The Observation Deck

The Cuyahoga County Progressive Caucus had a press conference Friday morning at their Lakewood office to announce its opposition to the County Council's proposed deal to spend tax dollars on Q Arena upgrades. The deal would cost up to $282 million (with interest) in public money.
I expect to have a full article on this in the future, but for now here are some links:

Here is a link to some info from the CCPC website:

http://www.cuycpc.org/notallin

Here is a link to a full video of the press conference:

https://www.facebook.com/CuyCPC/videos/ ... 964529121/


So what do you think? Feel free to share your thoughts on this thread.

But Dan needs the money!

Well, I'm a member, but for what it's worth I fully support the organization's decision to contest this.

Reviewing the initial announcements of "the Q Transformation," I can find zero evidence of even a desire for this renovation outside of the Cleveland Cavaliers organization, to say nothing of an actual public-interest need. This is simply something which the Cavaliers management wants. And wants someone else to pay for, because they have done so before, and so—as long as you feel comfortable taking advantage of others—why not ask again?

That's it.

I could go on, but arguing details seems to miss the forest for the trees. There is nothing here but wealth redistribution, upward, and the public's only motivations to go along with it are cynicism and System Justification. http://sk.sagepub.com/reference/processes/n275.xml

These attitudes have many successes to their credit, of course. But often they don't even face organized opposition. (In addition to CCPC, Greater Cleveland Congregations got the ball rolling on #NotAllIn last month.)

So we'll see.

Hum, how old is the arena? 20 years? and it needs 283 million dollars to update it? I vote to spend 5 million to restore the late Hilliard Theater.

Just a brief update…

I was among a small Lakewood contingent attending last night's County Council meeting. The overall attendance was, meanwhile, an all-time record. Council chambers filled to capacity and overflowed.

A lot of people spoke against public funding for "the Q Transformation." People also spoke for it, although I think the majority openly acknowledged some present or prospective financial interest in the arena and/or the Cavaliers. (Points for transparency, at least.)

As an opponent of this proposal's current form, I have to give a lot of credit to Greater Cleveland Congregations. They were out in force, and have much more planned.

If anyone wants to weigh in, with whatever views, Lakewood is represented on County Council by Dale Miller.
http://council.cuyahogacounty.us/en-US/district-2.aspx

This will be unpopular here, but although I am generally opposed to municipal welfare handed out to professional sports teams, it seems to me the Cavs have provided a pretty good return on the investment. Maybe not dollar for dollar, but in terms of boosting the Cleveland's national image, and all that entails in terms of attracting events and tourism. And the arena itself gets a lot of use for other things, like concerts and the RNC. I would need to know more about the deal before taking a stance against it.

On the other hand, if it were the Browns, I'd tell them to take a Flying J leap.

Dan Alaimo wrote:This will be unpopular here, but although I am generally opposed to municipal welfare handed out to professional sports teams, it seems to me the Cavs have provided a pretty good return on the investment. Maybe not dollar for dollar, but in terms of boosting the Cleveland's national image, and all that entails in terms of attracting events and tourism. And the arena itself gets a lot of use for other things, like concerts and the RNC. I would need to know more about the deal before taking a stance against it.

Sure, that's a good thing!

I think the important thing to emphasize is that this isn't about whether or not the public spends on Quicken Loans Arena, or cares about the Cavaliers. We just renewed public funding of the Q, along with the other two arenas. None of that is being contested.

What's being proposed is essentially a gold-plating of the Q. As you and other people have pointed out, correctly, it's already doing the best trade of all three Cleveland arenas. I suspect that luxury embellishments to the Q are unlikely to boost its marketability for events, or that of a city which just landed the RNC. It seems to me that whatever prospect Cleveland has for improving its appeal, in this area, the obstacles are likely elsewhere. For example, I imagine convention planners researching the city a couple of years from now and seeing a story about RTA services at risk, and deciding that a 25% shinier Q is completely beside the point.

The "Q Transformation" promoters emphasize that the deal involves no new taxes, but this ignores that the core feature of money is that it's fungible. If otherwise maxed-out local governments can go under the couch cushions and bring up millions of extra dollars, they could spend them on anything. Given that the Q already benefits from generous public subsidies, it seems like many other priorities should come in ahead of them for new funds, especially since the Q's tenants obviously have the means to pay for further upgrades on their own. I heard a few people propose last night that "it isn't either/or"—but unless they have details for how unmet needs can also be paid for, I think that it is.

