Local Jewish News

Voter Turnout

as of 12:30am

Voter turnout across Cuyahoga County was 30.1%. The precincts in Beachwood and University Heights where the largest concentration of frum Jews reside had an above-average turnout near or over 40%. The precincts in Cleveland Heights where the largest concentration of frum Jews reside had an above-average turnout of 31-32%. While these numbers are good, and are likely driven by our community, they could be better.

The images below are difficult to orient to at first but if you look carefully you’ll see landmarks and major streets.

Beachwood

• Mayor – Horwitz
• Council – Pasch, Synenberg, Isaacson
• Board of Education – Weiss, Bennett, Zawatsky
• Beachwood Charter Amendment – Passed

Cleveland Heights

• Council – Yasinow, Stephens, Ungar, Stein
• Municipal Judge – Costello
• CH/UH School Board – Sourini, Heints, Lewis

University Heights

• Mayor – Brennan
• Council – Pardee, Wiseman, Ertel
• Council Unexpired Term – Rach
• CH/UH School Board – Sourini, Heints, Lewis
• Shaker Heights Municipal Judge – Montgomery

Issues

• Issue 1 – Rights for Crime Victims – Passed
• Issue 2 – Prescription Drug Pricing – Failed
• Issue 3 – Beachwood Charter Amendment – Passed
• Issue 46 – Allowing Marc’s in South Euclid to sell certain alcoholic beverages on Sundays – Passed
• Issue 59 – Port Authority Tax Levy – Passed
• Issue 61 – Tri-C Bond Issue – Passed

Editor’s note: University Heights voters can reference Michele Weiss’ and Mark Wiseman’s open letter.

This election focuses on State and Local issues. These are the ones where our votes really count. Unfortunately, the vote tabulators have noted that our community turnout is low, and officials are aware of that. This hurts our ability to have our needs and interests prioritized.

Please take the time to vote, in person or absentee. Our own candidate, Jason Stein, is up for re-election, and every vote is needed.

Please find my short edition recommendations below. The expanded version with explanations appears further down.

As always, these suggestions and their reasons are provided to assist with thoughtful informed voting. The main thing is for you to place your vote on Tuesday, November 7. Thank you,

Susan Efroymson

November 1, 2017

---

• Cleveland Heights Municipal Court – James Costello
• Cleveland Heights City Council – Jason Stein, Cheryl Stephens, Mike Unger, Melissa Yasinow (you may vote for up to four, but please only vote for those listed)
• Cleveland Heights University Heights School Board – Tiera Briggs, Jodi Sarini, Dan Heintz (vote for three)
• Ohio State Issue 1: Rights of Crime Victims – Vote YES. It’s about time!
• Ohio State Issue 2: Prescription Drug Purchasing Requirement for State – Vote NO! Too confusing; desired results speculative at best and cost increases just as likely. Will not benefit ⅔ of Ohioans
• Cuyahoga County Issue 59: Port Authority Tax Renewal – Vote YES. Does not raise your taxes, but it does extend them. Comments below.
• Cuyahoga County Issue 61: Tri-C Tax increase – Vote NO. It’s about the buildings and not for the closest ones.
• University Heights City Council – Consider: Mark Wiseman (incumbent) and Hannah Lebovitz (challenger). Two observant candidates you may wish to consider supporting. (I generally do not comment on elections I do not vote in, but I have been asked to pass along this information and happily do so).

Expanded Edition – Elected Office

Cleveland Heights Municipal Court – James Costello

It’s been a long time since we voted for a municipal judge, but we have this responsibility now that Judge Buchanan is retiring. It is one we cannot take lightly. It should be noted that Municipal Court does not deal in felonies, which would include the most violent offences, but mostly with housing, traffic, and more petty offenses and misdemeanors. As our local court, this election is very different than the judges we elect at the county level.

Two of the three candidates reached out to our community and were reviewed for consideration. James Costello has more experience, especially locally. Most importantly, he shows the greatest promise on combining common sense compassion with being the toughest on crime. Often, if the perpetrator of a misdemeanor crime is handled right, the offender won’t progress into a hardened recurring criminal. James Costello understands this. He has a common sense approach knowing the difference between absentee landlords and their violations (that is landlords from out of town that aren’t maintaining their rental properties which is a big issue in the city) versus the local homeowner who may be struggling to make a repair – or traffic violations that jeopardize safety versus minor infractions – and repeat offenders versus a single mistake, etc. His plans to save the city money through raising the level of technology employed by the courts to relieve that stress and his community engagement plans with the police department show an impressive knowledge of the systems already in place which is only enhanced by his most recent experience as Acting Judge for the same court to which he is seeking election. This is why he has the endorsement of both Republicans and Democrats, every city council member and several past mayors as well as a long list of individuals and groups. Vote: J Costello

Cleveland Heights City Council: (vote for 4) Jason Stein, Cheryl Stephens, Mike Ungar, Melissa Yasinow

There is a lot on the table. We are in a transition period between discovering some of the problems left over by the old guard and implementation of the new fixes. Experience counts here, which is why I have selected all incumbent candidates, especially with the city ready to undergo a review of city’s Charter, which is our Constitution.

Jason Stein is from our neighborhood and our community. He understands and works in tandem with his colleagues on council to effect positive change for our area. Already as a result of Jason Stein’s work we have seen improved safety with:

• extra police patrols
• traffic calming measures on Taylor Road
• sidewalks on Taylor Road are cleared of snow
• facilitated excellent communication and cooperation between CHPD and Chaverim

Jason Stein also:

• Helped facilitate the creation and maintenance of the Cleveland Heights ERUV
• Achieved thousands of dollars in block grant funding for GESHER’s aid programs
• Is a passionate advocate for the Hebrew Academy and YDT City-related issues
• Crafted legislation to give tax abatement for home additions and improvements
• Plans for new housing construction for large families
• Is a strong and respected voice in city government who gets results for our community

All four candidates have expressed a willingness to work with our community going forward on issues like further Taylor Rd. updates, safety and crime reduction, housing, and a positive disposition of the Millikin property. All have a track record and have begun work on many of these projects. Of the five candidates running, only the four receiving the most votes will take or retake office. Please turn out and vote for: Stein, Stephens, Ungar and Yasinow.

Cleveland Heights University Heights School Board: Tiera Briggs, Jodi Sarini, Dan Heintz

There are many issues looked at as important to our community that were weighted in this decision. One of the most important is the disposition of the Millikin property. As a strategic property located adjacent to us, the needs of our community must be highly prioritized.

Another paramount issue involves vouchers. Articles painting communities who use vouchers as vultures stealing resources from public school children have been viscous at times and they cross a line of civility. Because vouchers are such a highly charged issue, and will remain so, our community can only support someone who will respect us and our needs, even if they differ in opinion.

Fiscal Responsibility. We will continue to see tax levies for the foreseeable future. That’s a given under the current structure in which communities fund their schools. And we understand the importance of a strong public-school system. However, if the BOE would do their job properly, they will stretch the funds we give them longer and ask for less. Our district has been plagued by high per-pupil costs based often on non-classroom related expenditures. We already support our schools with a large tax bill. We seek a fiscally sound approach from board members and a true appreciation of what they are asking of the populace, including those that pay tuition after paying taxes, seniors whose income is not increasing along with the levies who risk losing their home, and struggling families. The pocket books of the entire population should not be taken for granted. We want someone in office who understands they work for us as well and takes that fiscal responsibility with the weight it deserves.

The GOOD NEWS is that for the first time in my memory, we have a great group of candidates. 44 years of experience will be retiring this January as the old guard will not be seeking reelection. The only two remaining board members were elected only two years ago.

This changes everything! The environment of hostility and traditional thinking is not the environment these officials will be walking into. This is the first time the candidates requested a sit down with our community and asked about our concerns.

While there are issues we will disagree on, at least each approached those with respect, and gained a sincere understanding of where we are coming from. This is HUGE. There are two I am truly excited about:

Tiera Briggs: Is a breath of fresh air. Her background is different than the cookie cutter board members of the past. She struggled as a single mother and has raised issues on behalf of those in the district who struggle too, that previous board members, all more affluent, didn’t realize were a problem at all, and she succeeded in getting the job accomplished. As someone who ran her own home on a tight budget, she has a solid concept of how to approach the district budget looking for areas that ultimately will reduce spending outside the classroom. Her religious background compels her by habit to treat everyone with respect. As the only candidate not backed by the teachers union, she would not feel beholden to them in any future negotiations. As she is not registered with either party, Democrats officially do not support her. It may be an uphill battle, but should she be elected, Tiera Briggs is someone who would work well with us on all of the above-stated issues. Please show up in large numbers to support her.

