LincolnKennedy

^I'm pretty sure it was Jimmy Kimmel, and I suspect that it was some of the best publicity Cincinnati has had in a while, since most people probably think of the Bengals when they think of us.

Let's all remember that downtown Cincinnati has TWO department stores as well as a decent amount of other high end retail stores. Those two department stores alone mean that the amount of department stores in downtown Cincinnati outnumber the amount of downtown department stores in any other Ohio city (or even a city like Atlanta) by two. It could be much much worse.

^Exactly.

Good riddance to the worthless Chabot.

^You are seriously underestimating both Mayor Mallory's practical achievements as well as the ability to get important work done as a "first among equals" executive rather than a dictatorial one. In the late 90s and early years of this decade City government lost its prominence as the engine of local political leadership, because of the incompetence of Roxanne Qualls and her inability to form a serious working majority, as well as the laziness and unfocused activity that characterized Luken's tenure. The County took over as the primary mover from the stadiums up until the failure of the MetroMoves plan (and perhaps up until the removal of sheriff patrols from Over-the-Rhine). Now the County government is laying off workers (a terrible thing to do in a recession) and the City is moving forward on transit and economic development. Same measures, different men. When I first read the article, I thought Mallory would take the job. Let's hope while he's in China he mulls it over and comes to the right decision and stays as mayor. If his eventual desire is to become governor, which I can only assume it is, he's in a much better place to reach that goal as Mayor of Cincinnati than he is as Treasurer of Ohio.

This is a positive development, and long overdue.

It's also being pushed by COAST, the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes, who never seem to oppose the additional spending (and the tax revenue that must pay for it) that accompanies their frequent ballot initiatives. It is basically the next step in the alliance of two rather outsized and egotistical personalities, Christopher Smitherman on the left and Chris Finney on the right. They were pleased with their alliance that helped kill Pepper's jail tax, and this is their next move. It will fail, and perhaps their alliance will as well. Anything that adds to the discredit of either man is a win in my book. The plan is convoluted and unnecessary. The conceit that it is "more democratic" than the current system is specious and authoritarian (it implies that there is one appropriate method of representing any corporate entity, that works independent of that corporations history and esprit. I wouldn't want to have the system they have in the City of Chicago here in Cincinnati, but that doesn't mean that Chicago shouldn't have the system it is comfortable with). The constant refrain that the people of Cincinnati are poorly represented on council because the same people tend to be re-elected isn't accurate and shouldn't be taken at face value. It is equally plausible that our councilors get re-elected because the citizenry is content with the job that they are doing (or at least the councilors who are able to assemble a large enough coalition to get elected are able to maintain said coalition and keep it pleased with their performance), that the citizenry values experience, or any number of other reasonable explanations. The citizenry of Cincinnati is not mindless, as it is often claimed by outlier groups. A perfect example is the case of one Christopher Smitherman elected to council with a broad support (read black & white) in 2003 (dmerkow can attest to this). Smitherman then spent his single council term alienating a portion of the constituency that elected him- hence he was not re-elected in 2005. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out how to get elected to Council in this town, but it does require hard work, planning, and the foresight not to piss off the people who voted for you. Proportional representation is worthless, in my opinion, which is why I voted against it. However, the Jeff Berding plan for district representation is worse. City Council is the governing board of the city corporation. As a resident of the city, I want to be able to vote for each member of the board. It makes no sense to me why dividing the board into five members who are elected from the City at large and four who are elected from districts based on residence increases my sense of representation on council. I know it takes away from the number of board members that I get to vote for, because I can count. This district scheme also doesn't speak to the conceit that people feel more solidarity with their neighborhoods. That they might, but while someone may care passionately about Clifton or Over-the-Rhine or Westwood, I can guarantee that they will have no emotional attachment to Council Elective District #3 (and anyone has even been mildly involved in a state rep or senate campaign can attest to the fact that most people have no idea which of those districts they live in, even though everyone knows what neighborhood, municipality, school district and county they live in). In sum, both proportional representation and district representation are designed to address supposed needs that don't actually exist.

^Technically, Arlington Virginia is a county, not a city, but since the county is smaller than the DC I guess it is kind of a moot point. Anyway, the clear and present reason for the success of a place like Arlington is the spillover of federal jobs into the surrounding suburban areas of Virginia and Maryland from the capital. There are fifteen executive departments (and I don't know how many independent agencies) in the federal government, of which at least nine don't really need to be located in the Greater Washington area at all. Could you imagine the impact the placement of a federal executive department could make in one of the ten poorest cities in the country?

I don't think CiNYC said the neighborhood was "destroyed" by this project. He just said it was weak. Basically they filled in a gulley to make a parking lot and worked on a section of Columbia Parkway. However, the two buildings that sit in the parking lot rather than front either Columbia or Eastern are a perfect example of the incipient suburbanization of the City.

