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...

 

"Ive 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/

 

I saw your quote.  What happends when you take the battered woman in, clean her up, give her a job, and she starts stealing from you?

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/

 

I saw your quote.  What happends when you take the battered woman in, clean her up, give her a job, and she starts stealing from you?

Cute strawman

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.)

Btw, Wrong Again...

 

We're back! Pittsburgh region rebounds economically says PRA; Brookings Institute concurs

 

"The Washington, D.C. think tank, The Brookings Institution, shed a positive light on the local economy as well this week. Brookings ranked the Pittsburgh region as the eighth-strongest economy among 100 of the nation's largest metropolitan areas based on its strength through the recession."

 

http://www.popcitymedia.com/innovationnews/wins031611.aspx?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PopCity+%28Pop+City%29

 

And if that wasn't enough, this comes from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland...

 

The Economic Outlook, Oil Prices, and Monetary Policy

 

"Pittsburgh is an important part of my District, and I always look forward to visiting here. Over the past couple of years, I have been using Pittsburgh as an example of a city in my District that has revitalized itself. Currently, the Pittsburgh economy is performing better than the nation in terms of job creation and unemployment.

 

I am not alone in singing your praises. As you may know, Pittsburgh has been recognized by both The Economist and Forbes as the most livable city in America. It has also been cited as the “best city to relocate to” and is currently among the top 10 “best cities to find a job.” Great people live here already, and great people want to move here because of the energy and enthusiasm this city offers.

 

Your conference here today, with its focus on working across disciplines to expand corporate growth and finance, is another example of that Pittsburgh energy and enthusiasm. I am sure you have a lot of new information to take back with you, and I applaud your efforts."

 

http://www.clevelandfed.org/For_the_Public/News_and_Media/Speeches/2011/Pianalto_20110331.cfm

 

:?

Clearly, as emphasized by the diverse and various characters on this board, anything beyond the inner ring ain't happening.  I would be happy with Cleveland and a few of its immediate neighbors finding strength in numbers, and allowing the more stereotypical suburbs remain suburbs.  Perhaps some consolidation like we are seeing in the Orange SD is possible, but you will never convince the exurbs that a broad merger is in their long term best interest.

Clearly, as emphasized by the diverse and various characters on this board, anything beyond the inner ring ain't happening.  I would be happy with Cleveland and a few of its immediate neighbors finding strength in numbers, and allowing the more stereotypical suburbs remain suburbs.  Perhaps some consolidation like we are seeing in the Orange SD is possible, but you will never convince the exurbs that a broad merger is in their long term best interest.

Agreed. You and I said earlier that a large scale merger in this county would be preferred but would probably never happen. I think its obvious by as you say "the diverse and various characters on this board". The inner ring typically have more in common culturally than the outer ring anyway.

 

So with that being said, who would you say are the top merger candidates in the parameters we mentioned?

 

I say:

 

East Cleveland

Brooklyn

Linndale

Garfield Heights (although I doubt they'd do it. But the city is broke and has been in fiscal emergency since 2008. They SHOULD do it)

Maybe Euclid.

 

You?

Hts is correct, and there's no shame or defeatism in acknowledging that. Just because it looks good on paper or might serve a social interest, even a compelling one, doesn't mean merger the right thing for all the suburbs to do.

Ed Fitzgerald was in Bratenahl last night and the topic of regionalism was brought up.  He is all for it, but he sees the Cleveland area voters nowhere near ready for this. He was excited that "Orange" came to the county for help on studies and such, showing the county is more approachable then they have ever been.  I agree that the inner ring suburbs should all merge in with Cleveland, but I don't think they are ready for it either.  I can tell you in Bratenahl, they would fight to the death.  The village shovels and salts our sidewalks in the winter and makes sure roads are plowed at all times....for that reason alone they would not merge lol.

While I agree that Bratenahlis about as much of a long-shot as there is, I hope people realize that services can be supplemented through neighborhood associations if that really is the concern.

 

Myers Park in Charlotte comes to mind as a very affluent and independent community within a city.

but you will never convince the exurbs that a broad merger is in their long term best interest.

 

Never? Consider that today's exurbs are tomorrow's inner-ring suburbs if Cleveland merges with its neighbors.

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)  :?

 

You're playing games with numbers (which shouldn't be necessary if we were doing so well) and we both know it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_primary_census_statistical_areas

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas

 

No matter what kind of metric you choose to use, Metro Miami is significantly larger than Greater Cleveland.  It is laughable, absolutely laughable, to try to claim that they are the same size or even almost the same size.

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?

 

Everything's a canard, huh?  Good luck with that full-scale merger, because though it will never happen, even if it would, we'd still have the same anti-growth forces running this city into the ground.  Not to mention all of the other unintended consequences of such a merger.

 

I was going to accuse you of not reading my post, but it appears that you did read it and then you created some contradictory strawman argument in response.  Clearly I do believe that 59 municipalities and 33 school districts is far too many.  I've said as much many times over.  I think it makes sense to cut that to about 15-20 municipalities and 10-12 school districts.  If that's not enough, well I'm sorry, because I don't think you're going to get much better than that.  You can argue the merits of a full-scale merger all you'd like (and I think it's a bad idea), but it's never going to happen anyways, so it's a moot point.

 

Also, your point about connecting downtown to University Circle is hilarious.  Every foot of that stretch of road is located within the City of Cleveland.  If that was so important (and I'm not convinced that it was, because there was already bus service), ask the people who've been running Cleveland into the ground for the past 50 years why it didn't happen sooner.  And these are the people you want running the entire region?!

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).

 

The Cleveland Heights experiment has mostly failed.  I think we should all consider ourselves lucky that it hasn't completely taken the city down (though it's slowly moving in that direction).  But it's still sad that CH, a city that still has a tremendous amount of character and assets, had to be one of the guinea pigs.  Regardless, CH should serve as a very sobering warning sign of what can happen if we try to implement (and/or spread) such social engineering.

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 needs to be an attitude adjustment by many of the residents of most of these troubled cities.  Until that happens, no amount of money will solve any of the big problems facing these cities and this region as a whole.  I can see both sides of the argument, too, and as much as the "go fix yourself" crowd makes my skin crawl, they're probably ultimately right.  Spreading the problem around is not the solution, especially when the real solution must come from an internal source.

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/

 

Oh, so people who work and play in Cleveland aren't giving anything back?  Maybe if they started working and playing in the suburbs, too, you'd change your opinion.

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)  :?

 

You're playing games with numbers (which shouldn't be necessary if we were doing so well) and we both know it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_primary_census_statistical_areas

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas

 

No matter what kind of metric you choose to use, Metro Miami is significantly larger than Greater Cleveland.  It is laughable, absolutely laughable, to try to claim that they are the same size or even almost the same size.

First of all, I'm not playing games with the numbers. You just don't like the answer. The Miami Metropolitan Area actually has 2,496,435 residents. Comparing metropolitan area to metropolitan area, the Cleveland Metropolitan Area has 2,077,240 residents. The South Florida MSA is determined by combining the Miami Metropolitan Area with the Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach Metropolitan Areas, which then equals 5,564,635 residents. In order to have a comparable equivalent, you must then look at Northeast Ohio as a whole, which has between 4.5 and 5 million residents, depending on who you include. So its laughable, absolutely laughable that you would be intellectually dishonest in your argument by comparing the South Florida MSA (which combines THREE metropolitan areas) with the Cleveland MSA alone and then claim that I'm fudging the numbers when YOU aren't making an apples-to-apples comparison yourself.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Cleveland

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami-Fort_Lauderdale-Pompano_Beach,_FL_MSA

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/

 

Oh, so people who work and play in Cleveland aren't giving anything back?  Maybe if they started working and playing in the suburbs, too, you'd change your opinion.

That isn't the point and you know it. No I have no problem with those who work and play in the city of Cleveland. I DO however, have a problem with the arrogance of those who feel entitled to come into the city, take whatever they want from the city, and hold none of the responsibility to help fix its problems. Yes, I DO have a problem with that. A big problem. This entitlement attitude that you are SUPPOSED to just take everything good from the city but everything bad in the city is "their fault". So no, I welcome anyone to come into the city and enjoy what we have to offer. But I will never be okay with those same people not lifting a finger to help fix the problems and feeling like they have a RIGHT to just rape the city of its resources and hold no responsibility towards it. That's the point that the pastor of the Old Stone Church was making and that's what I was agreeing with. (Did you even read his post?)

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?

 

Everything's a canard, huh?  Good luck with that full-scale merger, because though it will never happen, even if it would, we'd still have the same anti-growth forces running this city into the ground.  Not to mention all of the other unintended consequences of such a merger.

 

I was going to accuse you of not reading my post, but it appears that you did read it and then you created some contradictory strawman argument in response.  Clearly I do believe that 59 municipalities and 33 school districts is far too many.  I've said as much many times over.  I think it makes sense to cut that to about 15-20 municipalities and 10-12 school districts.  If that's not enough, well I'm sorry, because I don't think you're going to get much better than that.  You can argue the merits of a full-scale merger all you'd like (and I think it's a bad idea), but it's never going to happen anyways, so it's a moot point.

 

Also, your point about connecting downtown to University Circle is hilarious.  Every foot of that stretch of road is located within the City of Cleveland.  If that was so important (and I'm not convinced that it was, because there was already bus service), ask the people who've been running Cleveland into the ground for the past 50 years why it didn't happen sooner.  And these are the people you want running the entire region?!

The Downtown/University Circle thing was brought up to make a point that it is regressive, backwards thinking that caused it. When the city's population spread out, that mentality didn't go away, obviously. It was just exported.

First of all, I'm not playing games with the numbers. You just don't like the answer. The Miami Metropolitan Area actually has 2,496,435 residents. Comparing metropolitan area to metropolitan area, the Cleveland Metropolitan Area has 2,077,240 residents. The South Florida MSA is determined by combining the Miami Metropolitan Area with the Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach Metropolitan Areas, which then equals 5,564,635 residents. In order to have a comparable equivalent, you must then look at Northeast Ohio as a whole, which has between 4.5 and 5 million residents, depending on who you include. So its laughable, absolutely laughable that you would be intellectually dishonest in your argument by comparing the South Florida MSA (which combines THREE metropolitan areas) with the Cleveland MSA alone and then claim that I'm fudging the numbers when YOU aren't making an apples-to-apples comparison yourself.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Cleveland

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami-Fort_Lauderdale-Pompano_Beach,_FL_MSA

 

Who here is being intellectually dishonest?  That 5.5 million number is Miami's MSA.  That 4.5 million number that you keep throwing around is the combination of multiple Northeast Ohio CSAs.  I'm going to assume that you know the difference between an MSA and a CSA and in doing so will quickly realize the err of your ways.  Or at the very least anyone else on this board who is familiar with the two will see why what you're trying to do in your comparison makes no sense. 

 

If you don't like the numbers, don't get angry with me, get angry with the Census Bureau.  The data they use points strongly to the fact that Miami's 5.5 million is one large MSA.  While Cleveland's CSA is a little more than half the size. 

That isn't the point and you know it. No I have no problem with those who work and play in the city of Cleveland. I DO however, have a problem with the arrogance of those who feel entitled to come into the city, take whatever they want from the city, and hold none of the responsibility to help fix its problems. Yes, I DO have a problem with that. A big problem. This entitlement attitude that you are SUPPOSED to just take everything good from the city but everything bad in the city is "their fault". So no, I welcome anyone to come into the city and enjoy what we have to offer. But I will never be okay with those same people not lifting a finger to help fix the problems and feeling like they have a RIGHT to just rape the city of its resources and hold no responsibility towards it. That's the point that the pastor of the Old Stone Church was making and that's what I was agreeing with. (Did you even read his post?)

 

But what exactly are they "taking"?  This is the point of your post that makes little sense.  People that work in the city pay income taxes that fund a large chunk of the city government.  People that play in the city not only pay taxes on the things they buy (baseball tickets, for example), but are also, through their patronage, supporting local entities that employ thousands of Clevelanders.  And believe it or not, many of these suburbanites that also do all kinds of other things (charity, etc.) to help out the city, even though they don't live there.  For the ones that don't, sorry, but your expectations are ridiculous.  Just like I can't force all of the outer-ring commuters that drive through University Heights on a daily basis on their way to Cleveland to pay for the roads when they need to be repaved, the streetlights that illuminate their early morning/late evening travels, etc. 

The Downtown/University Circle thing was brought up to make a point that it is regressive, backwards thinking that caused it. When the city's population spread out, that mentality didn't go away, obviously. It was just exported.

 

Whose backwards and regressive thinking?

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)  :?

 

You're playing games with numbers (which shouldn't be necessary if we were doing so well) and we both know it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_primary_census_statistical_areas

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas

 

No matter what kind of metric you choose to use, Metro Miami is significantly larger than Greater Cleveland.  It is laughable, absolutely laughable, to try to claim that they are the same size or even almost the same size.

First of all, I'm not playing games with the numbers. You just don't like the answer. The Miami Metropolitan Area actually has 2,496,435 residents. Comparing metropolitan area to metropolitan area, the Cleveland Metropolitan Area has 2,077,240 residents. The South Florida MSA is determined by combining the Miami Metropolitan Area with the Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach Metropolitan Areas, which then equals 5,564,635 residents. In order to have a comparable equivalent, you must then look at Northeast Ohio as a whole, which has between 4.5 and 5 million residents, depending on who you include. So its laughable, absolutely laughable that you would be intellectually dishonest in your argument by comparing the South Florida MSA (which combines THREE metropolitan areas) with the Cleveland MSA alone and then claim that I'm fudging the numbers when YOU aren't making an apples-to-apples comparison yourself.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Cleveland

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami-Fort_Lauderdale-Pompano_Beach,_FL_MSA

 

Who here is being intellectually dishonest?  That 5.5 million number is Miami's MSA.  That 4.5 million number that you keep throwing around is the combination of multiple Northeast Ohio CSAs.  I'm going to assume that you know the difference between an MSA and a CSA and in doing so will quickly realize the err of your ways.  Or at the very least anyone else on this board who is familiar with the two will see why what you're trying to do in your comparison makes no sense. 

 

If you don't like the numbers, don't get angry with me, get angry with the Census Bureau.  The data they use points strongly to the fact that Miami's 5.5 million is one large MSA.  While Cleveland's CSA is a little more than half the size.

I figured your reading comprehension would be a bit flawed.

 

The Miami metropolitan area consists of three distinct metropolitan divisions, subdividing the region into three divisions according to the region's three counties: Miami-Dade County, Broward County, and Palm Beach County.

Metropolitan Divisions 2010 Census Population

Miami--Miami Beach—Kendall - 2,496,435

Fort Lauderdale--Pompano Beach—Deerfield Beach - 1,748,066

West Palm Beach--Boca Raton—Boynton Beach - 1,320,134

Miami MSA - 5,564,635 (For those watching at home, that's all of the above numbers COMBINED)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami-Fort_Lauderdale-Pompano_Beach,_FL_MSA

 

:?

 

So comparing apples to apples, what are those numbers again? Oh yeah

 

Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall - 2,496,435

 

Cleveland - 2,077,240

 

Again I say,  :?

I figured your reading comprehension would be a bit flawed.

 

The Miami metropolitan area consists of three distinct metropolitan divisions, subdividing the region into three divisions according to the region's three counties: Miami-Dade County, Broward County, and Palm Beach County.

Metropolitan Divisions 2010 Census Population

Miami--Miami Beach—Kendall - 2,496,435

Fort Lauderdale--Pompano Beach—Deerfield Beach - 1,748,066

West Palm Beach--Boca Raton—Boynton Beach - 1,320,134

Miami MSA - 5,564,635 (For those watching at home, that's all of the above numbers COMBINED)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami-Fort_Lauderdale-Pompano_Beach,_FL_MSA

 

:?

 

So comparing apples to apples, what are those numbers again? Oh yeah

 

Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall - 2,496,435

 

Cleveland - 2,077,240

 

Again I say,  :?

 

Most of the largest 8-10 metropolitan areas are split into Metropolitan Divisions.  These are not the same thing as MSAs.  The fact that Cleveland doesn't have any MDs and that you cherry-picked the one for central Miami doesn't improve your argument one iota.  Basically what you keep trying to do is compare the cities based on the most generous, imaginary definition of Greater Cleveland and the least generous redefinition of Greater Miami that you can find.

 

Here's a list of the largest MSAs and their Metropolitan Divisions:

 

http://www.bls.gov/sae/saemd.htm

 

The Census Bureau knows what they're doing.  They recognize that, for example, the relationship that San Francisco has with Oakland, Detroit has with Troy, and yes, Miami has with West Palm Beach, is much stronger than anything Cleveland has with Sandusky, Youngstown, Canton, or any of the other far out areas you tried to include in your definition of "Greater Cleveland."

 

Again, I don't always agree with the Census Bureau, but their numbers and definitions are, for the most part, fairly accurate.  Whether comparing MSA to MSA, or MSA to CSA (which is probably more accurate for Cleveland), Miami is still much, much bigger.

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)  :?

 

You're playing games with numbers (which shouldn't be necessary if we were doing so well) and we both know it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_primary_census_statistical_areas

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas

 

No matter what kind of metric you choose to use, Metro Miami is significantly larger than Greater Cleveland.  It is laughable, absolutely laughable, to try to claim that they are the same size or even almost the same size.

First of all, I'm not playing games with the numbers. You just don't like the answer. The Miami Metropolitan Area actually has 2,496,435 residents. Comparing metropolitan area to metropolitan area, the Cleveland Metropolitan Area has 2,077,240 residents. The South Florida MSA is determined by combining the Miami Metropolitan Area with the Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach Metropolitan Areas, which then equals 5,564,635 residents. In order to have a comparable equivalent, you must then look at Northeast Ohio as a whole, which has between 4.5 and 5 million residents, depending on who you include. So its laughable, absolutely laughable that you would be intellectually dishonest in your argument by comparing the South Florida MSA (which combines THREE metropolitan areas) with the Cleveland MSA alone and then claim that I'm fudging the numbers when YOU aren't making an apples-to-apples comparison yourself.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Cleveland

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami-Fort_Lauderdale-Pompano_Beach,_FL_MSA

 

Who here is being intellectually dishonest?  That 5.5 million number is Miami's MSA.  That 4.5 million number that you keep throwing around is the combination of multiple Northeast Ohio CSAs.  I'm going to assume that you know the difference between an MSA and a CSA and in doing so will quickly realize the err of your ways.  Or at the very least anyone else on this board who is familiar with the two will see why what you're trying to do in your comparison makes no sense. 

 

If you don't like the numbers, don't get angry with me, get angry with the Census Bureau.  The data they use points strongly to the fact that Miami's 5.5 million is one large MSA.  While Cleveland's CSA is a little more than half the size.

I figured your reading comprehension would be a bit flawed.

 

The Miami metropolitan area consists of three distinct metropolitan divisions, subdividing the region into three divisions according to the region's three counties: Miami-Dade County, Broward County, and Palm Beach County.

Metropolitan Divisions 2010 Census Population

Miami--Miami Beach—Kendall - 2,496,435

Fort Lauderdale--Pompano Beach—Deerfield Beach - 1,748,066

West Palm Beach--Boca Raton—Boynton Beach - 1,320,134

Miami MSA - 5,564,635 (For those watching at home, that's all of the above numbers COMBINED)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami-Fort_Lauderdale-Pompano_Beach,_FL_MSA

 

:?

 

So comparing apples to apples, what are those numbers again? Oh yeah

 

Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall - 2,496,435

 

Cleveland - 2,077,240

 

Again I say,  :?

 

Most of the largest 8-10 metropolitan areas are split into Metropolitan Divisions.  These are not the same thing as MSAs.  The fact that Cleveland doesn't have any MDs and that you cherry-picked the one for central Miami doesn't improve your argument one iota.  Basically what you keep trying to do is compare the cities based on the most generous, imaginary definition of Greater Cleveland and the least generous redefinition of Greater Miami that you can find.

 

Here's a list of the largest MSAs and their Metropolitan Divisions:

 

http://www.bls.gov/sae/saemd.htm

 

The Census Bureau knows what they're doing.  They recognize that, for example, the relationship that San Francisco has with Oakland, Detroit has with Troy, and yes, Miami has with West Palm Beach, is much stronger than anything Cleveland has with Sandusky, Youngstown, Canton, or any of the other far out areas you tried to include in your definition of "Greater Cleveland."

 

Again, I don't always agree with the Census Bureau, but their numbers and definitions are, for the most part, fairly accurate.  Whether comparing MSA to MSA, or MSA to CSA (which is probably more accurate for Cleveland), Miami is still much, much bigger.

I'm not cherry picking numbers. I'm making the apples to apples comparison that you won't do. When I originally compared the populations of both city propers, you told me that that didn't matter.So I say ok, then let's compare area to area, roughly. Then that doesn't matter. You keep moving the goalposts. It was never fun playing sports as a kid with people who paid by "my ball, my rules". I want to compare apples to apples, you want to compare apples to bricks.

I'm not cherry picking numbers. I'm making the apples to apples comparison that you won't do. When I originally compared the populations of both city propers, you told me that that didn't matter.So I say ok, then let's compare area to area, roughly. Then that doesn't matter. You keep moving the goalposts. It was never fun playing sports as a kid with people who paid by "my ball, my rules". I want to compare apples to apples, you want to compare apples to bricks.

 

Oh stop it.  You think the Census Bureau uses some arbitrary, set geographic area for defining and comparing MSAs?  Sorry, but that's just ridiculous and it's not how it works.

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)  :?

 

You're playing games with numbers (which shouldn't be necessary if we were doing so well) and we both know it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_primary_census_statistical_areas

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas

 

No matter what kind of metric you choose to use, Metro Miami is significantly larger than Greater Cleveland.  It is laughable, absolutely laughable, to try to claim that they are the same size or even almost the same size.

First of all, I'm not playing games with the numbers. You just don't like the answer. The Miami Metropolitan Area actually has 2,496,435 residents. Comparing metropolitan area to metropolitan area, the Cleveland Metropolitan Area has 2,077,240 residents. The South Florida MSA is determined by combining the Miami Metropolitan Area with the Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach Metropolitan Areas, which then equals 5,564,635 residents. In order to have a comparable equivalent, you must then look at Northeast Ohio as a whole, which has between 4.5 and 5 million residents, depending on who you include. So its laughable, absolutely laughable that you would be intellectually dishonest in your argument by comparing the South Florida MSA (which combines THREE metropolitan areas) with the Cleveland MSA alone and then claim that I'm fudging the numbers when YOU aren't making an apples-to-apples comparison yourself.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Cleveland

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami-Fort_Lauderdale-Pompano_Beach,_FL_MSA

 

Who here is being intellectually dishonest?  That 5.5 million number is Miami's MSA.  That 4.5 million number that you keep throwing around is the combination of multiple Northeast Ohio CSAs.  I'm going to assume that you know the difference between an MSA and a CSA and in doing so will quickly realize the err of your ways.  Or at the very least anyone else on this board who is familiar with the two will see why what you're trying to do in your comparison makes no sense. 

 

If you don't like the numbers, don't get angry with me, get angry with the Census Bureau.  The data they use points strongly to the fact that Miami's 5.5 million is one large MSA.  While Cleveland's CSA is a little more than half the size.

I figured your reading comprehension would be a bit flawed.

 

The Miami metropolitan area consists of three distinct metropolitan divisions, subdividing the region into three divisions according to the region's three counties: Miami-Dade County, Broward County, and Palm Beach County.

Metropolitan Divisions 2010 Census Population

Miami--Miami Beach—Kendall - 2,496,435

Fort Lauderdale--Pompano Beach—Deerfield Beach - 1,748,066

West Palm Beach--Boca Raton—Boynton Beach - 1,320,134

Miami MSA - 5,564,635 (For those watching at home, that's all of the above numbers COMBINED)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami-Fort_Lauderdale-Pompano_Beach,_FL_MSA

 

:?

 

So comparing apples to apples, what are those numbers again? Oh yeah

 

Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall - 2,496,435

 

Cleveland - 2,077,240

 

Again I say,  :?

 

Most of the largest 8-10 metropolitan areas are split into Metropolitan Divisions.  These are not the same thing as MSAs.  The fact that Cleveland doesn't have any MDs and that you cherry-picked the one for central Miami doesn't improve your argument one iota.  Basically what you keep trying to do is compare the cities based on the most generous, imaginary definition of Greater Cleveland and the least generous redefinition of Greater Miami that you can find.

 

Here's a list of the largest MSAs and their Metropolitan Divisions:

 

http://www.bls.gov/sae/saemd.htm

 

The Census Bureau knows what they're doing.  They recognize that, for example, the relationship that San Francisco has with Oakland, Detroit has with Troy, and yes, Miami has with West Palm Beach, is much stronger than anything Cleveland has with Sandusky, Youngstown, Canton, or any of the other far out areas you tried to include in your definition of "Greater Cleveland."

 

Again, I don't always agree with the Census Bureau, but their numbers and definitions are, for the most part, fairly accurate.  Whether comparing MSA to MSA, or MSA to CSA (which is probably more accurate for Cleveland), Miami is still much, much bigger.

I'm not cherry picking numbers. I'm making the apples to apples comparison that you won't do. When I originally compared the populations of both city propers, you told me that that didn't matter.So I say ok, then let's compare area to area, roughly. Then that doesn't matter. You keep moving the goalposts. It was never fun playing sports as a kid with people who paid by "my ball, my rules". I want to compare apples to apples, you want to compare apples to bricks.

 

Oh stop it.  You think the Census Bureau uses some arbitrary, set geographic area for defining and comparing MSAs?  Sorry, but that's just ridiculous and it's not how it works.

you're moving the goalposts. On one hand you say the population of the city propers don't matter but when it comes to the larger areas, you want to apply the numbers without any context whatsoever. Context is an interesting thing. You should try it sometime.

 

you're moving the goalposts. On one hand you say the population of the city propers don't matter but when it comes to the larger areas, you want to apply the numbers without any context whatsoever. Context is an interesting thing. You should try it sometime.

 

 

A) I'm not moving the goalposts.  I've consistently referred to the Census Bureau's MSA and CSA statistics, which are generally regarded as incredibly fair for apple-to-apples comparisons. 

 

B) I've been talking about metropolitan areas during the entire conversation from the first post I made that you took offense to.  Looking at anything involving city proper numbers only is absolutely pointless.  The region, as a whole, is what matters.

 

C) Getting this discussion back on track, here's the overarching point:  In looking at the largest metropolitan areas (excluding Miami if you like), you will find that very few have completely consolidated government systems and most have large, strong suburbs of the primate city.  It's not a problem for them and would not be a problem for us.

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)  :?

 

You're playing games with numbers (which shouldn't be necessary if we were doing so well) and we both know it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_primary_census_statistical_areas

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas

 

No matter what kind of metric you choose to use, Metro Miami is significantly larger than Greater Cleveland.  It is laughable, absolutely laughable, to try to claim that they are the same size or even almost the same size.

First of all, I'm not playing games with the numbers. You just don't like the answer. The Miami Metropolitan Area actually has 2,496,435 residents. Comparing metropolitan area to metropolitan area, the Cleveland Metropolitan Area has 2,077,240 residents. The South Florida MSA is determined by combining the Miami Metropolitan Area with the Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach Metropolitan Areas, which then equals 5,564,635 residents. In order to have a comparable equivalent, you must then look at Northeast Ohio as a whole, which has between 4.5 and 5 million residents, depending on who you include. So its laughable, absolutely laughable that you would be intellectually dishonest in your argument by comparing the South Florida MSA (which combines THREE metropolitan areas) with the Cleveland MSA alone and then claim that I'm fudging the numbers when YOU aren't making an apples-to-apples comparison yourself.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Cleveland

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami-Fort_Lauderdale-Pompano_Beach,_FL_MSA

 

Who here is being intellectually dishonest?  That 5.5 million number is Miami's MSA.  That 4.5 million number that you keep throwing around is the combination of multiple Northeast Ohio CSAs.  I'm going to assume that you know the difference between an MSA and a CSA and in doing so will quickly realize the err of your ways.  Or at the very least anyone else on this board who is familiar with the two will see why what you're trying to do in your comparison makes no sense. 

 

If you don't like the numbers, don't get angry with me, get angry with the Census Bureau.  The data they use points strongly to the fact that Miami's 5.5 million is one large MSA.  While Cleveland's CSA is a little more than half the size.

I figured your reading comprehension would be a bit flawed.

 

The Miami metropolitan area consists of three distinct metropolitan divisions, subdividing the region into three divisions according to the region's three counties: Miami-Dade County, Broward County, and Palm Beach County.

Metropolitan Divisions 2010 Census Population

Miami--Miami Beach—Kendall - 2,496,435

Fort Lauderdale--Pompano Beach—Deerfield Beach - 1,748,066

West Palm Beach--Boca Raton—Boynton Beach - 1,320,134

Miami MSA - 5,564,635 (For those watching at home, that's all of the above numbers COMBINED)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami-Fort_Lauderdale-Pompano_Beach,_FL_MSA

 

:?

 

So comparing apples to apples, what are those numbers again? Oh yeah

 

Miami-Miami Beach-Kendall - 2,496,435

 

Cleveland - 2,077,240

 

Again I say,  :?

 

Most of the largest 8-10 metropolitan areas are split into Metropolitan Divisions.  These are not the same thing as MSAs.  The fact that Cleveland doesn't have any MDs and that you cherry-picked the one for central Miami doesn't improve your argument one iota.  Basically what you keep trying to do is compare the cities based on the most generous, imaginary definition of Greater Cleveland and the least generous redefinition of Greater Miami that you can find.

 

Here's a list of the largest MSAs and their Metropolitan Divisions:

 

http://www.bls.gov/sae/saemd.htm

 

The Census Bureau knows what they're doing.  They recognize that, for example, the relationship that San Francisco has with Oakland, Detroit has with Troy, and yes, Miami has with West Palm Beach, is much stronger than anything Cleveland has with Sandusky, Youngstown, Canton, or any of the other far out areas you tried to include in your definition of "Greater Cleveland."

 

Again, I don't always agree with the Census Bureau, but their numbers and definitions are, for the most part, fairly accurate.  Whether comparing MSA to MSA, or MSA to CSA (which is probably more accurate for Cleveland), Miami is still much, much bigger.

I'm not cherry picking numbers. I'm making the apples to apples comparison that you won't do. When I originally compared the populations of both city propers, you told me that that didn't matter.So I say ok, then let's compare area to area, roughly. Then that doesn't matter. You keep moving the goalposts. It was never fun playing sports as a kid with people who paid by "my ball, my rules". I want to compare apples to apples, you want to compare apples to bricks.

 

Oh stop it.  You think the Census Bureau uses some arbitrary, set geographic area for defining and comparing MSAs?  Sorry, but that's just ridiculous and it's not how it works.

you're moving the goalposts. On one hand you say the population of the city propers don't matter but when it comes to the larger areas, you want to apply the numbers without any context whatsoever. Context is an interesting thing. You should try it sometime.

 

 

A) I'm not moving the goalposts.  I've consistently referred to the Census Bureau's MSA and CSA statistics, which are generally regarded as incredibly fair for apple-to-apples comparisons. 

 

B) I've been talking about metropolitan areas during the entire conversation from the first post I made that you took offense to.  Looking at anything involving city proper numbers only is absolutely pointless.  The region, as a whole, is what matters.

 

C) Getting this discussion back on track, here's the overarching point:  In looking at the largest metropolitan areas (excluding Miami if you like), you will find that very few have completely consolidated government systems and most have large, strong suburbs of the primate city.  It's not a problem for them and would not be a problem for us.

Scroll up a little bit and see the list that I posted of all the cities that have some version of consolidated government

Scroll up a little bit and see the list that I posted of all the cities that have some version of consolidated government

 

Boston, New York, San Francisco, Denver, and Miami?

 

Boston's a weird situation because of the way government in New England works (and their lack of county government, I believe).  I'll refresh my memory on that one and get back to you. 

 

New York is New York.  Did the merger, which happened in the early 1900s, play any significant role in making that region the international behemoth that it is today?  I doubt it, though it does present a nice correlation/causation point for your argument.

 

Denver and San Francisco also "merged" with parts of their respective surrounding counties (while other parts broke off and formed their own counties).  In the case of both cities, this happened over a century ago, very earlier in their history and development.  Not sure if there's much for us to learn from these situations because of their respective geographic sizes and historical situations.  To me, these two examples are more similar to being independent cities in their own right, even though they're both technically consolidated city-counties.  But if Cleveland and a couple of other inner-ring suburbs wanted to break off and form their own new city-county, I'm sure that could be arranged.  I don't think it would make any difference either way.

 

As for Miami-Dade, this is probably one of the more realistic models for Cuyahoga County to consider.  Cities retaining independence and having the choice of whether or not to opt-in to having the county provide city level services.

Scroll up a little bit and see the list that I posted of all the cities that have some version of consolidated government

 

Boston, New York, San Francisco, Denver, and Miami?

 

Boston's a weird situation because of the way government in New England works (and their lack of county government, I believe).  I'll refresh my memory on that one and get back to you. 

 

New York is New York.  Did the merger, which happened in the early 1900s, play any significant role in making that region the international behemoth that it is today?  I doubt it, though it does present a nice correlation/causation point for your argument.

 

Denver and San Francisco also "merged" with parts of their respective surrounding counties (while other parts broke off and formed their own counties).  In the case of both cities, this happened over a century ago, very earlier in their history and development.  Not sure if there's much for us to learn from these situations because of their respective geographic sizes and historical situations.  To me, these two examples are more similar to being independent cities in their own right, even though they're both technically consolidated city-counties.  But if Cleveland and a couple of other inner-ring suburbs wanted to break off and form their own new city-county, I'm sure that could be arranged.  I don't think it would make any difference either way.

 

As for Miami-Dade, this is probably one of the more realistic models for Cuyahoga County to consider.  Cities retaining independence and having the choice of whether or not to opt-in to having the county provide city level services.

 

That wasn't quite the full list. I posted the full list above that.

 

    * Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska[3] (City and Borough are consolidated forming a unified government)

 

    * City and County of Broomfield, Colorado[4][5] (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[4] (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[6]

 

    * City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska

 

    * Municipality and County of Los Alamos, New Mexico[7]

 

    * 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.)

 

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.

 

# 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

 

# Louisville and Jefferson County, Kentucky[15] (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)

 

# 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)[13]

 

# Indianapolis and Marion County, Indiana[14] (four communities within Marion County retain separate governments: see Unigov)

 

# New York City, New York[12] has been coextensive with an amalgamation of five counties since 1898, each of which is also a borough and more generally known as such:

 

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

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

    * Kings County (Brooklyn)

    * Richmond County (Staten Island)

    * Queens County (Queens)

 

Lexington and Fayette County, Kentucky[1]

 

# Columbus and Muscogee County, Georgia

 

# Carson City and Ormsby County, Nevada

 

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.

 

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

 

 

 

 

Some interesting ideas there and a lot of options.  Unfortunately if this were going to happen in Cleveland, it should have happened in the 1950s or earlier when it would not have faced much resistance.

 

I haven't heard any recent news on Pittsburgh's consolidation efforts.  I'm only seeing articles from 2009 or earlier.  Have there been recent developments since then?

Can you guys go back and edit your posts where you quoted numerous past postings in the same message? Please limit quotes to the most recent message you are responding to. Thanks!

Can you guys go back and edit your posts where you quoted numerous past postings in the same message? Please limit quotes to the most recent message you are responding to. Thanks!

 

Yeah, I'll try, I notice that it's really messy.  Unfortunately the quoting set up on this message board automatically does that!

Yeah, I know. You have to clean up your quotes when composing your messages. And you have to be careful you don't eliminate the "close quote" or leave an extra one laying around. :)

Can you guys go back and edit your posts where you quoted numerous past postings in the same message? Please limit quotes to the most recent message you are responding to. Thanks!

 

Yeah, I'll try, I notice that it's really messy.  Unfortunately the quoting set up on this message board automatically does that!

 

Better yet, though it can be harder to wade through the formatting, limit it to 2-3 posts back.  Limiting it to just to post you're replying to often excises a great deal of context.  (Picture what this post would be if I cut out KJP's post.  There would be no clue as to what Clevelander17 would be trying to do, nor what the quoting set up on the message board automatically does that is messy.)

 

ColumbusUnderground now has software that automatically cuts out all prior quotes from replies, and it's a pet peeve of mine on that site; it's fine for really shallow discussions where there isn't much need for context, but for anyone who actually wants to have a more serious dialogue with someone, it necessitates a lot of scrolling up and down (and often clicking back into previous pages--without a guide as to what page the rest of the deleted conversation was on).

Limiting it to just to post you're replying to often excises a great deal of context.  (Picture what this post would be if I cut out KJP's post.  There would be no clue as to what Clevelander17 would be trying to do, nor what the quoting set up on the message board automatically does that is messy.)

 

 

True. Sometimes I can just quote the part of the prior message that was directed at me (as with the above). But quoting numerous prior, lengthy messages is what should be avoided. Got it? Good. Move on...

wow good discussion, but all that quoting was making me dizzy lol!

 

i dont think you need to quote at all when the discussion is only between two people and only over the course of a day ot two.

Whatever happened to the planned shared recreation center between Richmond Heights, South Euclid, and University Heights?  About two years ago there was a lot of talk about it (even think it was supposed to be named after the late Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs-Jones) and now I've heard nothing.  What gives?  This would have been great for all cities involved and a nice example of regional collaboration.

^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.

 

Basically resurrecting this thread here, but I had to bold that part about Forest Hills. I've been house hunting lately, mostly in the heights, and was floored when I discovered that this neighborhood was actually in the city of East Cleveland. This is not the type of neighborhood one thinks of when they hear East Cleveland. Unfortunately, this neighborhood comes with the East Cleveland hassles of amenities and unreliable/non existent city services, so it's immediately axed off my list. If you change that to city of Cleveland, you'll have me lined up first to buy a house. Has anyone driven down Brewster Road? I just can't believe this is East Cleveland.

 

A Cleveland annexation of East Cleveland would do wonders. The area immediately north of University Circle is instantly opened up for development and Forest Hills becomes one of Cleveland's nicest residential neighborhoods.

^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.

 

Basically resurrecting this thread here, but I had to bold that part about Forest Hills. I've been house hunting lately, mostly in the heights, and was floored when I discovered that this neighborhood was actually in the city of East Cleveland. This is not the type of neighborhood one thinks of when they hear East Cleveland. Unfortunately, this neighborhood comes with the East Cleveland hassles of amenities and unreliable/non existent city services, so it's immediately axed off my list. If you change that to city of Cleveland, you'll have me lined up first to buy a house. Has anyone driven down Brewster Road? I just can't believe this is East Cleveland.

 

A Cleveland annexation of East Cleveland would do wonders. The area immediately north of University Circle is instantly opened up for development and Forest Hills becomes one of Cleveland's nicest residential neighborhoods.

 

I'm shocked you didn't know this.  There are three forest Hills "neighborhoods".  One in CH, one EC and one in Cleveland.  The EC & CH portions are on the National registor of Historic Places along with the Park.  The East Cleveland portion is more prominent than the CH portion.  Most of EC prominent citizens live in the FH section.

 

I don't like Brewster, too many ranch houses.  Wyatt & Henley, on the other hand, are gorgeous streets!

^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.

 

Basically resurrecting this thread here, but I had to bold that part about Forest Hills. I've been house hunting lately, mostly in the heights, and was floored when I discovered that this neighborhood was actually in the city of East Cleveland. This is not the type of neighborhood one thinks of when they hear East Cleveland. Unfortunately, this neighborhood comes with the East Cleveland hassles of amenities and unreliable/non existent city services, so it's immediately axed off my list. If you change that to city of Cleveland, you'll have me lined up first to buy a house. Has anyone driven down Brewster Road? I just can't believe this is East Cleveland.

 

A Cleveland annexation of East Cleveland would do wonders. The area immediately north of University Circle is instantly opened up for development and Forest Hills becomes one of Cleveland's nicest residential neighborhoods.

 

I recently discovered this area, too.  It also shocked me that such a nice, quiet area could be located within the borders of an otherwise extremely troubled city.  I don't know if you got over to Oakhill Rd. (a few streets over from Brewster), but there are some really unique, beautiful old homes over there, too.

 

However I disagree wholeheartedly with your belief that things would be better for that section of EC if it were part of Cleveland.  IMO, Cleveland can't even properly service the area currently within its borders.  Adding this section to Cleveland, particularly the part that is uphill and somewhat isolated from the rest of the EC, would not necessarily improve things for residents that live there.  That area is a much more natural fit with Cleveland Heights, and if there is any annexation to occur, it should go to Cleveland Heights.

 

Generally-speaking, I really don't understand how the borders ended up like that whenever they were drawn up many decades ago.  Personally I think that, everything west of Belvoir and south of Terrace should be Cleveland Heights.  It would certainly make things much simpler.

I'm shocked you didn't know this.  There are three forest Hills "neighborhoods".  One in CH, one EC and one in Cleveland.  The EC & CH portions are on the National registor of Historic Places along with the Park.  The East Cleveland portion is more prominent than the CH portion.  Most of EC prominent citizens live in the FH section.

 

I never knew there was a "Forest Hills" in Cleveland!  I guess you learn something new everyday.  From looking at maps, it appears that that area is a bit disconnected from the East Cleveland/Cleveland Heights Forest Hills.  Was the Cleveland Forest Hills also originally part of the Rockefeller estate and did Euclid Avenue come through later?  Or was the Cleveland Forest Hills developed independently of the EC/CH Forest Hills and simply borrowed the name from the latter?

minor detail: isn't it called Forest Hill (no "s")? At least I recall that from East Cleveland.

minor detail: isn't it called Forest Hill (no "s")? At least I recall that from East Cleveland.

 

Yeah you're right.  I remember growing up playing baseball at the park and just about everyone called it Forest Hills, so I've been incorrectly referring to it as such for my entire life.

minor detail: isn't it called Forest Hill (no "s")? At least I recall that from East Cleveland.

 

You're correct, but the reason people say "Forest Hills" is because there are two adjacent neighborhoods, two portions of the park, and there is a hill in each section of the park, so the "s" has been added.  Most people who live in either say the Heights Hill or the EC Hill. to differentiate the two.

^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.

 

Basically resurrecting this thread here, but I had to bold that part about Forest Hills. I've been house hunting lately, mostly in the heights, and was floored when I discovered that this neighborhood was actually in the city of East Cleveland. This is not the type of neighborhood one thinks of when they hear East Cleveland. Unfortunately, this neighborhood comes with the East Cleveland hassles of amenities and unreliable/non existent city services, so it's immediately axed off my list. If you change that to city of Cleveland, you'll have me lined up first to buy a house. Has anyone driven down Brewster Road? I just can't believe this is East Cleveland.

 

A Cleveland annexation of East Cleveland would do wonders. The area immediately north of University Circle is instantly opened up for development and Forest Hills becomes one of Cleveland's nicest residential neighborhoods.

 

I recently discovered this area, too.  It also shocked me that such a nice, quiet area could be located within the borders of an otherwise extremely troubled city.  I don't know if you got over to Oakhill Rd. (a few streets over from Brewster), but there are some really unique, beautiful old homes over there, too.

 

However I disagree wholeheartedly with your belief that things would be better for that section of EC if it were part of Cleveland.  IMO, Cleveland can't even properly service the area currently within its borders.  Adding this section to Cleveland, particularly the part that is uphill and somewhat isolated from the rest of the EC, would not necessarily improve things for residents that live there.  That area is a much more natural fit with Cleveland Heights, and if there is any annexation to occur, it should go to Cleveland Heights.

 

Generally-speaking, I really don't understand how the borders ended up like that whenever they were drawn up many decades ago.  Personally I think that, everything west of Belvoir and south of Terrace should be Cleveland Heights.  It would certainly make things much simpler.

 

From memory, Those that live in FH are refereed to as "those on the hill" since its sits above the rest of EC.  The "hill folk" don't want to be associated with economic ill's the lower portion of EC has and at the same time do not want to be apart of CH, because of the high taxes.  I don't see annexation happening, as it wont happen without these people BKA "the haves".

 

I'm shocked you didn't know this.  There are three forest Hills "neighborhoods".  One in CH, one EC and one in Cleveland.  The EC & CH portions are on the National registor of Historic Places along with the Park.  The East Cleveland portion is more prominent than the CH portion.  Most of EC prominent citizens live in the FH section.

 

I never knew there was a "Forest Hills" in Cleveland!  I guess you learn something new everyday.  From looking at maps, it appears that that area is a bit disconnected from the East Cleveland/Cleveland Heights Forest Hills.  Was the Cleveland Forest Hills also originally part of the Rockefeller estate and did Euclid Avenue come through later?  Or was the Cleveland Forest Hills developed independently of the EC/CH Forest Hills and simply borrowed the name from the latter?

 

Yep there is a FH in Cleveland.  According to my Father FH extended from CH/Upper EC all the way to Glenville.  In the Early 1900s the Rockefellers donated the land from the EC Library west toward Superior.  That land was so that  Huron Road Hospital and Kirk School could be built.  That seperated the EC portion of FH from the CLE portion.

 

On a personal note, I can remember a time when the EC section of Lower FH (The section that runs between Superior and forest Hills/Terrace road) was still able to hang with the Cleveland section of FH.  This was a time when there was no blur between Glenville and Forest Hill neighborhood and people boasted about living in either. 

 

In summers I loved going with my cousins to the pool at FH park because it was bigger and nicer than (the newer) Thorton Park.  When we would go to the pool, my grand mother telling us not to be loud when walking on Thornhill, because those families took care of their homes and if she got a call that any of her grand children were thought of as disrespectful, we would all regret it. 

 

My Grandparents lived on the Westside of the Park and my aunt lived on  Thornhill which is the eastside of the Park.  So we would have to walk thru the park to pick up my cousin who was maybe 5 so that the 8 of us could go to the pool together.

 

My parents own a couple of homes in this area and whenever I go down Thornhill, Lakeview or 123 St, I think about how very nice that are was when I look at the conditions of those homes today.

 

The western side of the park has held on, like the East Blvd section of Glenville, but because it's completely cut of from parkwood/105 St. there is no connectivity.  When Lakeview and Linn Road went downhill that created a wedge between the (Upper) Middle Class Glenville and FH neighborhoods. 

^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.

 

Basically resurrecting this thread here, but I had to bold that part about Forest Hills. I've been house hunting lately, mostly in the heights, and was floored when I discovered that this neighborhood was actually in the city of East Cleveland. This is not the type of neighborhood one thinks of when they hear East Cleveland. Unfortunately, this neighborhood comes with the East Cleveland hassles of amenities and unreliable/non existent city services, so it's immediately axed off my list. If you change that to city of Cleveland, you'll have me lined up first to buy a house. Has anyone driven down Brewster Road? I just can't believe this is East Cleveland.

 

A Cleveland annexation of East Cleveland would do wonders. The area immediately north of University Circle is instantly opened up for development and Forest Hills becomes one of Cleveland's nicest residential neighborhoods.

 

I recently discovered this area, too.  It also shocked me that such a nice, quiet area could be located within the borders of an otherwise extremely troubled city.  I don't know if you got over to Oakhill Rd. (a few streets over from Brewster), but there are some really unique, beautiful old homes over there, too.

 

However I disagree wholeheartedly with your belief that things would be better for that section of EC if it were part of Cleveland.  IMO, Cleveland can't even properly service the area currently within its borders.  Adding this section to Cleveland, particularly the part that is uphill and somewhat isolated from the rest of the EC, would not necessarily improve things for residents that live there.  That area is a much more natural fit with Cleveland Heights, and if there is any annexation to occur, it should go to Cleveland Heights.

 

Generally-speaking, I really don't understand how the borders ended up like that whenever they were drawn up many decades ago.  Personally I think that, everything west of Belvoir and south of Terrace should be Cleveland Heights.  It would certainly make things much simpler.

 

From memory, Those that live in FH are refereed to as "those on the hill" since its sits above the rest of EC.  The "hill folk" don't want to be associated with economic ill's the lower portion of EC has and at the same time do not want to be apart of CH, because of the high taxes.  I don't see annexation happening, as it wont happen without these people BKA "the haves".

 

 

You're probably right, but I can dream.  Those people in the FH area of EC are in a tough spot.

In my opinion, as I've said earlier, East Cleveland should either be annexed by the city of Cleveland as a whole or not at all. Several years ago, there were serious talks of East Cleveland being annexed by Cleveland and Cleveland Heights. Of course, Cleveland Heights wanted to take the nice parts and leave Cleveland with the bad parts. Talks were dropped after that, and rightfully so. As a city of Cleveland resident, I would be completely against this kind of arrangement, as it screws the city over. The biggest things that East Cleveland has going for it are its assets (Forest Hill, Forest Hill Park, Nela Park, Windermere, etc.). For the city to annex East Cleveland without the assets defeats the purpose of annexing it. It also drops the value that the city would get in annexation and, from the city of Cleveland perspective, make annexation pointless. Doing it like some have suggested would import all of East Cleveland's problems and export all of its assets. That's stupid. If East Cleveland and Cleveland Heights want to make some sort of merger or annexation agreement between the two of them, that's their business. But I'm not interested in seeing the city of Cleveland get screwed by being in a no-win situation, which is what would happen if CH took all the assets and leave us with the crap. So I still stand by my original point: all of it or none of it.

In my opinion, as I've said earlier, East Cleveland should either be annexed by the city of Cleveland as a whole or not at all. Several years ago, there were serious talks of East Cleveland being annexed by Cleveland and Cleveland Heights. Of course, Cleveland Heights wanted to take the nice parts and leave Cleveland with the bad parts. Talks were dropped after that, and rightfully so. As a city of Cleveland resident, I would be completely against this kind of arrangement, as it screws the city over. The biggest things that East Cleveland has going for it are its assets (Forest Hill, Forest Hill Park, Nela Park, Windermere, etc.). For the city to annex East Cleveland without the assets defeats the purpose of annexing it. It also drops the value that the city would get in annexation and, from the city of Cleveland perspective, make annexation pointless. Doing it like some have suggested would import all of East Cleveland's problems and export all of its assets. That's stupid. If East Cleveland and Cleveland Heights want to make some sort of merger or annexation agreement between the two of them, that's their business. But I'm not interested in seeing the city of Cleveland get screwed by being in a no-win situation, which is what would happen if CH took all the assets and leave us with the crap. So I still stand by my original point: all of it or none of it.

 

It's not a matter of Cleveland Heights taking the "nice" parts and giving Cleveland the "crap."  It's a matter of dividing the city in a logical, straight-forward manner.  The parts of EC that are "up the hill" would make much more sense geographically being part of Cleveland Heights (regardless of what would happen to the other parts).  Take a drive around the area and see for yourself (I did this last week).  This part of EC already feels like it's part of northern Cleveland Heights.  And I think it would be much more efficiently serviced and kept safe by Cleveland Heights than it ever would by Cleveland.  As a matter of fact, I think the isolation of that part of town would become more problematic were it to be swallowed into a larger, more distant entity like Cleveland (and the city leaders of CH should fight this possibility because of its potential impact on CH).

 

Though in fairness, there aren't many good arguments as to why Cleveland should take the other part of EC.  I guess it would be good for the sake of continuity of planning up Euclid Avenue, increased city population, etc.  And if nothing else, not to sound like a jerk, but Cleveland already has so much blight that a little more probably doesn't make that much of a difference right now.

You can call it what you want, but splitting up East Cleveland in the way that you describe would, in fact, give Cleveland Heights the nice parts and leave Cleveland with the bad parts. You can justify it in whatever way you choose to, but the fact remains is that the end result would be what I described earlier. Period.

 

I've taken a drive through the area. Many times. I live about 15 minutes away from it in Cleveland and I drive through it to get to Cleveland Heights. I also go to Forest Hill Park quite a bit so yes I'm very familiar with the area. And I still say that the only way to support a split of East Cleveland in that manner would be if you wanted to deliberately screw the city.

 

So let's say we do your plan and give the nice parts of East Cleveland to Cleveland Heights. The City of Cleveland would most likely say, "never mind. We don't want the rest". So now that leaves what remains of East Cleveland in an even worse shape because now, not only are they left with all of their problems but now all of their assets are gone too. That'd be highway robbery. So splitting the city doesn't work and it doesn't make sense. I want Cleveland to take all of it, but I'd rather have Cleveland Heights take all of it than to do what you're suggesting, which would be disasterous no matter how you look at it. If Cleveland took the bad parts and lost the good parts, it'd be disasterous. If East Cleveland stayed as an independent city and Cleveland Heights took their assets, it'd be disasterous. Its a bad, bad, idea all the way around. That would be like me breaking into your car, taking everything out of it, take out the interior, stealing the tires, stripping the car down to the bare bones and then say, "well here's your car back". There's nothing left but a shell! The car loses value because all of its assets are gone. Now the car is worth 20 bucks. It isn't worth anything! So no, that's a bad plan. It's been a bad plan from the beginning and its a bad plan now. I'd rather leave it like it is than to split it like that. All of it or none of it.

 

And yes, Cleveland taking East Cleveland makes sense from a logistical standpoint, from continuity of development and because (and this'll be a shock to you) Cleveland has the infrastructure and the dollars to grow East Cleveland better than East Cleveland could on its own. That's the biggest point. Yes, the city has its problems, but you seem to think that we can't do anything right. All of the little shots you take at the city illustrate that. From the last time we got into this tussle about the same subject. If you think that Cleveland couldn't take better care of East Cleveland than East Cleveland could, you're out of your mind (or you have an anti-city bias). University Circle Inc by themselves could take better care of East Cleveland than East Cleveland could!

 

Like the old saying goes, "you don't have to help us, but don't hurt us". If you don't believe annexation is a good idea in general, that's fine. But then don't turn around and advocate for a partial annexation by Cleveland Heights that would screw over the city of Cleveland, and you know it would. (Whether you want to admit to that fact or not)

 

You'll say you're not trying to screw the city, but the end result of doing it like you have suggested would be that the city gets screwed. So you may or may not be intentionally or deliberately supporting a plan that would screw the city, but the fact remains that that's a plan that would end up screwing the city of Cleveland. That's why the city rejected it in the first place when it was first talked about a few years ago.

 

You don't have to advocate for the city, but don't advocate for screwing the city either.