Wasn't East Cleveland at one time one of the area's more prosperous suburbs?  What events lead up to its current decline?  I've looked around online and haven't been able to find a nice historical summary of how things changed.

 

On the other side of the coin, is there a future for the city?  Can it recover to its previous glory?  Or is it only going to get worse in the coming years?  I would like to think that it has a number of things going for it (proximity to University Circle and downtown, rail service), but these are advantages that haven't seemed to have matter much in the past few decades.

This gives me a window to the past 30 years of the city's government. Doesn't sound good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Cleveland,_Ohio#Government_and_Politics

 

Interesting to note the Republican party (or for that matter and party/independent) doesn't even field a candidate in the city. 

If you'd like to see and read about East Cleveland, check out the photo thread and the commentary and discussion which followed the pics........

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,22240.0.html

Wasn't East Cleveland at one time one of the area's more prosperous suburbs? What events lead up to its current decline? I've looked around online and haven't been able to find a nice historical summary of how things changed.

 

It may have been one of the area's most prosperous suburbs in 1890 or 1900 when it was mostly Euclid Ave mansions and Rockefeller's summer home, but not when fully built out.  According to Dennis Keating's "The Suburban Racial Dilemma,"  as of 1960, the city was a solid middle class suburb but it was composed mostly of rental housing (60%) and the housing was significantly cheaper than in Cleveland Heights, Shaker Hts or even Euclid- for example, median value of owner occupied housing in EC was only 8% higher than in the City of Cleveland.  Low cost of entry coupled with adjacency to city neighborhoods undergoing rapid demographic turnover from middle class white to lower middle class black, then from middle class black to working class and impoverished black...

 

I wish I could be optimistic about EC, but there's no shortage of affordable housing in suburbs that are much more intact, so I don't see how it's going to attract the middle class families it needs for a turn-around.  Terrible for the residents stuck owning homes there and an architectural tragedy too.

East Cleveland should be annexed.  That alone won't solve its problems, but I can't envision those problems being solved until then.  It needs to be redeveloped in conjunction with University Circle and that's a lot easier to do when it's all one entity.  Think about the political stories coming out of there recently.  That sort of thing dissuades development.

Annexation won't solve E. Cleveland's problems, it just makes those problems someone else's.  Adding E. Cleveland's problems to those of the City of Cleveland doesn't seem likely to get those problems any more attention.  With current thinking and rethinking on regionalism, perhaps the greater Cleveland community can provide some assistance to E. Cleveland with police/fire/garbage collection/road maintenance/etc. -- whatever services become more regional rather than under the control of individual suburbs.  Ultimately though I think we need a local leader in E. Cleveland to pursue solutions to its problems.

 

The new mayor of East Cleveland seems to provide a bit of hope.  He's young, optimistic, well-educated, and with some experience in government outside of E. Cleveland and its past corruption scandals.  I hope he succeeds.  One advantage E. Cleveland has over Cleveland Hts. is the existence of a business base.  Granted, much of the housing in E. Cleveland probably needs serious investment for rehab, and large tracts may need to be bulldozed and rebuilt, but it could happen.  It just won't happen overnight. 

 

The problems are already someone else's... they're everybody's.  If you live on the east side you live right by East Cleveland.  Even if you live on the west side, or out in Solon, East Cleveland remains "your" problem.  You just don't have to live in it, which is nice for you.  It drags down property vaules far outside its borders by being in the same metro and being so nasty.  If Solon and Westlake were suburbs in a metro that didn't have an East Cleveland, or that had a decent East Cleveland, they'd have higher values themselves. 

^Meh, not sure why East Cleveland's decay really effects outlying suburbs.  But in any case, if I were a resident of East Cleveland, I would vote for annexation in a second.  I wouldn't be so keen on spending overhead for an independent EC city government that delivers such poor services.  Not sure the City of Cleveland would have me though.

Read "Cities Without Suburbs" or anything else by David Rusk for a statistical analysis on how decaying central cities and inner suburbs effect every other part of the metro area, especially in relation to home values.

^Meh, not sure why East Cleveland's decay really effects outlying suburbs.

 

If you're in a swimming pool... and there's a dead squirrel floating waaaaay down at the other end... does that distance really matter, when you're evaluating whether to remain in that pool?  No.  The entire pool's either clean or it's not.  The clean end of a clean pool is better than the clean end of the dead-squirrel pool.

It is unfortunate, but I don't know if there would be any amount of planning which could have stopped EC's demise based on events which happened beforehand.  We can thank urban renewal as one of the main culprits, however I believe that annexation of the city may be inevitable.  Though the city still has some strong residential streets, so much of the residential housing stock has to be torn down because of the foreclosure crisis that the city may never recover.  The city's best chance at a true rebirth as a destination for both residents and businesses lies with University Circle.  Planning should be done concurrently with UC (however, the same could be said regarding Cleveland's neighborhoods which surround UC, but that's another topic).

 

Sure the city has great assets, including it's boarder with University Circle, the Red Line and Healthline, and Huron Hospital along with what's left of it's historic housing stock (including some architecturally BEAUTIFUL apartments).  But I agree with 327- the city will fare better (at least right now) with annexation.  Some of the residents I know in the city are actually in favor of annexation, which I don't think would be nearly as impossible as it would seem to have passed.  If tax sharing/ consolidation between municipalities in the county comes to fruition some day, this area should definitely get the help it needs. 

We'll take Forest Hills and "the forgotten triangle" if the City of Cleveland takes the rest ;)

 

I agree with most of what is said above, but I will throw this thought in as well.  EC has absolutely beautiful architecture.... in absolutely horrendous condition.  When you add up Cleveland weather, an abundance of wood siding (which I definitely prefer to aluminum... who doesn't) and very loose city oversight, you get eyesores popping up on every block.  The infrastructure has been crumbling for some time now as well.

 

But my #1 reason is lack of safety force presence.  It is unforgiveable how low the police presence is in this City.  It's not the cops fault.  One of my best friend's dad just retired from that department.  The financial support they get is simply inadequate to deal with such a dense population.  Some "order-maintenance" policing would do wonders for EC.

 

Without it, you have places like the beverage drive-thrus that will sell to anyone (I used to buy there when I was 16), well-known drug-dealing hotspots like "Dome", and delinquents not even knowing what the word "consequences" is.... not that their parents shouldn't be teaching them that, but that would be for another thread.

Without it, you have places like the beverage drive-thrus that will sell to anyone (I used to buy there when I was 16), well-known drug-dealing hotspots like "Dome", and delinquents not even knowing what the word "consequences" is.... not that their parents shouldn't be teaching them that, but that would be for another thread.

 

That was our Friday night plan in high school too...drive into East Cleveland and buy beer.  Never denied or carded once.  Was a great plan until, ironically, we were mugged leaving the convienence store...the person wanted our beer.

 

But the lack of a central authority figure will generally cause a city or neighborhood's demise.

There is some B&B in East Cleveland and I feel really bad for them as that's an awfully tough area to try and make a go of a business like that.  Do any of you guys have any experience with it?  I think it's called Parker's.  Yeah,  here it is:

http://www.edwardparkermasterartist.com/guesthouse.htm

 

 

^Meh, not sure why East Cleveland's decay really effects outlying suburbs.

 

If you're in a swimming pool... and there's a dead squirrel floating waaaaay down at the other end... does that distance really matter, when you're evaluating whether to remain in that pool? No. The entire pool's either clean or it's not. The clean end of a clean pool is better than the clean end of the dead-squirrel pool.

 

I don't like pools- I much prefer swimming with all the dead things in lakes and the ocean :)

 

I understand Rusk's thesis and am familiar with pretty harsh critiques of his methodology- I don't think there's a consensus that he proves causation in his work.  In any case, the mechanism by which decline in EC would bring down property values in Westlake is not very clear to me.

 

I think you'd have much better luck explaining to people in other nearby suburbs (Euclid, Cleveland Heights, South Euclid, etc.) that as East Cleveland declines, more of its impoverished residents will be looking for housing in other places.

^Meh, not sure why East Cleveland's decay really effects outlying suburbs.

 

If you're in a swimming pool... and there's a dead squirrel floating waaaaay down at the other end... does that distance really matter, when you're evaluating whether to remain in that pool? No. The entire pool's either clean or it's not. The clean end of a clean pool is better than the clean end of the dead-squirrel pool.

 

What if it was a piece of sh!t instead of a dead squirrel?

That's what I had originally typed... but I decided that it implied too much and opened additional cans of worms.

^For the record, I don't enjoy swimming near dead squirrels, POSs or cans of worms.

Just how far can we stretch the swimming pool metaphor?  Here's my take.  It's a huge swimming pool, and there's an area of it where people pretty much just defecate with impunity.  No one wants to be in a swimming pool where there's people dumping in the water, but, hey, it's the only pool in the town, so a lot of them are just going to move as far away from the crappy part of the pool as they can.  Others will just swim nearby and hold their nose.

This is exactly why I chose not to use the poop metaphor.

Wasn't East Cleveland at one time one of the area's more prosperous suburbs? What events lead up to its current decline? I've looked around online and haven't been able to find a nice historical summary of how things changed.

 

It may have been one of the area's most prosperous suburbs in 1890 or 1900 when it was mostly Euclid Ave mansions and Rockefeller's summer home, but not when fully built out. According to Dennis Keating's "The Suburban Racial Dilemma," as of 1960, the city was a solid middle class suburb but it was composed mostly of rental housing (60%) and the housing was significantly cheaper than in Cleveland Heights, Shaker Hts or even Euclid- for example, median value of owner occupied housing in EC was only 8% higher than in the City of Cleveland. Low cost of entry coupled with adjacency to city neighborhoods undergoing rapid demographic turnover from middle class white to lower middle class black, then from middle class black to working class and impoverished black...

 

I wish I could be optimistic about EC, but there's no shortage of affordable housing in suburbs that are much more intact, so I don't see how it's going to attract the middle class families it needs for a turn-around. Terrible for the residents stuck owning homes there and an architectural tragedy too.

 

My parents lived in East Cleveland after emmigrating from Ireland, my Dad in the '40s, my Mom in the late 50's.  When they got married they bought their first house there.  Bach then the east side Irish community was as strong as the west side.  From anecdotal stories I heard over the years, once the Hough riots happened, people took off for points either east or west.

I understand Rusk's thesis and am familiar with pretty harsh critiques of his methodology- I don't think there's a consensus that he proves causation in his work.  In any case, the mechanism by which decline in EC would bring down property values in Westlake is not very clear to me.

 

The main comparison Rusk makes is not with a suburb compared to its own city, but a similar one compared to another central city, e.g. the Westlake of Cleveland versus the "Westlake" (comparable suburb) of a metro area with a strong, growing central city like Denver, Portland, Seattle, etc.  In comparison, the Westlake of Denver is doing much better in vis a vis the true Westlake in Cleveland.  Incomes are higher, property values are rising faster, etc.  Basically he argues that a weak center drags down the whole.

^I had thought Rusks main' comparison (at least in "Cities without Suburbs") was between metro areas with land-locked center cities and those with center cities expanding through annexation, no?  The main critique of his argument, as I understand it, is that his sample of annexing center cities is heavily biased towards the sun belt, and by most economists' estimation, the sun belt is a growth machine for a number of reasons unrelated to regional political structure.  I can't say I've picked up a Rusk book since the mid 1990s, so I may be very rusty.

 

Anyway, I'm not sure if you can extrapolate Rusk's findings, even if you accepted his causal story, to claim that the decline of one small inner ring suburb is depressing home prices in another further out suburb of the same center city.  He may have other work much more on point though.

Strap Hanger...your information about the percentage of renters in East Cleveland in the 60s is new to me and explains much, especially in light of the different integration paths path followed by EC and its neighbors Cleveland Hts and Shaker Hts.  Sounds like that was most likely a very big factor, among many, when explaining the differents results 40 years later.

white flight, urban sprawl and the desire of every clevelander and every cleveland kid that the only way to improve your life is to move to a improved suburb with a better reputation

As Tom Bier at CSU has said: "To many Americans, moving upward means moving outward."

 

You guys are missing blockbusting in all of this. It's why parts of Cleveland and almost all of East Cleveland went from white to black almost overnight. I will reiterate the situation of my two older brothers (one was born in 1949, the other in 1951). They went to elementary school in East Cleveland. I saw one of my brothers' class picture from one year, where there were a few black kids but everyone else was white. In his next year's class picture, my brother was one of the few white kids and everyone else was black. Only block-busting can cause such a quick turnaround.

 

Most of the blacks were not wealthy, and the whites owned many of the businesses. When the whites moved out, many of them took their businesses and jobs with them. Some who didn't leave were targeted. In the 1960s, black-owned stores had signs in their windows that said "soul brother" so the store wouldn't be targeted. In Hough and Glenville, those signs kept stores from getting ransacked or burned. What a horrible time in our cities' histories. The hatred and/or distrust from both sides is still there, and passed down to younger generations. It keeps prospective employers out of East Cleveland and limits the choices and opportunities for people who stayed behind.

As Tom Bier at CSU has said: "To many Americans, moving upward means moving outward."

 

You guys are missing blockbusting in all of this. It's why parts of Cleveland and almost all of East Cleveland went from white to black almost overnight. I will reiterate the situation of my two older brothers (one was born in 1949, the other in 1951). They went to elementary school in East Cleveland. I saw one of my brothers' class picture from one year, where there were a few black kids but everyone else was white. In his next year's class picture, my brother was one of the few white kids and everyone else was black. Only block-busting can cause such a quick turnaround.

 

Most of the blacks were not wealthy, and the whites owned many of the businesses. When the whites moved out, many of them took their businesses and jobs with them. Some who didn't leave were targeted. In the 1960s, black-owned stores had signs in their windows that said "soul brother" so the store wouldn't be targeted. In Hough and Glenville, those signs kept stores from getting ransacked or burned. What a horrible time in our cities' histories. The hatred and/or distrust from both sides is still there, and passed down to younger generations. It keeps prospective employers out of East Cleveland and limits the choices and opportunities for people who stayed behind.

 

Thank you for this response, it's exactly what I was looking for because I suspected that the changes in East Cleveland weren't completely a normal case of white flight.  So they suffered from many of the same things that the eastside of Cleveland proper suffered from?  I didn't know that blockbusting played such a big role!  I wonder why places like Euclid, Cleveland Heights, and Shaker Heights were mostly sheltered from such practices?

 

By the way, I read the entire other thread about EC, very interesting stuff.  I'm sorry I started a new thread without doing a search first, but hopefully some new information came up here.

I live on the last street off of Euclid before East Cleveland and I feel that there is currently an invisible barrier keeping people from living there.  I know that the new mayor is working with UCI to create some new housing or renovate a lot of houses but As long as East Cleveland is its own municipality I don't think they will have much success.  I don't see how it benefits from having its own government.  I don't doubt that EC voters would be ok with being annexed by Cleveland but does Cleveland even want EC.  I feel that EC would get a lot of benefits by gaining the extra muscle that Cleveland has but it would also bring along a lot of poverty that might stretch Cleveland's resources thin.

I live on the last street off of Euclid before East Cleveland and I feel that there is currently an invisible barrier keeping people from living there. I know that the new mayor is working with UCI to create some new housing or renovate a lot of houses but As long as East Cleveland is its own municipality I don't think they will have much success. I don't see how it benefits from having its own government. I don't doubt that EC voters would be ok with being annexed by Cleveland but does Cleveland even want EC. I feel that EC would get a lot of benefits by gaining the extra muscle that Cleveland has but it would also bring along a lot of poverty that might stretch Cleveland's resources thin.

