FRONTIER SKIRMISHES: Well, one thing is now clear -- when you turn Geoff B. loose in your sandbox, you get sand in the air.

Geoff recently remarked that State Representative Chris Redfern's line of attack on this year's Third Frontier proposal (it's bad because it will only help a few urban counties) shows that the House Democratic leader "desperately needs a functioning brain stem". Karen Gasper of Blue88 responded in a comment:

I disagree with your assessment regarding Rep. Redfern. This is an opportunity for Democrats to stand together to make Republicans give us some concessions for our vote on this resolution. They need our vote to combine the Third Frontier Project with the Roads and Bridges bond project.

Also, I am orginally from one of those counties who will not be getting money from the 3rd frontier project--but always sends Democrats to Columbus. Maybe if we start watching out for voters beyond Ohio's 3 big Cs, we'll start getting new voters that we need to win to have Democrats serve in higher offices. We learned last year that no matter if we exceed our turnout goals that we NEED votes from rural and ex-urban counties to win.

And then, in a second comment:

I don't believe that new tech jobs are a bad idea. I think they are a good idea--when there is a opportunity for them to benefit an entire community and not just the elite few.

However, I don't believe that a proposal supported by Gov. Taft will be giving any tech money for growth in Mahoning County--where I am from. My parents cannot even get broadband where they live.

As of right now, the only jobs that have been created by Taft's misapporpriation of Clean Ohio funds to his Third Frontier Initiative have gone to support people working at Proctor and Gamble. I don't see how this is creating any new tech jobs in areas that greatly need them. I also don't believe that in this pay to play atmopshere that any start up companies will be getting any of these funds. I am too cynical to believe that these funds are actually going to be helping the areas where Democrats are elected. Maybe they will be helping out CWRU or OSU but not the average family living on the East Side of Cleveland or north of Campus in Columbus.

Karen Gasper is a serious young Democratic organizer who's on an Ohio House member's staff now and will probably be running for office herself one of these days (just my guess, I've never met her personally), so her views have to be taken seriously. So, seriously -- Karen, come on, already!

Neither Geoff nor I (in the earlier post that started this) said that the Taft/Trakas Third Frontier approach deserves Democratic support. Geoff's point was that Redfern's soundbite attack on the proposal because it helps areas represented by Democrats is a very poor way to criticize its merits. My point was that the 2003 Issue 1 vote proved that Ohio Democratic voters largely buy into the idea that aggressive technology investment equals jobs, so it's really negligent of Statehouse Dems to let Husted and Co. continue to own and define the issue... indeed, to own and define the entire area of new economy job creation.

If we don't like the Third Frontier, what do we propose? "I'm cynical" is not going to cut it.

Why don't your parents have access to broadband? What would help small technology businesses to get their footing in Youngstown? (See this long angry comment on my original post from a small tech firm owner here in Cleveland.) What should state government be doing to help the community technology centers that are struggling to provide tech literacy training for low-income workers not just in Cleveland and Columbus but in Marietta, Springfield, Perry County, Lima, Zanesville, Coshocton, etc. (but not Youngstown, since the Ameritech settlement money dried up a few years ago)? What's a workable strategy for green energy job development, or for helping local investors and workers to preserve local control of plants-at-risk? Are there new enterprise development models that don't just throw money at the wealthiest?

Why aren't there Democratic answers to these questions... answers that can be put on the table when the caucus finds itself in a position to bargain... answers that would explain to the public why Dems won't support the GOP's agenda, because we're holding out for something that makes more sense?

We need some, if we want to shape the debate and start winning elections.

RETURN OF THE SIDEBAR: Got an email from Chas Rich telling me a simple fix for my Blogger template problem. It worked!

Thanks, Chas. The Diary owes you one.

ED MORRISON LEAVES WEATHERHEAD: JUMPED OR PUSHED? Center for Regional Economic Issues director Ed Morrison, who actually managed to get nonacademic, non-elite Clevelanders to come to the Case campus for substantive discussions of economic development, got his reward from the University today. He's out of a job.

University spokespeople say he quit. Ed says he was fired. And he says why, in Crain's:

“I got fired for doing open source economic development,” Mr. Morrison is quoted as saying. “I pissed off Joe Roman (the executive director of the Greater Cleveland Partnership) and the Greater Cleveland Partnership. Their agenda was threatened and Joe got me out of his hair.”

Gosh, don't you want to hear more about this? Stay tuned...

P.S. Wow, they're not wasting any time. The REI website is already stripped. Here's what it said yesterday, courtesy of Google cache:

REI is working with its partners to change the direction of economic development. For too long, economic development has focused on making incentives to companies, instead of investments in people... building large projects, instead of strong communities... speculating on convention centers and casinos, instead of supporting innovation... encouraging sprawl, instead of restoring neighborhoods... recruiting companies, instead of investing in pre-school children.

You can understand Roman's concern, yes?

TIES THAT BIND: The PD's story this morning headlined "Bureau deals reek of old ties" adds an obscure link among George Forbes, BWC CFO Terry Gasper, and Cleveland-cop-turned-broker Patrick White to the ongoing Bureau of Workers' Comp saga.

But I don't think anyone has noticed another "old tie" behind this story, also going back to Cleveland City Hall in the 1980's.

The PD story says that "White and Forbes met in 1980, when White was a police officer assigned to cover Cleveland City Council and Forbes was council president". It doesn't mention that 1980 was also the first year of the mayoralty of one George Voinovich. And it doesn't mention that Voinovich's chief of staff -- the guy who had to go over to the other side of City Hall and deal with the iron-fisted Forbes -- was one James Conrad.

Yup, that James Conrad. The one who resigned as BWC boss a couple of weeks ago. The one the Toledo Blade described as "a veteran top state bureaucrat whose nickname was 'Mr. Fix-it'". The one former Democratic PUCO Chairman Henry Eckhart was talking about in that same Blade article:

One of the major ironies is that the figures linked to the Bureau of Workers' Compensation scandal were appointed by then-Governor Voinovich, now a U.S. senator, Mr. Eckhart said.

Mr. Taft didn't sweep all Voinovich appointees out of state government when he took office in 1999, and Mr. Eckhart suspects the reason is business interests wanted the "pro-employer" Mr. Conrad in charge of the Bureau of Workers' Compensation.

Conrad followed Voinovich to the Governor's Office in 1990, was eventually appointed by his patron to run the BWC, then stayed on when Voinovich ascended to the Senate. Forbes ran for mayor in 1989 and lost, then "retired from public life" to a lucrative and influential law practice... whence he was eventually appointed vice-president of the BWC Oversight Commission. And his daughter got a job with a Pittsburgh firm that handled and lost lots of BWC funds. And... well, you know the rest of the story.

See this Columbus Free Press piece for an entertaining, if not necessarily reliable, reminiscence of Forbes' dealings with Voinovich and Conrad in the good old days at 601 Lakeside. (Scroll down to the section called "Silly Council", paragraph 2.) The writer says George F. made George V. cry at the committee table.

But who's crying now?

My Blogger problem hasn't gone away yet, so in the interest of readability I've put the blogroll in storage. This is definitely getting to be a pain in the template.

BIG BLANK SPACE UPDATE: What looks like a large blank space between the date and this line is really a picture of Hell, frozen solid as the result of Governor Taft taking full responsibility for recent events at the Bureau of Workers' Compensation.

Well... no, it's not. It's caused by a problem that Blogger tech support says they're working to fix. I tried switching to another template but that was a lot more complicated than I want to deal with. So... I'm taking a few things off the sidebar to reduce the size of the blankness, and waiting for Blogger to do its thing. Thanks for scrolling. :>

WHO IS THE NORTHEAST OHIO DEVELOPMENT FUND AND WHY ARE THEY IN CHARGE OF $47 MILLION IN PORT AUTHORITY SUBSIDIES?

So yesterday I called the Port of Cleveland and asked to speak to someone about the $32 million in Federal "New Markets Tax Credit" financing that's reportedly planned for Steelyard Commons. Specifically, I wanted to know whether the Port Authority Board, a public body appointed by the City and County, had already approved this heavy public subsidy, or if it was on some future meeting agenda.

I was given to Lynda Sudderberg, the Port's Chief Financial Officer. In answer to my question, Sudderberg said no, the Port Board isn't involved in the decision to give New Markets financing to the Steelyard project -- that's up to the Northeast Ohio Development Fund, a "limited liability corporation" to which the Port assigned its $47 million in New Markets credits a year ago. Does the NODF have a public board, I asked. Yes, Sudderberg responded, there's a board -- she thinks it consists of four Port Board members and three representatives of Cohen and Company, the Port's partner in the Fund -- but she's not sure they have public meetings. She'd have to talk with the Port's general counsel and call me back.

A few minutes later Sudderberg did call back and left this message on my voice mail: She had spoken to the Port's counsel, Dennis Wilcox, who said that as a private for-profit limited liability corporation, NODF is "not subject to public records or open records or sunshine laws." It is supported by the proceeds of its tax credit transactions.

Are you getting this? The Port Authority, a public agency, sought an allocation of Federal tax credits to subsidize economic development projects in low income areas of the county. To administer these credits, it set up a private for-profit corporation in partnership with Cohen and Company, a private accounting firm. The $47 million worth of Federal tax credits received by the Port are completely under the control of this new private entity, which has no obligation to conduct its business in public -- even though it was created by the Port, a public agency, and a majority of its corporate board seats may be occupied by Port Board members (presumably acting in that capacity).

And this private -- you could say, secretive -- corporation has the authority to channel $32 million in publicly subsidized financing to Steelyard Commons, subject to zero public process, review or disclosure!

The address listed for the NODF in documents on the "New Markets" website is the Cohen and Company office at 1350 Euclid Avenue, Suite 800. The contact person listed is Radhika Reddy, formerly the CEO of "Cohen International, LLC" but now with something called "Ariel Ventures, LLC". Whether Ms. Reddy is still involved with NODF is unclear to me. What is clear that Cohen and Company is running the show, even though the Port Authority is legally the Fund's "controlling entity".

The role in the New Markets process played by the Northeast Ohio Development Fund is that of a "Community Development Entity", or CDE. A New Markets CDE must meet a number of requirements, including "accountability to the low income community it serves" through members of its board or advisory committee. How does the NODF purport to meet those requirements? How does a massive shopping mall owned by suburban investors on an isolated former steel mill site qualify as "low income community development"?

And how does a public agency like the Port Authority get away with creating and "controlling" an operation like the NODF without taking public responsibility for its actions?

Many, many questions. Stay tuned.

"GRASSROOTS BROADBAND" SESSION IS ONLINE

Jim Eastman of WRUW has posted his whole recording of the "Grassroots Broadband Forum" at the CTCNet conference last Thursday.

Thanks, Jim!
a

CAN'T BEAT SOMETHING WITH NOTHING: Monday's Crain's Cleveland Business, in an article and an editorial (no longer accessible), says the Statehouse GOP's planned $2 billion Third Frontier-public works-brownfields cleanup ballot issue has been damaged by the Workers Comp scandals, and should be tabled. Yesterday's PD takes the opposite position, criticizing General Assembly Democrats who've refused to help put TF2 on the ballot. Today we learn that the proposal now includes a ban on Third Frontier financing of stem cell research projects.

From the Crain's article:

For the Legislature to put an item on the ballot, it needs 60 votes in the House and 21 in the Senate. If the Republicans in their respective chambers of the General Assembly all voted in favor of putting the bond issue on the ballot, they would have enough votes. However, at least three Republicans in the House are planning to vote against it, Rep. Trakas said.

"We are hoping that less parochial heads prevail," Rep. Trakas said. "We need some Democratic votes, and the Democrats have been very partisan about this."

House Minority Leader Rep. Chris Redfern, D-Catawba Island Township, said House Democrats will not vote for the measure unless it is restructured so that money will be evenly distributed throughout the state.

"If you live near a university campus, I can understand why you would want to support it. If you live in the 85 other counties not impacted, there has not been the argument made by the governor to sway the public," Rep. Redfern said. "I'm not interested in building up Ohio State University or creating three research institutes in the state of Ohio to the detriment of 85 counties."

Charges of "partisanship" coming from the GOP majority are laughable, of course. There's no good reason for Statehouse Democrats to come to the aid of lame duck Trakas, House Speaker Jon Husted or the floundering Governor Taft. And there's certainly no reason to attach Democratic sponsors to a tech-development plan that will screen for religious correctness.

But there are very good reasons for the Dems to have an alternative plan. And the big problem here is... they don't.

Recall that the 2003 version of the Third Frontier plan, Issue 1, was much more popular among Democrats than Republicans. While losing statewide by only 45,000 votes, it passed handily in Cuyahoga, Summit, Lorain, Montgomery, Stark and Erie Counties. Of the sixteen counties that went for Kerry in '04, seven passed Issue 1 in '03, one (Lucas) split dead even, and three more gave "Yes" at least 48% of their votes. The city of Cleveland supported the issue 61%-39%, with twenty out of twenty-one wards voting "Yes" including all the African-American wards. Counties that went for Bush in '04, on the other hand, opposed Issue 1 overwhelmingly.

Normally, this kind of support among their own base should have sent Democratic legislators scrambling to the head of the Third Frontier parade. They've resisted this impulse... wisely, I'm sure, in light of the GOP's total control of the legislative process and the governor's crumbling fortunes. But as recent events make clear, the GOP's need for sixty votes could have empowered the Dems to publicly negotiate a TF2 plan that was more to their liking -- if the minority caucus had taken steps since 2003 to develop and promote its own agenda for technology-driven job development.

But they didn't, and no such agenda exists. So once again, in the tech-jobs debate the Democrats are playing the role of pot-shotting aginners.

This may seem like clever tactics for a week or two (the stem cell nonsense certainly bolsters that view) but it's long-run suicide. If the 2003 Third Frontier vote proved anything, it proved that half of Ohio voters -- the half that includes most Democratic counties -- will vote for anything that resonates with the suggestion of more jobs. The Republicans are deeply vulnerable on this issue, but they have a jobs program which they're noisily enacting: lower taxes and high-tech investments. It may be horseshit, it may be corporate welfare, it may have far less real economic impact than the de-funding of higher education and the theocratic perversion of high school science education. But it's a program that speaks to lots of voters in the Democrats' own base -- including those evil urban/university enclaves in Cleveland, Akron, and Columbus -- as well as to the GOP's core anti-tax voters. What do Redfern and Co. have to offer as an alternative?

Oldest truth in politics: You can't beat something with nothing.

So, if I'm so smart, what would I propose for the Democrats' legislative agenda? Fair question. Here are a couple of ideas...

• A version of the Third Frontier investment program that also funds community-based technology training for inner-city and rural residents, so poor people have a shot at the jobs.
• An initiative for aggressive deployment of affordable broadband communications throughout the state, right now, by any means necessary.
• Reform of Ohio's development financing and corporate law to encourage grassroots models of enterprise development -- like employee buyouts to prevent plant closings, and new business formations by community nonprofits and cooperatives. (Check out the Employee Ownership Center at Kent State. Take a look at Spain's 70,000-worker Mondragon Cooperative Corporation. Or just consider the housing construction that's been driven by community development corporations in recent years.)
• Serious support for residential and commercial adoption of wind, solar, fuel cell and geothermal energy applications -- including changes in state utility law to promote distributed generation and reduce the power of distant monopolies in local energy markets.
  

