The Observation Deck

What is it worth?

It has come to my attention through the Plain Dealer story this morning by Thomas Ott, that the city of Lakewood, and mayor Thomas George are all working together with other cities on a regionalization plan for the county.

The mayor was quoted today saying, "We have to hold a lot of well-meaning public officials accountable if they do not step up and do what's necessary to make the region prosper."

State Rep. Michael Skindell, a Lakewood Democrat, on a lack of talk about ways to encourage regional planning or the consolidation of services: "I think there has not been enough communication between local government officials and members of the General Assembly in how we can best come up with ways to promote cooperation. There have been some basic conversations. I have talked with the commissioners. But we need to be more focused."

Before I go off half-cocked, I would like to hear from the Mayor, State Rep. Skindell, and every politician in office in Lakewood or running where they stand on regionalization.

Then I want to hear what they tried to do to make the city better and stand alone, and why they have given up on the city when the residents have not.

Look no farther than next article to see one of a billion reasons why it is foolish. "Region leaders are slow to take the reins." Go figure. Or the comment from Pepper Pike Mayor Bruce Akers on the difficulty of getting the region thinking as one: "When you have 57 different mayors - some refer to them as prima donnas - it's a little like herding cats."

Sounds like a formula for disaster if you ask me! Annexing when growing makes sense. Regionalization, when the population has grown past the region, is like letting go of a small anchor for a heavier one. I just can see the sense of it is you have a lighter anchor?

Has this city looked at everything to make it secure before turning to this terrible idea for the future of Lakewood? What did the politicians think of the Visionary Alignment for Lakewood. A plan that puts Lakewood light years ahead of other cities. Oh that's right too busy to look at the most successful thing currently working in Lakewood. Have we looked at all options, or did we miss another one that is currently being unrolled in at least five other cities?

As a city are we ready to give up home rule, and local accountability? In exchange for what? Some magic beans? What are we really trying to accomplish as a city or a region?

So those that have declared, where do you stand?

So those that are getting ready to declare, where do you stand?

For those that were quoted, where do you stand?



.

Jim,

No one has given up on the City, in fact our deep care for the future of the City has forced us to acknowledge that many of the problems facing Lakewood are outside the control of our local government and current governmental system.

Section 8, for instance, which has been widely discussed on this board is a FEDERAL program, authorized by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and administered locally by the Cuyahoga County Metropolitan Housing Authority, a board which Lakewood has no direct representation. If we can't come up with a more regional approach to Section 8 housing, an approach that more evenly disperses Section 8 tenants throughout the county, we are doomed to business as usual in Lakewood.

I have been actively pursuing regional fire with the other western suburbs.
There are potential savings from shared equipment and some duplication of personnel. The hangup with other western suburban mayors seems to be staffing levels, of which I am firm that Lakewood residents will be served by a fully staffed fire department. Again, unless we address these costs and seek a solution to these cost and service issues, we are doomed to business as usual in Lakewood.

Recently Lakewood City Council passed an historic agreement with the City of Cleveland providing for a set master meter water rate schedule in turn for a non-poaching/revenue sharing agreement.

Lakewood took the bold step of agreeing to share revenue with Cleveland when poaching occurs (and vice versa). In addition, after discussion with Mayor Frank Jackson and his senior staff, we included an expanded non-poaching/revenue sharing agreement provision that included EVERY city in the Cleveland water system...meaning if Strongsville steals a business from Lakewood, Strongsville would be required to share tax revenue with us because they are part of the Cleveland water system.

Just last week, Mayor Jackson's office called and requested that he and I hold a press conference on this historic document later this month.

We must get past the mindset that regionalism means loosing your identity as a city. I am opposed to relinquishing the Lakewood name or the Lakewood brand.

The key to regionalism is the hot button and oft not talked about revenue sharing component. While the cities of Westlake, Solon and Strongsville are flush in dollars many other cities struggle to pay even basic services. A more even system of distributing tax dollars needs to be in place. Not surprising when greater Cleveland's mayors met last year at Cleveland City Council Chambers to discuss regional revenue sharing, absent were most of the mayors from cities flush in tax dollars.

