YES, THE CLEVELAND SCHOOLS REALLY ARE GRADUATING MORE KIDS: Back in October this blog broke the story of the Cleveland School District's claim of a dramatically improved 2004 graduation rate of almost 50%.

Okay, I didn't actually "break" it, since nobody else noticed. The story didn't reach the real media until March 16, after schools CEO Byrd-Bennett made a presentation about it to the School Board. First the PD ran a story. Then a couple of TV stations picked it up. Then the PD ran an editorial expressing a lot of skepticism. Then they ran an op-ed by "school choice" promoter Jay Greene of the conservative Manhattan Institute, who said he was skeptical at first but now realized the District's new numbers were probably legitimate, and the graduation rate had shot up from 28% in 1998 as a result of competition from private charter schools and vouchers. Then the District's former research chief, Peter Robertson, wrote a letter to the editor in which he said:

For years, the Cleveland schools have been explaining that the "real" graduation rate was about 50 percent, not the 28 percent figure Manhattan Institute researcher Jay Greene made up. We explained repeatedly that we had historical dropout reporting problems and that it would take about four years for the official numbers to reflect our corrected reporting... The press never bought the district's explanations and always gave air time to Greene's uninformed disbelief.

(Mr. Robertson didn't explain why Byrd-Bennett herself keeps repeating Mr. Greene's "made-up" 28% figure -- for example, in the the District press release linked above -- but let's not complicate this story unduly.)

So, are you confused enough yet?

Well, forget the percentages. There's a much simpler measure of the schools' outcomes -- the actual number of kids who are getting diplomas. And by that measure, it's undeniable that something very hopeful has happened recently.

From the District's Office of External Affairs, here are the numbers of kids who actually graduated over the last seven years:

1,741 in 1998
2,050 in 1999
1,700 in 2000
1,881 in 2001
2,205 in 2002
2,614 in 2003
2,508 in 2004

And here are those numbers graphed against the number of kids enrolled in the eighth grade four years earlier (my own dumbed-down version of the graduation rate):


As you can see, the number of eighth graders in each class varied very little, while the number of graduates four years later has changed significantly. From 1998 through 2001 (Byrd-Bennett's first four years on the job) the District graduated an average of only 1,843 seniors. In the past three years, this average has jumped to 2,442... an increase of six hundred graduates annually! (If you just gotta have percentages, that's a 33% improvement.)

Clearly, something important is happening in Cleveland's public high schools, and it's not just improved record-keeping. The Manhattan Institute, inevitably, says it's competition from private schools. The CEO says it's "a conversion to small schools..., targeted assistance for students for the Ohio Graduation Test and proficiency tests, [and] credit-recovery programs (including twilight and extended day programs)". Cool Cleveland says we shouldn't forget "strong leadership provided by schools CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett, and Mayoral control of the school board which eliminated political posturing."

Who's right? Maybe they all are. Or maybe we're just seeing the sum of a lot of small successes by a lot of different groups and individuals -- mentoring and tutoring, technology programs, entrepreneurship groups, college prep and scholarship programs, etc., etc. Or maybe it's something else entirely -- something in the city's culture or demographics that nobody's recognized yet.

But whoever shares in the credit, something is working -- something that we all need to understand better so we can help keep it going.
A

"OHIO'S JOB PICTURE REMAINS BLEARY": Policy Matters Ohio has posted the March 2005 edition of its Job Watch.

Ohio’s job picture remains bleary, as the state has lost jobs during five out of the last six months. According to the latest seasonally adjusted payroll numbers issued March 18 by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, the state lost more than 4,000 nonagricultural jobs in the last month, leaving it with 188,000 or 3.4 percent fewer jobs than it had when the recession officially began in March 2001.

SPRINGER ON (MY) RADIO: I have a dirty little secret. For years, I've had a button on my car radio pre-set to 1100 AM. And it's not for basketball games (IMHO, listening to a ball game is like smelling an art exhibit).

No, the truth is that many times in the last decade or so I've driven around listening to Trivosonno. And to Rush. And to the endless roster of second-string dimbulbs that Clear Channel keeps parading across its local bandwidth to pontificate on sports and politics -- apparently aimed solely at a demographic of Republican insurance salesmen driving to suburban sports bars.

Who knows why do I do this to myself? I used to think of it as political anthropology, or a brave scouting trip into enemy territory. More recently I'm facing the fact that I have personal issues -- issues with silence, with almost all of what passes for music radio, with the general attitude of NPR, with the price of tapes. So I occasionally hit the WTAM button just to get some stupid noise.

As disfunctional as this habit may be (I still think it's less damaging than watching cable news), it has given me a perspective on the talk radio phenomenon. So here's a big, obvious, absolutely unsurprising insight: If you believe in market economics, it's really weird that for fifteen years all the commercial, non-morning-drive radio talkers in the Cleveland market have been outspoken conservatives.

(Yeah, I know Trivosonno used to say good things about unions occasionally, and I actually heard his brilliant rant against seat licenses when the Browns Stadium deal was announced. But that doesn't change the fact that WTAM's afternoon-evening politics is basically all Bush, all the time.)

Folks, every precinct in the city of Cleveland voted for Kerry in the last election. Cuyahoga County went for Kerry two to one, and for Tim Hagan in the last governor's race, 60%-40%. In the whole "Cleveland-Akron area" (Cuyahoga, Lorain, Lake, Medina, Geauga, Ashtabula, Summit, Portage), the liberal Democratic candidates won those two elections with 59% and 52% of the votes, respectively. Democrats dominate local elections in most of this territory. Like it or not, northeast Ohio is a bastion of liberal Democratic voters.

It's awful hard to believe there's no commercial niche for talk radio aimed at these voters as listeners. And isn't that what commercial media is supposedly all about -- competing for listeners based on our own interests, preferences and prejudices?

So, finally, Clear Channel has decided to give it a try, and we've got Springer on the Radio.

Jerry Springer is, of course, an extremely successful media guy. Like or hate the TV show, you have to admit it's a winner. It's made him rich enough to give a lot of money away, and fund his own campaigns (which makes him a viable candidate for Governor). And it isn't a fluke; Springer was a popular television figure in Cincinnati before he went national, and his new radio show reportedly leads its station's lineup after a couple of months of airtime.

But Springer's also a real, "progressive" Democratic politician. And he's more attuned to the rising Internet wing of the party than most. Take a look back at his show's homepage. Notice that it's mostly a blog. Notice that it has a real blogroll with lots of Ohio links, including one to Cleveland Diary. Notice that one of the show's "simul-bloggers" is Jesse Taylor of Pandagon, a top-ranked member of the Democrat blogocracy based in Cincinnati.

Even if you hate talk radio this is interesting, because it apparently reflects a big new turn in Clear Channel's programming strategy. WCKY, Springer's home base in Cincinnati, is a Clear Channel property that's now been shifted entirely to "liberal talk", mostly through the nationwide Air America network. And Springer himself has just joined Air America's lineup.

Will we have Air America on the air in Cleveland soon? Who knows? But since Monday, we've got Jerry, and he's certainly different from anything we've been hearing. Even if you don't have a radio button pre-set to 1100 AM, I suggest giving Springer on the Radio a listen.
A

CLEVELAND PROMOTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN RICHFIELD... and gets some income taxes in return.

Here's a City press release from Tuesday that hasn't gotten any coverage that I can find. Apparently the City of Cleveland is helping the Village of Richfield to create a Joint Economic Development District (JEDD) in Richfield Township.

The Village of Richfield and Richfield Township are in the process of creating a Joint Economic Development District (JEDD) to be located in the Township. The Township will contribute land and provide the general public services, and the Village will extend sewers and collect the income tax revenues. The City of Cleveland will extend water service to the new district through a water service agreement with the Village adjacent to the area. The City, the Township, and the Village will share equally in the net income-tax revenues that are generated.

JEDDs allow municipalities with water systems to get some tax revenue from business development in neighboring townships, without having to resort to annexation. Essentially the city offers water service and a no-annexation pledge in exchange for a share of new income taxes from the JEDD. Akron has set up four of them, described here and here.

Richfield Village gets its municipal water through a service agreement with Cleveland, so it needs Cleveland's cooperation to establish a JEDD in the adjacent township. Cleveland's saying yes, in exchange for a third of the new income tax revenue.

Hmmm. Think we can get a third of the new jobs?

Seriously, for a city like Cleveland with no unincorporated land next door, and a regional water system serving 70 communities in three counties, this "long-distance JEDD" idea probably makes a lot of sense. I wonder what the possibilities are around Brunswick. Or Twinsburg. Or Olmsted Falls.

P.S. Here's the full text of the authorizing ordinance for the Richfield JEDD, introduced in Cleveland City Council Monday. (The Mayor's press release says it already passed, but this looks like a first reading. I'm probably just missing something.) Take a look at the sponsors: Coats, White, Gordon, and... Jackson. Looks like cooperation between the Mayor and Council President is still possible.
A

NEW COOL CLEVELAND: Most Cleveland-area folks who read this are already aware of Cool Cleveland, the email newsletter published weekly by Thomas Mulready. But if you're not a subscriber, I highly recommend that you check out this week's edition, especially:

The featured interview with County Treasurer (and "probably not a candidate" for Cleveland mayor) Jim Rokakis, and

Roldo Bartimole's column on Senator George Voinovich and the bankruptcy bill.

THE "LAST IN EVERYTHING AMENDMENT": Another good post from Hypothetically Speaking.
A

ALL THE NEWS THAT FITS THE PARTY LINE: Over a hundred people showed up at Cleveland City Hall yesterday for a rally called by the Coalition for Responsible Development. The goal was to meet with Mayor Campbell, present a stack of petitions, and urge her to stop courting Wal-Mart as an anchor for the Steelyard Commons Development until a full economic impact study is completed.

The largest part of the crowd was union grocery store workers, but there were also members of ACORN, some church social action leaders, a couple of small business owners in addition to Dave's, and other supporters. They were hosted in City Council Chambers by Ward 17 Councilman Matt Zone while attempts were made to connect with Campbell (who was supposedly meeting with Wal-Mart executives yesterday.)

Campbell refused to see the group personally, but a delegation was able to meet with her chief of staff, Chris Ronayne.

I'm telling you all this because apparently no one else will.

The Plain Dealer, which had City Hall reporter Olivera Perkins on the scene interviewing participants, ran no story today. Channel 3, which had a camera crew there, posted a short article on its website but gave the rally no on-air coverage. There was nothing on Channel 5, 8 or 19/43.

And that's the way we do fair and balanced coverage of "the big box issue" in Cleveland.

(Since I wasn't there personally, I should tell you that my source for this original coverage is Harriet Applegate of the Cleveland AFL-CIO. Harriet says there were 150 people, but I've cautiously rounded down.)
A

THE SENATORS FROM MBNA: Both of "our" Senators, DeWine (up for re-election next year) and Voinovich (not until 2010), joined a solid GOP front to turn back all amendments and pass the credit card industry's "bankruptcy reform" bill. Check here, here, here, here, and here on why this was such a horrible thing to do -- especially for two guys representing Ohio.

So why did they do it? Here are the top 1999-2004 corporate campaign money sources for DeWine and for Voinovich. Look where credit-card giant MBNA ranks on their charts, especially DeWine's. And then, of course, there's National City, and KeyCorp, and American Financial...

Any questions?

WHOSE OXLEY IS GORED 2: Hypothetically Speaking has a crazy dream...
A

STRAINING AT GNATS

So the fighting issue between mayoral candidates Jane Campbell and Frank Jackson, coming out of the 2005 budget negotiation, is 45 called-back police officers vs. 30 called-back police officers (or maybe it's 41).

Why do most voters ignore election campaigns until the last few weeks? This is why.

"Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." Matthew 23:24
A

MUNIWIRELESS: CHICAGO LOOKS INTO CITYWIDE WI-FI

Chicago has decided to look into citywide wireless broadband. Chicago Indymedia reports that the joint session of the Committees of Finance and Economic, Capital & Technology Development passed a resolution to conduct a study on the deployment of a citywide high-speed wireless network. The city's CIO, Chris O'Brien, estimates that the study will take sixty to ninety days to complete.

"1800 PERMANENT JOBS": By now, if you live in the Cleveland media market you've heard it a hundred times: "Steelyard Commons would create 1,800 permanent jobs." This is the killer argument, the reason no sane community leader should do anything that might jeopardize the project.

But it doesn't have much to do with reality.

Let's assume that the new mall is built as projected, with five big-box stores (including an expandable Wal-Mart) and several dozen smaller spaces in adjacent strips. And let's assume the vacancy rate is low and the stores are very successful (you'll notice we're doing a whole lot of assuming). And finally, let's assume that the resulting work force is, indeed, around 1,800 people.

Does this mean we've "created" 1,800 new jobs? No, and here's why: New retail floor space doesn't create new retail jobs. Higher retail sales, i.e. more consumer spending, is what creates new jobs (sometimes). And since building a mall in the Flats will have no effect on the amount of money Cleveland-area consumers spend -- only on where we spend it -- it will result in little or no new job creation.

Here's a chart of total retail employment in the Cleveland-Lorain region during the last eleven years. During this period, millions of square feet of retail space were built in Cuyahoga and Lorain Counties: the South Park mall in Strongsville, Avon Commons, Legacy Village, the Promenade in Westlake, most of the Ridge Park mall in Brooklyn, etc., etc., not to mention a half-dozen Wal-Marts, another half-dozen Targets, chain drugstores on every corner and many specialty big-boxes. So look at the resulting employment change:

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Not what you'd call a robust growth picture, eh?

Retail employment doesn't grow when developers build more stores, it just moves around. This is especially true when the region's retail space is already overbuilt, as ours is, according to the County Planning Department's Northeast Ohio Regional Retail Analysis.

If eighteen hundred people get hired at Steelyard Commons, that will simply mean that a similar number of jobs are lost somewhere else in the area. And it's a sure bet that many will be lost to Cleveland residents, over 15,000 of whom already work in city or suburban retail establishments.

So please, can we stop talking about "creating 1,800 jobs" in Steelyard Commons? It isn't exactly a lie, but it's even farther from being a meaningful truth.
A

AS IF WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TO WORRY ABOUT... SENATE BANKRUPTCY BILL UP FOR A VOTE TOMORROW: Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo now has a special page devoted to the Federal "bankruptcy reform" bill, up for a Senate vote tomorrow. To get an idea how this godawful bill will affect poor and unemployed Ohioans, see Policy Matters' new study on Ohio's skyrocketing bankruptcy rates.

Please, while you're contacting DeWine and Voinovich about the CDBG budget, be sure to ask them about their positions on this monstrosity too.

(This is not a liberal/conservative dispute; "bankruptcy reform" is a bipartisan monster. If you don't believe me, ask Instapundit.)

Update: Exile on Main Street links to a "letter writing machine" on the bankruptcy bill... and to a revealing LA Times article on the issue.
A

SOCIAL SECURITY: WHOSE OXLEY IS GORED

Hypothetically Speaking has two sharp posts (here and here) about Ohio Fourth District Congressman Michael Oxley, who has a lot to say about "Social Security reform" -- when he's not talking to his own constituents.
A

CITY INCOME TAX GIVE-BACK FOR NEW DOWNTOWN JOBS? The PD has a story this morning about Mayor Campbell's proposal to create a city income tax rebate program for companies that create new jobs in Cleveland's "Central Business District". I've posted the full text of the proposed ordinance here.

Believe it or not, I actually like this idea. (I may have to turn in my Urban Populist card, but what the heck, it's getting dog-eared anyway.) There are reasonable questions raised in the PD story -- why just downtown? why not target the incentive to jobs for city residents? -- but the concept is very interesting for at least four reasons:

First, it's a straightforward cash subsidy for actual hiring and payroll, not for real estate development that might lead to hiring.

Second, it leaves very little to chance. The City gets its new income tax money up front, and only then rebates a portion of it. (And the City's playing with its own money, not someone else's.)

Third, it's useful to any kind of employer. It's obviously designed for "intellectual asset" businesses, in line with the Euclid Tech Corridor idea, but would apply just as well to a cleaning contractor or bank.

Finally, it sets an excellent precedent by putting the Fair Employment Wage requirement right up front.

The PD story says Council hasn't moved on the proposal, implying that it's being stalled. Maybe this is the case, but it's just as likely that Council is waiting for formal comments from the Finance and Economic Development Departments. Besides, the Mayor and Council are still in the midst of a tense budget process. And interesting as the concept may be, it is a major innovation that calls for serious deliberation, not election year fast-tracking.

But it's a good enough idea to get that serious look from Council before Summer recess and the onset of election-year paralysis.
A

CRUNCH TIME FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT: Just got this email from Ed Schwartz at the Institute for the Study of Civic Values:

At some point Monday or Tuesday (March 7th-8th) the Budget Committees in both the House and Senate will set a projected budget for the Community Development Block Grant--as well as every other program.

The difference here is that the President has eliminated the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entirely from his proposed budget--so unless the Congress acts to restore its budget in the Committee meetings, it will be a struggle to get it back later on.

So if we want to save the Community Development Block Grant, we need to call our representatives in the House and Senate today--Monday morning--to express our support for the program.

Letters are circulating both the Senate and the House supporting CDBG.

You can read them on the BushBudget Web Site from here: Community Development Block Grant Under Attack

55 Senators have signed a letter supporting the Block Grant.

Far fewer members of the House have signed a bi-partisan letter circulated by Rep. Barney Frank (D) and Rep. Chris Shay (R). So it becomes critical to call your Congressperson in Washington before Noon Monday (E.S.T.)

Even if you're sure your Senators and Representatives support the Community Development Block Grant, call them. They need to know that there is strong public support for this program.

If you don't know your Congressperson's Washington number, you can find it quickly from Congress.org.

Time is critical here. If we want to keep the Community Development Block Grant, we need to act today or we'll have a much tougher fight later on.

Both Ohio Senators, Mike DeWine and George Voinovich, have signed the Senate "Dear Colleague" letter. Send them a thank-you note! Here's contact info for DeWine and Voinovich.

I have no information on any Ohio Members of Congress who've signed the House letter. The only House Budget Committee member from Ohio is Republican Rob Portman of suburban Cincinnati, called "President Bush's man in the House" by the New York Times. If you live in Portman's 2nd District, or any other Republican congressional district in the state, your call tomorrow in support of CDBG is probably worth its weight in gold. You can find your CongressMember's name and contact information here at Project Vote Smart.
A

ON SUBJECTS OTHER THAN WAL-MART...

Speaking of BFD, George has been hosting an interesting conversation about the Fund for Our Economic Future's planned $3 million "regional discussion". Start here, then go here, here, here and here. Be sure to read the comments.

And for all you community networking fans, check out this project just unveiled by Houston's "Technology For All" in collaboration with Rice University. (Real geeks need to look at this related journal article.) Will Reed, TFA's president and maximum leader, says he's definitely going to be in Cleveland in June for the 2005 CTCNet Annual Conference.
A

MAYOR CAMPBELL REALLY, REALLY WANTS WAL-MART: Brewed Fresh Daily picks up the latest from Crain's.

I can't believe my eyes reading this article at Crain's Cleveland Business. When the city was declared the most impoverished, did Mayor Campbell do this much? Nope. She set up a committee to address the issue, effectively delaying an action. On this one, she's going it all alone. What gives? My favorite part is, she doesn't shop at WalMart herself. I think she should have to shop only at WalMart for at least a month. I bet she's think twice about the prestige of having one in the SteelYard Commons then.

Last Thursday I heard Planning Director Bob Brown tell a community meeting in my neighborhood that "no one in the administration wants Wal-Mart". Apparently there was someone he didn't ask.
A

"EVERYONE INVOLVED SHOULD LOWER THEIR VOICES"

A letter to the Plain Dealer from Brian Cummins of Old Brooklyn Community Development Corporation (this is the original... an edited version may be printed):

From: Brian J. Cummins
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 4:45 PM
To: 'letters@plaind.com'
Subject: Letter-to-the-Editor, re: 3-2-05 Boneyard Commons

Dear Editor:

Regarding your editorial “Boneyard Commons” on Wednesday March 2nd, everyone involved should lower their voices about Steel Yard Commons and come back to the economic development table. Your editorial took the lead in trying to identify a “bad guy” and blame him or her for the disruption of a project not thoroughly planned.

Councilmember Cimperman is not the enemy of business or development because he sought answers to important questions. The mayor and council president are not the enemies of neighborhood businesses because they sought to attract the investment. The AFL-CIO is not the enemy of Cleveland because it sought to protect local grocers in which the city has made major investments. Attributing bad motives to any of these leaders is not in the spirit of good public policy.

An objective economic impact analysis regarding “big box” retail in Cleveland is still needed. It will serve to get everyone speaking from a common understanding of both the needed benefits and potential detriments associated with “big box” development. From that study an appropriate, or at a minimum, a more informed economic development policy can be crafted that reduces the negative impacts and accommodates positive development.

After such a study, reasonable people may still disagree on what is best for retail and economic development but they will do so with knowledge shared by all. Identifying a “bad guy” is misleading and not productive given the true need for sustainable economic development that includes job creation and ensuring the vitality of our neighborhoods while providing our residents with retail choices comparable to the suburbs. So, everyone, please lower your voices and come back to the table, there is much needed work to be done.

Sincerely,
Brian J. Cummins
Executive Director
Old Brooklyn Community Development Corporation

LETTER(S) FROM BENTONVILLE: Here's the full text of Wal-Mart's Monday letter to Council President Jackson, announcing that there won't be a Wal-Mart in Steelyard Commons.

The letter says explicitly that proposed compromise legislation to limit grocery sales "was not a factor in our decision to decline to participate in the Steelyard Commons project". The Mayor, the developer, and the Plain Dealer all insist that it means the opposite of what it says. You be the judge.

But this is the part I'm curious about:

We are notifying you of our decision because we are aware of the perception in Cleveland that our plans were more definitive than they actually were. We were in the process of evaluating the site and had not internally agreed that this was an appropriate site for a Wal-Mart store.

This makes me curious because developer Mitch Schneider told the PD in February that he had a "letter of intent" from Wal-Mart. Yesterday's editorial angrily repeats this claim.

Now what can this mean? Did Wal-Mart send a letter to Schneider confirming its intention to build a store in his project, even though they had not, in fact, "internally agreed" to do so? Or has Schneider been telling us something that isn't quite true?

It's kind of an important detail, don't you think? Maybe the PD could spare a moment of distraction from bashing Joe Cimperman and the labor movement to ask Mr. Schneider for a copy of that other letter from Bentonville, and share it with the public.
A

DID I SAY "VICIOUS MORONS"? I'M SORRY, I MEANT TO SAY "VICIOUS LYING MORONS"

Here's the text of an email I just sent to Channel 19 reporter Scott McFarlane.

Dear Mr. McFarlane:

I caught your piece attacking Councilman Cimperman for his role in the Steelyard/Wal-Mart controversy this evening. In the piece, you have a shot of the BP station at West 14th and Clark, with your voice saying: "Along Clark Avenue near West 14th, this is the closest thing you'll find to a shopping center. Claudia Woodson says neighbors are sick of shopping at a gas station, though."

The spot where you and Mrs. Woodson were standing is three and a half blocks from a Tops full-service supermarket, on Clark just past West 25th Street. This is considerably closer to West 14th and Clark than Steelyard Commons will be, once you drive down Clark Hill, south on Quigley and into the proposed center.

But then, you knew that, didn't you?

(Incidentally, that BP is a terrible place to buy food.)

Bill Callahan

CONSTRUCTIVE DIALOGUE AT CHANNEL 19

The "poll" now up at WOIO's website:

Do you think labor unions are killing Cleveland's future?
YES
NO

I'm thankful to report that "No" is currently winning 56%-44%.

Next poll topic: "Do you think vicious morons masquerading as TV journalists are killing Cleveland's future?"
A

CRISIS = OPPORTUNITY: Aside from Mitch Schneider's whining (expect lots more of the same from the PD editors and others) there are two take-away quotes in this morning's Plain Dealer story about Wal-Mart and Steelyard Commons.

First, there is Mayor Campbell's statement that "subsidies would probably be needed to attract an anchor and that she would work with council to come up with a plan".

Second, there is AFL-CIO leader John Ryan's observation: "It's an opportunity for good community planning, instead of reacting quickly."

For months, city leaders have been hiding behind their lack of jurisdiction to justify an "anything goes" approach to the Steelyard plan. We have no zoning authority, they've said; we're not being asked for money, so what can we do? Planning Director Bob Brown actually told a community meeting in my neighborhood last week that "no one in the administration wants Wal-Mart, but we have no say."

Now that it's clear that Schneider's private, unplanned strategy was half-baked -- totally dependent on the interest of a chain that's not interested -- the City has an obvious move: Buy some control.

Here we have the perfect opportunity for Campbell and Jackson to show what they're made of. It's like a Public Administration 101 essay question: One of the city's most important development sites is in play. The developer, whose clay feet are now obvious, needs some public help. There are significant unaddressed issues -- neighborhood impacts, labor market impacts, traffic impacts, a real highest-and-best-use controversy. Up to now the city has lacked jurisdiction to address these issues. What does an effective municipal leader do?

I say that an effective municipal leader finds a way to take the developer off the hook for some period of time, in exchange for a significant measure of public authority over the final plan for the site.

Schneider is saying, for example, that he has only ninety days to find another anchor. Presumably this is tied to conditions on his financing. (In fact, this may be a Port Authority loan deadline.) The city could offer to put up some money to help extend this deadline to six months or a year... maybe pre-pay some interest.

In exchange, the city could seek normal retail zoning and design jurisdiction over the site, tied to a meaningful community planning process that seriously examines:

a) whether retail is the best economic development use of the hundred and thirty riverside acres in question, and...

b) if retail is the site's future, how to mitigate harm -- or even create opportunities -- for existing Cleveland businesses and workers.

The media will call Wal-Mart's withdrawal a crisis. Actually, it's an opportunity. Let's see if either the Mayor or the Council President has the vision -- and political nerve -- to seize it.
A

WAL-MART NOT COMING TO STEELYARD COMMONS

Get ready for lots of weeping, gnashing of teeth and rending of garments.

Channel 3 News has learned that a big Cleveland project is now in doubt.

Wal-Mart is not coming to Steelyard Commons. The company announced its plans in letters to city leaders Monday. Steelyard Commons was to be a big box shopping center near I.S.G. steel in the Flats.

Wal-Mart was going to be the anchor tenant bringing other stores in. The company claims a city council proposal to limit grocery sales is not why it’s staying away.

Mayor Jane Campbell and developer Mitch Schneider are vowing to try to salvage the project and its jobs.

So here are two things to remember when the finger-pointing starts.

1. City Council had already backed away from its original ordinance to limit grocery sales in big-box stores to 5% of floor space. Council President Jackson's "compromise" proposal, a deed restriction preventing grocery sales in a Steelyard Wal-Mart for seven years, was originally proposed to union leaders weeks ago by Mayor Campbell and developer Schneider. So much for Wal-Mart taking care of its friends, ha-ha.

2. Building new stores does not create new economic activity and jobs. It just moves existing activity and jobs around.

More later, I'm sure.
A