Tonights City Council Meeting
Printed From: MiddletownUSA.com
Category: Outside World
Forum Name: News Stories
Forum Description: Comment on News Stories
URL: http://www.middletownusa.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3570
Printed Date: Nov 27 2024 at 8:35am
Topic: Tonights City Council Meeting
Posted By: randy
Subject: Tonights City Council Meeting
Date Posted: Jan 04 2011 at 5:37pm
|
Unfortunately I can not make tonights meeting, nor am I at a place I can watch it live tonight. So any updates that people can give tonight would be great. ------------- Call me for a www.CameraSecurityNow.com" rel="nofollow - www.CameraSecurityNow.com quote 513-422-1907 x357 |
Replies:
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Jan 04 2011 at 7:30pm
|
Bravo to Mr. Laubach!!! He hit on the heart of the matter!!! With both this sign ordinance and the Draconian “Historic Ordinance”, Kohler is attempting to craft legislation that allows him to do whatever he wants to do, according to his subjective opinions!!!------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Jan 04 2011 at 8:15pm
|
The Law Director stated that “Marty” had “drafted” portions of the sign legislation to put in what “he wanted”!!! What the heck is “Marty” doing drafting legislation and what the heck does it matter what “Marty” wants??? The drafting of legislation is the Law Director’s job. If he can’t do it, fire him and hire someone who can do it. All legislation should be drafting with the aim of being as fair and uniform as possible, and should NOT be slanted towards what “Marty” or any other special interest wants!!! Nor should it be drafted to allow any individual to selectively enforce the legislation’s mandates according to whim or subjective opinions. It is time for both Landen and “Marty” to be shown the door!!! ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: PattiGal
Date Posted: Jan 04 2011 at 8:17pm
|
Were you there, Mike? ------------- "Because nice matters..." |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Jan 04 2011 at 8:20pm
No, but I watched it on TVMiddletown. ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
PattiGal wrote:Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Jan 04 2011 at 10:12pm
The City Law Director, regarding signs at tonight's city council meeting:
Of course we do, Mr. Law Director!!!
We simply refer it to the non-existent Middletown Historic Commission and they declare it a work of art!!!
 Why are we so worried about a few perfectly sound sign structures that currently happen to be waiting on a new obusiness to put up a new sign panel, yet we celebrate it when one of the "it" crowd puts JUNK auto hoods up in the air on a downtown building??? ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Jan 04 2011 at 10:22pm
|
Mr. Robinson: Here's a suggestion:
Get a couple of junk auto hoods, have a local "graffiti artist" spray paint: "Visit PAC Middletown" on them, and then temporarily put them on your "obsolete" sign structure!!!
That way, EVERYBODY WINS!!! The non-existent Historic Commission will have to declare it "Art"; Verdin will get some free advertising; The City will have to stay off of your butt since the sign is no longer obsolete and you are actually performing a public service by promoting downtown Middletown; and when you are actually ready to put up a new sign panel, the graffiti artist will have a piece of "art" that he can SELL to Verdin!!!  ------------- “Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012 |
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Jan 05 2011 at 6:29am
Mike- ya just can't script it any better than this. The comedy writers for Two and a Half Men would be jealous.  I believe we have Middletown's version of the 60's show Laugh-In. Or, we have just created a new day time soap opera, The Days Of Our Lives In Middletown or As The World of Marty and Leslie Turn. Not a clue about how to run a city with any logic or competence- none of them.  Great comedy and it's all free for us to watch!
|
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Jan 05 2011 at 7:01am
|
From today's Journal:
As members debated the need for a change to sign ordinance language, Councilman A.J. Smith suggested the real issue was whether Middletown has adequate leadership from its administrators. He questioned the direction staff has taken regarding the Section 8 voucher program and branch campus plans with Cincinnati State Technical and Community College — and said it may be time for a staff change. “If we are going to look at a change of direction and being fair ... maybe we should look at a reorganization of our leadership,” he said. I'll go one step further AJ.....not MAYBE.....the "reorganization" of city leadership should start with the city manager and proceed on down through the ranks at the city building. The "reorganization" should be renamed "downsizing and cleaning out the deadwood" with a total replacement of key city leaders who exhibit a new direction for the city. Council could/should make that happen if they cared for this city. The current crop is bad for the health of this town. We will never recover until we eliminate the people who put us in this situation. Laubach said he felt staff was spending too much time trying to make things “nice and pretty” in Middletown instead of dealing with more important problems. BINGO MR. Laubach!!! Is the rest of council going to open their mouths to support this? What is the matter with you Picard, Mulligan, Becker and Allen? Say something- anything. Commit. However, Economic Development Director Mike Robinette argued the sign ordinance and its enforcement is a necessary tool to improve the city’s appearance and draw businesses. Silly, non-important statement Mr. Robinette. No, the necessary tool to drawing business is to invite them in, ask what can we do for you/how can we help you get established, supply them with business location choices, lower the taxes for them to rock bottom until they establish themselves and are drawing a profit- then pro-rate the taxes based on business success so as not to put them out of business. Help them grow instead of crushing them before they build their business. All of this "sign talk" comes after the fact. Fill the stores and assure the businesses are on sound operational ground- then concentrate on the minor things like signage WITHOUT the Gestapo tactics currently being employed by Kohler and Landen. Knock it off boys. Too much time spent on sign talk and not enough time spent on occupancy of vacant stores in town. You have it backward. She (Ms. Scott-Jones) also agreed with Laubach there were more pressing issues. Amen. Nice to see we have some people on council who show some logical thinking. What's wrong with the rest of you? “I would be more concerned with filling the buildings and filling the spaces than removing signs at this point,” she said. A second BINGO for Ms. Scott- Jones!!! |
Posted By: Molly
Date Posted: Jan 05 2011 at 7:51am
I was at the meeting last night. The sign legislation should be called the "Anti Lenny Robinson, New Business" legislation. It was strange for the city manager to cut off Marty even before he spoke and then for Mr. Robinette to push Marty aside so that he could "save the day"! That didn't work out well for them. Josh had good points last evening but the highlight for me was the look on the city manager's face when AJ made his comment about the administration...Priceless!
|
Posted By: randy
Date Posted: Jan 05 2011 at 8:24am
|
I missed it !!!! :( ------------- Call me for a www.CameraSecurityNow.com" rel="nofollow - www.CameraSecurityNow.com quote 513-422-1907 x357 |
Posted By: LMAO
Date Posted: Jan 05 2011 at 10:40am
|
Have to agree with the other poster,Time to show Marty and Les the door.I say it would be a safe bet that neither one of them got much sleep last night.They didnt get their way in writing their own law.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: Jan 05 2011 at 2:34pm
|
Landen got a "smackdown" from Picard very nicely played. Not rude, but the message was loud and clear. ASJ took notes about the $25,000. NOT spent on the building project to save the Thatcher estate and the 'boy toy" appeasement. take note where that $25,000. appears somewhere. Now that the Manchester has closed, how does Cincinnati State intend to operate a business that could not sustain itself?
The sign ordinance is such a waste of time. The unconstitutionality Rupert referred was associated with ambiquity. So Landen has to retain a Columbus attorney to help him write a non ambiguous sign ordinance and this has the highest priority? To who...Neyer?
Landen pushing hard on the rewrite of the silly ordinance while saying council could pull back. Note to council: pull back, more important things to tend to than making Neyer and the Atrium happy. I'd rather have those semi's out of town in front of the parking lot where Dillman's and the old KMart are, that's a larger eyesore, than this absolutely dumb haggling over a sign ordinance which serves to annoy Robinson.
Unfortunately, no firings. It will pass 4-3.
|
Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jan 05 2011 at 5:59pm
|
Smackdown The smackdown was priceless.
I was driving down Hmmm…..In 20 years why hasn’t the city required the removal of this sign? Why is it that the City ONLY seems concerned about ONE sign located on the other side of I75? The buildings that were purchased for I believe the day a business closes its doors the value of the business is reduced by 50%. So as of today what is the real value of the Manchester Inn? But the really big question is how long will the Manchester Inn sit empty and then what will the City dododo? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: Jan 05 2011 at 6:28pm
|
Vivian, I believe it is also unconstitution to unequally apply law to selectively targeted individuals, groups, and races. The city ordinances are vague in many readings, including 2910 in particular. It includes the tax section which is also unconstitutional in many sections. Middletown cannot do what the state does not require nor federal government. Interesting Mr. Landen expressed "terrified" when discussing case law in other municipalities. Perhaps speaking about the horror associated with many aspects of the city ordinances filled with ambiguity and holes, rendering it unconstitutional.
Better re-write many chapters that would be challenged, than the effort expended on re-crafting "sign" lnaguage.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: Jan 05 2011 at 6:32pm
|
Well, at least Middletown finally has a “SHOVEL READY Project”!!! After what Landen, Kohler, and Robinette were spewing about signs last night, council chambers is definitely READY for some SHOVELS!!! |
Posted By: Bill
Date Posted: Jan 05 2011 at 8:18pm
| I've missed the details of the city's beef with Lenny R. I know there's the property vacating issue but which signage are we talking about? |
Posted By: 409
Date Posted: Jan 05 2011 at 8:29pm
| The old Score sign at SR122 & I-75 is one issue. |
Posted By: Bill
Date Posted: Jan 05 2011 at 9:01pm
| Signs, schmeins, another odd looking thing are those brick model homes at the end of Commerce Dr. |
Posted By: swohio75
Date Posted: Jan 05 2011 at 11:54pm
She asked what happens to the $25,000 difference between purchase price and amount authorized. City Manager stated the $25,000 remains in the Downtown Fund. If the $25,000 is to be spent for something else, won't it need to be authorized by Council? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: Jan 06 2011 at 1:43pm
| If the "downtown" fund was authorized for the full amount, would not the $25,000. be returned to the General Fund/ If not, and it remains, why would council need to re-authorize its expenditure, as it was approved. Really don't know. Assumption was ASJ was keeping her eyes on where the $25,000 might end up, but probably will be carried over to the Manchester expenditure. |
Posted By: swohio75
Date Posted: Jan 06 2011 at 2:43pm
|
Why would it go to the General Fund?
Council would need to reauthorize because it was approved for the purchase of specific real estate.
|