 |
|
| Home | Yearly News Archive | Advertisers | Blog | Contact Us |
|
 |
Friday, April 26, 2024 |
|
6/21 Council meeting comments |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1234> |
| Author | |
Pacman 
Prominent MUSA Citizen 
Joined: Jun 02 2007 Status: Offline Points: 2612 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: Jun 25 2011 at 10:03am |
|
Some Observations and Questions;
1) Middletown's population has dropped 5.6% between 2000 & 2010. 2) Middletown now has 1 section 8 voucher for every 29 residents. The highest concentration per capita, I have found in the United States even higher than New York City. 3) Public Safety wages have risen faster than any wage in Middletown. Police and Fire wages were at approximately 48-52% above the CPI while non-union wages at City Hall were right at the CPI level. 4) As far as the Public safety levy goes, I am currently a No Vote. I may consider a Yes Vote if the Unions give serious concessions to wages and payment of their health care. The Concessions must be serious and not just "We will cut our uniform allowance or return a day of vacation". 5) Is Cincinnati State still in play, or is the deal falling through? 6) I hear the new restaurant downtown is on life support. 7) Is it true that The Art Center downtown has decided not to look like an Auto Parts Center on the outside? 8) What is the reason for the workshop upstairs by Council if they are going to televise it on TV anyways? 9) It appears that there has been no decrease in section 8 vouchers in use in Middletown by this summer as was stated last summer. |
|
 |
|
|
acclaro
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Joined: Jul 01 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1878 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jun 25 2011 at 11:55pm |
|
Pacman, I certainly hope your health and recovery is going smoothly and the road to recovery will be swift and meaningful. Welcome back, sorely missed with your analysis.
Let me piggyback off your list if I may, and answer at least 5. While not having direct access to Cincinnati State's President, I do have access to a few senior administrative officers. What I have heard repeatedly is concern about Middletown's identity, and i that is a + or - for them, ie...a metro, urban college trying to help an impoverished urban plighted area. With the current budget constraints, as the new fiscal year for CS begins in July, the word is it will be next July 2012 if anything is done, and if anything is brought to Middletown, the probability is a partership with an existing school already having rooms that cn be shared/ leveraged. That may be Greentree as sj stated in another thread.
Now, adding my list:
10) Why is the city of Middletown bailing out the Senior Citizens Center when they can't raise their membership through funds?
11) Is there legal recourse available in a class action suit associated with the city ruining Middletown by adding so much Section 8 it is negatively impacted the school system and its reputation and property values fir residents who have seen valuation plunge at least 30% > than the national average?
|
|
|
|
|
ground swat
MUSA Citizen 
Joined: Mar 31 2011 Status: Offline Points: 367 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jun 26 2011 at 1:22am |
|
Answer: No leadership, who wants to deal with Her? |
|
|
|
|
VietVet
MUSA Council 
Joined: May 15 2008 Status: Offline Points: 7008 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jun 26 2011 at 8:56am |
|
Nice to have you back Pac!
 
|
|
|
|
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council
Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jun 27 2011 at 3:25am |
|
Voice: Please excuse my delay in responding to your post of 24 Jun 2011 at 4:26pm. I’ve had some other matters that needed attention. Regarding the Public Safety Levy funds: As you continue digging, I’m sure you will find three things:
Next, as far as the longer ambulance runs to your house: I may be off base speaking of “your house” literally, since I have no idea where you live, but it is a safe bet that if “your house” is anywhere (approximately) west of Breiel, and it is determined that the ambulance must take you to the ER, it will take longer, to get to Atrium than to the old hospital location. Granted, this has to do with the new location of the hospital, but reducing the number of fire stations with manned ambulances can only exacerbate the situation. As far as sending a fire engine as well as an ambulance on each emergency run, I must admit that I, too, struggle with that concept, so I cannot argue in favor of the practice. I can say that, on occasion, I have had firefighters explain it to me during informal face-to-face discussions, and it made sense. But later, I could not replicate these explanations to others in the same way. Poor memory on my part??? Probably. However, I do believe that there are other cities throughout the USA that have only one unit with two people (both EMTs) respond to emergency medical calls, but I cannot cite facts or figures right now. Perhaps one of our firefighter poster friends can help??? Likewise, I cannot cite facts and figures for the firefighters vs. police vs. nurses scheduling approach, yet I do understand the basic difference in the type of services that the firefighters supply as opposed to the others. Intuitively, the way it is done here in Middletown seems to me to be a good way to have firefighters and EMTs ready to respond, and to respond in the shortest time, to any emergency. Next, I re-read the portion of your post that I incorrectly thought made a safety comparison between “2 or 3 more cops and firefighters on the payroll” and “installing more lights”. I simply erred in making that inference. I was wrong, and I apologize. I assure you that it was an honest mistake, and was certainly unintentional. Next, the issue of who will pay, and who should pay, for the olde tyme street lights! First, if I read and heard the proceedings of the last council meeting correctly, ALL of the taxpayers of the City of Middletown will be contributing to the cost of the olde tyme street lights. Next, perhaps I should have been more specific: my objection is to paying for DECORATIVE lamp posts, globes, etc., where existing street lamps already are in place meeting city standards. I see this as no different than any other DECORATIVE item. For more on this, please see my reply to Mr. Duane Gordon. Lastly, regarding the Weatherwax vs. Sunset Pool issue, please note that I didn’t disagree with you on the issues. I merely pointed out some City Hall hypocrisy related to the subject. |
|
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council
Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jun 27 2011 at 3:36am |
|
Mr. Gordon: Thank you for attempting to clear up some of the questions that have been raised. Perhaps you will be so kind as to clear up a few more issues??? First, you state that “to extend a similar type of lighting as is currently installed along Central Avenue and along North Main Street south onto South Main Street to remain consistent with the theme the city has determined is most appropriate for this area.” It is my understanding that the latest “theme the city has determined is most appropriate” is “junque chic”!!! So, if 60% or more of the residents along South Main Street vote that everyone in their neighborhood should have a junk auto hood siding façade on the Main Street face of their structures, should the remainder of the taxpayers in the city be forced to subsidize that also??? What about the percentage of neighborhood residents who don’t want such facades??? Should they be forced to pay for and install them anyway, just to keep the neighborhood uniform??? What if 60% of the residents decide that a nice, chrome hubcap, decorative fence would go nicely with the junk auto theme??? Should it be a de rigueur, taxpayer subsidized addition??? Should YOU be forced to add these touches to YOUR property at YOUR expense even if YOU are in the minority??? The omnipotent Historic Commission has already certified this “junque chic” as “appropriate”, so votes don’t always go your way, and the precedent has already been set. Next you mention “any neighborhood in the city” could do the same thing, but I doubt that!!! First, I doubt the legality of this petition. Nowhere within Section 727 of the Ohio Revised Code (the Section cited as the controlling legal authority) are DECORATIVE items of ANY description mentioned. “Lighting” is mentioned as an appropriate and allowable item to be petitioned, but S. Main Street already has lighting, and I would not be objecting if the residents were claiming that lighting was inadequate, but that is not the claim. You don’t want lights--you want decorative lampposts and decorative globes. I simply believe that decorative items should be at the expense of the individual property owners who desire them. I would NEVER expect YOU to pay for a decorative lamppost in front of MY house!!! Why do YOU expect me to help pay for one in front of yours??? Also, Mr. Kohler has no interest in most neighborhoods of the city, to expedite such petitions. Next, you contend that this section of roadway serves as a “major thoroughfare”!!! If this is true, then it should have “light standards (posts)” consistent with a “major thoroughfare” and not with a quaint, quiet, olde tyme neighborhood. You cannot have it both ways, Sir. It cannot be a "major thoroughfare" when you want it paved at no cost to the residents ahead of other streets in town, but a "quaint, sleepy neighborhood" when you want the rest of us to help pay for your decorative lampposts and globes, resembling olde tyme gaslights. And modern streetlamps will be no less incongruent to your neighborhood's "theme" than the junk auto hoods will be to the olde tyme lampposts downtown!!! Yes, Mr. Gordon, many on this forum do advocate for personal responsibility, and we would never ask you to pay for decorative items in our neighborhoods. We also believe that there are many roads in the city that are just as much “major thoroughfares” as S. Main between Second and Ninth that are in worse shape, but if the residents abutting those thoroughfares want them paved, they will have to foot the bill for this basic infrastructure themselves. You and the “friends of City Hall” on South Main, are getting your street paved fully at taxpayer expense, even though it will likely be torn up to replace the combined sewer system in the near future. The least that you people could do is pay for the decorative lampposts and accoutrements for yourselves. |
|
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council
Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jun 27 2011 at 4:28am |
|
As long as Kohler’s name has come up, consider this from the minutes of a recent Historic Commission meeting:
Pretty cool, huh??? The same consultant represents Marty AND the City staff!!! Nah--no conflict there, is there??? And I wonder who paid the consultant’s fee??? This reminds me of a case a few years back wherein Steve Huesman (while he was interim City Manager) represented Kohler in front of one of the City boards. Also clearly a conflict of interest. |
|
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
DuaneGordon
MUSA Immigrant 
Joined: May 12 2010 Status: Offline Points: 32 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jun 27 2011 at 1:25pm |
|
Mr. Presta, I’d really like to know exactly what costs you think you’ll be paying to subsidize these lights because I believe you must have misheard or misread the proceedings from the last Council meeting. “I simply believe that decorative items should be at the expense of the individual property owners who desire them. . . The least that you people could do is pay for the decorative lampposts and accoutrements for yourselves,” you say. Well, as I stated before, ALL direct expenses for the lighting project are being paid for completely and solely by the property owners in the neighborhood. We are the only ones on whose tax bills it will appear. The assessment does not hit YOUR property tax bill. The only caveat to that is because Old South Park, which represents about 3 percent of the road frontage involved, is owned by all taxpayers of the city, that one small area is to be paid for by the public from the general fund at a price of about a penny a year per resident for the 10-year period of the assessment. Any other lighting that is replaced in any other park throughout the city would be subject to the same requirement (and even for that part, the neighborhood is working with the city to see if there is way for us to assist with that cost, too). Alternately, if you are arguing hypothetically like you were a property owner within the South Main Historic District who is opposed to the lighting and will be subject to the direct assessment, then you would have a point. That is more of a philosophical question about where you draw the line. Yes, I can see the unfairness in requiring my neighbor who is opposed to the lighting pay for it, but if this is approved my neighbor will be getting a light placed in front of their house even though they don’t want it, and they will benefit from its use even though they don’t want it, so they are required to pay for it. You could argue about should it be a simple majority of 50 percent, should it be 60 percent, should it be 80 percent, should it be 100 percent? As one of the previous posters suggested, it’s the same thing with levies: should the 49 percent who voted against the library levy last year be allowed to exempt themselves and not pay the tax? The law says they cannot. The state legislature decided once a neighborhood gets 60 percent of the owners of the frontage in the impacted area in favor of it, the city has the authority to assess the cost to everyone in that neighborhood. You should lobby your state representative and senator if you’d like that law changed, because that’s their prerogative. A majority of homeowners in our neighborhood is simply making use of the existing law. To answer your questions: 1. I hope you’re being hyperbolic with your example of the junk auto theme, because first I doubt anywhere in the city you’d get more than a handful of residents to sign a petition for such an addition; secondly, I would expect the city council members to have enough judgment to deny their request – the 60 percent rule doesn’t require the city to APPROVE it (they still haven’t given final approval to our request), it just requires them to CONSIDER the request and decide yes or no; third; if they did it, the assessment would be just like our proposed one is and only impact the tax bills of the residents of that neighborhood and not the city at large; and finally, the point would be moot because the law only allows such assessments for items in the right-of-way, and placing an auto hood on a home or a fence on the private property would not be within the right-of-way. 2. On the section of state code, as you correctly state, it allows for the assessment of a levy for a neighborhood to cover “lighting.” However, the code does not restrict it beyond the word “lighting.” You seem to be of the opinion that the law doesn’t allow for it to cover replacement or upgraded lighting once lighting has already been installed. Nothing in the code says it may not be used for that purpose. And, once again, we are not asking YOU to pay for it. These items are being paid for by the PROPERTY OWNERS ALONG SOUTH MAIN. Your assertion that you are subsidizing them is just plain wrong. 3. The lighting will be proper for the street. In fact, it will be more appropriate, as the street is currently lit not as the thoroughfare it is but rather as a quiet, lazy, infrequently-traveled residential street. As I noted, the lighting down Central (a similar thoroughfare with an even higher traffic count) using this style of lights is superior to the existing lighting down Main and more appropriate for a street of this type than the existing lights. So, yes, brighter, improved lighting like on Central is more appropriate for a street with this degree of traffic. |
|
|
|
|
LMAO
MUSA Citizen
Joined: Oct 28 2009 Location: Middletucky Status: Offline Points: 468 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jun 27 2011 at 1:48pm |
|
Mr.Gordon you are so wrong.We the taxpayers will have to foot the bill For you new lighting.So take your B.S.back to the city you have a better chance in them believing you then us.Once a liar always a liar.
