Badin vs. Fredericktown
Miamisburg graduation 2012
Valley View vs. Greenville
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.
Scott Elliott is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He writes about education, city and suburban issues, politics, business, workforce and consumer issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2010 > December > 09
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Editorial: Peggy Lehner best Senate pick for Republicans
State Rep. Peggy Lehner, R-Kettering, is the best choice for the state Senate seat being vacated by Secretary of State-elect Jon Husted.
Senate Republicans will pick a replacement. Democrats need not apply.
Rep. Lehner is known to community leaders and much of the public as a diligent, pragmatic, experienced participant in community affairs. She first came to public attention as a leader in the Right to Life movement.
Whatever expectations that role may have fostered in some, she has worked well with a wide variety of people on the Kettering city council, as a community volunteer and as a state representative.
As a freshman legislator, she focused on health-care issues, among others, and managed to get a bipartisan piece of legislation passed in a legislature in which not many bills moved.
She has emphasized the need for bipartisanship, a call that serves the Republicans well as they are riding high. The last time they were riding this high, they managed to continue the ride for a long time by taking a pragmatic, non-ideological course when George Voinovich and Bob Taft were in the governor’s office.
Today, Democrats and independents are not major forces in the Ohio Senate. But they are plentiful in Montgomery County. Many of them would feel most comfortable going to Rep. Lehner to discuss local needs as they are affected by Columbus.
She is a team player, not a hot dog. Republicans in Columbus don’t have to worry about her looking for opportunities to outflank them on the populist right as they struggle with the tough decisions the state faces.
The other Senate seat in Montgomery County — the one that includes most of Dayton — is now in the hands of newcomer Republican Bill Beagle. So having a known entity, a friendly face and a respected player in the other spot becomes all the more important.
The other candidates for the Senate seat want to outflank Rep. Lehner on the right. Outgoing Rep. Seth Morgan, of Huber Heights, is a darling of the Tea Party, which has circulated a petition in his behalf. In the past, he has said he wasn’t much interested in a Senate seat, having his eye on other offices and jobs.
He ran for state auditor against the Republicans’ endorsed candidate and lost. That required not running for re-election to his House seat. Now he has new reason to be interested in the Senate seat.
Though he has been on the Huber Heights city council, Mr. Morgan’s unmistakable interest is in the conservative movement and higher office, rather than the nuts and bolts of state and local government. To many participants in Dayton, he remains a name in the news, rather than a contact.
Among other candidates, Lara Norris, a representative of the Montgomery County Republican Party on the state party committee, was associated with J. Kenneth Blackwell’s campaign for governor in 2006. Dr. David Westbrock is an official of the county party who twice ran for Congress. Reps. Lehner and Morgan have the best credentials.
Sen.-elect Beagle, who will sit on the screening committee that hears from the candidates, and his colleagues should understand that the future of the Republican Party in Montgomery County does not lie in moving the party further to the right, as Rep. Morgan would like.
It lies in the kind of connection between the county, the Republicans and the state government that has been fostered by the more pragmatic likes of Jeff Jacobson, Jon Husted and Peggy Lehner.
They are decidedly more conservative — certainly on social issues — than some important local Republicans who preceded them. But they are less so than, say, Ken Blackwell, the Tea Party and Seth Morgan.
TweetPlease share your comments on our facebook page.
Martin Gottlieb: 3C salvage effort can’t save Ohio from itself
The most recent efforts to save the 3C passenger train always had certain aspects of a Hail Mary pass. That’s the football maneuver whereby a team that needs a touchdown in the last few seconds of a game tries a pass that’s so long the chances for success are minimal.
And yet, the pass metaphor isn’t quite right. The 3C salvage effort wasn’t really one long pass. It was a bunch of small efforts, each of which had to work out. And each — standing alone — seemed more or less doable.
The problem at hand was, of course, that Gov.-elect John Kasich
didn’t want to accept the $400 million the feds were offering to build a passenger line from Cincinnati to Cleveland via Columbus and Dayton. Though the feds were putting up all the capital, the state would have been responsible for the operating money, which was estimated at $17 million a year. (That money might have come out of federal transportation aid for a while, but would have had to be diverted from roads and such.)
Since the election, some supporters of 3C have been thinking about ways to come up with the money from private sources. If they could do that, they could also, under the law, set up an agency separate from the state to run the trains. To do that, they would probably need the cooperation of the state. But why would the governor object if he didn’t have to put up any money?
The crunch was the money. But Columbus businessman Barry Fromm, who wanted to make train cars for the system, said he thought the money could be raised from various “stakeholders.” He said developers of territory around train stations would have an interest in putting up money. So would people who make or service train cars. He even mentioned freight train companies, which might benefit from upgrades in the tracks or other aspects of their systems.
One advocacy group even said that money coming out of the planned development at the Riverside train depot could be enough to cover the $17 million.
But the salvage effort was just getting started when the news came from Washington on Thursday: The federal Transportation Department is giving the $400 million to other states that are going ahead with train projects.
The Obama administration is apparently worried that if it doesn’t spend the money quickly, the newly empowered Republicans who arrive in Washington in January will try to stop everything they can stop.
Who knew what about the plans of the Ohio 3C supporters isn’t clear. Those plans hadn’t come in for much public attention. An editorial in this newspaper Dec. 5 raised the possibility of private efforts in general terms.
And a news story with more specific information was published on the same day as the Transportation Department announcement.
For whatever reason, nobody succeeded in convincing the Obama administration that there was still hope in Ohio for fast-enough action.
Passenger rail in Ohio has had a long and winding path. The path will continue to wind, somehow, in some direction. The idea of passenger service in such an exceptionally populous and compact place is too powerful to die.
But as of now, the state seems to have blown it. The fault clearly is not with the diehard visionaries who wouldn’t give up, or in Washington, but with a governor-elect who adopted the language of certitude in a political campaign: “It’s dead.”
John Kasich couldn’t trouble himself to seek compromise over what is — by state standards — an absurdly small amount of money.
Privatization should have been an idea coming from the Kasich camp itself. At least the governor wouldn’t be starting off his term without his nose, having cut it off to spite his face.
TweetPlease share your comments on our facebook page.
Guest column: Other issues fed concerns about B&B’s liquor license
This commentary was written by Jeff Peterson, a resident of the Oregon District.
Re Editorial Page Editor Ellen Belcher’s Nov. 21 column, “Oregon’s vitality not tapped out”: The column discussed Jeffrey and Leslie Gonyas’ unsuccessful attempt to obtain a liquor license for a 12-seat “wine bar” at their bed and breakfast, the Inn Port D’Vino, in the Oregon District. These permit issues, as well as other liquor permit issues within the Oregon Historic District, have been discussed ad nauseam.
Belcher’s column was “pro-liquor licensing” in general within the historic district and failed to discuss a number of important issues.
The Gonyas’ application is for a D-3 permit — a “nightclub license” serving liquor until 1 a.m. Having stayed in numerous B&Bs over the years, I have yet to stay in one where a “hard liquor” license was held. At most, the operators might have a wine and beer permit.
There is concern among neighbors about the need for such a permit. A significant number of residents would be supportive of a wine license, since that’s more in line with the needs of a bed and breakfast establishment.
A liquor license will significantly enhance the long-term resale value of the Gonyas’ bed and breakfast; it’s a smart long-term decision for them. But this particular permit would be the same kind of license that Fred and Sylvia’s and the Southern Belle held. Both of those bars were nothing but problems for the neighborhood. Call it what you want, but this license is for a bar.
The proposed permit location also encroaches into our residential neighborhood. The Gonyas’ B&B abuts residences and, if it had a liquor license, would decrease those homes’ value and desirability. Deference should be given to those adjacent residential owners. Do you want to live next to a bar?
If the permit ever changes hands, Oregon residents could end up with a less than desirable permit holder and establishment. As a former police officer, I can attest to the fact that once a permit is in place at an address, a subsequent transfer is significantly easier.
Residents can still object to any transfer, but the counter-argument is that there’s already a bar in place, so what’s the big deal? Unless you have a “bad” applicant, the exchange will sail through.
There was a distinct lack of communication in the early application process between the Gonyas, the Oregon Historic District Society, the Southeast Priority Board Land Use Committee, the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Oregon District Business Association. It is time for the business association to get involved with the residential sector and work together on issues.
I personally would support the Gonyas’ bid for a beer and wine permit, providing that some sort of agreement could be reached with adjacent residential owners. The Gonyas are good neighbors and an asset to our neighborhood.
TweetPlease share your comments on our facebook page.
Editorial: Washington moves to curb and grow debt
Much has happened in the last few days relating to the nation’s fiscal situation — debt, taxes and all that. Signs of reason, progress and compromise arose.
Unfortunately, however, they are difficult to take seriously if you note what else happened.
On the side of reason, progress and compromise: A bipartisan commission on the national debt passed a serious and useful set of proposals. The commission was widely characterized as having failed because only 11 of its 18 members voted for the report. Fourteen votes would have been needed to force attention from Congress.
But 14 was a heck of a hurdle. Ultimately, the nation doesn’t need a consensus on how to proceed. It needs substantial support from both parties, from liberals and conservatives. The commission delivered that. Both Democrats and Republicans split down the middle, at least in the category of active legislators on the commission.
The package calls for addressing the deficit through cuts in projected spending and hikes in taxes. That is the only reasonable course. The fact that both parties now have politicians committed to taking some action that will upset their respective hardline bases is a step forward, a sign that all politicians aren’t hopelessly frozen in place.
At the same time the commissioners were compromising about long-term debt issues, the president and Congress were compromising about short-term taxing and spending issues. Unfortunately, those compromises went in exactly the opposite direction.
They avoided all difficult steps in favor of whatever easy steps were wanted by one party or the other.
From the beginning, everyone agreed on extending middle-class tax cuts. The Republicans wanted to also extend tax cuts for the most affluent people; they got that. Democrats wanted to extend unemployment compensation benefits; they got that.
Meanwhile, a temporary reduction in Social Security taxes — an idea pushed by Sen.-elect Rob Portman, R-Ohio, during the recent campaign — is included in the compromise, along with a couple of other tax goodies.
The whole thing — put together between the White House and Republican leaders — doesn’t strike everybody as a compromise. Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, is appalled.
“It’s completely irresponsible,” he said, as he prepared to wave goodbye to Washington on his way to retirement. He portrayed the package as a decision to borrow a great deal of money from China (which owns much of the government’s debt) and charge the interest to taxpayers. “You’ve got to pay for it,” he said, three times.
Sen. Voinovich originally voted for the tax cuts that are up for extension, but at one point took a hard line in favor of making them temporary.
Too bad he’s retiring. It’d be interesting to see if he could be renominated after taking his position, given where the Republican Party is today.
The fact that the White House and Republicans came to an agreement is, in itself, a good thing. The liberals who are furious at the president for not achieving his long-sought goal of ending the cuts for people in the top ranges have no good case. He didn’t have the votes to achieve that goal; but the proposed extension isn’t permanent.
However, this deal can hardly be held up as a great day for bipartisanship. While members of the president’s anti-debt commission — which has no formal power — were agreeing on difficult measures, the White House and Republican leaders were agreeing on a package that would make controlling the debt all the more difficult.
TweetPlease share your comments on our facebook page.
Editorial: GE’s strategy is one Dayton especially likes
State and local officials and the University of Dayton were pretty pumped about General Electric Co.’s recent decision to put a $51 million research and development center on UD’s campus.
A recent New York Times story gives important context — and validation — to that excitement.
GE is digging out of a hole created by losses at its finance arm, GE Capital. The housing bubble, the foreclosure crisis and the tanking of the economy resulted in huge losses for that division, after it had been a cash cow for the company.
GE Chairman Jeffrey R. Immelt told The Times that the company is now aggressively going back to its roots: inventing and manufacturing, especially products that small companies can’t take to market because the capital costs are too great.
We’re talking “next generation jet engines, power turbines, locomotives, nuclear plants, water-treament systems, medical-imaging equipment, solar panels and windmills,” according to The Times.
The fact that GE, a Fortune 100 company that is the country’s No. 2 exporter (after Boeing), chose to invest some of its considerable research and development money here speaks well of Dayton and UD, even allowing for the fact that Wright-Patterson Air Force Base gave Dayton an incredible edge in the competition for this particular center.
Mr. Immelt told The Times that GE’s spending on R&D last year was $3.3 billion and will be greater next year. That investment is what UD hopes the university’s research institute can capitalize on. If it’s successful, that helps it attract sought-after researchers, engineers, scientists and the students who follow accomplished faculty.
Meanwhile, research doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Companies that want to commercialize innovations, and suppliers that want to assist in getting products to market all want to be close to where the experimenting and developing are occurring.
Mr. Immelt, who is from Cincinnati and whose father managed GE’s aircraft business in Evendale, has a vision for GE that resonates in Dayton and Ohio, where manufacturing is still in the blood of many companies and workers. He insists producing things, rather than trading money, is what his company and the country have to get back to if they expect to prosper long-term.
Given GE’s investment in aviation and power generation, the state and region would be crazy not to be looking for even more opportunities to fit into GE’s priorities.
It’s worth remembering, though, that sometimes sheer luck is a huge force in snagging new investment. The Times said Mr. Immelt was recently traveling in Brazil and came back to the office and decreed that the company needed a research lab there. One will indeed be built in Rio de Janeiro.
Getting the R&D center at UD, on the other hand, didn’t happen that effortlessly, what with multiple states negotiating for it and incentive packages being very much part of the negotiations.
It’s not every day that a company with GE’s worldwide reach and staying power comes to town with a new and significant presence. That it’s doing so because of real and perceived strengths in the region is all the better.
TweetPlease share your comments on our facebook page.
