If this were a game of poker, I'd much rather have the City's hand than Duke's hand.

 

Yep. Let's put it this way: If the city loses this fight with Duke/PUCO and the city has to pay, then ODOT will have to pay Duke's relocation costs as part of the Brent Spence Bridge Project.

 

This is when a win for streetcar haters would turn out to be a loss for the road builders.

Today Smitherman said it would cost 40 million to move the utility lines on vine street up the hill toward UC. He said it's downtown's main trunk line. He says Duke told him that.

Today Smitherman said it would cost 40 million to move the utility lines on vine street up the hill toward UC. He said it's downtown's main trunk line. He says Duke told him that.

 

And right on queue:

 

C. Smitherman ‏@voteSmitherman

I will be on 700WLW at 12:30PM to explain how City Hall is working to pass on Streetcar cost by way of Duke... http://fb.me/11OkJZVef

12:22 PM - 10 Sep 12 · Details

Just to clarify, there are those of us who will make sure, in the courts if necessary, that if the city has to pay Duke's relocation costs, then ODOT will have to pay theirs for Brent Spence.

Just to clarify, there are those of us who will make sure, in the courts if necessary, that if the city has to pay Duke's relocation costs, then ODOT will have to pay theirs for Brent Spence.

 

You make it sound so simple.

 

 

Today Smitherman said it would cost 40 million to move the utility lines on vine street up the hill toward UC. He said it's downtown's main trunk line. He says Duke told him that.

 

I still can't believe that moron psychopath actually got elected to a government position.  Only in Cincinnati...

Just to clarify, there are those of us who will make sure, in the courts if necessary, that if the city has to pay Duke's relocation costs, then ODOT will have to pay theirs for Brent Spence.

 

You make it sound so simple.

 

 

 

I do that because no one wants to read a lengthy diatribe anymore than I want to write one.

^ If it contains legal details/interpretations, we do want to read it.

^ If it contains legal details/interpretations, we do want to read it.

 

I'm sure the opposition would too.

“Under the traditional common-law rule,” reaffirmed by the U.S.

Supreme Court in 1983 and recognized by the Court as far back as 1905,

“utilities have been required to bear the entire cost of relocating from a public right-of-way whenever requested to do so by state or local

authorities.”

 

So the Supreme court has the cities backing if they choose to go that far.

 

 

http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1436&context=vulr

A Federal court affirmed this principle with respect to the first Minneapolis light rail line a few years ago.

 

As I wrote a few pages back, I'd much rather be holding the city's hand in this than Duke's hand. I suspect this gets resolved in the city's favor sooner rather than later and that the project doesn't get delayed by it.

^Thanks for posting that, but I'd like to say another time, just by way of explanation, that in Ohio, Streetcars are considered utilities, and have the same legal status as other utilities.

 

This is the position that Duke apparently is taking.

 

Now here's the rub: the proposed Cincinnati Streetcar is being sponsored by a municipality, not a "private" utility such as, say, the Cincinnati Street Railway Company, which operated the first streetcar in Cincinnati, in 1859.

 

So, does the law recognize the City of Cincinnati's right to force Duke to move the Duke Utilities for the streetcar, or does the law protect Duke's right to occupy the right-of-way free from the demands of other utilities?

 

I tend to side with Duke, not because I am opposed to the streetcar, but because I think that the courts will side with Duke. I realize that some folks on this board disagree with me. Most people who I know that work in the utility industry side with Duke.

 

In any case, there is no recent legal precedent, because no streetcars have been operated in Cincinnati since 1951, and the last time a new streetcar line was built must have been some time before that. Does anyone know if there was any conflict for the waterfront line in Cleveland? Then again, that line may not be a "streetcar." They didn't have this issue in Portland because the state law in Oregon is different.

 

I don't think Duke is going to back down, and if the courts do, in fact, side with Cincinnati, Duke is going to try to recover their costs through higher rates, and Duke has already taken steps toward that goal. I think that Duke has a better team of lawyers at their disposal than Cincinnati does, and more experience. They are better at playing the legal game. Cincinnati has the advantage of being a "public authority," where the courts tend to side with the public.

 

I suspect this gets resolved in the city's favor sooner rather than later and that the project doesn't get delayed by it.

 

This project has ALREADY been delayed by the Duke issue. The City of Cincinnati could have avoided this whole issue by just coming up with the money that Duke asked for. They have apparently chosen to risk delay of the schedule to save money.

