Well, Baltimore Mayor Bob Kalish understands that just because the police levy was soundly defeated, “down the road we need to address the police department.” When 66 percent of the voters said “NO,” why do we need to address it again?
In a conversation with a person that will remain unnamed, the first people to discuss the police department “expansion” were the mayor and village administrator. Well it seems like they go what they wanted, but now they can no longer afford it, and so we had the levy. After a “thumping” at the ballot box, they are trying to determine how to make a levy “more palatable” to voters. I have the answer: NO levy and make the police department fit its budget.
Don’t they realize that the levy that they wanted us to support would have taken most, if not all of the cost of living adjustment in their Social Security payments for many of our seniors. I would guess that the police department now has its largest staff in the history of the department.
The reason for the levy was to expand the department, and apparently the levy was the only option since it appears that Baltimore “may” not have the monies available to allow that expansion, so the decision to present the levy.
What happened to our Baltimore mayor who was known to be a friend to Baltimore seniors? As I have written in previous letters, the police department does many good things, but Baltimore’s population has changed little since I first moved here in 1961. If we not have 24- hour coverage, we still have the sheriff’s office to provide assistance.
Considering the potential for layoffs at the paper mill and the possibility that the 125 new jobs announced by the village administrator may not materialize, we need to reduce spending. Spending reductions are hard to accomplish, especially since Baltimore wants to run a sewer line into Walnut Township and require that properties be connected to that system. Baltimore wants to “buy” the Village of Thurston water system.
Baltimore citizens must live within their means, why not the same for the Village of Baltimore. Spending mandated by governmental agencies cannot be easily slowed or stopped, but discretionary spending seems to be where the problems are. Convince me that running a sewer line into an adjoining township, or “buying” another community’s water system is to be of benefit to Baltimore taxpayers. What’s next?
Charles R. Lamb