CENTRAL-CITY DISTRESS IN OHIO'S ELASTIC CITIES: REGIONAL AND LOCAL POLICY RESPONSES

Abstract

Because of past annexation, Akron, Columbus, and Toledo all contain vacant land within the city boundaries and have active move-up housing markets, matching David Rusk's idea of more elastic cities. The relative elasticity of these cities has helped but has not been a panacea and likely is to be less helpful in the future. This paper examines the relationship between elasticity and central-city distress, analyzes movement patterns of homesellers, examines the major reasons for and implications of this movement, considers various policy responses, and draws out common themes among the three more elastic cities. Despite the lack of legislative requirements for regional cooperation, all three cities have begun to negotiate agreements with suburban jurisdictions on a case-by-case basis. This development implies the need for legislation to encourage metropolitan-wide cooperation. The state has the power to enact such legislation, but the political will is open to question.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 16 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.