The National Review’s Imaginary Conspiracy Against Ohio Suburbs

It’s presidential election time in Ohio, and boy does Stanley Kurtz at the National Review have a scoop for the good, unsuspecting citizens of the Buckeye State. Northeast Ohio political leaders and President Obama are working on a sinister plot to redistribute wealth from suburbs and give it to cities!! (Socialism!)

Stanley Kurtz, author of a book claiming President Obama is a socialist, sees a vast conspiracy to rob the suburbs in Ohio. Photo: ##http://www.eppc.org/scholars/scholarID.81/scholar.asp## Ethics and Public Policy Center##

Kurtz has found a bogeyman in the concept of “regionalism,” which has for decades been promoted (and by that I mean talked about more than acted upon) by suburban and urban leaders alike in Northeast Ohio — the most populous region in the state — as a way to improve the region’s economy by reducing government waste. Sounds pretty sinister, right? Well, Kurtz is sounding the alarm for Ohio suburbanites (coincidentally, the mightiest base of political power in the all-important swing state).

“The president and his fellow Democrats are coming for your tax money,” writes Kurtz, a “fellow” with the Koch brothers-backed “think tank” the Ethics and Public Policy Center. “Redistribution is the goal, and suburban Ohio is target No. 1.”

Before I explain how wrong and crazy that is, let’s back up for a second. What is regionalism? Is regionalism socialism? Here is how the concept is generally understood in Northeast Ohio…

The problem, for Cleveland and its suburbs, is that there are 59 distinct municipal governments in Cuyahoga County alone. Each of these government entities manages a police department and a streets program, employs a council clerk, and so forth. That makes government service provision in Northeast Ohio relatively costly and duplicative. In other words, it makes taxes high. That is generally considered to be bad — an obstacle to revitalizing the economy. And fixing the economy is priority number one in Northeast Ohio — home to Cleveland, Youngstown, and other cities likely to appear on Forbes’ annual Most Miserable Cities list.

“It’s just laced with failed ideologies. It’s fear mongering.” — William Currin, mayor of Hudson, Ohio

Okay, stay with me here. This fragmentation in government also encourages intercity competition for employers. This means that a lot of local governments spend substantial public resources luring businesses to hopscotch from city to city around the region, collecting tax breaks, without adding any jobs or true economic gain. Again, in Northeast Ohio, this is almost universally understood to be a bad thing. Out of 59 government entities, 49 have signed a voluntary “anti-poaching” agreement.

But to Kurtz, this kind of cooperation between suburbs and the central city is not common sense or good government — it is self-evidently a diabolical plot.

Kurtz has a high-pitched, tone-deaf warning for Cleveland: Watch out, Obama is trying to make you like Portland, or — gasp — Minnesota. In Kurtz’s writing, “Portland” and “Minnesota” are cautionary tales.

Kurtz uses Portland and Minneapolis as bogeymen not just because he holds their values in disdain. He is warning that policies they’ve adopted — urban growth boundaries and tax-sharing agreements — could follow from a few of Cleveland’s rather toothless regional planning efforts.

But Kurtz isn’t interested in discussing whether those tools might actually be beneficial to Ohio residents, whether they live in cities or suburbs. Nope. I mean, if you follow that line of inquiry you would have to arrive at the indisputable fact that both Minneapolis and Portland are far healthier places, economically, than Cleveland, whose absence of land use planning has helped make it an internationally renowned poster child for urban vacancy.

Kurtz doesn’t go there. Just the suggestion that urban growth boundaries or tax-sharing could happen — that is reason enough for suburbanites to hightail it from camp Obama, like, well, suburbanites from Cleveland. At least, that seems to be his suggestion.

It’s true that voluntary tax-sharing agreements have been promoted by regional leaders in Northeast Ohio, most notably the Regional Prosperity Initiative, which — radical left-wing organization that it is — receives financial support from the regional chamber of commerce.

