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.

The "drone conversation" is also completely ill-informed. Unless the operator is able to stay within 1500' of the fleeing suspects, drones will not do the job even with a Tactical Beyond Visual Line of Sight Waiver from the FAA: https://www.faa.gov/uas/public_safety_gov/public_safety_toolkit/media/TBVLOS_Waiver_Final.pdf Creative approaches should be encouraged, but there's no magic bullet and even creative solutions require a foundation built on traditional law enforcement. The hands off approach is encouraging a culture of lawlessness, and proving the broken window theory right.

NIMBY!!!

Frankly (pun!), these concerns should have been raised and addressed during an early design stage. The square was intentionally and expressly designed to feel like unified halves. But "The Mayor's Office [only] cited concerns about pedestrians, namely children, being struck by buses crossing Superior through the square" after the $50 million project's completion. https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2017/01/rta_completing_safety_analysis.html The proposed $3 million remediation project is likely intended to address Frank's pedestrian safety concern since this administration apparently agrees with its validity by maintaining the barriers. And also - separately - address the "terrorism" concern that lunatics will plow through the square when Superior is closed during a special event and filled with revelers. The city's (both administration's) communication on this issue is confusing and conflates the two safety issues. But that's likely because the rationale for the existing barriers and the need for the $3 million corrective action (and its funding) is flimsy.

It's 100% the city. Back in 2017, Frank made the RTA procure traffic and safety studies before reopening the square to traffic. Those studies made several recommendations to accommodate bus traffic through the square. Those recommendations included, "A temporary, removable railing should be added to channel pedestrian traffic to crosswalks and prevent jaywalking." These barriers are not about terrorism. The study found the terrorism risk existed regardless of whether the square was open or closed to traffic. These barriers in particular do not mitigate that risk. These barriers are intended to prevent kids from wandering into traffic because (in some people's opinion) the square does not clearly delineate the street from the plazas. https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2017/02/details_of_the_safety_study_on.html (final report) and https://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/rta-traffic-studies-support-opening-public-square-to-buses/Content?oid=5021851 (preliminary report)

Agreed, especially considering the estimated cost is $3,000,000 with the City contributing $1.5 million, the severely underfunded RTA expected (but uncommitted) to kick in $500,000, and the Group Plan Commission tapping unidentified sources for the remaining $1,000,000. Sec. 3 in Ord. 242-2022: https://cityofcleveland.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=10574835&GUID=417ADEF0-2671-40DA-BD38-449ED1CDCF8D&G=2EB18EF1-2C21-4D1D-85C9-B38100AB8FFD This solution seems less than half baked.

Except this is a licensing deal where "Marriott will provide design guidance for the apartments and training for a third-party leasing and management organization hired by the Kassoufs." Even if this actually happens, what do you think is Marriott's exposure to its failure? Marriott's management and its "assessment of market conditions" are not part of this deal.

That's not what Issue 24 does. Issue 24 establishes an unaccountable collective body as the entity responsible for managing the police force. The mayor, safety director, council and other supervisors are not longer answerable for the police. Unelected appointees with their own agendas are now in charge. If you don't like their policies or the level of police service, good luck getting their attention.

Correct. It's my understanding that no parking variance is required. I'm not ignoring the fact this development meets the 0.65 spots/unit (not beds) to fulfill the overlay's parking requirements. I'm saying that these developments will add hundreds of cars simultaneously (parked and circulating) on these local streets. When these buildings are occupied, the streets in Duck Island will be overflowing with cars. If there's data or forecasts on the issue (other than the new units to off-street parking ratio), please call it out. If there's plans to increase the frequency/reliability of the Redline or the 25, please let me know. Staff's assertion that the Redline Greenway provides a competitive route to anywhere is not convincing. Maybe public transit will follow rooftops, but why not give assurances with announcing those discussions in parallel with the developments' approvals if we're so certain folks are giving up their cars? Stating there's sufficient offstreet parking planned to meet the new demand that these uses will produce is outright misrepresentation.

Right, neither does Geis. Why does a developer get to offload his obligation onto the right-of-way? Folks with small parcels that do not provide on-site parking have to circle block-after-block to find a spot residing here with an understanding that new builds must satisfy parking requirements, which the CPC is now yanking away. It's not getting from your house to your car, it's the driving around searching for a spot, accommodating guests and service providers, clearing snow and getting garbage picked up, loading/unloading kids, elderly/handicapped, groceries, etc... in traffic. Right, that's the point. They are building four of these projects (538 units in Intro. and Waterford Bluffs alone, double that w/Pearl and Intro. Phase II). Contemptuously dismissing these concerns because they don't support your density objective is irresponsible. If there's supporting traffic studies and parking demand analysis, I'd love to see it. What's comical is an online commentator using three exclamation points to complain without irony about others' needs to vent their frustrations to the world.

I'm sure none that share Does anyone that shares this sentiment rely on street parking for their vehicle? You must have properties afford you off-street parking or you don't have a car. This is changes the paradigm for those that must rely on a car and suddenly loose their reliably available street parking. This dismissive attitude towards these concerns is the root of displacement.