I still think that having both east west routes on Central Parkway would be best, with the streetcar being in the middle of the road dispersing folks on a well designed central median. It seems a bit short-sighted to build it one block north of a potential transfer connection to an already existing rapid transit tunnel.

If you are working out Beechmont and the wife is working downtown, I strongly suggest either Madisonville or Columbia Tusculum. You could get a nice house (particularly a nice fixer upper) in either neighborhood for under $110,000, easy. If you want I could recommend a realtor. Madisonville/Fairfax/Madison Place/Mariemont have close access to a lot of tennis courts (though you might only be able to use the courts in Mariemont if you live in the village) as well as the local Mariemont movie theater. Newport is nice, Bellevue is a steal if you are really into NKy, but I have to say that both places can feel very isolated after awhile. Fairfax, Madison Place (which is merely the name of one of the many pieces of unincorporated Columbia Township) Mariemont and Newtown could work for you as well if you don't care about being in the city limits. All these neighborhoods are walkable, but they are more walkable depending on how far you are willing to walk. If you want to be walking a lot, downtown and OTR are going to encourage that much more than any other place.

I make no pretense that my assessment is anything but qualitative. That being said you have a lot of faith in the persistance of statistics irrespective of the real world factors that influence them. Once again, I'd like to see why you or the Enquirer expects the population trends of the late 20th century to continue indefinitely when the circumstances that created them no longer exist. Are you expecting a massive swell in Irish population as well, just because that happened in the past?

I absolutely disagree. Although the Ohio and the rest of the Midwest may be less effected by national trends than other regions, there's no reason to believe that the population patterns of the latter half of the twentieth century are going to persist in the Midwest in general or Ohio in particular while the remainder of the country (including the rural South) is experiencing steady increases in Hispanic population. The things, particulary good opportunities of employment, that brought Southern blacks to Ohio in the 20th century brought white Appalachians and others as well, and the lack of those types of jobs in the state, not to mention the vastly improved economic conditions for black Americans at the end of the 20th century when compared to the beginning of the 20th century, are all pretty strong indicators. In Cincinnati, at least, the percentage of the population identifying as African-American is declining, slightly.

I think that proportional representation would be fine, so long as the voters still get to vote for all nine councilmembers. I strongly oppose district representation on council. Also, I'm pretty sure George B. "Boss" Cox had died by 1916, and the Republican machine at the time (1925) of charter reform was led by Rudolph Hynicka.

^That's it.

I don't know how official any of these designations are. I hope the smiley face means you are joking. This opinion has been well explained to be ahistorical and absurd on many different threads throughout this forum.

I don't know who said the second quote, but I find it interesting that the first person you quoted as representative of the native Cincinnatian is in fact, a woman who lived in Colerain township and hadn't even ventured downtown in over ten years. Aside from the fact this "evidence" that you cite to support your hypothesis that 'a lot of native Cincinnatians are ignorant' is entirely anecdotal, don't you think that your argument fails in the same manner, because it shares the same form, as the critique that this ridiculous woman offers about why she avoids downtown Cincinnati? You need to study your rhetoric, son.

^I was merely mentioning that I think Central Parkway is more appropriate for a median than the widened Liberty, but you bring up a good point. There is no reason to make Liberty more narrow if it will simply result in more privately owned surface lots.

Personally, I'd rather see a classic tree lined median of unvarying length on Central Parkway. I'm not sure how much east-west thru traffic goes uses Central Parkway or Liberty, since neither street really crosses through downtown to anywhere else (Liberty take you west of 75, and Central Parkway is really much more of a north/south street). Particularly now with the new and extremely wide Ft. Washington Way (2nd and 3rd Streets) it seems to me that a wide Liberty and a wide CP are both unnecessary.

This is a very good point. They need to take the redistricting out of the hands of the legislators and make all the district competitive. But I do think that trying to keep them aligned as closely as possible to the political boundaries that exist in people's conscience is important. People know what city and county they live in, while they are generally clueless as to what State Senate or State Rep district they live in. I think this is more of a Cincinnati phenomenon, and I don't think it holds true elsewhere in the State.

I think this is a great idea, focusing on the services people want and the communities who want it.

Exactly. I feel like Cincinnati and Hamilton County should be partnering with those in Butler who are more closely tied to places like Hamilton or Oxford rather than West Chester or Fairfield, which I assume have a much stronger bias against the City of Cincinnati and public transit planning.

And the only reason these unions have 'real teeth' is because you can't outsource their jobs to another region or country. And since the 'management' of public corporations are elected officials who typically face term limits, you don't see them fighting to keep the unions from getting these long-term legacy costs that have been part (and I emphasize, only part) of the reason for the decline of the American manufacturing sector.

^Agreed, and the people who drive the current pattern of development use a certain formula that works with post-WWII laws and governmental priorities.

Well, suburbanization includes the suburbanizing of businesses as well. I don't really know all the details, but obviously it has to work well for someone (at least in the short term) because it is happening everywhere while much urban property lies fallow.