Thursday, November 19, 2009

Trash Thanks

I want to also thank Maggie Thurber for all her help and support on the issue of the trash tax, it had been going on now for 2 very stressful years. Had Maggie not offered her support 2 years ago, there would not be a case, she gave the referral which ultimately connected the lawsuit, the attorneys and me. No one else would touch it. It takes strength, knowledge, determination and believe to do this. Each of you should give it a try sometime... and stay with it year after year.

Trashing the Messengers

When I questioned the “refuse fee”, the City was very careful to define it as a fee and not an assessment nor a tax. If a tax, the city is required to put it on the ballot as a levy for additional taxes and if approved by the voters, they would be required to go back to the voters to increase the tax.

After several weeks of studying the “fee” and several more weeks of searching for an attorney who was willing to “fight city hall”, Kurt Wicklund agreed with my conclusion that it was not legal. However, we had the dilemma of how to proceed. Since the ordinance reference a “fee” the lawsuit was filed against the city ordinance regarding the “fee”. The court has to decide if this is a fee or a tax since it is legal to pass an ordinance for a fee, but not for a tax. How could we file a lawsuit against the city for a “tax” which does not appear in the Municipal Code? It had to be filed as against the “fee” and have the courts decide, fee or tax.

R.C. § 2723.01 requires each person protesting an assessment must file a protest or a tax… it does not state the protest must be filed against a fee. However, we believe filing a civil complaint in court meets the requirement regardless of what the City called it.

I’m distressed by the negative comments regarding Attorney Ciolek and the actions taken. The is a complicated case which does not have clearly defined parameters or history to follow, nor any clear cut cases to research. The attorneys working on this case have a huge battle being waged on our behalf and if any attorney out there has case law that could help the case, please offer it. I reached out to a number of attorneys, legal agencies, activists groups, professors and law schools and all I received were “lots of luck” until Wicklund and Ciolek took up the challenge.

Attorney Ciolek has taken on a number of cases against a city administration which rules by punitive, unreasonable action, cases that no one else would touch, and he has received more rulings in his favor than against him. He is deliberate, thoughtful and thorough. I challenge any attorney out in blogland to offer assistance in the case, which has profound impact on every community in Ohio. The power of this “fee” is huge as can readily be seen by a call to raise the “fee” to $16.00 per month. When we elect our leaders we elect with the hope they will comply with the law. I say they have not and it is costing us millions of dollars a year in illegally gained taxes.

Please visit the following blogs for more information: http://trashtax.blogspot.com/ and
http://shanahanselect.blogspot.com/. As the courts denied class action, I suggest you file your protest today and let the attorneys know by emailing: Trashtax@gmail.com to ensure there is a record you filed. To date we have 75 who have let us know they filed. That leaves 89,925 to go.

Friday, October 30, 2009

Fact Check, Keith Wilkowski Plan for Toledo

It was interesting reviewing the 39 page Keith Wilkowski Plan for Toledo; (see "Review") (at top of document, click on Review or Data) it became apparent that he has completely reversed his thoughts on effective government processes from when he was a county commissioner and member of the school board.

First he said no to incentives to spur economic growth and home improvements…
Now he says yes, it is a good policy

His plan is heavy in incentives to end blight in neighborhoods and to encourage business growth. However, as a school board member, he blocked every attempt to offer tax incentives to advance business in development zones and to homeowners.

11/4/88 Toledo Blade: Mr. Wilkowski says his opponent’s support of tax abatements for businesses has been wrong, too. “Tax abatement is counterproductive, it takes from the schools. And I question its usefulness in attracting business. … I would be opposed to any county-level enterprise zone that uses it.”

10/5/86 Toledo Blade: Keith Wilkowski, a member of the Toledo board of education, sees the tax breaks for home improvements in the enterprise zone as ill conceived. “[Tax abatement] is not an incentive for homes at all,” he said. … Mr. Wilkowski believes the school board should have some control over abatement requests.

First he said he wants more regulations to grant school boards control over incentive packages; now he says the Charter needs to be revised to cut the "red-tape" some of which he was directly responsible for creating!

Mr. Wilkowski Not only did he oppose tax incentives (abatements), but wanted the school board consulted when it was considered, so he pushed for legislation giving some control to the school boards when incentives were discussed.

6/19/87 Toledo Blade: Keith Wilkowski, a member of the Toledo board of education … wrote the report … limiting tax abatements in enterprise zones to manufacturing facilities.

Also heavy in this plan is a one directional approach to economic growth: Alternative energy. The majority of the plan directs incentives, efforts and regulations to Alternative energy with a minor consideration to technology -- which he event does a dotted line to Alternative energy. Though this is the word of the day, this is not a sustainable plan. Any economic plan in successful communities is directed to a diverse base of strategies for economic growth. Read through this outline of his plan, where does he show any effort towards anything but alternative energy? Why would he not embrace the Meta-plan established by the leading economic development minds in Toledo?

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Fact Check, Keith Wilkowski, Can a Leopard change his spots?

First he was against it…. then he was for it. Again, Mr. Wilkowski has flip-flopped on a critical issue: how to incentivize businesses to Toledo. He was opposed to tax abatements in 1986 – 1988 when he was on the Toledo public school board, but now, when running for Mayor, he pronounces the wisdom of this policy.

Which Wilkowski will lead as Mayor, the elected official who set policy in the 1980’s or today’s candidate running for office? Actions definitely speak louder than words, and it is doubtful this leopard will change his spots. If elected, businesses will again be skeptical of locating in Toledo.

Synopsis of Mr. Wilkowski’s history on tax abatements/incentives.
· 10/5/86 Opposes tax abatements for homeowners in enterprise zone stating the school board should have some control over abatement requests.
· 6/19/87 As a member of committee studying the city’s use of tax abatements, writes draft outlining controls on tax abatements.
· 11/4/88 States: “Tax abatement is counterproductive”, … questions “its usefulness in attracting business”
· 10/23/09 Reply to question during forum on value of incentives for downtown development: “I would look to every kind of incentive that is reasonably possible in order to help bring businesses downtown.”

Detail of articles and forum:
10/5/86 Toledo Blade, TAX ABATEMENT NOW EXTENDS TO HOMES AS WELL AS FIRMS
Tax abatement on new construction and renovation work is now available not only to businesses but to hundreds of homeowners in the enterprise zone district. … But the program is not without critics. Keith Wilkowski, a member of the Toledo board of education, sees the tax breaks for home improvements in the enterprise zone as ill conceived. “[Tax abatement] is not an incentive for homes at all,” he said. “Taking $30 off my taxes to put vinyl siding on my house is not an incentive.” … Mr. Wilkowski believes the school board should have some control over abatement requests. … Even though it is the schools that lose the most revenue; boards of education have not authority to accept or reject individual requests. City Council and officials in the community development department control tax abatement.

6/19/87 Toledo Blade, PLAN SEEKS CURBS IN CITY TAX BREAKS
A committee studying the city’s use of tax abatements is considering proposals that would restrict and change the way it is given, a working draft of the panel’s report to City Manager Philip Hawkey shows. … The city has used tax abatement – a process that exempts businesses from paying taxes on the value of a new investment for a specified period of time – to spur development, but it has not had any local policy governing use of the devise. … The draft proposal shows the panel is discussing:
· Limiting tax abatements in enterprise zones to manufacturing facilities.
· Offering tax abatement on either the value of the real estate or the value of the machinery and equipment in the factory, but not on both.
· The need to monitor the number of jobs created by tax abatement.
· Requiring that the city pay for half the cost of projects that in the past were paid for entirely with tax abatement funds, such as downtown pedestrian concourses.
· Establishing a committee to study the possibility of the city sharing economic gains resulting from tax abatement with Toledo public and Washington Local schools.
· Requiring businesses seeking tax abatement to apply for it before construction begins.
“While City Council grants real and personal property tax abatement,” the draft says, “other governmental entities, primarily school districts, either lose revenue or have their revenues temporarily frozen. At the same time, the city will actually gain revenue from the city income tax or the wages of the new employees hired as a result of the project.”

Keith Wilkowski, a member of the Toledo board of education who wrote the report, said the schools lose revenue every time Council approves abatement. He said Toledo schools have so far lost about $2.5 million a year. Mr. Wilkowski said the committee had narrowly defeated an effort to limit tax breaks to five years. The recommendations, as they now stand, would allow tax abatement for periods ranging from 10 to 20 years.

11/4/88 Toledo Blade: WILKOWSKI, REDDISH IN TIGHT COUNTY RACE
… The second-term Toledo school board member insists, however, that there are important differences between his views and those of his Republican opponent. … Mr. Wilkowski says his opponent’s support of tax abatements for businesses has been wrong, too. “Tax abatement is counterproductive, it takes from the schools. And I question its usefulness in attracting business. As a general principle, the costs of things like labor and transportation and the quality of the schools are more important [to a business] than tax abatements. … I would be opposed to any county-level enterprise zone that uses it.”

WGTE Candidate Forum 2009, 10/23/09
Mr. Lessenberry: “Mr. Wilkowski, what are your thoughts on a potential tax free district in downtown Toledo to attract businesses, would you favor it or not?”

