Edit: oops, I misread the article.  Disregard my previous comment.

^Nothing get's any attention at 9th and Prospect.  Nothing.  Not when it comes to population loss.  I brought up Cuyahoga County being 2nd in population to Franklin County last year to one of the Council Members.  The Council Member had no clue, and had no idea as to how to address it in any way.  And no, I'm not joking.

Cuyahoga County lost a pretty big number, ~32,000 (and it wasn't in Cleveland), while the other 6 counties in the PD's definition of the region, gained about 30,000. That should be an attention-getter at E9th and Prospect.

 

Very unlike the losses of decades ago it seems. This may be an actual sign of the big turnaround that Cleveland is going through-any continuing loss being matched by growth. Keep it up, and you start gaining. Also interesting would be to know who is moving in vs who is moving out.

 

What are the stats regarding new housing in Cleveland vs suburban areas? At least Cleveland is growing in places to offset the loss in other parts. It looks like the biggest decline in Cuyahoga County is outside of Cleveland, right?

 

Check out the pie chart on Page 7:

http://council.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_council/en-US/Countywide_Housing_Study_Executive_Summary%20Final.pdf

 

Also check out the graphic on Page 3. This is why blight, followed by abandonment is being PULLED outward by urban sprawl that only duplicates the region's housing/business inventory and makes old neighborhoods redundant. It's not being pushed because the new housing being added in Cleveland is not significant enough.

 

What are the stats regarding new housing in Cleveland vs suburban areas? At least Cleveland is growing in places to offset the loss in other parts. It looks like the biggest decline in Cuyahoga County is outside of Cleveland, right?

 

Check out the pie chart on Page 7:

http://council.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_council/en-US/Countywide_Housing_Study_Executive_Summary%20Final.pdf

 

Also check out the graphic on Page 3. This is why blight, followed by abandonment is being PULLED outward by urban sprawl that only duplicates the region's housing/business inventory and makes old neighborhoods redundant. It's not being pushed because the new housing being added in Cleveland is not significant enough.

 

Well that does not look so good, but it is data from eight to twenty eight years ago(1990-2010) and reflects the recession/depression and not the last 8 years. It also has no breakdown on a smaller level, like a Cleveland neighborhood level. As if the Tremont and Ohio city areas are in the same boat as eastern parts of the city-it is all lumped together. Maybe trends since 2010 are a bit better? Trying to be hopeful here of something of a change in the established patterns.

Won't have new data until after 2020.

 

Here is a nicely detailed map showing property values. While this doesn't show a change in housing units, it can be indicative of them. After all, rising demand (and/or less supply with stable demand) causes property values to rise....

 

^Curious as to the decreases in Highland Heights when Mayfield Heights and Mayfield Village are increasing or holding steady.

The PD states that the City lost about 250 residents last year. That's basically zero. I predict a small growth in the City population next year: for the first time in 95% of forumers' lives.

 

That is not accurate. The 250 (284 to be exact) is the change from last year's estimate, which was revised upward by a significant margin. 2016's loss was not as great as originally thought, but it means the 2017 loss is close to 2,000.

 

The overall trend this decade is still downward and not slowing. If anything, the slowdown in loss seen early in the decade (2013 and 2014 saw losses of less than 1,000 both years), has reversed. The loss of 1,926 in 2017 represents the largest year-on-year loss of population since 2011.

 

*Edit*  To be clear, the decline is slowing compared to the previous decade, which saw a loss of 17%. If we continue to lose population at the rate we lost it in the last 3 years (about half a percent per year), 2020 will see a population of about 380,400, a loss of 4.1% from 2010. A tide stemmed but not turned.

 

^ This is correct.

The PD states that the City lost about 250 residents last year. That's basically zero. I predict a small growth in the City population next year: for the first time in 95% of forumers' lives.

 

That is not accurate. The 250 (284 to be exact) is the change from last year's estimate, which was revised upward by a significant margin. 2016's loss was not as great as originally thought, but it means the 2017 loss is close to 2,000.

 

The overall trend this decade is still downward and not slowing. If anything, the slowdown in loss seen early in the decade (2013 and 2014 saw losses of less than 1,000 both years), has reversed. The loss of 1,926 in 2017 represents the largest year-on-year loss of population since 2011.

 

*Edit*  To be clear, the decline is slowing compared to the previous decade, which saw a loss of 17%. If we continue to lose population at the rate we lost it in the last 3 years (about half a percent per year), 2020 will see a population of about 380,400, a loss of 4.1% from 2010. A tide stemmed but not turned.

 

 

If the 2016 estimates were low and therefore revised up, what makes you think the same thing won't happen next year with the 2017 estimates?

If the 2016 estimates were low and therefore revised up, what makes you think the same thing won't happen next year with the 2017 estimates?

 

They could go either way, a lot or a little, or not move at all. They're the best guess at the moment, so the only proper way to use them is to take them at face value.

 

The 2020 census is the one that really matters, though.

Does the census bureau release estimates by the census tract level or just city-wide?  would be interesting to see the pop estimates for downtown and certain neighborhoods.

Does the census bureau release estimates by the census tract level or just city-wide?  would be interesting to see the pop estimates for downtown and certain neighborhoods.

 

Not that I'm aware of. And the estimates will often get revised.

Does the census bureau release estimates by the census tract level or just city-wide?  would be interesting to see the pop estimates for downtown and certain neighborhoods.

 

The Census's ACS (American Community Survey -- which is the only non-census-year survey they do) estimates go as low as the Block Group level (which is between Block and Tract). The caveat is that for areas with populations below (IIRC) 60k, the data is only available in a sort of "rolling sample" type of estimation (I don't know the proper term, but trying to invoke intuitions about "rolling averages"). So for small levels like Tracts or Block Groups, you'll be looking at samples over a 5-year period. The 2017 numbers aren't out for that yet, so if you wanted to look at Census Tract data, the most recent would be from the 2012-2016 5-year ACS.

 

You can tinker with this website. The pop-up menus from the left allow you to apply filters. To filter data by year, go to Topics>Dataset>[Pick the dataset(s) with the year you want in its name]

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml

Does the census bureau release estimates by the census tract level or just city-wide?  would be interesting to see the pop estimates for downtown and certain neighborhoods.

 

I think this level of data is only produced from the ACS 5-year estimates.

 

Edit: ^ Robuu[/member] beat me to it, with much more detail.

Interesting visual for the City of Euclid regarding change of home values - I am fairly certain there is not one single home in that lovely shade of rust cutting through the middle of the city. That would be the home of I-90, several rail lines and various industrial business

^Curious as to the decreases in Highland Heights when Mayfield Heights and Mayfield Village are increasing or holding steady.

 

For the 2015 reappraisal, the county took a different route than it had in the past (and a different route than any other county in the state). I'm over simplifying, but he color coded zones on that map were more or less drawn completely arbitrarily, and a general increase/decrease given to the whole zone, vs consideration for individual properties being used. It created a huge uproar in almost all corners of municipal governments, and an immense distrust in the county auditors which is still felt. I personally feel the county shot itself in the foot, and likely lost out on alot of tax revenue.  For example, the southwest quadrant of South Euclid had been, and still is, seeing some of the largest increases in sales prices in the city with an influx of young professionals. It was drastically lowered in the reappraisal while similar housing stock right across the street in UH was increased. Doesn't look good to someone looking to move in when the county is arbitrarily lowering values in growing neighborhoods, and does nothing to help stabilize the inner ring.

 

I'm interested to see what happens with this year's reappraisal, but I'm not optimistic.

Does the census bureau release estimates by the census tract level or just city-wide?  would be interesting to see the pop estimates for downtown and certain neighborhoods.

 

Yes, they come out in December normally.  Those for up to 2016 are already out on the FactFinder page.

What a downer about Cleveland's population loss. Nothing seems to be working. Not really.

 

But Columbus...wow.  That's something else.

 

If the 2016 estimates were low and therefore revised up, what makes you think the same thing won't happen next year with the 2017 estimates?

 

That might happen. But by the same token, the intra-census estimates for the years between 2000 and 2010 turned out to be all way high, and the 2010 numbers were a shock. The 2009 estimate was off by 8%, and if the current estimates are off by that amount we are looking at a pop of 350,000 in 2020. I hope that's not the case and that's why I'm not assuming errors and adjustments of  the past will be repeated.

 

 

 

 

What a downer about Cleveland's population loss. Nothing seems to be working. Not really.

 

But Columbus...wow.  That's something else.

 

To be honest, I don't think Greater Cleveland is really trying that hard  to grow its population and Cleveland doesn't seem to be trying that hard to make itself more competitive.

^

I feel that many people and businesses are trying and succeeding to some extent to make Cleveland competitive.  The problem is an incompetent and ineffectual mayor and his administration who prefer to stick their head in the ground instead of meeting challenges with vigor and determination.

I think it is more than just poor leadership. There just seems to be a stigma that hasn't been shaken. All that brain drain from suburban schools - 10 percent return from college/grad school? 20? - along with aging populations along with far too many shitty neighborhoods just overwhelm any signs of progress. 

 

I really don't know the answer save for gifting entire neighborhoods to non criminal refugees and legal/illegal immigrants. It's just really sad overall.

I like that answer. But to show how bad Cleveland leadership is, they would never go for that because it would, in their view, weaken their power. They have no long view and thus cannot see how shortsighted being unfriendly to immigration is. Their power continues to erode as Cleveland continues to lose population, but they don't seem to notice or care about the population loss as long as they keep winning elections.

I like that answer. But to show how bad Cleveland leadership is, they would never go for that because it would, in their view, weaken their power. They have no long view and thus cannot see how shortsighted being unfriendly to immigration is. Their power continues to erode as Cleveland continues to lose population, but they don't seem to notice or care about the population loss as long as they keep winning elections.

 

Here’s the thing though: I always have mixed feelings about that. Im VERY pro immigration in general and pro immigration to Cleveland specifically as well. But there is a very real concern about disenfranchising black residents (of which I am one). That’s a legitimate concern and it’s something that a lot of cities are currently dealing with. I don’t think it’s good to act as if there are NO legitimate concerns with that and to write it ALL off as politicians wanting to maintain their power base. I believe that if we can adequately address that concern, we can get over that hump. If it can be presented that new immigrants are not a threat to black residents (who are, for now at least, still the majority of this city) we can get somewhere. But ignoring those concerns do nothing to move it out of the way and get progress going

The black powerbase in Cleveland is going to get weaker, either through African Americans continuing to move out to the suburbs or through a steady repopulation of Cleveland neighborhoods by young people, empty nesters and even some families, each from the suburbs, rural Ohio or other cities. Both options represent slow change, certainly slower and less disruptive than plopping down 10,000 refugees in an abandoned section of the east side. Perhaps the best way to grow one's power is to be pluralistic and do what's right for the city. Then the power will have no color boundaries and be virtually limitless.

What a downer about Cleveland's population loss. Nothing seems to be working. Not really.

 

A lot of investment (and time) has been squandered over the last couple decades on bad planning and mistaken priorities.  Policies must change.  No more height limits, no more parking minimums.  No more blunders like building a giant school along the hottest section of Detroit Avenue.  No more McMansions in Hough.  No more grassy setbacks, no more roads fronted by another road.  No more new buildings made of trailers-- we have elegant historic retail spaces all over town that need repair and we are going to repair them.  Focus on the ones near transit stations because retail is an essential aspect of TOD that we keep ignoring.  Doing things the right way matters, because doing things wrong leads to bad results.

 

Downtown and uptown have improved so much but there's been minimal spillover to surrounding neighborhoods.  It's time to admit that isn't getting us anywhere and a new focus is needed.  The neighborhoods need direct investment, they need more businesses in them.  And to the extent they need rebuilt, they must be rebuilt in a format that is dense and walkable and above all marketable.

^Honestly if you think those are things that have anything to do with Cleveland's population loss then you're completely off base.  The problems that need fixed for Cleveland to see population gains are far more difficult to solve then some simple zoning reform.  We have deep seated issues with race, deindustrialization, workforce development, national migration patterns, national transportation policies, the geography of venture capital, etc. 

 

It's ridiculous that you all seem to think that a few policy changes at City Hall could allow some sort of easy fix for our urban problems.  Detroit, Pittsburgh, Toledo, Buffalo are all in pretty much the same boat.  Is that because of Mayor Jackson?

I like that answer. But to show how bad Cleveland leadership is, they would never go for that because it would, in their view, weaken their power. They have no long view and thus cannot see how shortsighted being unfriendly to immigration is. Their power continues to erode as Cleveland continues to lose population, but they don't seem to notice or care about the population loss as long as they keep winning elections.

 

Here’s the thing though: I always have mixed feelings about that. Im VERY pro immigration in general and pro immigration to Cleveland specifically as well. But there is a very real concern about disenfranchising black residents (of which I am one). That’s a legitimate concern and it’s something that a lot of cities are currently dealing with. I don’t think it’s good to act as if there are NO legitimate concerns with that and to write it ALL off as politicians wanting to maintain their power base. I believe that if we can adequately address that concern, we can get over that hump. If it can be presented that new immigrants are not a threat to black residents (who are, for now at least, still the majority of this city) we can get somewhere. But ignoring those concerns do nothing to move it out of the way and get progress going

 

This 10000%. I think this goes hand in hand with undervaluing the fact that the culture of Cleveland IS largely African-American. I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately. I just went to New Orleans and while all of the redevelopment is nice to see, I couldn’t help but think the town had been largely white-washed. Concerns about diluting AA culture are legitimate.

I don't get it. The culture of Cleveland is African American (what does that even mean?) and because of that, we need to be cautious of introducing new people with different cultures? Diversity is key to a city's momentum and future, and its encouragement shouldn't be limited to predominantly white areas.

 

Frankly, the city's residents as a whole are just not cutting it on their own. Cleveland desperately needs an infusion of new people: Asians, Indians, African nationals, Arabs, Latinos, gays, artists, hipsters, educated Millenials, etc. Gift them city-owned/bank-owned houses, vacant lots, streets, neighborhoods, and so on.

The answer has to be more people AND more jobs. The solution is simple, but I’m not sure how we get there. And frankly I’m not sure which one needs to come first.

^Honestly if you think those are things that have anything to do with Cleveland's population loss then you're completely off base.  The problems that need fixed for Cleveland to see population gains are far more difficult to solve then some simple zoning reform.  We have deep seated issues with race, deindustrialization, workforce development, national migration patterns, national transportation policies, the geography of venture capital, etc. 

 

It's ridiculous that you all seem to think that a few policy changes at City Hall could allow some sort of easy fix for our urban problems.  Detroit, Pittsburgh, Toledo, Buffalo are all in pretty much the same boat.  Is that because of Mayor Jackson?

Ken, I agree with this.....so what is Columbus doing that is so different from what we are trying?  Is it all because of OSU and being a capital City? 

Maybe I’m overstating it, but I think the local government structure contributes quite a bit.

 

The cost of doing business in Cleveland is higher and more cumbersome. The ward based City Council is basically a patronage system, and the councilpersons infighting for “the good of their ward” comes at the detriment of the city as a whole.

We can't discount the fact the region is transitioning from manufacturing. We still have a lot of headwinds from that. Also, there are thousands of unfilled jobs in NEO. The jobs being created don't match the workforce in the region. It's like switching to a 3-4 defense with 4-3 personnel. As Browns fans, we know how difficult that can be. Lol.

Maybe I’m overstating it, but I think the local government structure contributes quite a bit.

 

The cost of doing business in Cleveland is higher and more cumbersome. The ward based City Council is basically a patronage system, and the councilpersons infighting for “the good of their ward” comes at the detriment of the city as a whole.

 

You're right, but it's not just within the city, it's also between the city and the suburbs. Columbus has far fewer suburbs to infight against each other.

^Honestly if you think those are things that have anything to do with Cleveland's population loss then you're completely off base.  The problems that need fixed for Cleveland to see population gains are far more difficult to solve then some simple zoning reform.  We have deep seated issues with race, deindustrialization, workforce development, national migration patterns, national transportation policies, the geography of venture capital, etc. 

 

It's ridiculous that you all seem to think that a few policy changes at City Hall could allow some sort of easy fix for our urban problems.  Detroit, Pittsburgh, Toledo, Buffalo are all in pretty much the same boat.  Is that because of Mayor Jackson?

Ken, I agree with this.....so what is Columbus doing that is so different from what we are trying?  Is it all because of OSU and being a capital City? 

 

Not sure if you are asking KJP (who is Ken) or me (not Ken), but the difference isn't what they're doing.  It's where they're coming from.  Columbus has a different history, different economic mix, different demographics.  Like a President with the national economy, there are things that municipal governments can do that effect the economy, but their control is pretty limited.

The black powerbase in Cleveland is going to get weaker, either through African Americans continuing to move out to the suburbs or through a steady repopulation of Cleveland neighborhoods by young people, empty nesters and even some families, each from the suburbs, rural Ohio or other cities. Both options represent slow change ...

 

I'm not sure what you mean by slow, but Wash DC went from majority black to majority 'noticeably not-black' in about 10 years. The process seemed rather sudden to me once the momentum developed post-Marion Barry.

