Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest FerrariEnzo

Cleveland: Port Authority News & Info

Recommended Posts

Cleveland port critic silenced from commenting at meetings

 

Posted by Tom Breckenridge June 25, 2008 16:54PM

Categories: Economic development, Impact

 

Cleveland's port leaders have taken the rare step of muffling the public-meeting complaints of a bellicose critic.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2008/06/cleveland_port_critic_silenced.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen this guy at public meetings.  He's about 6'6", 350 lbs, and he yells at the panelists, jabbing his finger and doing his best to look physically threatening.  He is a bully, plain and simple.  His rants don't even make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen this guy at public meetings.  He's about 6'6", 350 lbs, and he yells at the panelists, jabbing his finger and doing his best to look physically threatening.  He is a bully, plain and simple.  His rants don't even make sense.

 

Question though.  I don't agree with someone disrupting the meeting, but is there any truth in what he says?  I'm a believer of, where there smoke....there's fire. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, maybe not.  I've never seen hard evidence provided, though it should be collected because of MBE/FBE contracting requirements in the city.  My experience in the field leads me to believe that it doesn't matter if it is true to those pushing the issue.  And frankly it doesn't matter to me either.  This is about extorting contracts, not earning them.  Sorry to say, and I know you won't take kindly to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why wouldn't I take kindly.  I don't know enough about the situation to give an truly informed opinion. 

 

Is he doing this because he truly feels minorities are not be represented or just full of hot air?  It all just seems odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, if this guy is genuinely disrupting the meetings and is generally inhibiting the order of business, then they have the right to put such people out, no?

 

If he truly has a valid grievance .. as in, actual events that occured that he has a problem with, then there are channels through which to voice such grievances, I should think. Obviously, I don't know a lot about the political process in this case, but I'm just really curious to know the details here and whether or not this is just another idiot using racism as a scapegoat for his asshole-ness.

 

I'm not saying that's the case. Let me be clear. I'm just curious to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority to take focus off retail in regional development

 

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Tom Breckenridge

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

One of the region's most powerful business-development bodies will de-emphasize retail projects outside Cleveland and look for investments with regional effect.

To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:

 

tbreckenridge@plaind.com, 216-999-4695

 

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1216801853121550.xml&coll=2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it too.

 

 

Proposed new Cleveland port takes on a different look

Posted by Peter Krouse August 05, 2008 16:02PM

 

Meet the new port -- not the same as the old port.

A conceptual draft for a proposed new Port of Cleveland, to be located at East 55th Street, was revealed today. Gone are the finger docks that characterize the current port at the mouth of the Cuyahoga River.

 

...

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2008/08/meet_the_new_port.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure where the Nicholson Apartments are -- the only apartments that I'm aware in close proximity to this site is Quay 55.  That being said -- Yikes -- I can see why the Quay 55 owners were so unhappy with the Port's relocation to this area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually surprised that residents chose to live at Quay 55.  It is so removed from anything else.  The nice lake views are pretty much it.  Any reports on where the marina would move to or would it be no more?  And good point on no rail access shown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I did not completely get my point across. The Nicholson terminals  apartments are QUAY 55. That was the name of that hulking warehouse before it turned into an apartment complex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually surprised that residents chose to live at Quay 55. It is so removed from anything else. The nice lake views are pretty much it. Any reports on where the marina would move to or would it be no more? And good point on no rail access shown.

 

I'm with you on that one. I don't even think that the views are that great. The westside's shoreline views are awesome, but the east side's are nothing special. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are worried about the impact on Dyke 14. Looking at the new drawing, it looks that it will be unaffected. However, if the Port must re-establish the lost State Parkland and the marina, cramming both into E. 72nd  likely will have an adverse effect on the Dyke. 

 

If you've never been there, it is a very cool place, provides habitat for hundreds of bird species, great potential for natural hiking trails, learning centers, and lake access.

 

Here's a letter a friend sent to me:

 

The Honorable Ted Strickland, Governor of Ohio

Governor's Office

Riffe Center , 30th Floor

77 South High Street

Columbus , OH 43215-6108

 

Dear Governor Strickland,

 

I urge you to intervene immediately to keep the East 55th Street Marina and surrounding and neighboring parkland as an important part of the Cleveland Lakefront State Park (CLSP). The East 55th Street Marina , fishing piers from East 55th St. to East 72nd St. , concessions, picnic areas, parking lots, and other areas of the Lakefront State Park System are being targeted for elimination by the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority. The Port has claimed these State Park lands as their site for a 200-acre Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) and future industrial site for port activities, including bulk storage.

 

 

As you know, for more than 30 years the Cleveland Lakefront State Park from East 55th St. to East 72nd St. , including the Marina , has served the recreational needs of Ohio citizens and visitors of all ages. This centrally located State Park provides beautiful views of Lake Erie , especially from its 10-foot wide walkway that extends 1,200 feet along the east and north sides of the park. The Park also provides fishing access, picnic areas, rest rooms, a concession and restaurant building, 268 boat slips and 20 transient docks, and ample parking. To lose this recreational Lakefront jewel to an industrial use is neither reasonable nor appropriate.

 

 

Although the Port Authority has suggested that it will replace the public amenities of the East 55th Marina State Park elsewhere, its promises are fraught with unanswered challenges. But even if a new marina is built elsewhere along Cleveland ’s lakefront, it cannot replace what would be lost forever.

 

I ask that you act immediately and firmly to halt the Port Authority’s proposal for the following reasons:

 

1) The Port’s proposal would destroy a central and spacious expanse of public access to and public view of Lake Erie . This proposal would be a reversal of the plans of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, as well as plans by the City of Cleveland, as well as publicly stated promises made to the citizens of Cleveland's neighborhoods and the entire region, to expand CLSP at East 55th St. and the Marina and to open up more of Cleveland’s lakefront to public access.

 

 

 

2) The Port’s proposal violates the City’s own Lakefront plan, which was created just a few years ago and approved by the City’s Planning Commission after three years of input and approval from thousands of citizens, the State of Ohio , and Cuyahoga County . The Lakefront Plan (aka Waterfront District Plan) has as one of its goals the preservation and expansion of the State Marina and Park from East 55th St. to East 72nd St .

 

 

 

3) The Port’s proposal contradicts Army Corps’ extensive public planning process conducted over several years that studied eight sites and then identified, with the Port’s and City’s full involvement, three viable sites for locating Cleveland’s next Confined Disposal Facility (CDF). The Port delayed and then derailed the Corps’ process, rejecting the three publicly reviewed CDF sites and privately arranging with the Army Corps and the City of Cleveland to approve a fourth, never before mentioned, CDF site at the E. 55th St. State Park and Marina . The Port then conducted two public meetings with little notice and with virtually no back-up to support the sudden change of CDF locations. The Port’s claim to the new CDF site is based on a speculative plan for a container shipping port facility, which the Port’s own study found to be of questionable viability. To date the Port plan continues to be touted as ‘a done deal’ when in reality it is only a ‘concept plan’ without any feasibility study, without any cost-benefit analysis, and without any environmental impact study.

 

 

 

4) The Port has been lobbying individual organizations for support of its plan for a 200-acre industrial maritime facility and claiming that all displaced State Park recreational facilities can be crowded into an area east of East 72nd St., which would have devastating and negative impacts on Gordon State Park, Intercity Yacht Club and, in particular, to the new Nature Preserve at Dike 14.

 

 

 

Please intervene now to stop the Port’s takeover of Lakefront State Park lands between East 55th St. and East 72nd St .

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2) The Port’s proposal violates the City’s own Lakefront plan, which was created just a few years ago and approved by the City’s Planning Commission after three years of input and approval from thousands of citizens, the State of Ohio , and Cuyahoga County . The Lakefront Plan (aka Waterfront District Plan) has as one of its goals the preservation and expansion of the State Marina and Park from East 55th St. to East 72nd St .

 

This is a major issue in my mind.  By what right does the Port step in and override our City's plan for the Lakefront?  They aren't even confining their planning to their own site, they are essentially taking over planning for the whole east lakefront.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Axe that park on E 55th marina. That concerned letter to strickland is weak at best. All they are loosing is rich man dock space. Old current port space, can be used for everything the letter complains about loosing BUT dock space. This spot is best for a port, its next to nothing but undersused industiral lands, a highway, and E 55th industrial spine. Best for trucks, instead of the mess of them navigating through the flats and downtown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2) The Port’s proposal violates the City’s own Lakefront plan, which was created just a few years ago and approved by the City’s Planning Commission after three years of input and approval from thousands of citizens, the State of Ohio , and Cuyahoga County . The Lakefront Plan (aka Waterfront District Plan) has as one of its goals the preservation and expansion of the State Marina and Park from East 55th St. to East 72nd St .

 

This is a major issue in my mind. By what right does the Port step in and override our City's plan for the Lakefront? They aren't even confining their planning to their own site, they are essentially taking over planning for the whole east lakefront.

 

I would assume that the City consulted the Port when they put together the Lakefront Plan. Now the Port is saying that it would prefer a different location. I really don't see how this is a problem if the City is on board. Judging from everything that we've heard, the City and the local neighborhood CDCs are supportive of the move (except for the bird-watchers on Dike 14).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually surprised that residents chose to live at Quay 55. It is so removed from anything else. The nice lake views are pretty much it. Any reports on where the marina would move to or would it be no more? And good point on no rail access shown.

^I've heard a Port Authority Board member state that their intention is to relocate the E. 55th marina's capacity to Whiskey Island in some manner. He did not specify beyond that. I might have some more info on this next week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2) The Port’s proposal violates the City’s own Lakefront plan, which was created just a few years ago and approved by the City’s Planning Commission after three years of input and approval from thousands of citizens, the State of Ohio , and Cuyahoga County . The Lakefront Plan (aka Waterfront District Plan) has as one of its goals the preservation and expansion of the State Marina and Park from East 55th St. to East 72nd St .

