IS MAYOR FITZGERALD A REPUBLICAN?

After being at the "Making Cents" session and then being at the Law Enforcement Initiative forum, the impression could be made that Ed FitzGerald is turning into a Fiscal Conservative and a Law and Order Republican, fortunately for the Democrats that may be a bit of a stretch.

Let's face facts, Council and the Mayor have had to act to rein in spending as well as get a handle on the crime situation before it truly affects the housing market and the citizens.

Judging by this chart, its amazing we don't lose track of money coming in more often.


Also, of interest in a quick side conversation with Jennifer Pae, the City Finance Director after the meeting. I asked her if moving from RITA (Regional Income Taxing Authority) to the City's own tax department has brought in more money into the coffers. She responded that it did bring in more dollars about 3% more for FY2006. To early to tell for FY 2007.


Speaking of the Law Enforcement Initiative, it looks like there will be some public/private partnership between the City and the Taverns in the West End, at the meeting it was announced that 9 tavern owners will share in the cost of added patrols in the neighborhoods around the bars in the west end.
Hopefully, this will begin to allay the fears and anger that the residents in the area have been having the last few years.

Attorney General Issue

I said this back in October 2006 right before the General Election:

Marc Dann did a horrible job of trying to paint himself as the best person to be the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of this state, he kept tripping over his own problems, I still think Subodh Chandra was the better choice for the Democrats.

Looks like Marc Dann may be at the least a one term AG, if he makes it that far.

The blog site, Political Science 216 has been all over this as well as the Columbus and Dayton newspapers.

BUDGET NUMBERS

These are taken from the PDF's provided by Jennifer Pae the City Finance Director:

Click to enlarge each page:














Just to note, this $36MM budget is about $1MM more than the budget in 2005, so as you can see the operating expenses continued to rise at a pretty good clip over the three years since.

Like I said before this won't be the last cut the city will have to face.

COUNCIL AND MAYOR WORKING TOGETHER

Last night the budget was passed, it appears that the time for action has finally come to the City in dealing with the budget.

Now the hard part comes, cuts are to be made, people will lose their job. It will not be easy nor do I believe that this is the end of the cuts, barring any catastrophic event this year, there will be more cuts next year as a way to to continue to stave of a deficit spending.

Could this have been avoided certainly, but that was several years ago. Most on the Council and even the Mayor could not have foreseen the extent of the damage that is the City budget.

Can the residents of Lakewood be ready for the changes, there will be whining and crying about this service or that department is not doing its job properly. Reality is Lakewood can no longer afford to be as unique as everyone wants to be, its just gotten to expensive to handle.

Here is Council President Mike Dever's Letter:


click to enlarge

click to enlarge

Actual Budget numbers will come up in a follow up post

COOLER HEADS HAVE PREVAILED

As I have talked about in a couple of posts here and here, the Board of Elections have step back from the precipice and vowed not to prosecute those Republicans and Democrats who switched parties on March 4th.

Although it appears that one Board Member still wants to investigate the voter who wrote "Today only" on his/her form.

Democratic board member Sandy McNair, who initiated the investigation, asked the board at Monday's meeting to subpoena a Westlake Republican who wrote "Today Only" on his pledge card when he took a Democratic ballot. The three other board members, two Republicans and a Democrat, said they didn't want to force public testimony from the voter.

I think the other board member sums up everything with this comment:

"We have so many other things we need to focus on," said Inajo Davis Chappell, the board's other Democrat. "I don't want to second-guess voters."

Now if we can only settle the dispute between the Democratic Presidential Candidates on the delegate issue, then we can begin to fight for the November election.

I try to keep it clean, But Not caffeine free!

Created by OnePlusYou -




Created by OnePlusYou -

Seeing the Light

PICW Bruner and Bill Mason are showing the right answers to the possibility of prosecuting those individuals who switched parties on March 4.

About 17,100 Republicans and 3,000 Democrats in Cuyahoga County switched parties in the March 4 primary, the county Board of Elections found during an investigation of whether voters lied when they signed affidavits pledging allegiance to their new party.

But Ohio's elections chief warned Tuesday against prosecuting any of these 20,119 crossover voters because doing so could be a violation of free-speech rights.

"I would be very hesitant to move forward in a criminal investigation," Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner said before giving a speech at John Carroll University. "At what point are you going to start getting into censorship?"

The four-member Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, which has two Republicans and two Democrats, would have to vote on pursuing a criminal investigation.

If the board deadlocks, Brunner, a Democrat, would be called on to break a tie.

The board will discuss at its meeting Monday whether to take action.

The board launched its investigation after The Plain Dealer reported on large numbers of Republicans in Cuyahoga County switching parties to vote in the primary.


The board's review, which was finished this week, was aimed at rooting out any voters who broke the law. At the polls, voters who switch parties must sign an affidavit pledging allegiance to their new party. The forms say, "Whoever commits election falsification is guilty of a felony of the fifth degree."

*********

Board member Sandy McNair, a Democrat, said that such admissions could amount to voter fraud, which is punishable by six to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine.

McNair said he wants county Prosecutor Bill Mason to review the findings. "There are very, very few people that wrote anything that was troubling, " he said. "It seems to me, we still need to look at that."

But Mason, a Democrat, said in a written statement: "It's going to be very difficult if not impossible to make a case against a voter who has switched parties."

The board can issue subpoenas to voters it suspects switched parties for malicious reasons. Those voters would be asked to testify about their intent.

David Lambert, civil division chief of the prosecutor's office, pointed out that those voters compelled to testify have the right to invoke the Fifth Amendment, which protects individuals from self-incrimination.

"I think it s a very quixotic effort to convict anybody under this statute," Lambert said.

Brunner said the state legislature may review the law.

Let's go back to the top of the article, where the secretary of State Brunner says the following:

But Ohio's elections chief warned Tuesday against prosecuting any of these 20,119 crossover voters because doing so could be a violation of free-speech rights.

Where have I heard that before, not just five days ago:

It seems to me, that there is a conflict of interest here between PICW Brunner's role as Chief Election official and the laws of the State. The conflict is that she has sworn to uphold the laws and Constitutions of the USA and the State of Ohio, however, if she is to uphold this election law, she could be violating one of the Chief rights every American is given, Freedom of Speech.

How stupid of me, when the Civil Division Chief reminded everyone that we could have the right to remain silent. Can you imagine trying to prosecute all 20,000 cases and have have every defendant take the Fifth on self-incrimination, that certainly would bring everything to a screeching halt. Also, what County Judge would want to have this case assigned to him or her. That would be a fatal issue for any Judge that would come up for re-election.

If the board did try to prosecute and found the individual guilty, that case would surely be placed on a rocket docket for the Court of Appeals. Then Ohio would once again would placed in an unfavorable light on election issues.

Hopefully, sanity will continue to prevail at the Election Board and those who run it.

Stay tuned, I think this issue may still have some legs.

SECTION 8 IN LAKEWOOD

Over the weekend CRIMEWOOD posted a diagram provided by CMHA that relates to the locations of all the Section 8 housing in Lakewood.

Here is that diagram;



It's interesting to note that the spread of Section 8 is how I expected. In fact in my recollections with voters in 2005, there was a lot of concern that the Section was spreading and that this diagram bears out that premise.

What is also interesting to me, is where the Section 8 housing is not, I had expected when I viewed this to see a fair amount of property along Lakewood Heights Blvd. bordering the south side of the City along I-90. But, except for a few locations in the East and West, there is hardly any at all.

Another item to look at is to see how its distributed between the wards, I have taken the diagram and have inserted the Ward boundaries to identify the splits:


Click on image to enlarge

In a first look at the Ward divisions, Ward 4 has the most Section 8 and is fairly spread between the Gold coast and Bird Town. That is an undeniable fact based on the amount of rental properties throughout the Ward.

In Wards 2 & 3 they too appear to have a good number of subsidized housing, with Ward 3 have what appears to be more. The spread in these two wards is somewhat even and they reach to the north side of the city.
With respect to Ward 1 it appears that everything is pocketed around Detroit and Madison, but also, along the Riverside Drive area.

It would be a fair assumption to say that if the housing market continues to de-value the residential properties in the retail sector that Lakewood could see an expansion of the subsidized housing because it maybe the only possibility for some homeowners to make the payments.

If an expansion would take place, I believe Wards 1,2 & 3 would see the greatest influx with increased creep north of the Detroit Rd.

Any increase will certainly garner the attention of the Police Department, but it should be a major focus (if not already) of the entire FitzGerald administration.

SIMPLE MATH

Ever wanted to know how to do more than 100% at work;

Here's How: SIMPLE MATH

Via Neptunus Lex and GEO6

Lunacy At the Board of Election

The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections has launched an investigation that could lead to criminal charges against voters who maliciously switched parties for the March 4 presidential primary.

Elections workers will look for evidence that voters lied when they signed affidavits pledging allegiance to their new party. And at least one board member, Sandy McNair, a Democrat, wants the county prosecutor to review the findings.

But it remained unclear Wednesday whether the four-member board will agree to pursue prosecution. A 2-2 vote would mean that Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, would have to break the tie.

The investigation comes 10 days after The Plain Dealer reported that more than 16,000 Cuyahoga County Republicans changed parties before voting March 4.

After the election, some local Republicans admitted they changed parties only to influence which Democrat would face presumed Republican nominee John McCain in November. One voter scribbled the following addendum to his pledge as a new Democrat: "For one day only."

Such an admission amounts to voter fraud, said McNair, who pushed for the investigation.

"I'm looking for evidence," McNair said. "I'm not interested in a witch hunt. But I am interested in holding people accountable, whether they're Democrat or Republican."

Lying on the signed statement is a fifth-degree felony, punishable by six to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine.

Board members expect a report on the county's crossover voters on March 31. The board has the power to issue subpoenas, forcing voters to testify about their intent on election day, McNair said.

Board Chairman Jeff Hastings said the board would have to vote on whether to issue subpoenas.

McNair and the board's other Democrat, Inajo Davis Chappell , both favor issuing subpoenas. The board's two Republicans, however, weren't yet on board with the idea.

Board member Rob Frost, who also serves as the county GOP chairman, had urged Republicans not to change parties for malicious reasons. On Wednesday, he said he hopes the findings from an investigation will be used to prevent similar problems in future elections.

"I haven't seen anything that gives rise, in my mind, to a criminal investigation," Frost said.

Hastings said the investigation's results on March 31 will determine his preferred course of action.

Patrick Gallaway, Brunner's spokesman, said the board hasn't contacted her about prosecuting crossover voters.

For some reason this screams of pure stupidity on the Democratic members of the Board of Elections to go after Republicans who switched parties in the March primary.

Those 16,000 votes did nothing to change any result of any contest.

As the article states that the vote was 2-2 which means PICW (Profile in Courage Award Winner) Jennifer Brunner will have to cast the deciding vote. My guess, she has shown a proclivity to push down the Republican Party as best she can, will vote to issue subpoenas.

It seems to me, that there is a conflict of interest here between PICW Brunner's role as Chief Election official and the laws of the State. The conflict is that she has sworn to uphold the laws and Constitutions of the USA and the State of Ohio, however, if she is to uphold this election law, she could be violating one of the Chief rights every American is given, Freedom of Speech.

At least that would be one of my planks for support. The other issue, is the State will have to prove intent, which maybe a little tougher for the Prosecutors to address.
As part of the intent argument, I would argue that I was merely using one of the tools provided by the Constitution to establish my displeasure with the elected representatives. Also, I was showing my displeasure with perhaps the current crop of candidates in the other party.

One other issue that may need to be researched with past BOE's across the state and as well as former Secretaries of State, has there been any prosecutions relating to voter fraud. If not, a case could be made that this is selective enforcement of the ORC as to voters, thereby, also a violation of the equal protection clause.

Let see some of the areas of the Ohio Constitution that could be cited;

§ 1.02 Right to alter, reform, or abolish government, and repeal special privileges (1851)

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform, or abolish the same, whenever they may deem it necessary; and no special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted, that may not be altered, revoked, or repealed by the general assembly.

§ 1.11 Freedom of speech; of the press; of libels (1851)

Every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of the right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech, or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury, and if it shall appear to the jury, that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives, and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted.

§ 1.20 Powers reserved to the people (1851)

This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people; and all powers, not herein delegated, remain with the people.

§ 5.01 Who may vote

Every citizen of the United States, of the age of eighteen years, who has been a resident of the state, county, township, or ward, such time as may be provided by law, and has been registered to vote for thirty days, has the qualifications of an elector, and is entitled to vote at all elections. Any elector who fails to vote in at least one election during any period of four consecutive years shall cease to be an elector unless he again registers to vote.

Which Amendments covers this issue:

Amendment 1:

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote. Ratified 2/3/1870.

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage. Ratified 8/18/1920.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years. Ratified 7/1/1971.

1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Let's go back to Article 1.20 of the Ohio Constitution:

§ 1.20 Powers reserved to the people (1851)

This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people; and all powers, not herein delegated, remain with the people.


I believe that the power to vote as people see fit remains with the people and not with elected or appointed officials.

Perhaps, the BOE Board members need to reevaluate their actions and move forward without prosecution.

I think if it does happen, they might as well change the signs at the borders from Ohio "The Heart of it all" to THIS IS OHIO NO REPUBLICANS NEED TO RESIDE HERE