The article in ThisWeek (Dispatch) 5/30/09 entitled “Newark eyes federal funds for ice arena, treatment plant” demonstrates the irresponsibility with which bureaucrats and special interest groups are willing to gobble tax money.
Two such forces are grabbing for Community Development Block Grant funds, neither of which would, as HUD declares are the purposes of such grants, “develop viable communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment and opportunities to expand economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income persons.”
Promoters of the local ice arena have their hands out for $226,355 for upgrades to allow non-hockey events.
Newark’s treatment plant is Jonesing for $293,000 to convert methane gas and reuse it as a natural-gas substitute. This, plus another $293,000 in matching funds from already over-burdened taxpayers.
But what about those low- and moderate-income folks who will never care about either project, but would just like to see Newark’s neighborhoods repaired and sanitized and their utility bills and taxes reduced?
Council members Shirley Stare and Irene Kennedy raised objections during the service committee meeting where preliminary deliberations were made. But, according to ThisWeek, “Newark Mayor Bob Diebold expects his request to skate right through city council Monday, when he'll ask to spend hundreds of thousands in proposed grant money on the ice arena and wastewater-plant upgrades.”
He’s probably right. There are, you see, no forces, save a few bloggers, who give a crap about low- and moderate-income folks or their neighborhoods or their utility bills and taxes.
Showing posts with label Kennedy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kennedy. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Friday, January 9, 2009
Bend over Bunky, here comes Mayor Diebold again
Creative stiffing of taxpayers is a trademark of Newark Mayor Bob Diebold and it happened again when he announced his new policy under which city workers can retire and then become immediately rehired in the same job.
Thus may city employees claim a city salary along with retirement benefits, which are funded in large part by tax money.
Diebold's justification is that this employee will cost the city about $13,439 less per year, according to the Advocate report, considering a $7,318 reduction in salary, the rest in benefits. What hasn't been reported yet is the total increased cost to taxpayers under this practice. Apparently this isn't illegal, but in my opinion it should be so declared by Ohio legislation.
Diebold can carve another notch into his needy-greedy government stick - along with the one for the $10 auto tag tax and another for stiffing citizens for rides to the hospital in taxpayer-owned trucks manned by taxpayer-paid employees and another for his push for robot-issued traffic tickets and another for permitting the use of city vehicles in violation of the city vehicle policy.
Speaking of stiffing the public, all but four city council members voted to increase the Building Code Department fees in order to keep on the payroll workers in that department who are no longer needed. And why is that?
Good-Ol'-Boy-To-The-Core Irene Kennedy was quoted in the Advocate: “I think it is important to keep this skill set in place, at least to the end of the year.”
Right. It's someone else's money. And end of which year? And will the fees be reduced when construction picks up?
When the next election comes around, remember that. Also remember the names of the four council members who voted in favor of public - not government - interests: Marmie, Rhodes, Uible and Bubb.
Thus may city employees claim a city salary along with retirement benefits, which are funded in large part by tax money.
Diebold's justification is that this employee will cost the city about $13,439 less per year, according to the Advocate report, considering a $7,318 reduction in salary, the rest in benefits. What hasn't been reported yet is the total increased cost to taxpayers under this practice. Apparently this isn't illegal, but in my opinion it should be so declared by Ohio legislation.
Diebold can carve another notch into his needy-greedy government stick - along with the one for the $10 auto tag tax and another for stiffing citizens for rides to the hospital in taxpayer-owned trucks manned by taxpayer-paid employees and another for his push for robot-issued traffic tickets and another for permitting the use of city vehicles in violation of the city vehicle policy.
Speaking of stiffing the public, all but four city council members voted to increase the Building Code Department fees in order to keep on the payroll workers in that department who are no longer needed. And why is that?
Good-Ol'-Boy-To-The-Core Irene Kennedy was quoted in the Advocate: “I think it is important to keep this skill set in place, at least to the end of the year.”
Right. It's someone else's money. And end of which year? And will the fees be reduced when construction picks up?
When the next election comes around, remember that. Also remember the names of the four council members who voted in favor of public - not government - interests: Marmie, Rhodes, Uible and Bubb.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Councilman Marmie: friend of citizens
Last week Newark City Council voted to stuff Newark City taxpayers by skimming off another $10 per auto license sale, even after taxpayers had voted overwhelmingly against such a tax. I wrote about it here.
In comments before council voted, Shirley Stare of the 2nd Ward mentioned this referendum vote as part of the reason she wouldn't support any more tag tax. Doug Marmie spoke at length about reasons why more taxes for street paving was a bad choice.
The fact that citizens had already spoken on the matter was my main reason for opposing it, but Doug said this is only one of several reasons council should give it a thumbs-down; it didn't make any sense from a governmental and business standpoint anyway.
1- The city had a savings that could have been used for paving but the administration asked that it be moved to a different category.
2 - Borrowing for a depreciating asset is bad business. (The mayor plans to borrow money for street paving and use the tag tax to pay off the interest on this loan.)
3 - We need a long-term plan (for street maintenance) and the city doesn't have one. This would include prioritizing repair expenditures.
4 - Citizens are already paying taxes to repair streets.
5 - Voters don't want this additional tax.
6 - City government should show people what it can do with the additional $5 tag tax that's already been passed by council before asking for more.
7 - You don't just throw money at this kind of problem and hope it's going to get resolved. You need a plan for spending on paving and there is none.
8 - It's not fair to citizens who are already struggling to make ends meet to ask for more taxes. This adds more to the cost of living in Newark.
