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.

2012 Election Reflections Part 1: what went wrong

The title of my speech last night to the Fallen Timbers Republican Club was "What went wrong, what went right and where do we go from here." It was a look at national and local elections, as well as a to-do list for the future.

I was asked to post it here, but it's very long, so I'm splitting it into three individual posts.

Here is the first: What went wrong.

Nationally:

The candidate:

Mitt Romney is a very good man and I believe he would have made a good president - certainly better than our current one. I voted for him, but, like many others, he was not my first choice. As a result, I wasn't as enthusiastic in my support and that lack of enthusiasm FOR the candidate was clearly evident throughout our area. Most people were voting AGAINST Pres. Obama. But that's not enough to win.

John Ransom wrote: “When running an election campaign it is often valuable to select a nominee who represents the rank and file of the Party. This is how other Parties do it. Perhaps you might get on board.”

Look at our candidates: George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney. As much as we might have *liked* these men, they do not reflect the conservative principles of our party. Need I say more?

Polls continue to show that roughly 60% of Americans oppose Obamacare. We nominated a person who had no standing to oppose that issue. Certainly, I understand the difference between a governor and state legislature creating such a mandate and program and I believe that Romney was sincere in saying that the federal government had no such authority. But that's a complicated issue (at least to some people) and is not easy to explain to an electorate who doesn't understand the difference in authority between the states and the federal government. Therefore, it was a losing position - and a major issue that might have brought people into the R column was sacrificed for a candidate too many insiders claimed was the 'most electable.'

In fact, for just about every bad Obama policy, there was a similar Romney policy out of Massachusetts. That's a huge obstacle to try to overcome.

Do you remember how much Romney was preferred by the press? Some thought that if the press liked him in the primary competition, they would be kinder to him in the general. WRONG! In fact, this is so wrong I'd like to shake whoever even remotely thinks this might possibly apply.

Romney - just like other Republicans was excoriated by same press that supposedly thought he was the best in the Republican field. They ALWAYS do this and we should ignore their praise and expect their contempt for whomever we choose. Additionally, since we know that whomever we nominate will be crucified by the press, we should nominate the candidate who best reflects our values, rather than try to cater to their professed preferences.

Romney was demonized as an evil person long before winning the primary and then didn’t hit back hard enough after the primary. He was behind when he was nominated and never caught up in this regard.

The complicity of the press:

Rich Noyes wrote a great column that gives the details about how the press basically elected Obama. Here are some excerpts with my comments intermixed:

1) Media hammered Romney with their Gaffe Patrol - but ignored similar gaffes by Obama and, must we even mention, Biden:

The media unfairly jumped on inconsequential mistakes — or even invented controversies — from Romney and hyped them in to multi-day media “earthquakes.”

“…when the left-wing Mother Jones magazine in September put out a secretly-recorded video of Romney talking to donors about the 47% of Americans who don’t pay income taxes, the networks hyped it like a sensational sex scandal. Over three days, the broadcast network morning and evening shows churned out 42 stories on the tape, nearly 90 minutes of coverage. The tone was hyperbolic; ABC’s "Good Morning America" called it a “bombshell rocking the Mitt Romney campaign,” while ABC "World News" anchor Diane Sawyer declared it a “political earthquake.”

None of Obama’s gaffes garnered that level of coverage. After the president in a June 8 press conference declared that “the private sector is doing fine,” the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts gave it just one night’s coverage, then basically dropped the story — nothing further on ABC’s "World News" or the "CBS Evening News" in the weeks that followed, and just two passing references on the "NBC Nightly News."

And, when Obama infamously declared, “You didn’t build that,” ABC, CBS, NBC didn’t report the politically damaging remark for four days — and then only after Romney made it the centerpiece of a campaign speech.

2) Partisan Fact Checking: There’s nothing wrong with holding politicians accountable for the honesty of their TV ads and stump speeches, but this year the self-appointed media fact-checkers attacked Republicans as liars for statements that were accurate. Check out Ohio Watchdog’s Politifact or Fiction series and MediaTrackers work on exposing Politifact – and note that most newspapers in Ohio use them as the truth meter when reporting.

3) The Benghazi Blackout:

Right after the September 11 attack in Libya, the networks proclaimed that the events would bolster President Obama — “reminding voters of his power as commander-in-chief,” as NBC’s Peter Alexander stated on the September 14 edition of "Today." But as a cascade of leaked information erased the portrait of Obama as a heroic commander, the broadcast networks shunted the Benghazi story to the sidelines.

Instead of an “October Surprise,” the networks engineered an “October Suppression” — keeping a lid on the boiling Benghazi story until Election Day. Who knows how voters might have reacted if the media had covered this story as tenaciously as they did Romney’s “47% gaffe”?

4) Burying the Bad Economy:

Pundits agreed that Obama’s weakness was the failure of the US economy to revive after his expensive stimulus and four years of $1 trillion deficits. But the major networks failed to offer the sustained, aggressive coverage of the economy that incumbent Republican President George H.W. Bush faced in 1992, or even that George W. Bush faced in 2004 — both years when the national economy was in better shape than it is now.

According to a study conducted that year by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, from January through September of 1992, the networks ran a whopping 1,289 stories on the economy, 88% of which painted it in a dismal, negative light. That fall, the unemployment rate was 7.6%, lower than today’s 7.9%, and economic growth in the third quarter was 2.7%, better than today’s 2.0%. Yet the media coverage hammered the idea of a terrible economy, and Bush lost re-election.

In 2004, the economy under George W. Bush was far better than it is today — higher growth, lower unemployment, smaller deficits and cheaper gasoline — yet network coverage that year was twice as hostile to Bush than it was towards Obama this year, according to a study by the Media Research Center’s Business and Media Institute.

When Republican presidents have faced reelection, network reporters made sure to spotlight economic “victims” — the homeless man, the woman without health insurance, the unemployed worker, the senior citizen who had to choose between medicine and food. But this year, with an economy as bad as any since the Great Depression, those sympathetic anecdotes have vanished from the airwaves — a huge favor to Obama and the Democrats.

Given Obama’s record, the Romney campaign could have overcome much of this media favoritism and still prevailed — indeed, they almost did. But taken together, these five trends took the media’s historical bias to new levels this year, and saved Obama’s presidency in the process.

The Ground Game:

Obama had a terrific ground game, not as good as in 2008, but still better than what we had. I gathered these numbers Wednesday morning…here is Obama’s margin in key states:

107,339 votes in Virginia
100,763 votes in Ohio
47,493 votes in Florida
111,094 votes in Colorado
66,379 votes in Nevada

Total: 433,068

So for less than 500,000 votes where it counted, Romney could have had 281 electoral votes Wednesday morning.

In Ohio, if Republicans had turned out like they did in 2008, Romney would have ended up with 2,786,327. Obama earned 2,725,165 votes this year. That would have resulted in 50.55% for Romney vs. 49.45% for Obama.

Many are claiming that it's our positions that resulted in our loss. I reject that completely. John Ransom also wrote:

The Democrats aren’t beating Republicans by virtue of ideology so much as by mechanics and logistics. Simply put, the models that the GOP relies upon, including those relied upon by myself, have failed to adequately account for this. Again, it makes no difference in a wave election, but we pay dearly for it in close contests.

The grassroots on the other side has spent ten years in community organizing, going door-to-door, creating coalitions of issues-driven, ideologically-funded third party groups that can do a lot of heavily lifting for GOTV. The GOP on the other hand has eschewed groups like the tea parties, seeing the grass roots as a hindrance to our chances at being the cool kids at school.

You saw it in the results on Tuesday.

The progressive activists worked for it, while GOP worked their top-down magic and expected to ride the wave.

Obama had a machine. Like Democrats have practiced and the GOP has failed to learn: this is a never-ending war and an election is only one battle. This it applies to everyone, including minorities.

John Fund wrote:

The fact is that the Machine played for keeps, while Mitt Romney — the quintessential corporate Manager — didn't.

The turnout operation it ran in the swing states and elsewhere spilled over into Senate races. Republicans won only eight of the 33 Senate races up for grabs on Tuesday, the fewest number of Senate races won by a major party since the Lyndon Johnson landslide over Barry Goldwater in 1964. If had not been for skillful redistricting, Republicans could have come close to losing the House.

The battle for Hispanic voters saw Romney and Republicans routed. John McCain won only 31 percent of Hispanics in 2008 — down from George W. Bush’s high-water mark of 43 percent in 2004. Mitt Romney won only 27 percent this election, and Hispanics were a tenth of the electorate.

Romney did just as badly with Asian voters, who were 3 percent of all voters. As recently as 1996, Bob Dole won a majority of Asian voters, John McCain still won 35 percent in 2008. But this year, Mitt Romney picked up only 26 percent of Asian-Americans.

Class warfare works:

Kevin Williamson had a great comment that I loved: "It may not be possible to be too thin, but it is, apparently, possible to be too rich, at least for an electorate that can be swayed by envy." 


Rush Limbaugh said on his show that 'you can’t run against Santa Claus.' He was right - it's hard to run against someone who will promise you everything on your wish list, especially when your message is ‘you just have to work for it.’

But even that shouldn't be a winning message because as much as people may believe in the spirit of Santa Claus, we all know that they're isn't an army of elves at the North Pole magically creating all the items on our wish list.

Women:

This election was a huge loss for women and it revealed the hypocrisy of the Democrats. For all the talk coming from the left about empowering women and the feminist movement, in this election the Democrats and the media reduced women to nothing more than sex objects. Sadly, too many women believed that they are nothing but their ‘lady parts’ choosing ‘free’ contraception and abortion over the true women’s issues of jobs, high gas prices, high food prices and their children’s futures.

There have been numerous instances of so-called feminists ignoring true issues of discrimination and degradation in favor of a political position (think Bill Clinton as the most recognizable). I believe history will look back on this election and note that this was when the feminist movement died.

This wasn't just a loss for our party in that we couldn't expose this mockery for what it was. This was a huge setback for women today and our daughters tomorrow because the left embraced it - and we allowed it.

What went wrong on a local level:

* We had no local spokesman for the Romney campaign – or for any other state-wide candidate or issue. As a result, there was no one in Lucas County offering a rebuttal to charges made against our candidates or speaking in favor of their positions and strengths. They say that all politics is local and this was a detriment to our community and made it appear to supporters that our area had been 'written off.'

The problem is that, in close elections, no area can be ignored, because a thousand more votes each of the 'ignored' areas could have made a difference overall.

* Jon Stainbrook – absent from everything except comments to The Blade. Did the Lucas County Republican Party even take a position on the seven tax levies on the ballot? If they did, I didn't hear about it and I'm a news junkie.

(Interestingly, when I asked this question of the members of a REPUBLICAN CLUB, even THEY didn't know.)

* Our candidates - most were just place holders who didn't bother to put together positions or plans for the offices they were seeking - or even campaign for votes.

The few candidates with potential didn’t get the help they needed in funds, support, advice, strategy or publicity.

One of our candidates was in a race he shouldn’t have been in and, because of his previous votes and positions, failed to get the support of conservatives. Other voters thought he was just looking for another public position due to being term limited. Even with his name recognition and likability, he suffered from a lack of support that a robust county political party would have provided.

* Lack of experience – there were no individuals with a proven record of winning elections who were helping or guiding the strategy on a local level. Stainbrook has pushed away - and even banned - former elected officials who have valuable insight and perspectives that would have helped our candidates.

This is a failure of our party chairman who should be able to put aside his personal dislikes of individuals in order to advance the election of our candidates.

* Lack of information – too few realized what the levies would do to their pocketbooks or the economy in the county. Opposition, valiant though it was, was too late to be effective. If we had a strong party advancing the conservative principles of limited government and lower taxation, the information about the fiscal impact of more than $45 million in new taxes might have received more publicity.

Because of these things that went wrong, taxes in Lucas County are going up:

1) MetroParks levy – a 300% increase over what they had before passed by just under 19,000 votes.

2) Children Services board levy – an 85% increase over their previous levy passed by just over 18,000 votes – despite having 2 levies for funding and over $13 million in their reserve.

3) Mental Health & Recovery Services levy – a new, 10-year levy giving them a 67% increase over the funding in their existing levy, passed by 3,650 votes.

4) The Library levy – a 45% increase in funding passed by just under 60,000 votes. Primarily due to deceptive advertising: by making it a renewal and an additional tax at the same time, they could claim 50% of their funding was at stake. Most people didn’t realize it was an increase on top of their existing levy. Voters were given a lose-lose choice: give the library more or nothing at all - and people love their library.

While there are other items you might be able to point to as things that went wrong, these are a good start in evaluating the 2012 election.

But as important as it is to evaluate the mistakes, it is equally important to note the successes. My next post will be 'what went right.' Post 3 will be 'where do we go from here?'

Election coverage and NO on all levies

I'll be participating in some upcoming election coverage and wanted to let you know, so you can - hopefully - tune in and join us.

First, today at 4 p.m. Eastern I'll join my friend and fellow blogger, Duane Lester (All American Blogger) for a discussion on Ohio on Liberty News Live.

Tomorrow, I'll be joining my friend and radio host Tony Katz for Citizen Watchdog live coverage of election day activities across the nation. But it isn't just a bunch of people talking at you:

Instead of being talked at, we invite you to join the conversation, along with thousands of citizens just like you. Your participation, tips, and insights will help with the analysis. You can tweet at us at @WatchdogWire, use the hash tag #ElectionWatch, send us an e-mail at CitizenWatchdog@franklincenterhq.org or participate in our live-chat function.

Our host, Tony Katz, will interview the following experts live:

• Michelle Malkin, Political commentator and author
• Dana Loesch, Talk radio host
• Jason Stverak, Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity
• Dean Clancy, FreedomWorks
• Jennifer Stefano, AFP State Director and FOX News Commentator

So don’t feel stuck with MSM election coverage. Watch with your fellow citizens starting at 6 pm ET and get the latest breaking news from around the country in real time -- no delays, no filters!

Register here to participate: http://webinars.watchdogwire.com/

Lastly, in case you've not yet decided how you will vote on any of the levy issues, please read this and remember your friends and neighbors who are out of work, on food stamps, having trouble paying their mortgages or, heaven forbid, already in foreclosure.

The five county-wide and two City of Toledo levies will suck $54.6 million out of the wallets of residents - $45.3 million of it NEW taxation.

Will your parents or grandparents who are retired and on fixed incomes end up having to choose between paying these additional taxes or paying for their medicines? A $300 a year increase in taxation (for a $100,000 home) has to be taken from somewhere - what will they choose to give up so they don't lose their home?

Because these are property taxes, the inability to pay these new taxes will result in the loss of a home. Are any of these 'quality of life' levies really worth a family losing their home over?

And do any of them really deserve a 45%, 67% or even an 85% increase? Did YOU get that kind of increase this year?

Just say NO.

Just say NO to property tax levies - all of them!

Did you - or anyone you know - get an 85% increase in income this year?

How about a 67% increase? No?

Well, what about a paltry 45% increase?

I didn't think so. So why should public agencies?

Those are the percentage increases for three levies on the ballot November 6th.

The Toledo-Lucas County Public Library has a 2.0 mill levy and they want to renew that and add .9 mills. That's a 45% increase in income they're asking for - out of your pockets.

By the way - the Library's 2 mill levy gives them as much money as the county gets in property taxes. Got that? The library is already getting the same amount as county government and they want more - and they want this amount of funding each year for the next five years.

The Mental Health and Recovery Services board is asking for a new 1 mill levy. They already have a 1.5 mill levy so this is a second levy and it represents a 67% increase in income for them - coming from your wallet. This is a 10-year levy, so you wouldn't have a chance to modify it for a decade.

Children Services Board is the worst. They have a 1 mill levy and they want to increase it to 1.85 mills - an 85% increase. This is their second levy. They have a 1.4 mill levy that voters approved last year. Oh - and did you know they have $13,411,696 in their reserve fund???

Yep...sitting on millions and they want you to vote to give them 85% more than they're already getting from this levy. In this economy, that's shameful.

The MetroParks isn't any better. They are asking for a new .9 mill levy that would be in place for 10 years. Ten years ago, they asked for a .3 mill levy to purchase additional property. Voters gave them that levy, but many who opposed it, including me, said it would only lead to requests for even more money in the future because any new land purchased would need to be maintained and turned into parkland.

No, we were told, that wouldn't happen. They lied because here they are, asking for a new .9 mill operating levy to - you guessed it - pay for the administration of all the new land they now have.

Of course, these levies are only asking for 'pennies a day' compared to the City of Toledo and Toledo Public Schools, who want to add brand new levies to their income.

The city wants a 1 mill levy to fund Parks and Recreation, because they just don't have enough money and so all of you, who also don't have enough money, must pay more.

Remember back in the spring when council voted to install additional red-light and speed cameras? Do you also remember that the projected $320,000 revenue from those cameras was supposed to go to parks? You don't? Well, it's true.

But when council voted to put the levy on the ballot, no one even raised the point or questioned what happened to all that revenue money. No - they just want more, trying to justify a new tax on the poor and middle class as somehow being in our best interest because it will reduce youth violence, increase our quality of life and help our seniors. Oh - and it's "for the children."

Wouldn't your quality of life be better if you could actually keep the money you earn instead of being forced, by majority rule, to turn it over to government?

Besides, if the city has a $900,000 carryover and the mayor can afford to give raises totaling $295,000 a year (without counting pensions, taxes, etc...), do they really need a new levy that will be in place for a decade - or longer if the temporary 3/4% income tax is any example?

Then there is the TPS levy - a brand new 4.9 mill, 10-year levy. Where should I begin on that?

Let's start with reminding you that they already collect 64.39 mills!

I could remind you about their atrocious audit that no one in the main stream media covered. They were cited for 18 instances of material weaknesses, significant deficiencies, non-compliance and a finding for recovery.

Their management letter was even worse with citations for spending money without appropriating it and for appropriating money without first verifying they had any to appropriate. They failed to keep proper inventories not just of district property but of property purchased with grand funds. They also failed to follow their own reimbursement policies and reimbursed monies they shouldn't have - and without receipts. In fact, the management letter was so bad that it took me two blog posts to cover it! (you can see them here and here)

They could have done a performance audit before asking for more money, but they didn't. Other schools in the state (and many governmental jurisdictions) have found millions of yearly savings by doing performance audits. But not TPS. In August, they said there were pursuing it and an announcement would be made soon. However, emails to various board members asking for an update on their progress toward a performance audit have gone unanswered.

And in the midst of all of this, their school report card went down - with Pickett Elementary entering its 13th year in academic emergency. Every citizen should be outraged about Pickett!

Besides, with an $11.22 million carryover, they don't even need a levy this year. They could have removed the levy from the ballot, done the performance audit and, after implementing the recommendations, re-evaluated their financial needs and, if still necessary, asked for a levy then.

Instead, TPS wants a cushion so they don't have to cut their spending. Well, I'd like a cushion, too. Wouldn't you? Instead, you're looking at a giving TPS another $13.3 million a year for the next 10 years.

Imagination Station "is only" asking for renewal of their existing .17 mill levy. Voters rejected them three times and then their levy passed. A non-profit entity shouldn't be on the public dole, no matter how 'valuable' you think they are. They should be self-supporting - not taking money out of your pocket, preventing you from spending those dollars on your priorities.

These seven levies represent an increase of $45.3 million in taxation. All totaled, they take $54.6 million out of the pockets of residents.

And don't forget, money going to government really isn't economic growth, no matter what anyone tells you.

The worst part is that these are property taxes, which means that if you don't pay them, you can lose your home. With our high unemployment, continuing foreclosures and general economic malaise, can we really afford to tell friends, family and neighbors that they need to pay $45.3 million more???

As many Lucas County township elected officials recently asked:

“Is (any) levy so important that someone should lose their home if they cannot afford to pay it?”

None of these levies even remotely qualify.

This is not to say that they aren't good organizations doing good things. And opposition to increasing the amount of money they get doesn't mean you hate kids, hate the mentally ill, are racist, unkind, greedy, stingy, uncaring, etc... etc... etc... It just means you want them to live within their current means - just like you do.

Besides, if you really want to support the levies, there's nothing preventing you from going to the Auditor's AREIS website, looking up your own property and, under the data column, checking how much you'd pay if the levies passed and then writing a check to the organizations for that amount. Nope - nothing in the world. In fact, it's probably a better way to go.

But I bet you won't.

And that alone is another reason to vote NO on

* Issue 5 Toledo Parks and Recreation
* Issue 20 Toledo Public Schools
* Issue 21 MetroParks
* Issue 23 Library
* Issue 24 Mental Health & Recovery Services
* Issue 25 Children Services Board
* Issue 26 Imagination Station

Township officials urge 'NO' on all county levies

Here is a copy of the letter that 14 elected officials in eight of Lucas County's 11 townships have signed. I think the letter says it all, especially this point:

We believe one questions must be asked by the Commissioners prior to putting any levy on the ballot, and each individual voter prior to casting their vote on a property tax levy: “Is this levy so important that someone should lose their home if they cannot afford to pay it?”

I think this also applies to city and school levies, too. Did Toledo City Council ask themselves this question before they decided they just had to have a brand new tax levy for recreation in the city?

You might not have your home, but you can have 'recreation' ... what a bargain!

Did Toledo Public School board members ask themselves this question before they decided they just had to have a brand new tax levy - on top of their multiple other levies - for a school system that has a budget carryover and health care savings that total a couple of million dollars MORE than the levy will give them in the next year?!?

As if more money will reverse their five-year trend of spending more than take in or help Pickett Elementary which has been in academic emergency for 12 years!


Here is the letter:

We, the undersigned Elected Officials in Lucas County do hereby state:

1) We believe our County Representatives are not acting like responsible leaders in placing numerous levies on the ballot.

2) We believe that the residents in our jurisdictions are becoming overburdened by the numerous “quality of life” levies that are already included in their property tax bills.

3) We believe that by placing these numerous “quality of life” levies on the ballot, the Lucas County Commissioners are jeopardizing our chances of getting any future levies passed for essential services such as Roads, Police, Fire and Schools.

4) We do not want to see our residents become financially burdened by their property taxes and potentially face losing their homes if they become unable to pay.

5) We believe that all of the levy requests that will be on the November Ballot are not “needs” for our community, but “wants” by these organizations.

6) We believe that it is irresponsible for our County Officials to allow the “wants” of these various organizations to become such a burden to the property owners of Lucas County that they can no longer afford to pay for the “needs”.

7) We believe one questions must be asked by the Commissioners prior to putting any levy on the ballot, and each individual voter prior to casting their vote on a property tax levy: “Is this levy so important that someone should lose their home if they cannot afford to pay it?”

As such, we are asking the voters not just in our jurisdictions, but in all of Lucas County to vote “NO” on every county wide levy request that is on the your ballot in November. We must take a stand to get the attention of our County Commissioners. We must make them realize that we want the process to get a property tax levy on the ballot in Lucas County to be extremely difficult, not just a rubber stamp.

And that new levy review committee which I fought when I was a commissioner has 'recommended' all these levies and others in the past. Do the commissioner have nothing to fear from constituents because they hide behind individuals unaccountable to the public to decide if a levy is 'worth it'? I think so.

We'll talk about this today when I fill in for Brian Wilson on 1370 WSPD from 3-6 p.m. Eastern.

MetroParks levy - I told you so

When the MetroParks put a levy request to voter so they could acquire additional land, I cautioned that land acquisition would come with future costs for maintenance and/or development. Yesterday the MetroParks board voted to put a .9 mill, 10-year levy on the ballot to, in part, develop new park areas.

I told you so!

This new levy is to replace their .3 mill levy - so they're asking for THREE TIMES what they're already getting. This is in addition to their 1.4 mill levy that was approved in 2007.

One of the claims made in the decision to ask for even more money is that their levy isn't collecting as much money as it once did due to decreased property values. Welcome to the real world!

How many Lucas County residents aren't getting paid as much as they once were? How many have seen their costs increase without a corresponding increase in income? How many don't have a job???

Here's an idea - CUT BACK!!!

In 2007 when their last levy was on the ballot, they were complaining about decreased property values and I suggested that maybe they stop purchasing land and - instead - save some of that money to either develop the land they already had or reserve it for future maintenance on the newly purchased land.

They didn't do either of those things. They spent all the money they had with the only plan for future development of the additional land being to get more money from the taxpayers. It was clear that their current income wouldn't cover development and was just able to cover maintenance on what they had.

But voters 'love' the MetroParks and they'll *always* support such a 'good cause' so why be frugal in light of pending recession, decreased population and reduced property values?

So now we have a 7th levy on the ballot - and for three times more than what they already collect.

Talk about levy fatigue...

Just remember - all of you who want to 'support' the MetroParks by forcing your friends and neighbors to do so as well: you may be able to 'afford' this increase, but others may not. Are you really going to vote to raise taxes on your neighbor who is unemployed, behind on his mortgage and already enrolled in the food stamp program just to feed his kids?

As the President says, 'we're all in this together.'

My taxes will be increased by what?!?

The Toledo Regional Chamber of Commerce is now sending out a quarterly Public Affairs newsletter and their first issue featured an article on the amount of tax increases people will see if the projected amount of seven levies actually make it on the November ballot and are approved.

It's sobering reading, especially in a recession.

Estimating the impact

The Chamber, as I have in my posts, sticks with the example of a home valued at $100,000, which is what levy supporters and media have used for as long as I can remember. This year, however, most supporters and media are using a home valued at $60,000 for their example of how much an individual increase will cost.

A quick check of median price of home sales for the first quarter of 2012 in Lucas County shows that the $100,000 figure is still accurate, as the chart at City-Data.com clearly shows. What is also interesting is that the chart shows the median price of home sales hasn't dropped below $75,000 since at least 2007, much less reach the $60,000 mark levy proponents and media are currently referencing.

Most recent Census data (2006-2010) shows the median value of owner-occupied housing units in Lucas County is $122,400.

To use the $60,000 is, in my opinion, designed intentionally to make the proposed increases seem less than they actually are.

How you are affected

Because of the various jurisdictions, it's often difficult to figure out exactly what the increases mean to you. Fortunately, the Chamber has included a detailed listing by jurisdiction so you can include any school issues in your evaluation of the impact. The data is linked at the bottom of the article. Be sure to note how the Chamber defines the levy categories:

Critical Levies must be passed by the end of 2012 or levy funding expires 12/31/12. Eligible Levies can be put on the ballot one year before levy funding expires. As an example, Imagination Station does not have to pass a levy in 2012. This levy can be put on the ballot in 2013 if necessary since its funding expires 12/31/13. New levies are being placed on the ballot for the first time and represent new dollars assessed if they pass.

The newsletter was sent out to 4,000 people and they granted permission for me to publish it. It is factual and accurate and I encourage you to share it with everyone.

My Taxes Will be Increased by What?

As many as seven levies could be voted on by Lucas County residents this November, as school districts, parks, museums and social services are placing their requests for funding on the ballot. The vote will be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2012 during the national general election.

The largest request comes from the Toledo Public Schools, seeking 6.9 mills of new money. If passed, this would cost the owner of a home valued at $100,000 an additional $211.28 in taxes per year. The Mental Health and Recovery Services Board, which now includes ADAS, also are asking for a new 1.0 mill levy. The Toledo-Lucas County Public Library is asking voters to renew their current 2.0 mills, and increase that tax by an additional 0.9 mills and The Children's Services Board also is asking to renew their current 1.0 mill tax and increase it by 0.85 mills. The Imagination Station is seeking to renew their current tax of 0.17 mills.

Two additional levies could be placed on the ballot in the coming week. The Toledo City Council will vote on Tuesday, July 2 on a proposed 1.0 mill recreation levy. The Metroparks of the Toledo Area will decide at a board meeting this week whether to renew their current 0.30 millage levy or seek an increase.

The voters will decide which of these levies will be passed. To give you an example of how your tax bill could increase, we have calculated the amount if all proposed levies are approved by the people. Check the charts below to see your potential tax liability:

I live in Toledo, in the Toledo Public Schools District

I live in Toledo, in the Washington Local Schools District

I live in Maumee, in the Maumee City Schools District

I live in Oregon, in the Oregon City Schools District

I live in Ottawa Hills, in the Ottawa Hills Local Schools District

I live in Springfield Township, in the Springfield Local Schools District

I live in Sylvania, in the Sylvania City Schools District

I live in Sylvania Township, in the Sylvania City Schools District

I will have more on the individual levies in the future. Toledo City Council has their Parks levy on the agenda for their meeting Tuesday.

Post-Election Thoughts

For complete results of the Lucas County election results, you can go here, to the Lucas County Board of Elections, who did a nice job of regularly posting updated results throughout the night.

To the winners, congratulations. Now the hard work begins as any incumbent knows. To the newcomers: you'll be a bit overwhelmed at first with all the things you don't know, but you'll catch on very quickly and your constituents are counting on you to keep the promises you made. I wish you success in this endeavor.

To those who lost, my sincerest thanks and appreciation. You offered the voters a choice, which is something not everyone had in this election. You gave of yourself in terms of your time and energy - and often in terms of your own funds - and you sacrificed attendance at other events in order to be where the voters were. Having been through this process, I recognize the great toll running a campaign can have on you, your family, and even your shoes. I hope that, despite your loss at the polls, you are rewarded by your participation, by the supporters who worked hard on your behalf because they believed in you, and the votes you did receive.

Congratulations to the Library and the MetroParks for their replacement levies. While I questioned the amount of the money requested in these difficult (for many) economic times, there was never any question of the quality of your institutions nor of the services your provide. I do hope, however, that you will constantly re-evaluate what you do and how you do it. Your levies will be up again and, at that time, many of the same questions asked this time around will be asked again. It would be nice if you had a list of things you've done to reduce costs and stay within the budget we've provided to you.

Congratulations to TARTA for their win, as well. But...your success at the ballot box should not be taken as a mandate for continuing to operate as you have in the past. Severe dissatisfaction with the way services are provided still exists and you now have yet another opportunity to examine what services you provide and how to provide them more efficiently and at less cost. Instead of reacting or continuing the status quo, it would be nice to see you anticipate and plan for changing needs in the future. It would also be nice to see you provide a financial explanation on the actual cost of operations, how much is offset by rider fees and how many riders (not rides) you actually serve. Your other levy is up in 2011 and many of the same questions will be asked if you don't do something now to address them.

As for COSI, I hope that being rejected two times will be all it takes for you to either decide to close up or find another way to finance your operations. Despite all the claims of how much such a facility is needed, this second vote clearly indicates that the public doesn't want to finance your non-profit organization with tax dollars. The challenge you've had since 2005 when your board first approached the commissioners to ask for public funding has not changed. But as I was told at that time, going to the public for a levy was the 'easier' way to approach your difficulties. You now have to make decisions you should have made two years ago - and it will be even harder to do so having waited this long.

To those who took the time to research the issues and then vote, my thanks. To the 71% of Lucas County registered voters who didn't bother to cast a ballot ... your lack of participation has allowed the other 29% of us to make decisions on your behalf. I hope you're happy with what we decided, because you've earned no right to complain.

Thoughts on levies - money doesn't grow on trees

While I've said a lot on Eye on Toledo about the tax levies, I wanted to emphasize some specific points made - and highlight a couple of comments made by callers.

First, whether or not you can AFFORD the levies, I think it's contradictory to say people need various government programs because they can't afford their food, gasoline, heating, homes ... and then vote to raise the taxes that they pay. So, as liberals are so fond of saying, remember those who are less fortunate when you vote Tuesday because a yes vote on these levies is not just to tax yourself more - but to tax EVERYONE more - regardless of their individual ability to afford the additional costs.

If you still don't know how these levies will impact you, visit the AREIS website and put in your name or address and then, under DATA, look at the 'levy estimator' option. It shows what you're currently paying, how much the specific levy will add and how much the total will be.

If these levies fail, I'll save about $270. If they all pass, I'll pay 62% more. In fact, I queried about two dozen properties and found that the increase varies between 62-65%. When was the last time that you voted to raise your costs by that much?

If you haven't yet decided how to vote on these issues, please visit the WSPD podcasts for Fred Lefebvre, Brian Wilson and me and listen to what the representatives actually said (Fred's interview), listen to the analysis of the interview (Brian's show) and then what the callers and others had to say (my show).

A lot of people have suggested that only property owners should be able to vote on property tax levies. I disagree with this because renters do pay property taxes through their rents - even if it's not as obvious to them that they do so. Some landlords have even begun to include a clause in their lease that gives them the ability to increase the rent when the property taxes go up.

However, another caller suggested that the law about how property tax levies are passed should be changed to require that a 'majority of property owners' must vote yes in order to have such levies pass, rather than just a majority of 'voters.' This is something I found very intriguing, but highly unlikely, as there would be significant opposition to such a change in the law.

As for the specific levies, I don't believe that COSI should be on the ballot. They are a private, non-profit organization that had a bad business plan and didn't do anything to change their business plan other than plan to go to the voters for money at some time in the future. Further, according to their interview on WSPD, they haven't changed their failed business plan - meaning that the failures they've had in the past will likely continue.

In 2006 I voted against putting COSI on the ballot (Resolution 2006-1240 dated 8-22-06). Nothing that COSI has said or done since then has given me any reason to change my mind.

TARTA's levy is for 10 years. There aren't a lot of things I buy today that are expected to last for 10 years - and we've seen significant changes in how people 'move' over the last 10 years to give anyone pause when considering this levy. TARTA has not responded well to the changing needs of the community and I cannot help but wonder if part of their reasoning is based upon 'ridership.'

Under federal law, they count 'rides' not 'riders,' so a person who takes the bus to and from work counts as 2 rides, not 1 rider. If you transfer, you've now given them 4 rides but still just 1 rider. Knowing that federal support is dependent upon increasing the number of rides, rather than increasing the actual number of people, is it likely that routes are structured to include transfers? I don't know, but if it is likely, we've got federal rules that actually promote inefficient operation of our local public buses. And then there was the comment James Gee made on the WSPD interview that he believes it's better to run large empty buses than to switch over to smaller, more efficient vehicles.

And this is the leadership in the agency asking for 10 years of funding while spending $2.9 million from their cash reserves to cover a budget deficit this year.

The MetroParks and Library levies are also up for vote. While I really like both these organizations, their work and their services, I think it's time they had a wake-up call, like so many of us have had over the past several years. They continue to think that their needs are more important than ours and that their increased costs should just be covered by us, despite the fact that so many of us are running our homes on less money. We've all made cuts in how we live and it's time these organizations do the same.

I'm not expecting that there will be continuing high levels of service, but I'm willing to scale back my expectations in order to help them reduce their costs. But, if they make their cuts in order to impose the most hardship on their constituents, they won't get my support in the future - either in votes on levies nor in membership/donations. The Library could cut morning hours in order to stay open weekends and nights when adults are less likely to be working. Instead of expanding, the MetroParks could delay or eliminate additional land purchases, leaving more of their operating funds to cover what we already have.

And if they were to do these things, the 'quality of life' in Lucas County would not be negatively impacted - nor would the sky fall. In fact, had these organizations asked for a renewal (collecting the same amount of money as they have in the past) instead of a replacement (collecting the same millage but on the higher property values of today) levy, I might have voted in favor of them, as it's what I've already budgeted. But when my personal income - like so many others - is down, costs are up, and I've modified my lifestyle accordingly, I think it's only fair that our 'public institutions' do the same.

When we were younger, we'd go to Mom or Dad and ask for money for this or that purchase or expense, much like these organizations are doing to the voters. And the phrase accompanying the 'NO' answer we so often heard? "Money doesn't grow on trees." Perhaps it's time that the voters in Lucas County started acting like the grownups we are and tell these organizations the same.

UPDATE: For another good perspective on the levies, read this blog post from Just Blowing Smoke.