A more powerful Cleveland leads to a more powerful region, including Cleveland Heights.

 

The theory that government should be close to the people is (in part) what led to the ridiculous amount of municipalities. Government can still be close to the people even with a larger Cleveland. We just need to figure out how!

I think there is some misplaced fear out there about the effects of regionalism.  People seem to assume that the suburban influences will be engulfed by Cleveland influences.  To the contrary, a full scale merger will bring more suburban influences into Cleveland than the other way around.  Just as an example, Mayor Jackson would never win a mayoral race in a Cleveland+ type system.

 

On the local government point, I have found that some of the nastiest, most dysfunctional government in the smallest of communities.

Agree that Mayor Jackson wouldn't win and that small town govt's can be nasty. Example... Hot Fuzz! :)

I think there is some misplaced fear out there about the effects of regionalism.  People seem to assume that the suburban influences will be engulfed by Cleveland influences.  To the contrary, a full scale merger will bring more suburban influences into Cleveland than the other way around.

 

No need for strawman arguments.  I understand what hypothetically would happen were there to be a full-scale merger.  However one thing to consider is the unintended consequences of such a merger, particularly the strong possibility that such a move would hasten the flight of those with the means to leave the county doing so (and taking with them the political "balance" that their presence would initially offer).

 

On the local government point, I have found that some of the nastiest, most dysfunctional government in the smallest of communities.

 

Eh, yeah, but this will always be a problem, regardless of government size.  I do believe that it's more difficult to rectify in larger cities, but that's not based on anything scientific, just an assumption.

A more powerful Cleveland leads to a more powerful region, including Cleveland Heights.

 

I don't know if I agree with this, at least not in the way that this argument is usually presented.  If you're talking about access to federal block grants, then yeah, it's marginally better for a city to be bigger.  But beyond that, we have to be realistic.  Cleveland will never be New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago.  And it will likely never again be regarded in the next tier such as San Francisco, Atlanta, Washington, D.C., Dallas, Boston, Houston, Miami.  And as I think about it, many of those cities have strong suburbs and at least one other large, somewhat significant city in their metropolitan area.

 

The theory that government should be close to the people is (in part) what led to the ridiculous amount of municipalities. Government can still be close to the people even with a larger Cleveland. We just need to figure out how!

 

I agree that Cuyahoga County has too many municipalities.  But I'm not yet convinced that it needs to go to the other extreme.  I'd have no problem with 12-15 cities in the county.

You have SanFran and Atlanta in the same "tier"?  Boston and Houston? 

First of all, it DOES matter if inner ring suburbs do or don't merge with the city. A strong city is necessary for the region. Its harder to do that if you're surrounded by "suburbs" that are essentially Cleveland-lite. If suburbs increase dramatically in size it will only marginalize the city and increase the competition among municipalities, making our current situation worse, not better.

 

You cannot have a county with 1.2 million people in it with 59 municipalities. It defies all logic and common sense. EVERYBODY knows something has to be done about it eventually. Its inevitable. But no one wants to do anything about it because there's no way to do what's necessary without someone being unhappy. This will not work long term. Eventually this system of having 59 municipalities for 1.2 million people is going to collapse. The question is whether anyone has the courage to do anything about it.

 

And yes, population size DOES matter. Its more than just access to government grants. If you have the image of being a shrinking city, it makes it harder to attract people to come to your city and keep the ones you still have. Less people equals less tax revenue. Less tax revenue equals less revenue for schools and the essential functions of government. Less revenue for those things cause a decrease in job opportunities for your residents (because few businesses want to be associated with what appears to be a broke and dysfunctional city). That leads to an increase of despair and hopelessness in a city which leads to an increase in crime which leads to a further exodus of people, which starts the cycle all over again. Population DOES matter. The city must be strong in order for the region to be strong. You can't be a suburb of nowhere.

 

In a perfect world, I would prefer Cuyahoga County to merge with the city. I doubt this will ever happen because people are territorial and have this stupid fixation with having their own little fiefdoms. To me, Lake county should be considered the Cleveland suburbs, not other municipalities in Cuyahoga.

 

So since I don't think that will ever happen, these are the options I think are more likely than a full scale merger (although I'm not sure these will happen either because of what I mentioned above):

 

1)Focus on merging the city with several of the inner ring suburbs - I look at East Cleveland, Brooklyn, Garfield Heights and possibly Lakewood as good candidates for a merger with the city. All four of those suburbs are struggling financially (and I believe at least two of them are in fiscal emergency). It would definitely be a mutual benefit if they merged with the city. City gets the increase in population and an increase in the tax base and it saves money for the taxpayers of those cities because of the combination of services, etc.

 

2)Merger of the city and the county in a hybrid "Borough" type system - Merge the city and the county together but with a Borough type system where the current mayors of the municipalities become "Borough President" of their area (who would be elected by the residents of that former city) and they still do the non-essential functions of a mayor while a city of Cleveland mayor would be elected by everyone. This way since people are still hung up on this stupid stuff, they get to keep their mayors.

 

Either way, the fact of the matter is our current system is unsustainable. Something must be done. The question is are we going to wait until suburbs start going bankrupt before we do anything about it?

And Clevelander17, Miami's population is not that much bigger than we are. Look it up. It wouldn't take much to match them in size.

 

And I don't mean to post back to back but I just had to address this. I fundamentally reject this mentality that we just have to accept being a "bottom feeder" city. That is a mentality that is characteristic of "old Cleveland" and is part of the reason why we've had such a big hole to dig ourselves out of in the first place.

 

You say we just basically need to accept that we'll never be in the upper tier. I say, no. We don't have to accept that. If you choose to accept that, that's your business. Will we be New York? No. In our heyday we weren't New York. But I don't care about being New York. I care about being one of the premiere if not the dominant city in the midwest. Period. I don't need to be New York or Los Angeles. The dynamics of the midwest are different than the coasts. So we can't be New York. But we can certainly be the New York of the Midwest and I see no reason not to go for it. We don't need 8 million people in Cleveland. If we can get back to 500,000 that's good and if we can get higher than that, that's the icing on the cake. But I have to categorically reject this defeatist mentality. Mediocrity is a choice, not a life sentence.

Turn more of Northeast Ohio's cornfields into "ethanol factories" and more of its forests into protected conservancies (FYI: I'm not in favor of the former, just sayin' that's what is already happening) to create a defacto urban growth boundary, THEN start to combine municipalities. :-D

Pretty much loving everything coming out of inlovewithcle's head.

 

I agree that a Borough system would work. If nothing else, it'd stroke the ego's of politicians who don't want to see their municipality go. The dream, indeed, would be a Cleveland Cuyahoga County, but that won't happen.

 

I lived in Chicago for a couple of years. Five miles north from the city center is the Lakeview neighborhood and that's not even the furthest north neighborhood of Chicago. Here, you go five miles west and you're already in the suburbs. I definitely think Cleveland's inner-ring 'burbs should merge, but it will have to be done slowly. Like it or not, we'll have to start with the "worst" suburb - East Cleveland. If Cleveland can show that off as a success story, others will be more likely to merge, but they don't want to be first.

 

One quick thing - I'm sick of this "We'll never be XYZ cities" crap. I don't want to be NYC. I don't want to be Chicago. And I damn skippy don't want to be LA. I simply want Cleveland to continue growing into a better Cleveland. If I wanted it to be one of those other cities, I'd move there.

I lived in Chicago for a couple of years. Five miles north from the city center is the Lakeview neighborhood and that's not even the furthest north neighborhood of Chicago. Here, you go five miles west and you're already in the suburbs.

 

Yes, but if you go 10 miles to the southwest to the airport and you're still in the city, or 10 miles to the northeast into Collinwood and you're still in the city, or 9 miles to the southeast to the Harvard/Lee/Miles neighborhood and you're still in the city. But you go due south, due west or due east (or due north!) and you leave the city pretty quickly.

 

I say Cleveland should annex Lake Erie first, then go from there....

I'm not entirely against inlovewithCLE's points, but I'll nevertheless give the countervailing position.

 

First of all, it DOES matter if inner ring suburbs do or don't merge with the city. A strong city is necessary for the region. Its harder to do that if you're surrounded by "suburbs" that are essentially Cleveland-lite. If suburbs increase dramatically in size it will only marginalize the city and increase the competition among municipalities, making our current situation worse, not better.

 

A strong city is indeed necessary for the region, but "size" and "strength" are not synonymous.  Just like there are many large people out there who aren't particularly strong, there are many large cities out there that are not in great health.

 

Also remember that the strongest form of urban development often actually requires comparatively little land.  Popular neighborhoods in Columbus like the Short North are actually quite small, geographically.  That can be a feature as much as a bug.  Adding a significant amount of additional land does not inherently mean changing established land use patterns.  That is true whether we're talking about a complete Cuyahoga County merger or just annexing a few selected inner-ring suburbs.

 

And yes, population size DOES matter. Its more than just access to government grants. If you have the image of being a shrinking city, it makes it harder to attract people to come to your city and keep the ones you still have.

 

Yes, but consolidating all of Cuyahoga County would not necessarily change that, particularly if it resulted in Cleveland's sclerotic bureaucracy being imposed upon healthier suburbs.  People--or at least the sophisticated ones making decisions about where to locate businesses--can tell the difference between growth by merger and growth by development.  It's not so different than private sector corporate mergers (indeed, the public-private distinction between corporations used to be nonexistent).  Does merging one shrinking corporation with another shrinking corporation really help them survive?  I don't know.  Ask Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, and Countrywide.  Sometimes, all you get is a larger shrinking corporation.

 

Less people equals less tax revenue.

 

It also means fewer people that need to be served with any particular amount of tax revenue.  Consolidation not only means more people to serve, but more land area to serve.

 

Less tax revenue equals less revenue for schools and the essential functions of government.  Less revenue for those things cause a decrease in job opportunities for your residents (because few businesses want to be associated with what appears to be a broke and dysfunctional city). That leads to an increase of despair and hopelessness in a city which leads to an increase in crime which leads to a further exodus of people, which starts the cycle all over again. Population DOES matter. The city must be strong in order for the region to be strong. You can't be a suburb of nowhere.

 

These maladies you list are not necessarily all connected to funding, and most urban governments long ago exceeded providing just "the essential functions of government," unless you have an extremely expansive vision of what those functions are.  With no financial outlay at all, Cleveland could reduce the burden upon developers by changing its zoning code to be simpler and fairer, by reducing the amount of government oversight and approvals necessary for new projects to go forward.  As for the schools: You could fund Cleveland City Schools to the tune of $100,000 per pupil and you would likely not match the educational attainment of Solon or Westlake or Shaker Heights, even if you halved the school funding in each of the latter districts.  There is only so much that revenue alone can do.

 

As for being a suburb of nowhere: Actually, it's quite possible to be a suburb of nowhere.  Charlottesville, Virginia, where I went to school, pretty much is exactly that.

 

In a perfect world, I would prefer Cuyahoga County to merge with the city. I doubt this will ever happen because people are territorial and have this stupid fixation with having their own little fiefdoms. To me, Lake county should be considered the Cleveland suburbs, not other municipalities in Cuyahoga.

 

Would Solon really stop being a suburb if it were merged into a consolidated Cuyahoga County?  If it quacks like a duck ...

 

So since I don't think that will ever happen, these are the options I think are more likely than a full scale merger (although I'm not sure these will happen either because of what I mentioned above):

 

1)Focus on merging the city with several of the inner ring suburbs - I look at East Cleveland, Brooklyn, Garfield Heights and possibly Lakewood as good candidates for a merger with the city. All four of those suburbs are struggling financially (and I believe at least two of them are in fiscal emergency). It would definitely be a mutual benefit if they merged with the city. City gets the increase in population and an increase in the tax base and it saves money for the taxpayers of those cities because of the combination of services, etc.

 

Many people accept as an article of faith that consolidation saves money because it allows for the elimination of redundant services.  That's not inherently true, however.  Also, as I noted earlier, increasing the tax base is at best treading water when you're also increasing the demands upon the treasury.

 

2)Merger of the city and the county in a hybrid "Borough" type system - Merge the city and the county together but with a Borough type system where the current mayors of the municipalities become "Borough President" of their area (who would be elected by the residents of that former city) and they still do the non-essential functions of a mayor while a city of Cleveland mayor would be elected by everyone. This way since people are still hung up on this stupid stuff, they get to keep their mayors.

 

That might have potential, but you'd have to draw the lines of power very clearly (which is not an easy task).  Otherwise, there'd be at least a period--possibly an extended period--of litigation between fractious borough presidents and the Cuyahoga mayor regarding where one's authority stopped and the other's began.

 

Either way, the fact of the matter is our current system is unsustainable. Something must be done. The question is are we going to wait until suburbs start going bankrupt before we do anything about it?

 

Depends on which suburbs you mean.  East Cleveland might be closer to bankruptcy than Cleveland proper is.  Westlake, Solon, Shaker Heights, etc. are not.

You have SanFran and Atlanta in the same "tier"?  Boston and Houston? 

 

Not that it really matters because it's not the point of the discussion, but I would be curious to see how you would place various cities into tiers since you're the expert on this and apparently everything else discussed on this message board.

 

But really, the point of the post was that Cleveland is not currently in the same tier with any of those strong cities, and no amount of regionalism alone is going to change that anytime soon.

Just to throw my opinion out there,

 

I think it would serve Cleveland's interest to try and annex it's "weaker" neighbors first, East Cleveland, Cuyahoga Heights, Lindale, maybe even Bratenahl. Maybe keep existing school districting in place except for East Cleveland and merge police, fire and trash collection. Sit back for a few years, maybe 5, and review the successes and failures.

 

Next I think it would be in Cleveland's interest to merge with cities that may have access to mass transit expansion, Euclid comes to mind as even if a preliminary merger is successful I can't really think of any other suburbs that would give up their sovereignty at that point.

 

I think the things to watch are how the State of Ohio cuts back on money given to municipalities as well as the proposed review of a merger between those Eastern Cuyahoga communities.

Funny... Many have pointed to Cleveland as an example of how to rebound, be innovative, etc... I always thought of us as, dare I say, a strong city. People who don't think so usually point to our weaknesses... Which we have... A lot of... Like any other city! :)

Just to throw my opinion out there,

 

I think it would serve Cleveland's interest to try and annex it's "weaker" neighbors first, East Cleveland, Cuyahoga Heights, Lindale, maybe even Bratenahl. Maybe keep existing school districting in place except for East Cleveland and merge police, fire and trash collection. Sit back for a few years, maybe 5, and review the successes and failures.

 

Next I think it would be in Cleveland's interest to merge with cities that may have access to mass transit expansion, Euclid comes to mind as even if a preliminary merger is successful I can't really think of any other suburbs that would give up their sovereignty at that point.

 

I think the things to watch are how the State of Ohio cuts back on money given to municipalities as well as the proposed review of a merger between those Eastern Cuyahoga communities.

You consider Bratenahl one of the weaker neighbors?

Just to throw my opinion out there,

 

I think it would serve Cleveland's interest to try and annex it's "weaker" neighbors first, East Cleveland, Cuyahoga Heights, Lindale, maybe even Bratenahl. Maybe keep existing school districting in place except for East Cleveland and merge police, fire and trash collection. Sit back for a few years, maybe 5, and review the successes and failures.

 

Next I think it would be in Cleveland's interest to merge with cities that may have access to mass transit expansion, Euclid comes to mind as even if a preliminary merger is successful I can't really think of any other suburbs that would give up their sovereignty at that point.

 

I think the things to watch are how the State of Ohio cuts back on money given to municipalities as well as the proposed review of a merger between those Eastern Cuyahoga communities.

I agree. I think the most practical thing to pursue would be a merger of some of the smaller cities that are close to the city already. Inner ring suburbs for the most part are already close culturally to the city anyway and I think they'd probably be the ones most receptive to a merger. As I've stated before, I'd prefer if there was a City-County merger, but since I don't believe that will ever, ever happen, at east getting some of these 59 municipalities off of the books would be good enough for me.

 

Not that it really matters because it's not the point of the discussion, but I would be curious to see how you would place various cities into tiers since you're the expert on this and apparently everything else discussed on this message board.

 

'Bout dang time someone here explicitly recognized my expertise!  As for your request for further guidance, grasshopper..... start with Cleveland Heights in the top tier and work your way down from there. 

I'm not entirely against inlovewithCLE's points, but I'll nevertheless give the countervailing position.

 

First of all, it DOES matter if inner ring suburbs do or don't merge with the city. A strong city is necessary for the region. Its harder to do that if you're surrounded by "suburbs" that are essentially Cleveland-lite. If suburbs increase dramatically in size it will only marginalize the city and increase the competition among municipalities, making our current situation worse, not better.

 

A strong city is indeed necessary for the region, but "size" and "strength" are not synonymous.  Just like there are many large people out there who aren't particularly strong, there are many large cities out there that are not in great health.

 

Also remember that the strongest form of urban development often actually requires comparatively little land.  Popular neighborhoods in Columbus like the Short North are actually quite small, geographically.  That can be a feature as much as a bug.  Adding a significant amount of additional land does not inherently mean changing established land use patterns.  That is true whether we're talking about a complete Cuyahoga County merger or just annexing a few selected inner-ring suburbs.

 

And yes, population size DOES matter. Its more than just access to government grants. If you have the image of being a shrinking city, it makes it harder to attract people to come to your city and keep the ones you still have.

 

Yes, but consolidating all of Cuyahoga County would not necessarily change that, particularly if it resulted in Cleveland's sclerotic bureaucracy being imposed upon healthier suburbs.  People--or at least the sophisticated ones making decisions about where to locate businesses--can tell the difference between growth by merger and growth by development.  It's not so different than private sector corporate mergers (indeed, the public-private distinction between corporations used to be nonexistent).  Does merging one shrinking corporation with another shrinking corporation really help them survive?  I don't know.  Ask Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, and Countrywide.  Sometimes, all you get is a larger shrinking corporation.

 

Less people equals less tax revenue.

 

It also means fewer people that need to be served with any particular amount of tax revenue.  Consolidation not only means more people to serve, but more land area to serve.

 

Less tax revenue equals less revenue for schools and the essential functions of government.  Less revenue for those things cause a decrease in job opportunities for your residents (because few businesses want to be associated with what appears to be a broke and dysfunctional city). That leads to an increase of despair and hopelessness in a city which leads to an increase in crime which leads to a further exodus of people, which starts the cycle all over again. Population DOES matter. The city must be strong in order for the region to be strong. You can't be a suburb of nowhere.

 

These maladies you list are not necessarily all connected to funding, and most urban governments long ago exceeded providing just "the essential functions of government," unless you have an extremely expansive vision of what those functions are.  With no financial outlay at all, Cleveland could reduce the burden upon developers by changing its zoning code to be simpler and fairer, by reducing the amount of government oversight and approvals necessary for new projects to go forward.  As for the schools: You could fund Cleveland City Schools to the tune of $100,000 per pupil and you would likely not match the educational attainment of Solon or Westlake or Shaker Heights, even if you halved the school funding in each of the latter districts.  There is only so much that revenue alone can do.

 

As for being a suburb of nowhere: Actually, it's quite possible to be a suburb of nowhere.  Charlottesville, Virginia, where I went to school, pretty much is exactly that.

 

In a perfect world, I would prefer Cuyahoga County to merge with the city. I doubt this will ever happen because people are territorial and have this stupid fixation with having their own little fiefdoms. To me, Lake county should be considered the Cleveland suburbs, not other municipalities in Cuyahoga.

 

Would Solon really stop being a suburb if it were merged into a consolidated Cuyahoga County?  If it quacks like a duck ...

 

So since I don't think that will ever happen, these are the options I think are more likely than a full scale merger (although I'm not sure these will happen either because of what I mentioned above):

 

1)Focus on merging the city with several of the inner ring suburbs - I look at East Cleveland, Brooklyn, Garfield Heights and possibly Lakewood as good candidates for a merger with the city. All four of those suburbs are struggling financially (and I believe at least two of them are in fiscal emergency). It would definitely be a mutual benefit if they merged with the city. City gets the increase in population and an increase in the tax base and it saves money for the taxpayers of those cities because of the combination of services, etc.

 

Many people accept as an article of faith that consolidation saves money because it allows for the elimination of redundant services.  That's not inherently true, however.  Also, as I noted earlier, increasing the tax base is at best treading water when you're also increasing the demands upon the treasury.

 

2)Merger of the city and the county in a hybrid "Borough" type system - Merge the city and the county together but with a Borough type system where the current mayors of the municipalities become "Borough President" of their area (who would be elected by the residents of that former city) and they still do the non-essential functions of a mayor while a city of Cleveland mayor would be elected by everyone. This way since people are still hung up on this stupid stuff, they get to keep their mayors.

 

That might have potential, but you'd have to draw the lines of power very clearly (which is not an easy task).  Otherwise, there'd be at least a period--possibly an extended period--of litigation between fractious borough presidents and the Cuyahoga mayor regarding where one's authority stopped and the other's began.

 

Either way, the fact of the matter is our current system is unsustainable. Something must be done. The question is are we going to wait until suburbs start going bankrupt before we do anything about it?

 

Depends on which suburbs you mean.  East Cleveland might be closer to bankruptcy than Cleveland proper is.  Westlake, Solon, Shaker Heights, etc. are not.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

 

1. No size and strength are not necessarily related but it does help. The size of your city matters as far as perception, as far as a whole host of things. 1 million people is 1 million people. No one notices that the city of Columbus is essentially one big suburb. It's not an "urban city" in the sense of what most of us understand to be an urban city. But over 700,000 is over 700,000. There's no asterisk to that. No one mentions that years ago Columbus annexed other municipalities in exchange for water and sewer service. All people notice is the size of the population. So I say again, it DOES matter.

 

2. Since you mention mergers, why do most business mergers happen in the first place? Because, in most cases, the merged entities can be stronger together than they are divided. That is almost certainly the case here. You can't tell me that its healthy and financially sound to have all of these different municipalities with all of these different police departments, fire departments, different tax structures, competition among each other for businesses and people, etc. and that there wouldn't be money saved by a merger. Of course there would. Consolidation is a good thing when it can save the tax payer money. Look at what has happened in other areas that merge the city with the county. Almost every single time, it results in less of a cost for government on the tax payer. This isn't revolutionary thinking here. Modern New York City was created by a merger of FIVE whole counties into one city and we can't get 59 cities merged into one. This isn't a new concept.

 

3. A lower tax base sparks the causes and effects that I mentioned earlier and yes, it means that you have less people to serve, but it also means that you have less money to serve the people you do have and, in most cases, you're left with a population that needs more of the services that you can no longer afford. (This goes to the heart of my earlier argument as to why I don't believe East Cleveland will ever be able to survive on its own as an independent city and why it MUST merge with Cleveland.) It is a continuous cycle.

 

4. As a fiscal conservative, I can respect the argument that many urban governments have exceeded the essential functions of government. But as an urbanist, I argue that the population of a mid-to-big city expects mid-to-big city amenities. If you cannot provide that, you lose. Is it necessary for the city of Cleveland to own a golf course? Probably not. But it is necessary for the city to have enough money to pick up the garbage. It is necessary for the city to have enough money to have a lot more police officers than it has. It is, in my opinion, smart for the city to do things like building trash to energy plants and providing garbage cans to residents made for recycling (both of which would save the city money in the long run anyway and thus not offending my sensibilities as a fiscal conservative). It takes tax money to do all of those things.

Unless someone has a very, VERY limited view of the role of city government, I don't see much that the city is doing that I think they shouldn't. be doing. There's some fat that could be trimmed, no doubt, as is the case in almost all of government. There's probably a few city employees that get paid more than they should and we probably need to analyze every year our city staffing needs to make sure we don't have more people than we need, but other than that I can't think of anything else that the city does that I think oversteps their boundaries (besides that transfat ban they tried to pass that I'm against). I'm from the Abraham Lincoln school of the belief in a limited but active government. I think we have that here. Its a bit more bureaucratic than it should be, but I don't have many complaints about the size of city government (now some the people IN city government as far as elected officials, well that's a different story).

 

5. Solon would still have the characteristics of a suburb. So what? So does West Park. People forget that this was how modern Cleveland, in terms of size, was created in the first place. Collinwood was an independent municipality. Nottingham was a village. Euclid Green was part of the city of Euclid. West Park was the last suburb we annexed in 1922. Ohio City was an independent city and a former rival of the city of Cleveland. This is not new. Most of our neighborhoods at one point in time or another were independent municipalities themselves. So merging Solon for example would be no different than when we merged West Park in 1922.

 

6. If a Borough type merger were to take place, then everyone should get together and design this in a way that says the big mayor only does the essential mayoral duties and the borough presidents do everything else. The only way it could work would be with the input of everyone. That can happen. I'm not concerned about their ability to get that done. If we get far enough in THIS COUNTY to even consider a merger on this scale, we'll get it through the finish line. Just talking about it in this territorial, stuck-in-the-past county would be a miracle.

 

7. Ask East Cleveland, Euclid, Garfield Heights, Brooklyn, etc. if this system is unsustainable. You cannot expect to have disposable cities and have that sustained. Its common sense. East Cleveland wasn't always the East Cleveland we know today. Euclid's biggest problems in regards to crime used to be speeding drivers. Our cities are disposable. Once we have accepted this culture of building one city, then as it gets older we build a new city instead of rebuilding an old one, eventually everyone will get it. It will spread. You see it now. I grew up around Euclid. It was never as bad as its getting now. On its present road, its about 10-12 years away from becoming 80s era East Cleveland. If the core isn't strong, no one is. And Solon and Westlake may be hot now, but it doesn't last forever. Eventually there'll be some new girl on the block that steals the attention from them too. Then slowly but surely, another city will bite the dust. Don't think that it can't happen. It can and eventually, if we keep on this same unsustainable path, it will happen.

Just to throw my opinion out there,

 

I think it would serve Cleveland's interest to try and annex it's "weaker" neighbors first, East Cleveland, Cuyahoga Heights, Lindale, maybe even Bratenahl. Maybe keep existing school districting in place except for East Cleveland and merge police, fire and trash collection. Sit back for a few years, maybe 5, and review the successes and failures.

 

Next I think it would be in Cleveland's interest to merge with cities that may have access to mass transit expansion, Euclid comes to mind as even if a preliminary merger is successful I can't really think of any other suburbs that would give up their sovereignty at that point.

 

I think the things to watch are how the State of Ohio cuts back on money given to municipalities as well as the proposed review of a merger between those Eastern Cuyahoga communities.

You consider Bratenahl one of the weaker neighbors?

 

Yes. It's a small landlocked village compared to a county of about 40 other actual cities whose residents are in some cases just as wealthy or wealthier, or have a much more diversified and larger tax base.

Re: Bratenahl, are you thinking of the right place? First, it's not landlocked. It has lakefront. A lot of it. That's its claim to existence, along with the affluence of most of the residents and proximity to downtown/I-90. Second, there are smaller, poorer and less populous municipalities that have survived as independents and are likely to resist annexation. Linndale is the extreme example - it resists annexation because of its death grip on a thousand feet of I-71. Bratenahl has far more available to it than that. Bratenahl shares some services with Cleveland by mutual agreement, if I recall, but they have a functioning city government. It funds its own police force. They are not weak, and not an annexation target for the near term, unless they have debt problems I don't know about (quite possible).

 

Theoretically, any village/city is a target, but some are better than others, I'd think. IMHO, East Cleveland is the only realistic near-term target, because right now Cleveland is still coming around and getting its own act together - even if the suburbs would be served well in the long term by joining, the case hasn't been made to them yet. A few years from now, who knows?

Outside of EC, the better targets at the moment are municipalities that are more reliant on revenue from industry than cities like Lakewood, Cleveland Hts, Shaker Hts, and villages like Bratenahl and Lindale.  I'm thinking of places like Brook Park, Euclid, and Garfield Hts (and perhaps some of its neighbors along the industrial valley).  Those communities are really starting to struggle to meet their needs as independent political subdivisions and annexation may actually be in their best interest, and not simply a move for the greater good of the region.

Re: Bratenahl, are you thinking of the right place? First, it's not landlocked. It has lakefront. A lot of it. That's its claim to existence, along with the affluence of most of the residents and proximity to downtown/I-90. Second, there are smaller, poorer and less populous municipalities that have survived as independents and are likely to resist annexation. Linndale is the extreme example - it resists annexation because of its death grip on a thousand feet of I-71. Bratenahl has far more available to it than that. Bratenahl shares some services with Cleveland by mutual agreement, if I recall, but they have a functioning city government. It funds its own police force. They are not weak, and not an annexation target for the near term, unless they have debt problems I don't know about (quite possible).

 

Theoretically, any village/city is a target, but some are better than others, I'd think. IMHO, East Cleveland is the only realistic near-term target, because right now Cleveland is still coming around and getting its own act together - even if the suburbs would be served well in the long term by joining, the case hasn't been made to them yet. A few years from now, who knows?

 

You're right about it not being land locked. But with no seaport everything that comes in and out of the city has to travel by land from Cleveland. there may be that private marina, but functionally as far as commerce is concerned its landlocked.

I just think these smaller villages that may be stable are a waste of taxpayer dollars. If Bratenahl or Lindale became incorporated into Cleveland what really changes?

You're right about it not being land locked. But with no seaport everything that comes in and out of the city has to travel by land from Cleveland. there may be that private marina, but functionally as far as commerce is concerned its landlocked.

I just think these smaller villages that may be stable are a waste of taxpayer dollars. If Bratenahl or Lindale became incorporated into Cleveland what really changes?

Waste is relative. I think most of the residents of Bratenahl are happy to pay a couple extra bucks to have a good police force to protect them from the people of Cleveland. The whole town is right next to Glenville and Collinwood, so the cost of having extra police to keep them safe, and better services to keep the city clean and pretty probably seems like a good investment. I would guess that the thinking is that if they merged with Cleveland, they'd start to look like Glenville but with bigger houses, therefore making them a big target for crime.

Correct.  Bratenahl's #1 priority is to secure its borders.  If it joined, it would be one of, if not the, last domino to fall

I think Bratenahl would be dead set against incorporating.  Just to play devil's advocate (I'm ALL FOR regionalism, and the potential savings from continuous overlap in the county)... Some potential issues which comes to mind:  Who would represent Bratenahl in Cleveland's chaotic city council?  What would the chances be of someone being elected who lives on the "other side of the bridge"?  Would the Cleveland police have the same presence in Bratenahl as the current police department does (for better or worse)?  Does Cleveland currently pick up Bratenahl's garbage?  Fix Bratenahl's streets?  Plow Bratenahl's streets?  And would the overall services enjoyed by Bratenahl residents decrease? 

 

Just thoughts which don't necessarily pertain to Bratenahl alone.  Any city which would consider joining would be forced to consider these issues, if from just a political standpoint alone.

You're right about it not being land locked. But with no seaport everything that comes in and out of the city has to travel by land from Cleveland. there may be that private marina, but functionally as far as commerce is concerned its landlocked.

I just think these smaller villages that may be stable are a waste of taxpayer dollars. If Bratenahl or Lindale became incorporated into Cleveland what really changes?

Waste is relative. I think most of the residents of Bratenahl are happy to pay a couple extra bucks to have a good police force to protect them from the people of Cleveland. The whole town is right next to Glenville and Collinwood, so the cost of having extra police to keep them safe, and better services to keep the city clean and pretty probably seems like a good investment. I would guess that the thinking is that if they merged with Cleveland, they'd start to look like Glenville but with bigger houses, therefore making them a big target for crime.

 

I-90 does much to "protect [bratenahl residents] from the people of Cleveland." That freeway basically makes it so there are only four routes in and out of Bratenahl.

5. Solon would still have the characteristics of a suburb. So what? So does West Park. People forget that this was how modern Cleveland, in terms of size, was created in the first place. Collinwood was an independent municipality. Nottingham was a village. Euclid Green was part of the city of Euclid. West Park was the last suburb we annexed in 1922. Ohio City was an independent city and a former rival of the city of Cleveland. This is not new. Most of our neighborhoods at one point in time or another were independent municipalities themselves. So merging Solon for example would be no different than when we merged West Park in 1922.

 

And this is basically the argument against regionalism.  That is, it was effectively done before and didn't work.  Many West Park residents wish they could annex from Cleveland.  But instead, it suffers from Cleveland leadership and if it wasn't for the dedication of the residents who live there to that neighborhood, who knows where it might be.  Perhaps if Cleveland was in decent shape itself then it could take on such an issue.  But it's not. 

 

Cleveland can't get it's own house in order and even though there are a handful of neighborhoods in the city that have really strong, dedicated residents - along with all of the other assets the city has - that doesn't seem to be rubbing off on all of the problem areas and making it better.  So why is adding another set assets going to make a difference, especially when these additions are far removed from the problem? 

 

Basically, my point is regionalism can be found on a micro level within various cities.  And while there are some "economies of scale benefits", it doesn't solve any major social or economic problems.  It's not going to work until you can actually get people to commit to changing behavior.  And I have news for you:  this is a problem societies have been trying to solve forever.  Even the Bible says "the poor will always be among us". 

 

 

You're right about it not being land locked. But with no seaport everything that comes in and out of the city has to travel by land from Cleveland. there may be that private marina, but functionally as far as commerce is concerned its landlocked.

I just think these smaller villages that may be stable are a waste of taxpayer dollars. If Bratenahl or Lindale became incorporated into Cleveland what really changes?

 

Further proving my point.  Nothing changes.  The money of Bratenhal still pretty much stays in its confined little area, they still send their kids to private school, and still use all of their resources to keep the problems of other parts of Cleveland out of their neighborhood.    See Edgewater.

It doesn't create any major social changes or get rid of poverty, but look at Columbus. The growth at its periphery (what would be equivalent to Westlake, Solon, Brecksville) is used to help rebuild certain growing older neighborhoods. Basically using part of the annexed tax base to rebuild the other neighborhoods where investment is occuring. Those people on the fringe may have seperate schools, but have a Columbus address boosting its population allowing it to receive more federal funds that it can use to further improve itself.

 

Columbus still has neighborhoods akin to the worst in Cleveland, however it has a lot more desireable urban and suburban style neighborhoods within the Columbus city limits.

 

 

It doesn't create any major social changes or get rid of poverty, but look at Columbus. The growth at its periphery (what would be equivalent to Westlake, Solon, Brecksville) is used to help rebuild certain growing older neighborhoods. Basically using part of the annexed tax base to rebuild the other neighborhoods where investment is occuring. Those people on the fringe may have seperate schools, but have a Columbus address boosting its population allowing it to receive more federal funds that it can use to further improve itself.

 

Columbus still has neighborhoods akin to the worst in Cleveland, however it has a lot more desireable urban and suburban style neighborhoods within the Columbus city limits.

Exactly! No it won't fix everything, but anyone who thinks that our current system and our current set up with 59 municipalities is a-ok is out of their freaking minds, imho. Louisville did this. Nashville did this. Miami-Dade County has a partial merger. Indianapolis has this. As I stated before, New York City is a merger of 5 COUNTIES, not cities. Pittsburgh is considering a merger with Allegheny County. The benefits are obvious to those people but here its like pulling teeth to even consider merging a couple of cities. Just a couple. This is why we struggle. We have backwards, regressive thinking and we refuse to change and adapt to new realities.

 

This is common sense. You can either do it now or do it later when everybody's broke and there's no choice. 59 municipalities in a county with stagnant to no growth in population is unsustainable. Its obvious. Like your signature says, without change there's no progress. People always say "we'll never be NYC". Well we won't, because we don't think like they do. NYC was created by merging 5 counties. We can't even merge 5 cities in this backwards county.

 

And for the record, yes the Bible says that the poor will always be among you. That is NOT, however, an excuse to do nothing. Jesus said that what you do for the least of these you do for me. So no we can never eliminate poverty, but that does not mean you do nothing. And this whole merger thing isn't even just about poverty, its common sense to everyone except this county, apparently.

 

Regionalism wouldn't be "the solution to poverty" or anything like that, but the current setup was put in place mainly so the wealthier people in the suburbs could keep their money to themselves.

NYC was created by merging 5 counties. We can't even merge 5 cities in this backwards county.

 

NYC did not become what it is because 5 counties merged together.  It became what it is because it is/was the financial and economic epicenter of the United States.  It is what it is because there are tons of jobs and opportunity.  Yet despite this, the city itself still has its fair share of problems like any other city.

 

I'm not saying "do nothing".  But what is the benefit to the wealthier municipalities to regionalism? (I'll answer for you...strong core city is better for everyone).  OK.  So why is the core city incapable of becoming stronger on it's own? 

 

Columbus still has neighborhoods akin to the worst in Cleveland, however it has a lot more desireable urban and suburban style neighborhoods within the Columbus city limits.

 

So if you just expanded "Cleveland" to cover the same square miles as Columbus, wouldn't you have the same number of desirable urban and suburban neighborhoods in "Cleveland"?  But what has really changed?  You get more federal grant money?

Perfect example of what I'm saying:

 

"In seven consolidated city–county governments In the United States, the formerly independent incorporated places maintain some governmental powers. In these cities, which the Bureau of the Census calls "consolidated cities", statistics are recorded both for the entire consolidated government and for the component municipalities. A part of the consolidated government is called the "balance", which the Census Bureau defines as "the consolidated city minus the semi-independent incorporated places located within the consolidated city".

 

These consolidated cities are:

 

    * Athens–Clarke County, Georgia

    * Augusta–Richmond County, Georgia

    * Butte-Silver Bow, Montana

    * Indianapolis, Indiana

    * Jacksonville-Duval County, Florida

    * Louisville-Jefferson County, Kentucky

    * Nashville-Davidson, Tennessee

 

Consolidated since their creation

 

    * Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska (City and Borough are consolidated forming a unified government)

    * City and County of Broomfield, Colorado (Town of Broomfield incorporated June 1, 1961. Consolidated City and County of Broomfield created November 15, 2001, from the incorporated City of Broomfield and portions of Boulder, Adams, Jefferson, and Weld Counties.)

    * City and County of Denver, Colorado (Denver City, Colorado Territory, incorporated November 7, 1861. Denver served as the Arapahoe County Seat until November 15, 1902, when Arapahoe County was split into the new consolidated City and County of Denver, the new Adams County, and the renamed South Arapahoe County.)

    * City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii

    * City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska

    * Municipality and County of Los Alamos, New Mexico

    * City of New Orleans and Orleans Parish, Louisiana (The City of New Orleans has always served as Orleans Parish's government, though they initially were not coterminous. The city and parish have also annexed parts of neighboring Jefferson Parish.)

    * City and County of San Francisco, California (The City of San Francisco was the seat of San Francisco County until 1856, when the county was split into the consolidated City and County of San Francisco in the north, with the remainder of old San Francisco County becoming the new County of San Mateo.)

 

Merged

(I listed the biggest cities from this section)

 

# Lexington and Fayette County, Kentucky

# Philadelphia and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania — Their borders have been conterminous since 1854, and the government structures were consolidated in 1952. The county still exists as a separate entity within Pennsylvania, but the functions of the county are generally administered by the city.

 

Other

 

    * New York City, New York has been coextensive with an amalgamation of five counties since 1898, each of which is also a borough and more generally known as such:

          o New York County (Manhattan) (New York County alone was coextensive with New York City until 1898)

          o Bronx County (The Bronx) (New York County included what is now Bronx County from 1898 until the latter's creation in 1916)

          o Kings County (Brooklyn)

          o Richmond County (Staten Island)

          o Queens County (Queens)

 

Merged with some independent municipalities

 

    * Athens and Clarke County, Georgia (one community entirely within Clarke County and another partially within the county retain a separate government)

    * Augusta and Richmond County, Georgia (two communities within Richmond County retain separate governments)

    * Baton Rouge and East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana (City of Baton Rouge retains separate city limits, and official census population only includes this area)

    * Camden County, North Carolina (county with no incorporated municipalities, apart from a small portion of Elizabeth City, re-organizing into a single unified government)

    * Indianapolis and Marion County, Indiana(four communities within Marion County retain separate governments: see Unigov)

    * Jacksonville and Duval County, Florida (four incorporated places within Duval County - the cities of Jacksonville Beach, Neptune Beach, and Atlantic Beach and the town of Baldwin - retain separate governments; all other rural land is incorporated by Jacksonville and so the entire county is incorporated)

    * Kansas City and Wyandotte County, Kansas (this "Unified Government" contains Kansas City, Edwardsville, most of Bonner Springs, and roughly half of Lake Quivira; a county relationship is maintained with the rest of the communities within the county)

    * Miami and Miami-Dade County, Florida operate under a federated two-tier government similar to consolidated city-county relationship where the county government operates as a superseding entity of county affairs and lower-tier incorporated municipalities operate civil and community services

    * Lafayette Parish, Louisiana and Lafayette (The status of the current state of consolidation is under review by an independent board. Deconsolidation, reorganization and total incorporation are all being considered as other towns in the parish as well as citizens in the unincorporated areas feel they are being under-represented under the current state of consolidation.)

    * Louisville and Jefferson County, Kentucky (all cities in pre-merger Jefferson County, other than Louisville, retain separate identities and some governmental functions, but all participate fully in the county-wide governing body, Louisville Metro Council)

    * Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee (seven communities within Davidson County retain separate governments, although all participate in the metropolitan government in a two-tier system)

 

A report was released in April 2008 recommending the merger of the governments of the City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and that of Allegheny County. This plan has been endorsed by the mayor of Pittsburgh and the Chief Executive of Allegheny County, but needs approval by the City and County councils and from the state legislature before a referendum can be put forth for the voters to approve such a merger.

 

Formerly consolidated

 

    * The City of Boston and Suffolk County, Massachusetts operated with a consolidated government for most of the twentieth century with Boston providing office space, auditors, budget, personnel and financial oversight for Suffolk County. This was not a true consolidation because three municipalities – Chelsea, Revere and Winthrop – were never annexed into Boston and remained separate jurisdictions within Suffolk County; however, the county was in control of the City of Boston by law. The special relationship between Boston and Suffolk County ended in 1999 as part of the gradual abolition of county governments statewide with all county employees and powers transferred to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts control. The only remaining powers and duties for the City of Boston in regards to the county is regarding the Suffolk County Register of Deeds where the city council issues the ceremonial oath of office as well as calls for a meeting to hold a special election to fill the office should there be a failure to elect someone to the office or a vacancy occurs.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_city-county

 

So its funny to me that many of the cities that everyone gets all hot and bothered about and says that Cleveland should strive to be like have some form of merged or consolidated government:

 

Denver

San Francisco

Miami

New York City

Boston (until their state eliminated counties altogether)

 

Not to mention all of the other cities that have done this and the ones, like Pittsburgh, that are considering it. If we don't do at least some version of this, we're idiots.

So why is the core city incapable of becoming stronger on it's own? 

 

Because too many people with the means take the easy "short term gains" and bolt to the suburbs (or if they're already there, simply sever ties with the city) and take their money and energy with them, leaving those without means to rot, and then turn around and blame them for not improving their city instead of staying and helping to improve it themselves.

So why is the core city incapable of becoming stronger on it's own? 

 

Because too many people with the means take the easy "short term gains" and bolt to the suburbs (or if they're already there, simply sever ties with the city) and take their money and energy with them, leaving those without means to rot, and then turn around and blame them for not improving their city instead of staying and helping to improve it themselves.

That reminds me of this powerful quote from the pastor of the Old Stone Church downtown (who also lives downtown):

 

"I’ve been thinking about the thoughts of the late Yale scholar, Letty Russell, who once compared the city to a battered woman: The city is beaten and bruised, isolated, abandoned, and then blamed as if she somehow did this to herself. How easy it is for us to take what we want from our city – jobs, resources, entertainment – while disavowing any responsibility for her."

 

http://hotcleveland.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/bang-bang-love-your-city/

So if you just expanded "Cleveland" to cover the same square miles as Columbus, wouldn't you have the same number of desirable urban and suburban neighborhoods in "Cleveland"?  But what has really changed?  You get more federal grant money?

 

Yes, and the city's perception is instantly better nationwide because you don't top the list for poverty and crime anymore and maybe Forbes starts to leave you alone.

If all this is the case, then why pick the arbitrary line of the Cuyahoga County political boundary?  Why not merge the entire Cleveland-Akron-Canton-Youngstown region?  And then pick up Toledo?  And then the whole rest of the state?  At what point does the "size matters" theme collapse under its own weight?

 

And I freely admit the converse: size can also become an issue going the other way, and I'm quite willing to concede that 59 municipalities within the space of Cuyahoga County is probably too much fragmentation.  I certainly wouldn't want to split Cleveland up into its component neighborhoods and have 100+ municipalities in the same area.

If all this is the case, then why pick the arbitrary line of the Cuyahoga County political boundary?  Why not merge the entire Cleveland-Akron-Canton-Youngstown region?  And then pick up Toledo?  And then the whole rest of the state?  At what point does the "size matters" theme collapse under its own weight?

 

And I freely admit the converse: size can also become an issue going the other way, and I'm quite willing to concede that 59 municipalities within the space of Cuyahoga County is probably too much fragmentation.  I certainly wouldn't want to split Cleveland up into its component neighborhoods and have 100+ municipalities in the same area.

The "where does it end" example you used is a bit extreme, don't you think?

 

Anyway, in most cases, people are talking about an city-county merger. Everyone knows that. The fact of the matter is, and you "freely admit" this, 59 municipalities in this county is ridiculous. Big does not always equal inefficient and small does not always equal efficient. We have so many municipalities that it is inefficient itself. To me, the Cleveland "suburbs" should be viewed as places like Lake county, not 58 other municipalities in the same county. But a city-county merger will likely never happen here because we can't even agree to merge a couple of cities into Cleveland. If we can't even agree that East Cleveland shouldn't be there, then we're hopeless. Things will stay the way that they are until cities start going bankrupt.

If all this is the case, then why pick the arbitrary line of the Cuyahoga County political boundary?  Why not merge the entire Cleveland-Akron-Canton-Youngstown region?  And then pick up Toledo?  And then the whole rest of the state?  At what point does the "size matters" theme collapse under its own weight?

 

I think the idea of local government should encapsulate the local economy, which I is pretty much what the MSA definitions are going for as well when they take into account commuting patterns.  I wouldn't mind each MSA being a city.

 

A state is different.  Not many people commute from San Francisco to Los Angeles, Cleveland to Cincinnati, or Odessa to Houston.  But the idea of local government covering a local economy would be that people couldn't easily "escape" the local government containing most of the jobs (the central city) while still benefiting by working in that local economy.  If Cleveland controls a large area and decides our current job centers are a great setup, I doubt you'll see people move to Ashland county and still try to commute to Cleveland, and I doubt you'd see job centers popping up in Ashland County.

Inlovewithcle... you forgot one of the oldest ones... Portland's Metro. It runs Mass Transit, The Convention Center, (their version of) Metroparks, Municipal Cemeteries, and Zoning among other things.

 

So we merge the city and the county together?  Guess what, the county is also losing population at an alarming rate.  Fractured government is not the only problem, nor is it, in my opinion, nearly even the biggest problem.  There are actually other important reasons why this region is unattractive to potential businesses and residents that go well beyond the "bad weather."

 

Trust me, I love the enthusiasm, but although we have a lot of potential, we must be realistic.  It's not a defeatist attitude, it's facing reality. 

 

And since I was called out on this specifically, I feel I must respond.  Obviously the city proper of Cleveland and Miami are very similar in size.  But looking at only that is, in my opinion, very narrow-sighted.  Whether you want to look at metropolitan area or urban area, Greater Miami is significantly bigger than Greater Cleveland.  This is what, in part, gives them much more clout than us.  It has very little to do with where arbitrary lines are drawn on a map.  Regional population (including population trends) are most important.

 

I think it's time to stop worrying so much about large-scale regionalism and start focusing on more targeted collaborations and mergers.  Not only is this more likely to be successful, it's also less likely to lead to unintended consequences.

So why is the core city incapable of becoming stronger on it's own? 

 

Because too many people with the means take the easy "short term gains" and bolt to the suburbs (or if they're already there, simply sever ties with the city) and take their money and energy with them, leaving those without means to rot, and then turn around and blame them for not improving their city instead of staying and helping to improve it themselves.

 

I think my position is people who "don't have the means" will continue to not have the means to do anything until they decide to do something about it themselves.  Work hard, educate yourself, be a good citizen, and opportunity will be there for you.  It sounds good that if you were to surround them with opportunity and resources and just give them a little nudge in the right direction, everything would be fine and dandy.  I don't think it's that simple.

 

Look at suburbs that are doing well.  There are still pockets of problem areas.  It's just they are out numbered 10:1 so it doesn't look as bad.  I know there are a lot of areas of concern in Cleveland Heights.  Why?  The city has lots of assets, is full of great people, but there are some parts of town that just don't have its act together.  Why isn't the "regionalism" effect boiling over to them?  They are a part of a great city.  They are neighbors with people who can help give them opportunity if they show some merit.  What's their excuse?

There is no excuse, the reality is that those parts of CH you are referring to (I'm assuming near the East Cleveland Border along Noble Road) is closest to East Cleveland, which we all know is proably the worst off city in Cuyahoga county and maybe Ohio. The bad influences in East Cleveland are sure to rub off into that part of CH due to proximity.

 

You'll have to explain what you mean by "The regionalism effect."

So we merge the city and the county together?  Guess what, the county is also losing population at an alarming rate.  Fractured government is not the only problem, nor is it, in my opinion, nearly even the biggest problem.  There are actually other important reasons why this region is unattractive to potential businesses and residents that go well beyond the "bad weather."

 

Trust me, I love the enthusiasm, but although we have a lot of potential, we must be realistic.  It's not a defeatist attitude, it's facing reality. 

 

And since I was called out on this specifically, I feel I must respond.  Obviously the city proper of Cleveland and Miami are very similar in size.  But looking at only that is, in my opinion, very narrow-sighted.  Whether you want to look at metropolitan area or urban area, Greater Miami is significantly bigger than Greater Cleveland.  This is what, in part, gives them much more clout than us.  It has very little to do with where arbitrary lines are drawn on a map.  Regional population (including population trends) are most important.

 

I think it's time to stop worrying so much about large-scale regionalism and start focusing on more targeted collaborations and mergers.  Not only is this more likely to be successful, it's also less likely to lead to unintended consequences.

 

Yeah, Greater Miami is "so" much bigger than us

 

Miami MSA - In 2006, the area had an estimated 5,463,857 persons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Florida_metropolitan_area)

 

"Northeast Ohio is home to approximately 4.5 million people, has a labor force of almost 2 million, and a gross regional product of more than US$134 billion.

 

Other counties are sometimes considered to be in Northeast Ohio. These include Erie, Holmes, Huron and Tuscarawas counties, and their inclusion makes the total population of the entire northeastern section of Ohio well over 5 million people" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Cleveland)  :?

 

Fractured government is not the only problem, but that is still no excuse to do nothing. That's why nothing ever gets done in this county. This "well there's other stuff for us to do and we'll get back to it later" usually ends in nothing getting done. Saying that its not the biggest problem is simply an excuse to do nothing. Enough of that. That's the biggest canard around. No one's saying we don't have other problems, but if you think its healthy for a county of this size to have 59 municipalities then there's no point in even continuing this conversation past that point. It should be so obvious Stevie Wonder could see it.

 

You say its time to stop focusing on large scale regionalism and instead focus on targeted mergers, but again that's a canard. If we can't even agree that we have too many municipalities then nothing will happen. Mergers on a small or large scale will not happen in this county because we're too stupid to do what so many other cities have been doing for years. The fact that Pittsburgh, a city similar to ours but have been more forward thinking as of late, is recommending merger with Allegheny County shows how far they've come and how far behind we are. The Mayor AND the County Executive have endorsed this. Obviously they see something we don't or refuse to see. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if we don't even examine the possibility of this, we're idiots.

 

What you call "Realistic thinking" I call defeatism. What you call "realistic" I call "the reason why this area has only done the bare minimum for years". This kind of thinking is the reason why it took us 50 YEARS to connect downtown and University Circle. This kind of thinking is the reason why it took a major scandal and people going to jail for us to remake a county government that had been corrupt for at least the last 20 years. This go along to get along, don't rock the boat kind of thinking has failed us. It doesn't work. We need change. In all aspects. Everywhere. I love it when people say "I'm facing reality" while totally forgetting that you have the power to change that reality. When people say that, its usually an excuse to do nothing or to just nibble around the edges. There's been enough nibbling around the edges around here. We need change on all fronts.

 

Finally, the "reality" point is funny because I'm saying that the "reality" of it is that this system is unsustainable. One way or the other, this will fall down. The question is whether you get in front of the train or you just stand there and let it run you over. Don't believe me?

 

Municipalities may for first time consider a new chapter -- Chapter 9 bankruptcy

 

William A. Currin, a member and past chairman of the Northeast Ohio Mayors and City Managers Association, sees the talk of bankruptcy — and the reasons it's happening — as more reason for Northeast Ohio government entities to regionalize in order to share the costs of infrastructure and dispatch centers, among other expenses.

 

Kevin O'Brien, director of the Center for Public Management, a research center of the Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs at Cleveland State University, shares Mr. Currin's view. He cautioned that local governments may not have seen the worst of their troubles, as property reappraisals in Cuyahoga County are due in 2012 and a lot of yet-unrecognized property tax losses may be realized then.

http://www.crainscleveland.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110214/FREE/302149964

There is no excuse, the reality is that those parts of CH you are referring to (I'm assuming near the East Cleveland Border along Noble Road) is closest to East Cleveland, which we all know is proably the worst off city in Cuyahoga county and maybe Ohio. The bad influences in East Cleveland are sure to rub off into that part of CH due to proximity.

 

You'll have to explain what you mean by "The regionalism effect."

 

If I am understanding correctly - aside from "more efficient local gov't (which I agree could be a plus, where it makes sense) - Regionalism will help resolve city decay and give more people opportunity to succeed.  The fragmented municipalities has allowed people with resources and the ability to influence change leave the core city behind to rot.  If they had stayed, things wouldn't be as bad, people would have more opportunity, and all would be well.  Collapsing everyone back into one single government will fix that.

 

Yet in Cleveland Heights, where those people exist with their resources and ability to influence change, why are there still parts that aren't taking advantage of the opportunity they have?  Schools are good.  Community is full of people they can learn from, be connected to, and gain an opportunity.  Yet it seems the few bad apples are causing more problems than those with all of the resources are able to remove.  And what's the ratio here?  10:1?  20:1?  What happens if you annex East Cleveland and it shrinks to 5:1?  The majority isn't able to lift the problem population as it is now, what makes anyone think that if you add in an additional volume of problems everything will be fine because the local government is consolidated?

 

Problems still exist in suburbs that have resources and opportunity.  The argument for regionalism is that all it takes to make people into good citizens is resources and opportunity.  If that's the case, then everyone should be doing pretty well for themselves in Lakewood, Cleveland Heights, and even Solon.  But it's just not the case.  People in those citites are fighting now to keep their city what it was/is.  But at some point, they get sick of the knuckleheads and move to a place where they don't have to deal with it anymore (and somehow get blamed for the problem because they left the city behind to rot).

There is no excuse, the reality is that those parts of CH you are referring to (I'm assuming near the East Cleveland Border along Noble Road) is closest to East Cleveland, which we all know is proably the worst off city in Cuyahoga county and maybe Ohio. The bad influences in East Cleveland are sure to rub off into that part of CH due to proximity.

 

You'll have to explain what you mean by "The regionalism effect."

 

If I am understanding correctly - aside from "more efficient local gov't (which I agree could be a plus, where it makes sense) - Regionalism will help resolve city decay and give more people opportunity to succeed.  The fragmented municipalities has allowed people with resources and the ability to influence change leave the core city behind to rot.  If they had stayed, things wouldn't be as bad, people would have more opportunity, and all would be well.  Collapsing everyone back into one single government will fix that.

 

Yet in Cleveland Heights, where those people exist with their resources and ability to influence change, why are there still parts that aren't taking advantage of the opportunity they have?  Schools are good.  Community is full of people they can learn from, be connected to, and gain an opportunity.  Yet it seems the few bad apples are causing more problems than those with all of the resources are able to remove.  And what's the ratio here?  10:1?  20:1?  What happens if you annex East Cleveland and it shrinks to 5:1?  The majority isn't able to lift the problem population as it is now, what makes anyone think that if you add in an additional volume of problems everything will be fine because the local government is consolidated?

 

Problems still exist in suburbs that have resources and opportunity.  The argument for regionalism is that all it takes to make people into good citizens is resources and opportunity.  If that's the case, then everyone should be doing pretty well for themselves in Lakewood, Cleveland Heights, and even Solon.  But it's just not the case.  People in those citites are fighting now to keep their city what it was/is.  But at some point, they get sick of the knuckleheads and move to a place where they don't have to deal with it anymore (and somehow get blamed for the problem because they left the city behind to rot).

If only it were that simple...

 

We all acknowledge that education is the key right? That without a good education people become trapped in poverty, right....

 

Higher income districts score better on Ohio's school report cards: Statistical Snapshot

 

Higher income Ohio school districts again did better than others on the Ohio school report cards released last week.

 

Statistical Snapshot

 

Here are the average household incomes for people living in districts receiving each grade:

 

    * Excellent with distinction: $70,158

    * Excellent: $52,059

    * Effective: $43,137

    * Continuous improvement: $37,437

    * Academic watch: $31,456

    * Academic emergency: no districts received this grade in 2011

 

http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2011/08/higher_income_districts_score.html  :?

Correct.  The parts of CH that are percieved as "bad", are the parts that border EC.  This is what I was talking about when I described EC as a communicable disease.  I would debate the Noble Rd assesment, because as a resident of the "121" and having grown up in that exact area, I can tell you that it is not materially worse off than when I was a kid 30 years ago.  The new Burmese refugees certainly don't seem as intimidated to walk that stretch as a lot of the Mary's I hear these concerns coming from.  But it always was the "tougher" side of CH, so that context has to be considered.  The superior triangle is another story and you truly do see the EC effect there compared to what it used to be.  Too bad, because that would be a great neighborhood due to its housing stock and location.

I think my position is people who "don't have the means" will continue to not have the means to do anything until they decide to do something about it themselves.  Work hard, educate yourself, be a good citizen, and opportunity will be there for you.  It sounds good that if you were to surround them with opportunity and resources and just give them a little nudge in the right direction, everything would be fine and dandy.  I don't think it's that simple.

 

Your arguments make no sense.  First, you put forth a simpleton argument, and then you make a strawman argument and say "I don't think it's that simple".

 

Regardless of what causes the vicious circle of poverty, my argument was that too many people who do make something of themselves move out to the suburbs.  How do you expect the core city to "fix itself" when many of the people with the means to do so flee at the first chance they get?

 

Fine, you think it's a good idea to be run from problem rather than try to do something about them.  I don't have a problem with that.  Not everyone wants to spend their time and energy fighting those battles.  That's your choice and intelligent people could debate that back and forth and both have valid points.  But don't turn right back around when you're a safe distance away and flip the bird to the city and say "go fix yourself".

There is no excuse, the reality is that those parts of CH you are referring to (I'm assuming near the East Cleveland Border along Noble Road) is closest to East Cleveland, which we all know is proably the worst off city in Cuyahoga county and maybe Ohio. The bad influences in East Cleveland are sure to rub off into that part of CH due to proximity.

 

You'll have to explain what you mean by "The regionalism effect."

 

If I am understanding correctly - aside from "more efficient local gov't (which I agree could be a plus, where it makes sense) - Regionalism will help resolve city decay and give more people opportunity to succeed.  The fragmented municipalities has allowed people with resources and the ability to influence change leave the core city behind to rot.  If they had stayed, things wouldn't be as bad, people would have more opportunity, and all would be well.  Collapsing everyone back into one single government will fix that.

 

Yet in Cleveland Heights, where those people exist with their resources and ability to influence change, why are there still parts that aren't taking advantage of the opportunity they have?  Schools are good.  Community is full of people they can learn from, be connected to, and gain an opportunity.  Yet it seems the few bad apples are causing more problems than those with all of the resources are able to remove.  And what's the ratio here?  10:1?  20:1?  What happens if you annex East Cleveland and it shrinks to 5:1?  The majority isn't able to lift the problem population as it is now, what makes anyone think that if you add in an additional volume of problems everything will be fine because the local government is consolidated?

 

Problems still exist in suburbs that have resources and opportunity.  The argument for regionalism is that all it takes to make people into good citizens is resources and opportunity.  If that's the case, then everyone should be doing pretty well for themselves in Lakewood, Cleveland Heights, and even Solon.  But it's just not the case.  People in those citites are fighting now to keep their city what it was/is.  But at some point, they get sick of the knuckleheads and move to a place where they don't have to deal with it anymore (and somehow get blamed for the problem because they left the city behind to rot).

 

I posted this earlier, but your argument totally reminds me of the quote from the pastor of the Old Stone Church so I'll post it again...

 

"I’ve been thinking about the thoughts of the late Yale scholar, Letty Russell, who once compared the city to a battered woman: The city is beaten and bruised, isolated, abandoned, and then blamed as if she somehow did this to herself. How easy it is for us to take what we want from our city – jobs, resources, entertainment – while disavowing any responsibility for her."

 

http://hotcleveland.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/bang-bang-love-your-city/

Fractured government is not the only problem, but that is still no excuse to do nothing. That's why nothing ever gets done in this county. This "well there's other stuff for us to do and we'll get back to it later" usually ends in nothing getting done.

 

I get tired of this argument - "it's not an excuse to do nothing".  Who said "do nothing"?  People are asking "why should we do this?"  I mean, if I say "let's just kill everyone who is unemployed and over the age of 25 with no high school degree" and you argue against it, can I then say "well, we can't do nothing"?  I think people here are just saying "we don't think that's necessarily the right thing to do.

 

(BTW, Pittsburgh is still bankrupt as far as I know and people are flocking north from Dade county creating some of the most ridiculous sprawl on the east coast.  So it hasn't exactly worked out for them either.)