Letters to the Editor
HEADLINE INSULTING
This is in response to the article by Pamela Davis and Barbara Grano of the Port Authority touting a “Green Port on a Blue Lake.” Such a title might be hilariously funny if it were not so insidious and insulting; even more so because the claim appeared in this valuable publication.
Ironically, the photo with the article is of the Dike 14 Nature Preserve, which the port has done little to benefit and much to try to destroy. It took a concerted effort by hundreds of citizen activists a few years ago to stop the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority’s secretive attempt to open up Dike 14 for additional dredge material, which would have destroyed much of the wildlife and plant life in the process.
But even the port’s allowing of occasional hikes on Dike 14 in recent years, and mowing of temporary paths, cannot make up for its planned destruction of Cleveland’s green space and public access to Lake Erie on a massive scale less than a mile west of Dike 14. There the port plans a 200-acre industrial site where now there is exceptional public access to Lake Erie: a large public marina, restaurant, fishing piers, picnic area, 1,700-foot promenade and ample parking, as well as open water for recreational boating inside the U.S. breakwall.
The article says the port’s move to E. 55th Street will “enhance” the City’s 2004 Waterfront Plan, but the authors somehow failed to mention that the 2004 Cleveland Waterfront District Plan, adopted by the City’s Planning Commission after hundreds of public meetings and thousands of supportive public comments, calls for the port to move from downtown, but not at the expense of the Cleveland Lakefront State Park and Marina at E. 55th Street. In fact, the 2004 Waterfront Plan depicts expansion of the E. 55th Streeet State Park and Marina out into Lake Erie on fill in order to greatly increase public parkland and access to Lake Erie – quadrupling the parkland at E. 55th Street and doubling its marina space—just as the Ohio Department of Natural Resources has depicted for the past 30 years. The 2004 Waterfront Plan also depicts a sizeable expansion of Gordon State Park on filled land as well.
Ah, but the port has promised the city it will replace the East 55th Marina and park elsewhere on the lakefront. And here the port’s idea is to take the amenities from the state park they destroy at E. 55th Street and put them on top of the existing Gordon State Park. So the port proposes to destroy two perfectly good state parks, and the public agreement to expand both parks, so that it, the port, can then expend public money to rebuild an overcrowded park and marina in lower Gordon, with reduced green space and inferior lakefront access, adjacent to a 200-acre industrial port facility.
The reason for all of this is to allow private developers to make money by taking over the port’s current downtown location. Few would disagree that an exciting retail, office, and residential district near the lake downtown might be good for Cleveland. But at what price and why has there been no open discussion and debate about alternative plans? A modest port expansion north of the Brown’s stadium might be all that’s needed to allow for the port to stay at its current location and to free up adequate land for high-end development at the mouth of the Cuyahoga River.
The article fails to explain why the port even needs 200 acres to replace the less than 100 acres the port currently underutilizes downtown for maritime activities. The article mentions “anticipated growth” in the maritime business, but there is no evidence of such growth anywhere on the horizon for the port, which loses big money ($1.6 to $1.9 million per year) year after year on its maritime business. An International Trade District between Lakeside Avenue and St. Clair Avenue might be an intriguing idea, but for now that is all it is, and there is no reason it cannot be created with the port remaining at its current location.
The port’s plan at E. 55th Street, if implemented, would be nothing less than a permanent black mark on a city that needs more public access and green space at its lakefront, not less. The port is waging an impressive public relations campaign, however, and articles such as the one by the two port employees are part of this campaign, which only serves to try to put a green face on a massive industrialization of public open space. Hopefully citizens will see through this lie and raise their voices to say “No to the port.”
ARTICLE LAMBASTED
Why did you publish a propaganda article in your April-May 2009 edition of Eco-Watch Journal by the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority for the not-needed relocation of the port with toxic dredgings and other adverse effects? It is irresponsible and self-defeating for a so-called “EcoWatch Journal” to publish self-serving, dishonest articles written by governmental agencies that tend to serve big business and the wealthy, rather than the general public. The port authority recently admitted it does not need to move. It already is on Lake Erie. So there may be an ulterior motive, such as to serve the profits of some land developer. Such topics as the possible move of the port authority and its environmental impact in EcoWatch Journal, should be written by local environmentalists, not by the port authority, nor by any other government agency. Are any of the staff of EcoWatch Journal employees of any governmental entity or Democrat or Republican party or of any developer of businesses association such as The Greater Cleveland Partnership or Downtown Business Alliance? Or in any way connected to the port authority or any of its employees? Who finances your newspaper? How much money has the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District given EcoWatch Journal? And why do you accept money from the NEO Sewer District?
[Editor’s note: EcoWatch Journal solicits articles from—and accepts donations from—nonprofit organizations, governments, businesses, foundations, activists, citizen journalists and others who seek a sustainable world. The journal promotes a vigorous debate of public issues among all participants and will not censor anyone, or condone ad hominem attacks on contributing writers or staff. Long live the First Amendment.]
TREES DIE IN VAIN
Many of my senior friends are as irate as I am concerning the overkill of telephone books which land on our doorstep. A monumental waste of paper to say the least. How many trees give their lives for this diabolical waste? Today’s delivery was the ultimate slap in the face. It is a mini version of the classified monstrosity, in which the print is so small I cannot read it even with my special magnifying glasses.
As one of the prime protectors of Mother Earth, can you put some restraint on the telephone company’s flagrant disregard of basic decency in this area?
SNAIL MAIL OKAY?
As a long time letter-writer, I was glad to see more space given to letters in the April/May issue of EcoWatch Journal. It’s probable that these short pieces are among the most read parts of a contemporary gazette or other periodical. I wonder, though, whether you only accept such missives through e-mail submission. I used e-mail for about two years and then had to revert to the quaintly old-fashioned “snail mail” medium for my quasi-journalistic and unsolicited correspondence.
Undoubtedly, you have your reasons for concentrating on e-mail. That medium is undeniably efficient and hence desireable. Still, it would be good—for the sake of a more broad and varied scope of contributors—to accept paper and ink commentaries. Just an extemporaneous observation from an old amateur scribe. Do press on with your very much appreciated venture.
[Editor’s note: Snail mail letters are welcome.]
COMPRESSED AIR NOW
I recently attended the Cleveland International Car Show. It was somewhat depressing in a way to realize how deeply entrenched the gasoline driven engine still is in the overall marketing strategy of Detroit and worldwide automakers.
We talk about “green,” but the electric car really isn’t feasible yet. The compressed air driven car is so much simpler than anything else out there. Perhaps this is the problem; it’s too simple for Detroit.
I want a compressed air driven vehicle NOW, yet people in the auto industry are saying ZERO about this alternative.
Maybe you can spread the word.