RTA attempts to solve some of the local Circulator dilemma

In an effort to rectify budget shortfalls the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) has identified a savings in discontinuing the many local Circulator routes that services many of Cleveland's neighborhoods to staunch local opposition. GCRTA seems to recognize the that their proposed solution is putting many customers in a bind and is planning to start a one-year pilot project in January 2010 in attempt to alleviate this problem.

The Weekly Shopper Service pilot program will offer one day a week, 6 hour long Circulator service from "major residential complexes and high density areas to shopping and medical facilities".

It sounds better than nothing and is still in the planning stages which means that input from the public and elected officials is needed to shape and finalize plans. Therefore it is up to the public to prod RTA and our officials to fulfill the services we require. My main concern is that areas of "high density" will already be close to shopping and medical facilities (such as in Lakewood) so the service won't be serving those that need it the most. I understand that GCRTA feels that they can concentrate efforts in order to achieve more but I wonder how easy such a thing (service vs need vs operational cost vs quality of life vs cost cutting justification) is to quantify.

And I am not going to complain about how high our fares are just yet, because I think we all agree that they are a bit high.

And by a bit I mean ridiculously high.

If the city and GCRTA would team up to get rid of the surface lots downtown to increase the value of the public transit service I think they could then justify the fare increase, until then it is becoming increasing cheaper for me to drive myself.

You are what you eat - help avoiding GMO's

Just in case you were needing some help navigating the grocery store (a necessary evil in our hurried lives I suppose since the farmer's market near my house is open when I am at work). Of course by voting with cash (or credit) you are telling the big bad box store exactly what you are willing to shell out your hard earned money for in a way that they can arguably listen to.

With that in mind the MarJ shot me a link for a Non-GMO shopping guide (.pdf)

brought to us by the Institute for Responsible Technology

Simply because it is there is not a good enough excuse

Re: urban farming in particular

I am constantly vexed at the land use argument being the trump card anytime there is a mention that Cleveland can fit some program in, that may or may not be adequate to “urban” life, simply as an excuse that there is ample space so why not?

The very same argument was made for the justification of ethnic gentrification in cities, of the post war suburban boom, greenfield development, strip mining, deforestation or freeway widening and for the very same reason that exact premise is flawed.

Not just flawed as if the idea is not the best solution but flawed in such a manner that it is detrimental to civilization on a massive scale and Cleveland in specific (for the case of this argument).

In regards to urban farming there are a myriad of more logical conclusions than simple land re-use, some have been touched on. There is the greater variety offered to the denizens who do not or cannot produce their own food. There is the cultural character that these varieties impart, in such a way that the cultural celebration of food remains undiminished. An elephant ear at the Irish Festival tastes the same as an elephant ear at an Italian festival but the difference in the cased meats is astounding. One may be more expected at a festival but which is more cultural accurate?

There is also the condition of re-aligning the public understanding of where food comes from. When you simply purchase items from a shelf and your only concern is that price that appears with the bar code is scanned you are as distanced as you can get from the production of that item. Therefore you do not understand what it is you are truly consuming. What was fed to that boneless, skinless chicken breast you are taking home (and in effect what are you eating?), when did those green peppers truly ripen and through what chemical enhancement? Those tomatoes that taste like a mixture of mealy watery goo, where fore whence they came, and why, if they are so friggin’ tasteless, are they our only option at Giant Eagle? When we start concerning ourselves with where our food comes from and why it tastes the way it does we may begin to want to TASTE GOOD FOOD again. This is an imperative adjunct of agriculture, urban or otherwise, as it raises awareness and imparts knowledge of our food system.

There is the reconnecting of an entire society with dirt. It sounds silly but exposure to bacteria and germs in dirt is quite the good thing. Studies have linked increased allergies and asthma to lessened time playing out in the dirt as children. Families that farm together share the wonder of germinating, growing, harvesting and eating things that they grow, together. It all sounds rather utopian but can be witnessed in any small scale farm or even a garden plot.

There are the economic benefits of exchanging effort and time for consumables.

There are the community benefits of sharing public space for a specific purpose, meeting your neighbors, sharing advice, watching out for each other’s little parcels and eventually community ownership of areas typically considered blight.

And yes, there is finally finding a use for empty land. This reason worries me the most because it simply insinuates that without program empty land will become a blight and nuisance that neighbors can no longer go out of their way to be concerned with the going-ons in the vacant adjacent lot. The lot that years ago may have been a thriving sand lot for baseball, or soccer pitch or any myriad of explorative games that kids play but now becomes an area of concern, of possible gang activity, of nefarious nature, simply because we can no longer be bothered to concern ourselves with anything outside view of our television.

And while I love the idea of more urban farms in communities, especially the many that are isolated food deserts offering little in the way of local nourishment, I think the argument needs to be a little stronger than “we simply have all this space” and should be more along the lines that “the community would benefit greatly from a little land reutilization”.

We need to have the honest discussion about issues such as these, where we can appreciate that the people on the "other side" are also intelligent hardworking people who deserve a little more than simply a brush off retort of fear statistics without the deeper conversation of the positive attributes a little change can bring.

I think there is a hunger for it.

More choices: The North Coast Harbor Pedestrian Bridge

The Cleveland City Planning Commission has put the 6 options for the North Coast Pedestrian Bridge online for the public to view and comment on. All six designs are offered by Miguel Rosales of Rosales + Partners - Transportation Design, who's portfolio contains an extensive array of pedestrian and vehicular bridges. Not as well known as Santiago Calatrava, Rosales's designs possess the beauty of understanding the physical forces exerted upon a spanning structure and attempts to celebrate rather than hide these relationships.

Take the time to check out the presentations here:
Connecting Cleveland the waterfront district plan

...and take the survey if you want your opinion heard/read/noticed.

Complete caveat, I like option F the best. I will sum up my reasons simply with "mechanized playfulness".

Steven Litt makes sentences too.