Jump to content

matteusleus

Dirt Lot 0'
  • Content Count

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. matteusleus

    SCOTUS

    Mr. Judge is well within his rights to invoke the 5th amendment, which every lawyer would advise him to do. He has no benefit of being interviewed, not to mention his personal demons which he already stated is a reason he does not want to cooperate anything further other than issuing a statement. Edit: haha well well well... I guess confidentiality is key. Maybe I'm not completely wrong??
  2. matteusleus

    SCOTUS

    Mr. Judge is well within his rights to invoke the 5th amendment, which every lawyer would advise him to do. He has no benefit of being interviewed, not to mention his personal demons which he already stated is a reason he does not want to cooperate anything further other than issuing a statement. that will not look good for Brett though. Maybe not but Mr. Judge has no incentive to make Brett look good. His incentive is to protect himself by invoking the 5th so he's not charged with anything. Mr. Judge has already issued a statement under penalty of felony denying being present for Ford's allegations - we won't hear anything else from Judge with or without a FBI investigation. Mr. Judge is not going to shed any more light on this situation - he's not the Dems ace in the hole.
  3. matteusleus

    SCOTUS

    Mr. Judge is well within his rights to invoke the 5th amendment, which every lawyer would advise him to do. He has no benefit of being interviewed, not to mention his personal demons which he already stated is a reason he does not want to cooperate anything further other than issuing a statement.
  4. The block club approved the design & zoning variance. Cooler heads prevailed last night & it was very cordial. Due to the developers and neighborhood leaders hosting numerous meetings regarding this project, I think everyone already knew how they were going to vote.
  5. The Franklin Circle proposal is changing their procedures a little bit. Instead of applying for a variance from the zone of boarding appeals, they will put their proposal in front of city council and ask for a temporary rezoning of the parcels to allow for their development. My understanding of this has two points: 1. since city council is an elected body, everyone in Cleveland will now have an opportunity to voice support/concern; 2. they probably felt they would not have received the block club's support for the zoning appeal/variance request. They are asking for a temporary rezoning in case this particular project never comes to fruition - at that point it would revert back to original zoning. In theory I like the move going to an elected body to make the decision but as well all know on this board, city council has its issues too. It tough to build urban development Cleveland! Where does that rezoning proposal stand? http://www.ohiocity.org/sites/default/files/Ohio_City_Changes-4-6-16.pdf
  6. Punching Franklin Cir through to Dexter for pedestrian only access is a fantastic idea. It will provide a natural, efficient flow for people walking from W25th/Franklin, Fulton, & W28th on the southside of Franklin to the retail area on W29th. It will better incorporate Dexter as a street opposed to a long driveway for this apt building & it will further rejuvenate Franklin Cir. Love the idea!!
  7. haha well I still don't know how & unfortunately I cannot find the drawing tool either... Just sent you PM
  8. Casto-Dexter (Dimit Architects): 100 unit luxury apartment complex [/member] W28th & Franklin Cir. It will be presented before the Franklin Clinton block club next week. For the life of me I cannot figure out how to post pictures - it has a very large presence w/ huge windows. It looks nicely done with underground & structured parking - from what I can tell, the parking + units all fit in the same profile w/ apts stacked over parking. I have a feeling this will get major pushback from the neighborhood but we'll see. Its has studios, 1BR, 2BR, and 3BR apts.
  9. Good ideas on the emails to Cuyahoga Council. I sent my displeasure with their decision re: Church & State as well... :-) included mhouser@cuyahogacounty.us; cc: dbrady@cuyahogacounty.us (President); nbaker@cuyahogacounty.us; yconwell@cuyahogacounty.us (ward rep) Michael - as a home owner and long time resident in Ohio City (currently reside in [address given in Hingetown]), Church & State is EXACTLY the type of development that needs to occur in Ohio City. The biggest issue we have in Ohio City is safety (not parking) and this is the type of density that is desperately needed to put a lot more eyes and ears on the streets. Lack of safety is what will bring down the neighborhood... not parking or anything else. Cleveland is not in a state of hyper gentrification & Ohio City is nowhere close to being built out. Excluding people to live in a rising neighborhood due to parking concerns is how our precarious progress will stop & we'll continue to be a borderline major city facing more decline. This is one of many like projects that should be built on major thoroughfares like Detroit Ave - it is served by existing public transportation and does not disrupt the fabric of the neighborhood that we all love so much. Public transit is the answer to parking concerns - not creating an enclave for existing residents by preventing more development. We're playing in the minor leagues right now and with the actions of Cuyahoga Council, I fear that other development projects will go elsewhere as it will be too risky to deal with county & city politics like has been for generations now. We will continue to be a borderline major city, or worse, if council does not start thinking bigger. How about encouraging this type of construction & many more projects like it that actually add to the tax rolls. With many more project like Church & State, you'll have all the funding & support needed to beef up public transit to a point where you can plan for growth and not just take reactionary measures of creating more cutbacks. Respectfully yours,
  10. matteusleus

    Gun Rights

    Technically, its not semantics, not at all. All those words mean very different things. You cannot have a gun control debate if the other party refuses to learn anything about guns. I don't want to get off track with technical terms designed to confuse people though. I still have not seen a response of my larger point of how you could actually confiscate guns from criminals or future mass murderers. Since its already been shown that these mass shootings go after unarmed, helpless people, how do you confiscate guns (and all weapons like it) without endangering everyone else who can no longer protect themselves?
  11. matteusleus

    Gun Rights

    Listen, I go back and forth about the 2nd amendment. On days after a bunch of innocent people are mowed down praying in church I'm more open to the idea. But generally I agree with Brutus in that it's a settled issue and trying to repeal it is a fool's errand. I AM all in favor of legislating the sh!t out of owning a gun, making sure that only people that know how to use them ever get to touch one. That said, what you just typed is the stupidest f@cking argument I've ever heard in advocacy for gun ownership. Yes, it's a personal attack on you. Yes, go ahead and ban me. Stupid needs to be called out. By your logic, we should all we strapping automatic weapons and blazing bullets around....because safety? Did you even read what you wrote? Can you even imagine how much worse it could have been if some hee haw who had ANOTHER AR-15 decided he was going to be Dirty Harry and stop the guy, and blasted more bullets around? Seriously, delete your account. I've never read anything more idiotic. This whole board is dumber for your having posted this. Whoa! What about civil discord? I'll try to lay it out for you on how that is done. Automatic weapons are illegal as well they should be. My post was in direct response to the suggestion of banning AR-15's with my point being AR-15's are not much different than a lot of other rifles out there. Do you honestly expect that you can legislate only law abiding citizens to own guns? Even in this Texas example that man should of never owned a gun - we already have laws to prevent that but it did not work! The Air Force made an error after this guy was discharged & did not enter information into a database that would have prevented him from buying an AR-15. Seems to me we should start enforcing the laws we already have before making new ones. Besides, there are countless examples of good guys with guns stopping bad guys with guns, including this Texas church example. These mass shootings occur when the victims are helpless to defend themselves so they occur in places that people don't have guns: schools, concerts, churches, etc. They only stop shooting when someone else shows up with a gun & returns fire.
  12. matteusleus

    Gun Rights

    Unless of course a criminal does not properly decommission their AR-15 and then comes after you (or a group of people) with it... then I would rather return fire using an AR-15 or a higher powered rifle. An AR-15 actually isn't even a high powered rifle... they just looks "scary" which is the only reason its called an assault rifle by people who know nothing about guns. If you could legitimately confiscate all guns from every person in the United States, then I feel like you could have a gun control debate. Its fantasy land to think criminals will turn in their guns - realistically you will just be confiscating guns from law abiding citizens. I feel very strongly people have the right to defend themselves against this.
  13. matteusleus

    Electric Cars

    Within reason, keeping pace with traffic all around you is the safest speed regardless of the speed limit. By driving only the speed limit when everyone around you is going 10 mph over, or faster, it is much less safe to be driving the speed limit assuming you are in either the passing or middle lane. My assumption is people that would use this auto pilot function will generally be slow to change lanes and will likely camp out in the middle or passing lanes. Now if their cars were limited to the speed limit, this would create an unsafe situation. Then what happens when 95% of the cars on the road are self-driving cars? They are all keeping pace with eachother. So if they are programmed to go 90 MPH on highways, all of the cars will be going 90 MPH and exceeding the speed limit by 20 MPH in Ohio. Also, I was taught in drivers ed that you are not allowed to exceed the speed limit in order to pass other cars. We cannot solve problems today that basically do not exist in any form - it's a waste of time. When 95% of the cars on the road are self driving, we'll have a different set of problems not even thought of yet. If I play this game of future world development, a software update would just take care of this problem. Its just as easy to find theoretical solutions to theoretical problems.
  14. matteusleus

    Electric Cars

    Within reason, keeping pace with traffic all around you is the safest speed regardless of the speed limit. By driving only the speed limit when everyone around you is going 10 mph over, or faster, it is much less safe to be driving the speed limit assuming you are in either the passing or middle lane. My assumption is people that would use this auto pilot function will generally be slow to change lanes and will likely camp out in the middle or passing lanes. Now if their cars were limited to the speed limit, this would create an unsafe situation.
  15. matteusleus

    Cleveland: Crime & Safety Discussion

    I can attest to this vandalism as well which is why I don't think its rackets - I live on a busy road in Ohio City & within the last week my neighbor's front door glass was smashed but thankfully not shattered and a few days later a window pane on my storm door was smashed. A few weeks ago while standing in my dining room, I watched a man hop a fence and look into the car windows of every car in the small lot while I was on the phone with the police for a solid 5 minutes. I don't think he broke into any cars. Unfortunately this guy took off before the police arrived - so far its all been very petty but irritating nonetheless. In both instances there was no evidence was left behind for what was used to smash the glass. Most likely teenagers w/ school being out but this is why I continually call on the fact that more density is needed on the thoroughfares. Cannot stress that enough. I also wish there were more cops for foot /bike patrols but I think the density needs to come first as I somehow think that's more likely.
×