Either way, Cleveland's going to have to outlay more than it brings in for extending more services to EC. Getting the whole city would make it a little easier, though, and I think most people agree that something needs to be done for the sake of EC residents. Getting all of Euclid Avenue and the park and etc are just nice long-term planning benefits for Cleveland.

 

Sometimes I wish we had a heavier hand of government that would come in and decree, 'You Shall Be One City, Hence' and force the issue. For the sake of simplicity, and getting it done and helping everyone who will be affected, I'd say Cleveland should take it all. And are services in Forest Hills notably better than in the rest of EC right now? If so, is that really because of the city, or because of the residents? Not sure there'd be a big change.

Either way, Cleveland's going to have to outlay more than it brings in for extending more services to EC. Getting the whole city would make it a little easier, though, and I think most people agree that something needs to be done for the sake of EC residents. Getting all of Euclid Avenue and the park and etc are just nice long-term planning benefits for Cleveland.

 

Sometimes I wish we had a heavier hand of government that would come in and decree, 'You Shall Be One City, Hence' and force the issue. For the sake of simplicity, and getting it done and helping everyone who will be affected, I'd say Cleveland should take it all. And are services in Forest Hills notably better than in the rest of EC right now? If so, is that really because of the city, or because of the residents? Not sure there'd be a big change.

:clap: You hit the nail on the head right there. That is absolutely right. That's what it's really about. The folks.

 

Now I know that in most cases, the state could dissolve a county whenever they choose to because a county is nothing more than an extension of the state. In charter governments like ours and Summit, we get some additional "home rule" privileges, but its still essentially part of the state. With municipalities, there's the Home Rule clause in our state constitution. I think that's why its so hard to get some of these municipalities off of the books. Because some states do not have that clause, and they can merge or break up cities as they please. I don't know if there's a provision in our Home Rule clause that gives our state that kind of power. Can you or anyone else help me with that? I'm not sure. It's been a while since I read through our state constitution.

For the primary source, the Ohio constitutional text itself regarding municipal corporations, see here:  http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/constitution.cfm?Part=18&ExpandSections=Yes

 

It doesn't say anything particularly specific about mergers or annexations.  Likewise, the home rule clause itself (s.6) provides that "any municipality may frame and adopt or amend a charter for its government and may, subject to the provisions of section 3 of this article, exercise thereunder all powers of local self-government," and the section 3 referenced there provides that "municipalities shall have authority to exercise all powers of local self-government and to adopt and enforce within their limits such local police, sanitary and other similar regulations, as are not in conflict with general laws."

 

I think there was a recent Ohio Supreme Court decision that held that the requirement that such local laws not be "in conflict with general laws" gave the Ohio legislature fairly broad authority to overturn municipal legislation--I think they did it for local safety worker residency requirements (i.e., you can be a police officer in East Cleveland without actually living there).  I haven't looked that up, though (and municipal law is my hobby, not my breadwinning skill set).  I'm also not sure if it would be a different story if one were talking about merging an entire chartered municipality into another as opposed to simply placing limits on certain powers that can be exercised by chartered municipalities.  Still, I think that the real obstacle towards regionalism is the state legislature isn't inclined to pursue it in the first place, not that the legislature lacks the constitutional authority to do so.

Either way, Cleveland's going to have to outlay more than it brings in for extending more services to EC. Getting the whole city would make it a little easier, though, and I think most people agree that something needs to be done for the sake of EC residents. Getting all of Euclid Avenue and the park and etc are just nice long-term planning benefits for Cleveland.

 

Sometimes I wish we had a heavier hand of government that would come in and decree, 'You Shall Be One City, Hence' and force the issue. For the sake of simplicity, and getting it done and helping everyone who will be affected, I'd say Cleveland should take it all. And are services in Forest Hills notably better than in the rest of EC right now? If so, is that really because of the city, or because of the residents? Not sure there'd be a big change.

 

Well there is this issue in both cities FH sections called the FH Home Owners Association & Historic Preservation Society.  IIRC there is some "deed" issues that my preclude the FH Section as a whole from being split.  Its length was something like 100 years from inception of the development.

Either way, Cleveland's going to have to outlay more than it brings in for extending more services to EC.

 

That's why Cleveland won't do it. Several city council members I asked about it responded off the record in almost the same way: "what would East Cleveland contribute to Cleveland?" They predicted that annexing East Cleveland would end up hurting Cleveland financially, unless some fire, EMS, police and other city services could be reduced as a result.

^That's short-sighted on their part, IMO.  I suppose that accusation has been tossed about with respect to city council a few times in the past.

 

I can sympathize with your concerns inlovewithCLE, but take a look at it without the emotion.  There is no way, no how Cleveland Heights will annex ALL of EC.  That option is off the table and not even worthy of discussion.  At most, they would take the parts in the "heights" (i.e. up the hill, south of Terrace).  But I would disagree that those are the only promising parts.  The real potential in EC may be what I think is called "the lost triangle" near UC.  If that area becomes part of Cleveland, then its potential goes up 10 fold.  The simple fact that it sits in EC surely scares private developers away.  But if it could be consided an extension of UC, the outlook changes.  You also have to consider that EC is incredibly small, land-wise, and basically cuts a square right out of Cleveland proper, geographically speaking.  It really is in Cleveland's best interest to stabilize that area.  Get some cops on the beat there and crime off the street.  EC's biggest problem is that its biggest street level deterrent is the traffic cameras.  If the problems are not contained, they will continue to spill over into UC, Glenville, Collinwood and other Cleveland neighborhoods which could easily gentrify over the next few decades.  Some areas of EC will always be bad, but annexation would take away the lines that say all of it must be bad.  So.... I can see why you would advocate for the "nicer" parts, but the "all or nothing" approach is probably not in the City's best interest long term.  Don't let the infection fester or we will all regret it. 

 

And to be clear, part of my rationale is that while I think the residents of the "nicer" parts of EC would agree (as required) to be annexed by Cleveland Heights, those same residents would only increase resistance to any move by Cleveland.  If it was only the lake-level parts of EC, then the chances of resident approval would increase dramatically.  JMO and total speculation

 

More important than anything else is that these mergers/annexations could be viewed as the first dominoes.  You have to start somwhere and there are few areas which make so much sense to start with.

 

For the primary source, the Ohio constitutional text itself regarding municipal corporations, see here:  http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/constitution.cfm?Part=18&ExpandSections=Yes

 

It doesn't say anything particularly specific about mergers or annexations.  Likewise, the home rule clause itself (s.6) provides that "any municipality may frame and adopt or amend a charter for its government and may, subject to the provisions of section 3 of this article, exercise thereunder all powers of local self-government," and the section 3 referenced there provides that "municipalities shall have authority to exercise all powers of local self-government and to adopt and enforce within their limits such local police, sanitary and other similar regulations, as are not in conflict with general laws."

 

I think there was a recent Ohio Supreme Court decision that held that the requirement that such local laws not be "in conflict with general laws" gave the Ohio legislature fairly broad authority to overturn municipal legislation--I think they did it for local safety worker residency requirements (i.e., you can be a police officer in East Cleveland without actually living there).  I haven't looked that up, though (and municipal law is my hobby, not my breadwinning skill set).  I'm also not sure if it would be a different story if one were talking about merging an entire chartered municipality into another as opposed to simply placing limits on certain powers that can be exercised by chartered municipalities.  Still, I think that the real obstacle towards regionalism is the state legislature isn't inclined to pursue it in the first place, not that the legislature lacks the constitutional authority to do so.

 

The residency decision is not applicable.  That dealt with an analysis of conflicts between Art II, Sec. 34 vs. Art. XVIII, Sec. 3 as to which section overrides the other.  The supreme court ruled that whenever a law is passed under Art II, Sec. 34, then home rule analysis goes out the window and need not even be considered.  But in cases when home rule is to be considered, then yes, laws of a general nature are not trumped by home rule.  On the other hand, laws of purely local concern are never trumped by conflicting state laws.  It's more complicated than that of course, but that is the basic gyst.

 

For rules regarding annexation, I covered that earlier in this thread but can't find it now.  The procedures and requirements are covered by the R.C., I believe..... Title VII to be exact.

Either way, Cleveland's going to have to outlay more than it brings in for extending more services to EC.

 

That's why Cleveland won't do it. Several city council members I asked about it responded off the record in almost the same way: "what would East Cleveland contribute to Cleveland?" They predicted that annexing East Cleveland would end up hurting Cleveland financially, unless some fire, EMS, police and other city services could be reduced as a result.

 

Thats what I told you guys along time ago...

Regardless of what City Council members have told anyone off the record, I can assure you that there has been some serious talks about extending emergency response services into E Cleveland, especially Fire and EMS.  That's not anywhere close to annexation, but it is a step in the right direction.

I think that if University Circle development keeps spilling over into East Cleveland, then you will see the attitudes of City Council change.

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.

 

It's not some wild justification to simply give CH the "nice" parts and "screw" Cleveland.  The split I am backing makes sense based on a number of different criteria.

 

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.

 

Let's be clear here, I don't want to deliberately screw the city (I assume we're talking about Cleveland here), I just don't care that much or, more accurately, even think it's really that big of a deal.  We're talking about what here, maybe 2 square miles and maybe 12,000 people?

 

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.

 

I think this is overstating the reality of the situation (and the analogy is a bit of a stretch, too).  It would make zero sense for Cleveland Heights to, under any circumstance, ever take any part of East Cleveland that was down the hill (let's say anything roughly north of Euclid Avenue).  Further, if that part of East Cleveland were to merge into Cleveland, it probably wouldn't matter that much if it came with the "uphill" part of the city or not, because we're not talking about a big area or large amount of people.  That part of East Cleveland could very easily be rolled into Cleveland.  As I stated above, I understand the argument as to why you think the uphill part of East Cleveland must be part of the "package," I just don't agree with the amount of urgency you place on 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!

 

Sorry but you'll never convince me that the city, in the current state it's in, has its own house in order or could handle a larger footprint*.  But since you feel so strongly about the power of regionalism and the economies of scale that potentially come with mergers, then I'm not sure why you suddenly lose confidence in the possibility of Cleveland annexation of East Cleveland if it doesn't include the uphill portion of the city.  I understand why you want that area to be part of Cleveland, but I also think your argument as to why you need it contradicts your beliefs about regionalism a bit.

 

*This is part of the reason why no matter what happens, in my opinion Cleveland Heights needs to fight the possibility of Cleveland taking over any land that is uphill.  In my opinion Cleveland will do little better at managing that area than East Cleveland does.

 

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)

 

I don't think it would "screw" Cleveland.  I mean, the city wouldn't fall off a cliff it my scenario played out, would it?  As a general rule, I think regionalism/annexation, when done correctly, can indeed improve cities. 

I was thinking of this earlier when I was away from my computer, but maybe a deal could be brokered where Cleveland and Cleveland Heights split East Cleveland itself AND evenly (or proportionally) split all of the tax revenues (for maybe like 30 years or something), as well.  For instance, though Nela Park may mostly or completely end up within the new boundaries of Cleveland Heights, CH and Cleveland could split all income and property taxes generated by the complex.  Heck if Cleveland were to be taking roughly 65-70% of the territory and population, maybe they get that same percent of the new tax revenues.  I don't know, perhaps this is something that would make it more palatable for Cleveland.  Just a thought, thinking like a "regionalist." ;)

Here's regionalism for you: Don't stay in Downtown Cleveland or eat at those restaurants or hold your meeting there, come to Beachwood instead!

 

http://beachwood.patch.com/articles/beachwood-city-council-hears-details-of-convention-and-visitors-bureau-proposal#photo-9109431

 

Here's regionalism for you: Don't stay in Downtown Cleveland or eat at those restaurants or hold your meeting there, come to Beachwood instead!

 

http://beachwood.patch.com/articles/beachwood-city-council-hears-details-of-convention-and-visitors-bureau-proposal#photo-9109431

 

 

Non issue.  The bigger issues they wont sign the anti poaching agreement with the City.

^That should be newsworthy for a newspaper which is promoting regionalism.  Makes no sense why the paper hasn't put Beachwood on blast yet.

^That should be newsworthy for a newspaper which is promoting regionalism.  Makes no sense why the paper hasn't put Beachwood on blast yet.

 

Agreed!

While I'm initially skeptical of any plans that might be perceived as trying to poach business from downtown, I think MTS may have a point here.  The article notes that the proposed study is to examine whether Beachwood could viably become a destination for "secondary" (the article's own word) conventions in the range of ~500 attendees.  If the point of the original post was to suggest that this would be an attempt to poach convention business from downtown, I think that's a stretch.  That's like suggesting that high school baseball competes with the Indians.  Technically true (one could choose to attend a high school baseball game instead of an Indians game on the same night), but the competition doesn't really seem to be too direct.

Beachwood and regionalism?  Doubtful.  That city as much as any in Northeast Ohio is only looking out for #1.  All of its neighbors should install tolls on all of the roads into and out of the city.

Please pay the Stepford Wives as you arrive....

 

Interesting piece on Cuyahoga County and mergers (with the author's own proposal):

 

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/08/redraw_cuyahoga_county_to_eras.html

And playing around with the graphic on the Cleveland.com, here's how I would tentatively re-draw municipality lines in Cuyahoga County:

 

Don't forget Linndale, although I'm tempted to make the entire county one color and have Linndale all on it's own.

Glad to see this discussion is taking place, and I commend the PD's Joe Frolik for pushing it.

 

I agree on merging into a city-county government, and using Cleveland's Council/Community Development Corp. model for managing it. The council member represents the area served by the CDC and provides a base level of funding to the CDC. The CDC has a board of trustees from its area elected by persons who attend the annual meeting. Each neighborhood is part of Cleveland, but is encouraged to seek and develop its own identity, plans, code enforcement, block clubs, safety, etc.

I think the biggest push back will be the school district issues. I think if Cuyahoga were to merge completely with Cleveland the larger/better districts should be merged with smaller ones. There's no need for some of the smaller cities/villages to have their own school system.

 

In Richmond Heights' case, which is also a small district of 1,000 residents, it is facing a hug financial short fall which threatens its survival. I wonder how many other districts in the county are this close to being insolvent and would benefit from being merged.

 

If the merger were to start with merged services/Police/Fire/Garbage etc., which let people see merging isn't all bad then maybe we could talk about combining municipalities.

Here's what I submitted. Euclid and Solon are purposefully left alone. I could put a lot of notes and caveats in here, but I'll just leave it at school districts were not a consideration since we were only dealing with combining existing municipalities, and not even redrawing some lines.

 

 

 

I think the biggest push back will be the school district issues. I think if Cuyahoga were to merge completely with Cleveland the larger/better districts should be merged with smaller ones. There's no need for some of the smaller cities/villages to have their own school system.

 

In Richmond Heights' case, which is also a small district of 1,000 residents, it is facing a hug financial short fall which threatens its survival. I wonder how many other districts in the county are this close to being insolvent and would benefit from being merged.

 

If the merger were to start with merged services/Police/Fire/Garbage etc., which let people see merging isn't all bad then maybe we could talk about combining municipalities.

 

School districts are completely independent entities from municipalities.  Legally they are pretty much their own level of government.  When talking of merging municipalities, school districts need not even come into the discussion...though I'm guessing that a lot of people might be confused by this and that could stall progress.

 

That's not to say that merging school districts also wouldn't be a good idea.  Right off the bat I think that Richmond Heights CSD should be merge into the South Euclid-Lyndhurst CSD.  I could bore with some others that I've thought of that I think would make sense but I won't do it right now because it's a long list.

Here's what I submitted. Euclid and Solon are purposefully left alone. I could put a lot of notes and caveats in here, but I'll just leave it at school districts were not a consideration since we were only dealing with combining existing municipalities, and not even redrawing some lines.

 

 

I like what you did with the Hillcrest cities.  I think that makes sense, but I also think that you'd have some problems with getting residents of Highland Heights and Mayfield Village on board.  Also if I'm a resident of UH (oh wait, I am) I think throwing SH into the mix makes a merger with CH (and to a lesser extent, SE) more palatable.  But SH residents probably run to the hills with the thought of associating with CH and SE.  I can't get speak to the specific difficulties in getting the Southeastern suburbs in joining with Cleveland, but I do think there'd be some big challenges in doing so...particularly in places like Garfield Heights and Cuyahoga Heights, and perhaps even Maple Heights.  Lot of, um, pride in those areas.

 

I'm going to keep playing around with this map...it's pretty fun.  I do agree, though, that it's a little bit imperfect because you can't change borders, which in some cases I think would be necessary.

I think the best bet is to start slow, with the obvious merger candidates and the less exciting but still important service consolidations. Merge a handful over the next 3-5 years and then determine how to proceed - nobody will stand for a rapid merger process unless there is an obvious benefit to all, and 'we'll save money' is a dubious argument, at least in the short term (which, if this comes to a vote, is what will be foremost in peoples' minds).

I wonder how much the State's cutbacks to municipalities may affect cities thinking about merging?

I wonder how much the State's cutbacks to municipalities may affect cities thinking about merging?

 

A lot. It was cited as a major motivation in the PD article.

 

As for Shaker Heights not wanting to merge, that may be true of residents in the northern/eastern part of the city, but the southern/western part is not wealthy. It heavily middle-class black like much of UH and CH.

I wonder how much the State's cutbacks to municipalities may affect cities thinking about merging?

 

A lot. It was cited as a major motivation in the PD article.

 

As for Shaker Heights not wanting to merge, that may be true of residents in the northern/eastern part of the city, but the southern/western part is not wealthy. It heavily middle-class black like much of UH and CH.

 

SH is an interesting case study.  I think it would be a potential great merger partner for either UH or Beachwood, and a decent merger partner for CH.  I also think that SH would be one of the last ones to the regioanlism table, because it has a perception to maintain, even if that perception is built on a legacy from half a century ago that's hardly based in reality these days. 

 

I'd be okay with the state slashing the budget and cutting back aid to municipalities if, and ONLY if, this is to be follow by a state income tax cut.  Taxes could then be raised and collected on a more local basis and ultimately more of that money would be staying local. 

I'd be okay with the state slashing the budget and cutting back aid to municipalities if, and ONLY if, this is to be follow by a state income tax cut.  Taxes could then be raised and collected on a more local basis and ultimately more of that money would be staying local. 

Personally the local income tax system is a big enough pain as it is. If local taxes were collected regionally or by county rather than by each city I'd be much more in favor of shifting taxes from the state to the localities. With cities as small geographically as ours are, it just doesn't make sense for each to set it's own rates. We should collect at a single rate for the whole county and then if a city needs/wants additional income it should come from property taxes IMO.

You probably need to look at where mergers have actually happened in Ohio to understand what it really takes for one to come to fruition. Cuyahoga Falls merged with a township in the 1980s.  It was a methodical, transparent process. The urgency was that Akron was constantly biting off chunks in annexing bit by bit.  It was decided it would be better to control the fate of the township than let Akron grab all the tax-producing pieces of land.

A merger study was implemented and voted on by voters. A year or 2 later a vote was held again in both communities on whether to merge. The study explained ramifications and educated the voters in a series of community meetings.  It passed in both communities and Cuyahoga Falls doubled in size but only added a few thousand people but plenty of land to grow. Money was saved. New zoning rules implemented to preserve character of township.  I'd say it was a success.

  My understanding is there has been less than a handful of mergers in Ohio. Annexations aplenty of course. 

The most logical place for a merger at grassroots is n. randall as they are about to lose their reason for being(thistledown) to Summit County. I haven't heard anything yet as part of a merger study to begin. Maybe they are waiting until when it is officially announced.

 

Personally the local income tax system is a big enough pain as it is. If local taxes were collected regionally or by county rather than by each city I'd be much more in favor of shifting taxes from the state to the localities. With cities as small geographically as ours are, it just doesn't make sense for each to set it's own rates. We should collect at a single rate for the whole county and then if a city needs/wants additional income it should come from property taxes IMO.

 

Yeah, I can agree with that, especially if part of that meant cleaning up the local income tax code and it eliminates this situation where certain municipalities are able to sit back and rake in money from non-residents who spend ~40 hours a week in office buildings.

 

But in general I don't think it's a terrible idea to try to put more money in the hands of local governments and less in the hands of the state government.

You probably need to look at where mergers have actually happened in Ohio to understand what it really takes for one to come to fruition. Cuyahoga Falls merged with a township in the 1980s.  It was a methodical, transparent process. The urgency was that Akron was constantly biting off chunks in annexing bit by bit.  It was decided it would be better to control the fate of the township than let Akron grab all the tax-producing pieces of land.

A merger study was implemented and voted on by voters. A year or 2 later a vote was held again in both communities on whether to merge. The study explained ramifications and educated the voters in a series of community meetings.  It passed in both communities and Cuyahoga Falls doubled in size but only added a few thousand people but plenty of land to grow. Money was saved. New zoning rules implemented to preserve character of township.  I'd say it was a success.

  My understanding is there has been less than a handful of mergers in Ohio. Annexations aplenty of course. 

The most logical place for a merger at grassroots is n. randall as they are about to lose their reason for being(thistledown) to Summit County. I haven't heard anything yet as part of a merger study to begin. Maybe they are waiting until when it is officially announced.

 

 

I didn't think a vote was necessary for a city to merge with a township.  If it was, then the threat from Akron wasn't a real threat because citizens could just vote it down, right? 

 

As for North Randall, was the city formed because of Thistledown?  Or is that its main benefactor, either way, it and Highland Hills (specifically formed for Figgie International) should most definitely merge with Warrensville Heights.  The three already share a school district, so this one is a no-brainer to me.

Personally the local income tax system is a big enough pain as it is. If local taxes were collected regionally or by county rather than by each city I'd be much more in favor of shifting taxes from the state to the localities. With cities as small geographically as ours are, it just doesn't make sense for each to set it's own rates. We should collect at a single rate for the whole county and then if a city needs/wants additional income it should come from property taxes IMO.

 

Yeah, I can agree with that, especially if part of that meant cleaning up the local income tax code and it eliminates this situation where certain municipalities are able to sit back and rake in money from non-residents who spend ~40 hours a week in office buildings.

 

But in general I don't think it's a terrible idea to try to put more money in the hands of local governments and less in the hands of the state government.

I'm not sure we do agree. If I work in one city and live in another, why shouldn't both receive some of my tax money? Both provide roads that I travel on, water that I drink, pick up my trash, parks for me to walk through, provide police fire and ambulances for emergencies for me. I work in Cleveland but live in Willoughby, why shouldn't Cleveland get a bit of my taxes?

 

Obviously this is an issue that would have to be discussed and negotiated if we were to adjust our current local income tax system as part of a regionalism plan. I don't know of a good solution, but the current situation is a mess and yet just paying taxes to the city where one lives seems to screw the city in favor of the suburbs while just paying taxes to the city where one works seems to screw the suburbs and intensifies the taxation without representation situation.

North Randall track was started when the Glenville race track moved to it, as the North Randall Race Track offering harness, steeplechase and motorcycle racing. Then Thistledown came along. The North Randall Race Track was sold to DeBartolo and was demolished for Randall Park Mall, with countless outlot retailers following. The community's standing as a retail mecca lasted less than 20 years. Thistledown was small by comparison to the retail, but now is the largest single employer remaining.

 

Why would anyone want to take on this financial hole as-is? I asked a Cleveland City Councilman about merging with East Cleveland. The councilman made the same point. What would it contribute to Cleveland? What does North Randall contribute to Warrensville Heights or another nearby community? If it doesn't contribute anything or save any money, why do it?

 

If a merger does take place between a have and a have-not (or even a weak city and a weaker one), there needs to be something put in place before the merger helps ease or reduce the weakening impacts on the stronger community in the near term. And it needs to offer an opportunity for growth over the long term.

 

The old saying goes: when two poor people get married, they don't stop being poor. They often get  poorer.

I'm not sure we do agree. If I work in one city and live in another, why shouldn't both receive some of my tax money? Both provide roads that I travel on, water that I drink, pick up my trash, parks for me to walk through, provide police fire and ambulances for emergencies for me. I work in Cleveland but live in Willoughby, why shouldn't Cleveland get a bit of my taxes?

 

A bit of your taxes?  Sure.  A full share (in some places more than your municipality of residence)?  I don't think that's right.

 

Obviously this is an issue that would have to be discussed and negotiated if we were to adjust our current local income tax system as part of a regionalism plan. I don't know of a good solution, but the current situation is a mess and yet just paying taxes to the city where one lives seems to screw the city in favor of the suburbs while just paying taxes to the city where one works seems to screw the suburbs and intensifies the taxation without representation situation.

 

Agreed.  But at the end of the day, I think a strong argument can/should be made that one's city of residence, where almost everyone spends the majority of their time, should get a larger share.

 

Under the current system, the inner-ring suburbs are getting "screwed" the most in my opinion and for no logical reason.  I'd like to see that changed.

North Randall was started when the Glenville race track moved to it, as the North Randall Race Track offering harness, steeplechase and motorcycle racing. Then Thistledown came along. The North Randall Race Track was sold to DeBartolo and was demolished for Randall Park Mall, with countless outlot retailers following. The community's standing as a retail mecca lasted less than 20 years. Thistledown was small by comparison to the retail, but now is the largest single employer remaining.

 

Why would anyone want to take on this financial hole as-is? I asked a Cleveland City Councilman about merging with East Cleveland. The councilman made the same point. What would it contribute to Cleveland? What does North Randall contribute to Warrensville Heights or another nearby community? If it doesn't contribute anything or save any money, why do it?

 

If a merger does take place between a have and a have-not (or even a weak city and a weaker one), there needs to be something put in place before the merger helps ease or reduce the weakening impacts on the stronger community in the near term. And it needs to offer an opportunity for long-term growth over the long term.

 

The old saying goes: when two poor people get married, they don't stop being poor. They often get  poorer.

 

In North Randall's case, I would hope that some potential future open land may be a draw.  If nothing else, Warrensville Heights shares a school district with North Randall, so the bigger of a hole it becomes, the more it drags on the area as a "whole."

 

In regards to East Cleveland, I do think it has some nice assets, both uphill and even downhill with some of Euclid Avenue being revitalized.  But this is the interesting thing about the regionalism discussion, and one that you should point out to the councilwoman if you ever speak to her again.  The argument she's using to poo-poo a merger with East Cleveland is the same argument that suburbanites use in refusing to cooperate and work with Cleveland.

What would happen to cities, like North Randall and Richmond Heights, if they don't merge and/or go bankrupt? Would they no longer be cities and then be taken over by the state?

 

Edit: Nevermind, I already knew the answer. I guess I'm just a little slow today :oops:

 

I wonder how much the State's cutbacks to municipalities may affect cities thinking about merging?

 

A lot. It was cited as a major motivation in the PD article.

 

As for Shaker Heights not wanting to merge, that may be true of residents in the northern/eastern part of the city, but the southern/western part is not wealthy. It heavily middle-class black like much of UH and CH.

 

SH is an interesting case study.  I think it would be a potential great merger partner for either UH or Beachwood, and a decent merger partner for CH.  I also think that SH would be one of the last ones to the regioanlism table, because it has a perception to maintain, even if that perception is built on a legacy from half a century ago that's hardly based in reality these days. 

 

I'd be okay with the state slashing the budget and cutting back aid to municipalities if, and ONLY if, this is to be follow by a state income tax cut.  Taxes could then be raised and collected on a more local basis and ultimately more of that money would be staying local. 

 

Beachwood could be a possibility for Shaker Heights, but likley the only somewhat realistic one.

 

I mean we just bought in Shaker, and we are paying dearly for the differences that those costs give us (in a still beautiful area with likely the least amount of the issues that surrounding communities are having to deal with).  If we had bought in CH, heck yeah we would have wanted to merge with Shaker, but given that Shaker residents just overwhelmingly passed a payrole tax increase in a severly over taxed community tells me that they are willing to pay just about anything to grasp onto the remaining high standards and quality of life they have left (one that has largely departed the majority of the other areas and county) 

I don't mean this to be snide at all, but what "high standards and quality of life" do you have in SH that I do not have in CH?

I wonder how much the State's cutbacks to municipalities may affect cities thinking about merging?

 

A lot. It was cited as a major motivation in the PD article.

 

As for Shaker Heights not wanting to merge, that may be true of residents in the northern/eastern part of the city, but the southern/western part is not wealthy. It heavily middle-class black like much of UH and CH.

 

SH is an interesting case study.  I think it would be a potential great merger partner for either UH or Beachwood, and a decent merger partner for CH.  I also think that SH would be one of the last ones to the regioanlism table, because it has a perception to maintain, even if that perception is built on a legacy from half a century ago that's hardly based in reality these days. 

 

I'd be okay with the state slashing the budget and cutting back aid to municipalities if, and ONLY if, this is to be follow by a state income tax cut.  Taxes could then be raised and collected on a more local basis and ultimately more of that money would be staying local. 

 

Beachwood could be a possibility for Shaker Heights, but likley the only somewhat realistic one.

 

I mean we just bought in Shaker, and we are paying dearly for the differences that those costs give us (in a still beautiful area with likely the least amount of the issues that surrounding communities are having to deal with).  If we had bought in CH, heck yeah we would have wanted to merge with Shaker, but given that Shaker residents just overwhelmingly passed a payrole tax increase in a severly over taxed community tells me that they are willing to pay just about anything to grasp onto the remaining high standards and quality of life they have left (one that has largely departed the majority of the other areas and county) 

 

I think that UH might be the other realistic merger possibility for SH.  Similar in a lot of ways, including taxes and government structure.  UH doesn't have the areas of extreme wealth that SH has, but it does have a decent chunk of middle-class that might be attractive.  Also UH has JCU, which is a big income tax generator.  I think the two suburbs would get along nicely, though I am a bit biased.

I don't mean this to be snide at all, but what "high standards and quality of life" do you have in SH that I do not have in CH?

 

Backyard trash pickup.  Duh.

Well, most all services and certainly schools are better.  There is better police response etc (there are certainly less problem areas other that a couple of borders, therefore they can concentrate more on regular police things). 

Also lots of likely unnecessary things that may be obsolete in this day and age..., but the residents feel it differentiates their community. 

 

As a result resale value is much better in Shaker (but also a high price to pay for that) 

I don't mean this to be snide at all, but what "high standards and quality of life" do you have in SH that I do not have in CH?

 

Backyard trash pickup.  Duh.

 

Haha.  Fair enough!

I don't mean this to be snide at all, but what "high standards and quality of life" do you have in SH that I do not have in CH?

 

Backyard trash pickup.  Duh.

 

Haha.  Fair enough!

 

Thats what Im talkin about....

Well, most all services and certainly schools are better.  There is better police response etc (there are certainly less problem areas other that a couple of borders, therefore they can concentrate more on regular police things). 

Also lots of likely unnecessary things that may be obsolete in this day and age..., but the residents feel it differentiates their community. 

 

As a result resale value is much better in Shaker (but also a high price to pay for that) 

 

I'm not looking to trash talk (no pun intended) SH.  I like SH, I really do (well, except their commercial districts).  While I am sure CH has more crime than SH, CH has a tremendous police department and has a very large force.  Luckily, I have not had to call the police before, but I have not heard concerns about response times.  As to the schools, yes, SH are a bit better, but those are primarily funded by property taxes anyway.  Regardless, we both pay a ton of $ to live where we choose, both in income (since I work outside CH, as most CH residents do) and property taxes.

Neither Shaker Heights or Cleveland Heights have that great of a highschool. University Heights highschool is far worse than both. None of their Middle Schools are good either, most being rated "Continuous Improvement", which is below effective. Monticello Middle School in Cleveland Heights is "Academic Watch"

 

Systemwide Shaker Heights is graded Effective, meeting 22 out of 26 State Indicators, with a performance index of 98.6, which is out of 120 points.

 

Systemwide Cleveland Heights/University Heights is graded Continuous Improvement, meeting 10 out of 26 State Indicators, with a performance index of 87.3, which is out of 120 points.

Well, most all services and certainly schools are better.  There is better police response etc (there are certainly less problem areas other that a couple of borders, therefore they can concentrate more on regular police things). 

Also lots of likely unnecessary things that may be obsolete in this day and age..., but the residents feel it differentiates their community. 

 

As a result resale value is much better in Shaker (but also a high price to pay for that) 

 

I'm not looking to trash talk (no pun intended) SH.  I like SH, I really do (well, except their commercial districts).  While I am sure CH has more crime than SH, CH has a tremendous police department and has a very large force.  Luckily, I have not had to call the police before, but I have not heard concerns about response times.  As to the schools, yes, SH are a bit better, but those are primarily funded by property taxes anyway.  Regardless, we both pay a ton of $ to live where we choose, both in income (since I work outside CH, as most CH residents do) and property taxes.

 

Oh trust me I have done at least a few years of analysis now, and agree much of it is based on perception.  I  actually likke Cleveland Heights alot, but alot of the school issues with CH has more to do with the higher amount of diversity and the fact that in CH there are likely more un-engaged parents there. 

 

Of course I realize that the taxes are not too different, but with that we chose the more stable community (at least on the surface).  There is just currently a greater chance of further loss in property value in Cleveland Heights, not something you want to see when making a hefty investment.

Thus likely why Im thinking in ways that I didnt just a couple of years ago. 

 

Agree about the commercial districts in Shaker.   

Neither Shaker Heights or Cleveland Heights have that great of a highschool. University Heights highschool is far worse than both. None of their Middle Schools are good either, most being rated "Continuous Improvement", which is below effective. Monticello Middle School in Cleveland Heights is "Academic Watch"

 

Systemwide Shaker Heights is graded Effective, meeting 22 out of 26 State Indicators, with a performance index of 98.6, which is out of 120 points.

 

Systemwide Cleveland Heights/University Heights is graded Continuous Improvement, meeting 10 out of 26 State Indicators, with a performance index of 87.3, which is out of 120 points.

 

Also likely a much higher percentage of SH residents sending their kids to one of the private schools there than even compared to pretty recently. 

 

But its also interesting to note that most of the housing areas of Shaker are well above the 200,000 range, its really only what borders Cleveland that goes below that.