Please Taxpayers- “I want MORE”!!!!

August 22, 2008 at 12:54 pm 12 comments

More Cha chinnnnnnngggggg


Morning Journal

Entry filed under: Brit take, CRA, personal opinion.

I think- therefore I am- Friday GIVE ME MORE AND MORE – COUNTY COFFERS

12 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Brian  |  August 22, 2008 at 7:44 pm

    I thought that this was all sorted out.

    What happened to both sides sitting and talking.

    This keyboard I am using doesn’t have a question mark button on it.

  • 2. Loraine Ritchey  |  August 23, 2008 at 10:02 am

    Brian the majority of the participants want to sit down talk and get this thing sorted but the County Auditor who is part of the equation and his attorney ….. don’t see it that way .. they want more court and attorney involvement….well you have attorneys county and city allready on the books wanting to sort this thing out..but I guess Stewart and his attorney don’t trust the county attorneys not to be political as per Chandra’s take on it in the morning journal link in the cartoon.

    They have a year to talk and if there isn’t an agreement they can then go back to the court room…… and at the rate we are burning up money on attorneys in the past 11 months wellllllllllllll. as I said it ain’t over til the fat lady sings ……. and won’t be whilst Stewart and Co are unwilling to “talk”.because that is all they are being asked to do……essential to get together and sort it out…….

  • 3. Loraine Ritchey  |  August 23, 2008 at 11:52 am

    As you can see by today’s headline the auditor strikes again……

  • 4. Brian Hazelett  |  August 23, 2008 at 5:19 pm

    Loraine,
    You state that a majority of the participants want to sit down and hash this out. I have stated it before that I believe that MY TAXES will be used to supplement the tax REBATES that are going to be given to most of the 315 of 355. Do the MAJORITY who will be paying for the tax breaks given to mostly the 315 that never expected the abatements get to “SIT AT THE TABLE”?

    You are correct that folks in older neighborhoods saw their property taxes get increased as most likely their values have diminished. With that being said, why did our city CREATE an ordinance that had a “built in loop hole” for many folks that never expected abatements when they purchased their homes? This totally defeats the purpose of offering abatements in the first place.

    You mentioned the attorney’s that the county and the city have, that someone has to pay, that want this settled. Why wasn’t the cities attorney that told the city that this was legal in the first place picking up the tab of defending their own legal opinion? Did the city attorney’s ever talk to the County Auditor before they created something that has never been done before in Ohio?

    I believe I know what it is, it is the three dollars and seventy five cents, or about 2.2 million dollars. WE ALL KNOW OUR CITY ROBS PETER TO PAY PAUL, JUST THAT NOW OUR CITY IS TRYING TO STEAL FROM JANE.

    Our CITY had NO BUSINESS taking people off of the COUNTY tax rolls that would have to be replaced by the rest of the tax base. All this Mem of Understanding does is dragging this out for ANOTHER YEAR. Where is the cities offer to get this problem solved NOW?

  • 5. Loraine Ritchey  |  August 24, 2008 at 10:35 am

    Brian Brian Brian –
    So what do you want the original language put back so everyone from 1989 onwards can then take advantage of program because if there is no time limit to apply and enter into a contract -you would have a bigger mess…..wouldn’t you Brian?

  • 6. Brian Hazelett  |  August 24, 2008 at 12:10 pm

    Please explain how we would be in a bigger mess Loraine. How could we be in a bigger mess than what the city is in right now? The city has created a $250,000.00 liability in attorney fees because the city is defending the abatements to MOSTLY the folks that never expected the rebate when they bought their homes.

    Take the retroactive abatements away from the problem, what is left to fix? The forty new builds, no problem, the new infill housing, no problem, the rehabs, no problem, the three hundred and so that are trying to get abatement that never expected it, no problem because if they want it they apply and the most they could ever get is 50% and for one year IF THEY HAVE A CONTRACT.

    50% for ONE YEAR if they have a CONTRACT.

    Smaller mess, MUCH SMALLER MESS.

    Is all of this mess that has been created about defending the cities ability to create the CRA, or defending the abatements of the three hundred and so that never expected it when they bought their homes and the city collecting a tax of $3.75 per square foot?

  • 7. Loraine Ritchey  |  August 24, 2008 at 12:31 pm

    Brian you keep going on about the same things and IHAVE EXPLAINED over and over and over again

    1. hypothetically as I am not an attorney but so far my thoughts have been proven correct
    1989 ordinance the people who built or rehabbed up in 3 and 4 COULD HAVE APPLIED FOR ABATEMENT in 1990 if they built NEW right?

    they could have applied for 50% abarement for 1 year right?
    OR THEY COULD HAVE ‘APPLIED’ and ENTERED INTO A CONTRACTURAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY for an abatement percentage and years in the case of those that have entered into a contract 100% for 15 years and a fee for the inspections etc. It is a contract and the terms of the contract would be decided by the parties entering into the contract.

    NOW MY THINKING ON THIS IS- if you go by the 1989 ordinance and since there is NO TIME LIMIT IN THE ORC FOR A PERSON TO APPLY FOR THE ABATEMENT – just “after completion of build” then couldn’t theoretically anyone who built a home after the 1989 ordinance APPLY AND HOW MANY HOMES WOULD BE ELEGIBLE THEN??? AND WHAT WOULD HAPPEN WITH THOSE TAX ROLLS THEN???

    Now I may be off base on that but I think that could’ve been a possibility 😦
    hence a bigger mess than we already have

    You seem to really be arguing ethics of the 200 and odd that applied and contracted with the city before 2006 builds …Stewart has a problem with .well as I have said before you would have to ask them why they applied and why they think they should receive the abatement ….

    Stewart waited 10 and half months to finally answer my daughters letter of October 19th ( yesterday) .and I don’t believe he would have then unless the court had given him the direction

    Then you have todays “damage control” piece in the Journal by Stewart….. I am not saying the abatement program is right or wrong

    WHAT I AM SAYING AND HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG IS THAT THESE PAID PROFESSIONALS NEED TO STOP THEIR POSTURING AND PAYING MORE MONEY INTO LITIGATION AND COME TO AN EQUITABLE AGREEMENT AND THE LONE STANDOUT IS STEWART…..

  • 8. Brian Hazelett  |  August 24, 2008 at 3:30 pm

    You mention that some residents COULD HAVE APPLIED AND YOU IMPLY THAT COULD BE A PROBLEM.

    Why hasn’t it been a problem up until 2006?

    It isn’t marketing…

    It is because in 2006 someone/ something made it a problem.

  • 9. Loraine Ritchey  |  August 24, 2008 at 11:10 pm

    Brian what the he.. are you on about …

    yes anyone can apply why they apply or why they don’t apply I don’t know….
    but they CAN why they didn’t know about it or do it before 2006 I don’t know.maybe some did they certainly did in my neighborhood but then we knew about it… why maybe we read who knows….
    you would have to ask the people involved I have already told you that and Stewarts diatribe in the two page letter he sent out .well if I can pick it apart I am sure a damned good attorney could make mince meat of it….. he is relying on his Buddy betleski to pull his arse from the flames on this……time to talk !!!!!

  • 10. Brian  |  August 25, 2008 at 1:42 pm

    Ok Loraine,
    What the hell am I talking about?

    If the owners of the homes in CRA4 pay on average $200.00 per month, $2,400.00 per year and there is 315 of them, that is $787,500.00 per year, and ELEVEN MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED AND TWELVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS.

    If we were to abate 75% of what they are already paying now because they already “LIVED IN THE HOME”, these people who WERE PAYING TAXES ARE ONLY GOING TO PAY $196,875.00 collectively a year. WHO IS GOING TO “PICK UP” THE CLOSE TO $600,000.00 in yearly lost tax revenue or 8.85 million over 15 years?

    According to the last census, there were 15, 178 single gamily owner occupied homes in Lorain. Will the 98% of the folks that are not getting an abatement that they were never expecting going to have to pay for the 2% of the folks that are going to get abatement, that they were never expecting?

    Using the same “numbers” except changing the TERMS FROM 100% to 50% and 15 years to one year, change to “damage dramatically”. The tax savings for the 315 that never expected the rebates is reduced to a ONE TIME REDUCTION OF $393,750.

    $11,812, 500.00 verses $393,750.00. We have collectively spent more on attorney bills than the second number and you are complaining about attorney bills instead of the MILLIONS THAT WILL BE LOST?

    How could things be worse the way they were before things were made, “more consistant”?

  • 11. Loraine Ritchey  |  August 25, 2008 at 3:29 pm

    Worse because under the 1989 ordinance they could apply back to that date couldn’t they by applying through contractual language….

    they didn’t change thE fact that it went FROM 50 TO 1 YEAR it is the word UNLESS deal with it already …. IT IS THERE LIKE IT OR NOT……

    how many of those homes are abandoned , foreclosed paying anything .. your middle class ( who you are trying to attract to Lorain ( GOOD LUCK WITH THAT NOW) is paying for over 50 percent of Lorain who aren’t paying anything period…. IS THAT FAIR NO!!! WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT THAT!!!!!

    The program is there where were you in 1989? why didn’t you speak up then???? why did the council people in 2006 vote for the housekeeping even Sndograss went on record as saying the program is a good thing ….DUH take it up with him…

    I HAVE TOLD YOU OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND I AM BEGINNING TO REALLY GET ANNOYED ….
    I AM NOT DEBATING WHETHER THE CRA IS GOOD OR BAD FOR A COMMUNITY ……OR WHETHER ANY ABATEMENT IS GOOD OR BAD.NOT MY CALL YET YOU KEEP AT ME ABOUT THAT!
    I wasn’t on council and I am not party to the thinking of abatements and that isn’t the issue

    The issue is can the people apply for abatement YES!

    I FIND THE FACT THAT YOU DON’T WANT PEOPLE INVOLVED TO SIT DOWN AND TALK THIS WHOLE SITUATION OVER PERPLEXING . YOU SEEM TO WANT WAR??????? ( or at least litigation???? WHY ISN’T THAT A WASTE WHY ARE WE PAYING FOR STEWART AND THE CITY AND THE “EXPERTS” IF WE CAN HANDLE THIS WITH ATTORNEYS AT 250 AN HOUR ( including driving time)

    1. Stewart is not being reasonable in the fact that things can be discussed as professionals and I I am paying for his salary too …..and get the issues sorted without benefit of the name calling , political posturing, the people reputations being sullied…. especially by Chandra ( all documented) and the ironic thing is Snodgrass saying it pits neighbors against neighbors but in his bosses latest taxpayer paid letter he DOES JUST THAT!
    AND i QUOTE
    ‘holding you hostage to the other 310 homeowners who were given a retroactive abatement”

    SOOOO NOW IF THAT ISN’T TRYING TO PIT NEIGHBOR AGAINST NEIGHBOR I DON’T KNOW WHAT

    Brian it is going to take 100 years of the taxes on my daughter abatement to pay for 0ne year of the legal fees so far…..

  • […] isn’t to say I won’t be getting passionate outraged and taking sides, but the ” Bog of Blogs” – “A Man for all Reasons” […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Categories

Archives

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 231 other followers
August 2008
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

%d bloggers like this: