(VIDEO) COUNCILMAN FISHER MEETS WITH CONSTITUENTS, CANTON SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS ADRIAN ALLISON FIELDS QUESTIONS APLENTY

BUT NO MAYOR HEALY OR AN ADMINISTRATION REPRESENTATIVE - WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THE "NEIGHBORHOODS" & "EDUCATION" PILLARS OF HIS FOUR PILLARS TO REBUILDING CANTON?

UPDATED:  10:00 AM

VIDEOS

CANTON CITY SCHOOLS SUPERINTENDENT

ADRIAN ALLISON

SPEAKS

TO

K-8 GRADE GROUPING,

BULLYING IN CANTON CITY SCHOOLS (CCS)

DRUGS & GANGS IN CCS

=======================================

WARD 5 SWIFT MEMBERS

CHRIS LEACH

JAMES McNAMER, JR

REACT

TO

ALLISON PRESENTATION

&

TO

KEVIN FISHER AS COUNCILMAN

Nobody has questioned Canton mayor William J. Healy, II's gift of political rhetoric.

And, he "seemingly" takes action.

Note, of course, the word seemingly is in quote marks indicating that the use of the word merits deeper examination.

He does get some things done.  But relatively few.  Mostly, he is a talker; not a doer.

The SCPR believes that there is no better example of the disconnect between Healy's words and deeds than on the issue of recovering Canton's once proud neighborhoods.

And, he apparently thinks he can do it on his own, to wit:

• He holds meetings in the neighborhoods without the knowledge of or participation of the Ward councilperson,
• He has even been known to get out into one neighborhood in a police-esque mode as a sort of superman figure who is going to solve the neighborhood's problem,
• He creates a 17 member Neighborhood Commission (NC) in the run up to his 2011 reelection campaign and then lets it fall into a "hit and miss" proposition ever since, and,
• Note:  A source tells the SCPR that the NC appears to be a "top down" type organization in the sense that various city officials come to generally poorly attended (when the meeting is not canceled altogether) in which information is fed to a commission member, only five of whom represent neighborhood associations.
• At last count, Canton has 55 neighborhood associations.  So ordinary Cantonians only get 5 seats on the NC?

Of the 17 members, there are way too many Canton officials in the list.

The SCPR thinks that Councilwoman Smith is a solid neighborhood person, the say does not go for Councilman Cole and Councilman Dougherty.

Fortunately, Cole will be gone as of January 1st.

There are folks in Canton's neighborhoods who do more than "talk the talk," they "walk the walk."

A couple of leading figures in Canton government that qualify as "talk the talk AND walk the walk" personages are Councilman Kevin Fisher (Democrat - Ward 5) and Councilman Frank Morris (Democrat - Ward 9).

Also showing promise on the neighborhood matter are Councilman John Mariol (Democrat - Ward 7) and Edmond Mack (Democrat - Ward 9).

But Fisher and Morris stand out because they have monthly meetings wherein they meet regularly with their constituents.  And each has active "neighborhood associations" within their wards.

Moreover, in Fisher's case, he has led the way along with Citizen Norma Mills to make banks and others who own vacant properties keep them maintained.

Mack and Mariol did participate with Fisher and Morris in a combined Ward 9, 8, 7 and 5 meeting at the Canton City Council chambers on December 5, 2012.  Of course, the SCPR was there in force with video camera in hand so that Cantonians have access to the meeting even now.

On Wednesday night the SCPR was in Fisher's ward in southwest Canton the former Souers Middle School which is now part of Canton schools early college program.

Fisher was holding a "Town Hall" meeting (his 7th or 8th) that he regularly facilitates in terms of bringing guests in so that his constituents have the opportunity to get answers to their questions that affect the quality of life in Ward 5.

Other CCS in Ward 5 include McGregor and Deuber elementaries.

On September 25th, The Report was in Morris' ward and, with a lot of videotape on hand, is embarked on a series of blogs on that particular meeting.

Today's blog is to focus on Fisher's meeting on Wednesday.

The topic?

Education.

Hmm?

Rings a bell!

Oh yes, "education" (second on the list only behind "safety") is another of Mayor Healy's "four pillars" on which to restore Canton to her former greatness, to wit:

Pillar Two - Education.

The education system and in creased graduation rates in Canton City Schools as well as Plain Local Schools continue to build a strong community.

In spite of the economic struggles and reductions infunding from the state, improvements continue to be shown.

The Mayor’s Scholarship Program has consistently proven to be successful by making scholarships available to any and all Canton residents who graduate from our public schools and have recently added the University of Akron and Stark State College to the program in 2012. 

And yet, no Mayor Healy or a designated administration representative at Wednesday Ward 5 neighborhood meeting.

Hmm?  A pillar of his administration?

The star attraction at Councilman Fisher's meeting newly appointed Canton City Schools (CCS) superintendent Adrian Allison.

Also present were CCS board member Ryan Brahler and former member and board candidate John Rinaldi.  Didn't see Rinaldi challenger Eric Resnick (also a former board member).

Members of the South West Investment For Tomorrow (SWIFT) also known as the South West Neighborhood Association were there in force and did they give Superintendent Allison his due.

This activist group is not shy.  They are known to show up at city council meetings and make their views known to the the collective membership of council.

Here is a composite video of the exchange between Ward 5 constituents (including, of course, the SWIFT contingent).



After the meeting the SCPR caught up with two members of the SWIFT neighborhood group.



Whether or not Canton will ever be a great city as it once was - depends - in large part - on the leaders of Canton's government to be able to marshal citizen activists (i.e. those citizens who will roll up the sleeves and get to work)  from all of the Hall of Fame city's neighborhoods in a united effort to turn Canton around.

The Healy "top-down" model will not work.

However, the Fisher, Morris, Mack and Mariol model of engaging and involving their constituents will work.

But they need help.

All of Canton's councilpersons need to be engaging the residents of the city's neighborhoods in the fashion of the dynamic foursome who the SCPR has dubbed being "the four young turks."

It appears that help is on the way.

Former Councilman Bill Smuckler will be joining the four as will likely newcomer Roland K. Burns, III.

With the results of the upcoming November election there should be as of January 1, 2014 a force of seven councilmen (Burns, Fisher, Hawk, Mack, Mariol, Morris and Smuckler) to unite on key issues in their endeavor to bring life back to the city of Canton.

A key move by this "group of seven" has to be reaching out to the neighborhoods with the intensity that Fisher and Morris have demonstrated.

It is only with large number of actively involved day-in, day-out citizens that Canton stands any chance at all of reclaiming its proud past.

CANTON CITY COUNCIL LEADS THE WAY IN PROVIDING A MODEL FOR DISHING OUT BUSINESS TAX INCENTIVES

UPDATED AT 09:45 AM.

Although the economy is improving in the city of Canton as evidenced by tax collections picking up, Canton city government is in no shape to be giving away future revenues.

Canton taxpayers should be pleased to learn that on Monday night council apparently smoked out Corporex Capital on its request that council agree to a 10 year, 75% Real Property tax exemption.

Smoked out?

Yes, that's the SCPR's take.

Canton council president Allen Schulman (joined by several other councilmen including Kevin Fisher (D - Ward 5) several weeks ago initiated questioning of a Corporex Capital company representative at a Council of the Whole meeting designed to get a straight forward answer as to whether or not the company was going to use local workers to construct a planned hotel (perhaps a second) at the intersection of Faircrest and I77.

Knowing Schulman and Fisher and their political biases, The Report infers that "local workers" from them means local "organized" labor workers.

Also a part of Schulman's line of questioning of whether or not the incentive was a difference maker in the project going forward in the first place.

Well, take a look at this from Monday's Canton City Council agenda:

Postponed indefinitely!

Which likely means one of two things:

1. The incentive is not a difference maker, but it is fashionable for American business and industry to ask for them these days inasmuch as government seems to be handing them out like "free" candy, or
2. The incentive is not a difference maker, but hiring union workers is.

The message delivered by Canton City Council members is "yes" they have and will continue to offer incentives for business, commerce and industry to locate within Canton's economic development sphere BUT there must be jobs produced which generate long term income tax benefits if not other body politic benefits which exceed the tax abatement incentive given.

At the end of the day, if properly done, tax and other incentives provided by local governments must be win-win.

North Canton, on the other hand, offers an example of "improperly done" (in the opinion of the SCPR) tax incentives.

Back in 2009 Acme Freshmarket did some renovating and expansion of its grocery store on North Main Street.

The F.W. Albrecht Company was going to do the work and had no idea that they were "out of fashion" in the sense that they did not go first to North Canton government and try to wring a tax incentive out of the representatives of North Canton taxpayers.

In the end, the Albrecht folks did not have to ask.

How's that?

At the time, Daryl Revoldt (now with the Ohio Department of Economic Development - to the extent that Ohio government is still into economic development as a government function) as president of North Canton's council pushed for North Canton's economic development people to contact Acme and tell them that in line with Revoldt's "anticipatory business friendly environment"  (translated:  "we want to show you how much we love you even though you haven't doubted that we do"):

• North Canton had a $6,500 property tax abatement for the grocery store operation for the mere asking.

Of course, the Albrecht company asked and as it is said "the rest is history."

Although The Report understands Revoldt's thinking, yours truly does not believe that such is an appropriate way to operate with taxpayer dollars.

Why?

Because there is no "but for."

But for?

Yes.

Had the Albrecht company gone to North Canton and said we would like to spend $1.2 million upgrading our North Canton facility however unless we can save $6,500 in real property taxes it is a no go.

And by the way, if we go ahead with the project, it is likely that the reworked facility will attract enough new customers which could well result in our hiring additional workers.  

Would that make sense to North Canton taxpayers?

Undoubtedly!

A win-win.  Acme improves it business model and makes more profit.  North Canton gets more tax revenues over the long haul exceeding the $6,500 loss in taxes because new jobs are likely created out of the company's increased gross revenues.

The "anticipatory business friendly environment" model is just a good ole fashion giveaway that is never going to be quantifiable in terms producing positively for the taxpayers.

And then there is the Massillon model.  (LINK to prior SCPR blog on topic)

This is the model in which in depth and far ranging economic analysis was at the outset missing.  

With the Cicchinelli administration it was the ill advised foray into the golf course business which certainly became compounded ill-advised with the addition of the final nine holes.

Added to the golf course as not being well-thought-out (especially the additional nine holes) is the Hampton Inn project as well as the 59 Duncan Place apartment complex.

Massillon continues to struggle with making a break-even transactions out of all three of these ventures.

Massillon's mayor and her economic development administrators do not appear to have a clue of how to creatively construct an exit plan which minimizes Massillon taxpayer losses let alone reach a hoped for nirvana point of breaking even.

Only Cicchinelli's annexation program seems to have produced positive results.  And that may be appearances rather than reality.  With annexation comes the costs connected with provided services to the annexed areas.

The real question with annexation is what do financial ledgers show in terms of revenues taken in as compared to additional costs incurred.

A sure winner on the the positive revenue side was the R.G Drage annexation.

Otherwise, yours truly suspects that annexation is not really a sustainable economic development model. It likely is front end heavy with revenues but back end heavy with services costs.  The end of annexation is that in time there is nothing to annex.

An area of economic development which is highly suspect in terms of accountability is the viability of Tax Incentive Review Councils (TIRC) to inform taxpayers whether or not tax incentives have been worthwhile for the taxpayer.

Alliance, Canton, Massillon and North Canton have their own TIRCs.

The SCPR has taken in a number TiRC reports given at Stark County commissioner meetings on an annual basis.

A favorite story of yours truly is the Brewster Dairy TIRC process.

In 1999 the dairy signed a 10 year $2.7 million in taxes savings agreement with Stark County whereby it promised to retain 135 employees for the first five years and 125 for the second five year stint. Moreover, the company agreed to invest $1.75 in real property and $7.5 million in personal property expansion expenditures.

Brewster Dairy complied with its promises throughout the ten year cycle.  In fact, it exceeded the real property investment by $1.25 million in realty and $4.5 million in personal property.

Now the TIRC agreement is expired.

An unqualified success, no?

Not so quick.

The SCPR believes that nobody really knows the answer.

A gnawing question has to be:  would Brewster Dairy have retained the 135/125 employees without Stark County taxpayers anteing up $2.7 million?

The implication of the retention of the employees and the investment in expansion real estate and personal property is that "in and of themselves" those factors indicate a net gain for the taxpayers above and beyond the $2.7 million taken from county revenues.

But the SCPR again says:  "no so quick."

What self-respecting financial guy would accept an implication as proof that the company won and that the taxpayers won too in quantifiable context?

To the SCPR, TIRCs are somewhat of a joke if one thinks they are a measurement of taxpayer benefit.

All that TIRCs can honestly say is to be is a tracking mechanism  of whether or not the terms of an agreement of being met year-in, year-out so that a participating company is not subject to a claw back of taxes not paid.

As far as The Report can tell, TIRCs are a suggestion of community economic benefit to the taxpaying body at large.  Yours truly fails to see how TIRCs are constructed to quantify whether or not the agreements result in net taxpayer loss or gain as measured against specific number of dollars not collected into - in the case of Brewster Dairy - the county treasury.

And the question is how effective are the members of the TIRCs in holding companies' feet to the fire in terms of contract compliance.

The only Stark County official that has impressed the SCPR in this regard is Commissioner Janet Creighton.

And finally this.

Taxpayers are about to get even less accountability.

Stark County state Senator Scott Oelslager (R - the 29th District - Plain Township) slipped into the recently enacted 2014/15 state biennium budget language that empowers local government officials to go into executive session when discussing economic development matters.

Overall it appears to the SCPR that Ohio and many local governments have the wrong approach to economic development in that the ways and means lack:

• accountability, and
• transparency

So it is something to cheer about that Canton City Council in using "the right approach" grounded in due diligence just may have avoided giving away hard earned taxpayer dollars in that it appears:

1. It is not needed for the project to go forward, and
2. The company will not commit to hiring in the construction phase local "union?" workers.

Another aspect of "negative-net" economic development project  is that they cost the affected community in yet another dimension:  the loss of public school revenues.

Yet another reason why communities need to be much more scrutinizing about the overall ramifications of jumping on board to this or that hyped economical development project.

The Report's focus Canton council's probing of the Corporex project (as compared to the North Canton example) is intended to show an example of legislators making sure that economic development subsidies do not result in giving away taxpayer dollars for very little if anything in return.

Hence, a  SCPR "hats off: to the Canton City Council it its exercise of due diligence on behalf of the taxpaying public!

THE HEALY ADMINISTRATION'S (TOM WEST) "REDFLEX" TRAFFIC CAMERAS REQUEST IS HEADED TO THE "DEAD LETTER" FILE AT CANTON CITY COUNCIL?

MAYOR HEALY IS BACK ON TRAFFIC CAMERAS

On September 17, 2012, Mayor William J. Healy, II of Canton seemed to suffered a fatal blow to his hopes to bring Redflex traffic cameras to downtown Canton.

The SCPR wrote on the 18th (LINK) "[l]ast night's council action was an outright defeat for the mayor." 

But was it?  Is this 3rd try at Redflex headed to the "dead letter office?"

In a nightmarish, Freddie Krueger-esque fashion - "I'm back" - Hizzhoner, through the offices of Ward Two Councilman Tom West, has returned to trying to get Redflex traffic cameras installed at select downtown intersections (e.g. Market Avenue, North and 12th) as a "pilot project."

Call it getting "a foot in the door," "a trojan horse," or whatever but Healy is proving again that he a "never-say-die" politician.

And somehow he is consistently able to maintain a group of loyalists at his side to keep him politically alive.  In this instance, witness his hold on Councilpersons West, Smith (Ward 4), Dougherty (Ward 6), Babcock (at-large) and Cole (at-large).

In the long run, knowing this mayor and how pugnacious he is; he never, ever is going to give up on any issue.  Even if it is clear that most Cantonians do not want what he is offering up.  That's how much ego this man is consumed with.

EXAMPLES OF HEALY WORK-AROUNDS

When it became apparent that his plan to interest oil/gas drillers into fracking (a controversy to a number of citizens and councilpersons) on Canton owned lands was not going to make it through council, he withdrew it and went back to the drawing board.

Mark the SCPR's word; in time Healy will be back.  His ego simply will not allow him to be bested by anyone.

When it became apparent in August of this year that Healy's plan to dismantle the "independent" Canton Board of Park Commissioners (which has be around for nearly 100 years) was not going over with council and many in the electorate, he withdrew the proposal.  (Reference:  see Canton to seek levy for parks, Ed Balint, The Repository, November 28, 2012)

End of story?

Not on your life!  Not with the "my way or the highway" Healy!!

It appears that he now has commandeered the Canton Recreational Services Coalition (CRSC) which was started about two years ago considering ways and means to possibly merge the Canton Parks and the Canton Joint Recreational District.

Commandeered?

The SCPR thinks so.

He has his main man administrative assistant Derek Gordon serving as "interim assistant park director" and Healy himself has led the discussion with the CRSC (undoubtedly made up of those committed to doing his bidding) to get it to promote putting a levy on at next May's primary election towards getting funding together to provide the finances for his outflank council move.

The eventual goal:  merge the recreation and park functions of Canton into an entity controlled by the mayor of Canton.

And for anyone who knows Healy, it would be a big mistake to count him out on reaching his goal.

This guy is a political Houdini who has demonstrated that "a cat with nine lives" has nothing over him.

WILL HE BE SUCCESSFUL ON THE TRAFFIC CAMERAS?

No, if you believe Ward 5 Councilman Kevin Fisher's take on the matter.

Here is what Fisher had to say to a SCPR inquiry about West's effort as specifically whether or not the 7 to 5 "no" will hold this coming Monday's council meeting.

Martin,

I have every confidence that the Redflex contract will be defeated by the 7 to 5 margin, if not by a wider one. Despite the rebranding of the contract as a "Pilot Program", this is the same vote that was held a mere couple of months ago and in my frequent discussions with my colleagues on city council, I have seen zero indications that anyone has flip flopped on the issue since then.

I did not attend the sales pitch given by Reflex Tuesday evening. As I said when I was invited, that my presence would merely be a waste of my and everyone else's time. I am absolutely opposed to red light/speed cameras at every level and there is no sales pitch that Redflex could make to overcome my constitutional and philosophical objections. Furthermore, I do not feel that Redflex as a company is the type of vendor that Canton should consider doing business with (see their long history of suing their municipal "partners") even if I did not hold such objections.

The people of Canton are absolutely opposed to these cameras and recognize them as nothing more than a "cash grab" and their council has rejected them twice in 3 years. I look forward to voting against them again and putting this issue to bed for good. I think 3 "bites at the apple" are plenty for the proponents of Redflex and once we reject them for the third time, we should consider the topic dead.

... 

Kevin Fisher

As The Report has written before, this council with the new "four young turks" (and yes, Frank Morris, you are young) as newly elected members being on board; Healy ought to be getting used to the new reality that his slick moves are losing their teflon qualities with the growing discernment that increasing numbers of councilpersons are demonstrating.

It has been talked for some time now that Healy is tiring of the mounting rancor he faces from week to week in the hubbub of Canton politics and governance and is looking to move on to a venue more fitting of a man of his political talents.

In a direct question put to him by the SCPR on his looking to move on, he has not denied that he is indeed surveying the field of possibilities.

While The Report thinks he has the "cloak and dagger" political skills and other oily qualities needed to succeed at a higher level, yours truly thinks it would be a mistake for voters to carry him to a higher level.

Why, you ask?

Though many of the folks who staff elective offices across Ohio and the nation are not Sunday School teacher types, it seems to The Report that Mayor Healy is over-the-top in terms of his ego and Canton government and politics should be his last stop on the political trail.

The nightmares "for the people" need to stop!!!

(VIDEOS OF UNION LEADER SCIURY & COUNCILMAN COLE) CANTON CITY COUNCIL MAJORITY SHOWS DISRESPECT FOR STARK CO. ORGANIZED LABOR?

At last night's Canton City Council meeting Hall of Fame AFL-CIO president Dan Sciury was indignant (to use a nice word) with council as he scolded (another nice word) them during "Public Speaks" for voting last week to spend $25,000 of the money of Canton, OHIO citizens in a "promote Canton, Ohio marketing initiative" to possibly (i.e. who really knows) provide jobs for workers located in Canton, CHINA.

Here is a video of Sciury's admonition:



Stark County unions have poured mega bucks into the collective political campaigns of Democratic members of council over decades and decades only to seemingly get kicked in the teeth by the council beneficiaries of union largesse.

Only 5th Ward Councilman Kevin Fisher (new elected in 2011) stood by organized labor in voting "no" on Ordinance 61/2012.

The SCPR has to believe that council President Alan Schulman too would have voted no had there been a tie (the only time the president votes) as he has always been the most vocal pro-organized-labor member of council.

The lopsided 11 yes and 1 no vote occurred notwithstanding Sciury's lobbying council to reject the proposal days before the vote was called.  He pled with a primary proponent of the ordinance; namely, Councilman Joe Cole (who joined with the author of the legislation, according to Cole, Councilman David Dougherty of the 6th Ward who serves as the majority leader in a council that has no Republicans) to stop the project.

But to no avail.  To The Report it is no surprise that Cole is not moved by a "for union jobs" argument.  After all, he is the principal of a charter school which has no union teachers.

Here is a video of Cole's (last night) weak defense of the out-of-area contract, to wit:  "this was the only full service vendor we could find."



Sciury later told yours truly that Cole's point was utter nonsense.  That he can provide council with the names of companies who do full service promotional services work.

Joining in with council members was Mayor William J. Healy, II in that he had to sign the legislation for it to become the law of Canton, Ohio.

He gave the lame reason why the legislation got his signature:  "in the rush of winding up the meeting."  Really?  Obviously, the mayor thinks everybody is totally stupid.

The SCPR has underway a compilation of campaign finance contributions to Healy going all the way back to when he first sought public office in Stark County.

So far the consolidation of Healy's campaign contributions goes back through the successful re-election bid for a second term as mayor.

Healy collected a whopping $70,000 plus from Canton/Stark County/Ohio/USA in campaign contributions!

He signed the legislation inadvertently (i.e. "in the rush of winding up.")

Hmm?

A $70,000 plus contribution and you can't keep track of a piece of legislation that you know your union friends do not like?

He did promise to push for council to revisit the matter.  In a post-council-meeting with Councilman Cole, the SCPR did not get the impression that Cole was in favor of undoing the ordinance.  But he did not completely rule it out.

So what are the unions going to do about Council's "in your face?"

Probably very little.

Unions are so tied to Democrats that they have nowhere else to go and accordingly they get treated as the proverbial "step-child."

They do have opportunities.  For instance, they could draw back on their support of Healy's sister Joyce Healy-Abrams in her quest to unseat Republican Congressman Bob Gibbs.

But do not look for them to do it.  Healy and Canton council members may use and abuse them, however, it would be quite a step for them

Democrats have unions exactly where they want them:  no place to go.

Beyond the jobs for unions question are a number of other issues with the expenditure of $25,000.

First, what about the point Sciury made:  jobs for Canton and Stark County at large even if they are non-union jobs.

Canton Council and the Healy administration makes a huge public relations to-do out of "new" jobs brought to Canton.

Then to support sending Canton taxpayer money out of the city perhaps all the way to the likes of Canton, China?  Hmm?  Will that play with the citizens of Canton, Ohio?

Second, as Councilman Fisher pointed out to the SCPR, how is it that an administration and council who has a looming $4 million plus budget shortfall to make up come 2013 can spend $25,000 on anything but absolutely essential city services?

Of course, this is not the only glaring inconsistency that Canton government has engaged in lately.  Last year Canton Council approved an ordinance with the blessing of the Healy administration that resulted in tens of thousands of dollars for pay increases for Mayor Healy, other members of his administration and council members.

It appears to The Report that Healy and council are building up to asking voters to increase Canton's city income tax from 2% to 2.5% in this November's election.

Hmm?

Multiple thousands upon thousands of dollars being spend on non-essentials and you're are asking for a tax increase?

For the SCPR what is happening in Canton government is a consequence of the arrogance of one-party-rule.

Even the union-bankrollers of the Democrats' absolute control of the seat of Stark County government are powerless to check the cockamaimee ideas that come from the likes of Dougherty and Cole.

(3 VIDEOS): HEALY BLAMES GOV. KASICH & GOP DOMINATED STATE LEGISLATURE FOR NEED TO RAISE CANTON'S INCOME TAX OR MAKE DRACONIAN CUTS IN SAFTEY FORCES BEGINNING JANUARY, 2013. COUNCILMAN FISHER (WARD 5) REACTS

When yours truly got the word that Canton Mayor William J. Healy, II asked for time to speak at the monthly Stark County Democratic Party Jefferson-Jackson Club, the first thought was that he was going to talk about how his State of the City designation of Canton as being The Utica Capital in addition to being the Pro Football Hall of Fame City was working out specifically to be an economic boom for Canton.

And he did indicate to the SCPR in a one-on-one conversation that he believes eventually such will prove to be the case.

But in the immediate context of Canton's financial condition, being a center for servicing companies and their crews fracking for natural gas and wet wells (oil) is not going be a solution to Canton impending financial ills.

So the point of Healy's talk last night was to lay the groundwork that within the next three months (by August 1st) Canton City Council was going to have to chose to do one of three things because of a project $4 to $4.5 million project shortfall in local government funding:

• cut safety forces (police and fire) by some 90 to 100 personnel,
• mix and match budget cuts with non-income-tax revenue increases, to wit:
• generating revenues with traffic cameras,
• instituting a safety forces property tax levy,
• making a 50% cut in the city income tax credit
• eliminating the senior citizen credit
• propose a rise on the city income tax from 2 to 2.5% for approval by Canton voters

Whichever way council decides to go, Healy says the decision will not be an imposed solution.  Rather, he says, the direction chosen will include a fully engaged council.  Moreover, he says the citizens of Canton will participate in a series of public meetings.

Here is an video excerpt from his presentation last night.



Fifth Ward Councilman Kevin Fisher was also at last night's meeting.  The SCPR video recorded this reaction to the mayor presentation:



After the meeting, the SCPR engaged Mayor Healy in a follow up to his remarks before the Jefferson Jackson group. In this video see Mayor Healy explain and expand upon Canton's options and also see him go after Governor Kasich.




The SCPR agrees with Healy that Canton's dilemma going forward is because the Kasich administration in concert with the Ohio General Assembly have balanced the state budget on the backs of local government entities (cities, villages and townships). And there is more to come. Next we will be talking large cuts in local school district funding and in Ohio's contribution to higher education.

One has to wonder whether or not the rank and file local voter is going to allow Kasich and his legislative conspirators to get away with forcing higher local taxes to offset the confiscation by the State of the Ohio Local Government Fund.

Probably not.

And this means that councilpersons, trustees, mayors, board of education members and university boards of trustees in Stark County and throughout Ohio face the prospect of being placed in an impossible position: continuing cuts in local government and education funding by state government and local taxpayers saying no to an increase in taxes.

Buckle up folks.

A big political fight between locals, the governor and the Ohio General Assembly is just around the corner!