Home | Yearly News Archive | Advertisers | Blog | Contact Us |
|
Sunday, May 19, 2024 |
|
6/21 Council meeting comments |
Post Reply | Page <1 234 |
Author | |||
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
So, ONE million bucks ($500K each) per year was going to INCREASE Public Safety, but THREE million bucks per year could only maintain the same level??? Is THAT what you are asking me to believe???
|
|||
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|||
Marianne
MUSA Resident Joined: Jul 13 2008 Location: here Status: Offline Points: 165 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Spider, I don't remember what the projected revenues were, but I do believe that what's been brought in has not been what was expected, so on that point I agree. . |
|||
Marianne
MUSA Resident Joined: Jul 13 2008 Location: here Status: Offline Points: 165 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
So, you agree with me that no one said that the public safety levy would increase public safety? |
|||
acclaro
Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Jul 01 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1878 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Property taxes vs Income Taxes for raising revenue (enhancement). Why s the city putting thes elevies on a a property tax? Because the amount of tax revenue generated per income tax is going down because the city is NOT bring in business. Yet again, property tax would not be a win, because Middletown property value has fallen about 40%, but few challenge the tax assessment. So, property taxes the new prefererd method of robbing the residents for all the fine services rendered in Middletown.
|
|||
acclaro
Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Jul 01 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1878 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
MScouter---the crux of the point is direct: this council is placing the Senior Center initiatve to bail out the underfunding they currently have, and many council people have ties to BOTh John XXIII and Fenwick, ergo Mulligan, Picard, and about all of city hall, Wall, past chiefs, etc
Fenwick and John XXIII are directly linked, its called the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. John XXIII got the Fenwick building when the caveat for the Fenwick move was raising $4 Mm.
The issue is the city is placing a burden on residents associated with the Senior Citizens Center's financial problems, and spreading it out among tax payers, when they overpaid for the John XXIII property.
On both levies, and the 3.50 charge per light, it is unconscionable with all the damage the city has done to its residents, they have the nerve to bring these to vote---the city is NOT IN THE BUSINESS of bailing out the Senior Citizen Center. The Health Department can merge with Butler Cty. I see no justifcation in fact, collecting 3.50 a month for a street lamp. Is that a) going to attract a buyer to your house you may be selling b) make fewer buyers interested in your house sitting in Middletown. Its b.
|
|||
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
It is on the record, and the record is the record!!! But don't take my word for it!!! Feel free to search back for either the minutes of City Council meetings, or the DVD of same, for the budget discussions for the 2008 budget (held in the fall of 2007), and see it for yourself. At that time, both the Fire Chief and the Chief of Police asked for a $500,000 (each) increase in departmental budgets over their 2007 budgets. Part of the reasoning used to justify the increase was to hire two ADDITIONAL personnel (each) to "increase public safety". Two times $500,000 equals one million dollars per year. The "Public Safety levy" has been bringing in $2.8 million per year, yet NO additional people have ever been hired, and less than four years (and about TEN MILLION DOLLARS) into the "Public Safety levy" they are ready to CUT people, due to lack of funds!!!
|
|||
“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)
|
||
Marianne is correct in that there was never a promise to INCREASE the level/manpower within public safety.
However there WAS a guarantee that current levels of services/manpower would be maintained throughout the course of the levy. This guarantee is totally controlled by city admin pending Council approval.
And now Council/Admin is advocating/planning to cut these service/manpower levels BEFORE the current levy expires, which would be an unfortunate contradiction to the Admin promise.
The levy was projected to bring in $15,000,000 over it's 5-year run, however the revenue has not been as anticipated.
Am I correct on this Marianne?
Then AJ confuses the issue by stating that the public safety levy was a property tax instead of an income tax(he had a bad night).
