Brutus_buckeye

^ while there is merit to your argument, the thing is that Childrens has the ability to make the rules more than most people and businesses. They earned that credibility through becoming a world class institution that makes the overall area more livable. WHile it may not help Avondale directly, the benefits to the rest of the region far outweigh Avondale's loss

Did...did you read the article? I guarantee they'll buy them out. It's genius. I wish I had come up with this plan. Yes, the two residents either current or former that I was referring to were Senators Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi. Hence why I am not shocked that they didn't pay even the most minuscule of taxes. You STILL didn't read the article. Do you pay things you don't know you're responsible for? Are you cutting checks to the county auditor just on the off chance there's a charge you don't know about? I'm sure many of the homes have changed hands in the last 30 years, and new owners would have no idea about the charge. The rest faithfully paid their own property taxes and HOA fees, which would have included the charge had the clerical error not occurred. But if the HOA (or their accountant) wasn't getting the bill, and thus not passing it along to the homeowners, how would any of them - Feinstein, Pelosi, whoever - know they were responsible for it? Not a legit excuse. Especially when you buy a house in the area. You have a duty as an owner to stay informed. You buy a house and you know it is subject to an HOA. You know how much you should pay each month. If they do not collect it, you need to ask why and what the HOA goes for. On top of that you as a homeowner have a right and duty to inspect the tax filings for the HOA every year. The vast majority of people do not do this and 99% of the time everything is fine, but you still have a duty to stay informed. In this particular case, it is even more egregious on the homeowners because they have means to ensure that things were taken care of properly and they failed at that.

When obnoxious politicians hold up progress of a world class job creator for the area, you question their competency.

Then the residents will start voting with their feet and moving and the value of the street will go down. Or they will seek to buy them out at a hefty premium, which is his goal, and they can get their street back.

need to paint it a different color. Too much like Steeler colors :)

In this particular case, I would prefer a parking lot on that location to the garage that was there previously. Still hope the development comes through of course.

I think Pennsylvania used to have (or still does) a LVT only in cites over a certain population. But the laws in PA are probably set up differently than in Ohio, and it could be much more difficult to amend the laws in Ohio to accomplish this. I don't know, I am just speculating. I know that they are working on property tax reform in Columbus now and trying to cap the increases that property owners get when the county does a re-evaluation. These reforms can become problematic if they completely freeze property tax increases. This is a huge problem in California. I think it will not completely freeze increases, only limit how much it can rise in any 3 year period and upon a transfer.

I think Pennsylvania used to have (or still does) a LVT only in cites over a certain population. But the laws in PA are probably set up differently than in Ohio, and it could be much more difficult to amend the laws in Ohio to accomplish this. I don't know, I am just speculating. I know that they are working on property tax reform in Columbus now and trying to cap the increases that property owners get when the county does a re-evaluation.

Not exactly, what I am saying is that while this may encourage development in the cities, it may lead to a perverse effect in the burbs and rural areas as it would 1) encourage development of land which should remain undeveloped (farmland or grassy undeveloped fields) and 2) encourage the wrong kind of development in the suburban areas, because people will just scramble to put up something because, it is tax advantaged to have a bad strip mall that will fall apart in 10 years than an empty lot.

^ My question is would this apply statewide or only in the cities? I don't know if it would work in rural areas and there could be a lot of unintended consequences if it were applied in the suburbs and may seem to contribute to blight in the burbs. Is this something that can be applied on a piecemeal basis? Practically, I would assume yes, but I think there would be legal/constitutional issues applying different standards in different parts of the same county.

jmecklenborg[/member] What I find fascinating are first time buyers buying a 400k house with 5% down. Their mortgage payment is ridiculous and add PMI to boot.

^ pets are expensive as people want to make them. If you choose to give expensive doggy washes and pampering, they are more expensive. If you choose to wash them with a hose it saves money. There is nothing that requires you to give them the most expensive medical care either. Pets are not people and thus no where near as expensive.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2017/07/27/some-first-time-home-buyers-hit-affordability-wall-cincinnati/512157001/ We just sold our house and the amount of first time buyers coming through with only 5% down was scary

^ I wonder if the savings that developers may achieve through building with fewer parking spaces in the cities be offset by the space requirements for dog parks and other pet friendly amenities

^ I don't know about you. I obey the law. I also use common sense and good judgment and think for myself on the road too. I pay attention to the road conditions and drive under the speed limit when the conditions dictate, I also don't sweat about going 5 miles over on the highway on a clear day and the road is uncongested. This is called common sense. Relying solely on what the sign does without any other analysis as to the conditions and situation. That is being a lemming.

^ 327 you don't understand, all speed limits are sensible because they are determined by government who is all knowing and has the smartest people in the world working for it. They know all areas of the road, since they built it, and know exactly what the safest speed is on every inch of road. Other factors do not matter at all. We must trust the experts that the safest speed is exactly what they post, no more no less. There is no room for debate.

Where does your hatred of cars come from. It is obvious that your bias against cars has blinded you from common sense policy

You seem to not understand abstract principles very well. Is it illegal to exceed the speed limit, yes. It is reckless?? That depends. If you are 70MPH on the highway on a clear day in a 65MPH zone, it may technically be illegal, but it is not reckless. If you are going 65MPH in a 65MPH zone on a snowy day, it is technically legal, but it is reckless. Traffic cameras are horrible policy. The legislature tried to strike a balance a few years back with the current law and the city of Dayton was too stupid for their own good and challenged it. I anticipate the legislature looking to shut these down completely now by outlawing them in a blanket rule that would nto violate home rule. It was a pyrrhic victory for Dayton. Believe it or not, the stated speed limit does not determine whether or not you are driving recklessly. It depends on a number of factors and analysis. Apparently, you have trouble grasping this fact.

If the driver is recklessly exceeding the speed limit and kills a pedestrian, they will be charged with manslaughter and punished accordingly

Ok, lets put it into perspective. If you are going 5 miles over in the school zone, that makes a big difference if you hit someone. If you are going 68 in a 65 and you hit someone, it will not make a difference. Quit pretending otherwise. Again, if you are paying attention, you will see that this argument has nothing to do with speeding, it is about the rights of the accused. Your sole argument is that speed cameras reduce accidents and that those who speed break the law and deserve whatever punishment they receive and the ends justify the means to ensure they receive their punishment. Fortunately, there is the Constitution to protect the accused from opinions like this, so that the poor in society have a chance to defend themselves.

You act like going over the speed limit by 2-5 miles an hour is driving in a dangerous manner? You also seem to think that the cameras are 100% accurate and calibrated correctly all the time. Exceeding the posted speed limit by a few miles an hour does not make one a dangerous driver. Even if there was some merit to your claim, it does not matter because the accused still have rights and you cant have a law that takes away the rights of the accused. It is akin to the movie Minority Report, just because you have the ability to prevent crime from happening does not make it the right thing to do. In this case the ends do not justify the means.

They are not entrapment. The problem with cameras is that the data goes to the company that owns them, sends the ticket out, then collects on the ticket and sends the municipality a check. They control the calibration of the cameras and the machines. The city is pretty much hands off, other than setting them up and taking them down. If you try and fight the ticket, you cannot confront your accuser which is a right guaranteed to the accused in the Constitution. You cannot cross examine a camera, you cannot ask it questions about its calibration, etc. You do not truly know what they are set at on that particular day when they issue you the ticket. In order to get this information you will need to subpoena the company and fight to get the records through discovery. The company will likely fight this discovery as long as possible, thus making it harder to fight the ticket. This is the problem with cameras. As for giving holding the car owner responsible for someone who breaks the speed limit, that is just purely absurd. If you did this, you would put the entire rental car industry out of business. Speeding is an individual offense, not a vehicle offense. It is unlawful to give someone a fine for a crime they didn't commit. Ken, of all people on this forum, I would be shocked you would be supportive of these cameras. As someone who often espouses social justices principles, these things prey upon the poor in the urban cores and ultimately generate revenue on the backs of the poor and working class. The wealthy who may be caught by this have the means to successfully fight it in court. The poor have no means and are often frustrated by the roadblocks and barriers that the cities and camera company construct to thwart the defense. It is one thing for the camera company to act like this, but you should expect more from your government.

That is how they maneuver around the law to justify this I suggest you read the Elmwood Place decision to get a good understanding on why speed cameras should be illegal. the judge lays it out well there.

down4cle[/member] - The difference is enforcement. With tolls your right to the road (using the bridge in Jake's example) is contractual. If you break the contract, you have to pay damages in the form of a fine. Same with Parking meters. WHen you pay the "fine" or "toll" these are not considered moving violations because of the contractual nature of the incident. The "fine" is akin to breach of contract and the damages are what amounts to making the city "whole" again. This is not a criminal offense. You do not get points on your license. When you have a speeding ticket you have a criminal offense, you get points to your license. The Constitution states that in a criminal case you have the right to confront your accuser. That is the big difference. SPeeding is a misdemeanor and therefore, falls in the criminal code, and the rules are different there.

A modern toll bridge doesn't have a toll booth. It's all done using cameras. ryanlammi[/member] - It does not matter how they collect the toll. Using a camera to charge does not change the fact it is a contractual relationship that is created. Parking meters operate in the same manner. Speed cameras are not about a contractual relationship. That is the key difference.