I didn't attack your credibility.  I simply offered my own perspective, based on my own experiences and knowledge.  That is allowed, right?  The issue of credibility was not even raised until you alleged mine was eroding.

 

You called my reporting a perception. That's an attack. I covered the police beat for most of my 20 years as a newspaper reporter. If you were in my shoes, how would you take what you said? Perhaps you should take a moment to consider how your comments are received, rather than how you meant them. It doesn't matter how you meant to say something. And if you felt attacked by what I said, then you start to understand my approach to things. If you do something that I consider an attack, then I will respond more aggressively and directly. If you elevate your response, I will elevate mine. This will continue to worsen. Now do you wish to continue with me?

No.  I'm done.  It's just an internet forum.  Sorry you took it as an "attack", but I stand by everything I said.  If anything said was innappropriate, I'm sure a disinterested moderator can weigh in.

KJP, I worry that you are taking something personally that maybe you should not be. The issue of ability to provide police services should be central to any discussion of a merger of municipalities or sharing of services, and Hts121 is very correct in stating that it is unfair to compare Cleveland police to suburban police in general. That doesn't mean there are no internal problems with the Cleveland police department--far from it--but your comment about the police being notoriously lazy was a bit broad and certainly not one that is beyond challenge by virtue of your 20 years as a journalist.

I'm not comparing. Oh never mind. The world would be a much better place if everyone just did I what I said and shut their mouths while obediently doing it.  :whip:

 

EDIT: disregard my outbursts for a while. There's a family emergency that's affecting me and my ability to communicate without emotion.

nvm

I have to believe that most cops that join the CPD start off idealistic and eager to help.  I'm not sure that there is anything inherently wrong with the hiring process that leads to a selection of "lazy" or disinterested police officers.  Being a member of the CPD cannot be easy and I'm guessing that a lot of the unbecoming behaviors that people see veteran CPD officers engaging in are the result of years of frustration.

 

All of that said, if you were an inner-ring suburb, would you want to merge with your larger neighbor that had a police force that was jaded and stretched too thin?  Even if you're a resident of EC, where your public safety responses are less than ideal.

^The hiring process is quite selective.  Thousands of applicants take the examination and maybe only a hundred or so will ultimately get an appointment during the life of the resulting eligibility lists.  Because the scoring is so bunched together, 'extra credit' points play a huge factor.  Affirmative action has been eliminated (that used to play a large role in both police and fire hiring for the city).  At present, if you are not a military veteran or can meet the residency criteria (1 year of continuous residency prior to submitting the application to test), you need not apply.  The 10 points you get for residency will cause you to leapfrog hundreds of applicants.  I personally feel that this diminishes the objective criteria the examiners use to test the applicants and therefore unfortunately limits the pool of candidates.  You can literally score a 100% on the test and not be high enough on the eligibility list to even be certified by the civil service commission for the appointing authority's consideration.

 

With regard to EC, again.... it's not so much the police response which a problem, but the police presence.  4 patrol cars per shift.  4...... for a city with perhaps the most foot traffic in all of Ohio.  Worse yet, the criminal element knows it and I would bet my bottom dollar that it skews the crime stats.

 

KJP - sorry to hear about the family thing

I have to believe that most cops that join the CPD start off idealistic and eager to help.  I'm not sure that there is anything inherently wrong with the hiring process that leads to a selection of "lazy" or disinterested police officers.  Being a member of the CPD cannot be easy and I'm guessing that a lot of the unbecoming behaviors that people see veteran CPD officers engaging in are the result of years of frustration.

 

All of that said, if you were an inner-ring suburb, would you want to merge with your larger neighbor that had a police force that was jaded and stretched too thin?  Even if you're a resident of EC, where your public safety responses are less than ideal.

 

That can probably be said about any big city police force in America.

 

http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/

I have to believe that most cops that join the CPD start off idealistic and eager to help.  I'm not sure that there is anything inherently wrong with the hiring process that leads to a selection of "lazy" or disinterested police officers.  Being a member of the CPD cannot be easy and I'm guessing that a lot of the unbecoming behaviors that people see veteran CPD officers engaging in are the result of years of frustration.

 

All of that said, if you were an inner-ring suburb, would you want to merge with your larger neighbor that had a police force that was jaded and stretched too thin?  Even if you're a resident of EC, where your public safety responses are less than ideal.

 

That can probably be said about any big city police force in America.

 

http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/

 

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing as I posted that.  Certainly not an issue unique to Cleveland.

I have to believe that most cops that join the CPD start off idealistic and eager to help.  I'm not sure that there is anything inherently wrong with the hiring process that leads to a selection of "lazy" or disinterested police officers.  Being a member of the CPD cannot be easy and I'm guessing that a lot of the unbecoming behaviors that people see veteran CPD officers engaging in are the result of years of frustration.

 

All of that said, if you were an inner-ring suburb, would you want to merge with your larger neighbor that had a police force that was jaded and stretched too thin?  Even if you're a resident of EC, where your public safety responses are less than ideal.

 

That can probably be said about any big city police force in America.

 

http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/

 

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing as I posted that.  Certainly not an issue unique to Cleveland.

 

Not in the least.  I have a friend in the Greensboro PD whose dad just retired from same.  They don't sound much different from the CPD officers I know or even the SCC writers.

For what it's worth, I was listening to WTAM yesterday (due to the weather and need for traffic, not out of choice!).  Trivassano was discussing regionalism and I was surprised by his support for the subject.    He said they were going to try to get some local "experts" on today's show to continue the discussion.

For what it's worth, I was listening to WTAM yesterday (due to the weather and need for traffic, not out of choice!).  Trivassano was discussing regionalism and I was surprised by his support for the subject.    He said they were going to try to get some local "experts" on today's show to continue the discussion.

 

I heard that too, and was surprised by it as well.  He may be just taking the outnumbered (among his audience) side on a "hot button" topic.

For what it's worth, I was listening to WTAM yesterday (due to the weather and need for traffic, not out of choice!).  Trivassano was discussing regionalism and I was surprised by his support for the subject.    He said they were going to try to get some local "experts" on today's show to continue the discussion.

 

I heard that too, and was surprised by it as well.  He may be just taking the outnumbered (among his audience) side on a "hot button" topic.

 

I was reading that "less government is good government" line from him, which I do not disagree with in many cases.    I may actually tune in today to see if he gets these local mayors on the phone.

For what it's worth, I was listening to WTAM yesterday (due to the weather and need for traffic, not out of choice!).  Trivassano was discussing regionalism and I was surprised by his support for the subject.    He said they were going to try to get some local "experts" on today's show to continue the discussion.

 

I heard that too, and was surprised by it as well.  He may be just taking the outnumbered (among his audience) side on a "hot button" topic.

 

I was reading that "less government is good government" line from him, which I do not disagree with in many cases.    I may actually tune in today to see if he gets these local mayors on the phone.

 

Not exactly.  He had Ken Lanci in studio.  They had the guy who wrote the article on Burke on the phone.

 

Lanci said regionalization "will" happen.  While I strongly disagree, his take was interesting.  Had he talked during the campaign the way he talked to Triv, this forum would have been a hotbed of his campaign.

http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/drcagenda/2014/03072014/index.php

 

City Planning Commission

Agenda for March 7, 2014

 

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

1. Vibrant NEO 2040

Presenters: Fred Collier, City of Cleveland

Hunter Morrison, NEOSCC

Grace Gallucci, NOACA

East Cleveland continues to struggle financially.  Annexation, please happen!

 

East Cleveland is on the verge of financial collapse

 

By Jeremy Pelzer, Northeast Ohio Media Group

on November 24, 2014 at 12:39 PM, updated November 24, 2014 at 5:35 PM

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio—East Cleveland is insolvent and on the verge of financial collapse after a recovery plan has proved "inadequate," according to state Auditor Dave Yost.

 

City officials are now looking at creating a new recovery plan by the end of the year in hopes that they can continue to pay police, firefighters, and other city workers.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/11/east_cleveland_is_on_the_verge.html

^As long as theres a bankruptcy first so Cleveland isnt stuck with all of their debts

I don't fathom why Cleveland needs or would want all the problems that would come with annexation.  Very expensive proposition with little in the return other than GE and Forest Hills.  Location next to UC is only so much of a selling point (really any significant UC synergy is years in the future and Cleveland has enough of its own problem neighborhoods near by to work on rather than devote scare resources to more problems).

Why should Cleveland be the one to have to annex E. Cleveland by itself, possibly?

 

If E. Cleveland has to no longer exist, let each of the surrounding communities (Cleveland, Euclid, Cleveland Heights), all take a part of E. Cleveland to annex into its own community. IMO, this would only be fair. Cleveland should not be alone in taking on all of E. Cleveland's problems.

^Cleveland and Cleveland Heights share a border with E.C., but not Euclid (Euclid borders Euclid-Green, which is Cleveland). 

 

There are positives and negatives for any city which agrees to annex all or part of E.C. (requiring a vote of the people under normal circumstances; I don't know what would be required if the city is found to be insolvent).  E.C. has a mountain of problems; but also considerable assets which could be utilized fuller by Cleveland especially.  Some of the larger homes west of Superior along the side streets on Euclid are immaculate (I once considered buying one back in 2008 but backed away due to the sheer amount it would cost to rehab- the home was beautiful though- columns, a spiral staircase, a large fireplace on both the first and second floors, HUGE bedrooms- and this was a single unit dwelling). 

 

I, for one, though I don't live in Cleveland proper currently, would be against partitioning part of E.C. to Cleveland Heights if I lived in Cleveland.  Giving Cleveland the majority of E.C.'s problems (south of Euclid) and Cleveland Heights many of the city's assets (north of Euclid) would be unfair and further burden the taxpayers of Cleveland.  E.C. as it currently stands needs to shed several hundred (if not more) abandoned properties still- even after demolishing hundreds in the past few years.  That problem rests south of Euclid in large part.  The development potential is low currently for the properties south of Euclid as well- even with the Red-Line station.  There's large swaths of now vacant properties which used to house large apartment buildings along Haden (close to Windermere), with many vacant multi-family units along Shaw, Coit, and Woodland which will remain vacant due to the sheer amount of properties which need to be torn down.   

 

I would be for giving Cleveland all, or nothing.  If you're going to give Cleveland E.C.'s problems, give Cleveland E.C.'s assets as well.  The area does have potential- there's just a massive amount of work left to be done which should not be left to Cleveland without giving Cleveland the chance to develop the current assets which E.C. has now. 

I don't fathom why Cleveland needs or would want all the problems that would come with annexation.  Very expensive proposition with little in the return other than GE and Forest Hills.  Location next to UC is only so much of a selling point (really any significant UC synergy is years in the future and Cleveland has enough of its own problem neighborhoods near by to work on rather than devote scare resources to more problems).

 

Cleveland does it as a containment measure.  EC is in shambles.  Paying its bills are the least of its problems.  It cannot police its own streets.  It can't respond adequately to emergencies.  Worse yet, the residents who would seek to capitalize on such disadvantages, take full advantage of that.  The problems from EC inevitably spill over the border into Cleveland, thereby creating a burden on the City it has to deal with annexation or not.  Might as well do something about it.

^As long as theres a bankruptcy first so Cleveland isnt stuck with all of their debts

 

I think this has to come first. Then, if Cleveland is to annex it, this must come with a slew of county, state and federal grants to rebuild East Cleveland's basic foundations to be a functional community again.

From what I've heard, it's the citizenry of East Cleveland who are most adamantly against the annexation.  Also, I heard that the discussion of annexation was solely generated by the Cleveland Scene and the PD for material last year.  Full annexation can't happen without a vote from the residents of EC, right?  If so, I don't see this being feasible.

From what I've heard, it's the citizenry of East Cleveland who are most adamantly against the annexation.  Also, I heard that the discussion of annexation was solely generated by the Cleveland Scene and the PD for material last year.  Full annexation can't happen without a vote from the residents of EC, right?  If so, I don't see this being feasible.

 

And Cleveland voters would have to accept it, too.

Cleveland's annexation of the full East Cleveland makes the most sense and after the initial bump would be beneficial to the city.

 

Failing that I'm not sure what a state take-over would mean for the residents of EC.

Why should Cleveland be the one to have to annex E. Cleveland by itself, possibly?

 

If E. Cleveland has to no longer exist, let each of the surrounding communities (Cleveland, Euclid, Cleveland Heights), all take a part of E. Cleveland to annex into its own community. IMO, this would only be fair. Cleveland should not be alone in taking on all of E. Cleveland's problems.

 

Cleveland Heights has its own problems...many of which actually stem from its border with/proximity to East Cleveland. If I'm a resident or leader in Cleveland Heights, I want nothing to do with any of the EC area north/west of Terrace Road. I've long advocated that Cleveland Heights needs to find ways to put up more barriers between itself and East Cleveland. Superior Road acts like a crime expressway, bringing the down-the-hill problems into the Heights.

I don't fathom why Cleveland needs or would want all the problems that would come with annexation.  Very expensive proposition with little in the return other than GE and Forest Hills.  Location next to UC is only so much of a selling point (really any significant UC synergy is years in the future and Cleveland has enough of its own problem neighborhoods near by to work on rather than devote scare resources to more problems).

 

Cleveland does it as a containment measure.  EC is in shambles.  Paying its bills are the least of its problems.  It cannot police its own streets.  It can't respond adequately to emergencies.  Worse yet, the residents who would seek to capitalize on such disadvantages, take full advantage of that.  The problems from EC inevitably spill over the border into Cleveland, thereby creating a burden on the City it has to deal with annexation or not.  Might as well do something about it.

 

I have been a very very vocal proponent of annexation for years. EC clearly cannot and will not rebuild on its own. EC in its entirety needs to be annexed by the city of Cleveland. I do agree that, as bad as this sounds, waiting for bankruptcy may be the best option at this point for political reasons. The shock to civic pride that comes with bankruptcy may make this an easier sell

Likewise, Cleveland has its own problems. I think that East Cleveland's assets--few as they may be--will continue to rot even if Cleveland takes over. If the discussion of annexation is held, Cleveland Heights leadership needs a seat at the table and even if CH doesn't end up with any part of EC, it needs to have a say in how that area is rehabilitated. Whatever happens, there needs to be more an uphill police/safety presence that EC clearly at the moment cannot accommodate.

 

That said, I still think that at the very least the EC portion of the Superior Triangle needs to go to CH so that perhaps some sort of a master plan can be implemented to fix that neighborhood. Both cities have engaged in bulldozing many blighted homes around there, but I think that there needs to be a bigger plan, like perhaps extending Forest Hill Park further east or even building a northern extension of Coventry Road with some sort of mixed-use development that takes advantage of proximity to University Circle.

Except the expansion of spin-off development from University Circle will be hemmed in by East Cleveland. As often happens, money will drive these kinds of decisions. Not safety or logic or politics or anything else. When EC starts to impact a major stakeholder's financial position, then it will be dealt with more than just by mitigating its collateral damage.

Cleveland not taking all of EC is a nonstarter for me. I'm a Cleveland resident and I would never, EVER vote for partial annexation

Cleveland not taking all of EC is a nonstarter for me. I'm a Cleveland resident and I would never, EVER vote for partial annexation

 

Yeah we've had this discussion before, and that's the most likely outcome I believe. I guess if it's an all-or-nothing proposition, as a resident of the Heights, I say give Cleveland all of East Cleveland and start putting up separation barriers because it's unlikely that Cleveland, with all of its own problems throughout its other 77.7 square miles, will be able to do much to really fix that area or keep it safe. And truthfully EC's few assets aren't all that great, certainly not worth the headaches that would come along with it.

