Search This Blog

Use the SEARCH BOX above to explore South Euclid Oversight.
- OR -
Utilize the INDEX BY SUBJECT located on this page. (below, right)
- OR -
Access the BLOG ARCHIVE at the bottom of this page to view all previous
SEOversight posts in chronological order.



~~TO VIEW DOCUMENTS ON SEOVERSIGHT~~
Please RIGHT CLICK on DOCUMENT then LEFT CLICK on "OPEN LINK".



THANK YOU FOR READING SOUTH EUCLID OVERSIGHT.

DONT BE FOOLED BY THE THREAT OF SAFETY FORCE LAYOFFS WHILE THE ADMINISTRATION INCREASES IN SIZE AND SALARIES. PLEASE CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING LINK FOR INFORMATION ON THE LAND AQUISITION TAX SCHEME, ALSO KNOWN AS ISSUE 65 - SAFETY LEVY:

PLEASE CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING LINK TO VIEW 2015 TOTAL COMPENSATION PACKAGE FOR ALL CITY OF SOUTH EUCLID EMPLOYEES.





Thursday, July 10, 2008

Flawless Assessment

Please click on letter below to view full size.

Please click on the link below to view related post:

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Can this Martin Evans run for Mayor?

Anonymous said...

Couldn't have said it better myself.

1. Too many brick bungalows. Efficient, affordable, but generally around 1,000 sq. ft. and out of vogue for a good 35 years.

2. Density. While cluster homes have been a fad for several years one of the reasons people move out is for more space between homes. SE has too many homes built on too-small lots.

3. Poor planning. Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights have relatively high densities, but their streets are lined with large, old trees and aren't built in the straight line/cookie cutter fashion we see too often in SE. There's character in those towns, not in SE.

SE has generally catered to a lower-middle income segment of the population whereas Cleveland Height and Shaker Heights were traditionally middle-upper class and are now decending the other way due to increased apartments, rentals, declining schools, expense of upkeep, etc.

The fact that the city would have to pay for such advise is shameful. Common sense should dictate decisions, not an out-of-state consultant.

Anonymous said...

In my humble opinion, a city cannot have too many brick bungalows. That type of housing is the backbone of our great nation. Built by and for the average working class family. As long as they are kept in good repair, who cares what's in VOGUE these days.

The residents and their attitudes are what makes a city a good place to live, not the STYLE of housing. The most elemental brick bungalow can be a gem when taken care of by a loving owner.

When you drive through any city you can tell if it's a nice place to live simply by the condition of the housing, not the style.

Wake up Welo. Keep your city safe, and in good repair (roads, parks, etc) and that will attract new residents. You're wasting time and money on a ridiculous frivolity -- a study. Martin Evans is right. Even at 4+ dollars per gallon, you wouldn't spend nearly that much on a city drive through. Take along a camera and document what you see. There! you have your study and at a fraction of the cost.

Anonymous said...

The $41K study from Zimmerman & Volk will tell Welo and her cronies just what they want to hear. You can find similiar reports on similiar situations from these guys. It's about validation and covering one's ass.
If things go to hell and someone points to city hall's agendas then they will respond that the experts recommended this course of action as well.
They all blew it...then and now. May-Green should have been preserved like a little downtown hub instead of the joke we have now. Cedar center is a day late and maybe a dollar short. One thing I did like about that old place was that old rickity awning and being able to pull up close.
Things are starting to smell fishy, NO?

Blog Archive