PAlexander

Maybe you're right, but your assessment still presumes that campaigning is a bad thing in and of itself. If the Cranley win over Qualls tells us anything (or the We Believe in Cincinnati peition drive), it's woe to those who think they are above campaigning.

Actually, he doesn't care if it is a failure or not by objective standards, because he doesn't care about objectivity or truth. Any of the numerous statements Cranley made over the course of these past three weeks or so show how this guy just b.s.es left and right- pause doesn't equall cancellation; independent audit is necessary; operations costs are the problem, etc. But the best example was his response to the ironworkers testimony yesterday. As soon as those guys are finished pleading for their jobs he says that he'll get work for them repaving roads. Problem is, this isn't the 19th century where politicians can just give regular municipal jobs to whomever they'd like; also, these guys are ironworkers, not road repair guys. Cranley knows all this. Thats what Cranley has learned from being a politician for ten years- b.s. anything that you can. That's a lot different from spinning, where you accept the premise that's being given but try and make something look positive. It's ignoring the other person as human worthy of respect, and it's really, really bad.

While I'm certainly pleased with the outcome, I've been pretty shocked at the pettiness from a lot of the politicians involved. I never thought Cranley would support the streetcar; I also never thought he would disclaim responsibility for the past administration, or casually claim City employees were anything but honest and hard-working. Your campaign was based on the idea that you can run the show better than the other guys; that means you are accepting responsibility; the responisbility to fix it or get it done right. It's not so much purity of process or flawless execution so much as it is about basic respect. The level of presumption with this whole debacle was through the roof. Here's a basic standard I believe we can all get behind: If you are a public figure, someone who chooses to run for office, expect to be criticized, especially for your motives, and especially when you are applying different standards. If you are a public figure, don't use the enhanced attention you get to speak poorly of people who don't have instant access to the media. If you don't have humility, don't expect respect. This is a freaking democracy.

My favorite quote was when Flynn said how Cranley was concerned for him. Because what Cranley was obviously saying was that he was concerned that Flynn would loose re-election because he ended up supporting the streetcar. And I say obviously because Cranley has been of the opinion from day one that being anti-streetcar was a political winner. I'd like to say that being respectful isn't the same as being deferential, as Cranley, Mann, Sittenfeld and others in power would have you believe. Being respectful is arguing the facts and recognizing that your opponents have the same rights as you do. That's it. I think it is ridiculous that a guy like Mann can say with a straight face that the pause was worth it because it allowed him and the others on council to make the right call. The problem isn't that they didn't make the right call, it's that: (1) they spent nearly a years worth of streetcar operating costs (the very thing that was such an issue!) to get less value than if they hadn't paused; (2) the pause didn't save any money; (3) the vast majority of the information available to them was available prior to this foofaraw; (4) the independant audit numbers confirmed the administrations numbers; which they had no reason but a hunch to disbelieve, and which they didn't disbelieve when it came to other projects or even the cost portions of the streetcar project; (5) invoking the idea that they get to act as they wish because they were elected on an anti-streetcar platform ignores the previous two referendums on the streetcar which passed; and finally (6) all these points were made by plenty of people before the pause and while the pause was being debated. The pause was an objective mistake. So don't let these people try to high-road you into silence. They aren't as noble as they like to believe.

Totally disagree. This was a great project in conception; it certainly needed some better execution, particularly on the political side. When it was first proposed the only councilors who were hostile were Cranley and Monzel. It only became an issue when the 2010 Congressional midterms made it popular for politicians to be against development. The only problem with this project is that so many other things are required to make it a success; specifically, the property around the route has to become more dense. The first supportive thing done was the removal of parking requirements for new construction in OTR and downtown. Creating a SID to push the operating costs onto the adjacent taxpayers is the best way to make sure development on the line is designed to maximize ridership (of course, so long as the zoning code allows for the greater density).

People routinely assume that persons in positions of authority deservedly occupy their positions. The fact is these guys simply aren't that smart. Flynn is an amateur who if he is serious about all the things he has said is clearly out of his depth. Mann, on the other had, should be an experienced politician. Instead of setting it up so that he could be the deciding vote by allowing construction to continue and having Avner & Wade pay, he gave up this power to Cranley by voting to pause. He can't be very sharp. Have you been in this City for the past 5 years? There've been on average 2 every election. We've amended the Charter to disallow red light cameras. I'm not going to care about that if these clowns don't.

^Actually, you can, that's where it starts. The reasoning used by 4 year term supporters was always a priori, i.e. inferential reason without experience. The argument was that less campaigning would result in better outcomes. You seem to be arguing that it would result in more better outcomes than the previous regime. We already know that, compared the immediately previous two year council, it has resulted in worse outcomes. We've given up the right to make course corrections sooner for a regime that, as you state, may still prove to result in more better outcomes. So we literally have to wait twelve more years to determine this by your standard. The problem with the four year terms was that they were never going to do what the supporters said they were going to do. The dynamics of council are fed by: (1) the number of councilors- nine; and (2) the size of the district in which they must campaign- citywide. Unless these elements of the regime are tinkered with, you will still get the same 5-4 or 6-3 splits

^You think it is less hectic and petty now that there are four year terms?

Disagree. This is a great project that does all the right things and needs to be completed. If it wasn't for all the shenanigans and the lack of foresight on Qualls' part when she insisted on the uptown extention, it would likely be competed by now. Recognize that by refusing to address the issues and by tossing up straw men, the antis demonstrate no respect for their fellow citizens. If Cranley wants to disclaim any responsibility for previous administrations, I'm certainly not going to give a fig about the stupid and harmful choices this guy makes. If the charter amendment makes it harder for him, so be it.

Also wouldn't have to commission an new body sash that says "MAYOR" on it after each election.

The position I described literally did not exist until December 2001.

Yep, completely impossible to make an end-run around a newspaper with drastically shrinking distribution to speak directly to the voters over a two year period as vice-mayor.

Maybe when Flynn finishes his Charter review we can simply abolish the post of Mayor? Save a over hundred thousand dollars every year and all we lose is a dude who appoints committee heads and has a veto in a 5 or fewer situation.

Yep, I see this as a good sign. Cranley doesn't want to deal with the damage that cancellation would cause. If the FTA assures city council that we have 2 full years to figure out operating expenses -- and one or more foundations have said that they would be willing to step up and meet these (unreasonable) demands -- I could see Flynn and Mann voting to resume construction. I don't think Cranley cares about the damage cancellation would cause; he'd be happy to run against the streetcar forever. More likely explanation is that some prominent people got to Mann & Flynn, couple that with whatever private funding agreement may manifest itself in a few days, and a little bit of self-regard so as not to be seen as Cranley's yes-men.

This letter is a way for Flynn & Mann to support the streetcar while minimizing the amount of heat they are taking, pure and simple. The answers to these questions could be answered in an hour by any City Councilor's intern (except #2, which asks for the FTA's opinion); it's not much difference from the pantomime at the beginning of the month. Flynn, Mann & Sittenfeld have danced with the opponents, and now their starting to take a few steps with the proponents.

If you're talking about 2009-2010, my understanding was that they didn't want to put it on the ballot in order not to crowd the ballot with levies. Obviously that was a bad year to raise money for anything, and the Library had a levy on the ballot for the first time ever. So I'm pretty sure the notion was that it would be more manageable to actually fund these things, and actually fund operations, if the number of levies on the ballot were limited.

Don't fall into the simplistic trap of McConnell logic: i.e. a win for a political opponent is a loss for us. Getting the streetcar project to happen is a win for Cincinnati and a positive thing, period. Two things: (1) Keep pushing for the SID and other legal changes that promote the urbanism and sustainable living the streetcar is meant to foster. (2) Don't forget this guy's record of incompetence: an inability to preside over meetings, constantly misrepresenting his record, a pathological antagonism toward working colleageally, contempt for his nominal allies. This guy has hurt his reputation immensely because he's never before had the prominence that caused people to pay attention to him. His above mentioned qualities are known to all now. Govern yourselves accordingly.

That's why we need to keep getting signatures, and after that is successful, keep pushing for the SID to cover operations funding. Sittenfeld's suggestion of the SID is not only equitable and good policy, I believe it will help encourage other policy changes which are essential for the entire streetcar project. One part is the lack of required parking for new development; already passed by the previous council. A SID that has the operational costs covered by the adjacent property owners will encourage such property owners to maximize the revenue their real estate produces- i.e. density. We are basically re-constructing a whole new social/political fabric here.

Why do you keep assuming that aligning with a presidential year will bring out more progressive voters? What if there is a major push from the right on a presidential election year, like in 2000? I don't think we'll see near the AA voter turn out in the next election cycle, as we will probably not have an AA candidate. If anything, I could see this city election as a harbinger for 2 years from now, where the pissed off far right fires up the base and votes for a major change ala 08 after 8 years of Bush. The goal shouldn't be more progressive voters, it should simply be more voters. 29% of the people voted in this election. 60ish% of those voted for Cranley. If we had 50-60% voter turnout and he still won, I'd be happier than I am now, where about 17% of the electorate picked our new mayor. Conceeded. Though I don't really see a distinction between our formulations: a charitable interpretation of the terrible turnout of eligible voters is that the vast majority were fine with the way things were headed and didn't have much personal connection or fondness for either of the candidates.

I'm so proud of you guys.

^Agreed. That's why the best move is to try and shift the election date so that it corresponds with the presidential election. Take a year from Cranley and set things up so we get more than 28% of eligible voters participating in elections from now on.

I'm actually sort of surprised Michael Schuster wrote in favor of the streetcar, because he certainly wouldn't define himself as "progressive". Also, he's close to Phil Castellini I believe, so this might be a sign that the 4th street crowd is starting to pay attention and realize that killing the streetcar is an idiotic move. What's crazy to me is that Flynn is close to the Chavez family, who owned Broadway Commons and and a ton of other downtown parking lots. I can't believe they wouldn't think that the streetcar would raise the value of their unimproved real estate.

It seems to me that, if it is legal, it would be best to put a ballot measure on that isn't about recall, but rather switches the election cycle so that it occurs on the same year as the presidential. That way, you could potentially get Cranley out one year earlier, but mostly you get more progressive voters at the polls. A lot of people will vote against recall simply because they don't like the idea of recall.

Can somebody who's more involved post locations to sign the construction petition?

Sorry, can't agree on this one. If this is your signature issue, your legacy, you better be out there selling it. Particularly if there is blowback, if it is perceived as a risk. Particularly if it has the least amount of support in your primary constituency. Mallory let Smitherman define this issue in the African-American community. Mallory knew Jostin had a subcontract for years; this is coming out as a problem now? How was this not promoted as an Obama admin priority to the African-American community? How weren't the Banks project and the Streetcar not at the forefront of inclusion? It's just been a complete sh-tshow.