One Other Thing To Watch Tomorrow

I suspect this blog's readers will be following a couple of races particularly closely: the HamCo Commission races and the Dem primaries for governor and OH-02. But the "under-card" is particularly rife with drama this year, and warrants some attention.

As the Enquirer reported a few weeks ago, during the primary, voters will choose the membership of both parties' central committees, on both the county and state level. The Tea Party* has fielded candidates of its own, mainly for the GOP committees.

The Cincinnati Tea Party seems to be figuring out that the GOP isn't as welcoming to Tea Partiers as the GOP's public pronouncement would lead one to believe. Kevin DeWine and Alex Triantafilou both publicly say that they're happy to see the Tea Party involved in Republican politics. But behind the scenes, both are trying to limit the influence the Tea Party will have on the GOP. The linked post details those efforts on the state level. But those efforts are occurring on the county level, too.

Take a look at tomorrow's ballot (scroll down to page 27). There are a lot of Republicans running for county central committee spots for the first time. Some are Tea Partiers. But a lot more of them are "establishment" Republicans. Many are employed in public service with elected Republicans as their supervisors.

There's clearly an internal struggle going on within the GOP. While they don't want the Tea Party running its own candidates (the best thing that could happen for the Democratic Party, on either a state, local, or national level, would be Tea Party candidates; think Ross Perot), but GOP leaders clearly fear that if the Tea Party has too much of a voice in the GOP's governing committees, current leaders (e.g., party chairs) could lose their positions to newcomers elected by the Tea Party. The establishment GOP/Tea Party rift even became publicly evident at the Mainstay debate the other night, with some harsh words by Chris Monzel for a prominent Democrat and a Tea Partier in the same sentence--though Monzel didn't point out the party affiliation of either person he mentioned. (Apparently, now that Monzel has received the Ohio Tea Party PAC's endorsement, he feels he no longer has any reason to be nice to Tea Party's members.)

The election of the county Democratic central committee is not without drama, either. As we've previously noted (via Howard Wilkinson), Darren Tolliver is challenging Tim Burke for the local party chairmanship. Tolliver is presently the treasurer of the HCDP and was a board member of CincyPAC. The central committee, elected tomorrow, will vote on the chairmanship in the next several weeks. I have no idea whether Tolliver will have the votes, but a wrestling match for the party's gavel hasn't happened around here in quite some time.

So while there are interesting races near the top of the ticket, don't forget to watch the "smaller" races, too. As Tip O'Neill famously quipped, "All politics is local," after all.

*Griff: Come on, man, time to start calling it the Tea Party and its members the Tea Partiers. (Yes, "teabaggers" was a term that its original members used first, without realizing the word's other meaning. But everyone knows the euphemism now.) Even if we disagree with them, they deserve at least to be called by the name they choose. A while back, I called out Alex Triantafilou for using "Democrat" rather than "Democratic" as an adjective. I'm more than a bit hypocritical if I don't call out Griff, too.

More Clear Evidence the Cadillac Ranch Sucks

Liz of the getinmybelly blog has provided a overwelhming documentation that the Cadillac Ranch is an absolutely horrid establishment.

I most readers know the treatment "the ranch" gave to MidPoint Artists last year, but Liz has shown how poorly they treat paying customers.

Questions About Ethics

I find the character assignation of Chris Bortz to be very unfair, but I'm going to sidestep the details of the infamous letter and instead make a few points that are not going to be asked by the the less than honest anti-streetcar foes pushing this issue, nor will it be asked by the Enquirer.

1. Since Chris Bortz owns part of Jeff Ruby's located at 7th and Walnut, if a vote were to come up in Council to fund the re-pavement of 7th Street between Central and Broadway, then should he recuse himself from that vote?
2. Why are Tom Luken, Chris Smitherman, and bandwagoner Justin Jeffre not complaining about the votes Chris Bortz made to fund 3CDC's effort to redevelop downtown, including rehabbing the Metropole, which will clearly benefit the near by Jeff Ruby Steadhouse?
3. Have any of the votes for the funding of the streetcar ever specifically defined in the ordinances the actual route of the Streetcar? I mean literally the route where Luken et al claim it will go near properties owned or operated by Towne Properties?
4. If Chris Monzel where to be elected to County Commission(heaven forbid), would he be required to recuse himself when approving anything that improves or maintains any road around GE?

I never would expect Tom Luken to ask these questions, he's not concerned with truth. Cherry picking issues is his method of choice. I would however like a longer form story from the Enquirer covering what the ethics laws actually say and what each elected official should do to comply with them.

I Thought Chris Bortz Was Smarter Than This.....

You all know about the kerfuffle surrounding Councilmember Chris Bortz's decision to ignore advice from the Ohio Ethics Commission to abstain from votes regarding the streetcar. I have no opinion regarding whether a conflict of interest actually exists. From what I've read, there are cogent arguments on both sides.

(Interestingly, the same streetcar opponents who claim that the streetcar will not spur economic development or prosperity claim that Bortz operates under a conflict because the streetcar will spur economic development and prosperity. But that's probably another post.)

But I do have a strong opinion that Chris Bortz is in need of an IQ- or drug-test. How could he be so short-sighted, particularly regarding an issue that he believes is so vital to the city? Two questions are raised:

1. Why ask for an OEC opinion if you're going to ignore it if you don't get the answer you want?
2. Once you've got the opinion, why continue to participate, particularly since your vote hasn't been needed for passage? Even without Bortz, the streetcar has five votes (Qualls, Quinlivan, Cole, Thomas, and Berding).

Bortz has permitted--begged for, even--a controversy to be manufactured. Of course someone was going to file an ethics complaint. Of course certain people would use this to detract from a debate on the merits of the streetcar.

Chris Bortz has displayed an appalling lack of judgment in this matter, and everyone should be disappointed in him. Streetcar advocates should be angry with him for hurting their cause, regardless of the existence of an actual conflict. And streetcar opponents are upset that he ignored the opinion of the OEC after asking for it. He needs to start doing better by the citizens he represents.

Don't 3C and the Streetcar Need to Work Together?

It's no secret that I am no more than lukewarm about the prospect of a streetcar in Cincinnati. (Though it may seem odd to some of you, some info about Kenosha's experience is perhaps bringing back to supporting the streetcar.) And I actually don't like the proposed "3C" train. (I'm not sure who decides to take a three-hour train ride to Columbus from Cincinnati when your car gets you there in half that time. I'd consider the six-hour trip to Cleveland, depending on the reason for my trip.) If federal money becomes available for the streetcar, though, it appears both will be foisted on us. My question: shouldn't they connect?

City Council recently agreed to recommend that a site on Laidlaw in Bond Hill be the Cincinnati terminal of the 3C line, at least until Union Terminal becomes a viable option--and that could be two decades away. So what happens when a passenger arrives at the Bond Hill station? Remember, that's north of the Norwood Lateral. How do you get to downtown? Or Clifton? Or anywhere else?

Given that the federal government has agreed to commit hundreds of millions of dollars to passenger rail in Ohio, wouldn't it be a good idea for the city to make a streetcar pitch that is connected to that investment? Terminating the train in Bond Hill creates a real danger of a "train to nowhere." So why not pitch the government on not only funding the streetcar, but funding an expanded version of it now, reaching all the way into Bond Hill to connect the new train line with both downtown and Uptown?

Below is my proposed streetcar route. Note that I have the streetcar jog west to Spring Grove. That's because if it went straight up Vine Street, it would pass through St. Bernard, and I have no idea whether St. Bernard would support the extension of the streetcar through its boundaries.

Well?


View Donald's Streetcar proposal in a larger map

Tarbell Gets It: Arts Means Jobs

Enquirer Endorsements for Hamilton County Commissioner Primaries

Well, while much of the Enquirer's Reporting has begun to reflect the importance and value of the City, their Editorial Board clings to the folly that people outside the City would be better at City-County relations, than current and former City Council members. What that translates to is that the Suburban centric Enquirer Editorial board somehow thinks the rest of the county knows how to run a county better than the biggest player does. The folly in this idea is that the rest of the county has two concepts that are paramount: 1) Everyone for themselves, where each small town takes care of itself, and 2) The City Is the Enemy, where the city is either the cause of the problem or the place to dump their problems.

Endorsing Hubert Brown in the Democratic Primary sounds more like a strategic move to anger Thomas, Tarbell, and the Democratic establishment, rather than a reflection of the best candidate.

Jim Tarbell is the best candidate out of the three. That is clear from any logically perspective and Jim has far more ability to embrace the rest of the County than Brown would for the City, a place I don't know how much he knows about.

Cecil Thomas has just been phoning it in. His lack of commitment to the primary and his penchant for appealing to arch conservatives makes him the worst of the three.

Picking Ghiz over Monzel is no surprise. What is more interesting is the rosy picture they painted of Leslie Ghiz as being "politically savvy" and having "tough solutions." Well, if you think it was politically savvy to do nothing but hide in the shadow of the FOP and offer ZERO solutions to the City's budget problems last year, then I guess someone must be confusing the real dictionary with the fake dictionary. Also, in the campaign, Ghiz has been the one rather quiet, while Monzel has been the political grandstanding champion. What I guess is "savvy" about Ghiz is that she did all of her grandstanding last year, while Monzel's grandstanding looks more forced than hers does, being so close to an election.