William Currin, the mayor of Cleveland exurb Hudson, is a leader of the Regional Prosperity Initiative steering committee, which helps promote tax-sharing agreements. He pointed out that these agreements are only undertaken voluntarily, and “everything they propose is of mutual benefit to the communities involved.” Currin, who is a political independent, said he was disgusted by Kurtz’s article.

“[Kurtz is] trying to politicize a nonpartisan issue: reducing the cost of government and protecting the sanctity of local government by collaborating with each other where we should collaborate,” Currin said. “It’s just laced with failed ideologies. It’s fear mongering. They’re trying to connect it to Obama. There is absolutely no connection at all. There is no grand conspiracy here under any circumstances.”

Currin said his organization looks at examples like Louisville — with its merged city-county government — as a model as much as Minneapolis. He added that, as tax-sharing agreements have evolved in the Twin Cities, Minneapolis has become the biggest contributor.

If you actually examine the way money flows in Ohio, you might notice that suburbs and rural areas are often beneficiaries of “redistribution.” Over the past few decades, for example, the state of Ohio and local governments have provided tax incentives for 14,500 jobs to move farther from the city of Cleveland.

Ironically, Kurtz holds up poor victimized Avon, Ohio — an affluent Cleveland exurb — as an example. Leaders of Northeast Ohio’s metropolitan planning agency, NOACA, forced Avon to agree to tax-sharing in exchange for a brand new interchange that was designed to spur private development, not solve any pressing transportation need. Numbers from the Ohio Department of Transportation, however, reveal Avon to be more a beneficiary of redistribution than a victim.

Source: ODOT

This chart shows shows per capita transportation spending in Avon (median household income $81,000) versus Cleveland (median household income $27,000) in 2009. It shows the direction that redistribution has long flowed in Northeast Ohio: out, out, out — away from the central city.

According to a 2003 study by Brookings: “In Ohio, however, urban counties consistently took home a smaller share of state highway funds than suburban and rural counties relative to their amount of vehicle traffic (vehicle miles traveled), car ownership (vehicle registrations), and demand for driving (gasoline sales). On the flipside, rural counties received more dollars for each indicator of need than did urban or suburban counties.”

What I want to know is, where were Kurtz and his friends at the National Review when that report was released? Did they decry “redistribution” from cities to rural areas? Of course not. The truth is, writers like Kurtz don’t really have a problem with “redistribution” when it benefits their constituencies.

At its core, Kurtz’s article isn’t about policy. What he’s is setting up is a discussion about identity — suburban versus urban. And in many regions, including Cleveland, where the central city is 53 percent African American, Kurtz’s ideas amount to a thinly veiled appeal to racial identity. You don’t have to strain your ears too much to hear the sound he’s making… it’s a high-pitched whistle.

  • Guest

    Anything that threatens corporate welfare will be attacked.

    “This fragmentation in government also encourages intercity competition for employers. This means that a lot of local governments spend substantial public resources luring businesses to hopscotch from city to city around the region, collecting tax breaks, without adding any jobs or true economic gain.”  — Yeah, that will get a reaction from the Koch Brothers machine.

  • Larry Littlefield

    Actually, in places such as Cleveland it is the exurbs that are destroying the suburbs.  And regionalism certainly didn’t work to NYC’s advantage.

  • That might be true, but only in the sense that the high income earners in coastal cities inevitably pay more federal taxes that are redistributed to the hinterland. 

  • Anonymous

    The really sad thing is that a lot of people in the Koch-funded archipelago are reasonable people capable of writing useful material on all sorts of issues. But ever since 2008, they’ve been acting like someone pulled their strings and called in some favors, and writing hackish prose that they surely must be ashamed of. Ohio is important, So important that the Republican party tried to force shorter voting hours in the cities and longer hours in the suburban counties. And so important that Kurtz had to write this bilge. 

