natininja

I'm not so sure about that. The article states they are looking to make changes that fit for the next 30 - 50 years. Have you seen the changing demographics of the basin vs. an area like Mt Airy? The real estate values in Mt. Airy are going into the toilet, while downtown and the basin for the most part is trending the other way. The "urban poor" you speak of are increasingly becoming "inner ring suburb poor". Mt. Airy is never going to have the transit accessibility that Downtown has (and will continue to have). Even if you can't afford to live Downtown, it makes sense to keep it as your administrative center. Unless you want to put BOE branch offices in every far-flung low-income area.

A county in debt, selling off its assets. Will the anti-parking lease crowd cry foul? I'm betting no.

The biggest impacts of canceling would not be in OTR, but in Walnut Hills, Mount Auburn, Corryville, West End, Fairmount, Price Hill, Camp Washington, and other neighborhoods that would eventually capture urban revitalization momentum. Slow down the momentum, and it will take decades for these neighborhoods to have a chance at the pie. OTR will be fully revitalized within ten years, regardless. The other big impact will be Downtown, where land values will continue to be so pathetically low that property owners see value in surface parking lots. What a drain on the local economy.

I might be wrong, but I think the problem is a combination of cold weather and people limiting their collection pool to whoever steps inside whatever business they're posting out in. Also, it seems most people didn't turn their petitions in yesterday, but I have to think the people who weren't motivated enough to do that probably weren't motivated enough to collect a ton of signatures, either. It's a shame the weather has sucked, but everyone needs to step up their game. I know, it's easy for me to criticize from afar. Just trying to be helpful, though. Good luck!!! I still have faith 12k is doable by Tuesday. Edit: If anyone lives in, or has friends living in, a big apartment building, that would be a good opportunity to go door-to-door, cover a lot of people in a short time, and stay warm while doing so. Many more people are in apartment buildings over the course of an hour than a coffee shop.

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. Can you supply quotes, please? Because I'm just not confident that you're correct. Though I agree it would make the most sense, I am too conditioned to expect nonsense that I need proof beyond an unreasonable doubt. Awesome! I have been feeling like supporters could be picking up a lot more signatures if they weren't taking the tact you describe in your night at Arnold's. I think standing out on a street in NBDs would be more effective. However, I realize it's cold, and the signature goal is likely to be met, regardless. But if the 12000-by-tonight goal is not met, I think it would be advisable for people to spend a bit more time outside rather than sitting at a bar or a table in a coffee shop. Just my opinion, as someone who's following on social media but can't collect signatures where I am. Findlay Market tomorrow sounds like an extremely good idea, BTW. There's room enough there for 3-5 people, probably.

I agree that it makes no sense. But when has Cranley made sense when talking about the streetcar. Maybe I haven't read enough, but when I read things like: (Source) I take them in the least streetcar-friendly way possible. Which is to say ROI via tax revenue is off the table, according to Cranley. "Flynn indicated he would support restarting the project if the operating costs can be taken off of the city’s books." It makes no sense, unless you look at it as a non-compromise meant to appear as a willingness to compromise. Maybe I'm too pessimistic. Please prove to me that I am.

If we take Cranley's words at face value, from what I gather, using ROI gained thru taxes is off the table for streetcar operations.

^ Only way I could see that happening is if Cranley (or Flynn & Mann) allows for the streetcar's ROI to discount or reimburse what private money is needed. We've yet to hear anything about that. It would be insane to expect Haile to just hand over $80m or whatever, and let the city just keep all the ROI.

Laughing stock of the nation? I highly doubt that. Up here in NEO, if 1 out of 10 people even knew that Cincy was building a streetcar, I would be highly surprised. It's a huge local issue, for sure. But nobody around the nation - save for the train geeks (sorry, KJP) - is paying much attention. It actually is getting national media attention, and in urbanist circles it's very much on the radar. Anchorage Daily News reported on it: http://www.adn.com/2013/12/09/3221929/group-trying-to-save-cincinnati.html "Laughing stock of the nation" is hyperbole, but it's not ridiculously far off. People around the country will hear about it. And the vast majority of people will think it's completely absurd and amateurish. The NY Time is apparently working on a story. They interviewed Councilman Seelbach today. Businessweek apparently already wrote about it. Again, I know it's not like everyone in the country is going to learn about it (sh!t, they don't learn about anything). But there's national press covering this whole...whatever it is.

I like this term Pyrrhic Victory! It fits perfectly. Right? I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT

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 Okay. Sorry, I thought you were saying a SID was necessary in order to make the streetcar "pay for itself." I agree, there needs to be a mechanism to measure ROI, so that private backing is not an outright donation. But Cranley says he is opposed to using any city funds to pay for operations, which, strictly speaking, would even rule out SID tax revenue. He probably isn't intending that strict an interpretation, but who knows. He might just be using this "compromise" as a way of dampening the dictatorial aesthetics of cranceling, by making an unworkable offer. Theoretically, the ROI measure could be used without an SID, but the SID would be a reasonable concession to make the situation more palatable to council, and perhaps to private backers as well.

^ If no SID were set up, the answer to the question would be that increased economic activity, combined with increased property values, would result in increased tax revenue (e.g. payroll & property), which would go into the general fund. The general fund is where operating costs come from. However, I think you have an assumption which you aren't making explicit which would lead to that "not working" in your eyes.

^^ Hard to tell, but they both have the same logical implication: the man is despicable.

Laughing stock of the nation? I highly doubt that. Up here in NEO, if 1 out of 10 people even knew that Cincy was building a streetcar, I would be highly surprised. It's a huge local issue, for sure. But nobody around the nation - save for the train geeks (sorry, KJP) - is paying much attention. It actually is getting national media attention, and in urbanist circles it's very much on the radar. Anchorage Daily News reported on it: http://www.adn.com/2013/12/09/3221929/group-trying-to-save-cincinnati.html "Laughing stock of the nation" is hyperbole, but it's not ridiculously far off. People around the country will hear about it. And the vast majority of people will think it's completely absurd and amateurish.

It's astonishing how Cranley has created a hostage situation. "Hey, philanthropists, pay up or I'll throw a bunch of taxpayer money into the furnace. Clock is ticking, b*tches."

Three words: Troeg's Mad Elf That is all. Tried this the other night. I didn't know what to expect from it. In particular, didn't know it was Belgian-style. Didn't like it, but then that is not surprising since I'm rarely a fan of Belgian-style beers. Why do people love them so? I don't get it. Switched to one of the other 3 beers the place had on tap, Ballast Point's Sculpin IPA. Can't get enough of that stuff. Really. So very delicious. Near-perfection.

And it dispels the "zero-sum" axiom that property values inevitably decrease elsewhere as they grow in the city center. I can't believe people make that argument, but they do. I see it as a symptom of living most of your life in a slow-growth/stagnant metro. Staying stagnant is far from fate, but you must move to get out of the cycle. Like finishing a damn half-built streetcar.

I think their (Cranley/Flynn/Mann) position is going to be that fares & ridership must be high enough (and frequency low enough) for private backers to be happy with that as ROI. Which is cuckoo-nuts-crazy. The business sense in this thing comes from increased tax revenue.

I think we're scaring the daylights out of Cranley. He knows his 16% coalition is weak. My bet is the talk of recall has helped tremendously.

Would the unions support demanding a private underwriter for crancellation costs? Because crancellation is what would bi*tch-slap the operating budget.

I'm pretty sure he received an order of magnitude more than 6,388 votes.

Seelbach is correct. It's not true. Why would the FOP be there for that? I hope Cranley gets up there and whines with the cops and firemen about how a signature is a pink slip for public safety. Then an hour later someone announces private funding for operating costs. If that private money ever comes to fruition, he will try to take credit for it. By timing an announcement in that manner, he'd have a harder time doing so. Not to mention egg all over his face.

Or less.

So where did you see them? You make it sound like everyone should have known Cranley was in the lead, but that wasn't reported anywhere. Its extremely frustrating that they weren't, what kind of election doesn't have public polls beforehand? Yes, I agree.

Um, the polls of likely voters did. Those were never made public. Only place I ever heard any murmurings about them was here.