Sittenfeld Gets It Wrong on Sunday Parking

Looking to fabricate false political issues to be the grandstanding champion of the hour, Cincinnati Council Member P.G. Sittenfeld sent out an email (pdf)  yesterday with what must have been very short sided or just careless analysis. In his email he included a draft copy of the of Parking Plan Agreement between the City and the Port Authority. Sittenfeld is claiming that City Manager and other elected city officials were not honest when they stated that the parking meters will be free on Sundays under the new plan.  Well, it is my opinion (based on the agreement) that the City Manager was being honest, and Sittenfeld is either creating a false news story to mislead the public or he really just didn't read the document very well, or yes, it could be both.

Schedule 4 of the City agreement clearly states the hours and days of operation of Parking meters.  Sundays are not included in the Period of Operation.  There, that simple.

So on the surface that seems good, and Sittenfeld is plain old wrong.  Sittenfeld is playing a dishonest political game and is wasting his and our time with a sideshow.  Instead he could go into more depth and find a problem.

There is a big catch to Free Sundays.  If Sittenfeld was looking carefully, instead of charging at windmills, he might have read the following sections and definitions listed in the agreement:

“Period of Operation” means, (i) with respect to each Metered Parking Space, the Days and the period or periods of time during each Day that the City permits the parking of a motor vehicle in that Metered Parking Space and requires the payment of a Metered Parking Fee for use of that Metered Parking Space as set forth on Schedule 4; and (ii) with respect to the Parking Facilities, the Days and period or periods of time during each Day that the City permits the parking of a motor vehicle in a Parking Garage or Parking Lot as set forth on Schedule 4.

So the definition of Period of Operation includes the days and the hours during each time. Next P.G. should read Section 7.8a(ii)

(ii) Increases in Period of Operation. Following the Initial Adjustment Date, the Port Authority may increase the Period of Operation for the Parking Spaces, provided, however, that the Port Authority shall not increase the hours of operation for the Metered Parking Spaces to any hour earlier than 7 a.m. or later than 9 p.m. without the unanimous approval of the Advisory Committee.

So, they can change the Period of Operation after a certain date. Next you better read what "Initial Adjustment Date" means:

“Initial Adjustment Date” means, with respect to each Parking Facility or Zone, the date on which all technology improvements have been made to the respective Parking Facility or Zone in accordance with Schedule 18.

Finally, read up on Schedule 18:

On-Street Parking System
Smart parking meters must be installed at each Metered Parking Space in each Zone for the Initial Rate Adjustment Date to occur for that Zone. These smart parking meters must be battery powered, wireless, and offer coin and credit card acceptance. Smart parking meters do not need to be installed at Metered Parking Spaces where the City installed IPS meters approximately two years ago.

Bottom line, in my humble layman's opinion, there is the strong possibility that the Port Authority could adjust the Period of Operation to include additional days, including Sundays, after the Initial Adjustment Date has been met.  Therefore under the agreement, free Sunday street parking is not a permanent requirements  if the Port Authority meets its upgrade obligations.   If Sittenfeld or any other member of council wants to propose an adjustment to section 7.8a(ii) which defines how a period of operation can be changed, to exclude adding any Sunday Street Parking, then I would support that.  This could be a real problem that might just be an oversight, instead of the confused mess Sittenfeld made of Schedule 9.

Just to tie up a loose end, let's examine why Sittenfeld made his false claim at all.  He's worried that there is a limit to the amount the city can exclude parking rates from being open.  He points to this definition:

“Identified Event Threshold” means not greater than five and one half percent (5.5%) of the aggregate number of Parking Spaces which would otherwise be operated during a Franchise Year but for an Identified Event.

