What university?

 

John Carroll University

 

Higher than Mount Union

 

OK, I ported a d3boards.com OAC joke to the UrbanOhio regionalzation thread.  Yikes.

 

 

BTW I have no horse in this race (NEO Regionalism).

I do not keep up on this like I probably should.

I just happened to swing by the thread and saw 327's questions , which were just too easy to answer  :wink:

 

327, You must be originally a west sider? Or not originally from the Cleveland area at all?

John Carroll is a great institution of higher learning and a great asset to Cleveland period.

Let me try phrasing this another way.

 

As far as I can tell, UH derives very little benefit from teaming up with CH in a shared school district.  A full merger between the two would be more of the same story, a transfer of wealth from a city that manages itself well, UH, to a city that has a sketchy track record, CH. 

 

University Heights has almost nothing to gain in the short-term from a merger with Cleveland Heights or Cleveland, and the long-term benefits are debatable, at best.  I think it's simply too risky for limited or nebulous reward.

 

I'm probably not going to convince many of you to see things my way, but again, I don't really have to, because it's not really up to you.  And if there comes a day when the voters of University Heights change their minds and decide that they want to merge with Cleveland or Cleveland Heights, most of us that don't agree with such a decision will simply move elsewhere.

Like I said..... elitist.

 

No worries though... all the best athletes come from monticello or roxboro anyways.

 

Not that it matters, but even if it were relevant, it's worth noting that most of the kids at Wiley are from Cleveland Heights, too.

 

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.

 

University Heights residents send their kids to private schools at a rate that is unmatched in the region and from I gather, even the state.  That's no coincidence  Many UH residents want nothing to do with CH and the schools. 

 

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"?

 

Yes, but look at household and family income levels.  There's a pretty significant disparity there.

 

In a perfect world, University Heights would merge with Beachwood, but that's not going to happen.  UH's next best dance partner would be Shaker Heights, and that possibility would probably be 50-50, at best.

What university?

 

John Carroll University

 

Higher than Mount Union

 

OK, I ported a d3boards.com OAC joke to the UrbanOhio regionalzation thread.  Yikes.

 

MUC isn't even in the same conversation.

Beachwood wouldn't have you

University Heights residents send their kids to private schools at a rate that is unmatched in the region and from I gather, even the state.  That's no coincidence  Many UH residents want nothing to do with CH and the schools. 

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"?

Yes, but look at household and family income levels.  There's a pretty significant disparity there.

 

In a perfect world, University Heights would merge with Beachwood, but that's not going to happen....

 

CH and SE have virtually identical household and family income levels.  So while yes, Clevleand Heights residents currently outnumber University Heights residents by just over 3:1, I just don't understand what sort of nefarious resolutions you expect them to enact that would oppress the new minority.  Shaker Hts strikes me as even more liberal than Cleveland Heights and they also would have UH by a 2:1 margin.

 

 

The biggest cultural difference that I see between these two cities is that CH is kinda cool, and UH is rather lame.  You're right, University Heights IS a better fit with Beachwood.  I suggest splitting it down the middle, and giving the Beachwoody portion of UH to Beachwood.  The rest goes to Cleveland Heights. 

 

Sincerely,

Solomon

 

Bottom line is I think the posts in this thread illustrate the sheer impossibility of these mergers.  For virtually every combination, there is a gut reaction from someone that says "City X wouldn't have City Y".  I'm going to choose to ignore race though I acknowledge it is a factor, but giving Clevelander17 the benefit of the doubt - it's about affluence.  As a University Heights resident, he doesn't want to join the demographically poorer Cleveland Heights, but he likes the idea of joining forces with Beachwood (and Shaker, with itss higher percentage of african americans), which each have higher median incomes. 

 

So I challenge someone to find two adjoining municipalities with with a disparity in median household income of no greater than 10% and a disparity in minority population of less than 10 percentage points.  If one exists, there's your pilot merger.  Bonus points if they share a school system.

Excellent post Matches.  I agree that total "mergers" are not practical.  However, mergers of certain services among neighbors are realistic IMO.  It already happens.  School districts would be the biggest obstacle (which is why the CH-UH debate is somewhat silly to some).

 

The ideal situation, however, would be that the entire region merge - or at least Cleveland and the inner-rings (as I suggested a few pages back) - and find collective strength among the various parts.

I agree.  There's no reason the larger region as a whole shouldn't be able to find a creative way to consolidate, yet allow each area to retain some semblance of autonomy.  This is Cleveland, not Yugo-freaking-slavia.

Beachwood wouldn't have you

 

I said that.  Just like we won't have you, and you won't have Cleveland.  This is why regionalism will never work.  Glad we had this talk.  See ya out there!

The biggest cultural difference that I see between these two cities is that CH is kinda cool, and UH is rather lame.  You're right, University Heights IS a better fit with Beachwood.

 

UH may be "lame," but CH's "coolness" comes with hefty baggage.

Shaker Hts strikes me as even more liberal than Cleveland Heights and they also would have UH by a 2:1 margin.

 

I see CH as slightly more liberal than SH, but they're very close.  The biggest difference is that while SH is liberal, they also have the funds to support their liberal agenda.  CH isn't as well-off, and any attempt to merge with UH (i.e. annex UH) would certainly be a big money grab for the city.

 

If I'm a resident of any city, especially a homeowner, someone who has invested in the community, I'd be a fool not to take into consideration all potential consequences of any merger.  As a resident of UH, I just don't see there being enough of a benefit, enough of a gain, from merging with Cleveland or Cleveland Heights.  Telling me that such a merge would help the greater community sounds great in theory, but we need to see tangibles, especially when we're talking about something that would almost certainly lower home values and decrease services.

:roll:

 

 

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).

 

Opting for religious/private schools, when the city is lush with cash as you suggest, only suggests a fear of the population of students who attend the city's schools.  The same happened to Euclid (though not as lush with cash) a few years back, which is now experiencing white flight.  Like I said, this doesn't go too far.  I'll keep my answers short since they've been mostly skipped over.

 

^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.

 

Well well well... what might the next level be?  A debate without answers to prior responses isn't much of a debate in my opinion.  Calling one suburb "more conserviative", isn't much of a cultural difference especially when considering mergers with other suburbs, based on your own prior responses, is not entirely out of the question.  Merging services with Beachwood, South Euclid, or Shaker Heights?  Good.  Merging with Cleveland Heights?  Bad.  Amounts to annexation.  "Cultural" differences.  Wrong "demographics". Won't work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow you east siders are a crazy bunch...

 

Start small, citites can remain sovereign but merge Fire and EMS into larger districts first and if that works out maybe merge police districts next. Schools would be last. There is a lot of fat to be trimmed and spread around in the Fire depts. Due to individual city rules some are overstaffed and some cities leech on their neighbors based on sharing agreements, knowing that the neighborring city's dept can be there with in 5 minutes. Police might be trickier, no ideas on that one. We have a lot of very good school districts in the Cleveland suburban school districts, it would be great if they could designate each district to have a magnet curriculum at the separate highschools along with their general ed/ college ed and do open enrollment (limited by openings available).

 

 

Just a couple of ideas.

 

BTW I have no horse in this race (NEO Regionalism).

I do not keep up on this like I probably should.

I just happened to swing by the thread and saw 327's questions , which were just too easy to answer  :wink:

 

327, You must be originally a west sider? Or not originally from the Cleveland area at all?

John Carroll is a great institution of higher learning and a great asset to Cleveland period.

 

Dude I was being facetious.  That was sort of a "Stephen Colbert" type post.  I'm familiar with John Carroll.  I was attempting to illustrate the incongruity of attaching sovereignty concepts to an arbitrarily selected cut-out from a large chunk of generic suburban area.  The point with the name is that it indicates a dependent status.  "University" is in the name because it's the otherwise non-distinct blocks of houses that lie north of a certain university.  "Heights" is in the name because it's higher than Cleveland.  Thus the name itself is referential to Cleveland, suggesting that UH exists only as part of a larger community. 

