Eagleton, Terry. 2011. Why Marx was Right.

Eagleton, Terry. 2011. Why Marx was Right

Mobilizing Public Will For Social Change

Examines the theory and strategies of "public will" campaigns and offers tangible criteria for their evaluation. It provides a rich inventory of strategies for use in mobilizing the public will through an integration of models of agenda building, social problem construction, issues management, social movements, media advocacy, and social capital. In addition, the paper provides cases and examples of public will campaigns directed at various social problems, along with criteria for evaluating these campaigns at various stages of a social problem's life cycle

Vacating the City: An Analysis of New Homes vs. Household Growth

The high price of housing on the coasts, population growth in the large metropolitan areas of the south, southwest, and west, and the issue of affordability for low- and moderate-income households across the country fueled the view that housing production was insufficient and that the shortfall was contributing to rising prices and limited housing choice. Indeed, underlying all of the housing-related changes and issues of the 1990s were the factors of supply and demand. The nation grew by 13.5 million households while 13.2 million building permits were filed. Nationally, housing supply was just about in balance with population growth. But substantial variation exists across the country. While people flocked to Phoenix and the housing industry boomed, few went to Syracuse and builders there felt it. The question of supply vs. demand can only be answered locally. This paper examines the extent to which new housing construction kept pace with household growth in 74 metropolitan areas between 1980 and 2000 (with particular focus on the 1990s). The paper assesses the impact of the balance or lack of it on each area and considers consequent policy issues. This paper is based on the proposition that the relationship is a fundamental and potent factor in the dynamics of urban change. Cities whose metropolitan areas consistently produce more housing than growth (and some do) face continuing, inescapable population loss and real estate abandonment. Cities whose areas consistently produce less housing than growth face a tight housing market and escalating prices. Sound policy will recognize the difference

Editorial

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/116360/1/pro2851.pd

A Newer Geography of Jobs: Where Workers with Advanced Degrees Are Concentrating the Fastest

From 2005 to 2013, the Cleveland metro ranked 5th in the nation in the growth of percentage of workers with an advanced degree. Greater Cleveland ranks 10th in the nation with 17% of its labor force with a graduate or professional degree, moving up from 22nd place in 2005. Cleveland’s 12-point rank change was third largest, behind Indianapolis and Providence. The brief suggest Greater Cleveland is part of a next generation of second-tier metros entering into the upper echelon of the knowledge economy

Housing Analysis for Cleveland Lakefront Development

The Center for Housing Research & Policy conducted this survey and analysis of housing on Cleveland’s lakefront for the Cleveland Lakefront Partners, which is composed of the city of Cleveland, Cleveland Tomorrow, the Greater Cleveland Growth Association, and the Cleveland Neighborhood Development Corporation. The report includes both the results of the survey of residents in the multi-county Cleveland region and a comparative study of waterfront populations in the cities of Milwaukee, Chicago, Portland, and Baltimore. The survey results showed that at least 6,000 and possibly up to 9,000 middle and upper-income households would be interested in living on the lakefront if housing were available. Planners have determined that altering the location and configuration of the city’s Shoreway would make available land that could accommodate 10,000 units of new housing. If five percent (10,000) of Cleveland’s households lived on its lakefront, that percentage would be well within the range of the waterfront populations of comparable cities (Portland, 9.7 percent; Chicago, 7.1 percent; Baltimore, four percent; and Milwaukee, 1.8 percent). The report’s results have played a significant role in the city of Cleveland’s plans for lakefront redevelopment

Housing Analysis for Cleveland Lakefront Development

The Center for Housing Research & Policy conducted this survey and analysis of housing on Cleveland’s lakefront for the Cleveland Lakefront Partners, which is composed of the city of Cleveland, Cleveland Tomorrow, the Greater Cleveland Growth Association, and the Cleveland Neighborhood Development Corporation. The report includes both the results of the survey of residents in the multi-county Cleveland region and a comparative study of waterfront populations in the cities of Milwaukee, Chicago, Portland, and Baltimore. The survey results showed that at least 6,000 and possibly up to 9,000 middle and upper-income households would be interested in living on the lakefront if housing were available. Planners have determined that altering the location and configuration of the city’s Shoreway would make available land that could accommodate 10,000 units of new housing. If five percent (10,000) of Cleveland’s households lived on its lakefront, that percentage would be well within the range of the waterfront populations of comparable cities (Portland, 9.7 percent; Chicago, 7.1 percent; Baltimore, four percent; and Milwaukee, 1.8 percent). The report’s results have played a significant role in the city of Cleveland’s plans for lakefront redevelopment