Toledo election results - stuck on stupid

Has Toledo fallen into a sink hole
from which we will never recover?

I cannot express how disappointed I am in Toledo's election results. We've put back into office the same names, same philosophies and the same stagnation that has us wishing for the 'good ol' days' only to be disappointed - again and again and again.

You know the definition of insanity? Toledo exemplifies it.

The unions and the Blade didn't want Mike Bell to be mayor again, primarily because they couldn't control him. But they fail to realize that he was actually doing good things in the city.

D. Michael Collins ran ads excoriating Bell for his economic development trips to China and for selling the Marina District to business developers who - eek! - don't look like us. What Collins and his supporters failed to realize is that doing so turned the District into a revenue-producing asset (primarily through the property taxes paid) instead of a drain on the city requiring constant upkeep.

No, it's not yet been developed as everyone, including the owners, would like, but at least it's not an albatross hanging around the city's neck like it had been under the previous mayors.

Collins is now between a rock and a hard place. Does he really think the owners of the Marina District are going to want to work with him to actually develop the property? Or will they wait it out until the next election? Or perhaps, like so many other business owners, leave the city altogether?

How will a mayor who criticized the outreach now reach out to those who have the ability to bring companies and jobs to the city?

Did anyone stop to think about that when they were jumping on the bandwagon?

And then there is city council which, except for Sandy Spang (the only bright hope of the night) is nothing but a repeat of old, tired names we've had all along.

Rob Ludeman, Jack Ford, Sandy Spang, Steven Steel, Theresa M. Gabriel and either Adam Martinez or Larry Sykes will be our at-large representatives on council. But even Gabriel isn't for certain. Only 75 votes separate her from Martinez, who is only 34 votes ahead of Sykes. The results are unofficial and I'm sure there are provisional ballots which were cast so it's really to early for any of the three to be celebrating.

But for Toledoans, it doesn't really matter. They're what we already have in terms of philosophy and approach - and at least two of them are names we've seen and heard over and over and over again. I have to wonder, though, if Sykes thinks not running for re-election to the school board was a bad idea. He was pretty much assured of that seat.

We've gone back to Jack Ford - again. He was first elected to City Council in 1993, the year I was elected clerk of Toledo Municipal Court. He then served as mayor (between Carty Finkbeiner stints) and then went to the school board. I think he also did a term in the state legislature - hard to keep track of the offices he's jumped to and from. He was so bad as mayor that Finkbeiner, whom he defeated after two terms, was able to get elected again. The joke was that we were on a pendulum swinging between crazy and lazy and definitely preferred the crazy side, which is why we back to Carty.

You'd think we'd learn our lesson. Apparently not.

And Gabriel, if she is elected, is an old Finkbeiner ally having served in his cabinet, but also appears to get along well with Ford.

Rumor has it that Finkbeiner is interested in being appointed to fill the district seat Collins will vacate when he's sworn in as mayor. Can it be any worse for Toledo? These are the same people who led us to our current decline/stagnation, but they're old (both physically and in length of time in the public eye) and must be familiar. We just seem to have a disconnect between the people and the policies they advocate which keep earning us the name of 'little Detroit.'

Then there is the Toledo School School board. Bob Vasquez was the top vote-getter which is not surprising considering he was the only incumbent. I like Bob. I've always respected his service on boards and commissions, even when I might have disagreed with him - which wasn't as often as some may think. At TPS I believe he pays good attention to the financial aspects of the school district and he was an early supporter of the performance audit I pushed for. Again, we don't always agree, but I think he's better than most when it comes to an elected official.

But who fills the two vacant seats? Polly Gerken-Taylor, wife of sitting County Commissioner and former Toledo Councilman Pete Gerken and, until now, a perennial candidate ... and Chris Varwig. a long-time TPS volunteer who says she wants to be an advocate for parents and has no desire to run for city council. She may be the second bright hope - if she doesn't get railroaded by the politics inherent in the system. My hope is that she will find allies in Vasquez and fellow board member Dr. Cecelia Adams.at

As for Polly (because the hyphenated name is just too much), the primary thing she has going for her is her husband's name and unions. Then there was her ridiculous campaign slogan, "now is the time." For what? For her to finally get into public office? She didn't campaign for anything other than what the board has always done. And our test scores, declining enrollment and general failure of the schools is the result. No wonder parents send their kids elsewhere.

On a good note, Josh Lanzinger was elected judge of the Toledo Municipal Court. He'd been appointed to the position and was able to keep it, primarily through the limited incumbency, but also because of the extremely familiar name (his mom is Supreme Court Justice Lanzinger with a long successful history of election in Lucas County). He'll most likely keep the seat for as long as he wants it.

But that's about all...

Let me share with you some of the comments from my Facebook friends:

"Toledoans will elect and reelect the same names and faces that have presided over Toledo's decline for decades...and then complain that it keeps getting worse."

"What's funny Maggie is people in Toledo acting like there is "change" or we will some how move out of the status quo... yes they have said that... but they keep voting the same status crap in."

"Toledo Businesses are voting,... on their way out. Is it any mystery Maggie, that we builders and developers are putting up new houses and subdivisions in the surrounding area and not into Toledo. Failing schools, failing philosophy. Who with a clue wants to live there?"

followed immediately by:

"This is why I will never expand my business to Toledo."

And then this from dear friend and fellow blogger Tim Higgins:

"Perhaps Toledo can put in for designation as a "Green City" for all of the candidate recycling that it did this election."

Maybe, but it won't help. As Sam and I have said for decades: Toledo is like a drug addict who hasn't yet hit rock bottom to know it needs to change.

"Toledo.... the future Detroit of Ohio."

Indeed. :(

btw: this DEFINITELY qualifies for 'stuck on stupid' though now I'm wondering just how stupid am I that I stay....

Council members should reimburse city for contributions, candidate Ron Johns says

Toledo council candidate Ron Johns

In July, Toledo City Council voted to give $50,000 to two local charitable (non-profit) organizations. There is no policy guiding such expenditures and other organizations were not given the same opportunity to receive public funds. I'm opposed to government making charitable donations and thought that is the organizations were so "worthy," council should have given their own money - not ours.

I emailed council members to ask about whether they'd spent their own money in addition to ours.

Rob Ludeman explained his vote by saying both organizations were "worthy" but admitted he had not given any of his own money to them because they hadn't asked.

D. Michael Collins, also a candidate for mayor, balked at answering such a personal question, then personally attacked me for having the gall to question him.

Council President Paula Hicks-Hudson claimed the money sent to the charities wasn't a donation - but what was it then?

Now council candidate Ron Johns wants the members of council to reimburse the city for the donations.

Here is his press release (as issued) calling for a "F.A.I.R." resolution:

“The F.A.I.R. Resolution”
Fair Allocation of Internal Revenue (FAIR)

July, 23th of 2013, eleven out of twelve Toledo City council members and the mayor voted to give public monies to two private charities they saw fit of receiving it. The two charities were The African American Legacy fund who was given $20,000 and the University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center who received $30,000 equating to $50,000 of public monies given away to private charities.

The mayor and 11 members of city council obviously saw these charities as doing a large amount of good, however they gave money that was not theirs to give. Our legislators had full intent to fund private organizations that they individually saw as worthy causes off of the taxpayers’ back, even if they didn’t agree with it. For that very reason I am today introducing the F.A.I.R. resolution to allow local politicians to give back the fair amount of money to the community from which they took from.

The FAIR resolution has been designed to point out what is fair and what is not, to illuminate the true role of government and reveal blatant misuse of city funds. The resolution is just a resolution, however if the mayor and eleven members of council who voted in favor of the donations really believe in the tax dollars it gave to private charities then they shouldn’t mind giving it themselves.

The resolution states that “If a vote is not held to cancel the donations before money is transferred, the Mayor and 11 City Council members who voted in favor of the donations shall be required to pay 1/12th of the final total of donations granted in reparations to the City of Toledo, or $4,167 per individual.”

Ron Johns will hold a press conference to discuss the F.A.I.R. resolution by the Civic Plaza fountain in front of 1 Government center Saturday, August 31st, beginning at 1 p.m. and ending at 1:30 p.m.

For more information contact: Ron Johns/419-481-3568
############
-30-

Money to charities not a donation, council president says

Hicks-Hudson says donation
not really a donation.

After 11 members of Toledo City Council voted on July 23 to give $20,000 to the African American Legacy Project and $30,000 to the University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center, I wrote to them asking why.

After raising our water and sewer rates, not reducing the trash tax to zero as promised, putting a parks and recreation levy on the ballot last year because they just didn't have enough money, and continuing to raid the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) fund in order to balance the yearly budget, you'd think additional spending would be rejected.

Not our council. So I asked them:

If these organizations are so worthy of support that you must give them our limited tax dollars, how much of your own money have you given to them?

At-large councilman Rob Ludeman said they were 'worthy' organizations, but he hadn't given to them of his own personal funds because he had "never been asked."

District 2 councilman and mayoral candidate D. Michael Collins balked at answering such a personal question, despite an earlier press conference in which he released his credit report and said candidates' finances are relevant:

Mr. Collins opened the door into his personal finances during a morning news conference, when he said the candidates’ finances are relevant for voters. “The next mayor will become CEO for the city of Toledo and will be in charge of nearly a half-billion-dollar budget,” Mr. Collins said. “Transparency on how mayoral candidates handle their personal finances is key for the citizens of Toledo in making their decision on who is best qualified to lead the city.”

He didn't give to the AALP of his own funds either, though he is a donor to the University of Toledo, but not the UAC specifically.

At-Large Councilman
Tyrone Riley

At-Large councilman Tyrone Riley responded with this:

Thank you for writing me with your concern. I support both organizations. The organizations in question serve a viable and important role in our community.

But does 'support' mean in principle or with actual personal funds? I'm still waiting for the answer to that.

Council President Paula Hicks-Hudson was late in responding, but apologized. Her positions is that these are not 'donations.'

I wanted to let you know why I supported the two ordinances. Sorry for the delay. The African American Legacy Project is an organization that is working to preserve, restore and exhibit the contributions of African American Toledo citizens. They moved into the Ascension Church building and are working toward providing a stabilizing asset to this corridor. As you know, the Toledo Art Museum is less than ½ mile from the location. These funds will assist the Project in its mission and will be an asset for all people in this community. The funding to The Urban Affairs Center is actually an agreement for research and technical assistance for city council. Council is somewhat limited in its ability to acquire best practices, specific research on various issues that we face in our roles on council. Thus it is not a donation.

Further, I do not view the funds to the AALP as a donation. But, as part of their annual fundraising efforts, I have contributed to the project, as well as others.

Thank you for taking the time to contact us.

I can understand her belief that the money sent to the UAC was not a 'donation' because they do perform various research projects on numerous issues. They also do surveys and polling. But according to their website, they charge a fee for those specific projects to the requesting entity. Toledo has not asked for anything specific, so the $30,000 was for the overall work they are doing. What determines the exact nature of the payment is whether or not it was sent to the UT Foundation, as instructed on their web site:

Individuals interested in supporting the UAC may make tax-deductible contributions to:

The UT Foundation
Driscoll Alumni Center Rm 1002
MS 319
The University of Toledo
2801 W. Bancroft Street
Toledo, Ohio 43606
utfoundation@utoledo.edu

If this is where the city sent the money, then it's a tax-deductible donation, regardless of what Hicks-Hudson says.

And since this is tax dollars, where are the charitable donation receipts for each Toledoan?

Hicks-Hudson also writes that she "doesn't view the funds to AALP as a donation."

Which begs the question: if you do not consider it a donation, what would you call it?

And that's what I asked her in my reply.

Perhaps she should re-read Ordinance 331-13 (emphasis added):

Authorizing the disappropriation of $20,000 from the General Fund, Safety Administration and the appropriation of said amount to the General Fund, Office of the Mayor; authorizing the expenditure of $20,000 from the General Fund as a contribution to the African-American Legacy Project; and declaring an emergency.

I also asked if council had a policy regarding such donations/expenditures that set forth the criteria for consideration and, if not, when they would be developing one.

I'll let you know if I get a response.

No matter what they call it, this is an unacceptable use of our limited tax dollars.

Council has no business picking and choosing charitable winners who get public funds. The fact that there is no criteria for determining what organizations, if any, are the recipient of the council members' largess with other peoples' money is completely beside the point, but it makes this particular action worse.

Our personal favorite charity is Mobile Meals of Toledo. While we donate to a number of charities, this one receives our time as well.

What if they asked council for $20,000? Certainly they're 'more worthy' of funding than a department at a publicly-funded university, right? MM feeds people after all - would could be more worthy than that?

Would they get $20,000? Or would the fact that they don't have a personal connection to either the mayor or members of council mean their request would be ignored - or not be given the same priority?

If you're wondering about that last reference, you need to read this:

What was interesting is that in 2006 the organization's total contributions were $24,476 and only $7,467 in 2009. That makes a $20,000 contribution from City Council look even more suspicious. And it gets better.

On the form's list of "Officers, Directors, Trustees, and Key Employees" (none of whom, according to the form, received compensation), I found two familiar names--Dr. Cecelia Adams and Norman Bell, Sr. Isn't that interesting? Geez--I bet it's only a coincidence that a TPS board member and the mayor's father are key individuals in the African American Legacy Project.

Perhaps every 'worthy' charitable organization in the area should ask for $20,000 of taxpayer funds. Maybe then council - and the mayor - would realize what a huge mistake they've made.

On second thought - maybe not. They'd probably have to borrow even more money from the CIP to do so.

Tax dollars went to 'worthy' charities, Ludeman says

Councilman Rob Ludeman first to
respond to request.

Toledo City Council voted to make a 'donation' (their word, not mine) to two local organizations: $20,000 to the African American Legacy Project and $30,000 to the University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center.

I blogged about how wrong it is for council to spend our money in this manner and wondered if these 'worthy' organizations had been 'worthy' enough to get any of the council members' personal funds. So I asked them.

Here is the email I sent to the 11 members who voted in favor of both ordinances:

Yesterday 11 of you voted to make donations with our tax dollars to the African American Legacy Project and the Toledo Urban Affairs Center.

If these organizations are so worthy of support that you must give them our limited tax dollars, how much of your own money have you given to them?

I must say, though, that I'm not optimistic that even half of you will bother to respond even though it's an extremely valid question that deserves an answer.

Yes, I admit that I'm cynical when it comes to responses from my elected representatives, but apparently justified.

At-Large Councilman Rob Ludeman was the first to respond:

Hello Maggie. I got your e-mail and as I do am sending a reply. We vote on a lot of legislation in each meeting and it is interesting when members of Council are criticized over individual votes. The two that have come up this week are the $30,000 for the Urban Affairs Center and $20,000 for the African American Legacy Project. President Paula Hicks Hudson introduced the Urban Affairs legislation. During my tenure on Council the city has partnered in many ways with UT and the Urban Affairs Center. They have done numerous studies for and with us to help with different aspects of our city. The Mayor introduced the other piece. There was a question last week if it could be funded from a different fund source but it could not. In difficult times of potential racial divide this project may help make a difference in our community. Looking at the overall picture both seemed worthy of my support. Many cutbacks have occurred in our city government in the past ten years. I am proud to be a part of avoiding a $48 million dollar deficit in my first year back on Council in 2010. Every department has made severe cuts with not a single person laid off. We are back on track and assisting viable components in our community on a much smaller scale than in the past is a prudent investment in our future. Having been a district councilman and now at large, I know that every district council member has lobbied hard for projects in their neighborhoods. Each request is scrutinized and questioned before a Council vote, as were these two ordinances, and a decision is reached. I know not every vote I make will be appreciated by every citizen. But I have never voted without knowledge of the issue.

As far as my record on donating to worthy groups and organizations, Elaine and I give a substantial amount of our hard earned dollars to a multitude of charities as well as our church. We believe in giving back to our community in both time and money.

I did want to respond and let you know my thoughts.

Take care, Rob

While I appreciate that Ludeman replied, he didn't answer the question, though he did extol the virtues of the recipients.

My reply back:

Thanks for your reply, but you did not answer the question: How much of your own money did you give to either of these organizations? I ask it again, especially in light of your comment: "Looking at the overall picture both seemed worthy of my support."

As for the UT Urban Affairs Center, when they have conducted studies on behalf of the City, did you not pay them for the work at the time it was done?

No one has said the two organizations are not good entities nor that the work they do is not important. That is not the question.

When the City (not specifically you, but as an entity) is constantly telling us they don't have enough money for essential services, insists on raising rates on water/sewer, imposes a trash tax which was supposed to be reduced to zero but now seems to be a forever charge, and cannot seem to fix numerous potholes, why do 'we' have money for charitable organizations? And if these are 'worthy,' are you going to give to every charity that puts its hand out?

I'd really appreciate an answer to the original question.

And Ludeman did respond with an answer:

No, but have never been asked by either entity.

So he hasn't given of his own funds because he hasn't been asked, but he gave of our funds because that's what they asked for?

Perhaps that's a cynical conclusion that Ludeman doesn't deserve, but I cannot help but be incredulous over the 'logic.'

Ludeman did not answer the second question that arose: If these organizations are 'worthy,' are you going to give to every charity that puts its hand out for taxpayer dollars?

My guess is that the answer would be 'no,' but if so, how does council decide where to draw the line?

Will all charities who get a council member to support them get funds? Where is the 'fairness' in giving to one but not to all?

Will council support charities of fellow Democrat members and reject charities of Republican ones? Who doesn't believe politics plays no role in this?

What about the charities I support versus the ones I don't? Why should my tax dollars be used to support charities I might not favor? And can the charities I like get $20,000 too?

Does the city really have enough money to accommodate all the requests for charitable donations? And if not, should any get taxpayer dollars?

Here's the thing that really gets me. If the African American Legacy Project really needed $20,000 so badly, couldn't the 11 council members and mayor (who appears to support the 'donation') have given or raised it personally?

It's only $1667 per person.

Don't council members have the gravitas to raise that much for a 'worthy' cause? They certainly seem able to do it for themselves when it comes to their campaigns.

Mayor Mike Bell should veto this.

As then-Representative James Madison said in a speech on the House floor during the debate "On the Memorial of the Relief Committee of Baltimore, for the Relief of St. Domingo Refugees":

"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

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.

What comes after AZ immigration law for Toledo City Council?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers and boos to Toledo City Council - UPDATED

I discussed the City Council votes on numerous issues on Eye on Toledo last night (listen here), and today's Blade also has a recap. So here are the cheers and boos:

CHEERS to Michael Ashford for voting no on the $7.8 million Southwyck buyout plan.

"We are on the hook for $7.8 million, and he (Larry Dillin) wants the city to help him with a $17 million plan. We can't afford that," Mr. Ashford said. "He wants a commitment for 2008 and 2009 [capital improvements for the $4 million], which we don't even know yet."

He also questioned why the city of Toledo is the "middleman" buying private property, doing asbestos cleanup, and then selling it to a private developer.

That's a great question, Mike, and it's one I bet didn't get answered. But I - and I'm sure many others - appreciate your take on this one. NBC24 has a good explanation of the requirements the city agreed to - and a copy of the letter of agreement on the deal from Larry Dillin.

BOOS to the rest of council, especially the Republicans, who seem to think this is what constitutes economic development while they perpetuate other policies and taxation that make this city 'not business friendly.'

CHEERS again to Michael Ashford for voting against spending $35,000 to hire a company to survey 800 Toledoans about their budget priorities, especially considering the fact that both the University of Toledo and Bowling Green State University have the ability to do the same thing for considerably less.

BOOS to the 10 council members who voted in favor of the new convenience store licensing law (background here, here, here and here.) According to an email from one of my WSPD listeners, Councilman Joe McNamara called the proposed legislation 'Draconian' and was going to meet with Councilman Rob Ludeman (the sponsor of the legislation) Monday to see about making some changes. Changes were made - some good, some not - and McNamara urged passage of the law which reflected 'minor tweaking.'

Some of the 'tweaking' was not 'minor' and I'll be discussing this tonight on Eye on Toledo at 6 p.m.

CHEERS to Betty Shultz and Joe Birmingham for voting against this.

Eye On Toledo interview with Rob Ludeman

Friday I did an interview with Councilman Rob Ludeman about the convenience store licensing law scheduled to be voted on by Toledo City Council on Tuesday, December 11th. I've posted some thoughts about the interview on my Eye on Toledo blog, and I'd appreciate your comments here.

If you've not heard about this issue, you can listen to the pod cast of the show by clicking the link on the left. For background on the issue, you can read my previous posts here, here and here. And you can read my column on the issue in the Toledo Free Press.

'Not business friendly' - post #4

Well, despite the pleas from realtors who truly know our market the best, Toledo City Council passed a government-mandated inspection of homes prior to a land-contract sale. (Blade article on the vote here.) And kudos to the five council members who voted no: Joe Birmingham (R-Dist. 6), Rob Ludeman (R-at large), George Sarantou (R-at large), Betty Shultz (R-at large) and Mark Sobczak (D-at large).

This means that anyone wanted to sell their home under a land-contract agreement must first apply to the Commissioner of Building Inspection for the Certificate of Property Code Compliance (CPCC) and include a copy of the inspection of the house conducted by an inspector "registered with the Commissioner of Building Inspection."

"A Certificate of Property Code Compliance Inspection shall include an inspection of the electrical, heating, and plumbing systems and building structure (e.g., roof, gutters, siding, etc.) to ensure that the residential property is in a safe, sanitary and habitable condition and meets the Property Maintenance Code (PMC) of the State of Ohio. Any Certificate of Property Code Compliance Inspection Report shall be on the form provided by the City of Toledo. Minimally, the Certificate of Property Code Compliance Inspection Report shall list individual violations and a rough estimate of the cost to cure each violation or deficiency, signed by a Registered Inspector. The Commissioner of Neighborhood Revitalization or the Commissioner of Building Inspection may, at his or her discretion, accept alternative inspection report forms. The Certificate of Property Code Compliance Inspection Report shall be completed and filed with the Commissioner of Neighborhood Revitalization or the Commissioner of Building Inspection within thirty (30) days of the date of application."

You've got 90-days (renewable once) to fix any defects found in the inspection report. Oh - and of course it's going to cost you $100 to actually become a 'registered inspector.' And, if you fail to follow this law, you can be fined $250 for the first violation, $500 for the second one and $1,000 for the third and subsequent fines - enforceable in civil court.

Non-compliance with other portions of this new law can be charged under the criminal code "of a misdemeanor third degree on the first offense, a misdemeanor of the second degree for a second subsequent offense or a misdemeanor of the first degree for a third subsequent offense."

All this, according to Keith Foster, vice president of the Greater Toledo Housing Coalition which sought the change, is to "protect the consumer."

And, the coalition will certainly work with any landlord who thinks the law is detrimental ... how magnanimous.

As many landlords and realtors have said in the past, laws already exist to protect such consumers. But the problem many housing advocates have is that they provide relief AFTER the fact, rather than preventing the consumer from making a mistake in the first place. And now we have the force of government to ensure that no one purchases a home on land contract without being aware of any problems and having them fixed. Never mind that anyone purchasing a home has the ability to hire an inspector and then negotiate a price accordingly. The force of law is now going to be not on the buyer, but on the seller to not only perform the inspection but to make any necessary repairs.

I guess the days of 'caveat emptor' are over - and instead we have the increasing lack of personal responsibility due to the government ensuring you never have the opportunity to learn from a mistake.

Up is down in Toledo when it comes to eminent domain

Yes, up is down, black is white, and I find myself agreeing with Democrats on Toledo city council while wondering what's happened to the Republicans.

The issue? Eminent Domain for Southwyck Mall. (For complete background, read this, this and this.)

If you're not familiar with Toledo politicians - or even if you are - you might be surprised to learn who said the following:

"...eminent domain is a tool the City of Toledo can use to get Bill Dillard and Buddy Hering, who own parcels at Southwyck, to complete the deal with Larry Dillin, president of Dillin Corporation."- Toledo Free Press

or this:

“They [the owners of Southwyck] have a history of not cooperating and running Southwyck Mall into the ground. Those uncooperative owners are the reason we have to look at eminent domain. We can't let them hold us hostage.” - Toledo Free Press

or this:

"It really bothers me that we can't get a national company to be a responsible corporate citizen, and I think we need to take bold action." - Toledo Blade

Anyone familiar with the traditional stances of the two parties would probably guess these quotes came from the Democrats...but they didn't. The first quote is from Republican Rob Ludeman, District 2 representative. The other two quotes are from Republican George Sarantou, at-large member of council.

And the Democrats? They said this:

"Council President Michael Ashford questioned whether the administration has the legal justification for eminent domain, given recent rulings by the Ohio and U.S. Supreme Court on the use of eminent domain for economic development." - Toledo Blade

and this:

"Councilman Frank Szolosi said he has “a fundamental opposition to the city's use of eminent domain.”" - Toledo Free Press

Further, our Republicans are strangely silent about the revelation that the supposed 'public use' to justify eminent domain was never part of the plan for Southwyck - and, contrary to what the mayor said, was NOT requested by Larry Dillin, the proposed developer of the property. The city has decided a road right through the middle of the property is 'needed.' (Posts linked above show the planned road and the original - and still current - site plan presented by Dillin.)

According to this Blade article, "Mr. Finkbeiner said the road fits with the Village at Southwyck concept proposed by developer Larry Dillin.

“[Mr. Dillin] feels that it’s very important that that mall be broken up, that there be a connecting road running north and south, to link the beltway road,” the mayor said, referring to Southwyck Boulevard."

But this is directly contradicted by the developer, according to the Free Press article:

"“We feel very strongly about our plans to rejuvenate the Southwyck property and want to move forward with them,” said Bill Thomas, director of real estate services for Dillin Corp.
...
Thomas said the Dillin firm had nothing to do with the city's latest plans for a connecting road through the Southwyck property. If the city has plans that show a connecting road, “We were not involved in them,” he said."

So the mayor lied about the need for a road, the Republicans are supporting eminent domain because they don't like what a property owner is doing - legally - with their private property, and the Democrats are the ones asking questions about the legality and the costs.

Truly, up is down in Toledo.



BONUS ISSUE: The comment by Sarantou about being a "responsible corporate citizen," ties in with this quote, also from the Blade article:

"Dave Lemon, the volunteer leader of a citizens' organization in the Southwyck area, said Mr. Dillard shows no corporate responsibility for the area surrounding the mall, and is "stubbornly refusing" to sell a mall that he is neglecting."

Perhaps we're getting to the underlying message here? That you're only welcome in our community if your use of your private property corresponds to our determination of being 'socially responsible.' But that's another post for another time...

Hypocrisy in Toledo

According to this Blade article, our mayor, Carty Finkbeiner, is dead-set to exercise the authority of government to take private property (Southwyck Mall) because he does not like what the owners are doing - or rather, not doing - with the property. (Background on the issue is here and here.)

Of course, the reason for taking the property is a newly-discovered need for a road to go directly through the property, thus making the 'taking' necessary to meet a 'public use.'

The hypocrisy is overflowing, especially in this statement from the article:

"Mr. Finkbeiner said the road fits with the Village at Southwyck concept proposed by developer Larry Dillin.

“[Mr. Dillin] feels that it’s very important that that mall be broken up, that there be a connecting road running north and south, to link the beltway road,” the mayor said, referring to Southwyck Boulevard."

Unfortunately for the mayor, the site plan shown below (readily available here at the time of this posting), shows NO ROAD through the middle of this property.


(This image is shown with north on the right, and the beltway road surrounding the property running from the left - south - side to the right - north side. Reynolds road accesses on the bottom of the image.)

Of course, I'll admit it is possible that Larry Dillin has changed his site design, but I'd find that to be highly convenient to the city, considering that this site plan is the one he's been showing everyone since 2003.

And then we have the comment from our Republican representative of that district, Rob Ludeman, who says:

"“This is to move Mr. Dillard and Mr. Herring off dead-center. This is the step we need to take to bring [Southwyck revitalization] to fruition. It is blight, and it has had a residual effect on all the surrounding area, residential and commercial,” Mr. Ludeman said."

...admitting that the true purpose is not because they need a road, but because they want to redevelop the property and the property owner isn't interested in doing what they want.

And then Ludeman mentions that dreaded term - blight. However, Mr. Ludeman might want to read last year's Ohio Supreme Court ruling in Norwood v. Hormey which said that communities should not be targeting buildings in good condition and whose owners were not property-tax delinquent and declaring them blight. The Supreme Court also said that communities cannot claim 'deterioration' of a property as a reason for a taking.

From the summary of the case:

"The use of the term “deteriorating area” as a standard for a taking is unconstitutional because the term inherently incorporates speculation as to the future condition of the property to be appropriated rather than the condition of the property at the time of the taking.

Courts must apply heightened scrutiny when reviewing statutes that regulate the use of eminent domain powers."

It's the last sentence which is going to come back to haunt Toledo politicians. Any heightened scrutiny of this eminent domain action will show that they never intended for a road to be built through the middle of this property, that they've been frustrated by the owners' lack of interest in selling or redeveloping the property, and that they've come up with a thinly-veiled excuse of a sudden 'public use' in order to justify their actions.

And the cost to the public for this will be enormous, considering the projected budget deficit for 2008 and the fact that we have a half-built bridge in the downtown which has no source of funding for completion of the work.

Further, the intangible costs associated with this idea are immeasurable. The anti-business message alone could be the final nail in the coffin for many. And the precedent this would set for residential property owners is scary. After all, if they can do this with a mall, what's to prevent them from deciding any neighborhood is ripe for re-development and, when you don't want to sell, they just decide to build a new road and then take your home via eminent domain?

There's a public hearing on this scheduled for Monday, Sept. 24, 2007, at 4 p.m. in city council chambers. Newly-elected president of council, Michael Ashford, indicates that council would like to see plans for the road - and an explanation as to why this recently-discovered 'need' for a road through the middle of the property is more of a priority than other roads in the area.

You need to show up to this hearing and tell city council that such takings are, in the mayor's favorite words, "just not right."

Disregard for rules and procedures

Well, it's official. Toledo city council members did not follow the proper procedures in naming a new president of city council. (Story on the legal ruling is available from The Blade and background on the issue is available here and here.)

You see, there's actually a need to have a vacancy in the office of president of council before members can select someone new to fill the position. Which seems to make sense - you can't 'fill' a vacancy if none exists. And, according to the city charter and the law director, you have to remove the sitting president in order to create a vacancy.

But that little procedure was obviously too complicated for the partisan efforts to put a Democrat into the position, especially after the Democrat State Party Chairman came to town to lay down the law to "either elect a Democratic council president or stop bickering."

And to make things even more ridiculous, they didn't bother to swear in the new president prior to him accepting the gavel. If this is the type of leadership we can expect from the new 'working majority,' please go back to being divided before you do more harm.

However, I'm not surprised. My experience in office often showed that Democrats were fond of the idea that rules and procedures are things to be ignored or disregarded in the effort to 'accomplish good for the citizens.' Too often, the concept of the 'ends justifying the means' was paramount and anyone who raised procedural issues was an obstructionist.

As it stands today, it appears that Rob Ludeman is still the president and that council has some motions to make if they really want to have a new one. The question now is this: will the new "working majority" be able to keep their alliance together in order to cast 7 votes to remove Ludeman?

As this is Toledo - who knows?

The story behind the story...

Today's Blade has the story of the change in Toledo City Council president from Republican Rob Ludeman to Democrat Michael Ashford. But here's the story behind the story....

Ludeman was elected president with the support of the Republicans and a couple of B-Team Democrats, as well as the support of Democrat Mayor Carty Finkbeiner. The A-Team/B-Team split in the Democrat Party has deep roots and is the source of much embarrassment to the local and state parties. The fact that the two teams couldn't come together to elect a president of council when they hold the majority became a major sticking point and a further indication of the extent of their differences.

"The 7-4 vote came after almost two weeks of public jockeying for the job among Democrats who were embarrassed that Democrats held an 8-4 majority, but that a Republican ran the agenda and appointed the committee chairmen."

Yes, embarrassment was the reason for the change - not that Rob was doing a poor job in the role. But the political need for a Dem president far outweighed the actual skills and performance of the person in the position.

"He (Ashford) said it made sense for council's majority party to be a "working majority," and that he would work with Mayor Carty Finkbeiner.

"My job is to work with the mayor to make the mayor successful on all his initiatives. At the same time, my job is to serve as a voice for the citizens," he said."

The Dems already had a working majority - they just couldn't get themselves to work toward the same goal...and the stickler was the A-Teamers (Ashford included) who routinely opposed the B-Teamer mayor. Some might say that this was because there were no Republicans to oppose - but that's another story for another day.

And now, those who've positioned themselves against the mayor now say that their job is to 'make the mayor successful on all his initiatives'???? They could have done this without the presidency of council, as Ludeman was actually doing a better job in this role than Ashford and his A-Team colleagues. But now all is rosy...

""To replace him for no reason whatsoever, with but four months left in his term, underscores the pettiness, bitter partisanship, and ongoing political gamesmanship of this council," the mayor said."

Yes, the mayor gets it right...this was more about partisanship and political power than it was about any policy or public need.

"The change in leadership will give the A-team Democrats more power to make a difference in city policy, said Mr. (Frank) Szollosi, who led the effort to overturn the GOP leadership.

"We wanted to move into a period of greater cooperation and respect," Mr. Szollosi said."

Now, how 'having the presidency' will move them toward greater cooperation and respect is beyond me - especially considering than the leading spokesman against that mayor has been Szollosi, sometimes rightly so.

Szollosi opposed certain taxes and spending, gaining much support from both Republican and Democrat voters. But he never missed an opportunity to slam the mayor and others opposed to his own positions. If there was a true interest in moving toward greater cooperation and respect, it certainly didn't take a change in the council president to do so. This 'excuse' is a smokescreen for the real reason - that it embarrassed the Dems locally and state-wide for them to have a majority on council with a Republican as president.

Considering the past disagreements between the A/B teams, I'm sure some of the seven who voted for Ashford had to be persuaded. Lisa Renee at Glass City Jungle (who reported the story before the local media outlets - congrats!) wrote that State Party Chairman Chris Redfern met with the Dems yesterday morning before their council meeting. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall in that room!

But that raises all kinds of questions - like why a state party chairman is meddling in our local city council presidency in the first place. Especially when it's extremely obvious that this vote to elect Ashford was more about Democrat Party unity (or the appearance of such) than it was about what is good for the city...and even more so when you remember that city council is a non-partisan office and race!

But, image is more important than substance these days. And the story behind the story is that now the Dems can brag that they've 'defeated' the Republicans and are 'standing together.' However, as I've said in the past, those A-Team/B-Team wounds are very deep and not likely to be healed by a thinly-veiled show of unity.

The sad part is that even Ashford, in his morning interview on WSPD, couldn't give a valid reason for why this change needed to take place. He tried to make the point that it was about 'policy' but his meager response to the question only demonstrated that the real reason is politics - he just couldn't say it honestly without looking even more foolish than he - and his cohorts - already look.

And that's the story behind the story...

Is this the job of a Commissioner?

According to a Blade article today, Lucas County Commission President Tina Skeldon Wozniak asked a non-profit organization to offer free admission to their event for all Lucas County residents.

I'm sure that the fact that this organization is using county property didn't influence their answer in any way...

As you'll see from the article, the non-profit had offered Maumee residents free admission for some of the time on Sunday of their Rib-Off event - they explained that this was because of the people and amount of traffic they're bringing into the city - sort of a good-neighbor gesture. And it's certainly their prerogative to do so.

However, it's also noted in the article that Comm. Wozniak didn't come up with this idea on her own - rather that the idea came from Toledo City Council President Rob Ludeman who was hoping for a me-too arrangement, despite the fact that the City of Toledo, in response to this event moving to the Maumee due to a lack of space in their previous location of downtown Toledo, decided to create their own 'rib event' the weekend BEFORE the annual Rib-Off.

What many don't know, however, is that last year, after the announcement that the Rib-Off was moving, two county commissioners threatened to shut down the event in retaliation for them leaving downtown Toledo - threatening to prohibit use of the parking areas and extra entrances. (The Ag Society has control of the fairgrounds property so the Commissioners couldn't do anything about their desire to allow the event on that portion of the property.)

Eventually, the Commissioners realized that they really didn't have legal standing and that the publicity about their efforts could be rather negative. The Rib-Off went forward - and the new location was liked by 'all.'

But along comes Toledo who sees that another city is getting something they're not...and like a spoiled child, demands the same...with a county commissioner only too happy to oblige...

Which leads to the question of whether or not it is proper for a county commissioner to ask a non-profit organization to waive their entrance fee to an event for county residents - especially when said commissioner can restrict usage of public property if she doesn't get an answer she likes.

Oh - and for the record, the logic for the request is that all municipalities in the county should be treated the same...too bad our commissioners don't apply this logic in their other decisions.

More struggles with Toledo's budget

Want to know why the City of Toledo yearly faces budget deficits? It's because of decisions like these:

"Part of the reason for the increased 2007 budget is to pay for a 2 percent city employee pay raise that took effect Jan. 1, and to pick up an additional 2.25-percentage point share of police officer and firefighter pension contributions.

In 2008, city employees are to get a 3 percent pay raise, and police and firefighters would get an additional 1.5 percent pension pickup."

This is from today's Blade article which relates the latest proposal to deal with our city's budget. And while I realize the economy is booming in just about every place BUT here, I have to question the logic of a 2007 4.25% and a 2008 4.5% pay increase for our police and firefighters. Now don't get me wrong, I don't know if you can really pay such individuals too much for the jobs they do, but in these difficult financial times?

The article's main point is Council President Rob Ludeman's proposal to have employees incur a payroll deduction of $25 each pay period to help pay for their insurance. He says that employees have "the Cadillac of benefits." And with taxpayers who foot the bill rarely enjoying the same level of benefits, especially in today's marketplace, he's right.

But the idea of a medical payroll deduction could be dead on arrival with the unions.

"Don Czerniak, president of the 870-member American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local 7 union, rejected Mr. Ludeman's suggestion.

"My opinion is a flat-out no. I am not taking that to my members. I have helped in the past. As a thank-you for doing something, my members have suffered layoffs," he said."

I'm certain the Local 7 employees have tried to help in the past by making concessions, but my fear is that they would rather maintain a high level of wages and benefits for SOME of their members than keep ALL of them employed.

Beginning the discussions, however, would be good. But there's a twist. In exchange for the mayor beginning discussions with the unions to make this possible, Ludeman is willing to support a $4 trash fee, down $2 from the mayor's original proposal.

My preference would be that no 'revenue enhancements' (meaning taxes) would be up for discussion until every last unnecessary expense was eliminated. And if the four Republicans on council teamed up with Democrats Frank Szollosi (who's correctly said repeatedly that Toledoans are taxed too much), Michael Ashford (who says the 2007 budget contains 'pork') and Ellen Grachek (who has demonstrated a willingness to fund essential priorities first), perhaps we could actually have a budget in line with our ability to pay.