KNIVES COMING OUT AT CITY HALL: So now Cleveland's looking at a $12 million General Fund shortfall this fiscal year, and another $50 million shortage for 2004-05. Funny that no one mentioned this in August when the sales tax hike was on the table. Gee, what do you think this news would have done to a Convention Center ballot issue?
In point of fact, there's nothing at all surprising about the awful state of City revenue. Income tax collections started losing ground in the national 2001 downturn, after almost a decade of steady growth. Two years later our employment base and our taxes are still slipping. George Zeller of the Council on Economic Opportunities points out that new unemployment claims in Cuyahoga County, which were slowing a little earlier this year, have started accelerating again, with over 13,000 new claims filed in July and August -- a 7% increase over the same months in 2002. (See George's data for all Ohio counties here.) The national "jobless recovery" looks a lot like a deepening recession here, which is the worst possible news for a City Hall that gets over half of its operating income from a tax that jobless people don't pay. Add millions in unfunded costs of "homeland security", along with less money in the Local Government Fund (courtesy of Statehouse tax-cut zealots), and Cleveland's budget is in deep doo-doo.
You can take that spotlight off downtown Wi-Fi and arts funding, kids -- the big news in Cleveland politics this Fall and Winter will be cuts in basic services. Already the police and fire unions are saying "Hey, leave us out of this!" -- not so easy when the Safety Department uses about 60 cents of every General Fund dollar (Safety costs 100% of the city income tax, and then some). Campbell and Jackson are both swearing no tax hikes, probably because Byrd-Bennett is next in line for a levy this Spring. Cutting "political fat"? The Mayor could sacrifice a couple of press aides, a planner or two, maybe even a Tech Czar or CTO if things get really desperate... but that would just leave her facing the same awful arithmetic with a crippled staff operation. Saving $62 million will involve much bigger, more damaging sacrifices -- serious layoffs, closed rec centers or fire stations, stuff that makes voters and Councilmen mad.
So if you've missed the knife-fighting at City Hall since Mike White left, cheer up. The knives will be out soon... and not just for cutting budgets. The 2005 election starts now.
WHADDAYA MEAN, LEADERSHIP? Speaking of the 2005 election, I keep reading that the Mayor has lost it already -- two whole years before most voters will pay any attention at all. This seems a little premature, to say the least. But even stranger is the reasoning of the "one-term Jane" predictions, which always seem to come down to her "failure to provide strong leadership"... to not being a "big city mayor", in the words of the Free Times (a big-city newspaper if ever there was one).
Where, exactly, do these guys want to be led to?
You can't accuse Campbell of lacking programs or goals for the City -- look at the humongous laundry list in her State of the City speech.
You can say she bobbled the Convention Center process. But should she have sold it to unwilling voters (the PD), killed it in the cradle (Free Times), or just done whatever the "arts community" wanted? The bottom line is, she personally killed an unpopular tax proposal. I can hardly wait to see an opponent turn that into an issue.
Maybe Whiskey Island is being mishandled, maybe not -- but really, do you think most voters give a fart who buys Whiskey Island and what they do with it? Whiskey Island? Sober up.
On the plus side, no one disputes that Campbell has wrestled the City's books into some kind of order, made it less frightening to work at City Hall (and less depressing to visit), and brought the City's technology vision from around 1984 up to at least 1999. Her press operation needs some work, but the web site is a whole lot better. This all seemed important a year ago. Now I hear you yawning.
In truth, this is all inside baseball. Campbell will have two automatic advantages in the next election -- incumbency and name recognition -- offset by three big vulnerabilities: She's trying to govern a very poor city in very bad times (see above); she's white in a majority-black community; and she has no flair for drama, either in program or personal style. To me, these add up to a difficult re-election no matter what else happens.
But that's a handicapping observation, not a criticism. Handicapping is not civic debate. Honest civic debate starts with the question "What is important and possible for government to accomplish?", and then judges officeholders by whether they do what they should and can.
As Cleveland approaches the midpoint of this Mayor's first term, I think we need this kind of discussion. In fact, I think we owe it to the city, to Campbell, and to ourselves. Citizens, let's put our cards on the table!
CALLAHAN'S MAYORAL LEADERSHIP POLL
Cleveland voters: What will Jane Campbell have to accomplish in the next two years to get your vote for a second term?
Non-Cleveland voters: What will Jane Campbell have to accomplish in the next two years to get a campaign contribution from you toward her re-election?
You can list as many required accomplishments as you like, but please be very specific. Responses like "show more leadership" or "build more collaborations" will be unceremoniously deleted. Also remember to specify whether you vote in the City of Cleveland.
Post your response as a comment here. Or post it someplace else (like your own blog), let me know and I'll link to it.