Whitehall Watchblog

Here are a number of documents showing various figures related to Whitehall City Hall’s spending. I thought the citizens would find them interesting, particularly in light of them wanting to attach a surcharge to taxpayer’s utility bills to pay for water/sewer lines.

This is a breakdown of the spending per department for the last 10 years.

This shows the percentage increase in the various departments over the course of ten years or so:

Here are the yearly wage summaries at City Hall:

Here is debt:

Here are abatements:

This is what was spent for someone to tell us what kind of city we should have. Given the Mayor’s insistence that she has ‘vision’ for Whitehall, its odd that she relies on so many outside influences then to tell her how she should operate and change our community.

I wanted to supply Whitehall citizens with budget numbers that, unless you make a records request, City Hall doesn’t just offer up. They are from the ‘budget appropriations’ of various years showing appropriations for that year or coming years. They also include the actual numbers from previous years. For the sake of this post, I am focusing on what they’ve actually spent, as opposed to what they’ve appropriated. Its always interesting to look at it, particularly with previous years to see how spending has increased.

I’ll include every category of City Hall except Civil Service; there’s very little change in that and its not something anyone ever really cares about. Sometimes the sheets will include previous years and so those numbers will suffice instead of showing every single year. I’ll begin each category with the paperwork and then add my comments after the category.

INCOME:

So, this is where we get most of our income. You’ll note that the vast majority of it is ‘income tax’ (which in large part comes from DSCC). About 90% of our income comes from income tax. These are really worth a good look to see where our income is derived from.

OVERALL DEPARTMENT EXPENSES (Remember, the 1st 3 columns are the most reliable as actual spending):

Some BIG leaps in spending in these departments. The most notable are the Auditor/Treasurer’s office, the Mayor’s office and Parks and Rec.; started in the 700’s and is now over a million. Next is WHERE all that money is spent.

AUDITOR/TREASURER:

Increases largely due to heftier and heftier income tax refunds.

CITY ATTORNEY:

COUNCIL:

FIRE DEPARTMENT:

HUMAN RESOURCES:

MAYOR’S OFFICE:

The Mayor’s expenses have more than doubled in ten years.

PARKS AND RECREATION:

Parks and Rec’s spending is now over $1,000,000!!

POLICE:

SERVICE DEPARTMENT:

STREET DEPARTMENT:

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS:

CITY-WIDE EXPENSES:

TECHNOLOGY EXPENSES:

Tech rose nearly $700,000 in 8 years.

EMPLOYEE BENEFITS:

As you see, employee benefits rose 3.5 million in 10 years.

VEHICLE EXPENSES:

As one can see, there is alot of information to unpack. Having the facts and figures gives you insight into the truth.

In the early 00’s, Whitehall City government decided (for you, despite stiff vocal opposition from residents) that the taxpayer’s trash pickup would no longer be picked up as part of a city service. That now, the citizens would have to pay for it directly out of their pockets while still having the tax money which used to pay for it, now going to pay for something else ( I would think, ostensibly, because the ‘city’ could no longer ‘afford’ it). Essentially, a backdoor tax increase. In those contracts, it was one price for pickup for everybody with bulk pickup during ‘spring cleaning’ and however much you set out in your own cans every week. That was the way its been then for the last 20 years.

Cut to…the latest contract in 2020. That which has brought great upset to the public.
“The lids have to be shut for Local Waste to take it”
“They didn’t pick up my trash!”
“the can isn’t big enough for my family, now I have to purchase a larger one”
“they won’t take this, they won’t take that”
“I’m gonna have to start keeping trash back (to save money)”
The complaints have been numerous, loud and bitter. Of course, from ‘The City’s’ standpoint, its very simple: the new contract encourages more recycling. What it also is, is a pay for play setup; the more trash you produce, the more you pay (this one seemingly encouraging people to create less waste in a throwaway society that practically demands consumption!). When ‘The City’ explains itself, it always has ALL the right answers and the air of a reasonable and professional government entity. When you’re the ‘smoke-blowers’ and the great and powerful ‘Oz’, it is easy to play the big/smart entity with all the answers, those which you want people to hear which will cause you the least ‘trouble’. However, with critical thinking skills, one can cut into and through that smoke and mirrors to realities that exist, those they’re certainly not going to offer up (as it threatens the stability of their vested interests, because, when it comes down to it, those are everything, not you).

Let me then cut through some of that smoke (as is seemingly my role here in Whitehall) to say that which they don’t want you to know and/or think about:

a) They are encouraging you to recycle through your pocketbooks. If you have to pay more for more trash, perhaps then you’ll do what you can to lessen that load (expense). While this is a backdoor method to get you to recycle more, for an admirable reason, while it encourages lessening the trash to the landfills, it also, in getting you to pay more for more trash, in essence, ‘penalizes‘ you for having more people in your home, i.e. children and spouses, where that was never the case before. Whereas for the past 20 years we all paid the same rate (and I never heard anyone grouse about it), now suddenly, you’re paying more than others. If everyone paying the same rate for 20 years was fine, why is it now no longer so? The change, for whatever reason, still has the unavoidable result of being a ‘family tax’. This in a country that is uber-family and uber-consumerist. It not only discourages more trash then, but discourages, financially, the added people who will produce it (particularly in families with low incomes…).

b) They claim that all the info was put out there and still they heard no objections (since when do objections halt them from doing anything?!) Because of this, the Mayor’s representatives on council…I mean…your representatives on council, voted yes to the trash contract. The entire time citizens complained about the new trash contract, ‘The City’s’ responses never alluded to the truth of it (that its pay for play trash pickup) but instead merely answered to the concerns the ultimate truth caused; lids having to be closed, nothing set aside the cans, etc. I heard NO ONE: the Mayor, Mr. Woodruff or Council, say what the truth of it was but yet, our representatives voted to approve the contract. If they knew exactly what the contract entailed; a) why would they burden the residents like that in a town where resident’s incomes are finite and b) why wouldn’t they have copped to the contract’s truth if they knew it existed? (I think its because they knew how pissed off you would be. They don’t like to utter ugly truths because they know it will get you in a lather and possibly cause their seat of power to be in jeopardy…)
Regardless, your representatives are supposed to be up there working for you. They are not an arm of the administration, no matter how much the Mayor would like you to think they’re all a ‘Team’. They are supposed to have independent voices and minds for your benefit. If they knew what this contract entailed and voted yes on it, shame on them. If they didn’t know what it entailed and voted to pass it, shame on them.

c) If, at one time, ‘The City’ was forced to end trash service as part of a city service, because it needed the tax dollars to be appropriated for other things, why then, when we seem to have such a largesse as to have fleets of vehicles for every aspect of ‘The City’s’ governance and Park Rangers and raises for everybody and new Dog Parks, why is the best they can do is to squeeze us harder and harder for more money? Why must we now have to pay MORE money, above and beyond what is a normal raise during a new contract? How about we cut the Community Affairs Coordinator position and use that to cover some of this overage the citizens are always expected to pick up while ‘The City’ itself has no financial burdens (with OUR money). They’ve all got jobs, they have no worries where extra money is gonna come in, they’ll still get paid and have extra positions added to boot. There always seems to be plenty of money for ‘The City’ and its operation while its compliant citizenry are always expected to dig deeper to make all their ends meet.

