36 minutes ago, Enginerd said:

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.

 

I agree on the need for reform.  But the PD office would need to hire a ton of new staff to cover everything that assigned counsel covers now... for meager pay and no benefits.  Other counties use assigned counsel too but Cuyahoga is notable for barely paying us.  And yet there's always money to pay for all these court staffs, just like there's always money to pay for all the admin of all these little suburbs. 

50 minutes ago, 327 said:

 

I agree on the need for reform.  But the PD office would need to hire a ton of new staff to cover everything that assigned counsel covers now... for meager pay and no benefits.  Other counties use assigned counsel too but Cuyahoga is notable for barely paying us.  And yet there's always money to pay for all these court staffs, just like there's always money to pay for all the admin of all these little suburbs. 

I guess we’ll see what happens. I’m not sure it would be actual consolation into one court, but I’m glad someone is talking about it. And I hope the talks get more serious because this should be brought up while the justice center questions are swirling around.

Imagine our influence and swagger if we lived in a countywide City of Cleveland, the idea behind the latest installment of Cleveland Connects

Posted Apr 6, 8:00 AM

By Chris Quinn, Editor and President, cleveland.com/Advance Ohio

 

Conversations keep bubbling up about creating what Columbus, Indianapolis, Nashville, Louisville and so many others have: size, influence, pride and swagger.

 

So, at cleveland.com, 2019 is the year we climb the mountain anew, with a series we think we will call, We Are Cleveland. We plan to dig back into the cost of our Balkanization, the advantages of being a large city, the steps needed to ensure that all populations have the chance to win elected office and the power we might have if, overnight, we became one of the biggest city economies in the nation.

 

Reporter Pete Krouse will kick off the latest effort next month with a series examining what’s happening in St. Louis, which is heading to a vote on combining dozens of municipalities into a single city. St. Louis is not the first to go down this road, but examining how it is tackling the challenges could help focus the conversation in Northeast Ohio.

 

In the following months, Pete will revisit some of the topics we covered 15 years ago – including the cost savings to taxpayers -- as well as some new ones, such as the pride the region might feel or the influence a much larger city of Cleveland might have when competing in economic development circles.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2019/04/imagine-our-influence-and-swagger-if-we-lived-in-a-countywide-city-of-cleveland-the-idea-behind-the-latest-installment-of-cleveland-connects.html

Edited April 7, 20196 yr by MuRrAy HiLL

Cuyahoga County’s high taxes prompt discussion about consolidation

By Peter Krouse, cleveland.com

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio – A study commissioned by the Greater Cleveland Partnership shows the tax burden is significantly higher per capita in Cuyahoga County than in 10 other urban counties competing for some of the same businesses.

 

The new research also suggests that our overall taxes will grow even more burdensome, and the region will become even less competitive, in part because of the redundancies of a Balkanized political landscape.

 

Based on those findings, the GCP, one of the nation’s largest chambers of commerce with more than 11,000 members, is calling for a region-wide discussion of how to make our future more prosperous.

 

More at:  https://www.cleveland.com/news/2019/04/cuyahoga-countys-high-taxes-prompt-discussion-about-consolidation.html

18 hours ago, Oldmanladyluck said:

Cuyahoga County’s high taxes prompt discussion about consolidation

By Peter Krouse, cleveland.com

 

 

 

Yes, we should be having this discussion.  But I am skeptical that the gains to be made from consolidation will be that significant on the tax side.  Shaker Heights, Rocky River, and every other neighborhood will still need police, fire, and infrastructure maintenance crews.  They will still have elected officials on the city council.  There will still be administrative personnel to carry out the day-to-day functions of government.  We may save some money from fewer middle-managers, but we also have a lot of old infrastructure that has not been well-maintained and continues to deteriorate, and that cost is not going to go away.  Arguably, our taxes have been too low since we have failed to maintain high levels of government service across the entire county. 

 

So yes, let's look at the actual numbers and see how this plays out.  But the gains to be made seem to be more likely to come in the city having a unified voice, and more equitable distribution of resources and solving problems (as a prime example, East Cleveland does not seem to have enough resources to save itself, and no one wants to take on East Cleveland's problems, so maybe the only solution is for the entire county to become a unified entity -- then we will fix East Cleveland), and simplifying taxes, than it does in lowering tax rates.

3 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

Yes, we should be having this discussion.  But I am skeptical that the gains to be made from consolidation will be that significant on the tax side.  Shaker Heights, Rocky River, and every other neighborhood will still need police, fire, and infrastructure maintenance crews.  They will still have elected officials on the city council.  There will still be administrative personnel to carry out the day-to-day functions of government.  We may save some money from fewer middle-managers, but we also have a lot of old infrastructure that has not been well-maintained and continues to deteriorate, and that cost is not going to go away.  Arguably, our taxes have been too low since we have failed to maintain high levels of government service across the entire county. 

 

So yes, let's look at the actual numbers and see how this plays out.  But the gains to be made seem to be more likely to come in the city having a unified voice, and more equitable distribution of resources and solving problems (as a prime example, East Cleveland does not seem to have enough resources to save itself, and no one wants to take on East Cleveland's problems, so maybe the only solution is for the entire county to become a unified entity -- then we will fix East Cleveland), and simplifying taxes, than it does in lowering tax rates.

 

Not sure I agree. I do think there would be a fair amount of savings...but I guess that also depends on what your definition of “significant” is. There is an insane amount of duplication in this region.

 

 

1 hour ago, Enginerd said:

 

Not sure I agree. I do think there would be a fair amount of savings...but I guess that also depends on what your definition of “significant” is. There is an insane amount of duplication in this region.

 

 

 

We will see, but the reduction of "taxing authorities" wouldn't seem to make much difference, particularly if a lot of the taxes are collected by a single agency (RITA) already.  I don't see a significant reduction in government personnel unless we greatly reduce services.  The Cuyahoga County government does not currently have the resources to govern the entire county without additional staff; local employees will generally become County employees and continue to fight fires, police the streets, fix potholes, collect garbage, inspect homes and businesses, and clean out sewer lines -- they'll just have a new employer.  The work still needs to be done and smaller local governments are generally pretty frugal relative to the larger City of Cleveland.  Many of the current city councilpersons are part-time, so the cost of duplicated elected officials doesn't seem like adding their oversight duties to the County Council's responsibilities is going to make a big dent in administrative expenses.  I hope you're right, but I don't see where the savings are going to come from. 

 

I do think that consolidation could make tax collection simpler and easier for the average person and business, and it should make it easier to file business paperwork, relocate within the county, pay property taxes, etc.  

 

I also worry about the loss of services or decrease in service quality, and the ability to get a councilperson's attention on a neighborhood issue -- more alienation from "the government."  I can also envision a reluctance or inability to raise sufficient revenue, leading to more neighborhoods in the county unhappy with street repairs, snow plowing, trash collection, police presence, etc.

Many cities aren't in RITA, which I believe covers only income taxes, correct? If so, no school districts, library systems, municipal recreational levies, port authorities, sewer authorities, transit authorities, etc. are in RITA either.

2 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

We will see, but the reduction of "taxing authorities" wouldn't seem to make much difference, particularly if a lot of the taxes are collected by a single agency (RITA) already.  I don't see a significant reduction in government personnel unless we greatly reduce services.  The Cuyahoga County government does not currently have the resources to govern the entire county without additional staff; local employees will generally become County employees and continue to fight fires, police the streets, fix potholes, collect garbage, inspect homes and businesses, and clean out sewer lines -- they'll just have a new employer.  The work still needs to be done and smaller local governments are generally pretty frugal relative to the larger City of Cleveland.  Many of the current city councilpersons are part-time, so the cost of duplicated elected officials doesn't seem like adding their oversight duties to the County Council's responsibilities is going to make a big dent in administrative expenses.  I hope you're right, but I don't see where the savings are going to come from. 

 

I do think that consolidation could make tax collection simpler and easier for the average person and business, and it should make it easier to file business paperwork, relocate within the county, pay property taxes, etc.  

 

I also worry about the loss of services or decrease in service quality, and the ability to get a councilperson's attention on a neighborhood issue -- more alienation from "the government."  I can also envision a reluctance or inability to raise sufficient revenue, leading to more neighborhoods in the county unhappy with street repairs, snow plowing, trash collection, police presence, etc.

Not that I want to spend five hours on this topic because we talk about it Ad Nauseum at work, but I promise you if us cities merged it would save the tax payer millions in overlapping costs. South Euclid already merged it's EMS with like five other cities and that saved us a ton. If we merged our court with Lyndhurst it would easily save a million dollars due to not needing to have our own judge and entire support staff. It would save on facility costs too. It would make road repairs easier because of the ability to utilize a larger pot of money to target at need streets. Beachwood already repaves roads like every five years even if they don't need it because by law they need to spend that money. Think if that money could be used in Cleveland? These are just some random examples. But one of the biggest costs it would save is having to pay 65 mayors, 65 police chiefs, 65 fire chiefs, and 65 of every director you can think of. I'm not even mentioning council people. 

 

I think some suburban consolidation could be good, but I do fear that a full city/county consolidation will cause a population that is already declining to decline even further/faster. 

2 hours ago, KFM44107 said:

Not that I want to spend five hours on this topic because we talk about it Ad Nauseum at work, but I promise you if us cities merged it would save the tax payer millions in overlapping costs. South Euclid already merged it's EMS with like five other cities and that saved us a ton. If we merged our court with Lyndhurst it would easily save a million dollars due to not needing to have our own judge and entire support staff. It would save on facility costs too. It would make road repairs easier because of the ability to utilize a larger pot of money to target at need streets. Beachwood already repaves roads like every five years even if they don't need it because by law they need to spend that money. Think if that money could be used in Cleveland? These are just some random examples. But one of the biggest costs it would save is having to pay 65 mayors, 65 police chiefs, 65 fire chiefs, and 65 of every director you can think of. I'm not even mentioning council people. 

 

 

Yep. Each city has its own service dept, engineering dept, parks dept, law dept, building dept, streets dept, finance dept, HR.....I could go on. All with separate equipment, personnel and properties.

58 minutes ago, Enginerd said:

 

Yep. Each city has its own service dept, engineering dept, parks dept, law dept, building dept, streets dept, finance dept, HR.....I could go on. All with separate equipment, personnel and properties.

 

Right -- but not all of that is going to just disappear or no longer be needed if we consolidate.  Some, no doubt, but not all.

13 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

Right -- but not all of that is going to just disappear or no longer be needed if we consolidate.  Some, no doubt, but not all.

Obviously, but there's so much overlap that tons of positions would be cut. It would be a cost savings bordering 100 million. We haven't even begun to talk about how much money in savings would be had from communities no longer needing to compete in tax incentives against eachother anymore. Or the ability of a much larger single entity to attract companies with a streamlined plan. This county would save hundreds of millions of dollars. 

16 hours ago, JSC216 said:

I think some suburban consolidation could be good, but I do fear that a full city/county consolidation will cause a population that is already declining to decline even further/faster. 

 

That's quite an understatement.   "Exodus" might be a better word.

3 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

That's quite an understatement.   "Exodus" might be a better word.

 

This is interesting. Would either you or @JSC216 expand on what you believe would cause such a population exodus?

34 minutes ago, Clvlndr in LV said:

 

This is interesting. Would either you or @JSC216 expand on what you believe would cause such a population exodus?

 

Yeah...I’m not aware of that happening in any other place that a merger has taken place?

Quote

It’s understandable that struggling local governments would consider government consolidation. The theory has some appeal, and if done well it may provide some benefits. But overall, there’s little evidence that it significantly improves government efficiency or leads to better economic outcomes. It also reduces experimentation, which can hinder long-run improvements in the provision of government goods and services. City officials and residents should consider all of this before making any changes.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2017/11/06/local-government-consolidation-is-not-a-panacea/

 

This also is interesting:

https://www.aaronrenn.com/2010/02/28/downsides-of-consolidation-1-neighborhood-redevelopment/

 

Some municipal consolidations include Minneapolis, Indianapolis, and Louisville.  The author of this site also discusses Chicago and Columbus, two metros that effectively cover most of their locales.  And Cincinnati could be considered another extreme, with the center city finally making a comeback amidst even more municipal governments than in Cuyahoga.

14 minutes ago, Foraker said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2017/11/06/local-government-consolidation-is-not-a-panacea/

 

This also is interesting:

https://www.aaronrenn.com/2010/02/28/downsides-of-consolidation-1-neighborhood-redevelopment/

 

Some municipal consolidations include Minneapolis, Indianapolis, and Louisville.  The author of this site also discusses Chicago and Columbus, two metros that effectively cover most of their locales.  And Cincinnati could be considered another extreme, with the center city finally making a comeback amidst even more municipal governments than in Cuyahoga.

