limited input to the centralization at the county level of performance of any or all municipal functions. In its original form, the Constitution Amendment requires in the case of proposals involving county assumption of municipal powers, that the proposed change clear four hurdles: 1) approval by a majority of the voters in the county; 2) a majority in the largest city in the county; 3) a majority in the remainder of the county; and 4) a majority in a majority of the municipalities in the county. Less far reaching changes required only a majority of those voting in the county.12/ In 1935, a proposal was put to the voters that would have made limited changes in the functions of county government. The proposal received three of the necessary four majorities; failing only to receive approval by a majority of the voters in the portion of Cuyahoga County outside the City of Cleveland. The State Supreme Court, however, declared the changes invalid, ruling that the proposals entailed assumption of municipal powers by the County government and thus required approval by all four of the majorities noted above. In the years since there have been other efforts to achieve greater unification in government. After World War II, a new effort was made to establish a county home-rule charter permitting reorganization of county government and assignment of more responsibilities to the county. A charter commission was elected, but the charter they drew up was rejected by the voters in 1950.13/ The most recent effort was in 1958, when the voters again authorized creation of a county charter commission, but then rejected the results of the commission's work.14/ Despite repeated failure to adopt thoroughgoing measures for local government reform, there are many individual functions in which varying degrees of consolidation or coordination have evolved in Cuyahoga County. Norton cites public health, water, public transit, public safety, refuse disposal, tax collection, and others. Cooperation in performance of individual functions evidently continues to grow; knowledgeable observers in the area expect any integration that is likely to occur in the near future to take this form.15/ SUMMARY In summary, the Cleveland metropolitan area appears to present many intergovernmental problems, some of which are typical of large cities and their environs, while others are to some degree unique. The metropolitan area is highly fragmented into numerous small jurisdictions, with the result that there are wide disparities in tax loads and service levels and administrative diseconomies associated with small scale, often uncoordinated, operations. The fact that the central city of Cleveland is completely encircled by suburban municipalities rules out annexation as a means of enlarging the service area. 13/ James A. Norton, in his Foreword to Seymour Sacks and William F. Hellmuth, Jr., Financing Government in a Metropolitan Area: The Cleveland Experience (1961), p. viii. Cleveland exhibits, in its core-city area, the classic urban economic and social problems: unemployment; economic dependency; poverty; a vast Negro ghetto; overcrowding; economic obsolescence. Within the past year the city's Hough area has been the scene of violent outbreaks; despite efforts of the city (with considerable Federal assistance) and numerous private groups. The conditions that produced last year's outbreaks appear to be essentially unchanged and a recurrence is regarded in the city as almost inevitable. addition to the famous Hough area, there are several other Cleveland neighborhoods that appear to contain the same social ingredients and to offer the same explosive potential. In Civic leaders and metropolitan area planners see the future of the downtown area of Cleveland lying in its development as a commercial, professional, and business center. This indeed appears to be the direction in which the city is moving. There are obstacles to be overcome, however. One is the fact that the city's experiences thus far with urban renewal is not one of outstanding success, and present relationships between the city government and the Federal agencies are, at best, cool. Moreover the city's attitude toward the downtown area has traditionally been indifferent or negative. The waterfront, for example, has never been regarded as an asset to be fostered and developed, in the way that, for example, Chicago and Milwaukee have. Instead it has long been heavily industrial, one result of which has been the pollution of Lake Erie in the Cleveland vicinity to a point where its recreational potential may have been permanently destroyed. State law and policies of the State Government have a strong bearing on the problems of the Cleveland metropolitan area. Incorporation laws permit, and often operate to encourage, separate incorporation of small communities. Nor are annexation laws conducive to unified government through a planned expansion of a central city by annexation of adjacent unincorporated territory. School district consolidation is making slow progress throughout the State, but appears to be virtually at a halt in the Cleveland area. Perhaps more fundamental is the traditional attitude in Ohio that minimizes the role and responsibility of the State government in dealing with problems of local areas. The slogan that "local people understand their own problems best" has long served as an excuse for the State government's refusing to become involved in the perplexing problems that have been developing in the State's metropolitan areas. While the State legislature was dominated by rural interests, this lack of concern was no doubt inevitable and perhaps salutary. The present legislature, with its more urban (suburban) orientation, has, however, shown little more concern and understanding in these matters than its predecessors. Under the leadership of a conservative administration, the General Assembly is at the present time taking steps to make local governments still more fiscally and governmentally self-reliant and to absolve the State still further from involvement in metropolitan area problems. The prospect for constructive assistance from the State government to Cleveland and its sourrounding area must be regarded as dim. THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF FISCAL DISPARITIES WITHIN THE CLEVELAND SMSA ARE DIFFERENTIALS INCREASING? The preceding pages reveal tremendous disparities among the communities within the SMSA. It would be improper to leave the matter there, however, without commenting upon the types of communities involved. That is, while great differences exist in the financial positions of cities and townships, for example, such information cannot be used to make a generalized statement about financial disparities. For in most cases, comparing cities and townships is like comparing apples and oranges (which is proper only in a fruit salad). The cities and townships have different needs, serve different purposes and face different futures. In most cases, then, the proper comparisons are those made among cities as a group and among townships as a separate group. Townships which are caught up in the urbanization process constitute an important exception to this generalization. Urban fringe areas, where development is underway, face many of the problems of cities (see the discussion of Brunswick in Chapter III)* and may therefore be considered comparable. But areas that are likely to remain rural for some time constitute a separate class. A similar point might be made concerning comparisons between Cuyahoga County communities and those in other parts of the SMSA. Although statistically the region is treated as a unit, it is not monolithic socially, politically or economically. Thus, the most relevant comparisons are among communities within Cuyahoga County and among communities in other areas. Account must be taken, however, of the growth of urbanization and the impact of greater mobility within the area. Fringe areas in Lake, Geauga and Medina Counties have already been drawn into the metropolitan sphere, and the process is likely to continue. Furthermore, municipalities that are currently beyond the urban fringe are subject to increasing influence from the metropolitan area because of improved communications and transportation. Thus, while the City of Medina has typically evaluated its position with reference to other communities in the county--particularly Wadsworth--officials must now broaden their thinking to consider metropolitan communities as well. Growth has broken through older, more provincial attitudes and is increasingly making communities within the SMSA part of the same "neighborhood." When this process is complete, all communities of the same type within the SMSA may be more comparable; until then, differentials must continue to be recognized. Moreover, the special problems of the central city set Cleveland apart from all other communities within the area (as any central city is set apart from its SMSA). Comparisons between Cleveland and other parts of the metropolitan area should only be made when these special considerations, many of which are not evident in the per capita figures, are kept in mind. It is impossible to give a simple answer to the question of growth in fiscal disparities within the SMSA. However, certain trends are evident. First, on the matter of schools, it is clear that the inclusion of several communities within a school district often helps to reduce disparities. Consolidations of school districts, where they have occurred, have also helped reduce differentials. There * See complete report. is little immediate prospect for further consolidations outside of Cuyahoga County, since there are relatively few districts in these counties. There appears to be a need for consolidations within Cuyahoga County also, where many small systems are operated in the suburban areas. North Olmsted and Olmsted Falls, for example, both operate relatively small systems with low per-pupil valuations. Enclave districts, such as Cuyahoga Heights and Bratenahl, are also quite small and tend to have very high per-pupil valuations. However, there is little likelihood of significant reduction in number of districts in Cuyahoga County in the near future. As noted above, however, comparisons of 1966 and 1956 valuations per pupil show that while individual districts have changed, the differences among districts by rank have remained relatively constant (Table II-6). That is, while the poor may have grown richer, so have the rich. Such differentials, of course, may be offset by state or federal funds; but at present, state and federal monies perform that function only imperfectly. On the municipal level, developments in specific enclave areas deserve mention. Both North Randall and Brook Park have undergone population growth such that their per capita valuations have fallen back to the middle range. A similar trend may develop in Walton Hills (see Chapter IV). Cuyahoga Heights and the estate areas, however, are likely to maintain their high per capita valuations indefinitely. Specific communities have been able to improve their positions. Garfield Heights is an example. But new low valuation areas, such as Broadview Heights, have emerged. If past trends continue, it is likely that differentials will remain to a significant degree, with some communities being relatively well financed compared with others. For the most part, there appears to be little interest either in the SMSA or in the State for county wide property taxes, which would help to offset these differences. As the distribution of property values shows, there has been increasing dispersion of communities in the upper ranges of valuation (for Cuyahoga County) since 1956. That is, while the modal range of valuations is higher, other communities have increased valuations to the point that differentials may even be greater. In short, the poor are somewhat better off, while the rich are much better off. These continuing differentials, however, may not be as significant in coming years as emerging disparities in the fringe areas. Brunswick may again be cited as an example of the impact of urban growth. As the urban area spreads to more fringe areas, the problem could worsen. Townships and villages, accustomed to a small population and a rather low level of services, may suddenly find themselves with greatly increased populations and increasingly heavy demands for services, which they will be unable to meet. It is not difficult to imagine such a pattern of chaos on the urban fringe in large areas of Medina, Geauga and Lake Counties. The problem is complicated by the proximity of the Akron SMSA, so that Medina County is feeling the impact from two sides. One answer to such problems may be found in long-range planning in these areas. Such planning is being undertaken in many of the communities, paving the way for orderly development through zoning and similar devices. However, in areas where such planning is not underway, the future could be a picture of disorder and inequality between demands and needs so rank as to make present disparities seem minimal. EVALUATION OF FISCAL DISPARITIES The preceding chapter has summarized the statistical evidence regarding fiscal disparities in the Cleveland SMSA. This chapter attempts to evaluate and interpret this evidence through an item-by-item consideration of the key questions. TABLE II-6.--ARRAY OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE CLEVELAND SMSA BY 1966 VALUATION *There were 69 districts in 1956; some districts may, therefore have improved their positions merely because of consolidation. Indicated that new areas have been added to the district since 1956; consolidation indicates that the district did not exist in 1956. +Consolidation. |