Interesting to see where Winburn's constituency resides. Anyone know where his church is?

 

LOL@Mike Allen's supporters.

 

As we all knew, Cincinnati is Qualls country.

Interesting to see where Winburn's constituency resides. Anyone know where his church is?

Shortly after getting elected, he tried selling it to College Hilligans.

Pretty sure he had milked that thing for all it as worth. Hence the return to politics. The man is a charlatan.

Speaking of Charlie, he had a article dedicated to him Sunday:

 

 

Ramsey: The long, hard path to being Charlie Winburn

'A whirlwind of chaos and conflict'

 

Charlie Winburn is a raconteur.

 

At City Council committee meetings, on the campaign trail, behind the pulpit of Renew Community Church in College Hill, the newly re-elected councilman and pastor loves nothing more than to tell a good story or insert commentary into dry proceedings.

 

Eighteen years after he entered the political scene - elected to Cincinnati City Council on his first try in 1993 - it would seem there is nothing Cincinnatians don't know about the loquacious, colorful politician who refers to himself simply as "Winburn."

 

But behind the Charlie Winburn that Cincinnati thinks it knows lies a hidden and turbulent past.

 

Before he was "Winburn," he was "Brother," a young boy who suffered loss, rejection and near-constant upheaval.

 

"Chaos," he says of his early life. "A whirlwind of chaos and conflict."

 

Not to mention confusion.

 

Cont

Chris Finney was on WLW Friday night with Dan Carrol (download Podcast) talking about Quinlivan's suit:

 

Quinlivan sues city over 13 cent penalty, free speech

 

Cincinnati City Councilwoman Laure Quinlivan is suing the city over a 13-cent penalty she paid for using her office computer for political purposes.

 

Quinlivan claims the city's action violated her free speech rights and wants a judge to throw out part of the city charter that she believes is unconstitutional because it limits her ability to use the Internet.

 

"She's being punished for trying to keep people informed," said Quinlivan's attorney, Tom Hodges. "It's absolutely a First Amendment issue. The city is taking action to limit speech."

 

Quinlivan filed her claim late Thursday as part of an ongoing legal battle with the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending & Taxes, an anti-tax group that accuses her of using tax dollars to promote her political campaigns.

 

Cont

Council bid 'labor of love' for Sittenfeld

 

At 27, P.G. Sittenfeld is among the youngest Cincinnati City Council members ever.

 

The East Walnut Hills native and Mount Lookout resident, proved a powerhouse in the polls, finishing second out of 22 candidates. Only Vice Mayor Roxanne Qualls beat him. The Democrat's fundraising savvy also got a lot of attention. He raised $305,961 - more than any other candidate - according to the most recent campaign finance reports.

 

Sittenfeld says he "didn't set out to be the youngest person" elected to council but finds himself in the company of former councilmen Guy Guckenberger, Jerry Springer and John Cranley (who were all elected in their late 20s to council).

 

A Seven Hills High School graduate, Sittenfeld earned a bachelor's degree in English from Princeton University and master's degree in American Studies from Oxford University in England. He works for Cincinnati Public Schools' Community Learning Centers, which supply students with such services as health care and tutoring.

 

Cont

Mayor gets more power - maybe

 

Cincinnati’s more mayor-friendly City Council today gave Mayor Mark Mallory more control over council’s agenda, but one councilman says he’ll fight his new colleagues in court over it if they don’t change their minds.

 

In the first key vote by the new Democratic majority, five Democrats agreed to remove a clause in council rules that required the mayor to put an item on the council agenda within 90 days.

 

Under the new rule: An item, after being passed by a committee, proceeds to the mayor’s office for placement on the agenda. It does not say that he must place it there, or when. And the mayor could choose not to ever bring it up again.

 

Cont

 

 

Smitherman's letter:

 

Dear Members of Council and the Mayor,

 

This letter is to respectfully make you aware that I believe the vote taken today by Cincinnati City Council has broken the law. Cincinnati City Council took an action against the Charter of the City of Cincinnati by allowing the Mayor to hold legislation on the agenda indifentially. The Mayor of the City of Cincinnati has no legislative power. City Council abandoned their powers by extending an unlimited “pocket veto” to the Mayor’s office. This is a usurpation of the power that the charter extends to Cincinnati City Council.

 

City Council can change its decision prior to any legal action by my office. I am compelled as a Member of Council to defend the Charter of the City of Cincinnati if I feel that laws have been broken. Council Member’s Winburn, Sittenfeld and Smitherman voted against the expansion of the Mayor’s powers. I am confident that the citizens of Cincinnati will not appreciate the passage of a procedure that stops individual Council Members from proceeding with the business of their communities. This letter should serve as a considerate warning to change the motion that was passed today by Cincinnati City Council that is in conflict with the Charter of the City of Cincinnati.

 

Respectfully,

Councilman Christopher Smitherman

"indifentially" is a legal term I am guessing?

What an ignorant, pompous, grandstanding windbag.

I read this the other day and didn't like it.  The new rules literally allow the mayor to push anything under the carpet that he may disagree with.  The power to set the agenda should not lend itself to the power to usurp a vote.  I like most everything Mallory has done, but what if the next mayor isn't so bright? The committee system was set up for a reason.

They're doing this temporarily to shut down Smitherman.  He is completely powerless as of today.  The next council will overturn it if they have enough votes. 

But is he wrong? Is it illegal? Someone with a legal background please respond.

I read this the other day and didn't like it.  The new rules literally allow the mayor to push anything under the carpet that he may disagree with.  The power to set the agenda should not lend itself to the power to usurp a vote.  I like most everything Mallory has done, but what if the next mayor isn't so bright? The committee system was set up for a reason.

 

I agree, but like Jake noted, I think this was done to stop Smitherman from doing the same tactics that he pulled when he was last in office. Seriously, do we need to know what high school each police officer graduate from? That was a serious waste of taxpayer money and of time, and was just one out of dozens that he requested during his tenure.

But is he wrong? Is it illegal? Someone with a legal background please respond.

This is something I would assume the council would direct to counsel, the city solicitor.

I agree it sounds bad, but there are two things which redeem it:

 

1) It is just going back to rules which existed for years until Bortz and Berding pushed the change. It is not without precedence.

2) Smitherman really is a menace, and this is an effective way of marginalizing him. Without this measure, he will have much more power to cause chaos and make council less effective.

 

Surely, if Mallory abuses this power, the rest of council will force the change again. It happened once, it can happen again.

6 council members can vote to suspend the rules at anytime.  Which means if Mallory is keeping something off the calendar that annoys them, they can suspend the rules and he loses that power.

 

The original charter vote from the late 90's stated the mayor set the calendar and had no deadline that said he had to place items on the calendar at any specific time.

 

A charter amendment could change this... but it's not breaking any laws- and council is NOT powerless.

But is he wrong? Is it illegal? Someone with a legal background please respond.

 

It's unlikely Smitherman has suffered any injury the courts can redress.  Municipal governments are different from the federal and state legislatures, but a representative can't sue to change the rules of those bodies.  It's unlikely that a citizen could sue to enjoin Smitherman or any council member to attend council meetings if they were refusing to show up (remember when those legislators left Wisconsin and Texas), which is far more of a dereliction of duty than a procedural rule change, so it seems hard to believe that this lawsuit wouldn't simply get tossed out for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, even if he does actually file it, which is doubtful.  It's more likely he just said he was suing to bring attention to the press release.

 

Frankly this "power" seems worthless.  As was noted above, six councilors can vote to change the rule at any time.  In addition, the issue has to be voted out of committee to be put in line for the calendar.  With seven Democratic council members, there's nothing that Smitherman and Winburn could do in committee if a majority of Democrats don't want to report it out.  And if he really is that paranoid, the mayor could just not appoint Winburn or Smitherman to the same committees.  There are any number of ways to box out Smitherman, ways that are far more effective than this, frankly.

 

It's probably just something the mayor has personally wanted done for awhile, and now had his chance to get.

"And if he really is that paranoid, the mayor could just not appoint Winburn or Smitherman to the same committees."

Mayor just appoints committee chairs, the chairs determine who is on the committee & I don't think any committee chair has blocked anybody.

Actually, I don't know if hey can. It wouldn't be politically smart.

Here is new City Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld’s reaction to the budget proposal, specifically the $4 million plan to turn City Hall’s courtyard into an events atrium.

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/09/read-p-g-sittenfelds-budget-comments/

 

I agree that the event space, while not the worst idea, probably doesn't have much potential for gaining revenue. Surely, there are other things which would be a better allocation of $4.4m.

 

But two of the four alternatives proposed by Sittenfeld are demolitions and a highway project. Talk about poor ROI.

 

I knew I didn't like the guy before the election, but now he is starting to look like a real thorn on council. Bleh.

^I can't believe he is advocating for the destruction of the city fabric. I guess all that money for his election came from people who want to tear down the old so they can build crap with vinyl siding and turn a bigger profit.

If he demolished all the buildings he seems to want to demolish, there would be NO Over-the-Rhine revitalization as there would be no beautiful buildings to rehab.

Hey its Cincinnati, where the motto should be "let's tear down the old buildings and forget to build them back!"

 

Maybe he could bring the guy redeveloping Corryville in to put up more vinyl monstrosities  :evil:

Maybe he could bring the guy redeveloping Corryville in to put up more vinyl monstrosities  :evil:

 

Don't be too optimistic.

 

Chances are they will just become overgrown, trash-filled lots.

Hey its Cincinnati, where the motto should be "let's tear down the old buildings and forget to build them back!"

 

Maybe he could bring the guy redeveloping Corryville in to put up more vinyl monstrosities  :evil:

 

Is that a Minor Leagues reference???? If so, thanks for the shout out :)

Seriously, do we need to know what high school each police officer graduate from?

 

In Cincinnati? Yes. ;)

In Cincinnati, Elder.

Surprise.  COAST planning to sue Mallory and some on council

 

"Mayor Mallory & Council violate City Charter & state law by delegating legislative authority to mayor"

 

"New Council rules are designed to suppress voice and legislative rights of minority in Council. Also illegal. Will be enjoined"

 

"City takes Mark Miller's depo today in suit over equal access to City's conf. rooms & lobby. City uses areas politically, discriminatorily"

 

 

Don't those people have jobs?

Don't those people have jobs?

 

Haha.... this is their 'job.' ...and a major reason for some of their individual financial problems that have been detailed here in the past...

COAST action figures released! Chris Finney (right) and his obnoxious jester Mark Miller (left) shown below:

 

I agree that the event space, while not the worst idea, probably doesn't have much potential for gaining revenue. Surely, there are other things which would be a better allocation of $4.4m.

 

But two of the four alternatives proposed by Sittenfeld are demolitions and a highway project. Talk about poor ROI.

 

I knew I didn't like the guy before the election, but now he is starting to look like a real thorn on council. Bleh.

 

Whatever one's opinion of Sittenfeld, and his vaguely to clearly anti-streetcar position was stupid, his suggestion that any of the four suggestions would be more valuable to the City than the atrium idea are perfectly reasonable.  Particularly improvements to neighborhood business districts, if done right, would probably be the best.  Though I have no idea what Mt. Lookout "rebranding" is about, and it sounds pretty worthless.

I would rather money be spent improving a historic building (city hall) than demolishing historic buildings.

 

I would rather money be spent doing something that improves the urban environment (making a nice event space in city hall) than something that's sprawl-inducing and hostile to the city (highway interchanges).

 

Sittenfeld looks worse every time he opens his mouth.

Sittenfeld looks worse every time he opens his mouth.

 

Are you a bat?

What the hell does that mean?

I thought it was funny you said someone "looks worse" everytime you "hear" them.  That, combined with your handle, suggested you may have certain powers.

 

Anyway, it's presumptuous to assume the demolishing includes historic buildings.  I suppose you could argue that every building that exists is more historic than the one which would replace it, but at that point the case for historic preservation becomes a bit ridiculous.  There are plenty of buildings in Cincinnati that are in terrible shape and have little historic or aesthetic value and would be worth replacing.  Also, there are plenty of good buildings that are located in high traffic corridors which could be torn down and replaced with more density, which would likely benefit the City.  Also, on a sadder note, there are plenty of wonderful historic buildings, particularly in OTR, which are presently being torn down by CPS or 3CDC or other people regardless of what Sittenfeld suggests.  I suspect that the money for demolition that he's referring to is a sop to Westwood folks, since that is the only neighborhood in the City that has residents who actually want to demo derelict buildings.  But they also want to save the Gamble House, so I suspect that the demo money wouldn't be and isn't intended to be budgeted for historic properties.

 

The event space at City Hall might be a great thing.  I'd definitely be skeptical that it will bring in much revenue.  I also find it very hard to believe that a $4.4 million investment in an event space downtown is going to return the money invested, let alone bring in new revenue.  There are plenty of event spaces available downtown as it is, most in areas that are much livelier than the area around City Hall.  It seems perfectly reasonable to be skeptical about that.  You want to talk about terrible "investments" that were priced around $4 million, let's not forget the recent sale of the Kroger garage.  So incredibly stupid and short-sighted.

 

Jmecklenborg had a great comment about Sittenfeld's candidacy, something to the effect that: he raised more money, took no positions and stood for nothing.  That's spot on.  But the fact is that his presence on Council is 1000 times better than Lippert or Murray or Ghiz or even Bortz being there, at least from a progressive and pro-urbanist perspective.  It's an uphill battle to get things done the right way in this City, and its far better to have someone who has some incentive to listen and respond to that perspective.

 

Still think improving neighborhood business districts (particularly trying to make them more dense and with better public space) particularly those in Oakley, Pleasant Ridge or Walnut Hills is the best use with the best potential ROI for $4.4 million.

I'm all for freedom of speech, but how many times does Tom Luken have to be ejected from council chambers before they just ban the dude?

Vlasta Molak PHD!, can follow the rules & still deliver incoherent tirades.

Can we please get back to maturity in this thread? Really, it's come down to making fun of how people look on Council? What a waste of time.

Huh? When I said "looks worse", I meant that as a political metaphor! You know, like..."when someone implicitly advocates demolishing historic buildings, that makes them 'look' pretty bad."

Heard Sittenfeld on 1230 the Buzz today telling Lincoln Ware to look out for the Sittenfeld-Winburn economic growth proposal this Spring.  Right before that he was on 700 WLW being wishy washy on the streetcar.

^ yikes! I heard he wasn't at the streetcar money announcement either.

^ yikes! I heard he wasn't at the streetcar money announcement either.

 

He was not.

Heard Sittenfeld on 1230 the Buzz today telling Lincoln Ware to look out for the Sittenfeld-Winburn economic growth proposal this Spring.  Right before that he was on 700 WLW being wishy washy on the streetcar.

 

Was that a joke? Or we're you being serious?? I read it again and couldn't tell if it was sarcasm.

no joke.  I don't think I misheard

He's like Bortz but more dishonest.

 

(And with worse politics.)

I think you could bitch about anyone on council you wanted. The new council has had SIXTEEN days to do next to nothing. I don't think PG could do anything to make you happy. You just have your mind made up to oppose and criticize any mention of the guy.

 

I have to put up with rural Republicans DAILY, where I work in a warehouse for the Enquirer, who bitch about Obama for EVERYTHING. They bitch about the streetcar, Over-the-Rhine, etc. It's a constant thing. And that's what I'm hearing from this banter about PG. It really helps if you actually get past your animosity and listen to what's being said, before you criticize.

 

I remember people here up in arms because he didn't show direct support for the streetcar. He said he thought the resources could be better used on other services. BUT, he said he'd support the voters' wishes, if they came out in opposition of Issue 48. But I sense the bitterness persists.

 

It just doesn't seem to be making much a contribution, by bitching about the same guy, simply using general statements about his honesty or--POSSIBLY--your misinterpretations. I can vouch for the guy by saying that I know he conducts himself with integrity. That's no kneejerk reaction but one that had been earned over time.

That is just craziness. Why would I have something personally against the guy? I don't. I've made specific complaints about specific things he has said or done.

 

When you see very little from someone, and all of it has been bad, you get a negative impression.

 

If Sittenfeld comes out as a raging warrior for public transit, cycling, historic preservation, and other issues that are important to me, I will change my tune. However, at best I have seen tentative/wishy-washy support for any of these issues. Knowing how politics works, that indicates to me that this is just lip-service.

 

It sounds more like you have a personal stake in defending him.

Smitherman & Winburn are way worse- but I will say that Sittenfeld still does not support the streetcar. Only he, Smitherman & Winburn refused to attend the press conference.

Per orders from his handlers, Sittenfeld is slumming for the time being.  He's working to build street cred, since there was absolutely no reason for any black Cincinnatian to vote for him before.  He will abandon these clowns when his people tell him to. 

Blue Line, if you think we are mistaken about Sittenfeld, why don't you explain to us what we should be liking?

COAST now demanding that the city 'stop the Mayor's Pocket Veto'.

 

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/21/finney-to-city-stop-mayors-power/

COAST now demanding that the city 'stop the Mayor's Pocket Veto'.

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/21/finney-to-city-stop-mayors-power/

"It’s unclear how a package of internal council rules – as opposed to a law or ordinance – could violate the city charter."

The "uber-gadfly" comment is nice but how come the Fishwrap never points out Finney isn't a resident?