In a recent, informal conversation, Don Imbus suggested to me that "there is always room for public debate." I agreed with him. Based on a recent letter to the editor he authored it can truly be said that Don is as good as his word. He cannot be accused of being a "piker" in providing his share of debate involving the Township-Clayton merger proposal.
Where Don and I, as well as other recent letter writers. John Beattie and Don Hutchinson, part ways, is over what is fair and balanced public debate. If the outcome of the merger proposal is to rest on the strong back of fair and balanced reporting, where both the positive and negative facts ace brought forth, then I believe it's becoming increasingly clear that the voters will have their work cut out for them.
In the Englewood-Northmont newsletter of last month, I suggested the proposed, new city would be faced with a myriad of challenges; at the least - financial. From the sharply critical tone of the letters to the editor that followed it is obvious that the proponents are not about to tolerate anything ar anyone questioning their "all or nothing" pro-merger stance.
For example, Messrs. Beattie and Imbus, both leaders of the merger commission, openly criticize the city of Englewood's lack of objectivity and failure to "keep an open mind." I believe the question might be asked if the same spirit of fairness shouldn't extend to their withholding judgment on the Wright State/Dr. Premus study we've commissioned. Instead, Mr. Beattie dismisses it out of hand, weeks before it is even published, and for good measure, manages to insult the integrity and professionalism of Dr. Premus, a well-known and highly respected member of the academic community.
To imply that an all-volunteer study group of acknowledged merger enthusiasts will somehow do a better, more objective job than a trained, professional organization invites skepticism about their findings, too. While the group's sincerity and good intentions may not be in question, their objectivity can be.
And no matter what the studies conclude, it's still a fact that more than half the citizens affected Englewood and Union - have no representation and no vote.
A nerve seemed to have been touched over the question of taxes for the new city. Assurances have been plentiful that no new taxes will be required for the same level of services, if Randolph and Clayton merge. But is this realistic? How many additional miles of streets and highways will the new city have to take responsibility for when current state and county funded roads are turned over. That includes road signs, traffic signals, ditch maintenance and the like.
The citizens are told that money is not a problem. As a new city there will be an additional $300,000 more in new tax revenues. But what the merger folks are not publicly acknowledging is the loss of some $100,000 in tax millage presently coming from Englewood and Union subsidies. What will the net change in income look like? Voters have a right to and a need for a balanced presentation from their commission.
Same level of service? How will the increased levels of expectation by the new city residents be funded? Street lighting, leaf pick-up, street sweeping, parks, etceteras, are not luxuries in most cities, they are simply expected amenities for taxes paid. The public needs and deserves to hear a full discussion about cost on these matters. Or, with safety a hot-button in all communities, how will the need for a beefed up police force be funded? As an example, Englewood has 17 full-time, sworn police officers, while the Township and Clayton, combined, have only half as many.
Englewood property taxes are the lowest in Northmont. Are present Township residents going to have their taxes brought up to the level of Clayton, or are the folks in Clayton going to have their taxes reduced? Something has to give; you can't have both. There will be no more status quo. Merger role model Trotwood had to increase taxes when it merged with Madison Township. Riverside, another merger role-model, is in deep financial straits, with tax projections failing to live up to initial, optimistic projections.
Nothing to worry about in the area of economic development? The township boasts of raising millions in recent years for economic development. But where did all these millions come from? Was it truly township funds, or does the figure reflect the water tower, Garber Road and other Township projects funded and built by Montgomery County? It doesn't diminish the importance of the improvements, but the merger commission’s spin on the funding implies that the Township and Clayton already have economic development muscle. I challenge that, and the citizens should too.
These are just a few of the questions that need to be openly and objectively addressed by the Merger Commission. Knowing Don Imbus, John Beattie, and other Commission members and neighbors, I respect their dedication for the cause and their right to pursue it. In turn, I trust they support the same standards for those of us who disagree and expect logical defensible justification for an action that will dissect and remake our community forever.
Or as Don Imbus summed it up so succinctly...”there’s always room for public debate.
Ed Kemper, Mayor
City of Englewood