Some at city hall have recently expressed their confusion over some of my points regarding my opposition to Issue 10 and/or challenging my position, despite the fact that I made clear my points of view in both the written version, here:
https://ward1blog.com/2022/04/01/the-safer-whitehall-levy-proposal/?fbclid=IwAR3mUXJp7DGq27CTF-5yozmWLz8O1XKXANkv5wgs-wGxVRcPdB3o6RD4C9o

and the spoken version I made from the council dais, seen here (at the 14:04 mark):
https://youtu.be/pcIEZ49qSuo

I gave a great deal of time and thought to my decision (over two months) and so, when arrived at, I released it on this newly created councilor blog (show me where all the other councilors, outside of merely putting a sign in their yard, have offered equally thoughtful considerations of their views on this levy for the public’s consumption). I felt it was reasoned and thoughtful in its approach; having made considerations for other points of view and an understanding of the various sides and situations. I have been very well known for my thoroughness in important communication (to the point of irritating some and boring others), and so it seems disingenuous from city leaders to have not understood such short and clearly expressed views. As such, I’m simply not going to expend any more time repeating myself (for a third time) for the edification of city hall officials (who hold the opposing viewpoint) who would claim that it was somehow unclear.
Read it for yourself, listen to it via the council video.
What I will add is this: When the Mayor tersely addressed me this past Tuesday evening, it was a confrontation, not, as councilor Bailey characterized it: “…a conversation”. That confrontation I never had with them over this tax levy. As such, it felt I was on trial for my views. Given that, I feel justified to defend myself over a couple points that were leveled at me:
The mayor insists that if I have issues with her budget(s) I should then give a detailed list of what to cut. Having not been on council for the prior ten years of her time in office, it was not my business to do so (outside of giving my views on the matter from my place as a private citizen). As far as this just-passed budget, while I did indeed have a copy of it, I was yet to be sworn in, didn’t know the protocol for my input and so, let it alone, if I even knew about the impending tax levy in the first place. This is why I gave an overview and not line by line cuts. As such then, I will offer up my budgetary arguments from other writings (Aug. 2021) that spell out an overview of that which I took issue with…that which I gathered an opinion about, as did others:

“Let’s add to that the I.T. department which jumped from $362,554 in 2012, almost tripling now to an appropriated amount of $924,679 per year.

We now have a Recreation Superintendent that has been appropriated $70,250 in 2021.
The ‘recreation/park fund’ went from $98,992 in 2012 to being appropriated over $278,000 for this year. In 2018 it was $713,100!
Parks and Rec went from a cost of $760,000 in 2012 to $1,131,192 in 2021

The cost of the Mayor’s office has went from $484,000 in 2012 to $1,193,309 in 2021.
The cost of employee benefits went from $7,650,000 in 2012 to $8,046,450 in 2021.

A ‘public relations’ category was added in 2017. To date, including expected expense and appropriations, by the end of 2021, they’ll have spent $373,208!

Acting as if its still the 1950’s where the worker is king, benefits and raises were given out regardless of the economic storms that existed in the real world where benefits and raises are harder to come by. When its taxpayer cash flowing in though, there seems to be enough for everyone.

If you weren’t aware, the city is in the property acquisition business; buying up properties and maintaining them until they find a purpose or buyer…
Whitehall Community Improvement Corporation – Whitehall Means Business

https://property.franklincountyauditor.com/_web/search/commonsearch.aspx?mode=owner&param1=CITY%20OF%20WHITEHALL&searchimmediate=1
Since 2013 they have spent $19,118,721 of taxpayer money. Nearly 20 million dollars!!”
As well, there is alot of great information here:
https://whitehallwatchblog.com/2021/07/20/whitehalls-spending-number-for-the-last-10-years-or-so/

That was my point regarding spending in Whitehall. What specific cuts can/should be made; I leave for her to decide. It is my viewpoint that spending on a million other things (YMCA’s, Woodcliffe, splash pads, etc.), even with her claim that spending on police is the largest expense in the budget, isn’t jibing with the desperate call going out now that we have police needs which need attending to only through a permanent tax levy.
Analogy: If you’ve been having a nice steak dinner every week for the last year and now you have nothing left in the budget for the water heater you now have to replace, then sense says that you shouldn’t knock on the neighbor’s door asking them to now pay for that which you could’ve paid for by doing without the steak dinners once a week. As well, (the Covid-19 analogy) you didn’t expect that your child was gonna have a major illness or the roof was gonna need replacing or that your car would go kaput, any of a number of huge calamities that weren’t expected. I understand that no one puts aside huge amounts of money in case something massive befalls them but, we can decide then what we can do without and/or put aside so we can either pay for that which we need or, if not inordinately pressing, put aside until things calm down. That then is the question: is what you ‘need’ able to be put aside until things stabilize without unduly taxing people to the point that some may need to leave our community due to being priced out? It is my assertion that it can be.

So then I still say for now: vote no on Issue 10. Get rid of some fat in the budget, revisit it in two years when things have financially settled and see where we’re at, FOR the citizen’s sake and pocketbooks.

A final word
So then, despite covid 19 and the problems it has brought to Whitehall, I blame the mayor and those on council who approved all these things in the last ten years or so, thus bringing us to this ‘Sophie’s Choice’ we have before us. It is their spendthrift ways that have actually exacerbated the financial problem Covid-19 would cause, which we see now. That is the larger, more important picture I believe those in city hall, who so vehemently object to my position, are trying to obscure with these sorts of obfuscations. It is their protestations then that are the impetus for this writing and no other.
Now…go vote. Tuesday, May 3rd.