Send your letters to: Letters@CoolCleveland.com
On Case's problems (See Cool Cleveland Interview with Ed Hundert here) HUBRIS. Twice I have applied for employment positions at Case for which I was more than qualified. Both times the positions were referred to me by Board Members. Both times I was not even granted an in-person interview. The hiring manager on one of the positions told me they could not even consider anyone that did not have a background from "elite" Northeastern Schools. I graduated top of my class at Kent State on an Ohio Regents Scholarship. I now get to enjoy the irony of the mess at Case, but I don't since it is another Cleveland Institution that is in deep trouble with major consequences for the area. It amazes me how Cleveland always looks outside for managers and solutions rather than having faith in its own people and thinking. I am also amazed at how these folks come into town with all of the answers, wreck what is working and people's lives and depart town with large bags of cash. Anyone remember the McKinsey Consultant Crowd? Strange how so many of them became personally wealthy in the process of scraping Cleveland's industrial base. Strange how no one raised an eyebrow to the massive amounts of money drained from the Cleveland School System by the legal bills of Jones Day and Buckingham Doolittle & Burroughs in the busing litigation. Same story and were seeing it again in University Circle, I guess it is the last pile of money to be plundered in this town. There also seems to be a whole lot of scratch my back and I will scratch yours going on with the people that enable this. Sad.
from Cool Cleveland reader William R. Anderson BillATegcm.com
Dr. Hundert has, unjustly, come under a lot of fire lately because the alumni of Case (or is that Western Reserve?) have spoken with their wallets to voice their displeasure over, on the most part, the name change of the university. It always amazes me how against positive change the "money" people of Cleveland can be. For example, remember when the folks from the Western Reserve Historical Society stopped giving money because they were going to put a state-of-the-art building with exhibits never before seen in this country on the waterfront? Why? Because, instead, they preferred to have their little antique cars stored in the basement of an outdated building in University Circle. And lets not even get started with how many times we have had to listen to Peter Lewis whine about the fact that he won't give money unless things are done his way. Message to Peter: look at how the Ringling (yes, the circus folks) family single-handedly changed the landscape of Sarasota. I'm sure they didn't sit there and wait for people to do things their way, instead they went out and did things their way. I challenge you to spend twenty-four consecutive months in Cleveland doing two brand-new things that you consider worthwhile and then we'll talk. If you need some brand-new ideas, e-mail me, I have plenty. Message to the Case faculty and alumni: in these times when all most people talk about is the supposed "brain drain" in Cleveland, who else but Dr. Hundert could have almost doubled applications to the university in three years? Stop worrying about a short-run financial shortfall and about what name the university carries and instead concentrate on how this influx of applicants will, in five short years, lead to a much stronger, vibrant and committed alumni pool and university stakeholders. I challenge all alumni (and Cool Clevelanders for that matter), in the next year, to give $10 (or the equivalent in time) to the university (or your favorite charity) for every negative thought or complaint you have about Case (or Cleveland) and then we'll talk. If you need ideas where to send your money/time, e-mail me, I have plenty. Message to Dr. Hundert: I, for one, understand that great, visionary change takes time and money to put into place. Stick to your guns and keep doing what you are doing because in the long run you will prove all your naysayers dead wrong. Cool Clevelanders, recognize that in Dr. Hundert you have a person in a position of "power" that is truly looking out for your best interests more than you do with many of those other "money" people of Cleveland. Support him with all you have and you'll see that, in the long run, we'll all be better off.
from Cool Cleveland reader Rubén A. García Jr. ragarciaATimagingmedicalsolutions.com
On tax abatement Tax abatements have their problems, but the solution is not to end abatements but to make abatement universal for buildings, so that the property tax is based solely on land value.All real estate development creates what some economists call "neighborhood effects." This means that if one person improves his property, the value of the neighboring properties rises as well, because the whole neighborhood becomes more attractive. If this happens on a grand enough scale, a whole district may turn around as development becomes self-sustaining.The possibility of this revitalization, however, does not mean that the government should offer subsidies to, or special treatment of, developers or large employers. The same forces that convey benefits to the community from a major hotel or an automobile assembly plant also apply to the more humble investments of individual property owners or the proprietors of tiny businesses employing a handful of people. It is certainly not obvious that the major projects appealing for abatement do more for the community than the myriad of little ones.Everyone wants abatements, but only the favored few get them. As more abatements are granted, those who do not obtain them may rightly feel that they will be left holding the bag.Who are the favored few? First, only the big players need apply. In an ideal world, perhaps, urban planners and economists with perfect foresight would analyze competing requests for abatement to see which moved the city most efficiently toward the long-term goals of the city plan.In our less than perfect world, however, urban planners and even economists may have less wisdom and worse foresight about how the city should develop than do the property owners and developers.Moreover, it is likely that the decisions to grant tax abatements will be influenced by politics, as well as by economics and urban planning. One can imagine a city so corrupt that bribery or favoritism plays a role. In any event, the importance of tax abatement means that developers will spend time and effort in an attempt to obtain this special favor. This is inefficient, unfair, and conducive to corruption.This is not a criticism of developers or of any of the projects that have applied for abatement. Nor is it a criticism of the city government. The players are just responding to the existing set of rules. For now, city governments may have no choice but to lure particularly important investments with particular tax abatements--and then we can all ponder whether the little taxpayers got the short end of the stick. Better rules can be written. The defect in the present system is not the tax abatements, but the fact that they have to be granted as special favors. A property owner's investments do confer benefits on the neighborhood, but this alone cannot justify special treatment. After all, a homeowner's new family room, the landlord's refurbishing of a duplex, and the shopkeeper's new storefront all bring benefits, too.The aging cities of Ohio desperately need investments, both large and small, if they are to renew their residential neighborhoods, spur the growth of their downtowns, and revitalize their manufacturing sectors. All of these (and other) improvements deserve tax abatement, not as a matter of special privilege, but as a result of general policy.Exempting all improvements from taxation is economically feasible and efficient. The result would be to shift the entire burden of the real estate tax to the value of land alone. If tax abatements are good for the community when they are extended to a few favored projects, let us redouble the benefits by exempting all improvements from taxation. Such generalized abatement would replace the decision-making of politicians, who have their own sets of motivations, with decision-making by property owners, who are motivated day in and day out by market discipline. Although this would require a change in the Ohio Constitution, it is one of those fortunate cases where the same reform would advance both economic efficiency and fairness.
from Cool Cleveland reader Bill Peirce, Libertarian Candidate for Governor, Professor Emeritus of Economics, CWRU wspeirceATadelphia.net (:divend:)