YEAR IN REVIEW 2009

Traffic Camera Public Hearing: Take 2

Ordinance: 34-09; 35-09; 36-09; 37-09

Please click on article to view full size.

• Please see previous post, Inadequately Advertised “Public Hearing”

Stalled

Please click on image to view full size.

Please see related SEO posts:

Making It Up As They Go Along

Failure To Communicate

"Public" Hearing - December 21, 2009

Please click below to view full size document.

Please click on the following link to view previous SEO posts and video regarding TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT CAMERAS.

SEO UPDATE: Stanhope Road aka Cedar Center

After further review of the previous SEO post, Stanhope Road Infrastructure Project, it became necessary to take a second look at some of the details surrounding the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application as submitted by the City of South Euclid. 

The application below is a request from the City of South Euclid for $100,000.00 from Cuyahoga County in competitive municipal grant funding. The CDBG application requires specific information from the applicant as shown in the following documents: 

“Date of Newspaper Advertisement” - “Public Notice: June 19, 2009.” - Simple research confirmed the Sun Messenger publish date for that week was June 18, not June 19. The June 18, 2009 Sun Messenger did not contain a public notice regarding CDBG funds. The City of South Euclid did not place an advertisement in the Plain Dealer "legal notices" on June 19, 2009.

“Public Hearing Date”- "June 22, 2009.” - There was a "Public Hearing" held on June 22, 2009, but NOT concerning CDBG funding.  The "Public Hearing" held that date was for Ordinance: 08-09, an unrelated matter.

Please click on each image below to view full size.

PARTIAL INSTRUCTIONS - <>view entire document<>

To view more of the 2010 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT, COMPETITIVE MUNICIPAL GRANT APPLICATION submitted to the Cuyahoga County Department of Development by the City of South Euclid, please see the previous SEO post, Stanhope Road Infrastructure Project.

Here is a link to the Cuyahoga County Department of Development and the COMPETITIVE MUNICIPAL GRANT PROGRAM.

The Notice of Public Hearing (below) was published in the Sun Messenger classified advertising section under "LEGALS, PUBLIC NOTICES" on May 21 and 28, 2009. The "Public Hearing" held on June 22, 2009 was NOT about CDBG funds, Stanhope Road or anything related to Cedar Center.

The notice shown below was posted on the City website. 

Minutes - South Euclid City Council Meeting - June 22,2009.  Resolution: 30-09 is passed. This ordinance IS related to CDBG funding.  The "Public Hearing" at the Committee Meeting that same evening did NOT have anything to do with Resolution: 30-09 or CDBG funding.

Director of Community Services provides information regarding the Cuyahoga County CDBG program. (2 min. 55 sec.)

The aerial photograph below indicates the locations of Stanhope Road and 14483 Cedar Road. The cover page for the CDBG funding application indicates the intent of the project. Ordinance: 08-09 is an unrelated matter as stated in the ordinance. (excerpt below)

A LETTER TO THE COUNTY + ORDINANCE: 30-09

RESOLUTION 59-09

November 9, 2009 - Director of Community Services explains the need to pass a yearly Ordinance to enable the City to apply for CDBG funding.  In this case, it is Resolution: 59-09.  The deadline for submitting the CDBG application was November 6, 2009. (1 min. 54 sec.)

MAYOR GEORGINE WELO - JULY 28, 2008 (0 min. 37 sec.) 

RELATED SOUTH EUCLID OVERSIGHT POSTS:

• Stanhope Road Infrustructure Project
• Citizen Participation Not Encouraged 
• More Questions Go Unanswered

Stanhope Road Infrastructure Project

Please click on aerial photograph to view full size.

FY 2010 Community Development Block Grant Application - Stanhope Road Infrastructure Project - November 6, 2009:
 

2010 CDBG Application (excerpt) Stanhope Road Infrastructure Project -

The following pages have been excerpted from the original CDBG application shown above to enable viewing in landscape format:

Please note some blatant oddities found in portions of the grant application:

Section- “Project Description”: The location of Cedar Center is presented incorrectly. Stanhope Road is SOUTH of Colony Road and NORTH of Cedar Road. The opposite was described in the grant application.

 Section- “Citizen Participation”:  This portion of the grant application is so riddled with misrepresentation and untruths they must be addressed item by item. Please excuse any over analysis and excruciatingly tedious details, but it is necessary to illuminate the trail of deception.

Please reference previous SEO post, Citizen Participation Not Encouraged.

The City of South Euclid makes the following statement in the grant application: “The City of South Euclid makes extensive efforts to involve the citizens of the Municipal Grant Process in addition to the required public hearing. The following is a detailed description of the numerous activities conducted which facilitate the high level of citizen participation. A general public hearing is conducted to explain the Municipal Grant Program Process and receive citizen input and suggestions through questions and discussion. This public hearing is announced and advertised through a public notice in the local newspaper for two consecutive weeks prior to the meeting.”

   <>  <>  <> <> <> <>

“The City of South Euclid makes extensive efforts to involve the citizens of the Municipal Grant Process in addition to the required public hearing.”

1. As previously noted by SEO, simply because city officials say something is so does not make it true. Will someone please give the precise details, including the date, time and attendance record of the “extensive efforts” that have been made by anyone to involve the citizens in the Municipal Grant process? It is absurd for this highly fictitious statement to be made on a County grant application. Further, the portion that states: “in addition to the required public hearing” is misleading as it indicates that a “public hearing” was indeed held. What is the definition of “public hearing?”  That is the term which is being manipulated here.  There is no mention of the other activities held "in addition to the required public hearing."

“The following is a detailed description of the numerous activities conducted which facilitate the high level of citizen participation.”


2. nu•mer•ous (nōō'mər-əs, nyōō'-)
adj. Amounting to a large number; many.
very many; being or existing in great quantity. consisting of or comprising a great number of units or individuals.


3. “the high level of citizen participation” = a complete fabrication.


“This public hearing is announced and advertised through a public notice in the local newspaper for two consecutive weeks prior to the meeting.”


4. SEO has done a thorough search through the Sun Messenger public notice section for the two consecutive weeks prior to the meeting which was used as documentation to support claims of proper protocol. There was NO public notice referencing a “public hearing” in those papers.


5. Perhaps the most outrageous and blatant misrepresentation is the submission of copies of meeting notices as requirement fulfillment while applying for competitively sought County grant money – because:

• The online “article” posted by the Sun Messenger at 11:55 a.m. on the day of the meeting does not qualify as “public notice.” There was NO notification in the Sun Messenger as claimed regarding the example provided by the City in the grant application.
  
•  The very documentation that was used to support claims of “citizen participation” on the application for 2010 grant money submitted on November 6, 2009 – is total baloney! Please examine the dates. (link provided above) They are from a meeting held November 10, 2008.
  

A Few Ideas

To view images below, please RIGHT click on document, then LEFT click on "open link."

Dear South Euclid City Officials,

We have a few money saving ideas that should have been obvious to you, but apparently are not.

First off, this whole land grab concept from Cedar Center to the Greenvale 9 and all the foreclosure acquisitions tally well over 20 million dollars by now, and are still climbing.  It was recently disclosed that the only payments made on the Greenvale properties since their acquisition 3 years ago is $60,000 each year in interest charges. 

Now there’s that pesky playground fiasco. How much City money really went into that anyway? Has anyone calculated how much money was “donated” by the taxpayers while well-meaning City employees were voraciously encouraged to work on the playground during their regular shift on the public dime?

Instead of doling out hefty raises all around, why not consider a long overdue pay freeze for department heads? And stop creating new positions. That’s becoming really annoying.

Regarding the hiring of yet another lawyer to assist in the daily activities of the legal department -- let’s hope this achieves the objective of putting the kibosh on the massive legal fees currently being racked up for outside legal counsel. If tangible results are not produced forthwith, please swiftly terminate this experiment.

Admitting the consecutive financial failures of the Greenvale 9, Cedar Center, and the Playground of Possibilities seems unlikely. At the very least, cease and desist with further gambles of this ilk.

Put aside your silly notions of grandeur and focus your full attention on basic city services at once.

Thank you.

South Euclid Oversight

Below is a list of previous SEO posts which offer insight on other financial decisions:

• Runaway Train
• Odd Man Out Is Right
• DIY Park Maintenance
• A Perpetually Changing Story
• 2009 Salaries And So Much More….
• Spin The Budget
• A Developing Pattern
• Not Reporting The Whole Story
• Hope You're Sitting Down For This One
• Financial Discrepancies
• Limited Reality
• Fiscal Fiesta?   
• Mixed Messages 
• Band-Aids vs Reconstructive Surgery

Please click to view documentation of <> LEGAL SPENDING <>

Inadequately Advertised “Public Hearing”

 <> PART 1 <>  "PUBLIC HEARING"


<> PART 2 <>  "PUBLIC HEARING"

<><><> MUST SEE RELATED POST / VIDEO  <><><>

•  Only In School Zones? 

SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING <> PART 1 <>
CAUTION: This particular video is extremely difficult to watch. 



SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING <> PART 2 <>



Please click on article below to view full size.


























The “Public Hearing” concerning Traffic Enforcement Cameras was held on November 16, 2009. There was an attendance of 10 people plus 1 from SEOversight and 1 from the Sun Messenger. Is it possible that city officials orchestrated the low turnout? The term “Public Hearing” was concealed deep inside the confusing and difficult to negotiate city website. For further information regarding the lack of proper notification regarding this and other so-called “Public Hearings,” please see the following links to previous SEO posts:

• TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT CAMERAS: COMING SOON
• CITIZEN PARTICIPATION NOT ENCOURAGED

Failure Of Priorities

Please click on image to view full size.

Traffic Enforcement Cameras: Coming Soon

Please click on images to view full size.

The information pages below were printed from the City's website on Sunday, November 15th.  Was there sufficient effort to inform the citizens of this Public Hearing?  Is this meeting advertised on the lighted sign board in front of City Hall?  The "reverse 911" system was recently used to announce a Ward 1 meeting.  It was not used to inform people of a "PUBLIC HEARING" regarding traffic enforcement cameras.

To see other SEO posts regarding Traffic Enforcement Cameras, please see:

Only In School Zones?


Cash Grab


Traffic Enforcement: Man vs Machine


Cash Grab Update

Post Election Thoughts

Please click on image to view full size.

The following letter was written and submitted to the Sun Messenger by Joe Liptow on October 31st, prior to the November 3rd election. He intended for it to be published in the November 5th edition after the election. The Sun Messenger chose not print the letter.

To the Sun Messenger :
Regardless of whether I won or lost this South Euclid Council election, I’d like you to know what I think before I roll up or roll down my political sleeves:


The Cedar Center project will cost us many millions for many more years. The Greenvale Drive demolition project is costing us tens of thousands each year. The Playground of Possibilities is a shell game with your money and an attempt to make political hay in the name of disabled children. The Mayor and other officials have repeatedly lied in public and on the record.


Whether Council President Moe Romeo made “honest” mistakes or outright lied in his fixed endorsement of my opponent is not what’s important. What is truly important is that we start to demand of our public servants, ethical behavior, financial transparency, greater service efforts and results. The X Amendment of the US Constitution gives the people power to make this happen. I suggest we get started soon. Call me!


Thank you,
Joe J. Liptow

What’s Going On?

• time: 5 min. 49 sec.  

Please click on article below to view full size.

1556 WESTDALE

Please see other related SEO posts:

• Runaway Train
• South Euclid Municipal Realty Company?
• Odd Man Out Is Right
• Greenvale 9 Review
  
  

Here is a direct link to the Cuyahoga County Department of Development website. It provides detailed information on the Neighborhood Stabilization Program:

Cuyahoga County Department of Development
Neighborhood Stabilization Program

Election Results - November 2009

Please click on images to view full size.

• un·der·vote (ŭn'dər-vōt')
  1. A ballot that has been cast but shows no legally valid selection in a given race or referendum.

• o·ver·vote (ō'vər-vōt')
  1. A ballot showing the selection of more candidates or choices than are allowed in a given race or referendum.
  
  
  

A Very Costly Shell Game

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO READ ORDINANCE 50-09 

The discussion of Ordinance 50-09 reveals some interesting things:

South Euclid taxpayers have paid approximately $60,000 per year for the past 3 years on the original $1.8 million borrowed for the Greenvale 9. None of that money has gone to the principal.

Mayor Welo callously spoke that the foreclosure crisis didn't yeild the opportunity to acquire more real estate: “Everything changed. When this first happened the market was quite different. We had two developers looking at it. However, at the time we weren’t sure if we really wanted to turn it into housing. A lot of the residents liked the openness of it. We had hoped that we could maybe even get the rest of the homes. We thought maybe with the foreclosure process, you know, pick up a couple. But um, it just… You know the more and more you look at it, it might be our only last opportunity to enlarge one of our parks. And with Lowden School closing I’m sure someone’s going to be snatching that up. So I personally, you know my feeling is, and I said it last year is, I think maybe we need to have a discussion and see about making it parkland.”

<><><>INTERESTING FACT<><><>
Here's a link to the original legislation to purchase the Greenvale 9:

•  ORDINANCE: 81-06

Please click on image below to view full size. 

<><><>MUST SEE RELATED POST<><><>

•   Greenvale 9 Review

Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave…

Please click on images to view full size.

Please also see previous SEOversight posts:

• Taxation With Misrepresentation

• Not So Fast

What Criteria Determines “Best”?

Please click on documents to view full size.