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....

 

Thanks . . . rub it in. ;-) A city with a major college within it's limits. That will never work.

Just got back from taking 24 Cincinnatians to Portland. Anyone who claims there aren't some great lessions to be learned from Portland is a fool.

 

I mean, a AAA credit rating for thirty years, lots of great infrastructure, and a population that's really growing now.  So many young people that downtown looks like a college campus.

 

And you know something else?: I took one of the builders out there and really took a critical look at their vehicles, their trackword, and their operations - probably too many stops -- and I've pretty much concluded that, good as Portland's streetcar is, Cincinnati's will be much better.

 

 

Just got back from taking 24 Cincinnatians to Portland. Anyone who claims there aren't some great lessions to be learned from Portland is a fool.

 

I mean, a AAA credit rating for thirty years, lots of great infrastructure, and a population that's really growing now.  So many young people that downtown looks like a college campus.

 

And you know something else?: I took one of the builders out there and really took a critical look at their vehicles, their trackword, and their operations - probably too many stops -- and I've pretty much concluded that, good as Portland's streetcar is, Cincinnati's will be much better.

 

Love your optimism.  Hope your  last sentence is right.  Cranley is pulling out all the stops

Did everyone submit their questions to the Enquirer to ask john Cranley today?

 

 

Good article by German Lopez at City Beat laying out the pros and cons of cancellation.  I found some optimism in this passage:

 

“For me, there are a huge number of unanswered questions, so I think the only thoughtful, fair, cool-headed thing to do is get all the information on the table. Spell out exactly what it would look like to unravel the project,” Sittenfeld says. “It’s not just about the balance sheet; it’s also about what is the return of investment. I will take that into consideration as well.”

 

That last sentence is BIG.  I haven't heard any council members mention the ROI yet.  I've never been a fan of Sittenfeld's, but I hope he will be reasonable on this issue...

 

http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-29055-halting_progress.html

 

If Cranley does succeed and gets a majority of council to cancel the streetcar project Dec 1, and streetcar supporters decide to collect signatures, does that mean that construction ceases while they collect signatures & until the vote is held?  Or does construction continue while they collect signatures and until the vote is held?  That would increase construction costs significanlty right if the first scenario is true?

I believe the reason Cranley wants to find another way to hold a vote, rather than a referendum, is because construction would have to continue for the months before the election.

John Cranley 'Sorry I'm late.  Streetcar construction held me up'

Apparently Cranley said during the Enquirer chat today, "if property owners along streetcar line want to pay for it themselves - fine." Which means he could actually consider other options before making a decision to cancel.

'I don't want a19th  century streetcar' jc

'I don't want a19th  century streetcar' jc

 

GOod thing we're building a 21st Century one.

^ It's like this guy has never been out of Cincinnati before.  Nearly every city I go to either has an existing subway/rail system, or a modern streetcar system.  What is 19th century, is Cincinnati not having any rail public transit.  It is a joke that this guy is the leader of our city. 

Cranley will delay streetcar construction 30-90 days after dec1. Effectively killing it that way with delays that will increase costs

^ It's like this guy has never been out of Cincinnati before.  Nearly every city I go to either has an existing subway/rail system, or a modern streetcar system.  What is 19th century, is Cincinnati not having any rail public transit.  It is a joke that this guy is the leader of our city. 

 

Didn't you hear? Cranley says Downtown Cincinnati is competing with Kenwood and Montgomery. Let's not compare Cincinnati to other cities like Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Seattle, Portland, or Charlotte.

Didn't you hear? Cranley says Downtown Cincinnati is competing with Kenwood and Montgomery. Let's not compare Cincinnati to other cities like Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Seattle, Portland, or Charlotte.

 

I thought that we moved passed this idea that we are competing with the other cities and townships in our region.  When Kenwood, or Norwood or Newport etc. do well it helps Cincinnati and vice versa.  They are not our competitors.  We are in this together.  This guy is such a throw back to the 1990s typical Cincinnati politician. 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20131114/NEWS010801/311140058/Cranley-d-welcome-streetcar-referendum

^ That is the most optimistic article on the chances of streetcar survival in a while.  I hope this is a sign that Cranley is toning down his rhetoric.  I firmly believe that it is in his best political interest to let the streetcar supporters have this one.  If he tries to kill the streetcar his first year, and maybe longer, will be nothing but a long and ugly fight. 

 

He will be dealing with referendums, protests, lawsuits, etc.  He will not come out unscathed.  If he let's reason prevail he will be viewed as a pragmatic leader that is willing to compromise.  He will get to claim some portion of the credit if the streetcar is a success (and we all know it will be), and he will get to blame Mallory if the streetcar is not a success (fat chance).  The best political move is to not cancel. 

 

One more thing.  Cranley would be crazy to let this go to a referendum.  If the voters come out in favor of the project he will look very bad.  He could look like a lame duck with 3 years left to go.  Given the results of the previous referendums on rail and the fact that many voters who aren't streetcar supportors may believe that breaching contracts is wrong, I think the voters will come out in support of the project.  Given his statements in the past and even today supporting referendums, the only way to avoid a referendum is to not try to cancel it. 

 

If Cranley does succeed and gets a majority of council to cancel the streetcar project Dec 1, and streetcar supporters decide to collect signatures, does that mean that construction ceases while they collect signatures & until the vote is held?  Or does construction continue while they collect signatures and until the vote is held?  That would increase construction costs significanlty right if the first scenario is true?

 

Is there anything stopping us from getting signatures NOW? That way they can be hand delivered on 12/01.

Technically a referendum requires council to pass something first. The other two "streetcar referendums" were not referendums at all, but Charter amendments. We could start collecting petitions for a Charter amendment today if language was already written, but until council passes a motion to stop the streetcar, there can not be a referendum to my understanding.

Cranley's plan is to halt streetcar construction Dec 1, drive up costs due to the delay,  return fed money back and then hold the referendum for the streetcar. In that order.  He knows no one would vote for It without fed funding and with increased costs due to his own delays. 

And council has to publicly read said motion three times before voting. This allows for public input. We've already seen many long Budget & Finance committees or Special Meetings.

per litigation costs - doesn't the city have a separate fund set up for paying off lawsuits?

Maybe CO    has drained it, I don't know.

^ I don't think he can sign anything until he is in office Dec 1st.

My takeaway from the ed board meeting: Cranley doesn't believe in numbers.

 

Doesn't believe Duke relocation costs will be $15M

Doesn't believe Streetcar costs have been "truthful"

Also disagreed with the Enquirer's own reporting that Cincinnati has a higher officer per capita rate than other local jurisdictions.

 

Welcome to Cincinnati where 2+2 no longer equals 4.

^ It's like this guy has never been out of Cincinnati before.  Nearly every city I go to either has an existing subway/rail system, or a modern streetcar system.  What is 19th century, is Cincinnati not having any rail public transit.  It is a joke that this guy is the leader of our city. 

 

Didn't you hear? Cranley says Downtown Cincinnati is competing with Kenwood and Montgomery. Let's not compare Cincinnati to other cities like Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Seattle, Portland, or Charlotte.

 

Then since his election it's Kenwood - 15 Cincinnati - Love.  So I'm anxious to hear his next ridiculous viewpoint.

 

His head is buried so deep in the styrofoam-laden Ohio River sand he can't comprehend that those peer cities will eat our lunch.

Apparently Cranley said during the Enquirer chat today, "if property owners along streetcar line want to pay for it themselves - fine." Which means he could actually consider other options before making a decision to cancel.

 

Which should be seriously considered IMHO, considering the duality of Cincinnati (ie: basin voters supporting Metro Moves in 2002, the two anti-rail referenda, Qualls for mayor, etc while the rest of the city has been less supportive.) To me, this is how the streetcar can be saved and sustained.

Also, we should have many concurrent strategies already in motion, such as:

 

1a) petition to save project via referendum

1b) petition to save project via charter amendment

1c) petition for charter amendment that requires city to honor its contracts within reason

2) organized letter writing campaign to council members, with the roi and cancellation cost figures clearly cited in this thread

3) lawsuits from stakeholders (individuals and businesses) against the city and against Cranley himself (if that's even possible) since he's refusing to even entertain the idea of continuing.

4) recall of the mayor.

5) anything I haven't listed here

 

 

Let me state this clearly: Cranley doesn't give a sh!t about facts, or reason, or cost, or a solid argument, at least not where it concerns this project. He needs to understand that canceling the streetcar carries a MASSIVE political pricetag.  The question he should be asking himself isn't whether it makes financial sense to cancel, it's whether it makes political sense to do so. How much political capital does he want to spend on day 1?

 

We need to make it clear that this doesn't end with the project's cancellation. We will not simply vanish. We must commit to being a thorn in his side for 4 years. We must also promise to resume the project after the next election, or the next, making his position costly and futile.

Also, we should have many concurrent strategies already in motion, such as:

 

1a) petition to save project via referendum

1b) petition to save project via charter amendment

1c) petition for charter amendment that requires city to honor its contracts within reason

2) organized letter writing campaign to council members, with the roi and cancellation cost figures clearly cited in this thread

3) lawsuits from stakeholders (individuals and businesses) against the city and against Cranley himself (if that's even possible) since he's refusing to even entertain the idea of continuing.

4) recall of the mayor.

5) anything I haven't listed here

 

 

Let me state this clearly: Cranley doesn't give a sh!t about facts, or reason, or cost, or a solid argument, at least not where it concerns this project. He needs to understand that canceling the streetcar carries a MASSIVE political pricetag.  The question he should be asking himself isn't whether it makes financial sense to cancel, it's whether it makes political sense to do so. How much political capital does he want to spend on day 1?

 

We need to make it clear that this doesn't end with the project's cancellation. We will not simply vanish. We must commit to being a thorn in his side for 4 years. We must also promise to resume the project after the next election, or the next, making his position costly and futile.

 

#1 should be to attend the meeting at 7 p.m. tonight. It will be a full house, so be prepared for an overflow crowd......

 

https://m.facebook.com/events/646927442025876/

Also, we should have many concurrent strategies already in motion, such as:

 

1a) petition to save project via referendum

1b) petition to save project via charter amendment

1c) petition for charter amendment that requires city to honor its contracts within reason

2) organized letter writing campaign to council members, with the roi and cancellation cost figures clearly cited in this thread

3) lawsuits from stakeholders (individuals and businesses) against the city and against Cranley himself (if that's even possible) since he's refusing to even entertain the idea of continuing.

4) recall of the mayor.

5) anything I haven't listed here

 

 

Let me state this clearly: Cranley doesn't give a sh!t about facts, or reason, or cost, or a solid argument, at least not where it concerns this project. He needs to understand that canceling the streetcar carries a MASSIVE political pricetag.  The question he should be asking himself isn't whether it makes financial sense to cancel, it's whether it makes political sense to do so. How much political capital does he want to spend on day 1?

 

We need to make it clear that this doesn't end with the project's cancellation. We will not simply vanish. We must commit to being a thorn in his side for 4 years. We must also promise to resume the project after the next election, or the next, making his position costly and futile.

 

Can we quit talking about a referendum? Look, we're building a streetcar. The focus should be strictly on continuing that momemtum.

Also I don't believe Cincinnati has a recall procedure for mayor or council. They can only be ousted for ethics, through the next election, or voluntarily I believe.

Cranley used the word 'hopefully' referencing canceling the streetcar today in the Enquirer article. This is the first time I've heard him say that word

 

Before it was just 'we're canceling it', 'the conversation is over', etc

The problem with sending back the federal grant would be that it would release the line from having to be built where it is planned.  This means two things:

1. "Referendum" would include a tax increase, and Cranley might require project to be built and operations subsidized outside rest of city budget.

2. Release from federal restrictions means that after passing tax increase to build the thing, Cranley might have it built in remote part of the city, like in a loop in Mt. Airy Forest.

Can we quit talking about a referendum? Look, we're building a streetcar. The focus should be strictly on continuing that momemtum.

 

Are we though? If we don't mobilize now, maybe not. We have 17 days until presidente-for-life Cranley takes over. We can't afford to find ourselves scrambling on 12/01.

Also I don't believe Cincinnati has a recall procedure for mayor or council. They can only be ousted for ethics, through the next election, or voluntarily I believe.

 

Not Cincinnati, the State of Ohio:

 

codes.ohio.gov/orc/705.92

 

"705.92 Procedure for removal of elective officer by recall.

 

Any elective officer of a municipal corporation may be removed from office by the qualified voters of such municipal corporation. The procedure to effect such removal shall be:

 

(A) A petition signed by qualified electors equal in number to at least fifteen per cent of the total votes cast at the most recent regular municipal election, and demanding the election of a successor to the person sought to be removed, shall be filed with the board of elections. Such petition shall contain a general statement in not more than two hundred words of the grounds upon which the removal of such person is sought. The form, sufficiency, and regularity of any such petition shall be determined as provided in the general election laws."

 

 

Given the dismal turnout on 11/05, signatures totaling 15% of the votes cast should be attainable.

 

Also I don't believe Cincinnati has a recall procedure for mayor or council. They can only be ousted for ethics, through the next election, or voluntarily I believe.

 

Not Cincinnati, the State of Ohio:

 

codes.ohio.gov/orc/705.92

 

"705.92 Procedure for removal of elective officer by recall.

 

Any elective officer of a municipal corporation may be removed from office by the qualified voters of such municipal corporation. The procedure to effect such removal shall be:

 

(A) A petition signed by qualified electors equal in number to at least fifteen per cent of the total votes cast at the most recent regular municipal election, and demanding the election of a successor to the person sought to be removed, shall be filed with the board of elections. Such petition shall contain a general statement in not more than two hundred words of the grounds upon which the removal of such person is sought. The form, sufficiency, and regularity of any such petition shall be determined as provided in the general election laws."

 

 

Given the dismal turnout on 11/05, signatures totaling 15% of the votes cast should be attainable.

 

 

So wouldn't that be the most attainable of the sig gathering ventures?

I said before I didn't favor recall, but after thinking about it I think tearing up contracts signed by your predecessor (which is illegal!), for no pressing reason other than disliking them, should be grounds for recall. There needs to be some degree of continuity from one administration to the next, or democracy becomes dysfunctional. I believe honoring the city's contracts is reasonably part of the bare-minimum of such continuity.

 

As soon as the parking lease is breached, a recall petition should start. That will amp up pressure to continue the streetcar, since another breach of contracts would make the case for recall stronger.

^Totally agree. 

 

FYI, the numbers I'm seeing online show 56,391 votes in the mayor's race. That means we'd only need about 8,459 valid signatures. This will get his attention.

I said before I didn't favor recall, but after thinking about it I think tearing up contracts signed by your predecessor (which is illegal!), for no pressing reason other than disliking them, should be grounds for recall. There needs to be some degree of continuity from one administration to the next, or democracy becomes dysfunctional. I believe honoring the city's contracts is reasonably part of the bare-minimum of such continuity.

 

As soon as the parking lease is breached, a recall petition should start. That will amp up pressure to continue the streetcar, since another breach of contracts would make the case for recall stronger.

 

Good points.

Not that we all didn't already know this, but maybe it'll help sink into the Mayor Elect's head. From Kevin Osbourne on Twitter:

 

Mayor Mallory set to release letter from FTA soon stating grants for Cinti streetcar will go to other cities if project is canceled

Will he release the letter or not?  Why hasn't he already?  Why is Osborne first with this information?  Does the letter actually say what Osborne was told that it said?  Does it actually say something different in order to embarrass Osborne or anyone having an online chat about it?

 

 

Also I don't believe Cincinnati has a recall procedure for mayor or council. They can only be ousted for ethics, through the next election, or voluntarily I believe.

 

Not Cincinnati, the State of Ohio:

 

codes.ohio.gov/orc/705.92

 

"705.92 Procedure for removal of elective officer by recall.

 

Any elective officer of a municipal corporation may be removed from office by the qualified voters of such municipal corporation. The procedure to effect such removal shall be:

 

(A) A petition signed by qualified electors equal in number to at least fifteen per cent of the total votes cast at the most recent regular municipal election, and demanding the election of a successor to the person sought to be removed, shall be filed with the board of elections. Such petition shall contain a general statement in not more than two hundred words of the grounds upon which the removal of such person is sought. The form, sufficiency, and regularity of any such petition shall be determined as provided in the general election laws."

 

 

Given the dismal turnout on 11/05, signatures totaling 15% of the votes cast should be attainable.

 

Since we are a Charter government this section does not apply.

 

Source: http://www.leagle.com/decision/197633745OhioSt2d292_1280

If it's not in the charter then the statutory procedure alone is insufficient.

Can we amend the charter to make it illegal for anyone who's ever had the legal name of Johnathan Cranley to hold the office of mayor?

Can we amend the charter to make it illegal for anyone who's ever had the legal name of Johnathan Cranley to hold the office of mayor?

 

Or make it a requirement for all cincinnatians to vote.  Just a normal turnout would have elected Qualls in droves along with a pro streetcar majority

Text of the letter is up on Politics Extra blog.

 

I'm sure Cranley will dismiss it since the Feds don't directly address him and he wasn't the one asking the questions.

So, is there an equivalent measure allowed by the charter?  Or are we just stuck with whoever was elected no matter what?

Maybe we shouldn't be pursuing a recall, but a mental competency hearing.

Feds to Cincinnati: Streetcar money must be returned

 

The federal government today notified Cincinnati that if the city doesn’t build the streetcar, the $44 million from the federal government must be returned.

 

The letter offers no surprises. The only problem? The city has spent about $2.4 million of the money so it would  have to find it elsewhere in the budget so the whole amount can be returned.

 

Link To Letter

Feds to Cincinnati: Streetcar money must be returned

 

The federal government today notified Cincinnati that if the city doesn’t build the streetcar, the $44 million from the federal government must be returned.

 

The letter offers no surprises. The only problem? The city has spent about $2.4 million of the money so it would  have to find it elsewhere in the budget so the whole amount can be returned.

 

Link To Letter

 

That letter is a good start to swaying the council members who wanted to look into the cost of cancelling a bit more. Not only does it clearly state all the federal dollars are going back and those spent need to be reimbursed, but it alludes to the high cost of paying to get out of existing contracts.

"The city has spent about $2.4 million of the money so it would  have to find it elsewhere in the budget so the whole amount can be returned."

 

This is exactly the type of rational reporting the Enquirer shies away from until the wind starts blowing the other way. Ad infinitum, to keep the controversy going. Two weeks ago, this simple important fact would have been buried in a vague "he said/she said" quote, rather than stated flat-out by the reporter.

 

No integrity. No sense of responsibility. No acknowledgement of the press's critical role and privileged status in a democracy.

The letter says if the city fails "to make reasonable progress" on the project, the FTA will bar the city from getting additional federal reimbursements, terminate its grant obligations and "initiate a debt collection action."

That statement is significant because the latest chatter at City Hall involves Cranley and the new council temporarily stopping work while an accounting of what's been spent and the costs of cancellation proceeds. By the time that's done, the FTA could have pulled its funding.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2013/11/14/feds-if-you-kill-the-streetcar-we.html?ana=twt&page=2

 

That is crucial.  It is not fiscally responsible to kill the streetcar at this point