bbrown

Thanks for clarifying that John. I don't want anyone misunderstanding what I was conveying. The TRAC board should be treated as the friend they have been to this project for the past few years.

I had read about your email response from one of the members. I am hoping that if enough people can contact them with a reasonable argument, or just implore them to uphold their previous votes, that TRAC will approve the projects once again. These letters should be more fact based and supportive of the purpose of TRAC and their ranking system. What I'm hoping is to get the board to approve the project, which would then come into conflict with the general assembly's newly passed amendment. Then the legality of that amendment could be challenged in court because it violates the previous law from 1997 that established TRAC and its ranking system. I would think that at least some of the TRAC members are upset about the governor and the assembly stepping on their turf and trying to force their hand. I know I don't like being told how or when to do my job by an outsider, they probably don't either.

Here are the emails for all the TRAC members excluding Wray. William Brennan – Commissioner, Division of Building Inspection, City of Toledo- [email protected] Robert Clarke Brown Treasurer for Case Western Reserve University – [email protected] Patrick Darrow – Secretary/Treasure & Business Manager for Teamsters Local 348 – [email protected] Bill Dingus – Executive Director, Lawrence County Chamber of Commerce – [email protected] Ray Di Rossi = [email protected] Antoinette A. Selvey-Maddox – Senior Management Advisor, Management Partners, Inc – this page will take you to her email http://www.managementpartners.com/asp/emailform.asp?ID=36 Patrick J. Ungaro – Former Mayor of Youngstown, Ohio – [email protected]

I don't disagree with that statement, but I definitely think it would help the development. I was commenting more on the fact that not one of those interviewed, including the mayor, were quoted about the streetcar project running through the development. Now maybe no one in fact did say anything about the streetcar, but unfortunately the Enquirer does not have the benefit of the doubt in any mention of the streetcar and I am highly skeptical that if it was in fact mentioned that they would put it in print. I'm sure I am not alone in this thought.

Another project that has been belittled for years is now being seen in positive light. Fight tooth and nail to not support something, then once it finally happens you sit back and say, "huh this isn't so bad after all". Funny how not one person had a quote about the streetcar running through this development. I'm sure that even if one of the numerous people said anything about it, the Enquirer wouldn't stoop so low as to omit it right? :wink:

http://xingcolumbus.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/cincinnati-streetcar-under-attack/ This lists the emails for most of the TRAC members William Brennan – Commissioner, Division of Building Inspection, City of Toledo- [email protected] Robert Clarke Brown Treasurer for Case Western Reserve University – [email protected] Patrick Darrow – Secretary/Treasure & Business Manager for Teamsters Local 348 – [email protected] Bill Dingus – Executive Director, Lawrence County Chamber of Commerce – [email protected] Antoinette A. Selvey-Maddox – Senior Management Advisor, Management Partners, Inc – this page will take you to her email http://www.managementpartners.com/asp/emailform.asp?ID=36 Patrick J. Ungaro – Former Mayor of Youngstown, Ohio – [email protected]

Yes she is. She must be Kasich's go to when he needs a bill sponsored in the assembly.

I would think that by simply delaying the extension of the streetcar line to uptown, and building the same planned route in the basin, that a new review process could be avoided. It would be the same project, the same route, and the same environmental report. Except that the uptown spur would be "delayed" until funding is secured. This is politics, so semantics can have a lot to do with how the process can move forward.

If this bill in the general assembly passes, and TRAC votes to approve the project, I would hope for a very interesting court battle challenging the bill. I would hope that if somehow the state blocks the funding, Cincinnati will move forward with a route just involving the basin.

Anyone know if LaHood is being contacted regarding the misuse of federal funds?

My guess is he doesn't have the votes in the TRAC to block this project so he introduced this amendment to the general assembly. By bypassing the TRAC, he has to be committing a gross violation of the law that created the TRAC. But I wouldn't be surprised for him to just change that law too. All hail the KING!!!

Sometimes I wish I was a lawyer and filthy rich so I could litigate things like this for fun. Anyone know if anyone has the financial backing and know how to fight these recent and arguably illegal actions against the streetcar project?

Washington Park is being extended to 14th. They are currently digging the underground parking structure and and event lawn will be on top of it. 3CDC seems to be moving on a street by street basis. Projects have already begun on Race, and they will increase with the completed renovation of Washington Park.

KJP, So I assume that you are implying that the city could take legal action against the state or Kasich, to stop the money from being spent on lesser ranking projects because it will not be in the faith in which the federal money was awarded? If he influences the TRAC I would think he is violating the law. If he appropriates money to a less worthy project, then he would be in violation of the federal grant. It seems like either a citizen, group, or the city could file papers in court challenging either of these, especially with the ridiculous comments he is making in public. If this happens I hope it ends up in court. If he is allowed to continuously make decisions that are illegal or muddled and no one challenges him, then he will never stop. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't stop regardless, and if a court case ruled against him he would find some way to give the money back to the federal government just out of spite. I think he thinks he is John Wayne. To use his own words, "he's an idiot". I feel better now.

If the criteria for the TRAC ranking system is changed can the federal government pull funding its funding from it since it was awarded with a certain formula in mind? Also, if they chose to fund a lower ranked project can the city really sue?

Options 3-5 could be great for the area. I could see Fairmont being an awesome little enclave of urban living if brought to its full potential.

^Correct, but there have been plans for a while for a new Walmart in Harrison on New Haven. Not sure what is going on with this. I think there has been some resistance from the community.

REK, I completely understand what you are saying, and I'm sorry that your wife has to go through such an ordeal. I have worked in inner city public schools and realize how hard it can be on a teacher. The example you give provides great insight into the situation, and is great information to bring forward so that a healthy discussion on the matter can take place.

I see it as paying them a fair wage for a critical service that has no competitive market. I do not see it as them essentially robbing the taxpayers with excessive salaries, especially since the salaries are nothing to write home about. I would view taking away their right to collectively bargain as regressive, and a violation of worker's rights that has been protected for decades. However, you are entitled to your opinion, and I have no problem with that, nor am I here to say you are wrong. In my view, if it truly is this financial aspect he is concerned with, he would take the concessions and rescind the tax breaks he just approved. Then focus on where else to cut. I feel the worker is being scapegoated not only in Wisconsin, but in Ohio and all the other states undertaking similar legislation. I would even choose layoffs before a union would give up their collective bargaining rights. Also, if legislatures choose to layoff or cut the pay of workers, then they have to be ready to accept the consequences. For example, one of my major concerns is our educational system. Recently, it has shown signs of improvement, but only very slightly. Research has shown that smaller class sizes greatly improve student performance, but this would require more teachers. However, there are not enough people going to school to become teachers. When interviews are conducted with college students and they are asked why they did not choose to go into teaching, the most often stated answer is because it does not pay well. Further exacerbating the problem, teachers have high burnout rates from high stress levels, so they need to be replaced at higher rates than other sectors. So from my point of view, teachers salaries need to be improved, and funding to recruit students to go into teaching needs to be increased. Corporate businesses can bankroll their own recruitment efforts, but who are the schools, and subsequently our future, supposed to turn to. They are not a for profit institution.

Oh no! The mayor spent $30,000 dollars to bring in hundreds of millions of dollars, how dare he! In all seriousness though, do any of you think that having a city manager government benefits us in this case? While the city manager is here running the city, it can allow the mayor to travel to promote the city and spur more interest in the what the city has to offer. If it allows us to get more conventions, funding, and recruit businesses here I can hardly see the detrimental effect.

^ I never doubted that in his mind he is doing what he thinks is right. However, to the infamy of their names, many people in the past have done what is right in their own minds. It doesn't mean that it is right, or even that it is popular. People in the past have stood up for what they believe is right, and were proven right in the long run, but it usually has to do with preserving some right or protecting a certain group, not taking something away from someone. In other words its usually a progressive action not a regressive action. Also, I do think that he is delusional if he thinks eliminating collective bargaining is what he ran on or that it is what the people elected him to do. He ran on no such platform, and it is not the majority opinion on the matter.

Walker: "...an interesting idea that was brought up to me this morning by my chief of staff, we won’t do it until tomorrow, is putting out an appeal to the Democrat leader that I would be willing to sit down and talk to him, the assembly Democrat leader, plus the other two Republican leaders — talk, not negotiate — and listen to what they have to say if they will in turn — but I’ll only do it if all 14 of them come back and sit down in the state Assembly. They can recess it, to come back if we’re talking, but they all have to be back there. The reason for that is, we’re verifying it this afternoon, but legally, we believe, once they’ve gone into session, they don’t physically have to be there. If they’re actually in session for that day and they take a recess, the 19 Senate Republicans could then go into action and they’d have a quorum because they started out that way..." What he is saying is that if he can lure them back under the illusion that he wants to talk to them (although he says in the quote not to negotiate but one can only speculate what he would tell the democrats to get them back), then when role is taken in the morning in essence they are present for the entire session for the day even if they are not physically present. So when they go to recess, the 19 republicans could vote on the bill because they would have quorum, due to the fact that the democrats were present at the beginning of the session and therefore, even if not physically present, they would technically be present on the books. I'm guessing all their votes would just be marked as abstaining. Seems pretty insidious to me.

^ I would argue that the existence of unions keeps the pay of non-union workers higher than employers would like them to be so that they can remain competitive and keep their employees. If there were no unions, non-union employers would pay their employees whatever they wanted and keep their benefits lower so that they can keep more profits for themselves. Also, I would argue union prices keep construction costs at a level that allows non-union companies to compete while maintaining decent profits. Without the union bids, I think the bid process would involve companies bidding so low to get work that it cuts into their profits and how they treat their workers. Also, in this environment corners would be cut in safety to improve the employers bottom line. I know as a former non-union construction employee, that safety was sacrificed to complete jobs under budget to maintain profits. Also, we were precluded from some jobs because to meet the level of safety needed to protect the workers would require substantial costs and investment in safety and therefore eliminate profits. For example, a water main or sewer main project would require huge investment in trench boxes, street plates, heavy equipment, and extra employees to maintain the proper level of safety, and usually private companies cannot make this type of investment without sacrificing a satisfactory profit. I do not argue with your point that union costs inflate the cost of materials, but because of my aforementioned points, I think there is presently a healthy balance.

I disagree. I think people support the fact that people from all walks of life will have to sacrifice to help cut the deficit. Even the unions have shown that they are willing to take cuts in benefits and pay over the last few years and in the present day, they just don't want to give up their unions. However, taking from the working class while giving tax breaks to corporations and the rich is not a good political strategy and polling shows that the public overwhelmingly disagrees with this course of action. Also, Kasich ran on cutting pay and benefits to public sector workers, but he did not say he would eliminate collective bargaining. So to say the public supports the elimination of collective bargaining is reaching. This article was recently posted by the Enquirer. It looks like someone made the decision to lock the statehouse. Looks like the courts will have to open the house of the people so that the opinions of the people can be exercised. This is definately not in the faith of democracy, and in the least seems to be a direct violation of first amendment rights. http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110222/NEWS0108/302220065/Statehouse-locked-amid-union-protest

^I hope you guys can fill their lawyer's plates with all kinds of infractions and legal questions that need to be answered. Time to play hardball...