6/21 Council meeting comments

First, it appears that we will be seeing both a “Senior Citizens’ levy” and a Public Health levy” on this November’s ballot.

Personally, I think both of these could be worthy causes, BUT (it seems like there is always a “but”, doesn’t it???) please recall what happened to the PUBLIC SAFETY levy that was passed a few years ago: The proceeds of that levy were “dedicated” and “earmarked” and “committed“ and “promised” and “designated” to be completely set aside for increased PUBLIC SAFETY.

But what actually happened to those funds??? We saw no actual increase in public safety forces. Instead the funds were used to plug the budget holes left due to extravagant spending by reckless councils and city administrations.

While the state law (ORC Chapter 727) under which Law Director Landen, et al, claim the authority to petition for the olde tyme street lamps on S. Main Street does address “lighting”, it certainly does NOT address the DEMOLITION of perfectly adequate, EXISTING street lighting meeting the standards of the City of Middletown, to be replaced with DECORATIVE lighting which (most likely) supplies a lower illumination rating.

Further, like the bike path, the “law of unintended consequences is not being considered. The taxpayers will be stuck with the higher maintenance, utility and replacement costs associated with these faux olde tyme gas lights, as well as the higher crime and vandalism costs associated with the lower illumination levels.

 

Further, it is both unfair and extravagant in these times of economic malaise for some areas of our city to go without adequate street lighting, while thousands of extra taxpayers’ dollars are wasted to demolish perfectly good lights for replacement by decorative lights.

 

Yet they say we are in dire straits and taxes must be RAISED!!!  Go figure!!!

Finally, I certainly agree with Councilman (and attorney) Picard’s suggestion about getting council out of the Public Housing Authority business.

At last, they (except Councilman Smith) want to do things the LEGAL way??? With FOUR lawyers (Picard, Allen, Adkins, Landen) involved, one would think that they would have read the ORC before now and would have known that they were, and are, acting illegally!!!

They cannot appoint themselves to a board, and they cannot oversee or administer a contract. “After the authority to make such contracts has been given and the necessary appropriation made, the legislative authority shall take no further action thereon.”

Say no to the Senior Citizen levy.  No one forced them to build a Taj Mahal on Central that they couldn't afford.

Would these faux olde tyme gas lights be of the more expensive metal variety or of the cheapo plastic variety that were installed on my street years ago? Hmmm......

Didn't we just pass a senior citizens levy recently, or are all the elections running together now in my head?

In typical fashion, the city is pandering to help protect their special interest friends and deploy croynism with the tax plans for support of the Senior Citizens Center. I question if this is ethical appropriate. Mulliagn should not be voting on many of these issues. The Sr. Citizens Group overpaid and overextended themselves to buy the John XXIII property and then build another facility. That helped Fenwick move OUT of Middletown, where Milligan's mother became Principal. The problems and money will not be used to enhance or add to educating seniors, but retire their debt. They have expenses monthly > than what they bring in. It was speculated it might close. So, the pauback for that organization and their purchase to help Fenwick move is a tax levy?  Then you have of course, the qid pro qup for seniors then voting for the property tax, because they get the Homestead tax break. This is highly unethical if not illegal, as to what purpose and need does the Senior Center provide as an outcome of the levy taxes collected if passed? A better position to pay their debt because they help pass tax levies since they are in retrement homes or get a break from taxes? Anyone who supports this is wrong.

Marianne is correct in that there was never a promise to INCREASE the level/manpower within public safety.

MScouter---the crux of the point is direct: this council is placing the Senior Center initiatve to bail out the underfunding they currently have, and many council people have ties to BOTh John XXIII and Fenwick, ergo Mulligan, Picard, and about all of city hall, Wall, past chiefs, etc

Mike_Presta wrote: Marianne wrote: Mike_Presta wrote: Well, we are less than FOUR years into the FIVE year levy dedicated, earmarked, committed, promised, and designated solely for increased public safety, I don't recall anyone saying that the public safety levy would "increase" public safety.  Who said that?   Marianne: It is on the record, and the record is the record!!!  But don't take my word for it!!!  Feel free to search back for either the minutes of City Council meetings, or the DVD of same, for the budget discussions for the 2008 budget (held in the fall of 2007), and see it for yourself.  At that time, both the Fire Chief and the Chief of Police asked for a $500,000 (each) increase in departmental budgets over their 2007 budgets.  Part of the reasoning used to justify the increase was to hire two ADDITIONAL personnel (each) to "increase public safety".  Two times $500,000 equals one million dollars per year.  The "Public Safety levy" has been bringing in $2.8 million per year, yet NO additional people have ever been hired, and less than four years (and about TEN MILLION DOLLARS) into the "Public Safety levy" they are ready to CUT people, due to lack of funds!!!

So, you agree with me that no one said that the public safety levy would increase public safety?  

So, ONE million bucks ($500K each) per year was going to INCREASE Public Safety, but THREE million bucks per year could only maintain the same level???  Is THAT what you are asking me to believe???

MScouter, I do not want to give point about the croynism associated with the Senior Citizens Group and the bailout associated with a tax levy based upkn their expenditures (AK also gave them > $ 1 Mm), but the Archdiocese of Cincinnati oversees and controls all schools in its region. There is local autonomy and fund rasing, but the Archdiocese calls the shots, so Fenwick and John XXIII are indeed, connected  Are they run different, have different standards, yes. My children went K-12 through both, and I know how they are connected and how distinct.

So Mr. Presta, are you running for council to clean this stuff up?