^ Might be more like well above the $300,000/$400,000 price range.

^ Might be more like well above the $300,000/$400,000 price range.

 

It is, but I didnt want to present it that way.  The point being Shaker lacks the housing diversity that CH has, so it will certainly see fewer of the problems that come along with it (and less overall or widespread decline).     

I was reading a post on regionalism in Cleveland from The Urbanophile from a few years back and something in the comments section made me wonder: What is the bare minimum amount of city-county consolidation we'd have to do to get the entire county's population number counted as part of the city in the census?  In other words, what is the least amount of power the suburbs could cede to the county to have Cleveland legally show up on a "list of US cities by population" at #9 with 1,280,122 people?

Neither Shaker Heights or Cleveland Heights have that great of a highschool. University Heights highschool is far worse than both. None of their Middle Schools are good either, most being rated "Continuous Improvement", which is below effective. Monticello Middle School in Cleveland Heights is "Academic Watch"

 

Systemwide Shaker Heights is graded Effective, meeting 22 out of 26 State Indicators, with a performance index of 98.6, which is out of 120 points.

 

Systemwide Cleveland Heights/University Heights is graded Continuous Improvement, meeting 10 out of 26 State Indicators, with a performance index of 87.3, which is out of 120 points.

 

First of all, the state ratings system is a mostly asinine way of judging schools/districts.  They tell us nothing about the schools themselves, but a lot about the students attending (i.e. their family/background).  This is a problem.  Shaker Heights High School does have an extensive and seemingly successful honors program, but again this may be in large part because it has a somewhat decent influx of upper middle-class and wealthy families that do use the schools and take advantage of the program.

 

Second of all, "University Heights high school"?  WTF, mate?  However Wiley Middle School in University Heights was rated "Effective." 

 

CH-UH and to a lesser extent SH both have a large percentage of residents that opt for private schools, certainly higher than most outer-ring suburbs.  Some of this is tradition of private school use in those communities, some of it is avoiding the perceived "bad" school districts.  Regardless neither district comes close to reflecting the demographics of the local populations.  If these districts had the percentage of community enrollment that places like Solon or Avon Lake had, I guarantee you that both districts state ratings would look much, much better without anything actually changing in the way the schools themselves operate.

^LOL. That's what I was thinking, where did University Heights High School come from?

I meant to say the highschool in University Heights, not "University Heights High School". Cant remember the name.

 

 

"They tell us nothing about the schools themselves, but a lot about the students attending"

 

Those things go hand in hand, and saying otherwise makes no sense. The students attending is a major part in making the school what it is. If a student goes to a school where most people dont care, and achievement is made fun of, they are more likely to get pulled into it and also do worse in school, or get into other bad activities.

 

^Figured, but like the school district both cities share the same High School. Cleveland Heights High School, or Heights.

I meant to say the highschool in University Heights, not "University Heights High School". Cant remember the name.

 

Just to be clear, University Heights does not have its own high school.  It's part of the Cleveland Heights-University Heights City School District, and all public school students in that district attend Cleveland Heights High School.

 

 

 

"They tell us nothing about the schools themselves, but a lot about the students attending"

 

Those things go hand in hand, and saying otherwise makes no sense. The students attending is a major part in making the school what it is. If a student goes to a school where most people dont care, and achievement is made fun of, they are more likely to get pulled into it and also do worse in school, or get into other bad activities.

 

The state ratings are no reflection of the level of service the schools provide.  The Shaker Heights schools have tons of programs and services that would make many outer-ring suburbs jealous.  The schools have high teachers salaries and as such tends to have its pick of the litter in staffing.  So let's not let this by clouded by the fact that the population it serves--very diverse ranging from extremely wealthy to poor, with decent concentrations of both and everything in the middle--may not score as well overall on standardized tests as some other area districts with perhaps less affluence but also less diversity and poverty.  This belies the reality that the range of educational opportunities in the classroom and extracurricular offerings for SH students is quite likely among the best in the state.

 

The point I'm making is that the schools themselves are top-notch.  A decent chunk of the families in the district indeed enroll their kids in the schools but aren't actually taking full advantage...for whatever reason.

 

A similar story plays itself out across the border in Cleveland Heights, though not quite to the same degree in regards to what is offered to the students and to a worse degree in what is taken for granted.

@KJP, you bring up a very good point about what the Cleveland City Councilman said about merging with East Cleveland. My question is, politically, what would an annexation look like as opposed to a "merger"? Is there a difference? Because I would assume that outright annexation (ie: the Cleveland annexation of Collinwood, Ohio City, etc.) would be of a better benefit to Cleveland than a merger. Is there a difference?

 

@Clevelander17, you ask a very good question. I hope someone can answer that. What is the bare minimum that needs to be done in order to be able to count the county's numbers as one Cleveland?

 

Could we possibly have a system like the original version of New York City's Borough President system? Keep the mayors of the municipalities but as Borough Presidents or whatever you want to call them. I don't know how that would look for the city councils, but there has to be a creative way where we could merge enough to count all of our numbers as one while staying separate enough to make this politically palatable and get this thing done.

Here's what I think: a community like North Randall may want to merge if it can't carry out the redevelopment of the mall site and racetrack on its own. And a community like Warrensville Heights and/or others including Cleveland wouldn't want to merge with it and provide whatever added tools are needed to redevelop those huge pieces of North Randall -- unless there was a qualified developer ready to come in and make an investment. Only that would make it worth the merger and investment.

 

What other marriages to enable mutual benefit might be possible throughout the metro area? While some mergers could work because they are similar communities and uniting could save a little money, I don't think it's enough for most other pairings.

 

Maybe it would be interesting to see what communities could be merged because they:

> Are similar and could the most money;

> Provide more resources (bonding capacity, grant eligibility, etc) when united than apart to support a specific redevelopment effort;

> Or a combination of each.

I was reading a bit about "The Lakewood (California) Plan" and the way it has historically outsourced/shared services while retaining control through a local government.

 

I think that that relates nicely to the following article from a few months ago about Ed FitzGerald and his expansion of county services to increase sharing with the suburbs:

 

http://www.clevelandmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=586CA122EB394032BD4AA3B686FF03D9&nm=Editorial&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=1578600D80804596A222593669321019&tier=4&id=B1E902F597024628B7967BE30E9D6019

 

Just another possible, perhaps more realistic, for regionalism in NEO.

I was reading a bit about "The Lakewood (California) Plan" and the way it has historically outsourced/shared services while retaining control through a local government.

 

I think that that relates nicely to the following article from a few months ago about Ed FitzGerald and his expansion of county services to increase sharing with the suburbs:

 

http://www.clevelandmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=586CA122EB394032BD4AA3B686FF03D9&nm=Editorial&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=1578600D80804596A222593669321019&tier=4&id=B1E902F597024628B7967BE30E9D6019

 

Just another possible, perhaps more realistic, for regionalism in NEO.

 

There's a good amount of that going on right now among suburbs.  For example, Walton Hills uses the Northfield Village Fire Department.  Northfield Center and Sagamore Hills Townships share a fire department, and the Center doesn't have a police force, it has a sherrif's station.  This is my area, so they are the ones I am familiar with.  I suspect there are others.

 

Also, privatized trash collectors are, in a way, regionalism.

 

What suburbs aren't interested in is sharing services with Cleveland.  The water department would be a classic example of why.

I believe that townships don't have taxing power (at least income taxes), so in that regard they're pretty much legally obliged to rely on the county for a number of services and to force citizens to pay individually for privatized services.  Getting long-established municipalities to switch to using county services could be challenging.

KJP, i would think warrensville heights would be very interested in a merger since they would finally have control of seemless zoning. A much better chance to control their destiny. Whereas if the Village has a pig farmer buy Thistledown they wouldn't have much say.

I was reading a bit about "The Lakewood (California) Plan" and the way it has historically outsourced/shared services while retaining control through a local government.

 

I think that that relates nicely to the following article from a few months ago about Ed FitzGerald and his expansion of county services to increase sharing with the suburbs:

 

http://www.clevelandmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=586CA122EB394032BD4AA3B686FF03D9&nm=Editorial&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=1578600D80804596A222593669321019&tier=4&id=B1E902F597024628B7967BE30E9D6019

 

Just another possible, perhaps more realistic, for regionalism in NEO.

 

There's a good amount of that going on right now among suburbs.  For example, Walton Hills uses the Northfield Village Fire Department.  Northfield Center and Sagamore Hills Townships share a fire department, and the Center doesn't have a police force, it has a sherrif's station.  This is my area, so they are the ones I am familiar with.  I suspect there are others.

 

Also, privatized trash collectors are, in a way, regionalism.

 

What suburbs aren't interested in is sharing services with Cleveland.  The water department would be a classic example of why.

 

Tell that to South Euclid, who is practically begging the state to change the law to allow Cleveland to pick up South Euclid's garbage

I hope that one day we can have real regionalism and stop patting ourselves on the back because we're buying salt together. Nickel and diming, smh.

 

Could we possibly have a system like the original version of New York City's Borough President system? Keep the mayors of the municipalities but as Borough Presidents or whatever you want to call them. I don't know how that would look for the city councils, but there has to be a creative way where we could merge enough to count all of our numbers as one while staying separate enough to make this politically palatable and get this thing done.

 

fyi the role of the nyc borough presidents, ie., marty makowitz for brooklyn, has been largely ceremonial since 1990 and since the board of ed was abolished:

 

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borough_President

 

^ so no benefit from this model for cleveland, at least as it exists today.

 

*loving the thinking in this thread - lots of good ideas!

 

 

@MrNYC, that's why I mentioned using the original version of the Borough Presidents, not it in its current form

 

First of all, the state ratings system is a mostly asinine way of judging schools/districts.  They tell us nothing about the schools themselves, but a lot about the students attending (i.e. their family/background).  This is a problem.

 

Even though I think students are a huge part of making a school what it is, the reports can also show you how well the teachers are in some cases.

 

For example Eastlake North and Willoughby South are in the same school district. They aren't that far apart location-wise but Willoughby South does have a slightly higher percentage of students below the poverty line, and slightly more minorities. Keep that in mind.

 

Having family members who have gone/go to north, as well as myself, I know that Eastlake North has a terrible group of science teachers, and just an average group of social studies teachers(many football coaches).

 

North and South have a pretty similar percentage of students at and above the proficient level in the Ohio Graduation Test(OGT) in tenth grade in the subjects of Reading, Math, and Writing, all in the 90% or above range.

 

For Science though, Willoughby South is at 90.6%, while Eastlake North is at 78.1%

 

For Social Studies, Willougby South is at 92.6%, while Eatlake North is at 84.5%

 

And while I dont know the quality of the science teachers at South, I DO know how terrible they are at North. One can assume that based on the ratings in this instance, you can see that the science teachers at south are far better than the science teachers at north, and that the science teachers at north are hurting the students, and therefor lowering their science proficiency levels.

 

So I dont agree with you that "the state ratings system is a mostly asinine way of judging schools/districts.  They tell us nothing about the schools themselves"

And an argument against centralization of regional power:

 

http://georgiapolicy.org/sandy-springs-a-case-study-on-centralization-of-local-government/

Even though I think students are a huge part of making a school what it is, the reports can also show you how well the teachers are in some cases.

 

For example Eastlake North and Willoughby South are in the same school district. They aren't that far apart location-wise but Willoughby South does have a slightly higher percentage of students below the poverty line, and slightly more minorities. Keep that in mind.

 

Having family members who have gone/go to north, as well as myself, I know that Eastlake North has a terrible group of science teachers, and just an average group of social studies teachers(many football coaches).

 

North and South have a pretty similar percentage of students at and above the proficient level in the Ohio Graduation Test(OGT) in tenth grade in the subjects of Reading, Math, and Writing, all in the 90% or above range.

 

For Science though, Willoughby South is at 90.6%, while Eastlake North is at 78.1%

 

For Social Studies, Willougby South is at 92.6%, while Eatlake North is at 84.5%

 

And while I dont know the quality of the science teachers at South, I DO know how terrible they are at North. One can assume that based on the ratings in this instance, you can see that the science teachers at south are far better than the science teachers at north, and that the science teachers at north are hurting the students, and therefor lowering their science proficiency levels.

 

So I dont agree with you that "the state ratings system is a mostly asinine way of judging schools/districts.  They tell us nothing about the schools themselves"

 

Not sure what source you were looking at, but according to the ODE report card pages, North has a higher percentage of students with disabilities AND a higher percentage of students from disadvantaged backgrounds than South does.  These differences are not insignificant and alone could account for the big difference in the science scores.  Or they could have no affect at all, but who really knows, because the state makes absolutely no attempt whatsoever to adjust for those types of demographics beyond adding them on the report card page as some sort of a silent addendum.

 

Personally, I think that the fact that your subjective analysis of the teachers in certain subject areas North and the pseudo-objective measurement results seem to line up as compared to one other school, is pure coincidence.  In fact with the current measurement system, I think such instances are, more often than not, going to be coincidence...yes it's really that bad.  There are undoubtedly outstanding teachers in urban schools whose students score lower on tests than, say, more affluent students with legitimately bad teachers in other districts.  And the measurement system is pretty much blind to this type of thing.

 

So you're right, I suppose I was a little harsh in saying that the state ratings system tells us "nothing about the schools themselves."  I should have said that they tell us "mostly nothing."  Until the tests themselves become less biased and until demographic data is able to be adjusted enough to the point of really measuring what a district/school/teacher is adding to the child's learning process, I think that the measurement system will remain too inaccurate to be as useful as most politicians and citizens assume it is, especially in comparing districts.  It shouldn't take a background in education, statistics, or experimental design to see how much improvement the measurement system needs if these are the things we're going to be using it for.

@MrNYC, that's why I mentioned using the original version of the Borough Presidents, not it in its current form

 

i know and even in that case keep in mind it was finally abolished, albeit after 100yrs, because it was ruled unfair due to the wide nyc population variation (ie., a brooklyn borough pres vote on the board of estimate carried the same weight as a staten island vote).

 

i guess for cle that would only be a bad thing if the cle or cuyahoga borough presidents were established in areas with wide population differences.

otherwise, if that issue was carefully balanced, i suppose it could work.

 

its interesting to think about!

 

 

 

Several burbs in a school district is nowhere close to unusual.  Orange contains several cities, Nordonia two townships, a city, and a village (plus a small part of another township).  Bedford has two cities and two villages,though the one village that remains rather affluent is trying to bail.

CH-UH, SE-L, MH-MV-HH-GM...... not rare at all

Shared services and re-drawn lines will help. But the real problem is land-use patterns, not just the number of jurisdictions. As the Western Reserve Land Conservancy map below shows, the population of Cuyahoga County was essentially unchanged from 1950 to 2000, but the developed area roughly tripled. That means the cost of providing public services to the same number of people was spread out over three times the area, adding to fuel costs; road miles of construction, maintenance, snow removal, etc.; decreased emergency response times; additional police and fire stations; more and more water lines, power lines, etc. Even if all this growth had been captured under a single government (say Cleveland and Cuyahoga County had merged in 1950), it would have added significantly to the cost of services and steady rise in local taxes. The balkanization didn't necessarily add that much in service costs, but it required a lot more city halls and salaries of mayors, council members and other officials.

 

 

Several burbs in a school district is nowhere close to unusual.  Orange contains several cities, Nordonia two townships, a city, and a village (plus a small part of another township).  Bedford has two cities and two villages,though the one village that remains rather affluent is trying to bail.

 

Yeah but is this really regionalism?  I still think there are too many school districts and too many really tiny ones especially in what is a fairly dense urban area.

 

I was actually playing around with the map the other day also redrawing school districts.  I think the current number of districts in Cuyahoga County could easily be cut in half by combining a number of similar neighboring districts.

Shared services and re-drawn lines will help. But the real problem is land-use patterns, not just the number of jurisdictions. As the Western Reserve Land Conservancy map below shows, the population of Cuyahoga County was essentially unchanged from 1950 to 2000, but the developed area roughly tripled. That means the cost of providing public services to the same number of people was spread out over three times the area, adding to fuel costs; road miles of construction, maintenance, snow removal, etc.; decreased emergency response times; additional police and fire stations; more and more water lines, power lines, etc. Even if all this growth had been captured under a single government (say Cleveland and Cuyahoga County had merged in 1950), it would have added significantly to the cost of services and steady rise in local taxes. The balkanization didn't necessarily add that much in service costs, but it required a lot more city halls and salaries of mayors, council members and other officials.

 

 

 

Couldn't a more centralized government do a better job of controlling land use through zoning?  For instance, if Cleveland and Cuyahoga County were merged in 1950 and a decision was made to keep the undeveloped outer-ring suburbs, well, undeveloped, couldn't that have prevented some of the sprawl?

True. The land-use patterns and the Balkanized government structure are problems. I just meant to stress that centralized government would not necessarily be that much more efficient. Look at Columbus, where aggressive water and annexation policies allowed the city to grow without being hemmed in by suburbs. The city captured a lot of the growth, but the patterns of growth were suburban and inefficient, and did not strengthen the core of the city. Rather, the older urbanized areas of the city subsidized the newer suburbanized areas of the city.

Even if all this growth had been captured under a single government (say Cleveland and Cuyahoga County had merged in 1950),

.

 

Had all of Cuyahoga County been part of Cleveland during the 1970s, Judge Battisti would have ordered busing throughout the county (which by most accounts he dearly wanted to do but was forbidden from doing by Milliken v. Bradley).  This would have impacted the county's population the way it impacted Cleveland's.  We'd now have about 900,000 people in the county. 

 

In reality, this would have increased sprawl.  The settlement of Medina and Geagua counties would have begun earlier. 

 

True. The land-use patterns and the Balkanized government structure are problems. I just meant to stress that centralized government would not necessarily be that much more efficient. Look at Columbus, where aggressive water and annexation policies allowed the city to grow without being hemmed in by suburbs. The city captured a lot of the growth, but the patterns of growth were suburban and inefficient, and did not strengthen the core of the city. Rather, the older urbanized areas of the city subsidized the newer suburbanized areas of the city.

 

Gotcha, that makes sense.  It would probably take generations of committed local leadership to really put a huge dent in the way this county was developed.  Under central leadership, things may have developed differently, but it likely would have been almost as bad because I doubt many would have had the foresight to buck the post-war sprawl trends, especially if that's what citizens were demanding.

Even if all this growth had been captured under a single government (say Cleveland and Cuyahoga County had merged in 1950),

.

 

Had all of Cuyahoga County been part of Cleveland during the 1970s, Judge Battisti would have ordered busing throughout the county (which by most accounts he dearly wanted to do but was forbidden from doing by Milliken v. Bradley).  This would have impacted the county's population the way it impacted Cleveland's.  We'd now have about 900,000 people in the county. 

 

In reality, this would have increased sprawl.  The settlement of Medina and Geagua counties would have begun earlier. 

 

 

I think busing was probably a mistake and executed incorrectly, but I also think that your comment assumes that there is no geographic point, no distance from the center city, to which people will stop running from the issues of urban life.  I think families moving a few miles to inner-ring and second-ring suburbs in the years following the busing decision was an easy transition for many.  But if families were forced to move 20-30 miles out of the county and away from the region's main employment center (Cleveland), I'm not sure the surrounding counties would have boomed as quickly or to the extent to which you're assuming.  I just think that there is a distance (and I'm not sure what it is or if it even matters nowadays) from the center city where it becomes unrealistic for people to be a part of a region in a way that allows them to conveniently commute to their daily activities (education, employment, entertainment, etc.).

Even if all this growth had been captured under a single government (say Cleveland and Cuyahoga County had merged in 1950),

.

 

Had all of Cuyahoga County been part of Cleveland during the 1970s, Judge Battisti would have ordered busing throughout the county (which by most accounts he dearly wanted to do but was forbidden from doing by Milliken v. Bradley).  This would have impacted the county's population the way it impacted Cleveland's.  We'd now have about 900,000 people in the county. 

 

In reality, this would have increased sprawl.  The settlement of Medina and Geagua counties would have begun earlier. 

 

 

All you have to do is add, "I think..." to that statement.

Well a reprieve for now for North Randall. It doesn't mean Thistledown won't pack up and leave in a year or 2.

 

Thistledown owner announces $88 million investment

 

By Rick Armon

Beacon Journal staff writer

 

Published: August 22, 2012 - 11:36 PM

A Thistledown horse track and video slots parlor won’t be coming to the Akron-Canton area anytime soon.

 

Rock Ohio Caesars said Wednesday it will spend $88 million to update and transform the existing thoroughbred track in North Randall into a racino, the industry term for a combined track and slots parlor.

http://www.ohio.com/news/local/thistledown-owner-announces-88-million-investment-1.328971

I think busing was probably a mistake and executed incorrectly, but I also think that your comment assumes that there is no geographic point, no distance from the center city, to which people will stop running from the issues of urban life.  I think families moving a few miles to inner-ring and second-ring suburbs in the years following the busing decision was an easy transition for many.  But if families were forced to move 20-30 miles out of the county and away from the region's main employment center (Cleveland), I'm not sure the surrounding counties would have boomed as quickly or to the extent to which you're assuming.  I just think that there is a distance (and I'm not sure what it is or if it even matters nowadays) from the center city where it becomes unrealistic for people to be a part of a region in a way that allows them to conveniently commute to their daily activities (education, employment, entertainment, etc.).

 

People during the 1970s were a lot more unapologetically racist than they are now.  And....it wasn't all about racism.  It was about the safety of their kids, and the idea of them being shipped to high crime neighborhoods where they would be targets.  Those may have been perceptions, but we're talking about voluntary acts where perception is at least as important as reality. 

 

Private schools might have been an option, but recall that Bishop Hickey categorically refused to expand the Catholic schools in order to accomodate busing resisters.  Ironically, this indirectly led to the demise of some of those inner city churches Bishop Lennon closed.

 

With this kind of powerful motivation, the moves would have been made.  The corridors along I-90, I-77, I-271, and I-71 just outside the county would have boomed a couple decades early.  RTA would have suffered, because people who might take the bus from Maple Heights or Strongsville downtown would not have the same option in Macedonia or Brunswick.  The new exurbanites would be expending their political pull to expand or build new freeways. 

 

"Sprawl" probably would have been even more extensive, earlier.

I think busing was probably a mistake and executed incorrectly, but I also think that your comment assumes that there is no geographic point, no distance from the center city, to which people will stop running from the issues of urban life.  I think families moving a few miles to inner-ring and second-ring suburbs in the years following the busing decision was an easy transition for many.  But if families were forced to move 20-30 miles out of the county and away from the region's main employment center (Cleveland), I'm not sure the surrounding counties would have boomed as quickly or to the extent to which you're assuming.  I just think that there is a distance (and I'm not sure what it is or if it even matters nowadays) from the center city where it becomes unrealistic for people to be a part of a region in a way that allows them to conveniently commute to their daily activities (education, employment, entertainment, etc.).

 

People during the 1970s were a lot more unapologetically racist than they are now.  And....it wasn't all about racism.  It was about the safety of their kids, and the idea of them being shipped to high crime neighborhoods where they would be targets.  Those may have been perceptions, but we're talking about voluntary acts where perception is at least as important as reality. 

 

Private schools might have been an option, but recall that Bishop Hickey categorically refused to expand the Catholic schools in order to accomodate busing resisters.  Ironically, this indirectly led to the demise of some of those inner city churches Bishop Lennon closed.

 

With this kind of powerful motivation, the moves would have been made.  The corridors along I-90, I-77, I-271, and I-71 just outside the county would have boomed a couple decades early.  RTA would have suffered, because people who might take the bus from Maple Heights or Strongsville downtown would not have the same option in Macedonia or Brunswick.  The new exurbanites would be expending their political pull to expand or build new freeways. 

 

"Sprawl" probably would have been even more extensive, earlier.

 

I think that that analysis is debatable, especially for those with limited resources, like working class families that only had to flee a mile or two away to the nearest suburb and still had access to public transportation (which you correctly pointed out as being important).  If that family were forced to move to another county--and one that did not have transportation into Cleveland--I just don't think it would have been as easy as it was to make a smaller move and as such there might have been less of those types of moves.  But that's just my opinion.

I think busing was probably a mistake and executed incorrectly, but I also think that your comment assumes that there is no geographic point, no distance from the center city, to which people will stop running from the issues of urban life.  I think families moving a few miles to inner-ring and second-ring suburbs in the years following the busing decision was an easy transition for many.  But if families were forced to move 20-30 miles out of the county and away from the region's main employment center (Cleveland), I'm not sure the surrounding counties would have boomed as quickly or to the extent to which you're assuming.  I just think that there is a distance (and I'm not sure what it is or if it even matters nowadays) from the center city where it becomes unrealistic for people to be a part of a region in a way that allows them to conveniently commute to their daily activities (education, employment, entertainment, etc.).

 

People during the 1970s were a lot more unapologetically racist than they are now.  And....it wasn't all about racism.  It was about the safety of their kids, and the idea of them being shipped to high crime neighborhoods where they would be targets.  Those may have been perceptions, but we're talking about voluntary acts where perception is at least as important as reality. 

 

Private schools might have been an option, but recall that Bishop Hickey categorically refused to expand the Catholic schools in order to accomodate busing resisters.  Ironically, this indirectly led to the demise of some of those inner city churches Bishop Lennon closed.

 

With this kind of powerful motivation, the moves would have been made.  The corridors along I-90, I-77, I-271, and I-71 just outside the county would have boomed a couple decades early.  RTA would have suffered, because people who might take the bus from Maple Heights or Strongsville downtown would not have the same option in Macedonia or Brunswick.  The new exurbanites would be expending their political pull to expand or build new freeways. 

 

"Sprawl" probably would have been even more extensive, earlier.

 

I think that that analysis is debatable, especially for those with limited resources, like working class families that only had to flee a mile or two away to the nearest suburb and still had access to public transportation (which you correctly pointed out as being important).  If that family were forced to move to another county--and one that did not have transportation into Cleveland--I just don't think it would have been as easy as it was to make a smaller move and as such there might have been less of those types of moves.  But that's just my opinion.

 

I lived on the west side of Maple Heights, which at the time made Parma look like Shaker Heights.  The school district managed to pass a levy by spreading a rumor that if it failed, the state might take over and might merge the district into Cleveland.  People were freaking, and quite serious about getting out.

 

If it had been the whole county, it would have gone Boston, or people would have bailed as they did from Cleveland proper.

 

You know, RTA would not have needed to form and the newly big suburbs in the outer counties would likely have their own competing bus lines, as the suburbs did before 1975 or so.

 

One other thing:  the people "left behind" would have still spread out, as they have since into the inner ring.  Elbow room is something Americans in general favor, regardless of race or economic status.

I think busing was probably a mistake and executed incorrectly, but I also think that your comment assumes that there is no geographic point, no distance from the center city, to which people will stop running from the issues of urban life.  I think families moving a few miles to inner-ring and second-ring suburbs in the years following the busing decision was an easy transition for many.  But if families were forced to move 20-30 miles out of the county and away from the region's main employment center (Cleveland), I'm not sure the surrounding counties would have boomed as quickly or to the extent to which you're assuming.  I just think that there is a distance (and I'm not sure what it is or if it even matters nowadays) from the center city where it becomes unrealistic for people to be a part of a region in a way that allows them to conveniently commute to their daily activities (education, employment, entertainment, etc.).

 

People during the 1970s were a lot more unapologetically racist than they are now.  And....it wasn't all about racism.  It was about the safety of their kids, and the idea of them being shipped to high crime neighborhoods where they would be targets.  Those may have been perceptions, but we're talking about voluntary acts where perception is at least as important as reality. 

 

Private schools might have been an option, but recall that Bishop Hickey categorically refused to expand the Catholic schools in order to accomodate busing resisters.  Ironically, this indirectly led to the demise of some of those inner city churches Bishop Lennon closed.

 

With this kind of powerful motivation, the moves would have been made.  The corridors along I-90, I-77, I-271, and I-71 just outside the county would have boomed a couple decades early.  RTA would have suffered, because people who might take the bus from Maple Heights or Strongsville downtown would not have the same option in Macedonia or Brunswick.  The new exurbanites would be expending their political pull to expand or build new freeways. 

 

"Sprawl" probably would have been even more extensive, earlier.

 

I think that that analysis is debatable, especially for those with limited resources, like working class families that only had to flee a mile or two away to the nearest suburb and still had access to public transportation (which you correctly pointed out as being important).  If that family were forced to move to another county--and one that did not have transportation into Cleveland--I just don't think it would have been as easy as it was to make a smaller move and as such there might have been less of those types of moves.  But that's just my opinion.

 

I lived on the west side of Maple Heights, which at the time made Parma look like Shaker Heights.  The school district managed to pass a levy by spreading a rumor that if it failed, the state might take over and might merge the district into Cleveland.  People were freaking, and quite serious about getting out.

 

If it had been the whole county, it would have gone Boston, or people would have bailed as they did from Cleveland proper.

 

You know, RTA would not have needed to form and the newly big suburbs in the outer counties would likely have their own competing bus lines, as the suburbs did before 1975 or so.

 

One other thing:  the people "left behind" would have still spread out, as they have since into the inner ring.  Elbow room is something Americans in general favor, regardless of race or economic status.

 

In the 1970s, Cleveland was the region's entertainment, educational, and most importantly, employment hub.  That's the point I'm making here.  These new hypothetical suburban transportation systems likely wouldn't have gone into Cuyahoga County, and even if they did, the commute time would still be four or five times what it was when these families were living in Cleveland.  What I'm saying is that no matter how much these families might have wanted to leave the county in your hypothetical situation, they'd still have ties to the central city to tend to, not insignificantly, the place of employment.  It's one thing to maintain employment in Cleveland while living in Euclid or South Euclid.  It's a different ballgame when you're talking Chesterland or even Willoughby to some degree, let alone places further out like Aurora or Avon or Brunswick.

 

Today is a different story because of the internet and telecommuting and even the spreading out of companies into the suburbs and exurbs.

Cross posted from the dumb rankings thread I helped shut down. :P

 

What do you think the public perception of Cleveland would be if nothing changed except the nominal borders?  How about we make all of Cuyahoga County the City of Cleveland.  We could even keep each city as a "borough" and let them each keep their own police department, fire department, "borough council", "borough mayor", "borough pride", whatever.  School districts would stay the same.  Basically what Indianapolis did.  Nothing else changes.  Overnight we would become the 9th largest city in the country (and still 4 cities in the top 10 would have a larger land area than us).  We would have the lowest murder rate in the entire country (9 times lower than New York City's lauded murder rate and slipping just under El Paso, Texas and Lincoln, Nebraska into the #1 spot).  We would have a median household income of $45,000, and a city unemployment rate under 7%.  We would have huge "livable city neighborhoods" like the "borough of Cleveland Heights" and the "borough of Lakewood" and the "borough of Shaker Heights" and the "borough of Rocky River" and the "borough of Chagrin Falls", etc.  We would have multiple major employment centers, all within the city limits.

 

We would be the new hotness!

Liked it then and I like it now.  It helps to eliminate some of the opposition's key points, particularly the schools.  It fails to accomplish some of regionalism's key points, like eliminating redundancy, but that's what compromise is all about.  It's a plan everyone could be persuaded to agree on.

Liked it then and I like it now.  It helps to eliminate some of the opposition's key points, particularly the schools.  It fails to accomplish some of regionalism's key points, like eliminating redundancy, but that's what compromise is all about.  It's a plan everyone could be persuaded to agree on.

 

I know it's a little far fetched, but at the same time I think it would be the most realistic and beneficial plan of anything I have heard (but, hey, I may be biased on this one! :) ).  I know it wouldn't solve the cost cutting measures, but I do think it would accomplish two very important things.  First, it would be the easiest, most cost effective way for us to greatly improve the perception of Cleveland right away.  And second, I think it would pave the way for future real consolidation, even if it was still very gradual, by changing people's mindset about us all being in the same region (or city in this case).

I'm definitely on board but as 327 mentioned we don't get any of the meaty benefits of regionalism at first, so it's probably a good idea to seek out and consider any potential minor consequences that would have been washed over in a more aggressive regionalism proposal. What comes to mind, and mostly because I know very little about how it actually works is state and federal funding. Do we put ourselves in a different category on paper for those sorts of things as well? Obviously many government funded services are already being taken care of on a county level, so maybe there isn't really much there. What if any difference is there for one of these boroughs obtaining grant money?

 

I know ideally the answer is that there's nothing, but it just feels like there would be some consequences despite what would be just a change on paper and despite just wanting it be not much more than a semantic change.

I agree with this. I've previously mentioned something somewhat similar. I like the borough system idea and I think that's probably the only realistic option was have for city-county consolidation without the state legislature just doing it themselves like Indiana did with Indianapolis (and I'm not even sure if, legally, our state legislature could do that here because of the Home Rule clause in our state constitution).

News out of the eastern suburbs this week is that Shaker Heights and University Heights are very close to completely merging their fire departments:

 

http://www.cleveland.com/university-heights/index.ssf/2012/10/proposed_merger_of_fire_depart.html

I agree with this. I've previously mentioned something somewhat similar. I like the borough system idea and I think that's probably the only realistic option was have for city-county consolidation without the state legislature just doing it themselves like Indiana did with Indianapolis (and I'm not even sure if, legally, our state legislature could do that here because of the Home Rule clause in our state constitution).

They wouldn't, anyway.  It would be blazingly unpopular in the suburbs, where 2/3 of the county voters live.

 

The Republicans wouldn't do it on general principles.

 

The Democrats wouldn't do it because they'd lose the legislature.

Where's the indignation (and voice) of NEO's environmental movement?

Marc Lefkowitz  |  11/12/12 @ 2:00pm   |  Posted in Transform

 

Interim Geauga County Commissioner Walter "Skip" Claypool joined a rant from Tea Party activists in Ashtabula County at last month's Northeast Ohio's Sustainable Communities Initiative board meeting. He called sustainability and the goals of the regional planning effort of more than 100 organizations a fundamental threat to the country. Activists claimed NEOSCC was part of Agenda 21—a UN document that lays out a vision for sustainable development which was adopted by President George W. Bush. Tea Party activists complain that, if enacted, Agenda 21 will diminish personal property rights and private car ownership. The fireworks start around minute 23 of this video.

 

READ MORE AND SEE VIDEO AT:

http://www.gcbl.org/blog/2012/11/wheres-the-indignation-and-voice-of-neos-environmental-movement

^ Great this nonsense is now affecting us at the local level.  I became aware of this 21 B.S. talking point a few weeks ago. This is not amusing.  - DS

 

 

 

Activists dislike the use of multi-unit apartment buildings in city plans - which they call "stack 'em and pack 'em" units - as well as bike lanes and other zoning restrictions they say impinge upon the value of their property and rights.

 

"Property ownership is the essence of the American dream and a cornerstone of the American economy," said John Anthony, a conservative small business owner in New Jersey who has devoted a lot of time to studying Agenda 21. "When you diminish property values, you shrink the net worth of the entire middle class."

 

http://news.yahoo.com/tea-party-versus-agenda-21-saving-u-just-050156332.html

This Agenda 21 thing (i.e. people protesting it) is just anti-urbanism.  Those who favor urbanism need to be as politically active as possible, because the vast majority really don't care and will accept the anti-urban position if it's all they hear.  Also, it would be nice if city leaders, particularly those in marketing and tourism, would take up the cause.

This Agenda 21 thing (i.e. people protesting it) is just anti-urbanism.  Those who favor urbanism need to be as politically active as possible, because the vast majority really don't care and will accept the anti-urban position if it's all they hear.  Also, it would be nice if city leaders, particularly those in marketing and tourism, would take up the cause.

A UN-sponsored effort to change the way people live in the name of a somewhat nebulous concept like “sustainability” is going to trigger just about every conservative alarm there is.  It reeks of forcible “solutions” to problems which may or may not exist, and it certainly sounds like the “one size fits all” approach that I suspect even devoted urban planners would concede exists  among their lazier colleagues.

 

Since I do indeed believe that people who are free to do so will choose a “sprawled” lifestyle, I sort of feel like Judge Mulreedy on my favorite “West Wing” episode, who can’t resist telling people the best way to advocate positions with which he personally disagrees to people close to his mindset.  But you want to stress the local nature of your proposed solutions if you want to sell them to those who are suspicious of big intrusive government.

 

 

 

Assuming that's true, is there any reason to have cities at all?  And is there any reason to consider efficient land use a value?  I think I understand the local/non-local angle, but I don't foresee a moat getting dug.  Part of the allure of cities, for those who like them, is that non-local people and ideas can be found there.  Lets you feel like part of a greater whole.  And if isolation is the only true freedom, 6 billion people would like to say hello.

And being forced to drive everywhere on government-run roads that put privately run transit systems and railroads out of business, or to live in suburbs to have access to retail, jobs, safety etc. nurtured by public highways, oil industry tax subsidies, enterprise zones and massive stormwater systems from all those impervious surfaces isn't a one-size-fits-all, government-sustained lifestyle too?

 

Sometimes we're like fish that no longer notice the water. So when government changes its policies, that's the only time people notice that government was actually directing their lifestyles.