Toledo Talk

Molsonator Supports .25 percent Toledo Income Tax

I, Molsonator, am putting my full support behind the .25% Income Tax Levy. As a Maumee resident who pays zero taxes to Toledo - I believe it is important to fix the roads (the hole on 13th street is not a hole rather a large part of the street is missing) in Toledo. Plus, its your money not mine. Don't disappoint me Toledo. Vote "yes, take our money" on Tuesday.

created by Molsonator on Mar 11, 2016 at 12:58:23 pm
updated by Molsonator on Mar 12, 2016 at 10:45:24 am
    Comments: 61

source      versions      2 people liked this


Comments ... #

Fixing roads is one of the fundamental tasks they are already suppose to be doing with the revenue they generate. If they aren't able to do that, they need to analyze their budget and figure out where it was misspent, not ask for more money to make up for their shortsightedness.

posted by Johio83 on Mar 11, 2016 at 01:43:39 pm     #   9 people liked this

This new income tax revenue stream will repair Toledo's streets.

And the traffic enforcement cameras exist for safety reasons.

The temporary illegal refuse fee tax will expire in 2008.

If you recycle, then you will not have to pay the permanent illegal refuse fee tax.

I have no idea why anyone would be skeptical of city government's version of the truth.

Nearly 10 years ago, Democrat Toledo city councilman Frank Szollosi said about Toledo's continual population loss:

"It's an indication that taxes are too high in Toledo."

Oh Frank, you negative nelly.

UrbanDictionary.com : Detroitification

Detroitification refers to the destruction of a city, state or nation through draining money from hardworking individuals to pay for the cushy compensation and retirement of unproductive public "servants."

posted by jr on Mar 11, 2016 at 02:14:38 pm     #   10 people liked this

I'm sure it will pass seeing that a lot of voters won't have to pay the tax since they are retired or on public assistance.

I love how PHH was speaking at a senior citizen center earlier this week encouraging them to vote yes on the tax. Why wouldn't they? They aren't going to have to pay the tax.

This is a good way to discourage businesses from operating in the city limit as well.

posted by classylady on Mar 11, 2016 at 11:41:42 pm     #   1 person liked this

PHH can't stand face to face with the working class people who are going to pay the increase. Her and her review committee can pound sand. If this increase passes, it will open floodgates for further tax increases down the line. City Salaries have increased 13.6 Million in just 2 years time. 6 out of the 9 union contracts will be up for renewal in the next 3 years. I'm thinking unions want some kind of pay increase for supporting PH2 in the election. IMO, these increases are unsustainable to the bottom line of the city budget. More taxes will just mean less businesses coming into the city and more people leaving Toledo. Welcome to Toledo, the next Detroit.

posted by WestToledoan on Mar 12, 2016 at 02:34:53 am     #   2 people liked this

There is something deeply troubling when a (strong) Mayor needs to appoint a citizens oversight committee to assure that tax funds will be administered properly. The rollout, the presentation of this effort was flawed from the git-go. She emerged the victor from a multi candidate field by the numbers and dollars of organized labor orchestrated by the state Democratic party as a must win contest. That seems to have been done from Columbus with no regard for what was best for the people of Toledo. The clumsy, perfidious management of the issue is cause alone for rejecting the request. It would appear a higher caliber of advisers should be enlisted, starting with a one way bus ticket back to Columbus for her former campaign manager, a non-native of Toledo. What a loss to have Officer Collin's dream of a compassionate city hit the rocks so soon. This issue requires an immediate no with the anticipated foresight of past performance another no will be required in November.

posted by Mariner on Mar 12, 2016 at 08:20:26 am     #   4 people liked this

Blade story that Mariner alluded to above:

Mar 12, 2016 - Mayor names 7 as monitors of how Issue 2 money spent

And we need about 150,000 people to monitor the monitors.

Even if the issue 2 scam is defeated on Tuesday, then the city can play their ace card, which is the illegal refuse fee tax that was implemented in the spring of 2007.

Back in the winter or last fall, the city had planned to increase the illegal refuse fee tax by nearly double. But this has been put on hold, pending the outcome of Tuesday's vote.

It was put on hold because if the issue 2 scam is defeated, then the city can triple or quadruple the illegal refuse fee tax. It might not bring in as much money as an increase in the income tax, but it's still more money. Then the issue 2 scam would be back on the ballot in the fall. If the income tax increase passes in the fall, the illegal refuse fee tax remains.

The city could make out better in the long run if the above scenario plays out.

This is why the "refuse fee" is an illegal tax. Toledoans cannot vote on it. The city can increase this tax anytime that it wants and by whatever amount it wants.

Fees and assessments are polite words for taxes, anyway.

From today's Blade story:

City council committed to devote to residential street repair $16.6 million of the additional $18.6 million that the 0.25-percent boost is expected to generate this year. The remainder would go to the general fund.

My prediction is that over the years, the amount that goes to the general fund will increase, eventually leaving little for street repair, which will require a new type of income or property tax, unless something is written in stone that guarantees that 90% of this new revenue is always devoted to street repair.

Related to WestToledoan's comment above:

Mar 11, 2016 - Toledo Blade - Councilman urges mayor to freeze city workers’ pay

That would be District 5 Councilman Tom Waniewski.

Toledo's general fund budget has increased $13.63 million in two years.

The cost for general fund salaries was $152.69 million in 2014. It is projected to be $166.32 million this year, according to the mayor’s proposed budget.

“Additionally, a proposal to rearrange the Department of Public Utilities staff will result in a 7 percent increase in wages if approved,” [Tom] wrote. “In the next 18 months, six of the city’s nine bargaining units’ contracts will be up for renewal.”

The mayor has spent weeks urging retirees in Toledo to vote yes on the tax.

Mr. Waniewski said he wanted the mayor to remember Toledo’s working families.

“It’s time to champion the efforts of those hard-working families,” he wrote. “After all, they will bear the brunt of the proposed income tax increase. Last year, Lucas County raised sales taxes making the rate one of the highest in the region. Issue 2 has the potential to be a double whammy on working families.”

And this might be one of the dumbest thoughts that any Toledo politician has expressed ever:

Mayor Hicks-Hudson said she wants to make Toledo more efficient.

Toledo government and efficiency have never been partnered, at least in the time that I have lived here.

Definitely vote NO on the Issue 2 scam, especially since the Blade editorial board endorsed a yes vote.

The editorial board that's part of a fading industry and has it's "business" propped up by other businesses is unqualified to speak about tax increases.

And how many of the editorial board members even live in Toledo?

posted by jr on Mar 12, 2016 at 09:04:53 am     #   5 people liked this

I wish I COULD vote no on this scam. I live in Sylvania Township, but work in Toledo. Which means I pay City of Toledo income tax. That's fine, I don't have a problem with that. I use Toledo city provided services , streets ,etc in my business.

What frustrates me is that I am not permitted to vote on this issue because I'm not a Toledo city resident.

The powers to be claim that the proposed increase is subject to a vote by the taxpayers. That is NOT TRUE. Only city residents can vote on it. There are plenty of tax payers like myself who pay this tax, but aren't given the opportunity to vote on the increase because we don't live in the city.

posted by foodie88 on Mar 12, 2016 at 10:51:22 am     #   6 people liked this

Voted against as usual.

Toledo voters usually are foolish enough to vote themselves higher taxes. It has been disgusting having to watch PH2 lie to the elderly so some of them vote for it.

posted by 6th_Floor on Mar 12, 2016 at 12:54:20 pm     #   4 people liked this

I could see myself MAYBE voting for the additional .25 percent tax under the following conditions:

1. It was a truly temporary tax for a set period of time;
2. The city used the money only for repairing roads and infrastructure, as these items were slashed in the post-2007 financial downturn years to reduce the city's deficits; and
3. The city used the money to hire private contractors to fix roads instead of loading up by hiring permanent city personnel and/or paying out OT to city workers (thus reducing the aggregate amount of road and bridge repair that can be achieved).

However, none of these conditions are in the realm of the possible. With the high turnout for the presidential primary, I would be surprised if voters turned this down.

A few predictions:

  • My "no" vote will probably be drowned out by approximately two "yes" votes.
  • There will be a flurry of road projects in the first year or so, but in the long run less than half of this new tax revenue will actually go toward road repair and maintenance.
  • Within 10 years another .25 percent tax hike will be "needed" to plug budget holes, though a new "crisis" will be used to attempt to justify the hike.

posted by historymike on Mar 12, 2016 at 01:44:45 pm     #   6 people liked this

I, Mad Jack, am joining Molsonator down at the bar in putting my full support behind the .25% Income Tax Levy. I'm a resident of Sylvania Township, and this levy won't cost me a dime. Moreover, I'm much too sagacious and erudite to reside in a city that elects mental midgets like PH2 as mayor, and that elite cadre of buffoons that refer to themselves as the Toledo City Council.

Well, two, maybe two and a half have a clue. The rest? They are all living proof that two heads aren't any better than one.

I, by the way, entertain no illusions that any roads will be fixed with the additional tax money. I'm just hoping that the residents will revolt and elect representatives that have a clue. Even half a clue.

posted by madjack on Mar 12, 2016 at 02:57:00 pm     #   2 people liked this

We now have an ostentation.

posted by Molsonator on Mar 12, 2016 at 03:10:20 pm     #  

I'll save my key strokes on the matter since the vast majority of moron voters in Tole-duh! will undoubtedly approve more taxes on those of us who actually pay them.

Mariner, you sent me to the dictionary - not something I need often do - to look up "perfidious". Thank you for that.

posted by Foodie on Mar 12, 2016 at 03:21:13 pm     #   1 person liked this

Toledo population:

1970 383,818
1980 354,635 −7.6%
1990 332,943 −6.1%
2000 313,619 −5.8%
2010 287,208 −8.4%
Est. 2014 281,031 −2.2%

Taxes may not be the only reason people are "voting with their feet," but you can be damn sure it is part of the reason.

As for PHH, I withheld judgment (against my better judgment) after Mike Collins death on hope she would rise to the level I expect of a mayor. Nope. She's the usual union bootlick.

posted by oldhometown on Mar 12, 2016 at 05:03:39 pm     #   4 people liked this

JR and HM have nailed this. Even if this is defeated this time, they WILL find an increase somewhere. City government will never get the message that they need to trim the fat and find the money somewhere else. Never.

What are the stats on the number and cost of city employees relative to the population? I would venture a guess that the ratio of employees and compensation is way out of whack to population, given the rise of one and the decline of the other.

I am overjoyed I no longer live in Toledo and I truly do feel for those that live there. It's a great city being ruined by it's government.

posted by JoeyGee on Mar 12, 2016 at 08:47:53 pm     #  

Yes, Toledo please fix the roads. I paid my share when living in Toledo and working there.

Yet, Toledo Municipal Court is owed $23 million dollars in unpaid criminal and traffic fines as of 2014, When the fines are paid, the money is divided into several different categories benefitting: the courts, Toledo's General Fun. Also does anyone know how much is owed in unpaid real estate taxes, some property taxes have not been collected for 10 years, yet nothing is done, some of that money goes to the general fund also. There should be a running total on Aeries showing how much is owed.

You don't have a money problem, you have an administrative problem of people that are unwilling to do what is necessary. http://www.wtol.com/story/25571560/special-report-unpaid-city-fines

posted by Nyse on Mar 13, 2016 at 12:04:48 am     #   1 person liked this

I can't believe they are calling this a "temporary tax" I've lived in Toledo since 84 and this "temporary tax" was around then and who knows how long before that. Over 3 decades later and it's still around and they are asking for another temporary tax increase. When will this end? We already have one of the highest income tax and real estate tax rates in the state.

It pisses me off that PHH is out promoting this tax increase to senior citizens who won't have to pay it. Of course people are going to vote for a tax that won't cost them a penny.

I'm sure the city will use that money in two years to pay for big salary increases and be asking for more tax money and/or leaving the roads in bad shape again.

posted by jamesteroh on Mar 13, 2016 at 12:12:13 am     #   1 person liked this

Interesting points all around. I just finished reading PHH's editorial today. While I'm pretty dubious of the powers that be, and their accountability/ reliability-It is very strange the The State of Ohio cut funding by 75%. I'm not sure this justifies continually pillaging the general fund. This feels very much like what has happened with school districts losing funding and needing to replace it with levies.

So-questions-If anyone has any insight-a) is this sort a result from Kasich's budgetary practices? B) have other cities felt a similar crunch? C) I would assume if Ohio was pulling funding, they would have had communication with each of the city governments, particularly if their intention was to pass the spending down to the local level? D) finally, and I know this has been discussed before-what is the estimated cost of annual road maintenance and infrastructure rebuilding that is really needed? The money she's looking for seems to only replace missing money-doesn't it stand to reason that if you really want to get ahead of this and truly fix things, you'd communicate what it would cost, year after year. This is another band aid for a problem her predecessors created.

posted by ahmahler on Mar 13, 2016 at 03:29:01 pm     #  

If the city wants to make more money in income tax revenue, it should make itself more business-friendly. More employers = more employees being taxed = more $$.

I live in Toledo but work a professional part-time job in a suburb. Every April I have to send the city a check to make up for Toledo's higher income tax rate. OK, fine. But if the rate goes any higher, according to the tax forms, I will be "required" to make quarterly tax payments, because I am right at the city's $tax-owed threshold. A private citizen who works part time has to pay quarterly taxes? I don't have time for that hassle. Super annoying. I will vote No on Tuesday for a few different reasons, including the fact that I hate hassles.

Perhaps Donald Trump, the great white hope (emphasis on white) will draw out enough angry anti-government voters to defeat Issue 2. ?

posted by jmleong on Mar 13, 2016 at 04:25:27 pm     #  

I just finished reading PHH's editorial.

This sentence really bothered me:
The temporary tax has not risen since it was enacted in 1982.

1982 was almost 35 years ago. The definition on websters site of temporary is "intended to be used for a limited amount of time" What does PHH consider a limited amount of time?? Not only is saying this tax may as well be considered permanent she is bragging it hasn't been raised in 35 years????

This new "temporary" tax is suppose to be through 2020. When 2020 I'm sure it will be on the ballot again for renewal and I wouldn't be suprirsed if they city tries raising it to 2.75%

posted by jamesteroh on Mar 13, 2016 at 05:38:34 pm     #   3 people liked this

Money for municipalities has been obviously cut by the state.

Toledo's population is also shrinking.

With that in mind, where could the budget be cut? If every city agency cut their budget by 5%, how much money would that free up?

I would be interested in what an independent and outside audit would turn up in regards to places where the city budget could be cut.

posted by Dappling2 on Mar 13, 2016 at 05:41:21 pm     #   1 person liked this

FYI: This comment is long, and it contains a lot of numbers.


Mar 13, 2016 Blade story, regarding the income tax increase proposal:

That $2 million could be used for police salaries. ... the increase in the income tax would allow the city to hire the new police officers in May rather than November.

This year the city will transfer between $10 million and $11 million from the capital budget to the general fund to avoid police and fire layoffs.

From last week's Blade op-ed

Few Toledoans would suggest that the city should have fewer police officers and firefighters ...

Why can't that suggestion be made? Does an unwritten rule exist that prohibits the discussion of Toledo having fewer police officers and firefighters?

Notice that the Blade op-ed writer(s) failed to mention a single reason why we should maintain or increase the number of police officers and firefighters.


Toledo, Ohio:

19702015change% change
population383,818281,031-102,787-26.78 %
police officers730631-99-13.56 %
residents per officer526445+81+15.40 %
firefighters558490-68-12.19 %
residents per firefighter687574+113+16.45 %
square miles848400.00 %


I'm assuming that fewer residents per police officer and firefighter are positives for everyone.

The population number 281,031 is the 2014 estimate for Toledo, according to Wikipedia. It's the most recent population number for Toledo. That population number was referenced in a September 2015 Toledo Blade story that mentioned Toledo's 631 sworn officers.

Additional info came from these March 2007 and June 2015 Blade articles.


  • What's the logical reason for the rate in decline for police and fire not aligning with the rate of decline for Toledo's population?
  • Or what's the reason for not using the 1970 ratios of residents to police officers and firefighters in 2016?


If we used the 1970 ratios, then Toledo would see the number of police officers drop from 631 to 534, and the number of firefighters drop from 490 to 409.

How much money would Toledo save if it reduced the number of police officers by 97 and the number of firefighters by 81?

It seems like a sensible question to me. Why aren't we using the 1970 ratios?

We have more technology today than in 1970 that is suppose to help police officers. With Toledo's population decline, we have more vacant lots.

If legitimate reasons exist to maintain or increase current police and fire numbers, then I'll accept those reasons, and I will never violate any unwritten rules again. But what are those reasons?

On the police side, the reason can't be crime. It cannot be crime. City officials cannot say that we have more crime per residents today compared to 1970 because that would mean as Toledo's population decreases, crime and taxes increase. How is that attractive?


In that March 2007 Blade article, some info was provided:

"Population is only one factor," Chief Navarre said. "You have to look at socioeconomic issues that may be more important than population and square miles. You also need to look at calls for service."

Police calls increased from 310,169 in 1976 to 542,106 calls in 2005, of which 433,415 were 911 calls.

Fire runs peaked at 9,247 in 1976 and dropped to 7,175 two years ago. But EMS runs have quadrupled since 1970, to 39,796 in 2005.

A quadrupling in EMS runs even though our population declined by over 20 percent. What in the hell are people doing? We got rid of lawn darts. Is this due to the baby-boomer generation experiencing more birthdays?

Also from that 2007 Blade story:

From 1970 to 2005, Toledo's population dropped 21 percent, from 383,818 to 301,285.

Approximately 10,000 EMS runs occurred in 1970 with a population of 383,818. That was approximately one EMS run for every 38 residents.

Then in 2005, Toledo had nearly 40,000 EMS runs with a population of 301,285. That's approximately one EMS run for every 7.5 residents.

Are we wimpier today? Are we not taking care of ourselves? More hospitals to use? Or is it simply an aging population?

According to Toledo's 2010 census

  • The median age in the city was 34.2 years
  • 24% of residents were under the age of 18
  • 12.8% were between the ages of 18 and 24
  • 26.3% were from 25 to 44
  • 24.8% were from 45 to 64
  • 12.1% were 65 years of age or older


BTW, playing the "other cities" card is mentally feeble. I don't live in other cities. I live in Toledo.

And nobody needs to be reminded that police officers and firefighters engage in dangerous work, and that they are important to our city. Everybody knows that much.

Remember, the mayor believes that to be more efficient, Toledo must grow the general fund budget and increase taxes.

posted by jr on Mar 13, 2016 at 05:49:04 pm     #   8 people liked this

So I was looking through the 2016 budget: http://toledo.oh.gov/media/201607/2016-proposed-budget_detail-schedules.pdf

Plenty in there to cut and scale back...problem is no one wants to cut anything. You are going to need someone in their that will tell the unions to eff off, but they aren't likely to get into office in the first place - unless the pull a flip/flop to get voters to support them and then pull off the disguise and let them have it.

I really do enjoy the area and love living up there, otherwise I wouldn't have moved back, but something has to give to break that status quo. Voting down the tax is a good first step.

posted by JustaSooner on Mar 13, 2016 at 06:05:22 pm     #   3 people liked this

Does an unwritten rule exist that prohibits the discussion of Toledo having fewer police officers and firefighters?

Not an unwritten rule, it's written - according to the union contract, the fire department has a minimum manning requirement which means it doesn't matter how many firefighters they employ, they have to have so many on the job at any time. From a Blade story in January 2015:

The contract with Toledo Firefighters Local 92 grants 0.75 percent annual raises for the three-year agreement and increases the department’s “minimum manning” requirement from 103 to 107. It will go up to 110 on Jan. 1, 2017.

So even if they have fewer firefighters, they have to pay to have 107 on staff every day, even if it means overtime. And in 9 months, that 107 will go up to 110, even though the population is going down. This protects their jobs, increases their union due revenue and 'protects' the citizens.

A quadrupling in EMS runs even though our population declined by over 20 percent. What in the hell are people doing?

What are people doing? Call 9-1-1 for any and everything that happens, which generates a call, which takes time. I'm talking about mentally ill people who can only have a bowel movement at the hospital (I'm not joking); people who are so obese that they fall and can't get up; people without transportation and this is how they get to a doctors appointment at the hospital complex. Now certainly not all of the calls are like this, but so many are, if you really go in and break down what the calls are.

And why do fire departments respond? Because it makes their call volumes go up, so that they can justify an increase in minimum manning. Let me give you some very typical stats from a suburban department that are probably 10 years old:

80% of calls are EMS, 20% are fire.
Of the 20% fire, 60% are false alarms (either bad smoke detector, a 'smell' that never turns to a fire, etc)
Of the 40% of the 20% that are actually fire related, most are small things like a kitchen grease fire that stays under control. Only a small number, like 3-4% are actual fire-fires.

I can't remember stats from the 80% that are EMS, but so many of them are literally routine, repeat calls.

So it is not an aging population, it is the mis-utilization of a government service.

And if you look at more recent EMS runs, the numbers may be even higher because TFD started their own transport unit - when they send out first responders AND the transport unit, does that count as one run or two?

posted by MsArcher on Mar 13, 2016 at 06:09:42 pm     #   3 people liked this

Hey those 700 hundred dollar steak dinners for the fire chief arn't just going to pay for themselves guys.

posted by In_vin_veritas on Mar 13, 2016 at 06:18:59 pm     #   3 people liked this

Why is the staffing requirements of the police and fire department going up if our population is decreasing?????

Why should the taxpayers be paying for EMS service???? When I got hurt and needed an ambulance I got a pretty steep bill for their services and received another bill when they had to transfer me from one hospital in the city to another.

posted by jamesteroh on Mar 13, 2016 at 07:37:43 pm     #  

When the city ran the private ambulance companies out of business over ten years ago i e-mailed then councilman Mike Collins asking where I could notify the city not to respond to my address no matter what telling him I would prefer to lay on the floor expiring rather than pay the city twice for emergency service. My wife still holds that standing order but I rather doubt she will follow the directive. Toledo followed the trend of many other cities' to tag onto the insurance pot 'o gold and do the same thing for responding to auto incidents. Remember you have to have car ins. Have a fender bender with three fire trucks responding to a non-injury accident and your ins. gets the bill. Shake down and not all the crooks wear pin stipe suits.

posted by Mariner on Mar 13, 2016 at 08:01:40 pm     #   2 people liked this

jamesteroh posted at 08:37:43 PM on Mar 13, 2016:

Why is the staffing requirements of the police and fire department going up if our population is decreasing?????

Why should the taxpayers be paying for EMS service???? When I got hurt and needed an ambulance I got a pretty steep bill for their services and received another bill when they had to transfer me from one hospital in the city to another.

Well...here is my point of view. Fire departments are more or less going to be controlled on the area of land covered, just as much as population plays in it. So I don't get very hung up on that. Now police staffing kinda falls in line with that as well, but I think that also falls to the level of crime taking place being a driver. Of course there are a ton of socio economic factors that influence crime rates,

On the EMS service, I wonder if it wouldn't be a better idea to get out of the business all together? Let the medical institutions handle it and private business. Take the city and county out of it.

posted by JustaSooner on Mar 13, 2016 at 08:10:52 pm     #   1 person liked this

So, every year 16 million will be required to repair the streets? The city will be getting 16 million every year from taxes to repair the streets, but what if it isn't needed? How much, on average, has been spent to repair the streets in the past 10-15 years?
I'm guessing after this first 16 million does the necessary repairs, then the tax money will become general funding for "side projects"?

posted by hockeyfan on Mar 14, 2016 at 12:57:37 am     #  

They can fix the streets with the trash increase. I'm voting a big fat NO for issue 2 tomorrow.

posted by Walleye419 on Mar 14, 2016 at 03:42:50 pm     #   5 people liked this

Big Fat No it is.

posted by justread on Mar 14, 2016 at 04:08:00 pm     #   3 people liked this

My endorsement doesn't seem to be working.

posted by Molsonator on Mar 14, 2016 at 04:26:13 pm     #  

^feeling the bern are ya?

posted by justareviewer on Mar 14, 2016 at 05:03:20 pm     #  

Molsonator posted at 05:26:13 PM on Mar 14, 2016:

My endorsement doesn't seem to be working.

You really need a Molsonator Super PAC to make any headway in the current environment.

posted by oldhometown on Mar 14, 2016 at 05:15:46 pm     #   1 person liked this

Try insulting someone. That seems to get results.

posted by jmleong on Mar 15, 2016 at 12:57:39 pm     #   2 people liked this

jmleong posted at 01:57:39 PM on Mar 15, 2016:

Try insulting someone. That seems to get results.

Actually, the mayor insulted the public's intelligence recently, which means issue 2 should pass easily.

"This is a decision that will keep us moving forward or we will be treading water ... or we could sink."

"It will show we are able to take care of our infrastructure."

posted by jr on Mar 15, 2016 at 01:40:12 pm     #  

With 151 out of 206 precincts reporting, 61% to 39% in favor of the income tax.

F!*!*!?! Really?

posted by WestToledoan on Mar 15, 2016 at 09:46:39 pm     #  

I think (or sure hope) you have the figures revesred westtoledoan
This is what the blade site is showing:
ISSUE 2 Votes
1% municipal income tax, starting July 1 and continuing through 2020. It would raise the city's total income tax from 2.25% to 2.5%.
FOR 16,968
AGAINST 26,324
73.3% precincts reporting

The way I'm reading this is that a lot more voters are against this than for it.

posted by jamesteroh on Mar 15, 2016 at 09:53:41 pm     #  

Thanks for correcting me. Now I feel relieved. Guess all the Yes / No's got me all mixed up.

posted by WestToledoan on Mar 15, 2016 at 09:59:55 pm     #  

Yesterday was a record for street cleaners on the streets. It must be hard with all those holes.

posted by Molsonator on Mar 16, 2016 at 05:35:18 am     #   1 person liked this

Nah. Trash just drops right into them. Makes less dumping.

posted by justread on Mar 16, 2016 at 06:23:47 am     #   3 people liked this

jr posted at 02:40:12 PM on Mar 15, 2016:
jmleong posted at 01:57:39 PM on Mar 15, 2016:

Try insulting someone. That seems to get results.

Actually, the mayor insulted the public's intelligence recently, which means issue 2 should pass easily.

"This is a decision that will keep us moving forward or we will be treading water ... or we could sink."

"It will show we are able to take care of our infrastructure."

She did it again when she suggested that because we voted it down, we didn't understand it.

posted by justread on Mar 16, 2016 at 06:24:33 am     #  

Will probably be on ballot every time till apathy makes it pass like COSI.

posted by MIJeff on Mar 16, 2016 at 06:48:13 am     #  

I am surprised that issue 2 failed.

From today's Blade story that contains the mayor's silly quote that justread alluded to:

Mayor Hicks-Hudson was unsure why the majority of voters were against the tax.

“I don’t know if they did not hear the message or we did not get the message out good enough,” she said.

And also from the story:

Mayor Hicks-Hudson previously said the city would seek the status quo tax if it failed. She was not certain Tuesday night.

The mayor is already backtracking. Maybe that's one reason why issue 2 was defeated: Toledo politicians are untrustworthy.

The mayor had also previously said that the city would not seek an increase in the temp tax on the March ballot.

December 2, 2015 Blade story

The mayor’s administration wants Toledo voters to again approve the city’s temporary 0.75 percent income tax, but without an increase that was briefly contemplated to help pay for more street repaving.

Toledo City Council on Tuesday reviewed Mayor Paula Hicks-Hudson’s request to put the tax question on the March ballot.


One Toledo politician had another likely reason why voters rejected issue 2. More from today's Blade story:

Councilman Tom Waniewski said the city did not show accountability or value.

“It’s easy for politicians to say ‘we are out of money’ and say ‘let’s go to the taxpayers to get more,’” Mr. Waniewski said. “I came out asking for a pay freeze. We have given too many pay raises in the last two years and we didn’t show accountability and we didn’t show value.”

The Blade story also contains fear-mongering if the original .75 temp income tax fails to pass this November.


Remember, in last November's wide open election for mayor of Toledo, nearly 65 percent of the voters voted against PH2. Maybe she's an unpopular mayor.


Over the next few weeks, it will be interesting to see what city council does with our illegal refuse fee tax.

November 14, 2015 Blade story about mayor ph2's proposed 2016 budget plan:

Under the plan, the city’s monthly trash fee would be raised from $8.95 to $15 for most households, while senior citizens with homestead exemptions will pay $8.50 instead of $5.

City Finance Director George Sarantou said the fee increase for Toledo homeowners would raise annual revenue from $8.8 million this year to $13.2 million in 2016. That increase, which needs council approval, was the only major out-of-pocket cost for Toledoans under the mayor’s $252.12 million budget proposal.

posted by jr on Mar 16, 2016 at 07:56:18 am     #   2 people liked this

According to a recent Blade article, the first Toledo employee's union contract to be renegotiated is Local 7. Their contract expires June 30, 2017.

http://www.toledoblade.com/Politics/2016/03/11/Councilman-urges-mayor-to-freeze-city-workers-pay.html#6fOFxMDmjAKX0rDF.99

Anyone want to guess when will the dreaded term "indigent circumstances" will reappear in the Blade?

It has to be well before the November vote to allow PH2 to "get the message out good enough". I'm betting on May 15, so the financial shock waves can be slightly offset by recently received tax refunds & the union leadership will have ample time to rally members and voters to support the increase.

posted by jimavolt on Mar 16, 2016 at 09:58:33 am     #  

Not sure if that's a Freudian slip, but I believe you mean "exigent circumstances".

posted by slowsol on Mar 16, 2016 at 10:03:14 am     #   3 people liked this

Ha. Freud city! Sadly, indigent might be more accurate. Ha.

Please allow me to correct here......

Anyone want to guess when the dreaded term "exigent circumstances" will appear in The Blade? I'm sticking with May 15 for either term appearing in The Blade.

posted by jimavolt on Mar 16, 2016 at 10:42:09 am     #  

Indigent: poor

Exigent: pressing

I think Jim's subconscious wins the point. :)

posted by justread on Mar 16, 2016 at 10:51:04 am     #   4 people liked this

was the only major out-of-pocket cost for Toledoans under the mayor’s $252.12 million budget proposal.

What does this mean? 'Only' major 'out-of-pocket'? All of my taxes come out of my pocket.

posted by MsArcher on Mar 16, 2016 at 12:59:29 pm     #   1 person liked this

The last tax increase initiative was little more than sinecure wrapped in a trial balloon.

The sinecure was for "Big Ernie" Davis who ran the mayor's campaign. Lots of private individuals in this city run campaigns and know the demographics. She chose a guy from Hilliard, Ohio.

Can you say, payoff in the form of sinecure? How hard did he have to work and how much was he paid?

Secondly, nobody went all out for it. Why? This was a poll, more or less, to gauge the value of running an all out campaign for it in November and how much they'll have to move the electorate.

posted by MemyselfandI on Mar 16, 2016 at 01:47:41 pm     #  

Exactly mmsai. This is the old fashioned bait and switch, misdirection, shell game style of doing things that turns the stomach and sickens the electorate. The days of shifty, shady politics need to be put behind with the hide the pea in the shell game since the electorate are too dumb and apathetic to take notice. Won't work when you are talking money, honey. Send that guy outa town on a rail but by all means make sure a union brother is holding the door.

posted by Mariner on Mar 17, 2016 at 09:58:56 am     #  

The days of shifty, shady politics need to be put behind...

We don't have shady politics anymore. We have blatant political corruption with bottom feeders scrabbling over the dregs. Ever since the bottom fell out of the rust bucket, we, the great unwashed here in the gravel pit, haven't been able to afford high quality political scams. We have to settle for the obvious stuff.

posted by madjack on Mar 17, 2016 at 10:52:32 am     #   2 people liked this

Interesting conversation with a non-political co-worker where I work part time. I generally keep my politics away from work. This is almost verbatim.

Coworker – “I shouldn’t have even been voting – I don’t know anything about that stuff – I just don’t follow it.”
Danneskjold – “Uh huh, why did you vote this time than?.”
Coworker – “My Aunt sent me a text that I had to vote yes on issue 2 and also for Hillary.”
Danneskjold – “Do you know what would have happened if it passed.”
Coworker – “No what?”
Danneskjold – “Taken more money out of your check for local taxes.”
Coworker – “Why would I want to do that?”
Danneskjold – "I really do not know."

posted by Danneskjold on Mar 17, 2016 at 10:40:08 pm     #   5 people liked this

Sheeple

posted by MIJeff on Mar 18, 2016 at 12:56:39 am     #  

November is going to be entertaining when this turns into "Vote No on Issue # (whatever it will be) and get a tax cut!"

Does Toledo have recall options for mayor? It almost feels like two years of this person is going to be too much.

posted by JustaSooner on Mar 18, 2016 at 12:56:41 am     #  

Danneskjold posted at 11:40:08 PM on Mar 17, 2016:

Interesting conversation with a non-political co-worker where I work part time. I generally keep my politics away from work. This is almost verbatim.

Coworker – “I shouldn’t have even been voting – I don’t know anything about that stuff – I just don’t follow it.”
Danneskjold – “Uh huh, why did you vote this time than?.”

Coworker – “My Aunt sent me a text that I had to vote yes on issue 2 and also for Hillary.”

Danneskjold – “Do you know what would have happened if it passed.”

Coworker – “No what?”

Danneskjold – “Taken more money out of your check for local taxes.”

Coworker – “Why would I want to do that?”

Danneskjold – "I really do not know."

I just think it's cool that you work with a niece or nephew of the Mayor.

posted by justread on Mar 18, 2016 at 04:42:33 am     #   2 people liked this

JustaSooner posted at 01:56:41 AM on Mar 18, 2016:

November is going to be entertaining when this turns into "Vote No on Issue # (whatever it will be) and get a tax cut!"

Does Toledo have recall options for mayor? It almost feels like two years of this person is going to be too much.

Yes. But I think there is a long waiting period. Some kind of mayoral Brady law. For our own safety or something.

posted by justread on Mar 18, 2016 at 04:45:42 am     #  

http://www.toledoblade.com/Keith-Burris/2016/03/18/What-mayor-could-and-should-do.html

Burris is getting a pretty good handle on things. Very constructive, if slightly unrealistic, piece today.

posted by ahmahler on Mar 18, 2016 at 06:13:57 am     #  

Danneskjold posted at 11:40:08 PM on Mar 17, 2016:

Interesting conversation with a non-political co-worker where I work part time. I generally keep my politics away from work. This is almost verbatim.

Coworker – “I shouldn’t have even been voting – I don’t know anything about that stuff – I just don’t follow it.”
Danneskjold – “Uh huh, why did you vote this time than?.”

Coworker – “My Aunt sent me a text that I had to vote yes on issue 2 and also for Hillary.”

Danneskjold – “Do you know what would have happened if it passed.”

Coworker – “No what?”

Danneskjold – “Taken more money out of your check for local taxes.”

Coworker – “Why would I want to do that?”

Danneskjold – "I really do not know."

What's your co-workers number? I'm going to text him and tell to give me some money.

posted by JoeyGee on Mar 18, 2016 at 06:27:28 am     #  

ahmahler posted at 07:13:57 AM on Mar 18, 2016:

http://www.toledoblade.com/Keith-Burris/2016/03/18/What-mayor-could-and-should-do.html

Burris is getting a pretty good handle on things. Very constructive, if slightly unrealistic, piece today.

Maybe Burris and his good friend EconCat88 held their coffee summit after all. This is some negative-ass stuff, spewed by Burris. I wish Burris would be less realistic and more phony-positive, even though that would mean sacrificing intelligence.

Burris:

The mayor’s slogan — that she wants Toledo to be “a city of the 21st century” — is just that: a slogan. And a lame one at that.

... the announcement of the seven monitors who would guard the incoming new tax money for streets (had it been approved) was a doozy. The seven seemed to be selected on the basis that they would either not have the time or not have the inclination to ask any tough question.

Seven seers? Seven blind mice, more like it. Nice folks, all of them, but with no clear mission or legal authority. This was a bad joke intended as a slick maneuver. [preach it, brother]

Insulting to the citizens, city council, and, actually, the mayor and her staff. THEY are supposed to be the junkyard dogs guarding our tax dollars.

... hire a managerial consultant, with experience in other cities — one from outside of this city. His job would be to work for the next two years with the mayor on reorganizing city government, eliminating cronyism and featherbedding, and, generally, to tell the mayor the truth, not what she wants to hear.

I don’t think the public is going to give the city any more money until there is evidence of change — some sort of reform and some attempt to set policy goals and actually manage city government.

And I don’t think it should.

Great day in the morning. If Burris keeps writing like that, he will lose his top ranking for Best Print Journalist in Toledo to last year's runner-up Jeremy B.

posted by jr on Mar 18, 2016 at 07:31:52 am     #   1 person liked this

jr, as usual, you nailed it ! Thank you for that post. Summed it up quite nicely.

posted by foodie88 on Mar 18, 2016 at 07:55:36 am     #  

Summarizing:

  • Increasing the "temporary" income tax from 0.75 percent to 1.00 percent would have generated an additional $18.6 million each year.
  • For 2016, Mayor Hicks-Hudson promised to devote $16.6 million of that $18.6 million to residential street repair.
  • For the following years, no guarantee exists that the city would devote nearly 90% of the revenue generated by the tax increase to street repair.
  • Voters rejected the tax increase, and the mayor claims Toledo has zero dollars for street repairs in 2016.
  • The mayor said Toledo has more than $750 million in street repairs.
  • If the tax increase had passed, and if $16.6 million were devoted to street repairs in 2016, that means approximately 2.2 percent of the roads would have been repaired. It depends upon what type of road is fixed.
    • For each lane mile of a res­i­den­tial street it costs roughly $275,000 to re­sur­face and $750,000 to re­con­struct.
    • For each lane mile of a ma­jor street it costs roughly $320,000 to re­sur­face and $1 mil­lion to re­con­struct.
  • Let's say that the state/feds matched Toledo's $16.6 million, providing Toledo with $33 million. Then about 4.5 percent of the needed street repairs would have been funded this year.
  • Doug Ste­phens, the city’s com­mis­sioner of en­gi­neer­ing ser­vices, said Toledo would need $1.1 bil­lion over the next 20 years to fix all of its streets, which comes to $55.5 mil­lion an­nu­ally. Toledo typ­i­cally spends less than $20 mil­lion a year to main­tain its streets. About two-fifths of that amount is state or fed­eral money. The city is on a ev­ery-50-year re­place­ment cy­cle when it should be on a 20-year cy­cle.

It seems like this road problem did not begin in January 2014. Two recent bad winters cannot be solely responsible for our decrepit roads.

It appears that this colossal governmental neglect, probably due to financial malfeasance, has been in the works for many years, spread across multiple mayoral administrations and city council configurations.

Every current and former living elected Toledo governmental official should be charged with some kind of a crime, or they should be forced to explain why they failed to satisfy one of the basic functions of local government.

But then again, the small percentage of Toledoans who vote have enabled some of these blight-contributors to do harm.

Toledo has $750 million worth of street repairs, and the new tax increase would have covered 2 percent of that for 2016. We definitely do not need new taxes.

The need to reorganize city government is an understatement.

Blade stories referenced:

posted by jr on Mar 18, 2016 at 10:21:03 am     #   5 people liked this