The event was held at the Forum at One Cleveland Center last Wednesday night. It was certainly an enlightening evening, filled with some occasionally lively/healthy debate and leaving Forum attendees with more questions and a lot to chew on.
The 20/30’s Education Committee presented this roundtable; moderator Sam Fulwood III from the Plain Dealer did a fantastic job keeping the meter moving and immediately offered the panelists an opportunity to clarify what their own definition of regionalism was. (He should be hired to replace Dick Feagler on "Feagler&Friends.")
Fulwood began by asking panelists George Forbes, Esq., Professor Norm Krumholtz (Cleveland State University), Mayor Tom Longo (Garfield Heights) and Elizabeth Stoops (Voices & Choices) to provide their own definitions.
Longo suggested early on that any attempt at Regionalism needs to accomplish two things: “improve services and reduce costs, or it’s not worth doing.” They all agreed, with Forbes adding that the approach should be “global” and in “aid of solving problems.” Forbes also added that in the past, the idea of regionalism in Cleveland has not been carried forward due to race and the segregated nature of the city, with minorities fearing a loss of power and/or a stake in the action.
Loss of identity in a regional governing process was but one of many topics during the hour-long panel discussion. Stoops suggested that a lot of people feel left out of the current process and that this would be a hurdle to overcome in any new approach. She and others weighed in heavily on education, job growth, and on how to disincentivize local governments from competing (in sometimes hostile ways) for business with their neighbors.
It was troubling to this reviewer that many of these ideas were not supported by suggestions of specific policy and implementation—critical steps in producing a successful regional approach, one would think. There was some talk that some magic dollar figure would emerge from the consolidation of governmental services, with which improvements and development could be achieved.
But there was no discussion of how the successful areas of the country have managed to keep such a regionalist approach sustainable. Let's face it: government is government and eventually funds that were once allocated for one thing get cut or earmarked for other things, or just plain "go away" somehow. And if you're not ready to talk tax abatements (clearly a double-edged sword for bringing in business that waits out their 8-10 years and then looks for another landing area) what is your alternative??
That was what made me start thinking about more in-depth reading (see below).
Back to this magic money for a second: It struck me that those mystery funds might very well cause local governments to compete (in sometimes hostile ways) for those funds with their neighbors. And what would the funds be used for? How would we all as a region come to quorum on where the funds were spent? It seemed that even the panel wasn't quite sure what that kind of challenge would result in.
The general consensus on regionalism in the ether outside Cleveland... is that it perceived as weak on education and poverty... both issues are really the basic foundations of every urban community, for better or worse, and are never really addressed appropriately in our society as a whole.
So does that suggest where the money should go? One might think so, but leave that to a governing body responsible for the wants of several million citizens and there's sure to be plenty of debate.
In any case, Forbes suggested that the current anti-urban politics approach not only undermines education; it massively wounds the city as a tax collector. He cited that there are some 480,000 people living in Cleveland proper, with about 300,000 of them either too young or old to work. This leaves only about 180,000 of them as a capable tax base. What a charley-foxtrot those stats were to hear, especially when you consider what those figures have done to the housing market in Cleveland—foreclosure rates skyrocketing, primarily.
This brought out the idea of a future tax revenue sharing system, one that has been a success story for Minneapolis-St. Paul, which has worked under such a system since 1971. Coincidently, the few stats I could muster about the Twin Cities suggested that adopting a regionalist approach might offer more good paying jobs because it enables a region to truly appear more attractive.
All of the speakers agreed that we as a city, as a community and as a region must 1) leverage talent, 2) stabilize our economy, and 3) grow our economic base. All things that we Cool Clevelanders have a pretty good handle on; all of these planets need to align for a regional approach to take root. And yet in many ways, regionalism presents a Catch-22: in order to do these three things, you must continue to make the region more attractive for people to stay. Chicken v. Egg. Egg v. Chicken.
“So the city goes, so goes the region as well,” Forbes offered.
Aside from successful implementations in the Twin Cities and Portland (Oregon), the idea of Regionalism has been a contentious topic of conversation in many other cities. It has been on and off the table in Cleveland alone since 1920 and an idea that Forbes has not really embraced entirely until recently. “If I can change, then anyone can change,” he said, adding more support to many of the Regionalism “ideas” that have come to pass—some of them even enacted on Forbes’ watch: the Sewer District, the Metroparks system, Regional Income Tax Agency, hospitals, the housing authority, ports and the RTA were cited as successes.
This “actually backed us into a form of regionalism,” Forbes said, couching that in the statement that the blanket approach to countywide government made it to the ballot twice in Cleveland, failing both times for entirely different reasons.
In the end, Longo summed up our region the best: “[Northeast Ohio] is a great environment that does not take advantage of its strengths and lead with them... [we should] think of politics as the art of the possible.”
Time ran out for some of my questions to be answered, so I called up Krumholtz the next day and asked him for some good reference material. He suggested Myron Orfield's Metropolitics (re: Twin Cities); as well as work by Connie Ozawa. And then there's David Rusk, who wrote a book called Cities Without Suburbs, which is considered by many to be the watershed for information on regionalism.
They've been summarily ordered. Keep an eye on my little corner of cyberspace called the CC blog, as I'm sure I'll be talking up this reading material as I begin to digest it.
Sounds like the Twin Cities and Portland took the lead of their state legislature. Should we, as a region, go forth and do likewise? Regionalism is going to take guts, vision and bravery to happen in Cleveland. Blind faith, in some instances. Do you think we’re up to it? Are YOU up to it? Drop us a line and let us know how you feel about Regionalism: LettersATcoolcleveland.com.
From Cool Cleveland correspondent Peter Chakerian peterATcoolcleveland.com (:divend:)