I didn't read the article but Minneapolis is sort of a quasi consolidation. They just do regional tax sharing which is a solid middle ground between the differing viewpoints we are sharing with each other today. As an analogy it's more of a help your neighbor opposed to a becoming your neighbor, and is different than the current Cuyahoga method, the call the city and complain about your neighbor but don't do anything constructive to help. 

Edited April 24, 20196 yr by KFM44107

This is another consolidation study from the University of Illinois.

 

Quote

Although some scholars, such as Faulk and Hicks (2011) have found statistical evidence that positive financial benefits are hypothetically possible from consolidation, most data indicates that human decisions, actions, and necessary compromises do not predictably and reliably lead to cost savings, and in fact may actually lead to increased costs.

2

 

https://www.pdop.org/assets/1/7/IAPD_Local_Government_Consolidation_Report.pdf

 

In summary, while consolidation sounds good in theory, in practice consolidation does not appear to have resulted in cost savings.

On 4/24/2019 at 4:15 PM, Terdolph said:

To me, the only immediate consolidation that makes sense is Cleveland and Clev. Hts. adsorbing E. Cleveland.  That has to happen to stop the decline of E. Cleveland and the negative consequences on both of the adjoining cities. 

 

It will be expensive in the short run, but inexpensive in the long run.

To me that doesn't make any sense. Cleveland Heights is not big enough (Financially) to absorb a community like East Cleveland in the condition it is in. Cleveland is the only city big enough and adjacent enough to be able to do that and even then it wouldn't make sense without extensive state and federal funding (Grants). If there is no outside help, I would think the seeds being planted in the form of property acquisitions by entities located on the west side of the Cleveland/East Cleveland border will begin to bloom before an annexation occurs by either city. That, and getting the current council out of power are what is needed immediately to stop EC from declining further.

On 4/24/2019 at 4:15 PM, Terdolph said:

To me, the only immediate consolidation that makes sense is Cleveland and Clev. Hts. adsorbing E. Cleveland.  That has to happen to stop the decline of E. Cleveland and the negative consequences on both of the adjoining cities. 

 

It will be expensive in the short run, but inexpensive in the long run.

 

There was a perfect time a couple of years ago when the State of Ohio could have stepped in and forced the merger with Cleveland; but I suspect the Kasich people felt the gain wasn't worth the static it would generate.

On 4/24/2019 at 12:13 PM, Clvlndr in LV said:

 

This is interesting. Would either you or @JSC216 expand on what you believe would cause such a population exodus?

 

Assuming that if some external power forced a complete merger of Cuyahoga County into the City of Cleveland (it would never happen voluntarily), you don't think people would seek to move out, much as they have moved out of the City of Cleveland?   

 

It would be skewed towards the more affluent, so the departure of resources would be more profound than the departure of population.

City population declines from previous census:
 

1970  −14.3%

1980 −23.6%

1990 −11.9%

2000 −5.4%

2010 −17.1%

Est. 2017 −2.8%

 

Cuyahoga County:

 

1970 +4.5%

1980 −12.9%

1990  −5.8%

2000 −1.3%

2010  −8.2%

Est. 2018 −2.8%

 

The MSA:

 

1970 9.1%

1980 −6.3%

1990 −3.3%

2000 2.2%

2010 −3.3%

Est. 2018 −1.0%

 

 

^ No, especially since recent migration trends are showing the opposite.

9 minutes ago, Terdolph said:

Clev. Hts. would only absorb the part of E. Clev. up the hill from Euclid.  That is a small section and is in reasonably good shape.  Clev. would absorb the rest.  The State previously offered $10 million to Clev. to do so.  If the State offered, say $100 million it would be doable.

I think if Cleveland took it over, they'd want the up the hill portion too.  

1 minute ago, Terdolph said:

It is sort of a natural dividing line.  The uphill part looks like it is part of Cleve. Hts. anyway.

I get that but I think Cleveland would want the part that has some value if they took the rest.  

4 minutes ago, freefourur said:

I get that but I think Cleveland would want the part that has some value if they took the rest.  

 

Thanks for clarifying @Terdolph   that split makes sense as opposed to CH taking on all of EC.

