Maple Heights Town Hall Meeting Reveals Shocking News

While Southgate in Maple Heights quietly slipped from receivership (2009) into foreclosure a few days ago (potentially taking a major source of revenue from Maple Heights), allegations of voter suppression, voter intimidation, and [perhaps] financial nonfeasance were revealed. 

The Town Hall Meeting at the Maple Heights Library last night (held by the endorsed Democrats in Maple Hts) revealed such shocking news, that even we were not fully aware of, but had sensed for some time (check previous posts).

So that there is little guess work ... the targets of the voter suppression and voter intimidation are Mrs. Mitchell's supporters.  There have also been allegations that white males in camouflage attire have been following the endorsed Democratic female African American candidates; and Mrs. Mitchell has complained that quite a few of the  (vote for Neomia Mitchell) yard signs have been removed by people driving around in trucks (she also states that when she ran against the mayor previously, a lot of her yard signs were missing).  Mrs. Mitchell has also complained that there were voter registration applications she turned in to the Board of Elections that could not be found at the Board of Elections.  The stuff we've heard about or seen for our very own eyes is shocking.

Here is something interesting:
In an early piece of campaign literature put out by the mayor, it shows a picture of a bunch of Mrs. Mitchell's yard signs in a big heap in front of former Mayor Ciaravino's yard signs.  Where did he get that picture?  Better still ... how was he able to get a picture of Mrs. Mitchell's yard signs conveniently placed  in a pile in front of a pile of Ciaravino's yard signs?

The Democratic Party (given the problems that confronted them in Cuyahoga County) we believe, would not endorse a candidate that they felt had any real and substantial and highly incriminating evidence  linking her to any crimes or scandal.   That's why, we think, they chose Mrs. Mitchell.  It seems the mayor wants people to think otherwise (maybe trying to have her investigated).  We feel this is unbecoming of a mayor of any city (see Mayor Lansky's pictorial characterization of his African American female opponent) . 

We also learned that some of the salary raises that were given over the last few years, may not have gone thru city council as they should have (correct us if we're wrong).   Why the council president did not take a stand when it happened (if it happened), is a mystery to us.

Please remember (Maple Hts statistics):
[Percentage of residents living in poverty in 2009: 13.2%(8.7% for White Non-Hispanic residents, 15.7% for Black residents, 13.3% for Hispanic or Latino residents, 0.0% for American Indian residents, 0.0% for other race residents, 24.1% for two or more races residents)]

The job growth rate in Maple Heights is in the negative figures (around -10%).  Most of the people who work in Maple Heights (esp. those who draw high salaries with fantastic benefits), do not live in Maple Heights.

Where has television and print media been in investigating what appears to have been going on in Maple Heights?  Where are they now?

While the scandal unfolds, we expect public officials to continue to deflect attention away from them unto what they'll state as "politics as usual" (and we think the nasty smear campaign against Mrs. Mitchell will continue ... and probably will get worse); however, this is not "politics as usual" and the people who are suffering, and will continue to suffer (esp. from the repercussions of all this), are the residents (esp. property owners) of Maple Heights. 

We'll update .. as we gather more information.

Information on the Maple Heights financial state audit that was recently completed (which includes information on the 2009, 9.95 million dollar note (debt) which now puts Maple Heights over 18 million in debt) ... www.auditor.state.oh.us 

[By the way, Mrs. Mitchell, the mayor's opponent,  was not a member of council in 2009.  We also just learned that Maple Heights general fund may be in the red. Bond interest payments, (and salaries if we're correct) come from property taxes.]

What Role for Labor in the Progressive Uprising? A Conversation With Labor Strategist Stephen Lerner | | AlterNet  by Amy Dean


Several residents complained that a "Re-Elect Lansky" yard  sign was placed on their lawn without their permission and the letter below was left at their house (we have permission from them to post it).  We leave it up to you if you consider this "voter intimidation".  (Click on the image to enlarge it.)

That Damn Tax Levy and Those Pesky Municipal Bonds

City government administrations and city council ask residents to approve levies every now and then (usually dealing with schools and safety departments); and  they will also take out loans (for big projects) by issuing bonds.

Did You Know?

"A levy gives a local government a claim on a specific property; and if the taxpayer does not repay the levy, the government can foreclose on the taxpayer's house and sell it to pay off the levy. If the taxpayer sells his house, the new home owner will have to make the future levy payments. Existing levies can make properties in an area more difficult to sell."(1)

Scary ... right?

There can be sound reasons for levies and sound reasons for issuing bonds; however, I ask you ... why do they always come to the property owner for help in times of fiscal trouble?  And further, how do you justify asking property owners and other tax payers to fix past mistakes, or fund things, when residents are losing their homes and their jobs, sometimes because of those past mistakes? 

What to think about before issuing a bond: What's the bond for?  Is the community stable? Can the project wait til the community is financially stable before issuing a bond? What kind of bond will it be? Is the bond insured (if it is, by whom, and who is responsible for the insurance payments?)  Who will be the bondholders? With what are the bonds secured?  What happens if your city defaults? (Think back to 2008)

Note: "GO bonds are secured by the full faith and credit of the issuer, meaning that the borrower is committing to raise taxes and other revenues sufficient to cover the amount owed".

If you're going to say "yes" on some tax levy your city administration and school system ask for, ask them (mayor/city council/school superintendent/ whoever is asking) to take a cut in salary and/or benefits first.(2)

Also consider: 
Are property values stable?  Is the community stable, and the population and number of homes stable and growing?  What are the projections for property values?

Whatever the city administration and city council (or superintendent of a school via mayor) ask you (tax payers) to do, ... as stated before, ... those levies will usually be paid on the backs of property owners. And with bonds, tax payers will pay the interest until the bond matures.  When it does mature, and if you can't pay, you may be able to refund; however, you can't refinance the loan forever.  

(1)Bonds and Levies

(2)MHSD

(2)Superintendent Keenan in 2011

This post is not meant to give investment advice, it just points out risks to bond issuers.

CONSERVATIVES HAVE NO COMPASSION

My favorite article for the week:

"Compassionless Conservatism", By Terrance Heath

December 9, 2010 - 5:21pm ET

[please read the article with all videos at: http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010124909/compassionless-conservatism ]

Excerpt:

"It has been said before — recently, even — but it bears saying again and again, as any truth does. Conservatives have finally, and completely, abandoned compassion. Progressives spent much of the previous decade declaring the "compassionate conservatism" of the Bush era a cruel joke. Policy gestures in that vein were seldom backed with the money to make them work. And there there was Bush administration's cruel habit of praising successful programs only to have his administration recommend devastating cuts to the same programs — often as the president's praise was still ringing in the air.

In her 2003 column, "The Uncompassionate Conservative," Molly Ivins cited as an example of the above President George W. Bush's praise of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP] — which helps low income families heat their homes in the winter — during a presidential debate in 2000, only to turn around and cut $300 million from the program in his first budget as president — even as people were freezing to death. Ivins attributes this to a kind of pathological cluelessness on the part of Bush and his "compassionate conservatism."

The Reverend Jim Wallis, leader of Call to Renewal, a network of churches that fight poverty, told the New York Times that shortly after his election, Bush had said to him, "I don't understand how poor people think," and had described himself as a "white Republican guy who doesn't get it, but I'd like to." What's annoying about Bush is when this obtuseness, the blinkeredness of his life, weighs so heavily on others, as it has increasingly as he has acquired more power.

...What is the disconnect? One can see it from the other side -- people's lives are being horribly affected by the Bush administration's policies, but they make no connection between what happens to them and the decisions made in Washington. I think I understand why so many people who are getting screwed do not know who is screwing them. What I don't get is the disconnect at the top. Is it that Bush doesn't want to see? No one brought it to his attention? He doesn't care?

Okay, we cut taxes for the rich and so we have to cut services for the poor. Presumably there is some right-wing justification along the lines that helping poor people just makes them more dependent or something. If there were a rationale Bush could express, it would be one thing, but to watch him not see, not make the connection, is another thing entirely. Welfare, Medicare, Social Security, food stamps -- horrors, they breed dependency. Whereas inheriting millions of dollars and having your whole life handed to you on a platter is good for the grit in your immortal soul? What we're dealing with here is a man in such serious denial it would be pathetic if it weren't damaging so many lives.

Though Bush — the recent attempt to rehabilitate his image by publishing a memoir (that he hardly bothered to write) notwithstanding — has faded from the political scene, much of what Ivins noted in 2003 can be observed in today's GOP and its Tea Party base, with one very important exception.

As E.J. Dionne recently observed, conservatives have now abandoned even the pretense of compassion.

Christopher Caldwell, a columnist for The Financial Times, was one of the first political writers to pick up on the significance of [Vanderbilt University historian Gary] Gerstle’s essay. Caldwell, an American conservative, used it to critique Bush’s multicultural and compassion agenda and to explain the tea party’s rise. Intriguingly, he suggests that “many of the tea party’s gripes about President Barack Obama can also be laid at the door of Mr. Bush.”

For example, the main effect of Bush’s faith-based initiative, in Caldwell’s view, was to funnel “a lot of federal money to urban welfare and substance abuse programs.” The No Child Left Behind Act, which “meant to improve educational outcomes for minorities, did so at the price of centralizing authority in Washington.” And of course, there was Bush’s 2007 immigration reform proposal, “the clearest sign that he was losing the ear of his party.”

For liberals, the publication of Bush’s memoirs has largely been an occasion for revisiting all the areas in which they rate his presidency a catastrophic failure: the rush to war in Iraq, torture, tax cuts for the rich, the response to Hurricane Katrina. It’s hard for liberals (believe me, I know) to fathom that there are any parts of the Bush legacy we might miss.

But imagine if the main result of the tea party is a “correction” of the Bush creed involving a move away from its most open and tolerant features and a rebellion against even the idea that compassion is a legitimate object of public policy. A conservatism that abandons the redeeming side of Bushism will not be an improvement on the old model.

The difference between the "compassionate conservatism" of the Bush era and the compassionless conservatism ascendant in the GOP today is that there can be no claim of cluelessness or obtuseness. There is daily evidence that the people's lives are being horribly affected by the GOP's policies and political tactics — such as blocking the extension of unemployment benefits amid record unemployment and long-term unemployment. The rhetoric around this stomach-turning obstruction is a mixture of fickleness around "fiscal responsibility" and outright derision and hatred from the very people bearing the brunt of the economic crisis: the long-term unemployed who, after 99 weeks, face the exhaustion of their unemployment benefits. Today's conservatives can't claim not to know how their policies impact Americans' lives. Rather than not knowing, today's "uncompassionate conservatism" stems from not caring how their policies and political tactics impact people.

Lost in the debate of the president's proposed "deal" with Republicans to "temporarily" extend the Bush tax cuts in exchange for a 13-month extension of the emergency extension of unemployment insurance benefits is one devastating reality. The proposed deal holds nothing for the 99ers, those Americans who have exhausted or are close to exhausting their unemployment benefits. In the proposed deal as it currently stands, the 99ers get nothing.

-

-

The recent tax compromise between President Obama and the Republicans may be packed with treats for the upper middle class and the wealthy, but its benefits for the unemployed are perhaps not quite what they appear.

The 13-month extension of unemployment benefits offers no additional help for the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have already reached, or are fast approaching, the 99-week limit on unemployment benefits. By contrast, my colleague David Kocieniewski noted in his article on Wednesday that a quarter of the savings from this compromise will go to the wealthiest 1 percent.

“There is nothing for someone who is in that unfortunate position,” Chad Stone, chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said of the so-called 99ers."

READ THE REST OF TERRANCE HEATH'S ARICLE (WITH ALL VIDEOS) AT: http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010124909/compassionless-conservatism

-

Also read: "Fix Payroll Tax Cut for Low-Income Income Workers" by Michael Linden, December 9, 2010

-

Democrats Confident that 9/11 Health Bill Will Pass - ABC News by MATTHEW JAFFE, JESSICA HOPPER and KEVIN DOLAK

-

-

"HOUSE UPON A ROCK', PRESIDENT OBAMA'S SPEECH ON THE ECONOMY

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

READ THE FULL TEXT HERE

-

-

REPUBLICAN WEEKLY ADDRESS - SAME OLD SAME OLD STUFF

This afternoon I watched the Republican Weekly Address [Chuck Grassley] on C-SPAN. It was supposed to be a response to the President's weekly address; however, today the President talked about his pick for FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION and talked about keeping our food safe, etc.

-

What was the Republican response? There wasn't a response to the President's address, it was ... yep, you guessed it, same old stuff. They are consistent ... I'll give them that.

-

They talked about the same old tax policies; then I heard them gripe about spending as usual.

-

They didn't talk cost/benefit or cost/savings as either. So, does the Republican Party have any new ideas. NO! NO! NO!

-

FDA PICK

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090314/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_food_safety

-

REPUBLICAN PARTY DEATH WISH

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-jenkins/the-republican-partys-dea_b_174779.html

-

THE GOP SPIN MACHINE GOES ON AND ON AND ON ...

God, I'm sick of Republicans. They keep talking about the President's taxing small business. That is ridiculous. The President will only tax those making above $250,000. Most small business owners make below $250,000. Those who make above that better have changed from self-employed to a corporate model (sub chapter S, whatever). If they have a good accountant, the accountant would have already told them what business structure to use.

-

Also to clarify, the roll back to taxes during the Clinton years, will only be done after the recession lifts. That is what the President has said. So get a grip people. Why are people listening to Republicans? If you read the previous post [The GOP's Anti-Obama Propaganda], you know all this crap is about obstruction.