A boulevard by any name is a bad idea in Poland

A boulevard by any name
is a bad idea in Poland

EDITOR:

On July 27, I received a mailing from Town One Streetscapes Inc. about the group’s proposed Route 224 boulevard plan.

As a Poland Village resident, I have opposed this plan from the beginning. Fire and police in Poland Village and Boardman Township, the majority of abutting business owners and a very large group of residents within the village and surrounding communities are opposed also.

The daily traffic volume varies between 28,000 to 35,000 vehicles per day between I-680 and the intersection of state Route 170 on Route 224. It is not a pedestrian friendly traffic corridor.

The term “traffic calming” through construction of obstacles affecting the general public is an anti-safety issue.

Town One Streetscapes Inc. still wants to see the construction of permanent landscaped islands, right down the present centerline of Route 224 (8 to 10 in number).

The mailing states, “This spring, the group proposed an option for our community. That option was not well received by some in our town.”

What an under statement.

Due to the large amount of opposition, it appears the Streetscapes writer has intentionally left out the term “boulevard” in the latest mailing. It appears that this group is again trying to force the Route 224 Boulevard concept onto the public.

While this group is trying to convince the public that permanent structures placed down the center of this highly traveled Route 224 corridor in the name of “traffic calming,” they should think of the possible liability issue.

It appears, that “traffic calming” would have an adverse affect when it comes to fire response time.

I’m not a lawyer, and don’t pretend to be, but if death occurs due to a longer fire response time due to any obstacle within the route used by any response team, legal action against all approving authorities, including Town One Streetscape, by the affected party could be filed.

RALPH J. MENTZER

Poland

City needs strict laws on
dog fighting and pit bulls

EDITOR:

When are we going to get some effective laws for the suffering pit bull dogs in the Mahoning Valley? These laws are needed now.

I appeal to our mayor, city council members or whoever it may be in the community who can give these laws some clout: Please do it.

There needs to be some jail terms for these demented owners of pit bulls who have nothing positive or productive to do in life but engage in this illegal so-called sport of dog fighting.

These poor dogs have no choice when they are badly exploited in this manner. This cruelty of dog fighting begins when the animals are six weeks old. Pit bulls are not a vicious animal but the dog fighting owners are vicious.

I plead with the mayor of our city, Jay Williams, to not give a half-baked effort in this matter, but to ban pit bull ownership completely and permanently. I ask that Commissioner Traficanti help the mayor with ending this problem.

I am hopeful that recent events have brought this issue to the forefront. We have had a hardworking and dedicated public servant, Dave Nelson, who has tried to make a difference for the welfare of animal. Hopefully he will now have some support for his labor on behalf of pit bulls.

Citizens who care about the welfare of animals and the quality of our community should promote passage of laws concerning pit bulls. Ban the pit bull now and forever.

LENORE BECK

Youngstown

Tuition plan raises questions

EDITOR:

The Regional Chamber is promoting an educational initiative with a goal of providing free tuition to every high school graduate who would choose to attend a local college or trade school. For this goal to be reached, chamber members probably realize, the Ohio Revised Code that would need to be changed.

DeRolph v. State was filed in 1991 to provide an equitable system of funding for all students in Ohio. In 1997, the state Supreme Court declared the state’s education finance system unconstitutional. Here it is 2007, and Ohio’s education finance system is still unconstitutional. The Regional Chamber now wants to add post-secondary funding onto an already unconstitutional system. Does this make sense?

The funding for this initiative will be taken from the position loss of superintendents throughout Mahoning Valley. The salaries of superintendents come from the school district’s general fund and vary, among other things, according to size and wealth of the district. How would smaller school districts compare in contributions to larger districts ?

What entity would oversee this post-secondary fund? What entity would provide the student with his or her tuition check? If the student does not successfully complete the course work, who pays? Who collects? Who keeps track of all of this information? Finally, how much of that post-secondary fund will have to be allocated for central administrative functions to provide a process of accountability?

As a taxpayer, I have some concerns about the final cost of this initiative to me as a property owner. Nothing is free, is it? I wonder if this free tuition will turn into a cash cow for universities and the result will be continued tuition spikes and additional expenses. The failure of school levies throughout the state should be an indicator as to how property owners feel about any increase in property taxes and how the state unsuccessfully funds Ohio’s schools. Eventually, free tuition for high school graduates is going to cost me, a taxpayer, something.

I have read that some superintendents, educational associations, and board members may not be supporting this initiative because it may mean more loss of jobs — specifically theirs. Why would they not be concerned? Would you fight for your job? Every lost job in this area, whether it is a teacher, a superintendent, a nurse, or a factory worker, is a loss to our community.

It has been mentioned that people may move into the area because of a free tuition. I will guarantee you, though, that if there are no jobs here, the educated workforce will continue to move from the Valley in search of profitable employment.

NANCY KUJALA

Leavittsburg

No way to run a meeting

EDITOR:

I am responding to the action taken by the President of the Brookfield Board of Education during its Aug. 4 meeting to have a citizen removed with the assistance of the police.

The individual who was ousted is very well known as a high ranking officer of Brookfield’s teachers’ union and attends almost all of the meetings.

It appears to me that from the beginning of their terms as school board members, the trio in charge have looked at their positions as opportunities for power. Apparently this threesome has excluded the other two school board members from very important decision-making situations, and the two have no option but to question the board president about them during the actual meetings.

It was during such questioning that the individual in the audience was expelled. When the school board president kept hedging, as only he can, about the answer to one of the questions, this individual, like so many of the rest of us, insisted on the answer. Apparently this insistence proved to be too much for the board president to bear, and he called for his removal.

It is indeed unfortunate that our school board’s ruling trio cannot understand that for the community to pass a 28-year commitment to finance new schools, the board must show unanimous support. It is ridiculous if someone seeking a response leading to that end is greeted by the board president shouting to a police officer, “I want him out of here.”

DAN MARTINO

Brookfield