Places like Colerain survive because they don't provide any services.  You want your trash removed?  Have to pay a private company.  They don't have their own police, either.  I assume they have some sort of fire taxing district, but I don't know that for sure.

 

 

Places like Colerain survive because they don't provide any services.  You want your trash removed?  Have to pay a private company.  They don't have their own police, either.  I assume they have some sort of fire taxing district, but I don't know that for sure.

 

 

 

That was my assumption, too, but looks like Colerain has a pretty full slate of service departments, including its own police department: http://www.colerain.org/department/police/

 

But they employ only 48 FTE police officers, which, for a jurisdiction of 58K, is pretty low.  I assumed this means it's a low crime area, which would explain community preference for low levels of police services, but from its own report, the place has higher than Ohio average total crime and violent crime: http://www.colerain.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2014-Annual-Report.pdf

 

[Edited for typos]

I believe that most townships that don't have their own police department are actually under the sheriff's jurisdiction. However I have no idea who's *really* paying for that (i.e. are they leeching off of county residents who actually live in municipalities?).

I think I heard of them having one full time officer, and then paying something like $1 to the rest. New cops work there for a year as a way to get experience. Sort of like an internship.

My mistake.  I didn't realize they passed a levy specifically for a police department in 2007.  Though that explains why they would have a police department of their own (supplemented by Sheriff patrols). 

My mistake.  I didn't realize they passed a levy specifically for a police department in 2007.  Though that explains why they would have a police department of their own (supplemented by Sheriff patrols). 

 

There was a story a few years ago that Hamilton County was providing free sheriff patrols in the townships. So effectively, residents of cities and villages are subsidizing the township residents who are relying more on the county.

My mistake.  I didn't realize they passed a levy specifically for a police department in 2007.  Though that explains why they would have a police department of their own (supplemented by Sheriff patrols). 

 

There was a story a few years ago that Hamilton County was providing free sheriff patrols in the townships. So effectively, residents of cities and villages are subsidizing the township residents who are relying more on the county.

 

That's what I figured could have been happening.

My mistake.  I didn't realize they passed a levy specifically for a police department in 2007.  Though that explains why they would have a police department of their own (supplemented by Sheriff patrols). 

 

There was a story a few years ago that Hamilton County was providing free sheriff patrols in the townships. So effectively, residents of cities and villages are subsidizing the township residents who are relying more on the county.

 

That's what I figured could have been happening.

 

 

It was Si Leis and the republican commissioners giving away taxes generated in the city to the unincorporated townships.  It was total B.S. but was quickly swept under the rug. 

 

 

It was Si Leis and the republican commissioners giving away taxes generated in the city to the unincorporated townships.  It was total B.S. but was quickly swept under the rug. 

 

I never heard about how the situation was resolved. And, of course, no local media outlets spent any time truly investigating the issue. Do you know if the townships reimbursed the county for those patrols, or if the "free" patrols continue to this day?

It was Si Leis and the republican commissioners giving away taxes generated in the city to the unincorporated townships.  It was total B.S. but was quickly swept under the rug. 

 

I never heard about how the situation was resolved. And, of course, no local media outlets spent any time truly investigating the issue. Do you know if the townships reimbursed the county for those patrols, or if the "free" patrols continue to this day?

 

I think they did but I'm not sure.  I think the information was made to try and weaken whoever was running to replace Leis (can't remember his name).  Instead Neil won the job, but I doubt that this issue had much to do with it since it didn't get much press.

 

 

This proposal, like much of GOP policy, is fundamentally anti-urban. How could any sane person propose legislation that more than decimates city budgets just after the same legislative body already slashed state funding to cities? It's slash-and-burn. It's a recipe for chaos.

This proposal, like much of GOP policy, is fundamentally anti-urban. How could any sane person propose legislation that more than decimates city budgets just after the same legislative body already slashed state funding to cities? It's slash-and-burn. It's a recipe for chaos.

