Cleveland: Annexation (Akron, Dayton, Euclid: bankruptcy, legally, estimates)

[1watertiger]

Originally Posted by WRnative

I wonder if $30 million is enough. East Cleveland has decrepit emergency vehicles. Its roads are frighteningly bad, even Euclid Ave. is riddled with unrepaired potholes. An increase in police services likely are long overdue. How many buildings in EC need to be demolished.

Ohio has exacerbated this mess under the Republicans by slashing the state and local government fund contributions to East Cleveland.

BS. The suburb of East Cleveland became a crime ridden, poverty ridden, corruption ridden sheet hole under democratic leadership for decades. Has nothing to do with republicans in state government today!
The city politicians mis-spent,stole,mis-managed and corruption reined throughout city offices/departments for decades. Under decades of democratic rule.
The city of East Cleveland is a good reason/example to get off the democratic plantation.

[WRnative]

Your ignorance is profound. From 2011 through just 2016, East Cleveland had lost $7 million due to Republican cuts to the state and local government fund.

<< Meanwhile, he plans to introduce a bill that would restore state local government fund money that was cut in 2011 to all 31 cities under fiscal watch or emergency. Smith said East Cleveland would receive about $7 million from the plan.>>

https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2016...illion_to.html

And the Republicans continue to punish poor communities disproportionately.

<<The new formula is based on tax capacity and population. The goal is to redistribute income from communities with more capacity to tax themselves to those with less, but the results can seem capricious. For example, the impoverished city of East Cleveland loses aid, while wealthy Upper Arlington gains.>>

https://www.policymattersohio.org/re...cal-government

Unlike larger, more wealthy communities with larger payroll bases such as Cleveland and Columbus, East Cleveland can't raise its municipal income tax rate sufficiently to offset the state cuts.

The state used the state and local government fund cuts to offset liquor revenues diverted on the very cheap to the secretive JobsOhio and for tax breaks for the wealthy, such as through the pass-through entity exemption.

[TBideon]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

Certainly from East Cleveland's perspective it makes sense. For Cleveland, why it makes sense is that it is destructive for Cleveland neighborhoods that surround East Cleveland to have a municipal boundary where things go to pot because that's simply going to get worst and affect the Cleveland neighborhoods around it more and more and this is especially bad with its proximity to University Circle which Cleveland should very well build up further as it's one of the most notable neighborhoods in the city. East Cleveland also has some of Cleveland's rail transit going through it and you want to have control over the areas as any push towards denser, more walkable areas means you want to be able to have ability to direct future development.

East Cleveland should go through bankruptcy in order to get its finances in order and Cleveland and East Cleveland should get backing from the state to help with the transition. This is probably the best outcome.

University Circle/Little Italy is already surrounded by Cleveland ghettos - Fairfax, Hough, Woodhill, Buckeye, Central - that are for the most part high crime, disinvested, unlivable, and getting worse. There is virtually no retail, no new market rate residential construction, no optimism, no diversity, no hope barring massive population growth. I just don't see how another terrible neighborhood east of the ONLY thriving neighborhood in the whole east side benefits Cleveland.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by TBideon

University Circle/Little Italy is already surrounded by Cleveland ghettos - Fairfax, Hough, Woodhill, Buckeye, Central - that are for the most part high crime, disinvested, unlivable, and getting worse. There is virtually no retail, no new market rate residential construction, no optimism, no diversity, no hope barring massive population growth. I just don't see how another terrible neighborhood east of the ONLY thriving neighborhood in the whole east side benefits Cleveland.

It'd be because it's probably better than having a wild card flailing self-governing municipality where things can get even worse much more quickly.

This isn't a silver bullet for the east side and no one is painting this as such. It's essentially more triage than anything.

Tangentially, I was under the impression that Shaker Square was doing alright.

[HOOVERCollectionfan]

there's the annexation quiz on sporcle

[HOOVERCollectionfan]

theres new houses in columbia station growing

[KoNgFooCj]

Originally Posted by Clevelander17

This is an unbelievably stupid idea from the standpoint of those of us who live in the suburbs you named. We may be struggling (some more than others, although the entire region isn't doing so hot at the moment), but pair our cities with Cleveland and watch how fast the crap hits the fan.

Furthermore, judging by your screen name, I think it's safe to assume that you live in the 440 area code. That means that, in all likelihood, you didn't list your own suburb as one that should be annexed. Talk about selfish and hypocritical. You're willing to throw other suburbs under the bus for the sake of Cleveland, but not willing to risk your own suburb in the annexation process to "make things better" for Cleveland? Unreal. I'll support such an idea only when all suburbs are willing to sacrifice themselves to annexation and when the clowns running things downtown show the rest of us that they can manage a city effectively and use some fiscal restraint.*

Until then, forget it. We'll fight to remain independent. You merge with Cleveland if you like the idea so much.






*(They can't do it now, doubtful they'll be any better with a city almost twice as big. A better idea would be for Cleveland to split up in to a few smaller cities to give more localized control to citizens and more accountability to elected officials.)

Wow. You seem to really despise your city. People move to the suburbs to escape the hustle and bustle of the city, but they almost always still identify with the city and take pride in having a connection to it. The city is where you go for fun and excitement.

Honestly, as long as it won't adversely affect people's real lives, I dont see any argument against being annexed. Some old timers just hate the thought of being annexed because they are fiercely loyal to their suburb's identity, or they want to preserve the suburban character. Guess what, being independent from the city will make no difference in the local character changing or not.

[JR_C]

Originally Posted by KoNgFooCj

Wow. You seem to really despise your city. People move to the suburbs to escape the hustle and bustle of the city, but they almost always still identify with the city and take pride in having a connection to it. The city is where you go for fun and excitement.

Honestly, as long as it won't adversely affect people's real lives, I dont see any argument against being annexed. Some old timers just hate the thought of being annexed because they are fiercely loyal to their suburb's identity, or they want to preserve the suburban character. Guess what, being independent from the city will make no difference in the local character changing or not.

That post was made almost 12 years ago. So, hopefully that mindset is fading away. But, I think that mindset was/is pretty common, at least in the rust belt. As these cities began to falter, due to massive disinvestment, the cities became places to escape from. To a greater or lesser degree, these people turned their back on the central city.

[adam36]

Originally Posted by KoNgFooCj

Wow. You seem to really despise your city. People move to the suburbs to escape the hustle and bustle of the city, but they almost always still identify with the city and take pride in having a connection to it. The city is where you go for fun and excitement.

Honestly, as long as it won't adversely affect people's real lives, I dont see any argument against being annexed. Some old timers just hate the thought of being annexed because they are fiercely loyal to their suburb's identity, or they want to preserve the suburban character. Guess what, being independent from the city will make no difference in the local character changing or not.

Annexation has nothing to do with 'identity'. It has everything to do with schools, schools, schools, and schools. Young people move to a particular area in very large part that they find something appealing in the school district. For the record, many of us suburbanites support the city anyway through payroll tax deductions, for the great many of us who work in Cleveland proper but return home to the suburbs every night.

[JR_C]

Originally Posted by adam36

Annexation has nothing to do with 'identity'. It has everything to do with schools, schools, schools, and schools. Young people move to a particular area in very large part that they find something appealing in the school district. For the record, many of us suburbanites support the city anyway through payroll tax deductions, for the great many of us who work in Cleveland proper but return home to the suburbs every night.

But annexation has nothing to do with school district boundaries. School district boundaries are not linked to municipal boundaries.