A Perspective on the Cleveland
Convention Center Debate
By Tony Bodak, Economic Development Consultant
GUEST AUTHOR

Cleveland, Ohio is noisy with debate on its convention center issue. With public officials signaling willingness to spend as much as $500 million to replace the community’s current antiquated, cramped facility, developers have built plans and cost estimates for five potential downtown sites. Community development corporations and business groups are busy passing and publicizing resolutions supporting their favorite locations, and the City has held three public meetings seeking resident input on facility siting. Yet the debate on where to build the complex ignores the more central question of whether it should be built at all.

Some officials have attempted to make the general case for convention center upgrade, but only as formality. While the notion that “We have to do something!” (the most popular rationale for building a new facility) may be true, it isn’t enough. Yet, sadly, our public reasoning does seem to stop there. We must establish – even if we agree that something must be done – that upgrading our convention facility is the specific something we must do with our $500 million.

For a new convention facility to be the wisest use for our half billion dollars, we must agree that the old building is a primary constraint to meaningful convention industry growth in Cleveland, an assertion that might wilt in the face of a stiff argument, given (permanently!) the region’s cold and wet climate and (temporarily, hopefully) its national reputation as an industrial dinosaur.

But even if everyone in the community did agree that building a new facility would make Cleveland significantly more competitive as a convention destination, there is another hurdle that must be cleared in order to justify an investment of this size in a time of such scarcity. We must establish that a growing convention industry would more effectively drive broad growth to the regional economy than other potential uses of our money.

If an argument exists that passes these two criteria – one that shows that a new facility will accelerate convention industry growth AND shows that accelerating convention center growth will generate broader economic benefit than the innumerable other investments we might choose – now would be a good time for advocates to share it with the public. Come November, Cuyahoga County voters will decide whether to pay for the facility at all, not where to build it.

The opportunity cost question is a critical one. If we choose not to build the center, what else might we do with our $500 million? We could provide a gigantic boon to local research and commercialization efforts in strategic industries. We could provide meaningful support to our anemic entrepreneurial community. We could rehabilitate many of the tainted, vacant brownfields of the central city and inner ring suburbs, opening more of our land for profitable private investment. We could go a long way toward transforming the lakefront-choking Shoreway to a boulevard, providing citizens with precious access to Lake Erie. We could support implementation of the ongoing Innerbelt study, which could open isolated neighborhoods to other parts of the community. (Might we hope for the end of the legendary East Side/West Side split?) We could invest directly in our neighborhoods. We could finally bring our truly embarrassing level of public support for the arts into the respectable range. We could invest in primary education, and send thousands of promising-but-poor young Cleveland residents to college every year.

To her credit, Mayor Campbell has made clear that the convention facility upgrade would be just one part of a more comprehensive plan to ignite economic growth in the region. There is talk about asking voters for $500 million over ten years for neighborhood development, as well as funds for the arts on the November ballot issue. These additional measures must not be viewed as throw-ins or appeasements to lure non-Cleveland voters to the Yes side of the convention center issue. They are important on their own merit. We should be developing and publicizing innovative strategies for neighborhood enrichment at least as energetically as we push for the convention center.

The very best convention centers are beautiful, hollow structures that adapt very well to an enormous range of outside needs. They have their merit. But perhaps at this point in this community’s history, we are ripe for something bolder: a monument to our shared values, a lightning rod for civic engagement, or a real point of public pride. While convention facilities are valuable assets, they are not any of these things. In a sense, their value lies in their very fickleness. We should be very careful not to say the same of ourselves with our investment choices.

Intelligent people can debate the best uses of public funds, but we absolutely must recognize the range of options available to us. We must recognize that we will not be able to fund all of our promising projects at the same time, in part because of the dwindling state and federal investments in local initiatives. In weighing this decision, we will speak very plainly about our priorities as a community. It is not just about where to build our new convention center, but rather how best to use our public resources in pursuit of a future Cleveland that we can all aspire to.

Tony Bodak is an independent economic development consultant in Cleveland, Ohio.His email address is: tonybodak@hotmail.com.