February 21, 200916 yr Why does this even have to be on the lake? Its seems there would be hundreds of location you could put it. Such as? I mean if a BIG ship is coming in with cargo, where exactly do you put a port?
February 21, 200916 yr The wind turbine manufacturing plant! Damn you. Use quotes so I'll know what your talking about!! :whip:
February 21, 200916 yr Wind turbines are very large and difficult to transport. So, if your goal is to become the premier manufacturer of all off-shore wind turbines in the great lakes then it would behoove you to place your manufacturing center on the water so you can avoid any land transit. I understand why the company would want to place the manufacturing center at the port location and I don't have a problem with it. As long as the port owns the land the manufacturing center will be moved when the port moves.
February 21, 200916 yr I guess. It just seems like a waste for something temporary. Locations up river?
February 22, 200916 yr Um, why put it there (at the existing P/A) if the port is moving eastward? I thought we were going to extend downtown north through this area? Or are going to abandon the concept of urban planning and instead just grab anything that comes along for that area? This reminds me of when the NFL agreed to give Cleveland an expansion team. They told us that we had three years to get a new stadium built. About the only location that could be agreed upon in that short period was at the location of the old Cleveland Municipal Stadium. So, hence we were stuck with that location that is poor due to the December/January winds and poor in that the land could have been a boffo public place on the lakefront.
February 22, 200916 yr willyboy, putting the turbine manufacturing plant by the port is key. How do you think they ship those suckers? If you have a business thats mail order, you make your HQ next to the post office so you cut your trip time and costs. Simple.
March 22, 200916 yr $500 million decision: What to do with Cleveland's port? Posted by Tom Breckenridge/Plain Dealer Reporter March 21, 2009 18:58PM Chuck Crow/The Plain Dealer The marina at East 55th Street would make way for a 200-acre port, under plans from the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority. A new marina would be built at Gordon Park, north of East 72nd Street. Another $500 million decision looms, Cleveland. And it's got nothing to do with a medical mart. ... http://www.cleveland.com/economy/index.ssf/2009/03/500_million_decision_what_to_d.html
May 15, 200916 yr Cleveland port takes first step toward East 55th Street by Tom Breckenridge/Plain Dealer Reporter Friday May 15, 2009, 11:06 AM Cleveland's port leaders signaled formal interest in moving docks and warehouses to East 55th Street, but only if the port can handle the big-ticket costs. The port authority board approved a letter to the Army Corps of Engineers today that indicates continued interest in building an estimated $300 million dike project in Lake Erie, north of East 55th Street. More at Cleveland.com http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2009/05/cleveland_port_takes_first_ste.html
May 15, 200916 yr This would be sooo good for the city. Improved cargo capacity + fresh waterfront land downtown.... i hope it keeps moving forward.
May 16, 200916 yr It would be good for the city. Just curious how to get rail access in there? The CSX line is on the other side of the shoreway. What about competitive access for NS?
May 16, 200916 yr Perhaps the project should be about more than the port itself. Maybe the Port Authority should acquire the CSX trackage between Collinwood and the junction with NS at the drawbridge. This would answer the question about NS access and put the tracks under neutral, public ownership. A new access line could be built to the docks, passing over the shoreway. E 26th St yard could be rebuilt for intercity passenger train servicing and the entire line rebuilt with double tracks throughout. Freight access would be open to either CSX or NS. Lastly, the project should be tied to a new intermodal hub for downtown Cleveland at the site of the current lakefront Amtrak station. This should be a multi-use facility, connecting the old convention center and Mall C with the North Coast Harbor, Rock Hall, Browns Stadium, etc. An interesting possibility would be to have the intermodal hub built in connection with the proposed medical mart and possibly, high rise housing. All of this could be overseen by the Port Authority and the City of Cleveland.
