Will Council Do what is Right?

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

When you read the article below from the Journal pay attention to the part in red and then ask yourself why.  Why would an innocent party have to reimburse a person who bought stolen goods to resell them.  The logic that the city admin used to arrive at this conclusion escapes me.

Now I guess the assumption could be made that the original owner was reimbursed from their insurance company.  Lets suppose the person didn't have insurance.  Lets suppose the original owner has a $500.00-$1000.00 deductible on their home owners policy and did not file a claim for the $300.00 dvd player or radio.

"Council to consider swap shop policy

By Ed Richter, Staff Writer 
9:04 PM Sunday, November 1, 2009 

Middletown City Council will revisit a proposed policy to regulate second-hand stores and swap shops when it meets Tuesday, Nov. 3.
City staff has met with some second-hand shop owners since council first reviewed the proposed regulations a few months ago and based on those discussions, a revised ordinance has been prepared.
Among the revisions are a single licensing fee of $200 with no fees for renewals; the city covering the cost of background checks for up to five employees, with a $15 fee for stores with more than five employees; items purchased, traded or obtained by the store are to be retained for 72 hours before they can be sold; and if police find a stolen item at a store, the true owner must reimburse the store owner the cost paid for the item.
Council is expected to provide additional feedback to the administration before considering the ordinance."
Why would city admin even contemplate putting this in a city ordinance when it could very well be helping someone break the OHIO REVISED CODE:

2913.51 Receiving stolen property.

(A) No person shall receive, retain, or dispose of property of another knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the property has been obtained through commission of a theft offense.
(B) It is not a defense to a charge of receiving stolen property in violation of this section that the property was obtained by means other than through the commission of a theft offense if the property was explicitly represented to the accused person as being obtained through the commission of a theft offense.
(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of receiving stolen property. Except as otherwise provided in this division, receiving stolen property is a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the value of the property involved is five hundred dollars or more and is less than five thousand dollars, if the property involved is any of the property listed in section 2913.71 of the Revised Code, receiving stolen property is a felony of the fifth degree. If the property involved is a motor vehicle, as defined in section 4501.01 of the Revised Code, if the property involved is a dangerous drug, as defined in section 4729.01 of the Revised Code, if the value of the property involved is five thousand dollars or more and is less than one hundred thousand dollars, or if the property involved is a firearm or dangerous ordnance, as defined in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code, receiving stolen property is a felony of the fourth degree. If the value of the property involved is one hundred thousand dollars or more, receiving stolen property is a felony of the third degree.
This is basically giving these store owners a legal license to say, "Oh gee I didn't know, pay me", to the innocent third party who was victimized to start off with.

Once again we have the city trying to protect 1 or 2 people at the expense of the city residence as a whole.  

Now I believe that the city is going to state that, "Hamilton does it that way" because if I am not mistaken they were looking at Hamilton and other city's as a model for their ordinance.

If you are going to be a second hand dealer then you buying stolen items is a risk that you the business owner should bore and not a person who was victimized by the thief and now is going to be victimized by the City that they live in, if this passes.

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
Pacman Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Jun 02 2007 Status: Offline Points: 2612	Post Options Post Reply Quote Pacman Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Topic: Will Council Do what is Right? Posted: Nov 02 2009 at 10:25am
	When you read the article below from the Journal pay attention to the part in red and then ask yourself why. Why would an innocent party have to reimburse a person who bought stolen goods to resell them. The logic that the city admin used to arrive at this conclusion escapes me. Now I guess the assumption could be made that the original owner was reimbursed from their insurance company. Lets suppose the person didn't have insurance. Lets suppose the original owner has a $500.00-$1000.00 deductible on their home owners policy and did not file a claim for the $300.00 dvd player or radio. "Council to consider swap shop policy By Ed Richter, Staff Writer 9:04 PM Sunday, November 1, 2009 Middletown City Council will revisit a proposed policy to regulate second-hand stores and swap shops when it meets Tuesday, Nov. 3. City staff has met with some second-hand shop owners since council first reviewed the proposed regulations a few months ago and based on those discussions, a revised ordinance has been prepared. Among the revisions are a single licensing fee of $200 with no fees for renewals; the city covering the cost of background checks for up to five employees, with a $15 fee for stores with more than five employees; items purchased, traded or obtained by the store are to be retained for 72 hours before they can be sold; and if police find a stolen item at a store, the true owner must reimburse the store owner the cost paid for the item. Council is expected to provide additional feedback to the administration before considering the ordinance." Why would city admin even contemplate putting this in a city ordinance when it could very well be helping someone break the OHIO REVISED CODE: 2913.51 Receiving stolen property. (A) No person shall receive, retain, or dispose of property of another knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the property has been obtained through commission of a theft offense. (B) It is not a defense to a charge of receiving stolen property in violation of this section that the property was obtained by means other than through the commission of a theft offense if the property was explicitly represented to the accused person as being obtained through the commission of a theft offense. (C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of receiving stolen property. Except as otherwise provided in this division, receiving stolen property is a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the value of the property involved is five hundred dollars or more and is less than five thousand dollars, if the property involved is any of the property listed in section 2913.71 of the Revised Code, receiving stolen property is a felony of the fifth degree. If the property involved is a motor vehicle, as defined in section 4501.01 of the Revised Code, if the property involved is a dangerous drug, as defined in section 4729.01 of the Revised Code, if the value of the property involved is five thousand dollars or more and is less than one hundred thousand dollars, or if the property involved is a firearm or dangerous ordnance, as defined in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code, receiving stolen property is a felony of the fourth degree. If the value of the property involved is one hundred thousand dollars or more, receiving stolen property is a felony of the third degree. This is basically giving these store owners a legal license to say, "Oh gee I didn't know, pay me", to the innocent third party who was victimized to start off with. Once again we have the city trying to protect 1 or 2 people at the expense of the city residence as a whole. Now I believe that the city is going to state that, "Hamilton does it that way" because if I am not mistaken they were looking at Hamilton and other city's as a model for their ordinance. If you are going to be a second hand dealer then you buying stolen items is a risk that you the business owner should bore and not a person who was victimized by the thief and now is going to be victimized by the City that they live in, if this passes.

Bobbie Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List MUSA Citizen Joined: Jun 05 2009 Location: Middletown Status: Offline Points: 288	Post Options Post Reply Quote Bobbie Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: Nov 02 2009 at 11:48am
	That makes no sense at all. If I were to buy something from someone that was stolen (unknowingly) - I would not get reimbursed for the item. Sounds to me you could get a good racket going on here. What would deter any shop from buying stolen goods - if they have no risk of loss. There has to be some risk for the stores - otherwise they will buy stolen goods all the time.

wasteful Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List MUSA Citizen Joined: Jul 27 2009 Status: Offline Points: 793	Post Options Post Reply Quote wasteful Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: Nov 02 2009 at 1:40pm
	It ought to be real interesting hearing this explanation from City Employees, best thing Council can say on this is, "We are not setup to have a discussion at this time", then go in the back room and laugh. I really can't imagine why anyone would even suggest this. So you have to go buy an item and then if it gets stolen and one of these great downtown businesses buys it and it is found you have to buy it again. Please tell me the Middletown logic for this one. And you wonder why people run the other way from Middletown.

LMAO Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List MUSA Citizen Joined: Oct 28 2009 Location: Middletucky Status: Offline Points: 468	Post Options Post Reply Quote LMAO Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: Nov 02 2009 at 2:32pm
	What a joke. Oh I forgot,the council is a big ole joke.

Bobbie Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List MUSA Citizen Joined: Jun 05 2009 Location: Middletown Status: Offline Points: 288	Post Options Post Reply Quote Bobbie Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: Nov 02 2009 at 3:40pm
	I see - we could open our own shop for 200 - start stealing items - then when the owners come to collect them - we sell it back to them. Cut out the middle man - be the thief yourself.

rngrmed Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List MUSA Citizen Joined: May 06 2009 Location: Middletown Status: Offline Points: 309	Post Options Post Reply Quote rngrmed Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: Nov 02 2009 at 4:06pm
	But what if you are doing things right and buy an item from an individual that you didn't know he stole it? Should your business be put at risk? If you unknowingly bought a stolen item should you be arrested for buying stolen property? I agree, this is only making a person a victim 2x and have argued against this before. Just being a devil's advocate here.

Pacman Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Jun 02 2007 Status: Offline Points: 2612	Post Options Post Reply Quote Pacman Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: Nov 02 2009 at 6:20pm
	When you go into business you assume some risks on every move you make. When you go into this type of business your risks are higher and you know this ahead of time. If you are willing to reap any rewards you must also suffer the consequences. There are ways you can probably cut your risk in this business, the question is do you want to do what is needed to cut that risk. To place the risk on the City residents as a whole is ridicules to say the least. Why would any city pass a law like this to start with? I am sure there are many businesses in town that would love to get special meetings with City Admin and have laws put forth that suit and protect their needs and assets.

Hermes Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: May 19 2009 Location: Middletown Status: Offline Points: 1637	Post Options Post Reply Quote Hermes Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: Nov 02 2009 at 6:21pm
	That is idiotic to make the rightful owner pay for their own property. I agree with everyone that to pass that has no incentive for shop owners to do the right thing. I think we should get a "drug testing" policy passed for all council members and city admins. To even suggest this is reason to drug test everyone involved.

wannaknow Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List MUSA Resident Joined: Feb 21 2009 Status: Offline Points: 138	Post Options Post Reply Quote wannaknow Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: Nov 02 2009 at 8:17pm
	SO. . . . THE THIEF ROBBED THEM AND NOW THE STORE AND CITY WILL JOINTLY ROB THEM AGAIN, INTERESTING

Pacman Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Jun 02 2007 Status: Offline Points: 2612	Post Options Post Reply Quote Pacman Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: Nov 03 2009 at 11:21am
	How the new ordinance will read changes are in bold from the workbook of tonights meeting, from reading the workbook it appears the shop owners were given pretty much free rein as far as changes go to the ordinance: "If a police officer determines the identity of the true owner of stolen articles held by a second-hand dealer by a preponderance of the information available and informs the dealer of the true owner’s identity, the dealer may restore the stolen goods to the true owner directly. The true owner ~~may~~ must reimburse the dealer for the exact amount the dealer paid for the stolen article. Nothing in this section is intended to limit the right of the true owner to recover their property, or any legal remedy the true owner may have to do so." You will also notice that the ordinance says, "If a police officer determines the identity of the true owner of stolen articles held by a second-hand dealer by a preponderance of the information available and informs the dealer of the true owner’s identity, the dealer may restore the stolen goods to the true owner directly." Does this mean the store owner has a choice to either keep the items or do the right thing and return them to the rightful owner.

Pacman Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Jun 02 2007 Status: Offline Points: 2612	Post Options Post Reply Quote Pacman Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: Nov 03 2009 at 8:58pm
	Kudos for Ms. Scott-Jones for sticking up for the little guy that foots the bills in this city and shame on the rest of Council that didn"t say a word. I still fail to understand why City Admin feels it is OK to protect the Business owner and screw over the Citizen. But fear not lowly citizens you can take the store owner to civil court for a few $100 and sue the store owner to get back that DVD player that he probably paid the crook $10.00 for and is now selling it for $75.00. Looks like the Second Hand store owners have found a new supplier in the form of the city government that will run interference for them on the store owners inventory. Admin claims they don't want the innocent Store owner hurt in this mess, yeah right like after doing this for awhile their radar doesn't go up when hot item may be entering the store, but the innocent citizen that actually owned the property and got robbed gets screwed once by the thief, twice by the city and a third time by the Store owner. Hey what the hell why wouldn't you want to move to Middletown. The city where you actually have a chance to buy your own belongings twice, if you are lucky.