Privatize the tow lot - it should have been left alone in the first place !

I heard it reported on the radio, but I didn't believe it. Later, I heard a clip of someone who sounded like our mayor saying he "wanted a guarantee of a million dollars per year to the city". I guess it's true.

It was only two years ago when the city created this enterprise by ripping the business away from the private sector, now they want to offer it back at a price. Fuck them.

Business friendly ? Like hell we are.

No votes yet

...absolutely insane...but we should all pay attention to who on council votes to sub-contract it versus who voted to take it over in the first place...

We've already predicted this was going to happen.

I certainly hope those tow operators are paying attention...too damn funny.

They kicked out the rent paying vendors to renovate the market. Should have been done in March - instead of the renovations they put it up for sale in June.

What the hell is going on?

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

See the map and listed locations, including the Erie Street Market.

Altho' I can see how it would strike you as incredible. Hit me that way too.

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

(Head shaking)

Is there something in the water around here??

Is there a way to find out who on council voted to take the tow lot on as a city lot? Then see if those same people vote to send it back?

How long will it be before the city trys to sell off the EMS service they're starting? I predict that will go the way of the Tow Lot as well because the vote/thinking was just as flawed not-to-mention morally in question.

Matt Holdridge
The Toledo Tattler


If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

The City did not "take over" the tow lot. Maggie ought to know better.

The City created the tow lot. Prior to that, the city was storing cars all over the city at various private garages. It was difficult to track and inefficient.

The city created the tow lot and made money off of it. However, we want to put those cops back on the street or another light duty assignment. So, we're offering it to the private sector.

Also, the city is willing to entertain any and all reasonable offers for the Erie Street Market.

Brian used the term limited, or light, duty for those police who served in the tow yard. As a former union steward I am familiar with the term.

Management has a responsibility to provide employees injured on the job with an opportunity for employment (it also often within their best interests). For those who were injured off the job the rules become a little fuzzy. Often it is the length of service that can be used to determine whether that employee can be separated with a disability payment (sometimes a pension), or is just separated. Painting your house and falling can be very expensive in terms of your employment.

So these people who have been employed in the tow yard because they were injured on the job will have to be provided other employment, or separated from the police force, and paid a pension (if they have been employed long enough). As for the bookkeeping trick involved in

Old South End Broadway

At one point in the late 90's enough people were on light/limited duty at the Main Post Office that Management decided to get stricter about it. They sent letters to everyone to report to work (a spot would be found for them), or be fired. One employee was bed-ridden, but we (the Union) was assured that a special case would be installed so that she could sort mail by hand from her hospital bed.

Needless to say an arbitrator found this to be ridiculous, and the employee was allowed to continue on "light duty" until she was able to get a disability retirement. It only cost the union about 100 hours of work to resolve that Management "decision".

Old South End Broadway

Can't comment on how it was done, why it was done, or if it should have been done. That was the Ford Administration.

Light duty officers will be moved to other administrative positions, freeing up officers to be put back on the streets.

Not all of the cops from the tow lot will be put back on the streets. But we hope to add 2 or 3 to the streets.

MikeyA: Something tells me Maggie doesn't need you to defend her. She is a private citizen, but remains a public figure via her work on WSPD and appearing on a number of blogs as an expert on government. I'm happy for her for the opportunity at WSPD and I recognize her as an authority on government on both the municipal level and county level with her having served in both for 13 years.

It's not personal. Maggie is a veteran. I'm sure she doesn't take it personally and neither should you.

I would be surprised if Maggie took it personally. . .

So, since I've had a few dealings of mine published in the past does that mean a random comment by me on a message board should be openly attacked by a public figure? If so to what extent does it go? I've had letters to the editors criticizing the mayor for comments before. Should that open me to public ridicule by public servants during their time on the public dime? Answering the public is one thing... singling them out and attacking them is another.

Maggie can take care of herself but I am of the type that when I see something I believe unjust I speak up about it. I believe you purposely singled her out despite many others having more provacotive comments on the subject. I at first believed this was because of her politics having read your response I believe it to be because she has helped an organization that has been less then responsive to the mayor's policies and demands. We SHOULD expect more of you.

