COAST's Rapid Transit Map

This map floating around Twitter over the weekend is funny and over the top, but I think it captures the delusions of the leaders of COAST very well. It illustrates so much of what is wrong with COAST and those who align themselves with their ideas, like Brad Wenstrup. Stagnant thinking has slowed Cincinnati far too long and the people of Cincinnati need to break free of the past and understand they don't have to think like that. We are better than this and can defeat it. One step towards that defeat happens a week from tomorrow.

Issues 8 and 9: Why Vote on Voting?

I understand why the supporters of Issue 8 don't want City Council to create a regional water district. In fact, I think I'm in their camp, if only because Council would lose control of water rates. And I think there's a strong argument that the creation of a water district should require a charter amendment (and thus a referendum). Water Works is, after all, referenced in the charter (the power to appoint the agency's chief is one of the powers vested in the city manager).

And I understand why the supporters of Issue 9 think building a streetcar is a bad idea.* (I'm generally lukewarm on the streetcar and believe regardless of the passage or failure of Issue 9, the private investment dollars needed to build the streetcar--and forecast by its most ardent proponents--are unlikely to materialize.) I disagree that the decision should be embedded within the City Charter. In a republic, budget appropriations are a matter left to the discretion of the elected legislature. The anti-streetcar sentiment is understandable, even if I don't feel it myself.

But I don't understand why Issues 8 and 9 are written as they are. Why doesn't Issue 8 simply ban the creation of a regional water district or the sale of the water works to a private corporation? (Issue 8 as written, by the way, would not prevent the privatization of Cincinnati's water works, though I've heard no serious person propose such a thing, anyhow.) Why doesn't Issue 9 simply ban the expenditure of funds for a streetcar? Why do the drafters of these ballot issues leave open the possibility that they'll win this time, but lose a referendum in a subsequent election?

After all, the drafters of Issues 8 and 9 certainly know how to write a straightforward, no-loopholes charter amendment. When the NAACP and COAST teamed up to write the anti-red-light amendment a few years ago, it was just that. It didn't call for a separate vote on the cameras; instead, it simply banned their use to impose civil or criminal penalties.

As I was thinking about Issues 8 or 9, it occurred to me that their structure must be relatively unique. Apart from the method to amend a charter or constitution, I cannot think of federal, state, or local constitutional or charter provisions calling for a referendum before a legislature takes a certain action. (With respect to budget appropriations like that implicated in Issue 9, by the way, I believe a state-wide referendum would, in fact, be unconstitutional under state law, as the state constitution explicitly excludes those from the referendum process.) But after a little research, I realized that Issues 8 and 9 do, indeed, have a precedent: Article XI of the City Charter.

What's that? You say you don't know what Article XI is? It's been on the books for over a half-century. It says:

Any ordinance enacted by the Council of the City of Cincinnati which provides for the fluoridation of water processed and distributed by the Cincinnati Water Works must first be approved by a majority of the electors voting on the question at a special or general election before said ordinance shall become effective, and any ordinance to fluoridate the water distributed by the Cincinnati Water Works that may have been enacted before this amendment is adopted shall cease to be effective until approved by a majority of the electors voting on the question at a special or general election.

That's right: back in the 1950's, Cincinnatians vehemently opposed efforts to add fluoride to their drinking water. After the charter was amended to include Article XI, three separate referenda to fluoridate the water failed. It took the intervention of the Ohio EPA--with assistance from the Ohio Supreme Court--to improve Cincinnatians' dental health. (And proving the stubborness of Queen City residents, one report seems to suggest that in the wake of fluoridation, bottled water sales increased dramatically.)

So there you have it. Historical precedent for the two strange (from a structural standpoint) issues on this year's ballot: fluoride-alarmists!

Charter amendments ought to be straightforward and do what they intend. If selling water works to a regional water authority is a bad idea, let's just preclude it. If a streetcar is a bad idea and the only way to prevent one is a charter amendment, let's do that. But let's not waste time voting on whether to vote.

---

*Yes, I realize Issue 9 is about more than the streetcar. I suspect the bulk of its city-resident supporters, though, are concerned only with the streetcar, and not more minimal outlays for things like the Zoo train or the 3C rail line.

Great No On 9 Video!

Even though I am a PC user, this is still really funny and to the point.

Passage Lounge Coming To Downtown

Construction is in progress and the signs in the window give a hint at what is to be Passage Lounge. The location is at 601 Main Street, which is immediately on the corner of 6th Street. I couldn't find mention of this venue anywhere else on the web, so I don't know how much, if any, promotion has occurred.

