Michael L. Redmond

Say...Ive been looking for a roof tarp that looks like shingles...

First thing first. I am not against the streetcar. I do not, have not, and will not oppose the streetcar to the city, to developers or otherwise.(if you didn't know my organization was co signer of a letter of support to the city for streetcar in the OTR Alliance) As for saying I have come out against the streetcar time and time again, reread those threads in their full context. First one was when John, on this thread said that money that had been allocated to 3CDC for OTR development in the Gateway Quarter would best be spent on the streetcar. "For those who believe that it would be more prudent to subsidize the construction of more downtown and OTR condos instead of investing in the public realm by building the streetcar, read this:" John Schneider Second, when you see the various comments I make on streetcar on other threads it is in direct reaction to a claim by a few others (yall know who you are) that streetcar is somehow the make or break for other development projects including, but certainly not limited to Inwood. As for my predictions on Main, reread. I was not predicting, I was reporting moves (which I had inside knowledge of) by various bars and restraunts, some of which had opened, and some of which are still slated to open and that all began with an argument with Nick Spencer about OTR's downward spiral as he described it and I whole heartedly disagreed with. Was I wrong? Finally, "streetcar is the thing that is going to do a fairly rapid overhaul of OTR, get the critical mass there, and allow for development in areas of OTR that private development would never touch had it not been there." is the type of statement that does draw a reaction from me as that "isolated development" that you are referring to is engulfing most all of OTR, the Gateway Quarter (which I also have an interest in), and that is without a streetcar. "allow for development in areas of OTR that private development would never touch had it not been there." is the same type of statement that came out of the mouths of many anti-citylink people also (I was critical of them as well for that very reason and accused of being in support somehow). How do you back out of that rhetoric and convince a developer that it is still a good thing to invest in our community if and when your plans do not go through? If you think you can, try and get a developer to look at the west end today. Do not hang my communities future around whether or not we have a streetcar because what if you fail? I promise you OTR will not.

Duke is a regulated monopoly. They do not have the right to spend in the form of 'exchange' to one customer (the city) for non opposition to PUCO, not their money, but ratepayers money through a rate hike for a streetcar to the tune of 6 and one half million dollars. To call it a tax is improper (not illogical) in the seance that it was never taken to the voters to decide on but rather buried in a rate hike for your utilities to fund the streetcar in part. That is neither a tax or a fee, it is a utility rate with an undisclosed rider. I am all for a tax or at least the up or down by the voter for the streetcar but the people in the know here realize that they can't get it past the voters but they can backdoor them. Ok Randy, attorney speak as I can best translate what I just heard. There may be an anti trust case here but this, as with anything is only an issue if someone brings suit. The Clayton Act does allow for that plus all attorney fees and damages by anyone affected by the issue in question. To say that they have attorneys and they must know what they are doing is not how it works. The attorneys are there if and when an agreement is brought into question to defend Dukes position. From what I heard today, there may already be opposition so we will just have to see how it all plays out. By the way, you are welcome. Bottom line, why should this not go to a vote? Why not put it in front of the very people who just saw rates go up come next year who for the most part aren't paying attention to the fine print (and there will not even be that on their bill)? Is anyone here pushing to get this on a ballot ever? If so when, if not why not. Does what I am saying seem unreasonable? Am I being unfair, or misrepresenting any of the facts? I am being upfront in my questions, not to the motivations, but the tactics used to fund this. Is that not valid?

