BlackBengal

Great job Jake. And great job by Fox 19.

So on top of Cranley being basically a tea party guy, he is also pro life? And he is a democrat? Unbelievable.

The choice for Cranley and the counsel is simple. Do you want to aggressively preside over years of lawsuits, in the attempt to make good on your assurance that the cancellation costs will be lower than the cost to complete? Or do you want to just let the streetcar supporters have this one, and move on to the task of running this City? The former administration can take all of the blame for the broken campaign promises to cancel the streetcar. Cranley can simply say, "I would have liked to cancel it, but Mallory signed contracts, and the liability and legal fees were too great and exposed the City to too big of a risk." Your supporters will not begrudge you that reasonable position.

Anyone care to handicap the odds of 2 of council members changing their stance?

We only need two votes to flip right? If PG and Mann flip the project continues? Is this correct?

How many of the anti-streetcar commenters actually live in Cincinnati? I would guess that most of them live in Mason or some other suburb.

Good points.

^ That is the most optimistic article on the chances of streetcar survival in a while. I hope this is a sign that Cranley is toning down his rhetoric. I firmly believe that it is in his best political interest to let the streetcar supporters have this one. If he tries to kill the streetcar his first year, and maybe longer, will be nothing but a long and ugly fight. He will be dealing with referendums, protests, lawsuits, etc. He will not come out unscathed. If he let's reason prevail he will be viewed as a pragmatic leader that is willing to compromise. He will get to claim some portion of the credit if the streetcar is a success (and we all know it will be), and he will get to blame Mallory if the streetcar is not a success (fat chance). The best political move is to not cancel. One more thing. Cranley would be crazy to let this go to a referendum. If the voters come out in favor of the project he will look very bad. He could look like a lame duck with 3 years left to go. Given the results of the previous referendums on rail and the fact that many voters who aren't streetcar supportors may believe that breaching contracts is wrong, I think the voters will come out in support of the project. Given his statements in the past and even today supporting referendums, the only way to avoid a referendum is to not try to cancel it.

I thought that we moved passed this idea that we are competing with the other cities and townships in our region. When Kenwood, or Norwood or Newport etc. do well it helps Cincinnati and vice versa. They are not our competitors. We are in this together. This guy is such a throw back to the 1990s typical Cincinnati politician.

^ It's like this guy has never been out of Cincinnati before. Nearly every city I go to either has an existing subway/rail system, or a modern streetcar system. What is 19th century, is Cincinnati not having any rail public transit. It is a joke that this guy is the leader of our city.

^I asked my wife, who worked in retail in Chicago for almost 10 years, to rank Von Maur compared to other department stores. She said it is roughly equal to Nordstrom, if not a little nicer. She said that she likes it better than Saks, but Saks is significantly more upscale.

If Cranley wants to win reelection in 4 years his best strategy is to allow the streetcar to go forward. He can save face with his supporters by saying it is too far along to stop. Lawsuits, etc. I don't think he will be damaged by that. But if he cancels the streetcar he will face heavy criticism, especially if OTR stagnates in the next 4 years. He will be to blame. The Enquirer is already changing its tune toward Cranley and the streetcar. Opposing the streetcar might have helped win the election, but it could be political suicide to actually cancel it.

Remember in the same breath, when they said Cranley's ego could create the same problem? I just don't understand why they endorsed him... Because the Enquirer is a conservative newspaper, and they always endorse the most conservative candidate, even when it's a bad conservative candidate. They endorsed Bush twice, McCain/Palin, Romney, etc. They endorsed Jean Schmidt several times. They are shameless shills for any conservative candidate.

I don't think we can blame this one on Cranley.

How can Cranley block a referendum? I don't understand.

It seems odd that the Enquirer would endorse Cranley and then criticize him for falling through in campaign promises.

The death of the parking deal might actually improve the chances that the streetcar survives: 1. It allows Cranley to claim that he kept one of his campaign promises (killing the parking deal). It makes it easier for him to break his misguided promises to kill the streetcar. 2. If Xerox sues over the parking deal, it makes it very hard for Cranley to kill the streetcar, thus inviting more lawsuits from breached contracts.

If only there were a streetcar line that directly accessed the Banks. That would surely speed up its development.

Can someone explain how a referendum would work? How do you get a referendum? Would we have to wait until next November to vote on it?

Without pollling data it is extremely hard to figure out who is likely to win this race. Can someone that has a sense of who is the favorite give us an unbiased opinion?

Are there renderings of what is being built? I am totally confused by this project. I already miss River Downs.

There aren't any black people in OTR and Downtown?

This question has probably been answered before, but if Cranley wins will he have the ability to stop the streetcar? Also, what are the chances that Cranley wins?

Are people really disappointed that a Holiday Inn doesn't have an exciting design? Its a Holiday Inn. That's what a Holiday Inn looks like.

Update on the Pure Romance situation. It looks like all systems were go and then the tax credit was nixed by David Goodman, Director, Ohio Development Services Agency, who simply explained that he didnt think it was a good idea. As a result Cincinnati stands to lose over 100 high paying jobs. Thanks Columbus. http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130912/BIZ01/309120029 To put this in perspective, Kasich was reportedly offering Sears over $65,000 per employee to move to Columbus. The same administration is now unwilling to offer less than $1,000 per employee to retain a homegrown Cincinnati company.