Harwell Scrabblepound

Cow catcher

Not Cincinnati, the State of Ohio: codes.ohio.gov/orc/705.92 "705.92 Procedure for removal of elective officer by recall. Any elective officer of a municipal corporation may be removed from office by the qualified voters of such municipal corporation. The procedure to effect such removal shall be: (A) A petition signed by qualified electors equal in number to at least fifteen per cent of the total votes cast at the most recent regular municipal election, and demanding the election of a successor to the person sought to be removed, shall be filed with the board of elections. Such petition shall contain a general statement in not more than two hundred words of the grounds upon which the removal of such person is sought. The form, sufficiency, and regularity of any such petition shall be determined as provided in the general election laws." Given the dismal turnout on 11/05, signatures totaling 15% of the votes cast should be attainable. Since we are a Charter government this section does not apply. Source: http://www.leagle.com/decision/197633745OhioSt2d292_1280 If it's not in the charter then the statutory procedure alone is insufficient.

"(B) Once the board of directors of the special improvement district adopts a plan, it shall submit the plan to the legislative authority of each participating political subdivision and the municipal executive of each municipal corporation in which the district is located, if any. The legislative authorities and municipal executives shall review the plan and, within sixty days after receiving it, may submit their comments and recommendations about it to the district. After reviewing these comments and recommendations, the board of directors may amend the plan. It may then submit the plan, amended or otherwise, in the form of a petition to members of the district whose property may be assessed for the plan. Once the petition is signed by those members who own at least sixty per cent of the front footage of property that is to be assessed and that abuts upon a street, alley, public road, place, boulevard, parkway, park entrance, easement, or other public improvement, or those members who own at least seventy-five per cent of the area to be assessed for the improvement or service, the petition may be submitted to each legislative authority for approval. If the special improvement district was created for the purpose of developing and implementing plans for special energy improvement projects, the petition required under this division shall be signed by one hundred per cent of the owners of the area of all real property located within the area to be assessed for the special energy improvement project. Each legislative authority shall, by resolution, approve or reject the petition within sixty days after receiving it. If the petition is approved by the legislative authority of each participating political subdivision, the plan contained in the petition shall be effective at the earliest date on which a nonemergency resolution of the legislative authority with the latest effective date may become effective. A plan may not be resubmitted to the legislative authorities and municipal executives more than three times in any twelve-month period." http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/1710

You're right. Sorry, just a very frustrating day. I edited out the offensive portion.

Give it up, Cranley has a mandate. There's video of his campaign manager saying they polled it and 75% of people oppose the streetcar. I think it was a news record video. If that's true we're only going to further embarass the city.

Dillingham and Morowski don't have SB5 at the top of the ballot wave in on. Morowski isn't an endorsed Dem so that effectively precludes him from getting on. Dillingham has no name ID outside of union and party insiders.

Dillingham and Morowski have zero chance of getting on. Smitherman may get knocked off, but the challengers with the potential to get on are Mann, Landsman, Murray, Flynn.

Shit, we might as well get on him for getting murderers and rapists out of prison via the innocence project. This is a joke. He's a lawyer who was hired to do a job. It's not like the jobs moved out of the region, they only moved like 5 miles as the crow flies.

Cranley proved his innocence: http://crc.ohio.gov/Portals/0/Hearing%20Examiner%20Reports/9498.pdf

Look, the election is a three-point race, too close to call, and within the margin of error. Plus Roxanne clearly has the momentum. That same poll has Sittenfeld, Winburn, Smitherman, and Mann as top four in Council. If that's true Cranley is going to crush her.

I completely disagree with your premise. I think he can and he will IF able (i.e. has a complicit council). If he gets elected, which looks increasingly likely, he has to cancel it or his mayorship immediately comes undone. Sure, it will be a complete shitshow but he has to do it or he will have lost the other half of the city (those that want it canceled).

Why? If I care about the streetcar then why put effort into a Sisyphean task for Roxanne when I get maybe help preserve/increase a council majority that will cock-block Cranley? I'd much prefer Roxanne, but unfortunately reality has intruded and still allows the chance to preserve the streetcar.

So Roxanne is already behind? Shouldn't we just be turning our attention to Council, then? Cranley stomped her in the primary and the Enquirer endorsement isn't going to hurt him. Time to cut bait on lost causes and fight to preserve what matters.

This ad is a really bad sign. Cranley only runs an ad like this if he is way up on Qualls, if he was behind or neck-in-neck then he would run a more direct comparison between the two of them.