It seems then in Whitehall, ‘The City’ flourishes financially while the taxpayers financials decline.

At last weeks Council Meeting, at-Large Councilor Bob Bailey briefly addressed my poll council comments asking for concrete answers regarding the issues surrounding the juveniles selling water on our streets:

That committee Councilor Bailey speaks of is the one formed with Mayor Maggard, Ward 4 Councilor Lori Elmore, City Attorney Michael Bivens, Police Chief Crispen, Council President Tom Potter and at-Large Councilor Karen Conison (who I was told had scheduling conflicts).

While its admirable they would gather to find solutions for the issues surrounding juveniles selling wares on our streets, due to various vested interests, prejudices and fears amongst those in this committee, it gives rise to serious doubts they can perform the task before them with as thorough a consideration as possible towards justice and right for the community’s benefit. Here is what lies underneath those concerns and doubt:

Mayor Kim Maggard: The Mayor has spent several years and bet her entire political career on, not only her ‘vision’ of largely changing the dynamic of Whitehall but, in my opinion, riding out her 3rd term on the community’s shoulders to shouted glory. There has been a great deal of time and energy and planning and money that has went into all this change. I can assure you, she is NOT going to allow it all to get destroyed in a firestorm of racial misperceptions as created by the unsubstantiated, misplaced accusations of Councilor Lori Elmore. No amount of justice or community right is worth all her efforts being dashed. Therefore, the Mayor has a HUGE vested interest in seeing this issue ignored or swept under the rug, despite the harm it continues to bring to the community. Note then, her complete silence on this matter.

Chief Mike Crispen: A month or so ago, the Chief came to Council after it had passed Ordinance 049-2020:

http://whitehall-oh.us/DocumentCenter/View/2235/Ordinance-049-2020-Affirming-Racism-is-a-Public-Health-Crisis?bidId=

While Chief Crispen spoke on the matter of Ordinance 049 and issues within the police force in relation to racial unrest in the country, morale of the department, etc., the core of his message, to me, was this:

It is a striking and heartfelt explanation as to the rightful and alarming concerns of the Whitehall PD right now. However, in this speech, (the full video is available on Youtube and is worth the full viewing):
https://youtu.be/iTt3yLxpWEQ
while the Chief speaks to the department’s hesitancy to pro-actively do their job due to troubles rightly perceived to be a threat to the officers, I believe that same heightened threat and concern can also lie underneath the proactivity of police action when it comes to juveniles behavior and actions while selling things on streets and corners. That threat which stems from unsubstantiated cries of racism being irresponsibly bandied about along with this kind of threatening hyperbole from the City Attorney, as seen here:

Given the current explosive climate between the Black Lives Matter movement and Police across the nation, it is no stretch of the imagination to believe then that the Police are perhaps a bit skittish when it comes to doing their job in relation to anyone whose skin color isn’t white, as is the case with several selling water or, as Councilor Elmore called them, “little black kids”. This is due to worry that public misperceptions (as Attorney Bivens clearly illustrates with his story) may erupt into unjust, out of control actions upon Whitehall itself. It is a very short distance then from that, to gather that the Chief and Police department saying this isn’t a safety issue and downplaying its effects upon the community (as communicated by Attorney Bivens) might not be related so much to the truth as it is the chilling effect Councilor Elmore and Attorney Bivens wrongly exerted assertion and hyperbole have infused into this legitimate community concern, as Chief Crispen alludes to in the video. Those chilling effects which may have a part to play in Police (and Administration and Council’s) minimization or inaction regarding behavior and actions of some water sellers.

As such, I believe his vested interests prevent impartiality on his part in regard to the decision-making processes with regard to the issues at hand, which include protecting and watching out for the Police Department and Mayor’s interests (see: her vested interests above). His words could say one thing but because of the inherent conflicts-of-interest he brings to this process, it casts doubt on the end decision’s veracity. As such, his inclusion in this particular committee lacks impartiality for the most just outcome for the community.*

City Attorney Michael Bivens: I think Attorney Bivens has made his positions pretty clear, those which show his prejudices as he participates in a committee which should have (and demand) his impartiality in any decisions made:

Ward 4 Councilor Lori Elmore: Councilor Elmore’s positions have been made inordinately clear: because she believes that some of the complaints being made about juveniles selling water are racially-based (unsubstantiated), why would she ever do anything tangible to solve and regulate the situation on issues otherwise when color seems to be so all-encompassing for her? I have not heard her address the specific complaints relating to the core issue of behavior and actions but rather only: their skin color, racism, and solutions to make them adhere to safety issues but, no acknowledgment or counsel or repudiation of the bad behavior itself. Therefore, she has obvious and clear prejudices when making decisions regarding regulation of sales to offset bad behavior and actions (the core issue at hand). As such, it impedes her ability to make clear-headed and just decisions regarding the legitimate concerns and complaints which arose in the first place.

Council-President Tom Potter: President Potter has a close association with Mayor Maggard. He was the President of the Whitehall Community Improvement Corp. which bought up properties, that which helped to see Mayor Maggard’s vision of eliminating ‘blight’ a reality. So too, he was the leader of the ‘Yes on 37’ campaign to open up a 3rd term for Whitehall politicians (which raised nearly $40,000), that which ultimately benefited Mayor Maggard and her ‘Team’. As she wants is as he wants. If not, he wouldn’t have shown so much support of her and her ‘vision’. As such, his prejudices are clear: if its not in HER interests (see: her vested interests above) its not going to be in his. His vested interests then prevent him from offering up the clearest, most just decision in regard to the community.

at-Large Councilor Karen Conison: I was told she had a time conflict with the meeting and so wasn’t able to be a part of it.

Given all the allegations towards some of the juveniles selling things on our streets and the resultant rightful outrage by those community members, they expect, not undue or harsh or unjust decisions regarding the juveniles but rather, merely, right and just action and regulation to prevent these same things from happening in the future. That which the citizens deserve the clearest, least prejudiced response to by those elected to serve them and not those official’s own self-serving interests. This entire group, in my opinion and analysis, does not represent that obligation nor show, in all their clear conflicts of interest through their vested interests, that ability to serve up that clear and just decision the community expects from them.

We shall see…we shall see.

*Given Mayor Maggard’s disrespect to the Public Trust and complete aversion to heeding the wrong of conflicts of interest, it is no surprise that she continues to do so. As she has shown time and again in her past, heeding conflicts of interest in order to gain your trust in her would be foolish (as you give it to her regardless). Besides, they really only just get in the way of what’s best for her and, because you allow this from her, she does it time after time. As for this situation, those ignored conflicts of interest threaten impartial decision-making and are done so to clearly shoo away fiery conflict, that which threatens to bring great harm to her years of work (as well as to, as usual, shut up her fiercest critic). That is why this committee is brimming with conflicts of interest and zero citizens who can offer non-political input.

This past Saturday, the Columbus Urban League, partnering with the Franklin County Job and Family Services, came to Whitehall, behind Target, to tout this event:

I arrived at noon and stayed ’til 1:30, waiting for events and kids speaking. There were tents thrown up in the loading dock area of Target. The whole purpose of the event seemed to be tied to the juveniles selling water on city streets. The core of the pitch seemed to be a ‘water bottle pledge’, that which youth would sign showing their willingness to abide by a small set of pledges. Here is that document:

The Columbus Urban League is a respected institution in our society and yet, for me personally, their releasing a document children will sign that is so peppered with spelling, punctuation and grammar mistakes is not very admirable nor worthy of such a valued and esteemed institution. Education, like people, matters. This signals to the youth that it doesn’t matter. I’m honestly surprised and disappointed they allowed this to go out, as is. 

Pledge #1: I PLEDGE to use Personal Protective Equipment when helping my customers. I will wear masks and gloves for safety.

This is great that its in there but, as we have seen, all of this has already been given to some of the juveniles by some well-meaning people, and they have been roundly abandoned, draped over a fence, etc. Expectation without consequences means nothing. Nothing.

Pledge #2: I PLEDGE to stay of (off/on?) curbs and out of the street when selling my products.

Again, they have been counseled on this problem by well-meaning community members, the Police and still, they do it. Just last week I saw one boy run into the opposite lane to a car, which had just passed the intersection, to sell a water, while another car going in the opposite direction passed only a foot or so from him. Clearly, advice given hasn’t always been heeded. What strength then will this mere ‘pledge’ have?

Pledge #3: I PLEDGE to wear my hat and visor (which they got in a goody bag when they filled out a ‘water bottle pledge’), as to be seen by traffic, follow safety rules, and make good choices to keep myself safe.

Looks good on paper.

Pledge #4: I PLEDGE to be in my home by 7pm

While this is admirable, no teen is going to run directly home by 7 pm on a Summer night. Its wording is unclear and too simple.

Pledge #5: I PLEDGE to not sell my products alone, as my safety is is most important. I am important to my family, my friend (just one?), and my community. I am valuable to society.

While this is a pledge to not sell things alone, its really a bolstering of worth and self-esteem and, while that is nice, it doesn’t really address good entrepreneurial behavior nor underpin all of this with any kind of authority.

Bottom line: I, of course, find this effort admirable, made by a non-governmental agency towards juveniles, as I always do and support.
However, it just shows no accountability other than a pledge (who will hold juveniles accountable when they ignore these pledge’s tenets or continue with any of the wrong which has already been reported?). As such, its nothing more than a soft-serve panacea which, in my opinion, merely serves to relieve and replace Whitehall Council and their obligations toward their duties as legislator’s and leaders, gets the community off the backs of these “little black kids”* and legitimizes kids selling wares on our streets and corners. So, while admirable in theory, I find it misguided as a real means of holding juveniles accountable for bad behavior in the public landscape, that which teaches lessons and, when applied properly and judiciously, crafts better character.

For an actual solution with caring but disciplined strength, I refer you to the plan I submitted to City Hall and the community:

COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS FOR KIDS ON STREETS SELLING WATER

Something I feel that needs comment is this: since Councilor Elmore cried (baseless) allegations of racism over complaints of juveniles selling water on our streets, the Columbus Urban League became involved and hosted this event at the very corner where the contentious behavior originated and, because the efforts made by them (in light of some of the awful behavior recounted and documented), are really quite toothless, lack accountability nor address respect to the street and community standard, it feels less about holding juveniles accountable while selling things in our community and more like an effort meant only to protect the youth based on the color of their skin.
For me, when fighting racism; no matter the color of the skin you live in, that sole motivation is always wrong.

Prove me wrong.

*Ward 4 Whitehall Councilor Lori Elmore

At last week’s Council Committee meeting, Whitehall’s City Attorney, Michael Bivens, stood before Council to discuss his views, as city attorney, on the issue of kids on city streets selling things. As you may know, this has been an ongoing situation this year, fueled by complaints of bad behavior, littering and safety issues. Seeing accountability and successful results with these issues has mostly been thwarted by Service Director Zack Woodruff saying he believed that complaints are “somewhat racially motivated” and Ward 4 Councilor Elmore leaving no doubt when she said that “some of it is racial complaints”. Their inclusion of these comments then set a stage which would cloud the core issues of the bad behavior.
Now, seeming to sidle up to these unsubstantiated charges which obfuscate all the rest, comes our City Attorney. Whereas we started purely with the citizen’s allegations of littering, running into traffic (which included toddlers), backing traffic up, fist fighting, throwing water bottles at cars, taking Target carts and then filling them with trash, blocking the right-of-way, setting off fireworks, playing ball inches from traffic, cursing and yelling epithets (at least one racial in itself: ‘white ass bitch’) etc., now it has veered from those valid and legitimate community concerns to nothing other than the base issue of their skin color, and with that, devastating every legitimate concern in their claim’s wake. We now also have, apparently, the Columbus Urban League and the NAACP perched, as it were, awaiting possible racist actions by our City Council’s efforts in trying to right the wrongs of some of these juvenile’s actions. Due to this, and Attorney Biven’s comments, I felt compelled to write a blogpost on this topic, primarily focused on his fear-based/dire-predictions sell job. I will go through Mr. Biven’s arguments as to why Council shouldn’t proceed with anything to remedy this situation, offering up rebuttals and counterpoints to show the weakness in his arguments. Those arguments, along with his exaggeration, which I say illustrate an attempt, not to find justice for wrong being done but, merely to keep juveniles from being held accountable simply due to their skin color.

Let’s begin here with what Mr. Bivens concluded from his talk with Chief of Police Crispen and the Police department:

Counter-argument: According to Attorney Bivens, Chief Crispen and officers have told him that this is not a safety issue, that assertion which flies in the face of eyewitness accountings, which also include a couple of Council members!
One day, when the police drove by the corner of Robinwood and Doney, one or another of the boys who were there said, in an atypical fashion, “Have a nice day Officer”. Not since Eddie Haskell on ‘Leave it to Beaver’ have I witnessed such a display of overt fawning. I see them all the time, I hear them all the time, I witness them all the time. The Police, who drive by or may talk with them or sit and watch them, I claim, are NOT as privy to the actuality of their personalities, makeup and behavior as I am and certainly not due to the dynamic of their authority. Therefore, I claim their declaration that this is NOT a safety issue should not be given the credence as argument that it doesn’t actually possess. The truth is seen in the MANY eyewitness statements of actions, words and behaviors. When they do watch or stop by, those on the corner are clearly on their best behavior. Therefore, for Mr. Bivens, who also doesn’t live over here or may not have been witness to the actuality of bad behaviors here, cannot give proper credibility in argument to the Police’s assessment. I can, several on Council can and so too the others who have expressed their experiences personally. Therefore, Mr. Bivens inclusion of this assessment as argument against regulation is empty and worthless (there may be more to the story. More on that later). So, now we have the police saying, safety/schmafety. There’s no problem over there. Its a “non-issue”.

Here then is at-Large Councilor Bob Bailey speaking about the ‘rear-endings’ (which contradict the Police Departments assertions of it not being a safety issue:

So, Mr. Bivens now gives us his first movement in his argument that Council shouldn’t find regulations to address the issues of concern: an example where, nearly 40 years ago, council repealed some ordinance regarding ‘issuance of licenses to minors’. Argument:

Counter-argument: The dismantling of an ordinance regarding issuance of license to minors on Whitehall’s books nearly 40 years ago, which he throws in to the argument, is based only on an assumption. He doesn’t know why they did it but because they did, it can surely be related to the issue now. As such, its being used as a valid example to bolster his argument is weak.