If you aren't crazy about these ideas, put your own on the list. The point is, Democrats need to be fighting for something that will get more Ohioans gainfully employed in the new economy. Instead, we have the unlovely spectacle of Statehouse Dems blocking and sniping at the GOP's big initiative for technology job growth, while here in Cleveland -- a Democratic city that voted for that initiative in 2003 -- the Democratic mayor's "big ideas" for economic development are Wal-Mart and gambling.

This is ridiculous and shameful. And if it continues, it will keep Democrats out of power in Columbus forever.
a

COMMUNITY TECH CONFERENCE BLOGGING: I've been buried in the Community Technology Centers Conference since Thursday, and once again alienated from the means of blog production, since I'm the last guy in the world without a laptop. But others are more evolved. Two blogs posting from the InterContinental this weekend are Andy Carvin's Waste of Bandwidth and Audio Activism. Andy's also running a CTCNet Conference RSS roundup and Flickr photo album via the Digital Divide Network.

CWRU's Lev Gonick is in Tel Aviv so he missed the Conference's great reception last night at the Kelvin Smith Library (which was kind of his idea, along with Library Director Joanne Eustis), but he posted this thoughtful piece on his blog welcoming CTCNet to campus and suggesting more active alliances between "community technologists" and university communities.

This week, Cleveland hosts a national gathering of community technology centers. Cleveland welcomes community technologists from around the country. When we look for coalitions to work together to make a difference in our communities sometimes the obvious pieces do not fall into place.

There is a long standing consensus that civic engagement is directly proportionate to the level of education of the citzenry along with intervening variables like the number of civic action groups, news outlets/sources, and political organizations.

Community technologists across the country and the university community need to be stronger allies in pursuit of a common goal. Case Western Reserve University is pleased to be able to host some of the activities of the CTC in collaboration with OneCleveland.

The more educated our communities the better positioned they are to taking ownership of their own futures. Let's continue to find ways of working together.

Hear, hear.

There's actually been a lot said about community/university partnerships in the last couple of days, like Technology for All's neighborhood wireless collaborative with Rice University in Houston. (Incidentally, George says he expects to have our Thursday evening "Grassroots Broadband" forum, with TFA's Will Reed on the panel, audio-posted at Brewed Fresh Daily soon.)

More tomorrow, when the conference is over and I can return to my un-evolved, stationary home P3.
a

GRASSROOTS BROADBAND FORUM: Want to hear how people in other cities are approaching the "community broadband" problem? Come to a Digital Vision forum Thursday evening with speakers from Houston, Seattle, Boston and downstate Ohio. It's at the InterContinental Hotel at 98th and Carnegie, starting at 8 pm. (Yeah, 8 is a little late, but that's when the CTCNet Conference folks get back to the hotel from their visits to local community computer centers). No charge... everybody's welcome!
a

$32 MILLION DOWN THE PD MEMORY HOLE: I owe the Plain Dealer an apology. I closed yesterday's post about the proposed $30 million in Port Authority financing for Steelyard Commons with: "P.S. Why is the Sun News getting a total scoop on this story?" This was, of course, a snide jab at our fine daily newspaper.

But it turns out that the PD broke this story way back on January 15. You might have missed it, since it was the last, unbylined item in the "Communities" roundup, buried on Metro Page B3. But there it was:

Developer tries to get loans

The developer of a proposed mega-shopping center in the Cuyahoga River valley is working with several banks to land at least $32 million in loans through a federal tax-credit program. Developer Mitchell Schneider of First Interstate Properties Ltd. confirmed this week that he is working with U.S. Bank and KeyCorp to finance a big chunk of Cleveland’s Steelyard Commons, a big-box retail center proposed for just east of Ohio 176 (the Jennings Freeway). Schneider hopes to land $32 million through the New Markets Tax Credit program run by the Northeast Ohio Development Fund, a collaboration of the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority and Cohen Company Ltd. The program offers federal income tax credits to lenders who make below-market loans for projects in low-income areas.

See? Right there in black and white, in our newspaper of record. I guess I just wasn't paying attention. My bad.

In my defense, however, this January 15 item was the last and only reference to Steelyard's Port financing in the PD's many stories and editorials about Steelyard Commons. I guess all the other reporters and editors missed the story, too. Like editorial page editor Brent Larkin, whose lead editorial on May 19 included this sentence:

Recall that Schneider asked for no subsidies to build his $120 million shopping center.

or the writer of the infamous March 5 "Boneyard Commons" editorial (possibly also Larkin):

Schneider... planned to do it without any subsidy from the city — unlike almost every other deal that’s proposed here.

not to mention the reporters who've repeatedly quoted Mayor Campbell saying "no city subsidies" without adding: "The developer is seeking $32 million in Federally subsidizing financing from the Port of Cleveland, an agency largely controlled by the City."

Yup, they must have missed it, like me. Or maybe they all just forgot. That would be understandable.

After all, what's $32 million among friends?
a

$30 MILLION IN PUBLICLY SUBSIDIZED FINANCING FOR STEELYARD: Yesterday's Cuyahoga County Planning Commission Weblog has a link to a Sun News article which reports thusly:

Some critics are insistent City Hall is straying from a promise that no public subsidy will support the new Steelyard Commons shopping plaza.

Whether or not they are correct may depend on how you look at the situation.

Steelyard Commons developer First Interstate Properties Ltd. will receive $30 million in federal tax credits and loans from the Northeast Ohio Development Fund.

Let's consider our options for "looking at the situation".

1. Steelyard Commons, a $120 million project, is going to get $30 million in tax credits and low-interest loan financing from the Northeast Ohio Development Fund.

2. The NODF is a financing program of the Port Authority. The source of its subsidies is the Federal government.

3. The Port Authority is a public agency. The City of Cleveland appoints six of its nine board members. The county appoints the other three.

Thus a public agency, controlled by the City of Cleveland, is planning to provide a quarter of Steelyard Commons' permanent financing with federally subsidized funds.

Just how would you look at this situation and not see a heavy public subsidy for SYC and its anchor tenant, Wal-Mart? (The point of the subsidies is to lower SYC's debt service costs, so they can offer lower lease rates to their tenants.)

From the Land of Oz, perhaps.

P.S. Why is the Sun News getting a total scoop on this story?
a

BWC SCANDAL BLOGGING: If you're a fan of gory details, you should check out Chas Rich's recent posts at Neo Babble on the Workers' Comp Fund mess. Just start with today's post on MDL Financial and keep reading.

Also check out today's long analysis at Hypothetically Speaking, who dogged the original Coingate story for weeks.
a

DOES SIZE MATTER? In a comment to yesterday's "Roldo on Rybka" post, someone named "Mike" wrote:

cincinnati - 7 councilmen
columbus - 9 councilmen
pittsburgh - 9 councilmen
detroit - 9 councilmen
philadelphia - 16 councilmen
(over 1.5 million residents)
cleveland - 21 councilmen less than 500,000 residents
give me a break!!!!!!!!!!!

I made a couple of attempts to respond in the comments, but enetation is refusing posts again, so I'll do it here.

Cincinnati, Columbus and Detroit are among the few big cities that have all-at-large Councils (no wards, everyone's elected citywide). Are their voters happy with the results? This is a question worth investigating, and since I know lots of people in Columbus and Cincinnati, I think I'll do just that. (Comments from both cities welcome here.) Here's a pretty good clue from Detroit... the major "civic reform" movement there this summer is a ballot issue to return to district representation.

But the question of at-large vs. ward councils is different from the question of size. And here "Mike" is right: Cleveland's ratio of one elected council member for each 23,000 residents is among the highest in big American cities. Chicago has fifty aldermen, but they represent two million people; St. Louis has 29 councilman for 340,000 residents, but that's considered controversial, like ours. So let's take "Mike"'s point as a given: Cleveland has a big City Council for the size of our population.

To which I say: So what?

As I've pointed out here before, one elected official directly responsible to each 23,000 residents is still a lot less than most suburban residents enjoy. Beachwood's 12,000 people elect a fulltime $80,000-a-year mayor and seven part-time council representatives. Rocky River, with a 20,000+ population similar to a Cleveland ward, also has a mayor and seven council members. Brook Park, same size population, one mayor and eight council members. The average population of all Cuyahoga County municipalities outside Cleveland was 21,000 in the last census, 2,000 fewer than the average Cleveland ward... and each of those cities and villages has its own mayor (or manager) and multiple elected legislators.

"Mike" might say this is why we have too many governments and need to consolidate them. I say, fine, but first ask yourself: Which of these municipal governments provide the best services now? Which cities are attracting the most development? Where do people move when they have the choice? Where do bank executives, lawyers, newspaper editors, and former Cleveland City Council members choose to buy homes?

Why, in smaller cities with bigger elected official-to-voter ratios, of course. Places where you can get the mayor on the phone personally if you need to, and councilmen eat in the same restaurants and go to the same supermarket as you do. Places where government is human scale.

So why is it that human scale democracy is fine for suburbanites, but an outrageous extravagance for those of us who live in city neighborhoods?

I believe Cleveland's councilman-to-resident ratio is actually one of Cleveland's few civic strengths compared to other cities. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that without the civic capacity provided by ward council members, the city would now have a lot fewer new homes and stores, a lot more areas that are virtually unlivable due to blight and crime, and lot fewer middle-class residents than we have. I know that's a major heresy, of course, so I'll save the argument for another post.

Here I'll just conclude by asking: Okay, "Mike", we've got more Councilmen per resident than Pittsburgh or Columbus. Why is that bad?
a

ROLDO ON RYBKA: To get a feel for what a good neighborhood Councilman in Cleveland does -- and why reducing Council would be horribly counterproductive for people who actually live here -- read Roldo's excellent appreciation of retiring Ward 12 Councilman Ed Rybka.
a

A GOOD FACE FOR RADIO: I was on WRUW's "Guerilla Radio" yesterday along with Jaclyn Stacy of Cleveland Jobs With Justice, talking about the Steelyard Commons issue and NoClevelandWalmart.org. You can listen to the whole show here (or here at NoClevelandWalmart, thanks to George).

Biggest disappointment at WRUW: No sign of the Wilson Boys.
a

BECKMAN GUEST BLOGGING: Lately it seems like every time I see Geoff Beckman (which is about every day) he gives me crap for not blogging enough, and tells me something I should have blogged about. Who needs this grief? So today I signed him up as a "team member" so he can do it himself. (See "They're falling...", above.)

Geoff says he'll post judiciously, respectfully and discreetly. We'll see.
a

MORE ON REGIONAL MAGNET SCHOOLS: Excerpts from an email that arrived today from Piet Van Lier of Catalyst Cleveland:

...I noticed your comments regarding Frank Jackson's Op-Ed piece, which included the idea of regional magnet schools. For more information on that issue, you may want to read the November issue of Catalyst Cleveland. In it, we explore the concept of economic integration of public schools, which includes the idea of regional magnet schools: http://www.catalyst-cleveland.org/11-04/1104toc.htm

...In addition to Frank Jackson's mention, our work on this issue also sparked a story in the Free Times last November, and we recently had a forum, organized in partnership with CSU, about economic integration.