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.

 

No, this is your quote.  I asked you why you thought the suburbs were surviving at the expense of the city. 

Racism, crime, schools, escapism, desire for more space, government subsidies for expansion, less societal financial burden, etc. (Not in that order.) It's multifaceted, many of those reasons are precisely why wide-scale municipal mergers will always be a tough sell in Northeast Ohio and personally why I would have a hard time supporting any of the inner-ring suburbs unilaterally merging with Cleveland without bringing along the outer-ring suburbs.

Its ok if you don't want to answer my question.

 

Are you saying that the suburbs survive at the expense of the city because most of the crime is within the city?

More than that. Many of the suburbs that are surviving or even thriving are doing so because of barriers their residents have been able to put up and maintain. These barriers are not of the physical type as discussed earlier, but of the economic, political, and legal variety.

More than that. Many of the suburbs that are surviving or even thriving are doing so because of barriers their residents have been able to put up and maintain. These barriers are not of the physical type as discussed earlier, but of the economic, political, and legal variety.

 

I don't understand this argument.  Why shouldnt a city be forced to merge it's schools or emergency services if it is facing major budget shortfalls.  See the news about Brookpark.  Why does a community like Linndale exist?  Why doesn't Garfield Heights/Maple Heights/Bedford Heights merge?  Same with Parma/Parma Heights, etc.  These mergers aren't all bad, could add to the community amenities, increase services, lower tax base, attract more employers possibly with shared resources...

 

On the same token, why should a community like Westlake or Strongsville or Beachwood be forced to merge with the region and lose it's identity if they have strong finances, good tax base, employment, schools, etc? 

 

Look at each case and decide accordingly is all I'm saying.  Across the board decisions rarely make sense...

I'm not quite sure why Parma, with 80,000 residents, is a higher priority to merge than Beachwood or Westlake. If Parma merged with Parma Heights and Seven Hills it would have a population over 100,000 and be close to 1/2 the population of Akron. Parma's population has stabilized this decade as well. Parma could merge at some point but there seems to be a lot better candidates of smaller suburbs particularly in eastern Cuyahoga county that have a greater need in grouping together first.

I don't understand this argument.  Why shouldnt a city be forced to merge it's schools or emergency services if it is facing major budget shortfalls.  See the news about Brookpark.  Why does a community like Linndale exist?  Why doesn't Garfield Heights/Maple Heights/Bedford Heights merge?  Same with Parma/Parma Heights, etc.  These mergers aren't all bad, could add to the community amenities, increase services, lower tax base, attract more employers possibly with shared resources...

 

On the same token, why should a community like Westlake or Strongsville or Beachwood be forced to merge with the region and lose it's identity if they have strong finances, good tax base, employment, schools, etc? 

 

Look at each case and decide accordingly is all I'm saying.  Across the board decisions rarely make sense...

 

So essentially what you're arguing is that the older, more diverse, landlocked communities shouldn't demand structural change, but instead merge with one another to create larger suburbs with the same inherent problems? And then the newer suburbs that benefit from fluke of timing and absurd local income tax laws should be allowed to maintain their statuses quo, interacting with the rest of the region only when it's to their own benefit?

 

FYI, since I know Garfield Heights pretty well and you pointed it out, the city may have big financial issues, but there's no way the residents would accept a merger with Maple Heights and Bedford Heights. GH residents are a proud bunch and when they look to the east that's exactly what they're hoping to avoid (even if it might be an inevitable outcome).

Well then they're stupid because extreme parochialism will lead them directly down the path of what they are trying to avoid

It wouldn't make sense for anyone but Cleveland to take East Cleveland for a variety of reasons, and even then I think they would need a hefty care package at the state or federal level to make that work.  I can't think of a reason in the world Cleveland Heights would want to take over East Cleveland.  If you think NEOMG hammers CH over non-resident spillover crime, what kind of PR would be generated when Cleveland Heights itself is suddenly the epicenter of it?  And why?  They get a few hundred corporate jobs from it and a shipping container's worth of liabilities for the foreseeable future?  Not worth it.

 

I'm 99% positive that voters in EC would never approve it.  The library situation was a good enough example of how strong the desire for local control is, even if it means riding the library or the city into the toilet.  Or into the sewer, at this point.

 

I would say if our area can't pull off an annexation where one party is completely disintegrating it doesn't bode well for any sort of move towards regional governance.

 

My prediction:  East Cleveland files bankruptcy, emergency management is installed, maybe some subsidies come into play.  A few years from now East Cleveland emerges from bk and emergency management to continue its coast towards complete meltdown.

 

You would think at some point city leaders would take a look in the mirror and realize they are past the point of no return.  There's nothing left, no magic bullet, GE is isn't going to suddenly expand nor is University Circle going to swallow and save them.  At what point does someone say that it is unmanageable?

 

So essentially what you're arguing is that the older, more diverse, landlocked communities shouldn't demand structural change, but instead merge with one another to create larger suburbs with the same inherent problems? And then the newer suburbs that benefit from fluke of timing and absurd local income tax laws should be allowed to maintain their statuses quo, interacting with the rest of the region only when it's to their own benefit?

 

 

No essentially that's not what I'm arguing.  I'm saying it's a case by case basis.  Some inner ring suburbs may have stable incomes and tax bases and be financially sound.  Others may not.  It doesn't even necessarily apply to inner ring suburbs either.  North Royalton is a great example of an outer ring suburb that is facing some issues.  They have no highway access and therefore no significant industry for a tax base.  They recently voted down another school levy and are going to have to make some heavy budget cuts.  Brecksville/Broadview Heights already share a school system.  Royalton is in limbo.  Won't be long and residents will start voting with their feet which will accelerate the problem and the need to make major change.  Same story in a dozen other communities, both inner & outer.  It starts with shared services.  Actual merger and redrawing the boundaries is the last step.

Well then they're stupid because extreme parochialism will lead them directly down the path of what they are trying to avoid

 

How? How exactly does merging with two other cities with the same financial and social issues (but arguably to a worse extent) help GH? Maybe some money can be saved around the edges with employee contracts, but would it be enough to do the types of things that really turn neighborhoods around?

 

Now merging with either one of its western neighbors, Cuyahoga Heights or Valley View, would help GH tremendously. But that's not going to happen because of the whole parochialism thing on the part of CC and VV.

 

This is an endless cycle of neighboring suburbs that have no interest in merging with one another. Heck we couldn't even get the very similar suburbs of Orange, Pepper Pike, Moreland Hills, and Woodmere to follow through on their exploration of a merger.

I can't think of a reason in the world Cleveland Heights would want to take over East Cleveland.  If you think NEOMG hammers CH over non-resident spillover crime, what kind of PR would be generated when Cleveland Heights itself is suddenly the epicenter of it?  And why?  They get a few hundred corporate jobs from it and a shipping container's worth of liabilities for the foreseeable future?  Not worth it.

 

I agree, but just so we're clear here, I would never advocate that CH completely take over EC. I'm just saying that CH should take over the southeast portion of EC, which would still be a tough sell to CH residents. That area consists of a few high-rise apartment buildings along Terrace Road (negative), the other half of a blighted neighborhood in the Superior Triangle (negative), another transitional but rough neighborhood along North Noble, all of Forest Hill Park (positive), Nela Park (positive), and the other half of Forest Hill housing "subdivision" (positive), and another part of Lake View Cemetery (positive). Basically I'm just suggesting that several neighborhoods and parks that Cleveland Heights and East Cleveland ALREADY share be unified under CH's control IF EC is going out of business.

 

CH would have no business taking anything northwest of Terrace Road.

No essentially that's not what I'm arguing.  I'm saying it's a case by case basis.  Some inner ring suburbs may have stable incomes and tax bases and be financially sound.  Others may not.  It doesn't even necessarily apply to inner ring suburbs either.  North Royalton is a great example of an outer ring suburb that is facing some issues.  They have no highway access and therefore no significant industry for a tax base.  They recently voted down another school levy and are going to have to make some heavy budget cuts.  Brecksville/Broadview Heights already share a school system.  Royalton is in limbo.  Won't be long and residents will start voting with their feet which will accelerate the problem and the need to make major change.  Same story in a dozen other communities, both inner & outer.  It starts with shared services.  Actual merger and redrawing the boundaries is the last step.

 

a) While you can cherry-pick examples, your suggestion still overwhelmingly puts inner core suburbs and their residents at a disadvantage and doesn't offer a real solution for their problems, with or without ceding local rule. And you're still rewarding suburbs that, through fluke of geography and history, are able to survive or even thrive.

 

b) Brecksville and Broadview Heights don't "share" a school system. School districts are independent of municipalities and oftentimes predate municipal borders. In fact, about half of Broadview Heights actually feeds into the North Royalton school system. But since you brought it up, North Royalton and Brecksville-Broadview Heights school districts should probably merge with one another...along with at least a dozen other school district mergers that should happen in Greater Cleveland.

 

c) In regards to sharing services needing to come before mergers, I have to disagree, and I think that's a copout. It still ignores the fundamental fact that there isn't a good argument why we need so many separate municipalities (and school districts) in the first place.

The same "fluke" of geography or history that is allowing certain suburbs to thrive is probably the same fluke that allowed some inner ring suburbs to thrive 50 yrs ago.  The all-or-nothing approach makes no sense and only prolongs the problem.  If you look at these communities that are struggling financially, what are their biggest expenses?  Schools & emergency services?  Why not start there with some incentives for merging departments and sharing services to alleviate the financial strain while still providing steady service levels.  The alternative is a big slash or big tax hike...

I agree' date=' but just so we're clear here, I would never advocate that CH completely take over EC. I'm just saying that CH should take over the southeast portion of EC, which would still be a tough sell to CH residents. That area consists of a few high-rise apartment buildings along Terrace Road (negative), the other half of a blighted neighborhood in the Superior Triangle (negative), another transitional but rough neighborhood along North Noble, all of Forest Hill Park (positive), Nela Park (positive), and the other half of Forest Hill housing "subdivision" (positive), and another part of Lake View Cemetery (positive). Basically I'm just suggesting that several neighborhoods and parks that Cleveland Heights and East Cleveland ALREADY share be unified under CH's control IF EC is going out of business.[/quote']

 

Clevelander17---if you're thinking of chopping up EC---then, at the very least, Forest Hill Park, Nela Park, and Lake View Cemetery should go to Cleveland, not Cle Hts.

 

Why should the center of our region be deprived of the best assets? It's Cleveland--not some suburb--that will lead the region into the future.

So essentially what you're arguing is that the older, more diverse, landlocked communities shouldn't demand structural change, but instead merge with one another to create larger suburbs with the same inherent problems? And then the newer suburbs that benefit from fluke of timing and absurd local income tax laws should be allowed to maintain their statuses quo, interacting with the rest of the region only when it's to their own benefit?

 

 

No essentially that's not what I'm arguing.  I'm saying it's a case by case basis.  Some inner ring suburbs may have stable incomes and tax bases and be financially sound.  Others may not.  It doesn't even necessarily apply to inner ring suburbs either.  North Royalton is a great example of an outer ring suburb that is facing some issues.  They have no highway access and therefore no significant industry for a tax base.  They recently voted down another school levy and are going to have to make some heavy budget cuts.  Brecksville/Broadview Heights already share a school system.  Royalton is in limbo.  Won't be long and residents will start voting with their feet which will accelerate the problem and the need to make major change.  Same story in a dozen other communities, both inner & outer.  It starts with shared services.  Actual merger and redrawing the boundaries is the last step.

 

Right...so why the example Parma and Parma Heights? Because they share the same name? Parma lost 150 residents out of 80500 in 2012. Parma Heights lost 30 out of 20500 and Seven Hills gained 10 out of 11000. That's a population loss of -.05% for the three burbs. Many other parts of Cuyahoga are doing worse. Is it because it's residents are poorer than say people who live in Lakewood or Cleveland Hts.that you cite this example?

