Comments on: Defining “Public Hearing” In Cuyahoga County

By: my two cents

my two cents — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 01:42:28 +0000

the number one responsibility of government is to provide for the safety of it’s citizens. i don’t think that this can be argued. it is common knowledge and universally understood. having said that, this money could have been more appropriately used to build a juvenile detention center where these teenagers, who are responsible for much of the crime and deterioration of quality of life in this city, could be housed. many people don’t know that the same kid can steal a car or burglarize a home every single night of the week, get arrested every night that week, and never spend a night in the DH. the police have to take them home after arresting them. this is lunacy. for those bleeding hearts out there, let me tell you that being locked up in the DH would be an improvement in the quality of life for many of these kids, who live in squallorous conditions with “parents” who care nothing about them except for the “check” they receive every month ffrom the government for having the child. this would also have the effect of improving the schools by virtue of getting the bad apples out of there so that those who want to learn would be able to do so. as for the arrestees, make them go to school in a military, boot camp type of school until the complete their sentence. send the money that the parent would otherwise get from the government to feed the child etc. directly to the DH for helping to pay for housing and educating the kid. maybe a child would appreciate his freedom a little more if we were to crack down and tell the kids and parents that we are no longer gonna tolerate the status quo. just a thought.

By: Susan Miller

Susan Miller — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:24:37 +0000

They did not really need a public hearing (OK by law they have to have one) because they had decided to put the money in the general fund and can do that without a vote. Had they needed the votes, there might have been a “forum” to benefit their case for the decision on the issue.

I am stunned that Peter Lawson Jones, who voted no, did not interrupt the clerk when she read the resolution to say that according to the Ohio Revised Code if they are going to raise taxes for a convention center it must go before the electorate. Someone might have called the law into question. But no. Jones simply looked down dejectedly.

I seem to recall impassioned and lively debates in my high school civics classes. Ah, but that was the early 1970s and we were debating the war in Vietnam…

I witnessed a similar thing in the Cleveland Planning Commission during the second meeting where they voted 5-2 to allow the deconstruction of the Breuer. Comments were heard, a few more exchanges were had, but when they voted I could see that the for and against votes had been decided before the meeting began. There was little debate. There were few to no impassioned speeches.

It is bend over politics. Considering what went down in Cleveland Heights around the same time with the school board and a lawsuit alleging that decisions were discussed and decisions made before voting, this seems to be par for the course in Ohio politics. I can’t speak for other areas because I have been here for the last half of my life.

By: mike pelsozy

mike pelsozy — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 00:10:34 +0000

gloria…please, please don’t hold back in telling me/us about the speeches, arrogance, and demeanor of these people.

My friends and I want and need to hear about the actions, behavior, etc. of our elected representatives.

Please give it to us unvarnished.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 18:29:01 +0000

It would have been extremely difficult to ask a question of Mr. Kennedy since he left by a side door immediately following his presentation. I did not see him return.

A very minor point … Christopher Kennedy stayed through the length of both public hearings. After his presentations, he exited stage left. He then came around to sit in one of the chairs in the gallery on the right side of the auditorium.

Commissioner Hagan’s comments re directing questions to Mr. Kennedy were probably prompted by a member of the public at the first public meeting. I believe that speaker challenged Mr. Kennedy to post a bond guaranteeing the purported direct economic benefits of a convention center/medical mart.

(So there’s no confusion, I supported the people’s right to a vote on the tax increase and signed one of the petitions.)