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

« News Home

Boardman residents speak up in support of cop levy



Published: Tue, July 26, 2011 @ 12:06 a.m.

By Ashley Luthern

aluthern@vindy.com

BOARDMAN

Township residents voiced their opinions at a trustees meeting Monday about next Tuesday’s police levy vote.

The majority of people who addressed the trustees said they support the 3.85-mill, five-year additional police levy that will appear on the ballot.

Ed Lugibihl, a township resident for more than 60 years, said he sympathizes with those who say they can’t afford more taxes but that he will vote for the levy.

“It’s time for us as citizens of Boardman to step up,” he said.

The levy would generate about $3.8 million annually earmarked specifically for the police department and cost the owner of a home valued at $100,000 about $117 annually. About 70 people attended the meeting Monday during which the police levy dominated the discussion.

Jim Rosa, who was a part of a business advisory group for the township, said he supports the levy because he knows the township’s financial sit-uation.

“Finances were dwindling, and we’ve seen changes in personal property tax and estate tax, pushing greater responsibility to us,” Rosa said.

One concern among the few residents who said they opposed the levy was that some general-fund money currently going to the police department would be returned to the general fund.

Trustees have said the entire $3.8 million generated annually by the police levy would go to the police department, and the department’s annual budget would increase overall from $7.1 million to $8.5 million. However, about $2.4 million of the police department’s existing budget would be returned to the general fund.

Administrator Jason Loree said trustees wanted to restrict the $3.8 million generated annually by the levy to the police department. If a general-fund levy were put on the ballot, instead of one just for police, the money generated by it could be used at the discretion of current and future trustees, he said.

“This will secure [the police budget] at a base level,” he said.

Trustees have said that if the levy is approved next week, the following positions will be filled within two years: 10 police officers, one diversion specialist, one advocate, one crime analyst, one secretary, two records clerks and two dispatchers.

Trustee Chairman Thomas Costello said the township would begin hiring in 2012, when money from the levy would first be collected, and that it would take possibly up to two years to hire all 10 officers because of the civil-service process and training time.

In the early 1970s, Boardman voters approved a police district that included a continuing levy that now generates about $1.5 million annually. Voters in 2008 also approved a safety levy for both police and fire services, generating about $2 million annually.

Most of the residents who spoke at Monday’s trustees meeting said they will support this levy, too.

“I own property in Youngstown,” said Dan Allen, a truck driver. “I can’t sell it, and I can’t afford to buy another house. I don’t want to see what happened in Youngstown happen to Boardman.”


Comments

1whitesabbath(738 comments)posted 3 years, 5 months ago

Boardman doesn't need more police,

National Guard would be the only way.

might as well annex Boardman to

Youngstown get rid of the name.

Suggest removal:

2UnionForever(1470 comments)posted 3 years, 5 months ago

Vote No. SB5 can be used later to reduce the costs of police in Boardman once the bill is sustauned in November which it will be.

Suggest removal:

3Photoman(1018 comments)posted 3 years, 5 months ago

Should this levy pass you can bet you'll see a lot of manipulation to pump up the general fund. The trustees know how to play the shell game.

Suggest removal:

4Tony_A(13 comments)posted 3 years, 5 months ago

Trustees are lost lambs and can't manage their way out of a paper bag.

We need new leadership - again.

Vote NO!

Suggest removal:

5author50(1121 comments)posted 3 years, 5 months ago

10 new officers for $3.2 million - but $2.4 million goes into the general fund aka the trustees slush fund - which nets the 10 cops $800,000. So each new officer is going to be paid $80,000 annually?

Suggest removal:

6newresident(2 comments)posted 3 years, 5 months ago

I wasn't able to attend last night, but if the facts are correct in regards to how many more people are in boardman township during the day, has the township tried instituting a "security" tax to all the retail establishments. It would seem a lot easier to charge an extra 0.5% on monthly gross profits to businesses than over a 3mill tax increase to the people. What would the retail businesses do.........close up!? No.....they'll pay it.

Suggest removal:

7apollo(1227 comments)posted 3 years, 5 months ago

A quoted person in the article says it's time for the taxpayers to "step up". Well, why is it always the taxpayers who must "step up" and never the employees who are already overpaid?

Suggest removal:

8apollo(1227 comments)posted 3 years, 5 months ago

The number of people who enter Boardman for shopping or eating and correlating that to police numbers makes no sense. What do shoppers have to do with needing more police?

Suggest removal:

9apollo(1227 comments)posted 3 years, 5 months ago

Last nights meeting speakers were totally scripted and agreed to beforehand. A dog and pony show by the marketing group.

Suggest removal:

10Doctore(52 comments)posted 3 years, 5 months ago

He asks what all of the shoppers and traffic going in and out of Boardman have to do with needing more police (an idiotic question). Then comments on a meeting he didn't attend. You are a real hero "Apollo". Nice job on the editorial by the way. Even more impressive is the fact that you were one of two people commenting on your own editorial.

Suggest removal:

11Freeatlast(1991 comments)posted 3 years, 5 months ago

To Doctore I have learned one thing about some on this page
“Never argue with a stupid person for they will only bring
you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”
This is a guy can not see pass his/her nose or wallet

Suggest removal:

12TAXEDOFF(118 comments)posted 3 years, 5 months ago

If Boardman had a jail they'd be letting prisoners out of jail

to scare the public like Mahoning County did.

VOTE NO I'M TAXED OFF

The real LEACH in this situation is George Farris and his marketing group whose making money off this levy.

Suggest removal:

13apollo(1227 comments)posted 3 years, 5 months ago

Yes, Farris is making a ton with lies and innuendo. Crime is rampant, yet they can't produce any supporting facts. They can't keep anyone out of Boardman with all the money in our wallets and that is their goal. Boardman median household income is 55,000 and the average wage is 40,000 and yet the township employees make way more than that to fight non-existent crime and few fires. A pretty good gig.

Suggest removal:

14apollo(1227 comments)posted 3 years, 5 months ago

As you can see with the responses above, they can't refute anything I say. Just attack the messenger. They are still paying for the closed substation. CALEA waste. Special election waste. The golden trough is flowing freely and the taxpayers are being asked to replenish it.

Suggest removal:

15stewie(109 comments)posted 3 years, 5 months ago

What a bunch of snakes, they found a sneaky way to pump 2 million into the general fund where they can spend it anyway they want! with only 1.7 million going to the P.D. What a joke! They really do think people are that stupid!! Trying everything including scare tactics on the elderly. I'm not fooled ! I'm still voting no on this levy and I'd advise anyone with common sense to do the same!

Suggest removal:

16joebag09(267 comments)posted 3 years, 5 months ago

More police will stop crime? I don't think so. Crime is going to continue and we're going to have to deal with it by being vigilant and proactive, not reactive. No levy, period! I'm not trying to support a system that has lied to us in the past. I'm also not trying to support our ploice department, but the reality is, I can't afford more taxes. Everyione has a right to their own opinions, but blindly voting for a levy that really isn't necessary is irresponsible.

Suggest removal:

17stewie(109 comments)posted 3 years, 5 months ago

When a crime happens when do the police show up? After the crime is committed !
If you want protection from a crime , invest in a security system or buy a weapon and learn how to use it. The police only show up after the crime is committed.

Suggest removal:

18ConServRep(16 comments)posted 3 years, 5 months ago

We need more police and anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't care about the future of this township's residential life. But these idiot trustees will guarantee failure of the levy. Do the trustees think the voters are stupid, or are they that stupid themselves?. The current police budget is 7.1 million. The levy is for 3.8 million and is said to be earmarked entirely for the police budget. If so, that would bring the police budget to 10.9 million. Oh, but 2.4 of the existing police budget will be "returned" to the general fund. So, really, the police budget will increase by only 1.4 million. So why isn't the "police levy" asking for just 1.4 million? Because the trustees think since we were stupid enough to fall for the last scam, we'll fall for the next one. You couldn't make this stuff up. Jeopardizing a needed levy for additional police by padding the levy with funds sidelined to the general fund. Oh, but the levy is going into the top of the pot and the general funds are coming out the bottom end. Unbelievable.

Suggest removal:

19ConServRep(16 comments)posted 3 years, 5 months ago

Sure that makes a little sense - but that isn't what is happening. Marketing a levy by lying that it's a "police levy only" and then applying less than half of it to the current police operating budget is a piece of idiocy that should deservedly fail. And the $50,000 taxpayer money wasted to pay for this idiot levy vote should come out of the salaries of the out-of-touch Boardman cheerleader politicians that came up with the idea. No amount of explanation, especially coming from the accountant that explained the last discredited efforts, will overcome the simple math on this levy. The shame of it is that they will explain the failure by blaming it on people not willing to pay for more police, or not being able to pay due to the economy, when in fact, it's the trustees and accountant's and administrator's mishandling of the levy. If it's a police levy, fine, but don't muck it up by tacking on a larger amount in order to siphon back to the general fund.

Call it what it is: 1.4 for the police and 2.4 for the general fund. See what that vote is like. But don't jeopardize the police levy. Oops, it's too late.

Suggest removal:

20seminole(476 comments)posted 3 years, 5 months ago

Free, Doctore, all the sheep following the moronic heerders, you all bend over for the Three Stooges as they prepare to tax-rape the township, and you harp about how we need a levy. The manipulation is already in play, this will not all go to the police, the frauds will kick it to the general fund and misappropriate the funds just like they did with the last levy. The Boardmanites will never learn, just keep drinking the kool aid and keep repeating the same epic failures that have caused this financial debacle in the first place. Ferris and his puppets have done a great job pushing this out in front of the drones of Boardman. Why is it that only now that the township is "United Against Crime"? What was the mantra prior to this joke campaign? The police have allowed this to continue unchecked for years. Nichols has never made the slackers accountable for their lack of performance. Now he wants to scare everyone into believeing the township needs additional officers in order to stop the flood of trash and crime in the township? Notice the uptick in printed police reports as the levy nears? All propaganda generated by the Barnum & Bailey posse. Wonder who paid for the signs littering the township lawns since the township doesn't have any money. Try selling your house and getting out of this outhouse. The ghetto crawlers are in, uninhibited due to lack of enforcement by the Boardman PD. The publicized tax increase will go a long way to allow additional officers to have side by side meetings in vacant hotel parking lots. Don't any of the pro-levy goofs want accountability from the police? You're just willing to dish out more cash for inept performance? Walk in to your bosses office and ask for a raise when you haven't brough in any new revenue for the company, see how that works for you...

Suggest removal:

21ConServRep(16 comments)posted 3 years, 5 months ago

too bad people like you bother to vote, why participate in a citizenship function when you care nothing about the community. Do the math - there aren't enough policeman to cover the acreage. Anyone who has a residence with a resale value doesn't want it to plummet any further. Apartment dwellers and people who feel the way you do about your community don't keep up your properties anyway - you have nothing to lose. For you, it isn't about the community - it's about who you dislike.

Suggest removal:

22apollo(1227 comments)posted 3 years, 5 months ago

Not enough police to cover the acreage? How does Austintown do it with 10 fewer? Most of the crimes are committed in a small area that the Vindy article pointed out. Mostly around the retailers. Most crime is petty thefts. How many murders? Rapes? Armed robberies?

Boardman used to have 60+ officers and that didn't change crime. 47 isn't changing crime. Crime is not going to change if we vote yes. Even if the police budget got it all. This is just the easy way to pad the township coffers. Instead of challenging the unions to take concessions to get the spending under control, it's easier to just try to scare the voters into digging into your pockets deeper. More taxes will never deter crime. It will only cause more stress on those whose incomes are low or fixed and cause some to not be able to afford to live here. Meaning more empty homes and lower values. Why do you think many who work for the township have moved to Canfield, New Middletown, and Columbiana?

Suggest removal:

23apollo(1227 comments)posted 3 years, 5 months ago

The guy above doesn't even know the definition of implode. The typical response from the township geniuses.

Suggest removal:

24ConServRep(16 comments)posted 3 years, 5 months ago

Austintown isn't the shopping destination for surrounding communities. Youngstown, for example, isn't headed to Austintown malls and movie theaters. 224 and Market Street is not in Austintown. You can compare the Austintown acreage, but not the contents. The slum lords aren't as active in Austintown either. Austintown has its problems, but it isn't a destination like Boardman. Most of the crime may be occurring around retail, but the crime that is harming home values is occurring in the neighborhoods, then it's too hard to get buyers in the neighborhoods, which leads to rentals, and more crime. This rationale that the Boardman services will have earmarked levies is just manipulative bs. There is another solution. Vote Republican more often. We need trustees that can say no to benefits perks to the public employees who control Democratic political careers and we need trustees who will use the budget to put more employees in the department instead of spending it on benefits and perks for fewer employees. We need trustees who can figure out a better balance between the needs of the community and the desires of the public employees whose massive unions control politician careers.

Suggest removal:

25apollo(1227 comments)posted 3 years, 5 months ago

Really? The new Austintown movie theater and super Walmart isn't a shopping destination? Me thinks you need to check out the parking lot there. The new Home Depot. Mahoning Ave isn't a shopping destination!!! You heard it here first! Only Boardman is and we need cops on every corner to do what? Stop the shoppers and check their bags? Crime is rampant....NOT.

Lets just give the township every dollar and let them be frugal like they've been! Substations galore, more CALEA, ambulance service, helicopter service for those 1 or 2 times a year when a real accident occurs, we could have a swat team for all those hostage situations, A street crimes unit for the......what street crimes. Most of the crime is located where the Vindy found it. At the retailers.

Suggest removal:

26apollo(1227 comments)posted 3 years, 5 months ago

Is that you KK?

Suggest removal:

27Doctore(52 comments)posted 3 years, 5 months ago

Why does Boardman border the most violent part of Youngstown, yet violent crimes are slow to spread South? Explain that "Apollo". Be careful not to compliment the work of the police. Make sure to use some other excuse. While you are at it, tell all of my neighbors that had their homes broken in to that there is no real crime. Great job on those arrests BPD. You have the support of many residents and businesses. If the levy fails, make sure to point all crime victims to the houses with those idiotic "caustic levy" signs for help. "Apollo" will save you, he's a real American hero!

Suggest removal:

28apollo(1227 comments)posted 3 years, 4 months ago

Doctore thinks the violent crime that occurs in Youngstown stays in Youngstown because of the crack police force! Now that's funny. So why doesn't the criminal who robs Macy's and Walmart also stay in Youngstown? Maybe if you had some Criminal Justice courses you'd know.

Here is the easy explanation.

The 2 guys in Youngstown fighting for their drug turf shoot each other. They can't rob Walmart since there aren't any in Youngstown to rob. You really think they refrain from committing violent crime in Boardman because they fear the police in Boardman but not in Youngstown??? Really?

I hope you aren't a cop. You know so little about criminal justice.

Suggest removal:

29apollo(1227 comments)posted 3 years, 4 months ago

Hey, Boardman police do a great job. It isn't Gary Indiana or New Orleans though, it's Boardman. A middle class community with some speeders and some criminals coming here to rob Walmart and Macy's. Some domestic violence and mostly petty crimes. That's why there are no murders, few rapes, and few other violent crimes and crime isn't rampant.

Suggest removal:

30apollo(1227 comments)posted 3 years, 4 months ago

Please provide links and stats on all those homes being broken into? Can you? Or is it scare tactics again?

Suggest removal:

31ConServRep(16 comments)posted 3 years, 4 months ago

Can you read? When's the last time you attended north Boardman neighborhood organization meetings? Or attended a Boardman church? Or attended a traditional Boardman function or volunteered for any fundraiser, holiday function or church function where a huge part of the planning has to accomodate security needs that didn't even exist 5-8 years ago. Sit in your apartment or your parent's house and talk nonesense about people who are concerned about their community and the fact that properties are sitting empty because homebuyers with a choice are buying further south. Maybe you should try convincing the realtors there is no crime problem in Boardman. That would do everyone some good. Take your arguments to the local realtor associations. I'm sure they'll find your reasoning brilliant.

I'll probably vote against this levy because the condescending stupidity of the trustees and their advisors makes it impossible to support. We need more police and if they want the public to believe it's a police levy, the amount asked for should be entirely directed to the police budget. This levy is so handicapped by their idiocy it will be a miracle if it passes. After what happened last time, these idiots couldn't figure out they needed to play it straight? Don't they want us to think they're any different than the last bunch?

Suggest removal:

32Doctore(52 comments)posted 3 years, 4 months ago

Hey moron (Apollo), it's in the same police blotter and news articles you claim to read. I don't need to provide you with sh!$ anyway, you are nobody to me. These occurred in my neighborhood. All the section 8 housing and the thugs cruising through town some others constantly mention, and yet they don't want to commit violent crimes here. Spin it how you want, but as usual you are wrong, and still a cyber-hero. One more thing, a lot of my friends and neighbors read this site and are well aware of who you are. I just have to pass along that several referred to you as "that crazy a$$80le" from vindy. Congratulations, nobody likes you.

Suggest removal:

33livevalley(23 comments)posted 3 years, 4 months ago

Reading comments by this "apollo" is amazing. This guy is a moron and here we are arguing with him. Reading back posts after posts all he says is one negative thing after another. I don't even think he relizes what he says, just types it as long as its negative. NO MATTER WHAT anyone says you will be wrong and he is right. Never saw anyone like that, WOW! I sure would hate to be with that person. The person needs to get off the computer and get a life, get out in the world and learn something. You are a real scary person and its a same so many people know who you are and feel so bad for you!!!

Suggest removal:

34apollo(1227 comments)posted 3 years, 4 months ago

Ask me if I care that people don't like me who buy into the crime is rampant scare tactics that the township is trying to sell? I do read the police blotters. They are filled with retail crime and other petty stuff. I'll ask you, how is paying them more going to keep the criminals out? Crime rises when the economy stinks and guess what? We just got out a a big recession. You are aware that the economy has a little to do with crime don't you?

Saying negative things about Boardman government. Well, if they had much good to say about them, I'd say it.

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 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