WOW, this surprises me, someone posting on Vindi.com doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. As I read this article, it's clear all she did is declare a mistrial because the YPD did not turn over evidence to the Prosecutor's Office or defense lawyer. A mistrial doesn't mean anyone has been set free. It simply means that this trial has ended and Mr. Brown will now have another jury trial where he will face these charges. Hence, the line that a new court date "has not been set." You should get your facts straight before posting.
January 23, 2012 at 12:19 p.m.
Right, watchingthepolitics, because so many politicians have actually taken a bullet. I mean, you really think that's just a common thing. Organized crime tried to kill him to prevent him from taking office because they knew he was honest and couldn't be bought. You shouldn't demean that or play it down. You want to criticize Gains for having failings as an administrator or whatever, fair enough, but you have no right to make light of the fact that he was shot to prevent him from taking office.
January 13, 2012 at 11:50 p.m.
I have a better idea. I believe, last Spring, the Levy passed in the City of Canfield but failed in areas outside the City. If that was the case this time as well, perhaps, the School District could be reformed by excising out those areas outside the city. Then, all the malcontents that seem to not be worried about our school system can let their kids go to Boardman, Beaver, Austintown or Youngstown schools. See what happens to property values then.
Perhaps any of you out there can tell me exactly what you think could be done to lower costs. No generalities like "cut, cut, cut." How about some real plans? They haven't asked us for new money in 9 years and still you all complain.
Instead of complaining, try and come up with solutions. That is, specific solutions. Charge the students to park at the high school? Pay to park at a parking lot that tax dollars paid for and continue to pay for? Right.
If this school system goes to hell, say goodbye to our property values. So, any money saved by not passing a levy will be offset by the losses in property value.
Not to mention that we should all want a school system that educates our young and provides them with every possible advantage when it comes to education.
You want to save money on taxes? Vote against CSB levies, they always have surpluses.
November 10, 2011 at 11:23 p.m.
Hey, Dagwood, hope you and Blondie like living in a neighborhood where the housing values plummet while your belly gets full of Elephant Ears and Lemon Shakes. But, hey, even if we say "there goes the neighborhood" at least the Fair is close by.
As for me, I voted against the Levy last November. I thought it was to much money. In Spring, I voted for it, even though I thought the millage was too high. My chief complaint was that in these tough times, a 6.8 mil levy was a lot. Still, let's face it, we have not been levied to death out here and we have a great school system and community.
They lowered the millage (as a lot of people suggested) and STILL people complain.
Taxpayer, the "Black Squirrel" teachers comments ticked me off too. He's a typical, arrogant teacher who lives off the taxpayers and complains when the taxpayers say enough. But still, should I vote against the Levy because one idiot angers me? Besides which, for that one moron teacher, I can point to several teachers in Canfield that have been fantastic to my children and are true caring, concerned and decent teachers and people.
We have a good community and a good school system here. Of course, more cuts can be made and, hopefully, if people keep their voices heard, those cuts and/or budget conscious decisions will continue to be made. Voting against the Levy isn't the only way to be heard-go to meetings, contact the Superintendent, the BOE.
We won't have a good community and school system if we keep voting these levies down. I'll vote YES as will my wife. I think this one will pass.
If it does, I intend to keep the pressure on the BOE to be smart and frugal with our money.
July 30, 2011 at 12:14 a.m.
Rare for me to comment here, but, in this case I must. Brothalove, you said it as well as it could be said. I really wonder sometime what has happened to civility and kindness in this country.
October 14, 2010 at 6 p.m.
Let's see, a group made up of 25 unknown businessmen got an e-mail asking them what they thought about court consolidation. Some of them didn't respond to the e-mail. 1 member decided not to vote because he doesn't even live in this county.
This group didn't talk to the judges, look at the pros and cons of consolidation, look at the sizes of court dockets and all but one of those voting (and we can safely assume, given the above, that about 20 members of this group voted) voted for consolidation.
And, why, you might ask? Can 2 judges handle what 3 do (in a building as dangerous as it is dirty)? Well, because consolidation saves money. That's it, that's the group's criteria. This group did not conduct a thorough study of the issues, did no research, looked at no numbers, talked to no judges and, basically, decided to vote for consolidation because it saves money.
Explain to me how this is front page (indeed the center story) news? That this is a story at all amazes me. Hey, by the way, having no courts and no policemen would probably save government a ton of money, but, would we be safe and would we have a legal and justice system?
Hey, Skolnick, on the 4th of July, a group of neighbors in my area had a cookout. While the kids were playing on the waterslide, a few of us (about 20) talked about court consolidation. Most of us thought having 3 judges in Youngstown was better than having 2. I know, because I took an informal poll. I disqualified one of my neighbors, though, because he was concentrating more on making sure the burgers he was grilling were juicy than he was on the issue of court consolidation. Think we can be on the front page tomorrow?
Finally, for anyone who thinks Jay Williams didn't start this whole fight because the judges dared to demand a new court, wake up. By the way, for those of you who think we don't need a new municipal court, go down there some morning and see what you think. I firmly believe that anyone who sees that courthouse would demand that we build a new court. There are countless safety issues, it's overcrowded and cramped, dirty and, overall, a train wreck waiting to happen.
July 17, 2009 at 12:17 a.m.