Clevelander17

When the weather's like this, heck, I don't mind walking up to a dozen blocks. But when we're talking several inches of snow on the ground and I'm coming straight from a place where I need to be wearing dress clothes/shoes, long distances are a problem.

When was this? Things have changed.

Ceteris paribus, absolutely. But not if parking lots are being eliminated and/or enrollment is increasing (which is happening). Look, I'm all for CSU increasing residential enrollment. That can only be a good thing on a number of different levels. But I strongly believe that because of what CSU is to the community, it's also always going to have a significant commuter enrollment. The school must find a way to fairly balance the two. Or if it really is trying to transition to an almost completely residential campus in the future (which I don't think is realistic, at least not in the short term), it needs to consider the needs of the current students. The elimination of 400+ parking spaces is not insignificant. As far as I can tell, from dealing with this everyday, it's not just about shifting to a different lot or garage. During peak hours, we could be talking about a big problem. It's disingenuous for them to sell so many parking passes and then turn around and change things up so drastically in the middle of the semester. As far as I know, they first started informing students and faculty of this change just yesterday. So they're already handling this like amateurs. Not to mention the fuzzy math they're using by proposing that folks start using the South Garage (which is their brilliant parking solution for everything) and parking at Chester and 30th, which is a laughable suggestion. Not only is SG a hike from campus and a pain in the ass to get into because students have to swipe in and out, it only has 400 spots and is already a quarter to half full on a daily basis. There's no way that garage can handle all of the overflow from the north campus lots. That's not even taking into consideration when big events are held at Wolstein or on campus (like when Obama visited twice last year) and other lots are closed.

Yeah, I'll try, I notice that it's really messy. Unfortunately the quoting set up on this message board automatically does that!

Sorry, the Solon satellite "campus" is not convenient for me, either. Not only that, it has either already closed or will be closing in the near future. Not only that, but it never offered almost any of the courses I need to complete my program. I can't afford to add an extra 30-45 minutes (probably more even) of commute time to my day. And although that's another issue, students who commute and park on campus should not have to subsidize RTA passes for those who ride the train/bus, which is essentially what's happening right now. I never lived in the city, so how can I move "back"? :wtf: I can read just fine, thank you, and I am very definitely aware of the geography of the area. I know exactly where the Wolfe Music building is, I'm in that area all of the time as I'm walking from the parking lot to classes. FYI I think that's more than a five foot walk, but I'll count it out for you next time I'm there and report back. The post I made had two points which were not necessarily related to each other (though at times they can be). The first point has to do with me wondering why the poster I quoted was clapping at the loss of parking spaces on an already squeezed campus. The second point had to do with the idea of saving history as the expense of progress. I'm not really sure how that building, as it is, might fit into the school's plans.

Some interesting ideas there and a lot of options. Unfortunately if this were going to happen in Cleveland, it should have happened in the 1950s or earlier when it would not have faced much resistance. I haven't heard any recent news on Pittsburgh's consolidation efforts. I'm only seeing articles from 2009 or earlier. Have there been recent developments since then?

Boston, New York, San Francisco, Denver, and Miami? Boston's a weird situation because of the way government in New England works (and their lack of county government, I believe). I'll refresh my memory on that one and get back to you. New York is New York. Did the merger, which happened in the early 1900s, play any significant role in making that region the international behemoth that it is today? I doubt it, though it does present a nice correlation/causation point for your argument. Denver and San Francisco also "merged" with parts of their respective surrounding counties (while other parts broke off and formed their own counties). In the case of both cities, this happened over a century ago, very earlier in their history and development. Not sure if there's much for us to learn from these situations because of their respective geographic sizes and historical situations. To me, these two examples are more similar to being independent cities in their own right, even though they're both technically consolidated city-counties. But if Cleveland and a couple of other inner-ring suburbs wanted to break off and form their own new city-county, I'm sure that could be arranged. I don't think it would make any difference either way. As for Miami-Dade, this is probably one of the more realistic models for Cuyahoga County to consider. Cities retaining independence and having the choice of whether or not to opt-in to having the county provide city level services.

:clap: :clap: :clap: Why are you clapping? This is terrible--it's going to be a complete mess for those of us that need to be on campus or in that area on a daily basis. I'm all for saving history, but come on now, Cleveland State is not a museum. It's an actual functioning college campus with a vast majority of enrollment being commuters. Parking is already an issue on campus during peak hours, and this is going to cause big problems if they don't have a legitimate alternative. Maybe Cleveland State should simply move out to Beachwood or Independence. That way school officials can have their brand new campus with plenty of parking and everyone trying to save every little bit of history at all costs over progress can have their empty historic buildings in the most recently abandoned section of Cleveland. :laugh:

A) I'm not moving the goalposts. I've consistently referred to the Census Bureau's MSA and CSA statistics, which are generally regarded as incredibly fair for apple-to-apples comparisons. B) I've been talking about metropolitan areas during the entire conversation from the first post I made that you took offense to. Looking at anything involving city proper numbers only is absolutely pointless. The region, as a whole, is what matters. C) Getting this discussion back on track, here's the overarching point: In looking at the largest metropolitan areas (excluding Miami if you like), you will find that very few have completely consolidated government systems and most have large, strong suburbs of the primate city. It's not a problem for them and would not be a problem for us.

Oh stop it. You think the Census Bureau uses some arbitrary, set geographic area for defining and comparing MSAs? Sorry, but that's just ridiculous and it's not how it works.

Most of the largest 8-10 metropolitan areas are split into Metropolitan Divisions. These are not the same thing as MSAs. The fact that Cleveland doesn't have any MDs and that you cherry-picked the one for central Miami doesn't improve your argument one iota. Basically what you keep trying to do is compare the cities based on the most generous, imaginary definition of Greater Cleveland and the least generous redefinition of Greater Miami that you can find. Here's a list of the largest MSAs and their Metropolitan Divisions: http://www.bls.gov/sae/saemd.htm The Census Bureau knows what they're doing. They recognize that, for example, the relationship that San Francisco has with Oakland, Detroit has with Troy, and yes, Miami has with West Palm Beach, is much stronger than anything Cleveland has with Sandusky, Youngstown, Canton, or any of the other far out areas you tried to include in your definition of "Greater Cleveland." Again, I don't always agree with the Census Bureau, but their numbers and definitions are, for the most part, fairly accurate. Whether comparing MSA to MSA, or MSA to CSA (which is probably more accurate for Cleveland), Miami is still much, much bigger.

Whose backwards and regressive thinking?

But what exactly are they "taking"? This is the point of your post that makes little sense. People that work in the city pay income taxes that fund a large chunk of the city government. People that play in the city not only pay taxes on the things they buy (baseball tickets, for example), but are also, through their patronage, supporting local entities that employ thousands of Clevelanders. And believe it or not, many of these suburbanites that also do all kinds of other things (charity, etc.) to help out the city, even though they don't live there. For the ones that don't, sorry, but your expectations are ridiculous. Just like I can't force all of the outer-ring commuters that drive through University Heights on a daily basis on their way to Cleveland to pay for the roads when they need to be repaved, the streetlights that illuminate their early morning/late evening travels, etc.

Who here is being intellectually dishonest? That 5.5 million number is Miami's MSA. That 4.5 million number that you keep throwing around is the combination of multiple Northeast Ohio CSAs. I'm going to assume that you know the difference between an MSA and a CSA and in doing so will quickly realize the err of your ways. Or at the very least anyone else on this board who is familiar with the two will see why what you're trying to do in your comparison makes no sense. If you don't like the numbers, don't get angry with me, get angry with the Census Bureau. The data they use points strongly to the fact that Miami's 5.5 million is one large MSA. While Cleveland's CSA is a little more than half the size.

Oh, so people who work and play in Cleveland aren't giving anything back? Maybe if they started working and playing in the suburbs, too, you'd change your opinion.

Your arguments make no sense. First, you put forth a simpleton argument, and then you make a strawman argument and say "I don't think it's that simple". Regardless of what causes the vicious circle of poverty, my argument was that too many people who do make something of themselves move out to the suburbs. How do you expect the core city to "fix itself" when many of the people with the means to do so flee at the first chance they get? Fine, you think it's a good idea to be run from problem rather than try to do something about them. I don't have a problem with that. Not everyone wants to spend their time and energy fighting those battles. That's your choice and intelligent people could debate that back and forth and both have valid points. But don't turn right back around when you're a safe distance away and flip the bird to the city and say "go fix yourself". There needs to be an attitude adjustment by many of the residents of most of these troubled cities. Until that happens, no amount of money will solve any of the big problems facing these cities and this region as a whole. I can see both sides of the argument, too, and as much as the "go fix yourself" crowd makes my skin crawl, they're probably ultimately right. Spreading the problem around is not the solution, especially when the real solution must come from an internal source.

If I am understanding correctly - aside from "more efficient local gov't (which I agree could be a plus, where it makes sense) - Regionalism will help resolve city decay and give more people opportunity to succeed. The fragmented municipalities has allowed people with resources and the ability to influence change leave the core city behind to rot. If they had stayed, things wouldn't be as bad, people would have more opportunity, and all would be well. Collapsing everyone back into one single government will fix that. Yet in Cleveland Heights, where those people exist with their resources and ability to influence change, why are there still parts that aren't taking advantage of the opportunity they have? Schools are good. Community is full of people they can learn from, be connected to, and gain an opportunity. Yet it seems the few bad apples are causing more problems than those with all of the resources are able to remove. And what's the ratio here? 10:1? 20:1? What happens if you annex East Cleveland and it shrinks to 5:1? The majority isn't able to lift the problem population as it is now, what makes anyone think that if you add in an additional volume of problems everything will be fine because the local government is consolidated? Problems still exist in suburbs that have resources and opportunity. The argument for regionalism is that all it takes to make people into good citizens is resources and opportunity. If that's the case, then everyone should be doing pretty well for themselves in Lakewood, Cleveland Heights, and even Solon. But it's just not the case. People in those citites are fighting now to keep their city what it was/is. But at some point, they get sick of the knuckleheads and move to a place where they don't have to deal with it anymore (and somehow get blamed for the problem because they left the city behind to rot). The Cleveland Heights experiment has mostly failed. I think we should all consider ourselves lucky that it hasn't completely taken the city down (though it's slowly moving in that direction). But it's still sad that CH, a city that still has a tremendous amount of character and assets, had to be one of the guinea pigs. Regardless, CH should serve as a very sobering warning sign of what can happen if we try to implement (and/or spread) such social engineering.

