Hts121

I didn't say it was the only spot on earth where you could get to both. The issue was why I would possibly want to live in Raleigh before Charlotte. Not sure where all this Boston, Richmond, SF, etc. talk came into play. Maybe my comment that NC has both of those assets and most (not all) states don't? Regardless, I certainly never said there weren't other cities that were closer to both.

That would be one reason.... yes. When I lived in NC (triad area), I enjoyed having the option of going to the Outer Banks one weekend and to Asheville the next. The combination of mountains and beaches gives NC an asset not many other states can boast.

I am not a fan of this type of development across the S Carolina border for the Charlotte area. IMHO, it is the tip of the iceberg that is going to lead to Atlanta-esque sprawl. Although Charlotte thankfully is not plagued by the surburb laden layout of Greater Cleveland, it has places like Fort Mill, Huntersville, Concord, Matthews, etc. But worse than the Cleveland suburbs, there really is a disconnect between these communities and the City of Charlotte. Come to think of it, the light rail might be having a anti-urban effect by promoting/encouraging growth away from Uptown. Charlotte's inner-city has such potential for new development but it may never be fully realized because of these cookie cutter neighborhoods and condo associations that surround Lake Norman and to the South. Those areas are where a lot of the young Charlotte residents are moving to. I also think that Charlotte has only so much growth potential because of its proximity and similarity (in terms of strengths) to Atlanta. Like Atlanta, it has its infrastructure and water supply limitations. Unlike Atlanta though, it has an inner-state rival in Raleigh (the best city in NC IMO). If I were to ever move back to NC, it would be to Raleigh, not Charlotte. Raleigh's location can't be beat, right smack between the mountains and the beach and an easy cruise to I-95 to go either direction along the east coast. Also, its economy is heavy into government and research. Plus, it has a designated ghetto (Durham) just to its northwest (j/k).

My Dad lives in Dilworth not far from the light rail. It is a very attractive system. Nice cars. Quiet and smooth. Above post is correct that it is not wide reaching enough. I think it is just one line from the South to downtown. One note about the development is that it is beginning to stall due to the crisis... even in mid-construction. Charlotte is far from immune given its dependence on banking. There was a lot of speculative building going on.

Different strokes for different folks people. For me, unless I am residing in Manhattan, living without my own wheels is not an option. For others, it suites them just fine. There is no correct answer and people should not be smug towards eachother regardless of which side of the argument they fall on. On the issue of the "plaza", isn't the purpose of that part of the development to allow access to underground parking. Considering our climate, I would say that such a feature would be a key selling point.

The Justice Center will not be torn down. I have heard (sorry MTS... no link) from those who were around at the time, that the cost to build (due to overruns) the Justice Center exceeded the cost to build the Sears Tower in Chicago!!! According to the same source, there were some swirlings of County corruption that led to the massive overruns. Regardless, this building is not some simple office/residential structure that can be adapted for re-use. The jails and the courtrooms are all interconnected to shuffle prisoners back and forth. It would be monumentally cheaper just to build a new hotel than to adapt the JC for that use. Plus, the connectivity to the old county courthouse (which is still in use) needs to be maintained. The County building is another story. That ugly piece of shyte (not saying the JC is asthetically appealing) is just begging to be knocked down to make room for either a new convention sized hotel or future expansion of either the CC or MM. I believe the old LMD renderings put the hotel where the MM is now supposed to go with the MM connected to it on the land where the County building now sits. Didn't LMD also contemplate a second hotel somewhere in the area of Willard Park?

Thanks. I take it the entry pavilion is the 7th photo in that link posted above. Was there any mention of additional hotels or any plans for site the county admin. building is now sitting on? I see from the renderings that they are moving forward with the idea that the county is not moving..... but if the MM turns out to be a hit and needs to expand, the county will have to GTFO for additional showrooms and/or office/lab space. I love the design of the MM as they have it pictured (preliminary or not), but I wonder if its size will limit its potential.

-- Lower development cost. -- Quicker speed to market. -- Re-energize the Mall. -- Walking distance to hotels plus potential connection to Marriott and Crowne Plaza. -- Convenient existing parking. -- Proximity to the Warehouse District. -- Access to Great Lakes Science Center, Browns Stadium, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum. -- Adaptive re-use of two downtown buildings. -- Opportunity for future expansion. -- Sense of inclusion within the city. -- Access to lakefront views, with outdoor terrace on north side.-- Preserve and energize Public Auditorium. -- Opportunities for public art at new plazas. -- Entrance pavilion can be used for exhibits, meetings, music. Long ago, I reconciled in my mind that this project is not going to be as "grand" as once envisioned. Recently, I have been working under the belief that it would just be an interior beautification of the existing CC. That is why those couple points give me some hope. This is the first I have heard of a terrace. While I like the idea, I guess that does away with the "Mall D" proposals of the past. All that said, I wholeheartedly agree that the mall is the superior site for possible future expansion and I like that such expansion is at least contemplated. Couple of questions: - What is the "entrance pavilion"? - I might be answering the above question here, but for someone who has never actually been inside the CC (other than the connected auditorium) what is under the area of the mall between the old courthouse and City hall?

