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!

 

 

Because I've been in meetings and discussions with Chris Ronayne Director of UCI who not only sees the potential in EC but also fields calls daily from developers interested in developing the land along Euclid from UC to the Euclid Superior intersection. EC and UC are really not as disconnected as you're making them out to be. The main deterrent to businesses investing in EC (this from another major Cleveland developer) is the stability of city services. For example if a development were to catch fire would EC's fire department be around to put it out? Something Cleveland could help with.

Nothing happens overnight.  A realistic vision for UC/EC involves the triangle created by Superior and Euclid.  UC could certainly spend the next several decades gradually gentrifying that area.  They've already started, in fact, with the townhomes on the western edge of EC.

 

CH would not be interested in anything not already in its school district or under its police patrol..... basically, only the areas south of Terrace

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Cle Hts?  EC should be wholly annexed into Cleveland, as Cleveland is the most capable and most resourceful, to help the folks currently living in what is now East Cleveland.

IMO, Cleveland is already spread too thin to effectively manage in a positive way the entire city of East Cleveland.  The best hope for the "up hill" area is for it to be annexed to Cleveland Heights.  There is already connectivity between that part of EC and CH including the Superior Triangle, Forest Hill Park and nearby neighborhood, and the shopping districts along northern Taylor and Noble.  I also believe that many of CH's problems are because of what is bleeding over the border from EC and although I think it's a risky proposition, if CH controlled all of that area and created limited access points from Euclid Avenue, some of that could potentially be rectified.

Take a poll, see who wants East Cleveland, and give them East Cleveland if the residents are willing by a simple majority. My guess: Cleveland is more willing than Cleveland Heights. And, given that UC is in Cleveland, it might make more sense. Allowing UCI to redevelop a lot of EC makes sense.

Allowing UCI to redevelop a lot of EC makes sense.

 

There is endless amount of land in and near University Circle which already borders the major institutions and connects to the neighborhood. The railroad and two cemetery's complete disconnect East Cleveland from University Circle. Why not develop the connect Cleveland land first?

IMO' date=' Cleveland is already spread too thin to effectively manage in a positive way the entire city of East Cleveland.  The best hope for the "up hill" area is for it to be annexed to Cleveland Heights.  There is already connectivity between that part of EC and CH including the Superior Triangle, Forest Hill Park and nearby neighborhood, and the shopping districts along northern Taylor and Noble.  I also believe that many of CH's problems are because of what is bleeding over the border from EC and although I think it's a risky proposition, if CH controlled all of that area and created limited access points from Euclid Avenue, some of that could potentially be rectified.

 

Are suggesting building a wall of some type?

 

Also, what's the 'up hill' area---is that where the nice houses are? If so, it sounds like you're saying give the nicest or richest  part of EC to CH and the poorest sections to CLE. That's not right at all. If CLE is going to bail out EC, it should get some reasonable tax revenue as well, which is more likely to come from the nice area than the section with $8,000 houses and high unemployment. Maybe the ultrapoor areas should go to CH as they're wealthier and can share their resources more readily.

 

I think building a wall is what's being implied. Thought we left ideas like that in the 60s...

 

First of all, unless we're talking about creating a situation where CH takes on an enclave, it would impossible to annex the poorest areas of EC alone with CH. 

 

Second, IMO, most of CH's problems derive from "north of the border" that it shares with EC.  I'm just making a suggestion that might help make that particular section of EC more stable while allowing CH to gain more control over an area that is causing it problems.

 

Third, if you look at a map or take a walk/bike/drive around the "uphill" portion of EC, you'll find that there is very real continuity with it and CH and that there is actually already quite a bit of geographic disconnect between that area of EC and the "downhill" portion (because of Forest Hill park and the elevation change along which few residences exist).  There are a few decent blocks containing nice homes in the uphill area, but quite honestly these are smaller pockets and even some of these homes aren't in the best of shape.  But most of the "uphill" area is not in particularly great shape and CH would still be shouldering a net burden in taking it on.

 

Finally, in regards to the buffer I'm suggesting, it would not be a wall, I just want to close off as many side streets (and perhaps a few main streets, as well) connecting the uphill portion of EC with Terrace and Euclid Avenue below.  As mentioned earlier, Forest Hill park already creates a significant natural barrier; I just want to limit the access points even further, particularly because I think it could possibly help with crime, though that may be off-base. 

 

This is not about bettering CH by adding more area, much of it (besides the park) blighted and economically distressed.  It's about doing something about a problem that East Cleveland clearly cannot handle and that I don't believe Cleveland can, either, based on its track record.  Speaking as a resident of the Heights, the problems of EC are bleeding into northern CH in a really bad way and this seems like a decent opportunity to stop it from getting much worse.

Many "up the hill" parts of EC, if not all of it, are already in the CH school district and that is not going to change regardless of whether Cleveland absorbs all or some of EC.  Point being, the property tax revenue for all those nice houses would remain with CH.

Many "up the hill" parts of EC, if not all of it, are already in the CH school district and that is not going to change regardless of whether Cleveland absorbs all or some of EC.  Point being, the property tax revenue for all those nice houses would remain with CH.

 

That's not correct.  ALL of East Cleveland is in the East Cleveland City SD.  Also, a fair chunk of northern Cleveland Heights is actually also in the East Cleveland City SD (roughly anything north of Noble/Monticello that is west of Woodview).

 

http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_boe/en-US/CuyahogaSchoolDistricts.pdf

I guess I had that backwards all these years.  Come to think about it, now I remember finding some extremely nice and cheap houses in the CH parts of Forest Hills but they were in the EC school district.  So I guess it's only South Euclid that has parts in the CH-UH SD?

I guess I had that backwards all these years.  Come to think about it, now I remember finding some extremely nice and cheap houses in the CH parts of Forest Hills but they were in the EC school district.  So I guess it's only South Euclid that has parts in the CH-UH SD?

 

Yep, all portions of South Euclid that are west of Warrensville Center Road are in the CH-UH district.  Interestingly enough about 10-15 years ago there was a bit of a movement amongst CH residents that were zoned to attend EC schools to have that area transferred to the CH-UH school district.  Obviously not much ever came of it.

 

But as we've discussed before, municipalities and school districts are independent of one another so even if East Cleveland merges with one of its neighbors the ECSD would still remain independent unless it was involved in another merger.  The tax issues in question revolve around income taxes which do go to municipality coffers and of course the biggest gem in that area would be Nela Park. 

 

I took a little drive through that area again tonight and it dawned on me that one way to "soften the blow" for Cleveland if it only got the "downhill" portion of EC would be to enter into some kind of revenue sharing scheme with CH based on monies received from Nela Park.  It would also be nice if county and state grant money might be offered to any city willing to absorb EC.

^ Nela Park is in EC--if CLE took on the burden of EC, why should 'revenue sharing' be done with CH? The most efficient thing to do is for the city to annex EC, not chop up EC like a piece of meat where different parties will fight over individual pieces. The strength of this region is CLE, not CH. If EC is liquidated, it should be picked up by CLE not a neighboring suburb of EC.

^ Nela Park is in EC--if CLE took on the burden of EC, why should 'revenue sharing' be done with CH? The most efficient thing to do is for the city to annex EC, not chop up EC like a piece of meat where different parties will fight over individual pieces. The strength of this region is CLE, not CH. If EC is liquidated, it should be picked up by CLE not a neighboring suburb of EC.

 

Look, in a perfect world, all of Cuyahoga County and even many of the neighboring municipalities would all become one large city-county.  That's not going to happen anytime soon, so short of that, I think a piecemeal approach does work best.

 

Now that being said, the crux of my argument regarding the uphill portions of East Cleveland are these two points:

 

1) That part of EC has far more in common and is much more geographically continuous with northern CH than with, say, the Glenville or Collinwood portions of Cleveland.

 

2) For the sake of the future of the Forest Hill/Caledonia/Nela Park neighborhoods of EC and the residents living there, what is the argument that it would be better off under the control of Cleveland than Cleveland Heights?  Cleveland may have more resources than CH, but it also has more problems spread out over 77.7 square miles and is notorious for prioritizing certain neighborhoods and neglecting others.  CH carries less of an overall burden and already has overlapping institutions and connectivity with the uphill portions of EC.  This would be a natural extension of the northern part of CH and I think the residents there would be better served by becoming part of CH.

 

 

In regards to my point about revenue-sharing, that was a suggestion for how to "soften" the blow of Cleveland only taking on the lower portion of EC.  If Cleveland annexed all of EC, of course there would be no reason to share Nela Park revenues with CH.  But in reality, I don't know much about Nela Park other than it has a beautiful campus of buildings and that there are some white collar jobs there.  I have no idea how many, though, so this may be a discussion about table scraps compared to the number of white collar jobs that have migrated to other parts of the region.

I took a little drive through that area again tonight and it dawned on me that one way to "soften the blow" for Cleveland if it only got the "downhill" portion of EC would be to enter into some kind of revenue sharing scheme with CH based on monies received from Nela Park.  It would also be nice if county and state grant money might be offered to any city willing to absorb EC.

 

So Cleveland would get the devastated area at the bottom of the hill and CH would get the relatively stable Forest Hill and the largest single taxpayer left in EC would be split? I realize that, in negotiations, it's important to sometimes start from an extreme position in the hopes of shifting the eventual middle-meeting point more in your favor. But you also have to start from a position where the other side will take you seriously.

 

If Cleveland ever annexes East Cleveland, it will have to include everything and then some -- including a sh*tload of grants from the county-state-feds to demolish, rebuild and stablize a ruined city.

First, I just want to say that I wholeheartedly support a Cleveland/EC merger and have for years. All the evidence points to this being the right thing to do. It's more than just getting valuable land. EC can not provide basic city services to its people. As Philip Morris put it, the argument why this is good for EC is simple, "East Cleveland's broke. Cleveland isn't." It's good for CLE because A) we need the numbers. We need to get back above 400,000 residents. B) University Circle is prime for expansion into EC. I love how people want to dispute that when I too have heard that fact come out of Chris Ronayne's OWN mouth. UC developers WANT to go into EC. But as someone else mentioned, they get skiddish when they have to wonder if anyone will be there if their building catches on fire. C) Nela Park. D) Forest Hill Park. E) The Forest Hill Neighborhood. F) Windermere. And finally G) since RTA will probably be expanding the Healthline anyway (and we all know what the Euclid Corridor can do in terms of redevelopment) it can kick start new development. It's worth it for both sides. The bottom line is that EC will never get out of that hole by itself. It can't. It's too far gone. So we can either take it over now while it's still worth something or continue to let it deteriorate and waste away and end up having to take it over later in a far worse state. A Cleveland/East Cleveland merger is inevitable. It WILL happen eventually. The question is whether you should do it now while it's still somewhat salvageable. It'll be work. But EC can be fixed. There's enough money sitting on the sidelines just waiting to invest but don't trust the sorry state of the city. If you want to turn EC around, merge now.

 

I was one of the loudest voices in opposition before to this crazy idea mentioned here before but let me reiterate, giving CH the good parts of EC and sticking CLE with the bad parts would be outrageous. If that were EVER proposed I'd do everything humanly possible to fight that. Either EC marries CLE or EC stays single. We're not gonna be your sugar daddy and then give the currently valuable parts of EC to CH like they need it. That was an insane idea when I first heard it. It's still insane now. All of EC or none of EC. Period.

 

Finally, those of us who say that we support regionalism, here's a prime opportunity to prove it. If we do this, the rest of the county is watching. And as long as we play our cards right and fix EC if we merge, that gives us a very strong hand in the future with other struggling suburbs. "Look, you're broke. We're not. Let us fix it. You've seen what we did with East Cleveland." So here's a prime opportunity, regionalists. In the words of my grandmother, either sh-- or get off the pot.

How can we fix East Cleveland when we can't even fix our own neighborhoods?

^Not sure what you mean by "fix."  I think 'stabilize" is the more appropriate term here.  Cleveland borders EC on the east, west, and north.  EC's problems spill over into Cleveland and CH.  It's very existence devalues the land on its borders, which causes a domino effect further into Cleveland and CH.  Last I heard, EC's active duty patrol had dropped to something like four cars.  It's recent safety director actually proposed having the city's firefighters cut grass in the parks when not out on an alarm.  The current administration is well-intentioned, but simply does not have the resources to stabilize the area.

 

I read some type of commentary in the PD from a local EC journalist opposing the merger seemingly on the basis that she thinks Morris ignores the strengths and tightness of the EC community.  There's some truth to that, but I don't see how EC would lose it's identity as a community with a merger.  it would simply become another neighborhood, a la Glenville, OC, D-S, Tremont, UC, Hough, CBD, Central, etc., etc.  Hell, it would surely still be called East Cleveland, have its own (strengthened up) police district, be within its own council ward, and so on.

How can we fix East Cleveland when we can't even fix our own neighborhoods?

 

Exactly my point.  There are dozens of Cleveland neighborhoods that are currently neglected.  How will what is currently East Cleveland benefit from coming under the Cleveland umbrella?  While I guess it's true that technically it can't get any worse, isn't the point to make that area better and improve the lives of its residents?

 

I was one of the loudest voices in opposition before to this crazy idea mentioned here before but let me reiterate, giving CH the good parts of EC and sticking CLE with the bad parts would be outrageous. If that were EVER proposed I'd do everything humanly possible to fight that. Either EC marries CLE or EC stays single. We're not gonna be your sugar daddy and then give the currently valuable parts of EC to CH like they need it. That was an insane idea when I first heard it. It's still insane now. All of EC or none of EC. Period.

 

I know, we get it, your Cleveland-centric ideas are the only ones worth any merit and anyone suggesting an alternative is "crazy" or "insane." Just my opinion, but I question how a struggling city that is already spread too thin and neglecting many of its neighborhoods is going to be able to pay proper to another already struggling neighborhood.  You've made some good arguments as to what might be able to happen to improve the "downhill" portions of East Cleveland should University expand further up Euclid Avenue past 118th.  However as I've mentioned numerous times above, there are natural geographic barriers between the two parts of East Cleveland and the University Circle expansion almost certainly won't be coming up Superior/Taylor/Noble to benefit those residents.  So what might be Cleveland's plan to improve that portion of East Cleveland? 

I guess it would ease the burden to support of a police force, fire department, school district, etc. I don't know.  EC would lose a lot of autonomy in the process, though.

^Not sure what you mean by "fix."  I think 'stabilize" is the more appropriate term here.

 

Just responding to inlovewithCLE who used the word "fix"

 

And as long as we play our cards right and fix EC if we merge, that gives us a very strong hand in the future with other struggling suburbs. "Look, you're broke. We're not. Let us fix it."

Exactly my point.  There are dozens of Cleveland neighborhoods that are currently neglected.  How will what is currently East Cleveland benefit from coming under the Cleveland umbrella?  While I guess it's true that technically it can't get any worse, isn't the point to make that area better and improve the lives of its residents?

 

But none are in as bad a condition as East Cleveland. And there are many neighborhoods of Cleveland that are at least stable if not some of the fastest growing residential areas in Ohio. If a merger results in the condition of East Cleveland equaling that of the worst neighborhood of Cleveland, it will be an improvement. But I still don't see enough Cleveland and East Cleveland council members going along with it unless enough financial carrots are dangled in front of them by the county, state and feds.

Exactly my point.  There are dozens of Cleveland neighborhoods that are currently neglected.  How will what is currently East Cleveland benefit from coming under the Cleveland umbrella?  While I guess it's true that technically it can't get any worse, isn't the point to make that area better and improve the lives of its residents?

 

But none are in as bad a condition as East Cleveland. And there are many neighborhoods of Cleveland that are at least stable if not some of the fastest growing residential areas in Ohio. If a merger results in the condition of East Cleveland equaling that of the worst neighborhood of Cleveland, it will be an improvement.

 

Many neighborhoods of Cleveland have similar poverty rates, median average income, property value, and crime rates as East Cleveland.

 

Even if East Cleveland benefits, which I don't know how, I don't see how Cleveland benefits.

I agree with the above.  I don't think it would be too difficult to find neighborhoods of Cleveland that are about as bad as East Cleveland...or potentially worse.  I don't have any data, though, just anecdotal evidence based on driving around town and seeing that parts of Cleveland are essentially indistinguishable from parts of East Cleveland.

Many neighborhoods of Cleveland have similar poverty rates, median average income, property value, and crime rates as East Cleveland.

 

 

I would be interested in seeing this data. I would also be interested in seeing a comparison of the number of active businesses per square mile, number of jobs per square mile and number of vacant structures per square mile.

^As long as I don't get mocked for posting stats then sure...

 

 

What councilperson would inherit EC?  Or would it be divided up amongst the surrounding wards?  I'd be more inclined to support this if it didn't include another political subdivision, who's residents might surely continue to reelect a do-nothing councilperson. 

I'd agree that you can find chunks of Cleveland just as bad as EC, particularly in the southeast parts between 55th and Lee.  But the above stats are not the best metric for what we are discussing because they include Forest Hills and certain other parts of EC which there really isn't much concern about.  It's the down the hill, north of Euclid, east of Superior, West of Noble block area which is the infectious part.  Even absent any housing projects, that area is in the dumps

A question for ClevelandOhio, I am unsure  how to make a value judgment about the stats in your table.  I see that the poverty rate for downtown is over 24%.  This does not fit with the current tight rental market for relatively expensive apartments.  I am not disputing the numbers, but as one who works with statistics, I know that an accurate interpretation of the statistics is very difficult. Do you have any comments regarding the interpretation of the stats.  As I said I do not dispute the numbers, but two cities with similar numbers may not necessarily be similar in future potential.

A question for ClevelandOhio, I am unsure  how to make a value judgment about the stats in your table.  I see that the poverty rate for downtown is over 24%.  This does not fit with the current tight rental market for relatively expensive apartments.  I am not disputing the numbers, but as one who works with statistics, I know that an accurate interpretation of the statistics is very difficult. Do you have any comments regarding the interpretation of the stats.  As I said I do not dispute the numbers, but two cities with similar numbers may not necessarily be similar in future potential.

 

There are several senior and low-income housing buildings downtown that skew the income and poverty rates.

Exactly my point.  There are dozens of Cleveland neighborhoods that are currently neglected.  How will what is currently East Cleveland benefit from coming under the Cleveland umbrella?  While I guess it's true that technically it can't get any worse, isn't the point to make that area better and improve the lives of its residents?

 

But none are in as bad a condition as East Cleveland. And there are many neighborhoods of Cleveland that are at least stable if not some of the fastest growing residential areas in Ohio. If a merger results in the condition of East Cleveland equaling that of the worst neighborhood of Cleveland, it will be an improvement. But I still don't see enough Cleveland and East Cleveland council members going along with it unless enough financial carrots are dangled in front of them by the county, state and feds.

 

Exactly KJP. I don't understand why this is so hard for some people to get. I guess some of those in opposition don't know how bad it really is in EC. EC is at the bottom to such a degree that turning EC into Kinsman would be an improvement. I have family in EC and I'm from Collinwood and EC borders the south side of Collinwood. As someone else mentioned, the mere existance of EC devalues damn near every neighborhood it borders. People are acting as if someone is saying that CLE can turn EC into Kamm's Corners. No one is saying that. But the city has four (FOUR!) patrol cars. They can't provide basic services for their residents. At the very least, CLE can provide those basic services and everybody knows that. Anyone who doesn't think that CLE can provide basic services to EC residents better than EC can is smoking something. And I notice how NO ONE in opposition addressed the fact that I and another commentator have heard Chris Ronayne himself say that developers are ready to move into EC and they want to, but they don't trust EC's ability to provide basic services, something a merger with CLE would immediately fix

 

I was one of the loudest voices in opposition before to this crazy idea mentioned here before but let me reiterate, giving CH the good parts of EC and sticking CLE with the bad parts would be outrageous. If that were EVER proposed I'd do everything humanly possible to fight that. Either EC marries CLE or EC stays single. We're not gonna be your sugar daddy and then give the currently valuable parts of EC to CH like they need it. That was an insane idea when I first heard it. It's still insane now. All of EC or none of EC. Period.

 

I know, we get it, your Cleveland-centric ideas are the only ones worth any merit and anyone suggesting an alternative is "crazy" or "insane." Just my opinion, but I question how a struggling city that is already spread too thin and neglecting many of its neighborhoods is going to be able to pay proper to another already struggling neighborhood.  You've made some good arguments as to what might be able to happen to improve the "downhill" portions of East Cleveland should University expand further up Euclid Avenue past 118th.  However as I've mentioned numerous times above, there are natural geographic barriers between the two parts of East Cleveland and the University Circle expansion almost certainly won't be coming up Superior/Taylor/Noble to benefit those residents.  So what might be Cleveland's plan to improve that portion of East Cleveland?

 

I didn't call your idea bad because I'm Cleveland centric (although I am and make no apologies for that). I called your idea bad because...it's a bad idea.

I didn't call your idea bad because I'm Cleveland centric (although I am and make no apologies for that). I called your idea bad because...it's a bad idea.

 

Care to expand?  I've explained why my idea makes perfect sense because of geography/continuity.  Your primary argument seems to be that it wouldn't be fair for Cleveland to take the "bad" parts of EC without the "good."  Okay, while I buy that argument if that were the end of the discussion, you first say that Cleveland gets nothing if it only takes the downhill portion of East Cleveland but then go on to imply that there is a ton of untapped potential in that area through being able to expand University Circle up Euclid Avenue (and I've agreed with this sentiment in the past).  If that's true, that alone should be more than enough for Cleveland.  I'm not sure what the plan for the "uphill" portion of East Cleveland might be, but as I mentioned above, it's disconnected from University Circle enough that I see no chance for potential spillover.  I don't know what else Cleveland could possibly have planned for that area, but I see no reason for as much as optimism as there might be for UC expansion into EC.

@TMH, Mendo said it good. "There are several senior and low-income housing buildings downtown that skew the income and poverty rates."  There are also a decent student population who are also in "poverty" based on income.

 

@HTS121, the upper portion of East Cleveland and the Nela Park portion are not that better off statistically as one might guess. Yes it looks nicer because of the trees, etc. but the area has extreme poverty on par with the rest of the city.

 

@nobodyspecific, As for development of UC spilling over into East Cleveland, it is more logical for development to occur within University Circle, Southern Little Italy, Fairfax, Hough, and Glenville, where the barriers do not exist and where expansion is more likely. Additionally, the majority of the major development in UC is by the major institutions, Art Museum, Cleveland Clinic, UH, Case Western, etc. They are expanding and rebuilding their own campuses/buildings and aren't likely to build far away(east cleveland). Extending out to East Cleveland would make no sense. The only spillover that could happen would be residential development, but that should still be more concentrated near these institutions and in UC. People cite Circle East as proof(and its a nice step), but that project required a lot of subsidy and also includes low income units, unlike the market rate housing being built within UC.

 

^The upper portion (south of Terrace) I was referencing is the area around Forest Hills park which is SIGNIFICANTLY better off.  If you see statistics which suggest otherwise, then the statistics are not accurate.  The portion around Nela Park is not that large in terms of number of residences, and the income level might not be that much higher, but it is significantly more stable and safe due to the CH police presence.  Same goes with the small sliver west of Superior between Terrace and Mayfield.... it also benefits from the CH police presence and the natural geographic barriers.  It would not be surprising if the added police presence and responsiveness has some skewing effect on the crime stats.  Trust me, I know these areas much more intimately than on paper.

 

IMO, any vision for EC has to be extremely long term.  We're talking several decades, if not a half to a full century, of very slow and gradual gentrification.  Short term, artificial fixes won't work.  There won't be any silver bullet.  What it needs is a push in the right direction, and I truly believe merger/annexation/whatever is a good start.

@nobodyspecific, As for development of UC spilling over into East Cleveland, it is more logical for development to occur within University Circle, Southern Little Italy, Fairfax, Hough, and Glenville, where the barriers do not exist and where expansion is more likely. Additionally, the majority of the major development in UC is by the major institutions, Art Museum, Cleveland Clinic, UH, Case Western, etc. They are expanding and rebuilding their own campuses/buildings and aren't likely to build far away(east cleveland). Extending out to East Cleveland would make no sense. The only spillover that could happen would be residential development, but that should still be more concentrated near these institutions and in UC. People cite Circle East as proof(and its a nice step), but that project required a lot of subsidy and also includes low income units, unlike the market rate housing being built within UC.

 

Your opinion doesn't jibe with reality, according to the things that have come out of Chris Ronayne's own mouth. I've heard him say it and another person on this forum said that they've heard him say it as well. According to Chris (and I would think that he would know), developers want to extend into East Cleveland. Not Fairfax, not LI, East Cleveland. Chris Ronayne himself said that and I would trust his opinion more than the speculation of others on what they think the developers would rather do. Going into EC as opposed to those other neighborhoods make sense. It's a developer's haven. The city is built for 40,000 people and has less than 18,000 in it. You could essentially do whatever you wanted, build whatever you want and not worry about displacing people because over half the city is vacant. East Cleveland is the closest thing to being able to build a city from the ground up in Cuyahoga County, and we all know how developers like doing that. They could do whatever they want in EC in a way that they couldn't in Hough, Fairfax, or Glenville. So what you're saying the developers want to do doesn't match with what Chris Ronayne has said that the developers want to do. I'll trust what Chris said

@HTS, The upper area has 64% percent of the households earning under $30,000. The city ranges from around 42% to 87% with the upper area representing the average. Its average household income is just under $18,000. That is the second lowest tract in the city behind the area between Forest Hill Blvd and Lee Blvd along Euclid. Oddly the median home value is about double the rest of the city. I don't have any crime statistics unfortunately but I would assume its not as bad as downhill. Could the upper area be mostly older citizens, long time retired homeowners who no longer work making them fit those categories(I could look but am being lazy. What have you observed?)

If you're a housing developer who wants to be close to University Circle, there are literally streets in EC off of Euclid that are almost entirely vacant. You could literally tear everything down, buy out the 2-3 people still on the street, and build it to your vision. You can do virtually whatever you want to do. As someone on this forum said earlier in conversations that they've had with developers, it's not that they don't want to go into EC. They do. They could do whatever they wanted in EC and they know it. The problem is that they don't trust in EC's ability to provide basic services, which is another reason why a merger is necessary

@nobodyspecific, As for development of UC spilling over into East Cleveland, it is more logical for development to occur within University Circle, Southern Little Italy, Fairfax, Hough, and Glenville, where the barriers do not exist and where expansion is more likely. Additionally, the majority of the major development in UC is by the major institutions, Art Museum, Cleveland Clinic, UH, Case Western, etc. They are expanding and rebuilding their own campuses/buildings and aren't likely to build far away(east cleveland). Extending out to East Cleveland would make no sense. The only spillover that could happen would be residential development, but that should still be more concentrated near these institutions and in UC. People cite Circle East as proof(and its a nice step), but that project required a lot of subsidy and also includes low income units, unlike the market rate housing being built within UC.

 

Your opinion doesn't jibe with reality, according to the things that have come out of Chris Ronayne's own mouth. I've heard him say it and another person on this forum said that they've heard him say it as well. According to Chris (and I would think that he would know), developers want to extend into East Cleveland. Not Fairfax, not LI, East Cleveland. Chris Ronayne himself said that and I would trust his opinion more than the speculation of others on what they think the developers would rather do. Going into EC as opposed to those other neighborhoods make sense. It's a developer's haven. The city is built for 40,000 people and has less than 18,000 in it. You could essentially do whatever you wanted, build whatever you want and not worry about displacing people because over half the city is vacant. East Cleveland is the closest thing to being able to build a city from the ground up in Cuyahoga County, and we all know how developers like doing that. They could do whatever they want in EC in a way that they couldn't in Hough, Fairfax, or Glenville. So what you're saying the developers want to do doesn't match with what Chris Ronayne has said that the developers want to do. I'll trust what Chris said

 

Cleveland was built for 1 million and there is less than 400,000 so there is plenty of space in Cleveland as well. If you look at Fairfax and Hough, there is actually way more open land to develop that flows with UC than vacant land in the western portion of East Cleveland. And like I said before, most UC development is by the major institutions which aren't going to build away from there campuses/buildings.

 

Chris Ronayne is a great guy and has done a ton for University Circle. But I realize he has to be overly positive and talk up development in the area. I wouldn't be surprised if those comments where made around the time of Circle East, trying to build momentum.

@ClevelandOhio, Come on, you know just as well as I do that Cleveland being at 400,000 is not the same as East Cleveland being at under 18,000 because its vacancy in a more compact area, unless you think that East Cleveland is the same size as the City of Cleveland, and I'd love to hear that argument.

 

Second, you are ignoring the facts to further your own point. Mov2Ohio said to you earlier in this conversation (which you did not respond to):

 

"Because I've been in meetings and discussions with Chris Ronayne Director of UCI who not only sees the potential in EC but also fields calls daily from developers interested in developing the land along Euclid from UC to the Euclid Superior intersection. EC and UC are really not as disconnected as you're making them out to be. The main deterrent to businesses investing in EC (this from another major Cleveland developer) is the stability of city services. For example if a development were to catch fire would EC's fire department be around to put it out? Something Cleveland could help with."

 

I don't know Mov2Ohio personally, and I'm telling you that I have also heard him say the exact same thing in a speech he gave downtown in 2010, so this is now two people who do not know each other confirming that they've both heard the same thing. You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. You're wrong.

@inlovewithCLE, Drive through Hough and Fairfax and tell me they have less land to develop than the portion of East Cleveland near University Circle.

 

All i'm arguing is that there is plenty of land available in the city of Cleveland near University Circle that is much more poised for development then the land in University Circle. Its mostly vacant, requiring less demolitions, and far  more connected to UC and its major institutions. Chris Ronayne has never stated nobody wants to develop there, he was just making comments about East Cleveland probably because of Circle East. Additionally its part of his job to say those types of things, as I highly doubt he gets calls daily about East Cleveland. We have the Downtown Cleveland alliance constantly telling us the population downtown is near 15,000 which a complete lie. We have RTA telling us over and over how the Healthine has caused $5 billion in development along Euclid, another lie. Im not saying Ronayne is lying, I just think he is painting a prettier picture.

 

And if you see how bad portions of our city are, I doubt Cleveland can magically make East Cleveland a better place. We cant even take care of our own neighborhoods. I think taking East Cleveland will just hurt Cleveland further. That has been my point from the beginning.

I didn't call your idea bad because I'm Cleveland centric (although I am and make no apologies for that). I called your idea bad because...it's a bad idea.

 

Care to expand?  I've explained why my idea makes perfect sense because of geography/continuity.  Your primary argument seems to be that it wouldn't be fair for Cleveland to take the "bad" parts of EC without the "good."  Okay, while I buy that argument if that were the end of the discussion, you first say that Cleveland gets nothing if it only takes the downhill portion of East Cleveland but then go on to imply that there is a ton of untapped potential in that area through being able to expand University Circle up Euclid Avenue (and I've agreed with this sentiment in the past).  If that's true, that alone should be more than enough for Cleveland.  I'm not sure what the plan for the "uphill" portion of East Cleveland might be, but as I mentioned above, it's disconnected from University Circle enough that I see no chance for potential spillover.  I don't know what else Cleveland could possibly have planned for that area, but I see no reason for as much as optimism as there might be for UC expansion into EC.

