From the PD:

 

Mayors, Cuyahoga issue ultimatum on proposed I-90 interchange

Share taxes or we'll vote no, say mayors, county

Monday, October 08, 2007

Tom Breckenridge

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

The Cleveland area's top elected leaders say they will vote to block a proposed Interstate 90 link in Avon unless the region's fastest-growing suburb agrees to share income taxes from development at the site.

 

Mayor Frank Jackson and Cuyahoga County commissioners say they are ready to take a dramatic stand against the on-off ramps proposed at Nagel Road, a project they say typifies the sprawl that has sucked wealth from Cleveland and its suburbs.

 

"We agree that approval of this project must be contingent upon a revenue sharing plan that addresses the negative economic impacts on surrounding communities," read a statement released Friday by Jackson, Cuyahoga County Commissioners President Tim Hagan and Bay Village Mayor Deborah Sutherland, president of the Cuyahoga County Mayors and Managers Association.

 

 

More at cleveland.com

Wow - talk about unclear on the concept.  It is now easy for me to see why Cleveland is one of the great all time decline stories in the United States.  Grade F- for leadership from Cleveland and Cuyahoga County on this one.

 

I would have to agree.  As Stark said in his interview, it is amazing that they would settle for tax sharing off development associated with this interchange. 

"Some see sprawl, others development" 

There is no question that it is sprawl when the population is stagnant and just shifting around!!!   

From the PD:

Avon also needs the new interchange to boost industry and pump up the suburb's tax base, strained by a rising population.

 

Avon has 15,000 residents, double what it had in 1990. Thousands of new homes and condos are challenging the schools and city services.

 

The interchange would mean more tax-rich businesses and commerce and fewer homes, the study noted.

 

Here's a novel idea- instead of poaching businesses from other parts of NEO, why don't Avon residents tax themselves enough to pay for the services they consume?

^You beat me to that one!

Actually, I'm saying that Cuyahoga County and Cleveland trying to hold onto business by choking their suburban regions is crazy.  Avon actually is willing to pay for the interchange.

 

What is needed is real regional thinking.  Too often "regionalism" means nothing more than propping up the central city.  But it needn't be like that.  Great cities need great suburbs.  Trying to force everything into the central county by shutting off transportation improvements outside of some growth boundary only means that business will pass you by in favor of other cities that don't think this way.

 

Trying to choke off your own suburbs is myopic thinking.  Much like the leg deciding the best way to keep blood flowing to it is to chop off an arm. 

 

Actually, I'm saying that Cuyahoga County and Cleveland trying to hold onto business by choking their suburban regions is crazy.  Avon actually is willing to pay for the interchange.

 

What is needed is real regional thinking.  Too often "regionalism" means nothing more than propping up the central city.  But it needn't be like that.  Great cities need great suburbs.  Trying to force everything into the central county by shutting off transportation improvements outside of some growth boundary only means that business will pass you by in favor of other cities that don't think this way.

 

Trying to choke off your own suburbs is myopic thinking.  Much like the leg deciding the best way to keep blood flowing to it is to chop off an arm. 

 

 

I disagree.  As stated, Cleveland/Cuyahoga county pay for all the "great things" that the entire region can partake in but doesn't pay for.

 

From the PD:

Avon also needs the new interchange to boost industry and pump up the suburb's tax base, strained by a rising population.

 

Avon has 15,000 residents, double what it had in 1990. Thousands of new homes and condos are challenging the schools and city services.

 

The interchange would mean more tax-rich businesses and commerce and fewer homes, the study noted.

 

Here's a novel idea- instead of poaching businesses from other parts of NEO, why don't Avon residents tax themselves enough to pay for the services they consume?

Bingo!

Actually, I'm saying that Cuyahoga County and Cleveland trying to hold onto business by choking their suburban regions is crazy.  Avon actually is willing to pay for the interchange.

 

What is needed is real regional thinking.  Too often "regionalism" means nothing more than propping up the central city.  But it needn't be like that.  Great cities need great suburbs.  Trying to force everything into the central county by shutting off transportation improvements outside of some growth boundary only means that business will pass you by in favor of other cities that don't think this way.

 

Trying to choke off your own suburbs is myopic thinking.  Much like the leg deciding the best way to keep blood flowing to it is to chop off an arm. 

 

 

Avon is not paying for this interchange if it does go in -- it will be paid for by developers who stand to profit.

 

The better question is who will pay for the "real" cost of the interchange when all the roads that lead to it have to be widened or when yet another lane is "needed" on I-90. The answer -- not Avon and its 15,000 residents. Sprawl has been made possible/subsidized by urban counties for decades and yet when we finally see some pushback (albeit weak) we get these crazy arguments from exurban leaders.

 

When exurban communities lure residents for decades with the low-tax carrot and then say they need to increase their tax base to provide basic services for their residents, you don't see an issue with that. It's a ponzi scheme that has to collapse at some point -- some may say it is already happening.  Then we all pay as a region with higher taxes, stagnant population and less opportunity for all.

Avon actually is willing to pay for the interchange.

 

Is Avon willing to pay for maintaining it? 

 

Ohio's budget for roads and bridges isn't increasing as fast as the cost to maintain the existing roadways, yet the number of bridges and lane-miles of roadway seems to be increasing every year.  How do you propose to solve this dilemma?

 

 

Arenn, you're overlooking some very basic and yet very important issues. The most prominent of which is that the Cleveland metropolitan area (ID'd by Census as stretching from Lorain to Mentor and south to Akron) hasn't increased in population since 1960. It's been stuck at just shy of 3 million people for nearly 50 years.

 

Thus, it's more than likely that every time a new home, store or business is built in the region, it causes another to become vacant. Since real estate development follows transportation routes and the improvements to them, the Avon interchange will cause development to happen within a reasonable distance of it. That's especially true when it's so much easier to develop on a clean and green piece of land at the urban fringe than it is to redevelop an already developed piece of land. That's especially true if it's a property in the city of Cleveland that may be compromised by any or all of the following: tax liens, mortgage liens, lead paint, polluted soils and the neighborhood has been red-lined by lenders. There simply aren't yet enough public programs with enough financial resources to overcome these challenges and to provide a reasonable return for private investors, or enough real estate developers/investors who have the patience, desire or resources to tackle these problems, or enough wealth, population, supportive retail, basic services etc. left in too many older neighborhoods to aid in their reinvestment. Much of that wealth and population is chasing the new clean/green properties at the urban fringe, along existing and new transportation capacity.

 

That's why Cleveland and other Cuyahoga County officials are upset at this interchange. I think they wouldn't be as upset if there was a simultaneous investment of equal size occurring in a troubled or at-risk neighborhood to balance things out. It's one reason why officials in Cleveland and other communities are supporting the West Shore Corridor project.

 

Someday, perhaps in 50 years when Greater Cleveland's urban fringe has pushed out to Sandusky and Norwalk, will Avon and Lorain County officials understand why their colleagues in Cuyahoga County feel like people keep punching holes in their emptying bucket. Until someone realizes the folly in causing the premature obsolescence of existing communities and draws a line in the soil, there's nothing to keep our communities from falling like the dominoes. I was hoping this interchange would be that drawn line. Guess not.

Amen Brotha KJP, Amen!

KJP for president!

 

Then again, he seems too sensible to ever want a job like that.

Wow.  If only I was as eloquent as KJP.  :clap:

 

Great cities need great suburbs

 

I disagree, I think great suburbs need great cities.  Great cities don't need suburbs at all.  Does Chicago need Naperville? 

 

 

I got an email at work about NOACA voting on the Avon interchange THIS FRIDAY at 10am.  It's open to the public (sorry if this was posted earlier).

Great cities need great suburbs

 

I disagree, I think great suburbs need great cities.  Great cities don't need suburbs at all.  Does Chicago need Naperville? 

 

 

 

Totally agree, ask Detroit how they feel about the business center that is Troy, Michigan.

The sad thing about this to me is the discussion is only about the new highway exits in Avon when we should be discussing a bigger question about how we live.  The exits in Avon are the least of our worries. Our public officials are willing knock down houses in Cleveland to create a CHRISTMAS TREE FARM while new housing goes up on the fringes -- despite the fact that the houses near the core are far more efficient than housing on the fringes. This is like routing the veins from your heart to your feet up around your ear!

 

We as "United States Americans" seem to always want to avoid underlying issues for instant gratification. Unfortunately, I think it's probably like this in every city. When I was in Dallas, I was appalled by the sprawl.

I'd say Chicago does need its major suburban centers.  Corporate transfers from other cities don't all want to end up in third floor walkups in the city with no parking.  Naperville fills a role.

 

I'm sympathetic to part of the argument.  For example, I think one of the problems we face is that residents can run up huge unfunded liabilities in one town, then just move to a new place and repeat the same process without ever having to face the bill.  Some infrastructure buildout probably counts here.

 

However, this idea that some type of subsidy in suburban areas causes people to want to move out of Cleveland is ridiculous.  The real problem is: people don't want to live in Cleveland.  That's not unique to Cleveland, but it seems like Cleveland has that disease worse than most older cities.  The real answer is to try selling a product people want to buy - and to recognize that the day when the vast majority of people - particularly families with kids - want to live in traditional city neighborhoods is long past.

 

Even in Chicago, with an incredibly thriving city, the suburbs continue to boom.  If that's true in Chicago, Cleveland doesn't have a chance of stopping it.

 

To say that you can stop suburbanization by denying infrastructure funds to suburban areas is hopelessly naive.  It's like thinking you can stop globalization by passing law to ban all imports.  The cure is far worse than the disease.

 

 

^^ Jamie, that's ironic because in Avon they just knocked down a CHRISTMAS TREE FARM and a greenhouse to add a new strip center in front of the 2nd entrance to Avon Commons at Detroit Rd. and Middleton Ave.

Arenn, I personally don't disagree with you to a point. The only reason this project is getting opposed is because it's not in Cuyahoga County. If they wanted to do this in Westlake, they'd have shovels in the ground. The government officials in this case are raising the flag of sprawl so they don't lose money to another county. That's disingenuous and obnoxious.

 

However, where we differ is on the point of "need." Are you saying that development such as that in Avon is "needed"? Let's set aside the city of Cleveland for a moment. Pretend it doesn't exist. What's wrong with Lakewood, Rocky River and Bay Village. Why are these communities and their strip malls and for sale houses not enough that we need to push outward and create entire new neighborhoods and infrastructure when perfectly sufficient infrastructure exists in the suburbs that we already have. I don't think anyone thinks we're going to be able to convince the 3 million people of Northeast Ohio to move back into Cleveland and Akron. But the farther out we go, the weaker we make ourselves. KJP pointed this out far better than I did.

^^Where do I begin.

 

recognize that the day when the vast majority of people - particularly families with kids - want to live in traditional city neighborhoods is long past..

 

 

I don't want to craft a response that could be taken as a personal attack, but I fundamentally reject that idea.  I also reject the idea that greenfield development in the exurbs is good for the comunity as a whole. 

 

 

 

 

 

However, this idea that some type of subsidy in suburban areas causes people to want to move out of Cleveland is ridiculous.  The real problem is: people don't want to live in Cleveland.

 

Really? Is it fair that ODOT's District 12 (Cuyahoga and Lake counties) has the state's largest population but has received the second-lowest amount of gas taxes redistributed back to it by ODOT in the form of road projects?

 

Your assumptions are incredibly simplistic. I do want to live in Cleveland. I'm aware that others also want to as well. Not everyone, but some. I'm also aware that some people want to leave Cleveland, or move to nicer areas of Cleveland like West Park or Old Brooklyn. Some of those folks from West Park or Old Brooklyn, according to data from CSU's Urban Affairs, show they aren't moving to Lorain County, but to Lakewood, Fairview Park, Brook Park, Parma etc. And the same data shows people from those inner-ring suburbs tend to be moving to Westlake, Avon Lake, Avon, Strongsville, North Royalton, etc.

 

Why? Surveys conducted by Cleveland State University’s College of Urban Affairs show that, most of those who have moved out of Cuyahoga County would have preferred to stay if they could have found a home with contemporary amenities that met their changing needs.

 

If Greater Cleveland was growing economically and in population, this might not be such a problem. We could draw immigrants to our metro area's older homes. But we're not. So how can we keep these older neighborhoods competitive? By updating the housing. But since private funds chase public capital, what incentive is there for private investors to sink their money into these neighborhoods when the public dollars are being spread so thin geographically? What if we spent those public dollars to update aging infrastructure in existing communities instead of having Cuyahoga County residents spend more of their tax dollars on improvements that make the greenfields in surrounding counties more accessible? Read several Brookings Institution reports on these issues, some of which Greater Cleveland as examples of how not to address to regional development patterns.

 

As I said before in my earlier message, the greenfields are very attractive to developers because they have few legal strings attached. But that land would be worth far less if it wasn't made so accessible. Who made it that way? The development of exurban areas, plus the expansion of I-90 and other roads is NOT the free market at work. When was the last time price was used to equalize the supply and demand of roadway capacity on I-90 and other roads?

 

Why should we as Greater Clevelanders increase the tax burden on ourselves by duplicating infrastructure. We already have infrastructure in Cleveland that was built to support a population that's twice what's there now. And we've since added all the infrastructure for suburban populations in Cuyahoga County. Now we're adding all the infrastructure for the new suburban populations in surrounding counties. We all share in some of those costs, including for supporting low-income residents who can't afford cars to reach the suburbs where most of the available jobs have departed. All of these are factors in why Ohio's taxes are so high, why Ohio's job-creation ranks second-last nationally, and why crime and desperation in urban neighborhoods is so high.

 

We have a moral, social and economic responsibility to put a stop to this madness. Isn't five decades long enough?

Counterpoint - by John Cole, Morning Journal Editor 10/09/2007

 

'Highway robbery' by Cuyahoga County bad for all of its neighbors   

 

It's highway robbery.

 

The reported threat by Cuyahoga County officials to prevent construction of a new I-90 interchange in Avon unless Avon kicks back a share of its income tax revenue from future development near the interchange is like a stick-up demand: ''Your money or your interchange!''...

 

Post edited 9-4-09 to comply with terms of use

 

...In that case, Lorain County and the others might as well abandon NOACA and join other outlying planning agencies, rather than fall victim to highway robbery demands by Cuyahoga County.

 

©The Morning Journal 2007 

^^ hahaha, it's like two pick-pockets fighting over who stole from who first.

Actually, I think I would welcome Lorain County getting out of NOACA and joining Erie County's MPO. Erie County is eligible to receive very little state/federal money because of its small population. Lorain County would expand it, but not as much as being in NOACA with populous Cuyahoga County. Only then might they see they really were getting a free ride at Cuyahoga County's expense.

Since Lorain-Elyria is considered its own "urbanized area" by the federal government, couldn't Lorain County form its own MPO without necessarily joining Sandusky?

I'm totally on board with the idea that the value created by infrastructure improvements should be taxed to fund the community.  I'd actually encourage a very strong reliance on a Land Value Tax as the best funding source for government generally.

 

Look, I hate generic subdivisions as much as the next guy.  I've chosen to embrace a hard core urban lifestyle that suits my personal values.  But we've all got to resist the urge to believe that our values are universal values, or that all people share the same goals and aspirations that we do as urbanophiles.  Just because I find much suburban development ugly and not to my liking dosn't mean other people don't like it or that it is some manifestation of purest evil.

 

There are basically two ways to justify something: on the principle of rightness (call it morals, ethics, etc) or the principle of utilitarianism (net positive public benefits).  When people claim that both principle and utilitarianism align perfectly, and that this just so happens to also align with their personal lifestyle preferences, it sends up a red flag with me.

 

Many of us just can't comprehend that someone could actually want to live in a subdivision full of kids and cul-de-sacs.  So rather than seeking to truly understand what drives people's decisions, we invent external reasons why people are somehow forced against their will (e.g., nefarious government collusion with powerful development interests) to move to Naperville.  Now I think Naperville has a spectacular downtown, but most of it is my personal definition of hell.  Yet I know several people who live there and love it - and others who actually aspire to live there.  Beats the heck out of me why, but I've got to respect their values and not impose my own.  Or somehow convince myself that my values are the one true way and the only way to save our cities or planet.  Chicago, San Francisco, NYC, Boston, Paris, London, Minneapolis, Atlanta, and many others show that you can have both a thriving city and thriving suburban areas.  The two are not mutually exclusive but mutually reinforcing.

 

What's really needed in Cleveland is leadership.  The type of leadership that people like Jim Brainard, mayor of the Indianapolis suburb of Carmel, have brought.  He's aggressively adding bike trails, building infrastructure, annexing, densifying, building a downtown from scratch, etc. in a program that is totally transforming his town.  Not only has it been a leader - though not without controversy, as any bold moves with generate - it has forced every suburban community to elevate its game and is even having an impact on the city of Indianapolis.  Indianapolis proper continues to experience significant problems because of a lack of leadership.

 

Though I don't agree with much of what he does, Mayor Daley of Chicago has been a key leader for Chicago.  Look at what Giuliani did in NYC - it was nothing less than a transformation of a metropolis once called ungovernable.  Imagine what a Guiliani could do for a place like Cleveland?

 

What is needed in Cleveland is real leadership, not this sort of us vs. them mentality.

 

buckeye, I believe if you have 200,000 or more people in a county, you can form your own MPO.  This is the case in Indiana at any rate, though it requires the governor's approval.  I'm not certain what state law says.

 

^^ I for one don't argue that suburbs are inherently bad or that the people who choose a suburan lifestyle have a mistaken set of priorities. I can't imagine EVER wanting to live in the suburbs, but you're right ... a successful community has a range of neighborhood and housing options. However, I think subsidizing unwarranted new transportation infrastructure on the fringes of our region has some dire impacts on the region. We've already noted pretty thoroughly how it can adversely impact the urban center and its residents. But it also can have two important effects that we haven't noted:

 

1. Exurban development hurts rural land and rural residents. Just as you noted that suburban residents shouldn't be penalized for choosing the set of amenities they want, neither should rural residents. Many people in Geauga, Medina, Lorain counties, etc. have lived there since it was quaint farm communities, and they chose to live there for that very reason. The exurban cul-de-sacs you mentioned, as well as the office parks and big box retail that follows them, not only rob the inner portions of the community of jobs, residents and tax revenue, but also rob rural residents of the large lot sizes, simpler way of life and natural beauty that led them to a location choice. As a result, these people either have to endure increased traffic congestion, adjacent properties, increased highway presence, etc. or have to move into less dense communties even further removed from the urban center. This type of development not only robs these rural residents of their chosen amenities but also robs the region of greenspace. de Toqueville once described Cleveland as the "Forest City". Increasingly, it's hard to recognize why ... as we've chosen to cut down old-growth trees in favor of surplus houses.

 

2. Exurban communities hurt existing suburbs. While you explain that suburban residents have a right to their chosen set of amenities, exurban development actually draws scarce resources away from existing suburbs, leading to poorer public services, including poorer schools, poorer library systems, poorer access to healthcare, etc. In the absence of new residents or higher rates of taxation, the pot of money stays the same but is being invested in an ever-increasing geographic area. Thus, Lakewood, Cleveland Heights, Shaker Heights and Parma are all experiencing problems that were typically thought of as being exclusive to urban Cleveland - problems like poverty, increasing vacancy and abandonment, difficulty funding their school systems at the level they would prefer, etc. On the southeast side, we're investing those limited dollars into exploding communities like Solon at the same time that nearby Maple Heights, previously the stable type of suburb you describe, is facing the highest foreclosure rate in the region ... yes, higher than the rate in Cleveland proper, etc. Lately, I've also heard grumblings that many Bay Village residents are skipping over the border to Avon in anticipation that they'll be able to access similar neighborhood amenities but a lower tax rate. Those who stay in Bay Village will be rewarded with lower property values, fewer employers, fewer retail options, less tax revenue to support public schools and park systems, etc. Left unchecked, this pattern of investing further and further out will have an incredibly dire effect on suburbs nearer the city.

 

From my vantage point, you have to stem sprawl, but I'm not sure that the methods being used by NOACA are the best way to accomplish that. It seems that it's creating a great deal of bad will and self-interested stubborness on both sides; moreover, tax sharing systems help recover some lost revenue but don't stop the sprawl. If we as a community want to support a vibrant system of suburban living options, the smartest investment would be to invest substantial money into the region's land conservancy to create a dedicated system of greenspace around Cuyahoga County that could not be developed upon and then spend infrastructure dollars on making the urban and suburban communities of Cuyahoga County the very best they can be; I would be more favorable to dedicating a substantial portion of tax revenue (say 50%) from businesses that locate within one mile of new highway exits to conservation of land in the county in which the infrastructure development would occur, rather than putting it back in the general funds of communities through tax sharing. Over time, this would result in substantial greenway barriers to sprawl.

Agree with 8Shades:

 

Re #1: While many see Avon and other exurbs as the edge of sprawl, the effects are felt even farther outward.  Some of those old Avon people who want to maintain their semi-rural lifestyle are uprooting and moving even farther out, to communities around South Amherst, Birmingham, and Wakeman, where they can still afford five acre and larger plots, raise their family, avoid homeowner's associations, raise animals, be involved in 4-H, etc. and not have to contend with the traffic and commercial sprawl occurring in Avon.  The farmers still in Avon are left dealing with neighbors who complain about their tractors stopping up traffic on the main roads at rush hour, as well as the smells and noise of agricultural business adjacent to their subdivisions.  My boss lives in a frou-frou development in Avon, with a nursery abutting his back yard - he bitches about the fact that there are people working in the nursery fields at 7 am on the weekends, and that trucks drive across the nursery yards to load up plant stock... It's no wonder the landowners choose to cash in to developers and move further out into the countryside.

