Brutus_buckeye

I agree with much of what you said, but this point doesn't make sense to me. The ROI is still conservatively estimated at 2.7-to-1. The cost of this project has only went up by around 15%, mostly due to 2 years of delays caused by the opponents. If the cost were to skyrocket up to $200 million, I would not be in favor of it. I disagree with your assessment that streetcar supporters would support the project no matter the cost. Real quick - 1) Right now, you need to build it because the money has been spent already. 2) at the 133 million for phase 1, I did not necessarily feel the cost was worth it, but again that was my opinion and the cost had reached my personal threshold. 3) While $200 million may have been your max, in all fairness there are a few people here that are build at any cost. Plus part of the point was to reduce both sides positions to the absurd.

The problem is there are too many people on each side who are so entrenched in their positions that there is no reason anymore. On one side there are the streetcar zealots who feel the streetcar is the most important thing to be done to transit ever and is worth it at a cost of billions of dollars, price is not an option. On the other side there are those who are against the streetcar by any means and would kill it even it the project were 99% complete and due to open in a month. They would then remove the infrastructure so as not to be tempted to ever come up with the idea again. (I am a bit extreme on both sides I know) Problem is that neither side is willing to give an inch in the battle and therefore we are staring at the ridiculous situation we have today. As a disclaimer, My own position, was aligned with PG's. I was for the streetcar in principle but then I found the cost too high for the ROI. I would not have gone forward a few years ago. However, my view lost in council, did I agree with the decision, no, but the voters spoke at that time. Now while the voters have spoken again in their desire to kill the project, realistically, they have passed the point of no return. To do so now would be very financially imprudent. Both sides need to look at this now and say, 1) we have agreed to build the first phase and have progressed too far to cancel this now. However 2) Cranley and his supporters can claim a win because he can shelve plans for Phase II. At this point that is the only reasonable plan.

looks like this is going to start up again in January

I do admire your ambition. I don't live in the city anymore either though, so my thoughts do not carry as much weight

Jack - "Conservative" Is not a four letter word. There is nothing wrong with being conservative and in many areas it is a good thing. I consider myself a progressive conservative who is for the streetcar because I see a lot of value in it. I think it is good for the region and there are a lot of intangible benefits that stem from it. That being said, while I am in favor of it, this does not mean it gets a blank check. If costs rose to $500 million for phase 1, then I do not believe it is a great investment As of now, I think it is worth going forward and hope the project continues. The other issue I take with your letter to Cranley is that while you may be a Stakeholder who is interested in the region, you are not a tax payer so really your opinion does not count as much as someone who has skin in the game. If Cranley were reading your letter, he would probably think that I don't really care what this guy thinks because he cant vote for me and pays no taxes toward the streetcar either. So while it is nice you are supportive of the streetcar, your letter will carry little weight since you have no skin in the game.

The radio said this grocery store and apartment tower were now off because there is no financing now that the parking deal fell through, but the radio sometimes will mis report things. Still waiting for clarity on this

I know a lot of democrats who supported Cranley because they just did not like the way things were going structurally with the long term budget issues that were developing in the city. It went much beyond the street car issue. That was collateral damage in their view. Ultimately, they felt that some of the deals selling off long term assets to balance the budget were not in the sound long term interest of the city. Cranley promised to structurally balance the budget, that was a key selling point to a lot of democrats too. It is a myth that the Tea Party got Cranley elected. There is not enough of a Tea Party presence in the city to do so. They all live in Butler County, etc. Cranley got elected because he catered to moderates and Roxanne ran a crappy campaign.

I really know nothing about Pam Thomas to make an opinion on her, she has only be there such a short time. While I disagree with Smitherman in many cases, he at least presents an argument from a financial perspective with numbers and figures. While I tend to disagree with his figures, at least I can see his logic and where it is coming from, you can at least debate that. My problem with Laure is that she just seems like a flake to me, based on the interviews she has given. She is not someone I trust with my tax dollars. Everything is about art and beautification of the city, paint more murals, etc. While I agree with her on these issues, there are more important priorities that need to be taken care of before you can get to the "would nice to have" part of the list. She cannot quantify the return on any of her initiatives. For example, use Seelbach and the bathroom issue. He had a quantifiable number that he was able to project to the voters, whether you agree with him or not, he at least had facts to stand behind. Simpson is able to do the same thing (whether or not you agree with her numbers, she has them) Laure, cannot project these figures. If I am going to trust her with my tax dollars I want to hear something besides, "because it will look pretty, and it makes people feel good"

I think you're looking at the wrong deity. If God had been involved, Smithermn, Winburn & Sittenfeld would be gone. Electing the Prince of Lies mayor seriously indicates other forces at work. Nope, Laure was a joke and the worst member of council. It is good she is gone, my dog would do a better job than her on council

She will be a great fit for the school board.

Thank God Laure is gone.

Sure, you want someone who understands the issues. Someone who can make sound decisions with the tax payer money with the information available, Laure has no ability to do this. When you ask her what the city needs, all she says is more art work, more murals, etc. Now while these things are important there should be a pragmatic approach to this. While she supports the streetcar she blindly supports a bunch of other projects without any rationale for the costs, etc. At least Qualls, Seelbach, etc have demonstrated they at least take those isues into consideration. As far as I am concern Quinliven is a worthless clown. You've got her to a "T". Unfortunately, she tends to vote quite often on items I agree with that come before City Council, so *sigh* she gets my vote. It is not like she is the only hope for the streetcar. There are other candidates that could bebetter and worth a look

Sure, you want someone who understands the issues. Someone who can make sound decisions with the tax payer money with the information available, Laure has no ability to do this. When you ask her what the city needs, all she says is more art work, more murals, etc. Now while these things are important there should be a pragmatic approach to this. While she supports the streetcar she blindly supports a bunch of other projects without any rationale for the costs, etc. At least Qualls, Seelbach, etc have demonstrated they at least take those isues into consideration. As far as I am concern Quinliven is a worthless clown.

Whatever your thoughts on the streetcar, don't vote for Laure Quinliven, she is a joke and an embarrassment to the city and has no business on council

That is the one. Would love to see any old articles on this if possible.

Love this article, now does anyone have any history on the plastic tree conservatory they were going to build in that spot. Glad it did not get built, cant believe some of the fools on council at that time thought a conservatory was a good idea.

so is this actually going to get built anytime in the next century?

the Residence Inn in Lytle Park was not new construction.

She said it was the first new construction hotel in Cincinnati, I believe she meant downtown. SpringHill is not considered downtown and the other hotels were all in existing buildings so they are not new construction. The last new construction hotel downtown was the Hyatt

No trip to the Cuse is complete without a photo from the original Dinosaur Barbeque.

Ryan, you say keep it going if that $50 million ends up being only 10% of the overall cost? that logic makes no sense. If you pull the plug because after spending $50 million it was because that money was spent poorly without proper planning. If the project mushrooms to 1 billion or more (I am not saying it will) then 50 million is a tiny drop in the bucket. The more time that goes by, and the higher the project costs go will only peel off more and more support for it and then all that will be left are the zealots that want it built at all costs and despite all other programs.

I have seen the bathrooms there jam packed before on weekends. There is a need to do something, I am glad someone is thinking outside the box to try out what has worked well in Portland. That should be Findlay Market's problem to solve, not the city's. The port authority controls the market. It is their issue.

what a dumb idea and waste of money. There are public restrooms available at Findlay Market, people can use those.

Like it but wish they went all the way around with the seats to make it more symmetrical. Also wish they at least got the seating to 40,000

^ John, that is correct