Foraker

Cleveland Heights is looking for input on how to spend its ARPA funds. The Mayor and several members of Council are very interested in ideas for developments north of Mayfield -- the "forgotten" part of Cleveland Heights. Weigh in with ideas. You can make multiple submissions. https://www.clevelandheights.gov/1434/American-Rescue-Plan-Act-Survey

The country, both right and left, has been agitating for "complete overhaul" of our immigration system for years and years. Congress should be holding hearings, trying to find a compromise path to a fix. More legal immigration, better vetting, and more controls at the border (including the not-such-a-deterrent Wall) should be on the table for discussion.

That seems about right -- the front office isn't going to be aggressive, but they'll listen to offers. For better or worse.

I'm not an education expert, so maybe someone can chime in, but my understanding is that the ECOT problem arose because the state was looking the other way -- there is already legislation in place that should protect us from similar charter-school problems IF the state does its job. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/sep/12/afscme-people/fact-checking-attack-mike-dewine-about-ecot-online/ Probably not a huge coincidence that ECOT made some big political contributions. https://dianeravitch.net/2021/06/29/ohio-feds-investigating-campaign-contributions-to-ecot/

Absolutely -- even though the SHW tower's footprint is much larger we're expecting it to go up faster. How fast? We shall see....

I do think that exposure to different people makes for a more tolerant society -- generally -- but it's not going to make everyone more tolerant on every issue. You'll still have people who had a bad experience with a "different" kid that creates a bias against some group in their mind later in life. If you choose to live in a rural area, you'll need to pay for busing. I don't think that's going to change. But I grew up in a small city of about 15,000 and walked a couple of miles to school -- when I was younger a parent or other adult walked to school with me and when I was old enough you can bet that I got on my bike to make that trip! I can only imagine foreigners' faces when they hear that Americans won't let their kids walk more than 0.4 mile to school -- that might belong in the Decline of the Nation forum. https://www.saferoutespartnership.org/blog/too-far-walk I encourage you to make that walk better: https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/programs/safe-routes-srts/safe-routes-to-school-srts#page=1 I actually do think that if all the doctors and lawyers and other wealthy women put their kids in public schools their advocacy for the public schools would be more effective at making sure every student had what they needed. But put away your conspiracy fears, I'm not going to tell anyone that they can't go to another school. My issue is with the use of state funds not where kids go to school -- I don't like having to pay for others to send their kid to a private club that wouldn't admit my kid. Or my neighbor's kid. The price of exclusion should be that you pay for it yourself, without state aid. But I'm pretty sure I've already lost that battle -- vouchers are a reality -- I'm not out to kill the voucher program even though I don't like it. I lost that vote, I accept it. I agree with you that kids should be able to enroll in any school that they want, as long as they do it by a deadline that gives the schools sufficient time to hire additional teachers, etc., to handle the number of enrolled students for the year. Managing capacity will be an issue -- if everyone in Cleveland wanted to get into Solon schools, it's not possible. I do want the public schools, the ones that are trying to educate the kids who have no choice, to be fairly funded with state dollars. I also want charter schools to be properly vetted and audited and the public funds accounted for, just like public schools. (Ahem, Republicans, where was the oversight of ECOT? https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2021/10/06/ecot-loses-latest-court-challenge-must-repay-state/ Are there more ECOTs still operating?) Use public money wisely. Fairly fund the public schools with state dollars, as required by the Ohio Constitution. I really don't understand why we can't do those two things.

I think you'd have to revise the state constitution to move to universal vouchers. I'm opposed to vouchers and opposed to getting rid of common schools. I think it is good for society to have elementary schools within walking distance of your home and to have as much diversity (skin color, cultural background, income, religion, sexual identity, sexual preference, etc.) as possible in higher grades. In general, I believe that exposure to different people makes for a more tolerant society. And if everyone in society has to use the same service I think government provides a better service. We need the wealthy (the powerful) to push for better schools, not to be pulling their kids out to attend well-funded segregated schools and leaving the public schools to rot, which is what vouchers will do. I also think that a universal voucher will be difficult to design. Kids living in poverty need more. Kids with physical disabilities need more. Immigrant kids for whom English is a second language will need more. It's cheaper to educate in a district with all same race, same religion, middle-to-upper class kids in two-parent households who are actively involved in their kids' education. You can quickly end up with multiple tiers of funding and it won't be so simple.

