It's a stretch to call such projects "innovative city redevelopment initiatives" as you did. The monies go to rehabilitation of existing housing and commercial/industrial facilities, street improvements, and various "public" services. This is innovation -- "the act of introducing something new"? You've got a odd view of what consistitutes innovation. And take a look at how total "Administrative and Planning" expenses needed to manage these CDBG-funded initiatives rose from $2 million in 2002 (when CDBG funding to Cleveland totalled $47 million) to $4.7 million in 2004 (with CDBG funding down to $31 million). CDBG is notorious for providing a facade for corruption and waste (can you say "East Cleveland"?) as well as allocating monies based on political connections not genuine need. See link here: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm656.cfm. With City of Cleveland annual revenues of $654 million, CDBG monies of $31 million represents less than 5% of total funds flowing into city coffers. Even if cut -- by what, $5 million? -- such would be less than 1% of Cleveland's total operating budget. George W. Bush is not decimating Cleveland; the lack of business vitality in this city is decimating Cleveland. If we had more privately-financed businesses and less publicly-funded not-for-profits (popping off about the lack of grant funds), there would be plenty of money thrown off in the form of taxes (and giving) to cover such redevelopment initiatives. (By the way, why doesn't CoolCleveland think about operating as a for-fee enterprise versus a free newsletter? I can think of dozens of ways in which you could use your brand equity to create truly innovative business offerings -- and pay some taxes to the city!). Why not pick a different closer-to-home target to blame for "decimating Cleveland." The Cleveland Foundation alone holds over $1.5 billion (that's right, billion) in assets; in 2003, it authorized grants of $83 million, just over 5% of its (pre-investment) resources. I'd say old Industrial Economy wealth is being preserved by Service Economy "stewards" at the expense of creating a new Experience Economy. Finally, regarding the local NASA workforce cuts -- again, read the article. The job losses are the result of cutting two programs aimed at researching "ways to reduce pollution from jet engines." If concerned about jet engine pollutants, why would one not just mandate emissions improvements over X years and have the likes of GE, Boeing, and McDonald-Douglas figure this out? This amounts to nothing more than "corporate welfare," the kind which Dennis Kucinich is usually so fond of criticizing, and rightfully so -- unless of course it's in his own backyard. And that is precisely where most of the impact of these job loses will be: in our backyard, not downtown Cleveland. Where do you think these NASA employees live? Not Cleveland; heck, most probably don't even live in Cuyahoga County. So 700 folks in Strongsville might have to sell their McMansions and move. Sure, Cleveland will be out some income taxes -- for NASA sits inside city limits; but even having to worry about federal government jobs to generate local tax revenue is a telltale sign of the desperate need for an alternative tax base. Maybe there's some good news here: maybe one of these rocket scientists will be led to start a new Cleveland-based space-tourism business a la: http://www.spaceadventures.com
from Jim Gilmore, author, The Experience Economy jimgilmore@aol.com (:divend:)