The Observation Deck

The First Suburbs Consortium

I am looking for information on this group. If anyone has any I would be greatly appreciated
if you could post by adding to this thread. I am doing a story on their history, and future.

I do not fully understand it, but I know that it is something Lakewood is part of, and that
many of our civic leaders believe in as much as God.

I have this feeling it could answer Missy's question about why is their such a heavy emphasis
put on Economic Development. It seems to be a concept coming out of the regional plan.

Simply stated if Bay Village, Westlake, Gates Mills, Beechwood, etc are now the suburbs, it
only makes sense to enlarge the "dowtown area" through the Inner Ring Suburbs. In other
words, for a city the size of the county, we need a huge inner city. I suppose this is one reason
Lakewood appears as West Cleveland in the maps.

Still looking for more, seems like some civic leaders have been members since 2002/2003.

.

Jim,

This is probably not what you're looking for; you've probably seen all of this, but I had no idea what you were talking about so I looked it up, and am posting it for other people like me, who feel like they are constantly playing a game of catch-up.

This stuff is from the First Suburbs Development Council http://www.fscdc.org

What cities are members of the First Suburbs Development Council?
Bedford, Bedford Heights, Berea, Brook Park, Brooklyn, Cleveland Heights, Euclid, Fairview Park, Garfield Heights, Lakewood, Parma, Parma Heights, Shaker Heights, South Euclid, University Heights, and Warrensville Heights.

What are the criteria for joining the First Suburbs Development Council?
In 2003, the First Suburbs Consortium instituted the following membership criteria (to qualify cities needed to meet 4 of 6) with the caveat that the municipality would need to be located in Cuyahoga County.

First Suburbs Consortium Membership Criteria

1. Age of Housing Stock - 60% or more housing units constructed prior 1960.
2. Household Density - 1,000 or more households (2000 census) per square mile.
3. Low Household Growth - Less than 4% increase in the number of households from 1990 to 2000.
4. Infrastructure Density - 8 miles or more of streets per square mile of community.
5. Modest New Housing - Average value of residential new construction 1994-2001 less than 1% of average value of all residential real estate.
6. Below Average Appreciation - Total assessed value of real estate increase 1990 - 2001 less than county median.

The following cities meet the criteria as described above, and have the ability to join the NOFSC and ultimately the FSDC: Bay Village, Linndale, Lyndhurst, Mayfield Heights, and Newburgh Heights.

What are the goals of the First Suburbs Development Council?

* To facilitate the creation or enhancement of a proactive and strategic approach to development within member city governments,
* To expand the capacity of member cities to attract desirable development and businesses,
* To increase the skills of economic development officials of the member cities in identifying and preparing development sites in a way that makes them both community-enhancing and attractive to private-sector developers,
* To increase interest among the private-sector development industry in development within member communities,
* To foster collaborative relationships among member cities and with regional economic development agencies, County and State government, financing institutions, and others who can assist in promoting development of the member cities.

What are the strategies of the First Suburbs Development Council?
Develop/update an inventory of major development sites for retail, commercial, industrial and/or housing development. Identify, approach and forge relationships with private-sector developers. Match and introduce developers to cities/sites. Facilitate developers' awareness and use of public-sector and other non-conventional financing resources and incentives.Provide project-specific guidance and technical assistance to city staff in pre-development activities. Create and maintain a database and referral service of a broad range of development-related resources.

Serve as the gatekeeper for development best practices training opportunities. Avoid duplication of effort by seeking out and encouraging members to participate in relevant training opportunities. Fill in training gaps by producing customized educational seminars. Serve as a forum for networking and cross-learning among member city development officials.

Identify sources of public and private development funds. Develop new financing resources tailored to member cities' development needs including gap funding for pre-development, land assembly, construction and infrastructure.

Advise and collaborate with Consortium staff and its governing board in crafting relevant policy positions and/or legislative solutions that address public policy or other trends, conditions or issues that currently hinder development in the member cities issues. Provide development-related data/information to support the Consortium's other advocacy work.

Who is on the board of the First Suburbs Development Council?

Shelley Cullins
Chair of FSDC Board
City of Parma

Brad Sellers
Vice-Chair of FSDC Board
City of Warrensville Heights

Marty Divito
Treasurer/Secretary of FSDC Board
City of Bedford Heights

Mike Mallis
Board Member
City of Bedford

Rebecca Corrigan
Board Member
City of Berea

Michelle Boczek
Board Member
City Brook Park

Fran Migliorino
Board Member
City of Brooklyn

Board Member
City of Cleveland Heights

Frank Pietravioa
Board Member
City of Euclid

Jim Kennedy
Board Member
City of Fairview Park

Noreen Kuban
Board Member
City of Garfield Heights

Nathan Kelly
Board Member
City of Lakewood

Bob Verdile
Board Members
City of Parma Heights

Patrick Campbell
Board Member
City of Shaker Heights

Keith Benjamin
Board Member
City of South Euclid

Walter Stinson
Board Member
City of University Heights

Georgine Welo
Board Member--Ex Oficio
Northeast Ohio First Suburbs Consortium Chair

Jeff Rink
Board Member
Key Bank

Russell Berusch
Board Member
Case Western Reserve University

My goal remains protecting the schools, as much as I can as a tax-paying, registed voter parent-- our good schools-- in Lakewood--I feel like I only have so much time and that's where I'm putting it because I have young children, and if I try to take care of their future, here, maybe everything else will take care of itself-- and maybe it's everyone's goal to protect the schools, because without good schools, no-one will want to live in your inner-ring suburb. One of my concerns is that no-one on the First Suburbs Development Council website mentions the importance of living in any one of these places, but maybe that's because their goals are so specific and because the fact that quality-of-life is important is just something that can be assumed.

Betsy Voinovich

Betsy,

I think they're not addressing livability because there's a) that's a pretty subjective term and b) the inner-ring suburbs are facing a common challenge - aging infrastructure, a higher ratio of city services per square mile than "newer" suburbs and a housing stock that in some cases needs a lot of work, or may not be as desirable as more "modern" homes.

Lakewood and a lot of the other inner-ring suburbs are in a tough spot. They've got rising costs to maintain city services and dont have the commercial tax base to support it. Making it worse, we don't have any space available for commercial growth.

To me, it just makes sense that you'd focus on trying to find ways to streamline and consolidate adminstrative costs as well as try to find ways to draw commercial growth (and the income taxes that comes from it) to try to lessen the burden on residents. THAT'S livable - an affordable city that draws a diverse mix of citizens. It's up to us as citizens to add to that mix.

Bob Mehosky wrote:To me, it just makes sense that you'd focus on trying to find ways to streamline and consolidate adminstrative costs as well as try to find ways to draw commercial growth (and the income taxes that comes from it) to try to lessen the burden on residents. THAT'S livable - an affordable city that draws a diverse mix of citizens. It's up to us as citizens to add to that mix.

Bob

I agree, I am actually looking for some documents between 1996 and 2003. I have been
given some other stuff and I am looking at when and how we go involved, and to what
extent Shaker Mayor Judy Rawson and Mayor Cain worked on together.

Just trying to put some puzzle pieces together in my own mind, and for this larger story
on regionalism, and what is in place currently. Many do not realize that most of the ways
cities can save money through "bulk buying and contracts" are already in place. So it
now goes to fire, police etc.

But my interest is more in what role Lakewood was to play in the regional dream, has
that changed, and do I want to live in it.

Bob Mehosky wrote:Betsy,

I think they're not addressing livability because there's a) that's a pretty subjective term and b) the inner-ring suburbs are facing a common challenge - aging infrastructure, a higher ratio of city services per square mile than "newer" suburbs

That is actually not true if you break it down another way. As I found out working with
Joe Cimperman on the Chicken Legislation. Industrial, Abandoned, Commercial Mall, Commerical, Residential Parks, Commercial, Residential, Empty Lots, City Gardens were
the rankings he came up with for costs for a city to maintain.

You also have a higher chance of being involved in a violent crime in the suburbs and the
country than in the city per people per square miles.


FWIW


.

Jim,

You hit the nail on the head. The low-hanging fruit (road salt, electricity, etc) has already been tapped. I think we're all struggling with the same question - Can the Lakewood of 30 years ago exist in 2010?

We're a city designed for streetcars, walking to the store and sitting on the front porch and meeting our neighbors, but we're living in a world of cars, shopping malls, central air and 200 channel TV.

The more I sit back and think about things, the more I realize that "the way it's always been" has really only been a blink of an eye if you put it in context of this state, this country. Everything changes, everything adapts - at least those that survive. The "he who hesitates is lost" mentality.

But then it's easy to counter that with the "look before you leap" thought process, and then your head starts to hurt.

Good luck finding more information about what the consortium is considering. I'm sure anything they're discussing would be great fodder for these boards.

Bob Mehosky wrote:Jim,

You hit the nail on the head. The low-hanging fruit (road salt, electricity, etc) has already been tapped. I think we're all struggling with the same question - Can the Lakewood of 30 years ago exist in 2010?

We're a city designed for streetcars, walking to the store and sitting on the front porch and meeting our neighbors, but we're living in a world of cars, shopping malls, central air and 200 channel TV.

The more I sit back and think about things, the more I realize that "the way it's always been" has really only been a blink of an eye if you put it in context of this state, this country. Everything changes, everything adapts - at least those that survive. The "he who hesitates is lost" mentality.

But then it's easy to counter that with the "look before you leap" thought process, and then your head starts to hurt.

Good luck finding more information about what the consortium is considering. I'm sure anything they're discussing would be great fodder for these boards.

Bob

First I am looking for some pretty concrete stuff. I really just want some verification on
what I have already.

The question has never really been about should we stay in the past or move into the
future. To me it has always been lets move into the future in a way that best suits Lakewood's
strong points without getting on a slippery slope to nowhere.

We are lucky we have a city stronger than most. We have more than held our own, even
against some of the burbs. So we have the luxury, of not having to rush in, and taking
a wild shot in the dark.

What we must not do is a drastic change that dooms us for the next 20 years. So with that
in mind we have some pretty solid ideas of where we are going. Gas going up, food supply
tightening, credit, financial staying tough, high costs to bring on new technology, etc.

But again, what I am tracking down is the actual placement in this "regional" dream. I mean
if the plan was developed in 1996, and we are still marching towards that, we have serious
problems. I am sure you would agree. One thing that worries me is how many of
Lakewood's gifted visionaries have been driving the Lakewood bus for the past 20+ years.

Are there any glimmers that can help keep us shore up where we are right now? Simple
example, more and more NY Studios are moving production faciltiies to the midwest. They
can charge new york/global prices and pay their workers 30% of what they would have to
pay them in new york. Well to cash in on that all we need is nice safe living, and coffee
shops. Has Lakewood reached out?

Also I would love to know who is planning Lakewood future, us or them? I mean people
that live here have a completely different view of the area to those that have never been.

This is why I am interested, in who sold the city.

er set up the West Cleveland plan.

I just noticed Nate Kelly on the list above. It is my understanding that the Consortium
was short lived, and started in 1996. I think that group Nate was listed in was started in
2003. Nate Kelly has nothing to do with this story, this was 1996 - 2003 period.

.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:We are lucky we have a city stronger than most. We have more than held our own, even against some of the burbs. So we have the luxury, of not having to rush in, and taking
a wild shot in the dark.

The Consortium is correct in saying that attracting business, development dollars and taxpaying residents are the cornerstones to prosperity. However, either they do not understand the nature of the problem or they understand the nature of the problem but don’t have the stomach for the fight.

Northeast Ohio is losing population and industry to other parts of the State and other States. In that environment taxpayer subsidized development in one are undermines development in another.

For example:
The Lakewood Gold Coast has hundreds of apartments and condo’s with convenient access to shopping, jobs and entertainment. Add panoramic lake views and you should have waiting lists instead of vacancies. Why is the area struggling? It is struggling because our local tax dollars are being use to finance construction of new condo’s and apartments in areas like Tremont and downtown. Some of the subsidies are as much as $50,000 per unit. How does the condo owner compete with that?

For example:
A few years ago a university wanted to locate a campus is Lakewood. Cleveland State, Cuyahoga Community College and the County Commissioners did everything possible to kill that idea. CSU and Tri-C both promised to bring something to Lakewood. Did that every happen? No.

CSU did build a new suburban campus but they built it in Westlake. Tri-C is now constructing a new Westside campus but it is being built in Westlake right on the boarder with Lorain County. Which is the more central location for a new Tri-C campus, Lakewood or the border of Lorain County?

The First Suburbs Consortium is bringing talking points to a gun fight.

Bill Call wrote:

Jim O'Bryan wrote:We are lucky we have a city stronger than most. We have more than held our own, even against some of the burbs. So we have the luxury, of not having to rush in, and taking
a wild shot in the dark.

The Consortium is correct in saying that attracting business, development dollars and taxpaying residents are the cornerstones to prosperity. However, either they do not understand the nature of the problem or they understand the nature of the problem but don’t have the stomach for the fight.

Northeast Ohio is losing population and industry to other parts of the State and other States. In that environment taxpayer subsidized development in one are undermines development in another.

For example:
The Lakewood Gold Coast has hundreds of apartments and condo’s with convenient access to shopping, jobs and entertainment. Add panoramic lake views and you should have waiting lists instead of vacancies. Why is the area struggling? It is struggling because our local tax dollars are being use to finance construction of new condo’s and apartments in areas like Tremont and downtown. Some of the subsidies are as much as $50,000 per unit. How does the condo owner compete with that?

For example:
A few years ago a university wanted to locate a campus is Lakewood. Cleveland State, Cuyahoga Community College and the County Commissioners did everything possible to kill that idea. CSU and Tri-C both promised to bring something to Lakewood. Did that every happen? No.

CSU did build a new suburban campus but they built it in Westlake. Tri-C is now constructing a new Westside campus but it is being built in Westlake right on the boarder with Lorain County. Which is the more central location for a new Tri-C campus, Lakewood or the border of Lorain County?

The First Suburbs Consortium is bringing talking points to a gun fight.

Bill

You got things a tad mixed up, but are one the right thinking.

Residents were trying to bring in a "name" school, one was University of Bejing. Someone
jumped the program for lack of a better term and tried to get University of Akron in here.
I work with UA, a good school especially their journalism program, but not that name that
was really needed. It seems that this person leaked their plans to the PD to get some ink.
Well it blew up, as Akron has a non-compete clause with CSU. So in the end all we could
of had was a CSU branch, if that. You strike me as a person that would be pretty unhappy
with most non-profits of any size coming to Lakewood. I mean to Clinic provides high
paying jobs and you are always complaining about them.

I have to think about half of those gold cost apartments are in desperate need of rebuilding.
But you raise an interesting point, no matter what Lakewood does, the competition
with Tremont, Battery Park, and other new hot zones we cannot compete with even
with new buildings.

15 year tax abatement, it's hard for us to offer 5.

But for only a starting price of $325,000...


...right down this road...


are new condos...


...with great little details...


...with back porches and...


...an excellent er, ahh, er industrial views.

But the point is, Cleveland offers new places with massive discounts, buyer plans,
tax abatements and more. To me this underlines that Bill is right. This is not the way
we can afford to go, we can't compete. It is not that we can't but we cannot on that subject.
So where can we compete? That is where we have to go.

I am fearing a deal was made with the devil over a decade ago.

FWIW

.

Jim O'Bryan wrote: I mean to Clinic provides high
paying jobs and you are always complaining about them.

I have to think about half of those gold cost apartments are in desperate need of rebuilding.
But you raise an interesting point, no matter what Lakewood does, the competition
with Tremont, Battery Park, and other new hot zones we cannot compete with even
with new buildings.

.

My beef with the Clinic is that the "growth" that it brings to the "region" is not real growth. The Clinics business plan is to use its tax exempt status to help absorb and weaken its competition. The Clinic is the General Motors of the health care industry.

Your examples were right on. Don't forget the $1 billion tax payer dollars that are being used to finance apartments and condos and other development on Euclid Avenue or the $150 million tax supported project on the East side of the flats. And PLEASE don't forget the homeless resettlement program. And of course don't forget the hundreds of millions of dollars the State is spending to widen freeways and add exit ramps in Northeast Ohio, our "region".

If those subsidies brought people from North Carolina or Columbus to Cleveland then they are worth the price. If those subsidies simply depress development in Parma to subsidize Cleveland or Avon then we are not developing, we are canablizing.

The Consortium has to start fighting development outside the inner ring unless we get a piece of the action.

Bill wrote: "The Consortium has to start fighting development outside the inner ring unless we get a piece of the action."

How can they do that?

michael gill wrote:Bill wrote: "The Consortium has to start fighting development outside the inner ring unless we get a piece of the action."

How can they do that?

Well of course there is only one way to really do that. For me it is not an option, or better stated,
and option that we are not needing yet.

The last time we tried this was tax-sharing for companies that moved from one city to another. We
signed a pact, it was certainly not a deal with Cleveland, East Cleveland, Garfield Heights, etc.
When the deal was announced most if no all of the cities that are working to get our businesses
decided no to sign. Cleveland won big. So when a business moves from Cleveland to Lakewood
they get half of our taxes, and have another space to make money on.

This is what I mean about the slippery snake oil highway called regionalism.

While many will say it takes on many forms, I can answer simply, not really, they all lead to the
same horizon point. And in a region with our kind of problems, the danger of getting in too early
far outweigh the issues of getting in later, if it works.

With all of that said, I am not looking for another thread on regionalism. I can understand
why East Cleveland, Cleveland, Garfied Hts, etc. want it and us in it. I will never understand
how people that grew up in Lakewood, would want it for us. Well unless that is what they
got paid for, and money makes people do strange things, especially when that is what the covet.

So back to First Tier Consortium, and how some sold the city for political favors, down
the road, that were never realized. Reminds me of Jack, his cow and the deal for magic beans.

.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

michael gill wrote:Bill wrote: "The Consortium has to start fighting development outside the inner ring unless we get a piece of the action."

How can they do that?

Well of course there is only one way to really do that. For me it is not an option, or better stated an option that we are not needing yet.

I'm going to think about a response around these posssibilities:

Local, Regional, National, Government Unions, Public Agencies, Business, Housing. This could be fun.

One caviat to all of this is that the inner ring suburbs also have competing interests.

Ways to stop development elswhere?

The next time NOAWCA has to sign off on new interchanges or expanded innerchanges just say no unless there is some payback.

The Cuyahoga Arts Council has become the primary funding source for raises and bigger pensions rather than a supporter of the arts. Repeal the tax unless there is a more equitable distribution of the funds.

And don't forget the Port Authority, or the homeless resettlement progam, or just for fun:

If regionalism is so good why do we have so many colleges in this area? Why not just merge all of their operations into one super college? Why do we have so many homeless agencies? Why not just one super homeless agency?

Bill Call wrote:If regionalism is so good why do we have so many colleges in this area? Why not just merge all of their operations into one super college? Why do we have so many homeless agencies? Why not just one super homeless agency?

Or so many groups pushing Regionalism?

Why not just one big regional one.

Lay 3/4s of the puppets off, save on rent,
people writing grants, etc.

Yeah, good thoughts Bill.


.

I don't know who you think is arguing that regionalism is so good, Bill.

You seem to be favoring regionalism by noting that NOACA could just say no unless there are paybacks the next time someone wants to build a new freeway interchange out in a cornfield. NOACA is a regional agency, and to do that would absolutely be an act of regionalism.

It's silly to talk about Cuyahoga Arts and Culture in this context.

"Bigger raises and pensions" you allude to don't exist. The musicians of the orchestra--which began their negotiations offering a pay freeze for the rest of the season--just signed a deal that freezes pay for two years, increases the amount they pay for their insurance, and requires them to perform ten times without pay. Meanwhile management all have taken pay cuts of 5% to 20%.

Please tell in detail of the bigger raises and pensions. Please identify the person at Beck Center, for example, who got a "bigger raise." Which person at beck gets a "pension," let alone a "bigger" one?

Also, for funds to be distributed "Equitably" as you describe--presumably you mean evenly throughout the county--would be an activist kind of government that would do the region a disservice, inflating budgets that have not earned their growth, almost certainly creating organizations that did not exist. It would amount to tax funded artistic sprawl.

But let's get back to the real subject: CAC is not it.

I'm not sold on regionalism as it has been discussed.

What I'd like to see happen is for cities to be treated with the same level of respect we give to ducks.

Sprawl and the tax giveaways that follow in the wake of municipal "competition" are nationwide problems, not even limited to rust belt cities. We need a nationwide solution. We need to look to the ducks.

Federal law requires that if someone wants to destroy a wetland with their development project (as happened with a runway at Hopkins) they are required to remediate a ruined wetland somewhere else.

We need a nationwide law that says if someone wants to build on a greenfield, they need to remediate equal acreage of brownfield. They need to pay all costs. If it is worth it to them to demolish and clean up ten acres of abandonment in Cleveland or Lakewood or wherever, then they can build on ten acres of greenfield. Perhaps they will realize that they could save money simply by clearing and cleaning up in the city, and building there. Or perhaps they'll still want to spend the extra money on additional land acquisition, and still build on farmland. The cleared land in the city is still an improvement, and a future opportunity.

But the fact is that we are not gaining people or business, and yet we are still building, without cleaning up the mess left behind. Every new house or office building in the area--unless it is built specifically for new business coming to the region that wouldn't otherwise come--is mathematically creating vacancy elsewhere. Every new house or commercial building devalues every existing house or commercial building.

Forget about tax sharing, or creating a big regional government. Nationwide, we need cities to be given the same respect as ducks.

I have said this to people in the First Suburbs Consortium. It doesn't seem to have had any impact.

michael gill wrote:It's silly to talk about Cuyahoga Arts and Culture in this context.
"Bigger raises and pensions" you allude to don't exist. The musicians of the orchestra--which began their negotiations offering a pay freeze for the rest of the season--just signed a deal that freezes pay for two years, increases the amount they pay for their insurance, and requires them to perform ten times without pay. Meanwhile management all have taken pay cuts of 5% to 20%..

The contract calls for a two year wage freeze with raises twice per year after that. I would hardly call that a concession. If the orchestra has money for raises it doesn’t need a tax payer subsidy.

Cuyahoga Arts and Culture is simply a slush fund for the politically well connected. The people of Cuyahoga County should vote to rescind the tax that supports CAC unless the money is more evenly distributed. And yes I mean equally allocated.

michael gill wrote:Sprawl and the tax giveaways that follow in the wake of municipal "competition" are nationwide problems, not even limited to rust belt cities. We need a nationwide solution. We need to look to the ducks.

Federal law requires that if someone wants to destroy a wetland with their development project (as happened with a runway at Hopkins) they are required to remediate a ruined wetland somewhere else.
We need a nationwide law ……...

Another federal law is the last thing we need. Federal policy is the root cause of the decline of the cities.

michael gill wrote:But the fact is that we are not gaining people or business, and yet we are still building, without cleaning up the mess left behind. Every new house or office building in the area--unless it is built specifically for new business coming to the region that wouldn't otherwise come--is mathematically creating vacancy elsewhere. Every new house or commercial building devalues every existing house or commercial building. ……...

On that we agree. The inner ring should be doing whatever it can to halt government subsidized development downtown and elsewhere in the region.

A good start would be public opposition to further government funding of Mental Health Services and the Port Authority until they begin to address the concerns of the inner ring.

Our local representatives should also oppose the retroactive changes in law that would give tax free status to the All Pro Stadium in Avon unless we get something in return.