Hts121

If they try to sell it as a benefit to Gilbert and the casino, it won't stand a chance. If they try to sell it as beneficial to the navigation channel and industry along the river, it has a very small chance.... but a chance nonetheless.

^Perhaps you two missed RTA's board vote from last week on fare jumpers?

I agree that Voinovich's motives are probably better than most would assume. But he has to know that this has absolutely ZERO chance and would be bad policy even if it did have a chance. The minute Congress passes any such legislation, 49 other states would approach with their hand out for an extra $400 million from the Feds to fix their roads and bridges, including those states that already have been awarded passenger rail funds.

Windhorst gave a REALLY good interview on the Really Big Show (WKNR 850) this morning if anybody is interested in finding a podcast and listening.

Well... it said $1100 this morning. But the $30,000 figure makes more sense.

Thanks for posting that, KJP. Very informative.... albeit hardly surprising. Step your game up, gottaplan. You're working twice as hard defending Kasich's cronyism over at cleveland.bomb ;)

Yes, we do have some momentum.... but let's not lose sight of the fact that we simply did not have as far to fall as some of the 'boom' cities.

True, but it was an institution for so many years....and for once I wish that before we demolished a building, we'd have a shovel ready project ready to take its place...and not have some scenario like the oceans of pavement west of Public Square that has been like that for soooo long. The "oceans of pavement" were created for a specific purpose, not because we did not have something shovel ready to take their place. We, on this forum, don't agree with that purpose... but you can't deny there was one. I also think you are thinking too far ahead at this point. The owners don't even have permission to demolish the building yet.... and I don't believe that whether or not there is a shovel ready project is a factor the appropriate governing body can/should consider when deciding whether a building is eligible for demolition.

It wasn't the "flippancy".... it was the "signature issue" comment that made it so toxic to anyone who hopes to survive in the present day GOP.

You can also search for estate sales. But, yes, craigslist and goodwill are good bets.

Sure.... and anyone who has dealt with Cleveland RTA would say it is a part of that too ;)

Darling, you're confusing me with Avogadro. Calling me Mexican is only slightly better than calling me a Platano. I'm an American citizen, just like both of my parents! Okay by me, Rita Moreno. I (and others) read and contribute to these forums for the information, not for watching forumers get chippy with one another. EDIT: Sarcasm ("chippiness") DEFINITELY inteded

<- See avatar

Read the rest of my post. It was not a typo. As I said, if there is a revenue surplus (big "if"), that money should go towards improving the service, not padding the trust funds of some CEO's children.

The part about two or three minimum-wage jobs certainly was. If I said the same about your school district, there would be plenty of squawking on this board, and don't act like that's not true. I still think you are misinterpreting it. I am sure there are some CMSD parent, and some in my school district as well, who work more than one minimum wage job. Further, I don't find that to be an insult. Sounds like some hard working folks to me, doing whatever is necessary to support their family.

^The stated rationale is not... well.... rational. Demolish the building because the $1100 annual tax bill is too heavy a burden? How much will it cost to demolish? I would bet a good bit more than 10 years worth of tax payments.

It wasn't stereotyping. You simply misread his post. Are you trying to say that "each" Cleveland school parent has a computer and only works one job? I think it is a safe bet to answer that question in the negative.

If there is one thing Kasich has said on this issue that I agree with, it's that if a private line would be profitable, absent subsidy, then the private market would have built one. I just believe that rail done right should not operate at a profit. Any and all surpluses should go towards enhancing the service, which can be accomplished in a number of ways. It's an infrastructure, not a business.

Sure. As long as you can find a private company willing to lose an estimated $17 million a year. My guess is you won't have much luck.

Also, the school district as a whole is in a better bargaining position with RTA than one kid's parents. It also would not surprise me if the school district itself had a "need-based" program that issues at least some of the monthly passes for free.

Too bad we can't do it all over again. At least then we would be discussing something other than colored bubbles.

Best wishes, rnr.

From the way you describe it, I can't help but picutre a lesbian version of "The Blue Oyster" from Police Academy -

How near to West 110th?

I just want to get rid of the 'too big to fail' category altogether. But, how much did TARP really add to the debt? I understand the principled argument. However, my understanding is that most of that money has been paid back.