Is that the space that is on the southwest corner of 4th and Euclid? If not, what are (if any) the plans for that space?

IIRC, MMPI actually wanted to build the MM in UC (or closer to it - i.e. 55th and Chester).... it was the commissioners that told them that downtown was the only option if they wanted to use public funds.

I definitely agree with Hill's argument about the retail component. We have seen too many times that the metro pop will not shop downtown at the same stores that can be found at Beachwood mall. Uniqueness is the key to bringing retail back. Same school of thought goes for entertainment and dining, but the business owner's downtown seem to understand that. East 4th is a success because you won't find any of those spots out in the suburbs. Besides the food courts, I really can't think of many restaurants or entertainment spots downtown that you will also find at Legacy or Eaton or Crocker. Perhaps once downtown's population booms, then the chain retail (such as department stores) can return. Although it is often criticized on this board, I also agree with his argument about green space.

The Coventry area in Cleveland Hts is about 10 mins or less from Nela Park and will have plenty of units in your range. Lots of people your age as well. Very walkable neighborhood. The apartments are on the older side but have more character than most new builds and are (usually) very spacious. Park Lane Villa in University Circle is also an option at the same distance.... probably more expensive though. Within walking distance of the new transit corridor that runs downtown and located in the middle of the City's cultural center. In between the two of those locations is Little Italy. I am not really sure what you could get in your price range there, but it would be worth a look. As far as Downtown goes, I love the East 4th units. Grab one if you can. The Warehouse District can get a little crazy, so be sure that you don't mind the commotion before committing there. I am not a fan of a lot of the buildings around Playhouse Square (the theatre district), but there is a building that I like called 1900 Euclid where a friend of mine used to live. I am not a Stonebridge fan either.... but I tend to be prejudice against just about anything that is on the other side of the Cuyahoga River. :-P Good luck with your search and welcome. I grew up very near to Nela Park. Feel free to PM me with any questions about the neighborhood.

The more I think about the possiblities, the more I like the choice of this site. I can't wait to see the renderings. I really hope that the plan is still to build a new Mall D over the tracks so that NCH and the lake can be incorporated with a pedestrian bridge going over the shoreway. Most out of towners like to head in that direction anyway due to the RRHOF. This project does however really make the piss poor site selection for CBS really stand out. Oh well, we will just have to build around it. Not sure what the hell Wolstein is talking about. This site offers as much, if not much more, of an opportunity for a "new" Cleveland than the other two. It gives a shot in the arm to nearly the entire CBD.

If myself and JDD are on the same page, the Firefighter aksed to move out of the City so he could be near to and care for his terminally ill child during his off-hours (the child was living with the mother). You have to remember that Firefighters in Cleveland are off-duty for 48 straight hours between shifts and the City does not permit dual residency - meaning you are not in compliance with the residency requirement simply by maintaining a home in Cleveland.... you have to actually spend the majority of your downtime at that Cleveland address. There were AT LEAST two other exemption requests during the same time period from Safety Force members that were of a similar ilk - I believe concerning sick/ill parents. In one of those requests, the mother could not walk up and down stairs and lived in a ranch outside of the City. The employee asked for an exemption because his Cleveland address had no first floor bedrooms. The City said no. I also know of a police officer whose family was receiving threats from a neighborhood gang because he had arrested one of their members. I really did not have that big a beef with the denial of this request. I found his story somewhat hard to believe as being fully accurate. Plus, he could have moved to another neighborhood and did not have to leave the City. The City's basis for denying these requests was not expressed. I guess it did not want to set precedent. I know of no member of the safety forces that has EVER been granted an exemption, regardless of how dire the circumstances.

The Sunshine Laws have many exceptions that apply, most notably an exception to the open meetings act that protects the County's ability to bargain behind closed doors for the acquisition and/or sale of property. It wouldn't do much good for the County if FCE was able to be present during negotiations with other prospective vendors of real estate for a CC site.

There is a big difference between requiring residency of elected officials and requiring residency of employees. On your other point, Senator Tim Grendel pushed this legislation through. The safety force unions have been trying to push it through for better part of the decade. The unions have tried to challenge residency restrictions on constitutional grounds in both state and federal court, only to be shown the door. JDD is right about the individual firefighter who was denied the exemption. That denial was inexcusable, completely unjust and really allowed the fight to pick up a lot of steam. The cities might not be in such a pickle if they had a heart when it came to handing out exemptions. From what I can tell, only the top brass is able to obtain the City's blessing to violate the residency rule regardless of circumstances.

The new law allows municipalities to require that there "emergency responders" live within a certain radius. What that radius will be yet another lawsuit because the law is vague and not well written on this point. You could read it to permit Cleveland to force those workers to live within Cuyahoga County. Another interpretation would permit Cleveland to force those workers to live within a Cuyahoga or any adjacent county. The validity of the "emergency responders" concern went out the window years ago when we replaced the horse and buggy with more modern means of transportation. Besides, the earlier poster is right - recalls rarely, if ever, happen. The "24 on 48 off" shifts of Firefighters ensures that there should be a boatload of able emergency responders sitting around at their station house playing cards and watching TV (occasionally running drills and doing chores :wink:) just waiting to risk their otherwise liesure life whenever that alarm rings. If minimum manning laws are maintained, there should never be an issue with emergency response absent absolute catastrophies.

One might think, but both the Ohio Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court have specifically held that a City worker has no constituionally protected right to choose where to live AND demand employment with the City at the same time. This case is not about individual constitutional rights. It is about home rule and the State's pre-emptive power to regulate matters of employment.

Oral arguments were held this morning. My best guess from the tone of the justices is that the decision will be 5-2 or 4-3 in favor of the state law.

The Corridor would benefit West-siders who commute to UC... not so much east siders going anywhere. Maybe it would shave 5-10 minutes off our trip to Hopkins. I can think of better ways to spend that money... but I ain't turning it down either if offered.

If money were not a consideration, I would definitely say go with the mall site on the level we have seen in some renderings where it is extended out from under the malls and reaches towards the lake. However, given the cost cap being placed on the project, my feeling is that the TC site will produce better economic results for the City... although it is certainly not the best plan in terms of "urban" planning. Bottom line is the Twinsburg "expert" is probably right. As much as it might piss urban enthusiasts off, out of towners will likely find the TC site more appealing and convenient... especially in the colder months of the year. I also hold out some hope that a CC at the TC site will somehow spur FCE to finally do something with Scranton Peninsula. On that subject, does anyone know why the CC could not go there?.... seems to be plenty of room.

However you feel about residency requirements, this resolution of this case has much broader implications. It is more a battle between the State and "incorporated" municipalities, than it is about employer vs. employee. There's a huge "home rule" issue here surrounding the state's ability to regulate municipal employment - specifically, "qualifications" for municipal employment. This will be a landmark decision no matter which way it goes. How about splitting the baby? The Cities can require that initial hires are residents of the City, but cannot require residency as a condition of "continued" employment. The Cities could set the requirement at whatever they want... 2 years (used a lot for elected officials), 5 yrs, 10 yrs. It also eliminates the harsh effects of residency requirements on employees and their families. Pratically speaking, it is a stupid idea because the City would limit its job pool, cut off its ability to bring in new tax payers through employment and not recoup (through taxing) the money it pays those who move out once hired. All that said, the wider implications of this decision may be better served. The republican dominated Ohio Supreme Court is probably not going to part with past precedent and create a limitation on the power of the General Assembly to provide for the welfare of the "employee". But the Cities have a legitimate argument that a candidate for hire is not an "employee" and any restriction can be placed on the candidate that the City desires (absent constitutional violations of course). While it wouldn't be a victory for the immediate fiscal needs of the Cities who are in this fight, such a resolution would be a victory for home rule.

There is no good answer here. Israel cannot sit by and do nothing. However, can anyone really say that their "offensive" has any chance at acheiving security. Every dead Palistian child incites MORE terrorism/aggression towards Israel and the West. Israel/Palistine is an absolute powder keg right now and the offensive we are seeing is doing nothing but fueling the fire that is going to cause it to blow.

Great thread Mayday. Can you explain your inclusion of photos #12 and 13? Sarcasm? Typo?

^^ Agreed... to an extent. The City should choose its "employees" from the best available talent, regardless of where they live. The City's consultants, contractors, legal counsel (outside of the law dept) don't have to be chosen from residents of the City and for good reason. Why not bring such latitude to the employee selection process? For some top positions, the City grants exemptions to the residency rule so it can hire the best candidate, but the choice of when to use that discretion is arbitrarily made IMHO. Elected officials are a different story though. Those people HAVE to be City residents. They are chosen from the people and by the people of the City. BTW, how ironic is it that Marty Flask, the City's Public Safety Director, is not a resident of the City. Yep, that is the same Marty Flask that issues the termination letters to police, fire and EMS employees found in violation of the residency requirement. Further, the individuals charged with investigating residency compliance are also not residents of the City. While people insist that the residency requirement ensures that the City's employees "care" about the City, I can assure you that nothing causes employees to hate (and bad-mouth) the City more than this outdated rule.