Up is down in Toledo when it comes to eminent domain

Yes, up is down, black is white, and I find myself agreeing with Democrats on Toledo city council while wondering what's happened to the Republicans.

The issue? Eminent Domain for Southwyck Mall. (For complete background, read this, this and this.)

If you're not familiar with Toledo politicians - or even if you are - you might be surprised to learn who said the following:

"...eminent domain is a tool the City of Toledo can use to get Bill Dillard and Buddy Hering, who own parcels at Southwyck, to complete the deal with Larry Dillin, president of Dillin Corporation."- Toledo Free Press

or this:

“They [the owners of Southwyck] have a history of not cooperating and running Southwyck Mall into the ground. Those uncooperative owners are the reason we have to look at eminent domain. We can't let them hold us hostage.” - Toledo Free Press

or this:

"It really bothers me that we can't get a national company to be a responsible corporate citizen, and I think we need to take bold action." - Toledo Blade

Anyone familiar with the traditional stances of the two parties would probably guess these quotes came from the Democrats...but they didn't. The first quote is from Republican Rob Ludeman, District 2 representative. The other two quotes are from Republican George Sarantou, at-large member of council.

And the Democrats? They said this:

"Council President Michael Ashford questioned whether the administration has the legal justification for eminent domain, given recent rulings by the Ohio and U.S. Supreme Court on the use of eminent domain for economic development." - Toledo Blade

and this:

"Councilman Frank Szolosi said he has “a fundamental opposition to the city's use of eminent domain.”" - Toledo Free Press

Further, our Republicans are strangely silent about the revelation that the supposed 'public use' to justify eminent domain was never part of the plan for Southwyck - and, contrary to what the mayor said, was NOT requested by Larry Dillin, the proposed developer of the property. The city has decided a road right through the middle of the property is 'needed.' (Posts linked above show the planned road and the original - and still current - site plan presented by Dillin.)

According to this Blade article, "Mr. Finkbeiner said the road fits with the Village at Southwyck concept proposed by developer Larry Dillin.

“[Mr. Dillin] feels that it’s very important that that mall be broken up, that there be a connecting road running north and south, to link the beltway road,” the mayor said, referring to Southwyck Boulevard."

But this is directly contradicted by the developer, according to the Free Press article:

"“We feel very strongly about our plans to rejuvenate the Southwyck property and want to move forward with them,” said Bill Thomas, director of real estate services for Dillin Corp.
...
Thomas said the Dillin firm had nothing to do with the city's latest plans for a connecting road through the Southwyck property. If the city has plans that show a connecting road, “We were not involved in them,” he said."

So the mayor lied about the need for a road, the Republicans are supporting eminent domain because they don't like what a property owner is doing - legally - with their private property, and the Democrats are the ones asking questions about the legality and the costs.

Truly, up is down in Toledo.



BONUS ISSUE: The comment by Sarantou about being a "responsible corporate citizen," ties in with this quote, also from the Blade article:

"Dave Lemon, the volunteer leader of a citizens' organization in the Southwyck area, said Mr. Dillard shows no corporate responsibility for the area surrounding the mall, and is "stubbornly refusing" to sell a mall that he is neglecting."

Perhaps we're getting to the underlying message here? That you're only welcome in our community if your use of your private property corresponds to our determination of being 'socially responsible.' But that's another post for another time...

My, how things have changed...

The Patriot Post
Founders' Quote Daily

"The State governments possess inherent advantages, which will ever give them an influence and ascendancy over the National Government, and will for ever preclude the possibility of federal encroachments. That their liberties, indeed, can be subverted by the federal head, is repugnant to every rule of political calculation."

-- Alexander Hamilton (speech to the New York Ratifying Convention,
17 June 1788)

Interview with "Food Stamp Challenge" sponsor - pawns or partners?

As explained here, Fred LeFebvre, morning show host on WSPD, interviewed Reverends Kevin Perrine and Steve Anthony of Toledo Area Ministries' "Feed Your Neighbor" program regarding their sponsorship of the "Food Stamp Challenge" which our three County Commissioners accepted. (Here is the link to the full 16-minute interview.)

Before I go further, let me clearly state that Toledo Area Ministries is a terrific organization doing many good things in our community. While they have several outreach programs with records of success, the one I'm most familiar with is "Suitably Attired," a non-profit organization that provides clients with free interview or work appropriate attire. In collaboration with Monroe St. United Methodist Church, they also helped launch "Dress Right," a professional clothing closet for men. I have donated to both programs.

However, having transcribed the questions and answers from this morning's interview, when it comes to the Food Stamp Challenge, I cannot decide if they are pawns in this nationwide publicity stunt to generate emotional support for an increased food stamp funding - or knowing accomplices who didn't expect their data to be challenged and then underestimated the reaction when it was shown to be incorrect. I'd like to believe they are just pawns, but some of their answers indicate that they were well aware of the appeal to emotion in order to influence the national legislation.

They acknowledged that the idea for the local challenge came as a result of an email from FRAC (Food Research and Action Center). When asked about the source of the $21 per day per person amount, which is identified as the average that a person on food stamps receives in benefits, they agreed that it was an average, but said that the actual amount was $23, but "they lowered it...but that's not the point of the challenge."

(Aside: so they knew it was more than $21 but they lowered it by $2 for what reason?)

Fred followed up with a question about what the point was, then, considering that Commissioner Ben Konop said the "point was...to fail." The reply was that the point was "to create empathy with those who do have to be on food stamps, number one, and number two is to call attention to the fact that after people are getting their food stamps we’re still seeing people come in – to the rate of 5-6,000 people a month - into our food pantries for additional assistance."

As for their second point, it is true and valid. Many individuals utilize our local food banks and the food banks, considering our local economy, are seeing more people than in the past as well as a reduction in donations. But, by saying that the point was to generate empathy, they are admitting that the underlying premise is to show this is not only difficult, but nearly impossible...which means that the challenge is designed for failure.

When Fred asked whether or not, then, the $21 was deceptive, they answered that the point with the commissioners was "to show them what they can do to get into action – what they can do with the farm bill at a national level and at a state level..."

So they acknowledge the purpose was to generate support for additional funding in the 2007 Farm Bill, and to enlist the help of the commissioners in doing so.

But just to be sure, Fred clarified the point. "So the bottom line is to get the commissioners involved … to petition the government to raise more money for the food stamp program?"

"Well, it’s not only that," was the answer, "but it’s also ... so they can also pass on what they see locally to the people they know."

So, again, we want the commissioners to prove this incorrect figure of $21 is just not enough and then tell their story to our Congressional representatives. Yes - it's all a well-coordinated national campaign to provide 'evidence' that the food stamp program needs more money.

When Fred asked them how they felt about being involved in program that would try to sway public opinion using lies and dishonesty as this one obviously does, they didn't answer the question.

They did say, "...no ... I don’t ... our motivation for doing this has nothing to do with deception or dishonesty – we’re calling attention to a problem and the problem is our food pantries are running out of food because the need is greater now than it has been and we’re just calling attention that."

In other words, don't question the facts, just look at the motivation...we're trying to do something good. Don't judge this by anything other than our intentions.

Then there is this exchange:

Rev. Anthony: "...we’re not asking for more money for the food stamp program – that’s not the point."

Fred: "Well, that’s what Kevin said just a minute ago – they want the County Commissioners to press the government to put more money into the Farm Bill for the food stamp program…"

Rev. Perrine: "well, yes…"

Fred: "Is that right or not? Did I misstate what you said?"

Rev. Perrine: "no – no you did not. But even though they can become – that’s what we want to do - we want them to be aware that that’s out there…to open their eyes to what’s going on in the community and so they know what they need to do ... so they can call the people that they know to help ..."

So 'they know what they need to do?' I guess the outcome is pre-determined - they are going to fail and then the only option will be to lobby for more money...because if these 'leaders' can't survive, obviously no one else can, either.

Of course, without a good explanation for the faulty and deliberately deceptive $21 amount, and with the entire premise of the challenge being false, they questioned Fred as to his 'empirical data' showing that no one is actually expected to live on just $21 per week. Rev. Anthony then concluding, "I don't accept your premise," and Fred responding, "I could say the same thing to you."

Fred believes they were somewhat duped. And that may be true. I think it's more likely that they understood the purpose was to influence Congress to put more money into the food stamp program, but they really didn't think about the political or public relations ramifications of someone pointing out that this was just a publicity stunt.

And then, when evidence was presented that the $21 amount was intentionally false in order to have more chance of failing the challenge, they did what most do when caught in a similar situation - they issued an emotional appeal to their INTENTIONS, implying that since the motivation was good, we should just overlook the falsities upon which the stunt is based.

Sadly, by not being honest about the intent and the goal of failing, and then asking us to just overlook those things because of the 'need,' they've done more harm than good to their stated intent of bringing attention to the plight of the food banks.

Further, we all know it's very easy to clamor for more money at the government trough. It's much more challenging to successfully identify actual solutions. Someone who truly wants to help the poor would be less concerned with suffering for the sake of suffering and, instead, focused on trying to find innovative ways to live on a meager budget. What the public is going to see from all this is 1) publicity for the Commissioners who 'feel the pain,' 2)a short-term media blip for the local food banks and pantries, and 3) the feeling of being used by a national organization in their own personal lobbying efforts. And that isn't going to do much for our neighbors who, when all is said and done, are still struggling.

We're experiencing a publicity stunt with a goal of failure instead of having meaningful conversations. Where is the discussion of subsidies for ethanol production? They're driving up the price of corn which is used in so many products, thus making those products more expensive and further stretching the budgets of all, but especially the poor. Or discussing recipes and cooking methods to make limited dollars go further. Or how to shop wisely to meet both your budget and your health needs. Or why 40% of eligible people don't enroll in the food stamp program. We're spending tax dollars in an effort to get them into a government dependency instead of learning and celebrating why they're doing okay without one.

I am grateful for the Reverends and the work they do. They agreed to come on the show and to explain the challenge. The Commissioners, however, wouldn't. I think they'd rather say they were 'just responding to the challenge' ... leaving TAM to take the full brunt of the rightful criticism of this publicity stunt. But if our Commissioners were a bit more attentive, they would have asked many of the questions we all have PRIOR to accepting - and the result would have been a more honest and open appeal to the public. But that may be expecting too much of them.

The Reverends are correct, however, that this has brought conversation about the issue into the limelight. I'm just not certain this is the conversation they expected - or the one we need to have.

In defense of the "Food Stamp Challenge"

Fred LeFebvre, morning show host on WSPD, had representatives from the Toledo Area Ministries' Feed Your Neighbor program as his guests this morning.

They accepted his invitation to come on air to discuss the "Food Stamp Challenge" they issued to our Lucas County Commissioners. (Background available here.) When the podcast is up, it will be available here. I'll be transcribing it and then will blog about some of their comments.

Sadly, it's plainly evident from their interview that they have been used as pawns in the wider political game of national politics, clearly admitting that the purpose of this stunt was to invoke sympathy and support for expansion of the Food Stamp Program, while failing to understand the implications of such a statement. They made several other statements which caused me concern, but I'll wait for the podcast before listing them, as I want to be sure of what I heard.

Unfortunately, by starting this 'challenge' with an incorrect premise (the $21 per week per person amount) and having failure as a goal, they've done more damage than good. Individuals who need this type of assistance - and there are certainly more than there should be, especially in Lucas County - don't need 'sympathy.' But making people comfortable in their poverty, rather than helping them with food plans and purchasing strategy, is what this mindset is all about...

More to follow.

Media blind to 'food stamp challenge' manipulation

On Tuesday, the Lucas County Commissioners decided to accept, from Toledo Area Ministries, the 'food stamp challenge.' Under this 'challenge,' elected and community leaders are encouraged to live on only $21 per week, which is the 'average' amount a person on food stamps receives in benefits.

Of course, our commissioners, Tina Skeldon-Wozniak, Pete Gerken and Ben Konop accepted the challenge - in front of tv cameras and assorted press.

But the problem is that the challenge is bogus. And because I'd read BizzyBlog's posting on this back in April, I knew that. And because I'd also read Ari and Jennifer Armstrong's debunking of the outcome of the challenge, I knew that it was possible to live on $21 per week.

But here are the facts. No one in the country is expected to live on only $21 a week. The maximum amount of food stamps a person can get - having no other income or resources - is $36.57. Those who get "only" $21 per week have been determined to need only $21 based upon a comprehensive formula which shows other funds (up to 30% of wages/other cash assets) available to be devoted to purchasing food.

But, knowing that this 'challenge' started some time ago, I couldn't help but wonder why our commissioners were just getting around to it. Having been in politics in Lucas County too long, I knew there had to be more to the issue than just their desire to "show empathy" for those less fortunate. So I did some research.

A simple google search provided enough links to connect the dots. The primary sponsor of the challenge is a group called Food Research and Action Center and they have several links on their website to the challenge, including all the media and internet coverage of those who've accepted the challenge. They even provide a toolkit, produced jointly by them and The Hatcher Group, a "a public affairs firm that connects nonprofits and foundations to policymakers and the media. We focus exclusively on progressive policy issues and work to advance our clients' agendas for social change."

Interestingly enough, under FRAC's legislation link is a letter to "anti-hunger allies" encouraging them to support two bills in Congress to increase funding for the food stamp program. Their letter even includes talking points reiterating the $21 per week figure.

So, curiosity getting the better of me, I wondered if there was any connection between our local organizations and this national group...and that answer was quickly found. The Toledo Area Ministries "Feed Your Neighbor" program website has a feature called "10 Food Stamp Outreach Ideas for Faith-Based Organizations" and, at the bottom of this list, are some links - including one to FRAC.

In case you're wondering, TAM was one of 14 organizations nationwide to receive a USDA grant for Food Stamp Outreach. The maximum amount an agency could get was $75,000 and TAM received $73,809 to train volunteers on how to pre-screen food stamp applicants and provide application assistance.

Those are the dots...connecting them leads to this:

A national non-profit begins a publicity campaign to draw attention to the food stamp program and calls it the "Food Stamp Challenge." National group links to local groups and pulls them into the stunt by getting them to enroll local elected and community leaders in the challenge. Local leaders 'prove' the point that you can't live on $21 a week and, even if you can survive, you can't do so in a healthy way. Local groups report back to National group who then uses all these local 'examples' and numerous media reports as evidence that the Food Stamp program needs more money. National group then testifies about the program and the need for more money, using the sympathy gained from 'challenges' across the country to urge Congress to act accordingly.

Connecting the dots wasn't hard to do...all it took was a couple of hours on the internet searching and reading. And it leads to several conclusions.

Our County Commissioners are either ignorant or deceitful. Either they were ignorant of the national publicity stunt and it's intended purpose or they knew the ulterior motive and failed to share it with the public when they accepted the challenge.

If they claim ignorance, it makes me wonder what else they're ignorant of and makes me question their ability to actually research issues on which they vote. If they knew the ulterior motive - to generate public sympathy for legislation and provide false evidence that $21 is not enough - they should have been honest about their purpose, admitting so upfront. But instead you have Comm. Gerken insisting 'it's not a publicity stunt.'

But this entire challenge isn't about honesty. It's about manipulation. It's about generating false data to prove a point. The $21 a week amount is so obviously bogus that there can be no excuse for our commissioners to not have questioned the amount. Such an error is further compounded by the fact that local Job and Family Services staff - who actually administer the food stamp program in Lucas County under control and direction of the commissioners - are participating. And they - more than anyone else - know that no one is expected to live on $21 a week for food.

Additionally, the challenge was accepted under false pretenses. They didn't accept the challenge with concept of actually succeeding. They're trying to prove it CAN'T be done. Commissioner Konop actually said, "The whole point ... is to fail." Well, obviously! Any success wouldn't look good to those using the 'failures' as justification for more funding. This was manipulation at its finest - or worst.

But the real tragedy is the media's reaction and coverage of this stunt. No one questioned the amount. No one asked why they're were using the 'average' or even what conditions would exist for someone to get just the 'average.' No one researched this to find out that such challenges were going on across the country, sponsored primarily by FRAC. And no one connected the dots to the overall plan of generating media stories to support a particular position regarding food stamp legislation in the U.S. Congress.

Except me, as part of my substitute hosting on Eye on Toledo, and WSPD's other talk show hosts, Fred LeFebvre and Brian Wilson.

All the other media did was record the press conference and then dutifully play the recordings or write the story. I even wrote an email to the reporter who covered the initial story for The Blade:

In today's story on the commissioner's food stamp challenge, you wrote:

"But for the next week, Tina Skeldon Wozniak, commissioner president, Pete Gerken, and Ben Konop have pledged to live as the least among their constituents do, spending the same amount - $21 a week per person - that the U.S. government believes is adequate to feed themselves."

However, this is not correct. The U.S. government does not believe that $21 is adequate to feed an individual. Actually, the amount a single person with no other resources can receive is $35.67. The $21 amount is the 'average' because most people who receive a food-stamp supplements have other income. In fact, food stamp recipients are expected to spend about 30% of their resources on food.

You, and The Blade, missed an opportunity to truly educate the public about this issue by accepting the information presented without verifying the actual numbers.

But it wasn't just The Blade, every outlet that has covered the issue, so far, has done so as presented - generating the 'appeal to emotion' so needed by the organizers to gain public support for increased funding.

Sadly, the lack of inquiry - or any simple investigation of what was presented - put them in the position of willingly, or ignorantly, perpetuating the manipulation.

The point now is to hold all of them accountable. Call the commissioners and your favorite media and ask them why they're reporting, falsely, that people are expected to live on only $21 per week. Ask them why they're not reporting that this 'challenge' is part of a national media campaign to push for more funding in bills currently under consideration in Congress. Ask them why the point of the 'challenge' is to FAIL rather than SUCCEED.

And while you're at it, you can ask the commissioners if any of their JFS staff explained to them that $21 might be an average but that no one in the county lives on just $21 per week. And you can also ask them how this helps economic development - a promise that all of them made when campaigning.

UPDATE: This morning, Fred LeFebvre, the morning show host on WSPD, detailed his shopping yesterday to prove that a single person could eat on $21 per week - if they had to. He put photos of the food and receipts on his WSPD page and detailed, in the show, how the food he bought could provide him with nutritious meals for a week. He then donated the food to a local food pantry.

Additionally, Tom at BizzyBlog has published his open letter to The Blade requesting a correction of their wording on the $21 per person per week amount. Check them out!

Sen. Voinovich missed an opportunity

Sen. George Voinovich toured areas of Northwest Ohio yesterday, viewing flood damage and meeting with officials to discuss their response to the storms and their needs going forward.

According to this Blade article, Voinovich says our nation's spending priorities are wrong, bashing the spending in Iraq while criticizing the President for trimming "infrastructure-related budgets - those that deal with items such as rivers, highways, and bridges - because they are too costly."

Voinovich said, "he is frustrated because Americans don't realize how vulnerable the country's infrastructure is and how far behind improvements are.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which addresses flood control, is operating with less federal money and too few engineers, he said."

Unfortunately, Sen. Voinovich seems to have forgotten that the President doesn't spend the money, Congress does. The President requests and submits budgets, but it's Congress who makes the final decision.

And the opportunity the Senator missed? His vote on the recently passed Transportation bill.

I've previously blogged about Sen. Tom Coburn's amendments to cut pork out of this bill. Sen. Coburn's amendment to halt earmarks until all deficient bridges and roads were repaired failed. His amendment to eliminate federal spending on bike paths also failed. His amendment to remove three specific earmarks (baseball stadium, peace garden and tourist 'discovery' center) totaling $1.35 million also failed. In fact, the pork in this bill totaled $8 Billion - yes, Billion with a B - and that's 13.5% of the Transportation Department's $63 billion spending plan.

According to all media reports I could find, Sen. Voinovich voted against these three amendments and then voted for the bill, basically agreeing that $8 billion in pork was more important than other priorities of the federal government - like the Army Corps of Engineers which he says is short money and engineers.

Sen. Voinovich certainly got good press coverage by comparing spending in Iraq to spending on infrastructure, especially in The Blade. But his complaint sounds a bit hollow when his actual votes are taken into consideration.

If it's true that Congress has their spending priorities mixed up - and I'm the first to agree this is the case - it's because of votes like those cast by Voinovich. Sen. Voinovich - if you're going to complain about lack of funds for priorities, you need to vote against non-constitutional spending like baseball stadiums, peace gardens and bike paths.

Constitution Day

Today is Constitution Day - or rather, officially it's known as Citizenship Day. Perhaps it would be a good day to actually read the Constitution and note the fact that our founders created a republic with limited powers.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

And so much of what our federal government does these days has no basis of authority in the Constitution - even the designation of this day.

Specifically, nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Congress of the United States the ability to tell a state government what it must do. And that is what is happening today: the federal government has ordered us to celebrate the Constitution of the United States.

Now, the fact that we ought to be celebrating the Constitution without this order from on high is really beside the point. But, in issuing such 'instruction' to us, they violate the very document they want us to recognize.

And that's the problem. Those we entrust to guarding the very principles upon which we rely have no clear understanding of those principles - or if they do, blatantly disregard them. And shame on us for allowing them to do so.

Know your Constitution!

Hypocrisy in Toledo

According to this Blade article, our mayor, Carty Finkbeiner, is dead-set to exercise the authority of government to take private property (Southwyck Mall) because he does not like what the owners are doing - or rather, not doing - with the property. (Background on the issue is here and here.)

Of course, the reason for taking the property is a newly-discovered need for a road to go directly through the property, thus making the 'taking' necessary to meet a 'public use.'

The hypocrisy is overflowing, especially in this statement from the article:

"Mr. Finkbeiner said the road fits with the Village at Southwyck concept proposed by developer Larry Dillin.

“[Mr. Dillin] feels that it’s very important that that mall be broken up, that there be a connecting road running north and south, to link the beltway road,” the mayor said, referring to Southwyck Boulevard."

Unfortunately for the mayor, the site plan shown below (readily available here at the time of this posting), shows NO ROAD through the middle of this property.


(This image is shown with north on the right, and the beltway road surrounding the property running from the left - south - side to the right - north side. Reynolds road accesses on the bottom of the image.)

Of course, I'll admit it is possible that Larry Dillin has changed his site design, but I'd find that to be highly convenient to the city, considering that this site plan is the one he's been showing everyone since 2003.

And then we have the comment from our Republican representative of that district, Rob Ludeman, who says:

"“This is to move Mr. Dillard and Mr. Herring off dead-center. This is the step we need to take to bring [Southwyck revitalization] to fruition. It is blight, and it has had a residual effect on all the surrounding area, residential and commercial,” Mr. Ludeman said."

...admitting that the true purpose is not because they need a road, but because they want to redevelop the property and the property owner isn't interested in doing what they want.

And then Ludeman mentions that dreaded term - blight. However, Mr. Ludeman might want to read last year's Ohio Supreme Court ruling in Norwood v. Hormey which said that communities should not be targeting buildings in good condition and whose owners were not property-tax delinquent and declaring them blight. The Supreme Court also said that communities cannot claim 'deterioration' of a property as a reason for a taking.

From the summary of the case:

"The use of the term “deteriorating area” as a standard for a taking is unconstitutional because the term inherently incorporates speculation as to the future condition of the property to be appropriated rather than the condition of the property at the time of the taking.

Courts must apply heightened scrutiny when reviewing statutes that regulate the use of eminent domain powers."

It's the last sentence which is going to come back to haunt Toledo politicians. Any heightened scrutiny of this eminent domain action will show that they never intended for a road to be built through the middle of this property, that they've been frustrated by the owners' lack of interest in selling or redeveloping the property, and that they've come up with a thinly-veiled excuse of a sudden 'public use' in order to justify their actions.

And the cost to the public for this will be enormous, considering the projected budget deficit for 2008 and the fact that we have a half-built bridge in the downtown which has no source of funding for completion of the work.

Further, the intangible costs associated with this idea are immeasurable. The anti-business message alone could be the final nail in the coffin for many. And the precedent this would set for residential property owners is scary. After all, if they can do this with a mall, what's to prevent them from deciding any neighborhood is ripe for re-development and, when you don't want to sell, they just decide to build a new road and then take your home via eminent domain?

There's a public hearing on this scheduled for Monday, Sept. 24, 2007, at 4 p.m. in city council chambers. Newly-elected president of council, Michael Ashford, indicates that council would like to see plans for the road - and an explanation as to why this recently-discovered 'need' for a road through the middle of the property is more of a priority than other roads in the area.

You need to show up to this hearing and tell city council that such takings are, in the mayor's favorite words, "just not right."

Random Thoughts

* Indian Governor Mitch Daniels recently refused to extend an executive order that had forced state employees to pay union dues. Once the dues became voluntary, 85% of the state work force stopped paying. Wonder what would happen in Ohio if any governor were to do the same???

* As an update to the pork-laden Transportation Bill, is this comment from talk show host Neal Boortz:

"Here's a government outrage. Your tax dollars are funding the transportation and housing bill, which is expected to be ripe with funding for new bridges and infrastructure. Wrong. How about increasing funding by $8 billion for a North Dakota peace garden, a Montana baseball stadium and a Las Vegas history museum.

"Are you getting it, folks? Spending more money on pork like this is not going to prevent incidents' like the Minneapolis bridge collapse. It will, however, buy votes. Government will always find other ways to spend your money. Face it...we've lost control of these people in Washington."

* The Associated Press is reporting that Justice Department is now competing with the Pentagon for ridiculous spending:

"An internal Justice audit, released Friday, showed the department spent nearly $7 million to plan, host or send employees to ten conferences over the last two years. This included paying $4 per meatball at one lavish dinner and spreading an average of $25 worth of snacks around to each participant at a movie-themed party.

"There was plenty, too, for those needing to satisfy a sweet tooth. More than $13,000 was spent on cookies and brownies for 1,542 people who attended a four-day 'Weed and Seed' conference in August 2005, according to the audit by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine. And a 'networking' session replete with butterfly shrimp, coconut lobster skewers and Swedish meatballs at a Community Oriented Policing Services conference in July 2006 cost more than $60,000."

It's the spending, stupid.

Pork versus Bridges

Chuck Muth (Citizen Outreach: The Blog), in his 'News & Views' brief, has been keeping track of Sen. Tom Coburn's anti-pork efforts in the Senate.

Coburn had proposed several amendments to the Transportation Bill currently being debated.

One amendment was designed to halt spending on earmarks until deficient roads and bridges are repaired.

It failed.

Another amendment would have eliminated federal spending on bike paths, arguing that federal transportation dollars shouldn't be spent on such local amenities before correcting deteriorating bridges.

It failed.

A third amendment would have removed three specific earmarks from the bill:

* $500,000 for a new baseball stadium in Montana,
* $450,000 for the International Peace Garden in North Dakota,
* $400,000 to construct a "Discovery Center" for tourists in Louisiana.

Now, certainly these are not transportation projects and really don't belong in a transportation bill, if they need federal funding at all.

It failed, too.

On the third amendment, 32 senators (31 R's and 1 D) voted to remove these specific projects - which means about 1/3 of the senate agreed that such projects don't belong in the transportation bill.

On the second amendment, only 18 senators (all R's) indicated that they believe bike paths aren't as important as infrastructure.

On the first amendment, Coburn got only 14 senators (12 R's and 2 D's) to support prioritizing deficient bridge and road repair over their own self interests of pork projects.

As Muth says: "The problem is spending. The problem is Congress. The problem is...how do you stop them?"

Southwyck Mall and Eminent Domain

Tonight, during my guest hosting stint for Eye on Toledo on NewsTalk 1370 WSPD, we discussed the pending Toledo city council resolution to begin eminent domain procedures against the two owners of the Southwyck Mall property.

During the discussion, I mentioned that the city's new plan for a road going through the middle of the property is their new, and thinly-veiled, "public use" excuse for a reason to exercise eminent domain. Further, I said that the plans shown to the public, so far, by Larry Dillin (who the city has picked to redevelop the property) don't show any such road.

The best photo of the planned road is available in this WTOL 11 story from August 30th: City Council Discusses Major Changes at Southwyck.

To see the drawings Larry Dillin has presented for his idea of how a re-developed Southwyck property would look, you can go to this link and view the site plan. (This is a large pdf file that may take a moment to download.) Other views of his plan are also available at his website, www.villageatsouthwyck.com

If you'd like to weigh in on the issue of eminent domain actions against the Southwyck property owners, Toledo City Council will have it on the agenda for their Environment, Utilities & Public Service Committee meeting on Monday, September 24th at 4 p.m. They'll also discuss the appropriation of $2.7 million from the Capital Improvements Budget for infrastructure improvements in and around Southwyck. This would be the time to make your opinions known!

Common Sense from Sen. Tom Coburn

"The 1981 transportation bill contained only 10 earmarks. President Reagan vetoed a transportation bill in 1987 that contained 121 earmarks, saying, 'I haven't seen this much lard since I handed out blue ribbons at the Iowa State Fair.' In 2005, Congress passed a transportation bill that included an astonishing 6,371 earmarks at a cost of $27.3 billion.

...

The American people understand that transportation earmarks often have more to do with a politician's re-election campaign than the true priorities of each state's department of transportation. While proponents of raising the gas tax are right that 'we can't have a bake sale for bridges,' we can have a pig roast. Spending less on pork will go a long way toward improving the safety of our roads and bridges. If Congress had directed the money we spent on pork in the 2005 highway bill to maintenance we could have repaired more than 30,000 structurally deficient bridges."

- Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, 9/7/07

On the radio!

Yes, I'm going to be guest hosting on NewsTalk 1370 WSPD again (kindof getting the hang of that phrase - it's all about branding, you know - lol).

I'll be doing Eye on Toledo on Tuesday and Wednesday, the 11th and 12th. We'll be talking about - yes - politics and the primary elections and results.

I'll also be on the following week, Tuesday through Thursday, Sept. 18-20.

I do hope you'll tune in, or listen live on-line, and join the conversation as we discuss the news of the day!

Quote of the Day

As I see many of the Founders' Quote Daily from The Patriot Post, I cannot help but be struck by how far we've come from our founders' intent.

"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow."

-- Alexander Hamilton and James Madison (Federalist No. 62, 1788)

Busy...busy...

I've been rather busy this past week and weekend as I worked on the committee for my 25th high school reunion - and then as we celebrated a friend's 36th wedding anniversary...so I've been a bit remiss in my postings.

Several thoughts while I work on a post about flood insurance and the new FEMA flood maps that are soon to come out...

* Rep. Paul Gillmor will be missed by many. Since part of his district included small portions of Lucas County, he and his office staff always kept me informed about issues and projects he was working on. Whenever he was in the area, he'd call to see if there was anything needing attention.

He was kind, diligent and very capable. He exuded intelligence, but in a quiet way. I'm reminded of the phrase, "still waters run deep." He was also funny with a very quick, dry wit.

He represented all his constituents well - balancing the various interests within his district. He wasn't one for big headlines, but he was certainly one for hard work. And he was consistently rewarded for his efforts by his re-elections.

My thoughts and prayers are with his family and his staff.

* I understand why elected officials always want to encourage people to 'buy local' but I can't help but be struck by the hypocrisy of the same people enacting laws and regulations that add to the prices of local products, making them less competitive in a global marketplace - necessitating the need for local preference legislation. But the headlines look good - at least for those not paying attention.

* GOP candidates are coming to Michigan! An October 9th debate at the Ford Community Performing Arts Center will be sponsored by CNBC and The Wall Street Journal. The two-hour debate will air live at 4 p.m. EDT on the cable channel and be rebroadcast on MSNBC at 9 p.m.

This is NOT business-friendly!

I awoke this morning to a discussion on WSPD 1370 AM about licensing and regulating convenience stores in Toledo. (click for Blade story or NBC 24 news story.)

There are 275 convenience and grocery stores in Toledo and, according to some people, many of these are nuisance businesses. "Nuisance" businesses? A job provider and someone who is offering needed products is now a nuisance?

In the paper, Beth Lewandowski, president of Lagrange Village Council, said, "...we have a glut of these predatory convenience stores."

Predatory convenience stores? Are they stalking neighborhoods, now?

And in the NBC24 story, she said, "They're not a grocery store. They're not serving what a grocery store should serve. They're just serving convenience. Chips and pop and things like that."

Um...duh...hence the name! And you're probably paying more for 'chips and pop and things like that' in such stores because you're paying for ...wait for it...the convenience.

The scary part of all this is that our City Council is actually considering making it more difficult for such business owners. And why, you might ask, would a city so desperate for business consider adding new restrictions and licensing fees? NBC24 has the answer:

"City council members say many of these stores are drawing thugs, gang members and drug dealers. They say controlling the number of these stores is a matter of public safety."

Ah, yes, the public safety factor. Because, you see, they sell small plastic bags and some - note some - people might use those bags to hold powered drugs. This public safety factor is invoked too many times as an excuse to expand government regulation and increase government coffers.

But in this case - as in many others (smoking or gun bans, anyone?) - they're focusing their efforts in the wrong place.

If convenience stores are not abiding by the rules, then remove their liquor licenses. Council has done this in the past and it works to penalize those who violate the law rather than everyone within a specific industry.

If people are loitering at such locations, arrest them or cite them for violating that law.

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.

Even Councilman Michael Ashford admits that these stores exist because there is a need for them:

"Ashford admits there's obviously a demand for these types of stores because otherwise they'd go out of business, but he's more concerned about the type of people they draw."

.

The "type of people they draw?" The people they draw are your residents and citizens. If people are doing illegal things, they're not going to stop because the local convenience store has been taxed and regulated out of business. And without another local employer, you'll have more unemployment...doesn't that lead to crime and deteriorating neighborhoods???? And I'm sure that a boarded up building in your neighborhood is a much more attractive spot for criminal activity than a successful business. Talk about a 'nuisance.'

If YOU don't want this type of store in your neighborhood, then open up the type of store you DO want. It's still a semi-free country.

However, this being Toledo, more regulation and taxes will probably be the outcome - along with less employers, fewer jobs, and a strongly negative message to other job providers who are already here or considering Toledo as a location.

And the issues of "crime, alcoholism, prostitution, drug use, and other unsavory elements" will still exist.

Proper planning for school construction

Why didn't our local school board and administration understand that building a new school today to meet the needs of 10 years from now might result in problems upon the opening of the school this year?

From today's Blade:

"You start the program with a crystal ball trying to predict what the population is going to be in eight or nine years when you finish," Mr. (Michael) Shoemaker said yesterday from his office in Columbus. "That's the case of [Keyser Elementary] where now you have too many kids going to the new school, and that's a problem throughout the state."

Didn't anyone understand that you design a building to meet population demands of today AND the future? Obviously not - otherwise, we wouldn't have brand new buildings that are overcrowded.

Why didn't they look at creative ways to construct buildings to accommodate today's school population with the ability to reduce or close off portions of the buildings as enrollment declines?

And, with all the promises and rosy outlooks being presented by our local elected officials, why are they building for declining enrollment and population anyway? Aren't all these wonderful economic development programs and 'marketing the good story about our TPS schools' supposed to increase population and enrollment?

It just boggles my mind.

Disregard for rules and procedures

Well, it's official. Toledo city council members did not follow the proper procedures in naming a new president of city council. (Story on the legal ruling is available from The Blade and background on the issue is available here and here.)

You see, there's actually a need to have a vacancy in the office of president of council before members can select someone new to fill the position. Which seems to make sense - you can't 'fill' a vacancy if none exists. And, according to the city charter and the law director, you have to remove the sitting president in order to create a vacancy.

But that little procedure was obviously too complicated for the partisan efforts to put a Democrat into the position, especially after the Democrat State Party Chairman came to town to lay down the law to "either elect a Democratic council president or stop bickering."

And to make things even more ridiculous, they didn't bother to swear in the new president prior to him accepting the gavel. If this is the type of leadership we can expect from the new 'working majority,' please go back to being divided before you do more harm.

However, I'm not surprised. My experience in office often showed that Democrats were fond of the idea that rules and procedures are things to be ignored or disregarded in the effort to 'accomplish good for the citizens.' Too often, the concept of the 'ends justifying the means' was paramount and anyone who raised procedural issues was an obstructionist.

As it stands today, it appears that Rob Ludeman is still the president and that council has some motions to make if they really want to have a new one. The question now is this: will the new "working majority" be able to keep their alliance together in order to cast 7 votes to remove Ludeman?

As this is Toledo - who knows?

Quote of the day

Considering the actions of Toledo and Lucas County officials, I thought this was rather pertinent.


MISPLACED PRIORITIES

"Rather than deal with the expensive and difficult task of retrofitting the sinews of commerce and communication -- bridges, tunnels, roads, rail lines, ports, sewers, and drainage systems -- America's urban powers focus on the ephemeral and the glitzy. They emphasize not brick and mortar, but sports stadia, convention centers, arts palaces, dubiously effective new light-rail lines, hotels and condo projects. "

- Wall Street Journal columnist Joel Kotkin

Of Carnivals and Reunions

I graduated from high school in 1982, so this week's Carnival of Ohio Politics, as it enters the 80's, really brought back memories - as well as some great blog posts. Scott was really creative in his '80s theme as he lists the various submissions. And whoever has Carnival duty next week is going to have fun trying to top this one.

Of course, I find this extremely appropriate this week because my 25th reunion is this weekend...and I've been going through songs and trivia from the early '80s as well.

Despite all the reunion planning, however, I'm certain that I'm not old enough to be going to a 25th year high school reunion...lol

Enjoy the Carnival!

Lucas County (anti) logic

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

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

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

From the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City Council "united" in the status quo

For all of Carty Finkbeiner's term as mayor, the A-Team Democrats on city council have been complaining that they're not involved in making decisions that impact the city. Everything from the budget to capital improvements, at least one of the A-Teamers has said they didn't get the information, or they weren't included in discussions, ... you name it.

However, the A/B-Teamers have suddenly found "unity" and they've managed to come together long enough for an outward showing of agreement. (You can read the details here and here.)

But along comes a major issue for the city - their antiquated financial computer system which prevents council members from knowing where the city stands in terms of spending. This has been a major complaint of many, to the point where the council authorized more than $100,000 for a consultant to develop a plan for taking bids on a new system.

Yesterday, city council's information services committee heard an hour-long presentation about the old system, four potential new systems and the estimated costs. Unfortunately, despite having a new 'working majority,' none of the A-Teamers were at the meeting.

According to today's Blade, neither Frank Szollosi and Mike Craig (members of the committee), nor their alternates, Michael Ashford (newly elected council president) and Joe McNamara, were at the presentation. Although all four of them managed to be at the Lucas County Democrat "unity event" that began about the same time that the committee meeting was ending.

And then comes this portion of the article:

"Mr. Ashford, the new council president, was not familiar with the software accounting issue but waved off the absence of A-team Democrats who now constitute what he has called a "working majority" of council.

"You can say we missed a lot, but it will come back to us. We'll have an opportunity to hear the finalized plans," Mr. Ashford said."

So, one of the two biggest complainers about lack of input into decisions now thinks it's not important to be informed ahead of time because he'll get to "hear the finalized plans."

And that's not even mentioning the fact that he said he 'was not familiar with the software accounting issue.' I'm sorry, but how can you NOT know about the fact that you can't get current financial data about city spending?

Anyway...I'm sure when the 'finalized plans' are presented, there will be the same political posturing about lack of involvement in the decision. But I'll remember who passed up the opportunity for early involvement in favor of a partisan 'unity' event. Will you?

Storm Photos

As yesterday's storm moved over Point Place and across Maumee Bay, we were outside taking pictures. Enjoy!

Why people leave Toledo - one man's story

I want to tell you about my friend, Mike.

Mike is an engineer. He's got a good technical job in a local manufacturing plant. He's married and the father of three terrific - but very energetic - boys. His wife, now that their kids are older, has gone back to school to become a nurse. Two of the boys attend a good TPS elementary school and they're happy with the education the boys are getting. The youngest can't wait to go to school with his brothers.

Mike and his wife are involved in the school and with Boy Scouts. In their free time, they race sailboats (which is how we know them). They're a good family - young professionals - the type of family Toledo needs.

But...

Mike told us the other day that they're looking to move out of Toledo. Not because of the schools - at least, not yet. Not because of a lack of job opportunities or because of an out-of-town job opportunity. Not even because of the taxes, although they're not happy about those.

No - Mike and his family are looking at leaving because of something so simple, yet so offensive, that they just can't get past it.

You see, they had a garage sale last weekend. They put their stuff on their driveway and in their yard, put up their signs and began that summer ritual of getting rid of things they no longer need. And, for this sale, that included an old van. They put the van on their grass, as the driveway was filled, and put a 'for sale' sign on it.

At some point on Saturday, a police office was looking at the van. They didn't think anything of it - except to hope that maybe he'd be interested enough to make an offer. However, when they went to move it after the sale was over, they found a ticket on the windshield.

Yes, a ticket. For parking the vehicle on the lawn. Because, according to Toledo Municipal Code 351.07(a)33, you cannot:

(33) Stand or park a vehicle upon any unpaved portion of a front lot or side lot in any residence district, or upon any unpaved portion of a vacant lot in any residence district, except as otherwise permitted under the local Zoning Ordinance, Part Eleven of the Toledo Municipal Code.

Now, Mike didn't know this. But the officer did and, instead of mentioning this law to Mike during the garage sale, he just issued the ticket.

So, it isn't a major issue, but it's the final straw. It's the thought that the police/city is more interested in the fines they can collect than in helping citizens to follow the law. It's the thought that, instead of just mentioning the law to Mike and asking him to move his van, the mindset is to ticket/fine someone.

And then there is the whole purpose of the law, which was to prevent 'junk' vehicles from cluttering up a neighborhood. Clearly, this was not case in this instance, as the van was only on the 'unpaved portion' during the daytime hours of the garage sale - along with other items for sale.

Mike did consider contesting the ticket...he's still not sure. But knowing Mike, he'll probably just pay it - and then move. And I can't help but wonder how many other young, professional families make the same decision when they come across the straw that broke the camel's back.

Is it possible that Toledo will learn from this? Some will, but those who really need the lesson - those ensconced in the Ivory Tower known as 1 Government Center - won't. And, as a result, people will continue to leave while those in power will continue to scratch their heads...

Fiscal Wake Up Tour

Another in the 'things I found en route to other destinations' ...

I came across The Concord Coalition, a nationwide, non-partisan, grassroots organization advocating generationally responsible fiscal policy. Their goal is to educate the public about the causes and consequences of federal budget deficits, the long-term challenges facing America's unsustainable entitlement programs, and how to build a sound economy for future generations.

Accordingly, they've started the "Fiscal Wake Up Tour" - featuring a series of public forums around the country designed to focus attention on the country's long-term fiscal challenges. The closest one to us will be December 6th at Michigan State University.

Speakers at their forums include representatives from such diverse ideological organizations as The Brookings Institution and The Heritage Foundation.

Good people on both sides of the political aisle can disagree about the best way to address such fiscal problems, but before we can have meaningful discussion about the solution, we must make sure that all of us understand the scope and impact of the problem. If we, the people, really want our elected representatives to address the tough issues, we must have an understanding of fiscal issues that we face today - and our children will face tomorrow.

Robert Bixby, Executive Director of The Concord Coalition, puts it this way:

An unprecedented demographic transformation is taking hold against the backdrop of steadily rising health care costs and steadily falling national savings. This is a dangerous combination for the future health of the economy. It may seem that there is no immediate crisis, yet according to a broad bipartisan consensus current fiscal policy is on an unsustainable path.

The baby boomers' imminent retirement is ushering in a permanent shift to an older population -- and a permanent rise in the cost of programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which already comprise 40 percent of the federal budget. There is no plan to pay for it all other than running up the national debt.

No one can say when a crisis will hit, but by the time it does the economy will likely be burdened with a debilitating amount of debt; leaving painful benefit cuts and steep tax increases as the only options. Doing nothing to avoid such a gut-wrenching outcome would be an act of fiscal and generational irresponsibility.

Since it looks like we're going to have another rainy weekend, you can use your time indoors to check out these two websites and read the information presented. And then share what you've learned with others, because ignoring the problem won't make it go away.

The 'rest of the story'...

Today's Blade has the 'behind the scenes' story of the change in council president and, as I said yesterday, it's all about politics - and not the city of Toledo.

According to the reporting today, Democrat Party State Chairman Chris Redfern did, indeed, meet with the Dems on council prior to their vote and

"emphasized that he and the governor wanted a strong Lucas County Democratic Party in place for the 2008 presidential election."

Strong - as in, in control in both numbers and appearance. So certainly, they can't have a Republican president of council when they hold a majority in that body - how could they explain that awkward situation to presidential campaigns?!?

And the paper also verifies that this is all about the appearance of unity.

“By having a working majority and opening up the lines of communication, we’ll decrease the amount of public disagreements that we have,” Mr. Ashford said.

There's that term, again...'working majority'...because now, since we're trying to give the appearance of unity, we're not going to disagree in public anymore...after all - there's too much at stake in 2008 for us to have public disagreements.

All sarcasm aside, what they're really saying is that they're still going to disagree, but because word has come down from 'on high' (or rather from south of here) we're going to look like we're all working together because our party's interests far outweigh the public's interests in this regard.

Personally, I like the public discourse. I've truly appreciated Frank Szollosi's (and his colleague's) position on the garbage tax that Carty and the Republicans supported. With this new "unity" I can't help but wonder if such policy disagreements will now be hidden behind closed doors until some deal is worked out and presented to the public. That would be very bad for Toledo, Toledoans and taxpayers - but it sure will be better for the Democrat Party, locally and statewide.

It's sad that the priorities of the political party have taken precedence, but living in Toledo, that's what we've come to expect. And the result of such misplaced priorities are all around us - declining population, loss of businesses, budget deficits - all because it's more important to do what the party wants than what the people want.

The story behind the story...

Today's Blade has the story of the change in Toledo City Council president from Republican Rob Ludeman to Democrat Michael Ashford. But here's the story behind the story....

Ludeman was elected president with the support of the Republicans and a couple of B-Team Democrats, as well as the support of Democrat Mayor Carty Finkbeiner. The A-Team/B-Team split in the Democrat Party has deep roots and is the source of much embarrassment to the local and state parties. The fact that the two teams couldn't come together to elect a president of council when they hold the majority became a major sticking point and a further indication of the extent of their differences.

"The 7-4 vote came after almost two weeks of public jockeying for the job among Democrats who were embarrassed that Democrats held an 8-4 majority, but that a Republican ran the agenda and appointed the committee chairmen."

Yes, embarrassment was the reason for the change - not that Rob was doing a poor job in the role. But the political need for a Dem president far outweighed the actual skills and performance of the person in the position.

"He (Ashford) said it made sense for council's majority party to be a "working majority," and that he would work with Mayor Carty Finkbeiner.

"My job is to work with the mayor to make the mayor successful on all his initiatives. At the same time, my job is to serve as a voice for the citizens," he said."

The Dems already had a working majority - they just couldn't get themselves to work toward the same goal...and the stickler was the A-Teamers (Ashford included) who routinely opposed the B-Teamer mayor. Some might say that this was because there were no Republicans to oppose - but that's another story for another day.

And now, those who've positioned themselves against the mayor now say that their job is to 'make the mayor successful on all his initiatives'???? They could have done this without the presidency of council, as Ludeman was actually doing a better job in this role than Ashford and his A-Team colleagues. But now all is rosy...

""To replace him for no reason whatsoever, with but four months left in his term, underscores the pettiness, bitter partisanship, and ongoing political gamesmanship of this council," the mayor said."

Yes, the mayor gets it right...this was more about partisanship and political power than it was about any policy or public need.

"The change in leadership will give the A-team Democrats more power to make a difference in city policy, said Mr. (Frank) Szollosi, who led the effort to overturn the GOP leadership.

"We wanted to move into a period of greater cooperation and respect," Mr. Szollosi said."

Now, how 'having the presidency' will move them toward greater cooperation and respect is beyond me - especially considering than the leading spokesman against that mayor has been Szollosi, sometimes rightly so.

Szollosi opposed certain taxes and spending, gaining much support from both Republican and Democrat voters. But he never missed an opportunity to slam the mayor and others opposed to his own positions. If there was a true interest in moving toward greater cooperation and respect, it certainly didn't take a change in the council president to do so. This 'excuse' is a smokescreen for the real reason - that it embarrassed the Dems locally and state-wide for them to have a majority on council with a Republican as president.

Considering the past disagreements between the A/B teams, I'm sure some of the seven who voted for Ashford had to be persuaded. Lisa Renee at Glass City Jungle (who reported the story before the local media outlets - congrats!) wrote that State Party Chairman Chris Redfern met with the Dems yesterday morning before their council meeting. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall in that room!

But that raises all kinds of questions - like why a state party chairman is meddling in our local city council presidency in the first place. Especially when it's extremely obvious that this vote to elect Ashford was more about Democrat Party unity (or the appearance of such) than it was about what is good for the city...and even more so when you remember that city council is a non-partisan office and race!

But, image is more important than substance these days. And the story behind the story is that now the Dems can brag that they've 'defeated' the Republicans and are 'standing together.' However, as I've said in the past, those A-Team/B-Team wounds are very deep and not likely to be healed by a thinly-veiled show of unity.

The sad part is that even Ashford, in his morning interview on WSPD, couldn't give a valid reason for why this change needed to take place. He tried to make the point that it was about 'policy' but his meager response to the question only demonstrated that the real reason is politics - he just couldn't say it honestly without looking even more foolish than he - and his cohorts - already look.

And that's the story behind the story...

What would the founders think?

From The Patriot Post:

Founders' Quote Daily

"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure."

-- Thomas Jefferson (letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823)

Can't help but wonder what our founders, and particularly Jefferson, would say about our tax code - or any other laws that are passed these days...

Don't need no education - I got gummit

In catching up with several of my favorite bloggers, as well as the news, I came across an interesting article linked by Brian at One Oar in the Water. This article on "Infantile America," coupled with a proposed law on land contracts, got me thinking about the lack of knowledge and understanding needed to be independent AND responsible members of society.

The article postulates that, today, many believe "it is their right to indulge to any extent and rely upon the Federal government to bail them out." The newly proposed law carries the 'bail out' to another extreme, requiring inspections and 'minimum levels of habitability' and fines if such conditions are not met. It's described as 'consumer protection,' conveniently forgetting that some people choose to buy a less-than-habitable home and fix it up, using their own sweat to build equity.

What society seems to be saying is that I don't need to have the ability to take care of myself because the 'gummit' will do it for me. We've seen this mentality for years in the old welfare system: I don't need to understand that having a child is expensive and that I should be able to support said child before engaging in actions designed to produce offspring. After all - if I have a kid I can't support, I can turn to the 'gummit' for pre-natal care, food, cribs, you name it...

With terms like sub-prime lending, adjustable rate mortgages, interest-only loans and predatory lending, I no longer need to have the finances to own a home. I can buy a house I can't afford, pay interest only - or a low adjustable rate - and not have to worry if interest rates go up or if I have a balloon payment due sometime in the future. And if I get into trouble with this kind of financing, I'll just turn to the 'gummit' to make me whole.

And I don't need to read the fine print and understand what it means - the 'gummit' will just make more laws to protect me from my ignorance. I don't need to understand budgeting - the 'gummit' will bail me out by giving me subsidies for my car, my gas, my home if I can't afford it on my own.

With this new law, I don't need to be responsible for inspecting any home I'm about to buy - the 'gummit' will just create a law for those 'evil predators' who are going to take advantage of my stupidity.

And in all of this, it won't be my fault for any failure or shortcoming - I'm a victim of others. Caveat emptor? Is that some kind of foreign language?

Sadly, the skills that are necessary for successful survival in today's world seem to be lacking in so many. And our 'gummit' seems all too ready to step in and 'provide' or solve all the problems. Those of us who scrimp and save to be able to afford minor luxuries - or even necessities - are finding that others who don't have the knowledge or the willpower are benefiting at our expense. Remember - any 'gummit' bailout of the sub-prime industry means that you and I are paying for those mortgages - in addition to our own. Eventually, some will wonder why they bother, figuring that if others can be irresponsible, they can too.

And then those of us "with" will be criticized as being greedy, selfish, or worse, for not wanting to "help" our fellow man...because certainly we should sacrifice our wants and needs for those who don't share our values of thrift, savings, budgeting or planning.

The solution to this problem is not 'gummit.' It's education and individual responsibility. Education so that individuals can understand the complicated dealings and contracts - or know enough to know what they don't know and hire someone who can help. Individual responsibility so that if they make a bad decision, they accept the consequences and don't expect to place blame anywhere other than upon themselves - "fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice, shame on me."

And therein lies the problem. If we're smart, or educated, enough to take care of ourselves - and we're able to assume responsibility for our own actions - what will all those 'gummit' officials do? They won't have anyone to take care of...and their campaign promises will fall on deaf ears. We can't have that, now can we?

They need dependency upon government, so they can promise more programs and services, creating more dependency, resulting in the need for more programs and services. It's a vicious and never-ending cycle, counting on the ignorance of the masses for perpetuation.

John Adams said, "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people..." But Lord Acton said, "Liberty is the prevention of control by others. This requires self-control and, therefore, religious and spiritual influences; education, knowledge, well-being."

As 'gummit' continues to expand their benevolence toward us, I can't help but wonder if we're headed in the wrong direction.

Quotes of the day

If the rain spoils our picnic, but saves a farmer's crop, who are we to say it shouldn't rain?
~ Tom Barrett

The best thing one can do when it's raining is to let it rain.
~ Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Welcome to the Carnival!

The Carnival of Ohio Politics, #78, is up and a special welcome to fellow NWO blogger, Roland Hansen, who has his first entry this week!

Cruise over for a good look at what's hot in Ohio Politics.

Eminent Domain?

From The Patriot Post:

Founders' Quote Daily

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If `Thou shalt not covet' and `Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."

-- John Adams (A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787)

I thought this quote particularly timely in light of Toledo Mayor Carty Finkbeiner's comments in this Blade article.

For years, politicians have been promising to do something about the failing Southwyck Mall - despite the fact that the owners of the mall have expressed little or no interest in doing so. Upon Finkbeiner's election, he brought in local developer Larry Dillin and, together, they've made numerous announcements about renovations, redevelopment, etc. However, neither the city nor Dillin have any ownership in the property.

"Plans to redevelop the aging Southwyck mall as a mixed-use Village at Southwyck have been stuck in park with the refusal of mall part-owner Bill Dillard to either sell his share or join a redevelopment effort with Perrysburg real-estate developer Larry Dillin.

Mr. Finkbeiner said the possibility of using the city's eminent domain power to take control of the mall has not been ruled out. He said he intends to give the current owners 30 days to consider Mr. Dillin's proposal before taking any action."

I realize that the U.S. Supreme Court has said that a community may take private property from one owner and transfer it to another private owner if the benefit to the community is greater. However the Ohio Supreme Court, in a 2006 unanimous decision, ruled:

"Although economic factors may be considered in determining whether private property may be appropriated, the fact that the appropriation would provide an economic benefit to the government and community, standing alone, does not justify the taking of the property under a provision of the Ohio Constitution that requires eminent domain be for “public-use” (Section 19, Article I)."

The area doesn't currently qualify as blighted. And if the city wants to say that the area is 'deteriorating' in order to justify the taking, the Supreme Court weighed in with this:

"The use of the term “deteriorating area” as a standard for a taking is unconstitutional because the term inherently incorporates speculation as to the future condition of the property to be appropriated rather than the condition of the property at the time of the taking."

Carty's used to ignoring the laws (see story on 'Prior Restraint?') but this time he's not dealing with a bunch of college students. He's dealing with a national corporation with the resources to defend what is rightfully theirs and not be intimidated by the political posturing of a local city mayor.

Aside from the terrible message this action sends to business owners in Toledo (if we don't like what you're doing with your company, we'll turn it over to someone who we think has a 'better' idea), I don't believe that Carty can legally force the owners to kowtow to his wishes. And what happens if and when the Southwyck Mall owners say 'no thanks' to Dillin's offer? Will Carty, ever the one to fight defiance of his ideas, invest city resources to take them to court?

Because of the shaky legal footing regarding eminent domain, setting a 30-day deadline to 'finish negotiations' places Carty and the city in the wrong position. However, this appears to be what we've come to expect from our mayor.

More Police? How statistics can say what you want them to

It's that silly season, when candidates try to out-do each other in promises and ideas. But many of them, as is usual, are calling for more police.

In today's Blade, the Mayor "scolded" those who say we need more police officers in Toledo.

"Mr. Finkbeiner suggested some media and some political candidates overemphasize crime. "Every wannabe politician is out there waving the flag, easy flag to wave, 'We need more police,'" Mr. Finkbeiner said."

Never mind the fact that Carty Finkbeiner did the same thing when he was a candidate for mayor, calling for a force of 700 sworn officers within 16 months of taking office...another case of 'do as I say - not as I do'?

What I found interesting was this quote: "...the mayor said reported crime in Toledo for the first four months of 2007 was down by 14.4 percent compared to the same period last year..." - the key being reported crime. Of course, the reporter points out further down in the story that reported crimes against persons and property as of April 30th was actually up by 1,164 over 2006, which means that other crimes must have been down in order to give the 14.4% figure the mayor quoted.

But I go back to that key word - reported. There have been many stories and complaints that, for minor crimes, police are not responding to the scene, but are asking citizens to come into a precinct to file a report. Unfortunately, I fear that many, when faced with being told to 'come down and file a report' will perceive the effort to be futile and not bother.

Since we only know of the reports that are actually filed, we really don't have a good handle on the amount of crime that is occurring. We don't know if the number of people who fail to file a report is large or small, nor the impact that number would have on our crime statistics.

Since this reporting policy has been in place for a number of years, the crime statistics should at least be comparable year to year. But if we made it easier for people to report crimes - or had enough officers to actually respond when a crime is discovered - I can't help but wonder what our crime statistics would be...and whether or not citizens would think we need more police, no matter what the mayor says.

Prior Restraint?

According to this article, "Park shut down by mayor to thwart rally," in today's Blade, Mayor Carty Finkbeiner ordered a local park to be closed to prevent a group of 8-10 people from holding a rally. The article says the "police received word of a rally with potential for confrontation...."

Potential... no actual confrontation or other inappropriate behavior...

Has the mayor ever heard the term "freedom of assembly" and does anyone think he consulted with his law department before taking such action?

For more blogging on this topic, please visit Hooda Thunkit, History Mike, Glass City Jungle, Jay Ott's Questions and Toledo Talk.

Tax on 3000 sq.ft. homes?

Did anyone else hear about Rep. John Dingell's (D-Dearborn) brilliant idea to remove the mortgage tax deduction for people who own homes larger than 3,000 square feet?

According to this press release, Dingell plans to introduce such legislation on September 1.

NOVI, Mich., Aug. 8 /PRNewswire/ -- Longtime builders of country estates in Oakland County say U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Dearborn, is ill informed and misguided in his call to eliminate mortgage tax deductions on homes larger than 3,000 square feet.

At an August 7th town hall meeting in Ann Arbor, in an effort to combat global warming, Dingell called for a 50-cents-a-gallon tax on gasoline and elimination of mortgage tax deductions on what he called "McMansions." Dingell plans to introduce the measures September 1.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find any reference in Census Bureau data to say how many homes in Lucas County this might impact. In 1973, the average square footage of a new home in the Midwest was 1,615 sq. ft. By 2006, it had increased to 2,290 sq. ft. According to the National Association of Home Builders, the size of the average home has increased over the past 35 years - but is expected to be between 2,300-2,500 by 2015 as baby boomers look for smaller homes, but with different styles.

The Association predicts the elmination of living rooms in favor of larger dens, kitchens and baths...higher ceilings and accessibility are also among the growing trends.

But the backlash against larger homes is not new. According to this article from MSN Real Estate, "more governments have started imposing stricter building limits and even temporarily halted new construction while they try to get a handle on the explosion of these 4,000- to-10,000-square-foot homes, sometimes sneeringly called "garage mahals," "Hummer houses" or "starter castles.""

As someone who lives in a 3,130 sq.ft. home, I can tell you that bigger is not always better. But, we didn't pick the house, built in the 1950's, because of it's size - in fact, the size was a considerable 'con' in our evaluation. We picked it because of it's location and view - sacrificing our desire for a right-sized home for our needs in favor of the location and our expansive view of the Maumee Bay and Lake Erie.

However, what's right for me and my family might not be right for others. I believe that the market demands will make many of these "McMansions" undesireable in the future - and the housing market is certainly quick to respond to market demands. I don't see the need for government to try and influence the market by means of taxation.

Further, I resent the government trying to tax things it believes may contribute to global warming. Aside from the fact that it is still a matter of contention whether or not humans have anything more than a minor influence on the global temperature of the earth (versus the normal heating and cooling cycles of the planet along with the impact of solar cycles and sunspots), such a taxation theory will do little to impact the temperatures while giving the government more money to spend (they certainly don't save it, after all!)

If, however, you are one who believes in such a process, I'd have to ask - isn't it better to offer tax INCENTIVES for doing something else, rather than tax DIS-incentives to try and stop the natural desire people have for more space? (It seems to be working for ethanol production.)

I'm interested in your thoughts on this...