by Chuck Hoven

     In a national call for a moral revival in America, Bishop William J. Barber II, Co-Chair of the Poor People’s Campaign for Moral Revival makes a case for ending poverty in America.

“Today, poverty is the 4th leading cause of death nationwide. It is a death sentence for Americans. It is a moral travesty and a detriment to the soul of our nation that poverty kills more people than homicide yet the powers that be don’t want to address it,” said Bishop William J. Barber II, co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign. “There’s not a scarcity of resources, but a scarcity of political will. Until our nation’s leaders invest the great riches of this nation in ensuring equal justice for all, beginning with the poor and low wealth of this nation, we cannot be silent.” 

     While Barber is speaking about the results of national public policy failing to address poverty, the same can be said about local public policy. Public policy that fails to address poverty in Cleveland is killing our citizens.

NEWS ANALYSIS

     Cleveland has ranked consistently as having one of the highest poverty rates amongst big cities in the United States of America. In recent years, Cleveland has led the nation in child poverty.

     The life expectancy in many of Cleveland’s neighborhoods is substantially lower than the life expectancy in nearby suburban communities.

     What is Cleveland doing to address this crisis? Do our political leaders act as if they see this as an urgent crisis that is killing our citizens?

     Let’s examine some evidence as to what kind of priority our politicians have for addressing poverty.

     One recent act by Mayor Justin Bibb’s administration could lead one to the conclusion that City of Cleveland administrators that advocate addressing poverty by holding developers accountable for public handouts they receive may jeopardize their employment.

     City of Cleveland Economic Development Director Tessa Jackson was recently asked to relinquish her position after less than a year on the job. A look at some of her public statements reveals her position that residents are not benefiting from all the economic development handouts that Cleveland has been giving to developers.

     A Crain’s Cleveland Business article titled “Cleveland’s economic development department pulls back on incentives” by Michelle Jarboe says:

         During budget hearings in February, Tessa Jackson, the City’s economic development director, told Cleveland City Council members that public spending on loans, grants and other incentives over the last decade-plus has not meaningfully impacted residents’ lives.

         “When you look at historic poverty rates, historic unemployment rates, that money hasn’t really moved the bar,” she said during a public meeting. (February 22, 2023, Budget Hearing) “You can’t spend a half a billion dollars on economic development and not move the bar for anybody.”

     The article also noted the push back from developers to Jackson’s suggestion that they be held accountable to provide some benefit in terms of alleviating poverty or addressing unemployment in return for the huge subsidies they are receiving. One developer mentioned in the Crain’s article is Doug Price of K & D Management who objected strongly to the changes Jackson proposed to limit give-a-ways to developers that were not producing clear benefits to the City of Cleveland and its citizens.

     A new website (https://followthemoneycle.org) called Follow the Money CLE which is dedicated to tracking donations to local politicians lists the top 15 doners to the Cleveland City Council Leadership Fund since 2002. The second highest donor by an organization to that fund was K & D Management which contributed $42,155.52 during that time (second only to the Cleveland Browns Football Co. LLC.) Cleveland City Council’s Leadership Fund is controlled by the President of Cleveland City Council. Perhaps that explains why Cleveland City Council did little to object to the firing of Cleveland Economic Development Director Tessa Jackson after being seeming receptive to her proposals at this Year’s budget hearings.

     At the Budget Hearing, Jackson called upon City Council to partner with the Economic Development Department to help move the bar for citizens of Cleveland. She called for a competitive process where developers would have to prove that their projects are the highest and best use of City resources.

     Cleveland City Council and the Bibb administration performed a minor tweak to the City of Cleveland’s tax abatement program that will soon be taking effect. But the tax abatements, Tax Increment Financing, and other giveaways, continue to hurt the City of Cleveland’s ability to collect enough tax revenue to respond effectively to the needs of its citizens. Our politicians’ subservience to developers and sports team owners has seriously diverted funds that are critically needed to address the serious needs of those living in poverty.

     Developers have come to expect handouts from our local politicians while offering little in return. They complain vehemently when the value of the public subsidies gets questioned. Often loans given by the City of Cleveland are not paid back and jobs promised by developers in many cases have never been created.

     The City of Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, the Cleveland Public Library system, and the Cleveland MetroParks, all are deprived of revenue due to the subsidies given to developers. Residents seeking City of Cleveland services are often told there is no money, or they must wait their turn because the City’s ability to respond to their need is limited.

     Politicians seem reluctant to change a system that is not working. Do they truly believe despite the past record that the system of handouts will someday benefit Clevelanders? Or are they simply responding to the amount of campaign donations given to them by those who benefit from the handouts?

     At any rate, there is ample evidence that continuing down the path of subsidies to developers without getting much in return for residents is not working for most Cleveland residents.

     A June 20^th report by Wallet Hub’s financial writer Adam McCann entitled “2023’s Best- and Worst-Run Cities in America” measured the effectiveness of a city’s leadership “by determining a city’s operating efficiency.” It compares “the quality of services residents received, against the city’s total budget.”

     Using that measurement WalletHub found Cleveland ranked 146^th out of 149 cities studied in terms of the services Cleveland residents were receiving compared to the size of the budget the City of Cleveland has available to spend.

     Other items the study included in its analysis were: long-term debt per capita; high school graduation rate; infant mortality rate; violent crime rate; unemployment rate; cost of living; adjusted median annual household income; percentage of the population in poverty; quality of the roads; air pollution. Notably, Cleveland ranked 146^th in terms of the percentage of its citizens living in poverty – three cities with a higher poverty rate than Cleveland were Detroit, Michigan; Gary, Indiana; and Flint, Michigan.

     Cleveland ranked lower than any other city in Ohio in the quality of its services. In Quality of City services Cleveland ranked 137^th. Cincinnati ranked 85^th. Columbus ranked 90^th. Dayton ranked 116^th. Akron ranked 117^th.

     In measures of financial stability Cleveland ranked 114^th. In measuring educational achievement Cleveland ranked 136^th. In measures of health Cleveland ranked 107^th. For safety Cleveland ranked 139^th.  For its overall economy Cleveland ranked 137^th.

     It is time for Cleveland politicians to re-evaluate the subsidies they are giving to developers. The public services Clevelanders deserve depend upon increasing property tax revenue from the new development that is going up. Giving that revenue away in abatements and tax increment financing and other incentives deprives Clevelanders of much needed services. Not using limited funds to meet critical needs of Clevelanders limits the effectiveness of the City of Cleveland’s budget in alleviating the pains of poverty. Cleveland needs to keep its current residents, help meet their needs, and attract new residents by providing quality services, not by giving away its tax base.