13 hours ago, GCrites said:

A lot of people still do, it's just not enough to keep the values afloat as compared to the seemingly endless supply.

 

I don't know if I agree that it's about preference. A lot of those older homes were in urban neighborhoods that declined from things like white flight, and for decades sat in largely declined, crime-ridden neighborhoods. It's not really about the quality of those homes, it's that the neighborhoods they were in saw little to no investment and actively stopped people from moving in. Older neighborhoods that see investment and that are maintained tend to be highly valuable and in-demand. In Columbus, those include German Village, all of the Short North, Clintonville, Grandview, Bexley, etc. The older areas that have seen little investment have fared a lot worse, like Hilltop, the Near South Side, the older parts of Linden, etc. So I don't think it's as simple as saying people don't want these old homes, they just want them in neighborhoods that are stable, safe and in good condition. 

Edited October 13, 20231 yr by jonoh81

19 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Most of that is done by the state or feds.  Perhaps the county.

You're making my point -- if people are fleeing higher local taxes, they are not paying extra for the increased cost of maintaining many more miles of infrastructure that serves the same number of people. 

 

"Extra elbow room" may be nice, but these new suburbanites aren't demanding to maintain the rural character of the places they're moving to -- they aren't advocating to keep septic tanks, personal wells, and dirt roads, installing solar panels and using satellite phones.  They want more and better roadways, sewer hookups, water hookups, connections to the electrical grid, new highway interchanges, etc. -- and they're not paying the exponential increase in cost of running all of those services out to their low-density communities. 

On 10/11/2023 at 6:54 PM, jonoh81 said:

 

The people who value elbow room should pay for the costs associated with it, then. But they don't. If they did, we would start seeing what the true level of demand for it really is. I know plenty of people who "settled" out in the suburbs because they couldn't find a house in the city within their price range. 

I think we are seeing it in some of the inner ring suburbs like Garfield Heights that have been slowly falling apart over the past 25 years. Cities that have preserved and expanded on dense commercial streets have fared much better. 

On 10/13/2023 at 10:25 AM, Foraker said:

You're making my point -- if people are fleeing higher local taxes, they are not paying extra for the increased cost of maintaining many more miles of infrastructure that serves the same number of people. 

 

"Extra elbow room" may be nice, but these new suburbanites aren't demanding to maintain the rural character of the places they're moving to -- they aren't advocating to keep septic tanks, personal wells, and dirt roads, installing solar panels and using satellite phones.  They want more and better roadways, sewer hookups, water hookups, connections to the electrical grid, new highway interchanges, etc. -- and they're not paying the exponential increase in cost of running all of those services out to their low-density communities. 

 

You're missing my point.  The local taxes are not paying these costs.   Taxes people who move are already paying are.   If the wishes of the electorate are that tax money goes towards sprawl rather than density, well it is what is is.   This leaves aside that the difference between taxes paid by lower density versus high density residents is likely greater than the population difference.

 

As for rural areas, way upthread we discuss how rural people moving closer to cities and wanting the best of both worlds was a primary trigger of suburbanization.

On 10/13/2023 at 9:53 AM, jonoh81 said:

 

I don't know if I agree that it's about preference. A lot of those older homes were in urban neighborhoods that declined from things like white flight, 

 

It should be noted that "white flight" wasn't entirely white to begin with and has become much more multiethnic over the decades.  "Urban flight" or even "decentralization" might be better words.  

25 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

It should be noted that "white flight" wasn't entirely white to begin with and has become much more multiethnic over the decades.  "Urban flight" or even "decentralization" might be better words.  

 

In what world are you living in?  White Flight was ENTIRELY white to begin with.  Even "ethnic" white (re: Jews) couldn't move to certain new suburbs in the 50's and 60's let alone ANY person of color.   Urban Flight is a later phenomenon that was a natural successor to white flight's devastation of American cities.  There will be no sugar-coating (or really "white-washing") around this phenomenon in this thread but the truth.

On 10/14/2023 at 1:05 PM, E Rocc said:

 

You're missing my point.  The local taxes are not paying these costs.   Taxes people who move are already paying are.   If the wishes of the electorate are that tax money goes towards sprawl rather than density, well it is what is is. 

I don't think you understand my point.  My point about people moving away from high-tax neighborhoods was not that they were running away from paying for infrastructure, but that they are anti-tax-- as evidenced by their moving away from higher local tax areas and the anti-tax (Republican)-leaning voting patterns in sprawling districts.  They are affirmatively voting to keep more money for themselves rather than contribute to the public good -- and thus it seems unlikely that we'll ever get the sprawlers to pay their fair share of the cost. 

 

Your suggestion that voters are approving of that suggests that you, as an Ohio taxpayer, are willing to pay for that increased maintenance cost.  And yet, you've elsewhere complained about high taxes and think we should pay less. 

 

You can look at a map and see the population density of Cleveland in 1950 vs. 2000 and see how the same population has spread.  With every new development on former farmland Ohioans are agreeing to pay for more and more infrastructure maintenance -- you and me and everyone in between is paying for those added expenses. If the same population spreads the same amount by 2050, how many more roadway lane miles, miles of electric lines, miles of phone lines, miles of water lines, miles of sewer lines, will Ohioans want to maintain? 

 

I also question your presumption that voters understand that sprawl costs exponentially more to sustain and have chosen to spend the public money that way. 

 

I think the vast majority of the public is completely unaware -- the electricity and water "just works" and few have any idea how it is generated and delivered, or what it costs to maintain the system.  The builders who would rather build on former farmland than do infill development aren't going to have to do the maintenance, and they're not going to tell them.  The highway lobby isn't going to tell them.  The utilities who get to build more power lines aren't going to tell them and can just pass along the cost to all of us without even our vote.  Local officials are happy to have "growth" and don't calculate the 30-year maintenance costs or even want to know.

 

People complain about potholes, but they don't complain about C- ratings from some national civil engineering group applied to all the roadways in the state.  And they want their existing taxes to cover the cost.

 

I'm advocating for (1) recognizing the problem and (2) figuring out a way to discourage further sprawl.  Can you think of a way that capitalism could be used to discourage sprawl without raising taxes?  Can you think of a way to spend more money on infrastructure maintenance without raising taxes and fees on all Ohioans?

 

Land value tax would solve this

Just found this thread so pardon if I don't match the tone.

 

 

1.) Consolidate Cleveland and Cuyahoga county

 

2.) Replace income and property tax with Land Value Tax.

 

 

The common man sees no difference in his taxes but still feels the incentive to make better use of land.

 

 

Mad react if this has been discussed before.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, TotalTransit said:

Just found this thread so pardon if I don't match the tone.

 

1.) Consolidate Cleveland and Cuyahoga county

 

2.) Replace income and property tax with Land Value Tax.

 

The common man sees no difference in his taxes but still feels the incentive to make better use of land.

 

Mad react if this has been discussed before.

There are many on this thread who agree that Cuyahoga County has far too many municipalities and needs to consolidate -- consensus seems to be that it would be politically impossible at this time, but something worth working toward.

 

I definitely would like to see a Land Value Tax applied to at least the downtown -- maybe bounded by I-90, the Cuyahoga River and Lake Erie.  Give it a ten-year test.  (I believe it was tried in Pittsburgh but it didn't last long.)

A Land Value Tax is probably not permitted (and possibly prohibited) by state law in Ohio.  And while we might be able to advocate for that in place of the usual property tax, I don't see the income tax going anywhere.

 

But yes -- this forum is the perfect place for tilting at windmills!

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

I definitely would like to see a Land Value Tax applied to at least the downtown -- maybe bounded by I-90, the Cuyahoga River and Lake Erie.  Give it a ten-year test.  (I believe it was tried in Pittsburgh but it didn't last long.)

Pittsburgh created their split rate in 1913! They repealed it in 2001 after a tax revolt. They did not regularly reassess land values so when an auditor finally updated them, there was a big tax revolt. There are other cities in PA that still have a split rate. Altoona instituted a full land value tax in 2011 but it only lasted 5 years. It was implemented by the city alone, where about 36% of residents live but is less than 2% of the land area of Blair County. Detroit's mayor is fighting for a new state law to allow them to vote on imposing a land value tax. It also would just be within city limits but I would think it be much more effective given the size of the city.

Also of note is that Pittsburgh has a whopping 50% tax on parking, while the Ohio Revised Code limits that to just 8%.

  

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

A Land Value Tax is probably not permitted (and possibly prohibited) by state law in Ohio.  And while we might be able to advocate for that in place of the usual property tax, I don't see the income tax going anywhere.

Correct it is not permitted. The Ohio Constitution is fairly explicit about property taxes which always states "land and improvements" together.

I have wondered though if a vacancy tax could be legal. It wouldn't be as effective but something is better than nothing.

5 hours ago, TotalTransit said:

Just found this thread so pardon if I don't match the tone.

 

 

1.) Consolidate Cleveland and Cuyahoga county

 

 

We've discussed it.  #1 is a great big loud Hell No for the vast majority of county residents.  Any serious effort would be blocked at the state level, with both parties involved in the blocks.  Even talking about it poisons efforts at regional cooperation.

 

Land value taxes are expressly forbidden by the state Constitution.

1 hour ago, Dev said:

I have wondered though if a vacancy tax could be legal. It wouldn't be as effective but something is better than nothing.

 

The US Supreme Court is known for striking down laws that seek to indirectly evade Constitutional principles.   I'm not sure the state courts act the same way, but it's certainly likely.

10 hours ago, Foraker said:

There are many on this thread who agree that Cuyahoga County has far too many municipalities and needs to consolidate -- consensus seems to be that it would be politically impossible at this time, but something worth working toward.

 

I definitely would like to see a Land Value Tax applied to at least the downtown -- maybe bounded by I-90, the Cuyahoga River and Lake Erie.  Give it a ten-year test.  (I believe it was tried in Pittsburgh but it didn't last long.)

A Land Value Tax is probably not permitted (and possibly prohibited) by state law in Ohio.  And while we might be able to advocate for that in place of the usual property tax, I don't see the income tax going anywhere.

 

But yes -- this forum is the perfect place for tilting at windmills!

What instruments prevent LVT?

 

 

From what I understand Ohio was fairly involved in the original push towards LVT back during the Henry George days. 
 

 

6 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

We've discussed it.  #1 is a great big loud Hell No for the vast majority of county residents.  Any serious effort would be blocked at the state level, with both parties involved in the blocks.  Even talking about it poisons efforts at regional cooperation.

 

Land value taxes are expressly forbidden by the state Constitution.

Yeah I’m fully aware this is a complete and utter no. 
 

 

Though I wonder how Louisville was able to pull it off. 

Or Lexington, Indy and Jacksonville. It almost seems like there was a specific time period to do it -- that period being the late '60s/early '70s when there wasn't this ridiculous urban/suburban divide. If someone did live in a suburb they still had sympathy for the city because they worked there, shopped there, went there for entertainment and still had friends and family there. They couldn't just do everything in the suburbs like they do now since they were just residential and maybe a mall. But as to how Louisville did it so late I can't say. Underfunded suburbs and the fact that Kentucky has county schools? County schools means there isn't any geographic advantage due to in-county borders regarding education.

Edited November 4, 20231 yr by GCrites

again, keep in mind there is nothing preventing the opposite.

 

that is, for various suburban cities and cleveland from consolidating services like fire, parks, sanitation and schools and the like.

 

that's how consolidation will most likely be done in ne ohio -- and that is fine too. 

 

eventually individual suburban city taxpayers will realize they are funding a do nothing city government and vote to merge. or not. 🤷‍♂️

9 hours ago, GCrites said:

County schools means there isn't any geographic advantage due to in-county borders regarding education.

 

This right here is why.

 

During this time period, suburban districts would pass levies by claiming that if it failed the state might take over and merge the district with Cleveland. It's extremely unlikely this would have ever happened, but it was possible and politics is politics.

 

Milliken v. Bradley meant that busing could not be imposed on suburban schools, though it could be and was on CMSD.  

9 hours ago, mrnyc said:

again, keep in mind there is nothing preventing the opposite.

 

that is, for various suburban cities and cleveland from consolidating services like fire, parks, sanitation and schools and the like.

 

that's how consolidation will most likely be done in ne ohio -- and that is fine too. 

 

 

This can happen and does happen:  among socioeconomically similar suburbs.

 

It happens quite a bit in the Nordonia area.   It's all one school district.  Macedonia fire covers Northfield Center and Sagamore Hills, the Valley Fire District covers Peninsula, Boston Heights, and Boston township.  The county sheriff covers Northfield Center.   

 

However, more affluent suburbs don't tend to share with less.   Solon might work with Orange or Moreland Hills, but not with Warrensville Heights.   Walton Hills is in the Bedford City School district, but has been trying to escape.  Cuyahoga Heights and Valley View share a school district, as do Berea and Middleburgh Heights.

22 hours ago, TotalTransit said:

Just found this thread so pardon if I don't match the tone.

 

 

1.) Consolidate Cleveland and Cuyahoga county

 

2.) Replace income and property tax with Land Value Tax.

 

 

The common man sees no difference in his taxes but still feels the incentive to make better use of land.

 

 

Mad react if this has been discussed before.

 

 

 

 

That’s the ultimate goal. There continue to be ongoing discussions and planning at county & state levels to propagate and incentivize mergers over time. Politically, we’re not as far as off as some like to pretend. Heck, public positions directly related to regionalization in Cuyahoga Co have already been created and filled.

 

 

I think for our region we need to be more creative when it comes to regionalism. Every city in the county works and collaborates with regional partners, often very productively. There are a lot of redundancies sure but nobody is totally independent either. 
 

Politically there is zero appetite to merge cities, school districts or police. But what are some things we can do to: 1. Lower our spending by sharing services 2. Improve equity to improve the future prospects for everyone. 
 

I actually think the current way this happens is pretty smart, focusing on individual projects rather than running out with some regionalism master plan that gets people all worked up. 
 

I do think we can do more on education at a county level. This is a good model that could be expanded  https://www.solonschools.org/Page/3277

 

edit: On the topic of mergers of cities, schools, etc. I don’t think they are possible unless a city is under financial duress. If we were to face some major economic challenges in the future, I could see that changing. But there isn’t a lot of incentive to give up power if you can afford to maintain it. But even then I’d bet most places would try and piecemeal merge, sort of like they are now with shared 911 and ambulance service. 

Edited November 4, 20231 yr by coneflower

We know of course residents might blow their top over switches from school districts to county schools but the real estate industry would as well.

1 hour ago, Clefan98 said:

That’s the ultimate goal. There continue to be ongoing discussions and planning at county & state levels to propagate and incentivize mergers over time. Politically, we’re not as far as off as some like to pretend. Heck, public positions directly related to regionalization in Cuyahoga Co have already been created and filled.

 

 

The state will block any forced mergers and there's plenty of municipalities in the county that would never volunteer.

1 hour ago, coneflower said:

I do think we can do more on education at a county level. This is a good model that could be expanded  https://www.solonschools.org/Page/3277

 

"Excel TECC is a career technical consortium serving the ten school districts of Aurora, Beachwood, Chagrin Falls, Mayfield, Orange, Richmond Heights, Solon, South Euclid-Lyndhurst, West Geauga, and Willoughby-Eastlake".  

 

Richmond Heights and South Euclid are the only burbs on that list that even approach being "inner ring".  As I said, while like areas will consolidate certain services the county as a whole is way too socioeconomically diverse to ever fully merge.

40 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

"Excel TECC is a career technical consortium serving the ten school districts of Aurora, Beachwood, Chagrin Falls, Mayfield, Orange, Richmond Heights, Solon, South Euclid-Lyndhurst, West Geauga, and Willoughby-Eastlake".  

 

Richmond Heights and South Euclid are the only burbs on that list that even approach being "inner ring".  As I said, while like areas will consolidate certain services the county as a whole is way too socioeconomically diverse to ever fully merge.

 

Socioeconomic diversity is not a barrier, at all, to regionalism of any form.  Racism and classism, along with basic selfish parochialism are.

2 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

"Excel TECC is a career technical consortium serving the ten school districts of Aurora, Beachwood, Chagrin Falls, Mayfield, Orange, Richmond Heights, Solon, South Euclid-Lyndhurst, West Geauga, and Willoughby-Eastlake".  

 

Richmond Heights and South Euclid are the only burbs on that list that even approach being "inner ring".  As I said, while like areas will consolidate certain services the county as a whole is way too socioeconomically diverse to ever fully merge.

That’s why I suggested expanding it. 

2 hours ago, X said:

 

Socioeconomic diversity is not a barrier, at all, to regionalism of any form.  Racism and classism, along with basic selfish parochialism are.

If you’re referring to the program I shared, I don’t think that is a fair statement. Some of those schools systems are wealthy and not diverse, but that’s not true of all of them. I think if you look at the demographics of the kids served, it shows as a very positive example of how regional partnership can take place. 

6 hours ago, E Rocc said:

The state will block any forced mergers and there's plenty of municipalities in the county that would never volunteer.

In 2023 you’re absolutely correct. 
 

Planners are looking into the 2030 - 2040 time frame. 

Edited November 4, 20231 yr by Clefan98

3 hours ago, coneflower said:

If you’re referring to the program I shared, I don’t think that is a fair statement. Some of those schools systems are wealthy and not diverse, but that’s not true of all of them. I think if you look at the demographics of the kids served, it shows as a very positive example of how regional partnership can take place. 

 

 

I was referring to this:

6 hours ago, E Rocc said:

As I said, while like areas will consolidate certain services the county as a whole is way too socioeconomically diverse to ever fully merge.

 

7 hours ago, GCrites said:

We know of course residents might blow their top over switches from school districts to county schools but the real estate industry would as well.

 

true at the moment, but the over riding trend over time is nope — 

 

There are currently 611 individual school districts in Ohio. In 1914, Ohio had 2,674 school districts (!).

 

also — ohio has among the most and modt diverse types of different school districts — ie., exempted, jvs, etc, etc — that most states don’t have, they only have a few types of districts, so anyway that greatly encourages consolidation of schools in ohio. over time of course. but when anyone does want to its easy to do creatively in ohio.

 

ohio has a long rather hardcore history of home rule for schools, so thats where this all comes from. so no generic county schools, wash your hands and walk away in ohio — that don’t fly lol.

22 hours ago, mrnyc said:

 

true at the moment, but the over riding trend over time is nope — 

 

There are currently 611 individual school districts in Ohio. In 1914, Ohio had 2,674 school districts (!).

 

How many in 1950?   

On 11/4/2023 at 11:18 AM, X said:

 

Socioeconomic diversity is not a barrier, at all, to regionalism of any form.  Racism and classism, along with basic selfish parochialism are.

 

And namecalling is a massive barrier to change.

On 11/3/2023 at 9:23 PM, TotalTransit said:

What instruments prevent LVT?

 

 

From what I understand Ohio was fairly involved in the original push towards LVT back during the Henry George days.

The Ohio Constitution and the Ohio Revised Code. They require that land and improvements be taxed at the same rate.

2 hours ago, Dev said:

The Ohio Constitution and the Ohio Revised Code. They require that land and improvements be taxed at the same rate.

https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-administrative-code/rule-5703-25-11

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-administrative-code/rule-5703-25-11

This just dictates how to come up with the value of the land. I'm not seeing anything in there that comments on how to tax it

23 minutes ago, Dev said:

This just dictates how to come up with the value of the land. I'm not seeing anything in there that comments on how to tax it

That's correct.  And here's the rule on valuing the improvements:

https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-administrative-code/rule-5703-25-12

 

Neither of the administrative rules explicitly says anything about taxing land at a different rate than the improvements upon it.  But it does seem to suggest that when read with other parts of the law and code that "land" is taxed based on the total value of the land plus improvements.  In other words, real estate taxes are applied to the combination, not individual land/improvement elements.

Quote

Regardless of the approach used the total of the depreciated value of the improvements to land and the "true value" of the land should be the "true value" of the property as a whole, as defined in rule 5703-25-05 of the Administrative Code.

 

Since you cited the Ohio Constitution and the state law, I didn't provide citations to those sources.  I'm no expert here, but without verifying or denying your claim Google suggests the following as being relevant (hopefully some real estate tax expert can weight in):

 

https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-constitution/section-12.2a

https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-constitution/section-12.5

 

https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-5713.01

https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-5713.03

33 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Neither of the administrative rules explicitly says anything about taxing land at a different rate than the improvements upon it.  But it does seem to suggest that when read with other parts of the law and code that "land" is taxed based on the total value of the land plus improvements.  In other words, real estate taxes are applied to the combination, not individual land/improvement elements.

Yes, that's the interpretation I have been referring to. So no, there isn't anything that explicitly prohibits a LVT or split rate, but the requirements for taxes are levied are so specific that they prevent someone from levying a LVT.

On 11/6/2023 at 6:35 AM, E Rocc said:

 

How many in 1950?   

 

you’re asking me? did you loose your google somewhere along with your 1950s right winger anti choice and no legal weed amendments? 😂

3 hours ago, mrnyc said:

 

you’re asking me? did you loose your google somewhere along with your 1950s right winger anti choice and no legal weed amendments? 😂

 

Hahaha if you only knew.   :)

Sprawl = traffic 

 

 

5 minutes ago, KJP said:

Sprawl = traffic 

 

 

You just have to add another lane! It will always work…

Seems like every time they add a lane it's an ONLY lane so everyone is always having to weave.

On 11/11/2023 at 2:05 PM, VintageLife said:

You just have to add another lane! It will always work…

 

I'm sure the virus played a role, but I very much doubt it was the entire difference.   PM rush hour traffic flows much freer down 271 past 480W/422 these days.

Some interesting data here

 

https://x.com/dro_sohrabian/status/1726438444023304246?s=20

 

80% of people who work in Cleveland proper live outside of Cleveland. 36% do not live in Cuyahoga County. This is a symptom of regional sprawl sickness.

 

 

6 hours ago, KJP said:

Some interesting data here

 

https://x.com/dro_sohrabian/status/1726438444023304246?s=20

 

80% of people who work in Cleveland proper live outside of Cleveland. 36% do not live in Cuyahoga County. This is a symptom of regional sprawl sickness.

 

 

 

This data kind of puts a fine point on what we already knew.

 

People don't want to live in dangerous neighborhoods with poor public schools, which itself is a symptom of sprawl, where the upper and middle classes with means move out to the burbs leaving behind the poor.

 

The only way I see how to break this cycle is by integrating neighborhoods economically, which would include the local schools.

 

Having a neighborhood of poor people has proven to have deleterious effects, hence why the newer CMHA developments have a more mixed income oriented policy.

 

The next part of that is answering the question, how to effectively do that?

16 hours ago, Mov2Ohio said:

The next part of that is answering the question, how to effectively do that?

 

You're not.   Not without a lot of coercive behavior from the government.   

 

While bad behavior is certainly a reason for the continuation of sprawl, it wasn't even the primary reason, early on.   While some seek density for its own sake, for most people it's endured for other reasons.   Usually economic, but not always.

 

Note:   As behavior is not economics, one example of that coercive behavior could be the repression of behavior middle class people find uncomfortable.   This was the Giuliani approach.  It's just as coercive, but aimed differently.

On 11/20/2023 at 12:41 PM, KJP said:

Some interesting data here

 

https://x.com/dro_sohrabian/status/1726438444023304246?s=20

 

80% of people who work in Cleveland proper live outside of Cleveland. 36% do not live in Cuyahoga County. This is a symptom of regional sprawl sickness.

 

It's also partly a function of long-ago decisions by Cleveland leaders to not annex particularly aggressively, contra Columbus, which grew aggressively in land area well before that land area was filled in.  Those stats for Cleveland would be a bit different if, say, the first ring of suburbs in most directions were part of Cleveland proper.  There would still be plenty of other suburbs--the current second ring would be the first, and so on.  And there would have been suburban growth past the county line.  But the stats would still be different, quite possibly very different.  (I'd be interested in seeing a similar chart for Columbus.)

Here is the map tool if anyone wants to play with it https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/

 

 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

You're not.   Not without a lot of coercive behavior from the government.   

 

 

Or removing coercive behavior from the government thus allowing the markets to function.

17 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

It's also partly a function of long-ago decisions by Cleveland leaders to not annex particularly aggressively, contra Columbus, which grew aggressively in land area well before that land area was filled in.  Those stats for Cleveland would be a bit different if, say, the first ring of suburbs in most directions were part of Cleveland proper.  There would still be plenty of other suburbs--the current second ring would be the first, and so on.  And there would have been suburban growth past the county line.  But the stats would still be different, quite possibly very different.  (I'd be interested in seeing a similar chart for Columbus.)

 

Once the ring of incorporated suburbs was closed around Cleveland (1960 or so) this was a non option.  West Park and Collinwood, before that, are examples of what you say.   But the national trend had kicked over to suburbanization, the state government was following it, and to say the new municipalities opposed the idea of annexation would be a severe understatement.    The city knew they would fight hard, and win.   They chose not to expend the effort as it would be futile.