Notes on the Campaign

The primary election is now less than two weeks away, so I wanted to take a few moments to comment on the campaign thus far.

First, I would like to thank my opponent for joining with me in keeping the campaign free of mud. Second, I would like to thank Julie Stenger of the Steubenville Herald Star for writing a balanced and fair profile of Mr. Fogle and myself. If you missed it, it ran in this weekend's Saturday edition of the paper and it has been re-published in today's Toronto Scene. I have linked to the article in the sidebar on this site.

Third, I want to thank all of the people I have spoken with about the campaign for their support and kind words. It's hard to know if your message is getting across when you are running this kind of local campaign. It's not like I can rely on polling or media reports. All I can do is rely on word of mouth and then trust the fates.

This week I began distributing pamphlets door-to-door to the registered Democrats in my ward. If I miss you, I'm sorry. And it doesn't mean that I'm not interested in the Independents or Republicans in the ward. Your opinion matters to me as well. It's just that the materials are costly, and I am on a limited budget. This being a primary election, I have to concentrate my efforts on those who are legally qualified to vote for me.

But while we are on this topic, if you are a registered Republican or if you have no party affiliation and would like to help, election laws in Ohio work like this; to vote for a candidate who is running on a party ticket in a primary election you have to declare for that party in the primary at the polling place on election day. If you are not currently registered with either party, you simply request a Democratic ballot, and you will be considered a Democrat until the following primary at which time you can choose to change again. If you are registered as a Republican, you can make the same change, but you will be requested to sign a form called a "challenge." So if you are currently noted as an Independent or as a Republican, and if you would like to vote for me, you may do so in this primary. There are no Republicans running in this primary for you to vote for anyway, and you can re-register however you wish to next year. On the other hand, if you are currently listed as a Republican or Independent and if you do not choose to take a Democratic ballot, you will be given an "issues only" ballot, and you will be unable to vote for any candidates in this primary election.

On election day, I will not be campaigning. In stead, I will be working at a polling place in Steubenville as "presiding judge" for the Board of Elections.

You may have noticed my signs around the ward and on the ramps leading in and out of town. The weather has been hard on my signs, and I have had to replace several stakes. I have been working lately on new signs, larger ones made of heavy wood. Hopefully these will stay put until after the vote.

Tuesday, May 8. That's the date for the election. Please turn out and make your voice heard. There are also several issues on the ballot that need your support. These are all levy renewals and will not result in a single tax increase. Thank you in advance for your support of these issues as well.

Championing the Future

In my last installment, I suggested that a grassroots movement might be able to accomplish something truly great for this town by petitioning to have the idea for a park linking the gazebo commons with the WWI monument area placed on a ballot for the citizens to vote on in a coming election. Such a bold idea would of course face some opposition, but I believe that all of the arguments against the park could be easily met with reasonable counter-arguments.

Here I will list the arguments against the park I have heard along with the counter-points to those arguments.

The park would require the closing of a city intersection.
This is true, however, a traffic study was done on that particular intersection, and it was found that very few people actually use that particular section of road. In fact, so few do that a traffic light was removed since all it did was cause unnecessary delays for those traveling on the more heavily traveled cross street. Moreover, there are two other intersections to the south which suffice for traffic needing to turn to either the east or west.

Access to Newburg Landing will be more difficult for emergency vehicles and boats in tow.
According to both fire department and EMT personnel, their vehicles will have no difficulty making the turn from River Avenue onto the road to Newburg Landing. As for boats in tow, the road leading to the landing has two other sharp turns. If a boat can't make the turn from River Avenue, then it won't make these other turns either.

The park would impact the neighborhood.
True again, but the biggest impact would be most likely a probable increase in property values.

There are gas and water lines and probably power cables running under that section of ground which must be accessible.
This would be accounted for by the engineers designing the park. In fact, these could be the most easily accessible cables and lines in town by simply bundling them in a vault with a ground level access point.

Somebody has to pay for the park.
When the idea was last brought to the table, there was a local corporate sponsor. There are also grants as well as private contributions and fund-raisers which could help make the park a reality.

This park, if it were to come about, would be a major asset to the residents of the third ward. As a city councilman, I would promote this and any ideas for change which I felt would benefit not only my ward, but the entire Toronto community.

Build It and They Will Come

Imagine a Toronto where people travel by river and bus and RV to spend part of their vacations. A Toronto with a bustling downtown, an active water-front in the summer and which is known as a destination for all sorts of sportsmen and history buffs and romantics year round. This Toronto is a place where our children not only want to stay to raise their own families, but which also is attractive to "new blood."

What would it take to make this Toronto a reality? Better schools? Increased job opportunities? More choices in leisure activities? Well, I believe all of this is possible with a simple adjustment in some outdated attitudes.

Toronto has been playing it safe for years, and where has it gotten us? We are losing job opportunities, losing population, and losing time to turn things around. If we don't change things quickly, we will have to consolidate school systems soon, and possibly lose our status as a bonefide city. According to the most recent census, Toronto barely qualifies as a city as it is. By 2010, at the current rate of attrition, we will be downgraded to a village after the next head-count.

So how do we fix this? Obviously no single step is going to turn things around. It will be a complicated process, and it will require the involvement and cooperation of government, businesses, civic groups and the population in general. But it does have to start somewhere, and I think the best place is with a grass-roots movement to create a larger and more user-friendly downtown commons area.

Twice now an effort has been initiated to build a park unifying the gazebo commons with the WWI Soldiers and Sailors monument. The proposed park would close-off a little-used segment of Market Street, and would make the commons area more accessible to foot traffic. Both times this idea was suggested in the past, it was given no serious consideration by the powers-that-be in the city building, and it died unceremoniously. I think it is time to try a different approach.

I believe that a petition should be circulated demanding that the park idea be placed on the ballot for the public to decide. Then a media blitz demonstrating public support and corporate sponsorship should be launched to create interest in the project. This is how they built the Milsop, and there is no reason we can't do it here in Toronto as well.

Once the park is built, cross-promotion of the historic landmarks of our town, our strategic location for fishermen, water sports and hunters, our beautiful downtown and our wonderful eating establishments could quickly increase tourist traffic, and begin the revitalization of Toronto for ourselves and our posterity.

In my next installment, I'll explain how the objections to the park can be overcome with simple logic and quiet reasoning.

Vision For The Future

The unfortunate reality is that Toronto has not adapted to the shifting economy. Not that Toronto stands alone in this. The entire state of West Virginia seems to have conceded that there is no future except for gambling, and most of Ohio seems to feel that the western part of the state is the future. I happen to think there is another way.

The Ohio River is a crucial American waterway; both in the historical sense and in the fact that it is evolving both ecologically and visually. In all liklihood, the next American president will be one with some sense of the urgency to shift the emphasis concerning pollutants from one of laissez-faire to one of good stewardship. As this happens, the river could become a tourist destination for all sorts of water activities, and Toronto sits uniquely poised to capitalize on this potential boon. But we have to start now.

With two beautiful marinas, a downtown within walking distance of a gorgeous river-front park, and several historic markers, T-town could be on every Fodor's list in the tri-state. This means attracting new business, outside income and a new and even better reputation. And it all starts with a new push for the park linking the gazebo commons with the WWI monument. In my next post, I'll explain how and why I think this matters as well as how I think it can be accomplished.

Preventing Urban Blight

A few years ago Toronto lost a significant business in Sav-a-Lot. For the residents of the third ward it was a convenience, and for all of Toronto's citizens it was a budget-friendly way to buy groceries. Unfortunately, they closed their doors when the building began to fall into disrepair as their rent was increased. As a result, the building has sat vacant and boarded up for the past few years with no sign that any new business is going to come in and take its place.

It is my understanding that the city has had to bill the owners on several occassions for such services as applying weed killer to the property so the area did not become over-run with foliage that might serve as a respite for vermin. This is something which I feel the people of Toronto cannot abide. Something must be done and done soon.

Toronto underwent a renaisance a few years ago under former Mayor Wilson. New sidewalks and streetlights made the downtown a potential showplace. Add to this the fine work done by the Beautification committee on the landscaping of the area, and the addition of Newburg landing, and our downtown could be a huge draw for new business as well as a river-based tourist trade. But this is unlikely to happen so long as delapidated buildings and cracked and litter-strewn lots make up a sizeable portion of a central city block.

Pressure must be put on the owners of the parcel in question to either renovate or abandon claim on the property so that a new owner can be found for it, and that city block can be incorporated into the vision for Toronto's future.

Responsible Budgeting for ALL of Our Seniors

In November of 2005, the issue of a .5% city income tax increase was placed on the ballot. I felt then (and still do) that the increase was justified. At the time, the wording of the issue included programs that the money would be used for. A hand-out was also circulated showing how the finance committee supposed the money would be distributed. A certain percentage was promised for "senior services" both in the wording of the ballot initiative and on the hand-out.

On October 26 of that year, I attended a public meeting where I inquired about this particular aspect of the proposal. I wanted to know how the senior services funds would be distributed. Would it be spent on renovating the senior center at the Roosevelt building? Would it be spent on flu shots? Meals-on-Wheels? Home energy assistance grants for the elderly?

No. In stead, the entire portion of the income tax increase earmarked for "senior services" would be added to the money already given to Toronto's two senior citizen social clubs.

After the levy passed, I again approached council to ask if it was possible to reconsider that determination. Perhaps - I suggested - the money could be placed in escrow and used at the end of the five-year term of the tax increase on something more permanent and beneficial to all of Toronto's seniors.

No, I was told, since all seniors are eligible to join these organizations, they felt that this technically satisfied the spirit of the levy. I was also told that the council would not lie to the citizens of Toronto. Which, by the way, I found a particularly odd thing to say since I had not asked council to lie at all. In fact, all that I was asking was that they consider other options that might also benefit those seniors who are not members of a club. Seniors who are - say - infirm or busy or who might otherwise be disenfranchised by a decision to gift their share of the city's money to clubs they do not choose to join for whatever reason.

As councilman, I would consider options that would benefit all of our parents and grandparents; a precedent I hope our children and grandchildren will follow as well.

Transparency in Government

Today, I write about my belief that it is necessary for government to work in the open as much as possible. I believe that since our elected officials are there to represent our interests as our proxies, that it is beholden upon them to act in a way that we can hold them to account. In my post where I documented the issues I hope to address as councilman, I wrote, "As a former journalist, transparency of government is very important to me. I would make it a point to air the issues in the open, and not to hide behind conveniently written 'rules' of order to railroad through controversial legislation before it has been given a fair public hearing." When I wrote this, I was talking about two trends I have noticed in attending public meetings. "Rules" are invoked frequently to:

•adjourn to executive session
•bypass the requirement that new ordinances be read publicly on three separate occasions.

These trends are not unique to Toronto by any means. They do it in Steubenville and Follansbee and many other municipalities. I've seen it done numerous times in numerous places; and not just in city government - but in school boards as well. First, I should note that when this is done, it is perfectly legal. Nonetheless, it is often done for reasons that strain the intent behind the right of council to do it.

Public meetings are public for a reason; to give the citizens the opportunity to scrutinize how their business is being conducted. When legislators go into executive session, it closes the door on their deliberations, and the public is left guessing about what exactly is going on behind the closed door. Except in cases where council is considering private matters, it is my belief that the public has a right to see their business being conducted. Therefore, I would vote against closing the meetings to privately discuss the public's business in almost every instance.

Furthermore, except in cases of actual emergency, I would not vote to allow the rule requiring that new ordinances be read at three separate public meetings be waived. This issue came up at a recent Toronto Council meeting and was reported on by the Herald Star. According to the article:

Ordinances must be read at three separate meetings by council before becoming law unless a majority of council votes to suspend the rules and declare an emergency. Then the ordinance can be read and passed in a single council meeting, according to state guidelines and procedures on the passage of ordinances.

Steubenville recently declared such an emergency in order to expedite declaring some buildings condemned. This may well be a legitimate usage of the regulation. However, too often (in my opinion) the law is misused to declare an emergency where no such emergency exists. The intention may be innocent enough. Perhaps they are simply trying to streamline the city's business. Unfortunately, the result is that citizens are robbed of the opportunity to be heard on issues which might affect them.

The Herald Star article said of councilman Coppa that he "had argued previously that the ordinance committee of council should have guidelines on whether there should be separate readings of ordinances involving city funds." It further said that ordinance committee chair, Dorothy Blaner "said Ohio Revised Code is clear that whether or not to suspend the rules and vote on an ordinance in one or more readings is council’s decision. She added the same applies to ordinances involving city funds."

I don't disagree with Ms Blaner that the rules which exist should apply to legislation concerning funding no more or less than other legislation. And I also agree that the rule is and should be at council's discretion. I'm sure there are times when it is legitimately needed. Nonetheless, I feel that it is overused.

While as councilman, the choice to vote an issue an emergency will be at my discretion, I vow to make my definition of "emergency" a little more discrete.