Jump to content

Foraker

Rhodes Tower 629'
  • Content Count

    962
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Foraker last won the day on February 18

Foraker had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

90 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Foraker

    Women's Rights

    Talk about moving on, give up on Bork. There is a HUGE difference between the Bork and Garland nominations -- the Senate held confirmation hearings and voted Bork's nomination down, 42-58. The Senate did their job. I'm not convinced it was the right outcome, but at least the Senate did their job. Garland's nomination was simply ignored. No hearings, no vote -- the Senate majority simply refused to perform their Constitutional duty. Despite that precedent, I would not expect you to move on quickly when the tables are turned. I'd still bet that Democrats will stop complaining about Republicans' treatment of Garland before Republicans stop talking about Clinton.
  2. So you're saying that the best course to a one-train-set future means: 1. buy new trains for the Blue/Green line that could someday operate on a refurbished Red line, 2. use the old Blue/Green line trains during new-train de-bugging on the Blue/Green Line 3. use the old Blue/Green line trains during the refurbishment-in-progress Red line 4. and once Red line stations are complete, retire all the old Red line and Blue/Green line trains Only a 50-year project from today.... but someday maintenance would be more efficient.
  3. I disagree that we should discuss suburban development without discussing the costs of doing so, but I'll respect your request. I did search for "abandoning infrastructure" and no such thread exists. If anyone has any suggestions, please post links.
  4. This discussion is moot because of the way mergers work in Ohio. It's going to be really really hard to merge EC with anyone in the first place, and pretty much impossible to carve out any one neighborhood. We really do need the state to get involved to solve the EC problem, but until the city and county demand it nothing will change.
  5. I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like there are a lot of streets with a couple of empty lots and a multiple rundown houses that are not in good repair, but not streets that have a "handful of houses where there used to be 100+" That seems like the exception rather than the rule, but I could very well be mistaken. (If I am, it's even more of a tragedy.) I would agree with that. But that's not a solution either. All of these utilities operate within networks, and developers are not managing the utilities. The roads/water/sewer/electric lines still run through the neighborhoods that are not being reinvested in; and those utilities still have to be maintained to keep the network running. The working neighborhood isn't going to be happy about a waterline break depriving them of water whether that break is in their neighborhood or upstream in a dysfunctional neighborhood. Thus the entities responsible for maintaining service in the working neighborhoods will continue to maintain the infrastructure going to them. You can say I'm only looking at a glass half empty, but we're not making any plans to reduce our infrastructure maintenance costs, and redeveloping some neighborhoods or suburban malls does not address the problem of too much infrastructure in the region for the existing population to support. Step one, acknowledge the existence of a problem. Step two, start to look for solutions. The housing crisis led to lots of abandoned and deteriorated homes being destroyed. But the infrastructure is still there. We could build new homes, but we don't have the population to move into them (I would not count on any suburbanites wanting to move to any non-downtown, non-UC neighborhoods right now). So maybe we should look at areas with lots of vacant lots and buy out the holdouts, then rip out some of the infrastructure and build parks, or consolidate blocks of land and build some giant warehouses and light industrial parks in such a way that we can remove some of the streets or some of the water and sewer lines. Buying out people who don't want to leave their homes is hard, and expensive. Maybe we think longer term -- the buyout happens upon death or a move by the current owners. So an area won't be redeveloped for 20-50 years, we have lots of places that need redevelopment. Maybe we continue to add land to the Emerald Necklace and can remove some infrastructure in the process. A larger, more contiguous park increases the quality of our parks and may make Cleveland even more attractive to outsiders. Maybe we also require developers to retire infrastructure in order to add infrastructure. What are some other ideas?
  6. Just to be clear, the Forest Hill neighborhood extends into a relatively small part of East Cleveland. In my opinion, the real investment value (growth opportunity) in East Cleveland is along Euclid Avenue (particularly near UC, but not exclusively) and Nela Park -- neither of which is part of Forest Hill. I'm not advocating for CH taking over all of Forest Hill, I'm just pointing out that if that were to happen it wouldn't significantly change the value of East Cleveland. I would also add that while the Forest Hill neighborhood is more stable than some portions of EC, it has its own problems that the neighborhood association there has been trying to address -- and at one point some were advocating for seceding from CH because they felt they weren't getting enough support. Point being, don't mistake the Forest Hill neighborhood for East Cleveland's pot o' gold.
