December 22, 200816 yr ^ I'm aware of only two buildings on the streetcar route that Towne Properties has any interest in. If together they represent more than 1/10 of 1% of Towne's net worth, I'd be surprised.
December 23, 200816 yr Check the comments out! Surprisingly PRO-Transit. Some are funny. NAACP: Stop streetcar plan By Jane Prendergast • [email protected] • December 23, 2008 http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20081223/NEWS01/312230020/1056/COL02 Opponents of Cincinnati’s proposal to run streetcars from downtown to the University of Cincinnati area have started collecting signatures on petitions to stop what they say is a waste of money. NAACP President Christopher Smitherman says the project shouldn’t be the city’s financial priority over things like repairing streets and making neighborhood business districts economically viable. NAACP members voted last week to undertake a petition drive to change the city’s charter to prohibit streetcars.
December 23, 200816 yr Cincinnati streetcar initiative could be headed for 2009 ballot "After four days of effort, organizers of a petition drive to force a vote on Cincinnati’s streetcar initiative have secured more than 200 signatures, or roughly 3 percent of what they will need to put the measure on the November 2009 ballot. “It’s been the highest return of petitions to our office from any of our petition drives,” said Christopher Smitherman, president of the local chapter of the NAACP, which voted to pursue the streetcar measure last week. Smitherman said the measure will prohibit the city from spending money to acquire rights-of-way for a new streetcar line or construct “improvements for passenger rail transportation” unless the matter receives a majority affirmative “vote of the electorate” in Cincinnati." http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/12/22/daily34.html This is so over the top. The unfair treatment of mass transit efforts compared to road projects in the US is ridiculous. If they are going to go after this then they should be going after highway expansion projects with the same 'concerns'. Its time for the Streetcar PR system to kick into high gear. Its got to be simple, easy to understand, catchy and fit on a easy to read billboard or yard sign. Maybe gas will be $6.00 a gallon by November 2009.
December 23, 200816 yr Check the comments out! Surprisingly PRO-Transit. Some are funny. Wow, I guess there's nothing like the NAACP to bring otherwise anti-transit folks over to the good side. Thanks Chris!
December 23, 200816 yr Yeah, I am surprised by the positive nature of the comments as well. I think people might actually be beginning to see the light! Have to start somewhere.... If you are truly bitter about the unfair treatment of rail against highways, do something about it. Look to the history of Baltimore's highways as to inspiration as to the proper way to derail road projects.
December 23, 200816 yr The future/continued success of Cincinnati hinges upon the implementation of rail transit. This streetcar plan is a great first step and will get us on our way. If we fail at this consider the progress in OTR temporary, imo.
December 23, 200816 yr After four days of effort, organizers of a petition drive to force a vote on Cincinnati's streetcar initiative have secured more than 200 signatures, or roughly 3 percent of what they will need to put the measure on the November 2009 ballot. Nice of them to wait until December to give a damn about this project. I don't mind putting this to a vote, but that vote should have happened in November 2008 or even 2007. Waiting until now is either a clear stall tactic should the financing be found in the interim, or a sign that the Cincinnati NAACP really doesn't have their sh!+ together. It's not like the Streetcar was just announced last week. It's been in the works for years. Smitherman said the measure will prohibit the city from spending money to acquire rights-of-way for a new streetcar line Um... what rights-of-way? It's a streetcar line. It runs ON THE STREET. If the street isn't blocked, the Streetcar won't be either! NAACP members voted last week to undertake a petition drive to change the city's charter to prohibit streetcars. So wait... they actually want to PROHIBIT streetcars? So hypothetically, if some ultra-wealthy individual came in and decided to pay for 100% of the project, including annual operating costs, they still wouldn't want to allow them? Seriously??? The future/continued success of Cincinnati hinges upon the implementation of rail transit. This streetcar plan is a great first step and will get us on our way. If we fail at this consider the progress in OTR temporary, imo. I totally agree with this. Even without taking OTR into consideration, Cincinnati needs rail if it wants to compete with similarly sized cities in the near future.
December 23, 200816 yr WOW!? That is quite seriously one of the most preposterous things I have ever heard. Why would you ban a transit system?
