^Interesting that Winburn wasn't at the press conference today.  Maybe he and Mann will be our saving grace...

 

Dream on, dream on!

What happens if he abstains from voting?

I hope we get at least 5 votes so Sheriff Will Teasle has to take full responsibility with his veto for the resulting mess. 

What happens if he abstains from voting?

 

Still need 6 to overturn veto.

I still don't get why Mann & Flynn willingly forfeited their (bare-majority) power to Cranley, when they could have accepted the offer by Avner and the Wades to privately fund the audit and scaled-back construction.

I still don't get why Mann & Flynn willingly forfeited their (bare-majority) power to Cranley, when they could have accepted the offer by Avner and the Wades to privately fund the audit and scaled-back construction.

People routinely assume that persons in positions of authority deservedly occupy their positions.  The fact is these guys simply aren't that smart.  Flynn is an amateur who if he is serious about all the things he has said is clearly out of his depth.  Mann, on the other had, should be an experienced politician.  Instead of setting it up so that he could be the deciding vote by allowing construction to continue and having Avner & Wade pay, he gave up this power to Cranley by voting to pause.  He can't be very sharp.

 

I don't disagree entirely, but I don't think the voters will pass the charter amendment if Federal funding is pulled.  I think there would also be quite a few people opposed to altering the city charter to require the city to build one specific project.  That's not good governance, and I think the majority here would agree with that.

Have you been in this City for the past 5 years?  There've been on average 2 every election. We've amended the Charter to disallow red light cameras.  I'm not going to care about that if these clowns don't.

I think most of us have a pretty good idea how this is going to pan out by the end of the day on Thursday.

 

Charter Amendment, here we come!

I don't disagree entirely, but I don't think the voters will pass the charter amendment if Federal funding is pulled.  I think there would also be quite a few people opposed to altering the city charter to require the city to build one specific project.  That's not good governance, and I think the majority here would agree with that. 

 

I agree in principle, but the charter is full of stuff like that.  If that's what it takes to get things done in this town, so be it.  It's a shame that it has to be so messy.

Would love to hear John Schneider's 2 cents on all this.  He's always a voice of reason in these dark times.  I'm not looking forward to thursday.  I have no faith in Cranley.  I'm still hanging on to a thread of hope that 6 council members will wake up between now and then and see the stupidity in letting this project be killed.  But, based on today's reaction to the whole SORTA thing, I'm quite worried. 

I think the charter amendment is our only hope.

I still don't get why Mann & Flynn willingly forfeited their (bare-majority) power to Cranley, when they could have accepted the offer by Avner and the Wades to privately fund the audit and scaled-back construction.

 

In a way I can understand why attorneys may have been wary of the offer.  Issues about liabilities, etc., that may not have been inherent in the deal would've concerned them  -- after all, it's a big construction project.

Really wish CAF and the rest would send a stern letter with exact costs for litigation.

 

That tangible number would do wonders

P.G. Sittenfeld ‏@VotePG 8m

VMayor @dsmann115: “I think we’re getting awfully close. … This is a wonderful development. The devil’s in the details, but this may do it.”

 

Still means nothing without Flynn

Really wish CAF and the rest would send a stern letter with exact costs for litigation.

 

That tangible number would do wonders

 

As mentioned above, I don't think these idiots care about the cost of cancellation.  The cost analysis they paid for isn't going to mean anything in the end.  Its clear they are just looking for any excuse possible to cancel.  They're worried about 3-5 million/year in operating costs on a project expected to bring BILLIONS in economic development.  Yet at the same time they don't even question how much it costs to operate our city's roads every year when a new highway interchange is desired (a project that likely won't bring any sort of new economic benefits to the city.  They want to keep the status quo. They just want their taxes low and their highways huge. 

Would love to hear John Schneider's 2 cents on all this.  He's always a voice of reason in these dark times.  I'm not looking forward to thursday.  I have no faith in Cranley.  I'm still hanging on to a thread of hope that 6 council members will wake up between now and then and see the stupidity in letting this project be killed.  But, based on today's reaction to the whole SORTA thing, I'm quite worried. 

I think the charter amendment is our only hope.

 

The problem is that because the charter amendment now presumably exists, it gives this council an out in voting to cancel. 

 

This is a threat. If they cancel, I will move from this city. I moved here for the streetcar. Why else move here.  Cincinnati is the biggest city I seen with nothing to offer that other cities can offer. I never seen so many people who are against progress

^Can't blame you.  So much makes Cincinnati special but it's current leadership just makes it hard to have any hope.

 

We are Evansville on steroids.

We need to stay calm and stay focused.  Nothing changed today.  A couple of big announcements that still leave us with a mayor that wants to kill the project and several council members who agree with him.  Tomorrow we get the results of KPMG's research.  Thursday we see what council will really do when push comes to shove.  Friday we find out if the FTA has our back or not.  There are certainly enough signatures to get this on the ballot.  If it comes to that, we have a long few months ahead of us, but at least now we finally have the local media with us.  We need to get ready for a long fight.

Our bus system heavily relies on the FTA for funding.  If anyone or anything's jeopardizing our bus system it's the mayor, who is developing an increasingly contentious relationship with that federal body.

David Mann: “I’m ready to jump in. I’m awfully close to saying let’s go for it.”

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2013/12/17/vice-mayor-mann-on-streetcar-im.html

Come on Flynn. Come on man!

That's encouraging news.  The next 2 days are going to be crazy!

Come on Flynn. Come on man!

 

I don't know much about Flynn but after that press conference I would guess that there is no way he is switching. He was laughing and almost mocking the pro streetcar efforts. He seemed worse than the mayor in that press conference.

Come on Flynn. Come on man!

 

I don't know much about Flynn but after that press conference I would guess that there is no way he is switching. He was laughing and almost mocking the pro streetcar efforts. He seemed worse than the mayor in that press conference.

 

I must agree...but he also signed the document to the FTA...so maybe he's just playing both sides...

This is a threat. If they cancel, I will move from this city. I moved here for the streetcar. Why else move here.  Cincinnati is the biggest city I seen with nothing to offer that other cities can offer. I never seen so many people who are against progress

 

You fell in love with Cincy without a streetcar, there was obviously something that brought you here.

If the bus funding thing is at risk, it is hard to imagine the county not getting involved in this since they would have a stake in the bus system. Don't they own SORTA?

That's encouraging news.  The next 2 days are going to be crazy!

 

It's been crazy since on or about December 15, 2008.  That's the day, almost exactly 4 years ago, when I was at a mild-mannered streetcar event's after-party at Milton's and phones lit up with a text announcing that COAST and the NAACP were planning a charter amendment.

 

 

 

No, the bus system is funded entirely by the City. Hamilyon County was supposed to chip in but they've failed continuously since the 1970s. That's why it worried me that Cranley's excuse that SORTAs offer isn't good because "what if" the system goes I to default. Why the heck would the system fail unless that city allows it to fail.

What other major city doesn't have a county tax to support transit? (I'm excluding TANK from consideration)

What other major city doesn't have a county tax to support transit? (I'm excluding TANK from consideration)

 

Every county in Ohio with more than 350,000 population has a dedicated county-wide tax to support public transit operations and some local cost-sharing on capital improvements -- except Hamilton County.

Wow...that's awful even by Ohio standards. Wow. How about the Midwest (and Upper South, I guess...) more broadly (Indy, Louisville, Nashville, Lexington, etc.)?

Wow...that's awful even by Ohio standards. Wow. How about the Midwest (and Upper South, I guess...) more broadly (Indy, Louisville, Nashville, Lexington, etc.)?

 

Don't know. Some city- or county-based systems are supported moreso by their state governments. So while we in Ohio admire those states for their support of transit, they do so because there may be little local financial support for transit.

 

But in Ohio, state officials often use the excuse that counties effectively provide local funding for transit. While that's no excuse, some counties are generous. For example, Cuyahoga County alone produces more than $180 million per year in dedicated sales tax revenues for the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, and new, permanent sales taxes were passed in Lake County (just east of Cleveland) and Summit County (Akron) and Stark County (Canton). So now each of these counties are connected to each other by a growing network of regional transit buses with several dozen buses daily between Cleveland, Akron and Canton, including midday service. It is now possible to travel by transit bus (OK, three of them) from Brewster south of Canton to Madison in eastern Lake County -- a distance of more than 100 miles -- in a business day and for less than $10 one way. We hope this is just the start as NEO recognizes the benefits of regional cooperation.

 

Sometimes we have to take care of ourselves because the state isn't. Hopefully Hamilton County will do that.

Advice from PG Sittenfeld for anyone planning on testifying at City Hall is included in his most-recent tweets, which BTW include stupid remarks by P. Witte, who I never knew much about before, but who seems to suffer from some kind of personality disorder:

 

https://twitter.com/VotePG

 

 

I've said it before.  I don't know why Cranley would cancel at this point.  He can blame others for allowing the streetcar to continue if he encourages Mann and Flynn to go forward, thwarting his ability to veto.  Once the streetcar resumes, Cranley can forever blame to streetcar for anything that goes wrong while he is mayor.  Without the streetcar, Cranley has no scapegoats.  Every politician has a red headed stepchild to beat on.  Cranley needs the streetcar to stay around to be his.

Despite this, I still think that idiot wants to cancel it.  I really, really do.

^ But, if he does cancel it, he can just blame the previous administration for starting it to begin with, as the lawsuits roll in and the city's budget is decimated. I'm very hopeful based on David Mann's statements, that the supporters will be able to break through Flynn's reluctance.  It's going to be an interesting couple of days...

The audit is due to be delivered today at 10:00.  Very interested to see what it holds.  It will also be interesting to see how Cranley and Smitherman's "call to arms" goes, and how many anti-streetcar speakers show up at council today.

We all know how the audit is going to go from the questions asked.  The whole point of the audit was to confirm what smitherman and Cranley and murray wanted.  Flynn and mann were used.

 

 

No matter what the audit says, Cranley will manufacture an either/or straw man. 

Audit available here: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/streetcar/linkservid/3DD016CB-E3D7-BAFC-0AFA5E3DE1795E87/showMeta/0/

According to Twitter, cost to terminate:  50 to 80 million.  Cost to complete:  104-105 million. 

Estimated Net Annual Cost $1.88 - $2.44 million

^ But, if he does cancel it, he can just blame the previous administration for starting it to begin with, as the lawsuits roll in and the city's budget is decimated. I'm very hopeful based on David Mann's statements, that the supporters will be able to break through Flynn's reluctance.  It's going to be an interesting couple of days...

for the next 4 years, we will be hearing that every bad thing in the city is the fault of Mallory & Qualls.

Cranley was right. It doesn't cost $40 million to "say stop". It costs $50-80 million.

 

I see this audit as very good news.  Come on Mr. Flynn!!!

Back in the ball game.

Net costs to city

 

Cancel: $50-80M

Finish: $68M

 

Assumes City loses duke $15M suit. Could be only $53M to finish.

 

The $50-$80M number includes the amount already spent ($34 M)

That does not look good for the streetcar

 

How so?  It's essentially the same cost to complete it as to cancel it, in net terms (because the city gets the benefit of the money from the feds if they continue).  $53-68 million cost to the city to finish it, vs. $50-80 million cost to the city to cancel it. 

The closed minds of Cranley and his posse will look at two numbers out of the entire report: $68 million more to complete at this point, $16-$48 to cancel.

 

They will disregard the introduction pages that say ROI and future litigation costs were not considered. Litigation costs could easily make canceling more expensive, and if one can grasp the concept of ROI (starting to think Flynn, Murray, etc. can't), the numbers don't even come close to comparing.

How so?  It's essentially the same cost to complete it as to cancel it, in net terms (because the city gets the benefit of the money from the feds if they continue).  $53-68 million cost to the city to finish it, vs. $50-80 million cost to the city to cancel it.

 

You are comparing the wrong numbers.

 

Cost to cancel: $16.3M - $46.1M

Cost to completion: $68.9M

 

^

also

the cost to cancel it excludes.......

 

Exclusions

KPMG’s analysis did not include the following:



Potential cost of future litigation



Phase II analysis or consideration

 

 

^ No doubt. And Ram23 is correct in his assessment as well. I just want to be clear on the numbers in the report.