Middletown vs. HUD

To all,

I’ve done a little research on Middletown’s Section 8 issue and discovered the following:

Middletown has approximately 19,944 unit/months in which it is being paid by HUD for being a public housing agency. In other words, there are 1,662 rental units in the city being subsidized by HUD over a 12 month period (1,662 units x 12 months = 19,944 unit/months). In 2012, HUD is  paying the city $62.29 for the first 7,200 unit/months and $58.13 for the remaining 12,744 unit/months or a total of $1,189,297 ($99,108.08/month).

The city has hired Nelson and Associates to “administer” the program for 80% of the HUD “administrative” funding or an annual total of $951,438  ($79,287/month). The result is that the city of Middletown will earn the remaining 20% or $237,859 ($19,822/month) for ”being" the housing  agency. From this amount, you must subtract the various, “difficult to measure”, costs associated with poverty (which is a prerequisite to qualifying  for Section 8). Based on Mr. Adkins’ 2010 report to HUD, he is of the opinion that these related costs exceed the funding that they receive.

A few points to ponder (and, in my opinion):

1. Because of the “locality preference” being a component of MPHA’s Section 8 program, it cannot be
    blamed for bringing poverty to the city.
   Every city has poverty areas. However…when we requested more vouchers each year
   people from other areas did come to Middletown to establish residence so they could be
   on the Section 8 program. City Hall also needed to increase the population of
   Middletown. I do not believe that we still have a local preference for the Section 8
   Program

2. If the program did not bring the poverty, it had to have already been here. This means that the program
    “enhanced” the lives of approximately 1,000, poverty stricken, Middletown families over the past ten
    years.
    This in my opinion is where several problems merge together. We had a large section of
     Public Housing units already in Middletown. It was many of the residences from Public Housing
     that transferred into Section 8 Housing.

3. Initially, this growth had a positive benefit on the city because an additional $500,000+ per month was
    freed up to be spent in the local economy.
    I’m not sure that I fully agree with this statement. It is true that the majority of the
   income of the poor is spent with in our local economy.
   It seems that several things happened over a thirty year period that set the stage for we
   are now seeing.
   • We were not frugal with our money
   • We did not set money aside for the big projects that would be needed in the future.
   • Our school system became one of the worst in Ohio.
   • High paying manufacturing companies either closed their doors or reduced their  
     employees.
   • We increased our city taxes and became business unfriendly.
   • High income families left our community.
   • We did not use the HUD Funds wisely to offset the impact of the high poverty levels
     that we brought into the city.

4. Now, the growth has had numerous negative impacts on the city. To name a few:

A. The economy has already absorbed the extra, subsidy, income
B. All of the negatives associated with high poverty levels
C. Worst of all (IMO), it put an extra 1,000 families at risk of becoming dependent upon the government for their survival. A dependency that is doomed for failure (for us all).

5. As it pertains to the explosion of additional Section 8 vouchers (over 1,000) being issued over the past ten years, the current city leadership is wrongly being blamed for the failed policies of their predecessors. I’ve seen nothing from current leadership that displays their support of the current number of vouchers; if anything, it has been just the opposite.
This is where we really disagree. These Council Member are as guilty as our past leadership for diverting HUD Funds away from the high poverty high crime area for their special projects and friends of City Hall. And they are ready to rape it one more time for the LAND BANKING project without any input from the public and the areas that it will impact the most.
I believe that Mr. Kohler is still gainfully employed by the city sooo can send him a Thank You Card for the Section 8 increase of vouchers.

While reading some “posts from the past” over the last few days, I stumbled across one from Nelson Self (I’m about 90% sure it was him) that stated the city “has” a way out of its current overabundance of Section 8 vouchers. According to his post, the city should just stand up for itself against HUD (and their insistence that the vouchers can’t be returned or transferred) and tell them that, on a specified date, the city will no longer “administer” their program. If you can prove that the program is damaging to the city, what recourse would HUD have? The idea struck a nerve with me and I’m just putting it out there for discussion.
Nelson Self never posted that comment. You will need to provide me with proof of this statement. Nelson and I have stated numbers time on this blog that HUD would not reduce the number of vouchers in Middletown.

To all,

I’ve done a little research on Middletown’s Section 8 issue and discovered the following:

Middletown has approximately 19,944 unit/months in which it is being paid by HUD for being a public housing agency. In other words, there are 1,662 rental units in the city being subsidized by HUD over a 12 month period (1,662 units x 12 months = 19,944 unit/months). In 2012, HUD is paying the city $62.29 for the first 7,200 unit/months and $58.13 for the remaining 12,744 unit/months or a total of $1,189,297 ($99,108.08/month).

The city has hired Nelson and Associates to “administer” the program for 80% of the HUD “administrative” funding or an annual total of $951,438 ($79,287/month). The result is that the city of Middletown will earn the remaining 20% or $237,859 ($19,822/month) for ”being" the housing agency. From this amount, you must subtract the various, “difficult to measure”, costs associated with poverty (which is a prerequisite to qualifying for Section 8). Based on Mr. Adkins’ 2010 report to HUD, he is of the opinion that these related costs exceed the funding that they receive.

A few points to ponder (and, in my opinion):

1. Because of the “locality preference” being a component of MPHA’s Section 8 program, it cannot be
blamed for bringing poverty to the city.
Every city has poverty areas. However…when we requested more vouchers each year
people from other areas did come to Middletown to establish residence so they could be
on the Section 8 program. City Hall also needed to increase the population of
Middletown. I do not believe that we still have a local preference for the Section 8
Program
I agree, but the number was negligible.

2. If the program did not bring the poverty, it had to have already been here. This means that the program
“enhanced” the lives of approximately 1,000, poverty stricken, Middletown families over the past ten
years.
This in my opinion is where several problems merge together. We had a large section of
Public Housing units already in Middletown. It was many of the residences from Public Housing
that transferred into Section 8 Housing.
This is new information to me. Thanks.

3. Initially, this growth had a positive benefit on the city because an additional $500,000+ per month was
freed up to be spent in the local economy.
I’m not sure that I fully agree with this statement. It is true that the majority of the
income of the poor is spent with in our local economy.
It seems that several things happened over a thirty year period that set the stage for we
are now seeing.
• We were not frugal with our money
• We did not set money aside for the big projects that would be needed in the future.
• Our school system became one of the worst in Ohio.
• High paying manufacturing companies either closed their doors or reduced their
employees.
• We increased our city taxes and became business unfriendly.
• High income families left our community.
• We did not use the HUD Funds wisely to offset the impact of the high poverty levels
that we brought into the city.
I agree. Stated same in the following paragraph

4. Now, the growth has had numerous negative impacts on the city. To name a few:

A. The economy has already absorbed the extra, subsidy, income
B. All of the negatives associated with high poverty levels
C. Worst of all (IMO), it put an extra 1,000 families at risk of becoming dependent upon the government for their survival. A dependency that is doomed for failure (for us all).

5. As it pertains to the explosion of additional Section 8 vouchers (over 1,000) being issued over the past ten years, the current city leadership is wrongly being blamed for the failed policies of their predecessors. I’ve seen nothing from current leadership that displays their support of the current number of vouchers; if anything, it has been just the opposite.
This is where we really disagree. These Council Member are as guilty as our past leadership for diverting HUD Funds away from the high poverty high crime area for their special projects and friends of City Hall. And they are ready to rape it one more time for the LAND BANKING project without any input from the public and the areas that it will impact the most.
I believe that Mr. Kohler is still gainfully employed by the city sooo can send him a Thank You Card for the Section 8 increase of vouchers.
You are disagreeing with something other than my statement. My statement was clearly about Section 8 vouchers and your disagreement is about the misuse of HUD funds…. Two separate topics. But, since you brought it up, please bring me up to speed so that I can look into on my own. Seriously….. point me in the right direction.

Land banking, if used properly, can be a very effective tool for the city. It is very similar to the landlord registration concept in that it allows the city to “force” compliance from vacant land owners or risk fines and/or seizure. An absolute great tool for local properties that big, out of state, bank “walk away” from.

