Foraker

With a stagnant to declining population in the region I'm worried about the existing infrastructure obligations in the region relative to tax revenue and thinking that continuing to build further from the city center is a bad idea. That's smart of Richmond Heights to reconfigure the mall to take advantage of existing infrastructure, but let's not get carried away. To the extent that we already can't maintain the existing infrastructure (roads and bridges and sewer and water etc.) to high levels of quality, we don't want to add more infrastructure obligations, we want to find ways to have less to maintain -- meaning some infrastructure should go away or at least be downgraded to a lower quality. Building new suburban rental stock in all of the outer 'burbs seems just as unsustainable as the number of shopping malls we built. Or we have to find a way to increase our population again.

KJP -- do you have a map of all the property Weston has acquired in that area? What do you think he has planned -- scaling back the number of parcels to redevelop initially, or just holding onto the property indefinitely a la Jacobs's Public Square lot?

The city is doing a fine job of fumbling the intermodal hub so far! Let's hope that there is someone working behind the scenes to surprise us on that score.

Unfortunately, I'm just speculating like everyone else.

This is another consolidation study from the University of Illinois. https://www.pdop.org/assets/1/7/IAPD_Local_Government_Consolidation_Report.pdf In summary, while consolidation sounds good in theory, in practice consolidation does not appear to have resulted in cost savings.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2017/11/06/local-government-consolidation-is-not-a-panacea/ This also is interesting: https://www.aaronrenn.com/2010/02/28/downsides-of-consolidation-1-neighborhood-redevelopment/ Some municipal consolidations include Minneapolis, Indianapolis, and Louisville. The author of this site also discusses Chicago and Columbus, two metros that effectively cover most of their locales. And Cincinnati could be considered another extreme, with the center city finally making a comeback amidst even more municipal governments than in Cuyahoga.

Right -- but not all of that is going to just disappear or no longer be needed if we consolidate. Some, no doubt, but not all.

The city probably wants to cut down on the parking to make better use of the expensive garage structure. Agree about more retail in this area. Class A office space, maybe some medical laboratory space, would be nice to help give the neighborhood some daytime energy and attract investment from the nearby medical community. Would be nice to find a way to enhance the pedestrian connection to Lee at the same time. I suspect that the prior developer at Meadowbrook-Lee has some ideas and asked for this change (and is hoping that no other developers jump in). Response deadline is in mid-May, so with any luck we'll have some plans we can criticize by June! ?

I hear that they are winding their way through foreclosure, but the map the City put out currently excludes those properties. And the operating LoanMax building closest to the theater.

We will see, but the reduction of "taxing authorities" wouldn't seem to make much difference, particularly if a lot of the taxes are collected by a single agency (RITA) already. I don't see a significant reduction in government personnel unless we greatly reduce services. The Cuyahoga County government does not currently have the resources to govern the entire county without additional staff; local employees will generally become County employees and continue to fight fires, police the streets, fix potholes, collect garbage, inspect homes and businesses, and clean out sewer lines -- they'll just have a new employer. The work still needs to be done and smaller local governments are generally pretty frugal relative to the larger City of Cleveland. Many of the current city councilpersons are part-time, so the cost of duplicated elected officials doesn't seem like adding their oversight duties to the County Council's responsibilities is going to make a big dent in administrative expenses. I hope you're right, but I don't see where the savings are going to come from. I do think that consolidation could make tax collection simpler and easier for the average person and business, and it should make it easier to file business paperwork, relocate within the county, pay property taxes, etc. I also worry about the loss of services or decrease in service quality, and the ability to get a councilperson's attention on a neighborhood issue -- more alienation from "the government." I can also envision a reluctance or inability to raise sufficient revenue, leading to more neighborhoods in the county unhappy with street repairs, snow plowing, trash collection, police presence, etc.

https://www.cleveland.com/community/2019/04/meadowbrook-lee-site-back-on-market-with-expanded-footprint.html

Next ABR meeting on the Top of the Hill design has been set for May 7 a6 5pm. Here is the agenda (PDF): https://www.clevelandheights.com/DocumentCenter/View/4908/abr_agenda_05072019

Yes, we should be having this discussion. But I am skeptical that the gains to be made from consolidation will be that significant on the tax side. Shaker Heights, Rocky River, and every other neighborhood will still need police, fire, and infrastructure maintenance crews. They will still have elected officials on the city council. There will still be administrative personnel to carry out the day-to-day functions of government. We may save some money from fewer middle-managers, but we also have a lot of old infrastructure that has not been well-maintained and continues to deteriorate, and that cost is not going to go away. Arguably, our taxes have been too low since we have failed to maintain high levels of government service across the entire county. So yes, let's look at the actual numbers and see how this plays out. But the gains to be made seem to be more likely to come in the city having a unified voice, and more equitable distribution of resources and solving problems (as a prime example, East Cleveland does not seem to have enough resources to save itself, and no one wants to take on East Cleveland's problems, so maybe the only solution is for the entire county to become a unified entity -- then we will fix East Cleveland), and simplifying taxes, than it does in lowering tax rates.

When we keep proposing to add so much infrastructure-that-we-need-to-maintain in the face of so much existing infrastructure-that-we-can't-afford-to-maintain I really question how much longer this country can last.

Just to expand, it could have been a timing issue more than a money issue. We just renewed our lease and so we're where we are for another ten plus years. If we had wanted to go to Market Square, we would have had to convince our landlord to let us stay for one year past our current lease (hopefully, maybe a little longer). But understandably, our landlord likely would prefer to replace us with another ten-year tenant rather than have us hanging around for a short term, perhaps with an indefinite move-out date. As a result, the landlord might propose a six-month rolling lease that the landlord could decide not to renew as soon as they found a long-term tenant to take to the space -- that's definitely not ideal for us if we have to find temporary space to bridge the gap, which means moving twice instead of once, each move disrupting actual business getting done, etc.

Both the federal government and the states have routinely "replenished" their highway funds with general revenue funds (which is primarily income tax receipts) -- and on that basis I would argue that there are no free riders. Let's also consider the fact that heavier vehicles do more damage to roadways than lighter-weight vehicles. But even the gas tax does not accurately impose the costs of using the roadway because the weight of the vehicle is not a factor in the tax imposed.

LOL -- sure, roads are not a federal "responsibility" but remove the federal funding and the interstate system collapses in short order. The states control their roads, sure, but they are dependent on federal funding. How do you suppose the 71/75 bridge over the Ohio River is going to be paid for? And when? I cannot foresee any way that the states would pick up the slack for federal funds, and that bridge is a prime example.

For a start the crane looks like it's at about half the finished height.

That's really nice. Notice that the guy on the bike is going faster than the tram. Part of the reason why the tram is so safe is that it isn't moving that fast.

Htsguy's summary was good -- Burke is not going anywhere. What can we do to maximize use of the land around Burke? What can we do to induce more commercial use at Burke? A boater's-haven development would be nice -- let's think about where you could build it east or west.

On 3/13/19 The City of Cleveland Heights Landmark Commission denied a demolition request for the Painter Mansion located on the campus of Beaumont School. Beaumont presented a request to demolish this historic structure with the intent of replacing the building with green space. The school's master plan calls for the site to eventually have an athletic field after fundraising and planning efforts can be implemented. The City of Cleveland Heights Planning Commission will review the demolition proposal at their next meeting on 4/10/19 at 7 p.m. at Cleveland Heights City Hall 40 Severance Circle, Cleveland Heights, OH 44118. The Planning Commission can approve or deny the demolition application. This meeting is open to the public and comments are welcome. The Painter Mansion was designated as a local landmark in 1979 for its association with the Painter family, the Ursuline Sisters, and as outstanding example of Jacobean Tudor Revival architecture designed by architect Frank Skeel and later remodeled by renowned architects Eckel and Aldrich. Read more about the history of the Painter Estate here. http://www.chhistory.org/Places.php?PlacesContent=PainterEstate

Just needs a metro stop into downtown....

Lots of agreement on this site. Would help to have the downtown business district (at least) use a land tax -- higher tax on the land to encourage owners to build up to generate more revenue per acre. Pittsburgh has a land tax, right? How many surface lots in downtown Pittsburgh disappeared after enactment? (Admittedly, Pittsburgh's hill-bounded downtown was never as spread-out as Cleveland's so they probably never had as much surface parking as we do.)

Actually, the article says that those projects are "at risk" without an 18-cent gas tax increase. Given ODOT's preferences for road-building, I wouldn't count those projects out under an only-10-cent gas tax increase. Ironic that the conservative party wants to spend money to add to our maintenance expenses rather than take care of those maintenance expenses in the first place. Not much "conserving" of resources by the Republicans controlling Ohio's government.

Cleveland Heights (finally) adopts a landmarks ordinance. https://www.cleveland.com/cleveland-heights/2019/03/cleveland_heights_landmark_ame.html