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?
Friday, October 30, 2009
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… “
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)