Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I remember when I-695 in Washington State passed, slashing license plate tab fees. Lots of folks in Cheney ignored the warnings that the loss of state funding could close up their $ 1 million plus Parks and Rec department. After it passed they refused to believe it a second time and voted down a property tax hike that would have payed for the parks to be mowed and the pool to stay open. 'Don't listen to the fear mongering, government will find a way to come up with the funding' was the consensus.

Cheney Parks and Rec promptly shut it's doors and the pool didn't open that summer.

Oh well, I suppose there's no connection between taxes, poor kids playing high school sports, and criminal investigations.

Conks.

Reporting from Uniopolis, Ohio—

Residents here were all for balancing Ohio's budget. They didn't expect that to mean their town would cease to exist.

This small village of low-slung houses and squeaky swing sets in western Ohio's farm country has already laid off its part-time police officer and decided not to replace its maintenance worker, who recently retired. To save cash, Mayor William Rolston will propose Monday that the town turn off the street lights, and that Uniopolis disincorporate after more than a century in existence.

The cuts were felt across the state: Auglaize County, where Uniopolis is located, lost $5 million in the new budget, according to Innovation Ohio, a left-leaning think tank. Cuyahoga County, the home of Cleveland, lost $230 million, and Hamilton County, where Cincinnati is located, lost $136 million, the think tank reported.

Around the state, police departments have laid off staff — in some cases, half of the officers. Police will no longer respond in person to theft calls if there are no witnesses, said Jay McDonald, head of the Fraternal Order of Police. About 166 school districts are projected to run deficits by 2014; many are scrambling to come up with cash by selling space for cellphone towers and charging students hundreds of dollars to participate in sports or extracurricular activities. The cuts came at the same time federal stimulus funding for schools ran out, dealing a double whammy for many communities.

There's little appetite for higher taxes anywhere in Ohio, where voters in many towns have rejected requests for tax hikes. The Lakota school district near Cincinnati has asked taxpayers to put out extra money for the schools three times — and three times, voters said no. So high school athletes now pay $550 for each sport they play, and middle school athletes pay $350.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 4585.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

kalm wrote:Conks.

To save cash, Mayor William Rolston will propose Monday that the town turn off the street lights, and that Uniopolis disincorporate after more than a century in existence.

Quick google reveals Rolston is a Dem.

89Hen wrote:

kalm wrote:Conks.

Quick google reveals Rolston is a Dem.

And payed the town's bills for 19 years.

A town of 256 people doesn't need a part-time police officer. They should contract with another agency. A town that size can't afford a full-time maintenance worker either. It's not big enough. They either need to contract it out to another municipality or a private person.

I was a city manager for 15 years. Every town has waste or unnecessary expenses that can be cut. Same goes for school districts.

HI54UNI wrote:A town of 256 people doesn't need a part-time police officer. They should contract with another agency. A town that size can't afford a full-time maintenance worker either. It's not big enough. They either need to contract it out to another municipality or a private person.

256 people don't need to be a separate town at all. They finally got it right by considering disencorporation.

HI54UNI wrote:I was a city manager for 15 years. Every town has waste or unnecessary expenses that can be cut. Same goes for school districts.

I was hoping you would post, being the resident expert here and you're right about waste. I think the broader point is that budget cuts have consequences.

kalm wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:I was a city manager for 15 years. Every town has waste or unnecessary expenses that can be cut. Same goes for school districts.

I was hoping you would post, being the resident expert here and you're right about waste. I think the broader point is that budget cuts have consequences.

Classic donk misconception. Donks think we can spend spend spend without consequences...then cut cut cut without consequences. Hilarious.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
I was hoping you would post, being the resident expert here and you're right about waste. I think the broader point is that budget cuts have consequences.

Classic donk misconception. Donks think we can spend spend spend without consequences...then cut cut cut without consequences. Hilarious.

kalm wrote:I think the broader point is that budget cuts have consequences.

You are definitely a half picture guy.

89Hen wrote:

kalm wrote:I think the broader point is that budget cuts have consequences.

You are definitely a half picture guy.

Not at all. I just see the benefits of sports, leisure, and cops and have no problem paying for them. They're kind of a measure of how well a society is doing.

There are signs that we are going the other direction.

In my opinion local governments should be self supporting - i.e. no money from the state or feds. That money distorts reality because it allows local governments to do other things that they don't need to do or shouldn't be doing plus it always comes with strings attached. If people want police, fire, swimming pools, parks, etc. they should be willing to pay for it through their local taxes. The mayor's comment, "Uniopolis may ask residents to pay higher taxes to keep the town afloat, but Mayor Rolston says there's little appetite for more spending in a town made up of little more than a part-time hair salon and a post office," says it all for me. The people in that tiny town don't want to tax themselves so they can continue to exist as a town. If that is the case they need to dis-incorporate and let the county/township handle it - which would include levying taxes to provide services. If you want to live in an area with new parks, pools, and libraries and a police officer driving by your house every 10 minutes you should pay for it. If you don't want to pay for that move somewhere else.

If you look at this article it says that Auglaize County, where this town is located, lost $5 million. The budget for the county alone is over $58 million plus you would have the cities' budgets on top of that. $5 million would be a big chunk to bite off but it is not insurmountable.

I think most people are reasonable when it comes to voting for certain tax increases. However I do worry that a trend is starting to take shape, especially for school related issues. Baby boomers refusing to pay for the next generation's education because they already paid for their kids' education. Bunch of selfish assholes. (yes I'm generalizing)

Cities in Iowa went though this about 10 years ago. The state was in a pinch and basically eliminated all funding to local governments. My colleagues cried and whined like the world was going to end. One of my colleagues in a nearby community said the swimming pool wouldn't open that summer and had business cards printed with our state legislators' home phone numbers on them. She said she would hand them out to people who were unhappy about the swimming pool not being open. Guess what - the swimming pool opened just like normal. Somehow the city found the money. The woman lost all credibility with the legislators because of her little stunt.

In our community we made some cuts and changes to how we do things. We survived just fine. In some ways we are better because the state gives no money to cities now and so you don't have to go through shit like this when the states have to start cutting budgets.

People want stuff for free. 100% of the benefits with zero effort.

HI54UNI wrote:Cities in Iowa went though this about 10 years ago. The state was in a pinch and basically eliminated all funding to local governments. My colleagues cried and whined like the world was going to end. One of my colleagues in a nearby community said the swimming pool wouldn't open that summer and had business cards printed with our state legislators' home phone numbers on them. She said she would hand them out to people who were unhappy about the swimming pool not being open. Guess what - the swimming pool opened just like normal. Somehow the city found the money. The woman lost all credibility with the legislators because of her little stunt.

In our community we made some cuts and changes to how we do things. We survived just fine. In some ways we are better because the state gives no money to cities now and so you don't have to go through shit like this when the states have to start cutting budgets.

Good posts.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
I was hoping you would post, being the resident expert here and you're right about waste. I think the broader point is that budget cuts have consequences.

Classic donk misconception. Donks think we can spend spend spend without consequences...then cut cut cut without consequences. Hilarious.

Donks want taxes spent on helping people and community wellness. Conks want taxes spent on killing people/military and playing cops and robbers/arresting people.

HI54UNI wrote:In my opinion local governments should be self supporting - i.e. no money from the state or feds. That money distorts reality because it allows local governments to do other things that they don't need to do or shouldn't be doing plus it always comes with strings attached. If people want police, fire, swimming pools, parks, etc. they should be willing to pay for it through their local taxes. The mayor's comment, "Uniopolis may ask residents to pay higher taxes to keep the town afloat, but Mayor Rolston says there's little appetite for more spending in a town made up of little more than a part-time hair salon and a post office," says it all for me. The people in that tiny town don't want to tax themselves so they can continue to exist as a town. If that is the case they need to dis-incorporate and let the county/township handle it - which would include levying taxes to provide services. If you want to live in an area with new parks, pools, and libraries and a police officer driving by your house every 10 minutes you should pay for it. If you don't want to pay for that move somewhere else.

If you look at this article it says that Auglaize County, where this town is located, lost $5 million. The budget for the county alone is over $58 million plus you would have the cities' budgets on top of that. $5 million would be a big chunk to bite off but it is not insurmountable.

I think most people are reasonable when it comes to voting for certain tax increases. However I do worry that a trend is starting to take shape, especially for school related issues. Baby boomers refusing to pay for the next generation's education because they already paid for their kids' education. Bunch of selfish assholes. (yes I'm generalizing)

One thing I forgot to mention - if the state and feds wouldn't give money to the cities then they wouldn't have to take as much from us and people might be more willing to support local tax increases. Plus a portion of the money is not wasted on all the bureaucracy in between.

HI54UNI wrote:In my opinion local governments should be self supporting - i.e. no money from the state or feds. That money distorts reality because it allows local governments to do other things that they don't need to do or shouldn't be doing plus it always comes with strings attached. If people want police, fire, swimming pools, parks, etc. they should be willing to pay for it through their local taxes. The mayor's comment, "Uniopolis may ask residents to pay higher taxes to keep the town afloat, but Mayor Rolston says there's little appetite for more spending in a town made up of little more than a part-time hair salon and a post office," says it all for me. The people in that tiny town don't want to tax themselves so they can continue to exist as a town. If that is the case they need to dis-incorporate and let the county/township handle it - which would include levying taxes to provide services. If you want to live in an area with new parks, pools, and libraries and a police officer driving by your house every 10 minutes you should pay for it. If you don't want to pay for that move somewhere else.

If you look at this article it says that Auglaize County, where this town is located, lost $5 million. The budget for the county alone is over $58 million plus you would have the cities' budgets on top of that. $5 million would be a big chunk to bite off but it is not insurmountable.

I think most people are reasonable when it comes to voting for certain tax increases. However I do worry that a trend is starting to take shape, especially for school related issues. Baby boomers refusing to pay for the next generation's education because they already paid for their kids' education. Bunch of selfish assholes. (yes I'm generalizing)

Great post Fiver and it's tough to argue with. That said, the current arrangement has created a standard of living expectation that many people take for granted. I personally think our country should be able to provide a poor kid with the opportunity to play high school sports. I also think things like city pools and libraries keep kids healthy, educated, and less inclined to be thugs. I don't think everyone recognizes this.

kalm wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:In my opinion local governments should be self supporting - i.e. no money from the state or feds. That money distorts reality because it allows local governments to do other things that they don't need to do or shouldn't be doing plus it always comes with strings attached. If people want police, fire, swimming pools, parks, etc. they should be willing to pay for it through their local taxes. The mayor's comment, "Uniopolis may ask residents to pay higher taxes to keep the town afloat, but Mayor Rolston says there's little appetite for more spending in a town made up of little more than a part-time hair salon and a post office," says it all for me. The people in that tiny town don't want to tax themselves so they can continue to exist as a town. If that is the case they need to dis-incorporate and let the county/township handle it - which would include levying taxes to provide services. If you want to live in an area with new parks, pools, and libraries and a police officer driving by your house every 10 minutes you should pay for it. If you don't want to pay for that move somewhere else.

If you look at this article it says that Auglaize County, where this town is located, lost $5 million. The budget for the county alone is over $58 million plus you would have the cities' budgets on top of that. $5 million would be a big chunk to bite off but it is not insurmountable.

I think most people are reasonable when it comes to voting for certain tax increases. However I do worry that a trend is starting to take shape, especially for school related issues. Baby boomers refusing to pay for the next generation's education because they already paid for their kids' education. Bunch of selfish assholes. (yes I'm generalizing)

Great post Fiver and it's tough to argue with. That said, the current arrangement has created a standard of living expectation that many people take for granted. I personally think our country should be able to provide a poor kid with the opportunity to play high school sports. I also think things like city pools and libraries keep kids healthy, educated, and less inclined to be thugs. I don't think everyone recognizes this.

I agree.

D1B wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Classic donk misconception. Donks think we can spend spend spend without consequences...then cut cut cut without consequences. Hilarious.

Donks want taxes spent on helping people and community wellness. Conks want taxes spent on killing people/military and playing cops and robbers/arresting people.

Like Libya and Syria

I really don't see a differenct in that aspect between Bush and Obama Admins.

kalm wrote:

89Hen wrote: You are definitely a half picture guy.

Not at all. I just see the benefits of sports, leisure, and cops and have no problem paying for them. They're kind of a measure of how well a society is doing.

There are signs that we are going the other direction.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
I was hoping you would post, being the resident expert here and you're right about waste. I think the broader point is that budget cuts have consequences.

Classic donk misconception. Donks think we can spend spend spend without consequences...then cut cut cut without consequences. Hilarious.

Classic Conk generalization. Conks think they can cut, cut, cut without consequences....then not spend as the population and demands increase.

Gil Dobie wrote:

D1B wrote:
Donks want taxes spent on helping people and community wellness. Conks want taxes spent on killing people/military and playing cops and robbers/arresting people.

Like Libya and Syria

I really don't see a differenct in that aspect between Bush and Obama Admins.

Really Gil, you can't?

89Hen wrote:

kalm wrote:
Not at all. I just see the benefits of sports, leisure, and cops and have no problem paying for them. They're kind of a measure of how well a society is doing.

There are signs that we are going the other direction.

Pipe down you, and go raise some money for the First Tee.

I realize I695 was passed back in 1999, but Gregoire has been a huge spender in her time as Governor.

http://www.redmond-reporter.com/opinion/29341959.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But let’s assume the Governor is correct. If she inherited a big deficit, then why on earth did she raise state spending 33 percent in just four years? She knew perfectly well that her budgets were growing faster than the economy’s ability to pay for them. Why didn’t she show more caution?

It’s a question a lot of people are asking about bankers, mortgage lenders and unemployed hedge fund managers.

Like them, the Governor bet that the value of housing and the pace of economic growth would keep rising, so she went on a spending binge unseen in this state in nearly 20 years. She ignored the first lesson of government finance: Don’t spend money you don’t expect to receive.

She could have filled the small budget hole she inherited. Instead, she dug a deeper one. Much deeper. And for that, she can blame no one but herself.