I see CH as slightly more liberal than SH, but they're very close. The biggest difference is that while SH is liberal, they also have the funds to support their liberal agenda. CH isn't as well-off, and any attempt to merge with UH (i.e. annex UH) would certainly be a big money grab for the city.

 

You obviously know very little about Shaker's financial condition.

Start small, citites [sic] can remain sovereign but merge Fire and EMS into larger districts first and if that works out maybe merge police districts next.

 

This sounds like a smarter way to have this conversation.  Find out which services people care more about saving a couple hundred dollars per year by merging than they do about local control and start there.  If there aren't any, well then Clevelander17 is right.  If people are happy to pay a premium level in taxes for hyper local control, no reason to stop them.

 

But i think the city services debate is a bit of a distraction, because I doubt the savings per household would really be that mind blowing.  The real prize for regional advancement has to do with economic development, property tax parity and land use.  Do we really let municipalities sink under the weight of land use decisions made literally 100 years ago (e.g., very little commercial property in Shaker Hts)?  Is it fair that Pepper Pike and points east zone out housing that is unaffordable to everyone but the upper middle class and above?  [As an aside, if I hear Randall O'Toole or any other libertarian mention one more time how "planners" are scheming to force everyone live at higher densities when, in reality, most land use regulations dictate the exact opposite, I'm going to scream.]

 

One other point -it is incredibly disingenuous to say that City of Cleveland's plight is the result of "mismanagement" and that the city should get its house in order before it "takes" resources from others.  Unless you believe in a head tax instead of a progressive income tax, I suppose.  If we want to talk about tax equity, my guess is that UH "takes" resources away from Hunting Valley (very high incomes) and Independence (franchise and other business taxes) through federal and state spending.  And I don't understand this idea about Cleveland residents voting entitlements for themselves- TANF and public housing are federally funded, administered through the state and counties.  If public housing is in Cleveland, it's because that's where it was sited 50-80 years ago, not because Cleveland voters voted themselves free housing.

...and I'm still waiting to hear how the City of Cleveland is less "business friendly" than surrounding "cities" in Cuyahoga County.

 

and in regards to "cultural differences", I assure you municipal boundaries are invisible and not brick walls.  If the problems are not addressed by the whole, those "cultural differences" will show up right next to you, just ask Shaker Heights, Cleveland Heights, Garfield Heights, Maple Heights, East Cleveland, Lakewood, and on and on and on...

...and I'm still waiting to hear how the City of Cleveland is less "business friendly" than surrounding "cities" in Cuyahoga County.

 

and in regards to "cultural differences", I assure you municipal boundaries are invisible and not brick walls. If the problems are not addressed by the whole, those "cultural differences" will show up right next to you, just ask Shaker Heights, Cleveland Heights, Garfield Heights, Maple Heights, East Cleveland, Lakewood, and on and on and on...

 

Or, as Clevelander17 has already pointed out, the west side of University Heights.

:-D Thanks for highlighting  the spelling error StrapHanger  :-D

Start small, citites [sic] can remain sovereign but merge Fire and EMS into larger districts first and if that works out maybe merge police districts next.

 

This sounds like a smarter way to have this conversation.  Find out which services people care more about saving a couple hundred dollars per year by merging than they do about local control and start there.  If there aren't any, well then Clevelander17 is right.  If people are happy to pay a premium level in taxes for hyper local control, no reason to stop them.

 

But i think the city services debate is a bit of a distraction, because I doubt the savings per household would really be that mind blowing.  The real prize for regional advancement has to do with economic development, property tax parity and land use.  Do we really let municipalities sink under the weight of land use decisions made literally 100 years ago (e.g., very little commercial property in Shaker Hts)?  Is it fair that Pepper Pike and points east zone out housing that is unaffordable to everyone but the upper middle class and above?  [As an aside, if I hear Randall O'Toole or any other libertarian mention one more time how "planners" are scheming to force everyone live at higher densities when, in reality, most land use regulations dictate the exact opposite, I'm going to scream.]

 

One other point -it is incredibly disingenuous to say that City of Cleveland's plight is the result of "mismanagement" and that the city should get its house in order before it "takes" resources from others.  Unless you believe in a head tax instead of a progressive income tax, I suppose.  If we want to talk about tax equity, my guess is that UH "takes" resources away from Hunting Valley (very high incomes) and Independence (franchise and other business taxes) through federal and state spending. And I don't understand this idea about Cleveland residents voting entitlements for themselves- TANF and public housing are federally funded, administered through the state and counties.  If public housing is in Cleveland, it's because that's where it was sited 50-80 years ago, not because Cleveland voters voted themselves free housing.

 

Thanks for pointing that out. 

 

 

 

 

I see CH as slightly more liberal than SH, but they're very close.  The biggest difference is that while SH is liberal, they also have the funds to support their liberal agenda.  CH isn't as well-off, and any attempt to merge with UH (i.e. annex UH) would certainly be a big money grab for the city.

 

You obviously know very little about Shaker's financial condition.

 

So Shaker Heights is doing worse-off financially than Cleveland Heights?  Maybe SH needs to set up more speed traps and hire more meter maids, then.  :laugh:

What you people don't get is that on the list of problems facing Greater Cleveland, fragmented government is not at the top, and probably not even in the top three. 

 

And here's what I mean by cultural differences.  There is a culture of people out there that treat their homes/neighborhoods like crap, don't value education, commit crimes because that's what their idols do, and generally feel like they are entitled to everything while doing nothing.  Then, they vote for "leaders" who must look like them, speak like them, and kowtow to their interests.  These people treat their schools like overpriced daycare centers and their kids completely lack discipline.  They move from bad neighborhoods to better ones, leeching off of the sympathies of people who feel sorry for them, who truly want to help, but can't because they're too blind to see the reality of the situation. 

 

Cleveland, East Cleveland, Euclid, Maple Heights, Bedford Heights, Warrensville Heights have all succumbed.  Shaker Heights, South Euclid, and Cleveland Heights are close to a tipping point.  There is still hope for University Heights and Lyndhurst, but they need to remain steadfast and continue to fight.

 

Regionalism, on any level, is not going to solve this problem.  Regionalism is only going to hasten the demise of the areas of Cuyahoga County that remain nice.  Spreading mediocrity is not going to fix the situation, it's only going to encourage the productive members of society to move further and further away from Cleveland.

 

This cultural sickness is not limited to any one race, so please do not make this discussion into something it's not.  The point is that this region needs to starve the beast and stop giving in to these people, because you can't fix the problem on the local level, and continually throwing more money at the problem is only going to make us all losers.

 

I expect most of you to disagree with me, and that's fine.  I once was an idealist about these types of things myself.  Hopefully one day you'll get over it and see reality for what it is.

From your (apparently) uncultured neighbors in Cleveland Heights -

 

 

And I truly hope you and yours are able to "save" UH and Lyndhurst.  Don't worry, just keep fighting the good fight and everything will be all whight.

What you people don't get

 

There's a good way to start a post.  Your elitist views really shine through, not only in the content of what you say, but in the form as well.

 

Hopefully one day you'll get over it and see reality for what it is.

 

The reality is that there are problems, but running from them is a bad long-term strategy.

Can't we just start a "white-flight" thread and discuss the reasons/rationale for that epidemic there?

Can't we just start a "white-flight" thread and discuss the reasons/rationale for that epidemic there?

 

Is it possible to separate "white flight" and the reasons for it from a discussion on regionalism?

Can't we just start a "white-flight" thread and discuss the reasons/rationale for that epidemic there?

 

Is it possible to separate "white flight" and the reasons for it from a discussion on regionalism?

 

No.

Seriously, to me the notion of regional government has more to do with the poaching of business from one city to another to support their city tax base when the growth to the region as a whole is zero. There is a lot of that goes on and it is damaging. And I am not to limiting the notion of regionalism to just Cuyahoga county, because Avon is on the record saying that they need their new interchange to attract business to bolster their tax base because as of right now they can't afford all of the infrastructure needed for the new housing. We should be focusing on policy to bring new business in the region and not having a company move a mile into your city limits.

Elitist and racist are the code-words of the enablers who have no argument.

 

Forgive me not wanting to deal with neighbors who don't take care of their own property, blast music all hours of the night, don't discipline their kids, and don't pay much or anything in property/income taxes.  No, we should want more of these people to move into the neighborhood and into the schools.  We should try to change them by sending them to civility classes.  This plan can work.

Can't we just start a "white-flight" thread and discuss the reasons/rationale for that epidemic there?

 

Is it possible to separate "white flight" and the reasons for it from a discussion on regionalism?

 

I think it is.  On the most part and IMHO, people move because of the outward appearance of the neighborhood and the school system, not the government structure.  The next time you hear somebody moving out to a far-east suburb, ask them what government plan their new City/Village/Township is under, is the Mayor really the "Mayor" or is there a City Manager, what are the bargaining unit compositions, what types of mutual aid contracts does the city have, what constitutes a quorum of council, does the City even have a charter or is it run under Title VII, etc., etc.  I bet you would find that most people are not that knowledgeable outside of the "curb appeal"... which I don't think would materially change for any given neighborhood with regionalization.  If anything, I would think it would have a net positive effect.

I think it's safe to bet that Clevelander17's fears were shared by many in other similar areas that regionalized like Louisville, Indianapolis, and Minneapolis.  And I think it's safe to say in those cases it was unfounded.  I think it's also safe to say that each of those areas are better off than it was before.  Every 1.9 square miles for yourself hasn't worked for us in the past and it won't work for us in the future.  The way were set up is on a dinasaur level.

We should try to change them by sending them to civility classes. This plan can work.

 

Yes I agree 110%. The roughians of the world will easily be reformed by civility classes.  While we're at it, let's ramp up the D.A.R.E program. ;)

We should try to change them by sending them to civility classes.  This plan can work.

 

Yes I agree 110%. The roughians of the world will easily be reformed by civility classes.  While we're at it, let's ramp up the D.A.R.E program. ;)

 

Absolutely.  Higher per pupil spending, more taxes, more government programs.  It's working wonders for the Heights area.

Absolutely. Higher per pupil spending, more taxes, more government programs. It's working wonders for the Heights area.

 

Where's your proof it's having no effect? Cleveland Heights High School has its problems, of course. But it also still has more NMSFs and graduates moving on to Ivy League schools that many exurban high schools. Maybe that spending is keeping some of the upper income kids from fleeing the school. How do you know CHHS wouldn't be more like Shaw without the community investment?

 

I'll bet you've never even stepped a foot inside that school.

 

I assume you would love to bitch and moan how the city was doing nothing about the problems if per pupil spending was low and a couple years later the school made CMSD look real attractive. But you ignore any positive effects the spending may have in the face of some tough conditions (mainly poverty) that other inner ring school districts haven't fared so well against.

I think it's safe to bet that Clevelander17's fears were shared by many in other similar areas that regionalized like Louisville, Indianapolis, and Minneapolis.  And I think it's safe to say in those cases it was unfounded.  I think it's also safe to say that each of those areas are better off than it was before.  Every 1.9 square miles for yourself hasn't worked for us in the past and it won't work for us in the future.  The way were set up is on a dinasaur level.

 

Actually, it has worked for us in the past.  It may not work for us in the future, but we don't know that your plan will, either.

 

Don't try to minimize the realities of my concerns.  I don't know if any of the cities you mentioned faced the problems Cleveland is facing and the sheer percentage of people living the dream off of the government like we have here.  And until you address my very real concerns, and have a plan in place to make sure it gets better, and not worse, you're going to get nowhere.  Believe it or not, my views on these issues are relatively moderate compared to some of the people you're going to have to convince to get these changes put into place.

 

During today's State of the City address, Frank Jackson complained about a loss of $24,000,000 in income tax revenues since last year.  Sounds kind of scary, but there was also population loss, meaning he didn't need to provide services for as many people in 2008 as he did in 2009.  Of course he is only looking at the bottom line, and trying to figure out how to get his hands on more money than he needs for the number of residents he has.  This is typical and it's why all suburban residents need to be wary of politicians from other cities talking about all kinds of profit-generating schemes, including mergers (read "annexations") to get increase revenues.

I don't know if any of the cities you mentioned faced the problems Cleveland is facing and the sheer percentage of people living the dream off of the government like we have here.

 

Do you think all residents of the city of Cleveland in poverty are "living the dream off of the government"?  Honest question.

During today's State of the City address, Frank Jackson complained about a loss of $24,000,000 in income tax revenues since last year. Sounds kind of scary, but there was also population loss, meaning he didn't need to provide services for as many people in 2008 as he did in 2009.

 

Yes, but the loss in income tax revenues was proportionally greater than the loss of population, since it was also due to job losses and pay cuts.  Further, he must provide many fixed services regardless of population (road maintenance, snow removal) and many services to a large population that does not live in the city (police and fire services benefiting suburban employees and attendees at Indians, Browns, Cavs games, etc.).  A 10% population loss does not mean a reduction in the need for 10% of the city's services.  Also, the loss of income taxes is likely a much higher percentage than the loss of population.

Where's your proof it's having no effect?  Cleveland Heights High School has its problems, of course.  But it also still has more NMSFs and graduates moving on to Ivy League schools that many exurban high schools.  Maybe that spending is keeping some of the upper income kids from fleeing the school.  How do you know CHHS wouldn't be more like Shaw without the community investment?

 

I'll bet you've never even stepped a foot inside that school.

 

I assume you would love to bitch and moan how the city was doing nothing about the problems if per pupil spending was low and a couple years later the school made CMSD look real attractive.  But you ignore any positive effects the spending may have in the face of some tough conditions (mainly poverty) that other inner ring school districts haven't fared so well against.

 

There is no link between per pupil spending and student success.  NONE!

 

Yes, I've been inside Heights High School.  I grew up in this community, went to camps held there, and I even attended school there for a while about a decade ago.  Things have only gotten worse since then.  How about yourself?  Didn't you go to St. Edward? 

 

NMSFs/Ivy League matriculation are more closely linked to demographics and family support than anything any school can do.  I have no doubt that the teachers at CHHS are as good as any in the area, and if your kid is smart (and lives in a bubble), he/she can do well there.  However in the past two decades more and more of a negative influence has moved into the school, making it harder for well-intentioned kids to learn, and even at times unsafe.  These are things that you would never see at a decent private school or suburban public school.  On paper, the education offered to any individual at CHHS can compete with any in the area.  However it's the atmosphere of the school that has gotten worse and worse. 

 

The low-income families that are moving into the area are using the schools as a babysitting service.  They have no real interest in their kids' education, they simply drop them off at school and expect that because the school is better than Shaw or Collinwood (or wherever they came from) that their child is going to do better.  It's complete nonsense.  And that's to say nothing of the families that don't live in CH, UH, or SE, but use fake addresses to send their kids to these schools.

 

We pay the second highest property taxes in the state for this?  This failed social experiment doesn't make sense anymore.  The high taxes combined with the sketch schools have scared away thousands of potential residents.  It's time to cut per pupil expenditures, because we're wasting it on people that don't deserve it, so we can cut property taxes.  At the very least, make the community more attractive/affordable to families that may not be using the public schools anyways.

 

If changes aren't made, this area is in deep trouble.  When you have a community of takers who scared away the makers, you get East Cleveland or Euclid.  And the Heights doesn't have any real commercial/industrial tax base to bail it out.

I think it's safe to bet that Clevelander17's fears were shared by many in other similar areas that regionalized like Louisville, Indianapolis, and Minneapolis.  And I think it's safe to say in those cases it was unfounded.  I think it's also safe to say that each of those areas are better off than it was before.  Every 1.9 square miles for yourself hasn't worked for us in the past and it won't work for us in the future.  The way were set up is on a dinasaur level.

 

Actually, it has worked for us in the past.  It may not work for us in the future, but we don't know that your plan will, either.

 

Don't try to minimize the realities of my concerns.  I don't know if any of the cities you mentioned faced the problems Cleveland is facing and the sheer percentage of people living the dream off of the government like we have here.  And until you address my very real concerns, and have a plan in place to make sure it gets better, and not worse, you're going to get nowhere.  Believe it or not, my views on these issues are relatively moderate compared to some of the people you're going to have to convince to get these changes put into place.

 

:roll:

 

Um... what?

What do you suggest as far as "changes" if regionalization is not an option in your mind?  Realistic changes, that is. 

 

Many forumers on here like to explore possible and realistic solutions to the problems of the day.  It really does us no good to take the "woe is me" approach and just keep moving outward.

I don't know if any of the cities you mentioned faced the problems Cleveland is facing and the sheer percentage of people living the dream off of the government like we have here.

 

Do you think all residents of the city of Cleveland in poverty are "living the dream off of the government"?  Honest question.

 

Absolutely not.  I have a few good friends living in the city who are professionals.  That's commonplace.  But I think that the takers probably outnumber the makers at a rate that is unmatched in few, if any, other large American cities.  Maybe Detroit has us beat in that realm and that's it.

 

Oh, and as for my friends, all were raised in the suburbs and I strongly suspect that once they start families they'll be moving back to the 'burbs (probably further out than where they were raised).

During today's State of the City address, Frank Jackson complained about a loss of $24,000,000 in income tax revenues since last year.  Sounds kind of scary, but there was also population loss, meaning he didn't need to provide services for as many people in 2008 as he did in 2009.

 

Yes, but the loss in income tax revenues was proportionally greater than the loss of population, since it was also due to job losses and pay cuts.  Further, he must provide many fixed services regardless of population (road maintenance, snow removal) and many services to a large population that does not live in the city (police and fire services benefiting suburban employees and attendees at Indians, Browns, Cavs games, etc.).  A 10% population loss does not mean a reduction in the need for 10% of the city's services.  Also, the loss of income taxes is likely a much higher percentage than the loss of population.

 

Touche, but you make it seem as though anyone from the suburbs that steps foot into downtown is mooching of of the city's services, which is ridiculous.  The city, and its businesses, benefit greatly from having "visitors," even if they're only coming from Avon Lake or Twinsburg.  Even better if they work downtown, meaning they spend 25% of their time but still have to pay a full share of income taxes to Cleveland (admittedly, this is a problem across the board, and places like Beachwood and Cuyahoga Heights are huge beneficiaries).

I think it's safe to bet that Clevelander17's fears were shared by many in other similar areas that regionalized like Louisville, Indianapolis, and Minneapolis. And I think it's safe to say in those cases it was unfounded. I think it's also safe to say that each of those areas are better off than it was before. Every 1.9 square miles for yourself hasn't worked for us in the past and it won't work for us in the future. The way were set up is on a dinasaur level.

 

Actually, it has worked for us in the past. It may not work for us in the future, but we don't know that your plan will, either.

 

Don't try to minimize the realities of my concerns. I don't know if any of the cities you mentioned faced the problems Cleveland is facing and the sheer percentage of people living the dream off of the government like we have here. And until you address my very real concerns, and have a plan in place to make sure it gets better, and not worse, you're going to get nowhere. Believe it or not, my views on these issues are relatively moderate compared to some of the people you're going to have to convince to get these changes put into place.

 

:roll:

 

Um... what?

 

What's your question?  My concerns are the concerns of hundreds of thousands of the people you'd need to convince to put these grandiose regional plans into place.

What do you suggest as far as "changes" if regionalization is not an option in your mind?  Realistic changes, that is. 

 

Many forumers on here like to explore possible and realistic solutions to the problems of the day.  It really does us no good to take the "woe is me" approach and just keep moving outward.

 

I'm not against regionalism, I'm simply against full-scale regionalism.  Suburbs should be given incentive to work together or even merge. 

 

Spending must be reigned in so taxes can be lowered.  That's the only way that this region (and state) will be able to attract business.  I realize that regionalizing some governments and services can save money, and therefore it should be done on a very limited, thought-out level. 

Touche, but you make it seem as though anyone from the suburbs that steps foot into downtown is mooching of of the city's services, which is ridiculous. The city, and its businesses, benefit greatly from having "visitors," even if they're only coming from Avon Lake or Twinsburg. Even better if they work downtown, meaning they spend 25% of their time but still have to pay a full share of income taxes to Cleveland (admittedly, this is a problem across the board, and places like Beachwood and Cuyahoga Heights are huge beneficiaries).

 

You just put words into my mouth.  I was claiming that there are costs associated with people that do not live in the city simply to prove that a population loss does not offset the concerns of an income tax loss.

I don't know if any of the cities you mentioned faced the problems Cleveland is facing and the sheer percentage of people living the dream off of the government like we have here.

 

Do you think all residents of the city of Cleveland in poverty are "living the dream off of the government"? Honest question.

 

Absolutely not. I have a few good friends living in the city who are professionals.

 

Are you good friends (that are professionals) in poverty?  Reread my question.  You seem to associate "people in poverty" with "moochers."  Have you ever considered that there are a lot of people in poverty desperately trying (and often times failing) to change the situation they're in?  Do you really think the majority of people on public assistance enjoy it?

This conversation is spinning a little out of control.  Clevelander17, I think you raise completely real issues facing the Cleveland area. Large influxes of impoverished or even working class citizens without middle class values into concentrated areas of suburbs is not great for their long term viability as places for middle class families (of any race) to raise families.  And I think lots of people on this board and in these communities probably agree with you.  I think you're wrong that CH and SH are near a "tipping point"- people have literally been saying that exact same thing for 40 years- but that's a different (and also interesting) conversation.

 

But I think you are off target when you think municipal government has much or any influence on these trends, except the power to zone out anyone who can't afford a sf home on a half acre lot.  Do you really think differences between CH and UH are because of more effective government in UH?  I agree that regional integration is oversold for the same reason.

 

I think you are really off target when your discussion of regionalism spins into a larger discussion of social welfare spending, most of which is funded through federal money.  There is nothing UH does or can due to limit taxation for those purposes.

How about yourself?  Didn't you go to St. Edward? 

 

No idea where you got that from.  Not that it's any of your business, but 13 years of public schooling for me.

Touche, but you make it seem as though anyone from the suburbs that steps foot into downtown is mooching of of the city's services, which is ridiculous.  The city, and its businesses, benefit greatly from having "visitors," even if they're only coming from Avon Lake or Twinsburg.  Even better if they work downtown, meaning they spend 25% of their time but still have to pay a full share of income taxes to Cleveland (admittedly, this is a problem across the board, and places like Beachwood and Cuyahoga Heights are huge beneficiaries).

 

You just put words into my mouth.  I was claiming that there are costs associated with people that do not live in the city simply to prove that a population loss does not offset the concerns of an income tax loss.

 

You conveniently glossed over that point.  :clap: