- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -

« News Home

Oakhill defendants feel exonerated with dismissal of charges

Published: Tue, July 12, 2011 @ 12:00 a.m.
  Charges Dismissed

The Oakhill Renaissance Place criminal conspiracy case, which had been under investigation since 2007 and under indictment for nearly a year, has ended abruptly in a 10-minute court hearing and a one-paragraph judgment entry of dismissal.
However, visiting Judge William H. Wolff Jr., of Mahoning County Common Pleas Court, dismissed the 73-count indictment Monday without prejudice, meaning the charges could be re-filed later.

The Oakhill Renaissance Place criminal conspiracy case, which had been under investigation since 2007 and under indictment for nearly a year, has ended abruptly in a 10-minute court hearing and a one-paragraph judgment entry of dismissal. However, visiting Judge William H. Wolff Jr., of Mahoning County Common Pleas Court, dismissed the 73-count indictment Monday without prejudice, meaning the charges could be re-filed later.


The Vindicator ( Youngstown)

Anthony M. Cafaro Sr., former president of the Cafaro Co., center, emerges from the courthouse with a prepared statement to read to the media. He read the statement Monday after dismissal of all charges against him in the Oakhill Renaissance Place criminal conspiracy case. He is flanked by his lawyers, Martin G. Weinberg of Boston, left, and George A. Stamboulidis of New York City.


The Vindicator ( Youngstown)

Anthony M Cafaro Sr., center, and his attorney Martin G. Weinberg, left, meet with the press outside the Mahoning County Courthouse soon after all charges were dismissed.


The Vindicator ( Youngstown)

David P. Muhek, an assistant Lorain County prosecutor and a special prosecutor in the case, explains why the state had to request dismissal of the charges.


The Vindicator ( Youngstown)

Paul Gains


The Vindicator ( Youngstown)

Visiting Judge William H. Wolff Jr. dismissed all charges against all 10 defendants Monday in the Oakhill Renaissance Place criminal conspiracy case. A Mahoning County grand jury returned a 73-count indictment in the case nearly a year ago.

By Peter H. Milliken



Special prosecutors hoped the Oakhill Renaissance Place criminal conspiracy case would end in convictions of a powerful businessman and Mahoning County politicians.

Instead, the case, under investigation since 2007 and under indictment for nearly a year, ended abruptly in a 10-minute court hearing and a one-paragraph entry of dismissal.

Visiting Judge William H. Wolff Jr. of Mahoning County Common Pleas Court dismissed the 73-count indictment Monday without prejudice, meaning the charges could be refiled later.

Special prosecutors from the Ohio Ethics Commission and Lorain County said their inability to obtain tape recordings held by the FBI and provide them to the defense made it impossible to proceed.

Special Prosecutor David P. Muhek, an assistant Lorain County prosecutor, said there were about 2,000 hours of tapes that may be relevant to Oakhill in the FBI’s possession.

“The state requested all information from the [U.S.] Department of Justice relevant to the case and its discovery obligations. To date, all such information has not been provided,” Muhek told Judge Wolff. “For this case to continue with the unresolved issues that remain and the additional resources that would become necessary, we would be in much the same place a year from now as we are today.”

“The state is not satisfied with the position of the Department of Justice in the context of the state’s obligations,” Muhek added. The FBI is part of DOJ.

Prosecutors have a legal and ethical obligation to provide all relevant materials to the defense in the pretrial exchange of evidence, known as discovery, whether it is incriminating or favorable to the defense, said Paul M. Nick, special prosecutor and executive director of the Ohio Ethics Commission.

“We cannot comply with discovery; therefore, we have no choice ethically, but to dismiss the case,” Nick said after court.

The FBI agreed to release some, but not all, of the tapes, he said. “Unless we have all of them and review all of them, it’s impossible for us to comply,” he explained.

When asked why the FBI won’t release all of the tapes, Nick said: “You’d have to ask them.”

FBI Agent Steve Jackson, an FBI spokesman in Cleveland, refused to comment on the matter.

Mike Tobin, a Cleveland-based spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office, which is also part of the justice department, said he couldn’t comment because Oakhill is not a case being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney.

Nick declined to comment on the likelihood Oakhill-related charges would be re-filed by state prosecutors or filed by federal prosecutors.


In the Oakhill case, five people and three companies were charged with conspiring to impede the move of the Mahoning County Department of Job and Family Services from Cafaro Co.-owned rented quarters at Garland Plaza on the city’s East Side to the county-owned Oakhill Renaissance Place. Oakhill is the former Forum Health Southside Medical Center, to which JFS moved in 2007.

After all charges against all defendants were dismissed, Anthony M. Cafaro Sr., former president of the Cafaro Co., read a statement in front of the county courthouse, and his lawyers proclaimed his innocence.

“From the very beginning, this case has been politically motivated prosecution, and it has been a waste of taxpayer dollars. What a shame!” Cafaro said.

“We deny that it was political,” Nick said later. “What price do you put on ensuring that public officials abide by the law and are held accountable when they do not?”

Nick said those engaged in the Oakhill prosecution were paid their regular salaries by their regular employers while they worked on the case and that he could not estimate the cost of the Oakhill prosecution.

“He was not only presumed innocent; he was actually innocent,” said Martin G. Weinberg of Boston, one of Cafaro’s lawyers.

“We believe the prosecution resulted from his exercise of his constitutional rights to oppose the transfer of Oakhill,” Weinberg said. “That’s not right for someone who exercises his constitutional rights to end up in a criminal courtroom.”

“He believed then and he believes now that the county’s purchase of Oakhill was a terrible economic disaster and a mistake, and he was proven right. The county has spent over $15 million on that project,” said Cafaro’s other lawyer, George A. Stamboulidis of New York City.

“This case was never about whether or not staying at Garland or moving to Oakhill was in the county’s best interests,” Nick said. It was a joint federal, state and Mahoning County Sheriff Department’s investigation of alleged criminal and ethical violations by the defendants leading to a county grand jury indictment, he added.

An FBI agent and a Mahoning County sheriff’s detective were regularly seen accompanying the special prosecutors to and from numerous Oakhill grand jury sessions.

“Usually, the FBI brings its cases to the U.S. attorney’s office. ... There’s a good possibility the U.S. attorney’s office passed on this pathetic case,” Stamboulidis said. The U.S. Attorney is the federal prosecutor.

“You shouldn’t expect to see these charges in federal court or anywhere. This case is over,” Stamboulidis added.


Those charged with conspiracy and other charges were Cafaro; the Cafaro Co. and two of its affiliates, the Ohio Valley Mall Co. and the Marion Plaza Inc.; county Commissioner John A. McNally IV; county Auditor Michael V. Sciortino; former county Treasurer John B. Reardon; and former county JFS Director John Zachariah.

Two other defendants were charged only with money laundering and not with conspiracy. They are Flora Cafaro, part owner of the Cafaro Co. and Anthony M. Cafaro Sr.’s sister, and Atty. Martin Yavorcik.

The money-laundering charge pertained to a purportedly concealed $15,000 gift she made to Yavorcik’s unsuccessful 2008 campaign for county prosecutor.


“I think we just have to have faith in the justice department. The U.S. attorney, Steven Dettelbach, has already committed his office to cleaning up corruption in this Valley,” said Paul J. Gains, Mahoning County prosecutor, after the dismissal.

Although he sought and received special prosecutors he said would be independent of his office, Gains attended the dismissal hearing with Linette Stratford, chief of his civil division. Stratford was regularly seen with the special prosecutors as they entered and left grand-jury sessions leading to the Oakhill indictment.

McNally said his opposition to the county’s 2006 Oakhill purchase stemmed largely from what he called “the lack of planning into purchasing this property.”

McNally said developments since then have supported his opposition to the Oakhill purchase, “but, as a county commissioner, what I’m going to have to do is try to figure out the best way to spend money to bring that building up to a level that it should be. There’s a lot of areas in that building that still need to be renovated.”


Sciortino said, “I’m gratified. My family’s gratified. It’s been a rough couple of years, but, I’m glad this part’s over.

“We’ve never opposed leaving Garland Plaza. We opposed Oakhill because of the cost,” Sciortino said of himself and other county officials who opposed the Oakhill purchase.

“I did not commit the crimes that I was charged with, and it’s been a very challenging and difficult ordeal on my family, both emotionally and financially,” Reardon said of the Oakhill case.

“I opposed Oakhill because I thought it was a very bad idea to buy a 100-year-old hospital without any due diligence,” Reardon said.

“We continue to spend money that we don’t have just to make this building habitable,” including expenditures for roof replacement and heating, ventilating and air conditioning improvements, Reardon added.

Information supplied by Olsavsky-Jaminet architects to the county building commission, which oversees Oakhill renovations, says only the north wing of the Oakhill complex dates from 1910. The other wings of the former hospital date from 1937 to 1972.


1Julie1(34 comments)posted 5 years ago

"...only the north wing of the Oakhill complex dates from 1910. The other wings of the former hospital date from 1937 to 1972."

Thanks to the Vindicator for the clarification! If "only" one wing of the building is over a hundred years old, but other areas are only three-quarters of a century old, then surely the purchase of the hospital must have been a good idea.

I'm getting fed up with Vindicator spin. That old hospital will bankrupt this county! Those who advocated for it ought to be investigated and prosecuted. THERE'S the wrongdoing!

Suggest removal:

2TheWholeTruth(9 comments)posted 5 years ago

After millions spent, Oakhill still look like a rundown hospital not a County Administration building. It's an embarrassment...but what else would you expect in Youngstown. A new building would have cost the same and given us something to be proud of downtown.

Suggest removal:

3TheWholeTruth(9 comments)posted 5 years ago

No surprise...the Vindicator has conveniently forgotten to comment on the outstanding prosecutorial misconduct motions. So hypocritical! Do the right thing and call for an investigation of the actual wrongdoing--those who supported the crazy purchase and conducted an unethical investigation and prosecution. Stop the obvious attempt at saving face and act like a real newspaper.

Suggest removal:

4UnionForever(1470 comments)posted 5 years ago

There's a bigger Federal corruption case coming - just watch and wait for it to happen. The Cafaros will be going down soon just like it happened in Cuyahoga County to Dimora & Russo.

Suggest removal:

5Stan(9923 comments)posted 5 years ago

“He was not only presumed innocent; he was actually innocent,” said Martin G. Weinberg of Boston, one of Cafaro’s lawyers."

Mr. Weinberg would represent satan and call him a saint . Anthony M. Cafaro Sr. was looking very dapper in his teflon suit . Jubilation and festivities were in full swing at Cafaro heaquarters on Belmont . They equate Younstown with Burger King and are having it their way . The goal now is to put more effort into installing only those indoctrinated toward the Cafaro cause into office . The rogues who caused them problems must be replaced . It is now time for the Cafaro Empire to strike back .


Suggest removal:

6Stan(9923 comments)posted 5 years ago

Southside_Res :

Have you seen former Judge Maureen Cronin ? No ego trip here . . ..

Suggest removal:

7Julie1(34 comments)posted 5 years ago

Does anyone believe they would have dropped the charges if they truly believed they could get convictions?

And does anyone actually believe the prosecutors' "lack of discovery" rationale for dropping the charges? That was nothing more than a convenient excuse fabricated in the past couple weeks to avoid the hearing on prosecutorial misconduct originally scheduled for yesterday. The Oakhill former defendents are breathing a sigh of relief today ... but not as big a sigh of relief as Paul Gains!

Suggest removal:

8observant1(112 comments)posted 5 years ago

Regarding John Reardon's comment,
“We continue to spend MONEY that we don't have just to make this building habitable, including expenditures for roof replacement and heating, ventilating and air conditioning improvements."
At least, the money being spent on Oakhill is for a building that the county owns.

Suggest removal:

9city_resident(528 comments)posted 5 years ago

Julie, why is age so important? The only thing likely to be original in a hospital that old is the shell and structure. Everything else would probably have been replaced a few times over the years.

TheWholeTruth, a new building just large enough to house JFS MIGHT have cost as little as what has been spent on Oakhill. But what about space for the other tenants that were already at Oakhill? What about the millions that would have been required for the demolition of Oakhill? What about the money saved by consolidating other offices to Oakhill?

Suggest removal:

10republicanRick(1731 comments)posted 5 years ago

A big reason Oak Hill was chosen is so that the low rent people that use departments there are kept away from downtown. They want downtown to become a thriving college and business community. Having the "Wal-Mart" crowd use Oak Hill and its central location about 1 mile from downtown accomplishes this.
This was the reason in the first place that offices were moved from downtown to Cafaro's plaza in the mid 1980's.

Suggest removal:

11Julie1(34 comments)posted 5 years ago

To City Resident:

You ask, why is age so important? Oh, I don't know, little things like roof quality, HVAC, wiring and electrical infrastructure, boiler quality, and windows (many at Oakhill are boarded-up, drive-by and see for yourself!).

Then there's foundation, plumbing, and energy efficiency. Oh, and elevator mechanical operation and parking lot (Oakhill's asphalt lot is growing weeds; again, have a look for yourself).

Then there's plumbing fixtures and lighting. And parking deck structural integrity. And roof. (Oh, did I mention the roof? The commissioners said that's next in line for replacement.)

What have I neglected to consider?

You're making a huge leap of faith in assuming that the condition of all those things is sound at Oakhill. You don't know (neither does the county, as far as I can see) if certain of those items were replaced in 1992 or 1962. Or ever. In case you didn't notice, last year the county had to pay $5 million to fix the air conditioning! And the boiler went bad a couple years ago too (I forget how many millions that cost to fix).

Why is age so important? You're joking, right?

What's next to go? How much will it cost? McNally was right on the TV coverage yesterday, Oakhill will continue to "nickel and dime" us to death.

