PAlexander

^I agree 100% with your assessment. The parking/transit/development bureaucratic infrastructure in this City is incredibly piecemeal in a very bad way, particularly when the plan for development is pretty straightforward and hasn't really been deviated from since 2001, not even with this administration. Even though this is a pretty ridiculous compromise (because it is so varied and complex) at least take solace in the fact that it was an ostensibly democratic solution.

Really, please share your vast amount of information with us that proves he is a nasty SOB! Obviously there is no agree-upon definition of what constitutes an SOB (or nasty SOB, or whatever) so this is a stupid argument in many ways. But the number one thing Cranley does that is really awful is his willingness to impugn the integrity of people who work for the City. I'm not going to look up these quotes for you, but we all know they are there. The reason why this is so bad is because he's using the prominence of his office to malign people who aren't as prominent and consequently can't fight back in the same manner. It's one thing if one politician talks shit about another politician, because they both have basically equal access to the press. But a regular civil servant doesn't. So that's the number one reason. And if anyone has seen how he often uses his chairmanship of City meetings to make little digs at people who come up during the public comment period, that's another. Finally, this guy complains about personal attacks, but as I just noted, he engages in them all the time. So there you go.

They know who they are working for, and they know that they have to adopt his viewpoints. It's not that weird. We all do it to some extent when we are part of organizations. I'd say most of them come from having worked on Cranley's congressional campaigns, mostly because you simply have to hire more staff for them than you do for a Council race. To me, what's crazy is how pointless the relentless streetcar bashing is. You don't need it to get into the paper, because you're already the mayor and the circulation both sucks and is driven by readers outside your district. You already lost back in December 2013, so you can't stop it. I get that there is an element of insisting that he was right, but you'd think even he would be sort of tired of that by now and want to move on to other things (also, if the Cranley crew thinks that they have big projects or visions for the City they are undermining their message by constantly bashing the streetcar because that's the only message that comes through). And it's not going to do anything for him for a Congressional run, cause that D after his name is going to sink him regardless. Governor? Honestly, good luck in a non-presidential year.

Dream small, boys & girls. http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2015/04/23/exclusive-why-eden-parks-brewery-project-is-likely.html “My guess is he needs someone with high wealth to sign the loan,” said Cranley, who was a partner in the development of the Incline Public House restaurant and the condo development next to it. “That’s how people get their start in this world.”

David Mann is bizarre. It's almost like he didn't pay any attention to the streetcar when he was campaigning, and now he seems to be totally on board. And it only cost us a million dollars.

The Republican Party has had total control of Ohio's government from 1994 - 2006, and then again from 2010 onward. If anyone here thinks that Ohio is doing better now than it was in 1994, relative to other states, then who cares about Strickland's complaint that he was brought down because of the 2008 crash? (He wasn't, it was the fact that Democrats basically never show up in non-presidential elections in Ohio.) If anyone here thinks that 4 years of Democrats controlling 2/3rds of Ohio's government is enough to ruin the policies enacted over twelve years of total Republican control, then can't the only conclusion be that Republican policies must not be that effective if they can be ruined in a quarter of the time it takes to fully implement them?

These issues you're mentioning make me think back to what a missed opportunity it was to insist on the Phase 1b so many years back rather than just build out the basin system. The Vine Street route makes a lot of sense from a mental perspective, in that it seems like most folks to be the fastest and most direct way to get up the hill, but just by looking at the map you can see that the the institutions in Uptown generally line up with those downtown: Main to Auburn to the hospitals and Elm to Clifton to Ludlow.

Isn't there also an active effort underway to rehab the old St. John's church on the corner of 12th & Elm into a concert venue? I hope there's enough performers to go around.

I actually think the Walnut side is far better than the Vine side. Yes, the parking lot is ridiculous, and the expansion is kind of silly when you think about how they could have used that parking space, but let's face it, there are hundreds of empty lots downtown that are a higher priority than these spaces.

I don't think all wires are bad but if you check out the private lanes around town (there are a bunch in East Walnut Hills) you really start to notice that not having those wooden poles every so often actually makes things a lot nicer.

The big difference is that most bars had two or four beers on tap and a cooler full of bottles. Anything beyond about ten or twelve beers on tap was unheard of outside of maybe NYC. When Guinness appeared in the late 90s it was a big deal. Nothing that has appeared since, foreign or domestic, compares to the shock of the introduction of Guinness. Murphy's was also introduced in the U.S. in the 90s but I don't think it ever caught on outside of the Northeast because they didn't advertise and had a boring name. We used to drink it all the time when I lived in Boston since it was usually 50 cents cheaper than Guinness and basically tasted the exact same. I bring up Guinness because it alone created a focus on drought beer that didn't exist previously. All previous imports like Heinekin or Warsteiner or Beck's were not considered to be much different in a bottle or on tap. Having Guinness on tap in the late 90s was a signifier of a more sophisticated bar than the place next door that didn't have it. I suppose Sam Adams had that quality as well, but again Sam Adams didn't have the steep drop-off in taste when bottled that Guinness had and still has. My recollection is that all these statements are true. The bar that I frequented in the late 90's in DC had Murphy's but no Guinness. It was definitely the Pepsi of stouts. I never noticed any difference. Also there was this bar called the Brickskeller that was famous for having a ton of imported bottle beers. It's funny to think about and remember how much of a unique selling point that was back then; now it isn't particularly special at all. Also those beers were pretty old and tended to be skunked. There was also this trend back at that time when local breweries would brew for bars and let the bars call the beer by the bar name, as if it were the local house brand. I suppose the idea was that people wouldn't buy a beer they didn't now but would consider buying one that was associated with they bar they went to. I doubt any craft brewer is doing that anymore. Finally, I've never understood the desire for a super cold beer. The bar I started drinking beer at had some pretty bad technology, so the drafts were never that cold, probably just slightly below room temp. Also there was no air conditioning in the place and it was DC, so it was pretty swampy in there for about a third of the year. Since that time I've always been of the opinion that super cold beer really deadens the flavor.

Well Barrelhouse opened around 1998 or 1999 in Over-the-Rhine where the Art Academy is now and closed around 2003. Exact same concept and probably just about the exact same beer as what people now go nuts over and speak about with complete seriousness. I think in the 90s people didn't really want to spend more money for beer than they already were, even if it was "better", and even if the money was staying a bit more local. The difference between 1990s microbreweries and 2010's microbreweries is that the ones from the 90s took their style cues from the Olde Spaghetti Factory whereas today's look more like Chipotle. Again, marketing. I don't really think this is the case for a couple of reasons: First by analogy: independent coffee houses blew up in the 90's and then there was a great winnowing. While a lot of those places didn't survive they did get people used to paying a lot of money for a coffee, and then Starbucks turned the whole phenomenon into a fast food experience, so now there is nothing particularly crazy about it. Once the market stabilized and better coffee stopped being a fad, more local coffee shops sprang up again, to the point where the location of a Starbucks or a Brueggers will actually encourage independent coffee shops to spring up around it. In my mind a place like the Barrelhouse was part of that initial explosion of interest in craft beer that crashed, and we are now experiencing the second iteration, which is less faddish and has a more stable customer base. Second through law: Within the past two years or so Ohio law has changed so that breweries can have tap rooms. I believe Rheingeist started production right after that law came into effect, and Mad Tree was actually built prior to it, so they had to add a tap room. What the tap room does is allow the brewer to sell their beer directly to the public without distribution, so basically they can make money immediately without actually having to do barely any marketing, and the brewer can take his time without locking himself into distributing contracts which are nearly impossible to get out of in Ohio. So I think it is a little more complex than just "good marketing". And the beer you can get now really is far far better than what was out there fifteen or so odd years ago, just like the coffee people drink is better, just like people now regularly eat fish in Cincinnati unlike twenty years ago when pretty much the only fish people ate was fried cod.

^C'mon, Cranley is not doing the stuff he's doing as mayor to position himself for a Congressional seat. The demographics of that Chabot district make it a no-win situation for Democrats anyway. He gets into fights that are completely unnecessary because he's watched to many TV shows and movies about politics, and wants to feel like he's a big shot. He's got an effective majority on Council, and the only places he consistently loses that majority is when he tries to do something that is already in the works and purely spiteful against the previous administration.

I wonder how much it is going to cost to means-test this parking permit program? The best person to run in 2015 is someone who is explicitly pro-streetcar and can fund their Council campaign at to the tune of $400,000. The key to getting Cranley out is getting someone people are going to want to show up to vote for.

Not exactly. Indian Hill is all residential, no commercial, unlike Beverly Hills, and despite being a city (The City of the Village of Indian Hill) it purposefully has a low payroll tax rate. I'm almost positive that property taxes are the largest source of revenue for the Corporation of Indian Hill, though other things we associate with the Village, such as the school system and their water system, encompass larger areas than the Village and consequently get more and different revenue streams.

I'd worry less about the heights that people can build on the infill in OTR and more about how there doesn't seem to be any attempt to get the more modern buildings to blend in with the old simply by matching the old proportions of window size to bare wall. I seems like that makes so many of those new buildings down there feel off. It's actually kind of sad; one is surrounded by all this varying detail and the new designs are so cookie cutter and bland.

Seriously doubt Landsman can beat Monzel in 2014, simply because of how important turnout is for getting Democrats elected. But basically anyone who runs a credible campaign in a Presidential year should have a pretty good shot at beating Hartmann. Actually, if Hartmann wants to keep that seat, his best bet might have been keeping that deal with Burke running, rather than simply fear a Tea Party challenge. Anyway, it just goes to show what a bonehead move it was for the local party not to put forward a credible candidate for that seat in 2008.

Really would depend on who the Republicans appoint as to whether or not any Dem has a chance for that off year election.

^What do we need him to be a Councilmember for if he wants to crib our ideas?

I don't think it shows that Cranley's style is dirty, rather that it is designed to to trick people simply for the love of tricking them. The "trick" there was to attempt to de-fund previous bike projects in favor of his new bike projects. That didn't actually work, and would have been found out soon enough. What's funny to me about it is how it once again shows how Cranley explicitly relies on the naivete of Mann and Flynn to enable his silly tricks. Also, how pathetic was the Mallory quote? Wasn't the last time this guy was quoted regarding Cranley back during the December Streetcar fight, when he said he came from the hood and was ready for a fight or something? And now he doesn't even have the guts to call out Cranley for trying to dismantle literally every single thing done during his last term, simply because it was done during that time? Truly said for Cincinnati. Well, Smitherman did mention to the Enquirer after his initial Council will in 2003 that he had his eyes on the Presidency, so his detachment from reality has been known for awhile.

These are all good points (tourism, people living outside the central city, etc.) and maybe I'm wrong about bikeshare being the cart before the horse, but in my opinion we need to be creating not simply the possibility of the car-free lifestyle in the Central City, but an active design and government preference for it. I just think you're far less likely to see people unfamiliar with an area (those people such as tourists and folks who live outside the central city) jumping in on a means of transport totally unfamiliar to them than you are people familiar with an area choosing a form of transport that is easiest for them to use.

While I'm not sure how to do it, I think that actually having a program where if you're getting tax breaks then the City has some authority to improve the aesthetic look of your building at the City's expense is a must. Given the fact that every major company expects to be bribed to locate their headquarters somewhere, it's crazy to think that these corporations are going to put any care into aesthetics. It's simply not something they do anymore because there is no social esteem from their peers regarding it (unlike when the Woolworth, Chrysler or Tribune buildings were being put up).

I really hope bikeshare isn't actually being done for joy-riding. Then it would be completely pointless. I think it's a crazy idea that the reason more people don't use bikes is that they don't have access to bikes. The real reason to get people onto bikes is that they are much more efficient, cost-effective means of transport. If bikeshare is being done to promote that, then I'm a little warmer to the idea that we're putting the cart (bikeshare) before the horse (better bike infrastructure). Interesting article that's sort of related to this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/07/07/why-cars-remain-so-appealing-even-in-cities-with-decent-public-transit/

Agreed, but the main problem isn't MLK's or Jefferson's car carrying capacity, rather it is the present design aesthetic (combined with the building codes), or lack thereof, that acts as a metastatizing suburban cancer on all new construction. There are plenty of wide urban boulevards that have plenty of walkers and cafe sitters: Michigan Avenue, Passeig de Gracia, Fifth Avenue, etc. The big problem with MLK & Jefferson is that the frontage sucks and is almost purposefully dead. Still think the Streetcar should still run down Short Vine and if it goes into UC, goes via University to Brookline/Burnet Woods to Ludlow.

I disagree. Pedestrians are very sensitive to distance, especially if the route is uncomfortable. Crossing Jefferson is probably the equivalent of several hundred feet of walking on a walking path. No offense man, but you're completely ignoring the argument. I didn't ever say "pedestrians", I said "students". Go up their and look around, and you can see they aren't sensitive to distance, otherwise you wouldn't have so much student housing basically in every cardinal direction from UC. The other thing I said is that person who wants to ditch his car entirely for public transit once you have a comprehensive system that goes from the Zoo to the Riverfront is not going to be the type of person who cares about two extra blocks on his walk.