Welcome Guest!
Create an Account
login email:
password:
site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp
Message Board
BobcatAttack.com Message Board
General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events
Topic:  RE: An assault on old OU

Topic:  RE: An assault on old OU
Author
Message
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: An assault on old OU
   Posted: 2/23/2017 1:03:14 PM 
DelBobcat wrote:
But no, I'm not trying to stake that claim. I'm saying that liberals and conservatives alike are for local rule when it benefits their agenda and vice versa. Your statement that conservatives prefer local control and liberals prefer federal control does not ring true in many, many circumstances. In Philly, for example, liberals would rather have the state government butt out of their business, while conservatives in Harrisburg would rather take power away from the local government and centralize it under their control.


Point taken. There are clearly examples where liberals prefer local rule. I still hold to the belief that it is more commonly a conservative position, it certainly is for me personally.

Good discussion.
Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,485

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: An assault on old OU
   Posted: 2/23/2017 2:28:45 PM 
Alan Swank wrote:
Robert Fox wrote:
The concept is divided, mostly along political boundaries. The question is not whether or not pre-school is beneficial, it's about who is in charge? The left, as always, wants the Feds in charge. The right, speaking for me personally, wants to keep the decision as local as possible.



Robert with all due respect, that might be one of the most inflammatory posts I've seen on here. This has nothing to do with left or right it's whether or not we want to morally and ethically invest in our children. Nothing more or less. Education is not a left or right thing. It's a humanitarian thing.



The concept that the GOP doesn't involve itself in people lives is hysterical and wrong on many levels, as they continually try and legislate morals, and behavior of individuals. While many wrongly believe that Reagan actually reduced the size of big government
Back to Top
  
DelBobcat
General User



Member Since: 8/26/2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,135

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: An assault on old OU
   Posted: 2/23/2017 2:33:54 PM 
Robert Fox wrote:
DelBobcat wrote:
But no, I'm not trying to stake that claim. I'm saying that liberals and conservatives alike are for local rule when it benefits their agenda and vice versa. Your statement that conservatives prefer local control and liberals prefer federal control does not ring true in many, many circumstances. In Philly, for example, liberals would rather have the state government butt out of their business, while conservatives in Harrisburg would rather take power away from the local government and centralize it under their control.


Point taken. There are clearly examples where liberals prefer local rule. I still hold to the belief that it is more commonly a conservative position, it certainly is for me personally.

Good discussion.


Definitely a good discussion. I 100% believe that you prefer local rule and I think you have been consistent in that position, which I respect. I just think the GOP has been talking that talk for the past 30 years or so and has been walking in the opposite direction on many issues.

BA OHIO 2010, BS OHIO 2010, MA Delaware 2012
Back to Top
  
rpbobcat
General User

Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 3,504

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: An assault on old OU
   Posted: 2/23/2017 2:58:13 PM 
DelBobcat wrote:


jobs in hospitals have grown from 4.57 million before Obamacare to 5.09 million today. Researchers at George Washington U. found that repealing Obamacare would result in a nationwide loss of about 3 million jobs and $2.6 trillion in total business activity between 2019 and 2023.

If we repeal Obamacare, jobs will be lost. My point is that I'm presuming you're ok with that because you think that more jobs will be created by whatever we replace it with. I may not agree, but I think that is a rational train of thought.


Guess I have the same flaw.
I would like to see a breakdown of the type of jobs that were created and how they are distributed around the U.S.
In this area a lot of doctors have gotten out of private practice and joined hospital based "medical groups".
They now bill and are paid through the hospital so that would show up as an increase in hospital employees.
But,by closing their offices,which eliminated their support staff,the net result was a loss of jobs.

That's also why,until you know how the ACA would be replaced,you can't know its impact.
Back to Top
  
rpbobcat
General User

Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 3,504

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: An assault on old OU
   Posted: 2/23/2017 3:08:39 PM 
DelBobcat wrote:
rpbobcat wrote:
DelBobcat wrote:

That's correct, unless the Commonwealth Court decides it's unconstitutional.

Interestingly, in another battle with the state, Philadelphia would like to tax commercial properties at a higher rate than residential properties. This change would allow them to raise commercial property taxes in order to lower the city wage tax (which is currently about 3.9%, which everyone agrees is way too high). The plan has backing from the Philadelphia business community, including the Chamber of Commerce, the city's largest commercial landlord (Brandywine Realty Trust) and the city's largest private employers. They have said they would be willing to pay higher property taxes because lowering the wage tax will help them recruit top employees.

So what's the problem? The state constitution forbids taxing different types of property at different rates, so it would need to be amended. That can only be done through the legislature. However, the pro-local control, pro-business, state GOP has said they will only support the amendment if the city hands over more control of its taxation decisions to the state.

You seriously can't make this stuff up.


New Jersey has the same law.

Thing is,the tax rate is the same for all properties.But the amount of the real estate tax is based a property's value.
Commercial properties,have a much higher,so even though the rate is the same,they pay a lot more in taxes.

At one time they looked at doing what Philly wants to in N.J.
N.J. is solidly blue and the legislation went nowhere.



But should it be the state's decision whether Philly can have different rates? That's the big question. Whether you think it's a valid policy or not, it has support from everyone on both sides of the aisle in Philadelphia. It's not often that you get the Chamber of Commerce and organized labor fighting for the same policy.

And commercial properties have a higher property value is generally true but there are lots of exceptions. The Comcast Center has a higher property value than a single-family home in Northeast Philly, that's certainly true. But my apartment building in Center City has a much higher property value than a corner store in West Philly. Location is the most important factor to property value.


Normally,the authority to tax comes from the state.
In fact NYC just went through this over the ability to require stores to charge for plastic bags.
The justification was to help the environment.
Thing is,constitutionally,NYC can't implement a tax,so the money would stay with the store owner,not go to help anything.
Governor Coumo killed it.

The problem is,you couldn't limit the ability to tax to Philly.
That would create chaos.Each town could decide not only whether to tax at different rates,but how much different.
That would lead to non stop litigation.



Last Edited: 2/23/2017 3:10:07 PM by rpbobcat
Back to Top
  
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,023

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: An assault on old OU
   Posted: 2/23/2017 3:21:21 PM 
Robert Fox wrote:
Alan Swank wrote:
Robert Fox wrote:
The concept is divided, mostly along political boundaries. The question is not whether or not pre-school is beneficial, it's about who is in charge? The left, as always, wants the Feds in charge. The right, speaking for me personally, wants to keep the decision as local as possible.



Robert with all due respect, that might be one of the most inflammatory posts I've seen on here. This has nothing to do with left or right it's whether or not we want to morally and ethically invest in our children. Nothing more or less. Education is not a left or right thing. It's a humanitarian thing.



You're kidding. That post was the most inflammatory?


Did not say that. Said one of.

Last Edited: 2/23/2017 7:46:31 PM by Alan Swank
Back to Top
  
Ohio69
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 2,992

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: An assault on old OU
   Posted: 2/23/2017 6:50:15 PM 
DelBobcat wrote:
I 100% believe that you prefer local rule and I think you have been consistent in that position, which I respect. I just think the GOP has been talking that talk for the past 30 years or so and has been walking in the opposite direction on many issues.


Gotta chime in and agree with this. Just look at states lately that have taken rights away from cities. Like North Carolina. Because they don't like the what the locals are doing. I think we are about to see that right here in Ohio. And in both states, it will be conservatives doing it.


Can somebody hit a pull up jumper for me?.....

Back to Top
  
DelBobcat
General User



Member Since: 8/26/2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,135

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: An assault on old OU
   Posted: 2/24/2017 9:22:04 AM 
rpbobcat wrote:
DelBobcat wrote:
rpbobcat wrote:
[QUOTE=DelBobcat]
That's correct, unless the Commonwealth Court decides it's unconstitutional.

Interestingly, in another battle with the state, Philadelphia would like to tax commercial properties at a higher rate than residential properties. This change would allow them to raise commercial property taxes in order to lower the city wage tax (which is currently about 3.9%, which everyone agrees is way too high). The plan has backing from the Philadelphia business community, including the Chamber of Commerce, the city's largest commercial landlord (Brandywine Realty Trust) and the city's largest private employers. They have said they would be willing to pay higher property taxes because lowering the wage tax will help them recruit top employees.

So what's the problem? The state constitution forbids taxing different types of property at different rates, so it would need to be amended. That can only be done through the legislature. However, the pro-local control, pro-business, state GOP has said they will only support the amendment if the city hands over more control of its taxation decisions to the state.

You seriously can't make this stuff up.


New Jersey has the same law.

Thing is,the tax rate is the same for all properties.But the amount of the real estate tax is based a property's value.
Commercial properties,have a much higher,so even though the rate is the same,they pay a lot more in taxes.

At one time they looked at doing what Philly wants to in N.J.
N.J. is solidly blue and the legislation went nowhere.




The problem is,you couldn't limit the ability to tax to Philly.
That would create chaos.Each town could decide not only whether to tax at different rates,but how much different.
That would lead to non stop litigation.





This isn't true at all. Pennsylvania already treats different municipalities very differently on a number of issues including taxation. Townships, boroughs, and cities are all treated differently for starters. Then, within these categories, there are different classes that are governed differently and are subject to different regulations. A first class township is different than a second class township and so on. Then counties are treated differently as well. Philadelphia is the only first class county and has very specific rules that pertain to only it. Likewise, Allegheny is the only second class county. There are eight classes of counties in total. So the state can pass a law that only applies to second class counties, which effectively singles out Allegheny without really saying so. For example, only second and first class counties can have their own sales tax--so both Philadelphia and Allegheny have implemented a sales tax on top of the state sales tax. To round all of this out, Philadelphia is both a city and county and operates under a home rule charter, which has its own set of rules and responsibilities.

The whole thing is a mess, to be honest. If you want to attack government inefficiency there's where you have a legitimate gripe. We have 2,561 municipalities in Pennsylvania. Everything would function a lot more efficiently and effectively if we combined a lot of them and we streamlined the class system. I know NJ has a similar issue with its many municipalities. States like Maryland, with their strong county governments and lower number of municipalities, operate much more efficiently and have lower levels of corruption.

BA OHIO 2010, BS OHIO 2010, MA Delaware 2012
Back to Top
  
rpbobcat
General User

Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 3,504

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: An assault on old OU
   Posted: 2/24/2017 11:58:12 AM 
DelBobcat wrote:
rpbobcat wrote:
DelBobcat wrote:
rpbobcat wrote:
[QUOTE=DelBobcat]
That's correct, unless the Commonwealth Court decides it's unconstitutional.

Interestingly, in another battle with the state, Philadelphia would like to tax commercial properties at a higher rate than residential properties. This change would allow them to raise commercial property taxes in order to lower the city wage tax (which is currently about 3.9%, which everyone agrees is way too high). The plan has backing from the Philadelphia business community, including the Chamber of Commerce, the city's largest commercial landlord (Brandywine Realty Trust) and the city's largest private employers. They have said they would be willing to pay higher property taxes because lowering the wage tax will help them recruit top employees.

So what's the problem? The state constitution forbids taxing different types of property at different rates, so it would need to be amended. That can only be done through the legislature. However, the pro-local control, pro-business, state GOP has said they will only support the amendment if the city hands over more control of its taxation decisions to the state.

You seriously can't make this stuff up.


New Jersey has the same law.

Thing is,the tax rate is the same for all properties.But the amount of the real estate tax is based a property's value.
Commercial properties,have a much higher,so even though the rate is the same,they pay a lot more in taxes.

At one time they looked at doing what Philly wants to in N.J.
N.J. is solidly blue and the legislation went nowhere.




The problem is,you couldn't limit the ability to tax to Philly.
That would create chaos.Each town could decide not only whether to tax at different rates,but how much different.
That would lead to non stop litigation.





This isn't true at all. Pennsylvania already treats different municipalities very differently on a number of issues including taxation. Townships, boroughs, and cities are all treated differently for starters. Then, within these categories, there are different classes that are governed differently and are subject to different regulations. A first class township is different than a second class township and so on. Then counties are treated differently as well. Philadelphia is the only first class county and has very specific rules that pertain to only it. Likewise, Allegheny is the only second class county. There are eight classes of counties in total. So the state can pass a law that only applies to second class counties, which effectively singles out Allegheny without really saying so. For example, only second and first class counties can have their own sales tax--so both Philadelphia and Allegheny have implemented a sales tax on top of the state sales tax. To round all of this out, Philadelphia is both a city and county and operates under a home rule charter, which has its own set of rules and responsibilities.

The whole thing is a mess, to be honest. If you want to attack government inefficiency there's where you have a legitimate gripe. We have 2,561 municipalities in Pennsylvania. Everything would function a lot more efficiently and effectively if we combined a lot of them and we streamlined the class system. I know NJ has a similar issue with its many municipalities. States like Maryland, with their strong county governments and lower number of municipalities, operate much more efficiently and have lower levels of corruption.


In New Jersey we don't have different "classes" of Counties.
Individual Municipalities have different "forms" of government.But anything to do with revenue like sales tax must be approved by the state.
About the only thing the state has done is lower the sales tax in certain areas to encourage shopping there.

The state also sets the maximum a town can raise taxes each year.
For most budget items its 2%.

Its funny,in N.J. there's a push to get rid of County Government because,for the most part,it duplicates what individual towns do and they don't do it well.

There was a push by the state to "encourage" (force) municipalities to consolidate.
That went over like a lead balloon.
No one wants to give up home rule.

The state also found out that,for the most part,the smaller towns the state wanted to merge, operated more efficiently then larger cities.

One thing that has happened is "shared services" ,where several towns get together to purchase a piece of equipment they each need only occasionally,buy items like office supplies or pave roads.




Last Edited: 2/24/2017 11:59:20 AM by rpbobcat
Back to Top
  
DelBobcat
General User



Member Since: 8/26/2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,135

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: An assault on old OU
   Posted: 2/24/2017 12:26:55 PM 
rpbobcat wrote:
DelBobcat wrote:
rpbobcat wrote:
DelBobcat wrote:
rpbobcat wrote:
[QUOTE=DelBobcat]
That's correct, unless the Commonwealth Court decides it's unconstitutional.

Interestingly, in another battle with the state, Philadelphia would like to tax commercial properties at a higher rate than residential properties. This change would allow them to raise commercial property taxes in order to lower the city wage tax (which is currently about 3.9%, which everyone agrees is way too high). The plan has backing from the Philadelphia business community, including the Chamber of Commerce, the city's largest commercial landlord (Brandywine Realty Trust) and the city's largest private employers. They have said they would be willing to pay higher property taxes because lowering the wage tax will help them recruit top employees.

So what's the problem? The state constitution forbids taxing different types of property at different rates, so it would need to be amended. That can only be done through the legislature. However, the pro-local control, pro-business, state GOP has said they will only support the amendment if the city hands over more control of its taxation decisions to the state.

You seriously can't make this stuff up.


New Jersey has the same law.

Thing is,the tax rate is the same for all properties.But the amount of the real estate tax is based a property's value.
Commercial properties,have a much higher,so even though the rate is the same,they pay a lot more in taxes.

At one time they looked at doing what Philly wants to in N.J.
N.J. is solidly blue and the legislation went nowhere.




The problem is,you couldn't limit the ability to tax to Philly.
That would create chaos.Each town could decide not only whether to tax at different rates,but how much different.
That would lead to non stop litigation.





This isn't true at all. Pennsylvania already treats different municipalities very differently on a number of issues including taxation. Townships, boroughs, and cities are all treated differently for starters. Then, within these categories, there are different classes that are governed differently and are subject to different regulations. A first class township is different than a second class township and so on. Then counties are treated differently as well. Philadelphia is the only first class county and has very specific rules that pertain to only it. Likewise, Allegheny is the only second class county. There are eight classes of counties in total. So the state can pass a law that only applies to second class counties, which effectively singles out Allegheny without really saying so. For example, only second and first class counties can have their own sales tax--so both Philadelphia and Allegheny have implemented a sales tax on top of the state sales tax. To round all of this out, Philadelphia is both a city and county and operates under a home rule charter, which has its own set of rules and responsibilities.

The whole thing is a mess, to be honest. If you want to attack government inefficiency there's where you have a legitimate gripe. We have 2,561 municipalities in Pennsylvania. Everything would function a lot more efficiently and effectively if we combined a lot of them and we streamlined the class system. I know NJ has a similar issue with its many municipalities. States like Maryland, with their strong county governments and lower number of municipalities, operate much more efficiently and have lower levels of corruption.


In New Jersey we don't have different "classes" of Counties.
Individual Municipalities have different "forms" of government.But anything to do with revenue like sales tax must be approved by the state.
About the only thing the state has done is lower the sales tax in certain areas to encourage shopping there.

The state also sets the maximum a town can raise taxes each year.
For most budget items its 2%.

Its funny,in N.J. there's a push to get rid of County Government because,for the most part,it duplicates what individual towns do and they don't do it well.

There was a push by the state to "encourage" (force) municipalities to consolidate.
That went over like a lead balloon.
No one wants to give up home rule.

The state also found out that,for the most part,the smaller towns the state wanted to merge, operated more efficiently then larger cities.

One thing that has happened is "shared services" ,where several towns get together to purchase a piece of equipment they each need only occasionally,buy items like office supplies or pave roads.




Yea, I just meant that you have the same issue regarding having tons of municipalities. It makes things like urban planning difficult because your municipality in some cases is less than one square mile. Shared services is definitely a step in the right direction. And yes, I do admit that consolidating municipalities is a no-go politically. But sometimes the best ideas are DOA when politics gets involved.

BA OHIO 2010, BS OHIO 2010, MA Delaware 2012
Back to Top
  
DelBobcat
General User



Member Since: 8/26/2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,135

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: An assault on old OU
   Posted: 2/24/2017 12:31:32 PM 
I should note for Ohio residents sake that PA and NJ townships are different than Ohio townships. In Ohio townships are considered to be "unincorporated." Villages and cities are the only true municipalities. In PA and NJ the townships are incorporated municipalities. The is no area in either state that is not in an incorporated municipality. It was a weird concept for me, as I grew up in an unincorporated township in Ohio.

BA OHIO 2010, BS OHIO 2010, MA Delaware 2012
Back to Top
  
rpbobcat
General User

Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 3,504

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: An assault on old OU
   Posted: 2/24/2017 1:04:00 PM 
DelBobcat wrote:


Yea, I just meant that you have the same issue regarding having tons of municipalities. It makes things like urban planning difficult because your municipality in some cases is less than one square mile. Shared services is definitely a step in the right direction. And yes, I do admit that consolidating municipalities is a no-go politically. But sometimes the best ideas are DOA when politics gets involved.



Perfect example of Home Rule being a pain.

There's a piece of property we're working on that is located in 2 towns.

Guy wants to redevelop it for a public storage facility.
Its a permitted use in both towns.

He wants to go up 7 stories.
That's allowed in Town "A".
Town "B" only allows 3 stories.
Town "B" has also made it clear that 7 stories ain't happening.
There's also no way under the Municipal Land Use Law to force town "B" to grant a variance for height.

The guy has 3 choices:

1."Step" the building

2.Go 3 stories for the whole thing

3.Drop the project.
Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,016

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: An assault on old OU
   Posted: 2/24/2017 2:51:59 PM 
DelBobcat wrote:
I should note for Ohio residents sake that PA and NJ townships are different than Ohio townships. In Ohio townships are considered to be "unincorporated." Villages and cities are the only true municipalities. In PA and NJ the townships are incorporated municipalities. The is no area in either state that is not in an incorporated municipality. It was a weird concept for me, as I grew up in an unincorporated township in Ohio.


To clarify this just a tad. Ohio has 88 counties. Every city, town and village is in a county and technically inside a township; however, the township government has no authority within an incorporated city, town or village. In Athens County, for instance, the City of the Athens is in Athens Township; the office of the Athens Township trustees is in the City of Athens but they only have jurisdiction in the parts of the township which are not within the city limits of the City of Athens. Now, in cases of large cities where the city takes up a whole township, the township has no territory over which to have jurisdiction, so that township as a functioning government unit ceases to exist; however, the township itself has not been obliterated and still exists "in theory." Who said that this was easy. While I understand Ohio townships, I must admit that when I lived in Massachusetts, I could never figure out what a township was, as it seemed to mean something like a small town but not exactly.

The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org

Back to Top
  
rpbobcat
General User

Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 3,504

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: An assault on old OU
   Posted: 2/24/2017 3:38:07 PM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
DelBobcat wrote:
I should note for Ohio residents sake that PA and NJ townships are different than Ohio townships. In Ohio townships are considered to be "unincorporated." Villages and cities are the only true municipalities. In PA and NJ the townships are incorporated municipalities. The is no area in either state that is not in an incorporated municipality. It was a weird concept for me, as I grew up in an unincorporated township in Ohio.


To clarify this just a tad. Ohio has 88 counties. Every city, town and village is in a county and technically inside a township; however, the township government has no authority within an incorporated city, town or village. In Athens County, for instance, the City of the Athens is in Athens Township; the office of the Athens Township trustees is in the City of Athens but they only have jurisdiction in the parts of the township which are not within the city limits of the City of Athens. Now, in cases of large cities where the city takes up a whole township, the township has no territory over which to have jurisdiction, so that township as a functioning government unit ceases to exist; however, the township itself has not been obliterated and still exists "in theory." Who said that this was easy. While I understand Ohio townships, I must admit that when I lived in Massachusetts, I could never figure out what a township was, as it seemed to mean something like a small town but not exactly.



Just to muddy the waters a bit more.
Land Surveyors like me live for this stuff.

In N.J. "Township" refers to a form of local Government.
I never heard the term used for Mass.
Thought they on;y had "towns".

Once you get out of the 13 colonies Township has a different meaning.
Except parts of Ohio,Florida and West Virginia the states are "broken up" using the Public Lands System.
That system created Townships which if I recall were 6 mile x 6 mile tracts.
They were then subdivided from there.

Interesting factoid.
Rufus Putnam was a surveyor and heavily involved in early Public Land work.
Back to Top
  
MedinaCat
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Lakewood, OH
Post Count: 740

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: An assault on old OU
   Posted: 2/24/2017 4:09:25 PM 
Ohio69 wrote:
DelBobcat wrote:
I 100% believe that you prefer local rule and I think you have been consistent in that position, which I respect. I just think the GOP has been talking that talk for the past 30 years or so and has been walking in the opposite direction on many issues.


Gotta chime in and agree with this. Just look at states lately that have taken rights away from cities. Like North Carolina. Because they don't like the what the locals are doing. I think we are about to see that right here in Ohio. And in both states, it will be conservatives doing it.


We have already experienced this in Ohio and and to your point, the current crew in Columbus will intensify such efforts. Home rule is revered so long as local decisions align with the republican led legislature.
Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: An assault on old OU
   Posted: 2/24/2017 4:44:51 PM 
MedinaCat wrote:
Ohio69 wrote:
DelBobcat wrote:
I 100% believe that you prefer local rule and I think you have been consistent in that position, which I respect. I just think the GOP has been talking that talk for the past 30 years or so and has been walking in the opposite direction on many issues.


Gotta chime in and agree with this. Just look at states lately that have taken rights away from cities. Like North Carolina. Because they don't like the what the locals are doing. I think we are about to see that right here in Ohio. And in both states, it will be conservatives doing it.


We have already experienced this in Ohio and and to your point, the current crew in Columbus will intensify such efforts. Home rule is revered so long as local decisions align with the republican led legislature.


Ohio examples, please.
Back to Top
  
akroncat
General User

Member Since: 7/23/2010
Location: Akron, OH
Post Count: 189

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: An assault on old OU
   Posted: 2/24/2017 4:46:43 PM 
What a coincidence this morning. I opened my Plain Dealer and the lead story on the Forum or editorial section was about one of our current topics, preschool education. As some know, I am rather conservative and believe there is not enough money to fix Akron schools without parents doing more, but this article was interesting. Two professors, one from Duke and one from California, Irvine, did a study and found that the advantage of preschool was very short lived. They did offer some suggestions on how to improve education, but their study was very negative to all the money being spent on preschool for inner city kids. I get the real paper, so I am not sure how to link the article. It is quite long, but worth the read not matter if you are for or against more money for preschool.
Back to Top
  
MedinaCat
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Lakewood, OH
Post Count: 740

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: An assault on old OU
   Posted: 2/24/2017 6:45:54 PM 
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/06/ohio_gov...
Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: An assault on old OU
   Posted: 2/24/2017 7:14:11 PM 
MedinaCat wrote:
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/06/ohio_gov...


OK, thanks. Sounds like the governor thinks the law will open up contracts to bidders outside the city of Cleveland. So if you live and operate a concrete business in Lakewood, you can competitively bid on projects in Cleveland and not be blacklisted. Seems reasonable to me.
Back to Top
  
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,023

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: An assault on old OU
   Posted: 2/24/2017 9:23:54 PM 
akroncat wrote:
What a coincidence this morning. I opened my Plain Dealer and the lead story on the Forum or editorial section was about one of our current topics, preschool education. As some know, I am rather conservative and believe there is not enough money to fix Akron schools without parents doing more, but this article was interesting. Two professors, one from Duke and one from California, Irvine, did a study and found that the advantage of preschool was very short lived. They did offer some suggestions on how to improve education, but their study was very negative to all the money being spent on preschool for inner city kids. I get the real paper, so I am not sure how to link the article. It is quite long, but worth the read not matter if you are for or against more money for preschool.


Agreed that simply throwing money at a problem won't necessarily fix it but for those who care to read this whole article, there are some excellent points about the value of QUALITY preschool programs:

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/01/preschoo...
Back to Top
  
Showing Replies:  151 - 170  of 170 Posts
Jump to Page:  < Previous    1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
View Other 'General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events' Topics
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



WHO'S ONLINE
There are 237 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com
235 Guests
2 Registered Users:
 M.D.W.S.T, cbarber357
There are no other users looking at this page.




Copyright ©2024 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties