Does this make any sense for Regionalism?

Some praise the public effort to keep Eaton Corp., a Fortune 500 company, in Cleveland’s downtown. They are even willing to pay a price to see it happen.

The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority will help to keep the company in Cleveland, we are told, by selling land to the Wolstein/Flats project and by helping to “finance $150 million of the Eaton project,” according to a Plain Dealer editorial praising the deal.

“It is no secret that the company has also explored locations in the suburbs. That makes it essential that the public-sector officials pull together to prevent such a relocation from happening,” the PD urges.
Yet, what does it add to the area economy if Eaton locates in the city or in a suburb of the city?

It doesn’t add more to the general economy if it remains within this region. It will, however, require public subsidies to keep Eaton Corp. in Cleveland proper. Cleveland, of course, wants Eaton to remain to collect the payroll taxes and – if there are any – property taxes. If the company moved some other city would get the revenue. So you can't  blame the city.

Wouldn’t it be regionally responsible, however, to see that tax revenue from the company – and other businesses – be shared by the various governments and schools in the Northeastern Ohio area rather than fighting with more  public subsidies to keep or lure from each other?

So here we have an example of the PD and others who are always crying about Regionalism, acting just the opposite and praising the kind of competition that doesn’t add to the region but costs tax revenue to satisfy developers once again.

To assess what various levels of government are giving to Wolstein's development see:

http://www.lakewoodbuzz.com/RoldoBartimole/RB%2005-03-06_Flats_Deal_Disgrace_Lakewood%20Ohio%20Roldo%20Bartimole.html [1]