Over at PepTalk, Commissioner David Pepper is seeking your input on how Hamilton County can be a more bicycle-friendly community.
I've always thought a community is bicycle-friendly enough when drivers are ticketed for running bicyclists off the road, but what do I know? Head over to the Commish's blog and take the survey.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Monday, January 05, 2009
Local Politicians Move Into New Offices
Today marked some changes in Hamilton County offices. Wayne Coates was sworn in as County Recorder. Greg Hartmann began his term as County Commissioner. Judge Pat Dewine began his term as Common Pleas Court judge (occupying the seat formerly held by now-retired Judge Davis). (The term of Judge-Elect Jerry Metz, who defeated incumbent Judge Fred Nelson, does not begin until February 10.) And Patricia Clancy began her term as Clerk of Courts.
The most visible change of the switches (for now) is the new banner on the Clerk of Courts website. Here is the old Hartmann banner:
And here is the new Clancy banner:
This is far from a substantive criticism, and I'm sure Ms. Clancy will do an excellent job as Clerk, but the new, yellow-highlighted banner is a little grating on the eyes. My very non-scientific survey ("Do you like the new banner?") yielded a unanimous preference for Hartmann's red-and-blue color scheme. (If I remember correctly, the yellow-and-blue matches the colors Clancy used during her campaign. And perhaps the red-and-blue preference is just a sense of familiarity with Hartmann's banner.)
The most visible change of the switches (for now) is the new banner on the Clerk of Courts website. Here is the old Hartmann banner:
And here is the new Clancy banner:This is far from a substantive criticism, and I'm sure Ms. Clancy will do an excellent job as Clerk, but the new, yellow-highlighted banner is a little grating on the eyes. My very non-scientific survey ("Do you like the new banner?") yielded a unanimous preference for Hartmann's red-and-blue color scheme. (If I remember correctly, the yellow-and-blue matches the colors Clancy used during her campaign. And perhaps the red-and-blue preference is just a sense of familiarity with Hartmann's banner.)Nevertheless, as much as this is a difficult time for HamCo government, it should also be an exciting time, as the County sees some new faces (or at least some old faces in new places), and with it, hopefully, new ideas and energy. So welcome to the new office holders!!!
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Enquirer.com Redo 3.0
Well it appears the Enquirer has changed its page design yet again. The background color has gone back to white, thankfully. It again appears to be loading faster, but that may just be me. I am getting dizzy from all of the changes.
Friday, January 02, 2009
Government by Referenda: What's On Your Wish List?
There been much discussion in the local blogosphere about the NAACP's petition drive to place a measure on the ballot that would amend the City Charter to require a plebiscite prior to the expenditure of funds for light rail in Cincinnati. (Links: Us, the Beacon, UrbanCincy.) I will not support this measure--not because I'm a big fan of streetcars, but because I don't believe this type of issue belongs in the charter. I would cautiously support charter reform (and changing Ohio Revised Code, if necessary) to permit this sort of issue to be placed on the ballot to become a City ordinance, if passed. More democracy is good, generally speaking, but we should be careful when we alter the document that is the foundation of our governmental structure.
The whole thing has gotten me thinking, though: if I had the organizational (and financial) power of the NAACP/Green/COAST coalition, what would I place on the ballot? For me, the answer is simple: I would propose a charter amendment stripping the City of its power to enact criminal ordinances that create offenses more serious than minor misdemeanors (which do not carry the possibility of jail time) and simultaneously reclassifying all existing misdemeanors under the Cincinnati Municipal Code (CMC) as minor misdemeanors.
Such a proposal would not mean the absence of criminal law in Cincinnati. Instead, it would mean simply that all of our crimes would be defined by Ohio Revised Code (and the state has defined plenty of crimes). If the City wanted to prohibit conduct not included in ORC, it could punish such conduct only by a $150 fine (or lobby the Assembly to enact a state-wide statute).
Why shouldn't the City be in the business of drafting criminal laws? First, I doubt it's cost-effective. The City now has (and pays for) its own public defenders. It is now being billed by the County for the bed space occupied by individuals charged only under CMC. Because of the increased penalties created, more court time and (therefore) police time is used. Second, the effect of such laws on crime is highly disputable: no one has ever pointed to hard statistics that show that in the absence of the City's own criminal code, more crime would flourish in the City. Third, Council has consistently demonstrated itself to be fairly bad at drafting criminal ordinances. And finally, one set of ordinances alone--namely, the criminalization of the City's administrative building code (which gives rise to the municipal "Housing Docket")--is reason enough to strip the City of its power to create criminal offenses (but that's a whole separate post).
So if I were King For A Day, the elimination of Cincinnati's criminal ordinances is what I'd take up. If you were able to place anything you wanted on the ballot for consideration, what would it be?
1/3/09 Update: Post modified to correct typographical errors.
The whole thing has gotten me thinking, though: if I had the organizational (and financial) power of the NAACP/Green/COAST coalition, what would I place on the ballot? For me, the answer is simple: I would propose a charter amendment stripping the City of its power to enact criminal ordinances that create offenses more serious than minor misdemeanors (which do not carry the possibility of jail time) and simultaneously reclassifying all existing misdemeanors under the Cincinnati Municipal Code (CMC) as minor misdemeanors.
Such a proposal would not mean the absence of criminal law in Cincinnati. Instead, it would mean simply that all of our crimes would be defined by Ohio Revised Code (and the state has defined plenty of crimes). If the City wanted to prohibit conduct not included in ORC, it could punish such conduct only by a $150 fine (or lobby the Assembly to enact a state-wide statute).
Why shouldn't the City be in the business of drafting criminal laws? First, I doubt it's cost-effective. The City now has (and pays for) its own public defenders. It is now being billed by the County for the bed space occupied by individuals charged only under CMC. Because of the increased penalties created, more court time and (therefore) police time is used. Second, the effect of such laws on crime is highly disputable: no one has ever pointed to hard statistics that show that in the absence of the City's own criminal code, more crime would flourish in the City. Third, Council has consistently demonstrated itself to be fairly bad at drafting criminal ordinances. And finally, one set of ordinances alone--namely, the criminalization of the City's administrative building code (which gives rise to the municipal "Housing Docket")--is reason enough to strip the City of its power to create criminal offenses (but that's a whole separate post).
So if I were King For A Day, the elimination of Cincinnati's criminal ordinances is what I'd take up. If you were able to place anything you wanted on the ballot for consideration, what would it be?
1/3/09 Update: Post modified to correct typographical errors.
Shout Out: Smith Mufflers
We regularly highlight restaurants and bands we like here at the Cincinnati Blog. Today, I thought I'd point out something that can be harder to find than good food or good music: a good mechanic.
Just before Christmas, my aging Infiniti started behaving badly: the heater wouldn't work, and (somewhat ironically, I thought) the engine threatened to overheat. I took it to Smith Mufflers and Brakes in Covington, who I'd used for work on my previous car (an aging Neon). Their initial diagnosis: broken water pump and blown head gasket.
The head gasket is a significant repair on a Nissan engine (I know, that's what I get for buying a non-American brand). While I wasn't thrilled that the cost of the repair was much closer to the value of the car than I preferred, I authorized the work, as I'm not really interested in replacing the car right now.
A few days later, I talked again to the folks at Smith to get an update. Understanding the significance of the work they were about to do, they ran some additional tests. It turns out it wasn't the head gasket, but a different, minor problem that can lead to false results in the test they use to diagnose the head gasket. Figuring this out saved me about two grand.
So: three cheers for Smith Muffler. They didn't have to take the extra step in re-examining their initial assessment; after all, I'd authorized the work. But they did so, leaving me with a considerably reduced bill (and them with considerably less money). I've never heard anyone say a bad word about Smith, and this kind of honesty and diligence is exactly the reason why.
So if you're looking for a non-dealer mechanic for your car, check 'em out.
Just before Christmas, my aging Infiniti started behaving badly: the heater wouldn't work, and (somewhat ironically, I thought) the engine threatened to overheat. I took it to Smith Mufflers and Brakes in Covington, who I'd used for work on my previous car (an aging Neon). Their initial diagnosis: broken water pump and blown head gasket.
The head gasket is a significant repair on a Nissan engine (I know, that's what I get for buying a non-American brand). While I wasn't thrilled that the cost of the repair was much closer to the value of the car than I preferred, I authorized the work, as I'm not really interested in replacing the car right now.
A few days later, I talked again to the folks at Smith to get an update. Understanding the significance of the work they were about to do, they ran some additional tests. It turns out it wasn't the head gasket, but a different, minor problem that can lead to false results in the test they use to diagnose the head gasket. Figuring this out saved me about two grand.
So: three cheers for Smith Muffler. They didn't have to take the extra step in re-examining their initial assessment; after all, I'd authorized the work. But they did so, leaving me with a considerably reduced bill (and them with considerably less money). I've never heard anyone say a bad word about Smith, and this kind of honesty and diligence is exactly the reason why.
So if you're looking for a non-dealer mechanic for your car, check 'em out.
Moerlein Buys Little Kings
Christian Moerlein is continuing to bring home Cincinnati's Beers with its purchase this week of Little Kings. While the brewery will not be located in Cincinnati, this is another step for the Cincinnati based Christian Moerlein in its goal of brewing its beers here in Cincinnati.
It has been a long time since I've had a Little Kings Cream Ale. I have two memories of them from College. One is using plasti-tac to spell words on the dorm room wall with Little Kings' bottle caps. The other memory is seeing how fast and in how few gulps we could guzzle the 7 ouncers. Oh the memories that brings back, and the realization that I can't to that any more!
It has been a long time since I've had a Little Kings Cream Ale. I have two memories of them from College. One is using plasti-tac to spell words on the dorm room wall with Little Kings' bottle caps. The other memory is seeing how fast and in how few gulps we could guzzle the 7 ouncers. Oh the memories that brings back, and the realization that I can't to that any more!
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Large Banks Ignoring Foreclosed Properties
Below, Griff notes the Enquirer's growing tendency to shift local news coverage from its newspaper (both print and online editions) to its blog. Symptomatic of that tendency is this post on the Politics Extra Blog by Jane Pendergrast, which reports that last week, the City of Cincinnati filed suit against Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo for failing to properly maintain properties upon which they have foreclosed.
The conduct of banks that have foreclosed on properties is a real problem in Cincinnati. The banks just let the property sit until they can find someone to buy the property. Generally, banks entirely ignore Cincinnati ordinances, including requirements to properly maintain the structures and to obtain vacant building maintenance licenses. In its 22-page verified complaint, the City does an excellent job describing the situation and the reason it filed suit:
(Verified Complaint, paras. 1 & 16.) As Pendergrast notes, the defendants have removed the case to federal court, where it is now pending before Chief Judge Beckwith. Part of what the City sought in Common Pleas court was an injunction preventing the banks from transferring the property (the City claims they have a history of transferring nuisance properties once legal action is filed in order to avoid liability). While the defendants claim they have already divested themselves of some of the property at issue in the new suit, they and the City have agreed that no further transfers (of property named in the litigation) until the case is concluded or the federal court orders otherwise.
The City, joined by the County (which is also named as a defendant, in that it has an interest in the properties as holder of various tax liens against them) has asked Judge Beckwith to remand the case back to state court. The banks have been ordered to file their response by January 22. Given the surge of foreclosures in Hamilton County, this is an extremely important issue--and one that merited more attention from the Enquirer than relegation to its blog.
The conduct of banks that have foreclosed on properties is a real problem in Cincinnati. The banks just let the property sit until they can find someone to buy the property. Generally, banks entirely ignore Cincinnati ordinances, including requirements to properly maintain the structures and to obtain vacant building maintenance licenses. In its 22-page verified complaint, the City does an excellent job describing the situation and the reason it filed suit:
This is an action by the City of Cincinnati against two lenders that
regularly appear in Hamilton County Courts to prosecute foreclosure actions but have consistently refused to appear when summoned by the City of Cincinnati for the basic maintenance of abandoned and vacated properties titled in the names of Defendants. The City of Cincinnati seeks to hold these entities accountable in the same manner that individual property owners are held accountable for abandoned and vacated properties and seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and money damages. Over the past three years, the City of Cincinnati and its departments have made several attempts to communicate with Defendants regarding the numerous properties and buildings throughout the City that were and are in violation of City health and housing codes. Defendants have consistently failed to take responsibility for the maintenance and upkeep of such properties; in fact, Defendants have gone so far as to deny ownership of these properties.Defendants have consistently refused service of process and ignored summonses pertaining to criminal complaints filed by the Property Maintenance Division . . . as well as notices sent . . . regarding civil fines for failure to comply with the Cincinnati Municipal Code.
(Verified Complaint, paras. 1 & 16.) As Pendergrast notes, the defendants have removed the case to federal court, where it is now pending before Chief Judge Beckwith. Part of what the City sought in Common Pleas court was an injunction preventing the banks from transferring the property (the City claims they have a history of transferring nuisance properties once legal action is filed in order to avoid liability). While the defendants claim they have already divested themselves of some of the property at issue in the new suit, they and the City have agreed that no further transfers (of property named in the litigation) until the case is concluded or the federal court orders otherwise.
The City, joined by the County (which is also named as a defendant, in that it has an interest in the properties as holder of various tax liens against them) has asked Judge Beckwith to remand the case back to state court. The banks have been ordered to file their response by January 22. Given the surge of foreclosures in Hamilton County, this is an extremely important issue--and one that merited more attention from the Enquirer than relegation to its blog.
The Dropping of the Pig
NYC can drop all the balls it wants. Nothing, NOTHING can top the dropping of the pig last night at Grammer's. Fireworks also flew high above the OTR bar as the crowd shifted outside to ring in the new year. In what I hopes becomes a tradition, I think we capture the irreverence that lives strong in Cincinnati. We drink, we cheer, we drink some more.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Top Cincinnati Stories for 2008?
What say you blog readers? What were the top local stories of the year? Some of mine are:
- Driehaus defeating Chabot in the 1st Congressional District
- Hamilton County going Blue!
- Hamilton County Budget Crisis
- The Growth of Cincinnati Music Scene (Midpoint, Expansion/Remodeling at Northside Tavern and Southgate House, CEA's, King Records Tribute)
- Bloodletting at the Enquirer
Groppe: Sore Loser
It is being reported by the Enquirer that outgoing Hamilton County Recorder Rebecca Prem Groppe isn't being helpful to her successor Wayne Coates, who beat her in November for the office.
With the publication of this story can we hope that Groppe is at least shammed into acting more maturely? Is that too much to hope for?
With the publication of this story can we hope that Groppe is at least shammed into acting more maturely? Is that too much to hope for?
Enquirer.com Redo 2.0
Recently, the Cincinnati Enquirer updated its website again after a total relaunch earlier this year. This update is not a new look, but new organization. The biggest complaints with the relaunch were the slowness of the site and the simple fact that you couldn't find anything. So, I've not noticed an increased loading speed, but is the reorg better? Can you read the paper online better? Or is it still a mess with no cohesiveness? I like the idea of a daily newspaper where you can determine a front page story. With the relaunch that concept was almost abandoned. The power of front page story is the one natural editorial choice a news outlet makes about straight up news.
The revised site now to me as more of front page editorial choice present. It is not tied to the daily, more akin to CNN.com style with the instant front page story lasting as long as the editors see fit. This is an improvement to the organization.
The problem is still the ever shrinking local content. The staff blogs are acting as the supplement to lack of local news, and I think the reporters are ham-strung with that. I don't know how blogging fulfills their job requirement, so it appears as if they are doing it largely on their own time.
The revised site now to me as more of front page editorial choice present. It is not tied to the daily, more akin to CNN.com style with the instant front page story lasting as long as the editors see fit. This is an improvement to the organization.
The problem is still the ever shrinking local content. The staff blogs are acting as the supplement to lack of local news, and I think the reporters are ham-strung with that. I don't know how blogging fulfills their job requirement, so it appears as if they are doing it largely on their own time.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
It's Ba-ack: Uncle Woody's
I'm a little late on this, but Uncle Woody's, the combination neighborhood/campus bar on Calhoun near Clifton (across the street from the UC College of Law) has reopened. Apparently, it did so in late November, under new ownership and management. I'd noted the bar's passing (which is joyfully short-lived) back in June.
Uncle Woody's will host a New Year's Eve Party. You can opt for one of two different cover charges: $25 gets you unlimited domestic beer, and $35 gets you unlimited well drinks, domestic beer, and food. But those prices require an RSVP; showing up without a reservation will cost you an extra ten bucks. Either way, the midnight champagne toast is included in your price.
And if you're the Facebook-type, you can join the Uncle Woody's group.
The return of Uncle Woody's is welcome news, at least for this UC law alum.
Uncle Woody's will host a New Year's Eve Party. You can opt for one of two different cover charges: $25 gets you unlimited domestic beer, and $35 gets you unlimited well drinks, domestic beer, and food. But those prices require an RSVP; showing up without a reservation will cost you an extra ten bucks. Either way, the midnight champagne toast is included in your price.
And if you're the Facebook-type, you can join the Uncle Woody's group.
The return of Uncle Woody's is welcome news, at least for this UC law alum.
Kona Bistro Closing December 31st
The Enquirer's Campbell's Scoop Blog is reporting that Kona Bistro in Oakley is closing its doors. It appears that their lease is up and they would have to commit to a new 5 year lease in order to keep the space. Business isn't good enough. I've enjoyed going there, but haven't been for a while. I generally had good meals and management was very supportive of the community. I will be sorry to see them close.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Kennedy Case Is Illustrative Of Dual Justice System
By now, of course, we all know that former Bearcat coach Andy Kennedy was arrested for assault Wednesday night/Thursday morning. The case is next set for a pretrial conference on January 16 before Judge Dwane Mallory. Let me be clear: I have no earthly idea whether Kennedy is guilty or innocent. And it doesn't seem worthwhile to have that debate in the comments. But the way Kennedy's case has been handled thus far illustrates that people in Hamilton County--and in America--get precisely the amount of justice they can afford.
