Toledo's proposed lead paint rental inspection law

The City of Toledo is considering an ordinance that would create an inspection law for rental properties that might contain lead paint.

The EPA's lead paint rental notice required for
all leases when property is rented.

Lead paint was outlawed in 1978 and Toledo has a number of homes built before then that could still have lead paint in them. Exposure to paint dust or ingesting paint chips could cause lead poisoning, especially in children. In 2014, the lastest year for which information is available, there were 239 children less than 6 years old that had lead poisoning, according to The Blade.

Under the proposal, rental properties would have to be "deemed safe" of lead paint. Owners/landlords would have to get a "lead safe certificate" - and, of course, pay a $45 fee. There would be a visual inspection and testing of dust.

If lead was found, it would have to be abated (completely removed) or interim measures would have to be taken (like painting over the old lead paint). If the lead is abated, the certificate would have to renewed every 20 years. If only interim steps are taken, the certificate would have to be renewed every four years.

This is the first time the dangers of lead paint have been addressed in Toledo. According to Toledo Parent:

In 2012, the Toledo-Lucas County Health Department received a grant for $2,480,000 from the Department of Housing and Urban Development for Lead Based-Paint Hazard Control. The Health Department contracts with the City of Toledo, Department of Neighborhoods, to provide the funds for removing lead, budgeted at approximately $10,000 per dwelling, each taking three to four weeks. The 3-year program, received a one-year extension until June 30, 2016. Its goal: to treat 175 units and make them lead-free, with priority given to households with children under age six or a pregnant female.

Robert Cole, attorney for Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, reports that the program did not meet its goals. Between 2013 and the present, there were 559 intakes (people who expressed an interest in the program). Of those 186 received applications, and 157 of those met the eligibility requirements Of the 157 , only 62 have received clearance to be occupied.  With  typical removal time at 3-4 weeks, and with less than six months until the unused grant money must be returned, it is unlikely the goal will be met.

Toledo Parent also says that the city's proposed ordinance was drafted with help from the Toledo Lead Poisoining Prevention Coalition. That group, under the auspices of ABLE includes Toledoans United for Social Action, Toledo Public Schools, The Cherry Street Legacy Project, the NAACP and representatives of the University of Toledo nursing school.

But landlords are not happy about the proposed requirements - or the costs. As the Toledo Parent article mentions, the cost to remove lead paint is approximately $10,000. Certainly, painting over the lead paint is cheaper, but whichever option is selected, the additional costs will eventually, in some form or another, be passed on to the tenant, raising the cost of rent in the area.

There's another potential problem for Toledo and their efforts: Baker v. Portsmouth. 

In that case, a group of landlords sued the Ohio city of Portsmouth over its rental inspection law. The city's position was that many homes were being occupied by renters without knowing if the buildings were safe or up to existing building codes. Portsmouth had a large number of code complaints from rental properties. The solution, the city decided, was to require a Rental Dwelling Certificate of all properties available to rent. In order to get the certificate, a dwelling had to be inspected and any defects corrected. The fee for the inspections/certificate ranged from $50 up to $480 depending on how many rental units the dwelling contained.

Any owners who failed to schedule their properties for inspection were threatened with having the property condemned.

The lawsuit maintained that such inspections were a violation of the owners' Fourth Amendment rights by mandating warrantless inspections without probable cause. The court agreed and found for the landlords, requiring Portsmouth to return all inspection fees it had collected.

In making the decision, the court considered the goal of the city was the health and safety of the public, but ruled that such "special needs" were not sufficient to overcome the owner's Fourth Amendment rights.

However, in the Portsmouth case, it was the city doing the inspecting. Toledo's proposal requires private inspections, so it may not rise to the level of a Fourth Amendment violation.

But there is a federal requirement that requires disclosure to purchasers or lessees of property, including a 10-day period the purchaser or lessee to inspect for the presence of lead-based paint hazards.

One has to wonder how so many children are getting lead poisoning if the parent(s) are notified upon renting about the potential for lead-based paint in the property. Do they just gloss over the information? Do renters understand the ramifications of the notice? Do they decide to go ahead and rent because they don't understand the dangers or because they really want the unit?

If that is the case, this would seem to be an issue of education rather than of requiring a governmental action.  But this is Toledo where the mayor and council routinely create laws whenever the problem is one of individual ignorance or lack of education.  Heaven forbid that city officials believe individuals can be responsible for themselves.

Not-Business-Friendly Post #21 - Ohio bill mandating paid time off for parenting

Tomorrow the House Commerce, Labor & Technology committee will hear sponsor testimony on a bill that purports to be 'for the children,' but is really an expensive mandate on employers.

H.B. 179, introduced by Democrat Rep. Heather Bishoff, is titled "Parenting Time." How nice does that sound?

But here's what it will do:

To enact section 3109.054 of the Revised Code to require certain employers to allow a parent to exercise court-ordered parenting time without terminating the parent's employment, reducing the parent's pay, or taking other similar action against the parent.

So an employee who takes time off work in order to participate in court-ordered parenting cannot have their pay docked, even though they're not working?

Why must any employer pay any employee for time not worked?

What makes this particular court-ordered participation any different from any other court-ordered participation - the fact that it has to do with kids??

Will we soon see laws that require a company to pay an employee who has to do court-ordered drug testing?

Why not require employers to continue to pay people who are sentenced to days in jail? If it's 'for the kids' won't the kids be negatively impacted if the parent is no longer earning pay?

See how easy it is to appeal to the emotions when kids are involved?

You might think there are significant differences between being sentenced to jail versus being required to do a twice-weekly drug test versus spending time with your kids, but really, they are all court orders and the emotional appeal shouldn't result in extra cost to an employer simply because this particular court-order has to do with children.

Employer organizations across the state need to object to this - as should every Ohioan.

No one should be forced by state law to pay people for time not worked. That should be up to the individual business owner and their own judgment about what is in the best interests of their company.

Besides, the last thing our state needs is additional costs on employers or a 'not-business-friendly' law that makes them think twice about their decision to be an Ohio company.

Toledo Council President: Business and profits don't lead to jobs

Toledo Mayor Mike Bell gave the state of the city address yesterday and announced that he intends to seek re-election. The local paper sought comments regarding the speech, including from Bell's detractors and potential opponents.

It was the usual criticisms along political lines, until you get to Joe McNamara, current president of the Toledo City Council.

In a single quote McNamara reveals such complete lack of understanding of the marketplace and economics that you're left wondering if the quote is, indeed, an actual quote.

But this is Toledo - bastion of liberal illogical philosophy which is part of the reason people refer to us as 'little Detroit,' as it certainly seems many of our Democrat politicians are leading us down the same path as our bankrupt neighbor to the north.

According to The Blade (emphasis added):

Mr. McNamara, a possible Democratic candidate for mayor, said Mr. Bell’s state of the city was “a really bad speech.”

“It wasn’t focused on the lives of people in Toledo,” Mr. McNamara said. “We have an 8.2 percent unemployment rate and the economic development focus should be on people and jobs, but this mayor talked about business and profits. Business and profits are great, [but] it doesn’t lead to jobs for the people who live here. That is what’s important.”

Business and profits are great but they don't lead to jobs...

Yep, definitely a starred item in the "not business friendly" category while also earning 'stuck on stupid' designation.

How, exactly, does McNamara think jobs come about?

Obviously, not from the money companies make when people purchase their product at a price greater than expenses. No, companies whose products are in demand don't use those profits to hire more people to produce even more products for people to buy. And they don't use the profits to hire people to help create new or improved products.

They must just sit on the profits - greedy, evil business owners that they are.

Business owners want to deal with people who understand their situation. This doesn't mean you have to have owned or run a business, but it sure does help when the people making the rules, imposing the taxes, setting the fees and issuing the regulations have an accurate understanding of the impact of those decisions on the people who do, in fact, create the jobs so desperately desired.

Companies are not going to want to even talk to a mayor who believes such rubbish as 'business and profit don't create jobs.'

With thinking like this, sadly not isolated to McNamara, it's no wonder businesses and population are fleeing the city.

Deconstructing The Blade's drug-pusher mentality on changing county government

Like a drug pusher trying to get you to get you hooked, The Blade is out with another editorial touting the benefits of bigger government and their 'revised' version of uni-gov. They've already sewn up the Toledo market (strong-mayor form of government they pushed) so now they want to expand into the county as a whole.

Like this effort, they pushed a strong-mayor form of government for Toledo telling us, in numerous 'news' articles and editorials, that a bigger city council with both district and at-large members along with a strong mayor who would appoint professionals to run Toledo would be a good thing.

Along with help from the Lucas County Democratic Party (who saw the inevitable outcome being more elected Democrats), they convinced a majority of Toledo voters and we were rewarded with the same 'stuck-on-stupid' thinking we've always had, except now from a larger, more costly government.

Oh - and we also had to suffer through two terms of Mayor Carty Finkbeiner, one term of Mayor Jack Ford, and another term of Mayor Carty Finkbeiner before getting a reasonable person, current Mayor Mike Bell, to hold that office. In case you're mathematically challenged, that's 16 years of two politicians from the same party with a council also dominated by Democrats, despite districts being drawn to supposedly provide for 'balanced' representation.

And how did all that work out? Well, they don't call us 'little Detroit' for nothing....

But if that's not enough to make your want to run screaming away from the county charter petitioners, let's take a look at what the unsigned editorial says about this proposal:

If you haven't yet endorsed the petition, you have every reason to do so.

Reform proponents need at least 14,500 signatures of registered voters, approved by the county board of elections, to advance their proposal for a new home-rule charter. Late last week, the grass-roots campaign said it had collected about 20,000 signatures. It seeks as many as 22,000 to fend off inevitable challenges by champions of business as usual.

Actually, no - you don't have 'every' reason to do so. In fact, the outcome from pushing for a similar structure for the city of Toledo should give you every reason NOT to.

Note the way they characterize people opposed to the idea: "champions of business as usual." Just because people like me - for valid reasons - do not support the proposal, it does not necessarily infer that we support the status quo. This is a logical fallacy - and someone who manages to make their way to the editorial board so as to write such attempts at persuasion ought to know that. Perhaps the author does, but expects readers not to know. What does that say about what they think of their readers?

I do want change in county governance - but I have yet to see any evidence that changing the form of the structure of our county government will give us anything different in terms of the policies, positions and actual governance of the county.

In fact, the study done by the self-appointed group that is recommending the change admits that, even under their structure, it boils down to who you elect - not the office you elect someone to. Given that admission from the study group, why are we going any further?

The reform plan would enable voters to exchange their 18th-century county government for a more-efficient structure. The new charter envisions a government that saves tax dollars, makes elected officials more accountable, and promotes economic growth and job creation.

This is the standard line from the limited supporters and it's what they've told their petitioners to tell people when they ask them to sign the petition.

But there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the new structure will save tax dollars. They've not done a financial analysis; they've not shared fiscal comparisons of the two structures; they've only used a total spending comparison between Lucas County and one of the counties that has gone to a charter form of government and concluded that Lucas spends more per person than Summit County does,

This may be true - but they didn't compare Lucas County to the other 86 counties that don't have a charter form of government to see if we spend more per person than any of them. Is it likely that successful counties, like our neighbor Wood County, have a more efficient government than Lucas does without changing their form of government?

I don't know - but I question (and so should you) that if per person costs of government are the standard, why didn't the group compare Lucas to all counties to see where we stack up? The answer is that doing so might have shown that other counties have a less-costly government without going through such a change and that wouldn't fit with the goal of the paper to achieve the uni-gov dream they've had for decades.

They claim the new structure will "make elected officials more accountable." How, they don't say. Right now, specific elected officials are accountable for the actions of their office and we get a chance, every four years, to judge them on their actions and either re-hire them (elect them) or fire them (elect someone new).

Just like with a city council - how are we to hold individual members of council accountable for the failed action of a particular department - such as the Department of Neighborhoods? We can't. We can make one or more of their votes an issue in an election, but that will not change what a bureaucratic department is doing.

Some may say we can hold the mayor accountable for a department's action and, in the case of a charter form of county government, we would hold the county executive accountable. But even that's not a good enough answer (can you say three terms of Carty Finkbeiner?) as people will often overlook one or more issues because they agree with the elected official on so many others.

Additionally, with the majority of the proposed county districts incorporating the city of Toledo, how will a suburban community like Waterville hold the body accountable when they decide to do something that benefits Toledo to their detriment?

It's much easier to hold three county commissioners accountable than it is to hold six county council members and a county executive accountable. And having the ability to judge the individual performance of people elected to the offices of treasurer, auditor, recorder and sheriff means those individuals are directly accountable for the functions of their office to the citizens - not to some other group of elected officials who can escape blame in various ways.

The Blade also claims changing our form of government "promotes economic growth and job creation." Again, they provide absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support this claim - but it sure sounds good, doesn't it? After all, job growth is what the area needs.

The hypocrisy, however, is something that cannot be overlooked. Economic development is not a function of the structure of government - it is a function of the policies the government puts in place. Elected individuals can implement policies that encourage or discourage economic development.

Sadly, too few elected individuals in Toledo and county government have any experience whatsoever in the business world so they make decisions that feel good (recreation levy) or that benefit a certain constituency (government unions and other groups that rely upon government funding for their existence) to the detriment of the business community which hurts their ability to grow, prosper and provide jobs.

The Blade did not oppose Toledo's living wage ordinance. While supporters claimed this was a good policy, it was - in effect - a mandate on employers and unnecessarily drove up the cost of contracts the taxpayer ended up paying. That's not-business-friendly and it hurt job providers. No doubt the paper will push for such a policy county-wide.

The Blade did not oppose the county's most recent plan to mandate Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) on all county contracts, despite having done so when the matter was first brought up. In case you're not familiar with that, it's when the county mandates that you must have a union agreement with your workers - whether you are a union shop or not - for the project you do for the county and the county will negotiate that contract for you to be sure it's consistent with what other contracts say. But it goes further and also mandates the same thing on any sub-contractors you may use. (Background and more details are available here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

Talk about increasing the cost per person of county government! Bet the committee didn't look at that aspect before concluding that our government costs more than Summit. But I digress....

In fact, many of the numerous 'not-business-friendly' policies and votes that work to the detriment of economic development and job growth have been supported by The Blade. I've heard our local daily referred to as the "single most destructive force in the county" because of its many stances in favor of things that have hurt economic development and job growth in the area.

So how, exactly, will changing the form of government help? Are we to assume that a new county council (made up of a majority of Toledo elected officials who are term-limited, I predict) will repeal such anti-business policies in order to free our job providers from unnecessary costs and mandates? (That sound in your head is called hysterical laughter.)

Here's where one of the supposed 'champions of business as usual' believes change for the better could be made - and it doesn't require a change in structure. Just repeal all these anti-business rules, quit saying yes to every tax increase that comes along, lower property taxes and sales taxes and get out of the way of the people who are actually providing jobs in the county. See???

Like the authors of the study admit, it depends upon electing the right people.

The proposal would abolish the three-member Board of County Commissioners and seven of the county's eight elected -- but largely invisible -- row offices. The current government structure encourages wasteful fragmentation and redundancy, and leaves taxpayers wondering who's responsible for what.

Again, the editor clearly thinks people in the area are stupid if we don't know who is responsible for what. As for 'encourages wasteful fragmentation and redundancy,' this is incorrect. As a former county commissioner I can tell you that any redundancy in county government is a factor of governance - not of structure. And having been in the office, there is not as much redundancy as some claim and the ability of the commissioners to control the budgets of the other elected officials means that the commissioners can insist upon elimination of duplication - if they have the will to do so. Again, it comes back to the people - not the structure.

The ballot plan calls for an elected, nonpartisan county executive who would appoint professional administrators rather than politicians to head county offices. It also would create a county council whose nine members would mostly be elected by districts rather than at large. Those elections would occur in November 2013, and the new officials would take office the following January.

"Nonpartisan county executive who would appoint professional administrators rather than politicians" ... Yeah - because that's worked out so well with Toledo and the county already. Just take a look at who the elected officials surround themselves with - partisan individuals who support the partisan or electoral efforts of the people who appointed them.

Lucas County had one of the most respected and admired county administrators in John Alexander. But when Pete Gerken was elected to the board of county commissioners, he and Tina Skeldon-Wozniak told Alexander they didn't want him anymore. Alexander graciously went away and is now benefiting Perrysburg. The county got Michael Beazley - a former Democratic Party officer - and when he left for an even higher paying position in Oregon, they hired Peter Ujvagi, former Toledo city council member and former state representative who was termed out and had, in his background, the bankruptcy of his family business. So much for 'professional administrators' - I can't wait to see who they hire next!

So do you really think that if someone like Pete Gerken gets elected the county executive that he's going to hire all professionals? Again, that sound you're hearing in your head is hysterical laughter.

A similar structure in Cuyahoga and Summit counties has cut costs of county government. It also has encouraged central cities and suburbs in these counties to cooperate in providing regional public services, thus reducing duplication, and discouraged them from raiding each other for businesses and jobs.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that costs in Summit and Cuyahoga have been cut as a result of the change in government structure. As for cooperation in providing regional public services, The Blade forgets the cooperation and collaboration that already exists.

When Mayor Jack Ford decided to push The Blade agenda of uni-gov, then-County Administrator John Alexander made a list of everything the county and its jurisdictions cooperated on. The list was two pages long! It included everything from joint purchasing of items like office supplies and road salt, to the first-in-the-nation completely integrated criminal justice computer system. The paper isn't going to tell you about the ways the municipalities do work cooperatively because that might make you question their premise that a change in government structure is needed.

But the real kicker is this: "discouraged them from raiding each other for businesses and jobs." The Blade has long opposed what it perceives as suburban communities raiding Toledo for businesses and job - even residents. They believe Toledo needs to dominate the area and be the focus of the region.

There is a lot to be said for strong cities, but in today's world and with the technology now available to us, that concept is as antiquated as they claim our structure of county government is.

It also presumes that businesses should have no other choice but to be inside the city limits, despite the more business-friendly policies of surrounding communities and whether or not surrounding communities would better meet the needs of the business.

Since Toledo is showing it really can't compete with the surrounding communities because of the bad decisions Toledo has made (usually with the strong backing of the paper's editorial board and publisher) The Blade's solution is to make the entire county like Toledo. And note that they have no problem with Toledo raiding other communities for businesses and jobs - just the other way around.

But here's the rub: businesses who found refuge from bad Toledo policies by moving to the suburban communities can also move to Wood, Fulton or Ottawa county if those bad business policies are exported, as I expect they will be, into county government.

The businesses, if they are to survive, will find the place that provides them with the tax, fee and regulatory structure necessary to support their legitimate goals of growth and profit. The Blade will then start complaining about how the surrounding counties need to support Lucas instead of 'raiding' them. Do you see where that is going?

The reform plan would make the Lucas County executive a focused, high-profile agent of economic development in northwest Ohio.

Oh my - where to start on this one? The structure of government will not make any person a focused, high-profile agent of economic development. The only way to get someone like that, as the study authors reluctantly admit, is to elect someone who is already like that. Duh! And what if we elect someone like Carty Finkbeiner or Jack Ford? Or like the new Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald who, in his first term under a brand-new governmental structure, is already "sending strong signals" that he's interested in running for governor in 2014. I'll bet his attention is fully focused on economic development.

Advocates argue plausibly that it also would make county government more diverse and bipartisan.

"Plausibly"??? Really??? Take a look at this proposed district map and tell me how in the world we'd get a more bipartisan body.

It may be true that we'd get one Republican county council member out of six - but I'm living proof that a Republican can be elected Commissioner - one of three. So to say we'd get 'more' bipartisan representation is false. One of three is greater than one of six, so just electing a Republican in the current structure would actually be better if numbers of R's and D's are all we're looking at.

The problem is that party affiliation and skin color are immaterial to what we really need, which is a diversity of ideas and perspectives. What we'd get with proposed districts like these is Toledo-centric domination - and Toledo doesn't have a very good track record of saving tax dollars, making elected officials more accountable, and promoting economic growth and job creation.

The four months until Election Day will provide ample time for a thorough public debate on the merits of county reform. But that can't occur unless county voters give themselves the opportunity now to opt for positive change and modernized government in November. That means adding your signature to the petition drive.

Somehow I can't help but think of Rep. Nancy Pelosi's statement that "we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it."

The fallacy - again - is thinking that we should have a measure on the ballot before we have a "thorough public debate" on the merits and that such debate "can't occur" unless we sign the petitions.

What they really mean is that if the measure makes it on the ballot, they can use the 'support' of the signers as 'proof' that people want the change. They've done that before, when it suited them. If The Blade really wanted debate on the issue, they'd seek out and publish the valid arguments against the proposal and allow the people to decide, rather than demonizing those of us who oppose it.

But tell me - what news article have you seen (out of the dozens they've published on the subject), that 'focused' on any argument against this proposal? What news article have you seen that provides for any 'public debate' on the issue? I'd wait while you search, but you won't find it, so you might as well keep reading.

The problem is that what they're putting on the ballot is flawed - in original premise and, thus, in conclusions. They write:

“Simply put, we believe government must lead.”

They don't say why, they don't explain any other option, but with this as their premise, the study group obviously had no other choice but to conclude that:

Lucas County needs a single unifying leader. The absence of such an office and such a person makes reversing our condition more difficult and perpetuates a fragmented decision-making environment.

So rather than look at the decisions - or the people who make those decisions - that make our current condition a bad one, they conclude we must change our form of government so we can elect a perfect person to lead us to salvation.

So sign those petitions so ignorant people can be swayed by fallacious arguments like these to do The Blade's bidding and achieve uni-gov once and for all!

Okay - back to the facts...

The Blade and the study have failed to demonstrate a need, failed to identify and analyze various methods to meet the need and failed to document why their preferred option is the best. They have just decided and are expecting everyone else to just fall in line.

But fortunately, this tactic of theirs is too well known and, hopefully individuals in Lucas County will reject The Blade's belief that they know what's best for us and refuse to sign the petition.

Ohio and the 'Big Labor vs. Taxpayers Index"

From OneNewsNow:

Two public policy organizations have joined together for a new initiative that aims to help taxpayers hold government unions accountable.

The "Big Labor vs. Taxpayers Index" is the collaboration of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and Crossroads GPS. They say it gives policy makers, members of the media, the business community, and the public a "clear picture" of the union powers and privileges across the states.

"What we did is take each state's collective bargaining laws, binding arbitration laws, paycheck protection laws, [and] open meeting laws, and we had up to 11 points, which equal to about 1,100 data points that we ranked each state on whether they were for big labor or they were for the taxpayer," Trey Kovacs, CEI labor policy analyst explains of the information available.

Ohio ranks 21 - putting us in the middle of the pack with an index score of 19 out of a possible 40, including scores on:

■Collective Bargaining
■Paycheck protection laws
■Secret ballot protections and card check
■Binding Arbitration
■Open meetings laws
■Government union density
■Public employee pension underfunding
■Project labor agreements
■Strike policy for government employees

Some interesting facts from the score:

Pension Liability - Total $171.1 billion - Per household $2,051

Union Membership Density:
Total-13.7%
Private Sector-8.4%
Public Sector-43.1%

Right to Work:
Forced unionism

For more information on the ranking and the score, go here.

New regs are flying off Washington's printing presses like money

I wanted to share with you this latest op-ed piece by Dan Danner, president and CEO of the National Federation of Independent Business. My family's company was a member of the NFIB, primarily because my grandparents believed they truly were the voice of small business.

The recently launched a campaign to "Clip Washington's Regulatory Wings" and to highlight exactly how detrimental federal regulations are not just to small businesses, but to the jobs they are capable of creating.

New regs are flying off Washington's printing presses like money

By: Dan Danner

Karen Beagle had already complied with all the local Troy, Ohio, environmental regulations her small electronics business faced when along came the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with orders to scrap her existing septic system and replace it with an expensive and unnecessary sewer hookup.

Brad Muller's Charlotte, N.C., pipe and foundry companies are ensnared by the federal rule book, too, forced to spend millions of dollars each year complying with environmental regulations.

These are just two of America's millions of small and independent businesses that daily suffer new and unexpected burdens handed them by an increasingly aggressive federal bureaucracy flexing its regulatory muscle far beyond the original intent of Congress.

In the current economic climate, small businesses can no longer create the jobs and economic growth that once kept the nation's economy above water.

And hopes for a recovery of those opportunities are rapidly moving farther out of reach as President Obama ramps up the federal bureaucracy's rule-making machine.

The National Federation of Independent Business will not stand idly by while this government threatens innovators like Karen and Brad. We're fighting back with a new campaign -- Small Businesses for Sensible Regulations -- that will alert the nation to this growing danger and demand corrective action by Obama. We'll point out barriers and muster support to restrain officials who sidestep the laws as written.

Since 2005, pending federal regulations classified as "major" or "economically significant" (costing our economy more than $100 million) have soared 60 percent.

And of the more than 4,200 new regulations federal bureaucrats under Obama currently have ready to roll out, 845 have been identified as policy changes that will negatively impact small businesses.

Read more

'Not-business-friendly' Post #20 - Toledo council still clueless

Even after all the figurative head-slapping (ala Special Agent Gibbs in NCIS) that Toledo City Council received over the last week following their stuck-on-stupid ideas for the sale of the Marina District to Dashing Pacific, they still don't get it.

Dashing Pacific Group is 'reassessing' their interest in the deal primarily because of all the strings city council members wanted to attach for their friends and supporters. Remember, Dashing Pacific was offering to purchase part of the property for $3.8 million - and wasn't asking for anything else! No tax abatements, no grants, no loans, no special terms - unlike previous developers. They wanted to actually give the city money for the property and take ownership.

But that just wouldn't do for most of city council which wanted to make sure this 'deal' benefitted friends and supporters - primarily unions. Everything from deed restrictions to dictating the unions that would work on the project to taking back ownership if Dashing Pacific wasn't where city council wanted them to be in a paltry two years. (As if having the property sit for the last 10 and maybe for another 10 before someone else might offer to buy it was any great alternative!)

Besides, insisting on a time frame for development clearly ignores the market realities of the area. Many investors purchase land when it is affordable or available and hold it until the time is right to actually develop it. To insist that something happen in a specific time allotment shows the conceit of city council members who 'obviously' know better than the buyers.

But our smug city council members just couldn't resist using the power of their positions to interfere and dictate to the potential buyers. Well, why not? They've gotten away with such nefarious and detrimental shenanigans in the past - why should this deal be any different? But it was.

Based upon what Dashing Pacific saw and heard from council - which probably appalled them, as it should - they backed out of the deal. Dashing Pacific, clearly cognizant of the political implications, was too polite to insult city council, so they termed their withdrawal 'reassessing' their interest.

Appropriately, Mayor Mike Bell asked for the ordinance on the sale to be referred back to the administration. As Deputy Mayor Tom Crothers explained to council, the ordinance was to consummate a specific deal and there no longer is a deal, so there is no need for the legislation.

But a stuck-on-stupid council wanted to hold the legislation for two weeks. At-large Councilman Joe McNamara said that holding onto the legislation would send a message that council is willing to work with the investors.

TOO LATE! McNamara's message last week was heard loud and clear and it wasn't one of 'working with' as much as one of 'dictating to.'

McNamara, still whining like a child because he didn't get introduced to the investors, had the temerity to suggest this whole thing was a misunderstanding due to cultural differences. Apparently McNamara is even more clueless than the rest of council to assume that the problem is on the part of Dashing Pacific for 'not understanding.'

I've got news for McNamara: everyone else is clear on the fact that it is council who fails to understand the business world primarily because none of them have ever run a business before. It has nothing to do with culture, unless McNamara is talking about the culture of corruption surrounding the routine use of a political office to reward his union friends by mandating their inclusion on a future development.

District 2 Councilman D. Michael Collins asked for a referral of how much money had been spent on the Marina District and the conditions under which the city accepted the money. His concern is that the City accepted grants and loans that might require repayment of the monies if certain conditions are not met. Now, it's been a decade that we've been dealing with this property and I fail to understand what difference another two or three or five might make. Collins' question is a valid one - and certainly council should know what they committed to when they accepted the grants and loans for the clean-up of the land (why they don't already is an entirely different question for another day). But if that was his concern, he certainly went about expressing it in a terrible, arrogant and condescending way last week.

Council did decide to hold the legislation, but it won't do any good. Council members have proven themselves to be the antipathy of 'business-friendly,' though many in the area already knew this to be the case. Now, our council's reputation in that regard is international.

The only way to salvage the deal - if that is even possible - would be to humbly ask Dashing Pacific if they would still like to purchase the land at the prior monetary offer and, if so, have council pass the ordinance immediately - with no changes or restrictions or mandates.

But that's not likely to happen.

I do hope Bell will be able to convince Dashing Pacific that the purchase is still a good deal for everyone involved. But I won't hold my breath that some on council won't muck it up again. Their actions and comments clearly demonstrate that they can't resist their 'not-business-friendly' antics.


***Side Note: For those of you who may be new readers of my blog, you'll notice the headline for this post is #20. I had to start numbering the 'not-business-friendly' blog posts because there were just too many of them. Fortunately, I've not had as many since Mike Bell was elected mayor, but like a leopard that can't change it's spots, I knew it wouldn't be long before the anti-business members of city council did something worthy of an additional number.

"Not-business-friendly' Post #19: Dashing Pacific and a clueless Toledo council

Yesterday we learned that the Dashing Pacific Group is 'reassessing' their interest in the Marina District. This certainly comes as no surprise to me, though it seems that members of Toledo City Council still don't get it.

From Mayor Mike Bell's letter to City Council:

Dashing Pacific Group has advised the City that they are reassessing their interest in purchasing the 69 acres in the Marina District. Therefore, I am requesting that Council cancel the Economic Development Committee hearing scheduled for Tuesday, April 19th, and refer the Ordinance authorizing a sale agreement back to the Administration at the April 19th Council meeting.

After discussing, last Tuesday, 'draconian' (to use a frequently heard term these days) conditions for the sale of the property, city council members sent a very strong - and negative - message to all investors who might even remotely consider this area for their developments and dollars.

Does council not understand that people with millions of dollars ready for investment have a plethora of rusted-out cities and empty properties from which to choose? They can have their pick of locations and sites and, because of the economy, can usually ask for tax breaks or other 'incentives' from cities - and get them. In our case, Dashing Pacific asked for nothing except to purchase the property.

But council couldn't resist catering to special interests in a vain attempt to look important and curry the votes of certain groups. Even after learning that their 'stuck on stupid' conditions could jeopardize the deal, they're still insisting that they're doing what is 'right' for the community.

Really? Dictating to private investors what kind of employees they can have risks everything for the entire city while trying to placate the union workers who make up only about 13% of the workforce. It's certainly NOT in the best interests of all the residents to put deed restrictions on a sale that would prohibit 87% of the workforce from participating.

From the news article:

Mr. Copeland said he is pro-business — and pro-citizens of Toledo — and that he makes decisions based on “what affects the citizens of Toledo.”

The loss of the development would have a much bigger impact on the 'citizens' than any requirement for union labor at the job site. What part of that equation does union boss Phil Copeland not understand?

And then there was this from the district councilman:

Adam Martinez said, “I don’t think Toledoans have any issue with the global marketplace and competing. The mayor is certainly very focused on economic development and moving at the speed of business. I think a lot of times he gets caught up in that.”

But the mayor may not understand that council members have the responsibility to make sure “we’re protecting our tax base and citizens,” Mr. Martinez said.

Of course businesses 'move at the speed of business.' If they don't, they fail. The failure to grasp this basic concept is another big part of the problem on city council. Business shouldn't have to wait for self-important politicians to figure out how to carve our special conditions to benefit their friends just to be able to go forward with a plan - and certainly not in the economy we currently have in Toledo. Perhaps this is why businesses don't even try in this community?!?

But for Martinez to think he's "protecting our tax base and citizens" just shows how warped his perspective is. He's risking the bigger picture of overall development and a business-friendly reputation to try to guarantee favors for only a small portion of the community - his union friends.

But the arrogance and hubris of Councilman Joe McNamara takes the cake:

Councilman Joe McNamara placed the blame for the setback on the Bell administration, which he said failed to introduce the investors to council and did not prepare them for the public scrutiny the deal would face.

“The mayor had a relationship with the investors, but council did not,” he said. “There is clearly a cultural difference in how business is conducted in China and the United States and I think the Bell administration did a poor job of communicating that.”

You didn't introduce us - what a whiny, childish, unprofessional attitude! The message McNamara is sending is coming through loud and clear: you didn't cater to us, so we're not going to let you get what you want Mayor - and the investors be damned!

And to say that the Bell Administration didn't 'prepare' Dashing Pacific for the 'public scrutiny'??? International investors are most definitely cognizant of the public scrutiny - what they didn't expect is that a community so desperate for investment and potential growth would have representatives on council who were more interested in protecting a small group of friends than in doing what is best for the community as a whole - or that these same petty representatives would jeopardize a deal because of an imagined slight.

Did these people not learn anything from the Westgate fiasco and Costco? And they wonder why companies have little or no interest in doing business here.

District 6 Council member Lindsay Webb said:

“This is still on the table, in my opinion,” she said.

“I think this is an attempt to scare the public and members of council out of asking the questions that must necessarily be asked.”

Well, just because YOU think something is still viable doesn't mean Dashing Pacific agrees with you. But to state this is a scare tactic to try to prevent questions is beyond naive and further demonstrates the total disconnect between the global business world and the inane ideas of council.

If council were just asking questions, that would be one thing, but they're not. They're issuing not-so-thinly veiled threats that unless the investors cater to their small-minded demands, they won't be able to purchase the property and spend millions turning it into something profitable.

And then there was this priceless gem:

Councilman Mike Craig, whose district includes the area to be sold, said cultural differences are getting in the way of a business deal.

“They need to understand, in the United States, in a development this big, you have lots and lots of partners,” Mr. Craig said.

He said he opposed putting a restriction in the deed transfer requiring the use of union labor, as area construction unions are seeking, but said the Chinese investors should meet with the Northwestern Ohio Building and Construction Trades Council and negotiate.

Apparently Craig doesn't realize that in a free society - like we supposedly have here - the 'partners' are the ones brought into the deal voluntarily, not forced upon you by self-interested and egotistical government officials.

But that's not all. Even George Sarantou, who identifies himself as a Republican, went so far as to 'suggest' that Dashing Pacific go directly to the unions to prostrate themselves:

Councilman George Sarantou called for the Chinese investors’ representative, Mr. Prephan, to meet with the trades union representatives so they can show their involvement in other big projects, such as the Huntington Center arena.

Why? Perhaps Dashing Pacific isn't ready to meet with potential workers yet? For goodness sake - they've not even gotten ownership of the property. What a bunch of hypocrites - complaining from one side about not moving at the speed of business while insisting on the other side that the developer meet with building trades before they've even gotten their drawings of the site completed.

Are we fully cognizant yet about how 'not-business-friendly' this council truly is?

Here's some advice for council: It's certainly appropriate to ask for prior developments the individuals have worked on. It's certainly appropriate to evaluate the price they're willing to pay against the marketable value of the property. It's certainly appropriate to ensure they have the financial wherewithal to meet the purchase obligation and to actually do something with the property.

It's NOT appropriate to insist that your friends get the contracts, that your union supporters get the jobs or that the development fit your wants and desires rather than what can actually be successful and produce revenue for the owners and the city tax coffers.

And it's NOT appropriate to assume with such arrogance that you - without an iota of experience running a business - know better than they do what will and will not work.

Apologize for your stuck-on-stupid, anti-business posturing, sell the property and then get out of the way. Even if Dashing Pacific doesn't do anything with the property for the next several years, selling it for several million is better than letting it just sit waiting for something you deem to be 'more worthy' or for a developer who will cater to your trivial, small-minded and irrelevant demands.

The root of the problem

I saw the news story yesterday about Toledo Public Schools choosing a supplier from Michigan due to a lower bid, despite the fact that a Toledo company could do the work.

TPS, because it is governed by state laws on bidding processes, is required to select the lowest bid - and that's supposed to be a good thing for the taxpayers.

However, the idea that Toledo tax money is spent outside of the jurisdiction seems to upset some people, especially when the difference in the cost is somewhat minor ($2700 in this particular case).

So cities have decided to give a percentage advantage to local suppliers - a 'local preference' as you would have it - though school systems, townships and counties do not have the legal ability to do the same. The 'local preference' is usually a policy that states that a 'local' company's price is considered to be equal to a non-local company's price if the difference in pricing is within a certain percentage. It's a handicapping system designed to provide an advantage to the local company.

But the point that everyone is missing in all this is WHY the prices from our local suppliers are higher. In this instance, the two companies bidding to do the work for TPS might also bid for other projects as well. And the Michigan company will probably end up with the lower price again and again.

So WHY is this the case? Is it because of the high property taxes in Toledo with all our levies? Is it because of high overhead costs in Toledo, like energy, workers' compensation and income taxes? Is it because of regulatory issues from the city, the county and the state?

All the people who want us to give a local preference to local companies and have the taxpayers pay more through some convoluted logic of it 'helping the local economy' are either, intentionally or ignorantly, ignoring the root of the problem: that the local companies shouldn't NEED a local preference in order to be competitive.

If we want our local businesses to be able to compete not just for Toledo work, but for work across the nation and even the world, we need to ensure that taxes, regulatory policies and other costs are competitive in order to give those businesses the advantage in the marketplace.

So all those who would push for instituting 'local preferences' in bidding need to, instead, push for a business-friendly environment - not a preferential treatment because we are 'not-business-friendly.'

Sadly, our politicians and special interest groups who push for such 'not-business-friendly' policies are usually the same people who then want the taxpayer to pay more in a failed attempt to promote the local companies their policies have harmed.

But those 'not-business-friendly' policies are more costly than just for local projects. They hamper our companies in EVERY project they bid to undertake, resulting in a disadvantage to our local companies and the decline we see in the number of successful businesses in the area as they either go out of business or move to more profitable climes.

We need to stop addressing the symptoms - the non-competitive bid - and start addressing the disease - the overall business climate in Toledo/Lucas County/Ohio.

Bankrupt unemployment fund means serious trouble for Ohio

On Friday I received a press release from the Republican members of the Ohio House about the continued high unemployment rates in our state.

It was a standard position statement: we've got ideas and we want the other party to heed them. But there was something very troubling in the last part of the release:

On January 12, 2009 Ohio ran out of money in the Ohio Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund, which provides cash benefits for unemployed Ohioans and is funded by employer payroll taxes. The state began borrowing from the federal government to continue making payments to unemployed Ohioans. To date, Ohio has borrowed approximately $2 billion from the federal government, which must be paid back in the future. Debt projections of this nature are expected to reach $3 billion by the end of 2010.

I remember hearing about the fund running out of money last year, but I didn't realize that it still had no money and was continuing to borrow to cover the expenses.

And I certainly don't remember any news articles about this growing debt.

So I did some research and came across a guest column issued by State Senator Karen Gillmor on September 17, 2009, wherein she details the problem with the unemployment compensation fund:

Lawmakers established the Unemployment Compensation Advisory Council to recommend legislation that ensures a sound and legal unemployment compensation program for Ohio. I was honored to be appointed to this Council earlier this year.

You can imagine my surprise when I learned at my very first meeting that a July 2008 report prepared by Dr. Wayne Vroman of The Urban Institute, which makes a series of recommendations to improve the fund’s solvency, went virtually unheeded. That’s right – the Council knew the fund was in trouble, sought advice on how to head off trouble, and then failed to implement a single recommendation made by the expert they hired.

As a result, the fund became insolvent early this year for the first time since the 1980s. Beginning January 12, 2009, the State of Ohio began borrowing from the Federal government to continue making unemployment benefit payments, a sum totaling nearly $1.2 billion to date.

In April, State Auditor Mary Taylor cautioned against uncontrolled spending given our precarious economic condition. According to her projections, the state could be facing a budget shortfall of nearly $8 billion by 2013 – a problem further complicated by the state of the unemployment compensation fund.

Fortunately, the Federal stimulus bill delayed interest payments on the monies borrowed for our unemployment fund. But Ohio must begin repaying the estimated $4 billion in January 2011, when the Federal government will resume charging interest. Speculation is that the unemployment situation may not improve significantly until 2014.

So we've borrowed billions from the feds, will have to repay the money - and begin paying interest on the debt in January.

The unemployment compensation fund 'taxes' employers and puts the money collected into a separate account to pay out benefits when individuals are unemployed. The problem is that Ohio is paying out roughly $3 billion a year in benefits, but only collecting around $1 billion in employer contributions (2009 figures).

This isn't the first time Ohio has borrowed from the federal government to cover a shortage in this fund. We did so in the 1980s and it took eight years to repay the interest and principle. This time around, however, Propublica reports:

Ohio has been operating its trust fund at dangerously low levels for years, entering the recession with less than two months of reserves. The state was one of the first to begin borrowing at the beginning of 2009, and employers face a small tax increase from $266 to $270 per employee, on average, for 2010.

And with the economy the way it is, the state cannot just triple the rates on the employers who are actually still in the state. That's a sure way to push them elsewhere and discourage other companies from locating here.

Any increase in employer costs will have negative repercussions for the state's economy. Employers cannot just pass along those costs to consumers who have already cut back on spending, meaning they must be absorbed by the company (lowering any potential profits) or offset by cuts elsewhere in the company - perhaps laying off others, who then begin to collect what isn't there, thus exacerbating the problem.

So while Ohio employers did see a rate increase for 2010, there was no change in benefits distributed to out-of-work individuals.

Historically, states have relied upon boom times to build up their funds with enough money to cover the busts. Ohio's economy, however, hasn't seen the same 'boom' as other states and our 'busts' seem to last longer, too.

The state really can't do anything about unemployment as government doesn't create jobs. But state legislatures can implement business-friendly laws and tax rates that allow companies to grow. The recent phased-in tax changes were certainly a step in the right direction - until the legislature decided to halt this year's phase of cuts. You see, the politicians decided that government needed the money more than we did, which is always a problem.

In the long term, Ohio faces the same situation as the federal government - you can only borrow for so long before the bill comes due. And when it does, someone - meaning you and me - will have to pay.

It's started - doom and gloom if Toledo doesn't get more tax dollars from its citizens

The front page of today's paper attempts to scare readers into thinking that if we don't support the current proposals to raise our taxes, doom and gloom will result.

That's the only outcome one can expect from saying that today's budget deficit for the city is very much like 1982. And don't forget, back then we had a massive - and perhaps, illegal - strike that burned property and resulted in the death of a bus driver.

Back then, a Republican and a Democrat got together and promoted the idea that the only solution was to approve a 'temporary' .75% increase in our payroll income tax. That 'temporary' tax was approved and has been 'permanent' ever since.

Now, Mayor Mike Bell is saying that his proposal for a temporary .25% tax is really temporary. But if that's the case, then why does the ordinance provide for a renewal?

SECTION 1. That subject to the approval of the electors of the City of Toledo, as provided in Section 718.01 of the Revised Code of Ohio, Chapter 1905 of the Toledo Municipal Code be amended as provided in this Ordinance to provide for the levy of a one quarter of one percent (1/4%) temporary tax on income for the period commencing June 1, 2010 and ending December 31, 2012 unless renewed by the electors. Subject to the approval of the electors of the City of Toledo the additional 1/4% temporary income tax shall be allocated for Police, Fire, and other Safety Department responsibilities. (emphasis added)

If everyone were really serious about this being only for two years, there would be no such renewal provision in the legislation.

But take a good look at The Blade article. What you see documented are the same problems we're facing today. Back then, the costs of labor contracts had skyrocketed and unions didn't want to have any cutbacks, costs of government had skyrocketed and politicians said they'd cut everything they could. The only solution was a temporary increase in the amount of money the city government took from its citizens.

Here we are, in 2010, with the exact same problems: contractual labor obligations that cannot be sustained, increased costs in government with politicians telling us there's nowhere else to cut and a mounting campaign to make us think that the only solution is to take more of our money so government can continue to grow.

It worked so well in the 1980s - why not repeat it again today?

But look at what actually happened. If we have the same problems today as we did in back then, the solution to increase taxes did not solve the problem. If it had, we wouldn't still be grappling with it now.

Raising taxes is NOT the solution, in fact, it's part of the problem.

The focus on finding a 'solution' to the deficit means that politicians and the Mayor's Citizens Special Investigation task force are asking the wrong questions. And if you ask the wrong questions, you get the wrong answers.

Everyone is looking for ways to get more money to the city of Toledo because the city doesn't have enough to pay their obligations. Of course, if your task is to raise revenue to the city, your best solutions will be tax increases, fee increases and maybe some cuts in spending.

The major issue Toledo faces is not really the deficit. In fact, the problem isn't that the city doesn't have enough money. That's only a symptom.

Our city is in decline and is taking everything along with it. As a result, we have fewer residents, fewer businesses, less employees and lower wages in the remaining businesses, declining property values, a declining school system, more bankruptcies, more home foreclosures, more people dependent upon welfare and food stamps and other government handouts, less of a tax base and less funds going into the public coffers.

The only answer being suggested is to take even more money from the citizens and businesses who are already suffering so. But that 'solution' will, not surprisingly, lead to more people leaving, more businesses failing (due to less customers), more unemployment, further decline in property values and even less money into the public coffers.

The very solution they promote contributes to and hastens the decline they seek to arrest.

So rather than ask the wrong question (how do we get more revenue to the government?) they should be asking 'how do we help promote the growth of the city?'

If we're interested in promoting growth, we do the exact opposite of what is being proposed: we LOWER taxes. We reduce regulations; we reduce fees; we cut government - which is a drain on the economy - to the bone; we make it easier and more profitable for businesses; we try to put more money into the pockets of citizens rather than into the government; and we encourage the private sector, not the public one.

These are the things that lead to the growth of a city and, subsequently, the increase in tax collections the city is so interested in achieving.

But if no one is asking the right question, we'll never get the right solutions - and we'll continue to face these same sets of circumstances over and over and over again.

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

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

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

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

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

The solution being presented? Raise the payroll tax!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you say 'stuck on stupid'???

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

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

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

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

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

But don't hold your breath.

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

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

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

More contradictions from Obama

I've been thinking about the various proposals President Barack Obama has for 'helping' small business - and how, again, his words and actions are contradictory.

He is proposing a tax credit for hiring new employees, paying more to existing employees or purchasing equipment.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, though I oppose tax credits (an after-the-fact process of returning a small portion of what the government has taken from you in the first place) when an overall reduction in tax rates is so much more effective.

But the tax credit is only for a new hire, and doesn't apply to employees brought back after being laid off - nor does it continue to exist all the years that a company keeps that employee. The decision to hire another employee is never based upon a potential tax credit. It's based upon the need for that person and the sales to support the salary on a long-term basis.

He's also proposing to use TARP funds for bank loans to small businesses. You remember TARP? It's the temporary fund that was supposed to help bail out the banks deemed too big to fail, but that was also used to bail out the auto companies???? It's the fund that Obama says won't ever recoup all its loans and needs to charge ALL banks a 'recovery fee.' It's becoming a permanent source of funding for whatever spending Obama wants to do.

The bank loans he's talking about, though, are only through 'community' banks - banks that really don't need an infusion of cash to loan out. And Obama hasn't documented that there's even a need for such loans to small businesses - but determining a need for 'help' isn't relevant to how good the program sounds to the masses.

The main issue he's trying to address with this loan package is a direct result of the tighter restrictions government has placed on lending and capitalization of banks. The issues relating to sub-prime loans and the failures of many with government-back mortgages resulted in Congress 'doing something' to solve problems resulting from the last time they 'did something.' Tighter regulatory controls on the assets banks have to keep mean they have been more restrictive with the qualifications for loans. Small community banks think that if Obama's loan program will absolve them from loss on the riskier borrowers, then they might take advantage of it and lend to people they've previously denied.

What? Yes, loaning to people who have been determined to be too much of a risk for a 'regular' loan. Isn't that what got us into this economic mess in the first place? Is there really a need to loan to people/businesses that are that risky?

But there's a problem - and a contradiction - with what the President says.

At the same time he's planning small tax credits and loans for certain behavior, he's talking about raising tax rates on 'the rich.' Many small business owners, because of the way they've structured their companies, fall into the 'rich' designation because they report their business earnings as part of their personal income tax reports. This means they're taxed at the personal, not corporate, rate. Of course, for most, they're paying taxes on paper earnings they never actually see in terms of dollars in their wallets.

I don't want this to be a post focused on the tax code - a 60,044-page/25-volume monstrosity that no one, not even the government enforcers, actually understands. But it's important to note that because of the tax code and the complicated nature of it and corporation structures, many businesses go this route and end up being designated as 'rich' as a result.

For these types of business owners, a one-time, limited, tax credit is not enough to overcome the uncertainty of future, permanent taxes.

The politicians in the federal government are constantly talking about the need to raise taxes. The Associate Press reports that Obama's budget raises taxes on businesses. Various reports indicate that increased tax rates, health care 'reform' and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 will mean more money paid to the federal government, detracting from anticipated profits businesses are earning.

On the state and local level, the discussion is much the same: government needs more money to continue its spending patterns (or to expand them in the guise of 'helping' the economy) and someone has to pay. In December, Ohio decided to 'delay' a phased-in tax cut that took effect in January of last year. In Toledo, there's discussion of raising the payroll income tax. That's more money coming OUT of the earnings and spendable income of individuals and business owners.

Unlike government and politicians, business owners have to plan for such things. When there is uncertainty about future costs, they will be cautious in their spending, choosing to save for future obligations rather than incur additional expenses while awaiting clarification.

And they're certainly not going to borrow money for anything if they think future earnings will be negatively impacted by higher taxes, limiting their ability to actually repay the loan.

They've also seen the complicated and arbitrary rules associated with such loans when the politicians get to decide the terms, many of them retroactive in enforcement. Will these small business owners be subject to earnings and pay limitations if they accept this government money?

Uncertainty is the killer.

So while Obama is proposing various programs to provide what he considers to be 'help,' he and his fellow Democrats in Congress are planning various actions that will definitely 'hurt' small business.

I'll concede that perhaps, despite how 'smart' people seem to think he is, our President might not have a clue.

Obama has never run a business. He's never been responsible for meeting a payroll, making decisions about hiring/firing or purchasing equipment for an operation. He's never had to develop a business plan and weigh various costs against potential income. He's never had to budget for today's operations while ensuring protection against tomorrow's decline or anticipating future growth.

He's never had to experience the decision-making process that all business owners have to face. So why should we expect that any policies relating to small business - or any business, for that matter - have any basis in reality?

We shouldn't ... but he's the President and if he doesn't have the personal experience, he's supposed to surround himself with people who do so he doesn't continually contradict himself by saying one thing and doing another.

Another 'I told you so'

Remember back when Toledo decided to issue a license to convenience stores? According to the politicians, those evil convenience stores were the source of all kinds of illegal and unsavory goings-on and needed to be controlled.

My point, then and now, was that a business owner shouldn't be responsible for the illegal acts of others. The entire problem was the lack of law enforcement in the neighborhoods that allowed such illegal activity in the first place.

As I said in my first post on the subject:

But understand this: if you've got crime in the neighborhoods, it's not because you have a store down the street. The solution to crime in the neighborhoods is increased police patrols to deter such activity and swift response when a crime does occur. It also means a commitment to the criminal justice system to fully prosecute and hold accountable those who commit crimes - and that may mean spending money for more jail space and prosecutors - and not flowers, lights on trees, nature education or secret shoppers.

But in Toledo, it's so much easier to regulate business than it is to address the true problems in the neighborhoods and city as a whole. And it gets better headlines, too.

And now, as a result of the lawsuit filed over the law, guess what? More police patrols. Except in this case, it's not being provided by the city. No, the convenience store owners are having to pay off-duty officers to do what they should be doing when on-duty.

So the solution, as I said all along, is to increase police patrols. As I wrote in my last post on the subject:

I still have a problem, though, with the city's dereliction of duty when it comes to safety. The agreement requires that the stores "develop a plan for a coordinated security patrol of member stores consisting of off-duty and laid-off police officers."

First of all, why must it be off-duty or laid-off police officers? Many companies use private security personnel for such purposes, so this can only be construed as the unnecessary interference of the city in operational aspects of a private business. Or perhaps this has more to do with helping the police unions and/or covering the city because they've so overspent in almost every other area that they had to lay off police. Regardless, this is wrong and I wish the settlement would have contained more generic language to be able to give the store owners as much flexibility as possible.

Secondly, this particular requirement is a bad precedent for the city to set. The reason this is needed - and the reason 'community development groups' and politicians wanted the law in the first place - is because of a lack of enforcement of existing laws. The original problem wasn't the stores, but the illegal activities that police were unable to address, either because of lack of numbers or low priority.

Rather than address the lack of policing, politicians did what they normally do - created a new problem in an attempt to 'solve' an old one, enacting a law for every single store of this type, despite the fact that only some of the stores were having a problem. What they should have done was increase the enforcement in and around those particular problem areas - but they didn't.

Now, the solution is not for the city to assume its chartered responsibility, but for store owners to pay additionally for that same service. And if the city can do it with one, it can do it will all.

This is what passes for logic in Toledo.

Previous posts on the convenience store licensing law in chronological order:

'Not business friendly - post #5'

Eye On Toledo interview with Rob Ludeman

Cheers and boos to Toledo City Council

'Not business friendly' - post #6

Convenience stores fight licensing law (thank goodness!)

FOIA Friday

Faulty logic???

'Not business friendly' Post #9 - convenience stores, again

Emergency injunction requested on Convenience Store Licensing Law

Convenience stores get injunction

City law applies to more than just convenience stores

'Not business friendly' Post #10 - if you don't like the law, close your business

Midwest Retailers lawsuit against Toledo continues

City ordered to pay attorney fees in convenience store licensing suit

Toledo to repeal convenience store licensing law

Commissioners approve PLAs while cutting positions

You wouldn't know it from the coverage in the paper, but yesterday the Lucas County Commissioners voted unanimously to increase the costs of all projects they undertake.

They did so by approving a new policy requiring project labor agreements for all construction projects valued at $25,000 or greater. The resolution setting the new policy calls for the county to negotiate an agreement with the Northwest Ohio Building and Construction Trades Council (and/or its affiliates) and for all bidders on county projects to include a provision in the bid requiring the successful bidder - and all their contractors and subcontractors - to adhere to the PLA negotiated by the county for that specific project.

So the county is going to negotiate terms of employment for the companies who win the bids???? Government isn't just dictating such things as minimum wage and safety provisions, now they're actively colluding with unions to force unionization upon their citizens. That's what PLAs do - they require union dues to be paid by workers for the duration of the project. They also traditionally require companies to contribute to union health care and pension funds during the duration of the project, even though the non-union employees of the company will never see any of those funds because they're 'members' of the union only during the project.

But the Commissioners don't stop with just the successful bidder. They apply this forced unionization to every other party the bidder wants to use!

How much extra do you think this is going to cost taxpayers???

At the same meeting where they passed this increased cost, they eliminated six management positions in an effort to balance their budget for next year.

Stuck on stupid? Insanity? Payback to unions? You decide - my head hurts thinking about it.

There are two strange parts about the passage of this policy:

1) the 'statutory authority' cited on the resolution, and

2) the absence of Blade coverage of the action in light of their past position on this very same policy.

The 'statutory authority' citation appears on each resolution presented to the Board of County Commissioners. This came about because as a commissioner I constantly asked where, in the Ohio Revised Code, we had the authority to do many of the things that were being presented to us. I wanted the statutory authority clearly cited on the resolutions.

If the staff or sponsoring commissioner couldn't find any authority in the code, I voted against the resolution. Commissioners and county government are creatures of state statute. Without specific authority to address an issue, they cannot act. This is a long-established legal precedent in Ohio.

The statutory authority reference for this new PLA policy is listed as ORC 305.30. Interestingly, this relatively short section of the ORC details the powers and duties of the county administrator.

I suppose that since they're making the county administrator the person responsible for entering into the labor contract, there is a bit of relevance to the resolution. But they don't address where they have the authority to require a PLA in the first place. They only reference their authority to direct the county administrator, not where the authority to implement a PLA comes from.

This is certainly a stretch. Just because you direct the county administrator to perform a task, it doesn't mean you have the authority to order the task. But if no one is checking, the Commissioners get away with such 'illogic' in their actions.

They do state, in the summary of the resolution, that PLAs are legal under federal and Ohio law, though they give no evidence to support that statement. I guess the commissioners all missed the recent news that the federal government yanked a project in New Hampshire due to problems with the PLA requirement.

Another oddity is the change in the language of the resolution. The first one that was introduced included an actual contract - with the terms of the project labor agreement spelled out in detail. This current approved resolution only has three provisions attached (as you can see in the link to the document). I believe this was done to give the commissioners coverage for actual terms of the agreements - leaving it up to the county administrator to negotiate.

Here's a question for you: how often do you think the final terms of the PLAs will differ from the union-written contract language that was included in the first resolution?

The second issue is the lack of media coverage. This is a huge cost increase to taxpayers and an economic development/business killer. At a time when the county is trying to cut costs to balance their budget and everyone is talking about how we attract businesses to the area, how does this help? It doesn't - but with the main stream media in the area ignoring the issue, most residents are blissfully unaware.

This same proposal to implement PLAs was tried - and failed - in 1996. At the time, the editors called it payback to the unions for their support - and blasted the policy as contrary to a economic development efforts.

(click for larger view)

A search of 'project labor agreement' on the websites of The Blade, the Toledo Free Press and the four television stations showed no articles on the subject. So why no news coverage of an issue that will increase the cost of county construction projects at a time that the county has no money?

Is this a testament of the power of the unions? Or a reflection on the media in the area? I don't know...

But I do know that this is 'not business friendly,' not budget friendly, not taxpayer friendly and an all-around really bad idea.

The question, now, is whether or not, like in 1997, the policy will be repealed. But with the lack of attention to the issue, I expect not.