He was elected to bring more funds to the area not ban them. Might as well ban all funding fro mthe federal governmental if he feels the Cincinati street car caused the whole USA to become in debt.

 

He talks about irresponsibility, yet that  I-75  and Brent Spence bridge destroyed a whole neighborhood, which was a national treasure.

 

He also talks about not spending money we don't have. Yet this same two-year bill will again prop up the insolvent highway trust fund by a $16.6 billion debt-financed infusion from the general treasury. That's more than $50 billion in debt-financed general taxes siphoned off since 2008 to keep building more and more highways even though Americans continue to drive less and less each year. He didn't say a peep about that.

 

Anyone want to start a petition to ban comb overs inside city limits?

HA HA HA HA!!!!!

Oh my god, his hair shows how out of touch with reality he truly is.  God, why can't Cincinnati get rid of these type of clowns!?!?

Again-- don't post here often (might be my 2nd post?) but here's the LTE I just submitted to the Enquirer.  Doubt it will run, but I thought it was worth sharing:

 

Congressman Steve Chabot took an alarming stand to halt investment in his own district ("US House bars federal money for streetcar" 6/28) by inserting an amendment in an appropriations bill to halt all federal investment in the Cincinnati Streetcar project.  Chabot's reverse earmark ensures that the City of Cincinnati cannot, and will not, be considered for important federal dollars that will create jobs, spur economic development, and provide transportation options for the growing number of Cincinnatians who live, work, and visit downtown.  The voters of Cincinnati sent Congressman Chabot back to Washington in 2010 based on his campaign promise to focus on "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs."  Unfortunately, his amendment does just the opposite.  Cincinnatians should hope that Senators Portman and Brown better understand their role as advocates for their constituents and undo Congressman Chabot's reckless decision to grandstand rather than take seriously his responsibilities as our representative.

Republicans are on a roll today.

Again-- don't post here often (might be my 2nd post?) but here's the LTE I just submitted to the Enquirer.  Doubt it will run, but I thought it was worth sharing:

 

Congressman Steve Chabot took an alarming stand to halt investment in his own district ("US House bars federal money for streetcar" 6/28) by inserting an amendment in an appropriations bill to halt all federal investment in the Cincinnati Streetcar project.  Chabot's reverse earmark ensures that the City of Cincinnati cannot, and will not, be considered for important federal dollars that will create jobs, spur economic development, and provide transportation options for the growing number of Cincinnatians who live, work, and visit downtown.  The voters of Cincinnati sent Congressman Chabot back to Washington in 2010 based on his campaign promise to focus on "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs."  Unfortunately, his amendment does just the opposite.  Cincinnatians should hope that Senators Portman and Brown better understand their role as advocates for their constituents and undo Congressman Chabot's reckless decision to grandstand rather than take seriously his responsibilities as our representative.

 

Highly doubt that will make the cut.  Its much too rational.

 

Now if you had inserted a "Boondoggle" or "socialism" cry, it would be a shoe in

Between Council passing the $10 tax increase, COAST's failure to kill the streetcar & Music Hall renovations, and now the Supreme Court's approval of HCR, word is that Mark Miller has been placed on suicide watch.

It's been a while since I ventured into the Enquirer comment section on a streetcar article. I shouldn't have this time. But I bring you this in WTF:

 

Dan Brady ·  Top Commenter · Ross, Ohio

Melvin. I get you may not understand this, but what foot traffic is there now? What business is there now? What reason do I or anyone else have to visit downtown? There is little business to speak of along the route. The streetcar DOES NOT go near the casino. And lastly, in the case of want versus need. I want a new car. However financially right now might not be the best time. So, since a new car is not a need I will not spend money that I don't have and will instead wait until a more economically feasible time. Even my 11 year old understands this concept. Make fun of where I live all you want. We have no financial issues. We have the lowest crime rate around. And we have absolutely excellent schools.

 

There is NO BUSINESS along the route. Wow.

It's been a while since I ventured into the Enquirer comment section on a streetcar article. I shouldn't have this time. But I bring you this in WTF:

 

Dan Brady ·  Top Commenter · Ross, Ohio

Melvin. I get you may not understand this, but what foot traffic is there now? What business is there now? What reason do I or anyone else have to visit downtown? There is little business to speak of along the route. The streetcar DOES NOT go near the casino. And lastly, in the case of want versus need. I want a new car. However financially right now might not be the best time. So, since a new car is not a need I will not spend money that I don't have and will instead wait until a more economically feasible time. Even my 11 year old understands this concept. Make fun of where I live all you want. We have no financial issues. We have the lowest crime rate around. And we have absolutely excellent schools.

 

There is NO BUSINESS along the route. Wow.

 

Dan Brady is an unemployed former real estate agent who lives within smelling distance of Mt Rumpke. I think that the stench has gotten to Dan, along with long term unemployment; he's one bitter suburbanite.  He spews his bitterness all over any Downtown related article in the Enquirer.

8th & State, you may have presented the worst idea ever.

 

No one gets to vote everywhere they own property. That would be a horrible idea.

 

Ha! You guys mock this idea, but it used to be the norm. Before 1850, only men who owned property and paid taxes could vote in many places.

 

http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html

 

 

 

 

 

8th & State, you may have presented the worst idea ever.

 

No one gets to vote everywhere they own property. That would be a horrible idea.

 

Ha! You guys mock this idea, but it used to be the norm. Before 1850, only men who owned property and paid taxes could vote in many places.

 

http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html

 

Is 8th & State also for poll taxes, literacy test, property-ownership tests, and barring women and blacks from voting too? Those were all the norm before 1850 as well.

Prepare for the worse. The next bill will be 2015. You can plan the extensions then and apply for more Tiger grants and other funds. Hopefully Newport and Covington can apply for grants and get an extension in the two years the ban is imposed with the bill, if it passes.

Just some of the misinformation

 

1) The Streetcar will bankrupt the city (Smitherman, 700wlw)

2) Its goes nowhere (COAST, 700wlw, Rhodes)

3) It goes through the most dangerous neighborhood in America (700wlw)

4) 9/11 or the Streetcar...Which is worse? (COAST)

5) No one will ride it (700wlw, COAST)

6) No meant yes and yes meant no.... (Smitherman, 700wlw)

7) It will cost over a Billion dollars (Smitherman, Luken)

8) It is dangerous for automobiles (Luken)

9) It is directly browning out fire stations (COAST)

10) No one supports the idea (700wlw)

11) No one except property owners along the route support the idea (700wlw)

12) Operating costs will be 25-30 million per year (Smitherman, 700wlw)

13) Its like the new stadium deals (COAST, Finney, Rhodes, 700wlw, Smitherman)

14) Crime will be awful on the streetcar (700wlw, COAST)

15) They are ramming this down our throats without our say (700wlw, COAST, Smitherman, Luken)

 

8th & State, you may have presented the worst idea ever.

 

No one gets to vote everywhere they own property. That would be a horrible idea.

 

Ha! You guys mock this idea, but it used to be the norm. Before 1850, only men who owned property and paid taxes could vote in many places.

 

http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html

 

Um, there were lots of ideas about voting that were mainstream before 1850 that are now rightfully deserving of mockery and scorn.

8th & State, you may have presented the worst idea ever.

 

No one gets to vote everywhere they own property. That would be a horrible idea.

 

Ha! You guys mock this idea, but it used to be the norm. Before 1850, only men who owned property and paid taxes could vote in many places.

 

http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html

 

Um, there were lots of ideas about voting that were mainstream before 1850 that are now rightfully deserving of mockery and scorn.

 

Seriously! Way to make a bad argument worse.

A friend today had a great description of what Chabot and the US House has done.... It's an inverted earmark. It subverts due process in which professionals fairly solicit, assess, score and award/deny funding for projects.

