urbanpioneer

They're one of the Big Four accounting firms.

It may be futile but everyone should write to him. I just did: https://www.portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-form

This is the kind of [snowy] day when it would've been ESPECIALLY nice to be able to take the streetcar to PNC, US or Fifth Third Banks, then on to Findlay Market, or catch the CSO's Warm Up With Mozart concert at Music Hall, or have lunch in OTR or at The Banks, or visit the Public or Mercantile Libraries or The Ohio Bookstore for some books to get cozy with, or pick up a steak at Bleh-Avril's, or an Rx at CVS, etc., etc. As it is, I'm staying home rather than risking a slippery drive.

I caught the Brian Thomas interview with Mayor Cranely yesterday morning (Podcast) and I believe both said that the expected ROI (2.7-1) was dependent on the streetcar going to the zoo. Also, just noticed Thomas has a "COUNTDOWN TO THE STREET CAR" widget on the left hand side of his blog page. Altering the route is out of the question. The feds wouldn't go for that and I doubt council would either. I think the most important thing we could do at this point is call out Cranley and Council on their mis-information like the notion that the 2.7-1 ROI is dependent on the uptown connector. We need to back it up with facts and we need to get word out to everyone, including the media and all of the council members and Cranley himself. We can not afford to let lies like that become fact simply because they go unopposed. While I agree, I also have come to believe that the facts are not helping us. collapse for cincinnati. Facts work against it, because this is a culture war. All of the arguments about young professionals have been a disaster. Old people HATE being told what to think by younger people, and old people vote in EVERY election. Cranley and Kincaid are absolutely laughing at all of you, especially those who at this late hour keep dragging out the young professionals and new condominium arguments. People forget that in 2007, when the Blue Ash Airport money was first allocated to the streetcar, and the project became "real", there was ABSOLUTLY NOTHING IN OTR. Washington Park was still a mess, police had to guard the first 3cdc construction sites. Jake, you're brilliant in many ways and I very much admire your talents and knowledge. You are correct that old people vote more consistently/reliably than young people. But there have been lots of old people in attendance at the many City Hall hearings over the years, and indeed many Empty Nesters/Baby Boomers account for the increase in downtown's population, like in my census tract which gained 33%. While some of us old people may cringe at petulant-toned testimony of certain young people who essentially say to council members that if they don't get what they want they're moving, we nevertheless understand that for a city to grow and be vibrant, it must be appealing and welcoming to young people. Having said that, I'll never forget seeing the greying Tom Brinkman of COAST on TV news a couple of years ago, saying in dramatically somber tones, that "Cincinnati is a dying city". If it is, it can rightly be blamed on the efforts of people like him who are working to kill it. So while I can appreciate the sentiment in your remarks, don't forget that there are also young opponents. Many who are working the hardest and most effectively in support of the streetcar are "old people". Please try to remember that comments smacking of ageism can be demoralizing.

I may not always agree with him but I personally believe David Mann is an honorable person, and not prone to the gamesmanship of a politician like Mayor Cranley. The problem is that Mr. Mann doesn't know much about the streetcar, and so he may be relying on the mayor who after all served on council during its inception. Ditto about everything else you said though.

IMO, Uptown = Bait and Switch. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but, while there are plenty of individual Cliftonites who support the streetcar, I'm not aware of resounding institutional support from UC or any of the hospitals. And they don't have to worry about their advocacy effecting the bottom line or alienating customers to the extent that P&G does, or Macy's, or Fifth Third Bank, etc., etc. John Deatrick testified that he thought a Downtown circulator could succeed on its own. One step at a time is prudent. If David Mann is saying Uptown has to be considered in the equation I think we can presume that that's part of Mayor Cranley's strategy to kill the project. Again, that's just my opinion.

My current concern is who will be hired to go over John Deatrick's numbers. Will this council shop for a consultant who's likely to suggest cancellation? Will they then try to make the consultant the scapegoat when cancellation costs end up exceeding the estimates?

FWIW, I'm sorry to disagree with many of you, but dare I say the wisdom and effectiveness of labeling the streetcar as a "Progressive" project is questionable? Yes, in the literal sense it represents progress. But in a figurative sense the term "Progressive" is cursed by the talk radio listenership mentioned earlier, as well as others. It doesn't help to expand the numbers of supporters by effectively excluding some people who could otherwise understand and embrace the idea of supporting an investment that's been proven elsewhere to trigger economic development which pays dividends. The reality today is that the term "Progressive" has a highly partisan connotation which causes some to immediately close their eyes, ears and minds. Former Transportation Secretary LaHood is a Republican. Granted, some on The Right these days would simply dismiss him as a RINO. But not everyone on The Right is an ideologue. LaHood is the kind of Republican who obviously understands that growth and prosperity are achieved via investment. He's not the only one. Ryan Messer addressed this in one of his testimonies before City Council, in that he suggested they regard the streetcar the same way a business considers ways to promote growth. Don't get me wrong, I'm well aware of intractable, irrational and partisan opposition to the streetcar. But we who support it could use more effective salesmanship, and a bigger tent.

Guys, I hear what you're saying about sexual orientation and maybe that's played a role. But if so, I suspect it's a very minor role (I don't think COAST/Finney have a large following in the city). After all, Mallory was elected twice. In the past, many people thought Qualls was homosexual and yet she was a top vote-getter and served as mayor. Rather, I suspect the streetcar is simply the convenient whipping post for diverse factions who harbor various grievances against government. Some of those grievances have reached a fever pitch since the launch of the ACA, which was unfortunate timing for Qualls' electoral chances this time around. It's tragic that people feel so aggrieved that they blindly conflate a pro-growth, economic development tool with something like increased costs [or the loss] of healthcare.

If David Mann is sincere, then I believe there's still hope: "Vice Mayor David Mann said, if the cost to finish the 3.6-mile route is close to the cost to stop, he would support moving forward." http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?NoCache=1&Dato=20131204&Kategori=NEWS&Lopenr=312040146&Ref=AR

Actually, John Deatrick testified that $50,000/day was too low.

Yesterday when the mayor-elect tapped David Mann to serve as vice mayor, he said he thought Mr. Mann would be able to carry on in case "I get hit by a bus". Well, I think Mr. Cranley has [figuratively] been hit by a bus today. It's my fervent hope that he is now stunned enough to reconsider and tone down his divisive, damaging rhetoric, and that he also advises any allies he has left on council to do the same.

Cranley's and Murray's dismissive remarks about the presentation, suggesting the numbers are unbelievable, unfairly impugn the integrity of John Deatrick, who's done so much more for our city than THEY ever have. This is the man who got the reconstruction of FWW done with dispatch (and on or under budget), and of course finally made The Banks a reality. He's even been lauded for the quality of his work, for crying out loud. Shame on those 2 political grandstanders for insulting the kind of public servant everyone should be grateful for.

Something incidental that I've been meaning to mention since the election: I know of people who voted for Cranley because he's pro-life, not because they oppose the streetcar. Don't forget that the Right to Life movement basically started in Cincinnati, founded by Dr. John Willke and his wife Barbara, and there are many voters in this town who consider abortion THE one and only issue. African Americans as a group are anti-abortion. So are Roman Catholics. Both groups figure largely in Cincinnati's demographic makeup. Cranley's victory is just as likely attributable to his stance on abortion as his stance on the streetcar.

On wlwt.com I saw Amy Murray in the audience sitting next to David Mann.

Per wlwt.com: When asked about the presentation, Cranley spokesman Jay Kincaid told WLWT News 5, "It amounts to political theater designed to make their case. What we've said all along is that they've missed every deadline, came in over budget, and haven’t put a plan in place to operate it. So, we're not sure how much stock to put into that presentation. Ultimately, there needs to be a real accounting of where we stand, how much the cost will be going forward and the benefits of shutting it down." Read more: http://www.wlwt.com/news/local-news/cincinnati/streetcar-admin-to-brief-city-council-on-cancellation-costs/-/13549970/23068594/-/13wv5stz/-/index.html#ixzz2lJ2IfLgf

So, if I understand correctly, the bottom line per John Deatrick for scrapping the streetcar (excluding law suits?) is $60M+ - $80M+

Tonight at the town hall meeting, attorney Don Mooney said cancelling the streetcar would be a trial attorney's dream come true.

Worrying about whether or not there can be a pro-streetcar referendum, when Sittenfeld, Mann and Flynn each seem to be earnest about weighing costs before they decide what they'll do, seems premature. If the numbers are on our side, and I believe they are, we're going to be okay. In addition, I'm glad the parking deal is dead. IMO Qualls' staunch support of it probably cost her the election, which has now put the streetcar's fate in jeopardy. Even though later revisions to the parking deal may have quelled some of the outlying neighborhoods' concerns, the final deal still stipulated meter enforcement downtown between 8:00 AM and 9:00 PM, surely hurting her among some onetime supporters. And the way Mallory autocratically muscled it through, only to have it turn out that the city was able to balance this year's budget without it, created ill will. I suspect most voters cared less if a hi-rise at 4th and Race was part of the deal than the fact that parking rates would rise. If the city's parking system truly needs to be upgraded, then the responsibility now lies with the new mayor and new council. It'll be interesting to see what they do.

It was good to see Ryan Messer on Local 12 news this evening. As someone who invested in OTR after the second anti-streetcar ballot issue failed, he put a positive, reasoned face on the implications of scrapping the project. On the other hand, I'm sorry but I just have to say it: some of the pre- and post-election comments and reactions by streetcar supporters that I've either read, seen, or heard about are beyond worrisome. Bluster, insults and ad hominem remarks are NOT persuasive, and ultimately hurt the cause. I personally know people who've been active supporters but who can no longer abide by those who employ these types of tactics. I've lived here all of my life and I'm willing to bet that a moveon.org petition with 4,000 signatures isn't a winning strategy in Cincinnati. The possibility of alienating newly-elected council members is very real. Some of them have hinted that their decision whether or not to scrap the project depends solely on costs. This can work in our favor. Please, let's not blow it.

I see what you're saying and appreciate the irony. But then again, since when do people need a job -- or transit -- to vote? Polling places are generally located well within walking distances, so I don't necessarily believe that people in Avondale were "prohibited" from voting. So The Enquirer got it wrong (as usual) for more than one reason.

Signatures are collected after council votes for something and that measure gets put on hold until the citizens vote in the next election. Question is: do contracts continue in the meantime? If so, construction continues, making it even more obviously ridiculous to cancel by next November (or could there be an earlier special election?). If not, ongoing litigation will be a NIGHTMARE for the campaign trying to stop the streetcar, in my estimation (there will be a breach of contract if construction stops, even temporarily). Cranley told Chris Wetterich he would not pursue an emergency clause for streetcar cancellation, which means a referendum would be inevitable. Either he lied to the reporter, or the disaster scenario (disaster for Cranley) I just laid out will come to fruition (in the event council votes to cancel the project). Source Cranley's probably HOPING for a streetcar referendum because he's confident it would fail. Sadly, he may be right. IMO we won the other two referenda mainly because of their ridiculous overreach which would've banned all forms of rail transit. Even The Enquirer, which has proven to be no friend of the streetcar, didn't endorse them, but it would probably endorse a narrow referendum that stops only the streetcar. Be careful what you wish for...

Some Monday Morning Quarterbacking: -The last anti-streetcar ballot initiative won by only about 1000 votes, a narrower margin than the previous one. This gave Qualls less wiggle room. -As an incumbent, her record was more timely and in many ways more pertinent than Cranley's previous record on council. -She surely lost erstwhile supporters because of the parking deal. And she never effectively explained her support for it but IMO spoke about it [sorry to say] rather imperiously. Voters may not care about or quite understand leveraging an asset but they unquestionably care about increased parking rates. Apparently, revisions were made to the original deal to address complaints about hours of enforcement, etc., but any relief those changes may have resulted in were never spelled out whenever I heard Qualls speak about it. Plus, did the City really need to do this deal in an election year, or could it have been delayed after further review and input from citizens? -The change in garbage collection, right before the election, was yet another example of political tone deafness.

Terrific letter Brad! It's time for the losers to stop being sore. And I couldn't agree more that it's also time for media to stop giving equal time (or any time for that matter) to the losing side. Since when do losers deserve to share the spotlight? The "news" yesterday was the groundbreaking. Period. It seems media only add "context" by regurgitating the same old naysaying. They rarely if ever bother to add context that's supportive of streetcars, in spite of success stories elsewhere. And the Duke hoopla deserved widespread clarification of the sort The Cincinnati Business Courier gave it yesterday. Cudos to Dan Monk and Lucy May! Other local media reporters have been either too lazy/negligent/biased to bother with The Other Side Of The Story.

Seems all 8 of her feet are in her mouth. I've seen Duke working all over the CBD including right in front of my home and I don't know if there's ever as much as 8 feet between workmen who are actually in the street and the constant stream of cars that pass them in the very next lane.