Cleveland once had 900k people in the city (Columbus, Parma: hardwood floors, homes)

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

Apolitical, really. But certainly nowhere near a republican.

It's just reality. Look at all the successful neighborhoods in any city. Big time personal interest and personal investments. Not city government inserting itself into everything.

The city government is the ultimate bummer. Have you guys been following the Loren Naji saga in Ohio City? We get a popular gallery with a popular owner and the city decides they're gonna harrass the dude for having booze at his events. Honestly, who cares? The CPD does, that's who. I hope you all feel much safer out there.

Point is, individuals do make the bigger difference. Nobody does anything for you, if you want something done right, do it yourself. True in all aspects of life.

No insult intended but that's a Republican point of view; keep the government out of things as much as possible. I agree completely with statement.

[reretarff]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

You are talking about the government.

What in the world do you mean "have them start projects with private investors?" Sounds like extortion.

Real, sustainable development comes from within, and isn't imposed and forced upon a population who doesn't show that they can actually sustain it. The government coercing people to do things (invest in this neighborhood, because we said so) doesn't do anything positive.

The reason Ohio City and Tremont and other such areas have thrived is because some die hard old time residents and newcomers decided they were gonna put their personal stakes into the neighborhood. This is a risk. It doesn't always work. But they did it and are reaping the benefits now.

Are you saying that Tremont and Ohio City were at one point as bad as Glenville? If that's what you meant, then you're crazy. If you mean that the reason they stayed good is because people stayed there and took care of it, then you're right.

Unfortunately, the African American migration took place at a bad time (During Segregation) and if it happened after the Civil Rights Act, then there would be no hood, nor would there be any poor African American neighborhoods. Some people back in the 1940's and 1950's were racist and rushed to move away from the inner city, and those who didn't want to move, but cared more about not being left out followed them to the suburbs. That's the main reason people left the inner city on the east side.

[reretarff]

Originally Posted by Kamms

No insult intended but that's a Republican point of view; keep the government out of things as much as possible. I agree completely with statement.

That's a terrible idea. We need some government help to build into a good city. If you look at a third world country, they build with whatever they have. That includes what ever trees they have and whatever spare metal and wood that they can find. And of course, they're poor.

Government help with things would definitely contribute to Cleveland becoming a better city.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by reretarff

Are you saying that Tremont and Ohio City were at one point as bad as Glenville? If that's what you meant, then you're crazy. If you mean that the reason they stayed good is because people stayed there and took care of it, then you're right.

Unfortunately, the African American migration took place at a bad time (During Segregation) and if it happened after the Civil Rights Act, then there would be no hood, nor would there be any poor African American neighborhoods. Some people back in the 1940's and 1950's were racist and rushed to move away from the inner city, and those who didn't want to move, but cared more about not being left out followed them to the suburbs. That's the main reason people left the inner city on the east side.

Ohio City and Tremont weren't ever as bad as some of th east side neighborhoods.... but these were not nice places. The reason why they weren't as bad though, is not because the city of Cleveland did anything special for them.

Also, I don't know what you're talking about when you're talking about 3rd world countries. Those countries are usually so dominated by their governments, making any development impossible. Do a little research. But I'm not even sure if that was what you're inferring. Just seemed like a total non sequitur...

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by reretarff

Have you ever considered that rather than spending 95% of the money on downtown and Tremont, we should spend more on the places that need to be spent on like Hough or Glenville or Fairfax? It's like the suburbs are stepping over Glenville and paying more attention to downtown.

I'm not of the viewpoint that spending money in a downtown comes at the expense of areas further out. But even if that were true, the exact opposite occurred from about 1950 to recent years. Meaning that the suburbs sucked resources, money and people away from urban cores and downtowns. And even today, the suburbs simply don't have the same ROI in the vast majority of cases. The suburbs need the city, not the other way around.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Clevelander17

Coming from the guy who enthusiastically supports a metropolitan area that is essentially one overgrown suburb? Thanks for the advice.

How is this in any way a fair response to my defense of urban Cleveland? I know I'm not exactly Mr. Popular with some of you, but I can't even say something positive about Downtown and the city now?

[chet_kinkaid]

Why is suburban considered bad?Yes Columbus has leafy suburbs within the shadows of downtown..but what's wrong with leafy subdivisions?They are great places for children to grow up.Even when Cleveland had almost a million ppl..I'll bet most wanted to someday live in shaker heights or similar places..Westlake is a nice area..why is that bad?

[Cleverfield]

Originally Posted by reretarff

When did I say anything about the government? I'm just saying that in general the tax dollars benefit downtown and Tremont more than Glenville. Those areas are doing just fine. I just don't understand why they can't pay more attention to the east side more than just downtown and Tremont. These areas are closer to the suburbs. If the city of Cleveland were to turn Glenville and Hough into a place like Tremont (By that, I mean have them start projects with private investors) then the city of Cleveland would benefit from it, along with the people who would go to these areas and move there.

You've got to admit, these ideas are good.

You don't seem to understand how this works. Tax dollars don't go to private developers in most cases. The tax dollars do not benefit downtown and Tremont anymore than they do Glenville, and in fact with all of the home demolitions, grass-cutting, house boarding, and crime in Glenville, more tax money is probably spent there than in Tremont. The government doesn't get to decide where developers choose to invest. They can't tell someone to buy a house in Buckeye or Glenville instead of Ohio City, West Park, Kamms Corners, or North Collinwood. The latter places developed because private investors believed in them enough to spend their money there, in the hopes of seeing a return on their investment. The city cannot promise a return on investment anywhere, let alone Hough and Glenville. It's up to the investors to decide what the best place is for them to invest. Would you rather buy a building in a place that is clearly down and out with no hint of an upside, or would you rather invest in a neighorhood that's a little rough around the edges with lots of potential, and where other investors are spending money? It's not up to the city, it's up to people like you and me to spend their money where they think they have the most chance of an upside. That's a little free market capitalism 101 for you.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by reretarff

That's a terrible idea. We need some government help to build into a good city. If you look at a third world country, they build with whatever they have. That includes what ever trees they have and whatever spare metal and wood that they can find. And of course, they're poor.

Government help with things would definitely contribute to Cleveland becoming a better city.

Too bad that government help usually turns into government hindering development. Government ''help'' is usually spending tax money anyway; money paid by citizens.

[Cleverfield]

Originally Posted by Kamms

Too bad that government help usually turns into government hindering development. Government ''help'' is usually spending tax money anyway; money paid by citizens.

Public private partnerships have done wonders for the city. Neither the Flats East Bank or the aquarium would have happened without the city's contribution. In addition, the 10 year tax abatement the city gives new development encourages new construction. Not to mention the good work development corporations have done around the city. Government has its role, even if that role is far less dominating than Reretarff is suggesting.