Clevelander17---if you're thinking of chopping up EC---then, at the very least, Forest Hill Park, Nela Park, and Lake View Cemetery should go to Cleveland, not Cle Hts.

 

Why should the center of our region be deprived of the best assets? It's Cleveland--not some suburb--that will lead the region into the future.

 

This is not about splitting it up for the sake of splitting it, this is about unifying neighborhoods and institutions.

 

1) Forest Hill Park is already partially contained in Cleveland Heights, so this would be a chance to unify it under one government, because as of now it's being neglected, particularly on the East Cleveland side. Maybe all parties can agree to have the MetroParks take over? I think that that would be my preference.

 

2) Nela Park and the surrounding North Noble neighborhood is something that I think makes the most sense to potentially go to Cleveland without much debate if Cleveland needs to have "assets."

 

3) Lake View Cemetery is split between Cleveland, Cleveland Heights, and East Cleveland, with Cleveland containing the smallest share of the cemetery. I truthfully think it's irrelevant which city has it, but I could be missing something.

 

 

I think I mentioned this before, but the area I think would benefit most from being unified under one government is the Superior Triangle neighborhood and I think it makes the most sense to go to Cleveland Heights. This is no asset, in fact it's a burden, but part of the problem is that it's split between two cities and no real plan can be implemented to turn it around because one of the cities has much bigger problems.

Right...so why the example Parma and Parma Heights? Because they share the same name? Parma lost 150 residents out of 80500 in 2012. Parma Heights lost 30 out of 20500 and Seven Hills gained 10 out of 11000. That's a population loss of -.05% for the three burbs. Many other parts of Cuyahoga are doing worse. Is it because it's residents are poorer than say people who live in Lakewood or Cleveland Hts.that you cite this example?

 

Hey my mom grew up in Parma Heights, but truthfully I don't know enough about the area to suggest any merger scenarios. That being said, I wasn't the one that made the suggestion! :)

The same "fluke" of geography or history that is allowing certain suburbs to thrive is probably the same fluke that allowed some inner ring suburbs to thrive 50 yrs ago.  The all-or-nothing approach makes no sense and only prolongs the problem.  If you look at these communities that are struggling financially, what are their biggest expenses?  Schools & emergency services?  Why not start there with some incentives for merging departments and sharing services to alleviate the financial strain while still providing steady service levels.  The alternative is a big slash or big tax hike...

 

A school district merger would be at least as complicated--politically and logistically--as a municipality merger. But it probably does need to happen in certain areas.

 

In general, I think you're still suggesting short-term band-aids to problems that are more structural in nature. The factors that determine which suburbs thrive and which struggle are essentially codified into law. I'm not sure that these factors really did exist 50+ years ago when a different set of suburbs/neighborhoods thrived, though I also don't think we were as divided back then.

 

It will be interesting to see if the state legislature follows through in fixing the local income tax situation where a person pays a full share of income taxes to the city in which they work. If that happens, suburbs like Beachwood, Independence, Westlake, etc. are going to have to do some soul-searching. Unfortunately any change would also put the screws to larger cities like Cleveland itself. In general it would force a wide variety of parties to figure out what's important and potentially spur on municipal partnerships and mergers more than any policy that we've seen in a long time in this state.

Right...so why the example Parma and Parma Heights? Because they share the same name? Parma lost 150 residents out of 80500 in 2012. Parma Heights lost 30 out of 20500 and Seven Hills gained 10 out of 11000. That's a population loss of -.05% for the three burbs. Many other parts of Cuyahoga are doing worse. Is it because it's residents are poorer than say people who live in Lakewood or Cleveland Hts.that you cite this example?

 

Hey my mom grew up in Parma Heights, but truthfully I don't know enough about the area to suggest any merger scenarios. That being said, I wasn't the one that made the suggestion! :)

 

Not implying you did. I just think it's weird the 8th largest "city" in Ohio should be a prime candidate for a merger.

I don't understand this argument.  Why shouldnt a city be forced to merge it's schools or emergency services if it is facing major budget shortfalls.  See the news about Brookpark.  Why does a community like Linndale exist?  Why doesn't Garfield Heights/Maple Heights/Bedford Heights merge?  Same with Parma/Parma Heights, etc.  These mergers aren't all bad, could add to the community amenities, increase services, lower tax base, attract more employers possibly with shared resources...

