My sources tell me that on Friday, April 11, 2008, Mayor Jackson will announce the redistricting plan for the Cleveland Police Department.
I am also told that it appears that the 3rd District will still close, but the downtown area will be taken over more by the 5th District than the 2nd, which makes sense, in that it would have been difficult under the prior proposed plan for 2nd District cars to get across the valley/river in emergencies.
2nd District (where I live) will expand somewhat to encompass all of the Stockyards and Detroit-Shoreway. 2nd District will add approximately 30 police officers due to the closing of 3rd District.
Details subject to change of course, prior to the announcement being "officially" made on Friday, but this is what I learned today.
The mayor also rescheduled his community forum over here in the 2nd District from tonight to next Tuesday, April 15 from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. at Zone Rec Center. Be there to hear about the redistricting first hand and to ask questions of hizzoner himself.
Stay tuned.
CEP
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Adam Wasserman Meets the Bloggers
Tonight, Adam Wasserman, the relatively new President and CEO of the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority (CCCPA), sat down with Meet the Bloggers at Gypsy Bean Cafe on Cleveland's West-side.
Overall, I was very impressed with Mr. Wasserman. He is a no-nonsense, unapologetic, straight-talking man with a rather dry sense of humor, who speaks authoritatively, but without being condescending, on economic development issues.
Specifically on Cleveland area issues, Mr. Wasserman seems to have a firm grasp on our region's assets and potential, with a keen eye to see that we, as a city, a county, and a region need to decide what we want to be when we grow up, and fast. On a scale of 1 to 10 of how well we’re doing in identifying and leveraging our existing assets, Mr. Wasserman graded us a 4. I would have to agree.
He comes to us from Great Britain and several areas in the U.S. where he held positions relating to economic development and with fresh eyes about what our region needs to do in both the short term and long term. I found his ideas to be balanced and grounded in common sense.
I got the impression that Mr. Wasserman is not the least bit intimidated by persons of political high office and that he speaks truth to power just as candidly as he spoke to Meet the Bloggers about the broad-based, big picture economic development strategy that needs to be undertaken here and the role that CCCPA can play in that strategy.
This trait will be very important for Mr. Wasserman, as he navigates his way through our region’s complex political landscape (he has nine bosses, the Board of CCCPA – 6 appointed by the Mayor of Cleveland, 3 appointed by the Cuyahoga County Commissioners). The only grumbling I could find when I Googled Mr. Wasserman, was about his pay. His current salary is approximately $283,000 per year. That may seem high, but given his experience and expertise I think he’s worth it (and the fact that he has to navigate the politics of his bosses mentioned above, he should probably get combat pay, too).
Of course, only time will tell whether Mr. Wasserman can execute on his broad goals for the CCCPA and whether he can use his position as CCCPA President and CEO to drag our current dis-jointed, hodge-podge economic development strategies into a coherent plan for the region.
I suspect one of two things will happen; the power to whom Mr. Wasserman speaks truth will either listen, or those with ruffled feathers will quietly run him out of town. I hope, for our sake, for the former.
Of course, no one person (even of Mr. Wasserman’s seeming passion and know-how) can be our sole savior from our economic plight. However, we should listen carefully to what Mr. Wasserman has to say. He may very well get us over the hump and help us gain the momentum we need to decide who we are as a city and region to the rest of the world. I, for one, will be watching Mr. Wasserman and will have my fingers crossed that his economic dreams for this region might just come true for all of us.
Look for the podcast of our talk with Mr. Wasserman at meetthebloggers.net, coming soon.
CEP
Overall, I was very impressed with Mr. Wasserman. He is a no-nonsense, unapologetic, straight-talking man with a rather dry sense of humor, who speaks authoritatively, but without being condescending, on economic development issues.
Specifically on Cleveland area issues, Mr. Wasserman seems to have a firm grasp on our region's assets and potential, with a keen eye to see that we, as a city, a county, and a region need to decide what we want to be when we grow up, and fast. On a scale of 1 to 10 of how well we’re doing in identifying and leveraging our existing assets, Mr. Wasserman graded us a 4. I would have to agree.
He comes to us from Great Britain and several areas in the U.S. where he held positions relating to economic development and with fresh eyes about what our region needs to do in both the short term and long term. I found his ideas to be balanced and grounded in common sense.
I got the impression that Mr. Wasserman is not the least bit intimidated by persons of political high office and that he speaks truth to power just as candidly as he spoke to Meet the Bloggers about the broad-based, big picture economic development strategy that needs to be undertaken here and the role that CCCPA can play in that strategy.