July 28, 200915 yr Some compelling arguments against port relocation... Thought I'd share. I tend to agree and just feel the 'moving it' bandwagon is another example of desperate 'development at any cost' Following Letter to Crain's Cleveland Business Magazine from Barbara Martin, chairman & Bill Gruber, vice chairman Dike 14 Nature Preserve Committee ■ We believe that it is important to clarify a number of points set forth in the Jan. 5, Page 3 story headlined, “Port Authority’s transformation begins long before move.” ■ Timing: The story says it will be nearly 10 years before the Port begins its move to its proposed new site at East 55th Street and 20 years for the move to be complete. In fact, the Army Corps hopes to begin filling a new Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) at East 55th in 2015. Considering the projected CDF capacity and the Corps’ actual annual dredge amount of at most 250,000 cubic yards, it will take about 28 years ― or 34 years from now ― to complete filling all 200 acres of the proposed CDF. The first phase is likely to be filled by about 2024 ― 16 years from today. Once the filling is done, the wet dredgings must dry out and settle, a process taking several years. The infrastructure work for utilities, roads, rail connections and structures will take additional years to complete. ■ Fill it faster: The Port says it will try to fill the CDF faster than the normal dredge deposit process would take. But it has no agreement with the Army Corps to allow the Port to fill the federal CDFs with non-dredge fill material, and for good reason. Federal law and regulations limit what the Army Corps may use its federal funds to build and fill. The Corps needs a new CDF for its harbor dredge program to keep shipping lanes open, not to build a new Port facility. If the Port seeks to build its own facility for fill, that cost will add greatly to the already immense projected cost of its proposed move. ■ Cost of a new port: As the article says, the new Port could cost up to $1billion of taxpayer money. But the Army Corps will only be paying 75% of the cost to build the dike that will hold the dredge material, which is projected to cost about $200 million. So the Port will have to come up with $50 million of the dike’s cost and a total of about $750 million (not the $250 million suggested in the article). ■ City lakefront plan: While the Port’s plan to move to East 55th might free up the existing Port’s downtown location for private development, as intended by the city of Cleveland’s comprehensive Lakefront Plan, that move would also obliterate the remainder of the city’s plan as to the entire East Side lakefront, which Cleveland’s residents and the city’s Planning Commission concluded just a few years ago should be reserved for parks, marinas, fishing piers and public access to the lake, not replaced by a 200-acre industrial facility. ■ Port attempted sell-off of public trust property: The Port wants to sell its current location for private development, but neither the Port nor the city owns that land. The Port is currently situated on formerly submerged (filled) lands that Ohio’s Constitution and Supreme Court say are held in trust for the public by the state of Ohio, and may not be sold off. The land can be developed for public access or water-related commercial use under submerged lands leases issued by the state, just like the leases issued for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Great Lakes Science Center and Browns Stadium. Expensive and protracted legal fights could result if the Port tries to raise funds for its move by trying to sell off this public land to private developers. ■ Growth in port business: The Port claims it needs to expand from the 70 acres it currently uses on the downtown lakefront to 200 acres at East 55th because of all the container shipping that is sure to come if the new site is built. But the Port’s own study of the possibility of container shipping coming to Cleveland projects the modest amount of one ship every two weeks and cautions that container shipping here is only of a “limited potential.” And for such a limited possibility the Port wants our community to invest $1billion of its limited resources. Barbara Martin, chairman Bill Gruber, vice chairman Dike 14 Nature Preserve Committee Another Letter submitted to Crain's Cleveland Business Magazine from Ken Vinciquerra Dear Messrs. Dodosh, Miller and Tucker, As a long-time subscriber of Crain’s and a concerned citizen of Cuyahoga County, I feel I must respond to the January 5, 2009 analysis “Port Authority’s transformation begins long before move.” There were a number of ironies in that article. In one breath, Mr. Wasserman berates “people haphazardly approaching the public sector for its land,” and in the next he proposes usurping public access to precious State parkland from E 55 to E 72 and beyond for a 200-acre industrial port. In approaching the public sector for this land and seizing it, the Port hopes to have found its new home. But in the process, the proposed move of Port facilities to E 55 will destroy E 55th St. Lakefront State Park and Marina, and dramatically and negatively impact InterCity Yacht Club, Gordon Lakefront State Park, and Dike 14 Nature Preserve. Mr. Wasserman also claims that “We think we have support from the community.” Does he have the support of the community? During the 32-month planning process conducted just a few short years ago, Connecting Cleveland: The Waterfront District Plan (WDP) attracted more than 5,000 people to over 200 community and stakeholder meetings, large and small, and generated thousands of ideas on how to best reshape Cleveland’s Lakefront and improve access between the shoreline and the adjacent neighborhoods. At the site of the Port Authority's proposed 200-acre CDF/Container Cargo site, the community consensus WDP envisions: · New land masses, not for a large, brightly lit, industrial zone, but for "water-related activities, specifically overlooks and fishing platforms, new marina, aquafilter, watercraft beach, relocated public boat launch, and fisherman's harbor." We’re talking same location, but two entirely different visions for our future dredged materials. · E. 55 St. State Park and Marina expansion and enhancements · Quay 55 residential complex expansion · Enhancement of nearby Gordon Lakefront State Park and Dike 14 Nature Preserve Then, last June 16, out of nowhere at just the second public meeting sponsored by the Port to share the 200-acre industrial port plan with the public, CPC Director Brown stood up at the microphone and stated that this port plan somehow fulfills the vision laid out in the Waterfront District Plan. Really? · What happened to the "continuous green ribbon at the water's edge”? · What happened to expansion of the E 55th St. Lakefront State Park and Marina? · What happened to the "new land masses that will provide opportunities for new beaches, expanded marinas, overlooks, fishing platforms, boat launches, and a fisherman's harbor, giving the city's residents an exciting variety of opportunities to access their waterfront?" · What happened to the collaboration with Quay 55 ownership to expand that beautiful development into "a gateway to a new celebratory promenade at the E55th Street Bridge?" · What happened to enhancement of Gordon State Park, "which long ago was severed in half by interstate highway infrastructure," but which will "enjoy a renaissance under the Waterfront District Plan?" · When was all of this abandoned, as if the (somewhat miraculous) public consensus forged by CPC had never even occurred? Who decided? Behind which closed doors was this scheme devised? Why weren't the citizens of Cleveland and Cuyahoga Co made aware of this and involved in the process? The WDP speaks of the legacy we've all lived with since the severing of Gordon Park. How will our children and future generations of Clevelanders feel about this latest, and most grievous, mistake on the lake? What could possibly be the rationale for a 180 degree about-face from the well-thought out consensus for lakefront development? Mr. Wasserman has promised jobs and economic opportunity. Your analysis states that “Mr. Wasserman said he also believes the existing docks are underused and that worldwide maritime conditions offer the opportunity to expand the port’s cargo operations immediately.” Did the Port president also mention the long term stagnation and/or decline in business at the existing port? Did he mention that the Port-financed feasibility study itself states "While these analyzes maintain that there may be a potential from a transit time and relative cost perspective, and that diversion to a feeder service serving the Port of Cleveland at this time appears to have some merit, …there are many key issues that need to be addressed in order for successful implementation," including but limited to "seasonality of shipping, relatively small local Cleveland market for shipped goods, and lack of growth of the Port of Halifax capacities relative to other coastal competitors." [my emphases] That is hardly a ringing endorsement for a proposal that will devastate the natural splendor one sees as one rounds the bend on I-90 at MLK heading west towards the city. It is also hardly a ringing endorsement for the inevitable exorbitant cost and the disregard of the voiced consensus of the tax-paying public. To the extent that Mr. Wasserman may have some level of community support, I would simply say: It is one thing to sell a publicly financed scheme when only one side of the debate is ever presented and when opposing opinions are limited to occasional LTEs and 3 minute shots at a microphone; it is a whole other challenge to bring it before the public in an honest and open public forum for rational debate on the merits. In the 10 months prior to his untimely death in November, Citizen Ed Hauser (the “Mayor of Whiskey Island”) was devoting all his considerable civic energies to stopping this latest insult to our shoreline (and the citizens who cherish it). Please honor his memory and the principles for which he fought, and for which many individuals continue to fight against all odds, by probing into the costs of this proposal (financial, environmental, recreational), as well as its prospects for ROI and purported benefits. This city has too long suffered from being a one-newspaper town, from having major decisions made behind closed doors, from having debate on important issues quashed. Crain’s has been a trusted and dependable source of unbiased reporting for many years, and I would encourage you not only to continue to follow this story very closely, but to initiate dialog and honest debate about its costs and realistic benefits. As always, keep up the fine work informing Northeast Ohioans of the business of Cleveland. I look forward each day to the appearance of “Today’s Headlines and Blogs”, “This Week’s Issue”, and “The Morning Roundup” in my Inbox! Ken Vinciquerra Cleveland Hts, OH January 20, 2009 Finally, here is a letter submitted to the Cleveland Plain Dealer commentary section: Cuyahoga County port's relocation proposal has serious flaws Sunday, January 25, 2009 Dominic A. LoGalbo Recently, on these pages, Michael Wagar, the out going chairman of the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, championed a vision of a new, 200-acre port he claims would be the catalyst for some 50,000 jobs, signaling an economic rebirth for the region. In a city struggling to attain a renaissance on so many levels, the message held out much needed hope. I believe, however, Wagar's projections should be taken with a dash of reality, for the plan may be more of a mirage than a manifestation of economic prosperity. To appreciate the potential folly of this project, one needs to consider the process that led to its birth and the arrogant manner in which it has been presented to a public that is expected to pay for it without questioning its feasibility. I have spent a lifetime of involvement with the lakefront, first managing Dock 20 for the Cleveland Stevedore Co., and later representing eight international steamship lines for F.C MacFarlane Steamship Co. My experience on the waterfront made me aware of the need for better planning if the city was ever to enjoy the acclaim and prosperity a beautiful shoreline would bring Cleveland. That planning seemed to take shape during Mayor Jane Campbell's administration. Like many others, I attended scores of meetings designed to draw ideas from the public and piece them into a master plan. Considerable time and money went into what would finally emerge after 200 meetings as the 2004 Lakefront District Plan. The remarkable thing about the plan was its consensus. In a city known for its contentious nature, virtually every business, civic and political entity endorsed the plan. In all probability, it was the most extensive study of the lakefront since Cleveland emerged from the wilderness in the 18th century. Then, in an astonishing move, made without public explanation or input, the plan was cast aside. It was replaced by a hastily conceived idea promising to be the largest public works project in the city's history, costing upwards of a billion dollars and adding a new ribbon of industrial clutter to the shoreline. At the meeting at which it was introduced a year ago, port officials explicitly stated that the public could not question officials about the plan. Since then, very little has been revealed about its progress. The plan coincided with the arrival of Adam Wasserman in 2007 as president of the port authority and was based on two sketchy studies by consultants without even a façade of public debate. One of the port's own studies concluded that the Wasserman plan was virtually a roll of the dice. Even more alarming than the further marring of the shoreline's aesthetic was the lack of economic data supporting such a costly endeavor. There was no projected return on investment on such a massive expenditure of public money. Compare that cost to the fact that - in a good year - the port makes only about $1 million annually from maritime use and recently has lost money in its operations. While the port claims to have created thousands of jobs through its efforts, studies find only a few thousand that can be associated with its maritime endeavors. At the crux of Wasserman's plan is the establishment of a new port that would handle such substantial container business that it would create an economic development zone adjacent to it that would ultimately create 50,000 jobs. This would be achieved in 20 years. Today, the Port of Toledo is in a position to handle all the container business available. But very little of this business exists, and there is little likelihood of any significant increase. The shipping business as a whole has fallen off here over the years. When I first started at the port in the 1960s, there were 21 steamship companies operating here, and the Port of New York maintained offices in the Terminal Tower. These companies are long gone. The loss of so much manufacturing in Ohio has had a serious effect on the port. Ships entering the Great Lakes from the St. Lawrence Seaway prefer not only to deliver cargo but to pick it up as well, but there is little to export here. Currently, rail and truck transport is favored by the container industry. No better example can be found than in Maple Heights where the Norfolk and Southern Railroad maintains a container facility. Each day some 1,400 containers pass through the facility, about 900 by truck and the rest by rail. The likelihood of Norfolk and Southern relocating its transportation hub to a downtown site is remote, and there is no dramatic increase in Great Lakes shipping anticipated in the future. In addition, the shipping season usually runs from April to late October, which means the port is idle for five months, hardly an encouraging factor for such a staggering investment. The concerns around this project are legion and include environmental and recreational issues as well as the quality of life available on our waterfront. The port needs to conceive a realistic facility as was presented in the 2004 Lakefront District plan. LoGalbo studied transportation at John Carroll University and served with the U.S. Army Transportation Corps. He was the first commodore of the E. 55th Street Marina.
July 28, 200915 yr They have some points, but IMHO, the benefits far outweigh the costs I feel the benefits are too speculative. It could very well turn out to be a white elephant...and the fact remains that it would present one of the biggest examples of shoreline abuse yet. You don't take something that is limited along a lakefront, stretches of open space that is as close to green buffer as we can get, habitat to much--which keeps the lake healthy/alluring in the first place......and turn it into industrial clutter, clang, and heap. That's just bass akwards in any language. This city cannot possible climb on this 'going green' bandwagon and do shortsighted planning like this. There is ALWAYS an alternative and better way... It is important to remember that. I feel all can be achieved without undermining that part of the lake. I am sure those at Quay 55 will love the views.
July 28, 200915 yr I think this the location chosen is the best one. Besides, public meetings were held on the location and this is the site that was selected. Let's move forward on enhancing our water transportation system, the most fuel efficient method of freight transportation there is. We need this now to take advantage of our unique location on an international navigable waterway. Let's get it going. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
July 28, 200915 yr I think this the location chosen is the best one. Besides, public meetings were held on the location and this is the site that was selected. Let's move forward on enhancing our water transportation system, the most fuel efficient method of freight transportation there is. We need this now to take advantage of our unique location on an international navigable waterway. Let's get it going. You're missing the whole point. I think most only heard what information they were given from the Port's views. Such will possibly result in a dirtier Lake Erie, you can count on it.
July 28, 200915 yr It's not a question of missing a point. It's a question of where my priorities are. If you think my priorities are mixed up, you're certainly welcome to your opinion. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
July 28, 200915 yr I typically don't support plans that start invading/encroaching on public access points to the lake that were already set aside. There is always a better alternative.
July 28, 200915 yr If there is a better alternative then I think we would all like to hear it. I would say most are in agreement that the port should move from its current location. EC, if you have a better spot lay it on us and let the debate begin!
July 28, 200915 yr If there is a better alternative then I think we would all like to hear it. I would say most are in agreement that the port should move from its current location. EC, if you have a better spot lay it on us and let the debate begin! I have a question? Why debate a location that has been chosen and won't change?
July 28, 200915 yr If anyone is against moving the port to E55th they clearly do NOT have Cleveland's best interest at heart, or they are just plain ignorant to situation.
July 28, 200915 yr Please explain why you feel so strongly. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
July 28, 200915 yr If anyone is against moving the port to E55th they clearly do NOT have Cleveland's best interest at heart, or they are just plain ignorant to situation. That statement could not be any farther from the truth if I stayed up nights trying to study how to not want Cleveland's best interest at heart. Just wrong wrong wrong.. How many people on here have heard arguments from other sources that were NOT chamber driven or part of the port's best interest...I plan on gathering up some and presenting them. But to say that someone does not have Cleveland's best interest at heart just because they do not think this location is appropriate long term.... is absurd and a broad brush generalization. Maybe I will just stop investing my effort in trying to bring to the table then, what I feel I can do in my part to make the community better. I can live anywhere I want... I chose here because I believe in it. I just do not believe in development at any cost, desperation development or piss poor planning with short sights. (this sort of thing has been the mainstay of my place of origin, Trumbull/Mahoning County) I am a perfectionist at heart who tries to go a step further to promote well planned economic development that does not have a negative impact on the environment. I believe it can be achieved with some vision. I will gather some information but I expect that it maturely be considered as this is why I chose this forum..and The NOT P.D. to discuss such..and not poo pooed just because someone has their mind set in concrete! Open them up!!!! Now I know how Columbus must have felt when he was trying to explain how the world was round, when the rest of the crowd thought it was flat.
July 28, 200915 yr The potential of the E55th and St Clair-Superior neighbor far outweighs any negative impact on the environment. I work with developmental groups in that specific part of the city and some of their plans are amazing (pending the port move). I would hate to see all of their hard work, time, and efforts smashed by environmentalists. Who cares about the people and businesses in the neighborhood anymore, right? EC you still haven't said where a better place to move the port would be........Or don't you want it moved at all?
July 28, 200915 yr The potential of the E55th and St Clair-Superior neighbor far outweighs any negative impact on the environment. I work with developmental groups in that specific part of the city and some of their plans are amazing (pending the port move). I would hate to see all of their hard work, time, and efforts smashed by environmentalists. Who cares about the people and businesses in the neighborhood anymore, right? EC you still haven't said where a better place to move the port would be........Or don't you want it moved at all? I said I would get some info. This is not about 'environmentalists' so please don't go there. It is about sustainable planning. And, I am small business and pro-Mom and Pop as it gets...ran and was a part of one for 25 plus years. Not like those who love living in Tremont and the like...and love the appeal of the small independent feel...then chose to spend their cash mostly at sprawl-mart...and must think the little shops are museums of some sort rather than real businesses who need support. I will share some information soon. Not today...have to go. There were some compelling letters for starters in my earlier post.
July 28, 200915 yr I'm patiently awaiting your findings.........and please don't just copy and paste what some jerk off wrote in the PD commentary section. Thanks.
July 28, 200915 yr I'm patiently awaiting your findings.........and please don't just copy and paste what some jerk off wrote in the PD commentary section. Thanks. I'm not... I happen to know the people of whom I provide the information from...and for your information, not everyone who posts on the PD is a jerk... So can the UO better than thou attitude, please.
July 28, 200915 yr Existing development and expansion of activities at Gordon Park (North of the Interstate) and the marina there would have a greater impact upon the preserve than a relocated port half a mile down the coast. I'm a member of a couple conservation organizations that believe the port will "encroach" upon Dike 14 but personally I can't take them seriously in regards to this. Now, I would much rather see us consolidate the marinas somewhere (free up tons of frontage) and plop down a bunch of new dirt along the coast around E55th so that we could have something more than parking lots and access roads, but I don't really know how realistic it is to even expect that.
July 29, 200915 yr I think the Port move presents some amazing opportunities for downtown development, but I do think the environmental concerns and concerns about reduced lakefront access for eastside residents, are also very valid. Moreover, while the port move presents new economic development opportunities for east side neighborhoods through their proposed International Trade District, I worry that the Port's plans to date have been rather vague. The sheer size of this district, stretching from the lake past St. Clair Ave. from E. 30th to MLK, suggests it will have some neighborhood impacts on Asiatown, St. Clair Superior and Glenville, only some of which are definite positives. Among other things, I wonder what having 500 acres of office park, coupled with the existing highway, will do to lake access on the east side. While the port move to E. 55th might be on the whole a good thing (I'm about 60% yay on this), I think constructive criticism of it is worthwhile for ensuring the most bang for our buck, as is citizen demand for Port attention to transparency, accountability standards, environmental impact, neighborhood impact, resident health impact, etc. I don't see what we stand to lose by having a (reasonably) informed debate about this, but we have a lot to lose by not debating ... 20-30 years is a long time period ... long enough for a public body with little opportunity for public oversite or recourse to forget promises that it's made regarding the city's East Side.
July 30, 200915 yr I think this the location chosen is the best one. Besides, public meetings were held on the location and this is the site that was selected. Actually, the E55th St site was not even among the original 8 proposed locations cited by the port relocation study group. It, consequently, was also not among the three "finalist" sites identified as this process proceeded through the latter half of 2007. Then, out of the blue, the PD announced in December 2007 that, lo and behold, E55 (??) was chosen. None of this has been an open, public process whatsoever. In contrast, the whole thing has been determined behind closed doors, out of the eye of the public. What had been a public process, however, was the City Planning Commission's Waterfront District Plan. Fact: The Cleveland City Planning Commission heard from over 5,000 citizens at 200-plus public meetings spanning 32 months (from 2003 to 2005), in a process that culminated in the recommendation report entitled "Connecting Cleveland: The Waterfront District Plan." This, in contrast to the billion dollar boondoggle facing us now (which would nullify major portions of that plan), was a true collaborative, consensus-driven, democratic process, nothing short of a minor miracle for NEO decision-making. Fact: June 16, 2008: CPC Director Robert Brown — speaking at the 2nd public meeting for presentation of the Port Authority's PowerPoint plans for setting up container cargo operations at E 55th — endorsed the Port's intention to scrap major portions of the Waterfront District Plan for an enormous (200-acre) lakefront industrial project that the Port Authority's own sponsored feasibility study casts doubts upon (detailed further below). Fact: Here is what the Waterfront District plan (http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/lakefront/iactive/flash/index.html) called for [my emphases]... The eastern portion of the vision builds upon the expanded park system, creating a tremendous collection of inter-connected public open space...the continuous green ribbon will thread the distance between the water's edge and the boulevard. New land masses will provide opportunities for new beaches, expanded marinas, overlooks, fishing platforms, boat launches, and a fisherman's harbor, giving the city's residents an exciting variety of opportunities to access their lakefront. The city's residents will also benefit from the new residential development that expands the successful Quay 55 project, and from a mixed-use residential, office and technology "Gold Coast" that acts as a gateway to a new celebratory promenade at the E55 Street bridge. Gordon Park, which long ago was severed in half by interstate highway infrastructure, will enjoy a renaissance... Under the Port's plan, the "opportunities for new beaches, expanded marinas, overlooks, fishing platforms, boat launches, and a fisherman's harbor" are eliminated, along with existing State Park land and waters; Quay 55 would essentially be destroyed, and its expansion aborted; Cleveland's Gordon Lakefront State Park would be compromised by loss of greenspace to accommodate parking for hundreds of cars as the Port attempts to relocate the E55 St Marina to its proposed new location; Dike 14 Nature Preserve will also be compromised, again by the attempted "moving" of recreational facilities that already exist between 55th and 72nd. All of this at great public expense. And for what? Regarding the reference to the Port's own sponsored feasibility study that I referenced earlier above, here is what it had to say [my emphases]: While these analyses maintain that there may be a potential from a transit time and relative cost perspective, and that diversion to a feeder service serving the Port of Cleveland at this time appears to have some merit, …there are many key issues that need to be addressed in order for successful implementation," including but limited to "seasonality of shipping, relatively small local Cleveland market for shipped goods, and lack of growth of the Port of Halifax capacities relative to other coastal competitors. That hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement for a hugely expensive public expenditure that will essentially destroy the recreational zone (including State Parks, held in the public trust for all citizens of Ohio) from E55 St to Dike 14. According to public audits (available at http://www.auditor.state.oh.us/AuditSearch/default.aspx), the Port has lost money for years 2004 through 2007 (and no doubt as well for 2008, not yet posted), and has lost money for 8 of the last 15 years (again, not including 2008; more like 9 of 16). They have about 100 acres now, and based on that record of achievement, they want to expand to 200 acres, destroy a lakefront recreational zone, and spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in the process? Is this sound public policy? Where is the cost/benefit analysis? Where is the projected Return on Investment? There's a reason why citizen hero Ed Hauser fought from 2001 until his untimely death in 2008 for greater transparency in the doings of the Port Authority. His efforts eventually led to the "Hauser Amendment," passed into law early this year, which requires port authorities to have master plans, describe how they will be financed, and then put the plans out for real public hearing and participation, before they are adopted — rather than the behind closed door decision-making and the PR charade that passes for public process that we're witnessing today. Ed was vigorously fighting this Port relocation when he died last November; it's now up to anyone who cares about our lakefront to, if not take up his mantel, to at least be as educated and engaged in the process as possible, and to hold our elected and unelected (port administrators) officials fully accountable for their actions and their use of public tax dollars. If we're not closely monitoring their every action, then we get what we deserve, and what we've had too many of in our city's history: another mistake on the lakefront. Let's not have future generations scratching their heads yet again, asking of us, what were they thinking?
July 30, 200915 yr While Ed Hauser did a lot of good, I don't think that we should give so much deference to his views. I find that many of his arguments had a narrow perspective and did not recognize the greater good within some city issues. Ed had a passion that I really wish was more present in the citizens of this region, but his port-related views were often short-sighted in my opinion.
July 30, 200915 yr Oh another "mysterious new person" just like in the Cleveland aquarium thread. I have a feeling this is a second (or third) alias for "someone"
July 30, 200915 yr Thanks, UF. Glad to be here...great to have come upon a forum where intelligent conversation, by informed and involved citizens, is the norm.
July 30, 200915 yr Oh another "mysterious new person" just like in the Cleveland aquarium thread. I have a feeling this is a second (or third) alias for "someone" Why is it that when someone steps in with some information that just may make some people stop...look...and listen before everyone jumps on the boat... They are looked at just as the statement above suggests? Is it too much information? Does it suddenly have us questioning something we thought we had our minds made up on? Could we ever even stop to entertain the idea that just maybe we could be in denial about something we thought we knew so much about and...now it may be too painful to seek alternatives or perhaps a better plan? The new guest is not an 'alias' It is not me, if that is what anyone is thinking. And as for Mr. Hauser... Any place is lucky to have a citizen like him who stuck his neck out to be a smaller voice in the crowd....and pose some different information in the midst when the rest of the sheep herd is about to follow each other right over the cliff. Contrary to some opinions of some... UO is not always the Holly Grail of truth. Those who may believe it is...fine..but get over yourselves for just a moment. Instead of welcoming newer and compelling information to evoke some new thought...and to instead wave it away with comments like the above 'mystery person' comment...is simply inept and off-putting to anyone new...who just may know a thing or two about something.
July 30, 200915 yr Oh another "mysterious new person" just like in the Cleveland aquarium thread. I have a feeling this is a second (or third) alias for "someone" Why is it that when someone steps in with some information that just may make some people stop...look...and listen before everyone jumps on the boat... They are looked at just as the statement above suggests? Is it too much information? Does it suddenly have us questioning something we thought we had our minds made up on? Could we ever even stop to entertain the idea that just maybe we could be in denial about something we thought we knew so much about and...now it may be too painful to seek alternatives or perhaps a better plan? The new guest is not an 'alias' It is not me, if that is what anyone is thinking. And as for Mr. Hauser... Any place is lucky to have a citizen like him who stuck his neck out to be a smaller voice in the crowd....and pose some different information in the midst when the rest of the sheep herd is about to follow each other right over the cliff. Lighten up. Frankly you put a little too much thought into that one :roll:. It was just that similarly as with the aquarium, the day after a major debate and expectations that you would come back with ideas, this happens. I got a chuckle more than anything. Another viewpoint can only be a positive. Welcome to the forum then DefendCleve , even if E.C. did have something to do with it.
July 30, 200915 yr Oh another "mysterious new person" just like in the Cleveland aquarium thread. I have a feeling this is a second (or third) alias for "someone" Why is it that when someone steps in with some information that just may make some people stop...look...and listen before everyone jumps on the boat... They are looked at just as the statement above suggests? Is it too much information? Does it suddenly have us questioning something we thought we had our minds made up on? Could we ever even stop to entertain the idea that just maybe we could be in denial about something we thought we knew so much about and...now it may be too painful to seek alternatives or perhaps a better plan? The new guest is not an 'alias' It is not me, if that is what anyone is thinking. And as for Mr. Hauser... Any place is lucky to have a citizen like him who stuck his neck out to be a smaller voice in the crowd....and pose some different information in the midst when the rest of the sheep herd is about to follow each other right over the cliff. Lighten up. Frankly you put a little too much thought into that one :roll:. It was just that similarly as with the aquarium, the day after a major debate and expectations that you would come back with ideas, this happens. I got a chuckle more than anything. Another viewpoint can only be a positive. Welcome to the forum then DefendCleve , even if E.C. did have something to do with it. Ok. Thank you. I invited the guest to UO because I think highly of UO and the least we can do welcome some new information. But, the information he is sharing is not new at all... Rather, it has been more hushed up about.
September 6, 200915 yr Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port hopes test shipment from Russian steelmaker results in steady business Saturday, September 05, 2009 Tom Breckenridge Plain Dealer Reporter The Cleveland port hopes to land a bounty of Russian steel. Port officials confirmed that a 20,000-ton "test shipment" of steel slabs from a Russian steel maker moved through the port last weekend, on its way to a steel-processing company in western Pennsylvania. If delivery time and costs prove competitive, the Cleveland port could see hundreds of thousands of tons of the steel slabs next shipping season. ...... http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/125213967427050.xml&coll=2 [email protected], 216-999-4695
October 5, 200915 yr Anyone know what this is about? Is this the Goodtime III or Nautica Queen, or something else? http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2009/100209/index.php Ordinance No. 1249-09 (Ward 13/Cimperman): Authorizing the Director of Port Control to lease certain touring boat and ticket booth, for a term of one year, with two one-year options to renew, the first of which is exercisable by the Director of Port Control. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
October 14, 200915 yr Hunter Morrison, former director of Cleveland city planning, says the Cuyahoga Port Authority should be thinking regionally and move sooner rather than later. While each of Northeast Ohio's ports has underutilized assets, Ashtabula's is the most promising. Its port is a deepwater facility already served by CSX and Norfolk Southern and well connected to the region's freeway network and the Ohio River port of East Liverpool. Abundant land for port expansion stands adjacent to the docks. Opportunities for maritime development also exist in Grand River and Conneaut. Both have expressed interest in playing a larger role in the region's shipping industry. To ignore these regional assets and to attempt to address the future of Cleveland's lakefront within the narrow confines of the city's boundaries is to condemn Northeast Ohio to another generation of frustration. We should not -- and need not -- wait that long to realize Eckstut's promising plan. http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/10/why_not_take_a_regional_approa.html
November 7, 200915 yr The top administrator at Cleveland's port abruptly quits his $283,000-a-year job By James F. McCarty,The Plain Dealer November 06, 2009, 6:15PM CLEVELAND, Ohio — The top administrator at the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority abruptly quit his $283,000-a-year job Friday, leaving the agency rudderless as it plans a multimillion move from downtown to the city's East Side. Members of the authority's governing board met behind closed doors for 75 minutes late Friday afternoon, then emerged to vote 7-1 to accept the resignation of Adam Wasserman two years into his five year contract as chief executive officer and president. "The board just thought it was time for new leadership," Board Chairman Steven Williams said after the vote. Williams and other board members refused to say what prompted the resignation, but documents show they will pay Wasserman $300,000 in severance. Wasserman did not attend the meeting, the board's third special session in a week, and his one-sentence letter did not give a reason for quitting. more at: http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/11/post_110.html
November 7, 200915 yr It's appalling that they don't have to issue a reasoning for this. The Port Authority should be accountable to the public.
November 7, 200915 yr If Ed Hauser could file a taxpayer lawsuit to find out why $300,000 is being spent for nothing, he would. Here's hoping that those following in Ed's footsteps will do just that. "In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage." -- John Steinbeck
November 9, 200915 yr fallout with the Board? that's what it sounds like. Its too bad--it seemed Wasserman was a good, out-of-the box thinker who had a big vision for Cleveland--not the same business as usual.
November 9, 200915 yr ^I wholly agree. I have no idea what happened. But at least on the surface I really liked Wasserman and the fact that he didn't care what anyone around here thought.
November 18, 200915 yr Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority won't commit to paying its share of a new dike, delays move By James F. McCarty,The Plain Dealer November 18, 2009, 11:38AM The planned move of the Port Authority to East 55th Street was pushed back by at least two years today -- and maybe longer. CLEVELAND, Ohio — The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority board today said it will need help from other government agencies -- and possibly from taxpayers -- to pay for a new $326 million lakefront dike for disposing of muck dredged from Cleveland Harbor. More at: http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/11/cleveland-cuyahoga_county_port_2.html Really, words utterly, utterly fail me.
Create an account or sign in to comment