So, does the law recognize the City of Cincinnati's right to force Duke to move the Duke Utilities for the streetcar, or does the law protect Duke's right to occupy the right-of-way free from the demands of other utilities?

 

"We own our streets."

Hey everyone. As things have been tougher for pro streetcar councilmembers, I would STRONGLY request that everyone on here send a "please keep supporting the streetcar, thank you for your dedication to improving Cincinnati" email.

 

I think it's important, certain councilmembers may be becoming weary and rarely see the support.

 

[email protected]

Hey everyone. As things have been tougher for pro streetcar councilmembers, I would STRONGLY request that everyone on here send a "please keep supporting the streetcar, thank you for your dedication to improving Cincinnati" email.

 

I think it's important, certain councilmembers may be becoming weary and rarely see the support.

[email protected]

and be sure to thank Winburn, Sittenfeld & Smitherman for being part of a council that supports the streetcar. You know they'll be adding that to their political repertoire in years to come anyway.

"We own our streets."

 

Cincinnati streets are owned by the State of Ohio. The City of Cincinnati has jurisdiction, but not "ownership." The policy of the State of Ohio is that all utilities have equal access to the public right-of-way, with rules set by the local jurisdiction. Cincinnati does not own the street in the same way that a property owner owns his own property fee simple.

 

If the City of Cincinnati, for example, wanted to vacate a street and sell it to a developer, the city cannot simply tell the utilities to "get off my property." The utilities have a right to be there.

 

Honestly, I don't know how it's going to turn out, or what the courts will do. I'm not a lawyer, much less one that specializes in public right-of-way and utilities. Something I am certain of, though, is that this issue is anything but simple, and that an attitude such as "we own our streets" does not sit well with Duke.

 

 

Well it's not like the city told them to move the lines with no compensation.  If i was a engineer. I wold just come up with someone way of  putting new lines in under the side walks and disconnect and leave the old lines where they are.

Something I am certain of, though, is that this issue is anything but simple, and that an attitude such as "we own our streets" does not sit well with Duke.

 

F*** Duke.  They don't have any trouble spending an estimated $34 million on cleaning the site where the West End Gas Works use to sit, apparently without even being asked, but they don't want to move and upgrade the service under a couple of streets?  Here is the link for the site cleanup.  http://www.duke-energy.com/WestEnd/ Read through the FAQ, it is some pure corporate doublespeak.

"We own our streets."

 

Cincinnati streets are owned by the State of Ohio.

 

 

Sure about that?

"We own our streets."

 

Cincinnati streets are owned by the State of Ohio. The City of Cincinnati has jurisdiction, but not "ownership."

 

Hogwash

 

I'm not a lawyer, much less one that specializes in public right-of-way and utilities

 

That's the first true statement that you've ever posted.

^ ya- pretty sure that's not the appropriate legal definition.  The City owns the rights of way and allows utilities, under oversight from PUCO, to exist in the rights of way.

The only streets Ohio has jurisdiction over in Cincinnati are the interstate highways, and then not even all of them.  I believe the city owns Fort Washington Way and possibly parts of I-75 that were formerly the Millcreek Expressway.  Ohio did own the land under Central Parkway until the 50s or 60s AND the center median strip of Eggleston Avenue. 

 

Duke's posturing is purely political. Duke is a big donor to ALEC, a right-wing group that has drafted legislation to be adopted by teabagger-controlled state governments throughout the country, including Ohio. The streetcar is the enemy of everything groups like ALEC and COAST stand for, so of course they're going to oppose it.

 

Of course, you'll never see any Cincinnati media outlets report on this stuff.

^Thanks for posting that, but I'd like to say another time, just by way of explanation, that in Ohio, Streetcars are considered utilities, and have the same legal status as other utilities.

 

We get it, you work for MSD so you're an expert on utilities. Seriously, why keep saying the same old nonsense that people keep disproving?

Sure about that?

 

I have provided the reference from the Ohio Revised Code already on this thread.

 

The only streets Ohio has jurisdiction over in Cincinnati are the interstate highways, and then not even all of them.  I believe the city owns Fort Washington Way and possibly parts of I-75 that were formerly the Millcreek Expressway.  Ohio did own the land under Central Parkway until the 50s or 60s AND the center median strip of Eggleston Avenue. 

 

 

A portion of the interstates are under the jurisdiction of ODOT, but the state owns ALL public right of ways, and for that matter, owns navigatable waterways too. Actually, they "hold them in trust for the benefit of the citizens."  Municpalities have certain rights, as do adjoining property owners, utilities, and citizens, about the use of public rights-of-way. As the governing jurisdiction, the City of Cincinnati municipality has influence, but it does not have absolute control. It is my opinion, based on my own experience with other situations and based on the Ohio Revised Code and other sources, that the City of Cincinnati cannot force Duke out of Cincinnati streets. Others on this board will disagree with me.

 

I concede that maybe I am wrong, but even if I am, I think it is still an important issue that is a serious concern for the streetcar project, because I don't think that Duke is going to back down. At the minimum, the Duke issue is causing delay.

 

Why keep saying the same old nonsense that people keep disproving?

 

I have made my case. We will have to agree to disagree.  :-)

 

^Your non-attorney, uneducated layman's "interpretation" of ORC isn't worth a hill of beans. It's akin to my reading Sabiston's Textbook of Surgery and then chiming in with medical opinions. Quite simply, you do not know what you're talking about.

Further to my last comment, if 8th's "interpretation" of the law is correct, then please explain why Cincinnati Bell, the Greater Cincinnati Water Works and Level 3 Communications (all public utilities) reach agreement with The City so quickly and without resorting to Duke's tactics?

So Chris Smitherman was on the radio this morning saying he got an email from John Cranley saying council is going to tap the downtown TIF district to raise more money ($14 million?) for the streetcar in a special session today.  It coming from Cranley/Smitherman, I'm sure this is deceptive information, which is why I'm making no attempt to describe in any specific detail what he was saying.

So Chris Smitherman was on the radio this morning saying he got an email from John Cranley saying council is going to tap the downtown TIF district to raise more money ($14 million?) for the streetcar in a special session today.  It coming from Cranley/Smitherman, I'm sure this is deceptive information, which is why I'm making no attempt to describe in any specific detail what he was saying.

 

Naturally he's on facebook going nuts.  I'm sure he'll be on Cunningham later. 

 

This guy is a joke

Further to my last comment, if 8th's "interpretation" of the law is correct, then please explain why Cincinnati Bell, the Greater Cincinnati Water Works and Level 3 Communications (all public utilities) reach agreement with The City so quickly and without resorting to Duke's tactics?

 

Greater Cincinnati Water Works is a department of the City of Cincinnati and they are making an effort to work with the City Manager, as is MSD. I don't know enough about Cincinnati Bell or Level 3 to come to a conclusion, although I know that 3 years ago, Level 3 was totally suprised by the streetcar project, just because it is so unusual for this area.

 

Some people are just easier to work with than others. I think there is a grudge match going on between Duke and the City, partly because of the streetcar, and partly for other reasons.

Why would Smitherman, a councilman, rely on Cranley for news about city council's plans?

Cranley is using Smitherman as his mouthpiece.  Cranley was involved in the implementation of TIF financing when he was on council back around 2004.  He's probably giving Smitherman bad information and Smitherman is running with it.

No mention of the streetcar at the special meeting today. Nor any mention of when such a meeting will take place.

Amazing. 

 

Here is the link to the podcast, Smitherman appeared around 8:15am:

 

http://www.55krc.com/cc-common/podcast/single_page.html?podcast=55krcMornings&selected_podcast=120918_4_BT_1347972726_23077.mp3

Amazing. 

Here is the link to the podcast, Smitherman appeared around 8:15am:

http://www.55krc.com/cc-common/podcast/single_page.html?podcast=55krcMornings&selected_podcast=120918_4_BT_1347972726_23077.mp3

"I am always hearing about things like this when I talk to you Chris"

hmmmm............

Streetcar Delayed until 2015

City says a number of issues contributed to more than yearlong postponement

CityBeat

September 17th, 2012 By German Lopez

 

The $110 million streetcar project's opening is being delayed by more than a full year — from spring 2014 to summer 2015.

Meg Olberding, city spokesperson, attributes the delay to “a number of scheduling issues.”

 

“There’s so many moving pieces,” she says. “There are issues with utility and we have to order the cars. We have to get a contractor on-board for the work. So we still have a couple of things that are taking longer than we thought.”

 

http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/blog-3929-streetcar_delayed_until_2015.html

Is Smitherman doing anything else on council beside going to  Kenwood and talk on WLW against the streetcar instead of helping bringing jobs to the city?

He has done nothing else.

From Brian Thomas's blog:

 

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

John Cranley And The Streetcar

City Hall to Raid Millions More From Real Economic Development for Woefully Underfunded Streetcar

- Moratorium on Streetcar Project Needed for Transparency and Accountability -  

 

Instead of investing in proven economic development strategies in downtown Cincinnati and its neighborhoods, City Hall continues to throw the city into deeper debt for a streetcar plan that takes away necessary funds for finishing the Banks and funding neighborhood business initiatives and basic infrastructure priorities like street paving.

 

 

 

According to inside sources, the City is preparing to authorize $14 Million in more dollars for the streetcar to pay for the cost of moving utilities under the streetcar route (this is a follow-up from the Manager Memo of August 28, 2012 for “stopgap funding mechanisms”—see attached).  This multi-million dollar expenditure is an attempt to fill the deep hole City Hall finds itself in after incompetently estimating costs related to utility re-location among other gross miscalculations. 

 

 

 

In what appears to be another example of City Hall's penchant for spending millions on the streetcar without transparency, inside sources say that the current plan is to introduce this ordinance without advance notice during Tuesday's Budget and Finance Committee, followed by a quick vote during a special session without opportunity for citizen input.  Hopefully, this press release will at least prevent this ordinance from being enacted upon without citizen input and instead result in this ordinance being deliberated and voted upon with proper introduction, referral, and advance notice for meaningful citizen input. 

 

 

 

Instead of rushing through another multi-million dollar expenditure or sneaking through another property tax millage increase City Hall should put a moratorium on the streetcar project to openly and honestly assess the true costs of the streetcar and its impact on neighborhood and downtown progress.

 

 

 

What is proven Downtown economic development?  The urban core of Cincinnati is experiencing a real economic revival thanks to plans and strategies implemented where the City, in concert with 3CDC, business and community leaders, State officials and more, leverage economic tools like TIF districts for private investment.  These efforts, begun in 2002, have shown results which include The Banks, Washington Park, Fountain Square, Casino, Gateway Quarter, 21 Museum Hotel, Backstage District and more.  The underfunded streetcar threatens to take away millions from effective public private partnerships like the ones described above because the streetcar will need more and more money.

 

 

 

Woefully underfunded streetcar?  Recently the city removed from its website "FAQ:  Cincinnati Streetcar - How much does it cost?" (see  a copy of webpage attached prior to it being taken down).  It appears that the City wants us to know less and less about the project, but to spend more and more of our money.  There are significant financial holes in the City’s streetcar cost plan that should require any prudent steward of taxpayer money to halt all spending until they are are solved.

 

 

 

For example, according to a City memo (see attached) of June 21, 2012 (just 3 months ago), the City claimed it would pay back $25 million in TIF bonds to be used for the streetcar with $1.6 million per year for 30 years from TIF District #2 (the specific District identified in the ordinance authorizing $25 million in TIF bonds—see attached) for a total of $48 million in financing costs.  However, the Banks TIF District #2 doesn’t have 30 years of life in it (rather just 21 years more), only collects roughly $600,000 per year, and only has roughly $6 million in cash balance.

 

The true amount of money available to finance the debt from this TIF District is $600,000 per year times 21 years, which is $12.6 million in available debt service.  If the City adds the $6 million cash balance, then they only have $18.6 million dollars over 21 years, rather than the $48 million they claim to have in the June 21, 2012 Memo.

 

On the TIF District money alone, the City is $29.4 million short.  Why should the City vote to spend an additional $14 million for utility costs, which were not factored into the original cost estimates, when there is such a huge financial gap on the City’s streetcar budget?

 

Why did the Administration present a memo (the June 21, 2012 Memo) that was so patently false?  The TIF District has 21 years, not 30.  The TIF district collects $600,000 per year, not $1.6 million.  These are facts known to the Administration.

   

 

Transparency on Trial:  According to City Hall sources, the working plan is to have the $14 Million ordinance introduced at Tuesday’s recently scheduled Budget and Finance Committee, voted upon immediately, and taken up for final passage on the same day at City Council’s Special Session, which has not been advertised as a meeting related in any manner to the streetcar. 

 

 

 

State law requires 3 readings of city ordinances to insure transparency and the opportunity for citizen input on the expenditure of the people’s money.  City Council rules require introduction of ordinances at a full council meeting, referral to the proper committee for full discussion, and then a return to the full council for final passage (a 3 week process) to promote the same goals as the state law of citizen input and proper deliberation.

 

 

The ability to avoid 3 readings by supermajority under state law is meant to be rare and to be used on noncontroversial matters that need to be passed more quickly for items that are urgently in the public interest.  An additional $14 million in streetcar spending is anything but noncontroversial and not urgent for a project not scheduled to be completed until 2015.  If City Council passes an additional $14 million in spending on the same day it is introduced, then it is doing so precisely to avoid meaningful citizen participation and in fear of how the people might react. 

 

 

 

Moreover, under recently passed city council rules, citizens aren’t even allowed to speak at all during “Special Sessions.”  Having the normal multiple week process (introduction, referral, discussion, final vote) is the only manner that an item as significant as an additional $14 million for the streetcar is necessary for good government.  To do otherwise would be a crisis for good government.

 

 

Myth of the Streetcar Votes and City Hall:  The citizens of Cincinnati have never been given a straight-up vote on the streetcar as it was correctly pointed out by streetcar advocates in their efforts to defeat recent ballot initiatives.  In two close votes, it is well documented that citizens who were against the streetcar also considered the broad charter-changing language that would prevent any potential multi-modal plan for years to come when voting. For City Hall to position itself and weigh into the political debate by saying the people voted for the streetcar twice as an excuse to spend money and raise taxes is false, inappropriate and another example of bad government. 

 

 

 

Moratorium:  City Hall needs to openly and honestly review the costs and trade-offs with the streetcar project to acknowledge 1) true costs with the project and related fees and taxes being implemented to fund the streetcar, 2) how Downtown Cincinnati is growing without a streetcar and the construction of a streetcar will take away funds from proven results in Downtown's renaissance, like finishing the Banks 3) Neighborhood support from funding sources like the Blue Ash Airport and the Casino are being diverted to the streetcar.

 

 

Read more: http://www.55krc.com/pages/onair_BrianThomas.html#ixzz26vOVqPXg

Cranley is one the most hypocritical pr*cks in this City. Did the voters ever get the opportunity to have a straight up or down vote on the millions of dollars in City Taxpayer funded handouts that he received for his Price Hill boondoggle Incline Village project? Or for the nearly $100 million Waldvogel Viaduct Improvement Project that directly benefits Cranley's pet development project? And unless I'm mistaken was it not John Cranley himself who pretty much enacted the modern TIF financing in Cincinnati? John's nothing but a freaking hypocrite and desperate political opportunist.

Here you go ...

 

http://cincinnati-oh.gov/streetcar/news/streetcar-construction-schedule-advances/

Cincinnati has plan to prevent streetcar delay

 

http://www.wvxu.org/post/cincinnati-has-plan-prevent-streetcar-delay

 

Cincinnati Council's Budget and Finance Committee will consider several items Monday that city administrations say will prevent the streetcar project from being further delayed. In a press release, officials say Council will be asked to set aside $15 million dollars from the recent sale of the Blue Ash Airport to pay for work to relocate Duke Energy's line and pipes along the streetcar route.  Officials said this will allow the project to move forward while the city and the company address who will pay for it......

 

The $15 million comes from the recent $37 million sale of land adjacent to the former Blue Ash Airport and is expected to be recovered upon resolution of the utility issue.  It will then be available for other uses.  In the release, the city said it is confident in its position regarding who is legally responsible.  “It is not feasible to sit idle awaiting an outcome,” said City Manager Milton Dohoney, Jr.

Ahem:

 

"...Duke has agreed that its utilities would only need to be moved three feet from the streetcar line instead of eight feet, as originally discussed..."

Get ready for a negative PR blitz the only way the anti city opponents know how: Talk radio and Barry Horstman

 

55krc and 700wlw will have nonstop Chris Smitherman and Chris Finney airtime

 

Meanwhile Barry Horstman will write some articles. 

 

 

Suck on that, COAST.

 

And Duke may quickly agree to cover the cost of relocating those utilities once they realize they're likely to be ordered to pay them anyway, plus the city's legal fees, their own legal expenses, and any liquidated damages for delaying the project.

Interesting finds about John Cranley, the first is from his law firm's website:

 

http://www.kmklaw.com/attorneys-124.html

 

John has extensive New Markets Tax Credits experience including, but not limited to, representing the following: Payor, Inc. on their new headquarters; U-Square, LLC, which is a joint venture among Towne Properties, Al. Neyer, Inc. and Castellini Holdings;  CityLink Center; North American Properties and Uptown Rentals, LLC; and the Ohio National Life Insurance Company.  John helped orchestrate the $35 Million renovation of the Vernon Manor in a project that combined TIF, bonds and New Markets Tax Credits.

 

John also has extensive municipal bond experience, including, but not limited to, helping to convert private taxable bonds issued for the renovation of Fountain Square and the Gateway Quarter public parking garages into tax exempt bonds on behalf of 3CDC.

 

Then there's this Enquirer article (just one of many similar articles) from 2004 citing Cranley as the person who led the effort to create the City's tax-increment financing districts in 2002:

 

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/04/15/loc_development15.html

 

I'm not trying to scare anyone, but this is a crisis situation," said Finance Committee Chairman John Cranley, who led the effort to create 11 tax-increment financing districts in 2002. "Every dime the city can bring to the table is tied to these districts. We can talk about Fountain Square, but until we get these TIF districts solved, we don't have any money."

 

Even more urgent, Cranley said, is the Calhoun Marketplace in Clifton Heights, where 42,535 square feet of new retail, 291 units of apartment-style student housing, and a 1,118-car garage are already under construction. The city's $3.2 million contribution comes from a 300-acre tax-increment financing district surrounding the project.

 

John Cranley received millions in taxpayer provided funding from the City of Cincinnati for his Incline District, including $3.3 million from the Neighborhood Stabilization Program 2, $1.8 million from the Cincinnati Community Reinvestment Area LEED tax exception, as well as $1.7 million City HOME loan, among other sources. He was the chief architect of TIF district financing. He was was at the forefront of the creation of 3CDC and helped create the mechanisms for using public funds to finance that private corporation. Cranley also led the effort to redevelop Fountain Square using million of dollars of City (Taxpayer) funds to do accomplish that project. Cranley has never once called for any of those projects to be subjected to a "straight-up vote" by the citizens of Cincinnati, not to mention holding a third vote on any of those projects, as he is now proposing with regard to the Streetcar.

 

Regarding the "ballot language" on the Streetcar votes, Cranley needs take that issue up with the author of that language: Christopher P. Finney.

 

Cranley is parroting COAST talking points that are flat out proven lies. The man is a despicable hypocrite and a brazen pandering carpetbagger who is so desperate to return to public office that he's willing to spread lies and make common cause with Finney, Capell, Brinkman and the rest of the COASTers in order to get elected.

 

 

I was at the Finance Committee meeting circa 2008 where Cranley wasted everyone's time grilling Dahoney on how exactly TIF districts work -- that's right, the guy who actually invented them kept saying "I'm trying to understand...". 

From Brian Thomas's blog:

blah blahblah

Read more: http://www.55krc.com/pages/onair_BrianThomas.html#ixzz26vOVqPXg

FWIW, the city has deleted a whole mess of pages and completely rearranged the website ~PITA~

I watched some of the finance committee meeting on the 18th & all of the special council meeting & heard nothing about a streetcar.

Except for 1 abstention, Smitherman voted in line with everybody else on every issue I saw.

Here's a link to an overview of the Streetcar Ballot Initiative "Ballot Language" controvery. Let this put any lingering questions about who is responsible for the ballot language to rest once and for all:

 

_{http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Cincinnati_Streetcar_Referendum,_Issue_9_(2009)#Ballot_language_debate}

 

_{"Ballot language debate}

 

_{Ballot language for the trolley referendum was the subject of much controversy in summer 2009. Referendum supporters argued that opponents attempted to change the ballot language in their favor. Chris Finney, co-founder of the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes (COAST), said, "If they mess with the language, we'll be in court in a heartbeat."}

 

_{A draft of the recommended ballot language read as follows: "Shall the Charter of the City of Cincinnati be amended to prohibit the city, and its various boards and commissions, from spending any monies for right-of-way acquisition or construction of improvements for passenger rail transportation (e.g. a trolley or streetcar) within the city limits without first submitting the question of approval of such expenditure to a vote of the electorate of the city and receiving a majority affirmative vote for the same?"[4]}

 

_{Ballot measure opponents argued that the parenthetical use of "trolley" and "streetcar" should be eliminated because it narrows the scope of the ballot measure's impact and may confuse voters. If approved, the measure would affect not only future trolleys and streetcars but all passenger rail projects. However, on September 1, 2009, the ballot language was left untouched and submitted to the city council, who approved the language on September 2nd"}

 

Finney wrote the ballot language and threatened to sue if it was changed by the City. The ballot language is 100% on COAST, so Cranley, Smitherman, Finney & Co. can all eat it.

Never fear!! 

 

Barry Horstman to the rescue!!!

 

http://m.cincinnati.com/enquirertopnews/article?a=2012309190155&f=880