What is OneCleveland?
It is never a good sign when politicians claim that they have found a cheaper and better way to do something than the private sector. The end result usually involves a large amount of taxpayer dollars being spent, and yet another monument to the failures of central planning. So, when word of a futuristic wireless network in Cleveland hits the public, proponents should be prepared to explain why this will not just turn into another Waterfront Line or Richfield Coliseum.
OneCleveland is a project to provide “community-based ultra broadband networking services” to northeast Ohio. As the story goes, companies laid fiber all over the place in the heady days of the 1990s Internet boom. Then, after the bubble burst, miles of unused “dark fiber” were just waiting to be tapped into. In Cleveland’s case, the company was the now-defunct City Signal Communications.
OneCleveland’s origins derive from a collection of government entities that joined together to build out this existing infrastructure. These founders include representatives from Case Western Reserve University, The City of Cleveland, Cuyahoga Community College, The Cuyahoga County Public Library, The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, The Northeast Ohio Regional Technology Coalition and the local public television station.
The money to run OneCleveland comes from several sources, but government funding is becoming more prominent. Earlier this year, Governor Taft awarded OneCleveland $500,000 from the Ohio capital budget to expand its reach. Cuyahoga County Commissioners are also considering throwing $250,000 at the project, and Cleveland Mayor Jane Campbell has announced plans to divert $500,000 from the city’s budget.
At no time, of course, has the public been given the chance to vote on whether they approve of the concept. Cleveland residents live in a city with a struggling economy, a school system in academic emergency, and a city government that claims proposed state-level funding cuts may force reductions in basic services.
That any public funds are going toward faster Internet—services already provided by numerous private providers such as cable, telephone, and satellite companies—is beyond the pale.
Supporters are quick to point out that OneCleveland does not compete with private sector Internet providers, but the originator of the concept seems to have rather ambitious plans.
Lev Gonick, Chairman of the OneCleveland’s board, has made it clear that OneCleveland is destined for more comprehensive things than wiring public libraries and hospitals. According to Gonick, OneCleveland will “pave the way for a growing metropolitan provision of widespread and free regional Wi-Fi access.”
In a Washington Post column, he even went so far as to say, “it should be like the air you breathe -- free and available everywhere." So, the grand vision, at least as articulated by its supporter, is to supplant the private sector with a government subsidized system.
The latest development is that Summit County now wants in on the deal, and OneCleveland may become OneNEO.
Government investment in a high-speed internet network primarily for the use of public colleges and schools is one thing. Government investment to supplant the private market is another.
If OneCleveland is a launching pad for the free “metropolitan provision” of wireless internet, the city will be assuming a huge financial commitment. It would also inevitably lead to a dramatic reduction in private investment—how can existing providers compete against a subsidized rival?
While there has been a lot of talk about the benefits of “collaboration,” and “public-private partnerships,” Mr. Gonick’s comments suggest that this may very well be a short-lived arrangement. Indeed, perhaps this is why OneCleveland’s board contains so many members of government agencies.
If public officials in Northeast Ohio are serious about restoring a vibrant economy in their communities, they must first recognize that government cannot create jobs without siphoning off money from the economy as a whole. Rather than attempting to be an active force of change in the private sector, the focus should be on creating a regulatory and tax environment that fosters economic activity. Running a lean, tight ship is a far better way to attract investment than subsidizing a potential competitor for business.