 

On the same token, why should a community like Westlake or Strongsville or Beachwood be forced to merge with the region and lose it's identity if they have strong finances, good tax base, employment, schools, etc? 

 

Look at each case and decide accordingly is all I'm saying.  Across the board decisions rarely make sense...

 

So essentially what you're arguing is that the older, more diverse, landlocked communities shouldn't demand structural change, but instead merge with one another to create larger suburbs with the same inherent problems? And then the newer suburbs that benefit from fluke of timing and absurd local income tax laws should be allowed to maintain their statuses quo, interacting with the rest of the region only when it's to their own benefit?

 

FYI, since I know Garfield Heights pretty well and you pointed it out, the city may have big financial issues, but there's no way the residents would accept a merger with Maple Heights and Bedford Heights. GH residents are a proud bunch and when they look to the east that's exactly what they're hoping to avoid (even if it might be an inevitable outcome).

 

Maple Heights would be about as likely to accept merger with anyone else as Walton Hills would with Bedford.  In other words it would not be "no, thank you" but "F.U."

 

Walton Hills might consider merging with one or more of the Nordonia communities, but that would be as part of an effort to join Nordonia schools.

 

A lot of merger advocates forget that towns are way more likely to work with (let alone merge with) similar areas than diverse ones.

A lot of merger advocates forget that towns are way more likely to work with (let alone merge with) similar areas than diverse ones.[/color]

 

The problem is pretty much every suburb thinks it's a special little snowflake, so most suburbs are blind to how similar they really are to their neighbors.

^I remember once going to one of North Royalton's monthly budget/governmental meetings (I forget the actual name they give to them) for a high school class. Half of the time was spent bickering about not wanting to "be like Broadview Heights" or "be like Brecksville." I just sat there confused because both of those places are just slightly nicer versions of North Royalton with better schools, better parks, better roads, more tax stability, etc. But the idea of doing something like THOSE towns was appalling to the then-current mayor of North Royalton.

 

Then they approved chopping the road care fund in half for the following year which definitely had a noticeable impact. I believe it was in order to fund some silly improvement to some amenity that nobody used.

 

My dad once said something to me when one of our idiotic neighbors was elected mayor of Broadview Heights. Anyone who is reasonable or actually capable of making good decisions strives to be a part of somewhere better than a typical suburb. What's left is a bunch of people who want to feel important but aren't really very good at seeing reality or making sound decisions. Hence the "special snowflake" mentality that many suburbs hold.

A lot of merger advocates forget that towns are way more likely to work with (let alone merge with) similar areas than diverse ones.[/color]

 

The problem is pretty much every suburb thinks it's a special little snowflake, so most suburbs are blind to how similar they really are to their neighbors.

 

I think you'd find a majority of their residents would reject merger in pretty much every case.  Maybe people just prefer smaller government.

 

But if you want to promote the idea, don't start with trying to push Solon to merge with Bedford and Oakwood.  It's not going to fly, and race is not the base reason.

^Wouldn't a merger be a smaller government? Reduction in overlap and therefore less government per capita? Economy of scales and all that jazz?

I wouldn't necessarily count on municipal mergers to cut as many costs as you're thinking.  Aside from things like the salaries of the mayor and other truly redundant positions, you don't create as much overlap as you're thinking.  IT departments and other back-end functions that can serve 100,000 people roughly as easily as 50,000, maybe.  But for major expenses like police and fire, the only real opportunities for saving money without reducing service are in the event that you have a police or fire station in both communities close to the border.  Police and fire coverage simply require a certain number of officers/vehicles for any given tract of land at a given density; they aren't scalable in the way that IT implementations might be.  Schools, likewise.  We've been through school consolidations before.  There are some advantages in combining schools in that a 1000-student high school might find at least 15-20 students to fill a class on psychology or other subjects outside the "normal" curriculum, but overall, you still have a certain number of teachers necessary per student (at least without dramatically changing the model, which doesn't automatically result from consolidating districts by any means).

 

There are other benefits, including lessening the incentive to poach jobs from one point in the region to another, but the cost savings should never be assumed to be all that substantial.  If that were the case, then our existing large municipal governments should be paragons of efficiency compared to our suburbs, and that's hardly self-evident, to put it mildly.

Isn't a big part of the savings that previous mergers have proven successful with the reduction in just truly poor decision making, misspending, improper management, etc.? When you merge you can select from the best in charge and eliminate those who are wasteful. Things like fire and police seem to vary pretty wildly across the board and utilizing the methods and tactics of the most efficient for an entire region opposed to, say, a city the size of North Royalton, seems like it could have pretty major saving implications.

That can happen, but the reverse can also happen.  There is no guarantee that you get better leaders at a higher/wider level of government than at lower levels; otherwise, the Ohio legislature would defy explanation.

True, but it seems like something in the process of many of the major mergers we've seen has led to better leadership instead of the reverse.

It would be worth it for nothing else other than to stop one municipality from incentivizing Wal-Mart to move 1/2 mile down the road and leaving the old building to rot.

 

Another recent story about East Cleveland mentioning a potential merger with Cleveland:

 

http://www.ideastream.org/news/feature/the-numbers-behind-east-clevelands-predicament

I couldn't find a thread regarding potential developments in East Cleveland- including the possible merger in the future of East Cleveland and Cleveland.  To start this off...

 

East Cleveland: Mayor launches talks on possible merger

 

Tom Beres 7:34 p.m. EST February 6, 2015

He said its options are declaring bankruptcy, cutting a deal with creditors or merging with its neighbor Cleveland

 

EAST CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Should financially troubled East Cleveland merge with Cleveland?

 

Mayor Gary Norton is starting community-wide talks on that politically controversial question.

 

He's stopping short of endorsing the idea for now, but he says it's time the community looks at long-range options.

 

More at:  http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/local/cuyahoga-county/2015/02/06/east-cleveland-mayor-launches-talks-on-possible-merger/23007823/

Again?

 

I'm not actually sure it will be for the benefit of Cleveland. While the population gets a slight boost, East Cleveland has been bleeding heavily since the 1970's and is only accelerating. The town suffers from police rot and an over dependence on speed cameras, traffic cameras and fines for revenue, which is not a sustainable model (see: Ferguson). It also has a weak economy.

Again?

 

I'm not actually sure it will be for the benefit of Cleveland. While the population gets a slight boost, East Cleveland has been bleeding heavily since the 1970's and is only accelerating. The town suffers from police rot and an over dependence on speed cameras, traffic cameras and fines for revenue, which is not a sustainable model (see: Ferguson). It also has a weak economy.

 

The only benefit for either is creating available "potential." East Cleveland has lots of vacant, environmentally compromised land and no resources to return them to productive uses. Cleveland has become pretty adept at getting grants, loans and other financing tools to turn them around. However, Cleveland has enough of its own vacant land that demands cleanup and not enough staff to address them all when it wants to. And just because a city wants is now able to return vacant land to productive use doesn't mean there's an end user willing to use it.

 

EDIT: FYI... most of the East Cleveland merger news has been posted in the Northeast Ohio Regionalism thread http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,3595.0.html

Again?

 

I'm not actually sure it will be for the benefit of Cleveland. While the population gets a slight boost, East Cleveland has been bleeding heavily since the 1970's and is only accelerating. The town suffers from police rot and an over dependence on speed cameras, traffic cameras and fines for revenue, which is not a sustainable model (see: Ferguson). It also has a weak economy.

 

Currently, East Cleveland is a huge liability in terms of safety and physical deterioration.  It's one of the few places in the metro where conditions visibly improve when you cross from the suburbs into the city.  I think the biggest benefit to EC is that coming into Cleveland's fold will provide more consistent fire and police service (despite CPD's very real problems,) as well as access Cleveland's considerable CDC/redevelopment expertise. 

 

From Cleveland's perspective, it's all about stabilizing EC to prevent it from dragging down University Circle's burgeoning, yet fragile growth.

East Cleveland Mayor launches annexation talk

 

Tom Beres, WKYC-TV 9:55 p.m. EDT April 1, 2015

 

EAST CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Mayor Gary Norton says the subject of merging his financially troubled city with Cleveland has been "political Kryptonite."

 

Thursday night, the mayor will hold a community meeting putting that volatile subject on the table. He wants East Cleveland residents to take the first steps toward a possible merger with the City of Cleveland.

 

Mayor Norton says annexation would mean immediate lower water bills for East Cleveland residents and cutting income tax in half for East Cleveland residents who work in Cleveland.

 

East Cleveland schools would remain separate from Cleveland schools.

 

http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/local/cuyahoga-county/2015/04/01/east-cleveland-mayor-launches-annexation-talk/70794990/

And to continue off the story above:

 

Effort to recall East Cleveland mayor will not make the ballot

 

By  James Ewinger, The Plain Dealer 

Follow on Twitter

on April 02, 2015 at 12:15 PM, updated April 02, 2015 at 12:56 PM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Organizers of a drive to recall East Cleveland Mayor Gary Norton fell well short of the number of signatures needed to put the matter up for a citywide vote.

 

The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections reported today that only 298 signatures of registered East Cleveland voters supporting a recall election were on petitions supplied to the board. The number of valid signatures needed was 600.

 

East Cleveland is in a state of fiscal emergency and there is talk of a merger with Cleveland.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/04/effort_to_recall_east_clevelan.html

I'm lazy, so I'll just ask rather than reading: What was the purported purpose for recalling the mayor?  Was it for actually getting the city into financial trouble (because we all know that anything bad that happens in any given city is the fault of the mayor), or was it for having the guts to actually propose a merger?

From the recall article:

 

"Organizers started their drive in early March at a meeting attended by about 60 people. City spending and uncertainty over how money was used from the Cleveland Clinic after the closing of Huron Hospital helped fuel the most recent effort."

There is a absolute psychological benefit to see Cleveland city gain population in the 2020 census, especially when getting back over the 400,000+ number.  Companies grow both organically and through acquisition, so why can't cities? :)  (cough...cough...Columbus).

 

This is going to be an interesting transition over the next 2-3 years.  Based on everything that's going on, it's probably safe to say this merger is inevitable.  Usually it's the leadership in the way of mergers since it would mean losing their jobs.  With the EC Mayor starting the conversation, this is a completely different dynamic.

 

If the schools can remain the same, this could end up being a model for future mergers of regionalism.

 

Bratenahl, you're next.

Bratenahl, you're next.

 

Mayor Licastro would definitely support that

Heh.  Bratenahl will be the last domino to fall.  But it will be fun seeing Murray Hill update the graphic above with one giant bloc of Cuyahoga County except for that tiny sliver.

Heh.  Bratenahl will be the last domino to fall.  But it will be fun seeing Murray Hill update the graphic above with one giant bloc of Cuyahoga County except for that tiny sliver.

 

Okaaaaaaayyyy, here you go. 

 

1) Cleveland city boundaries 2050 census -- with only Bratenahl holding out :)

2) Cleveland city boundaries 2020 census -- what Cleveland would look like after an EC merger

3) Cleveland city boundaries 2030 census -- my ideal city limits

 

 

Leaving aside the suburbanite "hellno" this would engender, why do you grab Lakewood, Garfield Heights, and "the Heights" and not Warrensville/Maple/North Randall?

3) Cleveland city boundaries 2030 census -- my ideal city limits

 

 

This map I agree with completely.  Your ideal boundaries sound like mine.

 

Sticking with the whole NE Ohio theme here, I was down in Florida this past summer just thinking about the South and their annexation policies.  As a Mahoning Valley resident the idea of absorbing some areas into Youngstown city limits started brewing.  I am not a fan of annexation of farmland or large swaths of land because I think it's cheating your way to growth, but when you're annexing areas with a somewhat cohesive relationship it makes sense: ex. Cleveland/Lakewood/Cleveland Heights.

 

In my old stomping grounds of Daytona Beach Shores back in August I quickly started putting numbers together.  Daytona Beach is roughly 64 square miles with a population of 61,000.  Youngstown is about 34 square miles with a population of 65,000.  If you know Youngstown, there are plenty of inner-ring suburbs/townships with a Youngstown zip code.  If you added census-designated Boardman (35,376 residents/15.3 square miles) and Austintown (29,677 residents/11.7 square miles) to Youngstown city limits you get over 130,000 residents in 61 square miles.  Smaller in area than Daytona Beach and a denser city.  Plus, this annexed land is already heavily developed and not really taking on a lot of undeveloped parcels of farmland like you see down South (Jacksonville practically takes up all of Duval County with 875 square miles).

 

I would be curious, because most of Cuyahoga County is already developed, what would population and land numbers be if you took on dense inner-ring suburbs?  Cleveland would still be smaller (land area wise) than southern cities and Columbus, but still dense, walkable, and connected by transit.

Leaving aside the suburbanite "hellno" this would engender, why do you grab Lakewood, Garfield Heights, and "the Heights" and not Warrensville/Maple/North Randall?

 

It's really an odd suggestion, isn't?

 

As a resident of the Heights, I see nothing beneficial about merging with Cleveland...unless it's part of a wide-scale merger that also includes places like Beachwood, Solon, Independence, Westlake, etc.

All municipalities merge with the county, then those municipalities (along with the neighborhoods of Cleveland) have their own CDCs with educational oversight to provide local control over education, security, neighborhood planning, economic development, intra-CDC transit circulators, recreation, seniors, intra-CDC streets, sidewalks and special assessments to pay for neighborhood-level services. The city/county would aggregate several private-sector providers of other public services including wastewater/stormwater management, waste/recycling, inter-CDC public transportation, inter-CDC roads, digital infrastructure, regional parks/recreation, regional economic development, aviation, sustainability programs, CDC coordination, etc. CDC boards would be elected by registered voters in that jurisdiction and the boards would electe a director who would also serve as a representative to a city/county board, or designate someone to represent them on the city/county board. There would be an elected city/county executive.

 

Boom. Problem solved. :)

Leaving aside the suburbanite "hellno" this would engender, why do you grab Lakewood, Garfield Heights, and "the Heights" and not Warrensville/Maple/North Randall?

 

It's really an odd suggestion, isn't?

 

As a resident of the Heights, I see nothing beneficial about merging with Cleveland...unless it's part of a wide-scale merger that also includes places like Beachwood, Solon, Independence, Westlake, etc.

 

I pretty much guarantee that Garfield Heights residents see things the same way.  Cuyahoga Heights residents, an order of magnitude more strongly.  Except neither would even include that "unless".

 

Discussing general mergers of suburbs into Cleveland is basically a waste of breath.  The suburbs would not go willingly, and the state legislature would absolutely block any serious efforts to force them.  This is especially true with a GOP legislature, but a Democratic one would have nothing to gain and a ton to lose.

 

I pretty much guarantee that Garfield Heights residents see things the same way.  Cuyahoga Heights residents, an order of magnitude more strongly.  Except neither would even include that "unless".

 

Discussing general mergers of suburbs into Cleveland is basically a waste of breath.  The suburbs would not go willingly, and the state legislature would absolutely block any serious efforts to force them.  This is especially true with a GOP legislature, but a Democratic one would have nothing to gain and a ton to lose.

 

Except this is the coming order of events:

 

1. the urban fringe keeps expanding outward;

2. it pulls the ring of poverty/blight outward behind it;

3. those who want to live at the geographic center, or the downsizing Boomers, or the low-mileage-minded young people, leapfrog over the ring of poverty/blight to redevelop and repopulate the broadening urban core;

4. they push the city's boundaries outward to incorporate the poverty/blighted suburbs and redevelop them;

5. East Cleveland becomes the first absorbed city, then Linndale, then Warrensville Heights, North Randall, Euclid, Garfield Heights, Brook Park, Valley View, and so on.

 

In 150 years, Cleveland becomes the fifth-most populated city in the country again.