March 2, 201015 yr Good points Matches. I agree with a lot of it. But I don't think Cleveland-centric people would feel differently about consolidation if the tables were somehow turned. Regardless of whether the city or burbs are individually better off, the entire region gains from having a larger central city, because it would then be eligible for more federal funds. That's money we're all leaving on the table in exchange for the "sovergienty" of neighbor against neighbor. The money to be gained by elimination of redundancies would similarly be a net gain for the region regardless of the Cleveland's comparison to the suburbs. The benefit to business of having less local regulations to deal with... that too is irrelevant to Cleveland's standing. So no, I don't think pro-consolidation stances are founded on the idea of a weak Cleveland stealing money from other communities. Consolidation makes sense enough on its own, without even entering that controversy. And yes there would be layoffs, but most of these would be at the Chiefs level, the administrative level... not at the Indians level, the feet on the streets. The whole idea is to free up funds for more feet on the streets, not less. Our problem is too many managers. We're presumably laying off a ton of county workers under the Issue 6 plan, and nobody is up in arms about that. Apparently enough people were able to visualize a net gain from the process.
March 2, 201015 yr Ah, that golden ticket that is federal funds. Can't stand that. Hate that we have to rearrange our entire region just so we can grub more quasi money from the feds. The constant grubbing for tax revenue distorts priorities so much, it's ridiculous. As to your second paragraph, I understand that this may be the goal, to eliminate waste, extra managers, etc. But those managers are the ones with power, and the ear of the budget decision makers. If we know anything about how goverment, and a lot of poorly run private businesses work, it's that politics plays a role. It's who you know. A lot of these people get to where they are by being able to convince their superiors that they're necessary. That's the nature of the beast. It sounds great in theory, to eliminate waste, but it seems to rarely happen in practice when it comes to government.
March 2, 201015 yr Good points Matches. I agree with a lot of it. But I don't think Cleveland-centric people would feel differently about consolidation if the tables were somehow turned. Regardless of whether the city or burbs are individually better off, the entire region gains from having a larger central city, because it would then be eligible for more federal funds. That's money we're all leaving on the table in exchange for the "sovergienty" of neighbor against neighbor. The money to be gained by elimination of redundancies would similarly be a net gain for the region regardless of the Cleveland's comparison to the suburbs. The benefit to business of having less local regulations to deal with... that too is irrelevant to Cleveland's standing. So no, I don't think pro-consolidation stances are founded on the idea of a weak Cleveland stealing money from other communities. Consolidation makes sense enough on its own, without even entering that controversy. And yes there would be layoffs, but most of these would be at the Chiefs level, the administrative level... not at the Indians level, the feet on the streets. The whole idea is to free up funds for more feet on the streets, not less. Our problem is too many managers. We're presumably laying off a ton of county workers under the Issue 6 plan, and nobody is up in arms about that. Apparently enough people were able to visualize a net gain from the process. Your first point about the benefits of regionalism makes sense, but I think we can see a lot of the same benefits simply by merging like-minded suburbs with each other. They don't have to merge with Cleveland proper to get the benefits of less overhead and perhaps even access to a larger block of Federal funds. Secondly, if you read the PD's article about fire departments from 2005 or 2006, I think the implication is clear that there are too many "indians" on the ground in some areas, meaning that the cuts being made in the name of savings possibly wouldn't just be at the "chief" level. I think that such possibilities could be extrapolated across all of the services provided by local government. Here's a radical thought: Is it possible that Cleveland, even at only 400,000 people, is too big to be managed by the people currently in charge? It's clear that there are problems on the local level, in the neighborhoods, that seem to be ignored in favor of talks about downtown and grand plans for things like the medical mart. I'm just not convinced that big, centralized government would do any better if it grew larger. Sometimes more localized government works better, and in the case of Cuyahoga County, we may have a perfect example. Another great thing about our system is that if Cleveland's taxes are too high or their policies are too anti-business, a company can simply look for headquarters in a place like Beachwood or even a bit out-of-county, like Avon Lake, and make a move there without completely leaving the region. Look at Cincinnati. A lot of the fastest growth there is on the Kentucky side of the river where taxes are lower and regulations are looser. I almost wish the Cleveland metropolitan area were split like that so a similar option existed for businesses and people.
March 2, 201015 yr Matches: I don't see why the feds should have to support inefficient operations. Metros that are more organzed and coordinated get more funding than those that aren't. DC doesn't want to pay for 60 city halls in one county, and it's hard to blame them. I don't want to either. As for politics, it didn't save the current county government. How could it save all these little mayors if it couldn't save Jimmy Dimora? There are limits... and thank heavens for that. Clevelander17: Your insistence on leaving Clevleand out of any potential consolidation is curious. There seems to be more to it than practical concerns. What's the deal? Corruption is everywhere, and the county's most corrupt officials (i.e. under investigation) don't live in Cleveland, they live in Mayfield and Independence and places like that. And I don't know if we need a "two state" solution to taxes and regulation if we can simply reduce taxes and regulation for the entire metro. All things being equal, the simpler solution seems preferable. So what necessitates a divide? The whole concept is to eliminate divides, not promote them.
March 2, 201015 yr I would have to agree that Cleveland is not the only city with "corrupt" individuals serving on city hall. In fact, WHO in City Council is corrupt (beyond normal politics)? Can we have names, the crimes committed, etc., or are we just assuming based on the losses suffered to the city? I don't think that going under the assumed premise that Cleveland is ran by corrupt individuals should fly on this forum. The City of Cleveland has problems, no doubt which we all know of. However, there isn't a suburb in this county which hasn't seen an increase in population loss, and it would seem probable that there has been a rise in crime due to the ongoing recession region-wide (heck, country-wide). It makes too much sense to consolidate services, however as pointed out before those at the top will try to slow down the momentum of this movement. However, WE THE VOTERS have the power to make change occur. I'm for getting together as a citizen coalition to help further this change if the newly elected county government does not (when they take office). How much discussion does this topic REALLY need? I think we can mostly (if not all) agree that, at the very least, overlapping municipal services should be merged. My question is if the City of Cleveland should merge boarders with suburban neighbors. It took Louisville 40 years for it's merger. This won't happen overnight here. I do remember an interview with Sam Miller a few years back in which he said he wanted to push for municipal consolidation... and that it would take 5 years minimum to get the word out. Well, it's been about 5 years since that interview, and we've gotten as far as discussions (not including the new county gov't, which may never have come into existence without the "corruption" of regional leaders who DON'T live in the City of Cleveland).
March 2, 201015 yr Population loss = job loss, and Cleveland is, as mentioned, the largest employer in the region. I think the argument being made here is that have we currently have tax and business policies that are drawing jobs away from the city. If Cleveland's elected officials are unwilling to adjust their position on business (in terms of bottom line stuff: How cheaply can a company do business if it locates in Cleveland?), then it's not necessarily corruption, but ineffectiveness that will tell suburban municipalities that they're better of on their own. And if Cleveland's elected officials claim to be UNABLE to cut back on their budgets to effect more pro-business policies, then what Clevelander17 said is correct - there's just too many people taking and not enough people creating for this to work.
March 2, 201015 yr I don't know if calling the elected officials ineffective is fair. The city has it's share of strong (and weak) leaders, love em or hate em. Some of these leaders have been in city government for years, dealing with population and demographic shifts while trying their best to keep businesses within the neighborhoods. I don't know if it's possible to name some suburban leaders who have been through the same, especially regarding the City in it's current state. How much can the residents, seriously, expect from their City Council leaders? Can we expect thousands of jobs in South Collinwood? St. Clair-Superior? Slavic Village? Do we really want gentrification city wide? What happens to the current residents of the city who end up moving into the inner-ring because of displacement? Haven't we learned this with Hough and Glenville? Granted, some economic development and neighborhood redevelopment we can expect, and the city did receive during the beginning half of the last decade. However, much of the city's existing housing stock is in poor shape due to the housing crisis which, set the city back by YEARS. Remember the momentum the city had prior to? 1000+ new homes constructed in the city a year was the goal, which the city actually surpassed, if I'm not mistaken, at least once. I don't know if that truly qualifies as ineffectiveness by city officials, especially when they are NOT TO BLAME for the city's physical state. Economically, the county's (of which the City of Cleveland is the main employer) unemployment rate is lower than the national average. Name the LAST TIME THIS HAPPENED during a recession in our lifetime... and I'll buy you a beer! Can we blame these leaders for wanting what's best for the residents of their neighborhoods who elect them? I don't think we can entirely blame City Council for the concentrated poverty which has occurred due to a plethora of events, some which they could control, but most which they couldn't (take your pick from everything from the interstate highway system to demographic shifts to racial tension to student busing to you-name-it). As far as the entitlement argument, are we referring to Section 8 renters, welfare recipients, etc.? I can assure you that you will find individuals who are in this category county-wide, and not just within the City of Cleveland. In fact, the number of individuals who are receiving welfare and food vouchers is increasing throughout the county. You'll find Section 8 recipients in SHAKER HEIGHTS. I just don't buy the argument that the city's representatives are ineffective. They've dealt with more, much much more, than their suburban counterparts over the last 50 years.
March 2, 201015 yr Let's not forget the city and region put all their "eggs" in the manufacturing basket. I think it is important we have some context when we talk about the problems that face this region. A lot of the problems we see today stem from poor decisions made 50-60 years ago. I'm not making excuses, but it is a fact. This problem exist in every Rust Belt community. Let me use this analogy: NEO is the basketball player who relied solely on his athleticism to compete...unfortunately, that player woke up one day with two bad knees. Now, he has to learn how to compete with his diminishing skill set. This stuff doesn't happen overnight. Yes...our leadership has made some terrible mistakes over the last twenty years, but let's not forget how we got here. I did a paper on this topic and I'm amazed we have fared this well with the amount of manufacturing jobs the city and region has lost since the late 60's. Nobody in the 1950's or 1960's could have predicted the collapse of manufacturing. I think we need to have wider view when we discuss these problems. We should also be careful not to blindly follow the "Sunbelt" approach to economic development. Some of these Sunbelt cities were blank slates in terms of the economy. We're in a whole different ballgame.
March 2, 201015 yr Population loss = job loss, and Cleveland is, as mentioned, the largest employer in the region. I think the argument being made here is that have we currently have tax and business policies that are drawing jobs away from the city. If Cleveland's elected officials are unwilling to adjust their position on business (in terms of bottom line stuff: How cheaply can a company do business if it locates in Cleveland?), then it's not necessarily corruption, but ineffectiveness that will tell suburban municipalities that they're better of on their own. And if Cleveland's elected officials claim to be UNABLE to cut back on their budgets to effect more pro-business policies, then what Clevelander17 said is correct - there's just too many people taking and not enough people creating for this to work. This isn't necessarily a city vs. suburb issue. How many jobs are being drawn away from the region because our many small communities are unwilling to cooperate with each other?
March 2, 201015 yr Let's not forget the city and region put all their "eggs" in the manufacturing basket. I think it is important we have some context when we talk about the problems that face this region. A lot of the problems we see today stem from poor decisions made 50-60 years ago. I'm not making excuses, but it is a fact. This problem exist in every Rust Belt community. Let me use this analogy: NEO is the basketball player who relied solely on his athleticism to compete...unfortunately, that player woke up one day with two bad knees. Now, he has to learn how to compete with his diminishing skill set. This stuff doesn't happen overnight. Yes...our leadership has made some terrible mistakes over the last twenty years, but let's not forget how we got here. I did a paper on this topic and I'm amazed we have fared this well with the amount of manufacturing jobs the city and region has lost since the late 60's. Nobody in the 1950's or 1960's could have predicted the collapse of manufacturing. I think we need to have wider view when we discuss these problems. We should also be careful not to blindly follow the "Sunbelt" approach to economic development. Some of these Sunbelt cities were blank slates in terms of the economy. We're in a whole different ballgame. I strongly agree with this point. I don't remember the exact numbers, but IIRC our regional economy consisted of approximately 33% manufacturing jobs into the '80s. The fact that we've been able to transition to an economy with around 11% manufacturing jobs today while losing fewer people than in the 1970s alone, and at the same time revitalizing downtown, UC, etc. is truly remarkable. This isn't necessarily a city vs. suburb issue. How many jobs are being drawn away from the region because our many small communities are unwilling to cooperate with each other? Remember how the mayor of University Heights acted when a Cleveland Heights councilman dared even bring up the issue of possibly considering a merger? The attitude among the elected representatives of a few of these places seems to indicate that dysfunction is a problem in many places beyond the city. The tendency to stick one's head in the sand is not endemic to Cleveland politicians. If anything, I'd say the more recent ones have finally seen the light. It's just that now we need help.
March 2, 201015 yr This region needs to be more competitive, which everyone here seems to agree upon, and I just can't fathom how we're more competitive as a house divided. That goes for the region and for each individual piece. So what if Heights Park Acres can offer the world's coolest incentive package, if the sustained existence of Heights Park Acres makes its entire region less desirable than other regions. There is only so much that Beachwood can do, on its own, to make up for the fact that it's a few short miles from a trashed major city. Something about not seeing the forest for the trees. The big picture is what matters for site selection, and Cleveland will always be in the big picture for its suburbs. The only question for the suburbs is what sort of city they want to be suburbs of. The notion that they can "opt out" of their surroundings is a dangerous illusion.
March 3, 201015 yr by the way... I'm curious what is it exactly that makes people think the City of Cleveland is less "business friendly" than other "cities" in the county?
March 3, 201015 yr New Mayor Gary Norton hopes to bring big changes to struggling East Cleveland By Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer February 14, 2010, 4:20AM A scenario long feared in the city is that it would be sliced up and annexed by neighbors, including Cleveland and Cleveland Heights. http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/02/new_mayor_gary_norton_hopes_to.html East Cleveland would seem like an easy target for Cleveland to annex considering it is in worse shape than Cleveland. I know this would not help the Cleveland poverty rankings but becoming part of Cleveland could help stabilize East Cleveland and make the whole east side nicer. There is a stigma between moving into East Cleveland but if it were part of Cleveland it might not be as bad. Annexing East Cleveland would not be all trouble either. from the article: A breakup might be plausible because, for all its troubles, East Cleveland boasts remarkable assets. They include Huron Hospital and Nela Park, the headquarters of General Electric Co.'s global lighting business.
March 3, 201015 yr Matches: I don't see why the feds should have to support inefficient operations. Metros that are more organzed and coordinated get more funding than those that aren't. DC doesn't want to pay for 60 city halls in one county, and it's hard to blame them. I don't want to either. As for politics, it didn't save the current county government. How could it save all these little mayors if it couldn't save Jimmy Dimora? There are limits... and thank heavens for that. Since when are the Feds paying for 60 city halls? Since when are you paying for all of those extra city halls? An overwhelming majority of local governments are funded, you guessed it, locally. The people that benefit from separate governments in the suburbs are the ones paying for it, too. And since some of us do work in Cleveland, we're paying for Cleveland's government and schools, as well. Clevelander17: Your insistence on leaving Clevleand out of any potential consolidation is curious. There seems to be more to it than practical concerns. What's the deal? Corruption is everywhere, and the county's most corrupt officials (i.e. under investigation) don't live in Cleveland, they live in Mayfield and Independence and places like that. And I don't know if we need a "two state" solution to taxes and regulation if we can simply reduce taxes and regulation for the entire metro. All things being equal, the simpler solution seems preferable. So what necessitates a divide? The whole concept is to eliminate divides, not promote them. It's more than just corruption, it's differing ways of looking at the world. Cleveland is the largest city of employment in the region, and thus it has access that enormous tax base, and all kinds of other suburban subsidization, and it's still struggling. I don't know what it is, I can't put my finger on it, but there is something there, some sort of a disease, that right now, hasn't completely spread to the suburbs. Call me crazy, but I think that's a good thing, and I'd like to keep it that way.
March 3, 201015 yr It makes too much sense to consolidate services, however as pointed out before those at the top will try to slow down the momentum of this movement. However, WE THE VOTERS have the power to make change occur. I'm for getting together as a citizen coalition to help further this change if the newly elected county government does not (when they take office). How much discussion does this topic REALLY need? I think we can mostly (if not all) agree that, at the very least, overlapping municipal services should be merged. My question is if the City of Cleveland should merge boarders with suburban neighbors. If you're a resident of Cleveland, you don't have any say over who governs the people of Mayfield Village, or Moreland Hills, or Strongsville, or any other independent suburb. If the people of these suburbs want to stay independent, then there's nothing that you, the county, the state, or the Feds, can do about it. Let me give you an idea of what you're up against. I live in an inner-ring suburb. Last summer there was some innocent discussion by council members in a neighboring suburb about merging the two together. Just talk, no plans set in motion. The backlash from people in my city against such a possibility was amazing. There wasn't a single citizen that I heard from or spoke to that was in favor of such a potential merger with said neighbor. NOT ONE! And we weren't even talking about any kind of a merger with Cleveland itself. Put such a proposal on the ballot and it will get beaten so badly that your head will spin. Move beyond my city and further out, and you've got no chance of bringing those suburbs on board. My city has nothing to gain with merging with Cleveland, it would simply be a wealth transfer and a decrease in our level of services.
March 3, 201015 yr I don't know if calling the elected officials ineffective is fair. The city has it's share of strong (and weak) leaders, love em or hate em. Some of these leaders have been in city government for years, dealing with population and demographic shifts while trying their best to keep businesses within the neighborhoods. I don't know if it's possible to name some suburban leaders who have been through the same, especially regarding the City in it's current state. How much can the residents, seriously, expect from their City Council leaders? Can we expect thousands of jobs in South Collinwood? St. Clair-Superior? Slavic Village? Do we really want gentrification city wide? What happens to the current residents of the city who end up moving into the inner-ring because of displacement? Haven't we learned this with Hough and Glenville? Granted, some economic development and neighborhood redevelopment we can expect, and the city did receive during the beginning half of the last decade. However, much of the city's existing housing stock is in poor shape due to the housing crisis which, set the city back by YEARS. Remember the momentum the city had prior to? 1000+ new homes constructed in the city a year was the goal, which the city actually surpassed, if I'm not mistaken, at least once. I don't know if that truly qualifies as ineffectiveness by city officials, especially when they are NOT TO BLAME for the city's physical state. Economically, the county's (of which the City of Cleveland is the main employer) unemployment rate is lower than the national average. Name the LAST TIME THIS HAPPENED during a recession in our lifetime... and I'll buy you a beer! Can we blame these leaders for wanting what's best for the residents of their neighborhoods who elect them? I don't think we can entirely blame City Council for the concentrated poverty which has occurred due to a plethora of events, some which they could control, but most which they couldn't (take your pick from everything from the interstate highway system to demographic shifts to racial tension to student busing to you-name-it). As far as the entitlement argument, are we referring to Section 8 renters, welfare recipients, etc.? I can assure you that you will find individuals who are in this category county-wide, and not just within the City of Cleveland. In fact, the number of individuals who are receiving welfare and food vouchers is increasing throughout the county. You'll find Section 8 recipients in SHAKER HEIGHTS. I just don't buy the argument that the city's representatives are ineffective. They've dealt with more, much much more, than their suburban counterparts over the last 50 years. Certainly some of the problems have been beyond their control. But truth be told, you've got too much one-party groupthink downtown, and too much special interest influence. If things have gotten progressively worse over the past 50 years, it's time to stop making excuses, and start trying things another way. Annexing your more successful, more stable suburban neighbors is one very misguided solution that may put a band-aid on things in the short term, but won't do much long term.
March 3, 201015 yr The city is struggling for numerous reasons. Your view of the city is entirely too simplistic. The city has been struggling for almost half a century. The loss manufacturing jobs, flight to the suburbs, inept leadership and a plethora of other issues have hurt the city since way before my time. Honestly, it's pretty hard to run a successful city when you have been bleeding residents since 1960. Granted, a lot of the problems are self-inflicted, but some of the problems were/are out the control of local leaderhip. Also, the suburbs have benefited from the city's decline. Do you think Mayfield or Parma would exist without Cleveland. Where did all these residents of the suburbs come from? So, please have a little context here...Looking at Cleveland as diseased and "keeping it's problems" away from the suburbs is how we got into this mess.
March 3, 201015 yr There was time, about five years ago, when I was younger and more idealistic that I thought that full-scale regionalism was the answer for Northeast Ohio. The more I've read about the issue, the more I've learned about economics and unintended consequences, the less I feel that way. I still feel that having 33 school districts, 59 municipalities in Cuyahoga County is way too much, but I don't think I'll ever be convinced that a complete city-county merger (including school districts) is the answer or even feasible (in other words, it's never going to pass). So at this point I think it's better to consider all angles or what we're doing and look for more realistic alternatives. That means merging similar suburbs/school districts together to hopefully cut those numbers down to a third of what they're currently at. As for Cleveland, the city needs to tough love and to stop looking to suburbanites to bail them out. There's a reason why many people left the city proper but stayed in the region. Clearly Cleveland and it's leaders weren't offering what they were looking for. Instead of continuing to make the same mistakes, why not learn from that and try a different approach? One of the few positives of losing 60% or more of your population in the span of a few decades is that in a lot of ways it does almost give you a blank slate. There are thousands of acres of rundown or vacant land just on the eastside alone. DO SOMETHING CREATIVE WITH IT! Cleveland is never going to have close to a million residents again, not does it need to necessarily. Last thought: If our state leaders in Columbus don't stop handcuffing us and bleeding us dry, it probably doesn't matter what we do. HALLELUAH...HOLY SH-T!!!! Where's the Tylenol?
March 3, 201015 yr Hi everyone I am Mike from the east side here and I devised some possible groupings of mergers. I just kind of whipped this up on what I thought made sense/ might be remotely possible. I would think that some of the outer suburbs would be easier to merge than the inner-ring ones because so many of them already share school districts. It is east side heavy because I just don't have the knowledge of the West side to have an opinion Cleveland merges with: Cleveland Heights East Cleveland Lakewood Bratenahl Newburgh Heights Cuyahoga Heights Brooklyn Heights Seven Hills Independence Valley View Garfield Heights Brooklyn Parma Parma Heights South Euclid Richmond Heights Lyndhurst Highland Heights Mayfield Heights Mayfield (Gates Mills will stay by itself) Chagrin Falls Chagrin Falls Township Bentleyville Part of Moreland Hills (the part that is already in the school district) Pepper Pike Woodmere Orange Possibly Beachwood and Shaker Heights but I have a feeling these would be tough Any thoughts?
March 3, 201015 yr Hi everyone I am Mike from the east side here and I devised some possible groupings of mergers. I just kind of whipped this up on what I thought made sense/ might be remotely possible. I would think that some of the outer suburbs would be easier to merge than the inner-ring ones because so many of them already share school districts. It is east side heavy because I just don't have the knowledge of the West side to have an opinion Cleveland merges with: Cleveland Heights East Cleveland Lakewood Bratenahl Newburgh Heights Cuyahoga Heights Brooklyn Heights Seven Hills Independence Valley View Garfield Heights Brooklyn Parma Parma Heights South Euclid Richmond Heights Lyndhurst Highland Heights Mayfield Heights Mayfield (Gates Mills will stay by itself) Chagrin Falls Chagrin Falls Township Bentleyville Part of Moreland Hills (the part that is already in the school district) Pepper Pike Woodmere Orange Possibly Beachwood and Shaker Heights but I have a feeling these would be tough Any thoughts? That's a pretty good list. You're right, Beachwood would probably want to stay solo. Shaker Heights could go in any number of directions, as could University Heights, so perhaps the two could team up together or maybe join in with another group. South Euclid-Lyndhurst-Richmond Heights makes a lot of sense, and they also share a lot of commonalities with the neighboring suburbs of Mayfield-Mayfield Heights-Highland Heights. Those six make up the Hillcrest suburbs and that would be a nice, neutral name that could be adopted if they all got together.
March 3, 201015 yr Matches: I don't see why the feds should have to support inefficient operations. Metros that are more organzed and coordinated get more funding than those that aren't. DC doesn't want to pay for 60 city halls in one county, and it's hard to blame them. I don't want to either. As for politics, it didn't save the current county government. How could it save all these little mayors if it couldn't save Jimmy Dimora? There are limits... and thank heavens for that. Since when are the Feds paying for 60 city halls? Since when are you paying for all of those extra city halls? An overwhelming majority of local governments are funded, you guessed it, locally. The people that benefit from separate governments in the suburbs are the ones paying for it, too. And since some of us do work in Cleveland, we're paying for Cleveland's government and schools, as well. This was in response to Matches' point that the feds shouldn't condition aid upon city size, which was in response to my point that any consolidations increasing Clevleand's population would make more federal aid available to the area. The feds will pay more to this county with one city hall than with 60. Fact. This is why it's important to consolidate WITH Cleveland, not around it. Millions would be thrown away, automatically, by leaving Cleveland out of any consolidation plan. These are the same millions we're losing right now. Consolidation isn't a bail out. It's the only logical thing to do. You keep characterizing it as robbing Peter to pay Paul, when it's really two hands of the same body. And a lot of the money that sleeps in the suburbs is made in Cleveland... so there's no way the more bedroomy suburbs have ever carried their own weight. To act like they're standing on their own two feet, and Cleveland isn't, is ridiculous. Very, very, very few suburbs are self-sustaining. Cleveland is, they're not. Cleveland flourished before they came along, while they owe their existence to Cleveland on a daily basis.