 

I disagree, at least in regards to the Cleveland area. I actually think it could help some of the urban inner-ring suburbs around here, particularly those that are landlocked and have little or no industry. As the law is currently written, residents in these suburbs (think Cleveland Heights, Shaker Heights, Lakewood, etc.) are not only footing the bill for services in Cleveland (which is fine by me), but also in places like Beachwood, Westlake, Solon, etc. (which is not fine by me). The system clearly needs to be reformed, even if this is not the best idea. What we have currently is socialistic with absolutely no common sense behind it, where residents in a certain few municipalities with arbitrarily-drawn borders receive gold-plated services on the backs of residents in other suburbs. This is absolutely killing the inner-ring suburbs.

This would be terrible for Cincinnati. So many commuters use our roads coming in and our roads for work, hospitals, the university, entertainment, etc.

 

Therefore, I expect it will pass and the State of Ohio will continue the process of death by 1,000 cuts.

This proposal, like much of GOP policy, is fundamentally anti-urban. How could any sane person propose legislation that more than decimates city budgets just after the same legislative body already slashed state funding to cities? It's slash-and-burn. It's a recipe for chaos.

 

I disagree, at least in regards to the Cleveland area. I actually think it could help some of the urban inner-ring suburbs around here, particularly those that are landlocked and have little or no industry. As the law is currently written, residents in these suburbs (think Cleveland Heights, Shaker Heights, Lakewood, etc.) are not only footing the bill for services in Cleveland (which is fine by me), but also in places like Beachwood, Westlake, Solon, etc. (which is not fine by me). The system clearly needs to be reformed, even if this is not the best idea. What we have currently is socialistic with absolutely no common sense behind it, where residents in a certain few municipalities with arbitrarily-drawn borders receive gold-plated services on the backs of residents in other suburbs. This is absolutely killing the inner-ring suburbs.

 

I agree that inner-ring suburbs are hit by this. But they also are slammed by the slashed state aid to local governments. This proposal may not hurt the inner ring as much as it hurts Cleveland (and Cincinnati and Columbus ...), but neither is it likely to help them as much as it helps wealthy residents of Beachwood, Westlake, Solon, etc. The people who propose policies like this are as indifferent to the plight of the inner ring as they are to the big cities. This plan, like so much of state policy, is simply anti-urban, anti-tax, and pro-rich.

It will throw Cincinnati's affairs into total chaos -- and that's the goal.  Force the 3c's to raise their taxes significantly to maintain a level of basic services similar to what we're accustomed to.  This means there will be a big push for non-profits to start paying property tax and possibly a payroll tax. 

I don't see how this helps Beachwood, Solon, etc. and their counterparts across the state (Dublin, West Chester, etc.). Their services are also reliant upon these sorts of taxes like the major cities. They've spent the last 30+ years developing their community master plans around attracting these businesses. It's why giving a corporation tax breaks works, because you're going to make it up from their employees. My home town in exurban Cleveland plans around the fact that residential provides $0.85-$0.95 in tax revenue for every $1 of services consumed. If this were to pass it means service cuts or new taxes for those communities as well.

 

 

I don't see how this helps Beachwood, Solon, etc. and their counterparts across the state (Dublin, West Chester, etc.). Their services are also reliant upon these sorts of taxes like the major cities. They've spent the last 30+ years developing their community master plans around attracting these businesses. It's why giving a corporation tax breaks works, because you're going to make it up from their employees. My home town in exurban Cleveland plans around the fact that residential provides $0.85-$0.95 in tax revenue for every $1 of services consumed. If this were to pass it means service cuts or new taxes for those communities as well.

 

 

 

I agree, this proposal really hits "edge cities" (Beachwood, Solon, Westlake, etc.) hard, which is part of the reason why I like it. These cities--although have some very wealthy residents--are also big-time moochers. My hope is that if something like this were to pass, the residents in these places would not only have to start paying their fair share (of which many are not because of the way the system is set up) AND it may even force some of them to consider regionalizing services or even merging with neighbors.

 

Ultimately, if this thing passes, two types of places would be hit hard: Large urban cities like Cleveland and Cincinnati and a few dozen outer-ring suburbs around the state. The latter would simply have to reshuffle finances or ask residents to pay more, which is probably doable. The large urban cities have no legitimate short-term recourse.

 

I still support a major overhaul of the system even if this isn't logistically feasible.

Hello everyone! I'm not from Ohio, but I've been investigating the Crawford incident to see where I stand on it and I'd like your input as far as the state laws and local police procedures that resulted in the shooting.

 

I'm told that Mr. Crawford was not following open carry protocol by not slinging the weapon over his shoulder and keeping it there (1), and by waving it around occasionally (2), regardless of whether or not the specific claims of the 911 call against him were accurate. However, I'd like help (if you'd be willing to provide it) locating the Ohio state law that forbids certain kinds of open-carry behaviors, such as not having the weapon slung over the shoulder or slinging it around the way John Crawford did in the surveillance footage, if indeed what I've heard is correct. Any other information regarding the police procedures related to his death, including the protocol of how long someone has to put down a weapon after they've been warned verbally by the officer, would be helpful.

 

Of course, we know Mr. Crawford wasn't carrying an actual deadly firearm, but I'm trying to see whether Mr. Crawford was being negligent in the way he handled his weapon as the onlookers (who didn't know whether it had lethal bullets) would have detected, since it seemed to be visually identical to a regular gun.

 

As Ohio residents who deal with the open carry regulations in your area, you guys seem like the crop of people to ask about this. Thank you for any responses!

Today is the 200-year anniversary of the end of the War of 1812:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ghent

 

The random events of this conflict had massive ramifications on world history.  The United States attempted to invade and annex Ontario and Quebec in 1812 but was beaten back by British troops and Canadian militias.  In retaliation Great Britain burned Washington, DC but their attempt to seize Baltimore failed, and they also lost naval battles on Lake Erie and on Lake Champlain.  The Treaty of Ghent ended the conflict with no change to the US or Canadian borders. 

 

So if the United States had a professional army in 1812 instead of a few militias, we would have easily conquered Ontario and Quebec and likely the whole of what is now Canada would be more states of the United States.  If Great Britain had forced the surrender of Ft. McHenry, and/or won a few of the other minor naval battles, they planned to reclaim some United States territory, including Maine, and most interestingly planned to create an Indian state in the Northwest Territories. 

 

So for at least for a few years, if not a few decades, and Indian state would have existed in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin.  This would have set the stage for some future event in which either the United States or the British would have taken over this area, but likely a significant native population would have remained in this area. 

 

 

 

It also could have made the Civil War era very interesting if Canada was already a group of free states and part of the US.  After all, the Missouri Compromise would have been kind of pointless if there already was no balance of free and slave states to keep, if nothing else.  On the flip side, the Underground Railroad would have had a lot more challenges after the Dred Scott decision helping free slaves escape ... helping them escape to Canada would have kind of been a non-option at that point.

Yeah. Incredible to think that North America could have, if things had gone a bit differently, had the following countries:

 

1. Quebec

2. "Canada" Ontario and everything West

3. Labrador, Prince Edward Island, etc.

4. The United States (from Massachusetts down to Maryland~)

5. The Confederate States

6. Texas

7. That weird country that existed for a few years around Mobile Bay

8. Florida

9. Everything out west

10.  Indian State (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin)

 

 

Impossible to imagine the United States rising to world domination with all of these different interests on the continent.  Too many currencies, too much trouble building the railroads, etc.

 

 

^Not to mention likely more wars as they jockeyed for position.

^Not to mention likely more wars as they jockeyed for position.

 

We're lucky that we only had the Civil War.  There could have been several events of that scale. 

 

The two features of the westward expansion that were disasters were the complete displacement of natives and then the lack of natural land preserves.  There's no reason why several significant sections of the east couldn't have been given to the native population and other sections left in their natural state.  Alternately the rectangle survey of the Northwest Territories could have left one square per township for natives and one square left as a park. 

don't forget about the major ripple effects this would have caused the southern part of north america! meaning mexico, mexico city and the following war, the mexican-american war. while its unlikely all of this territory would have stayed stitched together, what a super superpower it would be if it did. no need for nafta & no borders at all ideally, if unlikely. and what a twist that would have put on the civil war era and the later also bogus spanish-american war.  WWI? civil rights? who knows? likely no sneaky jap attack on pearl harbor though, they would have been too skeerd. vietnam? why bother? iraq? probably would have still happened. or wait maybe not we would have enough oil. 9/11 type stuff would probably still happen. but also maybe south america or africa or asia would have tied together more tightly along the way as well. its interesting to play what if!

 

If we had won the War of 1812 and then fully conquered and kept all of Mexico after conquering Mexico City and California, even more would have been different.  Leave aside the issue of how that would have affected the soon-to-follow Civil War (if Mexico had joined the Confederacy, the South would have had a much stronger chance just based on size and population alone; if Mexico had simply declared its independence again, then it likely would have succeeded and American ownership of Mexico would have been a footnote lasting from 1848 to 1861).

 

But if we'd held onto everything from the Arctic Ocean to Guatemala, or potentially even farther (if Mexico really fell, back during the days when conquest was considered a perfectly legitimate means of territorial acquisition, we might well have steamrolled down to Panama), it would have changed a lot more than just the fact that we'd live in a bilingual superstate.  It would likely have changed a great deal of European history as well.  Remember that the USA was outraged by German U-Boat activity prior to entering WWI, but might well not have been ready for a war if it hadn't been for Germany getting caught sending a formal proposal to Mexico for an alliance against the US if the US entered WWI.  That wouldn't have happened if there had been no independent Mexico anymore, which could easily have changed the result of WWI, and considering how intimately linked WWII was to the aftermath of WWI, that would necessarily have changed that particular chapter of history as well.

 

It's kind of funny to think of the counterfactual consequences of those half-forgotten wars (1812, Mexican-American War).  It puts into perspective the stakes of some of our more modern wars.  Basically no American military engagement since WWII had stakes on the level of what could have happened if we had been more successful in those early 19th century wars.  A total American victory in Korea would mean a unified Korean peninsula today, but probably not much else, not even really much political or economic pressure on China.  A total American victory in Vietnam would still have probably meant even less in terms of modern national borders, economies, or populations.  And our engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan are more like more expensive versions of the punitive expeditions against the Barbary pirates than anything analogous from that period of our history.

If we had won the War of 1812 and then fully conquered and kept all of Mexico after conquering Mexico City and California, even more would have been different.  Leave aside the issue of how that would have affected the soon-to-follow Civil War (if Mexico had joined the Confederacy, the South would have had a much stronger chance just based on size and population alone; if Mexico had simply declared its independence again, then it likely would have succeeded and American ownership of Mexico would have been a footnote lasting from 1848 to 1861).

 

But if we'd held onto everything from the Arctic Ocean to Guatemala, or potentially even farther (if Mexico really fell, back during the days when conquest was considered a perfectly legitimate means of territorial acquisition, we might well have steamrolled down to Panama), it would have changed a lot more than just the fact that we'd live in a bilingual superstate.  It would likely have changed a great deal of European history as well.  Remember that the USA was outraged by German U-Boat activity prior to entering WWI, but might well not have been ready for a war if it hadn't been for Germany getting caught sending a formal proposal to Mexico for an alliance against the US if the US entered WWI.  That wouldn't have happened if there had been no independent Mexico anymore, which could easily have changed the result of WWI, and considering how intimately linked WWII was to the aftermath of WWI, that would necessarily have changed that particular chapter of history as well.

 

It's kind of funny to think of the counterfactual consequences of those half-forgotten wars (1812, Mexican-American War).  It puts into perspective the stakes of some of our more modern wars.  Basically no American military engagement since WWII had stakes on the level of what could have happened if we had been more successful in those early 19th century wars.  A total American victory in Korea would mean a unified Korean peninsula today, but probably not much else, not even really much political or economic pressure on China.  A total American victory in Vietnam would still have probably meant even less in terms of modern national borders, economies, or populations.  And our engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan are more like more expensive versions of the punitive expeditions against the Barbary pirates than anything analogous from that period of our history.

 

I think the big question is the extent to which Mexico's economic status could have been brought up to first-world status in line with the United States and Canada.  It's pretty easy to do the math on what the GDP of US + Canada, but US + Mexico is an unknown. 

 

 

 

 

Agreed, but it would have been close to 170 years ago now.  In theory, that's enough time to do quite a lot.  China has certainly done a lot just in the last 40.

 

On the flip side, there's also nothing to say that Mexico wouldn't have dragged the USA down rather than the USA lifting Mexico up.  That was, at least in good part, one reason why we didn't try to get more out of the Mexican Cession than we did, despite mostly convincing military victories.  California was the big prize.  Texas, too, to the extent you count it (we recognized it as an independent republic at the time; Mexico didn't right up until we made them, which ironically was right at the time it ceased being an independent republic and joined the US).  Mexico City?  Yucatan?  The Guatemalan border areas?  Not so much.  Those areas were much more populated and even if we'd won, the annexation and assimilation process would have been long, bitter, and painful.

With as dysfunctional, sophomoric, corrupt, and stagnant as our U.S. national politics are, I'm glad Canada is a seperate country. The theory of entropy says things progress from a state of order to disorder, and brother, we're seeing it happen here. 

This is about a 30% formed idea, but I wanted to discuss it with the group.

 

The idea is, we should have a statue of a Cleveland African American Leader or Pioneer, mounted in Public Square.

 

 

I live in New Orleans, and the city is in the process of deciding which historical statues should come down, based on the person's involvement with the Confederacy.  The reason to bring them down is that having these statues in prominent locations, it perpetuates the idea of African Americans not being full citizens (among lots of other things, lets please not go down that path here)

 

So, perhaps Cleveland can accomplish, in a small symbolic gesture, honor the contributions African Americans have made to this city.  Hopefully, in a small way, help further integrate our city. And while it will not be completed in time for Public Square's reopening, the site design can be modified at this time to incorporate the monument.

 

If you think its a good idea, who should be represented, Carl Stokes?  The Stokes brothers?  Stephanie Tubbs-Jones? 

 

 

Lorenzo Carter

My vote is for Garrett A. Morgan.  He was an entrepreneur, inventor, and community leader.  He filed the first patent for the 3 position traffic signal (yellow light).  Cleveland prides itself on industrial entrepreneurship and we like having the legacy of the first traffic light at 105th and Euclid (not Morgan's design, though).

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Morgan

 

 

Lorenzo Carter

 

I don't think he was black, no?

You're right, never mind.  Got my stories crossed. 

 

Garrett Morgan seems like a natural choice.

My only suggestion is that it not be Carl Stokes, Louis Stokes, or Stephanie Tubbs-Jones. I think their contributions were great, but I think they have enough named in their honor already. There are plenty of other great Clevelanders in our history to honor besides these three.

I think it's a great idea. Seems kind of nuts to put this much energy into redesigning the square without revisiting who gets to be honored there.

 

I was going to suggest Garett Morgan too. Jesse Owens is another good option. He's already honored by a sculpture in Huntington Park, but it's pretty meh, IMHO. I'd be happy to see him honored with something better. He's a great symbol of achievement and rising above. This photo (reprinted on Cleveland.com a few years ago) is just so haunting still:

http://www.cleveland.com/livingston/index.ssf/2011/04/ohio_state_remembers_jesse_owe.html

Langston Hughes?

 

 

^Actually, thinking about it a little more, Jesse Owens and Hughes may be poor choices for the same reason: both made their mark outside the city and and I don't believe either really called it home again afterward. Their ties are more about origin than contributions to the city.

I'm always torn about claiming Langston Hughes as a Clevelander because he spent such little time here so early in his life.

^ I was just going to say that. I think any statues on Pubic Square should be honoring people who made very significant (positive) contributions to the city.

Garrett A. Morgan is my choice. He did more than most other well known AA from the CLE, or who spent time here. He was not born here, but spent most of his life here, and his impact on society as a whole throughout the world do to his inventions has probably had the greatest impact.

 

Not sure if I would choose PS for a stature, but also not sure where else would be a place to honor him.

Technically there's already a "Garrett Square" near the East Cleveland border named in his honor.  Not sure if it has a statue.

My suggestions

 

Langston Hughes

Benjamin Davis

Wills Family

Boyd Family

John Holly

Eliza Bryant

Ruby Dee

Harry E Davis

Jane Edna Hunter

 

 

I would rather see a Black cultural garden located on MLK blvd.  There is a listing for an "African American Cultural Garden" at 890 MLK Blvd.Don't know if it had ever been built. I do not know how to link to the site otherwise I would.

 

 

Jesse Owens would probably get my vote

Steve Harvey?

 

This is about a 30% formed idea, but I wanted to discuss it with the group.

 

The idea is, we should have a statue of a Cleveland African American Leader or Pioneer, mounted in Public Square.

 

 

I live in New Orleans, and the city is in the process of deciding which historical statues should come down, based on the person's involvement with the Confederacy.  The reason to bring them down is that having these statues in prominent locations, it perpetuates the idea of African Americans not being full citizens (among lots of other things, lets please not go down that path here)

 

So, perhaps Cleveland can accomplish, in a small symbolic gesture, honor the contributions African Americans have made to this city.  Hopefully, in a small way, help further integrate our city. And while it will not be completed in time for Public Square's reopening, the site design can be modified at this time to incorporate the monument.

 

If you think its a good idea, who should be represented, Carl Stokes?  The Stokes brothers?  Stephanie Tubbs-Jones?

 

I think it's a bad idead. I don't get the need for this in Public Square. 

 

Put it in the African American cultural garden on Martin Luther King Jr Drive if there has to be one.  You are suggesting altering the plans for Public Square now for this?

About 80 sq. ft of it, yes.

Also, there is already an African American garden as part of the Cultural Gardens, it's lovely.

 

My proposition is that Cleveland of today has been built by people of all races.  Our Public Square, based on New England historical traditions, is the place in town owned by all citizens.  We have monuments to our city's founder, and perhaps the city's greatest mayor (city manager), as well as soldiers and sailors of the Civil War on Public Square.

Personally, I would also like to see a monument to a leader of African American decent on this symbolically important crossroads. 

 

 

 

I would rather see a Black cultural garden located on MLK blvd.  There is a listing for an "African American Cultural Garden" at 890 MLK Blvd.Don't know if it had ever been built. I do not know how to link to the site otherwise I would.

 

 

 

The plot for the AA garden has been purchased and there has been a ground breaking for the first phase.  But there is nothing there but a flower bed!

 

I pray its completed before my grand parent die as they live across from the Gardens.

About 80 sq. ft of it, yes.

Also, there is already an African American garden as part of the Cultural Gardens, it's lovely.

 

My proposition is that Cleveland of today has been built by people of all races.  Our Public Square, based on New England historical traditions, is the place in town owned by all citizens.  We have monuments to our city's founder, and perhaps the city's greatest mayor (city manager), as well as soldiers and sailors of the Civil War on Public Square.

Personally, I would also like to see a monument to a leader of African American decent on this symbolically important crossroads. 

 

What is lovely?  The cultural Gardens in their entirety?  I know you cannot posibly describe the plot of land set aside for the AA cultural Garden "lovely"!

 

The monument cannot simply be one dimensional.  It should be something that represents the past, present and future.

 

This is about a 30% formed idea, but I wanted to discuss it with the group.

 

The idea is, we should have a statue of a Cleveland African American Leader or Pioneer, mounted in Public Square.

 

 

I live in New Orleans, and the city is in the process of deciding which historical statues should come down, based on the person's involvement with the Confederacy.  The reason to bring them down is that having these statues in prominent locations, it perpetuates the idea of African Americans not being full citizens (among lots of other things, lets please not go down that path here)

 

So, perhaps Cleveland can accomplish, in a small symbolic gesture, honor the contributions African Americans have made to this city.  Hopefully, in a small way, help further integrate our city. And while it will not be completed in time for Public Square's reopening, the site design can be modified at this time to incorporate the monument.

 

If you think its a good idea, who should be represented, Carl Stokes?  The Stokes brothers?  Stephanie Tubbs-Jones?

 

I think it's a bad idead. I don't get the need for this in Public Square. 

 

Put it in the African American cultural garden on Martin Luther King Jr Drive if there has to be one.  You are suggesting altering the plans for Public Square now for this?

What is a bad idea?  an African American monument or the location?  Why shouldn't an AA monument be on display at the heart of metro Cleveland?

 

Garrett A. Morgan is my choice. He did more than most other well known AA from the CLE, or who spent time here. He was not born here, but spent most of his life here, and his impact on society as a whole throughout the world do to his inventions has probably had the greatest impact.

 

Not sure if I would choose PS for a stature, but also not sure where else would be a place to honor him.

Who in particular are you comparing Mr. Morgan?

 

 

 

 

About 80 sq. ft of it, yes.

Also, there is already an African American garden as part of the Cultural Gardens, it's lovely.

 

My proposition is that Cleveland of today has been built by people of all races.  Our Public Square, based on New England historical traditions, is the place in town owned by all citizens.  We have monuments to our city's founder, and perhaps the city's greatest mayor (city manager), as well as soldiers and sailors of the Civil War on Public Square.

Personally, I would also like to see a monument to a leader of African American decent on this symbolically important crossroads.

 

Cleveland has been built my many races, cultures and religions.  That's why there are the cultural gardens; all the different races, cultures and religions that built Cleveland.

I would rather see a Black cultural garden located on MLK blvd.  There is a listing for an "African American Cultural Garden" at 890 MLK Blvd.Don't know if it had ever been built. I do not know how to link to the site otherwise I would.

 

 

 

The plot for the AA garden has been purchased and there has been a ground breaking for the first phase.  But there is nothing there but a flower bed!

 

I pray its completed before my grand parent die as they live across from the Gardens.

About 80 sq. ft of it, yes.

Also, there is already an African American garden as part of the Cultural Gardens, it's lovely.

 

My proposition is that Cleveland of today has been built by people of all races.  Our Public Square, based on New England historical traditions, is the place in town owned by all citizens.  We have monuments to our city's founder, and perhaps the city's greatest mayor (city manager), as well as soldiers and sailors of the Civil War on Public Square.

Personally, I would also like to see a monument to a leader of African American decent on this symbolically important crossroads. 

 

What is lovely?  The cultural Gardens in their entirety?  I know you cannot posibly describe the plot of land set aside for the AA cultural Garden "lovely"!

 

The monument cannot simply be one dimensional.  It should be something that represents the past, present and future.

 

This is about a 30% formed idea, but I wanted to discuss it with the group.

 

The idea is, we should have a statue of a Cleveland African American Leader or Pioneer, mounted in Public Square.

 

 

I live in New Orleans, and the city is in the process of deciding which historical statues should come down, based on the person's involvement with the Confederacy.  The reason to bring them down is that having these statues in prominent locations, it perpetuates the idea of African Americans not being full citizens (among lots of other things, lets please not go down that path here)

 

So, perhaps Cleveland can accomplish, in a small symbolic gesture, honor the contributions African Americans have made to this city.  Hopefully, in a small way, help further integrate our city. And while it will not be completed in time for Public Square's reopening, the site design can be modified at this time to incorporate the monument.

 

If you think its a good idea, who should be represented, Carl Stokes?  The Stokes brothers?  Stephanie Tubbs-Jones?

 

I think it's a bad idead. I don't get the need for this in Public Square. 

 

Put it in the African American cultural garden on Martin Luther King Jr Drive if there has to be one.  You are suggesting altering the plans for Public Square now for this?

What is a bad idea?  an African American monument or the location?  Why shouldn't an AA monument be on display at the heart of metro Cleveland?

 

The location.  This is what the Cultural Gardens were designed for.  Why shouldn't any other race, religion or cultural then have a monument on display in the heart of metro Cleveland then?

Garrett A. Morgan is my choice. He did more than most other well known AA from the CLE, or who spent time here. He was not born here, but spent most of his life here, and his impact on society as a whole throughout the world do to his inventions has probably had the greatest impact.

 

Not sure if I would choose PS for a stature, but also not sure where else would be a place to honor him.

Who in particular are you comparing Mr. Morgan?