If you disagree with this assessment then answer me this. Why didn't you attack BrianinVero, Bigjim, Pete, kate, or anyone else who had more to say on the subject?



With regards to Mr. Schwartz, well not until pressed hard enough.

Cop out - it was the Ford's administration. Blame the other person, sorta like the Wi-Fi debacle. Blame the former Director.

We can wait for answer or we could sift through the city budget information posted on the web site, but there is over 300 pages.

Or questions can be posed to the Budget Committee Chairman

I noticed over time that Brian is not able to see Maggie comment on anything and not respond to it. I don't know what the deal is there - but it's been vicious at points.

For the record - I would like to know what law, ruling or just what is it Brian refers to that would qualify Maggie, no longer a public office holder - as a public figure?

You would think that someone hired in a PR role would know the difference between a private citizen who is active in local politics and a public figure - ???

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.


Sorry I couldn't answer your questions. Within six hours of my last post, I was in an emergency room. Got to spend the next two days in the hospital. Unfortunately, they don't have wifi, so I could not respond. Not sure when I'll be back at work.

If you took it personally, then you aren't the person I thought you were.

KateB: I've said it before and I'll say it again: There is nothing I have against Maggie. I helped get her elected. I like her as a person and respected her as an elected official. However, unlike everyone else on this board (at least those willing to identify themselves) she is a public figure, so I'll challenge her.

What code, rule or legislative act are you referring to that would make Maggie a public figure after leaving public office?

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

There is such a thing?

I think it is merely a term of respect for a person that held office, just like a former senator or representative.

Actually Ms. Thurber would be a former office holder as she is not in any office now and why she would be considered a public person is in the mind of Mr. Schwartz as she is not in government anymore.

Maybe there is some sense of friendship that does not come across correctly on his postings sorta like the failed reference to seeing some in an audience.....

Public figure - "A famous person whose life and behavior are the focus of intense public interest and scrutiny."

Everyone knows Maggie Thurber in the community, either through her service as an official or through her disservice being involved in the Noe case. Moreover, she continues to apply her experience and knowledge of local government on both radio and blogs, thats' not something I can just walk into WSPD and do.

People bring lawsuits often over the discrepancy and often misunderstood difference between advocates, celebrities and public figures.

A private citizen has a much higher right to expect privacy than the other two. A celebrity really never has the opportunity to say, hey I've had enough, I quit and I'm going back to private life.

It has long been held that after a public official steps out of the public life, their privacy is respected as a private citizen.

In polite society that is. So, since I've seen lawsuits of this nature over the years - I wonder what it is that makes Mr. Schwartz think that Maggie Thurber is not entitled to the courtesy that other public officials are when they retire to private life.

There must be something - or else it would just be him singling her out for some reason I cannot understand.

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

...of the original post - that being the privatization of the tow lot?

I'm guilty of this myself, but if we all keep going on about whether or not I'm a "public" person, Brian will have accomplished his goal of diverting attention away from the issue.

I don

Old South End Broadway

I can not collect the data you requested Maggie because I've not been in the office since Monday.

Why should I comment on what the Ford Administration did? Neither the mayor nor I am responsible for it.

It seems to me that the same people who were upset that the city created the tow lot are the same people who are now upset with Mayor Finkbeiner for privatizing its operations.

So, which do you want? We'd like to know. I'm not going to debate whether or not it should have been done. The point is, where do we go from here?

Maggie, did you just accuse me of being disingenuous? I'd take that personally if I were not a professional. Why wouldn't I want the issue discussed? It's a good proposal.

So, when you are not incapacitated the data will be forth coming?

"Why should I comment on what the Ford Administration did? Neither the mayor nor I am responsible for it."

Good point, why then bring it up in the first place and not answer and address the original question.

This just reinforces my belief that government is madness and only out to rip off the populace.

The Erie Street Market is NOT for sale, although it should be.

Less than 2 years ago those entrepreneurs had their business stolen by the city because "city services would improve" and "it's in the best interest of the citizens of the city". Now those bullshit reasons are thrown to the wayside because the $1m is needed so badly.

from a May, 05 Blade article: "He (Ludeman) opposed the mayor's (Ford's) initiative this year to open a police tow lot, saying it will take police officers off the street - an assertion the mayor and police Chief Mike Navarre dispute. It also will force private tow operators to lay off workers, Mr. Ludeman said."

Here's the link:

Of course it took Cops off the street. I read the proforma and there was $0.00 budgeted for staffing. ZERO, nada, ziltch. This proforma was a lie generated by Ford to dupe Toledoans into thinking it was a good idea, when all it has done so far was cause the closing of two or more tow services, the layoffs of hard workers at those businesses and, of course, the removal of cops from the streets.

Nice plan - Mr. Ford. It's so nice to have you back in the area, this time fucking-up Toledo Public Schools.

Big Jim

Gambling would be a perfect compliment to the near daily crap shoot that goes on.

The Market is NOT for sale. A buddy called the city and got the straight scoop. The Blade article was wrong on this one.

Brian is your job description to be the public voice of the administration or to get on here and publicly reprimand Maggie, now a private citizen?

I ask because I notice you do both and I'd like to know which one we pay for and which one comes free?



...referred to the duties of the tow lot ... but nice way to try to deflect the criticism...

If you'd wanted a central location, you could have advertised for that orginally.

BTW - how much did the property cost originally, and how much is still owed on it? Will the city still pay the yearly debt on the purchase, or will the 'private sector' now have to lease the property from the city in order to be able to run the tow lot?

And, the definition of 'made money' leaves a lot to be desired, especially since, according to one report, the city didn't include personnel costs because those people were already on the payroll...

I also seem to recall the Chief or someone saying that it wouldn't divert officers from other duties - like street service. So how can you put cops "BACK" on the street if you weren't supposed to take them off the street in the first place?

Love to see the answers to these questions, Brian!

...I'm a private citizen and have NEVER passed myself off as an expert in anything. Further, my ocassional guest host duties on the radio and my routine postings on various blogs do not make me a public figure. As you should know.

And since you really have no idea HOW I've taken your comment, you are outside YOUR realm of expertise when you speculate so. Perhaps you should refrain from such generalizations in the future as it just seems to get you further into a hole...

Now, if you'd like to answer the questions posed...

...Brian...I did take it personally (how else should I take it?) - and continue to do so especially since you just can't seem to answer the questions. As I suggested earlier, you should refrain from such speculation.

Creation of City Tow Lot -

All a matter of public record.

the silence of the tow lot operators.

Oh yeah, they got run out of business. Makes me wonder how the city budgeted the loss of tax revenue from these providers, as well as the employees that ran these companies, the gas used, cigs smoked....revenue revenue!!!!!

Sidetracked by the loss of revenue by the ambulance services.

Well done City Council. Both past and present. And odd how those "mysterious envelopes" that some councilpeople *cough* George *cough* *cough* Skippy *cough* avoided talking about. Remember McCloskey?

By the way, am I the only other person waiting for Brian to answer honestly the questions Maggie posed to Mr Schwartz?

"If you took it personally, then you aren't the person I thought you were."

Don't know where to start on this one...or even if I should...

So, you single me out for criticism and then say it's not personal. What is it then? It's not professional, that's for sure.

You then say you can say whatever you want about me because I'm a public person. Being a blogger doesn't make me a public person...neither does being asked to ocassionaly guest host on a radio station. And even if those things do make me a 'public figure,' it doesn't excuse your behavior.

Then there is the whole, "Maggie is a friend of mine" statements that you've made here and elsewhere... Maybe it's just me, but if one of my friends told me that some criticism I'd uttered was taken personally and offended them - I'd apologize...not offer further criticism on their character. But that's me.

Of course, so often these days, when someone has done something for which they should apologize, they instead react by saying the other person was wrong for being offended.

Perhaps, Brian, you're spending too much time on the 22nd floor and these negative attributes are rubbing off on you. Maybe you're thinking that if you can keep the focus on me, you - and your boss - won't have to be accountable...

Regardless of this personal stuff which you seem to find plenty of time for, you still haven't answered the questions.

my "life and behavior" are the subject of intense public interest and scrutiny? who would've guessed... Boy - anyone who thinks that really needs to get a life...


...If you've got the time and ability to post on here, you've got the time and ability to send an email or make a call to the office to obtain the answers to the questions. And for wanting to discuss such a 'good proposal' you're doing an awful good job accomplishing the opposite.

The questions I asked are relevant to going forward and have nothing to do with 'whether or not it should have been done.'

Instead of continually bringing up the personal, spend some of your time communicating with the 22nd floor about getting answers. I hear Carty likes it when people go 'above and beyond.'

Big Jim

this editorial indicates they still believe it is for sale.

who is right?

Perhaps someone could write as to why members would vote for something as an emergency measure, but not for final passage. What are the political implications of a vote one way or the other?

"The roll was called on passage of the ordinance, as an emergency measure and the vote thereon was as follows: Grachek, Kapszukiewicz, Ludeman, McCloskey, McConnell Hancock, Sarantou, Shultz, Szollosi, Ashford, Brown, Copeland (11) voting yea; nays none."

"The roll was then called on final passage of the ordinance, and the vote thereon was as follows: Grachek, Kapszukiewicz, McConnell Hancock, Szollosi, Ashford, Brown, Copeland (7) voting yea; Ludeman, McCloskey, Sarantou, Shultz (4) voting nay."

"So the ordinance passed, as an emergency measure."

Is it just a matter of "cover your *ss", or are there solid reasons for voting for a measure, and then voting against it.

Old South End Broadway

Mr. Schwartz still to this day has avoided the question as he has stated it was started in the Ford Administration and the circle dance of ever changing thoughts is happening now, not in the Ford Administration.

Seeing that Mr. Schwartz has failed to address the questions, The Blade has this;

"Dan Wagner, president of the Toledo Police Patrolman's Association, objects to the city's plans to allow a private company to run the tow lot.

Mr. Wagner said selling the lot is like "letting money walk out the door."

About 1,000 vehicles are salvaged each year at the North Toledo lot by Voll's Towing, a private towing company contracted by the city.

The city could make $400,000 a year by salvaging the vehicles itself, Mr. Wagner said.

"Why the city would give up that right when we're trying to balance a budget deficit, I don't understand," Mr. Wagner said. "It doesn't make sense."

Chief Navarre said the successful bidder will have to guarantee the city at least $1 million in revenue annually."

"By the way, am I the only other person waiting for Brian to answer honestly the questions Maggie posed to Mr Schwartz?"

Can't say for sure about waiting for "The Schwartz" to answer the questions, but you may be the only only one expecting HONEST answers... ;-)

As Brian's job is being his (dis)honor's personal mouthpiece, most of the rest of us locally have no such expectations of honesty.

Brian HAS to answer as his(dis)honor wishes. . .

Hooda Thunkit

I believe the guy who handles this stuff is Bob Torres. The ESM was on a list of property to be evaluated for possible sale. That's the list the Blade got a hold of. My information which came from Torres (I believe) says that the Erie Street Market is definitely NOT for sale.

Robert Torres, Development Specialist
Specialty- Neighborhood Commercial Districts/ Small Business
419-245-1567 a roll call vote is procedural as to when the ordinance, if passed, would take effect. normally, I believe it's 30 days from date of signature by the mayor. Under 'emergency' it goes into effect upon signature.

Routinely, there are no actual 'votes' for emergency...the clerk calls the roll of everyone's name and then says, 'passed' if you didn't want emergency passage, you'd have to speak up, otherwise, it's recorded as a yes.

There's no political or cya aspect to's looked upon as a procedural vote rather than a position statement.

I'm not saying this is the correct way to do things, just explaining how our council uses it...

Thanks, Maggie. I was hoping someone would enlighten me. I just started to read the .pdf file that Neighborhood links to, and right away it raised a question in my mind. Now that's answered I'll go back to the article, and see if I have any more questions. Again, thanks.

Old South End Broadway

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.