What we know:
· 20 years ago, corporate executives earned 40 times the wage of the average wage earner.
· Today, corporate executives earn 400 times the wages of the average wage earner.
· 20 years ago, corporations offered full medical benefit packages to their employees with no co-pay or employee cost.
· Today, if a corporation offers medical benefits, the average wage earner pays as much as $400 per month plus co-pays for doctor visits and prescriptions.
· 20 years ago, corporations offered pension plans as a benefit to the employee.
· Today, corporations are eliminating pension plans.
· Today, corporations are granting 20% and higher pay increases to their executives while the average wage earner pay remains stagnant.
· The Federal deficit is $14 trillion and growing.
· Federal revenue has declined since the 2008 recession which is creating a call to cut social programs, i.e. Social Security, Medicare, etc. at a time when Corporations move away from offering pensions and health benefits.
· The American worker is being squeezed both in terms of pay levels and benefits.
With this in mind, it is believed revenue to the Federal government must be increased to cut the deficit and sustain a healthy budget. Tax rate increases are the option being discussed as the Federal government has more of a revenue problem then a spending problem. Corporations can take part in the solution to this problem by giving an immediate pay increase of 20% to every wage earner they employee instead of to the Corporate executive. By doing so it would resolve the following:
· With more income to spend, employees would be stimulated with a demand for goods beyond anything seen in the past 20 years. This demand would stimulate manufacturing, new housing starts, home purchases, retail sales, etc. as wage earners enjoy greater expendable income.
· This would elevate wages for the lower income workers who would enter tax brackets requiring them to pay income tax.
· The average wage earner would pay more income taxes based on the increased wages.
· With the increased tax revenue attained from the higher employee wages, there would be enough revenue to pay for our social programs, cut the deficit and balance the Federal budget.
A Call to Action:
Companies can make an investment in their future by immediately giving a 20% pay increase to their employees. This will immediately stimulate the economy, it will put billions of dollars into the market, it will increase demand for goods and services that will increase demand for output and a need for new employees. This pay increase program will have a direct positive effect on the P&L of corporations, improve the health of the nation, improve the morale of the employee and reduce the need for tax rate increases.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
George Sarantou for County Commissioner
As a business owner and financial consultant in Toledo for many years, George understands the needs of the businessman and the need for sense in managing the funds of the county. He has demonstrated great ability to work across political lines and has remained effective on City Council. He is deliberate in is decisions and approaches problems with finesse and thorough analysis before reaching a conclusion. It would be a loss to Toledo City Council should George be elected County Commissioner, but we need to end the nonsense we experience in the Commissioner’s office with a person who has demonstrated his ability as a statesman who more concerned with the welfare of the community than his achievements as a politician.
Tom Waniewski for State Senate
Our State Government has spent years addressing social issues but what we need now is a dynamic statesman who has the experience in business to push our State Government in the direction of business building. Tom has been that voice on City Council during his tenure and has done so with a creative, consensus-building attitude with quiet resolve and imaginative compromise. This is exactly the type of leadership we need representing us at the State level. Tom goes beyond being a “politician”, rather he is as close to a “statesman” as we have had the privilege of electing in recent years. Though his leadership and sensible approach on City Council will be greatly missed, it is exactly what we need representing us in Columbus.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
LUCAS COUNTY AUDITOR - THE BLADE HAS THROWN US UNDER THE BUS
The Blade has thrown the residents of Toledo under the bus with their endorsement of Kaczala for Lucas County Auditor. During the reign of the Kaczalas in the Lucas County Auditors office, in 1998 a Blade Editorial commented, “So extensive is the nepotism, so pervasive in Larry Kaczala’s domain is the hiring of friends, relatives of friends, and in-laws, that every week is old-home week… The stink emanating from the auditor’s office is of government jobs being doled out as favors and paybacks to family and Republican insiders. … No wonder minority employment is so low there.”
When Kaczala was defeated in 2006, the transition was stymied by his demand that his wife, the current Republican Candidate, and his brother-in-law be guaranteed continued positions in the office. When Lopez stated, “she will not make deals to ensure staff are guaranteed positions”, the Kaczala response was "She can have the keys March 13”, (Blade article 1/9/07). Rather than assist in the transition, the Kaczalas unionized the 20 mid-management employees to protect employee jobs; hired additional relatives to temporary positions; and granted pay increases. This took place after the election between December 2006 and March 2007.
Quoted from the Blade endorsement 10/4/10, “Ms. Kaczala has a deep knowledge of the auditor’s office; she worked there for more than two decades”. But when it was time for the transition of the office beginning March 13, 2007, Ms.Kaczala refused to report to work to use her expertise to the benefit of the residents of Toledo to assist in a smooth transition. And, finally, after a couple weeks of absence, left a voice mail message that she quit.
These actions were vindictive, unprofessional and harmful to the residents of Toledo. A person who considers herself an integral member of the office has a responsibility to assist in any way to transition the staff and help maintain consistency rather than unceremoniously desert her position. It speaks poorly of her character and work ethic.
Toledo deserves better. In the two years since Lopez took office, fiscal and administrative responsibility and management have improved and we have witnessed the transition of the Lucas County Auditor’s office from a hostile environment to a advocate for citizen’s rights.
For supporting reference material go to: Lucas County Auditor Info
When Kaczala was defeated in 2006, the transition was stymied by his demand that his wife, the current Republican Candidate, and his brother-in-law be guaranteed continued positions in the office. When Lopez stated, “she will not make deals to ensure staff are guaranteed positions”, the Kaczala response was "She can have the keys March 13”, (Blade article 1/9/07). Rather than assist in the transition, the Kaczalas unionized the 20 mid-management employees to protect employee jobs; hired additional relatives to temporary positions; and granted pay increases. This took place after the election between December 2006 and March 2007.
Quoted from the Blade endorsement 10/4/10, “Ms. Kaczala has a deep knowledge of the auditor’s office; she worked there for more than two decades”. But when it was time for the transition of the office beginning March 13, 2007, Ms.Kaczala refused to report to work to use her expertise to the benefit of the residents of Toledo to assist in a smooth transition. And, finally, after a couple weeks of absence, left a voice mail message that she quit.
These actions were vindictive, unprofessional and harmful to the residents of Toledo. A person who considers herself an integral member of the office has a responsibility to assist in any way to transition the staff and help maintain consistency rather than unceremoniously desert her position. It speaks poorly of her character and work ethic.
Toledo deserves better. In the two years since Lopez took office, fiscal and administrative responsibility and management have improved and we have witnessed the transition of the Lucas County Auditor’s office from a hostile environment to a advocate for citizen’s rights.
For supporting reference material go to: Lucas County Auditor Info
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Trashing Toledo over Trash Collection
The previous Mayor and the current Mayor are trashing Toledo over trash collection, we have been under siege for 5 years and it is reaching of level of ridiculous. Here are the travails of Toledo trash as it has evolved:
Former Mayor:
· Eliminated recycle programs, as they were expensive and useless.
· Fined if trash put to the line before 7:00 p.m. (he thought it unattractive)
· Pick ups moved from alleys to streets (alleys were too cluttered but he would not clean them)
· Collection routes consolidated, employees cut
· "Leap forward" program initiated to eliminate Saturday pick ups after holidays
· Automated trash collection equipment purchased to replace old, antiquated trucks and further reduce crews. Now one-man crews rather than 3 man crews
· 2007 added trash "fee" in budget
· Council approved the "fee".
· Extolled the fee as a way to increase recycling from residents.
· Extolled the fee as a way to maintain our "Cadillac service"
· 2008, Council moved the "fee" from the budget to an ordinance.
Current Mayor
· Raised the refuse "fee" to bump up the general fund coffers
· Council approved the increase.
· Said he would discard "Leap forward" program, too confusing, but has not, we continue to live with color coded calendars.
· Residents must call for bulk pick up (24 hours in advance changed to 72 hours notice,)
· Proposed change to bulk pick up per quarter only, $50 fee for additional
· No longer pick up bulk trash from evictions sites.
· Proposed $300 fine for overfilling refuse bins
· Allow residents to purchase another bin for $75; however may incur an additional fee for pick up.
· Proposed a fine if a resident says they recycle but they do not
Since passage of the trash "fee", the amount of the fee has been a moving target adjusted to reconcile a bloated general budget, which is out of control. These are the expenditures for trash in years 2004 through 2008:
· $10,324,386/ 2004 Expenditure
· $10,840,653/ 2005 Expenditure
· $11,348,331/ 2006 Expenditure
· $11,716,547/ 2007 Expenditure
· $11,348,181/ 2008 Budget
Where is the justification for the fees charged for trash in addition to the income taxes paid into the general fund? Resolve the budget, not with more taxes, fees and fines; but through hard decisions, which must be made. The current direction of this Administration as with the previous Administration is trashing Toledo over trash collection.
Former Mayor:
· Eliminated recycle programs, as they were expensive and useless.
· Fined if trash put to the line before 7:00 p.m. (he thought it unattractive)
· Pick ups moved from alleys to streets (alleys were too cluttered but he would not clean them)
· Collection routes consolidated, employees cut
· "Leap forward" program initiated to eliminate Saturday pick ups after holidays
· Automated trash collection equipment purchased to replace old, antiquated trucks and further reduce crews. Now one-man crews rather than 3 man crews
· 2007 added trash "fee" in budget
· Council approved the "fee".
· Extolled the fee as a way to increase recycling from residents.
· Extolled the fee as a way to maintain our "Cadillac service"
· 2008, Council moved the "fee" from the budget to an ordinance.
Current Mayor
· Raised the refuse "fee" to bump up the general fund coffers
· Council approved the increase.
· Said he would discard "Leap forward" program, too confusing, but has not, we continue to live with color coded calendars.
· Residents must call for bulk pick up (24 hours in advance changed to 72 hours notice,)
· Proposed change to bulk pick up per quarter only, $50 fee for additional
· No longer pick up bulk trash from evictions sites.
· Proposed $300 fine for overfilling refuse bins
· Allow residents to purchase another bin for $75; however may incur an additional fee for pick up.
· Proposed a fine if a resident says they recycle but they do not
Since passage of the trash "fee", the amount of the fee has been a moving target adjusted to reconcile a bloated general budget, which is out of control. These are the expenditures for trash in years 2004 through 2008:
· $10,324,386/ 2004 Expenditure
· $10,840,653/ 2005 Expenditure
· $11,348,331/ 2006 Expenditure
· $11,716,547/ 2007 Expenditure
· $11,348,181/ 2008 Budget
Where is the justification for the fees charged for trash in addition to the income taxes paid into the general fund? Resolve the budget, not with more taxes, fees and fines; but through hard decisions, which must be made. The current direction of this Administration as with the previous Administration is trashing Toledo over trash collection.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Class Action - Take Action
Contact Common Pleas Court and let them know you believe 100,000 residences being billed for the trash tax should be included in the lawsuit... just let them know..
Common Pleas Phone # is: 419-213-4484
CASE: G -4801 -CI -200802348-000
For questions contact:
Scott Ciolek, Attorney, 419-491-7270
Common Pleas Phone # is: 419-213-4484
CASE: G -4801 -CI -200802348-000
For questions contact:
Scott Ciolek, Attorney, 419-491-7270
Citizen Advisory - Trash Tax and Class Action
There are two issues regarding the refuse fee and this Citizen’s Advisory is an alert to all residents of Toledo who pay the fee. It is to address the request for class action, which was denied once, but will be heard again by the Common Pleas Court. Would you want to be included if the “fee” is determined to be illegal?
Let me start with some numbers:
* $28,000,000 – revenue received or projected from the Trash Tax in 3.5 years
* 100,000 –approximate number of residences being bill quarterly for the Trash tax.
* 122 – number of residents identified who protested the fee to the Dept. of Public Utilities.
* 50 – number of protest letters the City can find.
* 1 – number of persons included at this point by Common Pleas Court in the class action.
Let’s say a robber robbed a bank and got away to ½ a million dollars. As he flees the scene, a local citizen stops the thief who is then arrested and the money is recovered. Now the citizen had a checking account with the bank with $500 in it, and the courts tell him, you get your money back because you caught the thief, but the other 5000 investors whose money was stolen… they don’t get their money back because they didn’t catch the thief, in fact, the thief gets to keep the rest of the money.
Preposterous, ridiculous, you say!
Well, it’s happening with the request for class action in this lawsuit.
The original decision by the court was that only those who file a formal protest could be included.
In essence we did that on behalf of everyone when we filed the lawsuit 2 years ago. It was to serve as the official protest against the tax and read as follows (CASE: G -4801 -CI -200802348-000):
1. This class action seeks … compensatory damages, …. a preliminary and permanent injunction, …. for unjust enrichment due to Defendant’s wrongful taxation of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s class by administratively approving an additional tax to collect refuse without the approval of Toledo City Council and without the approval of voters by referendum as this is a tax on property owners.
8. On information and belief, Plaintiffs’ class includes over 100,000 housing units, but this class is limited only to those who pay this tax.
9. This action is properly maintained as a class action because in all pertinent aspects the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals have predominately identical claims.
10. This tax is not completely identical for all members of the Plaintiffs’ class because some individuals own multiple unit apartment buildings, and some individuals receive a discount for recycling.
11. Each member of the Plaintiffs’ class is required to pay this tax or face the following penalties by the city: (1) terminate water service; (2) forward the account to an outside collection agency; (3) transfer the delinquency to any other property owned by the account holder; (4) bring an action at law for collection; (5) or place a lien on the property.
What constitutes class action? As defined by © 1999 Timothy E. Eble: Standards For Class Certification Under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure: A Concise Summary http://www.classactionlitigation.net/library/ohio.html
Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) contains five explicit requirements that must each be satisfied when seeking class certification.
First, the plaintiff must establish that an identifiable class actually exists
Second, the named representatives must be members of that class
* Thereafter, the plaintiff must demonstrate:
a) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
b) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;
c) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class;
d) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class;
e) Common questions predominate over questions effecting only individual members; and, that a class action is superior to other available methods of resolving the claims.
The City has already demonstrated they are unable to record and maintain protests submitted by concerned residents. When I asked for copies of protests received in an open records request, they sent 54 protests letters; of those 9 matched emails received stating a protest was filed; however, there were no letters for an additional 68 protesters who notified us they had filed.
One must conclude it is obvious that class action is necessary to ensure everyone is included according to point
a): the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable
If the City cannot account for 68 protest letters we know exist, how many more were submitted that just disappeared? How would the city manage 100,000 protests?
We residents of Toledo must stand up and make our will known, class action is essential to ensure the city does not profit from this illegal tax. They must be held accountable.
As the thief who robs a bank, we would never allow him to keep his booty, so likewise we must demand the same decision for a government who blatantly disregarded the Ohio Revised Code when it legislated this tax.
I suggest further that every resident of Ohio should watch the case and brace himself if the courts do not rule in favor of residents of Toledo, for as Toledo goes, so likewise will other desperate governments of Ohio as this is easy revenue with no limits.
Take action now, quickly and with conviction as the Courts are soon to rule on class action. I suggest you call the Common Pleas Court and ask that every resident be included in the class action.
Common Pleas Phone # is: 419-213-4484
CASE: G -4801 -CI -200802348-000
For questions contact:
Scott Ciolek, Attorney, 419-491-7270
Let me start with some numbers:
* $28,000,000 – revenue received or projected from the Trash Tax in 3.5 years
* 100,000 –approximate number of residences being bill quarterly for the Trash tax.
* 122 – number of residents identified who protested the fee to the Dept. of Public Utilities.
* 50 – number of protest letters the City can find.
* 1 – number of persons included at this point by Common Pleas Court in the class action.
Let’s say a robber robbed a bank and got away to ½ a million dollars. As he flees the scene, a local citizen stops the thief who is then arrested and the money is recovered. Now the citizen had a checking account with the bank with $500 in it, and the courts tell him, you get your money back because you caught the thief, but the other 5000 investors whose money was stolen… they don’t get their money back because they didn’t catch the thief, in fact, the thief gets to keep the rest of the money.
Preposterous, ridiculous, you say!
Well, it’s happening with the request for class action in this lawsuit.
The original decision by the court was that only those who file a formal protest could be included.
In essence we did that on behalf of everyone when we filed the lawsuit 2 years ago. It was to serve as the official protest against the tax and read as follows (CASE: G -4801 -CI -200802348-000):
1. This class action seeks … compensatory damages, …. a preliminary and permanent injunction, …. for unjust enrichment due to Defendant’s wrongful taxation of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s class by administratively approving an additional tax to collect refuse without the approval of Toledo City Council and without the approval of voters by referendum as this is a tax on property owners.
8. On information and belief, Plaintiffs’ class includes over 100,000 housing units, but this class is limited only to those who pay this tax.
9. This action is properly maintained as a class action because in all pertinent aspects the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals have predominately identical claims.
10. This tax is not completely identical for all members of the Plaintiffs’ class because some individuals own multiple unit apartment buildings, and some individuals receive a discount for recycling.
11. Each member of the Plaintiffs’ class is required to pay this tax or face the following penalties by the city: (1) terminate water service; (2) forward the account to an outside collection agency; (3) transfer the delinquency to any other property owned by the account holder; (4) bring an action at law for collection; (5) or place a lien on the property.
What constitutes class action? As defined by © 1999 Timothy E. Eble: Standards For Class Certification Under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure: A Concise Summary http://www.classactionlitigation.net/library/ohio.html
Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) contains five explicit requirements that must each be satisfied when seeking class certification.
First, the plaintiff must establish that an identifiable class actually exists
Second, the named representatives must be members of that class
* Thereafter, the plaintiff must demonstrate:
a) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
b) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;
c) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class;
d) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class;
e) Common questions predominate over questions effecting only individual members; and, that a class action is superior to other available methods of resolving the claims.
The City has already demonstrated they are unable to record and maintain protests submitted by concerned residents. When I asked for copies of protests received in an open records request, they sent 54 protests letters; of those 9 matched emails received stating a protest was filed; however, there were no letters for an additional 68 protesters who notified us they had filed.
One must conclude it is obvious that class action is necessary to ensure everyone is included according to point
a): the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable
If the City cannot account for 68 protest letters we know exist, how many more were submitted that just disappeared? How would the city manage 100,000 protests?
We residents of Toledo must stand up and make our will known, class action is essential to ensure the city does not profit from this illegal tax. They must be held accountable.
As the thief who robs a bank, we would never allow him to keep his booty, so likewise we must demand the same decision for a government who blatantly disregarded the Ohio Revised Code when it legislated this tax.
I suggest further that every resident of Ohio should watch the case and brace himself if the courts do not rule in favor of residents of Toledo, for as Toledo goes, so likewise will other desperate governments of Ohio as this is easy revenue with no limits.
Take action now, quickly and with conviction as the Courts are soon to rule on class action. I suggest you call the Common Pleas Court and ask that every resident be included in the class action.
Common Pleas Phone # is: 419-213-4484
CASE: G -4801 -CI -200802348-000
For questions contact:
Scott Ciolek, Attorney, 419-491-7270
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Refuse Fee and Prompt Response
At this juncture, I want to know how many residents of Toledo filed the protest against the refuse fee enacted by the City of Toledo, so I made a couple phone calls to City Hall and asked for the correct contact for such a request. Several calls later, people in meetings, or the responder did not know, I email the request to the following public servants. I realize it will take a few days to assemble the information, but I would like an acknowledgement that this request was received. However, no one has responded.
I also made a few phone calls to find out what happened to the protest letters as they were received and I was told by a reliable source that they were sent in bundles of 10 or 20 at a time and as of last year, they were more than 200 received. I continue to wait for a response.
Karen Shanahan
to
steve.herwat@toledo.oh.gov,
david.welch@toledo.oh.gov,
thomas.crothers@toledo.oh.gov,
jeffrey.pax@toledo.oh.gov,
amy.wood@toledo.oh.gov,
clarence.coleman@toledo.oh.gov,
jane.boone@toledo.oh.gov,
carmen.watkins@toledo.oh.gov,
doris.dvorack@toledo.oh.gov
date
Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 12:17 PM
subjectRequest for Public Records
April 20, 2010
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
This is a request for public records related to the Refuse Fee, Toledo, OH. I am requesting a complete list with the names, addresses, telephone numbers and date of protest which have been filed by residents of Toledo since the enactment of the fee by the City of Toledo of Ohio on or about April 28, 2007 to the present date. Specifically:
"the protests opposing: the City of Toledo, enacted Sections 208-210, of Appendix B, Rules and Regulations Issued by the Director of Public Service, Regulations Governing
Refuse Collection, under the authority of T.M.C. § 963.23 and Section 104 of the Toledo City Charter, to go into effect May 28, 2007. Section 208, entitled “Fees,” states the following: For the collection of refuse from any dwelling, building or other property permitted her within these regulations.."
If a list is not readily available, please scan and email copies of all protests to the Refuse fee to: Shanahanselect@gmail.com. Please utilize the quickest method possible.
It is requested all protests be provided under the “open records” regulations in a timely, fast manner.
Thank you
Karen Shanahan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
from
Karen Shanahan
to
steve.herwat@toledo.oh.gov,
david.welch@toledo.oh.gov,
thomas.crothers@toledo.oh.gov,
jeffrey.pax@toledo.oh.gov,
amy.wood@toledo.oh.gov,
clarence.coleman@toledo.oh.gov,
jane.boone@toledo.oh.gov,
carmen.watkins@toledo.oh.gov,
doris.dvorack@toledo.oh.gov
date
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:17 PM
subject Re: Request for Public Records
I have not received confirmation of this request. Would someone please advise the following:
Who will handle the request
Time frame for completing the request
Format that will be used for providing the information; i.e.
List of protests on spreadsheet with details requested in the initial email
Copies of all requests via pdf file emailed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
from
Karen Shanahan
to
steve.herwat@toledo.oh.gov,
david.welch@toledo.oh.gov,
thomas.crothers@toledo.oh.gov,
jeffrey.pax@toledo.oh.gov,
amy.wood@toledo.oh.gov,
clarence.coleman@toledo.oh.gov,
jane.boone@toledo.oh.gov,
carmen.watkins@toledo.oh.gov,
doris.dvorack@toledo.oh.gov
date
Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 3:06 PM
subject
Re: Request for Public Records
Dear Public Servants,
I am again requesting a response to this request. I realize our City Goverment employees are busy and the time to complete the request may take several days, I am only asking (now for the 2nd time) for the following information on the records request so I can plan accordingly. Please respond:
Who will handle the request
Time frame for completing the request
Format that will be used for providing the information; i.e.
List of protests on spreadsheet with details requested in the initial email
Copies of all requests via pdf file emailed
I also made a few phone calls to find out what happened to the protest letters as they were received and I was told by a reliable source that they were sent in bundles of 10 or 20 at a time and as of last year, they were more than 200 received. I continue to wait for a response.
Karen Shanahan
to
steve.herwat@toledo.oh.gov,
david.welch@toledo.oh.gov,
thomas.crothers@toledo.oh.gov,
jeffrey.pax@toledo.oh.gov,
amy.wood@toledo.oh.gov,
clarence.coleman@toledo.oh.gov,
jane.boone@toledo.oh.gov,
carmen.watkins@toledo.oh.gov,
doris.dvorack@toledo.oh.gov
date
Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 12:17 PM
subjectRequest for Public Records
April 20, 2010
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
This is a request for public records related to the Refuse Fee, Toledo, OH. I am requesting a complete list with the names, addresses, telephone numbers and date of protest which have been filed by residents of Toledo since the enactment of the fee by the City of Toledo of Ohio on or about April 28, 2007 to the present date. Specifically:
"the protests opposing: the City of Toledo, enacted Sections 208-210, of Appendix B, Rules and Regulations Issued by the Director of Public Service, Regulations Governing
Refuse Collection, under the authority of T.M.C. § 963.23 and Section 104 of the Toledo City Charter, to go into effect May 28, 2007. Section 208, entitled “Fees,” states the following: For the collection of refuse from any dwelling, building or other property permitted her within these regulations.."
If a list is not readily available, please scan and email copies of all protests to the Refuse fee to: Shanahanselect@gmail.com. Please utilize the quickest method possible.
It is requested all protests be provided under the “open records” regulations in a timely, fast manner.
Thank you
Karen Shanahan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
from
Karen Shanahan
to
steve.herwat@toledo.oh.gov,
david.welch@toledo.oh.gov,
thomas.crothers@toledo.oh.gov,
jeffrey.pax@toledo.oh.gov,
amy.wood@toledo.oh.gov,
clarence.coleman@toledo.oh.gov,
jane.boone@toledo.oh.gov,
carmen.watkins@toledo.oh.gov,
doris.dvorack@toledo.oh.gov
date
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:17 PM
subject Re: Request for Public Records
I have not received confirmation of this request. Would someone please advise the following:
Who will handle the request
Time frame for completing the request
Format that will be used for providing the information; i.e.
List of protests on spreadsheet with details requested in the initial email
Copies of all requests via pdf file emailed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
from
Karen Shanahan
to
steve.herwat@toledo.oh.gov,
david.welch@toledo.oh.gov,
thomas.crothers@toledo.oh.gov,
jeffrey.pax@toledo.oh.gov,
amy.wood@toledo.oh.gov,
clarence.coleman@toledo.oh.gov,
jane.boone@toledo.oh.gov,
carmen.watkins@toledo.oh.gov,
doris.dvorack@toledo.oh.gov
date
Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 3:06 PM
subject
Re: Request for Public Records
Dear Public Servants,
I am again requesting a response to this request. I realize our City Goverment employees are busy and the time to complete the request may take several days, I am only asking (now for the 2nd time) for the following information on the records request so I can plan accordingly. Please respond:
Who will handle the request
Time frame for completing the request
Format that will be used for providing the information; i.e.
List of protests on spreadsheet with details requested in the initial email
Copies of all requests via pdf file emailed
Monday, February 22, 2010
Reciprocity vs. Regionalism
There is a great deal of conversation about Regionalism in government, is it
not time for Residential Regionalism?
To eliminate the reciprocity agreement would be very harmful to Toledo. It would be a determining factor to those who may want to live in Toledo even though they work outside our city. In all the comments about the residents who work outside Toledo , nothing is said about the thousands who work in Toledo but live outside the city. Their payroll taxes are paid to the place of employment not the place of residency. Toledo gets it all.
Have we reached a point in this region that the place of employment will dictate the place of residency? Where is Residential Regionalism?
Additionally, there was the option of adding 1/4 per cent temporary increase to the income tax for voter approval, or take the option to end reciprocity. Once again the choice is
Taxation through the stroke of the pen,,, instead of
Taxation through the stroke of the vote.
not time for Residential Regionalism?
To eliminate the reciprocity agreement would be very harmful to Toledo. It would be a determining factor to those who may want to live in Toledo even though they work outside our city. In all the comments about the residents who work outside Toledo , nothing is said about the thousands who work in Toledo but live outside the city. Their payroll taxes are paid to the place of employment not the place of residency. Toledo gets it all.
Have we reached a point in this region that the place of employment will dictate the place of residency? Where is Residential Regionalism?
Additionally, there was the option of adding 1/4 per cent temporary increase to the income tax for voter approval, or take the option to end reciprocity. Once again the choice is
Taxation through the stroke of the pen,,, instead of
Taxation through the stroke of the vote.
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.
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?
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… “
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.
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.
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)