Downtown Cleveland is in good shape, and even if it still needs "training wheels" those aren't going anywhere. This would be like attaching a second set. Time to help some of the kids who don't even have a bike, in my view.

Dan Alaimo wrote:I would need to know more about the deal before taking a stance against it.

I agree that indoor arenas are less wasteful than football or baseball stadiums. Not because the Cavs are good right now (teams rise and fall), but because in any city the arena is used FAR more than any outdoor venue.
Basketball (college or HS), minor league hockey, concerts, wrestling, conventions, circus (oops, scratch that one), figure skating and much more.
It's great to have a fine arena...which we already do.
The GOP would not have come here if the place were a dump.

Stan Austin wrote:Wow!!!!!! Is there such a thing as REVERSE bargaining?

I thought an update to this topic might offer a potential answer to this question, from another thread.

Thursday evening, County Council members are scheduled to attend a kind of "town hall" about the Q Transformation deal, starting at 6:30 at Elizabeth Baptist Church, 6114 Francis Ave. in Cleveland. Greater Cleveland Congregations has called for something like this because County Council meetings have repeatedly overflowed their meeting room's capacity. (Plus, county council frequently meets on a weekday afternoon.)

I encourage people to attend, or otherwise look closely at this issue, because it certainly looks like "reverse bargaining" if there is such a thing.

A couple of weeks ago, County Executive Budisch explicitly threatened that the Cavaliers may leave Cleveland if Quicken Loans Arena doesn't get expensive cosmetic renovations. He did so despite the fact that no one representing the Cavaliers has even suggested this. This amounts to a public employee actively lobbying for public spending that will heavily benefit a private party, by making a threat which that private party is unwilling to make by itself. Essentially, Budisch was declaring on behalf of his employers (us) that "we have no leverage here, they hold all the cards, we have to take the deal they're offering."*

Even if this were accurate—which there is ample reason to doubt—a public official should not be making arguments on behalf of a private negotiating partner. My own opinion is that yes, there is such a thing as reverse bargaining, and here is an example.

Meanwhile, while it may not be a prerequisite, hiring an expensive negotiator (in a no-bid process) who also represents other parties involved in the negotiations might help if, for some reason, reverse bargaining is your goal.
http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-hea ... s-campaign

I plan on attending the Thursday meeting, and encourage others interested in what happens to public resources to join in.

* For what it's worth, Lakewood's representative on County Council has communicated that the County Executive should leave threats out of the conversation.

In a complete surprise to absolutely nobody, Scene Magazine revealed that Budish has gotten lots of campaign cash from Q Arena negotiators.
Our county government remains corrupt....


http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-hea ... s-campaign

Three of County Council's 11 members showed up to the Greater Cleveland Congregations event, this evening.

Our representative, Dale Miller, was among the three. I felt a bit proud of that. (This was quite a big gathering of constituents, and entirely deserving of County Council members' time in my opinion. All were invited.) Jack Schron and Yvonne Conwell also attended.

I have plenty of notes, and may post something more tomorrow, depending on what media coverage follows. (I don't know if e.g. cleveland.com sent anyone.)

mjkuhns wrote:I have plenty of notes, and may post something more tomorrow, depending on what media coverage follows. (I don't know if e.g. cleveland.com sent anyone.)

I hope you share your notes. If the PD did send anyone, I fear the writeup would be highly biased.
The PD is the communications wing of Corporate Cleveland.

Okay, so there is a cleveland.com story, but it looks like there is plenty I can add without duplicating it.

First, deliberation seems to be winning out over haste on the Q Transformation. GCC presented County Council members with three questions, the third of which was "will you delay a vote until after the June 30 release of the state budget?" No one replied with just yes, or no, but all three members indicated support for this and strongly implied that voting before knowing state budget impacts is not even a responsible option.

Yvonne Conwell: "We can't make a rational decision without the state budget."
Jack Schron: "I believe we have no choice but to wait. I cannot understand how the 11 of us could go forward [sooner]."
Dale Miller: "I spoke with the council president and said, I would like additional time."

Aside from fraying the "don't wait, buy today" framing which probably favors a yes vote, this seems significant for also pulling away from the "no cost to taxpayers" argument. Asserting that county council needs to consider the state budget's impact implies that yes, money is just money, and there aren't really magic "free" funds for sprucing up the Q which exist completely separate from the larger budget.