  • Bolwerk

    Even looking beyond government, suburbanites – who don’t
    exactly neatly overlap with Republikans – are the
    beneficiaries of some pretty hefty wealth redistribution. Take utility
    payments. A city dweller likely buys services from the same companies a
    nearby suburbanite does, and pays the same amount for them. This is
    silly,

    given that tightly-knit urban infrastructure has the advantage of more
    density and scale. This is likely a big hidden cost in electricity,
    given that the grid in the suburbs often has to be wired over long
    distances where nobody gets service. And suburbanites demand much more
    electricity too, further exacerbating this issue.

    Also, I’m not sure why people let Republikan acolytes keep getting away with this idea that their opponents are out to tax ‘n spend everyone into the ground. It makes no sense at any level: city to suburb/rural, suburb to suburb, state to state, person to person, industry to industry, etc.. In every way the so-called conservatives are the ones consuming the most resources. Republikans simply do less work, the work they do is less useful, and they consume more entitlements – and then they whine about others all the time, rather than fixing their own problems. Their entire myth about themselves as Galtian creator-titans is a crock.

  • Scott Beyer

    I think much of this article stoops to the same demagoguery that it is trying to criticize. While I’m an advocate of regionalism also, I wouldn’t say those who oppose it are partaking necessarily in some “urban vs. suburban” divide, or in veiled racism. They believe in local autonomy as the best way to solve problems at the municipal level, just like federalists think states can solve their own problems better than a federal government. And this line of thinking can be valid, as centralized regions—and their larger bureaucracies—come with their own problems. If you are a citizen of Parma, for example, and are experiencing growth because of low taxes, why would you want to have anything to do with the perpetually corrupt and mismanaged boondoggle that is Cleveland? Why would Grosse Pointe want anything to do with Detroit? Ms. Schmitt, before you denounce this writer so flippantly, maybe you should take a look at his side of the story…  

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Will Cleveland Finally Get Serious About Confronting Sprawl?

|
The Cleveland region has been struggling with sprawl for a long time. Since the 1970s, the regional population has shrunk while housing and jobs have spread outward — a combination that has devastated urban areas in particular. Transportation policy is a big part of the problem. Northeast Ohio keeps widening highways, facilitating quick suburban commutes and fueling sprawl. This weakens the places that are […]

Today’s Headlines

|
LaHood: Feds Will Help with Boise Transit, Including Streetcar (Idaho Statesman, Boise Weekly) NJ Increases Police Presence for Buses (NJ.com) Today in Paranoia: Stanley Kurtz Says Obama Schemes to Kill the Suburbs (Next American City) The Buzz on Freeway Removals (Planetizen) Chicago Plans to “Decrowd” Transit (Chicago Tribune) Long Beach Unfolds Bike-Sharing Plans (Treehugger) A Look […]

Ohio Cities to State DOT: No More New Roads, Just Fix What We Have

|
Given that the federal Highway Trust Fund is broke and the Interstate Highway System is more or less complete, maybe — just maybe! — it doesn’t make sense to keep expanding highways. And if there’s one place in the country where it’s especially urgent to stop building more highways, it’s northeast Ohio. The combined metro areas of Akron, Cleveland, […]

Will Greater Cleveland Squander Its Chance to Be Competitive Again?

|
Population density in metro Cleveland, 1940 – 2007 The Obama Administration’s Sustainable Communities Initiative was tailor made for communities like greater Cleveland. Northeast Ohio has been sprawling for decades without adding any population, emptying out the notoriously troubled central city while the regional economy consistently under-performs. During the last decade the city of Cleveland lost […]

Northeast Ohio to State DOT: Road Expansions Getting Out of Hand

|
If you could point to one aspect of American transportation policy that’s more disastrous than all the others, expanding highways and roads to the point of absurdity is probably it. In northeast Ohio, cities like Cleveland and Akron were hollowed out by highway building, but the state DOT still privileges road expansion instead of maintenance or investment in transit, […]