Mending Fences with Other People’s Posts and Wire: Lakota’s supporters divide up the community

Upon the announcement of the 2013 Lakota levy both sides of the issue began voicing their opinions, and one fellow that represented how the typical YES voter for tax increases thinks left a series of comments favoring the levy which can be seen below.  The guy named AJ Malott isn’t a bad guy, just a person who sees public education as an entitlement similar to Social Security and Medicaid, and he believes that the older residents in Lakota should be willing to pay for his children’s education because he is paying for their senior oriented retirements.   He also makes a point to mention No Lakota Levy, which is a group I played a large part in formulating so explanations are in order.   First, let’s see what AJ thinks.

AJ Malott · Cincinnati, Ohio

And another thing, isn’t it interesting that the so-called leader of the NoLakota levy group owns a contracting company? Is he expecting an influx of work when no one wants to buy/build/remodel in the community? People only want to invest in their homes if they feel connected to their home and community, and plan on staying.

AJ Malott · Cincinnati, Ohio

I thought we were smart by moving into the Lakota district 4 years ago BECAUSE of the support and quality of the schools. So, yes, lets put that in jeopardy so other millennials whom are starting their families do not want to move here. And, then those who want to move because they don’t want to pay the taxes can experience declining home values. Then, it can be a lose-lose situation for all.

AJ Malott · Cincinnati, Ohio

With the exception that they claim that the older generation doesn’t want to pay for schools for the younger generation. Well, doesn’t this whole system we have designed center around everyone paying their collective share. When one group decides they want to opt out (the seniors), it puts undue pressures on the other groups. So, if they can do it, I’m not sure why our generation can’t do the same thing. You pay for schools and I will continue to pay into benefits I’m sure I’ll never see any of.

AJ Malott · Cincinnati, Ohio

You know, I am finding it really difficult to continue to pay that Social Security and Medicare tax out of my paycheck. I look forward to the next generation of politicians that feel the same way, and look to make cuts to those “entitlement” programs. If you don’t want to support my child’s future, why should we support yours.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130708/NEWS/307080057/Lakota-Without-levy-district-will-decline

In that article which the commenter referenced, Bob Hutsenpiller gave a statement representing No Lakota Levy’s position.   He simply said any tax hike will be a tough sell to older residents in Liberty and West Chester Townships.  This prompted AJ Malott to assume that he was in a position to offer critical review about Hutsenpiller.   Bob went on to say “Lakota officials should continue its recent budget cutting while the seniors, retirees and residents of the district go through these rough economic times. Most of the seniors of the Lakota district are contemplating moving out of the district just to reduce their tax burden.”  For saying that, Malott felt entitled to deliver a subtle attack in order to defend his child’s “right” to a free education.  So before going into a dissemination of Malott’s comments which represent the average levy supporter in all public schools, I must put a book end into my involvement with No Lakota Levy prior to this upcoming campaign.  To discuss that I have to refer back to a Middletown Journal article from the summer of 2011 where members of No Lakota Levy without my agreement attempted to make a deal with the Yes Vote group at Lakota.  I was tipped off about the event by the reporter covering the story.  The article can be seen below.

Members of the No Lakota group are in disagreement about whether they would support a levy if Lakota puts one on the ballot.

 

West Chester Twp. resident Mark Sennet spoke to the board of education Monday, saying the No Lakota group would support a “conservative” levy in 2012 if the board would bypass the election this November.

 

However, No Lakota member Rich Hoffman, who has typically spoken on behalf of the group, said no discussion had occurred at a meeting about supporting a levy, and he was holding fast to his stance on never supporting a levy.

 

Hoffman said there may be a split in the group, but he thinks the 50-and-older crowd will stand with him.

 

Sennet said Lakota officials have made “a valiant effort to try to work and control spending,” but people still need time to recover from the economic crisis. He said he and several developers would be on the board’s side if it waited for November 2012.

 

“We acknowledge that there were changes made,” he said. “The businesses had to make changes. The citizens had to make changes, and we were glad to see the union and teachers and board agreed to a pay freeze. But if the levy were to pass, then I guess that would be good for the community.”

Board member Ray Murray said he was pleased the business community is recognizing the district’s transparency and how it is listening to the community.

 

“There are going to be people who are not going to ever say yes to anything, and there’s nothing you can do about it,” he said. “We’ve got to generate more revenue. We can’t survive on a 2005 budget.”

Former For Lakota levy chairwoman Sandy Wheatley said the board and district representatives have been mending fences with those in opposition since the last election.

http://www.middletownjournal.com/news/news/local/no-lakota-group-split-on-next-levy-1/nNRfH/

Needles to say, the kind of “fence mending” Wheatley was talking about was an attempt by the levy supporters to split up our group.  As she stated in her comments, there would always be people like me who would say NO to a tax increase, so the Lakota administration attempted to cut deals and split up our group so they wouldn’t have an opposition for the upcoming election in 2011, which of course didn’t work.  Prior to forming No Lakota Levy Sennet contacted me about joining forces as in the previous levy I had been doing my own thing.  He had been working from a group with a different name.  When he asked me to join his group, we called it No Lakota Levy which went on to defeat the next two attempts.  But before the second attempt under that name, Sennet had decided that the kitchen was too hot for him.  The social pressure of not supporting a levy impacted him, which was what Wheatley was referring to.  I witnessed some of the most open extortion I have ever seen through charity events, boycotts, and behind the scenes manipulation that was rancid with sinister intentions.   By the second levy, many of the people in No Lakota Levy didn’t want to be seen at meetings with me because they were afraid that such associations would harm their businesses, even though No Lakota Levy was saving them tens of millions of dollars in taxes.  In private meetings they liked my company, but they didn’t feel comfortable associating with me in public, for fear that the Levy Addicts would connect the dots and find out that they were members of No Lakota Levy.  Bob Hutsenpiller was the exception.

Once Lakota hired Superintendent Mantia her mode of operation was to apply even more pressure on the business community “mending fences.”  It didn’t work by the 2011 attempt in November so Mantia went to work with new strategies in the winter of 2012.  After my events with Sennet at No Lakota Levy, I wasn’t sure I wanted to handcuff myself to playing such a front man while so many others stayed in hiding for fear of being associated with an anti-tax group.  I played along for a while, but did not like the direction the rest of the group wanted to go.  The emphasis on public image of No Lakota Levy was becoming much more important, and I didn’t like that, and I wanted out.  I felt it would be better for No Lakota Levy if people like Hutsenpiller spoke on their own behalf, and we discussed it in meetings about future levy attempts by Lakota.  But I was very good at my job, and so long as I was there, it allowed the people who were most effected by commercial real-estate taxes to use me as a shield, which was giving Lakota the illusion that their “fence mending” was working in their favor.

I meant it when I said that in the next election Lakota would have to deal with No Lakota Levy on one angle, and myself on the other.  I don’t like to mend fences, because doing such a thing only benefits the people who build the fences to begin with, and those fences were built by Lakota politics.   I don’t like deals, peer pressure and financial decisions made under coercion and I prefer to call a spade a spade.   But I am glad to see Hutsenpiller speak reasonably representing his stance.  The amount of money that Lakota is asking people like him to pay in additional taxes is bewildering.  It is just a shame that others like him are so cold with their tongues.  Without question, they will be NO Votes in the upcoming election, but they are careful what they say in public because they will have to see people like AJ Malott at social events frequently who have no idea how much money the tax increases cost a business, and can never hope to comprehend.  Those phantom business owners don’t want the ramifications of being out of agreement with the “fence builders” like Lakota’s current superintendent, for fear that the lack of “cooperation” will have a dire cost against their livelihoods.  Unlike their contemporaries in public education, the business owners cannot raise taxes to cover their costs.  They have to actually nurture a customer base.

Every time there is a new Lakota levy there are new people like AJ Malott who come and go from the community.  They move to Lakota for the nice green space, the shopping, and the schools, but they don’t know much about the character of the area.  I grew up in Liberty Township and I know what kind of place it has always been.  It was named after the American Revolution just as the City of Monroe to the North and Hamilton to the West were named after key members of the American rebellion.  And most of the long term residents I know who have lived in the area most of their lives have that kind of blood deep in their veins no matter what their economic or social status proclaims now, Hutsenpiller is of that type.  They are free spirits who resent “fence mending” as much as I do.  They will do what they must for their businesses, but what they think in private is an entirely different matter.   The people who support these school levies are typically young people who are newer parents, or people who came from progressive places like New England, or California so they don’t really understand the argument against school funding and public education in general.

For me, I want to argue against the entire premise of public education, not just the ridiculousness of the funding.  I am encouraged to see other people rise to the occasion to make those points, which free me up to make the larger arguments.   The Lakota Levy to me wouldn’t mean much in financial investment, it’s the essence of the implication that is the problem.  I spend more on a typical dinner than the levy would cost my residence.  But the real cost of the levy is against the business owner, people like Bob Hutsenpiller who cannot build enough buildings to possibly cover the tens of thousands of dollars his taxes will go up if the levy passes.  Bob is not alone.  There are dozens of people like him who will pay millions in additional taxes if the levy passes, and it is a shame they don’t do more to defend themselves, instead of getting stuck in the political trap set by people who want to “mend fences” when the entire cost of the materials for the fence come from the business owner.

Rich Hoffman

Give yourself the gift of ADVENTURE.  CLICK HERE!