Hts121

Agreed that there was no "judicially recognized" constitutional right at play. Some will argue otherwise (e.g. Grendell) but both the Ohio Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court have ruled in previous cases that their is no individual right to choose where to live AND demand employment at the same time. As to the state's power to pass legislation that trumps local law in this state - yes, it absolutely does have that power under the Ohio Constitution, which was ratified BY THE PEOPLE of this state. If the people don't like it, I hear all it takes to amend the constitution in the state of Ohio is a simple majority (see Gay marriage ban). Take it to the voting booths and grant the cities unfettered control of law within their cities. The decision issued today is LEGALLY correct. Whether the legislation at issue was POLITICALLY correct is another question not capable of judicial review. B!tch at Grendell and his allies all you want, but spare the Supreme Court justices who knew the decision would be unpopular to many but did the right thing nonetheless.

I agree and disagree with many of the points already made. Here's what I will add: I lived in NC for 7 years and really did not hear that much, good or bad, when I told people where I was from. It was when I moved back that people here constantly questioned my choice - "why in the world did you come back" comments were common. I do believe there is too much in-fighting between the 3 major cities and that creates a problem. People from Cleveland sometimes view Cincinnati as middle-america boring, appalachia, whatever you want to call it, and that C-Bus is irrelevant outside of being the state capital and home of the Buckeyes. Many people from Cincy and C-Bus think Cleveland is nothing but ghettos and abandoned factories - just another Detroit. Everybody rags on Dayton, Youngstown and Toledo. Ohioans will unite to take on outside criticism. But here is the problem as I see it. We will only unite if the criticism is lobbied at Ohio as a whole. If someone from another state picks on Cleveland, Cincinatti will not come to its aid. Rather, they will either join in or say nothing at all. In fact, I think some from C-Bus and Cincy actually get a kick out of outsiders making derogatory comments about Cleveland and vice versa (including a lot of forumers here). There is simply too much competition between the cities. We need to embrace that we are one of four states with 3 metro areas in the top 40 - Florida, Texas and California being the others. We need to encourage each other's growth and prosperity, not wish against it.

In most circumstances, you are correct. Here, however, we are dealing with a law that was enacted under Art. II, Sec. 34, which empowers the General Assembly to pass laws "providing for the comfort, health, safety and general welfare of all employees" and FURTHER provides "no other provision of the constitution shall impair or limit this power." The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that, due to the latter provision, the Home Rule Amendment to the Constituion can not impair or limit the GA's power to enact such laws. Therefore, so long as the law was "properly" enacted under Art. II, Sec. 34, home rule analysis is irrelevant because any conflicting local ordinances are automitically invalidated. Some time ago, the cities made the argument in another case (Rocky River) that the language "all employees" does not include municipal employees. That proposition was rejected because municipal employees are one of the largest, if not the largest, identifiable group of employees in this state. The cities realized their limitation in prosecuting this particular case given past precedent and that is why the issue was not whether the law in question could pass home-rule analysis, but rather whether such a law (prohibiting residency requirements) is the type of employment regulation contemplated by the powers invested in the GA by Art. II, Sec. 34. Only if the first question is answered in the negative, do we turn to home rule analysis. Certain Appellate Courts held that the constitution's "broad grant of authority" to the GA only applied to "conditions of employment" and not "conditions for employment." However, the flaw in that argument was that residency requirements, while possibly a condition "for" employment at the outset, certainly becomes a condition of continuing employment once hired. Cleveland's residency requirement, for example, did not even require residency at the time of hiring, but only 6 months after the date of hire. I am interested to see whether this mass exodus the doom and gloomers at City Hall have predicted will actually occur. Call me a glass half full kind of guy, but I believe the long-term effects of this decision will be positive. The City's job applicant pool should be dramatically increased and employee morale will go up. The employee hostitlity towards the city will hopefully diminish. Cleveland and other cities are not without recourse though. I do not see anything wrong with providing incentives for city workers to live within the city. Civil service exam bonus points can be granted for city residents. Hell, this law only applies to "employees", so what's wrong with requiring that all "applicants" be city residents.

So should we disband/dissolve the State Employment Relations Board? Can Cities decide whether or not they will collectively bargain with their employees? How about the regulation of pension funds? None of those issues have anything to do with regulating work as it is performed. Fact is, the majority in this opinion opened no pandora's box that was not left wide open, and arguably intentionally so, by the delegates of the 1912 Constitutional Convention and acknowledged by past Supreme Court decisions.

The whole question of "statewide concern" is irrelevant. That is a term used in home-rule analysis. Home-rule analysis is not applied to laws properly enacted under Art. II, Sec. 34. ALL laws properly enacted under Art. II, Sec. 34 override local ordinances. There is no test as is applied in other cases involving conflicting state and local laws, such as traffic cameras, concealed carry, etc.

Three Cent Fare: Your beef is with the General Assembly, not the Supreme Court. The political questions involved in this case were debated and resolved by that body several years back. The Supreme Court's review was limited to whether the prohibition on residency requirements is a valid exercise of the State's power under Art. II, Sec. 34. The Court is not permitted to weigh the "wisdom" of the legislation, just its constitutionality. As to the first part of your post though, there is considerable debate as to the scope of Art II, Sec. 34. The Appellate District accross the state had no consensus on this particular issue. Your reasoning mirrors that which was first announced in the 3rd District and, subsequently, followed in the 9th and 8th. I tend to disagree with the argument that the State's power to regulate employment is limited to "working conditions." The key language here is "general welfare" - defined by courts as "comfort, safety, peace of mind." If the delegates at the 1912 constitutional convention intended the provision to mirror the driving force of the Lockner Era (regulation of working conditions - hours, wages, safety) they should not have made the language so broad. As it is, the State's power to regulate Collective Bargaining, Pension Funds and now Residency Requirements have all been upheld under the General Welfare clause. In this case, it was a clear matter of stare decisis. Not saying I agree with the political wisdom of the legislation. I just prefer that the Court not act as a super legislature. Subjective fairness is not the determiner of constitutionality.

Not Cleveland... the metro area, yes. But not the City proper. Although I do believe that Cleveland has some ownership interest in the land, correct?

If advocates for residency requirement are correct, West Park will be a barren ghetto in a couple weeks. http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-2597.pdf

Hate to sound prophetic, but........

There is some debate as to whether the deal would be 10 mill per or 10 mill total. Don't write off the possibility of a sign and trade if it is the former with some pre-arranged buyout with Ben involved. Doubt it... but don't write it off. Ferry might not like his options at this point and, at the very least, signing Sheed lessens the bargaining power of AV this summer.

IMO, I might be OK with the Sheed rental, but a HELL NO on the Randolph talk. http://www.slamonline.com/online/nba/2009/06/rasheed-to-the-cavs/ June 4, 2009 2:29 pm | 83 Comments Rasheed to the Cavs? by J. Gamble My sources say that Rasheed Wallace and the Cavs are beginning talks on a two-year deal worth about $10 million per for the services of the former Piston.

Shedd Aquarium is really nice. I highly recommend it. Can't go wrong with a stroll on Michigan Ave. or Navy Pier.

You might find exactly what you're looking for downtown, but 3231 is right. You might find as much or more hustle & bustle in some of the city neighborhoods. Ohio City and Tremont are two such neighborhoods. University Circle and Little Italy (near the Cleveland Clinic and University Hospitals) are vibrant neighborhoods, as is Shaker Square. Two inner-ring suburbs are worth considering too -- Lakewood and Cleveland Heights. They are as urban as any Cleveland neighborhood. Thanks so much for the suggestions guys! I had not considered Cleveland Heights or Tremont, I was hoping you might be able to give me some names of apartment complexes comparable to Residences on 668 or Prospect place in those areas as well? The two areas in Cleveland Hts I would recommend checking out are Coventry and Cedar-Fairmount. Coventry is a trendy strip of retail, restaraunts and nightlife that is very popular with the younger crowd and surrounded by smaller apartment buildings. It is also just up the hill from the hospitals.... just be sure to stay on or south of Mayfield Rd. The apartments tend to be very spacious and very old. A lot of the units have large front porches. You could probably get a nice two bedroom in your price range. Cedar-Fairmount is not as dense, but has a nice atmosphere and is conveniently located near a lot of other vibrant areas - Coventry, Shaker Square, University Circle, Lee Road. There are some apartment buildings (Alcazar?) but multi-unit houses are also popular in this neighborhood. One other spot you may want to look at is Park Lane Villa in University Circle. Beautiful building recently renovated. Might be out of $ range though. Also, it is more in a cultural center (museams, universities, etc) than the hussle and bussle you are looking for.