This trait will be very important for Mr. Wasserman, as he navigates his way through our region’s complex political landscape (he has nine bosses, the Board of CCCPA – 6 appointed by the Mayor of Cleveland, 3 appointed by the Cuyahoga County Commissioners). The only grumbling I could find when I Googled Mr. Wasserman, was about his pay. His current salary is approximately $283,000 per year. That may seem high, but given his experience and expertise I think he’s worth it (and the fact that he has to navigate the politics of his bosses mentioned above, he should probably get combat pay, too).
Of course, only time will tell whether Mr. Wasserman can execute on his broad goals for the CCCPA and whether he can use his position as CCCPA President and CEO to drag our current dis-jointed, hodge-podge economic development strategies into a coherent plan for the region.
I suspect one of two things will happen; the power to whom Mr. Wasserman speaks truth will either listen, or those with ruffled feathers will quietly run him out of town. I hope, for our sake, for the former.
Of course, no one person (even of Mr. Wasserman’s seeming passion and know-how) can be our sole savior from our economic plight. However, we should listen carefully to what Mr. Wasserman has to say. He may very well get us over the hump and help us gain the momentum we need to decide who we are as a city and region to the rest of the world. I, for one, will be watching Mr. Wasserman and will have my fingers crossed that his economic dreams for this region might just come true for all of us.
Look for the podcast of our talk with Mr. Wasserman at meetthebloggers.net, coming soon.
CEP
Thursday, March 20, 2008
CEP's Reply to JStrok's Comment on Obama
I don't typically re-post my reply comments to comments on CEP blog posts, but, I think, this warrants an exception. JStrok's comment in a sense is begging the question, but you should read it, because it illustrates precisely my concern about going down the road we're heading with regard to this Obama/Reverend issue.
JStrok commented recently on My Take on the Barack, Reverend Thing .
Here is my reply:
JStrok -- first of all, I respect your opinion to disagree. Your opinion, however, seems to rely on unsupported statements by you that treat assumptions as facts.
Is it a fact (or just a supposition on your part) that this Reverened, who Obama has denounced, would be a part of Obama's staff? Can you support this supposition with evidence?
Is it a fact (or just a supposition on your part) that Obama and this Reverened are associated beyond that Mr. Obama happenes to worship where he preaches? Can you support this supposition with evidence?
Obama has denied that this Reverened has made any of these racially charged speeches in the presence of Obama.
And if your suppositions are wrong, the danger of the standard you set out becomes obvious: because you're essentially saying that it is fair to judge people by who they happen to be in proximity with, not even necessarily associate with.
Well, if that's the standard, then Clinton and McCain are in deep doo doo too.
If I must, in your view, to be a good leader, cast away and distance myself from any person who has spoken a taboo or whose beliefs are on the fringes on mainstream thought, then you are begging for the same myopic, nearsighted, tunnel vision leadership that we've endured under G.W. Bush for the past 8 years.
You say, "the fact that [Obama] chose to stay [at his Church when there were others of the same faith he could attend] says something of his charater and values."
I couldn't agree more. We just disagree about what it says about his character and values. You say it says, we'll he must agree and support what the reverened says then. This is a logical fallacy in the first order. I say it says that he can be subjected to speech that he disagrees with, and is not beholden or influenced by it.
You're asking him to make a symbolic meaningless gesture by moving to another church and calling that good character and values. If you really think he agrees with the Reverened and wanted to keep it a secret, don't you think he's politically savvy enough to have figured out he should go to another church so he can keep his beliefs a sercret on his own?
You're missing the boat on this one, JStrok. He stayed in the church because he HAS the courage of his convictions and he knows that just because he attends a church with a Reverened who is on the fringes, doesn't mean that he has to believe those things. I think he stays because he has faith that the American people are wise and intelligent enough to see that just because someone is in the same room with someone else, doesn't mean they all believe the same things. Perhaps, based on your comment, and where this story has been centered in the mainstream press, his faith in us is, sadly, misplaced.
CEP
JStrok commented recently on My Take on the Barack, Reverend Thing .
Here is my reply:
JStrok -- first of all, I respect your opinion to disagree. Your opinion, however, seems to rely on unsupported statements by you that treat assumptions as facts.
Is it a fact (or just a supposition on your part) that this Reverened, who Obama has denounced, would be a part of Obama's staff? Can you support this supposition with evidence?
Is it a fact (or just a supposition on your part) that Obama and this Reverened are associated beyond that Mr. Obama happenes to worship where he preaches? Can you support this supposition with evidence?
Obama has denied that this Reverened has made any of these racially charged speeches in the presence of Obama.
And if your suppositions are wrong, the danger of the standard you set out becomes obvious: because you're essentially saying that it is fair to judge people by who they happen to be in proximity with, not even necessarily associate with.
Well, if that's the standard, then Clinton and McCain are in deep doo doo too.
If I must, in your view, to be a good leader, cast away and distance myself from any person who has spoken a taboo or whose beliefs are on the fringes on mainstream thought, then you are begging for the same myopic, nearsighted, tunnel vision leadership that we've endured under G.W. Bush for the past 8 years.
You say, "the fact that [Obama] chose to stay [at his Church when there were others of the same faith he could attend] says something of his charater and values."
I couldn't agree more. We just disagree about what it says about his character and values. You say it says, we'll he must agree and support what the reverened says then. This is a logical fallacy in the first order. I say it says that he can be subjected to speech that he disagrees with, and is not beholden or influenced by it.
You're asking him to make a symbolic meaningless gesture by moving to another church and calling that good character and values. If you really think he agrees with the Reverened and wanted to keep it a secret, don't you think he's politically savvy enough to have figured out he should go to another church so he can keep his beliefs a sercret on his own?
You're missing the boat on this one, JStrok. He stayed in the church because he HAS the courage of his convictions and he knows that just because he attends a church with a Reverened who is on the fringes, doesn't mean that he has to believe those things. I think he stays because he has faith that the American people are wise and intelligent enough to see that just because someone is in the same room with someone else, doesn't mean they all believe the same things. Perhaps, based on your comment, and where this story has been centered in the mainstream press, his faith in us is, sadly, misplaced.
CEP
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Cleveland's City Charter Says Mayor Has to Give Reasons for Increases/Decreases
Section 38 of the Cleveland City Charter is reproduced below in its entirety. I have bolded sub-paragraph (c) which requires that the Mayor's Estimate shall set forth reasons for proposed increases and decreases in items of expenditure. While I think it would be unduly burdensome for the mayor to give specific reasons for each line item in the budget, I don't think it is too much to ask to give explanations for line items or major subsections of program areas that increase or decrease more than 10% from one year to the next. This would certainly answer all of the questions I have in my review of the 2008 Mayor's Estimate.
Bill Callahan of Callahan's Cleveland Diary chimed in on my budget analysis recently. I just remembered that he's on the current Charter Review Commission. Perhaps this is an area that should be addressed by the Commission; how many other provisions of the City Charter are being essentially ignored? Maybe the revised Charter should have some sort of a citizen enforcement mechanism for some of the ignored provisions, such as the one bolded below. What say you Mr. Callahan?
§ 38 Mayor's Estimate
The fiscal year of the City shall begin on the first day of January. On or before the fifteenth day of November in each year the Mayor shall prepare an estimate of the expense of conducting the affairs of the City for the following year and shall submit such estimate to Council no later than February 1 of said following year. This estimate shall be compiled from detailed information obtained from the various departments on uniform blanks prepared by the Director of Finance, and shall set forth:
(a) An itemized estimate of the expense of conducting each department.
(b) Comparisons of such estimates with the corresponding items of expenditure for the last two complete fiscal years and with the expenditures of the current fiscal year plus an estimate of expenditures necessary to complete the current fiscal year.
(c) Reasons for proposed increases or decreases in such items of expenditure compared with the current fiscal year.
(d) A separate schedule for each department showing the things necessary for the department to do during the year and which of any desirable things it ought to do if possible.
(e) Items of payroll increases as either additional pay to present employees, or pay for more employees.
(f) A statement from the Director of Finance of the total probable income of the City from taxes for the period covered by the Mayor's estimate.
(g) An itemization of all anticipated revenue from sources other than the tax levy.
(h) The amounts required for interest on the City's debt, for sinking funds and for maturing serial bonds.
(i) The total amount of outstanding City debt with a schedule of maturities of bond issues.
(j) Such other information as may be required by the Council.
The Mayor shall submit the estimate thus prepared to the Council and at least one thousand (1,000) copies thereof shall be printed for distribution to citizens who may call for them. Copies of the estimate shall also be furnished to the newspapers of the City, and to the public library and each of its branches. (Effective November 21, 1967)
Bill Callahan of Callahan's Cleveland Diary chimed in on my budget analysis recently. I just remembered that he's on the current Charter Review Commission. Perhaps this is an area that should be addressed by the Commission; how many other provisions of the City Charter are being essentially ignored? Maybe the revised Charter should have some sort of a citizen enforcement mechanism for some of the ignored provisions, such as the one bolded below. What say you Mr. Callahan?
§ 38 Mayor's Estimate
The fiscal year of the City shall begin on the first day of January. On or before the fifteenth day of November in each year the Mayor shall prepare an estimate of the expense of conducting the affairs of the City for the following year and shall submit such estimate to Council no later than February 1 of said following year. This estimate shall be compiled from detailed information obtained from the various departments on uniform blanks prepared by the Director of Finance, and shall set forth:
(a) An itemized estimate of the expense of conducting each department.
(b) Comparisons of such estimates with the corresponding items of expenditure for the last two complete fiscal years and with the expenditures of the current fiscal year plus an estimate of expenditures necessary to complete the current fiscal year.
(c) Reasons for proposed increases or decreases in such items of expenditure compared with the current fiscal year.
(d) A separate schedule for each department showing the things necessary for the department to do during the year and which of any desirable things it ought to do if possible.
(e) Items of payroll increases as either additional pay to present employees, or pay for more employees.
(f) A statement from the Director of Finance of the total probable income of the City from taxes for the period covered by the Mayor's estimate.
(g) An itemization of all anticipated revenue from sources other than the tax levy.
(h) The amounts required for interest on the City's debt, for sinking funds and for maturing serial bonds.
(i) The total amount of outstanding City debt with a schedule of maturities of bond issues.
(j) Such other information as may be required by the Council.
The Mayor shall submit the estimate thus prepared to the Council and at least one thousand (1,000) copies thereof shall be printed for distribution to citizens who may call for them. Copies of the estimate shall also be furnished to the newspapers of the City, and to the public library and each of its branches. (Effective November 21, 1967)
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
My Take on the Barack, Reverend Thing
Barack Obama made have made his first serious tactical mistake of his presidential campaign.
By accepting the premise that what his pastor believes is at all a relevant issue in this campaign.
How'd he do that? When he denounced what his pastor said, even though he hadn't heard it personally. By that simple act, out of panic, perhaps, or bad advice from advisers, of denouncing the preachings of his pastor, Obama tacitly conceded the premise that we should give two shakes about what his pastor has to say at all vis-a-vis the character and fitness of Obama.
A close analogy is this: Judging Obama by what his pastor preaches and believes is tantamount to judging every Roman Catholic a pedophile because of the predilections of a very few wayward Priests. If this is the direction we're heading in this Country, then, as a Roman Catholic, I am deeply concerned.
I didn't listen to Obama's speech today, so maybe he said what I think he should have said from the beginning, although it would carry more weight if he hadn't already accepted the premise of the issue.
Here's what I think Obama should have said from the start and maintained this position: Holding anyone to account for what they, as a listener, heard from a speaker, in a society that holds up freedom of speech as a beacon for the fundamental principles of freedom to the rest of the world is intolerable and cannot and should not be condoned by any true blooded American.
Holding anyone to account for what they hear in the course of the practice of their freedom of religion is an abomination to the freedom from interference in the practice of one's religion, and must not be tolerated by a freedom loving people.
That my opponents, whether of democratic, republican or independent ilk, would attack my pastor's freedom of speech and my freedom to practice my religion; in order to score points in a political campaign for the highest office in our nation, a nation who's founding and continued existence is dependent on those very freedoms; is despicable, and makes them unworthy to hold such an office in this great land.
He should have simply never conceded the premise that what his pastor says has anything to do with him.
I mean seriously, how far are we going to take this road? If I now attend a music concert by a musically horrible band, does that mean I have poor taste in music? Can I get tagged for what someone else says or does just because I happened to be in the audience? This, my friends, is a slippery slope that we do not want any part of. We need to change direction, and fast. Hell, I attended George W. Bush's second inauguration, does that mean I'm on the hook for everything he said in that forgettable speech? This is insane people.
Let me know what you think.
CEP
By accepting the premise that what his pastor believes is at all a relevant issue in this campaign.
How'd he do that? When he denounced what his pastor said, even though he hadn't heard it personally. By that simple act, out of panic, perhaps, or bad advice from advisers, of denouncing the preachings of his pastor, Obama tacitly conceded the premise that we should give two shakes about what his pastor has to say at all vis-a-vis the character and fitness of Obama.
A close analogy is this: Judging Obama by what his pastor preaches and believes is tantamount to judging every Roman Catholic a pedophile because of the predilections of a very few wayward Priests. If this is the direction we're heading in this Country, then, as a Roman Catholic, I am deeply concerned.
I didn't listen to Obama's speech today, so maybe he said what I think he should have said from the beginning, although it would carry more weight if he hadn't already accepted the premise of the issue.
Here's what I think Obama should have said from the start and maintained this position: Holding anyone to account for what they, as a listener, heard from a speaker, in a society that holds up freedom of speech as a beacon for the fundamental principles of freedom to the rest of the world is intolerable and cannot and should not be condoned by any true blooded American.
Holding anyone to account for what they hear in the course of the practice of their freedom of religion is an abomination to the freedom from interference in the practice of one's religion, and must not be tolerated by a freedom loving people.
That my opponents, whether of democratic, republican or independent ilk, would attack my pastor's freedom of speech and my freedom to practice my religion; in order to score points in a political campaign for the highest office in our nation, a nation who's founding and continued existence is dependent on those very freedoms; is despicable, and makes them unworthy to hold such an office in this great land.
He should have simply never conceded the premise that what his pastor says has anything to do with him.
I mean seriously, how far are we going to take this road? If I now attend a music concert by a musically horrible band, does that mean I have poor taste in music? Can I get tagged for what someone else says or does just because I happened to be in the audience? This, my friends, is a slippery slope that we do not want any part of. We need to change direction, and fast. Hell, I attended George W. Bush's second inauguration, does that mean I'm on the hook for everything he said in that forgettable speech? This is insane people.
Let me know what you think.
CEP
The Other Shoe Drops; and Fuzzy Math
Well low and behold: Forest City says it can connect Medical Mart with convention center through Tower City Cinemas
Aha! I see the Forest through the trees. Forest City wastes no time in staking its claim to a chunk of the $43 mil per year Cuyahoga County is raping from its citizenry. Kinda makes ya go hmm . . .
Fuzzy Math: Let's see, if the convention center/medical mart costs $40 million for site development (air rights), and double that for construction, so we're up to $80 million, oh hell, let's triple it and do it right --- $120 million for the whole shebang and, as we recently learned, MMPI is kicking in $20 million of its own; when we're lookin' at roughly $100 million for this project.
$43 million per year in increased sales taxes times 20 years that the tax is levied; hmm let's see, carry the one, equals 860,000,000! WHOA! Hell, we can afford TWO convention centers, one at the existing public hall site and one at Tower City, and have money left over. Problem solved.
Hold the phone -- even better; we could just BUY Tower City, demolish it and build a new county administration building with a medical mart and convention center attached. I like this idea the best; only then, perhaps, we can end the raping and pillaging of Cleveland by the likes of Forest City. Actually, at least this time all of Cuyahoga County is getting hosed, not just Cleveland, so I should just zip it.
CEP
Aha! I see the Forest through the trees. Forest City wastes no time in staking its claim to a chunk of the $43 mil per year Cuyahoga County is raping from its citizenry. Kinda makes ya go hmm . . .
Fuzzy Math: Let's see, if the convention center/medical mart costs $40 million for site development (air rights), and double that for construction, so we're up to $80 million, oh hell, let's triple it and do it right --- $120 million for the whole shebang and, as we recently learned, MMPI is kicking in $20 million of its own; when we're lookin' at roughly $100 million for this project.
$43 million per year in increased sales taxes times 20 years that the tax is levied; hmm let's see, carry the one, equals 860,000,000! WHOA! Hell, we can afford TWO convention centers, one at the existing public hall site and one at Tower City, and have money left over. Problem solved.
Hold the phone -- even better; we could just BUY Tower City, demolish it and build a new county administration building with a medical mart and convention center attached. I like this idea the best; only then, perhaps, we can end the raping and pillaging of Cleveland by the likes of Forest City. Actually, at least this time all of Cuyahoga County is getting hosed, not just Cleveland, so I should just zip it.
CEP
Friday, March 14, 2008
Budget Priorities Part Deux
From cleveland.com metro blog today:
Two men shot overnight in Cleveland
Posted by Donna J. Miller March 14, 2008 11:12AM
Categories: Crime
Two men in a car at East 105th Street and St.Clair Avenue flagged down a Cleveland patrolman about 1 a.m. today and said they were shot at East 79th Street and St. Clair.
One was shot in the buttocks, the other in the back, Lt. Thomas Stacho said. They were taken to a hospital.
Details aren't yet available. Detectives are investigating.
The men should call Cleveland's Consumer Affairs department. They're fully staffed.
See prior post here.
CEP
Two men shot overnight in Cleveland
Posted by Donna J. Miller March 14, 2008 11:12AM
Categories: Crime
Two men in a car at East 105th Street and St.Clair Avenue flagged down a Cleveland patrolman about 1 a.m. today and said they were shot at East 79th Street and St. Clair.
One was shot in the buttocks, the other in the back, Lt. Thomas Stacho said. They were taken to a hospital.
Details aren't yet available. Detectives are investigating.
The men should call Cleveland's Consumer Affairs department. They're fully staffed.
See prior post here.
CEP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)