5 minutes ago, 10albersa said:

If 22 somehow fails, they should just up the Nov 2020 measure to a full 1% so it still repeals the earnings tax.

 

The 1% tax back in 1980~ was going to be the local match for bus expansion + an extensive light rail network, including the subway + the Wasson Rd. railroad tracks.    

 

The MetroMoves plan from 2002 was going to keep the .3% earnings tax and augment county bus service with a .25% sales tax.  Another .25% sales tax would have funded a rail system in the subway and on SORTA-owned former freight ROW's. 

 

Cranley wants not enough money for rail and to physically block cheap rail corridors.  He's blocking SORTA's rail ROW's from Avondale to Hyde Park with a mediocre bike trail.  The planned Central Parkway bike path will also complicate use of the subway ROW.  

 

The much-lauded Wasson Way does not have enough funding for grade separation at Montgomery Rd. or the Madison/Edwards mess.  

 

When Cranley wins, we lose.  

13 hours ago, thomasbw said:

the backers would look at a loss of Issue 22 within city limits and say "if we can't win a pro-transit election in the city, there's no way we're going to win in the county so why even try"

 

I can't believe people would be so irrational as to think people voting against the repeal of a transit tax is an indication that people aren't supportive of transit. Something must be in the water down there.

25 minutes ago, Robuu said:

 

I can't believe people would be so irrational as to think people voting against the repeal of a transit tax is an indication that people aren't supportive of transit. Something must be in the water down there.

 

To be clear, no decision has been made that I know of. It's wait and see time. 

 

But the general feeling is that if 22 fails it is an indication that people are not interested in improving transit. And I think that is rational, since it is being pushed as a transit initiative. Personally, I would just push for the 1% tax in 2020 if 22 fails. What do they have to lose? BUT, I think this is all moot because I believe Issue 22 will pass overwhelmingly. It wouldn't surprise me if it gets 80+ percent of the vote.

23 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

it is being pushed as a transit initiative

 

I get that, but that doesn't make it not-convoluted. It's still a tax repeal, which all else being equal (meaning the county levy passes) decreases the funds available for bus service.

Edited October 30, 20195 yr by Robuu

42 minutes ago, Robuu said:

 

I get that, but that doesn't make it not-convoluted. It's still a tax repeal, which all else being equal (meaning the county levy passes) decreases the funds available for bus service.

 

But, all else being equal, it does not do that. There is no universe in which 22 decreases funds available for bus service. It's a conditional tax repeal, on the condition that a new tax that provides more funds gets passed.

13 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

The planned Central Parkway bike path will also complicate use of the subway ROW.  

 

Come on. If we're going to use the subway ROW, the bike lane isn't going to be an issue

Just now, thomasbw said:

Come on. If we're going to use the subway ROW, the bike lane isn't going to be an issue

Or, more likely it will be just a minor issue of the many many other potential issues. 

 

 

10 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

But, all else being equal, it does not do that. There is no universe in which 22 decreases funds available for bus service. It's a conditional tax repeal, on the condition that a new tax that provides more funds gets passed.

Decreasing funds is literally what tax repeals do. If the sales tax passes, 22 kicks in to decrease available revenue from [0.6% sales tax + 0.3% earnings tax] to [0.6% sales tax].

14 minutes ago, Robuu said:

Decreasing funds is literally what tax repeals do. If the sales tax passes, 22 kicks in to decrease available revenue from [0.6% sales tax + 0.3% earnings tax] to [0.6% sales tax].

 

I mean that's ignoring the fact that the sales tax and earnings tax were never in place at the same time. It's a tax swap. One goes away, we get a different one, and total revenue goes up. There will never be a time where there is higher revenue and then lower revenue.

Bike advocates are nuttier than public transit advocates (although perhaps less-crazy than anti-transit people).  That's why having a bike trail built where light rail has been planned by OKI LITERALLY since the 1970s is a huge problem.  Maryland's purple line light rail fiasco is a precursor of what lies ahead for Cincinnati, thanks to wild-eyed Jay Andress.   I physically put OKI's plans for the Wasson Corridor in his hands back in 2012 and he turned right around at all of his self-glorifying meetings and lied and said there never was a plan. 

 

The wild eyes:

 

 

 

 

^please refrain from ad hominem attacks. 

Wasson Way bike trail will be a massive impediment to light rail in that corridor. The Central Park Bike lanes will not. 

23 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

I mean that's ignoring the fact that the sales tax and earnings tax were never in place at the same time. It's a tax swap. One goes away, we get a different one, and total revenue goes up. There will never be a time where there is higher revenue and then lower revenue.

 

The bottom line is simply that it changes the result of passing the announced 0.6% sales tax levy from [+0.6% sales tax] to [+0.6% sales tax, -0.3% earnings tax]. It makes the result worse for bus service.

We aren't getting light rail any time soon, regardless of whether we construct bike trails.

11 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

We aren't getting light rail any time soon, regardless of whether we construct bike trails.

 

Not with that attitude.

 

Before Cranley was elected, no one thought it was that far-fetched. Things can change quickly, one way or the other.

It's amazing how with this administration everyone from the Chamber to the BBC and beyond are just ignoring rail as an option because "Streetcar."

 

It's pathetic.

39 minutes ago, Robuu said:

 

The bottom line is simply that it changes the result of passing the announced 0.6% sales tax levy from [+0.6% sales tax] to [+0.6% sales tax, -0.3% earnings tax]. It makes the result worse for bus service.

 

No, because they are a package deal. There is not an option of only passing the sales tax. They're counting on people voting for the sales tax because they will get an earnings tax repeal. I'd love to just have the sales tax and keep the earnings tax, but based on all the evidence we have it isn't politically viable. 

27 minutes ago, Robuu said:

 

Not with that attitude.

 

Before Cranley was elected, no one thought it was that far-fetched. Things can change quickly, one way or the other.

 

I continue to push for rail. But I know enough about the powers that be in this county and region to know that it's not happening any time soon. I really hope that changes some day, but we don't have progressive leaders. And it is more than just the mayor. It applies to elected officials of all stripes throughout the entire region.

15 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

No, because they are a package deal. There is not an option of only passing the sales tax. They're counting on people voting for the sales tax because they will get an earnings tax repeal. I'd love to just have the sales tax and keep the earnings tax, but based on all the evidence we have it isn't politically viable. 

 

I don't share your pessimism.

 

14 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

I continue to push for rail. But I know enough about the powers that be in this county and region to know that it's not happening any time soon. I really hope that changes some day, but we don't have progressive leaders. And it is more than just the mayor. It applies to elected officials of all stripes throughout the entire region.

 

I don't share your pessimism.

Right now it is not being promoted as a package deal because all that BBC & Co. are saying is "Vote yes on 22 this November". I don't think that the average Hamilton County resident realizes that this is one step of a two step process. They are simply being told "Vote yes on 22 for better transit and better roads and somehow lower taxes".

26 minutes ago, taestell said:

Right now it is not being promoted as a package deal because all that BBC & Co. are saying is "Vote yes on 22 this November". I don't think that the average Hamilton County resident realizes that this is one step of a two step process. They are simply being told "Vote yes on 22 for better transit and better roads and somehow lower taxes".

 

All of the mailers they're have sent out clearly outline that it is a two-step process. The website also spells it out. 

 

https://moveforwardcincy.com/overview/

2 hours ago, Robuu said:

 

I don't share your pessimism.

 

 

It's not really pessimism (though I am pessimistic). In this case, it is just an observation of reality. They are pushing 22 and the sales tax as a package deal. Issue 22 will pass and then we'll be faced with the option of voting yes on the sales tax or doing nothing. 

