Jane Mitakides Answers Questions on transportation systems

As of today, I’m officially the underdog, since Jane Mitakides got the endorsement of the Montgomery County Democratic party last night. I’d like to know what the other 3 Democratic Parties in the district think, but, apparently, there isn’t much interest in this race from their party Chairmen.

In her last outing for Congress, she answered some questions for the league of Women Voters- (I’m stuck with her old stuff, since she still doesn’t have a site up).

Her answers are pedestrian at best- and you can compare to mine (which have been collected over the years- not just for this election)

Jane Mitakides Answers Questions
What plans do you have to promote a more balanced transportation system?

I believe modernizing our transportation system is an integral part of real energy independence, as well as ensuring the mobility of an aging population. We should invest in making our current highway and surface-street transportation system more efficient, cut waste in our current public transportation system, and begin to look ahead to light rail and other means of efficiently moving people from point to point. In this central hub area, I will make it a priority that our projects–like the suggested US-35 improvements through eastern Montgomery County–see fruition. Business relies on good transportation options, so a strong transportation system isn’t just good policy–it’s smart business, too.

I believe a modern transportation system includes high speed rail in SW Ohio, connecting Cincinnati, Columbus and Dayton. See this search: High Speed Rail

I am not a favor of sprawl, which increases our dependence on not only foreign oil, but has huge costs in the upkeep of roads. I’ve been talking about reeling in sprawl quite a bit- and had a category dedicated to it: Sprawl

But, my major policy game changer, is the end of corporate relocation welfare- where municipalities, states, compete for businesses to move to their jurisdiction by giving away tax abatements. My proposal is to make these illegal, and instead, only offering a tax credit for employees that can walk to work- and offer a tax credit for companies buying public transportation passes for employees- making it good business for public transit to be used. I spoke of this first here: August 1, 2006. Note, I wasn’t running for office then- so I wrote this without any ulterior motives: Go see “An Inconvenient Truth”

So, if you are still wondering why Jane Mitakides should be your pick for Congress, take a look at her tired answers, and the new fangled Esrati Platform, delivered in full Web 2.0 for your election pleasure.

Ideas are my currency in this campaign. Jane, well, she wants to buy her own seat in Congress: Jane’s donations to herself in 2004

$61,538 is more than a lot of people in this district make in a year. Maybe Jane should just mail checks to voters (It’s all the rage these days- it’s our Federal Governments short sighted solution to the economic crisis- you can see my ideas here Economic Stimulus the Esrati way) and buy their votes?

I want to earn yours.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed! If you wish to support this blog, please head over and use our services at The Next Wave Printing for all your printing needs. We have 4 Color Business cards starting at just $13.50.

23 Responses

  1. gene January 25, 2008 / 11:53 am
    Some of your ideas are good, but to make it “illegal” for local/state governments to persuade businesses to relocate is the single dumbest frickin’ thing you have ever come up with. Businesses may relocate bc of tax abatements, however many relocate bc of better work force, better climate, upgrading facilities, better lifestyle opportunities, etc. This falls into the category of socialism, which you may be for, but most Daytonians are not. I do not want companies to relocate but if we can not keep them in Dayton then such is life – we need to do a better job of keeping them, not making it illegal. I know you and your liberal buddies want it this way but you must understand one very important point – Any Business may relocate for whatever reason and is not obligated to stay in Dayton or anywhere else. Just bc NCR was started here does not mean they have to stay here – and making it illegal to move bc of tax benefits is a joke – POOR PEOPLE HAVE KIDS BC OF TAX BENIFITS – why don’t we work on that one by making that illegal. Same thing my friend –
    You do what you think is best for yourself, even if it may not be helpful to everyone else.

    We tax the hell out of businesses, so giving them a break actually make sense. It helps create jobs, but the City of Dayton is not good at this, other cities and other states are good at it. The City and State need to change their policies to get businesses to MOVE HERE, more jobs, better economy. Why do other cities grow while we fail – we need to copy successful cities, it is competition whether we like it or not.

    How would we handle FED/STATE governments persuading international companies to relocate/expand in the United States? “More Jobs by giving Tax Breaks” is ALWAYS better than “No Jobs with No Tax Base.” Dayton and Ohio need to do a better job at this – other places are successful, why can’t we be successful?

  2. David Esrati January 25, 2008 / 12:17 pm

    Gene- I didn’t say they can’t relocate- I said that government can’t give them “incentives” to move. Are you paying attention. No government intervention in private business- should fit perfectly with your libertarian/neo-con views.
    I don’t know why I bother answering you sometimes. My words are very clear. No government handouts to big business.

  3. gene January 25, 2008 / 12:34 pm
    WHY NOT? – Tax breaks for businesses are good – and I am not ANTI-GOVERNMENT Mr. Know-it-all. We need Business, therefore Governments, local and state, need to have some role – and the role of giving tax breaks IS GOOD and should not be illegal. You say “big business” ahhhh – so smaller businesses can take advantage of tax breaks? YOU ARE NOT CLEAR – and what about tax breaks for having kids – IS THIS GOOD? You keep chasing you tail but you can not and will not win with such a narrow view of growing Dayton. How do you propose to get new businesses here then? By Telling Them You Have A Blog? GET REAL. Other cities do it and succeed – why can’t we?

    Again, so you can tell all your fellow readers, Why are the taxes for US Businesses among the in the world? You are so smart, so it should be easy for you to answer. Businesses are set up to make money – just like your advertising co. – and less taxes actually make businesses stay where they are, not leave. Other cities and other states can do what they want and therefore you can’t make it illegal – this is where you look like a loon. Just keep makin’ laws, I keep breakin’ them. You would be such a good leader. Time to move to a progressive city, you know, the cities that want to grow and attract business and create jobs. No, you want to hurt business you say it’s not fair.

    Keep duckin’ and dodging.

  4. gene January 25, 2008 / 1:27 pm
    “where municipalities, states, compete for businesses to move to their jurisdiction by giving away tax abatements.”

    You could make it illegal in Ohio, but other states do not have to follow suit. Even the President does not have this power. States can do what they want(They have their own power ), and D-3 Ohio is not an important enough spot to change all of the United States. It could NEVER HAPPEN, bc there are states that would never comply, in fact most of them would not, so when you fuck up Ohio, many businesses will say “hey, look at Indiana, they are going to give me a better deal.” Therefore you will kill All of Ohio and all jobs in Ohio. Other states hope YOU do this so Ohio businesses will leave and go to other state. You are sooooooooo smart. Way to keep those jobs DAVE.

    Why the hell would we elect anyone who has such a narrow perspective of what the hell is going on? You can not change other states, therefore you can only screw up this one. I suggest you move to another state so Ohio can steal businesses from your new found state.

    This guy is an option? No wonder we never get shit done.

  5. David Esrati January 25, 2008 / 1:59 pm

    Gene, I think it’s time to block your IP again. You just are arguing for the sake of arguing. I’m running for Congress- that’s where they make the laws for the whole United States- not just one state or another.
    The idea that government isn’t in the wealth re-distribution business is a bit above you. When Kettering gives Reynolds and Reynolds a deal, it hurts Dayton- that’s just a single example. And when the CEO cashes out with 9.1 million, while laying off employees- well, some of that was our tax dollars.
    Please try to be intelligent, or it’s off to the blacklist again.

  6. gene January 25, 2008 / 2:12 pm
    You are right – Dayton is hurt when businesses move to Kettering. Dayton does not give tax breaks, therefore they suffer. But you can not dictate other State’s tax breaks. You just can’t. You try to be intelligent about this subject.

    I am not arguing just to argue. States will always have the right to adjust their own tax structure, including tax breaks. That is a fact – the powers that be would never ever let your idea even surface, let alone getting approved. My point is that you are wasting time and energy on something that can and will never happen – keep it on a more LOCAL level, like you keep stating, and leave out ideas that could never ever happen.

    I hope others who read this understand that just because Mr. Esrati has an idea it is not always a good idea. There is no way in the history of man kind that states would agree to this, therefore this idea should never have been suggested. It can’t and won’t happen bc it is still a State’s right to do as they chose in regard to their own tax breaks. You know it and I know it.

    But as a typical politician he changed it to the CEO thing – a different topic.

    I just think now you realize how this idea is a bit over-the-top.

  7. David Esrati January 25, 2008 / 2:36 pm

    Gene- you don’t understand this. It’s fine.
    Level playing fields. Simple. All business locates based on best business practices. Mead had a 20 year tax abatement downtown, when it expired- they left.
    Government has to stop buying jobs- it has to attract jobs because the money went on doing what government does best.
    Maybe if Dayton hadn’t given away all the money- they’d have had it to build things people want like parks, streets, doing building code enforcement.
    I’m tired of your rants. Keep this up- and you go away.

  8. gene January 25, 2008 / 2:50 pm
    I am not ranting – I am trying to make a point, which is against your point, so therefore you want to block me. Mead left – you made my point. They would have stayed and we would have more jobs if we gave them a break. BTW, Dayton did not give away money, they may have not collected it, but they did get taxes from Mead employees, now that Mead left they get nothing bc they could not keep them in
    town. A level playing field may be fine but it will never happen bc there are States in this union that will fight tooth and nail to keep their right to give businesses tax breaks as they see fit. MY total point is it will not happen so it is hardly worth fighting over – I am just being realistic.

    And if it were to happen, all states agreeing to this and your LAW comes to life, then more businesses would go over seas or to Mexico, which obviously hurts the US.

  9. Greg Hunter January 25, 2008 / 5:56 pm
    I think NYC offered NCR 1.5 million to get 100 execs to move. The real question is if Dayton offered 2 million would they stay? I would say no. Dayton is not in a position to offer those incentives, while NYC is. Dayton needs to be someplace people want to be first, before you can buy out the others.
  10. J.R. Locke January 25, 2008 / 7:05 pm
    Race to the bottom there Gene. Taxes pay for schools, public schools turn to crap because we subsidize businesses to be there for less than planned. There has to be a way to make a level playing field otherwise America will continue to slip, or at least its core cities and public schools will.
  11. gene January 26, 2008 / 12:18 am
    JR…..then why do some cities/states have success by granting tax breaks? Not all cities are Dayton, not all states are Ohio. Some people know how to do it.

    It is not perfect, but in the real world this is a competitive edge, and Mr. Esrati wants to make it illegal. That is all well and good, but it will be a cold day in hell before any normal politician would agree to make it illegal. Utopia is great, reality is life. You can not make it illegal, so grow some balls and deal with issues we can actually change bc this issue will never swing Esrati’s way. I guess the super duper libs will never see that point, which is to play the cards you are dealt, so we can make real change today. Most people need a light, but this light is soooooooo far out that Mr. Esrati becomes a typical politician rather than “for the people.” It can not, it will not, it shall not ever change. City/State Governments will ALWAYS have the right to dictate their own tax laws and tax breaks, I guess it is time to start another “move on.org” and get back to real topics. It can not and will not happen. Pipe dream.

  12. Pedro January 26, 2008 / 12:22 am
    ‘Public schools to turn crap because we subsidize businesses’ J.R. you are always good for a laugh. In 1997, the average school district in Ohio spent $5,500 per pupil. A short 10 years later the DPS District spends DOUBLE THAT AMOUNT. And what is the result? Should we really be bitching about evil corporations handing over a smaller percentage of their income to folks that had nothing to do with creating it?
  13. gene January 26, 2008 / 9:23 am
    JR really did not think that one through…….

    JR, if parents would have kids when they are financially and emotionally ready, and be in a committed relationship (bc 2 is better than 1, sex does not matter) then maybe, just maybe, they would have a chance – but no, we don’t want to tell the truth to them, we rather see kids suffer bc we don’t want to tell the truth. Taxes have nothing to do with public schools – you may collect and spend more but the quality of a kids education is more in tune with their family situation than anything else. We need to ATTRACT jobs to Dayton, so we can put people to work. Working families do a better job a raising kids than non-working families.

    We have a lot of problems, but making tax breaks illegal will not solve anything because NO ONE WOULD EVER AGREE TO IT – go ahead and ask anyone, any politician. Maybe Mr. Esrati and 4 other super duper neo-libs, but most normal and intelligent politicians would laugh this one off the table – you can not take away a state’s right to legislate it’s own tax code. It is that simple.

  14. David Esrati January 26, 2008 / 9:30 am

    Gene also didn’t think the smoking ban would work. No where in the constitution did it say tax dollars should be appropriate for handing over for “location bingo” rewards. In fact, the revolutionary war started because of unfair taxation. I say it should be illegal when taxes are being given willy nilly to the companies that in turn give money back to politicians.
    A part of Mike Turners campaign money comes from companies that have gotten tax abatements or “gifts” from the government. NCR is one of his leading donors- and guess what, they benefit from these “incentives.”
    Give it up Gene.

  15. gene January 26, 2008 / 10:32 am
    I never said the smoking ban would not work – I was against it but I never said it would not go through.

    This may be all true – but my point is that no other politicians will go along with this idea and cities and states will fight this and easily win. Ask the general public – it can’t and won’t happen.

    You look like a loon and will not get elected with ideas that can’t happen – may you should give it up.

    Notice how no one has supported you on this – bc everyone knows that it will never happen.

  16. gene January 26, 2008 / 10:39 am
    OK then, spell it out for us.

    EXACTLY how would you make tax breaks ILLEGAL? if you can explain this then maybe people might support it, but making something ILLEGAL in ALL STATES when state have their own rights is realllly hard to do – and I am not talking about slavery – this is not a human rights issue, so don’t give the super extreme examples.

  17. David Esrati January 26, 2008 / 11:13 am

    Gene,
    There are tons of federal rules that are applied- almost all the EPA laws override anything local. Federal gasoline taxes are another prime example of Federally legislated laws that apply to all States.
    How about campaign finance laws? It doesn’t matter what state you are in, you can’t give more than $2,300 per election cycle.
    I’m totally at a loss for your arguments against something that reeks of opportunities for influence peddling and a fundamentally socialist approach to taxation- we tax everyone and give it to companies that the people in power believe should get it.
    It’s the ultimate example of the State (big S) interfering with private enterprise.
    Please go away now.

  18. gene January 26, 2008 / 11:46 am
    It just won’t get any support – that is my point.

    I love politiations that tell you that they are open for discussion and then tell you to go away. You really are not all that different from what we have now.

  19. David Esrati January 26, 2008 / 11:52 am

    Gene, the same was said about civil rights in the fifties.
    Go try to post on Jane’s site- or Turners. Please.
    Then tell me I’m not different.

  20. gene January 26, 2008 / 12:25 pm
    You are right – you are different – the other candidates are respectful of other peoples ideas and don’t tell them to “go away” – they are slightly more mature than that. Again, notice no one has supported you on your idea. Maybe the non-posts should be telling you more than my posts.

    To a subject I support of yours, high speed rail, if you are elected what would be the time frame of this project? 20 years plus?

  21. Pedro January 26, 2008 / 12:27 pm
    Dave here is the problem with your approach. Once you apply a law against offering tax breaks to companies looking to relocate for whatever reason, companies will go after the local municipalities with the lowest taxes. Why did TeraData move out of Dayton and into Miami Township? All the employee’s got a 2.25% raise by switching zip codes since Miami Township has no income tax and Dayton has a rather steep one. That undoubtedly resulted in millions and millions of dollars annually in ‘tax breaks’ for the CEO, accountants, software engineers and custodians of TeraData who used to work in Dayton. Would you make this move illeagal? Afterall, they are chasing the best deal and Miami Township provided it. So if cities, towns, counties and states were no longer allowed to attract businesses to relocated with tax deferements would you then force a uniform income tax rate for all political subdivsions? I mean its really not fair that Beavercreek can offer the people who work there 2.25% more of their own paycheck than Kettering can because of income tax rates. We can’t have CEO playing ‘Location Bingo’ by doing what is best for their company, their workers and their shareholders and simply moving companies to places that offer a lower tax rate. So would you make the TeraData moved illeagal? And by the way, are you completely ignoring the fact that these companies generate tax revenue in a number of different ways even after the deferment is factored in?

    P.S. The Revolutionary War was not fought over unfair taxes. Whether or not taxes are fair is for the taxpayers to decide when they elect people who will raise or lower taxes. The Revolutionary War was fought over an unjust system of representation, the Colonist were not given the chance to elect the people who decided their tax rate. The battle cry in the 1770’s was not ‘No Taxation’ it was ‘No Taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION’ And thus, the Founders gave us a Constitutional Republic where we get to vote into office and vote out of office those who would raise and lower our taxes.

  22. David Esrati January 26, 2008 / 1:40 pm

    Pedro- it was still about taxes.
    And, yes, companies will consider moving to municipalities with lower tax rates- however, when we have a tax break for walk to work, and for using public transit, maybe, they will reap other benefits by being in a central location?
    I’m not saying municipalities shouldn’t compete, I’m just saying end the handouts.
    Gene: high speed rail will take a while. I’d hope a country that can win WWII in 4 years, can figure out how to build a railroad in less than 20.

  23. J.R. Locke January 26, 2008 / 7:30 pm
    Pedro across Ohio in rural areas where one major company props up a school district with not only its companies tax base but also its employees they are the ones hurt.

    Across the U.S. it is often these rural/semi-rural economic depressed areas that offer these tax breaks to companies to come to their town. All this does is create a lower and lower tax base for schools as whole of course certain states/counties are winning. In the end though the money may be saved by said company rarely does it get redistributed to anyone but those at the top. You call it fair I call it the opposite of that. Then as the area grows around this company it creates an overflow of population and the school system, public systems etc… can not handle it. Then you have depressed area full of concrete with no use except for crack/meth heads and prostitutes.

    The fundamental issue with this to me is are we going to continue to put forward short term growth in exchange for our long term strength? It is happen all across America and I hope we adjust how we see “progress”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *