The Ohio Constitutional Convention of 1912 gave political subdivisions local autonomy which would have precluded annexation.  Before then, the suburbs just weren't built up enough to warrant any desire by the City to annex.  Remember, Clevleand was a bit of a late bloomer as a major metro.

Makes sense... I guess I just want to see us as "one city," since everyone from as far out as Mentor calls themselves "Clevelanders."

I'm with you, Joe.

I'm with you, Joe.

 

Awesome!

 

I know I'm going to be told it's impossible, but anyone know who would be the folks to talk to about at least opening a dialogue on the topic? Start a "One Cleveland" campaign! :)

Sadly, the metro area is too balkanized at this time. I would love to see more real estate and their populations counted under the umbrella heading of "Cleveland" but I am aware of many people who are scared to death (er, scared into fleeing) by what that could mean to their safety, schools, services, etc. Racism and classism is still very much alive in Greater Cleveland. There are just enough reports in the media (justified and unjustified) about the negatives of living in Cleveland to reinforce some people's worst fears. I wish people were more rational and more willing to give people the benefit of the doubt, but not enough aren't. But there needs to be a "One Cleveland" campaign, starting with education, to help defeat the evil and ignorant forces that keep us divided and therefore weaker.

 

And yes, this belongs in the Northeast Ohio Regionalism thread.

Reading the comments following articles on Cleveland.com can be scary, but when I checked the ones regarding the Parma & Parma Hts. safety  depts. cooperation, all were either for it or pushing for bigger steps and/or mergers.  Maybe, this is a case where the citizens are more ahead of game than their elected officials. 

It might end up being a zero sum game in terms of taxes and pooled services if cities merge. Wouldn't taxes have to go up if there were mergers between cities? For example, Susie lives in Lakewood but works in Cleveland. She pays income tax to both Cleveland and Lakewood. Bill lives and works in Cleveland. He only pays income tax to Cleveland. Both cities have a balanced budget with no excess. Lakewood becomes part of the city of Cleveland. Susie now only pays one set of taxes to Cleveland. All the extra income tax she previously paid to Lakewood (along with the 1000s of others) now disappears. That means that the combined tax revenue for the new single city is much less than when the two cities were separate. So the question becomes, does the sharing of resources equal the cost of lost tax revenue or do more cuts need to be made in services or does the tax rate need to be raised?

 

Just a point to ponder ...

 

 

Reading the comments following articles on Cleveland.com can be scary, but when I checked the ones regarding the Parma & Parma Hts. safety  depts. cooperation, all were either for it or pushing for bigger steps and/or mergers.  Maybe, this is a case where the citizens are more ahead of game than their elected officials.

 

Interesting... So for giggles-sake, how would one make such a thing happen? Any local government experts here? :)

Reading the comments following articles on Cleveland.com can be scary, but when I checked the ones regarding the Parma & Parma Hts. safety  depts. cooperation, all were either for it or pushing for bigger steps and/or mergers.  Maybe, this is a case where the citizens are more ahead of game than their elected officials. 

 

Merging Parma and Parma Heights is one thing. But ask someone in Parma if they will vote for merging Parma with Cleveland, you will probably get a different response.

 

It might end up being a zero sum game in terms of taxes and pooled services if cities merge. Wouldn't taxes have to go up if there were mergers between cities? For example, Susie lives in Lakewood but works in Cleveland. She pays income tax to both Cleveland and Lakewood. Bill lives and works in Cleveland. He only pays income tax to Cleveland. Both cities have a balanced budget with no excess. Lakewood becomes part of the city of Cleveland. Susie now only pays one set of taxes to Cleveland. All the extra income tax she previously paid to Lakewood (along with the 1000s of others) now disappears. That means that the combined tax revenue for the new single city is much less than when the two cities were separate. So the question becomes, does the sharing of resources equal the cost of lost tax revenue or do more cuts need to be made in services or does the tax rate need to be raised?

 

Just a point to ponder ...

 

 

 

How does the income tax credit per community work into this. I don't understand the whole tax credit thing.

^

It varies by municipality. Some cities give a credit, while others do not. For example, Lakewood gives a .5% credit. This means that a Lakewood resident working in Cleveland pays 2% to Cleveland and 1% to Lakewood. 56% of Lakewood's income tax revenue is collected from those who do not work in Lakewood.

 

Last year Lakewood collected about $10 million in taxes from its residents who did not work in Lakewood. That's just under a third of Lakewood's total revenues for a typical year. Obviously not all of those taxes are from those who worked in Cleveland, but other cities as well, but Cleveland is likely the lion's share of that.

 

So going along with this hypothetical situation. A merged Lakewood and Cleveland would result in a loss of probably 6 million dollars of tax revenue for the combined city.

 

The local income tax rate is confusing enough with thousands of different work live combinations and scenarios if there were ever mergers between cities.

 

The sharing of resources between cities could reduce costs, but might not be offset by the loss in tax revenue. Plus, you are killing off a lot of positions, albeit redundant between municipalities, this would still be a hot topic for debate.

To be honest, I'm surprised that Kasich and republicans haven't been pushing city mergers more. I had once viewed city mergers to be more of a liberal concept, but it seems more aligned with goals of the current governor. A hypothetical city and county of Cleveland would probably mean a reduction of at least $100 million in income taxes for the residents of the county and a drastic reduction in the number of public employees.

 

The current tax structure makes it favorable for an individual to live in the city in which they work. It's beneficial for a resident of Cleveland to work in Cleveland and beneficial for a worker in Solon to live in Solon. Dissolving municipal boundaries removes that tax incentive to live close to work and encourages sprawl.

 

Therefore an individual who lives in Cleveland because they save an additional 2% than living in the suburbs now can live in these suburbs, which are now called Cleveland, and never have to pay that 2% tax. A merger sort of masks the problem. Dissolving municipal boundaries does not mean that the quality of life in those original boundaries gets any better. Sure, the stats of the new city may look better ... lower crime, population growth, higher incomes, but these only hide the problem that may still exist in the original core.

If you pay income tax in two places, one of them is allowed to give you a RITA credit for .5 or 1 percent, I think? I haven't gotten to my tax classes yet... :)

 

The question is really who will have greater sway after a merger: The merged communities, or what today is Cleveland. I think you have to merge enough communities so that the new Clevelanders feel like they have a real shot at controlling their political destinies, and feel like they will be saving money and gaining prestige in the long run. Stronger county government may help, but it's still hard, because the services from Cleveland that are shared are very unpopular even if they make sense to share(water/sewer).

It might end up being a zero sum game in terms of taxes and pooled services if cities merge. Wouldn't taxes have to go up if there were mergers between cities? For example, Susie lives in Lakewood but works in Cleveland. She pays income tax to both Cleveland and Lakewood. Bill lives and works in Cleveland. He only pays income tax to Cleveland. Both cities have a balanced budget with no excess. Lakewood becomes part of the city of Cleveland. Susie now only pays one set of taxes to Cleveland. All the extra income tax she previously paid to Lakewood (along with the 1000s of others) now disappears. That means that the combined tax revenue for the new single city is much less than when the two cities were separate. So the question becomes, does the sharing of resources equal the cost of lost tax revenue or do more cuts need to be made in services or does the tax rate need to be raised?

 

Just a point to ponder ...

 

I see where you're coming from, but this line of thinking overlooks the amount of money that could be saved from the elimination of dozens, if not hundreds, of administration position.  It also doesn't take into consideration the fact that many cities have a partial or full local income tax rebate (I don't think that's the right word, but the idea is that some localities, like Beachwood, don't make you pay two different full local income taxes).

It might end up being a zero sum game in terms of taxes and pooled services if cities merge. Wouldn't taxes have to go up if there were mergers between cities? For example, Susie lives in Lakewood but works in Cleveland. She pays income tax to both Cleveland and Lakewood. Bill lives and works in Cleveland. He only pays income tax to Cleveland. Both cities have a balanced budget with no excess. Lakewood becomes part of the city of Cleveland. Susie now only pays one set of taxes to Cleveland. All the extra income tax she previously paid to Lakewood (along with the 1000s of others) now disappears. That means that the combined tax revenue for the new single city is much less than when the two cities were separate. So the question becomes, does the sharing of resources equal the cost of lost tax revenue or do more cuts need to be made in services or does the tax rate need to be raised?

 

Just a point to ponder ...

 

I see where you're coming from, but this line of thinking overlooks the amount of money that could be saved from the elimination of dozens, if not hundreds, of administration position.  It also doesn't take into consideration the fact that many cities have a partial or full local income tax rebate (I don't think that's the right word, but the idea is that some localities, like Beachwood, don't make you pay two different full local income taxes).

 

The income tax figures are extremely tricky because of the multitude of possible scenarios, with some giving full credit and others not. In terms of elimination of positions, is this really what we are striving for as a county? With high unemployment, eliminating jobs doesn't seem like a bonus to me. I look at the 59 municipalities that we have as boosts to the local economy. Mergers between companies almost always mean a loss of someone's job and the merger of a city is no different. In a region that is draining jobs and population, a city merger, which only perpetuates that problem will be a tough sell.

It might end up being a zero sum game in terms of taxes and pooled services if cities merge. Wouldn't taxes have to go up if there were mergers between cities? For example, Susie lives in Lakewood but works in Cleveland. She pays income tax to both Cleveland and Lakewood. Bill lives and works in Cleveland. He only pays income tax to Cleveland. Both cities have a balanced budget with no excess. Lakewood becomes part of the city of Cleveland. Susie now only pays one set of taxes to Cleveland. All the extra income tax she previously paid to Lakewood (along with the 1000s of others) now disappears. That means that the combined tax revenue for the new single city is much less than when the two cities were separate. So the question becomes, does the sharing of resources equal the cost of lost tax revenue or do more cuts need to be made in services or does the tax rate need to be raised?

 

Just a point to ponder ...

 

I see where you're coming from, but this line of thinking overlooks the amount of money that could be saved from the elimination of dozens, if not hundreds, of administration position.  It also doesn't take into consideration the fact that many cities have a partial or full local income tax rebate (I don't think that's the right word, but the idea is that some localities, like Beachwood, don't make you pay two different full local income taxes).

 

The income tax figures are extremely tricky because of the multitude of possible scenarios, with some giving full credit and others not. In terms of elimination of positions, is this really what we are striving for as a county? With high unemployment, eliminating jobs doesn't seem like a bonus to me. I look at the 59 municipalities that we have as boosts to the local economy. Mergers between companies almost always mean a loss of someone's job and the merger of a city is no different. In a region that is draining jobs and population, a city merger, which only perpetuates that problem will be a tough sell.

 

This thought crossed my mind, as well, and I take no pleasure in seeing anyone lose their job.  That said, in theory, tax savings allows for more freedom in the market and more job creation.  If we're talking about a $100 million tax savings, hopefully that money would go back to taxpayers, and most of them would find ways to spend it.  A large chunk of that would be spent locally, too.

 

At the end of the day, I know this is probably an unpopular viewpoint here, but I think that the market is always better at creating jobs.  I don't think that saving public sector jobs is a strong argument for maintaining government bloat.  There would be some pain in the short term, but in the long-term, everyone would be better off.

 

Dammit, am I really making arguments in favor of regionalism? ;)

59 munis in one county is not good for jobs.  The cost positions us poorly against consolidated metros, while our tangled web of 59 different sets of regulations compounds that problem.  We don't need 59 different regimes controlling elevator safety or trans fats.  One will do.     

Are we that different from others?  How many different municipalities are there in the corresponding counties for Charlotte, Phoenix, Oklahoma City, Dallas, and similar large regional cities?

