jim uber

Thanks for that addition Rob. You're right that we can not ignore those operating costs, cause the opposition uses them to construct their arguments. Two questions (for you or anybody else): - Based on what I've read, the $3M annual figure is a "safe" conservative number, since it represents the subsidy required and not the actual costs. Any contrary opinions? - Does this all jive with the original economic study assumptions? I'm assuming that those operating costs were factored into the costs or benefits somehow. Just want to make sure there's no double counting going on.

No. Here's how the costs need to be calculated. This is one of the important facts that we must, and can, get right, because it destroys one of Cranley's arguments. The key is that the project benefits have to be included. They have never had any credible arguments against those benefits, and they are uncomfortable talking about them. That's because the benefits are real, and they know they are real. Let's assume the costs and benefits figures in the above graphic are correct. I'd suggest the graphic be modified as stated below. I've talked to John Schneider about this and he has the same idea - I'm sure he'll chime in once he returns from Portland with any caveats or corrections, but the gist is this: CITY COSTS TO CANCEL: Fed Reimbursement - $2M Spent funds - $26M Close out - $14.2M Contract breach - $10M Litigation - $1M Duke - $4.6M Lost economic benefits - $287M Total - $344.8M CITY COSTS TO COMPLETE: Remaining city funds for construction - $63M Operating costs, 30 years, 4%, $3M/year - $52M Total - $115M Anyone can quibble about the various figures, but note the main point - the difference between continuing and stopping, in terms of REAL PRESENT WORTH COSTS, is the benefits that we either receive, or give up. It's these benefits that they want to make sure never appear in their calculated "costs" - even though it's the correct way to do it - because it ruins their argument. You can not make a decision to stop the streetcar construction on economic grounds, when benefits are properly accounted for. Let's make certain to insist on not pushing them under the rug. P.S. - Note the costs to cancel, as well as to complete construction, do not include the Federal portion. This is by design. It's just hard, and distracting, to count as a cost something that somebody else is giving you (and then taking away). There's no reason to include such a distraction. (Edited to include operating costs as suggested below.)

I can't believe they've suckered us into comparing the costs of construction against the costs of discontinuing construction. How can the latter ever be expected to be more? If this was the standard for comparing public works projects what would get built? It has been a republican dictum that all public projects must be compared according to their net present worth benefits and costs. This is written into certain Federal legislation. It became increasingly popular during Ronald Reagan's term, and there was outcry from the left that the business of government was devolving into a sort of accounting. Now, just because they can't find a cost/benefit study that suits them (what do you think they'd do if they could?) - they invent this idea that so long as a project can be cancelled for less cost than it takes to construct it, it is in the public's interest to do so?! And the public, gullible as always, will buy anything that sort of sounds like it makes sense, because of course Cranley want's to "bring us together" and wouldn't twist facts. Folks, this way of doing things must be roundly rejected, and pointed out for the deceptive strategy that it is. Why don't we compare other projects in the same way? What are the costs of stopping I75 reconstruction versus completing it? How about Fountain Square - wouldn't it have been cheaper to stop that nonsense in the middle, before they spent money on expensive granite paving? It's just ludicrous.

I do not know why this hasn't been discussed more. There may be relatively little real pain involved, because of the blanket policy to exempt property taxes for 10 years on building improvements. For example, I live on the streetcar line, and am paying no taxes for 10 years on the improvements I've made; my taxes are as they were for a property that was valued at about $40K. Every one of the condos or townhomes in the city enjoys the same benefit. I'd be totally for paying my share for the streetcar, and I'd be happy if it could be structured as a property tax. By the way, I recently got a notice from the city asking for my approval of a special assessment for lighting. I don't know under what authority this was done, but I don't recall any huge debate about it. I'm not sure why a location-dependent operating levy for the streetcar couldn't be done the same way. Basically, I'd be for this especially if it would take some of the opposition's arguments away from them.

Fully agree, in principal. In thinking about these election results, I'm most angry because, over a long period of time -- and admittedly through a real slog of opposition -- 'we' allowed this project and our arguments for it to be slandered. What started out as positive cost/benefit ratios, a vision of expansion, and the beginnings of a vision of efficient regional transportation options for everyone, got changed into a small 'us' versus a big THEM. As a civil engineer, I really hate that a beneficial civic infrastructure project can be so usefully subverted for political purposes. And afterward, the same person who exploited the already deep divisions, steps us to 'heal' us. The most important thing for the future of the streetcar (and everything that derives from it) is to take our own steps to heal these divisions, so we can get back to communicating a broader vision of economic growth and regional transportation options, and rob the naysayers of the conflict that they thrive on. And we should take those first steps, individually, whatever they should and can be. Honestly, I'm still trying to think about what those steps could be. It seems so much easier just to go to war. I think that folks like John Schneider and John Dietrich can play instrumental roles in setting the tone, even if it's unfair of me to say that.

The new definition of preventative maintenance ?

This guy is doing a great public service with these updates, showing what is involved underground, in producing a first class surface amenity that we'll all enjoy. They could have taken a less detailed approach, but I'm glad they haven't. The streetcar and other large public works could use this as a model of how to communicate both costs and benefits to the public.

Thought it might be interesting, since I am fortunate enough to live on the streetcar route and not everyone else does... I got this email yesterday - "Mr. Über- My name is Mike King. I work for Messer Co. & represent Messer/Prus/Delta Railroad JV. MPD is the contractor for the streetcar project. We are responsible for contacting building owners along the route. Please confirm that you own these properties and contact information. Call me to discuss further as needed; Thanks!" (Yes, he did include the umlaut -- this is Cincinnati, after all.) Mike then replied this morning - "Good morning! Are these properties occupied? If so, I would like to place door hangers on each tenants door to inform them of our activity. We will be starting track work preparations the week of 10/14 on Elm, 15th to Liberty; work will take approximately 5 weeks. The east 3 lanes will be blocked; traffic will be maintained in the far west lane. There will be no parking on Elm during this time. The city has set up a weekly e-mail update on the streetcar progress. With your permission, I could have you signed up. Kindly advise regarding the occupancy and the e-mail update or if you have any questions. I can be reached at this e-mail or the number below." I thought that was very professional and organized.

I live on Elm st. near Liberty in Over The Rhine in a place we completely rehabbed, and we own the 4 story vacant building next door (that we're currently putting a roof and box gutters on). I am familiar with the VBML and don't have much problem with it other than one thing: if you don't meet the VBML standards, which are completely logical and serve to preserve the property, and you are not moving toward meeting them, then you should pay the VBML fee. Plus, this fee should be larger than it currently is. But if you do meet the standards, or are *steadily* making measurable progress toward them, then you should not pay any fee so long as you keep your property in that condition. By making everyone pay the VBML fee, it removes a big incentive to improve the property so that it will be preserved for future rehab. I see buildings that are falling down due to neglect, not due to the VBML. In fact, if the VBML guidelines were enforced the buildings wouldn't be falling down due to neglect, because they would be watertight, brick would be maintained, and exterior metal would be painted. I also think that someone has not met VBML standards, and has not paid their VBML penalty for not doing so, for a certain period of time, should be automatically sued by the City in an efficient, expedited process, and have the property taken away if they can not show a plan and implement that plan within 1 year. Those properties needs to be banked and quickly gotten into better and more capable hands that can properly bring them up to VBML standards. In short, I guess I just don't get the intensity of the hatred for the VBML. I also don't understand why the City can not actively propose and implement logical changes that would dramatically increase the rate that at risk properties are turned over. By the way, individuals can sue neighbors in Ohio to have their properties declared a public nuisance. That creates significant pressure for the derelict owner to sell the property (or give it away to an organization like OTRADOPT) or have it placed into the hands of a receiver who can make improvements. This sort of thing should be done much more on an individual level by "good" OTR property owners.

It is as suburban as it gets, because it's counter to density. And you are correct, I am disregarding people's desire for one-stop shopping - within the urban fabric - for that reason. That doesn't mean that people who desire that sort of thing (as I do, occasionally) can't live in urban neighborhoods. It just means that they have to drive to the big Kroger across the river. If they don't complain about that, then I think it's fine. After all, there are several things I do not love about my OTR home, but I live there anyway. By the way your cute turning of my statement to imply some pie-in-the-sky "charming" notion of strolling to get my groceries every day, is off base. Give me a break. I walk a few minutes to Findlay market to get meat. Big deal - it's ordinary, not "charming." Another day I walk to OTR Kroger to get cereal and soy milk. Whatever. I like it because it's efficient.

Really, the combo mentioned of Findlay market + OTR Kroger is so good and natural I'm not sure it even needs to be mentioned. A lot of this boils down to whether you expect shopping in "a store" should satisfy most if your needs (a la big box Kroger) or if you view the resources if the community more broadly. If you think a single store needs to satisfy your needs then you will always need to drive if you live downtown/OTR. And, that is a suburban not an urban mindset. If you took that statement negatively then look inward before assuming that I'm trying to insult or judge anyone.

2-1 against? Interesting I had not seen that poll.

"The City's consultant" was consulted for due diligence purposes only. Their revenue is tied to the old model, and they don't want it to go away. Read the port's response.

Kaid Benfield blog post on Washington park reopening: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kbenfield

Not to mention that it seems to have sparked transformational change at the CPD and how they respond to crises.

Some laws are meant to be broken.

We may be getting ahead of ourselves. It is said this is a nuisance hearing. Having a building declared a public nuisance is sometimes the first step to getting it into better hands. It can force the owner to make repairs, to sell the property, and can open up receivership options. Would we rather a dilapidated and endangered structure just be ignored and it's owners allowed to destroy it purely through neglect? I myself have sued a neighbor to have the building declared a nuisance. The result was it forced her to sell to 3CDC and ultimately to me. Doing nothing would have ultimately led to the loss of that structure. Perhaps more buildings that are in danger should be declared nuisances, if that opens up a process for them to be saved.

If you can it would be interesting to see how followers grow over time. Great idea!

I agree with others who have implied OTR has reached the point where positive economic development will almost certainly continue and spread. This is different from suggesting that crime or perceptions of it are as low as they need to be; that most stable historic structures have been rehabilitated; that vacant buildings and lots have been reduced to an acceptable level; or even that the continued economic development will ultimately make OTR into the kind of community you want. What has happened in the last 10 years is a sea change from the previous 50 years of destruction, neglect, and virtual denial that OTR even exists. A renewed Washington park, new K-12 SCPA, $100 million rehab of music hall, Findlay market full of vendors, hundreds of millions in property development, a streetcar circulator running right up the spine of the neighborhood,... What a fantastical wish list. This can't be stopped any longer. It's starting to generate its own fuel and the pace of development over the next ten years will likely far outstrip that over the last ten. It's a great time for the form based codes development that's getting to the community level this spring.

I don't know what he had in mind, but it is interesting that he seems to be in favor of "light rail" but not "trollies." I think it's important that he makes a distinction, and says that one is good and one is bad. I would be interested to know why he thinks "trollies" are bad. It could be for a reason that will surprise us all. Yes. You are always for exploring the water with the oar. Except when it involves using it to pull in the same direction. It's not always closed minded to do so. Sometimes it just gets the job done.

Lord almighty! Your point if you had one has been made, derided, and now finally diluted to where it is completely lost. I mean - Cincinnati has a problem with job access?! Might as well be talking about the world.

Yesterday I was driving from northern Indiana and was so bored that I turned on 700WLW - about 6PM. Don't know who was on cause I'm not a normal listener, but he was broadcasting from Holy Grail at the Banks. I had to double check my hearing but he said that if you haven't been to "downtown" Cincinnati lately, you're really missing something. He specifically mentioned The Banks, of course, but also "what's happening up on Vine street in OTR." Said he travelled quite a bit and, based on what he's seen, Cincinnati has a chance to have one of the top 10 or so downtown areas in the Nation. I mean he was effusive with praise. I couldn't quite believe my ears. One thing he didn't mention was Fountain square, and what a supreme act of foresight it was for our City Council to devise a streetcar system to connect all of the things he loves about downtown together, so that he and his suburban listeners only have to endure the pain of parking downtown once, whilst they travel from Toby Keith's to Bakersfield for nachos.

No. Would you like me to selectively list what i consider well executed projects and wise decisions and then ask you if you would now see the light? See, it doesn't work that way.

Nor a Wednesday either as I had to wait 2 hours then. Better to just go to the bar and get good and drunk while you wait for your table.

Blasphemy.