Cranley had a commercial during the Bengals game for his parks tax. There's no other way to describe him in his starring role other than "doofus."

 

On TV or at the stadium?  I keep getting them while viewing random youtube videos. 

Cranley had a commercial during the Bengals game for his parks tax. There's no other way to describe him in his starring role other than "doofus."

 

On TV or at the stadium?  I keep getting them while viewing random youtube videos. 

 

It was on TV. I don't watch TV much so maybe it's been airing for awhile. It was this ad:

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2015/10/commentary-with-tv-ad-cranley-ties-political.html

 

 

I'm not sold on the park tax.  At all.  The way it's set up makes it more of a mayoral slush fund. 

It looks like COAST has finally stopped pretending Cranley is their man, and in doing so add another chapter to Cincinnati's awkward version of the "horseshoe theory:"

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/10/14/state-rep-threatens-suit-over-parks-donation/73950426/

Great Parks, Great Neighborhoods, Inc.

 

 

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

October 15, 2015

 

 

 

CINCINNATI- Thursday, Charlie Luken, spokesperson for Great Parks, Great Neighborhood, Inc. released the following statement:

 

 

 

“Our number one priority is to support Cincinnati Parks and the passage of Issue 22, the Cincinnati Parks Levy. In recent days, a particular contribution to our organization has come in dispute.

 

 

 

Though we strongly believe that contribution from the private Meyer Fund held by the Cincinnati Park Board was, and is, above board, it has no doubt become a distraction to our goal of supporting the parks and passing Issue 22. That is why we plan to return the contribution to the Meyer Fund.

 

 

 

Our parks are one Cincinnati’s greatest assets, and the passage of Issue 22 will guarantee that they are maintained and enhanced for our children and all future issues. I hope that now this matter is behind us that the public dialogue can return to where it ought to be: the merits and importance of this policy.”

 

ack! don't they have a PR person? Or at least an editor? I see two glaring typos that are clearly the result of a rush-job to get that release out the door quickly. Very unprofessional.

Charlie Luken and "professionalism" shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence.  This is the same guy who spent his time as mayor in the 80s falling off Mt. Adams barstools.   

Seeing Luken attached to this makes me even more weary of suggesting people I know in Cincy support this.

 

There are far more pressing issues to deal with in Cincinnati - beefing up the transit system IMO should be a top priority.

Seeing Luken attached to this makes me even more weary of suggesting people I know in Cincy support this.

 

There are far more pressing issues to deal with in Cincinnati - beefing up the transit system IMO should be a top priority.

 

Of course.  But Cranley's priority is increasing the value of very specific pieces of property owned by his cronies, not a rising tide that lifts all boats. 

 

The park levy is an absolute no vote. Go look for the 990s that the Park Foundation has out there. There are only 2 officers that have any control over that fund, Mary Jane Klug and Willie Carden. They can walk a check over to cover anything the park needs.

 

It speaks quite a bit to the Mayor's priorities that he wanted Willie as his city manager, and now is paying off Willie with a permanent fund. After all, Cranley and Black got rid of anyone associated with Mallory and Dohoney, and yet Willie is still there. Who paid for all of Mallory's trips?

Things keep looking worse and worse for the parks levy...

 

Key parks levy project in limbo after church refuses to sell land to the city

 

New Prospect Baptist Church, the site of one of the projects Mayor John Cranley proposed to fund using the proceeds from Issue 22, will not sell its land to the city, parishioners and the Rev. Damon Lynch III decided Thursday night after an impassioned town hall meeting.

Somehow I think the Enquirer is going to endorse Issue 22.

If you didn't make it to the Niehoff Studio on Tuesday, you can listen to Don Mooney and John Cranley discussing Issue 22 on The UrbanCincy Podcast. There were a number of interesting comments made by Cranley, including:

 

- Cincinnati and Hamilton County considered collaborating on a joint parks tax but ultimately decided not to

- Cranley supports FWW caps but said that it would've taken most/all of the levy money to build them, and that "it's the neighborhoods turn" to get parks that will do for them what Washington Park and Smale Park did for downtown

- Cranley gave a few hints about what SORTA will propose next year in terms of a transit tax. It will likely include a partial decrease (but not elimination) of the city earnings tax coupled with an increase in the county sales tax. Cranley suggested that city voters might support it because it's a net tax decrease for them, yet it would generate about twice as much revenue for SORTA.

The mayor exploded a pumpkin in Eden Park yesterday.  Frank Wood, the "Commissioner of Fun" ....  Is that the best he can come up with?

Too bad we couldn't get Bull Murray as our Director of Fun.

It seems like it would have been a classy move to give the detonation to a kid at Children's or something. Let them explode the pumpkin. That would make their day.

Fun fact: more people voted on Issue 22 (Cincinnati Parks Levy) than voted for a mayor in 2013. Cincinnati is a weird place.

Cranley's grand quest to build a Thousand-Year Reich suffered a big setback last night -- and it was all caused by Cranley.  He's such a fool!

He made his bed with the likes of Smitherman, Cole and COAST, and now he can lie in it.  You cannot triangulate against the liberal wing of your own party and then go out and ask for their vote on a tax increase. 

Is anyone else thinking today that a decent amount of the votes against the park levy were actually a vote against Cranley himself? Maybe I'm reading into it a bit too much, but I'm curious how his reelection chances are.

Issue 22 was the first time that I have ever voted "No" on a local issue or levy. 

 

Had it not been for how it appeared this was a levy for Cranley's pet project fund, I would have been 100% in favor of it. 

The mayor is spinning the Issue 22 loss as, "the people don't want their taxes increased." But the reality is that we are happy to increase our taxes if it's for something that are willing to pay for. We just didn't trust Cranley to oversee how that money was spent.

The mayor is spinning the Issue 22 loss as, "the people don't want their taxes increased." But the reality is that we are happy to increase our taxes if it's for something that are willing to pay for. We just didn't trust Cranley to oversee how that money was spent.

 

Would be pretty humorous to see that argument come up in debate over new levies. Cranley: "People don't want to raise taxes, look at issue 22." Everyone else: "No - they just don't want to raise taxes to give money to you."

Can someone do a poll of Cincinnatians and find out why they voted no? lol

I had to laugh that The Enquirer posted a photo of Cranley looking exceedingly smug and arrogant for its article about him saying it was time for humility in the wake of Issue 22's defeat.  I suspect we'll have to wait a long time for Cranley to show any.

 

Charlie Luken lost his probate judgeship race last year and now the parks issue scheme he and Cranley cooked up, thought by some to be a way to circumvent City Council in order to reward Cranley's cronies, was trounced.  Is it too early to sound the death knell for Luken influence over Cincinnati's politics?  It's not easy to read into election results when turnout is so low.

Turnout was higher for Issue 22 than it was for the last mayoral election.

Charlie Luken lost his probate judgeship race last year and now the parks issue scheme he and Cranley cooked up, thought by some to be a way to circumvent City Council in order to reward Cranley's cronies, was trounced.  Is it too early to sound the death knell for Luken influence over Cincinnati's politics?  It's not easy to read into election results when turnout is so low.

 

Good riddance, so many of Cincinnati's problems are caused by that family's incompetence and unwillingness to embrace ideas that work its not even funny.

Turnout was higher for Issue 22 than it was for the last mayoral election.

 

I'm guessing Issue 3 probably had as much or more to do with the higher (but still low) voter turnout this time than the parks levy.  I could be wrong though.

In city politics, the buck stops with the mayor, and I take personal responsibility for the park levy loss. I take everything about my job as your mayor personally because my wife, Dena, and I are raising our family here and we want this to be the best city it can be.

 

I am proud of the campaign, the vision of investing in green space and our park system. Most of all, I say thanks to the hundreds of volunteers who helped the campaign.

 

However, I never wanted to raise taxes without the voters’ permission; therefore, I will heed the voters. Since taking office, we have balanced the budget by prioritizing police, fire, sanitation and road paving, and we will continue to do so within our existing resources.

 

The voters have spoken, and I hear them loud and clear.

 

Like any loss in life, I am seeking to learn from this campaign in order to better serve you.

 

While the parks levy resulted from listening to longstanding neighborhood requests from around the city, the results clearly show that a more robust conversation was needed related to what the citizens’ highest priorities really are for their tax dollars. I will be reaching out and listening even more.

 

Parks Director Willie Carden and the Park Board have delivered the spectacular Washington and Smale Riverfront parks in recent years and did so by leveraging enormous donations of private dollars. They should be heralded for their tireless efforts. However, the Park Board and department can and should improve its procedures moving forward. The city has started an independent audit of all park funds and it will be my recommendation that all park resources – even private dollars – be subject to the same rules and regulations as city tax dollars.

 

Just as important, I will also increase my efforts to work collaboratively with City Council, and I am hopeful that they will do the same.

 

When we have worked together, the results have been amazing. By hiring firefighters we have essentially ended brownouts to ensure that if you have a medical event, an ambulance will be there quickly. We have hired roughly one hundred cops to combat violence. We balanced the budget two years in a row, and have improved the city’s credit outlook. Facing an unfunded pension liability of $800 million, we made the tough decisions to negotiate a solution that required sacrifices by all. We have reprioritized road paving and will increase road paving by 60 percent in 2016. We are delivering on the basics within the means we have. And our city’s renaissance continues with thousands of jobs that we have helped bring to the city, like GE on The Banks and Mercy Health in Bond Hill.

 

Cincinnati is doing well and tends to do even better when we all work together.

 

-John Cranley

Hopefully Cranley follows through on this lesson learned:

 

Just as important, I will also increase my efforts to work collaboratively with City Council, and I am hopeful that they will do the same.

 

When we have worked together, the results have been amazing.

 

Charlie Luken lost his probate judgeship race last year and now the parks issue scheme he and Cranley cooked up, thought by some to be a way to circumvent City Council in order to reward Cranley's cronies, was trounced.  Is it too early to sound the death knell for Luken influence over Cincinnati's politics?  It's not easy to read into election results when turnout is so low.

 

Good riddance, so many of Cincinnati's problems are caused by that family's incompetence and unwillingness to embrace ideas that work its not even funny.

 

You kind of wish that Charlie had somehow struck junk TV gold and left the local political scene ala Jerry Springer back in the 90s.  Instead after his mayoral reprise fifteen years ago he's been turding around generally accomplishing absolutely nothing in the public good, as is the Luken family tradition. 

 

Tonight I ran across this vintage TV clip from 20 years ago -- he of course took Springer's Channel 5 seat.  So comical to see Rashid invoking the sage wisdom of Lou Holtz...only in Cincinnati do you see Jews and Protestants (even black protestants like Smitherman!) "act Catholic":

 

Meanwhile today in 2015 Cranley operates in this thick web which only a multigenerational native can really understand, trying to branch out to the non-Catholics speaking in a dead circa-1965 language.  It's a uniquely local dynamic.  Cranley doesn't really understand that newcomers don't give a damn about all of that dusty stuff and he couldn't effectively speak today's language if he had to.   

 

Hopefully Cranley follows through on this lesson learned:

 

Just as important, I will also increase my efforts to work collaboratively with City Council, and I am hopeful that they will do the same.

 

When we have worked together, the results have been amazing.

 

 

My faith in his abilities are extremely low, like Jake basically said, he's too caught up in a provincial web to see reality.

 

 

John Cranley just vetoed the Fiscal Year 2017 tax plan that was passed by City Council (w/ 6 members supporting). Council had voted to keep the property tax rate unchanged at 5.6 mills. Cranley insists that it should be lowered to 5.52 mills, continuing Cincinnati's insane tradition of lowering its property tax rate every year to result in the same number of dollars ($28.9 million) coming in each year. So, with the City Manager projecting a deficit of $13 million for FY2017, the Mayor wants to lower taxes and add to the deficit. Hopefully Council can rally and override the veto.

And of course the Enquirer headline is, "Cranley vetoes property tax hike".

 

Pretty misleading headline since no tax rates were being "hiked".

^That kind of incompetent reporting is exactly why I stopped subscribing to the Enquirer and stopped clicking on links to their articles.  I don't even want my click throughs generating ad revenue for that rag at this point.

An increase of $2.48 a year represents a 0.11% increase.

 

http://www.hamiltoncountyauditor.org/pdf/re_100k2016_taxpayer.pdf

^I think it was a deliberate decision. They want the clicks so they make a headline that will fire up Cranley opponents and get casual readers to wonder what was happening. Also, the Enquirer has a big crush on him, so they want people to think he's stopping tax hikes.

An increase of $2.48 a year represents a 0.11% increase.

 

http://www.hamiltoncountyauditor.org/pdf/re_100k2016_taxpayer.pdf

 

But it wouldn't even be an increase. He wants a $2.48 decrease.

^I think it was a deliberate decision. They want the clicks so they make a headline that will fire up Cranley opponents and get casual readers to wonder what was happening. Also, the Enquirer has a big crush on him, so they want people to think he's stopping tax hikes.

 

Oh, I'm sure that's it.  That's why I stopped reading them online. 

 

An increase of $2.48 a year represents a 0.11% increase.

 

Does a "tax increase" refer to rate or to amount?  It's semantics.

An increase of $2.48 a year represents a 0.11% increase.

 

Does a "tax increase" refer to rate or to amount?  It's semantics.

 

I would argue that it's misleading. It is a "tax increase" every time a retailer increases the price of their goods because we're paying more in sales tax?

When people refer to "tax increases" they absolutely are referring to rates. The Enquirer is playing shenanigans by following Cranley's BS line about this being a "tax increase", and I'm sure they know it. If you get a raise at your job but stay within the same tax bracket, you wouldn't say that the government "raised your taxes". If you jump into a higher bracket and rate goes up, then you might say that your taxes were raised, though.

 

Jwulsin is right. The property tax rate is unchanged. How much you pay in property taxes depends on how much your property is worth! The only folks who will see an increase in the amount of property taxes they pay are those folks who have benefited from City government's investments (or their personal investments) to increase the value of their property.

 

David Mann wanted to increase taxes, raising the millage to the maximum 6.1. A fantastic idea in my book.

Property values are only assessed every 3 years, and won't be reassessed again until 2017 (for the 2018 tax year). Even if people's property increased in value, they aren't paying taxes on that increased value until the county auditor updates their assessments.

As a reminder...your "city" part of the total property tax is very small, around 10%, if my memory is correct.  About half of it is Cincinnati Public Schools. 

 

And as somebody mentioned...if you really want your property taxes to go down, move to a little house in an unpopular part of town.  The annual tax on my house is about $2,250.  My cousin in Hyde Park pays $5,500 for a house of a similar size. 

Looks like the Enquirer wised up, and updated their headline to now say: "Cranley vetoes property tax budget"

But the URL slug shows their initial headline: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2016/01/08/cranley-vetos-tax-hike/78418190/

 

 

 

 

And as somebody mentioned...if you really want your property taxes to go down, move to a little house in an unpopular part of town.  The annual tax on my house is about $2,250.  My cousin in Hyde Park pays $5,500 for a house of a similar size. 

 

That's great advice.  FYI, my property tax in Newport is about $1600 annually on a 1200 sq/ft house, not bad for being within walking distance of downtown.  Not that I'm encouraging anyone to leave Cincinnati; just supporting your assertion that a smaller house in a less trendy neighborhood translates into having more money on the back end.

A house with tax credits also works too. My taxes in a rehabbed Northside house were absurdly low (around $500/year) whereas my neighbors were paying well over $2,000/year.

Can't wait for his re-election mailers talking about how he vetoed a 'tax increase' passed by this 'fiscally unresponsible' council. That's what this was all about.

Can't wait for his re-election mailers talking about how he vetoed a 'tax increase' passed by this 'fiscally unresponsible' council. That's what this was all about.

 

I hope he tries that and the Ohio Elections Commission finds it to be a false statement.

The "best" part is that when doing the veto, he claimed that voters turning down Issue 22 proved that "voters don't want their property taxes increased". No, we didn't like permanent tax increases with little accountability. He is an infuriating man, and I can't wait for Yvette Simpson to run against him.