March 3, 201015 yr ^^That's a double-standard. Why say that merging suburbs is realistic, when merging with the City of Cleveland is not? It's because of "leadership", and "ineffectiveness", right? As someone has pointed out before, the councilman in Cleveland Heights who brought up merging with University Heights had a direct rejection from the mayor of University Heights. These two cities share the same school district currently. But sharing services and boarders? Well, that for some reason is too much. I'll add emphasis to SOME REASON. Saying that Cleveland is a "clean-slate" is unrealistic. It would be, if there was enough money to clean the brownfields which litter countless properties from the east-side of the city to the west. It would be if we could renovate or demolish the THOUSANDS of vacant homes within the city currently, mostly from within the last 10 years. Truth is- we don't have a clean slate to work with. If we did, it would be a cake-walk to deal with. Come-on, people! This region isn't losing population SOLELY becuase of one-party rule, or SOLELY because of bad decisions which were actually under the control of local leadership. We are actually doing RATHER WELL, considering where we could be today. Manufacturing isn't our main regional industry any longer. Our unemployment rate is UNDER the national average. And I repeat- if you can come up with a year when the nation was in a recession and we were actually under the national unemployment average, in our lifetime, I'LL BUY YOU A BEER!!!! That is in part, because of leadership- both government and private, within the CITY OF CLEVELAND, The region's main employer. It is also because of regional cooperation, the likes of which hasn't been seen, EVER, within this region. Who is the leader in that? I'll give you a hint- it's not Beachwood, it's Cleveland. How can the reduction of taxes or redistribution of those tax dollars to other county needs, due to consolidation of ALL city services within Cuyahoga County, not be in the best interests of the residents who still live here? Is it because of Current leadership? Current Ineffectiveness? Bad decisions made within the last few years? Or is it because of a mindset which isn't so far moved from the current set up which we have now?
March 3, 201015 yr How can the reduction of taxes or redistribution of those tax dollars to other county needs, due to consolidation of ALL city services within Cuyahoga County, not be in the best interests of the residents who still live here? Is it because of Current leadership? Current Ineffectiveness? Bad decisions made within the last few years? Or is it because of a mindset which isn't so far moved from the current set up which we have now? I think that most residents of the communities that would be prospectively merged into Cleveland or Cuyahoga County do not see this as the most likely outcome: they see a strong possibility that their taxes would go up, not down. I'd actually be curious to see if reaction to the idea of consolidation would be different if the proposals had a tax-limiting provision within them. If the resistance from the suburbs is more cultural than economic, a tax cap would not change many minds. If the resistance from the suburbs is more economic than cultural, a provision to protect their economic interests might well swing a lot of opinions.
March 3, 201015 yr I think that most residents of the communities that would be prospectively merged into Cleveland or Cuyahoga County do not see this as the most likely outcome: they see a strong possibility that their taxes would go up, not down. I'd actually be curious to see if reaction to the idea of consolidation would be different if the proposals had a tax-limiting provision within them. If the resistance from the suburbs is more cultural than economic, a tax cap would not change many minds. If the resistance from the suburbs is more economic than cultural, a provision to protect their economic interests might well swing a lot of opinions. Do you live around here? Cleveland taxes are much lower than nearly every inner ring suburb.
March 3, 201015 yr This was in response to Matches' point that the feds shouldn't condition aid upon city size, which was in response to my point that any consolidations increasing Clevleand's population would make more federal aid available to the area. The feds will pay more to this county with one city hall than with 60. Fact. This is why it's important to consolidate WITH Cleveland, not around it. Millions would be thrown away, automatically, by leaving Cleveland out of any consolidation plan. These are the same millions we're losing right now. How much money is being left on the table is certainly up for debate. That said, I still don't know if it's enough incentive for anyone other than Cleveland to get on board with full-scale regionalism. Do you have a break down of the cutoff points for block grants, and how much money each level receives? For instance, I know one of the cutoffs is 50,000 people, because Cleveland Heights officials were whining about Census numbers from 2000 hurting their access to such grants. I've never been able to track down an entire list, though. Consolidation isn't a bail out. It's the only logical thing to do. You keep characterizing it as robbing Peter to pay Paul, when it's really two hands of the same body. And a lot of the money that sleeps in the suburbs is made in Cleveland... so there's no way the more bedroomy suburbs have ever carried their own weight. To act like they're standing on their own two feet, and Cleveland isn't, is ridiculous. Very, very, very few suburbs are self-sustaining. Cleveland is, they're not. Cleveland flourished before they came along, while they owe their existence to Cleveland on a daily basis. Great, I know that a lot of that money is made in Cleveland. But it's not as if they're taking the money and running without helping Cleveland. These people pay high taxes--income, sales, etc. that all go to benefit Cleveland. Not to mention other money-generating tactics by the city, including strict enforcement of parking rules, illegal speeding cameras, etc. I think the fact that you're demanding more, more, more of these people is completely ridiculous and unfair. It was bad policy that scared these people away from the City to begin with, rather than insisting that they be merged back in against their will, try instituting good policy to bring them back willingly.
March 3, 201015 yr Why say that merging suburbs is realistic, when merging with the City of Cleveland is not? It's because of "leadership", and "ineffectiveness", right? As someone has pointed out before, the councilman in Cleveland Heights who brought up merging with University Heights had a direct rejection from the mayor of University Heights. These two cities share the same school district currently. But sharing services and boarders? Well, that for some reason is too much. I'll add emphasis to SOME REASON. Since you and someone else brought it up, and only glossed it over, let me expand. As a resident of University Heights, I, like many other residents, have and will remain strongly opposed to any merger with Cleveland Heights. Your understanding of the situation is way too simplistic. There are vast and deep cultural and philosophical differences between the two cities. Not to mention the reality that one is about three times the size of the other. The fact that the two cities share a school district is almost irrelevant. Many (probably a majority of) University Heights residents would prefer if that weren't even the case. The CH-UH school district "partnership" is probably one of the most contentious in the state. Unfortunately for us, the Ohio DoE isn't very keen to allowing cities to split from school districts, and considering the fact that UH accounts for a much high percentage of district funds than percentage of enrolled children, CH would probably mount a big fight if we tried to leave. Long story short, if the discussion were about merging with another one of our neighbors, perhaps South Euclid or Shaker Heights, you better believe that more UH residents would think favorably of such a possibility. However any talks about merging with Cleveland Heights aren't going to go very far, and the former mayor's comments really are in line with what a large chunk of residents feel about the issue.
