jim uber

Yes I could not agree more. That much, should, be obvious.

It's not here yet. Not trying to be pessimistic, but like the villain at the end of the credits… COAST is already hinting at another ballot initiative. Today the battle was won, but the war goes on folks. This is a definitely a moment of celebration for those who support this. But, as long as this project remains unpopular in the city overall, its final fate is not certain. Many of us have to think move this thing forward with our heads (because of cost to kill), while our hearts tell us that the city should pull the plug on this. I just don't understand why this project has been so controversial, unlike the MLK exchange, that most everyone sees as worth the investment by the city. People in support of this better continue selling this, because there are many in this city who disagree, and the majority may wind up inserting itself into this project again before it is over. A project being built with this much ill will has every reason not to become a success.... Jesus. Talk about a glass half full. I'm not traditionally a religious guy, but bless you John Schneider for your perseverance and wisdom, and Ryan Messer and others at WBIC for your passion and helping the rest of us to share our voices.

What you said before is correct - "the city will pay unless they get insufficient increase in tax return. Which means they aren't rejecting ROI, they just won't put their faith in it." one can choose to be pessimistic or optimistic, but it has been made clear from the original press conference on, that Cranley isn't saying the city won't ever pay any operating costs. he's saying that he is unwilling to do it if it eats into the current level of other services. Meaning that operating costs need to be paid from increases in revenue from streetcar related development, or from other sources (i.e. what is specified by the underwriting). There's no doubt that's what's being discussed. Anyway, let's get more petitions signed.

Hilarious! Jeez - OK Guilty. I know some very smart people who skim things so fast that they only pause for bold typeface. I have been influenced. But seriously. I have to say - the difference between underwriting and funding needs to be emphasized, based on what I see in most of the press stories. It's a distinction that's important to make.

I think it will work, how on earth did you read THAT in what I wrote?? I am saying, provide some incentive to the private investment. If the ROI meets goals (metrics will need to be determined), then the required level of private investment required should drop. Risk/Reward I like this line of thinking. It sounds like that's been the idea from the beginning. Remember, they are talking about an underwriting of the operations costs, which is different from asking for a commitment to fund the operations. Underwriting is providing insurance against a loss, in a very specific manner. I assume that the way this would be structured is, in part, to define clearly how to calculate new funds available to the city from streetcar development, and to allocate those first to the streetcar operations, in addition to the money from fares and advertising. The underwriting would agree to insure the city against the risk that the total is less than what it takes to operate the streetcar. At least that's what I think they (should be) doing. Flynn said basically the same thing, when he mentioned that the outside funding would possibly not even be needed, provided that the benefits of the streetcar turn out to be what the proponents "hope for" (well, he should have said "have calculated" -- but whatever). So, I believe that the calculation for the private funding sources should not be like the present worth of 25 years of streetcar operations. It should cause them to think about the risk that the streetcar benefits are not achieved, and from that their expected operations payments (given that risk). And I believe that those expected operations payments are much lower than $2-3M/year.

They are discussing an underwriting guarantee - an insurance policy - not an offer to fund. In other words, the funds would be taken only if other sources did not materialize. And based on Flynn's statement that "if the streetcar is as successful as many people believe, or hope, then there won't be any need for other sources of operating funds" -- it seems that the arrangement would be open to using city funds for operating expenses, so long as they could be identified as being associated with increased property tax receipts tied to the streetcar. This could be encoded using a defined area and a base year of property valuation.

Flynn's language during the press conference was interesting. When speaking of the future, he said "When the streetcar is built..." and not "If the streetcar is built..." It _appears_ that Flynn is seeking a move that would provide him cover for a yes vote in a week. That being said, I'm off now to pick up a petition on Court street.

Yes please - which Chris! I want to go to bed.

Glass half full- if Mann is not there it's a good thing. Cranley is doing his best to make it look hopeless and dampen enthusiasm. Drive hard to the end. If his first four months are dominated by emotional streetcar debates, make him own it.

Could you mention your sources please?

A friend/colleague and I have done an analysis of revenue that could be generated by a special improvement district (SID). The main finding - "A 3.0 mil tax on two combined SIDs that include both the current DCI SID, and a new SID within OTR, would generate nearly $3 Million annually; such a new tax would cost the owner of a $100,000 property an additional $105 per year." So, provided that we could get the work done to get 60% of property owners to agree - which of course is a tall order - this funding could provide the city's contribution of the operating costs of the streetcar. Its my bias, but I believe that these numbers-focussed analyses about "how you pay for it" can be a part of the conversation that helps natural skeptics to identify with the transformative vision of the streetcar. For example, I'd like to take the line up to the Zoo, plus the first logical planned east-west lines, and do a similar analysis on SIDs that could support part of their operations. It may sound premature, given where we're at right now, but I think that we need to move rapidly away from the OTR/Banks loop and start focussing on a plan that looks much more Cincinnati-regional for streetcar, and beyond for light rail (as in John Schneider's great post on the light rail possibilities, about a week ago). Anybody with the interests and capabilities to help out on these sorts of efforts, let me know. SID Report link: https://copy.com/JqlJiKOKn3EIP4d4

And this is true for OTR still. The average value per square foot in OTR is about $25 compared to $150 in the central business district. Anybody who asserts that OTR progress is "well under way" -- or anything beyond a good pilot study -- has probably not even contemplated the facts. The streetcar would greatly accelerate bringing these parcels up to their potential value. And by the way this doesn't even factor in vacant parcels.

A clean shell with solid masonry and roof/gutters/cornice is a true blessing in OTR - best one can hope for. the BC article mentions a $7-8M budget.

I went thru that place on a church tour awhile back. Those guys have their work cut out for them. After the stabilization? Just curious. They've spent more than half a million on that building for roof and structural repair already.

Yes. We can not try to change peoples minds and then be pissed off when they do. I'll wait to see what comes after before I subscribe, but good for them for being willing to say, so strongly, what needs to be done. This is the most pointed, non-wishy-washy, editorial I can recall reading in the Enquirer.

People like PG, Flynn, and Mann may be interested in sponsoring a SID as an integral part of providing support to keep the work going continuously. On December 1 there's going to be tremendous pressure on all parties and we should be developing a _constructive_ relief valve.

Well, yes. I imagine that method was a little easier when the streets were dirt and all you were moving was pigs and horses. Practically, nowadays, we need Council leadership to study and plan this, and move forward to seek approval. Part of the study and plan is to decide what an equitable stake from landowners would be. Surely it's less than the full cost, unless the City wants to assign all of the future increased tax revenues to those same landowners in exchange for paying the cost to build it. Personally I'd start with a plan that could fund the city portion of operations. I'm trying to get an audience to hear such a proposal. If anyone out there feels strongly enough to join me, just say so.

If you really want to push this point so be it. It's not a good strategy because the decision will have nothing to do with whether the ROI is 3:1 or 10:1. What may be important is that they are forced to admit its at least 1:1.

That seems huge.

I'd suggest keeping in the operating costs as in the previous post. We can afford to be conservative. Plus I don't think it's correct to ignore the sunk costs. I know we're talking about going forward or not but ignoring them makes us vulnerable. Using that method any project could have infinite ROI by just waiting to calculate it when it's finished. 3:1 is excellent. And bullet proof.

Yes. Also, the valuation on my property on Elm just went from $41K to about $180K because of a total rehab. I estimate the increased property taxes on that valuation to be over $3,250/year. I applied for, and will receive, a 10 year tax abatement on the full increase in valuation, which has a present worth of about $26K. I know it's likely impractical to link a tax abatement program and a special taxing district; my point is that the increased property valuation from investment in properties around a streetcar line would currently be tax except, under broad city policy. This at the least provides an additional carrot for those owners who have chosen to invest, to vote for the special assessment. People like me who would benefit should pay part of the cost. It would provide a template for line extension into neighborhoods. I wish my elected leaders would ask me to invest. And, frankly, I'd like to completely destroy the wedge issue of streetcar "haves" versus everyone else. It's not helpful to anyone, and doesn't move the city forward, even if Cranley has decided to exploit it.

KJP can you please elaborate just a bit on the mechanics of such a vote, as I'm not familiar. I am one such basin property owner, and as I've said above, I would support a transit property tax. Can council put such a vote on the next ballot, presumably limited to voting districts within a prescribed area?

Well put. I'd only add that, till someone on this board further clarifies assumptions, let's all keep in mind the "3X" figure, as in "it costs 3 times more to cancel the streetcar than to finish it." Numbers like that stick in peoples heads better.

^^ Rob, no your not confused. The operating costs are expected to rise over time by the rate of inflation. Briefly, the _interest rate_ is the sum of two things - the discount rate and the inflation rate. The _discount rate_ represents the inherent time value of money, is independent of inflation, and exists even if inflation is zero. Inflation is, well, we're all familiar with that. Economists ignore the inflation rate when analyzing project costs and benefits because, basically, it comes out in the wash. It's sort of like, if everything you buy costs 5% more, but you get 5% more in your paycheck, there's no difference to you. But Economists definitely do not ignore the discount rate, because that would imply a strange situation where the time value of money is zero. So operating expenses should properly be discounted (using the _discount rate_ -- not the interest rate). And, that doesn't imply anything about them staying constant over time, in the dollar of the day. Inflation is expected and not contradictory to the discounted cost analysis. I remember clearly the lecture where I learned that "inflation doesn't matter for comparing project costs/benefits" in graduate school, in a formal way, cause I found it so surprising. It's one of the many really important facts that economists use to properly analyze projects that most of us are unaware of.

^ I forgot. The operating expenses, if included, should be discounted. Going with the 30 year life and 4% discount rate, the present worth of $3M annual operating costs is about $52M. Based on this I edited the above post that summarizes the costs to cancel versus complete. The costs to cancel the streetcar exceed the costs to complete by a 3:1 margin.