News, Opinion, and Media Analysis on Cincinnati, Ohio and the World From a Unique Perspective
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Mayoral Debate
Opening Remarks:
Wenstrup had nothing to good to say about our city, all he had were negatives, and he brought up the debunked national study saying "one" of our neighborhoods is the most dangerous in the country.
Mallory cited his stats and not much else.
Question #1: Wenstrup stated his campaign speech, Mallory Answered it with positive ideas.
Question #2: Mallory avoided answering the question if public safety workers. Wenstrup said he would not cut safety workers, but then used gimmicks to say he would do something else but didn't have any details.
Question #3: Wenstrup is asked how to bring more jobs and he gave more gimmicks about minor ways to gain jobs. Mallory had more generalities, but clarified he
Question #4:Mallory running through long list of improvements and accomplishments on bringing crime down. Wenstrup instead points to perception of Cincinnati as being crime ridden, yet he is building up that FALSE perception.
Question #5: When asked what he would do with the estimated 20 million dollar a casino would bring to the city, he blathered on about generalities with no specifics. Mallory wants to create jobs with the 20 million dollars.
Question #6: Mallory answered the minority business question by stressing process. He didn't give specifics on how to do this. Wenstrup responded by saying this issue comes up a lot, but doesn't give any specifics.
Question #7: Wenstrup avoids the question on tourism and jumps on the Streetcar preamble from the long winded question. If you are going to avoid the question, why not stick to the topic. Mallory clarified the streetcar is not meant as a tourist attraction. He then put forth the strong points about how the streetcar will spawn development.
Question #8: Mallory put forth a long list again on how crime has been addressed and improved. Wenstrup sees increasing police community relations as a way to make the streets safer with groups like Citizens on Patrol.
Question #9: Wenstrup wants to cut waste. What waste? He goes on to claim that merging city and county departments will affect the 2010 budget. It won't! Mallory shows we made cuts in 2009, he turned it to creation of jobs and attarcting new business like Grater's.
Question #10: Well the anti-streetcar bias in the Cincinnati Herald Reporter was clear there! Mallory turned the question back on her well. Wenstrup wants regional transportation, but where does he stand on issue 9? Is anyone going to ask that question? He fucking brought up the subway? Blame the GOP for that one!
Question #11: Terrible question, really terrible question. I am very disappoint with all three questioners so far. Wenstrup was taken aback by the question. Mallory went in for a minor zinger, bringing about the leadership and experience question.
Question #12: Another bad question! Geesh! Why not ask the Mayor if we should just abolish the democratic system! Grr! But does Wenstrup know what an Executive Mayor system is? Why have that now!
Question #13: Hunger bad, nutrition good.
Question #14: On the Arts: Mallory city should support the arts, cited the buildings CAM, Music Hall, Union Terminal, as ways we should support arts. Wentrup wants to promote the arts, but brings up crime because he has no opinions on anything.
Question #15: Wenstrup won't answer the question, it does trap the candidate into specifics. Mr. Wenstrup: MY NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS THE STREETCAR! Mallory started to avoid naming one neighborhood, but comes through with Walnut Hills with a plan he being put in specifically.
Closing Remarks:
Mallory gave a good summary and was very gracious to Wenstrup thanking him for being a gentleman in the race.
Wenstrup: Returned the complement to Mallory. He did stick in a minor dig to the mayor talking about political plots, something he might want to look for in the FOP as well.
Overall Comments: Wow, that was bland. I learned nothing. There were no fireworks to write about, no zingers, no jabs, not much of anything. I really was disappointed with the questioners. Jane Prendergast was too insider and asked questions for a press conference. The woman from the Herald asked questions that matter to society, but not to the mayor's office. Her biased anti-streetcar question was the most biased of the night. Maryanne Zeleznik asked the most thoughtful questions, but they were too long and had confusing preludes that work for interviews, not debates.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Local Greens Hate the Environment
If Issue 9 passes, then high speed rail will skip the City of Cincinnati. That will mean more automobile traffic, more pollution, and more damage to the environment.
I think someone needs to tell the local Greens where the "Green" in their name comes from. Creating an urban core where people don't need to own an automobile is a goal any sane environmentalist would agree is a great goal to work towards for every city in the country.
Instead, local Greens want "capital projects that will satisfy existing needs, particularly in lower-income communities." What the Hell do they want, the city to build a Damn in Over-the-Rhine? How will adding jobs through both the building of the streetcar and the development it will attract to the entire urban core of the city NOT provide opportunity to the low income neighborhoods like OTR, West End, Corryville, South Fairmont, and the rest of the city?
The SWOGP are out on the deep end on this issue and have nothing to offer in its place. They share the "burn it to the ground" attitude of many extremists who prefer to sit on the sidelines of government and throw ill-conceived roadblocks in the way of progress instead of constructively working within the political system. Communism is dead and SWOGP is doing more to help COAST/Smitherman bring about Feudalism, than accomplishing anything they claim to believe.
Brand X on Midpoint
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Who is Tom Chandler?
Bengals Thread
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Good Review for Know's Boom!
Friday, October 09, 2009
Wenstrup Might Want to Head Back to Iraq
"I felt safer in Iraq."when talking about being back in Cincinnati, then you are a lousy candidate. By making such a clearly outlandish claim, Wenstrup has no respect for the City, otherwise he was lying, delusional, or never actually was in Iraq during any part of the war or occupation. Brad Wenstrup should be ashamed. He obviously knows nothing about this city and has NEVER experienced what it has to offer. I think he may want to consider moving out of the city, since he spouts the rhetoric of someone who hates the city and lives in the burbs.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Always Pay the Band
Streetcar Facts!
As always check out www.cincystreetcar.com for more.
Don't forget: No on 9!
Big Sports Event (That Isn't Football) This Weekend
FTC Says Bloggers Must Disclose Freebies
In promulgating the guidelines, which apply for the first time to "new media," the FTC offers the following explanation:
The Commission does not believe that all uses of new consumer-generated media to discuss product attributes or consumer experiences should be deemed "endorsements” within the meaning of the Guides. Rather, in analyzing statements made via these new media, the fundamental question is whether, viewed objectively, the relationship between the advertiser and the speaker is such that the speaker’s statement can be considered “sponsored” by the advertiser and therefore an “advertising message.” In other words, in disseminating positive statements about a product or service, is the speaker: (1) acting solely independently, in which case there is no endorsement, or (2) acting on behalf of the advertiser or its agent, such that the speaker’s statement is an “endorsement” that is part of an overall marketing campaign? The facts and circumstances that will determine the answer to this question are extremely varied and cannot be fully enumerated here, but would include: whether the speaker is compensated by the advertiser or its agent; whether the product or service in question was provided for free by the advertiser; the terms of any agreement; the length of the relationship; the previous receipt of products or
services from the same or similar advertisers, or the likelihood of future receipt of such products or services; and the value of the items or services received. An advertiser’s lack of control over the specific statement made via these new forms of consumer-generated media would not automatically disqualify that statement from being deemed an “endorsement” within the meaning of the Guides. Again, the issue is whether the consumer-generated statement can be considered “sponsored.”Thus, a consumer who purchases a product with his or her own money and praises it on a personal blog or on an electronic message board will not be deemed to be providing an endorsement. In contrast, postings by a blogger who is paid to speak about an advertiser’s product will be covered by the Guides, regardless of whether the blogger is paid directly by the marketer itself or by a third party on behalf of the marketer.
There's a lot of hysteria in the national blogosphere (particularly in the legal blogosphere), most of which is probably unjustified. Check out PCWorld's extremely layperson-friendly guide to the new guidelines. As the article notes, most bloggers who review the free stuff they receive already disclose the potential conflict. Still, though, local bloggers who get swag (hey Griff: where's my swag?) and talk about what they've received should take a few minutes to familiarize themselves with the FTC's new interpretation of federal law.
Disclosure: I have not received money or other consideration from the FTC, PCWorld, or (sadly) Griff to comment on any of those entities' or individual's merits or shortcomings.
Issue Four WIll Fund Important Court Programs
The levy, while technically new, is really just a smaller version of the Drake levy, which is ending this year. Since Drake Hospital no longer needs public money, the Drake levy needs to end. But a significant portion of that levy has historically supported court-ordered treatment programs, so a new levy was created just to fund those.