^Honestly if you think those are things that have anything to do with Cleveland's population loss then you're completely off base.  The problems that need fixed for Cleveland to see population gains are far more difficult to solve then some simple zoning reform.  We have deep seated issues with race, deindustrialization, workforce development, national migration patterns, national transportation policies, the geography of venture capital, etc. 

 

It's ridiculous that you all seem to think that a few policy changes at City Hall could allow some sort of easy fix for our urban problems.  Detroit, Pittsburgh, Toledo, Buffalo are all in pretty much the same boat.  Is that because of Mayor Jackson?

 

Cleveland's poor zoning/urban policies are symptoms of the deeper issues you mention.

Maybe, but I don't think they're a significant cause of our economic malaise.  Exclusionary zoning is pretty much the norm in cities that are rapidly growing and in cities that are stagnant.  I do think neighborhood retail would be in much better shape if they got rid of parking minimums in urban retail districts, though.  But that's what I mean about municipal governments being able to work around the fringe of macro-economic trends- some new neighborhood retail would be good, but wouldn't make our regional economy suddenly snap to Nashville-style growth.

^Honestly if you think those are things that have anything to do with Cleveland's population loss then you're completely off base.  The problems that need fixed for Cleveland to see population gains are far more difficult to solve then some simple zoning reform.  We have deep seated issues with race, deindustrialization, workforce development, national migration patterns, national transportation policies, the geography of venture capital, etc. 

 

It's ridiculous that you all seem to think that a few policy changes at City Hall could allow some sort of easy fix for our urban problems.  Detroit, Pittsburgh, Toledo, Buffalo are all in pretty much the same boat.  Is that because of Mayor Jackson?

 

I didn't mention the mayor because a lot of this predates him.  It's a matter of policy, it's bigger than any one office or person. 

 

Do you really believe neighborhood quality is irrelevant to population losses?  We need to stop focusing on factors we can't control and do a better job with the ones we can.  We can't expect outsiders, from Washington or from Wall Street, to come in and fix up this mess.  That is for locals to do, with whatever resources we have available.  And we do have resources here, but the policies that determine how we utilize them have got to change.

 

Rebuilding neighborhoods the way we did in Central will not lead to growth.  By and large, people are not seeking that kind of living arrangement in that kind of area.  People who might consider relocating to an inner city are instead looking for density and walkability.  We can choose to build marketable urbanity, or we can choose not to, but we can't blame anyone else for the choices we make about what kind of community we want to be.

^Honestly if you think those are things that have anything to do with Cleveland's population loss then you're completely off base.  The problems that need fixed for Cleveland to see population gains are far more difficult to solve then some simple zoning reform.  We have deep seated issues with race, deindustrialization, workforce development, national migration patterns, national transportation policies, the geography of venture capital, etc. 

 

It's ridiculous that you all seem to think that a few policy changes at City Hall could allow some sort of easy fix for our urban problems.  Detroit, Pittsburgh, Toledo, Buffalo are all in pretty much the same boat.  Is that because of Mayor Jackson?

 

I didn't mention the mayor because a lot of this predates him.  It's a matter of policy, it's bigger than any one office or person. 

 

Do you really believe neighborhood quality is irrelevant to population losses?  We need to stop focusing on factors we can't control and do a better job with the ones we can.  We can't expect outsiders, from Washington or from Wall Street, to come in and fix up this mess.  That is for locals to do, with whatever resources we have available.  And we do have resources here, but the policies that determine how we utilize them have got to change.

 

Rebuilding neighborhoods the way we did in Central will not lead to growth.  By and large, people are not seeking that kind of living arrangement in that kind of area.  People who might consider relocating to an inner city are instead looking for density and walkability.  We can choose to build marketable urbanity, or we can choose not to, but we can't blame anyone else for the choices we make about what kind of community we want to be.

 

Everything you’re saying is absolutely true. But I think what X is getting at is that the larger economic factors have much more impact than any local-level decision making. Cleveland didn’t get big because of sound urban planning policy. Location and industry built it and location and industry decimated (x6) it.

^Honestly if you think those are things that have anything to do with Cleveland's population loss then you're completely off base.  The problems that need fixed for Cleveland to see population gains are far more difficult to solve then some simple zoning reform.  We have deep seated issues with race, deindustrialization, workforce development, national migration patterns, national transportation policies, the geography of venture capital, etc. 

 

It's ridiculous that you all seem to think that a few policy changes at City Hall could allow some sort of easy fix for our urban problems.  Detroit, Pittsburgh, Toledo, Buffalo are all in pretty much the same boat.  Is that because of Mayor Jackson?

 

I didn't mention the mayor because a lot of this predates him.  It's a matter of policy, it's bigger than any one office or person. 

 

Do you really believe neighborhood quality is irrelevant to population losses?  We need to stop focusing on factors we can't control and do a better job with the ones we can.  We can't expect outsiders, from Washington or from Wall Street, to come in and fix up this mess.  That is for locals to do, with whatever resources we have available.  And we do have resources here, but the policies that determine how we utilize them have got to change.

 

Rebuilding neighborhoods the way we did in Central will not lead to growth.  By and large, people are not seeking that kind of living arrangement in that kind of area.  People who might consider relocating to an inner city are instead looking for density and walkability.  We can choose to build marketable urbanity, or we can choose not to, but we can't blame anyone else for the choices we make about what kind of community we want to be.

 

Everything you’re saying is absolutely true. But I think what X is getting at is that the larger economic factors have much more impact than any local-level decision making. Cleveland didn’t get big because of sound urban planning policy. Location and industry built it and location and industry decimated (x6) it.

 

If deindustrialization doesn't happen we aren't  having this conversation.

I like that answer. But to show how bad Cleveland leadership is, they would never go for that because it would, in their view, weaken their power. They have no long view and thus cannot see how shortsighted being unfriendly to immigration is. Their power continues to erode as Cleveland continues to lose population, but they don't seem to notice or care about the population loss as long as they keep winning elections.

 

Here’s the thing though: I always have mixed feelings about that. Im VERY pro immigration in general and pro immigration to Cleveland specifically as well. But there is a very real concern about disenfranchising black residents (of which I am one). That’s a legitimate concern and it’s something that a lot of cities are currently dealing with. I don’t think it’s good to act as if there are NO legitimate concerns with that and to write it ALL off as politicians wanting to maintain their power base. I believe that if we can adequately address that concern, we can get over that hump. If it can be presented that new immigrants are not a threat to black residents (who are, for now at least, still the majority of this city) we can get somewhere. But ignoring those concerns do nothing to move it out of the way and get progress going

 

This 10000%. I think this goes hand in hand with undervaluing the fact that the culture of Cleveland IS largely African-American. I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately. I just went to New Orleans and while all of the redevelopment is nice to see, I couldn’t help but think the town had been largely white-washed. Concerns about diluting AA culture are legitimate.

 

Exactly. And even the reactions of some on this very forum exemplify the problem. People don’t even want to acknowledge the concerns. It’s like “let’s just act as if these people aren’t here or don’t matter and let’s bulldoze over what they’re concerned about because it’s stupid and un-cosmopolitan” and so on. That may be someone’s approach, but it’s unhelpful if the goal is to actually increase the population. You’re going to NEED buy-in from black residents on any large scale plan addressing population, whether you like it or not. And the attitude of some here are a perfect example of why there continues to be a stalemate. Too few people actually care about the concerns of those who stayed when the white folks left and before their children came back. Those people matter too. We need to address this in a way that serves our serious population needs while not completely bulldozing over the people currently here. And at least pretending to give a damn about their concerns is a good start

We can't discount the fact the region is transitioning from manufacturing. We still have a lot of headwinds from that. Also, there are thousands of unfilled jobs in NEO. The jobs being created don't match the workforce in the region. It's like switching to a 3-4 defense with 4-3 personnel. As Browns fans, we know how difficult that can be. Lol.

 

If there are thousands of unfilled jobs, why is our domestic net migration so terrible? The cost of living is dirt cheap in Cleveland, so unless these unfilled jobs pay terrible wages, you would see people flocking to Cleveland to fill them.

That's a good question. I should have been more specific. Not all these jobs are posted, but companies have reported problems with finding candidates. I had a friend in IT tell me his company wants to hire more people, but hold off because they've had so much trouble in the past finding candidates.

 

In-demand jobs go unfilled because workers lack skills: Team NEO report

 

Plenty of good-paying jobs go unfilled in Northeast Ohio because job seekers lack the credentials to hold them, according to a report released Monday, prepared by Team Northeast Ohio , a regional economic development group.

 

In the computer and information technology, or IT, sector demand outstripped supply for nearly every position from computer network architect to computer user support specialist. In health care, the report found many positions to be in demand, with registered nurses topping the list.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/articles.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2018/05/in-demand_jobs_go_unfilled_bec.amp

 

Good-paying jobs in NE Ohio remain unfilled because workers lack credentials

 

The mismatch between job openings and worker qualifications is even greater when the most in-demand fields are considered, said Jacob Duritsky, Team NEO's vice president of strategy and research.

 

"If you look at three categories: IT (information technology), manufacturing and health care, there is acute misalignment between the types of needs employers have and the degrees being conferred," said Duritsky, whose analysis included Census and Labor Department data.

 

www.google.com/amp/s/articles.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2017/05/good-paying_jobs_in_ne_ohio_re.amp

That's a good question. I should have been more specific. Not all these jobs are posted, but companies have reported problems with finding candidates. I had a friend in IT tell me his company wants to hire more people, but hold off because they've had so much trouble in the past finding candidates.

 

In-demand jobs go unfilled because workers lack skills: Team NEO report

 

Plenty of good-paying jobs go unfilled in Northeast Ohio because job seekers lack the credentials to hold them, according to a report released Monday, prepared by Team Northeast Ohio , a regional economic development group.

 

In the computer and information technology, or IT, sector demand outstripped supply for nearly every position from computer network architect to computer user support specialist. In health care, the report found many positions to be in demand, with registered nurses topping the list.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/articles.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2018/05/in-demand_jobs_go_unfilled_bec.amp

 

Good-paying jobs in NE Ohio remain unfilled because workers lack credentials

 

The mismatch between job openings and worker qualifications is even greater when the most in-demand fields are considered, said Jacob Duritsky, Team NEO's vice president of strategy and research.

 

"If you look at three categories: IT (information technology), manufacturing and health care, there is acute misalignment between the types of needs employers have and the degrees being conferred," said Duritsky, whose analysis included Census and Labor Department data.

 

www.google.com/amp/s/articles.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2017/05/good-paying_jobs_in_ne_ohio_re.amp

 

I think part of the problem too is not a ton of companies spend enough money on recruitment. I concur with those who say it’s too simplistic to just lay everything at the feet of city hall, but THIS is one area that I find lacking. The city and these companies should spend whatever it takes in a marketing campaign to promote the availability of those jobs here. If we just filled the available jobs, that alone could change the city very quickly

^Honestly if you think those are things that have anything to do with Cleveland's population loss then you're completely off base.  The problems that need fixed for Cleveland to see population gains are far more difficult to solve then some simple zoning reform.  We have deep seated issues with race, deindustrialization, workforce development, national migration patterns, national transportation policies, the geography of venture capital, etc. 

 

It's ridiculous that you all seem to think that a few policy changes at City Hall could allow some sort of easy fix for our urban problems.  Detroit, Pittsburgh, Toledo, Buffalo are all in pretty much the same boat.  Is that because of Mayor Jackson?

 

I didn't mention the mayor because a lot of this predates him.  It's a matter of policy, it's bigger than any one office or person. 

 

Do you really believe neighborhood quality is irrelevant to population losses?  We need to stop focusing on factors we can't control and do a better job with the ones we can.  We can't expect outsiders, from Washington or from Wall Street, to come in and fix up this mess.  That is for locals to do, with whatever resources we have available.  And we do have resources here, but the policies that determine how we utilize them have got to change.

 

Rebuilding neighborhoods the way we did in Central will not lead to growth.  By and large, people are not seeking that kind of living arrangement in that kind of area.  People who might consider relocating to an inner city are instead looking for density and walkability.  We can choose to build marketable urbanity, or we can choose not to, but we can't blame anyone else for the choices we make about what kind of community we want to be.

 

Everything you’re saying is absolutely true. But I think what X is getting at is that the larger economic factors have much more impact than any local-level decision making. Cleveland didn’t get big because of sound urban planning policy. Location and industry built it and location and industry decimated (x6) it.

 

What does our location say to industry right now?  We're known for ruined neighborhoods and obstructionist government.  But we also have a lot of historic building stock that few cities can offer, and that sort of thing happens to be popular again.  So we can choose to become the best location we can be, making the most of what we have, or we can keep assigning godlike powers to outside forces and refusing to accept responsibility for our own choices. 

 

I never said that managing our community competently would solve everything.  That's a straw man.  But do you think it would hurt?  Why not give it a try?

