Kudos to the 10 members of Toledo City Council who voted against imposing the proposed fire department fees last night.
District Council members Michael Ashford, D. Michael Collins, Mike Craig, Tom Waniewski and Lindsay Webb along with at-large members Phil Copeland, Joe McNamara, George Sarantou, Betty Shultz and Frank Szollosi, all voted no.
The first vote on the measure (which was 6-4 in favor with two absences) failed due to a lack of enough votes for passage. Council President Mark Sobczak, who voted yes both times (along with District Councilwoman Wilma Brown), had previously said he'd spoken to the individual who voted no and thought he had his seventh vote to ensure passage.
But a funny thing happened along the way: the public got involved. And because of the overwhelming emails and phone calls, the four original no votes stayed the same and four of the original yes votes switched to no, resulting in the defeat of the measure.
There are many people who think their instructions to their elected servants fall on deaf ears - that their phone calls and emails don't mean anything. That perception is widespread and there are many votes which can be used as an example. However, as we've seen with this fire billing vote, when we all speak with firm instruction and with explanation of the consequences of not listening, they will heed us. And the more that we provide feedback and instruction to them and the more likely they will be to do as we instruct.
IMPORTANT: If you took the time to call or email council on this issue, be sure you take the time to call or email and thank them for making the right decision. So often, we tell elected officials what we don't want them to do and we fail to thank them when they make good decisions on our behalf. Having been an elected official, I know how important it is to hear 'thank you' from your constituents.
Toledo City Council: 419-245-1050
Michael.ashford@toledo.oh.gov
Phillip.copeland@toledo.oh.gov
Joe.mcnamara@toledo.oh.gov
George.sarantou@toledo.oh.gov
Betty.shultz@toledo.oh.gov
Mark.sobczak@toledo.oh.gov
Frank.szollosi@toledo.oh.gov
Wilma.brown@toledo.oh.gov
Mike.craig@toledo.oh.gov
Dmichael.collins@toledo.oh.gov
Tom.waniewski@toledo.oh.gov
Lindsay.webb@toledo.oh.gov
Showing posts with label fire tax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fire tax. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Need for fire tax eliminated by savings from garage consolidation
Last week, Mayor Carty Finkbeiner announced that he was going to combine garage facilities and that the city would save $500,000 by doing so.
This was great news and very welcomed by residents, especially because these cost savings had not previously been identified in any of the proposals or ideas for addressing the city's budget deficit.
So here's my question. Since the city just came up with $500,000 in savings they didn't previously have, do we still need to impose fire department billing which they 'hoped' would generate $500,000????
According to Carty, his balanced budget contained $500,000 of new income from these fees, but did not include the garage consolidation. With the consolidation saving $500,000, there is obviously no need for new fees of $500,000.
Right???
This was great news and very welcomed by residents, especially because these cost savings had not previously been identified in any of the proposals or ideas for addressing the city's budget deficit.
So here's my question. Since the city just came up with $500,000 in savings they didn't previously have, do we still need to impose fire department billing which they 'hoped' would generate $500,000????
According to Carty, his balanced budget contained $500,000 of new income from these fees, but did not include the garage consolidation. With the consolidation saving $500,000, there is obviously no need for new fees of $500,000.
Right???
It's a tax, no matter what Toledo City Council calls it
Today at the agenda meeting for Toledo City Council, they will again discuss Fire Department billing of citizens.
I've been listening to WSPD this morning and the comments that were made by Council President Mark Sobczak - and I can only wonder if he's actually read the ordinance.
The first thing he said is that this is a 'soft billing' only - they will bill the insurance companies and if they insurance company doesn't pay, nothing more will happen. Here's the text of the ordinance:
Granted, it does say 'may' in one section and 'shall' in the other ... but if the city has no intention of billing individuals, the ordinance should clearly say so. In this case, it says that if your insurance isn't sufficient to cover the bill, recipients "shall be invoiced directly." That's not soft billing. And even if Council believes what they're saying about soft billing, we've had way too many instances in the past of such 'intentions' going by the wayside when the city wants more money.
Then there is the claim that since citizens have this coverage as part of their basic insurance policy, this won't really cost them anything. Do they not understand that the cost of fire insurance for all people/companies will go up over time if this is passed?
There is a cost for insurance, even if you never have a need, because actuarial tables which determine those costs are based upon many factors in your area or similar demographics. Either the members of council who believe this are completely and totally ignorant and shouldn't then be trusted with making such decisions on council, or they are intentionally distorting the issue in order to make it seem 'okay.'
Sobczak also says that the city needs more money. Well, so do I. Unlike the city, I don't have the ability to arbitrarily increase my income. And every time the city decides to impose such costs on me, I have to cut out something in order to be able to afford them because, unlike the city, I anticipate and plan for future costs I may have to pay.
Sobczak then throws in the gratuitous, but ever-popular, leftist misdirection by saying that those of us who actually read the ordinance are just trying to throw a bunch of misinformation out there because we've got an interest in protecting 'big insurance.'
Yeah - right.
I'm far more interested in protecting myself than I am my insurance company. And acting in my own self-interest, I've actually read the ordinance and found that it's going to cost me a lot of money - either through a direct billing if I have a need for such services or through increased insurance rates if the legislation is actually passed.
That Sobczak - and most of the other members of council - don't understand this is no surprise. They've never had to run a business or actually make a profit, so they do not comprehend of unintended consequences of such decisions. They also don't seem to understand that every policy and decision has a cost - and often, the cost is greater than the claimed 'benefit.'
In this case, the city may - I repeat - may realize $500,000 of revenue from this tax. But how much will they lose in the long term when citizens and businesses leave the area or avoid coming here because these 'costs of living' and tax structures/rates are so high? We know this is already occurring, considering the decline in Toledo's population and the consistently high unemployment rates (higher than other urban areas in the state for the last 20 years or so) ... which is part of what put the city in the mess in the first place. How much worse will the financial situation get and will the further erosion of the tax base be more detrimental than the $500,000 they hope to raise? Undoubtedly.
Councilman Joe McNamara, in several emails to constituents, has said that the city's income isn't what it used to be and there is 12% unemployment and loss of population. So, he reasons (though not logically) the city needs to tax the people who are still here, even though he just stated that many of those people have lost their jobs. Can you say 'stuck on stupid'?
And while City Council is considering raising this tax on people, they are NOT moving forward with the privatization of garbage collection. Despite having an arbitration decision earlier this month stating that it will NOT violate the city's contract with Teamsters Local 20 if the city subcontracts for garbage collection, no ordinance to do so has yet been submitted to members of council, despite the claimed $3 million of savings each year. But Council did vote to expend over $9 million to purchase new cans for everyone (which they will somehow bill us for in the future - the cost and the interest, that is) despite not knowing how, exactly, they would pay for the cans.
And just last week Mayor Carty Finkbeiner found that the city could save another $500,000 by combining city garages. This was a new idea to save money and it was welcomed by the citizens, though it raised a serious question. The Mayor and City Council have previously said they've cut everywhere they possibly can and there are no other areas of savings in the city. Then they announce this 'savings,' completely destroying any credibility these politicians had left when it comes to Toledo's budget.
So if the city can come up with this new cost savings plan - and I'm glad they did - what else might they be able to do that they haven't yet 'discovered'? And why aren't they all going over the city with a fine-toothed comb before considering increased taxation on the citizens? Well, that's the question of the day.
Then there is the side issue of just how callous the city is being in sending a bill for engines, gloves, boots and 'do not cross tape' to people who have just lost everything they have in a fire. Aren't these Democrat members of Council supposed to be the party of compassion?
The fire tax failed last time by a vote of 6-4. It is scheduled for either first reading or a vote on May 26th. District 6 Councilwoman Lindsay Webb asked for a public hearing on the matter the last time it was up for consideration, but didn't have the support of her fellow members of council.
You need to act - or we'll all be faced with more government taxation.
Mayor Carty Finkbeiner: 419-245-1001
mayor.toledo@toledo.oh.gov
Toledo City Council: 419-245-1050
Michael.ashford@toledo.oh.gov
Phillip.copeland@toledo.oh.gov
Joe.mcnamara@toledo.oh.gov
George.sarantou@toledo.oh.gov
Betty.shultz@toledo.oh.gov
Mark.sobczak@toledo.oh.gov
Frank.szollosi@toledo.oh.gov
Wilma.brown@toledo.oh.gov
Mike.craig@toledo.oh.gov
Dmichael.collins@toledo.oh.gov
Tom.waniewski@toledo.oh.gov
Lindsay.webb@toledo.oh.gov
And if you don't live in Toledo, this still impacts you. This billing is for any person or entity that receives services, including people who are travelling through the city, so those of you who come into our fair city have every right to express you opinion, too.
I've been listening to WSPD this morning and the comments that were made by Council President Mark Sobczak - and I can only wonder if he's actually read the ordinance.
The first thing he said is that this is a 'soft billing' only - they will bill the insurance companies and if they insurance company doesn't pay, nothing more will happen. Here's the text of the ordinance:
If it can be reliably determined that there is no insurance coverage for a particular emergency incident which causes the Toledo Fire Department to use, or incur loss, damage, and wear and tear to apparatus, tools, equipment, and materials; the City may recover any such fees from the person or entity that received said emergency services or the person or entity responsible for the debts and obligations of the person or entity that received such emergency services.
and this:
Recipients of the services of the Toledo Fire Department shall be invoiced directly under the terms of this ordinance if they do not carry insurance sufficient to cover the impact to the City of Toledo’s loss of capital or material.
Granted, it does say 'may' in one section and 'shall' in the other ... but if the city has no intention of billing individuals, the ordinance should clearly say so. In this case, it says that if your insurance isn't sufficient to cover the bill, recipients "shall be invoiced directly." That's not soft billing. And even if Council believes what they're saying about soft billing, we've had way too many instances in the past of such 'intentions' going by the wayside when the city wants more money.
Then there is the claim that since citizens have this coverage as part of their basic insurance policy, this won't really cost them anything. Do they not understand that the cost of fire insurance for all people/companies will go up over time if this is passed?
There is a cost for insurance, even if you never have a need, because actuarial tables which determine those costs are based upon many factors in your area or similar demographics. Either the members of council who believe this are completely and totally ignorant and shouldn't then be trusted with making such decisions on council, or they are intentionally distorting the issue in order to make it seem 'okay.'
Sobczak also says that the city needs more money. Well, so do I. Unlike the city, I don't have the ability to arbitrarily increase my income. And every time the city decides to impose such costs on me, I have to cut out something in order to be able to afford them because, unlike the city, I anticipate and plan for future costs I may have to pay.
Sobczak then throws in the gratuitous, but ever-popular, leftist misdirection by saying that those of us who actually read the ordinance are just trying to throw a bunch of misinformation out there because we've got an interest in protecting 'big insurance.'
Yeah - right.
I'm far more interested in protecting myself than I am my insurance company. And acting in my own self-interest, I've actually read the ordinance and found that it's going to cost me a lot of money - either through a direct billing if I have a need for such services or through increased insurance rates if the legislation is actually passed.
That Sobczak - and most of the other members of council - don't understand this is no surprise. They've never had to run a business or actually make a profit, so they do not comprehend of unintended consequences of such decisions. They also don't seem to understand that every policy and decision has a cost - and often, the cost is greater than the claimed 'benefit.'
In this case, the city may - I repeat - may realize $500,000 of revenue from this tax. But how much will they lose in the long term when citizens and businesses leave the area or avoid coming here because these 'costs of living' and tax structures/rates are so high? We know this is already occurring, considering the decline in Toledo's population and the consistently high unemployment rates (higher than other urban areas in the state for the last 20 years or so) ... which is part of what put the city in the mess in the first place. How much worse will the financial situation get and will the further erosion of the tax base be more detrimental than the $500,000 they hope to raise? Undoubtedly.
Councilman Joe McNamara, in several emails to constituents, has said that the city's income isn't what it used to be and there is 12% unemployment and loss of population. So, he reasons (though not logically) the city needs to tax the people who are still here, even though he just stated that many of those people have lost their jobs. Can you say 'stuck on stupid'?
And while City Council is considering raising this tax on people, they are NOT moving forward with the privatization of garbage collection. Despite having an arbitration decision earlier this month stating that it will NOT violate the city's contract with Teamsters Local 20 if the city subcontracts for garbage collection, no ordinance to do so has yet been submitted to members of council, despite the claimed $3 million of savings each year. But Council did vote to expend over $9 million to purchase new cans for everyone (which they will somehow bill us for in the future - the cost and the interest, that is) despite not knowing how, exactly, they would pay for the cans.
And just last week Mayor Carty Finkbeiner found that the city could save another $500,000 by combining city garages. This was a new idea to save money and it was welcomed by the citizens, though it raised a serious question. The Mayor and City Council have previously said they've cut everywhere they possibly can and there are no other areas of savings in the city. Then they announce this 'savings,' completely destroying any credibility these politicians had left when it comes to Toledo's budget.
So if the city can come up with this new cost savings plan - and I'm glad they did - what else might they be able to do that they haven't yet 'discovered'? And why aren't they all going over the city with a fine-toothed comb before considering increased taxation on the citizens? Well, that's the question of the day.
Then there is the side issue of just how callous the city is being in sending a bill for engines, gloves, boots and 'do not cross tape' to people who have just lost everything they have in a fire. Aren't these Democrat members of Council supposed to be the party of compassion?
The fire tax failed last time by a vote of 6-4. It is scheduled for either first reading or a vote on May 26th. District 6 Councilwoman Lindsay Webb asked for a public hearing on the matter the last time it was up for consideration, but didn't have the support of her fellow members of council.
You need to act - or we'll all be faced with more government taxation.
Mayor Carty Finkbeiner: 419-245-1001
mayor.toledo@toledo.oh.gov
Toledo City Council: 419-245-1050
Michael.ashford@toledo.oh.gov
Phillip.copeland@toledo.oh.gov
Joe.mcnamara@toledo.oh.gov
George.sarantou@toledo.oh.gov
Betty.shultz@toledo.oh.gov
Mark.sobczak@toledo.oh.gov
Frank.szollosi@toledo.oh.gov
Wilma.brown@toledo.oh.gov
Mike.craig@toledo.oh.gov
Dmichael.collins@toledo.oh.gov
Tom.waniewski@toledo.oh.gov
Lindsay.webb@toledo.oh.gov
And if you don't live in Toledo, this still impacts you. This billing is for any person or entity that receives services, including people who are travelling through the city, so those of you who come into our fair city have every right to express you opinion, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
