4.12.2005

MOMENT OF TRUTH FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT

A Congressional conference committee will decide in the next couple of days whether to kill the Community Development Block Grant program, the major source of funds for neighborhood housing and commercial development in Cleveland and other cities throughout Ohio.

Cleveland's stake in this decision is almost $30 million a year.

The House of Representatives has voted to kill the program outright, as proposed by the Bush Administration. The Senate voted 68 to 31 to preserve it, over the strenuous objections of the Republican leadership. A conference committee is meeting this week to resolve this and other disagreements between the two houses and produce a "compromise" budget, which will then go back to the House and Senate for up-or-down votes.

Here's an excellent summary of this week's legislative situation from BushBudget.org.

Both Voinovich and Dewine were among the 24 GOP Senators who joined with Democrats to preserve CDBG. More impressively, Ohio's Senators then joined with just two other Republicans and all the Senate Democrats to vote against the full budget resolution, which passed by a vote of just 51 to 49.

Voinovich has been especially vocal in support of CDBG. This is great, but now comes the moment of truth. Ohio's Senators need to use every ounce of "juice" they have, publicly and privately, to get their leadership and the Senate's conferees to respect the clear majority mandate of their colleagues and keep full CDBG funding in the final conference committee budget.

Let Voinovich and Dewine know you appreciate their support for CDBG and expect them to keep it up! E-mail is probably not the best way to communicate about this issue. A telegram to the Senator's D.C. office is the best way to get somebody's attention, but a fax or phone call is good, too.
Senator Michael Dewine
140 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-3503
Phone: 202-224-2315
Fax: 202-224-6519

Senator George Voinovich
317 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-3504
Phone: 202-224-3353
TollFree: 800-205-OHIO (OH only)
Fax: 202-228-1382

4.11.2005

JOHN KROLL SCORES AGAIN! Did you ever think you'd see the word "exploitation" on the PD business page?

If your appetite for unexpected papal economic thought has been whetted, I strongly recommend this from MaxSpeak and this from Nathan Newman. Or you can just read Laborem Exercens.
A
DEPARTMENT OF COUNTER-INTUITIVE STATISTICS: Yesterday Don Iannone linked to this chart in the March edition of Site Selection. It's a state-by-state comparison of new corporate facility locations and expansions from 2002 through 2004. Guess which state ranked...
-- fourth in location of new manufacturing facilities (256 projects)
-- first in manufacturing facility expansions (714 projects), and
-- fifth in location of other new corporate facilities ("offices, headquarters, distribution centers, research and development facilities, speculative offices, speculative industrial buildings, mixed-use facilities and hotels" -- 879 projects)?
Why, yes, it's Ohio... the same state that lost 60,000 jobs over those same three years (December 2001 to December 2004) while the nation was adding nearly 1.7 million.

So contrary to what we keep hearing about our "unfriendly business climate", Ohio actually seems to have been very attractive to corporate decision-makers compared to other states. Gee, they can't be all that worried about our tax system, can they?

Yet we remain at the bottom of the heap in net job creation. Very mysterious.
A

4.10.2005

TRIOZZI, TOO: Okay, so now it turns out that Robert Triozzi has a campaign website, too... even more "under development" than Draper's, but here it is. And there's a Triozzi Meetup group (two, actually). Thanks, John.

I'm officially encouraged. Now my question is when either of these sites will have some specifics about what the candidate will do if he gets elected.
A
JIM DRAPER DOES HAVE A WEBSITE: Via a comment from Mike on this post, my question "Where's his website?" is answered for mayoral candidate Jim Draper: He's got one and here it is. The posting date is March 24, the same day Jim announced.

I still can't make it show up on Google, and this might be the site's first link. But it's out there and it's got contact info, press links and at least the beginning of program information. So... good for candidate Draper. And thanks, Mike.
A

4.09.2005

DEPARTMENT OF CHECKING THINGS OUT: Wired News has this piece on an Australian inventor and a California startup that are trying to commercialize a high-altitude wind power technology. "High altitude" means waaay up there -- three miles or more -- and the technology involves turbines mounted on tethered rotorcraft. The inventor has patented and successfully prototyped his design (see picture below) at low altitudes. But he and the company (Sky Windpower, headed by a guy named David Shepard, who made his original pile in the '50s as an inventor of Optical Character Recognition scanners) have been unable to raise $3 million to stage high altitude tests.


I heard about this outfit by accident a couple of years ago and exchanged emails with Shepard, who wondered if I knew anyone around here with money. (Ha ha.) It struck me then, and still does, as an idea that ought to interest Cleveland techbiz promoters. Cleveland, after all, is in a very high-cost power market, is at a very high-potential latitude (41.5 degrees north) according to Dr. Caldeira's charts, has a big lake over which you could fly these things, and has great local expertise in power technologies and aerospace at NASA Glenn -- soon to be seriously underutilitized.

It just seems like something that should be checked out by somebody in Northeast Ohio with an appropriate knowledge of engineering.

At the time I asked Holly Harlan of Entrepreneurs for Sustainability if she had any ideas, but she drew a blank. Then last September I had a conversation about it with Bill Spratley of Green Energy Ohio, and sent him Sky Windpower's link. I haven't heard anything more from Bill.

Since the story is now in Wired -- and Sky Windpower is apparently still looking for investors -- let me give it another try. This might be a great opportunity for the region to get a piece of a breakthrough technology. Or, of course, it might be totally bogus. But shouldn't somebody from NEO with appropriate expertise and connections take a look at this possibility, while it's still parked on the ground floor?

Who might that be?

If it's you, please leave a comment or email me and I'll send you everything I've got on the subject.
A

4.08.2005

PHILADELPHIA RELEASES BUSINESS PLAN FOR CITYWIDE WIRELESS SYSTEM

Mayor John Street held the press conference yesterday. You can download the full business plan here.

As expected, the system will be run by a nonprofit corporation and designed and built by private vendors. But the big news is open, competitive ISP access to the infrastructure. From the press release:
The Committee’s report made the following key recommendations:

Create a nonprofit corporation to manage the deployment of the wireless network - The Committee recommended a non-profit corporation be established to oversee the implementation of the proposal. The non-profit will receive its start-up funding from foundation grants, bank loans and other non-city sources. Within four years, the non-profit is projected to be debt free and generating positive cash flow.

Have private companies design, deploy and manage the network - Through a request for proposal (RFP) process, the non-profit will outsource the design, deployment and management of a citywide wireless network.

Provide network access to private service providers at low wholesale prices - The non-profit will make access to the wireless network available to private Service Providers (SPs), institutions and other nonprofits at low wholesale prices. Individuals and businesses will be able to purchase broadband access from these parties at what had been dial-up prices. There are currently at least 430 dial-up Internet service providers who operate in Philadelphia. SP’s will be responsible for marketing the service, billing subscribers and providing customer service and technical support.
P.S. MuniWireless has an interview with Philadelphia tech czar Dianah Neff about the plan.
A
CAMPAIGNING LIKE IT'S 1995: Frank Jackson had a campaign kickoff rally yesterday. The Plain Dealer says he "outlined the general themes of his campaign: improving the schools, fostering economic development and job creation, reforming City Hall and increasing public safety."

I'm in favor of all these "themes", of course. As is the current mayor. As are Jim Draper and Robert Triozzi... and, I assume, Anthony Brown.

The question for the next six months is what they plan to do about any of these "themes" that's different from what's already being done. And why they're better able to get it done than the other candidates. And why it will make a big enough difference in our lives that voters should care.

If this city should have learned anything at all in the past twenty years, it's that high-sounding phraseology about schools, jobs and safety -- or entrepreneurship, or neighborhoods, or poverty, or [insert theme here] -- is, in itself, worthless. Dude, we know what the problems are. How exactly do you propose to solve them?

Twenty or even ten years ago, it was normal for citizens to wait for answers to these questions until the campaign mail started arriving, or we could get to a candidate's night. Candidates would spend the first few months of their campaigns looking for money and endorsements, building name recognition, and quietly testing specific issues and messages for later use.

But this is not ten years ago. It's 2005, and we have something called the World Wide Web. When a candidate says he's going to do something about an issue we care about, we don't say to ourselves: "That sounds good, I'll have to check him out some time." We say: "Where's his website?"

Frank Jackson first announced his candidacy in January. Where's his website?

Jim Draper announced two weeks ago. Where's his website?

Judge Triozzi announced at the beginning of this week. Where's his website?

Mayor Campbell doesn't have a campaign site either. But she does have a lot of specific issue and program stuff linked from the main page of www.city.cleveland.oh.us -- full texts of her last two State of the City speeches, for example, not to mention a lot of press releases. Indeed, the city website is pretty much the Mayor's personal homepage. Most mayors do the same thing... look at Philadelphia or Chicago. This doesn't make the practice right, of course -- but right or wrong, it means you can find reasonably current information about Campbell's positions and proposals on line.

Jackson, to his credit, hasn't treated the City Council website as his personal property. In its own way it's a better site than the Mayor's, if you're looking for easy access to useful information -- like how to reach your Councilman, who's on what committee, or what happened at the last Council meeting. But it isn't going to help a voter to figure out what Frank Jackson would do if he becomes mayor.

You may think it's a little early in the campaign season to expect the candidates to have Web presences, especially in Cleveland, where so many voters are on the wrong side of the digital divide. I suspect this is how the candidates and their managers see it.

