One man's trash, another taxpayer's treasure

One man’s trash, another taxpayer’s treasure

Once upon a time in the Olden Days, there was a popular saying that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Obviously, that saying is not politically correct in this Modern Era.

   A reasonable facsimile of the phrase, if applied today, might be along the lines of: One Non-Gender-Specific Human Being’s Worthless Belongings are Another Non-Gender-Specific Human Being’s Goods. Or something like that.

   But in a recent public-private property transaction between the city of Hillsboro and a local entrepreneur, suffice it to say that one man’s trash is another taxpayer’s treasure.

   In this particular transaction, a local taxpayer found a small bit of treasure after purchasing the contents of the former Hillsboro safety building for a reported $740, according to the city auditor.

   By his own admission, the buyer recouped his $740 expenses by selling just one item of the many stored in the uptown building along High Street and Gov. Trimble (or Foraker?) Place. That particular item brought roughly $3,000 and most likely was purchased by the taxpayers for $4,000 or more.

   One man’s trash…

   Then, there’s the generator that will surely come in handy during the next Ice Storm or sustained Power Outage. You can just see the headlines this winter: Ice Storm KOs Power; Where’s That Darned Generator?

   One man’s trash…

   We have before us, courtesy of Hillsboro City Auditor Gary Lewis’ response to a request for public information, Exhibit A. Exhibit A is an inventory of many items (38 in all) that were left in the former city building by the Hillsboro Police Department.

   Among these items are several bicycles, a scooter, numerous desks and office chairs, a filing cabinet or two, an air conditioner, a computer monitor and keyboard, a TV, tables and other assorted taxpayer-purchased items.  

   All of which were included in the $740 price of the building’s contents.

   One man’s trash…

   According to the auditor, when he asked for a similar inventory (Exhibit B?) from the fire department, he was told that the department had assumed there would be an auction and they did not have a prepared inventory.

   “The assistant chief said he would have to do it by memory,” the auditor said.

   Not that it really matters to taxpayers. Taxpayers no longer care, given their apparent apathy to city decisions. And, these are city leaders' decisions, not the decisions of the police and fire departments.

   Of course it most likely does matter to the city auditor and to the state auditor, as these items have been depreciated from the city inventory and there are those tedious, year-end reconciliations to prepare.

   As we reported here earlier this week, when the state of Ohio had considerable excess taxpayer-purchased equipment to discard, the state scheduled a public auction. Even Gov. Ted Strickland’s administration was considerate enough to do that.

   On the local level, however, taxpayers get less consideration.

   One man’s trash…

   According to the auditor, the Ohio Revised Code (721.15) has specific value limits on the sale of public property.

   And while it’s arguable whether any single item in the former city building exceeded the minimal requirements for an auction, common sense and good faith for the taxpayers suggest a public sale was in order. Once again, it’s obvious little or no consideration was given to city taxpayers by the city administrators.

   If memory serves, when the Hillsboro City Schools vacated its former school buildings, public auctions were held and the schools enjoyed a bit of much-needed revenue without going to the taxpayers. The county sheriff held an auction of items confiscated by his department this past August. If it works for the state, the county and for the schools, why not the city – which reportedly could use the money?

   Section 721.15 of the ORC states “Disposition of property unneeded, obsolete or unfit for municipal purposes. (A) Personal property not needed for municipal purposes, the estimated value of which is less than $1,000, may be sold by the board or officer having supervision or management of that property. If the estimated value of that property is $1,000 or more, it shall be sold only when authorized by an ordinance of the legislative authority of the municipal corporation  and approved by the board, officer, or director having supervision or management of that property. When so authorized, the board, officer, or director shall make a written contract with the highest and best bidder after advertisement for not less than two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation within the municipal corporation.”

   The city paid $3,200 for one item left in the building and $1,557 for another. Perhaps both have been depreciated below the  $1,000 threshold.

   One city official told us the cost of advertising would be more than the profits from an auction. (I realize some newspaper rates are pretty high, especially for public notices and such, but still…)

   The primary question remains: Prior to selling the building’s contents, was any consideration given to the taxpayers who purchased these items? We all know the answer to that one.

* * * 

RINO VOINO:

I KNOW, TAX-O

   Did Sen. George Voinovich sleep through the Nov. 2, 2010 midterm elections? Did he miss that little episode in U.S. political history earlier this month? 

   Did Ol’ George miss that taxpayers sent a message clear as the crystal waters of the Dry Tortugas that said: “CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING! DO NOT RAISE TAXES!?”

   How many tax-and-spenders were elected to Congress the week before last?

Was there no one on Ol’ George’s staff who could have poked the tired, old RINO in the ribs and said, “Yo, Senator, seriously, this is one bad road trip. Dude, let’s not go there?”

   Nonetheless, Ohio’s only so-called Republican senator wants to raise gas taxes by 25 cents a gallon to help the highway funds.

   In spite of numerous analyses showing a better solution, Voino and his conscience of a liberal, knows best. Or does he?

