hohum

I think most of us do want construction to begin "ASAP," but that ASAP includes the phrase "possible." To my mind, its only possible once the real hardcore engineering studies have been completed. What I want to see from funding is phased funding, of the CBD/OTR loop. Phased funding buys us two things, firstly it gets us the funds to do the real engineering studies, to uncover any lurking unknown costs. Secondly, it gets us the leverage to approach the interested private parties to obtain MOU's for their contribution (we can't do this until there is at least some consensus from the city that if the private funds can be obtained, the project will move forward). Yes, we do need more studies to determine what the actual cost will be, but we need a framework in place to move forward (up to a certain estimated dollar amount) I am not opposed to any of the means of funding you suggest. They come with their own political obstacles, but none should be ruled out, out of hand. I don't really think that the fundamental objection to Qualls motion is that it requires further study. I think the fundamental objection is that it is too tightly integrated with the phase 1B/phase 2 (whatever the heck you want to call it) Uptown portion of the line. We already know that wherever the downtown line is placed, we will be able (technically) to make it up the hill to Uptown. What most of us are upset about is that Qualls' motion requires the funding to be in place for BOTH uptown and downtown before downtown can move forward. This to our minds is too tight of a tie in between what are in essence two disparate systems, with completely different funding options etc. The secondary objection is based upon that tie in. We want to make sure that whatever project we move forward on, it is a manageable size and dollar amount. Its more than just throwing 80 additional million onto the cost, its the scale of the proposed "one go" system buildout. Its larger than anyone else has built, and the evidence from other cities suggests that it would be prudent to keep the scale manageable (see Atlanta)

Cool, that is as good an explanation as I could hope for!

I fully agree, but just to play the devil's advocate for a moment... While TIF funds can only be spent in the neighborhood from which they come, they are STILL taking what would be future tax revenues out of the pool of available funds, thereby shifting the burder to other neighborhoods. Again, I still think that is a weak argument, but its not entirely false to say that it takes funds from other neighborhoods (albeit very indirectly) I actually only bring this up because I hope someone has the easy argument to refute it...

Well from my perspective, I don't blame Cleveland for doing well. The lawyers up there clearly had their ducks in a row. You have to admit that at first, before it was known that it was first come first served, it seemed fishy. (By before it was known, I mean, before we had and explanation for why the distribution shook out the way it did, not before people who were in the know knew, because clearly they knew a long time ago). If it had gone the other way (before you knew how the funds were going to be distributed) with 80% to southwest, and nickels and dimes to the northeast, would your assumption have been "Damn, those guys in Cincy must have done something right"? Or would your assumption have been "Something doesn't smell right?" It could well be just as irksome to do the analysis based on "most worthy" but at least that better serves the goal and would likely have made the distribution more "fair" Pssst, I am not whining, just explaining ;) (And hoping that next time around we don't have to deal with this)

No, not at all. Your point - Columbus has been studying this longer My point - Cincy has been looking at this as part of a rail system package for a long time -- including serious studies of various routes, for decades. Of course things have changed on the ground. Regardless, its been looked at for a long time. From a technical standpoint, we already had studied that streetcars were feasible. The latest study tried to put some meat on the questions of economic impact to justify the line. Your next point - more studies need to be done Umm, absolutely conceded. Have I ever said there was no more technical work that needed to be done? There is a TON of engineering analysis, env impact, streetplanning, etc that needs to be done. BUT, we need a funding plan in place to do so. The big money doesn't get spent UNTIL we do more research/planning/approach private parties for funding, etc. We know that streetcars are broadly feasible. We have some understanding of the economic impact that is likely. Our study is basically an executive summary, an overview of what the plan could do, and what is feasible. Noone claims the study that has been done is the last study/plan on the issue. What we have is a compelling case to move forward and plan what needs to be planned. Hmm, the only one of those I hadn't seen was tampa.... Cool docs to have links to though, thanks. Actually, if I were to use a housebuying analogy I would say that it goes something more like 1) I've been watching and looking at information for long enough to know that a house is probably a good thing 2) I've got a basic study that shows that the neighborhood where I might like to buy is a pretty good investment 3) I've done a little research into how I could afford such a house 4) I've picked out a couple that I think may be a good fit for what I think I can afford 5) I've talked to the neighbors, and they all think it would be cool to have me as a neighbor Still to do: 1) Go to the bank to see if I can get the loan 2) Have the home inspections done on each of the properties 3) Talk to my family to see if I can get some help with the downpayment 4) Come up with some alternative ways to cover maintenance on the house if something should go wrong 5) Move in

Litigation is absurd, agreed. I didn't know the specifics of how the program was administered until after the whole hubbub, so its all hindsight anyhow. Anyhow, I hope this is not repeated in the future. First come first serve only serves the purposes of the funding if you are willing to concede that the most worthy projects will get their applications in first. I am not willing to concede that at all (in fact, some of the most worthy projects are the most underfunded, and have the least ability to hire the lawyers required to dot the i's and cross the t's)

I wouldn't be suprised if UC did contribute substantially, but there will be no offers of contribution forthcoming from any private parties until the city stands up and says we will finance this. Private backers aren't going to commit dime one until they know the city is behind the plan.

And part of the peevishness that is going on is that it was first come first serve. If the goal of the program is to encourage historical preservation throughout the WHOLE state, that is a completely assinine method of selection. As I have said before, that selection method detracts from the goal. Further, when it becomes known where the money went, it creates a secondary public perception that other areas aren't worthy of the same types of preservation efforts -- while this is completely false, that perception is created. Yeah, there is some sour grapes going on here because the distribution LOOKS unfair (which is not to say that it was in actuality) If you can't agree to the fact that when 80% of the money goes to one region Ohio, it looks unfair, then it seems you must be looking through some serious rose colored glasses. The ticket sales analogy works just fine, to a point. Where it fails COMPLETELY is that these weren't tickets to a show that happens in one place we were selling, it was the notion that the state supports historical preservation. If you want to make the ticket analogy, it would have to be we are selling tickets to a show that will occur in 30 different locations around the state. Then, tickets are allocated to each venue on a first come first served basis. Then, in order to get those tickets you had to fill out 100s of pages of documentation. And further, if the tickets were all sold for one venue, the rest of the venues didn't get to have a show... Its just a silly way to distribute funding. The choice was made that it was more important to have an easy to administer system (first come, first served) than it was to have a system that put the goal for the funds first (a careful look at each application and the purpose to which the money would be put) Clearly, people down here who were working to get those credits dropped the ball, especially knowing it was first come first served. Admitted. You have to also admit, that first come first serve is a foolish way to distribute funds intended to serve the entire state.

Hmmm, I was holding a plan in my hands from 1981 just the other day that had streetcars as part of the plan for Cincinnati. Well before MetroMoves and the like. Seems like this idea has been studied in Cincinnati for quite some time...

Well, then, perhaps it could be proposed after the system is operational to help defray operating costs... I know its a tough sell, but you know what Bengals, time to give back damnit. If you won't do it on the field, how about LIGHTENING the taxpayer load... I see your points, I just wonder if the financing plan would have moved through faster if it didn't require the dip into city capital. Added - somehow I don't think they can really make the case that say a 4% ticket tax would keep them from selling out. I mean, they currently suck wind, yet still sell out. If sucking it up on the field isn't enough to keep them from selling out (at a super premium price i might add), well how is 4% gonna keep them from selling out....

Purely a function of money in vs money out. Thats not what I thought went in and out of sewer systems... Sorry, couldn't resist :)

Heh, Yeah, they are small, but with the scale of the renderings, they kinda have to be that small without screwing up the scale. If I had a closer up rendering, I could do a lot more with it, but as you zoom that image, it really isn't that high resolution. Where is waldo is definitely appropriate :)

Heh, selling Cincinnati's sewer system... the gem of turn of the century engineering ;) Don't think we'd have many takers! Parking surcharges and event ticket price surcharges seem like a good option. This thing is going to the stadiums, is it not?

More photochop fun (with my far less than leet skills), threw in a few streetcars. Improbably spaced, and whatever, but just for fun :)

Just more imagining, I used my lame basic skills to throw in a few streetcars (improbably spaced, but how else do you fit three in the picture) Just for fun :)

There are some politicians on this board, Councilman Bortz from Cinci for one.... Politics is a hard job, and honestly, I am not sure if I would want the job. Who knows, it may be in the future for me, but for now, I'll work on getting people I respect elected.

Sweet. Now those renderings need to start including streetcars in the picture!

^ Agreed There will be some consolidation pressure without any of our involvement, but we will need to constantly point to that facility whenever new facilities are being proposed. In short, lets make some lemonade people :)

Personally, I view this as a positive step. This is the leverage necessary to begin some consolidation of those services.

Keep up the good work guys. I really do love going down there after work for a pint or 3 (or when I get talking to developers, perhaps 4, like last night *cough*) At least the walk back up the hill was fun :) Seriously, I love the place, and will continue to come. If you are trying to stick with the German style beers, I think the selection you have is excellent. Would have loved to have seen the Barbarossa tapping take place at a couple of locations, and Grammers would have been ideal. Anyhow, I'll be back for more, its too cool to miss.

Speaking from the perspective of working on the Cinci streetcar, getting lots of folks to show up, that showing of political will, is very important. I highly encourage anyone who wants to see this happen to show up and make your voice heard. It takes little time and can make all the difference in the world to show up and let the city adminstration know that there is a wide group of people who want to see it happen.

Hah, we must have been walking at the same time (I left my house at 4, and was right by Inwood right around 4:30). I went over and said hi to the folks having the bbq, snapped a few shots looking up the hill.

Well, just an anecdotal reference here, but yesterday was so beautiful that I decided to walk down to Grammers from my house up near UC. I like walking down Vine, instead of Clifton, or Straight, or Ravine, so thats the path I went, up to the University and then back down Vine. My whole idea was that it has been a while since I've been "moving slow" through that whole neighborhood, and I wanted to see what was happening development wise, especially down in OTR. (On my way, I decided to gather some data to counter a story Larry Gross put out about how Cincinnati is not as friendly as it is perceived to be, but thats another story - http://blogs.citybeat.com/livingoutloud/2008/03/good-morning.html#comments) Anyhow, the long and skinny of it is that there were alot of people out working on their properties. I got to "press the flesh" with a lot of small developers along the proposed line in OTR. We aren't talking about guys with millions invested, but everything from someone who bought a shell for $38K several years back to people doing small retail space development in historic buildings playing in the 100s of thousands ballpark. Again, this is just anecdotal, but there is an almost contagious optimism among these guys. Some of them had held empty shells for 3+ years, and are just now figuring out how to develop them because its looking like the right time. (BTW, after telling these guys that I've been trying to be as involved as I can in spreading the word/going to council meetings and speaking, etc, every one of these guys asked me "So when is the streetcar coming?" They are somewhat banking on it) It isn't just the 3CDC's of the world that will be attracted by a streetcar, its average guys and gals, like the people I talked to, who are ready willing and able to invest if there is a REASON. Just my anecdotal 2c

If the State and no Private companies belly up any money, the financing plan will definitely go back to the drawing board. Dead, I don't know, but that would very much change the financing. That would be a most serious setback. That said, nothing happens as far as building until those commitments are in place. As far as revitalization, it wouldn't be as simple as just giving 3CDC 102 million. The redevelopment area is much wider than the area covered by their holdings. Further, the key development benefit is not just a handout to redevelop, but the attraction of a wide array of private interests who see the value in low priced properties along what is will likely be a premium development area if the line does get built. In other words, if we wanted to see the same bang as the 102 million invested in the streetcar, we'd have to give 1.4 billion to private development interests. (This is not to say the city sees a direct benefit of 1.4 billion, just that is the estimated total impact along the line within approximately 3 blocks of the line)

Well here's my problem. They cite "perception" and when perception doesn't square with reality, even though "perception" is hard to gauge as a fact, I think its appropriate to point out how the perception is not well founded in the facts on the ground.