Cool Cleveland Interview

Cleveland City Council President Frank Jackson
10.24.05

The biggest issue right now is the lack of confidence. I know there are certain tangible kinds of things that I will talk about, but the one intangible that helps us solve the tangible problems is confidence. People just don't have confidence any more in our school system to do economic development, to create jobs, where we are in the region, lack of confidence in City Hall, lack of confidence in the police department, just confidence. The first thing we have to do within the first 100 days of the administration is to begin to restore confidence, so people will know that things are happening, that there is hope, that things are going to get better, that things are moving forward. The we can begin to do those demonstrate-able things that show that things are moving. Attitude adjustment first, then to move ahead with each of those things that I talked about. Begin to set a vision, establish a mission, a strategic plan as to how to accomplish that vision, and demonstrate the leadership and making decisions and guiding people in the proper direction.

Your website and campaign are stressing, "Vision, Leadership and Integrity." Describe your vision for Cleveland?

My vision is to have Cleveland become a city of choice. Where people and businesses choose to be here, to stay here and move here. Why? Because it's just a great place to be. Part of doing that is first of all recognizing the assets and valuables that Cleveland has already in terms of arts and culture, three major sports teams, medical institutions, the lakefront, a waterfront, the Orchestra, the museums, the universities and colleges… I mean, I could just go on and on and on… But we don't have the connectivity, the thing that brings them together, that allows them to operate in a way that moves into this vision. So we're not using these tools that we have and these great assets that we have to fulfill our vision of being a great city.

Making Cleveland a city of choice. And you do that by improving the school system, and making the school system a quality school system. And we do that by creating an environment of investment opportunity, to create jobs, and to allow true empowerment for everyone involved in that investment opportunity. We make Cleveland a city of choice by reforming City Hall, not the government, but the operations, so it's a customer-friendly place, so we can do the things we need to do to provide quality service and to facilitate community and economic development.

It becomes a city of choice when we begin to use those assets and valuables we have to enter into a true partnership with our region, and to help our region prosper while the city prospers at the same time. Then safety and security, quality of life, all the same thing. How do we make Cleveland a city of choice? By saying that this is a great place to live, a safe place to live. That symbols of neglect have been removed and we're moving forward.

One of the complaints about your opponent is that stronger leadership is needed for Cleveland at this time. Yet your leadership has been described as being limited to issues facing only your ward and Cleveland's inner city. How can voters be sure you are capable of leading the entire city and the entire region?

Let me preface this, then I'll answer directly. I think the criticism of Campbell is correct. I believe the image of me is what has been portrayed. What I'd like to point out to you is that I was Chairman of Community and Economic Development for almost four and a half years or so…

Chairman of Community and Economic Development Committee, during the heyday of Cleveland, so every major development or minor project was reviewed by the committee I chaired, so I had to be involved in each of those. In my ward alone, we have probably about half a billion dollars worth of development, of housing, commercial and retail.

When Bearings, which is now Applied Technologies, was going to move out of state, in my rookie first term, I was able to work a deal with them to keep them in Cleveland where they are now at 36th and Euclid. The first time that OfficeMax was talking about moving out of state, when I was Chairman of Community and Economic Development, I went and talked with Mr. Feuer and we worked out an arrangement that kept them from moving out of state. But Campbell couldn't do that. I could talk about other things.

Even though the image of me is that, I guess my opponents have been successful in that area, trying creating that image. But I have a broader understanding and broader approach to the city of Cleveland. And the final thing is that, I am the Council President, which means that if I did not understand the needs of all the neighborhoods of the city of Cleveland, including Downtown, we could not have done even the little things that we have done in the last four years.

Let's start with technology. It is a growing industry here in Cleveland, it is an industry of the future for us. The present administration made the attempt to put into place the position of a Tech Czar. And that took a long time, I think it took over a year to get approval for that position. It finally was approved, and we've had some great successes with that position. Why do you think it took a year to get Council approval for the position of Tech Czar [Senior Executive for Technology Development] for the City of Cleveland?

Well, I think, again, it's misinformation. We don't have to approve a Tech Czar. Whenever the administration, if that's a new classification, the administration would introduce legislation to add that as a classification. Whenever they have done those things, we have followed through on it. You should ask the Mayor why it took them so long to do what they had promised. We had nothing to do with it. Other than if it's a position that is not in Civil Service for classification of the City of Cleveland, then there isn't legislation needed to create that classification and the pay band needed. Any time the administration has asked for those things, they got them pretty routinely.

So was it because the people that they were trying to bring in weren't Civil Service, that they had to get special approval for people like Tim Moran [Senior Executive for Technology Development] and [Chief Development Officer] Tim Mueller…

Well, Tim Mueller was part of her…

Cabinet…

Cabinet. Moran is part of the Cabinet. She can just bring them in whenever she wants. She doesn't need… they could work as executive assistants to the Mayor, and do a function of that…

And Michael DeAloia [Senior Executive for Technology Development, City of Cleveland] now is he in that function now…

It didn't come through us. We have nothing to do with that. The only time that we have something to do with a new position is if they want a position that is not a classification. If they do, then we have to pass legislation to allow that. And we do that routinely. And many times, an administration won't even ask. They just put them in an existing classification and give them a certain function. So we had nothing to do with that.

Part of the problem is that Council is not… The interesting thing is that they have the Free Stamp right outside City Council, a rubber stamp that says "FREE" right outside of City Hall. There is a legislative process. And when people are made aware of what it is the administration wanted, we made a move. How long did it sit over there? Did it sit over there a month, a couple of months? There was no interaction with City Council to discuss the urgency or the need for that. When we were told that it was something that needed to happen relatively soon, then I actually called the man from OneCleveland and said, I haven't heard anything about this and I'm told that it is urgent, can you explain to me what the need for this is, and what the connection is between this and the other technology. He explained it to me, and after I quizzed him for a while as to the need and what the function would be and how it would fit into the overall plan, I think we passed it in a week.

So they had never really approached you or Council to explain what they wanted?

What happens is, legislation gets introduced by Councilpeople and the Administration, and if it's something that isn't urgent to them, or they haven't at least made an attempt to talk to Council about what it entails, it will usually sit there. Once there was a demonstration that there was a sense of urgency, even then no one came over to talk to us about it. So I took the initiative to talk to OneCleveland. And once I understood it, we passed it.

You have to remember too, one of the problems with this Administration is the hot-cold hot-cold desperation kind of thing. Nothing is important until it becomes desperate. And many times the desperation causes them to mess up. If they would have taken the time to be consistent, it wouldn't have been so desperate, and the outcome would be much better. We find ourselves with this Administration cleaning up things so that it works right, and the outcome is in the best interest of the city and the people. That's a lot of work, when you have to do two jobs. It's enough work doing your own job, let alone somebody else's.

On the Wal-Mart issue, it seemed that Council was really against Wal-Mart coming in, but they stalled and allowed the developer to bring them in. Why did Council stall on the Steelyard Commons project, which allowed the developer to bring in a Wal-Mart, even though most members of Council seemed to object to it?

The question for me is why did the administration stall. We had asked in May for an economic impact study so that Council members would know what the impact of a million square feet of Big Box suburban retail would do to an urban plan for the City of Cleveland. Which seems to be a contradiction. And what impact it would have on the millions of dollars that we had invested in Downtown and in the neighborhoods in retail. So we waited up until November or December before Council even introduced legislation to deal with a Big Box store such as Wal-Mart.

We had asked to get this economic impact statement so that people wouldn't be operating with the fear of the unknown. We still haven't gotten it, even though after the fact, the deal was consummated, the administration finally introduced the legislation and we passed it. We still don't have the economic impact study completed and the results of it.

Now the other point I want to make to you is that Council was not against Steelyard Commons. And it was not a Wal-Mart issue with Council as a whole. It was a Wal-Mart issue with a few Council people who opposed Wal-Mart and the unions who opposed Wal-Mart. But there were other Council people who did not oppose Wal-Mart.

So what we had is almost everyone being in favor, even the unions, to be honest with you, even the unions were in favor of Steelyard Commons. There was no attempt to stop Steelyard Commons. It was a lack of understanding of what the impact of a million square feet of Big Box suburban retail in Downtown Cleveland would be. That was the point where people became hesitant, and the fear of the unknown as to what would happen with a Super Wal-Mart to local grocers who had taken risk in our neighborhoods when no one else would and the impact of that on the other retail opportunities and investments that we had Downtown.

