At cincinnati imports (someday soon I'll find out why "liz" is so opposed to capitalization), Liz announces a couple of upcoming events. On March 21, the plan is to head out to Cincinnati Gardens to cheer as Lauren (known by her rabid fans as Miss Print) and the Cincinnati Rollergirls as they take on the Hard Knox Rollergirls in the season opener.
Plans are also in the works for a Happy Hour on April 1st. No location has been announced.
I'm somewhat embarassed that I never posted on the imports' first Happy Hour. It was a great event! I was thrilled to meet some of the best bloggers in town. Liz and Lauren have pictures here. This last one is important: it memorializes the historic first meeting between Griff, on the right, and myself (note the somewhat awed look in my eyes). That's right, Griff and I had never met before that night. Anyhow, the event was fun enough that I'm looking forward to the April Fool's Day event. And it's so fun to hang with that crowd that I just might have to figure out what a twitter is and crash the next tweet-up....
Oh---for those of you who are concerned by the picture: the pornstache was a very, very, very, short-lived experiment in facial hair, and ended shortly after that night.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Bockfest Starts This Friday!
It is that time of year again. Bockfest starts Friday March 6th and runs through Sunday the 8th. Friday is the big night with events starting at 6 PM with the Parade at Arnold's up to Main Street. Best viewing will likley be around 12th and Main, where the blessing of the beer takes place after the parade. Get your holy water burns at no extra cost!
Jake Speed takes the stage at 9PM at Bockfest Hall (Formerly Jefferson Hall).
Other places you may find me will be Arnold's and Grammer's, which are easy to get to via the free Bockfest shuttle!
Admission is free, so come on down!
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Ignoring the "Go Directly To Jail" Card
We've all heard by now of the lack of space in the jails in Hamilton County. Most of you have heard that the sheriff has initiated a sentence deferral program, whereby certain offenders are told to come back at a later day to serve a sentence of incarceration. Today's Enquirer reveals something that was fairly predictable: defendants aren't necessarily reporting as ordered. And according to the Enquirer, there's nothing that can be done to penalize them for remaining at large.
The situation is of some concern (but probably not as alarming as the Enquirer makes it out to be) to me. Yes, I'm a defense attorney and I'm never happy when someone is sentenced to jail--every jail sentence represents, to me, some form of societal failure or detriment. But I'm also a member of this community and a realist: sometimes, jail is the last, best option for punishment and deterrence. I think there are a couple things that could be done to encourage people to show up to serve a deferred sentence. But before I offer my suggestions, let's clear up some potential misconceptions about the Hamilton County criminal justice system.
First, it's extremely difficult to be sentenced to incarceration for a misdemeanor offense in this county. It happens in one of two situations: either the offense is particular violent (an assault or domestic violence conviction that goes beyond the "garden variety" version of those offenses), or the defendant is a recidivist. In the latter circumstance, sometimes we're talking about someone who was placed on probation and is now on a second or third probation violation, or someone who has multiple, close-in-time convictions similar to the one for which s/he is now being sentenced.
Second, the Enquirer reports deferral is only for "non-violent" offenders. If this is true today, it has not always been true over the past three months. Also, space is especially tight for female offenders. (My understanding is that this is because when Queensgate closed, the first floor at 1617 Reading Road was converted to a men's jail, decreasing the number of beds for women system-wide.)
Third, right now, judges don't always know whose sentence will be deferred and who will go in immediately. After the court imposes sentence, the defendant is taken from the courtroom by the criminal bailiff to the holding cell on the sixth floor of the courthouse, where s/he is thoroughly patted down. From there, s/he is taken across the street (via a connecting bridge) to the Justice Center, where s/he is processed. S/he is then informed if his or her sentence is being deferred.
So how do we get convicted offenders to show up to serve their jail sentences? There is no real "carrot" involved here; instead, the justice system has to find a "stick." I think there are four ways judges and prosecutors can influence defendants' behavior post-sentencing but pre-incarceration:
1. Charging escape. I haven't researched the caselaw on this, but my quick reading of Ohio Revised Code 2921.34 make me believe people who miss their deferral date could be charged with escape. This is because that crime applies to one who "purposely fail[s] to return to detention . . . following temporary leave granted for a specific purpose or limited period." If the problem is that the "temporary leave" is granted by the sheriff rather than the court, then the court could, upon request of the sheriff, order the temporary leave (in other words, the court "furloughs" the defendant). Of course, in this scenario, escape is a misdemeanor offense (meaning that the defendant would serve his time in the county jail rather than prison), so this could further exacerbate the space shortage, but the possibility of an additional six-month sentence is strong incentive to show up as ordered by the sheriff.
2. Charging contempt. As part of sentences of incarceration, judges could begin ordering defendants to comply with all sheriff-imposed reporting requirements (e.g., calling or coming in on the deferred sentence date). If the defendant fails to do this, the court could then impose an additional sentence for contempt. Again, this requires more utilization of bed space to initiate and more resources (this would be "indirect" contempt, so a hearing would be required). But the hope is that the mere possibility of additional incarceration would deter individuals from skipping out on their sentences.
3. Detail eligibility. If you've been to the Justice Center or the courthouse, you've no doubt seen inmates wandering about, seemingly unsupervised, collecting trash, mopping floors, and performing other custodial functions. These men are on "work details," for which they typically get two or three days of credit for every one day of detail work. (You generally hear this called "2-for-1" or "3-for-1.") This means someone who is sentenced to six months in jail can get out in as little as six months, or even less. Judges can make defendants ineligible for details, but rarely do so. The sheriff should make any individual who fails to report as ordered ineligible for work details that decrease the amount of time to be served. (I'd suggest the same thing for treatment programs that make mitigation by a judge likely, but (a) we should never make someone ineligible for treatment, and (b) last I knew, sentences were not being deferred for individuals who were serving their time in programs like men's extended treatment.)
4. Conditional sentences. This requires the judge and the sheriff to work together, so a judge will know, at the time of sentencing, whether a defendant's sentence will be deferred by the sheriff. If the sentence is to be deferred, the judge could announce a conditional sentence. For instance, if the charge is a first-degree misdemeanor (carrying a possible 180 days in jail) and the court wants to impose a 90-day sentence, if the sentence is to be deferred then the court could announce its intent to impose 90 days and instruct the defendant to report back to the courtroom for actual sentencing and surrender at the end of the deferral. The court would instruct the defendant that if s/he fails to appear for sentence, the court will impose the maximum 180-day sentence instead of the 90 promised.
No one would describe me as a "law-and-order" guy. But failing to obey a court order--like a sentence--should have consequences. My suggestions assume, of course, that judges are using incarceration only where appropriate: for particularly brutal crimes or as the last sentencing option, only when a defendant has repeatedly demonstrated, over time, non-amenability to treatment or other, more rehabilitative opportunities.
The situation is of some concern (but probably not as alarming as the Enquirer makes it out to be) to me. Yes, I'm a defense attorney and I'm never happy when someone is sentenced to jail--every jail sentence represents, to me, some form of societal failure or detriment. But I'm also a member of this community and a realist: sometimes, jail is the last, best option for punishment and deterrence. I think there are a couple things that could be done to encourage people to show up to serve a deferred sentence. But before I offer my suggestions, let's clear up some potential misconceptions about the Hamilton County criminal justice system.
First, it's extremely difficult to be sentenced to incarceration for a misdemeanor offense in this county. It happens in one of two situations: either the offense is particular violent (an assault or domestic violence conviction that goes beyond the "garden variety" version of those offenses), or the defendant is a recidivist. In the latter circumstance, sometimes we're talking about someone who was placed on probation and is now on a second or third probation violation, or someone who has multiple, close-in-time convictions similar to the one for which s/he is now being sentenced.
Second, the Enquirer reports deferral is only for "non-violent" offenders. If this is true today, it has not always been true over the past three months. Also, space is especially tight for female offenders. (My understanding is that this is because when Queensgate closed, the first floor at 1617 Reading Road was converted to a men's jail, decreasing the number of beds for women system-wide.)
Third, right now, judges don't always know whose sentence will be deferred and who will go in immediately. After the court imposes sentence, the defendant is taken from the courtroom by the criminal bailiff to the holding cell on the sixth floor of the courthouse, where s/he is thoroughly patted down. From there, s/he is taken across the street (via a connecting bridge) to the Justice Center, where s/he is processed. S/he is then informed if his or her sentence is being deferred.
So how do we get convicted offenders to show up to serve their jail sentences? There is no real "carrot" involved here; instead, the justice system has to find a "stick." I think there are four ways judges and prosecutors can influence defendants' behavior post-sentencing but pre-incarceration:
1. Charging escape. I haven't researched the caselaw on this, but my quick reading of Ohio Revised Code 2921.34 make me believe people who miss their deferral date could be charged with escape. This is because that crime applies to one who "purposely fail[s] to return to detention . . . following temporary leave granted for a specific purpose or limited period." If the problem is that the "temporary leave" is granted by the sheriff rather than the court, then the court could, upon request of the sheriff, order the temporary leave (in other words, the court "furloughs" the defendant). Of course, in this scenario, escape is a misdemeanor offense (meaning that the defendant would serve his time in the county jail rather than prison), so this could further exacerbate the space shortage, but the possibility of an additional six-month sentence is strong incentive to show up as ordered by the sheriff.
2. Charging contempt. As part of sentences of incarceration, judges could begin ordering defendants to comply with all sheriff-imposed reporting requirements (e.g., calling or coming in on the deferred sentence date). If the defendant fails to do this, the court could then impose an additional sentence for contempt. Again, this requires more utilization of bed space to initiate and more resources (this would be "indirect" contempt, so a hearing would be required). But the hope is that the mere possibility of additional incarceration would deter individuals from skipping out on their sentences.
3. Detail eligibility. If you've been to the Justice Center or the courthouse, you've no doubt seen inmates wandering about, seemingly unsupervised, collecting trash, mopping floors, and performing other custodial functions. These men are on "work details," for which they typically get two or three days of credit for every one day of detail work. (You generally hear this called "2-for-1" or "3-for-1.") This means someone who is sentenced to six months in jail can get out in as little as six months, or even less. Judges can make defendants ineligible for details, but rarely do so. The sheriff should make any individual who fails to report as ordered ineligible for work details that decrease the amount of time to be served. (I'd suggest the same thing for treatment programs that make mitigation by a judge likely, but (a) we should never make someone ineligible for treatment, and (b) last I knew, sentences were not being deferred for individuals who were serving their time in programs like men's extended treatment.)
4. Conditional sentences. This requires the judge and the sheriff to work together, so a judge will know, at the time of sentencing, whether a defendant's sentence will be deferred by the sheriff. If the sentence is to be deferred, the judge could announce a conditional sentence. For instance, if the charge is a first-degree misdemeanor (carrying a possible 180 days in jail) and the court wants to impose a 90-day sentence, if the sentence is to be deferred then the court could announce its intent to impose 90 days and instruct the defendant to report back to the courtroom for actual sentencing and surrender at the end of the deferral. The court would instruct the defendant that if s/he fails to appear for sentence, the court will impose the maximum 180-day sentence instead of the 90 promised.
No one would describe me as a "law-and-order" guy. But failing to obey a court order--like a sentence--should have consequences. My suggestions assume, of course, that judges are using incarceration only where appropriate: for particularly brutal crimes or as the last sentencing option, only when a defendant has repeatedly demonstrated, over time, non-amenability to treatment or other, more rehabilitative opportunities.
Hook Us Up, Kroger: An Open Letter to Mr. Dillon
David Dillon
CEO, The Kroger Company
1014 Vine Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202
RE: Downtown Cincinnati
Dear Mr. Dillon:
I write concerning the critical gap in the grocery market in downtown Cincinnati. As a downtown resident and worker, this is of serious concern to me. But more importantly, the issue raises a pressing business opportunity for your company.
Kroger has regularly been criticized for its only downtown/Over-the-Rhine store at 1420 Vine Street. We've even done our fair share of lambasting at the Cincinnati Blog. We certainly appreciate the company's efforts to revitalize the store during a few years ago. Ultimately, though, the store's footprint is simply too small for the store to one that your company can be proud to have in the shadow of your corporate headquarters.
A few days ago, because I was "in the neighborhood," I made my first visit to your "Fresh Fare" store in Kenwood. I'd never been to a "Fresh Fare" Kroger; I was impressed. Comparing the Vine Street Kroger to the Kenwood store is like comparing a summer weekend festival's attractions to those at King's Island. Wow. Wow, wow, wow.
The people of downtown and Over-the-Rhine deserve a quality grocery store from the grocery company so closely identified with the Queen City. But that's an argument that's been made for a long time, and one that repeatedly falls on deaf ears in the Kroger hierarchy. So let's focus on why Kroger's interests are served by an expanded downtown location.
More people live downtown and in Over-the-Rhine than did a few years ago. And while the Vine Street store is sufficient if we need a few things, it's not good enough for weekly shopping. That means that people who can do so drive outside of downtown to buy groceries. But once I'm leaving downtown, the chance that I go to Kroger (either to Bellevue or Hyde Park, most likely) is only one-in-three, at best. I might go to Meijer. I might go to Bigg's. Or maybe, I'll get wild and crazy and head all the way out to Jungle Jim's.
There's land available for a Fresh Fare Kroger. There's a big parking lot on the eastern edge of downtown known as "Broadway Commons." The owners don't seem really married to hanging onto the property. They wanted to sell to permit the building of the baseball and football stadia there. More recently, they were hoping a casino company would buy them out. I'm sure they'd sell to Kroger.
Think about the business a Fresh Fare store would do at that location. New residential buildings are opening all time in downtown and OTR. Within the next half-decade, residents will start occupying housing in the Banks. Kroger should already have a store in place by then; it's much easier to attract business from those looking to develop habits, rather than to change pre-existing habits--which is what will happen if Kroger continues to take a wait-and-see approach to downtown residency.
But it's not just your neighbors who would frequent a Fresh Fare store. Think about all the people who, on their way home from downtown jobs, would stop in your store to pick up dinner. Broadway Commons is on the way to I-71 from downtown. It's perfect!
I realize it's tough to think about expansion in this economy. But downtown and OTR is one of the few areas to which people continue to relocate. Kroger should take advantage of this, rewarding both itself with lots of new business and longtime OTR residents who have steadfastly patronized the vastly inferior OTR store out of loyalty to your company.
Kroger is a great Cincinnati company. It should have a great Cincinnati location.
Sincerely,
Donald Caster
CEO, The Kroger Company
1014 Vine Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202
RE: Downtown Cincinnati
Dear Mr. Dillon:
I write concerning the critical gap in the grocery market in downtown Cincinnati. As a downtown resident and worker, this is of serious concern to me. But more importantly, the issue raises a pressing business opportunity for your company.
Kroger has regularly been criticized for its only downtown/Over-the-Rhine store at 1420 Vine Street. We've even done our fair share of lambasting at the Cincinnati Blog. We certainly appreciate the company's efforts to revitalize the store during a few years ago. Ultimately, though, the store's footprint is simply too small for the store to one that your company can be proud to have in the shadow of your corporate headquarters.
A few days ago, because I was "in the neighborhood," I made my first visit to your "Fresh Fare" store in Kenwood. I'd never been to a "Fresh Fare" Kroger; I was impressed. Comparing the Vine Street Kroger to the Kenwood store is like comparing a summer weekend festival's attractions to those at King's Island. Wow. Wow, wow, wow.
The people of downtown and Over-the-Rhine deserve a quality grocery store from the grocery company so closely identified with the Queen City. But that's an argument that's been made for a long time, and one that repeatedly falls on deaf ears in the Kroger hierarchy. So let's focus on why Kroger's interests are served by an expanded downtown location.
More people live downtown and in Over-the-Rhine than did a few years ago. And while the Vine Street store is sufficient if we need a few things, it's not good enough for weekly shopping. That means that people who can do so drive outside of downtown to buy groceries. But once I'm leaving downtown, the chance that I go to Kroger (either to Bellevue or Hyde Park, most likely) is only one-in-three, at best. I might go to Meijer. I might go to Bigg's. Or maybe, I'll get wild and crazy and head all the way out to Jungle Jim's.
