Depends how you look at it.  Euclid is not doing great, but compared to most of the regions of Cleveland and East Cleveland that surround it, it is doing much better.  Personally I feel that the services they have targeted towards seniors and low income home owners has been a strategic factor preventing an East Cleveland like decline that most people outside of Euclid have been predicting for the past 30 years.

 

I haven't seen any reports of the mayor of North Royalton being caught looting the city hall of Lakewood, so I am not sure how I feel about cities stealing from one another.

 

My point was there is a new economic theory worthy of getting the Nobel Prize.  NPR summed it up as "bigger is often not better" when it comes to corporations. Powerful theories like this often can be translated onto many different organizations, including local governments.

 

The perils of Cleveland's size and its relationship with its neighboring communites are well documented.  Has anyone looked at the advantages of such a system?  What are they?  Can they be enhanced with cluster communites, or would that damage them?

Maybe certain things work better in Euclid that they would in Detroit Shoreway or in Pepper Pike.  There is a chance that the region sees benefits from this.  It is the same thinking that says what works for Mississippi may not work for Maine.

 

I'm not saying the benefits outweigh the costs.  I'm saying I don't think anyone has looked at the benefits.  A sober discussion about regionalism needs to include these discussions, and maybe this Nobel winning theory.

 

 

 

 

On another note, this forum used to be a place to discuss ideas.  Lately it's become more like a town hall meeting with people screaming about keeping the government out of medicare.  I'm going to take a break for a while, no need to respond.  I realize how stupid I am now.

 

 

 

 

^why?  There's nothing wrong with what you just said.  It's a potential point of view.  One which I don't believe in but that doesn't mean it's not worth discussing.  I agree that corporations would be best off small.  Major metropolitan areas?  Not so much.  Because in most major American  cities almost all the wealth is further out.  Or at least wealth centered in the core, surrounded by a ring of (general) poverty, with then various layers of wealth.  If you're geographic area is too small you don't have the tax base to be able to fight any of the problems, thus horrible infastructure, etc.  Meanwhile other pockets are so wealthy they give their residents trashcans, by Harley Davidsons for their police departement, etc.  Some areas flourish, others either wither up or just kind of flounder.

 

However... if you are from a small town?  You're probably best off with smaller geographic areas.  For example, I don't see what advantage there would be to Burton and Middlefield being a part of Chardon.  But if you look at MOST larger American Regions that have a larger city (example Charlotte), even if their wealth is further out, people who live 25-30 miles outside of downtown in places like Avon Lake are still a part of the city, pay taxes to the city... they don't have problems meeting basic civic needs like infastructure. 

Regional initiative sparks opposition

 

By David W. Jones

[email protected]

 

The proposed 16-county Northeast Ohio "Regional Prosperity Initiative" is certainly being heard on both sides, especially for or against a small Lake County city sharing its voter-approved levy or income tax money with an urban city in another county.

 

The anti-regional idea was heard Monday by the Lake County Mayors and City Managers Association, and all comments will be heard Dec. 4 at a regional meeting to be chaired by county Commissioner Daniel P. Troy.

 

http://news-herald.com/articles/2009/11/24/news/nh1739384.txt

 

 

I can't speak for other counties, but I've noted in Lake there's a general sense of 'we're better than the rest' attitude out here. This would create a significant barrier to a large initiative like this.

 

All the more reason I think this is better implemented on a smaller scale at first.

I can't speak for other counties, but I've noted in Lake there's a general sense of 'we're better than the rest' attitude out here. This would create a significant barrier to a large initiative like this.

 

All the more reason I think this is better implemented on a smaller scale at first.

 

Perhaps implement the idea in each individual county in the 16-county region first?

Opposition was bound to occur.  Some just don't understand why they have "growth" now, which could very well change in the future. 

 

It is unfortunate that there will be many who are just too used to the status quo. 

I think this is the best place for this article:

 

Tri-township water district plan approved

http://www.vindy.com/news/2009/dec/01/water-district-plan-approved/

 

Published: Tue, December 1, 2009 @ 12:07 a.m.

By Peter H. Milliken

 

Nobody in the courtroom objected to creation of the new water district.

 

YOUNGSTOWN — A judge has approved the creation of a regional water supply and storm-water management district for Austintown, Boardman and Canfield townships.

 

...

 

The district can pursue its projects without having to annex township territory to a city or participate in a Joint Economic Development District, Albers said. “We’re happy to be able to provide water services free of those kinds of contingencies and constraints,” he added.

 

Albers said Aqua Ohio, which has expressed its willingness to sell water to the new district for resale to township residents, will be the likely water supplier to the new public waterlines.

 

Generally, I think regional cooperation is good.  And, this water district will address real problems like flooding from storm water run-off.  But, I'm pretty sure the real reason for the creation of this district was to avoid cooperation with big, bad Youngstown.  A couple years ago, the mayor had the audacity to suggest the formation of a JEDD, (Joint Economic Development District) and this is the result. (but, as a city resident, I'm biased)

I think i made an post about unions a few months back. Ohio needs to do SOMETHING(ANYTHING) to compete with non union states.

With an area with the population such as ours, where most of the population has shifted around, instead of leaving completely....going in the direction of structuring government this way makes sense. I felt this way 20 years ago, but most people thought I was nuts for thinking like this.

 

But if we can just get beyond the 'imaginary line' mentality that has us all acting like every man for himself on the sinking Titanic......fighting amongst each other for a share of the economic/tax pie....and instead work together, the ultimate outcome of creating region wide government and standards can result in a lot of good things and lay out an overall healthier region, socially, economically, and environmentally.

 

One such component to this issue that is especially concerning to me is stopping the piss poor planning and unnecessary willy nilly urban sprawl (which in my own opinion, aside from all else, is simply making Ohio look UGLY)----and the 'pin-the-tail-on-the donkey' approach to planning that progresses blindly---where we will build a complex of shopping malls, for example.... of the same sort, right next to the exact same thing down the street. (where a  market study would not demonstrate the need for it in the first place) Once the blindfold is removed, we discover that where such a place was built, is like  we 'pinning the tail' right on top of another tail!

 

This is the scenario where only the developer make out but stakeholders often lose when we see the stream of empties that follow with overbuilding.... or the cannibalization of other businesses...loss of locally owned and independent businesses, their tax contributions and their employees.

 

The part in the article that states: "If the region's local governments can coordinate planning, Currin said, Northeast Ohio could protect its agricultural and green spaces by reinvesting in core cities where infrastructure already exists and by establishing development zones for commercial, industrial, retail and residential growth." --- Is crucial to pay close attention. To promote this our planning has to have input from more diverse a body than allowing only developers/politicians to dictate it. Then we can achieve the diversity that breeds the stability in the economy--and the environmental sustainability as a cherry on top of the ice cream, we all would like to see.

I think i made an post about unions a few months back. Ohio needs to do SOMETHING(ANYTHING) to compete with non union states.

 

Philosophically speaking....Within the state...this reminds me of the sort of thing we are doing to each other as suburbs and counties and townships and so on, right now...in terms of competing for the parts of the tax pie.........  Now it is state versus state in terms of competing in terms of the union/non-union thing. One state's loss is another's gain... Not very "united" sounding to me. But, I am not against the institution, concept or the need for a union, per se....I just don't like a lot of what has become of them as they have often become dysfunctional and corrupt and controlled...and bad performance hides under the protection of filing a grievance with the union. I have worked in places like that and it drove me up the wall was was gotten away with by employees.

 

However, the roots of the union had noble cause (Gompers, Kovac, (sp? etc.) and a need because companies were treating employees like crap and working conditions were rotten. Left totally unabated, the fear is that it could happen again. Why should people change as long as the bottom line is profit at any cost.

 

Scruples and ethics and moral compasses as to how employees are treated need be in the hearts of those who run the companies as we cannot make a law to govern everything like that. But, they obviously weren't, nor would there have been the push to unionize in the first place. People need to stop being treated as a 'resource' that is expendable, but that will never happen as long as we value profit at any cost before people. That was a part of the thinking by companies that spawned the union movement in the first place.

 

But to think any other way...well, IMO...It would take a different philosophy that I think we're still a few hundred years away from understanding. I think Chomski mentioned something like "Organized violence at the top...breeds disorganized violence at the bottom" I think that is where we are right now...or always have been, really. Maybe Plato would understand......don't know.

I'm not sure how unions and regionalism are supposedly connected, or if anyone was in fact making that argument.  If so, I don't see it.  Maybe there are actually just multiple conversations going on in this thread now and I'm having trouble isolating where one stops and another begins.

 

I'm generally a supporter of regionalism, but one has to acknowledge that it does increase the amount of damage that some elected (and unelected) officials are able to do, while removing others from the picture entirely.  If you had a single government for all of what is now Cuyahoga, Summit, Portage, Mahoning, and Stark Counties, for example, you'd better be daggone sure that the people wielding power in that super-regional government know what the heck they're doing.  Given the track records of some people who are elected to large-district public offices, one has to acknowledge the risk.

 

Also, there seems to be a presumption on these boards that a regional government would be inherently more opposed to suburban sprawl than the the aggregate of the individual local governments that would be consolidated into that regional government.  I'm not sure I see the source of that optimism.  Why would that five-county government I just outlined be anti-sprawl?  Sure, you'd have Cleveland, Akron, Canton and Youngstown incorporated into that government, but you'd also have all of their suburbs, and those residents would most likely want to preserve the status quo, since most of them are fairly happy with it.

Because the rationale for sprawl is to separate one's own "community" from the problems that plague its urban neighbors.  Thus Solon and Geauga County have more police than they know what to do with, while Cleveland can't protect major tourist areas.  The current system, with tiny municipalities and townships claiming absolute sovereignty from each other, cannot address these discrepancies.  A regional government could.  If you can't take the wealth and services with you when you flee the city, there's a lot less incentive for doing so.

I've heard that argument before, and it makes no sense to me--in fact, it makes sufficiently little sense that I really have to stretch to try to understand the thoughts of those who accept that argument.  I know a great many suburbanites, and I seriously don't think that was in any of their minds when they moved to where they did.  In large part, they simply wanted larger, newer houses with more space in their yards, better schools, and lower crime rates.  Lower tax rates may have played a part, which would be associated with "taking the wealth with them" from the city, but many suburbs now have tax rates within the general range of those imposed by cities.

 

Moreover, my question was directed more specifically towards the notion of a regional government being more opposed to sprawl than a regional government looting today's suburbs to fund services in what are today's inner cities (though I have to note that that argument isn't exactly going to win many converts among the voters whose support regionalism's advocates need).  I don't see how consolidating all of Franklin County into one government, for example, would slow the development in Hilliard, Dublin, or in the more outlying parts of Columbus itself that are fundamentally suburban in their land use.  I support it because I can see how it might deliver services, particularly utilities, more efficiently across the board, and that a larger municipality could justify spending on specialized resources (for fire and police equipment, for example) that no one community is large enough to need regularly enough to justify the cost.  I can also see that it would eliminate the need for a lot of politicians (township trustees, mayors, city councils, etc.), which would mean few public officials' salaries and fewer windbags.

 

However, in order for what you envision to come to pass, you would have to see anti-sprawl figures take over the reins of power in this new government.  Would they?  Suburbanites vote, too, you know, and together, they might well outnumber the voting bloc of the inner city even in Columbus, which has a thinner suburban ring than Cincinnati or Cleveland.  Why would a candidate favoring, say, urban growth boundaries, rail-based mass transit, and higher taxes on former suburbs prevail over a candidate promising to build more highways, bring retail and commercial development to outlying areas of the new region, and keep taxes low, regardless of its effect on the poorer, older territory of the region?

I disagree pretty strongly with your overall position, as strongly as you do with mine, and I don't see any accord in our immediate future.  I do agree with you that if regional government were to be run by pro-sprawl/anti-urban leadership, that it would not do much to change sprawl.  That much is obvious. 

 

But I still think regional government would benefit everyone, rich and poor, by cutting regional overhead for the sake of lower taxes on business, and fewer sets of regulations for businesses to deal with.  I would imagine you agree that we need to ease the burdens on business around here.

Then there isn't as much difference in our position as you'd think, since I do agree on those points.  My point is just that I think a regional government would be more sprawl-friendly than you're probably wishing.  I'm comfortable with a regional government being that way, so I'm comfortable with the notion of regional government.  I just disagree that a government of a territory formed largely of former suburbs will suddenly start voting like urbanists if brought into a regional government--especially if those former suburbs and their voters are brought in kicking and screaming, but even if they're convinced to get on board.

FINALLY some city-council members are starting to wake up and realize the shape this city is in, and where the region needs to go from here.  This next census will not be kind to Cleveland (as if the last 5 were), but further "discussions" aren't needed IMO.  Action is needed.  As a region, we've discussed this to death already.

 

Many on City Council know it's time for radical change in how Cleveland is governed: Brent Larkin

By Brent Larkin

February 21, 2010, 8:00AM

 

The four of them have represented the city of Cleveland in elected office for a combined 106 years, 98 of them as members of City Council.

 

As a group, they have lived in the city for two centuries.

 

One needn't be fans of Councilmen Michael Polensek, Ken Johnson, Jay Westbrook and Jeff Johnson to appreciate that these four have forgotten more about daily life in Cleveland than those of us in the suburbs will ever know.

 

And every one of them thinks this: Cleveland is a city in desperate trouble.

 

Polensek: "We've got affordable housing, great lakefront possibilities and cultural institutions second to none. But if we don't get our act together in a hurry, we're toast."

 

 

 

More at http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/02/many_on_city_council_know_its.html

IMO, you are toast Mr. Polensek.  If the City has really crumbled so much under your watch, maybe it is time to let someone else have a turn.

 

Just this past year, I was at my friend's house in Collinwood when Polensek came around campaigning.  Since he was there, we showed him a hole right on the curb of the street that is big enough for an adult to fall in, not to mention the numerous children who play on that street.  Someone had dug it out at one point and never filled it in.  It is clearly a hazard.  He seemed shocked and promised to address the issue the following business day.  He didn't follow through.

 

I can appreciate the effectiveness of a good scare tactic and strongly support regionalization, but the above quotes just go too far and are not accurate predictions IMO.

 

Regardless of whatever numbers the census shows, I will be much more interested in the poverty index than the overall population numbers.     

I'd all but forgotten about the old inner city resistance to regionalism based on fears that it would dilute black political power.  In this day and age, I think the stronger resistance would be in the suburbs, and primarily for economic rather than social or political reasons.

The "stronger" resistance is and will always be in the suburbs.  The farther out you go, the stronger it probably gets.  It might be overreaching a bit to try and regionalize the entire county anyways.  But I don't think we have to by any means.

 

What if, and I KNOW this is a big IF, the following more "inner ring" cities could regionalize with Cleveland proper:

 

East Cleveland

Euclid

South Euclid

Lyndhurst

Richmond Heights

Cleveland Heights

University Heights

Shaker Heights

Warrensville

Garfield Heights

Maple Heights

Brooklyn Heights

Seven Hills

Parma

Parma Heights

Brook Park

Berea

Fairview Park

Lakewood

Rocky River

 

That would be roughly a 200 sq. mile region and over 800,000 pop. 

 

I left out Bratenahl and Lindale for obvious reasons.

 

Cities like Mayfield and Beachwood that are flush with cash (relatively speaking of course) due to strong corporate presence will be near impossible to get on board.  And places like Pepper Pike, Strongsville, and Bay Village just like being suburbs IMO so we can forget about them.

So for some reason my first post didn't go through. 

 

Anyways, to summarize, as a resident of one of the inner-ring suburbs mentioned above, I'd be strongly opposed to a merger with Cleveland.  I'd prefer to see my city explore sharing services (or merging) with some of its neighboring suburbs.  I think that doubling Cleveland's size and population would be way too much for the city's current leadership.  And I think that, yes, though our lines are "imaginary," Cleveland's problems and blight would quickly spread to its new neighborhoods.

Seeing as how our political boundaries as they stand today are pretty much imaginary, I think the blight would continue at its current place. However, with the new influx of cash from the new neighborhoods, I think the new Super-Cleveland would be able to make services (Fire, Police, schools) more efficient instead of 28 separate entities providing the same services and it could do more to revitalize older neighborhoods that are blighted, much like Columbus does.

In other words, throwing more suburban money at Cleveland proper is going to make things better?  I just don't know if I can agree with that.

 

Additionally, our boundaries aren't imaginary when you realize that these suburbs are self-governing and can enact policies that make or break them.  Drive west to east down any of Cleveland's main thoroughfares that it shares with the suburbs and tell me it's just a coincidence that things get better when one crosses these "imaginary lines."

 

The City of Cleveland has a lot of money and still has a lot of problems.  Until the city's leaders do a better job with their current resources, forgive me for being hesitant about wanting to see a mega-merger between Cleveland and its neighbors.  I think doing so at this point in time would be simply legislating mediocrity across the region.  At least now when people flee Cleveland, there are nice places for them to go in the suburbs such as Mayfield, Beachwood, Solon, Shaker Heights, Strongsville, Rocky River, Bay Village, etc.  Merge all of those cities with Cleveland and I think you're going to have big problems and an even bigger exodus of people out of the county.  Then the next step will be to try to merge Medina and Geauga counties until we chase people even further away.  Merging just isn't going to solve the regions problems and in a lot of ways it may make things much worse.

 

There's also something to be said and respected about an area's right to local self-governance.  I'm not convinced that gigantic is necessarily better.  Sure we can point to a number of regional success stories, but what about all of the cities that have done just fine without regionalizing every aspect of local government?  It may help, but the other problems need to be addressed as well, perhaps first, for it to really work, in my opinion.

Seeing as how our political boundaries as they stand today are pretty much imaginary, I think the blight would continue at its current place. However, with the new influx of cash from the new neighborhoods, I think the new Super-Cleveland would be able to make services (Fire, Police, schools) more efficient instead of 28 separate entities providing the same services and it could do more to revitalize older neighborhoods that are blighted, much like Columbus does.

 

Assuming that's true, the question is whether that would actually solve Cleveland's problems.  In other words, do Cleveland's problems really stem only from inefficiently-provided fire protection, police protection, and schools?

I will expect to hear more about mergers after the next census.  The housing market crash didn't just affect the City of Cleveland, which estimates it's population to be currently 325,000 (!!!) people, down from 475,000 just 10 years ago (the city hasn't seen a drop like that since the 70s).  There hasn't been one, NOT ONE, community in this county which hasn't been affected.  Expect Euclid to dip well below 50,000 this census, along with Cleveland Heights.  Expect to see Parma's population to see a significant drop as well. 

 

If this next census isn't a wake-up call to the region, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS. There are 59 separate municipalities in this County.  Can we just imagine the duplication which occurs?  How many police districts are there?  Fire?  EMS? Heck, some communities even separate their WATER (Cleveland Heights, for example).  This is just wasteful, plain and simple.  And with a shrinking population, it just seems even more-so unsustainable.   

In other words, do Cleveland's problems really stem only from inefficiently-provided fire protection, police protection, and schools?

 

Not ONLY, but is it really debatable that these are substantial factors?  There aren't enough police to patrol the city, period.  Add more police and some of the crime we're seeing now becomes physically impossible.  There aren't enough maintenance crews to keep things in working order.  Couple that with the higher incidence of things to maintain in an inner city and you're looking at a serious conundrum.  But it's nothing that money can't solve... and cutting overhead is a time-tested and private-sector-approved way to increase operating funds.

 

To answer Clevelander17's broader contentions, I suppose the threshold issue is whether we view these individual communities as truly interdependent. 

 

If the answer is yes, then it's not too relevant how this or that community does in comparison to its regional neighbors.  In the macro sense they rise and fall together.  Strongsville and Solon may be better off than Cleveland, but are they better off than comparable suburbs in a stronger overall region?  Of course not.  At the end of the day both are suburbs of Cleveland, and are viewed as such by outsiders.

 

If the answer is no, then by all means, keep viewing your neighbors as rivals and see how far our region gets.  We're not doing too well right now, and we're about as balkanized as can be.  Have been for decades.  This alone would seem to teach against continued balkanization.  Something's gotta change, and doubling down on pro-sprawl trends of the late 20th century seems a bit backwards, considering how poorly that approach has worked for us over the course of its 70-year trial run.

In other words, do Cleveland's problems really stem only from inefficiently-provided fire protection, police protection, and schools?

 

Not ONLY, but is it really debatable that these are substantial factors? There aren't enough police to patrol the city, period. Add more police and some of the crime we're seeing now becomes physically impossible. There aren't enough maintenance crews to keep things in working order. Couple that with the higher incidence of things to maintain in an inner city and you're looking at a serious conundrum. But it's nothing that money can't solve... and cutting overhead is a time-tested and private-sector-approved way to increase operating funds.

 

To answer Clevelander17's broader contentions, I suppose the threshold issue is whether we view these individual communities as truly interdependent.

 

If the answer is yes, then it's not too relevant how this or that community does in comparison to its regional neighbors. In the macro sense they rise and fall together. Strongsville and Solon may be better off than Cleveland, but are they better off than comparable suburbs in a stronger overall region? Of course not. At the end of the day both are suburbs of Cleveland, and are viewed as such by outsiders.

 

If the answer is no, then by all means, keep viewing your neighbors as rivals and see how far our region gets. We're not doing to well right now, and we're about as balkanized as can be. This alone would seem to teach against continued balkanization. Something's gotta change, and doubling down on pro-sprawl trends of the late 20th century seems a bit backwards, considering how poorly that approach has worked for us over the course of its 70-year trial run.

Where did you hear the 325 thousand number?

^Towards the end of this article in regards to the housing crisis.  Kucinich just held a sub-committee hearing on Friday regarding the states like Ohio which obviously need of help from the feds but were left out of the Obama Administration's $1.5 billion giveaway regarding foreclosure counseling help for homeowners.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/02/kucinich_vows_a_fight_over_ohi.html

 

Kucinich vows a fight over Ohio's exclusion from federal mortgage assistance program

By John Mangels, The Plain Dealer

February 20, 2010, 6:11PM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich said today he will ask the Obama Administration to reconsider its decision to exclude hard-hit Ohio from a new federal effort to help states cope with the housing foreclosure crisis.

 

$1.5 billion originally intended to help bail out troubled banks. Instead, the Troubled Asset Relief Program money will go to state housing agencies in California, Nevada, Florida, Arizona and Michigan, where it will be used to support new programs to keep homeowners from losing their properties.

In other words, do Cleveland's problems really stem only from inefficiently-provided fire protection, police protection, and schools?

 

Not ONLY, but is it really debatable that these are substantial factors? There aren't enough police to patrol the city, period. Add more police and some of the crime we're seeing now becomes physically impossible. There aren't enough maintenance crews to keep things in working order. Couple that with the higher incidence of things to maintain in an inner city and you're looking at a serious conundrum. But it's nothing that money can't solve... and cutting overhead is a time-tested and private-sector-approved way to increase operating funds.

 

To answer Clevelander17's broader contentions, I suppose the threshold issue is whether we view these individual communities as truly interdependent.

 

If the answer is yes, then it's not too relevant how this or that community does in comparison to its regional neighbors. In the macro sense they rise and fall together. Strongsville and Solon may be better off than Cleveland, but are they better off than comparable suburbs in a stronger overall region? Of course not. At the end of the day both are suburbs of Cleveland, and are viewed as such by outsiders.

 

If the answer is no, then by all means, keep viewing your neighbors as rivals and see how far our region gets. We're not doing too well right now, and we're about as balkanized as can be. Have been for decades. This alone would seem to teach against continued balkanization. Something's gotta change, and doubling down on pro-sprawl trends of the late 20th century seems a bit backwards, considering how poorly that approach has worked for us over the course of its 70-year trial run.

 

Yes, but like I mentioned in my post, other regions with fractured government have still done well, so I'm not sure your argument holds water.  Maybe Cleveland's problems are deeper.

 

I fully realize that the communities in our region are interdependent.  However there is no denying that the suburbs, as a collective group, account for a large portion of jobs and residents, perhaps larger than Cleveland proper.  The suburbs are doing okay, not great, but well enough.  I think it's right to worry that linking them to struggling Cleveland could endanger that.  Cleveland needs to get its own house in order first.  If there isn't enough money for public safety or maintenance, perhaps Cleveland needs to take a hard look in the mirror and do a better job of prioritizing spending.  Taking more money from suburban residents is not the answer right now.  I know that that's probably not what many people want to hear, but oh well.

 

However, like I said yesterday, regional mergers amongst suburban communities could make a lot of sense.  Below I'll give an example.

East Cleveland

 

Euclid

 

South Euclid

Lyndhurst

Richmond Heights

Cleveland Heights

University Heights

Shaker Heights

 

Warrensville

Garfield Heights

Maple Heights

Bedford

Bedford Heights

 

Brooklyn Heights

Seven Hills

Parma

Parma Heights

 

Brook Park

Berea

Fairview Park

Lakewood

Rocky River

North Olmsted

 

Rather than merge all of those cities into Cleveland, which in my opinion would be a mistake, I think that these communities, as I grouped them together above, should consider working on merging services and sharing taxes, and even go so far as to look at the feasibility of full mergers with each other.  That would make more sense to me than merging with Cleveland.

I don't think the 325,000 number is in the realm of possibility.  That would mean that 1 of every 3 people left the city in the past decade.  I think that number came from Polensek, who was probably talking out his @ss.

^I have no doubt that that number is at least *close* to being accurate.  I work at a housing counseling agency, and can tell you firsthand of the destruction caused by the foreclosure crisis.  Many of the East-Side nieghborhoods- Glenville, Hough, Fairfax, Slavic Village, St. Clair- All gutted.  And I mean gutted.  These homes used to house families- but now lay vacant.  By the thousands.

 

We also can't forget that we've gone through two recessions within the last 10 years, with the first being especially unfavorable to the region. 

In other words, do Cleveland's problems really stem only from inefficiently-provided fire protection, police protection, and schools?

 

Not ONLY, but is it really debatable that these are substantial factors? There aren't enough police to patrol the city, period. Add more police and some of the crime we're seeing now becomes physically impossible. There aren't enough maintenance crews to keep things in working order. Couple that with the higher incidence of things to maintain in an inner city and you're looking at a serious conundrum. But it's nothing that money can't solve... and cutting overhead is a time-tested and private-sector-approved way to increase operating funds.

 

All fair points.  I just don't see that they lead to this:

 

We're not doing too well right now, and we're about as balkanized as can be. Have been for decades. This alone would seem to teach against continued balkanization. Something's gotta change, and doubling down on pro-sprawl trends of the late 20th century seems a bit backwards, considering how poorly that approach has worked for us over the course of its 70-year trial run.

 

As I've said in the past, a regional government would very likely be dominated by suburbanites with suburban habits, ideals, priorities, and (therefore) voting patterns.  The consolidated jurisdiction would be what ... 1+ million (maybe 2 million?) suburbanites and <500,000 Cleveland residents?

 

I like the way regionalism looks on paper, and you're right, there is a lot of unnecessary duplication of services across municipalities today.  I also think that the police in some suburbs would actually be substantially more effective if they had the power to go freely into their adjacent jurisdictions closer into the core.  These are enough to convince me.  I just cringe when I hear promises that smack of overselling, especially when it's trying to sell a "benefit" that many of the people that would be affected by regionalism might not see as such.

^ Clevelander17, those groupings would be a step in the right direction.  Full mergers would be the key... if they each retain their separate management apparati, nothing has really changed.  Once you merge services and taxes what's left?  Nothing worth paying extra for, that's what.

 

As for "other fractured metros do OK" you have to consider other states' policies when making that comparison.  Ohio is somewhat alone in its anti-urban approach... other states already do more spreading of resources, regardless of consolidation, than we do here.  In many cases that is why they do better, in spite of being similarly balkanized.

 

I agree that Cleveland's problems are deeper than balkanization, and that many of them stem exclusively from bad decisions by city leaders.  I'm not one to let them off the hook because the city and region are poor.  But that doesn't change the fact that money could be saved through consolidation.  And again, no matter how much better Solon and Strongsville are doing than Cleveland, they remain suburbs of Cleveland and not of each other.  At the national and international levels, they are irrevocably tied to Cleveland's success. 

 

I remember hearing the same talk from Oakland County, Michgan.  They consider Oakland County to be an entirely seperate entity from Detroit.... and they are alone in this belief.  Oakland County will go as far as being a part of Metro Detroit can take it.  And that is where the general benefit of consolidation comes from.  Small picture, Solon might be able to harass a few less motorists on 422 while Cleveland might be able to patrol a few more regional cultural destinations.  Big picture, Solon is better off than before because it's a suburb of a more complete and functional community. 

^I have no doubt that that number is at least *close* to being accurate. I work at a housing counseling agency, and can tell you firsthand of the destruction caused by the foreclosure crisis. Many of the East-Side nieghborhoods- Glenville, Hough, Fairfax, Slavic Village, St. Clair- All gutted. And I mean gutted. These homes used to house families- but now lay vacant. By the thousands.

 

We also can't forget that we've gone through two recessions within the last 10 years, with the first being especially unfavorable to the region.  

 

I'm also fairly familiar with those neighborhoods.  I don't doubt that they have lost population, even a substantial amount, but no, I don't think it's possible that 1 in 3 people has left the city overall. Maybe in the hardest hit neighborhoods 1 in 3 people has left.  But the other thing that we need to remember is that people don't disappear into thin air when their home is foreclosed- they rent, or move in with family or friends, or they go homeless.  Any way you cut it, they still exist.  I'd bet most don't go geographically far, either.

^I can see your point.  But I have to add that the foreclosure crisis does not discriminate which side of the river one lives on. Old Brooklyn, for example, had 931 foreclosures between 2006-2008.  Detroit Shoreway- 581 foreclosures between 2006-2008.  Even a my beloved east side North Collinwood had over 800 foreclosures during the same time period. Granted, some of these neighborhoods haven't seen the amount of physical loss regarding the standing structures of homes in these neighborhoods, but they are vacant homes nonetheless.  There will not be a neighborhood or inner-ring suburb in this census which will not seen loss- sans downtown.  Which is why I say that this census HAS TO BE VIEWED AS A WAKE-UP CALL for the region, even if the last 5 or 6 were not.

 

To be serious, I wouldn't be surprised if Cuyahoga County and Franklin County are, at the most, neck and neck population wise with this next census.  I love Cleveland, and will never be a Cleveland basher (it's not in my genetic make-up LOL).  But it's time that this region wakes up to reality- the way this county is fractured regarding services and government is NOT WORKING.

In other words, do Cleveland's problems really stem only from inefficiently-provided fire protection, police protection, and schools?

