Lingering question from State of the City address

[Bret Callentine]

I appreciate the Mayor holding the meeting last night to go over all the information pertinent to the current and future status of the city. It looks like Mayor Summers has been doing a fine job of handling the massive job of budget recovery started under Fitzgerald.

However, one thing about the presentation gave me that same sinking feeling like hearing Dick Goddard say "don't worry, this storm shouldn't produce much snow".

Mayor Summers used the friendly terms of "collaboration" and "cost sharing" to describe the recent push to pool services with the surrounding neighborhoods, but I'm not buying it. The one thing that I just couldn't get out of my mind is why would we want our Police and Fire to be handled with the same type of system as the RTA?

The rest of his presentation gave the impression that we are well on our way to fiscal independence and stability. So why would we want to throw all of that away by locking in our fate with that of the City of Cleveland? I have absolutely NO confidence in their ability to do ANYTHING right, and I don't get a vote in replacing their leadership, so why would I want them having any kind of say in how my city operates?

All I see is a future discussion mimicking that for the Community Circulator... "yeah, we know it's a great service, it pays for itself and people depend on it being there, but we've decided that moving the fire station to 110th would be a better fit for our overall service goals. We appologize if this will mean a drop in service response time for some of our western most property owners, but the board has decided that this move has too many cost saving opportunities to pass up."

With the City of Lakewood turning itself around and the City of Cleveland constantly struggling to make ends meet, what is the potential benefit for us?

If Cleveland really wants our help, then let us vote for their elected officials. Otherwise I don't see any difference between this and being the enabler for an alcoholic or a druggie.

Until someone explains to me how this would be good for Lakewood, all I can say is that "regionalism", or whatever you call it, scares the hell out of me.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Bret

First you paint to rosy of a picture when you say Cleveland. Cleveland with all of it many
problems and faults, is much healthier than many of the other cities that surround it. East
Cleveland, though I like the place and see the potential is maybe the low water mark.

What becomes even more troubling is when people talk of sharing the load, spreading
costs, and working county wide, but also talk of Regionalism being bad for Lakewood. These are the people playing both sides of a very sharp razor edge, and it is just an outright fib.

The plan for the regional dream, as put forward by CLE+, Team Neo and others is that we
are slowly moved into it, so as to almost not notice. First one thing, then another, then
another until, the weight on the other side of the line all but pulls the entire community in.

Lakewood will never leave the region, just to big to move. But we can work to make our
city stronger, and more self sufficient. Which will allow us, as a community to determine
if and when it works best for us to join in. I still maintain, the "best community" in the
region, has decades to go before we even think about it.

But maybe the mayor, who is a member here, will weigh in, and explain how he sees it working and answer your question.

.

[J Hrlec]

He did stress that some things would not work for Lakewood and others items would. Finding the mix that fits Lakewood is the key. Looking at all options is important, accepting the right one is critical to our future.

[Meg Ostrowski]

I copied this from the current School Board thread as it pertains to the city too.

Bill Call wrote:

The City has shown that you can maintain services and CUT expenditures. The schools must do the same.

Meg Ostrowski wrote:

I don't think that the city or the schools have "maintained" services with the cuts in recent years. Taking my trash to the curb and viewing school newsletters online I can live with. More severe cuts, I am tolerating. Cutting too deep, especially when it comes to safety forces and education, would be difficult to accept.

[Bill Call]

I copied this from the current School Board thread as it pertains to the city too.

Bill Call wrote:

The City has shown that you can maintain services and CUT expenditures. The schools must do the same.

Meg Ostrowski wrote:

I don't think that the city or the schools have "maintained" services with the cuts in recent years. Taking my trash to the curb and viewing school newsletters online I can live with. More severe cuts, I am tolerating. Cutting too deep, especially when it comes to safety forces and education, would be difficult to accept.

In 2007 the City spent about $38,000,000. In 2011 the City is projecting spending to be $36,000,000. There will be about 250 fewer full and part time employees than there were in 2000. No one noticed the difference.

In 2008 the schools spent about $69,000,000. in 2011 they project spending to be about $69,000,000. On the surface and in reality that is a pretty good effort. But as hard as it was it was the easy part. The district lost some employees, lost some high priced employees and used some of the savings to save and some of the savings to pass out raises. Again, not an unreasonable business plan. However, revenue is going to decline further and property values are going to decline further.

It's time for more difficult decisions.

[Thealexa Becker]

The rest of his presentation gave the impression that we are well on our way to fiscal independence and stability. So why would we want to throw all of that away by locking in our fate with that of the City of Cleveland?

Don't want to worsen your growing hysteria over the idea of regionalism, but whether you like it or not, Lakewood's fate IS already tied to Cleveland.

You think if Cleveland goes down Lakewood will still thrive or even break even?

No, it won't.

So, sorry to break it to you, but our fates are already intertwined. Even more so by the County government.

You might not like it, and if you don't like how things are run, consider trying to get elected to office where you might be able to influence voters and decisions towards what you value in the area.

Personally, I think that it would be better if the suburbs on the East AND West side dropped this "we don't want to get tied up with Cleveland" nonsense. That is what got this area into trouble in the first place.

[J Hrlec]

You think if Cleveland goes down Lakewood will still thrive or even break even?

No, it won't.

So, sorry to break it to you, but our fates are already intertwined.

Agreed, i've said something similar myself before... to think other would be rather nonsensical.

I'm not saying we need to lose our identity of Lakewood, just that it is a symbiotic relationship.

[Kristine Pagsuyoin]

He did stress that some things would not work for Lakewood and others items would. Finding the mix that fits Lakewood is the key. Looking at all options is important, accepting the right one is critical to our future.

In the presentation there was a line on one of the slides about the state also proposing to consolidate school districts. This isn't really a new conversation. It's been talked about for a long time and Ohio did go through this process to get to the number of school districts that we have now. This is one area in which I think it would not be good for our city or school district to combine with another district. The surrounding are very different than our own. Right now, we do share some services. For example, I met a student during lunch at the Ranger Cafe who was in the Lakewood program from Westlake. This is a good use of resources, but never in a million years would I want to combine our district with Cleveland. Candidates running for school board (if they support regionalism) ought to be clear with voters about how they feel about this issue.

It's time for more difficult decisions.

At the last school board meeting, Rick Berdine (treasurer) presented the five-year forecast. This is discussed on another thread and Bill posted the state forecast. The presentation hasn't changed much over the last year or so. I keep hearing that in 2013 we will be in trouble because we will take in less than what we spend and that we need to starting cutting between now and then. To me, it means that the district will want to put the "rest of the levy" (about 6mil.) on the the ballot before that time. It may be true that difficult decisions need to be made but exactly how and where does our board want to cut? I don't buy into that all of the cutting has to be teachers and staff. What does the community care about? What are we able to let go of and work harder to keep? We just aren't asked because most of the current board members do not want our input. I want a board who can look at the whole picture and balance the needs/wants of a community, the state, and more importantly our students. Lakewood Schools could be a leader in this area and creatively find solutions for our funding issues. I think sometimes "more difficult decisions" actually is meant or code for firing people. That really doesn't solve the problems while still offering our kids a great education.

The city cuts has left gaps in important services, but of course, that is not going to be highlighted during a State of the City address. For instance, Lakewood used to have a great program that tested our kids for lead. That was cut. However, we have the highest occurrence in this county of lead poisoning than any other county in the state. Lead poisoning can hurt a child's developing brain permanently. So, we cut this program on the front end, but in the long run the school district will pay a higher cost to educate a child with lead poisoning because more than likely the child will need special education services, the medical care for this child will be higher and more than likely paid by tax payers because it affects low-income kids more, and then when that child graduates from high school it is very likely the state will have to pay disability or provide other entitlement programs.

It is not just about cutting costs. We need to use the money we have wisely, efficiently, and with an eye on the whole picture.

[Stan Austin]

Folks----there is no self contained, protected and isolated, political entity within the region. Lakewood is largely residential. We have little manufacturing, slight agriculture, some office/business to drive the economic engine. We are, have been and will be linked with Cleveland and the North East Ohio region for our existence.

Having said that, I think that commonsense, natural or organic affiliations must be pursued. Mutual aid in the safety forces doesn't mean we give up a fire station so Cleveland gets off without footing its share of the burden. It means that the natural and geographical alliances of the West Shore suburbs can help each other much in the same way that casualty insurance works. It means that no brainers, like multi customer purchasing consortium's such as the West Shore School Districts are entered into.
The new County government structure seems to be a more modern vehicle to explore mutually beneficial relationships. Heck, it hammered out an agreement for the new sewer rate increases that had previously been unattainable.
It's going to be a work in progress for the next several decades.

Stan Austin

[Bret Callentine]

So, sorry to break it to you, but our fates are already intertwined. Even more so by the County government.

Our fates may be intertwined, but that has nothing to do with how we should go about fighting to make things better. I am not suggesting that Lakewood can survive if Cleveland turns into a ghost town, only that shared services aren't a way to solve the problem, only a way of delaying it's outcome.

Cleveland, to me, has not yet demonstrated any ability to right their ship so why would giving them more resources without first correcting their deficiency in leadership change the outcome?

If you've got a friend that can't pay his bills because he wastes his paycheck on drugs and alcohol, do you let him move in with you? Sharing the cost of rent and groceries might make his life better in the short term, but sooner or later, an addict will burn through your resources too. I'm not suggesting you turn your back on the person, but you sure as heck make sure he's trying to get clean and sober first.

[Bret Callentine]

Having said that, I think that commonsense, natural or organic affiliations must be pursued.

Totally agree with you, but without wanting to be labeled as a fear monger, I want to know that my Mayor is going to be careful to guard against these affiliations becoming another RTA, where the individual interests of Lakewood are completely lost to the collective interest decided by a "regional" board of directors.

[Stan Austin]

Bret--- I absolutely agree with your choice of RTA as the poster child for a regional agency gone astray. And, ironically, RTA is duplicating the errors of CTS which it replaced ostensibly to correct the problems of that original Cleveland Transit System.
As you have so accurately pointed out, the absurd logic that was used to eliminate the community circulator is emblematic of a failed agency. That has to be corrected and used as a cautionary example of what can go wrong with regionalism but not used to avoid the reality that regionalism has, does, and will exist.
Stan

[Will Brown]

I Don't want to worsen your growing hysteria over the idea of regionalism, but whether you like it or not, Lakewood's fate IS already tied to Cleveland.

You think if Cleveland goes down Lakewood will still thrive or even break even?

No, it won't.

So, sorry to break it to you, but our fates are already intertwined. Even more so by the County government.

You might not like it, and if you don't like how things are run, consider trying to get elected to office where you might be able to influence voters and decisions towards what you value in the area.

Personally, I think that it would be better if the suburbs on the East AND West side dropped this "we don't want to get tied up with Cleveland" nonsense. That is what got this area into trouble in the first place.

I agree. Lakewood has always been a bedroom community, dependent on earnings from jobs in Cleveland. Our current difficulties are largely due to the loss of good paying jobs (indeed, even poor paying jobs) in Cleveland.

Certain aspects of regionalism have been with us for a very long time, and have worked well. We buy our water from Cleveland. The sewer district and the metroparks, even the Zoo are largely cooperative endeavors and work well.

My family moved to Lakewood from the west side when I was about to enter the fifth grade, so I was old enough to evaluate a lot of government services. The police and fire service was as good in our neighborhood of Cleveland as in Lakewood. The schools, at least if you were white, were as good. To me, the only change was that we moved from a double to a single, and were now surrounded by people who had chips on their shoulders. I couldn't understand why Lakewoodites felt to smug when the communities were almost identical. It must be something in the air, because the chips are still there. We whine about RTA and the loss of the circulators, but I have always been able to get where I wanted on CTS and on RTA, even without the circulators. RTA certainly has its problems, but I think all metro transit systems do, as the public insists on driving and we have kept driving cheap; if we had to pay $10 for a gallon of gas, and $25 to park, RTA would prosper.

My concern with regionalization is that political control is being consolidated. Once the county throws its full weight into regionalization, we will lose the ability to choose whether or not to be part of any program, and if it comes to that, we may as well close down our local government and accept rule by the county machine.

[Thealexa Becker]

So, sorry to break it to you, but our fates are already intertwined. Even more so by the County government.

Our fates may be intertwined, but that has nothing to do with how we should go about fighting to make things better. I am not suggesting that Lakewood can survive if Cleveland turns into a ghost town, only that shared services aren't a way to solve the problem, only a way of delaying it's outcome.

Cleveland, to me, has not yet demonstrated any ability to right their ship so why would giving them more resources without first correcting their deficiency in leadership change the outcome?

If you've got a friend that can't pay his bills because he wastes his paycheck on drugs and alcohol, do you let him move in with you? Sharing the cost of rent and groceries might make his life better in the short term, but sooner or later, an addict will burn through your resources too. I'm not suggesting you turn your back on the person, but you sure as heck make sure he's trying to get clean and sober first.

Bret,

So, you keep pointing out all the things that are wrong with this, something that anyone could do, but I have yet to see you offer a solution. It's one thing to raise concerns, it's another thing entirely to back up your argument by restating your initial concerns.

I'm not suggesting that one opinion or the other on this matter is more correct, but it seems pointless to just cry out that you don't like something without offering a way to make it better absent vague statements like "correcting deficiency in leadership".

If you don't like the leadership, start campaigning for someone you do agree with and think will do a good job. You might not be able to vote for them, but your advocacy would matter to any candidate. Or, as I suggested before, run yourself.

And you also suggest that no matter what we do the outcome will be the same. So with this defeatist attitude, and your obvious feelings of inevitability, logically one would ask you why you feel the need to postpone the unavoidable?

And I would pose this question to you as well, would you argue that all forms of regionalism are bad? Can you see ways in which this would benefit the area?

[Bret Callentine]

So, you keep pointing out all the things that are wrong with this, something that anyone could do, but I have yet to see you offer a solution. It's one thing to raise concerns, it's another thing entirely to back up your argument by restating your initial concerns.

Thealexa, Does someone have to have all the answers before they issue their concerns over a potential problem? How does pointing out a potential pitfall make me a defeatist?

I happen to think Mayor Summers is doing a great job, does that mean I can't use my voice to raise what I feel is a valid question about a potential program?

I am not against regionalism. However, I am very warry of an administration that I think is doing an excellent job, cedeing too much control to one that has yet to prove that it's worthy of that trust.

As for fixes. I don't necessarily have any (hence the reason I posted the question). Personally, I would love to see Ohio City re-incorporate. Since, as I see it, one of the biggest problems facing the City of Cleveland is that they have too much territory to worry about, and in trying to cover everything adaquately, they do no individual thing well. Case in point, the schools; I don't think taking the same approach to such things as bussing, after school programs and sports will get you the best results in two dynamically different districts such as Ohio City and East Cleveland. By trying to use the same system in both, they end up really serving neither.