Suggest removal:

12piak(508 comments)posted 5 years ago

After reading all the comments, this comes to mind: The Oakhill Defendents feel exonerated, but a lot of the commenters feel EXASPERATED.

With the county's population down to around 215,000, the shrinking base will have to upkeep an aging building. It is a moneypit. Should the old south side hospital been bought?

Interesting question alright.

Suggest removal:

13ytownescapee(20 comments)posted 5 years ago


You are not living on the Southside, you are living somewhere in the clouds. Do you actually believe that the Feds have not been investigating corruption in Youngstown for quite a long time since they have, what 2,000 plus tapes?

Do you really believe that they made a mistake? When the truth finally comes out and I believe that they should not release those tapes for the reason that they believe it will tip off who they are going to indict when all is said and done. I bet there are a whole lot of so-called "hardworking guys who want to make a positive change" shaking in their shoes right now.

Please tell me you are joking when you say 80 percent are "hardworking" and want to make a change. These guys extort money from hardworking taxpayers. It is the other way around, 80 percent are corrupt and maybe 20 percent are not. Name one politician who sincerely wants to "make a change" or who has made a change. Give me a break.

Suggest removal:

14piak(508 comments)posted 5 years ago

Has anyone forgotten Lisa Antonini? She's supposed to be "playing ball" with the prosecutors/Feds. She did make a deal.

Is there a connection between her and the dismissal of charges?

Maybe there is something more coming down the Federal pipeline.

Time will tell.

Suggest removal:

15mrblue(1175 comments)posted 5 years ago

The charges being dismissed should not have surprised anyone. I, for one, do not believe that this is the end of the story. The Feds don't give up.

Suggest removal:

16city_resident(528 comments)posted 5 years ago

Julie, I'm not making any kind of "leap of faith." You act as though, because the buiding is "old," there are all these problems just waiting to jump up and bite the county in the general fund.

So, you should be relieved to know that there is a building commission and architect that advised the county on the purchase of Oakhill, and they continue to advise the county on what the problems are, and when they need addressed.

If you--and others--disagree with the building commission and architect, may I ask how many years of experience in the building trades you have, and how much experience you have working on the Oakhill facility?

Suggest removal:

17Stan(9923 comments)posted 5 years ago

Who can forget the good old days when Lenny Strollo ran things ? The first thing that comes to mind is failure to get punished . Lenny sure did have his way until the Feds got involved . Even then he recieved excellent treatment . Are we now seeing excellent treatment for the Cafaros ? How about through former Judge Maureen Cronins eyes ? An interview with her today would be very interesting . The next phase will be the Cafaro Empire flexing their political muscle and . . ..


Suggest removal:

18walter_sobchak(2713 comments)posted 5 years ago

How many local officeholders have been brought down by someone with the last name of Cafaro? I have no doubt that the Feds are building a RICO case against the empire. The Feds realize, however, that you have to have all your ducks in a row when you prosecute. I'll bet Lisa is singing load and long. If you need proof, look at what is happening in Cuyahoga County!

Suggest removal:

19Julie1(34 comments)posted 5 years ago

City Resident:

Apparently you just don't follow the news.

A couple years ago the boiler was in such excellent shape that it had to be replaced at a cost of millions (I confess I forget how many millions). Apparently the old owners forgot to "replace" the old boiler prior to dumping the building on Mahoning County.

The air conditioning was in such great shape that last year it cost $5 million to fix it. Again, I guess the former owners didn't maintain a state-of-the-art HVAC system before getting the county to bail them out.

The energy efficiency of the building is so terrific that in the middle of winter the gas bills have been $90,000 per MONTH. (I'm sure the gas bill wouldn't be any lower in a newer building. Right?)

Now we need to fix the roof and other "minor" problems on this old building (but then again, age doesn't matter). The cost? $3 to $4 million. The source of the funds? Borrowing it, of course. (This was news in the last couple weeks. Again, do you follow the news?)

Sure there's a building commission, and I'm certain they know more about construction than I ever will. You are 100% right: The building commission continues to "advise the county on what the problems are, and when they need addressed."

It was the building commission that informed the commissioners of the need to spend millions for the replacement boiler (see, they understand things like boilers). It was the building commission that broke the news about the need for $5 million for replacement air conditioning (they're quite knowledgable about HVAC systems as well). I'm sure it was the building commission that recently advised on the condition of the roof and the need to borrow millions to replace it (the building commission understands roofing and stuff like that).

(Of course the building commission didn't need to advise about the lack of energy efficiency on this terrific old building. Even the commissioners can read a gas bill.)

Yes, I agree with you. Thank goodness we have a building commission who understands construction and can "advise the county on what the problems are, and when they need addressed." They'll keep us posted as to how much more money we'll need to "invest" in this great old building.

Suggest removal:

20Stan(9923 comments)posted 5 years ago

Julie1 :

How did the victory party go yesterday at Cafaro headquarters ? Could you fill us in ?

Suggest removal:

21city_resident(528 comments)posted 5 years ago

Julie, my point was that all of those costs were expected. Yet, the building commission and architect didn't tell the county commissioners that Oakhill was a money pit, and they should build a new building. They supported the purchase of Oakhill because they know it will be a better use of taxpayer funds over the long term.

Suggest removal:

22seminole(476 comments)posted 5 years ago

HAAAAA HAAAAAA!!! Let the corruption merry-go-round continue in this sh--house called The Valley. Did anyone seriously think they would ever get convictions on these felons? The FBI has no comment? EVERYONE IS IN THE POCKETS OF THE INDERGROUND!!! The whole lot of 'em should be taken out to a field and set on fire for the bs they let fall from their mouths while trying to make us believe this is all fair and just. Complete idiocy and failure to take care of business, all in the name of the law, right? Makes us all proud to see business as usual in Mahoning County. Every one is on the take and don't come back with this is the way the legal system works. It sucks, there are far too many loopholes for serpents to slither through to get off the hook. Anyone watch the child murderer Casey Anthony debacle? So she didn't do it, right? Just because twelve morons couldn't think beyond third grade intelligence? Disgusting and unacceptable...

Suggest removal:

23msfreeh(6 comments)posted 5 years ago

see link for full story
CNN exclusive: FBI misconduct reveals sex, lies and videotape

By Scott Zamost and Kyra Phillips, CNN Special Investigations Unit
January 27, 2011

Washington (CNN) -- An FBI employee shared confidential information with his girlfriend, who was a news reporter, then later threatened to release a sex tape the two had made.

A supervisor watched pornographic videos in his office during work hours while "satisfying himself."

And an employee in a "leadership position" misused a government database to check on two friends who were exotic dancers and allowed them into an FBI office after hours.

These are among confidential summaries of FBI disciplinary reports obtained by CNN, which describe misconduct by agency supervisors, agents and other employees over the last three years.

Read the FBI documents obtained by CNN

Suggest removal:

24TheWholeTruth(9 comments)posted 5 years ago

City Resident:

Get your history straight. Traficanti, Ludt and Tablack bought the old hospital for $75,000 from the Bankruptcy court months before appointing a building commission. By the time the Commission was on board, there were no options to be considered. Then the architect estimated the cost at less than $5 million. That must have sounded good at the time, but the reality is so far the County has spent $15 million...not to mention the $4 million just announced for the roof and other repairs. And it still looks like an old, dilapidated hospital!

Suggest removal:

25city_resident(528 comments)posted 5 years ago

TheWholeTruth, I'll concede--for now--when the building commission was established, as I don't have time to look that up. But, I haven't got the slightest idea where you get that they spent $15 million so far.

Read this article again: http://www.vindy.com/news/2011/jul/01...

"$833,651 remains uncommitted from the $5 million the county initially borrowed in the bond market for renovations at Oakhill"
"The $5 million has paid for renovations to accommodate the county’s Department of Job and Family Services, Veterans’ Service Commission and recycling division... and the county board of elections"
"Funds for roof repairs and smokestack demolition and payments on a $400,000 Ohio Department of Development loan to Oakhill’s bankrupt former owner, the Southside Community Development Corp., also have come from the initial $5 million"

"McFall also said only $68,106 remains uncommitted of the $2.9 million the county borrowed separately in a federal economic- recovery loan to install a new air-conditioning system in the former hospital."

That's $7.9 million.

And, the county wants to borrow an additional $3.5 million "for additional areas of roof replacement, fire-alarm upgrades, morgue- ventilation improvements for the county coroner’s office, additional rest-rooms in the south and east wings, and renovations to accommodate the county’s auto- title department and adult day-care center and the Mahoning Valley Law Enforcement Task Force."

So, unless I've missed something, that means we will have spent about $11.4 million, if the county takes out the additional $3.5 million loan.

Suggest removal:

26venerablebede(2 comments)posted 5 years ago


There may have only been $11.4 Million spent on renovations, but what about all of the money spent on other aspects of Oakhill? As far as I can tell, the article you cite only refers to renovation expenses. It does not mention:

1). Back taxes owed (and paid) on Oakhill amounting to $700K


2) The operating costs which include astronomical heating expenses.

3) The mechanics liens that the county settled and paid that were held against the property

4) Finally, the county had to pay an additional $1 Million or so to repair the roof at Garland because it was THEIR responsibility to do so under the lease with Cafaro.


Admittedly, I do not have the actual costs of every single line-item to be able to add the expenses up to $15 million. Nevertheless, the above expenses just brought your 11.4 up to the the mid 13's easily.

Can you legitimately argue that the move to Okahill was the right decision? No arguments here that the county needed to get out of Garland, but they were on a month to month lease for years. They could have left at anytime and gone anywhere. Cafaro wasn't holding the county captive there, and Oakhill wasn't our only choice. Regardless of whether it is 11.4 million, 15 million, or somewhere in between, our county doesn't have the resources to dump into the building and the county officials who fought the move were targeted and punished for their opposition.

Suggest removal:

27city_resident(528 comments)posted 5 years ago

venerablebede, can you provide links describing the alternatives that were discussed at the time Oakhill was purchased?

The outrageous operating costs are largely being addressed by the replacement of the HVAC systems. (part of the $11.4 million, AFAIK) And, a new building would still have operating costs, too.

As far as the mechanics lien, I would guess that also was paid from the initial $5 million, as that's where the $400,000 Ohio Department of Development loan was paid from.

The county would have had to pay the $1 million to repair the roof regardless of where they went, so I won't count that as an Oakhill expense.

Yes, I believe the move to Oakhill was the best choice.
1. In the long run, IMO, it will prove to be the most cost effective choice.

2. It's at a good central location (population center, not geographic center) and has ample room to consolidate county offices.

3. We aren't saddled with a large vacant hospital overlooking 680 to scare more people away from the valley, that would have cost millions to demolish.

Suggest removal:

28Julie1(34 comments)posted 5 years ago

Stan: HeHeHe, I wasn't invited to the Cafaro victory party, but I wish I had been because the food had to be better than what I ate yesterday!

City Resident: After reading your posts defending Oakhill, I thought you must be Anthony Traficanti (he's the only one who'd defend that project at this point). Then I realized that you seem to know something about the Oakhill finances, so clearly you cannot be him.

Suggest removal:

29TheWholeTruth(9 comments)posted 5 years ago

Julie1: Actually City Resident must be George Tablack. He's the one person besides Traficanti who would still defend Oakhill. Plus he's unemployed so he's got plenty of time to post here all day long!

Suggest removal:

30city_resident(528 comments)posted 5 years ago

LOL! No, I'm not a public official.

Suggest removal:

31Nunya(1356 comments)posted 5 years ago

This is truly something,..

Lets start by stating that by neither process nor premise nobody's been neither vindicated, expunged. impinged nor Exonerated,..Period.

See " Exoneration " means an acquittal, pardon, vindication of being found without guilt. Which that's not opinion, presumption nor misinterpretation. That's the true and only operable meanings of the term. And by neither process nor premise it just doesn't apply here,.. at all.

See first off agree or disagree with my independent perspectives or not. I'm nobody's shill and openly I'm no advocate for neither Paul Gains or the Cafaro's nor any of those that were indicted in the suit. Where in equivocal contrast with that same impartiality. It'd be the same if I favored either one, both, any and or all involved. So in my individual perspective there's no agenda nor preclusion of neither convex nor concave formed favoritism,..

Which it's that impartiality that allowed me to indiscriminately glean, that this was and is much larger than merely the oppositional behavior displayed in conduct and statements waged in regards to the Oakhill purchase. To include it's also not any political indifference that's so consistently being baselessly alleged as motive either,.. it's all about a multi million dollar lease.

See there's surely going to be some push - pull among those sharing perspectives about all this. Because just like those whom dislike and or disfavor Paul Gains. Can have their disdain, dislike and or dis-favorable distrust. Based in the fact that he doesn't run a very good prosecutors office,.. I don't think many will disagree with that.

Where just as equally those disliking / disfavoring and bearing no trust in any of the Cafaro's. Can be and likely are based in and or supported. By the Cafaro's history being that of criminal orchestration. An orchestration that does formally and informally have an established history of impropriety infringements. Infringements that's quiet documented in subverting law and corruption of governance at all levels,.. I don't think many will disagree with that either.

So in fairness to all involved that's just being impartially fair to openly acknowledge that in regards to both. That said it's also not just rather easy to detect impropriety. But it's almost impossible not to detect more than a tinge of guilt. By what the accused are still disproportionately trying to allege. Hailing as their reasoning[s] to had opposed relocating the county JFS,.. Anywhere.

Which beyond perspective that's not political on any premise. That's purely dollars and cents financial and one where such an indifference. Can prompt one side of this equation to disfavor loss access to a considerable amount of taxpayers money. That by history disrupts any continuance of receivership of a litany of multi million dollar paydays,.. it's just irrefutable fact and factorable.

Suggest removal:

32Stan(9923 comments)posted 5 years ago

"Where just as equally those disliking / disfavoring and bearing no trust in any of the Cafaro's. Can be and likely are based in and or supported. By the Cafaro's history being that of criminal orchestration. An orchestration that does formally and informally have an established history of impropriety infringements. Infringements that's quiet documented in subverting law and corruption of governance at all levels,.. I don't think many will disagree with that either."

I disagree Nunya . The Cafaros have been vindicated and are now reborn . Just like a newborn babe they are also without sin . Our justice system has given them a fresh new start . . ..


Suggest removal:

33pennsylvaniadeveloper(6 comments)posted 5 years ago

Has anyone checked to see what it cost to buy land,engineer and have a architect design a new building for a county the size of mahoning? This coupled with the cost of new construction will make Oakhill with its improvements costs still look like a fire sale price. I know because I build new and remodel all of the time. Many countys spend 50 to 100 million all of the time for new government buildings.

Suggest removal:

34Nunya(1356 comments)posted 5 years ago

@ pennsylvaniadeveloper


See you Sir and or Mame are exactly right. Much like whoever the poster " city_resident " is looking at and sharing in value of shared dollars and cents perspective.

Even beyond degree and or extent of yet to be determined guilt. Or who likes who or dislikes the other. It comes down to what makes sense and the decision to buy a serviceable facility to facilitate multiple services.

Was / is a no brainer and those trying to contend otherwise just sounds stupider than the angle they're trying to sell.

If opposition was of a genuine mistake in judgement. Not only would sincere apologies been rendered, However, if it were deliberate and self serving to facilitate a nefarious network of theft and subversion.

Those postures would remain status quo and a continuance of failed proforma perspective to assume ignorance of guilt. Would / will and is continuing to be so futilely foisted.

Suggest removal:

35ytownescapee(20 comments)posted 5 years ago


Why don't you just put it in words that these people can understand? Your vast knowledge of big words is very impressive but your grammar is disgraceful. What exactly are you trying to say?

Anyone with half a brain and who can read the article about which we are supposed to be commenting on says that the Feds are not going to release tapes that will, in the future be used to indict and/or prosecute others yet to come. The Cafaros did not get a "get out of jail free pass". The charges can and probably will be refiled. Read the article.

The Cafaros have not been vindicated and they know it. Do you think that 2,000 hours of tapes have just been about this building and how much it will cost to get it cleaned up and renovated?

I think a couple of people are trying to take the focus away from the fact that there are some real shady dealings going on in Mahoning County. pennsylvaniadeveloper is right, by the way. And I know a few things about construction myself.

I would think the people who still live in Youngstown would want their county cleaned up and then they would not have to worry if their tax money was being spent correctly. Unless they go and do the same thing and elect crooked politicians into office again. It would not surprise me in the least.

Suggest removal:

36TERRAPINST(321 comments)posted 5 years ago

Nunya is Charlie Sheen

Suggest removal:

37Stan(9923 comments)posted 5 years ago


We are all proud of the Cafaros ability to achieve justice .



Suggest removal:

38TERRAPINST(321 comments)posted 5 years ago

Oakhill is a horrible idea financially, but those who support it wont listen to reason, logic or fact. These are the worst kind of political terrorists. People that are so blind in their devotion to the individuals who proposed the idea, that they simply ignore any information that refutes Oakhill as a good move. Screw all of them Reardon, Sciortino, Cafaro and the like. But the idea that these guys were being prosecuted for disagreeing is what most terrifies me. That is what they did, they deviated from what the others suggested, they supported it with fact but it didnt matter. The charges no longer exist. Do not any of you think how badly prosecutors would get off by successfully trying a case against a politician? They live for that and in this instance THEY withdrew the charges. It was a SLAM dunk, Slammin Stan, against Gains and his crew. City Resident you seem nice but are not even close in the figures you present. Not sorta close as to what this building will continue to cost. Would you move your family into a century old, dilapidated structure. The employees despise the place, but were afraid to say anything for fear of facing the same political persecution that the Oakhill 7 faced. And finally, many of you are sitting out there praying for the feds. to come in. While they havent said much they have said Oakhill will not be the issue. Cafaro attempting to buy Cronin, Tsgaris and Antonini is the issue. Oakhill will never be redeemed gang it will just to continue to suck a poor county dry.

Suggest removal:

39Nunya(1356 comments)posted 5 years ago

@ ytownescapee

Oh Jeez,.. LMAO !!!

First off, sure this was a milled misdirection piece. That was spooned up to the populous with an attempt of what could be nothing but an intent to lull the populous into some senseless form of acceptance. While pitching some exoneration campaign that by neither process nor premise exists as affable nor applicable,.. at least you gathered that much.

However, here's a forum of individuals exchanging differing thoughts, inclinations and perspectives of preponderance. Where { and upon } something exceptionally newsworthy is being commented on. Yet nothing due you but to aspire to serve as live { and lying } entertainment as a Nunya critic huh,... how novel?

So listen you gregarious grammar gurgling gargoyle. That's so determined to ensconce yourself as such an interdiction of your own ignorance. Be it known that it's my and everyone elses unalienable right. To refuse to speak or convey in a Bevis & Butthead type manner or form you bungling banana boat variety buffoon.

To include now via impartiality I'll not allow you to shroud your manner of sequestering. That you've merely mandated that you be utilized as a good intermission laugh, by being such the gaffe filled goon tune gag,.. how dare I come to such a conclusion huh?

Here's how,.. see first you falsely contend I'm using " Big Words ". As if the populous / readership is either a connate form of foreigners. Or American bred but yet just so illiterate, that they don't / can't possibly understand English. That is beyond back woods drawl, rural speech wreck, ghetto fabulous flub or universal urban Ebonics for idiots,.. oh what a respect for their intellect you have huh.

Wait there's more,.. that's as you sashay into quibbling about my grammar. And proceed to prance into a pander of falsely contending that I'm only restating what the article has already stated? For which on what planet and in what language are you reading in?

Suggest removal:

40Nunya(1356 comments)posted 5 years ago


I ask because,..

1.} What part of the articles theme being that of Exoneration don't you understand?

2.} Just where in the article did you find statement. That in anyway conclusively claimed or asserted, that either the feds or local authorities were or are going to re-file these or any other charges?

3.} Where in the article was any background of manner or methodology of either and or any of those individuals provided?

4.} Where in the article was there even remotely any insight offering. Of impartially unraveling that there's no substantiated substance that would support anyone contending, alleging or proclaiming. That this case was or is the result of any political vendetta and or indifference,..

5.} Why is it you try to allege my perspective was inaccurate. As you proceed to spring into a declaration that doesn't denounce a thing I stated

6.} Why are you so senseless, cynical, stupid, unsubstantiated, vindictive, indefensible,.. and easy.

