The First BurbMerger Begins: Moreland, Orange, Pepper Pike & Woodmere to be Test Case

Not sure if this is going to work re: I'm trying to add a general comment but related to Jay's comment and Orange Village Mayor Mulcahy's follow up (thank you both!!), so here goes:

I have written for a couple of years now, re: regionalism, and I believe Kathy has heard me say this in person too, as has Dan Moulthrop actually (Curator of conversation here at The Civic Commons) that I think, in merger chat, the numbers are the easy part in comparison to the psychological barriers that exist for some, not all, but definitely some residents. This notion of a name is part of that. Some, not all, but some residents find that an identity matters when they settle somewhere. I really feel strongly that we have to find a way to respect and honor that as we go through the study of merging the communities. There's nothing gained by suggesting that it's anything other than genuine when people do espouse an affinity for the name or the distinct identity of the place where they bought a home, raised their kids and so on. Not everyone feels that way, and not everyone prioritizes it over other things, and not everyone will feel that it's something that can't be or shouldn't be let go of at some time.

So, in this regard, I've often analogized the merging of communities to the integration of Sybil's 16 personalities: she had an attachment - good or bad, healthy or unhealthy - to many of those personalities, even though they caused her enormous and debilitating mental and emotional anguish. She understood the greater value of integrating those 16 personalities into one, but that did not make the effort needed to do so any easier to accept. It also didn't stop her from recognizing the benefits of consciously choosing to integrate those multiple personalities so that she could carry on with her life in a less anguished way.

I honestly believe that we must have sensitivity to the wide variety of reactions and phases that we're going to endure through the process. We must have an open mind, not just about the end possibility of being merged but we must also have an open mind to the reality that not all 13,000 residents are going to be on the same page for the next 2 1/2 years.

Leadership will be necessary not only in making the initial decision to have a study, but also leadership is necessary in respecting the residents, the process and the integral role transparency, openness and civic engagement will play in making sure whatever result we achieve was accomplished through informed decision-making on the part of the all community members (residents, businesses, nonprofits, non-resident employees and so on).

Posted Jun 23, 2011

I think municipal mergers are dangerous for many reasons, but I will name just 3; 1, it makes it very hard to implement any new innovative urban planning initiatives (too large, too expensive), 2, it consolidates power, which is the exact opposite of what communities need (more potential for corruption) and 3, individual liberties are decreased (the bigger the municipality, the more people who don't know you or your values impact your living conditions and opportunities). Bigger is not better. Smaller local economies are more efficient and agile (better suited to change as needed).

Posted Jul 12, 2011

Jay -

Please explain to me, as best you can, the importance of the name "Pepper Pike"?? I would like to understand that as we proceed with this study. I certainly understand the importance of maintaining the fine services you are used to and that is our primary goal as well.

Kathy

Posted Jun 23, 2011

I wonder if it would really be necessary to try to get rid of these community names if the merger were to happen. In many parts of Japan there have been larger municipal mergers for administrative reasons, but towns and communities have retained their names. For example, in Fukui Prefecture there is a little city called Takefu, which was not so long ago merged with another town called Imadate into a new municipality, Echizen City (which is a regional name, drawn from the old Echizen province in Japanese history). While administratively the government is known as Echizen City, Takefu and Imadate have retained their identities and are still called Takefu and Imadate. The largest train station in Echizen City is in the center of Takefu, and is called Takefu Station (it did not change after the merger). My point is perhaps even if the 4 communities are merged they may still be known as they are now; would it really be necessary to change all the signs and make a concerted effort to rebrand the larger merged area? Couldn't people still say they live in Pepper Pike, and Pepper Pike be a part of a city, like people say they live in Ohio City or Tremont (There is even a sign on the Shoreway now that says Ohio City).

Posted Jul 11, 2011

Thanks for posting this link! I was just coming over to check in on this thread and to the same. :) gmta as always!

Posted Jun 27, 2011

Alex, this is a great observation - it happens SO often when people say they are debating something or are open to hearing but really aren't: "anyone who questions the merger process is doing so out of ignorance." I.e., when someone realizes that another person doesn't agree with the first person's position, they will say or think that the other person simply doesn't understand or if they just KNEW more, they'd get it, when that's really not the issue at all. It's instead that both people fully get it, they just have different conclusions or what have you. I completely agree that that cannot be the default for how the contribution to the conversation and the dialogue and debate can go down if this is going to be a respected, legitimate process. Let's keep our fingers crossed that enough of us are in fact glued to getting out what must be elicited in this phase of the process and that it is as expansive as possible.

Posted Jun 28, 2011

Alex--
Luke Frazier and i interviewed Mayors Akers (Pepper Pike) and Smith (Woodmere) this morning for an upcoming podcast. Mayor Smith was adamant about withholding judgement until the research is done.

Both mayors are feeling a lot of pressure from the state budget cuts to find answers to the problem of coffers that will be significantly less full in the future. That may be where the cart-before-the-horse/convinced-before-the-study problem comes from.

Posted Jun 29, 2011

Thanks for the input, Vince. Based on your experience, what actual efficiencies have you seen achieved through village/city mergers and on the flip side, what would you identify as the pitfalls to avoid in order to be sure those efficiencies are realized?

Posted Jun 29, 2011

you make some intriguing points, and I think you are right in saying that there are proven benefits to smaller or less bureaucratic government. I also like that you brought up the founding fathers, because I think it makes sense to keep Federalism on the back burner of this regionalism conversation we are having. The creators of the US sought to balance local authority (states-rights) with collaborative government (the United States), or put another way, they worked to create a system where the common interests of a nation could be solved at the national level, and local interests that didn't necessarily concern other states or regions would be the concern of that locale. Isn't this what we are trying to achieve in Northeast Ohio? Some issues are just not going to be all that important to everyone in the region, for example the heated debate in Lakewood about McDonalds taking over the old Detroit Theater space. That issue is very important to people in that community, but probably is not as important to people on the East Side. But, there are some issues that are going to be very important to the larger Northeast Ohio community, like the regional economy and jobs, transportation, the use of resources like Lake Erie, parks and so on. The founding fathers were suspicious of too much government and too much power in few hands, but were not afraid to draw up a framework that ultimately identified shared interests and democratized authority over those interests on a national level. So I think we should follow their cue, come together and start drawing up a framework on how to better unite our region while protecting local interests.

Posted Jul 11, 2011

Dividing us up into municipalities is just one more form of segregation. If you can move two miles into a higher-income club, where the schools are "better," and where your kids are "safe" from "those people," then you begin to siphon off and trap wealth, talent, and experience into little pools where "the living is better," and where people are more "like us." Meanwhile, things become more and more desperate for those left behind, and it becomes a self-fulfilling justification: We couldn't live there anymore because we wanted better for our families, etc. Very, very poor stewardship.

The only hope for NEO, in my opinion, is for everyone to get dropped into the same "soup," and not be able to "escape" to somewhere "better." We must all succeed, and not just some of us succeed.

Posted Aug 16, 2011

Skip - you certainly are not alone in your concerns! First - Arlin above mentioned the concerns of concentrating power and diluting our voices when you consolidate. I possess an interest in keeping an eye on those risks as well. But in addition, just yesterday, the Columbus Dispatch published an article that reported on how people need to be realistic in considering what the benefits of consolidation really will be - they are real, but they may not be exactly what people anticipate. That's not a bad thing, but it certainly can be considered so that there are fewer surprises and, hopefully, far fewer disappointments!

Posted Aug 24, 2011