1 hour ago, Jenny said:

Continuing to focus on the gentrifying neighborhoods, with the hope their growth spills into the depressed neighborhoods is also key.  Hopefully UC can bleed south of Cedar and north of Wade Park.  And Ohio City can stretch further west on Lorain, and continue south of Lorain.  Essentially how cities start in the first place.  From the core out.  

Here’s the issue with that. I do think you have to keep growing the gentrified neighborhoods. But you can no longer just hope that it spills over. You have to make it happen. Deliberate targeting of those neighborhoods with resources and development to MAKE it happen. Cleveland will not prosper as a whole until the east side is fixed, and doing it in pockets just isn’t enough

5 minutes ago, inlovewithCLE said:

As a black man, I’m not arguing with anybody about what black people want. Period. So most of what you said is just not going to l get a response from me because I’m not wasting my time.

 

BUT I do have to address this, as my family originally is from Hough. It wasn’t an “experiment”. It was a deliberate strategy to build those houses BECAUSE THATS WHAT THE PEOPLE WANTED. The (mostly black) occupants of those houses and the people in the neighborhood wanted those houses to be there because they viewed it as a way to restore Hough to its former glory before racial strife and before the riots that the neighborhood is still trying to rid itself of the stigma of.

 

But thank you. Thank you for proving my point, about everything I said about the attitude around here when it comes to building the houses that middle class black people want to live in

As a middle class black man from a.middle class black family you don't speak for me or every black family. 

 

Don't use the I'm black and you don't know what black people want as a cop out. It's not going to work here.

 

Thank you for proving my point about the Mcmansions in Hough. They aren't building them anymore and haven't in 20 years because the experiment failed. Those houses don't belong down there. These apartments and houses that mimic the style of the 100 year old single family homes are what's getting built now and selling out because that's what people want.

2 minutes ago, Mov2Ohio said:

Thank you for proving my point about the Mcmansions in Hough. They aren't building them anymore and haven't in 20 years because the experiment failed. Those houses don't belong down there. 

 

I don't think it helps that they are particularly bad examples of 80's cul-de-sac architecture.   The fact that they are sitting by themselves for the most part, rather than a street full of them, makes them stand out as aging rather poorly.     

3 minutes ago, Mov2Ohio said:

As a middle class black man from a.middle class black family you don't speak for me or every black family. 

 

Don't use the I'm black and you don't know what black people want as a cop out. It's not going to work here.

 

Thank you for proving my point about the Mcmansions in Hough. They aren't building them anymore and haven't in 20 years because the experiment failed. Those houses don't belong down there. These apartments and houses that mimic the style of the 100 year old single family homes are what's getting built now and selling out because that's what people want.

Oh, good, another brother. So we can do this all day. Because I do have ties to that community and have had them for years and have family still in that community. So if you want the smoke, we can do this bro! So let me ask you, how many of those houses are empty? Virtually none. “Failed” experiment. Really? That tells me right there that you don’t know what happened in Hough
 

And let me ask you. I’m just curious. Are you from Cleveland originally? Also, were you born into the middle class or did you enter it later on? Just curious. Cause you’re right, I can’t speak for you. BUT I can speak for many of the people who came back to Hough to live in those houses, who built those homes and the ones who want to come back if the community looked more like that. I got all day. You want it, let’s go

We’ve made multiple posts about the city failing to invest in the east side, but the Hough houses are somehow a “failed experiment”. Not the housing crisis. Not the Great Recession. Not the death of Fannie Lewis. Not the lack of a focused, deliberate strategy targeting east side neighborhoods. No! It’s those big ole houses that taxpayers are living in that’s the problem. That’s what “failed”. 

It amazes me that there are 34 neighborhoods in the city of Cleveland and people get in a tizzy if one neighborhood doesn’t build things exactly the way that they want it to. To hell with what the people in that ward want. To hell with what the people who have purchased those homes want. To hell with what the people who want to move back in that neighborhood wants. Amazing

5 minutes ago, inlovewithCLE said:

Oh, good, another brother. So we can do this all day. Because I do have ties to that community and have had them for years and have family still in that community. So if you want the smoke, we can do this bro! So let me ask you, how many of those houses are empty? Virtually none. “Failed” experiment. Really? That tells me right there that you don’t know what happened in Hough
 

And let me ask you. I’m just curious. Are you from Cleveland originally? Also, were you born into the middle class or did you enter it later on? Just curious. Cause you’re right, I can’t speak for you. BUT I can speak for many of the people who came back to Hough to live in those houses, who built those homes and the ones who want to come back if the community looked more like that. I got all day. You want it, let’s go

 

Well, I don't have all day for this. So I will say this to keep from taking this too far of course, but feel free to DM me.

 

To answer your question, yes I am from Cleveland and have lived here all my life, except for a few years living in Cincinnati and Columbus for School.

 

My Grandmother's church is right at the corner of East 79th and Chester and in the 90s they (the church) actually built one of those mcmansions. I'm very familiar with the area. To me building a few scattered site houses that don't match anything else around them is not a success. If it were then all those blocks of houses would've been leveled and more similar homes would have been built. The developer doing that stopped two decades ago. I'm happy for that because now there can be true urban infill that can get Hough back to how it was.

 

At the end of the day all peoe want is a nice home in a safe neighborhood. Create that on the east side and that will stop the bleeding.

OK, can we get back out of this rabbit hole, please?

Just now, Mov2Ohio said:

 

Well, I don't have all day for this. So I will say this to keep from taking this too far of course, but feel free to DM me.

 

To answer your question, yes I am from Cleveland and have lived here all my life, except for a few years living in Cincinnati and Columbus for School.

 

My Grandmother's church is right at the corner of East 79th and Chester and in the 90s they (the church) actually built one of those mcmansions. I'm very familiar with the area. To me building a few scattered site houses that don't match anything else around them is not a success. If it were then all those blocks of houses would've been leveled and more similar homes would have been built. The developer doing that stopped two decades ago. I'm happy for that because now there can be true urban infill that can get Hough back to how it was.

 

At the end of the day all peoe want is a nice home in a safe neighborhood. Create that on the east side and that will stop the bleeding.

The reason those homes stopped getting built is 1: there was a change in strategy in city hall that stopped making it easier for people who wanted those plots of land to get them. 2: the housing crisis. 3: the Great Recession. 4: the death of Fannie Lewis. That’s what happened. You cannot expect people to go to what was one of the most crowded neighborhoods in the city of Cleveland and live on top of each other again. It’s not gonna happen. They’ll stay in Solon and Bedford and Beachwood. And the larger point (and I know this for a fact) is that those houses were built because the COMMUNITY WANTED THEM THERE. That’s what they wanted. And those houses sell out every time they get built. In fact, there are newer houses being built in Hough RIGHT NOW that are smaller than McMansions but bigger than the average Cleveland house and most of them are already sold out. That is what that neighborhood wants. 

4 minutes ago, X said:

OK, can we get back out of this rabbit hole, please?

Fine

15 hours ago, MyPhoneDead said:

With the annexation of East Cleveland I'd imagine though that the bleeding wouldn't last long in that "neighborhood".

I'd imagine that a merger with Cleveland would have opened the flood gates for development and we'd see instant growth in that area. 

Growth, yes, but probably not instant growth.  New development tends to happen rather slowly in Cleveland.

A major impediment to Cleveland's growth is the housing stock.  I just moved out of a 112 year-old wooden house, copies of which exist all over Cleveland and the inner suburbs.  The problem with these houses is VERY HIGH maintenance.  In many cases, older occupant owners, who may have the money, don't have the energy to keep them up. Young people who may have the energy, don't have the money.  Thus, the housing stock in many areas of the county continues to decline.  Only in gentrifying areas is rehab worth it. 

 

I think the big population losses are in the areas where the housing is approaching derelict status.  It's going to take a bulldozer to bring these lots back; and the people who still live there (and maintain their properties) are resisting that approach.  So, parts of town will continue their slow decline and abandonment until the resistance ends and new construction becomes economically possible.

 

The building code should encourage the construction of LOW maintenance housing perhaps, even, with public subsidy.  That would probably produce better resuts than building large-scale public projects.

1 hour ago, LibertyBlvd said:

Growth, yes, but probably not instant growth.  New development tends to happen rather slowly in Cleveland.

And that’s a huge problem. The east side is down to such a degree that piecemeal efforts aren’t fixing it

54 minutes ago, Dougal said:

A major impediment to Cleveland's growth is the housing stock.  I just moved out of a 112 year-old wooden house, copies of which exist all over Cleveland and the inner suburbs.  The problem with these houses is VERY HIGH maintenance.  In many cases, older occupant owners, who may have the money, don't have the energy to keep them up. Young people who may have the energy, don't have the money.  Thus, the housing stock in many areas of the county continues to decline.  Only in gentrifying areas is rehab worth it. 

 

I think the big population losses are in the areas where the housing is approaching derelict status.  It's going to take a bulldozer to bring these lots back; and the people who still live there (and maintain their properties) are resisting that approach.  So, parts of town will continue their slow decline and abandonment until the resistance ends and new construction becomes economically possible.

 

The building code should encourage the construction of LOW maintenance housing perhaps, even, with public subsidy.  That would probably produce better resuts than building large-scale public projects.

Hopefully the housing boom spills over and helps with rehabs in some neighborhoods. A lot of places probably aren’t worth it, but some are. Collinwood and Glenville both have a lot of housing stock that is in the “bad but not THAT bad” sweet spot, where some cost effective renos could happen.

5 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

Hopefully the housing boom spills over and helps with rehabs in some neighborhoods. A lot of places probably aren’t worth it, but some are. Collinwood and Glenville both have a lot of housing stock that is in the “bad but not THAT bad” sweet spot, where some cost effective renos could happen.

 

I think we are starting to see it. The small scale rehabbers that were buying houses for 30-50k in places like South Euclid and University Hts 5 years ago are now buying houses in that price point in Glenville, Fairfax, and the Lee Rd corridor. They weren't operating their previously, but are now as they get priced out of the east inner suburbs. The same thing happens with buyers getting priced out of their first choice neighborhood/suburbs. As prices keep rising, more people will begin looking at the weaker neighborhoods in the city - starting in those edge areas, but moving further into the weakest. A strong housing market in the region overall is probably one of the best things that could happen to the east side neighborhoods.

14 minutes ago, PoshSteve said:

 

I think we are starting to see it. The small scale rehabbers that were buying houses for 30-50k in places like South Euclid and University Hts 5 years ago are now buying houses in that price point in Glenville, Fairfax, and the Lee Rd corridor. They weren't operating their previously, but are now as they get priced out of the east inner suburbs. The same thing happens with buyers getting priced out of their first choice neighborhood/suburbs. As prices keep rising, more people will begin looking at the weaker neighborhoods in the city - starting in those edge areas, but moving further into the weakest. A strong housing market in the region overall is probably one of the best things that could happen to the east side neighborhoods.

Yep, this is exactly what is happening. I think eventually it will get to Mt Pleasant and Lee Harvard, but for now it's Hough, Glenville and Fairfax as you mentioned.

Maybe an unpopular opinion but I think we worry too much about population loss and try to assign blame where there really isn’t any blame to place (at least locally). The losses in Cleveland and most of the rust belt are 99% attributable to deindustrialization and the negative externalities of free capital. I think we’re mostly fooling ourselves if we think electing the right mayor or enacting some hosing based neighborhood initiatives would make more than a small dent in these broad economic patterns. I’m not sure how you make far flung east side neighborhoods with no freeway access attractive to new housing development, unless you reopen every factory that’s been shuttered in the past 70 years. Cleveland boomed because of a massive increase in industrial production and emptied out when the freeways went in and manufacturing stopped. That’s always going to be true and I’m not sure how you turn back the clock on that or why we think we need to. 

