Harwell Scrabblepound

After flipping through the report it looks like Cranley got most (95%+) of his contributions in December. Qualls, who raised less (council carryover doesn't really count), was raising hers over a 3-month span. Cranley also has spent less of his war chest so far. Assuming these trends continue, and Cranley is a voracious fundraiser, he will drown Roxanne in a sea of green by September. Hell, he almost doubled up her three-months of fundraising in one month, $172K to $94K. That does not bode well...

Great, just what we need: some regressive troglodyte who wants to repeal our already half-assed green policy.

So you think Mary Kuhl is hot?

Seriously? That sounds like a terrible idea guaranteed to backfire. Horstman is a troll but if you start witch-hunting him then you're playing right into his hairy hands.

I think the biggest issue is that the hub of the system (Government Square) is located downtown and not in Uptown near UC. Uptown is far more central and routing everything through a hub in Clifton would, I think, drastically improve transit times system-wide while preserving frequent service between Uptown and Downtown. For instance, if I want to go Oakley to Northside it makes no sense to route through Downtown, which I believe is necessary under the current system. Makes much more sense to pass through Clifton.

Honestly I don't think he's corrupt or anything like that. I think he came in naive and smitherman pounced on that. Sillyman saw a weakness and turned him.... Like he's done with many others.. And now look what he's become. A regular on Brian Thomas and 700wlw. It's only a matter of time before he's speaking at COAST rallies. I respectfully disagree, Sittenfeld was politically calculating from the beginning. He took great care not to take any positions on nearly any issue, particularly controversial issues (especially the streetcar). I believe that he planned to go right from the very start and use City Council as a launching pad to run for a higher office in the future. Word is he's going to run for mayor next year...if so, doesn't seem to be very calculating. Nonetheless, his opposition is meaningless given how councils made up now.

No, the city often (90%+ of the time) cannot go beyond state law. The case law is complex, but generally if the state has laid out a scheme then the city cannot vary that scheme by requiring more or less. For instance, the city cannot make it a requirement to have a spoiler on your car in order to use city roads (even if there were no commerce clause implications). Your example doesn't prove the point you offered. The state has NO law requiring a helmet, therefore the city is free to act. If the state had a law spelling out certain situations where a helmet was required, the city would be powerless to add situations that also required a helmet.

He wrote several letters to help the city get fed funding, I doubt he's reneging now after spending political capital. More likely the wording reflects an attempt to under-promise and over-deliver. Even if Brown was just an average or even conservative Dem then he would still be way better than Ms. Josh Mandel.

Dusty's a bunch of sound and fury signifying nothing. I'm shocked the Democratic party keeps endorsing his curmudgeonly, double-dipping rump.

Enquirer confirms Chabot amendment is overbroad. http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20120705/NEWS/307050088/

Has anyone confirmed the amendment made it through the conference report? I can't seem to find 'Cincinnati' anywhere in the language of the bill as reported on the Library of Congress' site. Nor do I see mention in the conference report, which is denser than lead. This may all well be premature.

Ok, cool, I was just confused. The Fed grant/appropriation process can be ridiculously jangled sometimes. KJP: Thnx, I've been a long-time lurker, just haven't had much to add to the conversation.

Are we sure this amendment doesn't cut the funds off? My understanding of the Federal grant process seems to mean this can 'retroactively' cut off the prior grants. In a nutshell, my understanding is the grant acts as an authorization, but an appropriation is required before the funds are disbursed. Since this amendment cock-blocks the appropriation doesn't that mean it stops the funding? I, also, understand that the TIGER grants operate on a reimbursement basis. In other words, the city spends its money, then the feds pay the city back for grant eligible expenses. Since the Feds haven't begun reimbursing, the city has technically spent $$$ it cannot get if this amendment stands up. Can anyone confirm or deny this analysis?