We'd have much smarter office holders if we went to Unigov. I'd personally prefer regionalism. Also, you can always change jurisdiction. For some reason, I always thought people moved out of Toledo for nicer neighborhoods and better schools. I didn't think it had anything to do with Toledo politics.
posted by junta330 at 12:51 P.M. EST on Mon Apr 10, 2006 #
"We'd have much smarter office holders if we went to Unigov."
How do you figure? 70% or so of the county's population is in Toledo, so a Toledo politician only needs the Toledo vote. Remember Gerken-Barlos for LCC in '04?
What is the definition of unigov, anyway? I thinks it's whatever you want it to be at the county-wide level. I think there can be as many forms of unigov as there are snowflake designs. Unigov supporters simply say we need unigov without ever going into extreme detail as to how it would work in Lucas County.
"I didn't think it had anything to do with Toledo politics."
What about the taxes paid versus the city services received? Who gets more bang for their taxpayer buck, someone living in the burbs or living in Toledo?
Carty for 8 years, Ford for 4 years, Carty for at least 4 more years.
The Toledo political mindset was on display when Council unanimously passed Ford's extremist 2003 strict smoking ban. Other communities may be considering some kind of ban, but it's way, way down on their list of priorities. Toledo politicians clearly don't understand what's important.
In theory, unigov probably makes sense. But in the case of Lucas County, how does unigov benefit the communities outside of Toledo? I believe many view unigov as a way for Toledo to tap into another pool of taxpayers to help Toledo.
Look at last summer's "minor" dispute over the new proposed coking plant for example:
"To make a long story short, Oregon has held that the 51 1/2 acre proposed site sits within Oregon; Toledo says that the creek, the traditional border, was moved improperly over the years by "the hand of man," cutting off Toledo land. This remains a crisis for both cities because while their respective mayors, Jack Ford and Marge Brown, have agreed to a 50-50 split of tax dollars generated by the plant, the two school districts have not."
"Oregon Schools want the same 50-50 split the cities have accepted, while Toledo Public Schools insists on something closer to an 80-20 split."
What's up with that? Just because TPS is larger, they feel they need a larger slice of the taxpayer pie? I think this is what scares the communities outside of Toledo. I wonder how much debate it took to get Ford to agree to a 50-50 split?
Toledo is pushing unigov, not a coalition of other Lucas County communities. I think Toledo wants access to Maumee's Arrowhead park, which is the home of many businesses that have left Toledo over the past 30 years.
Why does Toledo feel that via unigov it can work with other communities, when Toledo cannot get along with itself, as in the case of East Toledo whose residents claim that they have been constantly shafted for many years. Has a real or perceived political divide existed between East Toledo and the rest of the city for the past 20+ years?
Recently, some East Toledo residents asked Oregon's Mayor Brown to consider annexing East Toledo. I think Mayor Brown told the residents to take their problems to Toledo city government.
Even if Toledo got its way and changed the name of the county to Toledo County, unigov won't help Toledo in the long run. Toledo's biggest problem now is the booming northern Wood County. Toledo would need regionalism, not unigov, to get access to the Wood County tax money.
And let's not forget about the Toledoans moving across the state line. From an April 9 Blade story about Monroe County's population growth, which is due to people moving from Detroit and Toledo.
"The northern parts of the county are benefiting from the continued expansion of the Detroit metro area. The southern part is the same thing, [with people moving] from the Toledo area. People continue moving from the Toledo area to [Bedford Township], a trend that began more than a decade ago and shows no signs of stopping."
posted by jr at 04:14 P.M. EST on Mon Apr 10, 2006 #
At this evening's debate, Copeland said he supports unigov. After a bit of hesitation to the question, Copeland said, "Ummmmmmm (pause), Yes."
posted by jr at 05:34 P.M. EST on Mon Apr 10, 2006 #
At the debate, Copeland said to Maumee Mayor Tim Wagener that Maumee stole companies from Toledo, and that's the reason for Maumee's economic development success.
posted by jr at 05:42 P.M. EST on Mon Apr 10, 2006 #
stole?
Phil said this?
Phil? You idiot, you suck.
Tim afforded a better corporate environment, something Toledo just can't seem to do!
posted by BrianInFlorida at 06:14 P.M. EST on Mon Apr 10, 2006 #
No one should be stealing any jobs from any cities within the region. That serves the purpose of what regionalism is about. There are effective tools, steps, and scenarios that it can happen. The problem is the elected officials are too stupid to know how to work it or even apply it.
posted by HolyHolyToledo at 06:37 P.M. EST on Mon Apr 10, 2006 #
I've always said that you don't need to change your form of government in order to change the way the existing governments do business.
We've been very successful with a county-wide purchasing approach, joining together to purchase items that we all use. We've saved some money, too (imagine that)!
posted by MaggieThurber at 06:44 P.M. EST on Mon Apr 10, 2006 #
junta330 said: "We'd have much smarter office holders if we went to Unigov."
The current makeup of the LCC is direct evidence that that is false. Toledo politicians would dominate a LC Unigov since it's a pure case of Toledo's urban area still forming the largest voting bloc.
In my considered opinion, Copeland has a 50/50 chance of landing the LCC slot. You may disagree with that, but you certainly can't tell me he fits your "smarter" office holder criteria.
junta330 said: "[Y]ou can always change jurisdiction."
No, you'd have to move out of Lucas County entirely, which is not only a much bigger jump than just from Toledo to the 'burbs, but it doesn't allow for 'burbing in the first place -- i.e. living just over the line to take advantage of Toledo's urbania while leaving its ruinous stupidity and taxation behind. Thousands of Toledo-avoiders in Maumee, Perryburg and good ol' Sylvania will simply be screwed.
junta330 said: "I always thought people moved out of Toledo for nicer neighborhoods and better schools. I didn't think it had anything to do with Toledo politics."
Neighborhoods? Schools? THESE ARE POLITICS!
Jr said: "I believe many view unigov as a way for Toledo to tap into another pool of taxpayers to help Toledo."
It's not even a belief. The prime computation is that THAT is the only reason. Toledo politicians want it; the Blade wants it; but Non-Toledo county residents DON'T.
Copeland said, "Ummmmmmm (pause), Yes."
Wow! What an amazing orator! I'm sold already! Vote for Copeland! He's a Toledoan ... he's a Democrat ... he's Black ... and if I didn't say so already, his last name is C-O-P-E-L-A-N-D. Surefire! Who needs reasons, anyway?
Sheesh.
Mags said: "We've been very successful with a county-wide purchasing approach, joining together to purchase items that we all use. We've saved some money[.]"
Was this purchasing arrangement voluntary for the local governments involved?
posted by GuestZero at 01:53 A.M. EST on Tue Apr 11, 2006 #
In my considered opinion, Copeland has a 50/50 chance of landing the LCC slot.
----------------------------------------------
And your opinion is almost always valid and dead on, as you are here. I concur.
' He's a Toledoan ... he's a Democrat ... he's Black ... and if I didn't say so already, his last name is C-O-P-E-L-A-N-D. Surefire! '
--------------------------------------------
And you also listed the reasons why. Also-and this is going to sound racist, I suppose, but-here I go-remember...the white vote will be split. The black vote won't be. And there you go.
posted by Darkseid at 04:37 A.M. EST on Tue Apr 11, 2006 #
GZ - yes, the joint purchasing is voluntary. Jurisdictions take advantage of it when it fits their needs. We work together - hence my opinion that you don't need to change your form of government...you just need to change your attitude. And changing your form of government does not guarantee and change in attitude.
posted by MaggieThurber at 05:45 A.M. EST on Tue Apr 11, 2006 #
Some proof that a LC Unigov is not in the hopes and dreams of the 'burbs:
Perrysburg considering TARTA pullout
posted by GuestZero at 11:46 A.M. EST on Tue Apr 11, 2006 #
For what it's worth - this writer is the only one that I felt a deep desire to write to and tell him he was a dumbass. And I did it twice.
It felt good. Very, very good.
posted by katie82640 at 07:29 P.M. EST on Wed Apr 12, 2006 #
I meant Russ Lemmon - not Guestzero. Just thought I'd put that out there!
posted by katie82640 at 07:53 P.M. EST on Wed Apr 12, 2006 #
Katie,
You've got Russ pegged. Sometimes I wonder if he's under the influence of recrational drugs while he writes his column.
posted by steiner at 08:45 P.M. EST on Wed Apr 12, 2006 #
I had a dust-up with Russ Lemmon. He thinks moving the law-school downtown is a good idea -- when asked why it was a good idea his argument was the single word (taking from a March column of his): "synergy".
It is hard to oppose such a cumulus concept that has little real meaning and is irrefutable (because no one can ever prove it or disprove it). But, it is easy to oppose it when "synergy" is the beginning and end of the argument for the move.
A list, which is growing, of reasons the move is a bad idea appear below:
1) Law students are happy in their building - it has advanced technologies that facilitate their needs. There is wireless internet everywhere in the building, it has a large space for public talks (Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg just visited), it has a three story library, it has "smart-boards" in all the classrooms -- it is perfect for their needs. There ever increasing US News rankings show a move is ill conceived.
2) Law students don't need to go to courthouses during our education. I would go so far as to saw law-students don't belong in a courthouse (unless they break the law). They have too much homework to do otherwise.
3) Law-students are poor, they don't have extra money to spend to revitalize Downtown (they can't eat at Real Seafood Co./Old Navy Bistro everyday or buy/rent an expensive loft). The school is a commuter school - they will live and eat and spend their money outside of downtown and drive into downtown for class. It is similar to the art school at UT - art students certainly don't live anywhere near the Museum, they live elsewhere and commute.
4) The law school has little / no security and thefts are commonplace as it is. If this is the level of security they will be provided in the warehouse district, I fear for students.
5) The law school has educational programs and dealings with the Business/Engineering schools on UT's main campus that are facilitated only by proximity. Moving the school will destroy these partnerships.
6) The Merger with MCO (MUO) is already causing ripples and the plan should at least be on hold until the merger is complete and things have settled.
7) UT will conceptually look like a disorganized scatter-gram. The Museum, MCO, UT and a downtown law-school will be a complex and uncoordinated nightmare.
8) Recruiting will be seriously hampered - Professor of Law Frank S. Merritt, with 30 years of service to the University, begs to differ with the come-lately Ben Konop as to the wisdom behind a move (see the Toledo Blade; visiting assistant professor who has been at his present address less than a year prior to this election, Ben Konop supports the plan V. Full professor with 30 years of service Frank S. Merritt does not support the plan).
9) Moving the law-school downtown will send the subtle message that the students are intended for practice within the city after graduation (which would relegate the law-school to a 4th tier community college)
10) Moving the law-school could cost tax-payers in excess of 30 million dollars (if it is moved to the old Federal Court House), as opposed to the building it is in which will cost the tax-payers nothing if there is no move. If it is moved to the Berdan building it makes one wonder why there hasn't been bidding on the plan (developers approached UT and somehow the plan is acceptable when in past years any such mention of the plan was frowned upon)
11) When UT classes were moved to the Sea Gate Convention Centre it became disruptive for conferences and lack of attendance caused the program to fail (yes, law students will transfer to other schools or select classes and programs outside of downtown)
12) Simple day to day tasks, such as going to the financial aid office, going to the bursar, going to the bookstore for books, going to the student union, etc -- will be a daily nightmare for students
13) A renovated Westgate or a Dorr Street initiative will provide more of an opportunity for UT Law students (and the UT campus as a whole) to contribute towards the coffers of the city and it's businesses than a downtown Toledo without an infrastructure that will support the school
14) Chicago law-schools that have moved downtown have contributed little, if anything, towards the city budget (a few mediocre sub shops). Capital University in Columbus was moved downtown primarily because there sits the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio and it has a novelty appeal for students (big cases and big judges) - that reasoning is lacking in Toledo.
...anyone care to add reasons 15-100, I'm tired of typing...
posted by UTStudent at 01:26 P.M. EST on Fri Apr 14, 2006 #
UTStudent - thanks for the well-worded points.
I guess I'd ask again, what does UT gain from moving downtown? The only reasons I've heard to justify the move is that it would be good for downtown Toledo. And while the University may be able to afford to be altruistic in some sense, any move would have to be a benefit, financially and otherwise, to the University and to the students. So far, that's a major consideration that's missing from these discussions.
posted by MaggieThurber at 08:45 A.M. EST on Sat Apr 15, 2006 #
Hey - for the next debate, let's submit that question for Ben (or any candidate who supports this idea)...
Besides a proximity to law firms and courts (which is really not an issue considering the physical distance between UT and downtown), what do the University and its law students gain by a move of the law school to downtown?
posted by MaggieThurber at 08:48 A.M. EST on Sat Apr 15, 2006 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
