Cleveland isn't the only city where it's difficult to do business:

 

http://www.indystar.com/article/20100322/LOCAL18/3220335/Zoning-holds-up-Eastside-business-expansion

 

I understand automation and technology have led to the decline of manufacturing. I have no problem with that. I agree with natininja that the decline in the "robust" workforces is a little disconcerting. That was my only point. Why shouldn't we care about the decline in manufacturing jobs? It's an important industry that provides millions of jobs. These jobs helped create the midldle class. Also, I'm not suggesting we use protectionist tactics to keep these job.

Gee. Looks like a lot of sour grapes at the Cleveland Scene. A lot of ad-homiem attacks with no validity or credibility to support their statements. If they truly were a credible publication, they would offer counterpoints to Drew Carey (or points to agree with), not jabbing at his weight, his success as a television host and star, or his brand. He is very much a public figure, and in reality, that is who people will listen to given the chance. They carry a lot of weight (no pun intended) to make a difference, even when they are thousands of miles away.

 

It's Scene. Juvenile humor, ad-hominem attacks, and poorly researched "facts" are their stock in trade. Leave it to our alternative weekly to make the Plain Dealer look good.

 

Actually, I think they make the PD look bad here.  Very bad. 

 

Only a fool would think trickle-down economics is the solution to Cleveland's problems.  Scene takes this stand, while the PD basically prints a free ad for Carey and Reason Magazine, because "they're trying to help." 

I read the Clevescene article. They criticize the Reason series but offer no better plan of their own.

 

They're a tabloid, that's what they do.  They're saying, "My God, people, take this with a grain of salt.  This a publicity-hungry actor teaming up with an ideologically rigid outfit, neither of which is really in touch at all with Cleveland anymore, telling us how to run our city."

 

Do you ignore Roger Ebert because he doesn't make his own movies, too?

For those that know my general viewpoints, you know that I am not a big fan of trickle down economics on the national level.  However, I see the argument for Cleveland and its possible utility in local governance.

I understand automation and technology have led to the decline of manufacturing.

 

As I have already posted, this understanding is incorrect.  Automation and technology have led to an increase in manufacturing, just with fewer workers.

 

I have no problem with that. I agree with natininja that the decline in the "robust" workforces is a little disconcerting. That was my only point. Why shouldn't we care about the decline in manufacturing jobs? It's an important industry that provides millions of jobs? These jobs helped create the midldle class. Also, I'm not suggesting we use protectionist tactics to keep these job.

 

We should not care about the decline in manufacturing sector input for the same reason that we should not care about the fact that, 100 years ago, there was a great decline in agricultural sector input as well.  Such evolutionary changes to the nation's economy are neither unnatural nor undesirable.  The economy has continued to grow, with the exception of the last year or so, notwithstanding the loss of those jobs, because new jobs have been created.  Yes, there are low-wage jobs in the service sector that have become the homes of some manufacturing employees who were not capable of adapting to the demands of the global economy.  However, taken as a whole, the American workforce *has* been able to adapt to those changes (and, indeed, to further them), and the country is substantially better off for it.  Looking at what has been declining without paying any attention to what has been rising gives a very narrow and incomplete picture of the broad-based evolution of the American economy.

Gee. Looks like a lot of sour grapes at the Cleveland Scene. A lot of ad-homiem attacks with no validity or credibility to support their statements. If they truly were a credible publication, they would offer counterpoints to Drew Carey (or points to agree with), not jabbing at his weight, his success as a television host and star, or his brand. He is very much a public figure, and in reality, that is who people will listen to given the chance. They carry a lot of weight (no pun intended) to make a difference, even when they are thousands of miles away.

 

It's Scene. Juvenile humor, ad-hominem attacks, and poorly researched "facts" are their stock in trade. Leave it to our alternative weekly to make the Plain Dealer look good.

 

Only a fool would think trickle-down economics is the solution to Cleveland's problems.

