Cleveland–East Cleveland Merger Plan Overlooks Main Issue

East Cleveland, a struggling suburb of Cleveland, has ended up in so much fiscal distress that it is considering allowing Cleveland to annex it as a desperation move. A fascinating […]

East Cleveland, a struggling suburb of Cleveland, has ended up in so much fiscal distress that it is considering allowing Cleveland to annex it as a desperation move. A fascinating article up yesterday on NextCity describes how it got to this point and the various tensions on each side about the merger idea.

On East Cleveland's side there is a proud community loathe to give up autonomy and control (not to mention a mostly-black community, some of whom told NextCity they are afraid of being subject to Cleveland's police force, which is currently under DOJ-mandated retraining as a result of its pattern of excessive use of force). And on Cleveland's side, a none-too-flush city is wondering why it (rather than the state) should bear the financial burden of helping its even more fiscally strapped neighbor, even if it would be nice not to have those issues right outside its borders.

It will be interesting to see where the idea ends up, but the proposal is striking in two ways: first, we may need to rethink our decades of assuming that home rule in the Northeast and Midwest is just too strong to allow us to overcome our fragmented tiny political bodies in favor of regional coordination. Ever since Myron Orfield and David Rusk started beating the “regional” drum, this has been the pushback. “That's great for the West, but here in the Northeast it'll never work.” Never say never?

That's the optimistic angle. But Cleveland's hesitation about the annexation points to the other side of the coin:

To lump all the poor, struggling, disinvested entities together in one jurisdiction while leaving all the well-off municipalities independent, continuing to leech off the jobs, anchor institutions, cultural, and social services of that larger entity without contributing to it does not seem to me to particularly increase regional equity. Even though there might be some benefit to the parties involved if it's done right from efficiencies (and maybe political clout), overall it does not get at the heart of the problem with regional inequity, which is those who can afford it least having to do the most to support the whole.

Last spring at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy's journalist forum, the mayor of Oklahoma City spoke about his city's amazing turnaround, followed by a searing speech from Sen. Kildee of Flint, Michigan, on the ways his city had been harmed by external forces. Tellingly, to me, it wasn't until the comment period that it came out that along with all the other good stuff Oklahoma City had done up through the mid-1980s, it had also been steadily annexing a huge amount of adjacent land, including wealthy enclaves and productive tax-generating areas. I imagine if we'd asked the mayor if he'd considered annexing only the most impoverished areas on his borders he would have laughed out loud.

Of course in the fragmented Northeast where there's little to “unincorporated land,” entities that are doing fine in our unequal regional dynamics are not going to come looking for, or be excited about, annexation. That's why most recent mergers have been entire-county deals rather than piecemeal, and why places like Minneapolis-St. Paul instituted regional tax sharing as a different way to level things out.

I wonder how East Cleveland would fare today if Greater Cleveland had instituted regional tax sharing when the Twin Cities did.

Photo by Flickr user Elizabethe, CC BY-NC-ND.

Related Articles