PAlexander

Any recall that campaign that doesn't include: (1) a credible alternative candidate that gets the voters who didn't show up in 2013 to come to the polls; and (2) occur in a year where larger turnout is typical (e.g. 2014, 2016) is simply an exercise in futility. If a recall campaign is planned, it must be planned very carefully. Now that we've got the stupid 4 year terms, I'd suggest switching the time frame of the City elections to correspond with the Presidential elections. If you want to avoid future Cranleys who opportunistically base their support on the Republican/Tea Party diehards who always vote (the rousing 16% of eligible voters) you need to change the election schedule.

My guess is that the "confidential memo" was in fact a "what is the worst case scenario" memo. If your best precedent is a case from the 1930s, your side is probably pretty weak. It seems pretty clear that if you are going to go to litigation, and your firm has multiple associate attorneys working an important case, the partner working the case will likely assign an attorney to present the arguments that the opposition will use. The City law department is just an in-house firm for the City. I could be wrong about this, but it seems to me that this isn't any different from any other litigation except that the people running the corporation now want the corporation to lose their own case.

I can't believe they are making the streetcar construction an ordinance now. Poor Cincinnati transit advocates. With friends like these...

I guess we will hear from Mann at 9:30. Anyone have all the facts comparing the postive features of the streetcar versus buses for people with disabilities? If you could post them here, it could be a good resource for letters to Flynn, as someone else mentioned.

He is acting sort of crazy. The fact is, he had a win with the cancelling of the parking lease; he doesn't really need to cancel the streetcar to win in four years. Also, Mallory spoke against 3CDC (a Luken creation, pretty much his only signature project during his 2001-2005 mayoralty) when he was running for Mayor and didn't cancel it. Cranley is acting incredibly petty and vindictive. And I don't think he has aspirations for a House district. If he has any it is Senator or Governor.

Mallory v. Cranley would be the lamest fight ever. We'd be waiting hours for each of them to throw the first punch. Seriously though, if Mallory is so mad about this, how come he didn't try to get more support for this in the African-American community? Why did he just sit back and give Chris Smitherman years to define it there, ever since Issue 48? Pathetic.

This: + This: = :cry: for America. Honestly the level of bullshit that is considered to be acceptable nowadays is really depressing. "Doesn't believe" or is "skeptical of the numbers"? This is it, folks, the administration is where you get your numbers from and will be where you get your numbers throughout your four year term. Are you going to be skeptical or not believe all the numbers that come from the City Administration? How exactly are they going to go about doing their independent research? Do they understand why a civil service administration has been in place for over a hundred years? Do men like Flynn or Mann who took the bar (or Cranley, for that matter), who are officers of the court, do they have any respect for the idea of a profession? Do these people actually think that it's right to malign people simply because they have more access to the media and no fear of any consequences? It's pathetic.

This question is the most interesting, simply because if it is possible for a Special Improvement District to be implemented around the streetcar route it should be done regardless. I thought that a TIF worked in the way that you are able to get present value out of present input based on expected future value, so perhaps this would be the same thing. But, if it is possible, there should be a locally assessed property tax along the route which is gradiated by proximity $x for properties adjacent to the line; $y for properties one block away; $z for properties 2 blocks away, for example. The streetcar project should go forward because the funding is already in place and the ROI is good (the same reasons it has always been a good project). But it would be an even better project if the operating costs were met by those who were most likely to benefit from it, and a specific levy on land that will benefit from it would be the most efficient and fairest means to do it. If they could get it to meet the projected cost of operations, that would be perfect. It wouldn't settle the concerns of the antis who hate the project for secret reasons, but it would be the best way to cover the operating expenses.

^The real question is why does the anti-streetcar crowd want a bus circulator that they themselves costs as much to operate as the streetcar? If your main argument against the streetcar is that no one will ride it, why do you honestly believe anyone will ride this? If your response is that this goes to more places, how do you respond to the fact that the streetcar's route would have gone to more places had Kasich not pulled discretionary Ohio funds from it, violating the standards by which those funds were to be allocated? Oh course, the answer to all this is that these folks aren't interested in anything except killing rail transit. You search in vain for honesty in their professed reasons.

Anyone who believes that a balanced budget is more balanced when you put the adjective "structurally" in front of it is not a rational voter, they are a voter who justifies his tribalism with caveats. The law says the budget must be balanced. If the budget goes forward, it meets the terms of "balanced budget". In addition, the guy who used the term "structurally balanced budget" more than anyone was Jeff Berding, who repeatedly argued that no budget was structurally balanced since he joined council after 2005 except one that he and Chris Bortz put together in year x..., etc. Well, who was the author of the budgets those other years that Jeff referred to as being unstructually balanced? Finance committee chair, John Cranley, that's who. So I'll politely suggest that John didn't win the election due to the rational and informed voter giving him support for "structurally balanced budgets". While Roxanne certainly ran a crappy campaign, there's likely an easy way to determine if the premise that John received his support from hard-core conservative voters is true. Cranley received 16% of the vote from eligible voters, Roxanne 11%. Of all the voters who voted, start with the presumption that Roxanne got votes from the most liberal voters, and Cranley got votes from the most conservative voters, and that the most hard-core ideological voters are the voters who vote the most frequently. I think that is a fair presumption. Then compare this election to an election to a city election which is an explicitly partisan contest. If there is a similar percentage of voters who voted for the explicitly conservative candidate to the percentage of voters who voted for Cranley, shouldn't it be safe to assume that he received his support from the same voters?

I've worked on both local and national political campaigns, so I'm familiar with how they can suck, and I'm familiar with the experience of voter interaction. Heck, even if you haven't worked on campaigns one can have a pretty good understanding of how interacting with the average voter can be a frustrating ordeal. I was in a bar prior to the election with a couple of friends and one asked how I was voting. I said I was voting for Qualls because basically the streetcar was my only issue. Immediately some dude at the bar started complaining about the streetcar project because some bus he was waiting for on Ridge Road didn't show up when he was expecting it and he had to walk several miles. Of course, the response to that statement is that the isolated experience of an individual isn't the correct basis for policy, but even if you're not running for office, it's pretty obvious that someone telling you a story that is important to them isn't likely to be persuaded with a response like, "Uh, dude, your bus not showing up on time today doesn't have anything to do with anything." As for "having the guts to cut the police department" that's a matter of opinion. I never understood why the pro-streetcar people let the issue be characterized as a choice between streetcars and cops, particularly when it started to become an issue in 2009. The fact is, the crime in OTR, and the type of crime in OTR, was bad when the streetcar was getting under way. Also, there was a huge depression, a bunch of people were out of work, and you even the folks who saw the department as bloated could slowly accomplish their goals through retirement and attrition. (I'm specifically referring to the situation in 2009, with the first charter amendment which started the process of turning the streetcar into a partisan issue.) It never made any sense to me. I liked Laure BECAUSE she proposed things like making sure we spend money on public art, and because she was unabashedly pro-streetcar. But even you've said it, "The people who are effective politicians are those who love to campaign". And that's been the liberal/progressive problem in this town- the people with the superior policy ideas seem to act as if campaigning is beneath them. Qualls sure did. So, to take your own prescription, if you want to be an effective politician, you have to force yourself to love campaigning. Whining about it and proposing stupid things like four year terms has led us into this situation where we're stuck with a backward council for four freaking years.

I'm pretty sure the Bengals dropped some money to name the stadium. Don't recall how much, and I don't know if it was at a discount, but I'm pretty sure there was at least the formal appearance of having paid to name it.

^Unfortunately it was never about the streetcar and always about who "wins". Anyone who argued for or against the streetcar and didn't at least genuflect to the stats about ROI, etc., simply was playing a different game.

I'm sorry. This sounds like a ridiculous generalization. The part about Laure wasn't a generalization, as I mentioned her specifically. My opinion about her and campaigning was based on my experiences with her; I can't remember if she outright said to me that she disliked it, but that was certainly how I took it. While I understood the sentiment, I found it surprising, as I thought she was pretty good at it and I generally like doing things I'm good at. The part about the liberal politicians was certainly a generalization, but given Qualls' & Mallory's performance in getting the streetcar to be more popular after nearly 4 years, I stand by it. Same thing with the conservative politicians. Cranley's statements that we can just shift the streetcar funding always were obvious bullshit. Every argument marshalled against the streetcar can be used with equal validity against the MLK interchange. If you don't demonstrate any intellectual integrity with your constituents, then you clearly don't have any respect for them, and consequently I argue you demonstrate you think they are beneath you. Ridiculous? Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion; only some bother to explain why they hold them.

^I don't have any particular problem with Jeff Berding, but that's ridiculous. The Bengals stadium opened in 1999; the Reds stadium in 2003; it's 2013 and the Banks project is less than half complete. This simply reflects a desire to praise a friend and Bengals co-worker.

^Laure's flakiness was real, in that she hated campaigning. She wasn't bad at it, but she hated doing it. That's the main reason she wanted the four year terms. And that's the problem with the liberal politicians in this town. They really seem to think that going out there and talking to folks is beneath them. Whereas the conservative ones (generally) think the people are beneath them but they like playing games so they are better at getting into that mindset.

When I originally heard about the parking meter lease I thought it was a terrible idea. But the plan the administration actually came up with was pretty decent. I presume that Cranley moved quickly on this in order to fulfill a campaign promise which was much more in his power to fulfill. So if he eventually loses on the Streetcar, at least he won on this and established his bona fides. The thing that bothers me the most about this cancellation is how much bullshit surrounds it. The public opposition to the lease is the fear it would raise rates, increase enforcement & be a disaster like Chicago's lease, tempered with a bit of distaste for privatization. Given that Cranley himself stated that he would be willing to raise parking rates, the only real reason to oppose the lease is because, once again, City assets are being used to fund the Port, which is a County-wide entity. Most of that economic development will happen in the City, but it's a legitimate problem (just like with Metro). Nevertheless, there's no way the City is not going to have higher parking rates & increased enforcement in the future.

Mea culpa. I honestly didn't think that any of those new council members would do anything about the parking lease. While I don't think the parking lease plan that resulted was a bad one, I have to give them credit for getting rid of something they campaigned against that, if left in place through inaction, would have really made their jobs a lot easier.

I'm not PG. Have you read any of my other posts which mention him?

^Your plan is pretty sound for self-financing, and more actionable that there are 4 year terms: $150,000 in net profits, live on the $50,000 and save the $100,000 each year for a race every four.

Clowns like that are the ones who show up to vote. I'm surprised half the people that show up to vote in this city can manage to tie their geriatric shoes in the morning, let alone fill out a ballot. Freeman McNeal shows up to every Democratic meeting; he will work for whoever pays him. He's no different than any party political consultant or hack, except that he probably charges less. To be fair, a guy who shows up to every Democratic meeting has reason to complain about Qualls, because she just expects party support, doesn't work to build the party, and doesn't work to help the coalition. I voted for Qualls because of the policies she supported, but the fact that Freeman McNeal was supporting Cranley is much more indicative of how cavalierly Qualls took this whole race.

Guys, be scientific. The simplest explanation is the most likely. 28%-29% of people voted. Cranley won with 16% of the vote. Roxanne ran a terrible campaign. She didn't plan it, didn't think it through, and assumed that she could run the same sort of campaign she always ran for Council. Why she didn't realize that she wouldn't get as many votes as she usually does in a race where people can't vote for multiple candidates is a question only she can answer. The local Democratic party is too incompetent to plan some grand conspiracy. Roxanne lost the race through her own faults.

Any mention of cancelling the parking lease that he ran against but is obviously not going to do anything about because he's potentially got a ton of cash coming in to play with?

^She was appointed in 2007 and elected. 2009, 2011. I think 2013 would have been her fourth term, but in this case it would have been a 4 year term (or at least 2 years of those 4).

^It's a nice thought, but when your opponents oppose a policy not because of it's inherent value but because it gives them access to a tiny but militant group of supporters (who, incidently oppose the policy ONLY because it is supported by THEM), it's hard to implement what you suggest. The naysayers are starting the conflict almost for the sake of the conflict itself; that's why they don't care about the reams of facts that have been presented to them about this over the years.