# Protesting MWCD



## BlueMarlin (Mar 20, 2006)

I was just wandering if anybody knows whats going on around the Attwood lake area? I was heading down 212 when i saw a sign in somebodys front yard that said stop the MWCD. I didnt think much of it until i went through NewPhilla. there were a bunch of people with signs protesting their signs all said stop the MWCD.Does anyone know if it has anything to do with the fishing at Attwood ?


----------



## Elamenohpee (Nov 17, 2004)

The only thing I can figure is the MWCD is the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District. Mabe they're planning on rebuilding that old dam that's listed on the top 10 worst in the country.


----------



## Elamenohpee (Nov 17, 2004)

Nope, I was wrong. It actually much bigger than that. www.mwcdlakes.com/releases/06022501.htm
Seems like government just gets bigger and bigger every day. To me, this is taxation without representation


----------



## Master Angler (May 26, 2004)

No its more like a bunch of hillbillies that want to benefit from a masssive flood control and recreation area and either a. not pay for it or b. have others pay for it.


----------



## Lewis (Apr 5, 2004)

Yeah,but when they design and build these things,isnt there a budget for maintenance?
Lets wait 70 years until its falling apart and then fix it.
M.A....nice way to endear yourself to all your fellow anglers in the 18 affected counties.


----------



## Corey (Apr 5, 2004)

The mystery here is why the MWCD has claims to any funds for use involving flood control . The Army Corps of Engineers is supposed to be in charge of that.


----------



## BlueMarlin (Mar 20, 2006)

Thanks for the info guys,from what i was reading i have to agree with Corey the army corp of engineers is supposed to take care of flood control and the MWCD is supposed to take care of the recreational part. Thats how i understood it, but hey maybe i am way offbase. How there going about taxing the people is a crock if you ask me, surely there has to be a better way of getting their grubby hands on some greenbacks. Lets just tax tax,tax,tax,tax,tax!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Elamenohpee (Nov 17, 2004)

BlueMarlin said:


> surely there has to be a better way of getting their grubby hands on some greenbacks. Lets just tax tax,tax,tax,tax,tax!!!!!!!!!


Funny thing is....It's NOT a tax, it's an assessment, you don't even get the right to vote on it. I fear this is the way of most future "taxes" as we the people are fed up with new levies and new taxes. Just assess property owners for funding.

Why not start with a user fee to the area's under the MWCD's control? But maybe there already is....I don't know


----------



## lakeslouie (Jan 11, 2006)

Its getting worse each year. I have a tournament trail that would love to use Tappan occasionally, maybe once a year, but I won't spend the $250. for the permit cost. This is under the guise of administration expenses. Ya right.  The real losers here are the business owners, campgrounds, restaurants, gas stations, hotels etc that won't get to feel the influx of 80 plus boaters and their partners, spending money in their region. That is a shame! A little off track here but I think it shows the underside of the beast in question.


----------



## bassman_sw (Apr 10, 2005)

I don't understand why the users of the MWCD lakes don't want to pay to use them. My parents live at Tappan and I was raised there, in fact my family has had a place at Tappan since 1953. The people who own houses on the MWCD lakes have to pay to lease the lot that the house is on, but there are many, many freeloaders who love to use the lake and come and park along the lakes and use the boat ramps. I certainly don't think it's a bad thing that we have to pay to live there, but the MWCD spends all of that money to improve the ramps and fishing docks instead of the roads that we live on. Ideally everyone that uses the lake should have to pay for it. I'm not saying a lot, but why not charge $1-$2 for the use of the ramp? Seems to me that this would provide quite a bit of income for the MWCD and then the ramps and other access areas could remain self sustained and the lease money from the homeowners at the lakes could be used to maintain our roads, prevent shoreline erosion, and do some much needed dredging at the various lakes. I don't understand why everybody wants everything to be free for them. Your taxes go to support the state parks and lakes included in those parks, not the MWCD lakes. So if you don't pay to use them, don't complain about it. 

Lakeslouie,

You must not have much of a tournament trail if you won't pay $250 to get an access permit for an MWCD lake. There sure are enough other tournament trails that use Tappan, and I'm sure the other MWCD lakes, that the loss of your trail certainly doesn't make those of us who like to recreationly fish and use the lakes mad. In fact if I had my say all the bassholes and the rest of the people who have no respect for anybody else on the lakes would be gone from Tappan.