Personal testimonies to another Cleveland where "what's good for downtown is good for all of us" just doesn't ring true were very powerful. Donnesha Cooper, the mother of a slain 14-year-old girl, spoke of this experience as cleveland.com mentions. I can report her remarks more fully: "When I hear about county and city putting 160 million into the Q instead of our neighborhoods it makes me angry. Quicken Loans Arena is a beautiful place already." She advised council that "It's not just about making the tourists happy, it's about" we who live here.

A student named Tyrone Barnes, Jr. spoke of trying to go through life while one after another of his peers ends up jailed or shot. A number of GCC speakers argued that poor neighborhoods are in full crisis, and urgently need job opportunities for more people; Barnes in particular made this case more persuasively than any statistic. Of the money proposed to upgrade the Q, he said "give it to me, I'll show you what to do with it."

Valerie Southern's experience, since her son's murder last year, summarized the stark contrast between downtown Cleveland and the other Cleveland. "When I went to homicide to ask about my son's murder, I was told we were having the RNC" and they would get to me afterward. (Charles Southern III's murder remains unsolved.) Echoing Ms. Cooper's admonishment, she said "Council members, I live here, stop worrying about the people [whom] you want to move here." Instead, "have both, a great downtown and safe neighborhoods. Stop putting us second."

Will Burge, who does pregame coverage of Cavs games, had more to say in support of GCC. Burge endorsed their campaign for broader community investment at a County Council meeting, last month. Last night, he told the gathered GCC members "you have power" and the Cavaliers are feeling it, along with county government. (Burge mentioned a county employee phoning his radio show asking him to "be more fair.") Burge gave all credit to GCC for this push, and said "I'm here to tell you to keep wielding that power."

Criticism of the deal-making in addition to the deal content is probably growing within GCC's message. GCC co-chair Pastor Richard Gibson noted once again that the deal terms are not an "even" 50/50 split, in addition to the fact that the Cavaliers are swimming in money while the county is heavily in debt. He added some remarks on the difficulty of finding anyone involved in assembling it who worked strictly on behalf of the local community. Dan Gilbert chairs the board of Destination Cleveland, the county's financial adviser Tim Offtermatt has ties to multiple other interested parties, etc. My personal favorite point, here, was that a study the Cavaliers presented in support of the deal's benefit to the community was produced by consultants "Convention, Sports and Leisure International." (I'm sure they would have no bias in issues like this, right?)

Invest in neighborhoods, jobs, and mental health treatment summarizes the GCC's counter-proposal. I think they have established these points previously; they always do so with both passion and solid information. A couple of details from remarks by Donna Weinberger, of their strategy team, stuck with me from last night. In arguing for opening two mental health crisis centers, she reported that this could save the public $5 million per year by e.g. putting fewer people in jail, based on the experiences of other cities. I was also interested in her suggestion of "Step Up to UH" as a model for job-opportunity approaches that work. I have found a good description here: http://www.neighborhoodgrants.org/neigh ... obs-at-uh/

Common ground with County Council members? Besides "slow down the process," GCC had two requests (politely provided to all members of council in advance). These were basically: 1) Will you commit to working with us on mental health crisis centers, and 2) Will you commit to finding money for a Community Equity Fund for neighborhood investment?

While it didn't occur to me immediately, another Progressive Caucus member noted afterward that all of these requests seem rather mild. One of the evening's themes was "renegotiate a better deal" that funds the GCC goals, and the requests suggested this, but also included something like "or work with us to find funds somewhere." So, I don't know if this was about simply offering some way for council members to say "yes" to dialogue; as phrased there was really little need for them to say "no" I think. (And yet eight members of council still made neither appearance nor reply.)

The three council members present kind of talked around the requests, though if future direct dialog was the point, then all seemed to assent, in that regard. Councilman Miller said that "There's nothing more important than these things" the GCC was advocating, and committed to the "work together on some form of support" option. Councilman Schron was very supportive of the concept (and has been a very pointed critic of the deal), though I'm not certain he directly addressed the requests other than delay. Councilwoman Cooper declared that she's "Not All In" on the deal as it exists; has "no issues" with GCC's request for mental health resources; and then kind of kicked request 2 down the road pending more constituent feedback.


… I think that was the evening, in brief. If you still want more, there's some video with the cleveland.com article
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ss ... tion_5.htm

Otherwise, stay tuned.

I believe the County Council is as allegedly corrupt as the Lakewood City Council is.

Look at who is on this council. I believe many are friends of Summers and Extended Company.

Kick backs? Jobs going to our friends?

It appears that Lakewood government and county government are just one big happy family!

I wrote an article about this, but it didn't fit into this week's Observer. I'm going to post it here, because I think people should be aware of how county council is responding to this issue, particularly at its meeting last week.

Local Groups Speak Out for Distressed Communities, as County Gov’t Plans $ for Cavs Arena

Cuyahoga County Council would like to do more for the needy, its members have said in response to a local advocacy group. But for now, they intend to spend millions on enhancing Quicken Loans Arena instead.

Council members are currently weighing a proposal to renovate Quicken Loans Arena (“the Q”), with funds from the county, the city of Cleveland, and the Cleveland Cavaliers. The proposal has drawn record crowds to County Council meetings, including building trade members who want the deal approved, and two local organizations that want public money spent on other priorities.

The majority of organized criticism has come from Greater Cleveland Congregations. The faith-based group, representing more than 40 area congregations, has pressed county government to spend more on mental health and drug addiction treatment, job creation, and neighborhood investment outside of downtown Cleveland.

The GCC has also criticized the process behind the deal, which participants drafted in private before announcing at a December press conference. The group nonetheless emphasizes that it does not oppose the proposed spending, itself, only a quick approval without committing to fund other needs.

GCC member April Stoltz of Lakewood says that “it would be completely inaccurate to say that we don’t want public money spent on the Q.” Instead they have requested that elected officials—who have promoted the deal’s use of existing funds rather than new taxes—make a similar effort to find money for needy populations.

“Let’s be as amazing with coming up with money to help regular people,” says Stoltz, who attends Westshore Unitarian Universalist Church in Rocky River. (No Lakewood congregations are part of GCC at present, although Stoltz says the group would welcome new affiliates.)

Cuyahoga County Progressive Caucus has endorsed GCC’s proposals, but dissents on more public money for the Q. The progressive activist group, headquartered in Lakewood, has grown to nearly 2,400 members since its founding last year.

Caucus Operations Director Tristan Rader, a Lakewood resident, says that between Cleveland’s recent income tax hike and ongoing cuts to many county services, the renovations proposal is “a gross misuse of public funds.”

“We can’t simply stand by, while those elected to represent all the county’s people redefine ‘progress’ as working families subsidizing billionaires,” Rader says. Both his group and GCC have pointed out that while the county is in debt, the Cleveland Cavaliers’ estimated value is more than $1 billion, representing a substantial profit since their purchase by Quicken Loans founder Dan Gilbert.

County Council members’ reaction to criticism has been mixed, so far. The GCC invited all 11 members of council to a March 9 assembly in Cleveland; just three members showed up, including Dale Miller who represents Lakewood.

The GCC asked council for commitments to work together on funding for community needs, and to delay any vote on Q renovations until after the state budget’s release in June. Council members Jack Schron and Yvonne Conwell supported delay; on March 14, Schron and Councilwoman Nan Baker voted against referring the proposal out of committee for a final vote on March 28. (Conwell was absent.)

Miller said that he favored taking more time, and expressed this to Council President Dan Brady. Nonetheless he voted in favor of proceeding toward a final vote later this month. Miller says that, having offered his recommendation, “I felt it was my responsibility to vote on the [larger] issue on its merits” given the majority of council’s preference to do so.

Councilman Miller did introduce a successful amendment, involving a smallish “alternative facilities fund” within the proposal. Originally, the fund was to empty out into another reserve at each year’s end, which Miller suggested would encourage a rushed proposal for another arena project, to avoid losing out on the money. As amended, the alternative facilities fund can instead build up from year to year.

Otherwise, County Council appears poised to approve its part of the proposal on March 28. Along with Miller, enough members have declared explicit intent to approve the proposal that its passage is all but guaranteed.

A handful of County Council members have professed an interest in working with GCC on its proposals, though most of them besides Miller seemed frustrated by a new level of public criticism.

Multiple council members echoed the comments of Michael Gallagher, who complained of “bullying,” and suggested that GCC shouldn’t criticize county government without first pressing the state legislature for more help. (When asked later whether the county had ever lobbied Ohio’s government to help fund arena upgrades, as many other states do, Councilman Miller said he wasn’t aware of any such overtures.)

Activists remain undeterred. The GCC has planned a March 21 road trip to Detroit, to call for broader community investment by Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert. Both GCC and the Progressive Caucus are also evaluating how to approach Cleveland City Council. Cleveland’s approval is critical to the deal, and city council will begin discussing the proposal late this month.

###