Fw: STOP Primary Residence Protection Plan

From: "Bob Logue" <ucblogue@verizon.net>

 

Subject: Fw: STOP Primary Residence Protection Plan

Finally, someone with the courage, intelligence, and expertise is suing to prevent the collection of property taxes.  The suit is based on violations of the uniformity clause of the PA Constitution. 

Below are two E-mails I have received from George Kuney that are self-explanatory.  As George, explains...he is not looking for financial support from you or me, instead he needs examples of the system's unfairness...that he can present as part of his suit.   He hopes to have a class action suit that will rise to the Supreme Court and extend his legal attack on the corrupt property tax system to the entire state. 

If you have examples of unfairness and lack of uniformity in the property tax assessment and collection system, please contact George at the E-mail address at the bottom of this note. You may even call him if you wish as he has provided his phone number for us to share with you. 

At the very least, send words of encouragement to George and thank him for his efforts.

   

Linked to below this blog post are George Kuney's Tax Appeal and his Pre-trial memo.  Please read them.  But, first, read his memos below to get acquainted with him. 

   

STOP has been hoping and praying that some able person would step forward and attack the PA property tax and equity theft mess in court.  We're pleased George has decided to do it and that he could not be disuaded by a property tax assessment reduction on his property. 

---Bob Logue, STOP Primary Residence Protection Plan   

********************************************************************************************************

My name is George Kuney.  I am challenging the right to collect property taxes in Philadelphia in an upcoming appeal.

I have filed my pre-trial memo and have been offered a very generous settlement option; however, I am more interested in solving the underlying problem for everyone as opposed to just fending for myself.

I am therefore contacting you to see what support and interest there might be for moving forward with the current matter and thereafter a class action suit.

If you have any interest in offering any guidance, support, or information that might be of assistance, please contact me.

If you know of anyone who is interested in this matter and could be of help, please forward this email to them and/or provide me with their contact information.

With appreciation,

George Kuney

(215) 465-8541 After 10 AM up till 11 PM EST

http://www.blogger.com/

I am attaching the "Tax Appeal Attachment" submitted to the BRT Board and my pre-trial memo that was submitted by the deadline of Aug 6.

A quick review of those documents will show that the central point is the non-uniformity issue.  The problem I face is to be able to prevail without an expert witness.

I do not need money, I need facts that do not depend on an expensive expert witness.  I need "public facts" that there is not uniformity in the system.

Please feel free to pass these documents and my emails to others who are interested in this cause.  The real gambit in my apporach is to put the City in the following no-win situation:  a) If they give me all my taxes back, they set a precedent, or b)  If they don't, then I have pursued all my options on this level and can move on to a class action suit.

I need to make the effort at this level credible so that I can prevail in higher courts.


Thanks,

George

---

From: ucblogue@verizon.net
To: geokun@hotmail.com
Subject: STOP Primary Residence Protection Plan
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:25:05 -0400

Hi George:  I'm delighted to hear about your court action on property taxes.  STOP is a grassroots group that has been fighting the property taxes on primary residences since January, 2002.  We have lots of information that may be helpful in your suit at http://www.grandoldusa.com/ 

    Also at http://www.spedunkie.com/  hit on the STOP PAGE.

    STOP is not a formal organization..and has no treasury.  However, a number of our STOP supporters have indicated a willigness to help if someone is filing a suit...but as a volunteer I can't get in the middle of that. 

    What I can do is forward your E-mail to them and invite them to contact you...and if

they feel comfortable supporting your efforts financially...that will be fine with me.  You and they can work that out.

     Since none of us know you...is there a way you can verify to me the information about the suit, when it was filed...any articles in the news media about it...in other words documentation about what you state in your e-mail. 

    If so, send it along to me and when I feel comfortable with your credibiity (no disrespect, we just need to be careful on not misleading our group's supporters of the cause) I will add it to your e-mail when I send it to them.

    I would enjoy reading on what grounds you are attacking the property tax.  Perhaps I can add some thoughts and info to what you're doing. 

    You now have my e-mail address.  Keep in touch regularly and let me know any progress.

     Waiting to hear from you....Best regards,  Bob Logue, STOP Primary Residence Protection plan.

Links: http://fixpa.wikia.com/wiki/George_Kuney

End Feeder Patterns in Pgh Public Schools for all high school students

I was at a meeting tonight -- news at 11 -- and I suggested that we need to push for the elimination of feeder patterns for all our high school students in Pittsburgh.

An objection came: I don't trust Pgh Public Schools.

Okay.

So, then do you trust feeder patterns then?

Of course not.

Well then. It would be wise and logical to end feeder patterns for our high school students.

I trust the families and the students to make the best decisions for themselves. I would rather trust the families and students to make a good decision as to what school to attend rather than the so-called address of the student.

Choice is important. Choice means an elemination of feeder patterns. With feeder patterns, the choice is gone.

Feeder patterns enslave people to certain schools based upon geography of a residence. That's poor logic. That's not ideal.

This hits close to home. I was in another court room in the same days as Carl Romanelli was too

Carl Romanelli Fights Pennsylvania Democrats with a Federal Lawsuit Related to "Bonus-gate" Convictions.

HARRISBURG, Pa. – "Bonus-gate" in Pennsylvania has resulted in numerous convictions of public officials for theft, conflict of interest and conspiracy with more trials yet to come. "Bonus-gate" convictions include efforts to challenge the nominating petitions of candidates Ralph Nader in 2004 and Carl Romanelli in 2006 using state employees and state resources.
"The two most outstanding examples of misappropriation of taxpayer resources in petition challenges were found in the challenges of Ralph Nader, for President in 2004, and Carl Romanelli, for US Senate in 2006," announced Tom Corbett, Pennsylvania attorney general, July 10, 2008, in his presentment which led to the arrest of two recent state representatives and ten legislative staffers.

Ralph Nader filed 51,273 petition signatures to be on the 2004 Pennsylvania ballot for president as an independent but was denied a ballot spot as a result of the petition challenge. Pennsylvania courts ruled, after the 2004 election, that Nader must pay $81,802 on fees to cover the administrative costs of the petition challenge. That was the first time in US history that a candidate has been assessed fees for losing a petition challenge trying to run for office. No other state has such a policy and Pennsylvania had never done this prior to 2004.

Carl Romanelli filed 95,544 petition signatures, well over the 67,070 valid petition signature requirement, to be the 2006 Green Party of Pennsylvania candidate for US Senate. Those signatures were challenged in court and Romanelli was denied a place on the ballot. In January 2007 a Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court judge ruled that Carl Romanelli must pay the state $80,408 in fees because he lost the petition challenge. Nader and Romanelli have not paid the fees assessed by the courts and are asking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to reconsider the penalties in light of criminal convictions connected to their petition challengers.

"Getting a bill from the state for more than $80,000 because you tried to run for political office is a crime against democracy," said Christina Tobin, founder and CEO of the Free and Equal Elections Foundation. "I can't believe this is able to happen in the United States of America. What makes this situation even worse is that Democratic Party operatives worked on these petition challenges while they were being paid by the state and using state resources. The Democratic operatives involved in this should be paying those costs, not Ralph Nader and Carl Romanelli."

Romanelli filed a lawsuit, July 12, against the Pennsylvania Democratic Party and their House Democratic Caucus. The lawsuit, filed in US District Court, additionally names Rep. William DeWeese, former Rep. Michael Veon and a number of former and current House Democratic staff employees found to have worked on the petition challenge that removed Carl Romanelli from the 2006 ballot for US Senate. Romanelli alleges in the lawsuit that state employees were paid to do political work while using state resources and equipment in that effort to challenge his petitions.

Romanelli backs up his allegations by pointing to the recent convictions of several defendants in this lawsuit including former House Democratic Minority Whip, Rep. Michael Veon who received a 6 to 14 year sentence on June 18, 2010 and Brett Cott, a former policy analyst for Rep. Veon and Rep. DeWeese, who was sentenced from 21 months to 60 months in May 2010. Michael Manzo and Jeff Foreman were given deals to testify against Cott and have not been sentenced. Rep. William DeWeese faces trial in the coming months.

"I hope Carl Romanelli gets the justice he deserves from our courts," Tobin said. "If this stands it will have a chilling effect on democracy. This will scare candidates away for fear of not making the ballot and being penalized with large fees because they tried. We've invited Carl to help educate the public about this new threat to our democratic election process on our Free and Equal BlogTalkRadio show Tuesday, July 20."
Free and Equal is broadcasting a live radio show from 10 p.m. to midnight ET each Tuesday night that can can be listened to live at the Free and Equal website or at BlogTalkRadio and is immediately archived for later listening.

Contact

Carl Romanelli
Email: cjromanelli@gmail.com


Christina Tobin, founder and CEO of Free and Equal Elections Foundation
Phone: 312-320-4101
Email: christina@freeandequal.org

Fw: So You Want Reform? Here's Your Chance!

I want NOTA on every ballot. That is NONE OF THE ABOVE.

I want equal ballot access for all.

I want the Ds and Rs to PAY all expenses for their closed primary votes every spring.

I want assessment buffering so property taxes can only rise a percent of the changed amount over years.

I want a land tax to be at least 1 percent of all property tax bills so it has standing everywhere and can be a point to eveolve into over time.

A read the bills act makes sense. Then the legislature that passes the bills and budget must at least read it.

I want to cut the size of the staff of Pa House and Pa Senators so each gets only 1 helper. They should do the work themselves. The bloat is worse than the size of the districts.

Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

---

From: PACleanSweep <info@pacleansweep.com>

Sender: PACleanSweep <campaign@russdiamond.ccsend.com>

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:07:48 -0400 (EDT)

To: <mark@rauterkus.com>

ReplyTo: info@pacleansweep.com

Subject: So You Want Reform? Here's Your Chance!

Having trouble viewing this email? Click here

You're receiving this email because of your interest in government reform in Pennsylvania. Please confirm your continued interest in receiving email from us.

 

You may unsubscribe if you no longer wish to receive our emails.

