Three

It seems to me that there are three types of people in Cleveland: those who love it, those who are ambivalent and traitors. The people who love it are sometimes vocal, and there are organizations to support them – ClevelandPlus, Cool Cleveland and the like.  I think, though, that most people are happy to be here, but do not shout it from the rooftops – a happy majority, perhaps.  The people who are ambivalent are, I believe, few in number: it is difficult to be ambivalent here.  They may be merely content with not rocking the boat.  The people who hate it are also few, I believe, but are very vocal, even when they don’t know what they are talking about.

For example, last week I was at a small get-together.  One of the girls’ boyfriends was there, and at one point – for no apparent reason – he started on a tirade with a  fervor that made him sound like a conspiracy theorist about all of the things he thought were wrong with Cleveland, particularly the rampant “corruption.”  He then said that “nothing good ever happens here.”

“It’s exactly that attitude that is the problem,” I said, and went on to point out that if he really felt nothing good ever happened here, he should get out.  He quickly admitted that he didn’t mean it, and backtracked, and instead of pressing on and pointing out that if he’s willing to so quickly go back on his statement that we cannot quickly trust anything else he said, I let him retreat.  I made a few points about the abundant things that there are to do in Cleveland, and other people pointed out what they thought was good, and together we took an easy victory.

The negative attitude is nothing more than common schoolyard bullying, but with wider-ranging consequences.  If we’re to really assert a positive majority, we have to stand up in the face of this negativity.  What was heartening to me was that after I started speaking up, others in the room similarly took vocal exception.  We just need a lot more of it.

Read Full Post »

Class Dismissed by Sandra Tsing Loh

The Atlantic Online | March 2009 | Class Dismissed | Sandra Tsing Loh.

This is an amazing article about the concept of class.  The one thing that stuck out in my mind was the description of cities as entities which cater to people, and successful cities as being the ones that cater the most to luxury.  The cities which draw people – New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles – focus on supporting certain levels of lifestyles.  When those lifestyles are supported, people seeking those lifestyles flock.  I’m thinking that perhaps the time has come for us to figure out what sort of lifestyles we want to support.

It reminds me of a conversation that I had with a community activist who told me that an area was becoming gentrified.  The locals, she said, were being run out in favor of invading yuppies.  After we talked, I drove down the street; around me were desperate-looking buildings, broken-down cars and savage yards.  It is sad that people feel like they can’t stay in their neighborhoods, but I was unsure why they would really want to.

What are the elements I envision for Cleveland?

1. I see safety.  I see people unafraid to leave their houses or apartments at 2 a.m., and confident that if something were to happen, police would be available almost instantaneously.
2. I see people walking almost everywhere they need to go.  When people need to go far, I see public transportation as reliable, frequent and inexpensive.
3. I see fresh, healthy, local food available to everyone.
4. I see entertainment for all tastes.
5. I see a huge variety of restaurants for all budgets.
6. I see races and nationalities retaining their senses of identity while mixing freely and easily with each other.
7. I see a dense urban core which retains a sense of humanity.
8. I see city streets thick with people going about their daily lives, but without much automobile traffic and with much public transportation.
9. I see bars catering to locals.
10. I see an emphasis on turning Cleveland State University into a solid residential college with high proportion of on- or near-campus students.

I’m sure I’ll think of other things.  But this is what I see Cleveland as becoming.

Addendum

4/21/09 – Cool Cleveland is throwing a party on just this very thing.  I forgot I had a ticket.  It’s tomorrow, 4/22, and the information is here.

Read Full Post »

Spending Less

The Columbus Dispatch wrote an article last month titled “Spending less to be legacy of recession.”  I know that some people think we should keep up our level of spending so that money is put back into the economy, but I fail to see how an approach that makes individuals poorer will benefit them.  I do hope that both banks and individuals learn and make intelligent decisions about finance in the future.  To paraphrase Bomani D’Mite Armah, we need to focus on the foundations – for example, investing and property ownership – rather than the accessories – for example, spinning rims.

Read Full Post »

Bread and Circuses

Something about this post on Lorain reminded me of the old quote about Bread and Circuses.  An old Roman play used the phrase to criticize the cheap tricks used to pacify the populace – the masses only cared about bread and circuses to the detriment of long-term concerns, and politicians only offered them those things to gain popularity and not have to make tough decisions.

For a long time, I thought of it more as the base level of services that the politicians have to provide in order to keep the people satisfied.  If they can do more, great; if not, and that keeps the people happy, tant mieux.  A problem, I think, is that government sometimes fails to provide even this base level of services.  Besides children going hungry, playgrounds and public recreation areas are cut back, adults have fewer social outlets and there aren’t many opportunities for mass involvement as a group.

