It's time to give due credit to a couple of people I've been pretty hard on recently.
1) First, the Plain Dealer editorial page (which means Mr. Larkin, I presume). I agree strongly with every word of the lead editorial today, along with this one from last Saturday. Today's is about the state GOP's plan to cut the Local Government Fund budget for cities (but not villages) by 20%, and Saturday's was about the General Assembly's rush to legislate against cities putting up "red light cameras" to catch speeders and raise money. But they're both really about the same thing -- the determination of Republican state legislators to undermine both the financial resources and the home rule rights of Ohio cities. The Saturday headline said it well: What local control? Plan to stop drivers from running red lights is in jeopardy because the Ohio House wants to run Cleveland.
This is one of the most important and least discussed issues in Ohio politics. The mayors and city councils of Cleveland and other Ohio cities are expected to work miracles -- in neighborhood and downtown renewal, job creation, and school reform -- all while controlling crime, keeping the streets clean and the garbage collected. Legislators, especially those from rural districts, are never going to accept accountability for any of these things, and most are utterly clueless about big-city development and administration. Yet the General Assembly jealously controls cities' taxation and borrowing options. (The Local Government Fund, as the PD points out, is supposed to compensate local goverments for the limits imposed by state law on their property taxes.) And increasingly, the Statehouse GOP is acting to limit cities' non-tax authority as well, in violation of the spirit (if not the letter) of the Ohio Constitution's home rule provision, and usually in the service of some corporate special interest. Examples include:
-- the current red-light camera legislation;The PD editorialists are calling out the General Assembly's GOP leaders on a critical big-picture issue. This is a case where Larkin and Co. deserve strong support from people who care about our city.
-- the ongoing effort to preempt Cleveland's predatory lending ordinance with a toothless state law, which the Campbell Administration has challenged and has so far defeated in court;
-- a 2003 law that stripped municipalities of authority to regulate gas well drilling (HB 278);
-- a 2000 law restricting municipal operation of cable systems (SB 67):
-- the recently introduced House Bill 188, which limits local (and state) government "electronic commerce services" that compete with two or more private providers... which some are interpreting a a preemptive attack on municipal bandwidth initiatives, though it may also prohibit the sale of public documents by agencies to the public if some private firms want to act as brokers.
2) For a similar reason, I want to give at least 2.5 cheers for Mayor Campbell's casino initiative. I don't think casinos are going to make much real difference in Cleveland's future, and I have no opinion about the political strategy Campbell and Austin are pursuing, but they've framed the issue absolutely correctly: This should be a local question, decided by local voters. Ohio cities (and the Democrats who lead most of them) have to start pushing back in defense of home rule and the right to shape our own futures. Otherwise cities will forever be trying to make bricks without straw. I'm looking for a petition to sign on this one.
3) Finally, a big thumbs up for the education op-ed in this morning's PD by Mayor Campbell's opponent, Council President Frank Jackson. You want real ideas to debate in the Mayor's race? Well, now we've got some. Jackson will have to answer a lot of questions about this gutsy piece (especially about how he thinks public and private school systems can coexist financially) but he's certainly put some serious meat on the table. And his two most "do-able" propositions -- some public schools in the city that are regional magnets, and free tuition for the first two years of college for city residents -- make extraordinary sense to me. (I continue to believe that sending Cleveland to college would be a lot better ED investment than a new convention center.)
So, Mr. Larkin, Mayor Campbell, Councilman Jackson... good on ya, and thanks!
a