9 is fine campaign launched today

Today there was a major press conference announcing the 9 is fine campaign to reduce the size of Toledo City Council. The plan will eventually reorganize the council into 6 districts and 3 super-districts. If passed in September, the at-large contingent will be reduced to 3 from the current 6 members serving a 2-year bridging term. After the 2010 census apportionment the 3 super-districts will be drawn up consisting of 2 of the 6 current districts. More information is available at www.9isfine.org and check the local newscasts tonight at 6:00 and the Toledo Blade for more details on the story.

No votes yet

Will the at-large council need to live within the boundaries of the 'superdistricts' you propose?

I went out to your site and did see that the majority of the current at large candidates all live in the same part of town...

A part of town, I must point out that despite having all that council there is definately on the decline!!

Billy, they will have to live there once elected to the super district in 2011. But in 2009, they will still be at-large for 2 years until then.

Nine is still too many. Seven would be much better. Seven districts and no at large seats.

All any of them do is rubber stamp whatever Carty tells them to.

If your Council did act independently, then there would have been a 'no confidence' vote.

If your Council did act independently, then Carty would have been called on the carpet for all those $9999.00 payments to fix up the Erie St. Market.

If your Council did act independently, Toledo taxpayers would not be on the hook for the Hillcrest.

You don't need 9, 7 or even 1 person on Council to kiss your Mayors ass.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

I am glad that a group is finally pushing this through to reduce the number of council seats, but it really doesn't go far enough. There doesn't need to be a super district, or ubber leet awesome council seat. You have 6 districts, redrawn the districts and make it either 5 or 7 total. All city council seats then share the exact same term limit requirements (no more than 8 years) and there is no way the same worthless Toledo career politician can jump from seat to seat. I'm sorry. Cities 2-3 times the size of Toledo have half as many city council positions, but yet apparently Toledo thinks they need more people collecting a government paycheck but doing absolutely nothing for the city.

Stop what you are doing, and rewrite the petition. Take it to 5 or 7 city council seats - no super duper awesome district seats either. Toledo needs to change the way it operates, that includes rationalizing the size of the city government.

This may seem like a 'simple minded question' - but what is it exactly, that our Councilmen DO? How does their work translate into man hours per week & month? And what do they get paid?

According to
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071203/NEWS16/71... :

"council salary of $27,500 a year"

That implies that we pay 12 x $27500 = $330K now for council salaries. I don't know, but I'm sure they have expense accounts.

but what is it exactly, that our Councilmen DO?

As far as I can tell, the at large ones DO whatever their union puppetmasters tell them to do...

On the other hand, my district councilman Tom Winewski posts a newsletter outlining what HE's up to. Cant speak for any of the other district reps

I believe in more direct representation. Toledo has about 300K people, in about 100K households. Having 10 councilors would give us a ratio of 1-to-10K households for representation purposes. That's at the extreme for electoral representation. Having 1-to-3K households would be a lot better. Of course, these positions should be poorly paid at best ... enough to cover the costs of parking, a weekly meal, and perhaps lost work time for a weekly council meeting. $5 for parking, $5 for a meal, and $50 for their time ... at 30 councilors x $60 x 52 weeks = $93600. That's a dollar per household per year for the direct costs of 1/3K representation.

I just don't believe that our democratic representation is being adequately performed at 6-9 councilors. Their pay should be dropped to "costs only", since the work is a matter of duty and prestige. By dropping those costs, we should then increase their number until we have each councilor connected to what's effectively a "small town" (about 3K households, representing 9000 people of all ages). This 30-person council should then meet once per week on schedule for 4-6 hours to make sure the business of the city is conducted. Each of these seats should be held for a year term, since that's as much as we can ask anyone to give up for public service. So more and more of US, the common folk, will get a chance to sit on the city council and try to affect policy.

All I see in the 1 to 3K point of view is more government. That isn't going to solve anything. Sure it may make it easier to keep City Council from getting bought off by the unions and other special interest, but you will have 30 egos all wanting their voice heard and there is no way to do that in a 4-6 hour meeting. You also have to consider the additional impacts of something like that - redistricting and configuring elections to accommodate such a large number of council members.

Bigger cities than Toledo have no problem operating with 7-9 council members covering their wards (or districts in Toledo). I see it as Toledo having two options.

1) Reduce the number of council seats to 7 total. Either redistrict to 7 areas, or stick with the 6 districts and have 1 city wide elected council members.


2) Reduce the number to 7 seats total, and have them all city wide elected.

Either way, the number must be reduced and the idea of at-large or super-district seats needs to be flushed down the toilet where it belongs.

Hey, don't get me wrong. I believe that Toledo is such an economic free-fall that government in this area is actually OBSOLETE.

But still, the mechanisms of representation aren't really up for much debate. More representation isn't "more government". The more removed your rep is from you, the less representation you end up getting. Our city is clearly not responsive to the real socio-economic needs of the citizens. So, proposing that we reduce representation on that basis is a first-order approximation of failure.

The thing about bigger cities is that there is a greater economic base upon which to draw. Toledo's economic base is evaporating. So we need either NO government, or DIRECT government, in order to handle the hard times that must follow.

As for "redistricting and configuring elections" ... these things aren't difficult at all to arrange. We ALREADY do them. Changing the nature of the database manipulations doesn't translate into 3 times as much work. We can keep the current polling stations, and merely assign the new, smaller districts to them. Of course, that assumes compentency on the part of the Board of Elections. {bleah}

I say treat toledo like the hostas in my mom's garden... Split it off into better growing areas and watch it grow!

Combine distr's 5 and 6 and split it between Bedford and Sylvania

Give 1&2 over to maumee.

Give 3 to Oregon - that way when they keep whining about "we're not the east side, we're Oregon!! - it'll make at least a modicum of sense...

We'd all be better off and our kids would automatically be in better school districts.

The only problem, none of the suburbs will want any part of Toledo. LOL

I'm don't know what city in Texas doesn't pay its Council persons. I think it's San Antonio or Austin. City Council persons don't get a dime. It's a position of honor. I think Toledo should adopt the same protocol. Don't pay them a dime.

Hey now, careful. If Toledo did that, what would the worthless career politicians that seem to have anointed themselves to life terms do? Betty Shultz needs money to buy all that makeup she plasters on her face some how.

Comment viewing options

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