Anita summed it up correctly when stating that new business influx, current business expansion and job creation would still be the most basic long-term method of solving most of these cash crunch issues. Do we still have a functional ED dept.? If so, what are they doing? They had a pretty healthy dept.budget, which could be down0-sized very easily since the loss of the dept.head and his out-of-control expense account and municipal giveaways(which have produced very little payback so far). |
|||
middletownscouter
MUSA Citizen Joined: Oct 11 2010 Location: Sunset Park Status: Offline Points: 501 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
You're partially right. Fenwick didn't directly benefit from the levies because they had zero interest in the property that is now the Senior Center. That was John XXIII school and they purchased the old Fenwick building and then sold the old property on Central. John XXIII and Fenwick are two different organizations.
|
|||
acclaro
Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Jul 01 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1878 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
In typical fashion, the city is pandering to help protect their special interest friends and deploy croynism with the tax plans for support of the Senior Citizens Center. I question if this is ethical appropriate. Mulliagn should not be voting on many of these issues. The Sr. Citizens Group overpaid and overextended themselves to buy the John XXIII property and then build another facility. That helped Fenwick move OUT of Middletown, where Milligan's mother became Principal. The problems and money will not be used to enhance or add to educating seniors, but retire their debt. They have expenses monthly > than what they bring in. It was speculated it might close. So, the pauback for that organization and their purchase to help Fenwick move is a tax levy? Then you have of course, the qid pro qup for seniors then voting for the property tax, because they get the Homestead tax break. This is highly unethical if not illegal, as to what purpose and need does the Senior Center provide as an outcome of the levy taxes collected if passed? A better position to pay their debt because they help pass tax levies since they are in retrement homes or get a break from taxes? Anyone who supports this is wrong.
The Senior Citizens Center doesn't even have grass growing in the field, its all clover and dangerous for those who are allergic to bees. And because they cannot get their membership up, the tax payer is supposed to bail them out under the cloak of a benefit? It benefits no one but debt retirement because their membership numbers are flat
Now, to raisning $3.50 per household for the street lights? These actions are unethical and unsupported by fact. How much does the city pay for lighting, and how much will be generated is the question. All of these actions just alienate others from ever wanting to step foot in Middletown, the trivial taxes, the red light cameras, admitted to NOT BE ABOUT SAFETY but revenue generation (act surprised), and the waste bailing out the Thatcher estate while neglecting other issues
Middletwonians, you pass these levies, you all should be put in a mental ward.
|
|||
Marianne
MUSA Resident Joined: Jul 13 2008 Location: here Status: Offline Points: 165 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
I don't recall anyone saying that the public safety levy would "increase" public safety. Who said that? |
|||
middletownscouter
MUSA Citizen Joined: Oct 11 2010 Location: Sunset Park Status: Offline Points: 501 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Didn't we just pass a senior citizens levy recently, or are all the elections running together now in my head?
|
|||
Marianne
MUSA Resident Joined: Jul 13 2008 Location: here Status: Offline Points: 165 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
They went to public safety. |
|||
409
Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Mar 27 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1014 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Would these faux olde tyme gas lights be of the more expensive metal variety or of the cheapo plastic variety that were installed on my street years ago? Hmmm......
|
|||
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Why would anyone believe that a "Public Health" or a "Senior Citizens" levy would be handled any differently??? As soon as the right "Friends of City Hall" want the doggie park badly enough or the Historical Gang lobbies for The Manchester for a new Museum of Middletown History, the Health Department and the Senior Citizens will go right under the bus!!!
Or who knows??? Perhaps 60% of the folks on S. Main might decide that everyone in their neighborhood needs an electrified Lawn Jockey to illuminate the house number on their curb--so that Senior Citizens or the Public Health nurse or the police or firefighters can find their houses at night.
|
|||
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|||
Bill
MUSA Citizen Joined: Nov 04 2009 Status: Offline Points: 710 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Say no to the Senior Citizen levy. No one forced them to build a Taj Mahal on Central that they couldn't afford.
|
|||
spiderjohn
Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Jul 01 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2749 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
ornamental street lights for the S Main hyterical district ?s:
as Mr.P asked--are they more expensive to maintain(clean--power--construct)?
will the energy charge also go to the property frontage owner(especially since Council/Admin wants to shift the city-wide street light costs to residents)?
the city(through Olde Southe Parke) owns considerable frontage in this project. Did "they" "vote" in favor of this project? Did they "vote" "against" this project? Was their frontage exposure considered in the mix?
should the city share(construction-maintenence-power charges-lamping) and added taxpayer expense prohibit Council/Admin from approving this project considering their financial position and their overall street light proposal?
will this added construction slow down the roadway/curb/gutter construction and/or add to those costs?
shouldn't Council ask some of these ?s?
senior center levy proposal:
a goofy drawn-out presentation
seemed a liitle greedy and over the top imo
Sure--we all have very expensive wish lists
basketball court for seniors?
another park?
why not a golf course also(we have one possibly for sale!)?
been there many times--anyone ever see African Americans in that building?
ren't we cutting services at the Community Center?
Still--it is totally up to the voters
How much $$ does everyone think the public has as discretionary income?
At least Mr.Carolus lays his cards clearly on the table(then the chicanery begins).
Could the city voters approve a health dept.levy and still dump the health dept?
We have seen how dedicated funds can be manuevered.
|
|||
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Finally, I certainly agree with Councilman (and attorney) Picard’s suggestion about getting council out of the Public Housing Authority business. At last, they (except Councilman Smith) want to do things the LEGAL way??? With FOUR lawyers (Picard, Allen, Adkins, Landen) involved, one would think that they would have read the ORC before now and would have known that they were, and are, acting illegally!!! They cannot appoint themselves to a board, and they cannot oversee or administer a contract. “After the authority to make such contracts has been given and the necessary appropriation made, the legislative authority shall take no further action thereon.” |
|||
“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)
|
||
Did I see and hear Mayor Lawrence P. Mulligan, Jr. participating in the S. Main St. olde tyme street light discussion. Isn’t our Honorable Mayor one of the direct beneficiaries of this item and isn't he blatantly in favor of it??? Isn’t that a “conflict of interest” and therefore wasn’t his participation contrary to state law??? Shouldn’t Law Director Landen have put a stop to that??? Or, was I hallucinating??? |
|||
“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)
|
||
While the state law (ORC Chapter 727) under which Law Director Landen, et al, claim the authority to petition for the olde tyme street lamps on S. Main Street does address “lighting”, it certainly does NOT address the DEMOLITION of perfectly adequate, EXISTING street lighting meeting the standards of the City of Middletown, to be replaced with DECORATIVE lighting which (most likely) supplies a lower illumination rating. Further, like the bike path, the “law of unintended consequences is not being considered. The taxpayers will be stuck with the higher maintenance, utility and replacement costs associated with these faux olde tyme gas lights, as well as the higher crime and vandalism costs associated with the lower illumination levels.
Further, it is both unfair and extravagant in these times of economic malaise for some areas of our city to go without adequate street lighting, while thousands of extra taxpayers’ dollars are wasted to demolish perfectly good lights for replacement by decorative lights.
Yet they say we are in dire straits and taxes must be RAISED!!! Go figure!!!
|
|||
“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)
|
||
So, no one would hazard a guess as to how much money would be spent maintaining our submarine/bike path. My guess is more will be spent on it this year than it would take to subsidize Sunset Pool for FIVE YEARS!!!. Of course, one is for the connected adults on fancy bikes wearing coordinated sweat suits; the other is “for the kids”. |
|||
“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)
|
||
First, it appears that we will be seeing both a “Senior Citizens’ levy” and a Public Health levy” on this November’s ballot.
Personally, I think both of these could be worthy causes, BUT (it seems like there is always a “but”, doesn’t it???) please recall what happened to the PUBLIC SAFETY levy that was passed a few years ago: The proceeds of that levy were “dedicated” and “earmarked” and “committed“ and “promised” and “designated” to be completely set aside for increased PUBLIC SAFETY.
But what actually happened to those funds??? We saw no actual increase in public safety forces. Instead the funds were used to plug the budget holes left due to extravagant spending by reckless councils and city administrations.
|
|||
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|||
Post Reply | Page <1 234 |
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 0.078 seconds.
Copyright ©2024 MiddletownUSA.com | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Site by Xponex Media | Advertising Information |