I know that “emergency legislation” is a controversial “tool” that council is often accused of using when they don’t want public input but, in this case, I’m comfortable that there were time constraints that forced their use of it. If I’m not mistaken, it was a matter of use it (emergency legislation) or lose it (millions in federal funds). I would be curious to know what your specific concerns with land banking are.


While reading some “posts from the past” over the last few days, I stumbled across one from Nelson Self (I’m about 90% sure it was him) that stated the city “has” a way out of its current overabundance of Section 8 vouchers. According to his post, the city should just stand up for itself against HUD (and their insistence that the vouchers can’t be returned or transferred) and tell them that, on a specified date, the city will no longer “administer” their program. If you can prove that the program is damaging to the city, what recourse would HUD have? The idea struck a nerve with me and I’m just putting it out there for discussion.
Nelson Self never posted that comment. You will need to provide me with proof of this statement. Nelson and I have stated numbers time on this blog that HUD would not reduce the number of vouchers in Middletown.
I stand corrected. The post was made by Paul Nagy on the “Tale of Two Cities” thread on October 30, 2011 @ 1:47 PM. Following, is an excerpt of the post that I was referring to:

Middletown has been more than generous in taking care of our needy. We must continue to be but not with the Section Eight Program. We must get rid of the Section Eight Program right away.
How do we do this? The Administration and Council say it can’t be done. Well, that is not true.
Solution: Establish a positive, proactive and aggressive plan to permanently remove Section Eight.
1.     Tell HUD we refuse to accept any of their vouchers. Just say NO!
2.     Give those who are not from Middletown 1 year to move elsewhere.
3.     Give those who are able to work 1 year to get a job and get off of Section Eight.
4.     If HUD gives us a problem get our State Representatives and Senators to Lobby HUD in our behalf pointing out the great damage it has done to our city or go to court.
5.     Put in a new, competent program with Federal and State funding that will allow US to take care of our disabled, elderly and needy that live in Middletown.
6.     Let the market provide tenants for the landlords.

greygoose- There is NOTHING GOOD ABOUT BRINGING AN OVERABUNDANCE OF SECTION 8, LOW INCOME, POVERTY STRICKEN, BLIGHT PRONE, TAXPAYER DEPENDENT, TAXPAYER HANDOUT, CRIMINAL ELEMENT ATTRACTING SEGMENT OF SOCIETY TO THIS CITY.

CONSULT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND ASK THEM WHAT THE SATURATION OF SECTION 8 HAS DONE TO THEIR OPERATION AND INCREASED CALLS. IT IS A PROGRAM THAT IS A SOURCE FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY/OUTSIDE THE CITY ELEMENT ATTRACTION TO TOWN. CHECK THE POLICE BRIEFS CONCERNING ARRESTS BY THE MIDDLETOWN POLICE INVOLVING PEOPLE FROM OUT OF TOWN. IT HAS INCREASED SINCE THE INTRODUCTION OF THIS PROGRAM AND HAS MADE THE COPS LIFE MORE DIFFICULT.

SECTION 8, AS IT CURRENTLY IS, NO MATTER HOW YOU SLICE IT, IS BAD FOR THIS CITY. IT HAS DAMAGED WHAT LITTLE SEMBLENCE OF CLASS THIS CITY HAD, IT INCREASED CRIME, IT SOAKS THE TAXPAYERS, AND HAS INVITED ALL TO THIS CITY FOR A HANDOUT. WE WILL NEVER TURN THIS CITY AROUND AS LONG AS THERE ARE PROGRAMS LIKE THIS. HAVING TO LIST AN OVERABUNDANCE OF SECTION 8 ON THE CITY'S RESUME, IS NOT GOING TO ATTRACT THE BETTER ELEMENTS OF SOCIETY TO THIS TOWN. IT IS A PROGRESS RETARDER, NOT A CATALYST IN IT'S CURRENT NUMBERS. JMO

I remain baffled, indeed, mystified, as to what the intent and context of the discussion on Section 8 to be, coupled with the parallel discussion of the requirement for property registration. I also must state as a matter of opinion, grey goose, I have known many business leaders, property owners, and commercial tycoons, and I have found none openly shilling for regulation of a city charter and ordinance, or other legislation associated with the business they generate revenue. It runs in contradiction to entrepreneurship and owning a private business. Hence, why you are operating as such a strong advocate for this is mystifying. Due diligence usually involves an analysis of an acquisition and putting a value upon valuation, not formulation and defense of regulatory principles aimed at chocking a business or undermining its effectiveness. Further, I can't see the benefit to a property owner in having rentals closed. Arguably, it might create more demand and less competition, but unless I am missing something, I do not see how it is possible the rental demand to be healthy in Middletown. On the contrary, I see enormous overcapacity, empty properties, and houses sitting vacant for some period of time.