This would add to the growing number of "lounges" in downtown, which I would define as an upscale bar/club, like FB, the Righteous Room, and Tonic. I've not heard mention what ever became of Bang's re-imaging, which I thought would have been completed by now. These types of clubs can be short lived, so depending on who is running this new venue, I wonder how it will compete.

This location would be across from the 580 building where plans for a Mr. Sushi restaurant were announced over the summer. I've not seen any progress on the restaurant, at least none visible from the street. Mr. Sushi was slated to open in the Fall.

For Bris Chortz and Mark Miller: Read the Law

A commenter, known as Bris Chortz, has been defending Mark Miller of COAST for the allegedly false Affidavit filed in Miller's Ohio Ethics Commission complaint against Mayor Mark Mallory.  Bris wanted to claim that my statement was incorrect when I stated filing a false Affidavit was against the law.  Well, I did a little research:

102.06 Powers and duties of ethics commission.
(A) The appropriate ethics commission shall receive and may initiate complaints against persons subject to this chapter concerning conduct alleged to be in violation of this chapter or section 2921.42 or 2921.43 of the Revised Code. All complaints except those by the commission shall be by affidavit made on personal knowledge, subject to the penalties of perjury. Complaints by the commission shall be by affidavit, based upon reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred.

The bold was added to make Bris aware of the law.  I am not making judgment as to Miller's actions, I am however pointing out the fact that I was not wrong and Affidavits in this instance are clearly covered by perjury.  I mean, if they weren't covered by perjury laws, why even have it be a sworn statement?

Sure, Bris and his fellow COAST supporters (I would surmise Bris is a member of COAST, maybe even Miller himself) can quibble over whether Miller knowingly filed a false statement.  Or they can quibble over the meaning of 'false.'  Language to them is fungible after all, judging by how they wrote Issue 9, and then claim it means something other than what it says.  If a perjury violation needs to be considered , then that is a matter for the justice system to determine, not mine.  A prosecutor could be satisfied by questioning Miller or his attorney that if Miller's address is incorrect on the Affidavit, that it was just a typo.  I know I make those all the time, but if I were to make that type
of 'mistake' on an Affidavit, and then release it to the public, I might either check the details and correct it first, or at least note the error.  At a minimum,  I think the OEC should reject the Affidavit on the grounds that it doesn't meet the requirements of a Complaint.  Miller could just reissue a new copy with a corrected address, and may have already done that, but just hasn't published that version.  I'm not going to wait around for anyone from COAST to admit to any mistakes.

Deters Power Grab

County Prosecutor Joe Deters must really like the Bengal's Stadium Lease since that's the last time the Prosecutor Lawyers did work on Riverfront Development for the County. That was back in the 1990's when Joe was the Prosecutor, before quiting for higher state office. In case your wondering, most consider the Bengal's lease to have given away the farm and first born of every county resident and handed them over to Bengal's owner Mike Brown.

If Joe Deters gets his way, his criminal lawyers will begin doing the work that private development lawyers are doing. We are going to get lower quality legal advice with this action. Why? Well, you don't hire a foot doctor if you need brain surgery.

Deters is trying to build up power. He's not up for reelection until 2012, so I guess he thinks he has a free hand to do what ever he wants. It is a tradition in Hamilton County to have despots in the Prosecutor's office. Leis, Deters, Allen, and now Deters again all have acted like they are above the law and have no to answer too. Because local political parties on the county level are dysfunctional, this office has become one where you don't have to worry about reelection because deals will be made to prevent an competition.

Harris Announces 2010 Budget Plan

Council Member Greg Harris has done something no other candidate has done: provide a 2010 budget plan that includes adjustments that make up the 51.5 million dollar projected deficit. He does it without layoffs. He does list a Trash collection fee which would fill a gap. That will surely get screams from the right wing, but once the election passes, I think their scream will subside on fee increases.

I am most pleased with Greg for being complete. He had the courage to do this now, before the election and he actually provided numbers that will add up to the deficit. Other candidates have presented cuts they would make, but they cite cutting some minor program or perk that adds up to a few hundred thousand dollars, nothing close to the full budget deficit.

Many of the cuts Greg proposes are going to face huge challenges, but I think Greg is willing to work with everyone. What we don't need is more Grandstanding from Ghis, Monzel, Berding, and the FOP Officers playing the role of chicken little. Since we are so close to the election, I don't predict big political pushes to attack Greg, since those council members are not safe enough to focus on getting out their base.

Greg's action to publicize his realistic plan is what we want from our council. Greg is governing. He is being upfront, but will be smart and will not negotiate with the Unions in the media. We need to keep Greg on council.