If you read the story in the February 28, 2015 edition of The Beacon, you will find that the agenda started with the hiring of Village Administrator Hall, appears to be “crumbling”. Three local contractors, and a local business owner appeared before the village council. Prior to her departure, apparently due to a larger paycheck elsewhere, Village Administrator Hall presented updated rules and regulations involving the building code/codes. Those new ordinances were endorsed with “Aye” votes by five of the six current council members. As was the usual during that period, the actual vote of council members was six “ayes” and no “nay” votes.
Six council members allowed a person with no other ties to Baltimore other than a huge paycheck, determine the future of Baltimore. Six Baltimore council members “rubber stamped” most, if not all, of the changes suggested by Village Administrator Hall, and it does appear that some, if not many of the “progressive” ideas presented by Village Administrator Hall, and adopted by our village council, are actually detrimental to the citizens of Baltimore.
Council Member Tony House asked “How do we fix this ?” In my opinion, you ‘fix it’ by doing what you did with the “impact fees.” When it became clear that the impact fees weren’t working, council members repealed them. Baltimore is not Canal Winchester…Canal Winchester is a “growing” community. Baltimore is NOT, even though our Mayor still says that the growth is coming, and has been saying that for several years. Mayor Kalish, how about documenting that with “fact” and not “belief”.
It was stated that “owner-occupied dwellings” are declining in Baltimore, and it is my belief that the cause of that decline is the result of OUR village council allowing an “out of towner” to determine our future.
Charles R. Lamb