Now that was the point. It was no anti-anything. Now what happened was, it has been borne out that our fears are correct. Let me give you an example. The Mayor introduced and we have to pass two pieces of legislature that will cost us in the next two years, two-and-a-half or $3 million in monies that would have come back to Cleveland for economic development. Now how did that happen? We had to refinance or turn loans into grants or do principle-deferred interest-only payments terms for periods of time for two major developments in Cleveland. For the Lee-Harvard shopping center, that was at least a $25 million development, and the Church Square shopping center, which was tens of millions of dollars, both of which the developers of those properties said they needed this financing and these grants because their grocers are now threatened by Steelyard Commons. And because we don't have an economic impact statement they are fearful that the economic impact will be such that they will have to close their stores down, the grocers in these two developments, who are the anchors. And once those grocers close down, every other leaseholder in those developments has a right to get out of their lease. So those two major developments that are anchors, the Midtown and the Lee-Harvard area, would have been destroyed. Why? Because we still don't have what we insisted upon as a condition for us moving ahead with the Steelyard Commons: the economic impact…

The Mayor's office. They agreed to do it last May, they failed to do it. Council introduced legislation because people did not know what was going to happen. Once Wal-Mart decided to pull out, and the developer went back to them, they made some arrangement, rather than having it above board and open, the Mayor then allowed them to file for permits that would grandfather them in. So there is nothing you could do about it. And we still do not have that economic impact study. Since that, because of them, these developers and these major retail nodes in the neighborhoods are operating out of the fear of the unknown. It will cost us $2.5 to $3 million over the next couple of years in monies that would have come back here. And we still don't have the study.

And I want to remind you, our concern at Council has been pretty consistent. What is the impact of this development going forward, particularly if we have a context of building an urban center, particularly an urban Downtown. If you look at Crocker Park and Legacy Village, they are trying to build an urban environment. It's like Disneyland. They are trying to build it and they will not allow a big box to operate in there. Where when it came to Cleveland, we are a true urban environment, and we wanted to build off of that as an advantage and an asset to attract people to live and work and play Downtown. And we just need to know what the impact of this would be, because it seemed to be contrary to what our plan was. The second thing is what the impact would be on the millions of dollars that we had already invested in retail in Downtown and the neighborhoods. And I've just given you two examples of how it's already had a negative impact, because of the failure of the administration to keep their word on the economic impact.

If the Legacy Village and Crocker Park are not allowing Big Box, because of the same issues, then why would we do it in Cleveland?

Well, that's my point to you. I'm saying the same thing. Those who are critical of me and Council, me in particular, for wanting the best for Cleveland, I don't think it's a valid criticism. I mean, why should I want less for Cleveland? And if you look at what Legacy Village did to Shaker Square shopping, it basically took about three of the major retailers out of there. Shaker Square was about ready to go under, until Mr. Rubin. And even then, to save Shaker Square, who came to the plate and saved that project? Dave's Grocery. Who this development may potentially put out of business. Steelyard Commons. I think it was a legitimate question for us to ask. How does this fit into the overall development of Cleveland, based on wanting to create an urban environment in Cleveland and what impact it will have on the millions of dollars of investment that we've already made. And that we should want no less for Cleveland as a city and as an environment that other people want for theirs.

Can City Council do their own economic impact study?

Well, yes, we can…

Rather than wait…

Well, you've got to find the money. The money was set aside for this in the administration. We passed legislation for the administration to do this. They just have failed to do it. Now we're at a point where the election's coming up and all this other kind of stuff… When I become Mayor next year, I'll make sure the legislation is implemented and we'll do the study. Then I'll have a pretty good idea as to the impact of additional Big Boxes in Cleveland in proposed areas have on investments and on the future of the development of the city of Cleveland.

Are the schools really Cleveland's #1 priority, and if so, what have you done to treat the situation like the emergency that it is?

Well, the #1 priority... I think the second part of your question is the right question, what have you done? Cause all of us can talk a good game. But it's in what you do that matters. Last year, even before I decided to run for Mayor, I supported the school levy, I worked very hard for it. In May, I was very disappointed that the Mayor pulled it off the table and worked to have it on in August. It failed overwhelmingly. I believe it was a series of things that happened. One of which was about 18 months of beating up the CEO and the system. It's hard to overcome the negativity that was created by that. Which resulted in the total collapse of confidence in the system and the CEO. It is a priority. It however, fits into many priorities. As you know, when you do deferred maintenance for a long time, you wind up with crisis. What this administration and this mayor in particular has done is not do maintenance for along time, so now, what was a little thing then becomes a big issue now. And on top of that, a lack of real movement, in terms of building off the success of that system, where we had gone from one level to another level, and how we could have built off that and kept the momentum going. And the loss of that opportunity and the demonstration to me, a seeming lack of real concern. The whole city was on automatic pilot for three and a half years. And if it were not for Council at least interjecting, we'd be far worse off than we are now. Our problem is that we're not administrators, we're legislators. Legislators don't implement and don't set policy…

But the Mayor does have control. What will you do as Mayor in terms of the schools.

There's two issues here. The Mayor has limited control. The Mayor can appoint the board and the board president. And the Mayor has to concur with the board on the selection of the CEO. The operation of the school is with the board and the CEO and the administrators of the system. What a Mayor, and what I will do is to have a clear mission as to what it means to have a Cleveland Public School system, and what we are looking for as an outcome. What is the mission, the vision of this system. And I will look at what is keeping the children of this system from being able to fulfill that mission. And in that mission there should be very clear measurable results in measurable time periods. In terms of graduation, not just in quantity but quality. Proficiency test passage, not just in quantity, but quality . And safety and security in the system. And to have complete accountability and open records in terms of the finances of the system and how it functions. And since we are not going to get any more money any time soon, people aren't going to pass a levy any time soon until they have confidence in the system, that means I have to do all this with the same amount of money. So I will then look at where we want to be in terms of outcome, then restructure the system and reallocate the resources in order to get us there.

Since Cleveland's population has dwindled, the city has more Council members per citizen than almost any other in the state. Do you think, like many others that the size of Council should be reduced?

No. And I'll tell you why. Part of Cleveland's problem is that we're always trying to be somebody else rather than be ourselves. And I believe in what works. So I don't have the notion that because someone else is doing something, that we should do it also. Secondly, I think we should just be Cleveland and not other places. This lack of identity and seeming low self-esteem when we have all these great assets and valuables at our feet, such a great city, it is amazing me that we would be of so low self-esteem that we border on the clinically depressed sometimes where you don't even recognize the value yourself. And as long as we stay in that mode, we'll always be searching for our own identity. And we'll always be saying, let's be like this place, and let's be like that place. I just believe that we need to be Cleveland. Because we're a great city, great assets and great arts and culture, which serves to define us that defines us, and be who we are.

Now the second part is more the structural side of it. Government removed from the people becomes the most abusive. Anytime you have government that people cannot touch, cannot influence, then that government will always be abusive. I just believe in that philosophy that we need government that is closest to the people. Government that the average person can talk to, can feel, can touch. And that government for the average person in Cleveland is the Councilman. Everyone can touch the Councilman. And everyone can influence by having that conversation, or that vote or whatever it may be. The further you remove Council from the people, the worse off the people will be.

Many people feel regionalism is the only way that our part of the world will be able to stay competitive. This would include joint purchasing programs, the elimination of redundancy, and eventually, eliminating the borders between Cleveland and its suburbs and joining school districts. What is your view on regionalism, and, as Council president, what have you done to move the issue forward?

I believe in regionalism, what I don't believe in is regional government. And I'll tell you why. Let me start this way. I don't believe that structural change will get you a desired outcome, it won't. You need to know what the desired outcome is, and then do the structural change to get there. Everyone thinks that if you do structural change, then everything's going to be okay, and everything will be rosy, I think they're naïve, or they're blowing smoke up people. We have to think about where do we want this region. What are the problems of this region, and where do we want this region to be in the next decade, in the next 5 years, the next year. Once we do that, I think we should be talking about the structural change that will get us there. If we just deal with the structural change, we're not going to get desired outcome, and we'll have a big fight on our hands between the city and the suburbs, this county, that county. And you'll find that most of that battle for anti-regionalism will be in the suburban community.

That being said, I do believe in regionalism. We have to have a regional economy so we can compete on a national and international basis. That means we should stop this policy of stealing from each other, through lower interest loans or grants or tax abatements. If we continue to compete and steal from each other internally within this region, we're going nowhere. So that's why I've said, it's in writing, it's part of what I say is that we should have regional incentive packages. We should operate as a regional unit. And I think businesses should locate where it's in their best economic interest to do so: where their markets are, where their labor force is, where their access to transportation is. And I think in that regional approach to allowing business to locate where it's in their best interest, rather than providing artificial incentives. Cleveland will be able to compete because Cleveland, with turning our brownfields into marketable lands, creating the availability of clean land to locate or expand businesses. Our market is great, our labor force is great, our transportation is great. So I think we'll be able to compete as a city very well in that environment.

Secondly, we're going to have to drive down or reduce the cost of operating government. Because all these local governments are having problems, except for the wealthiest. The wealthiest, who have more affluent people, are able to put less burden on businesses. So I actually agree that to help out in the region, if the same people who are promoting that, if they are promoting that for the right reason, would be willing to assist and help drive down cost by sharing. Sharing in how we procure things, sharing as to what the expense of certain services that we can provide, that can be provided on a regional basis, that doesn't amount to a great reduction of services in certain areas. But we can work that out. That's why the next Mayor will be instrumental in that partnership.

Interestingly, and what I'm most pleased to hear from you, is your notion of if you're going to do it, let's do it right. When you told me and when you just said, "a reasonable approach to schools," indicates to me that you're looking at doing this right. Because those who are proponents of regionalism say everything but the schools.

"Give us all the valuables of the City of Cleveland, but Cleveland, you keep the liabilities." The same people will say that "Education is our number one priority, for social and economic reasons, but we're not going to deal with you, Cleveland, in terms of your school system." Which means, is it really a priority for them? And the same people will say that, education and the outcome of education, is so important that we have to make it number one. But their failure to put their money where their mouth is, or their policy where their mouth is, demonstrates to me that it is only a priority when it is affecting them or their constituency.

I do believe that we do have to look at the funding of education, that is much broader than district-wide. Because this is not a Cleveland Public School problem, this is a State problem. And all these districts are in trouble. All these districts are being faced with levies and revenues and cost issues. And none of them have been able to resolve it, again, except for the most affluent. And so, we are going to have to figure out a way, at minimum, to deal with education as a regional issue, whether it's in a regional district, which I believe will cause more consternation than anything, it would cause too much fighting, or an issue as to how we begin to move towards sharing in our costs, the same as you talked about with municipalities: procurements, the providing of certain services through education.

That's why I believe in regional magnet schools as a way to entrée into people beginning to gradually accept the notion that we can go beyond boundaries in terms of education by creating regional magnet schools with certain disciplines. The prime example is John Hay, probably will open next year, could be a regional magnet school, because of where it sits. It's over there by the Cleveland Clinic, University Hospitals, Case Western Reserve. So you have this tremendous opportunity to do a research component there. So why not make it a regional magnet school that deals with research or science or medicine. And you do that you can take those children and couple them with Tri-C so that when they get their high school diploma, they also have an associate's degree. And then, when you do that, you would then take those institutions to have them be mentors in those institutions, so when they go off for their higher learning, hopefully at Cleveland State or Case Western Reserve, or John Carroll or Baldwin-Wallace, wherever it is, that they then will come back and have a career and profession inside these institutions.

That will stop what they call this brain drain. You can't stop brain drain unless you provide a career path for these very talented bright kids. I'm saying that my approach to this whole thing is all intertwined. Because what I just mentioned to you is a form of regionalism that dealt with education and economics, and with creating opportunity for the future. And so you have a blending of things that works for the City of Cleveland. But again, remember, that is a desired outcome. So we can then begin to move and make structural changes to get to that desired outcome. But if we believe that we'll just make structural change, and then we're going to wake up tomorrow and have what we thought is going to happen will happen, then we're foolish.

Let me ask about the arts specifically. A couple of years ago, there were two Arts Summits that I believe [Cleveland City] Council sponsored, but since that time, there hasn't been much progress on local government working to support the arts and culture industry to help grow the local economy. Why?

Well, I don't know I think there's two things. City Council has moved to help. When we do major capital projects, we have legislation that Councilman [Matt] Zone sponsored that requires a certain percentage goes into public art. So we've taken that notion. The one thing that you'll notice about me, and you know Council President sets the personality of Council, I don't do things by pretense. Meaning, I just don't go out there and say something, without putting some work or action into it. When we did those two arts summits, which I think were sponsored by Councilmen [Joe] Cimperman & [Merle] Gordon. What we were looking to do was set in motion some kind of agenda where people could understand what would be the next step in moving this agenda forward in terms of arts and culture. I think the arts and culture community got bamboozled. I think they got bamboozled. Because I know that they were promised, not by Council, we did our part with what we did with the legislation, but by others as to this great support they were going to give them in terms of funding, which was totally unrealistic. They were talking about $25 to 30 million a year.

They were trying to pass a levy [Issue 31]…

Which some people gave lip service to, but really no action. I happen to believe that arts and culture trying to define itself as an economic…

…driver? …driver, river, right. …and leaving it there is a big mistake. There is an economy, there is a way to build an industry around arts and culture, but the commercialization of arts and culture is really a very dangerous thing, in my opinion. The great thing I like about arts and culture is freedom, and freedom of expression. And the freedom to express regardless of the value that others put on it. That will be compromised to a great extent if you just look at what is commercially viable.

My task as Mayor is how do you blend the two. How do we allow for a thriving arts and culture community that really begins to identify Cleveland, creates an identity of Cleveland, so that anybody in the world will know, you know, that's Cleveland. Whatever it comes out to be. We shouldn't try to orchestrate it, we should just let it happen. And when we let it happen, when our children and our adults dance, when they do the performing arts, when they do literature, when we do music, whatever we do, it should be an expression of Cleveland, which is the true identity of Cleveland. Which at that time, we won't have to be getting consultants to go out and say, "How are we going to brand Cleveland?" It's ridiculous. I believe that in doing that, that will drive the economy of the arts and culture.

That was my question. Talk about your views on how Cleveland's competitive advantage in arts and culture, and all these great assets that we have…

It's a driver…

How do you see that driving Cleveland's economy?

Just like we have a world renowned orchestra. The Cleveland Orchestra. What do people think of? "That's something!" When we had the ballet, which I think it was horrible that we lost it, but we lost it. At least people knew, that was Cleveland Ballet. When we have Playhouse Square and the [Cleveland] Play House up on Euclid, we have to begin to have arts and culture become a regional asset, rather than us decentralizing that activity, we should be concentrating it. And it should be concentrated where it is now. Out at University Circle, coming down Euclid, on our Lakefront, the Near West Side, with the theatre that they have on 65th over there [Cleveland Public Theatre], Karamu [House]. And so if we're doing that, if we invest in that as government, and we concentrate and we begin to create a funding mechanism within those who frequent our venues, so they can get an overall funding mechanism for arts an culture. Then I think will become the industry that it is.

How do you see this funding mechanism work? What is your vision?

Let's say you have people who frequent venues, no matter what it is…

Patrons of the arts?

Patrons of the arts. Thanks for the term. Patrons of the arts. I don't think they would mind paying 50 cents more a ticket. Where does the money go? And how to do leverage that money to get a bigger pot of money, knowing that leveraging will pay off whatever debt service or whatever that would be. How do you do that? What is our vision for arts and culture in Cleveland.

It reminds me of the Harlem Renaissance. It was a distinct period of time in America when our government helped promote arts and culture even in our public works projects. Many of them, Valley View, down there in Tremont. You see that beautiful art they have there? We should be preserving this. Beautiful art work that they did, just because it's part of... We can do these things, just like in Harlem, when there was investment and allowing of the true and free expression of people as artists. That defined Harlem, it was one of the great eras of New York City.

But you're saying that the arts should essentially tax themselves? Or do you see this funding coming from a broader… I mean, by raising ticket prices, or does it go beyond that?

What I'm saying is that if we can do a surcharge as a region, not just…

And a surcharge on things beyond arts and culture? Or just the arts and culture?

We'll start there, start with arts and culture. I don't care where it is. How do you get it? Then from there, that in and of itself, the investment of those dollars within the vision, will create an economy, will help to undergird arts & culture and make it stronger. I just think it will grow from there and make it stronger. I just think it will grow from there. That along with doing the things that I mentioned that helped to assist the Harlem Renaissance, they helped to make public works projects coming out of the Federal government to make public art. The combination of those two will go a long way.

That money came from the Federal government…

That's my point. So I'm saying you have the patrons supporting arts & culture and you have government supporting arts and culture. But you can't do it and not have a vision and a strategic plan that you can invest in. If you don't have a strategic plan, as to where you want things to go, then you'll have the same situation that you have now. You'll have money that people will be fighting over, and then you have the dominant arts and culture keeping the money from the ones what are not as influential, or don't have the right patrons. You can't have it that way.

You've got to remember, Cleveland's diversity is one of the greatest assets. And our ability to identify Cleveland is to allow that diversity to express itself, and you can't do that if you have orphans and stepchildren. You have Public Theatre on the West Side, you have Karamu [House] on the East Side, the [Clevelnad] Play House, the Museums, you have the Orchestra, we should get the ballet back. And all these things have different demands on them, in terms of funding and financing and stuff. We can't create a process where the big are eating up the little. Everybody's eating each other's lunch.

If we create something that allows for the true diversity and the true expression from each segment of our society, in a way, then I believe that the patron paying for part of it with some little surcharge, will help support, and then government assisting in whichever way it can. I think you'll find you get much further on less money and create an economy that will be self-sustaining, and more free-enterprise. In that way you have gone full circle, then that way you can have the blending of arts and culture being the economic engine without suppressing the freedom of expression.

Interview, video and photos by Thomas Mulready

 (:divend:)