How the Port Authority wasted precious time and money on ill-conceived plans

by Michael D. Roberts

 

http://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/sunk/Content?oid=1746860

---

Long piece on the events that led to the departure of Adam Wasserman, including board politics, Dike 14, and the pursuit of the container shipping business.

Interesting that the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority has withdrawn a project review for the relocation of the port facilities, originally scheduled to be on tomorrow's NOACA Transportation Advisory Committee agenda. See:

 

http://cf.noaca.org/calendar/meetingtac.html

 

I do not know what, if anything, this means.

I don't know what has me more disenchanted right now....this Port fiasco or the whole Medical Mart drama.

 

I have just about zero faith in our public officials.

The  comment by Boreal, “and their foils in the Dike 14 group prevail on a $300/year budget,” made me chuckle, because we in the Dike 14 Nature Preserve Committee actually do basically operate on laughably minimal resources, but with one important exception: our personal time and commitment. After factoring in the time = $ paradigm, it sometimes feels as though our “spending” might actually be in the ballpark of some of the Port’s lavish expenditures.

 

So what do we invest all that time into? I thought I’d take the opportunity to share with the forum a bit about this grassroots organization.

 

First, our mission statement: The mission of the Dike 14 Committee is to advocate the protection, conservation and enhancement of Cleveland's 88-acre Dike 14, an essential Lake Erie coastal wildlife area that supports significant migratory bird activity as well as other wildlife, in order to

• 
   
  
• benefit the children, families, residents and work force of Cleveland and  Northeast Ohio with year-round lakefront access, nature experiences and environmental education opportunities;
  
• advance coastal eco-tourism in Cuyahoga County, which is a strategic goal of the State of Ohio; and
  
• ensure the conservation and management of important coastal habitats that provide sanctuary for birds year round, including significant numbers and diversity of migratory birds.
  

Due to the impact that the CCCPA relocation would have on not only Dike 14 (recently renamed, by the way, Cleveland Lakefront Nature Preserve), but on the entire lakefront recreational district stretching from Burke eastward to Dike 14, the committee has in recent years also been researching and responding to the CCCPA proposal. We have been doing this by:

• Attending nearly every public meeting related to anything potentially impacting our lakefront, including, but not limited to, those sponsored by CCCPA, CCCPA Board of Trustees, Cleveland Planning Commission, Ohio Lake Erie Commission , CSU Levin College of Urban Affairs, NEO Watershed Council & individual watershed groups, Cleveland Lakefront Parks Conservancy, Cleveland City Club, and others.
  
• Researching and studying in great detail the reports that have been issued relevant to CCCPA reconfiguration and relocation, including (but not limited to)
  
  • PA Consulting Group market analysis for mixed-use development of the downtown lakefront [“Cleveland Waterfront Market Demand & Development Options, October 15, 2009”]  Here, by the way, is an interesting excerpt:  “The space required for port functions is dependent on shipping and freight volumes. Under current (depressed) traffic volumes, the availability of space for retaining port operations on site is not an obstacle to beginning real estate development on the site. Taking into account the specifics of the Cleveland site, slips and related road infrastructure, it is possible to concentrate port functions on approximately 20 to 25 acres, while retaining functionality. It is also possible to further intensify use of a temporary site, to accommodate some increased freight volumes if traffic increasers to previous levels.” (Appendix C: Port Relocation Roadmap) To those who wonder how downtown lakefront development can occur if the Port is not relocated to the E55th area, here’s one option: consolidate its operations at its current site and use the remaining 100 acres for development! That,  minus some parking that wouldn’t be needed at the downtown site, is enough to build nearly two Legacy Village / Crocker Park type developments. In short, it is more than enough land to successfully implement the impressive Eckstut vision. And additional CDF (Contained Disposal Facility) fill directly north of the Port could expand Port operations in the event that eventuality comes to pass.
    
  • State of Ohio Audit documents related to the Port. Attached to this post is a PDF containing screenshots of a spreadsheet and accompanying chart that I constructed from data available at the State of Ohio Auditors website (http://www.auditor.state.oh.us). The spreadsheet & chart summarize CCCPA profit/loss figures going back to 1993. Bottom line: there is a reason why a recent Cleveland PD editorial described the Port as “a ghost town.” Which begs the question: does a Port that the PA Consulting market report describes as currently requiring only about 25 acres really need to expand to 200 acres at the expense of a Lakefront State Park, an existing lakefront recreational district, and upwards of $1 billion of public monies? As a cable news network might put it, “you decide.”
    
  • The Martin Associates Final Report, “Analysis of Port of Cleveland Container Market,” Prepared for: Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, March 12 2008. This is the Port-sponsored feasibility study from which I quoted in my July 30 2009 UO post on page 8 of this thread. (http://www.yourfutureport.com/Cleveland_report_03-12-2008.pdf)
    
  • Advance Report Summary Port Relocation Study by URS, May 2008. (http://www.yourfutureport.com/Advance_Report_Summary_Final.pdf)
    
  • The US Army Corp of Engineers Buffalo District Draft Cleveland Harbor Dredged Material Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, released this Fall (http://www.lrb.usace.army.mil/missions/cleveland/documents/ClevelandDMMP08_09.pdf). This report examines 6 possible configurations that would potentially meet the requirements for the Army Corps’ next Cleveland CDF. Even if the Port needs to expand and move entirely off its current site, there are still other viable options to E55, including 4 non-55th Street configurations identified in this report. Note: opponents of the Port’s preferred location (E55) have requested and received extension of the public comment period on this report to December 7, 2009. Read it and submit your own comments.
    

  Making dozens of public records requests from CCCPA, Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), and other pertinent public and governmental entities, and then poring over the stacks with fine-toothed combs.

  [*]Writing letters to innumerable public officials and organizations and sharing our concerns, along with our concrete suggestions, for simultaneously meeting the needs of the Port, the Army Corps of Engineers, lakefront development downtown, and preservation of the east side lakefront recreational district. Letters by Dike 14 members have been sent to, among others:

  • CCCPA
    
  • US Army Corps of Engineers Buffalo District
    
  • Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR)
    
  • Ohio Lake Erie Commission
    
  • Governor Strickland, Senators Voinovich and Brown, Reps LaTourette and Kucinich, Mayor Jackson, various council members, Cleveland City Planning Commission members, Cuyahoga County Commissioners, and a variety of other current and former officials.
    
  • Dike 14 Environmental Educational Collaborative (http://www.dike14.org/collaborative.html), a separate group from the Dike 14 Nature Preserve Committee.  The EEC consists of representatives from the following organizations: Cleveland Botanical Garden, Cleveland Metroparks, Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cuyahoga Soil and Water Conservation District, Cuyahoga Valley National Park Association, Earth Day Coalition, Lake Erie Nature and Science Center, Nature Center at Shaker Lakes, and Western Cuyahoga Audubon Society.
    

  [*]Having numerous letters & op-ed columns published in various relevant media, including Cleveland Crain’s Business, Cleveland Magazine, Cleveland Plain Dealer, and Cleveland Scene.

  [*]Making our 45-minute, facts-based presentation, “Why the Port Relocation Plan to East 55th is NOT in the public interest” to any group that is willing to listen. To date, we have presented to NEO Watershed groups, various boating clubs and organizations, college classroom groups,  League of Women Voters (where the Port was also scheduled to make their presentation the same evening but backed out two days prior when they became aware that we too were presenting), Cleveland Metroparks employees group, Langston Hughes Library (open to the general public), the Dike 14 EEC, and others.

  [*]Acquiring signatures (over  1130 to date) on a petition which reads as follows: “We, the undersigned, oppose the destruction of the East 55th Street Lakefront State Park & Marina for a proposed 200-acre Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) and future industrial port. We support the industrial port on non-recreational land only; and we support action that protects and improves Cleveland’s Lakefront State Parks, including the East 55th Street State Park & Marina, Gordon State Park and Dike 14 Nature Preserve, as is pledged in the Cleveland Lakefront Plan.” If you feel so inclined to take one easy step toward supporting our efforts, please find attached a copy of our petition.

   

 

Attached is a short summary fact sheet (090915 Fact Sheet re Port Relocation to E55.pdf) which we make available to our email distribution and our presentation audience members.

 

I encourage you to take the time to peruse and comment on this posting and its attachments, to read the linked studies, and to continue the dialogue.  And, it goes without saying, we would be willing and happy to make our presentation to anyone from this forum who wishes to hear it – just let us know when it would be most convenient for you and your group.

 

Ken Vinciquerra, Member, Dike 14 Nature Preserve Committee

^Welcome to the board.

If this isn't going to happen (and I never was a fan) why did we demolish down the HoJo?

If this isn't going to happen (and I never was a fan) why did we demolish down the HoJo?

The HoJo was not related to the port move. It was demolished because the building had been condemned for about 20 years and no developer had made any progress in remodeling the structure.

^Welcome to the board.

 

I actually have posted here already - see page 8 - but thanks anyway...'preciate it.

 

...Ken

Hi all...

 

I wanted to share some comments on the PD editorial that appeared over the weekend (Nov 21: A Cleveland Port Authority board already wounded can't afford conflict-of-interest charges, http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/11/a_cleveland_port_authority_boa.html).

 

While the PD over the past couple of months has finally begun to awaken from its years-long slumber regarding Port secretiveness, erratic leadership, irresponsible handling of public monies, extravagent hiring practices, and lack of a business plan to back up its ill-conceived relocation proposal, it still is missing the big picture regarding our lakefront.

 

The editorial states that “If the port is to move, it has to move somewhere, and alternative locations have been ruled out one by one -- largely because of conflicts with other Cleveland priorities.” First, there is no evidence whatsoever that the perennially money-losing "ghost town" Port needs to triple its current facilities, or that it will suddenly and magically become profitable based on a highly speculative dream of container cargo business from the St. Lawrence Seaway. Consequently, its proposed move to East 55th can only be looked upon as an enormous ($500 million to $1+ billion) boondoggle having no foreseeable positive (or even break-even) return on investment. Second, how is it that the recreational district stretching from the east end of Burke to Dike 14 is suddenly no longer a "Cleveland priority"?

 

The editorial stated that “Opening up that part [current Port location] of the Lake Erie shore for parks and open space is contemplated in nearly every city and lakefront plan[my emphasis].” That certainly is true, but not at the expense of something else that has also been contemplated in every city and lakefront plan, i.e., the expansion of lakefront recreational facilities and access to the lake from Burke to Dike 14. Briefly,

 

• In 1979, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) released its Master Plan for Cleveland Lakefront State Parks (Cleveland Lakefront State Park Master Plan, prepared by Behnke Dickson Tkach Landscape Architects/Architects/Engineers, Cleveland, OH) which shows expansion of E55th Street State Park and Marina and Gordon Lakefront State Park.
  
• In 1987, ODNR released an update to that Master Plan (Cleveland Lakefront Master Plan Update, prepared by  Woolpert Consultants, Dayton, OH Associates) which, again, envisioned expansion of recreational facilities on the eastern lakefront and greater neighborhood access to those facilities.
  
• Most recently, and after 30 months of public input, the 2004 Connecting Cleveland: The Waterfront District Plan (WDP) was released.  In this vision for the East Shoreline, WDP expands upon the ODNR plan and further details the improvements to this recreational district: “The eastern portion of the vision builds upon the expanded park system, creating a tremendous collection of inter-connected public open space…a continuous green ribbon that will thread the distance between the water’s edge and the boulevard.”
  

 

 

It is inconceivable that the two aforementioned ODNR plans and the WDP are somehow not “Cleveland priorities,” and that they should suddenly and arbitrarily be tossed on the trash heap by a small group of unelected men making decisions behind closed doors. To destroy a mile-long stretch of existing recreational shoreline by dropping an obtrusive and poorly planned 200-acre industrial port into its midst would surely, once again, leave future Clevelanders to ponder: What were they thinking?

 

...Ken

 

DefendCleve, thanks for posting here. Your insight is appreciated.

 

I'll be the first to admit I had fallen under the spell Wasserman's high reaching plans on Port relocation. And I had absolutely no clue how dysfunctional things had become, which serves me right for relying on the media for information.

 

Our waterfront deserves more than a 40 year, billion dollar Port gamble.  Improving the coastline is not rocket science and the solutions should be attainable sooner rather than later.  It would truly be incredible if the amazing Lakefront Plan could ever take shape.  Imagine new beaches, expanded marinas, overlooks, fishing platforms, boat launches and better access to the water....

 

I'm starting to feel that the Port's failure to relocate could really be a blessing in disguise. 

Change is in the air for the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority

By James F. McCarty,The Plain Dealer

November 27, 2009, 12:01PM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The governing board of the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority displayed a rare moment of candor last week when its chairman admitted that he and his colleagues had fumbled their oversight of former president and CEO Adam Wasserman.

 

Board Chairman Steven Williams spoke of mistakes in judgment, missed opportunities to ask the right questions, and of placing too much trust in Wasserman, while expressing a determination not make the same mistakes again.

 

His admissions came with the disclosure that the authority, which once helped to finance the Gateway development, Browns Stadium and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, is now so short of money that it might not be able to keep its own the port clear for shipping.

 

Read more at:

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/11/post_135.html

"I'm starting to feel that the Port's failure to relocate could really be a blessing in disguise."

 

Ain't it the truth.  The recreational potential of Lake Eire is grossly underdeveloped.  The lake is only going to get cleaner and clearer over time.  There is an embryonic wreck diving industry operating out of Gordon Park.  It attracts hard core wreck divers from all over the country but is only a tenth of what it will be with better visibility which will come in time.  Although I have never been there I am told that the rubble pile/reef made from the old Municipal Stadium has attracted a fair number of fish.  Why not have a snorkeling business there? Is there really any reason why the Edgewater park experience can't be as good as Mentor Headlands? I went to Waikiki Beach, Oahu this summer (usually vacation on other islands).  I sat next to a guy from Mentor (small world).  He said he goes with his wife to Hawaii every year but other than the salt water it really isn't much better than the beach at Mentor Headlands.  He said it, I didn't.  We have the warmest lake so it is well suited for recreational activities.  We really just don't appreciate the potential here.  Cleaner water faster would make all the difference.   

Sounds like you should attend the next Port Authority meeting and register public comment on your point...a very good one I might add.

I'm not sure that the lake will get any clearer over time.  It is naturally very "turbid" because of the type of soil on the lake bottom.  Because Erie is so shallow, it gets stirred up easily.

It has already gotten a lot clearer, primarily due to the zebra mussel, a filter feeder. 

Board Chairman Steven Williams wakes in a cold sweat to the nightmarish vision out of the last act of Deliverance: Ed Hauser's hand rising out of the water off Wendy Park.

 

Ok, to their credit, the Port Authority got us the Rock Hall and Gateway (and its attendant beer and wine tax to pay for it).  But why the heck cannot Ohio goverment manage development projects without this unfocused, unelected extra layer of government overripe with potential for rotten crony deals?  Ohio already has a Department of Development.  Cuyahoga County has a government.  Cleveland has a mayor.

 

Port Authorities are a good place to start downsizing government.  We are already paying enough salaries to government officials.  These unelected officials who hold secret meetings and overrule plans drafted by deliberative committees are the worst.  Ohio needs a constitutional amendment on the ballot to dispatch these unelected oligarchs. :speech:

 

 

It has already gotten a lot clearer, primarily due to the zebra mussel, a filter feeder.

 

The zebra mussel is actually an invader species that has upset the lake's ecosystem.  Those buggers have caused huge dead zones from where the oxygen levels have grown too high due to the creation of too much algae now being exposed to sunlight in the clearer waters.

Regardless of how bungled the port has been managed, i still agree with the vision of a unified waterfront along the lake and river

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/12/cleveland-cuyahoga_county_port_3.html

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The governing board of the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority today laid off four employees and hired the former head of National City Bank to run the agency until a new president and CEO can be found.

Port board member Robert Smith said he recruited Peter Raskind for his strong leadership and crisis management skills. Raskind, 53, said he expects to work for three to six months, and will only earn $1.

...

At the top of Raskind's list will be to hire replacements for two key managers who resigned and the four staff employees who were laid off today: Senior Logistics Manager Bradley Hull, Eeconomic Development Director Todd Brian, Communications Director Luke Frazier and general counsel Joel Pentz.

Good luck, Peter

People on cleveland.com complimenting the port on getting this going?? Complimenting the Healtline too??  The Browns are going to win tonight based on these two occurences.

 

Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority committee approves first phases of lakefront development project

By James F. McCarty,The Plain Dealer

 

A plan to open Cleveland's waterfront to the public by 2013 took another step this morning toward becoming a reality.

 

Eric Johnson, the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority's real estate director, presented a preliminary design and timetable to the port's real estate and development finance committee, which approved it. The full board will vote on the idea next week. Cleveland's Planning Commission gave its approval Dec. 4.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/12/cleveland-cuyahoga_county_port_5.html

People on cleveland.com complimenting the port on getting this going?? Complimenting the Healtline too??  The Browns are going to win tonight based on these two occurences.

 

 

Haha I know, I felt like I was in some sort of alternate universe after reading those comments

"When completed, designers envision an urban village of shops, hotels, parks, offices and condos wrapped around a working port."

 

I can picture this really helping the city and the region.

People on cleveland.com complimenting the port on getting this going?? Complimenting the Healtline too??  The Browns are going to win tonight based on these two occurences.

 

 

Could you also let me know what numbers you're betting the next time you play the lottery? Thanks much!!  :-D

Just to refresh everyones memory here is the link to the Ports Waterfront District flash presentation, it's nice to dream on a coldddd night...

 

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/lakefront/iactive/flash/index.html

^Is the plan on there old, because it shows the new port location at West 54th and I was under the impression that the port was moving to East 55th.

Yeah, that link leads to the old, much less realistic plan.

Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority sets priorities for 2010

 

By JAY MILLER

 

1:56 pm, January 20, 2010

 

At its first meeting of 2010, the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority board set its priorities for the year ahead and approved a package of nearly $35 million in loans for the Flats East Bank project.

 

Board chairman Steven Williams said the agency will renew its focus on development financing and that interim president Peter Raskind will craft long-term new strategies for redevelopment of Port of Cleveland land on the lakefront and the relocation of port operations. The board also will tackle the more immediate issue of financing for a new dump site, called a contained disposal facility, for river dredgings.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20100120/FREE/100129978

These guys are dropping fast...

 

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

 

"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.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/11/post_110.html

 

 

...$300,000.00! I would disappear for about 10 years and tan professionally

 

And even more...

 

Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority lays off two more employees, bringing total salary/benefits savings to $760,000

By James F. McCarty,The Plain Dealer

February 02, 2010, 5:05PM

 

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The cost-cutting purge at the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority continued this week with the layoffs of two more employees.

 

Combined with four layoffs in December, the taxpayer-subsidized authority has shed more than $760,000 in salaries and benefits the past two months -- more than offsetting a projected $458,000 budget shortfall.

 

MORE AT http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/02/cleveland-cuyahoga_county_port_9.html

Brief notes from the last Friday's Planning Commission meeting - nothing ground breaking.

 

http://clevelandplanner.blogspot.com/2010/02/cleveland-planning-commission-report.html

 

Last part of the report

Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority inks its largest tenants to new leases designed to increase profits for both sides

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- New lease agreements signed last week by the Cleveland-Cuyahoga Port Authority and its two major maritime tenants aim to save local jobs and boost business, port officials said in a news release.

 

The deal provides a rent cut for the authority's biggest tenant -- Federal Marine Terminals -- and will implement realigned billing procedures for Carmeuse North America to help both companies adjust to a drop in business due to the bad economy.

 

"The recession has taken a toll on virtually every industry, and that includes shipping," Peter Raskind, the authority's interim CEO, said in the release. "Renewing and restructuring these leases is good for the port and good for Cleveland because these businesses affect so many other local industries."

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/03/post_238.html

Interesting bit of news- I like Richard Knoth... I'm hoping that he continues to be outspoken on his ideas.

 

Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority board holds secret elections; ousts outspoken vice-chairman

 

By James F. McCarty,The Plain Dealer

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority's governing board met secretly today to re-elect its chairman and to oust a maverick member as vice chairman.

 

The closed-door session, the latest in a series of meetings in which the board conducted  business in private, comes five months after port officials pledged a new era of openness.

 

"Credibility and openness and ethics have got to be at the top of our list," Chairman Steven Williams said at an October meeting with Plain Dealer editors and reporters.

 

More at http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/03/post_247.html

 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers officer warns Gov. Ted Strickland that Cleveland's harbor could close in five years without new dredge dump site

By James F. McCarty,The Plain Dealer

April 10, 2010, 6:00AM

 

 

 

A financial crisis preventing the dredging of the Port of Cleveland and Cuyahoga River after 2014 could severely curtail shipping commerce in five years.CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A money crisis threatens to close Cleveland's port to millions of dollars of commercial shipping by 2015, a top administrator with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers warned in a recent letter to Gov. Ted Strickland.

 

Lt. Col. Daniel Snead wrote that his Buffalo office will be forced to stop dredging the harbor in five years unless the state and local port authority finds $133 million to build a new facility to store tons of contaminated muck.

 

Even if the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority gets the money today, the earliest a new containment dike could open would be 2017, the letter states. That is three years after existing containment facilities will be filled.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/04/post_264.html

 

Cleveland Public Radio reported today that the Cleveland Port Authority is going to adopt a "reduced mission".  I could not find the story anywhere online yet.

Sounds like they may have nabbed the right guy for the job.

 

Cleveland-Cuyahoga Port Authority taps new chief executive

By Sandra Livingston, The Plain Dealer

May 04, 2010, 11:10AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority this morning selected William Friedman, of Indianapolis, as the port's new chief executive.

 

"This is truly an honor," Friedman said after the morning meeting where it was finalized. "I wouldn't be here if I didn't think the Port of Cleveland had tremendous potential."

 

Friedman served from 1990 to 2004 as chief executive of the ports of Indiana and Seattle. He left to become a vice president of ports and logistics for the real estate investment trust Duke Realty Corp. and has served as a management consultant for the past year.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/05/cleveland-cuyahoga_port_author_1.html

 

Sounds like they may have nabbed the right guy for the job.

 

I concur.  Regardless of who the other candidates were (and I think they are both good at their current positions), the fact that Friedman led the Port of Indiana (not to mention Seattle) is a significant win for the region. They cover ports on both Lake Michigan and on the Ohio River, and as such, they have a broad and sophisticated vision of transportation and logistics as required by moving material throughout the state.

 

Good hire!

Really informative op-ed where Raskind kills the idea of the Port relocating to E. 55th, states that any relocation of the Port for redeveloping the downtown lakefront will require assistance to the Port to move, and states that the Port alone is not responsible for the local effort to maintain the navigation channel.  See also http://clevelandmagazinepolitics.blogspot.com/2010/05/raskind-kills-port-relocation.html

 

---

Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority has its finances and its priorities straight: Peter Raskind

By Plain Dealer guest columnist

May 23, 2010, 3:48AM

 

By Peter Raskind

 

Six months ago, I volunteered to take the helm as the interim CEO of the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority. Recently, after a comprehensive search process, the port's Board of Directors hired Will Friedman to succeed me. Will is an excellent choice for this challenging job, having spent his entire career around ports and port issues.

 

As I prepare to hand over the keys to Will on June 1, I wanted to share some of my personal observations about the port:

 

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/05/post_19.html

So what is the port going to do to expand maritime freight traffic here? We are on an international waterway, and nearly all port cities on international waters are seeing economic growth. In some cases, they're seing incredible growth! Several port cities on the Great Lakes seem to be notable exceptions to this global rule. While Raskind sounds rational, he also doesn't sound very visionary.

 

And, BTW, our downtown lakefront is no place for a cargo port. Do we agree on that? The community certainly did when it voiced support for moving the port off the downtown lakefront as part of the Lakefront Plan. Now an interim CEO says that's dead? I'm sorry but who is he to deny a community planning process?

 

Between the need for a our port to play a much larger role in our city's economy, and the fact that downtown lakefront land is no place for a cargo port, what conclusions should be reached?

I'm with KJP.  Considering how long the move will take, it's best we get underway.

Someone fill me in on how municipal financing could work... but we could potentially use the Casino for the funding of the reconfiguring of Public Square and possibly/probably The Mall.  Would there be a way to get the financing and infill work done using the technology mentioned by KJP in the Warehouse District redevelopment thread (used tires) for the port's new land?  This would not take care of the containment area needed for the dredging of the river, but could easily be used to move the port in a fraction of the time. 

 

We've got a financing tool which will be online (possibly with a "Phase One" this year?) and in place.  Now for the region to get behind it...

our downtown lakefront is no place for a cargo port. Do we agree on that? The community certainly did when it voiced support for moving the port off the downtown lakefront as part of the Lakefront Plan. Now an interim CEO says that's dead?

 

Couple of things. The Planning Commission's Waterfront District Plan does, as you indicate, envision a people-centered lakefront development at the current site of the port. Raskind is not saying that the downtown development is dead or that it should be abandoned. What he's saying is that "the Port Authority's plan to move the port to East 55th Street was ill conceived and built upon layers of questionable assumptions. Although it may be appealing to think about a very large new port and a wholly redeveloped waterfront, the East 55th Street plan was, unfortunately, never viable."

 

Secondly.

I'm sorry but who is he to deny a community planning process?

That same Waterfront District Plan that envisions a spiffy downtown lakefront development also envisions an enhanced recreational zone for the E55/Gordon Park shoreline; it most certainly does not envision a 200-acre port and all the accompanying road and rail reconfiguration across that entire area. The Port's plan to create a new port at this site, obliterating the shoreline between Burke and the Cleveland Lakefront Nature Preserve (formerly "Dike 14), was spawned behind closed doors and ignored the conclusions of a study by USACE and other entities that vetted 6 possible CDF/relocation sites. Two of those vetted sites, the two finalists at the time, were the east harbor breakwall and the west harbor breakwall, and these are still viable sites if a relocation is in fact determined to be feasible. In fact, these two sites are still cited in their late 2009 DMMP/EIS report as options (and, much cheaper ones at that).

 

Lastly, the west harbor breakwall is actually the relocation site that appears in the approved Waterfront District Plan. It would appear to me that we've just wasted 3 years and untold sums of money in chasing the boondoggle at E55th. I commend Peter Raskind for having the courage to tell it like it is. Maybe the Port should hire interim CEOs as a policy so that they have the freedom, like Mr. Raskind does, to see things from a perspective free of political cronyism, and to make decisions based solely on what's best for the city and its taxpayers.

 

...Ken

Actually, I believe what he was referring to as "ill conceived" and "never viable" was the over 200 acre port, which is over twice the size of the existing port.  Everyone I had ever heard from was on board with E. 55th.  From a logistical standpoint it is a no brainer.  There was however a lot of internal "discussion" I heard over the size, and cost.  And while the west break wall plan may have looked pretty on paper... it is the "anti-no brainer" logistically.  As a matter of fact I'm really not even sure it is possible, and the price tag to get it done would be astronomical.

 

The bottom line is that no one is going to be happy where the port ends up.  You are always going to be upseting someone.

Actually' date=' I believe what he was referring to as "ill conceived" and "never viable" was the over 200 acre port, which is over twice the size of the existing port.[/quote']

Well, you're certainly entitled to believe that, but that's not at all what he said.

 

What he said, in fact, was "If the community would like to see the port relocated to facilitate the complete redevelopment of the port's current downtown location, another suitable site will need to be identified, analyzed and secured." He didn't say "By all means, let's build it at E55th, but just make it smaller."

 

You're right that the size was ridiculously out of proportion to all reality, and yes, the container cargo business plan was never a viable business plan, but the plan to obliterate the east shoreline (where the City Planning Commission's approved Waterfront District Plan envisions "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"), was, well, "ill conceived and built upon layers of questionable assumptions."

 

What "assumptions" was Peter Rascind referring to? Aside from...

 

• Assumptions implicitly made by the Port in not addressing the "many key issues that need to be addressed" as outlined in the Port's own feasibility study conducted by Martin & Associates in 2008, and
  
• Assumptions made without the benefit of anything resembling a cost-benefit analysis or a ROI analysis (we're talking basic Business 101 here),
  
• Assumptions/underestimations regarding the extent of logistical challenges and the costs of these challenges (more on that further below)
  

 

...there are a whole host of environmental/social problems that are summarized succinctly in a Feb 1 2010 letter submitted by ODNR to US Army Corps of Engineers during the comment period on the Corps' DMMP/EIS study of the E55th site. ODNR's comments included strong statements addressing impacts to

 

• "Fish and wildlife",
  
• "Recreational boating",
  
• "Parks and recreation",
  
• "Water quality",
  
• "Rare and endangered species",
  
• "Public access" (including, by the way, the statement that "The proposed project’s location is not consistent with the 2004 Cleveland Waterfront District Plan")
  
• Numerous other related potential problems not addressed by the Port that I'll omit here in the interest of space.
  

   

Everyone I had ever heard from was on board with E. 55th.

 

Not sure who exactly you were hearing from, but I can provide you the names of 1,203 citizens who signed a petition strongly opposing this plan; the petition was formally presented to Army Corps of Engineers and to Cleveland City Planning Commission.

 

From a logistical standpoint it [the E55 site] is a no brainer.

And just what exactly is the basis for that statement?

 

[the West Breakwall] is the "anti-no brainer" logistically.  As a matter of fact I'm really not even sure it is possible' date=' and the price tag to get it done would be astronomical.[/quote']

 

Again, what exactly is this based on? As I said above, the Port did no basic cost-benefit analysis, no dollars-and-cents comparison of the E55th site versus the other sites that were originally vetted prior to the behind-closed-doors, out-of-the-blue decision in the Spring of 2008 to select E55th. Among the enormous monetary costs associated with the E55 site that are not factors when considering the West Breakwall Harbor site, are:

 

• The cost of relocating the E55 St. Marina (268 boat slips, 20 transient docks, ample parking, and a restaurant and concession building) from its current location to (according to the Port's published plans) a crowded site between Intercity Yacht Club and Cleveland Lakefront Nature Preserve (this is aside from the recreational and environmental impacts such an undertaking would entail)
  
• The cost of reconfiguring North Marginal Road and Cleveland Lakefront Bikeway. This cost includes (but is not limited to) two new structures needed to span the FirstEnergy intake and discharge channels, as well as modification of the E55th/I90 interchange
  
• The cost of constructing the pie-in-the-sky railroad bridge over the Shoreway from the CSX mainline atop the bluff down to the port site. According to the Port's Advanced Summary Report, "a significant structure would be required to span the South Marginal and I-90, the rail will slope down to the site on embankment for approximately 1500' before meeting grade at the port site." An engineering marvel, to say the least.
  
• The cost of extending the east end of the breakwall by some 1000'
  
• The cost of dredging and maintaining the waters inside the breakwall to shipping channel depth, from the Cuyahoga to the end of the breakwall (between E72nd St and MLK)
  
• The cost of transporting the river/harbor dredge materials eastward to the CDF at E55th over the next 25+ years
  
• etc...
  

 

A CDF built adjacent to the breakwall right there at the harbor would incur none of these huge additional expenses. 

 

The bottom line is that no one is going to be happy where the port ends up.

Now that's something we can probably both agree on!

 

...Ken

 

All things considered, the western site deserves another look.  My understanding was that existing businesses in that area made it impossible.  Is this not so?

Ha.  Well ken I certainly appreciate your passion for your defense of the 55th st area.  I will try to reply when i get a chance but at some point I have a feeling you and I are going to have to agree to disagree or we can will just keep going back and forth with 20 paragraph posts.  :)

This will matter to some and not to others, but after talking to Chris Ronayne about the western site, he revealed that the surf will be negatively affected if the island were to be constructed by Edgewater Beach as planned.  In the bigger picture of things- this matters not.  However, it shows how many parties and interests (including surfers) will be affected by the port's relocation- whether it be east or west of the river.

 

 

DefendCleve,

 

I am so glad you have come on this forum to present another side that few get to hear. You have done your homework well on this and what many do not realize on this forum, is that those who have been opposing this plan....and  paying attention step by step are no dummes. They have their information together to a "T".

 

When too many hear from only chamber-like driven forces, there is a lot left to be said that remains unsaid...a side that contrary to popular myth..does NOT entail the best interest of the overall public at large.

 

Allowing the port to be dictating planning for the lakefront is again...what I say often, like letting loggers dictate forest management. There are OTHER options that do not involve undermining this area of the shoreline that should be preserved for recreational uses.

 

On the side that touches upon undermining a state park/D-14. Everyone touts how wonderful Chicago is for having such space, and other cities who have implemented such space in with other development that does NOT have a negative bio-impact on the water......but as I see it, few here have ever set foot near D-14....and are simply all caught up in the pretty pictures of buildings along the lakefront.

 

PLEASE!!!.....Just for ONE fricken moment...will some of you set the egos aside that insists we must be "right".... forget what you think you know or have been told about this and consider that just maybe...just maybe...there is another way...and a win/win/win for all.. This is what true progressive leadership and minds do.

 

In a city that has notoriously abused its shoreline and riverbanks, maybe its time we show a different direction.....not go right down the same old road again.

 

Again, thank you DefendCleve...

 

Lastly,  I don't care if people want to throw flames on me....but I will do all I can in writing to appropriate people to prevent this debacle. 

 

Sorry.. don't take this personal anyone.. I'm just fired up about this from a state park ODNR perspective.  :-o  :-D

^What is that win/win/win solution EC?  I like you and DefendCleve's gusto, but I'm not seeing a proposed alternative.  DefendCleve seems to hint at the West breakwall site (as proposed in the Lakefront Plan) but he never explicitly states where the port should move or IF the port should move.

How about northward? It is a possible idea....  Create fill.... It would actually be the "lesser of two evils" so to speak.  I am sure that will be commented on later.  I know DC....mentioned something of this and I liked the idea...but could never explain it as well as I have heard it explained. So...let's wait and see...

Why not drop the dredgings where the Windmills are supposed to go? Then the lake Eire wind farm will be on dry land. 

How about northward? It is a possible idea....  Create fill.... It would actually be the "lesser of two evils" so to speak.  I am sure that will be commented on later.  I know DC....mentioned something of this and I liked the idea...but could never explain it as well as I have heard it explained. So...let's wait and see...

 

Inside the breakwall or are you talking about the West Breakwall location?  Does that leave enough room for shipping traffic in the channel?  Infrastructure costs would be enormous if you build on the East portion of the breakwall as new RR and automobile bridges would be required as well as electrical, sewage, water, and storm water infrastructure would need to be run above or under the shipping channel.

 

The construction of a new port is not going to be cheap no matter where it is built.  While the environmental and recreational impact of a new port might be less if built on the breakwall I don't see how the infrastructure costs would be any less.  New/redesigned infrastructure is going to be required no matter where you go.  You do achieve some savings by no longer needing to relocate a fairly large marina and supporting infrastructure.