Did they define a "pause" timeframe? Or is it just "until the study is done"?

Let the petitions fly.

Someone PLEASE seek injunctions based on

(1) Smitherman ethics investigation, and

(2) the possibility that appropriations for new expenditures do not rule out referendum.

I suspect that Flynn's dramatic flip-flop is rooted in his self-financed campaign.  Borrowed something like $100,000 from himself.  What is Cranley promising him?

I suspect that Flynn's dramatic flip-flop is rooted in his self-financed campaign.  Borrowed something like $100,000 from himself.  What is Cranley promising him?

 

Call Magnum PI and start the investigation.

I just sent this to Cindi Andrews at Enquirer - hopefully she asks this in some form as I cannot get to City Hall during the day:

 

In the Streetcar debate I am trying to understand why Cranley and the detractors are solely making their decision on whether or not the cost is more to cancel than to complete.  This is flawed because they are completely ignoring any ROI, which Cranley clearly knows there will be - he even campaigned against Qualls by saying she was selling homes/condos that were increasing in value due to being on the Streetcar route. This example of return is the tip of the iceberg.  Projected ROI is 2.7 and even if the ROI were 0.27 it would be enough to make the project worthwhile.

 

The question I want to ask is not why they are considering canceling the project, but why are they so determined to throw away approximately $115 million?  And why would they not want to spend an additional $15 - $20 million to get back $359 million ($133 million * 2.7)?

 

I just sent this to Cindi Andrews at Enquirer - hopefully she asks this in some form as I cannot get to City Hall during the day:

 

In the Streetcar debate I am trying to understand why Cranley and the detractors are solely making their decision on whether or not the cost is more to cancel than to complete.  This is flawed because they are completely ignoring any ROI, which Cranley clearly knows there will be - he even campaigned against Qualls by saying she was selling homes/condos that were increasing in value due to being on the Streetcar route. This example of return is the tip of the iceberg.  Projected ROI is 2.7 and even if the ROI were 0.27 it would be enough to make the project worthwhile.

 

The question I want to ask is not why they are considering canceling the project, but why are they so determined to throw away approximately $115 million?  And why would they not want to spend an additional $15 - $20 million to get back $359 million ($133 million * 2.7)?

 

 

There you go again...thinking logically. Killing the streetcar is not a logical action. It's either based on ideology or someone is being bought off.

^I suspect its as simple as these people will do whatever it takes to get elected.  Even if it means completely changing your stance on things that you supposedly "believed" in. 

 

Anyway, I just feel as if there's precious little any of us can do at this point.  Cranley and his posse have full, unbridled control of the city for the next 4 years and basically all we can do is sit back and watch.  I'll sign any petitions or go to any rallies or support keeping things moving in any way I can, but lets face it...They are in charge and they can do whatever they want from this point on.

 

I find it absolutely amazing that just one election can undo the last 8 years of progress in a matter of just a few days.  Imagine what they could do over the next 4 years.  I don't know how we managed to lose this election so badly, but I suspect its because we all got a little too comfortable with the previous administration.  Speaking personallly, had I realized that Cranley and these new clowns actually had a chance of winning I would have been helping to campaign aggressively.  I just honestly thought they didn't stand a chance running on such a negative platform.  I can tell you though, I've lost all faith in this city's governing system.  To be willing to walk away from contracts and throw 100+ million dollars away just to get your way politically shows that there is no unity or sense of public service left in politicians anymore.

 

History will show their stupidity though.  They will go down in history as one of the dumbest administrations to ever lead this city.  Imagine what people will be saying years from now.  "They stopped construction of a modern day streetcar system after it was already being built with tracks in the ground?!  Why?  And they spent the same amount of money cancelling it as they would have spent building it!?"  That's all people are going to see in the future and forutnately Cranley will be the one to blame.  Unfortunately, however, future generations of Cincinnatians will be the ones to pay the price.

^^ It sure feels that way - I cannot figure this out.  It is really disturbing because if you read the statements from Flynn he is well aware of the benefits.

 

^ To your point on one election undoing 8 years of work I keep torturing myself that Ann (yes I called her Ann) Murray beat Quinlivan by 850 votes - imagine that.

This quote is interesting, from:

 

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2013/12/04/1-month-streetcar-pause-could-cost-3-5m-city-official-says/

 

“Obviously, the conversation is not over,” Mayor John Cranley said. “It’s not going to be over in a week or two when we come back.”

 

That's a complete contradiction of his post-election statements.  Is it possible that COAST and Smitherman have been so deep in Cranley's ear for so long, that he actually didn't realize how much support this project really has?  Maybe he thought killing this would be easy and that he'd be viewed as a hero.  That certainly isn't how this has played out so far.

That's a complete contradiction of his post-election statements.  Is it possible that COAST and Smitherman have been so deep in Cranley's ear for so long, that he actually didn't realize how much support this project really has?  Maybe he thought killing this would be easy and that he'd be viewed as a hero.  That certainly isn't how this has played out so far.

 

That is very possible. Sometimes some people have so insulated that when they have to enter the public process to kill what they oppose, they become exposed to more public viewpoints for the first time. But he may still try to convince himself that, because he won the election, he is carrying out a broadly supported public mandate.

I saw a couple shafts of light pierce the darkness today.

 

It won't be pretty, and there will be many twists and turns in the days ahead, but I'm confident that we'll complete Phase 1A of the Cincinnati Streetcar.

I saw a couple shafts of light pierce the darkness today.

 

It won't be pretty, and there will be many twists and turns in the days ahead, but I'm confident that we'll complete Phase 1A of the Cincinnati Streetcar.

 

And if the feds pull the funding?

^ That's the main risk, as I see it now.

^Two words:  BAKE SALE!

It's not over yet. What needs to happen is someone who voted for Cranley that is against the streetcar. But can see how reckless it would be to cancel this far into the project. Too speak out on  the news

To Natininja and the other posters here on this forum:

 

Like you, I just finished watching the Cincinnati City Council vote to put a stop to all construction work on the Streetcar. I don't see how that vote can be construed by anyone as meaning anything other than a vote

to outright and permanently cancel any further work on the streetcar. It does not in my opinion mean that the council voted to put the streetcar on hold while a study is conducted.

 

It was A VOTE TO CANCEL: FIVE in favor, FOUR opposed. Guaranteed, the Federal Government will take back its $40-million-dollar share, as promised.  Lawsuits will be brought against the city for breach of contract. Cincinnati will be paying a high price for absolutely nothing for generations to come. 

 

Mayor Cranley doesn't care how much his city has to pay to close out all the expenses and legal fees involved with the cancellation.

 

At this very moment, Mr. John Cranley, Cincinnati's newly-elected Mayor, must be thinking to himself, "What a wonderful day this is for my city!"

 

All the motions to terminate carried and have become the legally-stated will and intention of Cincinnati's voters that work on the streetcar be halted immediately. 

 

Likewise, citizens who support completing this phase of the streetcar have been denied the opportunity to put the matter to an up-or-down, yes-or-no referendum.

 

End of discussion: Cincinnati will not have a streetcar, not now, not ever.  No one in their right mind will - five, ten, fifty, one hundred years from now - ever again dare propose a streetcar be built.

 

Cincinnati had its one great chance to prove that a streetcar could add value to the community, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that it has now squandered - forever, in my opinion.

 

To those of us who stand for genuine progress, the demise of the streetcar today, Wednesday, December 4, 2013 will long be remembered as the day Cincinnati revived and reinforced its long-standing reputation as an irreconcilably backward-thinking town and laughing-stock of the nation. Ohio taken as a whole isn't far behind the Queen City, having done pretty much everything possible to defeat progressive rail-based initiatives. Governor Kasich and Mayor Cranley have MUCH in common, along with the voters who elected them.

 

What should be of concern to us all now is A PRECEDENT HAS BEEN SET giving new incentive to anti-streetcar forces everywhere else in the country, like Kansas City or Minneapolis, to follow Cincinnati's lead and maneuver their citizens to cancel THEIR streetcar projects. Kansas City's new streetcar is, I understand, at about the same stage of construction as Cincinnati's. 

 

Another ramification of today's events is that the Federal Government may very well become reluctant to fund any further urban rail projects. Too many grants for rail have ALREADY been refused and sent back to the Feds. The message is getting out: voters don't want long-distance passenger or urban rail.

 

What has happened in Cincinnati may well become the latest trend and fad for streetcar and light rail projects in our country: you can get away with starting construction then canceling it! Cincinnati has now shown that projects already approved and paid for can be terminated mid-course with relative impunity. Same thing has already happened in Canada, where Toronto's mayor put the kybosh to several already-approved and funded light rail projects (only difference - construction on them hadn't begun when they were halted).

 

Mark my words, what has happened today in Cincinnati will set the tone for our future as a country for years to come; anti-rail forces everywhere have powerful new ammunition.

 

Kansas City, are you next in line to cancel YOUR streetcar project in mid-course?

 

Stay tuned.

This might be a stupid idea or completely unrealistic, but what are the odds of us getting Mann and Flynn out to Portland while the study is being done? I'm sure we could raise enough money so that it doesn't come at the expense of tax dollars.

^Then why would they spend another $250,000 on a study on the expense of canceling or  if they should continue?

What Amy Murray, Smitherman Cranley and the rest are hoping is that the Feds yank the money so they don't have to make a final decision.  They are hoping to be bailed out

 

The 'readings' and 'votes' were all for show.  The game was rigged from the beginning.  Supporters had no chance from the beginning.  Cranley played this brilliantly from a political standpoint

 

I really hope the feds hold out but 14 days is a long long time...I have my doubts federal funding will still be there in 2 weeks.

 

The only good thing to come out of this debacle is that it A) Riled up urbanists and B) recall procedures will be underway

Cincinnati no longer moves "slowly." It moves backwards.

I just sent this to Cindi Andrews at Enquirer - hopefully she asks this in some form as I cannot get to City Hall during the day:

 

In the Streetcar debate I am trying to understand why Cranley and the detractors are solely making their decision on whether or not the cost is more to cancel than to complete.  This is flawed because they are completely ignoring any ROI, which Cranley clearly knows there will be - he even campaigned against Qualls by saying she was selling homes/condos that were increasing in value due to being on the Streetcar route. This example of return is the tip of the iceberg.  Projected ROI is 2.7 and even if the ROI were 0.27 it would be enough to make the project worthwhile.

 

The question I want to ask is not why they are considering canceling the project, but why are they so determined to throw away approximately $115 million?  And why would they not want to spend an additional $15 - $20 million to get back $359 million ($133 million * 2.7)?

 

 

They don't want "streetcar people" moving in. They want a blue-collar West Side, an old money East Side and people on public assistance in the middle. They don't like educated people, non-DINOs, hipsters, musicians, artists ect. in "their" city.

I just sent this to Cindi Andrews at Enquirer - hopefully she asks this in some form as I cannot get to City Hall during the day:

 

In the Streetcar debate I am trying to understand why Cranley and the detractors are solely making their decision on whether or not the cost is more to cancel than to complete.  This is flawed because they are completely ignoring any ROI, which Cranley clearly knows there will be - he even campaigned against Qualls by saying she was selling homes/condos that were increasing in value due to being on the Streetcar route. This example of return is the tip of the iceberg.  Projected ROI is 2.7 and even if the ROI were 0.27 it would be enough to make the project worthwhile.

 

The question I want to ask is not why they are considering canceling the project, but why are they so determined to throw away approximately $115 million?  And why would they not want to spend an additional $15 - $20 million to get back $359 million ($133 million * 2.7)?

 

 

They don't want "streetcar people" moving in. They want a blue-collar West Side, an old money East Side and people on public assistance in the middle. They don't like educated people, non-DINOs, hipsters, musicians, artists ect. in "their" city.

 

Yep thats why the " I will move out if this is not finished " will not work, it needs to be I'm staying and voting you out ASAP ... "They " want to rid cincinnati of all people who care about this.. 

Jos Callinet: I don't see the rest of the US being that short-sighted. The KC streetcar is way ahead of schedule (despite a ton of rail opposition in KC in the past) and the Tucson Modern Streetcar will be running very soon (which runs from west of DT Tucson to the University of Arizona). In the future John should take groups to KC and Tucson. Won't be THAT far away, either - especially KC :)

I just sent this to Cindi Andrews at Enquirer - hopefully she asks this in some form as I cannot get to City Hall during the day:

 

In the Streetcar debate I am trying to understand why Cranley and the detractors are solely making their decision on whether or not the cost is more to cancel than to complete.  This is flawed because they are completely ignoring any ROI, which Cranley clearly knows there will be - he even campaigned against Qualls by saying she was selling homes/condos that were increasing in value due to being on the Streetcar route. This example of return is the tip of the iceberg.  Projected ROI is 2.7 and even if the ROI were 0.27 it would be enough to make the project worthwhile.

 

The question I want to ask is not why they are considering canceling the project, but why are they so determined to throw away approximately $115 million?  And why would they not want to spend an additional $15 - $20 million to get back $359 million ($133 million * 2.7)?

 

 

They don't want "streetcar people" moving in. They want a blue-collar West Side, an old money East Side and people on public assistance in the middle. They don't like educated people, non-DINOs, hipsters, musicians, artists ect. in "their" city.

 

 

Absolutely.  People aren't going to like what I'm about to say, but much of the opposition to the streetcar lies in Mallory's homosexuality.  Because Mallory became the face of the project, streetcars and OTR's revival was intrinsically tied with his mysterious personal life.  Bullies on talk radio had a field day with Mallory before his wild pitch and before the streetcar.  They started getting upset when the city started turing around under the tutelage of someone they would have beaten up back in high school.  They hated that he was thin, well-spoken, and that he knew that his mere existence made them uncomfortable.  He had powers over them beyond those conferred by the elected office he held.  They knew that he could make them nervous and disarm them in front of their wife. 

 

The imminent death of the streetcar has everything to do with the emotion the public was coerced into feeling about its figurehead and the areas where it was being built.  If David Pepper had been elected in 2005 and had decided to go ahead with the streetcar, it would be here.  That's no slight against Mallory -- I admired his leadership style and we are all indebted to him for going to bat on this -- but the fact is because Mallory was perceived as a cultural threat, the streetcar was a cultural threat. 

 

COAST, Smitherman, and Cranley sensed this emotion and used it to get elected.  Now they're solidifying their place in their base's emotions by destroying any physical or cultural vestige of Mallory's intimidating persona. 

 

 

 

 

Somehow I didn't know about Mallory's sexuality. Knowing that Mayor Coleman up here and Mallory are pals I thought they went out looking for women after Coleman's divorce when they visited each other's cities.

jmecklenborg:  What you have just said here is remarkable, and may very well shed some light on the actual reason(s) why what happened today in City Hall, happened.

 

I was hoping our society had matured to the point where we could openly and honestly discuss such matters as you have raised here.

 

It is a very sad commentary on how much growing up some people, including your new mayor, still have to do to become true adults, not grown children. To have a major public improvement project such as this one decided on the basis of anti-gay prejudice and fear-mongering is unsound business practice to say the least. The price we sometimes have to pay to underwrite the cost of maintaining other people's small-minded shallow thinking is stunning to contemplate.

 

You're right - rationality, reasoned common sense and open debate did not prevail today, and all the arguments over the cost to operate the streetcar were obviously highly specious.

Wow I have seen some dark takes on Cincinnati the past couple of days - I am not saying I am not extremely frustrated, but I think ultimately it comes down to many people who lack vision and who are easily influenced by outlets such as that conservative blowtorch called the big one (although I find it hard to argue how their personalities might view Mallory).  It would have been nice if we would have had the Enquirer of the past week the past two years though.  I am vey much in disbelief that we have elected officials that cannot see the insanity of what they seem intent on doing.

All of this being said, if the Feds don't pull the money, I could see Flynn voting not to cancel.

COAST tweets congratulating people on killing the streetcar:

 

COAST: Today was fruition of five very long years of work to stop City from wasting valuable resources on a toy trolley.

 

COAST: We popped a lot of neon green balloons today.

 

COAST: We thank the @GOCOAST legal team led by Curt Hartman + @Chris_Finney.

 

COAST: Oh yeah, we forgot the #GOP + @ChairmanAlex for also standing tall. Thanks @JeffCapell. Heck, thank anyone else we forgot as well.

 

COAST: We thank @voteSmitherman @JohnCranley @Amy_Murray @dsmann115 @FlynnForCincy @Charlie_Winburn for their courage to do the right thing.

 

COAST: We thank @GOCOAST ers Tom @goBrinkman, @MarkWMiller, @brianshrive, Stephan Louis, Kim Grant, Dan Regenold,  + dozens of others.

 

COAST: We thank Justin Jeffre + Michael Earl Patton. We thank Libertarians, Homeless Coalition, Firefighters Union.

 

COAST: We thank @kevinwcpo @jwilliamscincy @ChrisCinciBiz @cindiincincy @cweiser + others in media who exposed boondoggle. #cincystreetcar

 

COAST: We thank @AuditorRhodes + Tom Luken. We thank Charlie Luken. We thank Marvin Smith of Ollie's Trolley + Ken Anderson of the Buzz.

 

COAST: We thank CODE Labor union and Americans for Prosperity - Ohio Chapter. We thank Ohio Libertarian Party.

 

COAST: We thank NAACP + @voteSmitherman, Green Party + Gwen Marshall.

 

COAST: We thank the business leaders, community leaders, religious leaders who publicly opposed #cincystreetcar

 

COAST: We thank @GovernorKasich + Senator @sjones524. We thank the Ohio House + Senate. We thank @RepSteveChabot + @bradwenstrup

 

COAST: We want to thank the many leaders + partners in our coalition: FOP + Kathy Harrell.

 

COAST: We thank Westwood Concern, @marykuhl + Helen Russo. We thank Baptist Ministers + Dock Foster.

 

 

COAST: Mostly, we thank the voters of @CityOfCincy who put in office responsible public servants who put an end to the bottomless money pit.

 

 

 

If there's ever a case for Karma, here is one

All of this being said, if the Feds don't pull the money, I could see Flynn voting not to cancel.

 

As could I. But I'm just looking in from the outside, and out of town. Something doesn't add up about all of this. What is motivating them? To be honest, Jake's assessment of Mallory sounds as rational as anything I can put together. If you watched the council session today, you could feel the contempt that these new politicians have towards the entire audience and previous administration. They were practically giddy in telling the packed house that they were voting against them. Except for Flynn, who seemed somewhat irritated and apologetic.

 

It won't be long before some cities start to loot this city of it's major businesses. Why would they stay in this environment? SKY HIGH expensive airport. Tolls coming to the BSB. A city that renege on contracts. A city that has a failing Union center, Music hall, sewer system, Western hills viaduct, underused transit center, politicians that try's to  ban funds and much much more. Any positives anywhere that would bring in new businesses???

 

 

jmecklenborg:  What you have just said here is remarkable, and may very well shed some light on the actual reason(s) why what happened today in City Hall, happened.

 

I was hoping our society had matured to the point where we could openly and honestly discuss such matters as you have raised here.

 

It is a very sad commentary on how much growing up some people, including your new mayor, still have to do to become true adults, not grown children. To have a major public improvement project such as this one decided on the basis of anti-gay prejudice and fear-mongering is unsound business practice to say the least. The price we sometimes have to pay to underwrite the cost of maintaining other people's small-minded shallow thinking is stunning to contemplate.

 

You're right - rationality, reasoned common sense and open debate did not prevail today, and all the arguments over the cost to operate the streetcar were obviously highly specious.

 

Chris Finney of COAST was the architect of Article XII, the anti-gay charter amendment that passed back around 1994.  It wasn't until 2004 that it was overturned.  Chris Seelbach entrance into politics was his involvement in that campaign.  That's why COAST has been so nasty to him, since Article XII was an endless source of press and litigation. 

 

Mallory was a very deep threat to the insecure suburban sports-obsessed family man.  Such a man fears being humiliated in front of his wife for any reason, but especially by someone like Mallory.  The relationship between a woman and her husband can change forever at the instant when a Mallory or Obama reveals an insecurity previously unknown.  The woman then gains power in the relationship and can revisit that weakness anytime she wishes. 

 

The Cincinnati family man wants a Joe Deters -- sure, a Deters might steal your woman when you're not looking, but a Mallory -- who doesn't even want your woman -- kills your relationship slowly.  With just one remark or facial expression.  That's a much more nightmarish scenario for the family man. 

 

My old roommate in Cincinnati is bisexual and he'd bring over gay and bisexual friends from time to time yet the fact that the mayor of this high profile, conservative city was gay was never even mentioned. I find this strange.

This quote is interesting, from:

 

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2013/12/04/1-month-streetcar-pause-could-cost-3-5m-city-official-says/

 

“Obviously, the conversation is not over,” Mayor John Cranley said. “It’s not going to be over in a week or two when we come back.”

 

That's a complete contradiction of his post-election statements.  Is it possible that COAST and Smitherman have been so deep in Cranley's ear for so long, that he actually didn't realize how much support this project really has?  Maybe he thought killing this would be easy and that he'd be viewed as a hero.  That certainly isn't how this has played out so far.

 

Cranley wants it dead.  No glimmer of hope here in the least.

I just sent this to Cindi Andrews at Enquirer - hopefully she asks this in some form as I cannot get to City Hall during the day:

 

In the Streetcar debate I am trying to understand why Cranley and the detractors are solely making their decision on whether or not the cost is more to cancel than to complete.  This is flawed because they are completely ignoring any ROI, which Cranley clearly knows there will be - he even campaigned against Qualls by saying she was selling homes/condos that were increasing in value due to being on the Streetcar route. This example of return is the tip of the iceberg.  Projected ROI is 2.7 and even if the ROI were 0.27 it would be enough to make the project worthwhile.

 

The question I want to ask is not why they are considering canceling the project, but why are they so determined to throw away approximately $115 million?  And why would they not want to spend an additional $15 - $20 million to get back $359 million ($133 million * 2.7)?

 

 

They don't want "streetcar people" moving in. They want a blue-collar West Side, an old money East Side and people on public assistance in the middle. They don't like educated people, non-DINOs, hipsters, musicians, artists ect. in "their" city.

 

 

Absolutely.  People aren't going to like what I'm about to say, but much of the opposition to the streetcar lies in Mallory's homosexuality.  Because Mallory became the face of the project, streetcars and OTR's revival was intrinsically tied with his mysterious personal life.  Bullies on talk radio had a field day with Mallory before his wild pitch and before the streetcar.  They started getting upset when the city started turing around under the tutelage of someone they would have beaten up back in high school.  They hated that he was thin, well-spoken, and that he knew that his mere existence made them uncomfortable.  He had powers over them beyond those conferred by the elected office he held.  They knew that he could make them nervous and disarm them in front of their wife. 

 

The imminent death of the streetcar has everything to do with the emotion the public was coerced into feeling about its figurehead and the areas where it was being built.  If David Pepper had been elected in 2005 and had decided to go ahead with the streetcar, it would be here.  That's no slight against Mallory -- I admired his leadership style and we are all indebted to him for going to bat on this -- but the fact is because Mallory was perceived as a cultural threat, the streetcar was a cultural threat. 

 

COAST, Smitherman, and Cranley sensed this emotion and used it to get elected.  Now they're solidifying their place in their base's emotions by destroying any physical or cultural vestige of Mallory's intimidating persona. 

 

 

 

 

 

I wasn't going to comment on your blog today, since I know you are all unhappy with today's decision, and I know what it can be like to fight hard for something and not have it understood.  I had to comment on the statement on Mallory's sexuality.  There are many in Cinti who are beyond issues like this.  Mallory grew up in Cinit, and he is well known in this city.  Many Mallory voters knew who he was (including this), even though that was not made into a blatant issue.  Look at the election of Seelbach, someone who many people (such as me) voted for even though we do not agree with his position on this issue.  Just like this crowd feels misunderstood, people outside of downtown/OTR have felt left out and excluded from the streetcar project.  Mallory should have been in the same communities that elected him explaining day in/ day out how they were directly impacted by this project, and what it could mean to them, and why they should support the streetcar.  Streetcar supporters should have been reaching out and bringing in the other neighborhoods, because big projects require broad coalitions to get them done.  That was Mallory's main problem.  If I supported this project, I would be reaching out to leaders in the neighborhoods right now, and asking them what is needed for broader support, if it is not too late already.....

jmecklenborg:  What you have just said here is remarkable, and may very well shed some light on the actual reason(s) why what happened today in City Hall, happened.

 

I was hoping our society had matured to the point where we could openly and honestly discuss such matters as you have raised here.

 

It is a very sad commentary on how much growing up some people, including your new mayor, still have to do to become true adults, not grown children. To have a major public improvement project such as this one decided on the basis of anti-gay prejudice and fear-mongering is unsound business practice to say the least. The price we sometimes have to pay to underwrite the cost of maintaining other people's small-minded shallow thinking is stunning to contemplate.

 

You're right - rationality, reasoned common sense and open debate did not prevail today, and all the arguments over the cost to operate the streetcar were obviously highly specious.

 

Chris Finney of COAST was the architect of Article XII, the anti-gay charter amendment that passed back around 1994.  It wasn't until 2004 that it was overturned.  Chris Seelbach entrance into politics was his involvement in that campaign.  That's why COAST has been so nasty to him, since Article XII was an endless source of press and litigation. 

 

Mallory was a very deep threat to the insecure suburban sports-obsessed family man.  Such a man fears being humiliated in front of his wife for any reason, but especially by someone like Mallory.  The relationship between a woman and her husband can change forever at the instant when a Mallory or Obama reveals an insecurity previously unknown.  The woman then gains power in the relationship and can revisit that weakness anytime she wishes. 

 

The Cincinnati family man wants a Joe Deters -- sure, a Deters might steal your woman when you're not looking, but a Mallory -- who doesn't even want your woman -- kills your relationship slowly.  With just one remark or facial expression.  That's a much more nightmarish scenario for the family man. 

 

 

I'm going to take this on a bit of a tangent and say this: It's no coincidence that COAST would be both anti-gay and anti-transit. It's also a forgone conclusion that their ideas of what a city should be will ultimately fail. Why? Cities exist to maximize exchange. Exchange of goods, people, and ideas. They are fundamentally antithetical to the monoculture that people like Finney idealize.

 

I think that these people somehow believe that successful cities from New York to Portland are just populated with bespectacled yuppie bisexuals who burn away tax money. In reality, these cities, including others like Charlotte, Denver, Atlanta, Austin, Dallas, have simply made a little room for a diversity of lifestyles, including Finney's, and Mallory's.

It's unfair to have asked Mallory to taken more of a lead with this project than he did.  There's a lot more going on in a city than just one project like this.  The problem is that there needed to be some other leader of the project with Mallory as the #2 guy.  I don't know who that would have been, but that's a big lesson for next time. 

 

It's unfair to have asked Mallory to taken more of a lead with this project than he did.  There's a lot more going on in a city than just one project like this.  The problem is that there needed to be some other leader of the project with Mallory as the #2 guy.  I don't know who that would have been, but that's a big lesson for next time. 

 

 

I feel that there are many strong people on the case, including yourself. But if the mayor and council spend all their time trying to make people in other counties happy you get what we had here this week -- inability to spot opportunity due to belief systems. This might be why the F500s and 1000s stayed out. They don't respect the inability of crappy businesspeople such as Cranley to spot opportunity like people at the big companies all know how to do. Whereas businesspeople in C-bus can see the Short North as a place to make lots of money, Cranley & Co. see OTR and Northside as hellholes that should be bulldozed. The mere fact that people like COAST, Cranley, Finney etc. were even given a second thought made the whole thing a joke to the F500s. We don't hesitate to make moves in core Columbus out of fear of what someone all the way out in Lewis Center thinks.

If David Mann is sincere, then I believe there's still hope:

 

"Vice Mayor David Mann said, if the cost to finish the 3.6-mile route is close to the cost to stop, he would support moving forward."

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?NoCache=1&Dato=20131204&Kategori=NEWS&Lopenr=312040146&Ref=AR

 

 

 

 

 

 

Guys, I hear what you're saying about sexual orientation and maybe that's played a role.  But if so, I suspect it's a very minor role (I don't think COAST/Finney have a large following in the city).  After all, Mallory was elected twice.  In the past, many people thought Qualls was homosexual and yet she was a top vote-getter and served as mayor. 

 

Rather, I suspect the streetcar is simply the convenient whipping post for diverse factions who harbor various grievances against government.  Some of those grievances have reached a fever pitch since the launch of the ACA, which was unfortunate timing for Qualls' electoral chances this time around.  It's tragic that people feel so aggrieved that they blindly conflate a pro-growth, economic development tool with something like increased costs [or the loss] of healthcare.

 

 

I've asked more than once what everyone thinks is pulling the puppet strings here.  Thanks to Jake for finally taking on the big question. 

 

I'll throw in my theory. 

 

And while my posts rarely gain responses, I hope this is considered as strongly as the lifestyle theory.  One which I have no reason to think needs debunking.  But...

 

Agenda21

 

I think it is more likely that the opposition sees this as a battle in the war to maintain THEIR lifestyle and on a larger scale defending American sovereignty.  They feel building a streetcar would be another glacial advance of the conspiracy of the UN (or whomever) to create a socialist USA.  Google it and consider my point.

 

These groups lean or are outright tea party.  I'm not sure I've ever perceived a strong anti-gay element to TPers.  They tend to be libertarian in this right - live and let live.  But you do have to fall in line that government of nearly any type is evil. 

I've asked more than once what everyone thinks is pulling the puppet strings here.  Thanks to Jake for finally taking on the big question. 

 

I'll throw in my theory. 

 

And while my posts rarely gain responses, I hope this is considered as strongly as the lifestyle theory.  One which I have no reason to think needs debunking.  But...

 

Agenda21

 

I think it is more likely that the opposition sees this as a battle in the war to maintain THEIR lifestyle and on a larger scale defending American sovereignty.  They feel building a streetcar would be another glacial advance of the conspiracy of the UN (or whomever) to create a socialist USA.  Google it and consider my point.

 

These groups lean or are outright tea party.  I'm not sure I've ever perceived a strong anti-gay element to TPers.  They tend to be libertarian in this right - live and let live.  But you do have to fall in line that government of nearly any type is evil. 

 

The Tea Party, at least in it's original incarnation, was more culturally neutral than actually libertarian, but you're generally right:  it's not an issue. 

 

However, the TP view of government is a little different than that.  We oppose what we see as wasteful government spending and excessive taxes that support it.  There's some minarchists, but we tend to prefer lower levels of government to the feds where positive legislation is concerned. 

 

A good friend of mine who lives in the Cincy 'burbs is, like I would say the majority of whites in their late 40s or early 50s, a cynic about government but culturally libertarian.  She commented the other day that despite her political activism, she does not have a strong opinion on the streetcar.  This suggests to me that the whole thing is largely personality driven.

 

Is Mallory "out"?  I don't see any evidence of that, I found it strange that Cincy would have a gay black mayor (more because of the attitudes of most black ministers) and looked it up. 

Um, do you guys listen to talk radio at all? 700WLW and to a lesser extent The Buzz are the kingmakers in this town.  More people listen to 700WLW than read The Enquirer.  Qualls has been continually harassed since the early 90s, Mallory has always been treated like at best a child.  Certainly *not* one of the guys.  Do you guys realize that Cranley, Smitherman, etc., are often given 30 minute or even full hour guest segments, week after week, year after year?  Meanwhile Cunningham would frequently call Mallory or Qualls' office on the air, and when their aids would refuse to put them on the line, use that as proof that they were "hiding something".  Brian Thomas on 550 during the Mallory tenure constantly referred to the "weirdness down at City Hall". 

 

The big problem for progressives is that it doesn't seem that any of them listened to local talk radio enough to understand how to use it to their advantage.   

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2013/12/02/foundation-may-yank-music-hall-park.html?page=all

Martin Wade was behind all of this. Impressive and sad the city did not even consider this offer - and looked upon it as a threat instead.

I'm hoping for a TON of negative press today concerning yesterday's vote. Council needs to be shown how bone-headed this move was, and how the only people celebrating are COAST.

Recall John cranley Facebook page was already created Lol https://m.facebook.com/recallcranley

 

I'm not sure I've ever perceived a strong anti-gay element to TPers.  They tend to be libertarian in this right - live and let live.  But you do have to fall in line that government of nearly any type is evil.

 

In spite of the tea party's libertarian origins, its pretty much fully a radical conservative group these days.  Look no further than in Cincinnati's back yard - the Springboro board of education fights where the Tea Party faction (not all of them) were pushing for creationism in schools (even though I care less for that town - for the greater good they luckily lost last election).  Not to say that there aren't varied groups (and with any group that 100% unified top down you aren't going to get a completely homogeneous group), but with fox and talk radio amping up the movement its attracted a very large constituency that is socially conservative, and not just socially conservative but radically so.

I'm not ready to give up.  Should we call the FTA to beg them not to revoke the grant money until the audit comes back and council officially votes to cancel the streetcar?  And who at the FTA should we call?

I'm not sure I've ever perceived a strong anti-gay element to TPers.  They tend to be libertarian in this right - live and let live.  But you do have to fall in line that government of nearly any type is evil.

 

In spite of the tea party's libertarian origins, its pretty much fully a radical conservative group these days.  Look no further than in Cincinnati's back yard - the Springboro board of education fights where the Tea Party faction (not all of them) were pushing for creationism in schools (even though I care less for that town - for the greater good they luckily lost last election).  Not to say that there aren't varied groups (and with any group that 100% unified top down you aren't going to get a completely homogeneous group), but with fox and talk radio amping up the movement its attracted a very large constituency that is socially conservative, and not just socially conservative but radically so.

 

We’ve talked about this in some of the other threads.  The original Tea Party groups were neutral on the cultural issues, on purpose.  They were divisive within our coalition.  After awhile, and especially after the 2010 elections, pretty much every right of center group started calling themselves “Tea  Party”.  The name could not be trademarked, and those segments of the media which are left of center was quite content to portray everything from Dominionists to out and out racists as “Tea Party”