The Observation Deck

Jason

Thanks for jumping in.

It might sound one sided, but it is to generate conversation. It all came about from two things.

1) I often walk the city with friends, visitors, politicians, whoever, and discuss Lakewood, life and where both are headed. Some just seem to miss the BIG picture, and thereby miss what you saw when you decided to move here. It could be like the Terminal Tower or the Rock Hall. Many if not most of the area has never been to either. One night I was walking with one new "wash ashore" and one that had a couple years under her belt. One could not grasp "walking city" the other helped to prove we have one of the few. Again one grasped the other didn't.

2) People coming to the paper, writing for the paper, and asking for stories in the paper. It seems that some, like our new Associate Editor "got it" from day one, others seem to always miss the point.

As for your response to regionalism and part of Lynn's my fear is that it is a very, very slippery slope, that is easy to sell, as long as like sausage you do not get into the details of how it is made.

Would a regional group allow us to cherry pick only what we need? I doubt it, and it wouldn't be fair. So how does one get the "benefits" for regionalism without selling a city's soul to do so?

Also what does one city do if they have a better plan? I mean manufacturing is NEVER coming back to Cleveland in my lifetime. At the same time they said "service industry," "convention land," "tech sector jobs." Well I do not see them showing up either. so what would be the purpose to strap ourselves to a lame giant like Cleveland? Wouldn't it be better to buck the trend and think outside the box? Ignore Cleveland as if it was a vast desert, and concentrate on Lakewood and what we possibly have to offer, which I believe is huge.

Cities can thrive and flourish at the edge of a desert as long as they do not try to help the entire desert.

Or even the reverse. Why can't Lakewood annex part of Cleveland?

But to lash ourselves to a group that only views issues from afar, or looks at the bottom line, when Lakewoodites have always looked at the benefits first then the costs seem crazy.

Lynn

Yes Lakewood needs its own health department, and should retain our human service department as well. Compare what we have and offer to Cleveland and another thing we should be boasting about is the GREAT work of health and human services.


Jim

Jim O'Bryan wrote:
Joe wouldn't this be just as big of a reason for going against regionalism? In a regional set-up Lakewoodites would be paying for programs in other cities that have no bearing on life in Lakewood for most. If I get help from Fairview for my sewers what do I give them back?

Jim,

There's a reason why a big corporation, all else being equal, can borrow at a lower rate, sometimes an overnight rate, than you or I can borrow for our mortgage. The combined assets of the huge corporation (or in your example, Lakewood and Fairview Park) make it a better risk to the bank than an individual. Sometimes banks won't give loans at certain rates to people without a cosigner. Think of Fvw Pk as our cosigner and vise versa. With cities joining forces, there's less risk to the bank, so the rate goes down.
What does Fairview do with its portion of the money borrowed? Whatever they like to spend it on, be it roads, sewers, police, etc.
Joe Milan

What Lakewood gets is that any sincere discussion of regionalism must face the underlying structural issues of racial and class segregation of neighborhoods and schools.

What Lakewood gets is that any sincere discussion of regionalism can’t stop at PR firms, at merging libraries, at saving a few bucks on group purchasing, at entrenched pols clawing for turf.

What Lakewood gets is that any sincere discussion of regionalism can’t stop at bond ratings, unless perhaps the proceeds are to be used to finance the construction of affordable housing in high priced white suburbs inside and outside Cuyahoga County.

What Lakewood gets is that only with the regionalized dispersal of poor minority children far beyond the urban core and inner ring suburbs can new regionalized learning opportunities commence with racial and class segregation breaking down slowly over space and time into manageable and equitable distributions of students from racially and socially isolated neighborhoods.

What Lakewood gets is that the placement of students from racially and socially isolated neighborhoods across the entire region with equitable school funding in place are the pivotal factors a sincere discussion of regionalism must bear.

What Lakewood gets is that these underlying structural issues are typically “non-startersâ€Â￾ for those who have headed for the hills, perpetuating racial and social polarity.

What Lakewood gets is that the huffing and puffing from the Foundation cartel, the PR team, professional dimers and corporate interests will frame the consensus and convince citizens to quaff the wines of low hanging fruit.

What Lakewood gets is "In Vino Veritas."

Kenneth Warren

Ed FitzGerald wrote:
Regionalism has become the most recent buzzword among observers of government. It ignores entirely the actual experience many of us have had dealing with larger governmental structures. The larger the governmental unit, the more distant the citizenry is from the process, the more remote the possibility of oversight, and the greater the likelihood of a cookie cutter approach.

I agree with Jim that it makes sense in terms of purchasing, etc., but it is not the source of NE Ohio's ills, and its not much of a solution, either.

Councilman, I'd be careful if I were in your shoes to dismiss such an idea as a "cookie cutter approach" that "isn't much of a solution". There really isn't much difference between a group of cities banding together to form a better style of government than there is to a group of workers getting together to form labor union. Surely, you don't dismiss unions as "cookie cutter approaches" that aren't much of a solution" . If this were true, politicians wouldn't seek union endorsement. They wouldn't ask union support for their campaigns.
Do you feel the same about other groups? People, businesses, and other entities get together all the time for strength in numbers. Pro war people and pro peace people have a much stronger voice when they band together. Pro business and pro environmental groups do the same. How about the NAACP? The NRA? The AARP? Surely these aren't cookie cutter approaches that aren't much of a solution. Perhaps you should clarify your remarks.

Joe Milan

Joseph Milan wrote:

Jim O'Bryan wrote:
Joe wouldn't this be just as big of a reason for going against regionalism? In a regional set-up Lakewoodites would be paying for programs in other cities that have no bearing on life in Lakewood for most. If I get help from Fairview for my sewers what do I give them back?

Jim,

There's a reason why a big corporation, all else being equal, can borrow at a lower rate, sometimes an overnight rate, than you or I can borrow for our mortgage. The combined assets of the huge corporation (or in your example, Lakewood and Fairview Park) make it a better risk to the bank than an individual. Sometimes banks won't give loans at certain rates to people without a cosigner. Think of Fvw Pk as our cosigner and vise versa. With cities joining forces, there's less risk to the bank, so the rate goes down.
What does Fairview do with its portion of the money borrowed? Whatever they like to spend it on, be it roads, sewers, police, etc.
Joe Milan

Joe

I will admit this is one of the best reasons but still question the sanity. This time from the banks, but leads to an interesting concept that's time might have arrived.

Why not build buying co-ops with sister cities. Lakewood, teams up with Chautauqua, Berkley, Richmond, Dunellon and Bangor. They use the combined buying power for health insurance, hard goods, long distance, etc. Then when they go to a bank they offer a much better bet than 6 cities within miles of each other. Lakewood should then be able to negotiate a great rate with their "sister cities." So instead of presenting themselves as a declining group of cities, one disaster could wipe out. You present a beautiful portfolio of cities featuring warmth, cold, vacation, industry, farm land, and?

It would seem that rational lenders would cut their own throats for such a deal.

I would think this is just one of the exciting apporaches that fall outside of the cookie cutter approach of regionalism is good for everyone. Even cities that offer something no other city in the region can offer.

Just a thought.

PS - you have been verified

As Joe stated

There really isn't much difference between a group of cities banding together to form a better style of government ...

Unfortunately, beyond the tired assumptions of efficiencies and economies of scale, there isn't much to show that a regionalized government is "better". It is, however a sure way to bring excellent suburbs down to the lowest common denominator. Again I refer you to the failed regionalization of greater Buffalo.

As I said before, regionalization is merely an effort to usurp robust suburban tax bases to subsidize the failing economy of Cleveland proper. I would venture that Lakewood could get a better loan rate then if they joined forces Cleveland!

Jeff

Jim O'Bryan wrote:
Joe

I will admit this is one of the best reasons but still question the sanity. This time from the banks, but leads to an interesting concept that's time might have arrived.

Why not build buying co-ops with sister cities. Lakewood, teams up with Chautauqua, Berkley, Richmond, Dunellon and Bangor. They use the combined buying power for health insurance, hard goods, long distance, etc. Then when they go to a bank they offer a much better bet than 6 cities within miles of each other. Lakewood should then be able to negotiate a great rate with their "sister cities." So instead of presenting themselves as a declining group of cities, one disaster could wipe out. You present a beautiful portfolio of cities featuring warmth, cold, vacation, industry, farm land, and?

The sister city approach is a good start and may be a better approach to help cities out if you're just concerned about Lakewood and Lakewood alone. However, what happens in downtown Cleveland and Mayfield Heights also effects us. Many Lakewood residents don't work in Lakewood. Why not try to help the entire area out as they are helping us out? We all get concerned when we see that some business is packing up and moving out of the county. We even get concerned when a business in Akron shuts its doors. Regionalism is simply an expansion of the sister city approach.
It should be noted that many of the west coast cities aren't having the problems we're facing. One of the reasons why is because they are much bigger cities that could encompas most of our county. They were set up to regionalize.

Verified? You'll have to explain.

Joe Milan

Joseph Milan wrote:
The sister city approach is a good start and may be a better approach to help cities out if you're just concerned about Lakewood and Lakewood alone. However, what happens in downtown Cleveland and Mayfield Heights also effects us. Many Lakewood residents don't work in Lakewood. Why not try to help the entire area out as they are helping us out? We all get concerned when we see that some business is packing up and moving out of the county. We even get concerned when a business in Akron shuts its doors. Regionalism is simply an expansion of the sister city approach.
It should be noted that many of the west coast cities aren't having the problems we're facing. One of the reasons why is because they are much bigger cities that could encompas most of our county. They were set up to regionalize.

Verified? You'll have to explain.

Joe Milan

Joe


I do not buy into the premise. I am not sure what happens in Cleveland effects us. I've watched downtown Cleveland get gutted by unemployment and large companies pulling out. Lakewood seems to cruise along in it's own little world. I believe the influence of Cleveland Heights and East Cleveland, and Euclid are as negligible as the gravity of Mars has on the Earth. But the one thing we do know is with regionalism our future would be tied directly to East Cleveland and Cleveland.

You mention cookie cutter, which to me is what regionalism is, a very easy equation to throw down, not much thought, and very little imagination. What if someone had a plan for Lakewood, that would make Lakewood stronger, with no impact except positive on the surrounding areas? What if this plan costs Lakewood's government, and residents almost nothing in more taxes, and would shore up our local economy and protect us from the fall out of a rustbelt city in utter decline. What if it improved the quality of life, education, and safety, but needed us not to be part of regionalism with the exception of working together for hard supplies.

Would you still have us tied to the anchor called Cleveland, or would your view change? What if you had to live in paradise, but work in the desert?

Regionalism means I have to worry about Akron, Garfield Heights, Bay Village, Fariview, North Olmsted, Euclid, South Euclid, East Cleveland, and on and on and on. All places my vote, my actual life has very little impact on. While the other plan, makes everyone accountable for Lakewood's future, and puts us in the driver's seat for decades to come.

Regionalism is the lazy way out, no fun, no glamour, very little chance of success. While Lakewoodites gives up control of our lives and city to who? For what?

---

All members are verified. In serious discussions, it is nice to know who we are talking with. Neighbors respecting neighbors.

Thanks for kicking it, I look forward to your response and your response to Ken Warren's note in this discussion. Will Bay Village build low income housing to take their fair share of the poor?

While there is no question that the problems of Cleveland have an impact on all surrounding suburbs. But, there are two ways in which that impact can be addressed. The regionalization approach has a good deal of draw because of its simplicity. Band together the region, and by virtue of size and massing of resources, we can accomplish more for the region than any single entity can alone. The potential fatal flaw in this approach is that revenues and the tax base which support otherwise vibrant cities, will, in some part be diverted to assist the ailing "Mother City". While there may be improvement in Cleveland, because of the scope of its economic need, the drain will also negatively impact the region's constituent cities. The bottom line, is, was and will remain that the economic forces which have placed Cleveland in its dire financial straits cannot be overcome by savings (if any) from efficiencies (if any) and economies of scale. The revenue pot is only so big, and as funds go for the constituent parts most in need, it must be at the expense of those in lesser need. The net result is a "dumbing down" of the urban landscape, a reduction to the lowest common denominator. Think of regionalism as urban socialism.

The other option is for the more robust cities to attempt to stabilize and grow their individual constituencies. Certainly co-operation should be sought in matters not impacting directly on each city's program, services and mission (Bulk purchasing, etc.). While economic events can certainly impact Lakewood, if not tethered to an economic drain of regionalism, any individual city can remain more nimble and better able to respond to particular events with more flexibility. Even with Cleveland in decline, Lakewood is now, and can remain in the future, a desirable to live. That image can be amplified by leveraging our unique assets. While it may sound like urban isolationism, on an economic basis, think of it more as a municipal free market. Indeed, vibrant surrounding communities, each with their own draw/brand, presenting a desirable destination would have a greater positive impact on the region as a whole then would a reallocation of resources away from those cities that are "working" to those that clearly, are not.

I ask these questions directly to people from outside lakewood because I have always been curious myself as to how people view lakewood.
The most common answer seems to have people lumping lakewood in with cleveland and the problems there. BUT! I also will say that when people begin to answer my inquiry they almost always begin with "I hear lakewood is blah,blah,blah......."
Just re-enforcing your point Jim, that most people do not really know what goes on in lakewood except what they hear,read and assume mostly because of it's close proximity to Cleveland.

I also received the questionnaire Councilman FitzGerald received from the Plain Dealer, and agree it was biased in favor of regionalism. Of the four questions asked, three involved regional issues (fire services, recreation services and community planning).

My answers were pragmatic and reflected my experiences campaigning in Ward 1 and listening to my neighbors. When I go door to door in Ward 1, their chief complaint is taxes, for which many now struggle to budget. I believe group purchasing can help alleviate those concerns. I'd support this limited type of "regionalism" if it creates real benefits to residents.

Lakewood is otherwise celebrated for its visual, historical, social and political uniqueness among other less dynamic suburbs. I join in that celebration. Publicly and privately, I will work to ensure we Lakewood residents always have something to cheer about here at home.

Kevin Butler
Ward 1 council candidate

Joseph Milan said:

It should be noted that many of the west coast cities aren't having the problems we're facing. One of the reasons why is because they are much bigger cities that could encompas most of our county. They were set up to regionalize.

Okay here is my take. I grew up out west in San Diego, a really large city. San Diego Unified school district is an enormous district and kids gets bused up to 30 minutes away from there homes to go to school. Everything there is large and impersonal. We recently spent some time in Chandler, Arizona. It a rapidly growing suburb of Phoenix. It's also very large and impersonal there. And from my own experience bigger is not better.

I love our hometown library. I love our small town school district. We live in Lakewood for the small town feel. We live in Lakewood because it is a unique city that has somehow been able to maintain its own identity. I see regionalization as a threat to that. I don't think saving a few dollars here or there will make up for the loss of Lakewood as we know it. Lakewood is great because we make the choices, not someone sitting off in the distance. But that is just my opinion.

Danielle Masters wrote:J

Okay here is my take. I grew up out west in San Diego, a really large city. San Diego Unified school district is an enormous district and kids gets bused up to 30 minutes away from there homes to go to school. Everything there is large and impersonal. We recently spent some time in Chandler, Arizona. It a rapidly growing suburb of Phoenix. It's also very large and impersonal there. And from my own experience bigger is not better.

I love our hometown library. I love our small town school district. We live in Lakewood for the small town feel. .

And you'll still have that and those things; I'm simply talking about pulling our resources together. To borrow a slogan from unions, who join together for better bargaining power among other things, there's strength in numbers. Just because Alaska joined the United States doesn't mean the state no longer has it's identify.

Joe,

After reading this thread several times, I'm confounded by one simple fact. You have failed to respond to a single comment made by Jeff Endress or Kenneth Warren. No offense to any other poster, but Jeff and Ken have made clear, critical cuts into the very core issues.

If you're coming with guns, aim them at Jeff and Ken. You have yet to illuminate ground upon which any such trump can take place. You are dancing like a PD marionette, and other participants are dancing with you. They provide emotional ground upon which you can avoid intellect.

Like any good propagandist, you're playing with emotions. However, the best PR never holds under the pressures of critical intelligence.

Do we love Lakewood? Of course we do. That does not mean our love is blind.

Dan Slife wrote:Joe,

If you're coming with guns, aim them at Jeff and Ken. You have yet to illuminate ground upon which any such trump can take place. You are dancing like a PD marionette, and other participants are dancing with you. They provide emotional ground upon which you can avoid intellect.

Dan

But they will never answer. Ken and Jeff have been in the "good" fight, as they have come for our award winning library more than once. These two soliders of good fortune have repeatedly sat down with other libraries and the county to hear the latest snake oil pitch for how our well funded and supported library could do so much better joining the county. We would have access to the county's vast 16mm movies and 8-track tape collection. But we are going to need your funding to get you these goodies.

We know the answer to low cost housing being built around the region to share the load. It will never happen.

We are a target because of the funding we give to our schools and libraries. The fact is regionalist come for the money and leave with it.

I would still like to hear how the PR agency spins Cleveland and East Cleveland, or for that matter Beau Village.