Property registration proposal

greygoose. You ask, I respond.

1. Not guilt by association at all. The past leaders had different agendas and had their moments of failure. The current crop of city leaders are running a new game. I dislike both council and city administration. Think both are inept, focused on the wrong things, refuse to interact with most citizens, have an agenda that is governed by MMF, pathetic as to performance and in general, failures. Examples? Sure. How about the oversaturation of Section 8 and the further onslaught of lowering the standards in this city, for the purpose of receiving HUD fed money for city revenue. Another example...no effort at all in seeking decent jobs for the people of this city in years. Periodic announcements of 10 or 20 jobs created, paying $10-$15/hour doesn't cut it and is no eye-opening revelation. Another example of promises in the dark? Duncan Oil. Tore down active businesses to make room for Duncan Oil, which never materialized. Poor planning. Pathetic execution. More failure. Oh, and what is with the entrance to the city out by I-75 on the east side? Looks unfinished, crude, deserted, and non-inviting to people at the Exit 32 getoff. Nothing there. Not even a gas station. The east end was the focus a while back. Now, no interest. All of it is going downtown, away from the visibility factor discussed. Wrong decision again by city leaders. Why do the citizens get stuck with such ineptness? The only way to improve this city is to fire all in the city building, rehire competence. Recall all council members, re-elect competence. Otherwise, this city is going nowhere. JMO We are dealing with clueless people both in the city building and on council.

2. Growth by undeveloped acreage? Partly. Also development in Mason, Springboro and West Chester simply due to their reputations as more "upscale", higher class visibility, (AK Steel moved to West Chester and Black Clawson moved to Mason-Montgomery Road for higher visibility and to entertain clients in a more professional, upscale climate). Middletown leaders have screwed up everything they have touched, and, lastly, because, as Vivian and other business folks have stated, Middletown leaders have put up so many roadblocks toward inviting businesses to locate here, the word is out that this town is business unfriendly, stubborn and out-of-touch with modern developmental thinking.

3. Focused on downtown development. Word on the street is that if the downtown shows favorable growth (Cinci State and an arts district), it will enhance property values along the S. Main St. corridor, which, ironically is where the mayor and Marty Kohler (and I'm sure other influential people live). Imagine that! It goes to show you how weak-minded council is that they could be influenced by a small minority of artzy people who got them to support the PAC and other functions. Because Middletown is a blue-collar town (ie- more NASCAR and burgers than arts, cheese, wine and the "finer things in life" crowd), the arts theme downtown will attract few from Middletown. They must rely on out of town traffic to stimulate this idea. Don't see overwhelming interest in PAC so far.....not enough to envoke notice. No, IMO, logically, if you want to attract people to downtown in any numbers, you have to offer something the MAJORITY would be interested in.(like the chance to win some money) Now, no one on this forum, nor in the community wants to talk about it, but I still maintain that if we place a casino downtown, it would draw locals and out of town traffic. They would need a place to stay for a weekend. That stimulates hotel and living accomodations to be built. (Reason for a Manchester Hotel upgrade perhaps?). Also need restaurants and entertainment.....golf (Forest Hills) and tennis (Middletown Tennis Club or whatever its called now) and theatre (reason for a Sorg upgrade perhaps?) Pipedreams? Perhaps, but the Banks in Cincinnati is receiving a casino now, aren't they? How about Lawrenceburg Indiana? They're doing ok, aren't they? Making money to upgrade roads, new building going on? Why wouldn't we want what a casino might bring to the downtown area.....far better, IMO, than the current "small campus/artzy district" theme, that will attract only students and people interested in the arts occasionally. Just not enough to keep the downtown stimulated full time. City leader thinking is small minded and not advanced enough to shoot for bigger and better things that would enliven the town at a faster rate. We need some rapid rate growth injected into this town to play catchup with everyone else, but before we can do that, we need to clear out the deadwood in the leadership ranks. THEY are the problem.

why in the heck are you so grouchy vivian (full) moon?

Vet,

I have three questions (and a couple of questions within a question):

1. You view current city leaders with the same esteem as our "failed" leaders from the past. Can you honestly state that its not "guilt by association"? If so, is it the council or the administrative leaders that you dislike? I understand your broad viewpoint; can you give me a couple of specific examples of poor or "shady" decisions and by whom?

2. Would you agree that much of the growth seen by our neighbors can be attributed to nothing more than the fact that they had undeveloped acreage available? If you agree; was the available undeveloped acreage more attributable to their growth than the decisions made by their leadership?

3. "Why" do you think that our leadership is so focused on developing the downtown area? Is it the geography or the type of development that they have in mind that you object to? Do you think that the city purchased downtown properties so that they could dictate the type of development that occured?

Remember, I'm just asking questions. I'll share my thoughts later.

Greygoose - I've never had any personal dealings with any of the council members, but have had plenty of interaction with the City Manager, the Community Revitalization Director, and the former Economic Development Director. My interaction with these folks have definitely helped shape my current opinion of city leadership; an opinion that continues to evolve.

Greygoose
  If you know the City Manager, Community Revitalization Director, and the former Economic Development Director then you should already have the answers to all your questions because these were the people involved in the majority of the hot button issues discussed on this blog.
  If you had watched every City Council Meeting and Planning Meeting over the years maybe you would have a far different opinion of the issues and the people involved.
  This City does not need more rules, regulation, fines, taxes or power over private property. It is the City’s need for absolute power that has strangled the business community to death in this town. This is not a business friendly town. 
      

LMAO,

I put it out there because I inferred from your prior post that meeting with a city official was "out of line". Imply what you wish; if you conduct business in a city over a span of years, it is not "unusual" to communicate with some of its leaders.

greygoose wrote: Swat, I've never had any personal dealings with any of the council members, but have had plenty of interaction with the City Manager, the Community Revitalization Director, and the former Economic Development Director. My interaction with these folks have definitely helped shape my current opinion of city leadership; an opinion that continues to evolve.

ground swat wrote: Heres a simple question- how many out there in MUSA land have every worked for or with the city leadership specifically the city manager??

Ok greygoose, I'll make an attempt here, albeit civil, to provide my input since you asked for it in your post from people on this forum.

greygoose-"City leaders should possess "leadership" skills (leadership is a process by which a person influences others"

Unfortunately, very few past and current city leaders have demonstrated leadership skills. Few have had a vision, game plan or offered any positive direction for this city. Past embarassments such as the City Centre Mall, Lake Middletown and the Bicentennial Commons, as well as the once all important East End, now taking a backseat to the downtown area, have hurt the city and contributed to the lack of trust from what I believe to be the majority of the citizens. IMO, we have no dynamic leaders who possess any common sense whatsoever nowadays. There is a game they are playing in this town. It is a game of exclusion for the majority of us. Attention seems to be directed to a few of their friends, who they seem to bend over backwards to please. I have lived here since 1948 and have seen it all. Good times and bad. Since the 70's we have been in a downward spiral as to city growth, econ. development and clear path thinking which has resulted in what we have now. Stagnation, mis-focus, little hope in the job market, little hope for the people raising their standard of living and little trust in our city government.

I agree with you that the dynamics of the city are changing. Started in the 70's with AK (always Armco to me) downsized from the 9000+ working in the 60's to ~ 3000 today. Like the town, AK is a shadow of it's former self. Paper mills all gone. Town looks deserted/desolate and ghostly. People were proud to live here in the 50's and 60's. Now, not so sure. Has become a joke to neighboring communities and known for it's inept "can't seem to get anything done correctly" thinking. While Springboro, West Chester and Mason were cow pastures when I was young, they have now bypassed Middletown and have exploded with growth while Middletown was treading water or sinking into the abyss.....all being allowed to happen by the past/present leaders. Sad for me to watch, knowing what this city used to be.

You need to understand that some of us have a basis of comparison. We were here when times were good and the town was a GREAT place to raise a family, had ample employment in the good job category, run with some degree of competency/trust, people didn't feel excluded from the operation of their own town and we were proud of our town. Now......

I'm not surprised at all.  Just look who is posting.

greygoose 4. I don't see $25.00 per mailbox putting any landlord out of business unless they are already headed that way. Don't get me wrong; I don't like the added expense, but will support it if it benefits the city as a whole. Quite frankly, much of my support for the registration program is the hope that it will help reduce the number of sustainable rental units toward the 3,600 goal. To date, my support for Mr. Adkins is due to his recognition that the city has too many rentals and reducing that number is a primary objective of his (that's why I would like more info on the proposed 216 new units). MR/Mrs/Miss Goose....Why should us landlords have to give our lieing,cheating crooks of a council 25 bucks to register our properties when  they are already registered in the County?As some has mentioned on here,they have lost the respect of alot of citizens for their lieing on certain things and before you ask what do your own research since you think you know it all.

Mr. Goose:While I don't mean to answer for Ms. Moon, I would like to speak to the points numbered in your post.Your item 1: Our city's leaders are not supposed to put "spin" on projects.  They are supposed to tell the truth.  It is certainly not understandable that they mislead us, nor is it expected.  It is, in fact, deplorable that they do so.  If they cannot be honest, they should quit, be fired, or be prosecuted.
I would sooner follow a general into battle that honestly told me that the odds were 100 to 1 against us, than a general that told me that the odds were in our favor when any moron could plainly see that the odds were 100 to 1 against us.  Didn't you learn anything from the Revolutionary War, the assault on Normandy, the Alamo?  Did the leaders in those (and similar) conflicts tell their "troops" that the odds were in their favor?  In contrast, consider how Der Fuehrer kept telling his troops that the odds were in their favor.  How did that work out for him?It is interesting that you believe that is is correct for our city's leaders to "spin," that is, lie to or mislead us.  It makes me wonder why I should even bother to answer the remaining points of your post.
If you believe that it is okay for our leaders to deceive us, why should we believe anything that you have to say?  Won't anything that you write just be "spin" as well?
I have logical, well-reasoned replies to each of your other points, but why bother typing them out?  Why should I earnestly try to rebut your "spin" with sincere logic and reason.You, Sir, are obviously nothing more than a cheap tout.  You are simply someone out to "spin" for the "spinners."I shan't waste any more time on you.

Vivian,

I appreciate your response to my post. It is now clear to me that you are very "tuned in" to the happenings within our city. I may be wrong, but your response leads me to believe that what I perceived as constant negativity is really a release of many years of frustration with our city's leaders and their poor decision making history. You've raised several interesting points that I would like to chime in on:

1. Because of the city's poor history, you and many others on this board are leary of the positive "spin" that city leaders put on projects that they support. It's understandable but, to be fair, isn't it to be expected. Would you follow a general into battle if he told you that that odds of survival were 1 in 100?

2. You mention Cincinnati State as an example of the city's manipulation of the facts. Can you tune me in on why you feal this way. I'm not disagreeing, I just don't know. To me, the third party feasability studies looked good and the risk to the city appears minimal.

3. There are approximately 9,000 rental units in the city but, according to the city's 2010 Section 8 Report, we should "strive" to reduce that number to around 3,600 (a 60% reduction!!!!!!). If the city approved the building of 216 rental units, it flys in the face of their own recommendation. Can you provide more info on these proposed new rentals?

4. I don't see $25.00 per mailbox putting any landlord out of business unless they are already headed that way. Don't get me wrong; I don't like the added expense, but will support it if it benefits the city as a whole. Quite frankly, much of my support for the registration program is the hope that it will help reduce the number of sustainable rental units toward the 3,600 goal. To date, my support for Mr. Adkins is due to his recognition that the city has too many rentals and reducing that number is a primary objective of his (that's why I would like more info on the proposed 216 new units).

5. Conceptually, I understand your concern over a single individual having too much power and control. However, the problems that Mr. Adkins is dealing with are monumental and if he needs additional "stroke" to get it done, I'll support it (as long as individual freedoms are not truly encroached upon).

6. In my prior post, I asked you questions about Mr. Adkins because I have, what I believe, to be the answers. You are absolutely right about HUD not permitting Mr. Adkins to reduce the number of Section 8 vouchers, but it was not due to a lack of effort. The 2010 Section 8 Report that he prepared was so full of spin, it made me dizzy reading it. However, HUD isn't going to allow it until poverty related numbers drop enough to justify it. I think that it is imperative that the number of rental units in this town be reduce to have any chance of economic recovery. If you can't reduce that number by taking away vouchers, the only choice that you have left is to take away the actual rental units. I believe that to be Mr. Adkins' strategy and support it. It's going to be painful but I feel that it must be done. This support is not coming from someone sitting on the sidelines with nothing to lose. I have many rental units in this town and this strategy will cost me much more than most residents.

7. I see that you mention the Duncan Oil deal. I happen to know the president of that company (unless he recently retired). What deal are you speaking of? I can probably get the inside skinny on it if I know what you are referring to.

8. I thought that Walter Leap did the best job of stating his position. I loved it when he pointed out a couple of city owned properties that were not be maintained. Rachel Lewitt lost some credibility with me when she stated something to the effect of "many landlords are opporating at a loss". This might be technically true, but anyone in the "landlord business" knows that demand is higher than normal and we all know what happens when demand is greater than supply.

I look forward to your reply. I am curious to see how much we do and don't have in common.