If Sprawl Meant Jobs, Ohio Would Have Full Employment:

If Sprawl Meant Jobs,
Ohio Would Have Full Employment:
Policies for Redeveloping a Great State
Greater Ohio Candidates’ Briefing Book
Fall 2006
Greater Ohio is the nonprofit, nonpartisan, citizens’ network promoting—through research,
public education, and grassroots advocacy—public policy to grow our economy and improve
our quality of life through intelligent land use.
Greater Ohio works to promote redevelopment of existing communities,
strengthen regional cooperation, and protect the countryside and Ohio’s natural resources.
Greater Ohio staff and offices
Gene Krebs
State Director
846 ½ E. Main St.
Columbus, OH 43205
513-739-2412 (mobile)
614-258-1713 (phone)
[email protected]
Lavea Brachman
Central Ohio & Research Director
Greater Ohio
846 ½ E. Main St.
Columbus, OH 43205
614-258-1713
[email protected]
Todd Ward
SW Ohio Director
2500 Meyerhill Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45211
513-515-2863
[email protected]
[email protected]
Jim Converse
Mahoning Valley Director
1221 Elm St.
Youngstown OH 44505
330-744-2667
[email protected]
Pat Carey
NE Ohio Director
3500 Lorain Ave., Suite 301
Cleveland, OH 44113
216-961-5020
[email protected]
For more information about Greater Ohio, see our
website: www.greaterohio.org
For additional copies of this briefing book, please call one
of the Greater Ohio offices listed above.
Project funding from Enterprise Community Partners.
Cover photos courtesy of Ian Adams. Design by Derek Oyen.
© 2006 Greater Ohio
Printed on 100% post-consumer waste, chlorine-free, recycled paper.
Fall 2006 edition
P reface — Preface for the candidates
D
o you want to win? Read this and find out how.
I encourage you to read about these issues and
understand the commitments to our policy solutions. Many people think these are in the best interest of
Ohio, and I know you are running for office to improve the
state and your community.
Do these issues resonate? The policy agenda outlined
in this briefing book includes reforms the voters are looking for and the state needs—reforms that will bring the
quality growth and development Ohio needs to become
great again. You can win by endorsing policies that create jobs, support the redevelopment of existing cities and
towns, slow the loss of farmland and green space, and make
the state a more attractive place to live. You and your staff
may wish to review the book carefully and seek out Greater
Ohio staff for clarification and additional information. We
have great regional staff members that understand local
nuances and look forward to helping you.
When possible and applicable, data are presented in a
county-to-county format so you can bring forth local color
in your speeches and campaign literature. All facts have
supporting footnotes in the back of the booklet for your
convenience. Hard copies of footnote materials are available on request.
Why this format? In my first campaign I hungered for
this type of information to set myself apart from the other
candidates. Why should you listen to me? I’m told that
I’m the only person Speaker Vern Riffe ever called wrong
on a race. I ran from the small county in a multi-county
House seat and was outspent by $300,000 to $90,000.1
I won against a campaign designed by James Carville by
talking about the issues, knocking on over 10,000 doors,
and working at the grassroots. You motivate the grassroots
with ideas.
You certainly don’t have to pay attention to the issues
outlined in this briefing book. Just remember, though, that
your opponent very well might. In the recent Virginia governor’s race an almost 6% shift occurred in voting patterns
for candidates who offered a solution to the problems of
growth and development (see Addendum A). This analysis
has been backed up by subsequent studies in Virginia2 (see
Addendum B).
Do you want more proof? Take a look at Campaign and
Elections, February 2006:
“[Kaine] targeted white, church-going women—a
2004 Bush bloc—after finding how strongly the education-over-tax cuts issue tested with them. Census data
showed many likely Kaine supporters were in suburban
and exurban counties that had gone for Bush. Noting
the concerns about traffic reflected in the poll and long
commute times reflected in the census, the campaign
approached those voters with Kaine’s message on fighting suburban sprawl.
The Kilgore campaign used its data and target lists
to try and turn out enough of the 1.7 million Virginians who had voted for Bush in 2004 to overwhelm
Kaine. They were unsuccessful: Kaine’s messages had
strong resonance where it counted, and the Democrat
won over the swing voters in target areas like exurban
Washington, D.C. At the same time, other Republicans
won the offices for lieutenant governor and attorney
general. While some soft Republicans got to the polls
and decided for Kaine, tens of thousands split their ballots to push the rest of the [GOP] ticket over the finish
line.”3
www. greaterohio . org
i i — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
This also indicates that the GOP voters could discriminate and choose a Democrat that embraces smart growth
virtues.
Our polling backs this up. Republican women, college
educated, 50 years old and younger indicate this is a top
issue for them. A recent article in The Atlantic Monthly,
co-written by Dr. John Green of the Ray Bliss Institute for
Applied Politics at the University of Akron, also validates
that point by plainly putting those members of the GOP in
the swing category. Somewhat tongue in cheek, he labels
them “White Bread Protestants,” but they are 8.1% of the
voting population and fit the polling silhouette described
above.4
This briefing book is your playbook for victory. This is
not just Greater Ohio’s opinion. An op-ed piece by a senior
editor of The Columbus Dispatch stated that, “Greater Ohio’s
playbook lays out coherent plans for smart land use and
energy independence, livable cities and towns, preserving
farmland, ending schools’ reliance on local property taxes,
and restoring Lake Erie” (see Addendum C).
With warmest regards,
Gene Krebs
State Director
Greater Ohio
846 ½ E Main Street
Columbus, OH 43205
614-258-1713 (work)
513-739-2412 (cell)
P.S. Greater Ohio does not endorse candidates for political office and will remain scrupulously nonpartisan in all
political campaigns. We want all candidates to be informed
about the challenges that face Ohio and the policies that can
grow jobs.
www. greaterohio . org
Contents
Part 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Winning land-use policies to pull Ohio out of the cycle of decline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Constituencies for smarter growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Ohio in the age of unraveling: Why nothing is working here . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Ohio’s troubles rooted in land-use patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Redeveloping cities for the new economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Polling and electoral analysis: Learning from Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
How smart growth is addressed by other state governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
What can Ohio do? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Part 2: Winning policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Reinvest in historic cities and towns to attract young, college-educated workers
and stimulate economic development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Slow the tide of tax-dead properties in Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Fix the problem with eminent domain in Ohio, not the blame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Reduce Ohio’s reliance on the local school property tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Restore Main Streets to promote local economic activity for school districts . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Develop a more balanced transportation system for the state’s economic health,
public health, and cleaner air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Invest in priority growth areas to save tax dollars and redevelop cities and towns . . . . . . . . . 30
Promote healthy farms, healthy families, healthy cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Restore our Great Lake and protect our rivers and streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Promote energy independence: Link smart land use and alternative energy sources . . . . . . 36
Curb soaring health costs by developing a walkable Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Part 3: What is Greater Ohio? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Part 4: Credits & acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Part 5: References (addenda and footnotes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
www. greaterohio . org
I ntroduction — Part 1: Introduction
O
Executive summary
hio faces critical issues, and citizens are demanding answers. Greater Ohio, with the help of
many partners, has developed this briefing book
to help candidates think about the root causes of the state’s
problems. We hope that this book will be the beginning
of an ongoing relationship with you about how to return
Ohio to a prominent place in the United States.
Decades of haphazard growth and development in
Ohio have contributed to numerous negative consequences
for the state’s economy, its people, and its future, including:
• Little or no economic growth
• Dwindling local tax bases
• Increased cost burdens on taxpayers and local governments for duplicative public services and new
infrastructure
• City centers drained of people and jobs
• Reduced economic competitiveness
• Degraded natural landscapes and loss of farmland
These consequences themselves produce a cascade
of additional negative impacts. For instance, a dwindling
local tax base may cause local jurisdictions to resort to
their eminent domain powers in order to intervene and
change land-use patterns to promote economic development. A weak local tax base also means less money
for schools and other public services. Empty city centers
caused by development outside the city are less attractive
to young, educated workers who want to live in a culturally
and economically thriving environment. This contributes
to the “brain drain” and declining property values, and it
further weakens cities’ economic competitiveness.
As metropolitan regions spread out, the new development at the edges requires new infrastructure that imposes
costs on taxpayers and on local governments—especially
burdensome if the region as a whole isn’t growing much.
Meanwhile, older infrastructure must be maintained.
Older communities—with their beautiful brick roadways,
historic buildings, and walkable neighborhoods—decline.
And the physical attractiveness of the state’s natural landscape is eroded.
Winning land-use policies to pull Ohio out
of the cycle of decline
In this briefing book, Greater Ohio proposes policies
to pull the state out of its cycle of decline. We believe that
our state will have a more prosperous economy and offer
a higher quality of life if we redevelop existing cities and
towns, strengthen regional cooperation, and conserve our
working farms and natural resources.
To achieve these desirable outcomes and to become
more competitive, the State of Ohio must change its policies and programs that currently affect the location of
development and the ability of local communities to plan
for their future. There are four main roles that state government plays (or could play) to shape our land-use future:
• Creating a vision for where the state is going—
The state can provide overall leadership to help
citizens and local officials think about the longterm implications of current growth patterns, as
well as plan wisely for a more sustainable land-use
future.
• Investing state resources strategically — Every
day the state makes investments in infrastructure,
facilities, economic development projects, or other
purposes, and most of these investments influence the location of growth and development.
Therefore, it is vital for the state to be strategic and
cost-effective with its investments, promoting new
www. greaterohio . org
— 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
development in the best places and in the most
optimal forms, while ensuring the redevelopment
of established communities.
• Enabling wise land-use planning at the local
level — Through enabling legislation and regulations for local planning and zoning, the state sets
the ground rules for how development can occur.
Many of these state statutes are decades old and
need to be modernized to meet the needs of a 21stcentury state and to give local communities the
tools they need for effective planning and growth
management.
• Promoting regional collaboration — Although
most land-use planning and regulation occur at
the local level, many of the forces that affect land
use are regional in scale, including the regional
economy and housing market. Thus, new forms
of regional collaboration and coordination are
needed to help the state’s metropolitan areas plan
effectively to manage development. The state can
play a significant role to assist and encourage such
collaboration.
Greater Ohio’s policy recommendations are designed
to fit within Ohio’s traditions of local control and property
rights. If adopted, this package of policies would put Ohio
in the forefront of states that are planning wisely for the
future.
The policies are organized as follows:
• Revitalizing our cities—large and small—as economic engines
• Securing more sustainable funding for schools
• Reexamining transportation funding and priorities
• Easing development pressure on working farmland
and sensitive natural areas
• Linking smart land use and energy independence
• Encouraging convenient and walkable town centers
• Strengthening regional cooperation
These strategies are interconnected, as are the problems. For instance, we need to construct walkable commuwww. greaterohio . org
nities where people spend their money close to where they
live, so that their communities’ services benefit from the
taxes paid. When people walk to local retail shops, they also
limit gasoline consumption and enjoy the health benefits of
physical exertion. And the regeneration of cities and towns
then helps preserve farmland, which provides substantial
economic value for food and energy production.
We are fortunate in Ohio because we have many older
cities and towns that are worth preserving and already
have walkable town centers. They already have the potential to act as growth centers that promote economic vitality. We do not have to create communities from scratch
that displace productive farmland and invade the natural
landscape. Recognizing the value of these existing communities and shaping policies that direct funds to reconstruct
and revitalize them, rather than spending dollars on new
developments that impose costs on taxpayers and have
none of the assets or “spin off ” benefits, is our challenge.
Constituencies for smarter growth
These land-use and economic issues form a suite
of interconnected issues that many other states have
attempted to address in a comprehensive way under the
name of “smart growth.” Polling indicates that these issues
are on the minds of voters. Indeed, there is a growing hunger for reforms.
In Ohio, there is now an opportunity for candidates to
show real leadership and address real problems by advancing a smart growth vision that will appeal to voters from all
parts of the state:
• City residents will respond to ideas for neighborhood reinvestment and brownfield reclamation.
• Residents of inner-ring suburbs will appreciate
ideas for supporting redevelopment and maintaining tax base.
• Exurban residents will like ideas for managing
growth, preserving rural character, and reducing
traffic congestion.
• Rural residents will respond to ideas for restoring
I ntroduction — •
•
•
•
the vitality of Main Streets in small towns and supporting a healthy farm economy.
Business leaders will respond to ideas for investing
in great cities and walkable neighborhoods that
can attract a highly educated workforce and stimulate innovation.5
Environmental advocates will like ideas for supporting well planned development that provides
transportation choices and preserves water quality
and natural areas.
Health advocates will support transportation
alternatives such as rail, transit, biking, and walking—alternatives that promote physical activity
and improve air quality.6
Developers will like ideas to make the development
process faster and more predictable.
• Everyone will appreciate thoughtful approaches to
support regionalism—ways that communities in
Ohio’s metropolitan areas can collaborate to stretch
tax dollars and plan together for the future.
Ohio voters want to see a positive vision for what the
state can do to enhance quality of life in these areas and get
the state moving again. Moreover, the media are interested
in these issues, so discussing them in public forums provides a good opportunity for earned media coverage.
You want to get elected and are seeking to promote
issues that will resonate with voters. Here are the issues and
solutions you are seeking to make Ohio great again.
www. greaterohio . org
— 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
Ohio in the age of unraveling:
Why nothing is working here
Embracing smart growth is important not only for our
future quality of life but also for our future economic and
social well-being. Why? In the past six years in Ohio:
• Population living at the poverty level increased
from 12% to 17%7
• Ohioans on Medicaid went up 45%7
• Ohioans receiving food stamps climbed 29%7
In other areas, Ohio has also been on a decline. The
state recently:
• Ranked 47th in economic momentum (at least we
beat Michigan!)8
• Ranked 45th in economic growth8
• Had an unemployment rate of 6.4%, the sixth
highest8
• Received a grade of “D” in quality of life9
• Ranked highest in mortgage foreclosures10
• Ranked sixth in the nation in number of people
leaving the state 11
• Suffered a net job loss of 160,362, including 75,733
in Cuyahoga County alone, during a five-year
period12
This decline cannot be blamed on cold weather. Minneapolis-St. Paul is the fourth most educated region in
America.13 Minnesota will grow by 11% with 73% of the
growth in the Minneapolis region by 2010.14 Many of the
newcomers will be educated young people who are the
keys to economic development. “Creative people … don’t
just cluster where the jobs are. They cluster in places that
are centers of creativity ….”15 They like compact development in mixed-use communities and choose to live wherever there is good hiking, bicycling, walkable streets with
fine restaurants, and coffee houses with Internet access.5
Ohio, on the other hand, will see less than 1.7% population
www. greaterohio . org
increase by 2010, which is consistent with our recent past. 16
New estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau for July 2005
show Ohio grew by fewer that 14,000 people during the
previous 12-month period, or 0.12%.17 See the chart below
for historic patterns.
Figure 1: Ohio population growth vs.
18
national average
15
12
13.2%
11.4%
9.8%
9
6
3
0
4.7%
1.3%
1970–80
0.5%
1980–90
Ohio
1990–2000
U.S.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Ohio still seems more focused on 1950s-style “smokestack chasing” than strategic marketing of our strengths
in pursuit of sustainable economic activity. Ohio once led
the nation in home-grown talent. Now, our development
institutions act as real estate agents for large multi-national
companies looking for tax-free homes. Yet even the elimination of business taxes won’t solve our problems. We have
tried that with enterprise zones—which are tantamount
to tax-free zones—and we hand them out like candy here.
They have proliferated around the state, even to entice a
company to move across the road from one political jurisdiction to another. Used like that, “tax-free zones” are a
poor substitute for creating jobs or growing jobs in Ohio.
I ntroduction — Are successful states low-tax states? Surprisingly, the
link is weak. Minnesota is ranked as business unfriendly
by the small business survival index (47th), near the bottom (48th) by the state business climate index, only 27th by
Cato Fiscal Policy Report Card, and 44th by The Economic
Freedom Index.19 It is amazing that they have any growth
or business at all, yet the Gopher State is beating us hands
down in two big categories that drive future economic
development—population growth and attracting educated
people. As a result, Minnesota is ranked 9th in personal
income per capita, which is remarkable for a state with no
ocean.
Ohio’s troubles rooted in land-use patterns
A major study released in August of 2004 by Greater
Ohio illustrates that we Buckeyes no longer live where we
work, live where we shop, or even shop where we work.
The implication is that some communities have less tax
base from which to collect and, thus, less money to spend
on public services, infrastructure, schools, and other local
residential and homeowner needs. To meet those needs
the taxes then go up. Remember, the best school district in
which to live in Ohio is one full of outlet malls, industrial
parks, and where you own the only house; therefore your
tax obligation is minimal, and your kids get the best education money can buy. The worst school district to live in is
one which is full of bedrooms, and there is no commercial
activity. This latter scenario just described over half of the
school districts in Ohio, didn’t it?
Figures appear in Addendum D revealing school district data from each of Ohio’s communities. These data
show the percent of total property values of Ohio’s districts
that are identified as commercial or industrial. These data
were compiled using individual districts from the Ohio
Department of Education’s website, and the charts and
analysis are exclusive to Greater Ohio.
What do they show? On average a school district gets
about 20% of its tax base from commercial/industrial
uses. If all districts, with help of the Ohio Department of
Development, could work toward reaching that 20% average, it would be a way of solving school funding. Fixing
school funding requires a new state formula, but it equally
requires a sea-change in approaching the solution in an
indirect manner—making sure every school district is able
to maintain a healthy local tax base. Instead, there is a rush
for large, regional retail centers that bleed tax dollars from
many cities and small towns.
This rush for retail is causing communities to offer
ever-expanding incentives to attract large stores. In Ohio,
we offer tax increment financing to everything that moves
and provide tax abatements for everything that threatens
to move, thus further depleting the local public coffers.
Yet, all this churning is producing empty stores and wasted
resources.
The following chart (Table 1) demonstrates the incongruity of our lifestyles and the implications for our quality
of life. It shows a Greater Ohio analysis of sales tax disparities in Ohio, and it has a simple statistical premise: if
everyone who lived in a particular county shopped in that
county, and no one from outside the county ever came in
to shop, and no resident ever left to purchase anything, the
county receives a value of “1.” The number is normed for
inflation and income. For instance, just over a quarter of
the retail activity of Adams County residents occurs outside their county boundaries, so Adams County receives
an index of 0.74.
The reason the Ohio school funding lawsuit was filed in
Perry County is also made clear by these numbers. Half of
the retail activity for Perry County residents occurs outside
their jurisdiction, thus robbing their county of revenues
through sales taxes. The schools lose commercial property
taxes, and the municipalities lose income taxes.20
Also notice the changes that occur over time. Polaris
Mall opens, and Delaware County’s index doubles, while
Franklin County’s declines. As you give speeches in various corners of Ohio, please feel free to use this data to help
personalize and regionalize your talks for each audience.
www. greaterohio . org
— 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
Table 1: 1992 & 2002 sales tax collection ratios for Ohio counties,
20
adjusted for county population, per capita income and county sales tax rate
1992
2002
1992
2002
1992
2002
Adams
0.79
0.74
Hamilton
1.33
1.22
Muskingum
1.04
1.09
Allen
1.22
1.23
Hancock
1.29
1.26
Noble
0.54
0.50
Ashland
0.81
0.83
Hardin
0.68
0.70
Ottawa
0.99
1.03
Ashtabula
0.82
0.81
Harrison
0.52
0.50
Paulding
0.53
0.53
Athens
0.81
0.74
Henry
0.76
0.78
Perry
0.50
0.52
Auglaize
0.82
0.76
Highland
0.77
0.76
Pickaway
0.78
0.71
Belmont
1.12
1.13
Hocking
0.58
0.77
Pike
0.89
0.80
Brown
0.55
0.57
Holmes
1.06
1.09
Portage
0.71
0.81
Butler
--
0.92
Huron
0.80
0.80
Preble
0.60
0.62
Carroll
0.62
0.57
Jackson
0.86
0.88
Putnam
0.66
0.66
Champaign
0.68
0.66
Jefferson
0.87
0.82
Richland
1.14
1.15
Clark
0.87
0.85
Knox
0.80
0.79
Ross
0.96
0.97
Clermont
1.01
1.00
Lake
1.17
1.16
Sandusky
0.82
0.95
Clinton
0.91
0.96
Lawrence
0.75
0.76
Scioto
0.83
0.77
Columbiana
0.72
0.68
Licking
0.94
0.97
Seneca
0.77
0.79
Coshocton
0.74
0.73
Logan
0.96
0.98
Shelby
0.87
0.93
Crawford
0.71
0.70
Lorain
0.96
0.93
Stark
1.09
--
Cuyahoga
1.02
1.00
Lucas
1.09
1.14
Summit
1.17
1.11
Darke
0.77
0.81
Madison
0.64
0.72
Trumbull
--
0.99
Defiance
0.95
1.18
Mahoning
1.00
1.02
Tuscarawas
1.01
1.00
Delaware
0.68
1.28
Marion
0.94
0.97
Union
1.00
1.30
Erie
1.33
1.27
Medina
0.96
0.95
Van Wert
0.76
0.74
Fairfield
0.94
0.98
Meigs
0.66
0.54
Vinton
0.49
0.43
Fayette
0.92
1.52
Mercer
0.89
0.77
Warren
0.93
1.08
Franklin
1.41
1.30
Miami
0.95
0.93
Washington
0.97
0.92
Fulton
0.80
0.90
Monroe
0.78
0.57
Wayne
0.86
0.92
Gallia
0.92
0.92
Montgomery
1.14
1.05
Williams
0.86
0.78
Geauga
0.75
0.78
Morgan
0.60
0.50
Wood
0.94
1.03
Greene
0.77
1.13
Morrow
0.49
0.50
Wyandot
0.67
0.73
Guernsey
0.88
0.93
Sales tax disparities in Ohio counties: Note that for
2002, 23 counties have sales tax capture below 75% including the following: Adams, Athens, Brown, Carroll, Champaign, Columbiana, Coschocton, Crawford, Hardin, Harrison, Madison, Meigs, Monroe, Morgan, Morrow, Noble,
Preble, Paulding, Perry, Pickaway, Van Wert, Vinton, and
Wyandot.
www. greaterohio . org
Also, 11 of these counties (Brown, Carroll, Harrison,
Meigs, Monroe, Morgan, Morrow, Noble, Paulding, Perry,
and Vinton) are below 60%. That means at least two of
every five dollars of tax revenue is lost to the county. Some
counties have no data in certain years because they did not
have the local option sales tax in that year.
I ntroduction — Ohio’s Local Government Fund also is not working. It
has either been cut or frozen in every moment of state fiscal crisis because the fund money passes through the Statehouse, and when times get tough, the accountants get sticky
fingered. Tough times are also when the local governments
are experiencing their greatest fiscal crises and are thereby
hit doubly hard. A true Local Government Fund would be
one that uses local funds as the revenue pool, not state taxes.
Minnesota has a successful model which relies on a similar
locally funded source. Ohio needs to create a “Self Insurance Fund for Local Governments for Revenue Purposes,”
instead of an outdated and fragile Local Government Fund
(See Addendum E). Areas that have regional governance
also have higher per capita income. This may also help to
explain why Minnesota is rated higher in a number of economic development and quality of life categories. Ohio is
26th in personal income per capita, while Minnesota is 9th.
Ohio is 30th in percent of population unemployed, while
Minnesota is the second lowest.8, 21
Redeveloping cities for the new economy
Cities must be attractive to educated people in order
to be economically competitive. As Ohio University professor, Richard Vedder observes, “Cities with few college
graduates have a hard time generating good-paying jobs.
