urbanpioneer

Well, Sean Feeney certainly has the ego of a stereotypical politician. Apparently, it's all about him. For anyone who hasn't already read them, here are his remarks about staying in the race: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/08/09/feeney-hero-doesnt-roll-over/13824207/

It would be sweet justice if the Tea Party's strategy re: the icon tax backfired and cost them Monzel's commission seat. I bet they aren't crowing as much as they have been the last couple of days (i.e., "It's Christmas in August!"). Even Monzel has felt compelled, via The Enquirer, to try to explain himself more today. He feels the heat, and I hope he gets burned in November. Do progressive Democrats believe that making the case against Luken on news websites helps? Why on earth provide succor to the enemy? Or do they want Monzel to win?

We should be mindful that the next election is a "mid-term" one, with a projected strong turnout of conservative voters. That makes any Democratic candidate's chances harder.

At this point, I doubt if a progressive candidate could win any Hamilton County race. Luken would at least be a step in the right direction. He surely supports the city's/Cranley's position regarding the icons. Monzel deserves to be punished for what he did. Luken's the man who could do it.

Face it, Greg Landsman came in 11th place in the city. It's unlikely he could unseat Monzel. Luken could.

Cindi Andrews tweeted a few minutes ago about Charlie Luken possibly entering the race. I'm not a Luken fan, but I have to admit he may have the best chance of beating Monzel. I think he's already a candidate this November for a probate judge position so I guess there'll have to be extra jockeying to get it done. Also Sean Feeney's wife posted a comment on cincinnati.com's article (about a possible candidate change) which makes it sound like her husband isn't interested in stepping aside to make way for a stronger candidate: Brittany Feeney · Follow · Works at Perfectly Posh 1) Feeney. Not finney 2) he ran opposed and won with 60% of the votes 3) Sean's minor is in poli sci. He is not new to politics and has repeatedly been blocked by Tim Burke and his minion Caleb in getting the appropriate contacts to assist in fund raising. He knows whats needs to be done to raise the funds, as landsman does, but does not have the contacts. Burke has a history of attempting to strong man candidates into doing what he wants, including having reps call candidates employers and threaten their funding if the candidate continued. Sean has as much of a chance as Landsman, if not better, with the PROPER party support. Landsman may not even decide to run. He has said he would consider it. Not that he would. There is nothing wrong with the current candidate other than the fact Burke has obviously been intimidated by him and wants him out. Everything Bill said in his first 2 paragraphs also applies to Sean. He isn't in politics for the money or ego or all the other bullshit. He's in it to make a difference. He has 3 educators in his family. He knows well what needs to be done in public education and how to do it and how to get creative if needed. Sean is not one prone to allow himself to be bullied out, which is EXACTLY what Burke is doing.

I wish Sittenfeld would challenge Monzel. Landsman would then be a great replacement for PG's vacant council seat.

Most likely, Hartmann was threatened with the prospect of a Tea Party challenger when he runs for re-election. He was very lucky last time, having "run" unopposed. And lucky too that Ham. Co. Dems haven't shown much interest in fielding good commissioner candidates. Tim Burke needs a wake-up call, cattle prod, something. He's been asleep at the wheel. This move by Monzel and Hartmann creates an opportunity, as there was bi-partisan support for the original icon tax levy proposal. Unfortunately it'll probably be a missed opportunity.

Does anyone know if Monzel's running for re-election unopposed, like Hartmann and Portune did the last time they were "elected"? What a racket county commissioner jobs are becoming. It seems as though an incumbent commissioner has the job as long as he wants, because opposing parties won't field candidates. Sick. Travis, is it really true that petition drives aren't allowed on the county level? ETA: I checked the Bd. of Elections site and Monzel does have an opponent this November - Sean Patrick Feeney.

Apparently at the urging of Tea Party types, County Commissioners Hartmann and Monzel propose dropping Music Hall from the deal: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/08/04/follow-key-icontax-meeting-live/13568649/

A lot of people were willing to stand in frigid weather during the holiday season to collect signatures on the streetcar petitions last December. If Smitherman and Cranley try to impose a "strong mayor" form of government, I wouldn't be surprised if a similar mobilization occurs. I'd expect an uproar from opponents of the idea, which could be a larger group than that of streetcar supporters. I may be wrong but I'd think voters want to maintain the checks and balances in city government that our current system allow, not have less. I suspect more Cincinnati voters are on to Cranley than they were last year. Then, some [low-info] people probably didn't vote because both candidates were [ostensibly] Democrats. And Laure Quinlivan's defeat was a surprise, so an anti-streetcar council majority wasn't anticipated. I think times have changed since the last election.

Why is it often the case that Cranley is "flanked" by police? I dare say it makes him look like a little bully.

More and more, it seems Cranley's just a needy Drama Queen. The Central Pkwy. bike path is the latest example. He's a political animal, not a visionary leader who wants to make our city better, and because it's all politics all of the time with him he seems to do whatever he can to stir up controversy, thereby drawing attention to himself. Name recognition and the ability to obtain financial support from those who would promote his career to a higher level of office is what it's all about with him. He serves himself, not the people of Cincinnati.

Check out the list of Cranley's top campaign donors: http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/03/18/see-who-donated-the-most-to-john-cranleys-mayoral.html The list includes a LOT of real estate developers. Is Cranley trying to thwart certain downtown residential development, like at 4th & Race, as a payoff to some of those donors? Perhaps the mayor should recuse himself from development issues before the City of Cincinnati and City Council. Any involvement on his part would seem to be a conflict of interest, considering the amount of the money he took.

Seems so!

To oppose every project that improves downtown so that in 2017, he can say, "I fought for the neighborhoods instead of wasting money downtown." True. Also, somehow I feel it has to do with his boosters and or future plans. He doesn't want the core to thrive, he wants to keep pleasing the outer ring. Which is kind of more in line with what you said. But what do you think of him being anti-urban and pushing a more suburban agenda to please voters on a possible future run for congress or senate? Cranley is not anti Downtown he is negotiating a new deal. Look at the great deal he got for his Price Hill Development. He has a new Client now. The one he still owes $70,000 on? I thought only Liz Rodgers doesn't pay her loans. I seriously doubt that Cranley owes $70,00 on a loan to the city. The LLC might owe that, but it just proves my point in the banks thread. Clowncil makes awful deals. KyleCincy, I don't know if Cranley ever followed through and repaid the $75,000 LISC loan, but when he was a candidate for mayor he said he would: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20131028/NEWS010602/310280164/Cranley-agrees-repay-75-000-loan-development

The incompetence continues. Mayor Can't-Do Cranley continues to screw things up: http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/03/03/is-the-fourth-and-race-apartment-deal.html?ana=twt :wtf:

Seems as though Interim City Manager Scott Stiles may be willing to carry Cranley's water. Sad, if true.

As we know, Ruby is an ardent streetcar opponent and is miffed that Cranley didn't kill it. But would he have located his namesake restaurant at 7th and Walnut were it not for the multi-million dollar taxpayer-funded Aronoff Center for the Performing Arts right across the street? I doubt it.

^The article says Cranley's not in favor of selling. It doesn't sound like Winburn's idea to sell has any support on council. On the other hand, it looks like Cranley really blundered and made a very costly mistake when he abruptly halted the parking deal. While I didn't like the extended hours of enforcement that were proposed, I didn't feel strongly about it. Mainly, I disliked it because I thought it was politically tone deaf to push it right before the election knowing it would seriously hurt Qualls' chances of winning. Now it seems we may end up with a parking deal, however without the windfall of $85M. Why am I not surprised? http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20140105/NEWS01/301050028/Changes-possible-city-s-parking-system I don't know how the city can afford Cranley's mismanagement: First the parking deal (for now, let's just say he lost the city $85M); then the bungling of the City Manager position which, according to Yvette Simpson, would've been less expensive if Milton Dohoney were retained until a new manager was hired; and then the streetcar audit and pause ($2-5M). If it weren't for the Streetcar Six, another $50-80M plus litigation costs would've also been lost -- and he's only been mayor for a little more than a month! This man's incompetence is alarming. He seems to mistake grandstanding for governance. Emulating his mentor Tom Luken just isn't going to work anymore - gone are the days when a hack can get away with poor performance so easily. I hope for the sake of our city that he shapes up, but I fear he may be irredeemable.

Cranley also said in his interview that supporters have said the streetcar is a "luxury". I'm not aware of any one of us who has made such a claim. He also said we don't view it as transportation, apparently because we've also also touted it as a means to spur downtown/OTR economic development. His dishonesty is disgusting. And as long as insists on turning a blind eye to the trend towards urbanization, and that people are choosing to drive less (among the many other things he's wrong about), he'll continue to be a leader in name only.

Possible Democratic gubernatorial candidate Todd Portune: http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2014/01/06/portune-fitzgeralds-commitment-to-blacks-appalling/ Since he's become a pariah among fellow Democrats and has yet to receive a major endorsement from any of them, is he hoping to curry favor among some African-American voters in order to salvage his campaign?

Jeff Ruby tweeted today: "It's so cold I just saw John Cranley with his hands in his own pockets". Cranley's alienated so many, including talented civil servants, business leaders, fellow Democrats, Republicans, Tea Partiers (except for CO@$T, who on 12/21/13 posted on their blog an item entitled "Cranley Held Firm" -- to which no one replied!) -- and he's only been mayor for a month. I noticed on Local 12's Newsmakers this past Sunday that he made a point of pandering to African-Americans by saying he would work to increase the numbers of middle-class blacks, hire more police to reduce crime against young children, etc. When Dan Hurley asked him what he could do to increase the black middle-class, he said by steering more contracts to minority contractors. But aren't they mostly middle-class already?

Do you have a link? Never mind, found it here: http://www.local12.com/entertainment/features/newsmakers/stories/newsmakers-january-5-2014-50.shtml NOTE: question about changing of the SORTA board starts at 18:00 in the interview. The narrow and limited view of public transit that Cranley repeats over and over in his rhetoric, which is to infer that Metro's sole purpose is to get people to and from jobs, reminds me of an elderly family member (now deceased) who didn't want bus service to her suburban neighborhood because it would encourage and allow black people to go there.

He's just beginning his gig as a blogger for WCPO, and is probably wading into the streetcar controversy to try to boost his hit count. He's a strange dude.