^Well that's assuming the Cleveland-Akron-Canton region grows in populatiin again and stops being a net exporter of people.

^Well that's assuming the Cleveland-Akron-Canton region grows in populatiin again and stops being a net exporter of people.

 

Which, mine? If so, mine assumes the continuation of the status quote -- no-growth sprawl.

 

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.

 

I'm not so sure.  What appears to be happening is small clusters of mixed-use density such as Crocker Park and Chagrin River Walk are springing up.  Those clusters may or may not grow together with others, and can be connected through cars or mass transit.  Density minded people may just find them to be the "best of both worlds", dense living but without the problems of larger denser cities.  Cultural segregation?  You betchya...that's sort of the point.

 

If the assumptions you all make about the unsustainability of sprawl are true, developments like this still might seem a lot more attractive than moving into older neighborhoods.

If the assumptions you all make about the unsustainability of sprawl are true, developments like this still might seem a lot more attractive than moving into older neighborhoods.

 

I'm not sure what "assumptions" or "you all" are referring to.  I think the basic question that we are not asking often enough is: if all the private property in Cuyahoga county is worth X, how much infrastructure can taxes on X support?  Surely something less than X in maintenance costs.  I'd argue that sprawl is unsustainable when we aren't increasing the value of the property in the county as fast as we are increasing our maintenance liabilities. 

 

It's not a matter of disliking suburban houses with big yards.  The problem is that we only look at half the equation -- how much new tax revenue will that development bring in?  We also need to ask -- how much will that new development increase our maintenance costs? 

 

If I'm right, at some point we are going to have triage our infrastructure and make choices about what we will maintain and what we will abandon. 

 

 

You raise an interesting point though, some suburbs are finding that a denser, mixed-use development can be a mini "downtown" that generates more tax revenue for the amount of space it occupies.  I think you're right -- we're going to see more of that.  Hopefully that will lead to more (financially) sustainable development.

 

 

 

Whatever happened to the Cuyahoga County Planning Commission "Weblog"?  No updates since March 2014.  It had been an excellent aggregator of updates on projects in the county.

http://planning.co.cuyahoga.oh.us/blog/

 

Well, this falls into the category of "Sucks"....

 

WEWS NewsChannel5 ‏@WEWS  30s31 seconds ago

East Cleveland Fire Department relying on mutual aid after fire truck breaks down http://on.wews.com/1b3wuDM

 

Cleveland Scene ‏@Cleveland_Scene  5m5 minutes ago

East Cleveland's One Operable Fire Truck Fixed in Time for Morning Blaze via @ericsandy

http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2015/04/16/east-clevelands-one-operable-fire-truck-fixed-in-time-for-morning-blaze

 

^Looks like it was fixed just in time to get there for the end of the blaze! :)

Yeah, I didn't look like it did much good.

Last year I went to East Cleveland to handle a zoning matter.  It was about 10 am and City Hall was locked.  I called the Mayor's office to ask if it was closed for the day.  They said no, we just forgot to open the doors.  They sent a janitor down with some keys.  My zoning matter was resolved in a few short months. 

First post / long time reader.  I was checking out the PD articles about the proposed merger between Cleveland and East Cleveland and started to check out past controversies on Cleveland land annexations.  Some things are still in recent memory like the Cleveland / Brook Park lawsuits on airport expansion in the 1990s which resulted in a land swap in 2001.  But other things are just as fascinating and almost forgotten like how Bratenahl seceded from Glenville as residents feared Glenville would eventually merge with Cleveland (which as we all know it did).  Stories like this are all around the area.

 

So I tried to find an annexation map, but sadly the last map was last updated in 1950, so I decided to update it and bring it to the Internet Age.

And here is the Key to that Map.

 

KEY TO ANNEXATIONS MAP

 

A.  Original Village of Cleveland, incorporated by legislative act of December 23, 1814.

B.  Annexation by act of December 31, 1829.

C.  Annexation by act of February 18, 1834.

D.  Incorporated with A, B, and C as City of Cleveland by act of March 5, 1836.

E.  Remainder of Cleveland Township Annexed by act of March 22, 1850.

F.  City of Ohio Annexed by act of June 5, 1854.

G.  Annexation of part of Brooklyn Township passed by legislative act of February 16, 1864, and granted by County Commissioners, September 6, 1864.

H / I.  Portions of Brooklyn and Newburgh townships Annexed by act of February 28, 1867, and approval of County Commissioners granted, August 6, 1867.

K.  Annexation of part of Newburgh Township granted by County Commissioners. March 9, 1870.

L.  Ordinance to Annex East Cleveland Village passed, October 24, 1872.

M / N / O.  Annexation of parts of Brooklyn, Newburgh, and East Cleveland townships granted by County Commissioners, February 8, 1873.

P.  Annexation of Portion of Newburgh Township granted by County Commissioners, December 8, 1873.

R.  Annexation of part of Brooklyn Village granted by County Commissioners, November 10, 1890.

S.  Annexation of Portion of East Cleveland Township granted by County Commissioners, September 28, 1892.

T.  Annexation of Portion of Newburgh Township granted by County Commissioners, November 15, 1893.

U.  Annexation of West Cleveland Village granted by County Commissioners, March 5, 1894.

V.  Date of Annexation of Brooklyn Village fixed by passage of ordinance by its council, June 15, 1894, after authorization passed, April 30, 1894.

W.  Portion of Village of Glenville Annexed by grant of County Commissioners, February 26, 1898.

X.  Annexation of Portion of Glenville Village granted by County Commissioners, November 18, 1902.

Y.  Annexation of Portion of Linndale Village ordered by County Commissioners, December 19, 1903, and resolution adopted on April 11, 1904, declaring said Annexation as part of Cleveland.

Z.  Ordinance to Annex a Portion of Brooklyn Township rejected, May 31, 1904.

AA.  Annexation of Portion of Brooklyn Township ordered by County Commissioners, July 11, 1904.

BB.  Annexation of Portion of Newburgh Heights Village ordered by County Commissioners, September 25, 1905.

CC.  Ordinance to Annex Glenville City passed, June 19, 1905.

DD.  Ordinance to Annex Village of South Brooklyn passed, December 11, 1905.

EE.  Secretary of state notified of passage of ordinance Annexing Corlett Village, December 28, 1909.

FF.  Secretary of state notified of passage of ordinance Annexing the Village of Collinwood, January 21, 1910.

GG.  Secretary of state notified of passage of ordinance Annexing a Portion of Shaker Township, June 22, 1912.

HH.  Secretary of state notified of passage of ordinance Annexing the Village of Nottingham, January 14, 1913.

II.  Secretary of state notified of passage of ordinance Annexing the City of Newburgh, February 10, 1913.

KK.  Secretary of state notified of passage of ordinance Annexing Portion of Euclid Village, August 27, 1914.

LL.  Secretary of state notified of passage of ordinance Annexing Portion of East View Village, December I, 1914.

MM.  Secretary of state notified of passage of ordinance Annexing Portion of Shaker Heights Village, February 12, 1915.

NN.  Secretary of state notified of passage of ordinance Annexing Portion of Brooklyn Township, August 7, 1915.

OO / PP.  Secretary of state notified of passage of ordinances Annexing Portions of Brooklyn Township, August 10, 1916, and April 12, 1917, respectively.

QQ / RR.  Secretary of state notified of passage of ordinances Annexing Portions of East View Village and Warrensville Township, September 15, 1917.

SS.  Secretary of state notified of passage of ordinance Annexing Portion of East View Village, February 10, 1919.

TT.  Village of West Park recorded, January 3, 1923, per Record of village incorporations, County recorder's office.

UU.  Annexation of Portion of Euclid Village granted by County Commissioners, October 15, 1926.

VV.  Annexation of Portion of Warrensville Township granted by County Commissioners, March 9, 1927.

WW.  Annexation of Portion of Brooklyn Heights Village granted by County Commissioners, June 6, 1927.

