urb-a-saurus

^LOL, transaction should be completed in a JIF.

To me, it looks a bit like a school building.

Today there was digging in the parking lot in front of the old Planet Fitness, and windows were removed at the old JC Penney. Could demolition be imminent?

Construction fences were up today around the Weber warehouse for Centro Villa, with some blockage of W 25th St.

I wonder if one of the local TV channels would do a story on the state of Cleveland's "streetscapes," including what you have observed.

Watterson School? today

Barker got closest to 100 without going over!

I like the Genesis rendering. To me, it has more pizzazz than most of the four story specials rising in many locations,

LOL, is the CEO building a mansion in Bay Village?

Girders up at E66th and Euclid.

Whether Pittsburgh would win the HQ or not, they (and Pennsylvania) could certainly try. I remember US Steel had that 65? story building, which now says UPMC? Where are they located now? Hey, don't forget Atlanta 😉.

Pittsburgh could try to lure the potential post merger HQ.

I was actually hoping for a >60 % NO vote for a bigger pro-choice cushion. What happpens in November will hinge on the extent of participation of Gen Z and women in general.

^Cleveland Steelers? Mwah ha ha. .

A couple ways they differ: The US Constitution affects maybe 30 times as many people. To escape it, you would have to exit the country, not just one state. State provisions can be overridden by federal laws. I would not assume that the Ohio and US constitutions should be treated the same.

Can't expect instant development all along the OC. It will take time. I was always curious why they built three lanes eastbound, and only two westbound, the latter being where traffic stacks up. For comparison, I originally thought that the Waterfront Rapid Line had huge potential, but was ahead of its time. LOL. still waiting for that one.

Where are the ground side facilities, ie ticketing and baggage claim relat8ve to the curved buildimg?

Ford Rd garage, behind the Commodore Apts was being razed today.

Maybe some investigative reporting on the alleged state of RTA is warranted. Journalists?

The Ohio anti-abortionists will hope and work for a federal ban, while continuing their battle here.

Some comments: 1. The Issue 1 results are a little karma after the major annoyance of the Ohio goverment quashing the results of the anti-gerrymandering issue. 2. The county results are mostly what I would have expected, although I was surprised at Geauga, Ashtabula, and Trumbull voting no. The "no" counties along Lake Erie reminded me of the Plain Delaer's hypothetical State of Western Reserve to be stripped from the rest of Ohio. They had a series of articles analyzing the results of creating such a new state. 3. Could the legislature jam something on a ballot, either before or in the November election? 4. @E Rocc made a comment above stating that the Constitution should "protect" minorities from having the majority's will "imposed" upon them, which is fascinating, in this case, as Issue 1 would have given the right wing dominated, gerrymandered, legislatative majority more leeway in passing God knows what, with less potential of being overridden by the aggrieved. Also note that @E Roccdid not say that the Constitution should protect the majority against the will of an extreme minority, a significant omission. 5. There have been argumemts above that there have been times, pretty minimal actually, when the Democratic Party controlled the State Government and would have benefitted in the same way from Issue 1. This implies to me that the GOP feels that their hold is pretty permament, and explains why they will die to defend Gerrymander Mountain. What do other forumers think? EDIT: Looking back, I see a lot of this being discussed while I was writing this post. It's as though we're trapped in this left-right tug of war with no likelihood of successful negotiated agreements.

I do, to some degree, recognize the "relativity" and reversibility you describe, and that the 60% supermajority requirement preventing right wing extreme policies as well, is theoretically possible. However, since the GOP has a significant legislative majority, they don't need the statewide issue process to the same extent. They could just legislate what they want and expect the courts to preserve it. That "both sides do it," that cliche from the media, doesn't mean that both sides do it equally or have equal opportunities. I do not believe tthat the heartbeat bill was installed through a statewide vote. By the way, don't citizenship issues involve the federal government to some degree? I'm not sure. Oh, I had a humorous thought on how to wipe out gerrymandering without actually eliminating it directly, inspired by all this Issue 1 talk. Let's just index the majority size reqjired to pass a piece of legislation to the severity of the partisan gerrymander. For example, take the total Dem and GOP vote count over all candidates over the previous four years and calculate the ratio. Then take the ratio of Dem vs GOP seats in the two houses. Compare the two ratios and adjust the majority requirement in each house to compensate. Recalculate every year. Call it Anti-gerrymandering Handicapping. It would remove the incentive to gerrymander, while adding an incentive to vote. HEHE

LOL, It's not largely about abortion? In other words, the State Legislature, after tolerating the existing 50% majority referendum process for decades, decides to jam an issue making it much, much harder for such referenda to succeed, into a hastily arranged August election, a timeframe they had just forbidden, when a pro-choice amendment polling at 57%, is ready to appear on the November ballot? Of course, it's just a cooincidence. As for "good governance," yes, it's "good" when they are doing what you want. I see the good governance argument, in this case, as a RED herring to mask the desire for right wing policy control. Then we have our beloved gerrymandered legislature, which leads to policy extremism and control by a smaller sample of the population. The referendum process provides a check on this, which could, in some policy cases, prevent them from getting their way, which they clearly don't like. When the fair legislative districts issue passed, the GOP dominated government actually stonewalled it, until they got a pliable Court. If Issue 1 passes, I guess it will be less likely that they encounter these inconveniences. As far as where pro-choice rights should be placed, if they are to be placed, you are saying that they should not clutter up the Constitution. Yet, the U.S. Constitution is chock full of rights, a whole Bill of them and more. Should the rights provided by the First and Second Amendments, for example, have been left out, and legislated instead?

Naw, both are examples of hypocrisy. Supreme Court stackin' Mitch McConnel (block Dem picks, rush through GOP picks would be proud).