Print Page | Close Window

Council Agenda 6-19-2012

Printed From: MiddletownUSA.com
Category: Middletown City Government
Forum Name: City Manager
Forum Description: Discuss the city manager administration including all city departments.
URL: http://www.middletownusa.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4617
Printed Date: Dec 09 2019 at 6:29am


Topic: Council Agenda 6-19-2012
Posted By: Vivian Moon
Subject: Council Agenda 6-19-2012
Date Posted: Jun 15 2012 at 1:54am

MIDDLETOWN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA , June 19, 2012

I. BUSINESS MEETING – 6:00 p.m. – COUNCIL CHAMBERS – LOWER LEVEL

1. MOMENT OF MEDITATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG

2. ROLL CALL

3. PUBLIC HEARING – MidPointe Public Library Budget Request

Motion to Receive and File the MidPointe Public Library 2013 Budget Request

4. PUBLIC HEARING- 2013 City Tax Budget

5. CITIZEN COMMENTS

6. CITY MANAGER REPORTS

South Main Street Decorative Lighting Discussion

Municipal Income Tax Uniformity

7. CONSENT AGENDA. . . Matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion and one vote of consent. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, that item will be removed and considered separately.

(a) Approve City Council Minutes: June 5, 2012

(b) Receive and File Board and Commission Minutes:

Civil Service-March 15, April 26 and May 17, 2012

Board of Health and Environment- May 8, 2012

(c) Receive and file Oaths of Offices: Matt Taylor and Joel Gross

(d) Confirm Personnel Appointment: Part Time Account Clerk – Shirley Jones

(e) Receive, File and Duly Record Petition:

Asking Council to take measures to close Miller’s Lounge at 124 Charles Street

8. MOTION AGENDA

(a) Receive, File and Adopt the 2013 City Tax Budget

9. COUNCIL COMMENTS

II. LEGISLATION

1. Ordinance No. O2012-21, an ordinance amending Chapters 1434, 1436 and 1486 and repealing Chapter 1446 of the codified ordinances. (2nd Reading)

2. Resolution No. R2012-15, a resolution authorizing the City Manager to participate in the Moving Ohio Forward Grant Program and declaring an emergency.

3. Ordinance No. O2012-22, an ordinance authorizing a Memorandum of Understanding with the Butler County Land Reutilization Corporation for the cooperative acquisition and banking of non productive real property in Middletown and declaring an emergency.

4. Ordinance No. O2012-23, an ordinance establishing a procedure for and authorizing an agreement between the City and Commerce Corner, LLC for the transfer of right-of-way and declaring an emergency.

5. Resolution No. R2012-16, a resolution declaring it necessary to levy a tax in excess of the ten mill limitation for the purpose to supplement the General Fund for the purpose of making appropriations for providing or maintaining senior citizens services and/or facilities as set forth in the Ohio Revised Code Section 5705.19(Y) and determining to proceed to submit the question of levying such tax to the electors of the City of Middletown, Ohio, at the election on November 6, 2012, in accordance with Section 5705.19(Y) of the Ohio Revised Code. (First Reading)

III. EXECUTIVE SESSION

Under the authority of O.R.C. 121.22 (G) (1) To consider the appointment of a public employee or official, specifically to review board or commission candidate applications.




Replies:
Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Jun 17 2012 at 1:10am

Has anyone else read the part of this week’s workbook regarding Legislative Item 5???

 

To refresh your memories, The Middletown Area Senior Citizens have asked the City to put an issue on the ballot for “a five‐year property tax for Middletown residents on the November ballot with the goal of obtaining $650,000/year” (a total of $3.25 million).

 

Our friends at City Hall have responded with this week’s Legislative Item 5, which will float a TEN YEAR property tax that will bring in over $781,400 per year (a total of $7.814 million)!!!

 

No mention is made of what will happen to the EXTRA $4,500,000+, but I suspect that it will be “tucked away into some hidden fund", until some pet project needs it, when it will “miraculously” be “discovered”!!!

(Or perhaps City Hall just feels that they deserve a $4 "handling fee" for every $3 in taxes they collect for a non-profit organization serving our senior citizens.)


-------------
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012


Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Jun 18 2012 at 9:29am
May I ask Mike Presta, or anyone a question? If the Senior Citizen Group could not pay their monthly payment they committed to, and the value of the property had gone down so much they could not refinance or take out another loan. why were they never foreclosed?

What happened to all that discussion about the due diligence on the fincial aspects of this "bail out" city council?

I find it really upsetting the city has the big fire truck over there yesterday when they had the FD car wash and car exhibit. Another, seniors, you scratch my back, we'll scratch yours support.

Hey citizens, this may seem novel to you, but when the city asks for all these tax increases all it does is make your property decline, and the appeal of Middletown as a tax magnet, and BUYER BE AWARE, stay away, elevate. Some day, you might get this basic concept. What a waste this city is.

And not a soul is making an attempt to defeat the levy. But it still will not pass. Mark my words on that one.    

-------------
'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill


Posted By: rngrmed
Date Posted: Jun 19 2012 at 6:26am
If I am being taxed and have to pay for the Senior Citizen building, can I use the building now?  What if I don't live to be a "Senior Citizen"?  What if I move out of the city and never get to use it?  Why should I pay for it?  Nothing for my investment. 
 
Why is this any different than welfare or any other Socialist program? 


Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Jun 19 2012 at 7:14am
Originally posted by rngrmed rngrmed wrote:




If I am being taxed and have to pay for the Senior Citizen building, can I use the building now?  What if I don't live to be a "Senior Citizen"?  What if I move out of the city and never get to use it?  Why should I pay for it?  Nothing for my investment. 
 
Why is this any different than welfare or any other Socialist program? 



Not trying to argue here rngrmed. Just a comment coming from a 63 year old person who is using the Senior's handicapped bus service to get his wife to dr's appts periodically. We don't go to the Seniors Center. Don't have the time and the wife can no longer function in a social environment but I will testify that their bus service has been a blessing for us. Perhaps as you age, you may appreciate having some senior's services to use. I hate levies and taxes as much as any on this forum, but will vote for this levy for selfish reasons.....to keep the bus service that helps us so much.

How about veterans? Do you feel the same about them as you do the seniors? Haven't they put in their time to earn something in the way of life improvements for their service? Would you feel the same as to the investment you would make on their behalf as you do the seniors? Would you feel the same way when you are a senior and would like some support for putting in your time (and money over the years) into society? Wouldn't you want to feel appreciated by the younger generation for making their lives just a little better? Younger people really don't think about these things until they are seniors. I would imagine, then, they would like to be appreciated by the younger set. Everyone takes their turn at being young and being seniors. The seniors could be mom and dad or grandpa and grandma. Of course, I'm a little bias toward seniors. I was raised by my grandparents who took me out of the orphnange at Otterbein Home in the early 50's. They were mom and dad to me. Just something to ponder.


Posted By: TonyB
Date Posted: Jun 19 2012 at 8:22am
rngrmed,

Being angry about taxes and government services that you will never use is a complete waste of time and energy. Do you have the same rant about the school system? Democratic government is socialism!!! Look up the meaning of the word "socialism". This screaming that you don't need anyone or anything from government is self-delusional. What is truly needed are steps to turn elected officials into servants of the public instead of a career. Then you might find a little less cronyism and more efficient and effective governance.


Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Jun 19 2012 at 8:38am
Vet, while I personally am saddened about the serious matter you reference regarding your wife, I have to take serious issue on the merit of your point.

Middletown Senior Citizens overpaid and overbought what they needed. Its nothing more complicated than that. Associated with this waste and incredibly poor business decision, it is simply unfair for any citizen to be burdened by their debt load. What the community is really paying for is the fenwick move out to the Hunter area, as that's what the Senior Citizen Ctr did. They made no effort to make use of the existing structure, bought 11 acres, when the needed less than a 1/3 acre, and have mowed their grass one time since spring- that being using a bush hog over the weekend before the car show and car wash they had.

I cannot comprehend how you adamantly oppose school levies (don't kids deserve an education and transport?), but support such am enormous bailout based upon unsound business acquisition, which others absorb the cost of moving JXXIII to Fenwick, and Fenwick into their new home in Hunter.

Simply put, its wrong, and I believe for the vast majority, the levy will not pass. For years Meals on Wheels and other services were provided using storage at the old Middletown Regional Hospital and also had the meals prepared in the facilities at the hospital. I see no reason that the bus/ van transport could not be moved to the Atrium or partnering with other organizations. Same with Meals on Wheels.

The expense and accompany debt was and is associated with the capital put into a building and 11 acres that has not been utilized and clearly, is not needed.

While I agree with many of your positions and logic, on this issue, I respectfully believe you are absolutely wrong.     


-------------
'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill


Posted By: rngrmed
Date Posted: Jun 19 2012 at 10:44am
Not trying to argue with you either Vet. My point is along the lines of Acclaro, with a bit of sarcasm. Many on this forum complain about school levies and whatever arbitrary tax, but back this.
I have no issue helping those in need,it is my nature. At the same time I don't respect someone just because they are elderly or have served in the military. Like you my grandparents helped me out quite a bit and I served as well.



Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Jun 19 2012 at 12:38pm
acclaro:

Middletown Senior Citizens overpaid and overbought what they needed. Its nothing more complicated than that. Associated with this waste and incredibly poor business decision, it is simply unfair for any citizen to be burdened by their debt load. What the community is really paying for is the fenwick move out to the Hunter area, as that's what the Senior Citizen Ctr did. They made no effort to make use of the existing structure, bought 11 acres, when the needed less than a 1/3 acre, and have mowed their grass one time since spring- that being using a bush hog over the weekend before the car show and car wash they had

I AGREE 100%. AGAIN, FROM A SELFISH STANDPOINT ONLY (ALREADY MENTIONED IN MY LAST POST) MY SON AND I NEED THE SENIOR'S SERVICE FOR THEIR HANDICAPPED VAN. IF WE DIDN'T NEED THAT, I WOULD VOTE NO JUST AS YOU, AND MANY OTHERS WILL. IT IS PURE SELFISHNESS ON MY PART THAT I AM VOTING YES. I AGREE, THEY OVERBOUGHT BOTH IN BUILDING AND LAND WITH NO PLAN TO AFFORD IT. FROM THAT STANDPOINT, YOU ARE CORRECT.

"I cannot comprehend how you adamantly oppose school levies (don't kids deserve an education and transport?)"

I AGREE 100% WITH KIDS DESERVING AN EDUCATION. UNFORTUNATELY, YOU, I, AND MANY OTHERS ON THIS SITE HAVE STATED THAT THEY ARE NOT GETTING A DECENT EDUCATION IN THE MIDDLETOWN SCHOOLS. I VOTE DOWN LEVIES BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE LEVY MONIES HAVE BEEN WASTED IN THE PAST, BELIEVE THE SCHOOLS ARE OVERRIPE WITH TOP HEAVY POSITIONS, NEVER HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN PROFICIENCY SINCE THE INCEPTION OF TESTING, ARE NOT A GOOD "BANG FOR THE BUCK" AS TO VALUE FOR THE DOLLAR, AND QUITE FRANKLY, IF THEY WERE A STOCK IN MY PORTFOLIO, WOULD HAVE DUMPED THEM LONG AGO DUE TO MONEY PLOWED INTO VERSUS PERFORMANCE AND GROWTH OUT THE OTHER SIDE.

"Simply put, its wrong, and I believe for the vast majority, the levy will not pass. For years Meals on Wheels and other services were provided using storage at the old Middletown Regional Hospital and also had the meals prepared in the facilities at the hospital. I see no reason that the bus/ van transport could not be moved to the Atrium or partnering with other organizations. Same with Meals on Wheels".

WE GET MEALS ON WHEELS THROUGH BUTLER COUNTY, NOT MIDDLETOWN. UNTIL YOUR SUGGESTIONS HAPPEN, THE SENIORS TRANSPORT IS THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN FOR US.

"While I agree with many of your positions and logic, on this issue, I respectfully believe you are absolutely wrong"

I COULD BE. BEEN WRONG MANY TIMES BEFORE. MY THOUGHTS ARE CONNECTED TO THE DAY TO DAY SURVIVAL FOR MY SON AND I AS CAREGIVERS. WE ARE LOOKING FOR HELP IN ANY DIRECTION THAT IT MAY COME. WE ARE TOO WELL OFF TO RECEIVE HELP FOR HER CARE IN THE HOME BUT CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY OUT OF POCKET TO THE TUNE OF $30-$50/HOUR FOR HELP. KINDA NEGATES THE REASON TO GO TO WORK IF WE WERE TO PAY THAT AMOUNT. TO WORK FULL TIME JOBS AND THEN COME HOME TO OUR SECOND FULL TIME JOB AS CAREGIVERS IS A DAUNTING TASK, ESPECIALLY WITH NO FAMILY HELP, AGENCY HELP OR ANY HELP PERIOD. THE HEATH CARE SYSTEM HAS SAID "SCREW YOU MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE". TO APPRECIATE THE LIFESTYLE, PEOPLE SHOULD TRY IT FOR A WEEK OR TWO. IT'LL KICK YOUR ASS. MY SON AND I HAVE BEEN DOING IT NOW FOR TWO AND A HALF YEARS AND WE'RE FRIKKIN' TIRED.




Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Jun 19 2012 at 12:52pm
rngrmed:

"Many on this forum complain about school levies and whatever arbitrary tax, but back this."