Turning to Section 8, the reality is, the city does have the % of residents whom qualify for it, and the number of vouchers it provides. It is the cost and outcome of wanting federal funds on one hand, and the accompanying malaise and headache on another. The only manner Middletown attracts renters is through Section 8 demand; otherwise, property would be vacant. When property is vacant, you have the exhibition of vandalism and the circuitous circle of problems associated with vacancy. So---one can argue the value of Section 8 is actually better than vacant properties. Many in the city building would agree with that hypothesis.

As many have stated, one cannot simply take away vouchers already requested and predicated upon those in need. One cannot possibly state Middletown doesn't have the numbers to support the vouchers, it does, and with poverty line numbers greater than 53% if not more. Those that state its an easy problem and the city should just make cuts, don't comprehend the problem and federal guidelines. Once pandora box was opened, it is impossible to do an about face. The fed, 8, and HUD just don't work that way.

Mr. Adkins has offered other cities and those in possession of a voucher, to take it to another city. It would appear to most, that hasn't driven the decline in the numbers receiving it. As for crime and correlating it to Section 8, I say rubbage. The poliice will use any excuse to indicate crime is high, and offer an excuse. Poverty creates problems, and Middletown is full of it, but much poverty is not within a section 8 house. I also know from a few prominent rental owners, section 8 is a cash cow for them. That is my additional surprise for the avocation by grey goose that highly regulation initiatives are a good thing. I know of no true business owners whom actually believe regulation and fees taking margin out of their net gain, is a net +, unless one is a shill for the city.

Bet that as it may, that's my two cents. Section 8 won't go away because it can't. It is justified in Middletown by true demographics. Think you re going to change the demographics? Why of course. There are 5,000 people that just can't wait to but a house in the Renaissance, and homes throughout Middletown. If you believe that, take a drive down memory lane on ThornHill and Curryer and witness how many houses are for sale. Its dismal and a dark shadow.

Your debate is associated with something you neither have control nor influence. I learned long ago---control what you can control, relinquish what you cannot. Be advised: Section 8 is here to stay, whether you like it or not. As for regulations, when 100 people fill a room, about the same number that gather for Larry Mulligan's State (or failure thereof) associated of the Union annually, I see someone blinking. I suspect it will be Doug Adkins, Judy Gilleland, and Les Landen. But if not, that are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Vandalsim will become a bigger problem for police than running out to check on petty theft. Lower class and poverty moved into Middletown and Hamilton for a reason. They invited it.                    

FOOD FOR THOUGHT....

How frustrating that most people overlook the waste, extravagance and misguided use of millions in HUD funds that is directly attributed to Mr. Adkins.  By the way, whatever happened to Mr. Adkins housing code enforcement blitz of 2009, multi-year NSP housing plan and his two failed $20 million plus NSP grant applications, the frequent (unjustified) praises of Nelson Associates and the Inspection Group, etc., etc.  He has a penchant for periodically making headline news for his grandiose plans.  My question is, "where's the bacon?"

 

His tenure as Community Revitalization Director is seriously in need of an independent cost/benefit analysis.  What has he really accomplished since early 2009 with the millions in HUD funds at his disposal?  What could/should he have accomplished during this timeframe?

Acclaro,

Your post struck a nerve and has me revealing more about me and my beliefs than I really wanted to share at this time.

I remain baffled, indeed, mystified, as to what the intent and context of the discussion on Section 8 to be, coupled with the parallel discussion of the requirement for property registration. To me, the connection is that both involve “past their useful life” rental properties. Many “landlords” have been getting rich from these “blighted properties” for years. It is no secret that many of these “blighted properties” are rented to Section 8 voucher holders because tenants that could afford to pay their rent would not live in such properties. Mr. Adkins has already started correcting the problem by ensuring that HUD quality housing standards be followed during inspections. Although 100% correct and sorely needed, these new standards are costing landlord’s money and they are none too happy about it. The registration process will be another tool that will allow Mr. Adkins to apply similar standards to other, blighted, rental properties that are not leased to Section 8 tenants and it concerns many landlords because they will finally have to reach into their wallets on these properties as well
. I also must state as a matter of opinion, grey goose, I have known many business leaders, property owners, and commercial tycoons, and I have found none openly shilling for regulation of a city charter and ordinance, or other legislation associated with the business they generate revenue. It runs in contradiction to entrepreneurship and owning a private business. Hence, why you are operating as such a strong advocate for this is mystifying. Before becoming a landlord, I worked in one of the most regulated industries in the world. We actually had a compliance officer whose only job was to be aware of and assure our compliance with, government regulations. In general, I am opposed to government regulations. Even those that were drafted with good intentions usually end up hurting tax payers more than helping. With that said….. I feel differently about this proposed ordinance because not only do I do business in Middletown, I live here! My family lives here! I am heavily invested in this city! I am tired of the status quo and drastic changes need to occur. Let’s be honest…. many landlords are not upset about a few dollars in fees; they are concerned about the amount of money that they may have to spend bringing their properties up to code. In many instances, they will walk away because the upgrade costs will exceed the home’s value. As a resident (and a landlord), I’m OK with that….. let them walk away and let the city tear down the house. I believe that city has to get our housing back in balance before it stands a chance of prospering again. For that to happen, studies have indicated that we need to rid ourselves of over 5,000 rental units. I am of the belief that we should “tear ‘em down”. Get rid of the old, “past your useful life”, type of rentals that add nothing positive to our city.
Due diligence usually involves an analysis of an acquisition and putting a value upon valuation, not formulation and defense of regulatory principles aimed at chocking a business or undermining its effectiveness. Further, I can't see the benefit to a property owner in having rentals closed. Arguably, it might create more demand and less competition, but unless I am missing something, I do not see how it is possible the rental demand to be healthy in Middletown. On the contrary, I see enormous overcapacity, empty properties, and houses sitting vacant for some period of time. The problem is…… the over capacity of properties have outlived their useful lives. Nobody with a reasonable income wants houses that have three layers of shingles, windows painted shut, six square feet of closet space, a gravity flow furnace, harvest gold appliances, painted wood floors and window air conditioners (and those are the good ones).
Turning to Section 8, the reality is, the city does have the % of residents whom qualify for it, and the number of vouchers it provides. It is the cost and outcome of wanting federal funds on one hand, and the accompanying malaise and headache on another. t. When property is vacant, you have the exhibition of vandalism and the The only manner Middletown attracts renters is through Section 8 demand; otherwise, property would be vacant circuitous circle of problems associated with vacancy. So---one can argue the value of Section 8 is actually better than vacant properties. Many in the city building would agree with that hypothesis. I would agree with you if there wasn’t a third option of “tear them down”. That is what I am advocating. I am not advocating that we have “green space” for the sake of green space. I am advocating that removing the blighted properties from our community will, in the long run, promote development. It also has the added benefit of reducing the number of properties that Section 8 voucher holders qualify for.

As many have stated, one cannot simply take away vouchers already requested and predicated upon those in need. One cannot possibly state Middletown doesn't have the numbers to support the vouchers, it does, and with poverty line numbers greater than 53% if not more. Those that state its an easy problem and the city should just make cuts, don't comprehend the problem and federal guidelines. Once pandora box was opened, it is impossible to do an about face. The fed, 8, and HUD just don't work that way. Removing the blighted properties would solve this problem. It would also decentralize the “pockets” of poverty and its related problems that we have now.



Mr. Adkins has offered other cities and those in possession of a voucher, to take it to another city. It would appear to most, that hasn't driven the decline in the numbers receiving it. As for crime and correlating it to Section 8, I say rubbage. The poliice will use any excuse to indicate crime is high, and offer an excuse. Poverty creates problems, and Middletown is full of it, but much poverty is not within a section 8 house. I also know from a few prominent rental owners, section 8 is a cash cow for them. That is my additional surprise for the avocation by grey goose that highly regulation initiatives are a good thing. I know of no true business owners whom actually believe regulation and fees taking margin out of their net gain, is a net +, unless one is a shill for the city. Another reason could be that I am a concerned citizen that just wants to do the right thing. The residents (tenants) of this city have provided my wife and me with a comfortable living. If some reasonable amount of expense needs to levied against me for the good of the city and its residents, so be it. To me, it is a small price to pay if you care about your hometown and your neighbors.
I “expect” the registration process to lead to stricter building code enforcement and, in turn, increased costs. I am OK with that as long as it is uniformly enforced and the result is better maintained homes or the demo of those that choose not to comply.


Bet that as it may, that's my two cents. Section 8 won't go away because it can't. It is justified in Middletown by true demographics. Think you re going to change the demographics? Why of course. There are 5,000 people that just can't wait to but a house in the Renaissance, and homes throughout Middletown. If you believe that, take a drive down memory lane on ThornHill and Curryer and witness how many houses are for sale. Its dismal and a dark shadow. Again, they can’t rent them if they are not there. Tear ‘em down……all 5,000+ of them


Your debate is associated with something you neither have control nor influence. I learned long ago---control what you can control, relinquish what you cannot. Be advised: Section 8 is here to stay, whether you like it or not. As for regulations, when 100 people fill a room, about the same number that gather for Larry Mulligan's State (or failure thereof) associated of the Union annually, I see someone blinking. I suspect it will be Doug Adkins, Judy Gilleland, and Les Landen. But if not, that are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Vandalsim will become a bigger problem for police than running out to check on petty theft. Lower class and poverty moved into Middletown and Hamilton for a reason. They invited it. I can tell you with 100% certainty that Section 8 is not here to stay! If nothing else, it will eventually succumb to the fact that our federal government won’t be able to fund it. It is just a matter of time before the checks stop. Now you know how I really feel! I am not a city cheerleader; just a concerned citizen that feels that this city deserves more than what it is getting.

LMAO

We agree! Suprise inspections would result in hundreds of disqualifications.

GG

Viv,

What do you know about Nelson & Associates that justifies your comment that Mr. Adkins unjustly praises them? Same question concerning the Inspection Group? Have you had any direct interaction with either company?

GG

Pacman & Tony
How many Councilmen have publicly stated that the City needs to "GET OUT OF THE REAL ESTATE BUSSINESS" ?
How many million of dollars have been wasted on their bad real estate deals.

NO LEAGERSHIP, NO PLAN, NO VISION, NO FOCUS = FAILURE

quack quack

Grey Goose, yor credibility and indeed motives, have now vanquished with any degree of credibility. To remotely suggest Vivian Moon is the cause and detriment to the Middletown brand is honestly "laughable." I have never met Ms. Moon personally, but I do know her reputation for volunteerism, fact findig, and franky, objectivity is well known and respected. I also can state from my vantage, while the con and pep rally you espouse about Middletown may be shared by perhaps 30 people in town, I have personally spoken to many of the most prominet in education, net worth, and time in the community as an investment, and are simply sick of the town, sick of the leadership. Let me give you an example. I recently spoke to a 4th Generation Armco/ AK worker, actually a retired engineering executive. Been in Middletown all of his life. He slammed the city, its leadership, its greed, its corruption, and stated in no uncertain terms, he would not be voting for the Sr Citizens levy (they should move to the building across from John XXIII without the taxpayer bailout) nor the city safety levey, nor the school levey. His grandson goes to John XXIII because of the disgrace the school system has evolved (his words, not mine).

The audicity of you making such a comment about Ms. Moon, and I reiterate, I have never met her, and she me, and frankly, doubt if I'd know her if I walked right past her, is quite apparent, you are a shill for the city. Simply out, you have no credibility, and far worse that the "atrocities" you allege Ms. Moon to have made with "Slumville." My God man (or woman), I can tell you the richest and most prominent families in Middletown are utterly embarrassed by Middletown. Their children move away as uick as possible from college and are so embarrassed by Middletown they don't even acknowledge they ever lived in the city.

What it is obvious you are a city shill, let me say this. The city of Middletown and Dr. O'dell Owens has done more harm in bashing Middletown and pointing out its flaws, than anything Ms. Moon has stated about "Slumsville." Middletown's reputation hs been hoorific for decad.es, and has really gone down since 2000.
Dr. Owens states openly, he hopes Cincinnati State can turn Middletown around, you are in serious trouble. I mean, a small community college with a drop out ate of 50%, is a savior to a city of 50,000? The renaming of Main Street is going to elevate property values? Get real. That purpose is to help the guys down on Main Street. You don't have to have Jim Morrison's IQ of 139 to figure that one out.

Do us a favor, as you are so concerned about Middletown's brand, and call Dr. Owens and ask him to turn down his rhetoric about C State saving the plight of Middletown, will you?

Post away gg, but I suspect you are on retainer with city hall. As for making council aware the whole city had pockets which qualified it for HUD funds and such, that was an obvious purpose; it took funds and put them where city leaders could chose where they wished to prop up. Guess where those areas are? Main Street USA.

In summary, the laughing stock image Middletown has is far more affected by the desperation of having anything the city can spin trying to pump up and enhance the rationale for its enormous waste of funds downtown, to satisfy the members on council and the city, living on Main Street and making it become a mini version of Lebanon, lets call it Lebanon Light. If the city was moving forward, why did Tony Marconi that was a city council member, leave for the magnificent tranquility of Monroe?  Well...at least he was able to get out. Bravo.     ,   

Motives!!!!! You have the nerve to question my motives. Almost every message that Viv posts spews negativity. Tell me….. what does that do for the city other than to rally other goof-ball conspiracy nuts? There is nothing constructive about her posts….. she has a personal agenda against the city and won’t stop spewing hatred until she finally goes off the deep end. Have you ever seen her reply to my questions when I call her out about one of her lies? I’ll answer for you…..NO.

I used to think that you were one of the more objective posters on this board, but your need to come to Ms. Viv’s aid tells me that you are no more objective than she is. You can honestly tell me that every leader that this city has had in the past 30 years in “in it for themselves” give me a break. This city’s leaders have, historically, made some poor decisions. But, and a very big but……… the city also had the deck stacked against it because it is an old, industrial, town that was developed before this new world emerged. Do you think that it is an accident that other, old, industrial towns are going through the same thing? What about Hamilton? What about Springfield? What about Canton? Do all of these old, industrial, towns have inept, corrupt, city governments? Of course not! These cities were developed under one set of rules and the rules have changed. To be honest, I’m not sure that the most visionary of leaders could have changed these cities as the times changed…..the citizens were too rooted to the industries that put bread on their tables. The kids from these towns went to work at “the mill” instead of furthering their education. Culturally, this town is “Blue Collar” and there are no blue collar jobs to be had. Why is there never any discussion about this. I’ll tell you why…… you are bullies and cowards! You tear down others to make yourselves feel better about your own miserable lives! If a new poster comes in and expresses opposing views they are accused of spinning for the city leaders. Do you realize how easy it is to do what you do. A four year old can tell you what is wrong with something. If you want to accomplish something, try coming up with ideas that may solve our city’s problems. You are either too cowardly or too stupid to do that.

As I read the history of this board, my opinions started changing. Initially, I was thought “wow…. these people are tuned in”. After reading the same old garbage for four years, I realized that you are do nothing haters. The only exception being Spider. You have yet to suck all of the objectivity out of him (but I’m sure that you are trying).

This board tends to condemn city leaders for being city leaders. I’ve read the same ole’ crap for the last four years. If your ideas are so much better, run for office! Wait…. you’ve already tried that and it didn’t work out too well. That’s because Joe Average citizen doesn’t buy into all of this conspiracy BS. I’ve even read where a councilman logged on to answer some concerns and was met with disrespect. As far as I’m concerned, Viv can crawl back into the hole that she slithered out of and you can follow her and the seven of you can keep telling each other how smart you are. At least in this forum, not many people have to listen to it!