Thursday, February 19, 2009

DISCUSSION: SLIMAN, GONZALES & PIZZINO? OUT TO REMAKE STARK COUNTY?


An interesting meeting the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) took in yesterday.

The meeting seemed somewhat surreal in that one could easily slip into thinking: Are these guys trying to break up Stark County as a unit?

What guys?

Canton Annexation Director Sam Sliman, Jackson Township president of the trustees John Pizzino and Jackson Township fiscal officer Randy Gonzales; those guys.

Watch the video of the meeting embedded at the end of this article.

Sliman - self describing as "the towships' Darth Vader." Really?

Sliman, Gonzales and Pizzino had their lines rehearsed well: "Stark County economic development," "historic," "not a land grab. and "one-third the population of Stark County." Sift through the video. Don't they sound like a chorus?

Somehow the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) doesn't buy that this Canton/Jackson Township tryst is anything but a satisfaction of the moment.

This forced marriage out of desperation for Canton and Jackson Township and is not going to be a benefit to Stark County at large.

Gonzales, in particular, is known for ignoring significant parts of Stark County in his 9-1-1 work: Minerva, Alliance; who else?

No, it smacks of these three Stark County kingmakers creating a "county within a county" dedicated to the proposition of barricading Jackson Township for 99 years. Canton for its part, is a dying economy; yes dying.

Why would current government officials (Canton City Council) go for a 99 year deal except out of economic survival desperation. In following Bill Smuckler, Canton City Council is following the "Pied Piper of Canton." Smuckler, a long time council member, has been in the thick of Canton's decline and apparently determined to take Canton and Stark County over the cliff with him.

So in the future, The Report will refer to the Sliman, Gonzales and Pizzino creation and Canackson County.

Where is it?

Some where in the midst of Stark County!

Here is the video.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

This whole annexation issue is devoid of logic. There has to be a missing piece to this jigsaw puzzle. Without that piece one has to go into it with all fingers and toes crossed, as well as positioning one's head between one's legs. Not many voters, let alone "economic developers" are willing to make business investments that require paying taxes to two political entities. That will certainly be a marketing ploy used by neighboring community's economic development arms to dissuade investors, developers and businesses from choosing to pay DOUBLE taxes.
Watching the video is even more surrealistic. The use of the phrase "economic development" was not followed by any supporting facts or statistics. To the contrary, the addition of an up to 2% income tax, where none had been present prior to annexation, was a factual statement, but not in support of their claims. Most doctors, professionals and businessmen that I know avoid local income tax when possible. Why would adding income tax promote "economic development"?
Very confusing.

Anonymous said...

Lest we forget, one of these three is the self-professed "Darth Vader" to townships.