LincolnKennedy

Since we spent so much time on this thread about Scott Walker, I think we can take a brief foray into Michigan. The Republicans in the Michigan Senate just passed a bill allowing the state to take over local governments, push aside and replace them with unelected emergency financial managers, who will be paid by the taxpayers at the same level of salary the governor gets. Any number of financial issues can trigger these takeovers- it isn't simply limited to municipal bankruptcy. That's when the EFMs would be authorized to unilaterally break contracts, which is probably a violation of the Constitution. To be clear, that's the U.S. Constitution (though likely the Michigan Constitution as well). http://www.dailytribune.com/articles/2011/03/10/news/doc4d78d0d4d764d009636769.txt?viewmode=fullstory So basically the state central committee is going to have the authority to send in a commissar whenever they want. That's how much these guys hate socialism. Judge Cooley must be spinning in his grave.

Since the contracts through this fiscal year have already been signed, I'm not sure how SB5 is going to impact the present budget deficit. Now Kasich selling off state assets like there's no tomorrow may allow him to cover the deficit, but that's probably the not the type of budgetry most of us would be in favor of.

^That's what he's saying. Because we're the owners. But of course, by that logic, so are the laborers. Meanwhile, Kasich's Policy director admits the policies they are implementing aren't in response to the budget deficit: "I don't remember a course correction," said Struble, who is Kasich's policy adviser. "The things we were looking at pursuing haven't changed much over time. Even if there weren't an $8 billion deficit, we'd probably be proposing many of the same things." http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/03/14/kasich-has-been-working-years-on-budget.html

I wouldn't be surprised if that increase in the cost of food was actually because of the increase of the cost of petroleum, since the agriculture industry, particularly in the U.S., is heavily mechanized and as dependent of oil energy as any manufacturing industry. Unless it is simply a result of crop losses in other parts of the world.

The problem with this argument is that the state isn't really stopping itself from accepting certain terms, it is stopping municipal corporations from accepting certain terms. Even though they are both government, they have distinct corporate identities. You can't shift from state to government and back while accurately describing the content of Hts 121's concerns. Also, I suspect libertarians would be up in arms if the state required all corporations to negotiate with unions. The distinctions between private corporations and public corporations are only a hundred some plus years old, the legality of general incorporation is only about thirty some odd years older than that, whereas corporations are about a thousand years old. The state is clearly extending greater protection to capital by maintaining laws concerned with private incorporation than they are to labor with these changes. Ultimately these debates simply break down to whose side you are on.

It's pretty clear that Kasich will use the prison sale as one time money to help balance this years budget. Since we will still be paying to house prisoners, I'm not sure what other options we are going to have other than to use these guys in the future, so this is starting to look like a pretty terrible deal.

So about 12.7 times revenue. Hmm. Does anyone have any information on just how long a lease we're talking about here? What should we consider a good return, and what should we consider to be a good lease period? I'm having trouble finding this information, but I think the Cincinnati Southern Railroad is leased to Norfolk Southern on a 25 year basis, with options to renew at variable terms, for around $20 million per year. It seems to me that a shorter lease is preferable to a 99 year lease. They say the Indiana Toll Road Lease has been successful. Details as best as I could find here: http://www.roadsbridges.com/Indiana-Toll-Road-lease-approved-NewsPiece11150 It seems to me that you'd want to trade silly restrictions like "no tolling to Indianapolis" (in our case the Ohio equivalent) and toll relief for shorter lease periods. I think it would also make sense if the money went straight to the Treasury rather than be earmarked for specific payoffs (corridor counties, etc. They arguably benefit already simply because the road has been located there). To be fair to future administrations (and the people of Ohio, frankly) let's hope the payment isn't an upfront lump sum. Just found something on the Cincinnati Southern lease: http://www.cincinnatisouthernrailway.org/about/ "In 1987, the City renegotiated the terms of the lease for more favorable annual income. From 2003 to 2008, the Southern Railway Note Proceeds totaled $95.5 million. "

No, I'm simply talking about state expenditure. What leads you to assume this? If the deal leads to anything less the state receiving anything less that the $8 million in foregone taxes, it is by definition a bad deal to pay $8 million to move an office within the state. If we assume Bob Evans moves to a pre-existing office building, given that there are high office vacancy rates in the three major Ohio metros, the state paying for an office to move from one of those metros to another confers no general benefit to the state. If we assume Bob Evans moves to a new building, we must add to the existing infrastructure (sewers, roads, etc.) and therefore the cost of that to the $8 million given away. We should also amortize the cost of maintaining that new infrastructure over whatever period would be appropriate to the $8 million give away. Assuming that new infrastructure will be maintained indefinitely, that adds to the cost. Clearly tax incentives decrease government revenue, that's why they are incentives, because people pay less. Typically local govs try to entice businesses to locate within their boundaries by foregoing property taxes (which the business, because it owns the land, pays) in order to get the payroll taxes (which the employees pay). But that is a municipality. New Albany benefits when a business moves there from Columbus, since the sets of New Albany and Columbus are mutually exclusive. The sets of Cleveland and Cuyahoga County are not mutually exclusive- something that benefits Cleveland would benefit Cuyahoga County, since Cleveland is totally within the set of Cuyahoga County, but the reverse is not always true (though it is often true). However both New Albany and Columbus are within Ohio. So if Bob Evans moves from one city to another, it doesn't change anything for the State. Except we've apparently foregone $8 million in tax revenue for it. Perhaps the fact that I said new infrastructure spending instead of spending on new infrastructure was confusing. (Theoretically) Kasich is arguing that collective bargaining increases the cost of labor for the state and municipalities, and that these costs are nigh perpetual. The same is true for spending on new infrastructure. Replacing an old bridge with a new bridge isn't new infrastructure in the same way that expanding a counties road system may be. In this case adding to the infrastructure network rather than densifying the existing net work would be far less efficient. This is an opportunity Kasich could pursue, but doesn't seem to be.

