Cranley Gets the Enquirer to Edit Article

Not a big surprise, but Mayor John Cranley was able to get the Enquirer to pull and edit a story that he initially refused to provide a comment. The article makes this admission subtlety:

Cranley, who initially declined comment but reversed course after an unedited version of this story was inadvertenly (sic) posted Sunday to Cincinnati.com, said he had nothing to do with Harris’ exit or the board appointments.

The article was originally published on Saturday and was back up yesterday after his and the City Manager Black's comments and B.S. denials. It was also conveniently  after the Mayor's awkward State of City infomercial (Cranleymerical?). We don't know how the Mayor's office was able to convince Editors at the Enquirer to make this change, but it happened in a very public and embarrassing way.

Cranley is clearly LYING when he told the Enquirer he had "nothing to do with Harris’ exit or the board appointments." We know this because of who was picked for the board. To say that those were the best choices to serve on a the Historic Conservation Board is something that would ONLY be stated by the Mayor or a member of his staff. You don't get that many Cranley donors together in one place via natural selection. Due to his legal training, Cranley likely has no email trail to Black telling him what to do, but how often do the men hold meetings or phone calls? If they do it often, which I am sure they do, why else would they be doing that if it was not a means for Cranley to tell Black what he wants done on every significant issue put before Black.  We have Mayor who is knowingly overstepping his limited power as Mayor and a City Manager who is so fearful of losing his job that he does what ever the Mayor says, even though he's not his boss.  We have dysfunctional leadership at City Hall and a fractured City Council that can't get six members to consistently stand against the Mayor's over-reaching. Mann and Flynn need to step up and stop walking the fence.

Cranley is a politician and knows how to tell a lie that won't get him into legal trouble. The more Cranley acts as Mayor the more lies we get and the worse our city becomes.

Yvette Simpson Column Cleary Demonstrates Cranley's Hollow Plan

Cincinnati Council member Yevette Simpson demonstrated she understands the issues facing the city and shows up Mayor Cranley for his failure to effectively communicate what needs to happen and what is happening in this city. We have a Mayor who lacks credibility, but more importantly lacks any real vision to achieve a goal. He called for bringing 10,000 children in Cincinnati out of poverty in Five years, but his only action to move that forward is to create a meaningless commission to deal with it. Yes, a commission. We all know what that means in political speak: do nothing. To be fair the commission does have a purpose: to make those on it look like they are doing something WITHOUT having to actually do anything to help get children out of poverty.

Let's do some math. So 5 years is 260 weeks. That means Cranley needs to average getting 38.41 kids out of poverty in Cincinnati per week to meet his self imposed goal. While that is a noble idea, it is not something he has shown he has any intention of making happen, let alone proposing any policies that could make it happen. If he has those policies in mind, he might have at least shared some that could actually work and get support from City council. It's not like he can do this all by his lonesome, unless he's planning on using his Issue 22 slush fund to actually funnel money to something other than the parks.  It's not like Issue 22 cold stop that from happening.

To help keep him focused on his goal. I suggest we keep a weekly count. The local media should set up a day, say next Monday, one week after Cranley's speech, and ask him or his staff how many kids his policies have gotten out of poverty. Anything below 38 means he's behind on his goal.

I think we all know this is Bullshit from Cranley and we know this because of the lack of plans to use the Budget surplus (created by the vibrant city we are thanks to efforts of the Eight years prior to Cranley getting into office) to meet the goals. Where is the plan to put that surplus into job programs or other assistance for poor families? Assuming that is really Cranley's goal. In order to get a kid out of poverty, you actually have to get the parents out of poverty too. So I guess that raises the number of 10,000 a bit. So let's say it doubles it (accounting for multi-kid and single parents), so that means 20,000 people need to be out of poverty for Cranley to make his goal. So instead of 38.41 per week, we're now up to 76.92. 77 people per week need to be out of poverty to make the Five year goal. This can be done, but it takes someone with the actual will to make it happen, not just pretending to make it happen.

I wonder how many journalists are willing to question the Mayor on this an actually HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE. It won't take much money, it will just take someone sending an email and then publishing the response to the email on a mainstream media outlet. Here's an example email:

Dear Mr. Mayor,


As per you goal to get 10,000 kids out of poverty in five years, which really means getting 20,000 people out of poverty, you would need to average about 77 per week. Please provide me the number of people who got out of poverty over the last seven days and document how your policies achieved that act.


Sincerely,


Cincinnati Reporter

Now I am sure that crack staff at the Mayor's office will have those numbers at their finger tips and this plucky reporter will be able to get the facts reported before the end of the day on Monday. Then that same reporter could repeat this act every day for the next 259 weeks or until the running total exceeds 20,000!


Yes, I jest. Yes, I know the media won't do this. They won't do it because the Mayor's office won't have an answer. The question is how often will the media remind the public what the Mayor pledged to do? Will the Enquirer hold Cranley's feet tot he fire? It is the perfect type of conflict. It is an objective (mostly) race for them to cover. As long as they make Cranley prove his numbers, they can watch the number grow and have a horse race (of sorts) to cover.

That assumes the Enquirer actually covers the coming Mayor's race. They have gotten a bye this year, when we should have a council election, except for the foolish four year term fiasco. Since they have off time, they should start the Cranley poverty Tote-Board. Maybe get the Mayor to put it on Fountain Square. We can all watch the number grow over the next couple years like an extended-acid-induced Labor Day Telethon. Or maybe not.

I would prefer hearing more from Yvette Simpson. She is showing that she has the skills, temperament, and honesty to lead this City. I hope she considers challenging Cranley. We need 20,000 fewer people in poverty, but it will take more people like her in office, the Mayor's office, to make that possible.

Luken and Cranley Appear to Be Chicken

Charlie Luken has bowed out of the debate on October 12th on Issue 22, an amendment to the City Charter giving the Mayor a huge slush fund to help buy votes from a few key neighborhood leaders in hopes of getting elected in 2017. Luken, political mentor and co-destroyer of city finances with John Cranley, was replacing Cranley who refused to debate unless his diva-style debate riders were met. I guess his need for only blue M&Ms and Miller Lite in only cans can be a tough request to fulfill.

Truth About the Mayor of Cincinnati

WCPO's Kevin Necessary has a cartoon that sums up a big problem with the Mayor of Cincinnati.

Please note that is no the only problem with the Mayor, just one of many.

Major Donor to Cranley Campaign Gets Appointment to Historic Board

Shree Kulkarni, a local developer and major campaign donor to Mayor John Cranley's 2013 election, has been appointed to the Cincinnati Historical Conservation Board.

In 2013 the Kulkarni family and 4 of his companies contributed $8,300 to Cranley's campaign. The individual limit is $1,100 for both the primary and general election periods. This week he was appointed tot he board by the City Manager Harry Black who takes no action without approval of Mayor John Cranley. Buying your way onto a public board appears to be acceptable to the Mayor. How man other suburban based developers have gotten their money's worth?

As the Business Courier's article points out, Kulkarni's appointment is being questioned by the the OTR Foundation.  Over-the-Rhinre (OTR,) in case you are new, has the most historic buildings for the board to review and is a nationally recognized district of historical buildings.  The OTR Foundation's questions, according to the article, appear to rest on Kulkarni's comments on the recent action of the Conservation Board on the Davis Furniture Building.  As a suburban developer, Kulkarni's belief in conservation of history seems to not extend beyond the best interests of the developers who don't seek to preserve the history and architecture.

We need urbanists to make decisions about urban areas.  We don't need Cranley's strip mall mindset to have more power in our city's government.

Cranely Using Smoke and Mirrors on Pension Deal to Hide City's Sacrifice

From a financial perspective, there are actual steps in the City's pension deal that on the surface appear to help reduce the funding problem, but that is only half of the story.

Yes, getting the retirees to suspend COLAs for three years and then reducing the COLA formula will mean lower benefits paid and help solvency.

Yes, the city paying more into the fund certainly will help solvency.

The details Cranley is hiding deal with where the city will get the additional money to increase funding for the pension trust. Here are the problems:

1. What is the long term impact of moving $200 Million from the retiree health care trust?  Is this the fund Cranley and Luken already screwed up?  Previously this year the Plan was only going to be $100 million, so how did it double in size and still have Council backing?
2. Where does the $38 Million a year for seven years come from?  Saying the City will "borrow against future revenue" is no different from saying "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."  Revenue from what?  The pension fund?  Income Taxes? A bake sale?  Cranley's hiding the details. He does not want us to know what he's doing.
3. Where does the additional 2.25% of the annual operating budget come from? How much is this actually?  Is this based on the $358 Million in expenses or just of salaries? What is Cranley going to do, increase revenue or cut something?  Which ever he is planning, he's not giving the details and is once again hiding something.

What Cranley is doing is typical Cranley.  He's making something sound comprehensive, but he leaves out nearly all of the substance. Either Cranley has no clue where the money will come from or he is hiding it because it will be politically unpopular.  The answer is mostly likely the latter and as is the Cranley way, he's hiding the details in hopes that people will accept half of the truth and forget the rest later.

This is the type of Mayor we have, one who hides the real sacrifices the city has to make to allow him self the ability to take a faux victory lap.  This plan may actually be workable, but the Citizen of Cincinnati deserve to know the real impact this will have on the City Budget and the services the City provides. Hiding details is dishonest.  This is insulting to people of Cincinnati. This is, however, how Mayor John Cranley operates.  We must demand the truth from the Mayor.  We won't get it, but everyone in the City must call out the Mayor's half truths and lies every chance we get.

Is the Elder Old Guard Pushing Back Against Losing Control of the CPD?

Since Mayor John Cranley suffers from having to payback the GOP for its support, it makes sense that the Republican's newly new regained front, the FOP, would expect that he would throw logic to the wind and allow rumors to undermine the Police Chief. The old guard police officer core that stems from a big Westside/Elder connection could be itching to gain back the power of the Chief's office since it lost Streicher back in 2011.

For those of you who are newer to Cincinnati or have forgotten about the 2001 riots, please remember that the horrible police/black-community relations that existed at that point was in part due to the inability of the mostly white Westside/Elder connected leadership of the police to effectively interact with the black community of Cincinnati.

We don't need Cranley to allow that old crowd to regain the leadership of the police force.  We survived the riot once, WITH NO HELP FROM CRANLEY, we don't need him making police-community relations worse.

Cranley Proved Wrong Again?

Quimbob shares the report of a survey of Cincinnati Residents stating that an overwhelming number are OK with the Trash Collection established under the Mallory Administration.

Another Campaign claim proved wrong again? I'd say I'd lean yes to that question.

What Actions During the Campaign Got Osborne Hired by Cranley?

If you want the number one news article Kevin Osborne wrote during the campaign that would have clinched any alleged quid-pro-quo it would be this false story that was disproved rather easily by Osborne's old new outlet, CityBeat.

The second action Osborne gave Cranley was this follow-up story where he continued the Cranley attack on Qualls, disguised as allowing Qualls to respond. It is hardly balanced when a reporter expands on the attack in a story billed as a response to said attack.

The inaction Osborne provided his prospective employer during the campaign was keeping silent on why Cranley resigned from council.  I missed any reporting from Osborne on why Cranley waited nearly six months after he got the Ohio Ethics commission letter, telling him he had a conflict of interest, before he resigned from City Council.  One might figure Osborne, who was working for CityBeat at the time, would have reported on that and investigated it.  I guess he was too busy investigating how he would spin the 'exclusives' the Cranley Campaign was feeding him.

This hiring is beyond laughable, it is just pathetic.  Local media are reporting on it, but are not allowing their reporters to hit, at least not yet.  Any journalist who considers this ethical may need to revisit a few journalism basics.  Since there is evidence of Osborne throwing away any journalistic ethics he may have had out the window, no honorable journalist can hide behind any type of "blue line" code of protection for other journalists.  They also can not play the fear game, that Osborne can deny access.  Any threat Osborne, Kincaid, or even Cranley make to journalists is hollow.  More importantly, if they try to act on it, I think there are plenty of the nine members of Council that could easily nullify any attempt at Cranley retribution on a journalist.

What needs to happen most immediately is for the investigation into who leaked the Duke Memo to Kevin Osborne be restarted.  Osborne's connection to the Cranley Administration is more than clearly there. If WCPO knows the source of the moemo, they now have the ethical obligation to report it, if it came from anyone who would have had connection or influence over hiring Osborne for his new political job.

If anyone believes there is not smoke to the allegations of a quid-pro-quo to the Osborne hiring, they need to know something about the Cranley cabal, things like this don't happen in a vacuum.

Cranley Makes Unsupported Claims About Police Response

In Sunday's article from the Enquirer "Is it time to change shift schedules for our cops?" the paper includes Cranley's unsupported claim about police response to 911 Calls:

“Code zeros” – the police code for instances when someone calls 911 for help but no officer is available to respond – are on the rise, Cranley has said

To the Paper's credit, they prove Cranley had no support for his claim:

The city, in fact, doesn’t track code zeros, said Cincinnati Police Chief Jeffrey Blackwell, so there’s no proof they’re happening more often.

The paper then falls into the Cranley bullshit by stating there is anecdotal evidence, but no empirical evidence. We don't even get any actual anecdotes, just third-party hearsay.

Why isn't the Enquirer calling out the Mayor for making unsubstantiated claims as the basis for increasing the city budget? Instead of treating what ever comes out of his mouth as truth, why not be as analytical as the rest of the article attempts to do with the issue of police schedules? Why not question Cranley about the schedules? Why not ask him how the decision by the previous police chief affected police response? Most importantly, ask Cranley how the hell he knows what he says is true before it is repeated in the paper, even if given evidence he doesn't have actual support for what he says. Using his false claim as the lead for one's article does two things: it gives credibility to Cranley when he deserves none an it makes the Enquirer yet again look like a shill for Cranley.  I mean, look at the lead listed on this page view of the Enquirer website, it is like you are giving Cranley a pass:

Cranley's false claim is put out there as 'fact' and the portion of the article that refutes him is buried.  So I guess being a shill for Cranley is part of the job description for Enquirer.  Well, at least WCPO isn't alone in that.

Meet the New Parking Plan, Worse Than the Old Parking Plan

As if you could possibly expect anything different from John Cranley, we get his plan or plan with options to "fix" the parking problem. It is a plan that looks and sounds like the plan the previous administration put forth last year, but it doesn't do as much and costs the city more. What he puts forth a plan that does the following:

1. Increase Debt by issuing bonds
2. Raise parking prices everyone but Downtown and OTR (how's that knife in the back feel Mr. Witte?)
3. Adds upgraded meters that WILL NOT interact online, meaning no payment via cell phone.
4. Adds more city employees to enforce parking without detail on how he will fund their full expense.

What did John Cranley Not Do:

1. Explain how issuing bonds creates annual revenue.  Is this a fancy way of saying they will just issue new bonds each year? Or is this an investment gimmick where he gets a big 'loan', invests it and calls the earnings on that investment revenue, while not talking about paying back the principle.
2. Who will pay back the bonds?  This seems like a rather big point.  Trying to pay for upgrades to garages and meters, adding new staff to bring in new revenue, raising parking rates that Cranley and his supports said would hurt the business community, thus lowering tax revenue, how does he plan on paying for this?  Is is going to just buy some Twitter Stock and pray it doubles in value every year until he leaves office?

Once again Cranley is, shall we be blunt, full of shit. He puts forth a worse version of the plan set forth previously one that does far less and costs the City far more, and he thinks he's doing something better?  A large portion of the Media lets him off the hook and more importantly we get SILENCE from those who fought the parking plan, the conservatives.  That prior plan basically privatized parking in the city, and conservatives were against it.  This new plan would increase the size of government and we haven't heard a peep.  Council member Murray, have you lost the will to speak out on parking?  Have you abandoned Hyde Park Square business owners?

Also, more importantly, is Cranley going to offer this plan up to a vote to the citizens? He was so eager for that before, will he do it now? I don't see that as part of his plan, and instead he wants to ram it through council. Hope the people on Council don't chicken out and rubber stamp this turkey.  I'm look at you Mr. Mann, don't be a chicken or a turkey, push back on Cranley.

How Will Cranley Pay for the 5 Million Dollars a Year?

The Enquirer buries the lead in their 'exclusive' press release from the Mayor's Office that calls for adding more cops to the tune of 5 Million dollars per year, including benefits. The one million dollars is additional up front money, but the long term cost is huge and the Mayor should not be trying to mislead the public with false numbers.

The first and last question that needs to be ask of Cranley by the rest of the media who are not in the bag for the Mayor (Enquirer), should be asking is HOW WILL CRANLEY PAY FOR THIS?

A simple question that will neither have an detailed nor sound answer. By sound, I mean one that that add up, not one based on Cranley math.

The other questions that could asked: Why can't the same programs be achieved with restructuring of the existing force? How many long term police officers are going to retire and put us back at the same level?  How much input did the FOP have on this?  Will the city seek changes to the FOP's contract to help assure that any police officer hired who fails at their job can be fired?

Cranley is Sucking in the Seventies

Quimbob over at Blogging Isn't Cool is pondering if Mayor John Cranley is stuck living in the 1970's based on what he chose to offer up in return to a bet from the San Diego Mayor on the Bengals-Chargers playoff game this Sunday.

Cranley rolled out the old Gold Star/Montgomery Inn Ribs/Graeter's rubicon.

Quimbob wonders why Cranley didn't match the San Diego Craft beer offer with Cincinnati Craft beers in return. After all, this bet was reported to have been made at his own personal expense, so why not offer up something with a little more oomph and more of a developing industry in the area? An industry that could use some more attention outside of Cincinnati that only a Mayor could give at very little expense.

There is nothing wrong promoting Gold Star/Montgomery Inn Ribs/Graeter's, they are solid business here in Cincinnati, but they represent the past. The past is all Cranley seems to know, and it's a selective knowledge at best.

Cranley Wants Cincinnati of the Past (1974)

The Cincinnati Business Courier had a stinging opinion piece online yesterday that exposes the core problem with John Cranley and his approach to the City. Here's the key section:

"His vision of what Cincinnati should be most closely resembles what Cincinnati was."

Canley is trying to emulate the Lukens (Charlie and Tom) in both the style he interacts with others, on all levels, and in what he sees as priorities for the City. It is like he is living in 1974 (the year he was born) and wants to attract the first Walmart to town and is hoping to build more roads to make it easier for suburbanites outside the city to get where they want to go and he's not seen the damage that type of development plan did to the City. I will state that again, DID to the City. That's not something to come, that is the past that happened because of people like Tom Luken, who John is emulating. Focusing on the suburban lifestyle (Strip Malls, Cul-de-Sacs, and cars) is the core of the past that killed Cities in post-WWII America and reached it's zenith in the 70's.  This isn't a new idea for Cranley.  He didn't just pick this up to get elected.  He's been that way, and that is leaving his allies to be mostly Republicans, as they are the only ones still pushing the Suburbanist agenda forward.

It is such a shame that so much of the Progressive Vote (the Future!) stayed home on election day and left 'Past Cincinnati' to sweep in and give Cranley the chance to be another Luken and drive the City back 40 years.

When I think of Cranley I think of a "real square cat, he looks a-1974."  Other than the Big Red Machine, he's reaching into a time when things here were not good. The City Government was squarely against the Urban Core.  If John really wants to emulate the past, I suggest he not pick the 1970's subia and instead look to the example of something else.

Dear Todd Portune: Burke Can't Fix a Primary Win For You

It would appear Hamilton County Commissioner and rouge Democrat Todd Portune is reportedly considering a run for Ohio Governor. Someone better explain to him that Ed Fitzgerald isn't going to drop out of the primary race just because Tim Burke asks him to make a deal.

I would have no problem with Todd running, as long as he resigns from Commission and Cranley takes his place at the County. That would be a win for the City. Cranley is about like Portune, so it would just be a better City without Cranley and the Commission would stay the same. Then Portune would lose in the primary and leave politics.

Evidence of the Delusional Disdain Or Just Rank Hypocrisy?

Cincinnati Business Courier reporter Chris Wetterich wrote an eye opening article that outlines the hypocrisy of the likes of Chris Smitherman, John Cranley, Charlie Winburn, Amy Murray, and most of those against the Streetcar.  The MLK interchange (highway project) bond issue got none of challenges put upon the Streetcar.  The MLK interchange operating and maintenance costs won't pay for themself.  It's economic impact study was written by the same group that wrote the impact study for the Streetcar.  Yet, none of the Streetcar Critics questioned anything about adding more roads.

It is like the Cranley Conservative Cabal is delusional.  What else could explain their flip flop on what they demand on transportation projects.  It wouldn't be because this MLK interchange is something that suburbanites are demanding?  The GOP is all about the suburbs and more importantly about the homogeneous mindsets prevalent in a large portion of voters who live in the suburbs. (Like Driving and Free Parking)  I guess getting the short term traffic flow of I-71 Southbound cleared up is an unquestioned truth that must occur no matter the cost to the rest of the City.  I mean, how many cops could Cranley hire with the 20 million dollars of capital costs?  I am sure Cranley is working on the numbers, it's not like he's won't lie again about how capital budget funds can be used for operating expenses, again.

Quimbob: Is John Cranley Even Lying to Himself ?

Quimbob at Blogging Isn't Cool asked the question: Is John Cranley Even Lying to Himself? I think it is clear he is lying to someone.

The question I have is: What is he NOT lying about?

Does Cranley know who leaked the Duke lawsuit memo? Can he honestly answer that question? Or is better to ask Will he? What makes all of this relevant is that he has partially answered that question by publicly denying it was someone on his staff, but no one asked him that.

What is Behind Willie Carden's Withdrawal From City Manager Job?

I am sure I am not the only person to be wondering exactly what caused Cranley's choice, Willie Carden, to withdraw his nomination for City Manager.  I can theorize, however.

It is obvious that Cranley acted too quickly on that position. He should have vetted out Carden and Council before acting.  Another case of bad judgement from John Cranley.  This won't be his last.

Here is my theory on what happened: Based on reports I've read, Carden would have been required to live within the City, something he currently does not do. As usual, Cranley shrugged this off as no big deal and pretended he could wave his magic wand and make the law go away with his council lackeys. Well, at least Mann and Flynn, and maybe more of Cranley's council block, said no to either changing the residency requirement for City Manager or for creating some type of exception rule for Carden.

If true, I would say score one for City Council.  Showing Cranley he is not a strong mayor is something that will likely need repeating over the next four years. Council has the real power in the city, not the Mayor, and I hope Cranley remembers it, but until he gets burned severely enough, he won't learn.

Cranley Fucks-Over the Urban Core

Few are surprised the Republican backed  Mayor John Cranley led the effort to damage the Urban Core by stopping the Streetcar, but that doesn't lessen the blow to the Urban Core.  It is both sad and disappointing to see the level that Cranley continues to see the Streetcar as a threat to his plan to Suburbanize the City. 

The odds that COAST's plan to pave over all of Downtown/OTR North of 2nd Street and create the world's biggest free parking lot for Bengals games has increased. The only question outstanding would then be how much would free parking reduce the number of battered women after Bengal losses. I don't see that as COAST priority.

COAST Honors Cranley

COAST, the Tea Party anti-City fringe group that endorsed John Cralney for Mayor, has nominated Cranley for a Conservative award.

This speaks for itself to those paying attention, but for those not paying attention or maybe the few left in denial about who supported John Cranley is this mayor race let this show them the base that Cranley had to win the election.

What will be most brazen would be Cranley actually appearing to accept the award. That would be a true insult to the City, the Democratic Party, and common decency. Cranley's not demonstrated an ounce of any of those thus far.