natininja

It's way different than Kasich. This thing has been under construction for months and in the works for 7 years. It has survived referendum twice. Survived council and mayoral elections. The previous council, elected in an election that the streetcar was a prominent issue, had a super majority of supporters. It is under contract. It will cost as much to stop as it does to complete. And only 16% of eligible voters voted him in, a significantly smaller total than the number of voters who voted to continue the project in the previous two referendums. The parallel with Kasich is very superficial.

Jos Callinet, you might find this interesting: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzgKRpRVtdE0WTNKVzg2QjhSXzg/edit?fb_source=message&pli=1 It's pretty obvious the people who know the answers to all your questions do not want to put all their cards on the table. But the signatures will be collected, and we'll see where it goes. Enjoy the ride, and try to keep your morale -- many others are keeping theirs.

These signatures are going to be collected in a snap. This process can be repeated for any cause this group is enthusiastic about. Anything at all. That is empowering. How much money has been spent on this particular signature drive?

For whatever it's worth... I saw this little tiny graphic preview of the proprietary Planetizen grad school guide: If you zoom in on it, you can see it has UC ranked #4 and OSU ranked #5 in the Midwest region. Probably puts them both around #20 nationally.

I think people are starting to hear more of the facts about what cancellation actually means. I also think a TON of Cranley voters thought he was all talk on the issue (the Enquirer seemed to think so), that things were past the point of no return. Then factor in that people opposed to cancellation are now in a heightened state of agitation, while the hardcore opponents feel like the momentum is in their direction. Add all this up, and I think a recall would be very doable. It really is THAT horrible policy/government. It's also illegal. But I don't think anyone is advocating to do it prior to either 1) the streetcar getting irreversibly "paused," or 2) something else similarly heinous happens. The 16% (17%?) factor is another reason why I think it's totally doable. Not many people actually wanted him in the first place!

Truth. I wonder if he is playing ball w/ Cranley to preserve his own job, after seeing Dohoney get chopped. Does Cranley have the power to fire Curp? Does council? Feds warned the city is in breach, but maybe that doesn't count? Look at all these urban hipsters blue-hairs... http://www.urbancincy.com/2013/12/the-plot-continues-to-thicken-for-cincinnatis-133m-streetcar-project/

So what's the deal with that letter to John Curp? Anyone know anything? On the surface, it seems a clear violation of state law not to be moving forward with construction.

I am tempted, but I refuse to click & read.

So they're going to start collecting signatures to amend the city charter for continuing construction? Why would this work? Seems to me the better option would be to argue in court that the votes last week are subject to referendum, on the grounds that the appropriations were for new expenditures. The appropriations exception, so far as I can tell, only applies when the money is for something (e.g. a contract) which has already been committed to.

If Mann's description of Cranley's promise to him that the feds wouldn't pull the funds is accurate, I would think Mann would be pretty pissed to read that letter and find out Cranley was talking out of his bum. Cranley needs to tame his hubris, or have some amazing stockpile of backroom deal capital, because I can't imagine his majority coalition on council will want to ride through all the waves. Is Tim Burke cool with Cranley picking fights with the Obama administration?

This is a full-on misinformation campaign, and the fact that Mann's Facebook post talks about success being possibly contingent upon the Uptown extension gives me a very bad feeling about his intention to listen to facts & reason.

He had no credibility to lose with anyone with a brain. So it really changes nothing. A CO member being exposed as a liar and hypocrite looking to leech off gov't handouts is par for the course.

^ I admit I didn't read your whole post, because I'm enthralled by the UC-Louisville football game. However, the problem with a corporate-funded system is that tax dollars are the way the city makes money off the project. Corporations can't collect taxes. I'll read your whole post when I get a chance. Again, happy you're contributing. Keep it up :)

With road projects, they also don't factor in the dilution of people (tax dollars) per infrastructure mile effected by development the road project enables. Maintaining that infrastructure is not free or even cheap.

I don't get why he was against private money being used for the study and concurrent construction. And voting against his own question being answered??! Seems like Cranley is pulling strings. I liked Mann while I was growing up in Clifton. He was integral to getting the Esquire back as a theater instead of being demolished. But I now get the sense he is out of touch, and symbolizes the old-school Cincy which has been in terminal decline.

You've got that right. And it's a vicious cycle, as the Good Ol' Boy policymakers prevent people with an expanded outlook from moving to the region. Keeps them in power. I wonder if the regional airport would be doing any better if it were located in the northern rather than southern burbs. Would Ohioans do any better? Would better access to Dayton & Columbus matter? Or would it just be Boehner's boys running things into the ground instead of Mitch McConnell's?

The majority of the goddamn studies were about the downtown loop. The 3-to-1 ROI figure is for the downtown loop. David Mann trying to make the Uptown Connector a part of the conversation when considering whether to go forward with the Downtown Loop is a red herring, and once again makes me question whether he is at all genuine about an objective analysis. The other issue is it seems like the ROI factor is being ignored or brushed aside, when it's extremely relevant. Even if you're skeptical of the projected ROI (which should be vetted in the current study, but I'm not sure it is not simply being ignored), the ROI for finishing is CERTAINLY much higher than the zero ROI from not finishing. If this analysis is supposed to be independent & objective, they should hire transportation professionals & economists from outside the area. Not someone in the f*cking Cranley administration, who would obviously be no more objective than Deatrick, who they seem to think is biased but seems to me to be a reputable, honest, stand-up guy.

So does that mean they aren't even considering building Phase 1a and stopping? That would pretty much be rigging the whole thing, since they appear to be ignoring economics and just looking at accounting.

Not only, like I said before, is it important to remember that The 16% is very beatable in any future election, but we should remember that Quinlivan lost by 900 votes to Murray. That right there is the difference between a pro- and anti- council majority. Slightly better turnout and we wouldn't even be close to where we are right now.

Blacks usually make up a disproportionately small proportion of voters. But assume they all voted for Obama, and assume they voted at a rate proportionate to their 44.8% of the population. Still a majority of non-black voters voted for Obama. At best (worst?), you have something like 20% of the voting public and 40% of non-blacks who did not vote for him. The voters for which 'progressive' is a dirty term, I conjecture, would be smaller than that. In terms of selling the merits of the streetcar, it would be more fruitful to reach out more to the black community. There is a significant group of core supporters for which the term 'progressive' is a selling point. At this point, though, the streetcar is not what needs to be sold. What needs to be sold is the far more obvious idea that the streetcar should be finished. And the people who need to be convinced of this, at this point, are first and foremost city council (more specifically Mann and Flynn), and secondarily power brokers & business leaders. Voters may become relevant again in the future, but right now they're tertiary at best.

You guys are forgetting how easy it is to defeat The 16% at the poll booths. We just need to make sure there are things on the ballot that motivate progressive voters. Progressive is not a dirty word in a city that voted 78% or whatever for Obama. That kind of talk is ridiculous. We're trying to appeal to city voters. Regardless, I agree the Monday morning quarterbacking is pointless. It's not over yet! What are our next moves? CO never gave up after their many, many seemingly irreversible defeats. Not over till it's over.

Yes, Cincy uses the city manager system. Thing is, the charter can be amended. If it were found that state law doesn't apply, that just potentially adds a step. And it seems to me it would be possible to do in one fell swoop, by enacting a charter amendment which sets up a mechanism for recall and immediately triggers that mechanism at once, upon passage of the amendment. IANAL, but I see no reason why that couldn't be done.

Speaking of Californian Imperial IPAs, I recently had the pleasure of trying out Firestone Walker's Double Jack. At 9.5%, splitting a growler between myself and my partner had us both pretty well gone, haha. But it was hard to stop drinking...great stuff. I haven't had Stone Ruination in a while, but I dare say DJ was quite a bit better for my taste. Which is saying something.

^^

I got some Cincy beer over the holiday. MadTree's Happy Amber was my favorite. It's pretty hop-forward for an amber ale, which is a-ok in my book.