Before you can answer the question of a tax hike or not, you first need to understand the division of Shaker Hts. Most folks when they think of Shaker think of the sprawling mansions of North Park, and South Park Boulevards. What very few folks realize is that there is another large portion of Shaker often referred to as the "The other Side of the Tracks", Have Nots if you will. This area of Shaker is a largely populated area which is mainly south of Chagrin Boulevard, beginning at Kinsman (to the west, and Warrensville Center, (to the east). This section of Shaker hosts the largest number of section eight rental housing units of any Cleveland suburb! The unfortunate many who own homes in this area have taken some of the biggest losses in both property value, and quality of life of any Cleveland suburb. These same homeowners are currently paying the highest property tax rate in the State of Ohio. For folks unfortunate enough to be stuck in this area there is no justification whatsoever to be paying the current taxes imposed on them. Their quality of life differs vastly from those residents of the North Park ilk. Cuyahoga county refuses to place fair tax assesmants on their properties despite residents repeated appeals. The City Government of Shaker Hts has long since teetered between burying it's head in the sand and outright denial in addressing this issue. Until all residents can benefit equally from taxes or change the will never be a fair solution, and that's the dilemma

I am one of the "unfortunate-have nots" that is "stuck" with a "lower quality of life" living on "the other side of the tracks". I appreciate you view and don't necessarily disagree with your general point, but please don't generalize or characterize everyone living in a certain area with one broad brush stroke. I love living here and am willing to struggle with the challenges that brings. And yes, I will be voting for Issue 1 - not because I can easily afford to do so, but because, as a community, we all need to pitch in and build on our strengths. If Issue 1 fails, then we will be focused on THAT and won't be able to better address the issues you raise in your comment. And honestly, folks who make the point you've made - and I have heard it before - often stay anonymous as you have which makes it more challenging to have a real dialogue and start solving these problems.

I too live in the area you described, but I do not consider myself a have not nor do like that characterization nor i do agree with the characterization. "other side of the tracks.". I have lived here for almost 23 years, I love my neighborhood and Shaker Heights. I am. voting YES on Issue 1 because I feel strongly that we need to continue offering the services and programs that make Shaker Heights different than the other "inner ring suburbs" and that if this issue fails, our property values will decline because people will not want to move to Shaker Heights. The quality of life in Shaker Heights is excellent and we need to do everything we can to continue to offer services and programs that benefit our citizens and make it an attractive place to live.

I was a home owner in that district for 21 years. Numbers don't lie, nor do they deceive the senses. When we left, the most common sale of residential properties were distressed property sales which were averaging 12.5k per property....you won't find that statistic in Shaker Magazine. In 1990 Cuyahoga County assessed my home's value at 80k when we bought it. Today, 21 years later the county assesses it at $35k, but taxes me at a value at $110k (public record). Although my heart will always belong to that area, the numbers are clear, and irrefutable, as is the exodus of home owners taking place. I wish you the best. Although I feel and share your emotions, and at one time shared your optimism, the numbers leave no room for interpretation. Many years ago this community had progressive leadership that took considerable criticism for the policies they instituted to preserve and maintain their community from the infiltration of the urban blight. That kind of leadership is long gone, and in it's absence an irreversible decline took hold and grew beyond the means of any current leadership to stop it. In order to find solutions, one must first accept and understand the problems. Again, and sadly, for Shaker....this is their dilemma, and will be their legacy.

ann nonymous wrote: So what is the New World strategy to resurrect, shore up, and then build the future.

That is a very good question. And I hope to be part of figuring that out in this community. In the mean time, I want our family to continue to enjoy the benefits of living here while it gets figured out. What would your answer be to the question you posed?

The solution for saving Shaker Heights is very simple, it is a return to the private development and low taxes that built it and made it the envy of the nation. We will never get that change by passing more tax hikes. The SHTU is willing to work with City government to help it cut costs, improve core services and grow the tax base. The first step is to vote no on Issue 1, and prove to the region that we can finally control taxes in Shaker Heights.

People already don't want to move to Shaker Heights (take a look at conversations on this topic on city-data.com), and the reason is usually the taxes we pay. This is Shaker's reputation in the minds of people who move to the Cleveland area, and it's not a good one to have.

I for one would much rather do without backyard trash pickup, a city CAO, a city health department, a city magazine, and a second fire station and branch library than see my taxes keep climbing.

The City leaders want to position the tax increase as being driven by what the state is no longer providing--the estate tax. Yet, the problem has been bad stewardship of the funds entrusted to the City. The City fathers have known for some time that the estate tax revenues were going away. Yet, they have continued to fund silly, unnecessary projects such as the Shaker Blvd. bike trail--an admittedly nice feature, but hardly a necessity in these tough times. Further, they have wholly failed to contain personnel costs in the forms of salary, medical benefits, and pension benefits. This is difficult to do when the public employee unions believe that the citizens will bear any burden in the name of preserving Shaker's look and feel and have the political pull to control the ballot box. No elected official dare challenge the unions in this City. Well elected City officials had their chance to pull the teeth from public unions and elected to campaign against S.B. 5. Now, they should be required to manage the City within the resources that are currently available to them.

If raising the tax rate was such a good and defensible idea, why have the City fathers elected to place the issue on the August 7th ballot intead of the November general election ballot when far more Shaker voters will go to the polls. The answer is obvious--they know that the tax increase cannot be defended in open debate with the broader electorate. Accordingly, they have tried to sneak it by when they hope no one will go to the polls. For a community that aspires to such high standards, the shady way in which the issue has been presented to the citizens of this community is more reflective of the muck that Shaker has become.