grayfields

Was Gillespie under oath when saying a 6 story (office?) building would have a greater impact on pedestrians than motorists flying up 25th to his drive-through's exit on Abby (at a rapid stop!) on their way downtown? The proposed drive-through also violates the pedestrian retail overly zoning that Map Change 2670 imposes under the item approved by the CPC last week. CCO Sec. 343.23(e)(1)(D) prohibits "Any business served by a drive-through lane providing access to windows or other facilities at which food or merchandise can be ordered or picked up, or business can be transacted by a person in a motor vehicle" within the overlay district. See, April 4, 2025 CPC Agenda at 25/361. The CPC was caught sleeping on this one, and the City needs to reconsider its options on how to block the drive-through component of the project:

The monitoring team is distinct from the commission, which are distinct from the Division's Inspector General, Police Accountability Team, Internal Affairs, Office of Professional Sandards, the Civilian Police Review Board, Law Department, City Council, etc. all providing oversight over the Division of Police. The monitors from Hogan Lovells are required under the consent degree overseen by Judge Solomon Oliver. The Community Police Commission is maintained under the 2021 amendment to the Charter under Issue 24. Trump's DOJ dismissing the suit underlying the consent degree (with the Court's unlikely blessing) will rid us of the DC monitors and their DC billables. But even then, we'll still be stuck with the unaccountable and ax grinding Community Police Commission unless the Charter is amended to eliminate or reform their governance over the elected mayor, his safety director and police chief. In the meantime we'll continue to struggle with recruitment and retention.

You are making this up. Some random, uninformed loudmouths that are not directly impacted by the development spouting off about portion sizes at an ill-conceived, OCI-organized "community" meeting does not equate to residents killing a development. The Chipotle did not (and does not, lest the residents "deny" it again?) require any variances or special city approvals. lolz

Regional sewer fees/rents are not taxes.

Right? There was $25 million in state, county and city funding lined up for the $33 million (2015 dollars) Rosales designed bridge. This $20 million should be in addition to those commitments. https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2018/12/city-of-cleveland-exploring-alternatives-to-iconic-miguel-rosales-design-for-lakefront-pedestrian-bridge.html

More likely his inheritance of large ARPA cash balances, no? Percent returns might offer a better look at performance. Arbitrage regulations severely limit his investment options other than STAR Ohio type accounts. As those ARPA funds are paid out, I would expect those amounts will revert to the mean (except those on the new - ARPA funded - $110 million payroll reserve).

Right? Not sure about demo in place, but preserving key members is worth more than money: https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2019/08/see-dismantled-huletts-on-whiskey-island-industrial-history-covered-in-rust-greenery.html

I don't think you're correct: https://maps.app.goo.gl/M3x6UYLwN6Jwj1C59

Except that light is from the east (ie early morning). There's never going to be crowds down there to see the golden hour shown in the renderings. It'll likely be cloaked in shadow from hillside.

I believe he's referencing the RFP for a recruiting consultant to develop a marketing plan to generate more applicants, which the press release mentions under "latest investments." It would appear that proposals were due in February 2023, so coming up on 6 months to "finalize" a contract: https://www.clevelandohio.gov/sites/default/files/rfp-rfq/PoliceOfficerSocialWorkerRecruitmentRFP.pdf I'm not sure what caused the delay, but I note that the social worker "co-responder" piece from the RFP is not referenced in the RISE press release, which focuses on safety/enforcement rather than social justice concerns.

You are remembering correctly. Unless something changed since the proposed deal was posted on the Port's website: https://www.portofcleveland.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/MIG-Settlement-Agreement.pdf. The front half will remain until the three billboards replacing the one on the front half are installed: AND

The proposed agreement is posted online: https://www.portofcleveland.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/MIG-Settlement-Agreement.pdf. My reading of the key terms are as follows: George’s company gets $1.25 million cash for construction easement and demo. of the back half of Royal Castle Bldg. The parties (including the City) agree to support George Company's permit application for 3 replacement electronic changeable copy, double-sided billboards (i.e., six marketable boards) One 10’ x 36’ v-shaped/double-sided board at on top of the Harry Buff. downtown Two v-shaped/double-sided 14’ x 48’ boards at locations TBD They get $200,000 to offset costs to erect the replacement billboards. They get to maintain billboard on front half of Royal Castle Bldg until it's “donated” (i.e., tax deduction) when all replacement billboards are operational They get 3,000 sqft restaurant w. 17,000 sqft outdoor patio designed/constructed for them to lease for up to 10 years with a $500,000 lease credit towards future rent In sum, to give up the property, George's Company gets: Cash/equivalents – $1.95 million ($1.25 million cash, $200k relocation costs, $500k lease credit) Tax deductions – unknown Unbid 10-year restaurant concession inside the park Replacement Billboard income downtown and elsewhere, or if the billboards are not approved, the front side of the Royal Castle building holding up the existing billboard remains in-place indefinitely

Views heading down Rockwell Ave:

The old Bodnar's is planned to become Sartorial, which is described as a pre-wedding entertainment/lounge/retail use for grooms and their posse. See floorplans on page 5 of 6: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/1vx3w4cvg0as9ylb5ii5c/h?dl=0&rlkey=6vyj8d080468kp1ofibau5tel

Wow, sure sounds like an Open Meetings Act violation.