What if Bread and Circus was used to judge government efficacy?

Last week I drove through East Cleveland.  Boarded up houses and boarded up stores lined the potholed streets.  There was no bread, there were no circuses.  Instead, I could imagine people questioning why they were living there in the first place.  What was there to do?  Break into the abandoned buildings?  Drive down the street trying to dodge the dogs running wild?  Then I drove up Monticello; there’s a park where, on summer afternoons and evenings, swarms of young men play basketball.  It’s a simple thing – providing basketball courts – but it gave them an opportunity to do what they loved, to dream, to play, to compete, to be part of a team, and to get exercise, which is something that so many people don’t get.  Imagine combining that with lessons on life – on eating well, saving money, investing, working, learning.  Imagine a program that offered kids coaching!  On those courts the next LeBron could arise.  If Malcolm Gladwell is right, they could get the 10,000 hours required for mastery, and lead the next generation of basketball superstars.  Generations of boys after them would be able to play on those courts and imagine that they, too could play in the NBA, and girls could grow up to the WNBA.  The cost to the city, as far as I can see, would be minimal, and the benefits if these kids are kept healthy and active, would be massive in terms of lower crime, lower health care costs, more team play and involvement, lower drug use, etc.

Read Full Post »

Argh

I’m conflicted about this article.  On the one hand, I understand that consumer spending is going to help businesses stay afloat, employ people and create more disposable income, which can be spent, help businesses stay afloat, etc.  On the other hand, I have this instinctive disgust with the idea of continuing on a wrong path.  I think it’s great that people are saving more – after all, if we continue spending more than we have, we’ll all soon be bankrupt (and the last eight years of federal spending haven’t helped).  If you’re going down the wrong path, a slow, gradual correction isn’t going to help; you need to turn around and find the right path. Jesus said that if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; if your eye does, gouge it out.  There wasn’t any of this slow change business – he called for radical action.

Despite a solid minute of searching for a contrary analogy, I couldn’t find an analogy to support the position that slow, incremental change is better.  Thus, while I realize that analogies may not be the best way to make decisions, I’m tempted to go with them and say that this desire for slow savings increases is poppycock.  Any contrary analogies?

Also, Crains links to this article from Business Week.  The second page has some great ideas of where to invest.

Read Full Post »

What?

I just got in a semi-argument with someone about Cleveland; she’d seen this article and wanted to talk about Cleveland.  First, she started talking about how bad things are here, and how she told Frank Jackson that no mayor had ever improved the city.  Then, she started talking about how nothing happens in Cleveland.  THEN she started comparing Cleveland to Chicago, and talking about how everyone here is depressed and poor.

I tried to reason with her.  Nothing happens?  Music?  Sports?  Plays?  Museums?  Restaurants?  Art walks, cross country skiing, sailing regattas, hang gliding, hiking, bars, clubs, etc.?  “OK, but besides that…”

Depressed?  My experience is that people find what they’re looking for, and there are plenty of happy people here.  “OK, but besides them…”

Poor?  The same study that found Cleveland to be one of the poorest cities in America (with Philadelphia and Miami) found that Northeast Ohioans had a higher income than the national average.  “I didn’t know about that…”

Then she said downtown is dead and nobody goes there, that it’s a total wasteland.  What about West Sixth?  East Fourth?  Playhouse Square?  Again, “OK, but besides those places…”

It’s like arguing with a person who says they don’t have any legs.  Well, what about the two they are standing on?  “OK, but besides those…”

Read Full Post »

Raise the Gas Price?

In Los Angeles, I was talking to one of my friends about gas prices.  There, as here, the price has been significantly lower since its 2008 highs.  However, she didn’t like it for the simple reason that nobody was talking about gas or energy or global warming – instead, they were enjoying low gas prices and trying to make as much of it as possible.  People needed the stick of gas prices to urge change, she thought; without a wallet impact, people would start thinking of other things, like the price of food, or fake tans.  They’d stop thinking of maximizing their trips so as to be as efficient as possible.  Etc.

Then, I was in the locker room of my gym and two guys (who I have only otherwise heard talking about football) were debating the pros and cons of fuel celled cars and the future of hydrogen power.  They were firmly convinced that we need to stop using gas, by whatever means necessary.  I turned around and said, “Isn’t it amazing that we’re discussing this?”  They laughed, and one walked into the gym with me.  Before we went to our respective benches, he said, “You know, if it was up to me, gas prices would go up again.  See, that’s the only way people are going to understand.  I don’t have much money, but if it gets people to become more efficient and switch away from gasoline, that’s the price I’m willing to pay.”

The last time OPEC announced that they were slashing production of oil, the head of OPEC said, “I hope w surprised you.”  Surprised?  I believe CNN said that markets “yawned” at the news; markets barely budged.  A few years ago, I suspect people would have rioted and sent out ridiculous email appeals to boycott gas stations on a particular day, the promise being that oil prices would be shocked downwards.  Now, I wonder how many people – normal people, the office workers in LA and the gym patrons in Cleveland – wish that they’d cut production to the point that prices actually do go up.

Read Full Post »

Speed Limiteers

I was driving down Route 2 the other day and I began going over the benefits of driving the speed limit instead of speeding:

1. More efficient fuel usage;
2. Smaller chance of accidents (and thus less disruption to others’ driving);
3. More opportunity to relax, less road rage;
4. Less chance of traffic tickets;
5. Really, do most people want to get to work so badly that they speed?

It got me thinking: why not start a new movement of driving the speed limit?  It would involve a lot: improving fuel economy, not getting in as many accidents, not paying fines and enjoying the journey instead of just the destination.  You can pop in a book on CD if you’d like, or perhaps practice some low-level meditation (with your eyes open).  The only thing: you’d have to set your cruise control to the speed limit instead of weaving in and out of traffic.  I’ve been doing it for a week, and it’s been really interesting – instead of looking for ways around other cars, I just sit back and have time to think, which is amazing in this day and age.  If you want to discuss it more, look for me in the right lane.

Read Full Post »

Northeast Ohio: Business Center

“Make those who are near happy, and those who are far will come.”

I was reminded of that this morning when I read that Northeast Ohio is #4 in the country for business company headquarters, according to a new report.

It raises the question of what we should do about these findings.  I’m sure the official response, and the one expected, is to trumpet this from the top of Key Tower.  Personally, I think that this is something we should keep under wraps.  I mean, it’s great that we have all these major headquarters here, and that shows that we have a long history of entrepreneurialism; it’s great that the jobs tend to pay more than other jobs; it’s great that we’re well-located, and have a low cost of living; it’s great that we have a strong labor and talent pool from which to draw.  But why not keep it here, fostering businesses here, providing services here, expanding here and then working to take over other areas?  Why not focus on the existing businesses and make them strong rather than use this to try to sell others to come here?  That’s something I don’t get about some of the PR campaigns for bringing people in.  Back in Jane Campbell’s time, there were advertisements about how great Cleveland was but, at the same time, roads were unplowed and unsalted, trash pickup was missed a couple of weeks when I was living in University Circle, the police force was cut and underpaid.  It seemed like we were spending money trying to advertise that Cleveland is a great place to live, but we were unwilling to spend that same money making it liveable for the citizens.  Frank Jackson has been doing a better job, in my opinion, in focusing on making Cleveland great; he, or the next mayor, needs to keep that up.  The same thing should be done with business resources: we need to focus on making businesses here great, rather than work on bringing them in.  If businesses are in the know, they’ll come to reap the rewards.  If they’re not, they will have to make do somewhere else.

Read Full Post »

Crain’s Editorial – state handout requests

States have been requestiong an absurd amount of money as part of a bailout, arguing that without federal money, education, infrastructure and social programs will be cut.  This is a difficult situation; when a state spends too much, where should the money come from?  Taxpayers?  Other states?  The federal government?  The indirect answer that Crain’s proposes is simple and addresses the heart of the problem: don’t spend too much.  It ends with two magnificent paragraphs:

“Perhaps the greatest irony in the governors’ request for federal help is their desire to use $150 billion of the $1 trillion for middle-class tax relief. That’s sweet — using what ultimately is taxpayer money to give their constituents a tax break.

“If the governors really want to look like heroes to taxpayers, forget the tax breaks and redouble your efforts to live within their means. The people and businesses you’re taxing must do it.”

Sometimes people have to do without.  It’s one of the paradoxes of life: not having can sometimes make life rich, whereas getting everything you want can make life poor.  We see it when people who eat everything they want end up obese and don’t understand what happened, or blame their genes, or fast food companies, or advertising.  We see it with little children whose parents flood their rooms with toys and distractions and flat-screen televisions: they’re unhappy, angry, rebellious.  We see it when millionaires and billionaires have medicine cabinets filled with anti-depressants, or “inexplicably” commit suicide.  Newspapers often quote someone saying that the deceased had “everything to live for,” or that “things seemed to be going so well.”  Getting everything doesn’t make people happy.  Discipline and constraints can actually be freeing.

We’re not going to get everything we want, nor should we.  For the benefit of all, we’re going to have to cut and make tough choices.  Kudos to Crain’s for this piece.

Read Full Post »