You are welcome. I hope we can all benefit from this powerful line of research.

To be absolutely clear the agreement approved today will ensure the Board of Elections is in compliance with the 1965 Voting Rights Act, section 4.e. It specifically address the rights that U. S. citizens, who are born in Puerto Rico, be accommodated for voting purposes.

A little history and facts about the background to this — (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Ricans_in_World_War_II

The “Commonwealth of Puerto Rico” was established following the US invasion of the Island in 1898 as part of the Spanish-American War. Spain ceded Puerto Rico among other territories under the Treaty of Paris.

In 1917, Puerto Ricans were collectively made U.S. citizens via the Jones Act. The same Act also provided for a popularly elected Senate to complete a bicameral Legislative Assembly, a bill of rights and authorized the election of a Resident Commissioner to a four-year term. As a result of their new U.S. citizenship, many Puerto Ricans were drafted into World War I and all subsequent wars with U.S. participation in which a national military draft was in effect. There is a very proud history of Puerto Rican service in the the U.S. military since World War I.

Puerto Rico is represented in the United States Congress by a nonvoting delegate, formally called a Resident Commissioner (currently Pedro Pierluisi).

While residing in Puerto Rico, Puerto Ricans cannot vote in U.S. presidential elections, but they can vote in primaries. Puerto Ricans who become residents of a U.S. state can vote in presidential elections.

I bring all of this up to clarify that what took place today was long overdue. There were reports in the Plain Dealer of voting rights allegations concerning Puerto Ricans within the County back in 2004 – see my brewedfreshdaily post, link below.

This specific issue has nothing to do with immigrants or immigration. It is all about a 1965 Federal Law and voting rights of U. S. citizens born in Puerto Rico, a U. S. Commonwealth.

I represent some 11,000 Hispanic/Latino residents in Cleveland, of which 7,000 to 8,000 are from Puerto Rican descent. Today was a very important and historic day for them and the entire Puerto Rican community in Cuyahoga County – some 30,000 to 40,000 people.

Brian J. Cummins
Cleveland City Council, Ward 14

There are answers, however. You just have to avoids technologists’ penchant for reinventing the wheel to actually put the wheel to use.

I’d suggest studying how political interest groups and gridlock were bridged with a version of Sim City based on Vancouver’s basin area.

This problem was solved before. You really don’t get the “With the right game dynamics, you can persuade anyone to do anything” gist of the Game Layer vid, do you.

It’s possible this represents one of the “opportunity costs” of an economic development institutional leadership which is obsessed with politics and pursuit of big public (and publicly-funded) projects. Where do the right people with the right ideas go to get started?…No one would approach GCP with an innovative idea; the organization is simply not interested, and real entrepreneurs avoid it like the plague, lest they get sucked into a black hole of self-serving intrigue.

With the community’s development resources focused on convention centers and casinos, there’s no room to incubate real new industries. Maybe if one of our local real estate developers could figure out how to make some money from it…

Just FYI, the “real world” always had a social layer.

For anyone who has been on old BBS systems and Compuserve, witnessing online jam sessions where Todd Rundgren collaborated on new music virtually twenty years ago, it isn’t new online either.

But as Ed pointed out in his previous post, the real question isn’t whether a private, non-profit entity is a more effective vehicle for development than a public entity. Here in Cleveland, for example, the principal role of our private, non-profit GCP seems to be lobbying for public funds to be put to private purposes…and even “good” non-profits like JumpStart wouldn’t exist without State funding. And does anybody want our economy?

Public agencies can be well-run and effective, and private entities can be lazy, bureaucratic and ineffective.

The Wisconsin example suggests a “public/private partnership” entity whose structure is much more likely than Kasich’s proposal (it is hardly a plan) to withstand constitutional muster.

But institutions don’t do the work. People do. The REAL questions involve the State’s vision for the future of Ohio’s economy, and how we measure the effectiveness of whatever entity is created to execute that vision. An old boss of mine used to remind us regularly, “If you can’t measure it, it’s not happening.”

Once again, zero context. Why do twice, half, one fifth or ten times the lumens matter? What test shows ANY serious problem results from halving the lumens?

No product tested in the USA. And a test would take, what? A day? Month? Year? Ten years?

State of the LED lighting industry is, indeed relevant, for all of the first five minutes of discussion. It pretty much renders then entire argument mute if, say, the company has never done any similar installations and can’t or won’t demonstrate a product.

And the other local and regional players is also relevant. Still, why entertain any discussion when nobody — using any technology known anywhere — can provide an adequate light level?

Cities like Santa Rosa, CA is eliminating 6,000 of the city’s 15,000 streetlights with an additional 3,000 put on a timer. Does this represent a hazard?

Or is the amount of light an unknown? We know we have a certain amount with the old technology. And, of course, Clevelanders dislike anything different. At a time when cities are putting out street lights ENTIRELY, you’ll forgive a little skepticism.