Main Street Lights

 

Voice of Reason wrote: All of your discussion that quibbles with the nature of the street lighting or road repairs is moot--if the residents of a particular part of town vote with a strong majority and pay for it themselves, then so be it. If a cobblestone street is what they want then why, exactly, can't they do it? Because you don't like cobblestone streets?

It has nothing to do with my taste in paving material. I used that example because this portion of South Main is being paved under the regular city paving program. (Its “turn in the queue has come up”, to use your terms.) If they would petition to tear out a BRAND NEW section of pavement, that had been paid for by ALL of the taxpayers, to re-pave it with anything (no matter who pays for the re-paving) they, in essence, wasted that money, and cheated someone else's street out of a turn in the queue.  Now, if they lived on a short, dead-end street, that I did not have to use, as long as they paid for it they could repave it every year with buffalo chips for all that I care. However, if it is a street that is regularly used by the public, I would disagree with a petition for pavement that fails quickly (thereby unfairly moving that portion quickly up in the queue) or provides an unduly harsh (to passengers or vehicles) ride.

　

Voice of Reason wrote: You don't have a pony in this race (except for, perhaps, the $9K the city might spend). Why do you oppose improvements of other areas of town even as the residents of that are paying for it themselves? Is the $9K really a material difference? And to the point about the city having to maintain the lights--they city has to maintain the lights that are there, presently. And given that there are new lights (potentially) being installed on S. Main, it is plausible that the maintenance costs will be reduced in the near term. So it seems to me that there is no incremental cost to the taxpayers of Middletown other than the $9K for Old South Park.

It’s that pesky $9,000!!! Whether it is $9 or $9 million, the principle is the same, and the City is in deep financial trouble.  How can they cry for higher taxes one minute, but say that $9K doesn't matter the next.  If $9K doesn't matter, why isn't a good tarp on HISTORIC Pioneer Cemetery????  Add the fact that 12 or 13 lights are being replaced probably THIRTY or FORTY!!! Since the “olde tyme” lights are so much lower to the ground (I think Mr. Tadych said about 12 feet) it requires many more lights to light the same area. Council is already considering a “street light tax” to be added to each water bill in the city (of course, they won’t call it a “tax”, but a “tax” it is) as a “revenue enhancer”.

　

Voice of Reason wrote: Consider this--we already have a senior center that provides services to the elderly but they need more money to keep operating and improve the services that they do offer--based on your logic that S. Main already has lights, then should the senior center even be able to augment its services? Well if you're being consistent, then no, they shouldn't, because they already offer certain services, just as S. Main already has street lights. Furthermore, accoring to your logic, that particular levy is a travesty since it only directly benefits the elderly, which according to your principles makes it a total waste of taxpayer dollars, since many dollars will be spent for the benefit of a few.

First, you are assuming that I am in favor of that tax levy. That is a big assumption on your part. However, the logic is just not the same. First, ALL residents (18 and over) can vote on the Senior Citizens’ issue. If the South Main Street decorative street lamppost issue was NOT on the last citywide ballot, nor are they asking for it to be placed on the next ballot.  If the olde tyme lights for S. Main won a city-wide referendum, I would abide by it.  I would be amazed, but I would abide by it.

　

Voice of Reason wrote: I hear a lot of groaning and complaining about "special interests" and the friends of the city council members being taken care of with Pendleton, downtown, etc. Maybe those connected to the Mayor or council get some preferential treatment--I'm not sure. Cincy State seems to be geting preferential treatment (as best as council can give it) and that seems like something that would greatly benefit all of Middletown.

I agree that Cinci State may be of benefit to our city. That is why you have not heard me rail against it. However, I have rather strong concerns about the way it has been (and is being) handled. You seem to think that I am AGAINST anything new for Middletown. You couldn’t be more mistaken. It’s just that this whole “olde tyme” thing has been tried over and over at a cost of tens of millions of dollars for the last 12 (at least) years and it has gotten us NOTHING!!! And we are now in a position where “decorative siding” consisting of 200 or more JUNK AUTO HOODS will be illuminated by phony “antique gas” street lights, and the pompous, supercilious “Historic” Commission has deemed it “APPROPRIATE”!!! And if the PAC goes “belly up” and a USED AUTO PARTS store opens in the very same building, the very same people who approved the auto hoods will be clamoring for them to be removed. Ridiculous!!!

　

Voice of Reason wrote: But I'd like to make the point that having some art, education, and nicer amenities in town doesn't hurt the city--it might actually help the city and change the perception that Middletown is a dump.