Ok, I have a job people but this real quick... Funded through taxes, yes, utility rates no. I've got a call out to a friend and we will see if there is a case or no. If not, then hey, I might try and fund some things through the water company next go around. EDIT: formatted quote box

Then take that argument to the taxpayers to decide, not as part of a rate plan. John, your argument of savings over cars, take that to the taxpayer, not as part of a rate plan. Every good argument on here, and some are very good, take that to the taxpayer, not as part of a rate plan! You can win, you can bring this to the arena of public debate and win instead of employing tactics like back door taxes (Said it again, still true) of any dollar amount to fund this. I can't even believe you wrote that. It was part of the negotiation of a rate hike and explicitly states 6.5 million will go to fund the streetcar. Are we just making stuff up as we go along now or have we already forgot the details of the hike? It is in the very first line! "Duke Energy’s agreement to lower a requested rate hike includes spending $6.5 million to help Cincinnati build a streetcar system". a myth? And since someone said all gov. projects are paid like this, then what if we had some money going to the stadiums, to the freedom center, additional parking lots or garages etc., still a good idea? Cap their profit, like it already is, and the rest should be for energy production and distribution. That way, an even smaller rate hike, if any, when you back out all the other handouts over the years including naming rights, would perhaps be possible. God, I can't wait till they get ahold of my water bill.

I agree. These are two very different philosophical differences. If the people who pay their utility bills to keep the heat on this winter think this is the appropriate means of finance then so be it, but I, as one taxpayer and ratepayer, simply disagree. As for the legal matter, that is up to the courts but in my very unprofessional legal opinion, I object.

Why would I concern myself with that other than the fact that the streetcar was a 6.5 million dollar benefactor to this particular negotiation? I drew parallels to another case where Duke committed anti-trust violations doing what seems to me to be the same thing. I stated earlier that I do not think that any funding for any project should be achieved in this way as I believe financing a project using ratepayer dollars (without express consent) during a time of a rate hike is misappropriations, regardless of the dollar amount. The anti-trust threshold is for the courts to decide, again. This may indeed be off topic but did the city have the right to negotiate the entire amount as they were acting as a user? I believe they overstepped their bounds in the negotiation itself and perhaps acted on its own behalf, and not that of the consumer, many of which live outside of the city limits.

This is the streetcar thread right? How is means of funding for the streetcar off topic?

Uhh-huh. I was all content to sit back and watch tv but this must be my senseless back to your forth I suppose. From what I deem to be unethical funding schemes that are in effect a back door tax. (said it again, doesn't make it any less true) To arguing about every dollar that goes to any other project that should "go to the streetcar". There seems to be no limits to the handouts that you are reaching for at anyones expense. Say its not true, say I am making it up and we can continue on while I post the quotes from the various other threads by several of the proponents that show what I am saying, but I believe you have already seen them. Then dismiss any descent and try and end an argument that shows the holes in this initiative. I am against the tactics, not the project and todays news was just more of the same that I have unfortunately come to expect.

And to you. This is just another reason that more and more people are turned off by the streetcar; not the streetcar itself necessarily, but the tactics that the proponents are willing to employee and turn a blind eye to in order to get this going. The other, more general blogs seem to be reflecting this turn away from what could be a project that could stand alone without resorting to hidden financing. Good luck to getting a streetcar going anytime soon.

Considering we are on the Cincinnati Streetcar thread I thought that was the one item that really had meaning here. It is also the one item that I have heard should not go in front of the voters of Ham. County because it doesn't involve a tax increase yet this is a backdoor tax that will go even beyond the limits of Ham County. . I am a commercial real estate agent who has been involved in the negotiation and consultation of several large projects and have a sense of what is and what is not proper forms of financing both on a public and private level. That career is working out just fine for me, but thanks for asking.

yeah, that sounds about right considering what I do for a living. 6.5 million to drop the cities opposition to PUCO. Nothing strange there at all. Why is there fear to take this to the voters and let them decide? I have a moral dilemma with putting the cost of the streetcar on the backs of everyone in the Duke service area without their consent. What is their recourse? Clayton Act comes to mind now that John brought it up but short of that they will just have to pay.

when it includes $6.5 million to help Cincinnati build a streetcar system that Duke paid in exchange for dropping opposition to a rate increase. I would call that unethical yes.

One side says the proper funding mechanism for the streetcar is a rate hike by Duke. The other says that voters should have the right to choose whether or not to fund something without the temperature of their home being attached to it. This is a backdoor tax. I can't believe that any company or entity of any means with attorneys on retainer would ever go outside of the letter of the law although it does seem that this same issue came up as an anti-trust violation just a couple years ago. Did they just get lawyers recently down there at duke?

Justify it anyway you like. I am not defending any part of Duke's operations outside creating and distributing the utilities. Do you believe that the Duke customers outside of Downtown would agree with you or do you think they would be a little upset on knowing their monthly utility dollars are going for the creation of a streetcar? Heck, I am downtown myself and see a major ethical problem with it but I am not here trying to defend an initiative at all cost. One day this same tactic will be used on something that you are less than enthusiastic about and then perhaps my point will hit home.

If you want to make those distinctions then fine. I know that money will come from a source because of this deal. That source will be you and I and thousands of others in the service area to pay for a new transportation initiative. I, and perhaps I am alone here believe that the appropriate bill you and I should recieve for this initiative should not come in the form of KWH used, but instead a taxing system of some kind (take your pick). It is a blind, backdoor tax, anyway you slice it as the ratepayer has no choice to help fufill the obligation Duke just made in exchange for power and heat. asking price vs sale price. They could have requested a 50% increase settling for only 4 and then everyone would really be happy. That is the game. Do you feel like you won something by only getting a 4% increase on an already astronomical bill?

Sure, but not in associations with a rate hike. The timing isn't just suspicious with the giving, it was a calculated negotiation to get one party what it wanted in exchange for the other party getting what it wanted. It didn't have to be streetcar, it could have been any number of payoffs to any number of organizations and the outcome is still the same. This is not the appropriate way to raise dollars, not from Duke, but from ratepayers who have already been squeezed for basic utility needs.

Probably the same lawyers that said they didn't before with the '04 hike (thank God judges, not lawyers make those conclusions). But as I said, if you are ok with backdoor funding through utilities, so be it. I hope the rest of the Duke coverage area is just as excited as you are.

I have only heard it called Anti-trust. Taxpayers, not ratepayers should be the one's making the decision on paying the bills for a streetcar vs paying the bill to heat and light their homes.

Yes, because it wasn't in exchange necessarily dollar for dollar, it was exchange for no longer opposing. Senseless to the extent that some are OK with this. As I posted above, I am not the first to raise issues like this with DUKE. AP "lawsuit charging antitrust violations also has been filed over the contracts. It claims the payments were kickbacks that Duke paid in exchange for the companies dropping opposition to a rate increase in 2004". and the story today "The city of Cincinnati was one of several large power consumers to oppose Duke’s rate request to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio."

Please tell me you get this and are just playing Devil's Advocate here. If you want to defend this method, then so be it. As I said, you and I just have two different sets of moralities when it comes to funding. I will go ahead and pay my energy bill so you guys can get started.

While others call it anti-trust violations. What just happened? City dropped opposition to PUCO for a rate increase while getting how much? AP

It has nothing to do with trust. As you said, it is a negotiation, a give and take. Do you believe that they would have come in at exactly what they actually wanted knowing that they would be hit up for every handout under the sun? If you don't think that the city always has its hand out then you place greater trust in government than I do. Should utility money that goes up and up, paid by everyone here, go to fund a streetcar?

You and I exist on two different worlds obviously with two very different sets of moralities when it comes to funding means. So be it. Randy, you are not that naive. Dollar in vs dollar out should be the determinant on the rate hike. The additional dollars that went into the streetcar was factored in. I guess you will just have to trust me that they took a close look on both sides to the accounting. I simply look at it as misappropriations of utility money but as you said, I guess this is just par for the course.

I must have looked over this somehow.... Are you kidding me? just so happen to occur during the negotiation process? The city got what it wanted in way of cash out of the deal and Duke got what it wanted which was for the city to stop opposing them to PUCO so they could go ahead with a rate hike. I am not making an argument about this, I am stating fact. My argument comes in to play when I say this is not how we should raise money for the streetcar as you are doing it on the backs of people who are cutting a check every month and do not realize that a portion of it went to a project they may or may not support. Would you argue the other way?