Home | Yearly News Archive | Advertisers | Blog | Contact Us |
|
Friday, November 22, 2024 |
|
Oh Oh....Controversy on S. Main |
Post Reply |
Author | |
VietVet
MUSA Council Joined: May 15 2008 Status: Offline Points: 7008 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: Mar 12 2012 at 6:20am |
Today's Journal....
Lighting an issue with Post 218 The American Legion says it can’t afford to put up new street lights MIDDLETOWN — A proposed street light project on South Main Street has at least one business questioning its price tag. In June, the South Main Street Neighborhood Association had petitioned to have the 45 gas light replica street lights installed between First and Ninth avenues, the designated association area. American Legion Post 218 officials say they do not want to pay the $1,428 assessment proposed to have the lights installed. American Legion Post Commander Randy Howard said he feels it’s a violation of the Constitution by being “forced to put up lights.” “We’re barely operating today, and now they’re forcing this down our throats,” he said OH BOY! THE LEGION BETTER START "PLAYING BALL" WITH THE HIGH ROLLERS ON S. MAIN OR ELSE THEY WILL INCUR THE WRATH OF HIZZONER, MAYOR LAWRENCE MULLIGAN THE THIRD, THE KOHLERMEISTER AND OTHERS. DWINDLING NUMBERS OF VETS AND NOT BEING ABLE TO AFFORD THIS IS NO EXCUSE, AMERICAN LEGION. Meyers also said the lights would increase the value of properties along South Main Street, but Howard disagreed Howard said the American Legion cannot afford the proposed assessment, which is levied against every parcel where a fixture would be installed. THESE SOUTH MAIN STREETERS WANT THIS TO INCREASE THE VALUE OF THEIR PROPERTY. WILL THEY PAY FOR IT ALL, OR WILL THE CITY CHIP IN HERE AND HELP WITH TAXPAYER MONEY? IF THE LATTER, THIS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN. The city has two properties in the area on South Main Street that it would be required to pay for NOW, YOU DON'T USE TAXPAYER MONEY TO ENHANCE A SPECIFIC AREA OF TOWN AND THIS WOULD BE A SITUATION WHERE THIS WAS OCCURING. USING ALL THE PEOPLE'S MONEY TO BENEFIT A FEW (THE THEME OF THIS COUNCIL AND CITY HALL) IS BLATANT DICRIMINATION AGAINST THE REST OF THE CITIZENS. Nicolls said what’s driving to get the street light project done now is the city’s annual street repaving project, which this summer will repave South Main Street and repair the sidewalks. Erecting street lights would be too cost prohibitive if it was done without also repaving the street IMAGINE THAT. THE CITY IS GOING TO PAVE S. MAIN ALONG WITH THE INSTALLATION OF THESE FANCY LIGHTS. COINCIDENCE? OR, ATTENTION TO ONE SPECIFIC AREA OF TOWN WHILE IGNORING ALL THE OTHERS? YA REALLY GET CATERED TO IF YOU ARE FRIENDS OF CITY HALL, DON'T YOU. NO SHAME....NO CLASS......NO SCRUPLES. THESE PEOPLE MUST GO.....NOW. |
|
spiderjohn
Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Jul 01 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2749 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
This situation needs to be completely re-examined.
The designated area was absolutely gerrymandered to guarantee % passage, and still barely made the necessary %. The area involved should have gone all the way down to Barnitz Stadium and 14th Ave. to highlight the street leading to Barnitz Park and the football complex. Makes no sense whatsoever to stop at the mid-way point,. I assume that the area was designated as is solely to get voter acceptance.
Also--the citizen-paid portion of the installation(does it include lamping/pole purchase costs, replacement bulbs and maintence?) is a pittance in the long run when compared to the on-going long-term power usage costs since these proposed fixtures use over 4x the power of the existing lighting. Shouldn't these resident-requested expensive lamps be wired into the related property owners' electric meters or be pro-rated on to their water/trash bills instead to avoid pusing the costs to ALL citizens who won't recieve the added benefit and improved property values?
The lighting on my street is terrible and also un-safe.
My street is an absolute mess, and is in more dis-repair than S Main St.
Yet if my neighborhood wants any improvements, then we have to petition for the repairs/lighting changes and pay the full costs ourselves.
This whole deal smells and needs to be re-thought before summer construction begins.
Re-structure the overall long-term costs to those reaping the benefits, or be prepared to offer the same conditions to any other area wanting to do a similar project. I would think that vitually every neighborhood would prefer a new roadway and safer lighting that would cover the streets AND sidewalks. Especially with the city funding road repairs and utility costs spread throughout the entire city.
Also--should the city start this project before the Lefferson situation is resolved and completed?
jmo
|
|
acclaro
Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Jul 01 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1878 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
The only way to stop this is to have a legal challenge to the residents as a whole, having to augment expense for a few which benefit. in my view, it is outrageous. As the Main Street gang is getting HUD funds, the whole basis for the clammer over Cincinnati State, have the fed bailout pay for their lighting, not Middletown residents.
Additionally, there must be a legal separation between commercial and business interests and the voting dictates. For example, it was residential property owners that wanted this, not the commercial entity, or in the case of the American Legion, a non profit. Why should a non profit entity with members, a non residential facility, have to adopt to residential property owners desires? In sum, the addition of these lights will do nothing to add value to their homes, nor create a unique historic brand. But, by no means, should citizens throughout Middletown be made to pay for a small group of residents whims. |
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Remember, there is absolutely NO "period" when this so-called "period lighting" was ever used in Middletown!!! These fake lights are simply NOT historically accurate. Where is the Historic Commission and their "Certificate of Appropriateness" on this issue???The City of Middletown appears to violating their own Ordinance 1210 here by making modifications in a Historic District that are NOT historically accurate without a "Certificate of Appropriateness" from the Historic Commission!!!
|
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.
Copyright ©2024 MiddletownUSA.com | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Site by Xponex Media | Advertising Information |