Unnoffical Dayton Results- Mayor/Commission


Total Votes 28968
GARY D. LEITZELL 14923  51.52%
RHINE MCLIN 14045  48.48%

City Commission

Total Votes 43200
DAVID ESRATI 9197 21.29%
NAN WHALEY 17066 39.50%
JOEY D. WILLIAMS 16937 39.21%


If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed! If you wish to support this blog and independent journalism in Dayton, consider donating. All of the effort that goes into writing posts and creating videos comes directly out of my pocket, so any amount helps!

Leave a Reply

19 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
10 Comment authors
Bruce KettelleDavid EsratiGeneShortwest RickGary Staiger Recent comment authors
Notify of
Will Brooks
Will Brooks

David, when you are rested there is more to do.


A stunning upset.  In a way this reminds me of Louisville in the 1970s, where Harvey Sloan defeating the old-school Democratin the primaries and then going on to defeat the GOP in the general to become Mayor, back in the early/mid 1970s.  Sloan was like Lietzell, representing neighborhood power and was also a house restorer.  The resemblance ends there, but a it was  similar example of how a new force or trend in urban politics made itself felt.
What will be interesting is to see the political postmortem, where McClin lost strength and where Leitzell gained.

Nathan Driver

Great news – what’s sad is that McLin hasn’t made a statement about taking the lose. Sad. I’m excited to see what the next few months / years brings. Time for a change.


What’s sad is that the mayor’s race was as close as it was.  We need to revert to only property owners having voting rights once again.  From what I see, once again voters are voting with their pocketbooks rather than voting for the issues.  Taking my hard earned money and giving it to others, and enlarging government.  It’s sad.

David Lauri

We need to revert to only property owners having voting rights once again.
Excuse me?  I pay rent in the City of Dayton, part of which goes to pay for property taxes.  If property taxes increase, my rent increases, maybe not immediately because I have a lease, but it does increase.  I’m not spending “someone else’s money.”  I’m spending my own.


My comment was not made to “knock” renters, but a general realization that I stand by. There are numerous hard working renters, but there are also just as many, if not more lazy renters sucking from the government teet. Property ownership should be a mandatory requirement for voting.
If you lease/rent “you” do not pay the property tax, but you may partially or wholly pay for the property tax that is paid by the property owner. By you paying rent you are paying the fee for the privilege of living in the owner’s domicile.
Not like it’s going to happen, but if it did, and you want to vote, buy a property. Easy as that.

David Lauri

And there are no lazy property owners?  Would someone who hadn’t paid off his or her mortgage yet count as a property owner, or only people who owned their property free and clear?
Not that it matters.  It’s a crazy idea that will never come to pass.


I wouldnt go as far as Ryan to establish an absolute property qualifciation for voting (we used to have this back in the early days of the US),  but I think a good case can be made to limit participation in property tax levys  to property owners.

Gary Staiger
Gary Staiger

What I have a hard time with is that you would actually publicly advocate for property ownership as a prerequisite for voting…This is an issue that was settled [but apparently not for you], back in the 1830’s, as the concept of universal suffrage for voting rights began to take hold. These excerpts are from Wikipedia:

“Suffrage is used to describe not only the legal right to vote, but also to the practical question of the opportunity to vote, which is sometimes denied those who have a legal right.”

“…the Jacksonian [1830’s] era saw a great increase of respect and power for the common man, as the electorate expanded to include all white male adult citizens, rather than only land owners in that group.”

One simple example of the absolute incoherency of your idea is presented by the state of California,  where the median value of a home there is now approximately $450,000. [http://www.realestateabc.com/graphs/calmedian.htm] Tens of thousands of people would be disenfranchised by your proposal.  Requiring property ownership makes your idea amount to a tax on the right to vote.
I want to believe that you only posted  your comment to rattle some liberal cages, except, while it’s  hard to  take the idea  seriously,  is it just maybe, just a little bit  possible, that this is onlya part of some nefarious plan of yours  that ends up with ONLY white male property owners having the right to vote???

Shortwest Rick
Shortwest Rick

The entire idea of taxing people for what they already own dates back to 1100~1200 a.d.  It was instituted by the kings as a deterrent from any property owner gaining more wealth~power than the king himself. I find it pretty bizarre that in the age of consumption people are debating how property tax should be determined fairly. Wouldn’t it be more equitable to move toward a percentage tiered consumption (sales) tax and do away with property and income taxes altogether?

Gary Staiger
Gary Staiger

A sales tax is regressive, the more $$ you have the less it affects you as a purchaser, thus making it “unfair” to those on the other end of the economic scale. A Value Added Tax would have to be increased over current sales tax levels, making this disparity even greater. There’s nothing egalitarian about that.


Gary, the logic that escapes you is that the rich pay a sales tax on things they can afford (big screen tv for 3K) and the poor have similar tv’s……which they  should not ever buy…..

What do poor people have to buy to survive? Food? not taxed. A few clothes? They could buy clothes cheap if they were not so fashion happy…….

The poor buy too much shit they don’t need to begin with………. tattoos, cell phones, flat screens, hundred dollar sneakers, I could go on and on….

The poor should not buy that tv to begin with, buying it on credit or money they don’t have or are buying it with illegal money or government money, any way you peel it they should not have the same tvs.

But you want the poor to have all the amenities of the rich yet tax the rich to death. Typical liberal. We should ship the poor to Mexico……..

Gary Staiger
Gary Staiger

“The poor buy too much shit they don’t need to begin with……….”
Which comment exemplifies why you are  on David’s troll list AND pushed me to establish my own, with you as a charter member.
Here’s a tip,  if you want to push a lefties buttons…don’t be so transparently ignorant in your comments. Your feeble attempt to do so with your inane post is not even laughable,  it’ so sadly reactionary.  Come back when you have something INTELLIGENT to add to the conversation.


So neither of you can explain why poor people spend money on stuff they should not spend it on………

It is a liberal philosophy…..

Why do poor people have such poor spending habits?

Gary, answer the above before proclaiming me as a troll. You are nothing but a Super Lib W.U. liberal… Get a clue. Why are tax dollars spend on shit?

People should spend  money on NECCESITIES…….. do you disagree? Look in your own neighborhood and your own pushing “societies pill.” Is music a necessity? On my dime, or crime dime, the answer is NO. You take and want more from the poor…..

Not all poor people spend money like a “grifter” whore, but a lot do… Why? Are tattoos needed? Smokes needed? Drugs? Over priced shoes?

This is white, black, male, female, etc…  ; ….. Poor people spend money on stuff they don’t need….. OFTEN, not always, but too often for my to become liberal.

Now curl up and make up excuses for those who spend the little money they have on TVs or cell phones or shoes or booze or smokes…….. make excuses. It is the liberal way.

No, this is not to provoke people, rather the truth. I will be happy to inform people of the value of a dollar, even if it comes from the government. You folks think 9th place in a 6 horse race is OK. i don’t.

Bruce Kettelle

Gene you continue to amaze me.  Coming up with these hypothetical questions and demanding someone else provide an answer that cannot possibly be provided due to the constraints in you initial assumption.

Before you start generalizing about me (attacking the messenger), please consider doing a little of the hard research yourself.  In your most recent statements you damn poor people for spending money on frivolities.  Perhaps you should take a quick look at your own definition of poor.

By standard definition there are the working poor and those that cannot/do not work.  Show me how these people are spending money they do not have on frivolities.   I encourage you to research and cite refrences from studies that demonstrate this is occuring at all. I am sure a few are spending some on alcohol and lottery tickets but my guess is the percentage is very low.  But we are both guessing aren’t we?

I have not responded to you claims in the past and will probably not respond to your reply from this post because you cite generalizations that are not based on facts.

Perhaps you are targeting the wrong groups.  Maybe you should take a look at the lower middle class and how they spend their money or take a look at the wealthy and how they use loopholes to pay less tax and have used their influence to have the IRS reduce the number of audits on the wealthy and increased those on the poor classes.

Here is a place you could begin your research ath the National Housing Institute.


I agree that not all poor people spend their money on stuff they do not need, but there are several who have things they should not (like flat screen tvs, hundred dollar shoes, cell phones) that are being purchased on credit or with government money. You want stats, well give me stats and proof that say otherwise.

I know people who are “poor” and a lot have too much crap. So does the lower middle class, as well as middle class, upper middle, rich and super rich. The difference is that the other groups have a little extra to spend, while a lot of poor fail to feed their kids in place of lottery tickets. The is little to no room for error when you are poor, and every cent spend on booze or smokes or lottery is their problem, not mine. I am no talking about the homeless, rather working poor who often make poor decisions.

 My life experience tells me this, with friends and family being in this situation. I advise them to stop spending their money on crap. I advise that to all people, regardless of how much money they have. I fall into the trap myself. But again the difference is margin of error. And when you have you hand out for money while your cell phone is ringing and the cable tv is on then there is something wrong.

Why research it when I can walk to downtown and see it with my own eyes. I am not trying to be mean, it just happens to be fact.

Gary Staiger
Gary Staiger


“Why research it when I can walk to downtown and see it with my own eyes. I am not trying to be mean, it just happens to be fact.”

You just don’t get it, do you? Your “arguments” are based on air, hot air, and I really don’t know, other than for  the fact that you make a good “OMG he said that??” verbal punching bag  I don’t understand why I would give you, a total and unforgiving intransigent, the time of day.
but there are several who have things they should not (like flat screen tvs, hundred dollar shoes, cell phones) that are being purchased on credit or with government money. You want stats, well give me stats and proof that say otherwise.

This is the hard part. I don’t know if you write this stuff because you are badly in need of a real world reality check, or, if  you really believe the nonsense you post? [ btw/ Are you an insurance agent by any chance??] Who are you to decide what other people have or don’t have?? Your thinking seems to be coming  out of some right wing philosophical bent that believes the poor should simply know their place and be on with it.  Yuck.
Bruce pointed out the impossibility of answering your off the wall hypotheticals that you post as answere to questions that were never asked. Nuts.
So I’ve decided on a one word, all inclusive answer to everything you post until such time as you finally  post something that is actually coherent and intelligent enough as to be deserving of an answer. I suspect that I’ll be giving the one word reply for a while.

My new reply:   BULLSHIT


At least I don’t cater to the poor, take what little money they have, so they can buy non essential items, and make my living off it……. some do. Can you think of anyone like that Gary…… think real hard.