 

That's a tad harsh. There are many great economists out there who believe this and supply-side economics is one of the biggest boons for the states that are the most open and "free."

 

The credible Pacific Research Institute did a great report, publishing the US Economic Freedom Index. For 2005, the top 15 economically free states had their per capita income grow 31% faster than the bottom 15. And in those states, employment growth was 216% higher.

 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110008350 (Wall Street Journal)

http://www.pacificresearch.org/

I read the Clevescene article. They criticize the Reason series but offer no better plan of their own.

 

They're a tabloid, that's what they do. They're saying, "My God, people, take this with a grain of salt. This a publicity-hungry actor teaming up with an ideologically rigid outfit, neither of which is really in touch at all with Cleveland anymore, telling us how to run our city."

 

Do you ignore Roger Ebert because he doesn't make his own movies, too?

 

I would ignore Ebert if on the front page lead in to his review he used the tagline "Hey Spielberg, Screw You", and the title of his review was "The -ss is wrong".  Then yes, I would say to myself, "Ebert has lost his professionalism, and I will no longer find his views on film credible."

I don't know if anyone watched the last episode in the series, "Bring Back the People". Whether you agree with the pieces at the beginning and end or not, I thought it was the most effective presentation of the case for living in Cleveland that I have ever seen. A great collection of people and amenities in a real package that doesn't seem overly salesy.

 

The last two episodes were the first videos I watched. I do agree that there was a nice collection of people to represent Cleveland and express their love for this city. There are so man amazing and interesting people that live in Cleveland and the videos helped to show that. Now if only other people would realize that too, that Cleveland really is a wonderful place!

 

totally agree. i just hope this series doesnt get lost in a bunch of "this is liberatarian propagada" backlash where nobody sees it because there is good stuff here.

 

 

I've watched some of the videos and I have to say that I'm not completely impressed with their coherence.  By coherence, I mean the way that each part sets up the next, leads into it, and supports it.  For example, one shows a lot of people who obviously like Cleveland and being Cleveland residents, then segues to poor economic statistics, then automatically transitions to city hall.

 

Even as an economic conservative, I recognize this as poor argumentation, because it assumes away the very point that the skeptics base their skepticism around, which is to say the link between heavyhanded government and poor economic performance.  The video instead basically assumes the link and then goes into a plea for Cleveland to be "more business-friendly."  Even as someone who's heavily predisposed to support such a call, I have a problem with the lack of specificity with respect to which actual problems caused by the government Reason believes are the worst offenders, and how they could be rectified.

We should not care about the decline in manufacturing sector input for the same reason that we should not care about the fact that, 100 years ago, there was a great decline in agricultural sector input as well. Such evolutionary changes to the nation's economy are neither unnatural nor undesirable. The economy has continued to grow, with the exception of the last year or so, notwithstanding the loss of those jobs, because new jobs have been created. Yes, there are low-wage jobs in the service sector that have become the homes of some manufacturing employees who were not capable of adapting to the demands of the global economy. However, taken as a whole, the American workforce *has* been able to adapt to those changes (and, indeed, to further them), and the country is substantially better off for it. Looking at what has been declining without paying any attention to what has been rising gives a very narrow and incomplete picture of the broad-based evolution of the American economy.

 

I don't disagree with you necessarily, but you sort of gloss over the distributional/geographical implications of economic evolution.  Clearly this evolution has benefited some regions while others have declined.  So it's not clear why, if I shouldn't care that economic dislocation is harming my region, that I should care that the country overall is "substantially better off for it".  In my mind, this points to the practical political limits of Liberal (or libertarian) economics as national policy.  Should I have any parochial interests at all?  Should I not care about future US economic decline if I see it lifting more Chinese workers out of poverty?  I think those are respectable positions but hard to sell politically.

We should not care about the decline in manufacturing sector input for the same reason that we should not care about the fact that, 100 years ago, there was a great decline in agricultural sector input as well. Such evolutionary changes to the nation's economy are neither unnatural nor undesirable. The economy has continued to grow, with the exception of the last year or so, notwithstanding the loss of those jobs, because new jobs have been created. Yes, there are low-wage jobs in the service sector that have become the homes of some manufacturing employees who were not capable of adapting to the demands of the global economy. However, taken as a whole, the American workforce *has* been able to adapt to those changes (and, indeed, to further them), and the country is substantially better off for it. Looking at what has been declining without paying any attention to what has been rising gives a very narrow and incomplete picture of the broad-based evolution of the American economy.

 

I don't disagree with you necessarily, but you sort of gloss over the distributional/geographical implications of economic evolution. Clearly this evolution has benefited some regions while others have declined. So it's not clear why, if I shouldn't care that economic dislocation is harming my region, that I should care that the country overall is "substantially better off for it". In my mind, this points to the practical political limits of Liberal (or libertarian) economics as national policy. Should I have any parochial interests at all? Should I not care about future US economic decline if I see it lifting more Chinese workers out of poverty? I think those are respectable positions but hard to sell politically.

Is it even respectable, when you see that China is so indifferent towards workers' rights, pollution, etc. They also artificially devalue their currency to make their products cheap for export... They don't play fairly.

We should not care about the decline in manufacturing sector input for the same reason that we should not care about the fact that, 100 years ago, there was a great decline in agricultural sector input as well.  Such evolutionary changes to the nation's economy are neither unnatural nor undesirable.  The economy has continued to grow, with the exception of the last year or so, notwithstanding the loss of those jobs, because new jobs have been created.  Yes, there are low-wage jobs in the service sector that have become the homes of some manufacturing employees who were not capable of adapting to the demands of the global economy.  However, taken as a whole, the American workforce *has* been able to adapt to those changes (and, indeed, to further them), and the country is substantially better off for it.  Looking at what has been declining without paying any attention to what has been rising gives a very narrow and incomplete picture of the broad-based evolution of the American economy.

 

I don't disagree with you necessarily, but you sort of gloss over the distributional/geographical implications of economic evolution.  Clearly this evolution has benefited some regions while others have declined.  So it's not clear why, if I shouldn't care that economic dislocation is harming my region, that I should care that the country overall is "substantially better off for it".  In my mind, this points to the practical political limits of Liberal (or libertarian) economics as national policy.  Should I have any parochial interests at all?  Should I not care about future US economic decline if I see it lifting more Chinese workers out of poverty?  I think those are respectable positions but hard to sell politically.

 

Well, I do tend to take the completely unparochial view, which I suppose makes me one of the much-hated "globalist elite."  If someone from Vietnam makes a good product, I have no problem buying a product from Vietnam.  The fact that it's not made in America doesn't matter to me any more than the fact that we fought a war with Vietnam within human memory.

 

However, if you do support some level of economic parochialism, you have to answer the obvious follow up question of the appropriate level to draw the lines for the "in group" and "out group."  You've thrown up the concept of the "region."  What's the region?  Is it the entire Midwest, or is it Northeast Ohio?  Am I buying "local" when I buy Kinkead Ridge wine (from southern Ohio) but not products made in Pittsburgh, which is geographically closer to me in Akron but across a state line?  What about Alabama vs. Canada?  Canada is closer to here than Alabama--or at least, some parts of Canada are.  What about buying poultry from a humane producer in Virginia vs. a CAFO in Ashland County?

 

And for that matter, why the region (however defined) as the unit in question?  Why not the entire country?  Why not just your city?  At some point, things do clearly get too small to be practical (why not your block?), but I don't think that the existence of a lower bound implies the existence of an upper bound.

 

In other words, I, too, have parochial economic interests--I just define my region as "Planet Earth."

 

(I do make allowances for sectors critical to national defense, though.  Some interests are not entirely economic.)

^I agree with you on most or all points, but I'd also like to point out that in your earlier post you offered the economic betterment of one region (US as a whole) as a justification for lack of policy intervention designed to protect jobs in another (former manufacturing regions). :)  Perhaps just for argument's sake though.

 

^^natinja, I understand your point, though "fairness" suggests there are real norms out there for trade policy other than each country trying to gain advantage for its own citizens.  I don't know nearly enough to comment.  Plus it's really getting off topic.

 

I haven't even watched the videos, but to echo others, it's the lack of specific policy proposals that make these pleas to be more "business friendly" that makes them sound pretty empty.  The "relax zoning" argument is pretty weak, IMHO for reasons discussed above (Houston DOES have plenty of land use regulation).  These studies purporting to link "economic liberty" or whatever to economic performance don't strike me as particularly convincing either because of all the variables not factored into their story.

 

What would be more convincing would be more geographical variety.  If there were a rust belt city that was doing convincingly better than the others and that had chartered a clearly different policy path, then maybe the city anecdotes would mean something.

I was one of the ones noting the lack of specificity.  A wider geographical variety might be persuasive, but what I was really looking for was a comparison of statistics that make one "business-friendly" or not.  For example:

 

- Zoning variances requested as a percentage of new construction starts.  If you have to go to the zoning board for basically everything, that's not a good sign.

- Average length of time to process a request for a zoning variance.

- Percentage of such requests ultimately granted.

 

- Difficulty of starting a business: Get someone who's started a restaurant or something of the kind in Cleveland and in some more "business friendly" city and let them identify the differences.

 

etc. etc. etc.

 

The best testaments to the severity of the obstacles aren't think tanks prognosticating about obstacles, they're the actual people on the ground encountering the obstacles.  Yes, I'm aware of certain cliches regarding the plural of anecdotes, but firsthand experience matters, too.

I was one of the ones noting the lack of specificity.  A wider geographical variety might be persuasive, but what I was really looking for was a comparison of statistics that make one "business-friendly" or not.

 

I know, I just lumped you in as "other" ;)

 

When we like anecdotes we call them "case studies" and yes, they definitely have their place when lack of data availability makes a more systematic investigation impractical.

 

EDIT: Gramarye, you should start worrying that some Urbanohioer with deep pockets will track down your home address and try to open a particularly noxious business next door to test your views on zoning.  I kid, of course.

This is very difficult for me to do :P ; I agree with Gramarye's views on parochialism.  I think buying local is great when it makes sense, such as for freshness of food or cutting down on shipping costs.  But it's only one factor in deciding what to buy.  Buying local as a principle seems like geographic discrimination to me.

This is very difficult for me to do :P ; I agree with Gramarye's views on parochialism. I think buying local is great when it makes sense, such as for freshness of food or cutting down on shipping costs. But it's only one factor in deciding what to buy. Buying local as a principle seems like geographic discrimination to me.

It's not just shipping costs, but also emissions. I agree it's not the be-all end-all of decision making, but I think it deserves a reasonably heavy weight.

However, if you do support some level of economic parochialism, you have to answer the obvious follow up question of the appropriate level to draw the lines for the "in group" and "out group."

No, you don't have to pick a level. For example, if I'm in a bar in Cincinnati, and they have Christian Moerlein, I'll likely get that. If they don't, but they have Great Lakes, I'll likely get that. If they don't have either of those, in all likelihood, I will end up with a foreign brew. In that case, familiarity will win out over something outside the target region. But that doesn't have to be the case (if there's a beer I've never heard of from, say, somewhere within a couple hundred miles, or from a place I've been that I enjoy). I almost never buy mainstream American beers. Their flavor overrules the "local" utility.

 

Proximity is a constant factor, as are political boundaries, in decision making. The further away, or even the less familiar, the weaker the weight on the decision. To say you have to pick a specific boundary simply doesn't make sense.

 

(There are also political influences -- I'd be less likely to buy a brew from Texas/Wyoming/China than California/Washington/Germany.)

I was one of the ones noting the lack of specificity. A wider geographical variety might be persuasive, but what I was really looking for was a comparison of statistics that make one "business-friendly" or not.

 

EDIT: Gramarye, you should start worrying that some Urbanohioer with deep pockets will track down your home address and try to open a particularly noxious business next door to test your views on zoning. I kid, of course.

 

I think I've already said enough on these boards that someone could find my building, though perhaps not my apartment number, with little difficulty.  Fortunately, since I moved into the heart of a downtown, the built environment is already quite dense, so it would be hard for someone to open a particularly noxious business next door.  (Then again, there's an abandoned bank building across the street ... maybe someone could open a "skill games" parlor there.  Since the payday loan act, I think those are the most noxious businesses left.)

However, if you do support some level of economic parochialism, you have to answer the obvious follow up question of the appropriate level to draw the lines for the "in group" and "out group."

No, you don't have to pick a level. For example, if I'm in a bar in Cincinnati, and they have Christian Moerlein, I'll likely get that. If they don't, but they have Great Lakes, I'll likely get that. If they don't have either of those, in all likelihood, I will end up with a foreign brew. In that case, familiarity will win out over something outside the target region. But that doesn't have to be the case (if there's a beer I've never heard of from, say, somewhere within a couple hundred miles, or from a place I've been that I enjoy). I almost never buy mainstream American beers. Their flavor overrules the "local" utility.

 

Hey, Budweiser is Belgian now. :-P

 

My distaste for Belgian beers was not ameliorated by this acquisition. 8-)

 

Also, you do have to make a decision regarding the appropriate sphere of economic parochialism each time you make that decision.  The fact that the answer can vary doesn't change this; it just means that it wasn't necessarily your #1 priority.  I can tell that it is at least *a* priority for you.

 

By contrast, if China made beer like Great Lakes and Great Lakes made beer like Tsingtao, you had better believe I would be buying Chinese beer instead of Clevelandic beer.

Also, you do have to make a decision regarding the appropriate sphere of economic parochialism each time you make that decision. The fact that the answer can vary doesn't change this; it just means that it wasn't necessarily your #1 priority.

You don't have to make a sphere, you do need a hierarchy of priorities (or spheres, I guess, but together they cover the whole planet...and Mars. :D). Cincy > Ohio > 200-mile radius > Various cities I like > general America > American city/state I don't like > Western Europe > Eastern Europe > Japan > ...

 

And that hierarchy can vary by product, current events, mood, etc. It can also be overruled by other influences at any level, of course.

I think that a general rule of thumb is to consider what the odds are that if you give a dollar to company X, what are the odds that some of that dollar will come back from company X to you through it's employees, owners, suppliers, or investors.  Certainly if I buy a pair of underwear from Walmart some of that money I spent will end up in the hands of local employees and some in the hands of local shareholders, and maybe some of that money will get spent at my business.  But much of that money will leak out to of the local economy to Chinese textile companies, national distributors, and shareholders around the globe.  If I buy something made in Cleveland by a Cleveland company, marketed by a Cleveland retailer, than a greater portion of that dollar I spent has a chance of coming back to me.

Gee. Looks like a lot of sour grapes at the Cleveland Scene. A lot of ad-homiem attacks with no validity or credibility to support their statements. If they truly were a credible publication, they would offer counterpoints to Drew Carey (or points to agree with), not jabbing at his weight, his success as a television host and star, or his brand. He is very much a public figure, and in reality, that is who people will listen to given the chance. They carry a lot of weight (no pun intended) to make a difference, even when they are thousands of miles away.

 

It's Scene.  Juvenile humor, ad-hominem attacks, and poorly researched "facts" are their stock in trade.  Leave it to our alternative weekly to make the Plain Dealer look good.

Only a fool would think trickle-down economics is the solution to Cleveland's problems.

There's nothing to trickle up or down in Cleveland. You better start looking for ways to create wealth since there's not much to "trickle" in either direction.

I don't know if anyone watched the last episode in the series, "Bring Back the People". Whether you agree with the pieces at the beginning and end or not, I thought it was the most effective presentation of the case for living in Cleveland that I have ever seen. A great collection of people and amenities in a real package that doesn't seem overly salesy.

 

The last two episodes were the first videos I watched. I do agree that there was a nice collection of people to represent Cleveland and express their love for this city. There are so man amazing and interesting people that live in Cleveland and the videos helped to show that. Now if only other people would realize that too, that Cleveland really is a wonderful place!

 

totally agree. i just hope this series doesnt get lost in a bunch of "this is liberatarian propagada" backlash where nobody sees it because there is good stuff here.

 

There was good and bad. Praising poverty class jobs at Wal-Mart? Bad. Criticizing corporate welfare for major sports teams? Good.

 

I agree. Praising the fact that so many people work and rely on Wal-Mart wasn't the best idea. There are so many different local jobs just in the heart of downtown with a plethora of diverse employees. Why not interview them?

 

I also enjoyed how they highlighted the fact that so much money was put into our sports teams and not too much to show for it. You need more than just sports to bring people into a city. You can go anywhere to look at a building, but it takes something special to keep bringing people back!

There's nothing to trickle up or down in Cleveland. You better start looking for ways to create wealth since there's not much to "trickle" in either direction.

 

There's more than in Cincinnati (both total and per capita).  Check the stats I posted in the "2 Ohios" thread.

There's nothing to trickle up or down in Cleveland. You better start looking for ways to create wealth since there's not much to "trickle" in either direction.

 

There's more than in Cincinnati (both total and per capita). Check the stats I posted in the "2 Ohios" thread.

What I said goes for pretty much all of urban Ohio. You know what I mean?

What I said goes for pretty much all of urban Ohio. You know what I mean?

 

Fair enough (well probably all of Ohio, urban or not).

I think that a general rule of thumb is to consider what the odds are that if you give a dollar to company X, what are the odds that some of that dollar will come back from company X to you through it's employees, owners, suppliers, or investors. Certainly if I buy a pair of underwear from Walmart some of that money I spent will end up in the hands of local employees and some in the hands of local shareholders, and maybe some of that money will get spent at my business. But much of that money will leak out to of the local economy to Chinese textile companies, national distributors, and shareholders around the globe. If I buy something made in Cleveland by a Cleveland company, marketed by a Cleveland retailer, than a greater portion of that dollar I spent has a chance of coming back to me.

 

Maybe, but maybe not.  There may be some truth to this line of thought, but I would imagine that there's less than you'd be inclined to think.  Even if you try to live as if the Cleveland area is a closed economy, the others with whom you do business will likely not.  Even if something is made in Cleveland by a Cleveland company, where did they get their raw materials?  Or, for that matter, their office supplies, their software, and everything else they need to run their business?

 

Also, consider the implications if everyone in the rest of the world thought like this.  Sure, people from the Cleveland area would buy more Great Lakes beer--but Great Lakes would also never be able to sell *beyond* the Cleveland area, since people in Chicago and Detroit and Louisville would be buying their own beers.

Of course it isn't a closed economy and no dollar spent Cleveland will stay entirely in Cleveland.  I realize that.  I also realize that if everyone in every locality only buys local that we'd essentially be retreating to an economically medieval world.  But within the economic system we have, we can grow our own economy if we make a concerted effort to spend our dollars with local companies and let a greater portion of those dollars circulate and recirculate in our local economy.  That's all I'm saying.  There's no need to try to blow that out into a whole new world economic order.

I wasn't trying.  I was just laying bare the logical conclusion of your own reasoning.

^I'm sure you'll agree, though, that libertarians shouldn't care if people try to "buy local" if that's what makes them happy.  Product origin (locally made, made by blind Kenyan widows, whatever) is just one more determinant of a product's utility for many consumers, to be balanced against price, quality, style, etc.  Using governmental authority to favor local products might be a different story, but it's not necessarily the same issue.

Agree 100%.

Finally able to watch a few of these videos and I would love to see Cleveland implement some of the ideas.  What the heck do we have to lose at this point?  The city doesn't need to be operating golf courses (outside of city limits, mind you) and probably doesn't need to be running the Westside Market.  There are probably dozens of other examples of the City of Cleveland trying to operate businesses that the private sector could do much better.  I wouldn't support the privatization of basic services like public safety or road maintenance, but I think just about everything else should be on the table.  If the city's having budget issues, or if taxes are too high, privatization of just half of what the city currently does could solve those problems and make Cleveland more business-friendly.

Anyone that wants to save Cleveland has my support.

Anyone that wants to save Cleveland has my support.

 

Drew Carey doesn't want to save Cleveland he wants to TALK about saving Cleveland.

 

This one is  real simple...if Drew Carey wants to "save" Cleveland he can move back and run for mayor.

 

I don't think it would take all that much for him to win, then he can start saving it.

 

Anything else, especially from somebody who could actually come here and do something about our issues, is a cruel joke.  It is what I call mental masturbation.....TALKING about fixing a problem when you could actually DO something to solve the problem.

 

Perhaps he has done a lot that I am unaware of....started or funded a group(s) to put charter amendments on the ballot?  funded candidates?  I am sure the Libertarian Party in C-town is drowning in Drew Carey Money??  Started up a venture fund or business incubator? 

 

Please enlighten me.......talk from someone who could actually affect change???  meh not so much

Apparently, anyone who wants to save Cleveland does not have your support.

Your reading comprehension is sorely lacking.  Go back and read that again.

 

I would be more than happy with somebody rolling up their sleeves and doing something to help Cleveland.

 

Somebody on the left coast sitting back with a big cigar and and a glass of scotch telling me "what you need to do is....."

 

not so much.

 

You at least are here....so any misguided "help" you actually engage in, well you get to live in the consequences.  Mr. Carey will be going to Nobu and then to a strip club when the Cleveland potholes aren't filled and the garbage isn't collected.

I agree with ksonic99.  While I think Carey's ideas for the city make a lot of sense, I think his advice seems disingenuous and his motives don't seem sincere, considering he's moved elsewhere, helped other cities land pro sports franchises, and seems to have altogether wiped his hands clean of Cleveland.

I agree with ksonic99.  While I think Carey's ideas for the city make a lot of sense, I think his advice seems disingenuous and his motives don't seem sincere, considering he's moved elsewhere, helped other cities land pro sports franchises, and seems to have altogether wiped his hands clean of Cleveland.

 

 

"Critics complained on cleveland.com after reading about the series last week that Carey, a beloved native son who made it big in show business, has no business telling his hometown what to do because he moved away.

 

"That doesn't mean I can't love Cleveland. I still own a house there, the house I grew up in. I still go back there. I'm a fan of Cleveland. I only live in L.A. because I have to, this is where my business is. I can't do 'Price is Right' and be in show business and live in Cleveland at the same time. And believe me, if I could, I would," Carey said."

 

 

Perhaps you missed that part of the article.  That is hardly washing your hands of Cleveland.  Many on this board who don't live in Cleveland would if we could, but jobs take some of us out of Cleveland, in my case, like Carey, to Los Angeles.  That doesn't mean that we can't still love Cleveland and contribute ideas to the discussion of improvement.  These notions of "if you don't live here, you have no right to say anything" or "why don't you move back here if you care so much"  are absurd.

It always makes sense to listen to new ideas that could benefit the city.  If we don't like them, we're free to ignore them.  I don't understand getting in a huff about it.

I'm sorry, but despite what Carey says, I still get the impression that, from his actions, his investment in the area is very limited.  He worked really hard to bring an MLS team to Seattle when Cleveland, for a long time, was a top candidate for league expansion.

Perhaps you missed that part of the article. That is hardly washing your hands of Cleveland. Many on this board who don't live in Cleveland would if we could, but jobs take some of us out of Cleveland, in my case, like Carey, to Los Angeles. That doesn't mean that we can't still love Cleveland and contribute ideas to the discussion of improvement. These notions of "if you don't live here, you have no right to say anything" or "why don't you move back here if you care so much" are absurd.

 

I completely agree. I get that vibe down here in Cincinnati, even though I have lived here for two years already. There are some that profess a high belief, that because I wasn't born in Cincinnati, that I have no right to contribute ideas to the discussion of improvement or offer criticism. Astounds me.

He can say what ever he wants.

 

Once he actually does something besides talk about doing something, then I might pay attention to him. Especially since he actually has the ability to DO something.

 

Because he COULD do something besides talk, but chooses not too,  It is mental masturbation and downright cruel.

 

Hey starving guy...what you need to do is get yourself some bread, I could give you bread, I could give you a job where you could earn enough to buy bread, I could let you use my oven.....

 

But I am not going to do any of  that, but what I will do is tell you that you should get yourself something to eat, now thank me :-).

 

The only connection he still has with Cleveland is that he still owns his parents house.

What do you propose that he do?

How about anything.....

 

I gave a list up top.  Fund a candidate, petition drive for a charter amendment....become mayor himself.

 

How about starting up a Libertarian party in C-town?  Venture fund...small business incubator, move the taping of the price is right to Cleveland.....Like we couldn't fill an studio with overweight people to bid on the show case show down.

 

ANYTHING....besides talk.

 

and Wow Sherman 2 years and people don't want to listen to you....imagine that.  Pray tell, where do you think you would move and the people would listen to your answers after 2 whole years of living there?  Savannah? Minneapolis? St. Louis? Covington?  Bangor? El Paso? 

 

Are you doing anything,  besides offering criticism that is?  Do they not listen to you before or after you tell them that the civil war wasn't about slavery? 

 

TALK <> DO

ksonic, I'd recommend that you stop right there with the ad-homiem personal jabs, lest you want your comments to be deleted or redacted.

 

Second, why do you have an issue with others voicing ideas for improvement? We all do it here on UrbanOhio all the time -- we voice our concerns and offer constructive commentary on many social, political and economic issues daily, yet most of us can't or are not willing to fund candidates, petition or run for political office.

 

Drew Carey is happy at what he is doing in this stage of his life. He's a successful game show host that he worked up the ladder for. You can't do that in Cleveland. We shouldn't be attacking Drew for the personal and professional choices he has made; we should be embracing or at the least listening to the commentary he has to offer, because it is another diverse opinion that fuels potential change. Talk is one thing, but not everyone desires to go further with it, and we shouldn't condemn someone for that.

Okay, Drew owns a home, well - so do plenty of others with much less means. Not saying he shouldn't have any voice at all, and some of the points he made were valid, but a few of them were a little "no sh!t, Sherlock". I've heard someone suggest it before - I definitely think he, Halle Berry and a few others (actors from Cleveland) could band together and form some sort of performing arts academy collaborative/initiative with Playhouse Square, focusing on kids in the city. You get a charitable act, an impact on Cleveland youth and hopefully breaking the poverty cycle in a few lives, and you build on our existing strengths.

Wow

 

ksonic, I'd recommend that you stop right there with the ad-homiem personal jabs, lest you want your comments to be deleted or redacted.

 

Okay I will listen to you now.

 

How do we make it all better?

 

It always makes sense to listen to new ideas that could benefit the city. If we don't like them, we're free to ignore them. I don't understand getting in a huff about it.

 

I'm going to quote and completely agree with X in this case.  There is no reason to get all in a tissy over someone trying to offer ideas for improving our city.  Sometimes it's easier to affect change from the outside and at least he's doing something.  I don't understand why people are complaining about this.  It's like complaining that someone gave too little money to charity.  Drew Carey didn't have to do a damn thing, but he did.  If you disagree with his ideas that's fine, but don't attack the man for doing too little.  That's pathetic IMO.