How many people work at Nela Park?  Are there any other large employers in East Cleveland?

 

I think the only incentive for the suburbs is to annex part of the city is to get the payroll tax a large employer could provide.

 

I really feel if the East Cleveland area stabilizes, a lot of transplants will see the beauty in the housing stock there.  In 20 years the East Cleveland "neighborhood" may be the hottest property in town.

 

 

I believe the employee number at Nela Park is in the 500-600 range.

Is Nela Park considered 'industrial'?  Does CH have any industrial areas in the entire City?

Yeah we've had this discussion before, and that's the most likely outcome I believe. I guess if it's an all-or-nothing proposition, as a resident of the Heights, I say give Cleveland all of East Cleveland and start putting up separation barriers because it's unlikely that Cleveland, with all of its own problems throughout its other 77.7 square miles, will be able to do much to really fix that area or keep it safe. And truthfully EC's few assets aren't all that great, certainly not worth the headaches that would come along with it.

 

Dividing East Cleveland is usually a Cleveland Heights perspective where the goal is to cherry-pick the best areas of East Cleveland and to help protect Cleveland Heights from further decay of the housing stock in areas of East Cleveland bordering its own city limits. You seem to be forgetting that Cleveland Heights already shares a border with Cleveland.

 

And I think erecting "barriers" (presumably on streets) to separate old East Cleveland from Cleveland Heights is as bad a PR move as it was when Shaker Heights in the 1970s put up barriers on streets that crossed from Cleveland. It was done under the guise of safety to stop fast-moving through traffic. But everyone knew what it was. News media and politicians had a field day with it and it only made Shaker Heights look like a bunch of racists. I think Cleveland Heights is more inclusive than that -- I think it's one of the city's best selling points. A community with apparent racial problems conveys instability and that ultimately scares away private investment and jobs.

Yeah we've had this discussion before, and that's the most likely outcome I believe. I guess if it's an all-or-nothing proposition, as a resident of the Heights, I say give Cleveland all of East Cleveland and start putting up separation barriers because it's unlikely that Cleveland, with all of its own problems throughout its other 77.7 square miles, will be able to do much to really fix that area or keep it safe. And truthfully EC's few assets aren't all that great, certainly not worth the headaches that would come along with it.

 

Dividing East Cleveland is usually a Cleveland Heights perspective where the goal is to cherry-pick the best areas of East Cleveland and to help protect Cleveland Heights from further decay of the housing stock in areas of East Cleveland bordering its own city limits. You seem to be forgetting that Cleveland Heights already shares a border with Cleveland.

 

And I think erecting "barriers" (presumably on streets) to separate old East Cleveland from Cleveland Heights is as bad a PR move as it was when Shaker Heights in the 1970s put up barriers on streets that crossed from Cleveland. It was done under the guise of safety to stop fast-moving through traffic. But everyone knew what it was. News media and politicians had a field day with it and it only made Shaker Heights look like a bunch of racists. I think Cleveland Heights is more inclusive than that -- I think it's one of the city's best selling points. A community with apparent racial problems conveys instability and that ultimately scares away private investment and jobs.

 

Did anyone really think the Shaker Heights barriers were racist?  It's always had a reputation for being integrated, and aggressively non-racist.

 

"Classist" perhaps, but that's not illegal and the morality is even debatable.

Dividing East Cleveland is usually a Cleveland Heights perspective where the goal is to cherry-pick the best areas of East Cleveland and to help protect Cleveland Heights from further decay of the housing stock in areas of East Cleveland bordering its own city limits. You seem to be forgetting that Cleveland Heights already shares a border with Cleveland.

 

Of course I'm fully aware that Cleveland Heights shares a border with Cleveland. However that border is not the problem. How familiar are you with the area? CH's border with Cleveland includes Lake View Cemetery, Little Italy, Doan Brook, Ambler Park, and the eastern edge of University Circle. None of this area causes issues for Cleveland Heights, in fact CH's proximity to these things are assets.

 

 

And I think erecting "barriers" (presumably on streets) to separate old East Cleveland from Cleveland Heights is as bad a PR move as it was when Shaker Heights in the 1970s put up barriers on streets that crossed from Cleveland. It was done under the guise of safety to stop fast-moving through traffic. But everyone knew what it was. News media and politicians had a field day with it and it only made Shaker Heights look like a bunch of racists. I think Cleveland Heights is more inclusive than that -- I think it's one of the city's best selling points. A community with apparent racial problems conveys instability and that ultimately scares away private investment and jobs.

 

Who cares about that type of bad "PR"? Cleveland Heights gets pounded by the NEOMG on a near daily basis because of crime (occasionally serious, usually petty) that's overwhelmingly being committed by non-residents. I'm not a resident of CH, but I grew up next door, attended schools in the city, and care a lot about the city and its future. If that means that erecting barriers causes some bad PR but potentially makes policing certain parts of the city easier, than I'm all for it. "Inclusion" doesn't mean having to tolerate people who bring bad behavior with them. It's time for some other cities to participate in the "inclusion."

 

 

Here's what this conversation comes down to for me:

 

a) East Cleveland's blight has spilled over into northern Cleveland Heights and something must be done. Cleveland Heights is one of the region's true gems and this situation opens up some possibilities for Cleveland Heights to take control over what I believe is one of its big problems.

b) I am not at all convinced that transferring East Cleveland to Cleveland will improve that area in any discernible way.

c) I am convinced that Cleveland Heights would be a much better steward of the uphill areas of East Cleveland than Cleveland could, especially with Cleveland Heights' aggressive police force.

d) The uphill areas of East Cleveland are where most of the city's assets are located, but in reality that area is much more similar geographically and architecturally (and likely demographically) with Cleveland Heights than the parts of Cleveland that border East Cleveland.

e) Of course my interests in how this plays out are selfish as a Heights resident, but I believe that a lot of Cleveland residents have a pro-annexation stance that is quite selfish as well (i.e. the folks worried about getting Cleveland's population back above 400,000 which is mostly irrelevant) and aren't really taking into consideration Cleveland's inconsistent record of managing its own current assets.

 

At the end of the day, though, as I mentioned above, I'm not sure there are any leaders in Cleveland Heights that see things this way. In all likelihood they'll let Cleveland take East Cleveland in its entirety and the rot in that area will continue unabated, causing endless problems for Cleveland Heights. I don't believe Cleveland Heights leadership has the foresight to see this as an opportunity to take the bull by the horns and proactively fix something that is bringing the city down.

Did anyone really think the Shaker Heights barriers were racist?  It's always had a reputation for being integrated, and aggressively non-racist.

 

"Classist" perhaps, but that's not illegal and the morality is even debatable.

 

In the early 1980s when the barriers were built, the NYT wrote a piece about the situation and as I recall from reading the archived version a few years back, my memory is that the implication was definitely that race was an issue.

 

Edit: Here's the piece:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/06/27/us/fence-is-not-neighborly-in-a-suburb-of-cleveland.html

 

I guess my memory was wrong. Race is more than "implied," and the piece was written in the late 1980s.

Of course I'm fully aware that Cleveland Heights shares a border with Cleveland. However that border is not the problem. How familiar are you with the area? CH's border with Cleveland includes Lake View Cemetery, Little Italy, Doan Brook, Ambler Park, and the eastern edge of University Circle. None of this area causes issues for Cleveland Heights, in fact CH's proximity to these things are assets.

 

And Cleveland Heights includes the east side of Murray Hill Road near Cedar, including student housing. These are assets because municipalities in Ohio determine land uses, and Cleveland chose them to be assets.

 

 

Who cares about that type of bad "PR"? Cleveland Heights gets pounded by the NEOMG on a near daily basis because of crime

 

So C17 makes a point. Then C17 pokes a big hole in it. Thanks for coming.

Did anyone really think the Shaker Heights barriers were racist?  It's always had a reputation for being integrated, and aggressively non-racist.

 

"Classist" perhaps, but that's not illegal and the morality is even debatable.

 

In the early 1980s when the barriers were built, the NYT wrote a piece about the situation and as I recall from reading the archived version a few years back, my memory is that the implication was definitely that race was an issue.

 

Edit: Here's the piece:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/06/27/us/fence-is-not-neighborly-in-a-suburb-of-cleveland.html

 

I guess my memory was wrong. Race is more than "implied," and the piece was written in the late 1980s.

 

That article tends to support my point, that wealthier blacks in Shaker wanted to keep the poorer ones out just as much as their white neighbors did.

 

It says the barriers went up in 1976.  In 1978 and 1979 we played football against Shaker (ruining their perfect season the latter year). Their teams were almost all black. 

 

It's very common to cry "racism" when one objects to classism, because the former is much more taboo than the latter.

And I remember when the barriers went up. When they did, I remember Cleveland officials calling it racism. Whether it was or wasn't isn't for whites in 2014 to decide. But it is for us to report and remember what was said and done. We can debate the reasons why, but it's kind of pointless for whites to debate what was in the hearts of African-Americans 40 years ago. I am interested to hear some recollections of community leaders from the mid-70s. Now that would be valuable.

 

To bring this back to some semblance of relevancy, if we're still afraid of merging East Cleveland into one community or another, then it seems this region is still just as dysfunctional as ever. You can't migrate your way around the region's problems.

And Cleveland Heights includes the east side of Murray Hill Road near Cedar, including student housing. These are assets because municipalities in Ohio determine land uses, and Cleveland chose them to be assets.

 

I'm not sure I follow entirely, but I think you're getting at the possibility of Cleveland bringing things to East Cleveland that one might eventually call "assets," which would indirectly benefit CH. I guess I'm pessimistic about that since, again, there are still large chunks of the other 77.7 square miles that Cleveland leaders have yet to figure out how fix.

 

So C17 makes a point. Then C17 pokes a big hole in it. Thanks for coming.

 

Absolutely not. My point was that if the city has to choose between implementing policies that would make the city safer, but potentially cause people to cry racism, or to choose a policy of extensive inclusion, but have to deal with potential crime issues and an image of being unsafe, I'd take the former every single day. CH has a long history of being inclusive, perhaps to a fault, and perhaps to an extent that has put the future of some of its neighborhoods in jeopardy. There is a long list of other NEO communities that have been much less inclusive over the years, but these are communities where crime is less of an issue and the schools have a perception of being better. It's time for CH leaders to be proactive and make more decisions based on realism and less on idealism.

I'm not sure I follow entirely, but I think you're getting at the possibility of Cleveland bringing things to East Cleveland that one might eventually call "assets," which would indirectly benefit CH. I guess I'm pessimistic about that since, again, there are still large chunks of the other 77.7 square miles that Cleveland leaders have yet to figure out how fix.

 

Of course there are. Just as there are places in those 77 square miles that are so incredibly awesome that few other places between Chicago and the East Coast can match them. And they weren't created by Mother Nature.

 

It's time for CH leaders to be proactive and make more decisions based on realism and less on idealism.

 

When it comes to cities, idealism creates realism. I think too many people behave as if cities are acts of nature. They are acts of us. Set your ideals and then sweat to achieve them, or at least applaud those who actually try.

Of course there are. Just as there are places in those 77 square miles that are so incredibly awesome that few other places between Chicago and the East Coast can match them. And they weren't created by Mother Nature.

