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.

 

You know Cleveland Heights, as do I.  Let's throw Shaker Heights and Lakewood into the discussion as well, because I think they're relevant/similar as well.  Sure these would be great additions to Cleveland, and sure, a lot of these citizens in these suburbs are "progressive" and might be open to a merger.  But why?  Although each one has significant problems/issues, they all do well enough governing themselves.  I think their residents realize this and also would realize that by merging with Cleveland, necessarily they will lose some character (it's not a question of "if," but a question of "how much").  They will have to defer decision-making to a central authority and that will change things, perhaps drastically.  Even for these suburbs, flaws and all, they have little to gain by rolling under the "Cleveland" umbrella.  And I'm not sure why anyone who appreciates or boosts these suburbs would want them merge with Cleveland.  If this is just about boosting Cleveland's numbers and improving Cleveland proper, I think the area loses out when suburbs like those are merged.  Especially if further out, character-less suburbs like Solon or Strongsville are being "spared" their identity.

 

Earlier in the day I was thinking about the above idea, and trying to figure out how to articulate it.  I still don't think I explained my thought process correctly, but it's close enough.  I just think that those areas have too much character as individual entities.  And I know I may be criticized for saying this, but the inner-ring suburbs that I don't think will be a "loss" for the area if they lose independence would be ones like Brooklyn, Fairview Park, Garfield Heights, Maple Heights, Warrensville Heights, Euclid, East Cleveland, 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.

 

You know Cleveland Heights, as do I.  Let's throw Shaker Heights and Lakewood into the discussion as well, because I think they're relevant/similar as well.  Sure these would be great additions to Cleveland, and sure, a lot of these citizens in these suburbs are "progressive" and might be open to a merger.  But why?  Although each one has significant problems/issues, they all do well enough governing themselves.  I think their residents realize this and also would realize that by merging with Cleveland, necessarily they will lose some character (it's not a question of "if," but a question of "how much").  They will have to defer decision-making to a central authority and that will change things, perhaps drastically.  Even for these suburbs, flaws and all, they have little to gain by rolling under the "Cleveland" umbrella.  And I'm not sure why anyone who appreciates or boosts these suburbs would want them merge with Cleveland.  If this is just about boosting Cleveland's numbers and improving Cleveland proper, I think the area loses out when suburbs like those are merged.  Especially if further out, character-less suburbs like Solon or Strongsville are being "spared" their identity.

 

Earlier in the day I was thinking about the above idea, and trying to figure out how to articulate it.  I still don't think I explained my thought process correctly, but it's close enough.  I just think that those areas have too much character as individual entities.  And I know I may be criticized for saying this, but the inner-ring suburbs that I don't think will be a "loss" for the area if they lose independence would be ones like Brooklyn, Fairview Park, Garfield Heights, Maple Heights, Warrensville Heights, Euclid, East Cleveland, etc.

 

No, it does make sense what you are trying to articulate.

 

There is no reason that Linndale should exist, I think most in the county would agree that this merger would make sense (and on the same vein with Cuyahoga and Newburgh Heights)

 

Cleveland Heights, Lakewood, and Shaker Heights have name recognition and and an identity that anyone from Northeast Ohio and a good portion of the state recognize. If they become neighborhoods they lose a bit of character. Of all the neighborhoods of Cleveland, Tremont is probably the only one that most people in the county are familiar with. Ask someone from Brecksville what they think of the Detroit-Shoreway, Kamm's Corners, or Ohio City and they might not know what you're talking about.

 

On the reverse, it's actually funny how much chatter I hear about how people in Edgewater wish Lakewood would annex them. But from that perspective it makes sense, the area from the Shoreway and north of Detroit looks exactly like Lakewood, except for the Cleveland label. In this example, the people of Edgewater get a better school district and the people of Lakewood get a bigger tax base that more than offsets the additional expense burden.

 

Mergers need these win/win scenarios. But as has been discussed a little bit earlier. It starts off slowly merging certain services one by one until you dissolve the municipal boundary and then ultimately the school district.

 

I think for mergers to be successful, both parties need this win/win

Heard something briefly on NPR this morning about some politicians bringing up the discussion of consolidating some Ohio towns as well as services. Governor Kasich is apparently starting a committee of some sort to study the impact of this, so he can sell the positives to the people. It sounded like pretty much everything we've been talking about. Anybody have more on this?

Well, we have consideration.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga-county/index.ssf/2011/06/four_east_side_suburbs_to_study_merger.html

 

Four East Side suburbs in Cuyahoga County to study merger

Published: Wednesday, June 22, 2011, 10:30 AM    Updated: Wednesday, June 22, 2011, 10:59 AM

  By Laura Johnston, The Plain Dealer

 

Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald announces four suburbs' merger-study proposal with their mayors behind him.

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Four affluent East Side suburbs will consider merging into one, the mayors announced this morning.

The pact by Moreland Hills, Orange, Pepper Pike and Woodmere is the biggest step toward regionalism this county of 59 municipalities has ever seen. And it marks the latest big idea under a new county charter that promotes cooperation among political subdivision.

I've heard a little about that, but have been working too much to meet my UO obligations!

 

Are they talking merging with Cleveland or just one new suburb? Either way, at least it's something.

 

I started a facebook group to talk about merging aspects of Cleveland together, but haven't had the time write up the basics of the page, so it's private for the time being. If anyone wants to join and help get things moving, let me know!

All 4 are working on merging w/ each other. New city would be called Pepporwood Hills. ;-)

 

It makes sense since we all share the same school district already.  Also, the population density is such that we would be well served by a single police force, fire department, etc.  Honestly, aside from a speed trap, Woodmere has no need for their own police or fire dept.

All 4 are working on merging w/ each other. New city would be called Pepporwood Hills. ;-)

 

It makes sense since we all share the same school district already.  Also, the population density is such that we would be well served by a single police force, fire department, etc.  Honestly, aside from a speed trap, Woodmere has no need for their own police or fire dept.

 

Sounds good to me! Wish there were more talks about 'burbs merging with Cleveland, but I'll take it!

This is a necessary first step.  Carries none of the baggage a Cleveland merger would entail, but establishes the precedent that this can be done.

This is what I like to see!

 

The new city should go back to the future and call itself "Orange," since that's basically what it was called long before these areas decided they needed to be independent cities.

 

edit: I wonder why Moreland Hills decided to throw its hat in the ring, but not Hunting Valley?

A lot of other suburbs will be watching this closely (and probably not seriously considering any mergers until they see how it works out).  If they decide on a merger and it doesn't work out well it certainly will discourage other suburbs from considering mergers down the road.  I hope they do a good job so that it encourages more suburbs to consider merging.

A lot of other suburbs will be watching this closely (and probably not seriously considering any mergers until they see how it works out).  If they decide on a merger and it doesn't work out well it certainly will discourage other suburbs from considering mergers down the road.  I hope they do a good job so that it encourages more suburbs to consider merging.

 

Good point! Is there any way everyday folk like us can help it succeed?

 

Y'know... New restaurant opens, so you go there. New store opens, you buy stuff. How do we support this? Wear tee shirts?

I didn't expect full mergers to be discussed so soon. I really appreciate Fitzgerald's effort in this.

I didn't expect full mergers to be discussed so soon. I really appreciate Fitzgerald's effort in this.

 

Likewise on both counts.  If this goes through, I'd say county government reform has already paid off in a big way. 

I'm glad to see affluent suburbs are leading the way on a merger, rather than desperate cities. This helps remove some of the stigma of merging. Merging shouldn't be an indicator of a communities' failure. It should be an indicator of innovation and efficiency.

I'm glad to see affluent suburbs are leading the way on a merger, rather than desperate cities. This helps remove some of the stigma of merging. Merging shouldn't be an indicator of a communities' failure. It should be an indicator of innovation and efficiency.

 

Amen! I'm definitely rooting for this to succeed in hopes for more mergers in the future. It baffles me that you can see the end of the Linndale corp limit on 71 when you get to the start of it.

I have little doubt that Orange Township v.2.0 will do just fine precisely because of its overall affluence.  Even throwing Woodmere into the mix won't hurt it that much. 

 

If anything I suspect it will give other less well-off suburbs a bit of false hope that a merger could work for them.

Woodmere pays for itself with a small population and a large Eton Collection.

All 4 are working on merging w/ each other. New city would be called Pepporwood Hills. ;-)

 

 

Pepporwood Hills. I love it!

 

All 4 are working on merging w/ each other. New city would be called Pepporwood Hills. ;)

 

 

Pepporwood Hills. I love it!

 

 

Much better than "Peckerwood Hills", which would be the name of the new town if this was Central or Southern Ohio

 

 

Zing!

(Psycho's rule)

.

Cleveland.com had a nice graphic showing the cost/tax data:

 

http://media.cleveland.com/cuyahoga-county-road-to-reform/photo/26cgregional2jpg-05cd36efc47b605d.jpg

 

 

Clearly shows how each municipality has a distinct property tax/income tax structure. I wonder if the taxes would go down to the Woodmere level across the board (which is the only municipality of the 4 that gives a complete income tax credit), if not Woodmere residents, who have household incomes a fraction of the other 3, could wind up paying higher taxes at the expense of the wealthier suburb's tax reductions. The other 3 suburbs have an average credit of about .8%, considering the average household incomes of nearly 200K, that's a savings per household of $1,600 per year ... if the new suburb gave a full income tax credit. The question is how likely would that be and if it's feasible?

 

I think the residents of Woodmere would most likely be the deciding factor for the merger if/when it goes to an election, because they currently pay the least amount of taxes of the 4.

 

This will definitely be interesting to watch this play out over the next year or two!

From an e-mailed press release.......

 

Contact:

Molly Johnson

Fund for Our Economic Future

216-456-9806

[email protected]

 

For Immediate Release 

 

Government Collaboration the Focus of Oct. 13 Conference

Public sector leaders to learn practical ways to implement collaborative efforts in local government

 

CLEVELAND (Sept. 13, 2011) - The first EfficientGovNetwork Regional Collaboration Conference on Oct. 13 features experienced government officials sharing practical information about implementing collaborative efforts in local government.

 

"Governments at every level in Ohio are seeking ways to lower costs and maintain essential public services. The EfficientGovNetwork Regional Collaboration Conference is an opportunity for public sector leaders to share ideas and explore new ways to support sustainable government through collaborative, cost-sharing strategies," said Randy Cole, state Controlling Board president and policy advisor, Ohio Office of Budget and Management. Cole, one of the conference keynote speakers, will discuss recent state legislative changes that enable and incentivize collaborative actions among local governments.

 

The day-long conference, being held at the John S. Knight Center in Akron, is planned by the EfficientGovNetwork, a coalition of public sector professionals committed to increasing government collaboration in Northeast Ohio. It is sponsored by The Fund for Our Economic Future in partnership with Advance Northeast Ohio.

 

Conference highlights include working sessions on shared services, information technology and collaborations; new approaches to implementing mergers and sharing of ideas and best practices with peers. Public health, 911 dispatch, fire services and storm water management are among the topics that will be discussed during the working sessions.  More information, including registration and a detailed agenda, is available online at www.efficientgovnetwork.org/resources/egnetconference.html 

 

"Efficient and collaborative local governments are important to Northeast Ohio's economic competitiveness," said Fund for Our Economic Future President Brad Whitehead. "The Regional Collaboration Conference will provide a way for public sector leaders to learn about what others in the region are doing, and enable them to begin discussing collaborations for their own communities." 

 

Registration is available online at www.efficientgovnetwork.org/resources/egnetconference.html. Cost is $45 for an individual; $40 per ticket for two attendees and $35 per ticket for three or more attendees. Deadline for registration is Oct. 7, 2011.

 

# # #

 

About the Fund for Our Economic Future

 

The Fund for Our Economic Future (www.futurefundneo.org) is a collaboration of more than 100 foundations, organizations and philanthropists from across Northeast Ohio that strengthens the region's economic competitiveness through grantmaking, public engagement and research.

Saw this early in the morning and was damn glad. A few months ago I was showing off the University Circle projects to my Aunt, saying I hope it spills over to East Cleveland sooner rather than later.

 

If this is successful and helps the East Cleveland economy, I wonder if it will spur merger talks again. I remember reading Mayor Norton say he'd be open to it if it would be to the benefit of East Cleveland to merge with Cleveland. It's such a tiny area that already has a major Cleveland transit hub. If University Circle essentially extends into East Cleveland, a merger would seem to make sense.

 

Either way (and back on topic), glad to see this!

I sure hope so. I strongly believe that East Cleveland and Cleveland should merge asap, like, yesterday. I just think it would be better for everyone. There's just so much work to be done in East Cleveland that I'm not sure if they can get it all done on their own. If a merger took place, Cleveland's population would be immediately put back over 400,000 (E.C has roughly 17,000 residents) and the city has much more resources in terms of infrastructure, etc, which can help E.C and its residents.

 

But yes, this is a very good thing.

Saw this early in the morning and was damn glad. A few months ago I was showing off the University Circle projects to my Aunt, saying I hope it spills over to East Cleveland sooner rather than later.

 

If this is successful and helps the East Cleveland economy, I wonder if it will spur merger talks again. I remember reading Mayor Norton say he'd be open to it if it would be to the benefit of East Cleveland to merge with Cleveland. It's such a tiny area that already has a major Cleveland transit hub. If University Circle essentially extends into East Cleveland, a merger would seem to make sense.

 

Either way (and back on topic), glad to see this!

I sure hope so. I strongly believe that East Cleveland and Cleveland should merge asap, like, yesterday. I just think it would be better for everyone. There's just so much work to be done in East Cleveland that I'm not sure if they can get it all done on their own. If a merger took place, Cleveland's population would be immediately put back over 400,000 (E.C has roughly 17,000 residents) and the city has much more resources in terms of infrastructure, etc, which can help E.C and its residents.

 

But yes, this is a very good thing.

 

And could likely put Cleveland back at #1 for highest poverty rate.  Also, Other than a couple of nabes that are doing ok, Im not so sure that Cleveland is able t handle  their own neighborhoods very well.  We shall see...       

Saw this early in the morning and was damn glad. A few months ago I was showing off the University Circle projects to my Aunt, saying I hope it spills over to East Cleveland sooner rather than later.

 

If this is successful and helps the East Cleveland economy, I wonder if it will spur merger talks again. I remember reading Mayor Norton say he'd be open to it if it would be to the benefit of East Cleveland to merge with Cleveland. It's such a tiny area that already has a major Cleveland transit hub. If University Circle essentially extends into East Cleveland, a merger would seem to make sense.

 

Either way (and back on topic), glad to see this!

I sure hope so. I strongly believe that East Cleveland and Cleveland should merge asap, like, yesterday. I just think it would be better for everyone. There's just so much work to be done in East Cleveland that I'm not sure if they can get it all done on their own. If a merger took place, Cleveland's population would be immediately put back over 400,000 (E.C has roughly 17,000 residents) and the city has much more resources in terms of infrastructure, etc, which can help E.C and its residents.

 

But yes, this is a very good thing.

 

And could likely put Cleveland back at #1 for highest poverty rate.  Also, Other than a couple of nabes that are doing ok, Im not so sure that Cleveland is able t handle  their own neighborhoods very well.  We shall see...     

I doubt merging East Cleveland with Cleveland would put the city back at #1 for highest poverty rate. The population of the city of East Cleveland is less than one-HALF of Collinwood. Merging the two would have very little, if any, affect on the poverty rate of the city.

 

Second, either we're serious about regionalism or we're not. Period. East Cleveland is a prime example of a city that should not be there. It should be in Cleveland. If we believe that a county with 1.2 million people shouldn't have 59 municipalities then you gotta do something about it. Can't just give lip service to it.

 

I do not have faith that East Cleveland can provide the necessary infrastructure to support large scale redevelopment. The City of Cleveland would likely be taking the lead on most meaningful East Cleveland development anyway, so why wouldn't you merge it? Its common sense.

 

East Cleveland borders two very important and strategic neighborhoods in Cleveland, University Circle and the south side of Collinwood. I would think that it would help the development of University Circle and the redevelopment of Collinwood if those neighborhoods and their development corporations and their civic boosters could lead and guide development on the other side of their borders. Can that happen without merging, theoretically, yes, but its much easier if its part of the city. This way developers and CDCs, etc. only have to deal with one government instead of two governments with different rules, different bureaucracies, different red tape, etc. This absolutely should happen.

 

You look at it as "this will raise the poverty rate up dramatically" (which it won't), but I look at it as "hmm, if the city of Cleveland had the opportunity to get its hands on the headquarters of General Electric Lighting, John D. Rockefeller Jr's Forest Hills Neighborhood (which, because of the way the house deeds were structured by JDR. Jr,  has been remarkably stable in East Cleveland and shares a border with Cleveland Heights), have complete control of Euclid Avenue from Downtown to the border of the City of Euclid, one of the largest RTA transit stations around (Windermere), and access to a bunch of land for dirt cheap prices for University Circle developers, why wouldn't they do it?" Its a no-brainer. It is so "old Cleveland mentality" to look at the negatives and not look at the potential to have something great.

 

The reason why some neighborhoods in Cleveland struggle is because transitioning a neighborhood into something new is painful for those who still live there and may not be in the big picture, post transition. In most cases, you can't just go into a neighborhood, tear it down to the ground and rebuild it in your image. But in East Cleveland, you have an area that was built for 40,000 people and it currently has less than 18,000 in it. That means that over half of the city is completely vacant. You could literally knock EVERYTHING down in over HALF of East Cleveland and rebuild it however you want because there's nobody there. You can't do that in Collinwood or Hough or some of these other Cleveland neighborhoods that still have people living in it.

 

Yes, East Cleveland needs plenty of work. But it also has tremendous assets that I believe the city of Cleveland can capitalize on better than East Cleveland could ever do as an independent city.

I agree 110%!!!!^

I'm not saying it wouldnt make sense, Im saying I hate to see Cleveland struggle any more than it already is.  Yes, it likely would be the most logical thing.  Im just concerned that East Cleveland, being in the state it is in, and the further drain on the city of Cleveland which is stretched well beyond its limits, so Im just not sure how it will handle more problems.       

 

I know why the neighborhoods of Cleveland have struggled.  Im actually more worried about the remaining viable neighborhoods (that existed when I left Cleveland) that seem much less viable now.  Once that happens in this region we will not see them come back in our lifetime.  Aside from the few small pockets of bright spots, most things have gotten worse. 

 

Yes, bottom line is Im worried about the effect this would have on a city that already seems to be stretched to its limits.

 

Wow... Well said, inlovewithcle!

 

I've never bought the "We'll just to number one in poverty" argument, regardless if it's true or not. If it's ultimately going to improve the quality of life for the people of Northeast Ohio (which would undoubtedly better our ranking, if we care), then I'm all for it.

 

I'd love for people to start talking about welcoming East Cleveland into the city, outside of just UO.

Under the status quo, East Cleveland is a communicable disease.  It threatens promising neighborhoods in Cleveland (UC, Collinwood) and Cleveland Hts (Coventry, Noble/Monticello) simply due to its proximity.  Not to mention its own bee-a-ute-ifull nabe of Forest Hills.  Either city would be best served in the long run by getting that area under control.

Great post, inlovewithcle.  This should be a front-burner issue for both cities.

Under the status quo, East Cleveland is a communicable disease.  It threatens promising neighborhoods in Cleveland (UC, Collinwood) and Cleveland Hts (Coventry, Noble/Monticello) simply due to its proximity.  Not to mention its own bee-a-ute-ifull nabe of Forest Hills.  Either city would be best served in the long run by getting that area under control.

:clap: That is EXACTLY my point. Completely agree. Fixing East Cleveland is not optional. It must be done in order to secure the long term viability of Collinwood and University Circle. With even acknowledging that the city of East Cleveland is much, MUCH safer than it was in the 1990s, just the mere perception of a lack of safety is enough alone to threaten the stability and growth of the surrounding neighborhoods. Whether Cleveland or East Cleveland fixes it, SOMEBODY needs to fix it. I just believe strongly that East Cleveland can't fix itself as an independent city and only Cleveland can fix it. No, Cleveland isn't the richest city in Cuyahoga, but we definitely have more money than E.C. And more important than the money are the resources that the city has in terms of federal grants, infrastructure, etc.

 

The bottom line is no reasonable person can expect University Circle and Collinwood to thrive for decades to come and still keep on its borders a city with neighborhoods that look like mini-bombed out Baghdads. Its not going to happen. A "communicable disease" is a perfect way to describe it. Either you fix it or everything eventually dies with it. I argue that East Cleveland can only be fixed by being annexed to the city of Cleveland. But either way, fixing East Cleveland is not optional.

^I support the annexation of EC as well. I assume residents of both cities would have to agree, but its a campaign worth fighting for in both cities.

How does this issue even make a ballot? I don't see how anyone would object. I mean... It's not like E.C. is in a different state, like East Chicago and East St. Louis are.

How does this issue even make a ballot? I don't see how anyone would object. I mean... It's not like E.C. is in a different state, like East Chicago and East St. Louis are.

 

Residents of other cities that would annex it (Cleve, CH, Euclid, etc.) would object.  They would argue that annexing EC would strain their already strained resources.  Whether this is true or not....

^Euclid does not touch EC's border, so annexation would not be possible.  EC is completely enclosed by Cleveland (to the north and west) and CH (to the south and east).

 

While people would certainly argue that the con's outweigh the pro's, there are indeed pro's which could be used to persuade.  First, while most of EC is crap, the area around UC would become much more promising if under Cleveland's control and watchful eye.  Second, Forest Hills would jump right up there as one of the nicest residential neighborhoods in the entire City of Cleveland and the park itself is another asset.  Third, having Nela Park (and the accompanying prestige and jobs) within the City can't hurt.  Fourth, East Cleveland is essentially a square block cut right out of the City anyway (bordered by Cleveland to the west, north AND east), so it helps make better sense of the geography of the City.  And, finally, as someone said above, it would immediately propel Cleveland proper back over 400,000 residents.  And, oh yeah, Shaw high school was just recently renovated so that is another asset.

How does this issue even make a ballot? I don't see how anyone would object. I mean... It's not like E.C. is in a different state, like East Chicago and East St. Louis are.

 

Residents of other cities that would annex it (Cleve, CH, Euclid, etc.) would object.  They would argue that annexing EC would strain their already strained resources.  Whether this is true or not....

I have not heard anyone argue for splitting up East Cleveland between Cleveland, Euclid and Cleveland Heights. (And as Hts noted, East Cleveland does not border the city of Euclid at all), and if they did, I'd be against that.

 

Several years ago there was talk of annexing East Cleveland and splitting up the city between Cleveland and Cleveland Heights. Well, Cleveland Heights wanted to take all the nice parts of East Cleveland and give Cleveland all the crappy parts. I'd be totally against that. East Cleveland is worth the most to Cleveland if Cleveland takes ALL of it. There's still several Millionaires Row-era houses on Euclid Avenue, for example, and a Historic district could be created in that area in order to preserve the houses still there and restore the houses in decay. (East Cleveland has the most Millionaires Row houses still up in the region). As was mentioned earlier, East Cleveland's Forest Hills Neighborhood is a gorgeous neighborhood and would be an asset to Cleveland immediately. Nela Park is an asset. So in order for it to work, in my opinion, Cleveland would need to take all of it. If that doesn't happen, Cleveland would likely get the short hand of the stick and shouldn't do it. All of East Cleveland should be annexed.

Agree. Take it all, and the sooner, the better.

If CH has any interest, it would likely be limited to the area south of Terrace.... so yes, the nice® parts.... the "heights" leaving Cleveland with all the lake level junk

so how do we make this happen?

Well I supposed you'd have to get it on the ballot - not sure how many signatures you'd need to do that.  Once it's on the ballot you would need a majority of residents to agree.  I don't see Cleveland residents going for it.

 

http://www.onntv.com/content/stories/2011/07/21/story_government_mergers_promotable.html

Well, I'm a Cleveland resident of voting age who would vote for it! So... there's one! :)

I think Cleveland annexing East Cleveland would be worth the short term hit for some long term gains. It makes sense that East Cleveland will be revitalized some day. It's served by rail, has great urban housing stock (even though much of it has been lost), and is at the doorstep of the city's cultural hub which happens to be picking up a lot of momentum lately. I would not expect East Cleveland to be revitalized for a very long time; however, if it does get to a point where it has some momentum going it may not be as open to being annexed as it is at this time. I think Cleveland needs to "buy low" on this one if it can for potential gains in the future.

^Euclid does not touch EC's border, so annexation would not be possible.  EC is completely enclosed by Cleveland (to the north and west) and CH (to the south and east).

 

Doesn't East Cleveland also border South Euclid for a short stretch along Quilliams east of Nela Park?

 

EDIT: Never mind, I see East Cleveland doesn't reach to Quilliams.  I didn't know those streets to the west of Quilliams were in a small part of Cleveland Heights that actually borders the Euclid-Green neighborhood of Cleveland to the north.

Getting merger votes would be easier if the two city administrations were openly supportive.  That seems less likely with East Cleveland, where the people in question have more to lose.  Based on my recent dealings with them, I think they really intend to make a go of it as an independent city, and this recent big announcement is the centerpiece of that effort.  They're also trying to prevent anything undesirable from locating within their borders.  Though I wish they would consider the big picture in terms of regionalism, I do like their attitude and I think Cleveland could learn something from it.

Granted I have had absolutely ZERO interactions with either administration, but I recall reading (perhaps in Cleveland Magazine?) that Mayor Norton said if merging with Cleveland was in the best interest of East Cleveland, he'd do it.

Under the status quo, East Cleveland is a communicable disease.  It threatens promising neighborhoods in Cleveland (UC, Collinwood) and Cleveland Hts (Coventry, Noble/Monticello) simply due to its proximity.  Not to mention its own bee-a-ute-ifull nabe of Forest Hills.  Either city would be best served in the long run by getting that area under control.

 

Cleveland Heights, like Cleveland, can't even handle its own significant problems, let alone worrying about getting East Cleveland "under control."  If you're a resident of CH (and I'm using that as a general address to any CH resident, because I know that you are not), you better fight long and hard against any merger proposals that talk of bringing on part or all of EC into CH.

I'll take that "significant problems" line with a grain of salt due to your well established prejudice towards CH.  But if you take a look at further posts, you would see that any chance of anexation would in all likelihood be limited to the areas south of Terrace.  CH would be well served to absorb those areas which would come with great assetts like Nela Park and Forest Hills (park and neighborhood), and covers a part of EC that is already partly in the CH-UH school district and is definitely patroled by CH police.

 

I also wouldn't mind CH annexing the areas of UH accross Taylor Road that are causing blight with all of those useless (and mostly empty) surface lots).  :D

"Significant" may have been an overstatement in the case of Cleveland Heights, but not Cleveland.  And yes, I did read the other posts.  I agree with you about the Nela Park and Forest Hills areas of EC being assets, but there are still other troubled areas of EC that would have to come, too, in your South of Terrace plan, which would not be worth the hassle.

As a city of Cleveland resident and an advocate of annexing East Cleveland, I would be DEAD SET against any plan to split the city between Cleveland and Cleveland Heights. I would rather let East Cleveland stay as an independent city than to allow the city of Cleveland to get ripped off by Cleveland Heights.

 

I feel very strongly about that. East Cleveland has a ton of assets but it also needs a ton of work. If the City of Cleveland has to do the work, then it should reap the benefits of all of E.C's assets. Either we annex all of it or we annex none of it. CH shouldn't be able to just cherry pick the nice parts and leave us with Baghdad. All of it or none of it.

 

Also, in my opinion, when the idea of merging an inner ring suburb is an option, the goal should be to make the city bigger, not a suburb bigger. In outer ring suburbs, it makes more sense for them to merge with each other. But it makes no sense to take a suburb that is basically surrounded by the city and merge it with another suburb.

Not that I really want to see CH and EC merge or think that it makes sense, but seriously, what does it really matter if inner-ring suburbs are getting bigger?  If we're talking about two suburbs that are managing themselves well independently, but want to streamline, why bring Cleveland into the mix?  There is something to be said about having government closer to the people, and something is lost when you shift power downtown.  Especially in a central city like Cleveland that already has its hands full.