From the Regional Growth Partnership:
Northwest Ohio received more positive news recently when it was learned that two local apprentices won a national competition, recognizing them as the best in their fields.
Both apprentices, John Johnson and Andrew Kennedy, came through the Mechanical Contractor’s Association of Northwestern Ohio training program. They both won local and regional competitions before winning national titles – one in HVAC and the other in plumbing. For perspective, there are some 39,000 apprentices in the United States, and our region has two of the best in their respective specialties.
There will be an awards program recognizing the two winners on Monday, October 15th, that will include representatives from the Ohio Attorney General’s Office as well as state workforce development.
Congrats John and Andrew!!! What great representatives you are!
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Begging for $40,000 for LivCom????
Well, the mayor held his press conference yesterday announcing his plea for donations for the LivCom award (more background here)
I wasn't able to attend the event, but today's Blade has some of the details I was hoping for - specifically, how much the Carty wants to raise...and the number is staggering: $40,000.
Okay - why in the world do we need to send 15-20 people to this thing when only three people are allowed to make the presentation? Do we think that sheer numbers will impress? And what are 15-20 people going to do for three days in London, other than have a nice vacation paid for by donations?
I'm very glad that Carty is paying the costs of his, and Amy's, trip. But I question $10,000 for a 12-minute video. With today's technology, does it really cost $10,000 to get a good video? And who will be in charge of shooting the video and determining what gets included? Will one of Carty's contributors get this 'plum' of a contract?
Does Toledo - or one of the numerous economic development organizations - already have a video that highlights the livability of the city? Could such a video be used or modified for less than $10,000? And if we don't, would that be a prudent use of operational costs that one, or all, of our economic development entities could pay?
Or does Carty think that 1) such a video wouldn't be specifically tied to the application and 2) that 'having the community support' might impress the judges and lead to a win? I know, I know...there I go asking all those pesky questions again.
Duh - that's because the award is based upon such criteria ... we'd look pretty stupid if we applied for an award and then emphasized things not included in the criteria...
And then there were these two comments:
First, I live in Toledo and I think there are many positive aspects of living here - and I wouldn't stay if I didn't believe that. But I'm not blind to the negatives nor do I dismiss those who point out the negatives with the hope of eliminating them or changing them into positives.
I'm also not delusional enough to think that having some 'award' will mean the difference between whether or not a company chooses to locate here. Having a 'liveable city' designation might get us a visit instead of another city - all things being equal, but when the glowing comments and awards are balanced by an actual visit, reality sets in. We can have tons of flowers (to pick a favorite topic) along the entryways to the city, but if you lose a tire because of the pot holes, those flowers don't mean much.
Likewise, winning such an award won't tell Toledoans anything when they, too, balance the "style" with the lack of "substance" on our infrastructure and basic services. Carty even took a swipe at those of us who questioned the spending on such style issues, failing to recognize that it wasn't the flowers per se, but the spending on a 'luxury' while the 'necessities' are lacking.
Sadly, Carty loves these kinds of things. He loves awards and titles...and usually there wouldn't be anything wrong with that. But when the awards and titles and 'appearances' come before the core services and infrastructure, something is wrong with his priorities.
I wasn't able to attend the event, but today's Blade has some of the details I was hoping for - specifically, how much the Carty wants to raise...and the number is staggering: $40,000.
"Dr. Richard Ruppert, who will lead the fund drive, said the goal is to send 15 to 20 people, at about $2,000 each. "That would be my guess," he said.
He said the fund drive would pay for those who can't pay their own way."
Okay - why in the world do we need to send 15-20 people to this thing when only three people are allowed to make the presentation? Do we think that sheer numbers will impress? And what are 15-20 people going to do for three days in London, other than have a nice vacation paid for by donations?
"Mr. Finkbeiner said he would pay for travel and accommodations for himself and his wife, Amy. He vowed that no city funds would be used in the process, including in preparing the presentation.
"We'd like to take a good, strong delegation," he said. He said some funds, about $10,000, will be needed to pay for a 12-minute video presentation."
I'm very glad that Carty is paying the costs of his, and Amy's, trip. But I question $10,000 for a 12-minute video. With today's technology, does it really cost $10,000 to get a good video? And who will be in charge of shooting the video and determining what gets included? Will one of Carty's contributors get this 'plum' of a contract?
Does Toledo - or one of the numerous economic development organizations - already have a video that highlights the livability of the city? Could such a video be used or modified for less than $10,000? And if we don't, would that be a prudent use of operational costs that one, or all, of our economic development entities could pay?
Or does Carty think that 1) such a video wouldn't be specifically tied to the application and 2) that 'having the community support' might impress the judges and lead to a win? I know, I know...there I go asking all those pesky questions again.
"Toledo's application essay for the liveable city award covered a series of topics, such as enhancement of the landscape, heritage management, environmentally sensitive practices, community sustainability, healthy lifestyles, and planning for the future."
Duh - that's because the award is based upon such criteria ... we'd look pretty stupid if we applied for an award and then emphasized things not included in the criteria...
And then there were these two comments:
"The mayor said a liveability award carries weight when companies decide where to locate because of the importance of quality of life to their employees."
"City Councilman Mark Sobczak said, "The recognition tells Toledoans we are on the right track.""
First, I live in Toledo and I think there are many positive aspects of living here - and I wouldn't stay if I didn't believe that. But I'm not blind to the negatives nor do I dismiss those who point out the negatives with the hope of eliminating them or changing them into positives.
I'm also not delusional enough to think that having some 'award' will mean the difference between whether or not a company chooses to locate here. Having a 'liveable city' designation might get us a visit instead of another city - all things being equal, but when the glowing comments and awards are balanced by an actual visit, reality sets in. We can have tons of flowers (to pick a favorite topic) along the entryways to the city, but if you lose a tire because of the pot holes, those flowers don't mean much.
Likewise, winning such an award won't tell Toledoans anything when they, too, balance the "style" with the lack of "substance" on our infrastructure and basic services. Carty even took a swipe at those of us who questioned the spending on such style issues, failing to recognize that it wasn't the flowers per se, but the spending on a 'luxury' while the 'necessities' are lacking.
Sadly, Carty loves these kinds of things. He loves awards and titles...and usually there wouldn't be anything wrong with that. But when the awards and titles and 'appearances' come before the core services and infrastructure, something is wrong with his priorities.
Quote of the Day
How right he was:
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, not longer susceptible of any definition."
-- Thomas Jefferson (Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National
Bank, 15 February 1791)
From The Patriot Post
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, not longer susceptible of any definition."
-- Thomas Jefferson (Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National
Bank, 15 February 1791)
From The Patriot Post
Monday, October 08, 2007
5th Congressional race is hotter than today is!
Fellow SOBer Scott Pullins has posted on his blog the elections complaint that he, as the elections attorney for the Latta for Congress campaign, has filed against Steve Beuhrer and the Club for Growth PAC over statements contained in the Club for Growth endorsement.
Additional info, including link to the complaint, is available here.
Additional info, including link to the complaint, is available here.
Two tidbits from Cato Institute
The first one is particularly interesting to me because a while back I got an email from the ORP about what the priorities for the upcoming state legislature should be and 'de-regulation' was one of the options.
And then there was this one, particularly interesting considering the upcoming political discussion on SCHIP:
Whatever your position on the current legislation, I think the whole issue of the Federal government doing this - especially when it's called STATE Children's Health Insurance Plan - just adds more to the bureaucracy, and that's money which could be spent, instead, on direct services.
Market Fix Rests on Bright Ideas
"Texas power rates have increased 56 percent since 2000, and the state's electricity is among the most expensive in the country despite promises prices would go down when the state opened electric power to competition," reports The Houston Chronicle. "Many in the industry say the market is working, particularly for customers willing to shop for the best rates. Two of the state's top three political leaders, House Speaker Tom Craddick and Gov. Rick Perry, share that view."
In "Short-Circuited," Jerry Taylor, Cato senior fellow, and Peter Van Doren, editor of Cato's regulation magazine, write:
"After a pretty good 30-year run, deregulation is on the political ropes. Although loosening the shackles on banking, trucking and airlines delivered lower prices, robust competition and political applause, it hasn't worked for electricity. ... So did free market reformers take deregulation too far? Yes and no. Yes, because they promised rate reductions they had no business promising. No, because deregulation of some parts of the system was offset by more ambitious regulations elsewhere. The end result is even more economically artificial than the one we started with. ... True deregulation involves allowing market actors to run their businesses in whatever manner they like, price what the market will bear, and discover for themselves how best to deliver goods and services without government influencing those decisions with carrots and sticks. The faux deregulation we have in the electricity market unfortunately falls short on most of those counts. And that -- rather than the rate increases -- is the real problem."
And then there was this one, particularly interesting considering the upcoming political discussion on SCHIP:
Democrats See Wedge Issue in Health Bill
"Representative John R. Kuhl Jr. of New York received just his second telephone call ever from his state's Democratic governor, Eliot Spitzer, last week and was not surprised at the topic: children's health insurance," reports The New York Times. "'He said, 'I am calling you to come over to the dark side,' 'said Mr. Kuhl, who was urged by the governor to drop his opposition to health care legislation and join the effort to override President Bush's veto of the bill. Mr. Kuhl, a Republican who narrowly survived the Democratic sweep of 2006, said he was unlikely to budge. As a result, voters in his district will also be getting calls -- from Democrats and advocacy groups who are planning a telephone, radio, television and even text-message barrage against Republicans over what is shaping up as a defining domestic policy issue of the 2008 campaign."
In "Sink this SCHIP," Michael F. Cannon, director of Cato's health-policy studies and co-author of Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It, writes:
"SCHIP is senseless. Like its much larger sibling, Medicaid ... both programs force taxpayers to subsidize people who don't need help, discourage low-income families from climbing the economic ladder - and make private insurance more expensive for everyone else. ... All told, SCHIP is a very costly way of helping targeted families obtain health coverage...Some will complain that scrapping SCHIP would leave dependent families in the lurch. As a transitional step, Congress could convert federal Medicaid and SCHIP funding into a smaller, lump-sum payment to each state. That would serve as a halfway point toward eliminating these payments and simultaneously cutting taxes. States that want to maintain their current spending levels could raise the tax revenue themselves."
Whatever your position on the current legislation, I think the whole issue of the Federal government doing this - especially when it's called STATE Children's Health Insurance Plan - just adds more to the bureaucracy, and that's money which could be spent, instead, on direct services.
Toledo Mayor begging for money
Today Toledo Mayor Carty Finkbeiner is scheduled to hold a press conference today to beg for money for the LivCom awards (Blade story here and previous blog post here.)
Now, it doesn't say how much he's trying to raise other than "thousands of dollars to send a presentation team to London from Nov. 22 to 26."
In a quick check, I found a round-trip ticket for $733. Figure three nights in a hotel at around $500 (including taxes, etc...) with each person covering their own meals, and it shouldn't cost too much.
Oh - yeah - the rules of LivCom say that only THREE (3) people can make the presentation...
... so there's no need for more than three to go...unless they want to AND will pay their own way - not expect the community, through donations, to foot the bill.
On one hand, I'm very glad that Carty is not expecting to pay for this with tax dollars. On the other hand, I'm wondering about what this award really means. In 2004, Honolulu won this award for cities their size. While their presentation was good, it didn't tell the whole story. This article does. I was particularly struck by the last paragraph and the similarity to Toledo. What do you think?
UPDATE: Some other bloggers who are covering this subject include Uncommon Squalor and Chad Quigley's WannaBeMayor. Then there is Hooda_Thunkit's post which, while not mentioning LivCom, details many of the infrastructure concerns versus the 'appearance' of the city.
Also, there are other U.S. cities who also made the finalist list, contrary to Carty's comments. They're just in other 'size' categories.