 

I mean, let's be real here, most of the things that make Cleveland unique were established years before this current generation of leadership took office. They've been stewards, oftentimes along for the ride while nonprofits have driven growth in certain neighborhoods, and on quite a few occasions when they have been steering the ship they've made questionable decisions.

 

When it comes to cities, idealism creates realism. I think too many people behave as if cities are acts of nature. They are acts of us. Set your ideals and then sweat to achieve them, or at least applaud those who actually try.

 

Although I would love to debate whether cities are acts of nature (more specifically, human nature since we moved towards civilizations several millennia ago), the real point I was trying to make is really straight-forward: Some people in Cleveland Heights have been overly permissive and accepting of certain behaviors in the name of "inclusion," however in the name of survival I think that that attitude needs to change. In some corners of the internet, outsiders often argue that "Cleveland Heights is the next East Cleveland." While that statement is ridiculous considering all of what Cleveland Heights still has to offer in terms of its own stable "assets," there's no arguing that blight has slowly been spreading south from EC and with it, some parts of CH have deteriorated and dare I even say become unsafe.

 

This should not be about ego, the future of East Cleveland has arguably a larger impact proportionally on CH than on any other municipality in the region. Forgive me for not having faith in the leadership of Cleveland to do what's necessary to fix East Cleveland's problems on the level that would truly benefit Cleveland Heights and the region as a whole. The argument at this point just seems to be that Cleveland should, by default (no pun intended), annex East Cleveland. As I've said over and over, I think there's a strong argument why CH would be a better fit and steward of the uphill portions of EC.

 

And as an aside, yes I believe that this region is as dysfunctional and parochial as ever. We may be past the point of ever overcoming that. In the short-term, I'm simply advocating for policies that preserve one of my favorite parts of the region, my second "hometown," and an area that I think many folks would agree is one of the most unique in Northeast Ohio.

And as an aside, yes I believe that this region is as dysfunctional and parochial as ever. We may be past the point of ever overcoming that.

 

With that attitude, you're not helping it be functional! And I love how people claim "a city will never overcome XYZ" -- how could you possibly know?? Cities last thousands of years. In fact they routinely outlive the countries which briefly claim them for a few hundred years, something for which Americans have little or no perspective. My suggestion.... Do what you believe is right, not some scaled-down version of what you think you can achieve and take the long view. Who knows? Maybe you'll inspire someone to follow in your footsteps after you're gone.

And as an aside, yes I believe that this region is as dysfunctional and parochial as ever. We may be past the point of ever overcoming that.

 

With that attitude, you're not helping it be functional! And I love how people claim "a city will never overcome XYZ" -- how could you possibly know?? Cities last thousands of years. In fact they routinely outlive the countries which briefly claim them for a few hundred years, something for which Americans have little or no perspective. My suggestion.... Do what you believe is right, not some scaled-down version of what you think you can achieve and take the long view. Who knows? Maybe you'll inspire someone to follow in your footsteps after you're gone.

 

Well we can't do that KJP because, in the words of my late grandmother, "that sounds too much like right". It makes SO much sense that it won't get done. I often wonder if there are more people in this region with C17's way of thinking or yours.

Do what you feel is right and let the others worry about trying to stop you. You don't need yourself as an opponent of you.

 

Well we can't do that KJP because, in the words of my late grandmother, "that sounds too much like right". It makes SO much sense that it won't get done. I often wonder if there are more people in this region with C17's way of thinking or yours.

 

This is not an either/or discussion. I support a full Cleveland-Cuyahoga County merger, similar to what many southern and western cities have done in recent decades. I'm also fairly certain that that will not ever happen because of how divided the region is. Short of that, I'm not going to support any piecemeal policy that places an increasing amount of the burden on inner-ring suburban neighborhoods while outer-ring residents and their neighborhoods thrive at the core's expense.

Please explain your reasons that the suburbs are surviving at the core's expense.

Please explain your reasons that the suburbs are surviving at the core's expense.

 

My reasons that this is happening? Or my evidence that it is happening? You asked me the former but I think you meant the latter.