Does A Successful Lakewood Mean A Failed Region?

[Bill Call]

I’ve heard from several sources that other development directors and building departments are asking City of Lakewood officials versions of this question:

What are you doing?

They mean the question in the sense of what are you doing right?

I travel around Cuyahoga County a lot and my general sense is that Lakewood is doing better than most of our sister cities on almost all levels.

Housing
Values never declined to the extent that they did in other cities in Cuyahoga County and are recovering more quickly.

Retail
Retail in Lakewood is doing well even without the taxpayer subsidies enjoyed by other retail centers like Crocker Park. A drive down Detroit Avenue in Lakewood reveals what appears to be a vibrant business district.

A short article in the latest Cleveland Magazine contained this sentiment: “While cities such as (censored) are declining Lakewood is thriving”. I’ve read similar sentiments in a lot of different news sources except for…. The Plain Dealer.

It’s almost as if they want to avoid the subject. You would think that the success of this City would be big news. I get the sense that the Plain Dealer sees Lakewood's success as an embarrassment. I’ve seen plenty of articles about Tremont, (you know the Tremont that is shrouded in smog from the smelters 5 days a week), Crocker Park, Little Italy, Legacy Village and other areas but not one story about the reinvention of Detroit. Is there a reason?

Since I like jumping to conclusions to grasp at conspiracy theories:

If Lakewood shows that an independent City can thrive does that counter the Plain Dealers argument that Cities like Lakewood need to disappear? And if so does that mean the success must be hidden from view lest people lose their appetite for regionalization?

[Bill Call]

Here is some information about housing values in local cities:


2012-2013 2007 - 20013
LAKEWOOD +13.70% -9.50%
BAY VILLAGE +1.60% -3.00%
WESTLAKE +17.20% -6.50%
ROCKY RIVER +8.20% + 6.00%
FAIRVIEW PARK +2.50% -9.00%
PARMA +6.90% -30.00%
CLEVELAND HEIGHTS+11.90% -41.00%
EUCLID 10.20% -62.00%



This article reports the Bay Village increase as 2% instead of the actual 1.6%. Lakewood's 13.7% increase is not mentioned:


http://www.cleveland.com/rocky-river/in ... llage.html

[Jim O'Bryan]

Bill

Perhaps the question is better phrased in a different way, the way everyone argues it can't
be done.

Can we have a successful Lakewood, in a failed region?

I maintain, a city of 50,000 in the middle of Iowa could be self sustaining. And if Lakewood
though of itself in that way we would be way ahead of this game of "Managing our Decline"
which has become the hallmark of regionalists, and grant writers.

Basically keep them busy with the "Capital Theater" and they will not realize we are only
moving pieces on the checkerboard of life, we are not adding anything.

FWIW

.