yes Youngstown can hold them hostage for water. but then Penn can walk now cant they? Dont think they will? Thats what the racing commission thought, that bluff was called and they backed down. How many other companies have left because of the 'water game'? Let's keep acting as we have in the past that these enterprises need us more than we need them, shall we? Really worked well in the past hasnt it?
July 10, 2013 at 12:43 p.m.
There will be no JEDD, get over it. Lisa Oles wont vote for it and if it goes to the vote of the residents, Austintown will never pass it.
It is a money grab by Youngstown where they have no right to it.
The purpose of a JEDD is for a Twp and a City to work together pooling resources together to attract new business. That is they form the JEDD on unincorporated undeveloped land each sharing in the burden of devloping the land for use such as adding roads and infrastructure using the authority of the city for which Twp doesnt have to attract new business that otherwise wouldnt be here.
The racino is coming it here without the JEDD 0 benfit to the TWP and 0 burden on the City so it is a clear money grab by the city, 1 mil in taxes - 0 expense = all profit for the city. JEDD for it to be a worthwhile adventure means both entities share in the burden.
Before someone says "well Austintown would get a portion of the income tax so they make out" this is true, but the other half of the story is they would lose property tax money by the constitution. The presence of an income tax changes the formula of inside millage reducing the amount Austintown would receive.
July 10, 2013 at 12:39 p.m.
what Mark? someone didnt put enough "grease" in your pockets? I vote Mark Munroe pay the valley back every penny lost when Penn walks away like every other company does when confronted with Ohio Politics
March 29, 2013 at 11:55 a.m.
no my point is this, doing something for the sake of saying you did something is really doing nothing. To me this si what this gun law is, much ado but solves nothing.
I wish I could say I knew the answer, but I do know it is a combination of policies and actions that work in conjunction with each other plus it would not hurt if we came together as a united country rther than a divided one we are now
March 24, 2013 at 7:48 p.m.
I agree if you could keep them from getting the guns. I just dont see how this law will keep the guns from their hands, which is my point. If it would rights or no rights, pass the law and save the kids. I just dont think that it would keep the guns out of the gunman hands, it would just change the means by which they acquire the guns I am afraid.
March 21, 2013 at 1:25 p.m.
LOL no you can read into it whatever you want. But since there is a law that drugs are illegal, we have met our obligations and so if a child dies from a heroin overdose it is his fault and society should look away cause well we passed a law so we did the best we could? How did the law save that childs life? Law or no law that drug is bad for you and you can and will die, so how does teh law prevent teh death?
You need to get over youself. Read what I said, I could care less if you pass the law or not. My point is it will do nothing on its own to stop these crimes and they are not proposing anything else that will stop these crimes, just like drug laws on their own solve nothing. People still do drugs. You can debate the laws, I will debate their effectiveness. Do we need them? yes but they alone dont work.
Of course we need laws, but a police officer can pull you over for speeding, he can see you speeding and machines that say you are speeding. A police offficer CANNOT randomly pull cars over and check for assult rifles, cannot randomly search your house. so how is passing teh lsaw going to stop the crime? Becasue what I would like a solution to is how can you prevent the crime? Passing teh law will not prevent the crime?
So attack me and call me what you want, all its says is you cant debate the point
March 21, 2013 at 11:40 a.m.
you can round and round on the leagalize all you want. But the person who doesnt give a crap about the law that says you cannot walk into a school and kill a bunch of innocent students is not going to now not do it because you passed a law that says they arent allowed to own the gun with which they carried out the heinous crime. And if you really think passing a law will keep these guns out of criminals hands? Really worked well with drugs didn't it? Does that mean you do nothing? No but you must come up with solutions that can work. This wont, attacking the means doesnt solve the cause. and where there is a will there is a way.
You know who follows laws? people that would never even think of walking into a school and shooting kids.
pass the law if it makes you sleep better, but once the laws are passed and it happens again, whats your easy fix then?
March 20, 2013 at 4:50 p.m.
It is understandable the cry for the bans. And 2nd amendment or not if they would curb the violence one iota, do it. Trouble is, it wont. you can talk other countrys all you want, irrelevant. Heroin is illegal, noone who wants it goes without. PCP illegal, readily available. You think someone that goes to the trouble of planning these mass murders would quit if they had to plan on how to get the weapons?
A banner I saw says it all, "those that think banning guns is a solution to the violence, criminals dont pay attention to laws dumb***" it has always been illegal to kill people. they dont care. And what is the point if you cant eliminate access? Making them illegal doesnt restrict access, it just changes the market.
December 22, 2012 at 8:10 a.m.