs. I don't think that saving public sector jobs is a strong argument for maintaining government bloat. There would be some pain in the short term, but in the long-term, everyone would be better off. Dammit, am I really making arguments in favor of regionalism? ;)

I see where you're coming from, but this line of thinking overlooks the amount of money that could be saved from the elimination of dozens, if not hundreds, of administration position. It also doesn't take into consideration the fact that many cities have a partial or full local income tax rebate (I don't think that's the right word, but the idea is that some localities, like Beachwood, don't make you pay two different full local income taxes).

Add that stupid resolution to the long list of things that Kasich should not have done.

Throughout the course of a long season, there are bound to be ebbs and flows. Any playoff team is bound to have periods where it seems like the wheels have fallen off and winning just one game is a chore. I felt that way about the Tribe for a while, but after this weekend, I'm officially worried. It's not just that they're losing, but how they're doing it. The pitching has been okay, I don't know if anyone expected the staff to continue like they did for the first few months. However the hitting has been atrocious, and that's a big problem. The lineup was supposedly to be a strong point, and it hasn't been, especially not lately. Choo and Santana have been MIA, and the second stint on the DL for Sizemore seems to have thrown him off. If those guys aren't hitting, and Pronk is going to be questionable all year, then this team is done and will be lucky to end up in third place. That said, if two or three of those guys get back on track, and I have optimism that they can, then this team can still compete in a weak AL Central. I'm not ready to give up on this team yet! Go Tribe!

When it comes to Greater Cleveland and even Ohio, especially in the face of outside criticism, I'm one of the biggest "cheerleaders" around. I spend more time than I should on the interwebs defending this city, and particularly, our sports teams. I would have absolutely no problem writing to the editors of the WaPo if I felt it would be a step to really change things. But I don't think it would make a difference and I truthfully feel powerless when I read these types of articles. I do, however, get some comfort out of coming to UO to vent about such nonsense where I know most will agree with me. ;)

Sums what up? That comment is riddled with inaccuracies, too.

I had a feeling that wouldn't be good enough for you. I've sent tweets to other semi-important people like Windhorst and gotten responses, so yes, sometimes it does work. But it doesn't matter. As much as I'd like to change perceptions and see less of these articles written, there's not much that I can do, because nobody important cares. Cleveland and Ohio have an image, as developed in large part by the media, and it's easier to just keep perpetuating that image, even if it's way off-base. We'll see more crapping on "poor old Cleveland' from the national media next week if the Heat win the championship, count on it.