Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | Home RSS
 
 
 

House Bill 5 could cost Salem money

June 11, 2013

By MARY ANN GREIER Staff Writer SALEM — State Rep....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(24)

concerned

Jun-11-13 6:34 AM

Three cheers for Mr. Whitehill!!! I think he has some excellent ideas. The people that Mrs. Popa and others wants to see put their junk in a city wide clean up will not do it. They don't have junky looking places because they are so poor they can't afford to dispose of it. They have junky looking places because they love their junk. They are not going to throw it out just because there is a city wide clean up. The only way to get people to clean up their property is to write an ordinance against having junk and debris in your yard then enforce it. If they don't want to live by the rules then they will pay a fine or leave town and take their junk elsewhere. If you want to clean this town up you have to quit making excuses for people and force them to be responsible or else pay the fines. sooner or later they will either clean up or leave town.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Jun-11-13 8:11 AM

Right on concerned. Thats why i drive allover town and see all the emoty homes with grass growing 2ft. tall.

Whose going to to do all the forcing.?

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

questioner

Jun-11-13 9:16 AM

I'm seeing a possible loss of $300,000/yr. Are we at all preparing for that possibility? Discussing it and planning for it are two separate things. (I'm not sure relying on this income tax to pay for city operations was a good move anyway) And if our city specifically doesn't allow a business to carry forward a loss, but the bill wants to allow it for 5 years, maybe our city is out of whack. Either way, "that alone would cost the city $250,000 to $300,000 per year in tax receipts" Is this in addition to the $300,000 income tax loss? Prepare for a loss. Relook at what/how we pay for things. Please.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Jun-11-13 9:17 AM

What is your remedy Ladybug? Spending more tax money so people that will not throw their junk out will have an opportunity to do so even though we know they won't do it? I think this city has much bigger problems, that they need to spend the tax dollars on than waste them on a city wide clean up. Things like fixing the streets, bringing the police force up to the numbers they need to do the job, fix the storm sewer problems, replace their aging equipment. The list could go on and on. The city needs to provide the basic services they are obligated to provide before they look to expand and take on any new services.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Jun-11-13 9:33 AM

I made a simple statement and right away you attaxck.

Who do you honestly think is going to run around town making sure th 20% cleans up their property ?

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Jun-11-13 9:36 AM

Seems funnie the last time i lived in Salem and they had a trash pick up.It was all over town on the curbs,

No i don't have an easy answer.More ordinances and fines won't do it , because you can't afford to pay people to run around over seeing it.And the police sure as*****don't have the time.

So whats your realistic answer ?

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Jun-11-13 9:38 AM

Last but least i never said i was in favor of a city wide clean up.

Your answers are alwaysthe same," Just Force Them" yea like these type really care.

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

questioner

Jun-11-13 9:53 AM

Gotta say, I agree with what Bug said about tall grass, little enforcement. One real estate agent seems to have places for sale with the tallest grass. But, don't sidetrack from bigger issue--Salem could lose over $300,000 in revenue. What are we doing about that?

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Jun-11-13 11:05 AM

Ladybug get your shorts out of a bunch. I wasn't attacking you. I was asking if you had a better idea. I really don't think the taxpayers picking up the tab for a city wide clean up is the answer. To answer your other question about enforcement, we now have two housing inspectors. Instead of them going around inspecting the same rental houses year after year for electrical, railings, fire extinguishers and smoke detector violations they could issue citations for people that have junk laying around in their yards. The same as they should be doing about the grass situation but don't. Is that in their job description? If not I think Council might need to define the inspectors job a little better than it is now. IF these irresponsible people get fined enough they will either clean it up or leave town.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Jun-11-13 11:11 AM

Questioner What is your suggestion for a solution. I personally don't think penalizing a business by not allowing them to get full deduction credit for their losses even if it is over a few years is the way to spark economic development. If a business shuts down how is the loss of jobs from it's closing, going to help? One thing I know for sure is spending money on projects that are not essential to the basic services of the city, certainly is not a solution.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

KsBug79

Jun-11-13 12:02 PM

concerned - you have a good idea about the housing inspectors. Go down to city hall on any given day and see if they are really out of their offices!! The 1st guy needed a helper cause he was always in the office doing paperwork....um, yeah, cause he was always in the office and never leaving it, so what paperwork could he be doing? Not anything on his inspections that he wasn't doing!!!

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

qcityfan

Jun-11-13 12:08 PM

Several of the assertions made in the article are completely unfounded; perhaps the writer can do more research and provide clarifications, instead of just quoting politicians. As an aside, the Ohio Newspaper Association itself is a member of the Municipal Tax Reform Coalition.

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

questioner

Jun-11-13 1:30 PM

Ohio Chambers of Commerce is for the bill. Accountants seem to be for it (for businesses sakes, not for their own). Cities dislike it because "It redefines “taxable income", in many cases significantly reducing tax revenue to cities and villages" (in which case many taxpayers should like it). I think Salem's policy of penalizing businesses with a negative cash flow is wrong. But regardless, I think we should be preparing now to have less money and should not be spending where we don't need to. I suggest planning for less money to work with.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

questioner

Jun-11-13 1:39 PM

In another article, the mayor raised the pay of our streets foreman $2.45/hour "The increase will take the street foreman's pay to $24.04 per hour and cost the city an additional $196 per pay, which equates to more than $5,000 per year." Is it possible to decrease anyone's pay so we don't have to keep increasing to keep up with the other utility dept personnel/superintendents? I'm saying we need to plan to have less money to work with and act accordingly.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Jun-11-13 4:22 PM

Questioner I think the person that wrote the article had an uncorrected typo. 2.45 x 8hrs= $19.60 a day not $196 like the article says, the $5,000 a year is about correct give or take a $100. That is quite a jump in pay all at once. I am sure the employee will be a happy camper.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Truth101

Jun-11-13 5:59 PM

Can I carry my losses forward five years too?

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Jun-12-13 6:02 AM

truth 101 Are your losses greater than 100% of your income? If you happen to own a rental unit a lot of the major permanent improvements not only can be stung out over 5 plus years but they must be. Do you have a problem with the people that write your paychecks every month making a profit? Where is the extra tax money that has to be paid on losses they can't deduct going to come from? I wonder!! Maybe from the available funds to they have to pay employees???

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

KsBug79

Jun-12-13 9:06 AM

@questioner - you mention the city needs to begin to work with the thought of less money. Let's see what this mayor has done...re-hired a secretary the last mayor did not think was needed. I believe there's more police officers added to the force. Another housing inspector, when the first one does nothing. (ask if they have EVER cited anyone or taken them to court for non-compliance, again the last mayor found no need for 2. Given raises to various employees, not just supervisors, but police officers and street workers. I'm not saying these folks don't deserve an increase to their income as we all know daily expences only increase, never decrease. But, for all his republican wanting smaller government/spend less money, all he does is increase government & spending.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WatchDog

Jun-12-13 2:57 PM

Only city I know that can take a mole hill and turn it into a flipping mountain!!

Contract it out for removal.

USE THE SALEM UTILITIES DEPARTMENT WATER BILL. Charge the residents (as if we should even have to with that SURPLUS sitting there) a few extra bucks a year for a once a year citywide street cleanup.

If they PIGS that Mr. Apple refers to doesn't utilize what they are being charged for...then use ENFORCEMENT, (NO EXCUSE) if they have a way to rid their cluttered filthy homes and yards of junk. Easier to nail these "filthy" people. If they want the water kept on they are going to pay their bill. Look at the extra money the city could collect.

The city isn't using Mr. Whitehill's City money (as if it doesn't belong to the taxpayers, in the first place) and tax dollars will not be used for the service. The City can contract it for a once a year.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Jun-13-13 7:01 AM

The problem with that idea watchdog is the money we pay the utilities dept is for water and sewer. If the city keeps adding other services and tacking an extra charge on, that is in all reality a tax increase for city services. By law the city has a maximum amount of tax they can impose without a vote of the people. Salem has already reach that limit. I would certainly not want to see then try to use the utility dept. as a way to raise taxes illegally. It is bad enough that they are raiding that dept. for their interest income as it is. I think they may be skating on thin ice even doing that. The city income tax is for city services it is apparent the taxpayers have said on several occasions (by voting no on a tax increase)just give us the services that 1% tax will buy we are not giving you any more. Just take care of basic needs. Police, fire and streets.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Jun-13-13 11:42 AM

General fund money and water dept money are 2 seperate accounts and can't be exchanged,

Only the interest from investments can.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Jun-14-13 7:14 AM

Ladybug says: Only the interest from investments can.

Do you happen to know where the statute on that is? I am not saying you are wrong I would just like to know. Seems to me interest on money in a fund would belong to that fund. But I could be wrong on that I have never studied it out,just looking at it logically.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

questioner

Jun-14-13 1:55 PM

Boy, was someone drinking last night and then just going thru and hitting "disagree" to everything?? Maybe they didn't like the article, and by extension anyone who commented on it--regardless of viewpoint. If you're gonna disagree with everyone, at least write why.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oakleaves

Jun-22-13 5:25 PM

QCityFan, if you have all the answers why don't you run for council and stop pulling the strings from behind...Every time a Democrat goes to that podium to speak you have a problem how crazy can you be. Your guy Newbold was a waste of the taxpayers money he did nothing for this county but pad his own pockets

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 24 of 24 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web