| |
Saturday, April 02, 2005
Devil In The Details
Looking for the dark clouds in some seemingly good news. It seems that the Eastlake Ballpark has finally sold the naming rights to... The Lake County Captains. It is unconfirmed, but apparently it will be for $3.5 million dollars. That seems a decent enough sum. I'm not going to hold anyone to that lie pipe dream of $5 million that was originally claimed. The questions, to be answered are over what time frame? Is it a 20 year payout? That would be $175,000/year. 25? When do the payments start? This season, next season? 2009? Captains General Manager Casey Stump also did not wish to comment on the issue Friday.
"Our whole organization from ownership on down has been working almost around the clock on the start of the new season and other important matters," Stump said.
Any money the city gets for naming rights will be placed in an interest-building account, where it will remain untouched until 2009, city Finance Director Michael Slocum said.
In 2009, the money will be used to retire long-term debt early. The length of time to make the payments is important, because the longer it is stretched, the lower the real present value of the deal. It's hard in straight stories to judge when something is actually shoehorned in because of the editorial tilt/bias of the paper, still this part caught my attention: Since stadium-related revenue is not expected to cover expenses each year, $26 million of the $48 million must come from the city's tax-supported general fund.
General fund money must be used for debt payments beginning in 2006 and continuing through 2031.
So far, no general fund money has been used to pay off stadium debt, because in 2003 and 2004 the city had additional money from a construction fund.
Money from that fund also will be available this year and for part of 2006. It's consistent with the News-Herald's reporting and (especially) editorializing on the issue that they stress that no money has actually come from the Eastlake general fund as yet.
Blogs and the FEC
The noise about the FEC trying to regulate blogs has died down for now. It's been relatively quiet for the last couple of weeks. The FEC is now proceeding cautiously, in part due to all the attention blogs started paying to the FEC. Here's a good summary of what was happening. Such lobbying had an immediate impact. Several members of the House Judiciary Committee, including ranking Democrat John Conyers of Michigan, wrote to the FEC to urge the agency to "remove any ambiguity" about the application of campaign finance law to blogs. In their March 11 letter, the lawmakers argued that the agency should not regulate links between blogs and candidate or party Web sites. The lawmakers also praised "the emergence of Web reporters who play a critical role" in the coverage of politics and said that the FEC should grant a press exemption "to those who are reporting on the Internet." Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada introduced a bill to exclude Internet communication from campaign finance regulations. Reid, who in one of his first acts as the Democratic leader tapped an Internet expert to reach out to bloggers, also wrote the FEC's Thomas that the agency should "avoid silencing this new and important form of political speech." McCain and Feingold, meanwhile, issued a joint statement that blamed the uproar on "powerful monied interests," such as corporations and labor unions, that "whip up fears, however unfounded and unrealistic." Meehan compared the clamor to the long-running hoax about supposed legislation to impose a 5-cent tax on every e-mail and lamented that "this kind of misinformation is being spread by those whose job is to enforce the campaign laws." Wish I had seen that statement. It wasn't shadowy all-powerful corporate interests who were getting pissed. It was individuals. The FEC proposed regulations aren't particularly onerous. It's the spin, though, that is sad. The FEC tried to claim that they never had any intention to strictly regulate blogs, but the truth is different.
Had the FEC adopted an early draft of its proposed rules, Smith's prediction might have been on target. That draft -- dated March 10 and leaked on March 24, the day the commission unveiled its official proposal -- called for regulating political Web sites that draw more than 500 people in a 30-day period. The draft exempted only sites that are protected by passwords. Many of the political sites would have had to post campaign-related disclosures. The draft excluded only those sites that pay less than $250 per year for Internet hosting fees, Web-design software, or other costs. But the commission instead endorsed much-less-stringent regulations that focus on paid political advertising. The March 24 draft rules question the idea of requiring bloggers to post campaign-related disclosures, noting that "the burden of complying with a disclaimer requirement, and the resources needed for the commission to monitor such a requirement, could outweigh the value of disclosure." Under the proposed rules, even blogs paid by campaigns would not have to post disclaimers, because campaigns already must disclose such payments. The draft rules also exempt online reproduction of campaign materials. The commission cited Feingold's MyDD.com posting as a partial defense for that decision. And the media exemption would be extended to online-only publications, such as Salon.com, Slate.com, and DrudgeReport.com, three examples mentioned in the FEC's rules. [Emphasis added.]
No, they weren't looking to regulate the hell out of blogs. Complete overreaction. The people pushing for further FEC controls of political speech will push again at some point.
Starting Late
I have to imagine a sizable number of people in Northeast Ohio, got up this morning, took one look out the window, and promptly crawled back into bed. It is snowing again. Snowing in April. This has to put a damper on the Maple Fest activities for the day.
Friday, April 01, 2005
Sin City
It opens today. I'm quite excited. I still have all the issues of the comics/graphic novels. Probably won't get a chance to see it until at best, next week. I mean, any movie with Jessica Alba in it, stands a halfway decent chance to have me interested in seeing it (well, I didn't go see Honey, but I have watched Idle Hands solely for her). Most of the reviews I've been reading have been surprisingly positive, despite the comic book genre and lots and lots of violence. Mickey Rourke is getting rave reviews as Marv. He does seem perfect for the character. It appears poised to do quite well at the box office as well.
Seriously?
I don't know about anyone else, but today is the day to take much of what is blogged with a grain of salt. Though, I don't think anyone will ever match Bjorn Staerk's first time out.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
On A Roll
Over the weekend, there were 2 articles on Ohio Speaker of the House, Jon Husted in the Op-ed pages. One was a, shall we say glowing, piece from the editorial page director. True, Husted's politics are a bit more conservative than the average Northeast Ohioan's. But he leaves the impression of a political leader who is firm, fair, knowledgeable, open-minded and obsessed with fixing the state's badly broken economy.
On most important issues before the legislature, Husted leaves little doubt about where he stands:
Tax reform remains his top priority. And though he is "always worried it could get off track," he's confident that it won't.
Cities, counties, villages, townships and libraries had better get used to the fact that the state support from the Local Government Fund will be dramatically reduced in the upcoming state budget.
Powerful special interests and their lobbyists will not prevent the House from making meaningful reforms in Medicaid spending.
The House will distance itself from efforts to build casinos and put slot machines at racetracks. If it's going to happen, it will happen only when Ohioans vote to amend the state Constitution.
...
Husted's not yet a star. But he has some star qualities. Given all the other dim bulbs in his Columbus constellation, that's saying a lot. The other, from the associate editor of the editorial page, concerns Husted, the budget and education reform. "My frustration with the issue is extremely high," he says, using the measured tones of a father trying to keep his temper.
The issue is school funding, and if education advocates expected a warmer welcome from the new General Assembly leadership, they know better now. While activists sound a familiar theme - the legislature has yet to fix a system the high court repeatedly ruled unconstitutional - the speaker sees history quite differently. And it is that divergence of perspectives that is likely to doom major change over the next two years, if not far longer.
Husted's complaints go like this: Ohio has gone from a state ranked 30th in the nation in per-pupil spending in the late 1980s to one ranked 16th in 2004. It spends roughly $3.5 million a day on school construction. And now, confronted with a new school funding plan that targets resources to the state's most needy students, the education community not only has failed to rally support, but actually derided the reforms. Well, maybe if the legislature ever fixed the overall education financing mechanisms for the state -- per the Ohio Supreme Court's order -- instead of continuing the eternal stonewalling there wouldn't be such suspicion and derision. Still, the piece remained strangely criticism free of Husted. Considering how much time and effort Chris Sheridan pays to education issues, it comes off awkward. Today, one of the PD's unsigned editorial lauds, who else, Jon Husted for his work to reform the state's Medicaid program. I mean, nevermind, that a Cleveland area paper is making snarky comments about leadership and fresh ideas lacking in Columbus ( Come on, of course Northeast Ohioans can recognize those missing qualities with the years of local practice.), it's amusing to see this. It raises some flags and will bear watching to see what the PD Editorial Board is trying to butter Husted up towards.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Back-Biting Benchers
It has been remarked that appointments in academia become such vicious personal feuds because the battles are so small but the egos so huge. I think you can apply that to the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judges. The story, that really has an "inside baseball" feel, sets out a rather adroit series of maneuverings by Administrative and Presiding Judge Richard McMonagle to stay on as Administrative Judge. McMonagle, apparently learned that Judge Thomas Pokorny, his rival to stay on as administrative judge may have been underreporting his caseload to the Ohio Supreme Court-- thus Pokorny appeared to be a highly efficient judge. He contacted the Ohio Supreme Court, they investigated and lo and behold: The investigation revealed Pokorny habitually underreported his criminal caseload, by up to 85 percent, on the reports. The misleading statistics made Pokorny look like one of the court's more efficient judges. In fact, he carried one of the largest backlogs of pending cases among the court's 33 trial judges. In recent years, the Ohio Supreme Court has been pressing courts and judges at all levels of the state to improve the efficiency in hearing and deciding cases. Part of that has been demanding reports on the amount of cases on their docket and the amount actually decided. Those who don't meet certain standards face further scrutiny, attention and public embarrassment. Considering most the judges in Ohio are elections, this can become a killer issue. McMonagle then appeared to throw Pokorny a lifeline to become the Cuyahoga County Court Administrator after retiring from the bench. Now Pokorny is set to take on day-to-day management of the state's largest court system. On Friday he is to become court administrator, a $105,000-a-year job that includes responsibility for keeping court statistics and helping judges manage their dockets. He will also oversee a $40 million budget. It's audacious, absurd and actually appears to be happening without anyone noticing. Well it would have, but Judge Timothy J. McGinty (who gets the obligatory "maverick" label) decided to go public with the whole thing. Naturally McMonagle and Pokorny deny the whole thing. The whole article is worth reading.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Creeping To A Convention Center
I have been slow to get to this, but there doesn't seem to be much of a rush. The powers pushing for a new Cleveland Convention Center seem to be slowing their pace even further as they try to find a way to get the public to want it. Facing a national glut of convention space and a skeptical public, the body overseeing Cleveland's latest convention center effort wants to offer more than a pretty big box.
The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Convention Facilities Authority, or CFA, is discussing - and hearing strong opinions on - the potential for a center that offers public amenities, establishes a propulsive link with downtown commerce and draws visitors, and their cash, into the Greater Cleveland experience.
New convention centers here and elsewhere are a tough sale. Members of the CFA would like to bolster public support with civic uses that could range from live theater and an ice skating rink to a visitors center touting the city's main tourist attractions. Roughly translated, there is absolutely no public interest in a convention center, so as others expected, they will push to make this a "civic center." The CFA wants to leverage what it can out of a big-ticket center - estimates range from $300 million to $500 million - that is likely to be a money-loser from the day it opens.
That's the case with most new convention centers. The city's subsidy for its existing Lakeside Avenue center is projected at $364,000 this year.
"The bottom line is, how do you make it palatable to the public?" Cuyahoga County Commissioner Tim Hagan said. "There's a clear argument that the public has to have some ownership, at least emotionally. . . . When they read there's too many [convention centers] in the country and not enough conventions, what does that mean if you put $300 million into it?" Can't understand why they would have trouble rallying public support for a clear winner of a project like this. Well, considering Hagan's wife, and you can never run that kind of joke into the ground, let's activate the tri-corder for the "plain-speak" translation mode: "We are grappling with trying to convince the voters that they need this. They have to be tricked, scared, bribed or even lied to, to be convinced that this is something that will make a real change for the better... They must somehow be convinced that this is not a project to primarily benefit developers, the hospitality interests, and local politicians collecting lots of contributions. That somehow they will get some shiny baubles out of this... That becomes more difficult, when the truth about what a dog of an industry and costs the convention trade has become to cities and the taxpayers." Translation function: off. The last convention center effort, in 2003, collapsed after a "something for everyone" approach yielded an $800 million proposal requiring increases in the county sales tax and hotel tax.
Mayor Jane Campbell withdrew her backing, to the chagrin of county commissioners and business leaders. Polls showed weak public support for the plan. Not that any of that has changed. The CFA was an outgrowth of that effort. The 11-member body was appointed by city, county and suburban leaders.
It will recommend between remodeling the antiquated Lakeside center or building a new structure between Tower City and the riverfront, on land owned by Forest City Enterprises Inc. It was also formed to limit public access. The group is quasi-public, meaning more of the meetings are not subject to the "sunshine" laws. This group, though, can't even show the political spine pick a spot. Instead, it chose to hire consultants to make the recommendation. They were talking about putting this on the ballot for November, but they have fallen so far behind, that it won't happen until at least 2006. The CFA's fast-track efforts, meanwhile, have slowed a bit. Critics have noted that eight months into its duties, the CFA has yet to ask the public what it wants in a convention center.
CFA Chairman William Reidy had set an April 30 deadline for the authority to recommend a site and financing. Last week, Reidy said he would like to have recommendations by May or June and then take the package out for community meetings.
Financing would include money for amenities that could serve visitors and locals alike, he said. They aren't going to ask the public. They will poll the public for what they think will get the most likely favorable bundle to agree to the taxes to fund this. One of their brilliant ideas is to cannibalize. The City of Cleveland spent a lot of money helping to renovate and revitalize the Playhouse Square theater district in the last few years. Now the idea is move the theater to the convention center location. I mean what the heck, the work was finished almost 5 years ago. Change is good. "There's a strong belief that whatever we do, it ought to be useful for Cleveland residents, as well as visitors," said attorney Ken Silliman, head of the CFA's Planning Committee.
Silliman said the CFA will look to County Planning Commission Director Paul Alsenas for expertise on how a convention center functions "as a link on a chain" with sports, culture and entertainment districts downtown.
Alsenas is advocating the convention center as a "portal" to Cleveland. The center, in its design and features, should tell the city's story, Alsenas said.
A visitors center, for instance, might offer a small art gallery to entice visits to the Cleveland Museum of Art and University Circle, or music and exhibits that beckon visitors to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum or Severance Hall, Alsenas said. A "portal" to Cleveland? Funny, I thought that was part of what the Gateway project was going to be some 10 years ago. Exactly how many portals are needed for Cleveland? Convention centers have evolved from a "box with docks" to centers that "serve as subliminal advertisement to the host city," according to a recent article by architects David Greusel and Todd Voth of HOK Sport + Venue + Event, a leading designer of sports stadiums and convention centers, based in Kansas City, Mo.
HOK is part of the team designing and building a big expansion of Phoenix's convention center. Outside meeting rooms and retail are integrated into the edge of the expansion, as added value to the city, Voth said.
Modern designs should draw on local geography, climate, history and the yearning of residents, Voth said.
"This is not about a building," Voth said. "This is about building community." At a price tag of only several hundred million dollars. You read sentences like that and the impulse is to check to see if you still have your wallet. The naked self-interest is comical. It's a great shell game with the people who benefit from this. First try and talk about how much of an economic necessity it is, then as people become more aware of the truth; shift the story to community pride, grand statements about the visual importance, skylines -- all things that you just can't put a price on. Feh.
|
|
