Vehículo adelantante

East Cleveland’s designation since the late 1980s as a direct HUD entitlement city has been very important for the city, providing a dependable stream of CDBG and HOME funding for

redevelopment, public services, public works, and other expenditures. But the city needs to build the capacity to administer these funds and to manage a community development organization. Until recently, it lacked community development capacity, and it still lacks planning capacity. The city has not had a planning director since 2004. Recently, the planning function has been carried out by the city’s leadership team, with targeted technical assistance provided upon request by CSU Levin College planning faculty and planning staff from University Circle Inc., the development, service, and advocacy organization for nearby University Circle. The city’s direct entitlement designation is the result of a statutory amendment sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and then–U.S. Representative Louis Stokes in the late 1980s, the Stokes amendment. The CBC and Stokes sought a way to provide CDBG and HOME money directly to a handful of majority-minority cities, exceptions to the more typical 50,000 population cutoff for this designation. In addition to the entitlement designation, Stokes helped the city in the 1990s get two Economic Development Initiative grants, which provided flexible economic development funding.

However, the city has a history of mismanaging its block grant dollars. Soon after East Cleveland became a direct entitlement community, its financial woes came to a head during the

administration of Mayor Wallace D. Davis, and the city declared a fiscal emergency. Onunwor, who would later defeat Davis to become mayor, led the Department of Community

Development at the time; under his leadership, allegations arose that federal funds were mismanaged, and hundreds of properties were boarded up, prompting HUD eventually to take back $200,000–300,000 in HOME funds.

The city’s lack of capacity in community development has been evident on multiple levels and goes back many years. A 2002 state audit report cited numerous issues with the Department of Community Development.15

From 2006 until February 2011, the city’s community development department had a number of short-term directors; one observer estimated 8 to 10. One cause of this high turnover has been the city’s inability to pay a competitive salary, but politics also played a role.16 From January 2010 until February 2011, when an experienced director was hired, the department was under the direction of the mayor’s chief of staff and improved its track record on spending HUD funds. 2010 marked the first time in 10 years that East Cleveland spent its block grant money on time.17 The city also successfully bid for $1.68 million in the third round of Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP3) funds.18

In 2010, the city’s direct entitlement allocation was $1.1 million in CDBG program funds and $490,000 in HOME funds, or almost $1.6 million total, an amount similar to amounts received in previous years. The city hopes to use these funds, together with NSP funds, to leverage a

community reinvestment strategy that would include training and employment for East Cleveland residents seeking jobs.19

According to the city’s 2006–10 consolidated plan, the city used its block grant funding for code enforcement, clearance and demolition, rehabilitation of housing, foreclosure prevention, services for homeless persons, public safety, street repair, and street lighting.

Under Mayor Brewer, the city broke off its long-term relationship with Community Housing Solutions (CHS), a Cleveland-area community and housing development organization (CHDO) that developed and rehabilitated affordable housing in the city. The relationship soured over a dispute about a payment of block grant funds related to Circle East, a large redevelopment project planned for the western portion of East Cleveland, closest to University Circle. Initiated in 2007 by East Cleveland and CHS with assistance from University Circle Inc., the plan was to build 40 single-family units, 20 condominiums, 32 units for elderly persons, 40 single-family rehabilitation and for-sale units, and 25 home repair units. Commercial development along Euclid Avenue was also part of the plan. Circle East was to be a mixed-income community, with two-thirds of the development in East Cleveland and one-third in Cleveland.

The total project cost was $30 million, and $21 million was to come from HOME, CDBG, NSP, the state of Ohio, the Cleveland Foundation, the Gund Foundation, and Charter One Bank. The priorities were scale, safety, and security. East Cleveland’s role was to gain site control and relocate existing residents. CHS had purchased eight homes when the dispute erupted over repayment of $300,000 that CHS claimed it was owed by East Cleveland. The city acknowledges that it owes this money but has not repaid it. The project was put on hold, the recession hit, and the Circle East project now seems dead.

When Norton took office, the city issued a request for proposal for CHDO services and contracted with Fairfax Renaissance Development Corporation to administer a portion of its block grant. Fairfax Renaissance is a CDC that serves the Fairfax neighborhood of Cleveland, an area geographically separate from East Cleveland.

East Cleveland still hopes to redevelop this area and is moving forward on gaining site control, using $2.2 million in NSP1 dollars for 150 demolitions on five streets and rehabilitation of 15 homes. CSU and University Circle Inc. are helping the city pro bono as it seeks foundation dollars to hire a consultant to prepare a pre-development plan for the NSP1 area.

East Cleveland will also get a share of the $40 million in NSP2 dollars received by a consortium of the city of Cleveland, the county, the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority, and the Cuyahoga County Land Reutilization Corporation. This will be used for a second priority redevelopment area around Huron Hospital.

Public Housing

East Cleveland, like all cities in Cuyahoga County, is served by the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority. It is the only one of the four case study cities that does not have a city housing authority.

CMHA manages 164 public housing units (Apthorp Tower) in East Cleveland as well as 10 units developed under the Homeownership Turnkey II program. It also has 638 housing choice voucher recipients living in East Cleveland as of March 201120 and is developing 35 units of senior housing with NSP2 dollars at Euclid and Belmore Road. In addition, the city reports that CMHA has 296 units of elderly housing and another 876 units of other subsidized housing.21