We're sure you've all been anxiously awaiting us to dig up dirt on more of the candidates. Unfortunately for you, the ones you want us to dig into really don't have the background like Ms. Kinder does. But, here we are, exploring what you asked us to explore. Let's move into it, shall we?
James Roha, aka Jim Roha. Current member of Meadville City Council.
Jim has served as a Councilmember for the City of Meadville for 3 terms, which equates to 12 years. That means that for 12 years Jim has put the needs of the City on the forefront of his mind, and he would like to continue to do so for the next 4 years as well.
As if serving our City on Council wasn't enough, Jim also serves on various boards.
Some of his professional work includes the following;
As an appraiser Jim would provide objective, impartial, and unbiased opinions about the value of real property. This means that he would have an in depth understanding of the value of the properties within Meadville, and how we as a City could improve upon this. Hence, his desire to serve on the blighted property review committee.
Jim does not deny that residents of Meadville face financial challenges, in fact his "unofficial" resume states the following; "We are acutely aware of the financial challenges facing many Meadville citizens. We spent many years delivering balanced City budgets with no property tax increases." The "We" is in reference to the cooperative campaign of he and Nancy. He continues on to state the following; "And even with no tax increases, we began to upgrade our recreational facilities and playgrounds, and expanded our paving program."
As you may recall, recreational facilities and playgrounds are on the radar for the VFM crew also, they group this under their community resources and public amenities talking points.
The reason that Jim focusses on no property tax increases;
In case you're unaware of what disenfranchise means: deprive (someone) of a right or privilege.
Jim knows how property tax can relate to home ownership, and also recognizes that by requiring the money be spent towards taxes, it takes from a would be budget for home repair and maintenance items. This could lead to a decrease in re-investment into properties and can lead to properties falling into disrepair, and some could go as far as to be considered blight.
Were you aware, the current City Council was facing a budget deficit of $653,371? Council determined that a tax increase was necessary, to what degree they did not agree. As you can gather from Jim's prior history, he's not an advocate of tax increases. Since a tax increase was necessary though, who do you think voted for the largest tax increase? Who do you think voted for the lowest and suggested the City could find savings elsewhere to offset the deficit? We'll let the meeting minutes do the talking from here...
You can clearly see who voted for the greater tax increase.
Autumn makes a valid point, but so does Jim when he states that there could be other potential savings to offset the deficit and make such an increase unnecessary.
Wait, Autumn only asked 80 people what they thought? Only 68 of whom live within the City. For reference, there is a population of 13,050 in Meadville, according to the 2020 Census. Of that number 18.2% are under 18, so let's take that number out. We then have 10,675 of voting age, right?
So, 68 people polled, who reside in Meadville, is only .64% of the voting residents of Meadville. That's (point)64%, NOT 64%! Even if we take her figure of 80 persons polled, that's still only .75%. That's not a very big group polled. Also, how many of these individuals are in the collective collaboration of Common Roots, Crawford County United, PA United, Vote for Meadville and/or Grow Meadville?
Autumn wants us to take her word that these people did in fact state they would be okay with such a tax increase. Just the word of these 80 people, 68 of whom are residents. The same Autumn, who is part of the Vote for Meadville group, who have publicly dismissed a group of "60 landlords". A group that pays taxes within the City, taxes that pay for City services and other City related expenses.
To the point that they state "many of which live outside of the City"; this is a very interesting point. This means that these landlords, who don't live in the City, pay taxes that support parks, maintenance and services within the City, but yet, they arguably would benefit the least from the items their taxes go towards.
Why is the Vote for Meadville team publicly attacking and berating landlords? Especially when one of the talking points of their campaign is for inclusiveness?
In closing Jim has this to say;
If you answered yes to any of these questions, feel free to ask Jim how he intends to bring these points to life right here in Meadville.
Not sure how to ask? The great news, The Meadville Tribune is hosting a forum for the public to be able to ask ALL CANDIDATES important questions.
The public may submit questions for possible inclusion by email to kgushard@meadvilletribune. com by Oct 18.
And if you're worried your questions won't be answered there, Jim provides us with his direct contact info to speak to him directly. In fact, his running mate provides her info too!
Comments