There are many services that can't feasibly shrink even in consolidated municipalities.  You will still need x numbers of policemen per 1000 residents, y miles of water and sewer lines, etc.  Even in terms of central offices, a single city engineer probably isn't enough for a hypothetical merged entity of half (or all) of the eastern Cleveland suburbs, so you'll have an East Cuyahoga (just to pick a name) Engineer's office who will need more support staff than any given city engineer in the older, Balkanized suburbs.  You might get better results, because the engineer's office will be able to toss aside the artificial constraints of jurisdiction lines and start thinking about what makes sense for the area's topography, lithography, hydrogeology, etc.  But there's a certain basic minimum of staffing that won't really be redundant and can't be eliminated.

 

I think there would be more savings than you realize.  Of course it's not going to mean that 36 suburbs shrunk to 4 means 9 times less service personnel needed.  But it also would likely mean *some* reduction.  If a city really only needs 1.1 of some worker, they will have to hire 2.  Sometimes, a city will need to hire for a position where the person could easily handle double the population if the city were bigger, but they're not going to hire that person part time.  When suburbs are so small, this is likely very common.  The number of workers hired is always rounded up from the number of workers needed.  These things can really add up over a larger number of small suburbs.  The same goes for equipment (police and fire especially).

^But how much do they really add up for these sized suburbs? We're not talking about jurisdictions with 1500 people. If combining three suburbs with a combined 80K meant employing 50 fewer people, the budgetary effect would probably be fairly negligible, no? Even generously assuming $100K annual cost per employee, that's less than $250 per household. That's not nothing, but it's not the kind of property tax millage that are driving home-purchase decisions.

 

I'm guessing the big ticket fiscal costs of sprawl come much more from infrastructure expenses, and that's not really solved by the consolidation of built-out jurisdictions.

I'm guessing the big ticket fiscal costs of sprawl come much more from infrastructure expenses, and that's not really solved by the consolidation of built-out jurisdictions.

 

No, you're right. It's not. That's resolved by urban growth boundaries, congestion pricing and similar efforts of maximizing the value of your infrastructure and protecting the public's investment in the existing built environment. But those things are difficult to achieve when the people have lost control of their government.

Upper Arlington and Grandview Heights were sharing some services but they stopped with a few of them because they couldn't agree on terms. I don't remember the specifics. Marble Cliff shares some services with both of them due to its population being under 600.

There's really not that much to be gained from merging a few mid-sized burbs with each other.  But start merging things with Cleveland, get a population over a million, and that's when you start seeing some real gains.  Federal grants, purchasing power, land use planning, etc.  Plus, then we could reassign enough police resources to make a real difference.

^agreed. That's some of the reason that have allowed Columbus to remain a growing City. Since they were basically able to extort unincorporated areas into becoming part of the City, they're the closest thing Ohio has to a City-County.

 

I won't mention that their Council happens to be 1000% better than CLE's ;)

^ I suppose if you like closed council meetings with little transparency and lots of groupthink. Columbus' council problems are hidden.

 

Everything in Columbus is a secret.

If a city really only needs 1.1 of some worker, they will have to hire 2.

 

Actually there are plenty of city staff positions that are part-time, and the smaller suburbs and towns avail themselves of the opportunity to not hire full-time staffers for positions where it's not needed.  Many of the Cincinnati suburbs all share from a small pool of building department officials.  Usually the same guy will work for Mariemont, Wyoming, Glendale, Indian Hill, Fairfax, keeping office hours at one particular city just once a week or maybe for half a day twice a week.  The building department head in Woodlawn only works from 11:00 to 1:00 on Tuesdays and Thursdays if I recall, and they still contract out their actual plan review to a 3rd party.  Even some Hamilton County reviewers moonlight in other suburbs.  This maybe isn't so easy to for every department, but I can see it working for street maintenance crews, engineering, sewer and water, etc. 

There are many services that can't feasibly shrink even in consolidated municipalities.  You will still need x numbers of policemen per 1000 residents, y miles of water and sewer lines, etc.  Even in terms of central offices, a single city engineer probably isn't enough for a hypothetical merged entity of half (or all) of the eastern Cleveland suburbs, so you'll have an East Cuyahoga (just to pick a name) Engineer's office who will need more support staff than any given city engineer in the older, Balkanized suburbs.  You might get better results, because the engineer's office will be able to toss aside the artificial constraints of jurisdiction lines and start thinking about what makes sense for the area's topography, lithography, hydrogeology, etc.  But there's a certain basic minimum of staffing that won't really be redundant and can't be eliminated.

