Interview with Professor Norman Krumholz

Currently, Mr. Krumholz is a professor at the Levin College of Urban Affairs at Cleveland State University. He
served from 1969-1979 as the Planning Director of the City of Cleveland for three mayors including Carl B. Stokes, Ralph J. Perk, and Dennis Kucinich.

Mr. Krumholz has a Bachelor of Journalism from the University of Missouri and a Masters Degree in City and Regional Planning from Cornell. Professor Krumholz has published articles in many professional journals including the Journal of the American Planning Association, the Journal of Planning Education and Research, and the Journal of Urban Affairs. His collaboration on the book Making Equity Planning Work won the Paul Davidoff book of the year award of the Associated Collegiate Schools of Planning. Revitalizing Urban Neighborhoods co-written with Dennis Keating, was published in 1999. Professor Krumholzs extensive research has been funded by the Cleveland Foundation, the George Gund Foundation, and the Ford Foundation. He was awarded the Prize of Rome in 1987 by the American Academy in Rome. He has previously led the American Planning Association as the President and received the APA Award for Distinguished Leadership in 1990. In 1999, Professor Krumholz served as the President of the American Institute of Certified Planners. Most recently, Professor Norm Krumholz was recently appointed an AICP fellow, with his Cleveland Policy Plan declared a "Planning Landmark". Joan: Can you describe the political climate in Cleveland just prior to the election of Carl Stokes to Mayor? Professor Krumholz: Seth Taft was the candidate, the Republican candidate, who ran against Carl Stokes, the Democrat, in 1967. The city of Cleveland was, and still is, very heavily Democratic in registration. But of course, Taft, in the final analysis, was a white candidate and, Stokes, a black candidate. And, at that time, the percentage of African Americans in Cleveland was under forty percent. I believe it was around thirty seven to thirty eight percent in 1967. There was an opportunity for Taft to play the race card and generate as many white votes as possible. But he did not do that. He refused to do that so the issue of race was there in the 1967 election but never openly on the table. Much credit is deserved by Seth Taft in declining to play that sort of racist game.

Joan: We have learned much about the Hough riots on the east side of Cleveland. Do you think that played any part in the 1967 elections? Professor Krumholz: I think that in 1967 and again in 1969 when Carl Stokes ran for the second time after winning in 1967, racial riots played a big role in that. For example, the Hough riots took place in 1966 and the white establishment, that is to say the leaders of the corporate and the newspapers and so on, supported Stokes both in 1966 and in 1969 when the Glenville riots occurred. They supported him as the only guy who could calm the situation. In effect, they saw Carl Stokes as fire insurance policy. But after the Glenville riot which took place in 1969 and after Carl Stokes second election for a two year term, they realized that was not possible. They saw that no African American leader could play that role and they turned away from him. Joan: So do you think that the establishment saw his election as almost a pilot project? Where if he could, as an African American becoming the mayor of a major American city like Cleveland that across America things could happen? Professor Krumholz: I think so. I think that many African Americans and white liberals were certainly energized by Carl Stokes election. It meant a great deal to many liberals. Speaking for myself and many professionals, many were anxious to work for an African American mayor. And so Carl Stokes attracted a very substantial group of talented bureaucrats from around the country to work for him. Joan: After Carl Stokes election, do you think people were surprised or how do you summarize the reactions of both civilians and people within Cleveland politics? Professor Krumholz: I think, first of all, the reaction was one of surprise that an African American could get elected. And, second of all, in my judgment, there was a rather bitter racial confrontation that kept bubbling on under the table, behind the scenes. And that was based largely on who got the jobs and who got the contracts. Cleveland might have been seen as an oasis of liberalism in racial terms because of the election of Stokes. But, in fact, was not and is not. And so, many of the people who were working for the city and accustomed to the jobs, the favors and the contracts from the city, were worried that those jobs would go to African Americans. To a certain extent that was true so was an under the table bitterness that permeated both of Stokes administrations. Joan: Do you think this impacted his effectiveness as a mayor or did he just rise above that? Professor Krumholz: He was used to that as he grew up surrounded by the racist feelings on the part of others. But I think it impeded the effectiveness of his administration. It just made it more difficult for him to govern. Joan: Right. Can you discuss his successes and, as well, the projects he thought he could initiate but could not actual realize under his two mayoral terms?

Professor Krumholz: One of the most important steps he took was to arrange for an aggressive leader at the public housing administration CMHA, the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Administration. The CMHA had been fairly stuck for many years under Ernie Bohn, historical leader of CMHA. When Stokes arrived, he helped appoint Irv Kriegsfeld as the leader of CMHA. Kriegsfeld was very aggressive and helped build several thousand new public housing units during a relatively short tenure. So in that sense, Stokes was very successful in building more low rent housing in the city of Cleveland. In other areas, such as in finance for example, he was not successful. At the end of his second two year term in 1971, he declined to run for reelection partially due to the finances of the city being so troubled. The reason for this was that he was not able to gain the support of the public for an income tax increase that he thought he needed for successful operations within the city. I think to his credit he also started what was known as the Clean Water Task Force. This was the beginning of the effort to clean up Lake Erie and the Cuyahoga River. So environmentally, I thought that was a very important step in the right direction although it did not complete within his administration. Joan: Yes, you mentioned a few issues that were definitely going on, not only in Cleveland, but nationally. Could you place his mayorship with a larger national context? Did he attract attention from national media sources? Professor Krumholz: Well, because he was not only the first African American mayor of a major city, he was also a handsome man who dressed very well and spoke very, very well and effectively. As a result, he spoke on a national stage and was considered during 1968 as a possible running mate for Hubert Humphrey when he ran against Richard Nixon. He did not get the position but the fact that he was considered was very important. I think it meant a huge amount to the African American community in the nation to see the possibilities of politics. This displayed what the right combination of charisma and organization could produce. So I believe it was very inspiring to African Americans everywhere in the United States. Joan: Definitely. Do you think there were any specific people that may have had very impacting or contradictory views than Mayor Stokes that made a difference? Professor Krumholz: Well, Ralph Perk, who followed Stokes as Clevelands mayor, did not think highly of Stokes. Jim Carney, who was a big developer in the city at that time, also did not think very much of Stokes. I think many of the people in the ethnic communities were disappointed by Stokes election. And, if they did not actively impede his administration, they sort of dragged their feet. Joan: Do you think this was because they felt almost threatened by him.

Professor Krumholz: Sure, they felt threatened by him, not in a personal physical way but threatened by him if he should interrupt the normal flow of patronage. When administrations have a lock on city hall, there is a normal flow of who gets the contracts and who gets the jobs. Stokes was a new and different element. Joan: That is all the main questions I have for now. Is there anything you would think would be important that you would like to add? Professor Krumholz: Yes, from the perspective of somebody who worked for Stokes, it was a very inspiring time in my life and I think a lot of people who worked for Stokes had the same feeling that he was something new, something different. Working for a man who not only was the mayor of the city but who had national, even international, reputation. This was very important and it gave us the Indians so to speak, an opportunity to think new approaches and new designs for our work. I think that was true of every department in city hall. Joan: Thank you. As a final follow up question, did both the white ethnic community and the African Americans in Cleveland think that riots and crime would diminish with the election of a black mayor? Professor Krumholz: The white ethnic population in Cleveland thought this would be the case. However, the black citizens knew that, while a black mayor could have an important impact on their daily lives, they were still had responsibility for making their own way in the world. So, that basic reality did not change. Joan: Yes, I remember learning from the Hough riots that the black community was demanding more from the police department and, not just the government, but to really make a difference. You noted how much housing was a major factor and that was one problem in Hough that I know sparked a lot of the controversies. Professor Krumholz: Absolutely.