XX.  Annexation of Portion of Warrensville Township granted by County Commissioners, May 25, 1927.

YY.  Annexation of Portion of Warrensville Township granted by County Commissioners, July 21, 1927.

ZZ.  Annexation of Portion of Miles Heights Village granted by County Commissioners, April 25, 1928.

50.  Annexation of Miles Heights Village ordered by County Commissioners, December 29, 1931; Annexation Passed, March 28, 1932.

51.  Portion of old West Park Village Detached from the City of Cleveland by Court of Common Pleas, October 28, 1932.

52.  Portion Detached from the City of Cleveland to South Euclid by County Commissioners, March 12, 1943.

53.  Annexation of Portion of Brookpark Village granted by County Commissioners, March 28, 1946.

54.  Annexation of Portion of Riveredge Township as part of agreement between City of Cleveland and City of Fairview Park, July 1, 1992.

55.  Additional Annexations of Portions of City of Brook Park, part of airport expansion between 1992 and 1996.

56.  Portion Detached from the City of Cleveland to City of Brook Park as part of settlement agreement, July 1996.

57.  Annexation of Portion of City of Brook Park as agreed by Cleveland City Council and agreed by Referendum of City of Brook Park on August 7, 2001.

58.  Portion Detached from the City of Cleveland to City of Brook Park as agreed by Cleveland City Council and agreed by Referendum of City of Brook Park on August 7, 2001.

 

WOW!!!

Great work.

And an official welcome to you, as well.

^Looks like it was fixed just in time to get there for the end of the blaze! :)

 

The Fire Dept. in my hometown was famous for getting to fires at light speed.

 

Then it turned out the fireman were the ones lighting them, so they kinda had an unfair advantage over E. Cleveland.

Wow, that map is fascinating!  Thanks for that, and welcome!

What an amazing first post!  Welcome!

I love when people who have never posted before come in and drop some epic data on the boards. This is an awesome map and great resource. Thanks for putting the time into it and sharing it with everyone and welcome!

Thanks everyone.  The map was an update of maps found in “A History of Cleveland and Its Environs” (1918) by Elroy McKendree Avery and "Cleveland:  The Making of a City" (1950) by William Ganson Rose.  Other info was found in Case's Encyclopedia of Cleveland History and shakersquare.net too.  Lots of great stuff out there.

 

I totally thought that said "shakespeare.net," and I was like, wow, did we get into one of his history plays?  (Or one of the tragedies?)

There is some momentum towards a large joint fire district amongst several of the westside suburbs.

There is some momentum towards a large joint fire district amongst several of the westside suburbs.

 

They already have a similar arrangement along the police departments with the Westshore Enforcement Bureau to provide SWAT, bomb disposal, drug interdiction, and other large-scale activities. I'm surprised Rocky River's police boat Argus (whatever # it's on now) hasn't been moved under WEB's jurisdiction.

^Right, but this would not simply be a mutual aid agreement or sharing of special services.  It would be a total consolidation of fire departments, something much more radical in terms of the steps towards regionalization.   

^Right, but this would not simply be a mutual aid agreement or sharing of special services.  It would be a total consolidation of fire departments, something much more radical in terms of the steps towards regionalization.   

 

Northfield Center and Sagamore Hills share a fire department.  As do Walton Hills and Oakwood, actually administered by Oakwood.  It's not unprecedented.

Just wait for it.  There are several examples of joint fire districts..... especially amongst the smaller cities, village and townships.  There are sections of the revised code addressing the same.  It is the scale of this which would be unprecedented.

Shaker Heights and University Heights had some momentum towards merging fire departments, but I haven't heard much about it recently and I think that there was enough pushback that it fell through.

Shaker Heights and University Heights had some momentum towards merging fire departments, but I haven't heard much about it recently and I think that there was enough pushback that it fell through.

 

Interesting that the "liberal" suburbs rejected it while Northfield Center and Sagamore Hills (where "Agenda 21" and even "density" are cuss words) have done it for years.

 

You might make more progress focusing on governmental efficiency and going easy on "regionalism" references. 

Shaker Heights and University Heights had some momentum towards merging fire departments, but I haven't heard much about it recently and I think that there was enough pushback that it fell through.

 

Interesting that the "liberal" suburbs rejected it while Northfield Center and Sagamore Hills (where "Agenda 21" and even "density" are cuss words) have done it for years.

 

You might make more progress focusing on governmental efficiency and going easy on "regionalism" references. 

 

If anything, the concern was regarding efficiency coming at the expense of service. The unions weren't happy with the plan, either. Cleveland Heights wanted in, but they were never asked to participate.

 

As liberal as you may think that SH and UH are, I'm not sure that regionalism for the sake of it is a big sell around here.

This is not a classic left/right issue.  Regionalism seeks to reduce government and autonomy at the same time, giving everybody at least one reason to oppose it.  And even from the most liberal of locals, I've encountered disdain for having those people at the table.  But the identity of those people depends on who you're talking to.

Shaker Heights and University Heights had some momentum towards merging fire departments, but I haven't heard much about it recently and I think that there was enough pushback that it fell through.

 

Interesting that the "liberal" suburbs rejected it while Northfield Center and Sagamore Hills (where "Agenda 21" and even "density" are cuss words) have done it for years.

 

You might make more progress focusing on governmental efficiency and going easy on "regionalism" references. 

 

If anything, the concern was regarding efficiency coming at the expense of service. The unions weren't happy with the plan, either. Cleveland Heights wanted in, but they were never asked to participate.

 

As liberal as you may think that SH and UH are, I'm not sure that regionalism for the sake of it is a big sell around here.

 

Perhaps not.  But it's a big non-sell out there.  I'm not kidding about the cuss words reference.  In the last trustee election in Sagamore, the winning candidates had a lot of negative things to say about both.

 

Yet they share a fire department.    Northfield Center even has the county sheriff handle police duties.

 

Even diverse communities can work together.  Walton Hills is nearly as "conservative" yet it has 2/3 black and heavily Democratic Oakwood handle its fire services.  The key here, I think, is their similar sizes.

I think when we're talking about townships, particularly those as tiny as the ones in question in northwest Summit County, it's not the same as well-established municipalities in Cuyahoga County. Part of this discussion cuts to the core of what role local government should have.

 

 

Shaker Heights and University Heights had some momentum towards merging fire departments, but I haven't heard much about it recently and I think that there was enough pushback that it fell through.

 

Interesting that the "liberal" suburbs rejected it while Northfield Center and Sagamore Hills (where "Agenda 21" and even "density" are cuss words) have done it for years.

 

You might make more progress focusing on governmental efficiency and going easy on "regionalism" references. 

 

If anything, the concern was regarding efficiency coming at the expense of service. The unions weren't happy with the plan, either. Cleveland Heights wanted in, but they were never asked to participate.

 

As liberal as you may think that SH and UH are, I'm not sure that regionalism for the sake of it is a big sell around here.

 

The liberal burbs are still conservative in their own way. Like any wealthy and established area, they are going to be highly skeptical of changing something they view as working.

 

As far as townships, I know a township fiscal officer who is convinced in the next 10-20 years the state government is going to try to get rid of them, and either combine them into larger townships or just have them administered by the county. Which really is probably a good idea.

I think when we're talking about townships, particularly those as tiny as the ones in question in northwest Summit County, it's not the same as well-established municipalities in Cuyahoga County. Part of this discussion cuts to the core of what role local government should have.

 

Sagamore Hills has a population of nearly 10,000 and Northfield Center comes close to 5,000.  The cap on village population is 5,000, so they hardly qualify as tiny.  The city of Macedonia, by comparison, has just over 11,000.

 

I don't see the state government actually getting rid of them anytime soon, particularly with the GOP in charge.    Too much clout, and the opposition would be intense.

I think when we're talking about townships, particularly those as tiny as the ones in question in northwest Summit County, it's not the same as well-established municipalities in Cuyahoga County. Part of this discussion cuts to the core of what role local government should have.

 

Sagamore Hills has a population of nearly 10,000 and Northfield Center comes close to 5,000.  The cap on village population is 5,000, so they hardly qualify as tiny.  The city of Macedonia, by comparison, has just over 11,000.

 

I don't see the state government actually getting rid of them anytime soon, particularly with the GOP in charge.    Too much clout, and the opposition would be intense.

 

I didn't say anything about the state government getting rid of them. :shrug:

 

Though I do think that Kasich has an unstated goal of forcing more and more communities of all types to either consider sharing services or even outright merging, though the latter is years down the line and would happen well after Johnny is gone.

I think when we're talking about townships, particularly those as tiny as the ones in question in northwest Summit County, it's not the same as well-established municipalities in Cuyahoga County. Part of this discussion cuts to the core of what role local government should have.

 

Sagamore Hills has a population of nearly 10,000 and Northfield Center comes close to 5,000.  The cap on village population is 5,000, so they hardly qualify as tiny.  The city of Macedonia, by comparison, has just over 11,000.

 

I don't see the state government actually getting rid of them anytime soon, particularly with the GOP in charge.    Too much clout, and the opposition would be intense.

 

I didn't say anything about the state government getting rid of them. :shrug:

 

Whoops, that was in another post, above.

http://www.the-news-leader.com/news%20local/2015/06/24/sagamore-hills-looks-to-form-jedd-with-walton-hills

 

SAGAMORE HILLS LOOKS TO FORM JEDD WITH WALTON HILLS

by Briana Barker | Reporter Published: June 24, 2015 12:00AM

 

Sagamore Hills ­-- Sagamore Hills Trustees and Walton Hills have agreed to form a joint economic development district that includes the Northcoast Behavioral Healthcare center and is expected to bring the two communities around $400,000 per year, according to officials.

East Cleveland residents on possible annexation

 

EAST CLEVELAND, Ohio -- It's prompted discussions in political circles -- a preliminary fact-finding study for Cleveland City Council and talk among East Cleveland residents,.

 

The question...Should struggling East Cleveland be annexed by Cleveland?

 

East Cleveland's battling poverty, blight and crime. Cleveland needs to add more residents.

 

A random survey of people who live, work and hang out in East Cleveland found most were open to the idea.

 

http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/local/cuyahoga-county/2014/03/27/east-cleveland-residents-talk-about-possible-annexation/6973507/

 

E. Cleveland first annexation step: Petitions to be turned in

Tom Beres 6:12 p.m. EDT July 14, 2015

Mayor Gary Norton announced petitions will be turned in to the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections Wednesday

 

EAST CLEVELAND -- On Wednesday, backers of studying whether financially struggling East Cleveland should be annexed to Cleveland will take a big step.

 

Mayor Gary Norton announced petitions will be turned in to the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections Wednesday afternoon.

 

The job of getting the needed number of signatures and the right signatures may have been more daunting than expected.

 

Why? Because a step toward abolishing a longstanding community is a step not to be taken lightly, and the bar was set high for requirements.

 

MORE:

http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/local/cuyahoga-county/2015/07/14/e-cleveland-1st-step-to-annexation-petitions-to-be-turned-in/30158365/

East Cleveland to present petition to study merger with Cleveland

Tim Rearden, Frank Wiley

5:58 PM, Jul 14, 2015

10:40 AM, Jul 15, 2015

 

EAST CLEVELAND, Ohio - East Cleveland will formally announce its intentions to merge with the City of Cleveland when it presents its annexation petition on Wednesday.

 

East Cleveland Mayor Gary Norton announced the city will present the petition to the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections after receiving three times the required signatures.

 

Download the FREE newsnet5 app: Apple  | Android

 

Norton will hand over the petition at 2 p.m. at the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections.

 

The petition will allow the citizens of East Cleveland to vote on whether they want to create a commission to study the merger of the two cities.

 

MORE:

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/cleveland-metro/east-cleveland-to-present-petition-to-study-merger-with-cleveland

This will be a fascinating next few months / years.  I see this merger as evitable and a potential blueprint for future mergers.  For example, do we keep the schools and libraries independent?

For example, do we keep the schools and libraries independent?

 

School districts and libraries are entirely separate entities in Ohio, with their own special boundaries created by the state, so it would take a whole separate discussion of the school/library boards to merge those.

Interesting to follow Gary Norton on Facebook. He is very optimistic about this.

The only question I would have regarding the schools is that because CMSD is technically under mayor control, would that mean something different for the otherwise independent ECCSD? It's certainly an open question in this particular merger situation.

Is there a difference between a merger and an annexation? 

Is there a difference between a merger and an annexation? 

 

In my understanding, based on some things I read a few years back, when two municipalities are involved it's technically a "merger," even if one is much bigger and the new combined area takes on the name of the larger municipality. And I think when a municipality brings in unincorporated land (for instance township land like Columbus has been famous for doing over the years), that would be an annexation.

 

I guess I'll throw this out there again even though it's looking less and less likely: I would still argue that the uphill area of East Cleveland should merge with Cleveland Heights.

Is there a difference between a merger and an annexation? 

 

In my understanding, based on some things I read a few years back, when two municipalities are involved it's technically a "merger," even if one is much bigger and the new combined area takes on the name of the larger municipality. And I think when a municipality brings in unincorporated land (for instance township land like Columbus has been famous for doing over the years), that would be an annexation.

 

I guess I'll throw this out there again even though it's looking less and less likely: I would still argue that the uphill area of East Cleveland should merge with Cleveland Heights.

 

Why do you think the Forest Hills section of East Cleveland and neighborhoods to the north and south of Noble Road should merge with CH and not Cleveland?

Interesting to follow Gary Norton on Facebook. He is very optimistic about this.

 

Has to be better than Eric Brewer's disturbing page....

Isn't there a tax benefit to both working and living in the City of Cleveland, as opposed to working in the City and living in the suburbs?  If so, the Forest Hills neighborhood could see its status rise due to the great housing stock and proximity to UC.

Isn't there a tax benefit to both working and living in the City of Cleveland, as opposed to working in the City and living in the suburbs?  If so, the Forest Hills neighborhood could see its status rise due to the great housing stock and proximity to UC.

 

Depends on the suburb.  Some give residents credit for taxes paid elsewhere.

Is there a difference between a merger and an annexation? 

 

In my understanding, based on some things I read a few years back, when two municipalities are involved it's technically a "merger," even if one is much bigger and the new combined area takes on the name of the larger municipality. And I think when a municipality brings in unincorporated land (for instance township land like Columbus has been famous for doing over the years), that would be an annexation.

 

I guess I'll throw this out there again even though it's looking less and less likely: I would still argue that the uphill area of East Cleveland should merge with Cleveland Heights.

 

Why do you think the Forest Hills section of East Cleveland and neighborhoods to the north and south of Noble Road should merge with CH and not Cleveland?

 

Because I'm a bit parochial and have always felt like that area had geographic continuity with its bordering CH neighborhoods. ;)

 

When this merger goes through, I'd like to see some serious consideration given for turning Forest Hill Park over to the MetroParks. I'd also like for both cities to find something productive to do with the Superior Triangle area that is currently a complete mess and, IMO, causing big problems for Cleveland Heights. If these two things can be addressed, I'd feel a lot more comfortable with Cleveland's merger with East Cleveland.

Another interesting point just came to mind regarding the school district question: Part of Cleveland Heights is within the East Cleveland City School District (the streets near Caledonia Elementary School). If mayoral control of schools means the ECCSD is dissolved into CMSD, then I think there may be issues with including a portion of Cleveland Heights into CMSD.