An Overview of the Suburbs from the Encyclopedia of Cleveland History

From the Encyclopedia of Cleveland History

The link is here

SUBURBS. The history of suburban development is long and complex. Some Cleveland suburbs are nearly as old as the city; they range from industrial (LINNDALE) and entertainment centers (NORTH RANDALL) to small, exclusive residential villages (HUNTING VALLEY) and large blue-collar cities (PARMA). Within commuting distance of a city, suburbs initially housed urban workers. Often dependent on city amenities, they remain administratively separate. In contrast to cities, most suburbs have more middle-class residents, lower population densities, and higher rates of homeownership. Several forces encourage suburbanization (growth at the city’s edge), including the influence of the rural ideal, urban flight, transportation technology, overcrowded and environmentally unpleasant urban conditions, and private and public policy at local, state, and federal levels. Despite the diversity of Cuyahoga County suburbs, each community is inextricably tied to the history of the core city. This suburban history has 5 overlapping periods: 1) the urban ring, 1850-1900; 2) electrified streetcars and the first suburban rings, 1890-1930; 3) urban decentralization and the first automobile suburbs, 1920-1950; 4) automobile suburbs and suburban supremacy, 1950-80; 5) freeway construction and in/out county developments, 1970s-1990s. Each period produced different suburban landscapes and communities, while local geography, immediate historical context, and residents themselves account for suburban differences among suburbs of the same period or region (east, west, south).

Before 1850 Cleveland had several rivals and was surrounded by a series of independent rural townships, villages, and settlements. Lacking an inexpensive and reliable transportation system, it remained a dense settlement in which residents walked to work and shop. With continued population growth, Cleveland approached its geographic limits by the 1850s. New transportation technology encouraged the first suburban developments. In 1859 the EAST CLEVELAND began construction of a horse-drawn streetcar line (see TRANSPORTATION and URBAN TRANSPORTATION). During the 1860s and 1870s, other companies laid tracks to outlying areas, while dummy railroads like the Lakeview & Collamer on the east and Rocky River on the west brought vacationing urbanites to rural retreats. In the 1880s the Nickel Plate Railroad (see NICKEL PLATE ROAD) purchased and upgraded the dummy lines and began limited commuter service. The horse-drawn street railways opened nearby suburban land for residential development up to about 3 miles from downtown, where more affluent urbanites constructed large homes. Township and county governments could not match the city’s educational facilities, paved and lighted streets, and fire and police protection. To gain these amenities, new suburbanites formed villages: the first EAST CLEVELAND (1866), GLENVILLE (1870), West Cleveland (1871), COLLINWOOD (1883), BROOKLYN (1889),SOUTH BROOKLYN (1889), and NOTTINGHAM (1899). They, too, found the costs staggering. Ultimately, most 19th-century suburbanites chose to join Cleveland to gain the best of both worlds: the bucolic suburban ideal and urban services. Expansion-minded Cleveland sought these mergers, initially absorbing the remainder of Cleveland Twp. (1850), its leading rivals, OHIO CITY (CITY OF OHIO) (1854) andNEWBURGH (1873), and parts of neighboring townships (Brooklyn, Newburgh, and East Cleveland). Cleveland then annexed its neighboring villages: the first East Cleveland (1872), Brooklyn (1890), West Cleveland (1894), Glenville and South Brooklyn (1895), Corlett (1909), Collinwood (1910), and Nottingham (1913).

Electrified streetcar development in the late 1880s transformed the metropolis. Three times faster than horse-drawn streetcars (15 vs. 5 mph), they permitted radial suburban development up to 10 miles from the city center. The new technology arrived as Cleveland confronted a series of challenges: huge migrations from Southern and Eastern Europe; industrial and business expansion into residential neighborhoods; pollution from new industries; and corrupt government. Urbanites looked to the suburbs as both rural haven and escape from urban disorder. Unlike previous suburban developments, streetcar suburbs deliberately distanced themselves from the city. Privately owned, franchised electric streetcar companies (often controlled by land developers) laid out tracks on EUCLID AVE.. (to Lee Rd. by 1893), Euclid Hts. Blvd. (to Edgehill by 1897); Detroit Ave. and Clifton Blvd. (to the Rocky River by 1894 and 1904, respectively). Almost immediately after completion of these lines, residents of outlying areas took advantage of Ohio’s permissive incorporation laws and established villages: East Cleveland (1895), LAKEWOOD and CLEVELAND HEIGHTS (both in 1903). Rapid population growth quickly raised them to city status: East Cleveland and Lakewood in 1911, and Cleveland Hts. in 1921. Nevertheless, Cleveland’s first streetcar suburbs grew most quickly between 1910 and 1930: East Cleveland added 30,488 new residents, Lakewood’s population increased by 55,328, and that of Cleveland Hts. by 47,990. A second suburban ring, linked to the downtown by streetcar or rapid transit, also formed. Made up of the older independent villages (BEDFORD andBEREA) and new suburban developments (EUCLID, GARFIELD HEIGHTS, MAPLE HEIGHTS, Parma, ROCKY RIVER, and SHAKER HEIGHTS), these communities all obtained city status by 1931. In addition, 52 new villages incorporated.

Streetcar suburbs remained independent. With Cleveland overwhelmed by its own population growth, the new suburbs benefited from additional time and the scale of their own growth to establish services expected by urban dwellers. New suburbanites also sought to keep out unwanted urban elements; anti-annexationists often painted CLEVELAND CITY GOVERNMENT as corrupt (despite muckraker Lincoln Steffens’s claims that it was one of the nation’s best-run cities). East Cleveland rejected merger with Cleveland in 1910 and 1916 because “saloons might be established . . . we could not endure bar-rooms next to our houses” and because of the fear of immigrants and their institutions (see IMMIGRATION AND MIGRATION). A dry Lakewood rejected annexation in 1910 and 1922 because it already had “ample school facilities, police, fire, city planning, zoning, and sanitary protection.” Shaker Hts. developers strictly controlled access to community property and, through explicit deed restrictions even prohibited new immigrants andAFRICAN AMERICANS. After 1910 few suburban communities, save WEST PARK and Miles Hts., chose to join the city. Despite a population growth of almost 2.5 times between 1900-30, Cleveland’s share of the county population dropped from 87% to 75%.

While the Depression and World War II greatly slowed the pace of urban and suburban growth, events set the stage for an even greater transformation. Cleveland’s population grew by less than 13,000, Lakewood lost population, while Cleveland Hts. grew by 9,000. The newer cities of Bedford, Garfield Hts., Rocky River, and Shaker Hts. all experienced substantial growth. By 1950 Cleveland’s share of the county population had slipped nearly another 10%. Even before 1900, factories had found suburban sites close to rail lines, where land was cheap and taxes low. Street and highway construction during the 1920s and 1930s freed suburban development from the linear form imposed by rail lines, while greater use of trucks and electricity opened new sites for industry. Private and public decisions on industrial and institutional location aided this decentralization. Industrial corridors expanded along Brookpark Rd. and in Euclid. In retailing, Sears, Roebuck stores on Lorain and Carnegie avenues represented the beginning of decentralization; the development of SHAKER SQUARE as Cleveland’s first suburban shopping center provided a clearer model for the postwar period. (See BUSINESS, RETAIL.)

To aid the Depression-devastated housing market, the New Deal Federal Housing Authority (FHA) and later the Veterans Administration (VA) developed programs for homebuyers that provided the means and patterns for the American suburban explosion. Their home loan guarantees supported construction of single-family homes in new suburban areas and adopted guidelines from real estate and banking industries that required racial segregation (enforced through developer-instituted restricted covenants). By reinforcing existing segregation practices, these programs effectively blocked African American access to suburban housing. Although the U.S. Supreme Court struck down restrictive covenants in 1948, the FHA continued to require them. They were common in suburban tracts of the 1940s and 1950s, especially in Garfield Hts., Parma, PARMA HEIGHTS, and Maple Hts. Government programs subsidized white, middle-class residents who wished to leave the city, but effectively locked black residents into the ghetto. Finally, the Depression and World War II slowed housing construction, resulting in overcrowding and a severe housing shortage. When prosperity returned after the war, Clevelanders who had rented or doubled up with relatives sought their own homes. The demand, along with public policy, helped create the suburban explosions of the late 1950s-1970s. Unlike streetcar suburbs, which housed mostly skilled and white-collar workers, these post-World War II developments provided homes for industrial workers as well. During the 1930s, workers founded new unions, especially the UNITED AUTO WORKERS and UNITED STEEL WORKERS OF AMERICA, under the banner of the Congress of Industrial Organizations. Following the war, these unions gained for their members liveable wages and job security that made suburban home ownership possible.

While automobiles date to the 1890s, they became dominant by the 1940s. In 1940 64% of all Cuyahoga County families owned an automobile. Most striking, in Shaker Hts., where the pioneering off-grade rapid-transit system provided the county’s best public transportation, nearly 75% of principal income earners traveled to work in automobiles. Although some streetcar routes continued until the 1950s, overexpansion, congested routes, declining ridership, financial problems, and competition from automobiles doomed the streetcar.

The post-World War II period witnessed the most massive residential construction and suburban growth in Cleveland history. While significant population increases in the second ring of streetcar suburbs (Bedford, Euclid, Garfield Hts., Maple Hts., Rocky River, and Shaker Hts.) made these communities transitional automobile suburbs, the most spectacular growth took place outside older suburban communities. The first ring of automobile suburbs included the new cities of BAY VILLAGE (1950), LYNDHURST, and FAIRVIEW PARK (1951). Parma’s 1931 population of 14,000 nearly doubled by 1950; the next decade added 54,000 new residents, making it the county’s second city. A second ring of automobile suburbs experienced their greatest period of growth during the 1960s and 1970s; all save MAYFIELD HEIGHTS (1950) gained city status at the beginning of the period: Parma Hts. (1959); BROOK PARK, NORTH OLMSTED, WARRENSVILLE HEIGHTS (1960); and BEDFORD HEIGHTS and SEVEN HILLS (1961). Population figures reveal suburban growth dynamics from 1940 to 1970, when the county’s suburban population reached its peak. While Cleveland lost 127,457 residents, county suburbs grew by 631,042; the suburban share of the county’s population jumped from 28% in 1940 to 62% in 1970. Collectively, suburban population exceeded the city’s during the 1960s and the gap continued to grow, although more slowly (1990, 64%).

These figures mask another important shift in suburban population dynamics. From 1970 on, the county’s suburban population began to decline; by 1990 it had shrunk by 63,000. While most county suburbs lost population or stagnated, growth remained strong on either side of the county’s borders. Within Cuyahoga County, NORTH ROYALTON, SOLON, STRONGSVILLE, and WESTLAKE all registered significant growth from 1960-1990. Since 1970 the surrounding counties have experienced the most rapid suburban growth.

While peripheral suburban growth continued, older streetcar suburbs and the inner ring of automobile suburbs began to undergo aging and transformations. The population declined and changed as the more affluent left for newer homes and less affluent residents moved in. Older communities began to confront urban problems: an aging population and infrastructure, increased need for social programs, and an eroding tax base. At the same time, new construction began to alter the face of these communities; high-rise apartments and office buildings replaced older homes and business structures. As businesses increasingly chose suburban locations, streetcar suburbs such as Lakewood began to merge their older function of bedroom community with that of specialized satellite city for the metropolitan area.

The suburban explosion left a fragmented governmental structure in its wake. By 1994 one county, 38 cities, 19 villages, 2 townships, 31 school districts, 13 municipal court districts, 10 library districts, and regional authorities such as the CLEVELAND METROPARKS governed some aspect of the area. Since at least 1919, some residents expressed concern about this growing fragmentation. During the 1920s and early 1930s, reformers working largely through the CITIZENS LEAGUE OF GREATER CLEVELAND sought city-county consolidation. Nevertheless, voters failed to approve county charter reform proposals in 1934 and 1959, but streetcar suburb residents who had earlier opposed annexation overwhelmingly supported both measures; resistance to REGIONAL GOVERNMENT came from the newer suburbs.

Streetcar and automobile suburbs developed very different landscapes and both have been modified over time. Despite considerable variation, streetcar suburbs produced a smaller and more dense environment. Cleveland’s 3 streetcar suburbs averaged only one-fourth the size of the newest automobile suburbs: 5 vs. 21 square miles. In 1930 East Cleveland, Lakewood, and Cleveland had similar population densities; by 1990 these suburbs (10,000 residents per square mile) were more densely settled than Cleveland (6,600), and even more so than other suburbs: first-ring auto suburbs, 4,000; second-ring, 3,000; and third-ring, 1,000. Streetcar suburbs featured vertical, 2 1/ 2-story, single and double houses on narrow lots with front porches and detached garages. Automobile suburbs had wide lots with horizontal, 1-story or split-level, ranch-style homes, attached garages, rear decks, and patios replaced front porches. In streetcar suburbs, shopping was usually a short walk away in stores that lined the streetcar routes; small groceries, bakeries, butchers, and fruit and vegetable stores hugged the sidewalks of these arteries. Extensive apartment development and even hotels (ALCAZAR HOTEL in Cleveland Hts., Lake Shore in Lakewood) added to the streetcar suburbs’ density. The huge tracts of auto suburbs, often divided into cul-de-sac streets, restricted stores to strip development and new malls located along major arteries: access to them often required an automobile. While apartments were less typical in the early years of automobile suburbs, both suburban types have undergone significant new apartment construction. By 1990 only 37% of Lakewood’s housing units were single-family; in Solon they made up 87%. In recent years, high-rise and cluster apartments/condominium construction have significantly increased the density of automobile suburbs. The most remarkable change on the suburban landscape has been the emergence of edge cities along interstate highways 71, 77, 90, 271, and 480. These new centers attracted mixed uses: blue- and especially white-collar employment, retail shopping, and entertainment. Most prominent are the new corporate headquarters and plants (AMERICAN GREETINGS CORP. and PLAIN DEALER in Brooklyn) housed in modern, campus-style or high-rise structures, although new shopping malls (Great Northern in North Olmsted, Randall Park in North Randall), institutional headquarters (FIRST CATHOLIC SLOVAK LADIES ASSN. in BEACHWOOD) also grace this environment. Motels and hotels are the most ubiquitous element. Increasingly, edge cities attract businesses and employment away from Cleveland, other suburbs, and small towns to this decentralized urban-like environment.

Suburban regions and individual suburbs have distinct identities, some assiduously cultivated and others imposed by outsiders. The 1836-37 Bridge War between Cleveland and Ohio City (see COLUMBUS STREET BRIDGE) represents a beginning of the spirited battles that spread east, west, and south within suburban development. A rich suburban folklore has grown up around these divisions and important differences do exist. Most social elites and many of their institutions gravitated to eastern suburbs, fewer went west and very few south. By 1931 66% of CLEVELAND BLUE BOOK entries lived inBRATENAHL, Cleveland Hts., East Cleveland, and Shaker Hts.; Cleveland claimed 28% and Lakewood 6%. By 1981 84% lived in 10 eastern suburbs, 9% in Cleveland, and 7% in 3 western suburbs. Early on, Cleveland Hts. and East Cleveland adopted city manager governmental forms, while Lakewood overwhelmingly rejected the reform measure. While eastern and western suburbs housed mostly white-collar workers, southern suburbs, surrounding major industrial employment centers, acquired significant number of blue-collar workers.

Ethnic clusters have also shaped suburban landscapes and lifestyles. Groups tend to migrate out of the city along nearby major arteries. The first Jewish migrants to 19th-century Cleveland settled in central city neighborhoods; eventually the center of Jewish population moved successively into Woodland, Glenville, and Kinsman. Despite restrictive covenants, Jews eventually transported their communities to the eastern suburbs; by the 1950s, Cleveland Hts. became the center (see JEWS & JUDAISM). By 1987 it had moved further east, with Jews dominating the populations of two communities, Beachwood (95%) and PEPPER PIKE (59%), and significant proportions of UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS (47%), Shaker Hts. (30%), SOUTH EUCLID (27%), LYNDHURST (24%), Mayfield Hts. (22%), and Cleveland Hts. (14%). While there were 25 synagogues on the east side, the west side had only one fledgling congregation. African American migrants also entered the city’s central districts and moved east through Kinsman and HOUGH. Both within the city (Collinwood and Broadway) and in the suburbs, blacks confronted more significant barriers than Jews and other white ethnic groups. By 1970 black suburbanites made up a majority of only 1 suburban city (East Cleveland, 59%), and a significant minority in one other (Shaker Hts., 15%). The black population in Cleveland Hts., Euclid, and Maple Hts. was then less than 3%; it was minuscule in western suburbs. By 1990 African Americans dominated 3 suburban cities (East Cleveland (94%), WARRENSVILLE HEIGHTS (89%), and BEDFORD HEIGHTS (53%)) and made up significant proportions in Cleveland Hts. (37%), Shaker Hts. (31%), Euclid and Univ. Hts. (16% each), Garfield Hts. and Maple Hts. (15% each). Access remained difficult to western and outer suburbs: FAIRVIEW PARK had 42 black residents, Rocky River, 39, Bay Village, 23, Independence, 20, and Highland Hts., 19.

Americans of Polish descent have scattered more widely across the county. While some remain in SLAVIC VILLAGE/BROADWAY, many have reaggregated in the southern suburbs of Garfield Hts., Maple Hts., and Parma, as have some of the key institutions of Cleveland Polonia. SLOVAKS and their institutions have also played important roles in Parma and Lakewood. Similarly, nationality halls and organizations, once common only to inner city ethnic enclaves, now grace suburban landscapes, suggesting their persistence in and adaptability to new environments.

Although less heterogeneous than Cleveland, no suburb is homogeneous. Most have discrete neighborhoods, but few are as diverse as Lakewood. From its suburban beginnings, Lakewood drew residents from every class–in 1930 the city had census tracts in the lowest and the highest income groups. Lakewood residents created a complex social geography of different landscapes based on economic status and ethnicity. Among these are several working-class neighborhoods, including the BIRD’S NEST, a working-class, Slavic urban village in the southeast; 3 neighborhoods of elites, including CLIFTON PARK in the northwest; and middle-class landscapes of single- and double-family homes in central Lakewood. Apartments along Clifton, Lake, and Edgewater roads in eastern Lakewood house others including singles, childless couples, and gays (see GAY COMMUNITY).

Suburbs also vary in terms of layout. While all suburbs exercised some form of planning, ORIS AND MANTIS VAN SWERINGEN†’s development of Shaker Hts. is unique for its extensive control over virtually every aspect of the community. In contrast to Shaker’s carefully laid-out, curvilinear streets, segregated shopping district, and off-grade rapid-transit system, libertarian suburbs, such as Lakewood, reflect more utilitarian concerns with grid street patterns, high densities, and mixed land uses. Suburban history, then, is very dynamic; conditions can change rapidly, although once a pattern is established it can persist for some time. Technology, migrations, housing costs, employment, and the state of the areawide ECONOMY will continue to shape Cleveland’s suburban history in the coming decades.

James Borchert

Cleveland State Univ.

 

Overview of Cleveland Government 1787-1990

From The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History

The link is here

GOVERNMENT. The tract of land that became Cleveland had at one time or another been claimed by Spain, France, and Great Britain. When American independence was secured, the new federal government tried to resolve the conflicting territorial claims of several states while contending with Indians, who had their own claims, and who were made more restive by the slow removal of British troops from their western posts. The key event was passage of the Ordinance of 1787, making administration of the sparsely settled territories possible. The first real effort to enforce white man’s law in the area came in the 1790s under the auspices of the CONNECTICUT LAND CO. However, during Cleveland’s early years law and justice seem to have been meted out–with very little resistance–by the redoubtable LORENZO CARTER†. The formal origins of municipal government are traceable to the creation of Washington and Wayne counties, which were divided at the CUYAHOGA RIVER and administered out of Marietta and Detroit, respectively. After some further reorganization, Trumbull County was organized in 1800 with Warren as the county seat. Officers of Cleveland Twp. were chosen in an 1802 election, and a rudimentary civil government was in place when Ohio was admitted to the Union in 1803. The next year saw a $10 tax imposed on residents by the town meeting–the political institution prevalent in New England. Cleveland became the seat of Cuyahoga County when it was created in 1807, and the Court of Common Pleas met in 1810. Late in 1814, Cleveland, still a precarious frontier outpost, received a village charter, and the next year ALFRED KELLEY† was elected first president.

During the next few years, ordinances set penalties for such things as discharging firearms and allowing livestock to run at large. LEONARD CASE† served as president from 1821-25, the latter date also marking the choice of Cleveland as northern terminus of the Ohio Canal and local adoption of a property tax. In succeeding years, the delinquent tax rolls were, according to one account, “rather robust.” In 1832 a CHOLERA EPIDEMIC OF 1832 spawned a short-lived Board of Health. In 1836 Cleveland attained the status of a city and adopted a government more closely resembling that of the present day. Voters elected city councilmen (3 from each of 3 wards), aldermen (1 per ward), and a mayor with little real executive authority. The mayor’s salary was set at $500 per annum, and city offices were established in the Commercial Block on Superior St. The council authorized a school levy, and the first public school recognizable as such opened the next year. In 1837 the city raised $16,077.53 and spent $13,297.14, an example of fiscal responsibility that was not always to be followed.

Municipal government gradually widened its scope. The Superior Court of Cleveland was created in 1847, and in 1849 the city was authorized to establish a poorhouse and hospital for the poor. As late as mid-century, public service (particularly road work) was sometimes rendered in kind. By 1852 the city was served by railroad, and the legislature passed an act that resulted in Cleveland’s designation as a second-class city (based on population). The council was now composed of 2 members elected from each of 4 wards; their compensation was $1 per session. Executive powers were exercised not so much by the mayor as by various officials and bodies, including a board of city commissioners, marshal, treasurer, city solicitor, market superintendent, civil engineer, auditor, and police court. In 1853 voters elected the first Board of Water Works Commissioners, and council established a Board of Education, which in turn appointed a superintendent. When Cleveland merged with OHIO CITY (CITY OF OHIO) in 1854, 4 additional wards were created, bringing the total for the united city to 11. The waterworks began operation in 1856, and during the next decade a modern sanitary system was gradually put in place. A paid fire department was created in 1863, and the first police superintendent was appointed in 1866. The Board of Education established the CLEVELAND PUBLIC LIBRARY in 1867, and a Board of Park Commissioners was put in place 2 years later, although that did not end complaints about a lack of adequate open space and park facilities. During the last half of the 19th century, annexation kept pace with the city’s growth, which tended to be in the direction of Brooklyn, Newburgh, and East Cleveland townships.

