^ It is still amazing that the media is treating anything that Smitherman says as if it is news.  There is no news other than him making statements on things that have already been decided.  He has been nothing but a divisive, egomaniac who has done everything in his power to tear down the city.  I hope he never actually gets in position of power, which seems unlikely at this point as he is basically a Republican stooge in everything but name.  I keep thinking he will have one of his many psychotic rants or tantrums that will expose him for what he is, and the hosts at 700 will go back to calling him an ass clown.

Smitherman and the other clowns aren't worried that the streetcar will fail. They're worried it will succeed -- for a lot of reasons.

 

Bingo. Best analysis of the streetcar opposition I've heard yet.

I think the most common reason is class and culture war on the liberal elite. They fear the city will become more attractive to a type of people they can't stand. People who would bring money and carry political influence.

YIKES. Talk about a bad headline....

 

Financing will add $46.5M to streetcar project

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2012/06/financing-will-add-465m-to-streetcar.html

Financing costs will add $46.5 million to the price of Cincinnati’s streetcar project, based on a June 21 memo by City Manager Milton Dohoney.

The memo to Mayor Mark Mallory and members of city council summarizes the city’s current estimated debt service on three future bond issues totalling $64 million. Bond proceeds and federal grants comprise the bulk of funding needed to cover the streetcar’s $110.4 million budget.

 

 

^That's true of all capital projects. That's why you take a net present value of the benefits when calculating the cost to benefit ratio.  $1 spent repaying a bond in 2042 is not worth nearly as much as $1 in 2012.

Also, this article fails to mention that the rate of inflation often outstrips municipal bond interest rates.  But the public doesn't understand compound interest or inflation. 

 

Until the US started inflating its currency as a matter of policy in the 1930s, it was common for railroads, bridges, and municipal capital bonds to be 50-year bonds.  So if you were holding, say, Cincinnati subway bonds from 1916, you were crushed by inflation.  The reason why people still buy bonds is because even in an inflationary environment they retain some value as opposed to stocks, which can become entirely worthless.  Also, in the event of a bankruptcy, corporations must pay bond holders before stock holders. 

"Financing will ADD $46.5M to streetcar budget"

 

Is this a new budget, or just another way of stating it? Was Cincinnati intending to issue bonds before?

 

Yes, since the beginning. 

I'm not sure why the cities can't get 0 interest bonds. The banks did.

Relevant reading about municipal bonds: The Scam Wall Street Learned from the Mafia by Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone.

 

Short version: Cities like Cincinnati are losing out in millions of potential revenue because of collusion by major banks to fix the interest rates on municipal bonds.

"Financing will ADD $46.5M to streetcar budget"

Is this a new budget, or just another way of stating it? Was Cincinnati intending to issue bonds before?

 

Yes, since the beginning. 

 

Thanks, Jake. That's what I thought.

If that's true, then the article should have said "The streetcar budget INCLUDES $46.5M for debt financing," not "financing will ADD 46.5 M to the budget." The word "add" implies that the budget is getting bigger, when apparently it is not.

 

 

Or there shouldn't really be an article, since it's not news. I expect the Business Courier to be more sophisticated. Anyone here who is a paid subscriber should write them about this; it is not only sloppy, but trashy journalism.

Canceling my subscripton of twenty-five years on Monday.

So...Roxanne Qualls was a guest on Brian Thomas's show.  She had what sounded like a bad phone connection but I wouldn't put it past those guys to have put an unflattering effect on her voice.  As anyone familiar with the two of them would have expected, she engaged the facts of the city budget and the streetcar financing while Thomas revealed with every comment how little he knows about municipal affairs.  I'm convinced now that it's not an act -- that until last week he literally did not know that cities had separate capital and operations budgets. 

 

But here's where it gets interesting -- after the break, he had that financial advisor guy Nathan Bachrach on to talk about the recession but Thomas kept using his comments about national affairs as evidence of the shortsightedness of the City of Cincinnati, completely ignoring everything Roxanne Qualls had just said.  And I believe it's Bachrach (or his sidekcik Ed Fink) who is on the hook for $2 million for cosigning on some aspect of the Kenwood Towne Place deal, so can only still have credibility in this bizarre world of the Cincinnati media. 

So...Scott Sloan on 700 WLW, shortly after speaking just now with Laure Quinlivan, said that higher property taxes are motivating people to kill themselves.  He cited some fellow in Norwood who killed himself this past weekend because his house was forclosed.  So he insinuated that with lower taxes in Cincinnati this guy in Norwood would not have lost his home and so would not have killed himself. 

 

You can't make this stuff up, people. 

 

 

Who are his show's advertisers? Complain to them, not to Thomas or Sloan or even their employers. Withhold your business from these businesses and get friends, family, etc to do so too. It's a powerful way to cause change.

Who are his show's advertisers? Complain to them, not to Thomas or Sloan or even their employers. Withhold your business from these businesses and get friends, family, etc to do so too. It's a powerful way to cause change.

Most people under 40 don't buy the products advertised on WLW

People over 40 do engage in boycotts, too.  :wave: Or is this a declaration of generational war?

So...Scott Sloan on 700 WLW, shortly after speaking just now with Laure Quinlivan, said that higher property taxes are motivating people to kill themselves.  He cited some fellow in Norwood who killed himself this past weekend because his house was forclosed.  So he insinuated that with lower taxes in Cincinnati this guy in Norwood would not have lost his home and so would not have killed himself. 

 

You can't make this stuff up, people. 

 

 

 

Yesterday, also  at an appearance with Laurie, this happened:

 

Questioner: Hi Scott, long time listener, first time caller, do you intentionally incite fear of the urban core in order to increase ratings?

 

Scott Sloan: Yes, Absolutely

 

You can't make this stuff up, people. 

People under 40~ are definitely getting their news from completely different sources than the older crowd in a way that is much more dramatic than at any earlier time.  I would like to see what demographics talk radio is reaching now versus 10 years ago, since I'd bet almost no young adults can be counted in today's audiece.  This motivates the message to hunker down even more around ideas that make the older crowd think that a triumphant return to halcyon days of old is just one COAST ballot issue away. 

"Every generation blames the one before"

-- First lyric in the song "The Living Years", Mike + The Mechanics, 1988

 

A song worth listening to.

a triumphant return to halcyon days of old is just one COAST ballot issue away.

 

:lol:

Mark Miller of COAST just blocked me.  I guess he didn't like my headline about "Anderson Krogers expanding  to meet the needs of COAST's waistline"

 

 

Just noticed the COAST Facebook page has only 60 "likes." Is that the best they can do?

So all the talk radio guys keep talking about how Charlotte, NC voted down a property tax increase.  How do all these talk guys in Cincinnait know about this?  Either it happened all by itself, and Duke or Chiquita handed off the information, or somebody pulled some strings down there and had them do a quick no vote on a tax increase.  Or it didn't happen at all and they're just making it up.  If I was unemployed like Mark Miller, I could sit at home today and maybe make a phone call or two to find out what actually happened. 

They don't know about this. Here is what actually happened.....

 

http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_lrt_2007-11b.htm

 

Charlotte: 70% of voters back transit

 

Via a margin of 70% to 30%, Charlotte-area voters resoundingly endorsed public transportation by defeating an initiative to repeal the region's public transit funding that had been mounted by transit opponents and advocates of further dependency on private motor vehicles. (See Charlotte: Anti-Transit Tax Repeal Measure Opposed by Rail Advocates.)

 

In a rousing editorial applauding the vote, "Green light for transit" (7 Nov. 2007), the Charlotte Observer summarized the forces behind the measure:

 

The proposed repeal was put on the ballot by petition by a combination of critics: some had opposed the transit tax at the outset; some dislike taxes and government planning; and some hold a different vision of our region's transportation needs – one that relies much more on automobiles and much less on mass transit.

 

"The margin of victory stunned even transit supporters" related a separate story in the Observer (Nov. 7th). Indeed, poll results released in mid-October had indicated a much closer margin: 54% pro-transit (against transit tax repeal), 39% anti-transit (favoring repeal). Usually, that kind of differential spells trouble, because (1) support of a transit measure typically tends to erode as actual voting approaches, and (2) a positive poll number tends to make transit supporters over-confident, and thus vulnerable to making mistakes and losing momentum.

 

Fortunately, the opposite seems to have happened in the Charlotte case. As the Observer editorial has summarized the outcome,

 

Voters made an emphatic statement Tuesday about how they view the future of Charlotte-Mecklenburg and its public transportation. The overwhelming majority believe an urban region needs transportation choices, and that a half- penny sales tax remains a satisfactory way to pay for them. The unofficial 70-30 margin far exceeded the 58-42 approval voters first gave the tax in 1998.

 

That's a strong vote of confidence for an urban transportation system that will rely mostly on automobiles and roads but also offer an expanded bus service plus some rail and streetcars.

 

Indeed, some transit advocates are now suggesting that the vote "should be seen as a mandate for rail" – and perhaps Charlotte Area Transit System planners and decisionmakers should consider moving forward with more focus on rail, particularly in areas where it is strongly favored by the community such as the Southeast (independence) corridor.

And with that local funding supported by 70% of voters, Charlotte is moving forward on a 9-mile extension of its existing light-rail line...

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/blog/queen_city_agenda/2012/02/feds-back-1b-rail-project.html

Even with COAST, Smitherman and Cranley lurking, I still don't see any way that the Streetcar route doesn't get built.  I think Cincinnatians are tired of voting on it.  You see it with most every city riding the transit wave.  Whether liberal (Portland), conservative (Charlotte) or a mixed bag (Houston), once the first route is in the ground and functioning, the expansions are grander and materialize faster than the principal project even despite the local cave-artists attempting to sabotage municipal health.

 

... once the first route is in the ground and functioning, the expansions are grander and materialize faster than the principal project even despite the local cave-artists attempting to sabotage municipal health.

 

Which is exactly what COAST fears. They know the streetcar will reveal the myths about rail they've been putting out there for over a decade now. They hate the idea that it's a first step toward light rail, which is what they fear the most. That's why they keep fighting so hard.

 

... once the first route is in the ground and functioning, the expansions are grander and materialize faster than the principal project even despite the local cave-artists attempting to sabotage municipal health.

 

Which is exactly what COAST fears. They know the streetcar will reveal the myths about rail they've been putting out there for over a decade now. They hate the idea that it's a first step toward light rail, which is what they fear the most. That's why they keep fighting so hard.

 

The first line is nearly always the hardest, since you are selling an abstract issue which is easy for opponents to demagogue. Once that first line is operating and people have the chance to experience the streetcar firsthand, additional services will be an easier lift. Opponents know this, hence the fanatical opposition.

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2012/06/courier-coverage-draws-streetcar.html

Also, these people are not really anti-rail, they just love having public transportation and especially rail issues pop up from time to time because they are so easy to defeat with smear tactics. I don't think that COAST, etc., thought that this streetcar proposal would make it past 2008, which is why there wasn't a ballot issue until 2009.  They thought it was going to be like the previous SORTA tax issues like Metro Moves -- a footnote in the city's political history. 

No funding for the Streetcar.  Pickaway County has something to be excited for though...

 

http://www.dot.gov/tiger/fy2012tiger.pdf

 

Not sure if this has been posted or not, but it's a video from Siemens about the Charlotte LYNX system and some reactions from riders and residents. Worth the watch...about 7 mins only. While this is light rail, lots of the same themes and goals are true to our streetcar system.

 

It would really be nice if  the city could bring us up to date on any progress whatsoever in regard to the streetcar project. Shouldn't the city be more pro-active in challenging some of the false claims made by the Enquirer and WLW?

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2012/06/courier-coverage-draws-streetcar.html

 

Who would have guessed that Dan Monk was such a thin-skinned crybaby? And as to his disingenuous claims that the Courier routinely questions the financing costs of public works projects, when might we expect to see the Courier's reports on the financing costs of the $2 Billion Brent Spence replacement, or the $55 million Waldvogel Viaduct project? Or for that matter when is Dan going to report on the finance costs on the millions of dollars in City Taxpayer financing that John Cranley's Incline Village development has received?

 

I expect to see these stories about the 12th of never.

 

 

^ I'm still waiting to read the first Benefit/Cost Study on the Brent Spence Replacement. Or the Waldvogel. Or the Kennedy Connector.

 

No, actually I'm waiting for the first elected official to even ask for one.

 

There have been three, all with positive findings, on the Cincinnati Streetcar.

Don't forget the Eastern Corridor, the West MLK widening, and of course the widening of I-75 through Hamilton County separate from the Brent Spence Bridge.

Chris Smitherman all over the talk radio circuit today spewing his nonsense.

 

I just envision suburbans nodding their heads in agreement.

 

"The city will be bankrupt"  "Raising the property tax for the Streetcar"  "This is a streetcar tax" "This is a rogue council"

Good the people in the suburbs have opinions of ZERO consequence to the city. If this is a 'rogue council,' explain to me how they were popularly elected.

 

The property tax must be raised. Most citizens of the city recognize this fact but wouldn't vote for it themselves. Councilmembers are there to take the blame, bite the bullet, and make the decisions others wish not to make.

Wait, I thought council rejected the tax increase. Am I missing something?

They're meeting right now. Rejecting prop tax increase for operating fund, adopting prop tax increase for Capital fund.

Okay, thanks.

Get ready for a massive onslaught of misinformation from 700wlw, Smitherman and the Enquirer the next few days.  Smitherman knows he has the spotlight and he will use every second of his 15 minutes of fame for his ego

I was out working with a client ll morning so missed the fireworks, but there must have been some horrible comments made on this article:

 

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/27/council-talking-about-raising-taxes-by-10/

 

It's the first time that I've seen the Enquirer close comments on any article since they went to Facebook comments last year. I'll wager they were comments by the COAST/anti-streetcar crowd.

I was out working with a client ll morning so missed the fireworks, but there must have been some horrible comments made on this article:

 

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/27/council-talking-about-raising-taxes-by-10/

 

It's the first time that I've seen the Enquirer close comments on any article since they went to Facebook comments last year. I'll wager they were comments by the COAST/anti-streetcar crowd.

 

I saw it. 

 

One guy said it was "Communism" and that Mallory was Stalin

 

Someone else called city council "Assclowns"

 

Just the usual country bumpkin 700wlw inspired phrases

Good the people in the suburbs have opinions of ZERO consequence to the city.

 

I strongly disagree.

 

Remember Chris Monzels's campaign for Hamilton County Commissioner? He was a Cincinnati city councilman running for another office. His campaign slogan was that he was a "son of the suburbs" and NOT a city supporter.

 

I'm not making a stand for or against Chris Monzel. I'm just saying that the political relationship between the city and the suburbs is very complex, and that folks who live outside of the municipal limits, and therefore do not vote in Cincinnati council elections, still have a huge effect on city politics. Back in the days when the Hamliton County Commission was controlled by Republicans, there was an unwritten rule that said that one commissioner was to come from a township, one from the City of Cincinnati, and one from one of the other municipalities. Usually, there is a city council member who is already eyeing the county commissioner's seat. In fact, some might view Cincinnati City Council as a stepping stone to that position from the get go. (The same thing happens in township politics).

 

Many of the property owners that will be affected by a Cincinnati  property tax increase, if there is one, live outside of the city limits and therefore do not vote. Same with workers who live outside the city and pay the city earnings tax. In my humble opinion, this is taxation without representation, and whether it is just or not, leads to a lot of poor decisions by elected officials.  In my humble opinion, Cincinnati would be better off if these folks DID have the right to vote in Cincinnati elections. After all, if you owned property in the City of Cincinnati, wouldn't you want the city to succeed? But that's a topic for another thread.

Eighth and State,

 

I agree suburbanites have an influence on city politics, but thankfully not enough to stop a lot of the city's current progress, including the streetcar. In my opinion, suburbanites are by and large freeloaders on the city. Most of those opposed to progress in the city, i.e. Monzel's constituency, bailed on the city because they wanted to skip out on being a fully contributing member to the Cincinnati community. They moved to avoid city taxes. (Others moved for superficial (and reprehensible) racial reasons.)

 

Their biggest influence day-to-day is having their political identity catered to in the media. The Enquirer, 700WLW, etc., clearly cater to the suburban crowd, and the results flood the eyes and ears of Cincinnatians. The next biggest way is through money -- either political contributions or investment/withdrawal of capital in the city. Nonresidents with property and/or businesses in the city have representation directly proportional to the amount of money they have invested in the city. If they all decided to pull out at once, the city would take a massive blow. Those with a lot of capital invested in the city wield much more influence than your average citizen, so it's completely unfair to act as though citizens have some disproportionate advantage. Those with jobs in the city are represented by their employer. Their value to their employer determines the slice of their employer's influence which they wield.

 

The city houses the majority of the region's poor, as well as the majority of the region's criminals. The city holds all the oldest infrastructure which is the backbone for the region, which suburbanites benefit from but most do not pay for. In fact, many would rather just build new with each generation, leaving rot in their wake, with no sense of ownership for the path of wreckage they leave behind.

 

This is such a recycled argument and doesn't really belong in this thread, but you went there. I'll give you credit for this: you at least fessed up to your own opinions rather than just stating "views some people hold".

Yvette stood up to COAST via twitter.  I like it! 

 

COAST and Smitherman are planning something though...They just don't give up

Nonresidents with property and/or businesses in the city have representation directly proportional to the amount of money they have invested in the city.

 

Not true. In a Corporation, where the owners vote in proportion to the share of equity that they own, each shareholder has representation directly proportional to the amount he has invested. During the presidential election of1992, candidate Ross Perot suggested that citizens of the United States should vote in the proportion that they pay taxes, similar to the way a Corporation works. Under Perot's scheme, residents who pay no taxes, including poor people, would get no vote at all. Residents that pay a lot of taxes would get a greater representation than they do now.

 

This is NOT how representation in Cincinnati works. Each resident gets one vote. Sure, non residents can contribute to campaigns, which influence the election, but not in a proportional way. In one of the previous elections, the Enquirer calculated that there was an inverse relationship to campaign spending and results; the more a candidate spent, the worse he did in the election.

 

I agree suburbanites have an influence on city politics, but thankfully not enough to stop a lot of the city's current progress,

 

What makes you think that suburbanites want the city to fail? I would venture to say that most suburbanites want the city to be successful.