12 minutes ago, bumsquare said:

Maybe an unpopular opinion but I think we worry too much about population loss and try to assign blame where there really isn’t any blame to place (at least locally). The losses in Cleveland and most of the rust belt are 99% attributable to deindustrialization and the negative externalities of free capital. I think we’re mostly fooling ourselves if we think electing the right mayor or enacting some hosing based neighborhood initiatives would make more than a small dent in these broad economic patterns. I’m not sure how you make far flung east side neighborhoods with no freeway access attractive to new housing development, unless you reopen every factory that’s been shuttered in the past 70 years. Cleveland boomed because of a massive increase in industrial production and emptied out when the freeways went in and manufacturing stopped. That’s always going to be true and I’m not sure how you turn back the clock on that or why we think we need to. 

There are very few exceptions to this in the industrial centers of the Great Lakes. Perhaps Chicago made the transition, but it also lost nearly a third of its population. The secret to a growing city in the Midwest is predictable, reproducible economic activity; cities that are state capitals, have large flagship universities, insurance, enduring manufacturing centers, and/or local philanthropists ready to throw millions at a city all seem necessary to for growth to be sustained during deindustrialization. 

Edited August 15, 20213 yr by westerninterloper

1 hour ago, bumsquare said:

Maybe an unpopular opinion but I think we worry too much about population loss and try to assign blame where there really isn’t any blame to place (at least locally). The losses in Cleveland and most of the rust belt are 99% attributable to deindustrialization and the negative externalities of free capital. I think we’re mostly fooling ourselves if we think electing the right mayor or enacting some hosing based neighborhood initiatives would make more than a small dent in these broad economic patterns. I’m not sure how you make far flung east side neighborhoods with no freeway access attractive to new housing development, unless you reopen every factory that’s been shuttered in the past 70 years. Cleveland boomed because of a massive increase in industrial production and emptied out when the freeways went in and manufacturing stopped. That’s always going to be true and I’m not sure how you turn back the clock on that or why we think we need to. 

Tell that to cities like Buffalo, Cincy

1 hour ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

Tell that to cities like Buffalo, Cincy

If you can get the cities of Buffalo and Cincinnati on the line I would be glad to tell them that they shouldn't worry too much about population gains or losses because they are determined by exigent forces that the municipalities themselves have little control over. 

1 hour ago, AsDustinFoxWouldSay said:

Tell that to cities like Buffalo, Cincy

For once I agree with you lol. It’s absurd to act like population loss doesn’t matter 

4 hours ago, bumsquare said:

Maybe an unpopular opinion but I think we worry too much about population loss and try to assign blame where there really isn’t any blame to place (at least locally). The losses in Cleveland and most of the rust belt are 99% attributable to deindustrialization and the negative externalities of free capital. I think we’re mostly fooling ourselves if we think electing the right mayor or enacting some hosing based neighborhood initiatives would make more than a small dent in these broad economic patterns. I’m not sure how you make far flung east side neighborhoods with no freeway access attractive to new housing development, unless you reopen every factory that’s been shuttered in the past 70 years. Cleveland boomed because of a massive increase in industrial production and emptied out when the freeways went in and manufacturing stopped. That’s always going to be true and I’m not sure how you turn back the clock on that or why we think we need to. 

I disagree. Deindustrialization was important, but there were many factors that led to population loss. It’s a bit deceiving to say all rust belt cities lost population, because losing population is a defining part of the rust belt. Philadelphia, Seattle, and Minneapolis all dealt with deindustrialization. Philadelphia and Minneapolis are not considered rust belt because they experienced wonderful turnarounds. Leadership does matter and to deny the fact is to be a fatalist.

Also, most of the "lost" population really just moved to the suburbs.  That has little to do with deindustrialization, and everything to do with our transportation and land use policies as well as race and class.

One question I have is since the estimates for population growth must have been off for at least the last few years because they were 40k off, what is the rate of growth over the last few years, as opposed to the overall percentage from 2010 to 2020? Or do we have to wait for the additional data being released next month?

2 hours ago, Mov2Ohio said:

One question I have is since the estimates for population growth must have been off for at least the last few years because they were 40k off, what is the rate of growth over the last few years, as opposed to the overall percentage from 2010 to 2020? Or do we have to wait for the additional data being released next month?

We will never really know this because the census doesn’t have a way of recording where you live in a year not ending in 0. The ACS tracks this and resulted in the estimates which were published annually from 2011 to 2019. While these estimates are revised from time to time, I do not believe they are revised based on actual census data.

Pretty good data maps here cleaning up the tract boundary changes: https://data.indystar.com/census/total-population/total-population-change/cuyahoga_county_ohio/050-39035/#cmap

Edited August 17, 20213 yr by grayfields

46 minutes ago, grayfields said:

Pretty good data maps here cleaning up the tract boundary changes: https://data.indystar.com/census/total-population/total-population-change/cuyahoga_county_ohio/050-39035/#cmap

Wow that is an amazing tool. As far as the whole city goes, interesting that the number of occupied housing units basically stayed level while the population tanked so much. Kind of shocked at how much the white population dropped.

53 minutes ago, grayfields said:

Pretty good data maps here cleaning up the tract boundary changes: https://data.indystar.com/census/total-population/total-population-change/cuyahoga_county_ohio/050-39035/#cmap

Oh nice, thanks for posting. 

 

I didn't want to spend too much time and use too many resources for this, glad someone is! lol

1 hour ago, grayfields said:

Pretty good data maps here cleaning up the tract boundary changes: https://data.indystar.com/census/total-population/total-population-change/cuyahoga_county_ohio/050-39035/#cmap

 

Did you make this?  If so, can I make one suggestion?  It would be easier to grasp the big picture if positive change was all shown in shades of green, and negative change all shown in shades of orange/red.

34 minutes ago, bumsquare said:

Wow that is an amazing tool. As far as the whole city goes, interesting that the number of occupied housing units basically stayed level while the population tanked so much. Kind of shocked at how much the white population dropped.

As far as the housing units staying the same with the population decreasing, it's a couple of things as has been talked about.  Doubles becoming single family (although that is happening less often now) and then Gen Z/Millennials with no kids replacing houses that in the past had 4+ people in it.

Also shocking that the 18 and over population increased in Cuyahoga County. So we lost population because fewer people are having kids, right?? And because we are not replacing those with new arrivals?

49 minutes ago, KJP said:

Also shocking that the 18 and over population increased in Cuyahoga County. So we lost population because fewer people are having kids, right?? And because we are not replacing those with new arrivals?

And that was my point a few days ago.  We really need to cater to young couples having kids.  If we just keep replacing people in their mid-20s moving to the suburbs, with more people in their mid-20's, we'll never counter-act the flight from especially the east-side neighborhoods.  Is raising kids in the neighborhoods that are gentrifying  possible, sure.  Is it ideal?  Not yet...IMO 

1 hour ago, Jenny said:

And that was my point a few days ago.  We really need to cater to young couples having kids.  If we just keep replacing people in their mid-20s moving to the suburbs, with more people in their mid-20's, we'll never counter-act the flight from especially the east-side neighborhoods.  Is raising kids in the neighborhoods that are gentrifying  possible, sure.  Is it ideal?  Not yet...IMO 

I think @KJPis saying that the 18+ increased for the whole county. 

7 minutes ago, bumsquare said:

I think @KJPis saying that the 18+ increased for the whole county. 

 

I did. Cuyahoga County cities should be working to make themselves more family friendly than the collar counties. That shouldn't be too hard considering how isolating these post-1980s exurbs are designed to be.

2 hours ago, KJP said:

Also shocking that the 18 and over population increased in Cuyahoga County. So we lost population because fewer people are having kids, right?? And because we are not replacing those with new arrivals?

This trend is true many places. Using the Indystar website, you can find lots of cities, and it's the BROAD trend that 18+ population increased more than total population. In Chicago, for example, the over 18 population increased by more than 6%, with the total population rising only 1.9% So it appears notable because in Cuyahoga county it's the difference between a loss in one category and a gain in the other, but the trend seems nationwide.

3 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

I did. Cuyahoga County cities should be working to make themselves more family friendly than the collar counties. That shouldn't be too hard considering how isolating these post-1980s exurbs are designed to be.

