Synthesizing the GCP and Metro West. While reading up on Metro West and the Greater Cleveland Partnership before we

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Synthesizing the GCP and Metro West. While reading up on Metro West and the Greater Cleveland Partnership before we"

Grant Nelson
5 years ago
Views:

1 Ilan Davidowitz SOCI 050 Final Paper Synthesizing the GCP and Metro West While reading up on Metro West and the Greater Cleveland Partnership before we visited, I found it difficult to tell the difference between the two. Both were fairly sizeable organizations whose primary goal was to help the economy and community of Cleveland get back on its feet after years of decline. Once we visited, on the other hand, the differences between the two seemed clear. After several awkwardly answered questions from the GCP and an inspiring presentation from Metro West, I was ready to conclude that the GCP was simply an amalgamation of big-money interests with a primary focus on their investors rather than their community and that Metro West was a small, local, grassroots movement beholden more to their poor and minority residents than to any large interests. To my surprise, however, after reviewing the goals and structures of both, these reactions began to seem premature. In fact, the operational similarities between Metro West and the GCP are striking. This is not to say that Metro West isn t as dedicated to community service or that the GCP does not primarily serve the interests of its members. Comparing the two is not nearly as simple as it may seem, as the GCP and Metro West are simultaneously so similar as to make distinguishing between the two difficult and so different that direct comparisons seem oversimplified at best and impossible at worst. Regardless, I will attempt to make some comparisons in order to place the GCP and Metro West in conversation with each other. First, I look at how the two presented themselves to our class through their literature and messaging. Next, I compare the actual operations and projects of both

2 and assess their similarities. Finally, I will analyze how and to whom each organization holds itself accountable and why that matters. Because its membership is made up of local businesses, the Greater Cleveland Partnership seems used to emphasizing its benefits to potential members. We were presented with a similar story, at least before we began asking questions. The GCP s building itself is brand new and gorgeous, with the high-tech conference room, open lobby and kitchen, and liberal use of windows reflective of the corporate headquarters the organization aims to attract. The booklet presented to us included sections on business development and the connections membership could provide, but it also included sections about GCP s advocacy work and initiatives for greater economic inclusion. However, those sections were also strongly geared toward businesses, bringing the importance of each back to how they may affect a member s bank account. Such language included how the GCP s Commission on Economic Inclusion helps Northeast Ohio employers connect the benefits of diversity and inclusion with their bottom line, which may come off as cynical or even malicious shouldn t they be doing advocacy for advocacy s sake? However, it is important to remember that the GCP is an organization of businesses who have to come together and actively agree on what issues to invest in. Simply, they have to balance their work between benefitting the community at large and their members, or else they wouldn t be able to exist in the first place. I return to this point when I reflect on the goals of each organization. Metro West, in contrast, presented itself as a more personal operation, akin to a small group of political activists. The building they share feels more like a small community office, which, considering their much more localized and economically impoverished theater of

3 operations, is less likely as deliberate an aesthetic choice as that of the GCP. Metro West emphasized its small scale, presenting pictures of various community projects such as cookouts with cops, street cleaning, porch repair, and general friendly interactions among residents. Anecdotes gave the sense of a tight-knit relationship between the organization and the community, as if everyone was on a first-name basis. Major emphasis was placed on the diversity of the area; racial and ethnic statistics were presented as a preface to Metro West s goals and projects, many of which are focused on cultural heritage. As a result, I, and the class as a whole it seems, were more impressed by Metro West s message. At least in the terms presented to us by both organizations, Metro West came across as significantly more dedicated to diversity and advocacy in general, rather than to the economic benefits of either. Overall, the main difference between the two s goals is one of scale. The Greater Cleveland Partnership proudly claims to be Northeast Ohio s most influential business organization, advocating for an expansive area which covers several counties surrounding Cleveland itself. It is made up of more than 8,500 member companies, ranging from Fortune 500 corporations to independently-owned local businesses. With such a wide variety of members and such a large area to represent, the GCP must operate on a larger scale than Metro West, which serves four neighborhoods of 40,000 residents. Seemingly, while the one organizes cookouts and walk-a-thons, the other offers incentives for Amazon to locate its second headquarters in Cleveland. But is that really indicative of the goals and practices of each organization? I would argue that both Metro West and the GCP sincerely want to help those in need, and often approach solutions in similar ways. Both organizations are currently touting their own separate catalytic

4 initiatives, defined in the GCP s literature as projects that transform Cleveland s neighborhoods and attract investment. These initiatives vary both between and within the two organizations. Metro West is currently at work on a neighborhood redevelopment project called the West 25th Street Corridor, which will invest $855 million over the next ten years on beautification and easier access to MetroHealth. The GCP has its own corridor project, the Opportunity Corridor, which they argue will revitalize the area around Cleveland s downtown area. Both corridor projects operate under the same theory: large monetary investments in flashy development projects will not only improve the aesthetics of the area, but will bring significant economic benefits to residents through increased job opportunities and clientele. Both organizations are also involved in diversity initiatives. Metro West is currently working on La Villa Hispana, which they call the economic and cultural center of the Latino community in Greater Cleveland, as well as the International Village, which plans to resettle one thousand refugee families in 2017 alone. The GCP, meanwhile, developed its Commission on Economic Inclusion in 2005, encouraging the balance between workplace diversity and financial interests mentioned earlier. Regardless of its framing in their literature, though, this commission represents a similar dedication to encouraging and normalizing diversity in a city significantly divided by racial tensions. It seems, then, that just because the GCP and Metro West operate at very different scales, their approaches and strategies do not necessarily differ all that much. Finally, I turn to the question of accountability. If both organizations operate similarly in order to provide economic benefits to Cleveland residents, do they also hold themselves accountable to those residents in similar ways? I argue in favor of a qualified yes. The specific people and organizations to whom Metro West and the GCP are accountable do differ, largely

5 due to the aforementioned question of scale. However, the framework through which each organization is held accountable is actually quite similar. Both are funded and supported by a combination of large, highly influential interests and smaller interests with a more significant impact than their size would indicate. For the GCP, the large interests are fairly self-evident. Of its 8,500 members, there are a handful of very large corporations whose financial investments far outweigh the membership fees of smaller businesses. This includes Fortune 500 companies like Keybank, AT&T, and Nestle, as well as the biggest employers in the Cleveland Metro Area like Cleveland Clinic. Interestingly, large corporations have been at the forefront of progressive causes, especially in terms of workplace equality. The 2017 Human Rights Campaign s Corporate Equality Index found that 82% of Fortune 500 companies have implemented gender-identity protections and 50% offer transgender-inclusive healthcare coverage, indicative of the modern trend in which multi-million dollar corporations with very little to lose have the freedom to implement progressive policies without fearing for their bottom line. Smaller, locally-owned businesses, on the other hand, have less freedom to do so. Mandated diversity requirements, for example, could potentially threaten an independently-owned salon s narrow business margins enough that they would rather avoid the requirements altogether than risk closure. The ethical basis of such prioritization is very much up for debate, however the reality is that small business owners may not have the freedom to eschew conservative ideals in favor of progressive causes. COSE, the Council of Smaller Enterprises, is a close partner with the GCP, and provides these small businesses with a say in the GCP s decision-making process. Though their influence may be smaller than that of a Fortune 500 company, the independent businesses of Greater Cleveland

6 can exert a great deal of influence on the GCP and have a say in what political issues they decide to tackle. If the GCP cannot convince enough of its membership that a certain political move will benefit business, it will be unable to follow through regardless of the issue s moral standing. There is certainly a dichotomy between the influence of large and small businesses in the Greater Cleveland Partnership, but one cannot necessarily control the organization s actions without appeasing the other. The same is true of Metro West, though its large and small stakeholders differ from those of the GCP. Metro West s primary sources of funding are through grant applications and through the city councillor. Just as the GCP is most respondent to its large financial backers, so too is Metro West beholden to the interests of the elected officials and organizations keeping it financially viable. If neither supports a potential initiative, Metro West cannot afford its implementation; if Metro West is ambivalent about a project but is compelled to do so by their backers, they may not have a choice but to pursue it. The organization s smaller influencers include local interests, specifically the neighborhood organizations and churches whose partnerships have played a vital role in connecting Metro West to its community. Especially if it is to maintain its image as a caring door-to-door operation, Metro West must cater to the needs of the citizens it serves or rather, the specific groups representing those citizens interests. Metro West s partners operate on a more localized scale just as Metro West itself does. However, the ways in which they hold Metro West accountable are essentially the same as the larger-scale processes at work between the GCP and its members. The Greater Cleveland Partnership and Metro West are not two sides of the same coin, but rather only two faces of the multifaceted array that is Cleveland s political and economic

7 revitalization community. Though it is difficult to make direct comparisons between the two without oversimplification, I found that writing this paper allowed me to synthesize the massive amount of information we were presented to enough of an extent that I could begin to connect the dots. I hope reading it will help future Cleveland Immersion Program students understand more about these organizations before and after hearing from them, and clear up at least some confusion. I have adhered to the Honor Code on this assignment. Ilan Davidowitz

Establishing a GREAT Local Legislative Advocacy Program

Florida Education Association * 2013 Florida Legislative Session Establishing a GREAT Local Legislative Advocacy Program Getting legislators elected who understand public education and who will fight for