hohum

I would guess not, but we shall see... I'll be popping by to see whats on the agenda anyhow.

^ Have to see the motion to know. Really hard to speculate here (presumably, I could add a little bit to Bortz's motion and it would match that desription). But, it could well be a completely new and totally difefrent motion, taking little or nothing from the two existing motions.

Presumably noone has access to this "compromise motion" so that we can compare it to Bortz's and Qualls' motions? Hmmmmm....

OK, on a more humerous note, from the Cincinnati Dealer: <a href="http://www.cincinnatidealer.com/content/view/645/27/">good humor</a>. Pete Witte Searches For Next Bad Idea By Burt Safer | Dealer staff writer Mon, Apr 21, 2008 petewitteCINCINNATI - It has been a week since Pete Witte's last bad idea, and he is searching for new ones. "In 2008, I'm on a roll," said Witte, "First, I sided with the housing agency in their refusal to transfer an abused woman, then I suggested that we run a streetcar line from Uptown to Bond Hill, and another streetcar from Westwood to Mount Washington." "My latest idea of Section 8 housing at the Banks was a fantastically bad idea, but now I'm got the itch for another really bad idea." Part of the benefit of Witte's bad ideas is that they get more attention than good ideas, especially supremely bad ideas like Witte has had this year. Who knows, the next bad idea may even earn him a quotable on the Pete Witte ThinkExist quotables page.

Wait, there is "pop" CULTURE? hmmm, mayhaps I need to figure out what culture really means ;)

I will be there, as well as thomasbw I believe. Also, I am sure John will be there as well.

Today is the day. Both motions are on the agenda, so we will see where this goes! (I am quite hopeful)

^ If any of those ends up winning and has the wrong website, I can always have the designer change that text, should be easy. Hmmm, 5 shows in one browser (Explorer) for me, and not in another (Firefox).... If I try to open it in my image editor it says there is bad data in the header.. Sorry about that, didn't even notice it until I looked on this machine.

Yeah, the timing is tight, I had hoped to get these to the printer sooner, but I also wanted to have a good slate of candidates. I was hoping that by running it at least until 8:30 tomorrow, the active folks would have the chance to check in at any of the usual times and see it (morning coffee, lunchtime, and home from work ;))

OK, here is the official place to vote for the bumper sticker you want to see "in stores soon" The voting will run for 24 hours, so vote SOON! The winning image will be off to the printer on Tuesday. (PS - I would have posted this poll as part of the other bumper stickers thread, but I had no idea how to add a poll to an existing thread) Sticker 1 Sticker 2 Sticker 3 Sticker 4 Sticker 5 Sticker 6 Sticker 7 Sticker 8 Sticker 9 Sticker 10

Qualls Motion - Downtown/OTR circulator + uptown connector all have to be financed and planned before any construction can begin Bortz Motion - Downtown/OTR circulator is its own phase. Uptown Connector is another phase. Each one can only be built when the requisite planning for each phase has been completed and the city has MOU's from private partners and the appropriate planning is done. The big difference is that Downtown/OTR circulator is treated independently from the Uptown connector, and the Downtown/OTR circulator would rely on the funding as already presented to council. (i.e., Uptown connector doesn't have to be fully planned to start work on Downtown/OTR circulator) Similarities - both plans now include planning and building Uptown connector

OK, so here are the contenders (as we stand right now). I am still moderately optimistic that one other designer may submit a design, so I will hold off on posting the poll until this evening (edit - poll will be posted around noon on Sunday, I have assurances that at least one more design will be forthcoming by then ;))... Email me at cstpierre - AT - gmail.com if you would like to have your design added to the contendors! (for design purposes - image should be 9" x 3", 300 DPI. 4 colors or less is best. Scale image to 900px wide jpg for polling purposes, but keep your high resolution master) Anyhow, here they are, in all their glory :) (Keep in mind that these images are lower resolution than the images that the printing will use, so if things are a little fuzzy that has to do with compressing images for web viewing (you can see it most in the two orange themed stickers I did - they don't have that fuzzy look in their giant ~2900x900 at 300 DPI resolution)) Sticker 1 Sticker 2 Sticker 3 Sticker 4 Sticker 5 Sticker 6 Sticker 7 Sticker 8 Sticker 9 Sticker 10

Yes. I will be holding until I can get all the best designs in :) (But get it to me soon :)) edit - currently I am waiting on designs from two graphic designers. I hope to have these shortly, so the sooner the better.

STAY TUNED! I wanted to let everyone know that I am still waiting for some graphics from some designers so that we can vote on the design. It will be coming soon, and as soon as I have all the designs in, I will post them here for a vote. Just keeping you posted and reserving the thread for the poll soon. Keep your eyes peeled :) VOTING NOW GOING ON <a href="http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,15892.0.html">ON THIS THREAD</a>

10 units is not 10% of the units however...

Until requirements to make it larger make financing not possible. -- see Cincinnati (this is an easy one for council members to grab onto to stall) Don't dismiss these comments too lightly - they can become very vocal and command a suprisingly large amount of press especially when newspapers are trying to be regional papers. Again, see cincinnati, and the enquirer

The state law requires that institutions which desire to disallow concealed carry can. The statute specifically says you can't carry in bars and other places. I thought universities were covered there as well, but it could be just that UC has chosen to forbid concealed carry (but in that case they would have to post signs, and I haven't seen those). This leads me to believe that its covered under the concealed carry statute as a specific restriction. I don't have the time to check the statute now, but I believe this is the case...

It was "sarcastic" - i.e., noone bats an eye for this 22 million project, but rail transit projects get ridiculous scrutiny

The fear of somebody coming for you, even if you don't think about it on a daily basis, you have the gun for a reason. Protection, right? No, I don't have it for protection at all. Could it be used for that if that horrible situation were to come up? Yes. So could a bat, or a knife. But thats not why I own a gun. Thats what I am saying. Some of us actually just enjoy shooting, and the history, and all of that. I own an "antique" gun. Manufactured in 1915. It was my great grandfather's sidearm during WWI. I have it for nostalgia, as a piece of American craftsmanship and engineering that is rarely seen anymore today. I enjoy the fact that it still works exactly as well today, as it worked when it kept my relatives alive. As a society, if we didn't have guns, then there would be less to fear. Absolutely indisputable. But with the caveat, that state, namely the police don't have that power either. Because that still generates fear in me.

I think you misinterpret my "because you can"... I mean, because the law says you can. Not the can in the "can I walk to the store sense" the can in the "will I get arrested if I walk to the store sense." The criminal may also be your neighbor, but obviously this is where we will continue to have a disagreement. If your "neighbor" is in any way trying to harm you, I believe that you have an absolute right to defend yourself. Beyond laws here, absolute human and natural right to protect your life. Whether with a gun, or a stick, or your fists, or whatever. The point I was making is that NOT ALL of personal firearm ownership is driven by that fear. I do not live afraid, and not because I have a gun, but because I refuse to live my life that way. Are there a significant number of gun owners who own because of that fear? Absolutely. But its the FEAR that is ridiculous, not the gun ownership. As a society, do we need to convince people not to own guns, or not to live in fear?

OR, you own a gun, not out of fear, but because you can, and shooting targets is fun, and hunting is a kind of commune with the natural world that few people experience. Or, if you are living in fear, its not fear of your neighbors guns, its fear of criminals with guns, and that really is a distinction even over neighbors in the figurative sense. The difference is, you can own a gun, and be a sensible person who isn't living in fear. But, I understand the argument.

Eh, its a twofold problem. There are the policy issues, granted. But there has also been a great deal of monopolistic practice on the part of the oil companies as well - which is to be expected, companies always want to extend their monopolies, and thats how capitalism works (unchecked).

I am friends with a few folks who are currently using or in the past have used CMHA housing vouchers. Its an admirable program for the most part, and in my experience has been administered fairly well. I am not thinking that voucher recipients would ruin any of these neighborhoods so long as they abide by the rules of the program (one of which being no police calls to the residence - which can cause permanent revocation of their voucher). I dont' have the numbers in front of me, but I would be willing to say that no neighborhood would need to be 10% voucher recipients if they were truly spread out evenly in the county. There are problems with this so called even spread though - the best option for these recipients is to get vouchers that they can use for housing near where the employment centers are, and further where the difference between the rental cost and the amount of the voucher is the lowest. Needless to say, this makes a small number of neighborhoods support a larger concentraton of voucher recipients. The only way to change this is to change the rental cost portion of the equation, which for CMHA means actually buying properties and renting them at well below market to create this low differential between the voucher amount and the rents. This just isn't feasible for that organization -- and I am sure Mr Witte knows this. Consequently, its just grandstanding, on something that can't be fixed short of CMHA actually buying expensive properties to distribute people to these other communities. The thing he always seems to neglect is that the voucher recipients get to CHOOSE where they will live. They could use the voucher to cover the complete cost of rent in far northwest portions of the county. They don't though because they are willing to pay the differential between rent and the voucher amount in order to live closest to where they work. I do resent political grandstanding in the manner in which he has done it. He's an official part of the organization, its not like he couldn't have the ear of the mayor, county level executives, etc, without resorting to a cheap ploy.

Eh, they also beat out Southwest et al by seriously anti competitive business practices as well. Southwest operates pretty darn close to the margin, and frankly, Delta and the like can afford to run loss leaders to keep them out of marketplaces they want to monopolize - see CVG.

^ this is true. But it is the US based "big oil" monopolies that have worked against the public interest here at home, through such ventures as buying up electric powered public transportation systems and replacing them with fossil fuel burning buses -- because they were more efficient and better... no wait.. they're not.