To indicate to the voters that remodeling work at the WRTA administration building is being done with federal stimulus money and not Mahoning County sales tax money, the WRTA Board has mandated that an official stimulus construction sign (8X4) be purchased at a cost of $2,500.
How do the residents of Mahoning County feel about this purchase?
I wish they didn't need to buy the sign, but I think it's necessary. Without it, in 4 years when this issue comes up for renewal, the voters will say: "the first thing they did with my tax money is build themselves cushy new offices! I'm voting no!" They might say that even with the sign...
Maybe I'm too pessimistic?
you would think the sign would come free with the stimulus money.....
When it comes to politics, nothing, and I mean nothing is free. We have the best government that money can buy.
I would have painted them a sign for $250.
Does the Choffin Career Center still have an auto body class? I'd have
given the kids a couple hundred bucks to make a sign out of sheet metal
and paint it with automotive paint - which is very durable and looks
nice, too...
Then they could have had the convicts from C.C.A. come by with some
Turtle Wax once a week, to wash and wax it...
hehehe
:)
:o
(http://mahoningvalley.info/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7091.0;attach=3858;image)
Kinda looks like a sign along the freeway...
Is the light (vanilla/manilla) color made out of some sort of reflective material, too?
:)
Would it be wrong for me to hope someone knocks it down. I think about it happening on 680 all the time.
Someone needs to spray paint a PIG on it!
It's just like the sign on I680. The one with all the construction trucks from Twinsburg parked across from it.
Quote from: jay on October 30, 2009, 06:15:28 AM
To indicate to the voters that remodeling work at the WRTA administration building is being done with federal stimulus money and not Mahoning County sales tax money, the WRTA Board has mandated that an official stimulus construction sign (8X4) be purchased at a cost of $2,500.
How do the residents of Mahoning County feel about this purchase?
The sign is a REQUIREMENT for using ARRA funding. If you don't put up the sign bye bye funds. There are strict specifications as to size, wording and placement also. It has nothing to do with the county or "crooked polititians" you guys are idiots.
Well, the mighty stewie has graced us with his presence, and put us all in our place. I can sense that stewie's tenure on this board will not be an easy one , fore after just THREE posts he has already insulted all of us who have been here for years. Way to go!!!
Gee Stewie, it doesn't much matter what the requirements are or who they came from. It is still a waste of funds. FUNDS = Our tax Dollars.
Quote from: sfc_oliver on December 06, 2009, 02:37:10 PM
Gee Stewie, it doesn't much matter what the requirements are or who they came from. It is still a waste of funds. FUNDS = Our tax Dollars.
My point is that the Federal Government is finally investing money, A LOT OF MONEY, in our area and you people are complaining about a $2,500.00 sign? Painting a pig on it? Hoping it gets knocked over? Assuming that is it is wastefull spending by the County, the "pigs at the trough?" I bet there are a lot of sign makers that love the fact these signs are required. It probably "STIMULATED" their businesses just a bit. Or better yet maybe you would rather Columbus got all the money like they usually do? They they could put the signs up. Look at the big picture. Good Lord!! BTW am I really the first one to call all of you idiots? I find that hard to believe.
Stewie, that's the point. Many of us are tired and have seen the wanton splurge that the government is doing. Printing and spending money backed by debt is the outcry across the land. We need to get back to free enterprise and build up the private sector again. After all the private sector is required to support the public sector and the public sector can never be a perpetual motion machine.
So what is wrong with providing work to sign making contractors? It should also be noted that the $2500 price was not how much they decided to spend on the sign, rather, it was the contractors bid to make the sign based on the labor and material involved in the construction of the sign. Also, it is imperative to understand that the signage requirements associated with the ARRA funds is actually quite similar to the requirements associated with other funding requirements. For instance, projects funded by the OPWC also require project signage. Everyone always wants to complain about the ambiquity of government funding but when the government tries to make things as transparent as possible with big signs people still complain.
Quote from: Penguins37 on December 07, 2009, 05:27:38 PM
So what is wrong with providing work to sign making contractors? It should also be noted that the $2500 price was not how much they decided to spend on the sign, rather, it was the contractors bid to make the sign based on the labor and material involved in the construction of the sign. Also, it is imperative to understand that the signage requirements associated with the ARRA funds is actually quite similar to the requirements associated with other funding requirements. For instance, projects funded by the OPWC also require project signage. Everyone always wants to complain about the ambiquity of government funding but when the government tries to make things as transparent as possible with big signs people still complain.
What is so difficult to understand? These signs are nothing more than more money spent that we do not have, on nothing more than a temporary job. Temporary being the key word. Government spending does not create permanent or long term jobs in the private sector.
All construction work is only temporary. Why is it okay to provide work to pavers and concrete companies and not to sign makers? What is the root of your complaint, the fact that the ARRA program was enacted or the fact that signs were required on site?
I recently asked if the signs from one city's completed project could be used by other city for their project. I was told the answer is NO. Each project must buy its own official signs.
No sharing of signs
No signs made by a city's own sign shop ???
Quote from: jay on December 08, 2009, 09:52:50 PM
No signs made by a city's own sign shop ???
Why would they care if they use locally made signs? The work being done on 680 isn't a local company but they do have a sign.
The signs are a bid item in the construction contract. Pursuant to the spec for the signs they are the contractors property upon completion of the project; thus, they can reuse them on another project. Then when they are reused on the next ARRA project they work on they won't be paid bid an amount for the purchase of the sign, rather they would simply bid an amount to furnish the sign in place. You have to understand that the bid amount of one of these signs will likely be spread over multiple projects in the long run. Does that make sense?
Also the bid amounts for these signs has been uniform for what you expect for a sign of it's size and construction. Contrary to popular belief the public isn't actually getting ripped off for the price of these signs.
Jay, in response to your comments; the City cannot reuse the signs because it doesn't own them. That being said the contractor can reuse them as many times as he wants provided they meet the spec for each project.
I don't know who you spoke to you but apparently you got incorrect information.
Quote from: Penguins37 on December 08, 2009, 07:56:46 PM
All construction work is only temporary. Why is it okay to provide work to pavers and concrete companies and not to sign makers? What is the root of your complaint, the fact that the ARRA program was enacted or the fact that signs were required on site?
The point is exactly that...TEMPORARY.....this stimulus is not creating long term jobs.
The Government cannot create jobs in the private industries by spending money on temporary projects, or by throwing money that we don't have at anything for that matter. So why waste more money on temporary signage? Politics.......
Quote from: sfc_oliver on December 09, 2009, 10:52:34 AM
The point is exactly that...TEMPORARY.....this stimulus is not creating long term jobs.
The Government cannot create jobs in the private industries by spending money on temporary projects, or by throwing money that we don't have at anything for that matter. So why waste more money on temporary signage? Politics.......
WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE ON THIS SENSELESS WAR THAT THE EVIL OF AXIS(BUSH,CHANEY AND RUMSFIELD) STARTED WITH LIES THAT IS COSTING THE USA TAXPAYERS OVER $20BILLION TO DATE. THERE WASN'T AND NEVER WAS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT KIND OF SOCIAL PROGRAMS OR SMALL BUSINESS LOANS THAT COULD HAVE USED THESE MONIES TO HELP THE CITIZENS OF USA. INSTEAD OF STRANGERS. WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE OR SHOULD I SAY WHERE SHOULD WE PUT THE OUTRAGE IN THIS COUNTRY?
Oh please I could write a book about the so called lies, read the Duelfer report and move on.
i bet that report was written by the helburton corp chairman dick cheney assoc. i have moved on by electing a pres that does not believe in the guns and butter policy to make things happen in this country. where are the wmd? we had eight years to find them with all the explosions going on in that country you would think we would have had atomic mushroom cloud. sarge do you believe bush and cheney and rumsfield was telling the truth? or are we over there to increase the profits of the oil companies?
I'm glad to see we stayed on topic.
Short and to the point, Read the Duelfer report and it will open some eyes. And we actually purchase 4% of our IMPORTED oil from Iraq. That would be less than 2% of what we use. I think it would have been easier to drill in Anwr. Now what was the topic of this thread again?
what was the topic? ???
That's what I said......