I was honored when Griff first agreed to let me blog here. By then, for some time, the Cincinnati Blog had been--well, the Cincinnati blog. And the chance to join up with Jack (who I already knew of) and Julie (who's become one heck of a blogger) was too good an opportunity to pass up.
This week, though, my honor has turned to pride. I'm proud to be part of this blog in particular, and the Cincinnati blogosphere in general. What started out as just a simple post hoping to raise money for the Freestore Foodbank has (with no small amount of help from the Beacon) swept across the blogosphere like a California wildfire.
The Bearman is contributing based on blogs that link to his archives. Kate the Great has a terrific post on why you should give. Julie, who just became an affiliate to Greater Cincinnati Independents (a coalition of local restaurants) is donating her referral fees to the Freestore through the end of the year. Local politicians have gotten into the Battle, with HamCo Commissioner David Pepper and GOP Chair Alex Triantafilou joining the fray. The media is even starting to pay attention: see CityBeat (attempting to compete and cover the story at once) and WCPO.
The Freestore Foodbank seems excited by the competition, and has even created a way to help track the winner. The Freestore has created special url's (don't ask me how they work, I just know they do) that will tell them where their incoming hits are coming from. I've updated our links. So you can click on this link, or any other Freestore Foodbank link in the last few posts, and the Cincinnati Blog will get "credit" for the contribution in the Battle.
Too often, the blogosphere is just a consortium of echo chambers. We here at the Cincinnati Blog tend to talk to the center-left; Julie talks to food afficionados; Alex T. talks to GOP members; the Dean talks to the hopelessly confused; you get the picture. The Battle of the Blogs showcases the real power of the internet in the twenty-first century: the power to pull people together from across political, economic, and demographic boundaries to work for a common cause.
It's kind of humbling to be a part of.
And...if you need one more, selfish reason to donate to the Freestore: charitable donations are a great way to reduce your 2008 tax liability.
Local bloggers who haven't posted yet: I'm gonna call more of you out on Monday. (5chw4r7z, where are you?)
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Cincinnati Santacon 2008
I don't think this is the first time a pack of wild Santas have descended on Cincinnati, but if you are looking an interesting day,, keep December 13th open and get yourself a Santa suit. The only think missing from the site is reference to Mrs. Claus. Frankly, women dressed as Santa are not appealing, unless, they alter the suit. Mrs. Claus, however, can be, shall we say, wow! if done right. I'm not making fashion pronouncements here, just thinking out loud. Maybe dreaming a little.
Cincinnati Unchained Today!
Get out and support Local Retail in Cincinnati!!!
This is a great effort by the team over at Buycincy.com. If you see the guys out and about, give them a pat on the back for doing a true service to their community. Cincinnati needs small businesses and the easiest way an individual can help out the small businesses of Cincinnati is by giving them your patronage!
I plan on shopping at some of the stores in the Gateway Quarter (Metronation, Park+Vine, etc) so join me there or hit Shake It! Records in Northside.
This is a great effort by the team over at Buycincy.com. If you see the guys out and about, give them a pat on the back for doing a true service to their community. Cincinnati needs small businesses and the easiest way an individual can help out the small businesses of Cincinnati is by giving them your patronage!
I plan on shopping at some of the stores in the Gateway Quarter (Metronation, Park+Vine, etc) so join me there or hit Shake It! Records in Northside.
Friday, November 21, 2008
CEAs Sold Out
For the first time ever, the Cincinnati Entertainment Awards have sold out. Awesome news for Music fans. Glad to know there is strong support for local music!!! There is still an option to get the Ralph Stanley only tickets, but you may not get them, check out the link about for your possible chance!
If you can't make it out, be sure to still support the effort to bring the Emery back to its glory! More Here.
If you can't make it out, be sure to still support the effort to bring the Emery back to its glory! More Here.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
A Great Way To Give Thanks
Last week, I challenged Cincinnati bloggers to raise money for the Freestore Foodbank, which expects record demands through the end of the year (right after the massive power outage taxed its resources to the limit).
I'm really happy to say that local bloggers have picked up the gauntlet, and are flinging it back in our faces!!!
So again, here's the link to the Freestore's virtual food drive. The Dean came up with a simple way for bloggers to tally their results. If you give in response to the Cincinnati Blog's imnpassioned pleas, then please either note your donation in the comments (feel free to be anonymous) or email us (you can email either the blog or me) and we'll post your donation (anonymously, if you wish).
This is going to be a tough, tough year for a lot of people. Folks are losing their jobs, both in the private and public sectors. If you're in a position to give, there's never been a better time to do so. And with the virtual food drive, it's never been easier. For about twenty bucks, you can buy a family of four a meal.
And besides, there's no way Griff can permit the Dean of Cincinnati to win this contest!
The Dean is already starting to call out local bloggers who haven't joined the cause; I guess I'll do the same. Kate: your greatness is on the line here!!!! Randy: there's nothing more UrbanCincy-ish than the Freestore!!!
I'm really happy to say that local bloggers have picked up the gauntlet, and are flinging it back in our faces!!!
So again, here's the link to the Freestore's virtual food drive. The Dean came up with a simple way for bloggers to tally their results. If you give in response to the Cincinnati Blog's imnpassioned pleas, then please either note your donation in the comments (feel free to be anonymous) or email us (you can email either the blog or me) and we'll post your donation (anonymously, if you wish).
This is going to be a tough, tough year for a lot of people. Folks are losing their jobs, both in the private and public sectors. If you're in a position to give, there's never been a better time to do so. And with the virtual food drive, it's never been easier. For about twenty bucks, you can buy a family of four a meal.
And besides, there's no way Griff can permit the Dean of Cincinnati to win this contest!
The Dean is already starting to call out local bloggers who haven't joined the cause; I guess I'll do the same. Kate: your greatness is on the line here!!!! Randy: there's nothing more UrbanCincy-ish than the Freestore!!!
We Need Charter Reform. Now.
Early this year, we had here what I thought was an excellent conversation on what Cincinnati government should look like. I suggested the City Manager is too powerful, and we need to amend the Charter to create a truly "strong mayor" form of government--one in which the mayor appoints department heads and proposes a budget.
And this week, Milton Dohoney proved me right.
Can anyone imagine an elected official telling his or her constituents that their choices are either (a) a new fee, or (b) reduction in police and fire services? Really, those are the only two choices? There aren't other places (apart from the City's principal responsibility to its citizens) that can be cut? I know that my world is upside down when I find myself in agreement with Chris Monzel.
But now, of course, the Kabuki dance will begin. Now that Dohoney has set forth an unpopular (untenable, frankly) budget proposal, Mayor Mallory will swoop in with a "better idea." It's all so disgustingly predictable.
It's time for a strong mayor. The Charter could be amended so the mayor's position would be altered as of the start of the next mayoral term. But it's time to start running City government as if both City leaders and City residents are grown-ups.
An aside: I love that fact that HamCo Commissioner David Pepper, while clearly busy with the nuts and bolts of trying to run a local government in the recession our Republican friends brought upon us, is thinking about what the overall structure of county government should look like. The Cuyahoga County proposal to create a Commission president (what some states would call a "county executive") with real authority is intriguing, to say the least. (It would resolve my complaints about leaving the budget to an unelected Administrator.) I'm no expert on local government structure, so I'm not sure what it takes--action by the state legislature? The County could, apparently, also adopt (through a plebiscite) a charter form of government. What if we did? Can we have charter governments (cities) within charter governments (the county)? It's the kind of thing I'm glad we have our leaders thinking about and discussing, and I hope to see more of this.
And this week, Milton Dohoney proved me right.
Can anyone imagine an elected official telling his or her constituents that their choices are either (a) a new fee, or (b) reduction in police and fire services? Really, those are the only two choices? There aren't other places (apart from the City's principal responsibility to its citizens) that can be cut? I know that my world is upside down when I find myself in agreement with Chris Monzel.
But now, of course, the Kabuki dance will begin. Now that Dohoney has set forth an unpopular (untenable, frankly) budget proposal, Mayor Mallory will swoop in with a "better idea." It's all so disgustingly predictable.
It's time for a strong mayor. The Charter could be amended so the mayor's position would be altered as of the start of the next mayoral term. But it's time to start running City government as if both City leaders and City residents are grown-ups.
An aside: I love that fact that HamCo Commissioner David Pepper, while clearly busy with the nuts and bolts of trying to run a local government in the recession our Republican friends brought upon us, is thinking about what the overall structure of county government should look like. The Cuyahoga County proposal to create a Commission president (what some states would call a "county executive") with real authority is intriguing, to say the least. (It would resolve my complaints about leaving the budget to an unelected Administrator.) I'm no expert on local government structure, so I'm not sure what it takes--action by the state legislature? The County could, apparently, also adopt (through a plebiscite) a charter form of government. What if we did? Can we have charter governments (cities) within charter governments (the county)? It's the kind of thing I'm glad we have our leaders thinking about and discussing, and I hope to see more of this.
License Suspensions: A Possible Solution
Earlier this week, I blogged on license suspensions, in response to an Enquirer piece on the topic. I suspect that most people don't realize the portion of the municipal court docket devoted to traffic offenses. (If you're curious, go to the Clerk's website and pull up any particular judge's docket for any given day. Any case that has "TRD" in the case number is a non-OVI traffic offense.)
Here's my suggestion: create an expanded "traffic diversion" program for license suspension cases. Not every defendant would be eligible: for starters, I would toss out any OVI suspension, 12-point suspension, or any case involving either an accident or failing to comply with a police officer.
But for those cases (the vast majority) still eligible, we could, if the judges and the prosecutors agreed, do the following. Tell any offender who is on his/her third or lower suspension charge in the past five years that his/her case will be reset in 45-60 days. If the driver is able to come back with a valid license and proof of insurance, then the prosecution will agree to reduce the charges to a single, non-moving violation. If not, then the matter will be set for trial, and--absent a showing of good cause--no continuances will be granted on the trial date. Once you've been through the diversion program, though, you will be ineligible for subsequent diversion for some period of time (five years, perhaps?).
Why is DUS such a problem in municipal court? Judges are reluctant (understandably) to lock people up for DUS offenses. After all, typically, the people who get caught driving under a suspension are poor and are suspended because they couldn't afford insurance. Most of the time, no one was harmed as a result of their offense. Often, courts will grant continuances in order to give someone time to "get valid," setting the case "for plea"--which means while the case is on the docket, the arresting officer isn't required to appear. Usually, if a person's record isn't bad, the prosecution will amend a DUS charge to "failure to display a valid license"--still a first-degree misdemeanor, but one that carries no points. And it's understood that judges usually won't incarcerate individuals who come back with a valid license.
The trouble with amending to an arguably lesser, but still non-moving violation is this: if the person cannot show proof of insurance from the date of the ticket (not the date of conviction), s/he gets suspended by the BMV all over again. And we're back in the cycle. Cases are set for trial not because a defendant actually intends to try the case, but because s/he wants to see if the officer will show up. But that means an officers spends anywhere from part to all of a morning sitting in a courtroom waiting for a case to be called. (And if the officer doesn't show up, the case is either continued or dismissed outright.)
An expanded diversion program could reduce drag on the courts' dockets. People with defenses (stolen identity, for instance) could still opt out and take their cases to trial. But most will want to get valid. And by reducing to a non-moving violation, two things happen: first the individual isn't subject to an FRA noncompliance suspension; and second, the court is able to recover costs. What's more, for those people who entered the program, their cases could be handled entirely in the arraignment rooms--meaning they never get to the regular docket. It'd save the time of judges, prosecutors, police officers, and public defenders.
Such a program would require a great deal of cooperation. The prosecutors (both city and county) would have to agree to it. The judges would have to agree to play hardball with cases that reached their dockets (i.e., no continuances "to get valid"--only for valid, trial related purposes, such as the unavailability of a witness). But it may be possible to work out some system where we can keep reduce the stakes to such an extent defendants will be willing to resolve them at arraignment, before a magistrate.
This proposal is just that: a proposal. There are probably problems I haven't thought of. But I hope it's a starting point for discussion.
Here's my suggestion: create an expanded "traffic diversion" program for license suspension cases. Not every defendant would be eligible: for starters, I would toss out any OVI suspension, 12-point suspension, or any case involving either an accident or failing to comply with a police officer.
But for those cases (the vast majority) still eligible, we could, if the judges and the prosecutors agreed, do the following. Tell any offender who is on his/her third or lower suspension charge in the past five years that his/her case will be reset in 45-60 days. If the driver is able to come back with a valid license and proof of insurance, then the prosecution will agree to reduce the charges to a single, non-moving violation. If not, then the matter will be set for trial, and--absent a showing of good cause--no continuances will be granted on the trial date. Once you've been through the diversion program, though, you will be ineligible for subsequent diversion for some period of time (five years, perhaps?).
Why is DUS such a problem in municipal court? Judges are reluctant (understandably) to lock people up for DUS offenses. After all, typically, the people who get caught driving under a suspension are poor and are suspended because they couldn't afford insurance. Most of the time, no one was harmed as a result of their offense. Often, courts will grant continuances in order to give someone time to "get valid," setting the case "for plea"--which means while the case is on the docket, the arresting officer isn't required to appear. Usually, if a person's record isn't bad, the prosecution will amend a DUS charge to "failure to display a valid license"--still a first-degree misdemeanor, but one that carries no points. And it's understood that judges usually won't incarcerate individuals who come back with a valid license.
The trouble with amending to an arguably lesser, but still non-moving violation is this: if the person cannot show proof of insurance from the date of the ticket (not the date of conviction), s/he gets suspended by the BMV all over again. And we're back in the cycle. Cases are set for trial not because a defendant actually intends to try the case, but because s/he wants to see if the officer will show up. But that means an officers spends anywhere from part to all of a morning sitting in a courtroom waiting for a case to be called. (And if the officer doesn't show up, the case is either continued or dismissed outright.)
An expanded diversion program could reduce drag on the courts' dockets. People with defenses (stolen identity, for instance) could still opt out and take their cases to trial. But most will want to get valid. And by reducing to a non-moving violation, two things happen: first the individual isn't subject to an FRA noncompliance suspension; and second, the court is able to recover costs. What's more, for those people who entered the program, their cases could be handled entirely in the arraignment rooms--meaning they never get to the regular docket. It'd save the time of judges, prosecutors, police officers, and public defenders.
Such a program would require a great deal of cooperation. The prosecutors (both city and county) would have to agree to it. The judges would have to agree to play hardball with cases that reached their dockets (i.e., no continuances "to get valid"--only for valid, trial related purposes, such as the unavailability of a witness). But it may be possible to work out some system where we can keep reduce the stakes to such an extent defendants will be willing to resolve them at arraignment, before a magistrate.
This proposal is just that: a proposal. There are probably problems I haven't thought of. But I hope it's a starting point for discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)