Edited October 30, 20195 yr by DEPACincy

3 hours ago, JYP said:

It's amazing how with this administration everyone from the Chamber to the BBC and beyond are just ignoring rail as an option because "Streetcar."

 

It's pathetic.

 

Not sure how they can even call this plan "Reinventing Metro" now that it's been reduced to some modest improvements to our existing bus network. No BRT. No bus-only lanes and signal priority. No off-board fare payment or all-door boarding. No tap fare card. No light rail. No streetcar extension. No transition away from diesel buses to battery-powered electric buses or trolleybuses. There should really be at least one bold element of the proposal if they want to use the term "reinventing".

11 minutes ago, taestell said:

 

Not sure how they can even call this plan "Reinventing Metro" now that it's been reduced to some modest improvements to our existing bus network. No BRT. No bus-only lanes and signal priority. No off-board fare payment or all-door boarding. No tap fare card. No light rail. No streetcar extension. No transition away from diesel buses to battery-powered electric buses or trolleybuses. There should really be at least one bold element of the proposal if they want to use the term "reinventing".

 

Where did you see any of this stuff? BRT is still a part of the plan. Bus-only lanes and signal priority are a part of that and so are real-time arrival screens. New transit centers for all buses and BRT stations will have off-board fare payment. There will be 6 routes with 24 hour service. 26 routes will get more frequent service. 18 routes will get longer service hours. There will be 8 completely new routes. The list goes on.

24 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

It's not really pessimism (though I am pessimistic). In this case, it is just an observation of reality. They are pushing 22 and the sales tax as a package deal. Issue 22 will pass and then we'll be faced with the option of voting yes on the sales tax or doing nothing. 

 

They are pushing it as a package deal. But I don't see any reason to believe a sales tax would be off the table if 22 were to fail. They might lose some endorsements, but I think that's the worst that would happen. Maybe they'd adjust the number they ask for.

I have seen vague promises about BRT. I have seen no specifics. We were previously told that Metro needed at least a 0.9% sales tax plus an 80% federal match to built BRT, but now they have fudged some numbers in their spreadsheet and are claiming we can reduce the tax by 1/3 and still get "Bus Rapid Transit corridors".

 

Just now, Robuu said:

 

They are pushing it as a package deal. But I don't see any reason to believe a sales tax would be off the table if 22 were to fail. They might lose some endorsements, but I think that's the worst that would happen. Maybe they'd adjust the number they ask for.

 

There is a ton of free federal matching money out there for rail and we're not going to be able to apply for it because we won't have a funding source.  Again.  It's been this way for almost 50 years and playing along with this cute little transit tax is 1. a shift toward regressive taxation 2. doesn't make us competitive with peer cities in either the bus realm or rail.  We already have amazingly low taxes as compared to our peers.  Columbus, for example, has a significantly higher earnings tax and a significantly higher sales tax.  Yet they're growing faster than we are.  If we raised our county sales tax and city earnings tax to Columbus levels, we'd bring in upwards of $200 million annually that we leave on the table right now, or almost 5x our current public funding level for SORTA.  

Whatever you say:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2019/10/30/my-view-issue-22-can-break-barriers-move-region.html

 

The ballot language for the sales tax hasn't been written.  So the .6% they are promising for Metro could will be diluted.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Could not agree with PG Sittenfeld's quote in this WCPO article more:

 

Quote

"For anybody who lives or works in the city of Cincinnati and pays the earnings tax, their earnings tax will go down from 2.1 (percent) to 1.8 (percent), conditional on the passing of the sales tax," Sittenfeld said. "So really this is an opportunity to jump-start a once-in-a-generation chance of dramatically increasing the quality of our bus system -- the connectivity of our bus system to get more people to jobs -- and dramatically improving our infrastructure."

 

This is our once-in-a-generation chance. If this sales tax passes, it will be another generation before we can go back and ask for any other type of transportation funding. I've heard people say that this sales tax is just the beginning and that we can propose a more ambitious plan for light rail, streetcar expansion, real BRT, etc. in a couple of years. But once this 0.6% tax passes there will be no appetite among Hamilton County voters to approve an additional sales tax for transit. So we're essentially going to lock in a 0.6% sales tax that does not provide enough funding to keep up with what any of our peer cities are doing with public transportation.

^the problem too is that re-passing the earnings tax for transit will be impossible because the issue of the money being spent outside the city limits will be hounded endlessly by opponents, even though that's what the situation is currently. 

 

So if we were to re-pass the .3 earnings tax at some point, it could only be for buses that literally stop at the city limits, and any rail system (aside from the streetcar) would naturally want to extend beyond city limits and across the river. 

 

Cranley is entombing public transportation with his tax shift and by building bike trails where the rail transit system planned for 40 years and largely owned by SORTA was supposed to go. 

19 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

So if we were to re-pass the .3 earnings tax at some point, it could only be for buses that literally stop at the city limits, and any rail system (aside from the streetcar) would naturally want to extend beyond city limits and across the river. 

 

Seattle did something similar with their Transportation Benefit District. The city increased their vehicle license fee by $45 and increased their sales tax by 0.1%, and all of that funding is used to pay for additional King County Metro bus service within city limits. I don't think that the buses literally stop at the city limits, but the funding is directed to routes that primarily serve the city. So Seattle has multiple funding sources for their transit system stacked on top of eachother--Transportation Benefit District at the city level, King County Metro at the county level, and Sound Transit (light rail and express buses) at the regional (multi-county) level.

17 minutes ago, taestell said:

Could not agree with PG Sittenfeld's quote in this WCPO article more:

 

 

This is our once-in-a-generation chance. If this sales tax passes, it will be another generation before we can go back and ask for any other type of transportation funding. I've heard people say that this sales tax is just the beginning and that we can propose a more ambitious plan for light rail, streetcar expansion, real BRT, etc. in a couple of years. But once this 0.6% tax passes there will be no appetite among Hamilton County voters to approve an additional sales tax for transit. So we're essentially going to lock in a 0.6% sales tax that does not provide enough funding to keep up with what any of our peer cities are doing with public transportation.

 

I strongly disagree. If this passes and SORTA gets double their current funding the changes will be amazing and once people see what a good bus system looks like it will be easier to sell them on rail. If that means then trying to re-institute the earnings tax to fund it I think the city voters would approve. And if that means the rail lines primarily serve the city, that's fine too. Because once county voters see how successful the rail system is they'll want in on it too.

There are two options.

 

1) We pass the sales tax. The bus system gets better, but not radically different. The city income tax goes down, and can potentially be tapped for other uses in a future plan.

 

2) We don't pass the sales tax. The bus system continues to get worse. We lose frequency and cut routes. The spineless leaders in the area won't attempt another transit plan for 15 years, and we'll have one of the worst bus systems. in the country.

 

This is likely our only chance at a change to the system for the next 10-15 years whether it passes or fails. We had to drag the county into a sales tax proposal kicking and screaming, and when they did do it, it was the most half-a$$ed attempt they could come up with. If this fails, there won't be an appetite for more funding for a long time.

56 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

This is likely our only chance at a change to the system for the next 10-15 years whether it passes or fails. 

 

The SORTA board could put a tax on the ballot every single time.  School districts do this until what they need passes.  We did that back in 1979 and 1980 but the transit tax failed both times.  They could have just kept going until it passed, but no doubt the makeup of the board changed.  

 

The problem is that all sorts of anti-transit figures have been appointed to the SORTA board.  Stephan Louis was rewarded for chairing the anti-Metro moves campaign by being...appointed to SORTA's board.  Charlie Luken appointed his transit-hating dad.  Cranley has stacked the board with puppets like Kincaid's wife.  

1 hour ago, taestell said:

 

Seattle did something similar with their Transportation Benefit District. The city increased their vehicle license fee by $45 and increased their sales tax by 0.1%, and all of that funding is used to pay for additional King County Metro bus service within city limits. I don't think that the buses literally stop at the city limits, but the funding is directed to routes that primarily serve the city. So Seattle has multiple funding sources for their transit system stacked on top of eachother--Transportation Benefit District at the city level, King County Metro at the county level, and Sound Transit (light rail and express buses) at the regional (multi-county) level.

 

The problem is that Cincinnati's borders are capricious.  The #4 and Metro Plus travel through Norwood before re-entering Cincinnati's Pleasant Ridge and Kennedy Heights.  The #78 travels through St. Bernard and Elmwood Place before re-entering Cincinnati in Carthage and Hartwell.  

 

The Western Hills transit center might be outside city limits, but I'm not sure.  

41 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

The SORTA board could put a tax on the ballot every single time.  School districts do this until what they need passes.  We did that back in 1979 and 1980 but the transit tax failed both times.  They could have just kept going until it passed, but no doubt the makeup of the board changed.  

 

The problem is that all sorts of anti-transit figures have been appointed to the SORTA board.  Stephan Louis was rewarded for chairing the anti-Metro moves campaign by being...appointed to SORTA's board.  Charlie Luken appointed his transit-hating dad.  Cranley has stacked the board with puppets like Kincaid's wife.  

 

I agree they could. But they aren't going to. We can't live in a fantasy land where the SORTA board is staffed by competent individuals who really care about the issue.

 

For the most part they still only talk about transit as a way to get to and from work. That's all they and the business community care about. 

 

Do you really think they would put another transit tax at the same or greater level if this one fails? We have to live in reality, and the reality is that our leadership has no vision.

49 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

The problem is that Cincinnati's borders are capricious.  The #4 and Metro Plus travel through Norwood before re-entering Cincinnati's Pleasant Ridge and Kennedy Heights.  The #78 travels through St. Bernard and Elmwood Place before re-entering Cincinnati in Carthage and Hartwell.  

 

The Western Hills transit center might be outside city limits, but I'm not sure.  

 

Why does that matter? 

13 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

I agree they could. But they aren't going to. We can't live in a fantasy land where the SORTA board is staffed by competent individuals who really care about the issue.

 

Another issue that I haven't really seen discussed is how appointments to the SORTA board will change once the funding source changes from the city to the county. Will the County Commissioners appoint all of the board members going forward? Or will they distribute some or all of the board seats to the municipalities in the county based on population?

36 minutes ago, taestell said:

 

Another issue that I haven't really seen discussed is how appointments to the SORTA board will change once the funding source changes from the city to the county. Will the County Commissioners appoint all of the board members going forward? Or will they distribute some or all of the board seats to the municipalities in the county based on population?

 

I'm sure the number of seats will shift largely to the county if this passes and a countywide sales tax passes.

I would imagine the city would have at least 1 seat on the board like the outer counties have right now, but I don't know that. Clarity would be great on this issue. It seems less important for the city to have control of the system as it did 10 years ago when the county was dominated by Republicans who wanted to kill SORTA and cut spending.

Regardless of how you feel about the 0.8%/0.6% sales tax proposal by SORTA, it doesn't really make sense to vote down Issue 22.

EDIT: It's also really irresponsible for the city to have passed legislation that required a countywide sales tax be passed "on or before November 3, 2020". They could have left it open-ended, and then we wouldn't have to revisit this if the sales tax fails.

Look at the third or fourth post on this thread, from 15 years ago.  We're dealing with the exact same a-holes making the exact same crap anti-tax arguments:

 

Quote

 

Posted November 25, 2004

Possibly DOA...from the 11/25/04 Enquirer (Local Briefs):

 

 

Cranley rejects fare increase

 

The chairman of Cincinnati City Council's Finance Committee declared Metro's proposal to boost bus fares dead on arrival Wednesday. Councilman John Cranley urged the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority to draft a new budget with no fare increases, making up the difference by "cutting the fat" and demanding that suburban jurisdictions pay their fair share for the service. His comments to City Council came a day after 100 bus riders packed a public hearing to protest the fare hikes of up to 54 percent. Also, Councilman Christopher Smitherman said Wednesday that he would not support a fare increase until SORTA puts AIDS education advertisements on its buses.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041125/NEWS01/411250344/1056/news01

 

 

1 hour ago, ryanlammi said:

Do you really think they would put another transit tax at the same or greater level if this one fails? We have to live in reality, and the reality is that our leadership has no vision.

 

All they have to do is keep putting it on the ballot.  They don't need to even campaign.  Eventually it will pass.  All sorts of ballot issues pass or don't pass based on what else happens to be on the ballot.  

 

Keep in mind that voters tend to vote "NO" when they don't understand ballot language.  In my opinion, the language is fairly confusing, as is the purported purpose of this charter amendment.  

 

 

1 hour ago, taestell said:

 

Another issue that I haven't really seen discussed is how appointments to the SORTA board will change once the funding source changes from the city to the county. Will the County Commissioners appoint all of the board members going forward? Or will they distribute some or all of the board seats to the municipalities in the county based on population?

 

 

15 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

All they have to do is keep putting it on the ballot.  

Do you honestly think the board will do that? That's all that matters. If they don't try again, then it doesn't matter. IMO this is our only chance.

17 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

Do you honestly think the board will do that? That's all that matters. If they don't try again, then it doesn't matter. IMO this is our only chance.

 

Only chance for mediocrity?  We've been doing that just fine for the past 50+ years.  We should be increasing the city earnings tax for transit, not eliminating it.  

 

#RetroMetro

18 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

EDIT: It's also really irresponsible for the city to have passed legislation that required a countywide sales tax be passed "on or before November 3, 2020". They could have left it open-ended, and then we wouldn't have to revisit this if the sales tax fails.

Counter-point, because they didn't specify the amount of the sales tax, it's good it has a sunset. Otherwise a future board could put on a 0.1% sales tax which would eliminate the earnings tax and create a net loss in transit funding. 

So Houston has a 1% sale tax for transit, and 0.25% of that goes back to municipalities in the service area for road projects. So actually 0.75% goes to transit. 

 

On Tuesday, they received permission from voters to take out $3.5 billion in bonds, backed by future sales tax revenues. They'll use this to upgrade the bus system and get rail projects done. 

 

This is something to consider when voting on Cincy's sales tax. A lot of people here are upset because this plan doesn't go far enough and doesn't include rail. Well, let's get this passed. Then in a few years there is nothing stopping SORTA from coming back and asking voters to float a bond to add rail to the mix. That would likely pass with ease because it wouldn't involve raising anyone's taxes. 

Confirmation about SORTA's move: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2019/11/07/sorta-finds-new-home-for-downtown-hq.html

 

I personally find the ReinventingMetro website confusing and not updated with regularity, so I reached out to Metro staff. 

 

In response to my email about BRT and the conflicting information on the site (from my perspective and it looks like others' here discussed previously), the PR person replied:

 

"The Plan calls for funding of two BRT lines, which Metro will engage with the community to determine the corridors best served by the BRT service."

 

She did not reply as to whether this is attainable with the proposed May levy amount but with other comments saying it will be fully funded, I am assuming the answer is yes. 

 

Actually finding the plan is hard to find for a layperson and navigating the website is a nightmare. The last formal "specifics" I see is the ReinventingMetro Packet dated 1-19-19 in the January SORTA packet - which is not linked anywhere on ReinventingMetro.com (unless I'm missing it).

 

I feel strongly that the website needs to be more clear if they want this to pass. Metro's Twitter is impressive and they seem to have some great initiatives, but this is a lot of potential money and every detail counts. 

Also looks like SORTA is going to wait until December 17th to vote on the ballot language. More COAST talking points.