In particular, the levy funds the municipal court's residential treatment programs and the common pleas Drug Court. The former is an alternative to jail sentences (but still places an offender in a facility guarded by the sheriff's office). The latter is the primary way that low-level, first time drug offenders in Hamilton County can participate in "treatment in lieu of conviction," through which a defendant can avoid a felony record by completing--under court supervision--a drug treatment program.
If passed, the levy will also fund two other noteworthy programs. The first, "Off the Streets," is run by Cincinnati Union Bethel. The program has been around since 2006, but hasn't previously been supported by county dollars. The program has an excellent reputation--and from what I've seen, a record of success. The second program would create a SAMI (substance abuse and mental illness) court in common pleas court. For the last few years, the municipal court has had a "mental health court," to which offenders with mental illness are tracked. They receive intensive supervision and connected with needed services. Presumably, the SAMI court would work the same way. I've represented several clients in the municipal court's program, and can't say enough about its potential to bring about positive change in individuals' lives.
All of these are important programs. If Issue 4 fails, judges will have fewer treatment and rehabilitative options. The levy funds programs that can really give people a fresh start in life.
March For Healthcare on 10/18/2009
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Cincinnati Zombie Walk
Cole Train Grows Wings, Flies Away
Your Winnings Sir....
It might have bee nice to get that fact in the news story.
It also would be nice for Enquirer not to repeat the FOP created "Furlough Five" phrase, especially when only Four of the Five are running for reelection. I know someone was dying for the alliteration exhibition, but accuracy should trump flair.
Monday, October 05, 2009
At What Cost Preservation?
The Enquirer offers this report on the Museum Center levy. The article's main point is that no matter what happens, the levy will be smaller next year than in the past.
Also in the story is this nugget: Union Terminal, which is 75 years old (not even considered "old" by European standards, but downtright antiquated to Midwestern Americans), is in disrepair due to its steel-and-concrete infrastructure design. (The problem is one endemic to buildings of that era.) The cost of repair could be as much as $140 million.
The Museum Center is great. I have no problem with taxpayers voting to support its operations. It's a worthwhile expenditure. But is preserving Union Terminal really worth $140,000,000? Certainly the cost to find a new building--or even simply to demolish Union Terminal and start over--would be much less.
Throughout America, historical preservation has become an end unto itself. But should we really be seeking to preserve buildings that weren't built well enough to withstand the test of time? And even if we should, is there any limit to the price we should be willing to pay?
Cold Turkey Closed
Two friends and I were on our way there for lunch, and were greeted at the door by a "closed" sign and a rather dejected-looking owner. Apparently, the restaurant isn't closing because of lack of business, but instead because of a dispute with the building's owner. Cold Turkey's owner was obviously disappointed, particularly since business--including their catering business--had been doing quite well.
I'm sorry to see Cold Turkey go. It's exactly the kind of restaurant downtown needs. It was priced affordably, but served good enough food to appeal to professionals on lunch. It was also interesting enough between the late hours, the local art on the walls, and the live acoustic music to attract an eclectic clientele.
I hope that Cold Turkey's owners are able to recover enough of their investment to try again downtown soon. I'll certainly do whatever I can to promote a new venture here.
Sunday, October 04, 2009
UC Now the Best College Football Team in Ohio
Sorry, Buckeyes.
The Bearcats now have almost two weeks to get ready for what might be their toughest opponent so far this year, a very scrappy USF team that beat Florida State last week.
People Not To Vote For
Both have taken strong public positions to advance responsible spending, and have pledged not to raise taxes or fees. They also strongly advocate that the people should have a right to vote on any sale of the Water Works, or major passenger rail purchase.Once again COAST is misleading people as to what issue 9 states and its impact if passed. Let's recap the language once again:
Shall the Charter of the City of Cincinnati be amended to prohibit the city, and its various boards and commissions, from spending any monies for right-of-way acquisition or construction of improvements for passenger rail transportation (e.g. a trolley or streetcar) within the city limits without first submitting the question of approval of such expenditure to a vote of the electorate of the city and receiving a majority affirmative vote for the same, by enacting new Article XIV? YES NOThe important thing to know, is that issue 9 covers "spending any monies" which includes purchases, maintenance, signs, salaries, or anything. This is about spending money, not just new purchases. It also just says "passenger rail transportation" and mentions nothing about "major," so it covers the Zoo Train, no matter what COAST says to try and mislead you.