And so much for that whole "small government" thing. They're the first ones to scream bloody murder when the federal government overrides the decisions of a state or local government, except when such an action suits their political purposes.

Just some of the misinformation

 

13) Its like the new stadium deals (COAST, Finney, Rhodes, 700wlw, Smitherman)

 

 

Add Dan Monk of the Business Courier to that list.

 

I like Dan's writing usually but this recent flap over the streetcar financing wasn't handled well by him at all. Quoting Cranley's questions/accusations while implying that streetcar supporters are avoiding the tough questions is ridiculous at this stage of the project.

And so much for that whole "small government" thing. They're the first ones to scream bloody murder when the federal government overrides the decisions of a state or local government, except when such an action suits their political purposes.

 

We're increasingly governing by campaign contribution rather than by due process. Today government is selectively trying to kill projects that their biggest funders don't like. What's next?

 

When a project like the Cincinnati Streetcar is denied funding because it did not earn a high enough score established through an open process that includes accessible public hearings, then I can live with that. I may not like it, but it does not make me angry, fearful or even vengeful. A civil nation stays civil through due process adhered to by its government. When we lose that, the powerful tries to leverage political action with corruption. And the weak may feel it has no choice but to leverage political action with violence.

At this point, I don't think it's really about the streetcar as much en regards to toast, smitherwoman, 700wlw the overcompensating one etc. This is about ego. Theyve lost so many times that it just eats at them everyday. You can see their frustration.

 

Cunningham and smitherman whine constantly, mark miller and his ridiculous tweets, and the rest. Their ego is shattered and now stopping the streetcar is a matter of life or death to them. It's not for fiscal reasons anymore. It's for their ego.

 

As for Chabutt, there is no doubt in my mind him and the powers that be are constantly talking to Duke and trying to delay the project. Chabot is the typical politician. Easily persuaded to do anything and completely at the mercy of special interest groups. I heard him on the radio bash dems and Obama for "out of control spending". Yes, the same Chabot who voted in favor of two wars(unfunded), & medicare part d(unfunded)  while voting for the bush tax cuts is lecturing the dems on being fiscally responsible.

Then its important to find out what the opposition wants and come to terms. What is their vision of the future? And don't tell me they want horrible things like turning the city into a concentration camp and force everyone to spend their day in their cars going from drive-through to drive-through. That might make good political theater, but these are people who likely have the same basic needs and desires as us -- family, home, career, hobbies, etc. If we keep treating each other as monsters and not as human beings who are capable of discussion, history has shown us that it only leads to awful outcomes.

I’ve been a supporter of Chabot and I’ve met and spoke with him a few times (though I doubt he remembers it).  I wrote him a short but concise and to the point letter about this and I hope to hear something logical back.  I’m interested to see how he responds to one of his supporters; he usually writes responses and they aren’t just canned by some intern.  I tried to touch on most of the points people have brought up here and left off with a semi-open ended question about bipartisan support for rail projects in the future.  I’ll let it be known if I get a response.

So just to absolutely clarify here--none of this applies to the money that was already in the streetcar's budget? This is only a prospective loss of funding, i.e. funding that Cincinnati may have received pursuant to this transportation bill? A (poorly written) Enquirer op-ed suggests that it's otherwise: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120628/EDIT01/306280143/Streetcar-should-get-federal-funds?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s

 

Anyone?

So just to absolutely clarify here--none of this applies to the money that was already in the streetcar's budget? This is only a prospective loss of funding, i.e. funding that Cincinnati may have received pursuant to this transportation bill? A (poorly written) Enquirer op-ed suggests that it's otherwise: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120628/EDIT01/306280143/Streetcar-should-get-federal-funds?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s

 

Anyone?

 

Correct. It would apply only to funding available from the reauthorization of the surface transportation funding law for the next two years.

 

The language added reads: “None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to design, construct, or operate a fixed guideway project located in Cincinnati, Ohio.”

Are we sure this amendment doesn't cut the funds off?  My understanding of the Federal grant process seems to mean this can 'retroactively' cut off the prior grants.  In a nutshell, my understanding is the grant acts as an authorization, but an appropriation is required before the funds are disbursed.  Since this amendment cock-blocks the appropriation doesn't that mean it stops the funding?  I, also, understand that the TIGER grants operate on a reimbursement basis.  In other words, the city spends its money, then the feds pay the city back for grant eligible expenses.  Since the Feds haven't begun reimbursing, the city has technically spent $$$ it cannot get if this amendment stands up.

 

Can anyone confirm or deny this analysis?

 

I thought I already did. Please read the bold text in my post above. The funding was part of an existing program called Urban Circulator which was appropriated in past years. The legislation that is being dealt with now is a two-year authorization. Then the funding will need to be appropriated in each of the next two years through a law called T-HUD or THUD. No joke -- it funds Transportation, Housing and Urban Development programs for the next federal fiscal year. According to the authorization passed by the House, none of the transportation programs in that appropriation or the following year's appropriation can be used to fund fixed guideway transportation projects in Cincinnati.

 

BTW, welcome to the forum Harwell Scrabblepound. Probably one of the best new forum names I've seen here in a long time!

Ok, cool, I was just confused.  The Fed grant/appropriation process can be ridiculously jangled sometimes.

 

KJP:  Thnx, I've been a long-time lurker, just haven't had much to add to the conversation.

I’ve been a supporter of Chabot and I’ve met and spoke with him a few times (though I doubt he remembers it).  I wrote him a short but concise and to the point letter about this and I hope to hear something logical back.  I’m interested to see how he responds to one of his supporters; he usually writes responses and they aren’t just canned by some intern.  I tried to touch on most of the points people have brought up here and left off with a semi-open ended question about bipartisan support for rail projects in the future.  I’ll let it be known if I get a response.

In a radio talk show during the last election cycle a caller told Chabot he was a former supporter.

Chabot called him a liar.

class act. I supported him on city council but after that he was really obvously just a hack career politician.

From the Fishwarp

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120628/EDIT01/306280143/Streetcar-should-get-federal-funds

 

Streetcar should get federal funds

 

U.S. Rep. Steve Chabot, whose district includes downtown Cincinnati, Over-the-Rhine and Clifton Heights, was so eager to stop federal investment in the streetcar in those communities that he slipped a one-line amendment in a transportation bill forbidding any federal funds appropriated under that bill to be used for that project.

I’ve been a supporter of Chabot and I’ve met and spoke with him a few times (though I doubt he remembers it).  I wrote him a short but concise and to the point letter about this and I hope to hear something logical back.  I’m interested to see how he responds to one of his supporters; he usually writes responses and they aren’t just canned by some intern.  I tried to touch on most of the points people have brought up here and left off with a semi-open ended question about bipartisan support for rail projects in the future.  I’ll let it be known if I get a response.

In a radio talk show during the last election cycle a caller told Chabot he was a former supporter.

Chabot called him a liar.

class act. I supported him on city council but after that he was really obvously just a hack career politician.

 

I watched the Chabot Driehaus (SP?) debate two years ago.  Driehaus owned him.  He called him out for everything done under the Bush administration.  The only retort Chabot had was "Obamacare" and he pulled that card often.  That district now has been gerrymandered to favor Chabot even more..I would imagine Chabot has it in the bag now this November

From the Fishwarp

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120628/EDIT01/306280143/Streetcar-should-get-federal-funds

 

Streetcar should get federal funds

 

U.S. Rep. Steve Chabot, whose district includes downtown Cincinnati, Over-the-Rhine and Clifton Heights, was so eager to stop federal investment in the streetcar in those communities that he slipped a one-line amendment in a transportation bill forbidding any federal funds appropriated under that bill to be used for that project.

 

 

Thanks for posting this.  That was actually a REALLY good editorial.

My reading emails written by people following this closely gives me little reason to worry.

 

I suspect his language would ban spending on light rail. And maybe Oasis Rail too.

This piece added by Chabot would seem to do what the first COAST amendment would have done: ban all new rail in Cincinnati City Limits.

 

His amendment reads: “None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to design, construct, or operate a fixed guideway project located in Cincinnati, Ohio.”

 

This would effectively ban new streetcars, light rail, high speed rail, and even BRT (assuming dedicated ROW). It also appears to ban improvements to freight rail as well. I cannot imagine that any of these projects could start without some federal funds, so it would effectively be a ban on new modes of transportation in the city.

 

I'm using this definition for "fixed guideway": A system of vehicles that can operate only on its own guideway constructed for that purpose (e.g., rapid rail, light rail). Federal usage in funding legislation also includes exclusive right-of-way bus operations, trolley coaches and ferryboats as "fixed guideway" transit. (APTA1)  

 

http://dictionary.babylon.com/fixed_guideway_system/

 

Hopefully this gets taken out of the bill (I think it will), but if it doesn't, we will not be expanding or building any routes until a new transportation bill is agreed to. And if a subsequent transportation bill takes as long as this one has taken (by extending the old one until an agreement can be made), it could be 4+ years after the bill takes effect that we could expand/build.

 

Thoughts?

Damn, I totally missed that this will prevent any federal funding for freight railroad projects in Cincinnati for the next two years.

This piece added by Chabot would seem to do what the first COAST amendment would have done: ban all new rail in Cincinnati City Limits.

 

His amendment reads: “None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to design, construct, or operate a fixed guideway project located in Cincinnati, Ohio.”

 

This would effectively ban new streetcars, light rail, high speed rail, and even BRT (assuming dedicated ROW). It also appears to ban improvements to freight rail as well. I cannot imagine that any of these projects could start without some federal funds, so it would effectively be a ban on new modes of transportation in the city.

 

I'm using this definition for "fixed guideway": A system of vehicles that can operate only on its own guideway constructed for that purpose (e.g., rapid rail, light rail). Federal usage in funding legislation also includes exclusive right-of-way bus operations, trolley coaches and ferryboats as "fixed guideway" transit. (APTA1)  

 

http://dictionary.babylon.com/fixed_guideway_system/

 

Hopefully this gets taken out of the bill (I think it will), but if it doesn't, we will not be expanding or building any routes until a new transportation bill is agreed to. And if a subsequent transportation bill takes as long as this one has taken (by extending the old one until an agreement can be made), it could be 4+ years after the bill takes effect that we could expand/build.

 

Thoughts?

 

If passed and enacted, Chabot's amendment would only ban funds from this appropriations from being used for a rail project in Cincinnati. It does not effect any prior or future appropriations.

His goal must be to delay expansions until another vote is put of the ballot.

Cincinnati is always free to fund these projects entirely with its own money.  The $50 million cost of extending north to UC is probably within the city's reach. 

If passed and enacted, Chabot's amendment would only ban funds from this appropriations from being used for a rail project in Cincinnati. It does not effect any prior or future appropriations.

 

What's being voted on right now is not an appropriation, it's an authorization. An authorization is a budget ceiling and legal/policy framework for a period of time. In this case it's two years. Then the actual amount Congress allows a department, agency or commission to spend is an appropriation which has to approved for individual departments or related agencies before the start of the next fiscal year (October 1). If there are policy restrictions as established by the authorization (such as Chabot's amendment) on the use of those appropriations, then they will be reflected in practice by the Transportation Housing & Urban Development appropriations bill to be decided by Congress by the end of September (hopefully--they often run late!). So that appropriations, plus the one next year, cannot include any money for a Cincinnati fixed guideway project. Nor can any federal agency whose budget authorization is controlled by this new surface transportation bill award any funds authorized by that bill to a fixed guideway project in Cincinnati for the duration of that bill.

