shs96

I get tired of this argument - "it's not an excuse to do nothing". Who said "do nothing"? People are asking "why should we do this?" I mean, if I say "let's just kill everyone who is unemployed and over the age of 25 with no high school degree" and you argue against it, can I then say "well, we can't do nothing"? I think people here are just saying "we don't think that's necessarily the right thing to do. (BTW, Pittsburgh is still bankrupt as far as I know and people are flocking north from Dade county creating some of the most ridiculous sprawl on the east coast. So it hasn't exactly worked out for them either.)

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).

Because too many people with the means take the easy "short term gains" and bolt to the suburbs (or if they're already there, simply sever ties with the city) and take their money and energy with them, leaving those without means to rot, and then turn around and blame them for not improving their city instead of staying and helping to improve it themselves. I think my position is people who "don't have the means" will continue to not have the means to do anything until they decide to do something about it themselves. Work hard, educate yourself, be a good citizen, and opportunity will be there for you. It sounds good that if you were to surround them with opportunity and resources and just give them a little nudge in the right direction, everything would be fine and dandy. I don't think it's that simple. Look at suburbs that are doing well. There are still pockets of problem areas. It's just they are out numbered 10:1 so it doesn't look as bad. I know there are a lot of areas of concern in Cleveland Heights. Why? The city has lots of assets, is full of great people, but there are some parts of town that just don't have its act together. Why isn't the "regionalism" effect boiling over to them? They are a part of a great city. They are neighbors with people who can help give them opportunity if they show some merit. What's their excuse?

NYC did not become what it is because 5 counties merged together. It became what it is because it is/was the financial and economic epicenter of the United States. It is what it is because there are tons of jobs and opportunity. Yet despite this, the city itself still has its fair share of problems like any other city. I'm not saying "do nothing". But what is the benefit to the wealthier municipalities to regionalism? (I'll answer for you...strong core city is better for everyone). OK. So why is the core city incapable of becoming stronger on it's own? So if you just expanded "Cleveland" to cover the same square miles as Columbus, wouldn't you have the same number of desirable urban and suburban neighborhoods in "Cleveland"? But what has really changed? You get more federal grant money?

And this is basically the argument against regionalism. That is, it was effectively done before and didn't work. Many West Park residents wish they could annex from Cleveland. But instead, it suffers from Cleveland leadership and if it wasn't for the dedication of the residents who live there to that neighborhood, who knows where it might be. Perhaps if Cleveland was in decent shape itself then it could take on such an issue. But it's not. Cleveland can't get it's own house in order and even though there are a handful of neighborhoods in the city that have really strong, dedicated residents - along with all of the other assets the city has - that doesn't seem to be rubbing off on all of the problem areas and making it better. So why is adding another set assets going to make a difference, especially when these additions are far removed from the problem? Basically, my point is regionalism can be found on a micro level within various cities. And while there are some "economies of scale benefits", it doesn't solve any major social or economic problems. It's not going to work until you can actually get people to commit to changing behavior. And I have news for you: this is a problem societies have been trying to solve forever. Even the Bible says "the poor will always be among us". Further proving my point. Nothing changes. The money of Bratenhal still pretty much stays in its confined little area, they still send their kids to private school, and still use all of their resources to keep the problems of other parts of Cleveland out of their neighborhood. See Edgewater.

I lived in an area that wasn't condusive to trick-or-treating until I was 9 and went to other neighborhoods instead a few times...never had any problems or knew of anyone who cared one way or the other.

You might also want to check out Hudson. It is close to Solon, has some pretty good restaurants, good shopping, good schools, and has some homes - like in Chagrin - that are close enough to walk to town. The town square has some kind of event almost every weekend (bands, farmers market, etc). And it's a bit less expensive from a taxes and insurance stand point b/c it's in Summit County.

I don't know that I really have a particularly powerful memory, other than hearing from my friend who I knew worked in the financial district and knowing he was fine. I do find it powerful in the sense that I can remember the entire sequence of events about my day that morning through about lunchtime. I had also just been to NYC for Labor Day and decided not to go to the observation deck of the WTC because the line was too long; I'd be back and go another time. Little did I know.

Excited for the Browns season this year, mostly b/c of Colt. I think he's shown more potential than any of the other guys on the long list of losers that started the season at QB since 99. Seems to have more leadership qualities than the other guys...has the look of being in control, or at least seemingly knowing what he wants to do. Some of those other guys looked like fish out of water at times in the pocket.

If those who support mass transit are outnumbered by those who don't, then it doesn't even matter if they all vote. Saying they deserve what they get because they don't get out to vote as much is a lame attempt to shift the blame. By the way, maybe if people who rely on public transportation had better public transportation, they would be able to get out and vote more. You can vote by mail in Ohio.

^ You don't need to own the building to wash the windows and/or power wash the facade.

You have the classic distorted if not perverted view of the concept of Town-and -Gown. The concept is about a university's intellectual, academic and research relationship with its entire community and not contaminated capitol improvement projects with parochial downtown politicians over any structure. Your view is so typically "Akron" and I disagree with it. I just really started reading this thread and, admittedly, I keep reading because of what Gramarye describes above. It's one of those really bizzare things that lends itself to (IMO) high comedy while reading an internet forum. I just started getting to know Akron the past month or so since I've been working here. Oddly, despite growing up almost as close to Akron as I was to Cleveland, I had pretty much never been here and knew nothing about it. So my first impression when I went into the city was "Oh, that's pretty cool. Campus is adjacent to downtown." Kind of boxed in by the valley and surrounding freeways, it seemed more compact and connected than say, Cleveland and Cleveland State. That was about it...I still don't really have much of a feel for it. Then I read this thread and the vitriol from Tom regarding the arena potentially being built off campus in downtown Akron was amusing to me. Had I not been to Akron, I might have thought downtown Akron and Akron U's campus were pretty seperate. Frankly, I'm not exactly sure where one starts and the other ends. So I don't really understand what the argument is about, or at least I have no idea what there is to get so worked up about. It's not like they're considering a site out by the Rubber Bowl. Had I not been to Akron, I might have thought downtown Akron and Akron U's campus were pretty seperate. Frankly, I'm not exactly sure where one starts and the other ends. Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,15165.30.html#ixzz1WZHCGUjd That is your problem right there. There is a distinction between The University of Akron (BTW - It is not called Akron U) and downtown Akron and the last thing our UA wants to do is look like a cheap version of Cleveland State. We are an urban campus and we are proud to look like a distinct campus. Anything less than that is a knock off university deserving of little respect and recognition and saying so is not vitriol against downtown Akron. Quit putting words in another's mouth. Ah yes...glad you didn't disappoint in your response! While there may be a distinction, I can't tell what it is. And apparently, by reading this thread, you and others had to verify where campus officially ends and begins. So magical lines on a map may technically be a distinction, but practically, I can't tell the difference. So again, not sure what your point is. Akron is an urban campus, and having blurred lines between campus and downtown only supports that. As for word in one's mouth, I merely describe the tone of your position. That's not putting words in your mouth; that's my description of you and your posts. Although I am not sure why I would expect you to get that from my post, considering you seem to be having a hard time understanding the posts and positions of others. Anyway, with that said, please continue with your vitriolic posts!

I just really started reading this thread and, admittedly, I keep reading because of what Gramarye describes above. It's one of those really bizzare things that lends itself to (IMO) high comedy while reading an internet forum. I just started getting to know Akron the past month or so since I've been working here. Oddly, despite growing up almost as close to Akron as I was to Cleveland, I had pretty much never been here and knew nothing about it. So my first impression when I went into the city was "Oh, that's pretty cool. Campus is adjacent to downtown." Kind of boxed in by the valley and surrounding freeways, it seemed more compact and connected than say, Cleveland and Cleveland State. That was about it...I still don't really have much of a feel for it. Then I read this thread and the vitriol from Tom regarding the arena potentially being built off campus in downtown Akron was amusing to me. Had I not been to Akron, I might have thought downtown Akron and Akron U's campus were pretty seperate. Frankly, I'm not exactly sure where one starts and the other ends. So I don't really understand what the argument is about, or at least I have no idea what there is to get so worked up about. It's not like they're considering a site out by the Rubber Bowl.

While an improvement, last year's attendance was the worst in Jacobs/Progressive Field history. So keep that in mind. Sadly, I wonder if Cleveland can really support 3 sports teams. At least support 3 teams that are good at the same time. When the Indians were selling out every game and drawing 3 million fans, they also had a couple things going for them. 1) New park 2) They hadn't been a contending team in 40 years 3) Cavs were terrible 4) Browns were gone for 3 of those years In 2005 and 2007 - when they were really good - they barely broke 2 million fans. But by then, the Cavs were good and the Browns always draw well. It seems the Browns bring people in regardless and who ever is more trendy between the Cavs and Indians gets the attendance.

Nice work Joe!

Juding by populations trends and property values in Cleveland Heights vs. Solon, I'm not speaking for myself. I was responding to your last sentence.... about people who just stop trying to make their community a better place to live. Sure, the inner ring has more challenges (as do all non-white picket fence communities that have any sense of density and urbanity). But don't suggest that there aren't people here who care about their neighborhoods. That is the view from beyond the 271 loop, but it is not reality. That's not what I am saying. I'm saying most people don't want to make that much effort. Even living in my condo building downtown where we had issues, 5% of the people were the problem, the other 95% of the people were botherd by it and wanted it to stop, but only a handful actually wanted to work to make things better. The rest just wanted someone else to take care of it. I'm pretty confident that's pretty representative of society. Most people want life to be easy and not have to work so hard at keeping their community from going downhill. So instead of fighting, they move out. You should let the students at Heights and Shaker know you're giving them a nod when they apply to Hts121 University. The accredited colleges and universities around the country - particularly in the region - do give preferential treatment to certain districts (and to be fair, Shaker is one of them...but so is Solon). In terms of what? Are you saying a C student at Solon will recieve preferential treatment over a C student from Heights? Perhaps, but I would guess that has more to do with the college simply guessing that the financial aid needs of that student would be far less than any other factor. Personally, I would frown upon a student who had a silver spoon in his/her mouth and still only managed a C average. As for this...I don't have a scientific study or any data to prove it either way. I only have personal experience to base it off of. Talk to a Harvard or Princeton alum and they will tell you high school matters - not just your grades and activities, but reputation of the school. Talk to guidence counselors or college admissions people and they will tell you the same thing. That line of thought makes sense to me, so I'm sticking to it. Companies recruit out of specific colleges because students from those schools have done well for them in the past. Based on ym observations and general discussions, I feel it works the same for colleges and universities too. Elite students are going to get in regardless. It's the bordeline ones where it can make a difference. And If I'm wrong, I don't think I'm putting my kids at a disadvantage by living in a school district with a good reputation.