Per my above comment, I'm not sure this is actually the takeaway because in ALL OF the collar counties (i.e. Geauga, Lorain, Lake, Medina) the over 18 population increased by a substantially higher percentage than the total population did. So I don't think we have any reason to believe the collar counties are grabbing families with kids from Cuyahoga. It seems like there is a broad nationwide trend of people not having as many kids.

1 hour ago, KJP said:

 

I did. Cuyahoga County cities should be working to make themselves more family friendly than the collar counties. That shouldn't be too hard considering how isolating these post-1980s exurbs are designed to be.

Unfortunately, I fear that's not how most parent's gauge family friendly. The isolation of modern suburbia is a feature not a flaw for modern fear based parenting.

1 hour ago, LlamaLawyer said:

Per my above comment, I'm not sure this is actually the takeaway because in ALL OF the collar counties (i.e. Geauga, Lorain, Lake, Medina) the over 18 population increased by a substantially higher percentage than the total population did. So I don't think we have any reason to believe the collar counties are grabbing families with kids from Cuyahoga. It seems like there is a broad nationwide trend of people not having as many kids.

 

No question about it. But there isn't a reason why Cuyahoga County shouldn't partake in that and, indeed, be more competitive in it.

 

54 minutes ago, X said:

Unfortunately, I fear that's not how most parent's gauge family friendly. The isolation of modern suburbia is a feature not a flaw for modern fear based parenting.

 

Doesn't mean we should succumb to it.

^^I am actually going through this phase of my life now as well as many of my friends. Changing the course is going to require a herd mentality. For instance, most of my friends wound up in Medina or Lorain counties after living in the city while without kids. We ultimately ended up in Lakewood, and our friends always talk about how they miss living in a walkable, sociable place. All it takes is enough people going against the pattern of moving out to the exurbs for the remainder to feel it is "acceptable" to stay in the city/inner rings.

20 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

No question about it. But there isn't a reason why Cuyahoga County shouldn't partake in that and, indeed, be more competitive in it.

As a father of 3, I 100% agree. One bit of low hanging fruit is playground access downtown, which is improving, but needs to get even better. The Irishtown Bend park will ameliorate this problem for the flats, but is too far away from the east side of downtown.

 

Another item is attracting immigrants, since most immigrant groups tend to have more kids than the average American.

Family size does seem like a huge factor:

 

 

I don't see the under 18 population increasing anytime soon unless we massively increase support for children, or start attracting large numbers of Mormons or immigrants (who tend to have more children than native born women). The total fertility rate in America (and the entire developed world) has cratered. America used to be the "bright spot" in that category bumping along right around replacement level, but the last 10 years, and particularly the last few, have seen the numbers of children born substantially decrease. 2020 saw the TFR hit a record low of 1.638 of children born per woman. That's nearly the same as Russia.

Should we really want to see birthrates go back up?  There are what, 7 billion people on this planet now?  Let's figure out how to draw .001% of those people to Cleveland in order to grow instead of incentivizing people to make more people that will further stress an overstressed planet!

CLE is listed as one of 19 cities for Special Immigrant Visas for Afghans and Iraqis. The State Dept provides a link to the city's website----Its certainly not very enticing when you have a list of 18 other cities' websites to choose from --- for CLE, no photo of the skyline, or the lake, or people walking around or anything!  https://www.clevelandohio.gov/

 

Special Immigrant Visas for Afghans and Iraqis - Resettlement Options

You have three options to influence where you will be placed in the United States:

A. You may choose a city from the list of self-select SIV placement options in the table below.....

 

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrate/special-immigrant-visas-for-afghans-and-iraqis-resettlement-options.html  

Edited August 19, 20213 yr by Pugu

3 hours ago, PoshSteve said:

I don't see the under 18 population increasing anytime soon unless we massively increase support for children, or start attracting large numbers of Mormons or immigrants (who tend to have more children than native born women). The total fertility rate in America (and the entire developed world) has cratered. America used to be the "bright spot" in that category bumping along right around replacement level, but the last 10 years, and particularly the last few, have seen the numbers of children born substantially decrease. 2020 saw the TFR hit a record low of 1.638 of children born per woman. That's nearly the same as Russia.

The birthrates will not be going up in this country.  The country has evolved far from the agricultural-based society where large families were started out with young parents to help out on the family farms.  If the families were living in cities, the children were needed to help out with family businesses or shops.  Those days that are gone.  The costs to raise large families have increased so much that it is hard for those in the middle class to be able to afford them.  Without the need to have large families and the need or desire to start them later in life will lessen the opportunities to have them.  If a couple decides to not have children, it is their choice and better off in the end than having children they don't necessarily want or end up passing them off on others to raise.

1 hour ago, Pugu said:

CLE is listed as one of 19 cities for Special Immigrant Visas for Afghans and Iraqis. The State Dept provides a link to the city's website----Its certainly not very enticing when you have a list of 18 other cities' websites to choose from --- for CLE, no photo of the skyline, or the lake, or people walking around or anything!  https://www.clevelandohio.gov/

 

Special Immigrant Visas for Afghans and Iraqis - Resettlement Options

You have three options to influence where you will be placed in the United States:

A. You may choose a city from the list of self-select SIV placement options in the table below.....

 

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrate/special-immigrant-visas-for-afghans-and-iraqis-resettlement-options.html  

I mean that's probably on the city leaders to get these people here instead of other cities, not really the State Dept's problem. 

 

And I hope for the love of God if they do choose this area, they actually choose the city proper. For decades to the present day, immigrants don't even bother moving to the city proper, and instead bypass all the way to Solon, Mayfield Heights, Parma etc. 

10 hours ago, Pugu said:

CLE is listed as one of 19 cities for Special Immigrant Visas for Afghans and Iraqis. The State Dept provides a link to the city's website----Its certainly not very enticing when you have a list of 18 other cities' websites to choose from --- for CLE, no photo of the skyline, or the lake, or people walking around or anything!  https://www.clevelandohio.gov/

 

Special Immigrant Visas for Afghans and Iraqis - Resettlement Options

You have three options to influence where you will be placed in the United States:

A. You may choose a city from the list of self-select SIV placement options in the table below.....

 

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrate/special-immigrant-visas-for-afghans-and-iraqis-resettlement-options.html  

Glad to see we're on the list.

 

Agree our website could be better, but most of the websites are pretty terrible, lol!

12 hours ago, X said:

Should we really want to see birthrates go back up?  There are what, 7 billion people on this planet now?  Let's figure out how to draw .001% of those people to Cleveland in order to grow instead of incentivizing people to make more people that will further stress an overstressed planet!

Yes, we should. The U.S. birthrate is not at replacement level. Neither is Ohio's birthrate. The post-covid projections are that world population could peak as soon as 2060 and might never even reach ten billion. Sustainable living for a population that size (or larger) is certainly attainable, even if it will require some people not living where they currently do (i.e. the desert) and many people cutting back on their consumption. Birth rates below replacement are economically problematic as evidenced by the problems that already exist in Japan. I'm not saying everybody should have ten kids, but if we want the baby born yesterday to have a reasonably comfortable retirement in 75 years, we would do well to have approximately equal births and deaths along the way.

 

Source: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/07/17/a-new-forecast-says-the-worlds-population-will-peak-at-97bn-in-2064

1 hour ago, LlamaLawyer said:

Yes, we should. The U.S. birthrate is not at replacement level. Neither is Ohio's birthrate. The post-covid projections are that world population could peak as soon as 2060 and might never even reach ten billion. Sustainable living for a population that size (or larger) is certainly attainable, even if it will require some people not living where they currently do (i.e. the desert) and many people cutting back on their consumption. Birth rates below replacement are economically problematic as evidenced by the problems that already exist in Japan. I'm not saying everybody should have ten kids, but if we want the baby born yesterday to have a reasonably comfortable retirement in 75 years, we would do well to have approximately equal births and deaths along the way.

 

Source: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/07/17/a-new-forecast-says-the-worlds-population-will-peak-at-97bn-in-2064

 

Or to attract significantly more immigrants, no?

50 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Or to attract significantly more immigrants, no?

 

Correct.

 

As AI/BI, robotics and automation become more assimilated into daily life the need for human labor will drop significantly. Heck, we're already there and experiencing this in many industries.