Isn't SF more in the Baltimore and St. Louis model? I thought SF County was the same 49 sq miles as the city. Maybe it also includes Daly City and the city of South San Francisco, too?

SF is indeed the 49 square miles at the tip of the peninsula, but it unto itself is the entire county, much like how Indianapolis is the same size as Marion County (save for a handful of independent communities that didn't merge). That's why its official name is the City and County of San Francisco. St. Louis, meanwhile, is not located in St Louis County and is not part of the county's jurisdiction. StL borders St. Louis County, but Clayton is that county's seat and if you look at maps of St. Louis County, you'll see a crescent-shaped area carved out from it where St. Louis is located. It's not its own county - it's literally just an independent, county-less city. Hopefully that makes a little bit more sense. 

 

17 hours ago, NYC Boomerang said:

Link below to the possible merger of St. Louis and its county.  Hope Cleveland can pull this off someday.  Interesting reading about the reversal of fortunes between Louisville (merger completed) and St. Louis.  

 

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/01/st-louis-missouri-city-county-consolidation-vote-2020/579436/

 

It. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.

 

Seriously, the only thing bringing up the idea of the city annexing the suburbs does is poisons the idea of any new serious sharing of resources.     The A word might as well have four letters as far as suburbanites are concerned, and in a case like this they have orders of magnitude more clout than the city at both the state and federal level, due to being “in play” at election times.

22 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

It. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.

 

Seriously, the only thing bringing up the idea of the city annexing the suburbs does is poisons the idea of any new serious sharing of resources.     The A word might as well have four letters as far as suburbanites are concerned, and in a case like this they have orders of magnitude more clout than the city at both the state and federal level, due to being “in play” at election times.

 

I don’t think you can definitively rule anything out. Is it going to happen in the short term? Absolutely not, I agree. 

 

But things (and public sentiment) can change rapidly. You can’t predict what’s going to happen in 2030. There are many positives to the idea and very few (but important yes) negatives, and because of that I do t believe the discussion is ever going to go away fully.

25 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

It. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.

 

Seriously, the only thing bringing up the idea of the city annexing the suburbs does is poisons the idea of any new serious sharing of resources.     The A word might as well have four letters as far as suburbanites are concerned, and in a case like this they have orders of magnitude more clout than the city at both the state and federal level, due to being “in play” at election times.

 

It'll happen eventually, because it has to.

15 hours ago, BigDipper 80 said:

SF is indeed the 49 square miles at the tip of the peninsula, but it unto itself is the entire county, much like how Indianapolis is the same size as Marion County (save for a handful of independent communities that didn't merge). That's why its official name is the City and County of San Francisco. St. Louis, meanwhile, is not located in St Louis County and is not part of the county's jurisdiction. StL borders St. Louis County, but Clayton is that county's seat and if you look at maps of St. Louis County, you'll see a crescent-shaped area carved out from it where St. Louis is located. It's not its own county - it's literally just an independent, county-less city. Hopefully that makes a little bit more sense. 

 

 

Thanks for the explanation. I thought St. Louis City was its own county, ala San Francisco. I had an old roommate from St. Louis, and he always used to talk about the weird political dynamic of the city and county. Seems much more fractured there than anywhere in Ohio. In fact, I just read today that one of the burbs located in STL County is now talking about seceding or joining neighboring St. Charles County, just based on this potential city-county merger. Pretty crazy stuff.

People like to cite Cincinnati as a southern city that accidentally wound up in the north, but both St. Louis and Baltimore are in former slave states, which I think makes the tension between the city and the suburbs much more acute in those metro areas. You get the the passive-aggressive racism you see in every Rust Belt northern city mixed with the blatant southern racism that makes reconciliation across the region even more difficult. 

I never said it was going to happen tomorrow.  Regionalism is perhaps inevitable eventually.  Same with companies.  When there are competitive/economic pressures, companies at times need to combine and consolidate to stay alive (by saving costs).  Cuyahoga county is stricken by inefficiencies.  One of the very superficial, but real benefits for Cleveland, if perhaps it pulls this off one day, is to have Cleveland regain its footing in the rankings of cities by population.  I cannot stand it when Columbus is referred to as the biggest city in Ohio.  Columbus, through annexation, is now 2.7x larger than Cleveland in land area.  References to city rankings by population are so apples and oranges.  Unfortunately, Cleveland, due to its small size in land area and tremendous population loss, gets marginalized every time these rankings are referenced whether it be by state or nationally.  One of my biggest pet peeves and I really think it impacts Clevelanders' psyches and inferiority complexes. 

 

On another tangent, I do think, if things keep trending how they are in the city, and Cleveland is able to hang onto some of these young professionals as they start families, the tables could really turn over the course of a few decades (I know that is a long time, but it isn't in Cleveland terms).  What I mean is, I think what we've seen over the past 70 years in Cleveland (population loss in the city proper) can reverse itself over let's say the next 50 years.  In Northeast Ohio, with the population stagnant or shrinking, it is a zero-sum game.  I think Say Yes to Education is huge for Cleveland and I think if the schools can start showing real improvement (I think they have been), and young people don't suburbanize as much, over time, it could be the suburbs who are losing population (often high tax payers) to the city.  The economy and pressures of the 21st century favor cities over suburbs / rural.  It favors less materialism and more experientialism.  I think some suburbs have already realized this and have tried to adapt (Shaker Heights (Van Aken District)).  I think suburbs are in real risk of their own slow decline as young people trend more urban and the education quality differential narrows.  Further, retail is dying and this is going to eat away at one of the main tax revenue bases for suburbs.  

 

I think in a few decades you might see a region where the suburbs are devoid of culture and amenities and relative advantages (of course the wealthiest of suburbs will likely be fine) and Cleveland the city will remain with these tremendous cultural institutions, job centers, real public transportation and a housing stock more geared towards multi-family (which is where the country is trending).  The point is, the stagnant region is in competition with itself for the tax revenue base, and Cleveland I think is much better positioned over the next 50 years to at least improve itself (whereas I think the suburbs are mostly in a decline).  In time, I think the suburbs are going to see the writing on the wall and they might be the ones pushing for regionalism.  We are all in this together whether we like it or not.      

^ Damn, you just mic dropped all of northern Urban Ohio. Well done!

Edited January 31, 20196 yr by Clefan98

There’s a huge difference between regionalism and actual merger/annexation. 

 

Regionalism happens a lot,  often on a low key basis.   Larger examples include GCRTA, RITA, NEORSD, CCPL, and the funding mechanisms for the stadia.  Smaller ones include the combining of fire departments and school districts, which even happens in the borderlands between Akron and Cleveland.   Such things happen, when they make sense.  It’s not all that controversial anymore.

 

Talk of actually merging suburbs, particularly merging them into larger cities, is a different matter.   It’s anathema to said suburbs 90% of the time, and the 10% remainder involves merging with economically and culturally similar suburbs.   Proposing it makes suburban governments resistant to anything they perceive as encroachment on their perogatives, and it can be used to scare suburban residents out of supporting things that make sense.   You may have to have come from an inner ring suburb to understand the depth of this antipathy.

 

On a practical political basis, it’s very preventable.   If it ever becomes a real possibility, the suburbanites will go to the state to prevent it.   They will.  The Republicans will automatically support them, they have very little to lose in the larger cities.  The Democrats will be scared not to, because they need their existing share of the suburban vote.   They would prefer it not even become a topic.

I recently read somewhere that cities that havent gone the annex route i.e. Cleveland, might be better off in the long run. The center city wont be on the hook to deal with these low desity overbuilt infrastructure places when they start failing and become financially insolvent, which they most likely will due to the very nature they were built. Sure you can try to retro fit them but that seems like an uphill battle. 

I hadent thought about it that way but its an interesting take and I could see it possibly playing out that way.

10 minutes ago, viscomi said:

I recently read somewhere that cities that havent gone the annex route i.e. Cleveland, might be better off in the long run. The center city wont be on the hook to deal with these low desity overbuilt infrastructure places when they start failing and become financially insolvent, which they most likely will due to the very nature they were built. Sure you can try to retro fit them but that seems like an uphill battle. 

