6/21 Meeting workbook

On page 24 of 126 of the workbook, we find Ms. Gilleland bemoaning the fact that, outside of public safety, the City has only 58 employees remaining. This may still be too many, Ms. G., if some of the 58 have time to look for and perform extra work--such as demolishing Sunset Pool!!!

On page 57 of 126 of the workbook, in the minutes of the 5/10/2011 Board of Health meeting, you can read that “Council appeared to be receptive about placing a health levy on the ballot.” Well, that’s a good bet. It seems that most of the Council members have never seen a tax that they did NOT support.  Just look back at the record of past levies and increases not only proposed by the City of Middletown, but also by any other taxing entity in the area.  Most of these folks are on record as supporting them all.

On page 64 of 126 of the workbook, among a listing of “Governmental Revenues”, you might note that “Fines and Forfeits” in our fair city have increased from $61,212 in 2009 to $208,660 in 2010 to a projected $259,300 this year. Quite a percentage increase year-over-year, in this man’s opinion. I’ll leave you all to draw your own conclusions as to the reasons, but there were all of those “peeling paint” citations and they are considering adding more red light cameras to “enhance revenues”, aren’t they???

On page 79 of 126 of the workbook you will find the Staff Report on the South Main Street decorative street light petition. You will see that under “CONFORMITY TO CITY POLICY”, it states: “Conforms”!!!

I must respectfully disagree with this conclusion. If we have a “City Policy” requiring all city taxpayers to subsidize the extra costs when a neighborhood decides upon a motif for that neighborhood that is more expensive than the rest of the city, then that “Policy” is unfair, illegal and should be changed. Consider the homes on Roosevelt Blvd., Stanley St., and Highland St. directly across from Goldman Park. If 60% of these homeowners signed a petition stating that they wanted chrome-plated street-lamp poles with green neon rings at the top and other decorative touches, should the 40% of dissenting property owners be forced to pay up and go along??? And should the taxpayers be forced to pay half the bill since city-owned Goldman Park amounts to half the abutting property??? Absurd, you say??? Possibly, but the point is exactly the same!!! It would “Conform” exactly the same as the “olde tyme” gas lights that the South Main Street gang wants. Just because it happens to suit their chosen décor, doesn’t mean the rest of the taxpayers should help foot the bill.

The first consideration should be: Does it meet the City’s standards for illumination??? If not, let them put such lights on their own property (outside the right-of-way) at their own expense. Second, would they cost more for the city to operate or maintain??? If so, same answer!!!  Let's remember the true, actual primary reasons for street lights:  To illuminute the immediate area for the safety and security of pedestrians and motorists, and to assist in preventing vandalism and crime.  Decoration and "Let's pretend we still live back in the 1800s" should be at the expense of the individual property owners.

I might also ask the picky “restorationists” if they plan to use actual, restored street lamps or the phoney, fake “faux” type and just “pretend” like they are the real thing??? (Read through the minutes of the Historic Commission meetings and you will see the DOUBLE STANDARDs applied regarding “real restoration” v. “faux restoration” depending upon whether friend or foe is the applicant or “inquisitee”.

Also, before Council even considers spending scarce tax dollars on these faux olde tyme gas lights, perhaps they should explain not only how the “petition for street repairs” policy can be subverted to include such decorative items, but how S. Main Street was chosen for repairs at no cost to the abutting property owners in the first place.

I had occasion to drive up and down this stretch of our city’s infrastructure just last week on the way to and from Councilman Smith’s District Discussion, and I must say that I find it hard to believe that this stretch was the worst segment of that very trip, let alone of all streets in the City. Since these property owners seem to have money to spare for frivolous items such as faux old new gas lights, perhaps this is one segment that could wait for the “petition” process, to be repaired at the property owners’ expense, and let some of the less fortunate in the city be the recipient of the “free” (100% taxpayer funded) street repairs.

To consider the purchase of property for public purposes, or for the sale of property at competitive bidding, if premature disclosure of information would give an unfair competitive or bargaining advantage." 

The last time they used this excuse, the came right out of the executive session and voted to make the purchase--on an EMERGENCY BASIS, of course!!!  Now if, like last time, they are going to come right out of the executive session and vote whether or not to make the purchase, on an emergency basis, then NOTHING that was discussed in the executive session could possibly have given anyone a "premature disclosure" had it been discussed in the open meeting right before the vote.  In fact, the ONLY WAY anything shady could possibly happen is DURING the EXECUTIVE SESSION!!!

It's a good thing that we have F Lee Landon around to make sure that everything is on the up-and-up!!!