Interesting article from Aaron M. Renn at New Geography:

 

Shrinking the Rust Belt

http://www.newgeography.com/content/00883-shrinking-rust-belt

My take on all this is that for too long cities have emphasized on this 'growth is good' mentality which overrides the benefits of stability in a region. In all honesty, Ohio has more than its share for a state its size in population.

 

The wasteful sprawl factor comes into play when you have population in the state falling...yet land consumption going up. This indicates the shifting of the population. And this scenario is nothing new...But when we really should see the shifting starting to go full circle the other way around....we are seeing yet another repeat of times past as older ring burbs are now threatened with the same push and pull factors that contributed to the vacuuming of the core cities in the past. Maybe we should start emphasizing less on quantity..and MORE on quality. Emphasize on a diverse economy that will breed a stable one...instead of beating the constant 'we must grow' drum.

 

Say what you will...but it is mathematically unsustainable...environmentally, economically, and socially to keep this kind of 'growth at any cost' mindset. Ohio actually needs a population enema, so it can refocus on a smaller one, but a more productive and quality one.Sometimes less is more in the long run. One person indicated 'what will this state look like in x number of years' with these current population shifting trends. I get nauseated thinking about it. It will certainly not be something that offers quality of life... Quantity, yes, quality no...when we end up looking like one giant suburb with no real unique identity.

 

At some point, and it really needs to be soon.... there needs to me some regionalism (bad word for some) in governments and revenue sharing in an area like N.E. Ohio which has so many cities, towns, townships, etc.. all butting up against one another all fighting for that share of the tax pie, no matter what wounds the winner of it inflicts on their neighboring communities.

 

The visual result is senseless willy nilly suburban sprawl, loss of essential green and buffer zones which do their share in keeping air, water, and soil clean for free....pockets of wealthy areas right next to pockets of poverty, huge seas of pavement... expanded lanes on roadways which still seem to get clogged...etc..etc.. It is not a pretty sight that anyone would want to live in who doesn't have to. What remains of anything green in this state will be the rivers which get even more polluted with suburban lawn chemicals that will cause river killing algae blooms... and the small state parks/forests/metro park areas which will be but mere little islands overcrowded with visitors, which will undermine the whole experience in the first place. (Last checked.. Ohio ranks 48th in available public lands, yet near the top in demand for them--yet we have done little to set anymore aside for the future--all which could have a positive economic impact)

 

Some may have slept through ecology, but the impacts on the environment and our cities from piss poor planning and growth at any cost could prove costly financially, and we know what damaging the environment does to ones reputation. Just ask Cleveland and the Cuyahoga river about that one!  Sprawl areas usually allow the developers to come in and dictate landuse planning. Letting developers dictate land use policy and planning is like letting loggers dictate forest management!

 

Anyway, I was going to say that the land has what is called a carrying capacity. Ohio has exceeded the land's carrying capacity within our imaginary lines. Maybe it is time to level off because 11 million plus was too many anyway, in terms of the carrying capacity and the demands such a population carries. Sure it can be done, but it demands more than we can replace. Growth beyond maturity is cancer.

 

Having said that it takes no genius to state the obvious that we really need to redevelop our urban cores and let the prosperity trickle out..and not build from the outside thinking it will trickle inward. It never has and never will. This state needs to learn from the archaic land use and development trends of the past that are just one big factor in sucking our urban cores dry.

lakewood gained one:  me

The shrinkage model needs to target whole metro areas, not just central cities. If anything, the suburbs need to shrink before anyone else. Toledo could easily do this since every single suburb is shrinking or stagant just like the central city. I think Buffalo is in the same boat with Toledo, meaning shrinking city AND shrinking suburbs. Any shrinkage model should focus on emptying the suburbs and letting nature take back those areas. An efficient metro area is one with a small footprint.

 

Flint and Youngstown are doing nothing regionally to make that happen. They're tearing down half the city, letting nature form an artificial greenbelt around the "new" city, and then all the sprawl is still there! The infrastructure waste is still there too, along with the increased costs of delivering city utilities to the suburbs. This is no way to survive, and does nothing to end sprawl.

 

My thoughts exactly.

"The city has been declining in population for years.  The inner-ring suburbs have been declining in population for years. We're a stagnate region, and have been for a while.  How do we address this?"

 

 

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, Jobs. And not just  any kind of jobs. We need jobs for the chronically  unemployed. That is unfortunately  semiskilled light manufacturing  which the unions have killed.  Also, it doesn't help having a pro poverty, anti-business  mayor. 

 

A good economy and a low unemployment rate for the underclass will solve pretty  much everything: crime, single parent families, schools, tax base, retail, etc.

  ...Also, it doesn't help having a pro poverty, anti-business  mayor. 

 

 

 

I'm no Frank Jackson fanboy, but what would you have him do? I would assume the guy is doing everything is his power to bring jobs and people into the city. Seems to me like the general pessimism of the area has just as much a negative impact as say an incompetent city council or an 'anti-business' mayor.

I am going to speak in generalities here so spare me any grilling. I don't know how any inner ring suburb or fully built out suburb or city neighborhood could possibly gain population today, outside of tearing down single family homes and building higher density housing or a mass influx of immigrants. Family size keeps dropping for non-immigrant families here in the states.Most people in the working class and above are having fewer kids and more than likely having them later. Even if you have the same vacancy rate in a city the population is going to shrink. I think in our cheap housing market this probably even true for renters with roommates. It's not like NYC where 3 people will share a 1 or 2 bed apartment, in most Ohio cities I would say that the norm is 2 people sharing a 3 bedroom unit and using the 3rd bedroom as a office or den.

 

I agree that in the city limits of Cleveland the schools and bussing are one the huge problems that drive the destructions of entire neighborhoods. Especially because unlike a lot of cities around the country it is actually cheaper to live in the city than most of the burbs taxwise.

 

EDIT: I just checked the Cuyahoga Auditors site, Cleveland proper is has the 28 th lowest effective tax rate(1.98%/$100k) out of the 80 seperate districts listed on the auditor site. So it does have that going for it. Plus if you work and live in Cleveland you would avoid double city income taxation. 

On a positive note, isn't it true that the population of people living downtown has increased dramatically and is projected to do so over the span of the next decade? And isn't Cleveland's downtown one of the fastest growing downtown population's in the country right now? I thought I remembered reading that on the PD awhile back.

On a positive note, isn't it true that the population of people living downtown has increased dramatically and is projected to do so over the span of the next decade? And isn't Cleveland's downtown one of the fastest growing downtown population's in the country right now? I thought I remembered reading that on the PD awhile back.

 

Yeah, but that is a small number compared to the city as a whole.  Even after the past decade's growth, Downtown only houses about 10,000 people.

 

CBC, you're exactly right about the demographic challenge we face.

One thing that I have notice is that the inner rings seem a little less geriatric in the last ten years. The boomers parents who moved in the "nice neighborhoods" in the 50s and 60s to raise there families are moving on to a better place at a pretty fast pace. The have been one of the reasons that the inner rings have been declining especially when you have 1 or 2 people in a house for 30 years that held 5 or 6 people when they had kids. So as these house get sold off hopefully the number will get a little bump. As long as they stay stable enough to attract young families. For example supposedly Lakewood is the youngest suburb on average age.

Good point earlier about the housing stock CBC.  Much of it is unmarketable because of its format.  Doubles are just not desirable anymore, and the mayor's office has noted this, but beyond that Cleveland still has too many urban SF homes.  Too many apartment buildings were torn down over the years and now there's no balance in the offerings.  We need more decent apartments for people to start out in.  Essentially, if you want to live in an economical and relatively safe brownstone, you have to find it outside city limts.  There aren't even that many left in the bad neighborhoods.  Thats insane.

 

Fire up that bulldozer, level some obsolete woodframes, and build density in its place.  Immigrants don't want to pay gas bills any more than anyone else does, and immigrants don't necessarily buy into the American give-me-my-yard premise.  We need different housing stock... something like what we used to have, when we were growing.

I'm hoping the gays discover Euclid, my hometown.

I'm hoping the gays discover Euclid, my hometown.

 

aH yes the second rule of real estate after Location , Location, Location

 

 

I know in Ohio we constantly discuss our "sh!tty" schools, but what are the schools like in the healthy cities? Are public schools any better in Portland, San Francisco, Austin, and Atlanta than they are in Cleveland, Toledo, Cincinnati, and Columbus?

 

I think it's hard to clearly state how the quality of schools (or the perception of quality) impacts population growth, particularly because a lot of people who move don't have children and could care less about the quality of schools (think Florida bluehairs).

 

SF is not a 'growing' city; most people who can afford to live there can afford to send their children to private schools if they are unhappy with the (generally decent) public schools.

 

Atlanta schools are poorly ranked; my sense is that growth in the city has come not from people with school age children.

 

Austin and Portland do not have large 'minority' (read: Black) populations, which I think is what (white) people usually mean when they are concerned about 'quality schools'.

 

In the urban north, public school systems are often majority 'black' which usually equates in both the minds of parents and too often in school rankings as failure to be avoided. My sense is that if busing encouraged white (and often black) middle class flight, it wasnt simply because parents didnt want their children to be bused, it was also that they didn't want them to be in schools with anything approaching a majority of black students.

 

It also strikes me that a good many people on this site who promote urban living are gay men who, as far as I can tell, don't have children attending urban public schools, right? (I include myself it the last statement...)

I was seriously kidding about the forced busing...it was a bad joke.  I personally know how it hurt/ruined many Cleveland neighborhoods here.  Collinwood comes to mind immediately.  (I personally know of good number of families from the old italian neighborhoods who moved to Mayfield Heights that very same year forced busing was passed into law.)

 

I'm still sticking to the Cleveland Public Schools as a huge reason new relocating families choose not to live in the city..another way to say it, middle class families.  If schools weren't an issue, rebuilding Cleveland for the future would be immensely easier.

Much of the resistance to busing seems tied in with a desire to maintain segregation more than anything else.  I don't know if offering people a chance to resegregate neighborhoods will help the city in the long run.  School quality should not be determined by where you (are able) to live.  In Cleveland, yes money is a big part of the problem.  There aren't enough adults in the building.  I'm not denying the other factors others have mentioned, but money is one of them.  Abatements, intended to draw higher-income people back into the city, have only exacerbated this problem.  The school quality issue is not just one of perception. 

 

People I work with who live in West Park are poor yet terrified to send their kids to West Park public schools, so they shell out to the church when they barely can.  The burden of funding education has been shifted from Cleveland's new rich to it's lower classes with these abatements.  This keeps immigrants out too, and it keeps the outflow from reversing.

If schools weren't an issue, rebuilding Cleveland for the future would be immensely easier.

 

Are there any models out there that would work? Mainly for the highschools?

 

Edit: :-D High Schools that would attract people back into the city reversing the declining population trend. :-D

 

 

^^I want to answer your question...but is this getting too off topic?

 

EDIT: maybe we should start a thread "Improving Cleveland Public Schools"?

Until parents in a lot of these inner-city neighborhoods buy into education, we are not going to see any improvement. So many parents in these neighborhoods don't believe in education. They don't understand the importance of attaining a college education. I wish we could send some of these parents to school.

^^I want to answer your question...but is this getting too off topic?

 

EDIT: maybe we should start a thread "Improving Cleveland Public Schools"?

 

That's a good idea, and yes, we are getting off topic.

If schools weren't an issue, rebuilding Cleveland for the future would be immensely easier.

 

Are there any models out there that would work? Mainly for the highschools?

 

 

 

Some southern states, NC comes to mind, use County school systems.  However, the Orange Villages and Beachwoods of this area would never agree to that.  The way I see it, the public schools in Cleveland are long gone.  And I don't blame the government or Bd of Ed either, its all on the parents IMO who fail to teach their kids to respect authority.  I would like to see more efforts like John Hay and Ginn Academy where proven, dedicated students are afforded the opportunity to excel.  We also need more places like what we used to have in Clevelaned Hts (Taylor Academy) where the kids who insist on being distractions can be separated from those who genuinely want to learn.

 

Since I don't see much hope in the schools, the focus for right now should be on attracting three types of residents - younger people who don't yet have or want kids, empty nesters, and upper class professionals who can afford and probably would anyways send their kids to places like US, Laurel, HB, Gilmour and Hawken.  To do so, Cleveland needs to keep focus on and development in its emerging pocket neighborhoods of downtown, UC, Ohio City and Tremont.

Until parents in a lot of these inner-city neighborhoods buy into education, we are not going to see any improvement. So many parents in these neighborhoods don't believe in education. They don't understand the importance of attaining a college education. I wish we could send some of these parents to school.

 

[trying to get back on topic]

 

Maybe, but it's not like we've had a population influx of people who don't believe in education.  The problem is homegrown.  We have a current population which, at this point, thinks education is a scam.  Why might that be?  I've never gotten my money's worth from my degree, not even close.  Point is, I wouldn't go too far blaming the victims. 

 

If we're sitting here going "well, those people, they're never gonna learn" and those people are sitting there going "don't snitch" or something like that because they've completely rejected all forms of establishment, it's not surprising that others aren't lining up to live here.  We could use some internal harmony.  It's good for marketing and it's good for property values.

^^I want to answer your question...but is this getting too off topic?

 

EDIT: maybe we should start a thread "Improving Cleveland Public Schools"?

 

That's a good idea, and yes, we are getting off topic.

 

 

 

 

We obviously have a "Cleveland Public School" thread, however, I feel this is an issue that warrents its own thread directly.  MODS, I'll create it if I get the go ahead.

 

 

^^I want to answer your question...but is this getting too off topic?

 

EDIT: maybe we should start a thread "Improving Cleveland Public Schools"?

 

That's a good idea, and yes, we are getting off topic.

 

I respectfully disagree because the two subjects are so interconnected in Cleveland's case. 

The problem is not homegrown. It exist in every inner-city neighborhood in this country. I'm talking about a value that is missing from a certain part of the population. In my opinion, education is family value that is passed down. This exact topic has been an issue in my family for years.

The problem is not homegrown. It exist in every inner-city neighborhood in this country. I'm talking about a value that is missing from a certain part of the population. In my opinion, education is family value that is passed down. This exact topic has been an issue in my family for years.

 

Well, homegrown in each individual city's case.  Also homegrown on a regional and national level, but we're talking about Cleveland.  The city still bears scars from segregation and racism, and still spawns ugly attitudes which come up in modern discussions (with the mayor) about immigration.  My mom teaches in an inner city school, so I hear about this freqently too. 

 

I think the missing value you speak of has been beaten out of certain people, who for generations discovered first hand that you could have a doctorate from Yale and you'd still be a... so anyway, when Cleveland is still as segregated as it is, by both race and class and with a high correlation between the two, it's hard to sell the idea that if you just go to school, this time it will work.  It barely works for any one right now, no matter what they look like.

"Beaten out of people." C'mon, that's a cop-out. I'm a 28 year old African-American male, so I know firsthand what you're about. However, that's not the reason people have given up. That's an excuse that has been used too much. We moved from a 120th and Buckeye to University Hts. when I was six. My parents did everything they could to ensure I got a good education. That's the only thing that separates me from the majority of inner-city Clevelanders. My Dad is a steelworker and my Mom is a nurse. However, they understood that education is the great equalizer. Yeah, it doesn't ensure you will make it in life, but it's better than the alternative. My parents caught hell from family members for sending me to private school. My wife had the same experience growing up in Pittsburgh. She had to leave her predominately black high school. The black girls teased her for making the honor roll. She got picked on everyday for acting white. This stuff is more complicated than you think.

Something about the exception proving the rule.  And without going into detail, I may be blacker than you think.  A lot of the people I'm talking about can't move to the burbs, can't afford tuition, none of that.  What separates you from them is that your parents had good jobs and money?  Whose point are you trying to make?

 

Advanced education isn't necessarily a good buy right now for anyone regardless of race.  But to deny that past segregation is the defining factor in Clevleand's current socio-economic layout is to pretty much keep the east side looking like this forever.  Change needs to happen.  Step one is admitting there was and is a problem.  Resentment is building once again due to the recession.  Get some teachers in these schools, with outside money, before telling impoverished taxpayers the problem is all in their heads. 

Something about the exception proving the rule. And without going into detail, I may be blacker than you think. A lot of the people I'm talking about can't move to the burbs, can't afford tuition, none of that. What separates you from them is that your parents had good jobs and money? Whose point are you trying to make?

 

 

I'm with sir2gees on this. The point isn't "good jobs or money".  Whether you have a decent job or any money at all does not preclude you from being a member of a civil society.  This is about how you conduct yourself as a member of society.  Whether your education is taking you to the places you want to go or if you still encounter ingnorant people in life should not be relevant to whether or not you are a functioning member of a civil society.

1. It is very important to remember that these are population estimates and that, historically, both the estimates and the general census tend to undercount residents, particularly individuals of limited means, the incarcerated and students, and the estimates are more likely to undercount than is the full census. One of the reasons that Cincy is showing a positive gain in population from 2000 to 2008 is that it has successfully challenged the initial estimates. That being said, the numbers do suggest a troubling amount of out-migration from the city.

 

2. This article failed to note that out-migration from the city slowed considerably between 2007 and 2008, as did migration into the exurbs. This is very likely due to the recession and the housing crunch but is still notable, particularly if we're going to go all "sky is falling" with our coverage.

 

3. To me, the population updates are only minimally news. We all know that Cleveland is losing population and has been for 60 years. The rate of decline has accelerated from the late 1990s, and while it is discouraging, it's nothing new. We shrank an estimated 9.2% in an 8-year span. Compare that to an 11.9% drop during the 1990s ... only two more years than the period currently under discussion ... pretty comparable decline during a period when the city was being labeled the "Comeback City". Then compare THAT to the 14.2% decline of the 1970s and the unbelievable 23.6% freefall during the 1980s. Decline has more or less stabilized to 1990 levels and is dramatically better than it was 25 years ago.

 

4. But here's the true story that the PD has missed (again, keeping in mind that this is all based on ESTIMATES) ... For the first time in decades, Cleveland is shrinking slower than the first-ring suburbs, and the county's rate of population decline is getting closer and closer to Cleveland's (buoyed only by second- and third-ring development). This is big news ... for the first time in a looooong time, Cleveland's population outlook is starting to look better than the suburbs that surround it. Consider this:

 

- Between 2000 and 2008, Cleveland's population declined by an estimated 9.2%. During the same time period, Cuyahoga County lost 7.9% ... not a huge difference. This is even more evident when you compare 1999-2000 with 2007-2008. Between '99 and '00, Cuyahoga County lost 0.87% of its population, while Cleveland lost 1.16%. Between '07 and '08, Cuyahoga County's loss was still 0.87%, but Cleveland's had shrunk to a rate of 0.97% per year.

 

- Even more telling is what is happening when you compare Cleveland with its inner ring suburbs. Between 2000 and 2008, it is estimated that every suburb that directly borders Cleveland lost population. The vast majority lost a larger percentage than the city proper ... Linndale had a pretty whopping 23.9% drop, Cuyahoga Heights 11.0%, Newburgh Heights 10.8%, Lakewood 10.5%, Fairview Park 10.3%, Brooklyn 10.2%, Euclid 10.1%, Shaker Heights 10.0%, South Euclid 9.9%, Garfield Heights 9.8%, Cleveland Heights 9.7% and Maple Heights and Brook Park, each 9.5%. That leaves only two inner-ring suburbs that fared better than Cleveland ... Parma (which was close at 9.0%), and Bratenahl, with its relatively low 5.5% decline.

 

 

Obviously, none of this is exactly good news, but it is clear that this is no longer a problem of the "scary inner city" ... the city's robust community development efforts seem to be paying off and slowing out-migration, while the inner ring is falling victim faster than the city proper to the lure of the exurbs. Now THAT's news. Where are you PD? 

What separates me from them was my parents cared about my future and put their own personal desires on the backburner. My parents busted their butts to make sure my brother and I got an education. Don't fall for that "can't move to the burbs, can't afford tuition, none of that..." crap. I'm talking about personal responsibility. The parents in a lot of these neighborhoods are nonexistent. I thought the idea was to make sure your kids did better than you? Why are these kids running the streets and dropping out of school before 16? I'm not trying to be harsh. I just think we are expecting too much out of school districts.

Something about the exception proving the rule.  And without going into detail, I may be blacker than you think.  A lot of the people I'm talking about can't move to the burbs, can't afford tuition, none of that.  What separates you from them is that your parents had good jobs and money?  Whose point are you trying to make?

 

 

I'm with sir2gees on this. The point isn't "good jobs or money".  Whether you have a decent job or any money at all does not preclude you from being a member of a civil society.  This is about how you conduct yourself as a member of society.  Whether your education is taking you to the places you want to go or if you still encounter ingnorant people in life should not be relevant to whether or not you are a functioning member of a civil society.

 

On my end, and others', it sounds like people should enjoy poverty and inequality.  Neighborhood choice, access to employers, safety, school quality, the whole nine yards... if you have it, good for you.  Smile as you pass.  If you have none of these things, good for you.  Smile as you pass. 

 

History indicates that the kind of inequality Cleveland continues to experience, coupled with an insistence by the "have's" that the situation is natural and positive, and that any complaints from the "have nots" should be focused back on themselves... well, these things lead to monuments in Hough and staggering exoduses that we can muse about for days.  That's my belief; I realize it's a belief and not scientific fact. 

8ShadesofGray- That is a great synopsis of the estimated numbers.  Of course, trashing suburbs like Shaker, South Euclid, Lakewood, and Cleveland Heights isn't as sexy as trashing the city on a consistent basis.

From Ideastream: http://www.wcpn.org/WCPN/news/26868/

I must agree that parental guidance is a major part of the problem that the city faces.  The lack of parental guidance, or specifically, positive role models is in part what perpetuates (in my opinion) the culture of poverty.  This same culture of poverty is a major deterrent to individuals and families who would like to relocate back to the city. 

 

On my end, and others', it sounds like people should enjoy poverty and inequality.  Neighborhood choice, access to employers, safety, school quality, the whole nine yards... if you have it, good for you.  Smile as you pass.  If you have none of these things, good for you.  Smile as you pass. 

 

History indicates that the kind of inequality Cleveland continues to experience, coupled with an insistence by the "have's" that the situation is natural and positive, and that any complaints from the "have nots" should be focused back on themselves... well, these things lead to monuments in Hough and staggering exoduses that we can muse about for days.  That's my belief; I realize it's a belief and not scientific fact. 

 

I am not saying you should enjoy poverty and inequality.  You should however, enjoy life regardless of your background or material possessions.  So at some point, yes, if you don't like your lot in life you need to take accountability for it.  The safety in schools and opportunity to receive a good education is entirely left up to the people within that community, IMO.  So if something is going on within your neighborhood or school system that isn't right, that is no one else's fault but the people causing the problems.

 

Consider these comments from Jim Brown on a recent article about some comments he made about Tiger Woods:

 

(http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=4301802)

 

"We are the least-respected culture of any in this country," Brown said of African-Americans. "One of the reasons is that we allow ourselves to feed on each other. Black kids kill black kids. We allow neighborhoods to run down. Black fathers are not at home. Education suffers. There's a dilemma, and if we don't do something about the violence, if we don't get some self-esteem, then we're going to have a war zone in every community in this country.

 

That's the type of personal accountability I think the inner city community needs to have, and more importantly it's the type of accountability Jim Brown - a well regarded activist for the inner city - thinks it needs to have.  I have a  hard time believing that if a community of people, regardless of race or religion, share common values and morals that constitute a civil society that they would be at all unhappy regardless of how big their house is or how nice of a car they drive.  And I am more than willing to bet once the community starts showing those values to the rest of society, the personal wealth would come.

 

But, like you said, that is just my belief.

 

 

Rando, thanks for linking my article.

 

C-Dawg, I agree on the sprawl issue.  It's a challenge.  How do you justify tearing out infrastructure in one part of town then spending money to build new infrastructure in some corn field in a region that is net not growing.  This is a problem to solve.  Perhaps some restrictions on using federal funding that new new infrastructure funding to regional population growth would be something to explore.  Otherwise we are just building Disposable Cities.

 

To me it is also simply a practical problem central cities have to deal with.  Even growing regions like C-Bus have large amounts of hurting, depopulated territory in their core.  The growth rates are simply not high enough to revitalize all that territory.  Hence you have to make some sort of choice.  Electing to admire the problem is itself a choice.

 

 

 

On my end, and others', it sounds like people should enjoy poverty and inequality.  Neighborhood choice, access to employers, safety, school quality, the whole nine yards... if you have it, good for you.  Smile as you pass.  If you have none of these things, good for you.  Smile as you pass. 

 

History indicates that the kind of inequality Cleveland continues to experience, coupled with an insistence by the "have's" that the situation is natural and positive, and that any complaints from the "have nots" should be focused back on themselves... well, these things lead to monuments in Hough and staggering exoduses that we can muse about for days.  That's my belief; I realize it's a belief and not scientific fact. 

 

I am not saying you should enjoy poverty and inequality.  You should however, enjoy life regardless of your background or material possessions.  So at some point, yes, if you don't like your lot in life you need to take accountability for it.  The safety in schools and opportunity to receive a good education is entirely left up to the people within that community, IMO.  So if something is going on within your neighborhood or school system that isn't right, that is no one else's fault but the people causing the problems.

 

Consider these comments from Jim Brown on a recent article about some comments he made about Tiger Woods:

 

(http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=4301802)

 

"We are the least-respected culture of any in this country," Brown said of African-Americans. "One of the reasons is that we allow ourselves to feed on each other. Black kids kill black kids. We allow neighborhoods to run down. Black fathers are not at home. Education suffers. There's a dilemma, and if we don't do something about the violence, if we don't get some self-esteem, then we're going to have a war zone in every community in this country.

 

That's the type of personal accountability I think the inner city community needs to have, and more importantly it's the type of accountability Jim Brown - a well regarded activist for the inner city - thinks it needs to have.  I have a  hard time believing that if a community of people, regardless of race or religion, share common values and morals that constitute a civil society that they would be at all unhappy regardless of how big their house is or how nice of a car they drive.  And I am more than willing to bet once the community starts showing those values to the rest of society, the personal wealth would come.

 

But, like you said, that is just my belief.

 

 

 

There is no silver bullet, but a renewed focus on parental responsibility is the best bet.  Just look at Shaker Heights and their schools.  The black students perform at a much lower level than the white students.  These kids have been going to the same school, have lived in a city that provides tons of services (trash used to get picked up in the backs of houses?), yet they still have been performing miserably when compared to their fellow white students.  What is the difference? 

 

Parenting, plain and simple.  There was a study on it about 10 years ago and the research concluded that the biggest difference was parental responsibility.  Where the average white kid had his parents helping him on his homework and making sure education was a priority, the average black kid had a much lower level of parental involvement.  Guess what happened next?  This research was called a "racist" and not a "real" African-American (he was actually from Africa).

 

 

Why are these kids running the streets and dropping out of school before 16? I'm not trying to be harsh. I just think we are expecting too much out of school districts.

 

I have spent a good deal of time on this subject and I am sure you all know it is a complex one.  It is hard to value education when you have boarded and abandoned houses and businesses on every street.  They know they are in the hood.  It is a very survivalist mentality.  Kind of the "better enjoy today because you won't have it tomorrow" way of thinking.  There is no highly educated people to set an example, the schools are looked as the enemy now because of how the rules are enforced and insane way of thinking that education in these neighborhoods should be the same as the suburbs.  Why would you look to education?  It is a long process and takes many, many years to pay off and so and so is selling and has a BMW, which should I do?  People have to survive today and in most cases that is what it comes down to.  The best way I have ever seen this explained was by South Park in the "Wheel of Fortune" episode that deals with the "n" word and racism.  The point of the episode is you cannot get it as outsider.  You can understand it, but you cannot get it.  It's just a different game in a lot of these poorer neighborhoods.  Along the same lines a lot (and I mean most) of the kids running these neighborhoods are good kids, there is just no long term thinking without education.  That is why "respect" is so important, you have to protect the things you do have. 

 

My very condensed answer is to change the way education is done in Cleveland (for example).  All schools should be on a full year schedule.  If they are behind they have to work to catch up.  Give them 2 weeks off in between quarters, whatever.  Have more of a focus on employable skills (being a nurse, working in a bank...) instead of photosynthesis.    Start early too.  Tons of small Head Start type of programs from 2 and up for free that are mandatory that have an educational focus.  If it is free and easy to get to, people will use it.  I also think you have to give kids an option, so at 16 kids get a choice, you can either continue your education and finish high school or 2 years service in a "public works" project (digging ditches, cleaning roads...).  At least the kids are gaining skills either way.  If they do neither, they cannot qualify for public assistance in the future.   

I must agree that parental guidance is a major part of the problem that the city faces. The lack of parental guidance, or specifically, positive role models is in part what perpetuates (in my opinion) the culture of poverty. This same culture of poverty is a major deterrent to individuals and families who would like to relocate back to the city.

 

I totally agree. Poverty is a major problem in Cleveland, and I think that a lot has to do with the fact that people were able to get by on lots of industrial jobs that didn't necessarily require a college degree .. maybe not even a high school diploma. Now that those jobs are gone, it leaves a hole in the economy, yes .. but it also leaves those uneducated people uneducated, and I think that cycle has been perpetuated for some time now. And a lot of those people turn to crime because "the world is against them", or they have to make ends meet and they "don't know any other way". It's a cycle that's been there for a loooong time, at least the foundations for it have been; it just hasn't been as apparent as it is now because Cleveland was relatively prosperous because of the amount of manufacturing that took place there.

 

Clevelanders are hard workers, for sure. What a lot of them aren't, though, are educated (and I'm talking about the city itself, not the suburbs, necessarily .. though I'm sure this extends to the suburbs to some extent, too) in terms of a higher education, I mean. A higher education doesn't guarantee a job. But jobs won't locate to a city where there isn't an adequate, qualified work force (among other reasons, of course). So it's all a very complicated problem. Much more complicated than a lot of people realize.

 

So how do those issues get resolved? What are things that cities can do to attract those much needed qualities to strengthen the economy overall?

 

I personally think that a good place to start would be investing in education as much as possible and making it more accessible and affordable somehow. Then market the city to companies looking to relocate, showing off the city's assets, but also showing that the populace is educated and ready to do the work.

 

I'm not saying this is the complete solution at all. But I think it's a vital step towards progress, among others, and I think it's a vital step in changing the mentality and image of the city overall. Sure, Cleveland needs to bring people in from out of the area, but it needs to invest in those already living there, too.

Like I said before we need lots (e.g. 10,000) low skill light manufacturing  jobs for these people but our Mayor doesn't get it.  He is going after high Tech  jobs from France for a handful of Chemical Engineers.

Another small, but significant piece of the puzzle will be to encourage more African Americans to become teachers. I work in teacher education, and can count on one hand the number of African Americans in my classes, and have had exactly one Black man in my classes. I surveyed Black students working as tutors at my university, and nearly all avoided becoming teachers because of the low pay and dislike of working with "bad kids" for the rest of their lives. Can't blame them for that. A Washington Post article today points out some challenges and possibilities to encourage more African Americans to enter the profession...

 

Number of Black Male Teachers Belies Their Influence

By Avis Thomas-Lester

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, July 4, 2009

 

Tynita Johnson had attended predominantly black schools in Prince George's County for 10 years when she walked into Will Thomas's AP government class last August and found something she had never seen.

 

"I was kind of shocked," said Tynita, 15, of Upper Marlboro. "I have never had a black male teacher before, except for P.E."

 

Tynita's experience is remarkably common. Only 2 percent of the nation's 4.8 million teachers are black men, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. In fact, Thomas, a social studies teacher at Dr. Henry A. Wise Jr. High School, never had a black teacher himself...

 

 

Continued http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/03/AR2009070302498_pf.html

"Educators said black male teachers expose students to black men as authority figures, help minority students feel that they belong, motivate black students to achieve, demonstrate positive male-female relationships to black girls and provide African American youths with role models and mentors."

 

Or.....  Their fathers could just stick around and be the positive influence they should be. 

 

"Educators said black male teachers ... help minority students feel that they belong, motivate black students to achieve, demonstrate positive male-female relationships to black girls and provide African American youths with role models and mentors."

 

Interesting it is the responsibility of black male teachers to do this.  Furthermore, "help minority students feel that they belong?"  Inner-city schools are overwhelmingly black, so I do not understand this.  If they are talking about the one or two blacks in Beachwood, I guess I would understand (however I guarantee they have their fathers). 

This is a good discussion, but is there a more appropriate place for it? It seems to be getting a little tangential to population trends. Sorry, not trying to be an ass ... it actually is some good stuff but might get some more traffic in the Cleveland Public Schools thread or something.

 

Anyone have any thoughts about the fact that the inner ring is now shrinking faster than the city (see previous page for numbers)? This seems like a pretty monumental demographic shift, and I can think of all kinds of implications, some of them good, some of them bad.

If education were whole answer, why would Beachwood be losing population?

Referring to the 'culture of poverty' and its deterrent to people living in the core or how it relates to schools. I understand about cause and effect factors and trickle down situations that breed other bad situations, but at some point we need to stop blaming unsavory behavior, living/educational conditions on the fact someone or someplace is poor. Maybe we need to tweak our philosophies on this a bit and not always assume poverty has to equal  :shoot:

 

I know this is different, but maybe we can learn from it..... When I was in Italy, some of the poorest neighborhoods were among the most charming, ate the best healthy for the body and mind foods, had the nicest people and were quiet places that actually felt safe, etc. When you have nothing, you have one thing left. Pride. Pride is free, and so apparently people in such a place want to at least take care of what little they have, and not fall 'victim of oppression.'  They value what they have. And not everyone who has been poor in this country or others, resort to the kinds of inappropriate behavior, activity, crimes, etc..etc..that is often blamed on poverty itself.

 

Somehow by saying this, I will likely be accused of being a racist if I even go in this direction, because someone is always ready to prejudge and deal that card, instead of taking the time to find any merit in what I am expressing. The more society can hide behind the crutch of an excuse, the more the standards lower...and the more the standards lower..the less accountability we place on people from all walks of life.

 

Sadly, those actions of so called poverty and despair, are what scare a lot of people away from living in any given place.  It does not mean crimes, etc do not exist in places we don't associate it to be. Those kinds of places are just better at hiding it so such scenarios are less visually dramatic when no one is looking, or media does not cover the fact that there are problems like that in affluent areas. It is always easier to blame everything on where most associate these problems as being obvious. That alone, is why such poorer places need to resist fulfilling these books.

 

Whether the fears people have of the inner city/schools/crime, etc are well founded or not, is not the point. The point is, is that it is the bad image they project of any given neighborhood...or school system. There is no nobility in crime and poverty, yet we so often have a media industry that is very influential...and glamorizes anti-social and bad behavior more than ever before to a whole new level......and sadly, this is too often the role model many parentless homes have...or homes where you have kids raising kids..and kids having kids. It is a horrible cycle.

 

It is time to become educated on what influences result in negative unsocially redeeming value, or behavior in children who will have this as their role model--and then steer youth away from it and to alternative values and activity that will be more fruitful in society, and self rewarding. Leaders of neighborhoods and communities need to take the responsibility to start doing this. It does not take a loads of cash to share fruitful values that can result in someone being the best they can be in society. If the youth is the cornerstone of the future--the foundation, then we cannot rest a future on what is a self destructive crumbling foundation.

 

To make/plant seeds of change, sometimes it really is that simple. Better neighbors, good behavior, can do a world of wonder in helping to stop people from moving any given area only to take the neighborhood vitality with them. Personally, I have had bad neighbors  in what looked to be the nicest places..and nicest in the worst perceived places.

 

That is just how I see it from my life experiences. I do know one thing for certain. Ohio cannot have its metro areas continue to be sprawling into oblivion leaving a wake of decline before every new ring. It is not sustainable, economically, environmentally, or socially. At the end of the day, it will have to come down to people facing inconvenient truths...in that we will have to start building our economy around needs rather than wants...and debunk the chamber driven myth that doing so would mean we compromise our quality of life. We might discover a whole new sense of self worth and fulfillment in the process. See the website The Center For A New American Dream which challenges the mentality that 'more is better.'

I completely agree... though it is easier said than done.

I haven't seen this posted elsewhere, and I'm not sure if this is the best place to post it:

 

Talent Migration has Elevated Cleveland's Younger Work Force to One of Nation's most Educated

 

Demographer Joel Kotkin isn’t normally kind to Cleveland in his pieces for Forbes.com, but this one is a major exception.

 

“In virtually every regional economic or demographic analysis that I conduct for Forbes, Rust Belt metro areas tend to do very poorly,” Kotkin writes. “But there’s a way that they could improve, based in large part on the soaring cost of living in the elite regions of California and the Northeast. And one of the rustiest of them appears to be capitalizing on the opportunity already: that perpetual media punching bag, Cleveland.”

 

...

 

See http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20140605/BLOGS03/140609873/talent-migration-has-elevated-clevelands-younger-work-force-to-one

 

 

Also, here's the originating article from Forbes:  Shaking Off The Rust: Cleveland Workforce Gets Younger And Smarter

 

See http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2014/06/05/shaking-off-the-rust-cleveland-workforce-gets-younger-and-smarter/

We lost 14 people!

 

According to US Census estimates, the population of the Cleveland MSA (which does not include Akron) went from 2,064,739 (2012) to 2,064,725 (2013)—a loss of 14 people! Providing that the 2010-2013 loss is less than the 2014-2020 gain, we should show GROWTH in the 2020 Census—the first time in, what, two generations?

 

The CSA population went from 3,501,748 (2012) to 3,501,538 (2013) – a loss of a mere 210 people.

^Good news. The net losses have been getting smaller each year for the past decade. So a turn should be near.

 

BTW, the Cleveland-Akron area last grew in the 90s decade. It grew by 3%.