That, in turn, makes it hard to attract more college graduates … Society is paying people more for their brains than
for their brawn.”23
According to Cleveland State University professor Ned
Hill, “The largest predictor of economic well-being in cities
is the percent of college graduates.”23
Where do members of the “young and restless”
educated class want to locate? They tend to live in cool,
diverse communities close to the city center. According to
one national study, “One of the most striking findings of
research is that today’s young adults are much more likely
to choose to live in close-in urban neighborhoods than
were young adults 10 to 20 years ago. Today’s 25- to 34year-olds are about one third more likely to live in neigh-
borhoods within three miles of a region’s downtown than
are other Americans. Close-in neighborhoods with higher
density, mixed uses, walkable destinations, lively commercial districts, and interesting streets can make a region
more competitive for talented workers … Those regions
that lack vibrant, close-in, urban neighborhoods will be at
a disadvantage in attracting and retaining talent”.5
These well-educated voters are also supplying the tax
base for public spending. The wealthiest 10% of the population provides nearly half of all the tax dollars for the
country, and attracting them to Ohio and our communities is key.24 “Over the last 25 years, the wages of the skilled
have continued to grow faster than the wages of the less
skilled … the wages of the college-educated have grown by
22% while the wages of high-school drop-outs has fallen
by 3%.”25
As recently recognized by Senator George Voinovich
in his draft report on energy independence,
… young professionals are particularly likely to
relocate to such areas. These people are a ‘fast-growing,
highly educated, and well-paid segment of the workforce on whose efforts corporate profits and economic
growth increasingly depend. They do a wide variety of
work in a wide variety of industries—from technology to entertainment, journalism to finance, high-end
manufacturing to the arts.’ (“The Rise of the Creative
Class” by Richard Florida, Washington Monthly, May
2002). The ‘creative class’ also represents the next generation of energy consumers: people who are willing to
adopt new technologies, and savvy consumers who are
interested in doing their part to reduce their individual
energy footprint.26
One more thing about these young, educated people
that should be of interest to political candidates: those who
hold an advanced college degree are far more likely to vote
than those who do not. In the 2004, 84.2% of all advanced
degree holders voted, compared to the national average
of 63.8%.27 They are willing to pay attention to politicians
who pay attention to their issues!
www. greaterohio . org
— 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
Figure 2: Location of jobs relative to the central business districts
28
in older core cities and their suburbs, 1996
80
< 3 miles
3-10 miles
> 10 miles
70
% Regional employment
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Baltimore
Cleveland
Detroit
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Source: Glaeser et al., 2001
Figure 3: Mobility of young adults
Young adults most likely to move across state lines
5
% Probability of an intersate move
(2002–2003)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
15 yr. old
25
35
45
55
Age
65
75
85
Source: Census Bureau
Figure 3 shows how incredibly mobile young adults are but also shows how in later years “social inertia” can tie them
to a particular commute-shed. Therefore, if you can initially attract them to your community at a young age, you may be
able to build up a comfort level that will keep them as their industry develops.
www. greaterohio . org
I ntroduction — Figure 4: Mobility of college-educated young adults
College educated 25–34-year-olds most likely to move
5
% Persons moving across state lines
2003–2004
10
9
8
less than a 4-year degree
4-year degree or more
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
25-29
30–34
35–44
45–64
65 or older
Age
Source: Current Population Survey, 2004
Figure 4 illustrates how the “young and restless” are more likely to move if educated. Ohio’s problem is not with our
kids moving out, but rather with a lack of others moving in.
Figure 5: Correlation of Creative Class and college-educated young adults
Creative Class and college-educated young adults are closely correlated
5
% Creative Class
(Super creative core)
25
20
15
10
5
0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
% College attainment for 25–34 year olds
Source: Impresa calculations from 2000 Census data
Figure 5 shows the statistical correlation between the creative class and the “young and restless.”
www. greaterohio . org
1 0 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
Figure 6: Entrepreneurship among young adults
Entrepreneurship highest among 25–34-year-olds
% Total entrepreneurial activity (TEA)
5
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
18–24 yr. old
25–34
35–44
Age
45–54
55–64
Source: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
Figure 6 shows the correlation between entrepreneurship and the young. It is interesting to note that the most explosive company developments are those from the young and restless. “A typical full-time worker in the U.S. with a four-year
college degree earns about $50,000—62% more than one with only a high-school diploma. The college-educated worker
pays about 80% more in federal, state, and local income taxes.”29
www. greaterohio . org
I ntroduction — 1 1
Polling and electoral analysis
G
reater Ohio recently assisted with the development of a statewide poll of the attitudes of Ohio
voters toward land use and other issues. The poll
reached 1,000 voters between November 11 and 21 of 2005
and had a sampling error of plus or minus 3.1%. It was
conducted by a national polling firm based in Washington,
DC, that has experience with these issues.
The poll revealed that changing Ohio’s development
patterns was a top voting priority. This was especially true
for women under 50 years of age who are college-educated
Republicans living in Central and Southwest Ohio (however, they can be found in every corner of the state). They
are often part of a group labeled “NPR GOP,” Republicans
who rely on National Public Radio as a major source of
news.
A surprising 82% of voters want to see some limits on
new housing, and 73% thought it was not appropriate to
build houses on farmland. In another surprising result, 14%
ranked “overdevelopment” as their top issue on a scale of
1-10, and 24% gave “The rate at which land is being developed and places in nature are being lost” their top ranking.
In another stunner, 79% of the population surveyed said
that Ohio should “establish zones for green space, farming,
and forests outside of existing cities and suburbs that would
be off limits to development.” None of the policies outlined
in this briefing book come close to suggesting such a solution (commonly known as urban growth boundaries), but
the poll results illustrate that the mood of the population
has shifted toward being more kindly disposed to candidates who espouse reforms.
In addition, when asked “Would you favor or oppose
spending state tax dollars to address ...” 67% said they
would like to see the state “invest in existing communities
that are being hurt because people are moving out to new
suburbs far from town.” This result is consistent with other
national polling.
The poll also makes one wonder if Ohio could be like
Virginia—especially if voters who live in fast-growing areas
will have similar desires for the future. If so, then such attitudes could play an important role in Ohio campaigns, as
growth issues recently proved decisive in Virginia.
Learning from Virginia
What happened in the 2005 Virginia governor’s race?
This usual Republican stronghold swung from red to blue
when Tim Kaine, the Democrat, succeeded over favored
Republican, Thomas Kilgore. How? Well, it was not the
effect of national party politics. It was by gaining the public’s attention with smart growth issues—especially in fastgrowing areas. This is where the election was won for Kaine.
After adjusting the election result to account for national
trends, it was determined that Virginia voters shifted the
governor race by almost 6 percentage points when Kaine
embraced a “build the roadways before building the subdivision” plank in his campaign so the infrastructure would
be in place to serve houses before the houses would be
built. The public had grown frustrated with traffic-clogged
roads and the government’s slow or nonexistent response
to relieve congestion in fast-growing counties2 (see Addendum A and B).
Kaine’s campaign was not the only one to succeed by
embracing smart growth issues. Virginians sent the same
message to local candidates in fast-growing areas. Candidates down to the county level who supported smart
growth policies came away winners, often in defiance of
the historical voting patterns of the communities’ demographics (see Addendum B).
Does Ohio not face a comparable situation? Counties
such as Delaware, Warren, Medina, and Butler are facing
similar dynamics of suburban sprawl. The implications
for smart growth policy in Ohio’s governor’s race are profound.
www. greaterohio . org
1 2 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
Candidates of all parties must take notice. Whether
running for office in a fast-growing suburb or in a distressed urban city or a declining rural area, candidates
can’t assume that their traditional base will respond to traditional messages. In Virginia, the Democratic candidate
pulled voters away from the traditional Republican base
when the Republican candidate failed to address the voters’
frustrations. Newspapers all across the region agreed that
smart growth issues changed the votes (see Addendum F).
According to one report from Virginia’s Loudon
County, Kaine “struck a loud chord with his talk of changing rules for development to require that public fixtures
such as roads and water and sewer be in place before development begins. That was music to the ears of local voters
who sit in long lines of traffic every day while the Republican-controlled Board of Supervisors keeps giving the green
light to development.”
An analysis of the Virginia election, “The 2005 Governor’s Race: A Geographic Analysis of the ‘Four Virginias,’”
by Robert E. Lang and Dawn Dhavale of the Metropolitan
Institute at Virginia Tech, observed as follows:
… Kaine’s strategy in Northern Virginia in particular should spark considerable discussion and
debate. Late in the 2005 campaign, Kaine rolled out
ads that directly addressed the concerns of residents
in fast-growing suburban and exurban counties. The
visuals showed road construction, traffic, home building—all sights immediately recognizable to residents of
what this brief labels the Emerging Suburbs (or [Virginia’s] Loudoun and Prince William counties). In the
ads, Kaine said that he would “give more authority to
local governments to control runaway growth,” which
is a power Virginia’s local governments have already.
The intent was not necessarily [to] win Loudoun and
Prince William [counties] but [to] stem losses there so
the big wins Kaine expected in closer-in suburbs would
count for more.
The conventional wisdom, as voiced by such commentators as New York Times editorial writer David
Brooks (2004), was that Republicans had a much betwww. greaterohio . org
ter read on the exurbs than the Democrats. The exurbs
seem to be an emerging Republican heartland that,
when combined with rural and “metropolitan” votes,
can deliver GOP victories for years to come.
But given Kaine’s victory, and the fact that he
specifically targeted outer suburbs, the nature of the
exurban voter is now open to debate. Political analyst
Ruy Teixeira (2005) writing about the “battle for the
exurbs” in a New York Times op-ed piece that specifically comments on votes in Loudoun and Prince William counties, notes:
“… exurban voters are tax-sensitive and concerned about government waste, but not ideologically
anti-government. They tend to be religious and familyoriented, but socially moderate in comparison to rural
residents … And they worry as much or more about
public education as they do about moral values.”
Kaine won both Loudoun and Prince William
counties, a feat not matched by even Mark Warner.
If Loudoun—which, as Teixeira argues, is the quintessential exurban county—is up for grabs, then what
about the rest of the suburban fringe? It is likely that
Republicans can still count on the exurbs to swing their
way, yet it may be hard to claim a solid lock on these
places. Kaine has shown that with a direct appeal to
quality of life issues, Democrats can at least compete
in the exurbs.
The last two presidential elections have seen close
Electoral College margins. In both 2000 and 2004, the
shift of just a single state would have changed the outcome. The next presidential election could well come
down to the exurbs of Ohio or Florida. A Democratic
campaign that even slightly shaves some of the Republican advantage in the Loudoun Counties of America
may prove the winning strategy. Even if it does not
work, the growth politics card will almost certainly be
played and that may prove the most lasting impact of
the 2005 Virginia election.
To repeat the question from the preface: Do you want
to win?
I ntroduction — 1 3
How smart growth is addressed by other state governments
M
any other states have already adopted some
smart growth policies and put them into practice. State leadership and implementation is
essential to ensuring that deep and permanent changes
occur.
For instance, in Massachusetts, the Office of Commonwealth Development (OCD) uses a “Commonwealth
Capital policy” to affect development patterns through
coordinating state capital spending programs. The policy
ensures that the state’s development and resource protection interests are consistent with ten Sustainable Development Principles, and it “explicitly endorses planning and
zoning measures that are consistent with Administration
policy and encourages local implementation by linking
state spending programs to municipal land use practices.”30
The program has engaged more than 200 communities
statewide.
Specifically, in March 2006, Republican Massachusetts
Governor Mitt Romney allocated $517 million in funding
to the state’s OCD for smart growth initiatives. The bulk of
the money was allocated for low-interest loans to cities and
towns that are trying to boost development around transit
hubs or that have changed their zoning to encourage housing development. Governor Romney stated, “I think this
is going to be the most lasting, visual effect of this administration, perhaps, that we can imagine.” He added, “We
found a way to stop what was the prior path, which was
just cutting down trees and sprawling the development of
our Commonwealth farther and farther away from our city
centers.”31
With this support, Massachusetts has been able to
propose, begin construction, or complete 80 projects with
25,000 new homes around the state that promote public
transit ridership. “This housing is going to be less expensive overall, because residents won’t be spending so much
money filling the gas tank and traveling long distances by
car to work or for errands.”32
In another state, Maryland’s Republican Governor
Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. has recently organized a task force on
workforce housing. The intent is to estimate Maryland’s
workforce housing supply and demand, evaluate marketbased best practices, and recommend solutions.33
For more information on other state programs, see the
American Planning Association’s “Growing Smart” website
(http://www.planning.org/growingsmart/) or Getting to
Smart Growth by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and the Smart Growth Network
(http://www.epa.gov/dced/getting_to_sg2.htm).
What can Ohio do?
This briefing book recommends some of the policies
that Ohio could adopt to promote smarter investments of
state resources. But, if we wanted to develop a smart growth
program along the lines of the one in Massachusetts, there
would also need to be structural changes in state government.
Here’s how it might start. The governor could establish
an Office of Development and Infrastructure (ODI) which
would coordinate and recommend holistic approaches to
land management, redevelopment, environmental issues,
and transportation with an emphasis on energy and fuel
savings. This would speed up job creation and business
development, prevent competition for business among
Ohio jurisdictions, and streamline the permitting process
required for businesses. The director the ODI would report
directly to the governor.
ODI would oversee six different departments or offices.
The existing departments that ODI would administer are:
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA), Department of Development (ODOD), Department of Transportation (ODOT), and Office of Budget and Management
(OBM). Additionally, we suggest two new divisions be crewww. greaterohio . org
1 4 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
ated to report directly to ODI: an Office of Energy (carved
out of the current ODOD and OEPA) and an Office of
Planning. (The departments of Agriculture and Natural
Resources may be considered for inclusion in the ODI
matrix later on, if greater coordination is warranted and
requested by those stakeholders).
Another important component of this reconfiguration
could be the use of “regional representatives,” each representing a geographic region. These representatives, who
would report directly to the ODI director, would keep ODI
apprised of economic changes and development needs and
opportunities in their regions, as well as help local officials
develop their growth and land-use priorities. They also
would serve as advocates for these priorities at the state
level. Regional representatives would provide direct feedback on where the state could best apply investment dollars to stimulate further growth and development.
www. greaterohio . org
W inning P O licies — 1 5
Part 2: Winning policies
O
n the following pages is a collection of policies
that will improve quality of life and long-term
economic health of communities throughout
Ohio. These are the kinds of policies that citizens are looking for.
The format you see is presented as if the candidate
were giving a speech to a local Rotary Club, a common
venue for candidates. Each policy area starts with a framing statement, a short two- or three-sentence summation
of the issue, and proposed solutions. The next section,
policy framing and analysis, is longer and more suitable
for a lengthier speech or when the candidate is concentrat-
ing on this particular subject before a crowd. Finally, the
section on commitments and local contexts explains what
this policy would commit the candidate to do, so he or she
is not surprised or trapped into supporting something that
has overly broad implications.
Again, please note that Greater Ohio does not endorse
candidates for office and will remain nonpartisan in all
political campaigns. However, we want all candidates to be
informed about the serious challenges facing Ohio and the
policies that can grow jobs and enhance quality of life in all
communities. Contact us for a face-to-face meeting.
www. greaterohio . org
1 6 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
Reinvest in historic cities and towns to attract young,
college-educated workers and stimulate economic development
I
f sprawl meant jobs, Ohio would have full employment—full employment for our children and grandchildren who flee Ohio because we have a lower
quality of life and fewer attractions than other states.7 We
need to create the right environment to attract the “young
and restless” and educated workers who lead economic
innovation.
2000, the likelihood that young adults would choose to
live in a close-in neighborhood increased in every one
of the nation’s 50 largest metropolitan areas.5
If Harvey Firestone, Charles Brush, and John Patterson were alive today and graduating from Case Western
Reserve University, University of Cincinnati, the Ohio
State University, or another Ohio institution of higher
education, would they choose to live in Ohio? Would we
capture them and then rely on social inertia to keep them
in our “commute-shed” as they spun off jobs? Today’s talented young people like cool cities that are full of renovated lofts, Victorian houses, and lots of brick—places like
the Warehouse District in Cleveland, the Short North and
Victorian Village in Columbus, and the now emerging
area in downtown Cincinnati. They don’t care about taxes
(did you at age 23?), but they love places with demanding
design standards.
Policy framing and analysis:
In the past six years in Ohio the percent of people living in poverty increased from 12% to 17%, our unemployment rate went up, the number of Ohioans on Medicaid
went up 45%, and the number on food stamps rose 29%.7
For the last two years Governing Magazine ranked Ohio
49th in economic momentum, we have now moved up to
47th, primarily due to Hurricane Katrina’s impact on Louisiana. The only good news is we beat Michigan.7 We have
also been awarded a grade of “D” in quality of life.9
One reason for this poor economic perWe need to create the right environment to
formance is Ohio’s inability to attract and
retain college-educated, creative people.5
attract the young and educated workers who
Increasingly, these young people are attracted
lead economic innovation.
to vibrant cities with livable, walkable, urban
neighborhoods. An article entitled “The Young and the
Unfortunately, much of the development occurring in
Restless in a Knowledge Economy” for CEOs for Cities,
Ohio takes the form of low-density suburban sprawl rather
December 2005, noted:
than urban revitalization. Ohio ranks eighth in conversion
of farmland to asphalt and rooftop, but we rank only 22nd in
Even within metropolitan areas, place appears
population growth. This is out of balance. States with high
to be playing an increasingly important role. During
levels of population growth have some reason to convert a
the 1990s, the preference of young adults for locations
lot of land. For instance, Texas ranked first in conversion of
in close-in neighborhoods increased sharply. In 1990,
farmland, and second in population growth. Georgia ranks
25- to 34-year-old adults were about 10% more likely
second and fourth. Florida is third in both categories, and
than other residents in the metropolitan area to live in
California is fourth and first. See the pattern? At least we
the close-in neighborhoods within three miles of the
beat Pennsylvania in something: it is fifth in conversion of
region’s center. By 2000, young adults were more than
farmland and 26th in population growth.16 Sprawl is detri30% more likely than other metropolitan residents to
mentally affecting our fiscal capacity because, for instance,
live in these close-in neighborhoods. Between 1990 and
roads and water and sewer lines cost twice as much to
www. greaterohio . org
W inning P O licies — 1 7
build and maintain for houses on a 1-acre lot as on a 0.2acre lot.34
Figure 7
34
NPV life cycle costs ($1,000)
20
15
15
10
5
5
8
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Lot size (acres)
Commitments and local contexts
Two legislative bills, SB 60 (Schuring) and HB 149
(Calvert), both call for a state tax credit for rehabilitation
of certain properties with historic significance, as defined
under law. The state will actually make and not lose money
under this scenario.35 Full implementation of this tax
credit without caps or limits that are fully transferable will
boost Ohio’s economy. In other states, such as Missouri,
this has been a key policy in creating areas that are attractive to young entrepreneurial professionals. Experts have
estimated that the Missouri state tax credit, enacted in
1998, helped spark approximately 90% of new downtown
investment.36 In only eight years, St. Louis and Kansas
City, among other Missouri cities, have witnessed unprec-
edented growth. In Missouri, the running joke is that the
new state bird should be the crane. However it is not the
crane with feathers that you would normally think of, but
rather the construction crane, due to the number of new
buildings being constructed in Missouri’s major cities. We
can’t make that joke here in Ohio, can we?
In addition, Ohio should:
• Expand the Clean Ohio funding for brownfields
and urban redevelopment
• Create incentives for mixed-income housing for
diverse neighborhoods
• Reduce reliance on local property taxes for schools
in order to help older communities compete on a
more level playing field
• Enable and promote a Self Insurance Fund for
Local Governments for Revenue Purposes
• Increase Ohio Public Works Commission bond
authority enough to keep up with inflation for the
maintenance of infrastructure
These additional policies are explained more fully in
later sections of this brief.
A recent poll reported that the general public in Ohio
also favored smart development, finding that 67% would
like to see the state spend tax dollars “… in existing communities that are being hurt because people are moving
out to new suburbs far from town.” This is a clarion call for
positive action by elected officials and strong support of SB
60 and HB 149 (historic tax credits). Polling also indicated
strong support for Clean Ohio-type programs.
www. greaterohio . org
1 8 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
Slow the tide of vacant, tax-dead properties in Ohio
O
hio’s big cities and small towns are littered with
tax-dead properties that generate little or no
income for anyone, and instead collect weeds,
abandoned cars, and old tires. Think how much green
space and productive farmland we could save, if we could
bring these properties back into production. These vacant
and abandoned properties bring down nearby property
values and eventually whole neighborhoods, attract criminal activity, act as fire hazards, and pose risks to our children. They afflict our country and cityscapes and appear
as corroded teeth or gaping holes in a smile. What smart
young person wants to live in a community that presents
an ugly face to the world? Ohio should reverse the rate of
vacancy and abandonment by the end of 2010.
Recently, we have made progress. In early 2006, the
General Assembly passed HB 294 (Kilbane) which will
take the foreclosure time period for tax-delinquent and
abandoned properties from the typical two to three years
down to between 90 and 180 days. This will help put properties back on the tax rolls. But there is much more to do.
Commitments and local contexts
To get vacant property back into productive use, a
statewide strategy must be devised to help local governments break the cycle of abandonment, and to improve
policies for removing barriers to acquisition and redevelopment of residential, commercial, and industrial land.
An approach needs to consider the causes of abandonment: foreclosure, predatory lending, economic conditions, urban outmigration.
To promote and coordinate better community development and land-use policies, two working groups on
vacant and abandoned property should be formed: an
interdepartmental working group and a working group
among the various offices within the Department of Devel-
Policy framing and analysis
Abandoned properties are proliferating in our cities and towns throughout the state. It is estimated that
between 5% and 10% of our housing stock is now abandoned, vacant, or becoming an eyesore; and in some of our
smaller Ohio Valley and old steel towns, the rate of vacant
and problem properties is estimated to
Vacant and abandoned properties afflict Ohio’s
range between 10% and 20%, or double the
state average. Additionally, the rate of abancountry and cityscapes and appear as corroded
donment is estimated to have increased
teeth or gaping holes in a smile.
dramatically in the decade between 1990
and 2000.37 Finally, these vacancy numbers do not account
opment with policies and programs that affect vacant and
for abandoned industrial and commercial properties.
abandoned properties. High priority should be given to
The causes are complicated, but that Ohio is numexamining how to assist local governments to prevent
ber one in home foreclosures in the nation is certainly a
abandonment using code enforcement and data informa10
contributing factor. We must act both to prevent further
tion systems, as well as to develop new policies for more
vacancy and reclaim the properties that have already fallen
expeditious acquisition and disposition of vacant and
into disrepair or have been abandoned. Although this
abandoned properties.
abandonment phenomenon is not unique among states
Consideration should also be given to (but not limin the Midwest, Ohio has a number of barriers to abanited to):
donment prevention and reduction that we must work to
• Providing state tax incentives (such as the state tax
remove or overcome.
credit for rehabilitation of historic buildings called
www. greaterohio . org
W inning P O licies — 1 9
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
for in HB 149 and SB 60) to encourage redevelopment.
Modifying existing incentive programs (such as
the state’s Job Ready Sites Program, which focuses
on large sites) so that small urban sites can receive
assistance.
Helping institute land banks in communities
with an abandoned property rate of over 10% and
ensuring that land bank powers are uniform from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction
Requiring property owners, including lenders,
who have taken title to properties, to record their
deeds promptly and to take responsibility for taxes,
maintenance, reuse, or demolition
Clarifying how administration policies would prevent predatory lending practices and address the
growing number of foreclosures in the State
Mandating licensing criteria and bonding for real
estate appraisers
Expediting foreclosure where tax liens burden a
property
Helping local governments tighten code enforcement practices
Reforming building codes that deter re-use of old
buildings
Creating additional financing mechanisms to help
local communities meet the capital costs of redevelopment
to his transition team to ensure that key staff members in
the Ohio Department of Development are committed to
tackling this issue. ReBuild Ohio is a newly formed consortium of local government, nonprofit, and civic organizations concerned about the debilitating effects of vacant
and abandoned property in Ohio.
Text prepared by ReBuild Ohio co-coordinators:
Lavea Brachman, c/o Greater Ohio, 846 ½ E. Main St.,
Columbus, OH 43205, 614-258-1713,
[email protected] and Mary Helen Petrus,
c/o Cleveland Neighborhood Development Coalition,
3751 Prospect Ave., 3rd floor, Cleveland, OH 44115,
216-928-8100, [email protected]
Figure 8: Spread of subprime mortgages
39
Under a new program called the “Reclaim our Towns
Initiative,” the Ohio Department of Development would
provide technical assistance to small- and medium-sized
cities and towns to educate them about the tools they can
use to gain title to and redevelop these blighted properties.
Under SB 185 (Padgett), Ohio will help prevent future
foreclosures with new mortgage industry regulation to
protect citizens. This bill subjects certain mortgage brokers
to the State Consumer Sales Practices Act. Some say this is
only a problem in big cities, but see below for the reality in
Table 2.
Finally, the next governor should elevate the issue of
vacant properties by appointing members of ReBuild Ohio
www. greaterohio . org
2 0 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
Table 2: Prime and subprime loans by county
38
County
Prime loans
Percent prime
Subprime loans
Percent subprime
Total originations
Hardin
576
67.80%
274
32.20%
850
Perry
653
71.90%
255
28.10%
908
1,470
72.00%
571
28.00%
2,041
Coshocton
494
72.30%
189
27.70%
683
Van Wert
528
72.30%
202
27.70%
730
Scioto
1,269
74.60%
433
25.40%
1,702
Ashtabula
2,453
74.80%
827
25.20%
3,280
Jackson
607
75.20%
200
24.80%
807
Vinton
137
75.30%
45
24.70%
182
Harrison
328
75.40%
107
24.60%
435
Guernsey
746
75.80%
238
24.20%
984
Marion
1,682
76.20%
526
23.80%
2,208
Allen
2,996
76.40%
928
23.60%
3,924
Meigs
320
76.60%
98
23.40%
418
Darke
964
76.60%
295
23.40%
1,259
Hocking
594
77.10%
176
22.90%
770
Morgan
292
77.20%
86
22.80%
378
1,276
77.50%
370
22.50%
1,646
Pike
467
77.60%
135
22.40%
602
Noble
207
77.80%
59
22.20%
266
Adams
411
78.30%
114
21.70%
525
Crawford
1,026
78.40%
283
21.60%
1,309
Mahoning
6,659
78.50%
1,822
21.50%
8,481
Seneca
1,264
78.70%
343
21.30%
1,607
Holmes
423
78.80%
114
21.20%
537
Huron
1,523
78.90%
408
21.10%
1,931
Trumbull
5,905
78.90%
1,576
21.10%
7,481
Jefferson
1,599
79.00%
425
21.00%
2,024
Sandusky
1,596
79.10%
422
20.90%
2,018
Champaign
1,148
79.60%
294
20.40%
1,442
Tuscarawas
1,974
79.80%
501
20.20%
2,475
Lawrence
1,497
79.90%
376
20.10%
1,873
711
80.40%
173
19.60%
884
Clark
4,367
80.40%
1,062
19.60%
5,429
Columbiana
2,871
80.60%
693
19.40%
3,564
Lucas
13,487
80.60%
3,244
19.40%
16,731
821
80.70%
196
19.30%
1,017
Auglaize
1,250
81.20%
290
18.80%
1,540
Highland
1,201
81.30%
277
18.70%
1,478
Preble
1,409
81.40%
321
18.60%
1,730
Erie
2,085
81.60%
469
18.40%
2,554
490
81.70%
110
18.30%
600
11,884
81.80%
2,650
18.20%
14,534
Muskingum
Logan
Mercer
Carroll
Paulding
Stark
www. greaterohio . org
W inning P O licies — 2 1
Table 2 (continued)
County
Prime loans
Percent prime
Subprime loans
Percent subprime
Total originations
695
81.90%
154
18.10%
849
Clinton
1,342
82.00%
295
18.00%
1,637
Williams
1,113
82.40%
238
17.60%
1,351
Ross
1,771
82.40%
377
17.60%
2,148
Wyandot
Athens
750
82.50%
159
17.50%
909
3,749
82.60%
791
17.40%
4,540
Fayette
864
82.60%
182
17.40%
1,046
Belmont
1,658
82.60%
349
17.40%
2,007
Gallia
629
82.90%
130
17.10%
759
Wayne
2,973
83.00%
611
17.00%
3,584
Washington
1,667
83.00%
342
17.00%
2,009
Knox
1,711
83.10%
348
16.90%
2,059
Henry
783
83.20%
158
16.80%
941
Montgomery
18,958
83.20%
3,825
16.80%
22,783
Morrow
1,134
83.30%
227
16.70%
1,361
Summit
19,394
83.30%
3,882
16.70%
23,276
Hancock
2,539
83.40%
507
16.60%
3,046
Brown
1,488
83.50%
294
16.50%
1,782
Cuyahoga
40,845
83.80%
7,868
16.20%
48,713
Lorain
10,726
84.00%
2,050
16.00%
12,776
Ashland
1,488
84.40%
276
15.60%
1,764
Defiance
1,111
84.50%
204
15.50%
1,315
Portage
5,123
84.70%
926
15.30%
6,049
Monroe
253
84.90%
45
15.10%
298
Madison
1,440
85.00%
254
15.00%
1,694
Hamilton
29,687
85.10%
5,197
14.90%
34,884
Pickaway
1,755
85.10%
307
14.90%
2,062
Franklin
42,856
85.20%
7,466
14.80%
50,322
Licking
6,599
85.60%
1,113
14.40%
7,712
Ottawa
1,501
85.80%
249
14.20%
1,750
Butler
14,655
85.90%
2,401
14.10%
17,056
Richland
Putnam
864
86.10%
140
13.90%
1,004
Fulton
1,518
86.30%
241
13.70%
1,759
Shelby
1,443
86.70%
222
13.30%
1,665
Wood
4,196
86.70%
645
13.30%
4,841
Fairfield
6,210
87.10%
918
12.90%
7,128
Clermont
8,612
87.10%
1,272
12.90%
9,884
Miami
3,757
87.30%
546
12.70%
4,303
Lake
9,327
87.50%
1,332
12.50%
10,659
Union
2,236
89.30%
269
10.70%
2,505
Greene
6,101
89.40%
727
10.60%
6,828
Medina
7,532
89.60%
872
10.40%
8,404
Warren
11,036
90.30%
1,179
9.70%
12,215
Geauga
3,777
91.60%
346
8.40%
4,123
Delaware
10,120
93.00%
756
7.00%
10,876
www. greaterohio . org
2 2 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
Fix the problem with eminent domain in Ohio, not the blame
F
ear of eminent domain abuse is a real problem in
Ohio. We need to re-establish appropriate takings
criteria so citizens know their property is safe. We
need to fix the problem, not the blame.
changed? This separation of domiciles from tax bases is in
part what can drive cities to perform these types of takings
as they strive for higher density developments, more retail
opportunities, and the jobs they create.40
Policy framing and analysis
Commitments and local contexts
Rarely has a Supreme Court opinion attracted such
What can the state do to relieve excessive economic
national attention among ordinary citizens. In the June
development pressure on our local governments that can
2005 Kelo decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled by a
lead them to use their eminent domain authority?
narrow 5-4 margin to sustain the Connecticut city of New
• Adopt the recommendations of the Ohio Eminent
London’s decision to take property from several homeownDomain Task Force to restore confidence in the
ers and give it to a major drug company for a large facility.
ability of local governments to assist economic
Since then, a common statement has been: “The governdevelopment while safe-guarding property rights.
ment can take your home and give it to a Wal-Mart!”
• Help local communities employ attractive design
In response to the Kelo decision, the Ohio General
standards. “Eye candy” is referred to as design
Assembly passed a temporary moratorium on the use of
standards by wonks, but it is what attracts that
eminent domain for the purpose of economic developessential 25- to 35-year-old white-collar, educated
ment and formed a task force to examine this topic. This
professional to locate in your community and
legislation grew out of a suggestion
made by Greater Ohio. The task force’s
We need to re-establish appropriate eminent domain
recommendations, released in August
criteria so citizens know their property is safe.
2006, attempted to reassure the general
population that there are limits to government power and
contribute buying power and job creation. The
to clarify definitions of “blight” that can be used to justify
state can produce model design standards, and
taking private property.
state-certified Main Street programs can entice
Local officials often feel forced to engage in “Kelo-type”
commercial development and redevelopment back
takings to promote economic development, even though
to neighborhoods.
taking a neighbor’s property is politically risky and not
• Encourage passage of SB 60 and HB 149, providwhy they ran for office. The problem, remember, is that we
ing for a state investment tax credit for rehabilitano longer live where we work, shop where we live, or even
tion of older buildings. According to Missouri’s
shop where we work. Historically, we conducted much of
Department of Commerce, for every dollar of tax
our economic activity within five miles of where we lived
revenue the state forgoes, the state gets back $1.78
and most likely in the same school district, county, and city
in increased tax revenue from economic activity as
or township where we resided. Different economic activithe result of such a program.
ties went into different funding silos that funded different
• Fix school funding using as a model the legislaactivities in our communities. Do you see how things have
tion in HB 718 of the 123rd General Assembly (see
www. greaterohio . org
W inning P O licies — 2 3
Addendum G). This will reduce the need to poach
commercial activity. Start programs in the Department of Development to bring schools up to the
state average of 20% of their tax value income coming from commercial taxes.
• Examine the lack of regional cooperation here in
Ohio and propose multi-jurisdictional cooperative
vehicles to promote economic development. Many
of our local governments think they are islands,
yet no one is an island. Montgomery County in
Ohio has a limited revenue sharing program at the
county level called Economic Development/Government Equity (ED/GE).41 However, as shoppers
flee to a better mall in nearby Greene County,
sales tax-based funding is endangered because the
revenue sharing is county-based. Think of a commute shed; that is your true community of interest.
We all live in commute sheds, but nobody taxes
commute sheds. If we won’t tax on a commute
shed basis; then we need stronger efforts to restore
neighborhoods to their original grandeur and tax
generating potential.
• Fix your vacant property problem, locally and
statewide with crackdowns on bad lenders and
appraisers. Tools that can help that goal include
Senate Bills 162 and 185 (predatory mortgage lending) which help deal with this issue.
www. greaterohio . org
2 4 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
Reduce Ohio’s reliance on the local school property tax
T
o an extent found illegal by the Ohio Supreme
Court, Ohio relies on the local school property tax
as its primary revenue source for local public education. Our over-reliance on the property tax for schools
actually encourages abandonment of cities and poorly
planned, low-density sprawl.
Commitments and local contexts
Recognize that we no longer live where we work or
live where we shop. The buildings that house our work and
shopping are what make some schools wealthy, but those
buildings are miles from our home school districts. The
new Commercial Activity Tax will be able to show exactly
where commercial activity is occurring in Ohio, and a
small portion of the growth in that tax can be used as an
equity fund not just for schools but for many local governments and libraries to help local development efforts
that retain local flavor. Think of a Commercial Activity Tax
equity pool for education that really measures tax capacity
and then funds efforts to increase local tax capacity.
Policy framing and analysis
Every time developers want to build a higher density
development they are met with resistance by locals concerned about revenue impact on the schools. Most residential development does not pay enough in property taxes
to pay for the education of the children housed. The solution is to de-link local property tax capacity and
educational funding. This will encourage higher
Our over-reliance on the property tax for
density developments in Ohio, and result in real
school funding actually encourages poorly
property tax relief for homeowners. These higher
planned, low-density sprawl.
density developments are also what is sought
after by the “Young and the Restless,” educated
young professionals seeking walkable communities.5
Greater Ohio proposes that the state adopt the premise
The over-reliance on the local property tax also
of legislation proposed in 2000 in the General Assembly
encourages a beggar-thy-neighbor approach to economic
where the state pays for what goes on in the classroom, the
development. Our development institutions act as real
locals pay for everything outside the classroom, and the
estate agents for large multi-national companies looking
20-mil floor is removed. This approach gives local propfor tax-free homes. We give tax increment financing to
erty owners real relief and an effective freezing of property
everything that moves and tax abatements to everything
taxes except for inside millage. It also obliterates the probthat threatens to move.
lem of phantom revenue.42
www. greaterohio . org
W inning P O licies — 2 5
For more information on this concept, see Addendum
G. Figures in Addendum D list school district data from
each of Ohio’s communities. These data show the percent
of total property values of Ohio’s districts that are identified as commercial or industrial. The data were compiled
using individual districts from the Ohio Department of
Education’s website, and the charts and analysis are exclusive to Greater Ohio.
What do they show? On average, a school district
gets about 20% of its tax base from commercial/industrial uses. If all districts, with the help of the Ohio Department of Development, could achieve the average of 20%,
it would be a way of solving school funding. By returning
to its foundation, local schools would be funded and controlled locally. A balance should be restored whereby every
community has the vibrant neighborhoods to fund their
schools. (See what regional shopping malls have done?) In
sum, fixing school funding requires a new state formula,
and it equally requires a sea-change in approaching the
solution in an indirect manner—making sure every school
district gets 20% of the local tax contribution from commercial/industrial uses. Our current situation is causing a
rush for regional retail.
For discussion about another means of solving the
school funding problem, see the previous section on eminent domain, which proposes returning school funding to
the historic model when people conducted their economic
activity closer to home and their districts reaped the tax
benefits.
www. greaterohio . org
2 6 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
Restore Main Streets to promote local economic activity
for school districts
T
oday we don’t live where we work or shop, and
many communities and school districts do not
have the economic activity necessary to sustain
them. Over the next five years, it is predicted that Ohio
public school districts of different size and demographics
throughout the state will experience significant losses.43
Downtown revitalization is crucial to improving Ohio
school districts’ balance sheets. While it’s important for the
General Assembly to equalize school funding statewide, it
is also important for the state to support the efforts of local
communities to retain tax-generating business that support schools and other local services (see Addendum D).
Don’t just give people a fish; teach them to fish.
downtown development to the local communities. Since
1977, the National Main Street Center has been working
with communities across the nation to revitalize their historic or traditional commercial areas. Based in historic
preservation, the Main Street approach was developed by
the National Trust for Historic Preservation to save historic
commercial architecture and the fabric of American communities’ built environment, but it has become a powerful
economic development tool as well.46
The Main Street program is designed to improve all
aspects of the downtown or central business district, producing both tangible and intangible benefits. Improving
economic management, strengthening public participation, and making downtown a fun place to visit are as critical to Main Street’s future as recruiting new businesses,
rehabilitating buildings, and expanding parking. Building
on downtown’s inherent assets—rich architecture, personal service, traditional values, and, most of all, a sense
of place—the Main Street approach has rekindled entrepreneurship, downtown cooperation, and civic concern.
Policy framing and analysis
Ohio has witnessed an overall improvement of economic vitality in designated Ohio Main Street Communities. From January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2005, 32
communities had over $299 million in public and private
improvements while realizing a net increase of 315 new
businesses and over 2,850 full-time equivalent
jobs (see Figure 9). Over 1,110 existing buildDowntown revitalization is crucial to improving
ings have been rehabilitated, and 203 businesses
Ohio school districts’ balance sheets.
have expanded within our existing downtown and
neighborhood commercial districts.44
It has earned national recognition as a practical strategy
The cumulative success of the Main Street approach
appropriately scaled to a community’s local resources and
and Main Street programs on the local level has earned
conditions. And, because it is a locally driven program, all
these programs a reputation as one of the most powerful
initiative stems from local issues and concerns.
45
economic development tools in the nation. In Ohio, the
local Main Street programs have a reinvestment ratio of
Commitments and local contexts
44
$27.41 for every $1 to operate the local program.
The mechanism for funding Main Street programs
Downtown Ohio, Inc., Ohio’s Main Street program
through the recapture of retail activity loss from one comcoordinator, is dedicated to a statewide downtown revitalmunity and gained from another through intra-county
ization program and works toward assisting self-motivated
and/or regional revenue sharing for programs for economic
communities of all sizes. Downtown Ohio provides techdevelopment should be explored. Pennsylvania gives its
nical assistance, training, and networking in all facets of
Main Street program $7 million a year out of state general
www. greaterohio . org
W inning P O licies — 2 7
fund dollars.47 Ohio needs to develop a similar program.
Kentucky has allocated $24.5 million for downtown revitalization and historic tourism projects.48 Why is Ohio not
allocating comparable dollars for similar projects?
Additionally, the Main Street program is lauded in
Senator George Voinovich office’s draft report on energy
independence as promoting walkable communities that
lead to reduced vehicle travel. The report says, “Ohio
should promote integrated marketing and branding programs for downtown events, such as the Main Street program … [and] Ohio should increase funding from the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program
to match with the Main Street Program to draw businesses
toward the city center and reduce vehicle travel to shopping and entertainment destinations.”26
Figure 9: Ohio Main Street
reinvestment statistics
Total number of communities
Total dollars invested in improvements
Net new businesses
Net new full-time jobs
Net new part time jobs
Business expansions
Building rehabilitations
Reinvestment ratio
Volunteer hours donated
New housing units created
32
$299 million
315
1,820
1,051
203
1,118
$27.41/$1.00
188,838
352
January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2005
Ohio Main Street programs
Text prepared by Pauline Eaton on behalf of Heritage
Ohio, 846 ½ E Main St., Columbus OH 43205,
614-258-6200
Figure 10: Ohio Main Street communities
Amherst
Batavia
Bellefontaine
Bowling Green
Cambridge
Canal Fulton
Canal Winchester
Delaware
Elyria
Galion
Greenville
Harrison
Kenton
Lakewood
Lancaster
Lima
Millersburg
New Philadelphia
Norwalk
Oberlin
Orrville
Piqua
Port Clinton
Ripley
Sandusky
Springfield
Troy
Van Wert
Vermilion
Wellington
Wilmington
Wooster
Wright-DunbarDayton
www. greaterohio . org
2 8 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
Develop a more balanced transportation system for the state’s
economic health, public health, and cleaner air
T
ry walking to Wal-Mart. Think about it. Can’t walk
there, can you? That is why obesity and diabetes
are stalking our health-care costs.
tion. Another is how we sit in our cars instead of getting
healthy exercise as part of our daily lives. Ohio suffers from
an epidemic of obesity, and lack of physical activity is a
contributing factor. New research is showing how walkable
communities promote better health by allowing people to
get more exercise as part of their daily lives.51
So give Buckeyes more options. Let us walk, bike, take
a train or bus, as well as have the freedom to drive a car if
Policy framing and analysis
We are married to the car, are thinking about a divorce,
but can’t find an attorney. The recent run-up in gas prices
has made us doubt this high-maintenance relationship
where we spend more on our cars than we’d
Walkable communities promote better health by
like—to the point where Ohioans spend as
much on transportation as they do on housmaking it easier for Ohioans to include exercise
49
ing. But our transportation system offers no
as part of their daily lives.
convenient alternative to driving, and that is
what caused the panic over rising gasoline prices. Increaswe really want. Help clean the air and get healthcare costs
ingly, people are being forced to choose between paying
down by getting us out of cars and on our feet. Obesity is
to drive and paying for food and other household necesnot just killing us, it is making our health-care and welfare
sities.
costs skyrocket.
The fact that we have built communities with few
transportation alternatives also contributes to Ohio’s air
Commitments and local contexts:
pollution problems. The metropolitan areas of Cleveland• Ohio’s next Governor should insert in the biennial
Lorain-Elyria, Akron, Canton-Massillon, YoungstownODOT budget one word into its enabling legislaWarren, Steubenville-Weirton, Marietta, Lima, Columbus,
tion: “health.” This change will allow ODOT to take
Dayton-Springfield, and Cincinnati-Hamilton all fail to
into account walkable communities and encourage
meet federal ozone standards under the Clean Air Act.
better planning for people, not just for cars.
Vehicle emissions are a major cause of this pollution. Sure,
Human health is adversely impacted by our
cars with modern catalytic converters are much cleaner
development patterns. Sprawl has a variety of
than cars used to be, but the gains from improved technolconsequences beyond energy and environmental
ogy have been offset by the increasing number of miles we
impacts. Chief among them are the health consedrive each year to reach our far-flung destinations. If we
quences of over-reliance on automotive use and
can’t help Ohioans have cleaner transportation options—
lack of physical exercise. These consequences need
transit, biking, walking—it will be difficult to meet the new
to be taken into account as development decisions
federal regulations. Tougher controls may then be required
are weighed and health issues should be coupled
on other pollution sources, such as industry. And that will
with transportation policy. Simply inserting the
50
make it even harder to grow Ohio’s economy.
words ‘human health’ into the list of considerations
Air pollution from transportation is a serious health
taken into account during the disbursement of fedissue, and it’s just one of the health impacts from relying on
eral highway funds would cause a significant shift
the automobile as our nearly exclusive form of transportain development priorities.26
www. greaterohio . org
W inning P O licies — 2 9
• Allow Greater Ohio and other groups to assist
with interviewing candidates for the next ODOT
Director to ensure an understanding of these issues
and their interconnectedness. Require the ODOT
director to meet quarterly with this group to
engage in and get feedback on how new programs
further this agenda.
• Dedicate state money for road improvements and
use federal money in a more flexible manner to
encourage non-automotive transit options. This
will lead to an overall reduction in energy consumption. Other states which have undertaken
similar initiatives include Illinois and New York.26
• Rediscover the benefits of rail transportation.
Develop the Ohio Hub plan to link Ohio cities
with convenient passenger rail service. This plan
will generate economic development and 14,000
to 30,000 jobs, as it makes it easier to move people
and freight around the state.52 And since train stations are typically located in city centers, they promote the redevelopment of urban neighborhoods
that attract young, educated workers. At least
25 other states are planning rail projects. Some,
like Pennsylvania, New York, California, North
Carolina, and Illinois are not only planning better
systems, but are already running trains.53 More
and more people see rail as the best way to move
people and freight. A recent poll showed that 44%
of people nationally want to see commuter trains
increased.54 Research from Purdue University
indicated that 71% of those surveyed favored high
speed rail.55 These results mirror a similar study
done by the Ohio State University six years ago.
• Provide incentives to encourage communities and
businesses to adopt Employer-Assisted Housing
(EAH) programs, which reward employees for
moving close to their jobs. Such programs reduce
commuting, ease traffic congestion, and make
employees more productive and reliable because
they have an easier time getting to work. EAH
programs are working well in the Chicago metro
area.56
• Finally, Ohio should adopt incentives for communities to participate in Complete Streets and Safe
Routes to School programs. “Complete streets”
is the idea that all streets should be designed and
operated to enable safe access for all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and bus riders of all
ages and abilities are able to move safely along and
across a complete street.57 Safe Routes to Schools
programs seek to improve the health of kids and
the community by making walking and bicycling
to school safer, easier, and more enjoyable.58
www. greaterohio . org
3 0 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
Invest in priority growth areas to save tax dollars and
redevelop cities and towns
O
hio spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year
on roads, sewers, and other infrastructure, yet
the state is still crumbling. We should maintain
what we already have before building new infrastructure
across the countryside. By reinvesting in existing cities and
towns, we can reduce the tax burden on our children while
promoting economic growth and conserving land for the
future.
parison to other states, Ohio ranked eighth in the rate at
which it converted land to urban uses during that ten-year
period.
Sprawl means that each foot of infrastructure, including water and sewer lines, roadways, schools, and even sidewalks, serves fewer people. Often, parallel systems must be
run for individual residential and non-residential developments, rather than sharing systems or taking advantage of
existing infrastructure capacity. Sprawling communities
are designed for automobile use and need more roadways.
A study by the Surface Transportation Policy Project calculated that 70% of the increase in vehicle miles traveled
between 1983 and 1990 could be attributed to sprawl.62
Because a disproportionately high amount of public
money is spent on the edges of metropolitan areas, older
Policy framing and analysis
In Ohio, like many other states, current sprawling
development patterns lead to high economic and social
costs. This creates both a financial burden for local governments, as well as a host of social and quality of life issues
for the community. Regions struggle to generate enough
revenue to maintain existing services and infrastructure, while providing infrastructure and
Ohio’s current, sprawling development patterns
services to new, sprawling development. State
lead to high economic and social costs.
funding is often available for new development,
but when an area has become fully built, it is expected to
cities and suburbs are receiving a decreasing share of limmanage itself. Most of the cities in Ohio are now aging.
ited maintenance funds. More than one-third of Ohio’s
They struggle to finance desperately needed improvemajor roads are congested and one-quarter of the roads
ments. Meanwhile, state funding undercuts their efforts by
and bridges in the state are in poor or mediocre condition.
subsidizing new development in greenfield locations miles
Money simply is not available to keep up with maintenance
away.
demands.63
Sprawl creates isolated subdivisions, rather than walkThere are also safety costs. In 2005, sprawl developable, friendly neighborhoods, while leaving a pattern of
ment contributed to the creation of non-freeway hotspots
urban decline in its wake. The loss of middle-class taxpaywith traffic safety problems costing $70 million in gas tax
ers leaves governments of inner cities and first-ring subfunds to resolve. Including lost lives, injuries, and other
urbs to struggle with the increased costs of taking care of
costs, the total cost to society of these hotspots was $2.7
59
poor households and maintaining aging infrastructure.
billion, according to the Ohio Department of TransportaOver the last decade, Ohio’s developed land has grown at a
tion.64 Yes, that is over two and one half billion dollars!
rate that is more than double that of its population growth,
In sum, a host of state programs and policies promote
and new lane-miles of roads in Ohio have also grown at a
development that spreads out the assets of Ohio in an ad
60, 61
pace that far exceeds the state’s growth in population.
hoc, low-density manner. The costs are many:
In areas such as Greater Cleveland, urban land has contin• It is expensive to provide and maintain a larger sys59
ued to grow even while population is declining. In comtem of roads, not to mention water and sewer lines.
www. greaterohio . org
W inning P O licies — 3 1
•
•
•
•
It has been estimated that Ohio could have saved
$155 million between 2000 and 2005 on the amount
it spent to build and maintain roadways if development had occurred in a more compact way.62
Road costs for sprawling developments have been
found to be as much as 25% higher then more
traditional compact development.59
The more spread out the development, the more
expensive it is to provide other public services
and infrastructure. Most sprawling development
costs more to build than the taxes and fees that it
generates.65
Sprawl consumes a large amount of valuable land
including—farmland, wilderness, and wetlands.
Between 1992 and 1997, Ohio was behind only
Texas in the amount of prime farmland lost.66
Sprawl and outmigration leave behind the costs of
urban decline.
In contrast, there are many encouraging examples of
revitalization around the state—from Ohio City and the
Warehouse District in Cleveland to the Short North and
Victorian Village in Columbus to the historic revival of
countless small towns. The state needs to do more to focus
investment in such places. We need more growth centers
that build on existing assets and less sprawl.