I hate to get on my soapbox like this, but man up and contribute a little bit if you want to use the lakes.


----------



## BlueMarlin (Mar 20, 2006)

Since i started this i have been doing some reading on this matter and i found a pretty interesting article in the Zanesville Times Recorder. The article was sent in by a subscriber, this is what they had to say{ Our Department of Natural Resources manages our state parks including hunting, fishing, boating camping,logging,oil,& gas well drilling. Our U.S. congressmen represent our interest to ensure that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is adequately funded to maintain the Muskingum Valley Watershed for flood-control purposes.
As a solution to the $270 million dollar assessment of all property and business owners in the district, i suggest the 18 directors (county judges) of the MWCD not assess and voluntarily give all MWCD assets to the ODNR and through state legislation, the MWCD be abolished.} So i came to this conclusion , if the ODNR had control of everything they could put the price of our fishing licenses up and boat registration prices up, to help pay for the 270 million that is nedded to fix everything, that way almost everybody that uses the lakes in the district would be helping to pay for it ,instead of just landowners and ,business . I am sure there are more of us than them. Just some food for thought.


----------



## lakeslouie (Jan 11, 2006)

bassman_sw said:


> I don't understand why the users of the MWCD lakes don't want to pay to use them. My parents live at Tappan and I was raised there, in fact my family has had a place at Tappan since 1953. The people who own houses on the MWCD lakes have to pay to lease the lot that the house is on, but there are many, many freeloaders who love to use the lake and come and park along the lakes and use the boat ramps. I certainly don't think it's a bad thing that we have to pay to live there, but the MWCD spends all of that money to improve the ramps and fishing docks instead of the roads that we live on. Ideally everyone that uses the lake should have to pay for it. I'm not saying a lot, but why not charge $1-$2 for the use of the ramp? Seems to me that this would provide quite a bit of income for the MWCD and then the ramps and other access areas could remain self sustained and the lease money from the homeowners at the lakes could be used to maintain our roads, prevent shoreline erosion, and do some much needed dredging at the various lakes. I don't understand why everybody wants everything to be free for them. Your taxes go to support the state parks and lakes included in those parks, not the MWCD lakes. So if you don't pay to use them, don't complain about it.
> 
> Lakeslouie,
> 
> ...


I will man up now and not get personal with you. As for the people in my trail(bassholes), some of the best people you'd ever want to meet. None of them would act like this. I am all for user fees, the ramp fee is a great suggestion. My point is the money they collect from me you're not seeing now. It is not an access permit. They call it administration fees, which they outline, and none of it is used for what you want. Until I see it going back into improvements etc, I won' pay it. Sorry for lookin out for you too.


----------



## bassman_sw (Apr 10, 2005)

lakeslouie,

Let me apologize as I certainly didn't mean that everyone in your trail was disrespectful to the other users of the lakes, but I would be willing to bet a lot of money that there are people in your trail who have no respect for anyone else when they are trying to make a quick buck. I love to fish and have fished my share of tournaments in the past, but as someone who has witnessed a lot of tournament fishing and seeing guys(bassholes) move right in on other recreational fisherman, cut boat ropes and covers to retrieve a snagged lure, clearly make a wake in no wake zones, I have become very disillusioned with many tournament anglers,.

Also in response to the "administrative fees", I can't say for sure, but would be willing to bet that this goes to pay for such things as lake rangers and I'm sure at some point goes into repairs and improvements.


----------



## lakeslouie (Jan 11, 2006)

I really have to say that in 8 years we haven't had any problems in this area. I have never had a complaint from any ranger about anyone. I don't want to dwell on philosophy, but there things directors can do to minimize problems. 
Now I'm sure we have a few bad apples, but none have come to light or they wouldn't be in my trail. I take manners in a tournament very seriously. If anybody would do some of the things you mentioned, they would be DQ'ed and not invited back. Next time we come I'll PM you and you can see for yourself.


----------



## Elamenohpee (Nov 17, 2004)

Kinda sucks that a thread which affects literally 100's of thousands of people ends up with 2 guy's bitching about $250


----------



## fisheye (Apr 11, 2004)

The proposed assessment will cost me $400 per year for 20 years.  

It doesn't matter whether I use the lakes or not and I will have absolutely no say in the matter.

Hillbilly and proud of it!


----------



## Lewzer (Apr 5, 2004)

http://www.ohiogamefishing.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42692

Posted on this awhile ago.

It would probably cost you alot more than $400 a year for 20 years if the Dover dam or one of the other poorly maintained dams goes.



> Rockbass,
> I'd bet people in your area will really be whining if the Dover dam goes. They say New Phili would be underwater with high water all the way down to Coshocton.


This kind of reminds me of the New Oleans Syndrome. The whole city would have been whining is the govt. imposed a tax to shore up the levys. Now everyone is whining after the disaster that they didn't spend the money to strengthen the levys. And yes, I'm am in the district and also will get taxed.


----------



## rockbass (Apr 16, 2004)

I don't know all the ins and outs. Personally, I think it is a deal to only pay 12 to help fix something the government won't do when it provides for all of us at some point. It helps control flooding. It provides a lot of places for me and all of us on here a place to fish. I will pay 12 bucks. If I owned 200 properties, I would be willing to pay 12 bucks for each one. If I could afford multiple properties, I could afford a few dollars more a year for them



Where does the 400 bucks come from for those who would have to pay that? Like I said, I do not know all the ins and outs, but have never heard of 400 bucks a year.


----------



## mandolinsuperstar (Feb 20, 2006)

Big deal...pay your $12 freaking dollars...if the dams weren't there, you'd have 1/2 the money coming into the region funded by lake recreation traffic. Your property values would be cut in half because the lakes are the only thing drawing people to the area. I'm sure the home owner insurance rates are $112 dollars less a year due to the lower risk of flooding. Give me break. Pay your $12 for a service you have a direct benefit from, and start complaining about the 35% of your money the government takes from your paycheck to pay for health care to illegal aliens, special interest grants, $450 toliet seats and interest on the national debt incurring giving money to help people who hate us anyway.


----------



## Dirty Harry (May 22, 2004)

I hate to give in to conspiracies, but I don't think the MWCD can manage a bucket of spit. Behind the scenes, this money will be used for campground improvements, etc. The MWCD people I've talked to don't seem to care about anything but increasing tourism.


----------



## Elamenohpee (Nov 17, 2004)

All I have to say is "HOO RAH!!!!" for you guys who will speak your minds freely, thiis IS how government is changed in the U.S.A. No need for guns and war...just vote the bastards out!!!!!!


----------



## fisheye (Apr 11, 2004)

rockbass wrote: "Where does the 400 bucks come from for those who would have to pay that?"

It's $12 per acre of land. Someone who might own 100 acres would be paying $1200/yr. whether or not they might be in a flood zone.

I'll be paying $400/yr for my 33 acres at 1200 ft. elevation with no risk of flooding even IF Dover Dam were to break.

The people managing the money at MWCD are not elected officials so they can't be voted out.

I say let the government pay for it with the taxes that we already pay!


----------



## bkr43050 (Apr 5, 2004)

fisheye said:


> rockbass wrote: "Where does the 400 bucks come from for those who would have to pay that?"
> 
> It's $12 per acre of land. Someone who might own 100 acres would be paying $1200/yr. whether or not they might be in a flood zone.
> 
> ...


 I am simply adding this to help everyone understand the true costs involved and I am in no way stating a personal opinion on the assessment because I don't live in the area. However, I did read a bit of the MWCD's explanation on their site and it made me wonder if perhaps the cost per owner is being figured correctly. The wording on the MWCD site states:




> Owners of residential and agricultural properties would pay an assessment of $12 per parcel annually.


 Notice that it says "parcel" and not "acre". I know that my land is 56 acres but is actually in 3 parcels which is essentially sections. Again I am not in any of the 18 counties affected but the way I read it I was thinking that it would have affected me by $36/year. I could be wrong but that number sounds a lot more accurate. If it were an acre charge then it would be about a 45% increase if my property were involved. If it was truly that high then I can tell you that I would be screaming too. My thought on the way that they were doing this was that by doing it by parcel wrong because a per acre rate would seem more appropriate. However by doing it per acre may be a way of more accurately representing the dwellings rather than collecting from farmers whose flooded land is at much less risk.


----------



## M.Magis (Apr 5, 2004)

> It's $12 per acre of land. Someone who might own 100 acres would be paying $1200/yr. whether or not they might be in a flood zone.


I don't believe that's right. I was informed from someone who lives in one of the zones, that he will have to pay $12 per PARCEL. Doesn't matter if it's 1/2 acre, or 500 acreas. His land happens to be divided into two parcels, one is 3.5 acreas, tha other is about 1/2. He will pay $24 per year.

Whoops, I see BKR covered that already.  Parcel is correct, not acreage.


----------



## spot chaser (Apr 13, 2004)

fisheye said:


> rockbass wrote: "Where does the 400 bucks come from for those who would have to pay that?"
> 
> It's $12 per acre of land. Someone who might own 100 acres would be paying $1200/yr. whether or not they might be in a flood zone.
> 
> ...


You can go online and SEE what you have to pay.

http://12.30.88.19/Coshocton/src/index.htm

I just checked someone I know - he has several parcels - each one is 12 bucks. Many are VERY large 300-400 acres. 
Some are adjacent and has 2 at zero and one at 12.
He does have about 10 parcels that he will pay 12 ea for.

Check yours and see.....


----------



## Saildog (Aug 2, 2004)

Okay, let's try to clear up a few things:

1) The Army Corps of Engineers owns and operates the dams only...not the rest of the system. The dams are the major expense in the system and this why (until now) the MWCD is the ONLY conservancy district in the state not to assess land-owners. The Maumee district is something like 20X that amount. 

2) It will cost $12 per parcel per year, regardless of parcel size, for agricultural and residential properties. Industrial and business districts will have to pay more and that is done by an equation which looks at acreage of parking lots, roof area, etc. Pavement and buildings increase the amount of runoff, so thus this higher costs. Belden Village Mall will see the biggest bill. 

3) This is not taxation without representation. The MWCD was empowered to make assessments when it was created in the early 30's. It has had to go through a three year approvement process to get to this stage and has been upheld by a number of committees and judges. 

4) This IS the result of good planning and foresight. They are trying to look forward to the next 30+ years and the challenges that new construction and other factors beyond their control will bring. 

5) Fishing and recreation is an important but secondary function of the MWCD. Prevention of loss of life and property damage due to flooding is the main focus. Everyone on this sight should be thankful that our grandparents and great-grandparents were smart enough to create this system and a conservancy to protect and maintain it.

6) I could dig $12 per year in loose change out of my car. What do you think our taxes and insurance premiums would be without the MWCD? People across the country would read about the dozens that die every year and millions in property damage in Ohio floods. 

7) If you own 10 parcels and are so concerned about the $120 per year, then get them turned back into 1 parcel.


----------



## joe01 (Apr 16, 2004)

Saildog,
Most People understand what you are saying, But I think a lot of people want to know where the money is going. also to be able to see how its spent.Why the peolpe in charge are not elected by the voters. A lot of question need to be answered.


----------



## Saildog (Aug 2, 2004)

Go to this site and download the "Amendment to the Plan":

http://mwcd.org/plan-amendment.shtml

Right off the bat, the MWCD has to come up with almost $18 million just to legally cover it's share of the Corps of Engineers $500 million worth of dam repairs. There are also dredging, shoreline, bridge and road improvements that represent the bulk of the remaining money. Attempts were made to get the money from the federal and state governments, but they both declined. Thus the assessment. 

As for the people in charge not being voted for, I can think of a couple of good reasons for that:

1) We vote for the people that appoint these positions. In turn we should hold those that we elect responsible for the people who work for them. So you are indirectly voting for the MWCD leaders. It is much like federal judges that are appointed to their positions.

2) If it were an elected office, you would have politicians running the MWCD. They would spend half of their time running for office rather than doing what they should be doing. The voting public tends to be short-sighted and look at how things are going for them today. As a result, the goals of the MWCD would be short-sighted as well.


----------



## Elamenohpee (Nov 17, 2004)

Hey SailDog,I don't know if you'd be offended or think of it as a compliment, but you sound like a typical bureaucrat...and in my book, that aint all that good of a way to be.


Saildog said:


> The voting public tends to be short-sighted and look at how things are going for them today.


 How dare you suggest that us commoners don't know what we're doing or understand the goings on in government? It is because of people like you, that we should vote people like you, the guys who appointed people like you and all of the rest of the XXXXXX XXXX XXXXX's out of office.

Oh and by the way...Appointed Federal judges CAN'T assess your/my property


----------



## Saildog (Aug 2, 2004)

First off, I have never held a public office, worked for any form of government or government agency. Neither has anyone in my family. This is not a political website and I will not engage in politics other than to say that it is my opinion that the MWCD does a better job with less funding than just about any other government agency I have ever seen. 

