So now that we are down to transportation can anyone explain why spending $25 million per mile to build a loop is good transportation policy?

 

What this "loop" does is expand the walkability of areas within the center city.  The average person is comfortable walking a 3-4 block distance, and after that it can become a bit of an annoyance.  So whereas originally if you lived at the McAlpin Building your comfortable walking distance put you at FS, Macy's, Saks, stadiums, Tower Place, and some other stuff.  Since the streetcar line will be within a couple blocks of the streetcar line...thus enabling you to comfortably navigate the center city, without a car, to a much greater extent.

 

This will thereby reduce resident's need for automobiles in the center city...it will also expand the reasonable parking options for those heading Downtown for events.  Normally for Bengals and Reds games there are plenty of free parking spaces out on Central Parkway, but go unused the vast majority of the time.  People don't want to walk 12 blocks to/from the game to their car (for various reasons).  So people circle around Downtown looking for free/cheap parking.  With the streetcar people would be able to comfortably park within a block or two of the line and take the streetcar to the events.

 

I could go on with more rationale and examples, but I really just don't have the time.  If you truly are interested in hearing the answers, to these questions, I recommend you read the numerous documents published related to the Cincinnati Streetcar.  They provide insight/rationale behind why and how streetcars work...and what their actual benefits are.  The information is there for you to peruse...I highly recommend that you do so.

^ Here's a good place to start: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/city/downloads/city_pdf17763.pdf

Here are my Portland and Streetcar posts.  I touch on the OTR gentrification issue and also talk about the strengths of streetcar over other transit:

http://www.citykin.com/search/label/streetcar

Wow.  This crowd is touchy.  The streetcar discussion is not about streetcars, it is about redevelopment.  Your leaders have said that.  Mr. Schneider, Mr. Bortz etc..  So gentrification is very much a part of the discussion of streetcars.  Mr. Bortz has said it is not a transportation tool it is a development tool.  With redevelopment goes the elimination of affordable housing.  Which subsequently takes low income families out of the equation.  Come on, removing discussion of gentrification means, the discussion of development should also not get discussed.  Which leaves transportation.  So now that we are down to transportation can anyone explain why spending $25 million per mile to build a loop is good transportation policy? :wtf:

 

:shoot:

Risking moderator wrath, I will begin with the redevelopment issue.  Firstly, the assumption that redevelopment necessarily replaces affordable housing is a faulty premise.  Redevelopment comes in many forms, from the more expensive condos in gateway to simple building rehabs.  Its a total picture.  Will some affordable housing go away?  Yes.  Will more affordable housing be made available through repurposing and fixing currently vacant buildings?  Yes.  Its not an either/or proposition.

 

Secondly, addressing the "statistics" from Cato you posted earlier... Other commentors have pointed to who funds Cato, and it is not a trivial amount of money they receive from interests who are very much opposed to any kind of public transportation.  That has to be considered.  Secondly, it is NOT true that Portland's ridership has declined over the years.  In fact it has increased year over year.  That study figures that ridership has declined based on a comparison to total vehicle miles traveled.  That figure is a poor figure for comparison because total vehicle miles traveled includes many many many trips that would just never be made via public transportation (for example cargo trucking, or taking kids to a soccer game, etc.)

 

Finally, considering that $25 million per mile figure, compare the cost of that to the cost to build highways and bridges.  We are looking at a 3 BILLION dollar project to rebuild the Brent Spence bridge and all of a few miles of highway.  Then take into consideration the continuing maintenance costs of such highways, lost opportunity costs from cutting apart neighborhoods, etc, etc.

 

Devoting transportation dollars to one mode of transportation, a mode that is damaging to the environment, a mode that promotes sprawl rather than efficient concentrated development, well that is where the real failing is.  We need to diversify our transportation, and streetcars/light rail are just one way to take the first few steps.

 

We need to get away from an either/or mindset.  We don't need to say only one mode of transportation is best, each has its benefits and its failings.  Streetcars are slow, they take longer for travel from point A to point B than some other modes of transportation.  But, they also provide some very large upsides, in terms of transportation and development.  UncleRando addressed many of those transportation upsides in his post earlier.  One that he did not address is the transportation upside for those living in the neighborhoods served by the line and that is the ability to possibly own fewer cars.  It is much less expensive to build and repair housing and attract new residents when each unit need not provide 2 full parking spaces for every tenant.

The streetcar discussion is not about streetcars, it is about redevelopment.  Your leaders have said that.  Mr. Schneider, Mr. Bortz etc..  So gentrification is very much a part of the discussion of streetcars.

 

I will tell you what Cincyboondoggle, if you create a gentrification thread then I will be happy to have that argument with you building by building here in OTR.  We can keep this thread clean and I will discuss with you each development, each building and what the realities are down here as it relates to redevelopment.  Set it up, and we will debate.

 

Actually there already is one, so lets discuss your concerns about OTR here http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,15415.0.html

Since this is about transportation and not development, why then isn’t more likely to succeed by connecting bigger areas to each other?  Why would a loop so Joe Blow from north OTR can get to 4th Street?  Wouldn’t it make sense to connect people to their work or school?  This loop seems to only make you white males happy so you don’t have to walk to get a sandwich.  It doesn’t link low income to jobs.  It doesn’t link low income to education.  It links white males to stuff they want to do.  It doesn’t link people to things they need to do.  Where is the greater good?  If this was about transportation then why isn’t the discussion talking about moving people?  The example given of walking from the McAlpin building to Fountain Square makes me laugh.  If we have a population that cannot walk from the McAlpin Building to say Aronoff, then we should actually invest in treadmills and get these people in shape.  Isn’t that what a pedestrian community is truly about?

 

Is it true that the company that conducted the city’s study is also a company that builds these systems, which seems to add a bias to their evaluation?

 

Some questions about how this system gets paid for.  Is it true that this plan uses up all the money that would build new fire stations and police stations?  Does the future subsidy to maintain this system actually use up dollars that would fund Human Services? 

:evil:

 

Mr. Redmond I'll meet you at the Gentrification forum.  You White male gentrifier...

^Take it easy with the inflammatory remarks.

It doesn’t link low income to jobs.  It doesn’t link low income to education.

I disagree with that.  1st, where are the two largest low income communities?  OTR and the West End.  Where are the two largest employment centers?  CBD and Uptown, both of which the streetcar will connect. 

 

Mr. Redmond I'll meet you at the Gentrification forum.  You White male gentrifier...

ok, State your theory and we will go from there.  And how do you know I am white?  From my picture I am brown with some sort of pinkish tint all packaged in a nice, hugo boss green suit.

I'll keep the insults to minimum MayDay.  Sorry.  You guys are passionate about streetcars and I'm passionate about people, my excitment gets the best of me sometimes.  I apologize. :angel:

Since this is about transportation and not development, why then isn’t more likely to succeed by connecting bigger areas to each other?  Why would a loop so Joe Blow from north OTR can get to 4th Street?  Wouldn’t it make sense to connect people to their work or school? 

 

Hmm... aren't their more jobs in the cincy business district then in north OTR? So realy you are linking everyone who lives in NOTR to all the downtown jobs.

 

  It links white males to stuff they want to do.  It doesn’t link people to things they need to do.

 

This comment is laughable, I'm sure more then white males live in and are moving into the business district. Plus getting up to Findlay market or the vine st kroger for your groceries would be a need, and not a want.

esp with out a car.

 

why do we have to bring race, and gender into a discussion on adding to our city's infrastructure trying to make it a better place for all. 

Since this is about transportation and not development, why then isn’t more likely to succeed by connecting bigger areas to each other? 

The final idea IS to connect bigger areas, but as a first step, an area that is in need of development was chosen.  It was a considered decision about where to take the first steps (we can't tackle a giant system all at once).  So, its baby steps, first we build this loop, then we connect this loop to uptown.  Then we connect those loops to the east and the west, and eventually, over time, we build out this transportation infrastructure that will serve not only as transportation but incentives for private developers to invest dollars along the line.

 

Why would a loop so Joe Blow from north OTR can get to 4th Street?  Wouldn’t it make sense to connect people to their work or school?  This loop seems to only make you white males happy so you don’t have to walk to get a sandwich.  It doesn’t link low income to jobs.  It doesn’t link low income to education.  It links white males to stuff they want to do.  It doesn’t link people to things they need to do.  Where is the greater good? 

 

I won't address the racial nature of the comments here, but one of the driving (pun intended) forces is not just entertainment but but to allow the people who work downtown to live closer to their works.  In other cities of similar size and density, there is a great desire to live close to the downtown urban cores.  This is desirable housing in other areas because it is close to work and close to the amenities that a broad range of people desire to frequent.  This is what the streetcar plan is hoping to bring to the CBD/OTR area.

 

If this was about transportation then why isn’t the discussion talking about moving people?  The example given of walking from the McAlpin building to Fountain Square makes me laugh.  If we have a population that cannot walk from the McAlpin Building to say Aronoff, then we should actually invest in treadmills and get these people in shape.  Isn’t that what a pedestrian community is truly about?

The discussion has focused on moving people, keeping people moving within a core area that allows them not only the transportation benefits but also the secondary benefits for the city of business and investment benefits that stem from more people shopping, walking, and investing in the neighborhoods.

 

Is it true that the company that conducted the city’s study is also a company that builds these systems, which seems to add a bias to their evaluation?

 

One of the parties that conducted the studies does indeed build such systems.  The key party who did the study (HDR), does not.  One thing to consider is that in order to really figure out the costs of building such a system they had to consult with companies that actually do this type of construction.

 

Some questions about how this system gets paid for.  Is it true that this plan uses up all the money that would build new fire stations and police stations?  Does the future subsidy to maintain this system actually use up dollars that would fund Human Services? 

 

In short, no.  Largely the funds come from TIF (from the Banks TIF district) and private sources.  Something to remember, TIF funds must be used in the district from which they come, so this money doesn't affect other ongoing projects.  In fact, it will affect NO other already approved capital projects (this was one major goal when coming up with the new funding plan).

 

"You guys are passionate about streetcars and I'm passionate about people,"

 

Try being passionate without being a pr!ck.

Since this is about transportation and not development, why then isn’t more likely to succeed by connecting bigger areas to each other?  Why would a loop so Joe Blow from north OTR can get to 4th Street?  Wouldn’t it make sense to connect people to their work or school?  This loop seems to only make you white males happy so you don’t have to walk to get a sandwich.  It doesn’t link low income to jobs.  It doesn’t link low income to education.  It links white males to stuff they want to do.  It doesn’t link people to things they need to do.  Where is the greater good?  If this was about transportation then why isn’t the discussion talking about moving people?  The example given of walking from the McAlpin building to Fountain Square makes me laugh.  If we have a population that cannot walk from the McAlpin Building to say Aronoff, then we should actually invest in treadmills and get these people in shape.  Isn’t that what a pedestrian community is truly about?

 

Yes people can walk those distances...I often walk from around 12th Street down to the area around Fountain Square.  Just because people are capable of doing something doesn't mean that they want to.  A streetcar system expands individual mobility and choice...something Cato should be in favor of.  There are endless examples of when a situation might arise where someone doesn't want to walk (maybe they have a disability, maybe inclimate weather, feeling tired, or heck...just doesn't feel like walking 10-20 blocks or so one way).  They should have the choice of not having to use a car if they don't want to.  Unfortunately that choice does not exist in our society the way it should.

 

And since you seem to be in favor of linking people to jobs, then I assume you are a light rail advocate...since that type of rail system accomplishes just that.  For some strange reason though I bet you're opposed to light rail as well.  I've encountered people like you, and no matter how many of your questions I answer or how many times I show real-life evidence to support my stance...it just doesn't matter.

 

At first it serves no purpose...then it changes into the purpose that it serves is harmful to certain segments of the population...then it morphs again into disregarding real-life examples/evidence.  It really is quite sad to watch people like you grasp for straws when their argument fails.

Don't feed the trolls.

Wouldnt it make sense to connect people to their work or school? 

 

Yes, and it's safe to say that everyone here wants to see it, but it was shot down by the people of the county only a couple years ago.  Though now, with gas the way it is, I'm hearing more and more that people want to see this.  Perhaps a new proposal should be made next election...

The MetroMoves proposal was too big.  This streetcar plan is too small.  I agree with Ms. Qualls.  This has to connect Uptown to Downtown at the very least.  There has to be clear understanding of the future, and you don’t reactionary build a $100 million system.  It is very surprising that Ms. Qualls, who is the most educated on transportation, does not support this.  That speaks volumes.  Mr. Bortz knows development, as long as it has public subsidy.  Ms. Qualls has taken the time to understand good public transportation policy.  She expresses herself very well on this.  Do not do this without a broader plan.  Don’t do this without setting a clear long term agenda.  This streetcar plan is reactionary because a study said it could be done.  Come down fellas, let’s do this right.  When this plan fails because Bortz’s financing scheme is as holy as a block of Swiss cheese, then no plan will come about anytime soon.  This IS a boondoggle and I am Cincyboondoggle.

 

Feed the trolls we are hungry for more red meat. :evil:

It will link to uptown.  Uptown link cannot be financed at the same time as downtown, it would kill the project.  Just because it can't be financed at the same time does not mean it isn't being planned for and worked towards.  Recent approval of studies on the Uptown link indicate that its not just a nice to have but it WILL be part of the picture.  To get uptown done we will need to get federal funding.  That won't happen without actual dollars in the ground today.  The plan is not too small precisely because Uptown is part of the plan.

 

Qualls may have the academic credentials, but she hasn't shown me she can actually get anything done beyond studying it to death.  Qualls is not a supporter -- she hasn't done anything tangible to support the project, just lip service, and further, she votes against what she says she wants.  Her only proposal is supported by Cranley, and THAT should really tell you where she stands.  If Cranley supports it, that is a darn good indication that it wasn't intended to actually build the line.  That is the last I will say on that. *cough*

Boondogle, you are all over the place with your arguments here.  St. Patricks day must have hit you hard.

The streetcar discussion is not about streetcars, it is about redevelopment....this is about transportation and not development

 

This streetcar plan is too small....This has to connect Uptown to Downtown at the very least.

Does this mean that you support it if it does connect to Uptown?  By the end of this discussion you could very well be out in front of City Hall with a Streetcar NOW! sign.

^own agenda!

I am getting a headache trying to figure out what the agenda is though.  Is it anti streetcar, anti development, pro streetcar to Uptown, anti expenditure, pro expenditure so long as it is more, anti streetcar if white people use it....what?

Don't feed the trolls.

 

 

 

Moving on!!

I've brought it up before, but to change subject...Streetcar name?

I had just plain ol' Trolley for a while :)

The sad part is that the answer to all of cincyboondoggle's concerns are readily available in the Streetcar study, articles in the Enquirer, Citybeat, & the Business Courier, and especially within this thread.  So cincyboondoggle either already knows the answers and is just stirring the pot, or isn't nearly as interested in this subject as he is pretending to be.  Whatever his motivation, it's clear from his responses that he's not actually here for answers or rational debate, which is a shame because this board is so informative.  I particularly enjoyed the wildly inaccurate and inflammatory questions about fire stations, portland ridership, etc, which have been phrased as to indicate that they are obviously true. 

 

A few of my favorite moments from the last day or so:

 

UncleRando the reason I post this way is because of zealots like you will probably threaten me or my family harm.

 

Mr. Redmond I'll meet you at the Gentrification forum.  You White male gentrifier...

 

This loop seems to only make you white males happy so you don’t have to walk to get a sandwich.

 

So after reading all this propaganda, please look at this link.

 

Is it true that Portland transit ridership has fallen?

 

So now that we are down to transportation can anyone explain why spending $25 million per mile to build a loop is good transportation policy?

 

Is it true that the company that conducted the city’s study is also a company that builds these systems, which seems to add a bias to their evaluation?

 

Is it true that this plan uses up all the money that would build new fire stations and police stations? 

 

Does the future subsidy to maintain this system actually use up dollars that would fund Human Services?

 

 

Wait... who's the zealot?

 

I'm with John Schneider and oakiehigh on this one.  Don't feed the trolls.  Let's move on with some intelligent discussion.

Cincinnati Area Rapid Transit -- CART

Cincinnati (Seven) Hills Urban Rail Coach -- CHURCH

MetroRAIL -- MAIL

 

sorry i am getting away with the acronyms

^ They could encourage ridership and have some fun with the CHURCH acronym if they made the line fareless on Sundays.

Boondoogle=cheryl, the suburban design queen.  :roll: Has the type of car been discussed by the city? What model would we get? the same as portlands?

Let's keep the discussion both civil and on topic.  I've been asked to monitor the discussion and I will be doing so.  Cincyboondoggle.... you're new to the forum, so I'll cut you some slack, but let's watch the comments based on assuming a poster's race, etc.  That will get you bounced.

 

Peace.

Boondoggle, presently Over-the-Rhine has hardly any residents that would be pushed out.  The neighborhood was once home to tens of thousands of people, 30,000-40,000 at its peak.  It now has about 5,000.  These people would only be pushed out in the case of a New York City-style gentrification wave and that's not going to happen streetcar or no streetcar.  And if all vacant buildings in the neighborhood were renovated and occupied and every empty lot built upon in the next 10 years, there's still the West End a quarter mile away with 1,000+ empty buildings as well as thousands of empty buildings and lots elsewhere in the city.  Nothing big is going to change in Over-the-Rhine north of Liberty without something big changing.  The streetcar is that big thing.  Your gentrification argument has been destroyed.

 

 

>The MetroMoves proposal was too big. 

 

No, it was too small, too suburb-focused, and the build-out was too slow.   

 

 

>This streetcar plan is too small.  I agree with Ms. Qualls.  This has to connect Uptown to Downtown at the very least.  There has to be clear understanding of the future, and you don’t reactionary build a $100 million system.  It is very surprising that Ms. Qualls, who is the most educated on transportation, does not support this.

 

 

Ms. Qualls is good, like any successful politician, at convincing others she's an Authority.  My inbox is periodically graced with tidy accounts of her activities.  Bottom line, she doesn't have much energy or energy to pursue her ideas, whatever they are.  Boondoggle, please name a political gamble she's made on behalf of rail transit in this city if she is in fact such an ardent rail supporter.     

 

 

 

OVA - Ohio Valley Authority

Personally I disagree with the "don't feed the trolls" way of dealing with this type of poster.  Several valuable things came out of this back and forth.  We learned who funds the Cato institute, and thereby who supports Randall O'Toole, a fairly loudspoken opponent of streetcars and rail transit systems together.  This information is valuable ammunition to argue against his "points."  Further, I find that I will personally address the comments of trolls, especially when there are outrageous assertions of fact.  These assertions often become the "talking points" if not fairly and reasonably addressed.  I find it is better to comment and negate those assertions.  This shares a new line of "talking points" with the supporters to address these types of comments when they arise later.  Who really thinks that these types of comments won't be repeated on, say, WLW, later?  That said, when the same arguments are put forth by the "troll" and things get repetitive, well then, that is where I stop responding.

 

These are just my personal thoughts on how to deal with these types of comments, but I think at least a few valuable thoughts came out of addressing these types of assertions head on.  Again, just my 2c.

Can't disagree with you on that one.  One of the things that makes this forum work is that we can all agree or disagree in a civilized way.... and, yes, we learn sometimes from those we disagree with.  Otherwise we'd just be "preachin' to the choir" all the time.

if we play the cards right, we can have the streetcar acronym be the same as a stock symbol for one of out fortune 500s and make a few million for the naming rights.

also oil is $109 a barrell and wholesale gasoline for april delivery is $2.66, gasoline went up 16c today.

 

we know we will need a streetcar at some point; I believe we needed it yesterday, but it will only be more expensive as time goes by.  lets build it now.

I don't really understand what Wessels is saying

 

Asking Questions, Causing Trouble

By Joe Wessels

 

 

Thinking outside the blue box

 

  The first phase of Cincinnati’s proposed streetcar line should be built between downtown and IKEA in West Chester.

I offer that mostly in jest. But try asking a legitimate question about the streetcar plan to one of its staunch supporters, and you might as well duck and cover.

  I just love groupthink. It’s part of why Cincinnati is Cincinnati. And why, no matter how hard we keep trying, we might be stuck the way we are, seeing minor improvements implemented by those who bravely venture outside the given parameters.

  I like IKEA. Shoot me.

  I went there March 17 and was reminded why, while living in Sacramento in 2001, I drove 90 miles to San Francisco to spend $3,000 to outfit my downtown apartment. IKEA is awesome. Prices are relatively inexpensive, and the items are smart, fashionable, functional and, for the most part, well built.

  That does mean we city dwellers shouldn’t buy furniture from MetroNation, Lucky Step or Park + Vine in Over-the-Rhine’s Gateway Quarter? Heck no! But why reject a concept just because it was sparked in Sweden and not in our own backyard?

IKEA backlash comes from groupthink, I think. It’s killing us.

  I’ve been wondering about whether the TIF, or tax increment financing, that’s set to fund a large chunk of the streetcar line could turn out to be a gamble that doesn’t pay for itself. What if it makes more sense to build a streetcar that actually has a functional purpose say, moving folks from downtown to Clifton instead of being a people circulator?

  As for IKEA, I heard so much talk about boycotting the new store that I thought they might be doing animal testing like hooking little kitties’ brains up to electrical outlets in outside display cases. From what I can tell, the company actually is known for good business practices. Why not applaud that?

  Instead, I get the sense that many people here would rather we buy Cincinnati products, no matter how much more they cost.

Recently a young professional who’s involved in downtown causes and issues left a status update on her Facebook account for all her friends to see: ¨(Cincinnati City Councilman) Chris Monzel does not have a clue. (Councilwoman) Roxanne Qualls is a big  disappointment to Cincinnati. We need streetcars!

  Monzel and Qualls along with Councilman John Cranley have had reservations about the streetcar proposal despite throngs of people filling Council chambers each time the issue is on the agenda. The crowd response overwhelming favors the proposed four-mile $102 million route between The Banks area downtown and Findlay Market in Over-the-Rhine.

  In my position as columnist for CityBeat, and before that as the political reporter at The Cincinnati Post, I’ve met Qualls and Monzel many times. And I think I can safely say that, regardless of which political party best represents your views, Qualls is not a disappointment to Cincinnati and Monzel does have a clue. Several, in fact.

  The man’s an engineer, for heaven’s sake. Qualls has a master’s degree from Harvard.

There are some pretty good questions about the streetcar that haven’t been answered yet. That’s not to say that Councilman Chris Bortz, the Charterite who first came out in support of the streetcar, or any of his other council colleagues are wrong. But why can’t we ask questions in this town?

  Too many issues are all buy-in or nothing. You’re either with us or you must be against us.

  In 1973, Mark Granovetter published ¨The Strength of Weak Ties,Ó a still-relevant study demonstrating the power of acquaintances’ weak ties compared to those within strong social networks with strong ties to allow change to occur. Strong ties often prevent thinking outside of group norms, the study said, because doing so would risk inclusion in that group.

  People who have less strong ties have less to risk and therefore are more likely to allow new ideas to be introduced. So in order to spark change you either have to be willing to break with the group (difficult for many Cincinnatians to do) or seek it on the periphery, instead trying to convince power brokers.

  Cincinnati needs change. It wants change, but it can’t get it until it allows out-of-the-box thinking and embraces those who dare go there.

  Let’s start with that streetcar to IKEA. Or let’s at least talk about it.

 

 

^

That article was a waste of my time. He obviously doesn't understand what a streetcar is, and from reading that possibly a very poor columnist

^ You know, the ironic thing is ... the 2002 MetroMoves Regional Rail Plan had a light rail line going from downtown to uptown to Xavier to Tri-County, with a later extension to just about where the IKEA store is.

^

That article was a waste of my time. He obviously doesn't understand what a streetcar is, and from reading that possibly a very poor columnist

 

I think he may be trying to make a point (or several), but after struggling through the article I have no clue what it (they) is (are). His ideas are crammed in there like junk in Fibber McGee's closet and they all come cascading out in a jumble, and it's impossible to figure out which belongs with what. He makes no sense.

 

Maybe he's spent too much time listening to G.W. Bush's speeches.

Wow.  This guy is totally out of touch.  The local response to IKEA has been overwhelmingly positive.  The few negative comments I've heard have been regarding furniture quality, lazy repetitive coverage in The Enquirer (IKEA serves swedish meatballs and lingonberries!?), and bewilderment that people would camp out in the parking before the opening.  And most of that was done with a shoulder-shrug, and wasn't emphatic by any stretch.  I've never heard anyone mention the words IKEA and boycott in the same sentence, at least not until I read this article.

 

And what does The Streetcar have to do with IKEA?  I'm actually glad that people are showing up en masse to meetings on the subject.  It's about time this city stands up and says we deserve better mass transit options than we currently have.  The author also makes assertions that the streetcar supporters are opposed to debate on the issue and are unwilling to answer questions, which I think is the furthest thing from the truth.  He also fails to provide any examples to back that claim up.  Pretty weak.

I think he may be trying to make a point (or several), but after struggling through the article I have no clue what it (they) is (are). His ideas are crammed in there like junk in Fibber McGee's closet and they all come cascading out in a jumble, and it's impossible to figure out which belongs with what. He makes no sense.

 

That is what happens when you try to oversimplify a much more complex issue.

Does anyone know Joe?  Such that they can invite him over here to check out the long ongoing discussion and thought process that led up to the current proposal?  I mean, I really don't see the "group think" he is talking about, we disagree about alot of things, except for one - we need a city rail system.

Yeah, I don't see how the streetcar relates to IKEA at all.  A streetcar isn't meant to take people long distances.  We'd need light rail to move people all the way out to West Chester (which as was mentioned would have been possible had the light rail proposal been approved in 2002).  And you would think that supporters packing council chambers to show support for the plan would be a good thing.  Isn't the streetcar thinking outside-the-box to begin with?  I don't get it...

The connection of the streetcar to IKEA was a complete red herring... Just thrown out to try to bring together two supposed instances of "group think"

 

I think that was really the only point of the article, the dangers of group think.  This argument completely ignores the fact the streetcar proposal has come as far as it has due to an impressive groundswell of grass roots support born from the realization that we need to take proactive steps to make Cincinnati a competitor in the global market.  Either you want to try to make changes or you don't.  The real problem with that article is that it fails to consider the fact that there has been quite a lot of discussion, and consequently, the author sees the responses to criticism as knee jerk reactions (because they are seen outside of the context of the discussions that led to the contrary conclusions)

 

Cincinnati needs change. It wants change, but it can’t get it until it allows out-of-the-box thinking and embraces those who dare go there.

 

I agree Wessels, that is why we are going with a streetcar

Guy's a moron and should have his computer priveleges taken away.

Guy's a moron and should have his computer priveleges taken away.

Eh, I'd rather discuss it with him than paint with that broad of a stroke.  He certainly isn't the worst that Cincinnati has to offer on the journalistic front.

I have met Joe on a few occassions, and to be honest I like the guy.  He is a nice guy, and seems to genuinly want the best for this city.  With that said, the whole piece seems to be an offspring from one Jacki Danicki.

 

This is the exact discussion she always brings up about the streetcar...she'll ask a bunch of questions, and when you try to answer or inform her that the answers are readily available for her reading she'll then take that as a sign of weakness and assume that you don't want to have dialogue on the issue.  Even though that couldn't be further from the truth.

 

It is a case of someone asking questions, who really doesn't care for the answers (for various reasons).  Wessels seems to be taking on the same stance here...assuming that people getting frusterated over questioning about the streetcar are just unwilling to have open dialogue.  When the reality is that the dialogue has already taken place and their questions have already been answered.

 

Wessels is a very smart individual, he just may be a little misguided on this topic.

I have met Joe on a few occassions, and to be honest I like the guy.  He is a nice guy, and seems to genuinly want the best for this city.  With that said, the whole piece seems to be an offspring from one Jacki Danicki.

 

Interesting, quite possible, but I have heard the "group think" meme from more than just that source.

 

Regardless, I'd like to discuss it.  This is one of the reasons I tend to sometimes rehash arguments in full rather than merely pointing back to "here's where you can find the info."  There needs to be some of that, but to ONLY address the argument with hyperlink citations, I can understand how someone might think you are trivializing their "points" by doing so.

I have met Joe and I like Joe, and think he is a really good journalist.  However, I think he missed the point that streetcar supporters are often quick to pounce because we have to.  It is not often that we get asked questions as a serious inquiry, but rather as an ideological attack.  Look at those who have come to this board and others with dubious figures and questionable sources, quoting people like Randal O'Tool(e) and others at the CATO.  There are those who ask questions, not because they are curious, but because they want to get their own point across.  I enjoy having conversations about the streetcar plan, and how I believe we need to work on developing the urban core for environmental and economic reasons.  If Joe points to our quick defense of the streetcar as groupthink, it should at least be noted that this is happening as a result of attack, not because we are zealots.   

 

Oh, and Roxie is certainly not stupid, I don't think any of us would say that.  She knows exactly what she has to do to get higher office.

It is not often that we get asked questions as a serious inquiry, but rather as an ideological attack.  Look at those who have come to this board and others with dubious figures and questionable sources, quoting people like Randal O'Tool(e) and others at the CATO.  There are those who ask questions, not because they are curious, but because they want to get their own point across. 

 

How do you distinguish from someone who is honestly interested from someone who has an ideological agenda? Also, honest research could lead one to O'Toole or CATO.  Many do not know the bona fides of CATO are libertarian. Additionally, honest minds can disagree, but if you never engage them you stand little chance of changing their mind.

 

If Joe points to our quick defense of the streetcar as groupthink, it should at least be noted that this is happening as a result of attack, not because we are zealots.   

 

Not to stir the pot, but perhaps those you view as zealots view you as zealots.  Maybe that is why they act the way they do.  Also, I should note that many of the posts here, which you assume no one else is aware of, are quick to nitpick Joe's argument, a classic sign of groupthink.

 

Oh, and Roxie is certainly not stupid, I don't think any of us would say that.  She knows exactly what she has to do to get higher office.

 

Another sign of groupthink, ascribing ulterior motives to any who disagree.  Additionally, lets take your statement at face value.  Roxanne knows exactly what she needs to do to get to higher office.  That means supporting either popular interests or policies that are for the good even if unpopular at the moment.  You say she doesn't support the streetcar.  Therefore, the streetcar must be neither popular nor good policy. QED.