Commitments and local contexts
To promote growth that will be well planned, costeffective, and affordable in the future, Ohio should:
• Conduct a thorough review of state programs
designed to support economic development, community development, and infrastructure funding
to make redevelopment of existing urban areas
easier and more cost effective. Maryland, for
example, passed legislation that directs state funding to already developed areas, or those planned
for future growth, and only those areas qualify for
state funding on new transportation or other infrastructure. The Ohio Lake Erie Balanced Growth
Initiative proposes a similar idea. It calls for the
creation of “Priority Development Areas,” which
are locally designated areas where development is
specifically encouraged to maximize the efficiency
of infrastructure, and to promote the revitalization
of existing municipalities.67
• Overhaul Ohio’s antiquated policies for distributing gas tax revenue to keep up with the needs of
today. There should be a needs-based system for
distributing funds. Currently, 60% percent of the
money for the highway trust fund comes from the
federal gas tax, but this money is not distributed
by need, or even by the amount of gas tax generated per county.63 Ohio needs a system for how it
spends money on roads, sewers, and other infrastructure that is fair to every citizen.
• Create a new Office of Land Use Planning to help
local governments identify priority growth areas
where state investment should be focused and
where the regulatory barriers could be reduced to
make development easier and more predictable.
• Work with an independent agency, such as the
Ohio Building Authority, to develop a systemic
approach to locate state offices and other facilities
in downtowns and compact growth centers.
Prepared By Dan Kerrick, Project Assistant, Greater
Ohio, 3500 Lorain Ave., Suite 301, Cleveland OH, 44113,
[email protected]
For questions contact: Patricia Carey, Northeast Ohio
Director, Greater Ohio, 216-961-5020, ext. 208,
[email protected]
www. greaterohio . org
3 2 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
Promote healthy farms, healthy families, healthy cities
O
hio is paving over its profits. By developing
prime farmland, Ohio is dismantling a tax-generating industry and the jobs it creates.
agricultural industries and to increase rural jobs add to the
ability of small towns and cities to retain their populations.
At a time when much of the rest of the country is seeking
small town and rural living situations, it only makes sense
to do more to retain people already living there.
Ohio needs to update its land-use policies to guide the
local plans and give local governments and regional agencies the authority and tools they need to make good decisions. Economic development planning should include
greater efforts to promote Ohio farm products through
farmers’ markets, link farmers to restaurants and schools,
and strengthen the food-processing industry. By enhancing such markets for farm products, farming becomes
more profitable. If farming is more profitable, farmers will
keep their land in production.
Policy framing and analysis
Agriculture remains one of Ohio’s leading industries,
with $6 billion in farm income68 processed into a $79 billion industry69 that includes farm equipment and inputs,
consumer products, and $1.2 billion in farm exports.70 As
agriculture grows into the industrial realm, in addition to
food production, it has even greater job potential: A $68
million ethanol plant in Harrison County, for example, is
expected to create 170 jobs71 in a distressed region. But the
aging industry’s primacy is threatened by land development that puts subdivisions and shopping centers on prime
soils. Farmland is not vacant space. It is
By developing prime farmland, Ohio is dismantling a
productive space that generates significant revenue, including tax revenue, while
tax-generating industry and the jobs it creates.
requiring very little in public services.
Ohio also needs to consider soil types in land-use
Ohio also needs to save its cities in order to save its
72
planning decisions. Between 1982 and 1987, Ohio led
farms. The state needs fix-it-first policies to maintain existall other states in conversion of prime farmland to urbaning taxpayer investment in roads, schools, water and sewer
ized uses. Townships, counties, and regions need to plan
before spending on new infrastructure. Without such polifor the future of their land and economies—to determine
cies, rural sprawl continues, which is inefficient and expenwhat land needs to be preserved for agricultural and envisive for taxpayers. It’s also bad for hunters and sportsmen
ronmental reasons, and what land is best suited for growth
by reducing viability of game. According to the Growth
in business, industry, and housing. Much available land
Management Leadership Alliance, “rural residences, their
for housing, as well as existing housing stock, is available
inhabitants, and associated roads and utilities fragment
in cities and towns that are losing population. Each new
habitat and limit the range of both flora and fauna, reduchouse built outside existing settled areas condemns an
ing the number of individuals available to breed. This
existing house to becoming vacant and a demolition cantranslates into a smaller gene pool, which in turn reduces
73
didate in regions that are not gaining population. Polispecies’ ability to adapt to change.”74
cies to increase the value added from new energy-related
www. greaterohio . org
W inning P O licies — 3 3
Commitments and local contexts
Ohio needs a comprehensive review and overhaul of
its land-use policies to reflect modern realities. Ohio was a
leader in planning and zoning in the 1920s but has enacted
only piecemeal changes in the intervening years—a time
that saw the coming of Interstate highways, regional shopping malls, corporate office parks, and urban decay. An
office of land-use planning in the Department of Development could advise state and local government agencies whether a project, in a cost-benefit analysis, would
have hidden costs to our important agriculture industry.
In addition, Ohio needs a continuation of the Clean Ohio
Fund—which includes $25 million of the original $400
million bond package for purchase of agricultural easements—or another source of dedicated funding to buy
easements so farmers can be paid for giving up their rights
to development of the state’s best agricultural lands.
Figure 11: Farming on the edge
Sprawling development threatens Ohio’s farmland
75
Text prepared by Brian Williams, Ohio state director,
American Farmland Trust, 50 W. Broad St., Suite 3250,
Columbus, OH 43215, 614-469-9877,
[email protected]
www. greaterohio . org
3 4 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
Restore our Great Lake and protect our rivers and streams
A
healthy Lake Erie is too valuable to our families to allow it to be wasted and destroyed. Ohio
needs to build on its strengths, and one of those
strengths is Lake Erie, part of the world’s largest source of
fresh water and a natural resource contributing to the economic prosperity and quality of life of millions of Ohioans.
Focusing development and land use will protect our watersheds and the water flowing through them.
• The locally determined designation of Priority
Conservation Areas and Priority Development
Areas in each watershed
• The development of suggested model ordinances
and zoning ordinances/resolutions to help promote
development practices that minimize impacts on
water quality
• The alignment of state policies, incentives, and
other resources to support watershed planning and
implementation
Policy framing and analysis
In recent years, scientists have concluded that the biggest threat to the health of the residents and of Lake Erie is
These recommendations are significant because they
the way land within its watershed is being used and develmark the first time that the State of Ohio is thinking serioped. As suburban areas sprawl outward from the cities of
ously about how it can support local land-use planning that
northern Ohio, new development is paving over the land
takes water quality into account. It is important to note that
76, 77, 78
with too little regard for habitat and water quality.
this initiative is focusing on the location of development
To recommend ways that the State of Ohio can fosin a watershed. In recent years, many communities have
ter patterns of growth that will not be so damThe biggest health threat to the residents of
aging to the lake, the Ohio Lake Erie Commission appointed a Balanced Growth Task Force in
Lake Erie is the way land within its watershed is
2001. The task force was charged with developing
being used and developed.
a voluntary, incentive-based program by which
the state could promote the protection of the Lake Erie
made progress in promoting better site design to reduce
watershed while encouraging continued economic develwater quality impacts. But there has been less progress in
opment.
asking the larger question about whether a particular site is
After two years of intensive study, the task force reca good place to develop in the context of a watershed.
ommended the establishment of an innovative planning
The Balanced Growth Initiative seeks to provide a
framework that includes:
planning framework that will help local communities
• A new focus on land-use and development plandecide where growth and conservation are most approprining in the watersheds of major river tributaries
ate within each watershed. As the task force’s report states,
flowing into Lake Erie, with a goal to begin linking
“These recommendations will help move Ohio in a new
land-use plans to the health of watersheds
direction in its thinking about growth and development.
• Watershed Planning Partnerships composed of
They will: raise the stewardship of Lake Erie to a higher
local governments, planning agencies, nonprofit
level; promote new forms of regional cooperation; and help
organizations, and other parties in each watershed.
everyone in the state envision how, in the 21st century, the
Participation in these partnerships would be volrestoration of natural resources will be an essential part of
untary but encouraged by state incentives
Ohio’s progress.”
www. greaterohio . org
W inning P O licies — 3 5
The Balanced Growth Initiative has now obtained
funding from the Ohio Water Development Authority to
fund three pilot watershed-planning partnerships, and the
planning began in 2006.
To assure that this initiative is successful, the state
should continue to support implementation with staffing
and grants. And to provide incentives for watershed planning by local governments, the state should align its policies, programs, and investments that influence the location
of development, and support development and conservation in locally-designated priority areas. The next governor also should consider the expansion of state-supported
planning for balanced growth to other parts of Ohio.
Commitments and local contexts
Other than a relatively small amount of grant funding
from existing sources (such as the Ohio Water Development Authority and Lake Erie Protection Fund) to help
staff local planning partnerships and provide educational
materials, this initiative requires little funding. The major
commitment from a governor is to support the continued
staff work of the Ohio Lake Erie Commission and commit state departments to provide incentives for the implementation of local watershed plans (mostly by modifying
existing policies and programs to promote targeted development and/or redevelopment in Priority Development
Areas and promote enhanced conservation in Priority
Conservation Areas).
Polling indicates an incredible 89% of Ohio voters want
to clean up Lake Erie waters and beaches and are willing to
spend tax dollars to do it.
Prepared by David Beach, EcoCity Cleveland, 3500
Lorain Ave., Suite 301, Cleveland, OH 44113, 216-9615020, [email protected]
www. greaterohio . org
3 6 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
Promote energy independence: Link smart land use and
alternative energy sources
O
hio needs to be more energy independent. We
imported $16 billion of energy in 2000.79 We can
generate more of our own energy—and produce the jobs in the process—but there are certain policies
holding us back.
Policy framing and analysis
A recent study compared three different types of power
plants, including coal, gas, and wind. Of the three energy
sources, wind power was determined to be the most economically effective and the least likely to have dollars leave
the state.80 Indeed, Ohio is second only to California in jobs
that could be generated by wind turbine development, with
a potential to produce 12,691 jobs in the Buckeye state (see
Table 3 below for county jobs breakdown).81 These are jobs
with companies already located here in Ohio, not pie-inthe-sky dreams. Traditional manufacturing companies can
help Ohio be a player in advanced energy efforts.82 Ohio
also has good infrastructure for wind turbine deployment,
with electric substations scattered around rural areas along
with railheads for transferring these machines to the farmer’s fields. Also, although the wind doesn’t blow as hard
here as it does in North Dakota, the fact that we are closer
to sea level and have higher humidity gives our wind more
force.
A draft report on energy independence by Senator
George Voinovich revealed that,
… perhaps surprisingly to some, Ohio has good wind
resources—better than Pennsylvania, where thousands
of megawatts of wind development are projected in the
coming years. Several developers are actively exploring
potential new wind projects in the State. Because of the
major transmission network criss-crossing the State,
wind farms developed in Ohio are well-positioned to
serve the ‘green’ power needs for much of the eastern
third of the U.S. And, with its heavy-industry manuwww. greaterohio . org
facturing base, Ohio could become a manufacturing
and supply chain hub for wind turbine/component
companies, most of whom are European companies
now looking for North American locations.
Commercial wind turbines, which cost around $2 million to purchase and erect, can provide needed tax revenue
for rural schools and income to farmers with rent payments. However, we might not see them located widely here
because the companies seeking sites prefer to locate them
in communities with strong agricultural zoning, since they
do not want to see houses spring up like mushrooms after a
warm rain underneath the turbines.83 In Texas, they have so
many wind turbines in some counties that they have been
able to drop their tax rates.84 Wouldn’t that be nice here
in Ohio? Texas is producing so many wind power facilities that the utilities cannot produce transmission lines as
fast as the wind farms go up. According to a recent article
in The Economist, “Texas boasts that it lacks the red tape
of other states,” which gives the state the ability for more
wind power options.85 Ohio should ask what it is doing
to encourage or discourage wind power development. In
Pennsylvania, the state has an ordinance which helps local
governments decide where to erect wind turbines.86
The development of domestic energy sources is also a
national security issue. “Almost half of the 1,000 Americans surveyed for the Public Agenda Confidence in U.S.
Foreign Policy Index gave U.S. policymakers a failing
grade in weaning the country from foreign oil. Nearly 90%
said the lack of energy independence jeopardizes national
security.”87
Commitments and local contexts
Ohio needs a statewide strategy to encourage local
communities to provide appropriate zoning and landuse planning to facilitate the siting of wind turbines. An
Office of Land Use Planning, much like those in Massa-
W inning P O licies — 3 7
chusetts and Florida, is needed to coordinate local governments and state agencies on such critical land-use issues.
The office would be housed in the Department of Development. In Massachusetts, the structure of the Office for
Commonwealth Development, (OCD), drives agency integration and allows smart growth policies to be effective.
The current structure of the OCD allows the secretary to
coordinate four agencies, including the Executive Office
of Environmental Affairs, the Executive Office of Transportation and Construction, the Department of Housing
and Community Development, and the Division of Energy
Resources. The OCD Secretary reports directly to the Governor.30 In Ohio, such a structure might also include agriculture, but only if the agricultural community so wishes.
The other major impediment to energy independence
is the interconnection issue.88 There are regulatory obstacles in placing renewable energy generation facilities in
Ohio so they can connect to the grid and sell their power
in a competitive fashion. The next governor must appoint
members of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio who
will take a proactive approach and speed changes in regulations and the law. (There is currently an important case
before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Case No.
05-1500-EL-COI, which deals with these matters, including net metering, cogeneration, and interconnection provisions.)
Table 3: Potential investment and potential new manufacturing jobs in Ohio counties
81
Biomass
County
$ Millions
Geothermal
Solar
Wind
Totals
Jobs
$ Millions
Jobs
$ Millions
Jobs
$ Millions
Jobs
$ Millions
Jobs
Cuyahoga
$ 19.30
130
$ 20.70
141
$ 117.50
641
$ 257.10
1,743
$ 414.60
2,655
Lorain
$ 4.70
30
$ 3.20
15
$ 138.70
878
$ 95.80
648
$ 242.40
1,571
Hamilton
$ 26.30
175
$ 24.70
145
$ 72.10
437
$ 99.10
663
$ 222.20
1,420
Summit
$ 11.20
80
$ 8.80
56
$ 27.00
129
$ 117.80
833
$ 164.80
1,098
Miami
$ 9.00
47
$ 31.00
179
$ 49.30
310
$ 56.80
382
$ 146.10
918
Lucas
$ 4.50
29
$ 3.00
14
$ 88.60
463
$ 34.20
222
$ 130.30
728
Franklin
$ 14.10
95
$ 11.60
51
$ 25.50
133
$ 74.20
498
$ 125.40
777
Montgomery
$ 14.50
97
$ 23.90
157
$ 3.60
22
$ 82.30
557
$ 124.30
833
Wood
$ 5.60
35
$ 4.30
18
$ 81.10
330
$ 28.70
222
$ 119.70
605
Warren
$ 5.70
27
$ 27.40
151
$ 48.90
124
$ 29.70
172
$ 111.70
474
Stark
$ 13.20
84
$ 7.90
40
$ 7.40
45
$ 76.00
529
$ 104.50
698
Sandusky
$ 0.70
4
$ 1.10
7
$ 80.70
424
$ 16.30
130
$ 98.80
565
Lake
$ 19.40
132
$ 3.10
22
$ 43.40
275
$ 31.70
219
$ 97.60
648
Mahoning
$ 2.90
15
$ 0.90
3
$ 46.60
301
$ 42.60
273
$ 93.00
592
Richland
$ 8.50
40
$ 26.50
129
$ 3.70
22
$ 34.10
229
$ 72.80
420
Butler
$ 4.30
27
$ 17.90
122
$ 30.00
167
$ 17.90
129
$ 70.10
445
Tuscarawas
$ 3.00
20
$ 15.20
109
$ 25.00
152
$ 26.10
178
$ 69.30
459
Williams
$ 6.10
34
$ 24.80
133
$ 9.10
60
$ 25.90
190
$ 65.90
417
Fairfield
$ 47.80
345
$ 9.70
69
$ 0.10
-
$ 7.90
57
$ 65.50
471
Wayne
$ 8.50
56
$ 2.70
17
$ 6.90
48
$ 42.70
305
$ 60.80
426
Defiance
$ 1.00
6
$-
-
$ 1.00
8
$ 54.00
365
$ 56.00
379
Muskingum
$ 0.20
1
$ 0.20
1
$ 41.50
314
$ 10.80
78
$ 52.70
394
Portage
$ 0.10
-
$ 0.10
-
$ 16.50
92
$ 31.70
234
$ 48.40
326
Hancock
$ 1.10
5
$-
-
$ 35.00
127
$ 10.90
81
$ 47.00
213
www. greaterohio . org
3 8 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
Table 3 (continued)
Biomass
Geothermal
Solar
Wind
Totals
County
$ Millions
Jobs
$ Millions
Jobs
$ Millions
Jobs
$ Millions
Jobs
$ Millions
Jobs
Erie
$ 0.90
4
$-
-
$ 0.70
1
$ 43.90
292
$ 45.50
297
Trumbull
$ 2.10
9
$ 3.50
13
$ 0.20
2
$ 39.30
240
$ 45.10
264
Ashland
$ 5.80
31
$ 23.80
128
$ 5.00
33
$ 7.30
53
$ 41.90
245
Geauga
$ 1.80
10
$ 3.20
23
$ 0.70
3
$ 33.80
254
$ 39.50
290
Pickaway
$ 14.10
102
$ 0.90
6
$ 11.80
43
$ 7.50
58
$ 34.30
209
Ashtabula
$ 1.40
8
$ 2.30
10
$ 1.90
12
$ 28.40
226
$ 34.00
256
Columbiana
$ 2.50
13
$ 5.00
26
$ 0.40
3
$ 22.00
158
$ 29.90
200
Licking
$ 3.30
23
$ 1.00
6
$ 5.00
18
$ 19.70
125
$ 29.00
172
Medina
$ 2.80
18
$ 3.60
25
$ 9.80
40
$ 10.90
78
$ 27.10
161
Washington
$-
-
$ 0.10
-
$ 11.10
20
$ 14.80
96
$ 26.00
116
Fulton
$ 3.90
17
$ 6.60
23
$-
-
$ 14.30
104
$ 24.80
144
Crawford
$ 0.40
1
$-
-
$ 4.30
33
$ 18.90
122
$ 23.60
156
Knox
$ 3.00
20
$ 14.90
65
$ 2.80
18
$ 0.50
4
$ 21.20
107
Wyandot
$-
-
$-
-
$-
-
$ 20.30
154
$ 20.30
154
Coshocton
$-
-
$-
-
$ 3.00
4
$ 16.40
115
$ 19.40
119
Allen
$-
-
$-
-
$ 1.90
8
$ 17.30
117
$ 19.20
125
Delaware
$ 1.30
8
$ 1.70
10
$ 1.70
6
$ 13.60
95
$ 18.30
119
Logan
$ 0.70
4
$ 0.10
1
$ 8.40
46
$ 9.10
67
$ 18.30
118
Clark
$ 2.30
12
$ 8.80
47
$ 1.30
8
$ 5.50
40
$ 17.90
107
Hardin
$-
-
$-
-
$ 3.00
5
$ 14.60
91
$ 17.60
96
Marion
$ 3.00
13
$ 6.00
20
$ 0.20
-
$ 8.20
41
$ 17.40
74
Shelby
$ 1.70
9
$ 6.70
30
$ 5.40
45
$ 2.20
13
$ 16.00
97
Clermont
$ 0.20
1
$-
-
$ 2.20
12
$ 12.90
80
$ 15.30
93
Darke
$ 0.10
-
$ 0.20
1
$ 3.50
15
$ 10.30
81
$ 14.10
97
Greene
$ 0.10
-
$-
-
$ 0.50
2
$ 11.70
85
$ 12.30
87
Scioto
$-
-
$-
-
$ 0.50
2
$ 11.60
83
$ 12.10
85
Jackson
$ 0.20
1
$-
-
$-
-
$ 11.80
84
$ 12.00
85
Preble
$-
-
$-
-
$-
-
$ 11.40
90
$ 11.40
90
Huron
$ 1.00
6
$ 1.80
9
$-
-
$ 8.30
61
$ 11.10
76
Gallia
$-
-
$-
-
$-
-
$ 10.80
65
$ 10.80
65
Seneca
$ 3.60
24
$ 0.40
2
$ 0.40
3
$ 5.10
40
$ 9.50
69
Madison
$ 2.10
13
$-
-
$ 0.10
1
$ 6.80
49
$ 9.00
63
Champaign
$ 0.30
2
$-
-
$ 4.10
22
$ 4.50
36
$ 8.90
60
Guernsey
$-
-
$ 0.40
2
$ 1.60
6
$ 6.80
54
$ 8.80
62
Clinton
$ 0.10
-
$-
-
$-
-
$ 8.60
61
$ 8.70
61
Auglaize
$-
-
$-
-
$ 0.10
1
$ 8.20
56
$ 8.30
57
Putnam
$-
-
$-
-
$ 0.30
2
$ 6.20
40
$ 6.50
42
Henry
$-
-
$ 0.10
-
$ 0.30
2
$ 5.70
45
$ 6.10
47
Fayette
$-
-
$-
-
$-
-
$ 5.40
43
$ 5.40
43
Perry
$ 1.60
6
$ 3.20
12
$-
-
$ 0.40
3
$ 5.20
21
Lawrence
$ 0.40
2
$ 0.90
5
$ 2.90
4
$ 0.80
5
$ 5.00
16
www. greaterohio . org
W inning P O licies — 3 9
Table 3 (continued)
Biomass
Geothermal
Solar
Wind
Totals
County
$ Millions
Jobs
$ Millions
Jobs
$ Millions
Jobs
$ Millions
Jobs
$ Millions
Jobs
Highland
$-
-
$-
-
$-
-
$ 4.50
36
$ 4.50
36
Paulding
$-
-
$-
-
$ 3.70
15
$ 0.80
7
$ 4.50
22
Union
$-
-
$-
-
$-
-
$ 4.50
30
$ 4.50
30
Mercer
$ 0.10
-
$-
-
$ 2.40
12
$ 1.10
7
$ 3.60
19
Morrow
$-
-
$-
-
$-
-
$ 3.50
27
$ 3.50
27
Holmes
$ 0.10
1
$ 0.10
-
$ 0.50
3
$ 2.10
16
$ 2.80
20
Ross
$-
-
$-
-
$-
-
$ 1.20
8
$ 1.20
8
Carroll
$ 0.10
-
$-
-
$-
-
$ 0.80
7
$ 0.90
7
Ottawa
$ 0.40
3
$ 0.30
1
$-
-
$ 0.20
1
$ 0.90
5
Vinton
$ 0.90
6
$-
-
$-
-
$-
-
$ 0.90
6
Meigs
$-
-
$-
-
$-
-
$ 0.80
5
$ 0.80
5
Hocking
$-
-
$-
-
$ 0.70
6
$-
-
$ 0.70
6
VanWert
$-
-
$-
-
$ 0.60
1
$-
-
$ 0.60
1
Athens
$-
-
$-
-
$ 0.10
-
$ 0.40
3
$ 0.50
3
Belmont
$-
-
$-
-
$ 0.10
1
$ 0.40
2
$ 0.50
3
Brown
$-
-
$-
-
$ 0.30
2
$ 0.10
-
$ 0.40
2
Adams
$-
-
$ 0.10
-
$-
-
$ 0.20
1
$ 0.30
1
Harrison
$-
-
$-
-
$-
-
$-
-
$-
-
Jefferson
$-
-
$-
-
$-
-
$-
-
$-
-
Monroe
$-
-
$-
-
$-
-
$-
-
$-
-
Morgan
$-
-
$-
-
$-
-
$-
-
$-
-
Noble
$-
-
$-
-
$-
-
$-
-
$-
-
Pike
$-
-
$-
-
$-
-
$-
-
$-
-
OhioTotal
$ 294.0
1,881
$ 364.4
2,044
$ 1,102.7
5,962
$ 1,840.7
12,691
$ 3,601.8
22,578
www. greaterohio . org
4 0 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
Curb soaring health costs by developing a walkable Ohio
T
rimming our fat can help Ohio tighten its fiscal belt at the same time. The healthcare costs of
development can and should be measured before
Ohio sprawls any farther in the wrong direction.
HIAs can inform decisions about and enhance Ohio’s
development and, perhaps more importantly, Ohio’s redevelopment.
Commitments and local contexts
Health Impact Assessments—modeled after the current Local Government Impact Statements prepared by
the Legislative Service Commission when legislation is
being considered by the Ohio General Assembly—should
be required as part of the legislative process. In addition,
the state should encourage the use of HIAs locally through
grants and other funding means. These changes will benefit
all Ohioans’ quality of life and help moderate the increases
in Medicaid spending.
Policy framing and analysis
The state of Ohio is creaking under the weight of rising
healthcare costs, particularly in the state’s Medicaid program.
• Ohio spends $3.3 billion per year on obesity-attributable adult medical expenditures—about 6.1% of
total medical expenditures in the state.89
• Half of obesity-related medical expenditures are
financed by taxpayers through Medicare and Medicaid.89
Modest built-environment redevelopment can result
• Ohio spends $289 per person per year
in healthier lifestyles and contribute to reduced
on medical costs related to obesity—
the 11th highest in the nation.89
healthcare costs and increased worker productivity.
