Probably the same lawyers that said they didn't before with the '04 hike (thank God judges, not lawyers make those conclusions). But as I said, if you are ok with backdoor funding through utilities, so be it. I hope the rest of the Duke coverage area is just as excited as you are.

would you be ok with duke giving any money towards the streetcar? because the argument can be made that all duke users end up paying for any contribution they make to anything

Sure, but not in associations with a rate hike. The timing isn't just suspicious with the giving, it was a calculated negotiation to get one party what it wanted in exchange for the other party getting what it wanted. It didn't have to be streetcar, it could have been any number of payoffs to any number of organizations and the outcome is still the same. This is not the appropriate way to raise dollars, not from Duke, but from ratepayers who have already been squeezed for basic utility needs.

i understand the point but as opposed to the 04 hike, this one involved a decrease in the rate request, funding for infrastructure improvements related to electric usage, and funding for electricity assistance programs. the combination of programs and lowered increase seems like an appropriate package for the city to support.

If you want to make those distinctions then fine. I know that money will come from a source because of this deal. That source will be you and I and thousands of others in the service area to pay for a new transportation initiative. I, and perhaps I am alone here believe that the appropriate bill you and I should recieve for this initiative should not come in the form of KWH used, but instead a taxing system of some kind (take your pick). It is a blind, backdoor tax, anyway you slice it as the ratepayer has no choice to help fufill the obligation Duke just made in exchange for power and heat.

this one involved a decrease in the rate request,

asking price vs sale price. They could have requested a 50% increase settling for only 4 and then everyone would really be happy. That is the game.  Do you feel like you won something by only getting a 4% increase on an already astronomical bill?

I guess we should all be ticked about essentially paying for the naming rights to the Duke Energy Convention Center.  Since when should we be responsible to pay for their marketing strategy?

but if duke ever gave money to this or any project than you should be morally opposed because it will always be on the company's ledger sheet and rates are based on that ledger sheet. this is no more a tax than duke running the train display at christmas. trains don't grow on trees ya know.

Justify it anyway you like. I am not defending any part of Duke's operations outside creating and distributing the utilities. Do you believe that the Duke customers outside of Downtown would agree with you or do you think they would be a little upset on knowing their monthly utility dollars are going for the creation of a streetcar? Heck, I am downtown myself and see a major ethical problem with it but I am not here trying to defend an initiative at all cost.  One day this same tactic will be used on something that you are less than enthusiastic about and then perhaps my point will hit home.

will many people be happy about a rate increase? nope. i don't like it either. paying more money is a bummer. but i will say that i am happy that my local government at least negotiated more favorable terms for the deal. i do think people will like new street lights and new streetcars and some of them may not even mind keeping the poor from freezing to death or dying from heat in the summer.

 

i understand that asking and selling price are different things, and maybe the city could have worked a better deal, i don't have the expertise to know that. all i know is that i don't recall much of a conversation at all in previous rate hikes so this is a nice improvement. which is really the point of all of this.

This is Dukes way of contributing to Greener transportation. It is good PR and makes me a happy customer of theirs. In the long run hopefully it get at least 1 more smog spewing diesel car off the road or at least driven less.  :wink:

 

For their contribution I am going to  buy 400 more KWH units to my monthly service from them as they purchase alternative energy sources. Good Job Duke!

 

http://www.duke-energy.com/ohio/products/gogreen.asp

Just so I'm clear, what is the issue here?

Reading the article it doesn't sound like either side was hiding what they did or were trying to be underhanded.

Everyone is correct from what I can read except one side thinks its wrong and one doesn't, utilities have lots of lawyers on retainer so I'm sure everything adheres to the letter of the law, whether anyone likes it or not is another matter.

Electrified transit is ALWAYS in the electric companies interests. Shoot, the expansion of the interurban system/and trolley systems were directly tied to the expansion of the electrical grid. I'd also add the Boss Cox's Cincy has a bunch on the battles over these issues a century ago with Cincinnati Gas and Electric and the various transit corps.

Just so I'm clear, what is the issue here?

One side says the proper funding mechanism for the streetcar is a rate hike by Duke. The other says that voters should have the right to choose whether or not to fund something without the temperature of their home being attached to it. This is a backdoor tax.

Everyone is correct from what I can read except one side thinks its wrong and one doesn't, utilities have lots of lawyers on retainer so I'm sure everything adheres to the letter of the law, whether anyone likes it or not is another matter.

I can't believe that any company or entity of any means with attorneys on retainer would ever go outside of the letter of the law although it does seem that this same issue came up as an anti-trust violation just a couple years ago.  Did they just get lawyers recently down there at duke?

Just so I'm clear, what is the issue here?

One side says that it is appropriate for negotiations with Duke to involve programs and policies in Duke's sphere of influence. The other says Duke is unethical to be involved in programs related to the power system beyond direct power distribution.

 

Why hasn't there been more outrage about those street lights? I mean, what are they thinking? I should be able to vote on whether or not I want new street lights!

The other says Duke is unethical to be involved in programs related to the power system beyond specific power distribution.

when it includes $6.5 million to help Cincinnati build a streetcar system that Duke paid in exchange for dropping opposition to a rate increase.  I would call that unethical yes.

Strange, when one proposal isn't accepted the company modifies it by lowering their request and adding additional incentives. There were several factors which made the deal better for the city and its residents including a lower rate, increased services to the poor, new street lights and funding for the streetcar. All the included items relate to Duke's purpose as a company and Cincinnati's responsibility to its citizens, which makes the deal ethical. You seem to have a moral dilemma with negotiation.

You seem to have a moral dilemma with negotiation.

yeah, that sounds about right considering what I do for a living.

Strange, when one proposal isn't accepted the company modifies it by lowering their request and adding additional incentives

6.5 million to drop the cities opposition to PUCO. Nothing strange there at all. Why is there fear to take this to the voters and let them decide? I have a moral dilemma with putting the cost of the streetcar on the backs of everyone in the Duke service area without their consent. What is their recourse? Clayton Act comes to mind now that John brought it up but short of that they will just have to pay.

Why do you continue to ignore all the components of this agreement? I'm not going to walk you through them again because I know you know what they are, it's just easier for you to make your argument if they're ignored

 

I have no idea what you do for a living but if it involves making sound arguments or persuading others you should maybe consider a new career.

Why do you continue to ignore all the components of this agreement?

Considering we are on the Cincinnati Streetcar thread I thought that was the one item that really had meaning here. It is also the one item that I have heard should not go in front of the voters of Ham. County because it doesn't involve a tax increase yet this is a backdoor tax that will go even beyond the limits of Ham County.

 

I have no idea what you do for a living but if it involves making sound arguments or persuading others you should maybe consider a new career

.

I am a commercial real estate agent who has been involved in the negotiation and consultation of several large projects and have a sense of what is and what is not proper forms of financing both on a public and private level. That career is working out just fine for me, but thanks for asking.

Let's stick to the topic people...

Just to put things into perspective...this rate increase will cost the average homeowner something like $4 and change extra per month.  Or roughly $50 over the course of the year.

 

Let's please not turn this thread into a senseless back and forth, tit for tat argument like the housing downturn = recession thread.  If you want to discuss the legal ramifications of this and whether it is ethical or not, then do so with legal aid and please report back.  Thanks.

and best of luck.

 

I'm excited to hear that 70% of the cost is covered. That's pretty exciting huh?

And to you.  This is just another reason that more and more people are turned off by the streetcar; not the streetcar itself necessarily, but the tactics that the proponents are willing to employee and turn a blind eye to in order to get this going.  The other, more general blogs seem to be reflecting this turn away from what could be a project that could stand alone without resorting to hidden financing.  Good luck to getting a streetcar going anytime soon.

This is just another reason that more and more people are turned off by the streetcar; not the streetcar itself necessarily, but the tactics that the proponents are willing to employee and turn a blind eye to in order to get this going.

 

This was the City engaging in negotiations.  "Streetcar proponents" were not involved in this negotiations process to my knowledge, and I don't know why they would be.  This is money for an infrastructure improvement and one that directly relates to Duke Energy and what they do.  These are "tactics" or hidden agendas.  This isn't even a backdoor tax as you have so often claimed.

 

Corporate citizens often give back to their communities and these are some elements in which Duke is going to include in what they do.  We should thank the City for fighting for these issues at the negotiating table.

 

Good luck to getting a streetcar going anytime soon.

 

Thanks for the well wishes.  They certainly haven't come from you too often, on this topic, when you look back at your previous posts in this thread (and others).  I wondered once before why you seemed to be hell bent against this project, and wonder once again why this is the case.  If this were simply a matter of your concern for antitrust issues then I think your argument would go beyond the streetcar component, and be more of a general complaint about these quite common negotiation processes.

Let's please not turn this thread into a senseless back and forth, tit for tat argument

 

Uhh-huh. I was all content to sit back and watch tv but this must be my senseless back to your forth I suppose.

 

I wondered once before why you seemed to be hell bent against this project, and wonder once again why this is the case.

From what I deem to be unethical funding schemes that are in effect a back door tax. (said it again, doesn't make it any less true) To arguing about every dollar that goes to any other project that should "go to the streetcar". There seems to be no limits to the handouts that you are reaching for at anyones expense. Say its not true, say I am making it up and we can continue on while I post the quotes from the various other threads by several of the proponents that show what I am saying, but I believe you have already seen them. Then dismiss any descent and try and end an argument that shows the holes in this initiative. I am against the tactics, not the project and todays news was just more of the same that I have unfortunately come to expect.

Back on topic or we'll do a refresh!

This is the streetcar thread right?  How is means of funding for the streetcar off topic?

The mud slinging on both sides needs to stop. Funding is one issue, but it's derailed from that. Some comments made on here on both sides are unappealing, so let's please keep this strictly to the streetcar and its funding -- not about any one's motives or morals (and etc.).

If this were simply a matter of your concern for antitrust issues then I think your argument would go beyond the streetcar component, and be more of a general complaint about these quite common negotiation processes.

Why would I concern myself with that other than the fact that the streetcar was a 6.5 million dollar benefactor to this particular negotiation? I drew parallels to another case where Duke committed anti-trust violations doing what seems to me to be the same thing. I stated earlier that I do not think that any funding for any project should be achieved in this way as I believe financing a project using ratepayer dollars (without express consent) during a time of a rate hike is misappropriations, regardless of the dollar amount. The anti-trust threshold is for the courts to decide, again.

 

This may indeed be off topic but did the city have the right to negotiate the entire amount as they were acting as a user? I believe they overstepped their bounds in the negotiation itself and perhaps acted on its own behalf, and not that of the consumer, many of which live outside of the city limits.

I agree that it would be deplorable of the city to about face on the rate increase based solely on the addition of streetcar funds, and even as a someone who would love to see more transit options in the city, I would not agree with those means no matter the ends. To me, this appears to have taken place in a larger negotiation process, one that seems reasonable, and with a compromise that makes sense for reasons stated earlier.

 

I don't have a problem with the back door tax argument per se, but by the same logic any programs funded after rate increases would essentially be defined as a tax and to imply that all of these programs should require a popular vote is ridiculous by any standards, I count 5 different programs addressed specifically in the article, and I imagine there are several more which may have increased or decreased funding after the rate hike. It seems simplistic to draw such a 1:1 parallel between a community development grant and a rate increase. The rate increase does not exist to fund the grant.

 

I guess we're just talking in circles of a philosophical difference, but to suggest that I want a streetcar by any means is untrue. I just happen to think that this was an appropriate venue for this grant as it related to both Duke's and Cincinnati's missions.

I guess we're just talking in circles of a philosophical difference, but to suggest that I want a streetcar by any means is untrue. I just happen to think that this was an appropriate venue for this grant as it related to both Duke's and Cincinnati's missions.

 

I agree. These are two very different philosophical differences. If the people who pay their utility bills to keep the heat on this winter think this is the appropriate means of finance then so be it, but I, as one taxpayer and ratepayer, simply disagree. As for the legal matter, that is up to the courts but in my very unprofessional legal opinion, I object.

and best of luck.

 

I'm excited to hear that 70% of the cost is covered. That's pretty exciting huh?

 

So is that 70% of the final cost or 70% of the private funding piece?  I can't remember the numbers it's been so long. 

I guess we're just talking in circles of a philosophical difference, but to suggest that I want a streetcar by any means is untrue. I just happen to think that this was an appropriate venue for this grant as it related to both Duke's and Cincinnati's missions.

 

I agree. These are two very different philosophical differences. If the people who pay their utility bills to keep the heat on this winter think this is the appropriate means of finance then so be it, but I, as one taxpayer and ratepayer, simply disagree. As for the legal matter, that is up to the courts but in my very unprofessional legal opinion, I object.

 

Thank you Michael, well said.  I am all for anything that benefits Cincinnati as I believe it benefits the entire area, but to say that those outside the city limits should have no opinion on the trolley (as has been said MANY times in this thread) because they are not being asked to fund it has now been proven false.

 

Someone said, its only $50 per year, well, $50 here, $50 there, it quickly adds up.

^ Yes, it all adds up. But nowhere near $8,000 per year -- what the average Cincinnati family annually spends on its cars.

^ Yes, it all adds up. But nowhere near $8,000 per year -- what the average Cincinnati family annually spends on its cars.

 

So you are going to decide what I spend my money on, and you want me to spend it on something I can't even use?  It would be different if I could use it to get downtown, but I have to drive first to get to the trolley!

 

One thing I've not found in this thread, is what is YOUR personal stake in this, John Schneider?  You must have property that will benefit from the trolley.

Facts:

 

1.) This rate hike would have happened anyway.

2.) We all pay MUCH lower energy costs than we would if the energy market was unregulated. Who ever heard of P&G or GE asking their customers if they mind paying more? Michael, we're all getting something for free here, because we don't pay for our energy in a free market, it's regulated to hell and back by the gov't. This reminds me of the people getting free taco's yesterday who were b!tching they could only get one.

3.) I GUARAN-DAM-TEE you Duke is going to get a postive return on their contribution to the street car program. And they know it. Empty buildings don't use a lot of power do they?  That positive return will then let them keep rates lower in the future than they would otherwise be.

4.) It's fairly obvious when somebody grabs onto such a trivial issue when they don't already agree with something and then parades it around as proof of their point. Please. Randy, you made a great analogy about the Duke Energy center. Hey! Great American pays for the naming rights for the reds stadium. Does that mean that my premiums are higher? Not really....BECAUSE THEY ARE GETTING A POSTIVE RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENT. Name recognition = more customers, more customers = the more you can leverage economies of scale and make more money.

 

This entire thread makes my head hurt. Hooray for the streetcars still being on track (har! oh crap!).

One thing I've not found in this thread, is what is YOUR personal stake in this, John Schneider? You must have property that will benefit from the trolley.

 

I don't think that is the case with the current routing of the streetcar.

One thing I've not found in this thread, is what is YOUR personal stake in this, John Schneider?  You must have property that will benefit from the trolley.

 

Because that's the only reason why anyone advocates anything.

DanB, can you give us some examples of a successful city where no one financially benefited from it?

Thats the whole purpose of the streetcar to encourage investment and investment implies rewards.

And how about the 71/75 bridge? That will cost $3 billion and I use it once or twice a year, why is it a no brainer?

 

 

 

 

It has been proven time and time again, that while a streetcar may not be fiscally self-sufficient, the amount of economic development (and revenue) that it brings in over a ten year period is anywhere from 3x to 5x the initial investment.

So you are going to decide what I spend my money on, and you want me to spend it on something I can't even use?  It would be different if I could use it to get downtown, but I have to drive first to get to the trolley!

 

It's been pretty well established at this point that the Streetcar isn't Light Rail, so complaining that you can't use it to get downtown is kind of pointless.  Additionally, even if we could add Light Rail tomorrow, you'd probably have to drive first to get to a Light Rail station anyway.  Would that make it less viable?  This is because at this stage of the city's development, many of the neighborhoods have become so automobile centric (thanks to having zero passenger rail for the last 50 years) that it would be nearly impossible to operate without a car.  Cincinnati can add Light Rail, but it can't become Chicago overnight.  It would need to function as a Park-and-Ride in much of the area.

So you are going to decide what I spend my money on, and you want me to spend it on something I can't even use?  It would be different if I could use it to get downtown, but I have to drive first to get to the trolley!

 

As opposed to the roads we drive on every day? They are all partially funded by the tax dollars of people who will never ever use each particular road.

So you are going to decide what I spend my money on, and you want me to spend it on something I can't even use?  It would be different if I could use it to get downtown, but I have to drive first to get to the trolley!

 

As opposed to the roads we drive on every day? They are all partially funded by the tax dollars of people who will never ever use each particular road.

 

we weren't talking taxes for roads or bridges, we were talking Duke price increases to the entire southwest ohio area to help fund the cincinnati trolley.

^ I'll say it again, Duke's ratepayers -- all utilities' ratepayers -- will benefit from a re-centralizing city.

we weren't talking taxes for roads or bridges, we were talking Duke price increases to the entire southwest ohio area to help fund the cincinnati trolley.

 

I don't know if that's fair.  Duke isn't increasing prices in order to fund the Streetcar.  They may be using the Streetcar as a bargaining chip to get the city to sign off on their plan, but it certainly seems as though Duke would be trying to increase prices even without any Streetcar plan.  Do I think that there is an ethical issue here?  Possibly.  But I don't think it's accurate to imply that Duke is increasing prices because of the Streetcar.

^ I'll say it again, Duke's ratepayers -- all utilities' ratepayers -- will benefit from a re-centralizing city.

 

Had Duke contributed money to the trolley as hopefully all other large downtown corporations will, then I would have had no

problem with it.  To hide it behind the rate increase was wrong in my opinion.  P&G will not announce price increases in order

to contribute money to the trolley.  They may do so, but then the consumer does have a choice.

 

"It's been pretty well established at this point that the Streetcar isn't Light Rail, so complaining that you can't use it to get

downtown is kind of pointless."

 

No its not pointless.  I too believe it has to start somewhere, but I think a line from Clifton to downtown would have been better

than just a loop from OTR.  But then, thats just my opinion.

we weren't talking taxes for roads or bridges, we were talking Duke price increases to the entire southwest ohio area to help fund the cincinnati trolley.

 

Again, as opposed to the countless government projects of all stripes that are partially (or even totally) funded through the taxes and fees of people who don't even live in the same state, let alone the same municpality ... 

 

This is how every government project in the history of government projects works. Non-users almost always indirectly provide a portion of the funding. Including for whatever road projects would be built in-lieu of a streetcar.

 

If you are furious because Duke is a state-sponsored monopoly, who has the authority to make these decisions without the customer having an option to defect to a competitor ... then I'm right there with you. I totally agree. Utility monopolies are stupid and inefficient.

 

But using that as a reason to bash the streetcar proposal - and claim that it causes you a harm - just doesn't make sense.

"It's been pretty well established at this point that the Streetcar isn't Light Rail, so complaining that you can't use it to get

downtown is kind of pointless."

 

Take The Bus... I'll Be Glad You Did  :lol:

It wasn't explicitly stated that the rate hike would fund the streetcar, so any connection between the two is nothing more than a myth at this point.

 

To be honest, Duke is a corporate partner, much like Kroger and Proctor and Gamble. And countless other businesses and industries that we depend on for their support in various causes -- such as the streetcar. We have no problem doling out money in "economic incentives" for them to stay put within a certain locale, or to invest in the city, and we have bargained with various companies in the past to produce desirable results -- such as what the city did with Duke.

 

The only difference is that Duke -- while a public company, acts as a public utility.

 

And Dan, it's not a trolley.