I agree, and we DO have that stuff. And if you and anyone else wants more, GREAT!!! Knock yourselves out! But there are a great many people in town that like NASCAR, or rodeo, or professional wrestling. Do you think municipal tax money should be used to subsidize bringing THOSE things to town??? I don’t. (Although my mind could be changed on ANY of the items if someone could show actual market studies--REAL market studies--indicating that one or more would pay off financially. So far, olde tyme Middletown has empirically been shown to be a bust, and art seems to be “saturated” at best.) The point you miss is that you NEVER hear me knocking ANY of that stuff if it is being tried with PRIVATE funds at risk. It is just that it always seems to be the SAME people that want to do what THEY enjoy doing, but with the PUBLIC’s money. That, to me, is a reason for dissent, even if it is something that I like!!!  Also, is changing the "perception" really the goal??  Symbolism over substance is one of the things that helped get us here.  Just calling Middletown a "with it, artsy, sophisticated city" won't make it so.

　

Voice of Reason wrote: Here's a thought--I am in principle very opposed to high taxes and I think we could do without a lot of what we get taxed for, but how about we try to raise the standards for people around town? How about we make it expensive to own property in Middletown, through strict zoning requirements and street paving assessments? So many people seem to bitch and moan about how council members are only in it for themselves--but again, having some arts and "upper class" diversions is actually a very good idea.

That seems to be exactly what is being done. I guess it’s a great deal for the ones who enjoy the “diversions” that are chosen, and if those diversions are subsidized by the taxes of others as they are being driven away. Let me ask you this: What happens when they start choosing “diversions” that YOU dislike, yet use YOUR tax money to help keep the cost down for others???

　

Voice of Reason wrote: Anyone drive through Mason or Montgomery lately? Ever notice how they have clean streets, mowed grass and flowers in the medians along Tylersville in Mason? Do you suppose that they have pretty strict zoning and they spend a fair amount of money to upkeep those amenities? It's pretty clear that those sorts of things don't come cheap, but frankly I would be thrilled if Middletown were to pursue some projects like that. I can hear the chorus now from the old people on fixed incomes and the poor people opposing such measures (and I'm far from rich, believe me), but wouldn't it be neat if Middltown at least tried to be a nice town again, perhaps as in the 50's-60's?

Yes, it would. Cleaning house at City Hall would be a prerequisite to that occurring. How do you think all of this happened to Middletown??? Who do you think was running the show??? It certainly wasn’t I.

　

Voice of Reason wrote: Here's another general observation: A number of people seem to want less government and lower taxes, but in the next breath look to government to solve the problem and "bring jobs" to town. This is what people clamor for when they don't have marketable skills and aren't willing to invest in themselves. Blaming city leaders for not bringing jobs to town makes you smell like a rotten socialist, and from what I've gathered there are few, if any, of those on this forum. Given the lack of educational attainment, on average, in Middletown, there won't be any high-tech, high-paying jobs that arrive here anytime soon. About the only thing a lot of people in Middletown are qualified to do is work jobs that barely rise above minimum wage, and there's no amount of cajoling with outside business interests that any city leader can do to change that. Instead of trying to get the city leaders to bring low-wage jobs (as these are the only ones for which many Middletonians could ever qualfy), how about we simply raise the bar for acceptable housing and road conditions? As I've said above, if this makes it too expensive for some to live in Middletown then I'm fine with that. We've got more than our fair share of poor people; maybe we'd get some peole with money and means to move to here if we had nice streets and strict zoning requirements.

A lot of this is exactly what they have tried to do. Unfortunately, they had flaw or two in their plan.

They needed a way to keep the money flowing into City Hall so they could all keep their jobs (with steady, hefty raises disguised as promotions so they could say that “no one’s had a raise in years”). Enter, Section 8 and all of the federal “alphabet” programs. In the meantime, the city’s middle class was being driven away, and the properties being bought up cheap by shell groups and turned into Section 8 rentals. “Neighborhood beautification” grants and the like paid for a lot of the work and made a whole lot of bank accounts “beautiful”. Unfortunately, the economy got TOO bad, and when AK’s excecs pulled out, their plan went south. They also ticked off enough people that Middletown may never turn around. Now the only ones left that are still being fooled are some of the stooges that they are using, but they have to keep riding the same horses.

They wanted a “quaint, sleepy village” and that’s what they’ll probably end up with if we don’t seat new council people this election.

They just didn’t count on it being a broke, quaint, sleepy, lawless slum-dog village.