Here it comes CRA(PPPPP)

November 10, 2009 at 2:42 pm 7 comments

DEPENDS ON THE DAY IT SEEMS..what the politicians have to say 🙂

http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/2009/11/10/news/mj1869084.txt
HAVE THEY CHANGED THEIR TUNE??? Not what they told us ??

Before the vote, Mayor Anthony Krasienko told council the city’s legal advisers have said the original ordinance, passed in 2006, is “illegal, unlawful and flawed.”

He said the program was administered poorly by the then-Mayor Craig Foltin and former Community Development Director Sanford Prudoff.

HOWEVER LET US GO BACK TO:

Thursday January 29th-2009
http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/2009/01/29/news/doc4981224403197887573517.txt
Krasienko said the CRA program is working well despite those possible problem areas. He said no changes need to be made in the Community Development Department’s administration of the program because the auditor’s office has a check on them.

“Ziance said the CRA program is perfectly legal and falls within what the state statute allows.”
and then there is this from the attorney’s to this blog

https://thatwoman.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/cra-questions-and-answers/

QUESTION
The legislation stating the abatement period “should”
provide the percentage of abatement….
Q. Does the stated abatement in the contract held by the property owners meet that requirement . For instance back to the 50% abatement for 1 year UNLESS……..100% for 15 years or 12 ( depending if it is a rehab etc.

ANSWER……..

Yes, combined with the language in the states CRA Act

( what is a reader supposed to think??)

AND NOW BACK FROM THE FUTURE THE BETLESKI BACKERS 🙂
Chronicle Telegram:
http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2009/11/10/lorain-council-rejects-deal-with-county-auditor-on-tax-breaks/

I maintain those who voted against this don’t understand it and never have and want to get out of dealing with it by passing the buck to the 9th District Court,” Holcomb said. “The only issue the appellate court can rule on is whether (Common Pleas Court) Judge (Mark) Betleski can hear it.”

That’s something Stewart confirmed Monday night, saying it’s “an impossibility” for the appellate court to decide whether the CRA legislation now on the books is legal.


AND let us not forget that Mr. Greg Holcomb had more than a passing interest

https://thatwoman.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/is-it-the-fish-that-stinks-or-the-company/

Why were the two Lorain council people free to speak to the Plain Dealer in that article –
Councilman Holcomb and
Councilman Snodgrass

when at least one informed the public and myself, on at least two occasions, they were unable to discuss the CRA program due to pending litigation. Yet, apparently, no such “gag order” was in place for the PD article and why wasn’t the fact mentioned in that PD article, that the two most outspoken critics of the City CRA and fellow council person Dan Given ( as noted on the pages of WoM and page 5 PD article)of THEIR other hats?

The question that begs to be asked “were they acting in the City of Lorain’s best interest as City Council people or as EMPLOYEES of Mark Stewart, their boss, the respondent in the lawsuits?”

WHAT HAT?

although now working elsewhere was also a Stewart employee during much of this argy bargy ..

and Here comes THE FRIENDLY JUDGE YOU can run 😉 but you can’t hide – we still see you with Mon Generale Stewart 🙂

betleski

https://thatwoman.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/is-it-the-fish-that-stinks-or-the-company/

Just to repeat:
hats

And speaking of too many hats:

People in CRA 4 cannot even complain to their council person (Craig Snodgrass)
snodg

because he is under a “gag order” and is also the Chief Deputy of Finance for County Auditor Mark Stewart. ( enough to make you gag!)

The other argument that Chandra and Stewart make in their dismissal

The City is a party to two pending actions, a declaratory judgement and an administrative appeal, before the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas etc

TOO MANY HATS

Mark Betleski, The Judge

is the brother of Phil Betleski
(‘Nervous’ Betleski avoids jail time for theft in office)
http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/2009/03/04/news/mj697177.txt

the former Lorain City Councilman who voted AYE on the amendments and then was running against Dan Given for Council at Large, contacted the Chronicle with his concerns, which the Chronicle then wrote about AFTER the election,

LORAIN — Councilman Phil Betleski has accused two fellow councilmen of violating the Ohio ethics code and is calling for one of them to resign from a committee position. Betleski, D-2nd Ward, sent an e-mail to Councilman Dan Given dated May 1 in which he asks Given to recuse himself as chairman of the Tax Incentive Review Committee. He also wrote that Councilman Tony Krasienko, another committee member, was in violation, too.

Then we have Judge Betleskis Law Clerk- John Keys -who just happens to be married to Linda Keys who sent out the letters of denial ( you guessed it )works for Mark Stewart as well

The abatements were first called into question earlier this year when they came across the desk of county auditor employee Linda Keys…… The chief deputy for the real estate section in the Lorain County Auditor’s office, Keys is the official who processes abatement applications

I wonder why the PD isn’t asking about that seemingly conflict of interest? And they have a problem with Dan Given wearing too many hats !!! Can we say hypocritical? And can we say

people who wear too many hats themselves -shouldn’t toss them

AND THEY FEEL COMFORTABLE SHARING THEIR LUNCH WITH HERE COME THE JUDGE!!!!!!
legalluch


Let us remember the “Betleski Connection” as we read these words of wisdom from the Generale 🙂
http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2009/11/10/lorain-council-rejects-deal-with-county-auditor-on-tax-breaks/

“The case is assigned to Judge Betleski,” Stewart said. “You have to go to the local judge before you can to the appellate court.”

countymoney

AND HE WITH THE DEEPEST POCKETS WINS AND WE THE TAXPAYERS LOSE!!!!

A question: can it be that if the Judge rules in favor of the County then the City of Lorain can indeed be held harmless for future litigation ???? Just a thought

Entry filed under: AMNT, Brit take, commentary, CRA, personal opinion. Tags: .

CHRIS’ CREW – THANK YOU “Don’t Let The Memory Of Them Drift Away”

7 Comments Add your own

  • 1. anne molnar  |  November 10, 2009 at 4:32 pm

    It’s a big mess Loraine, with alot of lies. The executive sessions were nothing but a big joke, with the lawyers smiling all the way to the bank. I did not trust these lawyers, they made promises to council, not kept.. this could have all been resolved in the very begining when all the briefs were completed, and gone to the court of appeals.. Oh No , the mayor hired a special council to put a stay going to the appeals court. the rest of the story you know.

    So you see what a mess this is. just blame council is his easy way out in his making a wrong decision. my vote is still no, let the men in the black robes make the decision., should have been that way in the first place .

    Why was the special atty. at last nights meeting, and got paid plenty of bucks per hour, when it was councils duty to vote yea or nay. So you can see the waste. we did not need him there with his big box of papers..

  • 2. buckeyerino  |  November 10, 2009 at 5:33 pm

    I hope this does go to the Court of Appeals, and that the ruling is that Betleski cannot hear the case because of a potential conflict of interest, so that the case can be heard in a neutral courtroom.

    I would have voted no.

    This is yet another reminder that Mr. Stewart needs opposition in next year’s election. He has no authority to void any part of council legislation. Throughout this debacle, he has overstepped the authority granted to a county auditor.

    The council legislation, as originally crafted, may have been flawed, but the time to debate the issue was before it was passed as a city ordinance. If council had agreed to retroactively amend the ordinance, as this settlement called for, would amount to passing an ex post facto law, which is unconstitutional.

    Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution states:

    No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

    The city of Lorain is a municipality incorporated by the State of Ohio, so, constitutionally, it cannot pass an ex post facto ordinance. If council had voted to accept the settlement, it would indeed have passed an ex post facto ordinance.

    Mr. Holcomb is the one who does not understand. While the appeals court may only rule on whether Betleski can hear the case, the council cannot vote to enact a new ordinance that applies retroactively to strip abatements that had been granted under a prior city ordinance. Therefore, the council was obliged to vote no.

  • 3. Loraine Ritchey  |  November 10, 2009 at 5:36 pm

    Hi Anne .this should have been sorted without benefit of millions upon millions ( all told) from the very beginning- after all if you are a taxpayer of Lorain and or Lorain County we are paying beacuse the professionals jumped on the litigation bandwagon
    https://thatwoman.wordpress.com/category/cra/page/2/

    “LORAIN COUNTY PROSECUTORS

    “They told Stewart NOPE his case a- NO GO- he hadn’t a hope –
    Stewart to the Commissioners pleaded- an unbiased attorney – he felt was needed
    The Prosecutors were proven right – but Stewart continues the fight
    Stewart is not prepared to fail
    leaving the Prosecutors ….

    We are between a rock and a hard place and I can’t see it getting any better……… except for the attorneys hmmmm I wonder if any of them pay taxes in the county or city ???? 😉

  • 4. Loraine Ritchey  |  November 10, 2009 at 5:43 pm

    Thanks for the input Daniel I agree.

    Funny thing about our electorate though they talk a good game – I have comments on this blog about Mr. Snodgrass and your outta there and we won’t vote for him and guess who ran unopposed….. so I don’t suppose that Mon General Stewart is worried about his cushy job…. but I think he too has to shoulder the blame for the cost of this litigation… why are we paying the professionals in “taxes” to seek advice.shouldn’t they know their jobs, shouldn’t they be able to sit down with their counterparts in the city and work through this .shouldn’t they already have done so ?????

    He will get back in and the beat will go on and we the taxpaer will continue to pay the piper……..sad but I am afraid all too true… and that noise you hear won’t be those of bagpipes but the “whiney lament!!!” of the taxpayer….

  • 5. anne molnar  |  November 12, 2009 at 5:46 pm

    Loraine, I am sick and tired of the politcal game playing. I made a public records’s request for the following:
    The Supreme Courts Ruling.

    Briefs prepared and completed by the legal team of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease. hired by the former Mayor Foltin to the Ohio Court of appeals.

    Lorain County Commissioners written letter of a settlement aggreement .

    Letter to Ron Mantini requesting the money paid for legal fees to the law firm while Foltin was in office. / The money paid to the legal team from the present mayor to date.

    I honestly believe that a committee meeting should be considered so the public would know the whole truth.

    I believe Mayor Romoser, now deaceased ,wanted to continue to have the Court Of Appeales hear the case, but this Mayor continued to hire the legal team to have them put a stay on the court of appeals. I honestly believe much money and time would have been saved, and possibly dismisss Stewart ? we will never know, because some people think they know best.

    It is all a big mess. I will have to watch closely the appropriations when it comes to the council floor. So easy to play a blame game. So strange that at the tail end of the secret executive sessions, that the ordinances passed by council , approved by legal are, Flawed, Illegal, and unconstitutional.

    Strange that it was not noted in the beginning when all the lawyers were hired. Was this also noted and said by the Supreme Court in the beginning?

  • 6. Loraine Ritchey  |  November 12, 2009 at 6:35 pm

    Hi Anne I have some of those records ( you know me and record keeping 🙂 Let me know if there is anything you need.

    I agree there is so much confusion.this should’ve gone to court a year ago BUT BETLESKI should not be involved…. a neutral court not the judge of the fish dinners and fundraisers…

    Unfortunately what was a good program ( pre 1994) for 5 areas of Lorain including the oldest area has now been tarnished by the infighting and posturing……. Do you think anyone in Area 1 or2 or 5 will apply for rehab or new builds after all this fiasco and the fact that people who have availed themselves of the program in other areas are now in debt to their own attorneys ….

    What should have been a “professional meeting of the minds” has come down to a cat fight and a black hole………
    Let me know if you need any of the documentation I have ( which is pretty much just about everything 🙂

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 230 other followers

November 2009
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30  

%d bloggers like this: