^The last i saw i posted in July, i think it was.  Brook Park is actually making headway with Ford in negotiations over the plant. They felt they might be able to announce something soon.  So the take-away for me is they really do want that location. I believe the state will get involved to help out with redevelopment costs.  I imagine that they will combine their agreement with maybe Ford being the first OEM and perhaps only OEM for a limited time for the product. 

Perhaps those of us in the Rust Belt should fight back against the so-called "sun belt".  Because it's actually the Hurricane Belt. 

Perhaps those of us in the Rust Belt should fight back against the so-called "sun belt".  Because it's actually the Hurricane Belt. 

 

Good point. Stable inland residents are ultimately subsidizing disaster relief and the rebuilding of coastal communities/cities on such a regular basis now, when it simply isn't our problem. Citizens who choose to live in coastal cities prone to hurricane/flood damage should be forced to pay into insurance that isn't intrinsically necessary for inland cities or states.

 

These folks think that living by the beach makes their home and community 'paradise' so they shouldn't think anything of that tax and trade-off.

 

I'm happy living in Ohio where flooding issues have mostly been addressed and the biggest threat is the occasional twister which by comparison, results in extremely insignificant damage.

 

The entire U.S. is paying out the ss[/member] for hurricane relief each year when most of us have absolutely nothing to do with it and chose to live outside of those hazardous zones.

 

Those studies by the USGS or whatever, labeling areas prone to '500 year floods' or 100 year floods... which really means that there's a 1% chance each year that it will occur... clearly needs to be re-evaluated. Air and sea temperatures are accelerating and natural disasters are stronger, more prevalent and more frequent. Frankly, at this point, you're a dumbss[/member] for wanting to live in coastal cities along the Atlantic. You want to live there, fine, but pay into your future disaster relief because as an Ohioan who lives in a stable inland area, that shouldn't be my problem or concern.

The Rust Belt is also the Freshwater Belt.

^What are we as a region doing to leverage that resource and use it to be innovative? Places like Israel are heavily investing in water conservation techniques, and it won't be long before California mobilizes its massive tech workforce toward developing new methods of stretching water useage. It's great that we have a huge stockpile, but we should still be trying to lead the pack in terms of effectively utilizing and managing that resource.

^What are we as a region doing to leverage that resource and use it to be innovative? Places like Israel are heavily investing in water conservation techniques, and it won't be long before California mobilizes its massive tech workforce toward developing new methods of stretching water useage. It's great that we have a huge stockpile, but we should still be trying to lead the pack in terms of effectively utilizing and managing that resource.

 

Not enough, sadly. We're still relatively early on in this post Clean Water Act era. Still a lot of work to do to literally clean up our act.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ny-state-pollution-niagara-falls-1.4230220

Is this the place for random "what if" posts?  Anyway, I feel that freeways are a very inefficient use of land and we need that investment to accomplish more.  Since decking them over for building purposes is very expensive, what about a lighter (in terms of weight and cost) project? I was looking at a Zen-inspired garden and it made me think of decking over freeways with solar collectors. You could make the Cleveland Innerbelt, for example, presently an ugly gash through the city, look like a 'rock stream' and generate power besides. I have no idea what the economics of this might be. Any thoughts?

That's a pretty cool idea.  You could save some money if the supports for the solar collectors were the same structures that we use for light poles.  It could also help alleviate the urban heat island effect of large swaths of concrete.

I've always wondered why DOT's leave grass in the median and shoulders. How much does Ohio spend each year to cut that grass? Why they don't just cover it with gravel?

I've always wondered why DOT's leave grass in the median and shoulders. How much does Ohio spend each year to cut that grass? Why they don't just cover it with gravel?

 

And then, at least on I 71, take it one step further and cover the gravel with concrete ties and steel rails, connecting Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati with high speed rail.

I've always wondered why DOT's leave grass in the median and shoulders. How much does Ohio spend each year to cut that grass? Why they don't just cover it with gravel?

 

ODOT spends more money cutting this grass than they do on public transit funding.

On a similar note, I always wondered why some of the larger medians out on the suburbs couldn't be wind farms. 480 between the Jennings and valley view could easily support a dozen Lincoln Electric sized turbines without really being in anyone's way.

I've always wondered why DOT's leave grass in the median and shoulders. How much does Ohio spend each year to cut that grass? Why they don't just cover it with gravel?

 

More than $30 million per year, just along Interstate highways -- a little bit more than what ODOT provides to public transportation. This doesn't include interstate-quality state and federal route highways.

 

You don't have to cover it with gravel. There is a grass called fescue grass that doesn't require much maintenance, mowing, trimming etc. It is highly durable, resilient to cold, drought or shade, and would be an ideal alternative to prairie-type grasses we plant along our highways now. Take the savings from planting fescue and use it to support public transportation programs in Ohio.

wow very interesting and who knew? gravel, wind farms and fescue grass, there’s your tax savings for improving transit. or even gains with the wind farm idea. sometimes it really can be that simple. sheesh.

The Wall Street Journal had an article this week describing how some cities have such low unemployment rates they are paying people to move there, with Hamilton listed as their main example (https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-bad-is-the-labor-shortage-cities-will-pay-you-to-move-there-1525102030). WSJ's description of Hamilton's revival matches my own observations. From what I understand, Hamilton's revival has been centered on increased employment in back office call centers (Barclays hired 1500 last year), improved retail and entertainment downtown (went from 98% vacancy rate 10 years ago to almost full occupancy, and access to manufacturing and warehousing jobs in that sea of industrial zoning between Union Centre and Butler County airport. I wonder how much further these gains can be stretched without improving Hamilton's access to jobs across the region.

 

How much would it cost to start a bare-bones commuter line from Hamilton to Cincinnati Union Terminal? How much more to go to the Riverfront Transit Center instead? How much would stations cost at, say, Tri-County Mall, Glendale, Wyoming, or Carthage? What about going the other way and extending to Oxford, Middletown, Miamisburg, or Dayton? How fast could the trains run?

 

Hamilton doesn't even have buses, so dreaming about a commuter line is unrealistic, but I think it's a location that could make sense, especially if Hamilton can maintain its momentum. My friend who lives with his girlfriend in Hyde Park is a good example. He works at Union Centre and she works in downtown Dayton. They bought the house before their current jobs, so they're looking for a new house to reduce their commutes. If there were a Hamilton-Dayton line, it would be a perfect location for them, but instead it's not even on their radar.

Yes I've thought about the same thing.  I am not an expert on this issue but from everything I've heard it's impossible to add service south of Norwood without building a fourth track between Mitchell Ave. and CUT, which would cost in excess of $100 million. 

 

A great system for Cincinnati would be a double-tracking of the eastern of the two lines that serve Hamilton as well as a double-tracking of the line that used to connect to Mason but dead-ends around I-275.  Both of those lines converge at a yard between Norwood and Pleasant Ridge.  If the lines were electrified they could travel in a new tunnel to downtown and operate like rapid transit trains with stations beneath Norwood, hospitals, UC, and the downtown. 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the response Jake, I now recall you saying that about 4th track south of Mitchell. It's a shame the Gantry Apartments in Northside are blocking that old right of way. If you build the 4th line there, it gets you Northside, Fairemont, and Lower Price Hill. I can never figure out how rail in the Riverfront Transit Center is supposed to work, but that right of way maybe gets you there too.

 

I see what you're saying about the eastern line, but the potential stops along the western Hamilton line seem so much better. The eastern line gets you Reading, maybe a park and ride at Mosteller, and maybe a Roselawn / Golf Manor stop. Those three lines through the Reading valley are all so close that it's tempting to try to find a way to jump from one to the other, but they're just far enough to make it impossible. Your proposal is probably the most reasonable approach.

 

The Blue Ash line is nice, but again the potential stops don't seem great. It almost but not quiet hits Pleasant Ridge, Kenwood mall, and the development at the old airport. Where it putters out there aren't any good nearby highway exits either, so you can't get a park and ride. I grew up in Mason and dreamed of a real train station, so I'm particularly frustrated about that missing 3 miles.

 

Are the Covington and Ludlow rail bridges too busy for commuter/light rail?

Are the Covington and Ludlow rail bridges too busy for commuter/light rail?

 

I would guess so.  We're really screwed in the Cincinnati region from a commuter rail standpoint.  The line that is now the Loveland bike trail could have made a good combined commuter and intercity route to Columbus.  Over on the west side, the C&O line was abandoned and sold off -- a huge mistake.  At least get a bike trail out of it!

 

I do think that an intercity plan could be combined with commuter rail to justify an outlay for double-tracking.  But CUT would be a weak Cincinnati terminus.  The transit center would be better, and a tunnel through uptown would be much, much better. 

 

Bleep. Bloop.

 

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611412/ai-could-wreak-economic-havoc-we-need-more-of-it/

The Pittsburgh mayor comes off very well in that article.  Can't wait till we can join in on that fun.  As to the meat of it, I strongly agree that our region should pursue every opportunity in modern manufacturing. 

From Jason Segedy...

My latest post: Rejecting Managed Decline and Building New Urban Housing in the Rust Belt 

 

https://t.co/I8FI82xFkJ

From Jason Segedy...

My latest post: Rejecting Managed Decline and Building New Urban Housing in the Rust Belt 

 

https://t.co/I8FI82xFkJ

 

Clevelanders, (the skeptics, that is) need to remember his point that trends don't continue forever.

Excellent article!

I've been making this point for years, ever since it was part of the big "Youngstown 2010" plan.  The future is in our hands.  If we make the right decisions, there's no reason these cities can't come back.  Self-destruction is the wrong decision.

He brings up a lot of good points which I'm totally on board with, but as with most of these, not claiming to have a solution but I have a few "yeah, but..."

 

1. He mentions the tax abatement for new residential in Akron started in April of last year. Cleveland has had the same program since 1994 and it's now to the point where long-term residents who haven't been direct recipients are questioning the need for it. If someone can afford (easily in some cases) the $500K-$700K townhomes going up in the 'hot' neighborhoods, do they really need 15 years of abatement? Do we move it to areas that are more distressed?

 

2. To the above point, homes built in distressed areas in the early-mid 2000s under the program - it's not uncommon to see them listed for under $100K, in some cases well under.

 

3. Apples to Oranges, or Zips to Penguins, take your pick. Akron and Youngstown are somewhat close in distance and scale but worlds away when it comes to the journey each city has taken. Sure, Akron's had ups and downs and socioeconomic struggles but it never had the rug completely pulled out from under it in a short time span like what Youngstown went through in the late 1970s/early 80s (Black Monday, organized crime, crack epidemic, etc.). Akron's managed to retain some respectable corporate presence whereas Youngstown? I love Youngstown, spent my formative years there and it's been great to see the strides they've made but is there enough 'there' there?

1.  I'm a big fan of the idea of targeting the abatements and other incentives away from hot neighborhoods and towards adjacent neighborhoods.  It would expand the portion of our city that is seeing investment, and at the same time it would help to tamp down on the more egregious examples of neighborhoods getting too expensive for moderate income people to continue living in.

1.  I'm a big fan of the idea of targeting the abatements and other incentives away from hot neighborhoods and towards adjacent neighborhoods.  It would expand the portion of our city that is seeing investment, and at the same time it would help to tamp down on the more egregious examples of neighborhoods getting too expensive for moderate income people to continue living in.

 

Or put a cap on the abatement - say, the first $250K of assessed value. Still generous enough to encourage a variety of development, but aimed (mostly) at the people the city is trying to help.

1.  I'm a big fan of the idea of targeting the abatements and other incentives away from hot neighborhoods and towards adjacent neighborhoods.  It would expand the portion of our city that is seeing investment, and at the same time it would help to tamp down on the more egregious examples of neighborhoods getting too expensive for moderate income people to continue living in.

Or put a cap on the abatement - say, the first $250K of assessed value. Still generous enough to encourage a variety of development, but aimed (mostly) at the people the city is trying to help.

The abatement can also be applied to multi-family structures as well, so if you put that sort of cap on it you effectively limit the incentive to single-family housing only

The abatement can also be applied to multi-family structures as well, so if you put that sort of cap on it you effectively limit the incentive to single-family housing only

 

So make if $250K per unit.

Instead of attempting to micromanage property tax abatements, why not instead switch to a land tax system? New housing built in undesirable neighborhoods will automatically have lower taxes because the land isn't worth much. If the neighborhood improves, the value of the land will increase in proportion to the improvement, as will the land tax. If the neighborhood doesn't improve, taxes remain low.

 

I've posted this link before, but I think it does a great job of quickly explaining the concept:

 

Switching to a land tax instead of a property tax would take a ton of political capital, but if we're talking about how to spur development with taxes, I think it's worth discussing.

Postcard From A Japanese Steel Town

http://radio.wosu.org/post/postcard-japanese-steel-town-0#stream/0

Interesting, but looking at Kamaishi on Google Earth, it is a small town.  If you didn't know better, you'd think you were looking at one of the Ohio River Valley cities (but cleaner and more orderly, of course).  You'd never mistake if for a Youngstown, though, let alone a Cleveland or Pittsburgh.

Its steel industry arrived a century after the likes of those in Youngstown, et al. Modern steel towns like Kamaishi were what we heard about in the 1970s and 80s as making the steel that Youngstown's neglected mills once made. My parents' generation lamented how our enemies in World War 2 were destroying America's dominant industrial might, and this town in Japan was one of the battleships. Had we modernized our steel industry in the 1960s and diversified into non-steel materials rather than into unrelated businesses, the fate of the Youngstowns of America in the last 40 years would have been different.

Interesting, but looking at Kamaishi on Google Earth, it is a small town.  If you didn't know better, you'd think you were looking at one of the Ohio River Valley cities (but cleaner and more orderly, of course).  You'd never mistake if for a Youngstown, though, let alone a Cleveland or Pittsburgh.

 

Another city with a similar experience is Yubari, Hokkaido, a coal mining town that had 100K+ in the 1960s, and 10K today; there's been some writing about Yubari in relation to shrinking cities. Today it's famous for melons, which can fetch tens of thousands of yen for a single piece.

Its steel industry arrived a century after the likes of those in Youngstown, et al. Modern steel towns like Kamaishi were what we heard about in the 1970s and 80s as making the steel that Youngstown's neglected mills once made. My parents' generation lamented how our enemies in World War 2 were destroying America's dominant industrial might, and this town in Japan was one of the battleships. Had we modernized our steel industry in the 1960s and diversified into non-steel materials rather than into unrelated businesses, the fate of the Youngstowns of America in the last 40 years would have been different.

 

Your article actually stated that Kamaisha got it's first modern steel mill in the 1850's, so it's every bit as old as the American Rust Belt's industry.  It's also lost 2/3rds of its population.

I'm glad someone here has a good memory. :)

Instead of attempting to micromanage property tax abatements, why not instead switch to a land tax system? New housing built in undesirable neighborhoods will automatically have lower taxes because the land isn't worth much. If the neighborhood improves, the value of the land will increase in proportion to the improvement, as will the land tax. If the neighborhood doesn't improve, taxes remain low.

 

Interestingly, if I understand it right, this is not a new idea at all: One of the most famous early proponents of this system was none other than Adam Smith.  He suggested that it would incentivize people to improve land rather than let it lie fallow, and that it would also give the right incentives to governments to keep neighborhoods safe, well-maintained, and with infrastructure available (because infrastructure access would count as part of the value of the land, not the improvements thereon, and therefore increase the tax base).

Amsterdam is a city shaped by a long history of taxing land.  Buildings have historically been built there as vertically as practical as a result.

Instead of attempting to micromanage property tax abatements, why not instead switch to a land tax system? New housing built in undesirable neighborhoods will automatically have lower taxes because the land isn't worth much. If the neighborhood improves, the value of the land will increase in proportion to the improvement, as will the land tax. If the neighborhood doesn't improve, taxes remain low.

 

Interestingly, if I understand it right, this is not a new idea at all: One of the most famous early proponents of this system was none other than Adam Smith.  He suggested that it would incentivize people to improve land rather than let it lie fallow, and that it would also give the right incentives to governments to keep neighborhoods safe, well-maintained, and with infrastructure available (because infrastructure access would count as part of the value of the land, not the improvements thereon, and therefore increase the tax base).

 

Are you mixing up Adam Smith with Henry George?  Although perhaps Henry George maybe expanded on an idea introduced by Smith.  But I think many economists, including Friedman, prefer a land tax system as being the least disruptive of taxes. 

I'm told that Cincinnati had a frontage tax, which led to those distinctive tall and narrow houses.

I'm told that Cincinnati had a frontage tax, which led to those distinctive tall and narrow houses.

 

I have heard that also but never actually read about it.  Subdividing blocks into 20 or 25-foot lots really wasn't very rare in the 1700s and early 1800s.  The difference is that in Cincinnati land was at a premium in the basin and so people built to the front lot line and the side lot line more so than they did in cities that had room to spread out like Columbus.  German Village has more single-family houses and often has 60" or more between them. 

I'm told that Cincinnati had a frontage tax, which led to those distinctive tall and narrow houses.

 

I have heard that also but never actually read about it.  Subdividing blocks into 20 or 25-foot lots really wasn't very rare in the 1700s and early 1800s.  The difference is that in Cincinnati land was at a premium in the basin and so people built to the front lot line and the side lot line more so than they did in cities that had room to spread out like Columbus.  German Village has more single-family houses and often has 60" or more between them. 

 

Too bad Cincinnati wiped out the best area with those (West end). Worse than any other city in that regard.

Instead of attempting to micromanage property tax abatements, why not instead switch to a land tax system? New housing built in undesirable neighborhoods will automatically have lower taxes because the land isn't worth much. If the neighborhood improves, the value of the land will increase in proportion to the improvement, as will the land tax. If the neighborhood doesn't improve, taxes remain low.

 

Interestingly, if I understand it right, this is not a new idea at all: One of the most famous early proponents of this system was none other than Adam Smith.  He suggested that it would incentivize people to improve land rather than let it lie fallow, and that it would also give the right incentives to governments to keep neighborhoods safe, well-maintained, and with infrastructure available (because infrastructure access would count as part of the value of the land, not the improvements thereon, and therefore increase the tax base).

 

Are you mixing up Adam Smith with Henry George?  Although perhaps Henry George maybe expanded on an idea introduced by Smith.  But I think many economists, including Friedman, prefer a land tax system as being the least disruptive of taxes.

 

Adam Smith did indeed propose a sort of land value tax. A brief overview

https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-spending/tax-simplification-the-case-for-a-land-value-tax/

And the complete chapter about it: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book05/ch02b-2.htm

Adam Smith wasn't even the first with the idea- it has a long and interesting history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax#History

 

Among the proponents of a Land Value Tax:

The Physiocrats (early/first modern economic school)

Thomas Paine in Agrarian Justice

Adam Smith

Henry George

Winston Churchill

Milton Friedman - "'the Henry George argument' is 'the least bad' means of raising needed public revenue"

Paul Krugman

Joseph Stiglitz

Robert Solow, with some reservations

 

For an urban context, this is my favorite land use tax analysis:

https://transportist.org/2018/06/21/road-rent-on-the-opportunity-cost-of-land-used-for-roads/

 

Perhaps I should start a Land Value Tax thread so I stop derailing others...

Not only is it the least disruptive tax, I feel it is the most moral tax because what you do on your land affects others, there is only a set amount of land and we all share it, we have to be stewards of it for future generations, etc.

 

Libertarians don't like this idea because they say it means the state really owns all the land and we just rent it. If you want to put it that way, I guess I agree. I would say that I believe in a layer of common ownership of the earth for all humans.

Not only is it the least disruptive tax, I feel it is the most moral tax because what you do on your land affects others, there is only a set amount of land and we all share it, we have to be stewards of it for future generations, etc.

 

Libertarians don't like this idea because they say it means the state really owns all the land and we just rent it. If you want to put it that way, I guess I agree. I would say that I believe in a layer of common ownership of the earth for all humans.

 

While there are chains of custody and people purchase the land they use, the initial ownership of any parcel was made when someone arbitrarily claimed it as theirs and defended that claim with a (usually implied) threat of (personal or state) violence. No one created the land; no one brought it into being. This makes land ownership quite different than the ownership of most other things, which are initially owned by the person who makes them or someone who commissions the maker.

Not only is it the least disruptive tax, I feel it is the most moral tax because what you do on your land affects others, there is only a set amount of land and we all share it, we have to be stewards of it for future generations, etc.

 

Libertarians don't like this idea because they say it means the state really owns all the land and we just rent it. If you want to put it that way, I guess I agree. I would say that I believe in a layer of common ownership of the earth for all humans.

 

Right, but libertarians tend to argue themselves into irrelevance on this issue (speaking as a pragmatic libertarian who often has brutal arguments with deontological libertarians).  Basically, they argue themselves to the point of anarchy (and some even openly claim the label "anarcho-libertarian" by seriatim arguing against every possible tax concept).  Property taxes imply that the state owns all the land.  Income taxes imply that we are all slaves (involuntary workers) to the state at least for X% of the year.  Sales taxes or tariffs or excise taxes imply that the state can veto consensual trade between individuals (because the sales tax on certain items could be 10,000%, for example), and discourage the means necessary to survive.  You basically get down to a system of no rules other than "stay off my land," enforced only by volunteer militias acting as private judges, juries, and executioners (because the state cannot be trusted with any of those functions).

 

Since the overwhelming majority of people, even small-government Republicans, have absolutely no desire to live in a hardline libertarian or anarcho-libertarian state, the latter individuals therefore face the paradox that a political-economic system such as the one they prefer cannot actually exist without imposing it by force on an enormous number of nonconsenting individuals.  Which, of course, violates one of the key principles underlying the actual demands behind forming such a system.

 

Practical libertarianism emphasizes incentives more than rigid first principles (though of course any political or economic philosophy will have a set of the latter).  Thus, practical libertarians join the more ideological ones when someone argues that governments are "free" from market incentives.  Which is why practical libertarians can support the land value tax, because the incentives it creates for the government are to maximize the value of all land within the government's jurisdiction.  And land is generally more valuable when it is extensively improved with high-quality improvements and inhabited by safe, happy, productive people.  Perhaps equally importantly, land that is next to high-quality improvements in good neighborhoods also tends to be valuable itself--which means that a land value tax allows for imposing more significant taxes on holdouts and speculators who are just hoping to hold the land without improving it and then sell it for a big gain after other people do the actual work of improving a given neighborhood.

The Inner-Ring Suburbs Are Withering. Why Not Just Merge Them with Chicago?

A modest proposal.

BY EDWARD MCCLELLAND

PUBLISHED SEPT. 5, 2018

 

Let’s talk about Niles!

 

There’s not a lot to say, really. Clinging to the Northwest Side of Chicago, the suburb appears to have been constructed over a three-week period in 1962 and not touched since. Its dominant institution is Golf Mill, a shopping mall that was the place to drive your Ford Falcon during the Kennedy presidency. (The shopping center is now anchored by a Sears and a J.C. Penney, the 1970s’ favorite department stores.) Today, Niles is probably best known as the home of the Leaning Tower YMCA, which features a replica of the original in Pisa. 

 

Like most of Chicago’s inner-ring suburbs, Niles occupies an uncomfortable niche between city living and modern suburbia. As a first generation suburb, it was an attractive destination for young Chicago families fleeing their two-flats after World War II. But today, Niles’s combination of dated housing stock and sparse public transportation (it doesn’t have an L or Metra stop) makes it feel like a town that time forgot. It lacks an identity distinct from the cities it borders. Driving west on Touhy Avenue, it’s difficult to tell when you’ve passed from Niles into Edison Park.

 

MORE:

http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/September-2018/The-Inner-Ring-Suburbs-Are-Withering-Why-not-just-Merge-with-Chicago/

http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/September-2018/The-Inner-Ring-Suburbs-Are-Withering-Why-not-just-Merge-with-Chicago/

 

The author proposes that inner-ring suburbs merge with the relatively larger central city. 

 

Here in Cleveland, it seems like it would make sense to merge Cleveland with East Cleveland.  What about Brooklyn, Lindale, Newburgh Heights, Bratenahl? 

 

Others in this forum have suggested combining suburbs, not necessarily merging with Cleveland, but reducing the number of suburbs.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/cleveland/1911648-suburban-merger-4.html

 

That may make sense for some suburbs, but it is not a reasonable solution for everyone.  The city has to weigh the benefit of new residents (and their contributions to the city tax receipts) against the increased burdens that taking on more geography will bring:  expanding the jurisdiction of its police and firefighters; expanding the infrastructure maintenance responsibilities -- parks, roadway, water, and sewer lines, etc.  Cleveland might be able to absorb East Cleveland without much effect on its expenses/revenue thanks to the industry there and the fact that Cleveland already surrounds East Cleveland on three sides and already manages the water in Cleveland Heights on the fourth side.  But the same might not be true of Euclid or Warrensville Heights, for example.

 

As hard as it may be, some suburbs may just need to be left to die a natural death and returned to parkland or farmland.

 

 

 

http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/September-2018/The-Inner-Ring-Suburbs-Are-Withering-Why-not-just-Merge-with-Chicago/

 

The author proposes that inner-ring suburbs merge with the relatively larger central city. 

 

Here in Cleveland, it seems like it would make sense to merge Cleveland with East Cleveland.  What about Brooklyn, Lindale, Newburgh Heights, Bratenahl? 

 

Others in this forum have suggested combining suburbs, not necessarily merging with Cleveland, but reducing the number of suburbs.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/cleveland/1911648-suburban-merger-4.html

 

That may make sense for some suburbs, but it is not a reasonable solution for everyone.  The city has to weigh the benefit of new residents (and their contributions to the city tax receipts) against the increased burdens that taking on more geography will bring:  expanding the jurisdiction of its police and firefighters; expanding the infrastructure maintenance responsibilities -- parks, roadway, water, and sewer lines, etc.  Cleveland might be able to absorb East Cleveland without much effect on its expenses/revenue thanks to the industry there and the fact that Cleveland already surrounds East Cleveland on three sides and already manages the water in Cleveland Heights on the fourth side.  But the same might not be true of Euclid or Warrensville Heights, for example.

 

As hard as it may be, some suburbs may just need to be left to die a natural death and returned to parkland or farmland.

 

 

 

 

I think around here you would have to start as you mention by combining suburbs. Suburbs that already border each other and maybe share combined services already. Cleveland Heights-University Heights, South Euclid-Lyndhurst and Parma-Parma Heights come to mind.

 

You would eliminate duplicated overhead with fire, police departments, school administration and city administration immediately and have a larger territory and its assets to leverage redevelopment and increasing the tax base to handle any liabilities. Not sure what if any federal funding may be available for a larger city as well, but if additional funding is available it could be used to increase mass transit to and from commercial/industrial and residential locales.

 

People have obviously moved to their current area for a reason, be it good schools or excellent services. For example, people are buying houses in Rocky River for dollars that seem excessive for the same property in Lyndhurst. Those people need to be assured that their investment won't wither away with a merger be it with Cleveland or another suburb. They will be the hardest sell to any merger in my opinion.

I think this was discussed a while ago in the regionalism thread (where someone did a joke map, I think at my suggestion, showing a regionally consolidated Cuyahoga County ... of every jurisdiction but Bratenahl, because we know that's going to be the last domino down, probably even after Beachwood).

 

Basically, strategically and equitably, regionalism will work best as a marriage of mostly equals, and Cleveland cannot and should not be effectively the dumping ground for poor, ossified suburbs.  That means that Cleveland is better served maximizing the internal development of Cleveland, making it a more attractive merger partner for a blend of suburbs that would include both upper- and lower-class ones.

 

Regionalism and regional consolidations are not magic pills.  They do not form neighborhoods and communities.  Neighborhoods are formed by their built environments and the people who live there.  Merging Parma into Cleveland would not actually change the look and feel of much of Parma, especially not right away.  They don't even save as much money as you'd think, because money is also much more a function of people and infrastructure than of multiplicity of jurisdictions.  It's still a little bit more cost-efficient, but not vastly more so.