Cheers and Jeers - Zoo's levy request for Wood County

Cheers - in fact, BIG cheers to the Wood County Commissioners who said no to placing a levy for the Toledo Zoo on the ballot. They listened to their constituents, performed their duty to make a decision, looked at the bigger picture (the impact of additional taxes on their county) and said no. Oh, to have such vision and responsibility in Lucas County.

Jeers - to the Toledo Zoo for thinking that simply because people from an area visit their location that they should tax themselves to pay for the entity. Zoo officials could have done multiple things before seeking a levy, but they didn't bother. They didn't:

* start a membership drive: A single membership is only $42, a family membership is $71. At least then they'd have people who WANTED to support the zoo, rather than taxing people who have no interest in supporting them.

* raise prices: The current admission is $11 for adults, $8 for children & seniors. They could have raised the rates for non-Lucas County residents (who already support the Zoo via a tax levy) and generated more income to help address their financial issues. The last time they raised prices was in 2009 and most people would find a three-year time frame to the next increase quite reasonable, even in this economy. But Zoo Director Anne Baker has said in the past that it was 'too much work' to try and determine Lucas residents from other residents at the admission gate. That's easily solved. All they need to do is put a notice on all admission notices that Lucas County residents should present their ID for their discounted price. Obviously, any person presenting an ID is a Lucas County resident who should be charged the lower rate. No additional work required.

Additionally, there is a serious contradiction in Baker's logic/position on the issue. If it's too hard to determine the residency of the visitors, how in the world can she state that a significant number of Wood County residents visit the Zoo each year? Both cannot be true.

* do a host of other drives (sponsorships, estate planning bequests, etc...) before deciding to come to voters.

Instead of taking such steps, the Zoo is choosing to force people (through taxation) to fund an organization they don't want to support with membership dollars.

Jeers - to the woman who, at the hearing yesterday (as heard on WSPD this morning), said not putting the levy on the ballot was acting like Hitler. As one Wood County resident said:

"If there's so many supporters of the zoo out there that want to vote, here's the way you vote. Pick up the phone and donate more money to the zoo," suggested David McClough, a father of two and a zoo member.

Cheers - to David McClough for such clarity of position!

Cheers - to the commissioners for taking the position that 'letting the people decide' would have been the abdication of their responsibilities. Under state law, boards of commissioners have the obligation to decide whether or not to put levies on the ballot. They should certainly heed the input from their constituents, but the decision is still theirs to make. In Lucas County, the commissioners set up a 'citizen levy review committee' to do such work for them - abdicating their responsibility to an unelected committee and pushing the accountability off to them.

Jeers - to the distortion of the concept of a 'regional attraction.' Yes, the Zoo is a regional attraction. People come from all over the region to attend it and some will come for the sole purpose of visiting the Zoo and its special events/exhibits. But being a regional attraction does not mean you get to mandate money from the entire region. Just because people are willing to come and pay admission to the Zoo doesn't mean that everyone in a specific county (or multiple counties) should be taxed to maintain/operate it. If this logic were to hold, there would be no limits whatsoever on taxation for any entity that could claim such a description.

Cheers and Jeers - to The Blade for a similar distortion of 'regionalism.' I say 'jeers' because they continue to advance the distortion as described in the above point, and because they believe, as explained in this editorial, that the Commissioners should have punted the issue to the voters. There's a reason we're not a democracy, but a representative government. It prevents the tyranny of the majority, which is what all levy requests end up being: a majority of people deciding that others should pay for what they don't support simply because the majority wants it.

But I say 'cheers' because they have revealed, for all to see, that The Blade's concept of 'regionalism' means that others need to pay for the failures (fiscal and otherwise) of Toledo and Lucas County governments and entities.

Their editorial uses the Zoo's excuse that "dwindling revenue from a deteriorating Lucas County tax base" is cause enough to seek funding from non-Lucas County tax bases - as if it is somehow the fault and/or responsibility of surrounding communities to solve the problems of Toledo, which is quickly gaining the reputation of 'little Detroit.'