There is no high horse here...I have never called anyone a "commoner" nor in anyway think of myself superior than the next guy. There are reasons that our founding fathers did not make every government position an elected office. This was to create long-term stability and planning where it would not otherwise exist if people did nothing but worry about getting re-elected.


----------



## Master Angler (May 26, 2004)

Saildog,

I would like to commend you for the most reasoned, well thought out (and correct) series of posts on any non-fishing subject ever posted on this site. 

MA


----------



## fishholio (May 13, 2004)

why all the fuss over 12 dollars.! i mean thats the price af a few gallons of gas or lunch if twelve bucks is gonna break ya maybe you should think of another line of work. my property taxes just went up 200 dollars a year for school increases on all my properties and my kids arent even in the schools but thats life you live someplace you pay whats required or move its that simple


----------



## Rod&Reel (Jun 4, 2005)

Is it just me or does this sound like a paylake. I don't fish paylakes, so I guess i will never fish this lake. Can just say I am glade I don't live there. lol as far as charging to use the ramps.....All I can say is bring it on, I have a float tube and don't need a ramp.


----------



## Elamenohpee (Nov 17, 2004)

fishholio said:


> why all the fuss over 12 dollars.!


 . 



fishholio said:


> my property taxes just went up 200 dollars a year for school increases on all my properties and my kids arent even in


and you're STILL missing the point?????
When is enough, ENOUGH?...In my opinion, it's NOW. When is it going to be enough for you? In 5 years when that $200 becomes $1000? or are you just going to keep paying and paying?


----------



## Saildog (Aug 2, 2004)

I'm done with this thread. It's gotten well past the realm of fishing or anything fishing related and into politics. I'm going fishing and thanks to the MWCD I have plenty of places to do that.


----------



## rockbass (Apr 16, 2004)

I looked up my property, and the idiots have my mailing addy wrong. That's where the money is going. You can purchase a list for virtually anything about a person(believe me, we have to do it all the time).......you can buy them by income amounts, property sizes, name/addy/phone number, you name it........but these guys have my mailing addy wrong.


----------



## spot chaser (Apr 13, 2004)

rockbass said:


> I looked up my property, and the idiots have my mailing addy wrong. That's where the money is going. You can purchase a list for virtually anything about a person(believe me, we have to do it all the time).......you can buy them by income amounts, property sizes, name/addy/phone number, you name it........but these guys have my mailing addy wrong.


Blame your county auditor -


----------



## Scott_Levengood (Dec 11, 2006)

Saildog said:


> I'm done with this thread. It's gotten well past the realm of fishing or anything fishing related and into politics. I'm going fishing and thanks to the MWCD I have plenty of places to do that.


Saildog:

Fortunately, many of us are aware of how MWCD deceptively markets their fraudulent assessment plan. The New Philadelphia-based MWCD was created in 1933 under the Ohio Revised Code 6101 to maintain flood control. It is the largest conservancy district in the state, encompassing 18 counties, or one-fifth of the state. There are approximately 2.2 million people living within our watershed which is comprised of more than 745,000 parcels of land. MWCD is bounded by Akron to the north, Marietta to the south, Mansfield to the west and Cadiz to the east. The 18 counties include Ashland, Belmont, Carroll, Coshocton, Guernsey, Harrison, Holmes, Knox, Licking, Morgan, Muskingum, Noble, Richland, Stark, Summit, Tuscarawas, Washington, and Wayne. 

The MWCD is currently in the process of placing an assessment (tax) on each and every parcel of land within the district including those deemed commercial, industrial and not for profit. Ohio Revised Code Chapter 6101 gives them the power to carry out this fraudulent act without placing it on a ballot for the people of the district to vote on. MWCD claims that the assessment is necessary for flood control even though responsibility for flood control in the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District was transferred to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with the Flood Control Act of 1939. Closer examination reveals that the Army Corps owns and operates more than one thousand flood-control dams across the United States, however, MWCD is the only example in the entire country in which the Corps owns the dams and not the associated reservoirs.

MWCD continues to trivialize this unvoted property tax by stating that it is the only conservancy district in Ohio that does not currently collect an assessment. What is not disclosed by the MWCD is that real property assessed in other conservancy districts throughout Ohio receive a direct flood control benefit. However, the proposed MWCD assessment plan claims indirect benefits to property. For example, the Miami Conservancy District (MCD) only assesses parcels that were affected by the flood waters of the devastating 1913 flood. MCDs assessments are based on a combination of property tax values and the degree of flood protection provided. Properties that receive full flood protection from the dams and levees have a greater benefit and, in general, pay a higher assessment than properties that receive a reduction of flooding (not full protection) from the dams. 

MWCD is attempting to amend the true definition of a special benefit and apply a general tax to the entire district. MWCD had attempted a nearly identical assessment in the past and was defeated in the Fifth District Court of Appeals where it was upheld that property which is not benefited thereby cannot be assessed. By MWCDs own admission, only certain low-lying parcels situated below the Army Corps flood-control dams and near the primary waterways receive such a benefit. A recent study conducted by the U.S. Army Corps has determined that 60 percent of the flood control benefits fashioned by their flood control structures within the MWCD are actually observed outside of the state of Ohio which further substantiates the fact that this is a federal issue. In addition, settled case law tells us that a tax imposed on land by the district were no benefit is received would be considered deprivation of property without due process of law, the equivalent of taking real property via eminent domain.

MWCD continually attempts to market the impending assessment as one that costs the average property owner a mere twelve dollars when in fact it will be much more. Industrial properties are assessed at $114 per acre while commercial is $132. This is a far cry from $12 per residential parcel that applies to less than an acre to 960 acres in size. Only parcels determined to be residential are assessed at the $12 rate which will surely increase over time. Schools, churches and non-profits including the Salvation Army, Hospice and the Girl Scouts of America are assessed at a much higher rate. 

MWCD's flawed methodology already incorporates a provision to nearly double the assessment fee whenever they feel the need. Operating under Revised Code 6101, MWCD is allowed to charge a yearly fee of up to one (1) percent of the supposed benefit. The fabricated benefit for ALL residential properties within the district is $2,320.67 regardless of parcel size. One (1) percent of that amount would be $23.21 which equates to a near doubling of the tax. This being the case, Canton Akron Airport's assessment fee (property tax) of $44,008 per year could be increased to approximately $85,119 with no legislative oversight. How many jobs will be sacrificed if either of these fees are implemented. All businesses and industry within the district will be faced with proportional assessment fees. Ohio is already considered one of the more unfriendly states in the nation to industrial and commercial entities. Is this a right choice for Ohio who ranks #1 in the nation for home foreclosures and second in the nation for bankruptcies?


----------



## Lewzer (Apr 5, 2004)

Thank you for your opinion Mr. Levengood. There is much stuff on the web about you and the group you are part of that oppose the plan.
I would love to hear John Hoopingarner's side of the story for a little balance.


----------



## Brian.Smith (May 18, 2006)

Thanks for the info Scott sheds a litle light on the matter


----------



## Scott_Levengood (Dec 11, 2006)

Im thankful for this forum and the opportunity it provides to educate individuals about MWCDs unlawful assessment. There are still tens of thousands of people within the district who have no idea the assessment applies to them. Others who have heard about this unvoted property tax think that it only applies to individuals who are fortunate enough to live in close proximity to the MWCD reservoirs. 

In todays issue of the Times Reporter, the last sentence in an article concerning the assessment states, The average residents assessment would be $12 per year, according to the MWCD. Lets think about this for a minute. Your residence may be assessed at the $12 rate they publicize. However, the school(s) your children and grandchildren attend will pay quite a bit more. In this case, the school(s) may have to turn to the property owners and request they approve another levy to cover this increased burden. Your grocery store, gas station, doctors office and favorite restaurant will be assessed at the commercial rate. They will be required to increase their prices to cover the increase in overhead they will experience so you will pay again. 

Maybe your church has plenty of money or maybe it will have to collect a special offering to pay its share of the assessment. In either case, you pay again. Finally, instead of helping feed and clothe the poor, the Salvation Army and other similar charities will need to utilize some of their contributions and donations to pay its assessment. For example, Stark County Salvation Armys assessment tax is over $800 annually. How many indigent people could this money have helped? 

This is clearly a case of double and triple taxation with no benefit received by the majority of the property owners that will be assessed to pay it as REQUIRED by law. And please understand.this assessment applies to nearly all of the 745,000+ parcels of land within the MWCD. There are very few exceptions. MWCD is even attempting to assess the ODNR at a rate of nearly $50,000 each and every year. The Ohio attorney General has filed and objection on their behalf but has not done it for Ohio's citizens. People truly need to wake up and understand what is going on here.


----------



## Lewzer (Apr 5, 2004)

Do you have any idea of how much it will cost you and many people, church groups and business in the flood plain south of Dover when the Dover Dam and many other facilities that are close to 70 years old and in great need of repairs blows when the next big flood comes?

http://www.timesreporter.com/index.php?ID=52621

Now granted the Corps of Engineers owns the dams but have you seen the conditions of many of the MCWD lakes? Beach City is so silted in that you cannot launch a boat there. It is pretty worthless as a flood control reservoir. Charles Mills is going the same way-a very shallow silted lake.

I think the old saying is quite appropriate in this case. You can pay me now or you can me (much, much more) later. I hope you have flood insurance on your farm.
I am also in the Tusc. watershed and will be subject to the assessment. I will gladly pay my small tax to avoid flooding your and many others farms and businesses in the future.


----------



## Scott_Levengood (Dec 11, 2006)

Lewzer,

From the content of your reply, I can only assume that you did not attend either of the public meetings held by the Army Corps in which they assured the public that Dover Dam (as well as the other dams) will absolutely not be operated in an unsafe manner. An Army Corps representative also informed all that were present that if MWCD was dismantled tomorrow, the currently scheduled maintenance would still take place at its anticipated date(s). You have seemingly bought into MWCDs propaganda and I encourage you to do a little research on your own to determine the truth of the matter. 

I have seen the conditions at many of the MWCD reservoirs. To know that MWCD takes in approximately 13 million dollars a year from a prosperous business and still cannot maintain its cash cow is absurd. The reservoirs current state of disrepair is a perfect example of why MWCD needs to be reorganized or replaced altogether. MWCD collects revenues from its land leases, oil wells, timber sales, overpriced park entrances and camping fees. And dont forget all the money they get from state and federal grants (your tax dollars again). 

Do you own a house or business? If so, do you expect your neighbors or perhaps someone three counties away to pay for your maintenance due to your own poor management or mismanagement of funds? No! You perform the required preventative maintenance before you spend money on things that are unnecessary. And, if you own a business, you certainly dont hire more employees and increase everyones salaries, including your own, before performing the required maintenance necessary to keep the business operational. 

By the way, I do not expect or even want you pay your assessment to keep my farm from being flooded. My farm resides behind Dover Dam and is flooded regularly to keep others, perhaps like yourself, from being flooded. I have no problem with this, however, I refuse to pay money to an unaccountable bureaucracy who hides behind the guise of flood control to unlawfully assess the residents of this district.


----------



## rockbass (Apr 16, 2004)

Great post Scott!

It all really comes down to MWCD/ Army Corp not doing things that should have been done all along.


I see where the silt problems have been mentioned. I am not familiar with Beach City, or Charles......but I know they could go in during drawdrown and dig a lot of the silt out. Sure it will cost a bit, but most likely minor compared to other possibilities. Not to mention it might help fishing out a little bit


----------



## neocats1 (Oct 14, 2006)

lakeslouie said:


> Its getting worse each year. I have a tournament trail that would love to use Tappan occasionally, maybe once a year, but I won't spend the $250. for the permit cost.


Our tournament trail is starting it's first year in 2007 and we already have permits for CHarles Mil Lake and Atwood Lake. We don't mind paying to have the opportunity to hold our tournaments.


----------



## Lewzer (Apr 5, 2004)

No Mr Levengood I did not attend the COE meetings. 
From the tone of your postings I assume you didn't attend any of the MWCD meetings either. Heck you wouldn't even let Mr. Hoopingarner attend any of your anti-MWCD meetings to present his side of the story. Seems pretty one-sided to me.
I've done my research and I listened to both sides of the story and then make up my mind what is best for me and the community. 
I tend to shy away from narrow special-interest groups and look for what is best for the community or region as a whole.
I take into account what may happen if legislation is passed and what may happen if people sit on their hands and do nothing.
In my opinion the bottom line is the small cost is well worth the flood control protections that communities from Akron to Marietta receive.
I remember well the floods of January '05, July '03, etc....I am in the upper watershed and they had no effect on me personally.
If I had land from Dover to Coshocton to Marietta, I would have been grateful for existance of those flood control reservoirs that prevented the damage from being worse that what it already was.

This is all I'm going to say on the matter. I can see your mind is already made up. All I ask if for people to look at both sides of the story before making up their minds.


----------



## Scott_Levengood (Dec 11, 2006)

Lewzer - Did you actually read my initial postings or did someone have to do that for you? If so, it would appear that you became lost in the translation. First, I have indeed attended many of MWCDs public meetings which include their monthly board of director meetings, the developmental advisory committee meetings and the Muskingum River Basin Initiative meetings among others. This can be verified by the attendance sheets. Second, it appears that the only narrow mind in this dialogue happens to belong to you. MWCD, like all of the other conservancy districts in Ohio have the authority to assess those parcels which receive a direct benefit. Only parcels of ground that would be flooded if the Army Corps dams had not been constructed meet the requirements under the current law. What MWCD is attempting to do is unlawful and immoral. Since you claim to have done your research, please tell me the names of any other Ohio conservancy districts that assesses parcels of ground that do not receive a direct benefit. A benefit must produce an increase in value to that particular parcel of property being assessed. Please also explain exactly how Akron Canton Airport property is benefited from anything MWCD has done in the past or intends to do in the future? You are correct in your assumption that my mind is made up. I will not idly stand by as this group of would-be thieves attempts to unlawfully assess my home, my childrens school, my church and the cemeteries in which my departed friends and family members currently reside. You may choose to remain ignorant and complacent, however, I do not.


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

ah,another hot topic  
and like so many others,there will be strong opinions on either side.so,though the topic is hot,hopefully heads will remain cool


----------



## MSmith2004 (Sep 12, 2006)

misfit said:


> ah,another hot topic
> and like so many others,there will be strong opinions on either side.so,though the topic is hot,hopefully heads will remain cool


Lol... good luck with that.


----------



## Scott_Levengood (Dec 11, 2006)

I was incensed by the recent Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District ad apparently trying to justify the assessments (about $12 per year for residences, more for businesses) it is imposing on many properties in our area starting next year.

Prior to a Beacon Journal article earlier this year about taxation without representation and government run amok, I had no idea I might live in the conservancy district or that it could impose these taxes without a vote. Probably, most people living in the area are still unaware of this abuse by government.

As far as I've been able to ascertain, the primary beneficiaries of these taxes would be developers and residents downriver who have chosen to live in or develop the natural river flood plain, cities obtaining water of improved quality from conservancy reservoirs and -- contrary to conservancy district claims -- recreational users of its reservoirs. Why should we have to pay for our own recreation and drinking water quality as well as someone else's, particularly when none of the water from this area flows into the reservoirs?

I obtained some interesting information from the conservancy Web site, www.mwcd.org. The MWCD is governed by the Conservancy Court, consisting of one common pleas judge from each of 18 counties in the district.

The decision to impose the assessments was made behind closed doors, since the court claims it is not subject to sunshine laws (a lawsuit claiming the contrary is pending).

Judge Jane Bond represents Summit County. I wonder how she and adjoining counties' judges voted.

Several judges have resigned amid allegations of wrongdoing.

The board is appointed by the court. The nearest board member lives in New Philadelphia. Although 27 Ohio counties are all or partly in the Muskingum watershed, including about one-third each of Medina and Summit, only 18 are fully or partially in the Conservancy District. I was relieved to learn that although I live in the watershed, I apparently am not in the district, although neighbors across the road are and are subject to the assessments.

Readers may wish to consult the Web site's "Assessment Viewer" to learn the amount of their assessment.

What particularly incensed me about the ad was that it featured a gentleman who chose to live in the natural flood plain along the Muskingum and was lecturing us on the benefits of flood control. Not only is the MWCD trying to brainwash us on the benefits of the assessments, it paid for the ad with our money.

Jim Salay
Copley Township


----------



## Master Angler (May 26, 2004)

The solutions are easy. Charge everyone in the district the cost of removing all the dams (much better for the health of the rivers) and then mandate that everyone buy flood insurance (why should people outside of the district have to pay for people to live in known flood zones). This should run about $1200 a year. The second option would be to have all of the SE counties secede from Ohio and join West Virginia


----------



## Scott_Levengood (Dec 11, 2006)

Master Angler said:


> (why should people outside of the district have to pay for people to live in known flood zones).



I agree! To be more accurate, why should any property owner who does not receive a benefit have to pay MWCD's unvoted property tax!


----------

