Chris Seelbach tweeted this earlier today and I think it's pretty damning. This was written by a lawyer, Thomas Hankinson with KMK Law, who supports the tax:

 

I know probably nobody cares what I think, but I also have one substantive suggestion: This is a charter amendment, and should have some sort of check and balance in the case of future mayors (50 or 100 years down the line perhaps) recommending bad programs. As drafted, the mayor could tie up 75% of the funds indefinately and with no recourse if the mayor agrees with the board of park commissioners on the program. This could be helped really easily by adding the phrase "or the vote of (#) members of the city council" to the end of ©. It would still take the parks board and a majority (or specified supermajority) of council to go with a plan different from the mayor's...which is still lodging a pretty good amount of power in the mayor's office

 

In other words, if the Mayor (current or future) and Parks Board submits a package of projects that includes a program that City Council doesn't like, and City Council's only option is to vote yes or no on the entire package. If you have a stubborn Mayor who is unwilling to comprimise (hmmm....), this means that the Mayor can tie up 75% of the parks money the entire time he is in office. This is a massive loophole (like the pocket veto) that puts a tremendous amount of power in the Mayor's hands. All it would've taken to fix this is an additional clause saying that a supermajority of Council could overrule the Mayor. But this clause, of course, was not added.

It's still a process issue though, not a loophole. It doesn't mean that the mayor can go around council to use the funds, it means that if the mayor and a majority of council can't come to terms, then the money doesn't get spent. Did anyone think that, under Issue 22, a supermajority of council was going to be able to initiate projects? I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to, but this doesn't change the equation.

^ But the money is still collected from taxpayers. If Council and the Mayor can't agree on what projects get funded, all the money is still collected but bonds can not be issued for new capital projects.

 

(Reworded for clarity. -TE)

That is my understanding as well. This speaks to a larger balance of power issue at city hall. What are the scenarios in which a super-majority of council can over-ride the mayor, and how does this compare? If a super-majority of council rejects a city manager nomination, I don't believe they can pick a different one. Not sure on this one - can a super-majority impose an operating budget?

The Mayor proposes a City Manager and Council votes yes/no. Council can not propose a City Manager. Only the Mayor can fire the City Manager. Even if all 9 council members want to fire the City Manager, they do not have the power to do so.

 

The "pocket veto" is especially scary. The Charters says that the Mayor must refer all legislation to a committee but does not specify that it must happen with a certain period of time. So the mayor just waits until the last day of their term and then refers it to a committee, which ensures that the issue will never actually get debated or have a chance of passing.

 

These are the two big issues that the Charter Review Committee wanted to fix this year, but unsurprisingly the Mayor vetoed both of these proposals.

Now put Cranley back into the equation. He figured out that a parks tax polls well and he could likely push in through this year to fund a handful of projects in the next few years. I'm sure he believes that these are good projects and that if he can be the one that makes them happen then it will help his political career. I don't have a problem with this either, in theory. In reality we have the questionable practices of the parks department, a not insignificant level of cronyism, and Cranley's "dictatorial tendencies."

 

I really see this as a means for Cranley to setup a more boss like system of government.  Not something you guys want at all with the establishment who doesn't really know how to run the city well at all.

I think what is being missed here is that Council's only input into the process is if bonds are issued.  It is possible for a mayor to work around needing Council's approval to issue bonds by funding projects with cash on hand or collecting the tax receipts for a couple years and then spending the money.  If there is enough cash in hand to fund a project, the mayor does not need any other approvals, besides the self-appointed park board.

 

 

When David Mann was first elected, he raised an issue that really hasn't been revisited. Basically there is a cap on the total property tax the city collects that was put in place over a decade ago and doesn't keep up with inflation. So the city doesnt receive any financial "positive reenforcement" for rising property values as has been taking place in OTR. Instead everyone gets to pay slightly less property tax each year because their relative share of the total amount goes down. Is this parks measure a roundabout way of collecting some of that money without directly repealing this cap?

When David Mann was first elected, he raised an issue that really hasn't been revisited. Basically there is a cap on the total property tax the city collects that was put in place over a decade ago and doesn't keep up with inflation. So the city doesnt receive any financial "positive reenforcement" for rising property values as has been taking place in OTR. Instead everyone gets to pay slightly less property tax each year because their relative share of the total amount goes down. Is this parks measure a roundabout way of collecting some of that money without directly repealing this cap?

 

Yes there has been a cap on property taxes that keeps collections at 1999 levels, but this isn't really an issue because the city is currently running a rather decadent surplus.  Right now we're running such ridiculous surpluses that the city earnings tax could be dropped from 1.8% down to 1.6%.

 

When David Mann was first elected, he raised an issue that really hasn't been revisited. Basically there is a cap on the total property tax the city collects that was put in place over a decade ago and doesn't keep up with inflation. So the city doesnt receive any financial "positive reenforcement" for rising property values as has been taking place in OTR. Instead everyone gets to pay slightly less property tax each year because their relative share of the total amount goes down. Is this parks measure a roundabout way of collecting some of that money without directly repealing this cap?

 

Yes there has been a cap on property taxes that keeps collections at 1999 levels, but this isn't really an issue because the city is currently running a rather decadent surplus.  Right now we're running such ridiculous surpluses that the city earnings tax could be dropped from 1.8% down to 1.6%.

 

 

Each 0.1% is about $16 million

When David Mann was first elected, he raised an issue that really hasn't been revisited. Basically there is a cap on the total property tax the city collects that was put in place over a decade ago and doesn't keep up with inflation. So the city doesnt receive any financial "positive reenforcement" for rising property values as has been taking place in OTR. Instead everyone gets to pay slightly less property tax each year because their relative share of the total amount goes down. Is this parks measure a roundabout way of collecting some of that money without directly repealing this cap?

 

Absolutely. I would rather keep the property tax percentage at its current rate and have the city be able to use that additional income for things like parks. Instead, we keep reducing our general property tax revenue and are now talking about adding a separate property tax on top of it. It's totally illogical.

Looks like this might fail... 18% reporting, 58% for NO.

 

If this does fail, we need to start pushing hard for the Wasson Way light rail corridor.

The only purpose of this levy is to do the Wasson Way bike trail and kill the future of light rail here, and its failure makes a great case that Cincinnatians want light rail.

^ I doubt more than a tiny fraction of people actually see it that way. 

It's little to do with cincinnatians wanting light rail, but more to do with them not wanting a tax increase.

 

Cincinnati people are very conservative remember that.

The reason I voted no?? You can't trust Cranley

^ I doubt more than a tiny fraction of people actually see it that way. 

 

I agree, but it's a great way to spin the issue and push for the Wasson Corridor if this levy does fail.

So let me get this straight. If wasson way gets re purposed as a bike trail then there's no potential future to use that route as a light rail path?

The majority of people that voted NO on Issue 22 were not opposed to the tax increase. They were opposed to the way that Cranley would have total control over deciding how the money was spent. Cranley, once again, has underestimated true progressives and urbanists.

So let me get this straight. If wasson way gets re purposed as a bike trail then there's no potential future to use that route as a light rail path?

 

From what I understand, a bike trail and light rail together are possible, but the proposal put out by Cranley earlier this year would design the bike trail in such a way that light rail could not be put on the line.

 

taestell[/member] - glad to hear that's the way it was viewed. IMO this looked like a slush fund with only one purpose - block rail.

The majority of people that voted NO on Issue 22 were not opposed to the tax increase. They were opposed to the way that Cranley would have total control over deciding how the money was spent. Cranley, once again, has underestimated true progressives and urbanists.

 

I really believe the levy failed because of the tremendous reporting of The Enquirer.  The paper's official editorial may have endorsed it but I have no doubt its relentless barrage of absolutely damning reports during the two week run up to the election succeeded in changing enough peoples' minds.  Until The Enquirer went medieval on it, it was expected to easily pass like all other park levies have in the past. 

Looks like this might fail... 18% reporting, 58% for NO.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

All Cranley had to do was add a provision stating that council majority decides what to do with the bonds.  He wanted total control of the money to put into the projects he wanted, and that's why it didn't pass.  People don't trust that guy.

 

Also, for me some of the projects didn't make sense for a park board to build, like a transit trail on Wasson Way, or $5 million dollars to Western and Southern for a public park surrounded by private roads, etc.  Also, Cranley giving Laketa Cole a job with the parks for $75k a year to be the manager of the fleet, etc. 

 

Some of the projects seemed worthy but, I think Cranley is going to start feeling more and more heat on him with his proposals.  Also, I agree that the Enquirer played a role when they started digging.  Why give an untransparent and by all accounts secretive park board $80 million dollars?

I see no way this issue fails.

 

Not knocking you because I had no idea what was going to happen.  But we're seeing over and over again that when Cranley "nails" something -- i.e. the parking issue and streetcar during his recent mayoral campaign -- it's probably just by chance.  Because all of the people close to him who thought he had the golden touch after that victory saw last night that he really doesn't know what's going on.  If he was encouraged to carry out this grand plot by polls, well then he needs to ignore that in the future, because there's no way to predict what kind of people decide to show up on election day.  If we lived in a country where everyone was required to vote in every election, polls would be much more reliable. 

I was shocked. I didn't see any way this could fail.

 

Opposition to Issue 3 for the monopoly might have brought out people who were skeptical of the permanent, charter altering tax of 22. I was convinced I was just hearing an echo chamber like the Qualls/Cranley campaign on Facebook. My confidence in Issue 22 had nothing to do with Cranley but with the general uninformed voter assuming a parks tax was a good idea and voting in favor.

 

Not that this was a vote on Cranley, but this should give potential mayoral candidates a good feeling leading up to 2017.

I am stumped why Cranley polls so well when they do telephone surveys. That's why they decided to use him as the face of the Parks campaign.

 

But at the polls, I don't think people really like Cranley that much. Ryan pointed out in another thread that more people voted "No on 22" this year than voted for Cranley for Mayor. I think both "No on 9" in 2009 and "No on 48" in 2011 got more votes than Cranley as well. Not to mention that Sittenfeld for Council got something like 10,000 (!) more votes than Cranley for Mayor. I think if PG runs against Cranley for Mayor in 2017, Cranley is getting slaughtered.

For council you can vote for 9 candidates though. It isn't a fair comparison to put Sittenfeld's council totals against Cranley's mayoral totals.

 

I think PG should have run for mayor in 2017 instead of US Senate in 2016. I'm a little worried he's damaged his brand a little, but I think he would still beat Cranley.

I'd caution reading to much into this. IAGuy39[/member] brings up a lot of good points above, but I wonder how many voters were aware of any of them. I just think the voters that show up on presidential election off years are very conservative and it would have been very difficult to pass any tax or change to the status quo last night. That and Cranley had pissed off all the streetcar progressives which might have been about a 5 to 8% swing in my wild guess estimation.

 

Also, Yvette should be the next Mayor. PG seems afraid to get his hands dirty with anything on council.

 

 

Also, Yvette should be the next Mayor.

 

Preach.

I'd caution reading to much into this. IAGuy39[/member] brings up a lot of good points above, but I wonder how many voters were aware of any of them. I just think the voters that show up on presidential election off years are very conservative and it would have been very difficult to pass any tax or change to the status quo last night. That and Cranley had pissed off all the streetcar progressives which might have been about a 5 to 8% swing in my wild guess estimation.

 

Also, Yvette should be the next Mayor. PG seems afraid to get his hands dirty with anything on council.

 

I agree with you, I think it made a small swing but significant.  Was it the difference between pass and no pass?  Hard to say.

 

I agree with you about Yvette.  For everything Cranley does right, like pension reform, he also does that much more which isn't in the best interest of the city, like claiming bikes don't belong on roads when cities around the country are investing in commuter bike infrastructure.  Look at Minneapolis for a good example of a cold, MidWest City that gets it done.

 

I agree on your sentiment about PG.  Seems like a nice guy and everything, and he has some good ideas, but to me he seems a lot of talk.  He just rubs me the wrong way whenever I would hear him on 700 WLW or the like.  I don't know the guy personally, but even a guy like Chris Seelbach seems to be more into the issues than PG, who seems to like the status quo.  Just my opinion.

 

 

PG saved the streetcar so he is always going to be respected for that at least.

^and despised as "PG Flippenflopper"

I respect him for coming around on the streetcar, but his popularity suggests he could have been a solid "For" before the election and still have won and saved everyone the drama.  Could have been more in front of the issue.

When David Mann was first elected, he raised an issue that really hasn't been revisited. Basically there is a cap on the total property tax the city collects that was put in place over a decade ago and doesn't keep up with inflation. So the city doesnt receive any financial "positive reenforcement" for rising property values as has been taking place in OTR. Instead everyone gets to pay slightly less property tax each year because their relative share of the total amount goes down. Is this parks measure a roundabout way of collecting some of that money without directly repealing this cap?

 

Absolutely. I would rather keep the property tax percentage at its current rate and have the city be able to use that additional income for things like parks. Instead, we keep reducing our general property tax revenue and are now talking about adding a separate property tax on top of it. It's totally illogical.

 

When asked what he learned about the levy defeat John Cranley said that the voters told council to "live within its means" and that he would never raise taxes without asking the voters. He has telegraphed that he will veto any move to get rid of the property tax rollback (terrible policy, of course) and will likely use it as a cudgel to attack folks who dislike the policy (i.e. Yvette). So when Yvette or David Mann or Chris Seelbach propose eliminating the rollback the Mayor's new line is "Voters just told us they don't want to raise their property taxes but you want to do it unilaterally?"

Here's one of the biggest lessons to learn.  You can't go to the voters for a tax increase without having the progressive wing of the democratic party and the black community at your side.  If you try solely to rely on moderates at the exclusion of everyone else, you lose.  Conservatives who may still like Cranley over any other dem will vote no on the tax increase.  The progressive and black majorities you need to pass a tax increase you lost by not engaging them, and in some ways, actively cutting them out. 

I am stumped why Cranley polls so well when they do telephone surveys. That's why they decided to use him as the face of the Parks campaign.

 

Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought Issue 22 was something Cranley and Charlie Luken cooked up.  Some opponents thought it was a scheme to circumvent City Council, thus the public, in order to engage in cronyism.  I just hope the mayor, in defeat, doesn't do anything that could hurt the parks like trying to cut back on the city's contributions, using the fact that the levy was trounced by voters as rationale.  His concession last night had a petulant aspect that could also be interpreted as somewhat threatening if one is inclined to view him as vindictive:

 

"If we lose, which it looks like we will, I'm proud I put the idea out there and I will absolutely listen to what the voters have to say," he said. "I never wanted to raise taxes without permission of the voters."

 

He pledged to "live within our means."

 

"We've prioritized basic services: road paving, police cruisers, ambulances, salt trucks," the mayor said. "I'm going to stick by those things."

You exactly noted my concern, he could use it as justification for not helping transit, though isn't that a Hamilton County issue?

^hopefully it will be paired with a decrease in the city income tax and be at worst tax neutral for city residents. He might support that. And yes. A SORTA tax would likely be a county-wide tax.

Mayor Cranley, we are living within our means, and actually running a large surplus to the tune of around $19 million. 

 

Didn't the city already bond out on road and maintence repairs?  So what exactly is going to happen to all of the surplus, can't some of this be put into Wasson Way, Ziegler Park, other trails, etc.?

Check out the larger photo in this article:

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/11/04/cranley-message-day-humility/75153028/

 

The mayor doesn't look very humbled to me.  He says the levy lost because people don't want to pay higher taxes, simple as that, and he takes no blame for the defeat.  And what's worse, he seems to imply it's The Enquirer's responsibility to vet the operations of the park board, not his!  I guess we have to wait for the humility he's talking about.

A nice wrap-up from Don Mooney:

http://cincymagazine.com/Main/Articles/Another_View_4680.aspx

Cincinnati Parks has posted a long video talking about their deferred capital needs:

 

 

Too bad that the 2015 Parks Levy did not simply allocate the funding to the Parks Board to carry out their master plan. That would've been a levy I could've supported.

Parks tax II would include Cincinnati’s recreation department

 

Quote

A group of politically savvy citizens has commissioned a poll to gauge Cincinnatians’ support for a dedicated tax to increase funding for Cincinnati’s parks and recreation departments.

 

The poll, which is being conducted by Fallon Research & Communications, asks respondents whether they would support either a 0.2% earnings tax or a 2-mill property tax to boost funding for both the parks and recreation department. The results are not yet in.

 

Attorney Jeff Cramerding, activist Brewster Rhoads and attorney Don Mooneyare among those exploring the possibility of a ballot initiative to boost funding for the two city departments, which have been hampered by major capital needs and tight city budgets. All three are Democrats.

 

Cramerding began discussions about a year ago, two years after Mayor John Cranley’s proposed 1-mill property tax that would have helped fund the parks department failed 58 percent to 41 percent. He wanted Mooney, one of the chief opponents of the 2015 tax, involved because he knew Mooney had supported the parks in the past. Cramerding is running for City Council in 2021, but his work on parks and recreation is unrelated, he said.

 

Speaking purely from the perspective of someone who wants the city to get back to work on the Bike Cincinnati Plan, this is sorely needed. If the Cranley baggage doesn't get in the way this time, it will pass.