Just glancing at wikipedia entries:

 

Maricopa County (Phoenix): 14 cities, 12 towns, in 9,224 sq. miles

Mecklenborg County (Charlotte): 7 cities and towns in 546 sq. miles

Dallas County (Dallas): 32 cities and towns in 908 sq. miles

Fulton County (Atlanta): 14 cities and towns in 534 sq. miles

 

So, yeah - 59 fiefdoms in 1,246 sq. miles - there *might* be a little redundancy.

 

I like the idea of regionalism, but it has to be done carefully. I don't think a city/county merger for Cleveland would be as favorable as Indianapolis or Louisville or Jacksonville. However, selective mergers by Cleveland with some of the inner rings and some suburban mergers (Parma and Parma Hts) would, in my opinion, do more good than harm.

 

I just wanted to throw out there, while there appear to be a lot of pros to mergers, there of course are some cons which can be pro sprawl, loss of jobs, and loss of tax revenue.

Just glancing at wikipedia entries:

 

Maricopa County (Phoenix): 14 cities, 12 towns, in 9,224 sq. miles

Mecklenborg County (Charlotte): 7 cities and towns in 546 sq. miles

Dallas County (Dallas): 32 cities and towns in 908 sq. miles

Fulton County (Atlanta): 14 cities and towns in 534 sq. miles

 

So, yeah - 59 fiefdoms in 1,246 sq. miles - there *might* be a little redundancy.

 

 

And actually, only 458 sq. mi. of that is land!

I feel like residents of "suburbs" like Lakewood, Shaker Heights, Cleveland Heights, East Cleveland, Euclid, Brooklyn, Parma and Parma Heights don't live there, because of anything against Cleveland. Whereas those who live where I'm from (Mentor) and other farther suburbs generally view the city in a negative light and would object strongly to associating with the city beyond a sports fandom level.

 

If the pros were explained properly, I think folks in these inner-ring 'burbs could get on board. Areas like Coventry and parts of Lakewood have as much urban feel as neighborhoods in other cities.

 

I don't necessarily view the idea of merging for the sake of boosting numbers as a bad thing. For better or worse, people look at these stats when deciding where to relocate or where to look for jobs. Showing up 43rd or 45th in total population behind Omaha (even if it isn't reflective of the region as a whole) doesn't help our case. People don't look at the statistical metropolitan numbers (except perhaps folks like us!) and might inherently view us as boring because we rank so low in population. And as someone said, mergers with certain 'burbs would boost our jobs number. Again - for better or worse that makes young professionals more confident in moving to a region. A lot of folks I know moved to Chicago out of college, because it has a reputation of having a lot of jobs. Nevermind the fact that they've had more difficulty in actually landing a job than if they stayed where they're from. People pay attention to these things when making major life decisions, and while there certainly are cons to consider, I think we can find enough pros to merge with certain munis. Because as someone said, 59 is a bit redundant.

It may be that the growth of the suburbs was fueled by white flight two generations ago, but I think most of what keeps them there now are the school districts, the significantly higher cost per square foot of downtown residential real estate (a more significant issue for families with children who may need three or four bedrooms), and concerns about the city's tax rates.

 

I actually think that all of those could be addressed.  The school districts would hardly need to dissolve as part of any municipal merger; they're separate municipal entities under Ohio law (not under the control of any mayor's office).  Since we're talking about expanding municipal borders rather than trying to entice people to move, the higher cost of living downtown is a moot point; residents would remain in their existing residences.  The taxes are the big issue, and that's the one I'm less sure about, but I think it would actually be legal to have separate taxing districts within the same city (people paying at different rates, a legacy from the days of separate incorporated municipalities, but all paying into one pot rather than a motley collection of smaller pots).

Are we that different from others?  How many different municipalities are there in the corresponding counties for Charlotte, Phoenix, Oklahoma City, Dallas, and similar large regional cities?

 

Just glancing at wikipedia entries:

 

Maricopa County (Phoenix): 14 cities, 12 towns, in 9,224 sq. miles

Mecklenborg County (Charlotte): 7 cities and towns in 546 sq. miles

Dallas County (Dallas): 32 cities and towns in 908 sq. miles

Fulton County (Atlanta): 14 cities and towns in 534 sq. miles

 

So, yeah - 59 fiefdoms in 1,246 sq. miles - there *might* be a little redundancy.

 

Not sure why we're being compared to Southern or Western cities that developed differently at different times, but yeah, we're really no worse than many of our true peer counties such as Allegheny, Erie, Hamilton, etc.

Just glancing at wikipedia entries:

 

Maricopa County (Phoenix): 14 cities, 12 towns, in 9,224 sq. miles

Mecklenborg County (Charlotte): 7 cities and towns in 546 sq. miles

Dallas County (Dallas): 32 cities and towns in 908 sq. miles

Fulton County (Atlanta): 14 cities and towns in 534 sq. miles

 

So, yeah - 59 fiefdoms in 1,246 sq. miles - there *might* be a little redundancy.

 

 

To make it worse for Cuy Co - 787 of those sq mi are water, and that leaves only 458 sq mi of land to divvy up 59 ways.

The taxes are the big issue, and that's the one I'm less sure about, but I think it would actually be legal to have separate taxing districts within the same city (people paying at different rates, a legacy from the days of separate incorporated municipalities, but all paying into one pot rather than a motley collection of smaller pots).

 

This would have to be a very short term thing and phased out after a few years, maybe with residents who have been in their homes longer being grandfathered in.  If you want this thing to work, eliminate inequalities.  How would it be fair to those living in some of the high-taxed, well-serviced inner-ring suburbs to see their level of services decrease, but still pay high taxes?

Just glancing at wikipedia entries:

 

Maricopa County (Phoenix): 14 cities, 12 towns, in 9,224 sq. miles

Mecklenborg County (Charlotte): 7 cities and towns in 546 sq. miles

Dallas County (Dallas): 32 cities and towns in 908 sq. miles

Fulton County (Atlanta): 14 cities and towns in 534 sq. miles

 

So, yeah - 59 fiefdoms in 1,246 sq. miles - there *might* be a little redundancy.

 

 

Note:  For Atlanta you must use Fulton and DeKalb counties.

The taxes are the big issue, and that's the one I'm less sure about, but I think it would actually be legal to have separate taxing districts within the same city (people paying at different rates, a legacy from the days of separate incorporated municipalities, but all paying into one pot rather than a motley collection of smaller pots).

 

This would have to be a very short term thing and phased out after a few years, maybe with residents who have been in their homes longer being grandfathered in.  If you want this thing to work, eliminate inequalities.  How would it be fair to those living in some of the high-taxed, well-serviced inner-ring suburbs to see their level of services decrease, but still pay high taxes?

 

Yeah, I don't think that would go over too well. Look at Shaker Heights, an $8,000 dollar a year property tax on a $175,000 home is typical. In the city of Cleveland, that same $175,000 dollar home would have property taxes of $4,000. The difference, however, on these two homes in the Shaker Schools but in Cleveland versus Shaker is about $1,000.

 

If you were to have across the board equal property taxes (plus whatever school district tax you were in) a lot of the inner rings would see huge property tax declines. Add this to the lost income tax revenue, and I'm just not buying that the reduction in cost of merged services would be offset by the loss of tax revenue. This would mean that a merged city would either have to establish new average property tax rates (effectively raising for half and lowering for half) or cut more services to the new merged community until expenditures equal new revenues.

 

I'm not sure how some other cities have done it, they must have had minor differences in property taxes and no income tax to begin with.

 

 

I think to start with we have to consider and decide what all will change. Is it just people's addresses will Change to Cleveland instead of Mentor, Parma, Lakewood etc.? Will we just be merging all police and fire departments into one unit? Will school districts remain intact? You know things like that. Then I think decisions could be made about how to divide and share taxes. Maybe of that $8,000 in taxes for someone who lives in the new Shaker Heights "neighborhood" of Cleveland, $2,000 goes to support police and fire for the newly expanded city of Cleveland and the remaining $6,000 stays in the "Neighborhood of Shaker Heights"

WestBlvd, I think a borough system would work well for Cleveland and would help combat some of your concerns.

WestBlvd, I think a borough system would work well for Cleveland and would help combat some of your concerns.

 

That concept crossed my mind earlier this evening. A "heights" and "lake" borough could combat some issues and make it a better sell to the general public, while still preserving the unique identity of these inner rings.

 

The region is lucky in a sense that Cleveland has stayed so small comparatively and that suburban boundaries are within 5 miles of the core. This has allowed for inner ring (sub)urban development to be different than that of the central city, but yet still remain a viable/desirable place to live and be entertained, and further makes it that much easier to reclaim the land from desirable suburb to urban core. (Lakewood to Downtown is probably at around 80% completion of this gentrification) Detroit wasn't as fortunate and had their city boundaries almost triple the distance compared to that of Clevelands, which only pushed suburbia farther from the core and made reclaiming the space from Downtown to desirable suburb that much more difficult, if not impossible.

WestBlvd, I think a borough system would work well for Cleveland and would help combat some of your concerns.

 

That concept crossed my mind earlier this evening. A "heights" and "lake" borough could combat some issues and make it a better sell to the general public, while still preserving the unique identity of these inner rings.

 

The region is lucky in a sense that Cleveland has stayed so small comparatively and that suburban boundaries are within 5 miles of the core. This has allowed for inner ring (sub)urban development to be different than that of the central city, but yet still remain a viable/desirable place to live and be entertained, and further makes it that much easier to reclaim the land from desirable suburb to urban core. (Lakewood to Downtown is probably at around 80% completion of this gentrification) Detroit wasn't as fortunate and had their city boundaries almost triple the distance compared to that of Clevelands, which only pushed suburbia farther from the core and made reclaiming the space from Downtown to desirable suburb that much more difficult, if not impossible.

 

80%? Pessimist! :)

 

Drawing the borough boundaries would be an exciting political game. I think it's a good idea, though. And I also agree with the posters above that realistically, mergers with Cleveland are only going to be for the suburbs immediately adjacent or very close to its existing borders. For the near future, anyway.

 

I like the idea of boroughs. Heck, we're used to replicate NYC in movies, why not steal boroughs, too?

 

I also agree that suburbs that "touch" the city would be as far as we could go to start. But I'm okay with that!

 

Any poli-sci background folks know how such a campaign is started? Just for conversation sake...

The key is to convince the voters of each city.  Ultimately they're the ones who decide it.  To me that suggests a broad (and expensive) PR campaign.  Convincing a few public officials to openly support it would help, but that would be a significant political risk for them and there might not be many takers.

The key is to convince the voters of each city.  Ultimately they're the ones who decide it.  To me that suggests a broad (and expensive) PR campaign.  Convincing a few public officials to openly support it would help, but that would be a significant political risk for them and there might not be many takers.

 

If it was presented as simply changing areas like Lakewood from "city" to "borough" or "neighborhood," I can't immediately think of any friends who would oppose it. If these "boroughs" still had their own school system "Lakewood Borough Schools" and their own tax codes, I don't see a problem.

 

If it was also presented as a form of civic pride and boosting our numbers to lure young professionals and businesses, I think folks would get on board. But that's just the optimist in me!

Let's be realistic here.  By my count, there are ~15 suburbs with significant borders with Cleveland.  Of those, I can see close to a dozen who, for one reason or another, would likely vote down a potential merger with Cleveland.

If it was presented as simply changing areas like Lakewood from "city" to "borough" or "neighborhood," I can't immediately think of any friends who would oppose it. If these "boroughs" still had their own school system "Lakewood Borough Schools" and their own tax codes, I don't see a problem.

 

If it was also presented as a form of civic pride and boosting our numbers to lure young professionals and businesses, I think folks would get on board. But that's just the optimist in me!

 

I love your optimism, and it'll be needed if we're going to convince enough people.  The main obstacle is race & class divisions.  Too many locals don't want their affairs mingled with those of less fortunate neighbors.  Whatever we choose to call the new subdivisions, or lack thereof, isn't going to matter if voters believe they'll have a new deduction on their paycheck marked "Poor People."

If it was presented as simply changing areas like Lakewood from "city" to "borough" or "neighborhood," I can't immediately think of any friends who would oppose it. If these "boroughs" still had their own school system "Lakewood Borough Schools" and their own tax codes, I don't see a problem.

 

If it was also presented as a form of civic pride and boosting our numbers to lure young professionals and businesses, I think folks would get on board. But that's just the optimist in me!

 

I love your optimism, and it'll be needed if we're going to convince enough people.  The main obstacle is race & class divisions.  Too many locals don't want their affairs mingled with those of less fortunate neighbors.  Whatever we choose to call the new subdivisions, or lack thereof, isn't going to matter if voters believe they'll have a new deduction on their paycheck marked "Poor People."

 

Fair point. But I know stats nationwide are showing young professionals moving back into urban areas as opposed to big box suburban houses we can't afford to begin with. It also shows that young folks aren't "afraid" to live side by side with potentially less fortunate folks. So I think this is an issue worth bringing up now in hopes of seeing change when today's young professionals are elected into office and lining the streets in Lakewood, Shaker Heights, Cleveland Heights, etc.

Let's be realistic here.  By my count, there are ~15 suburbs with significant borders with Cleveland.  Of those, I can see close to a dozen who, for one reason or another, would likely vote down a potential merger with Cleveland.

 

Today, you are correct.  Which is why people really should be encouraged to carefully examine the costs/benefits.  There are always con's in any substantial modification of the status quo.  People are going to focus on those con's until someone can demonstrate how they are outweighed, perhaps significantly, by the pro's.

 

So, no matter how far fetched it seems, we should keep discussing the issue. 

Fair point. But I know stats nationwide are showing young professionals moving back into urban areas as opposed to big box suburban houses we can't afford to begin with. It also shows that young folks aren't "afraid" to live side by side with potentially less fortunate folks. So I think this is an issue worth bringing up now in hopes of seeing change when today's young professionals are elected into office and lining the streets in Lakewood, Shaker Heights, Cleveland Heights, etc.

 

Right.  And young people don't tend to get into power around here.  I'd love to hear Julian Rogers come out in favor of CH and EC merging with Cleveland.  They're all in his county council district, and he's one of the few young officeholders we have around here.  Cimperman seems more concerned with controlling people's diets.  Leadership is lacking, and I don't think we'll see much movement on this until that changes.  Contact the Young Democrats.  Contact the Young Republicans.  I really couldn't tell you which would bite first on this issue.

Perhaps we could start with combining services that all municipalities provide.  Combine the police departments of the city and suburbs and abolish the sherriff department.  Combine all fire departments and EMS.  Combine all sanitation departments.  Work toward establishing a county board of education like almost all other major metros in he U.S.

This might sound lame, but...

 

Perhaps simply starting a Facebook group "Merging Cleveland" just to get the idea out there and people to discuss? Not that UO isn't a great place to discuss, but more people are connected on FB and you could invite Councilman, citizens, etc. And then have various threads within containing some of the ideas we've seen on this thread. Just a simple way to keep the conversation going!

Perhaps we could start with combining services that all municipalities provide.  Combine the police departments of the city and suburbs and abolish the sherriff department.  Combine all fire departments and EMS.  Combine all sanitation departments.  Work toward establishing a county board of education like almost all other major metros in he U.S.

 

Exactly. It starts with the the safety forces. next sanitation, then parks and rec, aging, ect. The final stand on merging will be the schools.

Safety forces are somewhat of a no brainer IMHO.  I don't see a significant downside that even approaches the benefits of consolidation. 

 

Yes, schools will never happen.  Some administrative positions might be able to be consolidated, but any talk of merging the districts in any substantial way will destroy this whole discussion.

 

I also think that mergers of service departments will be a harder sell than people anticipate.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you fix the school funding issue, by redirecting it from property taxes to something else, controlled by agencies at a higher level than local municipalities, you eliminate much of the benefit of retaining separate educational districts, because the playing field has been evened. That makes the concept of regionalism much more palatable.

 

I'm in total agreement that this is something that occurs in baby steps (merge safety, then other services) before complete consolidation is ultimately achieved.

Perhaps we could start with combining services that all municipalities provide.  Combine the police departments of the city and suburbs and abolish the sherriff department.  Combine all fire departments and EMS.  Combine all sanitation departments.  Work toward establishing a county board of education like almost all other major metros in he U.S.

I agree that combining safety forces is a great place to start, but rather than eliminate the sheriff's department, I'd think we should gradually shift funds, officers, and responsibilities from the police departments to the sheriff's office. By doing it gradually it would allow the hiccups that naturally come with change to be dealt with as they come up and before they're on the front page of the PD. As the transition works itself out, it would demonstrate the advantages of regionalism to the public.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you fix the school funding issue, by redirecting it from property taxes to something else, controlled by agencies at a higher level than local municipalities, you eliminate much of the benefit of retaining separate educational districts, because the playing field has been evened. That makes the concept of regionalism much more palatable.

I don't think it's just funding. A lot of people in suburbs like their separate school districts because they perform better than the district in the next town, and wouldn't want to merge because they're scared that the people from "that" district are going to bring down the education level of the school "my kids" go to. Realistically almost everyone is near some district that is performing worse than their own in some way or another.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you fix the school funding issue, by redirecting it from property taxes to something else, controlled by agencies at a higher level than local municipalities, you eliminate much of the benefit of retaining separate educational districts, because the playing field has been evened. That makes the concept of regionalism much more palatable.

I don't think it's just funding. A lot of people in suburbs like their separate school districts because they perform better than the district in the next town, and wouldn't want to merge because they're scared that the people from "that" district are going to bring down the education level of the school "my kids" go to. Realistically almost everyone is near some district that is performing worse than their own in some way or another.

 

True, but to the extent that the lack of sufficient resources of a school district causes those problems, I think you solve some of those issues by normalizing the funding process.

^Good point

Perhaps we could start with combining services that all municipalities provide.  Combine the police departments of the city and suburbs and abolish the sherriff department.  Combine all fire departments and EMS.  Combine all sanitation departments.  Work toward establishing a county board of education like almost all other major metros in he U.S.

I agree that combining safety forces is a great place to start, but rather than eliminate the sheriff's department, I'd think we should gradually shift funds, officers, and responsibilities from the police departments to the sheriff's office. By doing it gradually it would allow the hiccups that naturally come with change to be dealt with as they come up and before they're on the front page of the PD. As the transition works itself out, it would demonstrate the advantages of regionalism to the public.

 

I think this is the most realistic model for metro consolidation- merge services up into the County, one at a time, and slowly.  The municipal borders probably never go away, but they can become less relevant to service provision.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you fix the school funding issue, by redirecting it from property taxes to something else, controlled by agencies at a higher level than local municipalities, you eliminate much of the benefit of retaining separate educational districts, because the playing field has been evened. That makes the concept of regionalism much more palatable.

I don't think it's just funding. A lot of people in suburbs like their separate school districts because they perform better than the district in the next town, and wouldn't want to merge because they're scared that the people from "that" district are going to bring down the education level of the school "my kids" go to. Realistically almost everyone is near some district that is performing worse than their own in some way or another.

 

The school question is like a pissing contest.  My burb perform better than yours..., I don't want my kids bussed to the 'hood".  It's the ultimate excuse not to regionalize.  It's the "what about the children" motif.  People need to realize that their kids can't live in a vaccuum.  I gre up in a western burb of CLE and witnessed alot of sh!t that gets covered up because it's "not supposed to happen here".