Additionally, I am excited about Jodi Sorrini. I met with her for over 2 hours and she had many solid ideas for reducing waste in the district and addressing the proper disposition of buildings including Millikin. The district is facing decreasing enrollment and looks to close more buildings. This means these candidates are in a tough fight ahead of them, but Jodi is not only up to the task, she is prepared for it with novel ideas. She is challenging previous assumptions and asking the right questions to the benefit of the whole picture for the district. She is articulate, respectful and listens and this is something that appears to come from within.

Both of the above would make a strong change in the right direction to school board that our community should seek.

Both of the other candidates were strong as well and also had good ideas and were open-minded. In the end, I am choosing the teacher, Dan Heintz because I do think that will bring a valuable perspective to the board. When looking at the total board, he has more to add and complement and this slate will yield a diversity of perspectives that will make the board the most effective it can be. Malia Lewis, if elected, has strong capabilities and is dedicated to public schools and has also opened the door to a good relationship as well. Nevertheless, it would be remiss to pass over someone with Dan’s years of educational experience, humility, and ideas.

For the first time, whoever is elected, we have good reason to feel hopeful about a much-improved relationship going forward. A strong turnout will make them take note that addressing our issues will be valuable to them. Please show them your support and vote for Tierra Briggs, Dan Heintz and Jodi Sorrini.

Expanded Edition – Issues

Ohio State Issue 1: Rights of Crime Victims Amendment to the Constitution. Vote YES

This law gives the right to a victim of a crime and the family to be heard at trial. Before this, they did not have standing and it was up to the judge’s discretion to hear their point of view or not depending on the circumstances. It also requires the court system to let victims know when a violent offender is being released or is up for parole so they may be heard at the hearing. It insures the victim privacy and right to refuse discovery requests made by the criminal as well as adequate protection. Until now, many courts have honored these standards, but it has not been universal and it was dependent on someone’s discretion. In a country that is elevated enough to be concerned with the rights of the accused, the rights of victims and their families have been overlooked as an unfortunate side effect. It’s about time that this should be enshrined into law.

Known as Marsy’s Law, it would replace a 1994 Victims Rights Law by going further including all of the above provisions. Marsy’s Law has never been defeated at the ballot having passed 5 states already and will be up in two more in 2018. Issue One is supported by both Democrats and Republicans including more than 275 lawmakers, local elected officials, sheriff’s offices, prosecutors, law-enforcement officers and crime victim advocates in Ohio and State Attorney General Mike DeWine. While I generally oppose cluttering up the State Constitution with amendments, this initiative is an amendment whose time has come and is worthy of taking its place at our state’s highest level. Vote Yes.

Ohio State Issue 2: Prescription Drug Purchasing Requirement for State – Vote NO

A poorly written Issue whose effects are debatable and may make things worse

It states that State agencies would not be allowed to pay more than the Department of Veterans Affairs pays for its prescription drugs prices. And more.

On the surface, this Issue deals with a vexing problem – the sky-high prices for prescription drugs. It is a federal law that the US government cannot negotiate with the drug companies as other countries do. That means US citizens do pay top dollar essentially underwriting the cost to big pharma for research, development and exacting safety testing measures.

But the sponsor of the legislation has their own agenda, and the resulting Issue wording is something that is very problematic – making Ohio an experiment for “what happens when you squeeze a balloon at one end”.

Because it deals at the core with limiting the prices for prescriptions, big PHARMA is fighting it with their deep pockets. But they are also joined by many other organizations. No major Ohio newspaper has endorsed it (most are urging a No vote). Very tellingly, in forums where the proponents are given the opportunity to address the many concerns with the issue, they have no good answers (see, for instance, the League of Women Voters’ debate). Over 70 organizations are urging No, while only 9 are supporting it. The main sponsor of the Issue is the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which is an out-of-state entity and has a very narrow focus and agenda. Almost all other healthcare related associations have urged a NO vote.

Each side accuses the other–and the individuals at the top of each side–of greed and gain and each has proven that the other would benefit largely if they get the vote to go their way without question. So, the only question is whether the state and its constituents, you, would see any benefit.

Here are some of the concerns:

• The law links the prices the State of Ohio will pay to the prices the VA pays. But the VA prices are often not revealed by the VA due to private deals, nor would this law require them to reveal those deals. So determining the lowest price wouldn’t be possible.
• There is no requirement that drug companies sell to Ohio, so if they feel the prices are not acceptable, they can refuse to sell to Ohio (especially since they may decide that giving in would lead all the other states to do the same thing). Would certain drugs become unavailable in our state altogether?
• Instead of lowering prices for Ohio, they may raise prices on the VA (a reason why almost all Veterans groups oppose this Issue)
• If they do lower prices just to the agencies, will they then raise prices on others?
• This law only addresses State Agency prices, such as Medicaid. Medicare (which is federal) and private plans are not included, which represent two thirds of Ohioans. They would receive no benefit, and in fact may face higher prices (see previous point)

One very problematic clause would require the State of Ohio to pay for the legal defense of lawsuits should the Issue pass, and even specifies which lawyers are authorized to defend it, essentially defining a legal team monopoly. Since this Issue with all of its problematic clauses is assured of generating many expensive lawsuits, the taxpayers will shoulder large legal fees.

Both sides, as is common, are resorting to extremely misleading mailings and advertisements. Examples include: making it seem like the head of the Cleveland Clinic supports Issue 2, when he only stated (not in relation to Issue 2) that prescription costs are too high. And implying that the Issue will help the average Ohioan, when, as explained above, all benefits are limited and unclear.

A parallel may be found in the recent Marijuana law that failed, not because of the concept itself, but because it was poorly written. Once it failed, the Ohio legislature wrote a cleaner law for medical marijuana, and passed it. We can hope that if there is a good idea in this Issue, that lawmakers can find a way to write a cleaner legislation and pass it. After all, controlling state costs is a huge issue that the legislature would love to solve.

The Plain Dealer editorial conclusion is well-stated: “Rejecting this troubling, poorly drafted ballot issue doesn’t mean that we support the drug industry’s often arbitrary sky-high drug pricing. We categorically do not. Drug companies ought to be reined in. But passing a statute that is impractical, litigation-prone and that’s likely to do little to address the problem of overpriced drugs isn’t the answer. That’s why Issue 2 is a problem, not a cure. We urge Ohio voters to say “No” to Issue 2 on the Nov. 7 ballot”

Given all that, Vote No

Expanded Edition – Taxes Issues

Cuyahoga County Issue 59: Port Authority Tax Renewal

Does not raise your taxes, but it does extend them. Port Authority does so much for safety and shipping that mean so much to our region economically as well as all around. This tax has remained unchanged since 1968 and amounts to only about $13 per 100K of house value annually. It’s a good investment for the return, and you are already paying it for 50 years. No new tax here. Vote Yes.

Cuyahoga County Issue 61: Tri -C Tax increase

It’s about the buildings and not for the closest ones. Vote No.

Per $100,000 house, we already pay a total of $126 annually for Cuyahoga Community College operating levies as property tax which funds about 1/3 of its budget. This bond issue, designed mostly for building improvements, but also operating costs for Tri-C’s 50 buildings would add another $18. Despite our community’s use of the community college, the likely outcome of failure to pass is that Tri-C will modify its plans and come back and ask again for a lower, more affordable amount. President Alex Johnson said 61 percent of the bond funds would be reinvested in existing buildings and roads. The remainder would be used for new construction. Following are a few uses for the funds:

• Metropolitan Campus in Cleveland (opened in 1966): A 15,000-square-foot expansion of the Advanced Technology Training Center.
• Western Campus in Parma (opened in 1975): A 60,000-square-foot STEM/Information Technology addition would be built. The Public Safety Training Center and the Automotive Technology Center would be expanded.

The question for our community is how much would we gain from these improvements, do we need them, and how much can we afford.

Although whenever Tri-C has come to the voters, they have gotten the property tax they have asked for, this is the first time they are asking for a bond, so previous support does not guarantee passage. Given the locations and departments they are emphasizing and the tax burden already on our community being one of the highest taxed in the state, the cost/benefit analysis for our community in general, there is not enough of a reason to support a tax increase. Vote No.