Positively Cleveland - Don’t go there, sez Greenberg
Something interesting going on in the travel book arena, and the merits and demerits of the argument are worth examining. Peter Greenberg, Travel Editor for the Today Show (bio), has a new book out Nov 1 titled Don’t Go There: The Travel Detective’s Essential Guide to the Must-Miss Places of the World ($12.21, Amazon).
The book lists places not to go, and tells you why, based on Greenberg’s personal experience. More on the book below, but first the controversy. The book lists Cleveland as one of the 12 most ‘Dangerous Destinations’ in the U.S.
On Oct 24, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Greenberg was at Ohio Travel Association’s annual meeting in Canton. Tamera Brown, vice president of marketing for Positively Cleveland, was also there, and the two of them had a bit of a verbal tiff over the Cuyahoga River fire of 1969.
Apparently, Brown told Greenberg that the river has long since been cleaned up, and is in fact cited as a model for cleanups to other cities by the EPA. And she added that 13.73 million people visited Cuyahoga County in 2007. Greenberg, for his part, says that he based the listings on FBI crime statistics for 2006 and 2007. The Cleveland Mayor’s office responds that they’re nowhere near the top 12, as far as crime is concerned.
Who’s right? Greenberg or Cleveland? I’ll be updating this post after I talk to some people, but one thing for sure. This is going to effect the number of people embarking on vacations in Cleveland. And you’re going to hear more about this. (Update: See Tamera Brown’s statement below in the comments.)
Anyway, here’s a summary of what the book contains, in addition to single line items like tourist traps, terrible package deals, high-rise hotels, revolting food, and the worst airports on earth.
- Which cities and countries are the most polluted? Have the highest crime rates? The worst disease rates?
- Which locations are most likely to be hit by tornadoes? Tsunamis? Hurricanes? Earthquakes?
- Which airports should you avoid at all costs and when?
- Which hotels are consistently cited for bedbugs, Legionnaire’s disease, and overall filth?
- Where do you not want to ride a bike for fear of sinkholes?
Posted on November 2nd, 2008 by PLing
Filed under: Travel News
Well-known travel editor Peter Greenberg is coming out with a book this month called Don’t Go There! The Travel Detective’s Essential Guide to the Must-Miss Places of the World. In a recent talk he gave at to members of the Ohio Travel Association Greenberg stated that the book includes places in “every state of the union.” A preview copy sent to the Plain Dealer revealed that Cleveland appears in the Chapter 15 on dangerous destinations.
While Mr. Greenberg is certainly entitled to his opinion, we feel it does a tremendous disservice to Cleveland. The section is an overgeneralization that makes it seem as though everything east of the Cuyahoga River (pretty much all of downtown) with the possible exception of East Fourth Street and a zone around the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, is riddled with crime.
Mr. Greenberg leverages FBI crime statistics in a manner that is misleading. Evaluating the crime level as compared to the number of citizens as Mr. Greenberg does complicates the issue. Cleveland is a small city with very tight boundaries. While a downtown renaissance with loft condominiums and other higher end housing has drawn more people to live there than ever before (people we have to believe consider it to be convenient, safe and attractive), the city itself is home to less than 450,000 residents by the 2007 census count. You compare 450K to the crime rate and the ratio is pretty big. But, Cleveland and its immediate environs—the areas visitors would consider to be Cleveland, but are, in fact, suburbs—adds up to some 2.8 million residents. So, not to pick on other cities, but a crime-to-resident comparison by metropolitan statistical area (MSA) puts Cleveland way down the list at 154 and moves cities like Orlando, Las Vegas and the other Cleveland—Cleveland, Tennessee—up to the top 40.
In fact, we’re happy to report that crime is in decline here in Cleveland. As of August 2008, gun crimes were down 10% and homicides were down 25%. Initiatives like the Downtown Cleveland Ambassadors program instituted in 2006 giving the downtown a street team of visible ambassadors who clean, offer help with directions and provide free safety escort services and the deployment of a Downtown Services unit of 24 specially-trained police officers helped to decrease crime in downtown Cleveland by 8% in 2006-2007 and an additional 5% on top of that between 2007-2008.
If you lived in another city like New York, Washington, DC, Los Angeles or Chicago before you came to Cleveland, I think you’d be pretty surprised to find out Mr. Greenberg portrays this Midwestern city’s danger potential to be higher than any of these cities, some of which don’t even make the list. While there is crime in every city and all travelers should never take unnecessary risks, Cleveland as a city feels safer than most—especially its more traveled areas like the many museums of University Circle, the eateries and galleries of neighborhoods like Tremont and Little Italy and the clubs and fine dining of the Warehouse District . . . all of which Mr. Greenberg neglected to mention in his article and all of which are most certainly east of the Cuyahoga River. In truth, we at Positively Cleveland host tour operators, event planners and journalists year-round and hear time and time again that our family-friendly city seems very “clean and safe.”
This brings us to another pet peeve, Mr. Greenberg’s need to mention the river burning in 1969 for no real editorial purpose other than to take another dig at an already beleaguered city. It’s coming up on 40 years since the Cuyahoga fire caught the nation’s attention. Contrary to popular belief, the Cuyahoga was not the first or only river to catch fire . . . but we’re guessing Mr. Greenberg is not out there citing catastrophes in the Baltimore Harbor, the Buffalo River in upstate New York or the Rouge River in Michigan. Certainly, it’s important to remember the river fire because its clean-up spurred the Clean Water Act of 1972 and other important environmental policies. But, it’s also important to note that the new and improved Cuyahoga drains into a considerably healthier Lake Erie that supports a $600 million fishing industry and that this admittedly still recovering system’s revival has been hailed as one of the “biggest watery success stories.”
Clevelanders now hold an eco-friendly “Burning River Fest” each year. Our local brewery, which organizes the festival and follows green policies, has named a beer after the infamous event. SustainLane recently ranked our city #16 for its sustainability efforts saying, “Cleveland is taking its ecological health seriously.” Clearly, while we’ve learned from our past, we’ve moved on and are working on our future.
Positively Cleveland is tired of these inaccurate characterizations of our city. It might have been trendy decades ago to take cheap shots, mainly for humorous effect, and even Clevelanders found Johnny Carson funny. But today, those who cling to the image of Cleveland with a “burning river” or as the “mistake on the lake” are ill-informed and, frankly, laughable. Sure, we, like every city, have our problems and we cannot sugarcoat them. However, with the second largest performing arts center in the nation, one of the top-ranked orchestras in the world, a growing medical industry, arguably some of the best chefs anywhere . . . well, there are quite a few things to love about Cleveland. And, we’re asking our supporters—those who’ve visited and those who live here–to help us share more of those.
Ball’s in your court, Mr. Greenberg. :)
[…] Greenberg’s book Don’t Go There (Cleveland controversy; Amazon link) has again triggered a war of words. This time it’s in Vermont, where the State […]
[…] Times, Great Travels, unlike Peter Greenberg’s previous book Don’t go There, does not court controversy, and is much more useful and practical. More importantly, it offers […]
Maybe if you presented all sides of the story, you’d find that in reality Cleveland is no more dangerous than any other large city.
For example, Columbus has a much lower crime rate than Cleveland and a larger population, which is what the media (and nimwits like Greenberg) latch onto. But if you dig a little deeper, you’ll see that it’s an apples to oranges comparison. Columbus, due to the fact that it has very few suburbs which are cities, has annexed a bunch of land which in Cleveland would be part of a suburban city (and in many cases, not even a first-ring suburb, the city of Columbus even extends outside of Franklin County). Thus, Columbus covers over 200 square miles (about 4 times that of 1950) now whereas Cleveland still covers about 72 square miles. If you compare the crime rates of Cleveland and the “core” of Columbus, the approximate area of its 1950 boundaries, you will see a very similar picture. Furthermore, if you take an area of Cleveland comparable to the area covered by Columbus (such as all of Cuyahoga County) Cleveland actually has a lower crime rate.
Unfortunately, it is no new phenomenon that the core areas of cities have higher crime rates. This is true of ALL cities in the United States. However, cities which have annexed land further out from their core artificially lower the crime rate for the entire city. Cleveland has not annexed any land in the last 60 years. Thus, the city itself appears to have a higher crime rate than other cities, when in fact there isn’t much of a difference. That isn’t to say there aren’t problem which need to be addressed, but it’s quite unfair to the residents of the area, and a disservice to those looking for a nice place to visit, to paint Cleveland as a war zone and ignore the great neighborhoods, cultural institutions, beaches, and other attractions it offers.
(Comment edited to remove personal insults)