I was at Cleveland Heights City Hall to sit on the hearings for that city's objections to Special Assessment increases for street lights and street repair. I have become concerned about how the city operates at various levels, so I have been attempting to attend as many city meetings as I can. This one became quite exciting.
The afternoon session (1:30 pm) was just starting when I arrived, and several people were in the council chambers where they were told to sign in and wait until they were called and taken into the Councils Executive Conference Room to meet with the Assessment Equalization Board.
The residents were angry and demanding an explanation from Tom Raguz, city Finance Director and Elizabeth Rothenberg, Assistant Director of Law with Cleveland Heights about the letters that the city had sent to them. They were confused by what this tax was, why they had never known of its existence before, and why neighbors with foot frontage equal or greater than their own had not received the $6.00 registered letter from the city that notified them of the increase.
The answers offered were not acceptable to many and they demanded some one answer their concerns. Mr. Raguz explained that many of their questions they were asking him did not have anything to do with the Equalization Board, and the Cleveland Heights citizens would have to contact different city offices to address particular problems they had. Among the complaints were lack of street repair and lack of or inadequate street lighting.
The residents became more agitated when they were told that they were not allowed to sit in on each others' hearings. "I have the same concerns, questions and confusion as as they do. Why does can't we sit together?", asked Julie Love. A representative from the finance department said that is was for legal reasons.
I mentioned that I believed that was incorrect. One of the residents asked for a legal reason, but the staffer could not offer one. I offered that they should most likely ask the assistant director of law for a reason, who happened to be in the Executive Conference Room where the hearing was to take place. With that, the entire room decided they would go to the Executive Conference Room to ask the assistant law director.
The group strode into the conference room and and insisted to the Board, Mr. Raguz and Ms. Rothenberg that they had a right to sit in on each others hearings and that they be heard in the manner they wanted. Ms. Rothenberg was very accommodating, allowing them to sit in chairs that ringed the room. However, for some reason, the police chief and at least two officers arrived just outside the conference room, causing many to fear they would be arrested.
After Mr. Raguz and Ms. Rothenberg conferred away outside the conference room, M. Rothenberg said that no one was being arrested, when asked if that might happen. She assured everyone that everything was fine and everyone could stay where they were.
Each resident, from that point onward, when their name was called by Mr. Raguz, sat at the table opposite the three members of the Equalization Board, took an oath, and then proceeded to explain why they filed an objection with the city about the increases in the street and light assessment charges. Their anger was quite evident and many had to struggle to contain themselves to even speak calmly.
Most were long-time residents of Cleveland Heights, with several having lived here 30-45 years. They proudly told how they raised their children here, sent them successfully through Heights High, and were now retired. But, now on limited incomes, many described themselves as being harassed by the city for more and more money. A constant question many of them posed was why this year, when never before were they receiving a letter about a tax they did not even know about. Those at the hearing were unaware that city council has been using special assessments to pay for street lights and street repair. Mr. Raguz explained that, if this was the first time for them to receive such a letter, was because this increase will put them over a $250 threshold, at which point the city, according to state law, must sent a certified letter notifying the resident of this fact.
Upon hearing this explanation, more than half believed this practice was outrageous. "This is terrible, and very disturbing," said Mrs. B. J. E. Thompson, of Oak Road. She, along with many there, claimed that their streets were not being repaired, nor were the street lights working well if at all.
Mr. Thompson said he was traumatized when he received his letter. He had worked on his house, maintaining it, taking care of his lawn and property, and for the first time realized he was paying for the increasing number of renters who were now living on his street. Mr. then asked those representing the city at the table why the city has been taking money for services that he was not actually getting. "And now the city wants more. The snow plows tear up the street, tear up the curbs, and the city wants us to pay for that?" He, and many residents who spoke at the hearing later on, complained about the presence of irresponsible Section 8 as renters in their neighborhoods who do nothing to take care of the properties they live on. "You notice that Section 8 renters are allowed to be in certain neighborhoods; ours," said Mr. Thompson.
His neighbor, Curtis Ross, also in attendance and resident for 43 years, agreed, describing how he has seen more Section 8 families arrive with several children, then bring their friends kids into the neighborhood, causing problems and trashing the properties. "But the city doesn't care, because the more kids they can say are in the schools, the more money they receive from the state. They don't care about what it is doing to our streets, our neighborhoods, nor the fact that I, a retired senior citizen, have to go out and pick up the trash, the cans, the other garbage these people leave around. Because they don't care. And neither does the city." Mrs. Thompson added she thought it was underhanded for city council to put these burdens on its citizens. "They're afraid to take these issues to the ballot box. Many of us live are on limited incomes and are retired. Why don't they have to put these taxes on the ballot to do street repairs?"
Mr. Curtis Ross said it comes down to three problems. "The first is that we have a transparency problem. I can't see the city council meetings like I used to before I changed my cable provider." As a second problem, residents like Ross who do not have Time Warner cable, no longer have access to watching city council when they are unable to personally attend them. The third problem according to Ross is the budget. "I have worked on budgets. Why do I have to keep paying more and more?" He believes the city needs to re-evaluate where it can cut, "The police department isn't providing a service, because I know we have an excess of officers that are out simply ticketing people and cars."
Both Ms. Rothenberg and Mr. Raguz attempted to explain how special assessments are not considered taxes. However, again, the residents stated they viewed these as taxes.
Ms. Weinbaum, a professor, declared she believed the city was out to destroy its residents. "I pay $6000 a year in property taxes. Meanwhile, I am getting harassed by city workers because the city doesn't like my tall grass. They can spend the money to send someone over to take a picture of my lawn, then charge me $200 a few days later when the same guy shows up to mow my mint crop. Now they want still more money from people who have half of the income they once had. They want to drive us out! To me, its economic terrorism." She then mentioned how the city doesn't do much about city property nearby that also has tall grass.
Many wanted to know the outcome from this hearing. Ms. Rothenberg explained they would receive a letter in the mail notifying them of the board's decision about their objection. Many joked it would arrive certified, costing the city more of their money.
Following these hearings, the Equalization Board will make its recommendations about these objections to city council. Whatever changes they may suggest city council can accept or reject. Should the decision reached by city council still not satisfy these Cleveland Heights residents, they can repeat this process again, by filing objections and attending another Equalization Board hearing. Several swore they would be attending city council meetings from here on out.