My point is this: at every other place he has ever had residence at least some of those factors would apply, they don't apply here, ergo he's not a resident. Homeless people are a special case and they have a special rule to deal with their situation.

Probably because he himself said he had NO residency. You can't say he had no residency at that time because he was in between permanent dwellings, then come back and say oops, what he meant was he residing in Cincinnati at a friend's condo. A condo at which he never paid rent, never had a lease, never signed up for utilities, is not listed on the intercom, is not listed on on the deed, and at which he doesn't have any stuff (I'm guessing because he had his furniture and belongings shipped to Korea, per the complaint). If that is all correct, then it sure doesn't sound like residency.

“At the time of casting my ballot, I was in transition from the United States to the Republic of Korea for a two-year work contract,” Simes said. “As a result, I had no typical residence as understood by most people." You can't move from A to B and just decide that you want to register to vote in C, even if B is overseas or you otherwise have ties to C. Democracy doesn't work if people are just allowed to register whether they want. Under Federal law, if he's an ex-pat he can vote in Federal races, but not for local races (unless local law allows). And that makes sense, if he's living in Korea why should he have a vote in Cincinnati? He doesn't live here, he's not taxed here, therefore he has no say in elections here. When/if he moves back he can register and have a say. From Ohio Secretary of State website: Who qualifies as an overseas voter? A U.S. citizen living outside the U.S. is eligible to vote in the Ohio precinct in which the voter resided immediately before leaving the U.S. if the voter was, or could have been registered to vote in Ohio while residing there, or currently is eligible under Ohio law to vote in Ohio. A U.S. citizen who was born outside the U.S. is deemed to have a voting residence in Ohio at the place in the Ohio precinct where the person's parent or guardian continuously resided for at least 30 days immediately before leaving the United States.

Yeah, but according to the complaint he registered to vote in Chicago in 2009 and voted there in 2012. He also contributed to Qualls two weeks before he registered here and listed his Chicago address as his residence. It's pretty clear he was considering Chicago his primary residence until he shipped to off to Korea, including the fact he flew direct from O'hare to Seoul. These Tea Party clowns did a good job trawling his online presence and it looks like he wasn't particularly cautious with what he put out there. Let that be a lesson to us all.

Here's the easy answer: does he have an Illinois or an Ohio driver's license/ID card?

You have to life here for the 30 consecutive days immediately preceding the election. The complaint establishes that was the case, and what you just said further establishes it. Obviously there was probably no ill-intent on his part, but the law is pretty clear and it spells it out on the form. Hopefully the BoE realizes it was a simple mistake.

No, the grants are reimbursements. The city spends the money then applies for the federal government to reimburse it. Assuming it meets all grant requirements the Feds cut the city a check. So unless the shutdown drags on for months this should have no impact.

Might want to brush up on contract law, if the city breaches it will only be obligated to put the other parties in the same position they would of occupied had the breach not occurred. In other words, the city would only be obligated to pay actual costs already incurred plus the expected profit. They would NOT have to spend the full $95M. So let's say the costs are $22M (which is what I think the latest report was) and Messer/Prus expected to profit $20M. The city would only have to pay $42M. Which isn't to say that's not a waste, but fudging numbers is best left to the opposition. Why wouldn't the expected profit be included in that $95M number? Presumably the expected profit to the contractors is part of the cost contracted by the City. It is, but what I'm saying is that breach would not entitle the contractors to the full contract price, only the portion of costs already incurred plus the demonstrable profit was baked into the contract price. Contract law would seek to put the contractor in the same position had the breach not occurred, which is its profit. So you pay off costs it already incurred, then award them their profit.

Sorry, I was just spitballing numbers, not sure if I was clear on that. I have no idea what the profit margin is, and costs certainly will raise. I was just raising the point that just because the contract price is $95M doesn't mean the city would have to spend $95M in the event of a breach.

Might want to brush up on contract law, if the city breaches it will only be obligated to put the other parties in the same position they would of occupied had the breach not occurred. In other words, the city would only be obligated to pay actual costs already incurred plus the expected profit. They would NOT have to spend the full $95M. So let's say the costs are $22M (which is what I think the latest report was) and Messer/Prus expected to profit $20M. The city would only have to pay $42M. Which isn't to say that's not a waste, but fudging numbers is best left to the opposition.

Seems like a good choice, Pericles did found the rule of law in Athenian society.