 

I think there would be more savings than you realize.  Of course it's not going to mean that 36 suburbs shrunk to 4 means 9 times less service personnel needed.  But it also would likely mean *some* reduction.  If a city really only needs 1.1 of some worker, they will have to hire 2.  Sometimes, a city will need to hire for a position where the person could easily handle double the population if the city were bigger, but they're not going to hire that person part time.  When suburbs are so small, this is likely very common.  The number of workers hired is always rounded up from the number of workers needed.  These things can really add up over a larger number of small suburbs.  The same goes for equipment (police and fire especially).

 

The savings are usually realized in support staff.  They would still need "x" number of cops per 1,000 people.  But they would need less chiefs, sergeants, secretaries and support staff.  In addition, the larger force can negotiate better rates with vendors for cars, uniforms, etc.

I understand the economies of scale argument, but if I'm a city like Bedford or Maple Heights, I see the costs outweighing the benefits of unilaterally merging with Cleveland. I definitely think a full-scale city-county merger benefits all inner-ring suburbs like those two, however.

Its sad to see what Maple Hts is now. I grew up there in the 90s before my family moved to Lake County (oh it was awful growing up out there in the sticks lol) and have lots of great memories at Stafford Park and the pool that was off of Dunham. Really now the only reason I have to go there is when I'm stopping at Gales Garden Center on my way home from work. I'm really glad to see them still there and committed to the town, even though I sometimes question how long that one will be open when I compare it to their other locations...

So in honor of Back to the Future Day today...

 

I read that the average life expectancy of a house in the United States is 75 years. It follows that if all houses in a neighborhood such as a new subdivision are built at the same time, than the average life-expectancy of that subdivision is also 75 years.

 

The back-to-the future movies covered 60 years - from 1985, backwards to 1955, then forward to 2015. So, they happened to be pretty close to the average life expectancy.

Here in C-Bus, many parts of town from the 50s to the 90s and even early 2000s have melted down. But the 30s and 40s stuff soldiers on. Most cities don't have a lot of stuff from the 30s and 40s at all since those weren't prolific building years in the U.S., but Columbus does.

^ That's when most of Cincinnati's 4-plex apartments were built. 

I'm not a housing expert, but I think that lifespan of a structure has to be connected to how well it was built in the first place. In Greater Cleveland, there was a rush to build housing in the suburbs and so we have an abundance of (IMO) cheaply-built homes from the 50s and 60s located in second-ring suburban areas*. I would expect that these homes wouldn't last as long as the more solidly-constructed homes in first-ring suburban areas from Pre-WWII years.

 

*Including but not limited to: South Euclid, Mayfield Heights, Wickliffe, Willowick, Euclid, Garfield Heights, Maple Heights, Parma, Parma Heights, Warrensville Heights.

The FHA was created in 1937 with the specific aim to make the purchase and ownership of new houses cheaper than renting. They did this by assuming the risk of loans made to developers, builders, and of course home buyers.  The department should have gone away after the depression but instead nearly 80 years later it's still subsidizing the suburbs.  Sure, a 30-year makes prewar homes affordable for many people, but the FHA keeps assuming much of the risk in suburban development. 

^... and modern scholars also realize that FHA's programs systematically perpetuated racial segregation as well.

^... and modern scholars also realize that FHA's programs systematically perpetuated racial segregation as well.

 

The thing about the Civil Rights Act is that people don't realize that it outlawed redlining, but people try to pretend that redlining didn't exist to begin with. 

 

The FHA was created in 1937 with the specific aim to make the purchase and ownership of new houses cheaper than renting. They did this by assuming the risk of loans made to developers, builders, and of course home buyers.  The department should have gone away after the depression but instead nearly 80 years later it's still subsidizing the suburbs.  Sure, a 30-year makes prewar homes affordable for many people, but the FHA keeps assuming much of the risk in suburban development. 

 

I'm the last one to defend the self perpetuating nature of government agencies, but the post-war housing shortage certainly was seen as justifying FHA's continued involvement.  As I've said elsewhere, the growth of the suburbs was as close as you get to a sociological "perfect storm" in a free society and there was no way the feds were going to disengage.

Its sad to see what Maple Hts is now. I grew up there in the 90s before my family moved to Lake County (oh it was awful growing up out there in the sticks lol) and have lots of great memories at Stafford Park and the pool that was off of Dunham. Really now the only reason I have to go there is when I'm stopping at Gales Garden Center on my way home from work. I'm really glad to see them still there and committed to the town, even though I sometimes question how long that one will be open when I compare it to their other locations...