 

@freefourur While the Forest Hills portion of East Cleveland is certainly in better shape that that down the hill, I'd argue that a with its proximity to University Circle, the fastest growing job center in the state, vacant land, large homes (A lot of which can still be saved if we hurry), it's two train stations and a $50-$100 million dollar check from the feds, the area down the hill probably has more value than what is presently in forest hills.

 

3 minutes ago, Mov2Ohio said:

 

Thanks for clarifying @Terdolph   that split makes sense as opposed to CH taking on all of EC.

 

@freefourur While the Forest Hills portion of East Cleveland is certainly in better shape that that down the hill, I'd argue that a with its proximity to University Circle, the fastest growing job center in the state, vacant land, large homes (A lot of which can still be saved if we hurry), it's two train stations and a $50-$100 million dollar check from the feds, the area down the hill probably has more value than what is presently in forest hills.

 

I agree with both of your assessments.  However, the Forest Hills neighborhood has value and taxable real estate in its current state.  That would be beneficial to Cleveland if they are to take over the areas with "potential" for tax revenue.  

34 minutes ago, freefourur said:

I think if Cleveland took it over, they'd want the up the hill portion too.  

 

I'd say.   There's no way they would let CH cherry pick the most salvageable part and take on the rest.

1 hour ago, Mov2Ohio said:

 

Thanks for clarifying @Terdolph   that split makes sense as opposed to CH taking on all of EC.

 

@freefourur While the Forest Hills portion of East Cleveland is certainly in better shape that that down the hill, I'd argue that a with its proximity to University Circle, the fastest growing job center in the state, vacant land, large homes (A lot of which can still be saved if we hurry), it's two train stations and a $50-$100 million dollar check from the feds, the area down the hill probably has more value than what is presently in forest hills.

 

 

Depends on what's buried there.   I have a feeling we don't want to know.   The last thing Cleveland needs is more superfund sites.

Edited April 26, 20196 yr by E Rocc

3 hours ago, Clefan98 said:

^ No, especially since recent migration trends are showing the opposite.

 

Is there any aggregate evidence of this?

^ Yes, just look at the number of units being built (or permits pulled for new housing) inside the city limits vs outside. It's a staggering difference.

On 4/26/2019 at 3:34 PM, E Rocc said:

 

Depends on what's buried there.   I have a feeling we don't want to know.   The last thing Cleveland needs is more superfund sites.

Most of EC was/is residential, so In the areas along Euclid I don't think there would be anything too bad buried there, building foundations if anything. The area near Noble and Euclid where GEs since demolished buildings were may be a different story.

On 4/26/2019 at 4:48 PM, Clefan98 said:

^ Yes, just look at the number of units being built (or permits pulled for new housing) inside the city limits vs outside. It's a staggering difference.

 

Or perhaps suburban units are being fixed not replaced.

3 hours ago, Mov2Ohio said:

Most of EC was/is residential, so In the areas along Euclid I don't think there would be anything too bad buried there, building foundations if anything. The area near Noble and Euclid where GEs since demolished buildings were may be a different story.

 

Asbestos comes to mind.

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

 

Or perhaps suburban units are being fixed not replaced.

Though you could say the same for Cleveland. I fathom just from eye balling streets I drive down that it's probably a 2:1 ratio. Two houses being updated for every unit (apartment or house) being built. 

On 4/26/2019 at 2:18 PM, Terdolph said:

It is sort of a natural dividing line.  The uphill part looks like it is part of Cleve. Hts. anyway.

It has nothing to do with a "dividing line".  The issue is the "Forest Hills" neighborhood.  That neighborhood encompass a large portion of BOTH CH and EC along with an Elementary school. Keep in mind the EC section is more valuable than the CH section. In addition, there is a (not sure if this is the correct word/term) state sponsored historic home owners association.  If EC was dissolved, I only see this portion of EC and EC Section of FH park coming into CH.

On 4/26/2019 at 2:46 PM, E Rocc said:

 

I'd say.   There's no way they would let CH cherry pick the most salvageable part and take on the rest.

I don't think this would be considered "cherry picking" considering there is already a shared neighborhood.

On 4/26/2019 at 2:18 PM, Terdolph said:

It is sort of a natural dividing line.  The uphill part looks like it is part of Cleve. Hts. anyway.

I’m a Cleveland resident who has long supported East Cleveland becoming part of Cleveland. My position changes completely if Cleveland Heights were to get the “nice” parts. It would be blasphemous for Cleveland to agree to a merger like that. All of East Cleveland or none of it

The question that Cleveland and Cleveland Heights will want answered isn't what's the "good" or "bad" part of EC, but what, if any will be revenue positive (does it generate more in taxes than it costs to service).  I suspect that even a nice residential district like Forest Hills is likely not revenue positive- few are.  The only part of EC likely to be revenue positive would be Nela Park, assuming we can count on GE to stay long term.

5 hours ago, X said:

The question that Cleveland and Cleveland Heights will want answered isn't what's the "good" or "bad" part of EC, but what, if any will be revenue positive (does it generate more in taxes than it costs to service).  I suspect that even a nice residential district like Forest Hills is likely not revenue positive- few are.  The only part of EC likely to be revenue positive would be Nela Park, assuming we can count on GE to stay long term.

Which we can’t. I can tell you for a fact that people have absolutely brought up absorbing all of East Cleveland vs the whole share with CH thing. We all know the EC annexation was on the table, and that alone is a tough sell, but to absorb the unstable parts and give the stable parts to Cleveland Heights is an absolute nonstarter. I have heard a Cleveland city councilman say that specifically, as well as other residents. Taking over East Cleveland is a hard sell as it is. Because people view it as “moving in your broke ass little brother into your house when you’re struggling to survive as it is” as Councilman Polensek said (not the same councilman mentioned above btw. Polensek’s comments were public and on the record, lol). But then to cede the stable parts of EC to CH? I can’t find the words to share with this forum to demonstrate how much of a nonstarter that is. Few people in cleveland would support that at all. It just wouldn’t happen. And on principle alone, I wouldn’t support that either. And I’m pro annexation. 

Edited May 4, 20196 yr by inlovewithCLE

And btw, Cleveland already knows that EC wouldn’t be revenue positive for a while. Just to get EC up to the standard of services that the rest of Cleveland has would be costly. That’s why the city wanted more money from the state to move forward with it. It would make it an easier sell politically. Mayor Jackson is interested in an EC merger, but not if the state isn’t going to kick in significant amounts to help make that happen. I’ve come to the conclusion that the only way a merger will ever happen is that EC has to either go completely broke (GE pulling out of Nela Park would probably do it) or the state is going to have to force it by some sort of law in order to make it happen. Cleveland doesn’t want to do it without state assistance and EC would rather starve independently than potentially thrive as part of Cleveland 

3 hours ago, inlovewithCLE said:

Which we can’t. I can tell you for a fact that people have absolutely brought up absorbing all of East Cleveland vs the whole share with CH thing. We all know the EC annexation was on the table, and that alone is a tough sell, but to absorb the unstable parts and give the stable parts to Cleveland Heights is an absolute nonstarter. I have heard a Cleveland city councilman say that specifically, as well as other residents. Taking over East Cleveland is a hard sell as it is. Because people view it as “moving in your broke ass little brother into your house when you’re struggling to survive as it is” as Councilman Polensek said (not the same councilman mentioned above btw. Polensek’s comments were public and on the record, lol). But then to cede the stable parts of EC to CH? I can’t find the words to share with this forum to demonstrate how much of a nonstarter that is. Few people in cleveland would support that at all. It just wouldn’t happen. And on principle alone, I wouldn’t support that either. And I’m pro annexation. 

 

We all know that EC overall is a money loser, and the unstable parts especially so.  But if you lose $10 on the unstable parts, only losing $1 more on the stable parts doesn't make it an easier deal.  In other words, if Forest Hills isn't generating more revenue than it takes to service, Cleveland is actually better off giving it to Cleveland Heights.

51 minutes ago, X said:

 

We all know that EC overall is a money loser, and the unstable parts especially so.  But if you lose $10 on the unstable parts, only losing $1 more on the stable parts doesn't make it an easier deal.  In other words, if Forest Hills isn't generating more revenue than it takes to service, Cleveland is actually better off giving it to Cleveland Heights.

You could make that argument for the whole damn city then lol. EC is a money loser period. But why would you want to cede a stable neighborhood to a relatively wealthy suburb while you keep the things that are in worse shape? That logic doesn’t make sense. The whole city is a money loser, so let’s get rid of the areas that are nicer than the rest of the city and require less investment to get the standard up. That makes no sense at all. Not to mention it’s an exercise in futility because any proposal that does that is DOA in Cleveland

11 hours ago, inlovewithCLE said:

You could make that argument for the whole damn city then lol. EC is a money loser period. But why would you want to cede a stable neighborhood to a relatively wealthy suburb while you keep the things that are in worse shape? That logic doesn’t make sense. The whole city is a money loser, so let’s get rid of the areas that are nicer than the rest of the city and require less investment to get the standard up. That makes no sense at all. Not to mention it’s an exercise in futility because any proposal that does that is DOA in Cleveland

I think the FH neighborhood is a unique situation considering it's encompasses two different cities.  A) It continues to run as it does currently as a neighborhood of Cleveland and CH. Example Shaker Square neighborhood. B) The entire neighborhood is ceded to CH.  There is a connection via, neighborhood and school district.

Edited May 5, 20196 yr by MyTwoSense

17 hours ago, inlovewithCLE said:

Which we can’t. I can tell you for a fact that people have absolutely brought up absorbing all of East Cleveland vs the whole share with CH thing. We all know the EC annexation was on the table, and that alone is a tough sell, but to absorb the unstable parts and give the stable parts to Cleveland Heights is an absolute nonstarter. I have heard a Cleveland city councilman say that specifically, as well as other residents. Taking over East Cleveland is a hard sell as it is. Because people view it as “moving in your broke ass little brother into your house when you’re struggling to survive as it is” as Councilman Polensek said (not the same councilman mentioned above btw. Polensek’s comments were public and on the record, lol). But then to cede the stable parts of EC to CH? I can’t find the words to share with this forum to demonstrate how much of a nonstarter that is. Few people in cleveland would support that at all. It just wouldn’t happen. And on principle alone, I wouldn’t support that either. And I’m pro annexation. 

 

This is an example of why I'll vote for Polensek as long as he runs and I live in his district.   

Though there's rumors he's already picked a successor, a neighbor of mine.

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

 

This is an example of why I'll vote for Polensek as long as he runs and I live in his district.   

Though there's rumors he's already picked a successor, a neighbor of mine.

I've met and dealt with Polensek many times. Before I met I didn't think I liked him but my opinion of him has changed. He's a straight shooter that doesn't try to BS you.  I like that about him.

There is pent up demand for housing near UC, but if Cleveland takes EC over that only puts it on an equal footing with Glenville, Hough, and Fairfax.  They're starting to see a little bit of spin-off from UC and CC, but only on the fringes.  I wouldn't expect EC to suddenly burst forth with development.

Although it is more likely that there will be industrial redevelopment of the Noble Road area.

Looks like consolidation thoughts are beginning to heat up again...

 

Cleveland and St. Louis, two Rust Belt cities with a lot in common: Cleveland 2030: A Way Forward

By Peter Krouse, cleveland.com | Posted May 06, 2019 at 05:45 AM

 

Over the next year and a half, some big thinkers in Greater Cleveland will be paying close attention to the possible merger of the City of St. Louis and neighboring St. Louis County into a single metro government.

 

The merger, if approved by a statewide vote in November 2020, also would convert 88 smaller cities and towns within the county into “municipal districts,” and combine 55 municipal police departments into a single force.

 

Why is this of interest to people here? Because Greater Cleveland and the St.Louis region face similar problems - a fragmented political landscape, a stagnant economy, population loss, racial inequality - and some people here and there believe consolidation is the solution.

 

More at:  https://expo.cleveland.com/news/g66l-2019/05/2bc54825cf42/cleveland-and-st-louis-two-rust-belt-cities-with-a-lot-in-common-cleveland-2030-a-way-forward.html

 

21 hours ago, freefourur said:

I've met and dealt with Polensek many times. Before I met I didn't think I liked him but my opinion of him has changed. He's a straight shooter that doesn't try to BS you.  I like that about him.

 

His comments about Jackson wanting to build a dirt bike track instead of fix the pools in his district (on the Trivvisonno show) made that clear, he only held back in a manner that I suspect ClearChannel/iHeart/whoever they are this week approved of for FCC related reasons.   That segment made up for a lot of particularly weak ones that I tuned out once I heard the traffic report.