Now, it doesn't say how much he's trying to raise other than "thousands of dollars to send a presentation team to London from Nov. 22 to 26."
In a quick check, I found a round-trip ticket for $733. Figure three nights in a hotel at around $500 (including taxes, etc...) with each person covering their own meals, and it shouldn't cost too much.
Oh - yeah - the rules of LivCom say that only THREE (3) people can make the presentation...
4. Final Presentations: If, following the Interim Judging process, your community is selected as a Finalist in The LivCom Awards, there are some key points to bear in mind:
• A maximum of three representatives from your community will be able to make the Presentation, plus an interpreter if required.
• Presentations must be made in English.
• Presentations must not exceed 40 minutes and may include a digital video disk (dvd), also in English, of no longer than 12 minutes duration. Appropriate equipment will be provided.
... so there's no need for more than three to go...unless they want to AND will pay their own way - not expect the community, through donations, to foot the bill.
On one hand, I'm very glad that Carty is not expecting to pay for this with tax dollars. On the other hand, I'm wondering about what this award really means. In 2004, Honolulu won this award for cities their size. While their presentation was good, it didn't tell the whole story. This article does. I was particularly struck by the last paragraph and the similarity to Toledo. What do you think?
UPDATE: Some other bloggers who are covering this subject include Uncommon Squalor and Chad Quigley's WannaBeMayor. Then there is Hooda_Thunkit's post which, while not mentioning LivCom, details many of the infrastructure concerns versus the 'appearance' of the city.
Also, there are other U.S. cities who also made the finalist list, contrary to Carty's comments. They're just in other 'size' categories.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
UT Homecoming and Chuck Ealey
The University of Toledo's Homecoming this year will probably go down as one of the warmest ever. It was a beautiful day, if hot, and the crowds were terrific.
As a proud graduate from UT's College of Arts & Sciences, Department of Communication, I was particularly looking forward to seeing their new studio in Rocket Hall. And I was not disappointed. During the Communication event, Department Chairman, Dr. Benjamin and new Dean of A&S, Dr. Lee gave brief remarks and then introduced guest speaker Michael Miller, editor-in-chief of the Toledo Free Press and fellow graduate (pictured left to right, standing in front of one studio set). It was nice to see several of my favorite professors and talk with both alum and students.
Then it was off to the parade...
Not being a 'dignitary' anymore, I was originally a bit sad about not being in the parade - until the Alumni Office sent out a request for convertibles and drivers. So I volunteered our 1970 Ford Galaxie XL - a 'survivor' with everything original - and bigger than Chevy Suburban.
Imagine my surprise and excitement to discover my 'dignitary' was Chuck Ealey and his wife, Sherri! Chuck, class of '71, was this year's Blue "T" Award winner. But he's better known for still holding the record for longest undefeated record as a college quarterback, going 35-0 from 1969-71 when he was at UT. He also won three consecutive Orange Bowls those years, with his 35th victory a defeat of Lou Holtz's William & Mary team by a score of 40-12. He was a 3-time MAC player of the year and was inducted into the MAC Hall of Fame.
However deserving, because of a quirk in the rules, he is not currently in the College Football Hall of Fame. But many fans, friends and alumni are working to change that. Please visit www.inductchuck.com and sign the petition to help him get this well-earned honor.
And then it was on to the game...
Which we won!!! It was a good game with suspense (not so good) to the end, made better, obviously, by the 35-34 final score. Congrats to Jalen Parmele for his 169 yards in 30 carries and his four touchdowns - three runs and pass!
All in all, a good day at The University of Toledo 2007 Homecoming.
As a proud graduate from UT's College of Arts & Sciences, Department of Communication, I was particularly looking forward to seeing their new studio in Rocket Hall. And I was not disappointed. During the Communication event, Department Chairman, Dr. Benjamin and new Dean of A&S, Dr. Lee gave brief remarks and then introduced guest speaker Michael Miller, editor-in-chief of the Toledo Free Press and fellow graduate (pictured left to right, standing in front of one studio set). It was nice to see several of my favorite professors and talk with both alum and students.Then it was off to the parade...
Not being a 'dignitary' anymore, I was originally a bit sad about not being in the parade - until the Alumni Office sent out a request for convertibles and drivers. So I volunteered our 1970 Ford Galaxie XL - a 'survivor' with everything original - and bigger than Chevy Suburban.
Imagine my surprise and excitement to discover my 'dignitary' was Chuck Ealey and his wife, Sherri! Chuck, class of '71, was this year's Blue "T" Award winner. But he's better known for still holding the record for longest undefeated record as a college quarterback, going 35-0 from 1969-71 when he was at UT. He also won three consecutive Orange Bowls those years, with his 35th victory a defeat of Lou Holtz's William & Mary team by a score of 40-12. He was a 3-time MAC player of the year and was inducted into the MAC Hall of Fame.However deserving, because of a quirk in the rules, he is not currently in the College Football Hall of Fame. But many fans, friends and alumni are working to change that. Please visit www.inductchuck.com and sign the petition to help him get this well-earned honor.
And then it was on to the game...
Which we won!!! It was a good game with suspense (not so good) to the end, made better, obviously, by the 35-34 final score. Congrats to Jalen Parmele for his 169 yards in 30 carries and his four touchdowns - three runs and pass!
All in all, a good day at The University of Toledo 2007 Homecoming.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Same story - two perspectives
Thursday, Eye on the Statehouse had an entry about Attorney General Marc Dann's 'scramble' to respond to an Associated Press public records request regarding contributions to his campaign from lawyers who have contracts with his office. (Link on their website to the article no longer works so the article is reprinted below.)
And then today, The Blade had this article about the subject, taking a local angle approach to the reporting. Both stories mention the same Sandusky attorney.
What struck me was the difference between these two articles and the impression I was left with after reading each of them.
I'm curious and so my questions to you:
1) What is your impression after reading both of the stories?
2) Did reading these two stories bring you to different conclusions about the AG's office?
3) Do you see bias - or spin - in either, or both, of them?
Please let me know.
And then today, The Blade had this article about the subject, taking a local angle approach to the reporting. Both stories mention the same Sandusky attorney.
What struck me was the difference between these two articles and the impression I was left with after reading each of them.
I'm curious and so my questions to you:
1) What is your impression after reading both of the stories?
2) Did reading these two stories bring you to different conclusions about the AG's office?
3) Do you see bias - or spin - in either, or both, of them?
Please let me know.
Lawyers' paperwork on limiting campaign contributions arrives late
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Julie Carr Smyth
Associated Press
Columbus- Well over half the lawyers required to limit their campaign contributions to Attorney General Marc Dann in order to qualify for state work didn't fill out the required paperwork until this month, long after the office began doling out contracts, according to a review by The Associated Press.
The cap on donations to Dann, the state's top lawyer, stemmed from a law he championed as a state senator and later used as a centerpiece of his 2006 campaign that sought to curb the role of donations in the awarding of state contracts.
Fifty of the affidavits by outside lawyers who have landed state legal work came in on a single day, Sept. 12, after Dann's office faced scrutiny from lawmakers over two of the contracts. Twenty-nine others were submitted after a records request was made by The Associated Press, many bearing the marks of fax machines from around the country.
Ben Espy, an executive attorney general who oversees outside legal contracts for Dann, conceded that the office went out and collected the affidavits after public interest arose.
"The agreement they must sign advising them of the rules for outside counsel contains everything that's in the affidavit. So there is some overlap there," Espy said. "But after we got these requests we just decided we should have them on file."
Altogether, 126 of the 194 affidavits clearing attorneys to do special-counsel work were filed in September, and 97 came over five days surrounding the most recent meeting of the contract-approving State Controlling Board, documents show. A staff member for the board had also requested copies of the affidavits, said Dann spokeswoman Michelle Gatchell.
In the affidavit, a lawyer agrees that no legal partner, spouse or child of the firm will give more than $1,000 to the Dann for Ohio campaign over two years. Beginning Jan. 1, all those firm associates plus their political action committees will be limited to $2,000 collectively over two years.
In at least three cases, lawyers signing the affidavit made changes. Kevin Zuheir of Erie County inserted a parenthetical statement in bold: "On November 1, 2006 I donated a total of $2,500.00 to Dann for Ohio in my name and in the name of my spouse, Cathy Grespin Zeiher."
Another lawyer, Richard J. Erickson of Frost, Brown & Todd in Cincinnati crossed out the phrase "within the two previous calendar years."
The contract of a third law firm, Beveridge & Diamond, was put on hold by the Controlling Board because it had crossed out a section of its contract.
Problem corrected...
My apologies to anyone who commented on my posts over the past several days. Due to a problem in the comment moderation, some of the comments may have been lost. I think I've fixed it, so feel free to resubmit your comments. Thanks!
Friday, October 05, 2007
A question on the Marina District - what about Riverfront Park?
In response to a comment from Tim Higgins on my earlier blog post about the funding for the Marina District, I came across this press release on the city of Toledo's website.
It's the original announcement from March of this year that highlighted the details of the agreement between Toledo and developer Larry Dillin. What I found interesting were the following statements:
The press release also details the city's commitment, including "$10M* for the Riverfront Park which includes monies available from the State or Federal government."
So it appears from the agreement that Dillin is supposed to have not only the $50 million for the development, but financing for any gap in funding for the park as well. Because of the way the press release is worded, it's unclear if Dillin's commitment is for $15 million - or if the total cost of the park is $15 million. Either way, Dillin needs to come up with the funds to add to the city's $10 million that is apparently dedicated to the park.
But nothing I've seen in any of the news coverage or council ordinances specifies that the city's portion is going to the park. Now, this doesn't mean it isn't, but I will be watching to see whether or not gap financing for the park is part of the public announcement now scheduled for October 11th - and how the city's $10 million will be allocated.
It's the original announcement from March of this year that highlighted the details of the agreement between Toledo and developer Larry Dillin. What I found interesting were the following statements:
"After Dillin solidifies private funds $50M* for vertical buildings and $15M* to fund the balance of the Riverfront Park area, the City will deed the land to Dillin Corp and invest $10M* in the Riverfront Drive and Park area.
...
Dillin is currently in negotiations with users on several parts of the site both commercial and residential. “When the Waterfront Park is delivered, there are several other interested developers for other areas of the land,” stated Sarah Penner, Project Manager of the Marina District for Dillin Corp. “The backbone of this agreement is the Riverfront Park.” The Riverfront Park would typically be funded as a “Public Works” project. In this case, the City, State and Dillin will all participate in the expenses.
...
To jumpstart the vertical development and Riverfront park, Dillin will provide the following by October 1, 2007**:
• Leadership for the entire development/master-planning process
• $50M* in private investment for building structures
• Financing for the gap in funding to complete the Waterfront Park ($15 M*)
• Vertical Development to begin before December 31, 2007**"
The press release also details the city's commitment, including "$10M* for the Riverfront Park which includes monies available from the State or Federal government."
So it appears from the agreement that Dillin is supposed to have not only the $50 million for the development, but financing for any gap in funding for the park as well. Because of the way the press release is worded, it's unclear if Dillin's commitment is for $15 million - or if the total cost of the park is $15 million. Either way, Dillin needs to come up with the funds to add to the city's $10 million that is apparently dedicated to the park.
But nothing I've seen in any of the news coverage or council ordinances specifies that the city's portion is going to the park. Now, this doesn't mean it isn't, but I will be watching to see whether or not gap financing for the park is part of the public announcement now scheduled for October 11th - and how the city's $10 million will be allocated.
This is what good economic development looks like
Last night I stopped by the Regional Growth Partnership's 'Tech Connect' program, which they sponsored in conjunction with the Toledo Area Chamber of Commerce and the University of Toledo.
Billed as "enhancing opportunities for local entrepreneurial businesses," Tech Connect is a quarterly event to provide entrepreneurs and small technology companies an opportunity to network and interact with each other, investors, and the business and academic communities. Their first event had about 40 participants. Last night, there were about 150.
This event is an on-going component of the RGP's Launch program, which provides, at no cost, comprehensive business assistance services to accelerate tech-based business growth.
Dr. Lloyd Jacobs, President of the University of Toledo, was the featured speaker, explaining how UT's Science and Technology Corridor is helping to grow tech businesses in the region. Interestingly, UT has added a second business incubator on their Health Sciences Campus and they hope they'll need another one in the future as they continue to assist in the commercialization of research.
Dr. Jacobs explained his vision, shared by the UT Board of Trustees, for how a university should be a part of the community. He even included a history lesson about how universities used to be separate from their cities, building walls and moats around their campuses and acting as a 'city within a city' with their own laws and jurisdictions.
But that is not how Dr. Jacobs sees UT, and the Science and Technology Corridor, while a physical connection between the three campuses, is also a 'spiritual' connection between researchers, entrepreneurs, banks, economic development professionals, jobs and the community as a whole.
Dr. Jacobs, always an entertaining speaker, expressed the University's continuing support for programs like Tech Connect, Launch and Rocket Ventures. And if you're not familiar with Rocket Ventures, you should be.
Rocket Ventures is the name of the corporation that administers the RGP's venture capital fund, consisting of a $15 million state grant from the Ohio Department of Development and matched by $7.5 million of private sector monies. This pre-seed, early-stage venture fund provides - for the first time in Northwest Ohio - the capital and management services necessary to help entrepreneurs, researchers and start-up companies with the opportunity to commercialize their technology.
It was encouraging to see so many people participating in this event, especially companies like First Solar and Xunlight who were featured in a recent Newsweek article. While there were staff from several city and county economic development departments, the evening was driven and led by the private sector, in conjunction with banks and universities - the way successful economic development should be.
Billed as "enhancing opportunities for local entrepreneurial businesses," Tech Connect is a quarterly event to provide entrepreneurs and small technology companies an opportunity to network and interact with each other, investors, and the business and academic communities. Their first event had about 40 participants. Last night, there were about 150.
This event is an on-going component of the RGP's Launch program, which provides, at no cost, comprehensive business assistance services to accelerate tech-based business growth.
Dr. Lloyd Jacobs, President of the University of Toledo, was the featured speaker, explaining how UT's Science and Technology Corridor is helping to grow tech businesses in the region. Interestingly, UT has added a second business incubator on their Health Sciences Campus and they hope they'll need another one in the future as they continue to assist in the commercialization of research.
Dr. Jacobs explained his vision, shared by the UT Board of Trustees, for how a university should be a part of the community. He even included a history lesson about how universities used to be separate from their cities, building walls and moats around their campuses and acting as a 'city within a city' with their own laws and jurisdictions.
But that is not how Dr. Jacobs sees UT, and the Science and Technology Corridor, while a physical connection between the three campuses, is also a 'spiritual' connection between researchers, entrepreneurs, banks, economic development professionals, jobs and the community as a whole.
Dr. Jacobs, always an entertaining speaker, expressed the University's continuing support for programs like Tech Connect, Launch and Rocket Ventures. And if you're not familiar with Rocket Ventures, you should be.
Rocket Ventures is the name of the corporation that administers the RGP's venture capital fund, consisting of a $15 million state grant from the Ohio Department of Development and matched by $7.5 million of private sector monies. This pre-seed, early-stage venture fund provides - for the first time in Northwest Ohio - the capital and management services necessary to help entrepreneurs, researchers and start-up companies with the opportunity to commercialize their technology.
It was encouraging to see so many people participating in this event, especially companies like First Solar and Xunlight who were featured in a recent Newsweek article. While there were staff from several city and county economic development departments, the evening was driven and led by the private sector, in conjunction with banks and universities - the way successful economic development should be.
Toledo shoots for LivCom award
According to this article in The Blade, Toledo is the only U.S. city to be a finalist for the LivCom Award which is endorsed by the U.N. Environment Programme. It's an international award honoring liveable communities.
And when I started reading the article, I thought - 'that's nice.' However, near the bottom of the article was this:
Call me cynical, but now I understand why Carty was so insistent on planting flowers, building bikepaths and pushing his "Get Fit Toledo" campaign...
And when I started reading the article, I thought - 'that's nice.' However, near the bottom of the article was this:
"The judging criteria includes enhancement of the landscape, heritage management, environmentally sensitive practices, community sustainability, healthy lifestyles, and planning for the future.
An international panel of judges includes environmental and landscape management professionals."
Call me cynical, but now I understand why Carty was so insistent on planting flowers, building bikepaths and pushing his "Get Fit Toledo" campaign...
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Follow the money...
Yes, such a powerful phrase that can apply to just about any subject or topic. But especially pertinent in government.
The City of Toledo has been working to develop its waterfront...something that should have been done quite some time ago, but at least it's getting done. Several grants and loans have allowed for the clean-up of this former industrial site and developer Larry Dillin has agreed to take on the project.
The agreement for the Marina District was for Dillin to come up with $50 million in private funds and the city of Toledo to contribute $10 million for infrastructure, etc.
Dillin has met his commitment and plans to make an announcement on Oct. 10th. And the city has its $10 million - but that's where the problem comes in.
Originally, Toledo was short. And then they got a $5 million loan from the state's Infrastructure Bank. According to this June article in The Blade, the loan brought the amount the city had to $9 million, leaving them short only $1 million.
Okay, follow the money ... we'll apply for and accept a $5 million loan, and we won't have to use it when we get our expected grant from the Cultural Facilities Commission.
But, just to reiterate the point, there is this Blade article from earlier in June which said:
But the city was still short $1 million, prompting this comment from Davies:
Except, the city couldn't come up with another $1 million and yesterday decided to approve accessing part of the Infrastructure Bank loan.
According to today's article, council voted 11-1 to tap into the $5 million loan to reach their $10 million commitment.
(Note: we've got 10 years to pay back the loan and we don't have to pay interest for the first year. However, the loan terms say we don't have to make a payment for 30 months - meaning that we'll incur 3% interest for 18 months before we ever have to make the first payment. That's $33,000 - and how much does a new police car cost?)
However, in looking at the original ordinance (378-07) passed June 12th, you find the following explanation of how the loan will be repaid:
Here's my concern: we have the flexibility in the CIP fund to pay interest and principle on this loan, but we don't have the flexibility to just use the CIP to come up with the $1.1 million that we're short for this project? Long-term, is it better to just use existing CIP funds or to take out a loan and pay interest?
The answer to that question would depend upon our priorities and whether or not we, as a city, are willing to forgo something else in order to meet an obligation made to the developer of this project.
The only good aspect of this is that the loan is more like a line of credit and, according to mayoral spokesman Brian Schwartz, the city will only request $1.1 million - and not the full $5 million that is available. But that means that the remainder is available to be accessed for other expenses.
I understand the decision that's been made, but I don't like it. City Council and Mayor are spending money - some of it necessary, some not - with little prioritization or anticipation of future needs. Knowing that the city needed to come up with $10 million to meet our obligation to this project, shouldn't council and mayor have NOT spent other monies previously? That's what you and I would have done ... but with a loan readily available, they didn't have to prioritize or pick and choose among spending. And that's the problem.
The City of Toledo has been working to develop its waterfront...something that should have been done quite some time ago, but at least it's getting done. Several grants and loans have allowed for the clean-up of this former industrial site and developer Larry Dillin has agreed to take on the project.
The agreement for the Marina District was for Dillin to come up with $50 million in private funds and the city of Toledo to contribute $10 million for infrastructure, etc.
Dillin has met his commitment and plans to make an announcement on Oct. 10th. And the city has its $10 million - but that's where the problem comes in.
Originally, Toledo was short. And then they got a $5 million loan from the state's Infrastructure Bank. According to this June article in The Blade, the loan brought the amount the city had to $9 million, leaving them short only $1 million.
"The loan is guaranteed by funds from the city’s capital improvements budget over the next 10 years, the administration said. The administration has said it hopes to obtain a $5 million grant from the Ohio Cultural Facilities Commission that would offset the loan."
Okay, follow the money ... we'll apply for and accept a $5 million loan, and we won't have to use it when we get our expected grant from the Cultural Facilities Commission.
But, just to reiterate the point, there is this Blade article from earlier in June which said:
"In a memo distributed to city council members over the weekend, the administration said it would ask council to vote today for authorization to borrow up to $5 million against an expected $5 million grant from the Ohio Cultural Facilities Commission.
...
Todd Davies, commissioner of development for Mr. Finkbeiner, said the $5 million loan from the State Infrastructure Bank would temporarily fill the place of a $5 million grant the city hopes to obtain from the Ohio Cultural Facilities Commission. He said the city is highly confident that the grant will be approved, but confirmation may not come until August."
But the city was still short $1 million, prompting this comment from Davies:
"As things stand we're $1 million short. The idea is not to borrow that money," Mr. Davies said. "We want to make sure we're covering all our bases. This is a backstop."
Except, the city couldn't come up with another $1 million and yesterday decided to approve accessing part of the Infrastructure Bank loan.
According to today's article, council voted 11-1 to tap into the $5 million loan to reach their $10 million commitment.
"The $1.1 million loan from the Ohio Department of Transportation's State Infrastructure Bank would be paid back over 10 years at 3 percent interest, with zero interest the first year, and with payback deferred for 30 months, according to the legislation.
Councilman Betty Shultz cast the no vote, saying she objected to pledging the city's gasoline tax revenue as collateral.
Fran Song, the city's debt management officer, said gas tax revenue would be pledged for legal reasons, but the loan likely would be repaid from capital improvements funds."
(Note: we've got 10 years to pay back the loan and we don't have to pay interest for the first year. However, the loan terms say we don't have to make a payment for 30 months - meaning that we'll incur 3% interest for 18 months before we ever have to make the first payment. That's $33,000 - and how much does a new police car cost?)
However, in looking at the original ordinance (378-07) passed June 12th, you find the following explanation of how the loan will be repaid:
"As of the date of this ordinance the City has applied for several multi-million dollar grants from Federal and State agencies, including a $5 million reappropriation of a grant already awarded from the Ohio Cultural Facilities Commission. However, in order to ensure timely construction the City intends to borrow from the State Infrastructure Bank pending receipt of grant monies. This loan will have a 10-year term with a 30-month deferment. It is the intention of the City to repay the loan through any one of the above-mentioned sources prior to the expiration of the 30-month deferment."
Here's my concern: we have the flexibility in the CIP fund to pay interest and principle on this loan, but we don't have the flexibility to just use the CIP to come up with the $1.1 million that we're short for this project? Long-term, is it better to just use existing CIP funds or to take out a loan and pay interest?
The answer to that question would depend upon our priorities and whether or not we, as a city, are willing to forgo something else in order to meet an obligation made to the developer of this project.
The only good aspect of this is that the loan is more like a line of credit and, according to mayoral spokesman Brian Schwartz, the city will only request $1.1 million - and not the full $5 million that is available. But that means that the remainder is available to be accessed for other expenses.
I understand the decision that's been made, but I don't like it. City Council and Mayor are spending money - some of it necessary, some not - with little prioritization or anticipation of future needs. Knowing that the city needed to come up with $10 million to meet our obligation to this project, shouldn't council and mayor have NOT spent other monies previously? That's what you and I would have done ... but with a loan readily available, they didn't have to prioritize or pick and choose among spending. And that's the problem.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Interesting votes on SCHIP
I came across this blurb - I believe the original source was MSNBC - and wanted to share it with you:
Perhaps the senators actually realize, despite all the political rhetoric, that the planned expansion of SCHIP to the middle and upper classes is rather detrimental to those it's intended to help?
"The clash over the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) is being fought largely between members of Congress from high-income states, such as Maryland, versus members from low-income states, such as South Dakota and Mississippi, which rank near the bottom in median household income, says MSNBC.
Consider:
* On the decisive Senate vote to push ahead with expansion of the S-CHIP program -- where both senators from a state voted for S-CHIP expansion -- they came from states with an average household income of nearly $50,000.
* But where both senators from a state voted against S-CHIP expansion, they came from states with an average household income of under $42,000, including the lowest-income states such as Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Mississippi."
Perhaps the senators actually realize, despite all the political rhetoric, that the planned expansion of SCHIP to the middle and upper classes is rather detrimental to those it's intended to help?
Toledo makes Newsweek Magazine
...and in a positive way!
This from the Regional Growth Partnership:
Congrats to the companies and the RGP for the positive story!
This from the Regional Growth Partnership:
The Regional Growth Partnership is thrilled to share with you a story which ran in Newsweek magazine, focusing on Northwest Ohio's growing place in renewable energies. Local companies First Solar and Xunlight were prominently featured, as was the University of Toledo.
This story was the result of a visit to our region by Newsweek reporter Dan McGinn September 24, made possible through our editorial marketing program. We encourage you to share this story with your employees, clients, customers - anyone who has an interest in our region.
Congrats to the companies and the RGP for the positive story!
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
More anti-logic - this time on SCHIP
Congress has chosen a source to pay for the bulk of their proposed $35 billion increase in the State Children's Health Insurance Program - cigarette taxes.
According to numerous reports, expansion of the program (which would allow families with income up to $82,000 to qualify) would be financed with a 156 percent increase in the federal cigarette tax, taking it to $1 per pack from the current 39 cents.
And this tax will impact recipients of the SCHIP program more than others. Low-income people smoke more heavily than do wealthier people in the United States, making cigarette taxes a regressive form of revenue. Nearly one-third of all U.S. adults living in poverty are smokers, compared with 23.5 percent of those above the poverty level, according to government statistics.
So we allow expansion of the program to those who are not 'low income' or in poverty by imposing a tax that impacts low income and the poor more than others. Where's the logic in that?
But the biggest anti-logic of this expansion is the lack of any discussion or debate about basic demographics and their impact on this bill - maybe because there is little sympathy, in Congress or the nation as a whole, for taxing such a vice.
So consider this: you've got the U.S. Department of Education, the Centers for Disease Control, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) all providing grants and funding for anti-smoking campaigns. There are numerous opportunities at the state level for anti-smoking funds as well. Everyone, it seems, is spending money to get people to stop smoking - or to prevent them from starting in the first place.
And then you have this quote from Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who said, during the House debate,
Spend money over here to get people to not smoke while spending money over there counting on an increase in smokers...Anti-logic!
According to numerous reports, expansion of the program (which would allow families with income up to $82,000 to qualify) would be financed with a 156 percent increase in the federal cigarette tax, taking it to $1 per pack from the current 39 cents.
And this tax will impact recipients of the SCHIP program more than others. Low-income people smoke more heavily than do wealthier people in the United States, making cigarette taxes a regressive form of revenue. Nearly one-third of all U.S. adults living in poverty are smokers, compared with 23.5 percent of those above the poverty level, according to government statistics.
So we allow expansion of the program to those who are not 'low income' or in poverty by imposing a tax that impacts low income and the poor more than others. Where's the logic in that?
But the biggest anti-logic of this expansion is the lack of any discussion or debate about basic demographics and their impact on this bill - maybe because there is little sympathy, in Congress or the nation as a whole, for taxing such a vice.
So consider this: you've got the U.S. Department of Education, the Centers for Disease Control, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) all providing grants and funding for anti-smoking campaigns. There are numerous opportunities at the state level for anti-smoking funds as well. Everyone, it seems, is spending money to get people to stop smoking - or to prevent them from starting in the first place.
And then you have this quote from Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who said, during the House debate,
"And in order to get enough money to pay for this, it would require 22 million new smokers."
Spend money over here to get people to not smoke while spending money over there counting on an increase in smokers...Anti-logic!
Calculating impact of levies on the ballot
Kudos to the Lucas County Auditor's office and Anita Lopez for the two new tools on the AREIS online website. One shows your current property taxes, percentages and dollar amounts, and where they go. The other calculates how much in taxes you will pay if property tax levies that are on the upcoming ballot all pass.
This Blade article gives more detail as well as how to obtain the information if you don't have a computer.
To see your information, go here and enter either your name or address. After selecting your property, the DATA tab has the two new tools highlighted.
This is a terrific tool and great information for every property owner in Lucas County.
This Blade article gives more detail as well as how to obtain the information if you don't have a computer.
To see your information, go here and enter either your name or address. After selecting your property, the DATA tab has the two new tools highlighted.
This is a terrific tool and great information for every property owner in Lucas County.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Update on 'baby bonds'
According to this post at The Opinionator, a New York Times blog by two staff editors of their Op-Ed page, Rasmussen has done a quick poll on the issue of the 'baby bonds.'
Roughly 60% oppose Sen. Hillary Clinton's idea to give each baby born in the U.S. a $5,000 payment in the form of a 'baby bond.'
Further, as I said in my earlier post on the subject, this idea appeared to be more of an 'off-the-cuff' comment by Clinton, rather than a planned policy. Turns out, both University of Virginia Professor Larry Sabato and Philip Klein at The American Spectator, agree.
(As an aside, this author never expected to be quoted in any New York Times article, much less, The Opinionator...)
Roughly 60% oppose Sen. Hillary Clinton's idea to give each baby born in the U.S. a $5,000 payment in the form of a 'baby bond.'
Further, as I said in my earlier post on the subject, this idea appeared to be more of an 'off-the-cuff' comment by Clinton, rather than a planned policy. Turns out, both University of Virginia Professor Larry Sabato and Philip Klein at The American Spectator, agree.
(As an aside, this author never expected to be quoted in any New York Times article, much less, The Opinionator...)
Baby Bonds and the anti-logic
According to the Associated Press reports, Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton suggested, during a forum hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus, that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 "baby bond" from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home.
First, this appears to have been an off-the-cuff comment because the Clinton campaign had no numbers on the estimated cost or potential funding sources. But that didn't stop others from warmly embracing the idea.
Ohio Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D - OH 11th District) thought it was a "wonderful idea." She went on to explain that "every child born in the United States today owes $27,000 on the national debt, why not let them come get $5,000 to grow until they're 18?"
Yes, this is what passes for intelligence in Congress. It's anti-logic. You're born owing $27,000 toward the national debt so let's just 'borrow' more money and give it to you, ignoring the idea that you might be getting $5,000 now, but that $5,000 just gets added to the $27,000 you already owe. The problem is that so many have such little understanding of how this works, that they'll think they're getting a 'reduction' of some sort in the debt. While it's sad that the public will misunderstand this, it's atrocious that our elected representatives are perpetuating the anti-logic of the idea - not to mention the media which failed to understand the implications of the comment and clarify it further.
And then there is the concept in general. Nowhere does the Constitution give Congress the authority to take from people in general in order to give a $5,000 handout to babies born in the U.S. But then, constitutional restrictions on authority went down the drain quite some time ago.
Even if this were constitutional, there are a host of unintended consequences and questions which I'm sure weren't thought through.
For instance, what about couples who cannot have children. They'll be paying taxes which will be spent on other peoples' kids...I'm sure there's some sort of discrimination here based upon their inability to have children. After all, we can't discriminate against those who, through no fault of their own, don't have kids. So that means some sort of equal payment to them, as well.
And what about the abortion lobby? If you start paying people who have kids (in this case, in the form of a bond for the baby), you might have less abortions. Talk about unintended consequences.
And if the parent is on public assistance, does the 'baby bond' encourage more children who are then raised in, what has become for many (but not all), a 'welfare mentality' of entitlement?
What if a child is given up for adoption? Does the 'baby bond' go with the kid or stay under control of the parents? Logic says it'd go with the child, but this being the government, anything is possible and anti-logic is more common.
However, knowing the penchant of government to control, I anticipate such a program being more like Social Security. We'll just create an account in your name, dear baby, and when you're 18, the money will be there for you. Yes, we'll put it in a lock box that can never be touched. Yeah - right - we've seen how well THAT works...
Then there is the concept which led to the idea...Clinton said such a program will "help Americans get back to the tradition of savings that she remembers as a child." As Glenn Beck says, get out the duck tape so your head doesn't explode....
Giving people money doesn't help them learn how to save. All it does is teach them that the government will give them something for nothing - failing to recognize that someone - meaning you and me and even the recipients - will always end up paying the bill. Government has only what it takes from each of us ... but that never stopped them from being so generous with other people's money.
The best way to teach the need for savings - and so many other lessons - is to give individuals the freedom to fail. It was Henry Ford who said, "Failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently." It's just that individual responsibility contradicts so much of what government is about, further contributing to the anti-logic we see so much of today.
First, this appears to have been an off-the-cuff comment because the Clinton campaign had no numbers on the estimated cost or potential funding sources. But that didn't stop others from warmly embracing the idea.
Ohio Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D - OH 11th District) thought it was a "wonderful idea." She went on to explain that "every child born in the United States today owes $27,000 on the national debt, why not let them come get $5,000 to grow until they're 18?"
Yes, this is what passes for intelligence in Congress. It's anti-logic. You're born owing $27,000 toward the national debt so let's just 'borrow' more money and give it to you, ignoring the idea that you might be getting $5,000 now, but that $5,000 just gets added to the $27,000 you already owe. The problem is that so many have such little understanding of how this works, that they'll think they're getting a 'reduction' of some sort in the debt. While it's sad that the public will misunderstand this, it's atrocious that our elected representatives are perpetuating the anti-logic of the idea - not to mention the media which failed to understand the implications of the comment and clarify it further.
And then there is the concept in general. Nowhere does the Constitution give Congress the authority to take from people in general in order to give a $5,000 handout to babies born in the U.S. But then, constitutional restrictions on authority went down the drain quite some time ago.
Even if this were constitutional, there are a host of unintended consequences and questions which I'm sure weren't thought through.
For instance, what about couples who cannot have children. They'll be paying taxes which will be spent on other peoples' kids...I'm sure there's some sort of discrimination here based upon their inability to have children. After all, we can't discriminate against those who, through no fault of their own, don't have kids. So that means some sort of equal payment to them, as well.
And what about the abortion lobby? If you start paying people who have kids (in this case, in the form of a bond for the baby), you might have less abortions. Talk about unintended consequences.
And if the parent is on public assistance, does the 'baby bond' encourage more children who are then raised in, what has become for many (but not all), a 'welfare mentality' of entitlement?
What if a child is given up for adoption? Does the 'baby bond' go with the kid or stay under control of the parents? Logic says it'd go with the child, but this being the government, anything is possible and anti-logic is more common.
However, knowing the penchant of government to control, I anticipate such a program being more like Social Security. We'll just create an account in your name, dear baby, and when you're 18, the money will be there for you. Yes, we'll put it in a lock box that can never be touched. Yeah - right - we've seen how well THAT works...
Then there is the concept which led to the idea...Clinton said such a program will "help Americans get back to the tradition of savings that she remembers as a child." As Glenn Beck says, get out the duck tape so your head doesn't explode....
Giving people money doesn't help them learn how to save. All it does is teach them that the government will give them something for nothing - failing to recognize that someone - meaning you and me and even the recipients - will always end up paying the bill. Government has only what it takes from each of us ... but that never stopped them from being so generous with other people's money.
The best way to teach the need for savings - and so many other lessons - is to give individuals the freedom to fail. It was Henry Ford who said, "Failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently." It's just that individual responsibility contradicts so much of what government is about, further contributing to the anti-logic we see so much of today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
