the same thing can be said about charlotte... but they are moving out of the county anyways for the schools

 

I think schools are the excuse for the move.  I went to school in one of the western suburbs and I witnessed the same sh*t that only supposedly happens in cleveland.  I mean how far away do you move?  People are in alot of denial in the burbs because it's "their" kids

 

Not with the frequency and acceptance of which it happens in Cleveland you didn't.  There's no denial in graduation rates and test scores.  CMSD isn't under academic probation because the kids can't learn, the teachers can't teach, or the buildings aren't modern enough.  They're under academic probation because the environment they live in outside of school doesn't continue or enhance the education they receive while at school, basically nullifying anything productive they do while at school.

 

Great points all around, which is why whenever someone tries to make the argument that Solon has the best schools in the area I laugh, because it's not about the schools or the teachers, it's about the kids and their families.  Solon has the best of the "d" word that I'm not allowed to say on here.

I agree with this, but many of the people who support regionalism think that regionally consolidated school districts are a sine qua non of successful regional integration, and the thought of ramming integration down the throat of [insert series of unflattering adjectives] suburbanites only makes them like the prospect all the more.

 

I would argue the opposite: public schools suffer from major diseconomies of scale from corruption, loss of sense of community, and many other factors that can only be witnessed in very large educational institutions. Maybe it's my bias as a product of a small public school speaking, but I have never seen a high-quality unified school district. Frankly, every city has areas that can do without fantastic public education at the ready, and those who don't need such services tend to live in those areas. In our city, the problem we need to overcome is that of public safety, which forces someone like me to live in an area with decent public schools even though I have no future plans to utilize the public education system.

 

I graduated from a midsized, exurban high school that was the product of the consolidation of several rural school districts about a generation earlier (about 900 students in 9-12 when I was there). I think that that consolidation worked out well. However, I think that different problems beset urban consolidations and rural consolidations. Independently, they'd never have had the resources to offer even the modest honors curriculum that they did, and even that wasn't much.

 

That said, merging a trio of 200-400 person high schools to make a 900-person one isn't in the same league with merging enough districts to create a super-district with 50,000+ in high school alone, to say nothing of PK-8 education.

 

Interesting that you would bring that up, as I remember reading a study a while back that discussed how rural school districts saw the most benefit from merging with neighbors and that urban/suburban districts gained little.

 

Though, I've said this before and I'll say it again: I'm not in favor of a county-wide school district merger, but I do think that of the 33 districts in Cuyahoga County, we could benefit from some small-scale mergers of similar, adjacent districts, and perhaps we could cut that number in half or down to a third.  For instance, I think that Cleveland Heights-University Heights should look into a merger with South Euclid-Lyndhurst and Richmond Heights, and maybe Shaker Heights and Beachwood, though I doubt the latter two would consider it under any circumstance.

This is on Cleveland City Council's docket tonight. Feel free to also copy this to any appropriate alternative energy thread.....

 

Res. No. 1078-10

By Council Members Polensek, Brancatelli, Cleveland, and Sweeney (by departmental request)

 

Approving the City ‘s participation in the formation of the City of Cleveland-First Suburbs Development Council Advanced Energy Special Improvement District; authorizing the execution and delivery of a Petition and approving the Petition, Articles of Incorporation, and Initial Plan of the City of Cleveland-First Suburbs Development Council Advanced Energy Special Improvement District; and declaring an emergency.

Remarks by Director of Economic Development Department:  See Legislation.

Remarks by Director of Law Department:  There is no legal objection to the passage of this legislation if amended.

As I understand it, this program will make it easier for businesses to obtain financing for alternative energy projects.  If all goes well it may be expanded to residential properties at some future date.  Efficiency improvements, solar thermal (hot water) and small wind turbines probably are most cost-effective here in NEO.

We have a thread for this:

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,10151.0.html

Baby steps...

 

Five of Cleveland's eastern suburbs to collaborate to reduce public safety costs

 

Five eastern suburbs are prepared to sign an agreement on Tuesday, March 8, that will help them reduce public safety costs by sharing specialized equipment and pooling personnel in critical situations.

 

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20110304/FREE/110309897

This makes a lot of sense and should be more widely implemented.  SWAT, HAZMAT, etc. can all be shared.

Speaking of 'regional efforts', how bout our boys from NEO grabbing 22 of a possible 28 spots in the Div. 1 state HS wrestling tournament finals, with at least one participant in each weight class and an all-NEO matchup in 8 of the 14 championship matchups.

 

 

Cuyahoga County cities may someday merge under budget pressures, with county support

Published: Tuesday, March 15, 2011, 6:47 PM    Updated: Wednesday, March 16, 2011, 11:13 AM

By Laura Johnston, The Plain Dealer

 

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- As communities see their populations dropping and the state chopping funding, Cuyahoga County municipalities are getting serious about regional collaboration, County Executive Ed FitzGerald said Tuesday.

 

Some suburbs are even quietly talking about merging, FitzGerald said after his regional collaboration director briefed County Council members during their weekly meeting.

 

"We can't force them on [merging]," FitzGerald said. "But if they're interested in pursuing it, we'll help facilitate it." ....

 

 

Read More At:

http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga-county/index.ssf/2011/03/cuyahoga_county_council_urges_regional_collaboration.html

http://www.cleveland.com/morris/index.ssf/2011/03/cleveland_as_mother_city_is_a.html

 

Cleveland as 'mother city' is a concept that must somehow return to vogue: Phillip Morris

 

When East Cleveland sought bids for its residential garbage-hauling contract last year, the biggest trash-collecting operation in the county wasn't allowed to compete for the contract.

 

Why?

 

Because cities like Cleveland aren't allowed to haul other cities' trash. Either a city does its own dirty work or it bids the work out to companies. Even if a neighboring city such as Cleveland, with its army of garbage men, can do the work more cheaply, state law appears to block it.

 

Assuming that that columnist's statement of the law is correct (I'm no expert on municipal law by any stretch of the imagination), then I'm with him all the way.  You'd have to wonder how the heck the law preventing such shared services came to be in the first place.

Baby steps...

 

Five of Cleveland's eastern suburbs to collaborate to reduce public safety costs

 

Five eastern suburbs are prepared to sign an agreement on Tuesday, March 8, that will help them reduce public safety costs by sharing specialized equipment and pooling personnel in critical situations.

 

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20110304/FREE/110309897

 

Awesome!  Beachwood, UH, SH, and to a lesser degree SE all coming together to fund a SWAT team that will be mostly used in Euclid.  Now why couldn't we get East Cleveland on board the gravy train, too?

Baby steps...

 

Five of Cleveland's eastern suburbs to collaborate to reduce public safety costs

 

Five eastern suburbs are prepared to sign an agreement on Tuesday, March 8, that will help them reduce public safety costs by sharing specialized equipment and pooling personnel in critical situations.

 

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20110304/FREE/110309897

 

Awesome!  Beachwood, UH, SH, and to a lesser degree SE all coming together to fund a SWAT team that will be mostly used in Euclid.  Now why couldn't we get East Cleveland on board the gravy train, too?

 

Why not?

 

Crime doesn't always exactly respect municipal borders.  Why shouldn't Beachwood, UH, etc. be on board with pooling their resources to fund a unit that it probably makes no economic sense for any one municipality (possibly even Euclid) to fund alone?  Or do you think South Euclid and UH should simply build a modern-day Hadrian's Wall to the north of themselves and hope that that solves everything?

Assuming that that columnist's statement of the law is correct (I'm no expert on municipal law by any stretch of the imagination), then I'm with him all the way.  You'd have to wonder how the heck the law preventing such shared services came to be in the first place.

It's not unusual at all. I suspect there are many forms of inter-jurisdictional cooperation that are outlawed by the state. For the last several years, I've been pushing a bill to allow transfer of development rights from one jurisdiction to another -- a bill that allows neighboring jurisdictions to cooperate on some land-use planning. Always at the last minute, the homebuilders lobby speaks out and the bill never makes it out of committee.

 

It happened last year, and it happened a couple years ago, when Jon Husted was  House Speaker. I contacted his office to ask if he would support the bill, and was told I should talk to the homebuilders.

Baby steps...

 

Five of Cleveland's eastern suburbs to collaborate to reduce public safety costs

 

Five eastern suburbs are prepared to sign an agreement on Tuesday, March 8, that will help them reduce public safety costs by sharing specialized equipment and pooling personnel in critical situations.

 

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20110304/FREE/110309897

 

Awesome!  Beachwood, UH, SH, and to a lesser degree SE all coming together to fund a SWAT team that will be mostly used in Euclid.  Now why couldn't we get East Cleveland on board the gravy train, too?

 

Could you elaborate on the SWAT team being used mostly in Euclid?  Have statistics as to the amount of need for a SWAT team to be used mostly in Euclid, or is this possibly linked to some other "issue"?

Baby steps...

 

Five of Cleveland's eastern suburbs to collaborate to reduce public safety costs

 

Five eastern suburbs are prepared to sign an agreement on Tuesday, March 8, that will help them reduce public safety costs by sharing specialized equipment and pooling personnel in critical situations.

 

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20110304/FREE/110309897

 

Awesome!  Beachwood, UH, SH, and to a lesser degree SE all coming together to fund a SWAT team that will be mostly used in Euclid.  Now why couldn't we get East Cleveland on board the gravy train, too?

 

Why not?

 

Crime doesn't always exactly respect municipal borders.  Why shouldn't Beachwood, UH, etc. be on board with pooling their resources to fund a unit that it probably makes no economic sense for any one municipality (possibly even Euclid) to fund alone?  Or do you think South Euclid and UH should simply build a modern-day Hadrian's Wall to the north of themselves and hope that that solves everything?

 

As far as I can tell, the reality is that this unit isn't likely to see much action in any of these suburbs.  UH actually used to have its own SWAT team, but that didn't make sense, either.  I understand your point completely, however as a resident of UH, I'm not chomping at the bit to set up a situation where public safety services are being disproportionately shared between my city and others.  I'm not against regionalism, per se, but I'm not ready to get on board with it until the residents in the outer-ring suburbs are ready.  I don't see residents of Solon looking to team up with Bedford Heights on police projects or Kirtland Hills looking to get together with Willoughby on similar endeavors.  I freely admit that this is provincial thinking, but the burden must be shared.  Anyways, UH, Beachwood, and SH are actually some distance from Euclid.  This is really an odd fit for the parties involved.

Since many of you who post here live in the Heights area, how would you feel about merging the CH-UH library system (or SH system) with the Cuyahoga County system?

As many operations we can merge into the county, the better IMO.  That goes for most every public service, including schools.

As many operations we can merge into the county, the better IMO.  That goes for most every public service, including schools.

 

What if it was only the library system at this point in time?

 

As for the schools, agree to disagree.

Don't a number of smaller and medium-sized counties already have county library systems?

 

The Akron-Summit County library system has branches in Mogadore, Tallmadge, Norton, Green (forget if this is technically within Akron or not, but it's suburban regardless of the mailing address), and so on.  It works well.  Plus, of course, inter-library loan capabilities have grown substantially over the past two decades--see, e.g., OhioLINK.

 

If public schools are to remain public, I'd be comfortable going county-wide.  (I'd really rather just privatize them all and go to a universal voucher system at the state level, or at least at the county level, which would have the same effect of eliminating the constraints of jurisdictional boundaries and allowing both schools and residents to locate wherever they wanted.)

In theory, I like the idea of charter schools.  In application, I think there are some serious issues and nothing will be improved.  You still will have all the rich kids going to the best schools and all the poor kids going to the worst schools.

 

County wide public education seems to work in other places quite nicely, and they are able to blen in something akin to a charter school system.  This seems to work OK in Mecklenberg County, NC.

We've seen too many "take the money & run" charter schools for me to support expanding their role.

In theory, I like the idea of charter schools.  In application, I think there are some serious issues and nothing will be improved.  You still will have all the rich kids going to the best schools and all the poor kids going to the worst schools.

 

I disagree.  I know a number of people in my neighborhood who are low income and take the vouchers to send their kids to private schools.  They love it and some families have even enrolled their kids in different schools to take advantage of different programs that fit their individual children.

Let me revise, I don't mind having charter schools.  It is nice to have that option.  But when/if that is the only option is when I predict there will be serious, very inequitable problems.

Let me revise, I don't mind having charter schools.  It is nice to have that option.  But when/if that is the only option is when I predict there will be serious, very inequitable problems.

 

I was about to post this, but I see you beat me to it.  I don't really get how people don't understand the economics of it (actually I think many people who propose this idea DO understand what effect it will have but try to act oblivious of it).