 

Not ONLY, but is it really debatable that these are substantial factors?  There aren't enough police to patrol the city, period.  Add more police and some of the crime we're seeing now becomes physically impossible.  There aren't enough maintenance crews to keep things in working order.  Couple that with the higher incidence of things to maintain in an inner city and you're looking at a serious conundrum.  But it's nothing that money can't solve... and cutting overhead is a time-tested and private-sector-approved way to increase operating funds.

 

All fair points.  I just don't see that they lead to this:

 

We're not doing too well right now, and we're about as balkanized as can be.  Have been for decades.  This alone would seem to teach against continued balkanization.  Something's gotta change, and doubling down on pro-sprawl trends of the late 20th century seems a bit backwards, considering how poorly that approach has worked for us over the course of its 70-year trial run.

 

As I've said in the past, a regional government would very likely be dominated by suburbanites with suburban habits, ideals, priorities, and (therefore) voting patterns.  The consolidated jurisdiction would be what ... 1+ million (maybe 2 million?) suburbanites and <500,000 Cleveland residents?

 

See to me this would be a huge benefit of regionalism.  So much of this region is being dragged down by the leadership of the primate city, currently voted upon by residents who in general are "takers" and not "makers," which means the largest city in our region has become very anti-business.  This is a huge problem.  Spending must be reigned in and much of that is going to have to come from cutting entitlements.  We just can't afford it anymore--the city and region must get back to basics, cut taxes and regulations, and make ourselves more competitive with other metropolitan areas and states.  The sooner people realize that we're in a competition, particularly with Sun Belt cities, and that we're losing, the better.

^ Clevelander17, those groupings would be a step in the right direction.  Full mergers would be the key... if they each retain their separate management apparati, nothing has really changed.  Once you merge services and taxes what's left?  Nothing worth paying extra for, that's what.

 

As for "other fractured metros do OK" you have to consider other states' policies when making that comparison.  Ohio is somewhat alone in its anti-urban approach... other states already do more spreading of resources, regardless of consolidation, than we do here.  In many cases that is why they do better, in spite of being similarly balkanized.

 

I agree that Cleveland's problems are deeper than balkanization, and that many of them stem exclusively from bad decisions by city leaders.  I'm not one to let them off the hook because the city and region are poor.  But that doesn't change the fact that money could be saved through consolidation.  And again, no matter how much better Solon and Strongsville are doing than Cleveland, they remain suburbs of Cleveland and not of each other.  At the national and international levels, they are irrevocably tied to Cleveland's success. 

 

I remember hearing the same talk from Oakland County, Michgan.  They consider Oakland County to be an entirely seperate entity from Detroit.... and they are alone in this belief.  Oakland County will go as far as being a part of Metro Detroit can take it.  And that is where the general benefit of consolidation comes from.  Small picture, Solon might be able to harass a few less motorists on 422 while Cleveland might be able to patrol a few more regional cultural destinations.  Big picture, Solon is better off than before because it's a suburb of a more complete and functional community. 

 

Perhaps, slowly but surely, the City of Cleveland is becoming a satellite city of its vast suburban area.  Gone are the days where everyone from the suburbs commutes to their offices downtown.  We've even past the days where the people living in the city with jobs would drive to their offices in the suburbs.  We've reached a point where a large chunk of people, perhaps even a majority, are commuting from one suburb to another each morning and back at night, without even having to step foot in Cleveland.  Heck, there are a lot of cultural amenities in the city, but there are a lot of the same, or similar amenities in the suburbs.

 

Say what you will about the way we use our spaces, but I think a lot of the inner-city blight is beyond repair.  If it's true that we've lost another 150,000 residents since 2010, and if it's true that blocks upon blocks of the eastside are vacant, perhaps it's time to stop dreaming about the day that people move back to the city and instead find better, more creative ways to use that space.

Downtown Cleveland is still the largest employment center in the entire region. Please explain to me your comments about the region being dragged down by "takers."

To be serious, I wouldn't be surprised if Cuyahoga County and Franklin County are, at the most, neck and neck population wise with this next census. I love Cleveland, and will never be a Cleveland basher (it's not in my genetic make-up LOL). But it's time that this region wakes up to reality- the way this county is fractured regarding services and government is NOT WORKING.

 

You may be right, but I think that suburban residents are going to be hesitant, as they should be, about merging with a larger, failed neighbor.  The current residents of the City of Cleveland have shown an inability to vote competent leadership and policies in for their city, adding a few hundred thousand residents isn't going to change that.  Instead, you'll simply be spreading failed policies and leadership over a wider area.

 

Economies of scale makes sense in the private sector because they have big incentive to control costs.  I'm not sure we've ever really seen the same incentive in public sector.  What you'll probably have is a big power grab by people who shouldn't even be in power, and a loss of sovereign control for suburban residents, many of whom won't even bother to stick around to fight the battles that need to be fought.

Downtown Cleveland is still the largest employment center in the entire region. Please explain to me your comments about the region being dragged down by "takers."

 

There are too many people within the city proper who keep voting themselves big entitlements and keep punishing business.  That cannot continue, we can't afford it.  The culture must change.

 

As for your other comment, you may very well be right, but I'd love to see a map or data because I know that there are also large employment centers in the suburbs, especially Beachwood, Independence, Westlake, Mayfield.

It's not even close...there are over 100,000 workers downtown. Also, explain what you mean by by big entitlements. You keep saying this culture needs to be changed.

It's not even close...there are over 100,000 workers downtown. Also, explain what you mean by by big entitlements. You keep saying this culture needs to be changed.

 

You know what I mean.  Public housing extravagance, welfare, there's too much of it.  The city can't be in the business of providing a livelihood for everyone right now, we just can't afford it.  Maybe they move elsewhere, maybe the Federal government comes in takes over the dole, I don't know the solution, it's complicated, perhaps even a vicious cycle, but we're taxed and regulated out of the wazoo here and no business wants to deal with that.  Scare businesses away and they're taking the jobs with them.  The local government can't create anything that will turn this city around, it can only grease the grooves.

 

Columbus is doing so well because they've created a nice public sector bubble for themselves by confiscating enough funds from all corners of the state to build a gigantic state university and a thriving state government.  We need to start telling them "no more," too, because their policies are hamstringing us, as well.

 

As for your comment about 100,000 people working downtown, like I said previously, I'd love to see some data and trends for the sake of comparison.  I get the feeling that it's convenient for some here to gloss over the suburban job centers and their growth in the past 5, 10, or 15 years.

To be serious, I wouldn't be surprised if Cuyahoga County and Franklin County are, at the most, neck and neck population wise with this next census. I love Cleveland, and will never be a Cleveland basher (it's not in my genetic make-up LOL). But it's time that this region wakes up to reality- the way this county is fractured regarding services and government is NOT WORKING.

You may be right, but I think that suburban residents are going to be hesitant, as they should be, about merging with a larger, failed neighbor. The current residents of the City of Cleveland have shown an inability to vote competent leadership and policies in for their city, adding a few hundred thousand residents isn't going to change that. Instead, you'll simply be spreading failed policies and leadership over a wider area.

 

I'll say to you the same thing I say to 327 and others, though: Why do you think this would happen when suburbanites would be the majority, not the minority, in a regional government?  For any individual suburb to merge with Cleveland might be psephological suicide, but if all merged into "Cleveland" at once (or, more accurately, all of those suburbs and Cleveland together merged into Cuyahoga County), how would Cleveland be able to outvote its former suburbs?

 

Economies of scale makes sense in the private sector because they have big incentive to control costs. I'm not sure we've ever really seen the same incentive in public sector. What you'll probably have is a big power grab by people who shouldn't even be in power, and a loss of sovereign control for suburban residents, many of whom won't even bother to stick around to fight the battles that need to be fought.

 

Maybe.  But with numerical superiority again in their favor, they would have to be pretty weak-skinned indeed to flee, and that's assuming that urban-suburban issues really are "us" vs. "them," which on many issues, they really aren't.

It's not even close...there are over 100,000 workers downtown. Also, explain what you mean by by big entitlements. You keep saying this culture needs to be changed.

 

 

 

You know what I mean. Public housing extravagance, welfare, there's too much of it. The city can't be in the business of providing a livelihood for everyone right now, we just can't afford it. Maybe they move elsewhere, maybe the Federal government comes in takes over the dole, I don't know the solution, it's complicated, perhaps even a vicious cycle, but we're taxed and regulated out of the wazoo here and no business wants to deal with that. Scare businesses away and they're taking the jobs with them. The local government can't create anything that will turn this city around, it can only grease the grooves.

 

Columbus is doing so well because they've created a nice public sector bubble for themselves by confiscating enough funds from all corners of the state to build a gigantic state university and a thriving state government. We need to start telling them "no more," too, because their policies are hamstringing us, as well.

 

As for your comment about 100,000 people working downtown, like I said previously, I'd love to see some data and trends for the sake of comparison. I get the feeling that it's convenient for some here to gloss over the suburban job centers and their growth in the past 5, 10, or 15 years.

 

 

 

Here's a link to a spreadsheet that shows that the U.S. Census bureau says the daytime population increases by 114,000 daily due to workers commuting in. Downtown Cleveland is the largest employment center in Cleveland and Ohio. University Circle is the Second Largest in the Cleveland Metro. www.census.gov/population/socdemo/daytime/2000/tab01.xls

 

*90,000 people live AND work in Cleveland*

I'll say to you the same thing I say to 327 and others, though: Why do you think this would happen when suburbanites would be the majority, not the minority, in a regional government?  For any individual suburb to merge with Cleveland might be psephological suicide, but if all merged into "Cleveland" at once (or, more accurately, all of those suburbs and Cleveland together merged into Cuyahoga County), how would Cleveland be able to outvote its former suburbs?

 

Executive Summary:  This region is urban.  Half of the suburbs here are urban.  That's the point of doing this. 

 

I don't think there's Cleveland and then there's "the suburbs."  Does Cleveland and Cleveland alone make this region vote the way it does in state and national elections?  It couldn't possibly do that, as noted, so it must have some friends.  It seems to have more friends, regionally, than Gates Mills does.  A lot more.  I'm not saying the region's historic liberalism is a controlling factor here, but it's enough to disadvantage exurban interests on a range of local issues.  Maybe if the voting was done by land area or property value, like if you have a horse farm you get 500 votes.  That's how school funding works (currently) but that's not how voting works at all.     

 

Why would all the suburbs vote together?  The interests of Lakewood and Parma line up with Cleveland a lot more than with Beachwood, Westlake even.  Same for Akron, same for all of the region's smaller and further flung population centers... which all have far fewer suburbs than Cleveland does.  The population of this region is primarily urban as it is for most of the human race.  Cuyahoga County itself has now been cut up into 11 districts.  They're done in such a way that 6 of the 11 are more or less cityfied.  Some are entirely exurban, but those are a clear minority.  That was the only way to give the exurbanites any voice at all.  There just aren't that many of them... and they're too spread out. 

 

Maybe if the "region" only included Cuyahoga, Geauga, eastern Lorain, northern Summit, Medina, and the nicer parts of Lake, then perhaps urban interests might suffer.  It would have to be Gerrymandered to end right where Cleveland's exurbs end and before other cities begin.  If you include all of the surrounding counties, plus Ashtabula, Stark, Trumbull and Mahoning... I don't see how Northeast Ohio is a suburban region at all.  It's an urban and rural region, where most of the wealth is concentrated in a handful of Cleveland's suburbs.  The rest of the cities barely even have suburbs, and some of Cleveland's suburbs are more urban than Columbus is.   

Interesting, and well said.  Hmm.  I also didn't know you were looking at regionalism proposals that broad (the entirety of the Cleveland-Akron-Canton-Youngstown area).  I stand by my previous thought that I don't see that conglomerate being inherently anti-sprawl, either, but you do make a good point about Cleveland having natural allies in some of its suburbs.

To be serious, I wouldn't be surprised if Cuyahoga County and Franklin County are, at the most, neck and neck population wise with this next census.  I love Cleveland, and will never be a Cleveland basher (it's not in my genetic make-up LOL).  But it's time that this region wakes up to reality- the way this county is fractured regarding services and government is NOT WORKING.

You may be right, but I think that suburban residents are going to be hesitant, as they should be, about merging with a larger, failed neighbor.  The current residents of the City of Cleveland have shown an inability to vote competent leadership and policies in for their city, adding a few hundred thousand residents isn't going to change that.  Instead, you'll simply be spreading failed policies and leadership over a wider area.

 

I'll say to you the same thing I say to 327 and others, though: Why do you think this would happen when suburbanites would be the majority, not the minority, in a regional government?  For any individual suburb to merge with Cleveland might be psephological suicide, but if all merged into "Cleveland" at once (or, more accurately, all of those suburbs and Cleveland together merged into Cuyahoga County), how would Cleveland be able to outvote its former suburbs?

 

Economies of scale makes sense in the private sector because they have big incentive to control costs.  I'm not sure we've ever really seen the same incentive in public sector.  What you'll probably have is a big power grab by people who shouldn't even be in power, and a loss of sovereign control for suburban residents, many of whom won't even bother to stick around to fight the battles that need to be fought.

 

Maybe.  But with numerical superiority again in their favor, they would have to be pretty weak-skinned indeed to flee, and that's assuming that urban-suburban issues really are "us" vs. "them," which on many issues, they really aren't.

 

Yeah, we're on the same page there for the most part, but we're talking about two different things.  My comments had more to do with merging most of the inner-ring suburbs with Cleveland, like someone else suggested.  I don't think that would be enough to tip the scales towards getting better leaders and policies put into place.

^I can see your point. But I have to add that the foreclosure crisis does not discriminate which side of the river one lives on. Old Brooklyn, for example, had 931 foreclosures between 2006-2008. Detroit Shoreway- 581 foreclosures between 2006-2008. Even a my beloved east side North Collinwood had over 800 foreclosures during the same time period. Granted, some of these neighborhoods haven't seen the amount of physical loss regarding the standing structures of homes in these neighborhoods, but they are vacant homes nonetheless.

 

But you still seem to be assuming that every foreclosure is a vacant housing unit or units, and that every vacant housing unit is a family that moved out of city limits.  Foreclosures are often sold to new buyers who live in them or rent them out, people who lose their home often move in with friends or family around the block, or get a different apartment in the same or an adjacent neighborhood.

 

Take this as a mathematical exercise- lets say every one of Cleveland's 32 city defined neighborhoods have 1000 foreclosures (some in reality don't even have 1,000 housing units), each results in a housing unit vacant and abandoned, every one previously held a family of 4, and every single one of those people moves out of city limits and no one else moves in, we still get a loss of 128,000.  That still is 22,000 shy of the loss of 150,000 that is all of a sudden being bandied about.  Hey, maybe they moved out for other reasons!  Or maybe the 325,000 number is bunk.  It's great to sound the alarm, but it's sending the message, "abandon ship" when we need to send a message "all hands on deck."  At any rate, it's a bold prediction with meager supporting evidence.

I stand by my previous thought that I don't see that conglomerate being inherently anti-sprawl, either, but you do make a good point about Cleveland having natural allies in some of its suburbs.

 

Yes, if Cleveland can get these places on board to begin with, they'll probably become allies in the sense you're describing.  The interests of Lakewood, Cleveland Heights, Shaker Heights, Berea, etc. are very similar in theory, but don't assume that those cities' residents would like to cede overall all control to downtown Cleveland.  Sovereignty may be more expensive, but some are willing to pay a little extra for it.

I stand by my previous thought that I don't see that conglomerate being inherently anti-sprawl, either, but you do make a good point about Cleveland having natural allies in some of its suburbs.

 

Yes, if Cleveland can get these places on board to begin with, they'll probably become allies in the sense you're describing. The interests of Lakewood, Cleveland Heights, Shaker Heights, Berea, etc. are very similar in theory, but don't assume that those cities' residents would like to cede overall all control to downtown Cleveland. Sovereignty may be more expensive, but some are willing to pay a little extra for it.

 

Some may.  However, particularly when times are tight, cost-saving measures start to look a little more attractive and expenses for the sake of pride (which "sovereignty" at the level of an individual city definitely is) start to look increasingly wasteful and unappealing.  The points about the balkanized provision of services are legitimate.  Also, while some of those suburbs may have more adept governments than Cleveland proper, that's not a guarantee: some small-town governments are every bit as inept as those in major urban centers.  You just hear about them less because their jurisdictions are smaller, so their effects are more contained and they have less name recognition.

I'll say to you the same thing I say to 327 and others, though: Why do you think this would happen when suburbanites would be the majority, not the minority, in a regional government?  For any individual suburb to merge with Cleveland might be psephological suicide, but if all merged into "Cleveland" at once (or, more accurately, all of those suburbs and Cleveland together merged into Cuyahoga County), how would Cleveland be able to outvote its former suburbs?

 

You didn't ask me, but personally I think the majority voting incompetents into positions of power is not restricted to the inner city.  But lets grant the premise that the inner and middle-ring municipalities are hesitant to merge with Cleveland because Cleveland's leaders are either corrupt, incompetent, or would not have those municipalities' interests in mind.  Possibly, and probably all three.  Certainly you have a point, that if a large enough bloc of municipalities were suddenly incorporated into Cleveland proper, they could have a majority of votes.  But they have to all get together in the first place to do that, and as we've seen, we can't find two suburbs who are a good match to combine together, let alone 10-15 of them, to all band as one to become part of Frank Jackson's Cleveland.  I agree with Clevelander17, Cleveland does not have its sh!t together in the least.  Under what circumstances would the inner ring suburbs want to join that mess?  Certainly not these ones, and the man or woman who sells the suburbs on a "Join Cleveland to Change Cleveland" message would deserve some sort of medal.

 

Can I also ask a question... The stated benefit of mergers would be to consolidate city services like police, fire, probably snow removal, etc, because duplication of these services is cost inefficient.  Looking at this in a private sector way, when two companies merge and have two departments doing the same job, they have to lay off the redundant people.  Isn't an unstated result of this kind of thing simply that fire fighters, police officers and other government employees get downsized?  I'm all for government streamlining, but I find it amusing that the pandemonium that ensues when a city has to lay off safety service guys is not heard when talking about regionalization, which to me will have the same result.

 

In the end, Cleveland needs to get its act together.  It needs a leader to generate positive momentum for the city itself, to make it become a place that other municipalities want to be a part of.  But I think it's incredibly telling that if things were going great for Cleveland proper, and the suburbs were still kind of languishing, would the Cleveland-centric lot in here still be pushing to regionalize?  I doubt it.  We'd hear people saying "Why would Cleveland be stupid enough to absorb the inner ring suburbs and all their problems?"  And they'd be absolutely right.

 

PS: Someone should start a band called "Psephological Suicide"