This issue alone is a perfect example of the paper's concept that successful communities should bear the brunt of the bad decisions made by the paper's hand-picked politicians in Toledo and Lucas County government. Fortunately, the other communities have been immune to this redistributionist perspective and have soundly rejected it.

Finally, cheers - to Wood County residents who took the time to attend the hearing, write or call their commissioners to express their opinions. It is their involvement which made the decision for the commissioners so clear - and defensible.

Sarantou statement on dropping election case

Press Release:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


###

Commissioners have no authority to interfere in YMCA

According to a story in today's paper, the residents who want to save the South Toledo YMCA from closure want the Lucas County Commissioners to form a task force that will examine the finances of the organization.

The only problem is that county commissioners have no such authority.

There is nothing in the Ohio Constitution or Revised Code that gives a board of commissioners the authority to examine the books, receipts, expenditures, etc... of a private organization.

A resolution submitted earlier in the month to the BCC to establish a task force was tabled. The Commissioner used the Zoo Task Force as a reason for this action. However, the Zoo is a different animal, so to speak. As a quasi-governmental entity, it exists solely to provide zoological services, under contract with the County, in accordance with the ORC. The YMCA doesn't. (Even then, I voted against the terms of the contract with the Zoo that mandated government appointments to that board because I believed it was outside the authority of the Commissioners to do so.)

The YMCA is a private organization and while they do get some public dollars for certain programs, those programs already have financial oversight and auditing, as required by the contract for those limited programs. If the YMCA did not bid to provide such programs, it would, unlike the Zoo Board, still exist.

The Commissioners should reject any request to interfere in the operations of a private organization - no matter what a few neighbors may think - and, in doing so, should remind that public that government is not always the solution to their problems nor a hammer to be used to force others to conform to a small minority's wants or desires.

However, should the Commissioners bow to the limited public pressure and attempt to exceed their authority, the YMCA should refuse to comply with any such efforts. If the Y allows a government-formed group to examine their internal, private information, they set the stage for other similar intrusions in the future. Such a precedent (and it will be a precedent) will enable the Commissioners and other governmental bodies to expect compliance with such encroachments in the future.

This cannot be allowed. All citizens, business owners, board members and others who do not want to see the heavy hand of government exceed its parameters should vigorously oppose this meddling, overstepping of authority.

Contact information for the Commissioners:

Pete Gerken: pgerken@co.lucas.oh.us
Tina Skeldon Wozniak: twozniak@co.lucas.oh.us
Ben Konop: bkonop@co.lucas.oh.us
Phone number: 419-213-4500

Lucas County's legal opinion on living wage mandate

Earlier this afternoon, I spoke with David Mann, Lucas County's Public Affairs Liaison. In light of The Blade's reference to what was written in the legal opinion regarding the authority of the Commissioners to pass a resolution regarding living wages, I requested a copy.

Mann gave me the appropriate response: that the opinion was a matter of attorney-client privilege and was not a public record. I asked if a commissioner might be willing to waive the confidentiality and release the record, considering that another media source had obviously received such a waiver.

I'm grateful to Commissioner Pete Gerken who instructed Mann to share the legal opinion with me. It starts with a description of the policy desired to be enacted, and says that "there are no statutes which expressly grant a county board of commissioners the authority to adopt a living wage resolution. Thus, the authority of a board of county commissioners to adopt a living wage policy exists only if it can be implied from a statute."

The prosecutor's office then 'implies' that since the Ohio Revised Code is silent on certain requirements for economic development incentives, the Commissioners can impose living wage mandates.

This is exactly opposite to, and in contradiction with, what every county commissioner is told by other commissioners and the County Commissioners Association of Ohio. The rule of thumb is that, as creatures of statute, if the ORC is silent on an issue commissioners have no authority.

However, with the County Prosecutor saying the authority is 'implied,' our Board of County Commissioners has legal protection for voting to impose a living wage requirement for any company receiving the specific economic development incentives discussed in the opinion.

It should also be noted that the commissioners did NOT amend the resolution to reflect their inability to mandate a living wage for companies doing business with the county. According to Mann, the resolution was passed as publicized in this link.

Finally, while the opinion says the commissioners can request a certification of payment of living wages as part of a bid package, they cannot use payment of living wages in determining the winning bidder. However, why you'd request certification of a factor that cannot be considered in making a decision is beyond me. Does anyone really believe that companies not paying a 'living wage' and who clearly state such in their bid package will actually be considered fairly against companies who do pay the living wage?

The opinion portion is as follows, my emphasis in bold:

"Any analysis of the authority of a board of county commissioners must begin with the well established principle that, as a creature of statute, a board of county commissioners has only the authority expressly conferred by statute and the authority that may be implied therefrom as reasonably necessary to make the express powers effective. Shriver v. Board of Commissioners (1947), 148 Ohio St. 277, 74 N.E.2d 248; State ex rel. A. Bentley & Sons Co. v. Pierce(1917), 96 Ohio St. 44, 117 N.E. 6. Thus, whether the board of county commissioners has the power to adopt a living wage resolution depends upon the authority expressly and impliedly granted to thye board by statute. 1992 Ohio Op. Atty Gen. 96.

We note that there are no statutes which expressly grant a county board of commissioners the authority to adopt a living wage resolution. Thus, the authority of a board of county commissioners to adopt a living wage policy exists only if it can be implied from a statute. The proposed resolution is, generally, not authorized by Ohio law and unenforceable. There are, however, two areas covered by the proposed resolution--tax increment financing (TIF) and economic development loan and grants--in which a board of county commissioners is granted broad authority by statute. While these statutes do not expressly grant a county board of commissioners the authority to adopt a living wage resolution, the grant of authority is broad enough that the authority to adopt a living wage policy can be implied.

Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is a discretionary, economic development mechanism available to local governments in Ohio to finance public infrastructure improvements and, in certain circumstances, residential rehabilitation. A TIF allows local governments to invest in infrastructure and other improvements and pay for them by capturing the increase in property tax revenues. The increase in taxes generated by the enhancements, also known as increment, is used to pay the public debt incurred while making these improvements. Payments derived from the increased assessed value of any improvement to real property beyond that amount are directed towards a separate fund to finance the construction of public infrastructure defined within the TIF legislation. R.C. 5709.77-81.

There are many technical, statutory requirements that must be met to establish a TIF; such as the improvement must be for a public purpose and the real property tax exemption cannot exceed ten years. R.C. 5709.78(A). There are, however, no statutory guidelines relating to the factors that a board of county commissioners should consider when evaluating a proposed TIF.

Both the Ohio Department of Development and the Council of Development Finance Agencies recommend that a broad range of factors be considered when evaluating a proposed TIF. This broad grant of statutory authority, as well as the discretionary nature of TIFs, implies that County Commissioners are authorized to consider the proposed use of the tax exempt property, including employee compensation issues.

Therefore, when evaluating and granting tax increment financing, the Commissioners have the authority to adopt and enforce the proposed living wage policy as it relates to the proposed use of the property that is receiving the tax exemption.

A board of county commissioners also has broad statutory authority to grant economic loans and grants. County Commissioners, through an economic development director, have the discretionary authority to make loans or grants and provide other forms of financial assistance for the purpose of economic development. R.C. 307.07(B)(5). There are no statutory restrictions or conditions, except that the purpose of the loan or grant must be for economic development, nor is the term economic development defined.

This broad grant of statutory authority, as well as the discretionary nature of economic development loans and grants, implies that County Commissioners are authorized to approve a loan or grant with conditions and/or restrictions, including employee compensation issues.

Therefore, when evaluating and granting and economic development loans or grants pursuant to R.C. 307.07(B)(5), the Commissioners have the authority to adopt and enforce the proposed living wage policy as a condition of granting the loan or grant.

Lastly, the proposed resolution also requires a business to provide a compliance affidavit related to the living wage policy and any additional documents requested by the Board to verify that a living wage is paid to any and all employees covered before an award of any public incentive or contract of $10,000 or greater. County commissioners may, under Ohio law, seek whatever information they determine is necessary to carry out their statutory functions.

However, except in the area of tax increment financing and economic development loans and grants, Ohio law does not authorize the commissioners to impose any type of penalty or disqualification for failing to submit a living wage compliance affidavit or documentation. In addition, under Ohio law, compliance or non-compliance with the proposed living wage policy cannot be used for purpose of determining the ‘lowest and best’ bid.

Research from a variety of sources indicates that living wage laws make positive differences in the lives of low wage workers, can help improve efficiency among government contractors, have a low cost to local governments, and improve economic development policies made at the local level. However, under current Ohio law, County Commissioners are not authorized to fully adopt such a policy until the General Assembly enacts significant changes in state law.

This office is willing to assist the Board in developing proposed amendments to the Ohio Revised Code that would authorize County Commissioners to fully adopt, and take advantage of the benefits of, a living wage policy. We are also encourage the Board to seek assistance and advice from the County Commissioners Association in the effort to enact this necessary legislation."

Living wages hurt those they are supposed to help

The Lucas County Board of Commissioners has a living wage resolution on their agenda for today. Lucas County Commissioner Ben Konop introduced the idea in January and the Toledo Regional Chamber of Commerce opposes the measure.

A living wage is defined by this resolution as at least $11.66 per hour. For those employers who do not provide adequate healthcare coverage, a living wage is defined by this resolution as at least $13.78 per hour. Because these figures are defined by Department of Health and Human Services guidelines which change yearly, these wage numbers merely apply for 2009.

Here are some of the components of the resolution:

Section 1. The Board hereby adopts a policy which requires that all businesses that: 1) request public incentives from the Board, and/or 2) receive a contract from the Board of $10,000 or more pay all employees a living wage and provide adequate healthcare coverage. This living wage policy will not apply to small businesses, non-profit employers, seasonal employees, or interns.

Section 2. The Board defines a living wage as a wage equivalent to at least 110% of the most recent federal povery guidelines for a family of four, as defined by the Department of Health and Human Services. The Board defines adequate healthcare coverage as single-person health benefits available to employees at less that 15% of the employees’ monthly wages. If no healthcare coverage is provided, the living wage is hereby defined as a wage equivalent to at least 130% of the most recent federal poverty guidelines for a family of four, as defined by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Section 3. The Board defines public incentive as including but not limited to tax abatements, economic development loans or grants, tax increment financing, or other forms of taxpayer funding including CDBG funds.

Section 4. The Board defines a small business as an employer with 25 employees or less for the purposes of contract with the Board of $10,000 or more, and as an employer with 50 employees or less for the purposes of the award of public incentives.

(Side note: this is copied directly from the resolution - spelling errors and all)

They justify this action by saying:

Lucas County has an interest in ensuring that businesses that receive contracts or other benefits from our taxpayers are meeting minimum compensation levels for their employees. Such minimum compensation levels should allow citizens to support themselves and their families with dignity. (emphasis added)

Actually, the 'county' has no such interest but, more importantly, they have no such authority. The Lucas County Prosecutor has previously told the Board (with different members including me) that county commissioners have no authority to implement such a policy. The Cuyahoga County Prosecutor told the Cuyahoga Commissioners the same thing. A phone call to the County Commissioners Association of Ohio will get you the same answer: no such authority.

Konop, having requested a legal opinion as to the authority and receiving it, has refused to release it citing 'attorney-client confidentiality.' In checking, this is a valid exemption under the public records law of Ohio. However, as Konop is the client, he could waive that confidentiality and release the opinion if he wanted.

So why doesn't he?

Well, obviously because to release it will prove that he has no statutory authority to implement his planned action. So why are the commissioners so intent on doing this? Well, it's all out their personal intentions and desires to help the poor. According to the resolution:

"Sub-poverty level wages do not serve the public interest and place an undue burden on taxpayers and the community, who must further subsidize employers who pay inadequate wages by providing their employees social services such as health care, housing, nutrition, and energy assistance."

There are so many questionable statements in this - from the concept of 'inadequate' wages, to 'sub-poverty' wages (which were and are NEVER intended to be able to support a family of four), to 'public interest' (which ignores the public's interest in having the lowest best prices for government contracted services), to the the idea that employers are somehow responsible for ensuring that their employees get housing and nutrition.

But let's just focus on the stated goal of the Commissioners: to reduce poverty.

Here are some facts and their sources when it comes to living wages and their impact:

"Living wages may at first seem a natural way to fight poverty, but there are two reasons why such mandates may not help to achieve this goal, aside from the fact that they do not cover many workers. First, economic theory predicts that because a mandated wage increase operates essentially as a tax on the use of low-skilled labor, living wages will discourage the use of such labor. Thus, whatever wage gains accrue to workers who retain their jobs (and do not have their hours produced) may have to be offset against potential job and income losses for other workers.

Second, living wages may ineffectively target low-income families.
...
Laws that extend only to city contractors cover very few workers...However, for the broader living wage laws that also apply to employers receiving business assistance from the city, we do detect evidence that living wage laws raise wages but lower employment of low-wage, low-skilled individuals." (source)

So Konop's "desire" to help may end up hurting the intended recipients.

"...the living wage in Santa Fe significantly increased unemployment and decreased hours worked for those who were able to keep their job. Even more troubling, this research found that almost the entire negative effect of the living wage was concentrated on the city’s least-skilled and least-educated employees. These are the very individuals the living wage is purportedly helping.

"...living wage advocates point to an increase in overall employment in Santa Fe since the ordinance as “evidence” of success. This a faulty analysis that fails to control for factors such as overall economic growth in the state or a growing population. The importance of controlling for these factors is the very basis of credible economic analysis and one of the first things taught in any rudimentary statistics course.
...
For those that do keep their jobs, Dr. Yelowitz found that they end up working fewer hours than before. On the whole, the living wage ordinance reduced hours worked by 1.6 hours per week. Similar to the unemployment results, these hours reductions were felt most by the least-educated employees. Those with 12 years or fewer of education saw their hours reduced by 3.5 hours per week." (source)

There is also this op-ed piece that appeared in The American Spectator:

"The activists say that requiring businesses to pay wages based on local cost-of-living expenses lifts low-income families out of poverty.

Has that actually happened in the 145 cities and counties that already have a living wage on the books? The data suggest "no." In fact, the living wage has turned out not only to be a terribly ineffective anti-poverty tool, but to actually hurt poor, low-skilled workers by cutting into other forms of compensation or -- in more than a few cases -- getting them fired.

And most of the people it helps don't really need the help at all. Research from Mark Turner of Georgetown University and Burt Barnow of Johns Hopkins University indicates that over 70 percent of families benefiting from living wages have family incomes almost double the poverty level, and that as high as 64 percent of families affected by living wages have "incomes above the 20th percentile."

After studying the economic climates of over 100 jurisdictions around the country (both with and without living wage laws), economists David Neumark of the University of California and Scott Adams of the University of Wisconsin concluded that living wage laws "reduce employment among the least-skilled, especially when the laws... are accompanied by similar laws in nearby cities." "

There are numerous articles and studies that detail the negative impact of such laws, like this one from Cato which concludes:

"Decades of research have shown that the minimum wage harms the least-skilled workers from poor families while heavily benefiting young workers from middle-income households. Several studies critical of the living wage come to similar conclusions. The main beneficiaries of the living wage are public-sector unionized employees because of the reduced incentives for local governments to contract out work. Instead of exploiting grievances of the marginally employed against "greedy" employers, advocates for the poor should focus their energies on building the skills of the poor."

It's also important to know who supports these living wage initiatives:

ACORN has a website devoted to the subject in the ACORN Living Wage Resource Center.

United for a Fair Economy, which envisions "communities and nations without disparities of income, wages, wealth, health, safety, respect, and opportunities for recreation and personal growth," has their Responsible Wealth Living Wage Covenant, which includes a statement that "no one working full time should live in poverty."

Let Justice Roll, which supports a $10 in 2010 federal minimum wage, has a downloadable "Resources for Living Wage Worship Services and Community Events" to celebrate the Living Wage Days campaign.

The problem is that these organizations focus on getting more money to people without a corresponding increase in the skills or experience which would normally accompany such an increase in wages. Additionally, under the Lucas County resolution, all these groups, being non-profit, would be exempt from having to pay the wages they're advocating.

Interestingly, quite a significant number of social service organizations who are contracted to provide services to the clients of the county's Job and Family Services department are non-profit and would also be exempt.

The worst part of the action scheduled for this morning in the Commissioners meeting room is that no public hearings have been held on the issue. Despite the protestations of Konop, the business meetings of the Board of County Commissioners (unlike city councils) do not include an opportunity for public comment. Commissioners, in taking public comment, have to set a public hearing and publicize the event. That was not done, so such pros and cons of the living wage proposal have not been heard and debated.

And then there is that legal opinion which is conveniently being hidden from public view.

My hope is that Commissioners Pete Gerken and Tina Skeldon Wozniak will not vote in favor of the resolution having learned they have no authority to implement such a requirement, despite their publicly-stated support of the issue.

But if they vote along with Konop and pass this mandate, will there be anyone who will challenge it?

*** If you're a fan of tongue-in-cheek, check out the latest addition to the Stuck-on-Stupid dictionary.

Regardless of name, government does not create jobs

Lisa Renee at Glass City Jungle is on the email list of Commission Ben Konop. I am not. She reports the following 'Fellowship Program.'

Commissioner Konop Urges Colleagues to Support High Tech Jobs Program

Proceeds of Stamping Plant Loan to Fund Jobs at Local Start Ups in Alternative Energy and High Tech

(Toledo, OH)– At a time of rising unemployment and serious economic uncertainty, Commissioner Konop will propose a jobs program to help jump start local start up businesses in high tech and alternative energy. Commissioner Konop will introduce his resolution at tomorrow’s 9:30 A.M. Commissioners Meeting.

Several local small business owners in the high tech and alternative energy fields will be speaking at tomorrow’s meeting in support of Konop’s resolution.

“Last week I was excited to support an investment in the stamping plant to help create manufacturing jobs in Lucas County,” stated Konop. “This week I hope my colleagues have the courage to also invest in jobs in high tech and alternative energy and put people to work in 21st century jobs,” added Konop.

Konop’s proposal calls for investing the proceeds of the loan to the Maumee Stamping Plant into a fellowship program which would place 15 Lucas County residents in 6 month fellowships at local companies in emerging technologies. Under the plan, local businesses in the high tech and alternative energy fields will submit proposals to the County for six month fellowships in research, design, engineering, manufacturing, business strategy, and marketing. These jobs will then be filled by Lucas County residents, including recently displaced workers, via the Source, the county’s one stop job center.

“This program is a win/win for local small businesses trying to grow but lacking capital and people looking for jobs in an increasingly tough economy,” stated Konop. “I hope my colleagues put progress over politics and invest in our communities future by voting for the resolution,” concluded Konop.

This is not the role of government!

First of all, the county doesn't yet have any of the interest on the loan and probably won't until after the end of the year.

Second, since when is it the role of government to hire people to work at private companies? This is his 'Job Corps' program repackaged with for-profit companies rather than non-profits, but it's still wrong. Government should not spend tax dollars to pay people to work at outside entities - and the only government workers they should pay would be the ones absolutely necessary to fulfil the mandates placed upon the county government.

Third, this is not creating jobs nor wealth within our community. Remember the 'broken window fallacy' of economic development? It's the story of a shopkeeper whose window is broken by a little boy.

Everyone sympathizes with the man whose window was broken, but pretty soon they start to suggest that the broken window makes work for the glazier, who will then buy bread, benefiting the baker, who will then buy shoes, benefiting the cobbler, etc. Finally, the onlookers conclude that the little boy was not guilty of vandalism; instead he was a public benefactor, creating economic benefits for everyone in town.

The fallacy of the onlookers' argument is that they considered only the benefits of purchasing a new window, but they ignored the cost to the shopkeeper. As the shopkeeper was forced to spend his money on a new window, he obviously could not have spent it on something else. For example, the shopkeeper may have spent the money on bread and shoes for himself, but now cannot so enrich the baker and cobbler because he must fix his window.

Thus, the child did not bring any net benefit to the town. Instead, he made the town poorer by at least the value of one window, if not more.

If one broken window is good - is not a dozen, or a hundred or a thousand? Shouldn't we break all the windows, thus stimulating the economy? So it is with Konop's 'fellowship' program. If 15 fellowships are good, what about 50, or 100?

One great lesson of political economy, emphasized for centuries, is that the government creates no wealth of its own. Everything it has it has to get from you and me, one way or another. If the Commissioners spend this interest income on part-time, temporary jobs, it won't be spending the money on the mandated functions of county government - and that means that you and I will still have pay taxes to afford those things.

Of course, if you're one of the few businesses that would qualify, you might welcome having someone else pay for the work you're getting through such a program, so expect Konop to produce several business owners who will rave about what a great idea this is. Should we be surprised that the recipients of government's largesse support it? No.

As the Board of Commissioners rejected Konop's 'jobs corp' program, they should reject this 'fellowship' program as well, because other than the name, they are exactly the same. However, if Commissioners Pete Gerken and Tina Skeldon Wozniak again reject this type of 'program,' expect Konop to accuse them of 'politics over progress' and 'maintaining the status quo' while he whines about not getting his way - once again.

If you really want to 'jump start' local businesses, lower the taxes, reject all property tax levy increases, stop spending so much money, reduce regulations and end duplicative requirements on businesses. Doing those things would be a much more effective way of helping ALL Lucas County companies, not just the ones you like.

Lucas County (anti) logic

According to today's Blade story, the County Commissioners have decided to increase the dog license fee by $5 to a total of $25. While much will be said about this increase, I'd like to focus on their next item, which is to reopen a dog park in Lucas County.

The reasoning for the increase is because the Dog Warden operations are supposed to be, under Ohio law, self-sufficient. While some counties voluntarily support this department with general fund dollars, many do not - including Lucas County. With this perspective, and because the Lucas County Dog Warden's office is spending more than it's taking in, the Commissioners decided to increase the license fee, which will generate around $311,000 of additional revenue.

However, they've also said they're going to spend County general fund dollars to reopen a dog park.

From the article:

"As sort of an apology for the jump in fees, the commissioners said they would move forward with plans to reopen a dog park in Lucas County.

Tina Skeldon Wozniak, the commissioners' president, said she believed two acres are available at the Lucas County Recreation Center for a dog park "at very little cost to the community."

A dog park previously was operated at the county's recreation center, but it closed in 2002, officials said.

Mr. Gerken said a dog park was a way to say thank you to those who follow the law and obtain licenses for their dogs.

Mr. Skeldon said his office issues or renews one dog license for every seven Lucas County residents annually, or more than 60,000 licenses.

"This is a way to show all our legitimate dog owners that we respect them," Mr. Gerken said."

So, if the dog park is way to say thanks to those who get a license, are they going to hire someone to check licenses prior to allowing any dog to enter the park? And is it only going to be open to Lucas County residents? And did anyone think to ask why the old dog park was closed in the first place? Was it because of lack of interest or utilization? Was it because of costs? And what, exactly, is a 'legitimate' dog owner? Are you no longer the legitimate owner of a dog if you don't get a license for your pet?

(I know, I know ... there I go asking all those questions that no one ever wants to answer...)

Now, I don't know about you, but it seems pretty silly to me to say that they're increasing the license fees so they don't spend money from the general fund - only to say they'll spend monies from the general fund to make up for the increase in fees.

Does anyone else have a problem with this kind of logic - or lack thereof?

So wrong on so many levels - low-interest loans to buy art

Well, it's been a couple of days since this story was in the local paper, The Blade, but it got me so angry on so many levels that I've just now been able to blog about it.

Apparently, our county commissioners don't think that enough people are buying art, so they've decided that they're going to help. (Nice of them, huh?) You see, people who want to buy art, aren't always able to because of the cost - so, according to Comm. Ben Konop, there's now a program to make it 'more affordable.'

Under the new 'economic development' program, individuals who qualify can get a loan of between $500 and $2500 at an interest rate of 1% to purchase a piece of local art. The maximum amount that Key Bank will loan under this program is $25,000.

And why would Key Bank make such a program available? It's because they're going to get a $250,000 investment from the county in the form of a certificate of deposit...and they're only going to pay 1% interest for the cd.

So...instead of the County Treasurer, Wade Kapszukiewicz, getting the best rates for the county, he's agreeing to this investment which, according to his office, means that the county treasury will be out $7,881 (the difference between the going interest rate and the 1% that will be paid).

And please don't advance the argument that "it's only" a small amount of money...in this case, the issue is not the amount of interest that's NOT going into the county treasury, it's the mistaken philosophy that public funds should be used to advance social issues.

From the article:

"County Treasurer Wade Kapszukiewicz said he is always looking for ways to use the "financial resources of the treasurer's office to move the county forward.""

In doing research on this, I could find nowhere in the Ohio Revised Code that detailed this as one of the responsibilities of the office of treasurer. But I did find plenty of references to 'safe' or 'secure' investments including the following:

"Safety, liquidity and earning a market rate of return on the county's money are primary responsibilities of the Treasurer."

Further, the State Auditor has issued a manual for county treasurers which states:

"The main goal of the county treasurer is to coordinate the county spending with the active/inactive funds. The desire is to match short-term needs with the short-term deposits, and to match long-term needs with long-term investments. It is fiscally irresponsible to invest short-term funds in a long-term investment. This matching can be achieved by coordinating spending with estimates of income. Open communication is necessary between the auditor and the treasurer to plan the timing of the investments. The portfolio should be managed to maximize interest rates while keeping risk to a minimum." (emphasis added)

So, if the investments should be managed to maximize interest rates, has our treasurer done this? Nope! He's decided that, instead of maximizing interest rates, he's going to help people buy art.

Then there is the whole issue of a the program itself. If the county commissioners were going to provide a program of low interest loans, is buying art the best target of those loans? What about purchasing a vehicle - that would generate more than the $300 in sales tax that they estimate the art sales will provide. Or maybe a recent high school graduate would like a $2500 loan at 1% interest to help pay for college. Or maybe you'd like to redo your kitchen - wouldn't YOU love to have a 1% interest loan for that? How about any other purpose - landscaping your yard, putting up a new fence, buying a new big screen tv, or even a vacation?

And what are the qualifications for such loans? The article doesn't say, but is it likely that people who qualify aren't really in NEED of a loan to purchase art? And do we think that people who don't NEED a loan to purchase art will still take advantage of this program?

If I was planning to purchase a piece of art at $2000, I could invest $2000 in any number of ways that would generate more than 1% interest, but let's use the county's rate of 4.157%. Such an investment would give me about $83.

Then, I could take out the loan at 1% and purchase the artwork. The interest on the loan will only be $20. So I get the artwork AND I make $63 doing so. And I do this at the expense of the county treasury and all the county taxpayers. Sounds like a great deal to me!

I know that there are a lot of people who are firmly convinced that the best investment for a community is art - everything from subsidized rent to this kind of a program. But 'art' is in the eye of the beholder and it's so completely subjective.

My preference is that we prioritize better.

Our county jail is in serious need of attention - individuals with multiple court cases are never held to account because their crimes are non-violent misdemeanors so they are released without ever going to court due to the Federal Court Order on overcrowding in our jail - not to mention all the security issues and recent problems well documented in our local media.

Our historic County Courthouse has needs that have been detailed for years by the judges. What about all the individuals who've appealed their property tax valuation - any decrease in property valuation means a decrease in property taxes resulting in less money in the county treasury. I'm sure there are many other things that you think would be more important than using county tax dollars as a guarantee for artwork loans.

But as of today, other than the media report on the day of the announcement, no one's said a thing. So remember - any lack of opposition to a decision is perceived by our elected officials as being support for the decision, leading to similar types of actions in the future. Make your opinions known.