0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
and here's the text (and I'd love to know why my internet browser suddenly thinks it's a blackberry...)Generation Y is losing faith in Cleveland's core - letter to the editorFriday, September 26, 2008 The news that Eaton Corp. has chosen Beachwood for its new headquarters comes as a major disappointment to young people in Greater Cleveland. Generation Y is growing less interested in suburban culture. We want to live and work in the city core; we want the excitement of urban life; and we want to give Cleveland a chance. But in the spirit of "regionalism," Mayor Frank Jackson and city leaders seem almost indifferent to companies that move jobs to the suburbs. In the next few years, thousands of students will graduate from Northeast Ohio's universities. For many of them, the decision to abandon the suburbs has already been made; the choice is no longer between Cleveland and its suburbs, but rather between Cleveland and some other city. If Cleveland's leadership continues to let companies and jobs slip from the city core, Generation Y will become gradually less interested in both Cleveland and "the region." Rob Pitingolo Euclid
You don't create partnerships by pointing guns at people. If the suburbs can't see the wisdom in working with Cleveland and buy in, then they deserve to die along with it. And they will. Under Ohio's urban policies, once a community gets built out, it's all downhill for them. The only thing communities control is at what speed they will descend.
Yeah, those 500 jobs lost from the 120,000 downtown is a real killer. It would be nice to have them, but they're not essential. Cleveland still keeps half the income tax and the 100 percent of the revenue from the sale of the land in Highland Hills.
The issue isn't so much the numbers of people lost by Eaton's re-lo to Highland Hills, it's the prestige of losing a corporate HQ of our largest Fortune 500 company;
The “suburbs don’t need Cleveland” is one of the dumbest, counterproductive invectives leveled at cities, esp Cleveland. It’s really a waste of time trying to argue with those who hold such views. Cleveland.com is their natural home.
I can honestly say that the mayor has had my support until this announced move. It is clear that there was leadership missing, which is the leadership that the citizens of the city elect the mayor to hold.
I thought that column was way off base (it's was a column expressing Brent Larkin's opinion, not an editorial expressing the Plain Dealer's opinion). No company should kept at any cost. Eaton's HQ has fewer than 500 employees, yet they would have turned a part of the lakefront into a private, suburban campus rather than a dense, walkable, mixed-use neighborhood. The former would have precluded the latter. For fewer than 500 employees, I don't think that was worth losing. And since Cleveland will get a portion of the income taxes from Eaton and revenue from the sale of land, I don't see how Cleveland is losing all that much here.
Quote from: KJP on October 05, 2008, 02:10:47 PMI thought that column was way off base (it's was a column expressing Brent Larkin's opinion, not an editorial expressing the Plain Dealer's opinion). No company should kept at any cost. Eaton's HQ has fewer than 500 employees, yet they would have turned a part of the lakefront into a private, suburban campus rather than a dense, walkable, mixed-use neighborhood. The former would have precluded the latter. For fewer than 500 employees, I don't think that was worth losing. And since Cleveland will get a portion of the income taxes from Eaton and revenue from the sale of land, I don't see how Cleveland is losing all that much here.I totally agree.Cleveland has this poverty mentality that it needs to get out of, otherwise it's going to constantly be bullied by companies that think they can do whatever they want to get what they want because Cleveland is so desperate to keep them. It's ridiculous.
Quote from: jpop on October 05, 2008, 03:36:00 PMQuote from: KJP on October 05, 2008, 02:10:47 PMI thought that column was way off base (it's was a column expressing Brent Larkin's opinion, not an editorial expressing the Plain Dealer's opinion). No company should kept at any cost. Eaton's HQ has fewer than 500 employees, yet they would have turned a part of the lakefront into a private, suburban campus rather than a dense, walkable, mixed-use neighborhood. The former would have precluded the latter. For fewer than 500 employees, I don't think that was worth losing. And since Cleveland will get a portion of the income taxes from Eaton and revenue from the sale of land, I don't see how Cleveland is losing all that much here.I totally agree.Cleveland has this poverty mentality that it needs to get out of, otherwise it's going to constantly be bullied by companies that think they can do whatever they want to get what they want because Cleveland is so desperate to keep them. It's ridiculous.I think, YOU think, we have a poverty mentality and not living here you cant accurately speak to that. It's really unfair that you have this reoccurring theme about the city. Yes, we all have our own opinions, but I think you're opinion is some what exaggerated.What proof do you have, that backs up your claim, that Cleveland is more desperate than DC, Boston, Miami, Newark or Houston?
Look, fact is Larkin is old school and he has had a prominent spot in the local print media at least since the 60's if not earlier... He likes to tweak the powers that be on occasion but more often than not he goes along and along and along...I give credit to the port on this and Wasserman -- an outsider. Many in this city, and even on this board, were willing to accept the Eaton "campus" as part of FEB but that campus would not have been the highest and best use of that port land period. You cannot argue that. Forget about the railrod tracks, the RTA WFL loop, these are obstacles that have been dealt with in other cities of much less size and stature than Cleveland.If the port vacates and sells that land as the long term plan dictates, the expectation has to be a world class lakefront neighborhood, nothing less. What Eaton wanted was 180 degrees from that.
I also give Wasserman credit here, since Eaton wanted the Flats space to be something that it really wasn't, and I also thought in the long run it wasn't really the best use.
But does anyone think the issue of "raising children" played a role in Eaton's relocation? I don't. If it did, then it was way down the list. Everything I read suggests it was about tax breaks and the want/need to expand "out" versus "up", the latter of which is what I was alluding to above.
Nice job Rob!! I want to send him a message and thank him. Good to see more young people not afraid to stand up and speak out.
That said, I know there have been a lot of people who have read it - whether or not any of them are in positions of leadership is unknown.
