Thurber's Thoughts is back!

photo via Wikia.com

First, please accept my apologies for being gone from regular blog posts for so long.

While writing for Ohio Watchdog, I channeled much of my "thoughts" into those articles. When that assignment concluded at the end of 2015, I decided to take a break. However, I accepted work on another project that had absolutely nothing to do with politics.

That commitment prevented me from devoting time to my blog, but that is also concluded so...

I'm back.

And boy is there a lot to say.

We can start with everyone's favorite complaint:  potholes and the state of Toledo's roads.

For over a decade, I've been warning anyone who would listen that transferring money out of the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) fund and into the General Fund to pay for every day expenses was a bad idea.

Eventually, I explained, we'd run out of money in the CIP and wouldn't have anything left for capital items - like roads and other expenses with a life of five years or more.

Wouldn't you know it, I was right and that mess erupted in the first part of the year when Mayor Paula Hicks-Hudson and Toledo City Council decided to ask voters to approve an increase in the payroll income tax.

Fortunately, that measure went down to defeat - resoundingly.

But it hasn't solved the problem that the city doesn't have enough money for capital items because they've raided more than $110 million out of the CIP fund.

And it's not just this mayor. Every "strong" mayor had a hand in creating the problem: spending more than what they took in and spending money on non-essential items.

Want to know just how ridiculous things got?

In February 2012, Toledo City Council *discovered* they had about $1 million more in revenue than they budgeted. But they were planning to transfer nearly $12 million out of the CIP to balance the budget. So instead of reducing the amount of the transfer to $11 million, they decided to spend that $1 million extra instead.

And what did they spend it on? A new filing system for city council and a temporary employee; additional funds for demolition of houses; additional inspectors in code enforcement, even though the department said it didn't need any; an executive director to run the previously discontinued Toledo Youth Commission; and a consultant to create an Historic Preservation Plan.

The irresponsible spending continues while former Council finance committee chairman and current City Treasurer George Sarantou, Toledo City Council and the mayor try to find a way to come up with more income rather than find a way to cut spending.

You see, there's no where else they can cut.

(At least, that's the story.)

So that's how we started the year and now we're looking at a sweetheart deal for Promedica, the city and the Metroparks.

Prime waterfront property on the East Side across from The Docks has been sitting undeveloped for decades.  Various developers have come and gone and finally, Dashing Pacific Group bought it.

Their plan was to develop it with shops and housing and take advantage of the wonderful waterfront and the new road and light posts the city installed to help with development.  But they haven't done anything on it yet and the city had a clause in the sale that said it could buy back the property after five years.

And it should tell you something about Toledo when all the developers who've had a chance at this have failed to actually *develop* prime waterfront property.

We must be the only city in the entire country that can't make a go of prime waterfront property.

But back to the sweetheart deal...

The city really doesn't have the cash to buy back the property, so Promedica has agreed to purchase the property from Dashing Pacific.  They will hold it for a bit and then sell it (for the purchase price) to the Metroparks.

The Metroparks will then make this prime waterfront property a park.

Never mind that the Metroparks has two levies that property owners pay.  In fact, the most recent one in 2012 was a 10-year levy that was supposed to generate funds for developing new parks, maintaining existing ones and preventing budget cuts. How much do you want to bet that they'll need another increase when they purchase about 100 more acres and then want to make this prime waterfront property into a park area?

Something about this isn't quite right. Why does Promedica want to purchase the land only to sell it to the Metroparks?

Can't Dashing Pacific sell it to the Metroparks without a go-between?

If the city has the ability to buy back the land, why don't they do so, especially if they've got a willing buyer in the Metroparks?

Are there some restrictions with the funding sources used to clean up the property and install roads and street lamps that prevents it from going directly to another governmental entity like the Metroparks?

Inquiring minds....

And then there is the Southwyck property.  The mall sat unused for - well, no one really remembers how long because it was such a long time.  The city finally got the property from the owner, tore down the buildings and decided to market it as an open area for development.

Oh - and they borrowed money to do the demolition.

Now there is a buyer but the city is looking at a loss on the project. As one city councilman said - they didn't buy the land in order to make a profit...

But here's the thing.  They still have a loan and, according to various media reports, they (or rather you and I) are paying about $70,000 in interest every year on that loan.

So the city is going to pay off the loan with the income from the sale, right?

No - this is Toledo, so wrong!

The city isn't planning on paying off the loan but putting the money into the CIP fund. So you and I and every other taxpayer is going to continue to pay about $70,000 in interest so the city can spend that income elsewhere.

If you're wondering what they're thinking at city hall, see above story about the 2012 budget.

Sadly, this is par for the course.

So that's the start. Coming up I'll take a look at the absolutely insane Toledo ordinance that forces any company doing business with the city to have a union contract - even if they're a non-union company. Talk about forced unionization!  Here I thought it was the union's job to organize but Toledo's Project Labor Agreement ordinance actually puts the city at the bargaining table with project bidders and forces them to adopt a union contract.

That'll be a long post so I'll save it for Monday.

2 Toledo Republicans agree: RTW is 'extreme political position'

An item opposing Ohio Right-to-Work provisions was approved last night by Toledo City Council. Only Tom Waniewski, Republican from District 5, voted against the resolution.

Joe McNamara, Democrat at-large, presented the item:

"..expressing our opposition to Right-to-Work laws which has a deceptive title. From the research I’ve done right to work actually hurts workers whether or not they’re in a union or not, makes working conditions less safe, and this is a sort of rehashing of SB 5 all over again. So I hope you will support this resolution and oppose right to work coming to Ohio."

At-large Republicans George Sarantou and Rob Ludeman agreed with McNamara and voted to pass the resolution.

Do Ludeman and Sarantou really believe that RTW is an "extreme political position"?

Did they - or anyone - bother to check the veracity of the whereas statements, especially the claim that RTW states have "a consistently lower quality of life than in other states – lower wages, and higher poverty and infant mortality rates" or that it will "silence whistleblowers"

How do these two *Republicans* justify this vote which is diametrically at odds with the core principle of individual freedom and responsibility espoused and supported by the Republican Party?

Apparently, they agree that forcing employees to join and/or pay dues to an organization they may oppose is okay.

Sadly, there was no discussion of the resolution prior to passage - just McNamara's comment and then a vote. And it passed as an emergency measure because clearly "preservation of the public health and safety" was at risk.

Guess the health and safety of those who don't want to join a union is irrelevant.

Here's the resolution:

RES. 123-13

Opposing “right to work” laws and the “Workplace Freedom” Constitutional Amendment and promoting fair labor practices to support working families and our local community; and declaring an emergency.

WHEREAS, anti-labor special interest groups are promoting a “right to work” law called “Workplace Freedom” which is actually harmful to working families and the middle class; and

WHEREAS, “right to work” laws give multi-national corporations even more power to outsource jobs, cut wages, and reduce benefits at the expense of workers, small businesses, and the local economy; and

WHEREAS, workers in states with “right to work” laws have a consistently lower quality of life than in other states – lower wages, and higher poverty and infant mortality rates; and

WHEREAS, “right to work” laws weaken the voices of our everyday heroes – our nurses, firefighters, police officers, and first responders – by making it harder to bargain for safe staffing levels and necessary equipment to keep us safe; and

WHEREAS, “right to work” laws will silence whistleblowers who are counted on to keep our workplaces safe, protect consumer goods, services and products, and safeguard our natural resources and the environment; and

WHEREAS, the implementation of “right to work” laws will erode the tax base that supports vital services in our communities, such as education, public safety, roads, water, etc.; and

WHEREAS, less than two years ago, Ohio voters rejected a similar political attack on Ohio’s workers and the middle class by overwhelmingly voting NO on Senate Bill 5/Issue 2, and it is clear that the sentiment of the people of Toledo is that the
collective bargaining rights of workers should be protected; and

WHEREAS, business and labor should work together to create good jobs and improve the economy, not be distracted by extreme political positions that seeks to silence the voice of workers and drive down the middle class; NOW, THEREFORE,

Be it resolved by the Council of the City of Toledo:

SECTION 1. That the City of Toledo takes the firm position to oppose so-called “right to work” laws and the “Workplace Freedom” Constitutional Amendment as they are wrong for Toledo and wrong for the State of Ohio.

SECTION 2. That this resolution is declared to be an emergency and shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage. The reason for the emergency lies in the fact that the same is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health and safety and for the further reason that Toledo must show immediate support for working families and the middle class in the face of the proposed “right to work” laws.

Toledo taxpayers shafted (again!) in latest tit-for-tat over public employee wages

Yes, it's true - but sadly, not surprising that Toledo taxpayers are being stranded in the frigid cold as Mayor Mike Bell and Toledo city council engage in their own personal tit-for-tat over how much to pay their staffs.

To understand just how bad this really is, let's back up a bit.

The city has, for years, raided the Capital Improvements Plan budget in order to pay for everyday, general fund expenses. Going into 2012, they'd (legally) transferred a total of $50 million out of the account that is supposed to pay for major infrastructure improvements and roads - and used it to pay for things like office supplies, donations to local non-profits and pay increases for public employees.

They planned to continue stealing from the CIP for this fiscal year:

Faced with not enough income to meet their desire for 'more, more, more,' council has transferred (at last count) more than $50 million out of the Capital Improvements Plan fund (CIP) into the general fund to meet the everyday costs of the city.

So now council is going to start building back up the rainy day fund.

You'd think this was a good thing...but (there's always a but), they're still raiding the CIP to the tune of $12 million!

According to the city, the actual planned amount is $11,949,054, which does included $1.1 million originally unplanned, but approved by council yesterday to make up for the lack of revenue due to a delay in the opening of the casino.

Is there anyone else who fails to see the logic of this action?

They were patting themselves on the back for their plan to start building up the city's rainy day fund - which they depleted before they resorted to raiding the CIP - but they completely missed the point that they were taking another $12 million out of the CIP to do so.

And while they were at it, they decided to spend money they didn't have on a new director to run a previously eliminated department, a new filing system for their council offices and a consultant to create a Historic Preservation Plan.

Things went along normally for a while - or as normal as can be for Toledo, with politicians spending more than they take in, raiding the CIP and plotting ways to wring more cash out of the taxpayers.

Then Mayor Bell decided he wanted to increase the salary ranges for his administrative staff. He said he wasn't interested in actually giving pay increases; he just believed that the ranges needed to reflect current conditions.

Council balked.

Councilman Steve Steel, fearing that a pay scale increase would result in pay increases, went a step further and proposed a new ethics requirement for the mayor to "avoid any appearance of impropriety" or quid pro quo since many of these same administrators had contributed to the mayor's campaign.

In what can only be described as a political TKO, Bell came up with his own ethics proposal that applied not just to him, but to council as well.

But Mayor Bell has trumped Steel - handily - in submitting a new ordinance for a council vote.

While it is already illegal for individuals to solicit contributions from public employees in the classified service, Bell's ordinance would make it illegal to solicit and/or accept contributions from current city employees (not just those in the classified service), members of current employees' family and/or the bargaining units that represent city employees.

I'd call this game-set-match for Bell.

Needless to say, the entire subject was dropped.

But city officials were still crying poverty - so much, in fact, that Steel and Councilwoman Lindsay Webb decided Toledo just had to have a brand new, 10-year property tax levy to pay for parks and recreation. Steel and Webb pushed the tax increase and were soon joined by the mayor. They promised it would benefit seniors and kids and - believe it or not - reduce crime.

The bribes even included a new water park.

But a funny thing happened along the way to the ballot box. Maybe Bell didn't really want that new levy to pass. How else to explain his sudden announcement that he was giving pay increases to more than 50 staff members, totaling $295,000 a year?

Surely if the city had a third of a million dollars lying around, it didn't need a levy for parks, right?

Council was not amused, though Republican Councilman George Sarantou, Chairman of the Finance Committee actually justified the expense by claiming the city was expecting a $900,000 surplus.

Yes, you read that correctly.

Now the city has a budget surplus? I thought they had no money to pay for parks and recreation?!?

And how did we get this surplus? Did we NOT raid the CIP fund as they planned? Did they repay the advance they took on the CIP when the casino didn't open in time?

Have they thought that maybe reimbursing the $50 million or so they previously raided from the CIP might be a bigger priority to citizens than "valuing" administrators that have better pensions, vacation time, holidays and pay than they do?

But council doesn't like to be outdone, especially when some of the council members have aspirations to sit in the mayor's seat. Hence the latest tit for tat between council and the mayor. After all, it's only fair to retaliate against mayoral raises with raises of your own, right?

In response to Mayor Mike Bell’s across-the-board salary increases in October for 55 administrators and lawyers — a move that will cost the city $295,000 more a year — Toledo City Council has given a pay bump to four officials it controls.

Council voted 9-1 to increase the salaries of the council clerk, assistant clerk, city auditor, and plan commission director by 8 percent. But those four employees will lose their 5 percent “pension pickup” by the city, netting a 3 percent increase overall.

Councilman D. Michael Collins, who pushed for the compensation changes before council approved them last week, said it was the fair thing to do after the mayor boosted salaries an average of 9.8 percent, with no adjustment, for administration officials whose pension payment plans are still covered by the taxpayers.

Throughout all of this back and forth, spending, raiding the CIP and concern for the self-esteem of public employees, the taxpayer has been ignored.

Rarely has anyone mentioned, much less thought about, the out-of-work Toledoan who is footing the bill for this excess and political gamesmanship.

The taxpayer gets shafted while politicians maneuver for personal gain and engage in childish "I'll show you" antics.

Meanwhile, for 2013:

Toledo Mayor Mike Bell presented the 2013 budget today and it plans to raid $13.96 million from the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) fund while spending more money on parks and recreation.

Happy New Year, taxpayers!

Maybe Mayor Bell doesn't want the new parks and recreation levy to pass

Perhaps Toledo Mayor Mike Bell doesn't want the new, 10-year parks and recreation levy to pass after all. If he did, why would he jeopardize the plea for a new property tax by proving the city doesn't really need the money after all?

How did he prove it?

He just gave raises to 55 of his administrators - and they total $295,000 a year!

If the city has the money to give raises of nearly a third of a million dollars, surely they don't need any more tax money from us to pay for parks and recreation - right?

And this is after Toledo City Council refused to increase the pay ranges of many of these same employee, claiming there was no need to increase the range when the individuals holding the jobs were not at the top of the existing range. At that time, Bell told council he wasn't going to be giving wholesale pay increases.

Apparently, he changed his mind. The Blade reports:

The raises include all three deputy mayors — Steve Herwat and Shirley Green, whose salaries increase from $90,002 to $92,500, and Paul Syring, whose salary increases from $85,001 to $92,500.

Not surprisingly, he blames Council for not following his lead to "comprehensively update Executive Exempt pay ranges."

The worst part is Democrat Joe McNamara's response, as reported by the paper:

Council President Joe McNamara said the mayor should concentrate on raising the “economic positions” of Toledo’s residents. The increases will cost the city $62,000 through Dec. 31.

“I think the tone of the mayor’s letter is out of touch with the lives of most Toledoans who would be thrilled to be making $92,500,” he said. “He has the authority to do it. The fact that he did it shows one of the reasons why council was so concerned about giving the latitude to do 20 percent [pay-range increases], because he pretty much maxed out everybody.”

Really? If McNamara was so worried about "raising the 'economic positions' of Toledo's residents," why did he vote to put a brand new, 10-year property tax levy on the ballot?!?

That's not going to do anything but bring DOWN the economic position of Toledo's residents.

Hypocrisy thy name is Joe McNamara!

Then there is Republican George Sarantou, chairman of the council finance committee:

Councilman George Sarantou said the Bell administration has a plan to pay for the increases this year.

“They said this has already been budgeted by virtue of the fact that it was announced [Tuesday] that they are expecting a $900,000 surplus that they will carry over to 2013,” Mr. Sarantou.

Now the city has a budget surplus? I thought they had no money to pay for parks and recreation?!?

And how did we get this surplus? Did we NOT raid the CIP fund as they planned? Did they repay the advance they took on the CIP when the casino didn't open in time?

Have they thought that maybe reimbursing the $50 million or so they previously raided from the CIP might be a bigger priority to citizens than "valuing" administrators that have better pensions, vacation time, holidays and pay than they do?

This definitely earns a "stuck-on-stupid" designation!

This is insanity and just proves that no matter how much money you give to politicians, they will spend it and continue to ask for more.

Vote NO on Toledo Issue 5!

Candidacies announced

Dave Kissinger called in to WSPD this morning to announce that he is a candidate. Unfortunately, I missed the office he is seeking and, in visiting his website, Citizens 4 Kissinger, I couldn't find it. (Note to new candidates: put the office you're seeking front and center on your website or at least list it in your bio!)

UPDATE: As of 9 p.m., Kissinger's Facebook page had been updated to show he is running for State Representative in District 46. However, the link to his website that is provided on the FB page comes up with a generic GoDaddy page.



I also heard that Toledo City Councilman George Sarantou is considering whether or not to seek the position of Lucas County Recorder. The incumbent, Jeanine Perry, is retiring.

Both Wood County Commissioner Tim Brown and current Rep. Barbara Sears have officially announced their candidacies for the Ohio House of Representatives; Brown for District 3 and Sears for District 47. Their press releases are below.

From Tim Brown:

This morning I announced my candidacy for State Representative and I want to share the exciting news with you.

Next year the citizens of Wood County will elect a new voice to represent us in Ohio’s Statehouse. In such a challenging economy, I believe it is critical that we find common ground for moving Ohio’s economy forward. Job creation and fiscal responsibility are hallmarks of my work as your County Commissioner and I look forward to taking that message and record of success to Wood County’s voters and ultimately to Ohio’s Statehouse.

I believe the experience you have allowed me in serving as your Commissioner will enable me to make a difference in Columbus and I hope you will agree. Over the years I have been blessed with a solid working relationship with our courthouse elected officials, as well as our local council members, mayors, township officials, and citizens who have been willing to make suggestions and be part of our efforts to keep our county a great place to live, work, obtain an education and raise a family.

Working as a team in Wood County we have been successful in fostering job growth for our citizens. During this difficult economy, the Wood County Hospital unveiled a 42 million dollar expansion which led to the hiring of additional healthcare professionals – further diversifying our economy. CSX opened its largest intermodal rail facility in America, a 175 million dollar investment in Wood County’s economy hiring over 200 workers. First Solar completed a 135 million dollar plant expansion and hired over 100 new employees. It has been my privilege to work with each of these businesses to create new jobs for our citizens. Priority one in Columbus will be to turn around Ohio’s economy, attract new jobs and keep the lid on expensive new government, and you deserve nothing less than an EXPERIENCED voice in Columbus leading the way.

Should you have any comments or suggestions for me throughout the year, I would very much welcome the opportunity to hear from you and to have your support. Following is my home telephone number and additional ways in which you can contact me.

With sincere best wishes for the approaching Holiday Season,


Tim W. Brown
CitizensforBrown.com – web site
TimBrownWoodCo – Twitter

From Barbara Sears:

MONCLOVA, Ohio—State Representative Barbara Sears (R-Monclova Twp.) today officially announced her candidacy for state representative of the 47th House District, which will include western Lucas County and portions of Fulton County.

“I would be honored and humbled to have the opportunity to return to Columbus during the 130th General Assembly and continue my work in the People’s House,” Sears said.

A small business owner and former member of Sylvania City Council, Sears has dedicated her efforts in Columbus to making Ohio’s government more conducive to job creation and economic growth. For example, she sponsored House Bill 10 to offer a refundable tax credit for the remediation of contaminated sites and the return of such sites to productive use. She also supported the creation of the Common Sense Initiative, a small business rule review procedure intended to examine all regulations to ensure that they do not strangle business’ success.

Additionally, following the passage of Obamacare in Washington, she sponsored the Healthcare Freedom Act in the House to preserve the freedom of Ohioans to choose their health care and health care coverage. Similar language in the amendment became State Issue 3 this past November, which was a constitutional amendment supported overwhelmingly by Ohioans that prohibits certain health care mandates in Ohio.

“We certainly have accomplished a lot during this first year of the General Assembly, but there is still much more to be done,” Sears said. “Serving as state representative has been both a challenge and a blessing, and I look forward to tackling our state’s tough issues and getting us back on the right track.”

-30-

Sarantou statement on dropping election case

Press Release:

Sarantou Issues Statement on Decision to Stop Contest-of-Election

(Toledo, OH) --- George Sarantou, longtime Toledo City Councilman and candidate for Lucas County Commissioner in 2010, issued the following statement today after dismissing his Contest-of-Election challenge in Lucas County Common Pleas Court.

"Today I made the difficult but correct decision to stop my challenge to the Lucas County Commissioner election. I did so because I believe it is the right thing to do for the community and myself.

On election night, the Board of Elections announced that I led by 1376 votes. Three weeks later, after counting the provisional ballots from the election, the Board reversed those results and announced that Carol Contrada won the election by the thin margin of 193 votes.

Since that time, I have wanted to understand what happened, because the candidates, and more importantly the voters and the entire community, have the right to know how elections are handled and to be certain that the results are accurate and reliable. I asked the Board of Elections then to permit my representatives to review the provisional-ballot envelopes but was told they would not be made available. I tried other methods to find out what happened and to ensure that the provisional ballots were handled correctly, but the Board of Elections was steadfast in refusing my requests. After waiting to the last possible day, in the hope that the Board would change its mind, I filed my election contest. I said at the time, and it remains true, that I did so only because I wanted a fair and impartial review of the election, which the entire community deserves.

Even then, I had to fight the Board to gain access to the envelopes. Eventually, Judge Stacy Cook ruled that my team could see them, and we spent hundreds of hours reviewing them. We finished that work early this morning.

I have accomplished what I set out to from the beginning. I have been permitted to review the ballots. They show what I suspected --- The Board counted many ballots that should not have been counted and, in addition, there are hundreds of envelopes that did not comply with the law. We have reviewed all of the provisional envelopes, it is apparent that the system needs to be improved to ensure that provisional balloting does not undermine the integrity and reliability of our elections.

I believe in my heart that I won this election. But given the law on the subject, the only way I could show that in court would be to call individual voters to ask them how they voted, and I respect the rights of voters to vote privately, which is a hallmark of our democracy.

If I didn't choose that path, all I would accomplish by going forward would be to have the election vacated. In that event, Ms. Contrada would have been appointed County Commissioner by the Lucas County Democratic Party, because the law does not permit the Judge to order a new election.

While I think the public is entitled to know about its elections, I do not want to drag the community through a trial and contribute to the cynicism of the public about the political process, only to have that hollow result.

As I weighed my options, I concluded that the best thing for the community and me was to stop the contest.

I wish Carol Contrada the best in her role as County Commissioner, and I thank all of those who have supported me through this important process."


###

What comes after AZ immigration law for Toledo City Council?

Well, they did it. Toledo City Council decided that taking a position against Arizona's immigration law was more important than a host of other issues, including our city's high unemployment rate, looming deficits, over-spending, trash tax lawsuit, loss of population, loss of businesses, 'not-business-friendly' reputation, etc..., etc..., etc...

Thankfully, there are two sane people on council, Tom Waniewski and Rob Ludeman, who realize this is completely outside their purview as members of that body and voted no. One can only wonder what happened to the other Republican, George Sarantou, who switched his vote to yes for this particular non-binding, non-enforceable resolution.

What Arizona does on behalf of their own citizens is their own business. It should come as no surprise to regular readers of this blog that I'm a strong proponent of states' rights, including their ability to protect their residents and their residents' property. I'm also a strong proponent of the limited Constitutional authority for the federal government. I recognize and appreciate that the federal government has jurisdiction over immigration but in Arizona's case, their law complements - not contradicts - federal law (despite what others may say - read the law yourself and you'll see) and the federal government has failed to perform its duty to secure our borders. Furthermore, the federal government wants to sue Arizona when it believes their state law is contradicting a federal law, but when other cities and states contradict federal law (sanctuary cities, for instance), the federal government turns a blind eye. Hypocrisy and double standards are always a target on this blog.

But when it comes to Toledo City Council, they've opened a very wide door and I believe they will regret it.

First, let's look at council itself. Our council members are elected to represent our wishes. There is no way that they can know the wishes of the majority of Toledoans when it comes to Arizona's law. They might be able to infer our wishes based upon national polls. But if that was the case, they'd be supporting Arizona's law - not opposing it.

They might claim that, by virtue of being elected, they can substitute their own personal opinions for the opinions of the city as a whole. I might go so far as to support such a position if - and this is a big if - any one of them had run on a platform that even remotely included the issue of immigration or illegal aliens. None of them did.

So they are, in reality, substituting their own personal opinion for the will of the people since they did not take the time to survey the residents they are supposed to represent and they were not elected on a platform that included this issue.

So if they believe this type of opinionated legislation is right and proper, what else might they include? Aye, there's the rub!

These 10 members of Toledo City Council, in voting yes on the resolution, have failed to confine their actions to issues relevant only to their duties as a member of our council. As a result, they are now subject to being held accountable for positions/opinions on a host of issues.

After all, if they are going to weigh in on an Arizona law and do so under the color of their office, I want to know where they stand on all kinds of things, because it's obvious they might decide to address just about anything under the sun.

And they cannot ignore, brush aside or refuse to provide their stance on everything else by saying it's not relevant to their job. While I agree it shouldn't be relevant, they have made it so.

So here are the questions these 10 members of Toledo City Council should be required to answer:

* What is your position on Elena Kagan and do you believe someone with her activist attitude should be confirmed to the Supreme Court?
* What is your position on 'don't ask, don't tell' and do you believe it is a good policy or a bad one - and should the federal government continue it or abolish it?
* What is your position on holding terrorists at Guantanamo Bay?
* What is your position on federal funding of abortion?
* What is your position on the war in Iraq?
* What is your position on the war in Afghanistan?
* What is your position on foreign aid and do you believe the Constitution grants the federal government the authority to give it out?
* What is your position on the 17th Amendment? Would you support its repeal?
* What is your position on the 10th Amendment and what actions are you willing to take to support it?
* What is your position on 'cap-and-trade' which, as most proponents agree, will raise our energy prices?
* What is your position on regulation of the Internet?
* What is your position on federal regulation of salt and other products/ingredients that bureaucrats and politicians think are bad for us?
* What is your position on drilling for oil - in the Gulf and in Alaska - and what is your position on Pres. Obama's moratorium which was declared unconstitutional?
* What is your position on Minnesota's law banning sleeping in the nude?
* What is your position on Virgina's law that makes it illegal to tickle women?

And you may come up with some questions of your own, but the point is that we have every right - in fact, a responsibility - to determine the position of our council members on all these issues since they have proven they will pass legislation supporting or opposing anything they want.

In catering to a small group of individuals - perhaps contrary to what the majority of Toledoans want - they have subjected themselves to such scrutiny. And we ought to give it to them.

So the next time you see a member of Toledo City Council - hold them accountable!

Post-primary thoughts

I've been a bit busy the last several days and haven't had time to do a post, so my apologies to those who sent me a message asking if things were okay. Yes, they are - just busy with clients who actually pay me. :)

So our primary is over and the political parties have their representatives for the general election.

Several things stand out in this election, so let's get right to them:

Lucas County Commissioner Race:

* George Sarantou's name recognition was clearly an advantage over his two competitors for the Republican nomination for Lucas County Commissioner. I did a dawn patrol (putting out candidate signs prior to the polls opening) and saw that he had most - if not all - the polling locations covered. Dan Steingraber had signs at the polls, but George had signs at all the entrances to the locations. There is something to be said for 'local' knowledge. I did not see any Andy Glenn signs, but that could have just been a timing issue. I guess endorsements from The Blade and Joe the Plumber didn't count for much among Republican voters.

* Carol Contrada's win on the Democrat side surprised quite a few people, considering how strongly The Blade pushed Ben Krompak. Carol is well-respected and has a good reputation, even among Republicans who disagree with her philosophy of government and some of her votes. Perhaps after witnessing Ben Konop's performance in office, Democrats decided to reject a similar type of individual and go with something a bit more 'proven'? I don't know - not being a Democrat - but I expect the race between Carol and George to be less 'exciting' than one between any Republican and Krompak. I also expect the race will focus more on issues than personality and I'm curious to see how Carol will use the 'not from Toledo' advantage against George who will use the 'not a Democrat' one.

(Yes - I know ... there are many who think George is a democrat, but that doesn't mean they'll pick Carol over him....)

State Issue 1:

I'm disappointed that this passed, but not surprised. The last thing Ohio needs is more debt. But with both political parties and just about 'every one who is anyone' saying it will create jobs - what did I expect?

Tom Blumer at BizzyBlog pointed out the serious problem with the numbers being touted:

QUICK UPDATE: One hears Mr. Harris brag about fuel cells. Here’s a related PR release from a year ago –

Ohio Third Frontier has invested over $80 million in fuel cells through a variety of different programs, which has resulted in the creation or retention of 430 jobs with an average salary of $68,431. Overall, the Ohio Third Frontier has created, capitalized or attracted more than 600 companies, has created nearly 55,000 direct and indirect jobs and helped create $6.6 billion in economic impact in Ohio, a 9:1 return on investment.

Points relating to the bolded items:

* $80 mil for 430 jobs is $186,000 per job.
* This claim only works if you believe that 8,527 direct jobs magically create 46,473 more indirect jobs. C’mon. This is the same type of math abuse promoted by the Obama administration to claim mega-gazillion “created and saved” jobs in the bogus stimulus plan — and it’s only theoretically “valid” when unemployment is 7.5% or lower. In Ohio, it’s really 11.5%. This “created and saved” nonsense seems to have become so embarrassing that even Team Obama has been recently ramping back the hype.

I also couldn't stand the commercials and advertisements touting this as 'not government, but people.' Who are they kidding? It's obviously a government program if I'm voting on whether or not the state can borrow money to give to selected companies. Roland Hansen had quite a bit to say about this aspect, as well.

I even had a conversation with a friend who supported the issue because it has really 'helped' a group he belongs to. That's all well and good, but obviously you support a program that gives you money.

So many people succumb to the idea that government can create jobs. If they rightly reject that presumption, they still believe government can 'help' create jobs. But the right way to 'help' create jobs in Ohio is not to borrow money and distribute it to selected companies or specific industries. The right way is to have a business-friendly environment that makes it easy for ALL companies and industries to make money.

Thanks to Issue 1, my company - and my husband's, and my neighbor's - will be taxed (one way or the other) to repay the principle and interest on these bonds. However, because none of us are in a 'fad' field, we'll never see any of the monetary assistance that a select few will. That's NOT how you 'bring' jobs to the state.

But don't you feel good knowing you voted for "jobs"???

Issue 3 Toledo Public School Income Tax:

A bright spot on election day - the voters actually saying NO to a tax increase! Of course, TPS officials are threatening to cut things that matter most to parents (like transportation and athletics) but not even mentioning across-the-board spending cuts or cuts in salaries/wages/benefits.

I heard a news clip of Board President Bob Vasquez saying they just have to have 'new money.' Where in the world does he think the taxpayers are going to get the 'new money' to give to him? Obviously, voters 'get it.' But I expect this will be on the ballot again with a larger push for passage. And Toledoans have a habit of finally giving in when it comes to taxes (remember COSI that took three times on the ballot to get passed?).

Issue 5 Toledo re-allocation of the 3/4% Payroll Income Tax:

Like many others, I strongly objected to giving Toledo Council and the Administration the ability to divert money from the Capital Improvement Fund to the General Fund if they 'need' it. To me, this was short-sighted and only serves to allow them to continue spending money they really don't have.

Additionally, I despised the fact that I have to pay more in a Trash Tax to support unsustainable expenditures by the city.

Adding insult to injury was the fact that the concessions given up by the unions earlier this year are going to be 'returned' now that the measure has passed. So the unionized employees of the city won't be paying their full employee portion of their pensions and most will pay nothing at all, with us picking up both the city's portion and theirs!

But I'm paying a 750% increase per month in a trash tax so they can have this unsustainable (there's that word, again) perk.

I do believe, however, that many voters who said yes to this might be inclined to give Mayor Mike Bell the benefit of the doubt on this measure. He's said it's temporary and he's known to be a man of his word. Even though Toledoans have a serious problem with the definition of 'temporary' when it comes to taxes, they may have decided to give Bell this time to work on the overall city budget without having to scramble for millions at the last minute.

We shall see...

Friday Round-Up 4-23-10

There are just too many issues I'd like to blog about and not enough time in the day, so here's a round-up:

* George Sarantou, a sitting Toledo city councilman and candidate for Lucas County commissioner, is urging people to approve Issue 5 on the May ballot which would divert monies from our Capital Improvement Fund to the General Fund. Oh - and he's a registered Republican.

Sarantou has been chairman of council Finance Committee for quite a while now, during which time the city has had increasing yearly deficits. He says that allowing the money to be diverted from our long-term needs like roads and major improvements, will allow the city to reduce the new trash tax of $15 that he supported. Yes - he voted to increase our taxes.

However, approval of Issue 5 will only reduce the new tax to $8.50 per month for people who recycle. However, that's still an increase over the $1 per month we're currently paying. So he's supporting a tax increase. And, he supporting diverting money into the general fund because they (the city council) is still spending more money than they take in! It's just a shell game, moving money around because they will not do what is necessary to bring spending in line.

* Exigent Circumstances. It's a term Toledoans have learned over the last several months. Having the city declare 'exigent circumstances' allows it to impose cuts in wages/benefits/pension contributions outside of the collective bargaining process. City Council voted in favor of exigent circumstances and set some criteria for those cuts.

Since then, several of the city unions have agreed to voluntary concessions, though some of those concessions are only for the remainder of the year and some of them will be restored if Issue 5, discussed above, is passed by voters.

It appears that 'exigent circumstances' was a very clever bargaining tool to get the unions back to the table and agree to cuts. However, now that these unions have done so (only the police unions - patrolmen and command officers - have voted down the proposals), the exigent circumstances have been removed and the new agreements approved by council.

The problem is that the financial deficits of the city have not be fully addressed. We have unsustainable obligations and not enough money and many of those obligations will be back up to the high levels as of January 1, 2011. This is part of the reason Sarantou and other members of council want to take money out of the CIP budget...

If exigent circumstances was used only as a negotiating tool, it cannot be used again. The unions have now seen that card played and will not make the same mistake in 2011. If, however, Mayor Mike Bell uses the rest of the year to truly bring the contracts into line with available funding, it will have been a card well-played.

We'll see what happens between now and December 31.

* There's something wrong with the people supporting Ohio's state Issue 1. The proponent radio ads are promoting this as 'people' and not 'government.' However, this is a government program, so I guess perhaps I'm just too logical to 'get it.'

Issue 1 would allow the state to issue bonds - read: borrow money - to offer to businesses for certain types of 'economic development.' The borrowed money has to be repaid, including interest. This means that the state's general fund dollars - our tax dollars - must be used at some point in time to make those payments. While this may not be a 'new' tax, it is still a program that relies upon limited and declining tax dollars to fund it.

It also means that government - whether by an appointed board or by elected officials - will determine who gets the money from the account. Government will be picking winners and losers in terms of the funding. This is not the role of government.

Instead of taxing Ohioans to pay for borrowing and interest in order to give money to selected organizations or companies, why not just lower the overall tax rate so everyone benefits? That would certainly do more to promote economic growth and jobs than anything else. And it wouldn't put government in the position of deciding who gets to succeed thanks to help from the government - and who doesn't.

Even in you believe Issue 1 is a good idea that should be supported, you must agree that commercials saying it's people and not government doing this are wrong and intentionally contradictory to the truth.

Clarification

Yesterday, I wrote a post, The questionable value of a Blade endorsement, about the paper's endorsements of Ben Krompak and Dan Steingraber for the Lucas County Commissioner race.

I thought my point was clear: that the Blade has an agenda that does not represent the best interests of Republicans and conservatives (the two are NOT the same) so any endorsement they make in a primary contest is questionable.

But Dan wrote me a very angry email today, obviously misinterpreting that point. Since I didn't want any further misunderstandings, we talked over the phone. The first thing I did was remind him that no one, and especially not a candidate, should send an email written in anger. :)

Dan's interpretation was that I was trying to hurt him and his campaign with my comments. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I said in the original post, and still abide by:

I believe Steingraber is a solid fiscal conservative, a good businessman and I'm glad to have him as a choice on my own Republican ballot.

Dan believes the endorsement can be a good thing for his campaign. As I wrote yesterday:

There may be a way for Steingraber to turn the Blade endorsement into a positive. This morning on the radio he expressed hope that it might help his name recognition.

As I explained, the endorsement could increase name recognition, but there is no way to know if that is in a positive or negative way. I don't know of anyone who would recommend that Dan use the endorsement in his mailings to Republicans as they, based upon their history with the paper's philosophy, would be as likely to do the exact opposite of whatever the editorial board recommended.

But Dan is hopeful that he can use the endorsement in a positive way to help his campaign. That is certainly the approach he should take and I hope he will be successful, but it's an uphill battle and he should be prepared for that.

Dan also thought I was saying he could not win in November if he wins the primary. He thought I was trying to discourage people from supporting him because of this fact. Here's what I said:

So I have to ask myself: if Steingraber were to win the nomination, would he be able to beat Krompak, especially in light of the fact that Steinngraber's support from The Blade will certainly evaporate as they promote their chosen one?

Sadly for Dan, I believe the answer is no - but not for lack of effort on his part. Krompak will have The Blade, unions, and the infrastructure of the Democratic Party. The Republican candidate will have ... well, whatever they, themselves, bring to the table personally.

What I should have said was that, right now, I don't think any of the three Republicans in the primary can win against Krompak - for the same reasons. Krompak will have The Blade, unions and the infrastructure of the Democratic Party and the Republican candidate will have ... well, whatever they, themselves, bring to the table personally.

In order to actually win this race, the Republican will have to raise and spend a significant amount of money in advertisements, direct mail, radio and TV. That's what the Democrat will do and to be competitive, the Republican will have to match and/or exceed those efforts. Raising that type of money is always difficult for Republicans, and even more so in this economy.

The state party will look at the demographics, at the previous votes and polling and won't step in with cash unless the race is so highly competitive that their influx will actually result in securing the win. Of course, that's if they have any money left over after supporting the state-wide candidates.

So I apologize to Dan for singling him out and not elaborating that my opinion on that issue would apply equally to the other two Republican candidates as well.

Dan believes he's the best candidate. And rightly he should. His primary opponents also believe that of themselves. No one should run for office if they don't believe they are the best choice.

A Blade endorsement is always a double-edged sword. If Dan can turn that endorsement to his advantage, all the more power to him.

The questionable value of a Blade endorsement

Like many conservatives in the area, I distrust the editorial endorsements of The Blade - especially when made for partisan primary elections.

Yes, I've been the recipient of general election endorsements, but I always considered them a double-edged sword.

It used to be said that a Blade endorsement was worth about 20,000 votes - but the joke was that you never knew if those votes were for you or against you.

Last year, they did not endorse for the primary or even the general election for Toledo mayor. And they don't always endorse for partisan primaries, though they have decided to do so for this year's Lucas County Commissioner race.

Their support of Ben Krompak for the Democrat ballot certainly comes as no surprise. He is very similar in philosophy and perspective to previous Blade favorites, Toledo Councilman Joe McNamara and current Commissioner Ben Konop. In fact, about the only difference between Krompak and Konop (even their initials are the same - LOL) that I've seen in Krompak's press releases and public statements is the level of maturity he exhibits.

But from a philosophical standpoint, Krompak's positions are so similar to what we've had for a series of elections that I expect no improvement in the region should he be elected. Oh, certainly, there will be new programs and ideas, but so far they've all revolved around government doing more - not less. And we need less government - and less costly government - always, but especially in these economic times.

When it comes to the Republican endorsements, I'm also not surprised at their support of Dan Steingraber.

Please don't misunderstand my statements which follow. I believe Steingraber is a solid fiscal conservative, a good businessman and I'm glad to have him as a choice on my own Republican ballot. He's certainly not disappointed me like fellow candidate Toledo Councilman George Sarantou has when it comes to votes on increasing government and raising taxes.

But as a Republican who will be casting a vote for one of the three candidates (the third being Springfield Township Trustee Andy Glenn) for this position on May 4th, the Blade's endorsement is not reassuring. In fact, several calls to WSPD this morning reflected a similar sentiment, though Steingraber did call in to say he was rather surprised by the editorial.

My experience in this area has led me to the conclusion that The Blade does not have the best interests of the Lucas County Republican Party - and Republicans in general - at heart. Their continuing support of Jon Stainbrook as chairman is all the proof one needs, considering that Stainbrook spends more time suing and attacking Republicans than he does the negative liberal policies of the majority Democrats in office - or even Democrats in general.

So why would the editorial board take a position on this race?

Some might speculate that they hope these two candidates will produce enough differences in positions to help the sales of the paper over the coverage of the race. That may be partly true, but declining revenue and subscriptions will never be overcome by coverage of a particular race for a single office.

Believing that the paper does not have our best interests in mind, I believe they picked the individual who has the least chance of beating Krompak, their 'chosen' candidate. I believe they want Krompak to win, so they're supporting the individual who provides the least challenge in that regard.

This is not to denigrate Steingraber or his abilities. This is just a practical look at what it takes to wage and win a race for Commissioner. Having done just that, I know first-hand the amount of money that will need to be raised, the contacts one needs to have and the organization that is necessary to be successful - not to mention the additional challenge of overcoming his opponents name recognition among Republicans.

While I don't dismiss the fact that Steingraber may be able to develop those aspects for his campaign, the other two candidates have them already, which puts them ahead in the 'ability to win' column. And I do not expect the local Republican Party to be a factor in providing such support and infrastructure.

Given equal values and positions (which is not the case for this race), the ability to win often becomes the deciding factor when voting in a primary. So I have to ask myself: if Steingraber were to win the nomination, would he be able to beat Krompak, especially in light of the fact that Steinngraber's support from The Blade will certainly evaporate as they promote their chosen one?

Sadly for Dan, I believe the answer is no - but not for lack of effort on his part. Krompak will have The Blade, unions, and the infrastructure of the Democratic Party. The Republican candidate will have ... well, whatever they, themselves, bring to the table personally.

There may be a way for Steingraber to turn the Blade endorsement into a positive. This morning on the radio he expressed hope that it might help his name recognition. That could be the case, but as in the joke above, there's no way to know if it does so in a positive or negative way.

*** Please also read the clarification I wrote on this article following a conversation with Dan Steingraber. ***

Toledo balances its budget

Yes, the City of Toledo has a balanced budget - but at what cost?

I'm not talking about the additional tax people who live in the city but work elsewhere now have to pay...nor the $15 trash tax every home has to pay.

I'm talking about the subsequent costs everyone will incur as a result of the government taking more of our money than they did in the past.

While some will say that $15 a month in a trash tax isn't that much, to many it's a lot! The cries of "it's only...." ring hollow when you realize that you can't go to your boss and say, "Hey, the city just raised my taxes so I need another $180 a year in pay." You'll likely get some comment about being grateful you even have a job! Especially in Toledo!

So what will happen? Well, I can tell you that in our house, we'll have to cut out something we're currently purchasing in order to cover this new tax. So what will it be?

Well, we stopped going to movies quite some time ago because of the cost. There are only a couple of movies in the past several years that we've decided need to be seen on a big screen (Lord of the Rings, 2012 and Harry Potter) rather than wait for them to come out on video. So we've rented videos for about $3 each. But no more. We won't rent - and pay tax! - on five videos a month in order to cover the trash tax. If a lot of people make this decision, will that mean financial difficulties for the store and it's employees?

Or, perhaps we won't go to our favorite Chinese buffet over on Alexis. Carryout for lunch for two is about $15. People have already cut down on eating out. Will others make a similar decision and be the 'final straw' that closes this eatery?

Or maybe we won't pay the enterprising teens who come by and offer to shovel our driveway. Too bad, young entrepreneurs, but we've got a new tax to pay and the money doesn't grow on trees.

And if you're one of those live-in-Toledo-work-elsewhere people, the cuts in spending you'll have to make to cover your tax is much more severe. So sorry that Toledo politicians see you as a source of revenue and not as an equal member of the community.

These are the costs. These are the 'prices' the community pays when government decides it needs our money more than we do.

And shame on Toledo City Council for:

1) not recognizing or not caring about the negative impact of their decision, and

2) spending more than they had over the last several years and putting us into this situation in the first place.

Toledo has Issue 5 on the ballot which would allow these same politicians to divert money from the Capital Improvements (CIP) budget into the General Fund so they can continue to spend money like they have in the past.

We need to defeat Issue 5, just like we did the similar measure last November. These idiots have got to learn to live within their means just like the rest of us.

And we need to stop rewarding them for their fiscally irresponsible behavior by not 'promoting' them to other elective office (Joe McNamara and George Sarantou) and then not re-electing them to council anymore.

(I've exempted Tom Waniewski, who is running for state Senate, from that statement because he has consistently voted against the spending and the taxes.)

We cannot keep doing the same things, electing the same philosophies, and expect different results. Politicians don't bring change - only we can do that!

Sarantou to run for commissioner - again

NewsTalk 1370 WSPD is reporting that Toledo City Councilman George Sarantou has announced his intentions to run, again, for Lucas County Commissioner. Sarantou lost to Ben Konop when he last sought this office in 2006.

According to the news broadcast, Sarantou is touting his financial background as an asset to the county and as a reason to elect him.

Of course, this flies in the face of reason.

You see, through all the recent financial issues the City of Toledo has faced, George has been chairman of council's Finance Committee. With Toledo facing huge budget deficits over the last several years, while George chaired the committee, and now facing a $48 million deficit for 2010, you'd think George would realize the irony of promoting his 'financial expertise.'

This is not to say that he isn't a good financial advisor. I have no idea about his work skills. I only reference his failure as the finance committee chairman and wonder how in the world he thinks that can be any sort of positive for his campaign against Konop (or whoever wins the Democrat primary for the position Konop now holds).

Maybe he's counting on the disillusionment of the voters who chose Konop over him last time. Konop certainly hasn't given them any reason to stay loyal. But George has failed to distinguish himself during that time frame as well.

Of course, neither Sarantou nor Konop may make it through the primary. Area voters seem to be in a 'throw the bums out' mood and both men may qualify as 'bums' in that respect.

But there is always The Blade to consider. Like it or not, they still buy ink by the barrel and have been very supportive of all of Konop's antics - providing plenty of slanted coverage for his ideas while rarely (if ever) covering the failure of many of them. Rumor has it that the Republican and Democratic Party Chairmen were told by the publisher not to run anyone against Konop. I'll emphasize that this is a rumor, but certainly a believable one considering the perception many people have of the publisher and his penchant for wanting to direct elections in Lucas County.

What this all means, though, is that we'll have an interesting time leading up to the May primary and then the November election.

Stay tuned!

'Not business friendly' Post #18 - raising Toledo's payroll income tax

It's been a while since I dedicated a post to the 'not business friendly' category but the latest from the Toledo Mayor's office certainly qualifies.

Toledo is facing a huge budget deficit. The amount seems to vary daily ($38-44 million), but let's just pick an even number in the middle and call it $40 million.

The reason we have a deficit is because the city spends more than it takes in. (DUH!) They blame revenues that didn't meet projections. I blame the individuals who projected revenues greater than were logical.

One of the biggest culprits in the mess is income tax collections - the payroll tax deducted from the paychecks of all Toledo residents (regardless of what city they work in) and all Toledo workers (regardless of where they live) - which are down significantly.

The solution being presented? Raise the payroll tax!

No, I'm not kidding! They have a decrease in both the number of people paying and in the amount collected from those who still are...and they want more! As if a temporary influx from raising the tax will somehow magically solve all the underlying problems that resulted in the decreased collections in the first place.

This is insanity! I can't say it any clearer.

If a company can give their employees an instant increase in pay by moving out of the City of Toledo, why wouldn't they consider it? If companies know that their employee compensation will be attacked by the local government, why would they want to come here?

On a national level, most people think the reason for deficits is because politicians spend too much - not that taxes aren't high enough. I'd wager that sentiment applies to local governments as well!

It's the tax-hiking, 'we've-cut-everywhere-we-can-there's-no-where-left-to-cut' type of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. And the solution coming from Mayor Mike Bell's 'Citizens Special Investigation' task force is just more of the same - raise taxes. That's not 'out of the box' as the Mayor requested.

Oh, to be sure, the types of taxation they're suggesting (entertainment taxes) are a bit new - but they're still higher taxes. It's just more of the same failed philosophy that promotes the idea of government needing your money more than you do - and that's what got us into this mess in the first place.

But that's not the worst of it. Oh no!

The worst part is the hypocrisy of the elected officials when it comes to citizens paying more.

As a commissioner, I voted once to increase the amount of the dog license fee. The Dog Warden's operation was supposed to be self-sufficient and instead had been relying upon transfers from the County's general fund for meeting their budget. We had the department do some cuts and voted, 2-1, to raise the fee for the first time in years. Comm. Tina Skeldon-Wozniak voted against this saying that too many seniors relied upon dogs as companions in their old age and they might not be able to afford the extra $5 a year. But then Tina voted IN FAVOR of a new property tax that would have cost those very same seniors more than $5 a year!

It's contradictory - I know. But it's what passes for 'logic' in Toledo and Lucas County.

Why is this relevant? Because the same thing is going to happen in Toledo City Council.

Mayor Bell has drafted legislation to put an increase in the payroll income tax on the May ballot. It needs to be voted on by Council at their next meeting on Feb. 16th if it's going to make the May primary. The proposal is a 'temporary' increase of a quarter of a percent, raising the tax from the current 2.25% to 2.5%.

They say 'temporary' as they project it will expire in 2012. However, there is already .75% of the payroll tax that has been 'temporary' since the early 1980s...so much for the definition of 'temporary' in Toledo.

I have no doubt that a majority of council members will vote to put this on the ballot if it is presented to them. That's much easier than facing special interest groups packing council chambers to lobby for programs other than their own to be cut. They'll all get up and say how their program must continue and council should cut 'elsewhere.' But those groups are never asked by council what they'd do without in order to keep their funding...and if someone should challenge those groups on that point, their usual retort is 'that's council's job' to decide.

Which is why council will vote to increase taxes rather than upset all those special interests. Besides, they think they need your money more than you do. And they're hypocrites when it comes to your money.

Tuesday, council passed (with District 5 Councilman Tom Waniewski (R) as the sole 'no' vote) a resolution opposing two bills in the Ohio legislature. Amended Sub. Senate Bill 162 and House Bill 276 would allow phone companies in Ohio to raise monthly rates by $1.25 every year. Council suspended the rules requiring two readings of items before council and voted immediately - because they just couldn't wait to oppose what Columbus was considering.

In support of the resolution, At-Large Councilman George Sarantou (R) said the bills were "bad news for residential phone users." He said seniors and others who might not have any other type of phone service would be "severely affected" and that the bills were "absolutely very harmful."

Now, they're talking about $1.25 a month as being too much for Toledoans to be able to handle. Their resolution even states:

WHEREAS, historically, Toledo and Northwest Ohio residents have paid some of the highest utility costs in the state of Ohio and are challenged daily with uncertain economic conditions...(emphasis added)

But these same council members are going to ask for more money from you for THEIR purposes.

If you make $10 an hour and work a 40-hour week, you'll be paying $1 more per week if they raise the payroll tax.

They're going to tell Columbus not to pass an increase of $1.25 per month on to Toledo residents, but they're going to tell voters to pass an increase of $4 per month on those same individuals?

Can you say 'stuck on stupid'???

And they do this kind of crap all the time - telling others not to take pennies out of your right pocket while they take dollars out of your left.

Now, don't get me wrong. There may be other aspects of the phone bill legislation that would generate opposition, but the major selling point being used by the politicians is the monthly increase. They look like idiots when they, in effect, say that others can't rake your earnings over the coals - only they can.

They'll hide behind the whole 'I didn't raise the rate - voters did.' What a cop-out!

I'll predict right now that most, if not all, members of council will urge people to vote for the tax increase if it's on the ballot. You won't see them going out and telling people to vote no - that's for sure!

If they truly believe that Toledoans are having enough economic issues, they wouldn't even ask for the support of the voters. They'd just vote no to putting the measure on the ballot and begin the difficult job of reducing the size of Toledo's government.

But don't hold your breath.

The sad part of all this is that I doubt anyone is going to hold these council members accountable for their contradiction in saying $1.25 a month to the phone companies is too much but (an estimated) $4 a month to the city coffers is just fine.

And they wonder why we have declining numbers of businesses, declining population, the highest unemployment of all the urban areas in the state, record foreclosures, record bankruptcies, record numbers of people on public assistance, etc... etc... etc...

This is why. And both politicians and voters have refused to admit that the same failed philosophy of government that got us into the mess is not going to get us out.

No thanks, Toledo City Council - I can make up my own mind on Issue 3

As an elected official, I tried not to use my elected position in support of or against specific ballot measures.

As a commissioner, part of my job was to vote on placing levies on the ballot. While there were times I voted in favor of the public having their say on existing measures, many times I voted against attempts to tax the people further.

But when it came to state issues or non-county-wide levies or even votes on precinct liquor sales, I advocated against the Board of County Commissioners taking a position - as a body. I certainly had my personal opinions, as did my fellow commissioners, but I did not support passing resolutions urging people to vote one way or another.

Unfortunately, Toledo City Council does not share that view. Outside of ballot measures within their control (like the 3/4% payroll tax), they routinely weigh in on all sorts of issues whether Toledoans want them to or not.

This week, they held a Committee of the Whole meeting to hear from proponents and opponents of Issue 3 (starting at page 12 of the link) - the constitutional amendment to allow casino gambling in certain cities in Ohio. Lisa Renee at Glass City Jungle has a comprehensive post detailing the discussion at the meeting if you'd like more information on the measure.

But Issue 3 is not the point of this post. I don't mind that City Council held a committee hearing on the subject, but I do object to the elitism on display at council that makes these elected individuals believe they need to tell people how to vote.

From The Blade news story:

During the face-off yesterday, Councilmen Lindsay Webb and Betty Shultz both said they would support a resolution urging passage of Issue 3.

"I think this issue is of serious consequence for our community, and it is right for City Council to express itself on this issue," Ms. Webb said. "I think this is an issue we can't sidestep and be neutral on."

If Lindsay feels this way, she is certainly capable of holding a press conference to express her personal support for the issue. I'm certain the proponents would LOVE to show up for that and help publicize her personal opinion on the measure. And expressing a personal opinion would allow her to not 'sidestep and be neutral' on the matter.

But there is no need for Toledo City Council - as a body - to take any action whatsoever. The position of members of council on this issue is not indicative of the position of the city. That can only be determined by the actual vote in November.

Also from the paper:

Councilman George Sarantou - a strong Issue 3 supporter - raised the point of how elected officials would explain to their constituents why they would turn their backs on a potential windfall from casino gambling when several neighboring states have legalized casinos.

Actually, George, we're more interested in how you turned your back on the taxpayers by supporting an increased tax for garbage pickup.

We're also wondering why, as chairman of the finance committee, you've not done more to challenge the budget assumptions of the mayor - assumptions which continually prove wrong.

Or to use historical data to challenge the estimates.

Or to seriously question huge increases in certain line items without explanation - like for red-light cameras.

Or why the city increases revenue line items by a set percentage despite logic telling you that a $10 fee which nets $400 in income is not going to generate $12 more simply because the budget says so.

Or why city council continues to spend money it does not have on amenities while pushing necessities aside.

By the way - how much did this 'hearing' cost us when we have a budget deficit still unaddressed???

These are the things your constituents want explained.

Besides, we already know the penchant of Toledo City Council to grasp at any potential income, so the inevitable support of potential income from Issue 3 is a no-brainer to us.

The idea that city council members are somehow more knowledgeable about what is good or bad for the city is something only council members seem to accept. As members of council, these fellow citizens are supposed to representatives for us, though lately they're more like dictators than employees.

The assumption that the body of council needs to tell us how to vote on an issue is highly presumptuous. What council should remember is that the voters they believe need to be told how to vote on Issue 3 are the same ones who were capable of casting a vote for them.

(Side note: some would say that's proof, in and of itself, that said voters need to be told how to vote, considering that the voters continue to elect the same people over and over again despite the definition of stupidity.)

But if you 'trust' the voters to select you as their representative on council, you should also 'trust' them enough to make a decision about ballot issues without the council dictating what that decision should be.

Go ahead, if you want, and express your own opinion. But stop using the authority and stature of the Council to tell us what you think is good or bad for us. We already have enough of that coming from Washington - we don't need it from Government Center as well.

No increase in trash tax

Yes, I still call it a trash tax because that's exactly what it is. It is a 'fee' that is supposedly charged to 'encourage us to recycle' and penalize us if we don't. However, it's collected and deposited into the general fund of the City of Toledo and goes to pay for the daily operations of the city - not exclusively to fund the garbage service.

And there is still a lawsuit over this very issue, which makes for interesting reading. The city claimed it wasn't a tax and it was implemented properly, but when the suit asked for class-action status, the city claimed it was a tax so class-action wasn't allowable.

I know - but this is Toledo.

An increase in the tax has been on the table for a while now, pushed by Mayor Carty Finkbeiner as a way to balance the budget which is still facing an $8 million deficit.

According to the ordinance that was on council's agenda last night:

City Council enacted Ordinance No. 91-08 amending the refuse collection fees for three years beginning May 1, 2008. The legislation provided for yearly decreases in the rates paid by citizens who committed to recycling to encourage an increased level of recycling in the city. In May 2009, the recycling rate dropped to $1.00 per month and beginning in May 2010, the rate will be $0.00. Recycling levels have now increased to fifty percent and continue to rise due to greater environmental awareness and the pilot automation project that has been rolled out in parts of the city. For these reasons, there is no longer a need to reduce the rates to encourage recycling. In addition, it is necessary to provide an increase in both the non-recycling and the recycling rates to recover a greater percentage of refuse and recycling collection costs. This ordinance amends the current monthly refuse collection fees from $8.50 non-recycling and $1.00 recycling to $10.00 non-recycling and $7.00 recycling and authorizes the establishment of a recycling rewards program to begin January 1, 2010 with the new automated refuse collection system.

How convenient for the city that they no longer need to encourage recycling because of the participation. But isn't that always the case with these types of programs? They implement a 'revenue source' based upon penalizing a type of behavior. Then, when the behavior modifies and the revenue declines, they need to expand to meet the budgeted amounts. They do this with red-light and speed cameras and now with the trash tax. The real solution, however, is for the city to reduce spending and live within their (actually OUR) means - not forever attempt to increase the means, but that's another matter entirely.

Of course, this proposal would have really stuck it to the people who recycle. As I've previously pointed out, passage of this ordinance would have meant an 18% fee increase for people who don't recycle, but a 600% increase for those who do. It was the equivalent of a 3.91 mill levy, more than we pay in total for the two permanent improvement levies for Toledo Public Schools - or about what we pay for the Port Authority levy, 911 levy, Senior Services levy, MetroParks land levy, and the COSI levy COMBINED.

It also would have included some sort of bribe in the form of 'coupons' for local businesses - as if that would somehow make $120 per year more palatable. Yeah - right!

Council President Joe McNamara wanted to delay the vote on this issue because Councilman Frank Szollosi was not present. Thankfully, Councilman D. Michael Collins (also a candidate for mayor) objected and called for the vote.

