Are Streetcars The Answer? I'm Not Convinced.

I realize that I can openly disagree with Brian only so many times before I wear out my welcome, but I have to admit, I'm not sure that streetcars are the panacea that will revitalize downtown and Over-the-Rhine.

It seems that everyone who has jumped onto the streetcar bandwagon wants to remind us what a great boon they've been in Portland, Oregon. Well, bully for Portland! I grew up in Buffalo, NY. And the streetcar fervor in Cincinnati sounds much like what we were told about a new subway in Buffalo when I was growing up. It'll spur economic development, people said. It will attract new businesses downtown and everywhere along the subway line, people said.

Guess what? Buffalo's subway system has been open since 1984. Does anybody think Buffalo represents a model of economic development? And quite frankly, from a demographic and cultural standpoint, which city does Cincinnati more closely resemble: Buffalo or Portland?

Why do people think that what was good for Portland of the Pacific Northwest will be good for Cincinnati, in the heart of the Midwest? Here are some statistics to show the differences:
Population: Cincinnati--332,252; Portland--537,081
Median income: Cincinnati--$29,554; Portland--$42,287
Racial composition: Cincinnati--52% white, 49% black; Portland--75% white, 6% hispanic, 6% black
Average number of days with high temparature above 90: Cincinnati--28; Portland--10.
Average number of days with low temperature below 32: Cincinnati--98; Portland--44.
Average snowfall: Cincinnati--23 inches; Portland--3.1 inches.
Average price for a gallon of gasoline: Cincinnati--$2.87; Portland--$2.97.

Streetcars may be a good idea. But lately, some have suggested that they're the most important piece of the puzzle to development in Cincinnati. That's going too far. The City's most impressive piece of real estate--the Banks--has sat empty for years because our local leaders can't get their acts together. And OTR residents are still in need of more places to work, shop, and play.

Without strong, competent leadership, streetcars won't do the city a bit of good. And we seem to have leaders who are great at talking about things, but not so good at seeing them through. Doing the homework to get things done seems to be more than many of our politicians want to do. Does anyone else remember that when the street car plan was rolled out at a Council meeting (a committee meeting, I think), Chris Bortz went so far as to say that the City wouldn't even have to pay to have the electrical lines (that would power the streetcars) to be installed, as the utility companies would no doubt do it free of charge, realizing how much money the streetcars would bring in from revenues from new businesses? And does anyone else remember the Enquirer reporting the next day that a spokesperson from Duke Energy indicated that they hadn't been approached about that, and that it would cost so much the company would be unwilling to absorb the cost on its own?

Urban planning and economic development is tough stuff. We need people in our leadership who want to roll up their sleeves, not just be on television as often as possible. Streetcars might be one piece in a very complex puzzle that will help Cincinnati be prosperous. But a solution in and of themselves? Color me decidedly undecided.

Deters Simplified

Justin Stenger wrote a good guest column in the Enquirer this week, rebutting the idiotic comments of Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters. A Simplified Deters is strong exhibited with this "if" statement from Justin:

"If Deters really wanted the streets of Cincinnati to be safer, he would encourage visits to the city's core, not discourage them."

Deters cares about getting elected again, that would be about it.

[Via Wes]

It's Streetcars!

UrbanCincy's readers say Streetcars should be the #1 priority for Cincinnati . In terms of Development, they are totally correct! Two other issues that should be constant priorities are fighting crime and centralizing social services outside of area being redeveloped. If you think I am talking about moving the Drop Inn Center, then you would be correct. It will move. The question for DIC management is do they get a good deal or are they forced to move?

The Caton Mess

Since learning of the impending promotion of now-Sergeant Patrick Caton, I've really been struggling to sort through my views on the matter. That, no doubt, will suprise many of you. "Donald," you'll say, "Your civil practice includes civil rights law. You've got to be horrified that Caton is still a police officer, much less a sergeant."

And I am. But it's not that simple. This is a situation in which several deeply-held beliefs are in conflict. Maybe our faithful readers can help me sort them through in the comments.

• I grew up in a union household. I believe that working men and women have the right to organize, and to bargain collectively for the terms and conditions of their employment. And I believe that employers must be required to abide by the agreements they enter into with the unions that represent their workers.*
• I'm a criminal defense attorney. I believe--I have to believe--that an acquittal means something.
• I'm a criminal defense attorney. I believe that the power of the police has grown stronger than the Framers of our Constitution (particularly with respect to the Fourth Amendment) had ever envisioned or ever would have approved.
• I'm a civil rights attorney. I believe that citizens should not be subject to excessive force at the hands of the police who are sworn to protect us--all of us. And I believe that an officer whose use of excessive force causes serious injury or death should never get the opportunity to do it again. I also believe officers shouldn't use racial epithets while on duty. (They shouldn't ever use them, but I can't imagine them being subject to discipline for non-criminal, off-duty conduct.)

So where should that bring me with respect to Caton's promotion? Our criminal justice system found that he wasn't criminally liable for his conduct. His own department found that he used excessive force and shouldn't carry a badge and a gun any more. But a collective bargaining agreement-mandated arbitration found that the police department got it wrong.

I'm sure there are others out there who have sorted through this dilemna. How do you balance the values involved here?

* I also believe the City should require (through a CBA, where appropriate) most--if not all--of its employees (particularly our police) to live in the City. But that's a whole new discussion.

Dream Team? Freking and Chesley, Together At Last

Two of the most prominent members of Cincinnati's plaintiffs' bar, Randy Freking (of Freking and Betz) and Stan Chesley (of Waite, Schneider, Bayless and Chesley) have teamed up to take on the ultimate Goliath: Duke Energy. They've filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Ohio energy consumers, alleging that Duke has been offering rebates of recently-approved rate hikes to large consumers (so that those consumers wouldn't oppose those hikes, which are subject to approval by the Public Utilities Commission), and that those rebates have, of course, been subsidized by every other energy consumer (in other words, you and me).

It appears that that the allegations are to be supported by John Deeds. Deeds claims he was fired last year when he raised questions about Duke's payouts to corporate customers; he has filed a whistleblower action which is still pending (he's represented by Freking in that case).

From the complaint, it appears that there are at least eight attorneys who will represent that plaintiff class (assuming U.S. District Judge Weber certifies a class).

But if you're going to take on an energy company, I suppose you have to hope you've got an Erin Brokovich somewhere on your support staff. (Not really--I hated that movie!)

Freedom Center "Controversy"

Over at the Enquirer's Politics Extra Blog, Jessica Brown has a more balanced version of the story surrounding the Freedom Center's offer to sell part of its land to Hamilton County and the City of Cincinnati than what we've been hearing from the media the last few days.

For those of you who haven't been paying attention: the Freedom Center is built on land given to it by the city and the county. Included in the gift is a 1.7 acre parcel of land between the Center and the Ohio River that the Center had intended to develop as a park. But the Freedom Center has never had enough money to do so so the land, like the rest of the area next to the riverfront, has sat fallow for several years. Now, the Banks Working Group wants the land to use as part of the Banks. The Freedom Center offered to sell the land back to the city and the county for $1 million, with each sovereign to apparently foot half the bill.

Based on the histrionics coming from the county commission, I'd assumed that the offer had come out of the blue. But that's not so, based on Brown's report:

The Freedom Center says it had been negotiating the $1 million price tag with the Banks Working Group since last summer. It had two assessments done that
actually placed the land at a much higher value. It says the negotiations were
in good faith and everyone seemed to think the request was reasonable.The
Working Group includes representatives from both the city and the county, so
none of the elected officials should have been surprised at the request, which
was reduced to writing Dec. 31, said Freedom Center's Paul Bernish.City council
wasn't surprised. Some council members even said they thought the Center would
ask for more. But somehow commissioners were caught off guard.

Of course, this whole episode is a PR nightmare for the Freedom Center (that seems to be Bronson's main point today). But I'm not sure that the Freedom Center's board has had much of a choice but to act the way it has. After all, the board has a fiduciary obligation to protect the assets of the Freedom Center, a non-profit organization. One of those assets is a highly marketable, very expensive piece of real estate. Giving it away would be financially irresponsible. If the Freedom Center weren't an entity, and were instead just some guy named Bob, and the county wasn't--well, the county, but instead just some guy named Fred, then you'd expect that Bob, upon realizing he couldn't use the land Fred had given him, would give it back to Fred if Fred had found a good use for it. But we're not talking about Bob and Fred; we're talking about local government and a non-profit organization. It's not as easy as our commissioners have made it out to be in their efforts to placate COAST. There may ultimately be a better way to resolve this than to simply take a pile of money from the city and the county, but everyone needs to take a deep breath and calm down.

Caton To Be Promoted To Sergeant

The Enquirer reports that Cincinnati Police Officer Patrick Caton and two others are to be promoted to the rank of sergeant tomorrow. Caton was one of two officers (the other was Blaine Jorg) involved in the in-custody death of Roger Owensby, Jr.

Following Owensby's death, Officer Caton was arrested, criminally charged, and fired from the force. He was acquitted of assault, and an arbitrator subsequently found (in a decision upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court) that dismissal was too harsh, and reduced the penalty to a five-day suspension.

Caton received $200,000 in back pay from the City. The family of Roger Owensby received $6.5 million from the City in settlement of a wrongful death lawsuit.

As the Enquirer notes, sergeants are named based on the placement on a "promotion-eligible" list, which is created solely as a function of an officer's score on a written test (as mandated by the collective bargaining agreement that governs his employment), not any exercise of discretion on the part of CPD supervisors. Here is what appears to be the current promotion-eligible list. As long as a list is "active"--which this one is until July 2008--each time a sergeant position becomes vacant, the highest non-promoted candidate gets the job. For instance, see this press release from October announcing the promotion of the 17th, 19th, and 20th candidates on the list.

This will almost certainly bring up bad memories and angry feelings for some in Cincinnati.