So…what should we do about this “public safety” payrolltax???

Of course everyone is “for” public safety, so perhapsthis is a “no brainer”???  Not so fast…perhapswe should consider it a little deeper than that.

We need more jail space to allow our municipal court tohand out stiffer sentences, and to have the manpower available to run anexpanded jail.  I’d be the first one tocampaign in favor of that—but none of the money from this tax will go towardsthe jail.

If we try to remember back five years ago—when the first “publicsafety” tax was proposed—it was decided that it stood a better chance to passwith a five-year “sunset provision” so that the people could be shown that themoney would be used as promised, and that if it wasn’t, then the people couldrightfully refuse to renew it.  Whenmeasured by that standard, we, the people, should refuse to renew it.  The city’s administration did not live bytheir promises, so we should take them at their own word.  This time it does not have the five-yearsunset provision.  This time we will bestuck.

Supporters of this tax, many of whom are city employees,have failed to obey the campaign laws regarding the placement of signs withinthe public right-of-way.  During pastcampaigns, the city administration has had signs of many candidates removed andconfiscated when they were so placed.  Ifwe cannot trust them to equally apply the law in this regard, can we trust themto keep their word with this “public safety” money, especially when they knowthere will be no renewal in five years to worry about???

The problem with this tax is not the tax.  The problem with this tax is the city administration.  It is one that has proven time and again thatit cannot be trusted.  Thisadministration, including its willing accomplice in the City Law Director’soffice, has demonstrated that they work not for the best interests of our cityas a whole, but only for the best interests of themselves and a small group ofinfluential “friends of city hall”, and as they do so, city council usuallysits silently by, letting them do as they wish. (Remember, they let their kangaroo court of a Historic Commission rulethat hanging hundreds of junk auto hoods on two sides of a building at a maindowntown intersection to be “historically appropriate”…and not one councilperson said a single word!!!)

Who knows what this gang will stretch and twist anddistort the term “public safety” to include??? Haven’t friends of city hall already begun to make a case that thedecorative fake gas lamps for South Main Street are actually a “public safety”item???  Certainly more “bike paths” willbe considered “public safety” won’t they??? (We can’t have our bicyclists risk being run down by motorists now, canwe???  And if they can’t see a thorn bushnext to the sidewalk on Main Street without the fake gas lamps, won’t the bikepaths through the park—read “park” as all the new green space resulting frommillions of dollars’ worth of demolition—will need fake gas lamps as well!!)

What if the marquee of the Sorg Opera House or the wall around the Sorg Mansion  deteriorate and put pedestrians in danger???  Will Middletown Moving Forward be given a million or two in the name of "public safety" to restore one or both to their former glory???

The bottom line??? It seems to me that we don’t have now the police and firefighters thatwere promised if we passed the public safety tax five years ago.  What makes anyone think that the money willgo towards what any reasonable person would perceive as “public safety” if wepass it now???

Perhaps it should be tried again when a newadministration that has proven itself more trustworthy is in place.

That is my opinion, and I am entitled to it.

March 30, 2012: Instructions to Publisher: Please publish one time only in the Middletown Journal.

Legal Notice No. 12‐7377

Notice is hereby given that the following items of legislation are scheduled for second and final reading on THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2012 at 7:30 A.M. during the business meeting of Middletown City Council at One Donham Plaza, Middletown, Ohio, 45042.

1. Ordinance No. O2012‐16, an ordinance to continue to impose a one‐quarter percent income tax on and after January 1, 2013 to be used solely for the operation of the Divisions of Police and Fire and to amend Chapter 890 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Middletown, as amended.

2. Resolution No. R2012‐08, a resolution directing the Boards of Elections of Butler County and Warren County to place upon the ballot at a Special Election to be held on August 7th, 2012, the question of enacting an ordinance to continue to impose a one‐quarter of one percent income tax on and after January 1, 2013 to be used solely for the operation of the Divisions of Police and Fire and to amend Chapter 890 of the Codified Ordinances.

3. Resolution No. R2012‐09, a resolution to make adjustments to appropriations for current expenses and other expenditures of the City of Middletown, Counties of Butler and Warren, State of Ohio, for the period ending December 31, 2012. (General Fund)

Entire text of legislation is available in the City Council Office, third floor, City Building, One Donham Plaza, Middletown

Betsy Parr, Clerk of City Council