Free fuel for thee, but not for me!

City to give electric vehicle owners free fuel

Charging stations similar to this one have
 been  installed in downtown Toledo.
You and I  are paying for them.

I received a press release from the City of Toledo announcing a press conference to unveil their new electric vehicle charging stations:

City to unveil electric vehicle charging stations

Three stations to be available in downtown area

Mayor Michael P. Bell will unveil three electric vehicle chargers at 10 a.m., Thursday, October 10 near 347 North Superior St., the corner of Superior and Adams.

As a pilot program, motorists will pay for metered parking and can plug to the charger in at no additional cost. The city will monitor the usage to determine the need to expand the program in other locations. In total the units cost $7,200 to purchase. Installation assistance was provided through a competitively bid contract with local contractor TAS Electric.

Okay - so the city is spending $7,200 to purchase the chargers and TAS Electric got the contract to install them, for how much it didn't say.

But did you catch this? The cost to the electric vehicle user is the same and you and I would pay to park - the coins we are required to put in the meter.

The electric vehicle owner is getting their juice for free.

The City is paying the cost of the electricity used to charge the vehicles - which means you and I are paying for someone else to charge their car.

Now, when a regular vehicle owner parks downtown, no one pays him or her two hours worth of gas.

Why should electric vehicle owners get their fuel for free while you and I have to pay for our own?

Whatever happened to equal equal treatment?

Mayor Mike Bell said at the press conference that this will contribute to Toledo being a business-friendly town.

Really? What's "business-friendly" about giving some people their fuel for free while charging others for it?

A Honda Fit can go 82 miles on a fully-charged electric battery. It needs 7.25 kW-hrs to go 25 miles which means it needs 23.78 kW-hrs to fully charge the battery. According to Edmonds, the cost of charging the vehicle is 23.78 kW-Hrs times the cost of the electricity.

The cost of electricity varies and the city probably has a special rate, but my current rate is $0.064075/kwh. If I were charging a Honda Fit at home, it would cost me $1.52.

That might not seem to be very much - at first. But numerous cars will be able to plug in, each charging their battery in full, 7 days a week.

But that's not the only cost. The expense the city incurred to install the charging units also needs to be recouped, except the city isn't charging the users for that at all.

This is going to be a constant drain on taxpayers. And since it's a pilot project and Bell hopes to add more, it will be even more of drain as time goes on.

And don't forget the current controversy over the gasoline tax. Electric vehicles, because they use so much less gasoline (if at all), don't pay as much gasoline tax which is used to pay for road maintenance and repair. This has caused some to suggest a meter on vehicles to charge a fee per mile driven. So they're using the roads, but not paying as much for them as you and I.

How difficult would it be to have the users pay an extra $1.50 when they put money in the meter?

And why would the city and its elected officials think it's okay to not charge the users for the fuel they're using?

Can I park at a downtown meter and get $1.50 worth of gas? Can pull up to the city gas pump and put $1.50 worth of their gasoline in my car every day?

Can you imagine if we all demanded equal treatment when it comes to the city paying for vehicle fuel?

This is so wrong I don't know where to begin.

This is not the proper role of government and tax dollars should not be going to pay for fuel for some but not for others.

The vehicle owners need to be charged for the electricity they use and a portion of the cost of the chargers as well. Anything less is unacceptable.

Toledo taxpayers shafted (again!) in latest tit-for-tat over public employee wages

Yes, it's true - but sadly, not surprising that Toledo taxpayers are being stranded in the frigid cold as Mayor Mike Bell and Toledo city council engage in their own personal tit-for-tat over how much to pay their staffs.

To understand just how bad this really is, let's back up a bit.

The city has, for years, raided the Capital Improvements Plan budget in order to pay for everyday, general fund expenses. Going into 2012, they'd (legally) transferred a total of $50 million out of the account that is supposed to pay for major infrastructure improvements and roads - and used it to pay for things like office supplies, donations to local non-profits and pay increases for public employees.

They planned to continue stealing from the CIP for this fiscal year:

Faced with not enough income to meet their desire for 'more, more, more,' council has transferred (at last count) more than $50 million out of the Capital Improvements Plan fund (CIP) into the general fund to meet the everyday costs of the city.

So now council is going to start building back up the rainy day fund.

You'd think this was a good thing...but (there's always a but), they're still raiding the CIP to the tune of $12 million!

According to the city, the actual planned amount is $11,949,054, which does included $1.1 million originally unplanned, but approved by council yesterday to make up for the lack of revenue due to a delay in the opening of the casino.

Is there anyone else who fails to see the logic of this action?

They were patting themselves on the back for their plan to start building up the city's rainy day fund - which they depleted before they resorted to raiding the CIP - but they completely missed the point that they were taking another $12 million out of the CIP to do so.

And while they were at it, they decided to spend money they didn't have on a new director to run a previously eliminated department, a new filing system for their council offices and a consultant to create a Historic Preservation Plan.

Things went along normally for a while - or as normal as can be for Toledo, with politicians spending more than they take in, raiding the CIP and plotting ways to wring more cash out of the taxpayers.

Then Mayor Bell decided he wanted to increase the salary ranges for his administrative staff. He said he wasn't interested in actually giving pay increases; he just believed that the ranges needed to reflect current conditions.

Council balked.

Councilman Steve Steel, fearing that a pay scale increase would result in pay increases, went a step further and proposed a new ethics requirement for the mayor to "avoid any appearance of impropriety" or quid pro quo since many of these same administrators had contributed to the mayor's campaign.

In what can only be described as a political TKO, Bell came up with his own ethics proposal that applied not just to him, but to council as well.

But Mayor Bell has trumped Steel - handily - in submitting a new ordinance for a council vote.

While it is already illegal for individuals to solicit contributions from public employees in the classified service, Bell's ordinance would make it illegal to solicit and/or accept contributions from current city employees (not just those in the classified service), members of current employees' family and/or the bargaining units that represent city employees.

I'd call this game-set-match for Bell.

Needless to say, the entire subject was dropped.

But city officials were still crying poverty - so much, in fact, that Steel and Councilwoman Lindsay Webb decided Toledo just had to have a brand new, 10-year property tax levy to pay for parks and recreation. Steel and Webb pushed the tax increase and were soon joined by the mayor. They promised it would benefit seniors and kids and - believe it or not - reduce crime.

The bribes even included a new water park.

But a funny thing happened along the way to the ballot box. Maybe Bell didn't really want that new levy to pass. How else to explain his sudden announcement that he was giving pay increases to more than 50 staff members, totaling $295,000 a year?

Surely if the city had a third of a million dollars lying around, it didn't need a levy for parks, right?

Council was not amused, though Republican Councilman George Sarantou, Chairman of the Finance Committee actually justified the expense by claiming the city was expecting a $900,000 surplus.

Yes, you read that correctly.

Now the city has a budget surplus? I thought they had no money to pay for parks and recreation?!?

And how did we get this surplus? Did we NOT raid the CIP fund as they planned? Did they repay the advance they took on the CIP when the casino didn't open in time?

Have they thought that maybe reimbursing the $50 million or so they previously raided from the CIP might be a bigger priority to citizens than "valuing" administrators that have better pensions, vacation time, holidays and pay than they do?

But council doesn't like to be outdone, especially when some of the council members have aspirations to sit in the mayor's seat. Hence the latest tit for tat between council and the mayor. After all, it's only fair to retaliate against mayoral raises with raises of your own, right?

In response to Mayor Mike Bell’s across-the-board salary increases in October for 55 administrators and lawyers — a move that will cost the city $295,000 more a year — Toledo City Council has given a pay bump to four officials it controls.

Council voted 9-1 to increase the salaries of the council clerk, assistant clerk, city auditor, and plan commission director by 8 percent. But those four employees will lose their 5 percent “pension pickup” by the city, netting a 3 percent increase overall.

Councilman D. Michael Collins, who pushed for the compensation changes before council approved them last week, said it was the fair thing to do after the mayor boosted salaries an average of 9.8 percent, with no adjustment, for administration officials whose pension payment plans are still covered by the taxpayers.

Throughout all of this back and forth, spending, raiding the CIP and concern for the self-esteem of public employees, the taxpayer has been ignored.

Rarely has anyone mentioned, much less thought about, the out-of-work Toledoan who is footing the bill for this excess and political gamesmanship.

The taxpayer gets shafted while politicians maneuver for personal gain and engage in childish "I'll show you" antics.

Meanwhile, for 2013:

Toledo Mayor Mike Bell presented the 2013 budget today and it plans to raid $13.96 million from the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) fund while spending more money on parks and recreation.

Happy New Year, taxpayers!

$750,000 burning a hole in Toledo's pocket

What to do, what to do?

Toledo City Council has three quarters of a million dollars (that's $750,000 for those of you who like actual numbers) that they haven't yet spent - so of course they've decided it has to spent yet this year, one way or the other.

Mayor Mike Bell put forth a plan to spend the money to bring in some dirt and do some grading as the beginning part of an overall project to 'transform' Promenade Park into a 'destination' point in downtown Toledo. The plan calls for removing trees that block the view of the water from Summit Street, replacing them with tiers of terraces, building a stage and adding a water feature.

Perhaps they've forgotten that we already have that exact same design next to Imagination Station (the old COSI, which used to be Portside)?

But this post isn't just about how similar 'destination' points have failed to bring people into downtown Toledo. As Tom Waniewski said:

“Our image is not based on what a downtown looks like,” Mr. Waniewski chided. “Our image is how do we treat the residents who pay for these services, and paved roads is a lot bigger priority than Promenade Park.”

No, this post is primarily about the stupidity of those in Government Center who think that all available money must be spent, rather than held for higher priorities.

The gist of the matter is that some on city council (and, it appears, a significant amount of Toledoans) believe that road repair is a function of government and should be one of government's higher priorities. Or, at least, certainly higher than a new park project.

Others, including the Mayor, believe that since the money cannot be spent this year on road repair, we should spend it elsewhere. Even at-large Councilman Rob Ludeman, a Republican, voted to spend the money on the park:

But Councilman Rob Ludeman agreed with the mayor’s position and called putting the money into Promenade Park a “no brainer.” He said the park improvements could happen right away but more street repairs would have to wait until after the winter months.

“How much work can be done on street repair this year? Basically none,” Mr. Ludeman said. “My feeling is Promenade Park has been needing upgrades for a long time. Downtown is making a resilient comeback, and work can be done on that throughout the winter.”

Well, if you need a new roof on your home and you only have saved up a portion of the costs, do you decide to spend that portion on a vacation simply because you can't do the whole roof before the winter comes? Or do you decide to keep saving that money - adding to it - so you have enough to pay for the new roof when the work can be done the following spring?

That's a 'gotcha' question, in case you missed it, because common sense and general fiscal accountability say you continue to save.

Yes, "it's only" $750,000 and city staff says that will "only" pave about two miles. Well, that's okay with me. I'd rather have two miles than some dirt and grading at a park - wouldn't most people?!?

In fact, even though I don't live in the area, I'd nominate the stretch of Secor Road between Westgate and the I-475 overpass as one place to spend that 'limited' amount of money, even if they don't spend it until next spring.

But...but....but....this is economic development, the Mayor and at-large Councilmen Joe McNamara and Adam Martinez claimed:

"We're trying to create an environment here that is international, that will bring people to our city," the mayor told council. "The project at Promenade Park ... will make us money."

and,

Mr. McNamara said the investment in Promenade Park would create a much-needed focal point in downtown Toledo that would help define the city and put it on the map. He described the disappointment he felt when he recently picked up a book about Ohio, only to find that just two or three pages mentioned Toledo.

"Investing in ourselves is a good idea," Mr. McNamara enthused. "We're trying to sell our city across the world ... I think it's important to dream and I think this is a great project."

Councilman Martinez echoed the mayor's analysis, arguing that investing in downtown would attract businesses and generate more money in private dollars from every dollar in public money spent.

Does anyone really believe that a new park and a second terraced stage area will bring in more businesses than taking care of the basic infrastructure of the city? Apparently, several city council members and the Mayor do. And how, exactly, will this park plan - not scheduled to be completed for several years, bring in money? Well, according to the supporters, businesses will want to relocate here because they can go to events on the waterfront. Yeah - right!

Businesses locate and grow in places where they can make money. They leave - or don't come in the first place - when government takes more of their money than it should and spends it on unnecessary things, that don't contribute to their ability to enhance their bottom line. Ask any owner of any successful business if they would make a decision on where to locate their business based upon a destination park that is only usable for maybe six months of the year. They'll probably laugh in your face.

As it stands right now, the Mayor exercised his line-item veto authority on the 7-4 decision by City Council to add the $750,000 to the $2.5 million already budgeted for street work. It will take nine votes to override the veto, which means that two of the councilmen who voted no (Ludeman, McNamara, Martinez and District 3 Councilman Mike Craig) need to realize the error of their ways and join with the other council members in voting for the road work. Or just one, if at-large Councilman Phil Copeland, who wasn't present for the original vote, decides roads trump parks.

The Mayor also plans to re-submit the Promenade Park spending plan to council. Even if council doesn't override the veto, they will still have to provide seven votes to spend the money on the park. If the seven who originally voted for the roads maintain their stance, the funding for Promenade Park will fail - as it should.

If you have an opinion, be sure to let the members of Toledo City Council know. Here is their contact information:

Council Office telephone number - good for all members of Council: 419-245-1020

Wilma Brown - Council President
District 1 (D)
wilma.brown@toledo.oh.gov

D. Michael Collins
District 2 (Independent)
dmichael.collins@toledo.oh.gov

Phillip Copeland
At Large (D)
phillip.copeland@toledo.oh.gov

Mike Craig
District 3 (D)
mike.craig@toledo.oh.gov

Paula Hicks-Hudson
District 4 (D)
Paula.Hicks-Hudson@toledo.oh.gov

Rob Ludeman
At Large (R)
rob.ludeman@toledo.oh.gov

Adam J. Martinez
At Large (D)
adam.martinez@toledo.oh.gov

Joe McNamara
At Large (D)
joe.mcnamara@toledo.oh.gov

George Sarantou
At Large (R)
george.sarantou@toledo.oh.gov

Steven Steel
At Large (D)
Steven.Steel@toledo.oh.gov

Tom Waniewski
District 5 (R)
tom.waniewski@toledo.oh.gov

Lindsay M. Webb
District 6 (D)
lindsay.webb@toledo.oh.gov

***Side Note:

I'm not sure of the original source of this money. According to some reports, the excess $750,000 is part of a loan for work at the Marina District - a loan that was supposed to have been repaid by the prior developer Larry Dillon. If this is, indeed, the case, then instead of spending the money, we should return it and not end up paying interest when we don't have to.

If this is actually borrowed money, then conversations about how to spend it should immediately cease.

What the GOP debt limit strategy should be

We've been hearing about the negotiations, and witnessing the antics and political posturing over the debt limit for quite some time now and last night's speeches by President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner didn't contain any new information.

The President, as Tom Blumer at BizzyBlog explains, "...changed his mind — again. Calling the President’s performance in the debt-ceiling matter during the past several weeks “Jello-like” would appear to be an insult to the referenced food product."

He also points out that Wall Street seems to be getting used to the impasse, saying, "Yeah, the media/White House “the markets will tank if there isn’t an agreement this weekend” scare tactic of the past two days didn’t work out too well, did it?"

The President's position is that raising the debt ceiling doesn't give the government any more money to spend - it just allows them to pay the bills that are due. What a maroon (as Bugs Bunny would say).

Of course it allows them to spend more money - it gives them the ability to borrow more (there's that word again) money which they plan to immediately spend on a host of worthless projects like tea pot museums, 'slow food' initiatives, shrimp and oyster research, youth soccer gang prevention, bike paths and window replacements in municipal buildings - all critical national priorities.

Additionally, had the Democrats bothered to pass an actual budget in the last 3 years (a statutory mandate that they - and the national media - seem to ignore), they'd realize that they've got more bills than money and would have had to admit that the President's line of 'no additional money to spend' was nothing more than political posturing.

Republicans, led by Speaker Boehner, have at least seen the light - belatedly, but finally - and, despite having contributed mightily to our precarious financial condition, are standing firm on cutting spending and not raising taxes. I can only hope that they've learned their lesson and have truly changed their ways, but I'm not holding my breath.

In fact, Rep. Boehner's 'two-step' plan (sounds sort of shifty, doesn't it) that he introduced yesterday afternoon didn't seem to sit well with some in the GOP, including Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio) who chairs the Republican Study Committee. His statement in reaction to the two-step plan:

“While I thank the Speaker for fighting for Republican principles, I cannot support the plan that was presented to House Republicans this afternoon.”

“The credit rating agencies have been clear that no matter what happens with the debt limit, the U.S. will lose its AAA credit rating unless we produce a credible plan to reduce the debt by trillions of dollars. Cut, Cap, and Balance is the only plan on the table that meets this standard. Only a Balanced Budget Amendment will actually solve our debt problems.”

So it seems the GOP is, thankfully, holding the line and the President is 'taking it to the people,' though not very effectively. But what should the next step be?

Currently, everyone in Washington is focusing on how to get a debt limit increase approved by all sides. The scare tactic is that failing to do so means we default on our loans. Everyone is rushing around talking about the dire consequences of a debt default and pushing their own position as the solution.

While common sense tells you that default doesn't have to happen, since the nation collects much more in revenue than is due on the debt limit, if we remove that component of the argument, the real discussion - the proper size and scope of the federal government and the funding for it - can begin. But that also means that the tool (scary world-ending scenarios on default) being used by the President goes away - certainly a good political strategy as well.

The fact is that the nation defaults when it fails to pay the interest/principle on its loans/bonds. As the chart in this article shows, there is plenty of revenue to pay the interest due. In fact, with $172 billion in income for August, the Treasury Department would have enough money to pay (in rounded numbers):

* $ 30 billion interest on debt,
* $ 50 billion in Social Security payments,
* $ 3 billion active duty military pay,
* $ 29 billion in Medicare expenses,
* $ 21 billion in Medicaid expenses,
* $ 14 billion in federal salaries and benefits,
* $ 7 billion in food stamp payments,
* $ 2 billion in TANF (welfare) payments, and
* $ 3 billion in Veterans Affairs payments.

And that would still leave us with $15 billion or so for miscellaneous items.

The problem is in prioritizing. My list above means that other entities go unpaid (like defense contractors and various departments -energy, EPA, etc...), but the vital issue of debt payments and the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government is not only addressed - it's removed as both a scare tactic and a political weapon.

After all, even Pres. Obama in his speech last night, said:

"...defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate."

How do we not default? The answer is simple: the Prioritize Spending Act of 2011. It's a very short bill that says:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Prioritize Spending Act of 2011'.

SEC. 2. PRIORITY OF PAYMENTS IF THE DEBT CEILING IS REACHED.

In the event that the debt of the United States Government, as defined in section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, reaches the statutory limit, amounts necessary for obligations incurred by the Government of the United States shall be made available to the following obligations before all other obligations and shall be made available as prioritized in the following order (with items listed in descending order of prioritization):

(1) Amounts necessary to carry out the authority of the Department of the Treasury provided in section 3123 of title 31, United States Code, to pay with legal tender the principal and interest on debt held by the public.

(2) Such amounts as the Secretary of Defense (and the Secretary of Homeland Security in the case of the Coast Guard) determines to be necessary to continue to provide pay and allowances (without interruption) to members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, including reserve components thereof, who perform active service.

(3) Such amounts as the President certifies to the Congress are necessary to carry out vital national security priorities.

(4) Amounts necessary to carry out the authority of the Commissioner of Social Security to pay monthly old-age, survivors', and disability insurance benefits under title II of the Social Security Act.

(5) Amounts necessary to make payments under the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act.

Passing this bill has several positive outcomes for the nation's economy as it ensures the threat of default will no longer exist. It also removes uncertainty and reassures creditors that the nation will meet its obligations, no matter what political posturing goes on.

When the House passes it, it goes to the Senate, forcing them to be accountable for the consequences of their actions. The Senate has failed to approve a budget of their own and unanimously defeated the budget submitted by the President.

Since they don't want to do their job of budgeting, force them to take a position on prioritizing. They'll either

* table it, sending a message to all Americans that they'd rather try to scare you and use the credit of the nation as a political ploy for their own means;

* defeat it, sending the same message while also saying they WANT to default if it accomplishes their personal political goals;

* or pass it, because it's necessary for their future re-election efforts.

If they pass it, it forces the same position on Pres. Obama.

If Obama really doesn't want to default or not get granny her Social Security check, he'll sign it. The President said:

This is no way to run the greatest country on Earth. It’s a dangerous game that we’ve never played before, and we can’t afford to play it now. Not when the jobs and livelihoods of so many families are at stake. We can’t allow the American people to become collateral damage to Washington’s political warfare.

If he really means that, he'll support the Prioritize Spending Act.

But my guess is that he'd veto it. And then he'd prove to the entire world that he really doesn't care about the nation - only about getting his way so he can spend even more money that he doesn't have.

A veto and a subsequent decision on behalf of the President to not make the debt payments would be devastating to the nation and its citizens. And make no mistake - if the nation defaults, it will be because Pres. Obama made the conscious decision to do so, despite his ability to avoid default.

Either way - veto or passage - it's a win-win scenario for Republicans.

So what are they waiting for?

Toledo is broke but has money for a study?

Yes, of course we do! Can you say 'stuck on stupid'????

The City of Toledo - still - has a budget deficit. According to Mayor Carty Finkbeiner's July letter to City Council, it's just over $8.6 million. Yet last night, council passed Ordinance 383-09 "Appropriation for engineering & planning by Tetra Tech of Municipal Solar Field, $110,000 Water Improvement."

This is on top of the $65,000 they've already spent, but if they spend the additional money now, they might be able to get some federal dollars for this.

This is just more twisted logic. First they needed to spend the money to show that we're 'supportive' of the solar industry.

(I hate it when politicians think that 'being supportive' of an industry means they have to spend our tax dollars, rather than their own by purchasing stock or making a personal investment in these companies!)

The additional money is urgent, they say, because maybe, just maybe, we'll be able to get help from Washington for the project. So what happens if we DON'T get any funds from DC? Then what?

Council and the mayor will justify this expenditure by saying it's from the water fund, not the general fund, so the budget deficit is not impacted. What they fail to understand is that it's their philosophy of spending that's the problem.

First, the water fund is supposed to be solely for the water system and service. How, exactly, does a solar field fall under that limited use? It could only be by a good stretch of imagination, or perhaps a 'willing suspension of disbelief.'

Second, what did the $65,000 study buy us? Where is the report from the expenditure of those funds? Why hasn't that been released for all to see PRIOR to spending more money? Where is the analysis of the return on investment for this project? Where is the detailed listing of available funds to go forward, if that decision were to be made? Why would we spend more money for a study if we don't have the money to build it when the study is done?

And third, if this is such a fantastic idea, why don't they put their own money toward the project? Let them 'invest' their dollars, rather than our tax dollars. What, you say, they wouldn't do such a thing? It must not be such a good idea, then, is it?

Our Toledo politicians have bigger problems than funding a study of a solar field on a dump. But they don't seem to want to address those. They'd rather keep spending - and getting nice headlines from a local paper who loves the idea.

For last year's deficit, they took money out of the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) fund and moved it into the General Fund in order to balance 2008. This year, the number of CIP projects are reduced as a result.

They've voted to put a temporary change to the distribution of the 3/4% payroll income tax on the ballot so they can, again, move money from the CIP to cover their general fund expenditures, including a police class.

Carty is still pushing for an increase in the trash tax. Though that was supposed to be for garbage service, it's being used as a general tax to supplement general fund activities, an action likely to cause them to lose their lawsuit over the issue. And there has been no public discussion among council members on the impact of losing that lawsuit and the potential cost to the city to reimburse residents for the money collected.

Additionally, Carty is still pushing for the end of 100% reciprocity for Toledo residents who work in other jurisdictions - basically, a tax increase on citizens who live in Toledo but work in areas like Sylvania, Maumee or Oregon. Council has rejected this in the past, but we still have a deficit, so who knows?

The problem is that they have no idea how to live within their means - our means, actually. They're too busy promoting their own pet projects and programs and expecting that they'll just get the money from somewhere, though that 'somewhere' ends up being from us - and we're completely tapped out.

I don't care how good of an idea you think it is, we just don't have the money.

STOP THE SPENDING!!!!!!!!!!

JUST STOP!

The real issue of city pools

Anyone who reads this blog knows that I'm a proponent of limited government. I believe that government has a purpose, but a limited one, and that government should stick to those limited tasks.

I also believe that government takes too much money from us in the form of taxes and fees - and they do so in order to 'provide' more than the basic services government should be providing.

So it should come as no surprise that I oppose public funding of pools and recreation under the guise of 'quality of life' or 'for the children' arguments. I'm of the firm opinion that families would be able to provide such 'recreation' for their children if government wasn't taking so much of their money in the first place.

But I am apparently in the minority on that position, as the City of Toledo is again planning on opening the pools because, as the ordinance states, it's important that "citizens in all areas of the city will be able to enjoy aquatic recreational opportunities this summer."

On a positive note, the funding for the pools is coming from donations and the Parks Trust Fund - not the general fund. I'm very glad that community groups and churches have stepped up to fund these activities, though I must admit that one of the sources (a grant from EOPA) is actually tax dollars from the federal government. I believe that this is the proper way to permanently fund these types of things. I believe that other groups might step forward to do the same if the government hadn't taken over the responsibility in the first place.

The total amount to be spent this year (three ordinances are on the agenda) is $136,398. The problem is the number of children to be served.

As I've highlighted in previous posts, the pools serve less than 2% of the population and less than 6% of the children in the city. And the number of users has declined over the last three years.

As calculated in my previous posts, the pools serve roughly 4,700 unique visitors. At that number for this year's funding, it's about $28 per person. For the same amount of money, the city could purchase a year-long membership at the Boys & Girls Club for 27,000+ kids (calculated at the 16-18 year old membership rate of $5, not the 7-15 year old rate of $3). If we really care about kids, why aren't we providing them with year-round activities instead of just a couple of months (depending on weather) of pool access?

But if the city told you that they were going to purchase memberships for kids to a club, would you support the expenditure of those dollars while we're laying off police and not planning on residential road improvements? Probably not.

It's an issue of priorities and Toledo government doesn't have a track record of setting good ones.

Beyond that, it's an issue of responsibilities - it is not the responsibility of taxpayers to provide entertainment and recreation for the children in the city. If you want to do something like that, you make a donation to private organizations who provide those types of services. And if there are private organizations who are willing to fund such activities this year, let's develop a plan by which they will be able to do so every year and get the city out of the business of swimming pools.

I'd rather have a police officer

The City of Toledo issued the following press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, May 8, 2009

Division of Recreation Sponsors Pitch, Hit & Run Competition

On Saturday, May 9 at Bennett Park (Bennett & Laskey), the City of Toledo Division of Recreation will sponsor Aquafina's Major League Baseball Pitch, Hit & Run youth baseball competition. Beginning at 1 p.m., this national competition -- open to boys and girls ages 14 and under -- gives young athletes the chance to showcase their pitching, hitting, and running abilities. All participants will have a chance to win a trip to the 2009 All-Star Game and be part of the Pitch, Hit & Run national competition. Pre-registration is available at Freedom Enterprises Sports Cards & Collectibles (444 W. Laskey Road, Unit O) from 11 a.m. - 7 p.m. or at the City of Toledo Athletic Office (2201 Ottawa Parkway) from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Onsite registration is also available. Proof of age and parental release must be completed prior to competition. No cleats are permitted.

For more information, contact Sherrie Shipman in the Division of Recreation at 419-936-2700.

Despite claims that the city had cut everything they possible could out of the budget, there is still funding for this type of 'recreation.' Even if the major costs of this competition are being covered by donations from private entities, city of Toledo resources and staff are being utilized for the program.

But we laid off police officers!

Can you say 'stuck on stupid'?

The first test for Toledo Tea Party attendees

Yesterday we learned that the City of Toledo plans to lay off up to 350 employees, including 150 police officers. They expect that 75 of those officers will, however, work through the summer because they've gotten permission to divert a federal grant, originally to intended to pay for equipment, to cover the cost of those officers.

The city is facing a $27.7 million deficit and they have made some cuts and modifications which have reduced that to $20 million. Elected officials have repeatedly said that they've cut everywhere they possibly can.

However, at last week's council meeting, they tabled a motion to cut out the $457,000 athletic program. They also still plan to open a pool this summer.

This is INSANE!!!!

The role of government is to provide the protection for life and property - not to entertain us. To say that they have to lay off police officers when they are planning to fund sports programs this summer makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever.

And these types of decisions are part of the reason why so many people believe their government is out of control - and why they expressed their frustrations on Tax Day at the Tea Parties.

Tea Party attendees have wondered, "what next?" Well - here is your first test.

Are you going to let Toledo politicians fund athletic programs instead of police officers? Are you going to allow sports to be a priority over your safety?

You need to act. Call or email them today and insist that the basic, core functions of government be provided before the non-essentials.

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

If you are not a resident of Toledo, but you either work in the city, travel through the city, have friends or relatives in the city, or just care about the city, you have every right to call and express your opinion. Any time that government forgoes its basic responsibilities, citizens need to speak out.

Here's the thing to remember: the reason Council didn't cut out the athletic programs is because 50 - yes, 50 - people showed up and begged them not to. If 20 times that number (the people who attended Toledo's Tea Party) pick up the phone and call, they will listen.

Better yet, if every TDTP attendee also gets three other people to call, they will certainly listen. If they get so many calls it overwhelms the phone system, they will have no choice but to listen.

You cannot just attend a protest, wave a few signs and expect that our elected officials will change their ways. You have to be vigilant in ensuring that they are constantly reminded what the priorities should be.

This is the first test. Will we pass?

We talked about this last night on Eye On Toledo, in case you missed it.

Deficit? What deficit? Let's have an Easter Egg hunt!

Seriously - you can't make this stuff up!

The City of Toledo is facing a $27.7 million deficit. The mayor is talking about laying off police officers, cutting salaries by 10% and voiding all labor contracts.

But we've somehow got enough money for an Easter Egg Hunt????

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, April 2, 2009

City of Toledo Sponsors Two Saturday Events

The City of Toledo's 2009 EGG XTRAVAGANZA will be held this Saturday, April 4 from 1 - 3 p.m. at the Liz Person Open Air Shelter at Ottawa Park (2200 Kenwood Blvd.). This free, family-oriented event will feature an Easter egg hunt, face painting, arts & crafts, and a special visit from the Easter Bunny. EGG XTRAVAGANZA is sponsored by the City of Toledo Department of Neighborhoods, Division of Recreation. For more information, call 419-936-2700.

Now I realize that the money saved by not doing the Egg Xtravaganza (notice we didn't use the religious term of 'Easter') is not going to solve the deficit problem, but this is indicative of the lack of proper priorities for city spending.

Each program like this that 'only' costs a small amount, adds up to huge expenses over the years and contributes to the financial condition Toledo now faces. Spending on these items in spite of the looming catastrophe that is the General Fund is part of the problem.

And don't even get me started on 'quality of life.' No one's overall quality of life is going to be negatively impacted if a small number of kids don't have a city-sponsored egg to find. In fact, quality of life for all Toledoans would be greatly enhanced if the city spending priorities were directed toward the necessities of government, rather than these feel-good distractions.

The 2009 approved budget for the Recreation Department is $999,395.32 (pages 127-129). Given a choice, I'd pick police officers over 'recreation' any day.

So when council and the mayor tell us they've got nowhere else to cut and then we see these kinds of expenditures, we know they are lying through their teeth.

Scare tactics and deflecting blame for city's budget woes

It was bound to happen - Toledo administrators telling us that they may have to cut police and fire in order to balance the budget.

It's not that we want to, but we have to consider it, we're told.

Of course - doom and gloom, fear and scare tactics. Layoffs of personnel across the board instead of elimination of departments and functions that are unnecessary. If we don't threaten police and fire, we won't get the public's support for whatever taxes we may choose to raise...blah, blah, blah.

But here's the scariest part of the commentary on the additional $8.1 million budget deficit (on top of the $8 million they already addressed) from Bob Reinbolt, Mayor Carty Finkbeiner's chief of staff:

"He said the city's $6.4 million rainy-day fund would be applied to the 2008 deficit. Because $2 million of that was earmarked for the 2009 general-fund budget, the 2009 plan would need to be revised with more cuts, inflated revenue assumptions, or anticipated savings.

But even using the entire rainy-day fund would leave the city's 2008 budget $1.7 million in the red."(emphasis added)

I cannot believe they would even consider such a scheme, especially in times of increased unemployment, people leaving the city and business closings. What they're saying is that they may arbitrarily decide to just raise the estimated revenue in order to present a budget that is 'balanced' on paper.

Isn't that part of what got us into our current mess? I raised numerous challenges to the 2008 revenue estimates during the town hall meeting in my district, but despite a promise to 'get back to me,' none of my questions were answered. By June, revenue numbers were less than projected and it was evident the total budgeted income would never be achieved. Now we find our 2008 deficit is, currently, $16.1 million - with not enough reserves to fill the hole.

Similar questions have already been raised about the 2009 projected income - and the logic being considered by the people who lead this city is to just up those projections????

All that will do is put us in a worse condition at the end of this year, postponing the day of reckoning.

Toledo Councilman Joe McNamara is "shocked" over the lack of information to council. Well, I'm not on council and I could tell from the finance reports (public records distributed to council members in advance of finance committee meetings) that things were dire - all the way back in June. I also questioned why council would pass a 2009 budget without having the final numbers for 2008. Apparently, McNamara is a little slow on the uptake:

"Toledo Councilman Joe McNamara said it was deplorable that the mayor had kept council out of the loop. "I am utterly shocked the deficit is as bad as it is because this is something the administration should have told council as soon as they knew," he said. "It's a real crisis and … council should not have heard about it for the first time at a public meeting, and it would have perhaps affected some of the decisions made in the 2009 budget.""

Ya think?

To make matters worse, McNamara tries even harder to blame the mayor for his own lack of attention to the fiscal condition of the city:

"Mr. McNamara added, "It was unconscionable for the administration to allow council to pass the 2009 budget if they knew the 2008 deficit was so high.""

For the record, the administration doesn't 'allow' council to do anything when it comes to passage of legislation - but good try at deflecting blame, Joe.

Council must accept their responsibility in this fiscal debacle and they must be adamant in cutting spending - not by trying to placate everyone with across the board cuts, but by establishing priorities for mandated functions and eliminating non-mandated departments and tasks. I've talked with union leaders who say they're willing to make concessions because they understand the financial situation - but they have a hard time doing so when they see frivolous spending in other areas.

Carty could send a strong statement to everyone if he reduced his own office staff. Since 1993 when we had a city manager form of government, over 20 administrative staff have been added to the payroll. I cannot believe we need that many more people just because we switched to a strong-mayor form of government. Carty criticized 'patronage' hiring when he ran against former mayor Jack Ford. He should reduce his own staff and lead by example. If nothing else, it's a good start for finally bringing the city's expenditures in line with its actual (not hoped-for) revenue.

Toledo's $8 million budget deficit - for last year!

Three weeks ago, Toledo City Council passed a budget for 2009. As I asked at the time, how could they do this properly when they didn't have 2008 year-end figures?

Yesterday, the city's finance director informed council members that they need to come up with $8 million to close out the 2008 budget. Oh - and there's only $6 million in the budget stabilization (rainy day) fund.

The biggest question I have now is this: how in the world didn't the city know three weeks ago that they were this much in the hole????

How could the finance director and administration not realize or understand that the deficit for 2008 was going to be this high? As late as this past Wednesday, just two days ago, Bob Reinbolt, the mayor's chief of staff, said the rainy day fund would be gone in 2009 because of lower than expected revenues.

"Although the mayor said in November that the city would not tap into the rainy-day fund to close out 2008 and balance last year's operating budget, that is now the plan, Mr. Reinbolt said.

"I imagine between the 2008 and 2009 budgets, I am confident there will be nothing left," Mr. Reinbolt said."

Really? between 2008 and 2009 budgets? And then, one day later (24 hours!), the finance director is saying there isn't enough in the fund to even close out 2008? Either Reinbolt didn't have a clue or he was purposefully not being as forthcoming as he should have been.

Don't forget, city council already transferred $8 million in funds from the Capital Improvements budgets and other accounts to cover the hole. And now they need to come up with $8 million more? So our total overspending in 2008 was $16 million??? And that's not even the final figure since December's numbers aren't yet finalized.

Maybe it's time for more severe cuts. Start with the city charter and fund only what's mandated. Take a look at the Toledo Municipal Code that 'requires' (only because council has passed an ordinance) certain boards and commissions and then repeal the ordinances to eliminate them. Eliminate the funding for various projects like pools and solar fields. Eliminate the youth commission and recreation departments. Stop purchasing flowers - especially annuals - and bike paths when roads should be a priority.

Accept the challenge issued by AFSCME Local 2058 president Alan Cox to reduce the Mayor's Office staff back to 1993 levels. That would eliminate 22 positions that have been created solely because of a change to a strong-mayor form of government. Cox raised a good question when he asked why a strong mayor needs 22 more staff to run the city than the city manager needed.

Renegotiate union contracts and insist on payroll deductions and copays for medical insurance that are at the same level as the local private sector. Offer continued employment as the incentive - that's what the private sector who pays for these things has had to do. Require that all workers actually work 8 hours (including our trash collectors). Many areas of government report at 8:30 a.m. and leave at 4:30 p.m. but still get lunches and breaks. If we're paying people for 8 hours, get 8 hours of work out of them. How many people could we do without if the rest of the staff was working another 2.5 - 5 hours a week?

And don't expect that the Democrat stimulus package passed by the House and currently in the Senate will save us from having to make tough decisions!

This budgetary problem has been building for years and the only thing that will solve it is taking an axe to spending.

Would you donate to your local government?

If you were asked to donate to a fund to pay for a police and fire class for your community, would you do so?

A local businessman in Toledo, Jim Wheeler, wants to raise the $2 million needed to fund a new police and fire class because the city says it doesn't have the money to provide this service. (Note: these are not volunteer forces, like fire departments in some smaller jurisdictions.)

I have my own ideas about this and we discussed the subject last night during Eye On Toledo. But before I go off on a rant, I'd like to know what you think, so please leave a comment with your thoughts on the subject.

Thanks!

Digital TV is costing us a fortune

My column in the Toledo Free Press this past weekend was about the switch to digital TV, "Government meddling in digital television costs billions."

The General Accounting Office reports that the commitment from the federal government for advertising this switchover from analog to digital TV is $1.4 billion for educational purposes.

As I've been suffering from the flu, I've had the television on more than normal and was not amused by the commercials warning me of this dire occurrence: that if I have an antenna and not cable, I could be in danger of losing my television signal.

Oh, the horror of not being able to see a television program!

And, just to make sure I suffer no negative consequences of this government mandated change, they'll give me a coupon so I can buy a converter to handle the new signal.

So, your tax dollars and mine are going into advertisements to warn people they might not be able to get a TV signal after Feb. 17 and, to make sure they survive this drastic change, to give them a coupon so they can get $40 off a converter.

Original estimate for the subsidy? $3 Billion.

So, even though we make a decision to purchase a cable service in order to get the channels we want, we are now also paying for other people to get a converter so they won't have to be without a television when this switchover occurs.

How did this become the role of government? Do we really think our tax dollars are best spent subsidizing someone else's ability to see TV? Where is the outrage?

Priorities, not special interests

For the 2008-09 fiscal year, Ohio will spend $21.9 million on the Ohio Arts Council. That's down from their original biennial budget of $24.9 million, as a result of the state's budgetary issues.

In case you've never heard of the OAC, they are "a state agency that funds and supports quality arts experiences to strengthen Ohio communities culturally, educationally and economically. With funds from the Ohio Legislature and the National Endowment for the Arts, the OAC provides financial assistance to artists and arts organizations."

Some of the local recipients of funding from the OAC include the Young Artists at Work program through the Arts Commission of Greater Toledo, small amounts to Bravo Magazine, and college professors/instructors who've received fellowships (usually $5,000 or $10,000). They have provided operational support to the Toledo Museum of Art, Toledo Opera Association, the Toledo Orchestra Association, Inc., Toledo Ballet, Toledo Jazz Society, Toledo Botanical Garden and the Arts Council Lake Erie West. Money from OAC has also supported performing arts seasons at Lourdes College and Toledo Cultural Arts Center.

I have always had a problem with government funding of 'the arts.' I don't believe that government should fund any particular industry and the arts are certainly a particular industry. My basic premise is that individuals who so choose would fund arts - and probably be more capable of doing so if the government didn't take so much of their personal funds in the first place. Additionally, as with anything governments do, the bureaucracy established to 'administer' any dedicated funds takes its own percentage off the top, resulting in less funds than what individuals could provide without the third-party costs of government.

But - that's really not the point of this post. My point is priorities. Even if you believe government funding of the arts should be done, is it the most important thing government should do – and at the expense of other government spending?

In January of this year, Governor Ted Strickland announced $733 million in budget cuts due to the economic condition of the state. One of the biggest budget reductions was $31 million from the Department of Mental Health. Could the state have eliminated the OAC and, instead, funded the Department of Mental Health? Yes.

Another cut was to the Department of Aging which was to lose $17.9 million in FY 2008. Could the state have eliminated the OAC and, instead, funded the Department of Aging? Yes - and with some money left over.

What about the $25.8 million that was earmarked for the state Department of Development? Such funding is key to Ohio's chances of attracting and retaining businesses and their jobs, politicians tell us. What would have been a better use of limited tax dollars: attracting new businesses or subsidizing 'starving artists'?

Instead of going through the state organization and eliminating unnecessary or non-mandated functions, departments had across-the-board cuts. As a result, everyone was equally unhappy, but the size and scope of government was not really reduced. The hard part of governance is setting priorities and sticking with them. Every organization that receives funding through the OAC will lobby for continued funding. Everyone who gets funds will say 'don't cut us.' But politicians and decision-makers rarely ask: if we don't cut you, who should we cut? And if they do, the response is almost always: don't ask me - that's your job.

Well, if that's the case, then go through and eliminate the non-mandated expenditures. It's actually a very easy criterion to meet, but often so very hard to get politicians to do because they don't want to risk alienating any group of constituents who might decide to oppose them in their next re-election bid.

The City of Toledo is facing the same circumstance. We had city council members insist on funding the city's Youth Commission ($2 million in 2008) and pools (about $500,000). Council is now faced with a $10 million budget deficit to address before the end of the year, including a reduction in the number of recruits in the new police class.

So what is more important: pools and 'hip hop' concerts or police officers?

I pick police every time - and I think most people would, considering that, without police, pools and concerts might not be safe places to be.

And that's the point: priorities. we don't have good ones when it comes to government spending. What we have is the priority of elected officials to try and placate everyone so as not to make enemies, thus ensuring they continue to have support for staying in office. These elected officials stop representing us when their priority is such as this - and we are to blame, because we reward them with re-election while our city and state continue their slide to the bottom in terms of growth, population, employers and jobs.

So - what do you think our priorities should be? And what are you willing to do to ensure the politicians support them?

'For the children' - your tax dollars hard at work

I got the following press release from the City of Toledo:

Mayor Finkbeiner and City leaders will be discussing the Youth Commission's Summer Jobs and Internship Programs for Summer 2008, in a press conference Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 1:00 p.m. in the Mayor's Office of One Government Center.

The City of Toledo is partnering with the University of Toledo to provide 12 interns the opportunity to work with City of Toledo staff in 12 different departments. In addition to internships, The City of Toledo is also employing 40 youth for five-weeks this summer, with some donations making this program possible. These experiences will allow young Toledoans gain work experience, as well as mentorship.

You don't need those dollars for yourself or your family. You don't need those dollars so you can hire someone to do work around your house or for any home expense. You don't need those dollars to help cover the increased costs of gasoline, food or utilities - or even the trash tax. And you certainly don't need those tax dollars spent on roads or other essential city services.

Nope - the government needs those tax dollars so they can hire kids to work in city departments, even if some of the costs are covered by donations. And it's absolutely the role of local municipal government to provide children with work experiences. But let's not forget about the mentorships - after all, it's not like there are any other programs that provide mentors to kids...

But despite all these logical issues, don't you just feel sooo good about our elected officials for doing this magnanimous act on behalf of our children?

City pools are NOT necessities

The City of Toledo will spend about a half a million dollars this year to operate city pools. But that amount doesn't include the capital improvement costs that are also budgeted in order to open the various pool locations.

According to today's Blade, the city thinks the benefits outweigh the costs.

Kattie Bond, director of Toledo's department of neighborhoods, said the benefit of operating city pools outweighs the cost.

"It is important to provide recreational opportunities for citizens," Ms. Bond said. "We live in a city where we do get hot weather, so it's important we provide a place for kids to at least get wet and cool off."

Kids already have a place to get wet and cool off. It's called a yard. All that is needed is a hose, since I'm pretty sure that most homes have some sort of water available.

Last year, the pools served 25,151 entrants. The city did not keep track of how many of those 'entrants' were the same individual. They also charged $1 for entry.

In 2007, there were six pools open (one was a splash pad) compared to the 12 facilities opened in 2006. Despite the increased attendance at two of the pools, overall attendance at the six facilities declined 18.5% from 30,841 to 25,151. This clearly indicates that individuals who had access to a pool in 2006 did not travel to other locations in 2007 in order to "get wet and cool off." (I just can't imagine how they survived!)

As these numbers are visits and not visitors, it's hard to estimate just how important this cost is to the general public. For sake of argument, let's estimate that individuals likely to use the pool facilities will do so five times during the season. This seems a reasonable estimate considering the number of days the pools are open.

Using this assumption, the pools had about 5,000 unique visitors. The 2006 Census data shows that there are 74,896 children (under 18 years of age) in Toledo. Even if every visitor to the pools was a child, we would be serving less than 7% of the kids in the city. If we consider total population, those estimated 5,000 unique visitors represent less than 2% of the population.

Yet the city is planning to spend about $600,000 for this - which is about $120 per person served. It would be cheaper to buy every kid in the city a membership to the Boys and Girls Club ($5 per year for 16-18 year olds, but only $3 for 7-15 year olds) which would give them access to ALL activities, not just the pools.

District 5 Councilman Tom Waniewski, who voted against this spending, believes the city has other, more important, items to fund in the budget. "In terms of what the [city] charter dictates, [pools] are not a necessity, but the quality-of-life argument will always be made."

Yes, whenever our government wants to justify funding items not mandated in the city's charter, they use the 'quality of life' argument. But they conveniently forget that they are lowering the standard of living for the majority of residents when they spend limited tax dollars to provide such 'quality of life' amenities for less than 2% of the population.

If they were really interested in improving the quality of life in Toledo, they'd reduce the size of government, thus reducing the cost, and give all of us some of our money back to spend as WE want on OUR OWN definition of 'quality of life.'

I won't hold my breath.

p.s. An afterthought...Remember when the city of Toledo passed their balanced budget? City Council members scrounged around eliminating dollars from various funds in order to add a police class ... in December. Think maybe the $500,000 for pools could have been put to better use in getting our police class several months sooner???

A matter of priorities in government spending

Today's Blade editorial on the pending foreclosure of the Hillcrest Hotel makes some good points, but misses the major one.

For background, the city of Toledo issued bonds to back the redevelopment of the 'historic' building. Yes, many famous people stayed in this hotel and the building does have architectural and historical value, but was/is it worth the $6.7 million for which the city may be on the hook?

Since 2001, the owners have had trouble making their payments. I guess this point stands out because if you've had trouble making payments for seven years, don't you think someone would have paid attention to the problem long before now???

The major point missed by the editorial board isn't the 'what' but the 'who.' The 'what' is the esoteric value of a historical building. The 'who' is who should pay for it. In the editorial board's collective minds, the 'who' is you and me.

It's funny, but they never even consider that someone other than the taxpayer should assume the responsibility for this structure. They seem to think it is okay for city elected officials to 'risk' our tax dollars in the hopes of success. If they and their publisher are so intent on saving old buildings, why don't they form a non-profit, fund it, and do just that? If the rewards are worth the risk, why don't they risk their own dollars? And just how much is that Block Foundation worth these days?

Just like government, it's much easier for them to tell others how to spend money that doesn't belong to them - namely, tax dollars that you and I pay that should, instead, be spent on essential city services. Doesn't The Blade even wonder about how many roads could have been repaved or police cars bought with that money? Or even how much better off the city would be if those funds had been used, instead, for a new financial computer system???

I guess not.

Frivolous government spending is part of the reason Toledo is losing businesses and population. It's not because we don't have enough historic buildings in the downtown area. It's because we spend limited tax dollars for these kinds of things instead of for the essentials that government should provide.

For years, The Blade has insisted upon public spending for various projects that they think are important...and I'm tired of it. Stop telling us how to spend our money and start spending your own.

UPDATED: Dogs and cats and Toledo spending - Oh My!

Included in the proposed 2008 Capital Improvements Budget for the City of Toledo is a dog park in the south end. The cost of the project is $45,000.

UPDATED: City council took $40,000 out of this line item (along with money from the planned mountain bike course) and put it into fixing more roads. Good for them!

However, they left $5,000 in the budget with the hope of leveraging that with private donations to create the planned dog park. Can't they just back off from the idea entirely and let some entrepreneur create one if it's actually needed and can be profitable?

When you consider the financial situation of the city - and the serious needs in terms of our roads, other infrastructures and such essentials as police vehicles, spending ANY money on such "quality of life" projects (the general description for something that is not necessary or would otherwise be described as 'pork') is ridiculous. But that's another story.

My point of contention is the continual catering to dogs and dog owners while ignoring the issues of cats.

In Ohio, counties have dog wardens to handle dogs and certain other types of creatures - but not cats. Because the law is silent on the issue of cats, counties and their dog wardens have no authority when it comes to cats (a quirk of the state law). But that doesn't mean that municipalities can't institute their own laws regarding such felines. And Toledo did.

In 1992, Toledo created a cat law in TMC Chapter 505 which states:

505.16. Registration and identification required.
(a) No person, within the City shall own a cat over six months of age without procuring registration for such cat as provided in this chapter and keeping secured to such cat a cat tag bearing the registration number.

(b) No person, who is the owner of any cat, shall permit or allow such cat to wear any cat tag issued for another cat or a cat tag which has expired.

(c) Except as otherwise provided in this section, application for such registration shall be made annually to the Commissioner and the following information, including presentation of a valid, current rabies certificate showing that the cat has been vaccinated for rabies in accordance with Section 1705.09, shall be furnished:

(1 ) Name, address and work and home phone numbers of the owner or keeper of such cat and the approximate date of ownership or residency, whichever is earlier;

(2) Such description of the cat as may be required for the purpose of identification; and

(3) If applicable, a veterinarian's statement that the cat has been spayed or neutered;

(4) If applicable, information the Commissioner deems necessary to support the nonexpiration provisions of subsection (h) hereof.

(d) The Commissioner shall furnish to the owner, upon payment of the registration fees as hereinafter required, a receipt showing thereon the information described in subsection (c) hereof and a cat tag bearing the registration number which shall be secured to the cat.

(e) No person shall remove or cause to be removed, the unexpired cat tag from any registered cat.

(f) Subject to subsection (h) hereof, fees shall be as follows:

Annual Registration Fee

Each cat that is not spayed or neutered $ 45.00

A cattery permit 100.00

Each cat that is spayed or neutered 10.00

Each replacement for lost unexpired cat tags 1.00 each

(g) The cat registration and cat tag shall remain valid through December 31 of the calendar year in which it is issued, except as provided for in subsection (h) hereof. A five dollar ($5.00) fee for late registrations shall be assessed.

(h) A registration issued for a cat owned by an elderly person or a disabled person shall remain valid throughout the lifetime of the cat or until such elderly or disabled person ceases to own the cat, whichever period ends first. The elderly or disabled person owning such cat shall be responsible to have and keep such cat vaccinated in accordance with Section 1705.09 and shall inform the Commissioner of any change in the information provided to the Commissioner in accordance with subsection (c) hereof.

(i) Whoever violates any provision of this section is guilty of a fourth degree misdemeanor.

(Ord. 558-92. Passed 8-4-92)

505.17. Prohibitions.
(a) Any cat not bearing a valid cat tag, or observed injuring or destroying the real or personal property of someone other than the owner or keeper of the cat, or known to create excessive noise or odor, or observed creating a danger to public health in the opinion of the Commissioner of the Division of Health, is declared to be a public nuisance and shall be impounded by the Animal Control Officer as provided in this chapter, in addition to any penalties which may be imposed upon the appropriate person under Section 505.09(c).

(b) The parent or guardian of any minor claiming ownership of or owning or keeping any cat shall be deemed to be the owner of such cat and shall be charged for all penalties and fees imposed by this chapter.

(c) Whoever violates any provision of this section is guilty of a fourth degree misdemeanor.

(Ord. 558-92. Passed 8-4-92.).

The problem is, this law is not enforced.

Having neighbors who believe that cats should be able to roam free (which really isn't safe for them) clearly contributes to my frustration as their cats dig in my garden, use our horseshoe pits as litter boxes, climb our trees and then meow incessantly because they can't figure how to get down, etc...

Phone calls to police with such complaints result in hilarious laughter - okay, that's an exaggeration, but not by much. Police don't come out to take reports when items are stolen because they instruct you to go to a district office and fill out such reports yourself. To expect them to come out because someone else's cat is in your yard - well, you can imagine...

So, Toledo created a law requiring a license for cats, requiring a fee for such licenses and making cats which do damage a public nuisance subject to impoundment. And then they don't enforce the law.

But they can find $45,000 to build a dog park in the south end which is where, coincidentally, the mayor lives.

Perhaps that $45,000 would be better spent enforcing the existing laws before they create something new to be paid for and maintained.

Quote of the Day

As we continue with budget hearings in the City of Toledo - and the tap dancing being done by so many of our elected officials - I thought this quote from Rep. Marsh Blackburn (R-TN) to be especially appropriate:

"Government does not have a revenue problem; government has a spending problem.

Government does not have a revenue problem; government has a priority problem.

It is time that we begin to fine tune our focus and decide what the priority of government ought to be. "