• 24% of adult Ohioans are obese—the
13th highest level in the nation.89
Even the smallest of practice changes, like placing a
• Most alarming, 13.9% of Ohio’s high school
trail next to a residential neighborhood or locating retail
students are overweight—the 4th highest in the
stores or a farmer’s market within walking distance of
nation. Ohio’s costs are doomed to rise unless our
housing, which promote physical activity, can result in
89
students change their habits and lifestyles.
healthier lifestyles and, thus, contribute to healthcare cost
reductions and increases in worker productivity.
The relationship between our health and the built enviOver time, the retrofitting of Ohio’s communities to
ronment has long been established. Several studies have
become walkable, livable, prosperous, and family-oriented
shown that a sedentary lifestyle, long commute times, and
will be accomplished knowing that development decisions
isolated housing developments yield an overweight and
are sound and smart for the health and social well-being of
90
stressed population that is more costly to care for.
all Ohioans. That’s a future Ohio can bank on.
One answer lies in implementing a practice called a
Health Impact Assessment (HIA). HIAs predict and meaPrepared by: Kathy Baughman McLeod, Principal,
sure health impacts and healthcare costs of development
and Melanie Simmons, PhD. Healthy Development, Inc.,
to specific populations (down to the neighborhood level)
Informed Decisions ~ Enhanced Development, 813 East
before those projects are built. They also predict social and
Call St, Tallahassee, FL 32301, phone 850-591-6555, www.
economic impacts of all types of development projects:
healthydevelopment.us, [email protected]
housing, transportation, water supply, energy, and more.
www. greaterohio . org
W inning P O licies — 4 1
Below, Table 4 shows the potential reduction in Medicaid costs due to increased physical activity through built
environment redevelopment in a selected Central Ohio
Metropolitan Area Neighborhood.91 Population data specific to this community are available. Also shown is the
Health Impact Assessment (HIA) methodology of mixing
population data with scientific peer-reviewed information
to calculate the potential impact on community health
from built environment redevelopment. This example
shows potential increases in rates of physical activity where
neighborhoods are “walkable,” as well as reductions in
costs. There are many other areas of prediction and measurement including social cohesion, quality of life, mental health, and economic growth that are related to smart
redevelopment.
Beyond the cost savings of HIAs, Ohio’s neighborhoods
can use HIAs to grow together and thrive, feel safe, and
bring a higher quality of life to all Ohio’s communities.
Table 4: Healthcare cost savings associated with environmental development
92
Population
Neighborhood with high public assistance rates*
Columbus— Zip Code 43201
Estimate of neighborhood level of physical inactivity before built
environment redevelopment
53%
Built Environment Redevelopment**
Outcome
Walkable streets, ease of street crossings, sidewalk continuity and
other local street characteristic
1) People in high walkable neighborhoods get 50% more physical
activity;
2) 3 and 4 times more likely to walk to public transit and make
other bike trips, respectively
Improved lighting
51% increase in walking
Bike lane addition and street redesign
23% increase in biking
Neighborhood beautification
70% increase in walking
Mixed-use commercial and residential
56% increase in walking
Potential Results
Estimate of neighborhood level of physical inactivity after built environment redevelopment
40% or less
Percentage reduction of Medicaid and other costs associated with
physical inactivity in the neighborhood
Minimum of 25% reduction in costs associated with
physical inactivity
*2000 US Census data and assuming high Medicaid consumption rates in the neighborhood.. **citations available;
www. greaterohio . org
4 2 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
www. greaterohio . org
W hat is G reater O hio ? — 4 3
Part 3: What is Greater Ohio?
What is Greater Ohio?
“Greater Ohio: A Campaign for Ohio’s People, Land
and Prosperity” is a statewide network of organizations and
individuals united to promote state policies for land use
and development that revitalize existing cities and towns,
strengthen regional cooperation, and conserve Ohio’s productive farmland and natural resources. Greater Ohio is
organized initially as a three-year campaign with offices in
Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati.
How does the campaign function?
Greater Ohio is a broad-based, nonpartisan, citizen’s
network facilitated by regional staff and supported by
statewide committees to advocate public policies that lead
to a more competitive Ohio and balance the state’s longterm economic development with a better quality of life for
Ohioans. Citizens and organizations throughout the state
are invited to join and support Greater Ohio. The campaign
will focus on public education and grassroots advocacy.
Who are its “customers”?
Although there are a variety of beneficiaries, there
are two primary groups of customers. One group is composed of local organizations already working on land use
and development issues to achieve the goals of the Greater
Ohio campaign. Greater Ohio’s decentralized, network
structure is designed to support the work of such groups
and provide them with a statewide vehicle for policy initiatives. The other customers are the 12 million people who
call Ohio home. The campaign is focused on outcomes that
will improve quality of life, reduce tax burdens, improve
environmental quality, and enable Ohio to compete with
neighboring states.
What does the campaign seek to accomplish?
Greater Ohio seeks to:
• Educate Ohioans about the regional, economic,
demographic and public policy trends that are
shaping Ohio’s current growth patterns
• Promote public policies that will encourage
regional cooperation, especially concerning
land-use planning, transportation strategies, and
economic development practices
• Preserve farmland where appropriate near Ohio’s
metropolitan regions
• Create better tools to help Ohio’s downtowns and
urban centers compete in the 21st century
• Enhance transportation options that give Ohioans
an alternative to traffic congestion
• Raise public awareness about how all of the state’s
land-use and development issues are interrelated
and how neglecting them hurts all of Ohio
How did Greater Ohio begin?
The concept for Greater Ohio was initially discussed at
a meeting hosted in the fall of 2002 by Ohio-based foundations and the Funder’s Network for Smart Growth and
Livable Communities. With the help of organizations and
individuals from around the state, the idea for a statewide
reform effort began to take shape. Throughout 2003, a
steering committee was created and financial foundation
support secured. By January of 2004, Greater Ohio was
established and a kick-off event at the Statehouse attracted
more than 200 Ohioans.
www. greaterohio . org
4 4 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
Is Greater Ohio a “smart growth” organization?
Across the nation, “smart growth” has come to mean
lots of different things to different people. In Ohio, we certainly need to grow smarter than we have in the past. If
smarter growth means encouraging livable communities,
better local and regional planning, cleaner air and water,
more transportation choices, protection of farmland and
green space, and a stronger economy, then, yes, Greater
Ohio is a smart growth organization.
Is Greater Ohio a lobbying organization?
Our primary focus will be on research, public education, and grassroots organizing. But, as needed to enact
policy changes, Greater Ohio will lobby to the extent nonprofit organizations are allowed.
www. greaterohio . org
Does Greater Ohio support political candidates?
No. Greater Ohio is strictly nonpartisan. It was created
to educate the public about important land use issues facing Ohio—issues that transcend partisan politics. We seek
to involve people from all walks of life.
Where does the funding come from?
Initial funding for the development of the Greater
Ohio campaign comes from Ohio and national foundations. Donations are tax-deductible.
For further information, visit Greater Ohio’s homepage
at www.greaterohio.com. See Addendum H for Greater
Ohio’s Policy Agenda.
C redits & A cknowledgements — 4 5
Part 4: Credits & acknowledgements
Contributing editors
Gene Krebs
State Director
Greater Ohio
846 ½ E. Main St.
Columbus, OH 43205
614-258-1713 (phone)
614-258-6400 (fax)
[email protected]
Lavea Brachman
Central Ohio & Research Director
Greater Ohio
846 ½ E. Main St.
Columbus, OH 43205
614-258-1713
[email protected]
Kathy Baughman McLeod, Principal
Melanie Simmons, PhD
Healthy Development, Inc., Informed Decisions ~
Enhanced Development
813 East Call St.
Tallahassee, FL 32301
850-591-6555
[email protected]
Brian Williams
Ohio State Director
American Farmland Trust
50 W. Broad St., Suite 3250
Columbus, OH 43215
614-469-9877
[email protected]
David Beach
EcoCity Cleveland
3500 Lorain Ave., Suite 301
Cleveland, OH 44113
216-961-5020
[email protected]
Pauline Eaton
Heritage Ohio
846 ½ E Main St.
Columbus OH 43205
614-258-6200
[email protected]
Mary Helen Petrus
Cleveland Neighborhood Development Coalition
3751 Prospect Ave., 3rd Floor
Cleveland, OH 44115
216-928-8100
[email protected]
www. greaterohio . org
4 6 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
Greater Ohio staff
Gene Krebs
State Director, Greater Ohio
846 ½ E. Main St.
Columbus, OH 43205
513-739-2412 (mobile)
614-258-1713 (phone)
[email protected]
Jim Converse
Mahoning Valley Director
1221 Elm St.
Youngstown OH 44505
330-744-2667
[email protected]
Pat Carey
NE Ohio Director
3500 Lorain Ave., Suite 301
Cleveland, OH 44113
216-961-5020
[email protected]
Lavea Brachman
Central Ohio & Research Director
Greater Ohio
846 ½ E. Main St.
Columbus, OH 43205
614-258-1713
[email protected]
Todd Ward
SW Ohio Director
2500 Meyerhill Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45211
513-515-2863
[email protected]
[email protected]
Special acknowledgements
This document could not have been prepared without
the hard work and intellectual rigor of Ohio State Graduate
student Trevor Hunt, an intern working for Greater Ohio.
Questions for Trevor may be addressed to [email protected]
gmail.com.
The staff at Smart Growth America and the various
peer members of the Growth Management Leadership
Alliance were very helpful in framing the content and with
the analysis of the Virginia Governor’s race. Without their
encouragement and help, especially in the early stages, this
would have been overwhelming. A very special thanks goes
to Scott Wolf and Laura Olsen for sharing framing, inforwww. greaterohio . org
mation, and insights so graciously and without hesitation.
It is with great sadness we note the death of Steering
Committee member Robert Manley. Bob was a valuable
member of the Greater Ohio team. In almost a half century
of teaching and practicing law he influenced and guided
literally thousands of people in the discipline of planning
and law. He had little patience for faddish ideas in these
two areas as he had seen fads come and go and come back
again. He offered a seasoned view that few could match,
along with gentle wisdom and a wonderful sense of humor.
Our sympathy goes to his family. This brief is dedicated to
his memory.
C redits & A cknowledgements — 4 7
Steering committee
Virginia Barney, City Manager
City of Upper Arlington
3600 Tremont Rd.
Upper Arlington, OH 43221
614-583-5042
[email protected]
Vicki Deisner, Executive Director
Ohio Environmental Council
1207 Grandview Ave., Suite 201
Columbus, OH 43212
614-487-7506
[email protected]
Pete Gozza, President/CEO
Downtown Toledo Inc.
300 Madison Ave., Suite 1510
Toledo, OH 43604
419-249-5494
[email protected]
David Beach, Executive Director
EcoCity Cleveland
3500 Lorain Ave., Suite 301
Cleveland, OH 44113
216-961-5020
[email protected]
Sue Douglass, Founder & Chief
Officer
Blaine Bridge Community
Preservation Project
108 Parshall Ave
St. Clairsville, OH 43950
740-695-7260
[email protected]
Raymond Headen, Partner
Bricker & Eckler LLP
1379 East Ninth Street
Suite 1500
Cleveland, OH 44114
216-523-5471
[email protected]
Al Blackwood, President
Blackwood Construction Services
25874 W. River Rd.
Perrysburg, OH 43551
419-467-8393
[email protected]
Christine Freitag, Director
Scenic Ohio
830 Eaglenest
Akron, OH 44303
330-864-2209
[email protected]
Marc Hult, Board Chairman
Smart Growth Coalition (Cincinnati)
322 E. 3rd St.
Covington, KY 41011
859-261-3880
[email protected]
David Bohardt, Executive Director
Home Builders Association of
Dayton and the Miami Valley
2211 S. Dixie Dr.
Dayton, OH 45409
937-298-2900
[email protected]
Steve George
Former Director, Ohio Bicentennial
Commission
108 Crestview Rd.
Columbus, OH 43202
614-425-6947
[email protected]
John Moore
Downtown Ohio Inc./Heritage Ohio
846 ½ E. Main St.
Columbus, OH 43205
614-258-6200
Len Calabrese, Director
Cleveland Diocese Commission on
Catholic Community Action
7800 Detroit Ave.
Cleveland, OH 44102
216-281-3839
[email protected]
Steven L. Goubeaux
Visual Marketing Associates
575 Primrose Lane
Tipp City, Ohio 45371
937-477-2037
[email protected]
Larry Long, Executive Director
County Commissioners Association
of Ohio
37 W. Broad St., Suite 650
Columbus, OH 43215
614-221-5627
[email protected]
www. greaterohio . org
4 8 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
Priscilla Mead
2281 Brixton Rd.
Upper Arlington, OH 43221
614-488-8224
[email protected]
Mike Robinette,
Former Executive Director,
Miami Valley Regional Planning
Commission
40 W. Fourth Centre, Suite 400
Dayton, OH 45402
937-223-6323
[email protected]
John Ryan, Executive Secretary
AFL-CIO Cleveland Federation of
Labor
3250 Euclid Ave.
Cleveland, OH 44115
216-881-7200
[email protected]
David Meeker
269 S. Rose Blvd.
Akron, OH 44313
330-864-2536
[email protected]
Linda Roehrenbeck, Sustainable
Design Associate
Triad Architects, Inc.
784 Morrison Rd., Suite B
Columbus, OH 43230
614-443-9709, ext. 125
[email protected]
Roger Wolfe
2175 Canal Rd. NE.
Baltimore, OH 43105
740-862-4426
[email protected]
Kenneth Montlack, Chairman
Northeast Ohio First Suburbs
Consortium
2835 Mayfield Rd., Suite 103
Cleveland Heights, OH 44118
216-320-5800
[email protected]
Pat Rosenthal, Executive Director
Common Wealth Inc., Community
Development Corporation
1221 Elm St.
Youngstown, OH 44505
330-744-2667
[email protected]
www. greaterohio . org
R E fferences — 4 9
Part 5: References
Addendum A
Virginia’s Top Five Fastest Growing Republican Counties (in terms of raw numbers)
County
Total votes for Bush
Total votes for Kerry
County votes 2004
Spotsylvania County
28,527
16,623
45,445
Stafford County
28,500
17,208
45,986
Chesterfield County
83,745
49,346
133,814
Prince William County
69,776
61,271
132,063
Loudoun County
60,382
47,271
108,430
Sum
270,930
191,719
465,738
County
Total votes for Kilgore
Total votes for Kaine
County votes 2005
Spotsylvania County
13,635
11,061
25,267
Stafford County
13,559
10,924
25,075
Chesterfield County
48,112
40,134
89,811
Prince William County
32,178
33,364
66,797
Loudoun County
27,539
31,074
60,179
SUM
135,023
126,557
267,129
Percent Republican vote for Bush (2004):
58.17%
Percent Republican vote for Kilgore (2005):
50.55%
Percent Republican vote lost:
7.62%
Virginia’s Top Five Slowest Growing Republican Counties (in terms of raw numbers)
County
Total votes for Bush
Total votes for Kerry
County votes 2004
Grayson County
4,655
2,430
7,137
Russell County
6,077
5,167
11,423
Halifax County
8,363
6,220
14,656
Smyth County
7,906
4,143
12,319
Scott County
6,479
3,324
9,967
Sum
33,480
21,284
55,502
County
Total votes for Kilgore
Total votes for Kaine
County votes 2005
Grayson County
2,710
1,875
4,651
Russell County
3,431
3,431
7,814
Halifax County
4,887
3,931
8,972
Smyth County
5,053
2,989
8,135
Scott County
6,016
2,156
8,215
SUM
22,097
14,382
37,787
Percent Republican vote for Bush (2004):
60.32%
Percent Republican vote for Kilgore (2005):
58.48%
Percent Republican vote lost:
1.84%
www. greaterohio . org
5 0 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
Taking National Political Party Issues into consideration
Percent Republican vote lost in fastest growing:
7.62%
Percent Republican vote lost in slowest growing:
1.84%
Factoring out national political party issues:
5.78%
Ohio’s Top Ten Fastest Growing Republican Counties (in terms of raw numbers)
County
Union County
2004 Estimate
2000 Census
Raw Population Change
44487
40909
3578
Geauga County
94602
90895
3707
Greene County
152233
147886
4347
Lake County
232061
22751
4550
Licking County
152866
145491
7375
Fairfield County
136063
122759
13304
Butler County
346560
332807
13753
Medina County
165077
151095
13982
Warren County
189276
158383
30893
Delaware County
142503
109989
32514
Number of votes for Bush
Number of votes for Kerry
Total number of Cast Votes
Union County
15870
6665
22631
Geauga County
30370
19850
40442
Greene County
48388
30531
79282
Lake County
62193
59049
121823
Licking County
49016
30053
79420
Fairfield County
42715
24783
67882
Butler County
109872
56243
166819
Medina County
48196
36272
84878
Warren County
68037
26044
71022
County
Delaware County
53143
27048
80456
Sum
527800
316538
814655
Percent Republican vote for Bush (2004):
64.79%
Take VA’s Governor’s Race into consideration (-5.78%):
59.01%
Take away 5.78% from Bush’s raw number of votes:
www. greaterohio . org
30507 votes lost
R E fferences — 5 1
Addendum B
Positive message works
Staff—Loudon Times—11/15/2005
It was only a couple years ago that a group of Loudoun
County Republicans, tired of the far right’s takeover of the
local committee, toyed with the idea of launching a rump
group. The name: Raging Moderates.
As Tuesday’s vote here made abundantly clear, those
folks were on the right track but ahead of their time.
The vote shows that Loudoun is sliding closer to the
middle, the land of the moderates.
From Tim Kaine’s remarkable victory to David Poisson’s stunning triumph, Loudoun voters turned off the
screamers and haters and turned to people with practical
ideas for improving life here.
Mr. Kaine—or rather, Gov.-elect Kaine—struck a loud
chord with his talk of changing rules for development to
require that public fixtures such as roads and water and
sewer be in place before development begins. That was
music to the ears of local voters who sit in long lines of
traffic every day while the Republican-controlled Board of
Supervisors keeps giving the green light to development.
Mr. Poisson—or rather, Del.-elect Poisson—had similar success when he talked about issues such as getting
commuters to and from work easier, finding ways to get
our school children out of trailers and building higher educational opportunities—sensible ideas that resonated with
Loudoun’s young newcomers.
He knocked off Del. Dick Black, who had found great
success by painting himself as a heaven-sent foe of abortion. He used that in three campaigns—each against a
woman he labeled a “baby killer” because each thought
there was more to government than stopping abortion.
Mr. Black carried that message into conservative churches,
and priests and ministers convinced the faithful to follow
his lead.
But facing a man this time around, Mr. Black couldn’t
fall back on his woman-bashing strategy. So he was left trying to create a record out of whole cloth. To voters, it was
see-through cloth.
The voters this time said no thanks.
Mr. Black embodied the divide-and-conquer philosophy that has served Republicans well in Virginia. It was
the same ploy used—without success—in another Loudoun delegate race by Republican Chris Craddock against
Democrat Chuck Caputo. Voters also saw through Mr.
Craddock’s angry bombasts.
Voters in southwestern Loudoun—western U.S. 50—
also gave thumbs down to another divider, incumbent
Republican Del. Bob Marshall. Unfortunately, Mr. Marshall’s brand of politics still sells in Prince William County,
so he was elected. But his days are numbered to be sure.
And that’s the best news of last week’s election. Good
people are winning because they are good people willing to
work hard and run clean, above-board campaigns.
Mr. Kaine and Mr. Poisson and Mr. Caputo did not
need Republican-style smear campaigns. They brought
forward common-sense ideas to get Northern Virginia
moving. They had a message that made voters feel good
about pulling the lever—and casting a vote not only for
progress but also against hate– and fear–mongers.
www. greaterohio . org
5 2 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
Addendum C
Sprawl issues could give lift to Democrats
Joe Hallett—The Columbus Dispatch—2/12/2006
In the lexicon of Democrats, there is a word for Delaware, Licking, Fairfield and Union counties: unwinnable.
After the May 2 primary election, the Democratic
nominee for governor will plot a county-by-county strategy for winning in November. He will look at the four
Columbus-area counties and the other six among Ohio’s
10 fastest growing counties and be tempted to ask his aides,
“Why bother?”
Those counties, all bordering major urban counties,
easily are among Ohio’s most Republican. In 2004, President Bush won an average of 65 percent of the vote in the
10 fastest growing counties. In the last four gubernatorial
elections, the Republican candidates have averaged 67 percent of the vote there.
For Democrats, Ohio’s top 10 growth counties—also
including Butler, Geauga, Greene, Lake, Medina and Warren—might as well be on Pluto.
Then again, perhaps Pluto is as close as Virginia. If
so, maybe Gov. Timothy M. Kaine left his playbook lying
around.
Heading into last November’s gubernatorial election,
Democrat Kaine was the underdog to Republican Thomas
Kilgore. Kaine no doubt looked at Virginia’s five fastestgrowing counties and conjured something akin to the Pluto
image. The five were reliably Republican; Bush won them
all in 2004, averaging more than 58 percent of the vote.
But somehow, when the results were tallied in the five
counties, Kaine won them with 50.5 percent of the votes,
nearly an 8-point swing from Bush’s performance a year
earlier. Kaine beat Kilgore in Prince William and Loudon
counties, fast growing suburbs of Washington. He proved
that message still matters.
Rather than being dragged into debates about abortion, same-sex marriage and other wedge issues, Kaine tailored a “smart growth” message to voters in the five counties and successfully tapped into their frustrations about
www. greaterohio . org
unchecked sprawl despoiling their quality of life by overcrowding schools and roads and requiring higher taxes.
Kaine’s platform, illustrated by his cry to “build the
roads before building the subdivisions,” hit home, especially with affluent and educated suburban women, whom
Ohio’s Gene Krebs describes as “the soccer moms who can’t
get their kids to soccer practice on time because they’re sitting in traffic and are pretty ticked off about it.”
Krebs, a conservative Republican from Preble County
and member of the Ohio House from 1993 to 2000, is state
director of a nonprofit organization called Greater Ohio.
Funded by good-government and charitable foundations,
Greater Ohio’s goal is to promote state policies for land
use that revitalize existing cities and towns, strengthen
regional cooperation and conserve Ohio’s farmland and
natural resources.
Krebs and his staff have written a playbook for Ohio’s
gubernatorial campaign and given it to the four major candidates—Republicans J. Kenneth Blackwell and Jim Petro
and Democrats Ted Strickland and Eric Fingerhut. So far,
the Republican candidates have been locked in a fight over
who loves Jesus more and hates abortion most. Meanwhile,
the Democratic campaign could devolve into a fight over
who loves unions and guns and who doesn’t.
Voters want more, Krebs said last week, and the candidate who adapts Kaine’s smart-growth message to Ohio
will reap support across the state, but especially in the fastgrowing suburban and exurban counties. Southern Delaware County is a prime example of sprawl-gone-awry fraying at the nerves, Krebs said.
“For all those folks who work in downtown Columbus
and who moved to Sunbury, it used to take them 35 minutes to get home and now it takes an hour and 35 minutes.
They look at their schools being constantly overcrowded,
and every time they think they’re getting ahead with road
construction, then a developer builds another housing
subdivision and suddenly they’re back to square one.”
R E fferences — 5 3
Greater Ohio’s playbook lays out coherent plans for
smart land use and energy independence, livable cities and
towns, preserving farmland, ending schools’ reliance on
local property taxes and restoring Lake Erie.
“If you’re a Republican and you want to win the primary, you need to start formulating where you are on these
issues,” Krebs said. “If you’re a Democrat and you want to
fish in the Republican voter pond, you’ll want to take a
look at these issues.”
Kaine told The Washington Post that he targeted sub-
urban voters in fast growing counties because they were
open to a message that stressed “development, land use,
transportation. Those folks feel it, understand it, worry
about it more than anyone else.”
Folks in counties that historically are Pluto for Democrats made Kaine governor of Virginia. There’s a lesson for
Ohio.
Joe Hallett is Dispatch senior editor.
[email protected]
Copyright © 2006, The Columbus Dispatch
Addendum D
These data show the % of total property values in a district that is identified as commercial, industrial or mineral real
estate.
School District
District Data
Similar District Average
Statewide Average
Ada Ex Vill SD
12.57
8.43
19.79
Adams County Ohio Valley Local SD
11.6
12.27
19.79
Adena Local SD
4.16
5.12
19.79
Akron City SD
22.64
29.07
19.79
Alexander Local SD
5.7
13.85
19.79
Allen East Local SD
3.92
6.17
19.79
Alliance City SD
18.81
20.64
19.79
Amanda-Clearcreek Local SD
3.75
5.52
19.79
Amherst Ex Vill SD
14.18
14.72
19.79
Anna Local SD
11.91
15.78
19.79
Ansonia Local SD
5.17
4.92
19.79
Anthony Wayne Local SD
11.71
15.33
19.79
Antwerp Local SD
16
7.01
19.79
Arcadia Local SD
8.91
9.88
19.79
Arcanum Butler Local SD
4.9
6.25
19.79
Archbold-Area Local SD
25.19
22.25
19.79
Arlington Local SD
5.82
7.6
19.79
Ashland City SD
18.79
19.74
19.79
Ashtabula Area City SD
18.79
21.02
19.79
Athens City SD
25.32
22.46
19.79
Aurora City SD
16.59
16.52
19.79
Austintown Local SD
21.97
19.19
19.79
Avon Lake City SD
10.09
17.36
19.79
Avon Local SD
20.34
18.96
19.79
www. greaterohio . org
5 4 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
School District
District Data
Similar District Average
Statewide Average
Ayersville Local SD
15.59
18.2
19.79
Barberton City SD
18.27
20.67
19.79
Barnesville Ex Vill SD
14.15
10.26
19.79
Batavia Local SD
29.16
19.98
19.79
Bath Local SD
16.8
21.95
19.79
Bay Village City SD
2.37
7.97
19.79
Beachwood City SD
46.33
22.89
19.79
Beaver Local SD
16.1
12.71
19.79
Beavercreek City SD
21.03
19.85
19.79
Bedford City SD
32.19
27.98
19.79
Bellaire Local SD
14.31
15.9
19.79
Bellefontaine City SD
24.93
19.73
19.79
Bellevue City SD
12.05
15.34
19.79
Belpre City SD
13.63
21.26
19.79
Benjamin Logan Local SD
10.38
13.59
19.79
Benton Carroll Salem Local S
18.98
21.35
19.79
Berea City SD
30.68
24.38
19.79
Berkshire Local SD
9.67
11.64
19.79
Berlin-Milan Local SD
13.72
13.1
19.79
Berne Union Local SD
9.19
11.85
19.79
Bethel Local SD
8.03
8.48
19.79
Bethel-Tate Local SD
7.85
5.82
19.79
Bettsville Local SD
14.99
11.42
19.79
Bexley City SD
4.85
9.92
19.79
Big Walnut Local SD
7.48
12.37
19.79
Black River Local SD
3.45
7.05
19.79
Blanchester Local SD
10.03
10.67
19.79
Bloom Carroll Local SD
8.73
9.15
19.79
Bloom-Vernon Local SD
2.85
7.4
19.79
Bloomfield-Mespo Local SD
4.18
6.8
19.79
Bluffton Ex Vill SD
12.13
11.06
19.79
Boardman Local SD
29.01
24.26
19.79
Botkins Local SD
12.14
8.57
19.79
Bowling Green City SD
27.74
24.22
19.79
Bradford Ex Vill SD
4.35
3.89
19.79
Brecksville-Broadview Height
16.17
17.34
19.79
Bridgeport Ex Vill SD
24.4
19.82
19.79
Bright Local SD
1.7
5.15
19.79
Bristol Local SD
2.62
4.65
19.79
Brookfield Local SD
14.28
14.61
19.79
Brooklyn City SD
39.5
24.38
19.79
Brookville Local SD
13.07
10.17
19.79
Brown Local SD
9.27
12.27
19.79
Brunswick City SD
14.8
16.16
19.79
Bryan City SD
20.18
17.94
19.79
www. greaterohio . org
R E fferences — 5 5
School District
District Data
Similar District Average
Statewide Average
Buckeye Central Local SD
6.85
8.01
19.79
Buckeye Local SD (Ashtabula)
19.32
19.47
19.79
Buckeye Local SD (Jefferson)
13.44
17.58
19.79
Buckeye Local SD (Medina)
11.63
16.18
19.79
Buckeye Valley Local SD
3.76
9.7
19.79
Bucyrus City SD
17.21
17.89
19.79
National Trail Local SD
9.41
7.53
19.79
Caldwell Ex Vill SD
15.12
13.51
19.79
Cambridge City SD
20.13
18.81
19.79
Campbell City SD
9.15
19.07
19.79
Canal Winchester Local SD
13.24
17.52
19.79
Canfield Local SD
11.37
11.43
19.79
Canton City SD
22.28
22.55
19.79
Canton Local SD
17.07
20.68
19.79
Cardinal Local SD
15.27
15.69
19.79
Cardington-Lincoln Local SD
6.64
8.81
19.79
Carey Ex Vill SD
10.55
10.78
19.79
Carlisle Local SD
6.72
10.32
19.79
Carrollton Ex Vill SD
9.1
11.61
19.79
Cedar Cliff Local SD
5.13
7.39
19.79
Celina City SD
14.61
14.19
19.79
Centerburg Local SD
5.76
4.68
19.79
Centerville City SD
17.57
19.27
19.79
Central Local SD
2.94
5.27
19.79
Chagrin Falls Ex Vill SD
8.94
10.86
19.79
Champion Local SD
9.35
7.82
19.79
Chardon Local SD
11.81
12.17
19.79
Chesapeake Union Ex Vill SD
6.58
9.46
19.79
Chillicothe City SD
23.64
22.79
19.79
Chippewa Local SD
6.34
7.79
19.79
Cincinnati City SD
32.58
29.6
19.79
Circleville City SD
21.35
20.86
19.79
Clark-Shawnee Local SD
29.32
21.27
19.79
Clay Local SD
18.78
13.34
19.79
Claymont City SD
14.18
14.86
19.79
Clear Fork Valley Local SD
7.04
6.98
19.79
Clearview Local SD
26.93
21.26
19.79
Clermont-Northeastern Local
17.5
14.64
19.79
Cleveland Municipal SD
37.21
29.6
19.79
Cleveland Hts-Univ Hts City
19.58
20.69
19.79
Clinton-Massie Local SD
3.28
5.59
19.79
Cloverleaf Local SD
13.57
13.07
19.79
Clyde-Green Springs Ex Vill
16.87
16.57
19.79
Coldwater Ex Vill SD
9.19
7.27
19.79
Colonel Crawford Local SD
7.91
12.38
19.79
www. greaterohio . org
5 6 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
School District
District Data
Similar District Average
Statewide Average
Columbia Local SD
8.31
9.39
19.79
Columbiana Ex Vill SD
21.86
18.91
19.79
Columbus City SD
38.24
28.9
19.79
Columbus Grove Local SD
3.44
5.91
19.79
Conneaut Area City SD
15.94
17.07
19.79
Conotton Valley Union Local
9.29
10.39
19.79
Continental Local SD
5.02
5.37
19.79
Copley-Fairlawn City SD
34.19
24.04
19.79
Cory-Rawson Local SD
8.11
8.38
19.79
Coshocton City SD
26.24
19.17
19.79
Coventry Local SD
15.27
12.1
19.79
Covington Ex Vill SD
12.75
9.3
19.79
Crestline Ex Vill SD
14.96
14.92
19.79
Crestview Local SD (Columbiana)
7.06
6.91
19.79
Crestview Local SD (Richland)
4.34
5.94
19.79
Crestview Local SD (Van Wert)
2.44
4.99
19.79
Crestwood Local SD
6.4
9.08
19.79
Crooksville Ex Vill SD
11.18
6.97
19.79
Cuyahoga Falls City SD
20.79
20.76
19.79
Cuyahoga Heights Local SD
41.82
27.52
19.79
Dalton Local SD
12.71
10.37
19.79
Danbury Local SD
12.13
19.64
19.79
Danville Local SD
7.47
5.07
19.79
Dawson-Bryant Local SD
4.86
5.51
19.79
Dayton City SD
25.87
29.78
19.79
Deer Park Community City SD
14.18
18.15
19.79
Defiance City SD
14.64
19.28
19.79
Delaware City SD
22.66
22.49
19.79
Delphos City SD
15.38
14.89
19.79
Dover City SD
19.78
17.73
19.79
Dublin City SD
27.43
20.26
19.79
East Cleveland City SD
22.18
22.55
19.79
East Clinton Local SD
9.31
11.57
19.79
East Guernsey Local SD
6.44
7.96
19.79
East Holmes Local SD
16.72
13.72
19.79
East Knox Local SD
2.89
5.51
19.79
East Liverpool City SD
15.38
19.04
19.79
East Muskingum Local SD
11.97
12.76
19.79
East Palestine City SD
10.81
10.39
19.79
Eastern Local SD (Brown)
3.66
5.51
19.79
Eastern Local SD (Meigs)
4.18
6.09
19.79
Eastern Local SD (Pike)
3.92
5.95
19.79
Eastwood Local SD
8.24
11.84
19.79
Eaton Community Schools City
14.62
13.42
19.79
9.9
10.16
19.79
Edgerton Local SD
www. greaterohio . org
R E fferences — 5 7
School District
District Data
Similar District Average
Statewide Average
Edgewood City SD
10.72
13.85
19.79
Edison Local SD
12.41
15.06
19.79
Edon-Northwest Local SD
7.63
7.93
19.79
Elgin Local SD
9.86
11.91
19.79
Elida Local SD
25.7
21.26
19.79
Elmwood Local SD
7.13
7.2
19.79
Elyria City SD
25.57
22.68
19.79
Euclid City SD
23.12
21.81
19.79
Evergreen Local SD
4.27
7.86
19.79
Fairbanks Local SD
7.92
10.33
19.79
Fairborn City SD
22.15
20.19
19.79
Fairfield City SD
24.4
21
19.79
Fairfield Local SD
5.47
5.7
19.79
Fairfield Union Local SD
5.36
6
19.79
Fairland Local SD
7.62
7.47
19.79
Fairlawn Local SD
1.85
4.75
19.79
Fairless Local SD
14.59
12.2
19.79
Fairport Harbor Ex Vill SD
17.46
12.6
19.79
Fairview Park City SD
13.07
16.07
19.79
Fayetteville-Perry Local SD
2.21
4.19
19.79
Federal Hocking Local SD
5.98
11
19.79
Felicity-Franklin Local SD
7.2
6.41
19.79
Field Local SD
13.06
14.18
19.79
Findlay City SD
18.34
22.75
19.79
Finneytown Local SD
11.98
16.41
19.79
Firelands Local SD
7.63
8.95
19.79
Forest Hills Local SD
9.03
14.95
19.79
Fort Frye Local SD
15.71
13.11
19.79
Fort Loramie Local SD
8.28
7.95
19.79
Fort Recovery Local SD
8.91
7.43
19.79
Fostoria City SD
20.13
21.11
19.79
Franklin City SD
20.6
18.98
19.79
Franklin Local SD
7.03
10.17
19.79
Franklin-Monroe Local SD
1.51
3.94
19.79
Fredericktown Local SD
9.47
9.73
19.79
Fremont City SD
18.52
20.98
19.79
Frontier Local SD
6.67
6.87
19.79
Gahanna-Jefferson City SD
19.15
20.67
19.79
Galion City SD
14.62
14.43
19.79
Gallia County Local SD
17.26
18.27
19.79
Gallipolis City SD
21.09
19.47
19.79
Garaway Local SD
17.21
13.64
19.79
Garfield Heights City SD
20.01
20.58
19.79
Geneva Area City SD
16.08
15.38
19.79
Genoa Area Local
8.81
10.67
19.79
www. greaterohio . org
5 8 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
School District
District Data
Similar District Average
Statewide Average
Georgetown Ex Vill SD
15.32
10.32
19.79
Gibsonburg Ex Vill SD
7.77
7.58
19.79
Girard City SD
14.65
17.31
19.79
Gorham Fayette Local SD
8.85
9.04
19.79
Goshen Local SD
12.67
10.2
19.79
Graham Local SD
4.69
8.8
19.79
Grand Valley Local SD
6.73
11.1
19.79
Grandview Heights City SD
20.61
18.48
19.79
Granville Ex Vill SD
9.61
9.92
19.79
Green Local SD (Scioto)
13.18
14.76
19.79
Green Local SD (Summit)
20.51
15.16
19.79
Green Local SD (Wayne)
9.77
7.11
19.79
Greeneview Local SD
5.2
5.71
19.79
Greenfield Ex Vill SD
9.36
9.47
19.79
Greenville City SD
17.09
17.77
19.79
Groveport Madison Local SD
25.79
22.14
19.79
Hamilton City SD
21.86
21.99
19.79
Hamilton Local SD
25.16
19.75
19.79
Hardin Northern Local SD
4.04
6.37
19.79
Hardin-Houston Local SD
3.36
8.51
19.79
Harrison Hills City SD
13.16
15.2
19.79
Heath City SD
36.88
22.96
19.79
Hicksville Ex Vill SD
10.27
9.88
19.79
Highland Local SD (Medina)
6.68
9.59
19.79
Highland Local SD (Morrow)
7.63
5.75
19.79
Hilliard City SD
22.31
19.51
19.79
Hillsboro City SD
18.06
18.07
19.79
Hillsdale Local SD
3.47
9.26
19.79
Holgate Local SD
4
6.02
19.79
Hopewell-Loudon Local SD
12.18
10.63
19.79
Howland Local SD
24.37
25.02
19.79
Hubbard Ex Vill SD
13.49
13.6
19.79
Huber Heights City SD
16.93
18.38
19.79
Hudson Local SD
12.58
15.04
19.79
Huntington Local SD
1.37
4.74
19.79
Huron City SD
11.74
12.75
19.79
Independence Local SD
47.21
23.47
19.79
Indian Creek Local SD
17.16
20.86
19.79
Indian Hill Ex Vill SD
10.79
17.61
19.79
Indian Lake Local SD
9.99
14.04
19.79
Indian Valley Local SD
10.6
11.27
19.79
Ironton City SD
21.95
19.46
19.79
Jackson Center Local SD
15.55
10.57
19.79
Jackson City SD
21.75
16.66
19.79
Jackson Local SD
24.63
19.14
19.79
www. greaterohio . org
R E fferences — 5 9
School District
District Data
Similar District Average
Statewide Average
Jackson-Milton Local SD
18.46
14.48
19.79
James A Garfield Local SD
9.92
9.19
19.79
Jefferson Area Local SD
12.04
12.54
19.79
Jefferson Local SD
17.65
11.82
19.79
Jefferson Township Local SD
7.24
18.91
19.79
Jennings Local SD
4.06
4.6
19.79
Johnstown-Monroe Local SD
8.02
7.96
19.79
Jonathan Alder Local SD
14.41
12.25
19.79
Joseph Badger Local SD
5.59
6.54
19.79
Kalida Local SD
9.18
8.64
19.79
Kenston Local SD
11.14
13.98
19.79
Kent City SD
21.62
22.33
19.79
Kenton City SD
18.32
15.22
19.79
Kettering City SD
23.71
22.97
19.79
Keystone Local SD
6.16
8.65
19.79
Kings Local SD
20.68
17.9
19.79
Kirtland Local SD
6.83
9.2
19.79
La Brae Local SD
15.1
14.64
19.79
Lake Local SD (Stark)
11.09
9.53
19.79
Lake Local SD (Wood)
21.29
19.38
19.79
Lakeview Local SD
16.74
13.17
19.79
Lakewood City SD
17.1
21.41
19.79
Lakewood Local SD
17.63
17.3
19.79
Lakota Local SD (Butler)
18.33
19.51
19.79
Lakota Local SD (Sandusky)
9.49
10.6
19.79
Lancaster City SD
25.42
20.82
19.79
Lebanon City SD
13.27
15.07
19.79
Ledgemont Local SD
5.66
7.89
19.79
Leetonia Ex Vill SD
7.94
7.65
19.79
Leipsic Local SD
6.32
17.87
19.79
Lexington Local SD
10.58
10.74
19.79
Liberty Center Local SD
6.38
8.56
19.79
Liberty Local SD
21.07
19.87
19.79
Liberty Union-Thurston Local
7.37
6.61
19.79
Liberty Benton Local SD
16.95
12.24
19.79
Licking Heights Local SD
13.18
20.04
19.79
Licking Valley Local SD
8.01
9.1
19.79
Lima City SD
24.27
21.64
19.79
Lincolnview Local SD
2.45
5.35
19.79
Lisbon Ex Vill SD
17.25
11.56
19.79
Little Miami Local SD
3.89
9.69
19.79
Lockland City SD
29.62
26.34
19.79
Logan Elm Local SD
9.42
13.76
19.79
Logan-Hocking Local SD
10.65
15.66
19.79
London City SD
17.14
20.27
19.79
www. greaterohio . org
6 0 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
School District
District Data
Similar District Average
Statewide Average
Lorain City SD
15.53
22.34
19.79
Lordstown Local SD
26.28
22.94
19.79
Loudonville-Perrysville Ex V
12.54
11.72
19.79
Louisville City SD
9.42
10.51
19.79
Loveland City SD
6.52
12.02
19.79
Lowellville Local SD
26.01
10.58
19.79
Lucas Local SD
2.02
9.36
19.79
Lynchburg-Clay Local SD
3.36
4.88
19.79
Mad River Local SD
25.46
18.18
19.79
Greenon Local SD
10.32
10.98
19.79
Madeira City SD
10.29
12.33
19.79
Madison Local SD (Bulter)
6.46
5.69
19.79
Madison Local SD (Lake)
12.67
10.83
19.79
Madison Local SD (Richland)
17.59
19.7
19.79
Madison-Plains Local SD
5.88
10.13
19.79
Manchester Local SD (Adams)
27.38
15.35
19.79
Manchester Local SD (Summit)
4.26
6.93
19.79
Mansfield City SD
21.85
21.82
19.79
Maple Heights City SD
19.64
23.57
19.79
Mapleton Local SD
6.34
6.5
19.79
Maplewood Local SD
2.82
4.15
19.79
Margaretta Local SD
9.35
13.59
19.79
Mariemont City SD
14.35
14.09
19.79
Marietta City SD
25.07
19.87
19.79
Marion City SD
17.44
20.49
19.79
Marion Local SD
4.45
4.47
19.79
Marlington Local SD
16.44
14.21
19.79
Martins Ferry City SD
15.93
17.43
19.79
Marysville Ex Vill SD
19.76
19.33
19.79
Mason City SD
15.19
18.47
19.79
Massillon City SD
16
20.03
19.79
Mathews Local SD
10.97
9.98
19.79
Maumee City SD
31.31
25.32
19.79
Mayfield City SD
26.57
24.2
19.79
Maysville Local SD
18.41
14.48
19.79
McComb Local SD
8.79
9.59
19.79
McDonald Local SD
5.72
5.93
19.79
Mechanicsburg Ex Vill SD
6.6
6.19
19.79
Medina City SD
19.21
18.3
19.79
Meigs Local SD
16.62
14.42
19.79
Mentor Ex Vill SD
21.43
21.44
19.79
Miami East Local SD
4.15
6.9
19.79
Miami Trace Local SD
12.15
14.2
19.79
Miamisburg City SD
32.28
24.25
19.79
Middletown City SD
20.45
23.11
19.79
www. greaterohio . org
R E fferences — 6 1
School District
District Data
Similar District Average
Statewide Average
Midview Local SD
8.21
11.4
19.79
Milford Ex Vill SD
17.07
17.22
19.79
Millcreek-West Unity Local SD
11.24
10.34
19.79
Miller City-New Cleveland Local SD
1.79
4.03
19.79
Milton-Union Ex Vill SD
6.25
7.02
19.79
Minerva Local SD
12.58
11.28
19.79
Minford Local SD
5.37
5.74
19.79
Minster Local SD
17.41
14.83
19.79
Mississinawa Valley Local SD
6.99
6.14
19.79
Mogadore Local SD
18.18
14.78
19.79
Mohawk Local SD
3.76
5.44
19.79
Monroe Local SD
26.8
21.26
19.79
Monroeville Local SD
10.51
9.1
19.79
Montpelier Ex Vill SD
14.82
11.46
19.79
Morgan Local SD
9.83
15.39
19.79
Mount Gilead Ex Vill SD
11.94
10.07
19.79
Mount Healthy City SD
14.14
20.85
19.79
Mount Vernon City SD
16.32
19.75
19.79
Napoleon City SD
11.3
19.88
19.79
Nelsonville-York City SD
21.82
11.4
19.79
New Boston Local SD
45.68
19.01
19.79
New Bremen Local SD
13.54
11.65
19.79
New Knoxville Local SD
15.78
8.82
19.79
New Lebanon Local SD
7.46
5.51
19.79
New Lexington City SD
15.51
12.82
19.79
New London Local SD
8.11
6.13
19.79
New Miami Local SD
14.48
11.79
19.79
New Philadelphia City SD
21.74
18.85
19.79
New Richmond Ex Vill SD
17.8
20.45
19.79
New Riegel Local SD
6.87
5.57
19.79
Newark City SD
19.91
22.75
19.79
Newbury Local SD
11
13.96
19.79
Newcomerstown Ex Vill SD
16.63
13.33
19.79
Newton Falls Ex Vill SD
13.56
9.95
19.79
Newton Local SD
2.27
3.82
19.79
Niles City SD
17.27
18.39
19.79
Noble Local SD
3.99
9.5
19.79
Nordonia Hills City SD
16.14
22.58
19.79
North Baltimore Local SD
19.16
12.43
19.79
North Bass Local SD
16.24
14.86
19.79
North Central Local SD (Wayne)
13
7.8
19.79
North Central Local SD (Williams)
11.57
11.03
19.79
North College Hill City SD
21.01
23
19.79
North Fork Local SD
4.81
6.65
19.79
North Olmsted City SD
27.31
22.94
19.79
www. greaterohio . org
6 2 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
School District
District Data
Similar District Average
Statewide Average
North Ridgeville City SD
10.66
14.45
19.79
North Royalton City SD
14.84
16.46
19.79
North Union Local SD
4.85
5.11
19.79
Northeastern Local SD (Clark)
10.09
11.99
19.79
Northeastern Local SD (Defiance)
19.75
20.49
19.79
Northern Local SD
4.87
8.02
19.79
Northmont City SD
11.4
15.46
19.79
Northmor Local SD
3.64
6.99
19.79
Northridge Local SD (Licking)
2.2
5.67
19.79
Northridge Local SD (Montogmery)
36.11
26.07
19.79
Northwest Local SD (Hamilton)
16.8
20.8
19.79
Northwest Local SD (Scioto)
6.07
6.53
19.79
Northwest Local SD (Stark)
10.28
9.24
19.79
Northwestern Local SD (Clark)
15.78
11.79
19.79
Northwestern Local SD (Wayne)
11.01
7.64
19.79
Northwood Local SD
30.87
20.04
19.79
Norton City SD
13.12
12.34
19.79
Norwalk City SD
16.84
19.26
19.79
Norwood City SD
31.3
22.87
19.79
Oak Hill Union Local SD
6.57
11.53
19.79
Oak Hills Local SD
9.84
15.15
19.79
Oakwood City SD
5.85
9.24
19.79
Oberlin City SD
20.05
17.87
19.79
Old Fort Local SD
6.01
8.45
19.79
Olentangy Local SD
15.05
18.54
19.79
Olmsted Falls City SD
12.86
12.19
19.79
Ontario Local SD
25.34
21.87
19.79
Orange City SD
14.85
20.17
19.79
Oregon City SD
18.21
24.08
19.79
Orrville City SD
23.18
21.49
19.79
Osnaburg Local SD
9.3
10.39
19.79
Otsego Local SD
6.52
7.21
19.79
Ottawa Hills Local SD
3.07
9.28
19.79
Ottawa-Glandorf Local SD
13.19
12.49
19.79
Ottoville Local SD
7.11
8.16
19.79
Painsville City Local SD
24.36
23.78
19.79
Painsville Township Local SD
11.12
15.23
19.79
Paint Valley Local SD
3.6
6.27
19.79
Pandora-Gilboa Local SD
5.11
7.38
19.79
Parkway Local SD
5.73
5.24
19.79
Parma City SD
17.9
21.52
19.79
Patrick Henry Local SD
7.57
8.21
19.79
Paulding Ex Vill SD
11.44
13.99
19.79
Perkins Local SD
27.06
23.55
19.79
Perry Local SD (Allen)
41.49
19.22
19.79
www. greaterohio . org
R E fferences — 6 3
School District
District Data
Similar District Average
Statewide Average
Perry Local SD (Lake)
18.17
22.38
19.79
Perry Local SD (Stark)
17.85
19.21
19.79
Perrysburg Ex Vill SD
16.82
15.8
19.79
Pettisville Local SD
8.93
8.17
19.79
Pickerington Local SD
13.43
16.77
19.79
9.9
12.32
19.79
Piqua City SD
21.33
19.62
19.79
Plain Local SD (Franklin)
13.92
15.53
19.79
Plain Local SD (Stark)
15.64
19.21
19.79
Pleasant Local SD
13.75
11.36
19.79
Plymouth-Shiloh Local SD
5.55
5.01
19.79
Poland Local SD
14.99
12.06
19.79
Port Clinton City SD
17.44
22.56
19.79
Portsmouth City SD
25.5
23.23
19.79
Preble-Shawnee Local SD
4.36
6.07
19.79
Princeton City SD
40.07
28.55
19.79
Pymatuning Valley Local SD
11.79
11.78
19.79
Ravenna City SD
21.01
19.76
19.79
Reading Community City SD
26.07
21.23
19.79
Revere Local SD
12.86
14.07
19.79
Reynoldsburg City SD
17.39
19.07
19.79
Richmond Heights Local SD
19.75
22.28
19.79
Ridgedale Local SD
5.39
8.82
19.79
Ridgemont Local SD
2.76
4.47
19.79
Ridgewood Local SD
12.97
8.17
19.79
Ripley-Union-Lewis Local SD
14.82
11.12
19.79
Rittman Ex Vill SD
11.21
13.41
19.79
River Valley Local SD
20.23
15.91
19.79
River View Local SD
11.22
14.15
19.79
Riverdale Local SD
4.48
5.56
19.79
Riverside Local SD
5.28
4.75
19.79
Rock Hill Local SD
7.14
10.64
19.79
Rocky River City SD
17.49
18.88
19.79
Rolling Hills Local SD
19
18.14
19.79
Rootstown Local SD
8.48
9.42
19.79
Pike-Delta-York Local SD
Ross Local SD
5.33
7.96
19.79
Rossford Ex Vill SD
27.81
23.46
19.79
Russia Local SD
12.41
8.98
19.79
Salem City SD
19.42
19.35
19.79
Sandusky City SD
26.11
23.92
19.79
Sandy Valley Local SD
17.89
12.76
19.79
Scioto Valley Local SD (Pike)
9.47
13.57
19.79
Scioto Valley Local SD (Ross)
8.04
10.62
19.79
Sebring Local SD
23.87
14.52
19.79
Seneca East Local SD
4.64
6.69
19.79
www. greaterohio . org
6 4 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
School District
District Data
Similar District Average
Statewide Average
Shadyside Local SD
21.31
14.67
19.79
Shaker Heights City SD
10.44
18.4
19.79
Shawnee Local SD
10.3
23.29
19.79
Sheffield-Sheffield Lake City Local SD
25.87
21.48
19.79
Shelby City SD
16.22
14.21
19.79
Sidney City SD
21.13
20.71
19.79
Solon City SD
26.09
22.21
19.79
6.1
6.62
19.79
South Euclid-Lyndhurst City
20.65
20.83
19.79
South Point Local SD
19.21
17.45
19.79
South Range Local SD
15.57
11.03
19.79
South-Western City SD
23.12
22
19.79
Southeast Local SD (Portage)
7.13
6.49
19.79
Southeast Local SD (Wayne)
11.31
12.66
19.79
Southeastern Local SD
8.48
8.93
19.79
South Central Local SD
Southern Local SD (Columbiana)
5.7
8.04
19.79
21.84
13.22
19.79
Southern Local SD (Perry)
8.5
6.63
19.79
Southington Local SD
2.84
3.92
19.79
Southwest Licking Local SD
8.84
11.16
19.79
Southwest Local SD
23.08
16.77
19.79
Spencerville Local SD
8.78
6.7
19.79
Springboro Community City SD
5.52
12.54
19.79
Springfield City SD
23.47
21.84
19.79
Springfield Local SD (Lucas)
22.47
22.78
19.79
Springfield Local SD (Mahoning)
10.12
8.25
19.79
Springfield Local SD (Summit)
22.41
19.52
19.79
St Bernard-Elmwood Place Cit
20.37
25.16
19.79
St Clairsville-Richland City SD
30.9
22.06
19.79
Southern Local SD (Meigs)
St Henry Consolidated Local SD
7.88
6.31
19.79
St Marys City SD
14.26
13.34
19.79
Steubenville City SD
21.92
22.33
19.79
Stow-Munroe Falls City SD
18.46
17.03
19.79
Strasburg-Franklin Local SD
13.68
8.76
19.79
Streetsboro City SD
34.59
23.97
19.79
Strongsville City SD
20.55
20.74
19.79
Struthers City SD
9.53
16.08
19.79
Stryker Local SD
9.74
10.79
19.79
Sugarcreek Local SD
11.86
12.79
19.79
Swanton Local SD
12.91
13.86
19.79
Switzerland Of Ohio Local SD
12.86
15.08
19.79
Sycamore Community City SD
33.3
22.78
19.79
Sylvania City SD
16.31
18.74
19.79
Symmes Valley Local SD
3.91
6.26
19.79
Talawanda City SD
20.16
17.15
19.79
www. greaterohio . org
R E fferences — 6 5
School District
District Data
Similar District Average
Statewide Average
Tallmadge City SD
17.42
15.18
19.79
Teays Valley Local SD
8.42
9.9
19.79
Tecumseh Local SD
9.88
12.87
19.79
Three Rivers Local SD
8.63
18.67
19.79
Tiffin City SD
17.31
19.18
19.79
Tipp City Ex Vill SD
14.53
14.12
19.79
Toledo City SD
23.17
29.6
19.79
