LincolnKennedy

Whoa!!! You totally misunderstood what I said. If anything, access to CUT is a necessary add-on to the $400 million 3C "Quick Start." But it cannot be paid for out of the $400 million unless the FRA gives the OK. Chances are it won't, which is why the port authority needs to press ahead with its planning to get CUT funded as an added project component. We can add components that enhances 3C "Quick Start" to our hearts' content -- as long as there's new funding for it and the planning is reflective of the public input. "So Ohio can't just accept the money, make the improvements on the ground and delay the start of the inter-city rail service." "That's correct, John. The 3C project has to be underway by a certain deadline but I don't know what that is." "Again, using the local desire to go to Cincinnati Union Terminal as an example, the NEPA-required preliminary engineering and environmental documentation (such as an environmental assessment or categorical exclusion) needed to do this is estimated to cost $1 million. Final design will add another $2 million. By the time this work is done, it will be likely be 2013 -- then construction can start." "If we don't use it now, it goes back to the feds for them to use on another state's shovel-ready RAIL project. It cannot be used for anything other than rail." *** I suppose for the sake of modesty I admit it is possible that I misunderstood the above. Just about anything's possible. ^Too mods go head to head. Who will be the first to delete the other's posts?

Well good luck with that. I suggest you read the campaign literature again displayed above and Kasich's quotes on the project and ask yourself if people who willfully misrepresent a project to voters are capable of being "converted". Most people assume that this issue should be one that is voted on the merits rather than politicized, but the Republicans have politicized the issue. And that's their choice. But there's no reason to engage with people who have displayed a contempt for objectivity and their responsibility as elected representatives to present to voters truthfully how fed dollars to states are allocated. Once again, if you think 3C is important for Ohio to implement, even though you swing to the Republicans on other issues, you're still better off voting Democratic in order to prove unequivocally to the Republicans that running against rail is a losing issue. That is the best and most effective way to "convert" these folks- by showing them that running against passenger rail is a loser at the ballot box. Nothing could be more definitive than running a campaign against rail and losing because of it.

Bond Hill is one of the most accessible areas of Cincinnati for the same reason Downtown is- the confluence of 71 & 75 as well as the old time major roads of Reading and Montgomery (and Paddock and Vine to a certain extent). I think that Lunken is actually a better and more accessible site than people give it credit for (close to 275 @ Kellogg and I-71 @ Red Bank, an exit that is also relatively close to the Norwood Lateral) but Downtown should be the preferred site and a temporary Bond Hill station is the still better. Sometimes you have to take the extra time and spend the extra money to do it right. That's what Michelangelo told Pope Julius II. The corollary to this is to tell politicians like Shannon Jones and John Kasich that they are not receiving your vote because of their short-sighted and disingenuous position on 3C rail. Or you could just vote for the Democratic candidates, since they are the ones talking about implementing 3C rail and the Republicans are using it as an issue to run against.

What the market has to say? What has the market had to say about privately funded transportation options since 1920? Absolutely nothing. Anyone who expects any transportation systems to be privately built without any government subsidy is kidding themselves. Or we can look at it this way. What is the market saying about U.S. government debt. Well it's saying some pretty good things. Both short-term and long-term treasuries are selling at record low rates. So I guess the market is pleased with the prospect of getting a return on the market's investment in U.S. bonds, despite the low rate, and in turn, that means the market is endorsing the expenditures the U.S. government is undertaking. Now we know what the markets think. Who speaks for the people then? Opinion polls? Maybe, but they don't have any legal standing. So, why don't we assume for simplicity's sake that the people speak through their elected representatives?

^It is pretty sad and pathetic, but once again I'm not quite sure this is an effective tactic. This mail piece strikes me as being very targeted to people who are already going to be voting Republican (Shannon Jones is a Republican). The one thing that is becoming obvious is 1) whether or not we have rail in Ohio is a political choice, whether you want it to be or not, and 2) the Republicans are coming out against rail because they think it will win them votes and they typically don't represent the major cities. I don't think this will be a terribly galvanizing tactic for them, but they've taken it. So if you want rail in Ohio, it is imperative that you vote for Democratic candidates this November.

It's a shame that the City doesn't have the cash to start landbanking. Instead Qualls thinks we should sell our most valuable properties in down market to cover budget shortfalls.

And realize that the debate, in so much as I am proposing an argument, is that large companies with large number of employees act much in the same way that governments do with regard to pay during economic downturns- they cut hours or employees rather than cut pay. Basically if you work somewhere that you can, as the lowest ranking employee, at any given moment, walk in and talk to the owner or the person who determines your pay, than that doesn't count for the purposes of our discussion, because the point is that because large organizations don't have the personal connections between employer and employee that small businesses do, and therefore are less likely to be able to cut salary for that reason.

^Which company?

While I agree with you on this, unfortunately you are trumped by the Internet Rules of Procedure, adopted many internets ago, and not subject to change unless the Vice-President of Google calls a vote. Let me quote (Section XVI): ..."Notwithstanding the long-established methods of logic and evidence that are in widespread use both in scientific journals and courts of law, given the general make-up of folks who spend a great deal of time in web fora, primarily but not limited to: young college-age men who have a tough time getting dates and old cranks who love nothing more than the sound of their own voice repeating the same untested truisms as a simple answer to every one of the worlds problems [henceforth referred to as 'nerd(s)']; the opinion based on the limited personal experience or desire of a nerd, when applied to a topic of general discussion, shall hold absolute validity, despite any objective evidence or trend [henceforth referred to as 'fact(s)'] that may contradict said nerd's opinion." Sorry.

Right, but I guess the point of what I've been saying is that pay cuts are particularly hard for people to stomach so they do things that are "equivalent to a pay cut" like furloughs. That difference is inherent to my point that you simply don't see actual pay decreases happen very often, particularly for non-management employees.

Okay, but what if you've heard the opposition's arguments and you objectively judge the arguments to be ignorant and irrational? There's a difference between understanding why someone would position themselves in such a way ("I can understand an average voter being opposed to this because it is a big number [$400 million] and they have no experience with it") and accepting an inaccurate statement or concern as having any legitimacy ("Don't these chucklefucks realize that Ohio gets less in federal expenditure than it pays in federal taxes, and that this money is allocated to rail no matter what?") It is irrational or ignorant to object to 3C rail for the following supposed complaints: 1) we supposedly can't pay to operate the system, or 2) we should spend the money on something else, or 3) there's no supporting infrastructure after you get off the train [though just because someone might not want to ride the bus doesn't mean that the bus system doesn't exist or that the same problem isn't solved daily by people who fly into Cincinnati, Cleveland and Columbus, or that 3C might give ZipCar or any other such business a reason to set up shop in those cities]. These concerns are all either addressed as part of the program or have the capacity to be addressed through the ingenuity of the market. Once you understand the nature of the opposition opposition, then you can choose the most appropriate steps to counter it. But assuming that someone's opinion is inherently reasonable simply because it is an opinion is height of relativism. I'm reminded of what Plato has Socrates say to Callicles at the end of the Gorgias dialogue: "...Let us, then, take the argument as our guide, which has revealed to us that the best way of life is to practise justice and every virtue in life and death. This way let us go; and in this exhort all men to follow, not in the way to which you trust and in which you exhort me to follow you; for that way is worthless, Callicles."

Well, okay. But as you yourself have said, it doesn't often happen here, and the primary example you've suggested is in South Korea, and you admit that their willingness to go through that most likely represents a cultural difference. I still don't understand the unsubstantiated dig at unions, which I suspect are in fact more likely to take an across the board pay cut (because they have a responsibility to all their members and a centralized, decision making authority that the company has to negotiate with) than a company whose workers are non-unionized. For example, all the public sector unions that deal with the City took pay cuts last year to avoid layoffs, with the exception of AFSCME.

You guys all read my mind.

Well, if you won't cite your sources, then in fairness you should at least cite an example or two of private sector unions that are doing what you've accused unions in general of doing. The only place I can think of that has done this is St. Ursula Academy to their teachers. Anyway, your example seems like it doesn't hold general validity. Anecdotally speaking, I would say it is far more common for employers to simply cut personnel rather than try and force down a general pay decrease.

That would really stick it to the current RENTERS in the Metropole. "They kicked us out and now they made it open container?"

I'm curious if you have any examples of companies that actually did this. It's generally pretty hard for companies to cut wages as well, since an experienced employee is much more likely to leave for another company if he finds his pay slashed. Also, the government deficits of this past year are a direct result of massive declines in tax revenue. That's not a clear-cut case that the problem is on the income side of the ledger. While it's certainly true that public safety is the largest area of local public spending, it seems to me that this is a symptom of the City's gradually decreasing share of regional, state and national income rather than its cause. No cost-cutting measure is really going to address the cause unless it directly addresses or is neutral towards effects on income. The City has older buildings, older infrastructure and a poorer population than many of its neighbors. It's not surprise that the expenditure has increased while income hasn't.

Poor people need housing too, and we need to build our communities to supply housing and amenities for more than just the wealthy. Are you sure about that? If that's true, then how do you explain the 20 million Americans who decided to go on unemployment when Obama got elected because they knew he'd be handing them welfare checks? Seriously though, It seems like a great location that will really strengthen the area. At least a couple of blocks downtown will be on crunk.

My understanding though was that there is a pending suit or threat of a suit by municipalities against the ratings agencies because they were being rated much more stringently than a lot of these companies who later went bankrupt. Not sure what's happening with that. The good solution is 1) focus on income- where is the area for potential growth, and grow that market; and keep whatever sustainable revenue sources you have. 2) Develop a plan that addresses your liabilities. 3) Implement the plan so that it doesn't effect your income. No program is inviolate. But unfortunately there are too many decision-makers who would rather sell assets in a down market to cover shortfalls.

^Typically bondholders get precedence over pension obligations, equity holders (what I'm assuming you mean by investors) and current City workers salaries. That's one of the things that was noticeably different about the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies, was that the unions got paid before the bond-holders who held out.

Well, when the same politicians get reelected regardless of the policies they pursue, is it any wonder they don't take risks? Also, in their defense, most people aren't big risk-takers (and that includes businessmen). People like to think of themselves as such, but most folks play it safe. A big risk I was thinking they might take is a structured Chapter 9 bankruptcy. I'm not a lawyer, but the City couple boldly run away from old obligations in the pension by trying to do something like that. Also the County could consider something like that to get out of the stadium leases. Obviously I don't have the technical understanding about how to do it. But if Sam Zell can borrow billions to by the Tribune Co. and force it into bankruptcy six months later and walk away smelling like roses, we should be able to figure something out.

Good to know. Obviously anyone planning to bail like that should talk to a lawyer to make sure you cover your ass.

^I'm not sure if there's that much of a conspiracy. Lot's of people don't want prices to fall because they leveraged things under the old price. It's pretty straightforward and understandable. Look at what happened when the banks started to fail. The stock market started to tank, because people who were overleveraged sold any any asset they could. Then GM, Chrysler, the State of California and other entities can't get the short term loans they rely on to make payroll, etc. A great thing about the U.S. and property is that banks can't come after you for the mortgage because it is attached to the house. That's why for a lot of people who are underwater on their mortgage, it might make good sense just to walk away.

Anyone else own his book- You Can Farm? http://www.amazon.com/You-Can-Farm-Entrepreneurs-Enterprise/dp/0963810928 It's a fun, crazy read.

Isn't local government financing and planning between different parts of the government on topic? It's not simply knee-jerk conservatives who want to kill the Streetcar because Cincinnati is conservative. There are plenty of local entrenched interests who are indifferent to the Streetcar one way or the other so long as it doesn't stop them from getting theirs. I think the selling City owned parking lots is the worst news for the Streetcar since Issue 9 got on the ballot. But I suppose the relevance of identifying those interests is a question for the moderators to decide.

^I completely agree. The City should get out of the pension business. It's a no win scenario for them (for the employees too, actually).