This Ain't Moxy, This is Bitchy

I know how much local Republicans are cheering on the juvinile behavior of Council Member Leslie Ghiz, but this is not tough talk from a concerned elected official, this is frustration born from personal animosity coming through. The inner teenager has come forth and she is not thoughtful, she is bitchy. You don't tell the chair of a committee to shut up on an open mike in session. You just don't do that and expect to be considered civil. A council session is not an episode of the Hanity Show, where guests are encouraged to be antagonistic to the point of calling each other four letter words. Council meetings should be civil. If Ghiz has a beef with Cole, have it out behind closed doors like adult politicians do.

If this was done as a stunt to get attention, then Ghiz has stooped to a new low. It is beneath any council member and that would put her on the level of political bottom feeder, going for the cheap and hollow vote.

I question whether deep down Ghiz actually wants to be reelected to council. Her tone this campaign season has been totally negative. If she does win, I really hope she grows up a little bit and ends the childish behavior. One can be forceful with dignity, but still get your point across. She needs to learn how to do that, or just quit politics.

Kevin Flynn - Extreme On Abortion

In local races the issue of a woman's right to an abortion, shouldn't be material. I don't in any way mean to say it isn't important, I mean to say that a woman's right to choose an abortion is the law of the land. City Council members' stances on the issue should be nearly insignificant. Locally, the only council member to make it an actual issue has been Chris Monzel. His stances on what should be covered by city provide health insurance is well known and just one of many, many reasons not to vote for him. It is also why he gets the endorsement from the Cincinnati Right to Life PAC ever year.

This year's race adds a new name to the anti-abortion PAC list, Charterite Kevin Flynn. His responses to the CRTLPAC questionnaire(pdf) are eye opening and extreme and to say the least very disappointing.

Flynn has three stances that stand out and make it impossible for me to vote for him. In his response he omitted Rape and Incest as grounds for when an Abortion should be legal. He did include the life of the mother, but his use of choosing to not fall on a grendade as a rational to want to die does I believe belittle the value of the mother and of women in general.

The second stance is in his support of banning the coverage of abortion by the City employee health Insurance plans. Under Flynn's view, it is moral that if an employee of the City is raped, she must pay to end the pregnancy herself. It is so very disappointIng that the value of
women is placed below the intent of the rapist.

The third stance is in my opinion the most disappointing by far, Kevin Flynn filled out the questionaire at all. City Counil lacks to the power to do anything about Abortion being legal or not. The issue is something that should not have a baring on the council race. Flynn should have followed the path of his two fell Charter candidates, Bortz and Qualls, and not completed the questionaire.

It wasn't great seeing Cecil Thomas on the RTL endorsement list, but not as much of a surprise. His answers to the question were no different, but he avoided adding details to the "Yes/No" answers. I don't remember if Cecil got the endorsement in 2007 and I can't find a working link to who was endorsed at all 2 years ago.

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.