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.