Do I have every local tax increase accounted for here?

• New parking tax
  
• Increase to the admissions tax
  
• .2% increase to the county sales tax
  
• Potential .5% to 1% increase to the county sales tax for SORTA
  
• Potential hike to the city earnings tax
  

 

I know some of these make sense and I'm not opposed to them all (for example, I don't mind taxing luxury items like ticket admissions) but having all of this in the news at the same time is bad form.

having all of this in the news at the same time is bad form.

I don't mind it. I support these increases.

Parking tax is a bad idea at this time. Until we can get a critical mass of residents downtown we need to keep subsidizing parking. I just got back from a market forecast meeting and the downtown growth rate is slowing in the CBD. Reason is because construction costs are going up and interest rates are rising. It is not the time to add additional costs if you want to keep the development going in the cities. Unlike the larger coastal cities, Cincinnati does not attract a ton of institutional money and therefore the buildings do not sell as readily. THis keeps construction down.

 

Seelbach is the king of all the clowns on council because he does not care about any of this. He is just a little rich boy who enjoys his little power trip.

I would maybe prefer a higher tax on surface lots than garages. They are the biggest problem. Maybe do 2% or 3% on public garages spots, and then do 8% on surface lots.

Parking tax is a bad idea at this time. Until we can get a critical mass of residents downtown we need to keep subsidizing parking. I just got back from a market forecast meeting and the downtown growth rate is slowing in the CBD. Reason is because construction costs are going up and interest rates are rising. It is not the time to add additional costs if you want to keep the development going in the cities. Unlike the larger coastal cities, Cincinnati does not attract a ton of institutional money and therefore the buildings do not sell as readily. THis keeps construction down.

 

Seelbach is the king of all the clowns on council because he does not care about any of this. He is just a little rich boy who enjoys his little power trip.

 

No, no, no. You're so wrong on this. Subsidizing parking will never let us create a critical mass of residents downtown. It's bad for urban form, bad for the environment, bad for neighborhoods, and will only slow the progress we've been making downtown. Creating a parking tax is not adding a cost to development, it's leveling the playing field. Parking has tons of negative externalities that we all absorb. This is an extremely good policy from Seelbach. He obviously sees the big picture here.

Do I have every local tax increase accounted for here?

• New parking tax
  
• Increase to the admissions tax
  
• .2% increase to the county sales tax
  
• Potential .5% to 1% increase to the county sales tax for SORTA
  
• Potential hike to the city earnings tax
  

 

I know some of these make sense and I'm not opposed to them all (for example, I don't mind taxing luxury items like ticket admissions) but having all of this in the news at the same time is bad form.

 

You can thank Republicans in Columbus. They eliminated funding to municipalities to give their rich friends a tax break. Now those of us that work and make a middle class wage will pay for it.

^ From an urban planning side, it is an ideal thing. If we were Philly or Chicago or DC, then this makes sense. We are not. Seelbach wants to be this, but you need to encourage downtown investment. Without a stable bus system or rail system, doing this now is like cutting your nose to spite your face.

 

I know in your ideal world, this makes sense, but you have to relate it to realsville here. Seelbach lives in a dream world. He comes from a well heeled family so this would not effect him anyway. It is the rest of the people who actually need to worry about working for a living and figuring out how they can afford to live downtown that have to suffer his quixotic vision.

So my $65/month surface lot in Pendleton will go up to like $68/month? I think I can handle that. At this point, as a homeowner, I'm just happy to vote on taxes that won't raise my property taxes.

We get it. You don't like Seelbach.

It would make sense if the parking tax was used to support transit. Maybe funding infrastructure like shelters, real-time arrival displays, etc.

^ From an urban planning side, it is an ideal thing. If we were Philly or Chicago or DC, then this makes sense. We are not. Seelbach wants to be this, but you need to encourage downtown investment. Without a stable bus system or rail system, doing this now is like cutting your nose to spite your face.

 

I know in your ideal world, this makes sense, but you have to relate it to realsville here. Seelbach lives in a dream world. He comes from a well heeled family so this would not effect him anyway. It is the rest of the people who actually need to worry about working for a living and figuring out how they can afford to live downtown that have to suffer his quixotic vision.

 

Here's the thing. It's not some idealistic notion. There's lots of research that shows this policy works. And every time parking taxes are proposed people say the same thing you're saying and they are always proven wrong. Parking, especially surface parking, has extremely high margins. They instituted a 22% parking tax in Philly and people were all saying it would be the end of the world. Literally they said "we're not NYC or DC, this'll never work here!" Guess what? It spurred even more development downtown and parking rates were unchanged. At 22% the parking operators simply absorbed the tax or redeveloped their property! And even though there are less surface lots and garages in Philly now than there were before the tax went into effect, parking vacancies actually increased (again, with no change in average price). Many people simply switched modes because they could now live closer to work and amenities. They walked more. They biked more. They took Ubers and Lyfts. And the naysayers all said it would never happen. Now no one in Philly will admit to ever being against the idea.

So my $65/month surface lot in Pendleton will go up to like $68/month? I think I can handle that. At this point, as a homeowner, I'm just happy to vote on taxes that won't raise my property taxes.

 

And that's only if operators of parking lots pass on the entire tax, which literally never happens. The laws of supply and demand dictate the price and parking has very high margins so they usually just eat it.

^ From an urban planning side, it is an ideal thing. If we were Philly or Chicago or DC, then this makes sense. We are not. Seelbach wants to be this, but you need to encourage downtown investment. Without a stable bus system or rail system, doing this now is like cutting your nose to spite your face.

 

I know in your ideal world, this makes sense, but you have to relate it to realsville here. Seelbach lives in a dream world. He comes from a well heeled family so this would not effect him anyway. It is the rest of the people who actually need to worry about working for a living and figuring out how they can afford to live downtown that have to suffer his quixotic vision.

 

So you think we can't tax parking lots until we have better public transit, and we also can't do road diets like narrowing Liberty until we have better public transit. So, I guess Cincinnati's hands are tied, we should not even try to become a more pedestrian oriented city until SORTA decides to pursue a massive expansion. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You can thank Republicans in Columbus. They eliminated funding to municipalities to give their rich friends a tax break. Now those of us that work and make a middle class wage will pay for it.

 

Low taxes cost money. 

Gun groups sue Cincinnati over Council's bump stock ban

 

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2018/06/22/gun-groups-sue-city-bump-stock-ban/724902002/

 

Gun groups are taking Cincinnati to court over City Council's recent bump stock ban.

 

Buckeye Firearms Foundation and Ohioans for Concealed Carry filed a suit against the city Thursday, claiming an ordinance regulating firearms violates a state law that citizens may own, keep and sell "any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition."

seems like the city doesn't have a leg to stand on. They should probably abandon bump stock ban, unfortunately.

Only if you think that a bump stock is "any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition," but it's not. A bump stock is an accessory. The law is intended to not limit the ownership of guns. Banning bump stocks does not limit gun ownership.

Only if you think that a bump stock is "any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition," but it's not. A bump stock is an accessory. The law is intended to not limit the ownership of guns. Banning bump stocks does not limit gun ownership.

 

so what is a bump stock if not a component of a firearm? What is the different between a "part of a firearm" and a "component"? What's the difference between a component and an accessory?

Only if you think that a bump stock is "any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition," but it's not. A bump stock is an accessory. The law is intended to not limit the ownership of guns. Banning bump stocks does not limit gun ownership.

 

so what is a bump stock if not a component of a firearm? What is the different between a "part of a firearm" and a "component"? What's the difference between a component and an accessory?

 

We'll see what the courts say; I think it could go either way. But, for example, if you put a shirt on, does it become a "part" or "component" of your body? No, but it could be considered an "accessory." That's the distinction.

so what is a bump stock if not a component of a firearm? What is the different between a "part of a firearm" and a "component"? What's the difference between a component and an accessory?

 

Gun components: muzzle, breach, hammer, and trigger

And now we're not talking about parking; we're talking about guns. They win.

^ this is why you don't pass the resolution to begin with. You have a clear lawsuit you need to defend and use city resources to do so. This tax money could be better spent on other endeavors. Why buy a lawsuit when you don't have too.

If a court does decide a bump stock isn't a component, expect the state law to be rewritten posthaste. The whole point of the law was to create one uniform set of gun regulations (the law pretty clearly states as much). If local governments can ban after market parts that opens a huge can of worms. Most gun owners have after market parts like scopes, magazines, etc. A lot of people custom build guns by purchasing the parts, as well. So if you buy a lower receiver and a bump stock for it to begin with, it's an integral part.

 

^ this is why you don't pass the resolution to begin with. You have a clear lawsuit you need to defend and use city resources to do so. This tax money could be better spent on other endeavors. Why buy a lawsuit when you don't have too.

 

Right - and I think I've posted this previously, but bump stocks are so rare that I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there wasn't a single one in the City of Cincinnati to begin with. This ordinance was completely unnecessary.

If a court does decide a bump stock isn't a component, expect the state law to be rewritten posthaste. The whole point of the law was to create one uniform set of gun regulations (the law pretty clearly states as much). If local governments can ban after market parts that opens a huge can of worms. Most gun owners have after market parts like scopes, magazines, etc. A lot of people custom build guns by purchasing the parts, as well. So if you buy a lower receiver and a bump stock for it to begin with, it's an integral part.

 

^ this is why you don't pass the resolution to begin with. You have a clear lawsuit you need to defend and use city resources to do so. This tax money could be better spent on other endeavors. Why buy a lawsuit when you don't have too.

 

Right - and I think I've posted this previously, but bump stocks are so rare that I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there wasn't a single one in the City of Cincinnati to begin with. This ordinance was completely unnecessary.

 

Whatever the case law is on silencers would probably be the most comparable.

^ this is why you don't pass the resolution to begin with. You have a clear lawsuit you need to defend and use city resources to do so. This tax money could be better spent on other endeavors. Why buy a lawsuit when you don't have too.

 

Curious if that's how you feel about the state passing restrictive abortion laws.

I think they are a waste of tax payer resources too.

 

It depends on the case though. If it is something restrictive that has not been tested before or done within the scope of the Casey decision, I am fine with that. BUt when it is clearly in violation of the law and would clearly be overturned, then I have a problem with such governmental overreach and waste of tax payer resources.

 

The bump stock law was a waste of resources because prior established law said otherwise. Plus, I think bump stocks do nothing to solve the problem of mass shootings anyway. It is a red herring issue designed to look like something is being done while at the same time not doing anything.

Fighting a lawsuit is not a waste of taxpayer resources. The taxpayers pay for budgeted city solicitors already. There won't be any *new* money spent to defend this law.

Business groups set to take cuts as City Council moves to complete budget

 

REDI Cincinnati and the Greater Cincinnati Redevelopment Authority appeared to be off the hook when it came to cuts by the city of Cincinnati to their operating budget for the coming fiscal year, but council members have voted to trim each by 5 percent in order to make the numbers balance.

 

Those cuts were on top of reduced funding to Cintrifuse and CincyTech, the startup incubators that also receive city funding.

 

Council is wrapping up its work for the fiscal year 2019 budget, which begins on July 1. The final days of the budget usually involve sidebar meetings, arm twisting and looking under the City Hall equivalent of the couch cushions for change as members horse trade for the final few million dollars of a $1.4 billion budget that covers all of the city’s various funds. A final vote could come Wednesday, although council has scheduled session days into the weekend, which could be used to address any mayoral vetoes.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/06/26/business-groups-set-to-take-cuts-as-city-council.html

The Enquirer sweeps Jeff Pastor's nasty campaign under the rug...nothing to see here:

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/08/cincinnati-councilman-jeff-pastor-files-new-campaign-finance-reports/764629002/

Councilman Pastor now says he didn't loan his campaign $50,000

 

Cincinnati Councilman Jeff Pastor filed amended campaign finance reports on Friday that changed how he categorized more than $50,000 in campaign expenses that he paid for himself from a loan to an in-kind contribution.

 

In a prepared statement, Pastor said he spent $50,792.58 on advertising and other unspecified services out of his own pocket. Pastor said he had the law firm Graydon Head & Ritchey and an unnamed “respected accounting firm” review the report before turning it in to the Hamilton County Board of Elections.

 

“[A] number of incorrectly categorized transactions were amended to reflect how they should have appeared,” Pastor said. “Notably, most of the advertising and services paid for personally by myself and my wife are now correctly noted as in-kind contributions to the campaign committee and not as a loan.”

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/07/09/councilman-pastor-now-says-he-didnt-loan-his.html

Lawyer dismisses city’s bid to withhold texts that could be ‘embarrassing’

 

A lawyer brushed off the city of Cincinnati’s request to delay discovery in a case involving City Council members’ text messages, which city attorneys say could be “embarrassing” to third parties not involved in the lawsuit.

 

The city had requested that the judge in the case conduct an inspection of certain texts in chambers to determine whether they were relevant public records to a request by Mark Miller, a city resident and member of the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes.

 

Miller is suing the city and Democratic council members Chris Seelbach, Greg Landsman, Tamaya Dennard, Wendell Young and P.G. Sittenfeld over texts sent amid the debacle over then-City Manager Harry Black’s job status in March.

 

Miller and his attorney, Brian Shrive, want the texts – and any other communications – between the council members about Black and Mayor John Cranley disclosed.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/07/16/lawyer-dismisses-city-s-bid-to-withhold-texts-that.html

I've been pondering why there is suddenly a push to move back to two-year council terms, and I think I've figured it out.

 

In an at-large election of 9 councilmembers, conservatives rely on a small pool of candidates squeaking into the bottom half of the top-9 vote-getters. They are afraid that if council doesn't go back to two-year terms, the four-year terms will become staggered. That bottom half then disappears, as only 4 or 5 candidates run each election. Thus their political influence dries up.

 

For example, in the last election, Smitherman was the highest vote-getting conservative, coming in 5th place. Murray and Pastor came in 8th and 9th.

I've been pondering why there is suddenly a push to move back to two-year council terms, and I think I've figured it out.

 

In an at-large election of 9 councilmembers, conservatives rely on a small pool of candidates squeaking into the bottom half of the top-9 vote-getters. They are afraid that if council doesn't go back to two-year terms, the four-year terms will become staggered. That bottom half then disappears, as only 4 or 5 candidates run each election. Thus their political influence dries up.

 

For example, in the last election, Smitherman was the highest vote-getting conservative, coming in 5th place. Murray and Pastor came in 8th and 9th.

 

I think this is absolutely true. The question is: are conservatives currently over-represented or fairly-represented (based on the overall population of conservatives in the city) on council? If they are over-represented, then staggering 4 year terms is fair. If they are fairly-represented then it could be perceived as political gerrymandering in another form.

Chris Wetterich posted this theory on Twitter a few months back and whoever runs the Hamilton County GOP blasted him and said it was fake news.

Even with staggered terms there will still be a "bottom half."

 

Similarly, in the 9x Democrats endorse 9, Republicans endorse 2-3, Charter endorsed 2-3, and Dems get top spots with Republicans filling in at the bottom. So you got 4x or 5x in staggered terms, well Dems are still only endorsing 4/5, Republicans can endorse 2-3 (or, maybe 5!), and still have the same chance to take the last spot in each election, giving them 2 spots on Council like they have now.

Even with staggered terms there will still be a "bottom half."

 

Similarly, in the 9x Democrats endorse 9, Republicans endorse 2-3, Charter endorsed 2-3, and Dems get top spots with Republicans filling in at the bottom. So you got 4x or 5x in staggered terms, well Dems are still only endorsing 4/5, Republicans can endorse 2-3 (or, maybe 5!), and still have the same chance to take the last spot in each election, giving them 2 spots on Council like they have now.

 

Looking at it another way, if Democrats have the top 5 slots locked down now, and you assume identical turnout, then the top 4 or 5 vote-getters will always be Dems. If, for example, you need 30,000 votes to come in 5th and no Republican ever gets more than 23,000 votes, then a Republican will never win.

Looking at it another way, if Democrats have the top 5 slots locked down now, and you assume identical turnout, then the top 4 or 5 vote-getters will always be Dems. If, for example, you need 30,000 votes to come in 5th and no Republican ever gets more than 23,000 votes, then a Republican will never win.

 

Yes, but. Right now I think the average voter only votes for 4.5 candidates in a 9x... if it is fair to assume something similar would happen in a 5x - say they vote for 2.5 - then the number of votes needed to be in top 5 decreases as well.

Staggered terms seems like a terrible idea. We'd end up with a group of 4 and a group of 5 that are composed of people who are essentially the same. The result would be no different than simply reducing City Council to 5 seats.

With just 4 or 5 people running, it's much more likely that the 9-member council will only have well-funded people.  Eccentrics stand no chance of getting elected, and so it'll no longer be the spectacle that it is with 5-10 no-money candidates, and then 5-10 some money candidates, plus 4-5 very well funded candidates who are almost guaranteed a seat.   

 

So staggered terms guarantee that only blue blood-approved people sit on council. 

I think staggered 4 year terms are a good balance between representing the political trends of the moment and allowing council members to make decisions that might be unpopular at the moment but necessary for the long term of the city.

 

There is a reason that the federal government and 98% of US states have a bicameral legislature. The House of Representatives is elected every 2 years and can sway with the political trends of the moment. Senators are elected for 6 years which gives them a little more freedom to make decisions that might be unpopular at that moment without having to worry that it will cost them the election 6 months later.

 

I don't know if any cities have a "true" bicameral city council, but many cities emulate this by having council members elected for different terms. Sometimes this is combined with the concept of wards and at-large. So a city might have 4 at-large council members elected for 4 year terms, and 5 council members representing individual wards elected to 2 year terms.

 

I don't think it's necessary to change up our city council rules that much. For a variety of reasons I don't like the idea of wards in Cincinnati and I think having two different term lengths (without being tied to wards/at-large) would just confuse the average voter. So staggered 4 year terms seems like a good balance. If there is a major blue or red wave during an election year, at most this will affect half of the seats. At any given time half of the council members will be within 1-2 years of their reelection, and more sensitive to current political trends, while the other half will be 3-4 years from reelection, and more free to think about the long term.

I feel like wards have a very negative connotation from creating parts of cities that are governed differently. Various parts of town artificially become winners and losers depending on whether the voters are good at picking candidates or are subject to shysters. Of course, the entirety of Cincinnati is represented by a shyster at the top as we speak.

The *only* advantage of wards is that no-budget candidates can win by simply shaking a lot of hands. 

 

But that works on the citywide level in Cincinnati since people like Chris Smitherman campaign ENDLESSLY.  The guy has campaigned for 50+ hours per week, year-round for the past 15 years, because he's absolutely insane.  We saw what happened when he was knocked out of office -- he showed up to city council meetings and caused a scene like Mary Kuhl or another neighborhood agitator. 

 

Wards?  Mary Kuhl would have a council seat.  Here's the Kuhl Goul arguing against the Cincinnati Streetcar...IN BLUE ASH:

 

I feel like wards have a very negative connotation from creating parts of cities that are governed differently. Various parts of town artificially become winners and losers depending on whether the voters are good at picking candidates or are subject to shysters. Of course, the entirety of Cincinnati is represented by a shyster at the top as we speak.

 

Cincinnati already has a self-defeating attitude where many outer neighborhood residents hate downtown, and even with our current fully at-large system, council and mayoral candidates run and win by saying "we need to focus on the neighborhoods instead of downtown." Creating wards in Cincinnati would just codify this sentiment. It would create a situation where council members representing the outer wards would vote against any new downtown or OTR investment unless their ward got some token investment to "balance" it out. The revitalization of OTR may not not have happened if we had a ward system, because those council members would have insisted that we invest an equal amount into Westwood Square and Oakley Square as we did into OTR.

I have lived in CUF & Corryville for the past 10+ years and have not once heard a peep from the CUF or Corryville community councils.  I have not been to a meeting.  I don't even know where the meetings are held. 

 

But we hear endlessly from 3-4 community councils who claim that their issues are THE ISSUES. 

 

Local politics are always mired by neighborhood agitators like Mary Kuhl, etc.  They show up to every meeting and make it all about them.     

 

Mary Kuhl is a perpetual thorn in the side of Cincinnati. I wish she would just move to Green Twp. or something already. It seems like Westwood has largely been able to get around her lately, though, which is fortunate, because she really could poison just about any discussion. I was in a meeting once where she attended, and several other prominent Westwoodians finally told her off, and said that she doesn't speak for the whole community, but rather just her narrow interests/obsessions. It was amazing. She got so red in the face and ultimately stormed out of the meeting.

 

Love the Kuhl Goul nickname lmao.

Love the Kuhl Goul nickname lmao.

 

That was coined by Nate Livingston. 

 

My aunt and uncle who have lived in Loveland for 20+ years frequently complained of a Kuhl-type character up there.  Whoever this person was, they didn't take their act outside the cozy confines of Loveland, but they were enough of an issue that we had to hear about them just about every time we visited Loveland.  My uncle's funniest story was when he said he was reading the letters to the editor in the local paper, and was getting fired up reading a letter tearing into this individual, then he looked down to see who wrote it and it was...his wife! 

 

There will be two issues on the ballot this November to change the way City Council works. One will be to return to two year terms. The other will be to keep 4 year terms but stagger them, with half of council elected. If both were to pass, the one with the higher percentage of "yes" would take effect and the other would not.

With the staggered proposal, would the top 4 vote-getters in 2021 get a 4 year term, and the bottom 5 get a 2-year term and from then on out they are all 4 year terms?

The text is:

 

ORDINANCE, (EMERGENCY) submitted by Councilmember Greg Landsman, from Paula Boggs Muething, City Solicitor, TO SUBMIT to the electors of the City of Cincinnati an amendment to the Charter of the City to provide that, effective as of the general election of November 2021, the members of Council shall be elected at-large for staggered four-year terms, which shall commence as of the January 2022 Council term, with five members of Council serving four-year terms and four members of Council serving two year terms, and thereafter, all Councilmembers serving four-year terms which shall occur on a staggered basis, with elections for either four or five designated Council positions being held every two years, by amending existing Sections 4 and 5a of Article II, "Legislative Power," Section 3 of Article III, "Mayor," and Sections 1, 2a, 2b, 3, 5a, and 8 of Article IX, "Nominations and Elections." (VERSION B)

 

So the top 5 vote-getters in 2021 would get 4 year terms. The lower 4 would get 2 year terms. Then those 4 seats would be up for re-election in 2023 for 4 year terms.

 

It's a little unfortunate because I was hoping that the mayor + 4 will be elected at once, then 5 will be elected at mid-term, making for 5 elected officials chosen every 2 years. What's actually going to happen is that the mayor + 5 will be elected together and 4 will be elected in mid-terms. So it'll be an alternating 6/4/6/4... instead of a 5/5/5/5...

This also opens up the potential for things to get wonky if a council member ever leaves office early. I assume the current rule would still apply where if a council members leaves office before the mid-way point of their 4 year term, they will be replaced by a special election. So if 5 "Class A" council members win 4 year terms in 2021, and 5 "Class B" win in 2023, but one of the Class B members decides to step down before 2025, their special election will take place in 2025. So you will have 6 council members elected in 2025 and only 3 elected in 2027, and then the lopsided 6/3/6/3 cycle will continue...