cadmen

^ All unfortunately true but the reason we're set up that way is our culture. I think that's what's driving those decisions.

^ Believe me Brian l definitely remember that the Health Line was originally planned as a rail project. Man l was so excited at the time. Then as we kept reading about how rail expensive was l began to see the writing on the wall. I knew somehow, someway a train would be replaced by a bus and sure enough that's what we got. My real problem was knowing other cities could do it but not us. Still pisses me off.

^ Yes any rail connection between Cleveland, Akron and Canton would have to be heavy rail. Light rail is perfectly suited for inner city rail. All of us rail lovers would salivate over connecting American cities like they do in Europe but unfortunately l don't think we'll ever come close. Americans are a very different people culturally. We prefer not to share our space with strangers and we love the freedom cars provide. That makes rail problematic.

^ Different time? Ten years ago isn't the problem. Other cities around the country managed to build light rail since then and others are in the process now. I know we had different leadership and THEY couldn't pull it off. Today, with new leaders we're not even talking about light rail. That's how far away from it we are. I'm sure Canton won't be able to pull it off either. But the fact they're even talking about it and we're not tells you all you need to know about Cleveland getting more light rail. Hell, we're probably closer to losing all our rail than we are to expanding it.

Are you kidding me?! Canton can build light rail but we got stuck with a glorified bus lane down Euclid. No offense Canton, l hope you can pull it off but if you do what does that say about political leadership in Cleveland? Sheesh.

Tough one, right? I think most of us would love to see the Court complex repurposed and most would like to see some kind of cap on the innerbelt. But do we have to lose one to get the other? Perhaps, but if there continue to be no takers for the Court buildings maybe the question is moot anyway.

Front porches?? I know this is anecdotal but some kind of outdoor space (porch, deck, terrace etc.) is driving us to move. While we love our totally enclosed Condo on the Rocky River my wife is now demanding some outdoor space. We can't be alone in this. So as I've been following all the new residential growth I can't seem to find a place that's affordable and has outside space. Plenty of apartments for rent, a lesser number of for sale units and an even smaller number that have outside space that is affordable. Maybe developers can't do anything about the cost but it seems they can do something about adding outside space. I'm sure there's a market for it.

Great prices too!

^ Yikes!! We can wring our hands about how society seems to be on the wrong track today but one thing we have to admit is the air quality is much much better. Thank you EPA.

Thanks Ken. I didn't realize the Wolstein company had sold the land to a developer. There must have been a lag time between reading several stories about Scott driving the East Band development and then selling it. Or maybe it was just poor reporting by the PD. So the CEO you referenced was the Akara CEO then and not the Wolstein company. If that is the case Wolstein dying won't have any impact on the next phase. Any delay must be for economic reasons. Well, with any luck if/when it does start up maybe there will be a different brand. I can only hope as I dislike the Kenect design.

^ Interesting. Whenever I read about the Flats East Bank in the PD it was always attributed to him. Like he wanted to fulfill his father's dream and in spite of a few economic downturns it was his desire that kept it going. If that IS true are you saying that while he kept the project alive he wasn't the decision maker in determining what the design would look like? The Kenect group was chosen by someone else in his company?

Scott was the champion for this project. With his passing I'm afraid unless someone else in the company picks up the torch we may be in for a long term delay or even cancellation. The only positive I can see with the transition in leadership is maybe the Kinect plan gets sh*t-canned. The design is completely underwhelming. A different look would be much appreciated, by me at least.

Best thing about the Port of Cleveland? Actual ships docked in the berths.

You know how we always talk about how important good paying professional jobs are to the region? While that is true there appears to be a potential roadblock to filling those jobs. That being a real shortage of qualified people. Our schools aren't graduating enough of those people and many that do continue to leave the area. Recruiting large numbers of highly trained professionals seems to be difficult as well. I know there is a focus by some government and private organizations to remedy the problem but from what I've read it remains a serious issue. I think we're at somewhat of a crossroads here. Finally, after lagging much of the country in professional job openings we appear to be creating many of those same jobs. A new problem is how to fill them.

Man that whole Blockchain idea sure petered out fast. Kinda odd. A whole lot of smoke but no fire. I guess it joins other seemingly good ideas like the Medical Mart. Both appeared to have merit, but no, nothing there. I guess that's why I've always worked for someone else and not myself. Apparently I have no business sense lol.

Of course I've seen the other photos of what the building is going to look like but this one seems very different to me. From the side it looks sort of like a cookie with 3 distinct parts. In all the other renditions the sides looked solid. Is it just me or did it always look like that? Maybe my powers of observation are failing. I knew about the notch near the bottom front and back but this side view looks different. Oh well. For what its worth I like this version even better.

^ I didn't follow any of that but it sounds impressive as f*ck.

I thought the problem was how to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. With our present technology we will still need oil as a component of a great many products but we CAN wean ourselves off of fossil fuel energy if we develop more efficient and cleaner green energy. Our efforts seem to be in fits and starts because of a recalcitrant fossil fuel industry. The industry and its workforce needs to transition. None of this will happen overnight but as clean energy phases in fossil fuels need to phase out. I have come around to reinvesting in Nuclear as part of a clean solution because apparently the plants are much safer now. I know it's still a red flag to most environmentalists but if Nuclear helps us wean ourselves off fossil fuels sooner them l'm in favor of it.

Who could be against this plan? Cops getting to know the locals, building bridges. That's one step of many necessary to improve the relationship between the community and the police.

Yes but don't all answers start with a question? We don't want to jump the gun here but all this news about ev development in Ohio makes me think Honda may want to capitalize on the momentum. Electric car batteries and a renewed labor force...what's not to like?

^ Right, and that six-to-nine month's lag time will remain in effect until they actually start to bring those wells online. If they had started that timeline, say... two to three months ago we would be that much closer to new supply. I don't know about you but I haven't read about any increase in drilling so apparently that lag time is still lagging. You can't reach your destination until you begin the journey. Imagine how much closer to clean, renewable energy we would be if we had started on the process 20-30 years ago. Rather than focus on the real energy problem we continue to argue about green energy vs. fossil fuel energy. What a stupid people we are.

^ I prefer to believe that fencing is for Phase II. Who's with me!

It's been awhile but I remember reading about elastic/inelastic supply/demand in class. Isn't oil supply elastic? I get that increasing the production of oil is a relatively long term process but sitting on well leases in a time of greater demand strikes me as curious. Most businesses increase production in a time of increased demand as that adds to their bottom line. I'll deviate from this discussion by adding that as long as we STILL need oil (not just for gas but all the other products that require oil in their production) I prefer a government policy of drilling here rather than buying foreign oil. There are some benefits to doing that. In theory we know that American oil companies would be subject to stricter environmental regulation than you would expect from some oil producing countries. It would reduce the trade deficit and best of all by not buying oil from 3rd world dictators we would not be an accessory to propping up said dictators.

I took Micro-Econ in college too. So sure plugging oil costs into those supy/demand graphs makes some sense. But l think part of the answer is in Macro-Econ where human nature (greed) plays a role.

I wanted to go on a generic, mindless PRO-corporate screed but it occurred to me that after taking in all the legitimate reasons for high gas and oil prices I kept coming back to one troubling question. How to account for the extraordinarily high oil company profits EVERY time there is a correspondingly high price of a barrel of oil? Must be a coincidence.