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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)