1. In Ohio from 1960 to 1990 the growth of urban land area was 4.7 times the growth rate of the state’s population. Ohio Farmland Preservation Task Force (1)
2. While the population of Ohio has gone up 11.8 percent between 1960 and 1990, the amount of urbanized land went up 61.5 percent. Ohio Smart Growth Agenda (2)
Facts one and two indicate that each individual is using an an increasing amount of urban infrastructure services, such as highways, bridges, water, sewer, utilities. This puts pressure to increase the cost to build and maintain this infrastructure for each of us.
3. Ohio loses 120,000 acres of farmland by conversion to development each year, or about 13 an hour. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture figures calculated to the 120,000 acres annual loss by the Ohio Farmland Preservation Taskforce, EcoCity Cleveland journal calculated the hourly loss figure (3).
Ohio has some of the richest farmland in the world. This is one of the most valuable long term resources that a community can have.
4. Northeast Ohio has less population now than in 1970 yet we keep spreading over more land. While the urbanized area of Northeast Ohio grew by 9.4 percent over 30 years, the population of this area decreased by 5.9 percent. The urbanization figure does not include single family development on lots of five acres or more (4).
As we use more land per person we increase the amount of tax supported infrasturcture per person.
5. Residential real estate assessed value is increasing much faster in the outer suburbs and counties of Greater Cleveland than in the City of Cleveland and the inner ring suburbs. The Housing Policy Research Program of Cleveland State University calculated that the average increase in assessed value (after inflation is calculated in) between 1983 and 1993 in Cleveland was 1.2 percent and 7.6 percent in the inner ring suburbs. The outer suburbs of Cuyahoga County saw a 37.0 percent increase and an average of 28.1 percent increase in the adjacent counties. Tax Base Disparity: Development of Greater Cleveland’s Sapphire Necklace, December 1997 (5).
While most older communities have to carry more of the social burdens than newer communities, the taxable property value is slowly diminishing in the older areas compared to many of the the newer areas.
6. Between 1979 and 1991, Cleveland residential real estate lost $1.5 billion (25%) of its value in dollars adjusted for inflation. Cuyahoga County lost $2.9 billion (8%) - Cuyahoga County Planning Commission (6).
This loss in residential real estate value is putting pressure to increase taxes on the real estate value that remains.
7. Between 1979 and 1989, average household income in Cleveland declined 13% and declined 5% in the inner suburbs. Meanwhile, average income grew 5% in outer suburbs. U.S. Census (7)
As resources leave older areas, pressure on taxes increases to address proportionally growing growing needs.
8. Movement from Cuyahoga County to adjacent counties is increasing. This is risking the tax base of older urban and suburban communities, and pushing up taxes in developing areas. According to the CSU Housing Policy Research Program, 23 percent of the home sellers / homebuyers moved out of Cuyahoga County in 1987. In 1995, 31 percent moved out of Cuyahoga County. Tax Base Disparity: Development of Greater Cleveland’s Sapphire Necklace, December 1997 (8).
This is a recipe for a tax increase for everyone. As upper middle class residents leave Cuyahoga County, the remaining residents, with less means, are left to support growing needs. As the upper middle class moves into outlying areas, they demand more infrastructure improvements and increased services, in the process they drive up taxes in the new areas.
9. The highest property tax rates are mostly in older urban and suburban areas and the lowest are in towns with large amounts of commercial and industrial land per capita. According to the CSU Housing Policy Research Program, many of the homeowners in Cuyahoga County are at a disadvantage relative to the outer counties. Some Cuyahoga County suburbs, such as Shaker Heights, Garfield Heights and Lakewood, have the highest tax rates in the region, over $60 per $1,000 of assessed value, compared with less than $40 per $1,000 in most communities in Medina County. Not only is lower property tax rate an incentive to locate outside of Cuyahoga County, so too is a lower sales tax and lower cost of auto insurance. Tax Base Disparity: Development of Greater Cleveland’s Sapphire Necklace, December 1997 (9).
The burden is greatest on taxpayers in older areas.
10. The largest growth in property values in the seven county Greater Cleveland area are in outer Cuyahoga County suburbs and in select communities in the outer counties.
According to the CSU Housing Policy Research Program, property values in Cleveland changed between 0 and 13.75 percent between 1983 and 1995. Property values in select outer communities increase between 51.5 and 391.4 percent. These select communities are described as "The Sapphire Necklace" by CSU researchers. Tax Base Disparity: Development of Greater Cleveland’s Sapphire Necklace, December 1997 (10).
This inbalance drags down the metropolitan area as a whole. (11).
11. There is demand for new housing in the city of Cleveland that greatly exceeds the current level of production of housing, while state policies often ignore urban neighborhoods. According to CSU Housing Policy Research Program survey, Market Demand for New Housing in Cleveland, (12), a minimum of 20,313 households are interested in new housing in the city of Cleveland. The survey stated that there is a need for 2,000 housing units to be built every years over the next twenty years. Even though the pace of housing construction has quickened in recent years, there is still a long ways to go to meet the need.
To see recently construction steps being made toward a sustainable future in Cleveland, visit the Mill Creek housing development on Broadway Avenue, south of Warner Road, Church Square shopping strip and Beacon Place townhouses on Euclid Avenue between E. 79th Street and the Cleveland Play House, and new housing along W. 5th Street and Jefferson Ave. in the Tremont neighborhood. There is evidence that these developments are helping revive property values in the surrounding communities (13).
12. At the same time Ohio policies emphasize development on the suburban fringe through highway financing* and enterprise zones.** * CSU Housing Policy Research Program, Cleveland Metro Area: Ohio Department of Transportation, Major New Capacity Program, three tiers, 1998-2005, over $700 million in highway expansion and new interchanges (14); **Data from Summit County, released in May 1994, comparing the Western Reserve Enterprise Zone, (in Hudson/Twinsburg are of NE Summit Cty.), with all five enterprise zones in the city of Cleveland (15).
It is your state policies that continue to promote this unbalanced and and tax inducing course of events. It will take determined action by taxpayers to protect their pocket books by protecting the tax base.