A Tale of Two Occurrences

Two occurrences last week — while they may seem totally disparate at first blush — are inexorably linked and could have a profound impact on the ongoing debate over regionalism in our area. And they both demand and deserve our attention.

However, before I dive off into the deep end of the contentious regionalism pool, I want to state without equivocation that I “get it” in terms of what it’s going to take to move Northeast Ohio forward. Clinging to the past and the 57 virtual fiefdoms that are the municipalities in Cuyahoga County will only insure that our area remains moribund and on life support far into the foreseeable future. The ultimate success of Northeast Ohio is predicated upon us fostering regional cooperation — and the economies of scale such cooperation can bring about. With that said, the devil — as always — is in the details.

On Wednesday, June 20, a major, two-year study, “Regionalism: Growing Together to Expand Opportunities for All,” was released by The Presidents’ Council (according to the accompanying press release the organization is “...a group of chief executive officers from some of the largest African-American owned-and-operated businesses in the Greater Cleveland area). The study — which was conducted by the prestigious “African American Forum on Race and Regionalism” — was funded by a grant from the Cleveland Foundation and can be found online at http://www.thepresidentscouncil.com.

The 309-page document, upon its release, however, immediately engendered controversy.

Some readers, after only what could be a cursory examination of the report (which Mayor Frank Jackson wholeheartedly endorses), came away with the belief that it steps back from regionalism ... and in a sense it does take such a cautionary backward step. But it only steps back from unequal and unfair regionalism, not from progress that is inclusive.

Indeed, early on the report states: “Regional initiatives must focus on reducing the disparity in resources among communities and ensuring that every individual and family in Northeast Ohio — urban, suburban, exurban — receives fair and equitable opportunities for economic advancement and enhanced quality of life. All regionalism proposals must be viewed through a regional equity template: Proactive measures that create balanced investments in people and neighborhoods across the region. This is the standard — equality, not efficiency — by which all regionalism initiatives and policies will be measured.”

Most of the arguments I hear for regionalism are centered around the “economies of scale” principle. Say, if one political body or entity that governed the entire region was buying tires for the vehicles of all 57 municipalities at the same time — instead of all of them buying their tires separately — the combined buying power would substantially lower the cost per tire, resulting in a savings in tax dollars. The same economies can be made in terms of road building and repairs, as well as fire and police protection and in many other areas. Instead of robbing from each other in terms of seeking new development we all would join forces to attract new businesses to the area — which (theoretically at least) would uplift all boats. All of the foregoing is logical, makes plenty of sense and in place in other areas of the country we are in competition with.

So why are minorities (as well as some others) seemingly hell-bent on sticking to a past that limits the future, all the while being castigated for their supposedly obtuse position on regionalism? As one Black elected official stated to me in private, “As a Black, I just don’t trust the White power structure to do the right thing by us simply because it’s the right thing to do.” And we Blacks have plenty of historical precedence on which to base such sentiments. The question really is (or at least should be), how much does that power structure really want regionalism, and is it willing to at last treat minorities fairly to achieve its goal?

Which brings me to the other incident that happened last week: The U.S. Justice Department and the City of Euclid failed to reach an agreement on how to settle a Voting Rights Act lawsuit that was filed against the city. Euclid is approximately 30% African-American, but, due to the voting construct that the city erected to elect council members, no Black has been able to win a seat on City Council. The White majority in Euclid sees nothing wrong with this, and is about to spend hard-earned tax dollars to defend an unequal and unfair voting construct. In other words, the Whites in Euclid don’t want to share power ... and this is what Blacks have faced in virtually every suburban community (perhaps with the exception of Cleveland Heights and to some degree Shaker Heights) we have migrated to. This is why I live — very happily I might add — in Hough. Will those same Whites who are fighting so hard in Euclid be willing to share power with Blacks under regionalism?

The ironic thing is, the City of Euclid is reflective of Cuyahoga County at-large, in terms of population; roughly 28 percent of the residents of the county are Black. And when Blacks think about regionalism the only example that comes to mind to approximate this political construct is county government, where 35 out of the 38 judges on the Common Pleas bench are White, the only Black male exception being Steven Terry (Judges Lillian Greene and Shirley Strickland Saffold are the other two minorities). And here is the dirty little political secret Blacks know: As soon as Judge Terry was appointed, meetings were initiated at Westside political clubs to find a candidate to take back that judgeship for a White lawyer. That’s how the political “name game” has been played in Cuyahoga County for decades, and everyone knows it. White Westside politicians think nothing of asking Eastside Blacks to take them to their churches, ward clubs and neighborhood meetings, but when it comes time for them to take a Black candidate around to their meetings.... well it’s usually, “I’ll get back to you.”

The fact is, many, many county governmental bodies, boards, departments and agencies — not to mention the sweeping racial inequities of the private sector where many local companies have never hired a minority employee and have no intention of doing so — are no where near reflective of the racial population of the county ... and there is a palpable fear in the Black community that regionalism will only exacerbate these savage inequities.

Now, if the entrenched political power structure wanted to play fair (as the proponents of regionalism proclaim) then why haven’t we changed the way judges are elected in Cuyahoga County? We could very easily vote for judges within state representative districts, which would assure that close to one-third of the judges on the county bench are minorities. The simple fact is, inclusion doesn’t just occur on its own in America, it has to be worked at. And the power structure here just hasn’t seemed all that interested in fairness or parity for Black folks ... that is until it wants something from us.

Regionalism is more readily achieved in areas with homogeneous populations, like Portland, OR, where only three percent of the population is Black or other minority. Officials there don’t need buy-in by minorities. But here in Cuyahoga County regionalism can’t move forward without African-Americans. And since we as a group refuse to meekly go along with the power structure, and instead are attempting to leverage our ability to stop the train dead in its tracks if we are not treated equitably, we risk being labeled growth obstructionists, political naïfs, latter-day Luddites and, by-and-large, stupid. Well, so be it.

Lani Guinier, a legal scholar (and the nominee for assistant attorney general for civil rights who was dumped by then-President Clinton in the face of right-wing pressure) set forth in her 1994 masterwork, “Tyranny of the Majority, Fundamental Fairness in Representative Democracy,” some constructs for voting reforms that no one in America has paid much attention to, in spite of the fact many other first-world democracies had — in the name of simple fairness — already adopted many years prior.

The questions Blacks are asking is: Can regionalism be used to correct past injustices and imbalances in political power, or — similar to Louisville, KY where half of the Black elected officials lost their jobs due to government consolidation — will we again (as per usual) get the short end of the stick? Now I’m all for reducing redundancy in the number of unneeded elected officials, but who is going to insure racial parity in the process? When it comes to job distribution in Cuyahoga County Blacks are always afraid of the F.B.I. You know ... “Friends, Brothers and In-laws.” In virtually every metropolitan area with a substantial minority population where regionalism has occurred, the Blacks say they lost out. We simply don’t care to replicate those mistakes here in Cuyahoga County.

What we Blacks — and I certainly don’t claim to speak for all Blacks — are hearing (and I wish someone would explain it to me if the facts are otherwise) is ... “You (meaning Clevelanders) give the valuable crown jewels of the city — the Water Department, the Airport, Cleveland Public Power and your seats on the Port Authority — over to a regional government (while keeping your under-funded and troubled schools) and in return you’ll get a great deal on your next set of tires.” Uhhhh, no — no thanks. O.K., O.K,. I admit the previous sentence was a bit of a cheap shot and tended toward hyperbole. But, why is it that the conversation about regionalism didn’t heat up until Blacks became more numerous on the voting roles than Whites in the City of Cleveland, and now are on the cusp of wielding the balance of political power? Additionally, the conversation always tends to die down whenever Blacks mention equalization of school funding across the region. And then there is the sneaking suspicion among some Blacks that regionalism is simply a way to dilute Black voting power even before we attain it. As the Country & Western song says ... “I (we) might have been born in the dark, but it wasn’t last night.”

The truth of the matter is, Blacks didn’t create the political power structure that is currently in place, nor did we invent the political games that are played throughout the county; but it seems just when we learn how to play those games to our advantage and are about to level the playing field with nascent political power... there is a loud hue and cry to change the rules.

I’d love to be proved wrong on this. I’d love for Blacks and Whites to come together and find a way to make regionalism create parity for all residents of the area. In fact, I serve on a multi-racial and multi-ethnic committee that is exploring just those kinds of possibilities ... and I don’t believe in wasting my time so I must believe that it should and can work. My goal, along with some others, is to find that common ground that allows us — all of us — to move forward as a unified region towards a brighter, more prosperous and fair tomorrow.

The real question is... are Whites willing to give up their long-held and deeply cherished political hegemony in return for Black support of regionalism? An honest reading and debate of the report is a good place to start answering that question.

From Cool Cleveland contributor Mansfield B. Frazier mansfieldfATgmail.com
(:divend:)