2-19-2013 Council meeting

I was very, very disappointed (but not surprised) with the denizens of City Hall during tonight’s discussion of the so-called “period lighting” for South Main Street.

First, they keep referring to these phony gas lamp posts as “period lighting” when research shows that there was no such street lighting during any period in South Main Street’s history.  If they want “period lighting” they must either install the lights on their own property at their own expense (including paying for the maintenance and utilities themselves, as The Sorgs and some others did in ye olde days) or they should have no lights at all.  That would be TRUE “period lighting” for the area.

Next, we were informed that they will now be keeping the cobra-head fixtures!!!  This means that there will now be no “deduct” (or savings) for the utilities and maintenance of these fixtures, so ALL of the ongoing costs for the phony decorative lamps will be and ADDED cost to the taxpayers!!!

Gilleland tried to downplay the ongoing costs by stating that “the City” annually pays for “thousands of street lights” to the tune of $700,000 (plus) per year, implying “what’s a few thousand more every year?”  Well, if four or five thousand dollars a year out of our shrinking reserve fund means nothing to her, it is time to look for a new city manager.  There is still no justification for the citizens of Middletown to spend thousands of dollars every year just to satisfy the “dream” of a few connected residents, including a Director at City Hall, the Mayor, and the Mayor’s parents.  (Pssst: Here’s a clue, Judy:  As much as you might want to think otherwise, the “city” IS we taxpayers!!!  You don’t have ANY money unless you first take it from US!!!)

Also, If the City Manager would be more careful about EVERY $5,000 of our money she spends, perhaps she wouldn’t be proposing tax increases and fee hikes every time she turns around.

Ms. Mort needs to do a bit more deep thinking as well.  She stated that this was “similar to a tax levy for the schools”.  Sorry, Ms. Mort, but this is NOT similar to a tax levy for the schools!!!  EVERYONE gets to vote on a tax levy for the schools, including the people who will have to pay that levy.  In this case everyone did NOT get to vote—just those who will get the benefit got to vote, NOT those who will pay the ongoing utilities and maintenance.  Also, the schools benefit the ENTIRE COMMUNITY.  The phony decorative lights benefit only a select few property owners on a short stretch of a single street.

Landen was flat-out wrong when he said that there could be no “extras” during the construction for these lights, only for the concrete work for the curbs, gutters and sidewalks.  There is very likely to be construction, extras due to the installation of the underground conduit for these lights, separate and apart from the concrete work on the curbs, gutters and sidewalks.

Then Ms. Mort declared:  “The American way is the majority rules!”  I can live with that!  So let’s let the entire city vote on whether or not to have all of the taxpayers of the city pick up the bill for the electrical and maintenance costs for these decorative lights.  Then let the “majority rule”!  As it stands now, only those who have a chance to benefit got a chance to “vote”.

Finally, no one bothered to mention that the very same result could be obtained if every property owner who so-desired had the lamp posts installed on his/her own property outside the public right-of-way (just a few feet from where they are now proposed, on the other side of the sidewalk).  They could each be responsible for their own installation costs for as many, or as few lights as they desire (including NONE for those property owners who wish to keep their property historically accurate), and they would then each be responsible for their own utilities and maintenance.  The street view and curb appeal would be identical, and the rest of us taxpayers would be left out of it!!!

What could be more fair and just than that???