 |
|
|
|
|
DuaneGordon
MUSA Immigrant
Joined: May 12 2010 Status: Offline Points: 32 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jun 27 2011 at 3:14pm |
|
LMAO -- Are you calling me a liar? Or are you calling the city a liar? On the latter, I wouldn't debate, because I find it very hard to trust any politician myself.
 However, if you're referring to me personally, I'd challenge you to name any single instance where I have ever lied to the public. But back to the subject at hand, where are you getting that the taxpayers will have to foot the bill other than your imagination? I've seen the assessment estimates. They only impact the properties on South Main. We had a very lengthy debate in my own household over whether or not we were going to sign the petition and support it or not because our personal assessment to pay for this was going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $3,500, if I remember correctly from the estimates. That's a lot of money and it's on top of the five-year assessment for sidewalks and curb that is going to be placed on my taxes as well, so it was a difficult decision to make. But we are paying for it, not you.
|
|
|
|
|
spiderjohn
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Joined: Jul 01 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2749 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jun 27 2011 at 4:16pm |
|
interesting discussion
many good points coming from everywhere, and easy to understand everyone's position
If I lived in the S Main hysterical district, I would clearly support this issue.
It would showcase my property(which is close to the street) and create an ambiance that may increase the area image and property values in an area where most properties are well-maintained. Plus these NEW lights will be more attractive than the old poles in operation currently. Perfect timing to make the change.
If I lived elsewhere in Middletown, I would wonder why this street is getting re-done, when it is in no way one of the most in-need roadway surfaces. I would wonder why this lighting demand gets such attention and quick consideration. I would wonder whether we will honestly be lighting the busy thoroughfare, or showcasing the real estate. Should we expect the same from the Highland district when it coincidentally gets it's emergency repaving(while also far from the most needed roadway--and it is hardly a main thoroughfare)?
Owners on S Main are very proud of their homes, as they should be.
People on my street are also very proud of their homes.
Same for virtually every neighborhood.
On my tstreet the properties are equal or greater in value and functionality, yet my street is in FAR worse condition--so is the street lamping.
Yet if "we" want road improvement, we must first petition, then if successful, foot the repair bill ourselves. hmmm
Everyone thinks that their home and neighborhood is special. Still--all areas are only special to their residents. They are very un-important to others residing in other areas.
People are honestly tired of the same small select neighborhood areas recieving special consideration, benefits and attention. In these tough times, everyone needs their share of breaks and consideration. More so the needy than the not-as-needy.
S Main is a major roadway and should be treated as such. The lighting of the actual STREET is paramount. If you want your home decoratively lit, do it yourself(I realize that this project is attempting to do both--can it really work?).
The ornamental lighting also is an extention of what is currently lining Central Ave in that area. If this area is to add similar lamping, then it should probably be extended all the way from the Central Ave situation, and also north on Main to Reinhartz.. Why have a break in the pattern? Imo the 63% approving property owners should also pay for the poles,lamping and construction along the Old South Park area, since it is their initiated project. As Mr.Gordon mentions, it is only approx.$7,000+ in expense, and a few pennies for maintenence/power.
I expect this to be approved unanimously as an emergency(why?)by Council with little to no discussion.
One NO vote would kill the project.
jmo
|
|
|
|
|
VietVet
MUSA Council
Joined: May 15 2008 Status: Offline Points: 7008 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jun 27 2011 at 4:22pm |
|
I see no problem with your old tyme light upgrades Mr. Gordon. If you are footing the bill and it doesn't affect any property owners outside the S. Main St. area, shouldn't be a problem for the rest of us. No one should have to pay to have someone else's neighborhood upgraded. Common areas only should be shared by all. Seems fair enough. I do believe, however, that the city leaders have taken tax money meant for everyone's benefit and channeled it to benefit a few friends of the city. You can understand the distrust of the city from the citizens.
I have a concern involving our Planning DIErector though. If the rumor is true that Marty Kohler is gone from the city payroll in the coming days, and he lives in your area, wonder how ole Marty is going to continue his old tyme saga renovating his home? Wonder why he is retaining a "historic consultant" as reported in these forum pages? Wonder if he's going to be around to enjoy those old tyme street lights? Gonna lose his income isn't he? If true, sad. Sad indeed. |
|
|
|
|
spiderjohn
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Joined: Jul 01 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2749 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jun 27 2011 at 4:48pm |
|
Dunno Vet.
Mr.K has made a showplace of a property that was prior an old persons' prison.
My grandmother lived there unfortunately. I can still feel the guilt I experienced when visiting her(and her unhappiness in her final years of a glorious life).
Mr.K improved the property with a lot of his own hard work(+ maybe a little well-connected fed $$?)
I will be very unhappy if he is removed from city Admin.
It will be a huge community loss.
Unlike many others in charge who drive in and out everyday, Mr.K is from here and has made a serious investment in hard work time and $$ to call this city his home(and hopefully it will always be his home).
Mr.K knows more about the workings of this entire city than the rest of Admin combined.
Do I agree with his direction and philosophy?
Often yes--more often no.
Still he is the best man for the job and the city.
If I was mayor(think about that one!), I would have Mr.K as a key advisor and possibly city manager(under my tight control). When I think of the others in the ivory tower plying their will on the citizens, it makes me shudder. If you think things are rough and unfair now, just wait. You will see!
|
|
|
|
|
DuaneGordon
MUSA Immigrant
Joined: May 12 2010 Status: Offline Points: 32 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jun 27 2011 at 5:20pm |
|
Thanks, spiderjohn and Vet.
On the lights, the existing decorative lights do extend from Central north to Rienhartz on North Main, so that suggestion was accomplished by the city years ago.
They also will not light most of the homes themselves (many, mine included, are too far off the road to actually receive illumination from these lights). They will light the pavement and the sidewalks (currently, many of the decades-old lights in the neighborhood only light the pavement, which makes the sidewalks dark and dangerous at night, and the lights also have long spaces between them that result in sections of dark pavement with no light, problems we hope to correct with the new lights being properly spaced, with their more circular light pattern illuminating both the street and the sidewalk).
My understanding from residents who've lived here a lot longer than I have, is the city has been approached time and time again over about the past 35 years on the substandard lighting in the neighborhood, and each time residents were told they have to wait until the street is repaved because the street would have to be torn up to put the new lights in. The speed is because residents weren't notified that our street was coming up on the streets program until just a few months before they were to start work. (Apparently, it's been on the list for a while, but no one told us it was on there until almost too late to do anything.) We then had to wait four months for the city to get the proper legal wording back to us for the petition, which left a very short time frame to get the petition signed and submitted so that the Council could consider whether or not to approve the lights before the street is torn up and put back together again, which would prevent the light installation until the next time it's repaved in another 40 years or so.
I don't expect you'll hear anything from Highlands because my understanding is they had somewhat similar lighting installed several years ago. I do not know whether that was at general taxpayer expense or through the neighborhood assessment as we're doing.
South Main Street hasn't been repaved in my lifetime. I mean it. It literally has not been repaved since before I was born. Name me another street in the city with a nearly 10,000 cars-per-day traffic count that has gone that long without repaving. Most of the city's comparable north-south cooridors with similar traffic counts (Breiel, University, Shafor, Sutphin) all have been repaved since I moved here three and a half years ago, and now it's South Main's turn. I know there are many, many streets in the city in worse condition, but they simply don't have anywhere near the traffic as North Main, and you have to allocate your very limited local street dollars to those places where the largest number of people receive the greatest benefit. It's as simple as that. If it was due to the planning director and the mayor and the retired Fenwick principal living there, it would have been repaved years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
johnnyp26
MUSA Immigrant
Joined: Nov 19 2010 Status: Offline Points: 10 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jun 27 2011 at 6:14pm |
|
Well, Voice of Reason, those are all great questions for the city manager. I can only attest to the fact that the offers were made and not accepted. I gave you the answer she gave us. It was and still is ridiculous. Corrections just negotiated their contract, so it is a new one. I only bring that issue up to point out that despite cries of "no money", they are still giving out raises. As far as car allowances, I don't have a confirmed number of recipients. I do know that there is a pool of cars that are available for those who need one- not your average city worker. If say, one of those people actually needed a car to do city work (which rarely happens), all they have to do is get the keys for one of the pool vehicles. Taxpayers pay for the purchase, fuel, insurance, and maintenance for the vehicles that sit more often than not. Here is an example of what actually happens: a department head gets almost $500 vehicle allowance. Same department head is required to attend meetings during "business hours" and after. Same department head drives to the city, picks up a city vehicle and drives to said meetings. Now, tell me that isn't fat to be cut! If you have to lay off employees, perks like cars and cell phones should be cut first.
As far as the $2 million mistake, you'll have to look that up. I won't give you all of the answers. Go back through Council meeting minutes. It's public record.
|
|
|
|
|
johnnyp26
MUSA Immigrant
Joined: Nov 19 2010 Status: Offline Points: 10 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jun 27 2011 at 6:35pm |
|
Mr. Presta,
I can help with the firetruck issue that seems to confound many citizens. All but 3 Middletown Firefighters are paramedics. Firefighters on the engines assist the firefighters on the ambulances. We help carry patients (any of you are welcome to come help us carry patients down 3 flights of stairs, or through houses filled with junk, bugs, dog feces, etc., but I digress....
 ) We also help with patient care. The quicker we can start care can make a huge difference in the recovery of most patients.
2 engines carry medical equipment and AEDs. Our other 2 engines are "ALS engines". They carry the same drug bags and heart monitors that our ambulances carry. The thought process is that when all of the ambulances are out, the engine companies can start taking care of the patient. This type of set-up occurs throughout the United States.
Too often people call for help but we don't have an ambulance available. Our engine companies are trained and equipped to start care while waiting for an out of town ambulance.
Oh yeah, it also keeps firefighters on FIREtrucks in case there is a FIRE, which, contrary to what the city wants you to believe, still happen.
Don't ever hesitate to stop by a firehouse in town and ask questions, we have nothing to hide. You will get the straight scoop from the ones actually doing the job. We can also show you what we carry and what our capabilities are.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council
Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jun 27 2011 at 6:38pm |
|
Mr. Gordon: Whether it is a few cents or a few million dollars (I believe that the “approx.$7,000+” figure that Spiderjohn mentioned is correct), there is no valid reason for the rest of the taxpayers of the city to pay to decorate your neighborhood the way that you an your neighbors, and only you nad your neighbors, want it decorated. I never stated that there was to be any amount of “assessment” that will “hit MY tax bill”, but there is a portion of the cost of the decorative lampposts and globes in excess of standard street lighting that will be borne by the rest of the taxpayers. This is WRONG. It is especially wrong in these trying economic times, while the taxpayers are being told that more basic city services will be cut, that we are also being told that we must pay for this extra perk for the residents of South Main Street. Yes, property owners on a street are permitted by ORC 727 to petition for “lighting”. Does this mean that you can petition for a different style of decorative lampposts next year if you grow tired of this décor, or if a new, trendy design comes down the pike??? Of course not!!! They are likewise permitted to petition for street “paving”, but that does not give them the right to stipulate that their street be paved with cobblestones, or with gold, or even with Portland cement concrete pavement!!! Of course I resort to hyperbole, but since you still don’t seem to get it, must I exaggerate even more??? |
|
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council
Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jun 27 2011 at 6:50pm |
|
Johnny,
Thank you for your help in trying to better understand this issue.
I have, indeed, stopped by a station in the past (it's been a couple of years--perhaps it's time for another visit) and I must say that I was warmly recieved and that the firefighters on duty patiently tried to answer every question that I asked.
Note to anyone who visits a fire station: Be certain that you do NOT park in a manner that BLOCKS the equipment should they need to respond to a call while you are there!!!
|
|
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council
Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jun 27 2011 at 7:05pm |
|
Mr. Gordon:
You state:
I seem to recall both the Historic Commission AND City Council voting to APPROVE exactly that recently!!! I'm surprised that you don't remember. Perhaps some of your neighbors who were members of one of those two august bodies can fill you in on the details!!!
Perhaps something similar CAN happen in your neighborhood!!! The precedent has been set, and some of YOUR neighbors voted IN FAVOR of it!!! I doubt that it would pass in my neighborhood.
|
|
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council
Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jun 27 2011 at 7:17pm |
|
By the way, Mr. Gordon, City Council and the Historic Commission approved the junk auto theme smack dab in an area where there are existing olde tyme faux gas street lights and lampposts!!! Apparently, they think these two items go together. Perhaps you and your neighbors better be careful what you ask for, for as they say, "There is no accounting for taste"!!!
|
|
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council
Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jun 27 2011 at 7:22pm |
|
|
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
LMAO
MUSA Citizen
Joined: Oct 28 2009 Location: Middletucky Status: Offline Points: 468 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jun 27 2011 at 8:17pm |
Not calling you a liar but please explain to me when one of these lights happen to malfuntion who will be maintaining them? The city? If so who do you think pays those employees salaries? I think that because you all have Sir Kohler and Sir Mullethead living on south main that south main residents are getting special treatmeant. Last time I checked I was being charged for a street light that is 2 blocks away from me which I dont think is fair but I have to.There is no one(even you) that can tell me there isnt going to be a cost to other taxpayers of this fine city so you people can have your fancy lights.
 |
|
|
|
|
VietVet
MUSA Council
Joined: May 15 2008 Status: Offline Points: 7008 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jun 27 2011 at 8:38pm |
|
johnnyp26- I am one of the biggest complainers/critics on this forum concerning council, the city building personnel, the schools dismal performance, and all that is wrong with this town.
However, I will be the first to say that the squad and fire personnel in this town are top notch IMO. I had this discussion with ashkicker, another firefighter, on this forum. Since you recently appeared here, I will re-state that you and the squad people are one bright spot in a town with few bright spots to offer. My wife had a stroke in Oct. 2009. Since then, she has had 5 seizures that have required the 911 call and the squad response to our house. Seizures are not a pleasant thing to witness. Each time, you think your loved one is dying. The call was made. The gurney was brought in, she was stabilized and transported each time to the emergency room where they proceeded to treat her and contact the neurologist. You may have been one of the fine people that have helped us out in our time of need. For that, I sincerely thank you. In our case, we depend on people like you to prevent a huge loss for our family. Those who have never needed your service have not seen you people in action. I have. If the critics were in my position, I'm sure they would concur with my high regard for your efforts. Keep up the good work. It is appreciated by the people who need the help. |
|
|
|
|
Smartman
MUSA Citizen
Joined: Jun 14 2008 Status: Offline Points: 299 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jun 27 2011 at 8:44pm |
|
I could not agree more Vet! Imagine that? You and I agree on both you are a complainer and about the fire dept! My daughter had a single car accident a year ago on Brieil. The squad was awesome. Their caring attitude was more than I expected! The fire dept is a wonderful bunch of folks Oh Vet, prayers for your wife I hope all is well!
|
|
|
|
|
VietVet
MUSA Council
Joined: May 15 2008 Status: Offline Points: 7008 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Jun 27 2011 at 8:50pm |
|
Oh Vet, prayers for your wife I hope all is well!
What a nice thing to say. Thank you for that. Sometimes, even those on opposing sides of debates find some common ground, don't we?  It's alright though. Sometimes I learn from opposing viewpoints too as there is information introduced that I was not aware of.
|
|
|
|
Topic Options
DuaneGordon wrote:|
Post Reply
|
Page <1234> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
This page was generated in 0.149 seconds.
| Copyright ©2024 MiddletownUSA.com | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Site by Xponex Media | Advertising Information |