I'm curious if any of the folks who thought Kasich was going to reign in wasteful spending are pleased with him authorizing giving Bob Evans $8 million in incentives to move from Columbus to New Albany. That's $8 million dollars in foregone state revenue (revenue that comes from the entire state) so that New Albany can benefit, while of course, Columbus loses the equivalent of what New Albany gains (and arguable there is a total net loss if taxes in Columbus are higher than in New Albany). So let me just repeat: The State of Ohio is foregoing $8 million in revenue. Costs remain the same for the City of Columbus and they lose a corporate headquarters. New Albany gains a corporate headquarters (to be conservative lets assume no new infrastructure costs increase in New Albany as a result of the move). This is saving us money, paying companies to shift around the state? It's also interesting that the state is forbidding municipal corporations from engaging with unions for collective bargaining purposes, according to Kasich because this results in increased spending. But Kasich is not forbidding municipal corporations from offering tax incentives for businesses, even though results in decreased revenue. He also hasn't frozen all new infrastructure spending, which of course places indefinite future burdens on local governments (and the state), he's merely cancelled projects he doesn't like. There's really no reason to think that Kasich is doing anything that will actually save the state any money whatsoever, particularly since the contracts and benefits he points to as being an intolerable burden still exist and will be litigated in unilaterally cut.

People who are serious about this and are formally involved in advocacy organizations should get their ducks in a row to be ready to sue. It's pretty clear that Kasich is interested only in the letter of the law and not the spirit of it, which is why he's willing to spend $8 million dollars to move Bob Evans within the state but not spend any money on high speed rail (the state's contribution being somewhere in the ballpark of 4 more Bob Evans "successes").

^^I'm under the impression that there's something like a 25% vacancy rate in downtown offices, which would imply that the last thing we need is a new tower.

Just as God intended.

^Logically speaking, it reasons to stand that the fact is this argument is neither relevant nor interesting.

And the City is giving 75% of the tax collected on the payroll of those 150 and refunding it to the corporation. I wonder if First Financial will in turn refund it to those 150 employees? If so, I hope the City keeps the tax it collects on those checks.

Since the reign of Cyrus the Great in 529 BC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_insurance#Ancient_world

Then do that. A back up decision should be made that doesn't alter the time line for starting. It's going to be better to have to respond with, "Ask the Governor," when someone wonders why the streetcar doesn't go to he Riverfront Park than to not have that question at all. It's clearly going to be easier to work with the feds on making sure the funding goes through than relying at all on the state while Kasich is in charge. If you want to is right. It is vitally important that the folks running the City do not use this as an excuse not to finish.

Then they need to make sure this happens. It's pretty clear that the new reality is when the Republicans take power they are going to take money from cities. So we need to make sure we keep our options open given that new reality. This is the most important project the City is undertaking. It needs to begin as soon as possible. If it is slightly attenuated, if it takes longer to build out, so be it. When the choice is between doing the best you can and doing nothing, let's choose to do the best we can. That is about the worst attitude you can have. But given the fact that we are dealing with John Kasich rather than Sherrod Brown, it may be the most reasonable attitude to have.

You'd think there was a back up plan somewhere. Once Kasich vetoed 3C, someone in authority ought to have foreseen the possibility. How much does taking it up Vine street cost? It is reLly important to keep this project moving forward and to tracks in the ground.

It's pretty intuitive frankly. Was the Hoover dam built by the feds or by the state of Nevada? How about any dam that provides most of the electricity to western states? How did rural electrification come about? But if you want numbers, you can scroll through these for years 1981-2005: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html They clearly show that if Mississippi were judged like a elementary school it would have been closed down years ago.

Well first you'd have to define "competitive". Then we'd have to assess whether or not, given the definition, Ohio meets the standard. Finally we'd have to figure out if being competitive is the proper goal. But even if Ohio isn't competitive given however the word is defined, since we live in a nation where there is minimal cost to the free movement of labor and capital (same language and currency, for example) is there any detriment to Ohio choosing to be uncompetitive for anyone other than owners of Ohio real estate? Why worry about collective action in Ohio at all and instead move your business or person to a more competitive state?

It would be cool to have some sort of combination of an all-card or general payment kiosks with the stickers. So you can buy a parking space (be it street or garage) or a transit ride (bus or streetcar) and it would print out the appropriate sticker. You could also try and do something where you can use the kiosk for private lots as well.

There are some arguments to the contrary, though this is more about retail lenders than investment bankers: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/nyts-joe-nocera-defends-failure-to-bring-wall-street-execs-to-justice.html

This sucks, but it's not a lot different many other professions. When Reagan visited Flint, Michigan after the GM plant closed there he suggested that the folks move South and West where the economy was growing. That's where the U.S. population is growing as well, so there should be a demand for school teachers there.

This fact exists regardless of whether the park is opened or not, of course. Obviously when the City is strapped for cash it should focus on its revenue. If the Central Riverfront Park is going to bring more revenue to the City than other parks, it should probably be a priority.

Yes, there are savings when police officers retire. Current serving officers are paid out of the operating budget, as are parks maintenance, etc.. Pensions etc. are paid out of Cincinnati Retirement System. The whole issue is the operating budget.