9 - The tag-tax legislation under consideration does not limit expenditure of that money exclusively to paving, as has been the impression given by statements issued to the press.
Doug was thorough in his assessment and he delivered his thoughts in an understandable and sincere manner.
There were six council members who simply ignored his facts. They are David Rhodes (Councilman-at-large), Ed Houdeshell (First Ward), John Uible (Fourth Ward), Carol Floyd (Seventh Ward), Irene Kennedy (Councilman-at-large) and Don Ellington (Fifth Ward).
These people are counting on the majority of their constituents not being aware of their stand against facts in this matter and their vote for the tag tax and/or forgetting it by next election day.
There were three council members who felt the will of the people should override the temptation for yet another Diebold-sponsored tax grab. Voting in favor of democracy were Ryan Bubb (Councilman-at-large), Shirley Stare (Second Ward) and Doug Marmie (Sixth Ward).
I am greatly impressed by the position and the class of Councilman Marmie, and by his willingness to stand before his peers and tell them how many ways this legislative proposition was bad business and bad government. He proved to be, in this instance, a very good friend of the citizens of Newark.
In comments before council voted, Shirley Stare of the 2nd Ward mentioned this referendum vote as part of the reason she wouldn't support any more tag tax. Doug Marmie spoke at length about reasons why more taxes for street paving was a bad choice.
The fact that citizens had already spoken on the matter was my main reason for opposing it, but Doug said this is only one of several reasons council should give it a thumbs-down; it didn't make any sense from a governmental and business standpoint anyway.
1- The city had a savings that could have been used for paving but the administration asked that it be moved to a different category.
2 - Borrowing for a depreciating asset is bad business. (The mayor plans to borrow money for street paving and use the tag tax to pay off the interest on this loan.)
3 - We need a long-term plan (for street maintenance) and the city doesn't have one. This would include prioritizing repair expenditures.
4 - Citizens are already paying taxes to repair streets.
5 - Voters don't want this additional tax.
6 - City government should show people what it can do with the additional $5 tag tax that's already been passed by council before asking for more.
7 - You don't just throw money at this kind of problem and hope it's going to get resolved. You need a plan for spending on paving and there is none.
8 - It's not fair to citizens who are already struggling to make ends meet to ask for more taxes. This adds more to the cost of living in Newark.
9 - The tag-tax legislation under consideration does not limit expenditure of that money exclusively to paving, as has been the impression given by statements issued to the press.
Doug was thorough in his assessment and he delivered his thoughts in an understandable and sincere manner.
There were six council members who simply ignored his facts. They are David Rhodes (Councilman-at-large), Ed Houdeshell (First Ward), John Uible (Fourth Ward), Carol Floyd (Seventh Ward), Irene Kennedy (Councilman-at-large) and Don Ellington (Fifth Ward).
These people are counting on the majority of their constituents not being aware of their stand against facts in this matter and their vote for the tag tax and/or forgetting it by next election day.
There were three council members who felt the will of the people should override the temptation for yet another Diebold-sponsored tax grab. Voting in favor of democracy were Ryan Bubb (Councilman-at-large), Shirley Stare (Second Ward) and Doug Marmie (Sixth Ward).
I am greatly impressed by the position and the class of Councilman Marmie, and by his willingness to stand before his peers and tell them how many ways this legislative proposition was bad business and bad government. He proved to be, in this instance, a very good friend of the citizens of Newark.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
City Council votes 6-3 to stuff voters again
Newark voters got stuffed again by the Needy Magic Nanny, this time for a $10 bill with every auto license they ever have to buy in Newark for the rest of their lives.
By a vote of 6-3 (one absent), council increased the city tax on auto licenses even though voters earlier held a referendum on this matter and rejected it soundly.
By replacing the unwanted charge, six of your Newark City Council members - with the blessing of Mayor Diebold - gave you the their dimpled middle digits, right in your face. Take that, stupid! You're not going to remember this on election day.
Isn't that right, David Rhodes (Councilman-at-large), Ed Houdeshell (First Ward), John Uible (Fourth Ward), Carol Floyd (Seventh Ward), Irene Kennedy (Councilman-at-large) and Don Ellington (Fifth Ward)?
And thank you, Advocate, for naming names in the report of May 6.
Voting in favor of democracy were Ryan Bubb (Councilman-at-large), Shirley Stare (Second Ward) and Doug Marmie (Sixth Ward).
About her vote, Shirley said “In 2005, the citizens soundly defeated the bill that was on the ballot. I am speaking for people in my ward, and I just do not think if they were here tonight they would support it.”
Wouldn't it be wonderful if all office-holders would think of their obligations to the people who put them in office above all else, thus maintaining a true representative government for, of, and by the people?
In case you don't know who your representatives on council are (in addition to the at-large councilmen), there's a ward map on the city's web site at this link.
Probably all browsers have the same capability as mine does to increase the size of the screen image until the lines of the streets and ward numbers are large enough to read. Otherwise, call the board of elections at 670-5080 or e-mail them at this form.
Anyone who cares to communicate with their representatives to Council about this or anything else can get the contact information here.
By the way, this vote will be a great memento when you to decide how you'll vote next election. I have elsewhere described the Game of Chicken played by office-holders who bet on short memories of voters. Whenever they can be stopped from winning this game, an improvement in government is guaranteed.
By a vote of 6-3 (one absent), council increased the city tax on auto licenses even though voters earlier held a referendum on this matter and rejected it soundly.
By replacing the unwanted charge, six of your Newark City Council members - with the blessing of Mayor Diebold - gave you the their dimpled middle digits, right in your face. Take that, stupid! You're not going to remember this on election day.
Isn't that right, David Rhodes (Councilman-at-large), Ed Houdeshell (First Ward), John Uible (Fourth Ward), Carol Floyd (Seventh Ward), Irene Kennedy (Councilman-at-large) and Don Ellington (Fifth Ward)?
And thank you, Advocate, for naming names in the report of May 6.
Voting in favor of democracy were Ryan Bubb (Councilman-at-large), Shirley Stare (Second Ward) and Doug Marmie (Sixth Ward).
About her vote, Shirley said “In 2005, the citizens soundly defeated the bill that was on the ballot. I am speaking for people in my ward, and I just do not think if they were here tonight they would support it.”
Wouldn't it be wonderful if all office-holders would think of their obligations to the people who put them in office above all else, thus maintaining a true representative government for, of, and by the people?
In case you don't know who your representatives on council are (in addition to the at-large councilmen), there's a ward map on the city's web site at this link.
Probably all browsers have the same capability as mine does to increase the size of the screen image until the lines of the streets and ward numbers are large enough to read. Otherwise, call the board of elections at 670-5080 or e-mail them at this form.
Anyone who cares to communicate with their representatives to Council about this or anything else can get the contact information here.
By the way, this vote will be a great memento when you to decide how you'll vote next election. I have elsewhere described the Game of Chicken played by office-holders who bet on short memories of voters. Whenever they can be stopped from winning this game, an improvement in government is guaranteed.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Trash is fertilizer for Newark government
If one were studying the methods by which government fertilizes itself to greater power, scope, wealth, and economic influence - while becoming ever-more intrusive on private lives and business decisions - he would be fortunate to be a citizen of Newark Ohio in 2008.
Just now our city government is attempting to carve a new dimension for itself in the matter of private businesses serving private citizens. It is attempting to set itself up as ruling authority in the business of trash collection.
The irony of this is that almost exactly two years ago citizens told Newark government to butt out of the trash collection business.
Ah. But this is not the style of Mayor Diebold, his administrative minions, nor of Council's good ol' boys, of whom Irene Kennedy is the queen.
On April 29, 2008 the Advocate headline on this subject read: "Task force to consider putting trash pickup under Newark control," with Kathleen Barch hinting that trash bills would be halved, and the mayor suggesting that such a plan "might reduce the deterioration of the city streets."
In spite of the wonderfulness of this proposal as presented by the Advocate, lots of on-line readers thought otherwise. Such reaction should be enough to end any discussion, even if were only the comment by "paul" who said, in part, "Without exception when competition is removed or governmentally controlled, price fixing, gouging and general rate abuse is imminent." If you don't think he's right, just consider cable TV and how its evolved under its city contracts.
Mayor Diebold has - even as a councilman - been a major inspiration for my use of the term "Magic Nanny" in reference to how government perceives itself. So now it seems pertinent to review how the proposal of city assuming trash-hauling contracts went two years ago. Because Mayor Diebold knows this and yet has the incredible gall to try it again with total disregard for the way citizens feel about it.
First, here's what I wrote April 28, 2006:
Go away, little trash haulers
Magic Nanny's solution to bad streets: Don't use them
The Newark service director's willingness to reduce the number of trash trucks doing business here is another knee-jerk solution to a non-problem. It is a proposal to create more power and control by government at the expense of small businesses and consumers.
Tim Weisert, service director, is offering a plan to allow only certain trash trucks to use Newark's streets and alleys - to be guided and organized by the wisdom of the Magic Nanny. A Gannett report said he has had "numerous complaints" from residents about too many trucks that tear up streets and alleys.
Weisert's plan would divide the city into quadrants and "bid it out." Thus would the Magic Nanny put the smaller haulers out of business and create yet another non-competitive gift for some Nanny-preferred business under government supervision and control. Though Gannett reports that "the bidding process could lower the cost of trash service," we have only to look at what has for years been taking place - and still is taking place - with cable TV rates in Newark to see the folly of that suggestion.
The "numerous complaints" rationale is what the Magic Nanny drug out during the smoking ban debate. I didn't believe the legitimacy of it then and I don't believe it now. If Weisert is in fact getting "numerous complaints" he should keep a good record of them, with names and dates, because he might get asked to prove this claim. But let's say he gets five calls a week and let's say the population of Newark is 47,000. That would make 46,995 people who didn't call each week.
The service department's job is to fix the streets and alleys if they are indeed being damaged. It's more in line with what they know how to do than it is to improve upon a free market.
Then on May 10, 2006 I wrote:
Poop hitting the fan over trash-hauler balloon
In today's Gannett report, there is an essay by Newark Mayor Bruce Bain designed to douse the controversy about the proposal to eliminate haulers of trash save for one or a few companies selected by the Magic Nanny. That idea was discussed at this Tea Party on April 28th.
The mayor says that there was no trash-hauling proposal put before the city service committee and "not even a suggestion offered for the formation of any type of trash-hauling legislation."
However the mayor chooses to split hairs today, there certainly was a proposal being discussed in a public meeting by Newark Service Director Tim Weisert for new trash-hauling legislation to limit the number of haulers. In fact, Gannett headlined its report "City may toss extra trash trucks - Council may take away choice of provider from residents" and in the second paragraph said: "City council members will consider such a proposals (sic) in the next several months."
If that report of April 26 was not accurate the mayor should have been splitting his hairs back then. Well, it took a bit of time for the poop to really hit the fan and so here it is, May 10th before we get the mayor's verson of the truth in this matter.
