Jump to content

Cincinnati: Mayor John Cranley

Cygnus
in Ohio Politics

Featured Replies

^ and Paycor.

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Views 79.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Most Popular Posts

  • taestell
    taestell

    It was also revealed recently that the 56% of the city's streets are in fair, poor, or worse condition. There was only a 1 percentage point improvement in road quality from 2016 to 2017. So Cranley's

  • ryanlammi
    ryanlammi

    He spent 6+ months to say the finalists are his acting city manager and his assistant city manager? Wow. EDIT: And if they aren't approved, they are still in that position.

Posted Images

  • Author

John Cranley: We must change

John Cranley is mayor of Cincinnati.

 

Change is difficult. Real change is really difficult.

 

I ran for the office of mayor of Cincinnati with one overriding pledge: To reverse the reckless direction of the past few years, a direction that threatened the very solvency of the city.

 

Our bond rating has been reduced, and may be again. We have spent one-time resources to balance the budget and the prior administration even tried to mortgage our parking system for some quick cash.

 

It simply cannot continue.

 

Cont

"It's just fate, as usual, keeping its bargain and screwing us in the fine print..." - John Crichton

^ Quite possibly the most hypocritical editorial I've ever read in my life. Not only are his words centered around an outdated, cliche political campaign slogan (wonder why he didn't drop a "hope" in there with his change), he literally goes on to describe his idea of "change" as reverting to the status quo of the late 1990's.

 

Whenever Cranley talks, it almost sounds like a Steven Colbert bit - it's like he's trying to lace in hyperbole and satire of himself for humorous effect.

I am tempted, but I refuse to click & read.

Whenever Cranley talks, it almost sounds like a Steven Colbert bit - it's like he's trying to lace in hyperbole and satire of himself for humorous effect.

It's because he's insane.

Between Smitherman & Cranley, I really think we have 2 mentally ill people running the city.

Winburn is just deficient.

Whenever Cranley talks, it almost sounds like a Steven Colbert bit - it's like he's trying to lace in hyperbole and satire of himself for humorous effect.

It's because he's insane.

Between Smitherman & Cranley, I really think we have 2 mentally ill people running the city.

Winburn is just deficient.

 

Winburn is a great exorcist though

 

>Is Lou Reed singing about the same Candy in this later, much more famous song?  Instead of "Candy came from out on the Island" you could substitute "Cranley's infamy came out of COAST."  And he'll doubtlessly be a "darling" in some other kinds of back rooms. 

 

I don't know if it's the same real person.  The fact is that pretty much everything ever created by every great author, poet, artist, and musician was in opposition to people like John Cranley.  He's the kind of guy who takes a perverse pleasure in tricking others and seeing them emotionally, and perhaps physically suffer.

 

More so than Cranley, I think this is Smitherman's theme song:

 

 

 

 

 

Winburn is a great exorcist though

 

I read once that things that went on in the back rooms of the Windbag's church looked more like Voodoo than anything Christian.

I certainly have no respect for the prosperity theology crap he promoted. That's Bob Tilton territory.

 

though i will say that I think sillyman and cranky could use to be exorcised.

JMO from an outsiders perspective, but I think those wanting to do a recall are engaging in some wishful thinking.  Recalls are very difficult.  Not many people who voted for him, if any at all, are going to vote to recall.  Then there are sizeable portions of society who voted against him but won't like the idea of a recall (I would fall into that category).  The bottom line is to succeed in a recall, I would say the reason for the same would have to be based on some outrageous actions (preferably some type of corruption or outright criminal activity) which were not foreseen at the time of his election.  Didn't this guy run his campaign on killing the streetcar?

 

As an Ohioan, I really want to see the streetcar project go forward and succeed because that would be a huge step back in the right direction for our state and hopefully would trigger other similar projects in the other major cities.  I think any energy there is to overcome this guy's agenda should be expended in the courts (maybe go for some type of writ or injunctive relief or taxpayer action?), rather than on a recall.

^Agreed.  That's why the best move is to try and shift the election date so that it corresponds with the presidential election.  Take a year from Cranley and set things up so we get more than 28% of eligible voters participating in elections from now on.

I would agree with others here that it is simply too early to be talking about recall.  As much as we hate it, the man campaigned on killing the streetcar and parking lease, and so far he has made it clear that he intends to follow through with both of those things.  He has proven himself to be a hypocrite by not allowing referendum despite his claim that it was a 'sacred right', but that's not much different than streetcar supporters talking about how referendum is bad government when issues 9 and 42 (?) came forward, but are now in favor of it. As much as I hate the guy, I simply don't think he has pissed off enough people to warrant a recall.  Keep in mind, setting a precedent for recall could also work against our interests in the future.

 

In my opinion, Cranley could still very well face recall if he cancels the streetcar if it triggers a string of negative events.  Say that he goes through with cancellation, and the project is completely stopped and rails are ripped from the ground.  The bad national PR and finality of it all would put a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths, even if they are not streetcar supporters. Paying back the Federal funds, paying the contractors and CAF, and all the litigation will certainly require taking money from other departments.  Once the public sees that the health department (for example) is being cut to pay off debt for NOTHING in return will certainly cause the public to wake up and realize the menace to society that Cranley is.  In short, I think canceling the streetcar has the potential to build an angry coalition that would vote to recall him- much in the same way that he amassed a coalition to gain office.  People from 'the neighborhoods' will realize that the little man was all lies, and doesn't care about their interests in the slightest.

 

^Agreed.  That's why the best move is to try and shift the election date so that it corresponds with the presidential election.  Take a year from Cranley and set things up so we get more than 28% of eligible voters participating in elections from now on.

 

Why do you keep assuming that aligning with a presidential year will bring out more progressive voters? What if there is a major push from the right on a presidential election year, like in 2000? I don't think we'll see near the AA voter turn out in the next election cycle, as we will probably not have an AA candidate.  If anything, I could see this city election as a harbinger for 2 years from now, where the pissed off far right fires up the base and votes for a major change ala 08 after 8 years of Bush.

can we just haul him away in a straitjacket?

^^There is a bit of a myth going around about Obama and black voter turnout in the recent elections.  There was some increase from 60% in 2004 to 64% in 2008 to 66% in 2012..... but certainly not the astromical increases certain media outlets were trying to sell.  The increase was actually consistent, if not less, than what we had seen from 1996 to 2000 to 2004.

^^There is a bit of a myth going around about Obama and black voter turnout in the recent elections.  There was some increase from 60% in 2004 to 64% in 2008 to 66% in 2012..... but certainly not the astromical increases certain media outlets were trying to sell.  The increase was actually consistent, if not less, than what we had seen from 1996 to 2000 to 2004.

 

Fair point, but I think the extremely low voter turnout in the local election this year is definitely linked to not having a Black mayoral candidate.  I would be curious to see some numbers about AA turnout in this election though, as both candidates claimed to have support in the black community.

^Agreed.  That's why the best move is to try and shift the election date so that it corresponds with the presidential election.  Take a year from Cranley and set things up so we get more than 28% of eligible voters participating in elections from now on.

 

Why do you keep assuming that aligning with a presidential year will bring out more progressive voters? What if there is a major push from the right on a presidential election year, like in 2000? I don't think we'll see near the AA voter turn out in the next election cycle, as we will probably not have an AA candidate.  If anything, I could see this city election as a harbinger for 2 years from now, where the pissed off far right fires up the base and votes for a major change ala 08 after 8 years of Bush.

 

The goal shouldn't be more progressive voters, it should simply be more voters.  29% of the people voted in this election.  60ish% of those voted for Cranley.  If we had 50-60% voter turnout and he still won, I'd be happier than I am now, where about 17% of the electorate picked our new mayor.

I think people are starting to hear more of the facts about what cancellation actually means. I also think a TON of Cranley voters thought he was all talk on the issue (the Enquirer seemed to think so), that things were past the point of no return. Then factor in that people opposed to cancellation are now in a heightened state of agitation, while the hardcore opponents feel like the momentum is in their direction.

 

Add all this up, and I think a recall would be very doable. It really is THAT horrible policy/government. It's also illegal. But I don't think anyone is advocating to do it prior to either 1) the streetcar getting irreversibly "paused," or 2) something else similarly heinous happens.

 

The goal shouldn't be more progressive voters, it should simply be more voters.  29% of the people voted in this election.  60ish% of those voted for Cranley.  If we had 50-60% voter turnout and he still won, I'd be happier than I am now, where about 17% of the electorate picked our new mayor.

 

The 16% (17%?) factor is another reason why I think it's totally doable. Not many people actually wanted him in the first place!

^Agreed on all points.  Also, my percentages were from memory.  I didn't have time to dig up the real ones, but those should be fairly accurate.

I don't care what it takes.  1 week of cranley + council was disastrous…Imagine 4 years.

 

A recall is necessary and I believe that if/when the streetcar is cancelled, city services will be completely gutted to pay off litigation, bonds, & closing out costs.  People will be furious at Cranley and his lemmings

I don't care what it takes.  1 week of cranley + council was disastrous…Imagine 4 years.

 

A recall is necessary and I believe that if/when the streetcar is cancelled, city services will be completely gutted to pay off litigation, bonds, & closing out costs.  People will be furious at Cranley and his lemmings

 

If it gets to that point, it's already too late. There's got to be something that can done to prevent him from completely destroying the city's finances. The city has already been in shaky standing finances ever since he was Finance & Budget Chair. It's only recently started to recover, and would be if the state hadn't cut their contribution to cities.

I'm for recall, not because of the streetcar, but to hurt Cranley's future political career. The guy is the definition of the type of person I don't want serving in our government in any capacity. Even if he doesn't get recalled, he's still the guy who had to face Cincinnati's first mayoral recall election in history.

Someone beat me to it, but this was what I was visualizing too. I would just add...

 

" En politique, la stupidité n'est pas un handicap"

 

BbKyl2fCcAAng6u.jpg

 

@afpetrusch; @CincyStreetcar

>Is Lou Reed singing about the same Candy in this later, much more famous song?  Instead of "Candy came from out on the Island" you could substitute "Cranley's infamy came out of COAST."  And he'll doubtlessly be a "darling" in some other kinds of back rooms. 

 

I don't know if it's the same real person.  The fact is that pretty much everything ever created by every great author, poet, artist, and musician was in opposition to people like John Cranley.  He's the kind of guy who takes a perverse pleasure in tricking others and seeing them emotionally, and perhaps physically suffer.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdI2FlX4tLM

 

Maybe Cranley does the Astro

Cranley does the Astro

Cranley does the Astro, Astro

^Agreed.  That's why the best move is to try and shift the election date so that it corresponds with the presidential election.  Take a year from Cranley and set things up so we get more than 28% of eligible voters participating in elections from now on.

 

Why do you keep assuming that aligning with a presidential year will bring out more progressive voters? What if there is a major push from the right on a presidential election year, like in 2000? I don't think we'll see near the AA voter turn out in the next election cycle, as we will probably not have an AA candidate.  If anything, I could see this city election as a harbinger for 2 years from now, where the pissed off far right fires up the base and votes for a major change ala 08 after 8 years of Bush.

 

The goal shouldn't be more progressive voters, it should simply be more voters.  29% of the people voted in this election.  60ish% of those voted for Cranley.  If we had 50-60% voter turnout and he still won, I'd be happier than I am now, where about 17% of the electorate picked our new mayor.

 

Conceeded.  Though I don't really see a distinction between our formulations: a charitable interpretation of the terrible turnout of eligible voters is that the vast majority were fine with the way things were headed and didn't have much personal connection or fondness for either of the candidates.

I'll be honest. I never frequent the Cincinnati boards and didn't have a clue who your mayor is, more or less this streetcar controversy, until cnn.com and yahoo.com posted several articles last week.

 

This definitely feels reminiscent of Kasich bulldozing the 3C line, and people wanting to impeach or recall him for it, even though that was part of his campaign. It sucks you guys lost the streetcar, but if Kasich is still in office (and on his way to be win re-election), I don't see Cranley going anywhere

It's way different than Kasich. This thing has been under construction for months and in the works for 7 years. It has survived referendum twice. Survived council and mayoral elections. The previous council, elected in an election that the streetcar was a prominent issue, had a super majority of supporters. It is under contract. It will cost as much to stop as it does to complete. And only 16% of eligible voters voted him in, a significantly smaller total than the number of voters who voted to continue the project in the previous two referendums.

 

The parallel with Kasich is very superficial.

per Cranky's press conference:

man, this guy is useless...

I do like looking at these boards for their entertainment value. But I have a simple question - for those advocating recall of Cranley, now many partitions have you circulated and how many signatures do you have? Talk is cheap, action is best, and time is short. Either a recall or a referendum has a short time frame, says the Feds, or they will pull their grant money. Frankly I think you say a lot, but the production will fall short. Sorry, just my belief.

I do like looking at these boards for their entertainment value. But I have a simple question - for those advocating recall of Cranley, now many partitions have you circulated and how many signatures do you have? Talk is cheap, action is best, and time is short. Either a recall or a referendum has a short time frame, says the Feds, or they will pull their grant money. Frankly I think you say a lot, but the production will fall short. Sorry, just my belief.

 

um...

 

No petitions for recall have been circulated.

 

Over 1000 petitions for a streetcar charter amendment are being circulated. In 2 days, it's reported that over 2000 signatures have been returned from just 100 of those petitions. I think we're just fine.

Recall can't happen until one year after he takes office so we can't circulate petitions yet if we wanted to.

 

The streetcar petitions have turned in 2000 signatures with only 10% of petitions returned. So if every petition gets filled to the max, it would be 20,000 signatures. I highly doubt every petition will be returned by Saturday or that all of those petitions returned will be full. I think the goal of 12,000 signatures and at least 5700 valid signatures is highly likely, though.

But THINK PEOPLE! The Feds have given a deadline of Dec 19th to affirm the completion of the streetcar or they will pull the Federal money. Cranley has stated he wants private funds committed for the completion by that date. There is no way in Hell that is going to happen.

 

So what do you expect to happen? Cincinnati voters will confirm the completion of the streetcar without the Federal Grant? That is about as stupid as Cranley stopping it in the first place. Unless two council members change their mind quickly, it is a Dead Horse and Cincinnati is the laughing stock of the nation.

 

 

Feds told Cranky he's got 2 years to come up with operating funds & to quit being a drama queen.

I imagine he's getting an earful from other mayors on his little tax payer funded vacation in DC, too.

He's only looking for an organization to underwrite. No checks needed anytime soon.  There aren't many groups that would do such a thing but an organization like haile could feel pretty confident in how to make it work. 

But THINK PEOPLE! The Feds have given a deadline of Dec 19th to affirm the completion of the streetcar or they will pull the Federal money. Cranley has stated he wants private funds committed for the completion by that date. There is no way in Hell that is going to happen.

 

So what do you expect to happen? Cincinnati voters will confirm the completion of the streetcar without the Federal Grant? That is about as stupid as Cranley stopping it in the first place. Unless two council members change their mind quickly, it is a Dead Horse and Cincinnati is the laughing stock of the nation.

 

 

 

We have long enough attention spans here that we don't need all the bolding, italics and underlines. We can understand you without them. All that extra stuff makes your posts look like junk mail.

Unless two council members change their mind quickly, it is a Dead Horse and Cincinnati is the laughing stock of the nation.

 

Laughing stock of the nation?  I highly doubt that.  Up here in NEO, if 1 out of 10 people even knew that Cincy was building a streetcar, I would be highly surprised.  It's a huge local issue, for sure.  But nobody around the nation - save for the train geeks (sorry, KJP) - is paying much attention.

Unless two council members change their mind quickly, it is a Dead Horse and Cincinnati is the laughing stock of the nation.

 

Laughing stock of the nation?  I highly doubt that.  Up here in NEO, if 1 out of 10 people even knew that Cincy was building a streetcar, I would be highly surprised.  It's a huge local issue, for sure.  But nobody around the nation - save for the train geeks (sorry, KJP) - is paying much attention.

I posted earlier that bondbuyer.com was looking at the issue. probably not optimistically, either.

Unless two council members change their mind quickly, it is a Dead Horse and Cincinnati is the laughing stock of the nation.

 

Laughing stock of the nation?  I highly doubt that.  Up here in NEO, if 1 out of 10 people even knew that Cincy was building a streetcar, I would be highly surprised.  It's a huge local issue, for sure.  But nobody around the nation - save for the train geeks (sorry, KJP) - is paying much attention.

 

It actually is getting national media attention, and in urbanist circles it's very much on the radar.

 

Anchorage Daily News reported on it:

http://www.adn.com/2013/12/09/3221929/group-trying-to-save-cincinnati.html

 

"Laughing stock of the nation" is hyperbole, but it's not ridiculously far off. People around the country will hear about it. And the vast majority of people will think it's completely absurd and amateurish.

And when international businesses look to invest in the US, they will think of this unstable political environment when considering Cincinnati.

But what the heck, CO    and the NA CP has been trashing that for years. Cranley is just the last nail in the coffin.

kjbrill - yes, we know. Cranley has every intention to kill the streetcar, now he's just trying to find a way to blame it on someone else. He would love for the feds to pull the funding and have the project die. If that happens, the recall effort will start immediately. For now, our efforts are focused on saving the streetcar.

Unless two council members change their mind quickly, it is a Dead Horse and Cincinnati is the laughing stock of the nation.

 

Laughing stock of the nation?  I highly doubt that.  Up here in NEO, if 1 out of 10 people even knew that Cincy was building a streetcar, I would be highly surprised.  It's a huge local issue, for sure.  But nobody around the nation - save for the train geeks (sorry, KJP) - is paying much attention.

 

It actually is getting national media attention, and in urbanist circles it's very much on the radar.

 

Anchorage Daily News reported on it:

http://www.adn.com/2013/12/09/3221929/group-trying-to-save-cincinnati.html

 

"Laughing stock of the nation" is hyperbole, but it's not ridiculously far off. People around the country will hear about it. And the vast majority of people will think it's completely absurd and amateurish.

 

The NY Time is apparently working on a story. They interviewed Councilman Seelbach today. Businessweek apparently already wrote about it.

 

Again, I know it's not like everyone in the country is going to learn about it (sh!t, they don't learn about anything). But there's national press covering this whole...whatever it is.

OK let's see how this plays out. Cranley was in Washington on Friday along with a couple dozen of new mayors. Was he there for anything constructive or just to spend some more of Cincinnati's money? He is just looking for any rathional to terminate the streetcar. His latest ploy to say private donations must be in place to guarantee the operating costs is just another flim-flam. I wish I thought a recall had a ghost of prayer to succeed, but I don't.

Maybe when Flynn finishes his Charter review we can simply abolish the post of Mayor?  Save a over hundred thousand dollars every year and all we lose is a dude who appoints committee heads and has a veto in a 5 or fewer situation.

^Never thought about it, but it does seem like a City Manager appointed by council could take on those responsibilities.  Although, then he'd be serving at the pleasure of council, and might have to bow to their whims.

Maybe when Flynn finishes his Charter review we can simply abolish the post of Mayor?  Save a over hundred thousand dollars every year and all we lose is a dude who appoints committee heads and has a veto in a 5 or fewer situation.

 

how would that work? would you need 6 Council votes?

Abolishing the mayor position is just silly.

Go to topic listing

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.