We are all complaining on how this is doing bad and god forbid that to happen. So what would you do if....

1) The school district in your city is in debt $100 mil
2) Your city is 50 Mil in debt
3) No taxes are approved by the voters



I'm literally Dying to know what you guys will do, since we all criticize the politicians so very well.

Ah, the wonder that is Cleveland, Ohio...

First off, find a new mayor. Jane Campbell is a horrible leader and a very poor motivator.

Cleveland needs to attract new businesses and stop the ones that are here from fleeing. Raising taxes will accomplish neither of these.

Schools are funded by property taxes. Most of the wealthier people in Cleveland have moved to the suburbs. Property values in Cleveland are stagnant or dropping.

All of these problems are related. The solution is attracting new business to the city of Cleveland. New businesses bring with them tax revenue from income tax AND they raise property values.

As much of a control freak that former mayor Mike White was, he is the type of person needed in Cleveland: a take-charge, no-nonsense guy who can talk turkey with developers.

Maybe one of our legal experts (ahem, hayleyanne...Azure Citizen....) could tell us if governments can file for bankruptcy. I honestly don't know if that is possible, but this situation seems to indicate a need for debt restructuring.

A totally extremist idea would be for the people of the city to organize a federal tax boycott. All the money that would normally be collected for the feds would be retained for the city for use to payoff debt. Of course, if the city receives a lot of pork from the Feds this would likely not work.

Of course, there is always the even more extreme option - mass exodus from the City. Dissolve Cleveland. There ya go, a sound solution.

Well, assuming no new taxes means no raising taxes, I offer two solutions:

1)Drastically cut city expenditures, and appeal to the state for funds.

2)take some or all existing taxes and shift them to less harmful taxes. My perennial favorite is a tax against the assessed land value. No doubt such a city has a high level of abandoned and absentee owned properties. No doubt such a city would like to attract new residents and new companies. Such a tax, in effect, takes the money that a new land purchaser would pay to the existing owner, and puts it in the city's coffers. It does not raise the cost of relocating to the city - in fact, as other taxes (income, gross receipts, sales, telecommunications, etc.) are reduced or eliminated, it makes it cheaper to move there.

I would say it's time to get a little creative.

Why does Cleveland's name need to be Cleveland? How about changing the city's name to something like Pepsi, Ohio presented by Genworth Financial? Some corporation would jump at that chance. It worked for Truth or Consequences, New Mexico.

I'm a bit confused on this (me confused is not exactly news ).

All reasonable people seek to find economic solutions that do not involve raising taxes. However, sometimes you have no choice.

Now, is the government of Cleveland incapable of raising taxes without a referendum? Most areas could pass laws to raise taxes, but try to do so through referendum out of political cowardice. If the situation is that desperate, why can the government of Cleveland not simply pass a new tax, a tax increase, etc.

Not that this would be a solid solution IMHO. If you are loosing residents and businesses in huge waves, increasing their costs of stay is not going to motivate a new influx of taxpayers. But I am curious about the ability to raise taxes without voter approval there.

For innovative solutions take a look at other cities. For example, St. Louis. The largest unnecessary expenditure in the St. Louis Police Department is responding to false alarms. So enter a new ordinance. Alarm company licencing fees are increased, Alarm Companies must collect city taxes from all employees (even if the business is not located in the city and the employee does not live in the city) if they want the license. All alarms now require an annual police permit of 25.00 for residents and 50.00+ for Businesses. All false alarms are fined, starting at 25.00 and increasing with each ooccurence That fine is applied to the alarm COMPANY (who will pass the cost onto the consumer, but at least the City Knows they can pay, and will if they want to maintain their licence). Lastly, If you do not have a city alarm permit, the city police and fire departments will NOT respond to an alarm at your residence or Business.

This is going to be a winfall of cash for the city, as well as a cost reduction to the police and fire departments as all alarm companies finally start to follow the best standards possible to prevent false alarms rather then the best standards possible to make the most money (Though a VERY few, including the company I work for now, has been holding thier installers to the better standards all along).

There are other programs in other cities that are innovative ways to cut costs and increase revenues. Perhaps, Cleveland should start looking around at the rest of the country for ideas to include in a plan of action and the ACT.