So, no one would hazard a guess as to how much money would be spent maintaining our submarine/bike path. My guess is more will be spent on it this year than it would take to subsidize Sunset Pool for FIVE YEARS!!!. Of course, one is for the connected adults on fancy bikes wearing coordinated sweat suits; the other is “for the kids”.

While the state law (ORC Chapter 727) under which Law Director Landen, et al, claim the authority to petition for the olde tyme street lamps on S. Main Street does address “lighting”, it certainly does NOT address the DEMOLITION of perfectly adequate, EXISTING street lighting meeting the standards of the City of Middletown, to be replaced with DECORATIVE lighting which (most likely) supplies a lower illumination rating.

Did I see and hear Mayor Lawrence P. Mulligan, Jr. participating in the S. Main St. olde tyme street light discussion. Isn’t our Honorable Mayor one of the direct beneficiaries of this item and isn't he blatantly in favor of it??? Isn’t that a “conflict of interest” and therefore wasn’t his participation contrary to state law??? Shouldn’t Law Director Landen have put a stop to that???

Finally, I certainly agree with Councilman (and attorney) Picard’s suggestion about getting council out of the Public Housing Authority business.

At last, they (except Councilman Smith) want to do things the LEGAL way??? With FOUR lawyers (Picard, Allen, Adkins, Landen) involved, one would think that they would have read the ORC before now and would have known that they were, and are, acting illegally!!!

They cannot appoint themselves to a board, and they cannot oversee or administer a contract. “After the authority to make such contracts has been given and the necessary appropriation made, the legislative authority shall take no further action thereon.”

Mr./Ms. Donham,

I have been asked this question many times. I have been urged to run by friends, acquaintances, strangers that I have encountered in local stores, bloggers on this and other similar forums, and even by some adversaries (as sort of a dare, implying that I lack courage, I presume).

Each time I have answered, and the answer is simple: Even though I believe I am qualified and that I would make an able councilman, I have several chronic medical issues that would make it more than difficult for me to serve the people in that capacity.

It’s as simple as that.

Voice of Reason:

While I hear your Voice, I think that your Reasoning is flawed!!!

First, you ask:

“Haven't the proceeds of the public safety levy simply gone to the increasing salaries and benefits of the police and firefighters? Isn't it just that simple? If they're averaging 3% per year in raises, it doesn't take long for a few million dollars to get eaten up by those raises. So where is the controversy/confusion?”

The answer is simple: The confusion lies in the mathematics!!! You see, the nearly THREE MILLION DOLLARS raked in by the Public Safety levy equals nearly TEN percent of the TOTAL General Fund each year. And TEN percent of the TOTAL General Fund is equal to much more than the THREE percent represented by the public safety force’s raises that you describe, which are only a portion of the total General Fund.

Yet I still remained confused: If, just before the Public safety tax was passed, the fire chief and the police chief asked for a $500,000 per year increase each (a total of ONE million dollars per year) to INCREASE public safety, what has happened to the nearly THREE million dollars per year???

Actually, we all know the answer: Much of the “Public Safety Tax” was used to cover deficit spending in other areas of the General Fund, thus now forcing police and fire to DECREASE public safety by forced layoffs!!!

Next, you ask about Sunset Pool Vis à Vis Weatherwax Golf Course. I must say that your reasoning is much more sound on this issue, and I can’t really disagree with much of what you say. Yet, I will point out a few of the City’s inconsistencies on the issue:

• The yearly subsidy for Weatherwax has been at or above $100,000 per year for several years; a single year’s subsidy from Weatherwax would’ve kept Sunset open for several years.
• Sunset is “for the kids”. Yet, the very same city officials who ignore “the kids” in closing Sunset, expect the “it’s for the kids” catch-phrase to tug at the heartstrings of the voters each time a school levy is proposed.
• City officials have outlawed billboard advertising of Middletown’s businesses along I-75, claiming it is “tacky” and unappealing. Yet, the City itself has advertised Weatherwax on billboards on I-75 just north and just South of Middletown. Talk about hypocrisy!!!

Last, you discuss the olde tyme street lights. First, you do realize that there are THOUSANDS or dollars of initial costs involved here, not only to those in the neighborhood who vote “yes”, but also to ALL Middletonians, and those in the neighborhood who do NOT want these lights (and may not be able to afford them). Voice, do you understand that YOU are helping to pay for these olde tyme lights, even though they already have adequate, standard city street lights??? While you argue that street lights make a neighborhood safer (and I certainly do agree), I should point out that the brighter street lights that now exist make the neighborhood safer than the dimmer olde tyme gas lights. Adding MORE dim olde tyme street lights will raise not only the initial cost (to ALL Middletonians, including YOU, Voice) but also the ongoing utility and maintenance costs (also to ALL Middletonians, including YOU, Voice). Also, there is something inherently WRONG about spending taxpayers’ money to demolish perfectly good street lights that meet all City standards, when some areas of the City do not have adequate street lighting.

Additionally, why is this section of Main Street being paved at this time in the first place??? It is certainly NOT the worst section of roadway in the City!!! Perhaps Ward Council Representatives Allen, Smith, Laubach, and Picard should drive around their own Wards and then see if they can justify voting to re-pave this relatively good section of roadway at this time. Perhaps these residents should be footing the bill for the re-paving of S. Main if they want that right now, before they worry about decorative lighting.

With our city facing a budget crisis, with layoffs pending in public safety, with ambulance run-times increasing to YOUR house, with cuts being threatened in all areas of public services, with tax increases looming to all citizens, HOW can we possibly justify the wasting of THOUSANDS of YOUR tax dollars to demolish perfectly good standard street lighting to replace them with dimmer olde tyme decorative street lights???

Voice:

Please excuse my delay in responding to your post of 24 Jun 2011 at 4:26pm. I’ve had some other matters that needed attention.

Regarding the Public Safety Levy funds: As you continue digging, I’m sure you will find three things:

1. Money from the Public Safety Levy has been directed to other areas;
2. A 3% increase of the TOTAL police and fire budget (which includes much more than just wages), including compounding, for the FIVE years of the existing levy equals a total of less than $3.5 million, yet the levy for those five years is on track to bring in a total of over $14 million. Here we are in only the third year and City Hall is saying we must lay off police and fire from the 2008 level. What happened to the money??
3. As with the “Ohio State Lottery money goes to education” (which was sold as being “additive” to solve our education funding woes), you will find that the Public Safety Levy funds were NOT “added” to the Public Safety budget, but were “substituted for dollars that were already there so that those dollars could be used for other risky schemes. It’s nothing more than the old “Shell Game”.

Next, as far as the longer ambulance runs to your house: I may be off base speaking of “your house” literally, since I have no idea where you live, but it is a safe bet that if “your house” is anywhere (approximately) west of Breiel, and it is determined that the ambulance must take you to the ER, it will take longer, to get to Atrium than to the old hospital location. Granted, this has to do with the new location of the hospital, but reducing the number of fire stations with manned ambulances can only exacerbate the situation.

As far as sending a fire engine as well as an ambulance on each emergency run, I must admit that I, too, struggle with that concept, so I cannot argue in favor of the practice. I can say that, on occasion, I have had firefighters explain it to me during informal face-to-face discussions, and it made sense. But later, I could not replicate these explanations to others in the same way. Poor memory on my part??? Probably. However, I do believe that there are other cities throughout the USA that have only one unit with two people (both EMTs) respond to emergency medical calls, but I cannot cite facts or figures right now. Perhaps one of our firefighter poster friends can help???

Likewise, I cannot cite facts and figures for the firefighters vs. police vs. nurses scheduling approach, yet I do understand the basic difference in the type of services that the firefighters supply as opposed to the others. Intuitively, the way it is done here in Middletown seems to me to be a good way to have firefighters and EMTs ready to respond, and to respond in the shortest time, to any emergency.

Next, I re-read the portion of your post that I incorrectly thought made a safety comparison between “2 or 3 more cops and firefighters on the payroll” and “installing more lights”. I simply erred in making that inference. I was wrong, and I apologize. I assure you that it was an honest mistake, and was certainly unintentional.

Next, the issue of who will pay, and who should pay, for the olde tyme street lights! First, if I read and heard the proceedings of the last council meeting correctly, ALL of the taxpayers of the City of Middletown will be contributing to the cost of the olde tyme street lights. Next, perhaps I should have been more specific: my objection is to paying for DECORATIVE lamp posts, globes, etc., where existing street lamps already are in place meeting city standards. I see this as no different than any other DECORATIVE item. For more on this, please see my reply to Mr. Duane Gordon.

Lastly, regarding the Weatherwax vs. Sunset Pool issue, please note that I didn’t disagree with you on the issues. I merely pointed out some City Hall hypocrisy related to the subject.

Mr. Gordon:

Thank you for attempting to clear up some of the questions that have been raised. Perhaps you will be so kind as to clear up a few more issues???

First, you state that “to extend a similar type of lighting as is currently installed along Central Avenue and along North Main Street south onto South Main Street to remain consistent with the theme the city has determined is most appropriate for this area.” It is my understanding that the latest “theme the city has determined is most appropriate” is “junque chic”!!! So, if 60% or more of the residents along South Main Street vote that everyone in their neighborhood should have a junk auto hood siding façade on the Main Street face of their structures, should the remainder of the taxpayers in the city be forced to subsidize that also??? What about the percentage of neighborhood residents who don’t want such facades??? Should they be forced to pay for and install them anyway, just to keep the neighborhood uniform??? What if 60% of the residents decide that a nice, chrome hubcap, decorative fence would go nicely with the junk auto theme??? Should it be a de rigueur, taxpayer subsidized addition??? Should YOU be forced to add these touches to YOUR property at YOUR expense even if YOU are in the minority??? The omnipotent Historic Commission has already certified this “junque chic” as “appropriate”, so votes don’t always go your way, and the precedent has already been set.

Next you mention “any neighborhood in the city” could do the same thing, but I doubt that!!! First, I doubt the legality of this petition. Nowhere within Section 727 of the Ohio Revised Code (the Section cited as the controlling legal authority) are DECORATIVE items of ANY description mentioned. “Lighting” is mentioned as an appropriate and allowable item to be petitioned, but S. Main Street already has lighting, and I would not be objecting if the residents were claiming that lighting was inadequate, but that is not the claim. You don’t want lights--you want decorative lampposts and decorative globes. I simply believe that decorative items should be at the expense of the individual property owners who desire them. I would NEVER expect YOU to pay for a decorative lamppost in front of MY house!!! Why do YOU expect me to help pay for one in front of yours??? Also, Mr. Kohler has no interest in most neighborhoods of the city, to expedite such petitions.

Next, you contend that this section of roadway serves as a “major thoroughfare”!!! If this is true, then it should have “light standards (posts)” consistent with a “major thoroughfare” and not with a quaint, quiet, olde tyme neighborhood.  You cannot have it both ways, Sir.  It cannot be a "major thoroughfare" when you want it paved at no cost to the residents ahead of other streets in town, but a "quaint, sleepy neighborhood" when you want the rest of us to help pay for your decorative lampposts and globes, resembling olde tyme gaslights.  And modern streetlamps will be no less incongruent to your neighborhood's "theme" than the junk auto hoods will be to the olde tyme lampposts downtown!!!

As long as Kohler’s name has come up, consider this from the minutes of a recent Historic Commission meeting:

“Marty will have a case coming up regarding his proposed walkway from his house to the public sidewalk as well as some other projects. Since neither Marty nor I would be allowed to participate in the actual case, Marty has retained a historic preservation consultant to represent him and staff on this case. The consultant, Steve Gordon, formerly of the Ohio Historic Preservation Office, is available May 19th.”

Pretty cool, huh??? The same consultant represents Marty AND the City staff!!! Nah--no conflict there, is there??? And I wonder who paid the consultant’s fee???

This reminds me of a case a few years back wherein Steve Huesman (while he was interim City Manager) represented Kohler in front of one of the City boards. Also clearly a conflict of interest.

Mr. Gordon:

Whether it is a few cents or a few million dollars (I believe that the “approx.$7,000+” figure that Spiderjohn mentioned is correct), there is no valid reason for the rest of the taxpayers of the city to pay to decorate your neighborhood the way that you an your neighbors, and only you nad your neighbors, want it decorated.

I never stated that there was to be any amount of “assessment” that will “hit MY tax bill”, but there is a portion of the cost of the decorative lampposts and globes in excess of standard street lighting that will be borne by the rest of the taxpayers. This is WRONG. It is especially wrong in these trying economic times, while the taxpayers are being told that more basic city services will be cut, that we are also being told that we must pay for this extra perk for the residents of South Main Street.

Yes, property owners on a street are permitted by ORC 727 to petition for “lighting”. Does this mean that you can petition for a different style of decorative lampposts next year if you grow tired of this décor, or if a new, trendy design comes down the pike??? Of course not!!! They are likewise permitted to petition for street “paving”, but that does not give them the right to stipulate that their street be paved with cobblestones, or with gold, or even with Portland cement concrete pavement!!!

Of course I resort to hyperbole, but since you still don’t seem to get it, must I exaggerate even more???

Mr. Gordon:

There is one more point with which I disagree. You stated:

Perhaps you could impose on your friends at City Hall to supply the specifications of both the lights that you want installed on South Main Street and the street lights that would be installed in any other area of the city and then post that information here for all to see.

I think that you will find that on a one-to-one basis, the lights on Central do NOT put out more light. I think they just appear to put out more light because:

1. They are much lower to the ground.
2. They are installed much closer together. (Meaning that many MORE of these lights will have to be installed, adding to the overall monthly cost of service and maintenance to ALL of the taxpayers.)
3. They are installed on BOTH sides of the street, not just one as with the standard street lights.

So, you see Mr. Gordon, we must look at the TOTAL number of lights, the type of lamps, and the power usage to make a valid comparison for not only the initial costs but also the ONGOING utility and maintenance costs to the taxpayers!!!

No taxpayer money involved???

How??? Standard streetlights in most neighborhoods number about one every two hundred feet (min.) I’d guess. The brighter lights that Mr. Gordon and his neighbors want are installed downtown, probably, at least 2 or 3 per 200 feet, times two (each side), so the ongoing maintenance and power costs to the taxpayers will be higher forever.