From Ronald G. Corwin, Professor Emeritus (The Ohio State University):

 

"Ohio is only one case, but the experience there is illuminating. For 10 consecutive years, public school districts have out-performed charter schools in that state, according to the Ohio Department of Education report card data. In 2007, traditional schools topped charters on all 28 achievement tests administered with an average difference of nearly 26 points in proficiency levels. Significantly, charter schools operated by traditional public school districts outperformed charter schools operated by management companies or other entities on 27 of 28 state achievement tests, by an average of 12 percentage points. Factoring in wide variances among schools paints an even bleaker picture. As Barbara Shaner, chair of Ohio’s Coalition for Public Education, put it, “if your child attends a traditional public school, he or she has an 80% chance of receiving an effective or excellent rating…[but] children attending an Ohio charter school have just a 9% chance of receiving such an education.” (Ohio Retired Teachers Association Quarterly, Fall 2007). The state auditor has ruled 26 of the 213 schools “unauditable” because of improper auditing practices. The largely negative results hardly justify the $2.7 billion spent on charter schools there during the past decade, including nearly half a billion dollars in the past year alone."

 

Currently, public schools have funding advantages over charters (contrary to popular belief, when a child leaves a traditional public school for a charter, only some, not all, of the funding follows him).  In addition, when you look at all public schools (and include the suburban ones, not just the urban ones that most charters are really competing with), you skew the picture; someone at Upper Arlington with parents who can comfortably afford to live in that neighborhood and who has a shot at a National Merit Scholarship or some similar achievement isn't likely to be the one packing up and leaving for a charter.  Notably, at least in that abstract, nothing was said about controlling for the initial characteristics of the students.  If it turns out that he did ("factoring in wide variances across schools" ... ?), I'd at least like to know *how* he did.

 

However, I wasn't talking about charters, I was talking about privatizing existing public schools, including the existing top-tier ones.  The goal would be to make it so that you don't have to live in Upper Arlington to send your kid to Upper Arlington--you could live, for example, in one of Columbus' revitalizing urban neighborhoods even after you've begun a family and still send your child to a high-performing school (which may not even be all that far away, but right now, if it's across an arbitrary jurisdictional line, it might as well be on the moon).

 

One could achieve the same result, or a substantially similar one, by regionalizing public education at the county or multi-county level.  That would open up Shaker, Solon, etc. to people who aren't partners at my firm (no offense to the partners at my firm who have paid fortunes in property taxes in order to get their children into those schools).  Yes, the likely results of that are still that there would be exclusive schools and less-exclusive ones, especially if some of the consolidated schools went to competitive admissions.  However, it would at least give students from Cuyahoga Falls a chance at going to Hudson or Solon, if they wanted it.

 

I still prefer privatization over regionalization on that score--ironically, dissolving borders in many ways has the same effect as expanding them, and more.  However, I'd consider regionalization as a second-best option, and certainly a marked improvement over the Balkanized system we have today.  I'd really like to be able to stay downtown if I have children, rather than starting the clock counting down to when I'll need to move out to Hudson or Fairlawn or Green or some other suburb.

My go to question re: privatizations... why should we expect the same task to be done more cheaply with a profit margin added to the costs?  I know profit isn't typically viewed as a cost, but it's money that must somehow flow out of the system.  Where does that margin come from?  In many cases it's come from substandard books, equipment and staffing.  I don't see how taking money out of education and funneling it toward ownership helps students in any way.  If there were a non-profit requirement for charter schools I might find the concept a lot more appealing.

^^That's a fair criticism of the OSU piece.

 

Privatization, I think, is too radical a shift.  I get the concept.  It's much like Paul Ryan's plan for medicare.  There are multiple concerns for me, mainly an inevitable result of the really good schools charging the voucher + "x" for their tuition on a decreasing scale to where the bad schools would just take the amount of the voucher.  But that's probably getting too far off topic.

 

Regionalization of the school district is the only legitimate hope for the CMSD and a few others.  It will certainly be to the detriment of a few districts, but I truly believe the net effect on the great majority of the districts will be so minimal or zero... and improving the CMSD is so absolutely vital to the region... that the juice will be worth the squeeze. 

I still prefer privatization over regionalization on that score--ironically, dissolving borders in many ways has the same effect as expanding them, and more.  However, I'd consider regionalization as a second-best option, and certainly a marked improvement over the Balkanized system we have today.  I'd really like to be able to stay downtown if I have children, rather than starting the clock counting down to when I'll need to move out to Hudson or Fairlawn or Green or some other suburb.

 

I rank my preferred path for schooling on how well I think the system can provide an equal opportunity (obviously not an equal outcome) for all students.  I believe privatization completely fails in this regard.  Here is how I rate the systems we have discussed so far:

 

#2 - Regional public schools - Removes some geographic boundaries but still does have the problem that many will want to escape the new, larger geographic boundaries to choose another school.  However, the difference between the "good" and "bad" schools will (at least initially) be minimized greatly, but over the long term the same problems could present themselves in an even worse way (killing a whole county rather than just a central city).

 

#3 - Current system - Geographic boundaries allow people to choose their school by moving if they have the means to, which creates inequality in the school system based on wealth.

 

#4 - Privatized school - People choose their school at will, which creates the greatest inequality in the school system based on wealth (since its easier to send your kids to another school if you don't have to move to do so).  Although this choice is awful for educational opportunities, many urbanists will prefer this as it could help the cities by attracting middle class residents to the urban core (at the expense of possibly further worsening educational opportunities for the poor).

 

Which brings me to my #1 choice, which is difficult to implement and probably controversial:

 

#1 - Schools based on ability - We already see this a little in many inner city school districts with magnet schools, art schools, and sometimes "Corrective Schools" like the now defunct Taylor Road Academy in Cleveland Heights.  Why not expand this everywhere?  People could live wherever they want and their kids would attend a schools with kids of a reasonably similar ability.  Wealth would not play a factor (at least in school choice, it obviously statistically predisposes kids to a better outcome).  Kids would have the ability to move schools.  Say you're in a mid-level school and get straight A's in 5th and 6th grades.  Maybe in 7th grade you get bumped up to an upper-level school.  I believe this would provide all students a fair opportunity, regardless of how much money they come from, and it would make instruction flow better, as classes would be filled with students of a similar ability level.  (My next idea, which I won't get into here, is having class levels separated my ability rather than age, but I'm a little less sure that would work well due to the social problems of having a smart 8 year old in the same class as a behind 15 year old.)

My go to question re: privatizations... why should we expect the same task to be done more cheaply with a profit margin added to the costs?  I know profit isn't typically viewed as a cost, but it's money that must somehow flow out of the system.  Where does that margin come from?  In many cases it's come from substandard books, equipment and staffing.  I don't see how taking money out of education and funneling it toward ownership helps students in any way.  If there were a non-profit requirement for charter schools I might find the concept a lot more appealing.

 

This is the same question socialists ask about every private industry--even as private industry continues to deliver, whereas the experiments with economic systems that attempted to suppress profits and the profit motive floundered.  Why should education be so different than food, housing, and all the other industries that provide the essentials, but which are successfully maintained in private hands in the USA?

You mean those systems in which one kid has a 400 sq ft bedroom and another lives with his 5 siblings in a 400 sq ft apartment...... nah, I think we should keep education clear of that type of system

As opposed to the system where all children lived with 5 siblings in a 200 sq ft apartment?

This isn't the place for yet another general Capitalism vs Communism slugfest, so get back to NEO regionalism.

I believe we have about 33 school districts in the county.  I'd like to see that number cut down to about 8 or so.  The idea of moving to one large countywide system is completely unappealing to me.  I think it's essential to keep the size of the districts manageable and control closer to the people.  But what we have now is completely nuts.

 

For what it's worth, the ODE has the power to use carrots or even force to bring about such changes.  They don't appear to have the will to do it, though.

 

I've also thought about Graymayre's idea, too, in the past.  It makes some sense, but is just much of a change for people to ever accept.

I'd support this:

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/sunpress/2011/05/shaker_heights_university_heig.html

I think they can go even bigger than that.  Add in CH, Beachwood, South Euclid and Lyndhurst.  There is no reason why one regional fire department can't cover that whole area.  EC's department is looking likely to merge with Cleveland.  That would pretty much take care of the entire easter inner-ring.

what makes MORE sense is if CLE annexes those 'burbs. The new areas do not need to be part of the CLE school district (which is one of the big reasons folks don't want to be in the city)--they can keep their own school district(s).

 

You can't annex a city.  I am pretty sure that you can only annex unincorporated land like Townships and certain Villages.  The voters of those cities would have to repeal their charters and approve of the annexation for it to happen.  EC might, but Cleveland would not take EC unless it came as a package with other communities..... perhaps Euclid?  Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights will never agree.  That is the sad part.  At best, and this is still a long shot.... Cleveland might be able to convince EC, Euclid, and some of the cities adjoining the industrial valley (such as Garfield Heights).  The really valuable communities that would really add to the prestige of the City (Bratenahl, Lakewood, CH, SH, etc), are so far out of sight it is hardly worth discussing.

I think they can go even bigger than that.  Add in CH, Beachwood, South Euclid and Lyndhurst.  There is no reason why one regional fire department can't cover that whole area.  EC's department is looking likely to merge with Cleveland.  That would pretty much take care of the entire easter inner-ring.

 

No thanks, I'm just fine with looking at a merger between UH and SH.  Maybe bring in Beachwood, but beyond that (save maybe Lyndhurst if Beachwood were to come on board), I'll pass.  But I would heartily encourage Cleveland Heights to start talks with East Cleveland, South Euclid, and Euclid if they feel that's what's right for them.

 

what makes MORE sense is if CLE annexes those 'burbs. The new areas do not need to be part of the CLE school district (which is one of the big reasons folks don't want to be in the city)--they can keep their own school district(s).

 

 

More sense?  Only if you want to legislate mediocrity across a larger area.  Why would myself or anyone else living in UH want to cede governing control to a larger body that clearly has different goals and interests than those of most citizens here?  We like governing ourselves just fine, thank you.

 

 

You can't annex a city.  I am pretty sure that you can only annex unincorporated land like Townships and certain Villages.  The voters of those cities would have to repeal their charters and approve of the annexation for it to happen.  EC might, but Cleveland would not take EC unless it came as a package with other communities..... perhaps Euclid?  Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights will never agree.  That is the sad part.  At best, and this is still a long shot.... Cleveland might be able to convince EC, Euclid, and some of the cities adjoining the industrial valley (such as Garfield Heights).  The really valuable communities that would really add to the prestige of the City (Bratenahl, Lakewood, CH, SH, etc), are so far out of sight it is hardly worth discussing.

 

Why can't Cleveland and its citizens add prestige to its own community?

^Cleveland IS prestige. CH/SH/UH.....would become better places if part of Cleveland, though they should keep school system at least for now.

 

How much is CH+SH+UH+others paying for local gov't when economies of scale could be achieved through merger? the areas would still be represented by council districts.... Ohio law says a city must be contiguous, so only cities that border the city could be included unless a neighboring city that borders the city is also annexed.

 

Hts121--I realize that the city can't just annex--both city and suburban residents would have to agree....

 

We could get the city up over a million quickly. and the region would get more $ from federal dollars reserved for the 'bigger' cities. as a result, CH, SH, UH, etc. (and west side places too) would all benefit.

 

 

^Cleveland IS prestige. CH/SH/UH.....would become better places if part of Cleveland, though they should keep school system at least for now.

 

How much is CH+SH+UH+others paying for local gov't when economies of scale could be achieved through merger? the areas would still be represented by council districts.... Ohio law says a city must be contiguous, so only cities that border the city could be included unless a neighboring city that borders the city is also annexed.

 

Hts121--I realize that the city can't just annex--both city and suburban residents would have to agree....

 

We could get the city up over a million quickly. and the region would get more $ from federal dollars reserved for the 'bigger' cities. as a result, CH, SH, UH, etc. (and west side places too) would all benefit.

 

 

 

I think that's up for debate.  I won't call what's happening in Cleveland "mismanagement," though one could certainly argue such a claim.  However I do strongly believe that if Cleveland were to annex the Heights suburbs (or any other neighboring suburb for that matter, besides East Cleveland), what is more likely to happen is that tax revenue and resources are likely to be sucked away from residents in those suburbs and moved towards struggling areas.  Even the Federal dollars that we theoretically would gain would not be enough to offset that.  That's assuming that those Federal dollars will be around in the coming years, which is not a guarantee with how deep they're under water.  I just don't think that the benefits would outweigh the positives enough for a resident of Cedar Road to see his city of residence change from Cleveland Heights to Cleveland.

 

If residents of a certain area want to pay a little more for things to be as they see fit and to have more control over their local government, I suppose that's their prerogative.

I think they can go even bigger than that.  Add in CH, Beachwood, South Euclid and Lyndhurst.  There is no reason why one regional fire department can't cover that whole area.  EC's department is looking likely to merge with Cleveland.  That would pretty much take care of the entire easter inner-ring.

 

No thanks, I'm just fine with looking at a merger between UH and SH.  Maybe bring in Beachwood, but beyond that (save maybe Lyndhurst if Beachwood were to come on board), I'll pass.  But I would heartily encourage Cleveland Heights to start talks with East Cleveland, South Euclid, and Euclid if they feel that's what's right for them.

 

Pfft... Beachwood wouldn't have you...

 

Anyone ever find themselves wondering why regionalism will never work in this metro, please refer to the above.

I think they can go even bigger than that.  Add in CH, Beachwood, South Euclid and Lyndhurst.  There is no reason why one regional fire department can't cover that whole area.  EC's department is looking likely to merge with Cleveland.  That would pretty much take care of the entire easter inner-ring.

 

No thanks, I'm just fine with looking at a merger between UH and SH.  Maybe bring in Beachwood, but beyond that (save maybe Lyndhurst if Beachwood were to come on board), I'll pass.  But I would heartily encourage Cleveland Heights to start talks with East Cleveland, South Euclid, and Euclid if they feel that's what's right for them.

 

Pfft... Beachwood wouldn't have you...

 

Anyone ever find themselves wondering why regionalism will never work in this metro, please refer to the above.

 

I think UH, with its resources and demographics, would be a very attractive merger partner for Beachwood, but you're right, at the end of the day, they've hoarded for themselves a very nice pot of gold and they're not looking to share with anyone.

 

Truth is, no suburb wants to the furthest out affected in a chain of mergers.  University Heights has almost NOTHING to gain from only merging with its western neighbor.  Just as a city like Rocky River has little to gain in merging with its eastern neighbor.  Now bring on board Beachwood and Bay "Village"/Westlake, and you sweeten the pot.  But, as you said, why would any of those cities then want to merge with its inward neighbors?

 

Let's bottom line it here: It's unfair to ask the residents of University Heights or Rocky River or Lyndhurst or North Olmsted etc., etc. to alone shoulder more of the problems of their inner-ring, urban neighbors.  Regionalism won't work in this metro area, as you said, because all we're looking at is transferring wealth and potentially spreading problems from the bad areas to the nicer areas.  I fully understand that what we have now is inefficient, but I think it could definitely get worse.

How could a UH-CH merger of fire department hurt UH?  You could eliminate one Fire Chief job.  You could eliminate one Fire inspector, several administrative employees and dispatchers.  All told, you could probably easily save a million dollars between the two operating budgets.  And I hope you don't think that the cost sharing is equal in these mergers.  It is proportional.... depending on how it is crafted, it could be based on population or based on alarms. 

How could a UH-CH merger of fire department hurt UH?

 

Because as Clevelander17 said, they just have different priorities over there in Cleveland Heights.  You know, they like to just stand there and drink beer while watching buildings burn down.  They rent out part of the firehouses to Section 8 tenants.  There's just no way the fine residents of UH should have to deal with that.

Realistic merger candidates: Cleveland/East Cleveland, some combination of CH/UH/SH, and Olmsted Falls/Olmsted Township. Anyone else? Euclid and Cleveland?

Warrensville Hts/Maple Hts/Bedford?  Orange/Pepper Pike/Moreland Hills?  Mayfield/Mayfield Hts/Lyndhurst/Highland Hts?  Richmond Hts/Highland Hts?  Richmond Hts/South Euclid/Lyndhurst?  SE/CH/UH?  Garfield Hts/Maple Hts?  Seven Hills/Independence?  Middleburg Hts/Parma Hts?  Brooklyn/Parma?  Fairview Park/North Olmsted?  Bay Village/Westlake?

How could a UH-CH merger of fire department hurt UH?

 

Because as Clevelander17 said, they just have different priorities over there in Cleveland Heights.  You know, they like to just stand there and drink beer while watching buildings burn down.  They rent out part of the firehouses to Section 8 tenants.  There's just no way the fine residents of UH should have to deal with that.

 

If you're going to be sarcastic, at least know the details of the argument you're criticizing.  My point about priorities has to do with complete mergers between cities.  Cleveland Heights has a track record of pushing an ultra-liberal agenda on issues that local government has no business dealing with, all while the city crumbles and residents flee.  I'd rather not see my city merge with a city like that.  I'm sorry I'm not sorry.

 

As for fire departments, I do think that UH and SH actually line up very well geographically to team up on fire departments.  I probably don't have a good reason for not wanting CH involved beyond the fact that I have a very bitter taste in my mouth from seeing the way UH gets absolutely fleeced and abused on our school district partnership.