I agree to some extent. To avoid the political angle, I think the Court will use state data on the average cost and just avoid the political question of whether that number should be higher. I'd like to see the state completely change how schools and municipalities are funded. Get rid of local income taxes (bye RITA!) and raise the state of Ohio tax. That would simplify things so much for interstate and inter-municipality businesses and reduce a lot of red tape in the state. Democrats and Republicans should both rejoice at that. I would fully fund the current school plan -- keep the voucher bucket full (if you must -- I also think it is a lot more expensive to fund parallel education systems (public-private) and the state shouldn't be doing it, but that's the cost of "choice") and fully fund the public school bucket (if the state thinks that $7,500 per student is sufficient for private school vouchers, that is a good starting point for public schools as well.) I'd add a kicker for every state mandate on public schools -- busing, IEPs, poverty, special needs, etc. Remove the busing requirement, and remove the kicker for that item. Make private schools write IEPs for their students, remove that kicker for public schools. I'm OK with that. I would also give local school districts more control and fewer mandates. Local control used to be a Republican policy. And I would let municipalities collect property taxes to fund their operations, which seem more connected to land than the schools (roads, utilities, fire and to a lesser extent police, parks -- all seem more connected to the land and property than education). Just as with the current laws, you can cap the millage and all of that nonsense. Although I would like municipalities to have the option to vote in a land tax in all or portions of a municipality. Give them more flexibility. Again, local control and fewer regulations used to be a Republican goal before power corrupted.

The proper funding level for any given school is difficult debate, arguably $13,433/student is too much for rural St. Henry, Ohio but not nearly enough for urban Cleveland Public Schools. Private schools can dismiss any kid that causes problems. Whether that's fights in the hall or they're just too weird or not the right religion, private schools have the luxury of not educating everyone and can educate a much more uniform group of students. They also aren't required to do the testing the public schools do, they aren't required to provide busing for students that don't attend their school -- like public schools do, they aren't required to write IEP plans for struggling students -- because the public school district has to do that for the kid. So even kids who go to private schools add costs to public schools. On average, public schools need more teachers, more aides, more counselors, more administrators to write IEPs and deal with discipline. On average, public schools (particularly schools with high levels of poverty) have more students with physical and mental challenges, less parental engagement, more transient students, and generally more kids at danger of costing society a lot more in the future -- prison, out-of-wedlock births, drugs, generational poverty, and welfare. More societal disruptions rather than community benefits -- so we SHOULD be spending a lot more to educate kids in poor districts to minimize those potential future problems. Even if you don't have kids in a school, you benefit from good schools and your community will suffer if the schools are perceived to not be good. The disparity in per-pupil funding is not nearly large enough when some public schools need so much more. But some people think the kids don't need anything extra for being born into a poor family, so here we are.

The overall per-pupil funding is not at issue in THIS case. But you're right, if you look at state funding alone, more state money goes to vouchers than to public schools on a per-pupil basis. Maybe if the voucher funds were the same as the public school funding, per pupil, this case would never have been filed, but that's as speculative as well. How did we get here? See the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in DeRolph and its progeny since 1997 -- the Court essentially said that local property taxes may be considered as part of the state funding formula, but the local property taxes cannot be used as the primary source of funding to meet the state's constitutional obligation to provide "a thorough and efficient system of common schools." (The Courts have interpreted the Constitution's reference to "common schools" as being "public schools" -- but I think if a private school agreed to take any kid who applied they would have a good argument for being a "common" school.) Here's some of the history (the most recent complaint filed is not listed). https://www.bricker.com/resource-center/derolph/key-resources/resource/chronology-of-the-derolph-v-ohio-school-funding-litigation-412 Ultimately, the voucher funding probably shouldn't be any more relevant than the federal funding. As long as the state provides sufficient funding to each school district so that property taxes aren't the primary source of funding, the state would be meeting the constitutional obligation.

Vouchers for high schools are around $7,500 and the state is providing around $3,000 per student to some school districts, like Cleveland Heights-University Heights, one of the lead plaintiffs. Thus, they argue this fails to satisfy the state's obligation to provide "common education." (If the state were providing $13,433 per pupil to Cleveland Heights and through vouchers, I don't think this suit would have been filed.) Last year the legislature split the funding allocated to vouchers from the funding provided to public schools -- two separate pots of funding, but the same source -- the state of Ohio. Previously, vouchers used in a district were deducted from the state funding to the public school, which created huge holes in some district funding (like Cleveland Heights where Orthodox students were entering the district from NYC and going to private schools and heavily using the voucher system leading to large deductions from the public school funding without reducing the public school teacher load or other expenses, as would be the case if students in the district left with a voucher). The new structure funds vouchers and public schools separately, although the public school pot is not yet fully funded (if it ever will be) and the voucher pot is. Also, the state started with a baseline funding for public schools that was based on the last funding cycle (when voucher dollars were deducted) rather than making a calculation of what to pay a public school independent of past funding under the old deduction system. There have been a series of cases going back to 1997 where the Ohio Supreme Court said that the state school funding programs (which have morphed several times since 1997) relied too heavily on local property taxes. (Cleveland Heights-University Heights has some of the highest property taxes in the state, a large Orthodox community that uses vouchers and never attended any Cleveland Heights schools, and one of the largest student populations in poverty -- the students need more assistance not less -- additional factors in the desperation that led to the lawsuit). No matter what the Courts decide in this most recent case, the legislature seems likely to continue to ignore the Court's rulings. Having lots of parallel options is nice -- but it's more expensive, not less.