Tom Waniewski, Lindsay Webb, Mike Ashford, Collins, Mike Craig and Betty Shultz voted no. Wilma Brown, Phil Copeland, McNamara, George Sarantou and Steve Steel voted yes.

So the ordinance failed.

Surprisingly, Republican George Sarantou who is also up for election this year, voted yes to raise 'taxes' on Toledoans. Webb, who made a campaign promise not to vote to increase the fees, has consistently voted against such proposals and should be commended for keeping her promise to her district.

The still unanswered question, however, revolves around the lawsuit. If Karen Shanahan and her attorneys prevail and this becomes a class-action, and the city then loses the case, the monies collected may have to be returned, in addition to eliminating that source of revenue to the city. As far as I can tell, no one in the administration nor on council has addressed what happens then.

But not to worry...I'm sure they'll come up with some other 'revenue enhancement' scheme if that's the case.

Finkbeiner proposes to raise taxes to balance the budget

Yesterday, Mayor Carty Finkbeiner made several suggestions to balance the city's budget.

I must admit to being confused about just how much is needed because the numbers coming from the administration change each time someone references the deficit. Last week, city council was told they needed another $8.1 million for 2008 - after closing out some Capital Improvement Projects to cover an $8 million hole.

Today, the mayor's power point presentation said $2 million was needed to close out 2008, but, despite having passed a balance 2009 budget, there is projected to be an $11-12 million hole yet this year.

According to today's paper,

Even though Mr. Finkbeiner proclaimed the city's budget as balanced, his plan only partially addresses an $8.1 million shortfall from 2008. Under the plan, the city will close the books on last year with about a $1.7 million deficit, which is in violation of the law.

I guess the 'bottom' line is that council still needs to find about $14 million in cuts between last year and this year.

So one of the ways Carty plans to cover that hole is by changing the way Toledo's payroll income tax is charged.

How it works:
The current rate of payroll income tax is 2-1/4%. A Toledoan who earns $50,000 owes the city $1,125 per year. Toledo has reciprocity on income taxes with surrounding communities.

If you live in Toledo, but work in another city, Toledo has allowed you to deduct whatever you pay in payroll tax to that other city from what you owe Toledo.

For instance, if you work in Maumee, you'd be paying them $750, so the only amount you would owe Toledo is $375 ($1,125 minus the $750). Under Carty's plan, you'd only be able to get credit for half the $750, so you'd now owe Toledo $750 ($1,125 minus $375).

If you work in Oregon, which has the same income tax rate as Toledo, you'd be paying them $1,125 and nothing to Toledo. Under Carty's plan, you'd get credit for half of that amount, which means you'd pay Oregon $1,125 and Toledo $750.

This is a tax increase for every person who decided to stay in Toledo even though they work in another city. Carty said this will raise $5.2 million per year.

I think it will make people want to move out of Toledo.

But that's not the only change he's suggesting.

On May 1, the garbage tax for people who recycle was supposed to go down from the $2 we're currently paying to the new rate of $1. He has proposed keeping the rate at $2 which will 'save' $175,000. Of course, it 'costs' citizens the same amount, but Carty seems to have a disconnect between the needs of the city versus the needs of the citizens.

A new fee he wants to create is a charge for Fire Department response to fires. He says that most insurance companies have a cost recovery provision of between $500 and $1,000. He plans to bill you and get that reimbursement from your insurance - the same way they bill for emergency response to a car accident.

Again, there is a disconnect. I think the mayor sees this as 'free' money to the city, failing to recognize that such public policies just end up raising the insurance rates of everyone in the area.

Carty does suggest some cost cutting: savings from the on-going contract negotiations with police unions, removing one fire engine from service, some layoffs for AFSCME Local 2058 - the supervisory union, going to four 9-hour work days for all exempt employees, automating garbage pickup.

But most of these cuts are across-the-board types of things. He has not, as far as I can ascertain, gone through an overall evaluation of current city services in order to eliminate the ones that are not mandated in the charter. According to the budget passed by council for 2009, we still have a youth commission, which might be nice, but is certainly not necessary.

So, the approach is to raise taxes. From all components of the plan he presented, the most money is generated by the change in income taxes - $5.2 million. Even Republican Councilman George Sarantou, who admitted the change may make some people want to leave Toledo, said he believes people realize the city's need for the funds. He has previously bragged about how much they've cut out of the budget over the past several years.

And Carty said the same thing during his presentation. One power point slide claimed:

"Over the past two years this administration has cut $25 million from the budget. This combined with the estimated $14 million we are cutting today equals $39 million, which is 15.6% of the total general fund budget."

Now, I didn't think this seemed accurate, so I used the link on the left to view the city's budget. Here's what I found for the General Fund expenditures:

2006: $234,312,215.50 (actual spent)
2007: $242,752,864.71 (actual spent)
2008: $254,098,779.08 (estimated - still don't have final numbers)
2009: $249,369,853.02 (approved by council)

According to these figures, spending from the General Fund has increased - not been reduced. I can only surmise that the 'cuts' being referred to aren't really cuts in spending, but 'cuts' in the amount of increase - kind of what Washington does...

Now, there is a decrease of $4,728,926.06 between 2008 and 2009 - and the mayor did propose more cuts totaling $10.3 million. It would be fair to say that if the mayor's cuts are approved, combined with the approved budget, there is a $15 million cut between last year and this year, if last year's spending was close to what was estimated.

But that's not $25 million over the last two years.

Regardless, the problem continues to be spending. The solution isn't to 'inflate revenue assumptions' or raise fees. The solution is to cut the budget of unnecessary expenditures, eliminate departments, boards and commissions that cost money but have no real purpose or enforcement, and develop a business-friendly environment by not taking over private business functions that, despite claims, really don't generate revenue.

Are you really a Republican if you support tax funded universal health insurance?

Last night, this resolution was passed unanimously at the Toledo City Council meeting:

RES. 256-08

Recognizing Cover The Uninsured Week 2008.

WHEREAS, Cover The Uninsured Week 2008 will be April 27- May 3, 2008; and

WHEREAS, 1.3 million Ohioans, including 43,700 adults and 6,200 children in Lucas County do not have health care coverage; and

WHEREAS, eight of 10 people who are uninsured are in working families and Ohio no longer offers medical assistance to low-income non-elderly adults without children at home, unless they are totally and severely disabled; and

WHEREAS, viable solutions to these problems are within our reach; and

WHEREAS, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and Medicaid are successful programs that provide cost-effective coverage that saves both lives and taxpayer dollars through preventative care and early treatment; and

WHEREAS, insured children are twice as likely as uninsured children to get the medical care they need, when they need it; and

WHEREAS, as costs continue to rise, Ohio’s individuals, working families, and small businesses need help paying for coverage; and

WHEREAS, Ohio is poised to make historic progress in children’s health coverage through expansions passed in the FY2008-2009 budget; and

WHEREAS, Ohio’s leaders are on the verge of taking meaningful action to find common ground between providers, consumers, businesses, and insurers to create a sustainable plan that will assure affordable, accessible, high quality coverage to hundreds of thousands of Ohioans; NOW, THEREFORE,

Be it resolved by the Council of the City of Toledo:

SECTION 1. That Toledo City Council urges Governor Strickland and Ohio’s legislative and administrative leadership to take all necessary steps to reach affordable, accessible, and adequate health coverage for all Ohioans, and hereby declare April 27-May 3, 2008 as COVER THE UNINSURED WEEK in TOLEDO, OHIO.

SECTION 2. That this Resolution shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed by law.

Such a resolution isn't unusual in the liberal/Democrat-dominated Toledo City Council, but what is unusual is that this resolution passed with the support of the three Republicans.

I have no idea why Republicans would vote to urge state government to provide health insurance, considering that a core Republican principle is LESS government involvement in our daily lives, not to mention the idea of LESS taxation...

What's more puzzling is the lack of discussion about this 'whereas': "...the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and Medicaid are successful programs that provide cost-effective coverage that saves both lives and taxpayer dollars..."

Taxpayers would save MORE if these programs didn't exist, but I guess that's beside the point.

And how anyone can claim that these bloated bureaucracies, which are about to go bankrupt, are 'successful programs' is just beyond my (apparently) limited understanding.

Perhaps our GOP representatives will say that they voted to name the week - a meaningless action in which all governmental bodies partake (and I've done so myself when a County Commissioner). But if they were just voting to name it "covered the uninsured week," they could have asked for the policy issues to be excluded from the resolution. That's what I've done.

As it stands now, George Sarantou, Betty Shultz, and Tom Waniewski are on the record as supporting state-provided (read taxpayer funded) universal health insurance coverage. It's no wonder many Republicans believe they have no representation on Toledo City Council.