Then of course the crux of your combative quackery. Is your proposal that I'm the one that needs to read the story?,.. of course by your idea of angled inference of suggestion.

So now to conclude I'm questioning are you still all in for your brand and idea of boy oh boy brilliance? As personally I just happen to systematically find you beyond hilarious,.. want a sensibly seismic word / term for that?

Suggest removal:

41Stan(9923 comments)posted 5 years ago


"It was a SLAM dunk, Slammin Stan, against Gains and his crew."

Slam dunk ? NAW ! There was no slam dunk on Christmas Eve either .


On this Christmas Eve, one of the good guys was in trouble, his life hanging in the balance; only a Miracle could save him. This was NOT a replaying of the movie "It’s a Wonderful Life," the Holiday classic about how a guardian Angel on Christmas Eve saves the life of the ‘average American hero’ personified by the legendary Jimmy Stewart; this situation was REAL, the everyday hero REAL. This was Christmas in Murdertown, USA, also known as Youngstown, Ohio and the newly elected District Attorney, Paul Gains, lay on the floor of his home, having just been shot by an assassin. Gains had been elected just weeks earlier by promising to "clean up" Youngstown, which for the past 4 decades has arguably been the most corrupt town in America. The Mafia knew that Gains was "Untouchable" and thus the decision was made to murder him; this evil deed was to be carried out on a day law enforcement would least expect such a vile act; Christmas Eve.

Suggest removal:

42TERRAPINST(321 comments)posted 5 years ago

The best thing that ever happened to Paul Gains is that he was shot. While I detest violence and was praying for him at the time....just how long does he get to ride that bullet? Horrible management of plea bargains, as someone who is astute as you Slammin Stan must be aware of. You profess unending knowledge as to criminal justice measures and must see how this is affecting us. Further, he has no concern for the community finances as seen in his recent and ridiculous move to raise his employees wages. Finally, HE USED THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO PROSECUTE INNOCENT INDIVIDUALS BECAUSE THEY DISAGREED. Ya youre right again Slammin Stan, he's a wonderful Prosecutor.

Suggest removal:

43pennsylvaniadeveloper(6 comments)posted 5 years ago

All large counties are having a heck of a time trying to keep there bills paid with the way times are. Most of them are borrowing funds just like mahoning to maintain buildings.Oakhill reminds me of the young couple from our town who bought a house cheap and fixed it up a little at a time. In the end he had a small castle that he sold for a nice profit. He borrowed money from time to time just like mahoning county. He said, "It was nice not dumping my money into rent every month." Borrowing funds from time to time is a way of life.Some people like to act as if borrowing a few million dollars is a big deal. For a county the size of Mahoning that is really small change. Thank god for the people who saw the bargain in Oakhill

Suggest removal:

44TERRAPINST(321 comments)posted 5 years ago

Pennsylvania Developer. Bad Comparison. Not even comparably acceptable to defend the purchase of that waste monster. Hope youre not a real estate or construction developer. Wowza.

Suggest removal:

45Stan(9923 comments)posted 5 years ago


"The best thing that ever happened to Paul Gains is that he was shot."

Well that sez it all . What is being planned for him next ?


Suggest removal:

46Nunya(1356 comments)posted 5 years ago


Ugh,huh,..Charlie Sheen?.

Yep,.. and with respect that none of us has to agree. In review I find your surreal synopsis of unscrupulous spin. As that of one of the most unbelievable stories ever told. I mean here you even tried to contend a host of idiotic idioms. That bear no fact and of mas fiction.

See where I'd have never brought any of references that you insisted upon trying to revise / spin. But since you so idiotically did in such a misguided sense of trying to stupify the citizens. In the spirit of truth and accuracy lets hash out what you so deceptively try to declare as decorum.


1.} - " Screw all of them Reardon, Sciortino, Cafaro and the like. But the idea that these guys were being prosecuted for disagreeing is what most terrifies me.

2. } - " The charges no longer exist. "

3. } - " Cafaro attempting to buy Cronin, Tsgaris and Antonini is the issue.

4. } - " And finally, many of you are sitting out there praying for the feds. to come in. While they havent said much they have said Oakhill will not be the issue "

No, no, No and NO,..


A.} There's no prosecuting based upon mere disagreement. See the taxpayers of the city was actually forced into a fray of being financially sued by the " local businessman ". Which was a retaliatory burden that bore McNally, Reardon, Sciortino, Antonini serving as yeah Boss sock it to the taxpayers postured " Local businessman " cheerleaders,.. for which they served as absolute adversaries to the taxpayer interests.

B.} To include those criminal charges in fact DO still exist and has merely been tabled for likely federal jurisdiction,.. it disables the locals from mucking it up.

C.} That along with your so grossly misrepresenting the dispositions of Cronin, Tsgaris and Antonini as some attempts of influenced ownership. Which is in direct contrast to factual record that proves they are all documented conquests that WERE owned,.. and how fitting for you to leave out ex congressman and now multi count convicted felon Jim Traficant.

D.} Lastly it's well documented as public record and knowledge that federal authorities aren't just actively investigating and has amassed thousands of hours of evidence. But they've never even remotely stated that Oakhill wasn't within their interest nor outside of their investigation,.. why try to lie?

That's just a mere correction of the record,..

Suggest removal:

47Nunya(1356 comments)posted 5 years ago


To wit, see in concise culmination disproves everything you tried to allege. Which paints the portrait of the only thing[s] missing in your botched bungle of bugle boy milled machinations to try to mislead the minions. Is and or are the preference and or requisite preambles of " Once upon a time " and or either any other entry lines based off aesop's fables. For which the sensible will easily detect that via scanning your submitting such an atrocious spin as your ridiculous rendition of " The Cat and the canary ",..

Where in a modern day revision, lets coin your asinine angle. As that of PeeWee Herman goes the full Monty as We Willy Winkie,...complete with a wanton bevy of witless whatnot.

Suggest removal:

48Stan(9923 comments)posted 5 years ago

Cronin, Tsgaris and Antonini are owned . They have been bought and paid for by The Caforo Empire . They are no doubt listed in the Corporate Assets Ledger with other valuables such as The McGuffy Mall .

Suggest removal:

49TERRAPINST(321 comments)posted 5 years ago

Nunya: You misrepresent but you were factual in that the feds are always sure the local prosecution will as you put muck things up. Incompetent and corrupt as they ahve been proven to be.
1. The taxpayers were being protected by the Oakhill seven from the political vendettas and corruption of Traficanti, gains and Tablack from the proven debacle that is Oakhill.
2. The charges WERE dismaissed and do in fact no longer exist at the request of Prosecution not defense.
3. Really cant make sense of your ramblings here.
4. You are wrong, Fedreal Prosecution has indeed stated that Oakhill is not the issue.
5. Are you truly crazy or do you just SOUND that way?
Slammin Stan, there are very reputable institutions and doctors that exist locally for those who suffer from internet addiction. Just sayin"

Suggest removal:

50TERRAPINST(321 comments)posted 5 years ago

Please Slammin Stan, I find you far too repugnant to ever allow you twist what I sai\y: I stated that indeed, poltically, being shot has propelled a relatively unkown, just okay defense lawyer into a messianic status with the uneducated of our community. I did also state my disgust for violence and that prayers were extended for his well being. However, does being shot automatically, qualify someone as prosecutor and protect him from ever being questioned. Slammin Stan, you got bedsores from sitting online all day?

Suggest removal:

51city_resident(528 comments)posted 5 years ago

TERRAPINST said: "City Resident you seem nice but are not even close in the figures you present. Not sorta close as to what this building will continue to cost. Would you move your family into a century old, dilapidated structure."

Can you show me where I'm wrong about the costs? I'm not going to just take your word for it.

I own 2 houses. One, built in 1915, I live in right now. The other, built in 1902, I am restoring, and will move into. So, I have no problem living in a century old structure. And, Oakhill was a hospital, so it was built to much higher standards than a house.

But, ultimately, you're absolutely right when you say "Fedreal Prosecution has indeed stated that Oakhill is not the issue." The issue is whether those against the purchase of Oakhill did anything illegal while trying to prevent the purchase. (and, if the feds come in, maybe they think there was a lot more illegal activity than just tampering with the Oakhill purchase)

Suggest removal:

52TERRAPINST(321 comments)posted 5 years ago

City Res:

Let me ask you this.. How many millions being spent would you find unacceptable? 10 million, 20 million, 30?

Suggest removal:

53Stan(9923 comments)posted 5 years ago


"Please Slammin Stan, I find you far too repugnant to ever allow you twist "

Twist ? Don't have to . You are repugnant on your own . The likes of you will never approch the standing that Paul Gains has with the community .


Suggest removal:

54city_resident(528 comments)posted 5 years ago

TERRAPINST, if the cost to repair and renovate Oakhill exceeds the cost of an equivalent new building, (large enough to house all of the departments that are currently at Oakhill, and the departments that will be moving to Oakhill) plus the cost to demolish Oakhill, I would find that unacceptable.

Suggest removal:

55venerablebede(2 comments)posted 5 years ago


I can't find anything specifically talking about other options on the table. However, I think the larger point to be taken from the fact that the county was on a month to month lease for years is that it makes any argument of Cafaro buying people off to do his bidding less likely. Moreover, Oakhill was offered to the county before Trafficanti or McNally were elected and the county passed on the offer.

"As late as October 2005, McNally says the SCDC offered the county $500,000 to take control over the property. "However, at no point did the board seriously entertain the idea of attempting to make a claim for the SCDC property," he states in his letter."One wonders what has changed between August 2004 and the present to make this idea now a financially feasible alternative for Mahoning County," McNally writes."


Whether you think the move was good or bad, is there any legitimate explanation for why the county didn't take Okahill when it was offered $500,000 for it? Even if you do have a rational basis for paying for Oakhill rather than receiving money for Oakhill, does that reasoning also preclude any opposition to Oakhill mounted by the county officials or Cafaro?

Cafaro and the county officials acted within their rights to oppose what they, and many others, continue to believe is a bad decision. you are certainly entitled to believe that the decision will pay off in the long run. However, what this whole case was about was the assertion of bribery and public corruption because a number of officials felt that in the short term and, quite likely, the long term, Oakhill was a bad idea. Commissioners Reese and Sherlock felt Oakhill was a bad idea and passed on an offer to obtain Oakhill that included a $500K sweetener. Why weren't these commissioners investigated, castigated, lampooned by the Vindicator, and indicted?

it all boils down to Gaines and Tablack wanting to target those who opposed the "official" position.

Suggest removal:

56TERRAPINST(321 comments)posted 5 years ago

1stly why do all the departments have to be together? Some consolidation would be reasonable others completely unnecessary. Why then aren't all the county offices there now? Because elected officals dont have to DO what Traficanti says and they will never be there. So that is a moot point. There were estimates given that a new facility could be established for just about what has been spent so far. A new building, new. So unacceptable has to be roughly 30 million for a bankrupt county...hmmmm what rocket scientist school did you say you graduate from? We DONT HAVE THE MONEY, what is hard to get about that? How's that Tablack/Traficanti rent deal working out so far? 2 million behind from projections they provided. How bout all those taxes they swore we wouldnt pay? 500,000.00 behind right now. Noone who has any sense wants to be there. Lastly, the Auditor's office (but of course Im sure you feel everyone there is corrupt too) has just stated we are living beyond our means. What public service will you give up to accommodate Oakhill. Do you feel its really that convenient to get to? Middle of the Hood Excursions will soon provide transportation. Would you like to work where there is normally no air conditioning, where the smell of body decay from the morgue forces shutdowns? Simply put $70,000,00 gas bills in February. See you need to account not just the extra for repair. Upkeep which isn't cited in any of the aformentioned numbers has quadrupled the Facilities line Item for the county from about 1.5 million to 4 million. That's how old Georgie boy hid and moved money. So with that we're close to 20 million. Looks like we'll go under and soon you'll get your wish.

Suggest removal:

57Stan(9923 comments)posted 5 years ago

Why don't we offer an oilive brach and appology to The Cafaros in the form of a bond issue to restore the McGuffy Mall along with a promise to move back in at double the rent ?

Suggest removal:

58city_resident(528 comments)posted 5 years ago

venbede said: "is there any legitimate explanation for why the county didn't take Okahill when it was offered $500,000 for it?"
I guessed this then, and I guess the same thing now: the county didn't want Oakhill then, because the tenants already there left too little room for the county's use. I believe that, when SCDC went under, a lot of their tenants moved out, because they were unsure of the building's future. (it was 5 years ago, so I could be remembering wrong)

Again, despite what many here seem to believe, the Cafaros and the county officials weren't in hot water just because they thought the purchase of Oakhill was a bad idea. They were in hot water because of the possibility that they broke the law.

TERRAPINST, I should have been more clear; when I said "all of the departments that are currently at Oakhill, and the departments that will be moving to Oakhill" I was only talking about the other departments that are already there, and the departments that are already planning to move there. Not ALL county offices.

Can you provide proof of the Facilities line item of $4 million, or do I have to take your word for it again? But, for the sake of argument, let's assume they would be spending the $1.5 million at a new building, and Oakhill cost an extra $2.5 million to operate. That brings us up to about (11.4+2.5) $14 million. Do you really believe an equivalent new building could be built for that much??? And, what would have happened to Oakhill? Would it sit there and rot for decades, until someone could convince the state (still our tax dollars!!!) to come in and spend the millions of dollars to clean up the site? It really would have become dilapidated after a year or so of neglect.

If the county is wrong for spending money they don't have to renovate and maintain Oakhill, why would it be OK for the county to spend money they don't have to build a new building?

Suggest removal:

59Julie1(34 comments)posted 5 years ago

A new building would have been amortized over 30 to 40 years, on a tax-exempt bond, at a very low interest rate.

Even if we assume a construction cost of $20 million -- that's $200 per square foot for 100,000 square feet -- on a 30-year note at 3.5% (a typical muni bond yield), that would have been a monthly payment of about $89,000.

Keep in mind, we're talking about a building designed specifically for the county's purposes. Brand new. Minimal maintenance and upkeep expense. Energy efficient. Economical to operate. A known expense. No
unexpected surprises. No "nickel and diming" us to death. Something we could budget for. No Auditor's announcement of more borrowed funds required. Aesthetically pleasing! An anchor to Downtown redevelopment. An anchor to Downtown's hospitality industry.

In short, something to be proud of.

Suggest removal:

60Stan(9923 comments)posted 5 years ago

Only if the Cafaros owned Oak Hill and rented it to the county would it have been a good deal in the eyes of the Cafaro Empire . They are now stuck with the worthless McGuffey Mall ,no income from the county and are fuming .


Suggest removal:

61Julie1(34 comments)posted 5 years ago

P.S. And a nice place to work!

Suggest removal:

62Julie1(34 comments)posted 5 years ago

Stan, were you fired from the Cafaro Company?

Suggest removal:

63Stan(9923 comments)posted 5 years ago

Julie1 :

"Stan, were you fired from the Cafaro Company?"

Nope . . .. Does former Judge Maureen Cronin still have a future with them when she gets out ?

Suggest removal:

64city_resident(528 comments)posted 5 years ago

Julie, I think you're overestimating the savings of a new building. For an extreme example, look at the new federal courthouse on Wick downtown.

If I haven't explained this before, the biggest cause of Oakhill's high maintenance costs (i.e. the $70,000 gas bill) was the inefficient boilers/HVAC systems. These have been--or will soon be--replaced. So, those maintenance costs should continue to drop.

And again, what would happen to the abandoned Oakhill complex? Wouldn't a huge, abandoned hospital complex visible from downtown negate the pride you're talking about? I have a lot more questions about this theoretical new building, but that's getting even further off-topic.

What unexpected surprises were there at Oakhill?

Give it a little time, I'm sure Oakhill will become a nice place to work--though some will always remain biased, no matter what.

Suggest removal:

65pennsylvaniadeveloper(6 comments)posted 5 years ago

Can someone post a copy of the lease conditions that the county was bound to that shows what kind of a sweetheart deal the landlord had before Oakhill was purchased. Sometimes it pays to rent but not in that deal. In time all of those who favored the purchase of Oakhill will be considered genius. Lets see some photos posted so everyone can get a feel for what the place was really like. People are tired of political games. No wonder the majority of people do not even vote anymore. The only way the county had a chance of making Oakhill work was to pick it up for a cheap price like they did. Older buildings always have challenges for converting and remodeling. Like anything if you buy it right and plan ahead slowly and correct it will work out in the end. Get some round table disscussions going to constantly be looking ahead with this place and things will be fine in the end. The bickering and trying to make others look bad does nothing. Lets see some good ideas to fine tune the total use of Oakhill Place. Lets see nothing but positives wrote for 24 hours. If need be go back to the negatives 24 hrs after that. What are the chances you people can act like grown people for 24 hrs instead of a bunch of kids.Where I come from you do what you have to do to make it work. Put your energy to positives. Some of these people wouldn't be happy if 100 million in gold was found below Oakhill.

Suggest removal:

66Stan(9923 comments)posted 5 years ago

The bickering aint over until the Cafaro Empire decides that it is . This is a messy divorce and the Cafaro Empire is bitter .

Suggest removal:

67TERRAPINST(321 comments)posted 5 years ago

Julie 1, You are SPANKING these guys! City Res, better yet why dont YOU go do some research and cite some numbers that make null what I say?

Suggest removal:

68Stan(9923 comments)posted 5 years ago

Oak Hill is a done deal and county money flowing to the Cafaro Empire is history . The fat lady has sung . It's over . . ..


Suggest removal:

69pennsylvaniadeveloper(6 comments)posted 5 years ago

Recycle,reduce and reuse. That is what is in. Do others remember where steel prices were at a few years ago when others thought a new building was the way to go.When you see someone who supported the Oakhill purchase stick your hand out and say thank you for reusing that massive building.

Suggest removal:

70TERRAPINST(321 comments)posted 5 years ago

Youre right PA devel: we shoulda sold it for scrap. Now that I would support, brilliant!

Suggest removal:

71Stan(9923 comments)posted 5 years ago

Plenty of scap steel exists in the McGuffey Mall . Let's tear it down while scrap prices are high .

Suggest removal:

72city_resident(528 comments)posted 5 years ago

TERRAPINST, you made the claims, so it's up to you to back them up, if you want people to take you seriously. When I was "talking numbers" I quoted and linked to the article from which I got them.

As Stan points out, this argument is pretty pointless, as we already own Oakhill. All this talk about how it was a bad idea just creates bad feelings.

Suggest removal:

73TERRAPINST(321 comments)posted 5 years ago

Fair enough with proof. I do however work so that wont be immediate. Further I hate muckrakers and agree. Yes we are stuck with it so the verified "I told you so's" only continue malice. However, we that agreed with Reardon and Sciortino and, may I add NOT THE CAFAROS, feel somewhat gloaty based on the fact that for now at least the mere disagreement didnt warrant state charges. I am a true beliver in working together and will therefore do my best to refrain from personal criticisms as they are childish and destructive. I extend that pledge to others on this Board who hopefully want to create a better Mahoning County. HOWEVER I will always be loyal to the people I support and while I will not initiate petty statements any longer, I will of course defend the attacks from others.

Suggest removal:

74Stan(9923 comments)posted 5 years ago

The people recently voted out heavy industrial for a portion of the Ross Industrial park when Cafaro wanted to bring a scrap metal processor there . They like their peace and quiet and don't want to be disturbed on the EastSide . The McGuffy Mall should be leveled and trees planted for a park dedicated to Mayor Jay Williams . Perhaps Jay can get some funding from DC to make it happen .

Suggest removal:

75pennsylvaniadeveloper(6 comments)posted 5 years ago

Very nice that people are looking to solve problems instead of cutting others up. Keep thinking everyone. I know many of you are very bright individuals. Thank you very much

Suggest removal:

76pennsylvaniadeveloper(6 comments)posted 5 years ago

Could someone help me out on how much the county paid the old landlord before buying Oakhill? How many years did the county pay rent? How much did the county pay in maintence for the place over all of the years? I have heard different amounts. You can't blame the landlord for making a buck but when it is not favorable people look elsewhere. I have alot of respect for landlords because I am one and I know the amount of work and risk involved with projects. That is why I go out of my way to keep my tenants happy to keep them. Is that standard practice in Ohio to get favorable deals like that renting to county government? I do not know the landlord the county use to rent from but they must have done quite well because I see their name on everything. Did they make most of their money renting that old place to the county? I wish I could get a deal like they had sometime.

Suggest removal:


HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2016 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes