Send your letters to: Letters@CoolCleveland.com
On Cleveland's signature bridge (See Cleveland needs a signature Innerbelt bridge here) Dear Mr. Hebebrand, ODOT Project Manager: As a citizen of the City of Cleveland I urge you not to rush the planning phase for the rebuilding of the Innerbelt Bridge and to seriously consider alternative plans to your two bridge plan. The current Innerbelt Bridge is built over land (both in the flats and downtown) that has very good development potential, if the bridge was moved. ODOT's plan, which will add a second bridge, just north of the existing one, will prevent this development and create not one but two eyesores in a potentially beautiful part of Cleveland. This is too important a decision for our city to be made in haste and without thought for the future. Please take this opportunity to listen to the people of Cleveland and consider making this bridge an Ohio landmark for decades to come. I will be at the public meeting on November 17th - I hope ODOT will be there to listen with an open-mind.
from Cool Cleveland reader Naomi Sikes-Gilbert nsikesgilbertATyahoo.com
To: Mr Craig Hedenbrand, ODOT Project Manager: I am very distressed to learn that ODOT is continuing to forge ahead with a plan to revamp Cleveland's current Inner Belt bridge without thoroughly considering the proposal put forth by Paul Alsenas. Building bridges and ramps to the north of our current bridge makes absolutely no sense to those of us who live and work in downtown Cleveland, especially when there is unused land to the south. I hope ODOT takes more time to review this significant project before moving forward.
from Cool Cleveland reader Patricia Rossman Skrha pskrhaATcspohio.org
To: Mr Craig Hedenbrand, ODOT Project Manager: I'm writing to comment on the Innerbelt project. Please consider allowing more time before making a decision on the architectural firm to be chosen for the Interstate 90 bridge over the Cuyahoga River. This project will have a lasting impact to our city for decades and for that reason alone should not be rushed. The public should be given the opportunity to voice their opinions (at the ODOT public meeting on Nov. 17th) and the Cleveland Planning Commission needs time to review the ODOT plans before ODOT makes a final selection for the architectural firm on November 14th. In addition, more time would allow the city or other interested parties to get a second opinion to see if the Alsenas option would or would not negatively affect the Tremont neighborhood. This project is an opportunity for Cleveland to continue to transform itself into a city worth visiting and a city that we can all be proud of. I urge you to reconsider the alternative proposed by the Cuyahoga County Planning Commission. thank you,
from Cool Cleveland reader Rae Varga raevargaAToddpost.com
Dear Mr. Hebebrand, ODOT Project Manager: I was born and raised in Cleveland before moving to Washington, DC. Next year my wife and I are taking the life changing step and moving back. The main reason for our move is to be part of the new Cleveland renaissance, something bigger than ourselves. We are just the beginning. Others in the private and public institutions are matching our commitment by making big investments: the Flats housing project, Euclid Ave, and the Cleveland clinic expansion. The Ohio DOT has a unique opportunity to help the efforts. I am writing in support of a signature bridge project to help reshape the infrastructure of the city. Cleveland already has a collection of world class bridges; a run of the mill bridge would be a tremendous waste of $700 million. A major challenge facing the city today is the poor infrastructure planning of the past. This is an incredible chance to get back on the right track. This is not just about getting cars across the Cuyahoga Valley; this is about investing in the future of Ohio and Cleveland. Taxpayer value will be served when the bridge is safe, beautiful, and a city land mark.
from Cool Cleveland reader Adam Brandon abrandonATjsa.org
Dear Greg [Hebebrand, ODOT Project Manager]: Cleveland Bridges; The Main Avenue, The Detroit and Superior, The Lorain and Carnegie... beautiful. West third, Eagle Avenue, Carter and Columbus roads....crafty . The New 700 Million Dollar ODOT bridge proposal....part of a comprehensive presentation of history rolled and passed before the spectator and impervious to disgrace. What do you think? According to some engineering reviews, only one direction of the bridge is structurally in need of work. Am I misinformed? Instead of just slapping together a "bridge" and moving on, ODOT has the opportunity to implement a building plan in two phases. The first phase, a bridge carrying traffic in the direction that needs to be re-built. The seond phase, when additional funds become available and when safety mandates. This two stage plan building plan could be a well thought out, cohesive design while spending some 700 million dollars- even if over a decade. Please don't just lay a bridge out there. Even if the 700 million dollars has to be spent according to some ODOT/Federal highway funds agreement find a way to do it right. Please consider the significance of this new addition to the skyscape that is Cleveland.
from Cool Cleveland reader Jeff Sefcek jsefcekAThotmail.com
Dear Greg [Hebebrand, ODOT Project Manager]: The new Inner belt Plan is one that will have an effect on this city and this region for a long time. That being said, we should take the time to create something that is beautiful and distinctive, not something that is ordinary and boring...you can get that anywhere. We have a chance to set Cleveland apart and make a mark by creating a beautiful Inner belt...let's not just throw something up in haste. Take the time to be creative and artistic! Often times in life, the easy way out is not the right way in the long run. Put in the time and energy it will take to be innovative and original...for the harder the journey, the more rewarding the end result. Do this job with purpose, not just a goal of putting up an Inner belt. Doing something with purpose is far more rewarding than pursuing a goal! Thank you for your time, and I hope you consider what I have said.
from Cool Cleveland reader Jeffrey T. Parsons jparsonsATnoche.org
Dear Mr. Hebebrand, ODOT Project Manager: Please do the right thing and open a design review for Cleveland's inner-belt bridge. What a great opportunity to enhance the city's image. And ODOT's too. The bridges are a symbolic gateway to the city; celebrate them. Lokk at the difference the new bridges over 77 coming into the city make. Imagine the added impact to the skyline of the city when viewed from the lake or river. Lose the rust belt image and go for grace and technological beauty. It need not cost a fortune to find a simple elegant structure. Find a sponsor and put someones name on it if you must.
from Cool Cleveland reader Michael V. Palcisco michael.palciscoATcase.edu
Dear Mr. Hebebrand, ODOT Project Manager: I find it outrageous that the public meeting regarding the I-90 bridge project will not be held until after the design firm (and its proposal) have been locked in. The Cuyahoga County Mayors and Managers Association wants discussion of alternatives, as do the county commissioners and Mayor Campbell. ODOT stands alone in its refusal to consider other plans and second opinions. Everyone at ODOT has a job because the taxpayers foot the bill. We taxpayers deserve a chance to be heard----and listened to----before any part of the project is finalized. Presenting the public with a done deal at an "open meeting" is a bamboozle of the worst order. I know from firsthand experience that the standard practice of those in authority is to finalize the main components of a project before the public is even made aware of what's going on or how far the project has progressed. The public isn't given information or the chance for input until it's too late. Then the authorities' line is, "Well, we can't go back and change anything now." And I'm sure that attendees at your November 17th public meeting will hear exactly that. A representative of one of the design firms who has submitted a proposal for the I-90 bridge personally told me, in conjunction with another project, that of course the public doesn't get an opportunity for input until everything is locked in, because if they did, there would be people protesting different parts of a project all along. And of course, the powers-that-be don't want that. Apparently, neither designers nor city, county, or state officials see anything anti-democratic about this practice of refusing to let the public decide how their tax dollars are to be spent. It's time that this backward process comes to a halt, and officials are made to realize that the people who pay their salaries are the ones who should have the say.
from Cool Cleveland reader Denise Donaldson zoonorthATnetzero.com
Dear Mr. Hebebrand, ODOT Project Manager: Consider me a representative of the ever growing 20-something population. While I am certianly only one vioce, I do work with, and spend time with many college students, graduate students, and young professionals. As we graduate high school, attend college, and proudly graduate college, we are faced with a large decision: where do I move to get a job? The thoughts of many are to move away, to a larger city where the jobs may be different and the landscape more scenic. You may be thinking, "what am I supposed to do about this?" Your job as project coordinator for the Innerbelt Bridge Renovation puts you at an interesting place. You can choose to create a functional bridge, which will certianly serve its purpose. You can also create a functional bridge with elements of art and beauty which would serve dual purpose. This bridge would not only serve as a transportation path, but also as an attratcive feature for the City of Cleveland. I suggest that you see yourself as innovative. Give us a bridge that is a beautiful peace of art work. Let your project be a stone that creates a ripple effect throughout the city. Let others be so inspired by your masterpiece that they create more beautiful renovations of their own. Thus, more people will be inspired to live and work in Cleveland, bringing back the energy and vitality of the city. I ask you to consider the negative reprecussions of building a bridge that serves as an eyesore, increasing the levels of depression that have already penetrated the lives of Cleveland's blue and white collar workers. Please, be a leader in your community and give us a bridge serves as a beacon to the rest of the state, and country, beconing those who are looking for a place to settle down, to choose Cleveland. Thank you for your consideration.
from Cool Cleveland reader Angela Barrett adawn101AThotmail.com
Dear Mr. Hebebrand, ODOT Project Manager: ODOT should reconsider the plan to fast track the replacement of the current bridge without public input or further looking at Cuyahoga County's design to move the bridge further south. The region could use a signature bridge that would also further development in the Gateway area. There is no reason to pick a design in the next ten days that will still be around for my grandchildren to see when another couple of months delay could greatly enhance the long term benefits of a superior design.
from Cool Cleveland reader Chris Wolf Chris.Wolf@cchswest.org
Dear Craig [Hebebrand, ODOT Project Manager]: Please consider the input of the city of Cleveland residents before moving forward with plans for the new inner belt bridge. We will all be thankful if you would slow things down a bit.
from Cool Cleveland reader Glenn Harbold harbs97ATyahoo.com
Dear Mr. Hebebrand, ODOT Project Manager: Please perpetuate Cleveland’s claim as the City of Bridges when rebuilding our city’s inner-belt bridge. Our forefathers enabled this distinction with investments in Veteran Memorial Bridge (Detroit/Superior) and the Hope Memorial (Lorain/Carnegie). Why? I believe they did so for two reasons: hope and destiny. Both of these can spring from investments in public art. At the turn of the century public art played a key role with the huddled immigrant masses, inspiring their work ethics and injecting hope in their individual and mutual destiny. Somewhere along the way Cleveland got lost and ignored these investments, possibly taking previous investments for granted. We can recover, though, with ODOT’s help. We need to look no further than Chicago to understand how public art defines a region’s culture and has given it a position among the world’s leading cities. Cleveland once held such a title and can do so again. Please don’t ignore this region’s needs and how ODOT can serve these. An investment in an inner-belt bridge that is equal – if not superior to neighboring Hope and Memorial can serve as a critical catalyst for renewal.
from Cool Cleveland reader Jim Kenny jkennyATroopco.com
On Cool Cleveland endorsements (See Cool Cleveland Endorsements here) I think that asking Cleveland voters to judge mayoral candidates on body language is asinine and sexist. And who set up the camera angles to advantage for Frank Jackson and to disadvantage for Jane Campbell? I generally respect your work, but this week's endorsement and staging really makes you look bad.
from Cool Cleveland reader Laura Mc Shane? lmcshane23ATearthlink.net
I must tell you that your endorsement of Frank Jackson is unacceptable. In your interview with him - it clearly shows his incompetence - he wants to keep council the same size because we need to be us and because we are depressed - GIVE ME A BREAK -- HE IS A LOSER!! Im not saying that Jane Campbell is the answer either. TO be honest I expect more from Cool Cleveland. Why dont you call both candidates out on the carpet on all issues and their seemingly lack of a plan. Neither of these two individuals are leaders - not even close to being leaders. I can just see your column in 4 years -- "endorse new candidate - why because its time for a change from one MORE incompetant individual." I think its OK for this publication to make a plea to its citizens to demand better candidates instead of picking a loser amongst losers.
from Cool Cleveland reader Jeff Derr Jeff_DerrATsteris.com
I am disappointed that "believe in Cleveland" people would endorse Frank Jackson. Although Campbell has not shown great leadership, she has the ability to talk specifics, has had experience and seems to understand the importance of downtown development. All I've heard from Jackson is general sound bites with no specifics on how to grow Cleveland. During yesterday's debate he had a great opportunity to discuss what he would do about the school situation and he did all he could to avoid the subject! Mayor Campbell may not be great but I have no reason to believe Jackson will be any better and at least Campbell won't have to go through a learning curve as Jackson will. Cleveland does not have enough time to tolerate a learning curve in the Mayor's office.
from Cool Cleveland reader Harriet Bauer hkbauerATyahoo.com
I have to wholeheartedly agree with your endorsement of Jackson for Mayor. As a lifelong Clevelander, I believe it's time for new leadership, and we don't need a fiery public speaker or gladhander in office. We need men and women of ACTION, immediate action. Frank Jackson has a cool and, like you said, dispassionate demeanor, but don't mistake that exterior for lack of intelligence. He's running for Mayor because he feels disappointed with Campbell's regime. I enjoy the Web page and alternative views.
from Cool Cleveland reader Marc Holan marklholanATyahoo.com
I see that you have joined the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" in opposing the RON ballot initiatives. Sorry to hear that.
from Cool Cleveland reader Pat Blochowiak patrblATmac.com
Thomas Mulready's recent editorial as to why we should vote for Frank Jackson provides reasons that are more about style than substance, and that rely more heavily on what "seems" to be true than on fact. To begin, Mulready writes, "And your choice of who to vote for will probably hinge on whose style you prefer, Mayor Campbell's warm and fuzzy sympathizing, or Council President Jackson's dispassionate manner." I am offended by the assumption that most people will simply vote based on how we feel about the style of the candidates and not on our perception of their ability to lead the city. This is a mayoral race, not a reality T.V. show, and I think most Clevelanders know the difference. Does Mulready think we are too stupid to make informed decisions based on the candidates' demonstrated records and their ability to implement the reforms they profess? Give us a little credit. The so-called "brain drain" hasn't completely wiped out this city. Furthermore, the section on Jackson is loaded with wishy-washy verbs that indicate a lack of certainty about this candidate. Consider these four consecutive statements: " Jackson's campaign seems to have arisen from his strong frustration with the state of leadership in his home town. Jackson's view of economic development seems to be directly connected to the fate of the region. He seems to sincerely abhor the inter-community competition for jobs that pits city against suburb. His sights appear to be fixed on the bigger prize, while still remaining conscious of the difference between the things a politician or legislator can do, and the things one can only talk about." It may "seem" to Mulready that Jackson is the better candidate, but a good endorsement should back up such comments with evidence pointing to that conclusion. Mulready fails to do this. Tom Mulready and Cool Cleveland should either withhold publishing endorsements or start writing them based on concrete examples, sound analysis, and good reasoning.
from Cool Cleveland reader Stephanie Klupinski sklupinskiATgmail.com
I disagree with the thoughts of Legacy and Crocker regarding no Big Box…that’s simply not true. At one time Nordstrom and Saks were looking at Crocker. If you mean big box discount stores there are two Targets and two Wal-marts within 6 miles from Legacy. Steelyard Commons - what makes this development so sexy and attractive to retailers is the highway visibility, accessibility and population. Think about it 400,000 people in Cleveland and no big box retailers. I live in Cleveland off of Jennings Freeway and we shop in Avon or Parma. And trust me there are a lot of people who do the same. The other thing what makes this development so unique is the fact that you have both Wal-Mart and Target (competitors) in the same development. I’ve seen a lot of shopping centers, but none with both Wal-mart and Target. Another unique thing is the size of Steelyard Commons. It’s huge. Most malls are 1 million sq ft, not too many shopping centers. Look at Avon Commons its 830,000 sq ft, City View (Garfield) 600,000 sq ft, Bridgeview Crossing (Garfield) 500,000 sq ft etc. Shaker Square demise- one of the reasons of its demise is the lack of accessibility. Shaker Square is not easy to get to. Again retailers love highways, accessibility and visibility.
from Cool Cleveland reader Reggie Clark rclarkATthekronegroup.com
Today's November 2 Plain Dealer has a front page news article and an ediorial page editorial, by the PD itself....both explaining that the November 1 City Club debate between Jackson and Campbell for Mayor showed that Campbell would be a better Mayor than Jackson. I heard the debate, so I can tell you it is true. Since Jackson is ahead of Campbell in the published polls of Cleveland voters, it looks like you are endorsing Jackson for no good reason, except that you expect him to be elected Mayor...that is not a good reason.
from Cool Cleveland reader Tom Burton ohiopatientsrightsATyahoo.com
In taking a stand against Issue 4 (which is designed to combat gerrymandering -- the process of drawing electoral district boundaries in an unfair or unnatural way to give one political party an advantage) you state that "gerrymandering continues to be a problem." Fair enough, almost everyone other than elected incumbents would agree. Then, incongruously, you urge readers to vote against Issue 4 and go so far as to encourage Democrats to gerrymander themselves should they ever retake power in Ohio. What gives? If gerrymandering is a problem -- as you assert -- then why encourage both parties to do it? If Issue 4 is not the best solution to the problem say that. But certainly don't solicit more of a bad thing. As an aside, I am a native of Iowa, a state that's had a non-partisan electoral district drawing commission for decades. Consequently in the last election cycle, diminutive Iowa had more competitive congressional districts (3) than most states in the country, including Ohio. The non-partisan system works.
from Cool Cleveland reader Ian Hoffman hoffmaidATyahoo.com
I have been a subscriber to your news letter for more than a year. I think its great that you are working so hard to promote the City and the Region however, I am astounded that you would endorse Frank Jackson as Mayor of our City. I own a business in the City and am considering leaving the area if Frank Jackson is elected Mayor. Jane Campbell may not be the best Mayor this City has seen but She has is very knowledgeable and does have a vision for the City. Campbell was Mayor at one of the most difficult times in the history of this City and managed to keep it in the black by making tough decisions. I have met personally met both of the candidates and had the opportunity to hear them speak several times. After hearing what them debate have determined Jackson is incapable and unqualified to lead this City. I have not heard Jackson answer a single question in any debate, in fact I don't think he understands the questons that are being asked. He just puts a bunch of big words together that don't make any sense, or answers improperly. Jackson does not have his own agenda and has blocked every major project in this City since he was elected to council. Changing leadership now, simply for the sake of change would not be in the best interest of Greater Clevelanders.
from Cool Cleveland reader John Bausone jbausoneAThotmail.com
I literally could not believe my eyes that anyone as seemingly well-informed as Cool Cleveland could buy the entirely lie-based campaign against the Reform Ohio Now issues Amendments 2-5. It's small comfort that you didn't buy the lie on Issue #2 (absentee voting) the least controversial and least important of the issues, the allegation is that it'll cause extensive fraud. But since Amendments 2-5 will literally overhaul the election system and make it more impervious to the sort of seizing of control by one party (either party) which has caused our state's current problems, it's impossible for me to understand why anyone who did not have a stake in such one-party, uncompetitive rule would endorse them. The "this shouldn't be entrenched in the constitution because it's hard to change; let the legislature deal with it" argument is easy to dispose of. Whoever wins the legislature virtually slavers over the power to control everything, to gerrymander the state (Issue #4) and set rules to keep the mony flood coming (Issue #3), making sure to divert it in its own direction. Likewise, Ken Blackwell has now set a precendent for election corruption which I am sure future secretaries of state of both parties will be eager to avail themselves of (Issue #5). It's not accidental that some establishment Democrats such as the Cuyahoga County Party oppose the amendments : they smell blood in the water due to the current state scandals anc believe they will retake control next year, and want the opportunity to replace Republican cronyism and corruption with Democratic cronyism and corruption. This is unacceptable.If we didn't have legislative scorched earth we wouldn't need what some refer to as "consitutional overkill." The fact is, the politicians of both parties lack the will to do the job, which is why it needs to be done by these amendments. Saying on issue #4 that the Democrats should "just run good candidates, get in power and do their own gerrymandering" is outrageous. NO gerrymandering is the only kind that's good for the state and the voters. But the current gerrymandering set-up and fundraising laws make this literally impossible, even if you had Jesus, Buddha and Muhammad running. The reason this amendment is needed is because districts are designed to be "safe" and completely uncompetitive for BOTH parties, with margins of victories for incumbents so huge that, added to their huge campaign funds, they're virtually undefeatable no matter what they do. That the new "judicially appointed" redistricting board would somehow be "not accountable" to taxpayers is a fallacy. The CURRENT system is unaccountable to taxpayers, consisting of someone hired by the party in power to go in a backroom and rig the districts to favour their own party. (BTW, do you — or does anyone else — even know which state officials' job gives them redistricting power? I haven't found a single person who can answer this question. So much for "you can vote them out if you don't like how they do it." The current system is utterly opaque to voters). The system proposed by Amendment #4 actually allows citizens to submit their OWN maps, and these proposals would have to be rated on the basis of certain criteria including competitiveness — the only thing that is likely to allow a change in a 2/3-1/3 legislature in a 50/50 state. As for the argument about creating an election "bureaucracy" to replace the secretary of state, the Secretary of State already HAS a so-called bureaucracy" in his office; this amendment would merely transfer that part of his "bureaucracy" to the control of a nine-person board, whose decision-making process would be similar to those of the counties. And again, simply saying "Well, Blackwell will be gone in a year" isn't an acceptable answer. The functioning of a state office shouldn't be dependent on whether or not the officeholder is is a decent functionary or totally corrupt like Blackwell. Unfortunately, as we're seeing now, corruption, particularly under one-party rule, is epidemic. It's hugely disappointing to me that Uncool Cleveland bought these shaky arguments on something that has the power to make this state a better place on so many levels.
from Cool Cleveland reader Anastasia Pantsios AnastasjoyATaol.com
Send your letters to: Letters@CoolCleveland.com (:divend:)