How is Kennedy's case different? Well, first, the AP reported that his attorney entered a written plea of not guilty on his behalf on Thursday. That means that, procedurally speaking, Kennedy was a "sheriff's release." In other words, when CPD took him to the Justice Center, sheriff's deputies processed him and immediately released him without holding him to first appear before a judge.
While this is not unheard-of, it's at least a bit unusual. Kennedy is charged with a violent, first-degree misdemeanor. If news reports are accurate, the complaint is based not just on the alleged victim's statements, but also on a bystander's statements. Moreover, to my knowledge, Kennedy has no local address. He almost certainly, as of Thursday morning, intended to return to Mississippi. So being able to go home without posting bond (or at least signing an own-recognizance bond sheet) is outside the ordinary, given that the sheriff's office knew (or should have known) that Kennedy would relatively promptly leave the jurisdiction upon being released.
Next, the very fact that Kennedy already has counsel is unusual. If he were indigent, he likely would have sat in the holding cell in the first floor of the Justice Center until the 12:30 docket (when "City misdemeanors" are arraigned), and then would have been assigned counsel. Had an indigent, non-famous Kennedy been lucky enough to be released by the sheriff, he would have returned to the HCJC that afternoon, when he would have been told to go to the HamCo Public Defender's Office to "qualify" (financially) for counsel.
Finally, Kennedy has not just one attorney, but two. It's been reported that Kennedy has filed suit against two of the witnesses who have allegedly alleged he committed an assault. As an attorney, I'm fairly disgusted by the civil lawsuit that's been filed, as I suspect its chief purpose is to intimidate the witnesses into changing their stories or not coming to court. (Although in Kennedy's defense, the witnesses ought to quit talking to the media until the criminal case is concluded.) After all, when I decide whether to file a lawsuit on a client's behalf, one of the factors I must consider is collectibility: in other words, even if I win, can my client and I collect the judgment from the defendant? In the Kennedy case, what is the likelihood that a taxi cab driver and a valet have assets sufficient to satisfy a judgment?
For an indigent defendant, there's almost no chance a lawyer would file a defamation suit on his behalf prior to trial. There's almost no chance his attorney could get the Enquirer or the local TV stations to publish his stance on the case, thus permitting him to align a potential jury pool one way or the other. Typically, when the media reports on a case that comes through arraignment, the reporters don't even ask defense counsel for a comment; they report only what is in publicly available documents and what's said at the bond hearing.
Kennedy is free, he's well-represented, and he's got the media telling his tale for him. None of these things would be happening if he weren't a fairly wealthy semi-celebrity. I don't begrudge Kennedy the advantages he has (every defense attorney in private practice has clients who benefit from financial resouces that wealthier people have); I just question why we can't devise a system where more people get the same treatment.
How is Kennedy's case different? Well, first, the AP reported that his attorney entered a written plea of not guilty on his behalf on Thursday. That means that, procedurally speaking, Kennedy was a "sheriff's release." In other words, when CPD took him to the Justice Center, sheriff's deputies processed him and immediately released him without holding him to first appear before a judge.
While this is not unheard-of, it's at least a bit unusual. Kennedy is charged with a violent, first-degree misdemeanor. If news reports are accurate, the complaint is based not just on the alleged victim's statements, but also on a bystander's statements. Moreover, to my knowledge, Kennedy has no local address. He almost certainly, as of Thursday morning, intended to return to Mississippi. So being able to go home without posting bond (or at least signing an own-recognizance bond sheet) is outside the ordinary, given that the sheriff's office knew (or should have known) that Kennedy would relatively promptly leave the jurisdiction upon being released.
Next, the very fact that Kennedy already has counsel is unusual. If he were indigent, he likely would have sat in the holding cell in the first floor of the Justice Center until the 12:30 docket (when "City misdemeanors" are arraigned), and then would have been assigned counsel. Had an indigent, non-famous Kennedy been lucky enough to be released by the sheriff, he would have returned to the HCJC that afternoon, when he would have been told to go to the HamCo Public Defender's Office to "qualify" (financially) for counsel.
Finally, Kennedy has not just one attorney, but two. It's been reported that Kennedy has filed suit against two of the witnesses who have allegedly alleged he committed an assault. As an attorney, I'm fairly disgusted by the civil lawsuit that's been filed, as I suspect its chief purpose is to intimidate the witnesses into changing their stories or not coming to court. (Although in Kennedy's defense, the witnesses ought to quit talking to the media until the criminal case is concluded.) After all, when I decide whether to file a lawsuit on a client's behalf, one of the factors I must consider is collectibility: in other words, even if I win, can my client and I collect the judgment from the defendant? In the Kennedy case, what is the likelihood that a taxi cab driver and a valet have assets sufficient to satisfy a judgment?
For an indigent defendant, there's almost no chance a lawyer would file a defamation suit on his behalf prior to trial. There's almost no chance his attorney could get the Enquirer or the local TV stations to publish his stance on the case, thus permitting him to align a potential jury pool one way or the other. Typically, when the media reports on a case that comes through arraignment, the reporters don't even ask defense counsel for a comment; they report only what is in publicly available documents and what's said at the bond hearing.
Kennedy is free, he's well-represented, and he's got the media telling his tale for him. None of these things would be happening if he weren't a fairly wealthy semi-celebrity. I don't begrudge Kennedy the advantages he has (every defense attorney in private practice has clients who benefit from financial resouces that wealthier people have); I just question why we can't devise a system where more people get the same treatment.
City Government by Referendum: A Good Idea?
Last week, the Cincinnati branch of the NAACP announced that it will seek to place on the 2009 ballot an initiative to bar the creation of a streetcar in Cincinnati. (Those of you who regularly follow this blog know that I'm only lukewarm to the idea. While originally opposed, I've come around to support streetcars, though I've still not drunk the Koolaid offered by those who claim that light rail is our only, best hope for revitalization.)
This post is most assuredly not about streetcars. Instead, it's about whether this is an appropriate way for City government to be run. Earlier this year, the NAACP successfully opposed the use of "red light cameras," adding an amendment to the City Charter that prohibits them. I voted against the measure--not because I think the cameras are a good idea (they're a terrible idea), but because I didn't (and don't) believe it's an appropriate issue for a city charter.
I'm still not sold 100 percent on streetcars, but I'm not even sure how the proposed Charter amendment will read: "Cincinnati shall never have light rail"? That doesn't make sense. It's particularly troubling that the streetcar plan (at least in its current iteration) doesn't involve a tax increase. So we're talking about amending the charter to prevent a specific expenditure by Council, not to head off a tax increase or alter the structure of our government.
So here's my question: is this the right way to run City government? How many decisions should be decided by referendum? And if we really like referenda, should we consider amending our charter (and perhaps the Revised Code--I'm not sure) so that we could enact an ordinance by referendum, rather than constantly changing the Charter with day-to-day issues like expenditures or red-light cameras, thus permitting the Charter to do what it should: deal almost explicitly with the structure of government?
This post is most assuredly not about streetcars. Instead, it's about whether this is an appropriate way for City government to be run. Earlier this year, the NAACP successfully opposed the use of "red light cameras," adding an amendment to the City Charter that prohibits them. I voted against the measure--not because I think the cameras are a good idea (they're a terrible idea), but because I didn't (and don't) believe it's an appropriate issue for a city charter.
I'm still not sold 100 percent on streetcars, but I'm not even sure how the proposed Charter amendment will read: "Cincinnati shall never have light rail"? That doesn't make sense. It's particularly troubling that the streetcar plan (at least in its current iteration) doesn't involve a tax increase. So we're talking about amending the charter to prevent a specific expenditure by Council, not to head off a tax increase or alter the structure of our government.
So here's my question: is this the right way to run City government? How many decisions should be decided by referendum? And if we really like referenda, should we consider amending our charter (and perhaps the Revised Code--I'm not sure) so that we could enact an ordinance by referendum, rather than constantly changing the Charter with day-to-day issues like expenditures or red-light cameras, thus permitting the Charter to do what it should: deal almost explicitly with the structure of government?
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Mea Culpa: Charter vs. Democrat vs. Republican
In a recent post on the City budget, I ended with a suggestion that Charterites are really just Democrats going by another name. After some thought and discussion with others, I've concluded I made two mistakes.
The first was making the remark at all: it turned the ensuing discussion from one on the merits of the City budget (which should have been useful and much more civil than some commenters permitted it to be) into one on the nature of the Charter Committee and its members. It was tangential, and I should have just left it out.
The second, though, was my sweeping characterization of Charterites. I stand by the assertion that as a whole, the Charter Committee is on the left or center-left of the political spectrum. But some individuals (including, perhaps, a current Council member) may lean more to the right. My error did not stem from a misunderstanding of what the individuals I mentioned advocate. (It should be noted, regardless of his pre-Council tendencies, that Charterite Chris Bortz ran on a platform that included streetcars (economic development in inner-city is traditionally a Dem issue) and environmentalism.)
Instead, I erred because I tend to employ a perhaps overly-broad definition of Democratic thought and an overly-narrow definition of Republican thought. I've generally rejected the GOP because of its stance on social issues (which tends, in turn, to influence its fiscal policies). So when I see leaders who are relatively close to the center who don't take Phil Burress-like positions on social issues, I tend to identify them as Democratic. That's probably wrong. It's also not a mistake I'd have made ten years ago, but living in Cincinnati for nearly a decade has conditioned me to move my own mindset to the right, changing my expectations for what is "liberal" or "conservative," "Democratic" or "Republican." So suggesting that all Charterites are Dems-in-hiding was not just wrong, it was silly and unneccessary.
Hey...when we here in the blogosphere make a mistake, we fix it, usually with a fresh post. And until I or Brian, Julie, or Jack post something new, this correction will sit at the top of the blog for all to see--not buried at the bottom of page 6 as it would be in the more traditional media.
The first was making the remark at all: it turned the ensuing discussion from one on the merits of the City budget (which should have been useful and much more civil than some commenters permitted it to be) into one on the nature of the Charter Committee and its members. It was tangential, and I should have just left it out.
The second, though, was my sweeping characterization of Charterites. I stand by the assertion that as a whole, the Charter Committee is on the left or center-left of the political spectrum. But some individuals (including, perhaps, a current Council member) may lean more to the right. My error did not stem from a misunderstanding of what the individuals I mentioned advocate. (It should be noted, regardless of his pre-Council tendencies, that Charterite Chris Bortz ran on a platform that included streetcars (economic development in inner-city is traditionally a Dem issue) and environmentalism.)
Instead, I erred because I tend to employ a perhaps overly-broad definition of Democratic thought and an overly-narrow definition of Republican thought. I've generally rejected the GOP because of its stance on social issues (which tends, in turn, to influence its fiscal policies). So when I see leaders who are relatively close to the center who don't take Phil Burress-like positions on social issues, I tend to identify them as Democratic. That's probably wrong. It's also not a mistake I'd have made ten years ago, but living in Cincinnati for nearly a decade has conditioned me to move my own mindset to the right, changing my expectations for what is "liberal" or "conservative," "Democratic" or "Republican." So suggesting that all Charterites are Dems-in-hiding was not just wrong, it was silly and unneccessary.
Hey...when we here in the blogosphere make a mistake, we fix it, usually with a fresh post. And until I or Brian, Julie, or Jack post something new, this correction will sit at the top of the blog for all to see--not buried at the bottom of page 6 as it would be in the more traditional media.
Rethinking Tasers, the Expanded Version
Last week, I noted Amnesty International's report on taser use and its consequences. My suggestion (which was merely that we think deeply about this issue) had me branded a bleeding heart liberal. (Of course, my recent post on the budget has me branded a closet Republican, so I suppose I'm just a hopelessly confused moron.)
AI's report (available here) has garnered attention elsewhere in the local blogosphere; at the Beacon, Justin Jeffre discusses it. So let's discuss how tasers are used in Cincinnati. But before we do, let's establish a baseline: I'm not some crazy guy who hates the police. If anything, my work as a criminal defense attorney has instilled within me far more respect for the police--and the work they do--than prior to being involved in the criminal justice system. But it is certainly fair--and necessary--to discuss appropriate police tactics.
So first, let's talk about the taser itself. CPD supplies its officers with the X26 Taser. There are two ways this taser can be used. First, an officer use it to shoot two darts at a suspect, which remain connected to the taser via wires and which deliver an electric charge. Second, the taser can be used in "drive stun mode," which means that an officer pushes the taser itself against a suspect's body, pulling the trigger and directly delivering a shock (like a personal protection "stun gun"). Here's how CPD describes drive stun mode:
My concern is whether CPD policy with regards to taser use is correct or preferable. CPD--like all police departments--mandates a "continuum of force." In other words, officers must consider which level of force is appropriate to a given situation. The CPD continuum, from the lowest level of force to the most, is as follows:
There are truly two sides to the issue. AI's report is one of a growing number of sources that suggest that tasers may be more likely to cause harm than police departments realize. Moreover, officers sometimes escalate too quickly to tasers: that is, they sometimes move from verbal commands quicker than they would if the taser or chemical irritant weren't available. Anecdotally, at least, there are many, many instances of officers using tasers in situations where the situation wouldn't yet mandate the officer use "hard hands" or other, more physical techniques. The recent, truly egregious (and fatal) use of a taser by an officer in New York on a mentally ill, non-compliant man on a ledge is an example (albeit not a typical one) of officers using a taser in a circumstance in which they wouldn't use other forms of physical force. And the studies produced by the taser manufacturers regarding risk of serious harm to a tased subject assume that the subject being tased is healthy. Criminal suspects are often far from healthy, having abused their bodies with drugs or simply due to living in poverty for a lengthy time.
On the other hand, from the perspective of law enforcement, the taser is an excellent intermediary between verbal commands and more direct physical interaction. Moreover, once an officer begins to lay hands on a suspect, the taser may no longer be an option, as the officer will have to disengage and create enough space to reach across his/her body to pull out the taser and deploy it. (You've probably noticed that the taser appears to be "backwards" in an officer's utility belt, on the side of the officer's non-dominant hand. This is intentional. CPD does not want officers to simultaneously pull their taser and their firearm. Instead, officers are expected to make a conscious decision; they thus use their dominant (gun) hand to use the taser; that's why it's backwards-facing in the belt.) So placing the taser higher on the continuum of force may make it not usable at all.
Finally, I am concerned that CPD policy permits an officer to tase a suspect who is attempting to swallow evidence (most often, crack!). I've not seen this method of obtaining evidence challenged in court, but there's a colorable argument that evidence obtained this way should be excluded as violating a defendant's due process rights.
I don't have the answers to these qustions. But in the wake of AI's comprehensive report, this is an issue that should be debated, both within the CPD and by our City Council.
AI's report (available here) has garnered attention elsewhere in the local blogosphere; at the Beacon, Justin Jeffre discusses it. So let's discuss how tasers are used in Cincinnati. But before we do, let's establish a baseline: I'm not some crazy guy who hates the police. If anything, my work as a criminal defense attorney has instilled within me far more respect for the police--and the work they do--than prior to being involved in the criminal justice system. But it is certainly fair--and necessary--to discuss appropriate police tactics.
So first, let's talk about the taser itself. CPD supplies its officers with the X26 Taser. There are two ways this taser can be used. First, an officer use it to shoot two darts at a suspect, which remain connected to the taser via wires and which deliver an electric charge. Second, the taser can be used in "drive stun mode," which means that an officer pushes the taser itself against a suspect's body, pulling the trigger and directly delivering a shock (like a personal protection "stun gun"). Here's how CPD describes drive stun mode:
While operating the X26 Taser in the drive stun mode, the carotid/brachial, groin, and common peronial nerve are the preferred target areas of the body. A drive stun is described as pushing the X26 Taser aggressively against the subject’s body while pulling the trigger. This will deliver a shock to that area of the body. A drive stun is intended to gain compliance from actively resisting subjects, aggressive non-compliant subjects, violent or potentially violent subjects, and persons attempting to swallow evidence or contraband.(For those interested, CPD's Procedure Manual is maintained online here. The use of force portion of the manual is here.)
My concern is whether CPD policy with regards to taser use is correct or preferable. CPD--like all police departments--mandates a "continuum of force." In other words, officers must consider which level of force is appropriate to a given situation. The CPD continuum, from the lowest level of force to the most, is as follows:
- Officer presence
- Verbal skills
- X26 Taser/Chemical irritant
- Escort techniques
- Balance displacement
- Hard hands (pressure points/strikes)
- Monadnock Autolock batons
- Pepperballs/beanbags/40mm foam (all "less-than-lethal")
- Deadly force
There are truly two sides to the issue. AI's report is one of a growing number of sources that suggest that tasers may be more likely to cause harm than police departments realize. Moreover, officers sometimes escalate too quickly to tasers: that is, they sometimes move from verbal commands quicker than they would if the taser or chemical irritant weren't available. Anecdotally, at least, there are many, many instances of officers using tasers in situations where the situation wouldn't yet mandate the officer use "hard hands" or other, more physical techniques. The recent, truly egregious (and fatal) use of a taser by an officer in New York on a mentally ill, non-compliant man on a ledge is an example (albeit not a typical one) of officers using a taser in a circumstance in which they wouldn't use other forms of physical force. And the studies produced by the taser manufacturers regarding risk of serious harm to a tased subject assume that the subject being tased is healthy. Criminal suspects are often far from healthy, having abused their bodies with drugs or simply due to living in poverty for a lengthy time.
On the other hand, from the perspective of law enforcement, the taser is an excellent intermediary between verbal commands and more direct physical interaction. Moreover, once an officer begins to lay hands on a suspect, the taser may no longer be an option, as the officer will have to disengage and create enough space to reach across his/her body to pull out the taser and deploy it. (You've probably noticed that the taser appears to be "backwards" in an officer's utility belt, on the side of the officer's non-dominant hand. This is intentional. CPD does not want officers to simultaneously pull their taser and their firearm. Instead, officers are expected to make a conscious decision; they thus use their dominant (gun) hand to use the taser; that's why it's backwards-facing in the belt.) So placing the taser higher on the continuum of force may make it not usable at all.
Finally, I am concerned that CPD policy permits an officer to tase a suspect who is attempting to swallow evidence (most often, crack!). I've not seen this method of obtaining evidence challenged in court, but there's a colorable argument that evidence obtained this way should be excluded as violating a defendant's due process rights.
I don't have the answers to these qustions. But in the wake of AI's comprehensive report, this is an issue that should be debated, both within the CPD and by our City Council.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
More On the City's Budget: Part II
2. The Budget Is Substantively Flawed.
So what's the big deal with an extra million dollars in spending? That's certainly a fair question, given that our governments routinely piss away millions at a time without the least bit of consternation. The problems are both real and symbolic.
The first budget (the one suported by seven members of Council) was balanced. It didn't require any money to be pulled from the City's "carryover surplus" (this is what the County calls a "rainy day" fund). It also didn't require the doubling of parking ticket fines.
The City is facing major economic hurdles over the next couple years. The first is the status of the City's retirement fund. It's underfunded. Chris Smitherman has been sounding the alarm bells on this for some time; while he may be a little over-alarmist on this issue, no one has seriously suggested that there's not a problem with the retirement fund.
The second problem is that Cincinnati will see a major revenue shortfall next year. For some reason, this hasn't garnered much attention, but the earnings tax--the tax on corporate profits inside the City--is necessarily going to be down, given the tough economic times. Because end-of-year numbers and collections aren't in, that hasn't caught up with the City yet. But it will. So a million-dollar spending spree is inherently irresponsible.
What's more, the choices the five-member budget majority made lack common sense. Their offices really need an extra five grand to operate? During budget negotiations, Councilmembers had agreed to go to represented (i.e. union) city employees to try to negotiate COLA increases out of contracts over the next year. But the budget passed gives a COLA raise to non-represented employees, so there's no chance that AFSCME would concede this.
Moreover, the final budget is based partially on an increase in parking ticket fines. That increase will not, in all likelihood, generate as much as Council has projected. The new fines are so prohibitively high that a number of factors will conspire to reduce the number of tickets written and fines collected. The tickets will have a greater deterrent effect (leading to fewer infractions). More people will contest their tickets. And fewer people will pay their tickets. Maybe there are sound policy reasons for high parking ticket fines, but those weren't the motive for the change; revenue was.
I was also critical of the forty thousand dollars budgeted to municipal gardens. Are the gardens a good thing? Yes, they are. But there are at least a half-dozen foundations who would find funds for this if a grant application were submitted. While this is a good government program in prosperous times, this isn't the sort of expenditure that should come from the City's rainy day fund--which we're certainly going to need at the end of next year.
Perhaps the worst part of this is that the leader of the Budget Coup d'Etat was John Cranley, who is essentially a lame duck, in that he's term-limited and cannot run in 2009. So Cranley just doesn't care about the budget problems that Council will face at the beginning of 2010. That's why all four dissenters are members likely to run for re-election. If the City had an extra million dollars to spend, perhaps it should have been spent shoring up the pension fund.
So when the City is laying off workers next Christmas, keep in mind that at least Councilmembers' personal staff got raises and neighborhoods got tulips. I'm sure that will make it worth it for those who lose their jobs.
So what's the big deal with an extra million dollars in spending? That's certainly a fair question, given that our governments routinely piss away millions at a time without the least bit of consternation. The problems are both real and symbolic.
The first budget (the one suported by seven members of Council) was balanced. It didn't require any money to be pulled from the City's "carryover surplus" (this is what the County calls a "rainy day" fund). It also didn't require the doubling of parking ticket fines.
The City is facing major economic hurdles over the next couple years. The first is the status of the City's retirement fund. It's underfunded. Chris Smitherman has been sounding the alarm bells on this for some time; while he may be a little over-alarmist on this issue, no one has seriously suggested that there's not a problem with the retirement fund.
The second problem is that Cincinnati will see a major revenue shortfall next year. For some reason, this hasn't garnered much attention, but the earnings tax--the tax on corporate profits inside the City--is necessarily going to be down, given the tough economic times. Because end-of-year numbers and collections aren't in, that hasn't caught up with the City yet. But it will. So a million-dollar spending spree is inherently irresponsible.
What's more, the choices the five-member budget majority made lack common sense. Their offices really need an extra five grand to operate? During budget negotiations, Councilmembers had agreed to go to represented (i.e. union) city employees to try to negotiate COLA increases out of contracts over the next year. But the budget passed gives a COLA raise to non-represented employees, so there's no chance that AFSCME would concede this.
Moreover, the final budget is based partially on an increase in parking ticket fines. That increase will not, in all likelihood, generate as much as Council has projected. The new fines are so prohibitively high that a number of factors will conspire to reduce the number of tickets written and fines collected. The tickets will have a greater deterrent effect (leading to fewer infractions). More people will contest their tickets. And fewer people will pay their tickets. Maybe there are sound policy reasons for high parking ticket fines, but those weren't the motive for the change; revenue was.
I was also critical of the forty thousand dollars budgeted to municipal gardens. Are the gardens a good thing? Yes, they are. But there are at least a half-dozen foundations who would find funds for this if a grant application were submitted. While this is a good government program in prosperous times, this isn't the sort of expenditure that should come from the City's rainy day fund--which we're certainly going to need at the end of next year.
Perhaps the worst part of this is that the leader of the Budget Coup d'Etat was John Cranley, who is essentially a lame duck, in that he's term-limited and cannot run in 2009. So Cranley just doesn't care about the budget problems that Council will face at the beginning of 2010. That's why all four dissenters are members likely to run for re-election. If the City had an extra million dollars to spend, perhaps it should have been spent shoring up the pension fund.
So when the City is laying off workers next Christmas, keep in mind that at least Councilmembers' personal staff got raises and neighborhoods got tulips. I'm sure that will make it worth it for those who lose their jobs.
More On The City's Budget: Part I
Earlier this week, I posted briefly on the disastrous City Council budget and was criticized as "anti-intellectual." So let's see if some expanded remarks can make my problems clearer (and less dumb).
The Cincinnati budget is a magnificent error for two classes of reasons: procedural and substantive. Let's deal with each in turn.
1. The Budget Process Was Flawed.
On Wednesday, City Council passed a budget by a 7-2 margin. Following that vote, suddenly an "amended" budget was offered, and passed by a 5-4 vote. The new budget contained an extra million dollars in spending.
If you're interested in how the budget was passed, it's worth your time to pull up the podcast of the 6:00 hour of Brian Thomas's Thursday radio show. Go to about 21:30, where Councilmember Leslie Ghiz calls in and discusses the shenanigans pulled by John Cranley and Laketa Cole. Apparently, Cole's personal Christmas plans conflict with the City's budget process, so (of course) City residents take a back seat while Cole goes on vacation. Nonetheless, she signed the motion to pass the original budget when she returned. But behind closed doors, a group of Councilmembers, led by Cole (who had objections she failed to previously disclose) and Cranley got together and made plans to introduce the final budget.
What all this meant was that seemingly endless budget discussions--that took place publicly, in Finance Committee meetings--meant nothing. Everything was actually decided behind closed doors. In an era when the public is clamoring for transparency in government, a majority of our Council shut out the public. Worst of all? The five-member majority that passed the final budget refused to allow debate about it. After some initial criticisms by Jeff Berding, Laketa Cole made a cloture motion. So the City budget for the next two years was passed without being vetted in the Finance Committee and without public debate.
It's a tough day for me when Alex Triantafilou lights up Democrats on his blog and I have nothing to say in response. (In fact, on Thursday, he and I wrote largely the same thing.) I suppose I could point out that the budget wasn't passed by "five Democrats" but by four Democrats and a Charterite, as Qualls, whatever her affiliation in the past, is on Council as a Charterite, not a Democrat. It's hollow criticism, since we all know Charterites are just Democrats who think it's easier to win in Hamilton County if they don't call themselves Democrats. And we should keep in mind that Jeff Berding and Chris Bortz (a Dem d/b/a a Charterite) opposed the budget boondoggle.
Next post: the substantive problems with the budget.
The Cincinnati budget is a magnificent error for two classes of reasons: procedural and substantive. Let's deal with each in turn.
1. The Budget Process Was Flawed.
On Wednesday, City Council passed a budget by a 7-2 margin. Following that vote, suddenly an "amended" budget was offered, and passed by a 5-4 vote. The new budget contained an extra million dollars in spending.
If you're interested in how the budget was passed, it's worth your time to pull up the podcast of the 6:00 hour of Brian Thomas's Thursday radio show. Go to about 21:30, where Councilmember Leslie Ghiz calls in and discusses the shenanigans pulled by John Cranley and Laketa Cole. Apparently, Cole's personal Christmas plans conflict with the City's budget process, so (of course) City residents take a back seat while Cole goes on vacation. Nonetheless, she signed the motion to pass the original budget when she returned. But behind closed doors, a group of Councilmembers, led by Cole (who had objections she failed to previously disclose) and Cranley got together and made plans to introduce the final budget.
What all this meant was that seemingly endless budget discussions--that took place publicly, in Finance Committee meetings--meant nothing. Everything was actually decided behind closed doors. In an era when the public is clamoring for transparency in government, a majority of our Council shut out the public. Worst of all? The five-member majority that passed the final budget refused to allow debate about it. After some initial criticisms by Jeff Berding, Laketa Cole made a cloture motion. So the City budget for the next two years was passed without being vetted in the Finance Committee and without public debate.
It's a tough day for me when Alex Triantafilou lights up Democrats on his blog and I have nothing to say in response. (In fact, on Thursday, he and I wrote largely the same thing.) I suppose I could point out that the budget wasn't passed by "five Democrats" but by four Democrats and a Charterite, as Qualls, whatever her affiliation in the past, is on Council as a Charterite, not a Democrat. It's hollow criticism, since we all know Charterites are just Democrats who think it's easier to win in Hamilton County if they don't call themselves Democrats. And we should keep in mind that Jeff Berding and Chris Bortz (a Dem d/b/a a Charterite) opposed the budget boondoggle.
Next post: the substantive problems with the budget.
County Layoffs Handled Badly
There is no good way to lose your job. It's a devastating experience, no matter how it happens. Our jobs are inextricably linked to our identities--to say nothing of faith in our own financial stability in the future.
Having said that, though, it's astonishing how badly Hamilton County has been handling the layoffs. People arrived at work yesterday to be told that it would be their last day. Vacate the building by noon, they were told.
For many weeks, the HamCo Commissioners have made it clear to department heads that layoffs would be necessary. Why was the decision made to keep specific employees in the dark about whether they were on the chopping block? Certainly, these employees--some of whom have served the county for decades--deserved to be treated with more dignity than this.
Perhaps Commissioner Pepper (whose presence on the blogosphere makes him the most accessible of the commissioners) can help us with the answer to this. Was this a policy handed down from the Administration? Or did individual department heads make their own decision? And either way, again: why do it this way?
Having said that, though, it's astonishing how badly Hamilton County has been handling the layoffs. People arrived at work yesterday to be told that it would be their last day. Vacate the building by noon, they were told.
For many weeks, the HamCo Commissioners have made it clear to department heads that layoffs would be necessary. Why was the decision made to keep specific employees in the dark about whether they were on the chopping block? Certainly, these employees--some of whom have served the county for decades--deserved to be treated with more dignity than this.
Perhaps Commissioner Pepper (whose presence on the blogosphere makes him the most accessible of the commissioners) can help us with the answer to this. Was this a policy handed down from the Administration? Or did individual department heads make their own decision? And either way, again: why do it this way?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)