If so, they're wrong. The rules have changed. There's recent survey data showing that nearly half of Cleveland adults are regular Internet users, and the percentages are much higher for those who are better educated and/or better off (i.e. likely voters). At least in part, this City election is going to be fought under the new Internet-driven rules: immediacy, transparency, interactivity, decentralized initiative. A campaign that launches without the capacity to put its press releases on line, or a public email address, doesn't demonstrate much aptitude for this new environment.

IMHO, there's a strong case to be made for the following proposition: In 2005, a person who can't demonstrate an excellent personal command of basic Internet applications is not qualified to be the mayor of a major city. It's just part of the job description for a 21st century leader.

The campaign is a job readiness test. And the exam is now in progress.
A

4.06.2005

SCHEDULING A SCHOOL LEVY: Mayor Campbell says she and her school board plan to put a school levy on the ballot in October or November, i.e. on the city's primary or general election day. Campbell's main rival for mayor, Council President Frank Jackson, has attacked her for waiting too long; he wants an August levy vote.
At last night's school board meeting, several City Council Members (Zack Reed, Joe Cimperman, Kevin Conwell) and others including Rev. C. J. Matthews of the Cleveland SCLC chapter called on the board to hold the vote during the summer and said they're ready to campaign for it. Schools CEO Byrd-Bennett responded that she'd take it up with the mayor on Friday.

From a cynical electoral point of view, it's obvious why Jackson wants the levy out of the way early. If it's on the November or even the October ballot, he can't attack Campbell on schools issues without appearing to undermine the levy, while all the sunny campaign messages about the schools can only benefit the incumbent mayor. But an August vote would at least neutralize the issue -- and a second levy defeat, which is highly likely, would give Jackson a big stick to beat Campbell with among minority voters, parents and corporate donors.

Is Frank Jackson calculating this cynically? Is the Mayor? How about the Councilmen and ministers at the School Board last night (who looked to me like a pretty pro-Jackson bunch)? Yes, yes, and I don't know but it wouldn't startle me.

Okay, but what about those who really just want to get a levy passed? Isn't this so urgent that we should get it on the ballot as soon as possible? And wouldn't Campbell's best possible move be to challenge everyone -- Jackson, Triozzi, Draper, all the Councilmen -- to put City Hall politics aside for four months and join in a united campaign to save the schools?

Yes, this would make perfect sense... if the Mayor thought she had any chance of winning such a vote. Conventional analysis says, however, that a levy's chances of passage in August are slim to none. Two important reasons:
  • Low turnout. School taxes generally do better in high-turnout elections, which include more African-American and Hispanic voters, more low-income voters generally, a higher proportion of tenants, etc. There will be this kind of turnout in November, and a smaller version of it in October. But a special vote in August will be tiny, drawing only the likeliest of likely voters (i.e. older, homeowning, middle-class non-parents). Of course, if the school forces could mount a really successful turnout drive among low-income parents, they could turn this logic inside out (small general turnout + big parent turnout = win for parents). But that's a huge "if", especially considering that...

  • In the summer, schools are closed and teachers are on vacation. A big get-out-the-vote campaign for a levy, especially in a low-visibility single-issue election, takes a massive hands-on volunteer effort. The absolute worst time to attempt this is July and early August, when the schools' day-to-day connection with families is broken, and teachers are scattered to their vacations and summer jobs. Again, this conventional logic could be inverted; hundreds of teachers could agree to devote their vacations to full-time campaigning, and the maintenance unions could agree to keep the schools open for the campaign at no cost. (Hey, how about a free summer program for kids sponsored by the levy campaign? Boy, that would get parents' attention!) But this would entail an unprecedented level of innovation, collaboration, and personal commitment -- not something the Mayor has any reason to rely on, especially this year.
So while there's a way to win in August, it's a long shot. And if it loses, that's it... there's no way to try again in November. The Mayor's plan of holding off until the city elections appears, from this outsider's vantage point, to be a lot more prudent.

But having said that, if I were Campbell or Byrd-Bennett, I'd still be taking a hard look at August scenarios. And I'd be asking some hard questions, as suggested above: Is Frank Jackson actually willing to suspend mayor's-race hostilities for four months, and unite behind a levy campaign? Could we get five hundred or more CFT members to volunteer their summers to campaign door-to-door? Could we get a full-bore campaign effort from other unions, and the funds we need from the business community? Can we find some trusted campaign management -- with no axe to grind in the mayor's race -- to put this all together in a few weeks?

If all these questions turn out to have positive answers, an August levy effort might be worth a shot. Otherwise, it's just smoke and mirrors... mayoral politics by other means.
A

3.31.2005

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

3.25.2005

"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.

3.24.2005

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

3.18.2005

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

3.16.2005

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.

3.15.2005

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

3.12.2005

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

3.09.2005

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.

3.08.2005

"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

3.07.2005

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

3.06.2005

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

3.04.2005

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

3.03.2005

"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

3.02.2005

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

3.01.2005

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

2.28.2005

NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTS RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE HIGH-SPEED INTERNET ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESIDENTS
The New York City Council unanimously adopted a resolution to provide low- or no-cost high-speed Internet access to affordable housing residents.

Res. No. 669, introduced by Council Member Gale A. Brewer, the Chair of the New York City Council's Committee on Technology in Government, calls upon City agencies to use their funding and regulatory power to support and encourage the provision of affordable high-speed Internet service and computer purchases for the benefit of residents of affordable housing.

"This resolution will help us bridge the digital divide -- lack of access to the economic, educational and financial tools that the Internet provides," said Council Member Gale Brewer (D-Manhattan). "By encouraging new affordable housing developments to be built with high-speed Internet access, we can accelerate the entry of low-income people into the economic mainstream. At a cost as low as $175 a unit, this is an investment New York can't afford not to make."

2.24.2005

DAVE'S SUPERMARKETS VP SAYS: "STEELYARD PLAN IS SHORTSIGHTED AND PERILOUS"

If you didn't see this op-ed in today's Plain Dealer, read it. If you've already read it, here are some other things you should know:

The author, Dan Saltzman, is listed as vice-president of Dave's Supermarkets, but that understates his stake in the business by several miles. Dan is a third-generation owner of Dave's, along with his father (the CEO) and some siblings. Burt Saltzman, the company's CEO/father, can be seen every day bagging groceries at their original store on Payne Ave., where the chain's general offices are also located.

I met both men in 1991, when I was director of a CDC in the Stockyards neighborhood and they came to a neighborhood meeting to tell us about plans to open a full-service supermarket in a big vacant store at Ridge and Denison. They weren't hustling support for a tax abatement or city loan... they just wanted to meet the neighbors.

And Dave's turned out to be a very, very good neighbor. They hired dozens of local residents, brought in a badly needed commercial bank branch, created space for a local family practice clinic, supported community activities. And they ran -- still run -- a very classy mid-sized store that pays attention to its poor and blue-collar customers.

That was Dave's fourth store in the city. Since then they've built new stores in Ohio City and Central, replaced their old Slavic Village store with a brand new one, and begun construction on another in Shaker Square. In each case, the Dave's branch has been designed to fit a larger community retail vision. In the case of the new Arbor Park store -- in the old drug-ridden Longwood Plaza on East 40th near Woodland -- that vision was largely Frank Jackson's.

Dave's is the kind of business that's supposed to be impossible nowadays. It's a local family firm that's made a niche in a tough competitive market, approaches its urban customer base with imagination and respect, gets along fine with its unionized workforce, and makes a good living for its community-minded owners.

In other words, it's a sitting duck for Wal-Mart.

It's not at all hyperbolic to say that Cleveland's neighborhood development groups love these guys. Up to a few weeks ago, the Saltzmans had every reason to think that City Hall -- especially the Council President -- loved them, too.

But as you can tell from the op-ed, recent events have raised serious doubts in their minds. The key line is this one:
A Wal-Mart in Steelyard Commons will force neighborhood food and drug retailers to scurry to consolidate their existing locations in order to survive.
This is a thinly veiled reference to the Saltzmans' ownership of two near East Side stores -- the original Dave's at 33rd and Payne and the new one just a mile south at Arbor Park. And it's a message to Council President Jackson, at whose behest the Arbor Park store was opened. Unveiled, it goes something like this: "Councilman, do you really expect us to stay personally invested in a store we don't need, in a poor and dangerous neighborhood that's also in the direct blast zone of the likely Wal-Mart supercenter that you're not willing to oppose?"

Nice guys sometimes turn out to be tougher than you think.
A

2.20.2005

SACRAMENTO CITY COUNCIL SHOWS THE COURAGE THAT CLEVELAND LACKS

From Friday's Sacramento Bee (full article here -- free registration required):
Wal-Mart's tactics don't deter council

Members of the Sacramento City Council said they anticipated a rough night Tuesday when they considered a controversial superstore ordinance. Still, no one was prepared for what they encountered when they walked into their chambers that evening.

Wal-Mart, leading the opposition against the proposal, had a court reporter stationed next to the dais to record every word. Each council member got a letter from the corporation's attorney, warning that the ordinance specifically targets Wal-Mart and "violates numerous federal, state and local laws, and is discriminatory and unfair."

Councilman Rob Fong, an attorney, said the corporation's message was clear.

"Those two things combined would indicate to me that one of the things coming down the pike is some sort of legal challenge," Fong said. "If that happens, it wouldn't surprise me."

Nevertheless, the council passed the ordinance unanimously, following in the footsteps of several cities across the country that have made it tougher to build superstores in their areas.

...The Sacramento ordinance requires an economic analysis of proposed superstores to include the impact on existing merchants, a wage survey and tax revenue projections.

Superstores are defined in the ordinance as larger than 90,000 square feet of space and using more than 20 percent of retail space for nontaxable items such as groceries. Membership or bulk stores are exempt.

2.18.2005

FRANK JACKSON'S COLLAPSE on the "big box grocery ordinance" will cost inner-city neighborhoods several more closed supermarkets as other chains respond by disinvesting. You might see poetic justice in the fact that the new Dave's store at Arbor Park Place, which Jackson helped open so proudly in November, will be one of the most endangered.

The disinvestment won't happen overnight, because of the agreement to bar a Steelyard Commons Wal-Mart from opening a grocery section for seven years. But it will happen. Seven years will seem like a very short time once it's gone. (As John Ryan of the AFL-CIO says, "Seven years is a shorter stay of execution than the average murderer gets.")

For other Cleveland neighborhoods hoping to win new supermarkets as anchor stores for local plaza developments, it's back to the ol' drawing board. Both sides of City Hall, and both major candidates for Mayor (not to mention distant third-runner Zack Reed), are now competing to throw the keys to the city at Wal-Mart's feet. If you think Tops, Giant Eagle and Dave's will respond by throwing more money into risky plays in this market, I have an old blast furnace I'd like to sell you.

So now can we start calling it "Wal-Mart Commons"?
A

2.14.2005

OUR STEELYARD COMMONS LEARNING CURVE

Can we re-roll this tape, please?

Four months ago (PD story on final Planning Commission approval):
Schneider said he is negotiating with nine national retailers for Steelyard Commons, but he declined to name them.

"We believe the demand is there and retailers will do well," he said.

Tenants at First Interstate shopping centers elsewhere include Target, OfficeMax, BJ's Wholesale Club, Kohl's, Home Depot and Marshall's.
Two months ago:
Morris, spokesman for Wal-Mart's Midwest development, said the retailer is not pursuing plans inside the city "at this point," but he said there were "potentially developers that have submitted their plans to us."

Mitchell Schneider, president of Lyndhurst-based First Interstate Properties Ltd., could not be reached for comment on his $90 million Steelyard Commons.

Will Wal-Mart make its Cleveland landing there?

"It's all the buzz," Councilman Joe Cimperman said. "I'd give it 50-50 odds."
Four days ago:
Schneider argues convincingly that it [an ordinance limiting sales of groceries in big box stores] would doom Steelyard Commons. Wal-Mart rarely enters a market by building superstores. But it has told Schneider that it will not come if future expansion is impossible. And because Cleveland is considered such a weak market nationally, Schneider got Wal-Mart, Target and Home Depot to sign "letters of intent" only by promising each of them that the others would be at Steelyard Commons.
Two days ago:
Other prospective tenants, such as Target and Home Depot, have linked their leases to Wal-Mart being a tenant at Steelyard Commons, he said.

"I currently know of no 'Plan B' to go to," said Schneider, whose company developed Legacy Village in Lyndhurst.

2.13.2005

FOLLOW THE MONEY: From REI's Ed Morrison, writing in his EDPro Weblog last Saturday...
Think of it in these terms. Economic development involves three types of money. "Good money" comes from businesses that trade outside your region. They generate wealth. (Michael Porter's work at Harvard suggests that wages for these traded businesses are about one-third higher than "sheltered" businesses.)

"Neutral money" comes from businesses that circulate revenues within an economy. You buy haircuts from me, and I buy lawn care from you.

"Bad money" comes from business transactions that export wealth from an economy. Many people think that Wal-Mart falls into this category. Except in relatively rare cases, casinos fall into this category as well.

2.11.2005

STEELYARD COMMONS HYSTERIA... OR, ARE YOU EXPENDABLE?

My ZIP code, 44109 -- which includes my neighborhood of Brooklyn Centre, the Clark-Fulton neighborhood to the north, and a piece of Old Brooklyn to the south -- has more than 300 residents who are members of UFCW Local 880, the retail workers union, or BCTGM Local 19, the bakery workers union. Most of them earn their union wages and benefits at supermarkets (Tops, Giant Eagle, Dave's) or drugstores (CVS, RiteAid). All of them live within a mile or two of the proposed Steelyard Commons shopping mall, where the Plain Dealer and Channel 19 seem hysterically eager to see a new Wal-Mart put many of them out of work.

Is this too strong a characterization? Not on your life. The Plain Dealer's editorial yesterday, attacking as "appalling" the proposed ordinance to limit sales of food and other nontaxables in new big box stores in the city, makes clear that any attempt to mitigate the impact of Wal-Mart or Target on existing jobs and businesses -- or on traffic, for that matter -- will be denounced in the shrillest possible terms. 19 Action News took a short break last evening from its coverage of nude journalism and suburban sex to join the attack. Both outlets personally attacked Ward 13 Councilman Joe Cimperman, the ordinance's sponsor, who represents the Steelyard Commons site and the adjacent Tremont neighborhood.

When the PD editorial board and Channel 19 agree about an issue, sane citizens can usually just assume the other side is right, and move on. Unfortunately, both editorials are echoes of recent statements by Mayor Campbell, who should know better.

Here's the proposed ordinance, as introduced by Councilman Cimperman. It doesn't prevent the development of Steelyard Commons. It doesn't prevent the location of a Wal-Mart in Steelyard Commons or anywhere else in the city. It only creates a special category in the zoning code for big box stores ("large-scale retail"), and prohibits the use of more than 5% of such a store's interior sales area for selling nontaxable products.

Now here's a news flash: This ordinance wouldn't make it impossible for Wal-Mart or Target to open stores with grocery departments in the city. It would simply make big box grocery sales a non-conforming use, requiring a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. A variance request would entail the submission of detailed plans, public notice, public hearings, the airing of all relevant issues including job and neighborhood impacts, a showing by the developer that harm can be mitigated, etc.

In other words, Cimperman's ordinance creates a tool for regulatory review of proposed big box supercenters that the City now lacks -- especially in a case like Steelyard Commons, where "anything goes" zoning has made normal City review of issues like traffic impact, design, etc. just about worthless. (Did you know that Steelyard Commons will be open for a year before the developer completes any new road connections, so that shoppers will have to use Tremont streets to get to it? No, I bet you didn't.)

Why design this tool to deal specifically with grocery sales? Because food and pharmacy retail really is a special case. The studies constantly cited to show retail dollars "leaking" from the city don't mention it, but there are modern supermarkets and pharmacies in many city neighborhoods. Tops, Giant Eagle, and especially Dave's have all opened inner city stores in the last ten years, and there's getting to be a CVS, Rite Aid or Walgreen's on every corner. All these supermarkets and many of the drugstores pay union wages and benefits, and the majority of their employees are city residents. (UFCW Local 880 has nearly three thousand working members who live in the city.)

So unlike most of the retail sector, food and drug store chains are in the city, providing living wage jobs for city residents. In many cases (the Daves's stores at Arbor Park and Ohio City come to mind) they're the anchor stores for new neighborhood retail districts. Why would the city want to accommodate a development strategy like Wal-Mart's, which is specifically designed to attack their market shares and displace their workforces?

But that's exactly what the Campbell Administration and the PD are doing with their uncritical support for Steelyard Commons and attacks on the Cimperman ordinance. Since the ordinance would only affect big box grocery sales, its opponents' hysterical responses can only mean one thing: Wal-Mart intends to sell groceries at Steelyard Commons and won't locate there otherwise... and the City and PD want Wal-Mart there, no matter what.

And this, in turn, "sends a signal" (in the PD's words) that they consider Cleveland's existing grocery stores and pharmacies expendable, along with the thousands of Cleveland residents who work for them... including my three hundred neighbors.

Now that, to borrow some more shrillness from the Plain Dealer, is truly appalling.

2.09.2005

SPEAKING OF MARRIOTT: In an entry a couple of days ago, I named the Marriott Corporation as one of the companies that pay low wages to Cleveland-area employees, but take most of the benefits of profitability (investor return, high top management salaries) out of the region. Marriott manages (I said "owns") four downtown hotels with a total of 1,300 rooms.

In the comments to that entry, Jason Birchem, who works in management at the Renaissance, took exception. I'm going to reprint his comments below in full. Then I'm going to raise some questions, which Jason (in an email exchange last night) said he'll try to answer. Look in the comments section of this entry for our continued conversation.

Jason wrote:
I can tell you from first hand experience that your rational that wages are of subsistence level is quite wrong. While it is true that most entry level jobs only pay in the $8 - $12 dollar range, Marriott as a company also has great beneifts. These are a costly part of doing business and hiring people. When taking one of the entry level positions Marriott makes it clear that with a good work ethic, and a willingness to learn they can progress in their careers. Go to any Marriott hotel and you will find people like myself who started out parking cars at a hotel in high school, went to college and came back at much higher salaries. Tuition reimbursement really helps too - and Marriott provides that. I would suggest that before you start coloring Marriott with broad (and innacurrately) based terms you actually take the time to learn of what you speak because you are flat out wrong on this.
I replied:
Jason -- I have talked to people on the Ritz-Carlton (Marriott) housekeeping staff about their pay and benefits. My understanding is that people cleaning rooms there, as of five years ago, earned in the $7 to $9 an hour range based on production competition within the workforce. This is consistent with the ODJFS survey data that I quoted in my 1/29 entry, showing the 2002-03 median (not starting) wage for maids and housekeeping cleaners in Cuyahoga County at $8.25 an hour. I'd be delighted to hear more about this subject from your experience.
And Jason responded:
Bill - I am sure you are correct (and the numbers prove it) in stating that the median wage is $8.25. Here is what I know. Our entry level positions start at a minimum of $8 per hour. There is then a 90 day review (and correlating pay increase), a 180 day review, and then yearly reviews each year following. While the entry level pay ranges are lower - the opportunity to advance is extremely good. People that show a desire to take on more responsibility, cross train with other jobs will be moving up quite rapidly. One of the largest challenges in the Cleveland market is the education level (lack of) of a majority of the workforce. Reading, writing, communication skills, and general business accumen is sorely lacking in the general populace. Will organization help this - I do not think so. The individuals that work hard and *want* to get ahead will. I am on the management team and I feel our pay, benefits, and perks are very good. Medical, dental, vision, 401k, pto, sick time, great travel perks with free and significantly reduced rooms so that yes our employees can stay at our hotels anywhere in the world. My concern is that you had lumped Marriott in with the rest of the corporate world, in fact pointed them out specifically. I agree that many companies are lacking in their employee appreciation but Marriott is not one of them.

Just another quick note on hotels. It is true that Marriott manages the hotels (Marriott Key Center, Renaissance, and Ritz-Carlton) but Marriott does not own the buildings. The Jacobs group owns the Marriott Key, Forest City owns the Ritz, and TCF Holdings owns the Renaissance. Marriott manages the hotels for a fee and the profit goes to the local owners.
See more by clicking "Comments" below.

2.08.2005

VOINOVICH: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT "THE GREATEST PROGRAM EVER"

From a U.S. Conference of Mayors press release, January 18 (just three weeks ago):
HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson discussed issues related to housing and other community development programs. He also addressed the mayors' concerns about CDBG. "CDBG has worked and continues to work in our country. The '06 budget is fiscally conservative, but we will address the needs of your concerns." Jackson said.

Senator George Voinovich also addressed CDBG calling it the greatest program ever. "We shouldn't be talking about decreasing it. We should be talking about increasing it," Voinovich said.
WHY PEOPLE WORK: Weatherhead professor Sandy Piderit explains why it's bad management for Ohio to sit on $330 million in federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Family funds: expectancy theory.

(Bad permalink fixed... thanks, Sandy.)

2.07.2005

BUSH BUDGET WOULD ELIMINATE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT

The Bush Administration's 2006 budget proposal, sent to Congress today, calls for the complete elimination of the Community Development Block Grant program, which provides nearly $30 million a year to the City of Cleveland.

CBDG and seventeen smaller HUD community grant programs would be replaced by a new "Strengthening America's Communities Initiative" in the Department of Commerce.

The HUD appropriation for CDBG in 2005 was $4.618 billion. The Commerce Department "replacement" would get nearly a billion dollars less... $3.71 billion in 2006.

As a block grant program, CDBG has provided a predictable flow of funds for discretionary use by U.S. cities and smaller communities. Cleveland has used its allocations for a wide variety of community investments in housing, commercial revitalization, code enforcement, infrastructure improvements, and community services like crime prevention and senior transportation.

More details as I get them.

2.01.2005

UNION WEEK: BUILDING WHOSE WEALTH, WHERE?

First off, I want to second John Etorre's recommendation (in the comments on my last entry) to read this article in Sunday's New York Times Magazine.

Now for the question: Why does it matter that so many Cuyahoga County jobs pay too little to support a family, with some money left over for savings?

The conventional answer is that it's not fair. People who work full time should be able to get ahead. Hard work should earn a piece of the American Dream -- a house, a vacation, a step up the ladder for the kids. Wal-Mart wages foster inequality and violate our sense of equity.

Of course I agree with this answer. Maybe you do, too. But let's be frank: "fairness" has a pretty small constituency among Cleveland's movers, shakers and talkers -- even those proud liberal Dems who make a point of visiting a union hall every year or two. "Fairness" sounds so... redistributionist. And we all know that creating wealth, not redistributing it, is where it's at.

So let's talk about low wage jobs and community wealth building.

In general, a community gains wealth to the extent that a) its members create economic value, and b) the economic value created by its members becomes their income. The fact that it's made here is no reason to assume it stays here. Money that's made by business activity in northeast Ohio, but ends up in accounts in Texas, London, or Shanghai, is not "Cleveland wealth".

But money that flows from local business activity to local workers is Cleveland wealth. It circulates back into local stores, pays local rents and mortgages, supports local churches. Most important -- if there's enough of it, it enables the earners' families to save and invest. It allows them to build retirement accounts, acquire home equity, start small enterprises, pay tuitions. It takes earners' families beyond subsistence and empowers them to start creating new value on their own... if there's enough of it.

From an economic development standpoint, the worst part of Cleveland's increasing dependence on low-wage occupations is that we get the poverty, while the profits -- the asset additions of shareholders and top managers -- mostly go elsewhere.

Look again at the list of low-wage occupations in Cuyahoga County. Where do these people work? Where are the new openings for unskilled and semi-skilled workers in the Cleveland job market?
Retail (cashiers, sales). The Cleveland Yellow Pages lists fifteen "department stores" with more than one location. For some reason they don't include Kaufmann's, Sears or Marc's, but add these in and you get about 110 stores under eighteen names. Of these only Marc's, with 24 locations, is owned and operated locally. Count the men's and women's apparel stores with four or more addresses, and you find another thirteen chains operating here, of which just two -- Dot's and Diamond -- are northeast Ohio companies. That's thirty-one significant chain retailers selling adult clothing (among other things) in Cleveland-area malls and strip centers -- and only three firms are controlled by local managers and investors.

Think about the rest of the familiar names at the mall -- shoe chains, toy chains, consumer electronics, office supplies, etc. -- and you'll see the same thing. In the convenience store niche, Dairy Mart of Hudson is now owned by a Canadian company and competes with 7-Eleven of Texas and Convenient Food Marts of Chicago. Our big two supermarkets, Tops and Giant Eagle, are now headquartered in New York and Pennsylvania, respectively -- leaving only Dave's and Heinen's here. Even the drugstore market, with two strong local players (Medic and Discount), is increasingly dominated by CVS (Rhode Island) and Walgreen's (Illinois).

Hospitality (housekeepers, counter clerks.) There are no locally owned downtown hotels, and few if any in the region. Marriott (Maryland) and Hilton (California) together own almost 2,000 of the 3,800 hotel rooms downtown. I could go on, but you know the other names as well as I do.

Restaurants (waiters, bartenders, dishwashers, etc.) Okay, this is more mixed and harder to track down, and there's more local franchising of national brands. But a quick tour of the malls and interchanges will confirm the increasing dominance of national chains in this market as well. And with fast food outlets, national brands are the whole ball game.
Well, I could go on, but you get the point. The companies that employ the largest number of Cuyahoga County's lowest-wage workers are not, for the most part, locally owned or managed. Their CEOs don't bring their seven- and eight-figure salaries home to Cleveland suburbs. Their investors are elsewhere -- in most cases, spread throughout the stock-owning world. The people who run their northeast Ohio operations are middle managers, not movers and shakers, and they bring the region neither wealth nor clout.

In other words, the only way these national retailers, hotels, restaurant and fast food chains (and movie chains, and food service companies, etc. etc.) are going to increase the wealth of this community is by leaving more money here. There's absolutely no regional logic to helping WalMart, Target or Marriott increase their Cleveland market shares, and send more money back to head offices elsewhere, by paying subsistence wages to local workers.

Which is why it's in the interest of the whole region to have more of those workers organized, and bargaining effectively (i.e., collectively) to keep a bigger share of the value they help to create.

That's what unions are for. Whatever you may think of specific unions, or the labor movement's role in politics or the community, there's no more effective way for wage workers to get bigger slices of the pies they help to bake. For undervalued workers, their families and immediate communities, union organization is one of the most effective economic development tools available.

In Cleveland's present circumstance -- needing to build wealth and jump-start enterprise at every level, but smothered in subsistence-wage chain outlets that generate profits everywhere but here -- the unionization of low-wage workers should be welcomed by virtually everybody. Yes, even the Greater Cleveland Partnership, the Convention and Visitors Bureau and the guys at Baker Hostetler.

I'm not saying that unionization is appropriate in every Cleveland workplace, or that there aren't rational reasons for some employers (and workers) to avoid it, or that unions aren't sometimes as dumb and backward-looking as the rest of us. Like many a union loyalist (see the NYT article linked at the top of this entry), I'm sure the labor movement needs to re-think its roles and strategies on many fronts.

But support for collective bargaining to get living wages for local residents at places like WalMart, Marriott, the national food and building service companies, the big restaurant chains? From the standpoint of building wealth and reducing poverty in greater Cleveland, this is just a no-brainer.