Now we get to the core of his concerns with Council making ‘regulations’ to control the behavior of juvenile water sellers on our streets; Constitutionality. Argument:

When Ward 3 Councilor Morrison makes a valid point about selling at corners, watch Attorney Bivens minimize and/or eschew the point:

They may be standing in front of someone’s house but some have served the corner too. Every house sitting at a corner is a corner house. Every person passing that corner can’t help but see the house they’re standing on is at a corner and may have seen them running to the other street at that corner to make a sale, as I have many times. No, they’re not literally standing directly on the corner but they are servicing more than just ‘in front of the house’. His caginess makes one wonder why he’s minimizing information. Councilor Morrison, reasonably invoking concerns of safety with corner traffic, wonders how to move them away from that corner, as does Councilor Kantor. Attorney Biven’s pooh-poohing Councilor Morrison’s characterization shows a reticence on his part to acknowledge the truth of Morrison’s information, so as to minimize safety concerns selling water at corners? Why? His parsing this information on the front of a corner house (among other of his arguments) creates doubt then as to Attorney Biven’s stated motivations as well as his allegiance to truth when so unnecessarily dodging an innocuous but valid point. After all, truth is everything. If one is not singularly dedicated to it in life, it undermines ones credibility and believability.
I have to say, given his argument so far, its appearing, not really designed to counsel City Council about doing what is lawfully within their purview to do but, really, just to put a kibosh on holding juveniles accountable for no other apparent reason than the color of their skin. If it was white people doing it, it would be the height of outrage and scandal but when the shoes on the other foot, it should be ignored? As someone who has been fighting racism in all its forms, both internally and externally, for a long time, I find this disturbing. Right is right is right and wrong is wrong is wrong.

This seems to be a few people in power’s answer to the core issue’s problem. Argument:

Counterargument: No one wanted to do anything when the problem was small, and now since the problem increased, there has been a lot more talk of dealing with it through the ordinances we have on the books already and yet, when you try to deal with it in that fashion, its all minimized, pooh-poohed or thrown to another entity, much as I reported on in this blogpost:

THE ROUND-ROBIN, BUCK-PASSING IRRESPONSIBILITY OF WHITEHALL CITY HALL

They pooh-pooh actual regulations which would remedy a lot of these problems and want it just to be an ‘administrative’ issue but then the departments of the administration (Service/code enforcement…Police) push it aside, saying its Target’s problem, say its a non-issue, the police have better things to respond to, etc., and so they push it away where NOTHING then will ever get accomplished. Our City government abandons the community because some are either protecting people based solely on their color or are afraid color having been made an issue in something that’s NOT about that, are afraid the city/their plans and schemes/their reputation/The City, will get swept up in a brouhaha that none of them want anything to do with. And so, instead, each because of their own self-interests, give a big fucking middle finger to the community. Attorney Bivens is merely the latest to do so.

Finally, Attorney Bivens mentions one more thing. Argument:

Counterargument: Mr. Bivens reminds Council, which Councilor Morrison backs up, that because juveniles will soon be back to school, that these issues will fade away.
a) Will they actually be in school for authorities to know they’re ‘truant’ OR if they’re being schooled at home, will authorities be able to know if they’ve finished their school work? Will they take the time to figure this out or will the authorities merely brush it aside? Will these concerns then have to be called in by citizens? Seems like a possible ball drop to me.
b) Both Mr. Bivens and Mr. Morrison seem to have so easily dismissed the fact that sellers have been out there every year now for four years and they will be back next Spring for ‘Season 5’. This isn’t going away because leaves may start to fall. The issues at hand will go away ONLY by actually doing something tangible. I can’t believe I have to even remind anyone of this. Its really frustrating.

This is a list of those in government that Attorney Bivens spoke to. My inclusion of it here is simply to show you that the mere opinions of city leaders don’t give the full picture of what’s behind their opinions/decisions. Being that they’ll never voluntarily offer you the whole truth, its left to citizens like me who hold their feet to the fire, to do so:

Most of these people have vested interests in keeping the status quo, particularly when doing otherwise might unleash fiery controversy upon our little ‘burb. Here then are the stakes of those who would brush aside or minimize the issue’s impacts:
Mayor Kim Maggard: The mayor has spent several years eradicating “blight’ (which happens to include poor black people getting swept up in her obsession (not very positive…that)). To replace that ‘blight’ (or ‘slum-shifting’ as the great critic of city planning, Jane Jacobs, called it) the Mayor brought in new businesses and ‘upscale apartments’ and everything is on the upswing. All positive, all casting Whitehall in a good light, as Councilor Elmore underscores with her comment:

(Note that justice against perceived racism matters but not justice that gets in the way of po$itive upward movement of City Hall’$ work. Sounds like racism of convenience. Got it.)
Due to all her administration’s hard work in the last 9 or so years, it’s my opinion that she’s afraid all of this, due to Councilor Elmore’s unsubstantiated racism charges, is gonna ignite a big ole BLM bomb and, if not incur riots, at the least, provide Whitehall with unsavory headlines which may put the kibosh on her forward movement (the threat of which was ironically supplied by Councilor Elmore herself who now just wants to stick to positive headlines). As Ms. Elmore herself would say, “I’m just gonna keep this always 100”.

Police Chief Crispen: A few weeks ago, Council passed a resolution regarding ‘Racism is a public health crisis’. Within the resolution there was this wording:  “Reviewing community paramedic and police response policies, including use of force, with a racial equality lens and to make changes as needed to promote racial equity, specifically as it relates to and including black, brown and other people of color…”. A short time afterwards, Chief Crispen then addressed council with concerns. He said, in essence, his officer’s morale was low and they were afraid that, in doing their job, one incident could send them away to prison for a long time and so he wanted to make sure that council was on their side. In short order then, Council drew up something which honored and recognized the Police, the presentation of which several on Council lavished them with unabashed praise. My estimate of all of this is that, given the BLM movement,  the police departments are skittish and sensitive regarding themselves and perceived behavior, and rightly so. My belief is that the above wording, or something else, irritated or pissed them off, particularly in light of all the recent events and so, after expressing himself at the Council meeting, it was decided, toot sweet, that the city better butter both sides of that bread.
I have no other observation or opinion of Chief Crispen other than as a professional and honorable person who has a Police force to direct. In this particular climate of ‘defund the police’ and being called every ugly epithet imaginable, I suspect they are skittish to do something about a problem, particularly when it involves, as characterized by Councilor Elmore, “little black kids”. It’s too racially charged right now, particularly after her unsubstantiated and irresponsible charges and so, it seems to me that it would behoove the Police Department at this time to minimize an issue which organically reared it head during a most inopportune time, as I believe they did when they told Attorney Bivens that its pretty much a non-issue. Unnecessary violence and rioting in the street might be a powerful motivator to keep things cool, wouldn’t you say? An understandable caution that nevertheless dismisses justice.

Service Director Woodruff: Mr. Woodruff, in meetings, has already expressed his disinterest in this issue and, like Mayor Maggard (who is his boss, as she is Chief Crispen’s) has worked very hard to lasso the change they’ve made. I suspect that what she doesn’t want nor behooves her then, neither does it he.

Councilor Kantor: I have seen no vested interest from Mr. Kantor, not even a hint of silence to keep everybody happy.

Councilor Elmore: I think Ms. Elmore’s interests have been made pretty clear by now. She has leveled unsubstantiated (therefore unwarranted) atomic charges, not only toward this issue but the city as a whole. Its all racism to her. So, apparently, equal justice only applies to her interests but when decent people in our community expect accountability for wrongful behavior, she’s fairly silent on that front. I’ve heard her yell racism and bending over backwards to find other solutions for the issue (except accountability) but, she has given little credence to the wrong of the many charges leveled against some of the youth, some of which are awful, thereby minimizing their wrong in her silence. You can’t help but wonder then how much of her help is based on justice and how much is just about protecting them based on their skin color?

Summary: I believe that this string of exaggerations, obfuscations, minimizations and racial fear-mongering are a concerted effort at confusion using wrongly placed accusations designed both to leave kids alone based solely on their skin color and scare off white people from doing the right thing about legitimate wrongs in a situation because skin color was invoked.  Any disinterest in regulation is not based on lack of evidence or ample truth in the community’s outrage as some would have you believe but rather, due only to personal vested interests (protecting people based solely on their skin color, keeping their legacies alive, avoiding ‘trouble’/bad publicity, etc.), those which might get harmed were they to ignore the haunting visions of racial retaliation in their heads and proceed with regulations anyway.
I will say that I have always respected, appreciated and admired Attorney Bivens; professionally and personally. He has been in my home as I have his. I was glad when he won election as Attorney and one of the few at City Hall whom I’ve remained cordial and friendly with throughout these criticisms. However, I’m a little dispirited now by the arguments he’s given to Council but, if I fight wrong and hypocrisy in government, then I can’t be a hypocrite myself and let some off the hook while keeping others on it. So it is in this case too then.
So, despite all the threatening imagery Mr. Bivens has spun for Council’s sweat-drenched legislative nightmares, I believe that there MUST be a way in which to regulate the central issue of how and where and when the sales of wares on our city streets can be done, with lawful respect, without concerns over its unconstitutionality or the ominous threat over our heads that one wrong highly scrutinized word, will bring down the fiery racial judgment that we’re all nothing more than a bunch of awful, hateful white racists.
It is my opinion that alot of it is misplaced agendas obfuscating an issue having nothing to do with anyone’s skin color. Its insertion impedes rightful action of legitimate community alarm, threatening to derail a community’s ability to, using the processes available to us, curtail public issues which create trouble and havoc in our neighborhoods, those which exist and must be properly dealt with regardless of skin color.
It is up to Council, as is their duty to the community they chose to serve (of which you placed your trust in them to do so), to come up with that solution as Mr. Bivens said, they “can”. They mustn’t allow his storm of racial fear to sway them from their job. The job before them is right and true and proper, it is their job to navigate the minefield Mr. Bivens laid down for them to get to that rightful and just outcome. They must use moral courage to exert that effort for you, the community who have strongly shouted out to them their wishes in that effort. Will they courageously plow ahead or will they allow the specter of misdirected racial outrage to handcuff their rightful ability to do something tangible about wrongs perpetrated in the community landscape?

*They are baseless when they have zero evidence offered up to back up the claims. Councilor Elmore (“is”) had ample time to offer this up (never should have brought it up without any in the first place) but didn’t. I’m sorry but now, over a month later, any offering at this point would seem like ‘too little, too late’ and/or simply proffering something up merely to assuage criticism.

In the past couple months there have been episode after episode of bad behavior from some juveniles selling things on Whitehall’s streets. Many eye-witnessed, some issues photographed and many recounted. Despite my attempts to find solutions to this problem:

COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS FOR KIDS ON STREETS SELLING WATER

and all the eyewitnesses and calls made to Police and government, City Hall seems strangely reticent to do anything tangible about a real and simple issue affecting our neighborhoods. For now, I’ve put together all the comments on a reel to show you how minimizing to the community issue too many at City Hall have been (excepting Councilor Conison’s comment after receiving an email from me exhorting her as Chair of the Safety Committee to do something about the problems; that this is not an issue for Council, that this is a safety issue and so should be handled by the Police). Its a disrespectful slap in the face of the community who expect results from their government when issues like this come along. It does not speak well of them, particularly after asking you to reward them with extended terms…

At the Whitehall Council Committee meeting on the evening of Tuesday July 14th, charges of racism were leveled regarding the concerns raised by community members  about the kids selling bottled water on city streets and… the city of Whitehall itself. I take issue with what was said but, first, let’s start with the video showing those comments (only) as they are all this post is dealing with. For the full video you can find them either through the city’s website http://www.whitehall-oh.us/ or on ‘The City of Whitehall’ Facebook page.

Let’s break this down then, starting with Director of Service and Development Zach Woodruff.

He said: “…some of the folks who’ve called me, it is hard for me to not believe this is somewhat racially motivated. Some of the people who I (unintelligible) it is difficult for me in their conversation to not think that if these were five year old little white kids selling lemonade in front of their house that they would have the same issue.”

Firstly, Mr. Woodruff sits in a position of trust. If he says this is what he ‘believes’ then he is accorded that by the public who take stock in his position within the government’s power. Therefore, he has a modicum of responsibility to what utterances he makes from that position. Given that then, the word ‘believe’ is not the same as ‘knows’. To throw out a word like racism based on ‘believing’, in particular as a public official, is to be irresponsible with the weight that term carries. Its like saying in public, I ‘believe’ so-and-so is a murderer. Its not something which you throw out based on belief. Its charge is too explosive.
Now, given the Administration’s apparent reticence to do anything tangible about the complaints regarding the behavior of the juveniles selling water on street corners*, it is no stretch of the imagination to ‘believe’ that Mr. Woodruff might say things to protect his boss’ interests, as so many have done at City Hall (like making this political football go away). This is not so much a cynical assertion as one based on past behavior by people at City Hall; to use hyperbole or minimize things to protect their interests from harm or against those who would bring harm to them. Protecting their interests with hyperbole or other means is not new at Whitehall City Hall. As for me, while I don’t doubt that he is speaking the truth, I myself can’t help but wonder its degree. (Another reason the Public Trust is so important)

Now, let’s say its completely true. There are, of course, racists, they come in all shapes, sizes, colors and degrees and, not just in Whitehall. The idea that some white people would be pissed off by the presence of black kids on the corner selling wares is not improbable. So, if indeed it’s the truth, and not tainted by self-interested embellishment, it is a sad and ugly, but not unusual, occurrence. Sadly, entering the racism quotient as he did, it threatens to discount all complainants, undermining their authority as voices of reason and the validity of legitimate points they may bring forth. However, and even as Mr. Woodruff said, “somewhat racially motivated”, clearly shows that some of it is so but not most or all. Therefore, those others who have legitimate concerns deserve to have those concerns given the proper weight of serious consideration by him and others who have the power and obligation to the citizens to do the proper thing. For him to brush aside legitimate complaints because ‘some’ may be racially motivated is to shirk his duties and disrespect decent citizen’s rightful concerns. That which Mayor Maggard should never tolerate in her administration.

On to Councilperson Elmore’s comments:

“Some of it is racial complaints, ’cause those are little black kids. I’m just gonna call it like it is. Because that’s the reason why we have the ordinance that we just put in place, racism being a health crisis. Because historically, Whitehall has been one of those cities that has operated in racism. I’m just gonna keep this always 100.”

Whereas Mr. Woodruff used the term “believe” regarding his feelings about the racial motivation of complaints, Councilperson Elmore does not show any uncertainty about “some” of the complaints when she uses the word “is”. She gives no example of people’s complaints given to her or how she came to know they’re racially motivated (“is”), she merely says it is so and its because its “little black kids”. She throws this down but doesn’t explain how she came to this knowledge. Is she assuming racism based on skin color? That white people can’t have issues with someone if their skin color is black because that immediately implies their motivations are based on skin color? Where is her proof that its racial in nature other than implying it because of the sellers and complainant’s skin colors? That, without offering proof, is in itself racially motivated. Until she offers up proof of it, outside opinion, then her charge and misplaced inclusion of it in a discussion on safety and behavioral issues amongst teens in public spaces is morally and professionally irresponsible.

So, both her and Mr. Woodruff have entered racism into the concerns people have brought with their legitimate complaints to their representative body. While I know there are racists and that some of them may not like the kids on the corner, (I myself have NEVER heard, in discussion with many people on this topic, any mention of race regarding their issues) to drop that bomb on a legitimate community concern was an egregious wrong. That term is leaden with rightful feelings of passion, upset, history, murder, slavery and everything else. When deployed, it acts like a nuclear bomb, devastating everything in its wake, including all the legitimate complaints. When rightfully concerned citizens have come to their government body to petition them over grievances and ‘some’ who made their objections did so with foolish and harmful prejudices, that is on those fools and those fools alone. Their awful idiocy must not be allowed to taint the validity of the sensible, non-racist citizens rightful concerns and complaints. Dropping the ‘racial’ component in during a citizen representative’s rightful and reasonable inquiry in a public meeting only threatened to sideline legitimate discussion on a meritorious issue. As well, it sends a chilling effect on any person wanting to bring up matters of concern that may happen to involve people who’s color isn’t white, lest they be labeled racist. Particularly so when criteria offered were charges based on nothing other than the color of their skin  (“black kids”).
Entering the charge that the reason people are up in arms is due to the color of the juvenile’s skin was irresponsible and had no place in a reasonable discussion regarding legitimate, VALID, non-racist concerns and issues based on actions and character only. Its not the use of the term racism that is the issue, it is where and when and why and how it was placed.

Just to reacquaint ourselves with Councilor Elmore’s statement:

“Some of it is racial complaints, ’cause those are little black kids. I’m just gonna call it like it is. Because that’s the reason why we have the ordinance that we just put in place, racism being a health crisis. Because historically, Whitehall has been one of those cities that has operated in racism. I’m just gonna keep this always 100.”

Let me break this completely down to leave no room for doubt: She says “…it is racial complaints ’cause those are little black kids”. There alone she’s saying that “some” complaints are racial because of the color of their skin while giving no evidence to support her assertion. Is this an assumption or based on real evidence? She then correlates her assertion with the resolution Council just passed that states that racism is a public health crisis, thereby giving her statement the weight of truth due to her alignment of it with the “ordinance”, despite it lacking credible backing information to be so aligned.  She then said something which has angered myself and others in our fair city. That “historically” Whitehall has operated in racism. Leaving it at that. She doesn’t specify how she believes that is so or how she arrived at that knowledge, who operated it as such or how it did so.

When she says, “historically”, does that mean just in the past and if so, when? Or is it in a general term like ‘usual’ or as is the custom? Does she have a time period for this racism, did it end, is it still in operation? Where and how did this racism manifest itself? Is it the government she’s talking about, the community…who? Without specificity in her charges, she simply dropped an atomic bomb, tainting the entire city of Whitehall with that scarlet ‘R’ and then walked away. As such, she herself is guilty for the public’s rightful reactions in the wake of her simplistic but damaging comments uttered on the Council dais last week. As for me, (whose parents helped build this city’s success and who weren’t racist) one who grew up here, when she didn’t say “operated in racism” some, then that was a sweeping indictment on an entire town, that blanket statement from someone who hasn’t lived here that long, couldn’t possibly know what went on here the nearly 70 years before she moved here and represents on Council the colors of all the citizens. It was beyond the pale.

Again, because there was no ambiguity when she used the term “operated” (that connotes definitive action, there are none of the uncertainties of might or could), nor did she offer timelines for her charges, nor specificity other than the uncertainty of her use of the term “historically”, she leaves her comments WIDE OPEN for interpretation by the citizens of that city: that ALL the Mayors (which includes Maggard), ALL the Councilpersons, ALL the Department heads, ALL the workers and baseball coaches and teachers and Fire Chiefs and Moms and School Boards and Principals “operated in racism”, because, “historically” that’s the way “Whitehall” has been. (And what is “Whitehall”, merely a government? Is it a community of people? What “Whitehall” is she referring to?)
I grew up here and to think that all the great families and good people who lived and worked and raised families here were a bunch of racists is too much for me to take with just a silent shrug. You can’t say, simply, “…historically, Whitehall has been one of those cities that has operated in racism” without those who did so being racist. She may not have specifically said that the people/citizens of Whitehall are racist but, here’s the thing: no one operates (or allows the operation) of “racism” without themselves being a racist. Non-racists don’t operate anything in racism. Ergo, her generalized statement, without specifics, saying what she said, leaves her statement wide open for interpretation of the citizens of that city, and guess what “some” gathered? That her statement implied that the citizens of Whitehall are racist. “…historically, Whitehall has been one of those cities that has operated in racism”. “has”=definitive.

While I have spent a near-lifetime fighting racism and am completely on-board the Black Lives Matter movement and KNOW there is systemic racism and know there were ‘some’ low-key racists in Whitehall when I grew up here; fighting racism within and without entails all of it, not just the obvious or the general narrative, and so…the broad brush Councilperson Elmore used to paint my hometown, the City of Whitehall, was wrong. She has shown bad judgement in both the statement she made and how she made it. She is a representative of everyone in Ward 4. The black citizens, the white citizens and the brown citizens. She may have her beliefs, which she is entitled to but, she has some level of responsibility to her seat, as their representative, to use caution or restraint in how she communicates those beliefs. That is the respectful, civic responsibility she holds while in that seat.

While being passionate and having a righteous opinion on matters is important as a vital human being, if one makes statements based solely on their passion without restraint in consideration for the representative seat they hold, like this instance, it can create unnecessary and harmful consequences.  There are MANY people here who aren’t racist and are good and kind people, of the full-color spectrum who didn’t deserve to be characterized as such. Not only the citizens of Ward 4 were hurt by the passion of her misguided statement but the entire city was too, and while her passion is understandable, I thought it impetuous and irresponsible and disrespectful of her to make it in such a sweeping, and damaging generalization of a lot of people who didn’t deserve it. It remains to be seen what damage she’s done to Whitehall’s reputation in irresponsibly saying both what she did and how she did it.

*Its my belief that, given the majority of the water sellers are black and, given the current racial climate in this country, that the white Mayor of our city is afraid to actually do something about the situation regarding the content of their character because of how it could be perceived based on the color of their skin (particularly when a black public official is yelling in the background, without proof, ‘racism!’) Its a political minefield she simply doesn’t want to navigate. She likes things that make her look good but controversial public decisions that could bring her real heat? Forget about it.

Earlier this evening, the boys on the corner had taken, for the umpteenth time, another Target cart to use for their business’ use. I am sick and tired of their careless attitude towards responsibility and adult authority in the community. They have done it upwards of around 30 times or more and have been counseled on it as many times, by Target, the Police and responsible adults in the community and yet, there are never any repercussions…ever. I stole a Hostess fruit pie at 15, got handcuffed and taken to the Whitehall Police Station. There was no warning, no less 30 or more. If I’d done something I wasn’t supposed to and did it again or 3 more times or 4 or more, there would have been serious repercussions from those in charge of me. Why are those in charge, the adults, not making these kids responsible for their actions? I suspect they’re not learning their lessons distinctly because there are no repercussions.

So, as I drove through English Village I then noticed two other carts, upended in different parts. I then called Mr. Woodruff’s Service Department. On Friday at 4:30 pm (open ’til 5), I got a recording saying they were away from their desk. I pressed ‘1’ to be transferred to Code Enforcement. Just a message saying Walt Sural was out due to the current health crisis. So, no one at home, no one there to help.

I then called Target and spoke with a manager. I explained what was happening, she explained they’d fairly done all they could about the situation and had, essentially, thrown their hands in the air. Strike out, 2 for 2.

I then called the Police department and asked that an officer call me back. The dispatcher told me, paraphrasing, ‘We’ve been told to tell anyone that calls about the boys at Robinwood and Doney to call the Code Enforcement Department. I mentioned that there is an ordinance that states that ‘possession of a shopping cart away from the premises of the owner of the shopping cart shall be considered prima-facie evidence of petit larceny and/or possession of stolen goods.’ So I asked who would be enforcing that. She again referred me back to Code Enforcement who would be gone for two days. Strike 3.

Then there is this from the Service Director, Zach Woodruff, in regard to this very issue:

In the video Mr. Woodruff says, clearly, carts taken off the property is theft and that would be handled by the Division of Police. The ordinance says that someone in possession of a cart off the owner’s property considered prima-facie evidence of petit larceny and/or possession of stolen goods. And yet, when I call the Police, they refer me back to Code, Mr. Woodruff’s department. He also clearly states his lacks attitude about this whole problem. 4th strike.

Ward 4 Councilperson Lori Elmore chastised her fellow Councilpersons for bringing the issue up because as she stated , its a matter for Administration: Mayor Maggard and her Service Department. That which the Mayor is NOT administering.

So, Lori Elmore says my issue lies with Administration. So, I go through Administration: Police, Service Department/Code enforcement and they ALL pass the buck. So, Council can’t do anything, Target won’t do anything, the Service department disrespects and won’t enforce the ordinances Council has put on the books and the Police’s top boss, Mayor Maggard, has clearly instructed them to pass that buck back to the Service Department who think its a non-issue and won’t force Target to comply (but they’ll force private citizens into jail for non-compliance about junk and weeds and such.

Got it!

As some residents may know, there have been kids selling water and other items on street corners and intersections now for four years here in Whitehall. The Mayor looks at it as kids with a lemonade stand but its not. This is not little kids in front of their own homes with a makeshift stand where a parent can peek out and make sure their kids are following good behavior. These are teens, primarily, who are hawking water with no parental supervision and zero guidelines for doing so. As such, it has become contentious due to unsupervised minors, some of whom, sometimes, act in a variety of ways which raise the ire of the community. Those include: running out into traffic, with some children: near-toddlers, the holding up of traffic, the safety issues surrounding all this, aggressive, abusive behavior, trashing of areas where they sell, unruly behavior, Target carts taken off property, filled with trash littering the neighborhood, etc., etc., etc. It has become a point of irritation and outrage to community members, particularly because there seem to be no adults doing anything about the juveniles behavior. They have looked to authorities to step in to control the situation but, seemingly, neither parents or City Hall is doing anything tangible to address the real concerns citizens have about this situation that’s gotten out of control.

My home is situated a mere fifty feet from the most contentious corner, Robinwood and Doney. I have watched four ‘seasons’ of juveniles selling on this corner; the good, the bad and the ugly, including fistfights. (Let me just say that these problems are not the part of every juvenile who sells at that corner, nor is every kid a part of things which are troublesome. There are also good kids there too but sadly, they’re tarnished with the behavior of the bad ones, which can be pretty bad). While others who live elsewhere don’t experience the situation as closely and as often as I do, I’m the one who sees it day in and day out. I have spoken with them many times as a responsible adult community member, I have bought them poster board and markers to make signs up so they don’t feel forced to yell like carnival barkers selling their wares which I hear in my office on the other side of my large house. I have brought them fudgesicles in the worst heat, I have picked up their trash innumerable times, I have counseled them regarding behavior, Target carts, etc. They have also been counseled  by the Police, Target and other adult community members, and yet, problems still exist. Why? Because no adults who can take charge are doing so in this matter. So,  I thought it would be best to draw up this treatise to show what can be done to make the situation a satisfying one for both the kids and the community they sell in. How hard is it to set guidelines?

This should be viewed as a template. One which in its current form, greatly guides the kids to better practices and which is respectful of them and helpful to the community, but nevertheless, a fluid document. Additions can be discussed (hopefully by community members as well as those at City Hall). I am more concerned that this situation is found an amenable solution than my original document stays the same. I hope everyone can be on board that spirit, for the kids.

I have sent this out to Mayor Maggard, all of Council, the Council President and the Whitehall News. This was the body of my email:

                           Junior Entrepreneur Permit

(or something to that effect)

• The permit should be free but will need to be went over with someone in government who ‘issues’ them so that they see all the parameters they will have to abide by, given the opportunities to ask questions and sign it, agreeing to the parameters of the agreement. They must be accompanied by a guardian when obtaining the JEP. Their Whitehall residency can be verified at that time. They can then be issued a button, lanyard or identification badge with a number (large enough for people to easily identify), their name and perhaps, with their photo. (Without their photo, they can just swap them around to others who didn’t hear and agree to the guidelines, making the whole process pointless) This helps them to feel that they’re a welcome part of the community and gives them a sense of accomplishment and ownership.
• The rules (listed below) will offer common sense guidelines to how they may, respectfully, conduct themselves selling items in public in Whitehall. Some entity(s) can be tasked with checking in on them to make certain they’re abiding by these guidelines. If their behavior doesn’t comply with the guidelines as set forth which they agreed to, after perhaps one, maybe two warnings,  then their ‘permit’ is taken from them and its suspended for whatever period of time (2 weeks, 30 days…). They may have it returned and the privilege to return to selling when they return to City Hall and are counseled regarding their wrongful behavior. This teaches them accountability for their actions and that there are consequences in life when you don’t act appropriately and responsibly. It also teaches them that in society there are steps one must take to achieve what they want, that things aren’t just handed to them. They have to work to make them a reality.
• No one under 18 may sell anything, outside of in front of their own address, without a Junior Entrepreneur Permit. As well, no one under the age of (insert safe age selling on street corners here…7? 6? 5?) If found to be selling something away from in front of their own properties without a JEP, they will be ordered away and given a flier with information on it detailing how they may obtain a JEP. This continues to allow kids the ability to open up a lemonade stand to sell something in front of their own house without government interference. This also teaches kids that there are rules to follow in society and that if they want to do something, they’re gonna need to follow the steps necessary to achieve it. It prepares them for what they must face as adults.
• Limit what may be sold. Its water and ‘gushers’ and I’ve seen candy and chips and soda too but if there are no guidelines, what is to stop them from selling other things, OR, have enterprising parents send them out to sell shoes or flags or toiletries or whatever under the ruse of kids selling’ but really as a business. I lived in NYC for 11 years and I’ve seen ALL the rackets. Unless you control it, it can easily, and quickly, snowball into a community’s nightmare.

THE GUIDELINES

(This list doesn’t represent the entirety of guidelines, only those as I’ve come up with having watched them for four years fifty feet from my property. The list is fluid and can be amended.)

Must be Whitehall citizens. Various kids from various neighborhoods who don’t live here, respect our neighborhoods or haven’t been apprised of the guidelines have come here and brought abhorrent behavior with them. Our city streets should not be opened up to anyone selling anything from anywhere. Our streets, our rules.

No selling during rush hour (times to be determined). This respects the flow of traffic when its heavy and people are trying to get home. It also decreases the danger posed to the juveniles by the heavy volume of hurried drivers.

No more than two or three sellers in any one spot. If an intersection, sellers on only one corner. This alleviates the group dynamic where kids start horse-playing and acting the fool, particularly next to traffic. It also alleviates the driver distraction dealing with kids in action on various corners and in the street taking away their already distracted focus. 

No children 5 years of age or younger. This alleviates the selling situation as ‘babysitter’. The kids want to make money and for whatever reason, they’ve got a toddler in tow, tiny kids who need near-constant supervision, being allowed to sell water and run into the busy street where hurried, distracted drivers may not see them. Selling on the street should also not entail the split-focus distraction for the sellers in watching little kids behavior too. Lesson learned: That outside of selling in front of their own home, this is a responsibility they’ll grow to join one day and that some things are age appropriate.

Must carry along a trash bag which they use to thoroughly clean their litter/mess before leaving the area where they sold. These kids make plenty of money and what they have in order to buy inventory, the small box of trash bags should be a part of that inventory. Lesson learned: a job entails more than the making money part, that they have a responsibility and obligation towards that privilege, just like the adults. Clean neighborhood, happy residents.

Their business must be done on the right of way only, not on private property, unless given permission by the homeowner to do so. This also includes not blocking the sidewalk with their venture. This creates a respectful space, an orderly space and a legal space.

No fist-fighting, no horseplay, no firework, etc. There has been a fist-fight at the corner of Doney and Robinwood twice now. So too, fireworks being let off, basketball being thrown around inches from traffic. It creates an atmosphere and identity for Whitehall, not as a community and a place where people want to visit, shop and live but as a crazy, lawless out of control place they want to avoid. This ill-affects the entire community as a result. Lesson learned: they’re responsible for their actions and the actions of those around them can ill-affect their income source.

No selling shall impede the free flow of traffic. No selling at intersections or busy intersections. No selling along large and/or busy roads or roads which allow large semi-tractor trailer rigs. No moving across the lane from where they’re set up to sell something to a vehicle going in the opposite direction. (‘Large’ and ‘busy’ to be determined) People in their cars who pay taxes for those cars, licenses and roads have a right to as unimpeded a traffic flow as is possible and the city has the obligation to provide that to them. The ‘business’ of juveniles selling water is not a legitimate or appropriate reason to interrupt their rightful flow, in particular, day after day after day. Busy intersections are simply the wrong place to sell anything. The traffic is twice as heavy. If traffic is held up with sales curbside, it quadruples the snarl of the traffic flow with four corners. If there are cars going left of center when the car stopped is at the stop sign, it poses a danger if there is someone (a child) in the crosswalk in front of the stopped vehicle the other vehicle may not see. (A more appropriate place is down the block away from the intersection: cars going around someone who’s stopped doesn’t present the same danger posed to the pedestrians nor does it ill-effect the flow of traffic).

If there is some accident at the corner, the kids standing at the curb all day increase the risk, right next to the traffic, of getting hit.

Running out into traffic to sell someone water puts the child at risk and creates a greater chance of a vehicular accident.

Children and semi-tractor trailer rigs DO NOT MIX. To allow children to irresponsibly sell water, like its a lemonade stand is irresponsible on the government’s part. It is a recipe for disaster and a lawsuit

I understand how different intersections are from each other. The intersection at Yearling and Doney is not the same as Elm and Collinwood or Andrus and Karl. These kids chose a busy intersection because it’s right near their supply chain (Target and the Beer Dock) and where they can maximize their profit. However, it is irresponsible on the parents and government’s parts to allow them to do so in such a dangerous location. It is unacceptable to simply allow them to do so. What next, allowing two year olds to set off Cherry Bombs? If the parents don’t care and the government then doesn’t step in, who’s in charge in Whitehall?
This guideline allows the kids to sell their wares in a safe, reasonable and respectful manner for everyone’s best outcome. The kids are safe, the driver’s flow is uninterrupted…happy community.

Physical and verbal abuse will not be tolerated. Citizens will have the ability to take their badge number/name and report incidences of these abuses. Where competent, respected adults who have stopped to talk and/or counsel them have been called ‘white-ass bitch’ or told ‘fuck you’ is unacceptable on our city streets under the auspices of selling wares. Lesson learned: manners and decency, or lack thereof, matter and have consequences.

Yelling to sell their wares. While I realize they have 1^st amendment rights, talking, speaking at normal levels is not what is at issue here. It is the yelling, like carnival barkers, 6 hours a day everyday, which creates a tension and disturbs the peace of a neighborhood. Incessant noise, in whatever form is not allowed, this fits into the same category. The volume is the issue, not the content or ability to speak. It is not unreasonable to believe that the areas where these kids set up have a modicum of responsibility towards the neighborhood they are making their money from. Cars see them, signs that state their wares and prices are completely acceptable, there is no need to shout what they’re doing and what they’re selling. Lesson learned: Responsibility and respect for the neighbors and neighborhood.

Aggressive selling/behavior. There have been several reports by citizens that the kids are aggressive and get up in people’s windows when they stop at stop signs, get angry when people don’t buy water, hurl insults at them and even reports of throwing water bottles at them. Some residents have even expressed how they’ll drive out of their way to avoid the corner where they’re selling. This is completely unacceptable. Stand/sit where cars can see you, have a sign, wares in hand and if people stop to buy, fine but, if they don’t, then move on. No need for emotion, upset, hostility, etc. Lesson learned: Professionalism, respect and responsibility.