Toronto City SD
10.72
18.43
19.79
Tri-County North Local SD
13.2
11.43
19.79
Tri-Valley Local SD
13.46
14.34
19.79
Tri-Village Local SD
4.21
8.83
19.79
Triad Local SD
6.94
4.72
19.79
Trimble Local SD
7.63
5.64
19.79
Triway Local SD
11.45
12.68
19.79
Trotwood-Madison City SD
24.05
23.99
19.79
Troy City SD
19.16
23.42
19.79
Tuscarawas Valley Local SD
11.57
10.06
19.79
Tuslaw Local SD
8.65
10.63
19.79
Twin Valley Community Local
4.66
7.08
19.79
Twinsburg City SD
23.28
24.41
19.79
Union Local SD
12.42
8.18
19.79
Union Scioto Local SD
11.36
10.47
19.79
United Local SD
5.11
5.39
19.79
Upper Arlington City SD
9.12
15.09
19.79
Upper Sandusky Ex Vill SD
15.34
14.89
19.79
Upper Scioto Valley Local SD
4.18
4.47
19.79
Urbana City SD
17.59
20.14
19.79
Valley Local SD
6.82
9
19.79
Valley View Local SD
6.1
7.78
19.79
Van Buren Local SD
23.17
26.52
19.79
Van Wert City SD
17.91
17.38
19.79
Vandalia-Butler City SD
23.35
24.35
19.79
Vanlue Local SD
3.38
3.73
19.79
Vermilion Local SD
12.26
17.81
19.79
Versailles Ex Vill SD
13.74
9.45
19.79
Vinton County Local SD
8.06
12.19
19.79
Wadsworth City SD
14.73
13.82
19.79
Walnut Township Local SD
5.95
9.6
19.79
Wapakoneta City SD
15.05
12.83
19.79
Warren City SD
18.95
21.83
19.79
Warren Local SD
8.67
15
19.79
Warrensville Heights City SD
52.81
25.59
19.79
Washington Court House City
21.43
19.29
19.79
Washington Local SD
28.41
23.7
19.79
Washington-Nile Local SD
4.29
5.9
19.79
www. greaterohio . org
6 6 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
School District
District Data
Similar District Average
Statewide Average
Waterloo Local SD
5.25
6.56
19.79
Wauseon Ex Vill SD
18.63
15.44
19.79
Waverly City SD
15.93
16.5
19.79
Wayne Local SD
7.5
7.54
19.79
Wayne Trace Local SD
8.73
9.18
19.79
Waynesfield-Goshen Local SD
3.44
3.72
19.79
Weathersfield Local SD
13.15
15.07
19.79
Wellington Ex Vill SD
12.96
13.24
19.79
Wellston City SD
17.81
13.23
19.79
Wellsville Local SD
10.99
13.62
19.79
West Branch Local SD
10.75
8.78
19.79
West Carrollton City SD
20.85
21.67
19.79
West Clermont Local SD
26.76
20.71
19.79
West Geauga Local SD
4.65
9.26
19.79
West Holmes Local SD
13.9
13.12
19.79
West Liberty-Salem Local SD
8.39
7.14
19.79
West Muskingum Local SD
20.72
17.57
19.79
Western Brown Local SD
7.99
7.69
19.79
Western Local SD
9.01
5.59
19.79
Western Reserve Local SD (Huron)
8.38
5.66
19.79
Western Reserve Local SD (Mahoning)
7.24
6.61
19.79
Westerville City SD
19.43
19.71
19.79
Westfall Local SD
4.35
7.6
19.79
Westlake City SD
24.91
21.65
19.79
Wheelersburg Local SD
25.29
14.65
19.79
Whitehall City SD
35.59
23.97
19.79
Wickliffe City SD
19.81
24.57
19.79
Willard City SD
14.7
18.89
19.79
Williamsburg Local SD
15.11
10.05
19.79
Willoughby-Eastlake City SD
22.47
23.46
19.79
Wilmington City SD
25.92
21.12
19.79
Windham Ex Vill SD
12.06
10.67
19.79
Winton Woods City SD
22.45
18.87
19.79
Wolf Creek Local SD
11.45
15.29
19.79
Woodmore Local SD
8.56
14.21
19.79
Woodridge Local SD
19.13
24.26
19.79
Wooster City SD
26.54
23.36
19.79
Worthington City SD
25.07
21.25
19.79
Wynford Local SD
9.04
8.72
19.79
Wyoming City SD
3.29
9.92
19.79
Xenia Community City SD
11.63
19.13
19.79
Yellow Springs Ex Vill SD
10.55
14.95
19.79
Youngstown City SD
21.08
28
19.79
Zane Trace Local SD
15.95
14.14
19.79
Zanesville City SD
26.68
22.69
19.79
www. greaterohio . org
R E fferences — 6 7
Addendum E
Other voices: Self-insurance fund could help a city recover: Community hit by bad luck
would use money from regional pool
Gene Krebs—Dayton Daily News—4/1/2005
Remember the hit the Miami Valley took when NCR
downsized? Have you noticed how communities can be left
high and dry when shopping patterns change to a new mall
just down the road, but in a different jurisdiction? Are you
ticked about local governments chasing companies with
your tax dollars?
There is a solution to these problems, an idea that also
could figure in state debates about tax reform, Local Government Fund cuts and the state budget crunch.
Let’s call it SIFFLoG—the Self-Insurance Fund for
Local Governments. Something similar has been in place
for 35 years in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area. It
exists in different forms in other places—including the
Dayton area. Montgomery County’s ED/GE program, for
example, involves 30 cities, villages and townships, each of
which contribute a portion of their growth in income and
property taxes to a regional development fund that distributes about $800,000 a year.
The Twin Cities model is much broader, generating
up to $350 million for nearly 200 communities in a sevencounty metropolitan area.
Local communities keep 60 percent of the growth in
their commercial and industrial property taxes, but the
remaining 40 percent goes into a pool created by the Twin
Cities Fiscal Disparities Act. It’s not a simple redistribution
of wealth, nor does it undermine local autonomy. Some
cities receive more than they put in, and a smaller number
of growing jurisdictions give more than they receive.
But the largest city, Minneapolis, sometimes gives
and sometimes receives. Donor communities can become
debtors, and vice versa.
Meanwhile, Bloomington—home of the Mall of
America and its $18.5 million in tax revenue—contributes
more than $4 million to the pool, which helps other cities
and the region as a whole.
Thus, a city that usually pays its own way is insured
against service cuts or tax hikes when it loses a major
employer. Within a few years, with help from a SIFFLoG,
such a community would again be on solid footing and
contributing to the pool.
This ambitious approach makes sense for Ohio, especially when aimed at places such as the Miami Valley—stable communities that could draw on a regional insurance
policy to get back to full strength after being hit with bad
luck.
It can prevent a community from hitting a “tipping
point,” which can occur when it cuts police and fire departments, causing flight of the tax-paying middle class.
Contrast that with the climate that currently exists in
many parts of Ohio: Local governments use tax-increment
financing for everything that moves and tax abatements for
everything that threatens to move.
Rather than cooperation, the result is a counterproductive poaching of jobs within a region, as cities and suburbs
spend taxpayer dollars as an enticement for something that
generates little, if any, net increase in the regional economy.
Because economies are regional, it makes no sense for
local governments to compete for employers and jobs. But
it is logical and wise for those governments to cooperate as
a region; that way, they can serve workers and businesses,
and strengthen an economy that is not restricted by artificial city boundaries.
Could a Twin Cities-style self-insurance pool work in
Ohio? Certainly there are challenges and differences.
The commercial property-tax rate in Minnesota is
much greater than Ohio’s rate, and Minnesota has a long
tradition of state funding for schools. Creating a SIFFLoG
in Ohio wouldn’t make up for cuts in the Local Government Fund, but it could lessen the blow for many struggling communities as the state modernizes its tax policy.
www. greaterohio . org
6 8 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
Nor would it balance the budget. But it might encourage the end of wasteful tax breaks and allow for better
regional cooperation and land-use planning, which could
lead to savings for state and local governments.
Doing it now in this state budget has the added benefit
of allowing the pool six months to collect revenue before
it becomes available to communities on Jan. 1, 2006— the
date on which the current proposal would cut the Local
Government Fund.
It is up to legislators to determine whether self-insurance pools in Ohio would come from property, income,
sales taxes, the proposed Commercial Activity Tax or a
basket of many taxes. But the state budget crisis, and the
movement to reform the tax code, make this is an ideal
time to create a self-insurance fund for local governments.
Gene Krebs, a former state legislator, school board
member and county commissioner from southwest Ohio,
is state director of Greater Ohio, a campaign to raise
awareness of land-use issues and modernize state policy.
Addendum F
Tim Kaine on Growth Issues: Better Linking Land Use and Transportation in Virginia
Articles Collected from June 23-November 17, 2005
Kaine Pushes A Regional Approach to Transportation
Leesburg Today
June, 23, 2005
* not available online
Kaine Transportation Plan to Cool on New Taxes
The Virginian-Pilot
June 24, 2005
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=
88278&ran=80113
Highway Plans Fall Short
The Virginian-Pilot
June 30, 2005
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=
88532&ran=193156
www. greaterohio . org
Kaine Discusses Bay Cleanup, Land Preservation at
Forum
The Virginian-Pilot
September 25, 2005
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=
92698&ran=152086
Transportation Plans are Short on Details
Kaine, Kilgore Remain Vague on Funding
The Washington Post
October 5, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2005/10/04/AR2005100401550.html
Kaine’s Ads Propose Legislation to Help Localities
Control Growth
Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star
October 13, 2005
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2005/102005/10132
005/137281
R E fferences — 6 9
Searching for a Hook; Can Kaine’s Growth Limit Plan
Bring Voters to Polls?
Leesburg Today
October 14, 2005
http://206.246.124.100/current.cfm?newsid=11202
A Step Forward on Containing Sprawl
The Virginian-Pilot
October 17, 2005
http://hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=93752
&ran=150171
Kaine Sounds Slow-Growth Note in Exurbs
Candidate Goes After GOP Stronghold in N. Va.
The Washington Post
October 18, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2005/10/17/AR2005101701638.html
Kaine Plan Worth a Look
Loudoun Times Mirror - Editorial
October 18, 2005
http://www.timescommunity.com/site/tab1.cfm?n
ewsid=15410214&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_
id=506041&rfi=6
Why So Many Eyes Are on the Virginia Race
The Washington Post
October 21, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2005/10/20/AR2005102001644_pf.html
Developers Pouring Cash Into Va. Campaigns
The Washington Post
October 23, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2005/10/22/AR2005102201105.html
Choice is Clear for Moving Region and State in Right
Direction
The Fauquier Times-Democrat
October 25, 2005
http://www.timescommunity.com/site/news.cfm?
newsid=15453129&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_
id=507243&rfi=8
Choice is Clear: Kaine
Loudoun Times Mirror
October 25, 2005
http://www.timescommunity.com/site/tab1.cfm?n
ewsid=15453223&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_
id=506041&rfi=6
Exurbanites Occupy an Unsettled Place in Va. Politics
New Enclaves Lean GOP, but Residents Seem Isolated
From State, Local Government
The Washington Post
October 25, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2005/10/24/AR2005102402037.html
More Local Control is Needed to Manage Our Growth
Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star
October 26, 2005
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2005/102005/10262
005/138218
Growth and Its Discontents
The Washington Post
October 26, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2005/10/25/AR2005102501591.html
www. greaterohio . org
7 0 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
Candidates Offer Transportation Ideas
Kaine wants Lockbox; Kilgore backs votes; Potts Open
to Taxes
The Richmond Times Dispatch
October 26, 2005
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/
Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&
c=MGArticle&cid=1128767754123
Whose Priority?
If the environment is your issue, Kaine’s your best choice
Charlottesville Daily Press
October 27, 2005
*not available online
Kaine’s Pledge Has A Legislative Catch
Controlling Growth Takes the Assembly’s Help
The Washington Post
October 29, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801969.html
Where do the Candidates Stand? Kaine, Kilgore and
Potts
Richmond Times-Dispatch
November 6, 2005
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/
Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&
c=MGArticle&cid=1128767962113
Two Wins Lift hopes for Democrats
New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races are seen as
giving the party national momentum.
The Los Angeles Times
November 9, 2005
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-nagovs9nov09,0,5074302.story?coll=la-home-headlines
www. greaterohio . org
In the Suburbs, Backlash Against Republicans Hits Hard
The Washington Post
November 9, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2005/11/08/AR2005110802176.
html?nav=hcmodule
Democrat Kaine Wins in Virginia
Continuation of Centrist Path Prevails Over Kilgore
The Washington Post
November 9, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2005/11/08/AR2005110800371.html
Democrat wins in Va.; dead heat in Detroit
Washington Post News Service (ran in papers around the
country)
November 9, 2005 2005
http://www.bergen.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2
Y3dnFlZUVFeXkyNCZmZ2JlbDdmN3ZxZWVFRXl5N
gxMzA4OSZ5cmlyeTdmNzE3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTI=
Elections Buoy Democrats; GOP Downplays National
Implication
Chicago Tribune
November 9, 2005
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/
politics/13125621.htm
Kaine Puts Roads at Top of Agenda, Says Virginia GOP’s
Ads ‘Backfired’
The Washington Post
November 10, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2005/11/09/AR2005110902514.html
R E fferences — 7 1
Newcomers Push Outer Suburbs Left
Kaine Won Loudoun County by Almost 6 Points, Pr.
William by 2
The Washington Post
November 10, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2005/11/09/AR2005110902274.html
Kaine Transition Begins
The Free Lance-Star
November 10, 2005
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2005/112005/11102
005/144760
A Party Finds the Right Words
The Washington Post
November 10, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2005/11/09/AR2005110901651.html
Kaine Wins Virginia, PW
Times Community Newspapers
November 11, 2005
http://www.timescommunity.com/site/tab6.cfm?n
ewsid=15549451&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_
id=506105&rfi=6
Buckle Your Seatbelts
Bacon’s Rebellion
November 11, 2005
http://www.baconsrebellion.com/Roadtoruin/BRNS_0511-11.php
In Virginia, Pragmatism Wins
The Washington Post
November 12, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101603.html
November 12, 2005
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/
Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&
c=MGArticle&cid=1128768102910
A Growing Debate: Why Kaine Prevailed
Development Issues Seen as a Factor
The Washington Post
November 13, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2005/11/12/AR2005111200038.html
The Battle for the Exurbs
The New York Times
November 14, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/14/opinion/14texeira.
html
New Man, New Ideas
Bacon’s Rebellion
November 14, 2005
http://www.baconsrebellion.com/Issues05/11-14/Bacon.
php
Giddy-Up
Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star
November 16, 2005
http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2005/112005/
11162005/145800vember 16, 2005
Positive Message Works
Loudoun Times Mirror Editorial
November 15, 2005
http://www.timescommunity.com/site/news.cfm?
newsid=15582671&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_
id=507243&rfi=8
Kaine Suburban Strategy Paid Off
The Richmond Times-Dispatch
www. greaterohio . org
7 2 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
Loudoun Changing Colors?
The Loudoun Connection
November 17, 2005
http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article
=58991&paper=67&cat=104
Kaine Launches Town Meeting Tour
Governor-Elect Addresses Transportation
The Washington Post
November 17, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602366.html
Republicans: The Great Sprawl Debate
The Hampton Roads Daily Press
December 4, 2005
http://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/dp31185sy0dec04,0,7646904.story?coll=dp-opinioneditorials
Talking Bad Traffic With Next Governor
Kaine Hears About Loudoun Congestion
The Washington Post
December 4, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2005/12/03/AR2005120301286.
html?referrer=email
Credit and requests for additional information on
the list compiled above please contact: Coalition for
Smarter Growth: 4000 Albemarle Street, NW, Suite 310,
Washington, DC 20016, 202-244-4408
[email protected]
or Piedmont Environmental Council, PO Box 460,
Warrenton, VA 20188, 540-347-2334 , [email protected]
Addendum G
123rd General Assembly of Ohio
Ohio Legislative Budget Office: a nonpartisan agency providing fiscal research for the Ohio General Assembly
77 South High St., 8th Floor, Columbus, OH 43266-0347. Phone: 614-466-8734
E-mail: [email protected] Internet Web Site: http://www.lbo.state.oh.us/
BILL:
DATE:
STATUS:
SPONSOR:
LOCAL IMPACT STATEMENT REQUIRED:
Sub. H.B. 718
November 13, 2000
In House Finance & Appropriations
Rep. Krebs
Yes
CONTENTS: Classroom base cost model - a new method of funding primary and secondary education
www. greaterohio . org
R E fferences — 7 3
State Fiscal Highlights
STATE FUND
FY 2002
FY 2003
FUTURE YEARS
General Revenue Fund
Revenues
-0-
-0-
-0-
Expenditures
Approx. $650 million increase
Approx. $1.3 billion increase
Approx. $1.95 billion increase in
FY 2004
AND Approx. $2.6 billion
increase in FY 2005 and annual
thereafter
Note: The state fiscal year is July 1 through June 30. For example, FY 2001 is July 1, 2000 – June 30, 2001.
• The bill would phase in a new funding method for
school districts beginning in FY 2002 over a fouryear period with the full implementation of the
new formula beginning in FY 2005.
• The new school funding model would divide the
current base cost figure into two components: the
classroom base cost and the non-classroom base
cost. The state would fully fund the classroom
base cost for all school districts with no local share
requirement. The state would also provide equalized funding for the non-classroom cost and pupil
transportation based on each district’s property
wealth: 100% for school districts with property
wealth rankings on the bottom 25 percentiles; 100%
to 0% for districts with property wealth rankings
from the 25th to the 75th percentiles; and 0% for
districts with rankings on the top 25 percentiles.
The state would also fully fund other existing categorical funding components, such as gifted unit
funding and disadvantaged pupil impact aid, etc.
• During the phase-in period, the Department of
Education would annually calculate the amount of
foundation aid for each district under the current
formula and under the proposed new formula,
respectively. The percentage of foundation aid
received by school districts from the new formula
would be phased in as follows: 25% in FY 2002,
50% in FY 2003, 75% in FY 2004, and 100% in FY
2005 and thereafter. The percentage of foundation
aid received by school districts from the current
formula would accordingly be phased out as follows: 75% in FY 2002, 50% in FY 2003, 25% in FY
2004, and 0% in FY 2005 and thereafter.
• Based on the current available data, state foundation aid for school districts would increase by
approximately $650 million per year during the
phase-in period (FY 2002-FY 2004). With the full
implementation of the bill beginning in FY 2005,
foundation aid increase would be approximately
$2.6 billion per year. These estimates assume no
funding changes in all other existing non-foundation aid programs. Although the bill does not
specify any reductions in other programs, if reductions occur they could offset some of this estimated
increase.
www. greaterohio . org
7 4 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
Local Fiscal Highlights
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
FY 2002
FY 2003
FUTURE YEARS
Revenues
Approx. $650 million gain statewide/
potential varying losses for some
individual school districts
Approx. $1.3 billion million gain
statewide/potential varying losses for
some individual school districts
Approx. $1.95 billion gain statewide/
potential varying losses for some
individual school districts in FY 2004
AND Approx. $2.6 billion gain/potential varying losses for some individual
districts in FY 2005 and annual
thereafter
Expenditures
-0-
-0-
-0-
School Districts
Note: For most local governments, the fiscal year is the calendar year. The school district fiscal year is July 1 through June 30.
• The proposed new school funding model would
provide approximately $650 million per year in
additional state foundation aid to school districts
as a whole during the phase-in period. School
districts would gain approximately $2.6 billion per
year in additional state aid once the bill is fully
implemented beginning in FY 2005.
• The bill would phase out the 20-mill HB 920 floor
over an eight-year period with an annual reduction
rate of 2.5 mills. Without passing additional levies,
effective real property tax rates for some school
districts could fall below 20 mills when districts
go through reappraisals or updates. Those districts
could therefore experience losses in local property
tax revenues. With the exception of a few districts,
most of these losses would be offset by the general
state aid increases.
• Without additional levies, total education expenditures would grow from about 8 to 18.5 percent
per year as a result of the bill. Therefore, it would
be reasonable to believe that the bill could lessen
the need to pass additional levies for many school
districts and slow the growth in local property tax
revenues during and immediately after the phasein period. However, some individual districts
would still need to pass additional levies. In the
long run, all school districts would need to pass
additional levies in order to maintain certain levels
of local funding.
www. greaterohio . org
Detailed Fiscal Analysis
The bill would change the method to fund 612 school
districts in Ohio and phase in a fully state funded classroom base cost model beginning in FY 2002 over a four
year period with the full implementation of the model
beginning in FY 2005. It would also phase out the 20-mill
HB 920 floor guarantee over an eight-year period beginning in tax year 2001 by an annual reduction rate of 2.5
mills. The minimum 20-mill tax rate for participating in
the state foundation program would also be phased out at
the same eight-year schedule. The funding for joint vocational school districts remains unchanged under the bill.
Foundation Formula Aid
The new formula divides the current base cost figure
into two components: the classroom base cost and the nonclassroom base cost. These figures are calculated based on
the same modified Augenblick method adopted by the
122nd General Assembly. All categorical funding formula
factors (including special education weights, speech service supplement, vocational education weights, vocational
education associate service funding, vocational GRADS
teacher grants, disadvantaged pupil impact aid, equity aid,
and pupil transportation) remain unchanged as under current law. The below table shows per pupil classroom and
non-classroom base cost figures for FY 2001 to FY 2005.
R E fferences — 7 5
Fiscal Year
Per Pupil Classroom Base Cost
Per Pupil Non-Classroom Base Cost
Total Per Pupil Base Cost
2001
$2,752
$1,542
$4,294
2002
$2,829
$1,585
$4,414
2003
$2,909
$1,629
$4,538
2004
$2,990
$1,675
$4,665
2005
$3,074
$1,722
$4,796
Under the bill, the state would pay 100 percent of the
classroom base cost (including regular as well as special
and vocational education) for all school districts with no
local share requirement. Per pupil classroom base cost
is about 64 percent of total per pupil base cost. The state
would also provide equalized funding for the non-classroom base cost (including regular as well as special and
vocational education) and pupil transportation based on
each district’s property wealth as follows: 100 percent to
the 25 percent of school districts with the lowest wealth
in the state, 100 percent to zero percent to school districts
with property valuation rankings from the 25th percentile
to the 75th percentile, and zero percent to the 25 percent
of school districts with the highest wealth in the state. All
other categorical foundation funding components will also
be fully funded by the state. Currently, the state pays about
half of base cost, special education, vocational education,
and transportation costs.
Based on the current available data, state foundation
aid for school districts would increase by approximately
$650 million per year during the first three years of the
phase in period. With the bill’s full implementation, state
foundation aid would increase by approximate $2.6 billion
per year beginning in FY 2005. At this time it is unclear
whether the current state tax structure can absorb all these
costs. It should be noted that these estimates assume no
changes to all other existing state funding programs outside the foundation formula. It is possible to lower the state
cost somewhat by eliminating some existing non-foundation aid programs. However, this is not included in the
current version of the bill.
School districts would collectively gain approximately
$650 million per year in additional state aid during the
phase-in period and approximately $2.6 billion per year
once the bill is fully implemented. However, state aid
increases for individual school districts would be fairly
uneven. Per pupil state aid increases for high wealth districts would generally be higher than that for low and
medium wealth districts. This is due to the fact that the
current equalized foundation formula provides less state
aid to high wealth school districts than it does low and
medium wealth districts. Under the bill, the state would
pay 100 percent of the classroom base cost for all school
districts regardless of the wealth of school districts.
To illustrate this effect, let’s assume the bill were fully
implemented in FY 2001. The current base cost of $4,294
in FY 2001 consists of $2,752 for the classroom base cost
and $1,542 for the non-classroom base cost. Under the bill,
every school district would receive $2,752 with the cost of
doing business factor (CODBF) adjustment in per pupil
state base cost funding. Under the current formula, state
base cost funding for high wealth school districts (with
valuation per pupil more than $150,000) ranges from 30
percent of total base cost of $4,294 with the CODBF adjustment (or $1,288 per pupil with the CODBF adjustment) to
zero percent. Obviously, these high wealth districts, especially those with zero percent of the state share under the
current formula, would gain significant amounts of state
aid under the bill. (Under the current formula, about 30
districts with the highest valuations per pupil have zero
percent of the state share for the base cost funding.
Local Property Taxes
HB 920 limits the property tax revenue growth in
existing or carryover real property. Without passing additional levies, school districts’ effective tax rates are generally reduced when property value increases as a result of a
reappraisal or an update to generate the same amounts of
revenues. This is the so-called HB 920 tax reduction factor.
However, HB 920 also prevents a school district’s effective
www. greaterohio . org
7 6 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
tax rate in each class of real property from falling below
20 mills. This is the so-called HB 920 floor guarantee. For
districts that are at the HB 920 floor, property tax revenues
grow along with the growth in property value. In other
words, the HB 920 tax reduction factor does not apply to
floor districts. In TY 1999, more than 250 districts were at
the 20 mill floor in at least one class of real property.
The bill would phase out the 20-mill floor guarantee
over an eight-year period beginning in TY 2001 with an
annual reduction rate of 2.5 mills per year. Without passing
additional levies, effective tax rates for school districts that
are either currently at or close to the 20 mill floor would
fall below 20 mills beginning in TY 2001. As a result, some
districts would experience losses in local property tax
revenues. With the exception of a few districts, state aid
increases should offset most losses in local property tax
revenues.
To illustrate this effect, let’s assume that the HB 920
floor guarantee were at 17.5 mills in TY 1999 and FY 2001
were the first phase-in year. A total of 307 school districts
had a reappraisal or an update in TY 1999. (Reappraisal/
update occurs in about one third of counties every year in
Ohio.) About 136 districts would experience decreases in
local property tax revenues if the HB 920 floor guarantee
decreased from 20 mills to 17.5 mills in TY 1999. However,
state aid increases for most of these districts would offset
their losses in local property tax revenues. Only five districts would in fact experience net funding losses based on
the current available data. If we assume the bill was fully
www. greaterohio . org
implemented in FY 2001 and there were no HB 920 floor
guarantee in TY 1999. Again, 136 out of 307 districts that
had either a reappraisal or an update in TY 1999 would
experience losses in local property tax revenues. However,
all of those losses would be offset by substantial increases
in state aid. No single district would experience a net funding loss under this scenario.
An annual increase of $650 million in additional state
aid would represent about additional 4.5 percent in total
education expenditures. (Once the bill is fully implemented, additional state aid of $2.6 billion per year would
represent about 15 percent of total education expenditures.)
School districts on average gets about 2 to 3 percent annual
increase in real property taxes from new construction and
inside mills, which represents approximately 1 percent of
total education expenditures. The normal annual state aid
growth under current law represents about 2.5 percent of
total education expenditures. Without additional levies,
total education expenditures would grow from 8 percent
to 18.5 percent per year under the bill. Therefore, it would
reasonable to believe that the bill could lessen the need to
pass additional levies for many school districts during and
immediately after the phase-in period. The local property
tax growth and the state property tax rollback subsidy
growth could slow down somewhat as a result of the bill.
However, it should be noted that some individual districts
would still need to pass additional levies. In the long run,
all school districts would need to pass additional levies to
maintain certain levels of local funding.
R E fferences — 7 7
Addendum H
Greater Ohio policy agenda
Greater Ohio is engaging in a series of policy forums across the state to gather input from a broad range of civic and
government leaders about the specific policy changes needed in Ohio’s land use policy. Here are the preliminary priorities
they have identified.
Create a vision for where the state is going
• Create a state office of planning
• Coordinate brownfield funding with infrastructure/other investments
• Apply Lake Erie Balanced Growth Initiative policies throughout state
Invest state resources strategically
• State financing for schools
• “Fix-it-first” policy for state transportation investments
• Prioritize sewer and water infrastructure money
for older communities
• Reauthorize the Clean Ohio Fund
• Alternative revenue streams for multi-modal transportation
Enable wise land-use planning at the local level
• Modernize antiquated planning and zoning
enabling laws
• State investment incentives for local comprehensive plans
• Expedite foreclosure for vacant property reuse
• Encourage flexible zoning for “conservation development”
Promote regional collaboration
• Enable, encourage regional revenue sharing
• State support and investment for voluntary
regional land-use planning
• Permissive legislation for metro service districts
with tax-base sharing
www. greaterohio . org
7 8 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
Footnotes
1) Candidate Campaign Finance Report. “Committee to Elect
14) McMurry, Martha. “Minnesota Population Projections
Gene Krebs.” 1992 Campaign. Received: 10 Nov 2005.
2000-2030.” 23 Oct 2002. Accessed: 1 Nov 2005.
(and) Candidate Campaign Finance Report. “People for
http://www.demography.state.mn.us/resource.
Garry Day.” 1992 Campaign. Received: 10 Nov 2005.
html?Id=3124.
2) Lang, Robert and Dawn Dhavale. “The 2005 Governor’s
Race: A Geographic Analysis of the ‘Four Virginias.’”
Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech.
15) Florida, Richard. The Rise of the Creative Class. New York:
Basic Books, 2002.
16) Clark, Jill, Jeff Sharp, Elena Irwin, and Larry Libby.
Accessed: 13 Dec 2005.
“Growth and Change at the Urban Rural Interface: An
http://www.mi.vt.edu/uploads/VAElectionReport.pdf.
Overview of Ohio’s Changing Population and Land Use.”
3) Weigel, David. “Persuading the right people with
microtargeting.” Campaigns & Elections. Feb 2006: 21–25.
4) Waldman, Steven and John C. Green. “Tribal Relations.”
The Atlantic. Jan/Feb 2006: 138.
5) Cortright, Joseph. “The Young and Restless in a Knowledge
Economy.” CEOs for Cities. Dec 2005.
6) “High Speed Rail and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in
The Ohio State University Department of Agricultural,
Environmental, and Development Economics. March 2003.
Accessed: 10 Nov 2005.
http://www-agecon.ag.ohio-state.edu/Programs/exurbs/
growthandchange/growth%20change%20full%20report.pdf.
17) McCall, Ken. “Ohio’s growth slowing further.” Dayton Daily
News. 15 Mar 2006.
the U.S.” Center for Clean Air Policy and Center for
http://www.daytondailynews.com/search/content/
Neighborhood Technology. Jan 2006.
localnews/daily/0316popgrowth.html
7) Candisky, Catherine. “Number of Ohioans living in
18) Campbell, Paul. “Current Population Reports: Population
poverty is rising.” The Columbus Dispatch. 20 June 2005,
Projections 1995-2025.” May 1997. Accessed: 3 Nov 2005.
late ed.: A1.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2/pop/p25/p25-1131.pdf.
8) “State Economic Momentum.” Governing. State & Local
Sourcebook 2006: 6-9.
9) “Quality of Life Grades.” CFED: Expanding economic
opportunity. Accessed: 1 Nov 2005.
http://drc.cfed.org/grades/indexes/quality_of_life.html.
10) Dutton, Geoff. “Ohio’s Disgrace: No.1 in home
19) Fisher, Peter. “Grading Places: What Do the Business
Climate Rankings Really Tell Us?” Economic Policy
Institute. 2005. Accessed: 9 Mar 2006.
www.epi.org.
20) Wisemiller, Thomas. “Sales Tax Disparities in Ohio
Counties.” Greater Ohio. 18 Aug 2004.
foreclosures.” The Columbus Dispatch. 18 Sept 2005,
Accessed: 3 Nov 2005.
late ed.: A1.
http://www.greaterohio.com/policy/sales_tax.html.
11) Breckenridge, Tom. “Cuyahoga, Ohio losing population
21) Grady, Brian Patrick. “Regional unity versus community
at high rate. Census: State’s migration is sixth worst.” The
needs: The role of metropolitangovernance in economic
Plain Dealer. 20 Apr 2006: A1.
development outcomes.” University of Delaware.
12) Theis, Sandy. “Ohio runs short of money to pay the
unemployed.” The Plain Dealer. 9 May 2006: A1.
13) “Living Cities: The National Community Development
Spring 2006.
22) Omitted.
23) “College grads seek jobs, culture in cities: Educated people
Initiative: Seattle Infocus: A Profile from Census 2000.” The
flock to big cities, AP research shows.” MSNBC.com.
Brookings Institution. Accessed: 4 Apr 2006.
10 Apr 2006. Accessed: 29 Jun 2006.
http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/livingcities/seattle2.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12254224/print/1/
pdf.
displaymode/1098/.
www. greaterohio . org
R E fferences — 7 9
24) Solomon, Deborah. “Their Income Up, U.S. Rich Yield
a Tax Windfall: surging receipts prompt lower deficit
projections, debate over Bush tax cuts.” The Wall Street
Journal. 20 May 2006: A1.
25) Lazear, Edward, and Katherine Baicker. “America at Work.”
The Wall Street Journal. 8 May 2006: A18.
26) “Ohio: Securing America’s Energy Future: Options for
increasing Ohio’s role in our nation’s energy independence.”
Office of Senator George Voinovich. 15 Jun 2006.
27) Greenblatt, Alan. “Slow march to the polls.” Governing.
June 2006: 18.
28) Fox, Radhika and Sarah Treuhaft. “Shared Prosperity,
Stronger Regions: An Agenda for Rebuilding America’s
Older Core Cities.” PolicyLink.
http://www.policylink.org/pdfs/CoreCities.pdf.
29) Etter Lauren. “College Admissions: Is Gate Open or
Closed?” The Wall Street Journal. 25-26 Mar 2006: A7.
30) Mitchell, Robert. “Smart Growth in Massachusetts.” Office
for Commonwealth Development. 28 Jan 2006.
31) “Romney awards $517 million in smart growth funding.”
Boston.com. 16 Mar 2006. Accessed: 28 Mar 2006.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/
Development Committee Hearing: Senate Bill 60.”
20 Apr 2005.
36) Jones, Charisse. “More say ‘Meet me in St. Louis’ as
city shows signs of renewal.” USA Today. 10 May 2006.
Accessed: 29 Jun 2006.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-05-10stlouis_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA.
37) U.S. Census Data, 2000 accessed: 14 Aug 2006.
http://www.census.gov/.
38) “Ohio mortgages in 2004.” The Columbus Dispatch.
19 Feb 2006.
http://www.dispatch.com/news/special/mortgage/Ohio_
mortgages.html.
39) “Spread of Subprime Mortgages.” The Columbus Dispatch.
19 Feb 2006.
http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2
006/02/19/20060219-A10-02.html.
40) Saginor, Jesse. “Recommendations to alleviate the
symptoms of the use of eminent domain for economic
development.” Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban
Affairs, Cleveland State University. 16 Mar 2006.
41) Rusk, David. Inside game/outside game: winning strategies
articles/2006/03/16/romney_awards_517_million_in_
for saving urban America. Washington, D.C.: Brookings
smart_growth_funding/.
Institution, 1999.
32) Gottlieb, Andrew. “Foundation for progress: Smart growth
42) Krebs, Widener, Austria, Hoops, Petterson, and Redfern.
means more housing, more choices.” Boston Herald.com.
“H. B. No. 718: A Bill.” Accessed: 8 Dec 2005.
5 Jul 2006. Accessed: 10 Jul 2006.
http://www.lbo.state.oh.us/123ga/fiscalnotes/123ga/
http://news.bostonherald.com/editorial/view.bg?articleid=
HB0718H1.HTM.
146918.
33) “Governor Ehrlich Commences Workforce Housing Task
43) “Ohio schools project gloomy five-year budgets.” Mansfield
News Journal Online. 1 Jun 2006. Accessed: 27 Jun 2006.
Force.” Maryland Department of Planning. 8 Feb 2006.
http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/
http://www.mdp.state.md.us/pdf/press/Workforce0206.pdf.
article?AID=/20060601/NEWS01/606010306/1002.
34) Najafi, Mohammad, and Rayman Mohamed, Abdelkader
44) “Heritage Ohio Main Street Program.” Heritage Ohio.
Tayebi, Soji Adelaja, Mary Beth Lake, Paul Gottlieb,
1 Jul 2006. Accessed: 22 Aug2006.
William Rustem. Michigan State University Land Policy
http://www.heritageohio.org/omsp.htm.
Program. “The Fiscal Impacts of Alternative Single Family
45) “Why Revitalize.” National Trust Main Street Center.
Housing Densities: Infrastructure Costs.” May 2006.
Jan 2006. Accessed: 22 Aug 2006.
Accessed: 27 Jun 2006.
www.mainstreet.org.
http://www.landpolicy.msu.edu/reports/Density%20Impact
%20Final%20Report%205%202%2006_web.pdf.
35) Bader, Kathryn. “Senate Ways and Means and Economic
46) Rypkema, Donovan D. The Economics of Historic
Preservation: A Community Leader’s Guide. National Trust
for Historic Preservation. Washington D.C.: 1998.
www. greaterohio . org
8 0 — 2 0 0 6 G reater O hio C andidate B rief
47) Fontana, Bill. “Pennsylvania.” E-mail to Pauline Eaton.
13 Dec 2005.
48) “State budget projects.” The Courier-Journal.
11 Apr 2006.
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/
article?AID=/20060411/NEWS01/60410026.
49) “Driven to spend: The impact of sprawl on household
60) “Urban Sprawl and Quality Growth in Ohio.” Buckeye
Institute. Dec 2001. Accessed: 13 March, 2006.
http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/docs/Urban_Sprawl_
Final_Version.pdf.
61) “Summary Report 1997 National Resource Inventory.”
United States Department of Agriculture. Dec 2000.
Accessed: 12 Mar 2006
transportation expenses.” Surface Transportation Policy
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/1997/summary_
Project. Mar 2000. Accessed: 20 Aug 2006.
report/report.pdf.
http://www.transact.org/report.asp?id=36.
50) Spires, Bill. “Ozone and particulate matter: NOACA air
62) “The Costs of Sprawl—Revisited.” Rutgers University
Center for Urban Policy Research. Aug 2001. Accessed:
quality workshop.” Ohio EPA Division of Air Pollution
16 Mar 2006.
Control. Mar 2005. Accessed: 20 Aug 2006.
http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_74-b.pdf.
http://www.noaca.org/Spires305.ppt.
51) “Measuring the health effects of sprawl.” Smart Growth
63) “The Brookings Institution: Slanted Pavement: How Ohio’s
Highway Spending Shortchanges Cities and Suburbs.” Mar
America and the Surface Transportation Policy Project.
2003. Accessed: 25 Jun 2006.
Aug 2003. Accessed: 20 Aug 2006.
http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/healthreport.html.
ohiogastax.pdf.
52) Seney, James. “The Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail Ohio
Hub Study.” Ohio Rail Development Commission.
Oct 2004.
53) “National Passenger Rail Policy Statement.” States for
Passenger Rail Coalition. 31 Dec 2005.
www.s4prc.org.
54) “Americans Would Like to See a Larger Share of Passengers
64) Proctor, Gordon. “ODOT Presentation to the Eminent
Domain Taskforce.” 13 Jul 2006.
65) “Sprawl Costs us All.” The Sierra Club. 2000.
Accessed: 12 Mar 2006.
http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/report00/sprawl.pdf.
66) “Farming on the Edge: Sprawling Development Threatens
Americas Best Farmland.” American Farmland Trust. 2002.
and Freight Going By Rail in Future.” Harris Poll #14.
Accessed: 16 Mar 2006.
8 Feb 2006.
http://www.farmland.org/farmingontheedge/Farming%20o
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll.
n%20the%20Edge.pdf.
55) Perkins, Tony. “Indy to Chicago in 50 Minutes Is Possible,
67) “Ohio Lake Eire Commission: Lake Erie Balanced Growth
Say Researchers.” Indiana High Speed Rail Association.
Strategy.” Ohio EPA. Jun 2006. Accessed: 10 Jul 2006.
28 Feb 2006.
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/oleo/lebg/sec1overviewstrategy.
56) Rodkin, Dennis. “Added Benefits: Companies kick in cash
to help employees become homeowners.” Chicago Tribune.
23 Apr 2006.
57) Complete the Streets. Accessed: 20 Aug 2006.
http://www.completestreets.org/.
58) National Center for Safe Routes to School. Accessed:
pdf.
68) Ohio Department of Agriculture 2004 Annual Report, page
90; “Farm Income Statement of Ohio, 2001-2003.”
69) Dailey, Fred. “Message from the ODA Director” Ohio
Department of Agriculture 2004 Annual Report: 2004: p. 2.
70) “Value of Agricultural Exports, Ohio and U.S., Fiscal Years
20 Aug 2006.
2001-2003.” Ohio Department of Agriculture 2004 Annual
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/.
Report. 2004: p. 89.
59) Burchell, Robert, et. al. Sprawl Costs: Economic Impacts of
Unchecked Development. Washington DC: Island Press, 2005.
www. greaterohio . org
71) Morrison, Lee. “Harrison ethanol project gets boost,” The
Times Reporter, Dover-New Philadelphia, Dec. 6, 2005.
R E fferences — 8 1
72) 1997 National Resource Inventory revised 2000), U.S.
Natural Resources Conservation Service.
73) Frey, William. “Metropolitan America in the New Century:
WindLocator.pdf.
82) Boyer, Mike. “Windmill parts in big demand, Local
machine companies catch the wave.” Cincinnati Enquirer.
Metropolitan and Central City Demographic Shifts Since
17 Jan 2006.
2000.” The Brookings Institution. Sept 2005.
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/
Accessed: 13 Dec 2005.
article?AID=/20060117/BIZ01/601170310.
http://www.brookings.edu/metro/pubs/20050906_
metroamerica.pdf.
74) Growth Management Leadership Alliance. “Mapping Rural
83) Williams, Brian. “Windfall in Wind.” Ohio Farmer.
Aug 2005: 8.
84) Dudley, Grace. “County drops tax rate.” Sweetwater
Sprawl.” Updated: 5 Oct 2003. Accessed: 27 Jun 2006.
Reporter 1 Oct 2005. Accessed: 20 Oct 2005.
http://www.gmla.org/ruralsprawl.html.
http://www.sweetwaterreporter.net/articles/2005/10/01/
75) “Farming on the Edge: Sprawling Development Threatens
America’s Best Farmland.” American Farmland Trust.
Accessed: 9 Mar 2006. http://www.farmland.org/.
76) “Linking Land Use and Lake Erie: A Planning Framework
news/news3.txt.
85) “Wind power in Texas: blowing strong.” The Economist.
1 Jul 2006: 29-30.
86) “Ohio Wind Working Group Weekly Update: May 1, 2006.”
for Achieving Balanced Growth in the Ohio Lake Erie
Ohio Wind Working Group. 1 May 2006.
Basin.” Ohio Lake Erie Commission. 19 Oct 2005.
Accessed: 29 Jun 2006.
Accessed: 13 Dec 2005.
http://www.ohiowind.org/ohiowind/page.cfm.
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/oleo/openhouse.htm.
77) “State of the Lake Report, 2004.” Ohio Lake Erie
Commission. Sept 2004. Accessed: 13 Dec 2005.
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/oleo/reports/leqi/leqi2004/pdf/
2004lakeeriequalityindex.pdf.
78) “Lake Erie Protection and Restoration Plan.” Ohio Lake
87) Lambert, Lisa. “Americans at ‘Tipping Point’ About
Energy: Poll.” Reuters. 30 Mar 2006.
88) “Interconnection Standards.” United States Environmental
Protection Agency. 12 July 2005.
89) Health Policy Institute. “Obesity: The Health Debate and
Policy Challenges.” Created: Oct 2005.
Erie Commission. Sept 2000. Accessed: 13 Dec 2005.
Accessed: 14 Mar 2006.
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/oleo/reports/lepr/lepr/Execu_
http://www.healthpolicyohio.org/pdf/obesity.pdf.
FA.pdf.
79) Kushler, Martin, York Dan, and Patti Witte. “Examining
90) Frumkin, Howard. “Urban Sprawl and Public Health.”
December 2001. Accessed: 14 Mar 2006.
the Potential for Energy Efficiency To Help Address the
http://www.publichealthgrandrounds.unc.edu/urban/
Natural Gas Crisis in the Midwest.” Jan 2005.
frumkin.pdf.
Accessed: 3 Nov 2005.
http://www.aceee.org/pubs/u051full.pdf.
80) “Ohio Wind Working Group Weekly Update: June 6t,
2006.” Ohio Wind Working Group. 6 Jun 2006.
Accessed: 29 Jun 2006.
91) Michigan Fitness Foundation. Accessed: 28 Mar 2006.
Created: Jan 2003.
http://www.michiganfitness.org/.
92) Healthy Development Online. Accessed: 14 Mar 2006.
http://www.healthydevelopment.us/.
http://www.ohiowind.org/ohiowind/page.cfm.
81) Sterzinger, George and Matt Syrcek. “Wind Turbine
Development: Location of Manufacturing Activity.” REPP:
Renewable Energy Policy Project. Sept 2004.
Accessed: 7 Nov 2005.
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/binaries/
www. greaterohio . org
Greater Ohio
846 ½ E. Main St.
Columbus, OH 43205
www.greaterohio.org