From Crain's Cleveland Business--Jay Miller July 7, 2009

The Port Authority board of directors in April approved fees of no more than $365,000 for Ehrenkrantz Eckstut and no more than $130,000 for PA Consulting. 
  

See also--Marc Lefkowitz article at GCBL
 

What's wrong with the 2004 plan?  It looks like they thought of everything.

________________________
Derek Arnold

I have not had time to read the Dredged Materials Management report, but it is possible that some of the river dredge can be used for lead soil lot remediation - cover. Did anyone read it yet? We need to think more broadly.

Why do we say regional and not look at Lake Erie Ohio waterfront - Toledo - 800 acres - practically moribund?

The 2004 plan had on serious fault and that’s access to the interstate. Remote and isolated is just that remote and isolated. There was one huge embarrassment after the 2004 plan was unveiled and that was the Army Corp of engineers began the process of determining were the river dredging would go? That meant that the 2004 was plan was developed without them?

Was it developed without engineering considerations and also logistical considerations, because the later is mission critical it is a port and it all about transporting goods. The later is also directly related to the first being an island or a peninsula one requires bridges and access roads and the other connections to what is in immediate proximity.

The activity of a port is loud the traffics would or could be heavy literally heavy loads and sometime large loads access to the interstate is a priority not an after thought.

The first choice was 30th and the end of Burke the FAA said no, then 55th was the only other viable option.

The same reasons the port was not moved to Whiskey Island are still the same with the island, it would still need to access through whiskey island to get to the island, the point of access and road in the 2004 plan is at Edgewater Park.

I think they could take it to the fast track if the look close at the potential for a marina at the end of the west branch. The corp. will not pay for that but somebody else might.

The road is being altered, the industrial area is obsolete as it is lake front land.

For the entire county all the rail should be claimed as municipal, then ownership and related property tax converted to leases of the use of the tracks. The track all reviewed the path and yards considered and managed with state of the art logistics.

Regional is about common shared systems, grids and the advanced use of technology to manage them. It about a modular system with defined larger geographic districts that through economy of scale can have separated and cyclical budgets within them, however they would share a common operating system and methodology.

It would not matter that the district would contain separated municipalities that already exist, it would be designed for public works and functionality not political. Combined public works within and that would make it all efficient.

If a district tax revenue was 25% industrial then that about retention of it, but if it could be leveraged or relocated then the other aspect could be developed, what is the highest and best use of lake front property? If it gets moved it gets improved in that process, not destroyed or kicked out, it get empowered. Then what replaces it is of higher and better use.

This type of process will get attention, and investments, industry is a total operating function that being monitored in and by industrial categories reveals how competitive you are, if you strive for cost control in that and all related components then the market can shift in your favor. Developers do not chase out industry bureaucrats do, they create fees laws and encumbrances.

  Oengus--we don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Sorry--I am a Children's Librarian for godsakes...
 

  Thanks for putting in a word here.
 

"Regional is about common shared systems, grids and the advanced use of technology to manage them."

Oengus the problem always seems to be that the developers forget that there are real people that live in the areas they want to develop.  You mention a shared system.  I wonder why all the benefits seem to go to the people that do not actually live in the area that is being developed?  Is this also in the planning?  Is the plan to put all the industry in the city so the people that live in the city can put up with the inconveniences of the industry while those that live in the other areas of the County can reap the majority of the benefits?  This doesn't sound like a good plan for the people that live in the city.  Please take real people into consideration when making your proposals.  I think there is a lack of trust that the developers considered the impact their plans would have on the people that live in the city, especially those that live in the areas that will be developed. 

I feel like I am talking to Taiwanese tourists!

  Suan--the dredge materials from Cuyahoga River are loaded with PCBs, heavy metals and all kinds of industrial goodies that make the fill toxic--Dike 14 is/was off limits to the general public for a long time, primarily for that reason alone.

Sure, years of bioremediation will take the buzz off toxins, and theoretically we have seen some improvement in the Cuyahoga River sediments due to less toxins released to the Cuyahoga River.  I put in some time as a lowly environmental planner/intern with the Cuyahoga River Remedial Action Plan/CRPO or the CRAP as we affectionately called the bureaucratic non-profit housed at Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency.  Natalie Ronayne later had the position and Chris Ronayne was at Cuyahoga County Planning Commission in a similar capacity, when I put in my time at NOACA. 

The 2004 plan received public review and public approval under Chris Ronayne's time as the City of Cleveland Plannning Chief and later cabinet member of Mayor Jane Campbell.  I would hope he would speak out on behalf of the plan. It was a solid effort.

BTW--Norm, nice visual--Mittal Canary...