Mr. Wilkowski: “I would, indeed I would look to every kind of incentive that is reasonably possible in order to help bring businesses downtown. A great city has to have a great downtown and if you look at the research here will tell you that a well functioning downtown on the whole is going to generate $20 in taxes for every $1 in service that it consumes. So this is something that is in our own economic self-interest . I think we need to look at every possible incentive… “

Keith Wilkowksi, twisting in the wind

We have been at the mercy of a Mayor who claimed he had changed, he did not. We listened to President Bush (1) proclaim, "Read my lips, no new taxes!" Now we have a Mayoral candidate with a history of raising taxes who proclaims he has changed, Mr. Wilkowski adamantly professes that he will not raise taxes if he is elected Mayor; however, does his past performance preclude his present position on taxes? Will he do as he says or do as he did? With the broad promises he is making to the community and the poor condition of the economy of Toledo, it is impossible for this economy to sustain his promises. Here is his response to this concern:

WGTE Candidate Forum 2009, 10/23/09.
Question to Mr. Wilkowski by Mr. Lessenberry:
“You have adamantly opposed raising taxes in your campaign although nearly 20 years ago when you were a county commissioner you talked as if raising taxes was a good idea and that sometimes that elected officials should have great discretion to do what they want to with tax money, were you wrong then and right now or have conditions changed.”

Mr. Wilkowski:
“Well, I think that the circumstances are just totally different, I’ve watched what’s happened to our community over the course of my lifetime and over that period of time, we’ve seen a city that was nearly 400,000 people become a city that is maybe 300,000 people. Our problem is not that our people don’t pay enough taxes, our problem is that we don’t have enough people and so that the job of the Mayor, and the reason that I believe raising taxes in this environment would be just absolutely the wrong thing to do is that we are going to drive people out and make our budget deficit worse. In addition to that, people just cannot afford a tax increase, and finally what it does, it prevents us from working on new ideas and new ways to do things. We need to combine and consolidate services both within the city and across jurisdictional lines, we need to make better use of technology, we need to focus on jobs, because those are the solutions to our problems, not a tax increase.”

1. At what point did Mr. Wilkowski decide how much taxes are enough for us to pay? What is his basis for that decision?

He definitely did not believe so when he advocated for a property tax increase for the school system in the late 1980’s while on the school board; and he did not believe so when he insisted on the need to raise the sales tax.

2. There was no answer to the second point of the question: “elected officials should have great discretion to do what they want to with tax money”. What type of discretion should we allow elected officials?

Rather than answer this, we received canned replies on growing the economy.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Fact Check: Keith Wilkowski and taxes: Will he deal jokers or a winning hand

Mr. Wilkowski adamantly professes that he will not raise taxes if he is elected Mayor; however, does his past performance preclude his present potion on taxes? Will he do as he says or do as he did? With the broad promises he is making to the community and the poor condition of the economy of Toledo, it is impossible for this economy to sustain his promises. The following is a history of Mr. Wilkowski’s view on budgets and taxes during his very short tenure as Lucas County Commissioner. You decide!

In June of 89, Commissioner Wilkowski was floating the need for a tax increase as the preliminary budget for ’90 was almost $10 million short.

Four months later in Oct. of 89, Commissioner Wilkowski was pleased to announce the purchase of the downtown YMCA (built in 1930) to be used as a juvenile correction facility. The $283,000 purchase came from the general fund but a tax increase was needed to pay for renovation. The tax increase would generate $17 million per year.

The next month, Nov. of 89, the need for more revenue shifted from $10 million to a projected $30 million dollar backlog of repairs which Mr. Wilkowski announced and started hearings for a tax increase.

In Jan of 90, Commissioner Wilkowski preferred not to detail how to spend the additional tax revenue as “elected officials need some discretion”. A tentative list was provided, but the desperately needed “Juvenile Center” at the YMCA became a planned adult detention center.

In May of 90, after the levy failed, Commissioner Wilkowski lamented to a group of “county workers and Democrats … that the sales-tax increase will gain approval the next time it's on the ballot” and that it should be at a special election in August to avoid being on the same ballot with a large school levy.

Most telling of his philosophy is this quote from this May ’90 event: “"Perhaps this time we needed the rear ends of the commissioners kicked, and so it was and we had it done. All of you understand what government is all about, what it means to make a difference in our community, and try to make this a better place to live”

Do you really believe he will not raise taxes?

Articles from the Toledo Blade:

6/11/89 Toledo Blade, WILKOWSKI CONSIDERS HIKE IN SALES TAX
Lucas County officials facing higher expenses and lower growth in revenue anticipate a preliminary budget shortfall next year of almost $10 million, and a commissioner says the sales tax may have to be increased as a result.

"We're going to have to take a hard look at cutbacks." Commissioner Keith Wilkowski said. "And I think that increasing the sales tax ought to be looked at, at least temporarily. "It's a very simple proposition: You cut your expenses or raise revenue or do some combination of both," he said.

Commissioner Sandy Isenberg said she expects some belt-tightening. "We'll start with things like travel, overtime, seminars, and publications." She said. Talk of a sales-tax increase would be premature.

10/10/89, Toledo Blade, COUNTY TO BUY DOWNTOWN Y FOR YOUTH CORRECTION
The Lucas county Commissioners today voted to purchase the former downtown YMCA for $283,334 to preserve the historic structure and to provide a new juvenile corrections facility. …. "I'm pleased that we've been able to acquire the building. It's an important structure downtown,' Commissioner Keith Wilkowski said after the vote. He said the building at Jefferson Avenue and 11th Street, is planned to be used as a juvenile detention center or juvenile work release center.

The money to purchase the building came from the county's general fund, and the funds to renovate the facility could possibly come from proceeds of an increase in the country sales tax. which has been discussed by county commissioners as a way to provide more money for housing juvenile and adult inmates

11/21/89 Toledo Blade, LUCAS COUNTY FACES TAX BOOST
The rising cost of drug-related crime, a heavy debt load, and a $30 million backlog of needed capital improvements means Lucas County must raise its sales tax, county commissioners say.

Faced with 1990 budget requests totaling $78.9 million and projected revenue of just $70.9 million, county officials are expected next month to approve a 0.5% point increase that would raise the combined state and local sales tax to 6.5%. A boost to 6.5%, the highest permissible in Ohio, would raise an additional $17 million a year. ….."It's certainly no secret we're looking at this." Commissioner Keith Wilkowski said yesterday after the hearing dates were set.

1/7/90, Toledo Blade, COUNTY LISTS PROJECTS FOR TAX INCREASE
Administrators stress they have a strong three-year blueprint for the tax fund, most of which would be spent on the rising costs of criminal justice, which has been increasingly burdened by drug-related cases.

"I think elected officials need some discretion," Commissioner Keith Wilkowski said. "I suppose there could always be arguments but the projects that we are talking about are the projects we will do with this money. There are no grandiose plans for other projects. … Of the 0.5% increase, commissioners earmarked half, a 3-year measure, to pay for capital projects totaling $23.25 million, Mr. Wilkowski said. The figure does not include the cost of borrowing money. The projects include:
·$5 million to remodel the former downtown YMCA to house the work-release program, the detoxification center, and the adult probation department.
·$1.4 million to renovate the county jail to make room for an additional 117 inmates.
·$5.87 million to renovate the county jail to make room for an additional 117 inmates.
·$1.78 million to expand the Child Study Institute, a juvenile pre-trial detention facility, to hold an additional 23 youths.
·$2.1 million to build a juvenile treatment center.
·$2.7 million for renovation of the Family Court Center.
·$200,000 to repair a retaining wall at the Child Study Institute.
·$175,000 to remodel the booking area at the jail.

5/9/90, Toledo Blade, VOTERS SLAM DOOR ON TAX BOOST FOR JAIL
Despite 1,500 yard signs with the message "Lock 'em up." Lucas County voters resoundingly defeated two proposed increases in the county sales tax by a two-to-one ratio. The results represented a resounding victory for Citizens for Fair Taxation, the group formed by barber Dawn Daunhauer….

Commissioner Keith Wilkowski told a group made up mostly of county workers and Democrats at the Toledo Police Patrolmen’s Association headquarters that the sales-tax increase will gain approval the next time it's on the ballot. Mr. Wilkowski continued to stress that the sales-tax increase centered on public safety, since most of the money would have gone toward projects such as renovating the jail to accommodate an additional 117 inmates and renovating the former downtown YMCA building to house 125 inmates in the work-release program.

…We will be back because the problem will not go away… Mr. Wilkowski said he favors a special election Aug. 7 to keep the issue separate from what is expected to be a large Toledo school levy.

Monday, October 19, 2009

Fact Check, Keith Wilkowski, Political Plagerism?

Quote from interview on Deadline Now, 10/13/09
“I was the person who helped bring together Toledo and Maumee when they were fighting every day over the land in Monclova Township. I picked up the telephone, I called my counterpart in Maumee, Ben Marsh, and I said I’ve got an idea for how we can settle this, let’s form a joint economic development zone.” Keith Wilkowski.

