Sorry, no featured properties currently.
That comment is not only incredibly stupid, but also insensitive to the seriousness of the rape and sex abuse cases. You not only succeeded in making yourself look uneducated and ignorant, but also managed to offend those who have or know someone who have been victims to these types of traumatic experiences. Gain some perspective and get educated.
May 16, 2011 at 5:31 p.m.
The county prosecutor has nothing to do with the grand jury indictments. The evidence is collected, presented to the grand jury, and they then weigh the evidence and decide if there is a case for the prosecutor to take over. If there is not enough evidence, there is nothing you can do. Hate Gains if you want, but try to come up with VALID reasons instead of the typical "he isn't trying hard enough" routine. If there were more evidence here, there would be a more serious indictment. That may not seem right, but it's the law.
February 19, 2011 at 8:05 p.m.
I fail to see how people are upset at the ACE. Newsflash: the down economy affects them just like it does you. It is absurd to chastise them for accepting the money or for having it in their contract to begin with. I would have taken the same deal, you would have taken the same deal, and they were smart to have taken the deal.
It's also stupid to blame the university for inserting it into the contract. The compromise is intended to capitalize on increased revenue - more students equals more money flowing into the university. Whether or not these individuals had anything to do with that increase is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that they would have got nothing if there was no increase or if the number of students (and money flowing to the university) decreased. Had the university opted to include additional personal days, they would have been granted in a set number regardless of whether the number of students (and again - money) increased or not.
This bonus clause should actually be viewed as a concession on the part of the ACE. Rather than hold the university to the mandatory personal days, they opted to gamble on the chance that enrollment would increase. They won, but the money the university is paying is (1) probably less than the increased number of personal days and (2) offset by the increased tuition money.
The fact that this story comes at the same time that budgetary restrictions are dominating the news is convenient for those wishing to take a shot at the ACE and unions more generally. The fact of the matter is both parties actually won out in the end. Enjoy the bonuses ACE and by no means should you give it back.
disclaimer: I am a student, and not a member of the ACE or any other union.
December 9, 2010 at 10:58 p.m.
Although separate from the ridiculous debate about the impact of the Chinese Government on the Democratic Party, I would like to ask why there is such a mistrust for people who work in government, collect a decent salary, and travel around the world seeking investment in the area.
Hayden Thomas and commentators in other forums routinely seem skeptical of those who collect comfortable wages from government dollars and question their motives no matter how practical they seem.
To me, this exemplifies exactly what is wrong with the city of Youngstown. The problem does not lie in government ideas or political problems (although certainly that was a problem in the past). The real problem is the type of backwards mentality that frowns upon practical solutions like the attempt to draw in foreign investment. Creativity and solutions are frowned upon in this town for whatever reason. That mentality is the first thing that needs to go if there is ever going to be a resurgence in this community.
I find it sad that such a large percentage of the people in Youngstown are so hostile to innovation, outside the box ideas, and outside influences. Here is a newsflash: globalization isn't going to slow down. It would be wise to find foreign investment since the 1950s steel economy will probably not be returning to Youngstown anytime soon.
December 6, 2010 at 9:49 p.m.
Missed the debate for a few days...
First, the student loan cap is well and good, but it is important to remember that it was not created to bridge the gap between government and private salaries. It is an attempt to make it narrower in all actuality. People who take those jobs and manage to stay there for 10 years are still taking pay cuts even if a portion of their loans are forgiven.
Second, I am not pretending that the economic situation is ideal but there are, frankly, a good amount of reasons for paying these people. While some may be strapped financially (as a student I understand that argument) there is still the necessity of spending money to make money to accomplish desired results. I listed the benefits of increasing the salary of these individuals earlier.
Third, increasing property tax is not the only way to solve the problem of fund raising. Budget cuts, adjustments, and sales tax are some of the ways to get this accomplished.
November 12, 2010 at 2:24 p.m.
Another person who misses the point,
Let me start this one by saying that I could care less about Paul Gains personally or politically. With that being said, he wants to raise the salaries to keep people from jumping from his office to other county offices or other legal offices.
censoredship...your point that wages vary only serves to reinforce Gains's point. The salaries in his office are too low, and qualified individuals are leaving his office for jobs where those bars you refer to are higher.
No one is crying here. It's a basic concept. The county needs to pay these people more or they are going to leave. People out of law school are not going to take a job in that office and people already there are not going to stay if they have better opportunities elsewhere. Thank you for reinforcing that point with your graph.
November 9, 2010 at 1:06 p.m.
Thank you for understanding the point. My story wasn't a sob story about how much debt I am going to have. It was simply to note that qualified people are not going to come to Youngstown to work in the Prosecutor's office when better and more lucrative opportunities exist elsewhere. I can care less about Paul Gains, but he is exactly correct here.
Gains's initiative though, if it works, could be advantageous to the Mahoning Valley for a number of reasons. Aside from a more productive prosecution team, his actions could help stop the "brain drain" that is occurring in Youngstown. Face the facts people...the majority of the people from Youngstown who go on to get good education generally move away. If you can entice some of them to stay, some of you hypocrites may be able to find a replacement for Paul Gains. In the meantime, good luck luring those who actually have potential away from jobs that pay significantly more than the ones offered in your city.
November 9, 2010 at 12:02 p.m.
You totally miss the point. I don't expect anyone to pay my debt except me. To do that, I will take the best job I can get out of college. Everyone who graduates law school is going to do the exact same thing.
Believe me when I tell you that I will not be looking at jobs anywhere near Mahoning County.
It's about what the market demands though. Answer this question: if other places are paying more money to do the same job, where are you going to go work? Mahoning County needs to increase their salaries to recruit better people (which most certainly does NOT include me) and run a more effective department.
November 9, 2010 at 11:36 a.m.
Hate Gains if you will, but the issue that trumps this entire situation is the ability to attract qualified personnel to work in that office. For those they cannot stand the prosecutor, ask yourself this question: why would anyone want his job if they are going to have to deal with constant turnover and are forced to work with inferior attorneys because of budgetary restraints?
I am currently a law student. My tuition at this point and the amount of debt I will have upon graduation essentially bars me from taking a job in that office because the salary is not competitive enough. The current salary setup allows for only those truly committed to the job, those that have no other options, or those who prefer the guaranteed 9-5 lifestyle over more demanding positions to accept the current positions.
People in the Mahoning Valley need to decide whether they want qualified people and a productive department or an ineffective department staffed by only those who sacrifice better opportunities. How long will that sacrifice pay the bills though? Turnover will continue to be a problem and qualified people will continue to leave and seek better opportunities elsewhere.
Frankly, Mahoning County would benefit from raising the salary of its prosecutors for several reasons. First, it would ensure a more efficient and productive office. Second, it would entice qualified and educated people to maintain employment in the area and could even attract educated people from outside to relocate as a result of the competitive legal market that is making jobs scarce for everyone with a law degree.
Suck it up and find the money. Raise taxes if you will, but putting bad guys behind bars and maintaining or increasing the educated population of an area that frankly lacks smart people is worth every penny to me.
November 9, 2010 at 10:29 a.m.
I am not sure that taking a hatchet to the budget and then relying on a levy is ultimately a good thing for the district. For one, the tax increase is a large sum for people of the district to absorb. Also, the cutting of staff and programs cannot possibly be the best thing for students, who I think are already not as prepared for college as they should be. Finally, the idea of combining the posts of Superintendent and Elementary School Principal for the salary they are offering is unlikely to attract the type of qualified individual who the district needs to guide them through the problems they face. I understand that these actions may actually get them out of the red, but is it really the best for McDonald in the long run?
In my eyes the residents of the district are going to have a difficult time voting for the proposed levy. What is their incentive? Increasing your taxes to keep a school afloat that will be a minor league version of an actual high school is not going to satisfy the argument for increasing property taxes for better schools and higher return rate on your property value. I stated in another thread, and still believe, that consolidation is the end result and best alternative for the district.
February 23, 2010 at 10:44 a.m.