the problem for Portsmouth, not drugs
I recently was informed about the terrible plight of James and Teresa Hairston relative to their operating the Silver Moon Night Club.
As I read Mr. Hairston's letter to the community dated March, 2004, I was not surprised at the harassment and injustices the business couple suffered at the hands of that “good ol' boy system” among Portsmouth's elected officials. It has been in place for many years. Dreamland swimming pool injustice was heaped upon Portsmouth's black citizens for many years.
How could the club's owners be responsible for crime on the street outside of the club? Was the Silver Moon the only night spot in Portsmouth where there was drug activity? As taxpayers, why weren't the Hairstons afforded police protection to keep their business open and earn a living? In my estimation, drugs were not the problem, but that Mr. Hairston is married to a white woman. How dare he marry out of his race. Some narrow-minded power brokers said, “We have got to keep our women out of that place, they are making us white people look bad.”
Portsmouth always has had a Mississippi attitude toward black citizens. Isn't someone there Branch Rickey enough to straighten it out?
Forget about the drugs; it is a race issue.
Round Lake Beach, Ill.
A vote for the senior center renewal levy is a vote for independence
To all voters of Scioto County: Your “yes” vote is greatly needed this election on May 2. Please support the renewal levy of services provided to the elderly by the senior center. These services help me and other seniors who are limited in mobility and can mean the difference of staying independent while living in our own home, where we want to be. In a calm and efficient way, the staff at the center coordinates daily living services with just an easy call. And guess what, a real live person answers the phone during business hours. Please vote “yes” for the senior citizens' renewal levy on this election day.
Senior Citizens Center provides transportation and personal touch
Please vote May 2 for the renewal of the senior citizens' levy. It is the only transportation a lot of senior citizens have to get to the doctor, get groceries or to get anywhere at all; and you get to talk to a real person when you call, and they are very nice. We need the transportation really badly, so please vote for renewal of the senior citizens mill levy.
City Charter Committee could have helped local government
First of all, I attended the meeting/forum at the Welcome Center, and I must admit I was deeply saddened. Not by the presentation, but by the lack of interested citizens. When our city is overcome with so many proposed changes and long lasting decisions to be made, we should be there for input and support.
Nearly nine years ago, I had the privilege to serve as secretary for the “council appointed” City Charter Committee that lasted for 13 months.
Yes, 13 people donated their time and efforts, and I have to admit that it was probably the best learning experience of my life. There were two appointed representatives from each ward, and it was co-chaired by retired Judge J. Marshall Sr. and J. Baker - two very smart, courteous and patient gentlemen. It was amazing. All gave their time for the asking of City Council and for the love of Portsmouth. After 13 months, with changes that were discussed with such foresight, everyone left with smiles from hard work done so well, and rightfully so.
All that remained was for Baker to give the presentation to Council, and he did so eloquently ... that same Council just ignored him.
My heart sunk, and I could just imagine how the rest of the committee felt, and you wonder why no one seems to care? Why they don't involve themselves anymore? It was clear what Council's proclivities were, and that they would remain.
So, it is for many reasons I oppose the charter amendment to further segregate by making it too difficult to recall elected officials, and segregation is exactly what is being asked of all citizens.
I can remember two separate incidents involving Councilmen and federal crimes - one involved a councilman shooting another man. Another had gotten hooked on crack cocaine. Both could have remained seated until they were actually convicted. At that point, it is our civic duty as voters of Portsmouth to take action. Not just the voters in one ward.
I am all for keeping things copacetic.
Therefore, I will vote against proposed charter amendments 150 and 151.
The city charter has provisions for Council to appoint committees for such subjects as charter amendments. We must keep the people involved.
And to all who worked so hard those 13 months and your families, a very deep, heartfelt thank you.
Yea or Nay, please remember to vote!
Marting's building renovation is not in city's best interest
Our city officials say it is in the best interest of the city to purchase the Marting's building for a new city building. Why?
We have a building that is 51 years older than the current city building, the Marting's building is full of mold and asbestos. The city plans to only use two floors of it, yet will be heating and cooling an entire building. Old figures are being used to “con” the citizens when in actuality it will cost much more than we are being told, and the Police Department will no longer be a part of this new building because the city has acquired the old Adelphia building for them.
We are being told this would be a great location for our city building. Why? The only thing that this building is going to attract are those who are coming to court every day. There is little shopping on Chillicothe Street (or surrounding streets) that entices anyone to come downtown. Even our city officials realize that - it is not a secret that phantom shoppers and drivers were used to try to entice a business to come to Portsmouth. No doubt, they saw through this deception and decided they didn't want to come to such a deceitful town. Could you blame them?
From the beginning of when the subject of the Martin's building was brought up by our city officials, those officials were not concerned enough to find out what “we” thought about spending such an enormous amount of money. Would you run your household budget the way our city is running ours? Would you go out and purchase a Hummer and not discuss it with your spouse if you only had a yearly income of $25,000? I doubt it. Not with all the added expenses of utilities, groceries, clothing, and other expenses.
Our city officials have not kept the citizens of Portsmouth in mind when making decisions. All they have been doing is raising our taxes. Families and our elderly are having a hard enough time trying to keep a household running with the rising costs of utilities, not to mention gas prices, and all our city want to do is make it harder on them.
It's time for all citizens to stand up and be heard. Many people have said that the Marting's building is a waste of taxpayers' money. The current city building could be renovated and/or expanded with the cost it would take to tear down/rebuild or use the Marting's building.
I am asking you to vote against all of the city carter amendments. Vote against No. 69 of 2005; city income tax increase: charter amendment and the recall charter amendments. we as citizens of Portsmouth need to stand up and be heard.
Karen L. Collett
Marting's building purchase was not just for the benefit of city
They're at it again! The fuzzy math figures on the Marting's building and for good measure, we're being spoon-fed on how lucky the citizens are to won such a wonderful old building and having the money returned to the city. Not much is said about the strings attached to that money.
We all know by now that from the very beginning the Marting's/city deal was a means to save Marting's from bankruptcy. The citizens were being told “it was like pushing he check across the table and having it pushed back.” Not hardly. $500,000 went to pay Marting's debt. The citizens were told all the money would be used “for the betterment of Portsmouth.”
As early as Aug. 31, 2001, the city realized Marting's planned to locate in the Solove/Hatcher City Center. Then-Mayor Bauer stated in a memo to council and others: “A less costly idea could be that the city works out a deal with Marting's to purchase their building and they move into a new store in the project.” Less costly to whom?
It comes down to this-the building is too large for the city's needs, especially since the Police Department won't be located there. (Remember taxpayers will have to pay for that too-estimated cost was $500,000-now it's up to $1.2 million.) The city will have these buildings to maintain and pay insurance and utilities when all could be under one roof. Can you imagine what the cost will be to heat and cool the Marting's building?
The citizens cannot afford taxes to be spent on this old building. Please vote against the ordinance and repeal No. 69 of 2005.
While you're at it, why not vote “against” all of the city charter amendments? Keep the power in the citizen's hands.
Schmidt is not the conservative she claims to be
I find it curious that Jean Schmidt is running television ads claiming she is a “proven conservative.” After all, while serving in the statehouse, Schmidt supported all of Bob Taft's tax increases including voting for an increase in the gasoline tax. The Cincinnati Enquirer reported that she has flip-flopped on the death penalty, and last fall, she voted for a bill that included a gay rights amendment offered by liberal Congressman John Conyers. Jean Schmidt may have many admirable qualities but a “proven conservative” is not one of them.