This Agenda 21 thing (i.e. people protesting it) is just anti-urbanism.  Those who favor urbanism need to be as politically active as possible, because the vast majority really don't care and will accept the anti-urban position if it's all they hear.  Also, it would be nice if city leaders, particularly those in marketing and tourism, would take up the cause.

A UN-sponsored effort to change the way people live in the name of a somewhat nebulous concept like “sustainability” is going to trigger just about every conservative alarm there is.  It reeks of forcible “solutions” to problems which may or may not exist, and it certainly sounds like the “one size fits all” approach that I suspect even devoted urban planners would concede exists  among their lazier colleagues.

 

I agree, which is one reason I always make urbanist arguments with a frame of reference at most national in scope (not international), and preferably as local as possible.  Unfortunately, very few liberals (who are still the dominant voice in urbanist discussions, even though that is not necessary or immutable) are both able and willing to train their ears to hear those conservative alarm bells, and anticipate them.  Even the word "sustainability" itself has become politically charged, and of course, no one attempting to make an argument receptive to a conservative audience should use "the U.N. supports X" in any fashion, no matter how many Republicans might have signed on.  (Conservatives are suspicious of many Republicans after the GOP-led spending binge from 2000-2008.)

 

Since I do indeed believe that people who are free to do so will choose a “sprawled” lifestyle, I sort of feel like Judge Mulreedy on my favorite “West Wing” episode, who can’t resist telling people the best way to advocate positions with which he personally disagrees to people close to his mindset.  But you want to stress the local nature of your proposed solutions if you want to sell them to those who are suspicious of big intrusive government.

 

I actually agree with the second part of this even though I disagree with the first.  I believe that government creates perverse incentives for suburban development by heavily subsidizing autocentric infrastructure (not just roads of all kinds, but other physical infrastructure necessary for civilized life in a developed country, which all levels of government subsidize well beyond the point of maximum per capita efficiency).  If free to choose absent the indirect government financial influence on their minds, I believe that far greater numbers of people would choose urban neighborhood living.  In addition, I believe that that would create a self-reinforcing circle: a moderate number of people would choose urban neighborhood living (as well as urban-core high-rise residential living, which I think is worth distinguishing even from urban neighborhood living), which would then affect the quality of life and quality of schools in the neighborhood, which would open the way for yet more to move in.

 

The policy changes that could foster this are generally as consistent with conservative principles as they are with liberal ones; conservatives haven't developed them because they have essentially abandoned the urbanist debate as an arena where they will never get a fair hearing.  They'd rather defend their suburban and exurban strongholds.  Of course, as the recent election results show, they are not as competitive in the suburbs as they might hope, given how zealously their platform deifies the idol of the suburban single-family home.

 

Regulatory and programmatic cost-benefit analysis, however, when done impartially (i.e., without reference to emotional appeals like "the American Dream"), is quite favorable to bicycle infrastructure, mass transit, and intercity passenger rail.  Conservatives generally hold a double standard for transportation infrastructure because they've internalized that emotional attachment to the car, and thus to the asphalt road; other transportation modes are attacked for failing to turn a profit, while no one expects the roads to pay for themselves.

 

Regionalism more generally is neither consistent nor inconsistent with conservative principles because it is too vague a buzzword.  It doesn't even fully capture a universally-agreed-upon set of ideals, let alone an identifiable set of policies other than merger of multiple smaller jurisdictions into fewer, larger ones.  However, it has become largely identified with liberal/progressive principles for the same reason I mentioned earlier: conservatives simply haven't considered the battle for urbanism worth fighting, with perhaps some exceptions like the Manhattan Institute.  At the same time, note that Orange, Pepper Pike, Woodmere, and Moreland Hills are at least discussing a possible merger, and they are not, to the best of my knowledge, bastions of Democratic influence.

 

As for NEOSCC, it is young and has never really known life outside of an Obama administration.  Of course it is going to be viewed suspiciously by conservatives.  But even that need not be the case forever.  As I've said in other threads, don't judge the potential by the present.

Anytime you try and tie in bike lanes to an international conspiracy, you've lost me....

^^ Good points.  But urbanity may not ever mesh well with modern American conservatism.  There is a degree of coordination (government) needed there that farmers can typically do without.  And as the Agenda 21 protestors illustrate, there are folks who oppose the very idea of people living near each other.  Hell is other people, they imply.  Hell is you.  I don't think that sort can be won over, but I really don't care.  I just don't want them running around winning converts.

^^ Good points.  But urbanity may not ever mesh well with modern American conservatism.  There is a degree of coordination (i.e. government) needed there that farmers can typically do without.  And as the Agenda 21 protestors illustrate, there are folks who oppose the very idea of people living near each other.  Hell is other people, they imply.  Hell is you.  I don't think that sort can be won over, but I really don't care.  I just don't want them running around winning converts.

 

Perhaps not with certain strains of "modern" American conservatism, but I think it can draw a great deal on more traditional American conservatism, the demise of which has been greatly exaggerated, before reaching any level of irreconcilable conflict.

 

Of course, part of the healthy challenge that traditional conservatism can bring to urban issues discussions is the concept that American cities have quite enough "coordination" (which might be more aptly described as "micromanagement") in many cases.  I recall a confrontation between Drew Carey and a Cleveland legislator in which the legislator was defending the various permitting, licensing, etc. requirements for development in the city with the argument that the city needed "control."  Given the paucity of development in Cleveland outside the urban core, I think that that is a position that is extremely vulnerable to conservative attack.  I know that archliberal Columbus restauranteur Liz Lessner has publicly expressed dissatisfaction with many of the bureaucratic hassles of dealing with the Coleman administration (parking, sidewalks, etc.); Coleman is all but invulnerable in Columbus, but (a) that might well not be the case if all of Franklin County were merged into a single municipality, and (b) even if it were still the case, the same deregulatory principles could very well be part of a conservative urbanist policy platform that could succeed elsewhere, particularly in consolidated regions (which would bring many conservatives back into the urban electorate).

Agreed.  Note that many of my local policy suggestions could be described as having a conservative bent to them.  Not all, of course, but many.  I don't believe a century of one-sided thinking has gotten us anywhere good.  But the community's hostility toward dissenters, toward anyone who questions blatant corruption, is the real core of our problem.  And that's not ideological.   

 

Libertarians are still unlikely to support public transit in any form, or complex public-private financing arrangements.  Or public goods generally.  They just don't like these things, on principle, yet these things are inescapable parts of urban living.

Since I do indeed believe that people who are free to do so will choose a “sprawled” lifestyle, I sort of feel like Judge Mulreedy on my favorite “West Wing” episode, who can’t resist telling people the best way to advocate positions with which he personally disagrees to people close to his mindset.  But you want to stress the local nature of your proposed solutions if you want to sell them to those who are suspicious of big intrusive government.

 

I wish these same people were as "suspicious of big intrusive government" when using taxpayer dollars to build freeways and new interchanges for tiny fractions of the population.

Libertarians are still unlikely to support public transit in any form, or complex public-private financing arrangements.  Or public goods generally.  They just don't like these things, on principle, yet these things are inescapable parts of urban living.

 

You may be correct about the complex public-private financing arrangements.  However, I'm not sure that those are inherently inevitable consequences (or antecedents) of urban development.

 

I don't think that public transit need be offensive to libertarian principles, or at least no more so than its alternative (i.e., the status quo), and I certainly don't think that walkable or bikable neighborhoods need be offensive to them (note that libertarians might well draw distinctions between the two, and urbanists should keep that in mind even if they might personally be inclined to lump all of those various transportation modes together in some kind of "not cars" category).

 

And, of course, the other libertarian-friendly and urban-friendly policy (politically inviable of course, like many libertarian policies, unfortunately) is usage-based highway pricing.  That would go a long way to canceling out the incentive-distorting effect of our existing subsidies for suburban autocentric development.

As a libertarian-minded person I would think that demand for public transit would rise if the true cost of driving was actually paid by drivers.

 

Also, it is much more cost effective to build in an urban, pedestrian oriented model since you have more people to support less miles of infrastructure and can provide more efficient transportation options (nothing is cheaper than biking or walking).

 

The problem is that things have become so convoluted due to our auto-dependance and the push towards suburbanization. Another problem is that doing work in urban cores often requires more bureaucracy than its outlying communities. All things that are a result of government intervening too much IMO.

 

Here are some articles about anti-sprawl/pro transit from a fiscal conservation viewpoint.

 

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2012/09/fiscal-conservatives-case-against-sprawl/3311/

 

http://works.bepress.com/lewyn/28/

 

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/sorry-but-when-i-said-vast-i-really-meant-vast/

 

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/07/3379/

 

 

I don't think that public transit need be offensive to libertarian principles, or at least no more so than its alternative (i.e., the status quo), and I certainly don't think that walkable or bikable neighborhoods need be offensive to them (note that libertarians might well draw distinctions between the two, and urbanists should keep that in mind even if they might personally be inclined to lump all of those various transportation modes together in some kind of "not cars" category).

 

Since there are very few pragmatic libertarians, I don't think they generally see the status quo as the only or even primary alternative. They would have no trouble envisioning and advocating for a world where all public transit is privatized.

 

Your point about urbanists lumping together "not car" modes is very true, and probably something which will need to be addressed at some point.

 

And, of course, the other libertarian-friendly and urban-friendly policy (politically inviable of course, like many libertarian policies, unfortunately) is usage-based highway pricing.  That would go a long way to canceling out the incentive-distorting effect of our existing subsidies for suburban autocentric development.

 

The general response seems to be that usage-based highway pricing is essentially just a tax-rise, which libertarians oppose. Unless roads were privately owned, which is even more politically inviable, it would take a revolution in libertarian thought to support usage-based pricing.

I don't think that public transit need be offensive to libertarian principles, or at least no more so than its alternative (i.e., the status quo), and I certainly don't think that walkable or bikable neighborhoods need be offensive to them (note that libertarians might well draw distinctions between the two, and urbanists should keep that in mind even if they might personally be inclined to lump all of those various transportation modes together in some kind of "not cars" category).

 

Since there are very few pragmatic libertarians, I don't think they generally see the status quo as the only or even primary alternative. They would have no trouble envisioning and advocating for a world where all public transit is privatized.

 

I think there are more pragmatic libertarians out there than you think, for one simple reason: Most pragmatic libertarians are currently subsumed within the two major political parties, because as pragmatists, they realize that standing outside the two-party system isn't very pragmatic.  In addition, while it might be familiar to dedicated followers of political, social, and economic debates, the term "libertarian" still doesn't have a great deal of recognition to much of the electorate; they may have heard the word but many don't know what it means.  I know that I have a number of friends who describe themselves as socially liberal but economically conservative, and I can state from knowing them that they're not very dogmatic about either, which is a pretty good approximation of "pragmatic libertarian," and yet at the same time, when I ask them "so, sort-of libertarian?" they just respond "maybe, I don't know."

 

And, of course, the other libertarian-friendly and urban-friendly policy (politically inviable of course, like many libertarian policies, unfortunately) is usage-based highway pricing.  That would go a long way to canceling out the incentive-distorting effect of our existing subsidies for suburban autocentric development.

 

The general response seems to be that usage-based highway pricing is essentially just a tax-rise, which libertarians oppose. Unless roads were privately owned, which is even more politically inviable, it would take a revolution in libertarian thought to support usage-based pricing.

 

And it has generally been sold as a tax increase because of what I mentioned earlier: progressives, who don't shy away from the word "tax," have generally dominated discussions of urban policy, and they call it a tax.  However, a usage-based consumption model is better thought of as a fee, and user-fee-based government services are within the realm of modern conservative and libertarian thought.  I attended a talk with Ken Blackwell (not quite as liberal as Liz Lessner) back when he was Secretary of State and he noted that many of the reforms he brought to his agency to make it carry its own weight were user-fee-based revenue items.

 

Also, even if the concept remains associated with the word "tax," it remains a consumption tax, which is the kind of tax that many conservatives and libertarians prefer (though, of course, ostensibly more to fund income tax reductions than to fund infrastructure spending).  However, I think that a VMT fee system really is better characterized as a user fee than a tax (and certainly for reaching conservative audiences, its fee-type characteristics are the ones to emphasize, not its directly anti-sprawl characteristics).

Note to Tea Party: Sprawl = government waste; "sustainability" = efficiency.

 

Useful ideas... but I can't believe we're so easily fooled by buzzwords that Tax vs Fee becomes a live issue.  If you can rephrase the exact same policy and get a different reaction, you're either dealing with an imbecile or someone who's been throroughly brainwashed. 

I agree, which is one reason I always make urbanist arguments with a frame of reference at most national in scope (not international), and preferably as local as possible.  Unfortunately, very few liberals (who are still the dominant voice in urbanist discussions, even though that is not necessary or immutable) are both able and willing to train their ears to hear those conservative alarm bells, and anticipate them.  Even the word "sustainability" itself has become politically charged, and of course, no one attempting to make an argument receptive to a conservative audience should use "the U.N. supports X" in any fashion, no matter how many Republicans might have signed on.  (Conservatives are suspicious of many Republicans after the GOP-led spending binge from 2000-2008.)

 

I'm sorry, but this response is just feeding the trolls and, with all due respect, is way off base in this specific context. NOBODY in US planning circles talks about Agenda 21 except when describing the crazy tea party Agenda 21 lunatics. The only reason most planners have even heard of Agenda 21 is because of this "controversy."  The idea that American planners in any number are using some obscure UN document as support for a position is complete fantasy made up by the trolls.  Please, for the sake moving discussions forward, do not feed them.

 

EDIT: just to clarify, I'm not calling Erocc or anyone else a troll.  I just think the anti-Agenda 21 hysteria deserves nothing but ridicule so thinking how their objections should shape discussion is a waste of time.

 

More substantively, these discussions always strike me as completely backwards.  99.9% of land use regulations (drafted and enforced by planners) limit density rather than enforce it.  At the core of this, Libertarians and urbanists actually have common cause here.  I'm reminded of the article debate Cato sponsored about minimum parking requirements in which Randal O'Toole ended up defending government meddling in private development decisions exposing himself pretty thoroughly as a suburban tool, not the libertarian he nominally describes himself as.

I agree, which is one reason I always make urbanist arguments with a frame of reference at most national in scope (not international), and preferably as local as possible.  Unfortunately, very few liberals (who are still the dominant voice in urbanist discussions, even though that is not necessary or immutable) are both able and willing to train their ears to hear those conservative alarm bells, and anticipate them.  Even the word "sustainability" itself has become politically charged, and of course, no one attempting to make an argument receptive to a conservative audience should use "the U.N. supports X" in any fashion, no matter how many Republicans might have signed on.  (Conservatives are suspicious of many Republicans after the GOP-led spending binge from 2000-2008.)

 

I'm sorry, but this response is just feeding the trolls and, with all due respect, is way off base in this specific context. NOBODY in US planning circles talks about Agenda 21 except when describing the crazy tea party Agenda 21 lunatics. The only reason most planners have even heard of Agenda 21 is because of this "controversy."  The idea that American planners in any number are using some obscure UN document as support for a position is complete fantasy made up by the trolls.  Please, for the sake moving discussions forward, do not feed them.

 

EDIT: just to clarify, I'm not calling Erocc or anyone else a troll.  I just think the anti-Agenda 21 hysteria deserves nothing but ridicule so thinking how their objections should shape discussion is a waste of time.

 

More substantively, these discussions always strike me as completely backwards.  99.9% of land use regulations (drafted and enforced by planners) limit density rather than enforce it.  At the core of this, Libertarians and urbanists actually have common cause here.  I'm reminded of the article debate Cato sponsored about minimum parking requirements in which Randal O'Toole ended up defending government meddling in private development decisions exposing himself pretty thoroughly as a suburban tool, not the libertarian he nominally describes himself as.

 

I'm surprised at the vehemence of your response, because other than the accusation that I'm "feeding the trolls," I generally agree with it, as you should be able to see from both that post and the my later posts in the thread.  It was 327 that said that "Libertarians are still unlikely to support public transit in any form, or complex public-private financing arrangements."

 

I'm also well aware that far more land use restrictions limit density rather than mandate it, and that a policy goal of reducing the breadth and restrictiveness of those regulations is therefore both libertarian and urbanist.  (Note that libertarians and more progressive urbanists would possibly part ways at going beyond that and actually mandating density, but getting rid of existing regulations that compel low-density development downtown and thus force that development out towards the burbs ought to be work enough for urban activists.)

 

I don't know who O'Toole is, but I suppose I know the type.

 

As for Agenda 21 and countering conservative/tea party arguments based around it, I hate to say this, but sometimes you *do* need to engage with the crackpot arguments.  Not all the time.  Sometimes.  In particular, it is important to do so when others who are less familiar with the issues may be listening, and remember that you're not trying to convince the fringe tea-partiers themselves; they will always find a way to believe that the U.N. is still coming to take their land and force them into a ghetto somewhere.  Instead, you always focus on convincing those who aren't actively participating but who are listening with open minds (and, yes, that means minds also open to crackpot arguments, which is what you need to do if you want to thin the opposition to regionalism in outlying areas like Geauga County, the locus of the article KJP posted yesterday that got this thread moving again).

^I sincerely apologize for the tone of my response.  I wanted to retract it as soon as I posted it.  I too am sensitive to the divisive manner urban agendas are often articulated.  The Agenda 21 people just make me blind with rage, and I am extremely loathe let them spur even productive discussion. Even inferring implying that their objections raise legitimate points gives them more legitimacy than they deserve.  They are like 911 conspiracy theorists.  Erocc's response grants them too much oxygen.  No, it's not understandable that an obscure, non-binding UN policy document that few have even heard of [but for this type of discussion] fuels this kind of paranoia, no matter how that policy document is written.  If that's going to "trigger just about every conservative alarm bell there is," it's a sign conservatives need some lithium, whether or not pro urban agendas could be voiced more persuasively.

 

My second paragraph wasn't in response to you, just pointing out the overarching irony to all this.  Deep, intense irony right up there with the apocryphal "keep your government hands off my medicare" signs.

 

Here's the cato discussion I referenced.  It's a calssic.  O'Toole is not a bright man. http://www.cato-unbound.org/archives/april-2011-there-aint-no-such-thing-as-free-parking/

So the main takeaway from this discussion is:  don't poop on your audience, no matter how wrong they appear to be.  People who question rail plans are not troglodytes, people who question traffic calming are not exurban tools, and people who question density are not small minded.  Perhaps they have bad information.  Perhaps you do.  But no one is ever right enough to be mean about it.  That does us no good when our goal-- so often-- is to persuade.  All it takes is one "you all suck!" to lose people for good.

So the main takeaway from this discussion is:  don't poop on your audience, no matter how wrong they appear to be.  People who question rail plans are not troglodytes, people who question traffic calming are not exurban tools, and people who question density are not small minded.  Perhaps they have bad information.  Perhaps you do.  But no one is ever right enough to be mean about it.  That does us no good when our goal-- so often-- is to persuade.  All it takes is one "you all suck!" to lose people for good.

 

^This.

 

By the way, I learned something while following the story of the Northfield Park racino.

 

Summit County has its own building department.

 

http://www.co.summit.oh.us/executive/bldgstds.htm

 

I'm going to guess this means they have uniform codes as well.

 

Cuyahoga County 'burbs all have their own.

 

Which is better?

If that's going to "trigger just about every conservative alarm bell there is," it's a sign conservatives need some lithium, whether or not pro urban agendas could be voiced more persuasively.

 

The thing is, we've seen similar things before and we're cautious of repeats.  Some conservatives even think we should bail on the UN.  I do not, but also do not think it should be authorized to enact what amounts to global laws.

 

We've been warned of all sorts of dire consequences over the years over various issues (global cooling, nuclear proliferation, food supply, oil supply) and the "solution" always seems to be the same.  A transfer of power and resources from producers to planners, and a transfer of authority from national to international bodies.  This hasn't happened, and the dire consequences have not come to pass.  We're suspicious people.  Come at us with something as nebulous as "sustainability" and we're going to start by asking what, specifically, that means and how it applies.

^I sincerely apologize for the tone of my response.  I wanted to retract it as soon as I posted it.  I too am sensitive to the divisive manner urban agendas are often articulated.  The Agenda 21 people just make me blind with rage, and I am extremely loathe let them spur even productive discussion. Even inferring implying that their objections raise legitimate points gives them more legitimacy than they deserve.  They are like 911 conspiracy theorists.  Erocc's response grants them too much oxygen.

 

I know that Agenda 21 conspiracy theorists are like 9/11 conspiracy theorists.  I honestly think it's the conspiracy theorists that give the U.N. too much oxygen, sort of like the Great Zionist Conspiracy theorists give Israel and the Jews too much credit.  (One of my closest Jewish friends from Ohio State often noted wistfully that he wished the Jews were as powerful as the conspiracy theorists made them out to be.)

 

I also repeat what I said above: It's only sometimes necessary to engage with such arguments--specifically, when others who are new to the issue may be listening.  Remember that you are often no more trying to persuade your opponent than Barack Obama and Mitt Romney were trying to persuade each other to vote for them.  The goal is to make your own case to the undecided audience.

 

No, it's not understandable that an obscure, non-binding UN policy document that few have even heard of [but for this type of discussion] fuels this kind of paranoia, no matter how that policy document is written.  If that's going to "trigger just about every conservative alarm bell there is," it's a sign conservatives need some lithium, whether or not pro urban agendas could be voiced more persuasively.

 

Perhaps so.  Perhaps not.  However, many of the arguments made by the fringe tea partiers on the basis of obscure compendiums of wishful thinking like Agenda 21 are also made in more moderate form by more normal suburbanites.  Training oneself to respond to the crackpot cases is also somewhat productive for responding to the less NWO-ish objectors.

 

So the main takeaway from this discussion is:  don't poop on your audience, no matter how wrong they appear to be.  People who question rail plans are not troglodytes, people who question traffic calming are not exurban tools, and people who question density are not small minded.  Perhaps they have bad information.  Perhaps you do.  But no one is ever right enough to be mean about it.  That does us no good when our goal-- so often-- is to persuade.  All it takes is one "you all suck!" to lose people for good.

 

I'm a fairly committed urbanist and even I question traffic calming in some cases.  I'm sure there are other urbanists who question "rail plans," and certainly there are urbanists who question certain specific rail plans, or the priority of specific rail plans versus others.

 

But I fully agree with the rest.  The most important thing to remember is that launching a "you all suck" equivalent at one of the Agenda 21 conspiracy theorists is counterproductive not because you "lose" the chance to persuade the paranoiac.  You weren't going to be able to do that anyway.  It's counterproductive because there could be others listening, who really may not know the limits of the U.N.'s power (we can talk about the shortfalls of American civics education elsewhere, but we need to deal with them in the meantime), who nevertheless are smart enough to recognize that if one person tries to just ridicule another into silence, the target may actually have something to say that the ridiculer wants to suppress.

If you don't want conservatives to take Agenda 21 seriously, you might want to look at what a Miami public official (Harvey Ruvin, a cofounder of ICLEI)  allegedly said the Johannesburg conference in 2002:

 

“The American system of justice must be changed to conform to that of the rest of the world, and there must be a shift in attitudes. Individual wants, needs and desires are to be conformed to the views and dictates of government planners. In the process of implementing Sustainable Development, individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.”

 

I use the word "allegedly" as a caveat.  I've found plenty of references to the comment online, and no debunks of same.

 

All you have to do is change "must", "are to be" and "will have to" to some variation of "they want" and you have what some of you are calling the equivalent of trutherism.

 

At the very least, opponents are going to want to hear a renunciation of this view.

Allegedly, sure.  I looked it up, too, and could only find references to it in extreme right wing sources.  It sounds a little too much like exactly what a conspiracy theorist would want a sustainability advocate to say, a perfect denouement of what they know it all really means, for me to believe it without some sort of proof from beyond the right wind bloviosphere. 

Not sure if this has been posted here before (probably on another thread), but I just saw a very piece from PBS from a while back about Cleveland.  Anyways, it's up for free online and it has some really good stuff that I think relates very closely to the regionalism discussion and general urban policy:

 

http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/video/169d849520894f0a926a60d646448071/Making-Sense-of-Place---Cleveland

George Forbes thinks that Cleveland and E. Cleveland should merge.  I think it may be a good idea,

 

http://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/index.ssf/2013/11/former_cleveland_city_council.html#incart_river_default

 

http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2013/11/east_cleveland_would_add_17000.html

George Forbes thinks that Cleveland and E. Cleveland should merge.  I think it may be a good idea,

 

http://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/index.ssf/2013/11/former_cleveland_city_council.html#incart_river_default

 

http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2013/11/east_cleveland_would_add_17000.html

 

If George Forbes wants it, then we would have to learn the underlying reasons why. He does not have a "global" view and thus would not seek a merger to benefit Cleveland or East Cleveland. He does things to benefit individuals, namely himself or selfish, if not corrupt associates to whom he is indebted. I have met people who worked as "runners" and delivered payoffs from business leaders, organized crime figures and others to corrupt politicians including King George. So it's a safe bet that if George thinks something is a good idea, it probably isn't.

 

More specifically, council members I respect like Brian Cummins, Dona Brady, Marty Keane and others see no net fiscal gain for Cleveland from a merger. East Cleveland's taxbase is virtually nonexistent yet it has numerous needs that will be very expensive to remedy.

George Forbes thinks that Cleveland and E. Cleveland should merge.  I think it may be a good idea,

 

http://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/index.ssf/2013/11/former_cleveland_city_council.html#incart_river_default

 

http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2013/11/east_cleveland_would_add_17000.html

 

If George Forbes wants it, then we would have to learn the underlying reasons why. He does not have a "global" view and thus would not seek a merger to benefit Cleveland or East Cleveland. He does things to benefit individuals, namely himself or selfish, if not corrupt associates to whom he is indebted. I have met people who worked as "runners" and delivered payoffs from business leaders, organized crime figures and others to corrupt politicians including King George. So it's a safe bet that if George thinks something is a good idea, it probably isn't.

 

More specifically, council members I respect like Brian Cummins, Dona Brady, Marty Keane and others see no net fiscal gain for Cleveland from a merger. East Cleveland's taxbase is virtually nonexistent yet it has numerous needs that will be very expensive to remedy.

 

I would not be surprised to learn that Forbes and/or his relatives has bought real estate in EC.  There's a good chance that a merger would increase the value of same, despite the fact that it would do the opposite in other burbs.

 

One question I would have, would the EC school district automatically be merged into Cleveland if this happens?

George Forbes thinks that Cleveland and E. Cleveland should merge.  I think it may be a good idea,

 

http://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/index.ssf/2013/11/former_cleveland_city_council.html#incart_river_default

 

http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2013/11/east_cleveland_would_add_17000.html

IMO, this only makes sense if E. Cleveland declares bankruptcy first to get any debt off their books and that state and/or county put up some funds toward making it worth Cleveland's effort. In the long run it would be better for Cleveland to not have crime spilling over from E. Cleveland into Glennville and the area south of Superior that's close to UC would be ripe for investment as would some of the "up the hill" areas.

 

One question I would have, would the EC school district automatically be merged into Cleveland if this happens?

No.

Agreed, Keith.  This move wouldn't be about a direct and immediate net fiscal gain.  If it was, EC would have zero incentive.  It would be about stabilizing a very volatie and poisonous area which currently has virtually no police presence and which Cleveland surrounds on 3 sides.

If Cleveland doesnt inherit all of ECs debts, then I see it as a big win. Better police patrols thru EC, less spillover into Cleveland for one. Second it could put Cleveland back over 400k, leading to more federal dollars, and I think regardless of gaining people in a merger, seeing the population go up would be a great for peoples impressions of the city. Third, EC has some good assets to it. Cleveland would gain a great middle/upper class neighborhood with the EC portion of Forest Hills, and also add Nela Park into the tax base.

If we can police it and raze and reuse then go for it.

 

There was some incident in the past year that made the National news cycle for happening in EC.  Associates were telling me how they were getting messages from friends in other parts of the states asking "whats going on in Cleveland". 

 

We already get the rap for their crap anyways.  Maybe we can make it better and turn a profit off the RE.

IMO, this only makes sense if E. Cleveland declares bankruptcy first to get any debt off their books and that state and/or county put up some funds toward making it worth Cleveland's effort.

 

Now THAT makes more sense.

Might as well add a few other places into the mix:

Newburgh Heights, Lindale, Oakwood, Cuyahoga Heights... perhaps Bratenahl, too.

 

I'm sure there are some others that could be included - those were just off the top of my head

 

EDIT: Due to brain fart

Might as well add a few other places into the mix:

Newburgh Heights, Lindale, Oakwood, Cuyahoga Heights... perhaps Bratenahl, too.

 

I'm sure there are some others that could be included - those were just off the top of my head

 

Huh? Oakwood's not contiguous with Cleveland.

If Newbugh Heights is add it will be

If Newbugh Heights is add it will be

Are you thinking of a different Oakwood than we are? :wtf:

If Newbugh Heights is add it will be

 

Oakwood Village is southeast of Bedford.  Are you thinking of Cuyahoga Heights (which already borders Cleveland, although it also borders Newburgh Heights)?

 

I think you'd have a very tough time convincing Cuyahoga Heights anyway.

Crap - brain fart

Disregard

 

If Newbugh Heights is add it will be

 

Oakwood Village is southeast of Bedford.  Are you thinking of Cuyahoga Heights (which already borders Cleveland, although it also borders Newburgh Heights)?

 

I think you'd have a very tough time convincing Cuyahoga Heights anyway.

 

That's putting it mildly. 

Do what Los Angeles did -- shut off the water. Wells can't support such densely populated suburbs. And leaving the Cleveland Water Department is too expensive, as deep-pocketed Westlake is finding out.

Do what Los Angeles did -- shut off the water. Wells can't support such densely populated suburbs. And leaving the Cleveland Water Department is too expensive, as deep-pocketed Westlake is finding out.

 

This won't fly unless and until you elect a urbanist minded, Democratic majority state legislature and governor.  The state would intervene rather quickly.

 

Columbus did something similar, but IIRC that involved unincorporated areas.

This won't fly unless and until you elect a urbanist minded, Democratic majority state legislature and governor.  The state would intervene rather quickly.

 

Oh I could win that one in the courts rather easily. The city has let the suburbs off too easy for too long. The city has let them take its residents and jobs while happily extending water lines to the sprawl that has nearly killed Cleveland. The state won't win unless it shows up with bigger guns. Remember when I said there are few things I'd go to war over? Water is one of them. Better hope I don't get elected mayor of Cleveland someday. :)

This won't fly unless and until you elect a urbanist minded, Democratic majority state legislature and governor.  The state would intervene rather quickly.

Kasich has stated an interest in merging municipalities in order to save money. If you pitched it to him as a long run savings it might fly.

Isn't water one of the ways Columbus was able to annex surrounding land and municipalities into it's boarders? 

 

Unless the debt EC has is alleviated by bankruptcy, I don't see why Cleveland should take on it's burden.  That and the thousands of vacant standing structures EC has (and Cleveland has plenty of it's own to take on).  Nela Park, Windermere, and a few prime lots along Euclid isn't enough to make the jump, IMO.  You've got the rest of EC to deal with on top of that.

Isn't water one of the ways Columbus was able to annex surrounding land and municipalities into it's boarders?

 

As mentioned above, Columbus has pursued this policy to expand it's borders to cover an area three times larger than what it was in the 1950s.  The difference, however, as mentioned above, is that the area that Cowtown has targeted has almost exclusively been unincorporated township land.  Every each of Cleveland's border touches an incorporated municipality, so Cleveland would not be able to acquire land nearly as easily.

