- Driehaus defeating Chabot in the 1st Congressional District
- Hamilton County going Blue!
- Hamilton County Budget Crisis
- The Growth of Cincinnati Music Scene (Midpoint, Expansion/Remodeling at Northside Tavern and Southgate House, CEA's, King Records Tribute)
- Bloodletting at the Enquirer
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Top Cincinnati Stories for 2008?
What say you blog readers? What were the top local stories of the year? Some of mine are:
Groppe: Sore Loser
It is being reported by the Enquirer that outgoing Hamilton County Recorder Rebecca Prem Groppe isn't being helpful to her successor Wayne Coates, who beat her in November for the office.
With the publication of this story can we hope that Groppe is at least shammed into acting more maturely? Is that too much to hope for?
With the publication of this story can we hope that Groppe is at least shammed into acting more maturely? Is that too much to hope for?
Enquirer.com Redo 2.0
Recently, the Cincinnati Enquirer updated its website again after a total relaunch earlier this year. This update is not a new look, but new organization. The biggest complaints with the relaunch were the slowness of the site and the simple fact that you couldn't find anything. So, I've not noticed an increased loading speed, but is the reorg better? Can you read the paper online better? Or is it still a mess with no cohesiveness? I like the idea of a daily newspaper where you can determine a front page story. With the relaunch that concept was almost abandoned. The power of front page story is the one natural editorial choice a news outlet makes about straight up news.
The revised site now to me as more of front page editorial choice present. It is not tied to the daily, more akin to CNN.com style with the instant front page story lasting as long as the editors see fit. This is an improvement to the organization.
The problem is still the ever shrinking local content. The staff blogs are acting as the supplement to lack of local news, and I think the reporters are ham-strung with that. I don't know how blogging fulfills their job requirement, so it appears as if they are doing it largely on their own time.
The revised site now to me as more of front page editorial choice present. It is not tied to the daily, more akin to CNN.com style with the instant front page story lasting as long as the editors see fit. This is an improvement to the organization.
The problem is still the ever shrinking local content. The staff blogs are acting as the supplement to lack of local news, and I think the reporters are ham-strung with that. I don't know how blogging fulfills their job requirement, so it appears as if they are doing it largely on their own time.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
It's Ba-ack: Uncle Woody's
I'm a little late on this, but Uncle Woody's, the combination neighborhood/campus bar on Calhoun near Clifton (across the street from the UC College of Law) has reopened. Apparently, it did so in late November, under new ownership and management. I'd noted the bar's passing (which is joyfully short-lived) back in June.
Uncle Woody's will host a New Year's Eve Party. You can opt for one of two different cover charges: $25 gets you unlimited domestic beer, and $35 gets you unlimited well drinks, domestic beer, and food. But those prices require an RSVP; showing up without a reservation will cost you an extra ten bucks. Either way, the midnight champagne toast is included in your price.
And if you're the Facebook-type, you can join the Uncle Woody's group.
The return of Uncle Woody's is welcome news, at least for this UC law alum.
Uncle Woody's will host a New Year's Eve Party. You can opt for one of two different cover charges: $25 gets you unlimited domestic beer, and $35 gets you unlimited well drinks, domestic beer, and food. But those prices require an RSVP; showing up without a reservation will cost you an extra ten bucks. Either way, the midnight champagne toast is included in your price.
And if you're the Facebook-type, you can join the Uncle Woody's group.
The return of Uncle Woody's is welcome news, at least for this UC law alum.
Kona Bistro Closing December 31st
The Enquirer's Campbell's Scoop Blog is reporting that Kona Bistro in Oakley is closing its doors. It appears that their lease is up and they would have to commit to a new 5 year lease in order to keep the space. Business isn't good enough. I've enjoyed going there, but haven't been for a while. I generally had good meals and management was very supportive of the community. I will be sorry to see them close.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Kennedy Case Is Illustrative Of Dual Justice System
By now, of course, we all know that former Bearcat coach Andy Kennedy was arrested for assault Wednesday night/Thursday morning. The case is next set for a pretrial conference on January 16 before Judge Dwane Mallory. Let me be clear: I have no earthly idea whether Kennedy is guilty or innocent. And it doesn't seem worthwhile to have that debate in the comments. But the way Kennedy's case has been handled thus far illustrates that people in Hamilton County--and in America--get precisely the amount of justice they can afford.
How is Kennedy's case different? Well, first, the AP reported that his attorney entered a written plea of not guilty on his behalf on Thursday. That means that, procedurally speaking, Kennedy was a "sheriff's release." In other words, when CPD took him to the Justice Center, sheriff's deputies processed him and immediately released him without holding him to first appear before a judge.
While this is not unheard-of, it's at least a bit unusual. Kennedy is charged with a violent, first-degree misdemeanor. If news reports are accurate, the complaint is based not just on the alleged victim's statements, but also on a bystander's statements. Moreover, to my knowledge, Kennedy has no local address. He almost certainly, as of Thursday morning, intended to return to Mississippi. So being able to go home without posting bond (or at least signing an own-recognizance bond sheet) is outside the ordinary, given that the sheriff's office knew (or should have known) that Kennedy would relatively promptly leave the jurisdiction upon being released.
Next, the very fact that Kennedy already has counsel is unusual. If he were indigent, he likely would have sat in the holding cell in the first floor of the Justice Center until the 12:30 docket (when "City misdemeanors" are arraigned), and then would have been assigned counsel. Had an indigent, non-famous Kennedy been lucky enough to be released by the sheriff, he would have returned to the HCJC that afternoon, when he would have been told to go to the HamCo Public Defender's Office to "qualify" (financially) for counsel.
Finally, Kennedy has not just one attorney, but two. It's been reported that Kennedy has filed suit against two of the witnesses who have allegedly alleged he committed an assault. As an attorney, I'm fairly disgusted by the civil lawsuit that's been filed, as I suspect its chief purpose is to intimidate the witnesses into changing their stories or not coming to court. (Although in Kennedy's defense, the witnesses ought to quit talking to the media until the criminal case is concluded.) After all, when I decide whether to file a lawsuit on a client's behalf, one of the factors I must consider is collectibility: in other words, even if I win, can my client and I collect the judgment from the defendant? In the Kennedy case, what is the likelihood that a taxi cab driver and a valet have assets sufficient to satisfy a judgment?
For an indigent defendant, there's almost no chance a lawyer would file a defamation suit on his behalf prior to trial. There's almost no chance his attorney could get the Enquirer or the local TV stations to publish his stance on the case, thus permitting him to align a potential jury pool one way or the other. Typically, when the media reports on a case that comes through arraignment, the reporters don't even ask defense counsel for a comment; they report only what is in publicly available documents and what's said at the bond hearing.
Kennedy is free, he's well-represented, and he's got the media telling his tale for him. None of these things would be happening if he weren't a fairly wealthy semi-celebrity. I don't begrudge Kennedy the advantages he has (every defense attorney in private practice has clients who benefit from financial resouces that wealthier people have); I just question why we can't devise a system where more people get the same treatment.
How is Kennedy's case different? Well, first, the AP reported that his attorney entered a written plea of not guilty on his behalf on Thursday. That means that, procedurally speaking, Kennedy was a "sheriff's release." In other words, when CPD took him to the Justice Center, sheriff's deputies processed him and immediately released him without holding him to first appear before a judge.
While this is not unheard-of, it's at least a bit unusual. Kennedy is charged with a violent, first-degree misdemeanor. If news reports are accurate, the complaint is based not just on the alleged victim's statements, but also on a bystander's statements. Moreover, to my knowledge, Kennedy has no local address. He almost certainly, as of Thursday morning, intended to return to Mississippi. So being able to go home without posting bond (or at least signing an own-recognizance bond sheet) is outside the ordinary, given that the sheriff's office knew (or should have known) that Kennedy would relatively promptly leave the jurisdiction upon being released.
Next, the very fact that Kennedy already has counsel is unusual. If he were indigent, he likely would have sat in the holding cell in the first floor of the Justice Center until the 12:30 docket (when "City misdemeanors" are arraigned), and then would have been assigned counsel. Had an indigent, non-famous Kennedy been lucky enough to be released by the sheriff, he would have returned to the HCJC that afternoon, when he would have been told to go to the HamCo Public Defender's Office to "qualify" (financially) for counsel.
Finally, Kennedy has not just one attorney, but two. It's been reported that Kennedy has filed suit against two of the witnesses who have allegedly alleged he committed an assault. As an attorney, I'm fairly disgusted by the civil lawsuit that's been filed, as I suspect its chief purpose is to intimidate the witnesses into changing their stories or not coming to court. (Although in Kennedy's defense, the witnesses ought to quit talking to the media until the criminal case is concluded.) After all, when I decide whether to file a lawsuit on a client's behalf, one of the factors I must consider is collectibility: in other words, even if I win, can my client and I collect the judgment from the defendant? In the Kennedy case, what is the likelihood that a taxi cab driver and a valet have assets sufficient to satisfy a judgment?
For an indigent defendant, there's almost no chance a lawyer would file a defamation suit on his behalf prior to trial. There's almost no chance his attorney could get the Enquirer or the local TV stations to publish his stance on the case, thus permitting him to align a potential jury pool one way or the other. Typically, when the media reports on a case that comes through arraignment, the reporters don't even ask defense counsel for a comment; they report only what is in publicly available documents and what's said at the bond hearing.
Kennedy is free, he's well-represented, and he's got the media telling his tale for him. None of these things would be happening if he weren't a fairly wealthy semi-celebrity. I don't begrudge Kennedy the advantages he has (every defense attorney in private practice has clients who benefit from financial resouces that wealthier people have); I just question why we can't devise a system where more people get the same treatment.
City Government by Referendum: A Good Idea?
Last week, the Cincinnati branch of the NAACP announced that it will seek to place on the 2009 ballot an initiative to bar the creation of a streetcar in Cincinnati. (Those of you who regularly follow this blog know that I'm only lukewarm to the idea. While originally opposed, I've come around to support streetcars, though I've still not drunk the Koolaid offered by those who claim that light rail is our only, best hope for revitalization.)
This post is most assuredly not about streetcars. Instead, it's about whether this is an appropriate way for City government to be run. Earlier this year, the NAACP successfully opposed the use of "red light cameras," adding an amendment to the City Charter that prohibits them. I voted against the measure--not because I think the cameras are a good idea (they're a terrible idea), but because I didn't (and don't) believe it's an appropriate issue for a city charter.
I'm still not sold 100 percent on streetcars, but I'm not even sure how the proposed Charter amendment will read: "Cincinnati shall never have light rail"? That doesn't make sense. It's particularly troubling that the streetcar plan (at least in its current iteration) doesn't involve a tax increase. So we're talking about amending the charter to prevent a specific expenditure by Council, not to head off a tax increase or alter the structure of our government.
So here's my question: is this the right way to run City government? How many decisions should be decided by referendum? And if we really like referenda, should we consider amending our charter (and perhaps the Revised Code--I'm not sure) so that we could enact an ordinance by referendum, rather than constantly changing the Charter with day-to-day issues like expenditures or red-light cameras, thus permitting the Charter to do what it should: deal almost explicitly with the structure of government?
This post is most assuredly not about streetcars. Instead, it's about whether this is an appropriate way for City government to be run. Earlier this year, the NAACP successfully opposed the use of "red light cameras," adding an amendment to the City Charter that prohibits them. I voted against the measure--not because I think the cameras are a good idea (they're a terrible idea), but because I didn't (and don't) believe it's an appropriate issue for a city charter.
I'm still not sold 100 percent on streetcars, but I'm not even sure how the proposed Charter amendment will read: "Cincinnati shall never have light rail"? That doesn't make sense. It's particularly troubling that the streetcar plan (at least in its current iteration) doesn't involve a tax increase. So we're talking about amending the charter to prevent a specific expenditure by Council, not to head off a tax increase or alter the structure of our government.
So here's my question: is this the right way to run City government? How many decisions should be decided by referendum? And if we really like referenda, should we consider amending our charter (and perhaps the Revised Code--I'm not sure) so that we could enact an ordinance by referendum, rather than constantly changing the Charter with day-to-day issues like expenditures or red-light cameras, thus permitting the Charter to do what it should: deal almost explicitly with the structure of government?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)