 

The authorization bill takes effect July 1, 2012 and expires June 30, 2014 during which time no federal surface transportation funds may be spent on a fixed guideway project in Cincinnati. That expiration date could be extended by Congress until a new reauthorization bill takes its place -- highly possible considering this current reauthorization only kicks the can down the road. It may delay some difficult decisions on how to fund a multi-modal transportation system when driving is declining, gas tax revenues are declining, much of our aging highway infrastructure is functionally obsolete, transportation costs are rising, and transit/bicycle use is skyrocketing but there is no way to fully capture the value from that yet.

^Also, we're on year 6 of following this project, and there still isn't rail in the ground.  Even if it passes, I'm not sure how likely we are to see any expansion in the next few years anyway.  At this point, we'll be lucky to have the first phase running by 2014.  I know that additional planning/funding could happen before the first phase opens, but I'm just glad this isn't another 10-year monstrosity like what COAST was pushing for. 

Congress approves transportation, student loans bill

WASHINGTON | Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:16pm EDT

 

(Reuters) - A bipartisan bill to fund a massive job-creating transportation bill, renew low-interest rates for student loans and provide flood insurance won final congressional approval on Friday, clearing the way for President Barack Obama to sign it into law.

 

The House of Representatives and Senate passed the measure before heading off for a week-long holiday recess.

And COAST shows their hand in their latest blog post

I presume Chabot's amendment can be reversed in future legislation before the 2-year mark is up? Say, as an amendment that gets slipped into some other piece of legislation like declaring it National Apple Pie Day or something?

"Representative Chabot has committed to re-introduce that amendment each biennial cycle going forward."

Then rail transit in Cincinnati has no future as long as Chabot's party has a majority in the House.

I presume Chabot's amendment can be reversed in future legislation before the 2-year mark is up? Say, as an amendment that gets slipped into some other piece of legislation like declaring it National Apple Pie Day or something?

 

Possibly, especially if the freight railroad companies get to him and tell him his anti-fixed guideway amendment has created an unintended consequence for the roughly 30,000 to 50,000 truckload-equivalents of freight shipped by train in and through Cincinnati each and every day.

 

The Federal Railroad Administration, the Ohio Rail Development Commission, the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana (OKI) Council of Governments, Hamilton County and the City of Cincinnati cannot use any new federal funds for railroad planning or construction for the next two years.

Who has the authority to remove it? The President? If so Mark Mallory better bring it to his attention. Because the President may not know it's in there.

Whoops sorry someone already said it

omg im so tired of this coast bs...im so tired of being so excited for my city to grow and progress and be creative and try new things, just to have the bubble popped, i seriously cannot understand why coast is so persistent and hateful of something that could have such a positive impact and create such a good outcome and positive energy. what can be wrong with giving people more access to transportation? it has been proven that the majority of people in the city want the streetcar to happen through a vote. in effect steve chabot is denying my voice to be heard, denying the fact that my vote should matter.  i can't describe how i feel about this.  im just so sick of politicians not doing their job and showing us just how poorly our system actually works, we live in a democracy, we voted on the streetcar, why should steve chabot get to decide the outcome when we already decided it? the money the federal government wants to give us to help build the streetcar was fairly voted on, why should he get to override that? why should he have that right?

Who has the authority to remove it? The President? If so Mark Mallory better bring it to his attention. Because the President may not know it's in there.

 

There is no line-item veto at the federal level. Only Congress can remove it.

What are the city's options from this stage forward?  Can we get this on a petition for November?  Because this amendment bans all federal funding, including freight, inside city limits for 2 years.  That's going to tick a lot of people off

 

This project was directly voted on twice, indirectly 3 other times, and survived for nearly a decade. Absolutely ridiculous how a guy with a combover can sneak in an amendment at the last second as a favor to people who don't even live in the city and stop 10 years of planning/construction for the uptown route

^Sounds like the best option is to flood your Congressman's mailbox with letters regarding this issue.