Hts121

You might want to keep THURSDAY night open.

I will make it a point to get to one of these games. Glad to see they are back.

I think we will be alright. My Great Uncle, who is your typical pipe smoking old man longing for the 1950's, has been saying this Country is going to hell in a hand basket for the past 30 years. Still waiting....

Doesn't make me sweat bullets. This chart seems to reflect government reaction to recessiions. Pretty steady throughout the 1970's, then the recession hits at the end of Carter's term. It doubles during the Reagan and GH Bush administrations (30%-60%), continues to increase but then drastically decreases under Clinton, then goes on a steady climb after 9/11 with the wars and associated costs, and finally makes a monumental jump with the bailouts and stimulus bill under the last days of Bush and the start of the Obama administration. The problem I have with playing backseat driver on these issues is that the effects are speculative. Perhaps the dramatic increase under Reagan and GH Bush led to the proseperous times we had under Clinton. Maybe GW's and Obama's bailout/stimulus increase will do the same for the next administration. How bad off would we be right now if the banks had not been bailed out? Where would we be as a country if the New Deal had never been put in place by FDR & Co.? Would we have ever recovered from the great depression if those measures were not taken? Etc., etc., etc. No one knows, and since this is the road we chose to travel, no one will ever know.

I think that was the problem with the Hyatt - lack of bang for the buck. The foreclosure will wipe out obligations for development loans, the repayment of which probably demanded higher room rates. The hotel is nice, the location is great and the concept is sound. I would predict good things for this place in the future.

1. Pretty much anywhere in the Southeast - too much Nascar influence. You'd better be ready for a flow of traffic that goes 10-15 mpg above the speed limit. 2. I-95 in Northern Jersey - where you will find at least one a-hole weaving in and out of bumper to bumper traffic at 90 mph. 3. Philly - rude and aggressive... a bad combination. The traffic signals on the side of the road (as opposed to over the road) doesn't help.

But it won't feel like a home game with probably 60% of attendees cheering for sh!tsburgh! I agree though that Pitt's secondary has looked awful of late. I won't count us out, but I am not getting any hopes up.

In my mind there are a couple factors to consider. I would say that the school name on your college diploma matters much, much more for landing your first or second gig in the "real world." After that, your employment history and "network" will dictate your success in finding better jobs. You should also consider where you may want to settle down. For instance, a CSU degree (especially some of the grad schools) carry a lot of weight around these parts, but barely no weight nationally... On the other hand, I know some employers here that do not like to hire fresh CWRU grads, but CWRU's national reputation is quite good. So, when someone asks me if they should go to business or law school at either CWRU or CSU, I always ask where they want to go when they graduate. If they say they want to stay in Cleveland, I tell them to save the money and go to CSU... but if they want to go to NYC or Chicago (or wherever), I tell them that the expense of Case might be well worth it. Finally, you want to take a good look at the alumni system the school has. Really good alumni networks operate as safety nets for recent grads in tough economic times. Schools like Notre Dame and Duke, for example, have great networks and prominent alumni who will help you find a job or give you one. It seems as if the schools that have strong alumni interest in athletics, usually are able to keep tabs on their alumni and build up these networks.

Re the Browns' executive search I ran into Nick Caserio this weekend, who I knew from my HS days. Didn't dawn on me to ask him why he is here until later.

That is encouraging as those two groups sometimes are the most ardent opponents of gay marriage.... especially the religous wing of the AA community and the orthodox sector of the Jewish community. I know that when the domestic partnership issue was in front of Cleveland's city council, it was the AA council members who switched their vote to being against the measure after getting pressured by their constituents.

I don't have dental insurance, so I have to bargain shop. I went to several the past 10 years, before finally settling down with Bradley Cohen - http://www.yellowpages.com/info-5892369/Cohen-Bradley-E-DDS?from=qpibp-mi Very reasonably priced, can take you right away and does all the work himself, including making crowns in the office. The downside is he does not use hygenists for cleaning, etc. and accepts emergency appointments so you may be waiting in the chair for quite awhile. The distance for you (he is in South Euclid) may also be a problem.

Talk to me when Nashville "secures" their financing. As of now, they are several years behind us no matter what developer spin we are hearing through the media. They just picked a site and need money... lots and lots of it. We picked our site long ago and secured financing before that. If Nashville makes it through the sea of red tape they are about to encounter without delay, that would shock the hell out of me.

Here's a new one - I was listening to the Mike Trivisommo show the other day (don't ask why) and he took a caller who had a theory of why there is a push among liberals to legalize gay marriage. His theory, with which he was quite confident, was that the "true motivation" behind the movement is to de-populate the country.... you know.... since gay couples can't have kids. I suppose he thinks that if they are not allowed to marry each other, then the gay men and women would just go for the consolation prize by marrying the opposite sex and having lots of offspring. Can you imagine the awesome brain power that was on that phone line between the caller and Triv!

How is that different from the current arrangement?

You mean that there will be patios above the first floor awning on Euclid? EDIT: After thinking about it for a minute, I assume you were referring to patios that will be on the "Euclid side" of the building and not directly on Euclid itself.... probably facing east towards the CAC building?

Happy Turkey Day Ladies and Gentlemen.... and the rest of the UO forumers!

I can tell you that, with the Casino going up, I am more inclined to support the site behind TC if a switch-a-roo is in order. However, I do not foresee that happening at all as we would likely run into even bigger cost-overruns with the engineering nightmare that would ensue while trying to create a suitable foundation.... remember the whole "straightening the river" talk?

In that school system, the land alone (4 acres) should fetch a couple hundred thousand.

??? Are you serious? Aside from the atrocious grammar used in his letter (did the legal department review this first?) look at this gem, "The city of Cleveland will gladly retain public auditorium and make the necessary repairs". Is he serious? $60, 000,000.00 in repairs? remove, repair and reinstall facade? $6,000,000.00 per year in operating expenses? If he is bluffing, who does he think he is fooling? The commissioners are out of this. Their political careers are over. Not one of them could be elected dog catcher at this point. Jackson is now carrying our water and MMPI will run circles around him. If I had to guess, the letter was written by Mark Krantz not Jackson or anybody in the law department. And don't underestimate the calculations which went into the language used. For instance, the City's commitments to make the "necessary" repairs does not automatically equate to a $60 million expenditure... unless, that is, the City agrees that all the deficiencies MMPI identified qualify as "necessary" repairs, which I doubt it does. The City will make it a "safe" building.... nothing more.

^If the Planning Commission considers the term "feasible" to be synonymous with "possible"... I like that answer. However, if in this context it is considered more synonymous with "reasonable" then I do not like the response. Reasonability is too subjective, whereas what is and what is not "possible" has objective limits.

I second the Shedd Aquarium recommendation. Truly a great, great aquarium and a must see on any tourist trip to Chicago.

Two comments I will make on this: 1) It is not as simple as tearing down a vacant building. The bigger task would be the move. You have to keep in mind the record keeping that goes on (or at least is required by law to occur) at that building. Between the Recorder's Office and the Auditor's Office, they can't simply stuff the paperwork in a box and walk it down the street. Further, in addition to the pure manpower cost of moving the tangible items, it would be an added expense for the County to move out of a building that it owns and into a space it would have to rent. I don't know that the County has the money to do it. 2) I would hate to see the smirk on the 113 and Sportsman owners faces if that was the final decision. They get just what they want - a gleaming new building right next door, a renovated CC accross the road and private interests banging on their door looking to develop their properties into a hotel or some other spin off.

Which building is this? The two story building on the southeast corner of prospect and E 2nd?

dont feel bad, my sock, shirt, under drawers are all arranged by color and so are my shoes. Ummm... there is a difference between being anal and having OCD ;)

That argument has some real merit to it. MMPI would, in all likelihood, not be entitled to the sovereign immunity which shields to political subdivisions of this State. Cleveland is pissed because MMPI, by notifying the City and the public of the conditions, just severely damaged the shield which Cleveland did have with regard to PH and any dangerous, latent defects with that property. In other words, MMPI opened a big can of worms for the city, Correct? Well, yeah. The City is shielded if it is a simple case of negligence - i.e. not taking care of the building or not properly inspecting for dangerous conditions. But if they were notified of dangerous conditions, did nothing to correct the defects, and put the public in danger anyways... that is a different story and the analysis starts to tip away from negligence and more towards recklessness and/or malice. This is a big problem for the City from a legal standpoint and I am sure they are hearing from their insurance company (if they have one) about this.