There were officials who opposed Oakhill but Gains went after them. Traficanti and Tablack are the ones who ought to be indicted. It was criminally stupid to buy that old hospital without any due diligence.
I hope that Gains will be investigated by the authorities! Macejko would do the community a favor by bringing forth evidence of corruption.
Gains abused his authority for political purposes when he targeted his enemies in the Oakhill matter, then stayed involved all the way through even though he'd recused himself. We might have even learned the extent and specifics of Gains's wrongdoing had the scheduled hearing on prosecutorial misconduct occurred.
But of course the prosecutors decided instead to drop the charges against those they'd accused. I believe that move was designed to avoid the hearing. No wonder. They might not have enjoyed the evidence of prosecutorial corruption becoming public,
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.
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.
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.
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.
You ought to look at the facts, Mr. Escapee From Reality.
A hearing was scheduled yesterday to address the issue of prosecutorial misconduct perpetrated on the part of Paul Gains and his office. The fact is that he unethically targeted his political enemies and involved himself (orchestrated?) a prosecution where he had recused himself. These allegations would have prompted the judge to drop all charges, and Paul Gains would have been lucky to end up losing his job but not getting disbarred!
Then, conveniently, a couple weeks ago the prosecutors found a reason to drop the charges ON THEIR OWN, to avoid the hearing on misconduct!
This isn't complicated. The real wrongdoing here was on the part of PAUL GAINS!
For once in this mess I agree with the Vindicator editorial writers! Please, someone, file a complaint against Gains with the Ohio Supreme Court!
Ryan: Atmosphere in DC is ‘poisonous’
Mr. or Ms. db,
Herbert Hoover implemented harsh trade restrictions in 1930 to "protect and expand American jobs."
The Great Depression followed with a 25% unemployment rate that lasted for years.
September 2, 2011 at 10:34 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Official: Mahoning County may have to borrow $3.5M
There were officials who opposed Oakhill but Gains went after them. Traficanti and Tablack are the ones who ought to be indicted. It was criminally stupid to buy that old hospital without any due diligence.
August 11, 2011 at 10:14 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Macejko’s candidacy intriguing
I hope that Gains will be investigated by the authorities! Macejko would do the community a favor by bringing forth evidence of corruption.
Gains abused his authority for political purposes when he targeted his enemies in the Oakhill matter, then stayed involved all the way through even though he'd recused himself. We might have even learned the extent and specifics of Gains's wrongdoing had the scheduled hearing on prosecutorial misconduct occurred.
But of course the prosecutors decided instead to drop the charges against those they'd accused. I believe that move was designed to avoid the hearing. No wonder. They might not have enjoyed the evidence of prosecutorial corruption becoming public,
July 31, 2011 at 7:51 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Oakhill defendants feel exonerated with dismissal of charges
Stan, were you fired from the Cafaro Company?
July 13, 2011 at 8:19 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Oakhill defendants feel exonerated with dismissal of charges
P.S. And a nice place to work!
July 13, 2011 at 8:13 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Oakhill defendants feel exonerated with dismissal of charges
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.
July 13, 2011 at 8:10 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Oakhill defendants feel exonerated with dismissal of charges
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.
July 12, 2011 at 8:24 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Oakhill defendants feel exonerated with dismissal of charges
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.
July 12, 2011 at 11:27 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Oakhill defendants feel exonerated with dismissal of charges
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.
July 12, 2011 at 8:27 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Dismissal of charges is another roadblock to public getting the whole story
You ought to look at the facts, Mr. Escapee From Reality.
A hearing was scheduled yesterday to address the issue of prosecutorial misconduct perpetrated on the part of Paul Gains and his office. The fact is that he unethically targeted his political enemies and involved himself (orchestrated?) a prosecution where he had recused himself. These allegations would have prompted the judge to drop all charges, and Paul Gains would have been lucky to end up losing his job but not getting disbarred!
Then, conveniently, a couple weeks ago the prosecutors found a reason to drop the charges ON THEIR OWN, to avoid the hearing on misconduct!
This isn't complicated. The real wrongdoing here was on the part of PAUL GAINS!
For once in this mess I agree with the Vindicator editorial writers! Please, someone, file a complaint against Gains with the Ohio Supreme Court!
July 12, 2011 at 7:26 a.m. permalink suggest removal