   Before seeking an additional 25-cent gas tax, let’s keep in mind that this Congress and the Obama administration, through more deficit financing, have funneled more than $10 billion into a rail system, with more than 80 percent going to so-called high-speed passenger service, used by less than 2 percent of surface travel passengers. That $10 billion alone is 1/3 of the funds allegedly needed for highway repairs.

   The high-speed 3C train wreck was a boondoggle in Ohio and Gov.-elect John Kasich was smart enough to say so. The same message applies when we continue to divert needed highway funds to unneeded passenger rail.

Obviously, the senators agree that highways are an integral part of America’s future. Why else would they insist on more funding?

   Dr. Ronald D. Utt, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, points out that diversionary spending is estimated at $19.9 billion, or about 38 percent of the total spent from the trust fund. “As a consequence, motorists will receive only about 62 percent of what they have paid into the fund for general purpose roads and safety programs,” Dr. Utt said.

“Redeploying these diverted funds back to the roads used by the motorists and truckers who fund the system would yield the equivalent of a 50-percent increase in new spending for road improvements and capacity increases.”

   In other words, Senator, just follow the transportation money that’s already available instead of trying to raise taxes on gasoline, which will hurt lower income families much more than folks in your income bracket.

   With many highway and transportation advocates arguing in favor of a fuel tax increase to bring more money to the system, Dr. Utt’s analysis “reveals a goldmine of extra resources that can be used for roads by ending diversions to wasteful and low-priority projects and recommitting them to roads.”

   Dr. Utt’s analysis can be found at: www.heritage.org.

   Dr. Veronique de Rugy, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute (www.cato.org – which, like www.heritage.org – ought to be required reading for all members of Congress) who holds a Ph.D. from the University of Paris-Sorbonne, wrote about the Voinovich gas tax proposal this week, saying: “We don’t need to raise taxes; we should cut spending. When families are in trouble financially, they don’t try to fix their problems by going out to dinner. They cut their expenses – and not just their daily trip to

Starbucks. They stop going on vacations and they make fewer trips to the mall. The federal government needs to do the same.”

   Amen, Sister.

   “(The gas tax) is a bad idea, anyway,” Dr. de Rugy says. “The economics is quite simple: What you need to generate tax revenue is a thriving economy. Taxing something means raising its cost, and raising its cost means that you will get less of it. If the government taxes the economy heavily, it will slow the growth that it needs to generate tax revenue. That’s why you can’t tax your way out of it.”

   Ohio Gov.-elect John Kasich gets it. Ohio Sen. George Voinovich doesn’t.

   Let’s hope the Sen. Voinovich and Sen. Tom Carper tax proposal runs out of gas during the lame duck Congress.

   Rory Ryan is publisher and editor of The Highland County Press.

Once upon a time in the Olden Days, there was a popular saying that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Obviously, that saying is not politically correct in this Modern Era.

   A reasonable facsimile of the phrase, if applied today, might be along the lines of: One Non-Gender-Specific Human Being’s Worthless Belongings are Another Non-Gender-Specific Human Being’s Goods. Or something like that.

   But in a recent public-private property transaction between the city of Hillsboro and a local entrepreneur, suffice it to say that one man’s trash is another taxpayer’s treasure.

   In this particular transaction, a local taxpayer found a small bit of treasure after purchasing the contents of the former Hillsboro safety building for a reported $740, according to the city auditor.

   By his own admission, the buyer recouped his $740 expenses by selling just one item of the many stored in the uptown building along High Street and Gov. Trimble (or Foraker?) Place. That particular item brought roughly $3,000.

   One man’s trash…

   Then, there’s the generator (albeit a donated one) that will surely come in handy during the next Ice Storm or sustained Power Outage. You can just see the headlines this winter: Ice Storm KOs Power; Where’s That Darned Generator?

   One man’s trash…

   We have before us, courtesy of Hillsboro City Auditor Gary Lewis’ response to a request for public information, Exhibit A. Exhibit A is an inventory of many items (38 in all) that were left in the former city building by the Hillsboro Police Department.

   Among these items are several bicycles, a scooter, numerous desks and office chairs, a filing cabinet or two, an air conditioner, a computer monitor and keyboard, a TV, tables and other assorted taxpayer-purchased or donated items.  

   All of which were included in the $740 price of the building’s contents.

   One man’s trash…

   According to the auditor, when he asked for a similar inventory (Exhibit B?) from the fire department, he was told that the department had assumed there would be an auction and they did not have a prepared inventory.

   “The assistant chief said he would have to do it by memory,” the auditor said.

   Not that it really matters to taxpayers. Taxpayers no longer care, given their apparent apathy to city decisions. And, these are city leaders' decisions, not the decisions of the police and fire departments.

   Of course it most likely does matter to the city auditor and to the state auditor, as these items have been depreciated from the city inventory and there are those tedious, year-end reconciliations to prepare.

   As we reported here earlier this week, when the state of Ohio had considerable excess taxpayer-purchased equipment to discard, the state scheduled a public auction. Even Gov. Ted Strickland’s administration was considerate enough to do that.

   On the local level, however, taxpayers get less consideration.

   One man’s trash…

   According to the auditor, the Ohio Revised Code (721.15) has specific value limits on the sale of public property.

   And while it’s arguable whether any single item in the former city building exceeded the minimal requirements for an auction, common sense and good faith for the taxpayers suggest a public sale was in order. Once again, it’s obvious little or no consideration was given to city taxpayers by the city administrators.

   If memory serves, when the Hillsboro City Schools vacated its former school buildings, public auctions were held and the schools enjoyed a bit of much-needed revenue without going to the taxpayers. The county sheriff held an auction of items confiscated by his department this past August. If it works for the state, the county and for the schools, why not the city – which reportedly could use the money?

   Section 721.15 of the ORC states “Disposition of property unneeded, obsolete or unfit for municipal purposes. (A) Personal property not needed for municipal purposes, the estimated value of which is less than $1,000, may be sold by the board or officer having supervision or management of that property. If the estimated value of that property is $1,000 or more, it shall be sold only when authorized by an ordinance of the legislative authority of the municipal corporation  and approved by the board, officer, or director having supervision or management of that property. When so authorized, the board, officer, or director shall make a written contract with the highest and best bidder after advertisement for not less than two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation within the municipal corporation.”

   The city paid $3,200 for one item left in the building. Perhaps it has been depreciated below the $1,000 threshold.

   One city official told us the cost of advertising would be more than the profits from an auction. (I realize some newspaper rates are pretty high, especially for public notices and such, but still…)

   The primary question remains: Prior to selling the building’s contents, was any consideration given to the taxpayers who purchased these items? We all know the answer to that one.

* * * 

   Did Sen. George Voinovich sleep through the Nov. 2, 2010 midterm elections? Did he miss that little episode in U.S. political history earlier this month? 

   Did Ol’ George miss that taxpayers sent a message clear as the crystal waters of the Dry Tortugas that said: “CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING! DO NOT RAISE TAXES!?”

   How many tax-and-spenders were elected to Congress the week before last?

Was there no one on Ol’ George’s staff who could have poked the tired, old RINO in the ribs and said, “Yo, Senator, seriously, this is one bad road trip. Dude, let’s not go there?”

   Nonetheless, Ohio’s only so-called Republican senator wants to raise gas taxes by 25 cents a gallon to help the highway funds.

   In spite of numerous analyses showing a better solution, Voino and his conscience of a liberal, knows best. Or does he?

   Before seeking an additional 25-cent gas tax, let’s keep in mind that this Congress and the Obama administration, through more deficit financing, have funneled more than $10 billion into a rail system, with more than 80 percent going to so-called high-speed passenger service, used by less than 2 percent of surface travel passengers. That $10 billion alone is 1/3 of the funds allegedly needed for highway repairs.

   The high-speed 3C train wreck was a boondoggle in Ohio and Gov.-elect John Kasich was smart enough to say so. The same message applies when we continue to divert needed highway funds to unneeded passenger rail.

Obviously, the senators agree that highways are an integral part of America’s future. Why else would they insist on more funding?

   Dr. Ronald D. Utt, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, points out that diversionary spending is estimated at $19.9 billion, or about 38 percent of the total spent from the trust fund. “As a consequence, motorists will receive only about 62 percent of what they have paid into the fund for general purpose roads and safety programs,” Dr. Utt said.

“Redeploying these diverted funds back to the roads used by the motorists and truckers who fund the system would yield the equivalent of a 50-percent increase in new spending for road improvements and capacity increases.”

   In other words, Senator, just follow the transportation money that’s already available instead of trying to raise taxes on gasoline, which will hurt lower income families much more than folks in your income bracket.

   With many highway and transportation advocates arguing in favor of a fuel tax increase to bring more money to the system, Dr. Utt’s analysis “reveals a goldmine of extra resources that can be used for roads by ending diversions to wasteful and low-priority projects and recommitting them to roads.”

   Dr. Utt’s analysis can be found at: www.heritage.org.

   Dr. Veronique de Rugy, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute (www.cato.org – which, like www.heritage.org – ought to be required reading for all members of Congress) who holds a Ph.D. from the University of Paris-Sorbonne, wrote about the Voinovich gas tax proposal this week, saying: “We don’t need to raise taxes; we should cut spending. When families are in trouble financially, they don’t try to fix their problems by going out to dinner. They cut their expenses – and not just their daily trip to Starbucks. They stop going on vacations and they make fewer trips to the mall. The federal government needs to do the same.”

   Amen, Sister.

   “(The gas tax) is a bad idea, anyway,” Dr. de Rugy says. “The economics is quite simple: What you need to generate tax revenue is a thriving economy. Taxing something means raising its cost, and raising its cost means that you will get less of it. If the government taxes the economy heavily, it will slow the growth that it needs to generate tax revenue. That’s why you can’t tax your way out of it.”

   Ohio Gov.-elect John Kasich gets it. Ohio Sen. George Voinovich doesn’t.

   Let’s hope the Sen. Voinovich and Sen. Tom Carper tax proposal runs out of gas during the lame duck Congress.

   Rory Ryan is publisher and editor of The Highland County Press.