JohnClevesSymmes

They are leasing out monthly spaces in that lot now, I believe through Urban Sites.

Not quite correct. While downtown is certainly far more accessible in terms of the current bus routes, it is not "centrally located." Mt. Airy is centrally located. I would like to see a study before a move is approved. Let's examine the number of those who vote early and what percentage actually arrive via the metro. The downtown location is probably a hindrance to some voters who, while they own cars, do not have the flexibility of circumstances to vote on election day. What do those numbers look like? Also, what is the purpose of early voting? Is it to make voting convenient for the largest number of people, or is it to make voting convenient for folks without cars?

^ The Frisch's coke thing blows my mind. I recently overheard someone announce in a haughty tone that he would be "bringing his own coke" to Frisch's from now on. If Frisch's had foregone the public announcement and just let customers know via the classic "is pepsi okay?" query would the blowback have been this huge?

Would that have been in lieu of Ft. Washington Way?

Who is going to challenge Monzel?

You are missing the fact that it is $68 million ADDITIONAL to complete, whereas the $50-$80 million factors in the $34 already spent. You are right on everything else.

^ No doubt. And Ram23 is correct in his assessment as well. I just want to be clear on the numbers in the report.

You are comparing the wrong numbers. Cost to cancel: $16.3M - $46.1M Cost to completion: $68.9M

The $50-$80M number includes the amount already spent ($34 M)

All of this being said, if the Feds don't pull the money, I could see Flynn voting not to cancel.

Ramming through the pause is a clear sign that cancelation is next. If there was any political calculation going on where Cranley plans to say "damn the previous administration! we are forced to proceed..." then he would be taking the opportunity to do a quick audit without a pause. Has any pause-yes vote said that if Deatrick's numbers turn out to be correct they will vote to continue the project?

I doubt that would be the case. Plus the differential between 9th, 8th, and 7th is so small that it seems unfair to take away the vote of only the 9th place vote-getter.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the simplest way to talk about it is as follows: A conservative estimate puts the difference between cancellation and finishing the project at $8mm. Let's say Cranley is able to negotiate some lower costs to cancel, and changes the difference to something like $20mm. That is the ROI number now. Everything on top of that is spent, either way. Certainly a streetcar is worth spending $20mm. This isn't like when council voted to spend the additional $17mm. The decision is: do we spend X to cancel or do we spend X+Y to finish? At that point the devil would be in the operating cost. Which is probably why questions were asked today about how to cover it without affecting the budget - unspoken for casino dollars, special assessment district.

That still doesn't address the parking lease issue that he stumped heavily for. How many voters were against that but neutral on the streetcar? It's impossible to tell. It also doesn't address the many other reasons why a voter would have conceivably picked Cranley. The voters also voted directly on rail in 2011, voting down the anti-rail charter amendment. So the "many on this board" actually had a compelling point. This year, a well funded democrat edged out a less well funded democrat by getting 16% of the voters to pick him. I would hardly say that this is equivalent to "voters have spoken again in their desire to kill the project". Yes, but that is the same as saying that since issues 9 and 48 addressed more than just the streetcar, many of those who voted yes COULD have just not wanted to encumber all possibility of rail for the following decade. My point is really that Cranley's win no more gives him a mandate then any election gives any elected official a mandate. Our elected representatives have a mandate to make decisions and vote on them based on what they think is best for the citizenry. Based on the numbers presented today, it sounds like they ought to vote not to cancel. However, Cranley, Murray, Flynn, and Mann will not be defying the will of the electorate if they vote to cancel the streetcar. They stated they would vote that way and they got elected.

The whole mandate thing is ridiculous either way. However, the fact remains that Cranley made his campaign synonymous with canceling the streetcar and he won the election by a significant margin. Higher turnout could have shrunk that margin but I doubt that, say, the 2011 turnout would have turned the election. Also, the 2011 election had the result of a pro-streetcar supermajority. Many on this board have said that this meant the voters clearly wanted a streetcar. This time around they elected an anti-streetcar mayor and installed 3 new members of council that have expressed opposition to the project. The 2011 turnout could have put Quinlivan in over Murray, but Flynn and Mann would probably still be on. I think it is pretty likely that at least 2 of the "swing" votes will vote for a delay. I'll give it a 75% chance of happening.

^The coroner wants to acquire the now-defunct hospital for a new crime lab. The county would then look to use the office space for other county business. The justification for moving the BOE would be cost savings related to that.

^Seems unlikely given University Plaza is currently undergoing renovations.

^I would take Nate Livingston with a titanic-size grain of salt. If folding the city prosecutor's office in with the county's saves the city money and doesn't slow down the legal system in a significant way, I don't have a problem with it.

School Board winners: Melanie Bates Ericka Copeland-Dansby Elisa Hoffman Daniel Minera Joining: Alex Kuhns Eve Bolton Chris Nelms Martha Good's losing streak continues. Has anyone contacted the folks at Guinness yet?

^^copy and paste the headline into google and then click on the article.

^you're right. Had 2005 in my head for some reason.

Pretty sure she was term-limited anyway.

Copy and paste into your browser.

Reminds me of this ol' plan:

^Keep in mind that each time someone rates a response, that counts as 1 vote. If I go down the list and rate 10 responses, it will show up as 10 votes on the meter.