I've stated this before and I'm sure many will disagree, but I don't think Cleveland Heights benefits from an expanded border with Cleveland.  I believe that if East Cleveland is merged/dissolved into one of its neighbors, it should be split and everything roughly southeast of Terrace Road should become part of Cleveland Heights.  And if I'm continuing on my fantasy scenario, CH should then go on an aggressive demolition campaign, getting rid of any and all vacant and dilapidated properties in that area and setting up as many barriers as possible between itself and everything northeast of Terrace (a la Scottsdale Boulevard in Shaker Heights).

I don't see any benefit in taking East Cleveland for Cleveland.

I've stated this before and I'm sure many will disagree, but I don't think Cleveland Heights benefits from an expanded border with Cleveland.  I believe that if East Cleveland is merged/dissolved into one of its neighbors, it should be split and everything roughly southeast of Terrace Road should become part of Cleveland Heights.  And if I'm continuing on my fantasy scenario, CH should then go on an aggressive demolition campaign, getting rid of any and all vacant and dilapidated properties in that area and setting up as many barriers as possible between itself and everything northeast of Terrace (a la Scottsdale Boulevard in Shaker Heights).

 

Why should Cleveland want to annex the remainder, then?  A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, but you're giving all the sugar to Cleveland Heights and leaving Cleveland with a bitter pill to swallow.

I've stated this before and I'm sure many will disagree, but I don't think Cleveland Heights benefits from an expanded border with Cleveland.  I believe that if East Cleveland is merged/dissolved into one of its neighbors, it should be split and everything roughly southeast of Terrace Road should become part of Cleveland Heights.  And if I'm continuing on my fantasy scenario, CH should then go on an aggressive demolition campaign, getting rid of any and all vacant and dilapidated properties in that area and setting up as many barriers as possible between itself and everything northeast of Terrace (a la Scottsdale Boulevard in Shaker Heights).

 

I would hope no city would ever do anything as ridiculous as Scottsdale in Shaker Heights.

 

I see positives for Cleveland. It would have more land to develop around UC. Clearly there would be huge positives for what is currently East Cleveland. More resource availabity. I really don't see the merger effecting Cleveland Heights at all in a negative light. If anything I see the border area remaining the same barring any major improvement s by Cleveland in the border area.

I don't see how that land is that valuable. If anything it has more burden then value. The majority of Cleveland is in bad shape. Why take on more? Its not like Cleveland has so much money and services it doesn't know what to do with them. It would spread police out even more.

 

Also I don't know why people keep talking about UC extending into East Cleveland(not aimed at you Mov2Ohio). University Circle is extremely disconnected from East Cleveland, which cannot be changed. Additionally there is a ton of vacant land/troubled neighborhoods bordering University Circle and the Clinic. That land is far more likely to be developed, plus it would actually act as an extension of University Circle, unlike any East Cleveland Development. There is also a decent amount of land IN University Circle that still needs to be developed!

This won't fly unless and until you elect a urbanist minded, Democratic majority state legislature and governor.  The state would intervene rather quickly.

 

Oh I could win that one in the courts rather easily. The city has let the suburbs off too easy for too long. The city has let them take its residents and jobs while happily extending water lines to the sprawl that has nearly killed Cleveland. The state won't win unless it shows up with bigger guns. Remember when I said there are few things I'd go to war over? Water is one of them. Better hope I don't get elected mayor of Cleveland someday. :)

 

I agree, in a regional sense.  But this is all intra-regional.  Lakewood or Euclid, not to mention outer suburbs, could quite easily build there own collection points if push comes to shove. 

 

But it won't.  The state won't need bigger guns because the state is the referee.  It establishes the rules regarding annexation, especially the sort of involuntary and severely resisted annexation this would involve.  The city would have to get the feds to butt in, and I doubt they would.  There would be a huge Tenth Amendment court fight that would last only until the next Presidential campaign, when one or both candidates took a look at Cuyahoga County demographics and promised to drop it.

 

Leaving aside doubts that Kasich meant involuntary annexation, he's actually a moderate in Ohio GOP circles.  The GOP would take the suburbs' side on philosophical grounds, both parties would do so for electoral reasons.

Also I don't know why people keep talking about UC extending into East Cleveland(not aimed at you Mov2Ohio). University Circle is extremely disconnected from East Cleveland, which cannot be changed.

 

I'll say it since it fits my role:  that's indeed part of why UC is thriving like it is. 

 

EC needs a dose of tough minded pragmatic and assertive leadership to become anything less than the civic equivalent of a tumor right at the very heart of the county.  Cleveland certainly isn't up to it.  Cleveland Heights just might be.  They'd have to jettison some of their liberal sensibilities, but it's not like they haven't done that before.  But they have a lot on their plate and I doubt they are interested.