SEE THE WORLD SPINNING ROUND: Today, this man's organization (see photo, right) pledged that it would cease all future activity and start decomissioning its weapons Thursday, July 28, 2005. It's welcome news, but not all that impressive. I mean, this man's organization (see photo, below) made the same pledge many months ago. And they've kept it, despite numerous calls for action.

Two weeks ago, I had to call an acquaintance who has really drank the Kool-Aid, just to ask "What in the name of Joseph Force Crater are you doing? You told me he was just waiting for council to adjourn before he took the gloves off. He's noticed that it has, right? Or is he sick, and you're trying to get in touch with Kevin Kline."

Don't you remember?, came the reply. He promised that he'd suspend his campaign so it wouldn't interfere with the Cleveland School Levy. Everyone but Draper has. So help me, they really believe that Jane Campbell and Judge Bulwer-Lytton have forsworn all political activity until next Wednesday.

But don't worry, s/he continued. We have something special planned for the last week in July. When I saw this story, I called back. "That was it, wasn't it?" Yeah, what did you think?

I think it would be nice if you could find the platform on his web site. I think it would be best if the few remaining "Friends of" began looking for a loophole that lets him file to run for his old seat. I think he doesn't get it and I think he'z gonna be a grease spot in about a week. Give me a few more days to get all the boxes moved and finish my night job.

ABANDONING NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL STRIPS: One of the many undiscussed issues surrounding the Steelyard Commons project is the shift it signals in City Hall's neighborhood commercial development policy. In hitching its policy to a megabox "power center" featuring a Wal-Mart SuperCenter, the Campbell Administration is abandoning a twenty-year strategic commitment to neighborhood retail strips -- nodes of small and mid-sized stores serving households within a mile or two.

This Steelyard Commons marketing site, caught Tuesday by Jeff Hess, makes the whole thing pretty clear. SYC is a "regional power center serving an untapped trade area with no competition... This development will create a new regional trade area in a previously underserved and impenetrable market."

What's this "untapped trade area with no competition"... this "impenetrable market"? For the answer, take a look at this city neighborhood map with a three-mile circle drawn around SYC, represented, naturally, by a frownie-face.



You can see that this circle includes all or most of nine neighborhoods (not counting downtown and the Industrial Valley). Each of these neighborhoods (Old Brooklyn, Brooklyn Centre, Stockyards, Detroit-Shoreway, Ohio City, Clark-Fulton, Central, North Broadway and South Broadway) has its own community development corporation, or shares a CDC with the area next door. Each of these CDCs has a longstanding commercial development program focussed on preserving and expanding local shopping opportunities in one or more retail nodes. In most of these programs, neighborhood food markets -- i.e. small to mid-sized supermarkets -- play an essential role as local amenities and anchors for other local shopping.

The little colored squares on the map are those food markets. Blue squares are Dave's Supermarkets, green squares are Tops Markets, brown squares are independents. The orange square in Ohio City is the West Side Market. I haven't included discount groceries like Aldi's, but Brooklyn Centre, Detroit-Shoreway and Broadway have those, as well. The square with the "x" in Clark-Fulton is the recently closed Tops on Clark Avenue -- which would be the subject of a neighborhood crusade right now, if it wasn't for the Wal-Mart SuperCenter looming just over the hill. Where you see a colored square, there is almost certainly a larger "local retail" node that's been nursed, marketed and invested in -- by the local CDC, by the City, by the foundations through Neighborhood Progress -- for ten, fifteen or even twenty years.

The business plan of Steelyard Commons is to pull lots of the local customers away from neighborhood retail nodes, effectively wiping them out. That's not scare talk... it's a simple statement of obvious fact. SYC's big anchor is Wal-Mart, and Wal-Mart wouldn't play unless it could sell food. The principal market area for a SuperCenter is generally described as two miles around for food, and five miles around for other goods (that's why so many small cities are seeing one built at each end of town). Who are the "untapped, impenetrable" customers for Wal-Mart in that magic circle? They're the people now shopping at Dave's, the Bi-Rite on Fulton, Gillombardo's Tops on Broadway -- the local shoppers who make those local retail strips sustainable.

By supporting -- pushing, celebrating -- this SYC/Wal-Mart business plan, the Campbell Administration is abandoning the City's twenty-year commitment to food-anchored neighborhood shopping districts in these and (eventually) other neighborhoods. The Mayor will hotly deny this, of course, but there's really no other rational interpretation that fits the facts.

The circle on the map is a retail blast zone, and City Hall is escorting Wal-Mart to the launch button.

Why is this not a fighting issue for even one of Campbell's opponents? There you have the great mystery of this election year.

IT'S A SMALL, SMALL WORLD-CLASS: Remember the "world-class steel heritage museum" that was going to be part of Steelyard Commons? Turns out it's going to have a whopping six hundred square feet of display space. It's not clear whether that includes the bathrooms. Jeff Hess has appropriate comments.

VIRTUE IS ITS OWN AWARD: Congratulations to Brewed Fresh Daily for winning the Free Times "Best Cleveland Blog" Freebie Award. (No link, the FT website's down for maintenance.)

The squib says Cleveland Diary was a "runner-up" for the award. That would be a distant runner-up, running way back in a crowded pack. But it's nice to hear anyway. Thanks, FT.

TUESDAY BRAIN BLOGGING: Click on the brain in the jar.

NEW COMMENT POLICY: As of two minutes ago, it is this site's policy to delete any comments that are both a) anonymous, and b) irrelevant to the post they're attached to. Comments which fall in only one of these categories will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

GRAY AND WHITE, PART 2: Anonymous commenter "Mike" says:

it was common knowledge in the law enforcement community that white was forced to step down from office and pledge to never run for public office again in order to escape an indictment from the feds. where have you guys been?

I wouldn't take this seriously from an anonymous source, except that it squares with what I was told by a knowledgeable person that I know very well. "Mike" could just have been feeding that person's words (quoted at the end of the post) back to me, of course. One thing's for sure: If Mayor White cut a deal with the Federal prosecutor, it sure isn't "common knowledge" in the community of ordinary, oblivious citizens who read the newspaper.

Which might be because it isn't true, of course.

Does any of this matter any more? Yes. Mike White remains a major influence in Cleveland politics. People from his close staff and Cabinet occupy positions of public and community trust. Just months ago (i.e. until Frank Jackson announced) there was media speculation about the possibility of White running for mayor again. What happened at City Hall barely four years ago is not old news... especially if it hasn't been in the news at all.

(It is possibly relevant that in 2001 and 2002 the U.S. Attorney for Northern Ohio was not Republican Greg White -- Bush's 2000 Northeast Ohio campaign co-chair, appointed to the job in 2003 -- but Emily Sweeney, appointed by Bill Clinton.)

MY TINFOIL HAT DEPARTMENT: I heard my first grassroots conspiracy theory about the Nate Gray stories on Friday. A friend who works at an East Side community agency told me her colleague's consensus is that the PD held back the story until last week because they were waiting for a mayoral candidate they liked better than Campbell... but seeing none, they've decided to support Campbell, so they released the anti-White stuff to make her look good by comparison.

I don't think this is a very satisfying theory (Why would Clifton have humiliated himself for two weeks? Where does Scene fit in?), but it's okay as a game-opener. Here's one I like better, which should be popular among my fellow Democrats:

U.S. Attorney Greg White and PD publisher Alex Machaskee are both partisan Republicans and former Northeast Ohio Bush campaign leaders. Seeing that Coingate and its many outgrowths are wreaking havoc on their friends, they cook up the release of the Gray documents as a diversionary Democratic scandal. But they need extreme deniability. So a defense lawyer is somehow enlisted to show the documents to the PD... the PD lets it be known that it has something momentous but fears prosecution, creating a major brouhaha... Scene is given a peek, giving the PD "no choice" but to publish... prosecutor White waxes indignant and calls for an investigation. Voila! Coingate is no longer the scandal du jour in Cleveland.

Like that one? I made it up myself. That is, I think I did...

PASTY, WHITE OLD GEEKS AND OTHER ODDITIES: PD City Hall reporter Olivera Perkins has been working on this story for at least a month. Isn't that unbelievable?

The last actual event mentioned in the story (the "recent house party") took place almost three weeks ago, on July 6. The "recent" meeting of bloggers at Metro Joe's was a week before that (I was there). If Perkins did any follow-up interviews from those two events -- other than the obligatory phone call with the AFL-CIO's John Ryan -- it sure doesn't show in the story.

The two-week lapse between Perkins' note-taking and actual writing may explain why, in more than twenty column inches of atmosphere and "color", she was unable to quote two consecutive sentences from anyone but Ryan. (He got three really short ones.) And also why she failed to present a coherent account, in or out of quotes, of even one of the reasons people gave her for opposing the Steelyards Wal-Mart.

Like, for example, why people like me insist that Steelyard Commons is in line for a hefty public subsidy, contrary to what City Hall and her paper have been saying. Perkins writes:

There was talk about stalling the project because the Steelyard developer is getting federal tax credits through a program for development in low-income areas. Those credits, the bloggers reasoned, amount to a public subsidy, allowing them to push for a public hearing.

The bloggers reasoned? Is there some imaginable way that $32 million in financing, subsidized with Federal tax credits arranged through the Port of Cleveland, would not "amount to a public subsidy"? More to the point, is there some imaginable good reason why a reporter, hearing citizens describe an alleged government subsidy of a supposedly unsubsidized project, would fail to call up the Port to ask: a) whether the citizens are correct; and b) if so, what Port officials have to say about it?

But if Perkins made that call, she's not telling. She's content to note that we bloggers were "excited". (I guess she could tell from the way we rubbed our pasty white hands together.) So who cares if we were right?

I have to admit, I really expected better from Perkins. Live and learn.

P.S. Twelve more days have passed, and the PD still has not written about the Secret Wal-Mart Subsidy... either the $32 million in New Markets Tax Credit financing itself, or the fact that it contradicts repeated claims that SYC is an unsubsidized project, or the bizarre attempt by Port officials to evade public scrutiny through the "private" Northeast Ohio Development Fund. Sorry, but I don't think the "excited bloggers" passage above changes anything. Still counting.

NOW HERE'S A NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING TOOL!

My block as a Google Hybrid Map. (Thank you, Zonk at Slashdot.)

NO HELP FROM THE AUDIENCE, PLEASE: I'm not dead, disillusioned or shamed into silence. I'm just trying to move 8,500 books, three rooms of computers, musical instruments and stereos, eight rooms of furniture, one girlfriend and three undisciplined cats into my new house, while working my day job and also doing 20 hours of political consulting each week. Something had to give; Bill's blog was it.

I'm breaking radio silence to indicate that I'm not participating in this project because I think it's a bad idea. You shouldn't elect a politician who gives you the best answers to your questions. You should elect the politician who answers your questions without being asked.

When I'm considering candidates, the first thing I want to know is "How well do you understand the problems?" Are you aware of the issues that affect people the most? Have you devised a solution on your own, offering it for consideration before it became politically expedient to do so? The issues that a candidate volunteers to voters-- and their solutions-- tell you more about what they stand for than their answer to 10,000 questions.

If, next Tuesday, a national study reports that Cleveland has the highest utility costs in the universe, and it makes the front page of the PD on Wednesday, I guarantee you that every candidate in the race will have a six-point plan to reduce electric and water bills for everyone in the city by Friday. Maybe one or two of them will even be intelligent solutions (as opposed to Triozziesque blathering).

So how does that help? If it takes public pressure during a campaign (when everyone falls over backwards to seem responsive) to get a candidate to agree that utility costs are a serious issue, isn't it likely that the issue goes on the back burner the minute the election is over? What are the odds that it doesn't come up for another four years? Maybe you could prevent it by putting together a coalition that has enough power to keep the pressure on the new mayor. Is that something that people really want to have to do? (Especially since every progressive I know belongs to at least two coalitions or groups and doesn't have enough time for the ones they're in.)

What's the harm in putting together questions? God forbid I should "[limit] topics of discussion in the NEO blogsphere because [I] think [my] opinion is above anyone else[']s." But the answer is: because it increases the likelihood that you'll pick the wrong person. I was in a coalition like this in 1989, We were all concerned about the revenue that George Voinovich had cost the city by funding the construction of shiny, tax-abated downtown buildings. We put together a list of questions for all the candidates, to find out where they stood.

And of the five candidates, it was really no contest. George Forbes sneered at us, and Rocky "The Pissboy" Perk stammered and babbled. TIm Hagan seemed offended that we were questioning his judgment. Benny Bonnano gave us some strong populist rhetoric. But the guy who stood head and shoulders above everyone else-- who told us exactly what we were hoping to hear-- was Mike "The Knife" White. And he took a long, public dump on our positions the minute he got elected.

Had we not asked-- had we merely made decisions based on what they'd said or done during their careers-- we would have assumed that Forbes and White (Forbes's old walking boss) would screw the city and the poor if elected, that Hagan probably would, that Perk was a yutz and that we would be best off supporting Bonnano. But we asked, we believed, we did everything we could to help White. And then he rolled us.

It's hard to imagine that the city would have been worse off under Bonnano. The biggest argument for White (that Benny was a crook) just vanished. In fact, since Benny's election would have made it impossible for Jay Westbrook to have become council president (racial balance), and Forbes would have been out of council, things might have been significantly better. (I'll let Bill argue that Forbes would have won the runoff against Bonnano.)

So go ahead, ask the questions. But take the answers-- which will be given under political durress-- with a shaker or a box of salt.

By the way: The Scene has it exactly right here (scroll to second item). I nearly posted a response to Sam Fullwood's tripe, but I skipped it because I really didn't have a substantive objection (anyone is entitled to an opinion, no matter how stupid). I didn't know that someone who had the gall to write: "This smacks of colonialism, where people try to manage the city's affairs from a comfortable distance. It can only produce resentment if city leaders are seen as beholden to suburbanites instead of the people who really elect them.", would do it while living in Shaker Heights.

What's especiallly annoying is that Fulwood includes the following paragraph: "[Full disclosure: I moderated the panel on "Silver Bullet Solutions," which discussed how casinos and convention centers alone can't save Cleveland.] He was willing to 'disclose' that he worked with Moore-- because it made him seem more impartial-- but he didn't mention that he has no more business writing about What Cleveland Should Do than Moore. Or, for that matter, any of the PD senior editorial people, or the power elite in business who make all the decisions (not like it stops them).

JAIL... OR HELL FOREVER? Okay, now we find out whether the PD's lawyers were right to be so worried about somebody going to jail.

From the AP:

A federal prosecutor asked a judge Thursday to determine how three documents under seal were released to newspapers reporting on a public corruption investigation involving the city's former mayor.

U.S. Attorney Gregory A. White filed the motion the same day The Plain Dealer reported that former Mayor Michael R. White was a target of a federal investigation that began three years ago and that led to the indictment of one of White's friends. The weekly newspaper Scene published a similar report Wednesday.

The prosecutor asked U.S. District Judge James S. Gwin to hold a hearing to determine who disclosed the documents. There was no immediate word on whether Gwin would hold a hearing.

Doug Clifton, The Plain Dealer's editor, said he had not seen the motion and declined further comment. Pete Kotz, Scene's editor, said he intends to protect the identity of the person who gave him the documents.

"If you rat a guy you're going to go to hell forever," Kotz said. "I'm not going to rat anybody."

... The Plain Dealer reported that a lawyer it didn't identify allowed the newspaper to review the memo.

... In the motion, the prosecutor said an intentional violation of the court order sealing the documents could constitute, at minimum, contempt of court.

Several of my friends in the NEO blogging network have attacked Clifton mercilessly for withholding this (and maybe another) story from print for fear of legal repercussions. Now that the story's been out for two days, nobody has posted much about it (just this from Jeff, and this from Right Angle Blog).

What do you think, folks? Should someone should go to jail... or to hell? Will there be a Bloggers Legal Defense Fund for Kotz, Tobin and Clifton?

Just asking.

Update: democracyguy responds.

GRAY AND WHITE: So Nate Gray's other shoe has finally dropped on Mike White. Apparently Pete Kotz's one-day scoop in Scene really was one of (or part of) Doug Clifton's suppressed PD stories, because there it was on the PD's front page this morning.

Yes, it turns out it was material under court seal in a Federal case. And yes, it was the Nate Gray case. You read it here first.

But most people read it in Scene first, so the scalp (along with the chance to print a picture of Mike White in a target on your front page) goes to Kotz and Scene. Now we'll find out if the PD has anything else.

In reading both the Scene and PD stories (and if you haven't, you should), here are some critical things to keep in mind:

1) As mayor, Mike White was a total micro-manager. I mean total. When my wife worked as a nurse for the City Health Department in 1995, setting up neighborhood immunization clinics, every single flyer she produced (not just the template) had to be cleared by the Mayor's Office. Nobody made a move in White's City Hall that White didn't know about.

2) Nate Gray's reputation as a fixer was common knowledge in and around City Hall. I personally heard it joked about in casual conversation with a Cabinet member in 1998... and believe me, I was way outside anybody's inner circle.

3) The Scene story says the FBI found the first big cash deposits into Gray's bank account early in White's first term.

4) White and his wife, a former Lakewood City Council member with a very good job running a big East Side social service agency, both abruptly decided in 2001 to give up the urban rat race for a life of alpaca ranching in Newcomerstown. "Abruptly" may only be the way it appears to us, of course; they might have been planning the change for years. But 2001 also seems to be when the FBI interviews and phone intercepts got hot and heavy.

Several months ago, a usually well-informed person told me that getting out of town and out of politics was part of a deal the former mayor made with the Federal prosecutor. Nothing in yesterday and today's stories contradicts this assertion.

BEFORE THE DOG EATS IT...

Homework from tonight's Cleveland Weblogger Meetup is to list the blogs we always check out in any two-day period. Here's my current list, in no particular order:

BFD
Eschaton
MaxSpeak
Hullabaloo
Cuyahoga County Planning Commission
democracy guy
MaryBeth Matthews
havecoffeewillwrite
Hypothetically Speaking
Lawrence Lessig
Muniwireless
Red Wheelbarrow
NEO Babble

There's a longer list of "Blogs I probably check out in any two-day period, but not absolutely always." Yes, of course you're on it.

BETTER QUESTIONS: George at Brewed Fresh Daily seldom meets a podcast he doesn't like, but he found one posted at Robert Triozzi's mayoral campaign blog.

George asks:

Can we have someone ask better questions? If someone going to interview mayoral candidates, can we please ask something beside “How do you rank Cleveland in safety and what are you hearing from the people”?

George, are we the someone we are waiting for? I certainly have questions I'd like to pose to all the candidates and post their answers. I bet you do, too. And I bet that we, along with our friends, could create an environment in which the campaigns would feel obliged to respond to those questions.

Think we could organize an ongoing no-holds-barred candidates' debate in blogspace?

MAYORAL MIGRATION: It's been a tough election year for Cleveland realtors. Tom Coyne decided that his heart is still back in Brook Park. Ray Pierce packed up all that visionary leadership and headed for North Carolina, where they understand him. Jim Rokakis and Dan Moore both decided to stick with their suburban addresses. Talk about a brain drain! For a while there, it looked like we might have a mayoral election without selling a single house.

But luckily, David Lynch has decided this is his year to save Cleveland. So as of December, he's from Collinwood. As the Republican lawyer and onetime Euclid mayor told the Sun News:

"I moved there at the end of December of last year," Lynch said of his Grovewood Avenue home. "I didn't know if I was going to run for sure when I moved there, but I've since decided that I will."

And aren't we lucky that he did! In his seven months living among us, Lynch has learned that "there is a dire need to improve Cleveland Public Schools, reduce the crime rate and revise tax structures to make it easier to do business in Cleveland." And there's more, courtesy of Right Angle Blog:

[H]e would like to see a regional program established wherein the various communities in Cuyahoga would share in the tax revenues brought in by businesses so that one city isn't competing against another for jobs. Lynch also appropriated Voinovich's line for city government of "Harder and smarter" by recognizing that citizens are basically customers and government must be more responsive.

The lit piece Lynch had available said he was for casinos, but he acknowledged they aren't the panacea. He's also for lakeshore development and a new convention center. He is against red light cameras...

... [H]e'd like to bring the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame ceremonies to Cleveland, and he'd also like to see Cleveland make a bid for the Summer Olympics.

...Lynch did shy away from talking about the upcoming school levy... It also sounded as if he was going to be signing off/agreeing to Dan T. Moore's Cleveland Action Plan.

Wow, that's exciting stuff. This is clearly a man of deep insight and bold, original thinking, unafraid to take on conventional wisdom and buck the elites. Definitely cut out to be a city-saver. They sure raise'em tough in... Euclid? or Cleveland Heights? Wherever he's from.

Not all our suburban "city leaders" are this superfluous. Rokakis moved to Rocky River when he ascended from City Hall to the County Building, but he's still a serious Cleveland politician with one of the city's biggest voting bases. Rev. Marvin McMickle, a Shaker resident who used to be "mentioned" for Cleveland mayor all the time, spends his days pastoring a church at 89th and Cedar. Dan Moore's "Action Cleveland" program is a mess -- in some respects an elitist, condescending mess -- but he's a smart guy who's built and operated real businesses in a Cleveland neighborhood for twenty years, so you have to take his views about the city seriously.

But David Lynch, parachuting in from Euclid to save us? Is this the best the party of Perk and Voinovich can come up with?

Well, at least we sold Lynch a house. But I hope he kept his realtor's card. Something tells me he'll be looking for it in November, when it's time to follow the crop to another town.

TUESDAY BRAIN BLOGGING: Anyone we know?

THIS DOESN'T QUITE REPLACE ED MORRISON, BUT: Finally, Case produces some intellectual property of substantial value to the community. Warning: This link is sorta work-safe. No offensive content, but employers get ticked if you don't do any work for hours.

TIME FOR A POWER STRUGGLE IN CLEVELAND

I haven't written about Cleveland electric rates since last Fall. But I think the time has come.

Three or four of you might remember (well, I'm about to remind you, okay?) this post from last November, in which I rejoiced that my Cleveland Public Power bill had actually shrunk a little. That was the good news; the bad news was that the relief was a) probably temporary and b) wouldn't really change CPP's status as one of Ohio's most expensive electric utilities, right up there with its "competitor" First Energy.

Unfortunately, I was right on both counts. I just went through my last twelve monthly CPP bills, along with the PUCO's "Utility Rate Surveys" for the same months. Here's what electricity cost a household that used 750 kilowatt-hours per month, during the year that ended with May 2005:


As I've pointed out before, all these utilities are selling the same product to the same kinds of customers for the same end uses. Other than CPP, they're all large investor-owned corporations, all with unions, all operating under the same laws and PUCO regulation. There are dozens of smaller utilities across the state, mostly run by cities and villages like CPP, but all selling power much cheaper.

The extra electricity cost of living in Cleveland rather than Columbus or Cincinnati is as high as $20-25 a month for households with normal usage. If this was a cable bill increase you would hear our screams in Chillicothe. If it was a school levy... well, we'll soon see. If the extra cost to businesses was a tax, the Greater Cleveland Partnership would be up in arms. (The PUCO Rate Survey says that the electric cost differential in June between Cleveland and Canton, for a commercial customer using 300,000 kwh, was about $18,000 a month!)

So why do Cleveland voters tolerate this? Why is CPP, once the "third rail of Cleveland politics", now conducting its publicly owned business in a virtual cone of silence, as far as candidates for Mayor and City Council are concerned?

The Mayor and City Council are the CEO and Board of Cleveland Public Power. So here's the question I want to hear answered by any City candidate who wants my vote this year: If you're elected or re-elected, what's your plan to lower my CPP bills by at least 20% during your next four years in office?

ROLDO ON THE PD'S LANGUISHING STORIES: In his new column at Cool Cleveland, Roldo Bartimole explains how Clifton's tale of two lost stories got into Editor and Publisher, and adds some thoughts about the Nate Gray scenario.

WHAT DOES JIM ROKAKIS KNOW AND HOW DID HE LEARN IT? It always pays to read the fine print at Callahan's Cleveland Diary. In his last post, Bill explained why the "profoundly important" stories Doug Clifton says he has couldn't be about Coingate, and are probably about the Nate Gray bribery case.

When a reader asked Bill for details about Nate Gray in the comments, Bill provided this link to a Cleveland Magazine piece. Paragraphs 10-14 of the story strongly suggest what Clifton has (emphasis mine in the following):

Many people doing business with the White Administration paid Nate Gray to consult for them, says Cuyahoga County Treasurer James Rokakis. "There's not anything illegal about that — it happens all the time in Columbus and Washington. People were paying him to get access to the mayor."

However, Rokakis adds, "I am privy to numerous stories about behavior that crossed ethical lines. And I've shared those with prosecutors." He won't tell the stories for publication. "It's not for me to deal with. The feds are taking care of it — finally.

"This has been going on since the early '90s. It took them a while to get it, didn't it? If, in fact, he's guilty."

Gray's trial was scheduled, at press time, to start June 13. But prosecutors have said they may indict more people after Gray's trial. So his current case could be just a prelude.

And if Rokakis is what Clifton has, it demonstrates what avian excrement he, Alex Machaskee or the PD's lawyers truly are. This page contains a good general introduction to Federal Grand Juries and recent case law. As the first sentence of paragraph six states, "the First Amendment allows grand jury witnesses — if one can reach them — to talk to the media about their testimony."

If the PD's source is Rokakis, he can tell them anything he testified about. If they're claiming he can't, they're misrepresenting the law. They're just gutless.

There is one wrinkle in this. As the page states, courts have ruled that a witness can talk about his or her testimony, but he or she can't discuss anything they learned as a result of their testifying. For example, if Rokakis is on the stand and he's asked "Did Mr. Gray ever tell you that Bill Callhan was a crack whore and that Mr. Gray wanted to use him as a conduit to buy off the blogosphere?" If Rokakis says "Yes, Nate told everyone that Bill liked rock, and that he was going to use Bill to take George Nemeth down", he can repeat that. If he says "No, Nate never said anything like that to me", he can't disclose it, because he wouldn't have known if the prosecutor hadn't asked him.

If that's what Clifton thinks he ought to be able to publish, he is truly a pile of... sorry, it's a family blog.

REDFERN RESPONDS: I just noticed that Ohio House Democratic Leader Chris Redfern posted a comment two days ago on my last Third Frontier entry. Here's his comment in its entirety:

Now, now. Let's get that brain stem functioning again... Here's the position I and my colleagues hold on this whole Third Frontier Issue.

We believe that this issue is poorly constructed and gives Ohioans living outside of the 3 C's little reason to vote for it. That being presumed, how on earth does the Governor think he gets this thing passed. All the warm fuzzy feelings one may get about the implementation of this issue don't matter if it doesn't pass in November.

Here's what we suggested and will continue to push: Decouple the Third Frontier from the roads and bridges money and let the two issues stand on their own merits. Barring that, than the Third Frontier Board and the advisory board membership must be changed to reflect the diversity (geographically) of this state. Additionally, all projects funded with public dollars that include construction workers and skilled labor must be paid the prevailing wage. The Third Frontier Issue must not be affected in such a way by the legislature that would hinder the ability of scientists and innovators (ie stem cell research bans), minority Ohioans must have the opportunity to compete fairly for Third Frontier monies. And finally, the campaign itself must not be run by politicians looking to line their own pockets through campaign contributions and hefty contracts.

If Bob Taft wants Democratic votes, he should agree with our concerns.

It's pretty simple, even for someone who needs a functioning brain stem.

Chris Redfern
House Democratic Leader

I appreciate Rep. Redfern's taking the time to respond and his good humor about the "brain stem" theme. I understand his concerns about the GOP 3F proposal (stem cell, prevailing wage, minority access, not mucking up the highway bond question, even geography) as far as they go.

But I'm sorry he didn't speak to the actual issue that was raised here: If we think the Taft/Trakas Third Frontier is a dubious proposition, where are the serious, creative Democratic proposals to promote new business growth, better jobs and equitable participation in Ohio's new economy -- or the old economy, for that matter? Are casinos and Wal-Marts the best we can come up with?

Rep. Redfern (and other Statehouse Democrats), can we talk about this, here at Cleveland Diary or anywhere else you want? It may not be simple, but I don't think it's too much for any of our brain stems to handle.

DISPATCHES FROM THE SWAMP: Hypothetically Speaking keeps churning out lots of informative stuff from the Columbus/Statehouse scandal front. Here are two items he posted yesterday on the Ohio GOP's cascading legal problems -- on Tim Hagan's 2002 campaign kickback suit against Taft and company, which actually seems to be heading for a courtroom, somewhere; and on the Governor's attempts to avoid surrendering documents and possibly being deposed about the BWC/Coingate mess.

People Have the Power also posted a scandal roundup.

For those like SusanG at Daily Kos, who fears that "the rat's nest of Ohio politics [is] being left uninvestigated for fear of jail time" because the Plain Dealer's suppressed stories must be connected to Coingate, there's good news: All the litigation described above is taking place in state and county courts, where Ohio's very strong reporter shield laws apply. Here's Ohio Revised Code Section 2739.12:

No person engaged in the work of, or connected with, or employed by any newspaper or any press association for the purpose of gathering, procuring, compiling, editing, disseminating, or publishing news shall be required to disclose the source of any information procured or obtained by such person in the course of his employment, in any legal proceeding, trial, or investigation before any court, grand jury, petit jury, or any officer thereof, before the presiding officer of any tribunal, or his agent, or before any commission, department, division, or bureau of this state, or before any county or municipal body, officer or committee thereof.

There's a similar section for broadcast reporters. Doesn't leave much room for doubt, does it? If the PD's secret documents concern the operation of a state agency like the BWC, there's very little danger of a reporter or editor getting jail time for protecting their source.

So assuming Doug Clifton is quoting the PD's lawyers accurately, those documents are about something else -- something in Federal jurisdiction. Like, possibly, the Nate Gray investigation.

Update: "Chief justice disqualifies entire Cuyahoga County court". Yes, you read that right. It's the Hagan vs. Taft case mentioned above. Read it and rub your eyes in wonder. (via De Magno Opere)

THE OTHER STORY DOUG CLIFTON ISN'T TELLING: THE SECRET WAL-MART SUBSIDY

It's now been 178 days since the Plain Dealer last mentioned the $32 million in Federal tax credit financing planned for the Steelyard Commons project. It's been 54 days since the paper editorialized that Steelyard developer Mitch Schneider "asked for no subsidies".

It's been 33 days since the Sun News revealed that the secret subsidy plan is still alive and well.

It's been 24 days since this weblog quoted a Port official saying that the Port-created entity which controls the public subsidy, the Northeast Ohio Development Fund, is "not subject to public records or open records or sunshine laws."

But the PD, that fierce defender of open records and sunshine, remains eerily silent. No stories, no indignant editorials. Nothing.

Do you think it's because Judith Miller is in jail?

TUESDAY BRAIN BLOGGING



"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"I think so, Brain, but where are we going to find a duck and a hose at this hour?"

(Confused? Help is here.)

DOUG CLIFTON IS DYING FOR YOUR SINS: When I labeled the Plain Dealer as "the most fascinating bad newspaper in the country" a week ago, I wasn't expecting them to provide such a convincing illustration so soon.

I'm sure Bill is right about what the documents have to be. The PD is too parochial to care about anything having to do with national security (this is, after all, the paper that published the first photos of My Lai, but blew a Pulitzer by telling Sy Hersh to take a hike). There's a possibility that it's connected to the DFAS closing or cuts at NASA... but those aren't the kinds of topics where high-paid lawyers say "you'll definitely burn if you quote from it."

We know it can't be anything vital-- if it were, Clifton would be giving us hints of what he's got. Since the man who gave us the phrase "Quiet Crisis" is using modest language-- calling the stories "profoundly important" and saying they were "of significant interest to the public"-- it can't be the new Abu Ghraib or even the ending of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.

So if it's Grand Jury stuff, and if it's a local story of no lasting significance... then it's probably something connected to the Nate Gray bribery case. My money is that the two stories are actually two names-- prominent politicians who (the jury was told) also got money from Gray. Probably black politicians, because all the other principals in the case are black. Probably weren't charged in the last case because they're still trying to get proof.

If the PD ran a story based on that info, they'd be interfering with a government investigation or a prosecution. A judge wouldn't even blink before sending them up; they'd be lucky to stay out of Gitmo. If that's really the kind of stuff Clifton has-- and he really thinks he ought to be allowed to run it-- then he's journalism's answer to Alberto Gonzalez.

THINGS THEY SEND YOU TO JAIL FOR: So now the whole world has noticed that the Plain Dealer is bravely sitting on two stories "of profound importance" (or so editor Doug Clifton says) because

they are based on illegally leaked documents -- and the paper fears the consequences faced now by jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

Lawyers for the Newhouse Newspapers-owned PD have concluded that the newspaper would almost certainly be found culpable if the leaks were investigated by authorities.

Brewed Fresh Daily and Democracy Guy are challenging the PD and the reporters involved to hand the stories over to be blogged. Their challenge underscores the general blogger reaction that Clifton is, in his own words, being a chicken shit.

I have a different question. It appears from the Editor & Publisher quote above, and from the way Clifton talked in the New York Times story, that the PD's lawyers believe the paper would be breaking the law just by printing the material they've somehow acquired. So this isn't just a matter of protecting a source who could get in job or legal trouble. Clifton is complaining that the jailing of Judith Miller has made the PD reluctant to break the law itself, for fear of being prosecuted.

What kind of material might this be? There are two obvious possibilities: documents classified for national security reasons, and documents protected by court order (like grand jury testimony or somebody's sealed records.) The latter seems more likely, especially since Clifton is quoted using the phrase "under seal" in the Times article.

So here's what Clifton seems to be saying: The press should be able to break the law by publishing classified documents or violating court-ordered confidentiality as we see fit, without fearing prosecution. Judith Miller sitting in a jail cell makes us nervous about this. So we're holding back on publishing two stories that are really, really important because we'd have to break the law and "the newspaper" (publisher Alex Machaskee?) isn't willing to risk jail for that.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't sound to me like it's about either "freedom of the press" or "protecting whistleblowers". It's about wanting to commit civil disobedience without consequences. It's about wanting to be above the law.

Despite all the indignant editorializing about Miller in the last few days, it doesn't seem that her case is really about protecting news sources (let alone "whistleblowers") either. There's endless speculation about what the prosecutors are really after (see this page at TPM Cafe for a sample). But it seems likely that they think Miller took part in at least one conversation before Robert Novak published his Plame column, in which Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA agent was communicated (maybe by Miller to another party), and someone sought someone else's cooperation in publicizing it. If correct, this would have put Miller in the presence of two criminal acts, possibly as a participant -- the revelation of a covert agent's identity, and the solicitation of the crime of making it public. Should she be able to hide her knowledge of this incident behind "press freedom"? Do reporters have the freedom to commit or protect felonies?

Suppose a reporter gets a call from a "source" who tells her a terrorist bomb is going to go off on a train in two hours and he'll tell her the location -- so she can witness it -- if she agrees to keep quiet until it happens, and protect her source's identity. Suppose she doesn't agree to the deal, but also doesn't call the police immediately and tell them about the call. Fifty people are killed. Does the First Amendment make her immune from prosecution?

Think it over. And think about whether you want the PD to feel free to publish your sealed court records or secret grand jury testimony, without fear of legal consequences, because Doug Clifton thinks they should.

A chilling effect might occasionally be a good thing.

P.S. See Michael Kinsley in the Washington Post this morning.

WRONG WAY JACKSON? I hate people who explain jokes as much as the next guy, but if you just read Geoff's latest guest post and didn't click the link where he referred to "Council President Douglas Corrigan", you may be feeling that you missed something important. So click the link to get the joke.

But be sure to read the whole thing, not just the title, because the joke's a little edgier when you know that Wrong Way Corrigan actually got to his intended destination.

Also let me observe, for the record, that a Draper campaign armed with $250,000 could chew into a lot more than Frank Jackson's base. Jim Draper started out with a law enforcement background and police and fire union support. He's now got business credibility, and lately he's in the media being the candidate who has doubts about the school levy. Skin color aside, that's a profile for Wards 16, 20 and 21. What he lacks -- name recognition -- is exactly what money can buy.

REQUIRED READING: Mark Naymik's On Politics column really earned its keep today, if you look closely enough. Here are the Cliff's Notes:

1. In a subtle bit of snark, the first item states that County Commissioner Peter Lawson Jones spends next to no time at 1200 Ontario Street. Naymik's phrasing of Jones's reaction is masterful:

"I resent being questioned, because nobody down there works harder than me," he said, referring to his colleagues Jimmy Dimora and Tim Hagan.

Implication: both the charge and Jones's reaction are truthful. (Trust me: a writer wouldn't mention Jones's peers in the same sentence as his charge if he didn't want to suggest that.)

2. The item about James Draper making $100K at his fundraiser-- if coupled with Michael Nelson's decision to get in-- supports speculation that George Forbes has just put his heavy hand into the race. And it gives those of you in a betting frame of mind an interesting longshot wager.

Nelson, as Bill noted recently, is a black politician who seems to have entered the race just to try to pull votes away from Council President Douglas Corrigan. Until he got 100 Large from Mal Mixon and Ed Crawford, Draper (whose constituency consisted of the Cleveland Police and Firemen's unions) was considered to have zero chance to make an impact-- much less win.

When Nelson (who's buddies with Forbes) jumps in just before the business community suddenly decides to make Draper a player, it suggests an concerted attempt to chew away at the leading black candidate's base. Forbes, who has a frosty relationship with the gentleman (and would stop getting city contracts if that guy won), is the most likely organizer.

If two fringe candidates pull enough of the black vote away from the favorite (as Hagan and Rocky Perk did with Benny Bonnano's white base in the 1989 mayor's race) you could have two whites in the runoff. So if you have some extra cash and a bookie who takes political wagers, you might want to bet Bob Triozzi to place.

CLEVELAND'S DIGITAL DISCONNECT: The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio is considering a request to approve the merger of SBC and AT&T. Dayton Legal Aid, which often intervenes in these cases on behalf of community groups, has asked me to submit testimony about digital inclusion issues. So I've spent the last couple of days staring at polling data on Cleveland residents' Internet use.

The data, provided to Digital Vision by Scarborough Research, is from interviews with more than 300 Cleveland residents, 18 and older, conducted in 2004-2005. While it's not a perfect random sample of the city's adult population, Scarborough says the sample is "stable", i.e. the margin of error is reasonable. Here are some of the highlights:

Barely half of the city residents interviewed use the Internet at all, from anywhere -- home, work, library, etc. Only 41% say they've gone on line from home in the previous month. (55% live in households that have computers.) The percentage of Internet users is slightly lower for African-American respondents than for whites, and significantly lower for respondents "of Hispanic origin".

Of respondents who haven't gone to college, only 34% are Internet users. (Three out of five Cleveland adults fit this description.)

Among respondents with household incomes below $25,000 (that's half of all Cleveland households) only 30% are Internet users.

While the data doesn't say it directly, I infer that the percentage of Cleveland households in the sample with active Internet connections may be as low as 40%. One out of five respondents say they have DSL or cable modems at home.

All in all, Scarborough's data reveals a Cleveland that's still, mostly, not on the Net.

The Scarborough sample is somewhat short on people from the lowest education and income cohorts, compared to their presence in Cleveland's census numbers. So, if anything, the real picture is probably a little bleaker than the numbers above suggest.

Something for us all to think about while sitting in the coffeehouse with our laptops, following George's Wi-Fi tour.

DON'T CONFUSE ME WITH THE FACTS: It really isn't fair of me to twit Joe Roman for his contribution to the Crain's Cleveland Business article on Ed Morrison's firing (subscription required for this piece). When he gave the interview (which must have been last Thursday), he had no way of knowing that l'affaire Morrison would become an unmitigated PR disaster for CWRU, and that he'd be the only guy in their corner. (Joe Frolik makes his in-kind contribution--the donation of his column-- in today's PD.)

For Crains, the president of the Greater Cleveland Shrinkage Association contributes the following quote:

"[Roman] said he would like to see REI do more research on the local economic climate, such as in the areas of investment activity and job creation.

"I continue to believe that having research available in the local community that is top notch and efficient and done by someone who knows your region well is essential," Mr. Roman said. "I think it would be nice to have a local organization that puts a human touch (on that research) and understands the nuances going on in the region."

I think it is nice that we have not one, but two, local organizations doing precisely that. For almost twenty years, George Zeller, at the Center For Economic Opportunities in Greater Cleveland has comprehensively documented the local economy's problems. George isn't a fun read-- his conclusions make Roldo Bartimole seem like Pollyanna-- but you can't quibble with his economic skills.

Need public policy research? Check out Policy Matters Ohio. The front page offers links to pieces about "business climate rankings" and "tax policy and migration", to name two.

It's possible that Mr. Roman just doesn't get out very much. But the problem. more likely, is that neither entity will produce what he wants: voodoo economics on demand. (Maybe they would if you paid them as much as PwC; the price for a study that justifies what you've already decided to do typically runs 250-500K.) For social pseudo-science and true believer intensity, Mr. Roman, you need to consult your local chapter of 'Church' of Scientology.

TUESDAY BRAIN BLOGGING: The Brain Drain.

(Found here.)

MICHAEL NELSON AND WAL-MART: I mentioned this in passing in the previous post, but let me lay it out for you.

Michael Nelson, the president of the local chapter of 100 Black Men who just declared his candidacy for mayor, was last seen in the media holding a rally at the Steelyard Commons site to lament the City's momentary "loss" of Wal-Mart. Here's the PD article from March 31 (library card required):

Late protest: The mentoring organization 100 Black Men added another outraged voice over Wal-Mart’s decision not to build a store in Cleveland.

The group held a small demonstration Wednesday at the site of Steelyard Commons, a shopping center project that its developer hoped would include Wal-Mart.

The event was about shopping, but it smelled of politics.

Michael Nelson, president of 100 Black Men, complained — weeks after the fact — that the city failed to land a job-generating deal with the retailer.

The developer and Mayor Jane Campbell have said the company was frightened by legislation proposed by Cimperman to limit Wal-Mart’s ability to sell groceries. Cimperman has said he wanted to protect local grocers.

After the event, Nelson denied that he was siding with Campbell. But he did criticize Jackson, the council president, for not reining in Cimperman.

Now Nelson feels the call to run for mayor himself. Hmmmm, let's see: One more East Side candidate... takes votes in Jackson turf... helps Campbell... makes Wal-Mart's life easier. But I'm sure this is all coincidental.

The PD story about Nelson's candidacy says he serves as "director of development" for the national 100 Black Men of America. "Development", of course, mean fundraising. Wal-Mart has been a supporter of the 100 Black Men scholarship program in Los Angeles and elsewhere, but the chain isn't listed among the organization's national corporate supporters. Who knows, maybe Nelson's just laying a little groundwork.

But whatever his motives might be, Michael Nelson is now the second Wal-Mart Candidate on the Cleveland ballot, along with the current mayor. So... where are the other guys?

IS DESTINY CALLING YOU? Jeff Hess of havecoffeewillwrite, who's been burning up the local blogspace of late, has a bulletin from cutting-edge Syracuse this morning, via a New York Times Sunday Magazine article. The news is Destiny USA, which is

an outsize and extremely unusual mega-mall... [that] aspires to be not only the biggest man-made structure on the planet but also the most environmentally friendly.

Equal parts Disney World, Las Vegas, Bell Laboratories and Mall of America — with a splash of Walden Pond — the "retail city" will include the usual shops and restaurants as well as an extensive research facility for testing advanced technologies and a 200-acre recreational biosphere complete with springlike temperatures and an artificial river for kayaking.

Wow, we better get one of those! Can't let Syracuse get ahead of us... and we don't need no stinking artificial river. Maybe Michael Nelson, our newest mayoral candidate and Wal-Mart booster, will get on top of it. (Note: That last link requires a library card.)

Perhaps the most interesting tidbit in the Times article:

''On every level, this project astounds,'' Senator Hillary Clinton said in April, claiming that the mall could make the area a hub for clean technologies and deliver a shot of adrenaline to upstate New York's ailing economy. To help foot the bill for Congel's project, Clinton and other politicians successfully persuaded Congress to provide financial incentives for mega-scale green development projects. (Destiny, of course, will face little competition to reap those benefits.)

What is it about New Democrats and shopping malls?

NO, BUT IT'LL ROLL DOWNHILL: Bill's post of yesterday illustrates why I enjoy this gig. Bill concluded his sober analysis of the PD's coverage with:

"[I]n addition to taking the Population Estimates waaay too seriously, the PD apparently doesn't understand that its big headline -- "Cleveland population lowest since 1900" -- has been true every year since at least 1990."

A measured, intellectual peroration. Which leaves me wide open to hurl approbation (or is that sand?) at them. It isn't that the PD doesn't understand that the story wasn't news-- it's that they didn't care that it wasn't. Friday's front page was what journalism people call "the news hook" for this editorial.

In the J-Schools, they teach students that editorials are the one and only point where the newspaper can-- nay, should-- step away from its role as the unbiased and impartial presenter of facts. Editorials share the wisdom of the editors-- the wisest and most experienced minds the paper has to offer-- about the most critical breaking issues of the day.

It's not merely that you're hearing the insights of a group of astute intellectuals. The mere presence of an editorial alerts the reader that your gatekeepers of news and information consider this story to be vital-- so they can take action on it.

Which is why they also preach that analysis must follow news. If there hasn't been a breaking story about a topic, you can't run a frigging editorial about it. If one of the editors just wants to shoot his mouth off about a pet beef, that's what the op-ed page is for.

Studies show that the Sunday of the July Fourth weekend is one of the few that days of the year that most of the paper will be read. The PD editors wanted to fulminate about the quiet crisis in the top slot. But to follow the rules, they had to have a factual event to tie the story to. Since there hadn't been anything dismal to report about Ohio for at least a week, they grabbed the census data, and stuck it on the middle of the front page.

I know it doesn't make sense. In order to follow the tenets of a hoary convention of journalism, the PD editors manufactured a front-page story that fit their agenda. This is why the PD is considered by many to be the most fascinating bad newspaper in the country. Other purveyors of fishwrap set ungodly low budgets, hire bad writers and bad editors, tell them not to say anything that would upset advertisers and use the editorial pages solely to pump the agenda of the publisher and his cronies. They don't worry about what people think as long as the paper sells enough ads to keep making money.

The PD, for some reason, desperately wants to be considered a topnotch paper. So it hires talented people, pays good wages, urges everyone to pursue stories that can win Pulitzers, tells them not to worry about upsetting people, runs extremely long stories on topics they consider important and will go toe to toe with power on some issues.

The problem is that the people in charge want to be liked by the people they cover. And they also have predjudices, play favorites and carry grudges. So they kill a phenomenal number of stories, refuse to cover some topics at all, reprimand writers for stepping on the wrong toes and discipline repeat trangressors by sending them to BFE bureaus.

This, added to their hypersensitive to criticism and outrage when they get (rightly) neglected for awards, makes it a fascinating read. It's something that the mundane wretchedness of the Detroit News can't provide. It's a quality unmatched by even the fetid sensationalism of the Rocky Mountain News or the New York Post.

Admire today's example of the PD's peculiar craft: a generally on-point editorial, written in vague, trite language about serious problems they helped create with their shortsighted recommendations. The only thing missing from the package is scribbling from their pet illustrator, Jeff Darcy.

IS THIS ANYTHING? (AND WILL IT FLOAT?)


Those wacky pollsters at the U.S. Census must looooove Cleveland. It used to be they'd put out one of their estimates, or projections, or annual updates, and hardly anyone would notice. It was, like, maybe the AP would stick something on the wire for local papers to run on page 14.

But now the Federal datameisters know there's one city that's waiting for their next press release with bated breath, panting to get its hands on their next ranking list, desperate to find out where it stands. Cleveland takes them seriously.

Last August the Plain Dealer read a press release about the 2003 American Community Survey and discovered poverty. There it was, in black and white -- we're the poorest big city! Never mind that the ACS contains some very questionable numbers in other categories. Never mind that all the ACS data comes with big lower-to-upper-bound ranges. Never mind that the basic "revelation" -- that Cleveland's income numbers put it at or near the urban bottom -- had stuck out like a sore thumb in the real Census report two years earlier (and in 1990 too, for that matter). The PD decided it now had some big news on its hands -- and so for the last year, we've all been talking about "Cleveland, the poorest city". (This year's ACS is due out in two months. Do you think the PD will call it progress if we go from 68th to 66th in household incomes?)

Now it seems that this year's Big Census Cleveland News Story is going to be "not just poorest, but smallest". The Census released its annual (2004) Population Estimates yesterday, and they showed Cleveland losing 22,000 people since 1999. Wowza! Clear the front page! Cleveland has its smallest population since 1900!

Since 22,000 lost residents is about 4,000 each year, compared to a ten-year loss average of 2,700 a year in the previous decade -- and we have a mayor running for re-election who promised to get the numbers moving in the opposite direction -- the high story interest might be legitimate... if the numbers were meaningful.

But a closer look at the Population Estimates raises serious doubts about that. As Letterman might say: "Is this anything, Paul? No, I think we'd have to say it's not anything" -- certainly not anything that deserves half the front page.

Here's a good place to start -- the Estimates for Cleveland for 1990, 1995 and 1999, still available in the archives:

1990 -- 505,450
1995 -- 501,228
1999 -- 501,662

And what was Cleveland's actual Census count in 1999, when the official 2000 Census was published? 478,403. That's 23,000 fewer people than the Census "estimated", using the same methodology they're still using. How far off do you have to be to be wrong?

But I'm not complaining about the data itself. I'm complaining about the way the PD used it.

See, from the placement, size and excitable attitude of yesterday's PD article, you'd naturally think that the Census had released the findings of a major new investigation. But that's not true at all. The Census doesn't go out and count heads again every year. No, the Population Estimate is called an Estimate for a very good reason: That's all it is. An informed guess. A ballpark idea. An approximation.

Here's the methodology page for the 2004 Estimate process. It's rough going, but give it a try. You'll notice that the Census didn't actually estimate (or survey, or count) city populations directly. Rather, they tried to figure out what might have happened to county populations based on birth and death records, tax returns, immigration data, etc. Then they tried to allocate the county totals among localities like Cleveland, primarily by way of housing units -- how many we started with, new building permits, demolitions, etc. Both stages of this process are fraught with difficulties, especially in a city like Cleveland with lots of hard-to-trace people and property.

You wouldn't expect a statistics-based updating process like this to get all that close to empirical reality. It's not a "junior Census" (unlike the ACS, which at least does significant polling to generate new data every year.) The Population Estimates are limited, interim planning tools that (no doubt) have legitimate uses in the hands of research professionals who understand their limitations.

But that doesn't seem to describe the editors of the Plain Dealer.

Incidentally, in addition to taking the Population Estimates waaay too seriously, the PD apparently doesn't understand that its big headline -- "Cleveland population lowest since 1900" -- has been true every year since at least 1990.

To sum up: Contrary to appearances, no, this is not anything. And to answer the other key Letterman question: No, I don't think it will float. Too many holes.