  7. I feel like we're talking past one another. I don't disagree that we should build more densely in some areas -- I'm all in on making better use of existing infrastructure. But because we have ALREADY built more infrastructure than the existing population can afford to maintain in good condition, choosing not to build more infrastructure (choosing not to create more sprawl) is insufficient by itself to put us in a sustainable position. (Why do I say we already have too much infrastructure --- https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/northeast-ohio-infrastructure-gets-d/) If you have a mortgage, then using your old car instead of buying a new one is a good idea but it's insufficient by itself to reduce the debt. In other words, while making better use of existing infrastructure by building more densely in some areas is a good thing, it doesn't decrease the overall maintenance expense. As another example, let's assume that it costs $100 to maintain the roads and utilities in good condition from downtown to Richmond Mall. If we build more densely at Richmond Mall to make use of that existing under-utilized infrastructure, that does not change how much it costs to maintain the roads and utilities in good condition. We still have to spend $100 to maintain those roads and utilities in good condition. The expense side of the equation hasn't changed. So if we're not going to decrease the expense side, we have to look at the revenue side. While it doesn't reduce our infrastructure costs to build more densely, it might help on the revenue side -- if we can draw people from outside the region it may increase the tax-paying population (which every city says that they would like to do), or if it draws people from other areas of the region in sufficient numbers that we can abandon or allow the infrastructure they left behind to degrade. And it is this latter point that not very many people are talking about yet and I think we should be. Unfortunately, I see no sign that we are going to improve the revenue side -- we will have a fixed population in Northeast Ohio for the foreseeable future (although that may be overly optimistic) and a fixed amount of money to spend on infrastructure (no new taxes, no significant bump in median income to generate significant new revenues -- in fact, the Ohio legislature has promised to lower taxes even further, putting more of the burden on local governments and making this discussion even more important). If we're not going to increase the revenue side, we have to decrease the expense side. That means abandoning and/or degrading the quality of some infrastructure (gravel roads? lots over X acreage cut off from public sewers and sent back to septic tanks?) to get to a sustainable balance. Does that make sense, or do you have another explanation for how building more densely is going to solve this maintenance-expense problem?
  8. You are completely missing my point. I'm not using Richmond Mall as an example. Re-imagining Richmond Mall to make better use of existing infrastructure is a good idea. This is not about Richmond Mall or its renovation. Try, try again -- the Greater Cleveland area has more infrastructure than we can afford to maintain in good condition. (And the Ohio legislature has promised to lower taxes again, so this is going to become a more local problem.) When and how do we start talking about reducing our infrastructure obligations?
  9. The word "Richmond" was apparently a distraction. Let me fix that and emphasize some important concerns. Assuming no pot of gold, the inability to maintain our current infrastructure means we have too much to maintain. What are we going to start tearing down or downgrading? Residential streets back to gravel? Many will scoff at that idea, but Ohio's preference for further tax cuts and less infrastructure spending means that that is where we are heading.
  10. With a stagnant to declining population in the region I'm worried about the existing infrastructure obligations in the region relative to tax revenue and thinking that continuing to build further from the city center is a bad idea. That's smart of Richmond Heights to reconfigure the mall to take advantage of existing infrastructure, but let's not get carried away. To the extent that we already can't maintain the existing infrastructure (roads and bridges and sewer and water etc.) to high levels of quality, we don't want to add more infrastructure obligations, we want to find ways to have less to maintain -- meaning some infrastructure should go away or at least be downgraded to a lower quality. Building new suburban rental stock in all of the outer 'burbs seems just as unsustainable as the number of shopping malls we built. Or we have to find a way to increase our population again.
  11. Agreed. Everyone jumped in the pool. Fine. I don't get a sense that anyone in the Democratic Party sees any urgency to narrow the field. They set a pretty low bar for candidates to meet to make it into the first debates, and I think we'll see some drop off who won't make it into the debates, and (hopefully) some more drop off in the months right after the first debates, so that they'll be looking at 4-6 candidates by the fall, and then down to 3-4 legitimate candidates at the primaries. It will work itself out.
  12. Does the Emoluments Clause apply to the Secretary of State?
  13. KJP -- do you have a map of all the property Weston has acquired in that area? What do you think he has planned -- scaling back the number of parcels to redevelop initially, or just holding onto the property indefinitely a la Jacobs's Public Square lot?
×
×
  • Create New...