Print Page | Close Window

Peru v. Middletown

Printed From: MiddletownUSA.com
Category: Middletown Community
Forum Name: Community Events
Forum Description: Post and discuss area events, upload photos and pdf.
URL: http://www.middletownusa.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4144
Printed Date: Nov 22 2024 at 5:33pm


Topic: Peru v. Middletown
Posted By: Richard Saunders
Subject: Peru v. Middletown
Date Posted: Oct 01 2011 at 4:12am

Quite interesting, the story in the Middletown Journal about MidFest and the featured country, Peru.  I, for one, did not realize how much more prosperous and advanced both socially and economically Peru was than their host, Middletown.

Consider these outtakes from the newspaper story:

He said Peru’s new government hopes to improve “social inclusion” by eliminating poverty and providing tools to residents to make themselves self-sufficient; improve “public safety” while reducing drug trafficking; and “promoting private investments.”

Contrast that with Middletown’s recent constant efforts to promulgate poverty and provide tools to keep residents dependent with their increasing Section 8 program; decrease public safety by downsizing police and fire departments; and hindering private investment by picking certain ventures to subsidize, thereby guaranteeing that no non-subsidized private venture will be able to compete.

Almost 7 percent of its residents are unemployed, and 31.3 percent — down from 54 percent — are living at or below poverty levels.

Quite a contrast here with Middletown, where unemployment is close to 10%, and over 50% are living at or near poverty levels according to Mr. Adkins.

He described Peru’s economy as the “fastest growing” in the world, and said “we are doing very, very well.”

Another sad contrast here, where our economy is miserably stagnant, and we are one of the “fastest dying cities in the country.”  We aren’t doing well at all, except when viewed through the eyes of our mayor and some of his rose-colored-glasses-wearing cheerleaders.

Peru’s public debt, he said, is steadily falling and there’s an “open trade and market.”

Good for them, but Middletown’s public debt is steadily rising, according to the impartial, independent CPA that Ms. Gilleland brought in to report to City Council last month.  And it will only get worse in the foreseeable future unless changes are made quickly, but we keep spending like drunken sailors on every frivolous, expensive screwball idea that the mayor’s friends and relatives dream up.  And forget “open trade and market” in our city.  City hall picks the players that they deem marketable, and keeps all others out.

He said Peru is home to one of the “richest seas in the world,” one that produces 900 million tons of fish annually. As he said to the laughing audience: “That’s lots of fish.”

Ah, at least we keep up with Peru on this one.  There’s a lot here in Middletown that smells fishy, too.




Replies:
Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Oct 01 2011 at 6:48am

Richard
You hit the nail on the head this morning Thumbs%20Up



Posted By: ground swat
Date Posted: Oct 01 2011 at 7:21am
So I guess they  wouldn't want to trade for our city manager. What about some money with that trade out of the downtown fund!


Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Oct 01 2011 at 7:38am
Richard, I see your point. A country is not a city, but touche on comparision of fish, poverty. But one thing you did not refernce: Middletown also has more ostrich's aka residents accepting the continued dummy down, all with head in sand. But, that might be contrued a negative in comparison as well


Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Oct 01 2011 at 7:55am
Would it be safe to say, by the time one were to look out on a planning horizon of 5 years, that the purchase of the building for Cincinnati State, attorney fees (Pratt), moth-balling at $75 Kk-$100 Kk per annum, will look like this:
 
Capital Expense/Outlay on buildings:
 
$375,000
$350,000 (moth balling times 5 years, difficult to see this being a one time expense)
Attorney fees- $150,000 (to date what- $70,000 to Pratt?)
$30,000- Miscellaneous- parades, celebrations, security
 
Total: > $900,000- $1,000,000.
 
Receiveables
 
HEP- $250,000 (maybe high)
- $50,000 (tax payroll benefits) conservatively high
 
TOTAL:  $300,000
 
NET GAIN/ LOSS (5 Years)- >-  $700,000.
 
Of course, the moniker will be the "intangible effect", maybe $1,000 in court costs/ fines, 10 houses depleted by purchase, fast food, gas, etc- $50,000.
 
The city will have a study completed by UC Revitalization which will say intangible benefit: $50,000,000, paid at a cost of $50,000.  
 
HEP and C State will determine success/ failure on HEP's investment.


Posted By: John Beagle
Date Posted: Oct 02 2011 at 4:07pm
Very interesting comparison. Thanks for sharing.



-------------
http://www.johnbeagle.com/" rel="nofollow - John Beagle

Middletown USA

News of, for and by the people of Middletown, Ohio.



Print Page | Close Window