That's BS. Solon, like most of the suburbs, were their own incorporated village/city with their own fire department, school system, etc 100 years ago. Solon was a small farm town when my parents moved there. The fire department and police station were in 1 building and there was no retail when I was a kid. The people started moving there - mostly because they got sick of what was going on in their old neighborhood - and the city was developed around it. 422 didn't exist - it was built to keep up with the traffic demand. People saw Kinsman, Lexington, and Storer becoming what they have become while they lived there and moved out while they could. And those who stayed to try to fight it out? They were often left with a house they couldn't sell or something bad happened to them, like being vandelized or worse. I'm not sure when it became acceptable to blame the people who moved out for not wanting to put up with bad neighbors instead of blaming the people actually causing the problems, but I think it needs to stop. My grandmother gutted it out in the home my dad grew up in until the mid 90's. My dad, aunts/uncles kept urging her to move - but she had raised a family there, lived there for 50 years - it was her home! Ultimately after the house was broken into for the second time - this time while she was home - she had no choice to move. And that's the smae story for most of the people who tried to stay. And for those who moved prior to this, that you're blaming for everything, they have similar stories but they just made their decision before they felt it was forced upon them. So enough with blaming people who moved out. Some moved because they wanted a bigger house or whatever. Just as many, if not more, didn't want to move, they just felt they had to. I don't know why they get any of the blame. They weren't the ones making it a bad place to live.

Please explain this? I do not understand how you can make such a blanket statement. There are a lot of variables that contributed to the down fall of certain Cleveland neighborhoods. There are neighborhood in Cleveland where people during the riots and to this day fought to keep that element out of their area. If what happened in Hough adjacent to Glenville had happened in Solon, I think the same type of neighborhood issues would occur. I also think they would be more pronounced in the outer burbs. What needs to be explained? A well built, high character house from 1920 won't be well built with lots of character in 2011 if it wasn't maintained over time. Most of the housing stock in Glenville was of this mold when it was built - high quality, lots of character Over time some of it has been maintained. Most of it hasn't. So who cares if it was built during a time when quality and character were important if quality and character weren't maintained over time? I never offered a reason as to why houses weren't maintained. That's not relevant to the discussion.

Juding by populations trends and property values in Cleveland Heights vs. Solon, I'm not speaking for myself. You should let the students at Heights and Shaker know you're giving them a nod when they apply to Hts121 University. The accredited colleges and universities around the country - particularly in the region - do give preferential treatment to certain districts (and to be fair, Shaker is one of them...but so is Solon).

Yes, but the difference is that much of the Heights area was built up at a time when quality and character were important. And a lot of the remnants of that era have stood the test of time. These areas were and are unique. The same cannot be said of Solon and other nearly-identical cookie-cutter suburbs. There is very little offered in Solon that one cannot find in about two dozen other suburbs in Greater Cleveland. Character and quality are great...until after a generation or two it stops getting maintained. See Glenville. And you're starting to see it in parts of Cleveland Heights. I hope you realize there's a huge population of people living in Solon that moved from the Heights area because they got sick of dealing with what was/is going on there. At some point you want to stop fighting to keep your city a great place to live and just live there.

Glad someone else believes there's alternatives from the perspective of "if it's not inner-ring, it's awful, souless, and I can't believe anyone would live there." It's about lifestyle. Solon offers an opportunity to live in a communicty where the vast majority of people have similar core values to each other. All the amenities and benefits of urban living are pretty much null and void if it means having a population of people in your community who don't take care of their yard, don't look after their kids, and are generally bad neighbors. People choose to live in Solon because A) the schools are great B) anything a parent wants their kid to be involved in is available and C) its likely close to where they work. Many people will sacrifice most everything else to meet those criteria. And say what you want about how schools are measured or how good Solon really is as a school system, but college admissions people will give an edge to a student from Solon because it's "Solon" when comparing two Ohio public school students with pretty much identical resumes.

Solon was a great place to grow up.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2011/top100/ Go Solon

^Amen.

The short answer is it's not possible to have a life outside of work when you work that much. Your life is work. It was brutal and I hope I don't ever have to be in a job that requires that much time again. It paid off, but I'm definitely I'm glad it's behind me.