Disappointed Grandma

I am writing as a concerned, and extremely disappointed, Oakwood grandmother. Recently, I purchased for my three-year-old grandson a pair of camouflage “Crocs” as a gift. Needless to say, he loved his cool new sandals. Not to long ago, my daughter came home from work to a very upset babysitter who explained that they lost the Crocs while at the Oakwood pool. Apparently, the boys and the babysitter set their belongings by a chair and went to swim. When they returned to their spot, the shoes were missing. She looked all over, but could not retrieve the shoes. At first, she though it was mistake: a child walked off with the wrong shoes, they would surely turn up in the lost and found once somebody’s parent they were wearing the wrong sandals.

However, each time my daughter has returned to the pool, she has checked the lost and found to no avail. Which leads me to my point: What kind of community are we living in where we cannot leave a three-year-olds’ sandals sitting unattended at the community pool? I have been an Oakwood resident for 30 years, and I am delighted to have my grandchildren growing up in the same town. However, when did Oakwood become a place of child theft? I highly doubt that a young child was conniving enough to snatch up these sandals on purpose. This fact leads me to believe a parent was involved. What kind of parents do we have living in our town who does not correct a child’s mistake of taking the wrong sandals? Even worse, what kind of community is this where the parents would take the sandals themselves?

Oakwood has been known for its safety and security. We never used to have to worry about our children, or their belongings, at the pool, park, school, or any other community area. Why are we so concerned about Section 8 when our preschoolers are being robbed inside their own gated swimming pool? I realize that a pair of missing Crocs may seem trivial to some readers, but it is the bigger picture that needs to be addressed. What are we teaching our children, and when did Oakwood lose its reputation of being a safe haven for raising our children?

Disappointed Grandma
Edie Heppner
Oakwood

‘Help the poor’...another viewpoint

As a devout Catholic myself, I feel compelled to counter Mr. Reed’s plea in last week’s OR (Aug. 21) to open our yards, hearts and homes to Section 8 housing and its inhabitants. To do so, I suggest he and others that are like-minded look at the larger moral picture. Many in our country have fallen into the trap of confusing the Biblical concept of charity with government entitlement programs which destroy the human spirit and stifle the individual’s God given abilities to succeed.

Since the 1960’s, good intentioned people have taken the moral high ground by electing politicians who take from the successful and give to the “less fortunate” ...all in the name of compassion. The net result has been the redistribution of income in the trillions of dollars that has not only failed to solve the problem of poverty but fueled it.

We now have many (mostly broken) families on their third generation of public assistance, whose members have only known the entitlement mentality...”Why should I work when I can get a check from the government”....” Why should I get married when I can get a check from the government.” Sadly, the police records and statistics show the consequences of such a lifestyle.

Jesus rightly called for compassion for the poor. Charity is a beautiful thing. In Jesus’ day the poor were the mentally and physically infirm...the truly needy. There was no Section 8 program back then.

If we want to restore the dignity to the impoverished people in our community, we must break the cycle of poverty that we have created with our “good intentions” and replace it by instilling the values of self-fulfillment, hard work and self-reliance. Only then will we be truly helping the poor.

George Thielen
72 Thruston Blvd. E.
Oakwood

Reach out

Tonight, I went to Graeter’s, where I picked up an Oakwood Register.  As a recent UD grad, living on the edge of UD and Oakwood, I was interested seeing what the newspaper had to offer.  I was pleasantly surprised with most of it and found it quite informative.

When I got to the Letters to the Editor section, however, I was quickly disgusted. With such judgmental, close-minded, and outright prejudiced remarks, I exclaimed to my husband several times, “I can’t believe this!”  

Above all else, a sense of entitlement emanated from the Letters to the Editor page. So entitled are we to this “Life” we have made for ourselves, the hard work and sacrifices we have made that we deserve to live in this safe, perfect, little world we have created for ourselves. Without even getting into obligations we have religiously or the root causes of poverty, I can just say that this attitude honestly scares me.  The attitude that if we all just “work hard” we’ll make enough money and be able to live in Oakwood.  What ignorance!  Not to mention the fear and mistrust provoked by the mere thought of lower income, “less deserving” residents encroaching in our space.

To so greatly separate ourselves from them is dangerous and false. As Mr. Reed so aptly put it, we all deserve human dignity.

We want to be one big, happy community family.  But only if you have money and are successful.  Don’t we want to share this wonderful sense of community?  Isn’t there enough love and welcoming to go around?  I, for one, see this as a fantastic opportunity to reach out to the community in an effective way.

Oakwood is viewed as a somewhat elitist, exclusivist neighborhood already, and with more opinions like those from the Letters to the Editor page, we will successfully continue to isolate ourselves from the rest of Dayton. We’ll keep the rich rich and the poor poor. This is not just or sustainable.

This makes me not want to frequent the businesses of Oakwood, or even be around the residents if sentiments like this run rampant!  As young professionals, my husband and I are looking to where we want to make our home for the next few years. And if some of those letters are any indication of the average Oakwood resident, I think we’ll chose to stay away from Oakwood.

Ashley Cadaret

Just to clarify

I have lived in Oakwood off and on for 20 years.  I’ve lived in different states, different cities, and I always seem to come home for one reason or another. When I decided to have a child last year, I was in Memphis, Tennessee, and realized that I didn’t want to raise my child anywhere but Ohio, so again I came home.  

I have to be honest I have not read every issue of every Oakwood Register, but when I started reading the Section 8 articles I went back and read them all in the archives, and as I write this I have all of the articles in windows minimized at the bottom of the screen.

First I would like to make one thing clear. There seems to be some confusion about DMHA rehabbing in Kettering.  Public Housing is DMHA owned, rehabilitated and maintained. Section 8 Housing is owned by a private landlord who accepts Section 8 vouchers from DMHA to help pay the rent.  I have been in the field of social work, and the way it works is whether you are in public housing or Section 8, you pay 30 percent of your income in rent, and your own utilities. This means you have to have some source of income or you have no lights. The difference is in public housing the DMHA tells you where you are going to live, and in Section 8 you get a list of approved landlords and see if space is available.  

As for the issue of people from Parkside homes moving in across the way (we live on Acorn so it is across the way for us.)  Mr. Winkler reported that “In talking with Kettering officials, they did in fact confirm that 79 families from the Parkside Homes project have since moved into the apartment plats across Shroyer Road in Kettering.“ A subsequent letter put the number at 12, which is a significant difference.  

As for Section 8, any property owner anywhere can decide to get approval for Section 8.  You could live next door to a Section 8 rental and not know it, because the property owner has to conform to not only to the standards of DMHA but the community, and here in Oakwood if you don’t fix it, they do.  All we can do is hope that any family on the Section 8 waiting list is trying to give their children an opportunity that they would not otherwise have had.  With the economy the way it is, I expect that many properties that didn’t accept Section 8 in the past may be applying or at least considering it. The Dayton city schools are in trouble, they have laid off something like 200 teachers, and combined several schools, so I hope that this is an opportunity for some people to offer their kids a different life, a better school, a better option.

 That being said, I believe that Mr. Winkler was given a bad rap on two points. From what I’ve heard, some people thought that Mr. Winkler said,  “Did you know there’s going to be eight hundred units of Section Eight housing going up in Kettering?”  He did not. The quotations are directly from the article too. Someone else asked the question, he just printed it, and I’m not getting into whether that was a bad idea or not. Also the statement on complexion: “The complexion of both communities is about to change. This and the possibility of a Metro Government sure doesn’t make me want to stay in this area,” Again he did not say this, it was a quote from an e-mail that the Oakwood Register received. He just reported it.  I’m not trying to defend, just clarify.

Melissa Weatherly
Acorn Drive

Keep 911 Local

I am very much against the consolidated 911 system.  In my opinion it will be bad for Oakwood in every possible way.  City officials initially characterized it as a way to save the city money.  But the GeoComm report clearly states that a county-wide property tax levy of 0.75 mills and possible telephone surcharges will be needed to pay for the operating costs of the consolidated 911 center.  This means that the citizens of Oakwood would actually have to pay more for the consolidated system.  

I met with the Oakwood City Manager Mr. Klopsch last week to discuss this issue.  He informed me that the city has now decided to ignore the recommendations in the GeoComm report and pursue other funding methods for the consolidated center.  But as Mr. Klopsch quibbles about how the consolidated 911 system will be funded he is forgetting about his primary responsibility - to the citizens of Oakwood.  He seems oblivious to the fact that the citizens of Oakwood want to keep their 911 dispatch system the way it is.

Mr. Klopsch is so involved in the details of how the consolidated system will be implemented he forgets that Oakwood’s current police, fire, and emergency medical services are second to none. He ignores the fact that our local 911 dispatch center is an important part of their success.  

Our current local dispatch center handles about four 911 calls per day. They give prompt, courteous service. They know the area and have developed a good rapport with the emergency personnel and the community.  What ís going to happen when our four 911 calls get mixed in with the thousands received every day at a
consolidated 911 center?

Why would the city even consider eliminating our local dispatchers in favor of consolidated dispatchers, many of whom would be total strangers to Oakwood with no knowledge of Oakwood’s streets, emergency personnel or community?  Why would the city be willing to relinquish the ability to make employment decisions regarding possible low-performing dispatchers?  And why is the city council so quiet on this issue?  It is hard to believe that no council member has rejected this controversial proposal!  For more information about this issue please go to www.keep911local.com.

Andy Pruitt
Oakwood

City Notes...

