Regionalization, Anyone Care To Debate The Issue?

Forum strictly about development, urban planning, community programs ideas, and discussions about cities around the world and what they are doing right.

Moderator: Jim DeVito

Jeff Endress
Posts: 858
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:13 am
Location: Lakewood

Postby Jeff Endress » Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:04 am

Bill

It is a discussion which is needed. But, the problem is that there's really nothing on the table that can be discussed. We hear "regionalization" and it can mean anything from political consolidation, unigov, or the like to purchasing consortiums. And depending on where the "proposal" falls within that continuum, is what really fuels the opinions and discussions.

Jeff


To wander this country and this world looking for the best barbecue â€â€
Bill Call
Posts: 3312
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:10 pm

4

Postby Bill Call » Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:50 am

brian smoley wrote:I'm all for it if done properly


The debate or regionalization? :lol:


Bill Call
Posts: 3312
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:10 pm

r

Postby Bill Call » Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:06 am

Jeff Endress wrote:But, the problem is that there's really nothing on the table that can be discussed. We hear "regionalization" and it can mean anything


That's true and that's the problem. Discussions are taking place secretly and without public input.

Regionalization can mean anything. Reading between the lines of what I have read in the PD leads me to believe that regionalism means central planning.

Just like NOACA: http://www.noaca.org/

People and agencies and organizations that depend upon government for their financing are eager to create another level of bureacracy.

Who decides what is to be built and where it is to built? Not the citizens, not the entrepeneurs, not the investors, not the business owners but the "Central Planners".

I suspect that the goal has less to do with economic development than it does with aquiring political power and the money that comes with that power.

Would the central planners:

Disallow a new medical center on the Jacob's 89 acres in Avon or would they disallow an expansion of Lakewood Hospital?

Would the central planners:

Forbid the construction of new shopping and housing at Crocker Park because it would compete with housing and shopping in Lakewood? Or would they hamper development in Lakewood because it competes with taxpayer funded downtown development?

Development in Northern Ohio is a zero sum game. Population is decling and growth in one community subtracts from growth in another. In that zero sum game the central planners would not be guiding economic growth. They would be rationing it.

Any rationing scheme ultimately becomes nothing but a food fight where the big eaters crowd out the rest of us.

What is missing from the discussions about regionalism? Any talk of what affect the largest tax burden in the country has on economic growth and opportunity.

One way to force the debate into the open is to discuss it in the open. One way to set the terms of the debate is to frame the wording of the debate.

When debating regionalization use the words "central planning" and "rationing" and not "common efforts" or "economic growth". Let the "stakeholders" debate the issue's real agenda and not the propaganda.


Bryan Schwegler
Posts: 963
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 4:23 pm
Location: Lakewood

Postby Bryan Schwegler » Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:23 am

So Bill, you mention "citizens and say "citizens" don't get to decide issues, instead that it's this central group.

Are you proposing that "the people" be able to vote on every single development and gov't action in the county? I thought that's why we elected representatives? Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you're implying.

I thought NOACA meetings were open to the public?

When debating regionalization use the words "central planning" and "rationing" and not "common efforts" or "economic growth". Let the "stakeholders" debate the issue's real agenda and not the propaganda.


Bill, I would challenge that the way you frame the issue and the language you choose to use is just as much propoganda, just the other direction. Let's be fair here.


Shawn Juris

Postby Shawn Juris » Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:47 pm

So if there were a debate on this topic and you could only chose one person to represent each side, who would you chose?
What would the question be? As mentioned earlier there are some significantly different views of what is meant by "regionalism".


Bill Call
Posts: 3312
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:10 pm

g

Postby Bill Call » Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:58 am

Bryan Schwegler wrote:So Bill, you mention "citizens and say "citizens" don't get to decide issues, instead that it's this central group.
Are you proposing that "the people" be able to vote on every single development and gov't action in the county? I thought that's why we elected representatives? Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you're implying.


The citizens make development choices by voting with their feet and their dollars and their votes. What the central planners want to do is to dictate what developments are made and where they are made based on the central planners idea of what is appropriate. They think rationing economic growth creates prosperity.

When the central planners talk about citizen involvement they don't mean let the market decide they mean let the "stakeholders" decide. Instead of a free market they envision a planned market. Who are the "stakeholders"? The unions, the foundations, the politicians, the business leaders and the neighborhood groups.

Bryan Schwegler wrote:I thought NOACA meetings were open to the public?


There is no such thing as a meeting open to the public. The "public" meetings are held so citizens who have three hours to spend listening to NOACA officials can pretend to be involved. The development decision was already made.


Bryan Schwegler wrote:Bill, I would challenge that the way you frame the issue and the language you choose to use is just as much propoganda, just the other direction. Let's be fair here.


The recent proposal to merge fire departments in some of the Southwest suburbs illustrates why regionalization means central planning. When it was pointed out that the merged entity would need more people and spend more money the Plain Dealer editorialized that the merger should take place anyway.

So if regionalization is not about greater efficiency and better service what is it about? Central planning.

The existing County government is a regionalized government. It is corrupt, bloated, costly, inefficient and destructive. The regional planners should first demonstrate that the existing County government can be made to work before they decide to give it more power.

I am skeptical of the whole idea of government picking the winners and losers. The central planners think a new layer of taxation and bureaucracy is the key to prosperity. They would create a highly taxed highly regulated environment and then give tax dollars to a select few in an effort to soften the burden of the high taxes and bloated bureaurcracy. Does that make any sense?

Wouldn't it be better to create a low tax community with a small regulatory burden and then let the market work? Our current bureucratic structure has turned a once prosperous County into a pauper. Their solution? Higher taxes and more bureacracy.


Jeff Endress
Posts: 858
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:13 am
Location: Lakewood

Postby Jeff Endress » Thu Jul 03, 2008 7:02 am

Regardless of how you feel about "regionalism", the fact remains, that unless we enter into a discussion, things will be thrust upon us.....agree or disagree with Bill's verbage, his facts are essentially correct. There are many players in the "regionalism" game and we have little or no control over how they frame the discussion. More so if we haven't at least explored where we stand on the issue(s). As I said earlier, the term "Regionalism" represents a wide continuum. But just for starters, we need to define what we're discussing.

Consolidation of city services into a county model....including refuse, parks, streets?

Consolidation of safety forces....regional dispatch, countywide fire and police?

Countywide school and library district?

Regional water/sewage treatment?

Regional government, level of retained local control over inspections etc.?

Consolidated courts/ordinances?

Will savings be realized through "economies of scale" and if so, will those saving be used to provide tax relief or merely represent a reason to increase unionized wrokers salary demands?

There's probably a couple hundred other issues which fall somewhere along the continuum.

Jeff


To wander this country and this world looking for the best barbecue â€â€
Shawn Juris

Postby Shawn Juris » Sat Jul 05, 2008 10:18 am

Inside Business president Lute Harmon Sr. wrote about the upcoming proposal for the new County Charter in the latest issue. What if we start the debate there?



Return to “Urban Dynamics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests