hohum

I will definitely send my angry letter about the "crime rate" portion of the segment. The numbers were actually correct in terms of dollars, so I retract that criticism. The crime criticism stands. Michael, do you have the numbers for current crime rate in OTR/CBD relative to the other districts? Further, the other barbs at "something to do", just is complete garbage. Also, the comment about "why aren't the corporate dollars coming", they haven't been asked yet, the finance plan is on the ground floor. I also have gripes about the "your tax dollars" comment (given the way the plan is funded) The real irony is that the ad I got before watching the video was for dulcolax.

And channel 19 needs to be confronted as well and have to present a REconsider this. We have one of the lowest crime rates of all 5 districts and with landlord accountability act now in place, this is just misinformation. It should not be dismissed, it should be confronted and corrected. Channel 19 needs to get a few angry letters on this one. No doubt.

No, no, thats not what I am saying either :) What I am saying is that if he goes to gentrification, then you say, "umm, we already shot that down, next?" Further, if more and new wacky points, such as the handicap accessibility come out, well then you address those. I think he will rapidly run out of "points" as we address them all. My only suggestion is that if we have already addressed the specific issue, with this specific poster, and there has been no substantive rebuttal, the appropriate response is "we already dealt with that and you had nothing - show us some reasoning or move on" Just how I deal with posters like him/her. I don't mind making the argument and facing the accusation head on. I do mind rehashing the same argument with the same poster, with nothing new added in terms of rebuttal :) (again, this is my personal preference for how to deal with trolls, I have no input into how others choose to deal, but I don't like watching people bang their heads against walls either :))

If we are not to confront attacks, just let them go, and let these boards be filled up with baseless accusations and falsehoods, then what is the point? Either he discuss the issues that he is throwing out there or ban the guy. I prefer to discuss. I am not suggesting that you don't confront him, but what I do suggest, is that after, by your own admission, you addressed the accusations, that you just leave it be. From my stance, I will address the concerns or issues or questions raised by a new poster once, but when the accusation is repeated, without any rebuttal of my points after I originally addressed the comments, well then its time to ignore and move on, or simply state, "rebut my previous points". Failing some actual substantive rebuttal, its simple trolling, and nothing more.

Grrr, I hate this line of reasoning. Negligent home owners? How about, the buildings are vacant with no prospect of tenants unless something is done. I don't put too much on the owners of homes, thats ridiculous. Further, what does he propose, bring an army of cops down there, say maybe 10 - 20 more cops or something? Hmmm, well there's a 2.5 million+ a year cost that has proved less than effective in the past. The way to deal with the crime is not more cops, its more regular old people on the streets. Whats the best way to do that, well thats the real debate. This is what streetcars can bring. When will people learn that if it hurts to hit yourself in the head with a hammer, its better not to do it and try some other solution to your headache? And where exactly did the 125 million dollar number come from? Did he just randomly add 23 million to the current 102 million dollar proposal, or did he just pull 23 million out of $ss as the cost of the connector that Qualls wants as part of phase 1? or...? Mmmm, journalism. Did he even talk to anyone in the area?

Ding Dong, Doorbell Ditch :) And he's got your buzzer ;)

Same haters as always. I remember some comment about "wrestling with pigs?" :)

Heh, indeed

I think you get the vote for the most "Zen" posts. Thank you Yoda!

A back of the hand list of the problems I have with Qualls' latest motion. A few high level concepts from the motion Phase 1 - CBD/OTR circulator + Uptown Connector Line (or "finger") Phase 2 - Uptown circulator 1) It requires building the uptown connector (or "finger") as part of the first phase. The problem with this is that it adds quite a good bit of money to the roughly 102 million dollar budget that the administration has already set forward in a few iterations. Basically, coming up with another big chunk of money means back to the drawing board on the pots of money to pull from. Wash, rinse, repeat, vomit. All said, OK, so if we have to build the connector to get buy in, I am not really that opposed to it in principal, but I would rather see the connector funded as a separate project, with its own budget to get approved. The connector does not run through a TIF district, its money, well will have to come from elsewhere. 2) It requires the study of one of three options for the uptown connector while the engineering and design of the downtown circulator is being completed. It gives the three options for the uptown connector as Sycamore, Vine, and Clifton. The only one that would work of those three is Vine. At this stage of study of the uptown link, I don't think its prudent to forclose any options for the uptown connector. 3) Requires presentation of new financing plan (including added cost of the uptown connector) to the adminstration and council by May 1. Tight date, and then the arguing starts all over again about the new (much larger) budget. 4) The motion requires several things to be in place prior to the construction of phase 1 (which you would imagine, but read on) a) MOUs to participate in phase 1 - well ok, yeah, that makes sense, can't build it until you have the private dollars lined up, great b) MOUs to participate in phase 2 - oh, so we have to get MOU's to participate in the completely unknown and unplanned as yet uptown circulator prior to any construction on phase 1... Hmmmm, so basically we have to have a finance plan for all of phase 1, and phase 2, and full buy in from uptown as well as downtown private parties before beginning phase 1... I don't think I like that. Its asking too much to begin the first part of the system. c) Prioritize the use of SIDs... Well OK, fine, thats all well and good. Getting buyin from the required amount of frontage holders along the proposed SID area is no easy task (I mean you do have to ask all the property owners to voluntarily take an assessment... not the best bargaining position unless the return is great). But fine, make them a priority... but oh no, wait. d) If a SID IS part of the proposed funding, it must be in place prior to the construction of that phase. Well, lets see, where will a SID be most likely necessary to budget in.... Hmmm, Oh yeah, the area with no TIF district, the uptown connector "finger." Hmmm, so that means you have to have the SID in place before construction of "phase 1" which includes the CBD/OTR circulator. Hmmm, well yeah, there's a 2 - 3 year process to get full buyin along a completely unknown as of yet route.... 5) It does deal with contingency financing if there are no federal dollars for phase 2. It requires 2 contingency plans, and neither of those plans can rely primarily city capital funds. Further, these plans have to be in place prior to any construction. In other words, no phase 1 construction until both MOUs are in place to cover phase 2, and financing for phase 2 is fully fleshed out - and if phase 2 plans for federal dollars, the contingencies can't touch city capital - seems a difficult contingency to figure out a plan for. Also seems strange to plan for the contingency of a lack of federal funds, for an uptown circulator, that isn't planned, etc, etc. 6) Requires that an operations and maintenance finance plan be presented. This plan cannot rely at all on city operations budget and cannot rely primarily on the city capital budget. In other words, come up with a finance plan such that the system is fully self supporting with regards to operating cost and maintenance out of the box. No ramp up time, no nothing. Craziness. What rail system has done this? Can I count increased property values and tax base to offset the operating costs? No? I can go on and on... the last bits were also a bit lame Fare rate - no lower than Metro Zone 1. Zone 1 is huge, so as a consumer, I should pay the same rate to ride the bus which I can take all throughout zone 1, as for a small area circulator? Seems silly to limit it in that way. Alternatives analysis must "demonstrate the integration and connectivity of the preferred alignments to current and <b>future</b> transit service..." OK, so now I am supposed to get out the crystal ball and predict where there will be light rail in the future... HAHAHAHAH OK, I'm done. Lets hope Bortz does better.

BTW, here is the link to a copy of Qualls' most recent motion (For those who have yet to see it) http://thebellwetherdaily.blogspot.com/2008/03/cincinnati-city-council-streetcar.html

*cough* learn from atlanta *cough*

The format varies. Its up to the chair to dictate when and how comments are allowed. Sometimes its before the discussion, sometimes after the discussion.

I certainly feel the sentiment in that letter... If I had to guess, I would guess that the response will be "I am not stalling the project, see, I presented a spit polished version of my old motion. I'm trying to move forward, and its a good thing that Cranley signed on to it. Its councilman Bortz and the Vice Mayor who are stalling, they wouldn't vote on my motion" Just a guess :)

Very bold Randy. (And I do not disagree with the sentiment at all) I did indeed speak today, however, I ditched my planned speech entirely due to "changing circumstances on the ground" I will say I am a bit frustrated. Councilman Bortz again acquitted himself excellently, and I have to commend him on his responses to Cranley's questions. For now, I am reserving judgment. (I really want to see what the competing motion has to say, and after beers is the last time I should be writing online or otherwise ;)... Oh, and reading over printed copies of the 1981 Cincinnat 2000 plan and the MetroMoves light rail/streetcar plans while commiserating over said beers at Kaldi's didn't help :P Sad to hold millions of dollars of good intentions, good intentions that failed for the same kind of politics, in your hands... *sigh*) I will have more to say once I have a chance to sit back and blow off some steam. I will look forward to seeing whatever motion Bortz and Crowley seem to be working on, and I hope it is worded carefully. Some good clean language could put to rest quite a lot of the "concerns"

The further you go, the more sense light rail makes. Streetcars, in my experience, are great for the < 5 - 6 mile trips. Light rail is much better suited for the actual "I only use this to commute to and from work in the burbs" types of trips.

Heh, thats exactly the number I was figuring as the most optimistic that is at least marginally feasible. We've got enough vacant housing stock ;) Streetcar is step 1, banks residential units step 2, 3CDC in OTR, and finally some rebuilding along whatever line is chose to uptown. I think we could see a significant upside. Regardless of the number, I want cinci to be the fastest growing city in Ohio, its got a lot to offer, and more to offer if we can get rail off the ground.

^ 100 % agreed. What is needed is rail, and the streetcar is baby step number one down that path... What I hope for is increasing density at the core due to developments along the rail lines, and then secondary growth in the suburbs, hopefully increasing the demand for rail to go further... And hence my sig, cincy 500K by 2020. If only we could annex Norwood.... ;)

If speakers are allowed, this is what I intend to say at the council meeting: I've sat in this chair and spoken to you before about what a streetcar means to me. I sit here again because as a Cincinnati transplant I see the potential in this city, and I want to see it realized. A streetcar fills a gap in the transportation systems we currently have, a gap that will be crucially important to attracting and holding on to the best and brightest talent. This fair city has been lucky to be graced with the presence of an amazing density of large successful companies, but we cannot take their presence for granted. One thing which is necessary to keep these giants in our midst is a large pool of bright young talent. As things stand right now, the graduates from our best colleges and universities are fleeing the city of Cincinnati in droves. They are leaving for Chicago, Portland, Seattle, New York, Boston, Atlanta, DC, and elsewhere. When viewed from a purely economic vantage point, these moves make no sense -- our graduates are leaving the very affordable Cincinnati for cities where their starting salaries won't even leave them with a middle class level of disposable income. Their reasoning has to be that they are seeking amenities elsewhere, efficient public transportation included, that cannot be found here. I've been here in these chambers to witness a great deal of the wrangling over the current plan. One thing that I think a majority of the members agree on is that we need to build SOME system to meet our future needs. With the knowledge that we need to do something, it becomes much easier to see why we need to act now. If the need to solve this problem "some day" is a given, it only costs more with each passing day. We can either build it now or build it later for a LOT more money. The streetcar is not a panacea, and viewing it as such detracts from real objectives of the system. However, what is undeniable is that the streetcar is one means to knit together our urban fabric in positive ways that can have far reaching economic and social benefits. I urge you to vote today to move the Streetcar one step closer to reality. Comments/Suggestions are appreciated...

^ The argument I have successfully made to people similarly situated to your sister is that the streetcar is not necessarily a direct benefit to organizations such as hers (although it may be depending on the type of organization), what it will bring is development, and with development comes tax money, and with the fatter city coffers, there will be more to go around for social services programs. Its indirect, but if it works as it is supposed to work to spur development, that is one possible end result. I am sure she knows as well as any that cities don't throw hundreds of millions of dollars at poverty issues, mostly because the end result is rarely measurable in actual reductions of poverty... At least if the development happens, there is the potential for the incremental financing increases that can allow such programs to move forward.

The notion of phases is unavoidable if you aren't building everything all at once. Conceptually, we (the general human kind sense of we) draw lines around things to delineate them, to conceptualize them, to give "it" a name. Correct me if I am wrong here, but I don't think anyone thought that what was being proposed currently was streetcars everywhere... as soon as it was funded. To me, selling it as everything as soon as we can get tracks in the ground is a much tougher sell than a phased approach. Personally, I don't have a problem with calling a spade a spade. If its the first part of the system to be constructed, or funded, or whatever, its phase one. What HAS startled me is how such simple terminology, such a basic conceptual understanding of how large scale projects such as this are built, has been used as a political wedge issue. Of course, you build as you can, but how does it hurt to call "part 1" "part 1"? Its been quite interesting to watch it unfold... Anyhow, looking forward to some positive forward motion, regardless of any semantic arguments.

WOO HOO!! Yeah, Mallory was right on. Again, the consummate politician :) Sounds VERY positive. "Almost" a full on recognition that its going to be a majority, not an unanimous council vote. He talked about the first 102 of funding, while talking about getting federal dollars last. To me this signals at least the recognition that while this is one system it will be done in phases. Again, it wasn't explicit, but in the read between the lines kinda way. Also, stayed on point about the economic benefits of the streetcar versus alternatives.... All in all, pretty darn nice bit of support from the mayor.

You mean extra 80, but yeah (heh, thomasbw beat me to it :)) Its always been a 182 million dollar "system", just the first 102 was the downtown loop. I will be very curious to see the council meeting. We shall see, sounding very optimistic :)

I am still confused at why anyone has trouble grasping that this is one project, whose rollout/funding/construction will happen in phases. From the way that piece stated Mallory's position, it "sounds" like fund it all now, not phases. Why does it give people palpitations when you say "Phase X"? Seriously, this boggles my mind. I guess what I am really saying is that I would like to see some more firm leadership from the top. "I want this (whatever this may be)" is slightly less than helpful.

Hmm, news to me that Mallory wants the city to build Uptown at the same time as Downtown. This is the problem with spinning your position.