Frank Jackson, Michael Coleman and Don Plusquellic are eventually going to endorse Ted Strickland for governor. He knows it. They know it. Ken Blackwell knows it.
Stephanie Tubbs-Jones is going to endorse Strickland too. And hug him in public, and take him on the tour of East Side Cleveland churches. They, and all (or maybe most) of the ministers of those churches, know it.
So what's the meaning of the approach/avoidance dance that all these smart, businesslike people are currently performing?
Strickland meets today with United Pastors in Mission, the most important network of activist African-American clergy in Cleveland. He was at the Urban League in Columbus yesterday, and held a public reconciliation with Dayton mayor Rhine McLin last week. He's making a serious effort to deal with the personal animosities created by some of his allies at the Ohio Democratic Party meeting that elected Chris Redfern party chair in December, as well as the more basic suspicion that his campaign takes African-American support for granted.
But while African-American and urban are related categories in Ohio politics, they aren't the same category. Akron's Don Plusquellic is an extremely white guy governing a city that's only one-third Black, so what's he doing on the "holdout mayors" list if race is the main issue? A bare majority (52% or so) of Cleveland residents are Black, but the same isn't true of Cincinnati, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo or Youngstown -- let alone Lorain, Canton, or Mansfield. All these places are aging urban centers with urban core problems -- and European-American voting majorities. And that's just the central cities; most of their inner-ring suburbs (including major population centers like Parma, Lakewood, Hamilton, Kettering, Warren, etc.) are even whiter.
Is the Democratic candidate for governor speaking to all these urban voters, who may or may not be Black? More particularly, is he speaking to the people -- mostly Democrats -- who've been elected to govern them?
Strickland has been promising his "urban agenda" for months now. Where is it? Just two weeks ago he reportedly told Youngstown mayor Jay Williams that "he would like to shape that agenda by discussions with Ohio’s mayors." That's pretty much the same thing he was saying in February.
So maybe this was a toss-off, a distraction. Maybe a final draft of "Turnaround Ohio's Cities" is already circulating. I sure hope so, because the continued silence is getting uncomfortable. The Strickland campaign had no such trouble figuring out its agenda for coal miners and farmers. Why is the "urban agenda" so hard?
I have a guess about this. I think the problem is that Strickland knows what the unhappy mayors want to hear, and he doesn't want to talk about it.
I think Strickland believes that his basic campaign platform -- early childhood education, college education for all, "good jobs" through entrepreneurship and energy development -- already speaks to the cities' main long-term needs. I think he believes these commitments (maybe with a little repackaging, a few targeting gimmicks) are an urban agenda.
But Jackson, Coleman, Plusqellic et al. see things quite differently. They recognize the dubious value of grand promises about jobs and education, coming from a prospective governor who'll share the Statehouse with a hostile General Assembly that's just itching to embarrass him. They know that none of those promises, even if they come true in a limited way, are likely to help them to govern their own cities. They believe -- correctly, in my opinion -- that much of the governance crisis facing Ohio municipalities is "made in Columbus". They want to hear Strickland say that he understands this is true, and that if he becomes governor they can expect the never-ending Statehouse incursions against municipal budgets and home rule powers to abate.
Strickland, unfortunately, doesn't seem to want to say any such thing.... which only feeds the problem.
Columbus' Coleman was explicit about it in this Other Paper interview:
Already miffed at a Statehouse that he believes takes away cities' home-rule rights while adding guns to their streets, Coleman said he's afraid a Gov. Strickland could continue Ohio's anti-city policies. Until the candidate reassures him otherwise, he said he's withholding his support.I'm guessing that Strickland could make his "mayor problem" go away with one statement -- in a speech, a press release, even a blog entry. It would go something like this:
The mayors, managers and council members of Ohio cities have some of the hardest jobs in politics. State government should seek to support and empower our local communities, not hobble and micromanage them -- especially when we do so in violation of our own Constitution.I bet that would do it.
As governor, I will restore respect for local self-government to the Statehouse. Specifically:
1) I will veto any legislation that comes before me to further limit the home rule powers of cities and villages. This includes legislative restrictions on municipal employee residency requirements, consumer protection ordinances, municipal utilities and networks, and constitutionally permissible gun control measures. If there is any doubt in my mind about the potential impact of a bill on home rule, I will routinely consult the Ohio Municipal League and mayors before signing it.
2) To show that I'm serious about point 1, I intend to cast my Congressional vote against the COPE Act when it reaches the House floor, unless it's amended to restore substantial municipal franchising powers, as well as to assure communities' right to deploy their own networks as they see fit.
3) I can't honestly promise to increase state government's general financial support for cities. But I do promise that my budgets will include increases in the Local Government Fund at least equal to the inflation rate or the overall percentage increase in the General Fund, whichever is higher. In addition, I'll convene a working group of city and village officials early in my first term to look at ways the state can give municipalities more options for raising local revenue, as well as more help in controlling costs.
The nice thing about this "urban agenda" is that it would sound just as good to the people struggling to govern Portsmouth, Steubenville, Springfield and Findlay as to their more visible colleagues in Cleveland, Akron and Columbus. It's got a big, opinion-leading, bipartisan constituency all across the state. (The Plain Dealer, which to its credit has made the defense of municipal home rule an editorial-page priority, would turn cartwheels in support.)
And it wouldn't cost the state a nickel.
It's the smart thing to do... and more important, the right thing. Strickland needs to get over his reluctance and do it now.