Very quickly:

 

Parma/Parma Heights

Seven Hills/Independence/Valley View

Highland Heights/Mayfield Village

Richmond Heights/South Euclid/Lyndhurst

Shaker Heights/University Heights(/Beachwood, though not likely)

Bay Village/Westlake/Rocky River

Brecksville/Broadview Heights

Orange/Woodmere/Pepper Pike(/Beachwood)

Hunting Valley/Moreland Hills

Berea/Brook Park/Middleburg Heights

Walton Hills/Oakwood

Maple Heights/Bedford/Bedford Heights

Warrensville Heights/Highland Hills/North Randall

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.

 

So what makes you think they'd fit in better with South Euclid than University Heights?  As far as I know, South Euclid doesn't have an "ultra-liberal agenda".

 

And whatever this "ultra-liberal agenda" is they have going on over there, it's sure doing a better job at drawing and retaining businesses.  Take Cedar and Taylor for instance, where the CH side is thriving while the UH side is dying.  CH is filling their old strips of stores while UH is clearing businesses out of theirs to build a McDonalds, and South Euclid tore down an ugly yet functional strip of stores for years of dirt and eventually a sea of parking (if we're lucky).

 

By the way, check out the latest Cleveland Magazine Rating the Suburbs (I hate that issue).  CH home prices were one of the few in the area that actually went up in the last 5 years.  UH sure didn't fare too well (home values down in double digits and a higher % loss of population than CH).  Sure, CH has its share of problems, like many inner rings do, but it's ridiculous to say that city is "crumbling".

Orange / Pepper / Moreland / Hunting / Woodmere, all share the same school district. Merging would just combined safety and other services, which would be just fine in my book. There's a lot of duplicity there.

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.

 

Looks like I forgot to post my post on this yesterday ... or it got deleted(?) ... going to chalk it up to amnesia, since I don't think I said anything particularly vitriolic.  ("Enervating" might come closer.)

 

Actually, you can annex a city, or merge two cities.  The process for one municipal corporation annexing another outright is set forth in R.C. 709.22 to 709.34.  The process for two or more municipal corporations (along with additional possible unincorporated territory) merging is set forth in R.C. 709.43 to 709.48.  The final decision is generally (not always) made by concurrent majority vote, meaning you have to get a majority affirmative vote in each municipal corporation or territory proposed to be annexed/merged.  That's obviously a bit higher of a hurdle to clear than the petition-and-approval process for annexing contiguous unincorporated land, but it can be done.  In theory.  (I have no idea when the last time it actually happened was, though I think it might actually have been used for the merger of Pataskala and Lima Township several years ago.)

So what makes you think they'd fit in better with South Euclid than University Heights?  As far as I know, South Euclid doesn't have an "ultra-liberal agenda".

 

Geographically and demographically I do see SE and CH as a better fit, though not a perfect one.  Reality is that CH marches to its own beat politically and any smaller city that merges with it would have to make big adjustments.

 

And whatever this "ultra-liberal agenda" is they have going on over there, it's sure doing a better job at drawing and retaining businesses.  Take Cedar and Taylor for instance, where the CH side is thriving while the UH side is dying.  CH is filling their old strips of stores while UH is clearing businesses out of theirs to build a McDonalds, and South Euclid tore down an ugly yet functional strip of stores for years of dirt and eventually a sea of parking (if we're lucky).

 

There are businesses in the Cedar-Lee area that have sat empty for years.  How's that multi-story, taxpayer-funded parking garage working out for them?  Thriving is not a word that really applies to CH in the past 20 years in any manner.  CH got real lucky that Matt Fish decided to open a Melt in the struggling Cedar-Taylor area, but that's just one success story in a sea of failures.  And I wouldn't even attribute that to anything CH did--its just an accident of location.

 

By the way, check out the latest Cleveland Magazine Rating the Suburbs (I hate that issue).  CH home prices were one of the few in the area that actually went up in the last 5 years.  UH sure didn't fare too well (home values down in double digits and a higher % loss of population than CH).  Sure, CH has its share of problems, like many inner rings do, but it's ridiculous to say that city is "crumbling".

 

I have no doubt that the numbers for UH are bleak, but I'm also very certain that a big chunk of that can be attributed to the fact that it shares a school district with CH (this has been a thorn in UH's side for years).  As for the CH numbers, I'm skeptical about their accuracy, but I'll have to study them further.

 

As for CH crumbling, take a drive northward along Taylor or Noble and tell me that this is a vibrant, thriving community. 

In a consolidated urban area, CH would simply be an urban neighborhood that likewise marched to its own beat politically, in that case.  You find those in many metro areas.  The Short North is hardly representative of all of Columbus.  That said, it does make it substantially less likely that other municipalities would secure majority votes to join with CH ... and also less likely that CH would vote to join with others.

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.

 

Looks like I forgot to post my post on this yesterday ... or it got deleted(?) ... going to chalk it up to amnesia, since I don't think I said anything particularly vitriolic.  ("Enervating" might come closer.)

 

Actually, you can annex a city, or merge two cities.  The process for one municipal corporation annexing another outright is set forth in R.C. 709.22 to 709.34.  The process for two or more municipal corporations (along with additional possible unincorporated territory) merging is set forth in R.C. 709.43 to 709.48.  The final decision is generally (not always) made by concurrent majority vote, meaning you have to get a majority affirmative vote in each municipal corporation or territory proposed to be annexed/merged.  That's obviously a bit higher of a hurdle to clear than the petition-and-approval process for annexing contiguous unincorporated land, but it can be done.  In theory.  (I have no idea when the last time it actually happened was, though I think it might actually have been used for the merger of Pataskala and Lima Township several years ago.)

 

Two things: 

 

a) I think we're arguing semantics here, but it looks like the process you're describing is still more of a merger and not an annexation.  The word annexation implies a unilateral move, and the ORC does not prescribe for such a thing.

 

b) Not to nitpick, but in your Pataskala-Lima Township "merger," although I don't know the details of the situation, if Lima was a township, then it seems likely to me that it was annexed by Pataskala.

There are businesses in the Cedar-Lee area that have sat empty for years.  How's that multi-story, taxpayer-funded parking garage working out for them?

 

Well, that was supposed to be partially used by the condos that fell victim to the recession.

 

On the other hand, how's that five story parking garage in UH doing?  It looks to me that it's about 10% full whenever I'm there with plenty of vacant stores (which had plenty of time to fill in when the economy was doing better).

 

The fact that you try to point out Cedar-Lee as an example of how CH is failing while ignoring things like University Square or the McDonalds/Safeway/whatever debacle shows how much you let your biases and hatred of all things CH affect your objectivity.

 

And I was just at Noble and Monticello the other day (for the vet).  That corner is doing better than University Commons (or whatever that dumpy suburban style strip plaza is called that contains about two stores now).

There are businesses in the Cedar-Lee area that have sat empty for years.  How's that multi-story, taxpayer-funded parking garage working out for them?

 

Well, that was supposed to be partially used by the condos that fell victim to the recession.

 

On the other hand, how's that five story parking garage in UH doing?  It looks to me that it's about 10% full whenever I'm there with plenty of vacant stores (which had plenty of time to fill in when the economy was doing better).

 

The fact that you try to point out Cedar-Lee as an example of how CH is failing while ignoring things like University Square or the McDonalds/Safeway/whatever debacle shows how much you let your biases and hatred of all things CH affect your objectivity.

 

And I was just at Noble and Monticello the other day (for the vet).  That corner is doing better than University Commons (or whatever that dumpy suburban style strip plaza is called that contains about two stores now).

 

Great points.  All of my dislike for CH is completely unfounded.  You've changed my mind.  :roll:

 

I'm not arguing that there hasn't been mismanagement in UH.  I am arguing that despite that, we're better off now than we'd ever be if we ceded our land and treasure to a city like CH and all of its problems and misguided priorities.  UH still has much more potential governing itself or merging with a more similar, like-minded neighbor. 

 

If UH has issues of its own, which we both agree is the case, then it doesn't need to compound those issues by merging with a city with even bigger issues.  The area that is now UH would get lost in the shuffle.

JJ40, it is pointless to argue the CH points with Clevelander17.  Don't waste the energy.  His opinions are.... well.... based on something you cannot change.  You know.... demographics.  Personally, I wish UH would just go ahead and create its own school district.  That way CH can feel free to instill its uber-liberal policies and indoctrinate the children to all be gang-bangers and rapists.

 

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.

 

Looks like I forgot to post my post on this yesterday ... or it got deleted(?) ... going to chalk it up to amnesia, since I don't think I said anything particularly vitriolic.  ("Enervating" might come closer.)

 

Actually, you can annex a city, or merge two cities.  The process for one municipal corporation annexing another outright is set forth in R.C. 709.22 to 709.34.  The process for two or more municipal corporations (along with additional possible unincorporated territory) merging is set forth in R.C. 709.43 to 709.48.  The final decision is generally (not always) made by concurrent majority vote, meaning you have to get a majority affirmative vote in each municipal corporation or territory proposed to be annexed/merged.  That's obviously a bit higher of a hurdle to clear than the petition-and-approval process for annexing contiguous unincorporated land, but it can be done.  In theory.  (I have no idea when the last time it actually happened was, though I think it might actually have been used for the merger of Pataskala and Lima Township several years ago.)

 

I think you misunderstood the context of my post.  Trust me, I know Title 7 a little too well for my liking.  What I was tyring to get accross is that Cleveland can't just unilaterally choose to annex a Cleveland Heights the way Columbus just did with the land for the casino.  CH residents would have the right of refusal.

Ah, my bad, I did miss that context.  Fair enough.

 

And if you deal with Title 7 on a regular basis, I can only assume that caffeine must be a staple of your diet. :-P

JJ40, it is pointless to argue the CH points with Clevelander17.  Don't waste the energy.  His opinions are.... well.... based on something you cannot change.  You know.... demographics.  Personally, I wish UH would just go ahead and create its own school district.  That way CH can feel free to instill its uber-liberal policies and indoctrinate the children to all be gang-bangers and rapists.

 

I have been very pleased with the education provided by the CH-UH school district.  It isn't perfect, but the constant demeaning of the schools for the behavior of a minority is at best obnoxious. 

 

Would everyone please review your posts before posting and edit out these sort of statements that have no purpose to the forum topic.  Thank you.

And if you deal with Title 7 on a regular basis, I can only assume that caffeine must be a staple of your diet. :-P

 

Caffeine is hardly enough.  But at least I don't have to deal with the Bankruptcy Code.  :sleep:

And if you deal with Title 7 on a regular basis, I can only assume that caffeine must be a staple of your diet. :-P

 

Caffeine is hardly enough.  But at least I don't have to deal with the Bankruptcy Code.  :sleep:

 

I find it enthralling.

 

And people look at me like I'm strange or something ...  8-)

If this is what advocating for regionalism looks like, it's no wonder the concept hasn't taken off.

By the way, check out the latest Cleveland Magazine Rating the Suburbs (I hate that issue).  CH home prices were one of the few in the area that actually went up in the last 5 years.  UH sure didn't fare too well (home values down in double digits and a higher % loss of population than CH).  Sure, CH has its share of problems, like many inner rings do, but it's ridiculous to say that city is "crumbling".

 

From 2000 to 2010, CH lost a higher percentage of people than UH did.  I supposed CM was using year-to-year numbers.

JJ40, it is pointless to argue the CH points with Clevelander17.  Don't waste the energy.  His opinions are.... well.... based on something you cannot change.  You know.... demographics.  Personally, I wish UH would just go ahead and create its own school district.  That way CH can feel free to instill its uber-liberal policies and indoctrinate the children to all be gang-bangers and rapists.

 

My opinion is based on the fact that any merger between the two cities would be a transfer of wealth, mostly in support of CH's pie-in-the-sky policies.  UH would gain nothing from such a merger.  Why should we sacrifice so a few people in other parts of the region who think they know best how to run our city can pat themselves on the back for pushing "regionalism"?

 

As for UH leaving the CH-UH school district, let's be honest here, you and every other person in CH would be a fool to support such a move (and I know you're not being serious).  Right now UH puts in much more than it receives in return because UH residents use the local schools at a lower rate than just about any other suburb in the region.  If UH leaves CH-UH, property taxes in CH must shoot up significantly to continue supporting the schools at the level you currently do. 

I have been very pleased with the education provided by the CH-UH school district.  It isn't perfect, but the constant demeaning of the schools for the behavior of a minority is at best obnoxious.

 

The schools themselves are fine.  The teachers and administration?  Not really a problem.  But the kids attending the schools make many prospective families think twice about using the schools or even locating in CH or UH in the first place.  Maybe it is the behavior of only a minority of those enrolled, but this percentage is still greater than what you're going to find in a lot of other schools in the county.  All it takes is a few bad apples to spoil the bunch.  Regardless, a bigger issue may even be that those that serve as messengers for the schools refuse to address the problem or even acknowledge that it exists.  The district desperately needs something like it had in Taylor Academy for years.

Clevelander17, I actually agree with your posts the last couple of pages.  I know dealing quite a bit in real estate circles the past year, that much of what you say is true.   

However one may feel about the views expressed here by Clevelander17, I think it's important to engage those views and understand them.  I think he does a good job of demonstrating the reason we have all these little munis to begin with, which is the same reason so many area residents stand against regionalism today.  It's a hurdle that must be overcome before regionalism can take off.  We need to have an answer for these views, because they're popular and widespread.

As for UH leaving the CH-UH school district, let's be honest here, you and every other person in CH would be a fool to support such a move

 

You are the only person between the two of us who lives in the CH-UH school district :P  Sucks to be you.... I guess.

 

But I think you underestimate UH's ability to have its own school system.  You couldn't affort it.  It is too small a city.  You could go ahead and give it a go.  Maybe Taylor Academy can be your new HS?  My alma mater stays with CH.  And, oh yeah, like I said, Beachwood wouldn't have you :)  You could try SE-L.... but I'm not sure it has the right...ummmmm.....demographics you are looking for.

However one may feel about the views expressed here by Clevelander17, I think it's important to engage those views and understand them.  I think he does a good job of demonstrating the reason we have all these little munis to begin with, which is the same reason so many area residents stand against regionalism today.  It's a hurdle that must be overcome before regionalism can take off.  We need to have an answer for these views, because they're popular and widespread.

 

The initial solution is easy.  Keep the school districts separate.  That is the main reason why people are against regionalism.

The initial solution is easy.  Keep the school districts separate.  That is the main reason why people are against regionalism.

 

I think it goes deeper than that.  Look at how Clevelander17's hatred of CH causes him to not want to even share fire department services.  He even knows it's irrational.  There are many people like that.  A city that is nearly 50% black (or wait, is liberal the PC term to use for why one doesn't like CH?) will just carry a certain connotation with many people.  How are you supposed to overcome that hurdle?

However one may feel about the views expressed here by Clevelander17, I think it's important to engage those views and understand them.  I think he does a good job of demonstrating the reason we have all these little munis to begin with, which is the same reason so many area residents stand against regionalism today.  It's a hurdle that must be overcome before regionalism can take off.  We need to have an answer for these views, because they're popular and widespread.

 

The initial solution is easy.  Keep the school districts separate.  That is the main reason why people are against regionalism.

 

I think that there's a lot to this (including the often-overlooked quality of simplicity).

 

Past a certain point, you lose economies of scale with school consolidations, whereas you might still continue to gain such economies with consolidation of utility districts, transit systems, and other things.  A 1,000-student high school may offer a lot of options that a 300-person high school can't, but that doesn't mean that a 3,000-student high school is even better.

^^"Ultra liberal"

 

^I think if school districts are completely taken off the table, at least a serious conversation can begin.  Fact is, the outer rings, on average, pay MORE salary to their civil servants than Cleveland or the inner ring do.  For instance, the starting salary of a Firefighter who works in a place like Beachwood, where there might be 2 or 3 structural fire per year, may be 30%+ higher than the starting salary for a Cleveland Firefighter who constantly has to deal with HAZMAT alarms and other life-threatening situations.  It makes little sense, but it is what it is.  Same would go for Patrolmen.  The Chiefs make ridiculous amounts of money for the relatively small departments they manage.  Point being, if people took a good and honest look at it, the people who are the most staunch opponents to regoinalism may actually find that it benefits them.

 

I think the best approach is a phased approach.  Start with safety forces.  Keep school districts and service departments off the table initially. 

 

You are the only person between the two of us who lives in the CH-UH school district :P  Sucks to be you.... I guess.

 

Typical. :whip:

 

But I think you underestimate UH's ability to have its own school system.  You couldn't affort it.  It is too small a city.  You could go ahead and give it a go.  Maybe Taylor Academy can be your new HS?  My alma mater stays with CH.  And, oh yeah, like I said, Beachwood wouldn't have you :)  You could try SE-L.... but I'm not sure it has the right...ummmmm.....demographics you are looking for.

 

We most certainly could afford it.  If Richmond Heights, Wickliffe, etc. can do it, so could we.  In fact, not only could we afford it, we could lower our property tax rate and still have the same per pupil expenditures as the current CH-UH district.  Obviously this would not be the most optimal solution, but it could be done.  As for Beachwood, although you're probably right, I'm sure they would give serious consideration.  University Heights has a very solid residential tax base, decent commercial base, and of course John Carroll University.  But ultimately I think the best partner (and the one with whom University Heights should have been with all along) would be Shaker Heights.  And Shaker Heights wouldn't think twice about it...

The initial solution is easy.  Keep the school districts separate.  That is the main reason why people are against regionalism.

 

I think it goes deeper than that.  Look at how Clevelander17's hatred of CH causes him to not want to even share fire department services.  He even knows it's irrational.  There are many people like that.  A city that is nearly 50% black (or wait, is liberal the PC term to use for why one doesn't like CH?) will just carry a certain connotation with many people.  How are you supposed to overcome that hurdle?

 

I most certainly do not hate CH.  I actually used to really like CH.  I still spend time there and I think it has a lot of untapped potential.  I just have a big problem with the way the city is run and don't want the same people that run CH having anything to do with my public safety, my local public schools, my road repairs, etc.  It's not about race.  There are things going on in CH that are well beyond the local government's control, but in my opinion the people running the place aren't helping much. 

^^"Ultra liberal"

 

^I think if school districts are completely taken off the table, at least a serious conversation can begin.  Fact is, the outer rings, on average, pay MORE salary to their civil servants than Cleveland or the inner ring do.  For instance, the starting salary of a Firefighter who works in a place like Beachwood, where there might be 2 or 3 structural fire per year, may be 30%+ higher than the starting salary for a Cleveland Firefighter who constantly has to deal with HAZMAT alarms and other life-threatening situations.  It makes little sense, but it is what it is.  Same would go for Patrolmen.  The Chiefs make ridiculous amounts of money for the relatively small departments they manage.  Point being, if people took a good and honest look at it, the people who are the most staunch opponents to regoinalism may actually find that it benefits them.

 

I think the best approach is a phased approach.  Start with safety forces.  Keep school districts and service departments off the table initially. 

 

I'll just use Beachwood as an example, since you brought them up.  How do they benefit from consolidation of public safety forces?  It's not like they pay an inordinate amount in taxes at the moment.  They've got a golden goose in having all of those business parks loading the city up with tax revenues.  The only outcomes I see for them that com from consolidation would be higher taxes and a decrease in protection.  Hunting Valley or Moreland Hills may be better examples.  Both of those cities could save money and lose almost nothing by combining every level of government together.  That's why I've always argued for piecemeal consolidation.

Consolidating safety forces and sharing tax revenue are two totally separate issues.  Beachwood could still use that tax revenue to pay their "share" of the total operating budget.  They would not have to share their revenue.  But what they could share in is the Chief salary ($100,000+), a dispatch center, squad cars, pumpers, hook and ladder engines, EMS squads, guns, bullet proof vests, etc...... not to mention greater buying power in the health insurance market.  They could take the savings and redirect it to their citizens.  That's how they benefit..... since you brought it up.

 

But it's the tenor of your post that makes me feel that true regionalism will never happen here.  There is simply too much short-sighted, "what's in it for me" attitude in this region.  Everyone is looking for the immediate benefits and not considering the long-term.  Rot spreads like a disease.  It is in all of our best interest to stop it with our collective strenghth.  As Cleveland goes, so goes the region.

 

Think about it this way.... why is it in Myers Park's or Dilworth's best interest to be a part of Charlotte?  Those areas certainly provide a disproportionate share of revenue to the City.  But their presence gives Charlotte an unbelievable tax base and, perhaps more importantly, a highly educated voting base which helps Charlotte accomplish the type of progress we sit here and fantasize about.

 

I just ask you to consider where you think UH will be in 50 years if the status quo is maintained.  How did it look 50 years ago compared to today?  You want to continue on that path?

We can't predict the future and how gas prices and other factors will affect the development of this metropolitan area.  The most pressing issue to me facing University Heights is one that when I discuss, people imply that I'm a racist for pointing out.  It's one that regionalism can do almost nothing about (and in some cases, may even make worse). 

 

I fully understand the benefits of regionalism and was once a big proponent of it.  I just don't want to see suburbs like Lyndhurst, University Heights, Shaker Heights, Independence, Middleburg Heights, Rocky River, etc. get wrangled into a situation where it ends with them taking on a heavier load without any help from their outer-ring neighbors.  It simply would not be fair.  If we do wide-scale consolidation, which I'm obviously skeptical of, then it has to include every suburb in the country. 

You mean in the county... but yes, I agree.  But that is not realistic.  There are certain communities whose identity is being an individual village, like Chagrin Falls, Bratenahl and Bentleyville.  It is in their fabric as a community.

You mean in the county... but yes, I agree.  But that is not realistic.  There are certain communities whose identity is being an individual village, like Chagrin Falls, Bratenahl and Bentleyville.  It is in their fabric as a community.

 

Yeah I'd be okay with leaving the historic villages be.  Not to nitpick, and although I don't know the area well, but I don't know if Bentleyville would really qualify as such.

FitzGerald, mayors to address poaching

County exec to use development fund as incentive for cities to refrain from soliciting businesses

By JAY MILLER

4:30 am, June 6, 2011

 

Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald plans to meet this Thursday, June 9, with the county’s mayors to talk about putting together an anti-poaching agreement designed to reduce the financial damage inflicted when a business is lured from one community to another within the county.

 

Nathan Kelly, deputy chief of staff for Mr. FitzGerald, said the county has no specific legislation in mind and wants to hear ideas from the mayors. But he said the county has a general idea of what it hopes to get communities to support.

 

“It will be an agreement that (communities) are not going to actively solicit (businesses) from one another,” Mr. Kelly told Crain’s Cleveland Business. “We intend to link some county programs to participation with an anti-poaching agreement.”

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20110606/SUB1/110609923

That's awesome. Hopefully they get full participation. Ultimately, something like an anti-poaching agreement at the state level (and eventually nationally) would be great for taxpayers.

BTW, with the news that Huron Hospital in East Cleveland is closing, it may be the death knell for that city. I happened to be interviewing two Cleveland City Council members when the news came along. So I asked them if that means Cleveland would have to annex East Cleveland. Their answers surprised me....

 

 

"I'm not sure we'd want it. Except for more residents, what to they bring in terms of taxbase? We (Cleveland) are barely able to make our budget as it is."

"We'd have to keep the same number of council people so maybe we'd also have to annex Linndale to balance east and west. At least with Linndale we could collect speeding ticket revenue from I-71."

East Cleveland is a perplexing problem.  Ultimately, the State and/or the County is going to need do show some leadership here.  That City is done.  It is beyond the point where we all can just let it fester.  And Cleveland can't bare that burden on its own. 

 

Putting aside financial implications, which would be heavy, it does make sense geographically for EC to be absorbed by Cleveland..... which practically surround the City anyways.  And come to think of it, Forrest Hills might instantly become the most plush Cleveland residential neighborhood.  Kind of sad.

those answers don't surprise me at all. its the reality.

East Cleveland would be a hassle for Cleveland to absorb but with Cleveland's extra muscle a lot of good could be done there.  I don't really know how it could be done but if the state or county could put together some incentives or benefits for Cleveland to make absorbing EC worth it I think it would be good for that part of Cleveland (University circle, Glenville, Collinwood).in the future.  It might be a hassle in the near term but in the long run I think it would be a good idea.

And come to think of it, Forrest Hills might instantly become the most plush Cleveland residential neighborhood.  Kind of sad.

 

Edgewater would still have it beat, easily.

 

But I think you could make the argument for it being second.

^^ I think it really only becomes a good idea if we develop a broader aproach. At the end of the day we need more than "no poaching" we need tax sharing of commercial revenues. And everyone needs to look for a partner, whomever they may be (that way we don't need to worry as much about the "cultural differences", but the bottom line is that we have too many governments that siphon too much of our tax dollars to support redundant services. We also have the wealthy "cities" doing ridiculous things such as buying fleets of harley davidsons and escalades when we have very real infrastructure issues. If we could say drop from 59 municipalities to say 40-45 thus keeping some level of autonomy for citizens... yet shift our safety forces to a county wide model, and set up a tax sharing system that pooled money for infrastructure projects county wide, I think we could have the best of both worlds. One thing is clear... the current set up doesn't work. It never has, and it never will. We will work together and rise or we will fall separately... some on different timelines... but everyone will fall.

^^ I think it really only becomes a good idea if we develop a broader aproach. At the end of the day we need more than "no poaching" we need tax sharing of commercial revenues. And everyone needs to look for a partner, whomever they may be (that way we don't need to worry as much about the "cultural differences", but the bottom line is that we have too many governments that siphon too much of our tax dollars to support redundant services. We also have the wealthy "cities" doing ridiculous things such as buying fleets of harley davidsons and escalades when we have very real infrastructure issues. If we could say drop from 59 municipalities to say 40-45 thus keeping some level of autonomy for citizens... yet shift our safety forces to a county wide model, and set up a tax sharing system that pooled money for infrastructure projects county wide, I think we could have the best of both worlds. One thing is clear... the current set up doesn't work. It never has, and it never will. We will work together and rise or we will fall separately... some on different timelines... but everyone will fall.

 

Drop from 59 to 45?  How about we drop to 3:  Cleveland - East; Cleveland - West; and, Cleveland - South. 

Ha. Baby steps. At the end of the day people are afraid of regionalism because they don't understand it. You have to start somewhere, and that will never be with CuyaCleveland or even Tri-Cuya-Cleveland.

There are also very legitimate "too many eggs in one basket" concerns that attend regionalism.  They may be addressable, but "may be addressable" is not the same thing as "have been addressed."

 

It is certainly true that consolidating would allow the elimination of some administrative positions.  However, the side effect of that is that that tends to concentrate power in the remaining ones.  A lousy fire chief for Cleveland could certainly do a great deal of damage, but a lousy fire chief for a third of the metro area (or all of it) could do far worse.  On balance, I still think the advantages outweigh the liabilities, but that doesn't mean I want to minimize the challenges.

Luckily, we wouldn't be the first ones attempting this.  I'm sure someone's developed an answer to the "awful fire chief" dilemma. 

This is an article in the WSJ about regionalism, focusing on Michigan, and to a lesser extent, the entire US. It does a nice job of listing many of the challenges we've discussed on this thread.

 

Threats to Town Halls Stir Voter Backlash

By KATE LINEBAUGH

 

ONEKAMA VILLAGE, Mich.—Michigan has 1,773 municipalities, 609 school districts, 1,071 fire departments and 608 police departments. Gov. Rick Snyder wants some of them to disappear.

 

The governor is taking steps to bring about the consolidation of municipal services, even whole municipalities, in order to cut budgets and eliminate redundant local bureaucracies. His blueprint, which relies on legal changes and financial incentives, calls for a "metropolitan model" of government that would combine resources across cities and their suburbs.

 

In doing so, Mr. Snyder, a Republican, is taking aim at that twig of American government so cherished by many citizens—the town hall. The long national tradition of hyperlocal government prevails in much of the Northeast and Midwest, with their crazy quilts of cities, towns, villages and townships.

 

"You do have to ask: 'Boy, do we really need 1,800 units of government?'" says Mr. Snyder's budget director, John Nixon. "Everybody likes their independence, and that's nice to have. But if you're not careful, it can cost you a lot more money."

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576341332888910372.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

I might be wandering into "dumb question" territory, but...

 

Why hasn't Cleveland (and I'm sure this might apply to Cincinnati) tried to expand its city borders?

 

5 miles out of Chicago's city center, you're in Lakeview. That's Cleveland to Lakewood.

 

8 miles out of Chicago center, you're in Andersonville. That's Rocky River for Cleveland.

 

I'm pretty sure the answer it's something complicated regarding tax rates, property values, etc... But from a pro-urban prospective, Cleveland would rank much higher and thus receive much more positive attention, attract more folks if they could mix in numbers from those successful inner-ring 'burbs.

 

Thoughts?

This will probably get moved, but briefly:

 

Cleveland missed the boat on this a long time ago, and doing so now is politically impracticable/impossible in most cases. Residents of most suburbs would overwhelmingly reject merger efforts now. You are right about Cleveland gaining, overall, from mergers with communities like Lakewood, Parma, etc., but Cleveland also needs to absorb places like East Cleveland that are not very appealing for anyone to take over. If it ever happens, it will have to be either by absolute necessity/lack of alternatives (East Cleveland) or as part of a palatable package that doesn't prevent merged communities from having their own school districts.

 

Why did it happen? White flight, unusual resistance to annexation in general, parochial interests triumphing over regional ones, and the fact that many of the outlying communities didn't really exist as substantial communities until after many of the above problems had become entrenched. I'm not as good at the history as others here are. I can just tell you that where I grew up, people would laugh openly if you suggested there were benefits to a merger, and even I would be very uneasy about it.

Check the NEO Regionalism thread

That all makes sense, and I actually read about a potential East Cleveland merger in Cleveland Magazine when the new mayor was inaugurated. And by "potential" I mean he was asked about it and I believe he said he would be open to it.

 

I also understand that most suburban communities would be against it. I guess since I'm very much a pro-Cleveland guy, I want to see the city succeed any way possible. If that means merging in nearby suburbs to make our "stats" more attractive to potential businesses, young professionals - cool!

 

Besides... Everyone from the 'burbs tells people they're from "Cleveland," so why not make it official! :)

5 miles out of Chicago's city center, you're in Lakeview. That's Cleveland to Lakewood.

 

8 miles out of Chicago center, you're in Andersonville. That's Rocky River for Cleveland.

 

What happened in Chicago is somewhat unique.  Around the same time the various "counties' around New York merged to form NYC as we know it...Manhattan and the "outer boroughs".....Chicago annexed its surrounding townships (Illinois has civil townships the way Ohio has).  In some cases entire townships were swalloed up (Jefferson Township, which became todays NW Side).  In others townships were mostly dissovled with parts incorporating and parts annexed to Chicago (i think this is what happend to Cicero Township).

 

So a large areas of what was farmland with suburban communities strung out along rail and streetcar lines was brought into the city.  There was annexation after this big "township annexation", but fairly small ones compared to that one big one.  Starting in the 1890s the city grew to fill in this open space, which wasn't finally built-out until after WWII. 

 

I think with Cleveland and probably other Ohio cities,  maybe even other Midwestern cities. there wasn't this same attempt at major land area annexations via annexating entire townships.