Are your above comments accurate?  I don't want to pounce, but before (potentially) assigning blame, please make sure you know the proper players involved and accountable for this project.

 

Well I just believe things start at the top. And Mayor Jackson, imo usually appears to be out of his league.

Are your above comments accurate?  I don't want to pounce, but before (potentially) assigning blame, please make sure you know the proper players involved and accountable for this project.

 

Well I just believe things start at the top. And Mayor Jackson, imo usually appears to be out of his league.

 

What does he have to do with the selection? or dealing with the MM folks?

The article doesn't say Nance's quote is a new one, and I don't think it is.  It's probably from when they first announced the decision.  The article has a reassuring tone, so I'm guessing they ignored the controversy on purpose.  Nothing's been overruled yet.  But also notice the article never mentions the riverfront site again.

 

This is a county project and therefore Jackson doesn't have much to do with it.  He could speak up about site selection, but it isn't his call and he could come away looking dumb(er).

What does he have to do with the selection? or dealing with the MM folks?

I understand it's a county project. But a leader is charged with keeping things moving. However he needs to get that done.

What does he have to do with the selection? or dealing with the MM folks?

I understand it's a county project. But a leader is charged with keeping things moving. However he needs to get that done.

 

You contradicted yourself.  You should be placing the blame on the county commissioners, not Jackson.

You contradicted yourself.  You should be placing the blame on the county commissioners, not Jackson.

 

I hold everyone culpable who will find themselves posing for the photo-op with a pair of giant scissors waiting to cut the ribbon.

has stated his support for TC Site. What he has to do with it is, he is the mayor of the city that owns the competing property. It is his duty to act in the best interest of the city. He apparently believes that it is in the city's best interest to maintain the Convention Center on the Mall in it's present condition or he has a secret plan for it's future. To my way of thinking, it is his job to advocate for the improvement of a city owned property that is currently a drain on limited city resources. That is, to turn it from a liability into a asset, to transfer a burden on the city taxpayer into a revenue source and a attraction for further investment. Frankly, the city should turn the property over to the county for a dollar and parking revenues. Why give 40M for air rights and give them the parking revenues in addition to improving all the inter-stucture surrounding their property?? It makes no sense to me.

You contradicted yourself.  You should be placing the blame on the county commissioners, not Jackson.

 

I hold everyone culpable who will find themselves posing for the photo-op with a pair of giant scissors waiting to cut the ribbon.

 

Then why single Jackson out???  There are several players here who should be chastised and IMO Jackson isn't one of them.  As this is a County Project, there are four people to hold to the fire!

 

I'm sure the county has interacted with the Mayors administration but Jackson isn't the lead.

 

Also, he isn't a "photo-op" kind of guy.  I think he does those out a necessity versus want.

Action Jackson has stated his support for TC Site. What he has to do with it is, he is the mayor of the city that owns the competing property. It is his duty to act in the best interest of the city. He apparently believes that it is in the city's best interest to maintain the Convention Center on the Mall in it's present condition or he has a secret plan for it's future. To my way of thinking, it is his job to advocate for the improvement of a city owned property that is currently a drain on limited city resources. That is, to turn it from a liability into a asset, to transfer a burden on the city taxpayer into a revenue source and a attraction for further investment. Frankly, the city should turn the property over to the county for a dollar and parking revenues. Why give FCE 40M for air rights and give them the parking revenues in addition to improving all the inter-stucture surrounding their property?? It makes no sense to me.

 

^Complete agreement.

 

Since MMPI is handling the negotiations with FCE and apparently with the city, are they by default responsible for site selection? Come January will the county actually choose a site other than what MMPI wants?

Then why single Jackson out???  

 

I am not sure what you are arguing here. You are saying that the mayor of a major American city plays no factor in the the building of a convention center on land that is owned by the city he governs.

As MMPI will be managing construction, responsible for cost over runs, be the prime tenant, manage the Convention Center and know what will best suit their business needs, their input will weigh most heavily upon the Commissioners.

As MMPI will be managing construction, responsible for cost over runs, be the prime tenant, manage the Convention Center and know what will best suit their business needs, their input will weigh most heavily upon the Commissioners.

 

Thank you.  The Mayor/City of Cleveland is not the lead.  As said earlier, I'm sure the city has have been consulted by the County, but this  is a county MMPI project.

We'll see what MMPI has to say.  As others have stated, I don't know how much merit Nance's comments have concerning this.  MMPI has the final say (though the commissioners have the final decision).

Also agree with Green Pastures here.  Of course the Mayor and the city should be playing a factor here for exactly the reasons you stated, he (they) have a responsibility to act on behalf of whats best for the city.

 

freethink I think most of us get and agree with what you are saying, dont trouble yourself over that one  :roll:...

Mall Site

It seems to me that that the remaining properties to be acquired, the 113 Bldg and parking lot which was purchased for 4.5M not so long ago by could be had for less then 1/2 of 40M that FCE wants. The savings would provide the cost to move the present County Administration Bldg, take care of any "water problems" and have enough left to throw a hell of a party.Compare the properties. As a citizen, which would you prefer to own?

Mall Site

It seems to me that that the remaining properties to be acquired, the 113 Bldg and parking lot which was purchased for 4.5M not so long ago by Peter Ruben's Corel Corp. and 101 St.Clair could be had for less then 1/2 of 40M that FCE wants. The savings would provide the cost to move the present County Administration Bldg, take care of any "water problems" and have enough left to throw a hell of a party. You would own real estate not air rights. Compare the properties. Which would you like to own.

 

Sorry fat morning fingers.

Also agree with Green Pastures here.  Of course the Mayor and the city should be playing a factor here for exactly the reasons you stated, he (they) have a responsibility to act on behalf of whats best for the city.

 

freethink I think most of us get and agree with what you are saying, dont trouble yourself over that one  ::) ...

 

WB, I too agree.  However, how can he LEGALLY have a deciding factor when this is in the hands of the County?

how can he LEGALLY have a deciding factor when this is in the hands of the County?

 

He has no legal deciding factor. BUT he should be aggressively marketing the Mall Site at least as well as  is marketing theirs. Instead, we have silence on what should be a fantastic deal for both sides. A savings for both the county and city taxpayer. Win/Win.

how can he LEGALLY have a deciding factor when this is in the hands of the County?

 

He has no legal deciding factor. BUT he should be aggressively marketing the Mall Site at least as well as FCE/GCP is marketing theirs. Instead, we have silence on what should be a fantastic deal for both sides. A savings for both the county and city taxpayer. Win/Win.

 

How do you know he is not working behind the scenes?  None of us are involved in the project.  Sometimes you just can't comment or go public.

 

I find it hard to understand why people can say "he should do this" or "he should do that" when they are not in the position, have privy to information nor have they ever been at a negotiating table.  Just because he isn't speaking publicly does not mean he isn't discussing the use of the site with MMPI or the commissioners.

 

It's very easy to be an arm chair quarterback!

 

I like all of you want the new CC at the mall site, but how can we comment on a persons actions when we do not know 100% what is going on.

After reading both sides of this Jackson debate, I'm becoming convinced that he needs to start making noise about the mall site.  The comparative weakness of the TC site is at an emporer without clothes level.  The only reason the TC site still has legs, or ever did have legs, is pure corruption.  Our local tolerance for that is way too high.  Jackson has an opportunity here to send a message that the community has decided to stand up for its own best interest.

After reading both sides of this Jackson debate, I'm becoming convinced that he needs to start making noise about the mall site.  The comparative weakness of the TC site is at an emporer without clothes level.  The only reason the TC site still has legs, or ever did have legs, is pure corruption.  Our local tolerance for that is way too high.  Jackson has an opportunity here to send a message that the community has decided to stand up for its own best interest.

100% agree, however, we do not know if there are legal points  preventing either side from discussing certain points publicly.

 

The only such legal points I'm aware of are Ohio's sunshine laws, the public records act and the open meetings act.  If it's something the county is doing, all records and communications are available to the public upon request and all decisions must be made in accessible meetings-- there are exceptions, notably personnel issues.  But that's what's so disturbing about shifting the site selection call to a private, unelected entity in the chamber of commerce.  I don't know if the sunshine law would apply to them, even when they're essentially engaged in state action. 

a good lawyer. A check from the county. A check for the firm. A check From check. Check, check and double check.

Fred's a good lawyer. A check from the county. A check for the firm. A check From FCE. A GCP check. Check, check and double check.

 

Indeed.

We know that Jackson and Campbell are the strong (or is that weak) and silent type.

 

But would White have been quiet during this whole process or would we already be breaking ground on the project by now?

We know that Jackson and Campbell are the strong (or is that weak) and silent type.

 

But would White have been quiet during this whole process or would we already be breaking ground on the project by now?

 

Don't even go there.  Getting it done fast vs. being accountable and restoring your constituents trust is more important IMHO.  I really like mike white on a personal level, having said that, Mike might have gotten it done, but the after affects would most likely cost the city more.

We know that Jackson and Campbell are the strong (or is that weak) and silent type.

 

But would White have been quiet during this whole process or would we already be breaking ground on the project by now?

 

Don't even go there. Getting it done fast vs. being accountable and restoring your constituents trust is more important IMHO. I really like mike white on a personal level, having said that, Mike might have gotten it done, but the after affects would most likely cost the city more.

 

I agree. No thanks.

But this isn't a getting it done fast vs being accountable and careful and what not - it's about getting it done at all.  I mean, it's been years of discussion of where the site will be, and considering how bad things have been in Cleveland lately (and they've been very very bad, let's not kid ourselves), there is a real threat we're not getting the Med Mart, even with $40 million in financing.

 

 

 

But this isn't a getting it done fast vs being accountable and careful and what not - it's about getting it done at all.  I mean, it's been years of discussion of where the site will be, and considering how bad things have been in Cleveland lately (and they've been very very bad, let's not kid ourselves), there is a real threat we're not getting the Med Mart, even with $40 million in financing.

 

 

 

 

No, the MM has not been in discussion for years.  The convention center yes, the MM AND Convention center - NO.

MM announced intentions to come here in April of 2007. We've been working on this project about 18 months.

Nothing prevents the mayor from speaking out publicly, rallying public support without going into fine detail, except ineptitude or simply holding the card close to the vest .

That's still a long time to discuss the pros and cons of, what, 3 or 4 areas at most?

That's still a long time to discuss the pros and cons of, what, 3 or 4 areas at most?

 

HERE WE GO AGAIN.

 

NOW IM POUNCING.

 

How much experience have you had working on a large scale public/private finance project?

That's still a long time to discuss the pros and cons of, what, 3 or 4 areas at most?

 

HERE WE GO AGAIN.

 

NOW IM POUNCING.

 

How much experience have you had working on a large scale public/private finance project?

 

i think that its perfectly acceptable to say its taken a long time when the developers and the city alike have set goals and made decisions public months ago and are still up in the air. i understand developments, and the time it takes. i dont think he is saying he could get it done faster i think he/she is right in the fact that we should be frustrated with how slow its been going compared to the timeframe they gave us. especially since so much of it is public funding

 

i personally think its going to happen soon, either location. that ny project hopefully shook them a little bit. they know they have to act.. but things take time. patience and optimism.

18 months is a long time for a project of this magnitude?    :wtf:

 

Am I the only thinking that is not a long time?

18 months is a long time for a project of this magnitude? :wtf:

 

Am I the only thinking that is not a long time?

 

No.

No, you are not.

 

Sometimes you have to choose your battles MTS. If you had kids you would understand.

 

No, you are not.

 

Sometimes you have to choose your battles MTS. If you had kids you would understand.

 

 

Thats the problem, these damn kids (aka whippersnappers)  think they know everything!

Trust me If I had "real" kids, they would do as they are told.  Period!  :whip:

 

I dont play with my nephews, nieces or little cousin and I wouldn't put up with that from my children either!

haha mytwosense this doesnt have much to do with putting up with your kids.. i guess we can agree to disagree on this one but if someone says they will get something done by a certain point, and its not, then there is cause for concern. especially when someone else is threatening to do it.

 

im not arguing about the convention center. structure of this magnitude and importance takes a looong time, and i know this.

 

but i am saying the public has a right to say "get on with it" and get the job done.

 

being a student, i know that you have to stay true to deadlines. maybe the city should have set a later deadline.

 

an i never said 18 months was a long time for a project of this magnitude.

I said that 18 months is a long time for JUST site selection; obviously a project like this in total would take longer

NYC will only be a threat if or when they got the $. Don't hold your breath. F

I said that 18 months is a long time for JUST site selection; obviously a project like this in total would take longer

 

I understood and completely agree.  This has been long and painful.  And the County has blown through at least one self-imposed deadline, so the process is obviously moving a lot more slowly than they predicted.

I think that it seems like a long time because we have been talking about building a convention center for 9 years now (1999).  The reason why some people say it has not been a long time because we have changed the scope of the CC several times and basically call it a new project each time.  So, Mike White had his vision (Civic Plan), then Jane Campbell had her vison (with Minchell, Wolstien, Forest City), and now Jackson has his plan.  All in all, this new plan under Jackson has been on-going for 18 months, so in that way, no it has not been a long time.  But in the grand scheme of things, it has been a long time.  So yes, this Convention center topic has been going on for what seems to be forever.  Heck, just look at the date of the first post on it. 

18 months for site selection is ridiculous.  It's not as if construction documents are being created.

 

The earliest the CC & MM could be open for business is probably 2013 (including the site selection, hopefully an international design competition, design development and construction documents, and finally, construction).

We have a long road ahead of us.

^ agreed.  It's not that 18 months is a long time for this sort of project.  And certainly adding in the complexities of attaching a medical mart type facility and I think it's completely understandable that because of this added development they need to restart the selection process.  What's frustrating is that you can't mention the words convention center without forest city leaping in and trying to cram their site down your throat, even if many times it's been deduced that the TC site is better off holding a slim tower than a bulky CC.  And let's not forget for a second that if the MMPI folks were on board with the site selection committe's (errrr... the forest city committee) selection of TC, that we wouldn't already be seeing advanced architecturals and be moving forward.  But obviously they thought so much of that report that they decided to do their own site selection study.  So yes, I think it is frustrating, and I don't think it's unfair to say that given that we have a libraries worth of studies on recent convention center analysis, that site selection is taking too long.  I'll chalk 6 months up to that.  If you receall the first year was primarily about securing funding.

 

As far as New York goes... I don't think it really changes things other than riling the public and people on these boards up.  Before that story was released I think the MMPI timeline was the same as it is now, which is to have their report in (so why did the site selection committe even do one?) within the month, and the commissioners voting in January.

 

If the fancy pants New York developers can come up with one billion dollars in financing in 6 weeks to beat us to the punch in the worst lending climate in 70 years... well I guess power to them.  It will just give me one more reason to truly hate forest city enterprises.

I think that it seems like a long time because we have been talking about building a convention center for 9 years now (1999).  The reason why some people say it has not been a long time because we have changed the scope of the CC several times and basically call it a new project each time.  So, Mike White had his vision (Civic Plan), then Jane Campbell had her vison (with Minchell, Wolstien, Forest City), and now Jackson has his plan.  All in all, this new plan under Jackson has been on-going for 18 months, so in that way, no it has not been a long time.  But in the grand scheme of things, it has been a long time.  So yes, this Convention center topic has been going on for what seems to be forever.  Heck, just look at the date of the first post on it.

 

. Read the past posts and then feel free to comment. 

 

GP, now you're being insulting.  Come on, now.  There is a way to get your point across without belittling people.

Sorry:(  Frustrated.

^Understandibly frustrated.  As mayor, he should be addressing the city about our current problems - and I mean ALL of them - and discuss what's going on, what improvements he plans, and so on.  We need visible resassurance that things are going to get better, and we need visible leadership.  I can't tell you how bleak it's been lately downtown and we Clevelanders truly deserve a boost of confidence with Mayor Jackson telling us in a televised conference, even if impromtu, about a lot of the city's problems and his response to each one.

 

We need some reason to be inspired and optimistic, something to change our perception of what's been going on.  I mean, we need something from the man, some reason to believe he's working furiously behind closed doors to help better our present and future lives here; otherwise, he just appears as a nice guy in way over his head.

Sorry:(  Frustrated.

 

Understood sweetie, but don't have a conniption over this or give yourself an ulcer.