Hts121

You are the only person between the two of us who lives in the CH-UH school district :P Sucks to be you.... I guess. But I think you underestimate UH's ability to have its own school system. You couldn't affort it. It is too small a city. You could go ahead and give it a go. Maybe Taylor Academy can be your new HS? My alma mater stays with CH. And, oh yeah, like I said, Beachwood wouldn't have you :) You could try SE-L.... but I'm not sure it has the right...ummmmm.....demographics you are looking for.

If true, it will be a tough interview now.

I think his connection has been a little overblown. He appeared one time on a CNN HL program.... and I suspect he won't be appearing again. At least that is what I infer from the response I got from a regular on CNN.

I guess that answers the question of the purpose of the steel in MayDay's pic

^Who doesn't? BTW, I sent your Daily Kos post to another CNN legal consultant and on-air personality I happen to know.

A better poll would have been: (a) the casino developers should be allowed to demolish the Columbia building to provide convenient parking options (b) the casino developers should not be allowed to demolish the Columbia building to provide convenient parking options © the casino developers should be made to sufficiently demonstrate there are no other viable alternatives to convenient parking options and, only then, be allowed to demolish the Columbia building I would have voted ©

That Cleveland.com poll will not turn out good.

Caffeine is hardly enough. But at least I don't have to deal with the Bankruptcy Code. :sleep:

JJ40, it is pointless to argue the CH points with Clevelander17. Don't waste the energy. His opinions are.... well.... based on something you cannot change. You know.... demographics. Personally, I wish UH would just go ahead and create its own school district. That way CH can feel free to instill its uber-liberal policies and indoctrinate the children to all be gang-bangers and rapists. Looks like I forgot to post my post on this yesterday ... or it got deleted(?) ... going to chalk it up to amnesia, since I don't think I said anything particularly vitriolic. ("Enervating" might come closer.) Actually, you can annex a city, or merge two cities. The process for one municipal corporation annexing another outright is set forth in R.C. 709.22 to 709.34. The process for two or more municipal corporations (along with additional possible unincorporated territory) merging is set forth in R.C. 709.43 to 709.48. The final decision is generally (not always) made by concurrent majority vote, meaning you have to get a majority affirmative vote in each municipal corporation or territory proposed to be annexed/merged. That's obviously a bit higher of a hurdle to clear than the petition-and-approval process for annexing contiguous unincorporated land, but it can be done. In theory. (I have no idea when the last time it actually happened was, though I think it might actually have been used for the merger of Pataskala and Lima Township several years ago.) I think you misunderstood the context of my post. Trust me, I know Title 7 a little too well for my liking. What I was tyring to get accross is that Cleveland can't just unilaterally choose to annex a Cleveland Heights the way Columbus just did with the land for the casino. CH residents would have the right of refusal.

There seems to be some conflicting reports about the due diligence performed. You can infer from the GCBL article that practically zero diligence was done on alternative plans. But the PD article's direct quote from Commissioner Brown says that "hundreds of hours" were spent exploring other alternatives. Someone is obviously lying. FWIW, I emailed Donald Petit this morning in support of saving the Columbia and I got a "read receipt" within 5 minutes.

W 10th is technically in the WHD, no?

That's an understatement. I'm pretty sure he would agree.

How could a UH-CH merger of fire department hurt UH? You could eliminate one Fire Chief job. You could eliminate one Fire inspector, several administrative employees and dispatchers. All told, you could probably easily save a million dollars between the two operating budgets. And I hope you don't think that the cost sharing is equal in these mergers. It is proportional.... depending on how it is crafted, it could be based on population or based on alarms.

No thanks, I'm just fine with looking at a merger between UH and SH. Maybe bring in Beachwood, but beyond that (save maybe Lyndhurst if Beachwood were to come on board), I'll pass. But I would heartily encourage Cleveland Heights to start talks with East Cleveland, South Euclid, and Euclid if they feel that's what's right for them. Pfft... Beachwood wouldn't have you... Anyone ever find themselves wondering why regionalism will never work in this metro, please refer to the above.

I don't think Dan Gilbert has any interest in seeing rotting buildings anywhere near his shiny new casino(s)

I don't disagree with the report's premise about oversupply of S-F homes. Thing is, that very few single family homes are being built in the City (or even the inner ring) and the City has absolutely ZERO control over what is being built in Solon or Auburn Township or Medina County. None. Those homes are being built because developers are (or were) making money by building them on private land and on their private dime. Simple as that. What you need to consider is what the City CAN do. It CAN lay the seeds for a dramatic and arguably unprecedented transformation of a stretch like Midtown. It CAN entice tech centers and other not ideal (in your mind) developments which will lay those seeds. It CAN focus its efforts on the areas of UC and Downtown that have some incredible momentum, hoping that this momentum builds towards the Midtown section. It MUST be reasonable in those dealings and carefully strike a balance between ideal and practical so that the developers don't say "piss off" and walk away. The more progress that is made, the more leverage the City will have in dealing with potential developers. As of now, it has very little. The first seed was the BRT and the beautification of the streetscape. The next seeds will be developing the land into something that does not look so empty and desolate, and expanding the reach of downtown and UC along the corridor. Once that is done, THEN we will be in business to start discussing the high-density infill you are craving.

Thanks guys. It still seems slower than it was a decade or two ago. Typical west-sider ;)

Oh.... I wasn't suggesting something sunny. I was thinking more along the lines of "All is Lost" or "The Sky is Falling" or "Turn the Lights Out When You Leave". Something to forewarn people of the slant.

It's screaming for an owner who is willing to take that gamble...

You can't annex a city. I am pretty sure that you can only annex unincorporated land like Townships and certain Villages. The voters of those cities would have to repeal their charters and approve of the annexation for it to happen. EC might, but Cleveland would not take EC unless it came as a package with other communities..... perhaps Euclid? Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights will never agree. That is the sad part. At best, and this is still a long shot.... Cleveland might be able to convince EC, Euclid, and some of the cities adjoining the industrial valley (such as Garfield Heights). The really valuable communities that would really add to the prestige of the City (Bratenahl, Lakewood, CH, SH, etc), are so far out of sight it is hardly worth discussing.

Right. Thanks for mobilizing some of the least reliable sectors :laugh: You seem to have missed the point of why this was crammed/jammed/bammed/rammed/whammed down our throats so quickly. If Kasich & crew did not get the legislation signed by April, then the referendum would have went on the 2012 ballot and the RNC wanted NO part of that.

^^^And then there are those who allow their conscience to come into the equation at the voting booth, and take into account considerations beyond their own or their family's financial interest. Believe it or not, the repeal of SB5 is distinctly against MY personal financial interest.... moreso than most every person in this state. SB5 has the potential to make me a lot of money given what I do for a living. I will still vote to repeal it because that is the right thing to do. The polling, BTW, which show overwhelming support for repeal, is hardly limited to union members and their family. The "stick it in the craw" attitude towards our dedicated civil servants is indeed a distinct minority mostly representated by the die-hard conservatives who would get behind Kasich no matter what direction he wanted to take this state in. Mostly, as you put it, elderly white rich rural folk.

No developer is going to buy a lot on the Corridor to build a single family section 8 home. Once again.... realities must be taken into account. But another tower like the one on Chester and 55th might be quite profitable. And I'm not saying that the code is perfect. Far from it. But the changes you desire are not going to magically change the market demand. Not one bit.

I don't know much about the UC incident, but I do know that zoning for single-family is often done not with the specific intent of precluding multi-family development, but rather to leave the zoning board with discretion on variance approval for specific multi-family projects. For instance, suppose that lot is already zoned for multi-family, a private developer purchases it, and then starts building Section 8 housing because he/she knows that is a steady, sure-fire stream of income. Try and stop it under current market conditions and the City could end up facing litigation in federal court. This is just one potential consideration which make up the multiple complexities these governing bodies have to consider.