Jump to content


Kettering Tower 408'
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

38 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. It’s THAT attitude that contributes to the lack of progress in this city in so many different areas. A large part of the city population believes, rightly in some cases, that people don’t give a damn about the folks who stayed here before it was cool and that the people pushing development are trying to move them out. If you want to get rid of that thought process, relegating people to permanent poverty and saying you’re ok with segregating them for any reason is not a way to do it
  2. Good lord, smh. You have some “amazing” takes but any sentence that starts with “I really don’t have a problem segregating them” regardless of what qualifier you add after that is pretty incredible. You do realize that a large portion of the CLE population is at or below the poverty line right? Smh
  3. I completely agree with you E-Rocc. It’s presumptuous to say innovation is “advancing” social issues because that presumes that we all agree on the issues that should be advanced. That’s a top down, presumptuous mentality. And when we hear about what social issues need to be advanced, we almost always hear liberal ones, exclusively. Well the city of Cleveland is 53 percent black and 10 percent Hispanic. (I am in one of those groups). Check Pew Research. Those are not two particularly doctrinaire liberal groups, regardless of voting patterns. I GUARANTEE you many members of those groups would have different views on what social issues should be “advanced” and it may not be in agreement with some of the ones mentioned here. Don’t presume everyone agrees with you on everything. Ok, off the soapbox now lol
  4. The writer of today’s article updated it: ”But it’s a sure bet that Greater Cleveland’s leadership will try to work with the company. “It’s very important that they stay in the city and if they are looking ... I can only speak for myself, but I’m very confident that the city would do everything we could do to get them to stay in Cleveland,” City Council President Kevin Kelley said. Mayor Frank Jackson’s administration declined to comment at this time.”
  5. I would love to hear more about that. I know it was a footnote in KJP’s larger story but I would love to hear more about Eaton regretting their move to the suburbs. It was dumb when they did it and it’s dumb now. At this point though, the question is what could they do about it? I do hope though that SHW sees that and doesn’t make the same mistake
  6. I hope so. The mere thought of them going to the burbs makes me ill
  7. Do you think Jacobs and Weston can work together? It’s a lot on the line to make this work. We CANNOT have them going to the suburbs. It’d be bad for the city, bad for SW, bad all around
  8. And as I mentioned earlier (and I think it was to you X), ALL of East Cleveland is a money loser. So I understand the argument you’re making. I comprehend it. I just reject it.
  9. Take that to the Cleveland voters then and see how well you can sell it. If you think you can sell that to voters who are already suspicious about taking on a burdened East Cleveland anyway and you’re gonna convince them to do it while giving Forest Hills away to Cleveland Heights, let me know how well that turns out. That’s been my point from the beginning. It’s ludicrous in part because it will never ever ever ever pass muster with Cleveland voters. But if you want to find out for yourself, have at it
  10. It’s not about it being East Cleveland’s pot o’ gold. It’s about how ludicrous it would be to go to the voters of the city of Cleveland and ask them to take in East Cleveland without its most stable neighborhood. That’s insane, and no one would support that. It would go down in flames and set back the regionalism movement. In addition to that, your argument that it’s not a “pot o’ gold” still doesn’t justify why Cleveland shouldn’t insist on it in any merger talks. You don’t just give away a neighborhood like that. That’s dumb. We all agree where the best potential returns on investment are in a merger, but if it was that easy to make it happen then glenville and Hough and Fairfax (neighborhoods with the same amount of proximity to UC and already in the city) would be thriving now. It ain’t that easy. And it definitely wouldn’t with East Cleveland added, a place that doesn’t even have the basic level of service and quality that the neighborhoods I mentioned have! So before you can capitalize on any potential that East Cleveland has, you have to get it to the bare minimum of where the rest of Cleveland neighborhoods are. EC isn’t even at that. Which, again, is why it’s ludicrous to cede it’s most stable neighborhood in a merger. Forest Hill isn’t a pot o’ gold, but EC along Euclid Avenue isn’t either because of what it would take to even get it up to basic standards of the rest of the city of cleveland
  11. Which will take years and millions upon millions upon millions of dollars
  12. You could make that argument for the whole damn city then lol. EC is a money loser period. But why would you want to cede a stable neighborhood to a relatively wealthy suburb while you keep the things that are in worse shape? That logic doesn’t make sense. The whole city is a money loser, so let’s get rid of the areas that are nicer than the rest of the city and require less investment to get the standard up. That makes no sense at all. Not to mention it’s an exercise in futility because any proposal that does that is DOA in Cleveland
  • Create New...