 

I lived there from 1963 until 2007, worked there from 1985-94 and again 1996-99, co-moderate the “You’re From” group on Facebook, and the last time I went there other than just passing through was the opening game at the new stadium last year.  So yeah, I've watched the place get pretty beaten up, a lot of it self inflicted.  A city manager form of government might help, and I've been told by someone close to a mayoral candidate its a topic that will be looked at during the next charter review.

 

That said, there would be absolutely no benefit to merging with Cleveland, or for that matter Bedford.  The very suggestion would be about as popular now as it was then.  It would be resisted.  Vigorously.

 

But the real reason why discussing annexation is a complete waste of time is the way the more affluent (Solon, Walton Hills) and/or well organized (Bedford) suburbs would react.  They would go all out to resist, and there’s no feasible scenario where the state would not side with them.  The GOP would back them on general principles, the Democrats because they still need some votes from them.  Indeed, these objections would block federal promotion of annexations as well.

 

Edit:  left out the bolded "no" on the first take.

Unfortunately agreed.  It will not be seriously contemplated until every other solution, however unlikely to succeed, has been tried.  You won't get to 51% support until it is really a last resort, even though other states have had strong county-level governments for years.

Tragic.  Self-inflicted and tragic.  Kind of like the Browns.

Its sad to see what Maple Hts is now. I grew up there in the 90s before my family moved to Lake County (oh it was awful growing up out there in the sticks lol) and have lots of great memories at Stafford Park and the pool that was off of Dunham. Really now the only reason I have to go there is when I'm stopping at Gales Garden Center on my way home from work. I'm really glad to see them still there and committed to the town, even though I sometimes question how long that one will be open when I compare it to their other locations...

 

I lived there from 1963 until 2007, worked there from 1985-94 and again 1996-99, co-moderate the “You’re From” group on Facebook, and the last time I went there other than just passing through was the opening game at the new stadium last year.  So yeah, I've watched the place get pretty beaten up, a lot of it self inflicted.  A city manager form of government might help, and I've been told by someone close to a mayoral candidate its a topic that will be looked at during the next charter review.

 

That said, there would be absolutely no benefit to merging with Cleveland, or for that matter Bedford.  The very suggestion would be about as popular now as it was then.  It would be resisted.  Vigorously.

 

But the real reason why discussing annexation is a complete waste of time is the way the more affluent (Solon, Walton Hills) and/or well organized (Bedford) suburbs would react.  They would go all out to resist, and there’s no feasible scenario where the state would not side with them.  The GOP would back them on general principles, the Democrats because they still need some votes from them.  Indeed, these objections would block federal promotion of annexations as well.

 

Edit:  left out the bolded "no" on the first take.

 

So then there's literally almost no hope for suburbs like Maple Heights and the question then becomes if they're even worth trying to salvage. There's no way they'll ever have the finances to pull themselves out of this mess in a way that creates a positive feedback cycle to attract stability. So if we're basically saying that that 5.17 square miles of Cuyahoga County has no value and no future because of lines drawn decades ago, then the question becomes what happens to the people living there?  They'll slowly move elsewhere triggering another round of middle class flight. It's happened time and again in this region, despite the areas being left behind being more than livable (in terms of housing stock and amenities offered).

 

We need to end this cycle now through outright city-county-county mergers or at least some significant tax sharing plan. Small groups of residents (in suburbs like Beachwood, Independence, Westlake, etc.) are leeching off of the region and funding Cadillac services for themselves that they're flat out not paying for while suburbs like Maple Heights are withering and dying because of anachronistic geographic boundaries.

Unfortunately agreed.  It will not be seriously contemplated until every other solution, however unlikely to succeed, has been tried.  You won't get to 51% support until it is really a last resort, even though other states have had strong county-level governments for years.

 

If the idea of responsive and local self-governance is important, which I think it is to some degree, then the other idea is tax revenue-sharing like I suggest above. Unfortunately those suckling on the teat of the region will fight tooth-and-nail to maintain the status quo.

 

One thing the state could do tomorrow that would make a lot of people happy and indirectly solve the problem would be to put a cap on the rate of income tax that one can be forced to pay into cities in which they work but don't live and raise the cap for local residential income tax rates.