1030 and 1110 Euclid. South side of the Avenue just beyond the Trust Rotunda.

I don't disagree that a stigma will accompany the construction of a new mental health hospital. However, considering its placement, I think the effect on MidTown as a whole will be minimized. If the Midtown people and the private developers involved are smart, they should be planning to build towards the center, not out from it. Meaning, I would hope that they would be focusing on those parts of Midtown closest to UC and the CBD before holding out any far-fetched hopes for a gentrification of the area around 55th. IMHO, that area would only become attractive to residential/retail developers when the areas just east of CSU (including Payne Avenue and Chester) and just west of the Clinic are no longer available/affordable. And by that time, the hospital should be in full operation and hopefully will have proven any stigma as unwarranted. I do not think that the presence of such a hospital (besides using the land) will have much effect on the creation of industrial parks / tech centers in that part of town. I only see it providing a temporary detterence for residential and retail in the immediate vicinity of 55th, which, with or without the hospital I don't see happening for quite some time.

I hear the City has a stake in a nice swath of land at Chagrin Highlands that is available for development (: I don't have a problem with the Hospital idea. The patients would be contained and it would add to the healthcare theme. I'll take the 500 or so healthcare jobs it will bring to the City from the suburbs. I would not be in favor if it was proposed anywhere east of 55th though. The subsidized housing on the other hand..... you have got to be fvck!ing kidding me!!!!!!!!!! Frankie J and his team should just wait for his precious opportunity corridor to go up and line it with these projects.

Get an ab wheel, pull-up bar, a pair of push up handles and a dog and save yourself the $$. But if people watching is your thing, I would try the CSU fitness center.... but not sure how lively it is during the summer months and I haven't been in it since it was redone.

Great pics as always Stickware. It looks like they were all taken by wandering into the areas adjacent to Canal Road on the southern border of the CBD. Canal Rd runs along the banks of the cuyahoga river opposite Scranton Peninsula.

I know nothing about the Jacobs' Group so this comes solely from the gut. I just have had the feeling for a while that they are sitting on this property to see how the MM/CC, FEB and/or WH Dist. plays out. The success and/or failure of any of those projects will likely affect the viability/value of developing the lot and the manner/scale in which it is developed.

1969

Is that space on the SW corner of E 4th and Euclid the one that has been held up in litigation? If so, who are the players? It has got to have developers drooling considering the size and location. Personally, I don't want to oversatturate E 4th with restaraunts so I am hoping for something different... not sure exactly what though.

The City "arming" private citizens is out of the question. The last thing the City needs is a bunch of vigilantes running around here under the color of law. Massive liability concerns.

Wow, thanks! That is definitely something I hadn't thought about, but that I am definitely going to take into consideration when I make my decision! This is definitely something to consider... especially if you plan to stay long term. Tremont is on the serious upswing and the real estate investment could turn you a small fortune in 10-20 yrs if things keep progressing. West Park is much riskier and not much potential for any meaningful reward. In other words, West Park is either going to remain stable or decrease in value, whereas Tremont will either remain at its current value or increase as the neighborhood becomes more and more attractive to people looking for a "trendy" lifestyle. I will say that I know plenty of cops and firefighters that have no plans of moving from West Park no matter how the court rules. The "mass exodus" fears are greatly overexagerrated by the City in its propaganda against the state law. Some will surely move, but.... truth is, many of the employees have ALREADY moved to the suburbs. The ones that truly care about the neighborhood will mostly stay put. The ones that never gave a crap and, due to the residency requirement, actually despise the City, will be gone. Also, we do not know yet what kind of incentives the City will offer its employees to remain City residents. All the law says is the City cannot 'force' its employees to maintain residency. It says nothing about rewarding employees who volitionally maintain residency.

Not sure about Kelly island, but Put-In-Bay rents cabins and has plenty to do for a weekend.

A couple I am more familiar with: Folley Beach just outside of Charleston, SC. Not too crowded. Hotels and houses right on the water. Charleston is an easy drive and lots to do. Wrightsville Beach in Wilmington, NC. Not too much different than Folley. Can't remember what time of year to go, but there are parts of the season where you can be up to your hips in the water and still be able to see the dirt under your toe-nail. The Outer Banks, NC. More for the nature loving type but beautiful beaches and friendly people. Renting houses is cheaper than you might think. Hamilton, Bermuda. Went there for our honeymoon. Plenty to do for the whole family. Expensive though.