The Observation Deck

Bryan Schwegler wrote:

Bill Call wrote:If we believe the hype the proposed spending will generate 10 million jobs in a state with 11 million people.

Source please....

My source is the Plain Dealer. Read the article. Maybe the reporter just made it up but it doesn't matter. All the numbers regarding job creation are just made up.

I just submitted my proposal for new landscaping. My new landscaping will generate 100 Ohio jobs. This is going to be so cool.

Bret I stand corrected. You are right. I went through the transcript and found it.

If we’re going to get stuck with a share of the bar tab, we might as well belly up to the bar and order from the top shelf.

I guess I'd rather be sober than drunk, regardless of where the money came from.

I fear that this is just another rush to get what we can, before we even ever question if we should. We're so focused on getting what we want, that we seldom even define what it is we need.

While the City of Lakewood might very well benefit from recieving federal money, do we really need it? Are we so hungry that we need to fight for our place at the table amongst those starving and desperate?

Hi,
I think so.

Bill Call wrote:

Bryan Schwegler wrote:

Bill Call wrote:If we believe the hype the proposed spending will generate 10 million jobs in a state with 11 million people.

Source please....

My source is the Plain Dealer. Read the article.

Still waiting for you to link the PD article...

yeah, I hear that crack dealers will always give you the first one for free, so what the heck, right?

There's ALWAYS a need for personal accountability.

Bill:

I think you also posted previously that Lakewood wouldn't receive any of the federal money reserved for foreclosure prevention and property acquisition. Subsequently, it was announced that, in fact, we are slated to receive over $1 million.

Contrary to some reports, I haven't decided whether I will run for a county office. In the meantime, our staff is working very hard on all aspects of getting projects funded by the federal stimulus package. We have been lobbying our federal, state and local officials to get whatever we can out of this process.

The list published by the PD is not complete, and the deadline for submitting items has not even arrived. Proposals are not being ranked or considered until the deadline, by the way.

It's worth noting that the article itself says that the list posted is not a complete list. We have already compiled a laundry list of Lakewood projects totalling tens of millions of dollars.

Whether we will get anything for those projects is anyone's guess, but there is no federal conspiracy to make sure that we won't, anymore than there was for the foreclosure funds which we will be spending this summer.

Bret said:

Personally, I'd rather we (as a city) don't take any federal money. If we can figure out a way to do it on our own we'll be a much stronger city in the long run.

That Federal money IS our money. Why shouldn't Lakewood get money that we have/will send to the Feds?

That Federal money IS our money. Why shouldn't Lakewood get money that we have/will send to the Feds?

How would you feel if I took your credit card, went to the ATM, withdrew $10,000 and then told you to give me a list of things you would like to spend it on?

my biggest concern isn't the money, it's getting my credit card back.

Your analogy is incorrect. I understand the point you're trying to make, but you surely you realize that we already have paid taxes and will continue to pay taxes no matter what, absent a revolution. So why should we thumb our nose and tell the Feds to put our money back in the pot and give it to other cities?

Besides, you or I can't build a bridge, pave a road, or run a school with our money or a credit card. That's why we collectively agree to give the government our money and we expect them to see to it that certain needs are met. We are the governement.

but in this case, they're printing the money FIRST and then asking if we need it.

And in this instance, I believe that debt and spending are the problem, not the solution.

This whole process is completely backwards.

I think there's a rational argument to be made that the federal government is now incurring too much debt too quickly.

But since we are all equally going to be responsible for paying off that debt, how is it rational to refuse the money? It's not as if we will get a break on our federal taxes for refusing it.

The exception for this is when the federal spending comes with strings attached, such as matching fund requirements or changes in social program eligibility, which cities and states may not want to be bound by.

But so far, that does not seem to be the case, particularly regarding infrastructure projects. I'm sure that there were many state and local officials in the 1930's who disagreed with the Keynesian approach taken by the federal government at that time; but I'm not sure if any states or cities declined infrastructure improvements performed by WPA or other agencies at the time.

It's one thing to oppose the philosophy, but another to decline money we could use for worthy projects here in Lakewood.

I agree with Bret. The stimulus money is a poison pill. Just because everyone is doing it doesn't make it right. Incurring debt for the projects described is economic suicide.

I'd rather pay higher a higher local tax where 100% of the money is spent on our city (as long as the money is used as it comes in and not bonded out), rather than a federal income tax where most of it is pissed away on pet projects. Plus a local tax is deductible.

Some of the State of Ohio stimulus schemes involve municipalities taking 40 year loans for projects whose life expectancy is only 10 years, it makes no sense.

You can't dig your way out of a hole.

I will ask that Mr. Hoffert help on this response to Mr. Farris as he once was the Unit Manager at the WWTP.

I am sure that we could find projects at the plant if it were given a large sum of money. I know that the EPA standards for overflow discharge at all wastewater plants will have a hefty price tag. A facitlity will need to be constructed that will hold any overflows that the plants in the area experience, and then that water will be treated when flows dictate their treatment. This will indeed be a costly venture, but a date for this facility next to our plant keep being pushed back by the EPA.

As for the smell... unforunately, when treating waste, there will always be some sort of odor. Currently, without any additional funds, the Operator of record can make changes to the processes to reduce the amount of foul smells eminating from the plant. Gasses are monitored at the point of plant entry and throughout the plant. The smells may come from adding or subtracting treatment tanks per the amount of flow that the plant experiences. These smells are unavoidable at the plant. When there are periods of drought, the water entering the plant may have more waste particles, and more gasses produced due to less water to absorb some of the natural by-products in the sewer system.

The federal monies would indeed help "green" the plant. However, I do believe taht the plant in Lakewood would have to undergo extreme changes to make this a viable choice. I do understand that the plant is one of the higher users of electricity in the city, but unfortunately, we do need a plant.

My reaction to your original post, was just asking what your opinion of the plant was "broken" or needed "fixing."

The sad fact is that no one wants to have a plant in their backyard. And I do understand that. Imagine being directly next to the odor producing source. If its not pleasant at the top of the hill, trust me, it is exponentially unpleasant standing umongst it. That is why we as workers at the plant want do our best, and do our best to make the plant as reasonable as it can be. Aside from putting a dome over the plant, I think the smell issue will continue to be a factor.

We would welcome the funds to make the plant an energy saving entity, and any ways to save energy as it is happening everywhere.