Friday, February 22, 2008
Shameless Promotion Time
Time is running out on your chance to vote in City Beat's 2008 Best of Cincinnati (or Cincinnatuh as my Kentucky friends say) survey. Please go vote and be sure to vote for YOU KNOW WHAT as best blog --- Number 153 on the survey -- and vote for The Banks as Best Place To Take Visitors, Best Playground, Best Hot Spot, Best Romantic Hideaway, and Best Use of Public Funds. Voting ends March 1. Granted this may not be as important as the Ohio primary vote you cast on March 4, but please remember that Julie, Donald and I are on probation (or at least I am) and Griff is watching closely. I approved this ad because it is time Cincinnati had a blog as full of queenly vision as the Queen City herself.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
White Death 2008
OK...Here's an open thread for your commute stories. Have at it.
For me: at about 4:00, I left my downtown office to travel up 71 to Lebanon. You can imagine how well that went. The drive back down, which commenced around 8, was almost as much fun.
For me: at about 4:00, I left my downtown office to travel up 71 to Lebanon. You can imagine how well that went. The drive back down, which commenced around 8, was almost as much fun.
Roxanne Kills The Streetcars
According to the Enquirer, Roxanne Qualls will introduce a motion--which is already publicly backed by a majority of Council--to change the streetcar proposal so that rather than building the downtown-OTR loop, the streetcar would immediately include an uptown line. Under the current proposal (the one that Qualls is supplanting), the "loop" would be built first, with the uptown line added later.
Even the smaller, less ambitious looop initially proposed involves a huge outlay of public funds. But the Councilmembers supporting it had seemed to work through a way to finance it. I'm not sure there's any real hope that Council would pass a streetcar proposal that includes the increased pricetag that comes along with the Uptown link; it would be difficult to imagine finding the funding to do it immediately, rather than in the two phases initially proposed.
I'm not sure if Qualls is intentionally making sure streetcars don't come to Cincinnati, but that's almost certain to be the result of her actions.
Even the smaller, less ambitious looop initially proposed involves a huge outlay of public funds. But the Councilmembers supporting it had seemed to work through a way to finance it. I'm not sure there's any real hope that Council would pass a streetcar proposal that includes the increased pricetag that comes along with the Uptown link; it would be difficult to imagine finding the funding to do it immediately, rather than in the two phases initially proposed.
I'm not sure if Qualls is intentionally making sure streetcars don't come to Cincinnati, but that's almost certain to be the result of her actions.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
On The Docket: Stopping The Insanity
Gerry Porter bought a home in Green Township in 1991. In 1995, he was convicted of a misdemeanor sex-related crime, and in 1999, he was convicted of sexual battery. The trial court labelled him a sexually-oriented offender.
In 2003, Ohio enacted what we all call the "1,000-foot rule," the law that forbids sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school. A couple years later, the folks in Green Township realized (likely with the help of a GPS device) that Porter's house was 983 feet from St. Jude Elementary. Even though the school isn't visible from the house (or vice-versa) and walking or driving from the house to the school would require traversing a distrance of much more than 1,000 feet, Green Township filed an ejectment action against Pyle. Green Township won in the trial court and again in the court of appeals, even though Porter owned his home and had committed his offense prior to the enactment of the law.
Today, the Ohio Supreme Court, in a 6-1 decision, held that the law is not retroactive. In other words, people like Porter--whose offense was commited prior to the law and who owned a home within 1,000 feet of a school prior to the law--cannot be ejected. The decision does not stop the Ohio legislature from redrafting the law to make it retroactive; the court declined to reach the issue of whether such a law would be constitutional.
This is a terrific win for the Ohio Justice and Policy Center and its director, Cincinnati attorney David Singleton. It's an important first step in injecting some notion of fairness and sanity to Ohio's sex offender registration laws.
In 2003, Ohio enacted what we all call the "1,000-foot rule," the law that forbids sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school. A couple years later, the folks in Green Township realized (likely with the help of a GPS device) that Porter's house was 983 feet from St. Jude Elementary. Even though the school isn't visible from the house (or vice-versa) and walking or driving from the house to the school would require traversing a distrance of much more than 1,000 feet, Green Township filed an ejectment action against Pyle. Green Township won in the trial court and again in the court of appeals, even though Porter owned his home and had committed his offense prior to the enactment of the law.
Today, the Ohio Supreme Court, in a 6-1 decision, held that the law is not retroactive. In other words, people like Porter--whose offense was commited prior to the law and who owned a home within 1,000 feet of a school prior to the law--cannot be ejected. The decision does not stop the Ohio legislature from redrafting the law to make it retroactive; the court declined to reach the issue of whether such a law would be constitutional.
This is a terrific win for the Ohio Justice and Policy Center and its director, Cincinnati attorney David Singleton. It's an important first step in injecting some notion of fairness and sanity to Ohio's sex offender registration laws.
Cinciditarod: Registration Closes 5PM Thursday
Get your team ready for the Cinciditarod: Cincinnati's Urban Iditarod. Registration for the March 1st event end this Thursday February 21st at 5PM.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Bockfest Hall at Former Red Cheetah
One of the big questions on this year's Bockfest has been where the main Bockfest Hall would be located. According to the map of the parade and shuttle it appears it will be at the former Red Cheetah club (aka Sycamore Gardens). If anyone can confirm the map, please chime in.
Regionalism: Explain This To Me Like I'm A Six Year-Old, Okay?
I'm constantly surprised by which of my posts will generate a lot of responses, and which will go unnoticed. My post on Moe's closing, for instance, drew far more comments than I had anticipated. (And I reiterate: the point of the post was not to express schadenfreude over the failure of a northern Kentucky business, but instead to make a broader point about the way some seem to view downtown Cincinnati.) Several of the comments focused on the theme of "regionalism" (and what a great idea it is).
I have to admit to having two questions:
If I'm a Cincinnatian desiring the best for Cincinnati, does that inevitably mean I want the best for surrounding communities, as well?
There are certain types of "regionalism" that would always seem to be beneficial. For instance, City Manager Milton Dohoney is working on a plan to turn Cincinnati Water Works into a regional water district. While of particular benefit to Cincinnati (with regards to increased revenue), as I understand the theory, the expansion would drive down water rates across the district. So that's a win-win.
But some of the commenters to the Moe's post seem to suggest that "regionalism" meets rooting for Newport (and Covington and West Chester and others) to have thriving business communities. But I question the wisdom of that, as I'm not sure that the figurative pie from which each sovereign's economy must draw money is unlimited. For instance, should Cincinnatians be pleased if the former Jillian's is converted into a casino? Certainly members of Council don't think so, as they seem poised to push a state-wide measure that would permit the building of casinos in any county neighboring a state with casinos. Does a Jillian's Casino increase tourist traffic to the entire "region," or does it instead suck money away from Cincinnati and surrounding communities? And don't "regionalism" efforts have particular problems here, where we're not just dealing with disparate local sovereigns, but municipal governments located in three different states (one of the issues I'm thinking of here, obviously, is tax revenue)? If a major retailer is considering locating in downtown or Sharonville, should Cincinnati compete for it, or be content that even in Sharonville, the new business would be in the "region"?
So tell me, regionalists: when do I have to play nice in the sandbox, and when am I allowed to root, root, root for the home team?
I have to admit to having two questions:
- What do people mean when they say (or write) "regionalism"?
- Is it really a desirable end in and of itself?
If I'm a Cincinnatian desiring the best for Cincinnati, does that inevitably mean I want the best for surrounding communities, as well?
There are certain types of "regionalism" that would always seem to be beneficial. For instance, City Manager Milton Dohoney is working on a plan to turn Cincinnati Water Works into a regional water district. While of particular benefit to Cincinnati (with regards to increased revenue), as I understand the theory, the expansion would drive down water rates across the district. So that's a win-win.
But some of the commenters to the Moe's post seem to suggest that "regionalism" meets rooting for Newport (and Covington and West Chester and others) to have thriving business communities. But I question the wisdom of that, as I'm not sure that the figurative pie from which each sovereign's economy must draw money is unlimited. For instance, should Cincinnatians be pleased if the former Jillian's is converted into a casino? Certainly members of Council don't think so, as they seem poised to push a state-wide measure that would permit the building of casinos in any county neighboring a state with casinos. Does a Jillian's Casino increase tourist traffic to the entire "region," or does it instead suck money away from Cincinnati and surrounding communities? And don't "regionalism" efforts have particular problems here, where we're not just dealing with disparate local sovereigns, but municipal governments located in three different states (one of the issues I'm thinking of here, obviously, is tax revenue)? If a major retailer is considering locating in downtown or Sharonville, should Cincinnati compete for it, or be content that even in Sharonville, the new business would be in the "region"?
So tell me, regionalists: when do I have to play nice in the sandbox, and when am I allowed to root, root, root for the home team?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)