December 24, 200816 yr I agree, I think that even if they manage to get it on the ballot, it will pass. Actually, that could be a major blessing in disguise. It would show city council that Streetcars are an important priority for citizens of Cincinnati.
December 24, 200816 yr ^I agree, but we're talking about a vote 11 months from now. So assuming that Dohoney announces that the financing is in place in January, we have to wait 10 more months to find out if we can even start building? That kind of sucks.
December 24, 200816 yr Fellas, this whole NAACP/COAST thing is a joke. I'm not sure everyone on this forum understands the nature of this thing. I'm not a lawyer, but because Cincinnati is a city, i.e. and incorporated community, they can make decisions as a body, as a person. The City also has the power to raise discretionary spending funds through the payroll tax. That's what gives Cincinnati more flex than Hamilton County had, which had to create new sources of funding through a dedicated tax increase to build the stadia or MetroMoves plan. So the only way these guys can potentially get at the streetcar is by amending the Charter to include the language that Smitherman uses in the business courier article, 'Smitherman said the measure will prohibit the city from spending money to acquire rights-of-way for a new streetcar line or construct “improvements for passenger rail transportation” unless the matter receives a majority affirmative “vote of the electorate” in Cincinnati."' Now, they might get enough signatures to get put on the ballot. But we wouldn't vote on it until November. And if the City is able to start the project before then, there's really nothing that potential charter amendment can do. If the City sells one bond that exists with language written into it that requires the bond to mature only after the line has been completed, then that exists as a contract existing prior to the legislation and is guaranteed by the contract clause of the U.S. Constitution, which clearly pre-empts state law. They could also try to create bonds with language in them that allows for the partial redemption and reissuance that could theoretically allow that debt (and therefore contract to the creditors) to remain in existence, and thereby pre-empting the charter change, indefinitely. Also, since the charter language only affects the City, the City could simply create a new authority, or expand the power of an existing authority or public corporation, like SORTA or the Port or 3CDC or even the Corporation for Findlay Market, and authorize them to build and operate a streetcar system. But truly, if this thing gets on the ballot, it simply isn't going to pass. There is a reason why a large majority of council approves of this plan, because the people of Cincinnati in general approve of it. People simply aren't as stupid as Smitherman and Finney think they are. The red-light camera thing passed because people don't like those things, not because of anything that these choads did. These same guys just got crushed on proportional representation in the City, which required an actual thoughtful choice by the voters. There's simply no way it is going to pass. But if there are any lawyers on this forum who really want to stop these guys, you should find some people to get together and really go over the signatures they submit with a fine-toothed comb, and try to get as many thrown out as possible.
December 24, 200816 yr Someone ask Smitherman when was the last time he was critical of spending on highways or how the cost of owning and operating a car if financially straining the budgets of his constituents. Someone ask him how he'll explain the loss of construction and development-related jobs that WON'T occur if we don't start building rail-based transit options like streetcars, light rail and intercity passenger rail.... jobs that could be helping people through these (his quote) "economically perilous times." Mr. Smitherman.... the train is about to leave the station and you have the choice of getting on board and making good economic benefits happen.... or get left behind on the platform.
December 24, 200816 yr Now, they might get enough signatures to get put on the ballot. But we wouldn't vote on it until November. And if the City is able to start the project before then, there's really nothing that potential charter amendment can do. If the City sells one bond that exists with language written into it that requires the bond to mature only after the line has been completed, then that exists as a contract existing prior to the legislation and is guaranteed by the contract clause of the U.S. Constitution, which clearly pre-empts state law. They could also try to create bonds with language in them that allows for the partial redemption and reissuance that could theoretically allow that debt (and therefore contract to the creditors) to remain in existence, and thereby pre-empting the charter change, indefinitely. Interesting. I was operating under the assumption that the presence of the issue on a future ballot would preclude the city from construction until the vote actually happens. I'd be happy to be wrong in this particular case.
December 24, 200816 yr ^It might be a political no-no to go forward and spend the money while there is an attempt to have it voted on, but I don't think there is any legal obligation for the City to wait as they have already approved the money for the project. Since this is a Charter amendment is allows them to move forward I think...if it was specifically a vote on the streetcar (which I'm not sure is possible) then it might be a different situation.
December 24, 200816 yr From Building Cincinnati comes this: "The new capital account will be created with $700,000 in surplus funds from Parking Facilities Fund 102 and, to reimburse the City, revenues from the new parking spaces will be collected by the City's Parking Facilities Division." This happens all the time in Cincinnati. No one even gives it a second thought. Have a good holiday, everyone. Read the story: http://www.building-cincinnati.com/2008/12/cincinnati-budgets-for-expanded.html
December 24, 200816 yr ^It might be a political no-no to go forward and spend the money while there is an attempt to have it voted on, but I don't think there is any legal obligation for the City to wait as they have already approved the money for the project. Since this is a Charter amendment is allows them to move forward I think...if it was specifically a vote on the streetcar (which I'm not sure is possible) then it might be a different situation. There's not an attempt to have it "voted on". The City doesn't have referenda to vote on various aspects of the capital budget. These are legal processes. The City is a corporation that is managed by a board, like every corporation. These men are trying to amend the charter to disallow the city to implement a specific technology. I repeat- before and after this attempted charter change, regardless of the outcome, the boardmembers (City Council) will remain the only people with the legal authority to vote on the allocation of the capital budget. The people won't ever be voting on how to spend capital funds. Smitherman & Finney represent two groups, the Cincinnati branch of the NAACP and COAST. These groups have legal standing as well. Just because these guys are quoted in the paper doesn't mean they represent anyone beyond their respective organizations. Legally, they sure don't. That is a key point. The will of the community is legally made manifest through the actions of our elected representatives. These schmucks are lobbyists who are trying to subscribe the ability of the community, through its elected representatives, not simply to make certain policy decisions, but essentially outlaw an extremely specific policy choice- essentially one technological choice from a specific policy option. It's pretty much the opposite of what the intention of the law is, and charter amendments in general are, designed to do. Make no mistake, these guys are looking for yet another issue to gain play in order to thrust themselves into a political arena they can't get into, because they either 1) had been kicked out of it (Smitherman) because they don't appeal to a big or broad enough constituency to get elected, or 2) the same + they don't live in the City (Finney). This gambit will fail because they are cheap and egocentric hucksters who don't care about the content of the issues. Basically every member of City Council except Cranley and Monzel are for this thing. The Mayor is for this thing. Do you really think that people who have to be responsive to public mood to maintain their position are, in general, going to be less able to gauge that mood then someone who has no need to be responsive to it, and has failed in cases similar to this (prop. rep.)? Or that the public cares enough about this issue to vote these folks out of office? Or that these folks would rather be voted out of office on the principle of building the streetcar if they think that would possibly happen rather than change their position? There is no need to give these Chris's any legitimacy. They legally represent no community except the members of their organizations- ergo they are lobbyists trying pull a gimmick to subvert the will of the people as expressed through their duly elected representatives.
December 24, 200816 yr ^Yes I understand that...the vote would be to amend the Charter (similar to the Red Light Camera issue). Essentially the charter amendment would act as a referendum on the spending of these dollars on the streetcar project though.
December 24, 200816 yr Petition Circulates Against Cincinnati Streetcar System Opponents call it a waste of money By 700WLW News Wednesday, December 24, 2008 (Cincinnati) - A group of organizations who fought against Hamilton County's proposed jail and red light cameras last year are back at it. This time, they're targeting the city's proposed streetcar system. Several groups, including the NAACP and WeDemandAVote, among others, want to stop the city from putting money into the rail system, calling it a waste of funds. Opponents are circulating a petition to get the issue on the November 2009 ballot. If they're successful, voters will decide on a change to the city's charter that would require leaders to get public approval before any money is put into the rail system. http://www.700wlw.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=119585&article=4770178
December 26, 200816 yr I don't want to post the full blog entry of mine, but be sure to check it out as it has some contact information and thoughts about the current standing of transit in Cincinnati... http://www.urbancincy.com/2008/12/letting-cincinnatians-down.html
December 26, 200816 yr If anyone has the exact verbiage of the petition, please post it. I'll try and stop by the NAACP office and take a looksy :-D
December 26, 200816 yr I don't want to post the full blog entry of mine, but be sure to check it out as it has some contact information and thoughts about the current standing of transit in Cincinnati... http://www.urbancincy.com/2008/12/letting-cincinnatians-down.html That's terrible - Green Township's stance on transit. There's probably quite a few people who rely on public transit to get to work because they can't afford a car, have a suspended license, or they are handicapped. If they cut bus service, they will have no way to get to work (or in this economy, a way to find work). I doubt the 33 is underutilized. It's quite busy all the way through if I remember correctly. Imagine having public transportation to use then suddenly not having it available. It's not always easy to get rides from other people. THIS is something the NAACP should be fighting for. Not lack of transit options. Public transit should be available to everyone, cross all urbanized municipalities. Anything less doesn't promote equality.
December 26, 200816 yr I don't want to post the full blog entry of mine, but be sure to check it out as it has some contact information and thoughts about the current standing of transit in Cincinnati... http://www.urbancincy.com/2008/12/letting-cincinnatians-down.html THIS is something the NAACP should be fighting for. Not lack of transit options. Public transit should be available to everyone, cross all urbanized municipalities. Anything less doesn't promote equality. Yeah, I'm terribly confused by why they would do this because it seems like it would promote the principals they stand for? Gosh, looks like they need to do their homework on this project. . .
December 27, 200816 yr Green Twp's elected officials are just ignorant! Ironically, is symbolizes a greater chunck of the population that is still wrapped up in the idea of "Buses bringing the wrong crowd". It's not even worth the argument with some of these people. There is alot RIDING (no pun intended) on these first phases DT. This project HAS to be yet ANOTHER success story for the city. This is going to happen with or witout the NAACP, COAST, or any other group looking for a 15 minutes of fame for their own agenda. The "It's too expensive" comments show just how UNEDUCATED people are on the subject. Keeps your eyes on Dahoney! If he don't bring it, we may have a cold winter.
December 27, 200816 yr NAACP/CAOST aside I feel its unlikely that anybody is going to bring a substantial amount of private dollars to the project. This may be the reason fro the delay in the RFQ for vendors. I think the project is only going to get off the ground if Obama and company come through at the Federal level in a big way or P&G or Linder etc. write a check. With the realestate market in the tank TIF funding is also questionable at least in the near term. Lets hope something materializes in 2009 because its seems to me that the project is not as viable as it may have been at the beginning of 2008.
December 27, 200816 yr Great post, Randy. I've put it in my "In the News" section and I'll be commenting on it soon. BTW...your post also reminds me of one of the crosstown routes that got rerouted from Northgate Mall because Colerain Twp. didn't like the type of people it was bringing into the area. So now the route terminates at Hilltop Plaza in Springfield Twp. (I think.) Reading the comments on the Enquirer story, quite a few people say that they think we need better transportation options from suburban areas into the core. Then they go and elect trustees who sh*t all over public transit.
December 27, 200816 yr Lets hope something materializes in 2009 because its seems to me that the project is not as viable as it may have been at the beginning of 2008. While private funding may be more difficult to come by now as compared to the beginning of 2008, the prices of raw materials have also dropped due to the global economic problems. This lowers the overall construction costs for the project which I think helps its viability. Furthermore it's not like we're asking for these multi-billion dollar companies to hand over the keys to the vault. We need something like $30-40 million more aside from the City money and Duke Energy in-kind contribution. If the likes of Kroger, Macy's, P&G, 5/3, Great American, Convergys, Humana, First Transit, or Chiquita pitched in then it would be around $4 million per company (Duke gave $7M if I remember correctly) for just those listed above. This would leave the hospitals, the university, and places like Humana for the connector and the Uptown portions. Nky seems like they would have their likely partners in an extension there. Once those are in place the rest will be illustrative of the snowball rolling down the hill.
December 27, 200816 yr BTW, there is a new Facebook Page for the Cincinnati Streetcar. Be sure to join and get in on the discussion topics, post your streetcar photos, and share the page with all of your friends. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Cincinnati-Streetcar/56963906674
December 27, 200816 yr I don't want to post the full blog entry of mine, but be sure to check it out as it has some contact information and thoughts about the current standing of transit in Cincinnati... http://www.urbancincy.com/2008/12/letting-cincinnatians-down.html Bravo Randy. The more vocal we are, the more out of touch these people will realize they are. I plan on emailing all three. Sadly, the Green Township move is not at all surprising, I've heard this anti-bus sentiment among nearly every westsider I grew up with or have ever known. Also, does anybody take the local Green's (or Jeffre) seriously? THE GREEN PARTY IS AGAINST STREETCARS?!?! Boggles my mind. I'm terribly, terribly discouraged by the actions of these three entities.
December 27, 200816 yr BTW, there is a new Facebook Page for the Cincinnati Streetcar. Be sure to join and get in on the discussion topics, post your streetcar photos, and share the page with all of your friends. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Cincinnati-Streetcar/56963906674 Done.
December 27, 200816 yr I think that the COAST people will find a ballot initiative that only includes Cincinnati is a different animal than something dealing with all of Hamilton County.
December 28, 200816 yr THE GREEN PARTY IS AGAINST STREETCARS?!?! Boggles my mind. The local AND National Green Party needs a major overhaul or else they should change their name.
December 28, 200816 yr THE GREEN PARTY IS AGAINST STREETCARS?!?! Boggles my mind. The local AND National Green Party needs a major overhaul or else they should change their name. What was their reason behind it?
December 29, 200816 yr Quote from: Maximillian on Today at 09:33:37 AM Quote THE GREEN PARTY IS AGAINST STREETCARS?!?! Boggles my mind. The local AND National Green Party needs a major overhaul or else they should change their name. What was their reason behind it? They were are all in the same bed together on the jail tax issue. The groups opposing Issue 27 included the Cincinnati NAACP, the Southwestern Ohio Green Party, Cincinnati Progressive Action, C.O.A.S.T., the Libertarian Party and some courageous Democrats and Republicans who took positions contrary to their party establishment http://www.nojailtax.org/
December 29, 200816 yr Hmmm. That's interesting. I'm all for opposing the expansion of jails. The federally funded jailing system in this country is one of the most lucrative businesses to be in. Spending money on a prison system that fails to truly rehabilitate is retrogressive. But being against public mass transportation too. . . That seems really inconsistent to me.
December 29, 200816 yr I would imagine the Green Party and NAACP would be against a streetcar because it is a harbinger of gentrification.
December 29, 200816 yr And, amending the city charter a-la-carte is a nasty precedent, similar to amending the US constitution as a tool to influence the issue-of-the-day. Such an ammendment could be construed to prevent the city from having any spending discretion at all.
December 29, 200816 yr Author And, amending the city charter a-la-carte is a nasty precedent, similar to amending the US constitution as a tool to influence the issue-of-the-day. Such an ammendment could be construed to prevent the city from having any spending discretion at all. What about maintenance of Union Terminal? It is a passenger rail facility, will that require a vote?
December 29, 200816 yr According to Justin Jeffre at the Beacon, here is the language: Be it resolved by the people of the City of Cincinnati that a new Article XVI of the Charter is hereby added as follows: The City, and its various Boards and Commissions, may not spend any monies for right-of-way acquisition or construction of improvements for passenger rail transportation (e.g., a trolley or streetcar) within the city limits without first submitting the question of approval of such expenditure to a vote of the electorate of the City and receiving a majority affirmative vote for the same. I would say anything benefiting an Amtrak Station would need to go for a popular vote.
December 30, 200816 yr Changing topics -- right-of-way for light rail is apparently being preserved in the I-75 reconstruction plans, at least north of the Norwood Lateral. Does anyone know if any ROW will be preserved between downtown and that point? I bring this up because if the I-75 reconstruction is rushed through as an economic stimulus, we should at least hope ROW is being preserved. The old subway of course can be used for the downtown approach and I don't think the value of the activation of the Liberty St. station can be underestimated so far as bringing investment to that part of the West End and Over-the-Rhine.
December 30, 200816 yr ^It is my understanding that yes, ROW is being preserved through those portions as well. Roxanne Qualls seems to be making this her high-profile project so maybe try someone at her office. But I'm pretty confident that they are.
Create an account or sign in to comment