That is true. The problem is how Sittenfeld then went through a big calculation to determine what the threshold would be assuming that that "aggregate number of Parking Spaces which would otherwise be operated during a Franchise Year" to mean all possible spaces open all the time the whole year. He even misquotes the section by saying "all parking space hours in a year." Clearly Sittenfeld didn't want to mention Schedule 4 and how it defines what spaces can be operated and when, thus creating a differing number of parking hours, not including Sundays or other hours not open under the schedule. Sittenfield was all bent on the inclusion of Sundays and Holidays in the definition of an "Identified Event."  Those should be included when talking about parking garages since under Schedule 4, since the Parking Garages are open on Sundays and Holidays.  For Sittenfeld it is not clear enough, so via Twitter he advised me that the Port Authority is going to make changes to address the issue.  If I were them a simple addition of  " in the Parking Garages" on lines 18 and 19 of Schedule 9 should be enough to quell the perceived mighty Knights threatening the public.

So when in his email Sittenfeld wrote "Sundays Would Not, In Fact, Be Free:" he was lying on two levels. First he was lying because under the contract Sundays are not days of Operation for Parking meters, they will be free (for now). Hell, even if someone tried to incorrectly invoke his false Identified Event Threshold theory, street parking would be free on Sundays, the city might lose revenue on the deal. Second is that even if the contract is too confusing and the lawyers need to tighten it up, there was no intent of deception on the part of the City or Port Authority. Sittenfeld used "can't keep a promise" as words to disparage the City Manager and those elected officials supporting the parking plan. That is the implication that they did this on purpose. No, they didn't.  That's a lie.

This type of argument is something I would have expected from a Smitherman or a Winburn or a Cranley.  Sittenfeld doesn't want to be in their anti-progress camp.  Go with the future, don't go with the politics of the past.

What needs to happen now is

1. The lawyers to tighten the language to quell the fears of Sittenfeld et al.
2. Sittenfeld and the rest of City council needs to look at the section I pointed out above about how the period of operation can or should be change to exclude street parking on Sundays.
3. Add a definition of what 'Holidays' are mean. I didn't find one mentioned.  Saying all State and Federal holidays with some language about changes in the future should suffice.

Then if there are other bigger issues that are not disputed as written, but for which anyone, especially those on council, disagree with, then debate those.  If there are details not in the agreement that are key, it is valid to have that before voting on it.  Stay away from paper tigers.

Don't cherry pick topics, like parking free on Sundays, and try and get the public pissed at the City, especially under false pretenses.  That is just the worst type of grandstanding and it is a soul killing political action.

The Nuclear Option Is the Choice Du Jour

I presume this is a game of Chicken, but Hamilton County Commissioners still are acting insane. Weight Loss by starvation is just has harmful as being overweight, if not more harmful. The two Republicans continue to push a radical national Republican effort to use the economic downturn as cover to gut government services wholesale. It is a blind effort that is not about actually determining how government should be run, is just a insane need to reduce government with no forethought. Instead of enacting a fair and open debate on what government should be doing they are play a cruel game that forces department heads to cut off their own limbs to avoid death.

It is like Monzel and Hartmann live in a 1861 post Bull-Run hospital and they are a Copperhead Doctor bent on trimming Lincoln's soldiers down to push their cause.

What is so disgraceful is that no one on the Commission will step up with a plan. They won't do the their job and come up with a detailed budget that will balance. They are playing chicken with various department heads they want cuts from and don't care what the loss of services will be. All the while they seek to appease Property owners by refusing the end the tax rollback to fund the Bengals Stadium shortfall. Votes from the more wealth matter more than the helping the entire County.

Gutless.

Hartmann and Monzel remind me of a Cold War U. S. General who thought we could win a full scale nuclear war. I guess they never saw The Day After.

Hartmann already is planning to place the blame for this on the City, so I think he thinks his bomb shelter will save him if everything around him implodes.

County Looking to Screw the Poor and Renters, No Matter What

The Enquirer is reporting that Hamilton County Commissioners will be given three options by county Administrators to cover the 20 Million dollar budget deficit.

The article tries to point out the differences between the choices, but it fails to put forth the main common action: the poor and people who rent will be screwed no matter which plan is picked. The plans are being cooked to make them semi-palatable to Republicans who are Hell bent on shifting the burden of the Bengals Stadium to the poor people of Hamilton County.

The first option is the nuclear option, where nearly every service is cut, so everyone is screwed, well, everyone who can't afford to pay for their own healthcare, police protection, or have enough money to buy justice and don't have to rely on the courts to enforce the law.

The second two options are just shell games to see who will cut the most from what. What both of the plans do is increase the sales tax rate and offset it with cuts to property taxes. So if you own property, you don't get as much of a tax increase as people who do not own property, maybe even none. This is how the poor and renters get screwed.

Sure, Republicans will say Renters will get the same benefit because landlords will pass on tax savings to their renters.  BWWAHAHAHAH!  That's the biggest laugh in the world, or my attempt to make it appear in this blog post.  No, landlords will pocket the tax savings and increase rents the same way the would have without the increase.  Therefore Renters are screwed even if they are part of the middle class.

So, the County is again looking to screw the poor and people who rent.  Where would you find a majority of those types?  If you said the City of Cincinnati, you would be right.  Bottom line then, the three plans seek to place more burden on City Residents and less burden (or a least no additional burden) on non-city Residents  as long as they own property.  I'm gonna guess that Monzel doesn't plan on getting any votes from the poor or renters who don't live in the city, so he can just pretend they don't exist or he hopes they move.  Either way, they become poorer to help subsidize the Cincinnati Bengals and Mike Brown.

Welcome to the neo-feudalist movement.

Mason Home Owners to Avoid Income Tax Increase?

If you read the Enquirer's Mason Buzz Blog, you would learn about a ballot issue that if passed in November would implement a 0.12 % increase to the Mason income tax, taking it to 1.12%. Here's the rub. The blog post indicates that this increase would apply to only "nonresidents." If you read the proposed ballot language, then you would read something very different:

Section  10.05  FUNDING OF SAFETY, FIRE AND EMS SERVICES Mason shall raise funds to pay for safety, fire and EMS services through two revenue sources.  First, a continuing real estate tax levy not to exceed 5.0 mills may be imposed on Mason real estate commencing in tax year 2013 for collection beginning in 2014.  This levy shall continue until changed by the electors of Mason through an amendment to this charter provision.  Second, a not to exceed .0015 tax on income shall be collected by Mason in the same manner as the income tax set forth in section 10.04 of the Charter, with the exception that those who own and live in homes in Mason, and who therefore pay the real estate tax set forth above, shall be exempted from the not to exceed .0015 income tax along with their dependents.   

This income tax shall be imposed starting on January 1, 2013 and shall be at a rate of .0012 during calendar year 2013, and cannot be changed except by legislative action receiving an affirmative vote of at least five council members, and can only take effect on January 1 of the calendar year following legislative action, provided that such legislative action takes place at least six months prior to the effective date and shall not exceed 0015.

I read the above language and I can see a clear intent to not have this tax increase affect home owners who live in their Mason home. The key section is "with the exception that those who own and live in homes in Mason, and who therefore pay the real estate tax set forth above." Furthermore the most telling phrase is "own and live," with the conjunction indicating both are required. It does not say "and/or." It does not say "residents". Renters would be subject to the tax increase in my amateur option, while home owners would not. I don't know if this ballot language must be vetted by anyone else, but I think the blog post was wrong or at least the language is not what the reporter was told it meant.

This is a common Republican and Libertarian theme: give more rights and benefits to property owners. Hamilton County did something vaguely similar by increasing the sale tax to fund the two stadiums while lowering the property tax, a boondoggle in favor of property owners, one we are feeling the pain of presently. The difference is that Hamilton County didn't limit the tax increase to only non-property owners.

This is a nightmare for Mason. It is a clear redistribution of wealth, in favor of of the rich. In case you wondered, homes in Mason are, on average, out of the reach of lower and a majority of middle class people.

According to the article, many are opposed to it because it would affect those working, but not living in Mason.  They don't seem to notice it would affect those renting an apartment in Mason and taxing them more no matter where they worked.

The big thing missing in this ballot language, likely on purpose, is how to enforce the tax rate variance. Private payroll systems will have a difficult time defining "property ownership" so they would either charge the 1.12% on everyone with a Mason address or 1% on everyone, leaving them to deal with the difference on their own.  I supposed those who know their tax rate could request the correct percentage, but then it all comes back to more work for those filing and processing tax returns.

This is just bad policy.  Mason needs to raise taxes, obviously, but they should do so fairly to all, not to the benefit of home owners.  I would bet the massively Republican city will vote this (and any) tax increase down, even though a majority of voters would not be affected.  Mason City Council members are so incredibly gutless to not do this via an ordinance.  Seeking political cover over a major issue is not uncommon in government, it is just unseemly.

We Need a Tax to Support the Arts and Culture in Cincinnati

Sunday's Enquirer had an article detailing the movement to create a county sales tax to help fund arts and cultural organizations in the Cincinnati area. This or something like it needs to be done. We must continue Cincinnati's incredibly high quality level of arts and culture. We far out rank other cities of our size on the richness and depth of arts and culture and we have the potential of being so much more.

It has been long debated what is a better tax for this type of thing: property or sales tax. The problem with a sales tax is that it is dis-proportionally affects the poor. Property taxes don't directly hit the poor as much, but instead hit the wealthy and corporation more fairly. The rich and corporations (via their Republican representatives)don't like paying their fair share so they go nuts when anyone thinks about raising property taxes, and much of the middle class follow suit, no matter the cost to them in the long run.

We can't in this case use an income tax. Since the county has multiple municipalities and no ability to level a uniform tax, it is just not feasible.

The fight is going to end up being the typical anti-city struggle falling on geographic and political lines. County Commissioner and anti-arts Republican Chris Monzel puts that up front in this section from the article:

“The city owns those buildings, and they're trying to pass the cost of repairing them on to Hamilton County taxpayers,” said Commissioner Chris Monzel, referring to Music Hall and Union Terminal. “The city should pay for these buildings, not be building streetcars or atriums.”

Yes, Monzel blames the city for having all of the Cultural institutions, but forgets that two of the institutions included in this plan already have county wide property tax levies (Union Terminal and the Zoo). Monzel is just totally anti-city and anti-Urbanist. He appears to just want all art to die. I don't know how this guy pretends to be representative of the entire county. He only cares about helping Suburbanite Republicans, who I guess he thinks hates arts and culture. He may want to check the voter registration of the Board of nearly all of the major arts organization and he will find Republicans.

The Republicans in Hamilton County must wake up and understand that for a large metro city, like Cincinnati, to grow, it must have a vibrant urban core. You can't live by bread alone and you certainly can't live by Suburb or Exurb alone.  We need our arts and culture to thrive, not die off because of ignorance.

The urban areas have the history and have the culture that the suburbs don't have and do little to cultivate. It is almost a social/cultural belief by many that anything with history and depth is bad. I don't get where this comes from. I could guess rampant consumerism has pushed this along, but there must be something else. I hope it is not religion or politics or bigotry. It just seems like those are the only reasons for this anti-arts and culture attitude. Maybe it will change, but when the same people attack science as much they do the arts, don't expect any change.

Salon Writer Comments on Occupy Cincy Settlement

Natasha Lennard of Salon has some mixed thoughts on the Occupy Cincinnati settlement with the City of Cincinnati. She's not pleased with the limited free-speech zone.  I myself actually find the over-all elements of the settlement to be reasonable.

Conservative Economic Planning Fails Again

The Mason, Ohio area has all of the earmarks to be considered a Conservative Republican mecca.  It is an Exurb.  It has lots of cul-de-sacs, strip-malls, chain restaurants, churches, white people, and lots of businesses.  The Mason area, to be fair, has a significant amount of office parks and corporate operations.

So that leads it to be a place where the free market system would flourish and the problems that arise from a growing population would be solved by private entities.  You know, like if traffic became a job killer, where people literally would leave or avoid the area because traffic happened their ability function either when trying to go to work, come home from work, or just go shopping.

So, today I read a story in the Enquirer that indicates that traffic mess that is the Field-Ertel exit off I-71 is no where near being improved or better yet cured of the problems that plague the mangled interchange.  Why are the roads not able to be improved to keep the economics of the area chugging along?  The answer is there are not enough Government funds to build all of the the road improvements needed.

Yes, you read that right, the Conservative mecca of Mason can't improve their roads because the Government doesn't have the funds.  The place filled with Republican voters who regularly attack Government spending on everything short of Defense and Religious schools, is not fixing its own roads because there is not enough funding from the Government to get the job done.

When people complain about Government spending, remember the subtext of what they are really saying: "the Government is spending too much, on other people."  If the Government is doing something to benefit Republican communities, then those programs are championed.  When the Government does something for a mostly Democratic community, the Republicans oppose it and call it wasteful.  You don't need to look past the Streetcar to see that.  That will help the City of Cincinnati.  Not enough Republicans live there, so Republican voters don't tend to care what happens in places that are not mostly Republican.  That's a sad state to live in, but the modern GOP has become a sectarian movement.  It's like living in the Balkans or Iraq.

I for one would like the State of Ohio to kick-in funds to improve the Fields-Ertel interchange.  The Republican run State government should get on that.

Is Smitherman Under Investigation?

A complaint has been filed by a Cincinnati resident charging that Cincinnati City Council Member Christopher Smitherman is in violation of Ohio ethics rules.  Smiherman is simultaneously holding the positions of city council member and President of the Cincinnati Chapter of the NAACP, a 501(c)(4) organization.

There is clearly a conflict of interest.  Smitherman should either resign from council or more likely resign as President of the local NAACP chapter.

I seem to recall Smitherman recently wanted the city to pay for Ethics classes.  Well, Council Member Smitherman appears to not have taken his class yet.  Any person with any sense of ethics would see the conflict of being on council and being President of the local NAACP.  That leas me to believe that Smitherman lacks ethics. The reasonability test has bee exceeded ten-fold, so this compliant has merit.  The city should be investigating Smitherman to make sure he is not in violation of Ohio ethics rules.

In Case You Forgot, Phil Burress is Still a Bigot

Bill Sloat at The Daily Bellwether has an important article detailing the latest bigoted action by the hateful Phil Burress, one of the leading anti-gay bigots in the state of Ohio.

A man who does not even live in the City of Cincinnati is threatening to file a lawsuit because the City Council voted in favor of Domestic Partner insurance coverage. This is clear evidence, as if we need any more, that Burress's anti-gay marriage crusade was never about 'protecting' marriage, but it was all about oppressing gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, and transgendered people. The city isn't marrying anyone, they are trying to provide equal benefits to all of its employees. I wish they were allowing gay marriage, but far too many ignorant bigots voted to oppress people when they baned gay marriage in Ohio, making that against the law. Treating gays and lesbians with equal rights is what Burress is fighting against. Equal rights should be for all, not just the Phil Burress clan.

I feel like a broken record on this subject and I feel that most of readers of this blog think Burress is horrible, but he has an audience. I hope everyone who opposes the bigotry of Burress takes every opportunity to speak out against his type of bigotry. The people who could speak most directly to this are those of you who participate in the large number of religious institutions across the region. Many (not all) of those institutions have terrible stances on gay rights. I encourge those of you who face that bigoty to speak out against it and at least question the faux rationalizations used to justify the type of bigotry Burress pushes.

Preaching to the choir only goes so far, sometimes you have to stand up and speak out, even if you risk your reputation. That's how all civil rights issues should be addressed. It is a shame that religion, in the case of gay rights, is far too often the hurddle to make many silently let that bigotry exist in the places based on the philosphies of peace.

City Budget Process To Be Sane This Year

One of the best results of the Cincinnati City Council election this year was the increase of a civil and sane budget process.  Gone are the pissing matches and games of Chicken.  Gone are the right-wing demands that require the suspension of the rules of Math.

Sure, we gained a level of insanity in the form of the election of Chris Smitherman, but other than being a pest, he has no power.

The only problem with this situation is that the comfort provided by the Convergys settlement is a one time event.  This time next year we will face a budget shortfall again, unless the economy does far better than expected.

With this fact in place the majority members of council can not wait.  They must begin the process to examine the 2013 budget as soon as the 2012 is passed.  The issue of property taxes must be resolved far earlier then the mid year deadline looming next year.  The public needs the whole year to digest the possible cuts that we could face.  New ideas can be vetted and discussed.  Hell, there will even be time for Winburn and Smitherman to come up with a plan on their own.  I'm going to presume that they will be able to use math more correctly than the Republicans of the past, but we'll see.

This is the first test of the new council.  How well they do making the budget process open and civil will help us determine the future of this council.  We'll have an idea if the seven can work together or if petty squabbles will arise and consume the process.

I am keeping my optimism going.  I've not had much of an optimistic attitude about council in recent years.  This year my optimism has returned and I hope it stays around for a while.

Smitherman's First Act of Grandstanding

It didn't take long, not even a week, and already Chris Smitherman has committed his first offense of Grandstanding in his term as a Cincinnati City Council member.

Smitherman is all in a tizzy because a majority of Council has approved a council rule removing a 90 day requirement for putting ordinances on the Council calendar.  Smitherman is upset because a majority of the council voted.  This would be a majority of the elected representatives of the people of Cincinnati.  They voted to establish their own rules, as provided by the City Charter which operates legally under State law.  Smitherman is "threatening" to sue.

According to the article, I think I can take the quote off the word threatening because it states that unless council votes his way, he will sue.  That sounds like a form of extortion, but in political activities you can get away with more than the average person.

I do question Smitherman, as a member of Council, taking legal action with any indication or standing as a member of the City Government without use of the City's legal representative.  If he, as he threatens, gets his right wing zealot attorney, and anti-gay bigot, Chris Finney to sue the city, I'd like to know what standing Smitherman is planning on using.  Also, who would pay Finney's fees?  If any legal fees ever go to any non-city lawyer suing on behalf of  Smitherman on a city issue, the fees should come from Smitherman's budget.

Section 5a of Article II of the City Charter states "The Council shall organize itself and conduct its business as it deems appropriate...."  That's what they did with a 5-3 vote (one member was absent.)

Section 2 of Article III of the City Charter state "The Mayor shall preside over all meetings of the council, but shall not have a vote on the council."

What is he going to sue over? The City Charter was followed. This is Democracy in action.

Smitherman better get used to not getting his way on council unless he can get 5 or for veto-overrides, 6 votes on an issue.  He can't act like a child and threaten to sue over everything, especially when he has no grounds for a law-suit.  He can complain about the rule, but using threats to change the minds of his fellow members of council isn't going to win many (no one) over.

Half a Budget Plan is No Budget Plan at All

The Enquirer's Jane Prendergast has a blog post that discusses Cincinnati Council Member Chris Bortz stating he is tired of 'Democrats' saying he and the 'other side' don't have a plan to balance the budget.  Jane then outlines a list of steps from Bortz that would cut half of the $33 million city budget deficit.

I hate to point out the obvious and I don't have any other way to say this but: half a plan is no budget plan at all.   If Joey Votto hit the ball half way to the fence at GABP and wanted to call it a home run, I think everyone, including Bortz, would call that a joke.

Leslie Ghiz said Republicans have a plan, or at least are working on one.  Bortz is not endorsed by the Republicans, but has been voting with that 'side' on budget issues, so whether these are the same issues Ghiz is taking about, then Ghiz has no more of a plan than Bortz. She should keep working on it.  I thought Amy Murray, Charlie Winburn, and Wayne Lippert were spending the August recess working on issues like the budget, no?

The bottom line is a simple number: zero.  The budget deficit has to be zero after cuts are made.  I can't find anyone who thinks that both unfilled budget jobs and current staff working must be eliminated from the 2012 budget to reach the legally mandated zero number. If Chris Bortz or Leslie Ghiz can make those staff cuts without cutting police or the fire department, then that means they are cutting some other departments, heavily, reducing city services. The details on that should be made public an put forth now.  In case anyone forgot, Cincinnati is having an election and voters should know where the candidates stand and what services they would cut to balance the budget if elected (or re-elected).  That kind of knowledge is something that means candidates have to make political choices.  They have to either take on the FOP or be their shill.  It is a crappy choice, but that is the box the FOP and it's supporters have forced the Republicans and Bortz into and I for one am not going to give them a pass on making that choice.

What Type of Math is Joe Deters Using?

The County Department heads, including County Prosecutor Joe Deters, issued a report of what they state will happen if cuts are made to the county budget.  The results are not good, but Joe Deters seems to be using some type of new math or really has a internally top heavy salary range and high overhead.  I say this because he claimed that if he had to bear $1.9M of cuts of his $10.4M budget, he will have to cut 50 of his criminal attorneys. The Enquirer reports that 50 is 41% of his staff attorneys.  That works out to an 18% budget cut, which Deters claims equates to a 41% cut to his number of attorneys?  What the hell kind of cut is he making to his staff?  Is he just picking the 50 lowest paid attorneys and staff and laying them off? The average cost comes out to $38,000 for 50.  That's expense for the employees, not salary.  Salary would have be something much, less.  I don't know what the starting wage is for a county lawyer, but something in the low 30K seems really low.

I am guessing that 50 would include attorneys and support staff combined and it doesn't include expenses for benefits.

Therefore, either Deters is lying, or the Enquirer is mistaken, or both.

This is disappointing because the County is in horrible shape and the Republican majority is not willing to do anything to prevent these types of cuts. Reports like these issued by the department heads are helpful to the public understand the type of impact we face because of the failure of Hartmann and Monzel to maintain the services required by the state.  It would help department heads' cause if Deters would be more straight forward with the facts.

UPDATE: Yeah, someone is not adding correctly.  If you read page 41 of the impact statement you find that the very half-assed report from the Prosecutor's office assumes $3M in cuts and base 50 attorneys at $50K, plus 10K for benefits, totaling $60K each.  So, the question is where does the $3M vs. $1.9M of cuts discrepancy come from?  A million+ dollar difference is a big one.

Where Is the Conservatives' Budget Plan?

Leslie Ghiz said there was going to be a budget plan, but we still haven't gotten word of one.  We get more grandstanding and pandering by the Conservatives on Cincinnati City Council, but no plan.  It is a pathetic game.  Promise not to fire police officers, but refuse to document and detail whose jobs would be cut is all we get.

Let's be clear, jobs will have to be cut based on current State cuts and the continued low revenue projections.  The Conservatives (mostly Republican) on council have the majority and have the responsibility to state before the election what they would cut.

We're not going to get much more than promises made to score endorsements and votes.  Elections don't breed honesty, they are about saying what your voting base wants to hear.

Is the Voter ID Bill Dead?

The Columbus Dispatch has an article that concludes that the bill going through the Ohio State legislature is dead, at least for the time being. This is good news for Democracy. Let's hope a modified bill can be prevented from coming back up for vote again.

Voter suppression is anti-democratic. It is tactic used by, and I am going to utter the word, Fascists. To call this effort anything other than voter suppression is ignorance or plain old lying. It could be both, but I'm going to give people the benefit of the doubt that if they are lying to me, then they know why they are lying to me.

City Union Leader Under Investigation and 'Missing'

The Cincinnati Enquirer is reporting that Diana Frey, president of the Cincinnati Organized and Dedicated Employees (CODE) union is under investigation and has gone missing.

Ken Blackwell Has a Bridge He Wants to Sell You

I don't know if Ken or someone at the Enquirer used the word "bold" in former Mayor and Council member Ken Blackwell's guest column: A bold idea: Consolidate Greater Cincinnati across state, county lines, but there is nothing bold about it. It is not a bold idea to say you are going to drive a 1999 Honda Civic to Mars. An idea isn't bold when it is not even possible in the world of science fiction.

Ken Blackwell wants to create some new 'form' of government that currently does not exist. It would take two State governments to change their laws to make it even conceptually possible. What Ken didn't put in his column is how he would solve the problem of taxes and residency. Are the people living in Kentucky now becoming part of Ohio? If not, how the hell would that work? Who would collect the taxes? How do elections work? What laws govern who? How can a single government function when different state laws affect different parts of its citizens?  The questions could go on and on.

Ken is really trying to sell you a bridge you don't need. His plan clearly appears to be a scheme to create large businesses that could serve all of the communities. This sounds like a large scale privatization plan, where all services of the governments would be outsourced to private companies. Why does this sound like that, since he doesn't actually say that? Simple, that is the only way it could conceptually work. Create some shell of a "government" that oversees the bidding process and that's all you need to fufill what Ken wants.  That hollow government wouldn't solve any problems, it would create more and put money in the pockets of the big businesses that happen to win contracts.

So, it's smoke and mirrors and Republcian dogma. Ken does not want a strong metro government that would have the teeth needed to actually govern, he wants an empty shell that big-business can exploit.

Why Can't an Opening Day Holiday Just Be a Council Ordinance?

Three is a big effort happening this weekend to make Red's Opening Day into an offical city holiday. My question is why would this take a ballot issue to happen? Is there something in the city charter limiting the number or reasons for a city wide holiday?

If not, I would guess there would be enough votes on Council to pass an ordinance making this official. The only hindrance to full council support might be the existence of ramifications of holidays to union contracts or city requirements, which is where a charter amendment might be necessary to limit the scope of the holiday, making it revenue neutral.

UPDATE: After reading the proposed ballot language, it sounds like it wouldn't take much for City Council to do, it has no teeth and is just "ceremonial." I don't see the need to put this on the ballot.

Leslie Ghiz Refuses to Govern. That's Her Job!

Cincinnati council member Leslie Ghiz is abdicating her responsibilities to govern the city. From the article:

"It is the manager's job to figure out how to close the budget," Ghiz said, adding that the manager, mayor and council all are involved in the budget process. "It is not our job to figure out how to close that gap."

For at least the last two years the City Manager has provided multiple options for a balanced budget.  Leslie Ghiz, and the Republicans on Council, have opposed those options. If you oppose what the manager is doing, you have to give your own plan to balance the budget.  You don't give clues.  You don't dance around and say what you will not accept.  You instead DO YOUR JOB: GOVERN THE CITY.  Put out a plan that adds up.

If that means you get out the budget, a pencil, a legal pad of paper, and start doing the math to make it something you will vote for, then you DO IT. Why do you do it?  You do it because as a city council member it is your job to represent the people and provide a balance budget, what ever it takes. No political excuses.  No grandstanding.  Just get the job done.  If that means pissing off a group you are counting on for political support, tough!

If Leslie Ghiz refuses to do her job, why is she staying on council? Why is she bothering to run for office again?More importantly, why would any citizen vote for someone who is abdicating their responsibility?

Republicans' One Cut Fits All Attitude Will Ruin America

Republicans at all levels, Federal, State, and local have adopted a political strategy to deal with our economic crisis.  Yes, they have adopted a political strategy to deal with the economic crisis, not an economic strategy.  We are in trouble and they are taking the opportunity to mindlessly cut government. They are not thinking about what they are cutting, they are just bent on cutting. They think this will win them elections and get them donations from rich donors. They have no clue what will happen when this cuts are implemented and are giving no thought to the impact on society by massive reduction of services. The goal of Monzel and Hartman is to just cut everything. They are not thinking about the impact, they just want to cut, because if they try to do the right thing, the Tea Party will crush them. How can anyone function with that type of irrational thug based political paradigm? Seriously, Hartman isn't a stupid or insane man, but is acting like he has a gun to his head.  Monzel, well, he seems to like it.  He has a politically masochistic bent to him that puts that twinkle in his tone when he pushes his right wing agenda.

This is happening on all levels of government and the Hamilton County Commission is just the latest. There is no rationale provided, just a mantra: no tax increases. It is like they are robots, programmed to DESTROY ALL HUMANS, because they don't seem to have any forethought on what their draconian cuts will do. Mostly, and deep down, I don't think most Republicans care. Somehow a 19th Century economic mindset has become the core of elected and those trying to be elected Republicans.  That's the mindset that creates sweatshops and employees Pinkerton thugs to enforce their will.  Where did the sanity go?

We can't gut the government and have a viable society. The myopic stance Republicans take because they think they think they personally don't need government is going to screw them when they don't have roads or jails or courts functioning to provide the orderly society needed. Building a walled castle in the suburbs isn't going to keep out the problems facing the rest of us. We actually need a government to keep the chaos at bay. We have too many Republicans today who are ready to jump into the chaos. Where did this delusional mindset come from?