Wayne Lippert Jr. has been named to replace Jeff Berding on Cincinnati City Council. He's wasted no time in putting a partisan foot forward by toting the anti-streetcar (and anti-downtown) message of the Republican Party. Pretending to be open minded about the Streetcar, but then saying the only way possible to financing the project is "inappropriate" confirms either he is against the project or he doesn't know the details. If there are other ways to finance public transportation (like roads or a streetcar) than through Federal and State grants along with city bonds, then I'll be looking for his financing plan. If he's not looking for another plan, especially now when part of the funding is in peril, then he is just AGAINST the project and is trying to fool the small number of Republican Urbanists into thinking he will act to help develop the urban core.
I hope Wayne is able to avoid caving into "special interests," as the article indicates, but talking about police and fire layoffs as only a last resort to fixing our budget issues is really hollow rhetoric and just spin. Unless you are going to put police and fire layoffs on the table with equal footing to all other areas in the city budget, then you are caving into the dogma of the police and fire unions, and those are both special interests. If Lippert falls in line with the rest of the Republicans on council and pushes to outsource as many city jobs to lower paying private vendors, then his hypocrisy will become clear. The interests of business owners (as big of a special interest as you can get) who don't live or work here shouldn't be more important than the citizens of Cincinnati.
Also, I really question the logic of anyone who thinks the government should be run like a business. If you know how businesses are run, you know why this is a horrible idea. It is a common mistake, but makes for a great sound-bite for many suckers out there.
At this point Lippert is sounding like another Leslie Ghiz, he's just not pretending to be more moderate at the beginning and is starting off as a partisan Republican, getting it out of the way. That's very disappointing. I don't like partisan politics invading city politics. I'm willing to listen to others who hold different political views than I do, and find common ground. When you come out swinging with partisan talking points, then you are going to be viewed a partisan and against finding the Cincinnati community. At this point the only people Wayne Lippert seems to reaching out to are suburban anti-city Republicans and the largly non-city resident police and fire unions. I dont' know who he plans on getting votes from, but he's not getting mine.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
If Republicans Want to Help Voters, Then Include Auto Registratrion
Two local Republicans are pushing a bill to reduce the number of voters, yet claim this will prevent voter fraud. Alex Triantafilou, chairman of the Hamilton County Republican Party and chair of the Hamilton County Board of Elections thinks by making it more difficult to vote, it protects the right to vote. His logic escapes me and anyone else looking to increase voter turnout.
If Republicans want to make assure their identity, but also are for more people voting, then there two things they can do:
If Republicans want to make assure their identity, but also are for more people voting, then there two things they can do:
- Investigate the 14% voter fraud in Indian Hill (I am half kidding on this.)
- If they require a state ID to vote, make it law that anyone with a valid State ID is then automatically registered to vote and you stay registered to vote as long as your ID is valid. Why would they be against this, unless they really don't want more people to vote?
For Kasich It's Not About the Streetcar, It's All About His Political Agenda
If anyone tells you that the reason Governor Kasich is pulling funding for Cincinnati Streetcar is anything other than Politics, then they are a fucking liar. You can tell them I am calling them a liar and you can put these simple political reasons back in their face:
Kasich is pulling funding because:
If you are not convinced yet of Republicans out to ruin cities, then read Urbancincy's article documenting the efforts for the Republicans on the Ohio Senate Sub Committee on Transportation to directly defund the Cincinnati Streetcar. Not just any streetcar or rail system, but Cincinnati's alone. Guess who sits on the committee: Senator Gary Cates (R) of West Chester. So, did he propose this effort to hurt Cincinnati? Who's ideas was it and where did it originate? To bad there is not more than one professional reporter in Columbus to ask these questions. It would be even better if that newspaper would actually print anything about it.
CityKin points out evidence of Mr.AssfaultAsphalt's problem and what I would call corruption. He makes a bad Sheriff to Kasich's Prince John, but the if the parallel fits, wear it.
Kasich is pulling funding because:
- He's looking to screw those that don't vote for him and the City of Cincinnati really didn't vote for him with only 28.77% supporting him, so Kasich plays hardball with State funds for revenge.
- He's looking to do what his fellow Republicans want and Most (not all) of Cincinnati area Republican leaders are against the Streetcar as they are against nearly anything good for Cincinnati. If you don't think Kasich heard anti-Streetcar views from Hartman, Monzel, Ghiz, Winburn, Deters, Brinkman, Finney, Chabot, Triantafilou & Boehner, then you should get your head out of your ass.
- He's anti-Urban, plain and simple, something that is a growing theme for Republicans. It fits the divide of much of the political sphere. The Exurbs and Rural areas are where Republican voters lives so they are going to get more money from Republicans.
- He's anti-Rail. He's against anything that does not make it easier for Republican voters drive their cars. He's also is looking to promote the automotive industry and asphalt/concrete/road construction industries. It is like he's living in 1955 and can't get his head out of his ass.
If you are not convinced yet of Republicans out to ruin cities, then read Urbancincy's article documenting the efforts for the Republicans on the Ohio Senate Sub Committee on Transportation to directly defund the Cincinnati Streetcar. Not just any streetcar or rail system, but Cincinnati's alone. Guess who sits on the committee: Senator Gary Cates (R) of West Chester. So, did he propose this effort to hurt Cincinnati? Who's ideas was it and where did it originate? To bad there is not more than one professional reporter in Columbus to ask these questions. It would be even better if that newspaper would actually print anything about it.
CityKin points out evidence of Mr.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Reminder: Cincinnati Imports Event Tonight - Monday March 21st at MOTR
Everyone is welcome to the Cincinnati Imports next event: happy hour at MOTR on 3/21, Here's the detail from the website:
"Join Cincinnati Imports on Monday, March 21 from 6-9 p.m. for a Happy Hour at MOTR Pub at 1345 Main Street. MOTR Pub is a newish bar and restaurant specializing in local music--they also have great beer and food.
All are welcome! Cincinnati Imports Happy Hours are low-key, and it's a fantastic way to meet new people.
MOTR is extending their awesome happy hour prices to 9 p.m., and they have great food, as well (with vegetarian options). Monday night has a $3 martini special, while Happy hour prices include:
$2.5 on select Draft
$3.25 Wells
$4 Wine"
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Cincy Playhouse Announces 2011-2012 Season
Rick Pender at CityBeat has the full rundown of next year's season at Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park, which is the 20th and final season for Producing Artistic Director Ed Stern, who is retiring.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Someone at the Enquirer is Pushing an Anti-Downtown Bias, Again
I think someone at the Enquirer needs to buy a map. This article, which is titled: Ham. Co. taxpayers subsidizing downtown parking, talks about how County Commissioners are considering selling parking garages, which are located Downtown. The article also talks about how those Downtown lots are cheaper than many other lots and some of those lots are required to be provided as part of the Stadium leases.
Monzel is quoted as saying they are "subsidizing" these spaces. Something he would say because he wants the cost of everything to go up. Monzel likely loves the headline, but based on quotes I read in the article I don't read him painting this as subsidy of Downtown. Still don't need a map, yet, just maybe they don't need to spin the story so much. But, hold on a second...
What the writing of the headline (again which read "Ham. Co. taxpayers subsidizing downtown parking") forgets is that DOWNTOWN IS LOCATED IN HAMILTON COUNTY. Downtown is NOT some foreign country. Downtown is NOT in Kentucky. Downtown is WHERE THE HAMILTON COUNTY COMMISSION MEETS. Do the Commission members park in lots that the County owns when they are doing County Business? I am betting they do. I wouldn't be surprised to learn they get free parking in county lots.
The headline, whether intentional or not, states that Hamilton County Tax payers are subsidizing Downtown. The grammar which the editor likely would point to may not have been intended, but I doubt that. There was no need to state in the headline where the parking lots were located. The context of the article did that quite clearly. All you would have to do is drop the word "downtown" and it wouldn't have been a problem. (At least not the headline.) There is an anti-City and specifically anti-Downtown elements in parts of the County and the headline makes a tax payer in Anderson Township or Montgomery (or even Westwood) more likely draw an unrelated conclusion that would build the anti-Downtown attitude. Too many non-city and non-urban (in the case of the some parts of Westwood) still will bad mouth Downtown, but we don't need the local media giving them false impressions feeding their hate.
I have repeatedly written about the need for headline writers to be VERY CAREFUL when they are writing. People far too often only read the headlines and don't pay attention to the grammar subtleties. Furthermore those who read the article are greatly influenced by the headline. People might think Monzel bad mouthed Downtown if they read that headline. I didn't read that in the body of the article, but you could have that impression. I don't doubt Monzel has a disdain for Downtown, which his votes in the past have shown, but we don't need bias in our headlines. Save that for the Editorial page.
Also, shouldn't the lead of the article been about parking rates at some county owned lots are going up? That was buried. That's odd.
Monzel is quoted as saying they are "subsidizing" these spaces. Something he would say because he wants the cost of everything to go up. Monzel likely loves the headline, but based on quotes I read in the article I don't read him painting this as subsidy of Downtown. Still don't need a map, yet, just maybe they don't need to spin the story so much. But, hold on a second...
What the writing of the headline (again which read "Ham. Co. taxpayers subsidizing downtown parking") forgets is that DOWNTOWN IS LOCATED IN HAMILTON COUNTY. Downtown is NOT some foreign country. Downtown is NOT in Kentucky. Downtown is WHERE THE HAMILTON COUNTY COMMISSION MEETS. Do the Commission members park in lots that the County owns when they are doing County Business? I am betting they do. I wouldn't be surprised to learn they get free parking in county lots.
The headline, whether intentional or not, states that Hamilton County Tax payers are subsidizing Downtown. The grammar which the editor likely would point to may not have been intended, but I doubt that. There was no need to state in the headline where the parking lots were located. The context of the article did that quite clearly. All you would have to do is drop the word "downtown" and it wouldn't have been a problem. (At least not the headline.) There is an anti-City and specifically anti-Downtown elements in parts of the County and the headline makes a tax payer in Anderson Township or Montgomery (or even Westwood) more likely draw an unrelated conclusion that would build the anti-Downtown attitude. Too many non-city and non-urban (in the case of the some parts of Westwood) still will bad mouth Downtown, but we don't need the local media giving them false impressions feeding their hate.
I have repeatedly written about the need for headline writers to be VERY CAREFUL when they are writing. People far too often only read the headlines and don't pay attention to the grammar subtleties. Furthermore those who read the article are greatly influenced by the headline. People might think Monzel bad mouthed Downtown if they read that headline. I didn't read that in the body of the article, but you could have that impression. I don't doubt Monzel has a disdain for Downtown, which his votes in the past have shown, but we don't need bias in our headlines. Save that for the Editorial page.
Also, shouldn't the lead of the article been about parking rates at some county owned lots are going up? That was buried. That's odd.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Census Numbers Conflict With Voter Registration
Bill Sloat at the Daily Bellwether is reporting on a key problem with the 2010 Census numbers. Sloat reports the Adult vs Child population breakdown from the 2010 Census. The total City of Cincinnati Population listed is 296,943 of which 231,237 are adult, aged 18 or older. That leaves 65,706 children.
Now, let's compare this to the last few years totals of registered voters:
The % above is based on registered voters divided by the 2010 adult population of 231,237.
So, a few months before the Census time frame (April 1, 2010) we had approximately 98% voter registration. I had no idea we did that well. Similarly, seven months later we had 91% voter registration, a large drop, but it continued the normal drop from a presidential election, yet still very high.
What gives? We obviously don't have that high of a registration rate. We obvioulsy don't have that much voter registration error or fraud, no matter how many Republicans want claim such. We know both points are true because the article points out that similar rates can be seen county wide. We also know this to be valid if we look at some other municipalities within the County. As an example take Cheviot, not known as a liberal bastion, which has a 2010 population according to the census of 8,375 with 6,547 adults aged 18 years or more. The voting registration for Cheviot in November for 2010 was 5,293 or 81%.
So, I'm sure that Republicans are thinking, hmmm, that is 10% lower than Cincinnati, must be something fishy going there. Well, before you worry about Cincinnati, you might want to take a look at Indian Hill. The Village of Indian Hill (actually a city) has a 2010 population of 5,785 with adults over age 18 totaling 4,221. In the November election Indian Hill had a voter registration of 4,797. If you know your math, and I know you do, that would equal a registration rate of 114%. Sure, 500 kids could have turned 18 after April 1st, 2010, but before election day and they all could have registered to vote. I doubt that.
No, I'm not claiming voter fraud is occurring en masse in Indian Hill, nor am I saying our Board of Election is careless. Instead I suggest the census numbers are wrong. There is little doubt that the entire county was undercounted.
Now, let's compare this to the last few years totals of registered voters:
| Year | Registered Voters | % |
| 2010 | 209,259 | 90.50% |
| 2009 | 225,680 | 97.60% |
| 2008 | 229,413 | 99.21% |
| 2007 | 212,303 | 91.81% |
| 2005 | 212,202 | 91.77% |
| 2004 | 215,454 | 93.17% |
So, a few months before the Census time frame (April 1, 2010) we had approximately 98% voter registration. I had no idea we did that well. Similarly, seven months later we had 91% voter registration, a large drop, but it continued the normal drop from a presidential election, yet still very high.
What gives? We obviously don't have that high of a registration rate. We obvioulsy don't have that much voter registration error or fraud, no matter how many Republicans want claim such. We know both points are true because the article points out that similar rates can be seen county wide. We also know this to be valid if we look at some other municipalities within the County. As an example take Cheviot, not known as a liberal bastion, which has a 2010 population according to the census of 8,375 with 6,547 adults aged 18 years or more. The voting registration for Cheviot in November for 2010 was 5,293 or 81%.
So, I'm sure that Republicans are thinking, hmmm, that is 10% lower than Cincinnati, must be something fishy going there. Well, before you worry about Cincinnati, you might want to take a look at Indian Hill. The Village of Indian Hill (actually a city) has a 2010 population of 5,785 with adults over age 18 totaling 4,221. In the November election Indian Hill had a voter registration of 4,797. If you know your math, and I know you do, that would equal a registration rate of 114%. Sure, 500 kids could have turned 18 after April 1st, 2010, but before election day and they all could have registered to vote. I doubt that.
No, I'm not claiming voter fraud is occurring en masse in Indian Hill, nor am I saying our Board of Election is careless. Instead I suggest the census numbers are wrong. There is little doubt that the entire county was undercounted.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)