Toledo politicians: pandering to the old while sticking it to the rest of us

It's election season and some candidates are falling all over themselves trying to promise things to others - with our tax money, that is, not their own.

The latest is the proposal to allow seniors a discount on water, sewer and trash tax bills simply because they're older. Of course, they're more likely to vote, so this is not a surprise.

Mayoral candidates and current council members Joe McNamara and D. Michael Collins are claiming to be upset that the state of Ohio just passed a law in their two-year budget bill that restores income means testing for the Homestead Exemption on property taxes.

In the past, homeowners over 65 years of age received a discount on their property taxes if they had low incomes. Gov. Ted Strickland changed that during his term and made it all seniors, regardless of income. Now, as part of the tax reforms just passed, it's back to a means-tested formula and only those making less than $30,000 a year are eligible. They would get a $25,000 reduction of the property value when computing their taxes.

But the city's discounts for water, sewer and trash are based upon eligibility for the Homestead Exemption, so with that changing, clearly Toledo must change its laws as well in order to pander to seniors - right?

But why only for seniors?

If water, sewer and trash tax rates are too high for seniors, aren't they too high for everyone?

And if we're going to perform means testing, why not do so in general? What difference does it make if you're 25, 35, 45, 55 or 65 if you're making less than $30,000???

According to City-Data, the median income in Toledo in 2009 was $32,325. That's down from the 2000 level of $32,546.

This means that half the people in the city make more than $32,325 and half make less.

Obviously, if we offered a discount to people making less than $30,000 about half the city would end up paying less and that certainly won't work when the city is telling us they need even more to repair our aging infrastructure and just recently voted to raise the rates we all pay.

Of course, if half of Toledo pays less, the other half has to pay more - just to even things out.

So how will the city afford these discounts?

Who know? Who cares? But doesn't it sound great on the campaign trail?

Quotes of the day - liberty vs. safety and the presumption of being right

It's a beautiful day and I decided to stop working and enjoy it. You may not have that option, but I hope you'll have time before or after your work to enjoy the delightful sun and weather.

So here are two quotes to tide you over until tomorrow when I ask, "Why does The Blade and Joe McNamara only want McNamara and Anita Lopez in a debate, excluding all the other Toledo mayoral candidates?"

"I cannot accept, your canon that we are to judge pope and king unlike other men, with a favorable presumption that they do no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way against holders of power ... Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." ~ Lord Acton, [John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton] (1834-1902), First Baron Acton of Aldenham to the bishop of London in 1887

"Shame on the men who can court exemption from present trouble and expense at the price of their own posterity's liberty!" ~ Samuel Adams

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 Council President: Business and profits don't lead to jobs

Toledo Mayor Mike Bell gave the state of the city address yesterday and announced that he intends to seek re-election. The local paper sought comments regarding the speech, including from Bell's detractors and potential opponents.

It was the usual criticisms along political lines, until you get to Joe McNamara, current president of the Toledo City Council.

In a single quote McNamara reveals such complete lack of understanding of the marketplace and economics that you're left wondering if the quote is, indeed, an actual quote.

But this is Toledo - bastion of liberal illogical philosophy which is part of the reason people refer to us as 'little Detroit,' as it certainly seems many of our Democrat politicians are leading us down the same path as our bankrupt neighbor to the north.

According to The Blade (emphasis added):

Mr. McNamara, a possible Democratic candidate for mayor, said Mr. Bell’s state of the city was “a really bad speech.”

“It wasn’t focused on the lives of people in Toledo,” Mr. McNamara said. “We have an 8.2 percent unemployment rate and the economic development focus should be on people and jobs, but this mayor talked about business and profits. Business and profits are great, [but] it doesn’t lead to jobs for the people who live here. That is what’s important.”

Business and profits are great but they don't lead to jobs...

Yep, definitely a starred item in the "not business friendly" category while also earning 'stuck on stupid' designation.

How, exactly, does McNamara think jobs come about?

Obviously, not from the money companies make when people purchase their product at a price greater than expenses. No, companies whose products are in demand don't use those profits to hire more people to produce even more products for people to buy. And they don't use the profits to hire people to help create new or improved products.

They must just sit on the profits - greedy, evil business owners that they are.

Business owners want to deal with people who understand their situation. This doesn't mean you have to have owned or run a business, but it sure does help when the people making the rules, imposing the taxes, setting the fees and issuing the regulations have an accurate understanding of the impact of those decisions on the people who do, in fact, create the jobs so desperately desired.

Companies are not going to want to even talk to a mayor who believes such rubbish as 'business and profit don't create jobs.'

With thinking like this, sadly not isolated to McNamara, it's no wonder businesses and population are fleeing the city.

Local union head wants to 'de-nut' Toledo city councilman

Yes, it's true - but that's not all. Let's throw in some tarring and feathering as well!

Dennis Duffey, former head of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 8 and currently secretary-treasurer of the Ohio State Building and Construction Trades Council, isn't happy with Toledo city council president Joe McNamara.

"Whether he should be removed, tarred and feathered, or de-nutted, it don’t [expletive deleted] matter, something ought to happen to him,” Duffey told The Blade.

Tarring and feathering is brutal - the subject is stripped to his waist; hot tar is poured or painted on the body; then the victim is rolled around in a pile of feathers or has feathers thrown on him. The subject is then paraded around town on a cart or wooden rail. The purpose of this savage attack is to inflict enough pain and/or humiliation to either force conformity or get the individual to leave the town.

De-nutting is even worse.

So much for dispelling the union thuggery myth.

What could have a prominent Democrat, union leader and former appointee to the Lucas County Port Authority suggesting such violence again another Democrat?

They are supporting two different people to fill a vacancy on the council. Duffey, along with the local Democratic Party, has endorsed Shaun Enright, a staff organizer for the IBEW. McNamara is supporting former Mayor Jack Ford for the position because, as McNamara explained, Ford is black:

"I think it's unjust if we would not have an at-large African-American on council when we have the most qualified person possible," Mr. McNamara said, referring to Mr. Ford.

But what about women? Women are 52% of the city's population so shouldn't we have more than just two district reps on the body? Where is the concern about appointing a woman to an at-large seat?

It's sort of fitting that a political party so wrapped up in special interest identities ends up fighting over how to split the spoils among those special interests.

Not that a city council seat is properly considered 'spoils' - but in Toledo it is.

The two candidates for the vacant seat aren't exactly the cream of the crop. Enright has a police record and Ford has bounced from office to office, including a lamentable time as mayor, only to be beaten by Carty Finkbeiner (his predecessor). People joke that Toledo picked crazy, then lazy, then crazy again before settling on current mayor and beloved Fire Chief, Mike Bell.

Ford also has health issues. In 2007, he was named to a vacancy on the Toledo School Board, but in 2011 was hospitalized for weeks and missed months of school board meetings. At that time, it was reported he was undergoing dialysis and was hoping to make a kidney transplant list.

There has been no public discussion about his current state of health nor its impact on his ability to serve on council.

If the local Republican Party endorsed anyone for the position, their website doesn't say. A Republican member of council did take out an ad to solicit applications for the vacancy and more than 28 letters of interest, including from an, attorney, police officer, former radio news reporter and several entrepreneurs. There's even a management consultant, Richard Parish, who has an MBA with extensive experience in non-profits and private industry as well as finance. Shouldn't a man like that someone we would all want on city council?

None of them are even being considered, much less discussed, as possible replacements.

The worst part about all this is that Toledo City Council is a non-partisan office and filling any vacancy on the body is left up to the remaining members.

But the city charter (re-written by several Democrats and adopted by Toledoans in 1993) provides no process for the selection of the replacement.

There are no requirements for advertising the vacancy, no method for soliciting applicants, no interview process candidates must go through. Council just names the individual. And since there are a majority of Democrats on council, naturally it should be the local Democratic Party that decides this for everyone.

Until upshots like McNamara and Michael Craig (who defeated Enright in the last election) start thinking they can think on their own. Then they have to be brought back into line, resulting in a union head wanting to tar and feather or de-nut one of them.

Why just McNamara? Because he sits on the executive committee of the Lucas County Democratic Party and, as the article explains, those individuals take an oath to support the party and its endorsed candidates. As Duffy told the paper:

He said if Mr. McNamara is being forced to choose between the obligations of being a public official or a member of the Democratic Party’s executive committee “he should quit one of them.”

While The Blade treats this as just another day in Toledo politics - and it pretty much is - there is a bigger issue of loyalty. Do we elect city council members to be loyal to the Democratic Party (or Republican Party, for that matter), or to the voters, residents and citizens of the city?

And when there is conflict between the two, what does the politician do?

They *should* err on the side of Toledoans, but in this city, they usually tow the party line because the Democrat Party controls virtually everything - and unions control the party.

Since McNamara wants to be mayor, he'll need the union support - and the party's support - if he wants to get elected. As a Democrat, that is.

Meanwhile, 67% of Toledoans - those who aren't registered Democrats - are left wondering who represents them. No wonder people are fleeing this town.

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!

Mayor, council, city officials to campaign door-to-door for 3/4% payroll tax

Press Release:

Mayor, Council, City Administrators go door to door to remind citizens of 3/4% renewal importance

Mayor Mike Bell, City Council President Joe McNamara, Council Members and City Administrators will go door to door at 10 a.m. on Saturday, March 3, 2012 to remind citizens of the vital importance of renewing the city's ¾% income tax. It appears as Issue 1 on the March 6th primary ballot. The group will meet at Rick’s City Diner and will then go door to door in the Old Orchard area.

Toledo’s 3/4% income tax expires in December 2012 and will provide $51 million in revenue to the general fund this year. The issue was first passed in 1982 and has been renewed consistently by the community to support core city services.



What: Mayor, Council and city administrators go door to door for ¾%

When: Saturday, March 3, 2012, 10 a.m.

Where: Meeting at Rick’s City Diner, 2633 W. Bancroft, and proceeding to the Old Orchard neighborhood

Contact: To catch up with the Mayor or Council Members as they go door to door contact Jen Sorgenfrei at 419-467-1876

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!

Getting the wrong message

I was listening to the newscast this morning on WSPD and heard a sound clip of Toledo City Council President Joe McNamara talking about his recent election and his current 'exploratory' committee for the Ohio Senate seat being vacated by Theresa Fedor due to term limits.

In the sound bite, he touts his first-place finish in November for the at-large council seats. He was saying that people liked the work he was doing on so council so much that they put him in the number one position.

That is a logical assumption, but he then takes it to an illogical conclusion by saying that he should (perhaps), as a result, run for a different office.

Yes, that's right. His (il)logic is that people are so pleased with what he's done on council that he should leave that position - the one he's just been re-elected (but not yet sworn in) to.

I think he got the wrong message. Or maybe, he got the right message, but has decided to spin it to meet his own agenda.

The problem is, if he decides to run for Ohio Senate (and I believe he will - I don't think he can resist), he'll get a lot of support - and he may actually win. And that will just reinforce the illogical conclusions, causing more politicians to get the wrong message.

Groceries for garbage-or let me bribe you into liking higher taxes

The City of Toledo has, for about a year now, been considering Mayor Carty Finkbeiner's request to increase the trash tax (recycling fee as they like to call it, as if that name makes it sounds better). Under the proposal, people who don't recycle with their garbage will be charged $10/month and those who do recycle will be charged $7/month.

Currently, those who don't recycle are charged $8.50, so the increase is 18%. If you are already 'helping the city save the planet and their landfill,' you're paying $1/month, so your increase is 600%. So why are the people who've been supportive of recycling being penalized by a larger increase than those who don't bother to sort out their paper, plastic and cans?

But here's something to think about when they tell you 'it's only...'

At $10 per month, that's $120 per year - the equivalent of a 3.91 mill levy. At $7 per month, it's $84 per year - the equivalent of of 2.74 mill levy.

(A 1-mill levy raises about $30.62 per year when applied to a home valued at $100,000. Of course, as this is not a percentage but a flat fee, the costs are disproportionally higher for lower valued properties.)

That's 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.

If the City of Toledo asked you to approve a 2- or 3-mill levy, how would you vote? But if they call it a refuse fee (even though it is clearly a general revenue tax) and add it to your water bill, perhaps you don't realize just how much of a tax it really is.

And now, to further obfuscate what's really going on, they want to bribe you with coupons.

You see, if you're getting coupons, you won't mind the tax.

Councilmen Joe McNamara and Steven Steel think offering coupons makes the tax 'more palatable' because the coupons are worth more than the increase. And then it's an 'incentive' ... but I thought the lower tax if you recycled was the incentive. And I'll tell you, $1/month versus $8.50/month is a nice 'incentive.'

Under the program offered by RecycleBank, you get points based upon the weight of the amount of recyclables (currently 2.5 points for each pound collected) which can be redeemed when you order rewards.

From their website:

"We track this weight with the help of a Radio Frequency IDentification (RFID) chip embedded into your family’s recycling cart. This RFID chip is connected to your individual account identification code.

Each week, when your recycling is collected, these “smart carts” complete with a chip are scanned and weighed right at your curb. The system records the weight, converts it to points, and credits that amount directly to your account. You can then redeem those points for discounts and rewards at hundreds of participating businesses."

RecycleBank gives some examples of the coupons: $2 off a purchase of $5 or more at one vendor or '1 free YoBaby Organic Yogurt' at another. A search of reward partners in multiple Toledo zip codes showed only three vendors: Golden Chopstick, Half Price Books and Olga's Kitchen.

Now, it's likely that if RecycleBank got the contract with the city, they'd find more reward partners in the area, but how many of them would you actually use?

And are coupons - which you can get in any number of locations from papers to internet - enough to get you to overlook the severity of the tax increase? Remember, this is the equivalent of a 2- or 3-mill levy!

But wait, there's more!

You don't have to wait for the city in order to participate in RecycleBank. You can create an account and start earning points right away! I did so, in order to get a better idea of exactly how the program works. They asked me all kinds of routine questions (name, address, phone, email) which I answered, and other details (like the number of people in my home, and whether or not I have kids or grandkids) which I didn't.

Upon registering, I earned 40 points - so I immediately went to the 'rewards' to see what I might be able to get:

* for 1225 points, I could get $10 off at AMC Entertainment (I'd have to generate 490 pounds of trash to accumulate that many points)
* for 100 points, I could get $10 off a purchase of $30 or more at Bed Bath & Beyond
* for 30 points, I could get $2 off any non-lip item from Burt's Bees (but those were temporarily out of stock)
* for 100 points, I could get $1 off any 1 package of Capri Sun
* for 40 points, I could get $4 off $20 purchase at CVS/pharmacy
* for 75 points, I could buy 2 get 2 cans of Mighty Dog (if I had a dog)
* for 70 points, I could get $7 off a $70 online purchase at Target.com

By far the most options for use of the points were to make donations to charitable organizations.

This is not a good deal. It would take most people 'tons' of garbage to earn the points to offset the increased tax.

AND IF I CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE CITY, HOW DO THE COUPONS MAKE THE TAX INCREASE 'MORE PALATABLE'??????

Now, this doesn't even get to the point that the trash tax isn't even for the garbage collection - it's going directly into the general fund to be used to offset the general expenses of the city.

Of course, there's been no discussion of the lawsuit filed over this 'fee' either. What happens if the city loses the lawsuit and has to stop collecting the tax, or if they are ordered to return what they collected from all the people who have protested the issue? Then what?

City council members don't want you to think about those things. They'd rather distract you with the promise of coupons...

We're not that dumb.

Toledo to repeal convenience store licensing law

Kudos to the Midwest Retailers Association (MWRA) on their huge win in the settlement of their lawsuit against the City of Toledo over the convenience store licensing law!

In 2007, the city passed an ordinance which required a 'license' to operate a convenience store - on top of all other licensing already required for such an operation. Included in the 'not business friendly' provisions were requirements to clean up debris and litter on other people's property as well as the threat that the license would be revoked if illegal activities happened upon the store grounds, regardless of the owners' efforts to stop them.

Fortunately, many of the store owners got together, hired an attorney and sued the city over the constitutionality of the law. They also filed an emergency request for an injunction to stop the implementation of the law, which was granted.

The city did repeal that version of the law and implement a new one - which was immediately challenged in court as an amended complaint as well. But not before the federal judge awarded MWRA $29,999.00 in attorneys fees for the first portion of the case (which was paid in March, 2009).

Since that time, the two parties have been in negotiations over a settlement. Council President Joe McNamara issued a press release explaining some of the terms of the settlement:

The proposed settlement agreement, which would need to be approved by Council, repeals the licensing ordinance. In exchange, the Midwest Retailers Association agrees to do the following:

* Adopt a code of ethical business practices for its member that includes:

1. banning the sale of items commonly used as drug paraphernalia,
2. establishing a zero-tolerance loitering policy
3. keeping stores clean and well-maintained
4. not generating any undue noise
5. selling healthy items like milk, fruit and vegetables

* Encourage store representatives to attend Block Watch meetings

* Develop a plan for a coordinated security patrol of member stores consisting of off-duty and laid-off police officers

* Meet quarterly with representatives of the Community Development Corporation alliance to review the relationship between the stores and their neighborhoods.

* Waive any additional attorney fee or damage awards.

So the store owners will do what they probably would have done in the first place if just asked and the city repeals the law, which never should have been implemented to begin with. The city also gets out of paying any more attorney fees.

But the city is still out more than $30,000 with the payment of the first set of fees and the amount of time, effort, energy and wages spent on defending this case in court over the last two years, not to mention the negative publicity over the law and the 'not business friendly' message it sent to current and potential businesses within the city limits.

I still have a problem, though, with the city's dereliction of duty when it comes to safety. The agreement requires that the stores "develop a plan for a coordinated security patrol of member stores consisting of off-duty and laid-off police officers."

First of all, why must it be off-duty or laid-off police officers? Many companies use private security personnel for such purposes, so this can only be construed as the unnecessary interference of the city in operational aspects of a private business. Or perhaps this has more to do with helping the police unions and/or covering the city because they've so overspent in almost every other area that they had to lay off police. Regardless, this is wrong and I wish the settlement would have contained more generic language to be able to give the store owners as much flexibility as possible.

Secondly, this particular requirement is a bad precedent for the city to set. The reason this is needed - and the reason 'community development groups' and politicians wanted the law in the first place - is because of a lack of enforcement of existing laws. The original problem wasn't the stores, but the illegal activities that police were unable to address, either because of lack of numbers or low priority.

Rather than address the lack of policing, politicians did what they normally do - created a new problem in an attempt to 'solve' an old one, enacting a law for every single store of this type, despite the fact that only some of the stores were having a problem. What they should have done was increase the enforcement in and around those particular problem areas - but they didn't.

Now, the solution is not for the city to assume its chartered responsibility, but for store owners to pay additionally for that same service. And if the city can do it with one, it can do it will all.

Considering everything, this may be a win-win for the parties: the store owners get the law repealed and the city doesn't have to pay anything more in attorney fees.

However, there are other 'costs' to this settlement:

* the enforcement of the anti-business reputation of the city;
* the perspective that if business owners don't do what politicians want, laws will be passed to force compliance - also know as extortion, especially with the threat of reintroducing the law;
* the precedent of making certain businesses pay extra for police protection which should be a service available to all; and
* the negative message that if some members of a group (convenience store owners) are acting in a way that some do not like, all will be punished.

...and those 'costs' will be felt for years to come.

It's a tax, no matter what Toledo City Council calls it

Today at the agenda meeting for Toledo City Council, they will again discuss Fire Department billing of citizens.

I've been listening to WSPD this morning and the comments that were made by Council President Mark Sobczak - and I can only wonder if he's actually read the ordinance.

The first thing he said is that this is a 'soft billing' only - they will bill the insurance companies and if they insurance company doesn't pay, nothing more will happen. Here's the text of the ordinance:

If it can be reliably determined that there is no insurance coverage for a particular emergency incident which causes the Toledo Fire Department to use, or incur loss, damage, and wear and tear to apparatus, tools, equipment, and materials; the City may recover any such fees from the person or entity that received said emergency services or the person or entity responsible for the debts and obligations of the person or entity that received such emergency services.

and this:

Recipients of the services of the Toledo Fire Department shall be invoiced directly under the terms of this ordinance if they do not carry insurance sufficient to cover the impact to the City of Toledo’s loss of capital or material.

Granted, it does say 'may' in one section and 'shall' in the other ... but if the city has no intention of billing individuals, the ordinance should clearly say so. In this case, it says that if your insurance isn't sufficient to cover the bill, recipients "shall be invoiced directly." That's not soft billing. And even if Council believes what they're saying about soft billing, we've had way too many instances in the past of such 'intentions' going by the wayside when the city wants more money.

Then there is the claim that since citizens have this coverage as part of their basic insurance policy, this won't really cost them anything. Do they not understand that the cost of fire insurance for all people/companies will go up over time if this is passed?

There is a cost for insurance, even if you never have a need, because actuarial tables which determine those costs are based upon many factors in your area or similar demographics. Either the members of council who believe this are completely and totally ignorant and shouldn't then be trusted with making such decisions on council, or they are intentionally distorting the issue in order to make it seem 'okay.'

Sobczak also says that the city needs more money. Well, so do I. Unlike the city, I don't have the ability to arbitrarily increase my income. And every time the city decides to impose such costs on me, I have to cut out something in order to be able to afford them because, unlike the city, I anticipate and plan for future costs I may have to pay.

Sobczak then throws in the gratuitous, but ever-popular, leftist misdirection by saying that those of us who actually read the ordinance are just trying to throw a bunch of misinformation out there because we've got an interest in protecting 'big insurance.'

Yeah - right.

I'm far more interested in protecting myself than I am my insurance company. And acting in my own self-interest, I've actually read the ordinance and found that it's going to cost me a lot of money - either through a direct billing if I have a need for such services or through increased insurance rates if the legislation is actually passed.

That Sobczak - and most of the other members of council - don't understand this is no surprise. They've never had to run a business or actually make a profit, so they do not comprehend of unintended consequences of such decisions. They also don't seem to understand that every policy and decision has a cost - and often, the cost is greater than the claimed 'benefit.'

In this case, the city may - I repeat - may realize $500,000 of revenue from this tax. But how much will they lose in the long term when citizens and businesses leave the area or avoid coming here because these 'costs of living' and tax structures/rates are so high? We know this is already occurring, considering the decline in Toledo's population and the consistently high unemployment rates (higher than other urban areas in the state for the last 20 years or so) ... which is part of what put the city in the mess in the first place. How much worse will the financial situation get and will the further erosion of the tax base be more detrimental than the $500,000 they hope to raise? Undoubtedly.

Councilman Joe McNamara, in several emails to constituents, has said that the city's income isn't what it used to be and there is 12% unemployment and loss of population. So, he reasons (though not logically) the city needs to tax the people who are still here, even though he just stated that many of those people have lost their jobs. Can you say 'stuck on stupid'?

And while City Council is considering raising this tax on people, they are NOT moving forward with the privatization of garbage collection. Despite having an arbitration decision earlier this month stating that it will NOT violate the city's contract with Teamsters Local 20 if the city subcontracts for garbage collection, no ordinance to do so has yet been submitted to members of council, despite the claimed $3 million of savings each year. But Council did vote to expend over $9 million to purchase new cans for everyone (which they will somehow bill us for in the future - the cost and the interest, that is) despite not knowing how, exactly, they would pay for the cans.

And just last week Mayor Carty Finkbeiner found that the city could save another $500,000 by combining city garages. This was a new idea to save money and it was welcomed by the citizens, though it raised a serious question. The Mayor and City Council have previously said they've cut everywhere they possibly can and there are no other areas of savings in the city. Then they announce this 'savings,' completely destroying any credibility these politicians had left when it comes to Toledo's budget.

So if the city can come up with this new cost savings plan - and I'm glad they did - what else might they be able to do that they haven't yet 'discovered'? And why aren't they all going over the city with a fine-toothed comb before considering increased taxation on the citizens? Well, that's the question of the day.

Then there is the side issue of just how callous the city is being in sending a bill for engines, gloves, boots and 'do not cross tape' to people who have just lost everything they have in a fire. Aren't these Democrat members of Council supposed to be the party of compassion?

The fire tax failed last time by a vote of 6-4. It is scheduled for either first reading or a vote on May 26th. District 6 Councilwoman Lindsay Webb asked for a public hearing on the matter the last time it was up for consideration, but didn't have the support of her fellow members of council.

You need to act - or we'll all be faced with more government taxation.

Mayor Carty Finkbeiner: 419-245-1001
mayor.toledo@toledo.oh.gov

Toledo City Council: 419-245-1050

Michael.ashford@toledo.oh.gov

Phillip.copeland@toledo.oh.gov

Joe.mcnamara@toledo.oh.gov

George.sarantou@toledo.oh.gov

Betty.shultz@toledo.oh.gov

Mark.sobczak@toledo.oh.gov

Frank.szollosi@toledo.oh.gov

Wilma.brown@toledo.oh.gov

Mike.craig@toledo.oh.gov

Dmichael.collins@toledo.oh.gov

Tom.waniewski@toledo.oh.gov

Lindsay.webb@toledo.oh.gov

And if you don't live in Toledo, this still impacts you. This billing is for any person or entity that receives services, including people who are travelling through the city, so those of you who come into our fair city have every right to express you opinion, too.

Scare tactics and deflecting blame for city's budget woes

It was bound to happen - Toledo administrators telling us that they may have to cut police and fire in order to balance the budget.

It's not that we want to, but we have to consider it, we're told.

Of course - doom and gloom, fear and scare tactics. Layoffs of personnel across the board instead of elimination of departments and functions that are unnecessary. If we don't threaten police and fire, we won't get the public's support for whatever taxes we may choose to raise...blah, blah, blah.

But here's the scariest part of the commentary on the additional $8.1 million budget deficit (on top of the $8 million they already addressed) from Bob Reinbolt, Mayor Carty Finkbeiner's chief of staff:

"He said the city's $6.4 million rainy-day fund would be applied to the 2008 deficit. Because $2 million of that was earmarked for the 2009 general-fund budget, the 2009 plan would need to be revised with more cuts, inflated revenue assumptions, or anticipated savings.

But even using the entire rainy-day fund would leave the city's 2008 budget $1.7 million in the red."(emphasis added)

I cannot believe they would even consider such a scheme, especially in times of increased unemployment, people leaving the city and business closings. What they're saying is that they may arbitrarily decide to just raise the estimated revenue in order to present a budget that is 'balanced' on paper.

Isn't that part of what got us into our current mess? I raised numerous challenges to the 2008 revenue estimates during the town hall meeting in my district, but despite a promise to 'get back to me,' none of my questions were answered. By June, revenue numbers were less than projected and it was evident the total budgeted income would never be achieved. Now we find our 2008 deficit is, currently, $16.1 million - with not enough reserves to fill the hole.

Similar questions have already been raised about the 2009 projected income - and the logic being considered by the people who lead this city is to just up those projections????

All that will do is put us in a worse condition at the end of this year, postponing the day of reckoning.

Toledo Councilman Joe McNamara is "shocked" over the lack of information to council. Well, I'm not on council and I could tell from the finance reports (public records distributed to council members in advance of finance committee meetings) that things were dire - all the way back in June. I also questioned why council would pass a 2009 budget without having the final numbers for 2008. Apparently, McNamara is a little slow on the uptake:

"Toledo Councilman Joe McNamara said it was deplorable that the mayor had kept council out of the loop. "I am utterly shocked the deficit is as bad as it is because this is something the administration should have told council as soon as they knew," he said. "It's a real crisis and … council should not have heard about it for the first time at a public meeting, and it would have perhaps affected some of the decisions made in the 2009 budget.""

Ya think?

To make matters worse, McNamara tries even harder to blame the mayor for his own lack of attention to the fiscal condition of the city:

"Mr. McNamara added, "It was unconscionable for the administration to allow council to pass the 2009 budget if they knew the 2008 deficit was so high.""

For the record, the administration doesn't 'allow' council to do anything when it comes to passage of legislation - but good try at deflecting blame, Joe.

Council must accept their responsibility in this fiscal debacle and they must be adamant in cutting spending - not by trying to placate everyone with across the board cuts, but by establishing priorities for mandated functions and eliminating non-mandated departments and tasks. I've talked with union leaders who say they're willing to make concessions because they understand the financial situation - but they have a hard time doing so when they see frivolous spending in other areas.

Carty could send a strong statement to everyone if he reduced his own office staff. Since 1993 when we had a city manager form of government, over 20 administrative staff have been added to the payroll. I cannot believe we need that many more people just because we switched to a strong-mayor form of government. Carty criticized 'patronage' hiring when he ran against former mayor Jack Ford. He should reduce his own staff and lead by example. If nothing else, it's a good start for finally bringing the city's expenditures in line with its actual (not hoped-for) revenue.

Twisted logic from Toledo politicians

Democratic mayoral candidate Keith Wilkowski has announced that, if elected, he will build a solar field on the old Dura Landfill. Today we learn that Toledo City Council doesn't want to wait for the election before getting started.

Councilman Joe McNamara will present legislation at next Tuesday's council meeting to allocate $200,000 from the city's 2009 Capital Improvements Fund for design and engineering services to make the site 'shovel ready.'

I've already talked about this plan from a 'role of government' perspective, and my position hasn't changed in that regard.

But today's paper has this quote from McNamara that just defies logic:

"He said the city has done nothing to invest in its solar-panel manufacturing companies, yet Toledo claims to be the solar capital of the world."

On September 21, 2008, Wilkowski said:

"I've said for years that we have to stop being just a cheerleader for solar energy and we have to start doing things to actually move that market forward."

So - just to understand. Toledo and Northwest Ohio are already being recognized as a solar hub. We're developing a reputation as a leader in this industry because of the work that the private sector is doing. Our local companies like First Solar and Xunlight are growing - and the city hasn't done anything????

How can this be? How can an industry grow without government? How can we get this far without the city being involved?

It's simple - the companies in this industry are doing what they need to do in order to grow themselves and they haven't needed the city to step in. I'm certain that if they needed a road for better access or if they requested some tax incentives for equipment or new hires, we'd support them - just as we do any other company that makes a similar request.

It is illogical to think that since we've gotten this far without involvement by city government we must now inject city government into the process. In fact, the proper conclusion would be that if we've gotten this far with Toledo doing 'something,' nothing needs to be done by the city.

And the proof of this is in other solar arrays being built on landfills. Most of those projects are being done by private companies which have purchased/leased/been given the landfills, built the structures and paid for the arrays and connection to the power grid.

If it's being done by the private sector in places like North Carolina and Florida, why does the taxpayer have to foot the bill in Toledo? And who do you think would do a better job of evaluating the return on investment of such a project: the city or a private company? Furthermore, if a private company isn't interested in expending the funds to build a solar field on our landfill, why would Toledo do so?

Here's an alternative idea. If you insist on using the Dura Landfill for a solar field, offer it free (or at a low enough price to make it attractive) to a private solar developer and see how many companies would agree to build a field and keep the profits. That is the way to create jobs - with a private company - not by spending limited public capital improvement dollars to 'enhance our reputation' or to be able to say 'me too!'

'Not business friendly' post #16 - I told you so

How I wish I were wrong...but I did tell you this was going to be a problem.

Today the Lucas County Commissioners hold the first of two hearings (at 2 p.m. in the Commissioner hearing room on the first floor of Government Center) on the proposal to increase the Lucas County Conveyance Fee from $3 to $4.

The conveyance fee is a tax for transferring any property within the County. The fee is charged per $1,000 value of the home, so a $100,000 house would have a fee of $300 or, if the increase is approved, $400.

The claimed purpose of this increase is to fund the Lucas County Improvement Corporation, as recommended by a 'task force' the Commissioners put together to address many of the issues that were arising and the criticism from Comm. Ben Konop.

Comm. Pete Gerken supports the idea, but Comm. Tina Skeldon Wozniak has been non-committal in her public comments. Comm. Konop opposes the tax, saying we don't need another tax in the county, but his main objection is not the tax, rather the intended use. He wants to destroy the LCIC and failure of a source of funding would help. Interestingly, he was much more receptive to the idea of using the tax for a housing fund, as suggested by Toledo Councilman Joe McNamara.

The LCIC was re-created in 2005 following the election of Pete Gerken as a commissioner. Originally - and prior to being sworn in as a commissioner - he met with current Comm. Wozniak and then Toledo Mayor Jack Ford to discuss merging the county and city economic development efforts. Unfortunately, when he shared with me this idea, I had to inform him that such a merger was not allowed under Ohio law.

Plan B was to take the existing LCIC and reorganize it into a different type of entity, including designating it as the county's economic development agency and expanding its staff. Gerken's thought was that the new LCIC would somehow get the proceeds of the Port Authority tax levy, in light of the separation of the Regional Growth Partnership (which had been funded with those dollars) from the Port Authority and its re-establishment as a completely privately-funded, business-led economic development agency.

My objections to Gerken's plan was that it created a large bureaucracy, put all the power in the hands of the elected Mayor and the majority of the Commissions (as they got to make appointments), and had no source of funding to meet the increased budget costs that would result from the re-organization.

As I said at the time, the devil is in the details - in this case, the details on how the entity was to be funded. But that didn't dissuade Gerken and Wozniak who went ahead anyway with new offices, new staff and additional costs.

Now, especially with the financial situation in the county, they don't have the funds necessary for the organization to continue in its present form.

Enter a new tax - the conveyance fee increase.

At the time, I told them that the only way they could generate the amount of money necessary to support the structure they were proposing was to spend county dollars for the expansion - or to raise a tax due to the dwindling amount of available funds within the county's general fund.

The Commissioners, in setting up a 'task force' to 'examine' the issue and 'make recommendations' have a degree of deniability when it comes to this new tax - they think. However, we all know that the responsibility falls firmly at the feet of Pete Gerken and Tina Skeldon Wozniak for refusing to address this issue BEFORE going ahead with the new structure.

Please don't get me wrong - I support the idea of the LCIC and believe it has been highly successful in getting all the jurisdictions in Lucas County working together. That's a major accomplishment. But it could have had that success without the internal structure Gerken created - and it wouldn't now need a new tax to support it - if anyone would have heeded my questions and concerns at the time.

Now we are faced with a dilemma - how to fund the organization that is an established and important part of the economic development tools we offer in Lucas County. The way to attract people and businesses to this area is NOT to make them pay more in taxes for the privilege of coming here or growing here. That point seems to be missed by many who hold elective office in the County and City offices.

Strange that no one is talking about how the size of the organization can be reduced, or how it can work with some of the other economic development entities to reduce its costs of operations - or even if it can perform some of the public sector activities under the original structure before Gerken redesigned it in his own image.

No, such ideas are never discussed or considered - especially by the creators of the problem.

This tax is not business friendly. And it's a bit contradictory that the Commissioners have a Foreclosure Task Force to help people avoid foreclosures on their homes at the same time they're seriously considering raising the cost of actually selling that home. And then there are the housing fund advocates who have, for years, wanted that tax for themselves, saying that the money spent in the county on economic development is enough while the money spent on housing isn't and needs have permanent local funding.

So all the housing fund people are in favor of raising the tax with the caveat that they get some of it. Of course, all the people in favor of raising the tax are the recipients/beneficiaries of the tax - imagine that!

The Toledo Board of Realtors has announced their opposition to the tax, for the reasons stated here - it's just one more nail in the coffin of the county, making one more excuse for someone to go elsewhere.

Personally, I think the Commissioners deserve the struggle they're facing - I told them this would be the outcome, though I hate that I was right.

ASIDE: This is the same warning I issued over the new arena being built - the funding stream was not sufficient to meet the projected costs. The Commissioners recently passed a resolution pledging to cover any shortfall between funding stream and costs, pledging the taxing authority of the Lucas County to the purpose. I'd like to be wrong on that prediction, but I'm not hopeful.

And one final thought: if the Commissioners were really as interested in economic development as they say they are, why did they allow increased tax levies, including a new tax for COSI, to go on the ballot??? Inquiring minds...

'You make me sick,' councilman tells business owner

Yes, it's true, but probably only in Toledo.

At-large Councilman Joe McNamara held a press conference yesterday in front of a gas station to criticize local carry-outs that sell miscellaneous items that some people use as drug paraphernalia. He claimed the stores were selling crack pipes and that new regulations are needed to prevent sales to kids.

According to this news report, McNamara got emotional when the owner stated he wasn't breaking the law by selling such items.

"You better stop selling crack pipes … next to kids," Mr. McNamara said. "You make me sick!"

Note that McNamara does not want to outlaw the sale of the items he claims can be used for drugs, nor is he calling for increased enforcement of the existing laws relating to illegal drug usage. No, he wants to regulate the business.

It will come as no surprise to you, I'm sure, that McNamara has gone after other such items - like plastic storage bags - for the same reason. Or that Toledo's land contract regulations were also sponsored by McNamara.

What do these things have in common - besides the obvious, that is?
They're all part of the recommendations from Toledo's Housing Task Force.

This group is dominated by neighborhood groups, city of Toledo administrators and even the spouse of sitting County Commissioner (which explains her strong support of the recommendations). While the chairman of the group is a builder and there are two banks represented, the remaining members have their own agendas when it comes to what they think is best for a neighborhood, and none of those include free-market principles. The group also includes individuals known to affiliate with more government regulation, rather than more freedom.

Here are some of the recommendations they make:

Objectives
1-A Promote use of available incentives for market-rate and affordable housing to local and regional housing developers.
1-B Provide a more effective enforcement tool to ensure that rental properties are brought up to code by strengthening TMC Section 1763 by adding substantial civil fines: $250 for 1st offense, $500 for 2nd offense & $1,000 for 3rd offense.
1-C Provide a more effective enforcement tool to ensure that properties being sold through land contract be brought up to
code, including substantial civil fines: $250 for 1st offense, $500 for 2nd offense & $1,000 for 3rd offense.
1-D Inventory and secure vacant properties by drafting and passing an ordinance that requires registering vacant properties and that they be secured to specific standards.

Sound familiar? They should - the city has either implemented or is considering implementing these ideas.

Sadly, their recommendations aren't just about improving the housing stock in Toledo, they also include social engineering:

1-I Work with the Toledo Housing Fund in their efforts to secure adequate funds that are non-federal, dedicated, and ongoing for market rate rehab and new construction within the City of Toledo and to disperse low and moderate-income households outside of Toledo.

The Toledo Housing Fund is just another bureaucracy used to funnel dollars - and now they are recommending that Toledo export it's failed policies. For a Toledo task force to meddle in the affairs of other jurisdictions by telling them what type of housing they should provide is unacceptable. But then, the idea that white people are fleeing Toledo to avoid being near African-American neighborhoods is routinely promoted by many within our community, including former mayor Jack Ford. And others have expounded that the only way to address such 'inequities' is to insist that low-income housing be imposed upon those other jurisdictions.

This group also wants to continue the failed policies that got us into our current housing mess:

Objectives
2-A Assist low or moderate income households become first-time buyers by reducing the amount of cash needed at closing in down payment assistance or to assist CDC’s in selling their new or rehabilitated homes to homeowners.
2-B Create a City of Toledo Employer-Assisted Housing Program to which the City would match $1 of City funds for each $1 of an employer’s fund, up to $5,000, to enable an employee to purchase a home in the City of Toledo.

2-D Create a linked deposit program to fund incentives to retain and attract middle-income and professional households, empty nesters, young professionals, and urban pioneers to all Toledo neighborhoods, especially target neighborhoods.
2-E Help low-income seniors and/or handicapped home owners remain in their homes by providing grants for emergency home repairs.
2-F Help low-income homeowners (especially female heads of household) remain in their homes by providing grants for emergency repairs.

While I can understand these ideas and recognize the value such assistance might have to overall neighborhood successes, I object to the method: to use public tax dollars to benefit some at the expense of others. The only solution appears to be more government spending - not a reliance upon private or charitable entities to accomplish the objective.

They also want to resort to civil penalties for violations - even if said violations are already against the law. In addition to the ones listed above, they include:

3-A Improve the effectiveness of TMC Section 554 eliminate discriminatory/steering real estate practices by amending it to include civil fines and civil law suits.

And then there is the social engineering - with no mention of free-market ideals:

Objectives
4-A Encourage developers of new subdivisions to set aside between 5% than 10% of the units for low and moderate-income families by providing additional incentives to the developers.
4-B Disperse low- and moderate-income housing throughout Lucas County and the City of Toledo. The Mayor should work with the Lucas County Commissioners, the Toledo-Lucas County Plan Commissions and other leaders within the region to expand the policy of inclusionary zoning.1
4-C Strategic dispersal of individual housing tax credit units throughout a neighborhood at densities not to exceed 15 percent of the housing units on a block.
***1 “The establishment of zoning regulations which create incentives or requirements for affordable housing development. This can include set-aside requirements or density bonuses for developers.”

Many of the goals of the task force are commendable. But the way they are implemented ignores several vital factors:

1. The citizens of Toledo have not approved this approach. This is a government task force, dominated by big-government thinkers who are pushing their agenda into law with the help of one of the task force members who is also a member of city council.

2. Despite their goal of 'diverse' neighborhoods, the task force is highly lacking in diversity with limited or no representation from business owners and 'average citizens' ... not to mention the absence of political or philosophical diversity.

3. The solutions favor government control over free-market principles. To subsidize a particular type of housing because politicians and special interest groups want it results in a housing stock that buyers and sellers may reject. Perhaps the group subconsciously recognizes this fallacy. Understanding that people have left Toledo for various reasons, they recommend instituting Toledo's failed policies in surrounding jurisdictions. Of course, that will just cause people to leave those jurisdictions as well.

4. The thinking behind these recommendations result in attacks (like McNamara made) against business owners. The effort to 'improve' neighborhoods in these manners breeds a contempt for the wrong entity - the business - and not for the true source of the problem - the city and its policies.

The reason people have drug use, loitering, trash, etc. in their neighborhoods is not because of a business but because of the people who live in the neighborhood. Repeated phone calls to police do not result in enforcement of the existing laws, but a growing frustration that existing laws are not enough because the city does not have enough police to follow through with the enforcement. To address the symptom, people try to close down the business, failing to recognize that the activities will continue - just in front of a closed-up building instead.

But this how government operates in opposition to free choice: establish a task force, pack it with people who share your goal, come up with recommendations to expand government, use the force of government (though laws, taxation and taxpayer-funded 'incentives') to mandate the ideas, claim you're doing things for the 'common good,' and then scratch your head and call for more of the same when the results are not as expected.

I wish the goal of this task force had been to increase freedom for Toledoans - maybe it would have saved McNamara from his temper tantrum.

'Not business friendly' Post #9 - convenience stores, again

I just don't understand what the members of Toledo City Council have against convenience stores. They've already passed a licensing law for these types of stores (though the effective date has been postponed due to a lawsuit filed), and now they want to cut down on the 'proliferation' of such stores.

According to today's paper,

Councilman Joe McNamara has proposed an ordinance prohibiting a convenience store from operating within 2,000 feet of another convenience store, or within 1,000 feet of a school, public library, or other places established for minors.

Establishments that do not sell tobacco or tobacco products would not be affected, Mr. McNamara said.

"In 1993, spacing requirements were added to the Toledo Municipal Code and, in 2004, it was taken out as a comprehensive rewrite of the zoning code," he said.

"We are just going back to what we originally had since there has been a proliferation of convenience stores in the central city since 2004."

Yes - you read that correctly. We've got businesses starting in the city and now that's a bad thing that must be addressed through zoning restrictions to prevent it from happening. And they think the problem is in the central city, but the law will affect all areas of the city, equally.

It seems to me that there must be a need for such stores or they wouldn't be opening. And, with gas prices the way they are, it should come as no surprise to council members that individuals might choose to walk to a neighborhood store rather than drive elsewhere.

The supporters of such regulation are using the same arguments they used to support the licensing law:

"Supporters of stricter regulations argue that convenience stores have saturated Toledo and are attracting crime, alcoholism, prostitution, drug use, and other unsavory elements.

Critics say some Toledo stores stock drug paraphernalia, such as disguised crack pipes and small plastic bags for powder drugs."

Note that it's not the behavior they're trying to stop, nor are they calling for more police officers and better enforcement of laws against prostitution, drug use or loitering. No, they're trying to drive job providers out of the city.

Sidebar
Just because some drug addict finds a drug-related use for a normal grocery item like small bags does not mean the seller of the small bags is stocking drug paraphernalia. I use those small bags quite often and NOT for drugs!
Sidebar

Council members need to stop catering to the anti-business demands of these neighborhood groups and start looking at the real problem. If crime in these areas is the problem, the solution is not to drive business owners away - it's to increase police patrols, enforcement and prosecution.

Shutting down a business will not change the behavior of the people who patronize such establishments, but it might be an easier decision for politicians because then they can say they 'did' something - even if what they 'did' doesn't solve the problem.

Toledo can't afford more anti-business decisions, and calling the city a 'business friendly city of the future' doesn't make it so.

What good is council if they can't do their job?

Among the myriad of agenda items for tonight's Toledo City Council meeting is consideration of a purchase agreement between the City and Tetra Tech, a local company who wants to develop the Swan Creek Area.

It really isn't a purchase agreement, but a 'hold in place' contract whereby the City will agree to hold on to various properties in the area - for $5,000 - for up to 18 months while Tetra Tech does their due diligence on the idea.

This is a terrific agreement for Tetra Tech and I certainly do not fault them one bit for working out a contract that is all to their benefit.

Toledo City Council rightly has questions on the contract and the potential financial obligations. So one council member, Joe McNamara, has suggested that council hire an outside attorney to review the contract on behalf of the council members.

First of all, that's what a city law department is for - but making this suggestions will fit nicely with the perspective some on council are trying to promote that the law department is working for the 'mayor' and not the 'city as a whole,' including 'council.'

Aside from the political strategy, Joe McNamara is an attorney, so I fail to see why he feels it necessary to have someone with legal expertise examine the contract. Can't he do that himself???

And other council members seem to be warming to the idea.

If our council members are so lacking in ability to read, examine and evaluate an agreement as so simple as this particular contract, it scares me to death to think they also vote on bond issues, budgets, grants, etc.

I read the proposed contract and saw several things which weren't spelled out. One example is the environmental issue. The actual purchase is dependent upon several items as part of a feasibility analysis. One of those is the stipulation that the properties have no environmental issues - or the issues are addressed. This particular clause does NOT say WHO is responsible for addressing the issues - the buyer or the seller. Even though the city's attorney assured council during their agenda meeting last week that it was the buyer, I would have asked that such clarification be incorporated into the language of the agreement. And, if it's already understood that the buyer is responsible, including such written documentation of that understanding shouldn't be a problem.

See how easy such things are? And I'm not even an attorney. So why would members of council not be capable of reading the document, asking such questions and then informing the law department what additions/subtractions they'd like included in the contract? Granted, the law department will have to take the recommendations back to Tetra Tech, but I'm sure Tetra Tech is expecting such actions.

What bothers me most is the implication that members of council are not qualified to read, evaluate and then make recommendations on such a simple, straightforward contract. If they can't do that, what else are they incapable of doing - and why are they still in office if they can't perform such basic functions?

Trash Tax Lawsuit

Local attorney Kurt Wicklund, on behalf of Karen Shanahan, has filed a lawsuit in Lucas County Common Pleas Court asking for a permanent injunction against the 'trash tax' ... also referred to as the garbage fee.

I broke the story last night on Eye On Toledo and you can listen the podcast here (at the 6:45 p.m. mark).

As Karen explains, she believe the garbage fee is actually a tax - and an unvoted one at that. She's asking for both a temporary and permanent injunction, return of all monies collected and attorneys fees.

Of course, in today's paper, City of Toledo Law Director John Madigan calls this a political ploy.

"Initial review of the complaint leads to the conclusion that it is politically motivated and utterly devoid of merit," he said in the e-mail.

"The city will take appropriate action in response to this suit and is confident that it will prevail in any court proceedings."

I've talked to Karen about her position on this numerous times and consider myself to be a pretty shrewd judge of political actions. I don't think this is even remotely politically motivated. Karen believes this is wrong and that it was implemented illegally. She's worked extensively on this for several months, doing research on her own and then talking with numerous professionals about the issue and her questions. Karen raised questions that no one from the city answered - and now they'll have to ... in court.

Further, even Councilman Joe McNamara raised the issue of the legality of the 'fee.'

"Mr. McNamara said he has been fearful that a taxpayer would file a lawsuit, claiming the refuse fee was enacted illegally."

I'll keep you posted on the details of the court case as they evolve.