Streetcar Project Gets Federal Backing

The Enquirer is reporting that the City of Cincinnati will receive a $25 Million grant to help build the Streetcar to connect the Riverfront/Downtown to Over-the-Rhine and Uptown.

 

This is great news for the project, and was a critical need.  If they City had lost out on this round of funding, the project would have had a tough time maintaining support.  I believe now the corner may have finally turned to disway the anti-city/anti-downtown forces for good.

Support for Street Car Has Increased Since 2009

The Mayor's Office issued an interesting press release last night, where they point out that the Enquirer commissioned poll has one overlooked result: support for the Streetcar has risen since the last time a poll on the streetcar was completed. The details from the press release:

Truth about the Enquirer Poll: Streetcar Gains Popularity

Streetcar is more popular today than it was a year ago

“The successful streetcar projects in cities around the country were met with public opposition before construction, and once they were built, neighborhoods fought to get the streetcar line to come to their area,” Mayor Mark Mallory said. “We were told to expect this. However, the fact remains that the Streetcar project is going to be of financial benefit to Cincinnati.”

Quick facts about poll in the Cincinnati Enquirer today:

Streetcar popularity:

• 44% of poll respondents are in favor of building the Cincinnati Streetcar.
• “24% say the streetcar would "revitalize Cincinnati's core;" 20% say it is a "risky project," but should still be built in order to help improve the city.” From Cincinnati Enquirer Politics Blog. 
• 48% oppose building the Streetcar.
• 7% remain undecided.

Some things to think about:

• A similar poll was conducted in April 2009 in advance of the Issue 9 campaign.
  In that poll, 59% were opposed to moving ahead with the Streetcar and 38% were in favor of moving forward.
• In today’s Enquirer poll, those opposed have dropped by 11% from 59% to 48%, and those in favor have increased by 6% from 38% to 44%.
• That is a 17% change since last year.
• Today’s poll shows that the Streetcar is much more popular today than it was a year ago and is in fact gaining momentum.
• 44% is a tremendously high level of support for a project that is not even fully funded yet (the City is awaiting word of significant federal grants).

Please refer to the actual crosstabs located at the Cincinnati Enquirer Politics Blog http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=4c098407-50d2-423f-89c2-4f8d6facd864

This does not mean the poll is not flawed. I would like to know the zip code breakdown of those polled. It also of course doesn't account for the Cell Phone problem, but even taking both of those of those flaws, not everything is bad.

Streetcar Poll Raises Questions (Mainly About the Enquirer)

Today's Enquirer releases poll results purporting to measure City residents' views on the streetcar. The article raises two questions: one about the Enquirer, and one about City voters. (Note: I am assuming, for the purposes of this post, that the instrument is valid and there were no sampling errors.)

1. Why is this article so intentionally misleading? The article, which sat on the front page of the online Enquirer most of today, begins:

Residents of Cincinnati overwhelmingly oppose the proposed $128 million streetcar project, objecting 2-to-1 to City Hall's plan to borrow tens of millions of dollars for a plan widely viewed as a waste of taxpayer money, an Enquirer poll shows.

But a look at the cross-tabs for the poll--linked in the Enquirer's blog, but not the article itself--tells a different story. 48% of those surveyed said that the streetcar is a "waste of taxpayer money." 24% said that it "will help revitalize Cincinnati's core," and another 20% said it's a "risky project but one that should proceed anyway to help Cincinnati."

In other words, in a poll with a margin of error of 4.1%, those opposed to the streetcar outnumber those in favor by just 48% to 44%. Another 7% are unsure.

So where does this business about opposition by a 2-1 margin come from? It turns out it's in the funding mechanism. Respondents were asked, "To pay for the construction of the streetcar line, the city will borrow $64 million. Do you approve? Or disapprove?" That yielded 61% disapproving with 31% approving.

While I don't have the expertise to question instrument validity, I have to wonder if the result would have been different if those surveyed were asked if they approved or disapproved of the city "issuing $64 million in bonds," rather than "borrowing." The composition of survey questions makes an enormous difference. "Borrowing" by the government is perceived quite negatively right now, and is associated with the national debt and deficit. I'm not sure that the issuance of bonds has quite the same connotations to people, though.

In the last few minutes, another article has been posted, and this one finally notes that the number of those who support and those who oppose the streetcar are pretty even. Of course, even that one is headlined 'Poll buoys streetcar foes."

So the question is: why is the Enquirer's editorial view--that the streetcar is bad--so transparently shaping its "news" coverage? I don't have a problem with the Enquirer commissioning a poll and publishing the results, but why not report the results fairly--at least when putting the results in the news section? Randy Simes offers an answer and a proposal to boycott the Enquirer. I don't know that I agree with him on either of these, but his post is worth reading.

2. What does this say about Cincinnati's voters? Assuming (for the sake of argument) the validity of the instrument, the tepid support for the streetcar (a nearly 50-50 split) is a bit surprising. This past November, City voters elected a Council majority that favors the streetcars and re-elected a mayor who has made the streetcar the primary and central piece of his agenda. So why the disconnect between candidates' stances on issues and the poll results? Are elections really about nothing but personality? Are our voters really so disconnected as to be unaware of their candidates' positions? I don't know.

Good Compromise for Streetcar Bonds

I'm still lukewarm (at best) about the notion of a streetcar. Lots of smart people who I respect say it will spur investment and development. So maybe my doubts aren't reasonable. (But please, folks, quit telling me about Portland. I don't have any reason to believe that city is analogous to Cincinnati. I'm much more interested in the streetcar experiences of places like Kenosha.)

But if our policymakers are going to move forward with the streetcar, I think they've done so in a responsible, measured way. Today, Council approved the issuance of $64 million in bonds, but removed the "emergency" clause from the authorizing legislation. That means the ordinance isn't effective for 90 days, by which time the City will almost certainly know whether federal help is coming our way. If not, Council can rescind the ordinance before the bonds issue.

One other question: the price that's been quoted is a few years old now. Given increases in steel prices, is it still any good? Isn't this project's cost going up by the minute?

Is the Enquirer Biased or Looking for Controversy?

I know, most are going to answer the title's question "Is Enquirer Biased or Looking for Controversy?" with a "Both" answer. The Provost at of The Phony Coney questions the timing of the Enquirer's coverage of the Bortz-Streecar Voting "controversy" as being, shall we say, ill-timed.

Yes, it is rather obvious that someone has been pushing the story to the Enquirer and the rest of the media around town. I don't know if I believe there is a full borne effort to disrupt the Streetcar project in the newsroom of the Enquirer. There may be individuals who oppose it, but the reporters are getting marching orders.

I do believe without a doubt that there is a desire for scandal, something media outlets nearly universally are guilty of doing, and doing without care in appearances or importance.  I believe that desire isn't just in the editors' minds, it in this case is in the reporter's mind.

The only scandal with Bortz is in appearance. He made a public relations error in how he responded to the ethics letter. He didn't tell everything. That's his sin. The local media feels like he lied to them. They are pissed. Furthermore, where there's a lie, there's a scandal, so no matter the circumstances. Bortz and the Streetcar in association are going to get punched by the Enquirer. They will punch with same sin Bortz committed, the sin of omission.

So, the Enquirer is trying to sell newspapers and isn't doing or at least isn't publishing that is has done it's homework. That is bad journalism. It is good business. It brings more eyes to paper.

More evidence that I think sums up the problem comes in their editorial:

The streetcar may be a real step forward for Cincinnati. We don't oppose it. But we object to the way it has - or hasn't - been planned, explained and justified. So far, city leaders have been asking Cincinnatians to support a pig in a poke.

Again: Where's the plan?

Saying you don't oppose something you do nothing to support is as much dancing on the head of a pin one editorial can offer. If the Enquirer supports the Streetcar, then why are they giving people like Tom Luken and Chris Smitherman credibility when they oppose it with no fact or substitute plan for the development it would spawn? Neither person has any credibility, yet they are driving the Story. They are the opposition to the project, so they get the same level, and often a much, much bigger level, of a voice in the debate than the supports of the Streetcar.

When other issues are pushed by Enquirer, I rarely see opponents getting the same credibility as Luken and Smitherman are getting.  Those other opponents never drive the story. Anti-war protesters didn't get the credibility. People commenting on the death of a Notre Dame football recruit are cut off, not allowed to do anything to drive the story. These groups have limited voice and limited chance to influence the story, but Luken and Smitherman get quoted at will and on topics they know nothing about.

We don't need a manufactured controversy. The Enquirer has been the primary maker of that controversy surrounding Bortz and it is a bias they have, a bias for profit.

The $64 Million Question

Today's Enquirer has a "First in Print" story on the decision facing City Council this week: whether to approve the issuance of $64 million in bonds in the hope that this will be sufficient to attract federal funding for the streetcar. There's apparently some division amongst the streetcar supporters on Council, with some wanting to unconditionally approve the bonds, and others (Berding and Bortz) apparently wanting to hedge the City's bet, conditioning bond issuance on the receipt of federal money.

Mayor Mallory has said that the Council should unconditionally approve the bonds, and insists that the bonds wouldn't be issued by the administration until after the federal dollars come in, anyhow. Of course, under our present system of government, this isn't actually the mayor's decision; the City Manager would be solely responsible for the bond issuance once it's approved by the Council. I believe I've heard Milton Dohoney say that the bonds would wait until after federal financing is in place, but I can't find a link to that right now.

An interesting situation is presented. Mayor Mallory has put this on Council's agenda this week because recently, federal officials have told the City that it needs to have "skin in the game" to get federal money. The thought now is that approving the bonds will be enough, and that next month, the feds will reward the City in its next round of TIGER grants. Of course, the feds make it clear that local financing is no guarantee of federal money, but merely a necessary precondition of it.

So here's the question for streetcar supporters: what if Council unconditionally approves the bonds, and next month, the City again gets passed over? And what if a federal official says that merely approving the bonds isn't enough, that the City needs to actually issue them for the feds to know we're serious? Once again, the feds make no guarantees, just tell us we improve our chances if we issue the bonds. Under those circumstances, should the City place a $64 million bet on federal funds becoming available?

And what if we lose the bet?

I Thought Chris Bortz Was Smarter Than This.....

You all know about the kerfuffle surrounding Councilmember Chris Bortz's decision to ignore advice from the Ohio Ethics Commission to abstain from votes regarding the streetcar. I have no opinion regarding whether a conflict of interest actually exists. From what I've read, there are cogent arguments on both sides.

(Interestingly, the same streetcar opponents who claim that the streetcar will not spur economic development or prosperity claim that Bortz operates under a conflict because the streetcar will spur economic development and prosperity. But that's probably another post.)

But I do have a strong opinion that Chris Bortz is in need of an IQ- or drug-test. How could he be so short-sighted, particularly regarding an issue that he believes is so vital to the city? Two questions are raised:

1. Why ask for an OEC opinion if you're going to ignore it if you don't get the answer you want?
2. Once you've got the opinion, why continue to participate, particularly since your vote hasn't been needed for passage? Even without Bortz, the streetcar has five votes (Qualls, Quinlivan, Cole, Thomas, and Berding).

Bortz has permitted--begged for, even--a controversy to be manufactured. Of course someone was going to file an ethics complaint. Of course certain people would use this to detract from a debate on the merits of the streetcar.

Chris Bortz has displayed an appalling lack of judgment in this matter, and everyone should be disappointed in him. Streetcar advocates should be angry with him for hurting their cause, regardless of the existence of an actual conflict. And streetcar opponents are upset that he ignored the opinion of the OEC after asking for it. He needs to start doing better by the citizens he represents.

Don't 3C and the Streetcar Need to Work Together?

It's no secret that I am no more than lukewarm about the prospect of a streetcar in Cincinnati. (Though it may seem odd to some of you, some info about Kenosha's experience is perhaps bringing back to supporting the streetcar.) And I actually don't like the proposed "3C" train. (I'm not sure who decides to take a three-hour train ride to Columbus from Cincinnati when your car gets you there in half that time. I'd consider the six-hour trip to Cleveland, depending on the reason for my trip.) If federal money becomes available for the streetcar, though, it appears both will be foisted on us. My question: shouldn't they connect?

City Council recently agreed to recommend that a site on Laidlaw in Bond Hill be the Cincinnati terminal of the 3C line, at least until Union Terminal becomes a viable option--and that could be two decades away. So what happens when a passenger arrives at the Bond Hill station? Remember, that's north of the Norwood Lateral. How do you get to downtown? Or Clifton? Or anywhere else?

Given that the federal government has agreed to commit hundreds of millions of dollars to passenger rail in Ohio, wouldn't it be a good idea for the city to make a streetcar pitch that is connected to that investment? Terminating the train in Bond Hill creates a real danger of a "train to nowhere." So why not pitch the government on not only funding the streetcar, but funding an expanded version of it now, reaching all the way into Bond Hill to connect the new train line with both downtown and Uptown?

Below is my proposed streetcar route. Note that I have the streetcar jog west to Spring Grove. That's because if it went straight up Vine Street, it would pass through St. Bernard, and I have no idea whether St. Bernard would support the extension of the streetcar through its boundaries.

Well?


View Donald's Streetcar proposal in a larger map

Someone Get Chris Monzel a Map

Geography must not be a requirement for Hamilton County Commission, but it should be. Chris, the City does not extended into Kentucky, so efforts to prop up the Airport there are limited at best. Also, the City does not extend over all of the county, therefore you should be addressing your comments to us, not your prospective primary voters out in Blue Ash. Most importantly, during his ranting speech at Monday's Finance Committee Meeting, Council Member Chris Monzel referenced West Chester and Mason in his attack on Streetcars.

Yes, Chris tried to use these Exurban communities to make a point about Cincinnati in regards to why he's against the Streetcar plan.

The "Son of the Suburbs" should just start packing and move to West Chester or Mason if he loves those types of communities.

Before he packs up the U-Haul, someone needs to get Chris a map. Better yet, let's just put out a call. Would everyone in West Chester and Mason, please be sure to vote for Chris on May 4th! We need a voting scandal! Just to make sure. Just so Chris knows and to help keep him from personally driving up the cost of gas. Chris, West Chester and Mason aren't in Hamilton County. The Republicans there can't vote for you. Sure you can get their money, and don't worry, people will be checking to see how much out of City and County money you got for your campaign.

Seriously, Monzel's rant for right-wing votes during Monday's meeting was laughable. He shows all he cares about is getting the short term votes of people who are against the development in and often against the existence of the City. He is not helping lead the city, he is standing in its way.

Chris Monzel needs to move out of the way. He needs to move away from the City he cares nothing about. He has never come up with an significant plan, proposal, or idea that would improve the lives of people of this City. His current crusade to get elected to a higher office is more than prima facie evidence that he is actively working to impede development of the City. He would rather sink money into projects outside the City and outside the State of Ohio. We don't need a guy on County Commission and certainly not Council who is not working for the best interests of its citizens. He's working for the interests of his donors and the special interest extremists supporting his crusade to kill the City.

The good news is that six members of the Finance Committee disagreed with Monzel, and his sidekick Leslie Ghiz, who shared his vote, but lucky for her, didn't rant on about the suburbs. I guess she's not moving out of town, yet.

For more of the good news on Council's action check out: UrbanCincy, CityBeat, and the Enquirer.

Support the Streetcar at City Council

Show your support for the Streetcar in Cincinnati! Please attend the City Council Committee meeting on Monday afternoon at 1PM. Please get there 15 minuets before to sign up to speak. If you don't want to speak, just your presence will help get the message to council that the City needs to go forward on the Streetcar.

For more details check out the Cincy Streetcar Blog.

The Truth Sometimes Does Win

Like the Mayor, I was a little bit worried about Issue 9 going into last night. Once the absentee votes came in, however, I was convinced that the night would end well for those of us opposing Issue 9.

The campaign by the those in favor of Issue 9 was filled with a combination of out right lies and scores of misleading comments from both Chris Smitherman and COAST. Top that disreputable combination off with a very confused Tom Luken and you get a campaign that got far too much unquestioning attention from the media regarding its clearly visible goal to damage the city. With great effort from the No on 9 team, that gaggle of strange bedfellows failed. Truth and common sense won out.

The defeat of this measure does do two things to make transportation improvements closer to happening. For the Streetcar it takes away a big hurdle to funding the project. Efforts can now confidently be taken to secure the Federal and State funding require to move forward on the Streetcar. We don't need to vote on it again. We just elected a Mayor and 6 council members who support the Streetcar plan. That is how representative democracy works.

We'll still get the crack-pots around to unfold their latest tin-foil hat reasons why more jobs, increased public transit, and the economic development of the urban core is a bad thing, but that argument is easy to refute. Until then, I really hope the handful of anti-city zealots at COAST will learn something from their big defeat.

The second thing to help transportation is to remove any hindrance to the high speed rail efforts to connect Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati. This Federal plan was destined to pass Cincinnati by, but again the Truth won out.

This Doesn't Mean "Yes" On Streetcars

Issue 9 is clearly going to fail. But I'd better not hear streetcar supporters tell me this means Cincinnatians favor streetcars.

You told us that Issue 9 was about more than streetcars. It was about all passenger rail. And even more broadly, it was about our form of government. We're supposed to, you told us, trust our elected officials to make these decisions.

I remain relatively ambivalent about the streetcar. I thought Issue 9 represented bad government and voted against it accordingly. But don't tell me my vote translates to approval of a streetcar.

TV Ad For No On 9

Should be hitting the airwaves today:

Issues 8 and 9: Why Vote on Voting?

I understand why the supporters of Issue 8 don't want City Council to create a regional water district. In fact, I think I'm in their camp, if only because Council would lose control of water rates. And I think there's a strong argument that the creation of a water district should require a charter amendment (and thus a referendum). Water Works is, after all, referenced in the charter (the power to appoint the agency's chief is one of the powers vested in the city manager).

And I understand why the supporters of Issue 9 think building a streetcar is a bad idea.* (I'm generally lukewarm on the streetcar and believe regardless of the passage or failure of Issue 9, the private investment dollars needed to build the streetcar--and forecast by its most ardent proponents--are unlikely to materialize.) I disagree that the decision should be embedded within the City Charter. In a republic, budget appropriations are a matter left to the discretion of the elected legislature. The anti-streetcar sentiment is understandable, even if I don't feel it myself.

But I don't understand why Issues 8 and 9 are written as they are. Why doesn't Issue 8 simply ban the creation of a regional water district or the sale of the water works to a private corporation? (Issue 8 as written, by the way, would not prevent the privatization of Cincinnati's water works, though I've heard no serious person propose such a thing, anyhow.) Why doesn't Issue 9 simply ban the expenditure of funds for a streetcar? Why do the drafters of these ballot issues leave open the possibility that they'll win this time, but lose a referendum in a subsequent election?

After all, the drafters of Issues 8 and 9 certainly know how to write a straightforward, no-loopholes charter amendment. When the NAACP and COAST teamed up to write the anti-red-light amendment a few years ago, it was just that. It didn't call for a separate vote on the cameras; instead, it simply banned their use to impose civil or criminal penalties.

As I was thinking about Issues 8 or 9, it occurred to me that their structure must be relatively unique. Apart from the method to amend a charter or constitution, I cannot think of federal, state, or local constitutional or charter provisions calling for a referendum before a legislature takes a certain action. (With respect to budget appropriations like that implicated in Issue 9, by the way, I believe a state-wide referendum would, in fact, be unconstitutional under state law, as the state constitution explicitly excludes those from the referendum process.) But after a little research, I realized that Issues 8 and 9 do, indeed, have a precedent: Article XI of the City Charter.

What's that? You say you don't know what Article XI is? It's been on the books for over a half-century. It says:

Any ordinance enacted by the Council of the City of Cincinnati which provides for the fluoridation of water processed and distributed by the Cincinnati Water Works must first be approved by a majority of the electors voting on the question at a special or general election before said ordinance shall become effective, and any ordinance to fluoridate the water distributed by the Cincinnati Water Works that may have been enacted before this amendment is adopted shall cease to be effective until approved by a majority of the electors voting on the question at a special or general election.

That's right: back in the 1950's, Cincinnatians vehemently opposed efforts to add fluoride to their drinking water. After the charter was amended to include Article XI, three separate referenda to fluoridate the water failed. It took the intervention of the Ohio EPA--with assistance from the Ohio Supreme Court--to improve Cincinnatians' dental health. (And proving the stubborness of Queen City residents, one report seems to suggest that in the wake of fluoridation, bottled water sales increased dramatically.)

So there you have it. Historical precedent for the two strange (from a structural standpoint) issues on this year's ballot: fluoride-alarmists!

Charter amendments ought to be straightforward and do what they intend. If selling water works to a regional water authority is a bad idea, let's just preclude it. If a streetcar is a bad idea and the only way to prevent one is a charter amendment, let's do that. But let's not waste time voting on whether to vote.

---

*Yes, I realize Issue 9 is about more than the streetcar. I suspect the bulk of its city-resident supporters, though, are concerned only with the streetcar, and not more minimal outlays for things like the Zoo train or the 3C rail line.

Streetcar Facts!

Here's a video providing facts on the Streetcar


As always check out www.cincystreetcar.com for more.

Don't forget: No on 9!

Vote No on Issue 9

Via UrbanCincy

Deception (Exempli Gratia, COAST, Finney)

It is funny when Chris Finney gets hoisted by his own petard. Finney is pissed because he claims the City is trying to make the ballot language a bit more clear, preventing him from deceiving the voters. That is right, Finney is pissed because the forces of good are acting to thwart his efforts at deception. According to Finney's court filing, the city is considering removing the "(e.g., a trolley or streetcar)" part of the ballot language because it clearly is misleading. The ballot initiative will affect all "passenger rail transportation" and Finney (and COAST/NAACP) are knowingly trying to mislead the public into thinking this is just about the Streetcar. The "e.g." which is the abbrevation of the Latin phrase "exempli gratia" means "for example." Well, I just want to make it known that deceiving the voters is wrong, for example, how Chris Finney, COAST, and the Local NAACP are trying to deceive the public into thinking that their ballot issue is not anti-passenger rail, but is instead only about the Streetcar. Let's hope the forces of good will thrwart evil this time again.

Oh, and Finney will be costing the City and County more needless money if he fights this in court. Better ask him how many jobs will be saved if he accepts the clarity over his attempted deception. Oh, right, he wants smaller(None) government, so any government job loss is a positive to someone like Finney.

Great Business Courier Editorial

In case you missed it, please have read of a great editorial from the Courier's Publisher Doug Bolton. This gives one of the best layman's take as to why we need the Streetcars. Being bold is exactly what we need and those opposing streetcars have nothing to replace this bold idea, at least noting that will actually have a positive impact on the city.

For those without a subscription, CityKin has the whole editorial.

Great NY Times Article About Cincinnati

I don't know if the writer for the NY Times read my mind or read the minds of all of my friends or was stalking everyone I hang out with, but this travel article highlights what I believe are many of the of the coolest places in Cincinnati. If you want to explain to people living anywhere, including people in the Cincinnati area, why this a vibrant place to live, point them to this article and tell them this is just the tip of the iceberg. If City and Business leaders want to attract people to live or visit Cincinnati, they must promote these facets on par with any other attribute.

Ignorance of Smitherman and Real Agenda of COAST

It's being said by Republicans, Democrats, Charterites, and every other logical thinking person, but Don Mooney Jr. lays out the reasons why the anti-rail ballot issue is shortsighted and something that will hurt the city now and later.

This once again exposes the ignorance of Chris Smitherman for not understanding what COAST is trying to do, stop any and all rail project. COAST pretends to only be about destroying government, but it is just a bunch of conservatives with an extremist and outdated political agenda.