Levin Regional Cooperation Survey

Regionalism is defined in many ways. Some define it by regional tax sharing and consolidating local units of government into a larger city/county statutory governing arrangement that may encourage equity and efficiency. Notable examples of this include Indianapolis and its “Unigov” consolidation with many surrounding towns, municipalities; as well as the City of Nashville and Davidson County in Tennessee. Other consolidations are bilateral city-to-city policy setting arrangements, such as the Metro Council, that determine growth and development policy for the Twin Cities, Minneapolis-Saint Paul. This study proceeds on the belief that regionalism can also be defined in functional terms based on necessity and evolving trust among local governments. Using a survey of mayors and managers in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, we found there are bilateral and multilateral relationships that are growing based on an uncertain economic environment and declining intergovernmental support. What results from these growing functional relationships is unclear, but they do form the organic base for broader collaboration and cooperation

Gradual Growth in Regional Collaboration in Cuyahoga County, Ohio

For many, regionalism is the answer to managing city challenges brought about by metropolitan sprawl. Yet regionalism is defined in many ways. Proponents tend to recommend regional tax sharing and/or increased coordination and sharing of services. For the most part, such efforts have not progressed very far in Northeast Ohio. But the context for local autonomy has changed. Jurisdictions that were fiscally sound now find they are not immune from fiscal constraints. The first Levin Regional Cooperation Survey, conducted in late 2018, examines regional collaboration efforts in city management and operations among the 57 municipalities in Cuyahoga County, Ohio

City of East Cleveland Visioning Project

The city of East Cleveland, a first-ring suburb on the east side of Cleveland, Ohio, has an estimated population of 17,000. The city was once a thriving bedroom community of 40,000 with a strong manufacturing job base that, in turn, supported a vibrant civic, social, and cultural life for many years. East Cleveland has seen steady decline over the last thirty years, the result of regional economic changes and demographic shifts. As Cleveland and the surrounding region revitalizes, East Cleveland boasts significant assets that put it in the path of opportunity and development. An excellent location, close to transportation and communication corridors, adjacency to University Circle’s major employment center and institutions, and abundant affordable space for development are among its locational advantages. Mayor Brandon L. King, elected in 2017, has fortified resident engagement through the development of neighborhood groups. These groups are empowered to help direct the way limited resources are distributed across the community. He has improved relationships with the city council and the East Cleveland school district, reduced municipal debt, and established important external relationships with the state, county, and federal government that are now yielding benefits for East Cleveland. This project seeks to build on this momentum by surveying a range of East Cleveland stakeholders, asking the central question, “what is the vision for East Cleveland?” now that political and administrative stakeholders are aligned and the development community is indicating keen interest in moving forward projects of scale. In the summer of 2019, Mayor King engaged the Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs at Cleveland State University to lead a visioning project that engages citizens and stakeholders in identifying opportunities and recommendations for East Cleveland’s rejuvenation. This document summarizes the findings of the project

Decoherence, irreversibility and the selection by decoherence of quantum states with definite probabilities

The problem investigated in this paper is einselection, i. e. the selection of mutually exclusive quantum states with definite probabilities through decoherence. Its study is based on a theory of decoherence resulting from the projection method in the quantum theory of irreversible processes, which is general enough for giving reliable predictions. This approach leads to a definition (or redefinition) of the coupling with the environment involving only fluctuations. The range of application of perturbation calculus is then wide, resulting in a rather general master equation. Two distinct cases of decoherence are then found: (i) A ``degenerate'' case (already encountered with solvable models) where decoherence amounts essentially to approximate diagonalization; (ii) A general case where the einselected states are essentially classical. They are mixed states. Their density operators are proportional to microlocal projection operators (or ``quasi projectors'') which were previously introduced in the quantum expression of classical properties. It is found at various places that the main limitation in our understanding of decoherence is the lack of a systematic method for constructing collective observables.Comment: 54 page