shs96

interesting to see several others with the "not sure how I should be classified" label like me. I was an only child until I was 10 when my mom re-married (my biological father died when I was young). I then had (have) two step-brothers...one older, one younger. Then my half-sister was born. Somehow I identify with all groups. My step-brothers were living under a shared custody arrangement. So depending on what week (and year) it was and how you looked at it, I was the youngest in the house, the oldest in the house, or the middle. Also interesting being a part of a family where I am the only one who has my last name...

Ha! I used to work in the City Place building...took the DART everyday. Never thought to take pictures though! My company had a gym on one of its floors and sometimes instead of going there during lunch, I would go down into the subway station and climb the stairs a few times...lol

I would skip the HOF induction and just go to Put in Bay for the weekend! Glad to see DT get inducted...I still remember a game against the Browns where he seemingly made every tackle when they ran to his side. RIP.

I just threw up in my mouth (again). The Indians brass are now converting people to Yankee fans?!?!? I'd rather start following the WNBA. Sad its come to that.

pathetic. here's Cliff Lee for your poo-poo platter of players on the DL and pitchers with 5+ ERAs in AAA...and on yeah, another catcher you can add to Martinez (gone soon I imagine), Shoppach, and the guy currently in our minor league system who is supposed to be a top prospect.

Outside of the the train over bus part, to me, this screams Tremont somewhere close to Lincoln Park.

I lived in Dallas for 5.5 years...my Aunt/Uncle live in Carrolton. While I enjoyed DFW, I obviously moved back to Cleveland b/c I like Cleveland better. However, for all that DFW isn't, I bet we would all like to live in a city where the economy is strong and rail lines were expanding. DART is currently building an extension from downtown Dallas to Carrolton, another to DFW airport, and another southeast to the southeast suburbs...not to mention they recently (3-4 years ago) completed an extension of the red line to the northern suburbs. And developments that we crave here in NE Ohio (like FEB or Stark's vision for the WHD) have been popping up the last 10 years all over the city along said rail lines. Specifically since 2001, mixed use developemnts around the AAC (Mavs/Stars arena), Mockingbird, Park Lane, Forest Lane, LBJ/Central, and Downtown Plano stations off the red line all been planned and built. This is what happens when cities/regions have money and strong leaders - things get done.

That's absolutely correct. That's absolutely incorrect. Please cite your authority. I already did above. The authority you cited did not apply to the situation. Granted, this is Ohio and not Massachusets law, but I imagine they are similar: ORC 2917.11 Disorderly Conduct (A) No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another by doing any of the following: (1) Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent or turbulent behavior; (2) Making unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person; (3) Insulting, taunting, or challenging another, under circumstances in which that conduct is likely to provoke a violent response;(4) Hindering or preventing the movement of persons on a public street, road, highway, or right-of-way, or to, from, within, or upon public or private property, so as to interfere with the rights of others, and by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender; (5) Creating a condition that is physically offensive to persons or that presents a risk of physical harm to persons or property, by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender. ...... (E)(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of disorderly conduct. (3) Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor of the fourth degree if any of the following applies: (a)... (b)... © The offense is committed in the presence of any law enforcement officer, firefighter, rescuer, medical person, emergency medical services person, or other authorized person who is engaged in the person’s duties at the scene of a fire, accident, disaster, riot, or emergency of any kind. The officer is at the scene of a reported crime and involved in his duties as an officer. Gates alledgedly is insulting him, challenging him, and getting in the way of the officer's investigation. Whether you believe that or not is up to you. The fact remains, if the story went as the officer is telling it, he is absolutely 100% entitled to arrest him on his property without a warrant. The reasonable suspicion part is not necessarily accurate. But you can be arrested on your porperty if an officer witnesses you commit a crime and has a right to be on your property, which in this case he did.

How does it not? Gates is accusing the police of racial profiling and Obama is saying the police acted stupidly. He mentioned nothing about the 4th Amendment. That is just you assuming that is what he meant to deflect any crticism from him. Don't take my word for it - "I have to say I am surprised by the controversy surrounding my statement, because I think it was a pretty straightforward commentary that you probably don't need to handcuff a guy, a middle-aged man who uses a cane, who's in his own home," Obama said. In an exclusive interview with ABC's Terry Moran to air on "Nightline" tonight, Obama said it doesn't make sense to him that the situation escalated to the point that Gates was arrested. "I think that I have extraordinary respect for the difficulties of the job that police officers do," the president told Moran. "And my suspicion is that words were exchanged between the police officer and Mr. Gates and that everybody should have just settled down and cooler heads should have prevailed. That's my suspicion." The president said he understands the sergeant who arrested Gates is an "outstanding police officer." But he added that with all that's going on in the country with health care and the economy and the wars abroad, "it doesn't make sense to arrest a guy in his own home if he's not causing a serious disturbance." I've seen that video footage...still no mention of anything in regards to the 4th amendment, nor do I think based on what he said that's what he's implying. Obama knows Gates and knows he's a reasonable person. the Police Officer doesn't. So when confronted with an odd situation, officers are trained to take the utmost precaution...or else they could end up as a headline for a completely different reason: they're dead. See the officer in Twinsburg on a routine traffic stop last summer.

That's absolutely correct.

How does it not? Gates is accusing the police of racial profiling and Obama is saying the police acted stupidly. He mentioned nothing about the 4th Amendment. That is just you assuming that is what he meant to deflect any crticism from him. This isn't about politics. Obama just underminded law enforecement officials across the country who are now going to have to be second guessing themselves when making arrests, wondering if they are going to get called out by the President for acting stupidly should the person involved pull out the race card. The people who are most upset about his remarks are those in Cambridge (88% voted for Obama) and police unions (typically supportive of Democrats).

Sounds about exactly what I would expect. Gates is being a d#ck because, he feels, a man of his stature should be treated with extended courtesy at all times. He probably expects the cops to know who he is and, upon seeing him, just say "Oh, Dr. Gates, we heard a report that someone was trying to break into your house...is everything OK"? Meanwhile, the cop with his "respect the badge, respect my authority" mantra, will never, under any circumstances, just walk away from that kind of language. I mean, these types of things - maybe to a lesser extent - happen between two regular people all the time. Most of the time, one person usually just walks away and lets the other just run his/her mouth (unless they're drunk or something, then a fight breaks out). But a cop? Yeah right - no cop is walking away from that. Not to mention I'm sure he was probably testing him some. I doubt he was attempting to calm him down as much as the report indicates...unless trying to calm him down involves saying something like "I'm responding to a call and doing my job. You're acting unruly." Someone is getting arressted in that situation regardless of race. Either way it's clear, at least to me, race had nothing to do with it...until someone pulled out the race card.

You know Dr. Gates? You don't have to know him. You know the behavior. There was clearly a dispute between the officer and Dr. Gates as well as differing perspectives on what actually happened. The fact that Dr. Gates is indicating the "dispute" exclusively took place BECASUE he is black is the problem. Why does he think race had anything to do with it? Because the cop was white? That inherently is THE problem...that if/when two people of differeing races have a dispute, it's because they are of different races rather than simply, they don't agree. Why the dispute took place and why it escalated to this point is anyone's guess. But based on my experience with A) police offices and B) high ranking, well known, eldery professionals (in any field) the fact that it escalated to this level is not at all surprising.

The Lake...a lot of people not from Ohio, for some reason, don't understand that it's not just a lake, it's a great lake ;)

I am not against it. I am just not disappointed there isn't one in ODOT's plans as another poster stated. I don't see the lack of a pedestrian/bike path in ODOT's plan to be that much of a negative in this instance consdering the alternatives.

looks like it was a big success!

I don't think it's a bad idea - and that path on the bridge looks like a great concept. But how would one get across the potomic river on their bike or walking if that particular bridge wasn't there? probably have to go down river a few miles to the next bridge. In this case, there are no less than 5 alternate routes that don't increase your travel distance by more than 1/2 a mile, some of which go through some of the best, yet most underdeveloped, land in the city. It would seem to me those roads would benefit more from the foot traffic than a bridge over the valley. My point is simply I don't see the lack of a pedestrian/bike path in ODOT's plan to be that much of a negative in this instance.

I can ask the same questions in regard to cars; Why would someone want to drive on I-90 over the inner belt bridge when they can drive down Scranton or Columbus or W 3rd from Tremont to get downtown? Or that they can drive over Lorain or Detroit bridge? Where are people coming from that they would need a car lane on I-90? It's not like there aren't plenty of alternatives for drivers... If cars and trucks need the innerbelt bridge, why don't bikes and pedestrians? Because bikes and pedestrian don't get along well with cars on a freeway during rush hour. Or people aren't walking from Westlake to downtown. And I don't know of anyone who would prefer taking I-90 from Tremont to get downtown while driving a car as opposed to any of the side streets. The point is, I would never even consider riding my bike on I-90. If I am in Tremont and I want to get downtown on my bike, I have multiple viable options. And even if "biking down I-90" was one of them, I would choose another route that was safer and more enjoyable than immersing myself in rush hour traffic on an interstate bridge. When travelling between downtown and Tremont in my car I don't take I-90. I am not sure why anyone would want to ride their bike on that route either.

you make mention of this attached path in 2 posts. i think most people in the community would be happy with an attached 10' (or slightly wider) multi-use path attached to one of the sides of the project. but my understanding is that this is NOT in the plan. ODOT would prefer to make other improvements to biking infrastucture around this project, but not as part of the actual bridge. if you know otherwise, please post a reference. what many would like to see is a bridge built for the next 50 years. a bridge that doesn't accomodate bikes and pedestrians crossing a large valley that divides downtown from neighborhoods is unexcusable in my opinion - and i'm not talking about a striped bike lane at the side of the road, i'm talking about a separated bike and pedestrian crossing. other state DOTs are doing this as a matter of course, so it isn't really a new or unproven idea anymore. see here for a partial list: http://mobikefed.org/2006/05/bicycle-paths-on-interstate-freeway.php so, when i-84, i-95, i-278, i-279, i-295, i-90(chicago), i-80, i-680 and 20 others have bike accomodations on the new bridges, i expect that ODOT includes bike accomodations on i-90, right here in cleveland. Why would someone want to bike on I-90 over the inner belt bridge when they can bike down Scranton or Columbus or W 3rd from Tremont to get downtown? Or that they can bike over Lorain or Detroit bridge? Where are people coming from that they would need a bike lane on I-90? It's not like there aren't plenty of alternatves for bikers...

Tome una clase. Espanol es la lengua del futuro! Tu gente blanco necesitara aprenderlo mas pronto or adelante! he he he he As soon as I figured out what that last sentence said, I laughed. What's really sad is I reverted to replaying some old Cypress Hill lyrics in my head to piece together what some words meant...geez...

I think its due to Americans trying to learn, instead of absorbing a language. I think it's just a matter of how practical it is to use and maintain your skill set (i.e., knowledge of language). Imagine if people in Pennsylvania or Michigan spoke a completely different language...I bet people in Ohio would know how to communicate with their neighbors. That's effectively how it is in Europe. I used to know Spanish pretty well. My dad lived in Spain for a time and while we were in middle/high school taking Spanish classes, he used to make us speak Spanish at the dinner table. Between classes, home dinner conversations, and the occasional trip to Mexico, and I could get by pretty well in Spanish. Then I went to college, stop taking Spanish, and didn't have anyone to talk to in Spanish. So slowly I started to slip a little. When I went abroad my Junior year, I could still understand it well but my ability to speak had slipped. Today I can get out the basic phrases but that's about it. I'd like to pick it back up, but I have to make a conceited effort at it - take classes, find someone to converse with, etc. And with no need for it, other than "it's something I'd like to know" it's hard to motivate myself to make that effort.

I kinda have a problem with this statement, actually. So .. basically, only the popular opinion can be stated here? People can't differ in opinions? I'm hoping that's not what you're saying. No, that's not what I am saying. See analogy of being a Browns Fan at Heinz Field vs. being an Indians fan at PNC Park. The exact same behavior is going to be received differently in each instance based on the passion for the topic and volume of people who share the exact same view. It's not that you can't disagree, but you are more likely to offend someone simply by defending your point if the viewpoint is passionately shared by a large number of people because they are likely to have a larger emotional reaction than actually listening to what it is you are trying to say. I'm not making a judgement on it; I am simply stating the way I see it and trying to provide a perspective to the people who posed the question that may help them out. I'm sorry that was not clear in my original post, or even if I am still not being clear now. But I don't think this particular point needs to be belabored.

No rules can spell out articulately what you can and can't do on this forum. Like any community, there are rules that are socially enforced and are not as simple as "no loud noise after 11pm". Just like any social circles, there are certain topics/comments/perspectives that may be socially acceptable in one but not in another. The same is true here. It would be like dressing up in your Browns gear at a Steelers game in Pittsburgh and vociferously cheering for the Browns as they beat down the Steelers. Are you doing anything "wrong"? No. But you're gonna catch hell for it in that environment because Steeler fans have deemed your overt Browns support to be socially unacceptable. Basically, if you steer too far away from popular opinion, you're gonna hear about it. You just need to figure out what issues constitute a "limited contradiction" against the popular opinion. Like if you went to a Pirates game in your Indians gear during interleague play and went nuts for the Indians, you'll get away with it. But not at a Browns/Steelers game even though you're exhibiting the exact same behavior, in principle anyway. So aside from some pretty basic rules - liike no personal attacks - you need to just feel your way around a bit.

It was a thoughtful response, but it also reeked of someone living in Cleveland for so long that they've swallowed the kool-aid one too many times in regards to "well, there are legitimate reasons why this takes a long time". There are plenty of other urban redevelopment projects that have gone from 0 to completely built in 10 years and many other federal/state projects right here in Ohio that I have been a part of and witnessed completion in less time, including the purchase, planning, design, reconsturction of a marina, ferry dock, and airport...actually 2 airports. I've seen delays due to waiting out birth cycles for Bald Eagles to breed natuarally before building on land, extensive efforts to preserve Lake Erie Water Snakes (on the endageered species list), and even hold ups for marinas to pass fire codes (you know, that are built on and surrounded by water)...and yet the job got done in under 10 years. In Cleveland nothing has been done, and certainly nothing in 10 years, regarding our lakefront development. Why? Crappy leaders. I don't really understand how any reasonable person can make any argument against this. Find some public leaders motivated to get this done and it gets done. Period. Anything else is just an excuse.

This is one of the best ideas I have heard yet. Admittedly biased coming from a west bank resident, but still...the RTA is a business...the better it serves it's constituants...