Another key factor in regionalism is quality of service. I personally am not interested in regional cooperatives that compromise the quality of services, whether that be a Library, schools, or city services. Regional initiatives must be BOTH cost effective and service delivery effective.

The Plain Dealer recognizes that political grandstanding aside, many issues and problems facing our cities, including Lakewood, are regional in nature. If you're concerned about crime in Lakewood, like I am, you must recognize there is a direct correlation to crime and unemployment and the greater Cleveland economy . Concerned about city services, there is a direct correlation to services and funding (not to say we should tolerate inefficiencies).

We need to take bold steps to address the outside factors that so dramatically affect our quality of life in Lakewood. The very steps that will allow us to keep our identity and uniqueness. We cannot survive as an island.

Mayor Tom George

Mayor George

Thank for the quick response.

You and I have had many conversations on Lakewood and my fears of regionalism. My fear is not limited to losing the name, or the brand. It is my fear of losing control. I have never doubted your love or dedication to Lakewood. Never.

As I have said million of times. Bulk buying make sense. From there the falloff is so steep even bulk buying no longer makes sense. This is why I want to know, what do we get as a city and as a resident?

We both know for every Westlake there is a East Cleveland and Euclid. Are we even assured they are part of it? Look at the tax agreement, most of the cities stealing businesses from the inner ring stayed out of that agreement.

Tom, you and your staff are much smarter than I in these matters. I am still waiting for an example of how it works for me, or this city.

I am so sorry to post this on a Sunday, when we should all be outside.


.

Section 8, for instance, which has been widely discussed on this board is a FEDERAL program, authorized by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and administered locally by the Cuyahoga County Metropolitan Housing Authority, a board which Lakewood has no direct representation. If we can't come up with a more regional approach to Section 8 housing, an approach that more evenly disperses Section 8 tenants throughout the county, we are doomed to business as usual in Lakewood.

So, the city has no power to limit the number of section 8 tenants in Lakewood?

Ah Regionalism! The dream that through co-operation we will save vast sums of tax dollars, eliminate duplication of services and equipment and forge a stronger "Greater Cleveland", a lean, clean economic machine, poised for greatness in the 21st century.

But, the reality from the overall scenario is to redistribute suburban wealth and by doing so, save the core city. A regional dumbing down, wherein all are reduced to the lowest common denominator. A panacea which relies on unexamined, and unproven economies of scale to foster economic growth and development. Funny how the PD didn't mention the impact this strategy has had in Buffalo or Pittsburgh.....

The saving of Cleveland is the focal point of the discussion. I think it would be appropriate that Cleveland demonstrate how this can effectively be productively accomplished by first "Regionalizing" Cleveland itself. Do away with the waste of half of the unneeded city council positions, streamline this massive bureaucracy. Streamline the school system, eliminate costly and unnecessary administration position.

Co-operation? By all means. Unigov in cuyahoga county? No thank you.

City Hall has no role in the Section 8 program.

It's a federal program done done with CMHA. Private landlords are the ones who decide to take the vouchers.

If any local candidate (or their surrogates) implies that they will limit or eliminate Section 8 housing, they are being deceptive (actually, they'd be lying).

If you are a right winger that is upset that your money is being spent on poor people, please direct your complaints to the so-called "conservative" Mr. Bush.

Thomas J. George wrote:
....Section 8, for instance, which has been widely discussed on this board is a FEDERAL program, authorized by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and administered locally by the Cuyahoga County Metropolitan Housing Authority, a board which Lakewood has no direct representation. If we can't come up with a more regional approach to Section 8 housing, an approach that more evenly disperses Section 8 tenants throughout the county, we are doomed to business as usual in Lakewood.

~~~
Summary of the program
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_(housing)
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2

Currently, the two main Section 8 programs are tenant-based vouchers and project-based vouchers.

A public housing authority can choose to project-base up to 25% of its total vouchers, meaning that the vouchers are linked to a particular apartment. Eligible families pay 30% of their income while living in the apartment, but cannot take that voucher with them to another complex or private residence.

Under the tenant-based program, eligible families with a certificate or voucher find and lease a unit in the private sector and pay a portion of the rent (based on income, generally around 30%). The local housing authority pays the owner the remaining rent, subject to a cap referred to as "Fair Market Rent" (FMR) which is determined by HUD. The owner cannot charge a Section 8 tenant more than FMR, even if the owner does so for non-Section 8 tenants in similar units.

One of the essential features of the tenant-based voucher is the idea of portability. Tenants can rent anywhere they choose, not limited to specific complexes. Eligible families may in theory move anywhere in the United States (and Puerto Rico) where there is a public housing authority operating a Section 8 program; however, in practice, some jurisdictions are unable or unwilling to take transferred vouchers, primarily due to the differences in the costs of program administration in different housing markets around the country.

In addition, landlords, though required to meet fair housing laws, are not required to participate in the Section 8 program. As a result, some landlords will not accept a Section 8 tenant. This can be attributed to: not wanting the government involved in their business, fear that a Section 8 tenant will not properly maintain the premises or a desire to charge more than FMR for the unit. However, other landlords willingly accept Section 8 tenants, due to the promise of prompt regular payments from the housing authority, and since a tenant under Section 8 can be removed from the program if s/he damages the rental unit or fails to pay his/her rent.

Whether voucher or project-based, all subsidized units must meet federal Housing Quality Standards, thus ensuring that the family has a healthy and safe place to live. This improvement in the housing stock is an important by-product of this program, both for the individual families and for the larger goal of community development.

In many localities, the waiting lists for Section 8 vouchers may be thousands of families long, waits of three to five years to access vouchers are not unusual, and many lists are closed to new applicants.

Families who participate in the program must abide by a series of rules and regulations, often referred to as "family obligations," in order to maintain their voucher, including accurately reporting all changes in household income so the amount of their subsidy can be updated accordingly. In recent years, the HUD Office of the Inspector General has spent more time and money on fraud detection and prevention.

Currently, there are no time limits for family participation in the program, though occasionally reform bills are introduced in Congress that suggest time limiting the program.

.

The proof is in the pudding as they say.
The only rust belt cities holidng their own Indianapolis and Columbus have regionalized. No Sun Belt county has 57 municipalities. The greater Phoenix area has something like 8 separate cities. Name one suburb of Las Vegas.
I dont have the expertise to know WHY regionalism works but boy oh boy it sure seems to.
Bruce Akers is a very astute man who was successful in business before getting into politics. Im with him and our mayor on this one.,

Dee Martinez wrote:The proof is in the pudding as they say.
The rust belt cities holding their own Indianapolis and Columbus have regionalized. No Sun Belt county has 57 municipalities. The greater Phoenix area has something like 8 separate cities. Name one suburb of Las Vegas.
I dont have the expertise to know WHY regionalism works but boy oh boy it sure seems to.
Bruce Akers is a very astute man who was successful in business before getting into politics.

Dee


I cannot speak for Indy, but Columbus annexed as it grew. A completely different proposition to combining services. I can show you areas it has been the far less stellar.

Besides, the question is not is it right for the region, but is it right for us?

I understand why East Cleveland signed the with the no poaching group. I also understand why Solon and North Olmsted did not.

I would just like to see or hear how this benefits me, in Lakewood. Or am I taking one for the regional team? If so how much will it hurt?

.

Jeff Endress wrote: The saving of Cleveland is the focal point of the discussion.

I agree Jeff, I think regionalism is simply a veiled attempt to funnel money to the core city to try and revitalize it or give it a purpose again. I'm not so sure I agree with that approach.

That being said however, I'm curious as to whether people feel Lakewood, East Cleveland, Westlake, Beachwood, or really any another suburb, would be able to survive or thrive long-term if the inner core city truly dies?

I'm not so sure I know the answer to that. I tend lean towards the side that would say if the core dies, so do we eventually. I think all the suburbs truly need to be interested in the health of Cleveland.

Hi,
I believe this effort shows we need Lakewood leadership that is more concerned about Lakewood than the County. Perhaps appointing individuals that live outside of Lakewood to key administration positions is a way to aid regionalism but I do not think it helps Lakewood one bit.

The other evening Lynn and I were standing on Madsion with one candidate(?) for Mayor and a lady walked up to him an asked?" "I want to start a business in Lakewood that fits in. Any ideas on how I could get it going?" She just moved here from Washington DC and was in love with our City.

2 points on that:
1). This stuff happens to this guy all the time and I wanted to thanks Mr. Jim O'Bryan for all that he has done to improve Lakewood. Perhaps we could argue that there are one or two people that have helped as much but I believe everyone will agree he has done an amazing job as "Ambassador of Lakewood". I just think we should provide him with health care too.

2). I was thinking about it later and wondered, how that conversation would have transpired if the person ran into our Planning Director in his extraburb while he was out getting coffee one evening. Would he respond, "Oh, go do that in Lakewood. I live here but Lakewood is really a better place." or would he say, "Yes we live in a wonderful town and this is a great place to live and work."

Jeff Endress wrote:Ah Regionalism!

....But, the reality from the overall scenario is to redistribute suburban wealth and by doing so, save the core city. A regional dumbing down, wherein all are reduced to the lowest common denominator. A panacea which relies on unexamined, and unproven economies of scale to foster economic growth and development. Funny how the PD didn't mention the impact this strategy has had in Buffalo or Pittsburgh.....

Co-operation? By all means. Unigov in cuyahoga county? No thank you.

Some good distinctions at this link between regionalism and Intermunicipal Cooperation and Functional Consolidation as alternatives to the political fragmentation associated with regionalism.
http://government.cce.cornell.edu/doc/v ... egionalism

.

Bryan Schwegler wrote:I'm not so sure I know the answer to that. I tend lean towards the side that would say if the core dies, so do we eventually. I think all the suburbs truly need to be interested in the health of Cleveland.

Are you sure?

Or is it like the drowning swimmer?

Right now we just spent $$$$$$ on a new library, and new schools, are we so eager to throw those into the regional ante? What does East Cleveland throw in? One of their two police? Their $500,000 homes for $35,000? What does Garfield throw in? Two empty Tops Warehouses and 500 less jobs? Rocky River? We extend their lock down? Brookpark? Their strip clubs? Maybe instead of getting a larger jail we could get the county prison!

I know it sounds selfish and it is.

Where does Lakewood win?


.

Hi,
PS if Lakewood needs regionalism to survive let's regionalism with western suburbs with which we share more in common.

The City of Cleveland is a black hole that would consume our tax dollars quickly and aid us little or not at all. Perhaps help for them comes best at the state level.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Bryan Schwegler wrote:I'm not so sure I know the answer to that. I tend lean towards the side that would say if the core dies, so do we eventually. I think all the suburbs truly need to be interested in the health of Cleveland.

Are you sure?

Or is it like the drowning swimmer?

Right now we just spent $$$$$$ on a new library, and new schools, are we so eager to throw those into the regional ante? What does East Cleveland throw in? One of their two police? Their $500,000 homes for $35,000? What does Garfield throw in? Two empty Tops Warehouses and 500 less jobs? Rocky River? We extend their lock down? Brookpark? Their strip clubs? Maybe instead of getting a larger jail we could get the county prison!

I know it sounds selfish and it is.

Where does Lakewood win?


.

Jim I agree...regionalism is not the answer. But neither is a complete lack of caring what happens to the core city. There are people in Westlake, Bay, Avon who probably don't even know where Cleveland is. I wonder how well those cities will fare if Cleveland truly does die. And to be honest, as a bordering suburb, I think we need to be even more concerned about the well-being of Cleveland.

Regionalism is not the answer...I just don't know what it is or I would probably be a very rich man from all my consulting.