I hadent thought about it that way but its an interesting take and I could see it possibly playing out that way.

 

Well, that obviously could happen. Who in 1940 would have thought Cleveland proper or East Cleveland would be in the condition they are in now. If investment is allowed to continue to move further out, with no population back-filling those moving, then yes. However, if people do move back into the inner city, inner ring burbs, and outer ring  neighborhoods, providing tax revenue, they should be OK with proper management. The key is disallowing, via a growth boundary or other restrictions to limit development as it creeps further from the core.

Does Ohio law permit a Cleveland and Cuyahoga County merger without involving the suburbs?  That approach would encourage more county-wide services, planning, and financing without touching the 'third rail' of school district mergers.

I'd be more interested in merging counties to create "metropolitan" counties with special powers that are currently in the hands of the (rurally-dominated) state government. If you merged Cuyahoga, Lake, Lorain, Geauga, Medina, Summit, and Portage into a single county, you'd have a government specifically designed to make decisions on the regional level, but the cities and school districts would still function independently. The scheme could also devolve certain powers that are best handled on the metropolitan level but are repeatedly pre-empted at the state level, such as minimum wage, labor standards, and transportation funding. You could even throw in the power to create an urban growth boundary and contain the sprawl. 

 

Lest Cleveland-Akron get special treatment, similar entities could be created by merging Hamilton/Butler/Warren/Clermont and Franklin + surrounding counties. Mahoning + Trumbull could be merged, and special powers could be delegated to Lucas and Montgomery counties.

What you're describing is really "city-states".  As a blue sky, blank slate idea it is pretty much how I'd like to see our region governed, but how to get from here to there?

On 2/1/2019 at 8:10 AM, viscomi said:

I recently read somewhere that cities that havent gone the annex route i.e. Cleveland, might be better off in the long run. The center city wont be on the hook to deal with these low desity overbuilt infrastructure places when they start failing and become financially insolvent, which they most likely will due to the very nature they were built. Sure you can try to retro fit them but that seems like an uphill battle. 

I hadent thought about it that way but its an interesting take and I could see it possibly playing out that way.

 

I could see this happening soon--but in Cleveland's case they'd be taking on the worst of the worst.  Suburbs like East Cleveland, Warrensville, Bedford etc that have suffered from further white-flight as more affluent black families moved east into the inner ring suburbs.  

On 2/1/2019 at 7:40 AM, E Rocc said:

There’s a huge difference between regionalism and actual merger/annexation. 

 

Regionalism happens a lot,  often on a low key basis.   Larger examples include GCRTA, RITA, NEORSD, CCPL, and the funding mechanisms for the stadia.  Smaller ones include the combining of fire departments and school districts, which even happens in the borderlands between Akron and Cleveland.   Such things happen, when they make sense.  It’s not all that controversial anymore.

 

Talk of actually merging suburbs, particularly merging them into larger cities, is a different matter.   It’s anathema to said suburbs 90% of the time, and the 10% remainder involves merging with economically and culturally similar suburbs.   Proposing it makes suburban governments resistant to anything they perceive as encroachment on their perogatives, and it can be used to scare suburban residents out of supporting things that make sense.   You may have to have come from an inner ring suburb to understand the depth of this antipathy.

 

On a practical political basis, it’s very preventable.   If it ever becomes a real possibility, the suburbanites will go to the state to prevent it.   They will.  The Republicans will automatically support them, they have very little to lose in the larger cities.  The Democrats will be scared not to, because they need their existing share of the suburban vote.   They would prefer it not even become a topic.

 

no merger is not anathema. you are just stuck in one point in time, the current one. its happened before (ohio city, west park merged w/cle) and will happen again given much larger forces at work, ie., the unstoppable global trend toward super cites. for older cities with long established burbs it will take two things, gradually regionalizing services and the hub city becoming a more attractive place to be. dont hold your breath tho, because per your examples politics slow the roll, but eventually major if not total sprawl consolidation is inevitable.

On 2/2/2019 at 10:33 AM, X said:

What you're describing is really "city-states".  As a blue sky, blank slate idea it is pretty much how I'd like to see our region governed, but how to get from here to there?

 

The final step in the process would certainly be a statewide ballot measure outlining the borders and powers of the metropolitan counties/city states. Getting such an amendment on the ballot (and passing it) will require a big signature gathering drive, grassroots support in all corners of the state, and quite a bit of money. 

 

The first step is to get people talking about it and debating what it would look like. You'll need a steady stream of articles in the Plain Dealer, Dispatch, Enquirer, Vindicator, and Blade covering the debate and progress. The Cuyahoga County executive could convene a summit with the commissioners of surrounding counties and executive of Summit County. The mayors of Columbus, Cincinnati, Toledo, Dayton, and Youngstown could do the same with their neighboring counties. 

 

As far as money goes, there could be an interesting alliance between progressive groups (who hate state-preemption) and business groups (who dislike regional fragmentation). Of everything, that seems to be the most difficult part.

^ why not go further with that idea and just do five regions in the state? maybe that is over reaching for a state with a flat population history, but it would end the issue for good likely and still simplify a lot of redundant services. it could be done to let cities keep their own school districts. that's certainly a much more divisive and close held public service, especially in ohio, than sanitation, fire, roadwork, etc..

On 2/1/2019 at 8:10 AM, viscomi said:

I recently read somewhere that cities that havent gone the annex route i.e. Cleveland, might be better off in the long run. The center city wont be on the hook to deal with these low desity overbuilt infrastructure places when they start failing and become financially insolvent, which they most likely will due to the very nature they were built. Sure you can try to retro fit them but that seems like an uphill battle. 

I hadent thought about it that way but its an interesting take and I could see it possibly playing out that way.

 

Vox's podcast, The Impact, recently had an episode on Memphis and the challenges they faced due to the communities they annexed. The general takeaway was that the city ended up gaining some tax revenue but that was outweighed by the increase in expenses due to the high cost of providing services to the low density suburbs. They are currently in the process of de-annexing some suburbs.

 

Not sure this applies to every city that went the annex route and not sure if Columbus has experienced similar issues, but I think it is something to consider. Perhaps it would be better for Cleveland and some of the inner-ring suburbs to merge with each other (and then some outer ring suburbs merging with each other). But I'm sure some services could be merged/shared across the entire county.

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judges John J. Russo and David Matia want consolidation of municipal courts to be considered

 

This quote at the end really caught my eye:

 

County Executive Armond Budish and the County Council should bring together a group to discuss court consolidation and other aspects of regionalism, Russo said, including an analysis of whether it makes sense to merge all the municipal police departments into one countywide police force.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2019/02/cuyahoga-county-common-pleas-judges-john-j-russo-and-david-matia-want-consolidation-of-municipal-courts-to-be-considered.html

14 hours ago, Enginerd said:

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judges John J. Russo and David Matia want consolidation of municipal courts to be considered

 

This quote at the end really caught my eye:

 

County Executive Armond Budish and the County Council should bring together a group to discuss court consolidation and other aspects of regionalism, Russo said, including an analysis of whether it makes sense to merge all the municipal police departments into one countywide police force.

 

 

The frustrated Chief Judge wants to be the County Executive; and the phlegmatic County Executive would be much happier as Chief Judge.

Merging the courts is a great idea. There are already many great examples of municipalities in the county sharing courts - and others who go it alone where costs can be lowered, and the services provided can be improved.

Great article.  It is a start.  Very interesting facts/figures regarding the waste that is our convoluted/multiplicative local government.  Also interesting to read about the disparate revenue generation avenues for cities near highways versus cities away from highways.  I think regionalism would benefit most/all in the long run, but it would likely be a stronger benefit for our more urban cities which would be great. 

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2019/02/st-louis-can-teach-cleveland-a-lot-about-tackling-the-debilitating-disorder-of-too-much-government.html

 

 

Another great article.  Emphasizes the urgency of this matter and the potential opportunity.  "In Cleveland, a successful metro government movement would result in the city skyrocketing from the nation’s 52nd to 10th largest city."  

 

"Since 1975, all 179 communities in the seven-county Minneapolis-St. Paul region have participated in this simple plan: Communities that experience growth in their commercial and industrial tax base each year keep 60 percent of that growth and share the remaining 40 percent with communities that have no tax-base growth, or a loss of growth.

Bier said that, since 1990, the Minneapolis-St. Paul region has added 422,000 jobs, the Cleveland-Akron region only 68,000."

 

People in surrounding counties do not pay their fair share and it is imploding the whole region.  The region needs to bite the bullet in order to have a chance to thrive again.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/2019/03/suburban-sprawl-has-already-devoured-clevelands-seed-corn-now-its-threatening-the-region-brent-larkin.html

 

 

I think the combined city/county/region idea is so fascinating. Suburbs would definitely have to pay their fair share in taxes in order to compensate the massive tax burden to run utilities far out of the city center. Otherwise costs would all fall on the core. There are some valid points against it that would have to overcome for sure, but I think the positives outweigh the negatives.  

 

Also, I've always been fascinated by the Minneapolis tax-sharing plan. It could really equal the playing field for some of the disparaged communities around Cleveland and help distribute some of the growth and development

 

If anyone is interested in the city/county mergers and city annexation/de-annexation, Vox's podcast The Impact did an episode called 'The incredible shrinking city' that talks about Memphis and the troubles that it has with annexing suburbs and why its right-sizing itself. 

7 hours ago, Lucas_uLsac said:

I think the combined city/county/region idea is so fascinating. Suburbs would definitely have to pay their fair share in taxes in order to compensate the massive tax burden to run utilities far out of the city center. Otherwise costs would all fall on the core. There are some valid points against it that would have to overcome for sure, but I think the positives outweigh the negatives.  

 

Also, I've always been fascinated by the Minneapolis tax-sharing plan. It could really equal the playing field for some of the disparaged communities around Cleveland and help distribute some of the growth and development

 

If anyone is interested in the city/county mergers and city annexation/de-annexation, Vox's podcast The Impact did an episode called 'The incredible shrinking city' that talks about Memphis and the troubles that it has with annexing suburbs and why its right-sizing itself. 

 

Once again.....even mentioning the "A word" in northeastern Ohio poisons discussions of worthwhile and practical regionalization proposals.  Even in the inner ring, their would be venomous opposition.  In the outer ring, the f-word that would come to mind among the powers that be isn't "fascinating".   I have trouble imagining a less popular idea in the Akron-Cleveland borderlands than merging with either.

The state legislature would side with the suburbs .   Emphatically.  Not only do they have 2X the population, but they are "in play" politically while the city is not.    The Republicans would oppose it on general principles, and likely gain points in the suburbs for doing so.   They have nothing to lose in the cities.   The Democrats have plenty to lose in the suburbs, so would have to side with them as well.  They might even take a couple punitive shots at whoever proposed such a doomed and divisive thing.

There are a million ways to achieve the benefits of regionalization. Annexation is probably the most extreme. And the process of achieving it should not be forced. Get what we when we can.

1 hour ago, KJP said:

There are a million ways to achieve the benefits of regionalization. Annexation is probably the most extreme. And the process of achieving it should not be forced. Get what we when we can.

 

The thing is, those areas I referred to above as the "borderlands" do a lot of regionalization.   Macedonia fire department covers the whole Nordonia area except Northfield Village.  Walton Hills uses Oakwood's (IIRC) fire department.   The Nordonia school district covers several towns.   Northfield Center is patrolled by the Summit County Sheriff.   

 

Lots of opportunites abound and it's even popular among places where "density" is a curse word.   But attempting to force it is usually counterproductive.

In Cuyahoga County the court systems have been regionalized for a long time.  Would Brecksville ever agree to merge with Garfield Heights?  It pretty much already did.

I feel like Buddish’s call to modify court system should be met with extreme skepticism given the recent FBI raids. 

 

Who benefits most?

No one said regionalism would be easy or pleasing to everyone.  But the data and facts absolutely confirm that the area's immense inefficiency is holding it back.  Other regions are thriving and leaving this region behind.  Just because something is hard, doesn't mean it shouldn't be pursued.  It's a choice of dying a slow death or setting the region up for a brighter future.  Cleveland has a lot of things in its favor.  The pace of its improvement will largely be determined by the region's ability to cooperate and to fairly charge for services and tax its citizens, in a way that most effectively promotes economic growth.  Subsidizing distant suburbs and exurbs in the numerous ways that they are, will continue to bring on that slow death and persistent economic inferiority.  I agree that the state will likely be of little help.  But so goes the region, so goes the state as well.  If we care about this place, we should fight for it.  The state should as well, unless it is ok with becoming the Mississippi of the North.   

Cities are way more resilient than suburbs. As the population shift back to the city continues, it will gain more and more power. 

 

Regionalism is going to happen here, it's just a matter of when.

I've long been a proponent of merging all the cities of our county into one govt. Other cities in the US that have completed a merger have shown its effectiveness and fiscal efficiencies. Unfortunately I doubt a merger is likely for our county. That would require progressive thought and its simply not possible. Sure, we do have many progressive thinkers here but they are in the distinct minority. 

 

Cuyahoga County is comprised of people more interested in hanging on to their turf than doing something that would benefit the greater good. You could show them data that would indicate the advantages of county govt. You could show them data that would indicate the gross inefficiencies in our existing system and they wouldn't budge. They simply don't care. They're ostriches with their heads in the sand. They own their little piece of the pie and screw the rest. 

 

Why some regions thrive while others stagnate are myriad but surely myopic thinking is one example as to why we continue to struggle. And that's not changing anytime soon. How many of us on these forums know people who left because of our backward thinking? There's a reason some regions continue to struggle - progressive thinkers leave for more fertile grounds leaving the backward thinkers in the majority. And they will decide policy. 

4 hours ago, cadmen said:

I've long been a proponent of merging all the cities of our county into one govt. Other cities in the US that have completed a merger have shown its effectiveness and fiscal efficiencies. Unfortunately I doubt a merger is likely for our county. That would require progressive thought and its simply not possible. Sure, we do have many progressive thinkers here but they are in the distinct minority. 

 

Cuyahoga County is comprised of people more interested in hanging on to their turf than doing something that would benefit the greater good. You could show them data that would indicate the advantages of county govt. You could show them data that would indicate the gross inefficiencies in our existing system and they wouldn't budge. They simply don't care. They're ostriches with their heads in the sand. They own their little piece of the pie and screw the rest. 

 

Why some regions thrive while others stagnate are myriad but surely myopic thinking is one example as to why we continue to struggle. And that's not changing anytime soon. How many of us on these forums know people who left because of our backward thinking? There's a reason some regions continue to struggle - progressive thinkers leave for more fertile grounds leaving the backward thinkers in the majority. And they will decide policy. 

 

You would probably get a 90% vote against merger in all of the suburbs not named East Cleveland, for a number of reasons.     Even the inner ring burbs.   Quite frankly, I suspect a much higher percentage of Collinwood residents would vote to secede than Euclid residents would vote to annex.  The Cuyahoga County suburbs alone have twice the population of the city and more than twice the clout in Columbus for the simple reason that they are in play in statewide elections.

 

Voluntary merger is quite simply not going to happen.  Even discussing annexation includes the implicit assumption that it would be involuntary.   This poisons even the discussion of constructive regionalization.   That's political reality.   It's best to move forwards from there.

 

Some lines of discussion do your cause more harm than good.

12 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Once again.....even mentioning the "A word" in northeastern Ohio poisons discussions of worthwhile and practical regionalization proposals.  Even in the inner ring, their would be venomous opposition.  In the outer ring, the f-word that would come to mind among the powers that be isn't "fascinating".   I have trouble imagining a less popular idea in the Akron-Cleveland borderlands than merging with either.

The state legislature would side with the suburbs .   Emphatically.  Not only do they have 2X the population, but they are "in play" politically while the city is not.    The Republicans would oppose it on general principles, and likely gain points in the suburbs for doing so.   They have nothing to lose in the cities.   The Democrats have plenty to lose in the suburbs, so would have to side with them as well.  They might even take a couple punitive shots at whoever proposed such a doomed and divisive thing.

 

One of the built in disadvantages of being legacy city is the regions already entrenched sense of localism scattered across the metro. Younger cities have the advantage of not having a plethora of communities that have long established residents and sense of identity. So you're not wrong. this likely won't come to fruition anytime soon. 

 

For many of Kasich's flaws, one of the interesting things I did like that he was a proponent of was the consolidated government model. Were he still governor and a major city proposed this, he likely would have be a vocal advocate of it and possibly rally enough support for it to happen. But I don't see it happening under DeWine. 

 

  

10 hours ago, 327 said:

In Cuyahoga County the court systems have been regionalized for a long time.  Would Brecksville ever agree to merge with Garfield Heights?  It pretty much already did.

 

Municipal Courts courts in Cuyahoga County, while topically looking like a good example of regionalism here because the for the most part cover multiple municipalities, are actually a terrible example. Nowhere else in the state is so fragmented. Franklin County has one municipal court. Hamilton has one. Our city prosecutor was joking about this earlier this week and said a common joke is "there's the state of Ohio, and then there's the Great State of Cuyahoga County".The judicial environment here is entirely foreign to anyone in the rest of the state. How a judge operates in South Euclid may be completely different than in Cleveland Hts. It calls into question proper due process.

11 hours ago, PoshSteve said:

 

Municipal Courts courts in Cuyahoga County, while topically looking like a good example of regionalism here because the for the most part cover multiple municipalities, are actually a terrible example. Nowhere else in the state is so fragmented. Franklin County has one municipal court. Hamilton has one. Our city prosecutor was joking about this earlier this week and said a common joke is "there's the state of Ohio, and then there's the Great State of Cuyahoga County".The judicial environment here is entirely foreign to anyone in the rest of the state. How a judge operates in South Euclid may be completely different than in Cleveland Hts. It calls into question proper due process.

 

Summit County has three.  It has about 40% of the population of Cuyahoga County as well.

 

I'm actually quite good with the different courts.   If liberal Shaker Heights wants to elect lenient judges while Berea and Strongsville take the opposite approach, that's fine.  Let's see what happens.

47 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Summit County has three.  It has about 40% of the population of Cuyahoga County as well.

 

I'm actually quite good with the different courts.   If liberal Shaker Heights wants to elect lenient judges while Berea and Strongsville take the opposite approach, that's fine.  Let's see what happens.

 

That's not how it works with judges.  Some of the most lenient are Republicans and vice versa.   Courts in Republican areas do charge higher fees and costs though-- especially Berea, holy smokes.  They're not any tougher on crime, they're just greedy. 

12 hours ago, PoshSteve said:

 

Municipal Courts courts in Cuyahoga County, while topically looking like a good example of regionalism here because the for the most part cover multiple municipalities, are actually a terrible example. Nowhere else in the state is so fragmented. Franklin County has one municipal court. Hamilton has one. Our city prosecutor was joking about this earlier this week and said a common joke is "there's the state of Ohio, and then there's the Great State of Cuyahoga County".The judicial environment here is entirely foreign to anyone in the rest of the state. How a judge operates in South Euclid may be completely different than in Cleveland Hts. It calls into question proper due process.

 

It serves as proof of concept for those locally who equate mergers with terrorism.  Gotta start somewhere and luckily we already have.  Didn't say it was perfect or ideal, far from it.  But there's often more variation between judges in the same court than there is between courts.

21 minutes ago, 327 said:

 

It serves as proof of concept for those locally who equate mergers with terrorism.

What? Who says that?

 

And the problem with having multiple municipal courts isn’t the judges themselves. It’s having multiple cost structures, booking systems, bail procedures, availability of public defenders, etc.

 

Sound of Ideas had a great program on this with Judge Russo & Matia of Common Pleas and Shakers Municipal judge.

Most of the things you mention there are under the control of individual judges and can vary wildly from room to room within the same building.  Bear in mind that this only comes into play in courts that have more than one judge; most muni courts don't.  But it's observable when they do.  I agree that we'd be better off consolidating the courts, just like we'd be better off consolidating other aspects of government.  But much of the variation you describe would still exist, so long as individual judges maintain the power they currently have.

Edited March 9, 20196 yr by 327

Per wikipedia, there are 18 mayors courts in Cuyahoga county and 8 in Sunmit county.  So yes, Cuyahoga county could stand for a bit of merging in their metro courts. 

1 hour ago, 327 said:

 

That's not how it works with judges.  Some of the most lenient are Republicans and vice versa.   Courts in Republican areas do charge higher fees and costs though-- especially Berea, holy smokes.  They're not any tougher on crime, they're just greedy. 

 

Didn't say Democrats or Republicans, did I?  ?

 

It's just as well that local judge elections are non-partisan.  Affiliation doesn't have much to do with actual views or intent.

2 minutes ago, audidave said:

Per wikipedia, there are 18 mayors courts in Cuyahoga county and 8 in Sunmit county.  So yes, Cuyahoga county could stand for a bit of merging in their metro courts. 

 

Not happening.   Mayor's courts are strictly for guilty and no contest pleas, and the fees, fines etc. stay in town.  

1 minute ago, E Rocc said:

 

Not happening.   Mayor's courts are strictly for guilty and no contest pleas, and the fees, fines etc. stay in town.  

I wasn’t saying merging mayors’ courts. I was just adding that there are a glut of courts all over Cuyahoga county.  That lessens the need for so many metropolitan courts.  I realize the only way to “merge” a mayor’s court will be for towns to merge which likely won’t happen.  

53 minutes ago, 327 said:

Most of the things you mention there are under the control of individual judges and can vary wildly from room to room within the same building.  Bear in mind that this only comes into play in courts that have more than one judge; most muni courts don't.  But it's observable when they do.  I agree that we'd be better off consolidating the courts, just like we'd be better off consolidating other aspects of government.  But much of the variation you describe would still exist, so long as individual judges maintain the power they currently have.

I’m not sure what I have mentioned that would be different under individual judges, they are all structural issues that having separate courts causes.

 

Here is the link, I suggest those interested give it a listen.

 

https://www.ideastream.org/programs/sound-of-ideas/should-cuyahoga-county-consider-consolidating-courts-statehouse-update

8 minutes ago, Enginerd said:

I’m not sure what I have mentioned that would be different under individual judges, they are all structural issues that having separate courts causes.

 

Here is the link, I suggest those interested give it a listen.

 

https://www.ideastream.org/programs/sound-of-ideas/should-cuyahoga-county-consider-consolidating-courts-statehouse-update

 

The only thing you mentioned that does not vary by courtroom is booking, which usually varies by police agency.  In many local courts, public defenders are chosen and arranged for by individual judges.  I know that because I am one.  Bail procedures can be unrecognizable from room to room.  Costs can be waived at the judge's discretion.

1 hour ago, audidave said:

I wasn’t saying merging mayors’ courts. I was just adding that there are a glut of courts all over Cuyahoga county.  That lessens the need for so many metropolitan courts.  I realize the only way to “merge” a mayor’s court will be for towns to merge which likely won’t happen.  

 

The other way would be to send all cases to the municipal court, which would collect the $$

3 hours ago, 327 said:

 

The only thing you mentioned that does not vary by courtroom is booking, which usually varies by police agency.  In many local courts, public defenders are chosen and arranged for by individual judges.  I know that because I am one.  Bail procedures can be unrecognizable from room to room.  Costs can be waived at the judge's discretion.

What I was getting at is, Cleveland is the only court using risk based bail, and it’s also the only court staffed by the public defenders office.

 

Also that felony cases have their first appearance at these different municipal courts, which streamlining could be addressed by this effort as well.