Op-ed by Paul Hill Jr.
Forest Hill Park in East Cleveland [City website]
In 2025, the State of Ohio announced plans to place East Cleveland under receivership — essentially transferring control of the city’s finances and operations from its elected mayor and city council to a court-appointed receiver. The move, justified as a step toward “fiscal recovery,” threatens something much deeper than budget mismanagement. It strikes at the very heart of local democracy and Ohio’s constitutional promise of home rule.
Under Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution, cities have the right to govern themselves in matters of local concern. That includes how they spend money, set priorities, and serve residents. But if East Cleveland is placed under receivership, its elected officials will be stripped of the ability to make financial decisions — decisions that define what a city values and who it serves. What good is voting for a mayor or city council if those we elect have no real authority? When power shifts from local representatives to a state-appointed overseer, democracy becomes a hollow formality.
A Question of Fairness
East Cleveland has long struggled financially, but it is not the only Ohio city facing insolvency or aging infrastructure. Yet, the state has chosen this city — one of the poorest, smallest, and most predominantly black municipalities in Ohio — for the extraordinary step of receivership. That raises serious questions about fairness and equal protection. Why East Cleveland, and not other struggling cities? If the law applies only when politically convenient or racially comfortable, then it isn’t a “general law” at all — it’s selective punishment disguised as fiscal policy.
A Threat to Home Rule
The state’s defenders will say that receivership is temporary and designed to restore solvency. But the damage it does to civic faith may be lasting. Home rule is not a bureaucratic technicality — it is the constitutional embodiment of local voice, local control, and the belief that citizens can manage their own affairs. When that principle is suspended, especially for communities already facing disinvestment and racial inequity, the result looks less like reform and more like disenfranchisement. Democracy cannot flourish under receivership; it can only endure it.
A Two-Tier System
If this approach becomes precedent, Ohio risks creating two classes of municipalities: one free to govern itself, and another ruled by state appointees whenever fiscal trouble arises. The first will be prosperous and autonomous; the second will be poor and powerless. That’s not fiscal responsibility — it’s political inequity. It tells struggling communities that they cannot be trusted with their own recovery. It replaces self-government with supervision.
The Real Question
Ohio’s leaders claim they want to save East Cleveland. But saving a city should not mean silencing it. The real question is whether the state believes in democracy enough to let local people chart their own path to stability. Financial solvency is important, but it cannot come at the price of constitutional self-rule. East Cleveland deserves assistance — not occupation.
Because if the right to self-government can be suspended in one city, it can be suspended anywhere. And that would make all of Ohio less free.
• • •• • •
Paul Hill Jr. is executive director emeritus of East End Neighborhood House, founder of the National Rights of Passage Institute, and a long-time resident of East Cleveland.