Everything's a canard, huh? Good luck with that full-scale merger, because though it will never happen, even if it would, we'd still have the same anti-growth forces running this city into the ground. Not to mention all of the other unintended consequences of such a merger. I was going to accuse you of not reading my post, but it appears that you did read it and then you created some contradictory strawman argument in response. Clearly I do believe that 59 municipalities and 33 school districts is far too many. I've said as much many times over. I think it makes sense to cut that to about 15-20 municipalities and 10-12 school districts. If that's not enough, well I'm sorry, because I don't think you're going to get much better than that. You can argue the merits of a full-scale merger all you'd like (and I think it's a bad idea), but it's never going to happen anyways, so it's a moot point. Also, your point about connecting downtown to University Circle is hilarious. Every foot of that stretch of road is located within the City of Cleveland. If that was so important (and I'm not convinced that it was, because there was already bus service), ask the people who've been running Cleveland into the ground for the past 50 years why it didn't happen sooner. And these are the people you want running the entire region?!

You're playing games with numbers (which shouldn't be necessary if we were doing so well) and we both know it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_primary_census_statistical_areas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas No matter what kind of metric you choose to use, Metro Miami is significantly larger than Greater Cleveland. It is laughable, absolutely laughable, to try to claim that they are the same size or even almost the same size.

So we merge the city and the county together? Guess what, the county is also losing population at an alarming rate. Fractured government is not the only problem, nor is it, in my opinion, nearly even the biggest problem. There are actually other important reasons why this region is unattractive to potential businesses and residents that go well beyond the "bad weather." Trust me, I love the enthusiasm, but although we have a lot of potential, we must be realistic. It's not a defeatist attitude, it's facing reality. And since I was called out on this specifically, I feel I must respond. Obviously the city proper of Cleveland and Miami are very similar in size. But looking at only that is, in my opinion, very narrow-sighted. Whether you want to look at metropolitan area or urban area, Greater Miami is significantly bigger than Greater Cleveland. This is what, in part, gives them much more clout than us. It has very little to do with where arbitrary lines are drawn on a map. Regional population (including population trends) are most important. I think it's time to stop worrying so much about large-scale regionalism and start focusing on more targeted collaborations and mergers. Not only is this more likely to be successful, it's also less likely to lead to unintended consequences.

Not that it really matters because it's not the point of the discussion, but I would be curious to see how you would place various cities into tiers since you're the expert on this and apparently everything else discussed on this message board. But really, the point of the post was that Cleveland is not currently in the same tier with any of those strong cities, and no amount of regionalism alone is going to change that anytime soon.

I don't know if I agree with this, at least not in the way that this argument is usually presented. If you're talking about access to federal block grants, then yeah, it's marginally better for a city to be bigger. But beyond that, we have to be realistic. Cleveland will never be New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago. And it will likely never again be regarded in the next tier such as San Francisco, Atlanta, Washington, D.C., Dallas, Boston, Houston, Miami. And as I think about it, many of those cities have strong suburbs and at least one other large, somewhat significant city in their metropolitan area. I agree that Cuyahoga County has too many municipalities. But I'm not yet convinced that it needs to go to the other extreme. I'd have no problem with 12-15 cities in the county.

No need for strawman arguments. I understand what hypothetically would happen were there to be a full-scale merger. However one thing to consider is the unintended consequences of such a merger, particularly the strong possibility that such a move would hasten the flight of those with the means to leave the county doing so (and taking with them the political "balance" that their presence would initially offer). Eh, yeah, but this will always be a problem, regardless of government size. I do believe that it's more difficult to rectify in larger cities, but that's not based on anything scientific, just an assumption.

Not that I really want to see CH and EC merge or think that it makes sense, but seriously, what does it really matter if inner-ring suburbs are getting bigger? If we're talking about two suburbs that are managing themselves well independently, but want to streamline, why bring Cleveland into the mix? There is something to be said about having government closer to the people, and something is lost when you shift power downtown. Especially in a central city like Cleveland that already has its hands full.

"Significant" may have been an overstatement in the case of Cleveland Heights, but not Cleveland. And yes, I did read the other posts. I agree with you about the Nela Park and Forest Hills areas of EC being assets, but there are still other troubled areas of EC that would have to come, too, in your South of Terrace plan, which would not be worth the hassle.