Quote from Keith Wilkowski Biography:
[Appointed Sept. 1990]. As Law Director, Keith settled a long-standing dispute between the City of Toledo and the City of Maumee over 1400 acres of land Toledo had purchased in the 1980s in Monclova Township, intending to annex the property to Toledo. The dispute was settled by creating a Joint Economic Development Zone Agreement.” K. Wilkowski Biography

Draw your own conclusions from the following excerpts from Toledo Blade articles regarding this issue. In his interview on Deadline Now, one would believe Mr. Wilkowski was the first to devise the idea of forming a joint economic development zone when he became Law Director in Sept. 1990. In fact, it was an ongoing consideration involving numerous politicians from three communities, which required the unraveling of many state regulations regarding annexation, cities, townships, adjoining property and municipal codes. This took place over a number of years prior to late 1990. Dates of articles in the Blade:
·1/26/88, JEDZ was discussed.
·11/10/88, Gene Cook outlined his proposal for a JEDZ.
·11/17/88 ended almost 2 years of legal battles over Toledo’s annexation drive.. Mayor Barlos said Toledo and Maumee would pursue the creation of a joint economic development zone in Monclova Township
·9/26/89 MAUMEE COUNCIL OK’S ANNEX OF MONCLOVA PARCEL (required to form JEDZ.)
·4/10/91 Mr. McHugh and Mr. Barlos directed their administrators last fall to develop an agreement. Discussions became “intense” in January

Facts:
12/22/86 Toledo Blade
COUNCIL REVIEW SET FOR PURCHASE, ANNEXATION BILLS
City Council will be presented with legislation tomorrow to authorize City Manager Philip Hawkey to spend up to $12 million for 1,500 acres of Monclova Township property that the city wants to annex and to acquire options to buy another 472 acres of land in the township. The manager avoided a City Charter provision requiring Council approval for any expenditure of $2,500 or more by ordering the finance department to issue 26 checks for $1,000 each and one check for $2,000 to Port Lawrence Title & Trust Co., the trustee holding the 26 land options and the deeds on the parcels. Mr. Turner said he is holding the last check until the city closes on an option to buy land from the 27th property owner.

5/13/87 Toledo Blade
AREA OFFICIALS SEEK STATE ALLIES IN RIFT WITH TOLEDO
The Ohio House Elections and Township Committee heard testimony supporting a bill that effectively would legislate a truce in Toledo’s attempt to annex 1,200 acres it owns in Monclova Township. The measure, sponsored by Rep. Arlene Singer (D), Sylvania), would place a moratorium on filing and processing municipal annexation petitions until Dec. 31, 1988, giving the Legislature time to change municipal annexation laws as recommended by a joint committee created by the bill. Ben Marsh, Maumee city solicitor, said Toledo’s attempt to annex the property in Monclova Township illustrates that current laws “encourage the arrogant abuse of power.”

1/26/88 Toledo Blade
TOLEDO AGREES TO DROP BID TO ANNEX MONCLOVA LAND, PROPOSES JOINT ZONE
Toledo has agreed to drop its bid to annex more than 1,100 acres in Monclova Township and has proposed that joint economic development zone be created to develop the land…….. Maumee and the Township will be asked to join in a development zone, but Toledo is asking that Maumee include undeveloped parts of its Arrowhead Industrial Park.
· A plan by the city to ask the Legislature to allow all three parties to collect income taxes in the Township and for Monclova to be a partner in an enterprise zone.

11/6/88 Toledo Blade
MAUMEE-MONCLOVA MERGER PROPOSAL IS IN HANDS OF THE VOTERS
Voters in Maumee and Monclova will decide Tues if they want to merge into Toledo’s largest suburb and thus block, forever, Toledo’s bid to annex more than 1,100 acres it has bought in the Township for development. …. Maumee Mayor Harry Barlos says the only way to make sure Toledo does not eventually annex part or all of Monclova Township is for the merger to take place. “Passage of the merger stops Toledo.” He says. “Failure of the merger avails Toledo of numerous legal avenues to fulfill its annexation attempts.”

11/10/88 Toledo Blade
JOBS ZONE IS AGAIN SOUGHT FOR MONCLOVA
Now that the Monclova-Monclova merger has been defeated, efforts to resolve the conflict over Toledo’s annexation bid once again have turned to creation of a joint economic development zone. Mr. Barlos said the Toledo land then could be placed in a joint economic development zone with the 2 cities splitting development costs and the income tax revenue from businesses that locate there. …. Councilman Gene Cook said creation of a three-way economic development zone as he proposed in March - is the way to go [includes]:
· Formation of a zone that would include Toledo’s Township property and any additional land Monclova and Maumee place in it.
· Establishment of a five-member board to oversee development in the zone. Toledo, Maumee and Monclova would appoint one member each and the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority would appoint the remaining two members.
· A tax-sharing formula with personal and real property taxes continuing to go to the Township. And the Anthony Wayne school district. Revenue from an income tax levied in the zone would be shared by all three partners based on the amount of their financial investment and the services they provide.
· Asking the Ohio General Assembly to change state statutes to allow a Township to participate in such a zone and for income taxes to be collected in it.

11/17/88 Toledo Blade
TOLEDO, MAUMEE END LEGAL WAR
Toledo and Maumee have ended almost 2 years of legal battles over Toledo’s annexation drive in Monclova Township by dropping all court action and heading to the negotiating table. ….. Mayor Barlos said Toledo and Maumee would pursue the creation of a joint economic development zone in Monclova Township. Under Ohio law, cities can create such a zone, but townships cannot. …. For such a zone to be created, the land must be annexed into a city. And it appears only Maumee can do that.

9/26/89 Toledo Blade
MAUMEE COUNCIL OK’S ANNEX OF MONCLOVA PARCEL
Maumee city council has given initial approval to a proposal to annex 250 acres in Monclova Township….. It is part of the 1,200 acres in Monclova and Springfield Township Toledo purchased for $14 million in an aborted attempt to annex for development. The Maumee council resolution affirms the ability of that city to provide municipal services to the annexed area, a requirement of the state annexation code.

April 10, 1991 Toledo Blade
MAUMEE, TOLEDO PLAN MONCLOVA LAND DEAL
The City of Maumee, which helped block Toledo’s attempt in 1987 to annex nearly 1,200 acres of city owned land in Monclova Township plans to annex that land at Toledo’s request and form a joint tax district with its large neighbor. … Mr. McHugh and Mr. Barlos directed their administrators last fall to develop an agreement. Discussions became “intense” in January. …. For the first 5 years, Maumee would receive ½ of 1% of the tax to pay for tax administration and services in the zone, with Maumee and Toledo sharing the rest equally. For years 6 through 10, Maumee’s share would drop to 1/3 of 1%. It would decrease to2/4 of 1% in the last 10 years.

Friday, October 02, 2009

Scream, yell and stamp your feet in protest!

As City Council again weighs the issue of the "Refuse Fee" and again contemplates raising it, the issue is not if it should be raised, but that it is not legal.

Each time the "refuse fee" is discussed, there is a whimper of protest from Toledoans which quickly dies away. The residents are lulled into believing Toledo City must have this money.

Outraged, we should be outraged; it is not legal and is nothing short of a thief breaking into your homes, stealing your money.

Toledo: Scream, yell and stamp your feet in protest! This is a tax disguised as a fee that the Ohio Revised Code forbids unless passed by a majority vote of the residents,

I repeat, the real issue is that this "fee" is legal, not whether Council should raise the "fee". The courts ruled this is a "tax" and as such, is unconstitutional. Now the question is whether the City keeps the illegally collected taxes.

Will the City be required to return the funds? That is the question before the 6th District Court of Appeals, should this be a class action suit and include every resident who pays the "fee"?

Once again, I implore City Council to avoid the temptation to raise more easy money from residents with this "fee" which is, in fact, an illegal "tax".

Once again, I implore the residents of Toledo to file a protest against the fee.

1, Go to Shanahanselect.blogspot.com
2. Click "Trash Tax Protest Form"
3. Print the form
4. Fill it out the form
5. Mail the completed form to the Department of Public Utilities
6. Email Trashtax@gmail.com to notify the Attorneys representing you in this lawsuit that you filed.

Every thief justifies his actions claiming he had no other option. Don't let the city get away with this theft. Fight it, don't relent, make your voice heard. If the City needs money, then get it legally.

Monday, July 20, 2009

“Revenue Enhancement” Keeping is Alive, Legal or Not

Again the Mayor is calling for City Council to increase the Refuse Fee to balance the budget. My attorneys, Ciolek and Wicklund, filed a lawsuit against the City in February of 2008 Lawsuit disputing the legality of the refuse fee on behalf of all residents and property owners of Toledo. It is still in the courts pending a decision by the 6th District Court Appeal of our appeal of the denial for class action by the Lucas County Common Pleas Court. Let me state unequivocally, this “fee” is a tax and as such it is not legal. When the Courts finally decide in our favor, it will be decided in the favor of every resident and property owner of Toledo. It may take a couple more years until the case is decided and no one in the City is anxious for a resolution, as they believe the revenue is essential to maintain services.

As City Council again weighs the recommendations of the Mayor to increase the fee, Council should consider the effect of having to reimburse the millions of illegally assessed taxes to the residents, which the courts will require. Continuing and increasing the “fee” will be a temporary repair to the budget and though it may seem wise at this time to assess these “fees”, Council would be prudent to resist the temptation, as it is only a temporary measure.

Until the District Court hears the case on class action, all residents paying the refuse “fee” are encourage to file the letter of protest with the Department of Public Utilities. The form can be accessed through the blog: Shanahanselect.blogspot.com and follow the instructions within the blog.

To the Mayor, this is folly to continue assessing an illegal tax, which is protested in the courts. To City Council, when the Courts decide in favor of the residents of Toledo on this illegal tax, the required refunds will be painful; to increase them would not be prudent. The residents of Toledo have faith that Scott Ciolek, Attorney, and I will continue to fight the battle on your behalf.

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Appointment to fill the City Council Seat

No doubt, Steve Steele is a bright, articulate candidate for City Council. But his primary role over the next few months is to get elected to office and appointing Steve to fill the City Council seat vacated by Mark Sobczak will only acerbate the Council proceedings and decisions. It will become a political campaign, whether or not intentional.

I ask you once again, think beyond party politics and political paradigms, appoint a statesman with no political ambitions.

Steve will have plenty of time, talent and resources to run his campaign for election. Toledo needs efforts and attentions directed to resolving the issues facing our embattled city and City Council, Toledo does not need this appointment bo becoma a campaign to be elected to office.

Karen Shanahan
3633 Denise Drive, Toledo 43614
kesjr@att.ent
419 380 0244

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Parking Tickets while Parking at Home, another embarrasment for Toledo

Shame on the Mayor, this is ridiculous, is the city administration this desperate? We hit the national news again:

Added just this afternoon
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/31390180/ns/us_news-weird_news/

http://www.autoinsane.com/2009/06/16/news/government-policy/city-of-toledo-ohio-issues-parking-tickets-to-drivers-parked-in-their-own-driveways/
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/06/toledo_residents_find_25_parki.html
http://forum.thedailyshow.com/tds/board/message?board.id=story_suggestions&message.id=9574
http://www.torontosun.com/news/weird/2009/06/16/9812656.html
http://www.cantonrep.com/ohio/x702343198/Toledo-residents-ticketed-for-parking-in-their-own-driveway
http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/2009/06/toledo-tickets-citizens-for-parking-in-their-own-driveways.html
http://www.chillicothegazette.com/article/20090616/UPDATES01/90616001
http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/122858/group/home/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090616/ap_on_re_us/us_odd_ohio_driveway_tickets
http://www.startribune.com/nation/48147072.html?elr=KArks:DCiU1OiP:DiiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aU7DYaGEP7vDEh7P:DiUX
http://www.kfsm.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-us-odd-ohio-driveway-tickets,0,7207199.story
http://privatopia.blogspot.com/2009/06/holy-toledo-city-acting-like-hoa.html
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/06/16/park-in-your-own-driveway-youre-a-criminal/
http://www.wtte28.com/template/inews_wire/wires.regional.oh/33babf9c-www.wtte28.com.shtml
http://www.dailymail.com/ap/ApTopStories/200906160125
http://snackfeed.com/videos/detail/a3891efc-abdf-102c-8790-00304897c9c6/Ticket-for-parking-in-driveway_s=s (from CNN Most Popular)
http://blog.taragana.com/n/ohio-residents-ticketed-for-parking-in-own-driveways-under-toledo-law-about-unpaved-surfaces-82796/
http://www.rocketnews.com/2009/06/ohio-residents-ticketed-for-driveway-parking-source-the-globe-and-mail/
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/19764866/detail.html
http://www.wdsu.com/news/19764866/detail.html
http://www.wmtw.com/news/19764866/detail.html
http://www.wmur.com/news/19764866/detail.html
http://www.wyff4.com/news/19764866/detail.html
http://www.wisn.com/news/19764866/detail.html
http://www.wxow.com/Global/story.asp?S=10538958
http://www.wqow.com/Global/story.asp?S=10538958&nav=menu1364_2
http://www.wxii12.com/news/19764866/detail.html
http://www.wbtv.com/global/story.asp?s=10538958
http://www.kitv.com/news/19764866/detail.html
http://www.wgal.com/news/19764866/detail.html
http://www.4029tv.com/news/19764866/detail.html
http://www.wapt.com/news/19764866/detail.html
http://digg.com/world_news/Ohioans_ticketed_for_parking_in_own_driveways

and let’s not forget this
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1968071/posts

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Paradigm Shift for Council

Toledo City Council has many issues to contend with: rising unemployment, lagging economic development, budget deficits, increasing crime, decreased city services, employee layoffs and potholes. Now, unleashed in the midst of all these issues, is the search for a replacement to Council for Mark Sobczak, who resigned. If the process plays out in usual political fashion, we will again witness the partisanship and divisions within the parties and the end result will be a flawed, biased appointment of a person to fill the seat. It plays out like a three ring circus, which creates great press the media enjoys; but is harmful to effective government. Will the best person be appointed, or the best-connected person?

I challenge the Republican and Democratic chairmen and Council to effect a paradigm shift and consider the best interests of Toledo rather than the interests of the political parties. Appoint a statesman to the position, a person who has no desire or inclination to run for office

Seek a person who is experienced and can provide leadership without bias to the Party, reach out to the Community, appoint a Business Leader of our Community or a Donna Owens or a Tom Crothers or a Tom Pounds or a John McHugh, experienced but not politically motivated to seek office. Select a statesman who affects policy rather than policy affected by politics. Once this appointment is made, appoint this experienced Statesman President of Council, again, avoid politics, consider the needs of Toledo.

How refreshing it would be to have our political leaders take the high road of a paradigm shift, being more concerned with the welfare of Toledo and dismissing “politics as usual”.

Saturday, May 02, 2009

Negotiations in Good Faith? NOT

If the average yearly income of a police officer is $50,000, the 10% PERZ pick up that they employee should pay but the city picks up would equal $5,000. In the last "negotiation" that Mr. Reinbolt supposedly signed off on, it is reported that the union agreed to pay their 10% for one year ($5000 x 1100 employees which includes the fire department $5,500,000). Looks good, reasonable and responsible on the part of the Union to accept such concessions... until the 26 extra days with pay is factored into the numbers. So you realize, 26 days X $192 per day pay = $5000, a wash, no savings. What would we gain? Where are the concessions?

Also consider this,
26 days extra days off with pay
21 days vacation
13 holidays
14 days sick leave (which accumulates)
and we have 14 weeks off per police officer with several years service,$50,000 per year annual salary (plus overtime) and no contribution to health benefits. How can we sustain a police force with part time police at full time pay?

To support this pay and benefit package, City Council is to demand of the residents that we pay more taxes and fees to support this type of contract. Unbelievable and inconceivable.

WE CAN NO LONGER SUPPORT SUCH OUTLANDISH CONTRACTS!

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

A Thought on the Toledo Deficit

Throughout the process of trying to balance the budget, the Administration has continued to demand increased revenue with little or no conviction, to cut costs. Numerous times, the Mayor has gone back to Council demanding increased taxes and fees to supplement the budget. He has threatened to layoff police officers and after issuing pink slips, gone back to Council demanding more revenue. We are now 4 full months into a year in which it was well recognized there was a budget deficit. We are now at crunch time and to save the 150 police from being laid off, the Mayor again has gone to Council demanding more revenue.

We sit poised, waiting for their decision at the meeting this evening. What will they do, allow the layoffs? Increase the refuse fee? Cut the reciprocity?

Is there a grand scheme in all this? Well, here is a theory worth considering.

1. Whether Carty runs again or not, he intends to be a force in the political scene of Toledo.
2. He has always had the support of the fire and police unions. To stay politically powerful, he needs their continued support.
3. The only way to balance the budget is to increase revenue or cut spending. To cut spending effectively, he must negotiate down the contracts with the police and fire and do away with the extremely generous packages which he gave them previously.
4. If he cuts their benefits, he would lose their support.

How can he maintain the police and fire support and still balance the budget?
1. Give the pretense of negotiating contracts
2. Give the pretense of cutting costs
3. Delay the process to the last possible moment to increase the fear
4. Plan to layoff a ridiculous number of police to scare the electorate
5. Plan to layoff a ridiculous number of police to force Council to increase revenue to ensure this does not happen

Would the Mayor do this? Sadly, I believe he has.

Monday, April 27, 2009

Lucas County and Regionalism

There is much talk of regionalism, the advantages, the need, the importance for growth. Those who so often profess the need for regionalism could create true regionalism in Lucas County.

Due to the imbalance of population in Lucas County, it is virtually impossible for the surrounding communities to elect a County Commissioner; our three Commissioners always end up being Toledoans.

With true regionalism, the outlying communities would have a Commissioner represent them in Lucas County and by so doing; we would see a growth of new ideas and opportunities.

It’s time to begin the process in sincerity by Districting Lucas County in a way to give regional representation to the county. I suggest the following:

· County Commissioner pay be reduced to $60,000 per year
· Lucas County be split into 4 districts as noted on map:
· Districts 1, 3, and 4 each have 1 Commissioner
· District 2 (Toledo) would have 2 Commissioners

By implementing Districts for Lucas County, we will open the door and invite true regionalism. We need representatives from our successful Lucas County communities.

Sunday, April 26, 2009

Letter to Gov. Strickland, Charter Schools, #2

I emailed you on April 14th, regarding Charter Schools. Our grandson received horrible treatment by teachers in the Toledo Public School system and no one cared. As a result, he was enrolled in a Charter School, Wildwood Environmental Academy and has excelled. My question was this: why is he worth less to the state of Ohio than a child enrolled in public school? I did not receive a reply to this question.

I now have a second question, have you visited any of the Charter Schools to see first hand why parents choose to enroll their children in an alternative educational program? I would like to invite you to visit Wildwood and see how much they accomplish with so little funding. Our Grandson will attend Knight Academy next fall. It is operated by St. Francis DiSalle. I extend an invitation for you to visit the school he will attend next year. This would be an eye opener for you and your staff if you were will to visit with an open mind. Please advise when you would like to visit, I will contact the schools and make the arrangements for you.

I await your replay and acceptance of this offer. In Toledo, your biased opinions are affecting 3000 children.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Tough Decisions in Tough Times

This is a difficult time in Toledo and City Council has many tough decisions to make. How can you balance the budget effectively and prepare for the future of Toledo.
Regardless of the decisions made, votes taken and outcome, it is essential to acknowledge the sincere, honest effort each Council representative puts into the decisions made. Thank you for all your hard work on behalf of the residents of Toledo in such a stressful time.

I offer the following…
Increasing revenue through additional taxes, fees, or assessments may, in the very short term, solve the issue; however, in the long term, it will further alienate residents and businesses and continue the exodus from Toledo.

What are the alternatives?
First, and foremost, reducing the police force by 150 is surreal, unacceptable and irresponsible. There are 3000 employees in Toledo and for a division of 650 to lose 20% of their staff is unimaginable and unreasonable. If the Federal Government is allowing the funds for 40 police officers, why then are the cuts necessary.

The Mayor is taking this approach for 2 reasons, one to force concessions from the Unions and (2) to force Council to bend in his direction of continuing increases in taxes, assessments and fees. Don’t weaken and don’t yield. He is wrong, if he threatens until hell freezes over, he is still wrong.

If 150 more must be cut, take them from unessential services. There are private organizations, which would take on the recreation services and many other services the city now pays to provide. Utilize the private sector.

The Unions are saying they are trying to negotiate the contracts, but also are saying the will not offer concessions. Concessions are not an option they are an essential necessity. The contracts need to be more in line with the private sector. It is a bitter pill to swallow as it was for those of us who work in the private sector and had to also swallow that pill, but that is the medicine needed to fix this economic epidemic. Don’t look for more revenue you must require responsible contracts.

If staff has been cut to 32 hours per week, if refuse collection crews have cut routes and overtime by the rolling pickup schedule, and our employment rate is only 5% higher than the low of 7.5% in 2005, it does not seem possible the gap in the deficit is as great as the Mayor suggests. What has been offered to prove the deficit amount?

Before jumping into privatization of refuse collection, carefully check the numbers. In February, I provided a study of the cost of private companies versus city service and it does not bear out a savings. The study was prior to the changes in crew sizes, changes in routes and rolling schedules (which I consider long overdue).

I DON’T BELIEVE IT!

The budget which is reviewed in a PDF file can be provided by the treasurer in an excel spreadsheet which could easily be assessed and used to determine what is causing the gap. Request and .xls format you can analyze. If you already have one, please forward so I can review. I would like to do a study of the data.

In the end, when the economy improves and one reflects on this very difficult time, I ask this: if the fire protection fee reimbursement ordinance passes, if the refuse fee increase passes, if reciprocity is cut, and city government sees the income continue from these sources, will they continue or will they be discontinued. As with the ¾% temporary tax, the revenue will be used and become necessary. But what then, will we lose more residents due to the increased cost and will we lose more businesses, as more fines, taxes and assessments are set? Will our home insurance rates be increased to cover the decision by Council to bill back the charges for fires and other fire department services?
Why do we pay income tax? When will Toledoans see relief?

Suggestion: Go back about 15 years, 30 years and 45 years and look at a budget and what services were offered in those years. Compare the services and see what changes can be made. I finally realized that so many services we offer in the City started out as a very nice program provided by the private sector and non-profits and seemed like such a good idea, the City took over the programs. We can no longer keep absorbing all the programs that seemed so valuable. Even something as small as the Easter egg hunt… any church in a neighborhood offered egg hunts, why in the world did the City support one also? The church on Strayer Rd. dropped 20,000 eggs from a helicopter!!! Why did the City even consider do an egg hunt? Not only was it a waste of our funds, but also of personnel, printing and advertising.

In this difficult time, get back to basics, police, and fire and refuse collection. These three budget items are first and always attacked in a budget crunch with the intent to frighten residents and Council into compliance to the will of the Mayor. Be tough, be firm and be careful.

With sincerity, I offer thanks for your willingness to represent us in such a difficult environment.

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Fire Protection, Insurance and Another Money Grab

I'm mad as hell and don't want to take it anymore. This is insane. Has Mike Craig never purchased house insurance? When we purchase home insurance, a portion of the decision of the rate is based on whether your community provides fire protection and they even ask how far from your house is a hydrant located. If close and the community provides fire protection, the rate is lower. Absolutely, if the insurance companies start getting billed for the service we pay taxes to provide, the insurance companies for everyone in Toledo will be raised to cover the cost.

I am so sick and tired of this I would like to scream. Have the guts to renegotiate the contracts, cut services temporarily in non-essential areas and move forward when the economy improves. By the time the fire department starts seeing the little bit of revenue from this money grab, the economy will have improved.

Dumb... dumb and dumber!

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Trash Tax and Class Action

To all in Toledo, if the Trash Tax is deemed unconstitutional by the courts (will take about another 2 to 3 years) would you want a refund? Or would you say, "gee, the City stole that money from me, it was not legal, but they need to keep the money, I don't want a refund". How many of you go back to the checkout at the store when they charge you too much for an item? Well, if you want a refund if the tax is deemed unconstitutional, you need to fill out and mail a protest form... today! If you do, let us know so we can keep a list to join you in the class action. Here is a link to the form: TRASH TAX PROTEST

Then email and advise you protested: TRASHTAX@GMAIL.COM

Letter to Gov. Strickland, Charter Schools

Well, to send an email to Governor Strickland, one must plough through the State of Ohio website, then fill out a form, then "submit" the email. When finished, you have no record of sending the email. I find this appalling that there is no email address for the Governor to send from your personal email. Anyway, I wanted to copy the Governor on the email regarding charter schools. It was sent to every Ohio Senator and Ohio Representative (excluding Teresa Fedor - her only concern is the Teacher's Union). Did anyone else catch the report on MSNBC about Charter Schools... Ohio was referenced along with Governor Strickland's intention to cut spending for students of Charter Schools. We hit the national news again.

This is the email sent to the Governor:

Dear Gov. Strickland,

The following email was sent to every State Senator and State Representative excluding Senator Fedor as I know she opposes Charter Schools in any format. I am beginning to believe you, as Governor, are more concerned with protecting the teacher's union that advancing the education of our children. I would be amazed if you ever visited a Charter School. By the way, you met our Grandson by chance at McDonalds in Maumee, OH. He also was stuck in the ruling of no free weather days and wrote you a letter about it. I was disappointed at the reply, it was a canned "no answer" reply, he deserved better. Here is the email I sent:

I don't understand the thought process on Charter Schools by Governor Strickland who professes to be concerned with the education of our children. Why is a child who attends a charter school worth less to the state than a child in a public school? Or is the funding a way to destroy charter schools and end the threat of competition to public school systems within the state. President Obama recognizes this is the only hope we have of improving our schools systems, if the charter schools are squelched and choice is removed from parents essentially forcing placement in substandard public schools, we will continue on the road to complacency. A child in a charter school does not take one cent from public schools, rather the money follows the child. This is disgraceful.

I speak from experience which was bitter and painful as I watched our bright, delightful grandchild tormented and abused in first and second grade in public school and no one cared. He has blossomed, grown and flourished in the Charter School program. The teachers and administrators respond to concerns by listening and with caring. They offer suggestions and accept recommendations leaving behind the hidden agenda of protecting the school system and not the child.

I ask again, why is this child worth less (or shall we say "worthless) to the State of Ohio because he attends a charter school. Protect the choice of school selection and equalize the funding for charter schools.

I'm very displeased

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Charter Schools

I don't understand the thought process on Charter Schools by Governor Strickland who professes to be concerned with the education of our children. Why is a child who attends a charter school worth less to the state than a child in a public school? Or is the funding a way to destroy charter schools and end the threat of competition to public school systems within the state. President Obama recognizes this is the only hope we have of improving our schools systems, if the charter schools are squelched and choice is removed from parents essentially forcing placement in substandard public schools, we will continue on the road to complacency. A child in a charter school does not take one cent from public schools, rather the money follows the child. This is disgraceful.

I speak from experience which was bitter and painful as I watched our bright, delightful grandchild tormented and abused in first and second grade in public school and no one cared. He has blossomed, grown and flourished in the Charter School program. The teachers and administrators respond to concerns by listening and with caring. They offer suggestions and accept recommendations leaving behind the hidden agenda of protecting the school system and not the child.

I ask again, why is this child worth less (or shall we say "worthless) to the State of Ohio because he attends a charter school. Protect the choice of school selection and equalize the funding for charter schools.

Friday, March 27, 2009

RC 2723.03 (Ohio Revised Code)

Here is the Code... note, no mention of FEE

Action to enjoin the collection of taxes and assessments must be brought against the officer whose duty it is to collect them. Actions to recover taxes and assessments must be brought against the officer who made the collection, or if he is dead, against his personal representative. When they were not collected on the county duplicate, each corporation or board which is entitled to share in the revenue so collected must be joined in the action. If a plaintiff in an action to recover taxes or assessments, or both, alleges and proves that he or the corporation or deceased person whose estate he represents, at the time of paying such taxes or assessments, filed a written protest as to the portion sought to be recovered, specifying the nature of his claim as to the illegality thereof, together with notice of his intention to sue under sections 2723.01 to 2723.05, inclusive, of the Revised Code, such action shall not be dismissed on the ground that the taxes or assessments, sought to be recovered, were voluntarily paid.

Effective Date: 10-01-1953

Lawsuit Ruling 2/23/2009

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO

Karen Shanahan,
Plaintiff, Case No. CI0200802348
vs. OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
The City ofToledo, Hon. Charles J. Doneghy
Defendant.

This proposed class-action matter is before the Court on: 1) the motion of the
plaintiff for class certification; and 2) the motion of the plaintiff to stay a decision on class certification and for partial summary judgment. Upon review of the amended pleadings, memoranda and representations of the parties,and applicable law,the Court finds that it, first, should over rule the plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment, second, should overrule at this juncture the plaintiffs motion for class certification, and, third, should overrule the motion to stay as moot.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The defendant, the City ofToledo ("City"), first by administrative decision and later by action of the City's council, enacted It an additional tax to collect refuse" (the "Tax"). At all times relevant,the plaintiff, Karen Shanahan,was a property owner in the City who was required to and did pay the Tax. (A.CompLparas.4-5,7-8,16.) The plaintiff alleges that the City's enactment of this Tax was and is unlawful and unconstitutional. (A.Compl.para.2.)The plaintiff seeks certification of a proposed class of approximately 100,000 members who are: current and past property owners and tenants who are, were or will be required to pay a tax on their property (owned or leased) for refuse collection without voter approval by referendum and/or without lawful and constitutional action by City council. (A.Compl.paras.710,21-23,35-37.) The plaintiff now asks the Court to stay ruling on her class-certification motion until the Court issues a summary judgment decision addressing whether the Tax is properly classified as a "tax" or instead as a "fee.'

II. DISCUSSION
A. SUMMARY JUDGMENT: "TAX" OR "FEE"
In opposing class certification, the City argues that the plaintiff has failed to comply with the jurisdictional requirements which R.C. 2723.03 places on any plaintiff who seeks to recover payments of, or to enjoin operation of, illegal or unconstitutional "taxes or assessments." In her summary judgment motion, the plaintiff argues that the Tax is, in reality, a fee. Thus,the plaintiff contends that R.C. 2723.03 has no impact on the instant action.

In relevant part, R.C. 2723.03 reads as follows: "* **If a plaintiff in an action to recover taxes or assessments, or both, alleges and proves that he or the corporation or deceased person whose estate he represents, at the time of paying such taxes or assessments, filed a written protest as to the portion sought to be recovered, specifying the nature of his claim as to the illegality thereof, together with notice of his intention to sue under sections 2723.01 to 2723.05, inclusive, of the Revised Code, such action shall no be dismissed on the ground that the taxes or assessments, sought to be recovered, were voluntarily paid." (Emphasis added.) The Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled that license "fees," even though legally distinguishable from a "tax," fall with in the meaning of words "taxes and assessments" as used in the statute. Paramount Film Distributing Corp. v.Tracy(1963), 75Ohio St.55,56-57, 191N.E.2d839. See, also, Gottlieb

v. S.Euclid, 157OhioApp.3d250,2004-0hio-2705,810N.E.2d970,at'30 (finding R.C.2723.03 applies to license "fees").Accordingly,the Court finds that the plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment is not well-taken.

B. CLASS CERTIFICATION
Civ.R. 23 governs when a court properly may certify a class. Gottlieb v. S. Euclid, 157 Ohio App.3d250,2004-0hio-2705, 810 N.E.2d970,at ..] O. The rule sets forth the following seven requirements:

"(1) an identifiable class must exist and the definition of the class must be unambiguous; (2)the named representatives must be members of the class; (3)the class must be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (4) there must be questions of law or fact common to the class; (5)the claims or defenses of the representative parties must be typical of the claims or defenses of the class; (6) the representative parties must fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class;and(7)one of the three Civ.R.23(B)requirements must be satisfied." (Emphasis
added.) Id.

In an action for damages, lithe trial court must specifically find, pursuant to Civ.R. 23(8), that questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy." (Emphasis added.) Id. The proponent of the class must establish all these factual and legal requirements. Id. at ~ 11. The trial court has broad discretion, but must apply carefully and rigorously the requirements, when determining whether to certify a class. Id.at'9,citing Hamilton v.Ohio Sav. Bank, 82 Ohio St. 3d67, 70,1998-0hio-365, 694 N.E.2d 442.

In this case, the plaintiff asserts that she satisfies all the requirements of Civ.R. 23. The City counters that the plaintiff has failed to establish the requirements of R.C. 2723.03 for challenging the Tax in this case, that she fails to propose a class that is limited to property owners who have satisfied those requirements, and, thus, she is not entitled to class certification at this juncture. The Court agrees.

The court in, Gottlieb v. S. Euclid, 157 Ohio App.3d 250, 2004-0hio-2705, 810
N.E.2d970,ruled that R.C. 2723.03 is the proper vehicle to challenge the collection of "taxes and assessments." Id.at28. In order to maintain a damages action for recovery of surcharges,the statute "requires a plaintiff to allege and prove that he filed a written protest and notice of intention to sue at the time of paying the tax or assessment." (Emphasis added.) Id. If the taxpayer fails to comply with these requirements, courts will bar his her recovery action. Id. And,if the taxpayer does not limit the proposed class to other taxpayers who also have complied with the statute, the court should not certify the class as the class does not meet the numerosity requirement.

Additionally, Ohio courts find that claims for injunctive and/or declaratory relief relating to improper taxes and assessments are unnecessary if a trial court finds that the case not properly maintainable as a class-action for damages. Id. at ....... Ordinarily, Ohio courts require that actions seeking only to enjoin allegedly unlawful or unconstitutional taxes and fees should be brought as individual actions, because class certification is not the "superior method for dealing with such claims. Id.

"[C]ertification of the cause as a class action prior to the determination of the constitutionality of the statute may result in unnecessary discovery procedures and the unjustified and unnecessary expenditure of judicial time and energy needed to determine a class action. ***We must be ever mindful of the policy behind a class action lawsuit, Le., to simplify the resolution of complex litigation,not complicate it unnecessarily." (Citation omitted.) Id.

In the instant case, the Court finds that the plaintiff has provided no evidence that she has complied with R.C. 2723.03. Accordingly, the Court finds that it should not certify even a properly proposed class at this juncture.

JUDGMENT ENTRY

The Court hereby ORDERS that the plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment is overruled. The Court further ORDERS that the plaintiffs motion to stay ruling on class certification is overruled as moot. The Court further ORDERS that the plaintiffs motion for class certification is overruled. The Court further ORDERS that this case is assigned for pretrial on

pc: Keith J. Wicklund/Scott A. Ciolek
Anthony J. DeGidioKeith J. Winterhalter

Refuse Fee Lawsuit - CALL to ACTION

If you believe the Refuse Fee is not a legal form of revenue for the City or if you want to protest this additional fee, it is requested you file a formal protest when you pay the bill or send it to the City. Join the fight, be included, let your voice be heard. Here is the format for the protest:

Date _________________




Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 2723.03, I hereby notify the City of Toledo that I am paying the “refuse fee” under protest. Whether construed as a “tax,” “fee,” or “assessment,” the “refuse fee” is unlawful for the following reasons:

The “refuse fee” essentially functions as a property tax; and

The Ohio Constitution requires a referendum before such an assessment may be levied.

For the reasons stated above, I intend to sue under Revised Code §§ 2723.01-2723.05 for the purpose of recovering this unlawful appropriation in its entirety.


Sincerely,



___________________________
Name


___________________________

___________________________

___________________________
Street Address

Refuse Fee and Court

Another court date today and I wonder if, as before, the attorneys will meet in chamber with the Judge, return to the courtroom and we leave with no action. The request for class action was denied at this point as "moot" and I have no idea what is next. The original attorney on the case, KURT WICKLUND has moved on to another firm and had to remove himself from the case. He spent a tremendous amount of time working on the case and we owe him a debt of gratitude for taking on the case that no one else wanted to touch. SCOTT A CIOLEK continues to carry the torch along with the newest attorney to the case, ANTHONY J DEGIDIO. They have now filed an appeal on the class action decision:
3/24/2009: Title : PLD:DOCKETING STATEMENT, PURSUANT TO APP R 3(G) AND 6TH DIST LOC APP R 3(C)

Today is about:
THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS OVERRULED. THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY RULING ON CLASS CERTIFICATION IS OVERRULED AS MOOT. COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION IS OVERRULED. FURTHER ORDERED THAT THIS CASE IS SET FOR
A PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ON MARCH 27, 2009 AT 2:00 P.M.

If anyone would like to come and observe the legal system at work, you are welcome.
LUCAS COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUDGE: CHARLES J. DONEGHY

Refuse Fee Continuing Update

RE: “REFUSE FEE” City of Toledo

963.03. Frequency of collection; garbage and rubbish disposal fee.
(b) After April 30, 2008 for the periodic disposal of garbage and rubbish from any dwelling, restaurant, retail store, apartment house or office building, the property owner shall pay a monthly refuse fee based on the following schedule, provided that where the structure consists of multiple units, the monthly fee shall be per unit:

The City of Toledo passed this ordinance through council as a “FEE” and refused to classify it as a tax which requires passage by vote of the residents in an election. Now in court documents, the City is referring to it as a “TAX” in an attempt to enforce RC2723.3 of the Ohio Revised code. Had the protest been filed, the City could argue it was not allowed as a protest because this is a “FEE” and would not refer to it in court documents as a “TAX”. This is a purposeful misrepresentation of the Ordinance designed to prevent any action by any citizen against the “FEE”.

Rather than determine the merits of the Ordiance and whether it is a legal form of revenue for the City, the courts, attorneys and City Law department prefer to focus on the technicallity of RC2723.3 and whether a protest was required. It is not addressing the issue of the revenue.

As a resident of Toledo, I followed the regulations which offer no requirement to file a protest under the written regulation of RC2723.3 to protest a “FEE”. Though I contend it is a “TAX”, the written ordinace by which I must act states it is a “FEE” and the written Code does not address a fee. Therefore, I refuse to file a formal protest against the City of Toledo in accordance with RC2723.3 which states:

Action to enjoin the collection of taxes and assessments must be brought against the officer whose duty it is to collect them. Actions to recover taxes and assessments must be brought against the officer who made the collection, or if he is dead, against his personal representative. When they were not collected on the county duplicate, each corporation or board which is entitled to share in the revenue so collected must be joined in the action. If a plaintiff in an action to recover taxes or assessments, or both, alleges and proves that he or the corporation or deceased person whose estate he represents, at the time of paying such taxes or assessments, filed a written protest as to the portion sought to be recovered, specifying the nature of his claim as to the illegality thereof, together with notice of his intention to sue under sections 2723.01 to 2723.05, inclusive, of the Revised Code, such action shall not be dismissed on the ground that the taxes or assessments, sought to be recovered, were voluntarily paid.
Effective Date: 10-01-1953

Now the court is citing a lawsuit from 1963 stating a “licensing fee” fits in the context of RC2723.03 which therefore also regulates “fees”.
The Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled that license "fees," even though legally distinguishable from a"tax," fall within the meaning of words "taxes and assessments" as used in the statute. Paramount Film Distributing Corp. v. Tracy (1963), 75 Ohio St.55,56-57, 191 N.E.2d839.

This is not a “licensing fee”, this a a revenue grab by the City, wrapped in a cloak of a broad reaching “fee”. This regulation does not afford me that privilege against a “FEE”. Further, it is obvious that RC2723.03 exits to make it virtually impossible for a citizen to counter illegal revenues by a municipality of the type passed by the City of Toledo.

Sunday, February 01, 2009

Privatizing Refuse Collection

With the need to invest in new refuse collection equipment, ($12.2 million for 40 trucks), this is the optimum opportunity to consider privatizing (sub-contracting) refuse collection in Toledo. The Mayor was quoted in the Blade Article, 1/30/09 (Blade Article) that there would be an estimated savings of $3.6 million if refuse collection was privatized (sub-contracted). I have long advocated the switch to sub-contracted refuse collection to save cost and used the information provided in the Blade Article and other data to study the effects of such a change. It may be overly optimistic to expect a 31% savings by switching service to the private sector based on the following data.

In an analysis of the 2008 Budget, the actual expenditures from 2004 though 2007 and 2008 budget for the Refuse Department are listed with an estimated per cent of savings if $3.6 million is an accurate amount as quoted by the Mayor:

Per Cent Savings by Privatization
$10,324,386 34.9% 2004 Expenditure
$10,840,653 33.2% 2005 Expenditure
$11,348,331 31.7% 2006 Expenditure
$11,716,547 30.7% 2007 Expenditure
$11,348,181 31.7% 2008 Budget

(The above expenditures include all expenses associated with refuse collection in the 2008 Budget such as: Buildings, Capital, Maintenance, Office Supplies, Salaries and Benefits. See Google spreadsheet “ Toledo Refuse Cost “ for line item expenditures.)

One method of calculating savings is to figure the cost per household; however, there are different calculations by the City of the number of households. Councilman Collins stated in 2008 there were 91,000 households, the City website quotes 114,000 households (Solid Waste Deparment Webpage); therefore, both are shown in the calculation of annual cost per household:

Total Annual Budget 114,000 91,000 Explanation
$11,348,181 $99.55 $124.71 City collection per year per unit.
$7,748,181 $67.97 $85.14 City collection less $3.6 million savings
$23,256,000 $204.00 $255.56 Private at $17 per month
$20,520,000 $180.00 $225.49 Private at $15 per month

A sample of fees for Ohio Cities shows the annual fee for city operated and city sub-contracted service ranges from $64.44 to $200.04 per year. For Privatized collection, the rates range from $120.00 to $210.00 per year. Most of these cities have a more limited program of refuse collection than Toledo.


Private or Contracted Refuse Collection Cost
Per MO//Per Year
Stow OH 16.67 //200.04
Brunswick, OH 13.50 //162.00
Aurora, OH 13.90 //166.80
Mentor, OH 5.37 // 64.44
Parma, OH 7.11 // 85.32

City Collection Rate
Akron OH 10.80 //129.60
Sylvania, OH 10.00 //120.00
Barberton,OH 11.30 //135.60
Canton, OH 12.40 //148.80
Cuyahoga Falls 17.50 //210.00
Warren, OH 14.12 //169.44

Supporting Documents:
Stow OH
Brunswick OH
Sylvania OH
Parma OH Ref Pg 11

These numbers do not support a savings through subcontracting refuse collection in Toledo. However, several questions remain to be answered:

1. Are all expenses associated with refuse collection in Toledo charged to that department?
2. What type of service was included in the bids received by the Mayor?
3. How many households are in Toledo?
4. What is the basis for the claim of a $3.6 million savings quoted by the Mayor?
5. In the information received, what was the total annual and monthly fee quoted to the Mayor?

Is it time to privatize refuse collection and can it be successful? In reviewing the data, one would conclude it would be cost effect to keep the current form of service even if we do spend the $12.1 million for new equipment; however, a thorough study is crucial.

City Council must be diligent to ensure accurate data is used to make an informed decision. If the Administration is not forthcoming in providing all necessary detail to make an informed decision, Council must demand this information so they can analyze and justify any decision. If the above information is complete and accurate, Toledo will be better served by keeping the current form of refuse collection.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

IF I WERE MAYOR COMMENTARY

The Toledo Free Press published an interesting series of articles, which asked local politicians and high school students what they would do “If they were Mayor”. After analyzing the comments, I have a three-part commentary on the results of the review with an assessment of these comments. After listening to Politicians comments on being Mayor over the past years, it is frustrating that in this time, there is so little process offered by any of the possible candidates to move us forward.

Just stating, “green energy” does not explain how a Mayor can move this initiative forward. Being interested in “education” does not explain how a Mayoral candidate can effect improvements in education or explain how to implement the “Toledo Promise”. These are “hot buttons” of interest to the electorate, but we need solutions not just “hot buttons”.

Almost completely ignored was the infrastructure, refuse collection and safety issues. Nor was there mention of how they would balance the budget or create a “business friendly” environment in our Community. We need a cohesive government, but there were no suggestions on how or on what issues the potential candidates would work with City Council. There was no content on how to handle these problems.

It is disappointing to have so little content on how to manage Toledo. We need a candidate who has the courage to face the hard issues, fix the budget and begin reducing fees and fines, which have been created to enhance revenue. It is our right and expectation as voters to demand real answers not just open-ended rhetoric with lofty goals.

There was a great deal of information presented in paragraphs by the politicians and students. I consider this important enough to analyze, categorize and tally the comments to make it easier to assimilate the information. This has been accomplished in three separate commentaries.

Commentary One is a summary of the politician’s comments. It reduces their paragraph responses to bullet points and a category assigned to each comment. Finally, a tally of the categories for each comment by author is included.

Commentary Two contains suggestions on how to achieve some of the points offered by the politicians. These suggestions are essential for the success of Toledo.

Commentary Three lists the main ideas of the many High School student comments. This list gives insight into the fears, hopes, dreams and desires of our students and helps us understand what is important to our youth. Along with the list of student concerns is a brief commentary on what our government must address if we are sincerely interested in recognizing our youth to avoid “brain drain” and thus help ensure a positive future for Toledo.

As we move forward with this campaign to elect a Mayor, we must ask the hard questions. Just listing “hot buttons” without solutions, processes or programs to effect change is not acceptable.

Please read and review the analysis of the three commentaries.

IF I WERE MAYOR COMMENTARY No. ONE, Review of Comments

A summary of the responses by the politicians offers open-ended rhetoric with lofty goals and sweeping praise of Toledo potential. Each expounded on the need for jobs, growing the economy, offering alternative energy, and improving education; however, no one offered a platform of processes to attain such lofty goals or reach Toledo potential.

The tally by classification has (24) references stressing the qualities or lack of qualities of Toledo; because Ludeman solely focused on Mayoral qualities, “ethic”, was second followed by education. There was very little reference to infrastructure and safety, which is surprising since these are two of the major mandates of the city.

Finally, there was no mention of refuse collection or recycling even though it has been the center of debate and controversy since the refuse fee was passed 2 years ago and the refuse department is preparing to spend millions of dollars to invest in new equipment.

Tally by classification (click on image to enlarge)



Politician/Comment/Classification
Collins/Future of Toledo/Vision
Collins/Opportunity for academic, economic and cultural advancement/Growth
Collins/Join together (regionally)/Vision
Collins/Realistic goals/Vision
Collins/Location 2nd to none/Vision
Collins/Crossroads of America and Canada/Vision
Collins/Adjust from an industrial/manufacturing economy/Economy
Collins/To research, development and service economy are limitless/Economy
Collins/Excel in the areas of alternative energy and biological/pharmaceutical development./Green
Collins/Void of respect, communication and trust/Vision
Collins/Unable to partner with our neighbors/Vision
Collins/Ensure we will provide for future generations (children)/Vision
Konop/Don’t like what we see/Vision
Konop/Lead country in solar technology and manufacturing/Green
Konop/Children and displaced workers receive quality college education free/Education
Konop/Bolster work force to draw employers/Jobs
Konop/Envied by neighbors/Vision
Konop/Pass torch from “good ol’ boys” network/Ethic
Konop/Scratch each other’s backs/Ethic
Konop/Fight for Toledo/Vision
Konop/Stand up to special interests/Ethic
Konop/Make sure your voice is heard/Social
Ludeman/Encouraged by many to run, needs ½ million to run/Ethic
Ludeman/High financial cost of high profile race/Ethic
Ludeman/Toledo wants change/Vision
Ludeman/Qualities needed for mayor:/Ethic
Ludeman/Conservative, specifically – financially/Ethic
Ludeman/Allegiances should be to citizens and taxpayers/Ethic
Ludeman/Background rooted in business community/Vision
Ludeman/Run city like a business not a political team or sports team/Ethic
Ludeman/Surrounded by good staff, hard workers/Ethic
Ludeman/Delegate, not control, tempo of work force/Ethic
Ludeman/Be honest, admit mistakes, move on/Ethic
Ludeman/Have faith, treat others well/Ethic
Ludeman/Have good, solid working relationship with City Council/Ethic
Ludeman/Need “change” in City Council at next election/Ethic
Ludeman/Replace those who have proved they are self-serving/Ethic
Ludeman/Issues change with time, core values should not./Ethic
Moody/Hard working and innovative/Vision
Moody/Confront and overcome challenges/Vision
Moody/Don,t rely on Federal Government to bail us out/Vision
Moody/Listen to suggestions and recommendations of neighbors/Ethic
Moody/Jobs/Jobs
Moody/Form team to work with current economic development agencies/Growth
Moody/Create environment in which business can flourish/Business
Moody/Get out of the way of business/Business
Moody/Create right environment for growth/Growth
Moody/Promote home ownership/Social
Moody/Prevent neglect and decay of homes/Infrastructure
Moody/Promote public safety/Safety
Moody/No government subsidies to accomplish the above/Ethic
Moody/Properly manned police force/Safety
Moody/Punish criminals to discourage repeat offenses/Safety
Moody/Much to be done/Vision
Moody/Infrastructure/Infrastructure
Moody/‘Brain drain’/Social
Moody/entertainment/Social
Moody/Tourism desirability/Social
Moody/Education/Education
Moody/Public perception/Social
Moody/Population flight/Social
Sarantou/3 issues will dominate/Vision
Sarantou/Economy/Economy
Sarantou/Energy/Green
Sarantou/Education/Education
Sarantou/Toledo hit hard by economy: lost jobs, employers and wealth/Vision
Sarantou/Seize opportunity; diversify economic base and work force/Business
Sarantou/Growing reputation as solar energy hub/Vision
Sarantou/Private sector encouraged by UT/Business
Sarantou/Intensify work to become world leader in alternative energy/Green
Sarantou/Must confront education obstacles and opportunities/Education
Sarantou/Support UT efforts to support region and educate work force/Education
Sarantou/Face challenges of K-12/Education
Sarantou/Quality schools are prerequisites to future success/Education
Sarantou/Anticipate future trends/Vision
Sarantou/Willingness to take risks/Vision
Sarantou/Conviction to make difficult decisions/Ethic
Wilkowski/Running to bring jobs back to Toledo/Jobs
Wilkowski/Real plans and best team to implement/Vision
Wilkowski/Rebuild Toledo, create construction jobs/Infrastructure
Wilkowski/Re-power our homes and business with clean energy/Green
Wilkowski/Revitalize manufacturing through solar panel manufacturing/Green
Wilkowski/City has done nothing to spur growth of clean energy economy and green collar jobs/Green
Wilkowski/Economic opportunity begins with education/Education
Wilkowski/Put college in reach of everyone/Education
Wilkowski/“Owens Success” “UT Guarantee” for education/Education
Wilkowski/“Toledo Promise”/Education
Wilkowski/Every graduating public student receives tuition-free Ohio college education/Education
Wilkowski/Community where/Vision
Wilkowski/Industry wants to invest/Growth
Wilkowski/Family wants to live/Social
Wilkowski/Young people want to stay/Social

IF I WERE MAYOR, COMMENTARY NO. 2, BUSINESS, BUDGET, ETC.

Government always lags behind private industry and so Toledo has lagged in the contracts with the city employees. In the 1980’s when the US was experiencing growth and a great economy, business was generous with benefit packages and pay. So likewise, governments passed on these generous packages. However, over the past decades, businesses pulled away from the benefit packages requiring employees to pay portions of their medical plans, co-pays for doctor visits and prescriptions and eliminating retirement plans. Additionally, pay increases dropped to the point they did not even cover the increased liabilities of the employees.

As employees in the private section lost benefits, pay increases and were required to pay more into their medical programs, it became increasingly difficult to pay more in taxes. It is an unpleasant task to require concessions from employees whether in the private sector or public office; but as the private sector has made such demands, it is now time for Toledo to do the same. We can no longer sustain the contracts in place and must work to adjust them within the limits of the City budget.

One of the most common phrases repeated by candidates for office is that we must become more “business friendly”. However, there are few suggestions on how to reach that goal. Even in speaking to small business owners, it is difficult to reach a consensus other than the complaints about the number of regulations, inspections and fees, which must be paid. If we are more “business friendly”, it can be expected we would draw more business.

We also need to be "citizen friendly". Over the past four years, we have witnessed numerous punitive programs, which affects Toledoans. Rather than improve the sequencing of traffic lights to improve safety, red light cameras were install to increase revenue. Rather than focus on the essentials of the budget, a "refuse fee" was imposed to increase revenue and fines imposed against residents who put the trash out too soon. Now there is talk of a plastic bag tax to increase revenue. It is time to eliminate these and other punitive fees, cut the 3/4% temporary tax and focus on the essential services required in the Municipal Code. Eventually the economy will improve and if we work to improve our "friendliness", we will be in a position to take advantage of the improved economy.

The following suggestions are offered as a way to bring the budget into alignment to revenue, to become more business and citizen friendly and move forward for the future of Toledo:
·Business: Less regulations
·Business: Less frequent inspections
·Business: Have one office for all permits required to start a business
·Business: Make it easier to schedule inspections
·Business: Lower permit and inspection fees, eliminate unnecessary inspections
·Business: Allow more “cart” vendors along the streets approaching 5/3 Field before and after games.
·Business: Encourage more oversized signs downtown (such as in Times Square)
·Budget: Eliminate fees to generate income such as red light cameras.
·Budget: Privatize refuse collection
·Budget: End the 3/4% income tax
·Budget: Wean the Toledo Zoo off public funding, they should become self sustaining
·Budget: Stop development studies of Southwyck, the city can do nothing, it is privately owned.
·Budget: Decrease City employee benefits
o Have employees pay towards their medical benefits
o Have employees pay a co-pay for doctor visits and prescriptions
o Reduce the number of paid holidays
o Stop paying the 10% employee portion of PERZ (some progress has been made in the most recent contract negotiations, a start, but not enough)
o Reduce required City portion of PERZ payment from 14% to 10%
·Budget: Put the budget in spreadsheet form on the internet for easy analysis and review
·Budget: Hold a “fire” sale of all abandoned property
o When the home is repaired or torn down, give a $500 incentive
o Reduce permits and fees needed to demolish the building
·Budget: Bid out to the private sector the demolition of buildings
·Budget: Don’t put the name of the Mayor on Toledo signs
·Budget: Invest in a Waste to Energy form of trash disposal
·Budget: Establish and adhere to a baseline % of expenditure for the different segments of the budget
·Fire: Reevaluate the number of fireman per shift
·Fire: Eliminate the ambulance service, put it back to the private sector
·Fire: Eliminate the EMS service, put it back to the private sector
·Police: Put a cap on Command officers in the police department
·Police: Hire police from the Owens Tech police degree program
·Safety: Improve the traffic light sequencing to prevent intersection crashes
·Safety: Reinstate the Gang taskforce.
·Safety: Increase the number of speed limit signs along the highway.
·Streets: Put a list of all roads scheduled for repair on the Internet
o List estimated repair dates
o Date request was made
o Estimate cost of repair
o Show date of completion
· Streets: Have a form on the Internet that can be filled out for potholes
o Put the data on line to lessen duplication of requests
o Prioritize the repair schedule on the internet
·Streets: Study more durable construction material for roads and potholes.
·Region: Focus on 2 industries a month and work to bring them into the region.
·Region: Create an office of regional planning where businesses can communicate their needs and get assistance in finding the optimum location for their needs.
·Beautification: Ask organizations to work on the flower beds
·Beautification: Have contests with the Greenhouses in Toledo to beautify the Gateways
·Beautification: Organize youth by area to help clean their neighborhood streets.
·Government: Be customer friendly at One Government Center.

IF I WERE MAYOR, COMMENTARY No. 3, Students

The Free Press received responses from a number of High School students who listed their concerns which are classified and tallied in the example. From the list, the students most frequently mentioned social amenities, community and safety. Safety and social issues were among the lower concerns of the Politicians. The contrast equates to a disconnect between the Politicians and the students. So much has been made of “brain drain” of our youth leaving Toledo, perhaps it’s time we listen more intently to their issues.

Click on image to enlarge