MRosen85

Cones were up for the hudy 14k run this morning

I live in the building to the south of this, and I agree, that design appears to be a great fit for the spot. If the urban conservator is accepting public comment, does that mean they have published the designs somewhere that the public can access? Is there a place to see more prior to it being released in the HCB staff reports? (I'm curious not only about this project but others; if there are sources other than the HCB reports to see what is being reviewed).

Excluding whatever impact on traffic due to the crowd of people, the impact on the streetcar should be fairly limited. The Route heads straight up Vine street from the banks and only crosses the street car route at Central and Vine and at 12th and Vine. Both of those intersections are within the first approximately 3/4 of a mile from the start. The first runners would take about 3-4 minutes to get to the intersection and the last maybe 20-25 minutes (assuming a walking pace + the delay out of the gate). So there is about a 20 minute window where folks will be crossing the tracks, the majority of the time would be walkers which can easily be stopped for the streetcar to be let through if there are no clear gaps. With a 10-15 minute gap between cars, this affects really only 2 cars in each direction.

Per the twitter reports out of the meeting Yvette Simpson raised the question regarding the impact on operation revenue and wanting that prior to voting, but I would also be concerned on the impact on getting a good value on the sponsorships. I have to assume a company will see it as a lower return if the system is not running on the days it would get exposure to the widest group of people. Whether this is a significant impact, who knows, but I am sure this timing is poor as those agreements have not been signed.

Took my 65 year old suburban parents down to Findlay and the new park last Saturday. One is a little Fox News clone so I don't listen to anything he says, but mom is pretty fair, and she almost wept at how ugly the overhead wire system has made Race and Elm. I didn't prime them for it or anything. It was their unsolicited reaction. It's just new. And for now you'll either love it or hate it (or probably be indifferent). Once the streetcar itself is running, nobody will think twice about the lines. Living on the route on Elm Street between 14th and 15th, I agree. The look of the lines are at least clean and organized and I'd much rather have those than the existing power and other utility lines still above ground. I'd point those out to your Mom next time and get her thoughts on how those look. My daughter looks out her bedroom window directly at a large transformer on the line...The streetcar lines are absolutely no worse than what else is there already.

I live in the area and am intrigued by the parking proposal, mainly because this could be a means to siphon siphon from CBD which can't do a SID and which will see the greatest taxable value gains. I would be concerned however on its ability to be a mechanism to fund future legs: specifically what the parking situation would be around clifton and UC students. For the SID, I would be for it if it came with a commitment of council at least planning and applying for grants for the next phase. If the city leadership is not committed to it being successful after phase1a(not just the mayor) I struggle with agreeing to tax myself more - of course this depends on the amount and other benefits it could be used for. I am curious if this could be passed for a set term, then use increased revenue metrics in the area to see if it needs renewed or at what amount. Ideally these wouldn't need to happen, but it seems like some skin needs to be in the game to make it a success. My thoughts after the initial read.

The two lots are not owned by the same owner of the single family home. The lot next to the home is a 3CDC property I believe, the other lot is owned by neither.

Shouldn't some of those people be taking the streetcar instead of driving up there! Pull up the area on a map, there is nearly an entire city block of surface lots right there. I don't think the area is going to have a lack of parking anytime soon. And if I understand the placement correctly, the spots that may be lost are the ones furthest away from the doors of any of the buildings anyway, so are going to be the least in demand. I feel like these complaints over losing parking spaces (related to the streetcar, the bike lanes, or whatever the issue is) is much like the police debate. There are those who always will want more and you can never take any away, but I never hear what the number should be. Tell me how many spots we need in an area to meet demand and that these lost spots will result in a number below that, otherwise I am fine sacrificing them. As we all know there are other ways to make more spots available if needed (higher rates, no more free 10 minutes, etc).

Why is this something the government does? Seems like something for a business to do. I believe there's already bike rental downtown. I don't believe there is any government funding, the article does not make a reference to any. In fact, it is a separate NFP that has been set up to organize and run the system, and they are looking for business sponsorship to cover start-up expenses per the article.

The Cincinnati BikeShare is taking steps forward with a new director being hired. http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2013/12/20/cincy-bike-share-names-director-looks.html

From the Haile foundation in response to my email on contributing to their fund in appreciation of their work Thank you. Eric Avner has informed me that streetcar donations need to be made to the "Everybody Rides Metro" Foundation. Thanks again. Happy Holidays!

It was a positive sign he was not indulging the media this morning, but rather looking for a solution (apparently).

To the prior council and mayor this revenue was 'new', thus they were not eating into current funds for the expenses. To the new council this revenue is just part of the overall bucket of funds, and using it is therefore eating into other expenses. Considering the new mayor was counting on $20million in casino revenue to balance his budget and the actual amount is half that, there is no way he could be convinced that this is a 'proper' funding source. Hopefully there was a plan B, C and D out there, and I am not talking about the petitions. If they get peppered with reasonable offers and turn them all down, make them look as unreasonable as possible.

For every positive thought this letter gives me, I just can't chase away the cynical view that all of this gives the opponents the ability to say 'See, we tried as best as we can and analyzed all the options but etc etc etc.' The part that now gives me a bit more hope is that the pro-candidates signed on with them on the letter and the other con's didn't. I don't know if the pro's would have signed on if they didn't think there was a real chance of making a difference...hopefully whats going on behind the scenes is productive and sincere.

For the channel 12 story: www.local12.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/future-cincinnati-streetcar-gets-brighter-6069.shtml True or not, the story has a good positive spin, only having quotes from pro-streetcar folks.

Any guesses as to who?

So basically a presser to say they oppose it because operating costs will cost city employee and fire jobs.

Seelbach, Young and Simpson were bringing up numerous concerns on the process of the committee (no official committee was made, no rules were in place) and most notably that as of 12:30 they still had not seen the proposed ordinances that there supposed to be voting on. Arguing that the process was not transparent and would be subject to litigation risk. Mann called a recess until 1pm to end the debate, at which time the ordinances should be available. Most notably, on the video feed, after they went into recess you could see the fabulous 4-some of Mann, Cranley, Winburn and Smithermann huddling together to discuss how to respond. Very sloppy start to a new council....

As someone who lives on the route, i am all for a sid and think it is a great model for future expansion. I think it is worth the discussion on the possibility, and is a win-win politically for everyone if possible.

Does it take a popular vote to get a special taxing district to pay for some of the operating costs or can council do that? Would a compromise solution be best to keep the project from being cancelled? It would be win-win and set a standard for future expansion. Not ideal, but it could open up a conversation.

Consider telling them you are considering legal action, should the project be canceled. (If in fact you will consider that.) It definitely could be a consideration, although I don't know what legal grounds it would be on. They did not enter into a contract directly with me. I imagine a city would get a benefit in a legal proceeding that it has the right to start and stop its own projects, whether good or bad.

I am working on my own letter to Cranley and other council members detailing my personal investment on a rehab on the line on Elm street where rails are currently being installed, and how this was predicated on the city's commitment (not Mallory's, not Qualls', but the cities commitment to build the line) and reversing course makes every city decision unreliable and will stunt future investment. Another thing to be communicated is that with each dollar of sunk cost, the ROI increases for the project and should make the decision to continue construction even more obviously: If 50% of the funds are lost when you cancel, then the decision to spend the remaining 50% comes with double to ROI. Is there a flat dollar amount of benefit in the studies we can communicate? I think that would be more effective than saying 3 to 1 return on investment. Those numbers get completely covered up when people are presented with $133MILLION in cost. We need to us big numbers in this debate!

I feel like I never post on here except for after an election, so I guess I am due for another.. I felt from the beginning that Cranley's hope was to be elected but still expected to have a pro-streetcar council, therefore he could campaign on the issue but would never have to follow through on the threat. Given the results, obviously the situation changes. He still has ability to spin the issue to save face while still allowing it to move forward: He can claim he brought more transparency to the project, maybe cut a bit of cost somewhere, get an operating budget put together, etc. All those things would allow him to say that he improved the project, and now it is ok, even if those are very minor items. One question I have is, with all of the projects announced in the CBD recently (hotels, apartments), do you think those developers will be getting involved? Either threatening to scale back the projects or pressuring Cranley to reconsider? I truly hate the fact that all these politicians who oppose the parking plan are going to reap the benefits of being able to direct where the proceeds go. Each one of them will take credit for having a balanced budget next year, and not mention it is using the funds they campaigned against receiving!

The building at 1201 is across Walnut from the coffee emporium roasting building. It is the building on the northwest corner of the intersection.

Lets make my first post a good one! All 173 precincts in: 51.5% No 48.5% Yes Well done Cincinnati