Oldmanladyluck

From this morning...

I thought the building was part of the original block, but not the actual building where rock and roll was coined? It still would be a shame to lose, though. And if this building is truly important to the history of this town, then greater action should be taken to save it. I don't think a receivership could apply to a commercial building (I believe only residential properties can go through receivership), but what if it could? The Gateway Development Corp could file for receivership of the building, which could be granted allowing the building to be at least structurally renovated. The receivership would become a first priority lien against the property, coming before any other liens against the property or the owners. Once the building is renovated, if the owners don't pay Gateway back Gateway could foreclose and get the title to the property. And since Gateway is a 501©3, they could apply for different sources of funding to save the building from demo. I'm sure some of the Foundations in town would be willing to at least help fund the preservation of such an important piece of Cleveland's history. That's IF a receivership could be filed for a commercial building... if not then our council members would need to get involved to create legislation allowing for a receivership to happen with commercial buildings.

Another view of what's going on- taken maybe 10 min ago...

Seems like a cool infill project. I like it.

^Opportunity Corridor- speculative building, perhaps? I'm literally laughing and shaking my head at that.

Cleveland's Kid Cudi- Day 'N' Nite was a summertime anthem a few years ago... <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/VrDfSZ_6f4U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Cleveland's greatest Hip-Hop group continues to rep the city- <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ZqDG4xMgs_k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

St Clair's street-front has lost much of it's urbanity. It's amazing how much has been demolished along the stretch between Rockefeller Park and E. 185th.

I'm disappointed it passed, but not surprised. The opponents were taking on Goliath in this- and the teams had plenty of money to spend. Personally, I feel strongly in favor of a tax which benefits the community in a greater way than the tax recently passed. I'll be doing homework and meeting with folks to create or join a coalition for a different tax with a wider impact. This town has too many other problems to just sit around and wait for things to change.

^Costs the average person in which section of the socioeconomic ladder? What about the person who is going through a rough patch in life? Will people who drink or smoke who are poorer spend a larger percentage of their income than those with higher incomes? Or should folks stand back self-righteously and say, "Well, it's their choice to drink or smoke anyways"? Is there a fairer way to proportion the tax, or is the sin-tax the end-all, be-all? How do other comparable cities fund their stadium maintenance? Is there another way to do it which could end the sin-tax and potentially renew it for other pressing issues to the city and the county, including health/mental health related issues tied to smoking, drinking, and illegal drugs? That's the heart of the issue, to me. It's not just, "We should just renew it because it's the easiest way to guarantee funds for maintenance", when there's a potentially fairer, non-regressive way to fund stadium maintenance. If that way is not raising the ticket prices at games by $3.25 or whatever arbitrary price, then great. Let's find the way, instead of just going with the status quo when those funds could be used for other needs. Again, don't tell me that Cleveland doesn't have other needs which could be addressed by $300 million over 20 years. Don't tell that to one of the families living in one of maybe only four occupied houses on E. 117th and Union, who is surrounded by blight. Don't tell that to the kid who has to walk past these derelict, vacant properties on their way to school, risking his or her own safety. Don't tell that to the potential entrepreneur who could start a neighborhood business with capital which could be generated by a small percentage of a tax on alcohol, cigarettes, whatever... which could help struggling business corridors all over the county. There's other needs which need to be addressed in this town, which I'm sure average folks are aware of. There's another answer for the stadium upkeep. We have time to find it.

^^That info just shows how raising the ticket prices for the teams by $3.25 would NOT have a major impact on attendance, and pretty much debunks that argument IMO. If the Indians raised ticket prices an extra $3.25, it puts their average at $22.84. Still cheaper than most of the MLB, and still one of the cheapest in the Midwest: Boston $53.38 $336.99 N.Y. Yankees $51.55 $324.30 Chicago Cubs $44.55 $298.20 Philadelphia $37.42 $257.16 Toronto $32.98 $254.21 San Francisco $30.09 $237.87 Washington $35.24 $236.46 Chicago White Sox $26.05 #231.18 St. Louis $33.11 $230.94 Miami $29.27 $230.05 Houston $30.09 $224.33 N.Y. Mets $25.30 $223.70 Minnesota $32.59 $221.36 MLB AVG $27.73 $210.46 Detroit $26.36 $207.42 L.A. Dodgers $22.37 $204.95 Seattle $28.45 $203.78 Colorado $23.65 $196.60 L.A. Angels $27.54 $196.16 Texas $22.54 $196.13 Oakland $22.12 $180.48 Milwaukee $24.95 $176.80 Kansas City $19.83 $172.32 Atlanta $17.32 $170.78 Baltimore $23.89 $169.06 Cincinnati $21.35 $165.39 Pittsburgh $17.21 $164.84 Cleveland $19.59 $157.36 Tampa Bay $20.39 $155.54 San Diego $15.99 $151.94 Arizona $16.89 $151.55 For the Cavs, it puts them at $50.40, average. Roughly in the top third of ticket prices in the NBA. Still worth the price, IMO. The Browns- a no brainer. Raising the tickets by $3.25 STILL keeps them last in average price. Team 2013 Initial Average Price Chicago Bears Tickets $446 New England Patriots Tickets $382 New York Giants Tickets $334 Denver Broncos Tickets $328 New Orleans Saints Tickets $278 Dallas Cowboys Tickets $274 Pittsburgh Steelers Tickets $263 Green Bay Packers Tickets $254 Seattle Seahawks Tickets $253 Houston Texans Tickets $251 San Francisco 49ers Tickets $229 New York Jets Tickets $228 Washington Redskins Tickets $218 Philadelphia Eagles Tickets $215 San Diego Chargers Tickets $187 Baltimore Ravens Tickets $185 Indianapolis Colts Tickets $180 Tampa Bay Buccaneers Tickets $161 Miami Dolphins Tickets $159 Carolina Panthers Tickets $154 Detroit Lions Tickets $153 Atlanta Falcons Tickets $150 Minnesota Vikings Tickets $144 St. Louis Rams Tickets $140 Cincinnati Bengals Tickets $139 Buffalo Bills Tickets $131 Oakland Raiders Tickets $124 Arizona Cardinals Tickets $119 Kansas City Chiefs Tickets $115 Jacksonville Jaguars Tickets $115 Tennessee Titans Tickets $113 Cleveland Browns Tickets $109

Yeah, that's pretty awful. Don't know what they were thinkin.

Outstanding photos MayDay!

With those numbers, the total comes up to $185,470,180 over 20 years... without knowing how much attendance will fluctuate in the future. However the same could be said about the Sin Tax in itself, as the public opinion has shifted on smoking and that will continue to decrease over the years (the tax which funds Cuyahoga Arts and Culture is funded by cigarette tax money and has decreased in the total amount brought in because of less and less people smoking). The projection of another $300 million coming in from the sin tax over the next 20 years could be wrong. It could be $50 million. Thats still $50 million which could go towards other pressing community needs when there could be an alternative to funding the stadiums. And we have a year to figure it out.

Though I'd be for that double whammy, that can't happen locally yet :-) . In your scenario, there's already been an additional tax proposed- and that was raising the ticket prices by $3-and-some-change. It just wasn't an additional "Sin Tax". I, for one, don't buy that folks will be dissuaded by having to pay an extra $3.00. To me that's laughable, and literally a "cheap excuse" for not even considering an alternative. The $3.00 increase doesn't even need to be the only alternative- it could be one of many if there was more time to discuss the issue. Seriously, there's been plenty of for-and-against discussion, and $300 million definitely merits this discussion. But a discussion on having both the alternative and the Sin Tax generating revenue for the stadiums and other potential economic development programs has not occurred, and I don't think it's been included at all.

^LOVE the sign! And I agree the building looks 10x better.

I don't think I've seen a story regarding the potential of keeping a sin-tax AND using an alternative instead. The editorials and opinions published in the PD have been either-or, for or against; not the possibility of having both a Sin Tax and an alternative to fund the stadiums at the same time in place concurrently. That discussion hasn't happened, and looks like it won't before the election.

I respect your point. My point is that it seems as though the discussion about how to use the Sin Tax is being quashed by the Civic and Business leaders of the community before it even truly begins. If the tax were to fail at the polls, it is not the be-all, end-all. The tax expires next year, which gives voters more than enough time to weigh other options. If Civic leaders and their mouthpiece (PD) were to leverage a true discussion on the benefits of keeping a Sin Tax in place for things other than our sports stadiums, voters would have enough information to make a decision other than just keeping it as-is. If keeping it as-is is the best case scenario after a true public dialogue and analysis against other uses for the tax actually happens, then so be it. Personally, I am PRO Sin Tax, but I'm more-so for the tax going towards other purposes or for there to at least be a true dialogue about WHERE the tax could go. Though I do think the teams should pay their fair share (and an argument could be made for that), to me that's not the main point. The point as far as I'm concerned should be: If we are going to tax ourselves, there should be a public dialogue about what that tax could potentially go towards besides the status quo, especially if there are other options available for the upkeep of the properties. And I don't think anyone could possibly say that this town is without other needs affecting ordinary folks every day, which could be affected by an extra $300 million over 20 years.

I'm personally hoping that the tax is defeated just so that there can be a larger discussion of where the $300+ million over the next 20 years can go. I mean DAMMIT- this town has other problems which could sure be taken on with that money. Economic development isn't just bricks and mortar- without people supplying the jobs and businesses, there would be no bricks and mortar projects to begin with. I would love to keep the tax, but redirect it to other projects. How many demolitions could be covered with just a portion of an extra $12-$15 million a year? How about a small business microenterprise loan fund paid for with a portion of those taxes? That's where the discussion could go, IF the tax is defeated. Of course, it seems as though the business community wants to keep it the way it is, as certain companies and organizations stand to benefit from the status quo. I just think we will be missing a good opportunity if the tax stays as-is.

Interestingly enough, I believe Ronayne's contract with UCI ends in 3 years and a few months... which will be before a certain election in a certain city with a certain mayor who will likely not be running again since this is his third term. I'm excited for the One University Circle project. I'm hoping that other developments happen around the area which can bring greater density to the neighborhood!

At that rate, we'll break even in relation to the jobs lost during the last recession, in only 7 years! Whohoo!! Seriously, even though we gained jobs instead of lost, there's a real problem with being in second-to-last place nationally in job growth. Without further job growth, this region will be looking at 60 years of stagnation since 1960 when the next census comes around.

^I would hope that MOST find some type of new use someday, instead of being demoed. East Cleveland's street wall along Euclid- including both large historic homes and street level mixed-use buildings is relatively intact (unlike Hayden, Woodworth, etc.). It's unfortunate that many of the 4 suite apartment buildings on the side streets along Euclid are either beyond repair, or have been demolished already. I've been telling myself that I have to post some photos of EC- there's some great stretches of intact residential neighborhoods left in the city, along with the decay that everyone is familiar with.

Sprawl is indeed an important issue; however, the fact remains that Columbus and Franklin County are, and have been growing; Cuyahoga County has been in decline population wise since the 70s, while the region has been stagnate for 50 years. Sprawl is a given due to our transportation policies favoring roads over other forms of transit, so a growing region will naturally sprawl (for better or worse). There's no reason to be hurt about Cuyahoga County losing it's place as the largest county population wise in the state. What folks should be worried about is how to grow entrepreneurship, jobs, and immigration (and emigration) in the county and the region.

What does sprawl have to do with a county's population? Do people not count towards a county's population if they live in the suburbs?? And at what population point, exactly, will that 75 square miles no longer apply? 2.3 million? 2.5 million? 3? And I'm willing to bet that there are at least 75 square miles in Franklin County that are undeveloped. quite a bit, they count, anything outside of each county anyone would care to compare and perhaps. Well, truth is that again, Cuyahoga County has been losing population since the 70s to the surrounding counties. Franklin County has not, and has seen consistant growth. The Cleveland region is not even close to making up the amount of jobs lost during the last recession (not to mention the '01-'02 recession, from which we've never recovered the jobs lost from) . The Columbus region has. I could go on, but growth is growth regardless of land use policy or the physical size of the county, and our region has been stagnate for 4 decades. Cleveland itself has a sprawl (without growth) problem, the proof of which shows in the destruction and abandonment of so many neighborhoods in the central city and inner suburbs, particularly on the east side. Bottom line is that we should be figuring out ways to further nurture the creation and retention of jobs and businesses here. We wouldn't need to be worried about whos the biggest county with the most population density if we did so, because people would move here to get the jobs or start a business.

Good news to see that the bleeding is finally beginning to slow to just a trickle- and that we may be adding residents before the next census. That is actually GREAT news for a city which has been losing population since the 50s (roughly 950k to around 375k today) and a county which has been losing population since the 70s (1.7 mil to 1.29 mil today). ANY turnaround should be celebrated, no matter who is ahead during the next census.