Black Friday Question

How much Black Friday shopping is about Christmas-present-giving-these days?

One of the best deals at Sears, for instance, was a deal on a washer and dryer. Are there really that many clueless men who honestly believe they can give their wives a washer and dryer for Christmas and still hope to have sex in the coming year? I tend to think a lot of the TV purchases are for personal use rather than gifts.

How about y'all? If you went discount-hunting Friday, was it for Christmas presents, or was it to pick up an appliance you needed at a good price?

How About Those Bearcats?

In an effort to appease those who think we need more sports posts, I thought I'd mention the excellent play of the Bearcats recently. But I'm talking here about the team coached by Mick Cronin.

For those who missed it, last week the 'Cats went to Hawaii (I know, being a student athlete is such a tough gig!) for the annual Maui Invitational. There, they beat Vanderbilt and Maryland, both of which were ranked as among the top 25 teams. That got them to the tournament final, where they lost in overtime to Gonzaga (thanks largely due to some bad late-game officiating). What was perhaps most surprising was the Bearcats' tenacious defense through the tournament. (Even in defeat, they allowed only 19 first-half points for Gonzaga.)

Yes, the real test doesn't start for a few weeks, first at the Crosstown Shootout against Xavier December 13, and then through the Big East schedule beginning with a December 30 homegame against UConn. But the season has started much better than anyone in the media expected it would.

Let's Go 'Cats!

"Progress" v. The Metropole Tenants Association (Part II)

Note: this is a continuation of the post immediately below.

2. Does 3CDC have too much power in downtown and Over-the-Rhine? Truthfully, I have no idea. Certainly, we should talk about 3CDC and what it does. (And I don't think 3CDC would shy away from that discussion.) I definitely don't want to engage in some conspiracy-laden rant, accusing 3CDC of being some local version of the Trilateral Commission. But we should discuss, from time-to-time, what 3CDC does and whether it's good for a private organization to play the role in development decisions occupied by 3CDC.

At the outset, let me say this: 3CDC has, for the most part, done a terrific job in downtown and OTR. Anyone who doesn't believe that didn't drive up Vine Street five years ago and then again today. Anyone who doubts that 3CDC has made a lot of good decisions hasn't been on Fountain Square in the last three days--or, frankly, in the past three years.

Having said that, though, 3CDC has become something of the de facto planning commission for downtown. Maybe that's alright, because they have done a pretty good job thus far. But we should make sure the delegation of downtown planning to 3CDC is a conscious decision, and not one driven solely by momentum.

Last week, City Council debated the Queensgate Terminal project. Part of what was discussed was that the project would put Cincinnati Bulk Terminal out of business. Jeff Berding suggested that it's not City Council's job to favor one business over another, thereby creating "winners and losers". Maybe it's not. But it's something Council does more often than one would think. The remodeling of the Metropole is to be supported with $2.5 million from the City. An agreement to allocate that money will be a decision by the City that 3CDC's proposed business plan is better than the one currently in place. Notably, it will force the relocation of Roma's and the Subway Lounge. There's no guarantee that either of those will be successful in a new spot. So sometimes, the City does, indeed, choose winners and losers. 21c and its restaurant (which is Italian, by the way) win, and Roma's loses.

City Council routinely rubber stamps 3CDC proposals. My question: should it? Maybe it should. But let's make sure we talk about it every few years.

3. Why is this Legal Aid's problem? Finally, I have to wonder why the Metropole Tenants Association is represented by the Legal Aid Society. Is this really part of its core mission and services?

Some of Legal Aid's attorneys are my friends. The people who work there are dedicated, hard-working public servants, many of whom chose to work for Legal Aid even though they carry six figures of educational debt and could parlay their degrees into much more lucrative private practices. They are intelligent and capable, and they will no doubt represent the tenants zealously and professionally.

But is this type of class-action really the type of activity that Legal Aid should be spending time on? There are certain clients and cases that would go unserved if not for Legal Aid. Most poor people in the midst of divorce, foreclosure, social security applications, education law needs, and individual landlord-tenant disputes would not find representation in the private bar. As clients, they cannot pay a lawyer's hourly fee, and their cases are typically too small to justify a contingent fee arrangement.

With unemployment reaching double digits, the need for Legal Aid's individual services is larger now than ever. And that makes me wonder how Legal Aid is able to find the time to devote to a class action case. (Perhaps its plan is to merely see the case through its administrative phases, and to assist the tenants in finding private counsel should litigation be required.) The Metropole action, should one be filed, is large enough that there are members of the private bar who would take it on. Should it be left to the private bar, then?

I don't ask either of the questions raised in the post to demonize either 3CDC or Legal Aid. Both are organizations that (though very different) are extremely competent in their respective fields. Each is enormously important in the future of our city. But like any organization, it's fair to talk about their role from time to time. (Commenters, please take your meds before ranting here about either of these groups!)

"Progress" v. The Metropole Tenants Association (Part I)

I've been wanting to write about the coming conversion of the Metropole (located on Walnut between Sixth and Seventh) to a luxury hotel for some time. (Background: Enquirer; Streetvibes.) I've been reluctant to, for fear of what will appear in the comments. I don't want to feed the trolls who regularly comment in order to insult poor people. I also suspect, though, that the overwhelming part of our readership is fairly unsympathetic to the Metropole's tenants. Many of our readers consider themselves "urban pioneers" (a term I find patently offensive) who are somewhat sympathetic to the poor--so long as they don't have to live, eat, work, play, or pray alongside the poor. I'm a little afraid of what you'll have to say, too.

For me, this episode in the development of downtown Cincinnati raises three issues: the merits of the dispute between the tenants of the Metropole and the new owner of the building; the role and power of 3CDC in downtown development; and the role of Legal Aid in the provision of services to the indigent. I'll tackle each in turn over two posts.

1. Who's right: the tenants, or the landlord? Like most things, this isn't as black-and-white as those on either side of the dispute would have you believe. If the complaint to HUD is accurately described by the Enquirer (in other words, if the complaint really alleges that 3CDC is discriminating against the tenants because most are elderly or African-American), my guess is that it lacks much merit. I don't think 3CDC cares much about the age or race of the tenants it is displacing. Instead, 3CDC has a vision for downtown and this project is part of that vision, regardless of the tenants who are tossed out on the street. Remember, 3CDC's plans also call for the "relocation" of two commercial tenants, neither of whom--so far as I know--are owned by people who are minorities, elderly, or indigent.

But the tenants need to be treated with respect. To the extent that isn't happening, 3CDC should be ashamed. Federal law requires that a process be followed before federally-subsidized tenants can be displaced. The tenants' fear and anxiety is certainly understandable. I'm not indigent, and if my landlord announced that my building were closing in the next twelve months, I'd be apprehensive, too (I hate moving!), and I have the resources to find my own place. 3CDC claims that it will make sure it follows the law and that it will find appropriate new residences for the Metropole's tenants. I hope it keeps its word.

Ultimately, the question comes down to this: once a landlord accepts federal housing money, does that act as some sort of covenant that runs forever against the building, regardless of ownership? Certainly, that cannot be the case. Property owners must be free, assuming they follow the law, to opt out of Section 8. Take care of the tenants, but don't demonize the building's ownership for deciding to go in a new direction.

Dear Gang of Five: It's Your Turn

Mayor Mallory didn't waste any time after Milton Dohoney issued his budget by passing the plan right to City Council, which will change on December 1st. So the message I took from this is: Gang of Five, it's your turn to govern, not grandstand. I'll be very interested in hearing the rhetoric from the likes of Ghiz and Berding and as of Dec 1st, Charlie Winburn.

I'm surprised I've not heard anything from Berding. Just a month ago he was claiming people would flee Cincinnati if police were laid off. What will his plan be now? Dohoney's plan cuts really deep everywhere and raises fees, but still must cut the public safety departments. Will he now try to govern, or will he and the Gang of Five change winds and not pander to the FOP and the Westside voters and finally face the music by cutting the CPD and CFD ranks without the rhetoric of fear filling talk radio and Twitter?

Playing Chicken, Part II

Well, it is no longer election season. Now we shall see who really will be honest and who will continue to grandstand on the City's Budget. The City Manager has announced his plan and it includes cutting 315 jobs, including 110 from the police department, and 47 from the fire department. So two departments (police and fire) making up 2/3rds of the budget will get only about 50% of the job cuts. I guess some might call that prioritizing public safety. I am sure the FOP's sock puppets will call it something akin to a nuclear bomb going off in the heart of the Westwood.

I really hope that City Council does not play games. I've not seen what's come out on Twitter today and I don't know what's be said on talk radio yet, but I honestly wish it will adult speak, not gamesmanship or juvenile rants about who won't shut up.

Most Dangerous Cities 2009: Where's Cincinnati?

So, the same flawed group is out with another Most Dangerous list, this time for Cities, but Cincinnati didn't make the list. I for some reason didn't read this in any of the local media. Cleveland made the list, but not Cincinnati. St. Louis is #2, but no mention of it.

I hope the local media learned that this website uses bad stats, but it would be good journalism to do another story about how Cincinnati is not on the list, but it incorrectly got on a worst "neighborhood" list by some bizarre misuse of data. I know not to expect the media to do follow-ups, but I hope they will and calling them out may guilt an editor/producer into assigning a reporter, thus letting them do their jobs. Instead I expect to ready more fluff, but its the holidays, so no one wants actual news to happen. The goes double for local TV news, who are the worst!