The Observation Deck

REGIONALISM

Right for Lakewood?

Inevitable?

What are your thoughts?

The wave of regionalism is quickly approaching. It is so close many people are making plans built on this. Businesses, city work forces, politicians.

I feel it is a great way to buy asphalt, salt, pool chemicals, etc. I think it is crazy for Lakewood to go beyond this.

Your thoughts?

I am working on a story with a working title: Lakewood, most do not get it. About how most outside the city and way to many inside the city just do not get it. What makes Lakewood different.

One question I would like to put in your minds as you consider this future story and regionalism, is the following...

We all love Lakewood for reason many cannot understand. So ask yourself or your friends outside of Lakewood. What do you think about Lakewood?

Jim:We have already once fought the regionalization dragon on the Libra front. There was a very strong, politically savvy, well financed push to take over LPL under the guise of regionalization, and place it under the control of Cuyahoga County. Mr. Rokakis, both Cleveland and Gund foundations, County, and others were making the push, under the banner of tax savings. As it is in many circumstances, any potential savings must be viewed in terms of services lost.

The idea of Regionalization providing a significant economic benefit stems from the assumption of economies of scale. It isn't any different from any business merger, cutting out duplicated depts., and becoming more profitable. But, as you view the issue in a critical process, you have to weigh what you lose by way of community control, unique service and responsiveness, to what you gain in tax savings. Each area of city services will yield a different analysis. Where you might see justification to regionalize garbage collection, the same analysis would probably dictate against school mergers. Perhaps tax savings could be realized in regionalizing fire protection without a loss in service....I don't know.

Jeff

There are many advantages to regionalism; some of which I have listed below. However, most city governments in our region are to concerned with sacrificing their power for the good of the people. This is ironic, as most politicians in our are tell us over and over again that the good of the many outweigh the good of the few.
Regionalism could benefit us by, among other things:

* pooling our public relations together: This includes marketing and advertising ,giving us an edge over regions with equal but unknown assets.

* stop the current trend of tax abatements which have pitted city against city.

* reduce interest rates for government - if any bond issue or loan is made to a region rather than a city, the interest is not only lower because the entire region is involved and the risk to the borrower is lower, but the bond would be paid out of a regional coffer instead of a local coffer. The current "Issue 14", for instance would be paid for by the entire region. If all lakeside communities have this problem, why should there be dozens of "issue 14s" in cities throughout the region when one would suffice, and be less expensive? I am not here to complain about "issue 14", just pointing out that a regional governement would make this less expensive.

*have cities in our area work together to encourage firms not only to come here but to expand here rather than elsewhere, helping not only reduce unemployment, but put increased pressure on wages.

*have better buying power when it comes to not only the things you have mentioned, but things like utilities. With the trend in deregulation, a regional government could force our utilitity prices lower as well.

There are other advantages I could get into; while it's great to discuss them, the discussions I've seen on other boards tell me that the local population, including the politicians are not close to even thinking about this. They all have their own little turfs and don't want to give them up.

Joe Milan.

Voices and Choices, sponsored by the Foundation cartel, will attempt to raise the level of awareness about the need for regional remedies to change “local attitudesâ€Â￾ in order to make a more competitive region.

Obviously neither the free market nor democratically elected bodies of government will be able to instigate the level of “attitude adjustment,â€Â￾ social change and subversion of local institutions the foundation cartel is envisioning through the Voices and Choices project.

Broadly speaking “local attitudesâ€Â￾ are subject to three pressures: globalization; ghettoization, and gentrification.

In NEO, the regional push is to crack outside Cuyahoga County, which is approaching a “built out level.â€Â￾ Clearly there is white and middle class flight to Geauga, Medina, etc, along with the diffusion of dysfunctional social caseload across more and more Cuyahoga County burbs. Thus Cuyahoga County is an inner ring county that must attach to the wealth that is fleeing it.

The sprawling diffusion of economic and professional class interests across the region in combination with the crisis in population shrinkage are factors prompting this agenda.

The tools of marketing - surveys and conversations – will be used as ammunition to attack the structural issues that support both local attitudes and institutions.

The PD and other propaganda organs will control information in order to amplify the “regional intelligenceâ€Â￾ and “regional good will.â€Â￾

In a sense, the PD will serve as a regional counterpoint to the local attitudes and local institutions that cohere around the Lakewood Observer.

Some liberals may even recognize that the crack in the core needs to be filled with resources from the periphery.

How will “structural issuesâ€Â￾ buckle, change or transform to effect new flows of capital?

Will costs (whose costs) actually be reduced over the long term through the transformation of "structural issues?"

From a global economic perspective, the challenge is to attract capital to a place, to a region.

How are local assets, resources, taxation thresholds, traditions traded to bring it on?

So I would begin by identifying “structural issuesâ€Â￾ that inform the quality of life at the ground level in Lakewood: 1) public education; 2) housing affordability; 3) transportation; 4) home rule governance; 5) taxation.

Then I would assess: 1) how each person’s interests cohere or disperse through these structural issues; 2) how stress points might buckle, change or “transformâ€Â￾ such structural issues in a regional agenda.

The "structural issue" of economic integration in public education is likely to surface in Voices and Choices regional conversation, being advanced by the area foundations. Likewise the structural issue of economic integration around housing and zoning is likely to be raised.

Here is an article from the NY Times that suggests how the diffusion of poor students into sprawling suburban schools is raising their performance.

How does would Lakewood approach a regional economic integration program?

With low rents and affordable housing, Lakewood is currently absorbing many poor students from the urban core?

Can Lakewood sustain the level of economic integration and quality in its public schools?

Would Lakewood be better served to argue for a regional economic integration program?

I don’t know. But these are certainly questions that citizens must consider and process intelligently.

Here the article:

September 25, 2005
As Test Scores Jump, Raleigh Credits Integration by Income
By ALAN FINDER

RALEIGH, N.C. - Over the last decade, black and Hispanic students here in Wake County have made such dramatic strides in standardized reading and math tests that it has caught the attention of education experts around the country.

The main reason for the students' dramatic improvement, say officials and parents in the county, which includes Raleigh and its sprawling suburbs, is that the district has made a concerted effort to integrate the schools economically.

Since 2000, school officials have used income as a prime factor in assigning students to schools, with the goal of limiting the proportion of low-income students in any school to no more than 40 percent.

The effort is the most ambitious in the country to create economically diverse public schools, and it is the most successful, according to several independent experts. La Crosse, Wis.; St. Lucie County, Fla.; San Francisco; Cambridge, Mass.; and Charlotte-Mecklenburg, N.C., have adopted economic integration plans.

In Wake County, only 40 percent of black students in grades three through eight scored at grade level on state tests a decade ago. Last spring, 80 percent did. Hispanic students have made similar strides. Overall, 91 percent of students in those grades scored at grade level in the spring, up from 79 percent 10 years ago.

School officials here have tried many tactics to improve student performance. Teachers get bonuses when their schools make significant progress in standardized tests, and the district uses sophisticated data gathering to identify, and respond to, students' weaknesses.

Some of the strategies used in Wake County could be replicated across the country, the experts said, but they also cautioned that unusual circumstances have helped make the politically delicate task of economic integration possible here.

The school district is countywide, which makes it far easier to combine students from the city and suburbs. The county has a 30-year history of busing students for racial integration, and many parents and students are accustomed to long bus rides to distant schools. The local economy is robust, and the district is growing rapidly. And corporate leaders and newspaper editorial pages here have firmly supported economic diversity in the schools.

Some experts said the academic results in Wake County were particularly significant because they bolstered research that showed low-income students did best when they attended middle-class schools.

"Low-income students who have an opportunity to go to middle-class schools are surrounded by peers who have bigger dreams and who are more academically engaged," said Richard D. Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation who has written about economic integration in schools. "They are surrounded by parents who are more likely to be active in the school. And they are taught by teachers who more likely are highly qualified than the teachers in low-income schools."

To achieve a balance of low- and middle-income children in every school, the Wake County school district encourages and sometimes requires students to attend schools far from home. Suburban students are drawn to magnet schools in the city. Low-income children from the city are bused to middle-class schools in the suburbs.

Some parents chafe at the length of their children's bus rides or at what they see as social engineering. But the test results are hard to dispute, proponents of economic integration say, as is the broad appeal of the school district, which has been growing by 5,000 students a year.

"What I say to parents is, 'Here is what you should hold me accountable for: at the end of that bus ride, are we providing a quality education for your child?' " Bill McNeal, the school superintendent, said.

Asked how parents respond, Mr. McNeal said, "They are coming back, and they are bringing their friends."

Not everyone supports the strategy. Some parents deeply oppose mandatory assignments to schools. Every winter, the district, using a complicated formula, develops a list of students who will be reassigned to new schools for the following academic year, and nearly every year some parents object vehemently.

"Kids are bused all over creation, and they say it's for economic diversity, but really it's a proxy for race," said Cynthia Matson, who is white and middle class. She is the president and a founder of Assignment By Choice, an advocacy group promoting parental choice.

The organization wants parents to be responsible for selecting schools, and it objects to restrictions that, in certain circumstances, make it difficult for some middle-class children to get into magnet schools.

"If a parent wants their kid bused, then let them make the choice," Mrs. Matson said. "But don't force parents to have their kids bused across town to go to a school that they don't want to go to."

Supporters of economic integration contend that the county offers parents many choices but that the school district needs the discretion to assign some children to schools to avoid large concentrations of poor children. "I believe in choice as much as anyone," Mr. McNeal said. "However, I can't let choice erode our ability to provide quality programs and quality teaching."

The board of education had two motives when it decided to make economic integration a main element in the district's strategy: board members feared that the county's three-decade effort to integrate public schools racially would be found unconstitutional if challenged in the federal courts, and they took note of numerous studies that showed the academic benefits of economically diversifying schools.

"There is a lot of evidence that it's just sound educational policy, sound public policy, to try to avoid concentrations of low-achieving students," said John H. Gilbert, a professor emeritus at North Carolina State University in Raleigh who served for 16 years on the county school board and voted for the plan. "They do much better and advantaged students are not hurt by it if you follow policies that avoid concentrating low-achievement students."
One sign of the success of the Wake County plan, Mr. Gilbert said, is that residential property values in Raleigh have remained high, as have those in the suburbs. "The economy is really saying something about the effort in the city," he said.

About 27 percent of the county's students are low-income, a proportion that has increased slightly in recent years. While many are black and Hispanic, about 15 percent are white. Moreover, more than 40 percent of the district's black students are working- and middle-class, and not poor.
Wake County has used many strategies to limit the proportion of low-income students in schools to 40 percent. For example, magnet schools lure many suburban parents to the city.

Betty Trevino lives in Fuquay-Varina, a town in southern Wake County. Ms. Trevino drives her son, Eric, 5, to and from the Joyner Elementary School, where he goes to kindergarten. Students are taught in English and Spanish, and global themes are emphasized at the school, which is north of downtown Raleigh, more than 20 miles from the Trevinos' home. With traffic, the trip takes 45 minutes each way.

"I think it works," she said of her drive halfway across the county, "because it's such a good school."

Many low-income children are bused to suburban schools. While some of their parents are unhappy with the length of the rides, some also said they were happy with their child's school.

"I think it's ridiculous," LaToya Mangum said of the 55 minutes that her son Gabriel, 7, spends riding a bus to the northern reaches of Wake County, where he is in second grade. On the other hand, she said, "So far, I do like the school."

The neighborhood school has been redefined, with complex logistics and attendance maps that can resemble madly gerrymandered Congressional districts.

The Swift Creek Elementary School, in southwest Raleigh near the city line, draws most of its students from within two miles of the school, in both the city and suburbs. But students also come to Swift Creek from four widely scattered areas in low-income sections of south and southeastern Raleigh; some live 6 to 8 miles from the school, while others are as far as 12 miles away.

Ela Browder lives in Cary, an affluent, sprawling suburb, but each morning she puts her 6-year-old son, Michael, on a bus for a short ride across the city line to Swift Creek.

"We're very happy with the school," Ms. Browder said. "The children are very enriched by it. I think it's the best of both worlds."

Of the county's 139 elementary, middle and high schools, all but 22 are within the 40 percent guideline, according to the district's data. Some are only a few percentage points above the guideline, while others are significantly higher.

The overwhelming majority of the 120,000 children in the district go either to a local school or a school of their choice, officials said. Slightly more than 85 percent of students attend a school within five miles of home and another 12 percent or so voluntarily attend magnet or year-round schools.

Although the figures can be calculated many ways, Mr. McNeal says about 2.5 percent - or about 3,000 children - are assigned to schools for economic balance or to accommodate the district's growth by filling new schools or easing overcrowding in existing ones. Most of those bused for economic diversity tend to be low-income, he said.

A school board election will take place in October. While the board has continued to endorse economic integration, some supporters worry that that could change one day.

"It's not easy and it can be very contentious in the community," said Walter C. Sherlin, who retired two years ago as an associate superintendent. "Is it worth doing? Look at 91 percent at or above grade level. Look at 139 schools, all of them successful. I think the answer is obvious."

Kenneth Warren

Joseph Milan wrote:There are many advantages to regionalism; some of which I have listed below. However, most city governments in our region are to concerned with sacrificing their power for the good of the people. This is ironic, as most politicians in our are tell us over and over again that the good of the many outweigh the good of the few.
Regionalism could benefit us by, among other things:

* pooling our public relations together: This includes marketing and advertising ,giving us an edge over regions with equal but unknown assets.

* stop the current trend of tax abatements which have pitted city against city.

* reduce interest rates for government - if any bond issue or loan is made to a region rather than a city, the interest is not only lower because the entire region is involved and the risk to the borrower is lower, but the bond would be paid out of a regional coffer instead of a local coffer. The current "Issue 14", for instance would be paid for by the entire region. If all lakeside communities have this problem, why should there be dozens of "issue 14s" in cities throughout the region when one would suffice, and be less expensive? I am not here to complain about "issue 14", just pointing out that a regional governement would make this less expensive.

*have cities in our area work together to encourage firms not only to come here but to expand here rather than elsewhere, helping not only reduce unemployment, but put increased pressure on wages.

*have better buying power when it comes to not only the things you have mentioned, but things like utilities. With the trend in deregulation, a regional government could force our utilitity prices lower as well.

There are other advantages I could get into; while it's great to discuss them, the discussions I've seen on other boards tell me that the local population, including the politicians are not close to even thinking about this. They all have their own little turfs and don't want to give them up.

Joe Milan.

Again

My question is what does the rest of the region "think" of Lakewood. As this will be the deciding factor in regionalism. The region decides that Lakewood is perfect for the next County Jail, landfill, Walmart, etc.

What I am finding is that unless you spend time on the ground here, you have no idea what is to be had here. We are quickly finding that Lakewood has far more to give/lose than the region can offer us.

Joe

So instead of city against city we pit region against region? Well I am not sure I would lead with that as a reason. PR and tax abatements? I am just curious what form of economic development you think this region can attract? This would pretty much nullify statements 1,2 and 4.

Reduce rates? Oh it is easy to wave 14 as a reason, but shouldn't the prudent buyer of a product look what they are buying not only the gain. Police in East Cleveland a nightmare, serious problems in Cleveland and other inner ring suburbs. Lakewood schools climbs as most others fall. And turn our city over to those that do not get it. Well there goes 3.

We agree on 4, maybe.

Again, I go back to do a survey on what the region thinks/dreams of out city then go from there.

I have seen some plans for Lakewood that takes the best of both worlds. We retain the brand we are building without getting sucked in by other areas that need Lakewood for a lift.

But I really would like to hear what those from outside think of Lakewood.

I would think that many of the benefits of regionalism cited by Joseph Milan could be accomplished more or less informally by energetic cooperation among municipalities.
I mean, there's no reason Lakewood, RR, Bay, Fairview, Westlake couldn't cooperate in a public relations campaign touting the amazing benefits of living in the northwest burbs. Put a teeny, tiny tax on real estate agents' commissions to pay for it.

Why do we need a new framework for most of these things?[/b]

I recently received a questionnaire from the PD for the upcoming elections. This was unusual because the PD generally doesn't pay any attention to suburban council races. Reading through the questionnaire, I understood the reason behind it- virtually all of the questions were about regionalism, and showed a clear bias in favor of it.

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.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Again

My question is what does the rest of the region "think" of Lakewood. As this will be the deciding factor in regionalism. The region decides that Lakewood is perfect for the next County Jail, landfill, Walmart, etc.

What I am finding is that unless you spend time on the ground here, you have no idea what is to be had here. We are quickly finding that Lakewood has far more to give/lose than the region can offer us.

Joe

So instead of city against city we pit region against region? Well I am not sure I would lead with that as a reason. PR and tax abatements? I am just curious what form of economic development you think this region can attract? This would pretty much nullify statements 1,2 and 4.

Reduce rates? Oh it is easy to wave 14 as a reason, but shouldn't the prudent buyer of a product look what they are buying not only the gain. Police in East Cleveland a nightmare, serious problems in Cleveland and other inner ring suburbs. Lakewood schools climbs as most others fall. And turn our city over to those that do not get it. Well there goes 3.

We agree on 4, maybe.

Again, I go back to do a survey on what the region thinks/dreams of out city then go from there.

I have seen some plans for Lakewood that takes the best of both worlds. We retain the brand we are building without getting sucked in by other areas that need Lakewood for a lift.

But I really would like to hear what those from outside think of Lakewood.

First off, if it comes to a jail beining put in my community, I'm all for it. The county is letting prisoners go to make room for other prisoners. Noone seems to want a jail in their back yard, even though it would come with a higher police precence. For some strange reason, people think they are safer by letting criminals roam free. Each community that has thought about putting one in has failed to do so, perhaps this is a tasks a regioal government could do better than individual cities.

Secondaly, I must point out that, while many Lakewood residents may have moved to the city because they like the schools, there is something left out of your school argument: THE WAY WE FUND SCHOOLS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL! There must be a new way to fund these schools. Will a regional approach that pits region against region past constitutional standards? I don't have a crystal ball. But I believe funding by region would be a lot more fair than the way things are done now.
Also, while you point out that we'd be giving money to Cleveland schools, you leave out the fact that Rocky River and Westlake would be giving us money.

As to your original question as to what does Lakewood think about the idea? I already said in my first post that it didn't get support when people were trying to put it on the ballot.

Another great thing to add to all this mix is that rather than have 3 comissisioners, the county reform would have made a group of commisioners, one for each of the areas in the county. Right now, if I need to speak with a county commisioner, he wouldn't retun my calls unless he owed me a political favor. They would be held more liable. It would be more easy to get one voted out of office if he wasn't doing his job. The system we have now: Whoever Cleveland likes gets to be commissioner. When was the last time you saw one of these guys unless it was at a parade or he was looking for votes?

As to your question about what this area has to offer, That's a whole extra 10 paragraphs, which I'll respond to - but first I have to eat breakfast and go to work.

Joe Milan

Joseph Milan wrote:* reduce interest rates for government - if any bond issue or loan is made to a region rather than a city, the interest is not only lower because the entire region is involved and the risk to the borrower is lower, but the bond would be paid out of a regional coffer instead of a local coffer. The current "Issue 14", for instance would be paid for by the entire region. If all lakeside communities have this problem, why should there be dozens of "issue 14s" in cities throughout the region when one would suffice, and be less expensive? I am not here to complain about "issue 14", just pointing out that a regional governement would make this less expensive.

Joe Milan.

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?

I would say a better view would be the one city in a region that does not sell out to the "regionalists." What could be better or a stronger statement than "in this region we stand above and offer something different."

In my mind Regionalization is akin to Globalization, and that has been a dismal failure except for the big business. The effects on the people that live in the countries has been devastating.

I have yet to see one reason for it, yet hundreds why it is not right for Lakewood.

Joe

Maybe we should rethink prisons, and why the jails are filled. Do we really need to put non-violent offenders in jail, or should they be put on work release programs or decriminalize some of the laws?

The one thing Lakewood has never had trouble with is support for our schools. Once the links was made between well funded schools and property value, the skids were greased for more money. Where sometimes the rhetoric does not match the truth. This is proven and is working for Lakewood right now and for the foreseeable future.

So this time the major point would be instead of three commissioners that do not return phone calls we would have a commission (three or more) to not return phone calls. Not enough to convince me to sell out my very special community.

So let me get you correct you want a prison built at Lakewood Park, that would be advertised by the region's new PR firm, that would also sell illegally funded schools, that were watched over by a "regional commission" that answers to no one. I think it is a tough sell.

Compare that to: Lakewood, a walkable energized community, with well funded schools that continue to improve, on a lake with three beautiful parks, tennis courts, shopping. 10 minutes from downtown, the airport, 4 malls, three golf courses, horse riding trails. The city also boasts one of the best libraries in the country, 6 art galleries, 6 nightclubs, 2 featuring national and international acts, WiFi and more. Plus one of the most energized civic structures in the country, festivals, parties, cook-outs, snake dances down Detroit. Welcome to Lakewood, the town of 60,000 that acts like Mayberry RFD.

But you might have nailed why Lakewood is so inviting to those who dream in regions. Well funded schools, well funded library, and a great place for the regions next prison. A place to steal cash and dump trash.

Which brings us back to: What do those outside of Lakewood, think of Lakewood.

(Joe I enjoy this back and forth and look forward to other thoughts on this tough subject, but please send back the email so we can verify your membership)

Jim, this is an easy question on the face of it, but it will be hard to get an answer, unless you draw first person reports from persons who know you are asking it, and asking it here.

Aside from this it is possible to talk about one's gut feel for why Lakewood might be a target for regionalizers, but this is the answer to a different question as you've already implied it is.

Still, in a self-report about what non-Lakewoodites think about Lakewood, I would expect to learn of a range of responses biased to some extent, (...goes with the territory,) and interesting for those biases as much as for the possibility that the report might be someways accurate.

The initial question isn't barren of bias: <Why do some not get it?>

It begs two questions: what are they supposed to get? And: if they get this, are they getting an 'it' that is itself accurate?

Lakewood has a powerful 'persona' (i.e. the subjective positive or negative idealization of Lakewoodites,) and, it also has a richly complex underlying reality.

I'm interested in both, but I would expect most self-reports to deploy extremely subjective views, whereas I would expect hard minded research to likely be reports about the actual reality. My expectation also is that there would be a significant gulf between those two kinds of reports.

I'm not a Lakewoodite. My own observations tend toward a complex appreciation of what to me are interesting features of Lakewood. No feature is more interesting to me at the moment than the 'featured' gulf between Lakewood's positive persona and its underlying reality.

Regionalism is rooted in assumptions that through mergers and elimination of duplication that Government will serve us more efficiently, with cost savings reflected in tax savings. So, to buy into the plan, you also have to accept the idea that a a governing body handling the entire region (please define...) will be at least as responsive to the constituent citizens as their city governments are, and that this larger governmental system will eliminate, rather then produce, additional costs, and keep services at levels currently being enjoyed.....

It is a Rosy picture, and an unrealistic panacea. Beyond opinions as to large governmental bodies being efficient, the realities of our region, when examined, point to the real purpose behind the push.

Cleveland is a dirt poor city. The tax base is decreasing, office vacancies are sky high, there continues to be significant suburban flight which cause the downward spiral to become exacerbated and accelerated. The city problems that are spawned from the loss of tax revenues and tax base impact Cleveland at all levels, from city services, to safety forces and schools. Long term fixes are certainly possible, from urban homesteading to enterprise zones and aggressive marketing to bring in people and jobs, and hence tax revenues and bolster the realty tax base. While a rebirth is certainly a possibility, it isn't a certainty, will require leaders of vision and will take decades. But wait....maybe there's a quicker way!

With the exception of East Cleveland, the suburbs surrounding Cleveland proper are, in comparison to the city itself, quite affluent. Westlake, Bay, Rocky River, Solon, Shaker. Under regionalization, we can spread that wealth around...give those with less, more. Thus, Cleveland, who is losing revenues, can make it up at the expense of Shaker, Lakewood, Westlake, etc. Services will be even across the board! Everyone in the region will support similar services even though their respective tax rates may be far different. So, Lakewood may no longer have a first class library, or River a first class school, or Solon a great rec center, but Cleveland, as part of the region, will experience increases in its services, schools, and programs. Since the bulk of the exurbians work in Cleveland, and as Cleveland goes, so goes the region, its the least we can do!! While suburbs who are willing to pay the freight for additional services, schools, etc. will be reduced to a lower common denominator, since Cleveland (proper) will jacked up, it all averages out! Right?!

The point is...it does all average out. No opportunity to have programs and services which excel, because the region is reduced to averaging it all out...reducing it to the common denominator. No ability to be responsive to particular community needs or desires. If you think it looks good on paper, take a look see at how its working for Buffalo, NY.

And it isn't simply an issue of control freak politicians and power mad leaders protecting their turf, although we can expect that regionalization to be trotted out (over and over). Perhaps the converse is true...politicos reaching for greater power and influence under the guise of regionalization? Irrespective, one needs to examine what we currently have, and whether what we will get under regionalization is better. Do you believe that EMS response time will improve with regional EMS? Fire and police response? How about improvements in the school system and parks and recreation? How much of the tax revenue which are attributed to Lakewood (or Shaker, Westlake, River) will be used for the upkeep of (what was once) their infrastructures? This analysis won't be forthcoming, however, because it serves as a argument against regionalization. What we will see, instead, is continued spinning of "economies of scale" and "duplication of services" so that the discussion can focus around assumptions and avoid the painful realities.

Jeff

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Compare that to: Lakewood, a walkable energized community, with well funded schools that continue to improve, on a lake with three beautiful parks, tennis courts, shopping. 10 minutes from downtown, the airport, 4 malls, three golf courses, horse riding trails. The city also boasts one of the best libraries in the country, 6 art galleries, 6 nightclubs, 2 featuring national and international acts, WiFi and more. Plus one of the most energized civic structures in the country, festivals, parties, cook-outs, snake dances down Detroit. Welcome to Lakewood, the town of 60,000 that acts like Mayberry RFD.

Jim, you must also note that this comes with a price tag. A price tag that unfortunately, too many in Lakewood are struggling to afford. This price tag will continue to grow and so too will those struggles.

As for your statement “Lakewood-Why do some not get it?â€Â￾, for a self-proclaimed “radical left wing freakâ€Â￾ and a man that operates a forum dedicated to open communication and free thinking, this seems to be a rather closed-minded thought. It seems arrogant to say that do not share your view, just plain “don’t get itâ€Â￾.

I believe that Lakewood has many attractive features, which is why I decided to settle here a mere 5 months ago. I also believe that your vision of regionalism differs greatly from my vision of regionalism. I envision the consolidation of selected city services that would NOT compromise the integrity of its member governments or as you would say “The Lakewood Brandâ€Â￾. It seems that you envision a massive regional government that has the ability to dictate the happenings within the city, i.e. build a prison, landfill, or Wal-Mart. I believe this to be a bit of a stretch of the imagination.

There are numerous possibilities in which local communities could benefit from the consolidation of services. There are many examples already in place, such as sewer treatment (NEORSD), income tax collection (RITA), and police/fire dispatch services used by Rocky River and surrounding communities. Other possibilities include administrative functions such as purchasing, finance, utility billing, economic development, etc.

Without crunching the numbers, I could not say whether these are viable options for Lakewood, but they should at least be discussed. Our elected officials would be doing the taxpayers of this City an injustice if they did not consider the possibilities offered by shared services and approach them with an open mind.

Jason Stewart

Isn't there a happy medium? I think the issues need to be addressed on a case by case basis.

I'm not convinced that pulling out of RITA was a good thing for Lakewood. They were efficient at what they did (collecting taxes) and setting up a whole new bureaucracy here to do the same thing may actually in the long run cost more than we project and may be more expensive.

Likewise, RITA is expanding into areas like document warehousing the last time I talked with them. All those records that the city saves can be easily scanned and put into a retrieval system. The last I heard RITA was getting the Huge High Speed Scanners that could do this quickly and efficiently for a city. There are other ways that we can share expensive resources and expertise so that we all don't have to reinvent the wheel. RITA is a good resource.

By the way the cost of filing all of the documents and storing them is huge.

I also wonder why the water department is separate. The other suburbs use Cleveland and pay significantly less. And aren't we one of the few suburbs with our own health department? Do we really need our own?

We don't always have to do everything here. We should do it ourselves if it really, really is cost effective. But quite often, companies governments etc. don't consider all the costs and often things are much more expensive than we expect they will be.

In the case of the library, we have a service, which we believe is superior, so even if it saves some money, we may not want to regionalize. But there are so many tasks we do as a city where regionalization makes sense and we should consider it - much more so than we do now.

Just my Humble opinion.

There are numerous possibilities in which local communities could benefit from the consolidation of services. There are many examples already in place, such as sewer treatment (NEORSD), income tax collection (RITA), and police/fire dispatch services used by Rocky River and surrounding communities. Other possibilities include administrative functions such as purchasing, finance, utility billing, economic development, etc.

There is a huge difference between intergovernmental cooperative measures (which are essentially those activities cited above) and regionalization. There are a large number of areas where existing governments co-operate, we just don't hear about them because what is wanted by the Foundations, PD Cleveland, et al, goes far beyond cooperative measures. There are, in existence, various mayoral consortiums which co-operate on a variety of measures. Shared resources for fire, police and SWAT, purchasing consortiums even shared school resources (Westshore vocational). When the talk of regionalization comes up, it isn't a conversation about the current co-operative measures. It is a conversation about acquisition and merger.

Jason, there was a recent push to regionalize the libraries. It was pushed hard by Rokakis, the Gund, PD. There would be tax savings! Who could object? Well I did crunch the numbers. The results, the average Lakewood homeowner (and JUST homeowners) would save less then a buck a month. The Cost? Loss of 10 + service hours per week. Loss of Madison Branch. Loss of specialized independent programming. Loss of facilities and collections (to be ceded to the Region). It made no sense for Lakewood. It was thought that the libraries would be a good starting point, benign low hanging fruit to give impetus to the regionalization push. BUT, when you went beyond the ASSUMPTIONS of economies of scale and efficiencies of regional scope, and actually did the math, we would have given up considerably more than we got.

Regionalization, when boiled down to its most elementary terms, is about revenue sharing, regionalizing the tax base, spreading the wealth so that those without get more. More service, more programming, more school dollars, more safety forces, etc. In turn, through the magic of economies of scale, those with the heaviest tax burden will get a break, the amount of which is open to conjecture, and will only be known after we embark on the regioanalisation path. Are there budgetary pressures? You bet. But I'd rather be in position to address those as our particular needs dictate and not be standing in line as the region also addresses rising crime in Cleveland, flooding in Independence, roads in Berea, education in East Cleveland. If consolidation is the answer, then why is the largest government on the planet perhaps the most wasteful?

Jeff