 

This is a major issue in my mind. By what right does the Port step in and override our City's plan for the Lakefront? They aren't even confining their planning to their own site, they are essentially taking over planning for the whole east lakefront.

 

I would assume that the City consulted the Port when they put together the Lakefront Plan. Now the Port is saying that it would prefer a different location. I really don't see how this is a problem if the City is on board. Judging from everything that we've heard, the City and the local neighborhood CDCs are supportive of the move (except for the bird-watchers on Dike 14).

 

Primarily it is a problem because the Lakefront Plan was the largest community visioning process in the City's history.  The public got very involved in it and excited about it, and now we are throwing at least a third of it away in one swoop because an unelected board has decided that this is their preference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yet it's a good siting for the port, which has got to go.

 

i wouldn't get too upset about the lakefront plan, it's a long-term guide, not something to be followed to the letter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that relocating the port is so crucial.  In this *new* plan, the port construction will not even *start* until 2020, anyway.  This is not at all well-conceived.

 

From the article by Krouse:

The port anticipates reaching an agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by August 2009 on building a new dike, with construction to begin in 2012. Work on the port, which would be built atop the dike, would not begin until 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that relocating the port is so crucial.  In this *new* plan, the port construction will not even *start* until 2020, anyway.  This is not at all well-conceived.

 

I couldn't disagree more. There isn't a more energy-efficient mode for hauling cargo than waterborne shipping. And Cleveland is incredibly lucky to be on an international, navigable waterway but its dock facilities haven't been significantly updated since before the Great Depression.

 

In a world of ever-increasing petroleum prices, Cleveland MUST have modern water port facilities or the city will sacrifice its economic advantage. We cannot afford to pretend we are a landlocked city.

 

As for the timeline: this is likely a $500 million project. It might be even end up being a $1 billion project. And projects that big don't happen overnight. Or even in five years. There are large public works projects in every city that have taken 20 to 50 years before they happened. Some still haven't happened yet they are considered "still alive."

 

Welcome to the world of public works projects. It's where patience is a virtue, delays and cost-overruns are unfortunately normal, and the clock is measured almost in geologic time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt if the Cleveland port needs more capacity.  Appearances suggest that the port is used at less than capacity--large areas of the port is made available for parking at the Browns games.

 

I would like to know otherwise if there is a study showing that the port is past its capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt if the Cleveland port needs more capacity.  Appearances suggest that the port is used at less than capacity--large areas of the port is made available for parking at the Browns games.

 

I would like to know otherwise if there is a study showing that the port is past its capacity.

 

Is this more of a capacity or efficiency issue at the current site?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which current site? That's probably what Boreal isn't understanding. The Cleveland port doesn't just operate on its docks north of the Warehouse District, but also on the city-owned docks north of Browns Stadium and the county, port, city and railroad owned land on Whiskey Island.

 

The scattering of all these docking locations is very inefficient and also expensive to maintain, especially when it comes to dredging to ensure a minimum 28-foot water depth. All of this is magnified when such poorly and inefficiently utilized land for port facilities has a greater value as developable properties. So consolidate the port facilities and then utilize the port's economic development powers to incentivize the reuse of the former port-used properties.

 

To me, it seems a no-brainer. But I guess not everyone agrees. That's OK, because the port authority is pressing ahead anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

exactly. it looks like they found the right spot and have the right plan so hopefully they can move forward on "the big move" sooner than later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which current site? That's probably what Boreal isn't understanding. The Cleveland port doesn't just operate on its docks north of the Warehouse District, but also on the city-owned docks north of Browns Stadium and the county, port, city and railroad owned land on Whiskey Island.

 

The scattering of all these docking locations is very inefficient and also expensive to maintain, especially when it comes to dredging to ensure a minimum 28-foot water depth. All of this is magnified when such poorly and inefficiently utilized land for port facilities has a greater value as developable properties. So consolidate the port facilities and then utilize the port's economic development powers to incentivize the reuse of the former port-used properties.

...

For all of the articles that I have read about the Port Authority wanting to move to Whiskey Island, 55th Street, or other locations, I have never heard the imperitive to consolidate three locations for efficiency and dredging.  You are probably correct, though.

 

What this project really offers is a long period while river bed dredging spoils are dumped at 55th Street, then a period to build the port on the new land.  Sometime long after year 2020, the port can be moved and then the other port locations could be redeveloped.

 

The developer(s) who so covet the site by Cleveland Browns Stadium will probably be retired or expired by then. 

 

Public input to this port move has been notably lacking.  One super-brain at the Port Authority does not "have all of the answers".  I could think of a lot of other things that the city of Cleveland should concentrate on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The port authority DID have several public hearings. Did you miss them? And the city of Cleveland is concentrating on lots of other things, as they must always do. The port is concentrating on the port. Pretty remarkable, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opponents debate Cleveland port's move to E. 55th St.

 

Posted by Tom Breckenridge September 05, 2008 17:55PM

Categories: Breaking News, Economic development

 

An update Friday on the Cleveland port's plan to move east boiled into a debate over whether it will be a boon or bane for the city's moribund lakefront.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2008/09/opponents_debate_cleveland_por.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×