March 3, 201015 yr There are vast and deep cultural and philosophical differences between the two cities. Wow. We're talking about a 5-mile radius here, tops. The Amazon Valley is less tribal than what you're describing.
March 3, 201015 yr Long story short, if the discussion were about merging with another one of our neighbors, perhaps South Euclid or Shaker Heights, you better believe that more UH residents would think favorably of such a possibility. However any talks about merging with Cleveland Heights aren't going to go very far, and the former mayor's comments really are in line with what a large chunk of residents feel about the issue. I have two direct questions for you. What are the vast cultural and philosophical differences between University Heights and Cleveland Heights? Why would a merger with South Euclid be more beneficial than a merger with Cleveland Heights for University Heights?
March 3, 201015 yr There are vast and deep cultural and philosophical differences between the two cities. Wow. We're talking about a 5-mile radius here, tops. The Amazon Valley is less tribal than what you're describing. Like I would expect, you don't get it. I guess it's easy for someone to sit and look at a map and postulate about which cities look like they fit together. It's not that simple. I'm just really glad that there is no way, legally, for anyone here to force their Utopian view of how this region should look on to others. I'm glad that these things will have to be voted on and in all likelihood, are going to lose embarrassingly.
March 3, 201015 yr ^Seriously. Cultural differences, as in one suburb has a larger African American population than the other? "Contentious" school-district, as in, the school district is largely African-American, with the majority of students residing in Cleveland Heights while many University Heights students are sent to private schools? Yeah... that won't go too far here. Care to address anything else from the post you quoted me on?
March 3, 201015 yr There are vast and deep cultural and philosophical differences between the two cities. Wow. We're talking about a 5-mile radius here, tops. The Amazon Valley is less tribal than what you're describing. Like I would expect, you don't get it. I guess it's easy for someone to sit and look at a map and postulate about which cities look like they fit together. It's not that simple. I'm just really glad that there is no way, legally, for anyone here to force their Utopian view of how this region should look on to others. I'm glad that these things will have to be voted on and in all likelihood, are going to lose embarrassingly. As an insider to the situation, I don't see that much of a difference culturally or philosophically between Cleveland Heights and University Heights. I see the same attitudes, battles, biases, advantages, disadvantages, etc. in both places. The western half of University Heights and the southeastern portion of Cleveland Heights are barely indistinguishable, IMO, in many ways (people, housing, income, "philosophy", etc.). I feel that many University Heights residents think their city is something it isn't, and have a view of Cleveland Heights as something it isn't, when it reality the two cities are incredibly similar in a lot of ways.
March 3, 201015 yr A shame that "cultural differences" can stop the merger of services, resulting in less duplication at all levels of government in the county, savings for taxpayers, funds allocated to regional needs, etc. Great.
March 3, 201015 yr and i still want to know... what is exactly makes the City of Cleveland "less business friendly" than any of the other "cities" in Cuyahoga County?
March 3, 201015 yr I never realized University Hts was so elitist. For that, they don't deserve to wear the Tiger.
March 3, 201015 yr Like I would expect, you don't get it. Get what? We need more information about the cultural and philosophical differences you're referring to, because many of us live right by there and have never heard of such a thing. Nobody's just looking at a map, we're all pretty familiar with the area. And we're struggling to understand just what differences you mean. Please elaborate.
March 3, 201015 yr Long story short, if the discussion were about merging with another one of our neighbors, perhaps South Euclid or Shaker Heights, you better believe that more UH residents would think favorably of such a possibility. However any talks about merging with Cleveland Heights aren't going to go very far, and the former mayor's comments really are in line with what a large chunk of residents feel about the issue. I have two direct questions for you. What are the vast cultural and philosophical differences between University Heights and Cleveland Heights? Why would a merger with South Euclid be more beneficial than a merger with Cleveland Heights for University Heights? Please answer, because as 327 said, some of us live in these areas and don't know what you're talking about. This is the problem with regionalization, we need to understand where each other are coming from in order to see how (or if) we can work together.
March 3, 201015 yr It would seem that UH prefers its duplexes more of the up-down style, while Cleveland Hts is more popular with the side-by-side (tastefully on the corner of course) style. Maybe that is what Clevelander17 was referring to. UH also has Target, while we have Wallmart... another big, irreconciable difference. Perhaps we could be convinced to hold off on the annexation if UH just gave us Bialy's. That's all we really want anyways.
March 3, 201015 yr As much as he posts, I don't know why he wouldn't want to explain himself. I asked 2 pretty simple questions about statements he made.
March 3, 201015 yr For what it's worth, I thought this was an interesting read, especially this paragraph: "Much as the suburbs hate to admit it, for example, their economic health is inextricably linked to that of the cities. Recent literature explains this more fully. The National League of Cities, in a study, "All in It Together: Cities, Suburbs and Local Economic Regions," found that for most U.S. metro areas, median household incomes of central cities and suburbs moved up and down together between 1979 and 1989; one did not prosper without the other." http://www.sprawlwatch.org/regionalannex.html And for some recent figures: http://www.louisvilleky.gov/yourgovernment/merger.htm
March 3, 201015 yr Long story short, if the discussion were about merging with another one of our neighbors, perhaps South Euclid or Shaker Heights, you better believe that more UH residents would think favorably of such a possibility. However any talks about merging with Cleveland Heights aren't going to go very far, and the former mayor's comments really are in line with what a large chunk of residents feel about the issue. I have two direct questions for you. What are the vast cultural and philosophical differences between University Heights and Cleveland Heights? Why would a merger with South Euclid be more beneficial than a merger with Cleveland Heights for University Heights? University Heights has a more conservative populace than Cleveland Heights (though UH is still fairly liberal overall). University Heights has a much larger chunk of families that opt for religious/private schools than Cleveland Heights. Perhaps I'm overstating these differences a bit, but they exists and they become apparent every three years when the CH-UH BoE calls for a new levy. South Euclid would be a better fit demographically and also because it is close in size to University Heights, thus its voting population wouldn't be able to enforce its will on the people of UH. It would be much more of a partnership than an annexation (which is essentially would a CH-UH merger would amount to).
March 3, 201015 yr ^Seriously. Cultural differences, as in one suburb has a larger African American population than the other? "Contentious" school-district, as in, the school district is largely African-American, with the majority of students residing in Cleveland Heights while many University Heights students are sent to private schools? Yeah... that won't go too far here. Care to address anything else from the post you quoted me on? What, those real differences won't go too far amongst the pro-regionalism, pro-Utopian crowd? It's not about race, it's about cultural differences. If you really want to take this debate to the next level, we can do it, as long as it remains mature.
March 3, 201015 yr There are vast and deep cultural and philosophical differences between the two cities. Wow. We're talking about a 5-mile radius here, tops. The Amazon Valley is less tribal than what you're describing. Like I would expect, you don't get it. I guess it's easy for someone to sit and look at a map and postulate about which cities look like they fit together. It's not that simple. I'm just really glad that there is no way, legally, for anyone here to force their Utopian view of how this region should look on to others. I'm glad that these things will have to be voted on and in all likelihood, are going to lose embarrassingly. As an insider to the situation, I don't see that much of a difference culturally or philosophically between Cleveland Heights and University Heights. I see the same attitudes, battles, biases, advantages, disadvantages, etc. in both places. The western half of University Heights and the southeastern portion of Cleveland Heights are barely indistinguishable, IMO, in many ways (people, housing, income, "philosophy", etc.). I feel that many University Heights residents think their city is something it isn't, and have a view of Cleveland Heights as something it isn't, when it reality the two cities are incredibly similar in a lot of ways. Fine, yes, there are similarities between the Northwest corner of UH and eastern CH, I'll give you that. But the further you move east, the more evident the differences become.
March 3, 201015 yr I never realized University Hts was so elitist. For that, they don't deserve to wear the Tiger. Don't worry about it, many of us grew up wearing different large cats, namely a Wildcat or Bengal instead. :-P
March 3, 201015 yr Perhaps we could be convinced to hold off on the annexation if UH just gave us Bialy's. That's all we really want anyways. The idea that it would be an "annexation," and that you guys openly refer to it as such, is a big part of the problem. :police:
March 3, 201015 yr Like I said..... elitist. No worries though... all the best athletes come from monticello or roxboro anyways.
March 3, 201015 yr Fine, yes, there are similarities between the Northwest corner of UH and eastern CH, I'll give you that. But the further you move east, the more evident the differences become. Huh? Are you saying there are no orthodox Jewish people in Cleveland Heights? Many people in Cleveland Heights send their kids to private schools as well. The schools aren't really an issue here, though, since CH and UH already share the same school district. Do cities need to be demographically homogeneous? Even so, SE isn't much more like UH than CH is. If anything, SE is more similar to CH (especially with respect to average household income). Although if it's % black that you're worried about (I think that' the elephant in the room), sure, you could shun the 41% black city and associate yourself with a 21% black city. Is that what everyone's so worried about? Either way, I think both CH and UH (as well as a bunch of other communities, SH included) should be merging with Cleveland.
March 3, 201015 yr By the way, the per capita income for CH and UH are nearly identical, whereas SE is almost $4,000 lower. So I'm assuming you just want the lowest percentage of African-Americans possible when you speak of "demographics"?
March 3, 201015 yr The very name of "University Heights" is subservient. What university? What's it higher than? Meanwhile, a place with a name like "Cleveland Heights" is obviously coming at you with freaky mojo. As I said, I live right by it so I understand the fear-- believe me I do. Pretty soon there's gonna be a store on Cedar (YOUR part of Cedar that is) selling vintage Transformers and weed pipes. It's a shifty burg, that Cleveland Heights. Everything has its place. In life, a man must find his own stretch of Cedar. On this stretch we have papers. May I see your papers? It's not that I think you're, you know, from that Heights over there down Cedar. It's just these crazy times, know what I mean? Things don't stay in their place anymore.
March 3, 201015 yr What university? John Carroll University What's it higher than? Virtually all roads that lead into the inner ring suburbs (known either as the Heights communities, or the Hillcrest communities) are hills--- Superior Rd. (Hill), Cedar (Hill), Mayfield Rd. (Hill), Richmond Rd. (Hill), etc. etc. Hence their names.
Create an account or sign in to comment