Maybe we'll just call it back-pedaling: "In my opinion, there is nothing so bad or dangerous that people can't debate or discuss a topic. Through broad conversations, we are able to see pros and cons of various issues. Because something is talked about doesn't make that something a formal proposal or legislation."
Why couldn't he just admit it was a dumb idea and be done with it?
And in spite of all that, the Magic Nanny rides again. Building greater government power, scope, wealth, and economic influence - while becoming ever-more intrusive on private lives and business decisions is just too great a temptation for Diebold and some of the good ol' boys.
Just now our city government is attempting to carve a new dimension for itself in the matter of private businesses serving private citizens. It is attempting to set itself up as ruling authority in the business of trash collection.
The irony of this is that almost exactly two years ago citizens told Newark government to butt out of the trash collection business.
Ah. But this is not the style of Mayor Diebold, his administrative minions, nor of Council's good ol' boys, of whom Irene Kennedy is the queen.
On April 29, 2008 the Advocate headline on this subject read: "Task force to consider putting trash pickup under Newark control," with Kathleen Barch hinting that trash bills would be halved, and the mayor suggesting that such a plan "might reduce the deterioration of the city streets."
In spite of the wonderfulness of this proposal as presented by the Advocate, lots of on-line readers thought otherwise. Such reaction should be enough to end any discussion, even if were only the comment by "paul" who said, in part, "Without exception when competition is removed or governmentally controlled, price fixing, gouging and general rate abuse is imminent." If you don't think he's right, just consider cable TV and how its evolved under its city contracts.
Mayor Diebold has - even as a councilman - been a major inspiration for my use of the term "Magic Nanny" in reference to how government perceives itself. So now it seems pertinent to review how the proposal of city assuming trash-hauling contracts went two years ago. Because Mayor Diebold knows this and yet has the incredible gall to try it again with total disregard for the way citizens feel about it.
First, here's what I wrote April 28, 2006:
Go away, little trash haulers
Magic Nanny's solution to bad streets: Don't use them
The Newark service director's willingness to reduce the number of trash trucks doing business here is another knee-jerk solution to a non-problem. It is a proposal to create more power and control by government at the expense of small businesses and consumers.
Tim Weisert, service director, is offering a plan to allow only certain trash trucks to use Newark's streets and alleys - to be guided and organized by the wisdom of the Magic Nanny. A Gannett report said he has had "numerous complaints" from residents about too many trucks that tear up streets and alleys.
Weisert's plan would divide the city into quadrants and "bid it out." Thus would the Magic Nanny put the smaller haulers out of business and create yet another non-competitive gift for some Nanny-preferred business under government supervision and control. Though Gannett reports that "the bidding process could lower the cost of trash service," we have only to look at what has for years been taking place - and still is taking place - with cable TV rates in Newark to see the folly of that suggestion.
The "numerous complaints" rationale is what the Magic Nanny drug out during the smoking ban debate. I didn't believe the legitimacy of it then and I don't believe it now. If Weisert is in fact getting "numerous complaints" he should keep a good record of them, with names and dates, because he might get asked to prove this claim. But let's say he gets five calls a week and let's say the population of Newark is 47,000. That would make 46,995 people who didn't call each week.
The service department's job is to fix the streets and alleys if they are indeed being damaged. It's more in line with what they know how to do than it is to improve upon a free market.
Then on May 10, 2006 I wrote:
Poop hitting the fan over trash-hauler balloon
In today's Gannett report, there is an essay by Newark Mayor Bruce Bain designed to douse the controversy about the proposal to eliminate haulers of trash save for one or a few companies selected by the Magic Nanny. That idea was discussed at this Tea Party on April 28th.
The mayor says that there was no trash-hauling proposal put before the city service committee and "not even a suggestion offered for the formation of any type of trash-hauling legislation."
However the mayor chooses to split hairs today, there certainly was a proposal being discussed in a public meeting by Newark Service Director Tim Weisert for new trash-hauling legislation to limit the number of haulers. In fact, Gannett headlined its report "City may toss extra trash trucks - Council may take away choice of provider from residents" and in the second paragraph said: "City council members will consider such a proposals (sic) in the next several months."
If that report of April 26 was not accurate the mayor should have been splitting his hairs back then. Well, it took a bit of time for the poop to really hit the fan and so here it is, May 10th before we get the mayor's verson of the truth in this matter.
Maybe we'll just call it back-pedaling: "In my opinion, there is nothing so bad or dangerous that people can't debate or discuss a topic. Through broad conversations, we are able to see pros and cons of various issues. Because something is talked about doesn't make that something a formal proposal or legislation."
Why couldn't he just admit it was a dumb idea and be done with it?
And in spite of all that, the Magic Nanny rides again. Building greater government power, scope, wealth, and economic influence - while becoming ever-more intrusive on private lives and business decisions is just too great a temptation for Diebold and some of the good ol' boys.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Textbook boondoggle in Columbus should be a warning for Newark
A bill introduced to Ohio legislature by Newark's own Jay Hottinger would wipe Ohio's anti-tobacco foundation off the map and liquidate its $270-million endowment from lawsuits against tobacco companies.
Thus would that money be available to Hottinger, Strickland and the rest of them to give away to businesses in what is being billed as a sure way to get "new jobs" for Ohio.
Here's how this move was described in part by "gentlben" in one of the reader comment sections: Ohio "joined a class action suit against the tobacco companies with other states because of the expense sick smokers were causing the state treasury. Part of the argument, which earned them all a nice annual cash settlement, was that if they win the suit, they would spend the cash award to reduce the impact of smoking in Ohio, thus reducing the amount of debt the state incurs becasue of it. So they win their suit, and millions of dollars yearly and what do they do with it? Throw it in the general fund, and now they will abolish the agency responsible for spending it as it was intended to be spent. Hm! Sounds like the same scam they pulled on us when they said lottery money would go to education."
If Ohio's governor and legislators are ballsie enough to pull this switcheroo on citizens they serve, what might one suppose Newark is going to do with the auto tag tax money being pushed by Mayor Diebold, Council Member Irene Kennedy, and some others to benefit street repairs?
Same boondoggle will be involved here, except the tag tax profits will not be nearly as easily traced as the state tobacco fund. The city purse on auto tags will eventually be folded over into the treasure chest that provides for more and bigger government. Diebold and Kennedy will fade away, but the tag tax will be ours to keep forever.
Thus would that money be available to Hottinger, Strickland and the rest of them to give away to businesses in what is being billed as a sure way to get "new jobs" for Ohio.
Here's how this move was described in part by "gentlben" in one of the reader comment sections: Ohio "joined a class action suit against the tobacco companies with other states because of the expense sick smokers were causing the state treasury. Part of the argument, which earned them all a nice annual cash settlement, was that if they win the suit, they would spend the cash award to reduce the impact of smoking in Ohio, thus reducing the amount of debt the state incurs becasue of it. So they win their suit, and millions of dollars yearly and what do they do with it? Throw it in the general fund, and now they will abolish the agency responsible for spending it as it was intended to be spent. Hm! Sounds like the same scam they pulled on us when they said lottery money would go to education."
If Ohio's governor and legislators are ballsie enough to pull this switcheroo on citizens they serve, what might one suppose Newark is going to do with the auto tag tax money being pushed by Mayor Diebold, Council Member Irene Kennedy, and some others to benefit street repairs?
Same boondoggle will be involved here, except the tag tax profits will not be nearly as easily traced as the state tobacco fund. The city purse on auto tags will eventually be folded over into the treasure chest that provides for more and bigger government. Diebold and Kennedy will fade away, but the tag tax will be ours to keep forever.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Diebold is point man for government greed
In everything written about Mayor Diebold's thirst for more money from taxpayers, never has he said anything about getting it honestly - by asking taxpayers to vote to spend more on city government.
In fact, just the opposite. Most recently this has focused on whether the city should levy yet another fine for living in Newark by squeezing each auto owner annually for $10 more. It's the opposite because voters in November 2005 voted on this one and defeated it in a referendum vote 58-42.
The voting booths hadn't cooled after the referendum when Mayor Bain was plotting another attempt to end-run voters with it. Since then, this matter has been considered by Diebold and some others in city government as the delectable piece of cake that could be translated into more government and to hell with what voters want.
It not just the additional tax burden that's important here; it about stuffing voters who've already spoken on the matter. It's about this endless government greed, which Diebold has so willingly served as point man without yet paying the political price. Of course he was among councilmen to vote for the reinstatement of part of the same tax in September 2006. (See: Council rejects voters' directive on Tag Tax.) Only Doug Marmie and Don Ellington voted in favor of upholding citizens' wishes.
This is not about pot holes, it's about more government. As I said here earlier, "If the city budget fails to account for city potholes - even with the addition of the $1-million Diebold cash cow from EMS services - then what in God's name is wrong with city budgeters?"
It IS about more government because no matter what they say they'll use this money for in the immediate future, their promises will unenforceable anyway, and surely will last no longer than their own terms of office. (Consider what happened to promises made while the city pushed for the pot-of-gold at the end of an EMS ride to the hospital. See Riding to the hospital with your city employees; Bend over taxpayer...
Once the money gets thrown into the gigantic kitty full of tax proceeds nobody is going to know exactly where those dollars have gone; only that there will be 880 thousand more of them in the kitty. And this translates as: Newark is going to have more government and better-paid government employees.
It's about milking for the last dime and the for largest employee raise. Thanks to the persistent greed of Mayor Diebold and his continuing willingness to stuff voters - and thanks to the cooperation from Ways and Means Committee members Irene Kennedy and Ed Houdeshell - good ol' boys to the core - the tax grab plan will be considered by full council, because you see, it doesn't matter to Kennedy and Houdeshell what voters have said. They want you to bend over and stay there.
In fact, just the opposite. Most recently this has focused on whether the city should levy yet another fine for living in Newark by squeezing each auto owner annually for $10 more. It's the opposite because voters in November 2005 voted on this one and defeated it in a referendum vote 58-42.
The voting booths hadn't cooled after the referendum when Mayor Bain was plotting another attempt to end-run voters with it. Since then, this matter has been considered by Diebold and some others in city government as the delectable piece of cake that could be translated into more government and to hell with what voters want.
It not just the additional tax burden that's important here; it about stuffing voters who've already spoken on the matter. It's about this endless government greed, which Diebold has so willingly served as point man without yet paying the political price. Of course he was among councilmen to vote for the reinstatement of part of the same tax in September 2006. (See: Council rejects voters' directive on Tag Tax.) Only Doug Marmie and Don Ellington voted in favor of upholding citizens' wishes.
This is not about pot holes, it's about more government. As I said here earlier, "If the city budget fails to account for city potholes - even with the addition of the $1-million Diebold cash cow from EMS services - then what in God's name is wrong with city budgeters?"
It IS about more government because no matter what they say they'll use this money for in the immediate future, their promises will unenforceable anyway, and surely will last no longer than their own terms of office. (Consider what happened to promises made while the city pushed for the pot-of-gold at the end of an EMS ride to the hospital. See Riding to the hospital with your city employees; Bend over taxpayer...
Once the money gets thrown into the gigantic kitty full of tax proceeds nobody is going to know exactly where those dollars have gone; only that there will be 880 thousand more of them in the kitty. And this translates as: Newark is going to have more government and better-paid government employees.
It's about milking for the last dime and the for largest employee raise. Thanks to the persistent greed of Mayor Diebold and his continuing willingness to stuff voters - and thanks to the cooperation from Ways and Means Committee members Irene Kennedy and Ed Houdeshell - good ol' boys to the core - the tax grab plan will be considered by full council, because you see, it doesn't matter to Kennedy and Houdeshell what voters have said. They want you to bend over and stay there.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Potholes are Diebold's ploy from superintendents' play book
Living in Newark for a few political cycles will demonstrate conclusively that mayors use potholes the way school superintendents use buses. People don't want potholes and they do want buses and so they become first-line pressure points to get citizens to part with ever-increasing amounts of money.
There is one basic thing about city finances that isn't hard to understand: We are going to have potholes and we need to plan for that. It's called budgeting for necessities.
If the city budget fails to account for city potholes - even with the addition of the $1-million Diebold cash cow from EMS services - then what in God's name is wrong with city budgeters?
It's not that the city doesn't already have money. It's only that the mayor doesn't want to use that money. He wants new money and the auto tag tax is handiest tool of the moment.
If he had the tag tax money to shift around then likely the new $100,000 traffic light for Mayor Diebold's neighborhood would be easier to sell to Council. So he's trying to weasel it from citizens in spring, when the pot-hole problem is most annoying and folks have to slow down to posted speed limits. It's a ploy right out of the superintendents' ploy play book.
Diebold, already looking like a shoo-in as another one-term mayor, took his pothole plan to Council's Ways and Means Committee Monday evening. Two of the three members of that committee (Irene Kennedy (AL) and Doug Marmie (6th Ward) voted to hold the idea back from a full vote of council until the overall spending plan could be studied more throughly. Voting in favor of sending it to Council was Ed Houdeshell, pride of the 1st Ward.
Marmie likened the mayor's plan to a Band-Aid that wouldn't address any long-term needs. Then he spoke words Newark has been longing to hear: He said the city should look for places to make cuts in spending.
Those are words of a responsible representative of Newark citizens, so hooray for him.
There is one basic thing about city finances that isn't hard to understand: We are going to have potholes and we need to plan for that. It's called budgeting for necessities.
If the city budget fails to account for city potholes - even with the addition of the $1-million Diebold cash cow from EMS services - then what in God's name is wrong with city budgeters?
It's not that the city doesn't already have money. It's only that the mayor doesn't want to use that money. He wants new money and the auto tag tax is handiest tool of the moment.
If he had the tag tax money to shift around then likely the new $100,000 traffic light for Mayor Diebold's neighborhood would be easier to sell to Council. So he's trying to weasel it from citizens in spring, when the pot-hole problem is most annoying and folks have to slow down to posted speed limits. It's a ploy right out of the superintendents' ploy play book.
Diebold, already looking like a shoo-in as another one-term mayor, took his pothole plan to Council's Ways and Means Committee Monday evening. Two of the three members of that committee (Irene Kennedy (AL) and Doug Marmie (6th Ward) voted to hold the idea back from a full vote of council until the overall spending plan could be studied more throughly. Voting in favor of sending it to Council was Ed Houdeshell, pride of the 1st Ward.
Marmie likened the mayor's plan to a Band-Aid that wouldn't address any long-term needs. Then he spoke words Newark has been longing to hear: He said the city should look for places to make cuts in spending.
Those are words of a responsible representative of Newark citizens, so hooray for him.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Auto tag tax: Bend over, Bunky
Newark voters took a major slap in September 2006 when their elected representatives on City Council reinstated part of the same tax on auto license plates that citizens rejected by 58-42 percent in the November '05 election. Bend over, Bunky, it could happen again.
That kind of illicit representation doesn't bother Council Member Irene Kennedy or Mayor Diebold, chief among those floating a new gimme-more-taxes balloon. They seem more than willing to stuff voters again.
Why now, when citizens struggle with the burdens placed on them by recession, inflation and $3.35 gasoline? Well, now because this is March and the streets - as they always are in March - are full of potholes. This, to the simple-minded, opens the way to demand more tax money because gee whiz we all want these holes fixed and gee whiz we don't have any money.
Never mind that City Council just dug itself a million-dollar-a-year gold mine when it started charging citizens for transportation to the hospital in taxpayer-owned trucks manned by taxpayer-paid employees, a project pushed to completion by then-Councilman Diebold.
That new gold mine, however, has been tapped in a big way by the new round of pay raises that council started last May when it jacked up the police chief's pay. Mr. Tax-The-Hell-Outta-Citizens Diebold was on the cutting edge of that move, by the way.
Here's the string he's pulling this time, as recorded by the Advocate 3/11/08: "...Diebold said only $450,000 is slotted (for paving) because the city owes $650,000 for debt reduction including payments for new fire trucks, police cruisers, plow trucks, a patching machine and a grater."
Oh, silly me, I thought Newark citizens recently voted a half-percent income tax to accommodate the needs of our safety forces.
Which points to the basis of the problem here. No matter how much money citizens hand over to those they believe are representing their interests in government, the superior politicians among them - folks like Diebold and Kennedy - will figure a way to spend it and ask for more. Reigning in their expenses, doing more with less - as is required of citizens themselves - has never been and never will be an option.
From fat cats in government - the Diebolds and the Kennedys - the word is to bend over and stay there, Bunky.
That kind of illicit representation doesn't bother Council Member Irene Kennedy or Mayor Diebold, chief among those floating a new gimme-more-taxes balloon. They seem more than willing to stuff voters again.
Why now, when citizens struggle with the burdens placed on them by recession, inflation and $3.35 gasoline? Well, now because this is March and the streets - as they always are in March - are full of potholes. This, to the simple-minded, opens the way to demand more tax money because gee whiz we all want these holes fixed and gee whiz we don't have any money.
Never mind that City Council just dug itself a million-dollar-a-year gold mine when it started charging citizens for transportation to the hospital in taxpayer-owned trucks manned by taxpayer-paid employees, a project pushed to completion by then-Councilman Diebold.
That new gold mine, however, has been tapped in a big way by the new round of pay raises that council started last May when it jacked up the police chief's pay. Mr. Tax-The-Hell-Outta-Citizens Diebold was on the cutting edge of that move, by the way.
Here's the string he's pulling this time, as recorded by the Advocate 3/11/08: "...Diebold said only $450,000 is slotted (for paving) because the city owes $650,000 for debt reduction including payments for new fire trucks, police cruisers, plow trucks, a patching machine and a grater."
Oh, silly me, I thought Newark citizens recently voted a half-percent income tax to accommodate the needs of our safety forces.
Which points to the basis of the problem here. No matter how much money citizens hand over to those they believe are representing their interests in government, the superior politicians among them - folks like Diebold and Kennedy - will figure a way to spend it and ask for more. Reigning in their expenses, doing more with less - as is required of citizens themselves - has never been and never will be an option.
From fat cats in government - the Diebolds and the Kennedys - the word is to bend over and stay there, Bunky.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
City council creates more with less
In a long overdue move, Newark City Council voted Tuesday to stop duplication of government services by agreeing to cooperate with, and become part of, a new Licking County Combined General Health District. It required some letting go of turf and power, a tough pill for city government.
But they did it. As new Councilman Ryan Bubb put it for the Advocate reporter, “I’d like the city to do more with less, and I believe we did that with the merging of the health departments. Simply put, there is less government without losing services."
Exactly, and hooray.
Voting in favor besides Bubb were Ellington, Marmie, Henderson, Rhodes, Uible, Kennedy, Houdeshell, and Floyd. That's all of them except Shirley Stare whose concern for city employees outweighed her concern for improved government services.
There has been uneasiness about distribution of power in makeup of the new county health board, as well as apprehension among city health department employees over who will get what and how much loss of turf and power the employee union might suffer when dust settles and jobs are divvied.
All of which is secondary to the overall significance - which is, as Bubb said, doing more with less government.
Council has made a good start. It's up to employees to put away selfish interests and make this thing work.
But they did it. As new Councilman Ryan Bubb put it for the Advocate reporter, “I’d like the city to do more with less, and I believe we did that with the merging of the health departments. Simply put, there is less government without losing services."
Exactly, and hooray.
Voting in favor besides Bubb were Ellington, Marmie, Henderson, Rhodes, Uible, Kennedy, Houdeshell, and Floyd. That's all of them except Shirley Stare whose concern for city employees outweighed her concern for improved government services.
There has been uneasiness about distribution of power in makeup of the new county health board, as well as apprehension among city health department employees over who will get what and how much loss of turf and power the employee union might suffer when dust settles and jobs are divvied.
All of which is secondary to the overall significance - which is, as Bubb said, doing more with less government.
Council has made a good start. It's up to employees to put away selfish interests and make this thing work.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
City council makes a good beginning in '08
City Council turned an important corner last night when it voted to restrict the perks of the city safety director. By a vote of 8-2 it struck from the new budget the provision that was to pay driving expenses between Newark and Grove City, in a city vehicle purchased by safety-levy tax money.
The expense money was written into the budget in such a way that Kathleen Barch could replenish it at will from other funds in the service department budget. In other words, an open check book.
Most interesting to me was who among council members would take issue with this during the council session, if anybody, and who would vote to remove it, if anybody, and who continue to be a good ol' boy to Ms. Barch, if anybody.
Here's the way it went on the score sheet and this is one of those "read this before the next election" issues:
David Rhodes, at-large councilman, moved to eliminate the perk, and every council member except Don Ellington and John Uible voted for doing so. Voting in favor were Bubb, Kennedy, Houdeshell, Stare, Henderson, Marmie, and Floyd. President of council, Marc Guthrie, had earlier expressed concern over the benefit.
Also encouraging is the fact that the Advocate reporter, Amy Picard, cornered the two who voted against the measure and made them explain themselves. Ellington justified his vote, in part, by trying to blame Mayor Diebold (he "should have discussed it with Barch"); Uible said, in part, that "perks such as transportation are necessary for the best talent."
Further, the mayor did not speak against the council decision and that's a very good thing.
From out here where citizens sit, the score card looks great for 08. Council started by turning a corner. It has done what's right for taxpayers, rather than spend more tax money on employee perks. And the Advocate nailed it with a good report.
The expense money was written into the budget in such a way that Kathleen Barch could replenish it at will from other funds in the service department budget. In other words, an open check book.
Most interesting to me was who among council members would take issue with this during the council session, if anybody, and who would vote to remove it, if anybody, and who continue to be a good ol' boy to Ms. Barch, if anybody.
Here's the way it went on the score sheet and this is one of those "read this before the next election" issues:
David Rhodes, at-large councilman, moved to eliminate the perk, and every council member except Don Ellington and John Uible voted for doing so. Voting in favor were Bubb, Kennedy, Houdeshell, Stare, Henderson, Marmie, and Floyd. President of council, Marc Guthrie, had earlier expressed concern over the benefit.
Also encouraging is the fact that the Advocate reporter, Amy Picard, cornered the two who voted against the measure and made them explain themselves. Ellington justified his vote, in part, by trying to blame Mayor Diebold (he "should have discussed it with Barch"); Uible said, in part, that "perks such as transportation are necessary for the best talent."
Further, the mayor did not speak against the council decision and that's a very good thing.
From out here where citizens sit, the score card looks great for 08. Council started by turning a corner. It has done what's right for taxpayers, rather than spend more tax money on employee perks. And the Advocate nailed it with a good report.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Sweetheart deal: a car for Kathy, courtesy the mayor with blessings of the Advocate
During all the time Kathleen Barch has been employed by the City of Newark as safety director, never have I had, nor have I heard a bad word about her performance. She has a professional demeanor, is articulate, rational, congenial, has a good appearance and, by all accounts I've heard, she is a good leader and a valuable asset to Newark City government. She would probably make an excellent mayor.
Young mayor Bob Diebold wanted someone else as safety director and has appointed Kathleen as service director, a good move. But here's the rub: Kathleen lives in Grove City and during old mayor Bain's tenure she commuted in a city car purchased with safety-levy funds. This is a practice of which young mayor Diebold was critical when he was a councilman and mayoral candidate, so it's said.
Well, guess what? Under young mayor Diebold (who has for practical purposes already taken the reins), that car - the one purchased with safety levy money - has been transferred "as an asset" to the city service department within recent days.
Not only is Kathleen permitted to drive the city car - the one purchased with safety levy money - back and forth to Grove City, but she's also getting free insurance, $1,000 for maintenance, and $1,000 for gas. Because she has full authority to transfer funds, when that $1,000 runs out, she will be able to slide more money over from some other service department account. It's a perk said to be valued at $10-$12,000.
Maybe that's what citizen-taxpayers would want, but I doubt it.
And I'm sure they wouldn't welcome the knowledge that the Advocate didn't report it. The Advocate, or maybe just the Advocate reporter, Kent Mallett, who wrote a glowing article on the city finance committee's approval of the new budget, maybe likes Kathleen and young mayor Diebold too much. Why stir a fuss among friends, right?
Well, try truth in government and truth in reporting, for beginners.
Mallett described how efficiently Newark City Council Finance Committee zipped through its approval of next year's budget. He told how the $94.2-million expenditure of our tax dollars took committee members only 15 minutes for which to give unanimous approval, and that council is expected to bless it Jan. 8.
The unreported auto perk has been, so far, a sweetheart deal between young mayor Diebold, finance committee members (Doug Marmie, chair; Don Ellington, Carol A. Floyd, Irene Kennedy, Ed Houdeshell (substituting for David R. Rhodes) and with the blessings of the Advocate.
It is not a sweetheart deal for mega-milked city taxpayers, not a sweetheart deal for citizens who might have hoped for an honest, above-board new city administration, not a sweetheart deal for folks relying on city council to work from the top of the deck, and not a sweetheart deal for folks who think they're buying an honest news report when they shell out money for the Advocate.
Young mayor Bob Diebold wanted someone else as safety director and has appointed Kathleen as service director, a good move. But here's the rub: Kathleen lives in Grove City and during old mayor Bain's tenure she commuted in a city car purchased with safety-levy funds. This is a practice of which young mayor Diebold was critical when he was a councilman and mayoral candidate, so it's said.
Well, guess what? Under young mayor Diebold (who has for practical purposes already taken the reins), that car - the one purchased with safety levy money - has been transferred "as an asset" to the city service department within recent days.
Not only is Kathleen permitted to drive the city car - the one purchased with safety levy money - back and forth to Grove City, but she's also getting free insurance, $1,000 for maintenance, and $1,000 for gas. Because she has full authority to transfer funds, when that $1,000 runs out, she will be able to slide more money over from some other service department account. It's a perk said to be valued at $10-$12,000.
Maybe that's what citizen-taxpayers would want, but I doubt it.
And I'm sure they wouldn't welcome the knowledge that the Advocate didn't report it. The Advocate, or maybe just the Advocate reporter, Kent Mallett, who wrote a glowing article on the city finance committee's approval of the new budget, maybe likes Kathleen and young mayor Diebold too much. Why stir a fuss among friends, right?
Well, try truth in government and truth in reporting, for beginners.
Mallett described how efficiently Newark City Council Finance Committee zipped through its approval of next year's budget. He told how the $94.2-million expenditure of our tax dollars took committee members only 15 minutes for which to give unanimous approval, and that council is expected to bless it Jan. 8.
The unreported auto perk has been, so far, a sweetheart deal between young mayor Diebold, finance committee members (Doug Marmie, chair; Don Ellington, Carol A. Floyd, Irene Kennedy, Ed Houdeshell (substituting for David R. Rhodes) and with the blessings of the Advocate.
It is not a sweetheart deal for mega-milked city taxpayers, not a sweetheart deal for citizens who might have hoped for an honest, above-board new city administration, not a sweetheart deal for folks relying on city council to work from the top of the deck, and not a sweetheart deal for folks who think they're buying an honest news report when they shell out money for the Advocate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
