Cons often come dressed in the most alluring ways.
If Columbus voters are duped by the "green energy"buzz words they'll find on the Nov. 2 ballot, those behind a nearlydecade-oldgrift will wrap themselves in $87 million from blindsided taxpayers robbed ofdiscretion in deciding how the money is spent.
More:Murky 'green energy' ballot initiative would take millions from Columbus budget
With early voting starting Tuesday, wejoin a choir that includesenvironmental groups, city officials and civic and business leaders in warning Columbus residents not tofallin the booby trap that persistentbackers ofProEnergy LLC's Issue 7 hope to spring on this community.
They are seemingly hoping that environmentally conscienceColumbus voters will be attracted to the shadowy group's stated "purpose of reducing the cost of electricity for customers who live in Columbus with a subsidy to purchase electricity from only wind, solar, fuel cell, geothermal, or hydropower producers."
More:Environmental groups, Columbus Partnership, oppose ProEnergy Ohio green energy initiative
Make no mistake, green energy is a good thing.
Also know that this is not about green energy.
It is a shameful attempt to confuse well-meaning voters and bilk Columbus out of money that shouldbe used for critical services such aspolice and fire protection, trash collection, health services, and recreation and parks programs.
They want todistractyou with phrases like"energy conservation," "clean energy" and"energy efficiency" toliftmoney from the city coffers.
It is not clear who is behind ProEnergy, what makes them green energy experts or how they intend to use anamount of taxpayer money equivalentto about 11% of the total taxes the city will collect this year for its general fund operations.
More:Theodore Decker: Yes, $87 million in taxpayer money is a big ask. But did we say, 'Green?'
The impact would be significant.
"It would force the administration and council to make cuts; we couldn't just absorb that,"City Council President Shannon Hardin told a Dispatch reporter.
Tom Sussi, a former TV reporter and now a city council candidate endorsed by the GOP, said the plan is not in the best interest of Columbus.
"I think the whole thing stinks," he said.
Put plainly, voters are being asked to turn over $87 millionwithout knowing who is really asking for the money, how they will address green energy issues or how much the groupwill pay itself.
►The mysterious and partly cloaked group would be authorized to use"an undetermined portion of the balance" of money received from the city for "the cost of administering distribution of said subsidies."
►The city of Columbus would be required to turn over $57 million from its general fund for the so-calledClean Energy Partnership Fund for thestated purpose ofsubsidizing Columbus electric customers' bills.
ProEnergy's would have the discretionto decide which customers received the subsidize andhow much it would be.
►The proposed Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency Fund,the Clean Energy Education and Training Fund and Minority Business Enterprise Clean Energy Development Fund would get a whopping $10 million each from the general fund.
That moneywould be controlled by a majority of the list ofpetitioners on the ballot andheld in "an entity to be designated" by the group.
The initiativeisrepresented on the ballot byan apparentTexas resident, a deceased woman and fourothers.
Dispatch reporters could not reach most of the petitioners in recent years.
ProEnergy Ohio front man John Clarke (sometimes John Clark Jr.),faces election fraud charges related totheballot issue.
The Columbus resident andelectrical engineerpleaded not guiltytotwo counts of tampering with government records, both third-degree felonies, and two counts of election falsification, both fifth-degree felonies inFranklin County Common Pleas Court.
More:Leader of Columbus green-energy ballot measure indicted for false campaign finance reports
In December, former Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O'Brien said investigators found that five people listed on the campaign finance report had given nothing at all.
This saga has been going on for far too long.
In 2012, thegroup now known as ProEnergy waspanned for its attempts to push approval of ameasureto transfer $13 billionin state bond money to a New York bank account controlled by an unknown group of investors.
More:Columbus officials reviewing state Supreme Court order to move ahead with clean energy ordinance
At their discretion, the investors were tofund private infrastructure, research and development of "clean-energy initiatives."
ProEnergy set its sights on the city of Columbus in 2017 and again in 2019.
After years ofgymnastics, the groupout-maneuveredcity officials and weaseled its way onto the November ballot.
The groupis operating in theshadowsand is hoping you do not see its true intentions: takingthis city's money and using it as it sees fit.
Tell ProEnergy you can not be fooled by its misdirection play by voting no on Issue 7.
Editorials are The Dispatch Editorial Board's fact-based assessment of issues of importance to the communities we serve. These are not the opinions of our reporting staff members, who strive for neutrality in their reporting.
