Get real or get out of the way
by M. Stewart
The more I read about the Joint Economic Development District, the less I understand it. Maybe someone out there can set me straight.
Liverpool Township’s original proposal carried with it a 99-year moratorium on annexation—a component of the agreement that, as far as I can see, has absolutely nothing to do with the project. The city countered with a 40-year annexation package, which was rejected by default when the township did not respond within a 30-day deadline.
According to The Review, township Trustee Steve Betteridge said, “The city is quick to draw the line in the sand. ... We’re not going to do that. We want to work with them, but we’ve given some thought on what we wanted to put forth and they’re always throwing rocks at it.”
The city is “always throwing rocks at it”? The township puts forth a proposal that no city would accept, then it doesn’t respond at all to a counter offer. How does that constitute “always throwing rocks”?
Given the initial proposal offered by the township, I think East Liverpool should have countered with something like: All township residents under the age of 99 shall be relocated to Iraq.
What? Too drastic? How about: Every home in Liverpool Township should be painted yellow with purple trim for 99 years.
Crazy, you say? Well then maybe the township should put together a negotiating team that can stay focused on the project at hand—that is, joint economic development. If not, the city should simply annex the land and move on its own.
What, after all, is the township giving up in return for its outrageous request?
The more I read about the Joint Economic Development District, the less I understand it. Maybe someone out there can set me straight.
Liverpool Township’s original proposal carried with it a 99-year moratorium on annexation—a component of the agreement that, as far as I can see, has absolutely nothing to do with the project. The city countered with a 40-year annexation package, which was rejected by default when the township did not respond within a 30-day deadline.
According to The Review, township Trustee Steve Betteridge said, “The city is quick to draw the line in the sand. ... We’re not going to do that. We want to work with them, but we’ve given some thought on what we wanted to put forth and they’re always throwing rocks at it.”
The city is “always throwing rocks at it”? The township puts forth a proposal that no city would accept, then it doesn’t respond at all to a counter offer. How does that constitute “always throwing rocks”?
Given the initial proposal offered by the township, I think East Liverpool should have countered with something like: All township residents under the age of 99 shall be relocated to Iraq.
What? Too drastic? How about: Every home in Liverpool Township should be painted yellow with purple trim for 99 years.
Crazy, you say? Well then maybe the township should put together a negotiating team that can stay focused on the project at hand—that is, joint economic development. If not, the city should simply annex the land and move on its own.
What, after all, is the township giving up in return for its outrageous request?
posted by M. | 4:58 AM
20 Comments:
We all know that there is really just one trustee and the other two are puppets. Whatever the "Chosen One" says the other two just go along with. I will let everyone figure out who the Master of Puppets is in the township. It should not be too hard.
Well atleat for once it is not the city being dificult. Our twp. trustees will be to blame for this one. As a township resident I'm upset that they did not even send a counter proposal back. Maybe I will look into annexing into the city since it looks like they are goiing to be the proactive ones.
I live in the township and I can tell you for a fact that our trustees are not able to manage something like this. If this thing really will benefit all of us in the area the city is going to have to take the ball and run with it, if it means annexing the land then do what has to be done.
I'm curious: Did either of you township residents show up at the public hearing held by your trustees in regard to this JEDD proposal?
Have you let them know your feelings on this? Maybe if township residents would attend a trustee meeting and tell them you WANT this thing to work, they might be a bit more cooperative.
Butch K. said he can't "sell" this proposal to his people; well, YOU are the people and if YOU want it, then TELL them!
I shouldn't have to tell Butch K. that the area needs jobs and that he should do what is best for residents. I elected him because I thought he could do the job. I guess I was wrong and he is just out to be a stuborn old man who is set in his ways. The other two trustees should wake up.
Amazed, the point is, there were public hearings on this and very few people showed up to tell the trustees whether it was worth pursuing.
After all, it MUST be passed by the voters; it's not like the trustees can just enact it like the city can.
So, rather than waste time negotiating again, it probably would be a good idea for trustees to try and find out just WHAT voters will approve and what they won't.
Well Speak Up all I can say is their inability to act leaves us with no choice at all. Why not let the voters decide this? Instead they decide to take a "wait and see" attitude. Makes no sense at all. Not even a counter offer. We can go back and forth all day but I still think they dropped the ball on this one.
But, "Amazed," the trustees first have to know what the voters will approve before they put it before them for consideration.
Why put the proposal the city made (40 years, no annexation, etc.) on the ballot if there is no chance of voters approving it? Then, they'd have to go back and negotiate another contract, put that on the ballot, see if voters approved it, if not, go back and negotiate, etc. etc etc/
Do you see what I mean? Why not have voters tell trustes FIRST if they will approve a 40-year contract or if they won't to eliminate a lot of wasted negotiations?
I'm not saying I don't agree that trustees might be a little out of their league on this but the fact remains: the proposal HAS to be approved by voters and if trustees don't think voters will approve the proposal they have in-hand, perhaps voters need to go to trustee meetings or write letters or contact trustees individually and tell them they will.
to amazed and township resident. if you are that unhappy with living in the twp. then by all means move to the city and maybe after living there for a year or so you will find out why the majority of the people who live in liverpool and st. clair twp. do so for a reason.you couldn't pay me to live in the city of east liverpool again. i had my fair share of the city and will never go back nor would i ever agree to the city annexing my property. most twp. residents live in liverpool twp. for a reason and would never want to annex their property into the city. hell,more than half the city police and firemen either live in either liverpool or st. clair twp. except for one that lives outside of wellsville, except if you ask him he says he lives at another residence. (that is still in liverpool twp.) but that is a whole nother story. so what does that tell ya? our own safety forces won't even live in the city they claim is soooo great.
lovethetwp: I don't live in the township and don't hate it; I was saying township residents need to let their trustees know their feelings on this JEDD.
That's it. I don't know how you got the impression I hate the township.
If you were referring to my comment about the trustees being a bit out of their league, I meant only that they may not have dealt in the past with such a complicated issue. It was not a slight to them.
Just curious: Where does Liverpool Township's police chief live?
The Police Chief lives in St Clair Twp. The Fire Chief lives in Liverpool Twp. The Liverpool Fire Chief also lives in Liverpool Twp. The Rd Dept. Foreman lives in Liverpool Twp. & so does the EL Rd, foreman
don't forget that the city police chief also lives in liverpool twp. i can actually only think of a handful of the city police and firemen that actually live in the city. and lets not forget that the city police and firemen that live in st.clair and liverpool twp. did so even when is was supposedly mandatory that they live in the city. they got away with it by using someone's address that was in the city. also, neither liverpool twp. or st. clair twp. has ever had a residency requirement. pretty bad when it's required for them to live in the city and they refuse to do so. sorry, it was required of them. i don't believe that is the case now.
speak up,my comments were directed at amazed and township resident. sorry for the confusion. i personally don't know the twp. trustees well enough to say if they can or can not handle the project so therefore i will not comment. and if you think about it the city has never handled a joint economic development project as well so who is to say that either group can handle the project. only time will tell. for the betterment of the community i do hope that both sides can come to an agreement so that everyone can benefit, not just the city.
There are currently 18 city police officers including the Chief. Out of those 18, 7 of them were never required to live in the city because they were hired prior to the residency requirement. Out of the remaining 11 officers 7 of them live in the city. You are also correct that they no longer are required to live in the city. By the way, all of the city dispatchers live in the city except the part-timer who lives in Dixonville.
"Out of the remaining 11 officers 7 of them live in the city. You are also correct that they no longer are required to live in the city."
If that's the case then why did those who applied for the housing inspector's jobs get told they couldn't get hired because they didn't live in the city?
The rule is that as long as city employees live in the EL School District, they are allowed but not outside the school district.
You have one cop who lives near Salineville and he doesn't meet the requirement from having been hired before a certain date.
Explain that one away. Using an address of a house he owns in the city isn't the same as LIVING there (it didn't work for another cops several years ago, why for this one?)
fair is fair.....
You are 100% wrong and you shouldn't open your mouth unless you know what you are talking about. The state of Ohio passed a law prohibiting cities from requiring employees to live within their city limits. When they hired the housing inspector they chose him because he was a city resident and he could move out if he wanted to and their is nothing the city can do. As far as the officer, he lives closer to Wellsville and does not need to use an address in the city school district because of what I mentioned above. You are correct that he wasnt hired before the grandfather clause, but that doesnt matter now. Contact the Mayor or you city council person if you don't believe me.
[Quote from thems the facts jack: When they hired the housing inspector they chose him because he was a city resident and he could move out if he wanted to and their is nothing the city can do. As far as the officer, he lives closer to Wellsville and does not need to use an address in the city school district because of what I mentioned above. You are correct that he wasnt hired before the grandfather clause, but that doesnt matter now. Contact the Mayor or you city council person if you don't believe me.]
Apparently, Jack, your planning director Bill Cowan isn't aware of this because here's a quote from a November newspaper article about the hiring of the new housing inspector:
"Others who applied had various construction or housing backgrounds but lived outside the city, and Cowan said, “We still have our residency requirement.”
Here's a quote from a February newspaper article about the hiring of Bob Smith as an inspector:
"Planning Director Bill Cowan said Smith was chosen from about a half-dozen applicants and was the best qualified of those. Many of those who applied did not meet the city residency requirement and some who lived in the city did not have the time to devote to the position, according to Cowan."
Well the only thing I can tell you is have those people who were turned down for those jobs, complain to the Mayor, Bill Cowan or whoever else, because there is no residency requirements in the State of Ohio. If there were, that officer you mentioned would have been fired. It is obvious he lives where he lives and its not a secret.
No shit...that's what was said; that he is not meeting the residency requirement.
Someone needs to decide whether there is or there isn't because those turned down for a job because they don't live in the city could probably sue their asses if there is, in fact, NO residency requirement.
And if a cop is living outside the city and doesn't meet the requirement (having been hired after a certain date) then he should be made to move back in (and that doesn't mean just giving the address of a house he owns there but doesn't live in, which is what's happening now, or so I've been told)
Post a Comment
<< Home