Municipal government was modernized again with the passage of state legislation in 1898. Under the new scheme, voters elected the mayor, city council, treasurer, police judge, and prosecutor. The council appointed an auditor, city clerk, and civil engineer. The administrative boards that distinguished this form of government were variously chosen: voters were to elect the police commissioners and cemetery trustees; the council appointed the board of health and inspectors of various kinds; the mayor appointed (with council’s consent) park commissioners and a superintendent of markets, and he named the directors of the house of refuge and correction. Although Rose argued that it was generally a more efficient form of government, the fact that nearly all board members were unpaid resulted in “indifferent service” or worse. It was during this period that patronage, or the “spoils system” identified with Jacksonian democracy, came into disrepute. The response at the federal level was the Pendleton Civil Service Act, and local government followed suit. Thus in 1886 Cleveland required that positions in the police department be filled by competitive examination. In the same year, a board of elections was created, and in 1891 the state substituted the Australian (secret) ballot for the old system whereby “tickets” were printed and distributed by the parties. Old-line politicians were placated by the adoption of a party-column ballot, which encouraged straight-ticket voting.

Even late in the 19th century, cities did not presume to perform many services directly. Although they were gradually assuming responsibility for libraries, parks, and poor relief, utilities, such as street lighting and street railways, still tended to be franchise operations. Cleveland seems to have operated no industries of its own save the waterworks. But the pressures brought on by growth and the special needs of immigrant groups resulted in the expansion of municipal services during this period, which inevitably meant more expensive government. As a result, the city often had to borrow. Apparently Cleveland was not atypical in having to spend, ca. 1880, about one third of its income on debt service.

Increasing dissatisfaction with city government led to the adoption in 1891 of a form of government modeled directly after that at the national level. Under the Federal Plan, power that had been distributed among various boards, commissions, and officials now was to be shared by a legislature and executive responsible to the electorate. The mayor, who received an annual salary of $6,000, and 6 department heads (appointed by the mayor with approval of the council) made up the Board of Control. The council consisted of 20 members, 2 from each of the 10 districts representing the 40 wards, and each received $5 for attending a regular weekly meeting. The city treasurer, police judge, prosecuting attorney, and police-court clerk were elected by the people. Adoption of the Federal Plan did not spell an end to the franchise system, nor did it eliminate corruption, and the separation of powers made it difficult to exercise real leadership. The extent to which things got done in those days often depended upon the efficacy of informal agencies–bosses and machines–that tended to be the engines driving formal municipal government. These institutions, while responsive and efficient in their own way, bred corruption.

Party machines also reflected the contentiousness of a population split along class, religious, and ethnic lines, the 1890 census showing that of the 261,353 people living in the city, 164,258 were native-born, and only about 25% of these were of native parentage. While certain of Cleveland’s leading citizens seemed quite adept at the rough-and-tumble of electoral politics (MARCUS A. HANNA†, for instance), white Anglo-Saxon Protestants generally were put off by a political system that was not instinctively deferential, and which was often ungentlemanly. It was in this spirit that Harry Garfield, son of the late president, and other leading Clevelanders organized the Municipal Assn. of the City of Cleveland (later known as the CITIZENS LEAGUE OF GREATER CLEVELAND) dedicated to the spirit of progressive middle-class reform.

Progressivism was a multifaceted phenomenon that can be seen in the career of TOM L. JOHNSON†, who was elected mayor in 1901. During his administration, Cleveland’s Progressives operated a municipal garbage plant, took over street cleaning, and built BATH HOUSES and a tuberculosis hospital. The penal system was reformed and a juvenile court established. This municipal expansiveness cost money, of course, and the city’s indebtedness, $14,503,000 in 1900, rose to $27,688,000 by 1906. The structure of local government also changed several times during this period. Progressives here and elsewhere were convinced that the sorry state of municipal affairs was due largely to the “political” interference of state legislatures, and the home rule movement sought to cut the cities loose from legislative control. The redrafting of the state constitution in 1912 was a great triumph for reformers and Cleveland’s HOME RULE charter went into effect in 1914. In general, Progressives stood for nonpartisan elections and the principle of at-large (rather than ward) representation and tended to support the strengthening of executive powers. The CITY MANAGER PLAN was perhaps the archetypal Progressive contribution to municipal government in the U.S. The idea was to put city government on a sound business footing by having a competent, neutral manager not subject to favoritism and cronyism. Cleveland was the first (and only) major American city to adopt, and then to abandon, the council-manager form of government. Certainly, reformers must have been bitterly disappointed when the nonpartisan election of councilmen by proportional representation from large districts proved to have no noticeable impact on corruption. In 1931 voters dumped the manager and proportional representation, bringing back the old mayor-council form and the ward principle.

In the years after World War I, it was becoming increasingly evident that Cleveland’s ability to annex adjacent communities was declining. The more affluentSUBURBS were no longer anxious to became part of Cleveland, as city services were no longer demonstratively superior. Suburban communities were gradually becoming independent of the central city, as more people moved to the outlying areas. Aware that city and suburb shared some concerns, reformers began to press for the adoption of a dual form of metropolitan government, in which the county would assume some areawide functions, but existing municipal powers would be preserved. The county had been considered the administrative arm of the state since 1810, when the first Cuyahoga County officers were inaugurated. With the organization of the last Ohio county in 1851, a new state constitution was passed giving the general assembly the authority to provide for the election of such county officers as it deemed necessary. Cuyahoga County government had only those powers given to it by the state (see CUYAHOGA COUNTY GOVERNMENT), and any reorganization leading to metropolitan government required an amendment to the Ohio state constitution, allowing the county to write its own home rule charter. After several unsuccessful attempts, the home rule amendment was approved by voters in 1933; Ohio was the fourth state in the country to do so.

Two years after the amendment passed, a Cuyahoga County home rule charter to reorganize the existing county government was approved by a majority of city and county voters. The Ohio Supreme Court, however, ruled in 1936 that the reorganization transferred municipal functions to the county and, therefore, needed the more comprehensive suburban majorities called for in the Ohio constitution (see REGIONAL GOVERNMENT). During this time, Cleveland politics focused on the multiple ethnic groups who were acquiring visible political power. It is significant, too, that while cities were taking on certain new responsibilities in response to the Depression–specifically, slum clearance and public housing–the federal government, by providing social-welfare benefits, undermined the power of the party machines by appropriating their functions. As the machine’s role in local politics began its long decline, the newspapers to some extent took over the task of promoting those politicians who had a knack for making headlines. This point may be best illustrated by the career ofFRANK J. LAUSCHE†, mayor 1941-44, and later U.S. Senator. Thanks to the papers and the loyal support of Eastern and Southern European nationality groups, Lausche was a force in Ohio politics for the better part of 3 decades, despite a stormy relationship with Democratic political bosses in the city. The same formula was employed by Anthony J. Celebrezze, who was elected mayor in 1953. It did not matter that Democratic boss RAY T. MILLER† opposed Celebrezze, because he had the support of influential Press editor LOUIS B. SELTZER†. Together, they championed the cause of urban renewal, looking to Washington for the needed funds.

There was some tinkering with the city charter during this period. A partisan mayoral primary was introduced, as was the so-called knock-out rule stipulating that council candidates would run unopposed if they garnered more that 50% of the vote in the primary election, which remained officially nonpartisan. In the Progressive tradition, middle-class reformers continued to work for metropolitan government; however, these efforts proved fruitless. To the voters, the virtues of efficient and economical areawide public services were more than offset by the fact that metropolitan government would significantly alter the political relationships in the region. In the process, they would lose access to and control of the super-government that would be established. These fears were shared by both suburbanites anxious to guard the prerogatives of their municipalities and city residents who viewed metropolitan government as a scheme to dilute their power.

Even without metropolitan government, the increasing complexity of state government had widened the scope of county responsibility, primarily in the health and welfare field. Other specific needs–the regional sewer district and transit authorities, for example–were administered by special agencies and staffed by professional managers who operated for the most part in anonymity and were not subject to direct control by the electorate. As an ad hoc solution to the need for larger jurisdictional units, without creating comprehensive metropolitan government, these agencies enjoyed phenomenal growth both locally and nationally after World War II.

In the 1960s and 1970s a new reform movement emphasizing community control was evident in Cleveland as the focus shifted from areawide concerns to a resurgence of interest in neighborhood government (little city halls). With the turbulence of the sixties, the ability of city administrations to deal with the problems of a changing population was questioned here and elsewhere. The HOUGH AREA DEVELOPMENT CORP., established in the aftermath of theHOUGH RIOTS, was an example of the movement fueled by federal funding.

New problems surfaced in the postwar era that severely taxed the ability of city administrations to govern Cleveland. While the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway and the economic gains anticipated from increased Great Lakes shipping generated enthusiasm, the area’s economic base began to erode as industrial and commercial businesses left the city for the suburbs and beyond. Urban problems, especially those of the black community, were not seriously addressed by a municipal government dominated by the city’s nationality groups.

Governing Cleveland became more arduous as violence in the city’s black ghettos began with the Hough Riots in 1966 and continued into the administration of Carl B. Stokes, elected in 1967. There was no respite from municipal problems during the Perk administration, as the city’s shrinking tax base and voter opposition to a city income tax increase compounded Cleveland’s financial problems, which by this time were quite severe. The financial shortfall continued under Democratic mayor Dennis J. Kucinich, elected in 1977–an urban populist leading a crusade against privilege, particularly that of the city’s business and banking establishment. The ill will generated by his zeal led to an unsuccessful recall attempt by his opponents in 1978 and the withdrawal of the business and financial community’s support from his administration. Later that year, local banks refused to roll over some of the city’s short-term notes, and Cleveland, unable to pay them off, was forced to default on its financial obligations. The shock of DEFAULT persuaded the voters to raise the income tax and enabled Republican George Voinovich, elected mayor in 1979, to reorganize the city’s administration and restore its financial credibility. Cleveland’s immediate problems appeared to be contained, and in a more cooperative atmosphere, long-discussed changes in the city charter were made with a 4-year mayoral and councilperson term of office, approved in 1980, and a reduction of city council from 33 to 21 members, established in 1981. A truce between white Republican mayor Voinovich and George Forbes, the black Democratic council president, made the city’s politics less abrasive than in previous years. Mayor Voinovich was praised for fostering cooperation with the business community, repairing the strained relationship with city hall generated by his predecessor. Muny Light (now named Cleveland Public Power) was improved and expanded, renewing the city’s ongoing commitment to municipal ownership of public utilities. In 1989 city council leadership became more decentralized after the retirement of long-time council president Forbes. With the election of Michael R. White as mayor that year, citizens hoped for a resolution of deep-seated class and racial tensions.

Kenneth Kolson

National Endowment for the Humanities

Mary B. Stavish

Case Western Reserve Univ.

 

Charles Brush Used Wind Power 120 Years Ago

Article on Charles Brush from the Plain Dealer.

The link is here

Charles Brush used wind power in house 120 years ago: Cleveland innovations

Published: Thursday, August 11, 2011, 8:03 AM     Updated: Thursday, August 11, 2011, 8:19 AM
Peter Krouse, The Plain Dealer
brush wind dynamoView full sizeWestern Reserve Historical SocietyCleveland inventor Charles Brush constructed this wind dynamo in 1888 in the back yard of his mansion in Cleveland.

This story is part of a midsummer series about lesser-known inventions, ideas and innovations that originated in Northeast Ohio. If you have suggestions for future stories, please email your ideas to metrodesk@plaind.com.


All the excitement about wind turbines spinning in Lake Erie or dotting Ohio’s farmland probably would have been embraced by Cleveland inventor Charles Brush.

After all, he had the idea first, more than 100 years ago.

Brush’s windmill dynamo was featured in the Dec. 20, 1890, edition of Scientific American, where it was hailed as the only “successful system of electric lighting operated by means of wind power” known at the time.

Brush, whose contribution to the advancement of electric power includes work on development of the arc light and the dynamo, built the wind-powered generator in the backyard of his mansion at East 37th Street and Euclid Avenue.

The contraption was an engineering feat.

Scientific American was fascinated

“Every contingency is provided for, and the apparatus, from the huge wheel down to the current regulator, is entirely automatic,” reads the account in Scientific American.

Unlike today’s wind turbines, with three steel, streamlined blades protruding from a gear box at the top of a tall shaft that can be more than 200 feet high, Brush’s turbine used a fan-shaped wheel that contained 144 blades made of cedar “twisted like those of screw propellers” on a tower that stood 60 feet tall, according to the article.

It looked more like a giant weathervane. But it worked.

The wheel operated a pulley system connected to a dynamo, which generated electricity that flowed to 12 batteries in Brush’s basement. One turn of the wheel corresponded with 50 revolutions of the dynamo.

At capacity, the windmill generated about 1,200 watts of electricity, enough to illuminate the house and about 100 incandescent lights.

For all its ingenuity, Brush’s windmill didn’t make economic sense.

“The reader must not suppose that electric lighting by means of power supplied in this way is cheap because the wind costs nothing,” the Scientific American article reads. “On the contrary, the cost of the plant is so great as to more than offset the cheapness of the motive power. However, there is a great satisfaction in making use of one of nature’s most unruly motive agents.”

‘Father of wind energy’

Brush’s first wind turbine is an important part of today’s efforts to promote Cleveland as a potential hub for the construction of offshore wind turbines.

The Lake Erie Energy Development Corp. plans to have five 4.5-megawatt turbines installed off the shores of Cleveland by 2013, said Steve Dever, Cuyahoga County’s representative on the wind consortium’s board.

Dever has detailed the demonstration project to organizations across Europe. He shows snapshots of a NASA wind turbine developed at the space agency’s Plum Brook test center in Sandusky and the giant modern turbine erected at Lincoln Electric’s headquarters in Euclid. The last slide in his presentation is a photo of the Brush windmill.

“Having the historical piece, it really helps to tell the Cleveland story,” Dever said.

Along the Cuyahoga Audio Program from WCPN

Originally broadcast in 1996 for the Cleveland Bicentennial, this hour-long documentary looks back on the earliest days of Cleveland and life along the Cuyahoga River. For a period of 10 years, the Cuyahoga River was the Northwest boundary of the United States, with the land east of the river being U.S. territory and the land west of the Cuyahoga still belonging to the Native Americans. This program examines the lives and relationships among the early settlers of Cleveland like Lorenzo Carter and Hanna Huntington, to the Indians of the Cuyahoga River Valley like Stigwanish and O’Mic.

The link is here

Teaching Cleveland Digital