Drake's 'Hotline Bling': A Song About Sprawl

A close lyrical reading reveals that Drake is sad about poor city planning, not an ex-girlfriend.

http://www.citylab.com/design/2015/10/drakes-hotline-bling-a-song-about-sprawl/411664/

^And Drake is from Toronto. I thought that was the Shangri-La of urban perfection :roll: :roll: :roll:

^And Drake is from Toronto. I thought that was the Shangri-La of urban perfection :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

Moreso very recently.  Rush is from Toronto too, and they recorded Subdivisions 35 years ago.

Its sad to see what Maple Hts is now. I grew up there in the 90s before my family moved to Lake County (oh it was awful growing up out there in the sticks lol) and have lots of great memories at Stafford Park and the pool that was off of Dunham. Really now the only reason I have to go there is when I'm stopping at Gales Garden Center on my way home from work. I'm really glad to see them still there and committed to the town, even though I sometimes question how long that one will be open when I compare it to their other locations...

 

I lived there from 1963 until 2007, worked there from 1985-94 and again 1996-99, co-moderate the “You’re From” group on Facebook, and the last time I went there other than just passing through was the opening game at the new stadium last year.  So yeah, I've watched the place get pretty beaten up, a lot of it self inflicted.  A city manager form of government might help, and I've been told by someone close to a mayoral candidate its a topic that will be looked at during the next charter review.

 

That said, there would be absolutely no benefit to merging with Cleveland, or for that matter Bedford.  The very suggestion would be about as popular now as it was then.  It would be resisted.  Vigorously.

 

But the real reason why discussing annexation is a complete waste of time is the way the more affluent (Solon, Walton Hills) and/or well organized (Bedford) suburbs would react.  They would go all out to resist, and there’s no feasible scenario where the state would not side with them.  The GOP would back them on general principles, the Democrats because they still need some votes from them.  Indeed, these objections would block federal promotion of annexations as well.

 

Edit:  left out the bolded "no" on the first take.

 

So then there's literally almost no hope for suburbs like Maple Heights and the question then becomes if they're even worth trying to salvage. There's no way they'll ever have the finances to pull themselves out of this mess in a way that creates a positive feedback cycle to attract stability. So if we're basically saying that that 5.17 square miles of Cuyahoga County has no value and no future because of lines drawn decades ago, then the question becomes what happens to the people living there?  They'll slowly move elsewhere triggering another round of middle class flight. It's happened time and again in this region, despite the areas being left behind being more than livable (in terms of housing stock and amenities offered).

 

We need to end this cycle now through outright city-county-county mergers or at least some significant tax sharing plan. Small groups of residents (in suburbs like Beachwood, Independence, Westlake, etc.) are leeching off of the region and funding Cadillac services for themselves that they're flat out not paying for while suburbs like Maple Heights are withering and dying because of anachronistic geographic boundaries.

 

Look, even the people who currently live in Maple would reject the idea of mergers .  It's a non-starter to probably 90% of the population of the region. 

 

It's not "leeching" to pay your own way, even to splurge a little bit.  It's like saying someone shouldn't have a 60" HDTV because their neighbors still have an analog set with digital converter.

 

We're not a socialist nation.

 

Canadians know this stuff.

Repost: Migration Now, Migration Tomorrow, Migration Forever

 

If there's one thing I've learned over the past couple years, it's that migration patterns are the building blocks of cities.  People, and the things that attract them to the city, shape the city form and future.  People, and the things that repel them from the city, shape the city form and future, too.  Urbanists owe it to themselves to understand earlier migration forces and their impacts, so we can understand the context of current transitions.  A recent deep dive I did into scholarly research on the relationship of the African-American Great Migration, white flight and the subsequent impact on central cities gives a great sense of where cities have been and where they're headed in the near future.

 

http://cornersideyard.blogspot.com/2015/10/repost-migration-now-migration-tomorrow.html

^And Drake is from Toronto. I thought that was the Shangri-La of urban perfection :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

Pretty close.

It's not "leeching" to pay your own way, even to splurge a little bit.  It's like saying someone shouldn't have a 60" HDTV because their neighbors still have an analog set with digital converter.

 

We're not a socialist nation.[/color]

 

You're completely missing the point. Suburbs like Beachwood and Independence are leeching because huge chunks of their budgets are being paid for by people that don't live in those places. We may not be a socialist nation, but the situation we have here that allows for that to happen sure as hell isn't capitalism. We may not be a socialist nation, but no community in Northeast Ohio is an island.

 

Short of some sort of serious outside intervention, communities like Maple Heights are not going to make it. Maybe that's for the better. Maybe nobody cares.

Suburbs like Beachwood and Independence are leeching because huge chunks of their budgets are being paid for by people that don't live in those places.

 

Then Cleveland is too, correct?

Suburbs like Beachwood and Independence are leeching because huge chunks of their budgets are being paid for by people that don't live in those places.

 

Then Cleveland is too, correct?

 

To a large degree, yes, though Cleveland's borders weren't drawn specifically to capture as much income tax revenue as possible while excluding as many people from being residents as possible.

 

I would propose eliminating the law (loophole, IMO) that allows cities to charge a full share of income taxes to non-residents, most of whom spend no more than 30% of their hours in the city where they work. And then in turn allow cities to change a slightly increased income tax rate on residents. I believe the current rate is capped at 2.85%. Hypothetically this would allow residents to pay less in taxes yet for many local budgets to see an increase in funding.

But nuances of income tax policy aside, I would love to hear from you what you believe the best solution is for your former community and others like it?

^^Thanks for completely decimating our central city's budget.  Suburban sprawl thanks you!

^^Thanks for completely decimating our central city's budget.  Suburban sprawl thanks you!

 

I don't think my idea explicitly benefits sprawl. It benefits bedroom communities and suburbs and unincorporated rural areas (or at least their residents). A lot of the bedroom communities at least are located towards the urban core.

 

Admittedly this not my favorite solution, but what we have right now is unsustainable and unfair. Residents of Maple Heights (for example) that work in Cleveland or Beachwood are paying large chunks of their salary to prop up services in those places while services in their town languish.  However the best solution, short of full-scale mergers, would be regional tax-sharing. There is no logical reason why when a large corporation locates in our region that just one suburb should reap all of the benefits. Eaton Corporation is located in Beachwood but it's on the fringe of that suburb far away from residential areas and close to a freeway interchange that we all paid for. It's asinine that only Beachwood residents benefit from the significant income tax revenue generated by the overwhelmingly non-resident employment base at Eaton.

Except Cleveland got some money out of Eaton's relocation. I don't remember the gory details however.

Except Cleveland got some money out of Eaton's relocation. I don't remember the gory details however.

 

I'm pretty sure Cleveland and Beachwood split the income taxes half and half for any company in Chagrin Highlands. Then there's something about Warrensville and Beachwood schools splitting money too

Except Cleveland got some money out of Eaton's relocation. I don't remember the gory details however.

 

I'm pretty sure Cleveland and Beachwood split the income taxes half and half for any company in Chagrin Highlands. Then there's something about Warrensville and Beachwood schools splitting money too

 

That's my suspicion as well based on what I've read about old agreements between the cities. Originally the agreement goes back about three decades to when Figgie International was going to move its corporate headquarters there and that land was owned by Cleveland but located in then unincorporated Warrensville Township. Figgie's headquarters plan obviously fell through, but the Warrensville Township land was split up amongst Beachwood, Orange, Warrensville Heights and the newly-created Highland Hills. This was basically free land, claimed by Beachwood (and almost entirely non-residential) that they've turned into what is essentially free revenue through the development of hotels, an office park, Ahuja Medical Center, and most recently the poaching of Eaton Corp.

I think Cleveland owned all of that land that became Highland Hills.  It was the site of a hospital (I think)  That is why Cleveland gets 1/2 the tax revenue

Suburbs like Beachwood and Independence are leeching because huge chunks of their budgets are being paid for by people that don't live in those places.

 

Then Cleveland is too, correct?

 

To a large degree, yes, though Cleveland's borders weren't drawn specifically to capture as much income tax revenue as possible while excluding as many people from being residents as possible.

 

I would propose eliminating the law (loophole, IMO) that allows cities to charge a full share of income taxes to non-residents, most of whom spend no more than 30% of their hours in the city where they work. And then in turn allow cities to change a slightly increased income tax rate on residents. I believe the current rate is capped at 2.85%. Hypothetically this would allow residents to pay less in taxes yet for many local budgets to see an increase in funding.

 

What specific municipality are you saying did this?  Beachwood was founded in 1915, Westlake in 1940 (though that was basically a rename of Dover Township).

Except Cleveland got some money out of Eaton's relocation. I don't remember the gory details however.

