The Observation Deck

And again I'll just ask - If Lakewood is light years ahead of other suburbs why are we losing popultation and why can't we attract retail ?

These are facts, not opinion.

Once again I have to say that there are no easy answers here. I have to agree with David that it is short-sighted to reject out of hand the idea that regionalism may have benefits for citizens in Lakewood.

Jim says:

When compared to almost every city out there Lakewood would loose. So if Lakewood comes up on the short side of more than half of the cities out there, then we lose in Regionalism. When we lose against 85% of the cities, then the loss become devastating to Lakewood.

...but this is a fallacy of composition. Without a rigorous examination of the facts that these statements are made upon the claims are nothing more than emotionally charged responses to a perceived threat to the city.

On the other hand I agree with Jim that we need to choose carefully and wisely in this matter because change is costly. This is one of the biggest responsibilities I feel our council members shoulder - to review and understand the possibilities and their potential impacts on the city's finances their potential impact on the efficacy of city services.

TO that end, I do hope that our council members will continue to work hard at keeping their constituents up to date on council's activities with regards to city planning. With adequate information we can make informed and intelligent decisions. Without adequate information, we may as well just flip a coin...

Kind Regards,
~Charyn

Charyn has indicated

Without a rigorous examination of the facts that these statements are made upon the claims are nothing more than emotionally charged responses to a perceived threat to the city.

Indeed. Any discussion of regionalization requires a VERY thorough vetting of the particular aspect of regionalization being discussed.

Part of the problem in the discussion to date (whether it be on Libraries, water systems, fire depts.) has bee the ASSUMPTION that each constituent part of the equation is the same as any other other constituent part, ie., fire engines are fire engines whether in Lakewood or Cleveland. There is an unwillingness to examine the underlying nature of each individual city's assets, as compared to the proposed regionalized entity, or as compared from one city to another. So there is no logical basis on which to make a rational determination of the risks and benefits of regionalization.

On the other hand, there is generally, merely an analysis of cost savings, based on economies of scale, duplication of manpower and resources, etc.
So, I would suggest, that before any action can even be discussed, it would be absolutely necessary that we quantify that which we have so that we may also make an accurate apples to apples analysis of the effects of mergers and regionalization.

As an example, take refuse removal. At first blush, a garbage truck is a garbage truck, whether it is plying the streets of Lakewood or Shaker. Surely if we had a regional refuse collection system, money could be saved, or so goes the rational without the necessary examination of the underlying service. Lakewood recycles, offers backyard pickup, collects from apartments and rentals. Some cities do not. If there is a regionalization of this service how will our service change and what is the cost benefit of such change?

While I'll grant that there exists some "turf" issues, parochial in nature. If there exists a reasonable analysis that allows for a rational comparison leading to a thought-out decision that there is a benefit to be realized than those "turf" issues should not stand in the way. However, there is an equally pervasive attitude of "hang together or all hang separately" which avoids the necessary underlying investigation and tends to ASSUME that in greater numbers there is greater strengh, while in reality, once properly studied, it may well be determined that in greater numbers there is less responsive bureaucracy, reduction of service and a lack of local control.

What we currently see with this most recent regionalization trial balloon, is still the panacea of "strengh is numbers" and "if its good for the region, it'll be good for Lakewood", without first examining what it is we have, what it is we would be giving up, how the service model would change and the net impact, both in terms of costs and service, which could be expected. Until I see an apples to apples comparison, indicating otherwise, I'm unwilling to assume that this regionalization of a Lakewood asset would provide any benefit to the city.

Jeff

Every few years Carl Monday or some other maverick reporter does an expose on the Cleveland Water Department. Emphasis usually is in regards to graft, bill padding, and employees spending the day at Wendy's.

There are assumptions implicit in the arguement/desire for "continued growth" and "redevelopment" that real estate values will(or, could) continue to appreciate at a rate that will offset inflation(i.e. the rising cost of producing public goods) and that a community's ability to sustain itself is indefinately bound to the mechanisms of capital, as driven through realestate.....(the magical movements of the "invisible hand" that keeps fanning the fires of capital, this way or that.)

The real action is taking place low to the ground, spatially, where the lands of investment and disinvestment divide.

As a working class(generally speaking) community, Lakewood's economic quandry can be viewed, in one sense, as evidence of a working class population's diminished powers of investment. To the the east, burnt-out neighborhoods in Cleveland were divested by the same cycle, decades ago.

The fires of capital burn slow. Dying old buildings - disinvested communities - make good kindling for sure. Douse with non-profit starter fluid; blockgrants, gov & subsidized loans.........watch the kindling cook.

Eventually, as noted in the blog Hotel Bruce, the gentrifying fires come to life.
http://www.hotelbruce.com/01_03/feature ... afford.php

At this stage, the "re-investors" are no longer dependent on community block grants, and gov. subsidized loans. In fact, with their requirments for mixed/low income housing, the starter fluid becomes like water on the fire's natural momentum.....the total displacement of the disinvested peoples milling about the land of would be "reinvestment".


Yes, you're home is not going to appreciate so rapidly as those in River or Bay. It's interesting that a home is considered an investment at the same time that we talk about the need to save our community. Are people investing in our COMMUNITY or investing in a HOME.

An investment is always closed with a pullout, that grand, profitable transaction. How then does one INVEST in a community, if your just biding your time for the day you can cash out?

Obviously, we received goods and services. We have libraries, our children are educated in the schools and participate in recereation programs. We have infastructure, safety....the list goes on. But we don't invest in these things to eventually gain a profit.... in purely economic terms(include consumption oriented paradigmatic concerns)

If the stewards of the public good are doing their job, we pull something greater from the community, that cannot be measured by an 'economies of scale analyses', or the purely quantitative return on investment in the real estate market.

What we can receive from our investment in community is a sense of communal identity, relationship, and self-determation that will always inspire greater human potential than the hope for profit, class mobility and social distance.

Lakewood's apparent "crisis" is only the crises of the working and middle-classes, whose powers of investment have been defrocked over the last 50 years. We all know the erosion of the middle class, same dynamic. Lakewood is eroding, not declining. We're just sinking, as analogous to the rest of the country (as our city takes out loans against the value of our total public assets to stay in the black, as though we we're able to print money at will ;0))

The investment approach to community stabilization is certainly a necessary part of the action. However, it is just one layer that must be subsumed by a more relational, post-religous morality that denies the fires of capital total reign in our little forest.

Regionalism, as promoted by the foundation cartel is a mechanism of global capital and it's trans-national -not to mention, post municipal- intersests in reconfiguring western democratic republics into third world, corporate feudal feifdoms. Erosion of the mddle class = disinvestment in the human core. Erosion of Lakewood = disinvestment by the human core in its own communal relations.

It's all relavent.

We become a third world nation while the populous sleeps, and we don't even need purple pills. That's the black-magic of capital, allowing the numbing action of over-consumption to set in and infect the communal soul.

Keep shoping. Wal-Mart for Steel Mills.

Keep swallowing the pills. Cleveland's medical industrial complex occupies vast land once scorched by the fires of capital, former blocks of Cleveland's working people.

Jeff Endress wrote:While I'll grant that there exists some "turf" issues, parochial in nature. If there exists a reasonable analysis that allows for a rational comparison leading to a thought-out decision that there is a benefit to be realized than those "turf" issues should not stand in the way.


Jeff

Oh, no. It's not "some turf issues." It's ALL turf issues, with a side order of civic hubris.

Mr O, bless him, believes in his core that Lakewood is Eden. But of course, there are people who feel the same way about Fairview Park or Westlake. Mention "Lakewood" to those folks, and they think "Sodom" or "Gahanna" (look it up if you're non-Biblical) "Hooking up" with Lakewood would bring the same fury that I would get if I said, 'let's put up a Crocker Park in Madison Village!"

Regionalism on a wide scale MIGHT have worked 50 years ago, but I think the time has passed. Regionalization and consolidatiion are for cities in the ascendant phase (Columbus, San Antonio, Phoenix). Best we can do now are purchasing co-ops and the occasional joint venture.

Again, the schools are ahead of the cities on this.

Joan

I tend to agree:

Regionalism on a wide scale MIGHT have worked 50 years ago, but I think the time has passed. Regionalization and consolidatiion are for cities in the ascendant phase (Columbus, San Antonio, Phoenix). Best we can do now are purchasing co-ops and the occasional joint venture

Areas in an ascendant phase use regionalization as a means for urban planning and expansion into under or undeveloped areas. It is far more difficult to attempt merger of already existing and functioning constituent pieces.... and yes, "turf" issues play a significant part.

However, my point still remains valid, IMHO. IF (and it's a big if) there was demonstrable evidence and underlying rational that showed a benefit would actually be realized from merger, the population affected could be sold on the idea of mergers and consolidation. Granted, it would be a hard sell, much more difficult than achieving the same result when one one incorporates undeveloped outlying areas into a growing municipality, but I do believe it could be accomplished if those proponents did more than rely on the tired message of "economies of scale" and "strengh in numbers".

Unfortunately, whenever a merger or consolidation balloon is launched (usually with underlying foundation financing) the only position put forth is the prospect of saving taxpayer money by elimination of unnenecessary service duplication. Merger/consolidation proponents have yet to ever analyze the service models of the constituent parts which would make up a merged system or provide any basis on which we could determine that the loss/gain in our particular service model would be worth the cost/savings to be realized through a merger or consolidation. Failure to make such an examination only feeds into the civic hubris and turfism as those affected have nothing on which to rely when asked to chose between their present service models and costs and the unknown service model with its projected economic impacts. You are left with choosing between what you presently have and a complete unknown with the promise of some unspecified savings. Given that choice, it isn't a particularly hard decision.

Jeff

Jeff

I agree there are different service levels that need to be blended to achieve any aspect of regionalization. This is where our elected officials come in. A leader would approach the other cities/districts or whatever and begin preliminary discussions, bring back the costs and the benefits to their constituents and have a public diaglogue. My frustration comes from the current feeling of not even getting to the analysis stage.

**hums "No Man is an Island" **



I know that there have been discussions in the mayors office and (probably) with council on various aspects of regionalization, privatization, etc.

Does anyone have a stick to poke one of them with to get them to give us the current city view on these issues so we can discuss where we actually are in the process and where we want to go?

Ohh Stannnnn... wherrreee arrrree youuuuuu?????

Peace,
~Charyn

Charyn--- I think that two episodes of Feagler and Company on WVIZ would serve as the best explanation for not only our own mayor's view on regionalization but the view of a few other mayors.

First, I think it would be helpful to try and have some common definitions. Some people hear regionalism and think of a government/political merger. For instance, it could be one government for all of Cuyahoga County. There would be no individual cities or school systems or other governmental units. This might even extend beyond the borders of Cuyahoga County.

Another form of regionalism is functional. For instance those functions of local government- safety, refuse, recreation, etc. could be areas for different degrees of merger or cooperation.

Shortly after Tom was elected mayor, about 2 1/2 years ago, he appeared on Feagler. Dick asked Tom for his and Lakewood's views on regionalism. Tom replied that as Mayor and that Lakewoodites were not in favor of any kind of comprehensive regionalism. He did acknowledge the potential benefits of functional cooperation. For instance the West Shore school systems have had a coop purchasing program for over 30 years. We have a Westshore SWAT as was recently seen in action. There are agreements between fire departments for mutual aid in the event of very large fires.

Both Tom and all members of council are on record as recognizing the need to constantly explore areas of functional cooperation where it makes economic sense.

Alternatively, sticking within your own borders can sometimes be more efficient. That was the reasoning behind bringing back local tax collection to Lakewood. After study it was determined, and council agreed, that RITA was not collecting taxes as efficiently as Lakewood alone could. That is the same determination that several other cities in Cuyahoga County have made, too, and they are going back to in house collections. So that specific regional function is remaining static or reverting back to a more parochial approach.

On an episode of Feagler just a few weeks ago the guests were the mayor of Bay Village, Pepper Pike, and Parma Hts. The issue was regionalism. They all were in agreement that exploring functional areas of cooperation was the proper direction at this time. Bay Village Mayor Debbie Sutherland then summed up the situation by stating that after 30 to 40 years of natural functional evolution it just might make sense for certain cities to merge governments.

These mayors deal with this issue daily and their local organizations along with the Ohio Municipal League provide forums where they are in ongoing communication. They are not isolated from one another. And this is their conclusion of the future of regionalsm.

I think it is a very realistic view of the future. When you get down to it, there is no desire or demand on the part of the vast majority of Northeast Ohio residents for any kind of regional, mega government. The term just keeps getting thrown out there without any clear definition as some sort of organizational solution to some very endemic problems.

The county's mayors have a pretty good handle on opportunities which they are pursuing and limitations which give them caution.

I hope that gives a general overview of the issue.

Your City Council Reporter------ Stan Austin

Joan Roberts wrote:

Jeff Endress wrote:Mr O, bless him, believes in his core that Lakewood is Eden. But of course, there are people who feel the same way about Fairview Park or Westlake. Mention "Lakewood" to those folks, and they think "Sodom" or "Gahanna" (look it up if you're non-Biblical) "Hooking up" with Lakewood would bring the same fury that I would get if I said, 'let's put up a Crocker Park in Madison Village!"

Regionalism on a wide scale MIGHT have worked 50 years ago, but I think the time has passed. Regionalization and consolidatiion are for cities in the ascendant phase (Columbus, San Antonio, Phoenix). Best we can do now are purchasing co-ops and the occasional joint venture.

Again, the schools are ahead of the cities on this.

Joan

Mr. O believes that Lakewood has a better chance to become Eden, than Bay Village. I think we have more to work with. I am not dillusional about the amount of work it will take to even stop the slide.

You say build Crocker Park in Madison Village and I say, it is there and better already, and it is real. Put a borders in Madison Village an it has 20,000 residents that can walk there on a summer night. The one in Crocker Park has maybe 500-1,000.

I see Detroit and Madison as two very long Crocker Parks, but again real and backed up with real humans and families. I am not against economic development. I do not want Madison and Detroit to empty out. I understand we must grow and evolve. I just think it should be responsible, and planned.

Another reason I like Lakewood over Legacy Village for this discussion is they have built a multi-million dollar "faux" city. Now that leases are up stores are closing left and right. Expectations of the millions from taxes fell way short of projections. Those that projected these numbers for 30 years must look very foolish now.

Lakewood does not need the one shot multi-million dollar build out. As proven by Breadsmith, Donatos, Player's Pizza, The Bin, even IHop. It can be done so that it fits in with the community, at a pace that allows the city and the residents to constantly evaluate the impact. I mean without a plan, slow and steady works pretty very nicely too.

Mayor Tom George often talks about the build out that is going on. But for some reason 10-25 blocks torn up is not a fast enough change! Rockport, Rosewood, Walgreens, Donatos, Edwards/Detroit, YMCA, W117, Topps, Sloane, all the schools.

Now do not get my next comment wrong. You are a breath of fresh air, and are so right so often it is scary. You have tremendous ideas for Lakewood. But it is a city that you often talk about leaving within years. You talk about bringing in this and that instead of driving 5-15 minutes to this or that. But after you leave, what is left behind. I grew up in a city that always hung it's hat on the best place to live. Our schools were/are damn good and our streets safe. I just always wonder when corporate food and/or $2.00 off our tax burden was more important than a good neighbor?


.

Jeff

One thing overlooked in Regionalism and is another reason why it works for the cities on the fringe. It allows them to reach a truce on stealing each other's big box stores. Of course this practice is suicide for two, as one city slits it wrist for losing it, the other is slitting their throats into benefits for the company moving in. But Lakewood is not even in that war.

What I find odd/funny is that the "regionalist" always talk of Lakewood as a key. Always makes me wonder why?

Joan

Another thought. I realize that you are not impressed with Lakewood, and think it could be so much better if we just... But the Cleveland area was voted most liveable in the USA, 16th most in the world. And three media outlets picked Lakewood as the best city in the county. I know the London study was based on 250 different points of study. Is Lakewood really that bad? I mean let's pretend their numbers are wrong, and we are only the third best city in the 3rd most liveable area of the USA? Is that hell on earth? Eden? Utopia? OK?


.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:\
Joan
Another thought. I realize that you are not impressed with Lakewood, and think it could be so much better if we just... But the Cleveland area was voted most liveable in the USA, 16th most in the world. And three media outlets picked Lakewood as the best city in the county. I know the London study was based on 250 different points of study. Is Lakewood really that bad? I mean let's pretend their numbers are wrong, and we are only the third best city in the 3rd most liveable area of the USA? Is that hell on earth? Eden? Utopia? OK?


.

I think you misread me.

Lakewood is a wonderful choice for people with certain tastes, lifestyles, priorities.

For other people, Westlake, Strongsville, or for that mat terr, Tremont or downtown Cleveland are a better fit. And those people are every bit as proud of and committed to their communities as you are to Lakewood.

Not everyone in Westlake or Medina is as hopelessly and terminally bourgeois as you and some others, intentionally on no, intimate. And on the other end of the spectrum, to someone in say, Slavic Village or Tremont, doesn't Lakewood look like suburban whitebread?

For the record, I have never advocated "bringing in" anything, My view has always been that it's basically impossible to "bring something in." Those decisions willl be made by private businesses using private capital. I would never say Lakewood "needs" a Bob Evans. I just wouldn't join the crowd running in the streets screaming in horror if Bob Evans Food Systems, Inc. decided to open a Lakewood, Ohio location.

Nor have I ever advocated a Crocker Park in Lakewood. Not appropiate and probably impossible anyway. But when I go there for a movie or dinner or Trader Joe's, I enjoy myself. It's a nice place. That's it.

If Crocker Park is a "faux" city, as you often say, are the people in the apartments also fake? I would guess they would be rather offended by that characterization. I would also guess that there is probably as much (o r as little) neghborly interaction among the CP residents as there is in the average Lakewood apartment building. Why the judgment?

As for me leaving the city, yes, I very well may. Wouldn't you like to know WHY? Is it worth finding out why people like me leave, and is it worth an effort to get them to stay? Or is Lakewood's attitude that we should wave at folks as their moving vans pull out?

I agree you can't please everyone, and you'll probably die tryin'. But just like with individuals and businesses, communities are well served by some honest, realistic self assessment.
I think Lakewood can build on its strengths which are many. It also has to acknowledge and work on its weaknesses, and there are a few of those, too. Just like individuals. I don't consider that an unreasonable view.

Way OT now. The topic was, I think, water.

Joan

To bring it back to topic.

I like water. I also think we should pursue options that might be possible.

You are correct from now on i will switch to New or Instant. People have every right to live and work where they are comfortable. I was using faux, as it is one person's "concept" of a "city." I always thought of Disneyland, and "It's a small world after all." When I should have been thinking of hundreds of similar ideas in the 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s. I have a map in my office from 1885 where the "faux" city of Lyndhurst is completely drawn out, ans one developer say fit. So the term faux will be stricken. Thanks for helping me see the light.

I also am not outraged by the move to Westlake, North Olmsted, Bay Village, etc. I have friends out there, I go to Crocker Park, Great Northern, Fairview, Rocky River, Legacy Village, Coventry, Warrensville, etc. I do not buy half the reasons I am told why they moved. Taxes are a red herring. But I know what we have here that is very different from what every other city in the area offers. The potential to make this city a much, much better place for all of us is easily within our grasps. All it takes is a small amount of dedication, loyalty, and perseverance.

Amazing things can happen in this city with the right mindset.

I am not talking about "Jimmyville" I am talking about a realistic shot at being an affordable, clean, safe, fun place where. Where energized people can come and enjoy life. All the benefits of a good size city with a small town feel. A place where people leave their homes on a Sunday and get breakfast at Bob Evans, walk to the Metro Park as they stroll or drive down Detroit. Take the Dog to the dog park while dad waxes his car under the trees by Sweetwater, a summer barbecue with friends and neighbors and a stroll to the summer concert, movie, festival...

We cultivate businesses, residents support those businesses, we create fun like events and prmote them like Car Shows, Antique Fairs, Snake Parades, Lakewood Days, Arts and Crafts, Ice Cream Walks, Art Walks, 5 k runs, etc. People will see and energized fun town with things going on, places to start businesses, vibrant business districts, and a good safe clean area to live.

It does not seem like rocket science. All one has to do is ask anyone from the country what they think of Lakewood after the Arts and Crafts Festival, Fireworks, Car Show, etc. They love the place.

Which has a greater more positive impact on Lakewood both short term and long term. A restaurant/bar with parking for 500, and a permit for the same. Or 500 new residents, or even 250. Those 250 need to buy food, get their hair done, go to churches, open their own business, get involved, have friends and relatives come and visit. Build a mall and it only benefits a few. Build a community and everyone wins.

And then we can enlarge the water treatment plant.

To stay on topic.


.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Joan



Which has a greater more positive impact on Lakewood both short term and long term. A restaurant/bar with parking for 500, and a permit for the same. Or 500 new residents, or even 250. Those 250 need to buy food, get their hair done, go to churches, open their own business, get involved, have friends and relatives come and visit. Build a mall and it only benefits a few. Build a community and everyone wins.



.

And if the water treatment plant could spew out stuff we could charge $2 a bottle for, all of our problems would be over. Just staying on topic...

Your comment above is absolutely right. But consider looking at it from the REVERSE.

If the city could do its best to attract 500 JOBS, wouldn't it stand to reason that a goodly share of those 500 WORKERS would become RESIDENTS? People tend to live near where they work. We have housing. We don't have the work.

I agree with you. I don't think restaurants and retail are the economic drivers (nice to have, though, but I see it more as an amenity than an economic force). But whether it's 5 companies employing 100 each, 10 employing 50 each, or whatever, that's the kind of activity that needs to happen.

Then the payroll taxes increase and everything, including water infrastructure, gets a share of a bigger pie. Right now, the pie's not growing.