 

There's two points that I'm making here. Yes, taking East Cleveland would be valuable for Cleveland because of the untapped potential and because developers and Chris Ronayne themselves have SAID that they want to go into East Cleveland. Again, I heard it myself. (So I see optimism as you call it from what I've HEARD him say myself and what others have heard from him AND developers). But the portions of EC that you are talking about are the ones that are worth something/stabilized NOW, not in the future. Those areas are the spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down in an East Cleveland/Cleveland merger. Yes, EC has amazing untapped potential and I don't think that its gonna take that long to tap into that. BUT the areas you're talking about are ready now. And if Cleveland is going to have to do the work to stabilize the area, they should get the spoonful of sugar too. What can Cleveland do to help the "uphill" portion of EC? Having more than 4 patrol cars total would probably help. We have resources that CH does not. In fact, I remember hearing some city councilpeople in CH themselves openly talking about merging with University Heights. They're struggling too. Cleveland is going to have resources from its own coffers, state, Feds, and the private sector to turn EC around. CH doesnt have that. Merging EC as a whole with the city of Cleveland is better than breaking it apart in terms of the uphill portion because we have more resources and more access to resources than Cleveland Heights does. You say what would Cleveland's plan be for the uphill portion, I say what would Cleveland Heights plan be? And finally, yes, it is unfair to give CH the good parts of EC and stick CLE with the bad parts. I'd oppose that on principle alone. That's not the only reason, as I've just outlined, but that is a reason too why I adamantly oppose that idea

@inlovewithCLE, Drive through Hough and Fairfax and tell me they have less land to develop than the portion of East Cleveland near University Circle.

 

All i'm arguing is that there is plenty of land available in the city of Cleveland near University Circle that is much more poised for development then the land in University Circle. Its mostly vacant, requiring less demolitions, and far  more connected to UC and its major institutions. Chris Ronayne has never stated nobody wants to develop there, he was just making comments about East Cleveland probably because of Circle East. Additionally its part of his job to say those types of things, as I highly doubt he gets calls daily about East Cleveland. We have the Downtown Cleveland alliance constantly telling us the population downtown is near 15,000 which a complete lie. Im not saying Ronayne is lying, I just think he is painting a prettier picture.

 

And if you see how bad portions of our city are, I doubt Cleveland can magically make East Cleveland a better place. We cant even take care of our own neighborhoods. I think taking East Cleveland will just hurt Cleveland further. That has been my point from the beginning.

 

So what about Mov2Ohio's conversations with developers? Are they painting a prettier picture too? And do you know that Chris is painting a prettier picture? You're forming your opinion purely on speculation. Straight up speculation. And you're debating your point of speculation as if it were fact or as if that came from any source other than yourself and your own point of view. And that's your right, its a free country. But if I'm choosing between what you say and what Chris said, both publicly (which is where I heard it) AND privately (which is where Mov2Ohio heard it), I'll choose Chris. And you saying "I doubt Cleveland can magically make East Cleveland a better place". I'm FROM the northeast side of Cleveland, in Collinwood. I know all too well the condition of East Cleveland. What I'm arguing is that you don't know how bottom of the barrel EC is. A merger with Cleveland would by definition make East Cleveland better just from having more than 4 patrol cars, just from not having to worry about if the fire department can respond. And if you think our City Council is dysfunctional, I beg you, please, take a look at East Cleveland's city council. Its a disaster. You can look at stats and that's fine, but as a person who's not that far from East Cleveland, have family living in East Cleveland, know people who've tried to do business with East Cleveland, knows the mayor of East Cleveland and went to high school with the son of the former mayor of East Cleveland, trust me, a merger with Cleveland would improve East Cleveland just by not being on its own anymore. The worst neighborhoods in Cleveland are better off than the city of East Cleveland because Kinsman, Hough, Glenville, etc. doesn't have to pay its own police department, doesn't have to pay its own fire department, doesn't have its own city hall. So being a bad neighborhood in Cleveland would be better for East Cleveland than still being the city of East Cleveland. And I've outlined repeatedly why I think it would be good for the city of Cleveland as well, so I won't repeat that here.

^The upper portion (south of Terrace) I was referencing is the area around Forest Hills park which is SIGNIFICANTLY better off.  If you see statistics which suggest otherwise, then the statistics are not accurate.  The portion around Nela Park is not that large in terms of number of residences, and the income level might not be that much higher, but it is significantly more stable and safe due to the CH police presence.  Same goes with the small sliver west of Superior between Terrace and Mayfield.... it also benefits from the CH police presence and the natural geographic barriers.  It would not be surprising if the added police presence and responsiveness has some skewing effect on the crime stats.  Trust me, I know these areas much more intimately than on paper.

 

IMO, any vision for EC has to be extremely long term.  We're talking several decades, if not a half to a full century, of very slow and gradual gentrification.  Short term, artificial fixes won't work.  There won't be any silver bullet.  What it needs is a push in the right direction, and I truly believe merger/annexation/whatever is a good start.

 

How exactly does the uphill part of EC benefit from CHPD presence?  Not disagreeing, just looking for some clarification.

 

I can think of some short-term fixes that would almost certainly immediately improve things, but I don't think many on here would agree with such policies and it would border on the unethical.

@inlovewithCLE, Id have to hear more from Mov2Ohio. And still, I believe people are drastically overestimating the development potential of East Cleveland. I also believe that people are giving Cleveland far too much credit, as I disagree that Cleveland taking over East Cleveland makes it better, as statistically, its already better than a lot of Cleveland's neighborhoods. We constantly talk about how Cleveland police are spread too thin, why make things even worse?

 

Here are the views of an East Cleveland resident who disagrees that services would improve.

 

"Morris indicated that a merger would enable East Cleveland to benefit from gaining Cleveland's first responders. Well, no disrespect to Cleveland's bravest, but East Cleveland firefighters, police and medical emergency responders have some of the fastest respond times in the region. And while compassion is not as measurable as response time, our first responders lead the pack for that quality as well."

 

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/11/east_cleveland_more_than_warm.html

 

 

Edit: Here is another comment from different story which I doubt is made up.

 

"About 10 years ago, while working in a large building that was 1/2 in CLE and1/2 in EC, we called 911 for a fire. While CLE called us back to try to determine which section of the building was on fire so they could determine their responsibility here, EC FD just showed up! While we were still on the phone with CLE Emergency Services trying to describe the exact location of the room with the fire! AFTER the emergency had been contained, THEN EC FD started measuring and what not to determine location, but not until after we were all safe and the building was made safe and secure. I will never forget that. ~~ My daughter is a visiting nurse working night shift. Those nurses will tell you in a heartbeat that EC Police and ER services far outshine CLE. When my daughter is dispatched to a home visit in EC in the middle of the night, she phones EC Police via non emergency number and is usually met and escorted. NEVER happens in CLE, they simply dont have the man power."

@HTS, The upper area has 64% percent of the households earning under $30,000. The city ranges from around 42% to 87% with the upper area representing the average. Its average household income is just under $18,000. That is the second lowest tract in the city behind the area between Forest Hill Blvd and Lee Blvd along Euclid. Oddly the median home value is about double the rest of the city. I don't have any crime statistics unfortunately but I would assume its not as bad as downhill. Could the upper area be mostly older citizens, long time retired homeowners who no longer work making them fit those categories(I could look but am being lazy. What have you observed?)

 

So I looked and only 20% of that area is under 35 years old. 56% of the population is over 60.

 

The most broad category of 35-59 is 24% of the population. Based on the other numbers, I would guess that most of that is late 40's and 50's

@HTS, The upper area has 64% percent of the households earning under $30,000. The city ranges from around 42% to 87% with the upper area representing the average. Its average household income is just under $18,000. That is the second lowest tract in the city behind the area between Forest Hill Blvd and Lee Blvd along Euclid. Oddly the median home value is about double the rest of the city. I don't have any crime statistics unfortunately but I would assume its not as bad as downhill. Could the upper area be mostly older citizens, long time retired homeowners who no longer work making them fit those categories(I could look but am being lazy. What have you observed?)

 

I think we have different definitions of "up the hill"  To me, it does not mean everything south of Euclid.  The geographical boundary (the large incline) occurs at most points of the city south of Terrace (not including the condo buildings and towers which line the south side of Terrace, such as Terrace Tower or whatever it is called now).  The exception to this rule would be the area of the City west of Superior and south of Euclid.  I would venture to guess that the portion north of Terrace is more stable than the area to the south.

 

The area around Nela Park is probably on par with the rest of the City income wise, but it greatly benefits from the CH police satellite stations on Noble, especially the one right on the border.  The areas which border CH also benefit from the mutual aid contract, which I believe extends the CH patrol to include the hill. 

 

The nicest parts of EC is Forest Hills of course and the area near Caledonia park along N. Taylor 

@HTS, The upper area has 64% percent of the households earning under $30,000. The city ranges from around 42% to 87% with the upper area representing the average. Its average household income is just under $18,000. That is the second lowest tract in the city behind the area between Forest Hill Blvd and Lee Blvd along Euclid. Oddly the median home value is about double the rest of the city. I don't have any crime statistics unfortunately but I would assume its not as bad as downhill. Could the upper area be mostly older citizens, long time retired homeowners who no longer work making them fit those categories(I could look but am being lazy. What have you observed?)

 

I think we have different definitions of "up the hill"  To me, it does not mean everything south of Euclid.  The geographical boundary (the large incline) occurs at most points of the city south of Terrace (not including the condo buildings and towers which line the south side of Terrace, such as Terrace Tower or whatever it is called now).  The exception to this rule would be the area of the City west of Superior and south of Euclid.  I would venture to guess that the portion north of Terrace is more stable than the area to the south.

 

The area around Nela Park is probably on par with the rest of the City income wise, but it greatly benefits from the CH police satellite stations on Noble, especially the one right on the border.  The areas which border CH also benefit from the mutual aid contract, which I believe extends the CH patrol to include the hill. 

 

The nicest parts of EC is Forest Hills of course and the area near Caledonia park along N. Taylor 

 

This is the only area I used. Would this area be correct?