Toledo pools will open - without government funding

Apparently, the City of Toledo has learned a valuable lesson:  It open city pools and doesn't have to spend limited tax dollars to do so.

According to today's paper, six pools and a splashpad, that were not funding in the city's 2015 budget, will open due to an influx of donations from companies, unions and others.

The Blade also reported that the cost of opening the pools this year would be around $400,000.

As I've previously noted on this blog, the pools are a huge money drain for the city and even the paper and administrators have finally noted that attendance has been falling over the years.

According to City of Toledo Finance Director George Sarantou, last year the pools too in only $11,437 leaving a deficit of about $350,000.

According to District 5 Councilman Tom Waniewski, that's $3,000 per child who used the pools.

The city needs to do more of this and find ways to NOT spend tax dollars, especially since it's still raiding the Capital Improvement Plan funds to pay for every day expenses.

Waniewski 1 of 4 recommended to fill PUCO seat

Toledo city councilman Tom Waniewski, R-District 5, is one of four individuals recommended to fill a seat on the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO).

The others, all Republicans, are former Rep. Thomas Johnson, Stacey Polk and Patrick Donlon.

Gov. John Kasich has 30 days to select one of the nominees to replace Todd Snitchler, or he can request a new list of recommendations from the Nominating Council.

The open position is a five-year term beginning in April. The governor's nominee will have to be confirmed by the Senate.

Johnson, who was a state rep from 1977 to 1999, also served as director of the Office of Budget and Management.

Polk is an attorney based in Cleveland who works as a sustainability consultant helping businesses implement green and advanced energy measures. She previously served as an assistant director in the City of Cleveland's of the Department of Economic Development.

Donlon currently works for the PUCO as a utility rates and tariff administrator. He previously worked for American Electric Power and for Time Warner Cable.

Waniewski, who is also a member of the Ohio Public Works Commission, chairs the Environmental Services Committee.

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.

Just say NO to Toledo Recreation Levy - even if it is 'for the children'

Are we not Taxed Enough Already? Why in the world would two city council members want to add to our costs in one of the worst economies in our lifetimes?

Are they stuck-on-stupid?

According to The Blade, District 6 Councilwoman Lindsay Webb and At-Large Councilman Steven Steel want to put a 1 mill recreation property tax levy on the ballot in November. The levy would raise about $3 million per year and they say it would be a dedicated fund to pay for recreation programs only.

We've heard that line before. Our Capital Improvement Program Fund (CIP) is supposed to pay for capital projects only - yet they divert funds from it regularly to pay for every day expenses that exceed the amount of the general fund revenue. They've diverted, at last count, $50 million from the CIP in the last several years and plan to raid an additional $12 million to cover 2012 expenses.

Toledoans have seen, all too often, how 'dedicated' such funds really are, especially when politicians decide we just have to have one of their pet projects.

But let's look at the idea of funding recreation for kids with a tax levy.

The local daily presents sob stories of how kids in the past used to be able to rely upon the city for everything from free arts and crafts to sailing lessons. Now, with the city in dire financial straights (we're raiding our CIP every year, don't forget), items of lesser priorities than roads, sewers, police and fire have been eliminated. There is only so much money to go around and, properly, the city has cut services which are not necessary.

This is not to say that certain groups didn't want those services to continue, but just like in our personal budgets, when we don't have enough money to pay for our rent/mortgage, food or gas, we cut out things like eating out and going to the movies.

But, but, but, they say - what about the children?!?

What makes these two Democrats think that parents who cannot afford to enroll their kids in a local, privately-run program can afford an additional tax on their property?

Well, you suggest, if everyone in the city is paying the tax, then it will end up being less for the parents to pay since all their neighbors and people they don't know will be paying as well, regardless of whether or not they participated in the programs when they were younger - or have kids to participate in them today (or yet in the future). Collectivism is what this becomes - everyone paying so a very small number can have a benefit.

And here I thought Democrats were all about 'fairness.' How is it fair to tax me because some parent wants recreation for their kids for free????

Over the weekend, I attended my cousin's graduation from college (summa cum laude and we are all so proud of her). The keynote speaker was a woman from a local philanthropic trust who said they are relying upon today's graduates to help them understand what they need in order to be successful entrepreneurs. One way is NOT to tax everyone to pay for things that people can do on their own.

From the story:

Point Place resident Celina Dusseau remembers the fun she had at city-run summer activities in nearby Friendship Park when she was younger. Now 16, Celina said she looked into volunteering for one of the park programs she used to attend, only to find out they no longer exist.

"It was disappointing," she said. "I wanted to be able to do that with the kids in the neighborhood. … It was such a big part of my childhood."

What a phenomenal opportunity for Ms. Dusseau! She wanted to volunteer - to offer her services for free. She can still do so. She can put together her own program. She can offer to supervise and come up with ideas and she could charge a minimal amount for materials and supplies. She can talk to her neighbors and those in the area with kids and could probably, with the support of council members, get a free room or place at the same local park where she could offer the program.

Here's what she'd learn: that parents would be willing to pay a small (or perhaps even a medium or large) amount for their kids to participate, thus leading to a successful business venture that might, over time and with the proper planning, turn into a national business (I dream big). Or she will find out that there is no interest in such things - at least, not with today's technology (video games, computers, etc...) that makes the traditional arts & crafts for kids seem lame. She may find that there is such a small and limited interest that it costs too much to offer for the amount of participation.

If she finds the first scenario, then there is no need for the government to tax us for this. In fact, the refusal of government to tax us for such a service may end up providing that same government with business income taxes, employment taxes (from the people she'll have to hire) and the multiplier effect of her purchasing items from local companies.

If she finds the latter scenario, it begs the question of why the city would tax everyone in the city for a venture that has limited or no appeal?

The article also says, but doesn't provide attribution for, this:

A tax proposal would allow residents a voice in determining the city's priorities.

Nothing could be further from the truth!

All this proposed levy would do is appeal to the emotions of voters (it's for the children, remember?) and to people who want others to pay for things they want but don't want to pay for themselves.

In order for this to "allow" residents a voice in determining the city's priorities, it would have to be placed against other funding - like for police, fire, roads, building inspection, water, sewers, sidewalks, bikepaths, public art, etc...

We don't get to go to the polls and select which items we want to pay for, we are only asked if we want to pay for individual items, usually one at a time.

And since when do cities "allow" their residents to have a voice? Obviously the author of the statement has forgotten that these elected officials are supposed to work for ALL the residents - they are not in office to cater to small groups at the expense of everyone else. Elected officials work for us. Their obligation is to listen to us, not 'allow' us to instruct them in what we want done.

The article then does the classical logical fallacy of appealing to authority. They trot out Woody Woodward, executive director at the Ohio Parks and Recreation Association, who was "taken aback" at the decline of our parks.

"I've seen municipal recreation departments all over the state, seen the conditions of facilities, and it is very clear that Toledo has not invested in their parks and recreation programs at a level that is probably commensurate with what other cities are expending throughout Ohio," he said. "It almost feels like, at some point, parks and recreation ceased to be a priority ...

Oh my! Everyone else is doing it and we're not! And here is where my mother would say, "if everyone is jumping off a bridge...."

But Woodward hits the nail on the head, "parks and recreation ceased to be a priority." Yes - when we have no money to pay for our roads, when we cannot travel without needing a dentist appointment immediately thereafter, when the city cuts back on essentials, non-mandatory expenses are cut - as they should be! So when we have all these other unmet NEEDS, it's no wonder that wants like parks and recreation are lower on the priority list.

Again, to think otherwise is 'stuck-on-stupid.'

But let's not just rely upon one expert, let's bring in a second one to claim that if we don't have recreation, kids will turn to crime. Well, he doesn't exactly say that, but it is certainly implied, complete with a central city teen to tug at the heartstrings:

Councilmen Webb and Steel voice concerns that people will leave Toledo if public parks and recreation are not improved. They and others also fear that lack of accessible recreation options for the city's youth could be a factor in increased gang activity and violent crime.

"Ever since I've been here, there's been fewer and fewer [recreation programs]," he said. "I think with the older adolescents, you'll see kids getting into activities that they shouldn't be getting into. And I think with the younger ones, it impacts what they do in school."

Major Smith, 17, who lives in the central city, said he's seen negative effects from lack of recreational opportunities among youths in his neighborhood and in his own family, although he's tried to avoid negative influences himself. Some youths get involved in gangs because they have nothing better to do, he said. "They're just kids that are looking for a way. They just have nowhere to be, nothing to do," he said. "They're just lost."

I thought this was why we were opening the pools!

Besides, what about all the private and non-profit groups who are already providing recreational services - like the Boys & Girls Club, YMCA and local community centers? The city would be in competition with these private groups and imposing a tax means that such entities are more at risk of losing their private funding.

(Oh - and the membership at the Boys & Girls Club? It's only $3 for kids age 7-15 and $5 for kids 16-18. If you can't afford $3 or $5 for your kid, how will you afford this tax levy?!?)

Mr. Smith - here's your opportunity. Begin your own program - you'll probably offer something more relevant and interesting than anything the city could ever come up with its 'one-size-fits-all' approach because it knows of no other. And you'll be a role model, as well, something so lacking in too many areas of our city. But don't get trapped into thinking that every want and need you have should be met by the government!

Some will join this effort to raise our taxes saying parks will help attract companies. They *always* say that, but I have yet to find a single company that has listed local parks as the primary reason for moving a business into an area.

And it won't help us keep residents either. In fact, another tax could be the straw that broke the camel's back when it comes to deciding on a house in Toledo or a suburban community.

As WSPD is reporting this morning, since the city requirement that employees live within the city limits was struck down by the Ohio Supreme Court, "public safety forces have moved out of the city in droves."

In fact, nearly 40 percent of the police and firefighting forces now live outside Toledo.

Out of 690 people on the police payroll, 427 live within Toledo's city limits. (38.1% live elsewhere)

There are 526 city employees with the Toledo fire department, including civilians. Of those, 320 live in Toledo. (39.2% outside Toledo)

Overall, 1,216 public safety employees work in Toledo, but fewer than 750 (747) reside in the city. (38.5 % live outside the city)

Councilman Tom Waniewski would like to find out why. I guarantee you that 'lack of parks and recreation' isn't going to be in the top five reasons!

The bottom line is that we are Taxed Enough Already. We have high unemployment, declining retirements, Social Security and Medicare are bankrupt and probably not going to be around when I'm ready to retire, my Toledo roads suck (there's just no better word), my trash tax that was supposed to be reduced to zero quite some time ago is still going up, we've cut back on our luxuries in order to cover our bills and plan for our future ... and now my councilwoman (I live in District 6) wants to raise my taxes so someone else's kids (a fraction of the population) can (maybe) do art projects in the parks in the summer.

Fortunately, they say they want to put this on the ballot so we are "allowed" a say.

Here's my 'say': don't wait for November. Call these two council members now and tell them to stop with their plans to raise taxes. It's the last thing we *need* in this city.

Their number, by the way, is 419-245-1050. Email is Lindsay.Webb@toledo.oh.us and Steven.Steel@toledo.oh.us

WSPD has a Speedy Poll on the issue if you'd like to weigh in on the issue.

Remember, it is the responsibility of PARENTS - not cities - to provide recreational activities for their kids.

Virtual Toledo budget meeting tonight

WSPD news is reporting:

Toledo City Council is holding it's first ever virtual town hall meeting on the budget -- this leap into the future and convenience being sponsored by district five councilman Tom Waneiwski. He got the web cam idea since previous meetings had brought out more civic leaders than average residents and the idea is to change that by exposing the meetings to more concerned residents who can not make the meetings, due to work schedules, child care issues, transportation or weather concerns.

The meeting is at 6 pm tonight via www.anymeeting.com/distfive1

There will be a way for you to ask questions as well.

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!

Toledo balances its budget

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And shame on Toledo City Council for:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The solution being presented? Raise the payroll tax!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you say 'stuck on stupid'???

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

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

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

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

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

But don't hold your breath.

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

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

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

New council committees and the politics behind the appointments

Lisa Renee at Glass City Jungle has the complete list of old Toledo City Council assignments versus the new ones under the reduced number of committees.

Interestingly, Phil Copeland has ended up as the Vice-Chairman of the new Human Resources, Information Technology and Finance Committee. Why is this so interesting? Because, as I understand it, D. Michael Collins was promised that position.

I've been told that Wilma Brown, the new council president, reneged on her promise to slot Collins there so she could gain Copeland's support for the council president vote.

Remember all the outrage when Lindsay Webb changed her mind and didn't vote for Mike Ashford as president of council? Something tells me that type of 'offense' won't be given for this broken promise between Collins, Copeland and Brown.

Lisa Renee, in her post, urges readers to call Wilma Brown and object to placing Copeland in the vice-chair role. Lisa believes, as do I, that the vice chair should at least have some experience on the Finance Committee before being put in charge of that vital assignment, especially considering the budget fiasco that faces the city. This is especially true since council also changed the rules about who could chair a committee's meeting. The vice-chair is now authorized to call and chair a committee meeting if the named chair doesn't do so within 24 hours of a request by the vice chair.

I can see all sorts of difficulties coming out of this rule change, especially with the friction we've seen on council between the various Democrat teams, but perhaps that's the point of the new rule: to allow one faction to upstage the other?

Some other interesting aspects of the new committee assignments include the ones given to Joe McNamara. He's vice chair of Economic Development and will serve on HR, IT & Finance; Intergovernmental Relations and Environment; Neighborhoods, Community Development & Health; and Utilities and Public Service. Of course, he's 'considering' (as in I formed a committee to start raising money and getting support but haven't officially announced) a run for state senate. Until he decides whether or not he's going to stay on council, I'd just appoint him to serve on committees and not put him as the chair or vice chair of any. Why 'reward' someone with a leadership position who's expressed an interest in leaving and will be rather busy running for another position?

Then there is brand new councilman Adam Martinez. As a new councilman, he's garnered some rather key positions: Chair of Neighborhoods, Community Development & Health; Vice Chair of Zoning and Planning; member of Economic Development; member of Youth Parks, Recreation & Community Relations; and an alternate on HR, IT & Finance.

Other than his political connections, what, exactly, qualifies him to be put in leadership positions as a novice council member? Every council person who has served says that the first six months (or so) are spent just learning where to go to get information. But Brown has put a 'newbie' (with respects to my favorite TV show NCIS) in charge of critical committees?

My district rep, Lindsay Webb, previously chaired the Youth, Parks and Recreation committee. Now she's the vice chair Utilities and Public Service. She also serves on three other committees, including the one she used to chair. No chairmanship for her.

Surprisingly, Tom Waniewski, District 5, ended up with the fewest assignments: Chair of Intergovernmental Relations & Environment and member of Economic Development and
Utilities & Public Service.

UPDATE: As Lisa Renee writes in the comments below, and which I forgot when doing the original post, Waniewski is also considering a run for the same senate seat as McNamara, so the comments about giving any leadership position to people who would rather have another position apply to Waniewski as well.
***

I do not know if Webb's and Waniewski's assignments are by choice or part of some other political reasoning.

I understand both the logic of the appointments and the philosophy of 'to the victor go the spoils' when it comes to committee assignments within a political body. Understanding, however, does not equate to approval and it's sad when such assignments are used for the good of the individual making the appointments rather than for the good of the constituents council is supposed to be representing.

Remember, members of city council are your employees. You are their boss. If you have opinions about this, you have an obligation to call Council President Wilma Brown and instruct her accordingly.

wilma.brown@toledo.oh.gov
419-245-1050

Emotion rules the day with 'texting-while-driving' law

Earlier this month, I wrote an email to all members of Toledo City Council asking them to address the issues raised in this Cato Institute article about texting-while-driving laws.

From 12 members of council, only three bothered to respond.

One was District 2 Councilman D. Michael Collins, the sponsor of the ordinance, whose primary reason for the law appeared to be based upon a poll. He wrote:

I would like to share with you that on November 2, 2009 UPI reported that a poll was conducted by the New Your Times and CBS with 97% of the respondents backing a prohibition for sending text messages while driving.The poll report went on to say that 50% of the pollsters defined texing while driving as equally as dangerous as driving while intoxicated.

Yes, texting while driving CAN be very dangerous - so can changing the radio station or holding your dog in your lap while trying to drive. But a poll should not be a reason to put onto the books a law that cannot be enforced. And Collins never answered any of the questions raised by the article about enforcement.

Additionally, he seemed to have a very flawed view of what laws are supposed to do.

In my opinion, our Democracy and freedoms are in fact law based, and the laws are created to insure and protect the citizens from harm and injury.

We're a Republic, not a democracy - for a reason. But laws are not created to insure and protect us from harm and injury. Laws are supposed to exist to guarantee our rights and freedoms. They protect our right to life by penalizing those who would take it. They protect our right to property by penalizing those who would steal it or damage it.

No amount of laws can ever keep us from injury, and they shouldn't try. But if this is what a councilman believes laws are for, what other onerous, duplicate and freedom-destroying ordinances will he introduce and support in the future?

District 6 Councilwoman Lindsay Webb wrote to say she was voting no on the ordinance. She did not address any of the issues I asked about, but she did give her reasoning in that she believed the state should handle the issue. While I didn't like her lack of response to the issues surrounding the proposed law (whether it be a local one or a state one), I appreciated her response, her reasoning and her vote yesterday which was, indeed, no.

District 5 Councilman Tom Waniewski was the last of the three members of council to respond. He wrote:

I've had some discussion with D. Michael Collins, who is sponsoring this.
It is my understanding the ordinance will not be acted on until our last council meeting in November. As you may have read some time ago, I was not in favor of such legislation because current "Reckless Operation" laws exist in the city. After receiving much email on the matter, and with the amount of texting that I personally do while driving, I am convinced there is some merit in the approach, but I'm not sure if this is the way. For example, would adding, "including text messaging...." to the existing reckless operation laws suffice. Or a resolution strongly urging the police department to enforce reckless driving laws, (including putting lipstick on while driving) be the best approach. I did learn the following:

- in the past 12 months for violations of TMC 331.23 "Failure to Control; weaving; full time attention"
1334 tickets were issued under this section of which 241 specified subsection (c)- full time attention.

I don't have the numbers at my finger tips for reckless operation but it was about twice that number for the past 12 months.

Based upon this, I expected Waniewski to offer some amendments. I don't know whether or not he did, but his vote was 'yes' on the existing ordinance.

This morning, he was interviewed on WSPD and he said three things impacted his decision:

1) the number of accidents cited under reckless operation and 'full-time attention.'
2) taking a 'proactive approach' - if we make it illegal, some people won't do it and that may help the problem.
3) the number of communications (email, phone calls, letters) in favor of the law.

He also said he tried to look at the facts and not the emotional aspects of the issue. But if that's the case, he could have addressed my questions about the factual problem of enforcement.

As for the increase in the number of citations that *might* be related to texting, all I can do is ask: isn't that an indication that the existing laws are sufficient to the cause? If more people are texting and driving while distracted, and the police are issuing more citations as a result, isn't that proof that the current law is addressing the problem?

As for the 'proactive approach,' I wonder about what other laws he'd support 'if they save just one life...' which is the emotional appeal that so many make when they want onerous, unnecessary laws on the books.

But the one thing that disappoints me most is Waniewski's third point - not because he responded to the public position, but because the public position was so ignorant of the facts - thinking that a ban on texting while driving was enforceable in the first place - and the majority of freedom-loving, limited government individuals who obviously didn't take the time to express their opinion on the issue.

Those of us who did look at the facts and logic of the issue came to the conclusion that this law was not needed. But we did not 'overwhelm' the members of city council with our opinion so they acted based (at least partly) upon the feedback they did get.

So the ordinance passed by a 10-2 vote with District 1 Councilman Michael Ashford casting the other no vote, and it will go into effect on January 1, 2010. And I'm sure on that day, everyone in the city will suddenly change their habits and we'll all be safe from harm forever, thanks to D. Michael Collins, Tom Waniewski and eight other members of council.

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

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

RES. 256-08

Recognizing Cover The Uninsured Week 2008.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public or private funding for CareNet?

That's the question ... and it's a good one to ask.

CareNet is a non-profit organization that connects individuals without insurance to health care providers. Their clients are primarily low-income who fall in the gap of earning too much money to qualify for public assistance, but not enough to afford the cost of health insurance. Their $300,000 (+/-) yearly funding pays for the administration and tracking of the clients, and the recruitment and monitoring of the volunteered provider services.

CareNet was started in 2003 by former Toledo mayor Jack Ford who put together the coalition of funders. The program is run through the Hospital Council of Northwest Ohio. As one of the major founders, since 2003 the City of Toledo has contributed money out of the general fund for the operations.

Last year, current mayor Carty Finkbeiner did not include funding for CareNet in the 2007 budget. Toledo City Council did - and the organization got around $62,000. This year, Carty again eliminated funding from his proposed 2008 budget. And it looked like Council was going to again fund the organization. But Councilman Tom Waniewski (the new District 5 representative who took office the first of January) objected to using general fund dollars for a non-profit organization and asked for a two-week delay on the vote to see if he could find private funds to take the place of the city's 'obligation.'

And, to the surprise of many in city government, he was successful. Turns out, there are quite a number of organizations and individuals who are willing to put their own money into supporting this great organization. The contributors even included Carty and three city administrators, but, interestingly enough, not one member of city council was willing to put their own money into the effort.

Now that funding for the organization is set for 2008, the city should start working with them to arrange a permanent replacement for the general fund dollars. That there were donations this year is a good indication that such an alternative will be successful on a permanent basis.

But today's Blade editorial seems to think otherwise, with the headline of "CareNet a public duty." And I have to ask - why? Why must funding for this organization be the responsibility of the taxpayers if there are private funds which can provide for its operations?

According to the editorial, the private funding "...should not suggest, however, that the city be let off the hook from providing CareNet support in the future." They say it's a worthwhile and, for some, a necessary program.

They also say, "We believe the city has a reasonable obligation to help fund CareNet and should continue it." But they don't explain WHY the obligation is there.

They do say: "Private funding will help relieve pressure on the city budget, to be sure, but it could be withdrawn. CareNet is too important to live hand-to-mouth from year to year."

If this is, indeed, the case (and there is no evidence that it is), then why shouldn't the priority be to find a stable source of non-public funds? Why is it that the only solution the editorial offers is to continue to use our severely limited tax dollars?

Here's my question for city council and The Blade:

If this is such a great program and is so worthy of public dollars - to the point where the public should be taxed more or give up other services to make this a priority - how much did you contribute of your own funds before taking from the rest of us?