^Honestly if you think those are things that have anything to do with Cleveland's population loss then you're completely off base.  The problems that need fixed for Cleveland to see population gains are far more difficult to solve then some simple zoning reform.  We have deep seated issues with race, deindustrialization, workforce development, national migration patterns, national transportation policies, the geography of venture capital, etc. 

 

It's ridiculous that you all seem to think that a few policy changes at City Hall could allow some sort of easy fix for our urban problems.  Detroit, Pittsburgh, Toledo, Buffalo are all in pretty much the same boat.  Is that because of Mayor Jackson?

 

I didn't mention the mayor because a lot of this predates him.  It's a matter of policy, it's bigger than any one office or person. 

 

Do you really believe neighborhood quality is irrelevant to population losses?  We need to stop focusing on factors we can't control and do a better job with the ones we can.  We can't expect outsiders, from Washington or from Wall Street, to come in and fix up this mess.  That is for locals to do, with whatever resources we have available.  And we do have resources here, but the policies that determine how we utilize them have got to change.

 

Rebuilding neighborhoods the way we did in Central will not lead to growth.  By and large, people are not seeking that kind of living arrangement in that kind of area.  People who might consider relocating to an inner city are instead looking for density and walkability.  We can choose to build marketable urbanity, or we can choose not to, but we can't blame anyone else for the choices we make about what kind of community we want to be.

 

Everything you’re saying is absolutely true. But I think what X is getting at is that the larger economic factors have much more impact than any local-level decision making. Cleveland didn’t get big because of sound urban planning policy. Location and industry built it and location and industry decimated (x6) it.

 

What does our location say to industry right now?  We're known for ruined neighborhoods and obstructionist government.  But we also have a lot of historic building stock that few cities can offer, and that sort of thing happens to be popular again.  So we can choose to become the best location we can be, making the most of what we have, or we can keep assigning godlike powers to outside forces and refusing to accept responsibility for our own choices. 

 

I never said that managing our community competently would solve everything.  That's a straw man.  But do you think it would hurt?  Why not give it a try?

 

No I definitely agree with almost all of your points, especially when you consistently mention investing in neighborhood retail building stock. I just don’t think it’s more than marginally relevant to population gain. I’m not even sure population gain is that important. At the same time, I’m always wary of assigning anthropomorphic qualities to metropolitan regions. When you say “accept responsibility for our own choices” it seems to ascribe a moral or at least ethical quality to the whole population of greater Cleveland. Does that mean Austin is more moral/ethical or that Detroit is full of stupid people?

^Honestly if you think those are things that have anything to do with Cleveland's population loss then you're completely off base.  The problems that need fixed for Cleveland to see population gains are far more difficult to solve then some simple zoning reform.  We have deep seated issues with race, deindustrialization, workforce development, national migration patterns, national transportation policies, the geography of venture capital, etc. 

 

It's ridiculous that you all seem to think that a few policy changes at City Hall could allow some sort of easy fix for our urban problems.  Detroit, Pittsburgh, Toledo, Buffalo are all in pretty much the same boat.  Is that because of Mayor Jackson?

 

I don’t agree with much of what 327 just posted, but I don’t think it’s ridiculous to think that some policy changes could make a difference. So, yes, much of it is because of Jackson and his staff not having tried for the past decade to implement changes that would be felt now. I didn't said Jackson is the source of all of the problems, but it’s his job to attempt to mitigate them, otherwise, what’s the point of being mayor? And BTW, no one said anything is an “easy fix”.  Forward progress starts with small steps and good policy.

No I definitely agree with almost all of your points, especially when you consistently mention investing in neighborhood retail building stock. I just don’t think it’s more than marginally relevant to population gain. I’m not even sure population gain is that important. At the same time, I’m always wary of assigning anthropomorphic qualities to metropolitan regions. When you say “accept responsibility for our own choices” it seems to ascribe a moral or at least ethical quality to the whole population of greater Cleveland. Does that mean Austin is more moral/ethical or that Detroit is full of stupid people?

 

It's not so much a moral/ethical dimension but one of competent policy and management.  Speaking of Austin, much of its modern reputation is attributed to its live music culture.  Cleveland collects a special tax on live music venues and allows a certain fun-averse activist to run around town shutting down parties with esoteric (but technically valid) zoning and building complaints.  If we want to see Austin-like growth here, we should be boosting our local music culture rather than attacking it like John Lithgow in Footloose.