Cleveland Development Discussions (Columbus, Lakewood, Fairview Park: day care, preschool, vouchers)

[216facts]

For Ohio City and W. 25th development to be fully realized, the CMHA towers should be torn down, and replaced with 3 story retail/office/residential. The public housing north of the Detroit - Superior bridge needs to go also, being replaced with parkland and upscale retail/residential.

I know it sounds classist, but this is done in practically every city in the U.S. Development and gentrification support the city which can then support all classes of its inhabitants. Cleveland needs to pave the way for further gentrification and build upon proven successes. Way too much of Cleveland has sunk into an abyss where gentrification cannot take hold. But these areas around W. 25, W. 65, downtown, Tremont, University Circle, and others need to built upon. The first step - make them safer both in perception and in reality.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by 216facts

For Ohio City and W. 25th development to be fully realized, the CMHA towers should be torn down, and replaced with 3 story retail/office/residential. The public housing north of the Detroit - Superior bridge needs to go also, being replaced with parkland and upscale retail/residential.

I know it sounds classist, but this is done in practically every city in the U.S. Development and gentrification support the city which can then support all classes of its inhabitants. Cleveland needs to pave the way for further gentrification and build upon proven successes. Way too much of Cleveland has sunk into an abyss where gentrification cannot take hold. But these areas around W. 25, W. 65, downtown, Tremont, University Circle, and others need to built upon. The first step - make them safer both in perception and in reality.

Completely agree. Cleveland FINALLY has a chance to grow into a real continuous urban city with reasonable expectation of safety in both person and property on the west side. This hasn't been the case for many decades. The projects are preventing it as of now. These supposed "anti" poverty programs are a huge issue nationwide so moving them won't solve the problems completely. But you just can't have projects in the middle of core city neighborhoods.

[Clevelander216]

Originally Posted by 216facts

The first step - make them safer both in perception and in reality.

While this is true, how exactly do you go about doing it though? I've been struggling to find a way. When the police are perceived as the enemy in these crime ridden neighborhoods, that poses a problem considering they are the MAIN defense against the crime. The community obviously isn't standing up to put a stop to it either, so who do you turn to? Crime is a very complex problem, especially in today's society with all the race drama.

[WRnative]

Originally Posted by andrew61

Lakeview Terrace is within only a couple blocks.

Lakeview Terrace is located north of Detroit Ave., many blocks from this proposed park's location, which would seem to benefit Tremont as much as Ohio City. Is there public housing in the immediate vicinity of the proposed park?

The park should easily be reached from the West 25th rapid station. Therefore the park also would help make successful the mixed use redevelopment of the Lorain/West 25th southeast corner across from the West Side Market and adjacent to the rapid station.

[j_ws]

All proposals in this thread to remove the various public housing seems to stop short of any suggestion on what to do with the residents. Without a conscientious plan to relocate residents of public housing you're only going to end up concentrating more poverty in a bordering neighborhood (which will be bad for the overall health of the area) or create a bunch of new homeless people.

It's also worth noting that in the case of Riverview Tower, this location allows extremely low-income residents easy access to public transit and good sources of food. Moving the residents to a worse neighborhood only removes them from access to these resources and is likely to trap them further in a cycle of poverty. Not saying whether the way the tower is run currently is either good or bad, just trying to point out that people need to think deeper than just saying "those people are bad and should go."

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by j_ws

All proposals in this thread to remove the various public housing seems to stop short of any suggestion on what to do with the residents. Without a conscientious plan to relocate residents of public housing you're only going to end up concentrating more poverty in a bordering neighborhood (which will be bad for the overall health of the area) or create a bunch of new homeless people.

It's also worth noting that in the case of Riverview Tower, this location allows extremely low-income residents easy access to public transit and good sources of food. Moving the residents to a worse neighborhood only removes them from access to these resources and is likely to trap them further in a cycle of poverty. Not saying whether the way the tower is run currently is either good or bad, just trying to point out that people need to think deeper than just saying "those people are bad and should go."

Welcome to the Peoples' Republic of Cleveland.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by j_ws

All proposals in this thread to remove the various public housing seems to stop short of any suggestion on what to do with the residents. Without a conscientious plan to relocate residents of public housing you're only going to end up concentrating more poverty in a bordering neighborhood (which will be bad for the overall health of the area) or create a bunch of new homeless people.

It's also worth noting that in the case of Riverview Tower, this location allows extremely low-income residents easy access to public transit and good sources of food. Moving the residents to a worse neighborhood only removes them from access to these resources and is likely to trap them further in a cycle of poverty. Not saying whether the way the tower is run currently is either good or bad, just trying to point out that people need to think deeper than just saying "those people are bad and should go."

I think it needs to be demonstrated how this access of public housing to "these resources" actually benefits anyone- the public housing residents and the surrounding communities. Seems like it's a permanent state of subsidized existence. I don't think it's possible to trap them in a stronger "Cycle of poverty." There is no incentive to leave public housing if you get to live in the best neighborhood on everyone else's dime. Why would you take that as extra motivation to get a job? If public housing actually worked, wouldn't you see it slowly diminishing naturally? Instead, it just expands.

I think we'd do well to cut back the welfare state across the board ideally. But in the mean time, I do think it's better to not have areas with potential crowded with public housing, which do in fact bring crime.

[j_ws]

Originally Posted by Kamms

Welcome to the Peoples' Republic of Cleveland.

Constructive.

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

I think it needs to be demonstrated how this access of public housing to "these resources" actually benefits anyone- the public housing residents and the surrounding communities. Seems like it's a permanent state of subsidized existence. I don't think it's possible to trap them in a stronger "Cycle of poverty." There is no incentive to leave public housing if you get to live in the best neighborhood on everyone else's dime. Why would you take that as extra motivation to get a job? If public housing actually worked, wouldn't you see it slowly diminishing naturally? Instead, it just expands.

I think we'd do well to cut back the welfare state across the board ideally. But in the mean time, I do think it's better to not have areas with potential crowded with public housing, which do in fact bring crime.

I mean, it's hard to expect someone without a car to be able to commute to a job if they don't have a way to get to that job. I think it's also assumptive to say that literally no one in the place has a job. But, objectively speaking, someone is going to have more options to pull themselves out of poverty in OC than they would in Union-Lee-Miles.

I don't disagree that the way housing is managed is counter-productive. I can't speak firsthand since I haven't have to deal with it, but I don't believe they really provide a lot of skills training or ways to integrate residents with the actual workforce. So yes, I do agree that there isn't a whole lot support to get people out of subsidized housing. I think this is why you see more success with the EDEN developments than with standard public housing. Lakeview Terrace is terrible housing in the most traditional sense. Riverview Tower is a bit better because it isn't set up like a colony of poor people on the other side of a highway.

As for food insecurity, food deserts are a huge issue in Cleveland, probably even greater than housing insecurity. A lot of entirely low-income neighborhoods don't have much in the way of grocery stores.

Again, speaking in a general, higher-level manner, it's better to have socioeconomically integrated neighborhoods than areas of concentrated wealth bordered by concentrations of high poverty. The growth of Ohio City is going to hit a stopping point if areas south of it just grow more poor as a product of displacement.

[j_ws]

It's worth noting that I'm not saying this public housing needs to be preserved in it's current form and specific location indefinitely.

But, if you're going to eliminate it, you still need to do something with the residents.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by j_ws

I mean, it's hard to expect someone without a car to be able to commute to a job if they don't have a way to get to that job. I think it's also assumptive to say that literally no one in the place has a job. But, objectively speaking, someone is going to have more options to pull themselves out of poverty in OC than they would in Union-Lee-Miles.

Not sure about that.

As for food insecurity, food deserts are a huge issue in Cleveland, probably even greater than housing insecurity. A lot of entirely low-income neighborhoods don't have much in the way of grocery stores.

Not convinced about the "food desert" phenomenon either. Read this: Five Years and $500 Million Later, USDA Admits That 'Food Deserts' Don't Matter - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Sure, it's Reason, but lots of links lots of facts. Consider it.

Again, speaking in a general, higher-level manner, it's better to have socioeconomically integrated neighborhoods than areas of concentrated wealth bordered by concentrations of high poverty.

Why? This is often asserted but not sure what the basis is other than feeling good about yourself (not saying "you" to be personal, just in general). I think we need to question a lot about what we *think* we know here. Seems to me like further subsidization and central command clearly do NOT work.