So You Want Reform? Here's Your Chance! July 20, 2010   Dear Mark,   If you had your way, what government reforms would you enact?   Term limits? Changing the size of the legislature? Ending gerrymandering by fixing the way we draw legislative districts every ten years? Altering the way we select judges? Returning to a two-year budget process in Harrisburg? Putting new rules in place for campaign finance? Making elections fairer? Setting up an independent compensation commission? Recall? Referendum? Initiative?    No matter what your favorite reform is, chances are you won't get it through the regular legislative process in Harrisburg. It's not because all legislators are bad people. Rather, it's simply because human nature gets in the way of voting for something that may diminish your own personal power or status.   Here at PACleanSweep, we want to give Pennsylvanians an opportunity the legislature currently isn't offering: a chance to gather together with like-minded citizens to discuss and debate reform topics.   Ultimately, we're working to convince the legislature to authorize a limited citizens' constitutional convention to do just that. But we understand that many legislators may be afraid of risking any of their current power or status. We also understand that some Pennsylvanians either don't understand, or have some fear of, the convention process.   To address these points, PACleanSweep is planning to hold a Constitutional Convention Exhibition in early 2011 in the Harrisburg area, and you're invited to be a delegate!    During this exhibition, we envision up to 150 reform-minded citizen delegates from across the state getting together to debate and vote on a select number of proposed changes to the Pennsylvania Constitution aimed specifically at reform. What will those topics be? It's entirely up to you!   Of course, this will only be an exhibition, so any proposals approved by the delegates will not be binding upon anyone. But who knows - perhaps the legislature will take notice of the process and realize that an actual convention is the only way to solve Pennsylvania's crisis in confidence. Along the way, we'll be educating other citizens on how the convention process works and dispel some of their misconceptions.   While PACleanSweep will facilitate the exhibition, its size, scope, and duration - and the public support it generates for an actual convention - will be entirely up to those who volunteer to participate as delegates.   To gauge interest in such an exercise, we're asking potential delegates (YOU!!!) to sign up and provide some information on the PACleanSweep website. We'll use this information to better determine the duration, scope, and other pertinent aspects of the Constitutional Convention Exhibition.   You've always wanted to voice your reform opinion and have it make an impact, right? Well now you've got your chance. We look forward to hearing from you!   Sincerely,   The PACleanSweep Team   For more information: www.pacleansweep.com info@pacleansweep.com 1.877.867.5617

Forward email This email was sent to mark@rauterkus.com by info@pacleansweep.com. Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy. Email Marketing by PACleanSweep | 109 West Main Street | Annville | PA | 17003

Fw: Policy Brief: Pittsburgh's Pension Solution: Between a Rock and Hard Place

Policy Brief

An electronic publication of

The Allegheny Institute for Public Policy

---

July 20, 2010                                                                                                               Volume 10, Number 38

---

In last week's Policy Brief (Volume 10, Number 37) we showed that the proposal to lease Parking Authority facilities as a means to raise $200 million for Pittsburgh's pension funds would require—at a minimum—a near doubling of the cost to park at the lessee's garages, lots and meters.  Factoring in inflation, the hikes in cost to park necessary to make the lease a break even situation for the lessee could exceed 100 percent in four to five years.  Clearly, there is a high probability such large increases in parking rates at the Parking Authority's spaces will be a major deterrent to parking in the City.  Many businesses would suffer, creating further, and possibly irreparable, economic damage to Pittsburgh's already beleaguered private sector.  And that in turn will reduce the City's tax base, something it can absolutely not afford.

One potential consequence could be construction of additional private garages and lots to compete with the lessee's spaces.  Of course in the Downtown area that is hard because of the paucity of sites for such construction. However, in other parts of the City that could happen fairly quickly and easily.  The result would be loss of patronage at the lessee's facilities making it even harder for the leasing company to avoid losses.

Another unintended consequence of the massive jump in rates at the leased Parking Authority spaces is the opening it would give privately owned facilities, especially those in close proximity to a lessee facility, to raise their parking rates. After all, one of the effects of publicly owned spaces such as the Parking Authority is to hold down average parking rates. Because the publicly owned facility is not subject to taxes on property, payrolls, or any of the other myriad taxes paid by business and does not have to earn a return on investment, it can charge lower rates than privately owned parking facilities.

By way of background bear in mind that the high cost of parking in Pittsburgh, particularly Downtown, stems from two basic elements. First, there is a tight supply of spaces relative to the demand for parking.  Second, the City's extraordinarily high parking tax—aimed at commuters and visitors—boosts the price substantially. At 40 percent a $10 rate becomes a $14 charge. This is well above what most comparable cities levy. Indeed, most such cities have no parking tax.  The point is tight supply and the resulting high prices deter some potential parkers who would venture into town if parking rates were lower. But lower rates will only come about if supply of spaces rises significantly; there is a dramatic and unexpected permanent decline in demand or if the parking tax rate is reduced substantially.   

The pressing problem facing the City is the deal the Mayor made with the Legislature last year that kept Pittsburgh from having its pension fund administration taken over by a state agency.  The Mayor asked for time to find a solution to the City's underfunded pensions in exchange for the City pension funds not being brought under immediate state administration.  Now the City has until the end of the year to get the pensions funded at the 50 percent level or lose control over pension fund management.

Since the legislative deal was made, Pittsburgh has been focused on leasing the Parking Authority facilities as a means to raise the $200 million needed to lift pension funding to 50 percent.  To accomplish that, a lessee would have to come up with roughly $300 million so the $100 million in Parking Authority debt could be retired. And as noted earlier that amount necessitates a doubling of parking rates to create a break even situation for the lessee.

Unless the City completes the lease transaction by January, it will face a state takeover of the pension funds and could be required to boost its annual contribution as much as $30 million.  Given Pittsburgh's shaky financial picture, finding $30 million more each year is a daunting task. Major spending cuts and possibly higher property or other taxes would have to be on the table.

So, here's the predicament: to proceed with the $300 million proposed lease by the end of the year or not. Either option poses serious economic and/or political headaches for the City.  Which option would be worse and are there alternatives to the two options that could be developed before January?

Doubling the cost of parking is definitely the worst option. The potential harm to the Pittsburgh economy and its business community is simply not worth taking. At the same time, making a 7 percent cut in general fund spending would produce most of the $30 million in additional funding that will be required if the City does not proceed with the lease.  Those savings can be realized by outsourcing services that are easiest to privatize, freezing wages, instituting a hiring freeze and cutting staff as required to meet spending cuts. Note that a 7 percent spending cut would still leave Pittsburgh's per capita general fund expenditures far above comparable U.S. cities.  The spending cuts could be phased in over two years to allow time to implement the big changes. 

And while making the 7 percent reduction in spending will be politically difficult, it would be far better for the City's future than doubling parking rates.

There are some things the City can do to help itself out of the dilemma. First, it could go hat in hand to the Legislature and ask for more time to find a fix for the massively underfunded pensions. There is a chance the Legislature might listen if the City can show a reasonable plan for getting to the 50 percent funding level over a short period of time that does not involve doubling parking costs. Still, given the nature of the pressure used to induce the Legislature to make the existing deal, they may well give the City's request short shrift.

Second, the City could slash the parking tax rate. As noted previously one of the factors driving the required parking rates so high is the 40 percent parking tax rate that will go into effect in 2011 if a lease is consummated.  If the parking tax were lowered to 20 percent the parking price would have to rise only 58 percent. And if the lessee could save $5 million in operating expenses, the parking prices would need to rise only 41 percent. This would be a much more manageable increase that would put the lessee rates in line with private parking facilities.  

The down side is that cutting parking tax rates to 20 percent would result in a significant decline in parking tax revenue because the overwhelming share of parking revenue is generated by private facilities and those owned by other authorities. The prospective revenue loss will almost certainly dissuade the City from seriously entertaining the suggested tax rate reduction. However, by making appropriate cuts in government spending the lost parking tax revenue could be offset.  And most importantly perhaps, the lease could go ahead and $200 million for the pension funds would be in place and the state would not be taking over the pension funds.

Raising $200 million in a lump sum by the end of the year without hurting the City is a daunting challenge.  Pittsburgh finds itself in this dilemma because of years of neglect and failure to act in a financially responsible way. There are no easy ways out at this juncture. There is no free lunch. A $300 million payment by a lessee to buy an entity with net operating revenues of $7 million has to be paid for. Better that it not be through a doubling of the price to park at 19,000 spaces. The time to bite the bullet and make significant spending cuts is here.

---

 Jake Haulk, Ph.D., President                                                       

---

For updates and commentary on daily issues please visit our blog at alleghenyinstitute.org/blog.

If you have enjoyed reading this Policy Brief and would like to send it to a friend, please feel free to forward it to them.

For more information on this and other topics, please visit our web site: alleghenyinstitute.org

If you wish to support our efforts please consider becoming a donor to the Allegheny Institute.  The Allegheny Institute is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and all contributions are tax deductible.  Please mail your contribution to: 

The Allegheny Institute

305 Mt. Lebanon Boulevard

Suite 208

Pittsburgh, PA  15234

Thank you for your support.

School Choice -- easy way or hard way. Plus single gender options for more families

The Citizens Alliance of PA issued a press release that endorses and talks about a new PA Bill that gives families a choice to go to private schools if their public school is failing.

CAP Endorses Sen. Williams' School Choice Bill

HARRISBURG, PA—Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania (CAP) today endorsed Sen. Anthony Williams’ (D-Philadelphia) Opportunity Scholarship Act (SB 1405), which would give disadvantaged children in chronically failing school districts the financial assistance they need to pursue educational options.

”The Opportunity Scholarship Act will rescue thousands of children tragically trapped in failing schools,” said CAP Executive Director Joe Sterns. “There should be no greater priority for the politicians in Harrisburg than making sure every student in the Commonwealth receives a first-rate education.”

Sen. Williams’ legislation, SB 1405, would provide children in low-income households a scholarship to attend a non-public school if their public school is chronically failing. The bill defines “chronically failing” as having 40 percent or more of the student body scoring at or below the “basic” range in math and reading/writing for two consecutive school years. The amount of the scholarship would be equal to 100% of the Commonwealth's annual per-pupil school aid funding amount plus 50% of the school districts annual per-pupil school aid funding amount.

Humm.

In Pittsburgh, we've got a situation brewing -- if not in full boil -- that is going to re-form Westinghouse High School.

I think it makes great sense to get rid of the feeder patterns for all high school students in Pittsburgh so as to allow them the opportunity to go to any of the city's high schools based not upon where they say they live with a street address.

Presently, Pgh Public Schools with its feeder patterns means that students MUST attend a specific school. The student is forced into that school and not other schools in the city. If you live within certain streets, you go to Westinghouse and can NOT go to Carrick nor Allderdice nor Langley.

As a Libertarian, I'm more on the side of choice and freedom and not force.

But still, there are some nice options for families as some flexibility is already in the system. Students can attend CAPA, the Creative and Performing Arts school for grades 6 to 12. But, they need a talent and need to audition. And, they need to be accepted. Anyone in the city can attend CAPA without the need to live within a certain 'feeder pattern.'

Students from anywhere in the city can attend Perry Traditional High School, grades 9-12.

Students from anywhere in the city can attend Pgh Obama, the I.B. School. To go to the IB school students need to have good grades and be able to pass a language entry benchmark. All students at the IB school have languages for all the years they are there. And, the acadmics are very demanding.

Students from anywhere can attend Brashear High School, but this is a secret. The principal there has been flexible in granting admissions to Brashear as there is space. But, you've got to have a good story and meet with him and add to the overall school.