SEE MY POST TO ACCLARO ON THE SUBJECT OF PURE SELFISHNESS ON MY PART ON WHY I WILL VOTE YES FOR THE SENIORS AND ALWAYS VOTE NO ON SCHOOL LEVIES.


"I have no issue helping those in need,it is my nature. At the same time I don't respect someone just because they are elderly or have served in the military"

REALLY???

YOU DON'T RESPECT THE ELDERLY? THEY PUT IN THEIR TIME AND MANY WENT THROUGH HELL DURING THEIR LIFETIMES TO EARN RESPECT. GOTTA SHOW SOME RESPECT FOR THOSE WHO WENT THROUGH THE DEPRESSION, DON'T YOU? HOW ABOUT WORLD WAR II AND KOREA? AND THOSE WHO SERVED IN THE MILITARY....ESPECIALLY THOSE IN COMBAT ZONES WHERE THEY WERE PUT IN A SITUATION TO TAKE A BULLET FOR SOMEONE? NO RESPECT FOR THOSE WHO WERE WILLING TO DIE FOR PEOPLE WHILE THOSE SAME PEOPLE MAINTAINED THEIR LIFESTYLES AND BUSINESS AS USUAL FOR THEM?....AND YOU STATE YOU WERE IN THE MILITARY AND DON'T FEEL SOME BROTHERHOOD FOR FELLOW VETS? YOU HAD GRANDPARENTS WHO HELPED YOU AND DON'T FEEL COMPASSION FOR THE ELDERLY? I CERTAINLY DO. INTERESTING THAT YOU DON'T.


Posted By: rngrmed
Date Posted: Jun 19 2012 at 2:34pm
Based on those merits alone? No. I know plenty of people from those eras and that served in combat zones that wouldn't lift a finger to help themselves, let alone another person.

I've been standing in line at pharmacies to have an elderly just cut in front of me..

At Wildwood Golf Course I've had elderly guys tee off at me without warning..

Not too mention cutting me off on the road...

I beg to differ that those from WWII are our "Greatest Generation". I think they have done to destroy this planet than most other generations. How much nuclear waste is from them? Sure they didn't realize the lasting effects, but since when is "I didn't know" an excuse?

So does one get my respect just from being elderly and having survived or from being in a combat zone? NO!

I support your reasons. I think the bus service should be provided. But why restrict it to the elderly? There are many single mothers that can't get her children to specialty clinics at Children's Hospital..Why is there no service for her?


Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Jun 19 2012 at 5:26pm
rngrmed:

Fair enough. I respect your reasoning and your opinion on the matter of the elderly and vets. Don't agree but respect your side.


"I've been standing in line at pharmacies to have an elderly just cut in front of me"..

Perhaps senility has set in on some of these elderly folks that seem to be inconsiderate in their actions. Have seen some elderly do what appears to be rude behavior at times. Just shake my head, say a "God Bless You", remember my grandparents and smile as I'm more inclined to forgive the elderly than I am some rude young little wise-a-- who should know better.

"At Wildwood Golf Course I've had elderly guys tee off at me without warning"..

That might be different. Sounds like some snobbish old farts who play daily and think they own the frikkin' course.

Not too mention cutting me off on the road.

And that's why seniors should be driver qualified again at age 65 or 70, just to verify they can control the vehicle. JMO

"There are many single mothers that can't get her children to specialty clinics at Children's Hospital..Why is there no service for her?"

Ahh, service for single mothers and low income people. A sore spot for me right now. Been doing battle with Jobs and Family Services in Hamilton for their denial of Medicaid for my wife and the home service it would have provided. You see, a single mother or low income are instantly approved for Medicaid but people like my son and I, who make too much money and have too many assets are dead in the water as to home help. The need is the same for the single mother and my son and I for home care for my wife, but we can find no help anywhere within the social agencies. We must pay out of pocket for our help while receiving a slap in the face, helping fund that single mother who needs help. A real sore spot with me. The State of Ohio just recently approved coverage for Medicaid for low income single mothers as a matter of fact. Was in the paper a week or so ago. THEY are getting the attention. Not people in all classes who really need it.

While we're on the subject of social programs, why is it that you must be 65 to receive elderly bennies for health? My wife's periferal vascular disease started at age 40 with 5 bypasses, two heart attacks, two TIA's, and now, at age 59, a paralyzing stroke. Shouldn't the medical coverage for people younger than 65 be on an as needed basis rather than a "no matter how bad of shape you're in, you don't get crap for medical until you turn 65". Sorry, but some people get seriously sick BEFORE they turn 65......but the policy makers don't give a sh--.....unless it happened to them, that is.

Rant is over. Thank you for letting me vent.



Posted By: 409
Date Posted: Jun 21 2012 at 8:05am
From MJ:
MIDDLETOWN
  Council rethinks $1.1M grant
  City may pursue funds to raze dilapidated homes after all.
  By Michael D. Pitman

   StaffWriter
     Several members of Middletown City Council don’t want to let a potential $1.1 million grant designed to demolish dilapidated homes slip away.

   Mayor Larry Mulligan is attempting to coordinate a special meeting — which could be early next week — for council to reconsider supporting the county land bank’s application of a Moving Ohio Forward Grant from the Ohio Attorney General’s Office. But Butler County Treasurer Nancy Nix said Middletown may not need that meeting if city officials can say a resolution is forthcoming.
MJR/2012/06/21 -   - -    - “I think we’re still good,” said Nix, who met last week with a representative from the Attorney General’s Office. “The state wants to get this money out and is not putting up roadblocks. They’ve said, ‘We’ll work with you.’ ”

-

-    - The County Land Reutilization Corp., which is the still-forming county land bank, is applying for the $2.7 million state grant. Hamilton and Middletown are the potential beneficiaries of the grant, equally splitting the grant and the collective $2.2 million required match.

-

-    - The application for the grant is due by the close of business on June 30.

-

-    - On Tuesday, council sought to pass a resolution as emergency legislation showing interest in the grant. A six-vote super majority was needed since it was emergency legislation.

-

-    - Council voted 5-1, with Councilman Josh Laubach dissenting. Vice Mayor Dan Picard was out
- of town and not at the meeting.

-

-    - Council also failed to pass the memorandum of understanding needed to participate in the land bank. The board voted 5-1 but that legislation also needed a six-vote super majority.

-

-    - However, Law Director Les Landen said council could revisit the land bank as a nonemergency piece of legislation.

-

-    - Community Revitalization Director Doug Adkins said council would need to direct staff to bring the matter back for action where only a simple majority vote would be required.

-

-    - Council members Ann Mort and Joe Mulligan said they were “disappointed” in the turnout of the votes. “It would be a shame if a single dissenting vote is a roadblock to implementing a community revitalization tool that has significant support among council, staff and residents,” Councilman Mulligan said.

-

-    - Mayor Mulligan said he understands people have different
- opinions, but “it’s an important matter to the city.”

-

-    - “We had the vote without full attendance,” said the mayor. “We didn’t hear from Mr. Picard on the issues. It’s an important enough issue that seven members of council need to consider it.”

-

-    - He also said a special meeting on the matter could allow time to address Laubach’s concerns with the legislation.

-

-    - Laubach, who could not be reached for comment Wednesday, said on Tuesday he didn’t believe the grant or the land bank were in the city’s best interest.

-

-    - The Moving Ohio Forward Grant is money that was part of a federal settlement with multiple mortgage providers. The Ohio Attorney General’s Office was given the state’s portion of the multibillion-dollar settlement and set aside $75 million for the grant program designed to demolish dilapidated and abandoned homes.

-

-    - The land bank is a quasi-public nonprofit organization that can acquire vacant, abandoned, tax-foreclosed or other property for rehabilitation or reuse. The land bank would clear property that the city would chose of all liens, including delinquent taxes.

-

-    - The Moving Ohio Forward Grant and the city’s match - would have allowed the city to demolish upwards of 300 vacant and abandoned properties in the city, about 10 percent of its total of vacant and abandoned properties. The city currently demolishes about 40 to 50 homes a year.

-

-    - On Tuesday, Adkins said without the extra help with the grant — as well as the land bank — homes in the city will “just continue to deteriorate, and your neighborhoods will continue to deteriorate.”

-

-    - Landen, who’s the acting city manager while City Manager Judy Gilleland is recovering from surgery, said city staff is in support of the grant program and the land bank.

-

-    - He also said a couple of council members had told him since “one of the council members was missing that maybe this needs to be revisited.”

-

-    - Picard, who was out of town on a trip planned nine months ago, “was very sorry to hear what happened.”

-

-    - He said he would have supported both pieces of legislation and would be interested in a special meeting next week if its needed. “Issues like this can be brought back,” Picard said.

-

-    - While Council members A.J. Smith and Anita Scott Jones supported the issue, they said they would not support calling a special meeting.


Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Jun 21 2012 at 10:34am
Well, isn't that convenient! Have a legitimate vote of council. Everyone accepts the outcome of the voting......wait a minute....they changed their minds on accepting the outcome and will now do an end around run taking a chapter from the Les Landen School of Interpretive Law and Convenience to usurp the original decision to achieve what Sir Lawrence of S. Main St. wants. Incredible. Certainly can't accuse this council of having any credibility can we?

For cryin' out loud council. Make a frikkin' decision and stick with it. It was ok to take the vote with Picard not in attendance on Tuesday. Now, it's not ok that Picard was absent and because the mayor and his cronies didn't get their way with the majority vote, they want to take their shovel and bucket from the sandbox and go home. Children dressed as adults. Seems that no matter what the procedures are, this council always works around the rules. The MMF puppets are at it again folks with old Mulligan and Landen leading the way.


Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jun 21 2012 at 11:33am

June 21, 2012

Mr. Kyle Fuchs
This is a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act for the complete spreadsheets of all NSP Funds from 2009 to current date.
Thank You
Viian Moon



Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jun 21 2012 at 11:43am

"The Moving Ohio Forward Grant and the city’s match would have allowed the city to demolish upwards of 300 vacant and abandoned properties in the city, about 10 percent of its total of vacant and abandoned properties. The city currently demolishes about 40 to 50 homes a year."

Please note that some of these are commercial properties 
MORE DEMO INFORMATION TO FOLLOW..
Demo
Date Obligated Date Spent Street # Street $ Obligated $ Spent Program Inc Activity # Notes
6/25/2009 7/22/2009 723 Tenth $4,959.00 $4,959.00 401 Demo Completed 7/14/2009
6/25/2009 8/4/2009 214 Young $7,200.00 $7,200.00 401 Demo Completed 7/27/2009
8/5/2009 8/5/2009 1810 Columbia Ave $175.00 $175.00 403 Title work
8/5/2009 9/16/2009 624 Moore $7,800.00 $7,800.00 402 Demo Completed 9/10/2009
8/5/2009 8/25/2009 1317 Woodlawn $8,891.00 $8,891.00 402 Demo Completed 8/21/2009
8/5/2009 9/4/2009 1120 Garfield $5,350.00 $5,350.00 402 Demo Completed 8/26/2009
8/5/2009 8/18/2009 1903 Casper $6,994.00 $6,994.00 402 Demo Completed 8/13/2009
8/13/2009 8/13/2009 624 Moore $175.00 $175.00   402 Title work
8/13/2009 8/13/2009 1317 Woodlawn $175.00 $175.00 402 Title work
8/13/2009 8/13/2009 3008 Omaha $175.00 $175.00   402 Title work (Revised/moved to Admin - see Admin Tab 9/17)
8/18/2009 8/18/2009 1117 Young $175.00 $175.00   404 Title work
8/18/2009 8/18/2009 403 Baltimore $175.00 $175.00   404 Title work
9/4/2009 9/4/2009 527 Baltimore $7,250.00 $7,250.00 403 Demo Completed 9/1/2009
9/4/2009 9/4/2009 830 Sixteenth $9,740.00 $9,740.00 403 Demo Completed 9/1/2009
9/4/2009 9/10/2009 1810 Columbia Ave $7,300.00 $7,300.00 403 Demo Completed 9/10/2009
9/4/2009 9/16/2009 1425 Oxford State Rd $4,998.00 $4,998.00 403 Demo Completed 9/10/2009
9/8/2009 9/8/2009 403 Baltimore $7,130.00 $7,130.00 404 Demo Completed 9/3/2009
9/8/2009 9/22/2009 814 Fifteenth Ave $6,124.00 $6,124.00   404 Demo Completed 9/10/2009
9/8/2009 9/22/2009 1117 Young $6,984.00 $6,984.00   404 Demo Completed 9/15/2009
9/11/2009 9/11/2009 214 Young $75.69 $75.69   401 Demo Program Del for Skip 8/04/09
9/11/2009 9/11/2009 723 Tenth $63.73 $63.73 401 Demo Program Del for Skip 7/20/09
9/11/2009 9/11/2009 624 Moore $63.75 $63.75 402 Demo Program Del for Skip 7/21/09
9/11/2009 9/11/2009 1903 Casper $63.75 $63.75 402 Demo Program Del for Skip 7/22/09
9/11/2009 9/11/2009 1120 Garfield $63.75 $63.75 402 Demo Program Del for Skip 7/23/09
9/11/2009 9/11/2009 1317 Woodlawn $63.75 $63.75 402 Demo Program Del for Skip7/23/09
9/11/2009 9/11/2009 1903 Casper $37.84 $37.84 402 Demo Program Del for Skip 7/31/09
9/11/2009 9/11/2009 624 Moore $37.84 $37.84 402 Demo Program Del for Skip 7/31/09
9/11/2009 9/11/2009 1120 Garfield $37.84 $37.84 402 Demo Program Del for Skip 7/31/09
9/11/2009 9/11/2009 1317 Woodlawn $37.84 $37.84 402 Demo Program Del for Skip 7/31/09
9/11/2009 9/11/2009 1810 Columbia $75.69 $75.69   403 Demo Program Del for Skip 8/04/09
9/17/2009 9/17/2009 3008 Omaha -$175.00 -$175.00   402 Title work charge moved to Admin due to being demo'd by owner
9/18/2009 9/22/2009 232 Park St $175.00 $175.00 404 Title work
9/18/2009 10/6/2009 232 Park St $8,364.00 $8,364.00 404 Demo Completed 10/01/2009
10/15/2009 10/23/2009 115 Crawford St $6,124.00 $6,124.00 405 Demo Completed 10/22/2009
10/15/2009 11/18/2009 2106 Pearl St $3,994.00 $3,994.00   405 Demo Completed 11/2/2009
10/15/2009 11/18/2009 2007 Pearl St $3,994.00 $3,994.00 405 Demo Completed 11/2/2009
10/15/2009 11/18/2009 1508 Taylor Ave $5,998.00 $5,998.00   405 Demo Completed 11/4/2009
10/15/2009 11/2/2009 2011 Linden Ave $4,385.00 $4,385.00   405 Demo Completed 10/26/09
10/15/2009 11/2/2009 2100 Grand Ave $5,852.00 $5,852.00   405 Demo Completed 10/28/09
10/15/2009 10/23/2009 215 Baltimore $7,780.00 $7,780.00 403 Demo Completed 10/21/2009
10/23/2009 10/23/2009 723 Tenth $75.96 $75.96   401 Demo Program Del for Skip 8/10/2009
10/23/2009 10/23/2009 624 Moore $75.96 $75.96 402 Demo Program Del for Skip 8/10/2009
10/23/2009 10/23/2009 624 Moore $37.98 $37.98 402 Demo Program Del for Skip 8/11/2009
10/23/2009 10/23/2009 1120 Garfield $113.94 $113.94 402 Demo Program Del for Skip 8/11/2009
10/23/2009 10/23/2009 1903 Casper $113.93 $113.93 402 Demo Program Del for Skip 8/12/2009
10/23/2009 10/23/2009 830 Sixteenth $151.91 $151.91 403 Demo Program Del for Skip 9/9/2009
10/23/2009 10/23/2009 403 Baltimore $151.92 $151.92 404 Demo Program Del for Skip 9/10/09
10/23/2009 10/23/2009 1425 Oxford State $151.92 $151.92 403 Demo Program Del for Skip 9/11/2009
10/23/2009 10/23/2009 814 Fifteenth $151.92 $151.92 404 Demo Program Del for Skip 9/12/2009
10/23/2009 10/23/2009 1117 Young $151.92 $151.92   404 Demo Program Del for Skip 9/15/2009
11/23/2009 12/1/2009 604 Yankee $175.00 $175.00 406 Title work
11/23/2009 12/1/2009 2302 Woodlawn $175.00 $175.00 406 Title work
11/23/2009 12/1/2009 1909 Henry $175.00 $175.00 406 Title work
11/23/2009 12/1/2009 1721 Sheffield $175.00 $175.00 406 Title work
12/1/2009 12/1/2009 604 Yankee $103.00 $103.00 406 Obl & Spent warranty deed prep & recording
11/23/2009 11/23/2009 1909 Henry $5,450.00 $5,450.00   406 Demo Completed 11/19/2009
11/23/2009 11/23/2009 1721 Sheffield $4,987.00 $4,987.00   406 Demo Completed 11/19/2009
12/1/2009 12/1/2009 527 Baltimore $151.37 $151.37 403 Demo Prog Del for Skip 9/20/2009
12/1/2009 12/1/2009 1810 Columbia $151.37 $151.37 403 Demo Prog Del for Skip 9/21/2009
12/1/2009 12/1/2009 232 Park St $189.21 $189.21   404 Demo Prog Del for Skip 10/1/2009
12/8/2009 12/8/2009 604 Yankee $4,938.36 $4,938.36   406 Required delinquent taxes paid as a result of acquiring property for demo
12/8/2009 12/8/2009 2302 Woodlawn $6,625.00 $6,625.00   406 Demo Completed 12/8/2009
12/8/2009 12/8/2009 215 Baltimore $151.37 $151.37 403 Demo Prog Del for Skip 10/21/2009
12/8/2009 12/8/2009 115 Crawford St $189.20 $189.20   405 Demo Prog Del for Skip 10/23/2009
12/8/2009 12/8/2009 2100 Grand Ave $151.37 $151.37 405 Demo Prog Del for Skip 10/28/2009
12/8/2009 12/8/2009 2011 Linden Ave $151.37 $151.37 405 Demo Prog Del for Skip 10/26/2009
12/8/2009 12/8/2009 2106 Pearl St $151.92 $151.92 405 Demo Prog Del for Skip 11/02/2009
12/8/2009 12/8/2009 2007 Pearl St $151.92 $151.92 405 Demo Prog Del for Skip 11/02/2009
12/8/2009 12/8/2009 1508 Taylor Ave $151.91 $151.91   405 Demo Prog Del for Skip 11/04/2009
12/8/2009 12/8/2009 1909 Henry $151.37 $151.37 406 Demo Prog Del for Skip 11/23/2009
12/8/2009 12/8/2009 1721 Sheffield $151.37 $151.37   406 Demo Prog Del for Skip 11/24/2009
12/31/2009 604 Yankee $848.46 406 Buter County Treasurer reimbursement for overpayment of taxes
12/30/2009 2106 Pearl St $500.00 405 Sale of 2106 Pearl Lot to Gail Long for $500
12/30/2009 2011 Linden Ave $500.00 405 Sale of 2011 Linden Ave Lot to Gary Hall for $500
1/5/2010 1/5/2010 1509 Forest Ave $5,390.00 $5,390.00   407 $1848.46 paid from PI. Demo Completed 12/13/2009
1/7/2010 1/7/2010 1325 - 1329 Central Ave $200,000.00 $83,403.55   408 Acquisition cost for 1325 Central necessary for demo project
1/12/2010 1/12/2010 604 Yankee $9,603.00 $9,603.00 406 Demo Completed 1/5/2010
1/12/2010 1/12/2010 715 Seventh $175.00 $175.00 407 Title work
1/12/2010 1/12/2010 2301 Wilbraham $3,338.54 $5,187.00 407 Demo Completed 1/11 - Less was obligated than cost b/c of PI spent for 1509 Forest
1/12/2010 1/12/2010 2810-18 Verity Parkway $132.00 $132.00 407 Rekey required to secure building for prepping for demo
  1/21/2010 2007 Pearl St     $500.00 405 Sale of 2007 Pearl lot to Joseph Brown for $500
1/28/2010 1/28/2010 1504 Penfield $6,840.00 $6,840.00   407 $500 paid from PI. Demo Completed 1/21/2010
1/28/2010 1/28/2010 715 Seventh $6,900.00 $6,900.00   407 Demo Completed 1/15/2010
2/10/2010 2/10/2010 813 Sixteenth $4,984.00 $4,984.00   409 Demo Completed 1/28/2010
2/10/2010 2/10/2010 823 Seventeenth $1,483.00 $1,483.00   409 Demo Completed 1/28/2010
2/10/2010 814 Fifteenth $500.00 404 Sale of 814 Fifteenth to Pepper Woffard (neighbor)
2/18/2010 2/18/2010 1909 Woodlawn $6,000.00 $6,000.00   409 Demo Completed 1/28/2010
2/18/2010 2/18/2010 408 Baltimore $455.00 $455.00 409 Asbestos survey
  2/18/2010 115 Crawford St     $150.00 405 Sale of demo'd lot to Steve Bohannon
  2/18/2010 2100 Grand Ave     $150.00 405 Sale of demo'd lot to Tina Wilson
3/9/2010 3/9/2010 604 Yankee $1,326.36 $1,326.36   406 Past taxes due from acquisition
3/9/2010 3/9/2010 604 Yankee $28.11 $159.14   406 Demo Prog Del for Skip p/e 12/26/2010. $131.03 paid from PI
3/9/2010 3/9/2010 1509 Forest Ave   $159.14   407 Demo Prog Del for Skip p/e 12/26/2010
3/9/2010 3/9/2010 2301 Wilbraham $159.14 407 Demo Prog Del for Skip p/e 12/26/2010
3/9/2010 3/9/2010 1504 Penfield $275.25 $228.48 407 Demo Prog Del for Skip p/e 1/9/2010
3/9/2010 3/9/2010 715 Seventh   $228.49   407 Demo Prog Del for Skip p/e 1/9/2010
3/9/2010 3/9/2010 813 Sixteenth $229.01 $229.01   409 Demo Prog Del for Skip p/e 1/23/2010
3/9/2010 3/9/2010 823 Seventeenth $229.01 $229.01 409 Demo Prog Del for Skip p/e 1/23/2010
3/9/2010 3/9/2010 1909 Woodlawn $229.02 $229.02 409 Demo Prog Del for Skip p/e/ 1/23/2010
3/9/2010 3/9/2010 408 Baltimore $1,200.00 $1,200.00 409 Asbestos Abatement @ 408 Baltimore
3/9/2010 3/9/2010 408 Baltimore $7,914.00 $7,914.00   409 Demo Completed 3/4/2010
  3/19/2010 1508 Taylor Ave     $72.16 405 Refund of Taxes paid on 1508 Taylor and 2100 Grand
  3/19/2010 2100 Grand Ave     $72.16 405 Refund of Taxes paid on 1508 Taylor and 2100 Grand
4/14/2010 4/14/2010 408 Baltimore $141.13 $141.13   409 Demo Prog Del for Kyle p/e 3/6/2010
1/7/2010 5/28/2010 1325 - 1329 Central Ave   $107,587.50   408 Demo completion
6/23/2010   1325 - 1329 Central Ave -$9,008.95     408 Adjusted obligation amount to actual amount spent
8/19/2010 8/19/2010 606 Crawford St $12,075.00 $375.00 410 Obl of Demo Cont & legal fees to purchase 606 Crawford from State
8/19/2010 9/2/2010 324 Yankee $9,151.58 $930.00   410 Obl of Demo & paying for the asbestos survey
8/19/2010 9/2/2010 606 Crawford St   $28.00   410 Recording fee for deed
9/3/2010 606 Crawford St $28.00 410 Obligation of additional funds for recording fee
9/3/2010 324 Yankee $2,440.42 410 Obligation of additional funds for demo & asbestos survey/abatement
8/19/2010 10/11/2010 606 Crawford St   $11,700.00   410 Demo completed 10-6-10. Additional $1,100 owed will be paid upon receipt of PI
9/3/2010 11/29/2010 324 Yankee   $10,662.00   410 Demo Completed 11-24-10
  3/14/2011 1508 Taylor Ave     $1,167.70 405 Refund of Taxes due to exemption filed ($702.60 CDBG PI & $574.92 HOME PI)
n/a 5/31/2011 206 Garfield   $175.00   411 Title exam
n/a 5/31/2011 522 Baltimore $175.00 411 Title exam
n/a 5/31/2011 652 Auburn $175.00 411 Title exam
n/a 5/31/2011 2306 S. Sutphin $175.00 411 Title exam
n/a 5/31/2011 411 Yankee   $175.00   411 Title exam
n/a 5/31/2011 206 Garfield   $195.00   411 Asbestos survey
n/a 5/31/2011 522 Baltimore $566.00 411 Asbestos survey
n/a 5/31/2011 652 Auburn $510.00 411 Asbestos survey
n/a 5/31/2011 2306 S. Sutphin $542.00 411 Asbestos survey
n/a 5/31/2011 411 Yankee   $856.00   411 Asbestos survey


Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Jun 21 2012 at 11:43am
Surprised?

 


-------------
'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill


Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jun 21 2012 at 12:53pm
Here is the link to the latest CAPER REPORT
Please show me where 50 homes have been demoed during this time period

http://www.cityofmiddletown.org/community/comdev.aspx - http://www.cityofmiddletown.org/community/comdev.aspx

http://www.cityofmiddletown.org/docs/commsvc/caper_2010.pdf - – This report documents what was accomplished with the funding the prior program year.  It is due to HUD within 90 days after the end of the program year and must have at least a 15 day citizen comment period.



Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jun 21 2012 at 1:04pm

Please notice in the above NSP document that the majority of all the demo has been done in the 2nd Ward.
Do you really believe that the next 300 demos will not be in the 2nd Ward also?
The 2nd Ward will end up looking like a bombed out third world country.



Posted By: Bocephus
Date Posted: Jun 21 2012 at 5:14pm
Originally posted by Vivian Moon Vivian Moon wrote:

Please notice in the above NSP document that the majority of all the demo has been done in the 2nd Ward.
Do you really believe that the next 300 demos will not be in the 2nd Ward also?
The 2nd Ward will end up looking like a bombed out third world country.

 
And the rest of middletown doesnt ?


Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Jun 21 2012 at 5:33pm
From the City's Community Development web page:
 

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) – These funds are granted to the City each year and are designed to address a wide range of unique community development needs. CDBG funds may be used for activities which include, but are not limited to:

  • construction of public facilities and improvements, such as water and sewer facilities, streets,
And:

Some activities currently funded by the City of Middletown under the CDBG program are:

  • Street PavingThis funding is used to repave streets in designated low-income areas.


-------------
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012


Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Jun 21 2012 at 5:43pm
The city now has 1.1 MILLION DOLLARS (unappropriated) in the General Fund.  Money in the General Fund can be used for any legitimate municipal purpose.  Even if Adkins or Landen try to wrap some weasel words around this $1.1 million, saying it is still CBDG money (which it is not, if it is in the General Fund) CBDG MONEY CAN BE USED FOR PAVING STREETS!!!
 
The honest, ethical members on Council should DEMAND that this money be used for our streets.  Either that, or they should demand that another million be found that is "tucked away in another SLUSH FUND" and used for street paving before this $1.1 million is used for the land bank!


-------------
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012


Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Jun 21 2012 at 5:43pm
Ms. Moon, playing Devil's Advocate, if the city (Mr. Adkins) is allocating most NSP funds to the 2nd Ward, I am confused why the concern over the 54% "Rule" and funds be used elsewhere when the majority in Ward 2? I am slightly confused.

-------------
'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill


Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jun 21 2012 at 8:51pm
Dear Council Members
I need some clarification about the actions that you are about to take concerning the funding of the Moving Ohio Forward Grant Program.
With full knowledge of the rules set down by Mike DeWine, the Ohio Attorney General for this program, is it the intent of this City Council to simply ignore the rules and use HUD Funding for this program?

Mike DeWine
Ohio Attorney General
Moving Ohio Forward Grant Program
Demolition Guidelines
Page 7
”Federal funds, such as CDBG, NSP and HUD, are ineligible as matching funds unless the local government is in fiscal emergency as defined in Chapter 118 of the Revised Code.”



Posted By: greygoose
Date Posted: Jun 21 2012 at 11:01pm
Dear Council Members
I need some clarification about the actions that you are about to take concerning the funding of the Moving Ohio Forward Grant Program.
With full knowledge of the rules set down by Mike DeWine, the Ohio Attorney General for this program, is it the intent of this City Council to simply ignore the rules and use HUD Funding for this program?

Mike DeWine
Ohio Attorney General
Moving Ohio Forward Grant Program
Demolition Guidelines
Page 7
”Federal funds, such as CDBG, NSP and HUD, are ineligible as matching funds unless the local government is in fiscal emergency as defined in Chapter 118 of the Revised Code.”

Ms. Viv,

If you listened to the same council hearing I did, you would have heard Mr. Adkins state that the city’s plan for matching funds had the blessings of both HUD and the AG’s office. It just requires the two step shuffle……

It is time to wipe away those tears   

GG



-------------
"If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got"


Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jun 21 2012 at 11:09pm
Demo
Date Obligated Date Spent Street # Street $ Obligated $ Spent Program Inc Activity # Notes
6/25/2009 7/22/2009 723 Tenth $4,959.00 $4,959.00 401 Demo Completed 7/14/2009
6/25/2009 8/4/2009 214 Young $7,200.00 $7,200.00 401 Demo Completed 7/27/2009
8/5/2009 8/5/2009 1810 Columbia Ave $175.00 $175.00 403 Title work
8/5/2009 9/16/2009 624 Moore $7,800.00 $7,800.00 402 Demo Completed 9/10/2009
8/5/2009 8/25/2009 1317 Woodlawn $8,891.00 $8,891.00 402 Demo Completed 8/21/2009
8/5/2009 9/4/2009 1120 Garfield $5,350.00 $5,350.00 402 Demo Completed 8/26/2009
8/5/2009 8/18/2009 1903 Casper $6,994.00 $6,994.00 402 Demo Completed 8/13/2009
8/13/2009 8/13/2009 624 Moore $175.00 $175.00   402 Title work
8/13/2009 8/13/2009 1317 Woodlawn $175.00 $175.00 402 Title work
8/13/2009 8/13/2009 3008 Omaha $175.00 $175.00   402 Title work (Revised/moved to Admin - see Admin Tab 9/17)
8/18/2009 8/18/2009 1117 Young $175.00 $175.00   404 Title work
8/18/2009 8/18/2009 403 Baltimore $175.00 $175.00   404 Title work
9/4/2009 9/4/2009 527 Baltimore $7,250.00 $7,250.00 403 Demo Completed 9/1/2009
9/4/2009 9/4/2009 830 Sixteenth $9,740.00 $9,740.00 403 Demo Completed 9/1/2009
9/4/2009 9/10/2009 1810 Columbia Ave $7,300.00 $7,300.00 403 Demo Completed 9/10/2009
9/4/2009 9/16/2009 1425 Oxford State Rd $4,998.00 $4,998.00 403 Demo Completed 9/10/2009
9/8/2009 9/8/2009 403 Baltimore $7,130.00 $7,130.00 404 Demo Completed 9/3/2009
9/8/2009 9/22/2009 814 Fifteenth Ave $6,124.00 $6,124.00   404 Demo Completed 9/10/2009
9/8/2009 9/22/2009 1117 Young $6,984.00 $6,984.00   404 Demo Completed 9/15/2009
9/11/2009 9/11/2009 214 Young $75.69 $75.69   401 Demo Program Del for Skip 8/04/09
9/11/2009 9/11/2009 723 Tenth $63.73 $63.73 401 Demo Program Del for Skip 7/20/09
9/11/2009 9/11/2009 624 Moore $63.75 $63.75 402 Demo Program Del for Skip 7/21/09
9/11/2009 9/11/2009 1903 Casper $63.75 $63.75 402 Demo Program Del for Skip 7/22/09
9/11/2009 9/11/2009 1120 Garfield $63.75 $63.75 402 Demo Program Del for Skip 7/23/09
9/11/2009 9/11/2009 1317 Woodlawn $63.75 $63.75 402 Demo Program Del for Skip7/23/09
9/11/2009 9/11/2009 1903 Casper $37.84 $37.84 402 Demo Program Del for Skip 7/31/09
9/11/2009 9/11/2009 624 Moore $37.84 $37.84 402 Demo Program Del for Skip 7/31/09
9/11/2009 9/11/2009 1120 Garfield $37.84 $37.84 402 Demo Program Del for Skip 7/31/09
9/11/2009 9/11/2009 1317 Woodlawn $37.84 $37.84 402 Demo Program Del for Skip 7/31/09
9/11/2009 9/11/2009 1810 Columbia $75.69 $75.69   403 Demo Program Del for Skip 8/04/09
9/17/2009 9/17/2009 3008 Omaha -$175.00 -$175.00   402 Title work charge moved to Admin due to being demo'd by owner
9/18/2009 9/22/2009 232 Park St $175.00 $175.00 404 Title work
9/18/2009 10/6/2009 232 Park St $8,364.00 $8,364.00 404 Demo Completed 10/01/2009
10/15/2009 10/23/2009 115 Crawford St $6,124.00 $6,124.00 405 Demo Completed 10/22/2009
10/15/2009 11/18/2009 2106 Pearl St $3,994.00 $3,994.00   405 Demo Completed 11/2/2009
10/15/2009 11/18/2009 2007 Pearl St $3,994.00 $3,994.00 405 Demo Completed 11/2/2009
10/15/2009 11/18/2009 1508 Taylor Ave $5,998.00 $5,998.00   405 Demo Completed 11/4/2009
10/15/2009 11/2/2009 2011 Linden Ave $4,385.00 $4,385.00   405 Demo Completed 10/26/09
10/15/2009 11/2/2009 2100 Grand Ave $5,852.00 $5,852.00   405 Demo Completed 10/28/09
10/15/2009 10/23/2009 215 Baltimore $7,780.00 $7,780.00 403 Demo Completed 10/21/2009
10/23/2009 10/23/2009 723 Tenth $75.96 $75.96   401 Demo Program Del for Skip 8/10/2009
10/23/2009 10/23/2009 624 Moore $75.96 $75.96 402 Demo Program Del for Skip 8/10/2009
10/23/2009 10/23/2009 624 Moore $37.98 $37.98 402 Demo Program Del for Skip 8/11/2009
10/23/2009 10/23/2009 1120 Garfield $113.94 $113.94 402 Demo Program Del for Skip 8/11/2009
10/23/2009 10/23/2009 1903 Casper $113.93 $113.93 402 Demo Program Del for Skip 8/12/2009
10/23/2009 10/23/2009 830 Sixteenth $151.91 $151.91 403 Demo Program Del for Skip 9/9/2009
10/23/2009 10/23/2009 403 Baltimore $151.92 $151.92 404 Demo Program Del for Skip 9/10/09
10/23/2009 10/23/2009 1425 Oxford State $151.92 $151.92 403 Demo Program Del for Skip 9/11/2009
10/23/2009 10/23/2009 814 Fifteenth $151.92 $151.92 404 Demo Program Del for Skip 9/12/2009
10/23/2009 10/23/2009 1117 Young $151.92 $151.92   404 Demo Program Del for Skip 9/15/2009
11/23/2009 12/1/2009 604 Yankee $175.00 $175.00 406 Title work
11/23/2009 12/1/2009 2302 Woodlawn $175.00 $175.00 406 Title work
11/23/2009 12/1/2009 1909 Henry $175.00 $175.00 406 Title work
11/23/2009 12/1/2009 1721 Sheffield $175.00 $175.00 406 Title work
12/1/2009 12/1/2009 604 Yankee $103.00 $103.00 406 Obl & Spent warranty deed prep & recording
11/23/2009 11/23/2009 1909 Henry $5,450.00 $5,450.00   406 Demo Completed 11/19/2009
11/23/2009 11/23/2009 1721 Sheffield $4,987.00 $4,987.00   406 Demo Completed 11/19/2009
12/1/2009 12/1/2009 527 Baltimore $151.37 $151.37 403 Demo Prog Del for Skip 9/20/2009
12/1/2009 12/1/2009 1810 Columbia $151.37 $151.37 403 Demo Prog Del for Skip 9/21/2009
12/1/2009 12/1/2009 232 Park St $189.21 $189.21   404 Demo Prog Del for Skip 10/1/2009
12/8/2009 12/8/2009 604 Yankee $4,938.36 $4,938.36   406 Required delinquent taxes paid as a result of acquiring property for demo
12/8/2009 12/8/2009 2302 Woodlawn $6,625.00 $6,625.00   406 Demo Completed 12/8/2009
12/8/2009 12/8/2009 215 Baltimore $151.37 $151.37 403 Demo Prog Del for Skip 10/21/2009
12/8/2009 12/8/2009 115 Crawford St $189.20 $189.20   405 Demo Prog Del for Skip 10/23/2009
12/8/2009 12/8/2009 2100 Grand Ave $151.37 $151.37 405 Demo Prog Del for Skip 10/28/2009
12/8/2009 12/8/2009 2011 Linden Ave $151.37 $151.37 405 Demo Prog Del for Skip 10/26/2009
12/8/2009 12/8/2009 2106 Pearl St $151.92 $151.92 405 Demo Prog Del for Skip 11/02/2009
12/8/2009 12/8/2009 2007 Pearl St $151.92 $151.92 405 Demo Prog Del for Skip 11/02/2009
12/8/2009 12/8/2009 1508 Taylor Ave $151.91 $151.91   405 Demo Prog Del for Skip 11/04/2009
12/8/2009 12/8/2009 1909 Henry $151.37 $151.37 406 Demo Prog Del for Skip 11/23/2009
12/8/2009 12/8/2009 1721 Sheffield $151.37 $151.37   406 Demo Prog Del for Skip 11/24/2009
12/31/2009 604 Yankee $848.46 406 Buter County Treasurer reimbursement for overpayment of taxes
12/30/2009 2106 Pearl St $500.00 405 Sale of 2106 Pearl Lot to Gail Long for $500
12/30/2009 2011 Linden Ave $500.00 405 Sale of 2011 Linden Ave Lot to Gary Hall for $500
1/5/2010 1/5/2010 1509 Forest Ave $5,390.00 $5,390.00   407 $1848.46 paid from PI. Demo Completed 12/13/2009
1/7/2010 1/7/2010 1325 - 1329 Central Ave $200,000.00 $83,403.55   408 Acquisition cost for 1325 Central necessary for demo project
1/12/2010 1/12/2010 604 Yankee $9,603.00 $9,603.00 406 Demo Completed 1/5/2010
1/12/2010 1/12/2010 715 Seventh $175.00 $175.00 407 Title work
1/12/2010 1/12/2010 2301 Wilbraham $3,338.54 $5,187.00 407 Demo Completed 1/11 - Less was obligated than cost b/c of PI spent for 1509 Forest
1/12/2010 1/12/2010 2810-18 Verity Parkway $132.00 $132.00 407 Rekey required to secure building for prepping for demo
  1/21/2010 2007 Pearl St     $500.00 405 Sale of 2007 Pearl lot to Joseph Brown for $500
1/28/2010 1/28/2010 1504 Penfield $6,840.00 $6,840.00   407 $500 paid from PI. Demo Completed 1/21/2010
1/28/2010 1/28/2010 715 Seventh $6,900.00 $6,900.00   407 Demo Completed 1/15/2010
2/10/2010 2/10/2010 813 Sixteenth $4,984.00 $4,984.00   409 Demo Completed 1/28/2010
2/10/2010 2/10/2010 823 Seventeenth $1,483.00 $1,483.00   409 Demo Completed 1/28/2010
2/10/2010 814 Fifteenth $500.00 404 Sale of 814 Fifteenth to Pepper Woffard (neighbor)
2/18/2010 2/18/2010 1909 Woodlawn $6,000.00 $6,000.00   409 Demo Completed 1/28/2010
2/18/2010 2/18/2010 408 Baltimore $455.00 $455.00 409 Asbestos survey
  2/18/2010 115 Crawford St     $150.00 405 Sale of demo'd lot to Steve Bohannon
  2/18/2010 2100 Grand Ave     $150.00 405 Sale of demo'd lot to Tina Wilson
3/9/2010 3/9/2010 604 Yankee $1,326.36 $1,326.36   406 Past taxes due from acquisition
3/9/2010 3/9/2010 604 Yankee $28.11 $159.14   406 Demo Prog Del for Skip p/e 12/26/2010. $131.03 paid from PI
3/9/2010 3/9/2010 1509 Forest Ave   $159.14   407 Demo Prog Del for Skip p/e 12/26/2010
3/9/2010 3/9/2010 2301 Wilbraham $159.14 407 Demo Prog Del for Skip p/e 12/26/2010
3/9/2010 3/9/2010 1504 Penfield $275.25 $228.48 407 Demo Prog Del for Skip p/e 1/9/2010
3/9/2010 3/9/2010 715 Seventh   $228.49   407 Demo Prog Del for Skip p/e 1/9/2010
3/9/2010 3/9/2010 813 Sixteenth $229.01 $229.01   409 Demo Prog Del for Skip p/e 1/23/2010
3/9/2010 3/9/2010 823 Seventeenth $229.01 $229.01 409 Demo Prog Del for Skip p/e 1/23/2010
3/9/2010 3/9/2010 1909 Woodlawn $229.02 $229.02 409 Demo Prog Del for Skip p/e/ 1/23/2010
3/9/2010 3/9/2010 408 Baltimore $1,200.00 $1,200.00 409 Asbestos Abatement @ 408 Baltimore
3/9/2010 3/9/2010 408 Baltimore $7,914.00 $7,914.00   409 Demo Completed 3/4/2010
  3/19/2010 1508 Taylor Ave     $72.16 405 Refund of Taxes paid on 1508 Taylor and 2100 Grand
  3/19/2010 2100 Grand Ave     $72.16 405 Refund of Taxes paid on 1508 Taylor and 2100 Grand
4/14/2010 4/14/2010 408 Baltimore $141.13 $141.13   409 Demo Prog Del for Kyle p/e 3/6/2010
1/7/2010 5/28/2010 1325 - 1329 Central Ave   $107,587.50   408 Demo completion
6/23/2010   1325 - 1329 Central Ave -$9,008.95     408 Adjusted obligation amount to actual amount spent
8/19/2010 8/19/2010 606 Crawford St $12,075.00 $375.00 410 Obl of Demo Cont & legal fees to purchase 606 Crawford from State
8/19/2010 9/2/2010 324 Yankee $9,151.58 $930.00   410 Obl of Demo & paying for the asbestos survey
8/19/2010 9/2/2010 606 Crawford St   $28.00   410 Recording fee for deed
9/3/2010 606 Crawford St $28.00 410 Obligation of additional funds for recording fee
9/3/2010 324 Yankee $2,440.42 410 Obligation of additional funds for demo & asbestos survey/abatement
8/19/2010 10/11/2010 606 Crawford St   $11,700.00   410 Demo completed 10-6-10. Additional $1,100 owed will be paid upon receipt of PI
9/3/2010 11/29/2010 324 Yankee   $10,662.00   410 Demo Completed 11-24-10
  3/14/2011 1508 Taylor Ave     $1,167.70 405 Refund of Taxes due to exemption filed ($702.60 CDBG PI & $574.92 HOME PI)
n/a 5/31/2011 206 Garfield   $175.00   411 Title exam
n/a 5/31/2011 522 Baltimore $175.00 411 Title exam
n/a 5/31/2011 652 Auburn $175.00 411 Title exam
n/a 5/31/2011 2306 S. Sutphin $175.00 411 Title exam
n/a 5/31/2011 411 Yankee   $175.00   411 Title exam
n/a 5/31/2011 206 Garfield   $195.00   411 Asbestos survey
n/a 5/31/2011 522 Baltimore $566.00 411 Asbestos survey
n/a 5/31/2011 652 Auburn $510.00 411 Asbestos survey
n/a 5/31/2011 2306 S. Sutphin $542.00 411 Asbestos survey
n/a 5/31/2011 411 Yankee   $856.00   411 Asbestos survey
n/a 8/8/2011 318 Garfield   $11.34   411 Lock to secure property
n/a 8/23/2011 210-212 Vanderveer   $175.00   411 Title
n/a 8/23/2011 206 Garfield $23,088.00 411 Demo completed 8-22-11
n/a 8/23/2011 1309 First $175.00 411 Title
n/a 8/23/2011 1206 Calumet $175.00 411 Title
n/a 8/23/2011 1901 Fernwood $175.00 411 Title
n/a 8/23/2011 3108 Selden   $175.00   411 Title
n/a 8/30/2011 710 Sixteenth   $20.85   411 Water bill
n/a 8/30/2011 522 Baltimore $8,850.00 411 Demo completed arnd 8/25/11
n/a 8/30/2011 2602 Aspen $3,199.00 411 Demo completed arnd 8/25/11
n/a 8/30/2011 2306 S. Sutphin   $6,515.00   411 Demo completed arnd 8/22/11
n/a 9/6/2011 1510 Smith   $486.00   411 Asbestos survey
n/a 9/6/2011 2904 Morgan $470.00 411 Asbestos survey
n/a 9/6/2011 2013-2015 Queen $518.00 411 Asbestos survey
n/a 9/6/2011 2212 Grand Ave $728.00 411 Asbestos survey
n/a 9/6/2011 652 Auburn $5,865.00 411 Demo completed 9/1/11
n/a 9/6/2011 317 Charles $51.50 411 Warranty deed prep & recording
n/a 9/6/2011 319 Young   $51.50   411 Warranty deed prep & recording
n/a 9/19/2011 411 Yankee   $10,900.00   411 Demo completed arnd 9/15/11
n/a 9/19/2011 318 Garfield $462.00 411 Asbestos survey
n/a 9/19/2011 318 Garfield   $150.00   411 Pest treatment
n/a 10/11/2011 710 Sixteenth   $6.95   411 Water bill
n/a 10/11/2011 2013-2015 Queen $175.00 411 Title work
n/a 10/11/2011 2904 Morgan $175.00 411 Title work
n/a 10/11/2011 1510 Smith   $175.00   411 Title work
n/a 11/7/2011 710 Sixteenth   $6.95   411 Water bill
n/a 11/7/2011 319 Young $231.94 411 Property tax bill
n/a 11/7/2011 2212 Grand Ave $6,366.75 411 Property tax bill
n/a 11/7/2011 913 Garden $893.24 411 Property tax bill
n/a 11/7/2011 317 Charles $132.53 411 Property tax bill
n/a 11/7/2011 823 Seventeenth   $5.65   411 Property tax bill
n/a 11/29/2011 1510 Smith   $7,772.00   411 Demo completed 11/28/11
n/a 11/29/2011 2904 Morgan $5,900.00 411 Demo completed 11/26/11
n/a 11/29/2011 2212 Grand Ave   $9,850.00   411 Demo completed 11/29/11
n/a 12/13/2011 212 Vanderveer   $800.00   411 Asbestos survey
n/a 12/13/2011 810 Seventeenth $478.00 411 Asbestos survey
n/a 12/13/2011 3108 Selden $494.00 411 Asbestos survey
n/a 12/13/2011 1901 Fernwood $518.00 411 Asbestos survey
n/a 12/13/2011 324 Vanderveer $566.00 411 Asbestos survey
n/a 12/13/2011 829 Tenth $526.00 411 Asbestos survey
n/a 12/13/2011 809 Fifteenth $478.00 411 Asbestos survey
n/a 12/13/2011 1309 First $502.00 411 Asbestos survey
n/a 12/13/2011 1208 Calumet $478.00 411 Asbestos survey
n/a 12/13/2011 1206 Calumet   $518.00   411 Asbestos survey
n/a 12/14/2011 318 Garfield   $7,900.00   411 Demolition completed 12/13
n/a 12/14/2011 2013-2015 Queen   $8,450.00   411 Demolition completed 12/13
n/a 1/3/2012 324 Vanderveer   $28.00   411 Recording fee for deed
n/a 1/3/2012 829 Tenth $28.00 411 Recording fee for deed
n/a 1/3/2012 809 Fifteenth   $28.00   411 Recording fee for deed
1/26/2012 1/26/2012 810 Seventeenth   $4,987.00   411 Demo completed 1/10/12
1/26/2012 1/26/2012 809 Fifteenth $7,132.00 411 Demo completed 1/11/12
1/26/2012 1/26/2012 829 Tenth $7,849.00 411 Demo completed 1/18/12
1/26/2012 1/26/2012 1208 Calumet $13,062.00 411 Demo completed 1/10/12
1/26/2012 1/26/2012 1206 Calumet   $7,740.00   411 Demo completed 1/10/12
2/6/2012 2/6/2012 1901 Fernwood   $14,950.00   411 Demo completed 2/6/12
2/6/2012 2/6/2012 3108 Selden $16,028.00 411 Demo completed 2/6/12
2/6/2012 2/6/2012 1309 First $11,081.00 411 Demo completed 2/6/12
2/6/2012 2/6/2012 210-212 Vanderveer $14,136.00 411 Demo completed 1/31/12
2/6/2012 2/6/2012 324 Vanderveer   $11,222.00   411 Demo completed 1/31/12
2/24/2012 2/24/2012 2212 Grand Ave $980.00 411 Proceeds from sale of demo'd lot
3/5/2012 3/5/2012 2212 Grand Ave   $103.50   411 Deed prep & recording
3/5/2012 3/5/2012 715 Fifteenth   $103.00   411 Deed prep & recording
5/8/2012 5/8/2012 721 Elwood 438 $438.00   411 Asbestos survey


Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Jun 21 2012 at 11:10pm
I didn't realize had declared itself to be under state supervision for fiscal emergency. Who would have thought?

http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/SpeakOutOhio/Foreclosure/Demolition-Guidelines-5-2-12.aspx


-------------
'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill


Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Jun 21 2012 at 11:22pm
Originally posted by greygoose greygoose wrote:

...

If you listened to the same council hearing I did, you would have heard Mr. Adkins state that the city’s plan for matching funds had the blessings of both HUD and the AG’s office. It just requires the two step shuffle……

  

GG

At least we are in agreement that the folks at Donham Plaza are experts at the ol' DOUBLE SHUFFLE!!! Big%20smile

-------------
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012


Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Jun 22 2012 at 8:04am
A suggestion to Middletown and Ms. Moon. As it requires no capital outlay to receive $500,000., take 0$ outlay, and make $500,000. If the concern is leverage, you have it. No money, and you get $500,000. what a deal. I read the state AG reference that no matching grant is allowed unless there is a fiscal crisis. As virtually every county in Ohio got an allocation, crisis must be defined by % of foreclosures against total number of housing stock. There would not be a handful of cities in Ohio that were truly in fiscal crisis, but as it points to ORC 118, call the AG office and ask. There isn't much wiggle room here. But as Dewine was begging counties to form LandBanks, he'll probably run it by a loose interpretation. Inquiring minds ask the questions at the AG level, a quick phone-call.  Mr. Adkins has had this discussion with Columbus. 

-------------
'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill


Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jun 22 2012 at 11:36am
A suggestion to Middletown and Ms. Moon. As it requires no capital outlay to receive $500,000., take 0$ outlay, and make $500,000. If the concern is leverage, you have it. No money, and you get $500,000. what a deal.
Acclaro
If you read the Guidlines in order to get the $500,000 that you do not need to match you MUST match the entire sum of the grant of 2.35 million. You can not get only the $500,000 no match and walk away.


Posted By: greygoose
Date Posted: Jun 22 2012 at 12:34pm
MikeP,

I know that you are a strong advocate of using the funds to repair our streets. I agree that our streets are in bad shape and need to be addressed. However, Mayor Mulligan made a statement at the last council meeting that, if true, strengthens my conviction that removing blighted homes is a more impactful use of our limited funds.

If I heard him correctly, he stated that the $1M that the city would have to put up for the Ohio Moving Forward grant wasn’t enough money to completely pave Main Street. If his statement is accurate, wouldn’t you agree that removing 325 of the most blighted residential properties in our community would be more impactful?

Please note….. I do not know if his statement is accurate. I am hopeful that someone on this board can enlighten me on what typical road resurfacing costs are. Again, I am in favor of improving our roads and have stated that I would have supported road repair over the removal of blighted homes if the leveraged dollars were available for it instead of the demolition. If I heard his statement correctly, I am shocked at how little road improvement is accomplished with a million dollars. Did I hear him (and understand) his statement correctly?

GG


-------------
"If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got"


Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Jun 22 2012 at 1:58pm
GG

"I know that you are a strong advocate of using the funds to repair our streets. I agree that our streets are in bad shape and need to be addressed. However, Mayor Mulligan made a statement at the last council meeting that, if true, strengthens my conviction that removing blighted homes is a more impactful use of our limited funds"

I agree with you on the need to knock down all the blighted properties in town. However, there is a secondary portion to this conversation that needs to be addressed......

Since the mid 80's, when the city council, at that time, asked the voters to move funds from the street repair fund to the General Fund, as the city had some financial issues to resolve, the road repairs have been little to none in coming. THAT is the problem with the city as it applies to road repair. They have never returned to the days when their budget called for money allocation back into that fund, They always have another area to spend their money and the roads are always the ugly stepsister in the budget, receiving no attention what so ever. That's why we have grass and weed growing through the cracks of the asphalt on the residential streets now......doesn't matter what area of town you live, your residential street shows signs of neglect from 20-35 years of the absence of a street repair program. The residents have been asking for years to fix the roads at a more rapid pace to no avail. The council and city leaders have never put streets on the highest priority list. Streets, infrastructure and safety should be the basic requirements supplied by the city to it's residents. It has not been done in this city for over two decades or more.

To answer your question concerning costs of lane miles of roadway. There was a road repair committee set up a few years ago during the Marconi, Becker, Gilleland, Ginger Smith days. Some of us attended those meetings and received some info. on how the city graded out the roads as to condition and priority of repair. In that information packet, was some cost per lane mile depending on severity of repair. If the road was to be taken down to it's base, it was (I think) something ridiculous like a million bucks per lane mile. If just the top layer, would be cheaper with patching the cheapest. Since the city hasn't bothered to place any money in the budget for repairs, they had to wait for fed money to do University and other resurfacing that we all have noticed. Not much has been done at this pace and don't see much being done in the next decaded either unless they want to change their priorities. S. Main gets the new street because of who lives there and to enhance the neighborhoods around their precious downtown area. The rest of us must wait for our streets to turn to gravel or mud I guess for them to take notice. (unless, of course, all of us on the block finance the new street ourselves)   


Posted By: greygoose
Date Posted: Jun 22 2012 at 2:59pm
Since the mid 80's, when the city council, at that time, asked the voters to move funds from the street repair fund to the General Fund, as the city had some financial issues to resolve, the road repairs have been little to none in coming. THAT is the problem with the city as it applies to road repair. They have never returned to the days when their budget called for money allocation back into that fund, They always have another area to spend their money and the roads are always the ugly stepsister in the budget, receiving no attention what so ever

Viet Vet,

Thanks for tuning me in to "the rest of the story”..... this clears things up for me and explains the frustration that I sense from so many on this board. The picture is starting to come into focus for me.

GG



-------------
"If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got"


Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jun 22 2012 at 3:55pm
Each HUD program is designed to address different problems in areas of greatest need within our City. CDBG Funds were never intended to be used as the street paving department of this city.
For many years between $100,000 - $150,000 of CDBG Funds were designated for demo of blighted residential structures in the 1st and 2nd Wards. So the city was removing about 10 to 15 homes and or old garages per year. If demo was such a high priority why haven't they demo more houses per year since they had the HUD money to accomplish the task. 
 The Neighborhood Stabilization Program or NSP is a new program. Now it seems that Mr Adkins is using NSP Funds for all the demo in the city. (see above list that I posted).
I have been told by a local realtor that if the city continues to remove several homes in a block it will only further decrease the value of the homes in the 1st and 2nd Ward. He said if the city really wants to impact an area then they need to demo an entire block of homes at one time.



Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Jun 22 2012 at 5:29pm
Originally posted by greygoose greygoose wrote:

MikeP,

I know that you are a strong advocate of using the funds to repair our streets. I agree that our streets are in bad shape and need to be addressed. However, Mayor Mulligan made a statement at the last council meeting that, if true, strengthens my conviction that removing blighted homes is a more impactful use of our limited funds.

If I heard him correctly, he stated that the $1M that the city would have to put up for the Ohio Moving Forward grant wasn’t enough money to completely pave Main Street. If his statement is accurate, wouldn’t you agree that removing 325 of the most blighted residential properties in our community would be more impactful?

Please note….. I do not know if his statement is accurate. I am hopeful that someone on this board can enlighten me on what typical road resurfacing costs are. Again, I am in favor of improving our roads and have stated that I would have supported road repair over the removal of blighted homes if the leveraged dollars were available for it instead of the demolition. If I heard his statement correctly, I am shocked at how little road improvement is accomplished with a million dollars. Did I hear him (and understand) his statement correctly?

GG
GG:
Perhaps you have missed my point.  Yes, I am a strong advocate of repairing our crumbling streets.  But my main point on the subject of the landbank and the matching funds has been the way that the money appeared out of thin air, as seems to be normal when money is needed for a City Hall (or "friend of City Hall's") pet project.  If our going broke, cash-strapped, cut-to-the-bones city can wave a magic wand, shout "ABRA-KA-DABRA", double-shuffle the nutshells and find a million bucks under shell number 1 for the landbank, then they should be able to find at least an equal amount under shell number 2 or 3 for our streets!!!


-------------
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012


Posted By: rngrmed
Date Posted: Jun 22 2012 at 5:34pm
What the residents of Lefferson being assesed for?  And why don't the residnets of Main Street have to pay the same assessment?


Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Jun 22 2012 at 5:39pm
GG:
I have been saying for years that there is money available in funds other than the General Fund that could be used for streets, and other immediate needs of our city.  The denizens of City Hall keep saying "No, the other funds all have restrictions on what they can be used for."
 
Yet, every time the city needs money for a pet project, they manage to find it "tucked away in one of our other funds."
 
This blatant example of the ol' DOUBLE SHUFFLE clearly shows that I have been correct and the city has been hypocritical (and a liar), not to mention the fact that street repairs and repaving is, and always has been, a legitimate use of CBDG 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


Posted By: greygoose
Date Posted: Jun 22 2012 at 7:30pm
Understood.....

GG

-------------
"If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got"


Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Jun 22 2012 at 7:51pm
If the city doesn't put money back into the street and infrastructure fund, and hasn't since 1986, isn't it true if they keep on doing that, we'll always get what we got before, and that's a failing infrastructure, paraphrasing GG. Mutilple councils have ignored streets and sewers and the infrastructure for so long, its a problem beyond repair. There is too much cost involved. I wonder if there is HUD and NSP money that could be used to destroy the sewers and start over again, and same with roads.

It will take 11 years to destroy the housing stock, and the question remains, is the motivation to eliminate cost for mowing grass, crime, upkeep, or is the motivation to eliminate housing to the point there would be rquity with supply and demand. If its the latter, the city will need to knock down about 75% of residential property in Middletown.


-------------
'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill


Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jun 22 2012 at 9:21pm
Acclaro
    I was told the other day that I needed to add another multi million dollar item to the critical needs list of
Middletown, the Water Treatment Plant.
One of these days EPA will ride into town and there will be no more kicking these big cans down the road. Where on earth are we going to come up with the money to solve the EPA problems and then repave the streets?
   




Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jun 23 2012 at 9:43am

GG -Ms. Viv,
If you listened to the same council hearing I did, you would have heard Mr. Adkins state that the city’s plan for matching funds had the blessings of both HUD and the AG’s office. It just requires the two step shuffle……
It is time to wipe away those tears   

Grey Goose
Please provide me with copies of these letters of approval from HUD and the AG office and post them on this blog.
I have been told that documention of the approval from these two enities does not exist  as per this date.



Posted By: greygoose
Date Posted: Jun 23 2012 at 10:33am
GG -Ms. Viv,
If you listened to the same council hearing I did, you would have heard Mr. Adkins state that the city’s plan for matching funds had the blessings of both HUD and the AG’s office. It just requires the two step shuffle……
It is time to wipe away those tears

Grey Goose
Please provide me with copies of these letters of approval from HUD and the AG office and post them on this blog.
I have been told that documention of the approval from these two enities does not exist as per this date.


Ms. Viv,

Give me a break and re-read my post….. I said that Mr. Adkins “stated” that he had the blessings of both the AG’s office and HUD. Please provide a link to the video and folks can view and hear it for themselves. Just because the documentation “may” not exist doesn’t mean that a verbal blessing wasn’t issued. In all probability, this is how it went down. I don’t know why I am telling you this because you already know it. In my eyes, things are looking up.

GG



-------------
"If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got"


Posted By: greygoose
Date Posted: Jun 23 2012 at 11:31am
If the city doesn't put money back into the street and infrastructure fund, and hasn't since 1986, isn't it true if they keep on doing that, we'll always get what we got before, and that's a failing infrastructure, paraphrasing GG. Mutilple councils have ignored streets and sewers and the infrastructure for so long, its a problem beyond repair. There is too much cost involved. I wonder if there is HUD and NSP money that could be used to destroy the sewers and start over again, and same with roads.

It will take 11 years to destroy the housing stock, and the question remains, is the motivation to eliminate cost for mowing grass, crime, upkeep, or is the motivation to eliminate housing to the point there would be rquity with supply and demand. If its the latter, the city will need to knock down about 75% of residential property in Middletown.

Guys…. I have been brought up to speed with the city’s history of ignoring street and infrastructure maintenance. I also agree with acclaro’s assumption that “high cost” is the reason they keep kicking the can down the street. I am championing the Moving Ohio Forward over street & infrastructure repair for the following reasons:

1.     The removal of blighted residential properties from our city has equal importance.
2.     We can accomplish much more for the dollar spent
3.     It will result in upward pressure on property values
4.     It will reduce concentrations of poverty & its related problems
5.     It will enhance the our ability to bring business investment to the city

I know where acclaro came up with 11 years to accomplish our goal but I truly believe that it will be closer to half of that amount of time. Although there are 3,000+ abandoned homes, there are not 3,000 homes that need to be demolished. In all honesty, I like acclaro’s idea of the city incentivizing citizens to take over some of our housing stock. Grade the properties based on the impact that they will have on the city. Tear down the ones that have outlived their useful life or will cost more to renovate than they are worth. Give the properties to adjacent property owners or to investors that contractually obligate themselves to develop the properties within a predetermined amount of time. For those properties that grade high enough, let them stand and make them available to investors that commit to occupying them. Although I now make my living as a landlord, I think that these properties should only be made available to investors (with intention to rent) as a last resort. This city is extremely unbalanced in the amount of rental properties that exist and reducing that imbalance should be a top priority.

GG



-------------
"If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got"


Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jun 23 2012 at 12:53pm

It seems that every time we have talked about the housing problem here in Middletown since 2000 we have stated over and over again that we need to demo 3,000 properties. However I can not find proof that this is a true statement or a correct number.
Here is the link to the 2012 HUD Substantial Amendment
Please read page 8
During 2008 it states the following:
305 homes need major rehab
25 homes dilapidated and occupied
18 homes condemnable and vacant

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ohcmiddl/2012-HUDAnnualActionPlan.htm



Posted By: greygoose
Date Posted: Jun 23 2012 at 2:07pm

It seems that every time we have talked about the housing problem here in Middletown since 2000 we have stated over and over again that we need to demo 3,000 properties. However I can not find proof that this is a true statement or a correct number.
Here is the link to the 2012 HUD Substantial Amendment
Please read page 8
During 2008 it states the following:
305 homes need major rehab
25 homes dilapidated and occupied
18 homes condemnable and vacant
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ohcmiddl/2012-HUDAnnualActionPlan.htm

Ms. Viv,

I can only speak to recent conversations and the 3,000 properties pertain to homes that are abandoned, not the number that needs to be demolished. In theory, if they go forward with the grant, the monies would enable the city to address all of the properties, above. In my eyes, that would give us a good start to ridding ourselves of our excessive blight.

GG



-------------
"If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got"


Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jun 23 2012 at 4:11pm
Ms. Viv,

I can only speak to recent conversations and the 3,000 properties pertain to homes that are abandoned, not the number that needs to be demolished. In theory, if they go forward with the grant, the monies would enable the city to address all of the properties, above. In my eyes, that would give us a good start to ridding ourselves of our excessive blight.
GG

Grey Goose
No way do we have 3,000 abondoned properties in this town
Did you go to the link and read the entire page?
Mercy


Posted By: LMAO
Date Posted: Jun 23 2012 at 6:23pm
Ms.Moon,I have came to the conclusion that Grey Goose has his head stuck so far up someones A$$(Mr.A And Queen Judy)that they need to pull out and get sme air.LOL


Posted By: greygoose
Date Posted: Jun 23 2012 at 7:21pm
Ms. Viv,

I can only speak to recent conversations and the 3,000 properties pertain to homes that are abandoned, not the number that needs to be demolished. In theory, if they go forward with the grant, the monies would enable the city to address all of the properties, above. In my eyes, that would give us a good start to ridding ourselves of our excessive blight. GG

Grey Goose
No way do we have 3,000 abondoned properties in this town
Did you go to the link and read the entire page?
Mercy

Mercy, Ms. Viv,

What is your point! If I’m not mistaken, this number includes rental units and homes that are just transitioning from one owner to another. If you look at a 10% vacancy rate on 9,000 rentals, you account for about 30% of that total. No one in their right mind thinks that there are 3,000 abandoned houses in town. I will give you this point…..at the last council meeting; Mayor Mulligan used the 3,000 number when he thought it was to his benefit and backed off of it when Mr. Smith suggested that tearing down 300 houses only amounted to 10% of the problem. He clearly knew that the “true” number was much less and tearing down 300 would make a significant impact. As I stated earlier, I have only been following our city council for a short period of time and this was an example of what those on this board have been telling me is the norm rather than the exception.

With that said…. What point are you trying to make. If the number is less…. GREAT! My frustration is that you seem to oppose whatever decision is made, if they decided to use the money for street repair, you would state that it should have been used to remove blight. I’m real clear on your feelings about our leadership. Other than replacing them, what would you like to see done? What do you want made a priority? If I know what your priorities are, I might better understand the positions that you take.

As for LMAO……… you are an idiot not worthy of my time.....

GG



-------------
"If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got"


Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Jun 23 2012 at 11:07pm
Or...could the denizens of City Hall just be salivating at the opportunity to get their hands on another $1.1 million (via this landbank thing) with the idea of somehow DOUBLE SHUFFLING the money into their slush funds to "feed the beast" at Donham Plaza and funnel some more dollars to their pals at MMF???  ($2.2 million would make a good start at restoring the opera house...IF they didn't award too many "no-bid" contracts to their cronies.)

-------------
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012


Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Jun 24 2012 at 7:54am
Things seem somewhat fuzzy on this situation, and I missed most of the last meeting.
 
So--another "emergency" meeting is scheduled to re-vote?
 
Wouldn't that require emergency legislation to approve the scheduling of that meeting?
Didn't Ms.Scott Jones and Mr.Laubaugh(and/or Mr.Smith) mention opposition to the emergency meeting?
Two votes would shoot down any emergency legislation.
 
Yes--we have the failed ward peition chicanery playing out yet again.
 
No issue with the whole land bank concept, other than the shifty way our govt. would shuffle the funds to their benefit. Would all probably end up in the pockets of the very few private entities in the former downtown.
 
We still have the Studio/Strand, Hobby House and other properties that were promised to be leveled long ago.
The Duncan land swap mess(that was never mentioned after it quietly imploded), the Sorg Opera House disaster(along with both sides of that block on S Main).
Collaspsed/empty strip centers from one end of the town to the other.
 
Want to REALLY understand why no one will go to the former downtown to open a business?
1.CRIME--is everywhere in the area. The good straight people are overwhelmed like Custer and his men @ Little Big Horn..
2.POVERTY--brought on by the im-baklance of govt.assistance families and the mass exodus of living wage jobs from larger businesses that have shut down or moved(along with the upscale families associated) on to better situations in neighboring communities.
 
The blight continues to spread similar to the Colorado forest fires.
Career criminals continue to terrorize businesses and residents who only want to do their part and be left alone(safely).
 
Sorry--"Art" won't take us out of this.
Neither will "Bashes".
Probably not be fed assistance either.
Simply can't trust the money trail qwhen it goes into the city building
A reputation well-earned by past and current Councils and Administration.
 
jmo--i could be wrong


Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Jun 24 2012 at 8:39am
GG

Have an observation related to your approach on this forum. You started posting out of the blue using the "I'm new to this forum and I would like to ask some questions for informational purposes." You offered some rebuttals and agreed on a few points made by the regulars. Information was offered, specifically by Vivian Moon with actual data and the sources given by Ms. Moon. Acclaro, Mike Presta and Spider contributed. You escalated your approach by challenging practically everything Ms. Moon offered, and advanced your challenge to the argumentative stage. You seem to change your support like a chameleon changes colors, by agreeing with the various forum members, then abruptly take the city's side in the discussion. Quite frankly, after reading your posts, I don't know which direction nor side (yes, we all take a stand on different subjects by taking sides.....(city or MUSA side) you have taken. You have decided on the surface to agree with some of us, with undertones agreeing with the city game plan. Likewise, on one hand, you agree with what is proposed on this site, and the other hand offers the "city can do no wrong" concept. Almost suggests being two-faced. You know the flavor of this forum. It is, for the most part, against the way this city is being run and most are no fans of the people running the city. If you are truly linked to the way they are running this town, you might do yourself a favor and stay in their camp. Most here don't want any part of their game plan nor like the city's direction. You seem to be more in the agitating mode (perhaps a "friend of the city") than actually trying to gain more information as you have professed. Like Spider, I could be wrong on my assessment. JMO


Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jun 24 2012 at 9:50am

Yes sir…I’m having a real problem with this 3,000 number that City Hall keeps using in all these reports and states during City Council Meetings. Below is yet another version of what we have been told.
 
CAPER REPORT
June 30, 2011
Page 3
”The City has over 3,000 vacant residential and commercial properties in various stages of disrepair that are creating significant blight which in turn are lowering neighborhood home values and creating further vacancies.”



Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jun 24 2012 at 10:40am

Well Spider
Let me look into my crystal ball and give you my prediction on this situation…

LAND BANKING PROGRAM
1. Mr. Adkins and Mr. Fuchs will need a raise because they are taking on extra
   responsibility to administer a new program. Plus other new employees will need
   to be hired.
2. Of the 2 million dollars of this grant you can bet that almost 50% of these funds
    will never leave City Hall (this is what I call FEEDING THE BEAST).
3. So now we have about 1 million dollars left to demo blighted residential property.
    $1,000,000 divided by a cost of $7,000 per demo = 143 properties




Posted By: LMAO
Date Posted: Jun 24 2012 at 12:40pm
greygoose As for LMAO……… you are an idiot not worthy of my time.....
At least Im not a A$$ kisser as you are.I refuse to let the spineless ones make money off of me any more.They need to stop lieing to the people of Middletucky.They do nothing but Rob peter to pay paul and alot of us are sick and tired of it.


Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Jun 24 2012 at 12:53pm
It is unfortunate what is said in this forum never sees he light of day at city hall or council. For 20 + years, any reasonably adult would know that city hall has one motivation, and that is to protect itself, its payroll, and benefits. Whenever there is a chance to add anyone, albeit for federal funding, state, or otherwise, they grab it. The Land Bank has nothing to do with tearing down blight, excess capacity. It is simply to secure funds, enhance payroll, build more empires, I wish it otherwise, but this chronic pattern has been on display for too long, to doubt it, to give a second benefit to an alternative rationale. The movie has played for to long, and its the same film, over and over.

I don't mind at all having GG post, and its always fun to have debate. Middletown has a stated goal to have 28,000 in population. It will get there, but it will be slow. By the 11 years it takes to tear down 3,000 properties, Middletown's population in 10 years, will be 43,000. There will be a continuation of the burden of excess inventory, simply compounding a glut today.

City hall is blinded and terribly naive. They think if they can just get rid of the poverty (they created), then upscale families and tenants will move in. But they won't, not because of over-abundance of inventory, but the profound uncertainty of Middletown's future and the image it has today, has had in the past, and the rationale for companies and individuals avoiding Middletown. It is a city in decline, has been for many, many years, and it just doesn't have the leadership, the intelligence, to move forward. It can't be spun any other way. So, they can build nice neighborhoods, add upscale capacity, but it will make no difference, the city will not thrive. Kettering is a city (as is Oakwood that is upscale, but also in decline.  Drive up by the Town and Country shopping center, and see countless For Lease signs. One of the most prominent restaurants, a favorite French of mine, is closed, a victim of the exodus on NCR, just like Middletown fell victim of the exodus of the Atrium, Square D, AK executives, and so many others. Next up is AK RD, and the paper company consolidating down in Harrodsburg, KY.

To GG's five pts.

There will be no uplift on property values by using these funds, and that's based upon the logical business notion, demand drives valuation. If 50% of Middletown was destroyed, you would not have 25% demand to replace the lost 50% inventory. So the impact is zero sum gain. What it does buy, ergo, Land Bank, is additional payroll, people, maybe 4-5 FTE's, but that's all city hall cares about, and of course, the absorption of funds which can be farmed out, to contractors to do work, and what minimal amount of power misguided individuals sense they gain from having funds to move into the hands of the ones they choose worthy.

To state destruction in capacity also is a higher priority than street repair is also misguided, for if the streets and infrastructure are a wasteland, it serves to diminish further, market demand, regardless of the area in Middletown has available. People and companies comprehend the pride of ownership and availability of basic services and quality of life based upon an area to live. Middletown just doesn't compete. A restaurant downtown, a few art shops, and a college are going to provide that? Not when you have an enormous of assets offering the same in far greater quality within 30 minutes. Its the strategy of throwing mud up on the wall, hoping something will stick---that's the city's strategy, and it has failed, many, many times over.

To conclude GG, with the decline in population and the over-capacity about to hit the market as the aging population hanging on awaiting the nursing home will put so much downward pressure, Middletown hasn't even begun to see the downward spiral yet, the city could destroy 7,000 properties, and the sum gain, would continue to be zero, looking even 10 years out.

Throw in the other problems on crime, streets, schools, reputation, and you are on the Titantic, at 90 degrees, ready to go down, and you just missed the last lifeboat.

Its over, and this rubbage about Land Banking will have no effect at all, other than adding a few bodies, and giving more funds, to misappropriate. By then, the ship has sunk, and unless you find some wood to float on, you have 20 minutes before the cold water turns your name, reputation, legacy, and dreams, into R.I.P. 

But look on the bright side. Unlike the Titantic, that went down on its first voyage, at least Middletown had maybe 30 years from 1930-1960 it was decent, before its leadership hit the ice-berg, and its not the first city to commit suicide. Last one out turn the light out please, to show some dignitity for the good 30 years, before Duke shows up and turns it off themselves.         

-------------
'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill


Posted By: greygoose
Date Posted: Jun 24 2012 at 8:26pm
GG

Have an observation related to your approach on this forum. You started posting out of the blue using the "I'm new to this forum and I would like to ask some questions for informational purposes." You offered some rebuttals and agreed on a few points made by the regulars. Information was offered, specifically by Vivian Moon with actual data and the sources given by Ms. Moon. Acclaro, Mike Presta and Spider contributed. You escalated your approach by challenging practically everything Ms. Moon offered, and advanced your challenge to the argumentative stage. You seem to change your support like a chameleon changes colors, by agreeing with the various forum members, then abruptly take the city's side in the discussion. Quite frankly, after reading your posts, I don't know which direction nor side (yes, we all take a stand on different subjects by taking sides.....(city or MUSA side) you have taken. You have decided on the surface to agree with some of us, with undertones agreeing with the city game plan. Likewise, on one hand, you agree with what is proposed on this site, and the other hand offers the "city can do no wrong" concept. Almost suggests being two-faced. You know the flavor of this forum. It is, for the most part, against the way this city is being run and most are no fans of the people running the city. If you are truly linked to the way they are running this town, you might do yourself a favor and stay in their camp. Most here don't want any part of their game plan nor like the city's direction. You seem to be more in the agitating mode (perhaps a "friend of the city") than actually trying to gain more information as you have professed. Like Spider, I could be wrong on my assessment. JMO

VV,
In all honesty, you are wrong in your assessment. I have no approach to this forum other than to express my opinion. In the early going I lost my way for a few days because I became frustrated over my belief that there was no real, or honest, discussion taking place. I still have that opinion about certain posters but not most. I have accepted the fact that this board is “tilted” toward the negative aspects of our local government. I will continue to state it as I see it. If you are honest with yourself, you would never take the same position on every situation. If nothing else, my positions often bring debate on these boards and that is a good thing. I have no agenda….. just hoping for a better tomorrow.
GG



-------------
"If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got"


Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Jun 25 2012 at 5:02am
goose:
sometimes it bothers me when I hear how "negative" this forum and it's contributors are.
I can see why some think that way, however I really don't agree. I see it as the opposite a lot of the time.
 
Knowing many here a little better than you might know them, I realize just how much they care about a town in which most have spent their entire lives. If you can't feel their emotional attachment and desire for a "brighter future", then you might step back to understand a more broad viewpoint.
 
I often see our Council and admin as the divisive/negative force in the community. They have become so
self-centered and secretive, that it is insulting to the overall segments of our population. Watching/listening to them"find" huge sums of $$ for their pet projects to benefit those few preferred enablers who often "want" much more than they "need"---constantly favoring certain areas--bending Council votes and procedures at whim--taking away the public viewing of OUR govt.'s work sessions--it gets old after a long while. And it is not trending towards the better/more inclusive.
 
Locally we no longer have a govt.FOR our citizens, we have a govt.OVER our citizens. Telling US what we should have or will get, instead of the opposite.
 
Our reps are all good people individually.
The answer and truth must be somewhere in the middle.
People around here are entitlled to differing opinions without being subject to denigration and downright hatred. IMO locally and nationally, the thinking, tax-paying public has been locked out and ignored, instead to pander to special interests and "friends".


Posted By: Mike_Presta
Date Posted: Jun 25 2012 at 5:26am
Well Said!!!
Thumbs%20Up Clap Clap


-------------
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012


Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Jun 25 2012 at 6:46am
VV,
In all honesty, you are wrong in your assessment. I have no approach to this forum other than to express my opinion. In the early going I lost my way for a few days because I became frustrated over my belief that there was no real, or honest, discussion taking place. I still have that opinion about certain posters but not most. I have accepted the fact that this board is “tilted” toward the negative aspects of our local government. I will continue to state it as I see it. If you are honest with yourself, you would never take the same position on every situation. If nothing else, my positions often bring debate on these boards and that is a good thing. I have no agenda….. just hoping for a better tomorrow.
GG


FAIR ENOUGH GG. MY APOLOGIES FOR MIS-READING YOUR MESSAGE HERE. I LIKE THE STATEMENT "I HAVE NO AGENDA, JUST HOPING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW" YESSIR, ALL OF US ON THIS SITE ARE. JUST GETTING FRUSTRATED WITH THE PEOPLE PREVENTING THE "BETTER TOMORROW" FROM HAPPENING. IT ANGERS ME TO SEE WHAT THE CURRENT AND PAST LEADERS HAVE DONE TO THIS TOWN. BEST TOWN IN THE WORLD TO LIVE IN 40-50 YEARS AGO. NOW......


Posted By: bumper
Date Posted: Jun 25 2012 at 9:48am
was born in middletown, lived in middletown for 50 years, moved out going on 6 years now, best move i ever made!! then my son and his wife moved out a year later, then i got my 82 year mother the hell out and moved her in with me, she was born in middletown also, its a damn shame what my old town has become,i got the hell out because of what the city leaders had done and are still doing the same old sh*t!! the the crime was getting to bad for me.. never really have a need or want to return but when i do which is not very often, i feel the need to have a loaded chamber carrying my glock model 23 with 15 round mag.. don't feel or have that need in the city i moved to!!! my son and his wife made me 1st time grandpa june 6 of this month 9 pound perfect baby boy~!!!! son has a nice home here now  so im a happy camper!!! VET just wanna say your a good man, caregiver u are with your wife, im  taking care of my mother she has copd with only 35% of lungs keeping her going, i have help from family, my  niece is a blessing with given her baths and such.. just trying to keep her with me as long as i can..


Posted By: Vivian Moon
Date Posted: Jun 25 2012 at 10:57am

HUD CAPER REPORT
June 30, 2011

Page 6
The City received $747,006 in CDBG funds for PY 2010. Combined with $243,617 of prior year funds and $1,271 in program income, the City had a total of $991,894 in entitlement funding for the 2010 program year. In addition, the City continued tracking its CDBG revolving loan fund in IDIS. $28,724.04 had been drawn down from the RLF in the program year 2010 leaving a total RLF available balance as of April 30, 2010 of $685,472.51. A total of $443,030 of CDBG funds were expended not including the $28,724.04 spent from the revolving loan fund. A remaining balance of $547,593.47 will be carried forward and used in the 2011 program year along with a revolving loan balance of $685,472.51.

We have been told for several years now that we did not have the funding to clean up and demo but a few homes in high crime, high poverty areas of our City.
The above numbers clearly show that we did have the money to take action in these areas. If in fact blighted homes was a priority of the City then why weren’t more of the above funds used ?

Since the 1970’s the CDBG funds have flowed into City Hall. Maybe we need to ask where were all these funds used. With all this funding over the years we shouldn’t have any blighted homes in the 1st and 2nd Wards.




Posted By: greygoose
Date Posted: Jun 25 2012 at 12:09pm
goose:
sometimes it bothers me when I hear how "negative" this forum and it's contributors are.
I can see why some think that way, however I really don't agree. I see it as the opposite a lot of the time.
Knowing many here a little better than you might know them, I realize just how much they care about a town in which most have spent their entire lives. If you can't feel their emotional attachment and desire for a "brighter future", then you might step back to understand a more broad viewpoint.
I often see our Council and admin as the divisive/negative force in the community. They have become so
self-centered and secretive, that it is insulting to the overall segments of our population. Watching/listening to them"find" huge sums of $$ for their pet projects to benefit those few preferred enablers who often "want" much more than they "need"---constantly favoring certain areas(co-icidentally where many of them live!)--
bending Council votes and procedures at whim--taking away the public viewing of OUR govt.'s work sessions--it gets old after a long while. And it is not trending towards the better/more inclusive.
Locally we no longer have a govt.FOR our citizens, we have a govt.OVER our citizens. Telling US what we should have or will get, instead of the opposite.
Our reps are all good people individually.
The answer and truth must be somewhere in the middle.
People around here are entitlled to differing opinions without being subject to denigration and downright hatred. IMO locally and nationally, the thinking, tax-paying public has been locked out and ignored, instead to pander to special interests and "friends".

Spider,

If you noticed, I stated that I have accepted the negative slant that this board has. I’ve come to realize that most of it stems from good intentions and frustration over our city’s current condition. I believe that the confusion caused by many of my posts is because I am still forming my opinions. At this moment in time, I don’t share the opinion of most on this board concerning our current leadership but that opinion is continually evolving. In the last few weeks, I have come to the conclusion that Mr. Kohler has caused irreparable harm to our community and Mr. Smith doesn’t have enough life experience to make the important decisions that need to be made. With that said, I am still supportive of most of what the current administrators have done to date. To be honest, part of that support is probably just my nature. I am a positive thinker and spent most of my career as a problem solver. Recently, I have made a conscious effort to let others know of the negative opinions that I have so that I don’t always come across as a city cheerleader. I’m truly open to opposing opinions but I don’t pay much attention to baseless rants about spineless ones. As an example, I really support acclaro’s idea to have the city incentivize investment in abandoned homes. Not all abandoned properties are to a point that they can’t be rehabilitated and incentivizing home ownership is a great alternative. I want to stress that my support is for owner occupied investments; this city is way too out of balance with the current number of rentals.

VV,

I am sure that we will have many disagreements in the future but I appreciate that you accept the fact that I don’t have a hidden agenda. In fact, I think that we have the same desired result in mind but disagree on how to get there (at least for now).

GG



-------------
"If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got"


Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Jun 25 2012 at 12:11pm
Originally posted by bumper bumper wrote:



was born in middletown, lived in middletown for 50 years, moved out going on 6 years now, best move i ever made!! then my son and his wife moved out a year later, then i got my 82 year mother the hell out and moved her in with me, she was born in middletown also, its a damn shame what my old town has become,i got the hell out because of what the city leaders had done and are still doing the same old sh*t!! the the crime was getting to bad for me.. never really have a need or want to return but when i do which is not very often, i feel the need to have a loaded chamber carrying my glock model 23 with 15 round mag.. don't feel or have that need in the city i moved to!!! my son and his wife made me 1st time grandpa june 6 of this month 9 pound perfect baby boy~!!!! son has a nice home here now  so im a happy camper!!! VET just wanna say your a good man, caregiver u are with your wife, im  taking care of my mother she has copd with only 35% of lungs keeping her going, i have help from family, my  <b id="yui_3_3_0_1_1340631435382335">niece is a blessing with given her baths and such.. just trying to keep her with me as long as i can..


Thank you sir for your comments concerning my wife. My son helps me out caregiving while trying to sleep, working evenings and into the morning hours. I take my turn each evening, all weekends and at night. EVERYONE should get a shot at caregiving to experience the "other side of life". It alters your life 180 degrees from normal, never to return to normal. Like caring for your mother, I am trying to keep my wife with me for as long as the MAN will allow me to. One day at a time is the best you can do.

I too, have been here a long time, through the good times and now through the disaster it is now. Sad to see my hometown going down the toilet. Incompetent candidates dominating the scene the last 3 decades causing the destruction of a once thriving city. They should be ashamed of themselves, but then again, you have to have some morals and scruples to feel shame.


Posted By: LMAO
Date Posted: Jun 25 2012 at 1:12pm
Goose let me say that Iam sorry for the name calling.Iam frustrated with council as alot of people in this town.As Vet said in his post above,they should be ashamed of themself,but have to have morals and scruples to feel shame.
I was like alot of people that just sit and not say anything but that all changed when they voted on rezoning the land that SUNCHOKE sits on now.Just couldnt see how anyone could do that knowing that there (SUNCHOKE)neighbors was going to be a Nursing Home and a School.I fought against it then and still fighting them today.Only thing they see is dollar signs.I also dont agree with this Lighting plan they have for Main Street.Why should we the taxpayers have to pay for something that a few want?When I first heard of it I was told that the expense was all on the people that lived on Main St.Me,myself and I went and knocked on 10 doors of people that live on Main St.and 8 out of 10 of those dont want them.But I guess since the Mayor and Kohler live down there it doesnt matter what they want.Just shows me once again how our leaders dont listen to the people.Lastly is this landlords have to register there properties.Makes no sense whatsoever when the property is already recorded.Yes there are landlord that live outside of the town,but why should the ones that dont have to pick up the tab for those that do? 


Posted By: greygoose
Date Posted: Jun 25 2012 at 4:34pm
Goose let me say that Iam sorry for the name calling.Iam frustrated with council as alot of people in this town.As Vet said in his post above,they should be ashamed of themself,but have to have morals and scruples to feel shame.
I was like alot of people that just sit and not say anything but that all changed when they voted on rezoning the land that SUNCHOKE sits on now.Just couldnt see how anyone could do that knowing that there (SUNCHOKE)neighbors was going to be a Nursing Home and a School.I fought against it then and still fighting them today.Only thing they see is dollar signs.I also dont agree with this Lighting plan they have for Main Street.Why should we the taxpayers have to pay for something that a few want?When I first heard of it I was told that the expense was all on the people that lived on Main St.Me,myself and I went and knocked on 10 doors of people that live on Main St.and 8 out of 10 of those dont want them.But I guess since the Mayor and Kohler live down there it doesnt matter what they want.Just shows me once again how our leaders dont listen to the people.Lastly is this landlords have to register there properties.Makes no sense whatsoever when the property is already recorded.Yes there are landlord that live outside of the town,but why should the ones that dont have to pick up the tab for those that do?

LMAO,

You brought up three different topics. I have mixed emotions concerning the Suncoke project. I agree with acclaro’s statement that the city should do everything in its power to leverage AK’s presence in Middletown to bring in additional, related, businesses. It’s easy for me to say that when I am not directly affected by its presence…… that’s a tough call. I agree with you completely concerning the street light issue on Main Street. I have several dozen rental units with the vast majority being in Middletown. When I heard about the proposed landlord registration legislation, I directly asked Mr. Adkins why he felt this legislation was needed. He told me that the city had a very difficult time with code enforcement with out of town landlords and out of town banks. He anticipated “constitutional” issues if he singled out “out of town landlords”, thus the reasoning behind charging all of us. I’ve not been too concerned lately because I have “heard” that the committee that was being formed contained a couple of the more outspoken landlords against this legislation. With their involvement, I can’t imagine the legislation being punitive and, as a citizen, I am in favor of stricter code enforcement.

GG



-------------
"If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got"


Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Jun 25 2012 at 7:47pm
GG, I did not mean to continue the discussion about the landlord scenario for many reasons, not the least of which I do not own, nor would have any intention of owning, rental property in Middletown, Ohio.

However, for simple clarity, I wanted to extend the following observation/ point. Mr. Adkins would not directly have any concern about enforcement, on constitutional grounds. The grounds may be perceived discriminatory, which indirectly has a constitutional basis on federal guidelines, although it would be a very high test and burden for a party to demonstrate, associated with practices that were directed towards out of city/ out of county land-lords.

However, it is nonsensical to use as a basis of support, compliance and delivery of service difficult to establish. Any business in Ohio, or any state in the nation, has listed, an agent of record for that state for that business, with a mailing address, not a PO Box. All one would do is pull up the electronic record, delivery to the address listed for the agent, and its done in compliance with the federal and state law. Its that simple. Therefore, I just don't buy into the rationale "delivery of notice" impedes enforcement.

The city surely has no problem tracking down individuals they deem behind on fines, so the city KNOWS how to get mail and notices to all living in rental property, owning a property, or owning multiple commercial  properties. It is not a reasoned argument to make that to be the basis for Mr. Adkins actions. 

As stated, as I don't own rental property and never would have an interest in doing so, I won't speculate what the motives are for the registration, but I don't buy the argument it is because out of town landlords make it difficult to make contact. That's ridiculous, as they have to have a listed agent for each business as required by law. 

    

-------------
'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill


Posted By: greygoose
Date Posted: Jun 26 2012 at 1:49pm
Acclaro,

I don’t doubt for a minute that collecting from the “whole” makes taking the pill a little more palatable, but there are definitely additional hurdles that the city incurs when trying to enforce code compliance with out of town landlords. Your explanation makes sense on the surface but I believe that the process is a little more complicated. I only state that because this problem is not unique to Middletown, but is well documented in many other cities. It may be nothing more than the added expense of serving notice when the landlord is located outside of the city limits.

Additionally, I don’t profess to know if there are truly constitutional issues with singling out a particular class of landlord, I’m just relaying that explanation that I was given. It will be interesting to see what the “committee” comes up with.

GG


-------------
"If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got"


Posted By: acclaro
Date Posted: Jun 26 2012 at 8:43pm
Good point GG. I obviously do not own rental property, and there may be more beneath the surface that I am aware. As you referenced, its the landlords that will get in line with this, or punch enough wholes in the process to bring it a quick demise before it gets launched. I really don't have the complete picture what is the motivation behind it. I personally have always found Mr. Adkins quite balanced when I had the occasion to engage him when he was prosecutor, which was not often, but he was always quite pleasant  and amiable.

Its up to the landlords and Mr. Adkins to work this one out. I'm an innocent by-stander on this one.


-------------
'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.' - Winston Churchill


Posted By: LMAO
Date Posted: Jun 26 2012 at 10:04pm
Its simple as this,the spineless ones has robed peter enough where he is broke so now they have to come after us landlords to try to make some of the money up.As I said from the beginning,I refuse to give them anymore.



Print Page | Close Window