 

I think a lot of the hope for East Cleveland rests on its very close proximity to University Circle, unfortunately being a separate entity so close to a growing part of Cleveland severely hurts it. There's a lot of prime real estate along Euclid Ave just across from the EC/CLE border, but it will likely never be developed unless it was in Cleveland proper. Why would someone who works in University Circle move to EC and pay an additional 2% of their income in taxes to live in a city that can't provide a lot of basic services?

I live on the last street off of Euclid before East Cleveland and I feel that there is currently an invisible barrier keeping people from living there. I know that the new mayor is working with UCI to create some new housing or renovate a lot of houses but As long as East Cleveland is its own municipality I don't think they will have much success. I don't see how it benefits from having its own government. I don't doubt that EC voters would be ok with being annexed by Cleveland but does Cleveland even want EC. I feel that EC would get a lot of benefits by gaining the extra muscle that Cleveland has but it would also bring along a lot of poverty that might stretch Cleveland's resources thin.

 

I think a lot of the hope for East Cleveland rests on its very close proximity to University Circle, unfortunately being a separate entity so close to a growing part of Cleveland severely hurts it. There's a lot of prime real estate along Euclid Ave just across from the EC/CLE border, but it will likely never be developed unless it was in Cleveland proper. Why would someone who works in University Circle move to EC and pay an additional 2% of their income in taxes to live in a city that can't provide a lot of basic services?

 

Indeed.  So sorry, annexation-haters, but there's no alternative here.  The only question is do we want this land redeveloped or not.  If the answer to that is more important than maintaining our hateful borders, we'll see the land developed within our lifetime.  If the urge to separate this neighbor from that one remains strong, then East Cleveland will continue to languish... as will University Circle.  They can never truly be distinct, these two.  So drop the hate.  It's University Circle's only way forward.

I think East Cleveland should merge with Cleveland, but it would have to be approved by both sides, because it wouldn't be an annexation.  East Cleveland is incorporated (obviously), so it may not be so simple.  And the school district situation is a completely different animal.

East Cleveland finds $3.2 million in overlooked bank account

EAST CLEVELAND, Ohio — Mayor Gary Norton is used to discovering problems with his city’s financial records.

 

Now he’s found a missing $3.2 million.

 

The money, accumulating since 2006, was supposed to pay off bonds the city issued in 2005 to clear some of its debt and get out of fiscal emergency, Norton said.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/04/east_cleveland_finds_32_millio.html

Ever since the Mayor and Safety Director suggested that the EC Firefighters should spend their 'downtime' mowing grass in the parks, nothing surprises me with this city.

Wow. I think I have a consulting project I could submit to EC!!

 

Seriously though, use that funding to leverage federal grants to clean abandoned industrial properties so they can be marketed to new employers.

The mayor has already said that the money will be used as originally intended -- to pay off outstanding debt.

The mayor has already said that the money will be used as originally intended -- to pay off outstanding debt.

 

Boring!

 

And what's so outstanding about debt anyhoo..... ;)

With the East Cleveland city council cutting police shifts from 14 to 4 officers per shift with one serving as a dispatcher and the city being designated as being in fiscal emergency, what do you think the future holds for the once great suburb?

I think it is a stupid ploy to try to get the Sherriff to put deputies back on patrol there at the County's expense and/or to force Cleveland Heights and the City of Cleveland to step up their mutual aid contributions.  I don't think it will work.  Three patrol officers per shift is ridiculous.  It is downright dangerous..... for the officers.  There should be no less than two officers PER CAR in that city. 

 

I can't determine if this is the more stupid than the idea they had a few years ago to have the firefighters doing landscaping work around the city during their "downtime."  I never thought they would come up with a idea to rival that idiocracy

What's stupid is that East Cleveland even exists as a separate entity anymore...

Or that it ever did

I'm not as pessimistic about EC's motives here (maybe I am naive).  I think they're just broke, and there is no help on the horizon. 

 

The county or state should work with EC and help them (and insist that they do so) start to negotiate a merger with CH and Cleveland.  Maybe up-the-hill portion to CH and down-the-hill to Cleveland.  Better for EC to be involved in discussion about how and where they merge now, before the budget further implodes.

^I think any plan like that would take a sizeable lump some or long term grant commitment from the state to help make it more palatable to the "lucky' adjoining municipalities.  More likely, IMHO, service decline and net deterioration of the housing stock will continue, population will continue to plummet, and the city will enter some kind of state receivership at some point.  Who knows what happens after that.

I'm not as pessimistic about EC's motives here (maybe I am naive).  I think they're just broke, and there is no help on the horizon. 

 

The county or state should work with EC and help them (and insist that they do so) start to negotiate a merger with CH and Cleveland.  Maybe up-the-hill portion to CH and down-the-hill to Cleveland.  Better for EC to be involved in discussion about how and where they merge now, before the budget further implodes.

The problem, as we've discussed previously in various threads, is that no one wants the down the hill portions of EC. What advantage is there for Cleveland in taking an area that instantly becomes one of the worst slums in the city? It would require significant funds from either the state or county that just don't exist right now.

Oh you can ensure there would be hell if theres even talks of merging EC with CH. Since i moved here in august its been almost amazing how residents and also people in the city and police look down on or even downright despise those who are "down the hill"

You can rest assured that CH would never allow annexation of anything "down the hill."  But "the hill" itself, that could be open for discussion

You can rest assured that CH would never allow annexation of anything "down the hill."  But "the hill" itself, that could be open for discussion

 

Exactly, since Forest Hills operates as one community.

^That will never work or happen if EC where to dissolve and the surrounding communties annex.  Cleveland would never go for CH getting all the "good stuff" (relatively speaking of course since we are talking about EC) such as Forest Hills and Nela Park while they are stuck with the rest of the "junk", problems, costs and no tax base.

^That will never work or happen if EC where to dissolve and the surrounding communties annex.  Cleveland would never go for CH getting all the "good stuff" (relatively speaking of course since we are talking about EC) such as Forest Hills and Nela Park while they are stuck with the rest of the "junk", problems, costs and no tax base.

 

Why would Cleveland care?  Who says Cleveland would even need to annex?  if EC did dissolve, is Cleveland obligated to absorb some or all portions of EC?  Is there a law on the books saying the residents of EC cannot decide the fate of their city/former city?

 

Like I said, Forest Hills operates as one historic district, so I guessing that would make it easier to absorb into CH.  However, who says the residents of EC FH would want to do that?  They may not want to pay the high CH taxes.

In the future it may be beneficial for Cleveland to annex parts of what is currently East Cleveland, specifically the South Western most part from UC to the Euclid/Superior intersection. Cleveland is on better financial footing than EC and I'm pretty sure way more resources than any other nearby entity to absorb and stabilize the area. If Cleveland were given full autonomy over EC it may be a good thing. Things wouldn't turn around over night, but with the growth of UC, the existing infrastructure and number of developers interested in moving into EC it could be beneficial.

In the future it may be beneficial for Cleveland to annex parts of what is currently East Cleveland, specifically the South Western most part from UC to the Euclid/Superior intersection. Cleveland is on better financial footing than EC and I'm pretty sure way more resources than any other nearby entity to absorb and stabilize the area. If Cleveland were given full autonomy over EC it may be a good thing. Things wouldn't turn around over night, but with the growth of UC, the existing infrastructure and number of developers interested in moving into EC it could be beneficial.

 

I think the Parts of EC in Euclid and near UC are most valuable.  Along with Nela Park section.  Cleveland would probably want all of that.  the Forest Hills section to Cleveland heights since it already intertwined and CH parks can probably manage the EC side of FH park.  If not, the reattach the EC section of FH to the Cleveland portion.