I'd suggest keeping in the operating costs as in the previous post. We can afford to be conservative.

 

Plus I don't think it's correct to ignore the sunk costs. I know we're talking about going forward or not but ignoring them makes us vulnerable. Using that method any project could have infinite ROI by just waiting to calculate it when it's finished.

 

3:1 is excellent. And bullet proof.

 

Kevin Flynn said he wants a new estimate on the return of investment of streetcar before he makes a final  decision

That seems huge.

 

I'd suggest keeping in the operating costs as in the previous post. We can afford to be conservative.

 

Plus I don't think it's correct to ignore the sunk costs. I know we're talking about going forward or not but ignoring them makes us vulnerable. Using that method any project could have infinite ROI by just waiting to calculate it when it's finished.

 

3:1 is excellent. And bullet proof.

 

 

It's undeniable the landscape has changed, though, since before construction started. That is precisely because sunk costs up until now are not logically part of whether or not it's beneficial to continue.

 

Say (totally hypothetically) the gross ROI would be $70m on this $88m project. That's a bad deal, but when you have put $26m into it, it's better to spend the extra $62m to get the $70m than to just eat a $30m loss. (That is, it's better to take a net loss of $18m than a net loss of $30m.) That fact is reflected in the way I calculated the figures, but it wouldn't be if you run with pre-construction values.

I'm an optimist as much as the next guy, but chances are overwhelmingly in favor of Cranley and council cancelling this project. 

 

"I respect their passion for Over-the-Rhine and share their goal of building a vibrant neighborhood and city. But, OTR will be better off without the streetcar because it will free up resources for continued Washington Park-like investments.  I am optimistic about OTR's future and will work to ensure its continued growth."

- John Cranley today

 

What Washington Park-like investments is he talking about!?!  I think we, as general urban minded people, would be less hostile right now if he would just lay out his plan for continuing revitalization in our city.  All he is talking about is canceling a project in order to "have more money to do stuff with."  What stuff? 

 

I swear, if the streetcar gets derailed after all of our years of hard work, I am fully prepared to be in the frontlines of our city's next riot.  I will be PISSED.

 

That said, I am still holding by breath and hoping that this was all politics and that hard numbers will prevail.

 

I think we're definitely going to have to do some serious protesting on this issue.

This is just a general reminder from the management that this is a public board and these messages are viewable to the general public. That includes opponents of the streetcar. You can post whatever you want within reason of course, but just remember that this board is monitored.

 

And it could include law enforcement. Watch what you guys are saying and think about how it could be interpreted.

I understand the rage against what seems to be widespread myopia on the part of streetcar opponents, but talk of rioting is a quick way to make streetcar supporters look like a bunch of irrational malcontents. Cities are places where people will always have disagreements and where going to war with each other is not the best way to resolve such disagreements.

 

There are many compelling arguments that can and should be made in support of finishing the streetcar project, and some of the arguments cannot be made merely in terms of money. Streetcars, like parks, bring many intangible benefits to cities. They make them more interesting, more accessible, more pleasant, etc.

 

I'm not speaking against peaceful protest here, nor am I saying there is never a time when people have to take to the streets, but I am saying, forthrightly, that this is not one of those times.

Uh oh, I was just venting. I don't want to be responsible for any personal attacks on Cranley. Keep your cool. Let's see what happens first.

Lord! Streetcar up in the air, OTR landowners gathering on street corners, parking deal suspended, port authority in doubt, business leaders shifting in their boots, MLK interchange funding now a question mark...and this guy isn't even mayor yet.

 

You guys are going to have your work cut out for you. What a f*cking mess.

I'll put money on COAST/NAACP putting yet another Issue 9/48 on the November 2014 ballot, or maybe even the May ballot. 

Now in the Business Courier:

 

Cranley: No referendum on streetcar cancellation ordinance

 

Mayor-elect John Cranley reversed his position on Tuesday, saying that he would seek to block supporters of the streetcar from holding a referendum if he and the incoming city council pass an ordinance canceling the streetcar project.

 

Attempting to dodge charges of hypocrisy, however, Cranley said that he and those who want to kill the streetcar project are looking for another way to allow a third public vote on the project if supporters can gather the needed signatures. Voters defeated amendments to the city charter that would have stopped the streetcar project in 2009 and 2011.

 

“We are not going to have a perverse result where we have to keep spending money while they gather signatures,” Cranley told reporters on Tuesday.

Cranley is now blocking a referendum on the streetcar when he cancels it.  Unreal.  He reversed his position

Wow. Did I say that I miss Mallory? Because I miss Mallory.

 

Cranley's proving to be a real deal fiscal conservative ;)

It's like some unimaginable nightmare.  The guy isn't even sworn in yet and he's already managed to turn the clock back 30 years and make Cincinnati once again a laughing stock to the rest of the country. 

This is RIDICULOUS. 

>“We are not going to have a perverse result where we have to keep spending money while they gather signatures,” Cranley told reporters on Tuesday.

 

Hmmm.  Here's Cranley's out.  He can't politically stop the referendum, and it appears that he can't stop the project from proceeding if the issue is on the ballot.  So then the streetcar is so far past 50% completed that he can't pull the plug on the project, even if it loses at the polls. 

It's undeniable the landscape has changed, though, since before construction started. That is precisely because sunk costs up until now are not logically part of whether or not it's beneficial to continue.

 

If you really want to push this point so be it. It's not a good strategy because the decision will have nothing to do with whether the ROI is 3:1 or 10:1. What may be important is that they are forced to admit its at least 1:1.

He needs 6 council members' support to pass it as an emergency ordinance, though.

If this weren't so sad and absurd it would be comical and will do wonders for perception of the city.  I am still in disbelief that this guy ran as a democrat with a straight face.

Can someone explain to me what John Cranley has done since being elected that has been a surprise? His entire platform was one position: kill the streetcar at all costs. Now that he is remaining committed to that position, everyone is acting like they're just now realizing that he might actually do it. Why?

It's undeniable the landscape has changed, though, since before construction started. That is precisely because sunk costs up until now are not logically part of whether or not it's beneficial to continue.

 

If you really want to push this point so be it. It's not a good strategy because the decision will have nothing to do with whether the ROI is 3:1 or 10:1. What may be important is that they are forced to admit its at least 1:1.

 

At this point, if the original ROI were anything better than 0.7:1, moving forward would be better than a wash (even ignoring things such as keeping in good standing w/ the feds).

 

I guess it depends on the audience, whether this is a winning argument. But if the audience is members of council striving to take an objective look, it should be convincing.

Worrying about whether or not there can be a pro-streetcar referendum, when Sittenfeld, Mann and Flynn each seem to be earnest about weighing costs before they decide what they'll do, seems premature.  If the numbers are on our side, and I believe they are, we're going to be okay. 

 

In addition, I'm glad the parking deal is dead.  IMO Qualls' staunch support of it probably cost her the election, which has now put the streetcar's fate in jeopardy.  Even though later revisions to the parking deal may have quelled some of the outlying neighborhoods' concerns, the final deal still stipulated meter enforcement downtown between 8:00 AM and 9:00 PM, surely hurting her among some onetime supporters.  And the way Mallory autocratically muscled it through, only to have it turn out that the city was able to balance this year's budget without it, created ill will.  I suspect most voters cared less if a hi-rise at 4th and Race was part of the deal than the fact that parking rates would rise.  If the city's parking system truly needs to be upgraded, then the responsibility now lies with the new mayor and new council.  It'll be interesting to see what they do.

In addition, I'm glad the parking deal is dead.

I suspect most voters cared less if a hi-rise at 4th and Race was part of the deal than the fact that parking rates would rise.  If the city's parking system truly needs to be upgraded, then the responsibility now lies with the new mayor and new council.  It'll be interesting to see what they do.

great

Cranley already vowed to raise rates and now he can do so without any caps.

It also raises the question of where he will get the cash to pay the city's share of the MLK interchange.

I'm starting to think the guy is loonier than Smitherman.

I agree with you on everything except one line

 

IMO Qualls' staunch support of it probably cost her the election

 

Looking back at it now, it was obvious Cranley would win the whole time barring some scandal involving paying a prostitute with a check. He had all of the Republicans' supporters, and a large chunk of the Democratic voters. Tim Burke decided this election over the summer. Without the Democratic party picking sides, the one most like Republicans will win every election.

I'm going back through my old files and found this from 2008, likely posted back around page 40 of this thread:

 

 

 

Didn't Cranley just blackmail the city in saying it will default on the parking deal unless they break the deal? That's legal?

The death of the parking deal might actually improve the chances that the streetcar survives:

 

1.  It allows Cranley to claim that he kept one of his campaign promises (killing the parking deal).  It makes it easier for him to break his misguided promises to kill the streetcar.

 

2.  If Xerox sues over the parking deal, it makes it very hard for Cranley to kill the streetcar, thus inviting more lawsuits from breached contracts.

Hey all you big law firm partners, if your law firm doesn't yet have an office in Cincinnati, time to open one! I have a feeling this business is going to be very good in Cincinnati soon. And I'll bet some of Cranley's buddies, including the Scorched Earth Society tea-baggers, get paid handsomely by the taxpayers in the years after Cranley leaves the mayor's office for the US Senate or the governor's mansion, all the while claiming he did just as he'd promised...

Enquirer editorial calling for Cranley to reverse today's decision and go ahead with the parking lease.  This is getting absolutely ridiculous. 

Looking back at it now, it was obvious Cranley would win the whole time barring some scandal involving paying a prostitute with a check. He had all of the Republicans' supporters, and a large chunk of the Democratic voters. Tim Burke decided this election over the summer. Without the Democratic party picking sides, the one most like Republicans will win every election.

 

But Mallory beat Pepper in 2005, and I think that Pepper was trying to position himself as the "reasonable" / more conservative Democrat in that race.

 

However, there wasn't a single hot-button issue in that election that could be seized upon for the campaigns to differentiate themselves from each other.

Enquirer editorial calling for Cranley to reverse today's decision and go ahead with the parking lease.  This is getting absolutely ridiculous.

 

It seems odd that the Enquirer would endorse Cranley and then criticize him for falling through in campaign promises. 

Hearing that Cranley is wheeling and dealing behind  the scenes trying to get no votes for streetcar on the first day. Pulling out all the stops.  His ego is going unchecked

Greg Hardman from Christian moerlein just got back from Portland.  I realize he was already a supporter before but now he's starting to get vocal.  He just tweeted about Portland and their streetcars.  Said we have 'work to do'

Also, it's been 19 business days since the first rail went in and continues to about 200 feet from Liberty St. with concrete pours now north of 14th St. Trench digging is now underway north of Liberty St. Think rail will reach Findlay Market come December 1 (14 business days)? I seem to recall John Deatrick saying rail would reach Henry St. by end of year.

 

Subway redux. 

 

So, if the streetcar is cancelled these tracks will remain in place, correct?  Like those subway tunnels?

 

 

^ Tearing up rails in concrete is a bitch.  That's why most streetcar rails from the 1920s and later are still in place under a layer or two of asphalt.  So yeah, unless of course Cranley wants to throw even more money down a hole by having them jackhammered and plasma torched out (which I wouldn't put past him), they're not going anywhere. 

Enquirer editorial calling for Cranley to reverse today's decision and go ahead with the parking lease.  This is getting absolutely ridiculous.

 

It seems odd that the Enquirer would endorse Cranley and then criticize him for falling through in campaign promises. 

 

Their "endorsement" was a joke.  They endorsed Cranley while saying that they had serious reservations about his plans for stopping the parking plan and the streetcar.  So, they endorsed the candidate who campaigned on two issues, while saying they didn't agree with the two issues he campaigned on. A new low for the Enquirer.  I think I'm more angry at that paper than anyone else for the results of this election. I used to still go to their website only to read John Fay's Reds coverage.  I'm not even going to do that anymore.

Cranley is now blocking a referendum on the streetcar when he cancels it.  Unreal.  He reversed his position

 

How can Cranley block a referendum?  I don't understand.

A week after being elected, King Cranley has alienated the dem party, business leaders, citizens of the urban core, and the Enquirer.

 

This is going to be a long four years

 

 

Cranley is now blocking a referendum on the streetcar when he cancels it.  Unreal.  He reversed his position

 

How can Cranley block a referendum?  I don't understand.

 

If he gets 6 members to agree with him, he can block people from voting on the streetcar issue should citizens get enough signatures to put it on the ballot.  He can conceivably cancel the streetcar with council and then prevent anyone from putting the issue on the ballot

^ Yeah but how?

by passing it as an emergency ordinance.

Remember when the Enquirer said "Mayor Mark Mallory exerted [excessive control] over the council agenda, curbing public debate and, in the end, serving citizens poorly"?

 

Cranley's going to take that to a whole new level.

Remember when the Enquirer said "Mayor Mark Mallory exerted [excessive control] over the council agenda, curbing public debate and, in the end, serving citizens poorly"?

 

Cranley's going to take that to a whole new level.

 

Remember in the same breath, when they said Cranley's ego could create the same problem?  I just don't understand why they endorsed him...

Remember when the Enquirer said "Mayor Mark Mallory exerted [excessive control] over the council agenda, curbing public debate and, in the end, serving citizens poorly"?

 

Cranley's going to take that to a whole new level.

 

Remember in the same breath, when they said Cranley's ego could create the same problem?  I just don't understand why they endorsed him...

 

Because the Enquirer is a conservative newspaper, and they always endorse the most conservative candidate, even when it's a bad conservative candidate.  They endorsed Bush twice, McCain/Palin, Romney, etc.  They endorsed Jean Schmidt several times.  They are shameless shills for any conservative candidate.   

 

 

the Enquirer is Republican.

Yeah, I realize that.  I guess it's foolish of me to expect a little accountability and common sense from a paper with such an obvious political agenda...

Lots of pictures of the on-street testing of the Tucson streetcar....

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lasertrimguy/tags/tucsonstreetcartest/

 

Here's a couple of them....

 

 

After seeing the new CAF vehicles, the Skoda ones look a little dated. If you Google "CAF Urbos 3" (the type of vehicles we've ordered) you'll find a lot of great videos of them running as streetcars and light rail systems around the world.

... If you Google "CAF Urbos 3" (the type of vehicles we've ordered)

 

...this will be one of the contracts that will have to be terminated? 

 

Enquirer editorial calling for Cranley to reverse today's decision and go ahead with the parking lease.  This is getting absolutely ridiculous.

 

It seems odd that the Enquirer would endorse Cranley and then criticize him for falling through in campaign promises. 

 

Their "endorsement" was a joke.  They endorsed Cranley while saying that they had serious reservations about his plans for stopping the parking plan and the streetcar.  So, they endorsed the candidate who campaigned on two issues, while saying they didn't agree with the two issues he campaigned on. A new low for the Enquirer.  I think I'm more angry at that paper than anyone else for the results of this election. I used to still go to their website only to read John Fay's Reds coverage.  I'm not even going to do that anymore.

 

The other component of the article is complaining about Cranley making problems but not having a plan to enact them. They didn't make that complaint in the endorsement, but now they have officially condemned his entire campaign. His campaign was 1) Break streetcar contracts, 2) Break parking lease contracts, and 3) a bunch of vague spending projects with no suggestion of how to pay for them, other than raising parking rates (much of the money from which will not be available to him; that was part of the reason for the lease) and canceling the streetcar (which will require more spending and be anything but an influx of cash).

 

No sympathy for the Enquirer here. They did all they could to make Cranley a viable candidate, despite their disagreement with him on every last issue. I find it interesting how strongly pro-parking lease they are, though. They were early supporters, and they clearly haven't wavered in their strong support. Makes you wonder who is behind that, since it seems like most supporters of the lease, other than politicians who had committed to it, aren't so adamant. I'm guessing there's a money trail there. The Enquirer shot callers probably have some investment interest in the Port Authority.

 

Breaching contracts of your predecessor is a despicable style of governance. This is my big problem with canceling the parking lease. But over all I am glad Cranley and his dream team will not have the money to play with. In particular, they won't have it to cover up the expenses involved in canceling the streetcar. That would make me sick to watch; people complain about the lease being a short-term, drastic solution to the pension problem, but it would be so much worse being used to be fill the blackhole of unnecessarily destroying an infrastructure investment. Now the costs of streetcar cancellation cannot be so easily whitewashed. Paying back those grants, paying off the contracts, paying for litigation, etc., will require Cranley to make unpopular decisions of his own to come up with the cash, instead of having the luxury of campaigning against the parking lease and then benefiting from its money. It may also make council members' decisions to cancel the streetcar harder, since they will not want these unpopular decisions (spending cuts, tax increases) on their records.

 

Reason may actually have a better chance of prevailing due to the four year council terms. The streetcar will be operational for over a year by the time council is up for reelection, which should make it easier for members to have confidence that elements of the public will not be so angry about it by then. It will have had the chance to prove its worth.

^I think the recent election shows that very few voters actually care about the record of the candidates they vote for.  Cranley's dismal decisions are clearly there in his record as a councilman, yet no one seems to care.  Rhetoric and stirring people into a frenzy is how you get votes, not through reason and proving yourself through your record.  I know it's like this everywhere, but I'm getting especially sick of this city.  What a toxic environment to live in...constant feuding, city haters, suburban haters, and a population that is perfectly content with keeping things as they always have been. Our black community has got to be one of the least upwardly mobile in the country.  We have very little in the way of a middle/upper class black community, and the ones that we have are generally out in Forest Park and Springdale. Yet the blacks that live in the city are not progressive and don't seem to want change, despite the sorry state of the majority of their neighborhoods.  The West side continues to exert its conservative influence over the city, and is suspicious of anyone that isn't conservative, white, straight, catholic and married with kids.  Maybe Cincinnati is just doomed to stagnate forever. That's honestly how it feels to me at this moment.  I tried to not get too worked up over the election, thinking that campaign rhetoric usually gets replaced with reason and moderation. Since the election, however, this has not proven to be true.  What's the point in fighting for this city, donating time and money to making it a better place if the game is rigged? I'm looking for a way out.