Students from anywhere can go to Allderdice if they opt into the Engineering magnet or else opt into the Chinees Language magnet that is offered at Allderdice and no other place in Pittsburgh.

Students from anywhere in the city can attend Sci-Tech (a 6 to 12th grade school). This newer school is located in Oakland in the former Frick building. However, students who go to Sci-Tech need to have their number pulled in a lottery as there is a demand for the school that exceeds the smaller size. More students can enter into 9th grade as the classes of 9, 10, 11 and 12th grades are larger than the size of the overall classes for 6, 7 and 8.

Students from anywhere in the city can attend the U-Prep School, also grades 6 to 12. Well, they don't have grade 11 and 12 yet, but will grow into those grades as the years pass. U-Prep has available seats in all the grades as there hasn't been much demand there and some who have attended have not stayed. The U-Prep theme is to press the student to attend a University / College after high school.

So, there are plenty of options, but not enough, really. They still have these 'feeder patterns.'

Peabody is going to close, we expect.

Schenley closed.

Oliver is going to have a big change too.

So, this is the time to get rid of all the feeder patterns in the city for the high school students.

If a kid wants to go to Westinghouse and be a part of the single gender classrooms and that student lives in another part of town, say in the Allderdice feeder pattern -- then let the student attend.

But most of all, this should be the stated policy of the district.

Pittsburgh has plenty of variety among its schools. Choice is good. It can be embraced and be turned into a real feature and another good reason to move into the city -- or stay here.

I would support the elimination of all feeder patterns for high school students in Pittsburgh.

Kids can attend Central Catholic from anywhere in the city -- and beyond.

Kids can attend City Charter High School from anywhere in the city too.

Furthermore, families move. If better or different housing is available, then the family should move and not be tied down to a feedern pattern. And, this could work in the reverse as well. A family that used to live in Squ Hill might need to move out and a spot in another section of town might have less expensive rent. If the student is thriving at the school, a new residence shouldn't insure a new school.

Otherwise, lies are spun. Let's be honest.

Finally, in terms of the bill mentioned above -- if Pittsburgh does not offer school choice among its public high schools, then Pittsburgh might find itself in the position of offering families choice to attend PRIVATE schools. Giving kids tuition money for Central, Oakland, North Catholic, Bishop Canevin, Seaton LaSalle, Vincention, A.Christian, Ellis, Shady Side, W.T., Sewickley, Kiski Prep, and so on, won't be as much fun as giving them a chance to go to a non-feeder pattern school.

Post-Gazette NOW - Local News - Pittsburgh Panorama

Post-Gazette NOW - Local News - Pittsburgh Panorama: "Hula hoop heaven, Highland Park"

Sounds good for two reasons:

1. Dryland training.

2. Goals for water polo. But, we'll have to figure out how to hang the goals at the side of the pool.

Idea Foundry Home - on the radio with AM 1360

Idea Foundry Home: "Idea Foundry is a non-profit organization that supplies the critical ingredients for
transforming an entrepreneur’s business idea into a Pennsylvania-based, fundable,
start-up. We bridge the gaps between business skills, knowledge, funding and
relationships that are critical when launching your own Information Technology and Engineering related enterprise."

Show is also on the podcast with TalkShoe.com.

Family gets back into pool, acquits itself well at Journal Star meet - Peoria, IL - pjstar.com

Family gets back into pool, acquits itself well at Journal Star meet - Peoria, IL - pjstar.com: "Being out of practice did not equate to slow times for some participants in this year’s Journal Star Swim Meet at Central Park Pool.

Kyle Boerke swam his first race in eight years Sunday, the Trophy Shootout, against about 20 competitors. Yet he was able to win three events, including the mixed 200-yard medley, and fell just two seconds short of Patrick Inness in the men’s 100 butterfly.

Boerke was a member of the Peoria Area Water Wizards youth program and swam for Bradley University until its team was disbanded in 2002. Kyle graduated from BU in 2003 with a degree in psychology.

He then went to Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore for his residency. Boerke now works as a clinical psychologist for OSF Saint Francis Medical Center.

It was this job that brought Boerke back to the swim meet. Boerke and his wife, Abby, moved back to the area earlier this month."

We were there!

Grassroots public reform encouraged by The Pittsburgh Foundation - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Grassroots public reform encouraged by The Pittsburgh Foundation - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: "The forum will cost $290,000. The money is coming from the Pittsburgh, Richard King Mellon, Grable, Hillman and Maurice Falk foundations."

Give me a break. That is NOT going to work.

SKEPTICAL.

Burning money must be fun for some. I'm sad again to see it go up in smoke.

Fw: Indiana County ponders 2.5M reassessment

I agree with Bob to a degree. But the way to get to the fair solution is not a full pass on all property. Rather, a better solution is to give the free pass to the buildings on the property. Do tax the land. Land can be measured. Land can be taxed.

If we have the exact same lot in size and features in the same neighborhood then the land tax would be equal.

If one builds a mansion and the other builds a shack - but the live on identical land plots -- then they would pay the same in taxes.

Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

---

From: "Bob Logue" <ucblogue@verizon.net>

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 13:24:35 -0400

To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;><Invalid address>

Subject: Indiana County ponders 2.5M reassessment

As you read this article below, forwarded by Tom Koch, think about this: How many Indiana County, PA homeowners have lost their homes and most, or all of their equity to sheriff sales over the last 42 years for so called 'delinquent' property taxes they did not owe?  Likely thousands of Indiana County homeowners and their families have lost many millions of dollars and had their lives disrupted by corrupt property tax assessments and taxes.  The commissioners admit the property assessments are "out of balance"...which is a polite way of saying...THEY'RE WRONG and have been for decades. 

   It is a myth that if Indiana County eventually spends $2.5 Million for a countywide reassessment, this will mean the assessments will be fair and equitable.  That has not proven to be true in Philadelphia, Allegheny County, Luzerne County, Fayette County and elsewhere.  And the countywide reassessments will need to be redone every few years to comply with the Supreme Court ruling on base year assessments.  That will cost millions more over the years.

   Even the International Association of Assessment Officers (the professional organization of assessment officials) admits the inaccuracies of property taxes.  The IAAO says any assessment within 10% of fair market value is deemed correct.  However, if you and I have the same 'market value' home and you are over-assessed by 10% (by the IAAO standards of fairness) and I am under-assessed by 10%...you pay 20% more school, county and municipal property taxes than I do.    You could pay hundreds, perhaps thousands of dollars more each year than I do.  Is that fair and equitable? If so, are you willing to also pay 20% more income taxes on the same income as I have? Or 20% more on gasoline taxes per gallon? Or 20% more sales taxes on the same purchases as I do.  If it's unfair for you to pay 20% more than me on all the rest of those taxes, why is it fair for you to pay 20% more than me on property taxes?

   The property tax system on primary residences is systemically corrupt, unfair, inaccurate, costly and a huge drag on our economy.  The system cannot be fixed and should be totally abolished and replaced with broader-based, equitable, and less costly to collect sales and income taxes. 

   The Legislative Budget and Finance committee (the same group mentioned below) studied the STOP Primary Residence Protection plan and found it fiscally sound and viable.  You may contact them for a copy of their study. 

   The county commissioners are correct that the legislature must change the system; it can't be done by the county commissioners.  But the commissioners have a role in demanding it be done.  Your legislators have failed to correct this mess for 30 years.  So why are you going to re-elect them?

Why would any commissioners support the re-elecction of legislators who have failed so miserably on this issue for three decades?

 

Learn more about why it is sensible and desirable to abolish all property taxes on primary residences and how it would create an economic boom in Pennsylvania at www.grandoldusa.com  or www.spedunkie.com  Hit on STOP.

 

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE APPEARED IN THE INDIANA (PA) GAZETTE.

 

 

COUNTY: Indicators show assessment system out of balance

By RANDY WELLS, rwells@indianagazette.net

Published: Thursday, July 15, 2010 1:20 PM EDT

Concerned about the possibility of a taxpayers' lawsuit challenging the fairness and constitutionality of property assessments, the Indiana County commissioners Wednesday retained the Ira Weiss law firm of Pittsburgh to study the county's property tax assessment structure.

The commissioners emphasized they were approving only an evaluation of the assessment system.

``It's a study of the issue, not a reassessment,'' commissioner Patricia Evanko stressed.

``We're being pro-active,'' commissioner David Frick added.

And the commissioners emphasized that a property reassessment - if one is eventually undertaken - will not generate more tax revenue. Instead, they said, it will be done to balance and redistribute the tax burden more evenly.

Indiana County chief assessor Martin Medvetz introduced his recommendation for the study with a quote from a recent state Supreme Court ruling: ``While every tax is a burden, it is more cheerfully borne when the citizen feels that he is only required to bear his proportionate share of that burden measured by the value of his property to that of his neighbor.''

``We're really studying the fairness of the taxes,'' Medvetz said. ``We want to be sure that the tax burden is distributed equitably among all taxpayers.''

The last countywide reassessment of properties in Indiana County was in 1968.

``You can't go 42 years and expect values to be the same,'' Medvetz said.The study will determine whether a countywide reassessment is necessary to bring the county into uniformity conformance standards. Medvetz and the commissioners are concerned that the county could face a court-ordered reassessment because recent statistics provided by the State Tax Equalization Board show the county's ratios are beyond those allowable under Pennsylvania's uniformity requirements.

As an example of the possible legal exposure, the Ira Weiss law firm cited the 2009 Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in a taxpayers' suit against Allegheny County. The court in that case determined that the use of a base year system, without the provision of periodic reassessments, results in non-uniformity and violates the state's constitution because assessed values are frozen while properties continue appreciating or depreciating at different rates.

``This needs to be done'' in light of the state Supreme Court decision,'' Medvetz said of the study. He added that in his opinion, if the Legislature doesn't address property reassessment as a statewide issue, future court cases will probably narrow the definition and criteria of what is unconstitutional.

``We can wait for the Legislature, or wait to be sued,'' he said.

The Supreme Court ruling noted that property assessment inequities leave counties vulnerable to challenge by taxpayers or school districts demanding that property taxes be imposed uniformly. In 2007, a taxpayers group known as Fair Adams County Taxes Now sued Adams County over its property assessments, last adjusted in 1990. According to the Adams County solicitor's office, that lawsuit prompted a reassessment that has just been completed, and new assessment values will go into effect in 2011.

``Reassessment is all about equity, not revenue growth,'' Medvetz said. ``You should be paying taxes on the fair market value of your property. ... Hopefully the study will provide us with data pointing to where the property assessments are weak, what groups may be over- or under-paying ... just a number of statistics that will provide insight into what direction we need to go and the reason for it.''

Commission chairman Rodney Ruddock said the commissioners want this study conducted before making a decision on a reassessment so residents can have all necessary information.

``It would not be prudent to act without full due diligence in a matter so important to county residents,'' Ruddock said. ``We want to do something that's fair to the citizens of the county, but we don't want to do something that doesn't pass common sense'' - meaning doing something at the local level that the state Legislature may also do sometime in the not-too-distant future.

Property reassessment in counties has in the past been postponed by rumors that the Legislature was going to revamp the system on a statewide basis.

Rep. Dave Reed, R-Indiana, said Monday that statewide property reassessment is an issue that likely will be driven by the governor rather than legislators. And it may not be until after the first six months of the next administration before Pennsylvanians know if reassessment is a priority for the next governor of the state.

Sen. Don White, R-Indiana, said property assessment as a statewide project has not been discussed recently in any Republican caucus, although he is aware of some proposals in the House.

One of those, House Resolution 334, introduced last year, directed the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee to ask for the assistance of the Assessors and County Commissioners Associations of Pennsylvania in conducting a study of the commonwealth's fragmented system of property tax assessments and to compare them with tax systems in other states. That study has been completed and is expected to be released later this month.

That resolution notes that Pennsylvania operates under at least five major assessment statutes, none wholly consistent with the others.

Ruddock said if the commissioners decide a property reassessment is needed, they hope to find a firm that does property reassessments that would be willing to be locked into a rate for three years or so, allowing time to see if the governor or lawmakers are going to legislatively address the reassessment issue.

Elections are next year, and Ruddock said the county commissioners could easily sit back and wait until after the election to tackle reassessment.``I don't think that's fair ... to the public,'' he said.

Indiana County has about 48,000 parcels of land, and the going rate for a reassessment, according to Medvetz, is about $50 to $55 per parcel, pushing the cost of a possible reassessment in Indiana County to about $2.5 million.

A reassessment, in Medvetz's estimation, would take about 30 months and would be followed by an additional period for appeals. Even if a reassessment was approved immediately, revised values probably would not go into effect until 2014, he said.

According to Ruddock, following a property tax reassessment, one-third of property owners typically pay lower taxes, one-third pay higher taxes and for one-third taxes remain the same.

The study by the law firm is expected to last six to eight weeks and will cost $5,000.

To do today

Start by doing what's necessary; then do what's
possible; and suddenly you are doing the impossible. -
Francis of Assisi

Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

Australia's Declaration of Open Government

Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Clift <clift@e-democracy.org>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 13:39:33
To: newswire<newswire@groups.dowire.org>
Reply-To: clift@publicus.net
Subject: [DW] Australia's Declaration of Open Government

From:
http://agimo.govspace.gov.au/2010/07/16/declaration-of-open-government/

Declaration of Open Government
By Lindsay Tanner on 16 Jul 2010 11:07am, 51 comments
Gov 2.0

The central recommendation of the Government 2.0 Taskforce's report
was that the Australian Government makes a declaration of open
government. As the Minister responsible for that Taskforce, I am proud
to make that Declaration today on behalf of the Australian Government.

Declaration of Open Government

The Australian Government now declares that, in order to promote
greater participation in Australia's democracy, it is committed to
open government based on a culture of engagement, built on better
access to and use of government held information, and sustained by the
innovative use of technology.

Citizen collaboration in policy and service delivery design will
enhance the processes of government and improve the outcomes sought.
Collaboration with citizens is to be enabled and encouraged. Agencies
are to reduce barriers to online engagement, undertake social
networking, crowd sourcing and online collaboration projects and
support online engagement by employees, in accordance with the
Australian Public Service Commission Guidelines.

The possibilities for open government depend on the innovative use
of new internet-based technologies. Agencies are to develop policies
that support employee-initiated, innovative Government 2.0-based
proposals.

The Australian Government's support for openness and transparency
in Government has three key principles:

* Informing: strengthening citizen's rights of access to
information, establishing a pro-disclosure culture across Australian
Government agencies including through online innovation, and making
government information more accessible and usable;
* Engaging: collaborating with citizens on policy and service
delivery to enhance the processes of government and improve the
outcomes sought; and
* Participating: making government more consultative and participative.

Supporting Initiatives

The Australian Government's commitment to action on each of these
principles is demonstrated by:

* the passage of legislation reforming the Freedom of
Information (FOI) Act and establishing the Office of the Australian
Information Commissioner;
* the Government's announcement on 3 May 2010 of its response
to the Government 2.0 Taskforce report, Engage: Getting on with
Government 2.0; and
* Its response to the Ahead of the Game: Blueprint for the
Reform of Australian Government Administration report, in which the
Government agreed that creating more open government is a key reform
for the Australian Public Service.

Effective collaboration between citizens and government requires
timely sharing of the information held by Government. The Government's
FOI Reforms create the new statutory Office of the Australian
Information Commissioner and establish a comprehensive Information
Publication Scheme that requires agencies to publish a wide range of
information.

The Australian Government has commenced the program of initiatives
outlined in its response to the Taskforce's report in accordance with
the agreed implementation timetable.

The Department of Finance and Deregulation will report annually on
implementation progress of the recommendations of the Government 2.0
Taskforce to the Government through the Secretaries' Information and
Communications Technology Governance Board.

The Gillard Government is committed to creating a culture of public
sector openness, transparency and engagement. This Declaration is a
demonstration of that commitment.

The Declaration underpins a range of Government initiatives already
under way. The establishment of the Office of the Australian
Information Commissioner and the Government's broader freedom of
information reforms aim to restore trust and integrity in government
and drive agencies to proactively release information to the public.
The Declaration also reflects one of the key reforms of Ahead of the
Game: Blueprint for Reform of Australian Government Administration,
which called for more open government.

The Declaration encourages and affirms among Australian Government
agencies a culture of openness built on the key principles of
informing, engaging and participating with the public. And it
acknowledges that the internet holds a crucial role in realising a
more open and transparent form of government in this country.

The Declaration is about making more government information available
to the public online, and encouraging reuse of that information in
new, valuable and potentially unexpected ways. It is about giving
Australians more of a say in forming the policy and delivering the
services that have an influence on their lives. It is about enabling
government agencies and individual public servants to be more
innovative and more responsive to input and feedback, while still
maintaining the high ethical and professional standards we expect.

I believe that the Declaration lays an important foundation in
implementing our Government 2.0 agenda. In the spirit of that agenda
I urge you to read the Declaration and welcome your ongoing feedback
as the Gillard Government implements a culture of openness and works
towards a more participatory form of government.

Lindsay Tanner

Minister for Finance and Deregulation

Steven Clift - http://stevenclift.com
  Executive Director - http://E-Democracy.Org
  Follow me - http://twitter.com/democracy
  New Tel: +1.612.234.7072

-----------------------------------------
Group home for Newswire - Steven Clift's Democracies Online Newswire:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/newswire

Replies go to members of Newswire - Steven Clift's Democracies Online Newswire with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/3iIIFKStzfbNsW1JWFZJEr

For digest version or to leave Newswire - Steven Clift's Democracies Online Newswire,
email newswire@groups.dowire.org
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.

Newswire - Steven Clift's Democracies Online Newswire is hosted by Democracies Online - http://dowire.org.

Fw: Financial Management Series: Sign up now!

Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

-----Original Message-----
From: "The Forbes Funds" <The_Forbes_Funds@mail.vresp.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:32:28
To: <mark@rauterkus.com>
Reply-To: "The Forbes Funds" <reply-c2e88f5b97-06504d12d0-7b49@u.cts.vresp.com>
Subject: Financial Management Series: Sign up now!

Click to view this email in a browser
http://hosted.verticalresponse.com/162031/c2e88f5b97/109002209/06504d12d0/


Dear Colleague,

The Forbes Funds invites you and your team, CEO, Board Treasurer and
day to day financial staff member, to join us for a three part
Financial Management Series scheduled for July 22, August 5 and August
19 from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. at The Lexus Club at PNC Park. Space
is limited to 50 agencies and is filling up fast!

For more details, including RSVP instructions and the program agenda,
visit The Forbes Funds website at
http://cts.vresp.com/c/?TheForbesFunds/c2e88f5b97/06504d12d0/810c603170.


Should you have any questions feel free to email us at
innovationagenda@forbesfunds.org.

Sincerely,


Diana A. Bucco
President


______________________________________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please reply to this
message with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line or simply click on the
following link:
http://cts.vresp.com/u?c2e88f5b97/06504d12d0/mlpftw

______________________________________________________________________
This message was sent by The Forbes Funds using VerticalResponse

The Forbes Funds
Five PPG Place
Suite 250
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222-5414

Read the VerticalResponse marketing policy:
http://www.verticalresponse.com/content/pm_policy.html

Five Year Road Map for Pittsburgh Public Schools

Get out your decoder rings.

Curfew Crashes

The City of Pittsburgh Curfew Center for teens crashed. The policy called for $500,000 spending in its first year. All agree that the model is broken. The assistant police chief said that the law should be changed as it is not working.

When this budget and the law passed, months and years ago -- I pitched a fit. It was bad news at day zero IMNSHO (in my not so humble opinion). I hated it and what it stood to do.

The overnight part didn't work. The expense didn't work. The RFP didn't work. The law didn't work

Fw: [ronpaul-1834] New Meetup: Unite in Action 2010 March on DC!

Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

---

From: Gary <dragonflydreams2@hotmail.com>

Sender: ronpaul-1834-announce@meetup.com

Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:34:07 -0400

To: <ronpaul-1834-announce@meetup.com>

ReplyTo: ronpaul-1834@meetup.com

Subject: [ronpaul-1834] New Meetup: Unite in Action 2010 March on DC!

Announcing a new Meetup for The Ron Paul Revolution: Pittsburgh!

What: Unite in Action 2010 March on DC!

When: Saturday, September 11, 2010 10:00 AM

Where: Washington D.C.
U.S. Capitol Bldg
Washington, DC 20515

We're the People We've Been Waiting For!
~~
Unite in Action! Be a part of history and preserve Liberty for the future.
Join us September 9th through 12th, 2010 as we MARCH ON D.C.

Unite in Action would like to invite you to come join us as We the People gather from sea to shining sea and converge on our nation's capital for 4 full days patriotic events and presentations.

The 2010 March on DC is not just a rally. It is four whole days of spectacular freedom promoting events that will educate, inform and inspire all who attend.

The March on DC and associated events are truly grassroots—our leadership consists of members from some of the country's largest independent conservative-minded organizations. All those involved in the planning of this event are non-partisan volunteers who share the common goal of unifying constitutional patriots to preserve liberty and the Constitutional principles this nation was founded on.

This is an event of the people, by the people and for the people—it is We the People United in Action!

For more information: http://www.marchondc.org.

RSVP to this Meetup:
http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-1834/calendar/14106208/




--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list (ronpaul-1834@meetup.com)
This message was sent by Gary (dragonflydreams2@hotmail.com) from The Ron Paul Revolution: Pittsburgh.
To learn more about Gary, visit his/her member profile
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 10163-4668 | support@meetup.com