Home | Yearly News Archive | Advertisers | Blog | Contact Us |
|
Thursday, October 31, 2024 |
|
Some hard questions... |
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Author | |
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: Feb 21 2013 at 12:28am |
Some hard
questions...about BUDGETS and street lights!!! Ms. Gilleland herself presented budgets to “Move the cash
balance down to a floor of 15% of expenditures over the two year period (2012
to 2013)”. (Our City’s cash reserve at
the beginning of 2012 was 21.4%.) Total Budgeted Expenditures in 2012 were $126.6 million
and grew to $137.8 million in 2013—an increase of over $11 million dollars in
just one year!!! For two years now, we have been spending more than we
have been taking in. Where
is Ms. Gilleland finding the money to pay for these decorative lights for a few
of her friends??? And why aren’t City Council members asking her where the money is
is going to come from when just last October she told them that everything had
been cut to the bone and we had to budget money from our RAINY DAY FUND (cash reserves) just to run the city??? From the minutes of the 11/6/2012 City Council meeting: “Mr. J. Mulligan commented
that can support this budget and he will vote for it but that he doesn’t want
to be in this same position again a year from now where the General Fund
expenditures exceed the General Fund revenues. As a Council we have to tackle some
tough long term issues.” Well, J. Mulligan, $5,000 or so a year ($10,000 or more, if
the folks in Highlands get their way) for decorative lights for a handful of
residents from now until the end of time sounds like a “long term issue”. It’s not to tough to tackle, though. Just tell your colleagues on Council to vote NO!!!
(Or were you just politicking when you said that last November and are
you really a big TAX-AND-SPEND liberal???) From the minutes of the 11/6/2012 City Council meeting: “Ms. Gilleland addressed the
issue of equalization of expenditures and revenues. She responded that the 2011
budget was a really tough time with deep cuts with the reduction of 3.7M in
expenditures. She thought that the 2014 budget would be an appropriate time to
examine additional reductions.” Well, Ms. Gilleland, the time for the 2014 budget
examination is only a couple of months away.
Will you be hand-wringing, and telling everyone how we have “cut
everything to the bone” again??? Or, are
decorative lights for a handful of friends more important than raises, public
safety, upkeep of the cemetery, parks, street repairs, sewer maintenance, and
all of the other worthy things that benefit the entire city we keep hearing
that we won’t have money for??? And my ears must’ve deceived me last Tuesday night, because I thought I heard
Ms. Gilleland tell Ms. Scott-Jones that residents would NOT be assessed for
street light utility or maintenance costs.
But read the following from the minutes of the 10/02/2012 City Council
meeting: “Ms. Gilleland highlighted
the goals of the 2012‐2017
Strategic Plan. She also showed visuals of a holistic
transformational strategy. She gave some food for thought that included: Street Light Assessments
that could raise $700,000 for the general fund if council is
willing to pass this cost along to the residents.” Now pay attention Middletonians, and especially you council members who will be voting on the decorative lights for that handful of friends of City Hall on South Main Street: When Ms. Gilleland suggests “to pass this cost along to the residents”, she is (at best) making a mis-statement of the situation. The residents ALREADY pay these costs, so they can NOT be “passed along”!!! We residents pay for the costs of electricity and maintenance for all street lights within our city from all of the myriad of other taxes that the City already collects from us!!! What she is actually suggesting is that City Council “assess” a NEW TAX—a street light tax-- but not call it a “tax”, call it a “fee” and tack it onto our water and sewage usage bills!! (Can anyone explain to me what street lights have to do with water or sewage usage???) Now pay even closer attention: I believe that this new TAX (disguised as a “fee”) or “assessment” will be ILLEGAL. |
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|
Neil Barille
MUSA Resident Joined: Jul 07 2010 Status: Offline Points: 238 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
My house was built in the early 1960's. Instead of period lighting I would just like some period pavement for my woeful street. Can I get the rest of the town to pay for this? |
|
ktf1179
MUSA Citizen Joined: Mar 19 2012 Status: Offline Points: 518 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
My house was built in 1975, and my neighborhood streets still have the same period pavement since it was built. Can I get some Historic Re-pavement as well .
How about investing in some new historic street lights in the many subdivisions of Middletown? I am sure with more lighting, it should cut down on the amount of crime that happens at night.
|
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Ktf, If you have a Duke Energy power pole on your property,
Duke will be pleased to install a security light (similar to a street light) on
their pole that turns on and off at the same time as the street lights. If I am not mistaken, Duke Energy will also install a
security light if you have an acceptable light post installed by others on your
property, or if you have an acceptable location on a barn, garage, or other
outbuilding. I believe that they will
even sell you (or arrange for you to buy from others) a decorative replica
imitation gas-style lamp post and lamp for installation, for example, next to
your driveway by the sidewalk. I
think that you can get one exactly like the folks on South Main Street
want! (If you and several of
your neighbors decide to do this all at the same time, I’d guess that you could
get a really good installation price!) Oh…there will be one difference between your new
decorative or security light and the one the folks on South Main Street
want: Duke will charge about $10 per
month to YOUR electric bill each and every month for each such light. Sorry, but the rest of us won’t be chipping
in to pay that for you. I hope that this helps. |
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Here’s a tough another hard question that members of City
council should be asking the Law Director: This area of South Main
Street has street lights and they are keeping those existing
street lights under this new scheme!!!
This makes it clear that the new phony gas lamp posts and lights are
nothing more than decorations. Isn’t it ILLEGAL to force those who did not sign
the petition to spend thousands of dollars on DECORATIVE items??? They are NOT installing "street lights", they already HAVE "street lights"! They are "adding decorative lighting"! (And Les, if you are going to try to say that
this is a safety item, then doesn’t the city then have a fiduciary duty to pick the
lighting system that will attain a safe lighting level at the least cost rather
than the expensive decorative scheme???) There is NO REASON not to choose the REAL American
alternative: Let those who desire to decorate their
properties with fake olde tyme lights (that are historically inaccurate) do it
themselves, on their own property (outside the right-of-way) and leave
government and the rest of us out of it!!! |
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
NO...you can NOT get the rest of the town to pay for paving YOUR street!!! Haven't you heard??? Even though the City Manager has cut ALL expenditures to the bone, our city just does NOT have a penny to spare for anything, especially paving in non-historic districts!!! If you want your street paved, you will have to get your neighbors to sign a petition and agree to pay for it yourselves, just like the folks on the section of South Main Street where Kohler and the mayor live have done. Oops...wait...they didn't do the petition for street repaving, did they??? The REST of the town is paying for THAT!!! (Just like they want us to pay for the maintenance and power costs for their decorative fake gas lights.) In fairness, remember what they told us: THAT section of South Main is "the entrance to the city" and that is why it deserves to be repaved on everyone else's dime and needn't go through the "petition" process!!! (Don't ask me how vehicles are supposed to get from the city limits--near Lafayette--on Main Street, up to Eight Avenue--where the new paving will start. That section of Main is in even worse shape than the section that is being repaved!!!)
|
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|
VietVet
MUSA Council Joined: May 15 2008 Status: Offline Points: 7008 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
MikeP:
"In fairness, remember what they told us: THAT section of South Main is "the entrance to the city" and that is why it deserves to be repaved on everyone else's dime and needn't go through the "petition" process!!!" UH, I SURE WOULDN'T ADMIT THAT THE S. MAIN ST. AREA IS AN ENTRANCE TO THE CITY. WE ALL KNOW WHAT S. MAIN ST LOOKS LIKE FROM BARNITZ STADIUM DOWN TO ENGLES CORNER. NOT THE MOST ATTRACTIVE PART OF THE CITY IS IT. REALLY WOULD BE INTERESTING TO STAND BEFORE COUNCIL AND ASK TO HEAR THEIR RESPONSES TO ALL OF THIS....ESPECIALLY MAYOR LAWRENCE MULLIGAN THE THIRD, AS HE HAS THAT WASHED OUT LOOK ON HIS FACE AND THAT "CAT THAT ATE THE CANARY" SMILE. GREAT COMEDY! WE CAN ALL TALK HERE AND THEY WON'T RESPOND. IF WE TOOK IT DOWNTOWN TO A COUNCIL MEETING, USING CITIZEN'S COMMENTS, THEY WOULD HAVE TO AT LEAST PRETEND TO LISTEN AND IT WOULD BE DOCUMENTED ON TV MIDD. SORRY, JUST LIKE TO SEE THEM BEING PUT ON THE SPOT AND FEELING UNEASY SOMETIMES. |
|
I'm so proud of my hometown and what it has become. Recall 'em all. Let's start over.
|
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I am really getting perturbed that:
1. None of the council members are asking the hard questions. 2. Everyone is ignoring the obvious, alternative solution. 3. The City Manager is so cavalier about throwing around $5,000 per year every year until the end of time, especially when she keeps saying that we are broke and must either raise taxes or spend down our cash reserves!!!! AJ: Don't you want more firefighters??? To paraphrase that old Scottish proverb: Take care of your $5,000 expenditures and your $500,000 expenditures will take care of themselves!!!
|
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|
Pacman
Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Jun 02 2007 Status: Offline Points: 2612 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I haven't been keeping up with topic much and I have a couple questions...
1.) I thought the home owners were paying for the street lights and the installations themselves?? 2.) the way I read it, you are saying that the city is paying for the electricity and maintenance of the street lights once installed. I do not understand the hoopla about paying for the maintenance and electricitricity for the light poles when the existing light poles, such as the one in my front yard, are serviced by duke energy and the city picks up the tab for electricity and maintenance. Pacman |
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Pac, Let me try to answer your questions as fully as I can: “1.) I thought the home
owners were paying for the street lights and the installations themselves??” This is correct to a certain extent. The cost of the street light, their
installation, and the installation of the underground conduit, and the wiring
will be assessed to the owners of the property on that section of South Main
Street, based on street front footage.
Since the City owns some of the property, for example Old South Park,
the City will be on the hook for several thousand dollars of this cost. The same is true for many of the property
owners who do not wish to have these extra lights installed, such as the
American Legion and some property owners who have appeared before council
stating that the assessment may likely cause them to lose their homes. It is unclear who will be on the hook for any
construction extras that arise as the trenching for this conduit crosses any of
the ancient sewer laterals or any other underground utilities in the area that
will be encountered. The city has
refused to address this, and has “talked around” the issue as if it will not
occur.
Yes, that is correct!
Duke will charge about $10 or $11 dollars per month, per fixture for
electricity and maintenance for these phony, decorative gas light
lookalikes. This comes to $4,000 to
$6,000 per year in ADDITIONAL costs to our city (depending upon which set of figures you use), from now until the
end of time, plus escalation due to inflation and energy costs increases, which
will “necessarily skyrocket” according to our president. “I do not understand the
hoopla about paying for the maintenance and electricity for the light poles
when the existing light poles, such as the one in my front yard, are serviced
by duke energy and the city picks up the tab for electricity and maintenance.” The reason the hoopla is that there are presently only
about ELEVEN street lights like the one in your front yard (spaced just like
the ones in your neighborhood) for which Duke charges the city the very same
$10 or $11 dollars each per month. Depending
upon which scheme we are discussing, these folks want to either: a) remove
those eleven street lights and replace them with FORTY-FIVE phony gas decorative
lamp posts and lights; or b) keep those eleven street lights just like yours
and ADD THIRTY-THREE phony decorative gas lamp posts and lights. No one has addressed where the city will find the money
to pay their share of the installation, or the ongoing yearly costs, since the
City Manager has made it clear when other projects have been proposed that
there was NO MONEY AVAILABLE unless something else was cut. No mention was made of what must be cut to
pay for this!!! These folks think that these phony decorative gas lamp
posts and lights will improve the looks (and therefore the value) of their
properties. Further, they are claiming
that these are “period” lamp posts and lights, and supposedly these
history-minded folks want their homes to look just like they did in the olden
days. The hitch is that, in Middletown,
there never have been any public gas street lamps and lights!!! (I think there have been some public "hitching posts", but that's a different story!) Any gas lamp posts and lights in Middletown
were installed by the property owners ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY and NOT in the “street
lawn” (that strip of grass between the street and the sidewalk). The irony of this whole matter is, that what
they want to do “in the name of history” is totally historically
INACCURATE!!! To make matters worse, the
property owners who may have refused to sign their petition because they want
to keep their properties “historically accurate” may now be forced to pay
several thousand dollars to RUIN the historic accuracy of their properties!!! The saddest part is that there is a simple, economical
alternative. All that need be done is
for the property owners who so desire, to have the same exact, historically
inaccurate lamp posts and lights installed a few feet away on the other side of
the sidewalk (just as EVERYONE ELSE in this city does), and leave the city and
the property owners who do not wish to do so out of it. The result would be the same. The street view would be the same. I hope that this helps you to understand the situation. |
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|
spiderjohn
Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Jul 01 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2749 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Interesting situation that has changed considerably since it's initial introduction.
First--it was pushed as a SAFETY issue, with these decorative sidewalk lights REPLACING the existing streetlights, with emphasis on the cost saved by not putting up STREET lights. And the project had a specific cost approved allegedly by 60% of the property owners who would have the new decorative SIDEWALK lights. I believe that this went to Planning Commission and was NOT approved, but the request was approved over the heads of Planning Commission. Then--there was a substantial increase in the cost of this project, which would increase the affected property owners' tax assessments. At the time, residents were asking the city to pick up the cost difference. Despite willingness from Admin and pressure from residents, Council balked at that idea and kicked the project back until now, since it was not the season for construction and the funds were lacking. REMEMBER--these residents are also getting their street fixed at taxpayer expense, over the top of the new procedure where residents also pick up the tab for their street repairs. NOW--it seems that the original STREET lights are also to be installed, ALONG with the decorative SIDEWALK lighting, negating any cost saving from eliminating the STREET lights. Hmmm--seems that this project is FAR different than initially petitioned and approved, and considerably more expensive. The SAFETY issue is not as much in play, since the typical street lights are judged to be "safe" in every other part of the city. This has now become purely a decorative issue. While decorative lighting is in some areas, I am not sure if any of those areas also have the normal representation of STREET lights. Interesting point was raised about the assessments, now that the project is purely DECORATIVE, and not SAFETY -related. Should dis-approving property owners be FORCED to install and be assessed for DECORATIVE SIDEWALK lighting, or should it be on an individual property basis, and should ALL city residents be forced to share the cost of operating these more-expensive(4x the cost of a streetlight?) SIDEWALK lights? Should non-approving property owners have to take the risk of losing their property if they cannot afford the assessments for DECORATIVE SIGEWALK lighting in addition to normal STREET lighting? Possibly this whole situation should be brought back to square one, since the costs and details have changed considerably since the initial petition drive and Council approval? Though that would seriously skew having everything decided and in line in time for the road construction. The Council voting process will also be interesting, since two Council members will be forced to abstain. Won't Council still need FOUR votes to approve this project instead of a 3-2 majority? I thought that Mrs.Mort , Ms.G and Mr.Landen used very sketchy logic to support their un-conditional rush to approve this project, and I praise Mr.Laubaugh, Mr.Smith and Mrs.Scott Jones for their ?ing, however that is strictly my opinion. A VERY interesting situation which could cost all of us without any say in the matter. I agree that the cleanest solution for this would be for the residents to install the lighting on their own property adjacent to the sidewalk, wire the fixtures to their homes with conduit going down the entire area, tie the lighting to a community timer, and leave everyone else out of this. Those property owners not wanting to be a part of this process/expense would be left out, with future property owners having the option to add on the fixtures and wire in to the system. I still find it odd that this project stops abruptly at 9th Ave on one side of the street and 8th Ave on the other side, instead of going south to the natural break point at 14th ave, past Barnitz Stafdium and where Route 4 traffic enters S Main St. JMO--I don't have a vote on it(though I may still have to pay a portion of it--hardly democratic Mrs.Mort--seems more like a monarch)
|
|
spiderjohn
Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Jul 01 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2749 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
honestly I am all for these residents making these improvements
It is very dark down there now, even with the STREET lights--but same everywhere else
Just do it on their own and wire the decorative SIDEWALK lighting to their homes
optional not mandatory--
then no issues at all
I looked at buying one of the premier homes there a while back
i prefer more modern amenities
Every home/neighborhood is special to the owners
city is setting an expensive pattern imo
jmo
|
|
LMAO
MUSA Citizen Joined: Oct 28 2009 Location: Middletucky Status: Offline Points: 468 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Due to health issues I cant be there but I sure as hell will be shooting some not so friendly emails to all the "SPINELESS ONES" that think it fair to pay for the snobs of main streets fancy lighting.Again,this isnt the first time they forced something upon us to kiss "A$$" to one of their friends.
Since I cant do much of nothing for a few months,I will have to research this "STUPIDITY" to see if its legal or not. |
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
So, the five members of City Council (the Mulligan
brothers had to abstain) voted unanimously to install the decorative fake gas
lamps and lamp posts on South Main Street. None of them seemed to care where the city would be
getting its share of the assessment for the construction costs for these
decorations. If we are to believe what
we were told last fall during the budget discussions, there is no money
available anywhere except from our dwindling cash reserve (also known as the “rainy
day” fund). None of them seemed to care that the rest of the citizens,
whether they can afford it or not, will be picking up the tab for maintenance
and utilities from now until the end of time. None of them seemed to care that the money for these ongoing
costs will be coming out of our dwindling “rainy day” fund, which is (I believe)
projected to be EMPTY by some time in 2015, at which point our city will
officially be bankrupt. None of them seemed to care that the city will be
violating its very own City Ordinance 1210 (the so-called “Historic Ordinance”)
or that the Historic Commission is likely guilty of nonfeasance of duty—even though
it was these very same property owners on South Main Street who were the most
vocal proponents of Ordinance 1210, that now choose to scoff at it. None of them seemed to recall that barely an hour
earlier, while discussing the financial ills of Weatherwax Golf Course, City
Manager Gilleland stated “we have about
three options for about everything we do: we can increase the revenue, we can decrease
the expenses, or it can remain the same”!!!
Well, we didn’t “increase the revenue” with this decorative light legislation,
nor did we “decrease the expenses”—in fact we INCREASED the expenses!!!
So why didn’t these five council members take Gilleland at her word and let it “remain
the same”??? It appears that “everything
we do” does NOT include those things we do for friends of City Hall, such
as the folks on South Main Street. Gilleland added that “it’s important that we talk about
this in terms of our priorities” (when discussing the golf course). Apparently, decorations on South Main are a
higher priority than Weatherwax Golf Course, Historic Pioneer Cemetery, a swimming pool or many
other worthy projects that are not “befriended” by the folks (or by cronies of
the folks) at One Donham Plaza. There never seems to be any money for most of these "un-befriended" projects. Apparently they just don’t care…and they probably won’t “remember”
this later this fall during budget discussions, when once again, Gilleland will wring her
hands, tell them that everything has been cut to the bone, there is just no
money left for anything, and convince them that an illegal tax tacked onto our
water bills to pay for power and maintenance for street lights is really not a “tax”
at all but a “fee”. |
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|
spiderjohn
Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Jul 01 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2749 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Good job making your casel last night Mr.P, and no real disagreement with anything that you say above, HOWEVER: Council made the only decision that they could make last night, and properly did so unanimously.
It is good and natural to debate this situation and make a case against this expenditure/project.
Still--you have to credit and reward ANY neighborhood who will organize to take care of their surrounding area and put up their own $$ for these improvements. Pretty hard to tell them "NO" and shoot them down. Plus--this sets the stage for when any other neighborhood wants to do something similar(and it wouldn't necessarily be sidewalk lighting)--could be any type improvement, even if there were to be recurring expenses. We are in a system where the overall benefits and costs are shared by all.
Same goes for Weatherwax.
It is a huge area benefit and a woinderful public facility. I have played it many times, and while I am a lousy golfer, I appreciate it's quality. I still maintain that is too cheap, however the golf course competition is butal at this time. Few courses and/or clubs are doing well. Local clubs are perfect examples. Maybe a little support from the CVB would help also.
Same goes for the Health Dept.
Much more effective than it would be if county-operated. And far more important to all than decorative sidewalk lamping.
This city will obviously spend itself into a corner, then cry poor boy all rhe way into our pockets.
It honestly won't be the fault of anything mentioned above, rather the circumstances and other large ?able expenses and "priorities".
jmo
|
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I understand what you are saying, Spiderjohn, and I understand
the point of view of the folks on South Main.
However, neither those folks nor council ever did address some of the
legitimate points that I raised: The folks on South Main have already organized (several
times) when they want something, so why couldn’t they get together, pick the
same lamp posts and lights, and have them installed a few feet farther back
from the curb (on the other side of the sidewalk), thereby achieving the same
effect??? What about their precious Ordinance 1210??? If someone on that street wanted to put up a modern lamp post they could not do so without a “certificate of appropriateness”. They would’ve been hauled before that kangaroo court known as the “Historic Commission” in a New York minute and been threatened with huge fines and jail time. These folks, the Historic Commission, and Ordinance 1210 are all supposed to be about historical accuracy. Last year, while looking at some pictures of Middletown in the late 1800s, I began noticing that there were no gas street lights. I began searching for pictures of old Middletown. I searched Library Lens and many other sources. NO WHERE could I find even one picture of even one gas street lamp in Middletown. This “period lighting” thing is a farce. The City is now going to violate their own Ordinance 1210, and the strongest proponents of that ordinance are complicit in this violation. Ordinance 1210 should be repealed, PRISM should be disbanded, and South Main Street should lose its standing as a Historic District for insisting on permanently “decorating” the street in a historically inaccurate manner!!! Instead of “restoring” South Main Street, they seem intent on making it look like an olde tyme street in some other city. Are they that ashamed of Middletown’s history??? The picture showing the supposed "safety hazard" due to darkness is a joke. A picture taken under the same conditions, with the same camera settings in my neighborhood, Spiderjohn's neighborhood, or 85% of the other neighborhoods in Middletown would be indistinguishable from that picture. Streets in towns that actually did have gas lights would've been even darker!! Where is the money coming from??? We are supposedly broke!!! This question should been asked...it was not. Why not??? |
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|
spiderjohn
Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Jul 01 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2749 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
excellent points again, Mike
we ALL have the same street lights, and they honestly don't illuminate much. people do tricks with photography, and probably so last night If we have a "safety issue" there, then we have one everywhere else also The "period lighting" concept was a good-sounding fantasy As we have seen repeatedly, "historic accuracy" is a convenient weapon to stop someone not in the favor of this un-official group of regulators. I doubt that they could survive ANY court challenge with their helter skelter history of decisions and rulings The bigger picture is that Council has opened the door for shared maintenence responsibility for pretty much any project any neighborhood might want to entertain, with any arbitrary boundary that they might choose--60% rules(and for the ENTIRE city!). The golf course and Health Dept. represent more important battles ahead, and much more of a regional draw and services. The discussion over the decorative lighting is over, and there really were no losers(unless someone loses their home over this). And we really don't ever believe that "there is no money" for any project.
|
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Spiderjohn: Of course the decorative lighting thing is over...for now…but
be assured that I will bring it up in the future when we are told “we are broke”
or that the city has “cut everything to the bone”. And you are correct about the bigger battles to come. In addition to the two that you mention, we cannot forget the biggest “gorilla in the room”: the combined sewer system. Whatever the EPA mandates isn’t going to be cheap, so we can be certain that new and higher taxes are in our future. That is why it irks me so when we squander money, in amounts large and small, on projects that either end up benefiting no one or benefit only a few. And of course no matter how broke they claim we are, they
always happen to find those necessary amounts “tucked away in one of our other
funds” when friends of City Hall have a pet project!!! |
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|
LMAO
MUSA Citizen Joined: Oct 28 2009 Location: Middletucky Status: Offline Points: 468 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Guess I will be watching the water bill and deduct the increase in the lighting I'm already being charged for.I havent got a answer from the people I have wrote about us "TAXPAYERS" paying for a bunch of "SNOBS" purty lights.
Again,I like to ask are "SPINELESS ONES" how do you sleep at night? We all know that you read this forum so why not answer my simple question?Oh I forgot you haven't listen to the fools that voted you in office.(I consider myself one of those fools to.) |
|
Richard Saunders
MUSA Resident Joined: Jun 30 2010 Status: Offline Points: 232 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I was
appalled to hear the reasoning given by council members for voting “for” this
farce, that the S. Main St people “had worked so hard” for this and that it
would “be a shame not to vote for it.” Are
we now to understand that anyone in this town who wants anything and “works
hard” for it should get it even if they cannot afford to pay for it entirely by
themselves? Are we to understand that
council will have the taxpayers pick up the remainder of the bill for anything that anyone
wants and works hard for but cannot totally afford? As
Mr. Presta said at Tuesday’s meeting, “If not, why not?” |
|
over the hill
MUSA Citizen Joined: Oct 19 2012 Location: middletown Status: Offline Points: 952 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
What a can of worms they have opened.
|
|
409
Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Mar 27 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1014 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Which fixture will it be on S. Main St.?
Fixture types #1 & #2 are installed in the Sunset Park / Aberdeen Dr. area. Type #2 are primarily installed in the Highlands area. Type #3 is currently installed on MainSt. & part of Central Ave. in downtown. Type #4 is currently installed on part of Central Ave. downtown. S. Main residents originally referenced the lights in the Sunset/Aberdeen area. (#1 & #2) Then Mr. Tadych referenced the lights on N. Main. (#3) Is the two headed fixture #4 a possibility? Of course these only use 2x the electric. Or maybe there is a mystery fixture in our future. The fixtures to be installed & exact number have not been identified to my knowledge. |
|
VietVet
MUSA Council Joined: May 15 2008 Status: Offline Points: 7008 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I BELIEVE THE ANSWER LIES IN ASKING THE MIDDLETOWN HISTORICAL SOCIETY WHICH DESIGN IS THE MOST ACCURATE FOR THE S. MAIN ST. AREA. THEY SEEM TO BE THE EXPERTS ON THIS SUBJECT, RIGHT MIKE? THIS COULD EASILY BE DONE, OF COURSE, BASED ON THE MANY PICTURES MIKE FOUND IN HIS INVESTIGATION ON GAS LIGHTS THROUGHOUT MIDDLETOWN'S HISTORY.
AS AN OPTION, WE COULD ALWAYS ASK THE MULLIGANS AND KOHLERS AS THEY SEEM TO BE AMONG THOSE LEADING THE CHARGE ON THIS. THEY WOULD KNOW THE APPROPRIATE LIGHTING FOR THE TIME PERIOD. |
|
I'm so proud of my hometown and what it has become. Recall 'em all. Let's start over.
|
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Why...the exact type should be noted on the "Certificate of Appropriateness" issued by the Historic Commission before these lights were authorized.
Oops..wait...there was no "Certificate of Appropriateness", was there??? But how could that be??? Wouldn't that be a violation of City Ordinance 1210??? Hmm...laws don't seem to be much of a factor when City Hall, friends of City Hall, or the so-called history gang are involved, do they??? Oh well...maybe they'll throw up some of those "historically appropriate" junk auto hoods to make up for it!!!
|
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|
Vivian Moon
MUSA Council Joined: May 16 2008 Location: Middletown, Ohi Status: Offline Points: 4187 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I can't wait to find out the REAL COST of this historic Main Street Light Project.
I have never seen so much tap dancing about the cost of a project and who was going to be paying for what.
|
|
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.
Copyright ©2024 MiddletownUSA.com | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Site by Xponex Media | Advertising Information |