May 10, 201015 yr I hear Berding's a "No." Can't imagine what questions he still has that haven't been answered by City adminsitrators. They are over-thinking this. What is Winburn's position now? I realize at first he was completely against the idea, but he said at the last meeting he has been meeting with people who are supportive of the streetcar and will listen.
May 10, 201015 yr TIMOTHY G. MARA Attorney at Law 1600 Scripps Center 312 Walnut Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-4038 (513) 762-7674 (513) 762-7675 fax [email protected] May 8, 2010 Hon. Mark Mallory Mayor of Cincinnati 801 Plum Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Mr. Jeff Berding Member of Cincinnati City Council 801 Plum Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Mr. Chris Bortz Member of Cincinnati City Council 801 Plum Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Ms. Y. Laketa Cole Member of Cincinnati City Council 801 Plum Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Ms. Leslie Ghiz Member of Cincinnati City Council 801 Plum Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Mr. Chris Monzel Member of Cincinnati City Council 801 Plum Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Ms. Roxanne Qualls Vice Mayor of Cincinnati 801 Plum Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Ms. Laure Quinlivan Member of Cincinnati City Council 801 Plum Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Mr. Cecil Thomas Member of Cincinnati City Council 801 Plum Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Mr. Charles Winburn Member of Cincinnati City Council 801 Plum Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 In re: conflict of interest by Councilmember Bortz I represent the following residents and taxpayers of the City of Cincinnati: Thomas A. Luken Mark Miller 5300 Hamilton Avenue 3630 Zumstein Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio 45223 Cincinnati, Ohio 45208-1312 I understand that the staff of the Ohio Ethics Commission has issued an advisory opinion to the effect that Councilmember Bortz is “prohibited from deliberating, voting on, or otherwise participating in … any matter involving the [streetcar] project” as to do so “will render a definite and direct financial benefit to property in which [his] father has an interest.” Yet, Mr. Bortz has made it clear that he intends to vote on streetcar-related ordinances at Council’s meeting on May 12. The advisory opinion was issued at the request of Mr. Bortz based on facts provided to the Ohio Ethics Commission by him. I do not have a copy of Mr. Bortz’s letter to the Ohio Ethics Commission, but the facts as provided by Mr. Bortz were briefly summarized in the advisory opinion itself. It is unclear from that summary that Mr. Bortz fully disclosed to the Ohio Ethics Commission what is perhaps the most important fact of all - that Bortz’s family business, Towne Properties, is planning a $100 million development on Calhoun Street in Clifton directly on the streetcar route. Towne Properties itself was cited in the December, 2008 issue of the blog “Urban Cincy” as saying that their Clifton project was “drawn up with the streetcar in mind” and Towne Properties is “expecting the streetcar system to loop the project.” One could reasonably infer that the success of the Towne Properties project and the extent to which Mr. Bortz’s family may make money on the project may, to a large extent, depend upon Council’s vote to commit city funds for the streetcar project. Under the circumstances, Ohio Revised Code Section 102.03 surely requires that Bortz not vote on the proposal now before Council to give the go-ahead to issue bonds for the streetcar project upon which the fortunes of his family business may ride. Mr. Bortz has attempted to respond to protests of his participation by saying that other members of Council own homes or run small businesses in some proximity to the proposed streetcar route. But as the Ohio Ethics Commission has pointed out to Mr. Bortz, elected officials have a conflict and must abstain where the benefit to their property is “disproportionate” to the benefit provided to the public at large. Owning a home or small business near the streetcar route may not provide a disproportionate benefit, but since when is a decision to go forward with a public improvement, such as the streetcar system, which may be determinative of the success of a $100 million project not a disproportionate benefit? I have obtained a copy of the proposed streetcar ordinances which I understand will come before Council for consideration on May 12, and note that these ordinances are labeled “Emergency,” triggering the need for six affirmative votes for approval. I believe it would be a mistake to count on Mr. Bortz’s vote as one of the six required, as the law clearly prohibits him from voting. My clients have authorized me to file suit to have Council’s action declared void and to enjoin the issuance of the proposed bonds. If proponents are relying on the validity of his affirmative vote, the entire project could come unraveled if the lawsuit is successful. As a result of Mr. Bortz’s illegal actions, the entire streetcar project could be in jeopardy. Lastly, I want to point out that Ohio Revised Code Section 102.99(B) makes a violation of ORC 102.03 a misdemeanor of the first degree. One could reasonably argue that anyone encouraging Mr. Bortz to vote on one or more streetcar related ordinances despite his conflict of interest (either affirmatively or in opposition) is, in effect, encouraging him to break the law. To conclude, I urge Mr. Bortz to abstain from any further deliberation or vote on streetcar-related legislation. We are prepared to take this matter to court if he proceeds in reckless disregard for the law. Sincerely, Timothy G. Mara cc: John P. Curp City Solicitor
May 10, 201015 yr I hear Berding's a "No." Can't imagine what questions he still has that haven't been answered by City adminsitrators. They are over-thinking this. What is Winburn's position now? I realize at first he was completely against the idea, but he said at the last meeting he has been meeting with people who are supportive of the streetcar and will listen. Well, Winburn said he would "listen," but he also told us multiple times that he's completely opposed to the streetcar. So, his listening to us is kind of pointless.
May 10, 201015 yr Why does Cincinnati have such a hard time getting anything done!? Because Tom Luken has lived here almost 85 years? Yeah, you're right on that. Well, you can be certain he won't be around much longer. Additionally, everytime he opens his mouth in public he becomes more and more demented sounding then the last time. 99% of what comes out of his mouth is completely senseless and ridiculous. A law suit with his name on it should just tell the court to ignore the claim completely?
May 10, 201015 yr "Looks like streetcar has 6 votes. After Bortz, Berding got assurances today that city won't go forward w/o fed $." http://twitter.com/janeprendergast Live video here http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?Dato=99999999&Kategori=NEWS01&Lopenr=90617007&Ref=AR&template=livestream
May 10, 201015 yr At Council meeting now. Bortz just gave an interview to the tv stations... couldn't hear it though. "It's just fate, as usual, keeping its bargain and screwing us in the fine print..." - John Crichton
May 10, 201015 yr Council expected to OK streetcar BY JANE PRENDERGAST • [email protected] • MAY 10, 2010 http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100510/NEWS0108/305100039/Council+expected+to+OK+streetcar "It appears Cincinnati City Council today will approve a $64 million bond issue to pay for half the initial phase of the streetcar system. Councilmen Chris Bortz and Jeff Berding have agreed to vote for the project, Bortz said, after meeting with Mayor Mark Mallory and the city administration. They were promised, Bortz said, that the administration will develop an operating plan, including how the city will pay for the estimated $3 million in annual costs to run the streetcar....."
May 10, 201015 yr That lawyer is speaking now threatening a lawsuit vs Bortz on the behalf of Mark Miller and Luken
May 10, 201015 yr So what happens next? Hopefully this $64 million in funding will signal our local commitment, meaning that we receive federal funding for the remainder of the cost of the project. Unless there are other unexpected funding sources as some have hinted at recently...
May 10, 201015 yr So what happens next? Hopefully this $64 million in funding will signal our local commitment, meaning that we receive federal funding for the remainder of the cost of the project. Unless there are other unexpected funding sources as some have hinted at recently... Do you happen to know the timeframe for when we will hear about the federal funding?
May 11, 201015 yr ^ Moves to the full Council on Wednesday. Fed money by the end of June. Track going down when?
May 11, 201015 yr ^ Moves to the full Council on Wednesday. Fed money by the end of June. Did the other potential "good news" fall through? Was it related to when that fed rep came to tell council to show its commitment?
May 11, 201015 yr Author ^ Moves to the full Council on Wednesday. Fed money by the end of June. Did the other potential "good news" fall through? Was it related to when that fed rep came to tell council to show its commitment? Nope, we'll know on that one by the end of the week
May 11, 201015 yr The Enquirer is quick on their "Editorial"... Streetcar gets the votes; where's the plan? Monday's 6-2 vote by the Cincinnati City Council Finance Committee to approve $64 million in bonds, taken after some heated and often confusing discussion, marks a big step forward for the city's proposed streetcar system. It removes some of the drama from the debate on the $128 million project - debate that had devolved in recent days into discussion of council members' ethical conflicts and softball injuries, the extent of mayoral arm-twisting, and whether Cincinnati is sending the "right signal" to Washington. But it doesn't remove the concerns that Cincinnatians - and their elected officials - ought to have about the project. Cont. "It's just fate, as usual, keeping its bargain and screwing us in the fine print..." - John Crichton
May 11, 201015 yr Have the editors of the Enquirer literally just not read any of the streetcar studies?
May 11, 201015 yr Such caution is necessary because the city administration has been less than forthcoming on the project. "They keep the details secret," Bortz said. "Even I keep asking, where is the supposed $3 million a year to operate the system? There's the absence of an operating plan, the absence of a land-use plan." I haven't followed the streetcar stuff too closely, so let me ask you all here: where is the land-use plan?
May 11, 201015 yr I wasn't aware that a new land use plan was necessary... The land use is already pretty compatible. The city is already working on a form-based code. A huge portion of the route goes through a gigantic historic district. There *are* good questions in that editorial. But they are decorated with lots of meaningless, taunting questions as well. Especially the one about the impact study, since that's probably the most comprehensive document the city has revealed to date.
May 11, 201015 yr Have the editors of the Enquirer literally just not read any of the streetcar studies? I wonder the same thing everytime I read one of their articles.
May 11, 201015 yr ^Let me qualify that by saying that I don't know for sure what their process is. But as someone who's worked on meticulous land use plans for light rail systems with all the public input and rezoning/comp plan amendment bells and whistles, the streetcar doesn't strike me as the same kind of animal. Looking at the route map in the impact study, I don't even know what I would have to re-plan as far as land use.
May 11, 201015 yr Author Also the Administration is working on a TOD overlay and the route goes through the only UM ("Urban Mixed") district in the city. I beleive the OTR comprehensive plan contemplates a circulator on elm/race, but I am not positive.
May 11, 201015 yr Author Also the Administration is working on a TOD overlay and the route goes through the only UM ("Urban Mixed") district in the city. I beleive the OTR comprehensive plan contemplates a circulator on elm/race, but I am not positive. The Brewery District plan does, not the OTR plan
May 11, 201015 yr Moderator message: ***Please take some time to read the preceding few posts, it will help keep the thread clean of posts asking and answering the same questions repeatedly.***
May 11, 201015 yr Well... we've made it to Fark: Cincinnati to bring back streetcars. There's a dress code to ride: Men must wear a suit with a fedora, and dames can't wear pants P.S. you probably don't want to read the comments... "It's just fate, as usual, keeping its bargain and screwing us in the fine print..." - John Crichton
May 11, 201015 yr This article includes the full text of my comments to City Council: City Council Approves $64M in Streetcar Bonds Yesterday, the City Council Budget and Finance Committee voted to issue $64M in bonds to finance the Cincinnati Streetcar project. Together with the $2.6M approved last month and $15M approved by the State of Ohio, this forms the bulk of the local funding for the streetcar, and puts Cincinnati in a much better position to receive federal grants for the project’s $128M construction. When complete, the streetcar will link downtown with Over-the-Rhine and the Uptown university district, and become the city’s first rail-based mass transit system in over 60 years. In time, it will become the starting point for future streetcar extensions and a catalyst for the development of a regional rail system. Full article
May 11, 201015 yr Author Is there an existing plan to fund the 3 million dollar a year operating costs? The administration is working on that right now. By 2012 the casino will be operational, so there will be that revenue stream as well, from Soapbox: "Once complete, the Cincinnati Casino is estimated to generate close to $21 million for the City of Cincinnati, $12 million for Hamilton County and $14 million for public schools annually in tax revenue. Neighborhood proponents are excited about thousands of new temporary and permanent jobs, an estimated 6 million visits annually and new investment spurring from the development that will be more than typically seen with an inward-facing casino design."
May 11, 201015 yr ^Oh, I know about the huge positive impacts the streetcar will have, I was just curious if there was a plan yet for funding the operational costs. Good to know the city is working on it. How does Portland fund theirs?
May 11, 201015 yr Author Tri-Met (their regional transportation Authority) and the City of Portland Department of Transportation provide most of the funding. Because the vast majority of the ridership along the line occurs in the fareless zone, fares are not a large amount of the operating budget.
May 11, 201015 yr A former real estate partner, who lives in Indian Hill and who'd someday like to move downtown, sent me this: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/04/here-comes-the-neighborhood/8093/
May 11, 201015 yr A former real estate partner, who lives in Indian Hill and who'd someday like to move downtown, sent me this: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/04/here-comes-the-neighborhood/8093/ Here’s how a new network of privately funded rail lines can make that future come to pass more quickly and cheaply—and help reinvigorate housing and the economy. Privately funded rail? Yes! Where can I buy shares in that corporation? Reminds me of:
May 11, 201015 yr Is there an existing plan to fund the 3 million dollar a year operating costs? The administration is working on that right now. By 2012 the casino will be operational, so there will be that revenue stream as well, from Soapbox: "Once complete, the Cincinnati Casino is estimated to generate close to $21 million for the City of Cincinnati, $12 million for Hamilton County and $14 million for public schools annually in tax revenue. Neighborhood proponents are excited about thousands of new temporary and permanent jobs, an estimated 6 million visits annually and new investment spurring from the development that will be more than typically seen with an inward-facing casino design." The only problem with that is, the streetcar route does not go past it.
May 11, 201015 yr The point is that while it's not funded directly but any one source necessarily, it pays back its construction and operating costs through the increased tax revenue, decreased crime, improved job creation, and neighborhood stability it brings. Those things may not go directly to funding the streetcar, but they boost the city's coffers more than operating the system drains them.
May 11, 201015 yr Author Is there an existing plan to fund the 3 million dollar a year operating costs? The administration is working on that right now. By 2012 the casino will be operational, so there will be that revenue stream as well, from Soapbox: "Once complete, the Cincinnati Casino is estimated to generate close to $21 million for the City of Cincinnati, $12 million for Hamilton County and $14 million for public schools annually in tax revenue. Neighborhood proponents are excited about thousands of new temporary and permanent jobs, an estimated 6 million visits annually and new investment spurring from the development that will be more than typically seen with an inward-facing casino design." The only problem with that is, the streetcar route does not go past it. Just about two city blocks away.
Create an account or sign in to comment