There's land available for a Fresh Fare Kroger. There's a big parking lot on the eastern edge of downtown known as "Broadway Commons." The owners don't seem really married to hanging onto the property. They wanted to sell to permit the building of the baseball and football stadia there. More recently, they were hoping a casino company would buy them out. I'm sure they'd sell to Kroger.
Think about the business a Fresh Fare store would do at that location. New residential buildings are opening all time in downtown and OTR. Within the next half-decade, residents will start occupying housing in the Banks. Kroger should already have a store in place by then; it's much easier to attract business from those looking to develop habits, rather than to change pre-existing habits--which is what will happen if Kroger continues to take a wait-and-see approach to downtown residency.
But it's not just your neighbors who would frequent a Fresh Fare store. Think about all the people who, on their way home from downtown jobs, would stop in your store to pick up dinner. Broadway Commons is on the way to I-71 from downtown. It's perfect!
I realize it's tough to think about expansion in this economy. But downtown and OTR is one of the few areas to which people continue to relocate. Kroger should take advantage of this, rewarding both itself with lots of new business and longtime OTR residents who have steadfastly patronized the vastly inferior OTR store out of loyalty to your company.
Kroger is a great Cincinnati company. It should have a great Cincinnati location.
Sincerely,
Donald Caster
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
State of the City
I attended Mayor Mark Mallory's "State of the City" address this evening. (Text here, courtesy the Enquirer.) I'm not sure how the speech will read, but I can tell you that the mayor's delivery made clear that his top priority this year is the streetcar proposal.
Mayor Mallory isn't typically a fire-and-brimstone kind of speaker, but he got downright fiery when he talked about the streetcar. In fact, that was probably the only thing he got fiery about. He noted the development and investment streetcars brought in Tampa, Charlotte, and Seattle, and insisted that the "naysayers" not be permitted to "derail" the project.
There was also an interesting moment towards the end of his address. Mallory spent much of his speech recognizing and thanking various community leaders. In discussing the uptick of convention business last year, Mallory thanked Chris Smitherman for his leadership with respect to last summer's national NAACP convention. While the mayor was, I think, trying to be gracious to the man who has very recently become one of his most outspoken critics, it was clear that the audience wasn't sure how to respond. While the other individuals Mallory mentioned got rounds of applause that were fairly robust, the response to the mention of Smitherman was fairly tepid.
All in all, a good night for Mallory, I think. (And by the way, he affirmed that the "first" phase of the streetcar plan is to include the uptown connector.)
A postscript: I just saw on the late news that Monzel, who delivered the "Republican response" (or just a response?), took the opportunity to reject the streetcar proposal. It's not a new position for him, but makes me wonder: has the HamCo GOP officially staked out an anti-streetcar position? As our regular readers know, I remain ambivalent about a streetcar plan, but would be surprised if the GOP were going to foist an anti-streetcar platform on its five candidates this fall, as I'm not sure it will help them. (And Republican Councilmember Ghiz, if I recall correctly, voted for the streetcar.) And if the party doesn't have a position, then something's amiss: if Monzel was giving a truly "Republican response," then why would he set out his personal position, rather than the party's positions?
Interestingly, Jane Pendegrast suggests that Monzel was to speak for the GOP (quoting Chair Alex Triantafilou as saying that the "opposite party" hadn't given such a response in a while), and Triantafilou refers to the remarks both as "Chris Monzel's response" and "our response." So for whom was Councilman Monzel speaking this evening: just himself, or the entire HamCo GOP?
Mayor Mallory isn't typically a fire-and-brimstone kind of speaker, but he got downright fiery when he talked about the streetcar. In fact, that was probably the only thing he got fiery about. He noted the development and investment streetcars brought in Tampa, Charlotte, and Seattle, and insisted that the "naysayers" not be permitted to "derail" the project.
There was also an interesting moment towards the end of his address. Mallory spent much of his speech recognizing and thanking various community leaders. In discussing the uptick of convention business last year, Mallory thanked Chris Smitherman for his leadership with respect to last summer's national NAACP convention. While the mayor was, I think, trying to be gracious to the man who has very recently become one of his most outspoken critics, it was clear that the audience wasn't sure how to respond. While the other individuals Mallory mentioned got rounds of applause that were fairly robust, the response to the mention of Smitherman was fairly tepid.
All in all, a good night for Mallory, I think. (And by the way, he affirmed that the "first" phase of the streetcar plan is to include the uptown connector.)
A postscript: I just saw on the late news that Monzel, who delivered the "Republican response" (or just a response?), took the opportunity to reject the streetcar proposal. It's not a new position for him, but makes me wonder: has the HamCo GOP officially staked out an anti-streetcar position? As our regular readers know, I remain ambivalent about a streetcar plan, but would be surprised if the GOP were going to foist an anti-streetcar platform on its five candidates this fall, as I'm not sure it will help them. (And Republican Councilmember Ghiz, if I recall correctly, voted for the streetcar.) And if the party doesn't have a position, then something's amiss: if Monzel was giving a truly "Republican response," then why would he set out his personal position, rather than the party's positions?
Interestingly, Jane Pendegrast suggests that Monzel was to speak for the GOP (quoting Chair Alex Triantafilou as saying that the "opposite party" hadn't given such a response in a while), and Triantafilou refers to the remarks both as "Chris Monzel's response" and "our response." So for whom was Councilman Monzel speaking this evening: just himself, or the entire HamCo GOP?
CincyPAC on 55KRC
This past Sunday night City Talk Radio's 2nd half of the show included members of CincyPac and gave a basic overview of the organization. On the link you can find a podcast of the full show, including an interview with the team behind "Cooking with Caitlin," which according to the show will appear weekly on Fountain Square over the summer.
On CincyPac I am still not really sure of its purpose. Their website does list out a description. I don't know that it helps me understand the ultimate goal. If they are a PAC and are about raising money to elect candidates, then I get it. The mission then would be to get cash in into the campaigns of candidates who favor "YP issues". Getting money is hard business, but it is a focused goal that can be completed in many ways, but those methods are quantifiable.
If the organization is trying to be an issue advocacy group that has a social component, then I don't get it. I don't have a problem with that type of group, but that will open it up to a bureaucracy that will slow them down and likley hamper efforts to get people to give money to the PAC to then give to candidates. Where the problem may come in is when money comes into the PAC, what portion will be given to candidates and what portion will go to Issue Advocacy and the social component? I don't have a problem with trying to be more than one thing, I just want the goals to have a clear hierarchy. Who is going to get most of the contributions is a key element to know prior to giving a contribution.
The debate on what "YP issues" means is another big contention that is so very debatable. That hurts the group partially because it is a vague goal and one people are going to have a hard time wanting to support. PACs do better when they have one goal, where the reason for giving money is singular, like Emily's List. There is not a single YP issue to focus on, but there needs to be clearer message on the issues being considered, if getting money is the goal. A focused message will be the only way to get significant contributions.
On CincyPac I am still not really sure of its purpose. Their website does list out a description. I don't know that it helps me understand the ultimate goal. If they are a PAC and are about raising money to elect candidates, then I get it. The mission then would be to get cash in into the campaigns of candidates who favor "YP issues". Getting money is hard business, but it is a focused goal that can be completed in many ways, but those methods are quantifiable.
If the organization is trying to be an issue advocacy group that has a social component, then I don't get it. I don't have a problem with that type of group, but that will open it up to a bureaucracy that will slow them down and likley hamper efforts to get people to give money to the PAC to then give to candidates. Where the problem may come in is when money comes into the PAC, what portion will be given to candidates and what portion will go to Issue Advocacy and the social component? I don't have a problem with trying to be more than one thing, I just want the goals to have a clear hierarchy. Who is going to get most of the contributions is a key element to know prior to giving a contribution.
The debate on what "YP issues" means is another big contention that is so very debatable. That hurts the group partially because it is a vague goal and one people are going to have a hard time wanting to support. PACs do better when they have one goal, where the reason for giving money is singular, like Emily's List. There is not a single YP issue to focus on, but there needs to be clearer message on the issues being considered, if getting money is the goal. A focused message will be the only way to get significant contributions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)