The fact that they're being asked to give up benefits the private sector rarely sees?

 

Not sure about the clothing allowance, but there are some very sound behavioral reasons for incentivizing employees to show up for work.

The benefit from mergers, which you don't get from sharing services, is having one regime and one regulatory structure cover a large geographical area.  Cannot overstate how big that is for business.

 

Poaching of businesses and duplication of retail is a huge problem in this region, particularly in the eastern suburbs.

 

What I'd like to see is the capping or full elimination (at the state level) of the non-resident income tax law that allows so many of these suburbs to sustain lavish budgets and live beyond their means using revenue from people that don't even live in the city. Going a step further, raise the cap on the income tax rate that municipalities can charge to residents. That way if a municipality wants gold-plated services, they can have them if their residents pay for them.

Congratulations! You have just completely destroyed the City of Cleveland's budget. If you want to destroy any hope of a stable center city your idea is great.  Otherwise it may be as bad an idea as possible.

The benefit from mergers, which you don't get from sharing services, is having one regime and one regulatory structure cover a large geographical area.  Cannot overstate how big that is for business.

 

It doesn't seem to hurt Walton Hills that much.  Arhaus is moving, but that's to a township with even less regulation.  Ford's closure is nationally driven and has nothing to do with WH.

 

Business friendly means a lot more than a large area.

Right. Let me reset.

 

Parma is large. Several East Side communities are tiny. Yet Parma is brought up on here as a candidate for a merger because of the stupidity at City Hall.

 

I would love for Parma to gobble up Parma Heights and Seven Hills. That being said aren't there several better examples of smaller communities merging in Cuyahoga County. No?

 

The only merger to be seriously discussed in the Cleveland area in recent years has been this one:

 

http://www.cleveland.com/chagrin-valley/index.ssf/2013/11/final_study_shows_saving_throu.html

 

This was similar communities (okay, maybe not Woodmere but it's small and brings a lot of tax money to the table) and it still fell through due to resident opposition. 

 

Yet a merger like this is an order of magnitude more likely to happen than one of economically dissimilar communities, which is what "regionalists" inevitably propose.

 

Walton Hills and Valley View might conceivably merge with each other, but neither would ever remotely consider merging with Maple Heights.  It's actually worse than a waste of time to even consider, because it makes people leery of even the most sensible sharing of services.

 

 

Again I think you're right, but to me that resistance is not just a fact but a problem to be overcome.  Our region will always amount to less than the sum of its parts until we can get to the other side of this merger issue.  And it's not like this hasn't been accomplished by similar metro areas.

Congratulations! You have just completely destroyed the City of Cleveland's budget. If you want to destroy any hope of a stable center city your idea is great.  Otherwise it may be as bad an idea as possible.

 

Of course that's not my intention, but despite the consequences for larger cities like Cleveland, it's simply bad policy for workers to have to support the budgets of cities in which they do not live. It's just not right that certain municipalities and their residents benefit from lavish services by fluke of lines drawn on a map. I guess that I might support region-wide sharing of income taxes as long as it meant that residents in places like Beachwood and Independence were required to pull more of their own weight. But that's less likely than an overhaul to the tax code. Either way, ending this situation where certain cities leech off of residents of other cities would almost certainly lead to more sharing of services, less poaching of businesses, and likely even the full-fledged mergers that we really need to see.

Taxation without representation is flawed on many levels.  I have no say in whether Frank Jackson stays or goes, and yet I have to fund all his policy choices.  I don't mind the funding part.  I can't stand the no input part.

Taxation without representation is flawed on many levels.  I have no say in whether Frank Jackson stays or goes, and yet I have to fund all his policy choices.  I don't mind the funding part.  I can't stand the no input part.

 

That's a good point, too. Maybe if non-residents were given a voice, certain priorities might change (for better or worse).

Taxation without representation is flawed on many levels.  I have no say in whether Frank Jackson stays or goes, and yet I have to fund all his policy choices.  I don't mind the funding part.  I can't stand the no input part.

 

That's a good point, too. Maybe if non-residents were given a voice, certain priorities might change (for better or worse).

 

But this could hurt Cleveland if a suburban agenda was inserted into our fabric (more than it already has been).

 

The real solution is a pooling of all tax dollars, with an equitable distribution.  Suburbanites make more money here, but also drive on the roads, and we finance the highways to get them to the city roads.  All this doesn't fall from the sky....

Agreed about the real solution. 

 

Suburban agenda can mean many things though, and most of what I see as a suburban agenda has come from Cleveland's own leadership.  I'm tired of seeing "your tax dollars at work" on signs announcing new plazas and tract housing.  The city has been on a bad planning path for too long and there's been no accountability.  There are other issues, like immigration, the music tax, and open container districts, where Cleveland's leadership displays a conservative cul-de-sac attitude that's absolutely mind boggling. 

 

On another level, the city vs suburbs schism is something we just have to get past.  That's what regionalism means.  Consider also that lot of local urbanists live in areas that are technically suburbs but offer better urban living experiences than Cleveland does.  Sure, I could move from Lakewood to Ohio City, as long as I'm willing to get a third job, trade my apartment for a single family house and drive more often.

Agreed about the real solution. 

 

Suburban agenda can mean many things though, and most of what I see as a suburban agenda has come from Cleveland's own leadership.  I'm tired of seeing "your tax dollars at work" on signs announcing new plazas and tract housing.  The city has been on a bad planning path for too long and there's been no accountability.  There are other issues, like immigration, the music tax, and open container districts, where Cleveland's leadership displays a conservative cul-de-sac attitude that's absolutely mind boggling. 

 

On another level, the city vs suburbs schism is something we just have to get past.  That's what regionalism means.  Consider also that lot of local urbanists live in areas that are technically suburbs but offer better urban living experiences than Cleveland does.  Sure, I could move from Lakewood to Ohio City, as long as I'm willing to get a third job, trade my apartment for a single family house and drive more often.

 

In trying to work out what a more regional approach looks like, we need to remember that cities like Lakewood have historically fiercely fought becoming a part of Cleveland, which is fine, and they have every right to do so. But it seems to me that this is the schism we need to get past.

 

If we did take a more regional mindset and non-Cleveland residents had more of a say in Cleveland matters, then should the same be true vice versa? Should Cleveland residents have a say in Lakewood decisions, Mayfield Heights decisions, or any other Northeast Ohio City?

If we did take a more regional mindset and non-Cleveland residents had more of a say in Cleveland matters, then should the same be true vice versa? Should Cleveland residents have a say in Lakewood decisions, Mayfield Heights decisions, or any other Northeast Ohio City?

 

Remembers, the origins of this discussion (more like a thought experiment, in my opinion) stems from the point that many people in this region (perhaps a significant majority) are paying income taxes directly to governments they have no input towards. So based on that, a Cleveland resident should only get input in Mayfield Heights decisions if they are employed in that city and are paying taxes there.

Agreed about the real solution. 

 

Suburban agenda can mean many things though, and most of what I see as a suburban agenda has come from Cleveland's own leadership.  I'm tired of seeing "your tax dollars at work" on signs announcing new plazas and tract housing.  The city has been on a bad planning path for too long and there's been no accountability.  There are other issues, like immigration, the music tax, and open container districts, where Cleveland's leadership displays a conservative cul-de-sac attitude that's absolutely mind boggling. 

 

On another level, the city vs suburbs schism is something we just have to get past.  That's what regionalism means.  Consider also that lot of local urbanists live in areas that are technically suburbs but offer better urban living experiences than Cleveland does.  Sure, I could move from Lakewood to Ohio City, as long as I'm willing to get a third job, trade my apartment for a single family house and drive more often.

 

In trying to work out what a more regional approach looks like, we need to remember that cities like Lakewood have historically fiercely fought becoming a part of Cleveland, which is fine, and they have every right to do so. But it seems to me that this is the schism we need to get past.

 

If we did take a more regional mindset and non-Cleveland residents had more of a say in Cleveland matters, then should the same be true vice versa? Should Cleveland residents have a say in Lakewood decisions, Mayfield Heights decisions, or any other Northeast Ohio City?

 

Yes.  County merger would give all residents an equal say in the whole shebang.  It would also simplify income taxes and eliminate poaching.  The collar counties would still be separate, but at least we'd be more on par with newer metros.

I think a full county merger would be best option. Would probably have to be something that came top down though from the state in order to get everyone to participate. I think the best way to get people on board would be a tiered type merger like they have down in Nashville, where current cities still have autonomy in certain areas, while others are fully merged into the new city-county.

Hi Steve. How would the police operate under such a merger?

No idea  :-D I'm not familiar with any specifics. Just making the point that there are different levels of integration between the status quo, and folding everything 100% into Cleveland/Cuyahoga County. The details on what exactly to merge and share would be up to everyone involved.

^ There are plenty of examples across the country to see how the police would operate. It makes sense to have one police force for the entire county rather than have dozens with such small jurisdictions. And then we can finally get rid of Linndale!

Most of the counties around DC have individual jurisdictions that operate as independent cities. The vast majority of the residents and fastest growing parts of the metro reside outside those cities.

 

In Cleveland, I drive 20 mile swath of 480 and it is patrolled by 10 different local police departments. In DC, I drive the same 20 miles on the Beltway and it is patrolled by two. There are no stupid Linndale issues here either.

 

The only large city in the metro outside of the District itself is Alexandria, VA.

^ There are plenty of examples across the country to see how the police would operate. It makes sense to have one police force for the entire county rather than have dozens with such small jurisdictions. And then we can finally get rid of Linndale!

 

I hate Linndale as much as the next guy. Regionalism sounds smart on so many levels. However I'm fearful there would be a drop off in quality and frequency of police service. 

I think a full county merger would be best option. Would probably have to be something that came top down though from the state in order to get everyone to participate.

 

If anything, the state would come down on the side of the decliners.  Republicans because they have much stronger support in the suburbs than the city, Democrats because they gain no voters and potentially lose quite a few by supporting this.

If I remember correctly, Kasich and the statehouse republicans' rationale for cutting the local government fund was to try and 'convince' municipalities to embrace regionalism and pooling of resources. That didn't seem to be the course of action many of these cities took however.

If I remember correctly, Kasich and the statehouse republicans' rationale for cutting the local government fund was to try and 'convince' municipalities to embrace regionalism and pooling of resources. That didn't seem to be the course of action many of these cities took however.

That's because the municipalities he's trying to influence don't care about saving taxpayer money through common sense, they're more interested in job security.

If I remember correctly, Kasich and the statehouse republicans' rationale for cutting the local government fund was to try and 'convince' municipalities to embrace regionalism and pooling of resources. That didn't seem to be the course of action many of these cities took however.

 

That didn't mean mergers, because if it did those local governments would have turned on them hard and gone to their electorate.

 

My point all along regarding this topic is that advocating full mergers, especially coerced, poisons the case for actual regionalism among people and towns who would benefit.

 

 

If I remember correctly, Kasich and the statehouse republicans' rationale for cutting the local government fund was to try and 'convince' municipalities to embrace regionalism and pooling of resources. That didn't seem to be the course of action many of these cities took however.

 

That didn't mean mergers, because if it did those local governments would have turned on them hard and gone to their electorate.

 

My point all along regarding this topic is that advocating full mergers, especially coerced, poisons the case for actual regionalism among people and towns who would benefit.

 

I agree with you, going from independent communities straight to a merger would cause massive backlash. This is even evident in East Cleveland, even though they may have no choice really.

 

Like anything else in government (and public opinion), change takes a lot of time. It makes sense to make small incremental steps. I think once these communities share a large amount of services, people may come to the realization that so much is shared already we might as well merge.

 

That's how I imagine regionalism progressing. Some little nudges might be needed along the way.

I hate Linndale as much as the next guy. Regionalism sounds smart on so many levels. However I'm fearful there would be a drop off in quality and frequency of police service.

 

This is true. For instance, for residents of leechburbs like Beachwood, Independence, and Westlake with well-funded public safety departments, they might seen a significant increase in the time it takes for officers to leave the local donut shop to respond to cats in trees.

If I remember correctly, Kasich and the statehouse republicans' rationale for cutting the local government fund was to try and 'convince' municipalities to embrace regionalism and pooling of resources. That didn't seem to be the course of action many of these cities took however.

 

That didn't mean mergers, because if it did those local governments would have turned on them hard and gone to their electorate.

 

My point all along regarding this topic is that advocating full mergers, especially coerced, poisons the case for actual regionalism among people and towns who would benefit.

 

I agree with you, going from independent communities straight to a merger would cause massive backlash. This is even evident in East Cleveland, even though they may have no choice really.

 

Like anything else in government (and public opinion), change takes a lot of time. It makes sense to make small incremental steps. I think once these communities share a large amount of services, people may come to the realization that so much is shared already we might as well merge.

 

That's how I imagine regionalism progressing. Some little nudges might be needed along the way.