Arenn, thanks for your thoughtful comments.  I agree with 8Shades and KJP, but your comments are welcome.  I'm sure you're expressing the thoughts of many others.

 

There is a basic problem with sprawl, and this new interchange, that maybe wasn't clearly articulated by 8Shades and KJP.  I think we agree that the cost to build the interchange, whether paid by Avon or the developer, doesn't reflect the true cost of that interchange to the region.  If only we could determine what that true cost is.  Unfortunately, we can only speculate.  Although we know some of the costs that aren't being included in the initial construction cost, we don't know for certain how big those costs will be.  What is the cost of maintaining the sewer lines, roadway, water, electricity, etc. on X Street if that entire street moved to Avon?  (As KJP noted above, our regional population isn't growing, it's just moving around within the region and spreading out.)

 

And for anyone who doesn't like to hear the Mayor of Cleveland Heights, for example, denounce the interchange, note that NOACA wouldn't have a voice in this if Avon/Lorain hadn't decided to join NOACA.

pd:

 

Deal on Avon I-90 interchange looks likely

Avon mayor drafts tax-sharing plan

Friday, October 12, 2007

Tom Breckenridge

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

Cleveland-area officials say they may be close to striking a tax-sharing deal with Avon that could be a turning point in the way the region grows.

 

The deal would clear the way for a new Interstate 90 interchange in the fast-growing suburb.

 

Avon would share income tax with Cleveland and its West Shore suburbs if a business should leave those cities in the next 15 years for land near a new Nagel Road interchange in eastern Lorain County.

 

More at cleveland.com

Deal for Avon interchange approved

Posted by Tom Breckenridge October 12, 2007 12:42PM

 

Categories: Breaking News

 

A five-county agency on Friday approved overwhelmingly a new Interstate 90 link in Avon, after 16 communities struck an unprecedented tax-sharing deal.

 

The Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency voted 47.1 to 2.85, with 6 abstentions, for the $20 million project. Cleveland called for a vote weighted by population, resulting in the odd vote totals.

 

The vote hinged on a 30-year deal between Avon and 15 communities along an I-90 corridor, from Cleveland west into Lorain County.

 

If a business with a payroll of more than $750,000 moves from one of those cities to a 600-acre zone along Nagel Road, Avon would split the income tax with the losing city for five years.

 

Avon would also limit its property tax breaks on relocated businesses to 75 percent and 10 years.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2007/10/deal_for_avon_interchange_appr.html

 

 

I believe this played out well for the all parties - more so for the region.

 

^ A nice first step, but it hasn't really addressed the underlying issue of what we do to stop this type of growth. We've partially disincentivized it, but Avon wouldn't have agreed to the arrangement if they didn't think that the additional revenues from the Clinic, etc. wouldn't be a financial boon for their community ... and I think that means Cuyahoga County still ends up in the minus column ... just that those minuses are smaller.

 

Again, I advocate that the tax share that goes back to Cuyahoga County be dedicated specifically to strategies that address sprawl.

Here is the press release from City Hall:

 

1

The Cuyahoga County Mayors and City Managers Association

News Release

 

City of Cleveland

City of Avon

Mayors & Managers Association

 

Andrea Taylor, Press Secretary Mayor James A. Smith Mayor Debbie Sutherland

216-664-4171 440-937-7803 440-899-3415

[email protected]

Cuyahoga County

Dennis Madden, County Administrator

216-443-7215

 

For Immediate Release

October 12, 2007

 

AVON INTERCHANGE JOINT PRESS ANNOUNCEMENT

Cleveland- In what can be described as a giant step toward regional cooperation, Cleveland Mayor Frank G. Jackson, Cuyahoga County Commissioners President Tim Hagan, Jimmy Dimora and Peter Lawson Jones, Avon Mayor Jim Smith, and Bay Village Mayor Deborah Sutherland, President of the Cuyahoga County Mayors and Managers Association, announced a Joint Economic Development (“JEDZ”) Zone agreement on the Avon I-90 interchange proposal at today’s meeting of the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA).

 

The agreement ends months of sometimes contentious debate over whether to build the interchange at Nagel Road and I-90 in the City of Avon, about two miles west of the Crocker Road interchange in Westlake.

 

Supporters of the interchange claimed that it would bring economic development to the region, while it would be built without using scarce State transportation funds. All funds for the interchange will come from the Jacobs Development firm and the City of Avon.

 

Critics of the interchange claimed that it would drain jobs and business away from the region’s older communities and would hasten urban sprawl. Today’s agreement addresses those concerns by proposing an income tax sharing plan in which Avon would return a portion of the income taxes collected from businesses that move into a designated zone around the new interchange from other communities along the I-90 corridor.

 

Communities that may choose to participate in this economic development agreement include Cleveland, Lakewood, Rocky River, Fairview Park, North Olmsted, Westlake, and Bay Village in Cuyahoga County and, Sheffield, Sheffield Lake, Sheffield Township, North Ridgeville, Avon Lake, Lorain, Elyria, and Elyria Township in Lorain County.

 

Under terms of the proposed agreement, for any businesses with an annual gross payroll exceeding $750,000 that relocates from one of the participating cities, Avon would share half of the income tax with the affected city for five years, unless the property was refilled with another business. The overall economic development agreement would be in effect for the next 30 years.

 

Avon further agreed to place limits on its use of tax incentives to lure existing regional businesses to locate in the interchange zone. Real estate tax abatement would not exceed 75% and for no more than 10 years, and income tax abatements would be prohibited.

The Avon economic development zone covers nearly 800 acres of land in an area that stretches from the Cuyahoga County border on the east to a line approximately 500 feet east of Jaycox Road on the west, and from the border of Avon Lake on the north to I-90 on the south, plus an area south of I-90 on either side of Nagel Road.

 

Exempt from this agreement is the already-announced Cleveland Clinic healthcare center project and, specifically, the first 500 jobs at that center. The Clinic has stated that building this facility is not contingent on the interchange and that the facility represents an expansion of service and not relocation.

 

The proposal also calls on all parties to advocate for future state or federal funding for roadway improvements in the neighboring communities of Bay Village and Westlake, as well as in any other communities whose roads are affected by the new interchange.

 

At today’s NOACA meeting, the agency’s governing Board voted to approve the Avon interchange subject to confirmation of all terms by Avon’s City Council within 30 days. Councils in the designated cities along the I-90 corridor now need to approve the economic development agreement for each of those cites to realize the benefits of the tax sharing plan.

-30-

County weighs NOACA pullout

Allison Wood | Staff Writer

Medina County Gazette

Tuesday, October 16th, 2007

 

 

MEDINA — Last week’s controversial decision to approve an interchange at Interstate 90 off Nagel Road in Avon — and what Avon officials had to give up to get it approved — prompted Medina County commissioners to talk about withdrawing from the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency on Monday.

 

The uproar arose after officials from Cuyahoga County refused to sign off on the interchange unless Avon agreed to a revenue-sharing deal, saying they feared the interchange in the fast-growing community would hasten urban sprawl ...

 

... More at http://wp2.medina-gazette.com/2007/10/16/top-stories/county-weighs-noaca-pullout/

 

 

apparently there is wording in the agreement that the first 500 Cleveland Clinic jobs are exempt from any revenue sharing.

 

does anyone have the actual wording of the agreement?  is there a link someplace?

These officials in outlying counties have no concept of regionalism. To them it means taking residents, jobs, wealth and state/federal dollars from Cuyahoga County without Cuyahoga County protesting.

 

And anyone with an ounce of sense and experience will know that the Avon interchange impact study was very inventive. When hasn't a new exurban highway interchange in a no-growth metro area NOT caused economic dislocation? Is this interchange in lil' ol' Avon suddenly going to cause people and businesses to flock to Northeast Ohio?

 

“Avon had a gun to its head,” he said Monday.

 

Actually, the gun was pointed in the opposite direction, at fully developed communities in Cuyahoga County. I wish some of these officials in outlying counties would walk in the shoes of their counterparts in older, established communities before they claim they are suffering. They don't know what suffering is. Unless something dramatic happens to alter transportation and land use policies in the next 15-30 years, they will have a better understanding what that suffering is like.

Well, like you said KJP, if they (Medina) break off and form their own agency, then they'll lose federal dollars, and will suddenly realize they really need Cuyahoga County and Cleveland.

Note how much NOACA would lose if Medina and Lorain counties walked ... I say see ya!

 

Compromise on the table to keep NOACA whole

Friday, October 19, 2007

Tom Breckenridge

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

The president of the Cuyahoga County commissioners says he's willing to talk about reforms, rather than see a five-county agency splinter in the aftermath of a controversial vote allowing a new Interstate 90 link in Avon.

 

Lorain and Medina county commissioners say they will leave the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency unless the transportation-planning body adopts changes to how it votes ...

 

... More at http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1192783287289680.xml&coll=2&thispage=1

^^The best thing that could come of this would be some recognition that we need to share taxes throughout the region.  The study might just show that replicating what has been done for 40 years in the Minneapolis, St. Paul region.  With stagnate growth, we need to do something.

Sooo...  The agency could have a $5.9 million dollar budget to spread over 3-counties, or $6.5 million to spread over five?    Anyone smarter than me care to tell me why I should care if these two resource hogs bolt?

I say kick them to the curb!

$6.5 million over five counties or $5.9 million over three, right? Yeah, I'm not sure I understand why such a bolt would be threatening to our transportation planning, other than it might result in less informed transportation planning processes in Lorain and Medina counties. But if these counties are already suggesting that they should have carte blanche regarding their transportation planning and that there shouldn't be a regional plan that recognizes where concentrations of population in the region are, what's the difference?

 

It would be interesting to see how much NOACA funding goes back to these two counties. That is, if NOACA receives federal and state funding to the tune of $530,000 due to Medina and Lorain counties' participation, does the agency distribute more or less than this amount to those counties' transportation projects?

The problem is we're all part of the same metropolitan area. The political boundaries we've drawn on the landscape don't mean anywhere near as much as the people who guard them think. Issues like wealth redistribution, economic dislocation, blight, crime and other conditions have little or no respect for political boundaries. Some local governments can fight like hell to hold on to the wealth brought to them by urban sprawl. But no single community can stop the ring of wealth from moving outward and dragging the blight the behind it.

 

Thus, if we hope to slow or even stop sprawl, we need multi-county organizations like NOACA or some other forum. We need it as a venue to first engage in a regional dialogue to promote understanding of why urban sprawl is happening and why it is harmful to the region. If we lose it, we will have to start it or some other variation up again in the future to promote cooperation. Without NOACA, the region risks further balkanization, more theft of jobs and residents from amongst ourselves, and further erosion of tax bases while the costs of infrastructure continue to rise. Under this scenario, I can't see any outcome but the economic death of Greater Cleveland.

The Morning Journal:

 

10/31/2007

Avon OKs income tax plan for I-90, Nagel Road

SCOT ALLYN , Morning Journal Writer 

 

AVON -- Avon moved one step closer to an interchange at Interstate 90 and Nagel Road after council unanimously approved an income tax sharing plan from businesses that relocate to the area from neighboring communities.

Council, on Monday, accepted the general outlines of a joint economic development zone with 15 communities, including Cleveland, Lakewood, Westlake, Avon Lake, Lorain and Elyria. If a business with an annual payroll of $750,000 or more moves to a 791-acre area surrounding the interchange in the next 30 years from one of the participating towns, Avon will share half of the income taxes it collects from the business for five years with the town it left.

 

The JEDZ was in response to pressure by Cuyahoga County-based representatives on the governing board of the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency. The planning body must grant approval for improvements to interstate highways in Lorain, Cuyahoga, Medina, Lake and Geauga counties.

 

More at http://www.morningjournal.com

The Morning Journal

10/31/2007

OUR VIEW: After assault on Avon, county should dump NOACA, find alternative 

 

 

It was painful to see -- like watching a family pay ransom to free a kidnapped child.

 

Avon City Council members voted Monday to approve a tax-sharing plan forced on it by Cuyahoga County as a condition of allowing construction of a badly needed freeway interchange on Interstate 90 at Nagel Road...

 

Post edited 9-4-09 to comply with terms of use

 

©The Morning Journal 2007 

 

http://www.morningjournal.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18972765&BRD=1699&PAG=461&dept_id=46368&rfi=6

Threatened to smash!  Assaulted!  Bloodied! 

 

Get a freaking grip. 

"Now, if Lorain County is smart, it will get out of NOACA and join, or start, a similar agency to meet its needs. Some Medina County officials want out of NOACA too, having watched in horror as Avon was assaulted and realized Medina County is likely to be bloodied next. Medina and Lorain county officials should see if others want to join in a move away from NOACA, and get it done."

 

Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya!  :behind: