CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Does Cleveland still need a port authority?

The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority ended its 41st year in critical condition. The taxpayer-subsidized agency lost its president and chief executive, its maritime director and its government liaison.

Its governing board drew criticism for its secretive ways and lax oversight. The agency indefinitely postponed a $500 million plan to move from downtown to a larger site off East 55th Street, a move the port board had hoped would attract international container ships.

And board members disclosed that the authority lacked enough money to ensure that Cleveland's harbor remains clear enough to function as a port.

Ohio Republican U.S. Sen. George Voinovich, in a letter sent last month to The Plain Dealer, acknowledged the problems and called for the authority to re-examine all its past assumptions.

"We are now at a critical juncture," he wrote. "I would suggest that the port take advantage of this time to put its priorities in order."

Other port supporters suspect the end is near.

"There's not a maritime or transportation person on the board," said Tom Burke, the port's director from 1980 to1987. "They're all lawyers and developers. I think they want the port out of here completely."

So, does Cleveland need a port authority?

Here are the arguments for and against keeping the port authority.

Reasons for saving the authority

Financing big projects: The authority has used its bonding powers to finance construction of Cleveland Browns Stadium and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum. It is now working with developer Scott Wolstein to build a $270 million business and housing project on the east bank of the Flats. Other projects being financed by port bonds include an office and parking lot at the Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center at University Circle, land for Eaton Corp.'s new headquarters in Beachwood, and work at the Higbee Co. building on Public Square. "We cannot let the port fail," Voinovich wrote. "It is too important to the future of the county and the region. Let's not lose the opportunity to do it right this time."

Redeveloping port land: Authority board members voted unanimously last month to offer developers 30 city-owned acres east of the Cuyahoga River and north of Browns Stadium as part of a waterfront redevelopment project that would eventually include 100 acres. The first stages call for an urban village of shops, restaurants, hotels, offices and condos, grand promenades and inviting parks. "There's not a dog site in the entire development," said Eric Johnson, the port authority's real estate chief. "Every location will either have a waterfront or park view." Where the $27 million will come from to pay for the work has yet to be determined.

Maintaining Cleveland's harbor: The authority helps pay for the dredging of silt from the bottom of the harbor and Cuyahoga River. Dredging is needed to allow for the passage of ore boats, barges and tankers serving the ArcelorMittal steel plant and other businesses on the Cuyahoga River. "I never thought I'd be saying this, but how to dispose of dredge material is the single most important issue that we need to address, so the shipping channel remains accessible," interim port CEO Peter Raskind told a gathering of business leaders Thursday.

""""

Attracting container ships: The congestion at coastal ports has some maritime experts predicting that international container ships will be coming by way of the St. Lawrence Seaway to the Great Lakes. Luring the cargo-laden vessels to Cleveland should be a top priority of the port authority, the same experts say. "Cleveland hasn't even begun to tap into its potential for shipping containers," said Arthur Pusch, a special-projects manager for ColorMatrix, a Berea company that deals with the world's shipping ports. "It's just basic common sense: If you can pull the ships up to your docks, you can load and unload containers."

Reasons for dismantling the authority:

Financing big projects: Economic development efforts and the sale of tax-free bonds can be shifted to Cuyahoga County. Paul Oyaski, director of economic development for the county, said that the county could legally assume the economic development and bond financing functions. "Legally, if the parties were willing, I don't think there's any major impediments that could not be overcome to create a more streamlined regional economic development entity," Oyaski said. "But everyone has to give a little."

Redeveloping port land: Oversight of the redevelopment project could be handled by Cleveland, which owns much of the land. Joe Roman, president of the Greater Cleveland Partnership, already has suggested establishing a separate governing authority to oversee the lakefront project, which he considers the community's top priority. "A developing authority would help to speed it up and to streamline the process," Roman said. "Now it takes five or six government agencies to give their approval to make things happen."

Maintaining Cleveland's harbor: It seems a remote possibility, but the harbor could close in five years, with or without an authority. That's because the authority does not have its $158 million share of the cost to build a 200-acre dike off East 55th Street to store dredged silt. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is in charge of dredging, says it will need a new dike built by 2015 to keep the harbor open. Authority board members say they will ask for help from the state and federal governments, but some observers doubt that help will come in time. "It's never going to happen," said Burke.