Hts121

I don't like the selection at Sears, Walmart, Toys'R'Us, etc. Stick with the bike shops. I really like my Raleigh Misceo, which falls into your price range (when on sale, which it always is) and other general parameters. I like my tires a bit thicker than 28 and prefer the flat bars as well (although I add handlebar extenders and an adjustable stem to give me more flexibility). One thing about the Misceo, however, is that the 'geometry' is a bit long on it. I was disappointed at first. It is surprising how much just an inch or two can make a difference in the "fit" of the bike. But that is where the adjustable stem comes in handy. Unless you consider yourself a seasoned vet at bike buying, you really should be fitted by a pro. I would hesitate to buy online or any of the stores that don't specialize in bikes. Bike shops usually offer a free tune up in the first year, which you need to do after breaking the bike in, so any price increase might be negligible. Another good fit for what you are looking for might be the Jamis Coda Sport. Solon Bicycle (on 91), Cycle Sport & Fitness (on Taylor Rd), and the shop on Van Aiken (can't think of the name) all have decent selections. B&B and Performance Bike seem more expensive. Cain Park Bicycle sometimes has good deals on used bikes, but it is hit-or-miss going in there.

OK..... enough is enough! Who put you up to this?!? DanB? [sarcasm]

^At first glance, I like them better than the townhomes on Edgehill just over the border (or at least I think they are on the Cleveland side of the border).

We initially started with Highland Heights and Mayfield. They are both decent areas but I don't think you can say they are just as good as Westlake. Perhaps they are more like Avon. Highland Heights has the Aberdeen area and Mayfield has some newer construction. But we have lived on the East side for many years now and want to move to the West side. It seems livelier on the west side, you see more people walking around, running, soccer games around the Crocker park area. I would say the community seems more active there. The housing options are a lot more there too. We are looking for a house built post 2000. To each his own. Good luck. But I couldn't disagree more about the "liveliness" aspect. I have been traveling to Westlake and that general area a lot more this past year and I always wonder (outside of Crocker Park) where all the people hide during the day. Mayfield and HH are absolutely at least on par with Westlake....... and I would bet the city services are superior. Of course, Westlake has them both beat in the McMansion department. **There's a sprawly suburban development called Chagrin Falls in Solon? (double face palm) ***Given the type of house/neighborhood you are looking for, have you considered some of the south side areas? Broadview Heights and Brecksville come to mind. If I was looking for what you are eyeing, I would also consider Medina County. I'd bet you can get the most bang for your buck out there and I actually like downtown Medina.

^^I think there is a gray area when you are "giving away" beer at a business establishment. It sounds like the police stopped by, probably in response to a complaint, and told him not to accept tips for the beer. Then the state unit showed up an hour later. Despite the insinuations otherwise, let's not pretend this state unit would be out there solving murders and stopping robberies if they were not engaged in this raid. That's the type of knee-jerk commentary reaction which really distracts from the issues. Apparently, like I suspected, some neighbors called the police. It seems like this type of event is becoming more and more common in OC and Tremont and not everybody (for whatever grumpy-pants reason) is very fond of the scene.

To give any advice, you would probably need to advise why you want to leave Beachwood and head to the "other side." Westlake (at least the Crocker Park area) is a 35 minute or so trip from the area where you are working (although I am not sure how you get "between Euclid and Noble Rd" since they run perpendicular). Have you considered Mayfield Village or maybe Highland Heights. Those are, IMO, comparable communities to Westlake on the East Side and you could get a really nice house for $350K. In that price range, you might even be able to nab a deal in Gates Mills if you don't mind your house having some age/character. Highland Heights is consistently rated as a top tier suburb. Mayfield Village has Progressive HQ'd there and that helps out a lot in terms of city services and community events. But I don't see a lot of difference between them and Beachwood...... maybe slightly better housing stock, or at least a more diverse stock. Both school systems (Mayfield and Beachwood) are probably rated higher than Westlake and Avon.

^Right..... PMQ :) Draft week mocks tend to return to some level of sanity and start to calm back down to where they were pre-combine. At this time, I actually like to look back at mock drafts from before the start of the season or at least before all the hype started. The safest first round picks are going to be the guys who were projected as such at the end of last season and at the end of this season. One guy who falls into that category who I would be more than happy with the Browns taking with their second 1st rounder is Marquise Lee (WR, USC). He was generally considered ahead of Sammy Watkins before injury problems this past year. Bradley Roby (CB, OSU) is another guy who might be dropping well below his true value (remember, OSU has a long history of producing very good CBs - Winfield, Gamble, Plummer, Clements, Springs, etc.).

Draft week is when I like to tune out all the "buzz" and "hot rumors" which are rarely correct and more often than not smokescreens.... but do generate a lot of business for the media. Forget about the hype. Just take an objective look at things and I think this year's draft is not all that hard to figure out for the Browns. They are at #4. There is a largely undisputed consensus, and has been for some time, that there are 4-5 'can't miss' top-tier prospects in this draft. Clowney, Mack, Watkins, Robinson, and (depending on who you ask) Matthews. If we stay at #4, we take one of those guys. I think everyone has Clowney on top, no matter what they say. I myself would rate them exactly in the above order. The Browns could probably be enticed to trade back a few spots with Atlanta or Tampa Bay, but I would demand a King's ransom because you are passing up the opportunity to take one of those 5. Are you forgetting the PQ signing? I would at least hesitate to call him atrocious until we see him play with our unit. We also don't know whether he will play G with Schwartz staying at RT, or whether he will play RT, with Schwartz moving to G. The competition between Pinkston and Greco should also be healthy.

My bet is one of the neighboring watering holes reported him...

^There is no rule that you are limited to one sin tax, or one type of sin tax, or that any given sin tax is capped at a certain level. Propose whatever sin tax you want, going to whatever end. Voters can decide on a case by case basis. Of course, lofty sounding goals such as "public health, education, and infrastructure" are already funded through tax dollars and, frankly, taking this money and putting it into any of those categories would be helpful, but not much more than a tic-tac is to a whale. We've had decades. It's not like this same debate did not take place when the original sin tax was passed. This is what the voters chose as the preferred method. Nobody...... again, NOBODY..... would assert it is the ONLY way. Rather, it is the preferred way. We had the debate then and we're having it now. At any time during the tenure of the sin tax, any opponent could have proposed alternatives, including potential replacements during the first 20 years. If you are still not happy next year, you can propose a change, or the year after that, or the year after that. All the sin tax does is secure the funding. It doesn't lock it in a way that the voters can't change their minds. In fact, you might find a lot less resistance from City Hall and the other powers that be if you were to propose an alternative during the life of the tax instead of lobbying to compel an alternative by putting their backs against a wall.

The bottom line, IMO, is that ticket prices have plenty of room to rise and attendance has much more to do with the quality of the product on the field than the ticket price. Clevelanders would pay a premium to fill that stadium every week if the Browns were a perennial playoff team. Even with their middle of the road status on price point and below average performance on the court, Cavs fans still turn out better than most other arenas around the NBA. Baseball has some unrelated headwinds for a market like ours which has reached a frustration boiling point...... but I'm sure if you put the 1990's Indians back out on the field, the park would fill back up regardless of whether ticket prices were raised.

Just a minute there, Professor. I agree that it would have little impact on attendance. Exactly what I was asserting. What we were debating is whether levying the additional facility fee (which is not a raise in ticket prices, technically speaking) would cause those "greedy, billionaire owners" to come back to the table and renegotiate their leases. Putting aside the naivete of such an assumption, the only way you could make that argument is if the facilities fee was indeed going to affect their bottom line by causing a drop in attendance.

I'm fairly certain that Gateway is just a non-profit formed by the County to do what the County would otherwise be obligated to do. I think the City has some cost-sharing obligations, but ultimately it is a County complex Here's some data on ticket price comparisons: Indians are fourth cheapest - http://www.kshb.com/sports/baseball/mlb-average-ticket-price-fan-cost-index-for-all-30-baseball-teams Cavs are middle of the pack - http://www.businessinsider.com/average-ticket-prices-for-all-30-teams-in-the-nba-sports-chart-of-the-day-2013-2 Browns are dead last - http://blog.tiqiq.com/2013/08/2013-nfl-tickets-team-team-average-prices/ I am not sure inhibiting future ticket price increases is the best thing for our standing as a professional sports city.

I just see a difference, in terms of fan reaction and ticket sales, between the owners raising ticket prices and the public imposing a facilities fee that would be added onto, not incorporated into, the ticket price. I just can't imagine saying - "man, I was going to buy that $100 ticket to go to the Browns game, not to mention the addition $20-$50 on food/beverages, but not if I have to pay that extra $3 facility fee." The fans won't fault or punish the owners for a facilities fee and ticket sales won't drop. When you compare how much a ticket is to a Browns game, you are going to compare the $100 ticket, not the added expenses/fees.

^Idk about the Indians and Cavs, but I believe the Browns are already near the bottom of the barrel in ticket prices. Of course, ticket prices are just one part of the equation in factoring the total cost of attending a game. I suspect profits are maximized through those other costs. I'd be shocked if a facilities fees caused an equalizing drop in the face value of the ticket. Nor do I think a facilities fee would deter any plans to increase ticket prices. The ticket price would still be advertised and compared with those of other cities' sports venues based on its face value prior to taxes or added fees. That is all the owners care about.

I agree on the cost of beer, but not cigarettes. The price per pack would drop given how many stores seek to sell them at minimum allowable prices to drive traffic. Gas, lottery tickets and cigarettes are all priced to pull the customer into the store, not to make a profit. I'm not sure about liquor. You certainly won't see a drop in the price of a shot at your local watering hole, but there might be a decrease at the state run liquor stores. It also seems to me that liquor is taxed disproportionately higher than the other two under the current sin tax model

Those townhomes are going to have great views of the lake and the downtown skyline

^^^

^The owners are going to pay the facilities fee?

This is one area where either I am misinformed or the opposition is just talking out of their arses. Dealing with negotiations regularly, I have no idea how you come to this conclusion. Those "billionaire owners" the opponents' talking points like to highlight have no more incentive to "go back to the table on the leases" based on the outcome of this vote. If anything, a defeat of Issue 7 will have the EXACT OPPOSITE effect by compelling the owners to dig their feet in on the favorable leases they already have and give us LESS negotiating power when the leases are set to expire.

^But the stadiums are publicly owned, no? Do we not customarily use tax money to maintain publicly owned facilities? The leases are a separate issue. I would be all for more favorable leases..... at least leases which are comparable to what other major cities (to be clear, I don't know that the Gateway lease is particularly bad...... but I know the CBS lease is awful)

Either I really don't understand the issues or the opponents of Issue 7 are utterly confused or purposefully misleading. The more this ramps up, the more apparent it is to me. Of course, there always is the possibility (if not likely) that it is a combination of all three.

So Cumberland is a Dick Pace company. What about High Street? SOS papers filed in February lead back to Dallas.

^The local LA chapter of the NAACP, to whom Sterling had given large donations in efforts to repair his image. As with many large 'charitable' donations, strings were attached. Think about Rockefeller and the Ludlow Massacre. The NAACP is becoming increasingly irrelevant, despite the constant paranoia from some about its secret involvement in a massive conspiracy to undermine the rights and freedoms of Real Americans. As it becomes more and more irrelevant, it will become more and more desperate for money.

The reason I say it is a slippery slope is because this was a private conversation, most likely illegally recorded and disbursed. If Sterling had made the same comments publicly, it would be a no brainer. I think Sterling's apparent lack of remorse made it a no brainer for Silver. And, yes, this seems to be an opportunity the entire NBA community welcomed given his past track record. However, I would bet you could liquor up more than a few sports team owners and get them to say some pretty ridiculous stuff behind closed doors amongst their inner circle / family. The slippery slope is concerning..... not as to what the NBA "can" do, but what it "should" do. It can do whatever its own laws say it can do, absent some violation of an overriding public law. The totality of the circumstances here were alarming because Sterling was talking to his mistress, who (at least claims) to be half black and half Mexican. The context of what he was talking about (i.e. who she can and can't bring to "his" games and his comments about what he "gives" to his players) certainly inflamed the situation. But I can foresee a blurry line. What if Jimmy Haslam made some racially insensitive comments in a recorded conversation between him and his dad? How about Dan Gilbert making similar comments at the thanksgiving table with his family and Nick records it?