 

Public safety should be the first of the services to be shared.

I hate Linndale as much as the next guy. Regionalism sounds smart on so many levels. However I'm fearful there would be a drop off in quality and frequency of police service.

 

This is true. For instance, for residents of leechburbs like Beachwood, Independence, and Westlake with well-funded public safety departments, they might seen a significant increase in the time it takes for officers to leave the local donut shop to respond to cats in trees.

 

Are you suggesting that the police in those suburbs are less qualified than in Cleveland?

The police in my suburban home town are best known for their DUI and disorderly conduct arrests, so probably?

 

Edit: To clarify, I mean DUIs and disorderly conduct of the officers themselves.

 

The police in my suburban home town are best known for their DUI and disorderly conduct arrests, so probably?

 

Edit: To clarify, I mean DUIs and disorderly conduct of the officers themselves.

 

 

Yeah, they're going to have a nervous breakdown on a gun range before Cleveland hires them.

Are you suggesting that the police in those suburbs are less qualified than in Cleveland?

 

No, but that their workload is significantly lower.

 

But the comment wasn't really about the officers themselves, whom I do actually respect greatly. It was more about the likely misallocation of officers in this county to areas that could stand to see a reduced presence while sending more officers to areas that actually need them. Cleveland residents often deal with long response times to 911 calls while officers just a few miles away in wealthier suburbs sit idle because they're in a different jurisdiction. It's a question of efficiency and safety.

Are you suggesting that the police in those suburbs are less qualified than in Cleveland?

 

No, but that their workload is significantly lower.

 

But the comment wasn't really about the officers themselves, whom I do actually respect greatly. It was more about the likely misallocation of officers in this county to areas that could stand to see a reduced presence while sending more officers to areas that actually need them. Cleveland residents often deal with long response times to 911 calls while officers just a few miles away in wealthier suburbs sit idle because they're in a different jurisdiction. It's a question of efficiency and safety.

 

I'm also talking about efficiency and safety. It's the reason I bought a small house in Lakewood instead of a much larger one in Cleveland.

 

Are you suggesting that the police in those suburbs are less qualified than in Cleveland?

 

No, but that their workload is significantly lower.

 

But the comment wasn't really about the officers themselves, whom I do actually respect greatly. It was more about the likely misallocation of officers in this county to areas that could stand to see a reduced presence while sending more officers to areas that actually need them. Cleveland residents often deal with long response times to 911 calls while officers just a few miles away in wealthier suburbs sit idle because they're in a different jurisdiction. It's a question of efficiency and safety.

 

I'm also talking about efficiency and safety. It's the reason I bought a small house in Lakewood instead of a much larger one in Cleveland.

 

 

I could see some sort of mutual assistance like the fire department does.  Or using the county sheriff's office like Bob Reid started to do.

 

But a big part of the problem is elements of the Cleveland electorate, and therefore city government, seeing the police as a necessary evil.

 

I'm also talking about efficiency and safety. It's the reason I bought a small house in Lakewood instead of a much larger one in Cleveland.

 

I mean I get that, this mentality is also why just to the west of you that are suburbs where officers sit idle while even some serious crime issues in Lakewood aren't addressed as quickly and efficiently as possible. Overall, however, it would be best for the region if the police force was shared. Few residents would truly notice any difference, though the ones that need it most would likely notice a significant improvement.

I could see some sort of mutual assistance like the fire department does.  Or using the county sheriff's office like Bob Reid started to do.

 

But a big part of the problem is elements of the Cleveland electorate, and therefore city government, seeing the police as a necessary evil.

 

Mutual assistance agreements may already be in place, but still don't go far enough.

 

As for the second part of your statement, in regards to this conversation I think it's a red herring.

On his Facebook page yesterday, John Gorman posted something about how early on, it was Cleveland that resisted suburban annexations.

 

Anyone know any background on this?

^ I'm not close to being an expert on that history by any means, but I did a fair amount of research in college for a couple papers about regionalism in Cleveland, and I never once came across any instance in which Cleveland opposed annexation.

^ I'm not close to being an expert on that history by any means, but I did a fair amount of research in college for a couple papers about regionalism in Cleveland, and I never once came across any instance in which Cleveland opposed annexation.

 

Collinwood, Glenville, Miles Heights, etc. were all independent at one point that I know of that were annexed in the early 20th century. Now that's not to say that these weren't reluctant annexations, but Cleveland definitely pulled in quite a few surrounding municipalities.

^ I'm not close to being an expert on that history by any means, but I did a fair amount of research in college for a couple papers about regionalism in Cleveland, and I never once came across any instance in which Cleveland opposed annexation.

 

Collinwood, Glenville, Miles Heights, etc. were all independent at one point that I know of that were annexed in the early 20th century. Now that's not to say that these weren't reluctant annexations, but Cleveland definitely pulled in quite a few surrounding municipalities.

 

Ohio City as well, much earlier.  He might have meant Greater Cleveland, in which case he's of course correct.

 

I believe Collinwood was annexed largely because of the school fire.

 

Keep in mind that at the same time, townships were breaking apart into individual municipalities.  The trend wasn't simply anti-city.

 

 

Ohio City as well, much earlier.  He might have meant Greater Cleveland, in which case he's of course correct.

 

 

Ohio City did come to mind, but yes you're right that was 18th century. I wonder how our region overall might be different if that merger had never happened and we had our own version of "twin cities." I suppose the east-west rivalry would be much more amplified.

Ohio City as well, much earlier.  He might have meant Greater Cleveland, in which case he's of course correct.

 

 

Ohio City did come to mind, but yes you're right that was 18th century. I wonder how our region overall might be different if that merger had never happened and we had our own version of "twin cities." I suppose the east-west rivalry would be much more amplified.

 

1854 is when it was.    Ohio City had only split off from Brooklyn Township a few years earlier.

 

The rivalry might have been more positive, spurring each other forward like Minneapolis and St. Paul seem to do.

 

 

Collinwood, Glenville, Miles Heights, etc. were all independent at one point that I know of that were annexed in the early 20th century. Now that's not to say that these weren't reluctant annexations, but Cleveland definitely pulled in quite a few surrounding municipalities.

 

I seem to recall that some of the annexations were related to having access to city water. Or maybe I'm just confusing Cleveland with Los Angeles...

 

Collinwood, Glenville, Miles Heights, etc. were all independent at one point that I know of that were annexed in the early 20th century. Now that's not to say that these weren't reluctant annexations, but Cleveland definitely pulled in quite a few surrounding municipalities.

 

I seem to recall that some of the annexations were related to having access to city water. Or maybe I'm just confusing Cleveland with Los Angeles...

 

That was Columbus's method.

That was Columbus's method.

 

Yeah Columbus instantly comes to mind when I think of water-system based annexations. Too bad Cleveland leaders couldn't have figured that out, too.

That was Columbus's method.

 

Yeah Columbus instantly comes to mind when I think of water-system based annexations. Too bad Cleveland leaders couldn't have figured that out, too.

 

Glad they didn't.  Annexations + busing would have been disastrous for the county, and a boon to the bordering ones.  Brunswick gets to be Parma, Macedonia Maple Heights.  A generation sooner.

 

Later on:  Euclid,  Lakewood etc. make this ineffective.

 

That was Columbus's method.

 

LA was doing that before WWII, back when Cleveland was still larger than LA.

That was Columbus's method.

 

Yeah Columbus instantly comes to mind when I think of water-system based annexations. Too bad Cleveland leaders couldn't have figured that out, too.

 

Glad they didn't.  Annexations + busing would have been disastrous for the county, and a boon to the bordering ones.  Brunswick gets to be Parma, Macedonia Maple Heights.  A generation sooner.

 

Later on:  Euclid,  Lakewood etc. make this ineffective.

 

It seems to have worked out reasonably well for Columbus, though.

 

Also, school district boundaries aren't inherently tied to municipal boundaries in Ohio, right?  As in, you could keep Parma schools even if Parma and Cleveland were to merge?  It wouldn't even complicate property tax bills much beyond where they already are, if anything.

It seems to have worked out reasonably well for Columbus, though.

 

Also, school district boundaries aren't inherently tied to municipal boundaries in Ohio, right?  As in, you could keep Parma schools even if Parma and Cleveland were to merge?  It wouldn't even complicate property tax bills much beyond where they already are, if anything.

 

Is there any place where it hasn't worked out? 

 

No, school districts do not have to follow city lines.  Part of Cleveland has Shaker schools.

The difference is that Cleveland extended its water lines without extending its city boundary lines. Imagine what Cleveland's population might be if we counted all the people living within its water service area as "Cleveland." Unfortunately I cannot find a good map showing this service area.