 

I'm pretty sure Cleveland and Beachwood split the income taxes half and half for any company in Chagrin Highlands. Then there's something about Warrensville and Beachwood schools splitting money too

 

That's my suspicion as well based on what I've read about old agreements between the cities. Originally the agreement goes back about three decades to when Figgie International was going to move its corporate headquarters there and that land was owned by Cleveland but located in then unincorporated Warrensville Township. Figgie's headquarters plan obviously fell through, but the Warrensville Township land was split up amongst Beachwood, Orange, Warrensville Heights and the newly-created Highland Hills. This was basically free land, claimed by Beachwood (and almost entirely non-residential) that they've turned into what is essentially free revenue through the development of hotels, an office park, Ahuja Medical Center, and most recently the poaching of Eaton Corp.

 

What exactly was wrong with this land deal, once Figgie fell through?  It was mostly empty.

It incentivized another major company leaving downtown. Better than leaving for warmer pastures in a different state, but still what a blow to the city's financial district.

It incentivized another major company leaving downtown. Better than leaving for warmer pastures in a different state, but still what a blow to the city's financial district.

 

Different country, in this case.  However, there's no real benefit to a manufacturing company being headquartered downtown.  Eaton was actually the tail end of an established trend.

What specific municipality are you saying did this?  Beachwood was founded in 1915, Westlake in 1940 (though that was basically a rename of Dover Township).

 

Beachwood has grown slowly and in a well-planned manner since its founding. As mentioned above, the land upon which Eaton and Ahuja exist were not part of Beachwood 30 years ago.

 

But the other issue at hand would be zoning regulations. Yes I'm shifting the goalposts, no I don't care because these tactics are all part of the same strategy of revenue hoarding.

 

I would still be interested in hearing your solution for Maple Heights (and other suburbs like it) since none of my ideas seem to be realistic to you.

What specific municipality are you saying did this?  Beachwood was founded in 1915, Westlake in 1940 (though that was basically a rename of Dover Township).

 

Beachwood has grown slowly and in a well-planned manner since its founding. As mentioned above, the land upon which Eaton and Ahuja exist were not part of Beachwood 30 years ago.

 

But the other issue at hand would be zoning regulations. Yes I'm shifting the goalposts, no I don't care because these tactics are all part of the same strategy of revenue hoarding.

 

I would still be interested in hearing your solution for Maple Heights (and other suburbs like it) since none of my ideas seem to be realistic to you.

 

Merger’s the main one I considered a non starter.  It’s something some urbanists reach for automatically, but people who live in the places impacted have a different view.  In Maple, regardless of race or income a lot of people left Cleveland, they would call it “escaping” and they don’t want it following them.  Plus many, perhaps most, people seem to like the lowest level of government being smaller. 

 

Ironic that you mention zoning.  Maple’s problems started with crappy zoning back in the 40s and 50s, specifically placing new residential directly downwind from heavy industry, while placing light industry upwind.  That led to losing 400 of the 1,200 jobs they lost from two places during the early 90s.  The other was a result of city apathy.

 

That said:  I think the best plan moving forward starts with a city manager form of government.  I happen to know it’s being considered for the next charter review.  Bedford’s benefited from this.  Someone needs to be able to say “no” to voters.  Lansky leaving will help.  I like Brownlee (mayor candidate) and Aaron Mitchell (council President candidate), I don’t know much about Blackwell (mayor candidate) but she seems okay.

Mergers the main one I considered a non starter.  Its something some urbanists reach for automatically, but people who live in the places impacted have a different view.  In Maple, regardless of race or income a lot of people left Cleveland, they would call it escaping and they dont want it following them.  Plus many, perhaps most, people seem to like the lowest level of government being smaller. 

 

At what point do people understand they haven't escaped anything, and their preference for a balkanized map never was affordable?  The damage from their untenable solution is really starting to pile up.  Reality has to kick in at some point.  Merger is the only long term answer.

^I tend to agree, however I don't know if merging with Cleveland solves all of Maple's problems.  A merger with East Cleveland is a potential reality, and will be up to the voters of East Cleveland to decide if they want to lose their independence.  Taking on that much of a loss (of E.C.'s 17,000 population that is left, 4,000 are working... that's from East Cleveland's mayor himself) will be no small matter for Cleveland.  Taking in Maple, though not as drastic by any means, will not be a walk in the park for Cleveland either.  The city will have to spread more city services over a larger geography which may not be producing it's share of tax revenue.  Cleveland's tax base is already limited in scope and there may be a realistic limit to the amount of struggling suburbs the city could realistically absorb. 

 

We may end up seeing suburbs merge into larger municipalities- in some cases that actually may make sense. 

You're right.  This should not be an issue solely for destitute municipalities.  We can't Cleveland-ize all the poverty while shielding the wealth in little pocket boroughs.  That's why it makes more sense to just merge the whole county in one move.