The Lumen rose a floor every ten days (ground floor ceiling height was greater than the floors above). SHW HQ is steel and should rise faster -- probably at least a floor per week. About 40 weeks to top out?

The state of Ohio has enshrined in its constitution that the state shall support public education -- the state is required to secure, by taxation, "a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state". The state constitution has not yet been amended to support Wal-Mart or Hobby Lobby. That does not mean that every student is required to go to public schools -- as Ohio's history clearly shows. The current lawsuit that a hundred-plus of Ohio public school districts have filed is not so much about the state funding private education (religious or not) but that the funding for private schools (vouchers) exceeds the funding provided to public schools. If the state has to provide "a thorough and efficient" system, the argument is that every student should be funded equitably and that is not happening. (I fully expect the legislature to completely abandon funding for public schools in the future and just give everyone a voucher (while retaining a whole raft of restrictions on public schools that private schools do not have to follow -- like accepting kids with disabilities and preparing special education plans and providing busing, etc. -- in my view private schools should only receive public funding if they are willing to abide by the rules imposed on public schools. If they do that, I have no objections.)) It's not just the LBGTQ+ or religious-minority students who will suffer, it is the physically handicapped and children with learning disabilities or behavioral problems -- the kids whose education is a lot more expensive will be the ones left behind in public schools with insufficient funding. We've already seen it happen in some of the school districts that were hit hardest by the previous voucher program. For this reason, equity requires the public schools to receive MORE funding than the private schools, not less.

😩 Dammit, Ken. We want our downtown loop!! ARgh

I've been to those parties. "How soon can I get away?" comes to mind seconds after arriving (or hours before). And I also was tangentially involved in a potential redevelopment project in a poor neighborhood, and the consultant recommended a "complete street" makeover for the major through street that included bike lanes. The residents (or at least the loudest ones) were practically apoplectic over the idea that "bougie" bike lanes would somehow improve the neighborhood. That was not what they wanted. They thought the whole idea was very condescending and ridiculous. I suppose they're thinking "people in wealthy neighborhoods get to drive their cars but we're expected to ride a bike and take the bus?!? How dare you!" It's not just the lower-income, constantly discriminated-against, minorities in this country who don't get it. The wealthy jet off to Venice or Amsterdam and come home saying how wonderful those places are while resisting bike lanes or transit in their home towns. (And then say "why can't we have developments like Van Aken in our town?") We need more education on why Amsterdam (as just one example) seems like such a pleasant PLACE and how much better it would be for everyone, including lower-income folks, to be able to get groceries or other needs by walking or biking (avoiding the expense of owning a car and needing it for every trip!) After talking to someone complaining about bike lanes I like to send them one of the Not Just Bikes or Strongtowns videos to show them why bikes actually have a place in our transportation system, and while fewer-cars is better, that doesn't mean no-cars-ever. Over time, maybe my circle of acquaintances at least will be more open to those bike lanes...

Read this -- it seems that there were some people in the Texans organization who were helping him and had some idea of what was going on. A non-disclosure agreement was left in his locker that he proceeded to use. That doesn't mean that it was authorized by the top of the organization, but agents of the organization at best looked the other way and at worst enabled his efforts to get sex with his massages. It was more than just "he was employed by the Texans and so that's why they were sued." https://www.si.com/nfl/2022/06/08/texans-provided-ndas-facilities-for-watsons-massage-sessions-per-report

Thank you. Bookmarking Woodhill Station West anticipated completion by February 2024. (Then Woodhill Homes renovations will proceed....)

When is the Woodhill Station West building expected to be complete? (When will it have tenants and thus transit riders?)

Understand. But education for a new buyer is critical whether you're buying a SFH (and have to think about mowing the lawn and other maintenance expenses) or buying a condo (and have to pay for the maintenance via a condo fee). There aren't many quality houses for under $100k, but I would think that you could build a condo building with units selling for under $100k that would be more affordable than a SFH (and you'd have shared maintenance on the roof and common areas). Condo buildings with fewer than 20 units are more common outside the US. Not much we can do about the financial regulatory piece, but if the units were more common I think the lenders would be more comfortable dealing with them.

I think we've seen that it is difficult to get more than about 70% of the US to be homeowners rather than renters. The problem isn't in that percentage, it's in the difficulty for low income families finding cheap housing that they can leverage into better housing over time -- thus building wealth. The starting point for entry-level home ownership is just too high in most places. As others have noted, the purchase price is only the beginning of home ownership, particularly if it's a SFH with a yard, and its own driveway and roof that require maintenance. In general, housing appreciates at the rate of inflation, so unless you happen to want to sell at the right time when an area is "hot" you don't get rich on SFH, but you have a kind of forced and safe savings as you build equity. Something that can be passed on to the next generation or keep you comfortable in your old age. If you have the discipline to save and don't get hit with too much rent increases you CAN build wealth while renting. But the rent increases are out of your control. Mortgage payments are more stable. More basic for-sale apartments (condos) suitable for families starting on that trail of equity ownership is something that is lacking in the US. Condos here are not only rare, but they seem to cater to the upper-middle to upper class buyers. More housing construction is needed -- maybe the mix shouldn't be so limited to SFH and big for-rent apartment blocks.

There are a lot of former Democrats who agree wholeheartedly with Ryan on trade, feel betrayed by President Clinton on that score, and want a return to trade policies that favor the American worker over the international corporations. President Clinton moved the party to the right and the center-right DNC and "New Democrats" currently leading the party are leading the party over a cliff. Ryan is running the right campaign to bring blue collar workers back to the party. (Although I really hope he doesn't join the Blue Dogs and their constant obstruction.)

Agreed. "Ownership" has been too heavily focused on single-family homes. Duplexes and inexpensive condos (much larger supply of both) would help.

Interesting video comparing different types of bike infrastructure in Calgary.

I agree, landlords will always try to pass along increases to tenants (successfully, until they can't find tenants). That's not unique to non-resident-landlords, and I think most rentals are multi-unit buildings without a resident landlord. Landlord-tenant relations also are impacted by remotely located investor-landlords, with some different problems addressed with different solutions. Rent controls have been employed -- that's a different subject. If we're worried about poverty and helping people move out of poverty, owning a home is a way for a family to grow wealth over time. To make that more possible for lower-income families, we need to increase housing supply relative to demand so that there is an available supply of low-cost entry for new owner-occupiers. If we want to increase housing supply, in general rising rents could encourage more construction (increase supply). And I don't know which would predominate, but rising rents could increase demand by adding to the number of people seeking to escape the non-equity-generating rental market, and decrease demand by making it harder for renters to save for buying a house. Investors buying single-family homes and competing with first-time homebuyers for homes to occupy are the problem -- increasing demand and decreasing supply for potential owner-occupied homes. How do you see landlords passing on property tax increases to tenants through rent increases being relevant to investors competing with first-time homebuyers buying homes to occupy and build wealth?

In addition to low inventory (not enough homes being rehabbed or infill lots being developed within Cleveland, for example), there is a problem on the demand side with both new homeowners looking to buy and non-resident housing "investors." https://www.wrlandconservancy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/20220306_The-Impact-of-Investor-Activity-in-Cuyahoga-County.pdf Should non-resident homeowners have to pay higher property taxes? In Cuyahoga County, you can apply for a 2.5% reduction if you occupy the property you own. https://fiscalofficer.cuyahogacounty.us/en-US/two-half-reduction.aspx (On an approximately $6700 tax bill I get a credit of about $135, peanuts.) Investors drive up the price of HOMES that someone else would live in and gain equity from over time. In particular, investors are hurting the people who otherwise could buy a low-price home but cannot due to the price increases imposed by investment buyers. This is an example of capitalism creating a problem for low-income people to grow wealth from owning property that they also live in, shelter being one of our basic needs. Government (sorry Yabo) has a role to play in compensating for those problems. How should government address this problem in a way that doesn't unduly discourage investment in housing? I suggest that non-owner-occupiers should have to pay a higher property tax, and that property tax should be used to increase the supply of housing. As the county Land Bank is about to do in East Cleveland (reported in Crain's, might be behind a paywall; https://www.crainscleveland.com/real-estate/cuyahoga-land-bank-and-east-cleveland-plot-33-acre-redevelopment-near-university-circle) and to help provide a local match for government subsidized housing, such as the planned renovation of Woodhill Homes (https://www.cleveland.com/realestate-news/2021/05/hud-awards-35-million-to-demolish-redevelop-decades-old-public-housing-complex-in-clevelands-buckeye-woodhill-neighborhood.html) or subsidizing housing rehabs for Low-to-Moderate-Income (LMI) buyers. The owner-occupied discount in Cuyahoga County should be more than 2.5% to generate any kind of meaningful revenue. Tax abatements awarded to new construction are probably much larger than this discount. Thoughts?