City continuing county-wide dispatch center study

Over the past several months, city staff and council have been participating in the planning discussions regarding possible establishment of a county-wide public safety dispatch center.  Given the recent decision by the city of Kettering to not participate in the county-wide center, citizens are probably wondering where things stand here in Oakwood.  Here are the facts:  

Oakwood is actively represented on three committees.  Councilman Stanley Castleman serves on the Policy Committee, I serve on the Technical Advisory Committee and Chief Alex Bebris serves on the Police Chief/Fire Chief Committee. Each of us attends regular meetings of these committees. Mayor Cook has also been attending the Policy Committee meetings.

The Policy Committee includes one county commissioner, the county sheriff, and one elected official from each of the cities or townships interested in studying the pros and cons of joining a county-wide dispatch center.  The Policy Committee is charged with making all major decisions regarding the location of the proposed county-wide dispatch center and how it will be funded, and with making recommendations to the county sheriff on how the center is staffed and operated.

Oakwood City Council decided back in January that the city will retain an information center in the current dispatch office at the city building even if Oakwood joins the county-wide public safety dispatch center.  This information center will be staffed by the same personnel who currently provide police, fire and emergency medical dispatch services.  

If the city were to join the county-wide system, there would be no change to the manner in which our public safety officers respond to calls within our city. The same officers will respond just as they do today. The only change would be how the officers receive the radio call from dispatch.  

The method in which the county-wide center would be funded will be based on a user fee.  All cities or townships that join the county-wide center will be charged the same fee per dispatch event. An exception is the city of Dayton, which will pay a higher fee per dispatch event.  The reason for this is that adding the city of Dayton to the center requires that the dispatch center be significantly larger than adding any of the other cities or townships.  Adding Dayton includes proportionately higher costs.
There are no plans to implement a county-wide property tax, sales tax, telephone surcharge fee or any other tax or fee generating mechanism.  The entire center will be funded through the user fee based on a cost per dispatched event.

The biggest benefit to Oakwood in joining a county-wide system remains that we would have a large group of public safety dispatchers available to handle events where we receive multiple emergency calls.  At present, we only have one dispatcher available at any given time.

A final decision by Oakwood City Council must be made no later than the December 21 council meeting.  When first faced with the question of whether to participate in a county-wide dispatch system, City council directed city staff to:  

1) Study the GeoComm report to determine how it applies to Oakwood and how Oakwood currently fits within the existing emergency dispatching operations throughout Montgomery County.  

2) Analyze the GeoComm data to determine if it correctly reflects how Oakwood’s dispatch center currently functions.  

3) Thoroughly review the existing Oakwood Public Safety Dispatch operation and how it presently interfaces with the current department command structure and staffing assignments. 

4) Advise council as to the potential for improving public safety dispatching services to Oakwood citizens and businesses under a county-wide system.

5) Report on the anticipated financial impact of joining a county-wide dispatching system. This analysis should include:  

a) an accurate estimate of the costs for the Montgomery County Sheriff’s office to perform dispatching services using historical Oakwood call data;

b) the estimated savings realized by Oakwood by not having to replace the outdated dispatch console and related equipment;

c) cost and service implications directly impacting Oakwood’s current operations should the city of Kettering decide to join the county-wide dispatching operation.

At the Jan. 22, 2007 public meeting, Oakwood City Council approved the following motion:  

1) Oakwood City Council has seen enough evidence to justify continued research into whether it is in the best interests of the Oakwood citizens and businesses to join the county-wide emergency dispatch operations.  

2) Oakwood City Council recognizes and applauds Staff’s work in researching methods of joining the county-wide system that may improve services to the city by:

a) providing the best and most up-to-date emergency public safety dispatch equipment and a commitment to stay on the cutting edge of the latest equipment technology;

b) providing a team of professional public safety dispatchers to respond
to citizen and business emergencies in the same time frame currently exercised, while retaining a non-emergency public information center at Oakwood City Hall;

c) modifying the public safety department personnel structure such that while services are enhanced, there is no decrease in the number of employees dedicated to the safety department operations, and there is no significant change, other than possible savings, in the total costs incurred to operate the department.

3) Oakwood City Council directs staff to continue actively participating in the planning efforts for a county-wide emergency dispatch operation, with the goal of confirming that points a, b and c above can in fact be achieved, and then reporting that finding at the June 11 council meeting, or at a later date if so directed by council.

This motion remains in affect as originally approved.

Public Safety Director Alex Bebris will provide a detailed update on the status of staff’s analysis at the Sept. 17 city council meeting.  All citizens are invited and encouraged to attend that meeting or view it live on cable channel 6.  

For questions relating to this dispatch issue, please contact Chief Alex Bebris at 298-2122 (bebris@oakwood.oh.us) or me at 298-0600 (klopsch@oakwood. oh.us). 

Norbert S. Klopsch
City Manager

Oakwood City Offices will be closed on Monday, Sept. 3, in observance of the Labor Day Holiday.

top of page

August 28, 2007
Volume 16, No. 35

front page
arts
schools
sports
editorial
'round town
people
events
obituaries