Sunday, April 20, 2008
Sunday Morning In Downtown
Since moving to OTR last year I've been trying to go for walks weekend mornings when the weather is passable. Sunday's end up being the best bet. I brought along my camera today, so here a few shots.
The Banks and Section 8
Last Tuesday, the Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority voted to ask the county and city to set aside as much as ten percent of the housing to be built at the Banks for tenants with Section 8 vouchers (Enquirer coverage here). This looks like a political move by conservative West Siders to attempt to reduce subsidized housing on the West Side by moving it to the Banks. If we set that aside, though, I think there's two interesting questions that are raised:
First, is there a good argument for the inclusion of subsidized housing in Banks project? This is a public works project of enormous magnitude; isn't there a case to be made that everyone, including the region's poorest residents, should be able to be part of it? Or does the presence of subsidized housing depress a given housing market enough that financing for the Banks would disappear if developers were forced to include units that would include Section 8 tenants?
Second, Pete Witte is quoted as saying that the Banks "will become the 53rd neighborhood of the City of Cincinnati." Is this really true? Fifteen years from now, will we be discussing Downtown and The Banks as two separate neighborhoods, or will the Banks be considered part of "downtown"? (And will there be a streetcar to take me there?)
First, is there a good argument for the inclusion of subsidized housing in Banks project? This is a public works project of enormous magnitude; isn't there a case to be made that everyone, including the region's poorest residents, should be able to be part of it? Or does the presence of subsidized housing depress a given housing market enough that financing for the Banks would disappear if developers were forced to include units that would include Section 8 tenants?
Second, Pete Witte is quoted as saying that the Banks "will become the 53rd neighborhood of the City of Cincinnati." Is this really true? Fifteen years from now, will we be discussing Downtown and The Banks as two separate neighborhoods, or will the Banks be considered part of "downtown"? (And will there be a streetcar to take me there?)
On The Docket: To Purge, Or Not To Purge
Recently, Judge Nadine Allen and former City Councilmember Charles Winburn have jointly proposed that misdemeanor warrants that are more than seven years-old be "purged," or deleted, from the Hamilton County court system. The Enquirer has posted the text of their proposal here. The basic idea is that warrants for misdemeanor offenses--except for domestic violence, TPO violation, menacing by stalking, assault, assault on police officers, sex offenses, OVI/DUI, aggravated menacing, and child endangering--that are seven years old or older would be purged and the cases dismissed. (I suspect that by "assault on police officers," Judge Allen and Mr. Winburn are referring to a first-degree misdemeanor charge of resisting arrest, which has as an element physical harm to the arresting officer.)
First, Judge Allen and Mr. Winburn are to be commended for the proposal. Their effort represents bipartisanship that we don't often experience here in Hamilton County. It's also a serious effort to address a problem the existence of which everyone involved in the criminal justice system recognizes, but for which, so far, no one has been willing to offer solutions. While the proposal may overestimate the amount of money that would be saved by the purge, the cases do extend the courts' dockets and force prosecutors to spend time that could better be spent on more serious (i.e. violent) offenses that are more likely to end in successful prosecutions. It also forces the Public Defender's Office to spend time on cases that likely aren't going anywhere, instead of cases that are much more likely to go to trial. So everyone loses when these ancient cases suddenly pop back up into the system.
That being said, there are actually two different types of outstanding warrants, and we might need to discuss each type separately. Broadly speaking, you could separate the warrants into two categories: those in which the defendant has been served and made aware of the charge, and those in which which he has not. For me, the second category is easy. If the police haven't bothered to serve a warrant within seven years of the time a charge was filed, the case should be dismissed. (And in fact, assuming the defendant hasn't been avoiding service, a defendant served seven years after a complaint was filed could probably successfully move to have the complaint dismissed on constitutional speedy trial grounds.)
Here's an example. A few years ago, I represented an individual who, in September of a particular year, got into a fight with his then-girlfriend's roommate over the phone. Unbeknownst to him, she went to the police and filed a telephone harassment charge. The police made no attempt to serve the warrant (not surprising--it's not exactly the crime of the decade!). In June of the following year, my client's apartment was robbed. He called the police. When they came over, they ran a standard check for warrants, and he was arrested on the outstanding warrant, now nine months old. The charge was, thankfully, dismissed. It would've been difficult to prepare a defense nine months after an offense allegedly occurred; think about trying to do it seven years later.
The other category of defendants, though, may be a tougher case. These individuals are people who were served with a warrant, who then may or may not have made an initial court appearance, and then disappeared. The warrant is actually a "capias warrant," issued by a judge at the time of the missed court appearance. Obviously, if a capias is outstanding for seven years or more, the person has lived pretty clean (since any contact with law enforcement would mean an arrest on the outstanding warrant). But some will still question whether such people should be "rewarded" for avoiding prosecution. On the other hand, I suspect that the vast majority of the warrants to be purged will be for traffic-related misdemeanors--driving without a license and driving under a suspended license.
This is the perfect time for the proposal to be tendered. Many of the municipal court judges just won fresh six-year terms in 2007, and HamCo Prosecutor Joe Deters is running unopposed, so no one faces immediate political pressure to look "tough on crime." (The City of Cincinnati prosecuting attorney is not an elected official, but instead serves at the pleasure of the City Solicitor, who is appointed by the City Manager.) It'll be interesting to see what the judges do with this at their "Joint Session" later this week (I've always envisioned the "joint session" to be a gathering at which the judges get together with some weed and rolling papers, but I'm told that's not what actually happens, despite the meeting's moniker). Hopefully, the judges will agree at least to study the proposal, getting formal input from the Clerk and the County and City prosecutors about its ramifications.
First, Judge Allen and Mr. Winburn are to be commended for the proposal. Their effort represents bipartisanship that we don't often experience here in Hamilton County. It's also a serious effort to address a problem the existence of which everyone involved in the criminal justice system recognizes, but for which, so far, no one has been willing to offer solutions. While the proposal may overestimate the amount of money that would be saved by the purge, the cases do extend the courts' dockets and force prosecutors to spend time that could better be spent on more serious (i.e. violent) offenses that are more likely to end in successful prosecutions. It also forces the Public Defender's Office to spend time on cases that likely aren't going anywhere, instead of cases that are much more likely to go to trial. So everyone loses when these ancient cases suddenly pop back up into the system.
That being said, there are actually two different types of outstanding warrants, and we might need to discuss each type separately. Broadly speaking, you could separate the warrants into two categories: those in which the defendant has been served and made aware of the charge, and those in which which he has not. For me, the second category is easy. If the police haven't bothered to serve a warrant within seven years of the time a charge was filed, the case should be dismissed. (And in fact, assuming the defendant hasn't been avoiding service, a defendant served seven years after a complaint was filed could probably successfully move to have the complaint dismissed on constitutional speedy trial grounds.)
Here's an example. A few years ago, I represented an individual who, in September of a particular year, got into a fight with his then-girlfriend's roommate over the phone. Unbeknownst to him, she went to the police and filed a telephone harassment charge. The police made no attempt to serve the warrant (not surprising--it's not exactly the crime of the decade!). In June of the following year, my client's apartment was robbed. He called the police. When they came over, they ran a standard check for warrants, and he was arrested on the outstanding warrant, now nine months old. The charge was, thankfully, dismissed. It would've been difficult to prepare a defense nine months after an offense allegedly occurred; think about trying to do it seven years later.
The other category of defendants, though, may be a tougher case. These individuals are people who were served with a warrant, who then may or may not have made an initial court appearance, and then disappeared. The warrant is actually a "capias warrant," issued by a judge at the time of the missed court appearance. Obviously, if a capias is outstanding for seven years or more, the person has lived pretty clean (since any contact with law enforcement would mean an arrest on the outstanding warrant). But some will still question whether such people should be "rewarded" for avoiding prosecution. On the other hand, I suspect that the vast majority of the warrants to be purged will be for traffic-related misdemeanors--driving without a license and driving under a suspended license.
This is the perfect time for the proposal to be tendered. Many of the municipal court judges just won fresh six-year terms in 2007, and HamCo Prosecutor Joe Deters is running unopposed, so no one faces immediate political pressure to look "tough on crime." (The City of Cincinnati prosecuting attorney is not an elected official, but instead serves at the pleasure of the City Solicitor, who is appointed by the City Manager.) It'll be interesting to see what the judges do with this at their "Joint Session" later this week (I've always envisioned the "joint session" to be a gathering at which the judges get together with some weed and rolling papers, but I'm told that's not what actually happens, despite the meeting's moniker). Hopefully, the judges will agree at least to study the proposal, getting formal input from the Clerk and the County and City prosecutors about its ramifications.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Sweet Deal
Are there any investors out there looking to make money? Here is one opportunity worth the risk. Embrace Sweets is a local business making a great product that is looking to expand. This business is seeking to open up shop in the Gateway Quarter of OTR and they will make this into something special. Check out their website or better yet, check out their products at most of the indie coffeehouses around town and at most local theatres including New Stage Collective (See Bug now!).
Friday, April 18, 2008
Earthquake
For as far as it was away, I still felt the the Earthquake this morning. It felt like someone was rocking my bed and I got to see what was going on. I couldn't notice it standing up, but I could notice one of my window frames rattle. Reports indicated it lasted 30 seconds. I must have been awake only at the end of it, because it didn't appear to last that long to me.
Joe Wessels has the full coverage of the Quake in Cincinnati.
Joe Wessels has the full coverage of the Quake in Cincinnati.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Market Wines Opens At Findlay Market
The Details:
Market Wines is located at 128 W. Elder St., directly across from the main Market build-ing. Hours of operation are Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday from 9-5, Friday from 9-6, Saturday from 8-6 and closed Sunday and Monday. In addition to fine wines, Market Wines stocks a selection of micro-brewed and imported beers and wine acces-sories.Market Wines is hosting a wine tasting, this Saturday, April 19 from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. Have a Belgian waffle and a glass of wine at THE place for Saturday Morning shopping.
The Jordan Moved?
According to this Enquirer article on the City fighting certain liquor licenses, the 12th and Main mini-mart/booze stop has been evicted and moved to a different Main Street location. Can anyone shed any light on this? Where on Main Street did the Jordan move?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)