surfohio

Hoping you're right about that. And welcome to the forum!!

Where's Kasich to throw a wrench in this operation when you need him?

Good points, let me clarify. Geographically you're right, most streets downtown are two way. But the most critical area to me, imho, is where downtown meets the University. This is the area that has great potential for improving walkability. The three main streets that cut through north/south; Main, St (two way), High St. (one way) and S. Broadway (one way). My experience walking from campus to downtown is that pedestrians are met with a curtain of fast moving traffic. High and S. Broadway "set the tone" that the purpose of downtown is to channel the flow of traffic, and not for walking.

Looking forward to hearing more about this. I can't help but imagine that the original O'neals building- before the big teardown that should've never happened- would have made for some amazing residential...that "renovation" was just tragic for me personally. One thing that could really foster development is simply calming the speed traffic. Just as in C-bus, the one way streets create a "highway effect" with speeding cars right in the core of the city. Slow that down, and you open up potential for more foot traffic and business downtown.

I like SMF. The new forum...well....my eyes just never adjusted to it. Looked very bland to me.

^ excellent point! This is promising technology for us in the Great Lakes region.

The libertarian side of me worries about this. Like, when can we expect the sugar ban? http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diabetes-statistics/ Yup, because the private sector has done so well putting healthy products out into the market :wtf: Most products you see here have to have a bunch of the crap left out before they're sent over to real countries that have governments that ban this crap. The only concern you should have is the fact that you're a libertarian. Wow, thanks for the personal attack! Very polite of you lol. I think personal decisions are best left up to the individual. I think consuming tobacco, sugar, carbonated beverages, alcohol, contact sports, etc. are dangerous to ones health. Won't you agree? Okay then, should they be banned? Or can we be adult enough to make conscious choices about our own health? You must understand that the law banning trans fats DOES NOTHING to stop restaurant owners form using something MORE DANGEROUS. Please grasp this concept, and reassess the situation. I'm actually concerned for you, that you you need the government to shield you from yourself.

Hts-good points about gradual acceptance of the smoking ban. I have to laugh when that "no smoking" light comes on in the plane...I can't imagine having to fly in a smoke filled environment like that. I was actually for the indoor smoking ban and I'm glad that it passed.** I've got to be honest with you, I never, in a million years, ever thought that smoking outside would be an issue to be of police concern...and there's something inside me that bothers me, that the laws are overreaching. San Diego banned smoking on the beaches because of the littering issue. Perhaps that's the idea behind the Cleveland playground ban...if that's the case- and it theoretically does cut down littering, then I suppose that just like SD's ban, I'll favor the results, but not the method. ** I hope that doesn't risk my new alliance with 327 lol

Following that line of reasoning, so do the slippery-slope, libertarian principaled conspiracy theories. Zing! Hts, I've already demonstrated that NOTHING in the law prevents the restaurant owner from using something MORE DANGEROUS than Trans fats. Read my links. Like the proposed ban on dodgeball. They're FUN! It's a stupid law! Jeff called it....a law requiring labeling would have done so much more to aid the consumer. Can we agree on that?

Oh...gotcha!

^ I don't understand...the enacted law includes playgrounds so kids are involved by default.

^It's not the cars you need to worry about. It's the creepy van.

Again....were little kids suffering from second hand smoke at outdoor playgrounds? Distracted drivers actually kill people. Was there any evidence of children being exposed on playgrounds?

Thanks for the kind words. And just because an issue doesn't affect you personally, it doesn't mean you can take a principled stand on it. SIncerely, The straight guy that supports the right to gay marriage.....The non drug user that thinks a ten year sentence for marijuana possession is ridiculous....the white guy who stands against racism....etc etc.

^ I agree with you more than you realize. My question is why couldn't Cimperman enact the labeling requirement instead of the outright ban? I would have supported that whole heartedly. Is Cimperman simply jumping on the "follow NYC" bandwagon??? I hope not, because it looks like some elected idiots in NY just attempted to regulate whiffleball, kickball and tag! I wish I was making this up... http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/2011/04/25/ny-nanny-state-tries-to-ban-beloved-kid-games-wiffle-ball-red-rover-kickball-others-claimed-too-dangerous-by-liberals/ edit: OK, the link is anti-liberal I guess, I didn't link this article to bash liberals. I hold many views considered liberal. i wanted to point out it's not just elected officials being ridiculous, it's lawyers, peopple with the "sue everyone" mentality and everyone else capitalizing on the failure to take personal responsibility for ones actions. I'm afraid intentions and bans are no match for the uneducated consumer. You can try and ban every food substance that's decreed to be harmful, and they are still going to choose the delicious, fattening Gyro over the healthy apple.

A message in the public interest: Have you guys wondered about this possibility.... That whatever the restaurants use to replace Trans Fat might actually be more dangerous than the banned Trans Fat? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20823487

"Why can't I scream fire in a crowded theater?"..."How long until I am not allowed to talk at all?" "Why can't I drink while I am driving?"..."How long until I am not allowed to drink at all?" "Why am I not allowed to do cocaine?"..."How long until I can't drink Coca-Cola?" "Why am I not allowed to spit on a police officer?"..."How long until I am not allowed to spit?" "Why am I not allowed to urinate on Hts121's front door?"..."How long until I am not allowed to urinate?" You get the point. Oh yes, what brilliant examples....thanks for changing my mind lol. p.s. don't think I haven't mapquested Hts front door p.s.s. I kid...

DING DING DING... we have a winner. Cooking oils are typically not listed on a menu. You don't know what your food is cooked in most of the time. Uh...you could try asking? p.s. if the manager does not know, please exercise your God given right to eat elsewhere...

You may think it's tiring, but it's true. I'm a lawyer. I have a profound respect for the law. That doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to enact "honor" laws like the outdoor smoking ban. That's just a mockery of the law, it creates more law breakers without any ramifications. By all means, it should be okay to stroll down E. 4th with a cup of beer, to use marijuana, to sleep in your car....it's an issue of personal freedom to me.

What!? Is there a gun to your head? "Eat at that restaurant!" lol

Agreed. And then it will be a waste of law enforcements time when they have to bust people for smoking. The trans fat ban is also stupid. KFC, WalMart, etc. were already getting rid of it, showing that the market and consumer choice were already handling this issue. But hey, why not get more practically unenforceable laws on the books when you have the chance. They said the same thing when the smoking ban for bars went into effect. "It won't be enforceable and it will be a waste of time for law enforcement." Well, have you ever seen some "busted" by a cop in a bar for smoking? Probably not. Has smoking in bars been nearly eliminated? Yes. You put a law on the books and people tend to follow it. We are law abiding citizens for the most part. And Cimperman even said this will not be actively enforced and it will be more of an "honor system." The Gestapo isn't going to be hiding behind trees on public square waiting for you to light one up. And the trans fat ban will be enforced during restaurants yearly visit from the health department. Hardly unenforceable... Listen, I'm not a smoker. I think it's disgusting. I was FOR a statewide indoor smoking ban. My point is, where do you draw the line? Are kids on playgrounds being exhaled on by smokers? Are people so dumb that they can't make their own choices of what food they eat? Why NOT ban sugar? Will someone give me a good reason why this dangerous substance should be allowed to kill off our population?

I totally disagree. It is not a waste of City Council's time if they are debating legislation that could make the city more or less attractive as a place to live and do business. I'm sure you thought the food truck legislation was a waste of time too... The food truck legislation quite literally wasted time by taking a year to get passed.

Yes, when it involves limiting personal freedoms. Would you feel the same way if the council "tried to make the city healthier" by banning alcohol sales?

Agreed. And then it will be a waste of law enforcements time when they have to bust people for smoking. The trans fat ban is also stupid. KFC, WalMart, etc. were already getting rid of it, showing that the market and consumer choice were already handling this issue. But hey, why not get more practically unenforceable laws on the books when you have the chance.

The libertarian side of me worries about this. Like, when can we expect the sugar ban? http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diabetes-statistics/