Gloria Ferris

Again, today when reading my morning newspaper, I was faced with this quote from Commissioner Hagan–

“This is beyond anything I’ve confronted in my political life,” Hagan said. “An unelected group dictating to commissioners what kind of building should be built in a city where the mayor and City Council president support it. That’s exactly what’s wrong with the city.”

–in an article written by Steven Litt. It is certainly getting a bit of play in the Plain Dealer.  I find it interesting that Mr. Hagan used the term “unelected” when referring to the City Planning Commission, instead of the more appropriate term, “appointed,” as in “appointed by the Mayor of Cleveland.” The one “elected” person on the commission is Joe Cimperman.  My take on Mr. Hagan’s use of the term was to make it appear that the “unelected” board is not as committed or capable as the “elected” officials in our area.  I beg to differ.  However, the only people standing up and saying that the public deserves answers is this “appointed” board.

Let’s delve into this a little deeper.  Whether appointed or elected, officials should have the public’s interest in mind.  With recent events, I believe that the appointed board has taken the public’s interest to heart more than the officials we have elected.  It has been this appointed board that has demanded the public’s right to know detailed plans for the new county administration building; it has been the city planning commission’s assertion that costs should be shown, that hard numbers should be compared because this is a huge decision, and that this decision should be made based on the “Seven Principles of Planning”. All reasonable assertions I would contend.  On the other hand, the two county commissioners that voted to destroy the tower have accepted conceptual plans that say “the rotunda is central to the core of the complex”, but then we, the public with much less detail, are asked to take that leap of faith and simply “trust” that we will get something better. Kind of like the old saying of buying “a pig in a poke.”  We should be thankful that although this commission was largely appointed by Mayor Frank Jackson, who “trusts” the county, it still takes the vow to serve the public seriously and demands more information before making such a momentous decision. 

How very strange that the only “elected” member of this commission is presently looking for ways to circumvent the decisions made by the City Planning Commission by taking a vote in city council, using his council colleagues to try to do an “end around” that he was unable to achieve by his “they are our partners” speech.  These same colleagues, when asked by me prior to the commission meeting if Mr. Cimperman had asked for their input, said “no”.  Now, he needs you, and I am sure that there will be a lot of talk of “trust” and “best”, and so forth,  but understand this: Your colleague, Mr. Cimperman, has put his “trust” in the county and not in you, his fellow city officials.    

Remember the phrase “the rotunda is central to the complex”? Do this: Replace “rotunda” with “city” and change “complex” to “region.”  “The city is central to the region.”  Everyone would agree with this statement, I believe, but then, this is where the struggle for power begins at the core in the central city.  Stay with me because I am going to move  quickly, folks.  In early spring,  Sam Miller spoke at Landerhaven giving his “new leaders needed, regionalism is the way to go” speech. Now, was this really his intent, or was he simply telling the “old” leaders to get in line?

Fast forward, to the Breuer Tower.  County wants to demolish it so that they can build a new county administration building.  Is this the “real” reason, or is there a reason behind the reason?  Earlier in the year, the City Planning Commission was considering a refurbish of the Convention Center and the use of the Burnham plan.  Could this have anything to do with the need to neutralize the second oldest planning commission in the nation? 

Obviously, the county and the developers thought it would be an easy task.  But this is not so, given recent events.  Now, bring in the latest tax increase, and bring it in just under the cap that needs to be approved by the voting public.  Do you find it interesting that this tax increase will fund a new convention center attached to a Medical Mart to be placed in the Higbee complex of Tower City, a Forest City Enterprise property? Although, at times, we hear that “other sites are also in consideration, those “other” sites are seldom mentioned.  Obviously, this project would also go before the CLEVELAND City Planning Commission for approval–a body that is already looking into the possibility of refurbishing the Convention Center and revitalizing the Burnham Plan.  Does anyone find it ironic that again the Terminal Tower is central to a fight concerning CITY PLANNING.  It is my understanding that the Union Terminal originally was to be at the north side of the Burnham Plan, back before the Van Sweringens entered the conversation.

Now so many years later, the core city is at the center of another struggle for power, although the stakes appear much higher to me.  Could it be because the quality of  MY life in MY city could be compromised? If this is not a struggle for power, why the need to make the City Planning Commission insignificant?  If it simply is just a matter of being “partners,” why not include those “partners” in the planning?  Why the need for Mr. Hagan’s posturing that elected officials and their motives should not be questioned? Is there something much larger at stake here?  I would say YES.  As I see it, this is what is at stake: The county has no intention of considering the city of Cleveland as its partner, they simply want to do what they want, when they want, with “the core city central to the region” because, after all, who knows better what we need–elected officials and developers, or the public, who are US?  I am counting on us, because although Mr. Hagan says that the public is “too dumb to understand,” I beg to differ.  The public knows very well what is at stake here, and I doubt very much that they believe that regionalism means that the voters are not necessary in the overall picture.

And, to Mr. Cimperman’s colleagues, I know that many of you have been very apprehensive at all of the talk considering “regionalism” because you feel that city council will fade into obscurity and lose its credibility.  You should be afraid, very afraid because I believe that Mr. Cimperman and his partners expect to do just that. First item on their agenda: Make sure that the City Planning Commission is neutralized. So then, this would be the new tower of power: the Developers,  the County, the city of Cleveland, and finally the city neighborhoods.  Is this what is truly meant by “regionalism”?  Is this what is meant by a private-public partnership?  And where are the voters? Don’t worry about them–according to our elected officials, they are “too dumb to understand”.  Are we?      

This entry was posted on Monday, June 25th, 2007 at 1:34 pm and is filed under Cleveland, politics, quality of life. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.