Print

Welcome, Guest

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Janetplanet]

Noticed that Gringo's is vacant - on Market Street Meadville.  Ate their once, it was ok.  Prefer Compadres.  Remember there was a fued going on between those two - Gringo's accusing Compadraes of dealing drugs right after they opened their downtown restaurant.  Prefer the one on the hill - better count of shrimp for my shrimp fajita.

[E-L Man]

Didn't take long to tear down Rhoda shoe repair after their sale. What is going in there? Another parking lot filled with meters? 

[Janetplanet]

The Whole Darn Thing wanted to get more land.  Don't know more than that. With the "alley" renovation who knows what will follow.  My husband is flipping that they are spending that much money on an alley.

[Amidala]

What are they doing to which alley?

[Janetplanet]

$500,000 to rebrick the alley right across from the Market House.  They are hoping to put more vendors in there - I am pretty sure that is what the article in the Tribune said.
Janet

[Jayhawk]

That's not bad. That's how much Hermitage is spending to build sidewalks along a half-mile of side-street roadway -- $200 a foot -- while adding some kind of fancy alert system to facilitate a positive crossing experience for all the blind and deaf people who cross there (of which there currently are no such pedestrians)

[E-L Man]

Isn't it strange how they can come up with the money to dump into an alley and the old Talon building because they need more office space in the court house, etc.,etc. But, no money to rebuild the Mead Ave. bridge.
More office space for Assisitants to and for such & such . That is why it is costing us more every year. To many people in high places with too many assistants. 

[stablepitandpub]

Isn't it strange how they can come up with the money to dump into an alley and the old Talon building because they need more office space in the court house, etc.,etc. But, no money to rebuild the Mead Ave. bridge.
More office space for Assisitants to and for such & such . That is why it is costing us more every year. To many people in high places with too many assistants. 

 

Lock, I think that the Talon deal in on a back burner right now. 

[lifefeedsonlife]

It is - - - no guarantee that's a done deal at all.

[E-L Man]

Ok leave out the Talon thing but I'm still Pi**ed that so many big shots need so many assistants, Vice people and aides to help them do their job. If ya can't handle the heat in the kitchen,,,, get out! 

[lifefeedsonlife]

Good point Lock. I agree 100%.

I know your point is in regards to local government - but consider this:


Growth Rate of US Bureaucrats

Consider a few facts to point us in the right direction:

In 1910, the United States had a population of 92 million; of that population, 950,000 were government employees (all levels). This yielded just over 1 percent of the total, or 1 government employee per 97 people.

In 2010, the United States has a population of 308 million; of that population, 21.3 million are government employees (all levels). This yields 6.9 percent of the total, or 1 government employee per 14 people.

In the space of one single century, therefore, the number of government employees in relation to the population has increased by 693 percent.

And, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis' figures for 2009, the average government salary is $123,000 per year, which means: 21.3 million bureaucrats are costing this country a whopping $2.6 trillion annually.

And, considering that the entire GDP for 2010 will be approximately $13.3 trillion, this further means: Government employees are being "employed" to the tune of nearly 20 percent of what the entire country will produce this year.

In 1910, by comparison, the GDP was $33.4 billion and the average government salary was $750 per year -- so, 950,000 workers at that time cost us $713 million, or 2.1 percent of that year's GDP.

Now, just for fun, let's apply that 2.1 percent rate to our current GDP, yielding $279 billion, which we can refer to as the amount of money truly needed to pay the bureaucrats to run the country properly. Which, actually, is being pretty charitable, as even in 1910 we had interventionist bureaucrats paid to do little more than hamper trade and restrict the functioning of the free market.

Since we are spending $2.6 trillion instead, however, that means we still pay $2.3 trillion more on government salaries than legitimate operations for our population would dictate.

Yes, government "sucks" alright; it is sucking the monetary lifeblood right out of the country. Can you imagine what that $2.3 trillion yearly -- itself over 17 percent of our GDP -- could do to the United States' poverty cycle if we fired all those extra bureaucrats and left that money in private hands, to be saved and invested into our economy?

No, we hand it over to incompetent, lazy and overpaid government workers instead -- and then wonder

Why our freedoms and economic growth are in the toilet.

And that's just salaries, people. When you further consider what it is that most of those bureaucrats are doing -- i.e., whiling away their hours constructing mountains of stupid, stifling, subversive and self-defeating regulatory silliness -- it's pretty clear that those wasted dollars have a negative impact far beyond their actual value, for such controls obliterate the producers' abilities to produce even more.
 
source: http://poormansurvival.com/BeatBureaucrats.aspx

[Janetplanet]

Think on this one.  They build a new building for CATA down on Water Street (across from the city building).  They have to park their busses at other locations.  Why didn't they use the old Eighty Four building - everything could have fit in that building and it was already sitting there?  Guess they don't care when it is our money they are spending.

[stablepitandpub]

Think on this one.  They build a new building for CATA down on Water Street (across from the city building).  They have to park their busses at other locations.  Why didn't they use the old Eighty Four building - everything could have fit in that building and it was already sitting there?  Guess they don't care when it is our money they are spending.

I totally agree with Janet.  I don't know who paid for that building, but it
did not have to be in downtown Meadville.  Meadville is losing three more businesses soon, and all that will be left will be tax-free buildings
associated to government. Meadville used to be a hoppin town, what the
heck happened to all the excitement?

[Amidala]

Maybe the 84 Lumber people didn't want to sell? Maybe the price wasn't competitive? Maybe there is funding available that the city couldn't get if they purchased an existing building???  There are a lot of circumstances that we don't know. Of course I do know we are all good at speculating... lol

[Amidala]

"Meadville used to be a hoppin town, what the
heck happened to all the excitement?"
 
My friends that came into town last weekend ALL live in city suburbs... they were impressed with the country atmosphere but that was it. (I wasn't surprised, as we all grew up in a town very much like Meadville in the 60s/70s which is now seeing a downturn, also.) What has made me think is how everything I put on the agenda to do were things out of Meadville but in the county.
 
So it goes.