HERE'S WHERE YOUR MONEY WON'T BE GOING

As every state waits anxiously for its chip off the old $800 billion in federal stimulus rock, Ohio is hard at work trying to figure out how to keep the lights on. With just $5 billion in federal relief expected for fiscal woes in the all nation’s most hard-hit regions — and tax collections dipping to Dust Bowl levels — Gov. Ted Strickland and legislative leaders have been poring through the books with weed-whackers humming.

In February, perhaps to put the boo-face on for federal budget planners, Strickland lamented a potential $800 million budget crater opening up in July at the beginning of the new two-year budget cycle. The pouting didn’t help much. More cuts came down the hill. Now, state leaders are toying with opening the state’s billion-dollar rainy-day fund, it being a rainy day and all.

Since federal mandates limit the trimming state budgeters can do to education and Medicaid, it’s all the other little things the state does that have to go — like services for notoriously non-voting constituencies, children, the needy and the mentally ill.

Like it wasn’t bad enough that nonprofit groups like Catholic Charities are trimming back and foundations are gearing more time and effort toward rehab, Rebekah Dorman, director of the state-funded Invest in Children program, told county commissioners on Thursday that a 57-percent reduction in service would occur on July 1 for her agency’s at-risk clients. The Help Me Grow program, which visits every new first-time mother in the county to counsel and affirm (and inspect), has been completely shut down. Dorman had 39 staffers not too long ago; now she’s got 20.

According to figures Dorman provided to Scene, these are the statewide cuts to services to children alone: $119 million from early education; $67 million from child-care services, $300,000 to behavioral health, and $57.6 million from Help Me Grow. And on top of it all: eligibility requirements will be steepened.

“It’s going to be a very ugly fall, I’m afraid,” predicted County Administrator Jim McCafferty.

Once again, do we have to remind all you worry-warts? The billion-dollar Medical Mart? Uh-huh. There’s that smile daddy loves. — Dan Harkins

This article appears in May 13-19, 2009.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, the cities are using the old “we want to improve your city” as an excuse to cutback employees and services. In case you haven’t heard: Lakewood is replacing its trash collection methods, presumably to eliminate workers. But it is using a concept that will cause the city to burn up more taxpayer dollars without significant benefits. The city has been talked into a new plan: scrap its current trash collection vehicles and invest in new trucks with large “arm” devices attached. These vehicles, according to the publicized plan, will stop at each residence and use the arms to clamp around new trash receptacles which will be distributed to households. Now we have a problem. A new problem. And you will have to pay for it unless you write your mayor.
In its exuberance to further Lakewood’s recycling and garbage collection effort, the mayor and city council approved the new automated trash collection system already. But they evidently have overlooked the hidden costs in this proposal (which quickly eliminates the purpose of affordable level recycling). A quick review will make it clear this idea does not have the city’s best interests at heart:
Part of the problem started back when Lakewood encouraged development of turning family dwellings into apartments and condos. When the number of residents multiplied unrestricted, so did the number of parked cars, many of whom were forced to “spillover” into on-street parking. Therefore, with this trash collection proposal, the new trucks will be forced to work around these cars with a higher probability of damage occurring to parked vehicles.
Now about our “assigned” trash receptacles: where will they go? The logic should have been considered by our officials: how can these containers be placed so that the large hydraulic lifters of the trucks can reach them, especially with cars in the way? Most side street treelawns in Lakewood are not long enough for access. So, should people place these containers in their driveways? This merely prevents residents from getting cars to the street and driving to jobs. And, placing receptacles in the streets themselves would be unsafe and cause accidents. Of course, in winter — during high accumulations of snow on treelawns (such as what we just experienced) — the whole project is unusable. Snowplows would have to start taking care of the treelawns also. We would be forced to go back to the system we have now at double the cost — unless we let garbage pile up to unhealthy disease-filled levels. Not an option. Will one receptacle per household be enough
for tenants’ needs? Probably not. And they say that “assistance can be provided” for elderly folks who cannot move the 90-pound containers. But what does that mean exactly? That collectors will be willing to pick up the trash for them? Isn’t that what we have already?
As far as allocating our resources — and taxpayer money — to a flawed course of action, this will cost us much, much more than we are led to believe.
And other problems have not been covered: the rest of the year Greater Cleveland infamous rain downpours would soften the treelawns, and wheels of the containers could sink in, gouging the lawns with deep ruts. That would cost the city additional expenses to repair! Now multiply this by each residence (we ARE the “City of Homes”) and its obvious the effect of this on our community. As a landlord and longtime resident, I can foresee the problems. Doesn’t anyone else?
Also, it was never made clear if this touches on a recycling effort or merely a substitute for all collection. Therefore, if the additional trash collection would continue, additionsl collectors are still needed, and the city’s costs increase here, too. Even so, the duplication of (expensive) containers would be required of each dwelling and large family. And we have not even begun to cover the problem of trucks stopping more and longer at each residence on narrow streets — keeping emergency traffic from getting through and preventing school buses from reaching destinations.
Obviously the proposal was not inspected appropriately (personally, I believe the person who thought up this idea should be held accountable for reimbursing the city of cost overruns). Did anyone consider the configuration of OUR city before giving this proposal to the mayor? Yes, it is a bold idea to try eliminating workers’ jobs — evidently the main goal — but it will cost more aggravation in the long run.
And that is not even calculating in the intangible loss of good will with the neighborhood. THAT is priceless!
Expensive new equipment — Extra snowplowing needed — More gas-wasting stop-and-go on streets — blocking emergency vehicles on narrow streets. This increases costs, not decreases them. Lakewood, if you let the mayor know now with a call or letter, there may still be time to cancel the project and get the city’s — OUR — money back.

Joe Garrison
Lakewood

One reply on “HERE’S WHERE YOUR MONEY WON’T BE GOING”

Joe Garrison says:

May 18, 2009 at 6:03 pm

As if that wasn’t bad enough, the cities are using the old “we want to improve your city” as an excuse to cutback employees and services. In case you haven’t heard: Lakewood is replacing its trash collection methods, presumably to eliminate workers. But it is using a concept that will cause the city to burn up more taxpayer dollars without significant benefits. The city has been talked into a new plan: scrap its current trash collection vehicles and invest in new trucks with large “arm” devices attached. These vehicles, according to the publicized plan, will stop at each residence and use the arms to clamp around new trash receptacles which will be distributed to households. Now we have a problem. A new problem. And you will have to pay for it unless you write your mayor.
In its exuberance to further Lakewood’s recycling and garbage collection effort, the mayor and city council approved the new automated trash collection system already. But they evidently have overlooked the hidden costs in this proposal (which quickly eliminates the purpose of affordable level recycling). A quick review will make it clear this idea does not have the city’s best interests at heart:
Part of the problem started back when Lakewood encouraged development of turning family dwellings into apartments and condos. When the number of residents multiplied unrestricted, so did the number of parked cars, many of whom were forced to “spillover” into on-street parking. Therefore, with this trash collection proposal, the new trucks will be forced to work around these cars with a higher probability of damage occurring to parked vehicles.
Now about our “assigned” trash receptacles: where will they go? The logic should have been considered by our officials: how can these containers be placed so that the large hydraulic lifters of the trucks can reach them, especially with cars in the way? Most side street treelawns in Lakewood are not long enough for access. So, should people place these containers in their driveways? This merely prevents residents from getting cars to the street and driving to jobs. And, placing receptacles in the streets themselves would be unsafe and cause accidents. Of course, in winter — during high accumulations of snow on treelawns (such as what we just experienced) — the whole project is unusable. Snowplows would have to start taking care of the treelawns also. We would be forced to go back to the system we have now at double the cost — unless we let garbage pile up to unhealthy disease-filled levels. Not an option. Will one receptacle per household be enough
for tenants’ needs? Probably not. And they say that “assistance can be provided” for elderly folks who cannot move the 90-pound containers. But what does that mean exactly? That collectors will be willing to pick up the trash for them? Isn’t that what we have already?
As far as allocating our resources — and taxpayer money — to a flawed course of action, this will cost us much, much more than we are led to believe.
And other problems have not been covered: the rest of the year Greater Cleveland infamous rain downpours would soften the treelawns, and wheels of the containers could sink in, gouging the lawns with deep ruts. That would cost the city additional expenses to repair! Now multiply this by each residence (we ARE the “City of Homes”) and its obvious the effect of this on our community. As a landlord and longtime resident, I can foresee the problems. Doesn’t anyone else?
Also, it was never made clear if this touches on a recycling effort or merely a substitute for all collection. Therefore, if the additional trash collection would continue, additionsl collectors are still needed, and the city’s costs increase here, too. Even so, the duplication of (expensive) containers would be required of each dwelling and large family. And we have not even begun to cover the problem of trucks stopping more and longer at each residence on narrow streets — keeping emergency traffic from getting through and preventing school buses from reaching destinations.
Obviously the proposal was not inspected appropriately (personally, I believe the person who thought up this idea should be held accountable for reimbursing the city of cost overruns). Did anyone consider the configuration of OUR city before giving this proposal to the mayor? Yes, it is a bold idea to try eliminating workers’ jobs — evidently the main goal — but it will cost more aggravation in the long run.
And that is not even calculating in the intangible loss of good will with the neighborhood. THAT is priceless!
Expensive new equipment — Extra snowplowing needed — More gas-wasting stop-and-go on streets — blocking emergency vehicles on narrow streets. This increases costs, not decreases them. Lakewood, if you let the mayor know now with a call or letter, there may still be time to cancel the project and get the city’s — OUR — money back.

Joe Garrison
Lakewood