natininja

That article was laying the groundwork for Enquirer opposing Issue 48. They don't want the streetcar to die, because the controversy would die with it. That controversy is their bread & butter. They can advocate for both sides by egging on the clown show of the opposition, giving them a soapbox and advertising their ballot petition. Then when it comes to the actual ballot issue, they need to fall back on the facts a little bit to keep the issue alive.

They aim for plausible deniability. They won't endorse Smitherman. They probably won't endorse Issue 48, either.

Welcome to UO, top6. How do you like your place at the Banks?

^ Cool, thanks for the info. I was joking about really looking forward to Toby Keith's, btw. (Though I truly am curious about it opening, as I am other Banks businesses.) I know it was unpopular among people on the board, me included, so I was just being ironic. But I realize it's feasible I could've been serious, so here's my disclaimer.

You're joking, right? Do you know how long it took Le Banks to even be underconstruction to begin with? Hell, I was posting about Le Banks on my old website (Cincinnatiuprise) when half this forum was in junior high! You should be surprised if ANY restaurant is open by now!!! It's just that all these places were supposed to open this summer (correct me if I'm wrong). When the Holy Grail opened on schedule for opening day, then residents started moving in in June, it seemed like other places would be steadily opening doors. That hasn't happened, though. It's fine, I'm just impatient like everyone else. I don't want to wait for the Banks businesses to open. I don't want to wait for the park to finish, nor the Lager House. Nor Washington Park, for that matter. And certainly not the streetcar! What I'm most looking forward to, though, is Toby Keith's I Love This Bar & Grill. Anyone know the ETA on that?

All this Banks stuff seems to be opening much slower than expected. I wonder why. At least Holy Grail opened; otherwise it would be dead down there!

Thanks :mrgreen:

Reduce the travel lanes and add shoulders. Voila. Too much congestion? Toll it. For local traffic, there are several other options. For through traffic, there is 275. Why spend billions? Really???

^ Can anyone summarize for those of us who don't like to click on Enquirer links (at least not this week)?

^ Yeah, I would assume it's for people making <$25,900. $766/month would be pretty steep for such a person. Hope utilities are included!

This is an actual case of the nebulous "uncertainty" Tea Party types are usually complaining about. It makes things tough for businesses who might make decisions based on something being one way or the other. So economic activity is disrupted. In this case, it's been the Tea Party types causing uncertainty for 3 years or so. Without the persistence of a small but vocal group, the matter would have been settled 2 years ago. On a related note, my father is not a streetcar advocate by any means (though he is not exactly against it, either). However, he is disgusted by having to vote on the issue again. Really disgusted. He'll be voting against Issue 48 primarily for this reason. I think it would be wise for Cincinnatians for Progress to press this issue: didn't we already vote on this? Isn't it abuse of the system to vote on the same thing, year after year? "Say NO to abusing democracy. Vote NO on Issue 48." -- something like that. Maybe make the language more folksy?

^^ Public transit vehicles would seem to be a public use, but if you want to dispute that it requires more legal research. It seems even less plausible than your previous position, though. Where is it stated the thing banned must be a streetcar? That's exactly what it avoids by using the term 'streetcar system', which is given a broad definition, instead of using 'streetcar'. It is defined by COAST in the amendment to mean "a system of passenger vehicles operated on rails constructed primarily in existing public rights of way" -- it has nothing to do with the legal definition of streetcar. That's precisely the sleight we've been complaining about all along. <- dirty tricks It is interesting that the ballot language has clarified that it is primarily a restriction on the city, which the petition did not. However, it does restrict the city from appropriating money from other sources. This is a significant change from the petition, and brings questions in my mind about how far it is acceptable for the board of elections to change the wording of a ballot initiative.

Me too! Sounds like the coolest part of this project, based on Facepalm's description. Make that the only cool part of this project.

Sounds like the moment the Oasis Line would be "dedicated or otherwise designated" to be used for light rail, it would no longer be allowed to be used for light rail. Thanks for finding all that. I really do appreciate it! But I feel it confirms our fears, rather than refuting them.

I still haven't seen any real evidence to support Eighth and State's narrow definition of 'public right-of-way'. Absent any laws quoted which unambiguously state that the word 'public' (in context) refers to use rather than ownership, I won't be convinced the broader definition is invalid. Quoting a dictionary definition of 'public' is silly and proves nothing whatsoever. If you're so sure of yourself, 8&St8, you must have solid evidence. So why are you holding it back?

^ He's not from KY, so his constituents don't benefit. No surprise there.

It's better than just having 'streetcar', but only marginally as both are very misleading.

Wish someone would delete the past 5 or 6 posts...not productive & off-topic!

OMG, totally agree. The one that gets me the most is "reach out".

This is very cynical. It's like saying a used car salesman who can consistently make money by selling patched-up lemons as reliable cars is a "good businessman". He has no intention of making his customers happy. When a sports fan buys a ticket to see the Bengals, they want to see them win. He delivers a faulty product and just doesn't care. That's not a good businessman by any reasonable metric.

^ I also get the warning page (using Chrome). Pay close attention to the date of the article.

Houston is the 4th largest city by population. Albeit fairly sprawling.

Wow. Did that really come from a West Chester Township Administrator?

It's safer to assume the demolitions will happen.