Desperate Wenstrup Doesn't Support Cincinnati

Mayoral Candidate Bran Wenstrup is reading the polls and going negative because he has no other way to try and dent the lead Mark Mallory has in the race. This is no big suprise for all of the talk about Wenstrup run a very above board campaign, he's reveled that he will use fear at the end of the day as his main campaign tactic.

What I find more troubling is the fact that Wenstrup doesn't have the pride or trust of the city to run his campaign finances out of an office within the city. Instead he is running it from the office of Anderson Township Republicans. According to Brad's website the Citizens for Wenstrup, Jill Springman, Treasurer is located at 262 Jakaro Drive, "Cincinnati", OH 45255. Let's do a little Google Search and see where that address is:
View Larger Map

So if anyone can do geography, even slightly, you would notice that the point on the map above is way out in Anderson Township, past the mall, off of Eight Mile Road. Furthermore, if you do another Google Search you would find that address is shared by the Anderson Township Republican Club, it is also the based for the HC Republican Woman's Club. A shocking coincidence? No, we knew that is where his support comes from.

In all fairness I will point out that Wenstrup is also using a 700 walnut St. address Downtown on his mailers, which is another county Republican Group's HQ, so he's at least got a presence inside the city, but his money base lies outside the City. So, not only does Wenstrup not support the City, he doesn't have much support within the City, if he has to go out of the City for his campaign contributions. When he started his campaign committee, where did he go to start his campaign, who did he turn to? He went outside the City. Brad has the mindset of someone who just does not support the city and obviously feels more at home outside the city. His political fortune might be more successful outside the city. It will not be successful within it.

Name Some Names

So, some Democratic incumbents/candidates or their staffs are ticked at Laure Quinlivan's campaign rhetoric. I really think CityBeat's Kevin Osborne should name who is pissed because I think this is quite silly. Quinlivan basically is saying she is more qualified than others, her opinion, which the voters can decide on, nothing new. Also, she is running against the incumbents, but doesn't name, names. Well, she's a challenger and needs to go after those on a faceless council. I don't like the tactic, but it is hardly harsh. She wants to win and other candidates, even Dem candidates, could be taking aways votes from her, so if she can criticize on the sly her fellow Dems, she'd gotta do it, especially when she thinks she better for the office than others.

If she did encourage the use of the "bullet voting" tactic, then that was really selfish, but not the kind of thing you air to the press until after the election.

This is the type of thing that other Dems can be pissed about, but it isn't new and isn't what I would NOT call uncommon. It also pales in comparison to the active council maneuvering Jeff Berding undertook against his fellow Dems, not to mention the negative comments he made about the city. That is being a bad party member.

Not going on the record and trying to get a background based story out of a CityBeat reporter is rather gutless.

The Foursome of No

The foursome on council referred to as the Minority Four (Berding, Bortz, Ghiz, and Monzel) are clearly playing games with critical issues and are quite frankly being hypocrites. The Four want to push through a vote on property taxes, but they want more time on the Queensgate barge facility, East Side zoning issues and federal funding for a homeless shelter.

I just really hate games and I hate it when the games are so obvious. When you lack the votes and resort to using obscure rules to obstruct projects and issues that a majority of council supports, it shows very clearly that you (the Four) are more concerned about politics and getting reelected than about getting something done.

Why is it horrible to wait on voting on the Property Tax? The Four don't have the votes on it, so all they are doing is playing for the media and hoping that a lot of people are actually paying attention. The few of us who follow this type of detail know this is a stunt, even if Boyscout Chris Monzel says he actually has concerns about these issues and wants to delay the vote. What's the excuse for the other three?

Charlie's Circus

The lawsuit filed against Council candidate Charlie Winburn seems very far fetched, but this points to the circus that surrounds Winburn. The man the filed the lawsuit allegedly was employed by Winburn's church for about a year. The article also points out that Winburn has Sam Malone as an associate, and Malone allegedly interacted with the individual who filed the lawsuit. Malone, the former council member, was charged with beating his son with a belt in 2005, but was later acquitted.

Irregardless of the validity of this lawsuit, Winburn will just be bad for council. He has nothing to show for his prior time on council and has an extreme set of political beliefs that have no place in modern society.

Also, Dem Chair Burke is worried about Winburn for another reason.

Forbes: Cincinnati Among Safest Cities

According to a new ranking by Forbes magazine, Cincinnati is the ninth safest city of the forty largest cities in the nation.

The ranking takes into account several factors, of which the crime rate is just one. Interestingly, if you rank cities only by violent crime rate, Cincinnati is the 8th safest. Detroit (which has been mentioned by some local politicians as perhaps foreshadowing Cincinnati's future) is 12th safest overall, but dead last--40t--when only violent crime is considered.

Here's the full list from Forbes.

I guess combat gear isn't really necessary to walk around here, after all.

TV Ad For No On 9

Should be hitting the airwaves today:

This Ain't Moxy, This is Bitchy

I know how much local Republicans are cheering on the juvinile behavior of Council Member Leslie Ghiz, but this is not tough talk from a concerned elected official, this is frustration born from personal animosity coming through. The inner teenager has come forth and she is not thoughtful, she is bitchy. You don't tell the chair of a committee to shut up on an open mike in session. You just don't do that and expect to be considered civil. A council session is not an episode of the Hanity Show, where guests are encouraged to be antagonistic to the point of calling each other four letter words. Council meetings should be civil. If Ghiz has a beef with Cole, have it out behind closed doors like adult politicians do.

If this was done as a stunt to get attention, then Ghiz has stooped to a new low. It is beneath any council member and that would put her on the level of political bottom feeder, going for the cheap and hollow vote.

I question whether deep down Ghiz actually wants to be reelected to council. Her tone this campaign season has been totally negative. If she does win, I really hope she grows up a little bit and ends the childish behavior. One can be forceful with dignity, but still get your point across. She needs to learn how to do that, or just quit politics.

Kevin Flynn - Extreme On Abortion

In local races the issue of a woman's right to an abortion, shouldn't be material. I don't in any way mean to say it isn't important, I mean to say that a woman's right to choose an abortion is the law of the land. City Council members' stances on the issue should be nearly insignificant. Locally, the only council member to make it an actual issue has been Chris Monzel. His stances on what should be covered by city provide health insurance is well known and just one of many, many reasons not to vote for him. It is also why he gets the endorsement from the Cincinnati Right to Life PAC ever year.

This year's race adds a new name to the anti-abortion PAC list, Charterite Kevin Flynn. His responses to the CRTLPAC questionnaire(pdf) are eye opening and extreme and to say the least very disappointing.

Flynn has three stances that stand out and make it impossible for me to vote for him. In his response he omitted Rape and Incest as grounds for when an Abortion should be legal. He did include the life of the mother, but his use of choosing to not fall on a grendade as a rational to want to die does I believe belittle the value of the mother and of women in general.

The second stance is in his support of banning the coverage of abortion by the City employee health Insurance plans. Under Flynn's view, it is moral that if an employee of the City is raped, she must pay to end the pregnancy herself. It is so very disappointIng that the value of
women is placed below the intent of the rapist.

The third stance is in my opinion the most disappointing by far, Kevin Flynn filled out the questionaire at all. City Counil lacks to the power to do anything about Abortion being legal or not. The issue is something that should not have a baring on the council race. Flynn should have followed the path of his two fell Charter candidates, Bortz and Qualls, and not completed the questionaire.

It wasn't great seeing Cecil Thomas on the RTL endorsement list, but not as much of a surprise. His answers to the question were no different, but he avoided adding details to the "Yes/No" answers. I don't remember if Cecil got the endorsement in 2007 and I can't find a working link to who was endorsed at all 2 years ago.

COAST's Rapid Transit Map

This map floating around Twitter over the weekend is funny and over the top, but I think it captures the delusions of the leaders of COAST very well. It illustrates so much of what is wrong with COAST and those who align themselves with their ideas, like Brad Wenstrup. Stagnant thinking has slowed Cincinnati far too long and the people of Cincinnati need to break free of the past and understand they don't have to think like that. We are better than this and can defeat it. One step towards that defeat happens a week from tomorrow.

Issues 8 and 9: Why Vote on Voting?

I understand why the supporters of Issue 8 don't want City Council to create a regional water district. In fact, I think I'm in their camp, if only because Council would lose control of water rates. And I think there's a strong argument that the creation of a water district should require a charter amendment (and thus a referendum). Water Works is, after all, referenced in the charter (the power to appoint the agency's chief is one of the powers vested in the city manager).

And I understand why the supporters of Issue 9 think building a streetcar is a bad idea.* (I'm generally lukewarm on the streetcar and believe regardless of the passage or failure of Issue 9, the private investment dollars needed to build the streetcar--and forecast by its most ardent proponents--are unlikely to materialize.) I disagree that the decision should be embedded within the City Charter. In a republic, budget appropriations are a matter left to the discretion of the elected legislature. The anti-streetcar sentiment is understandable, even if I don't feel it myself.

But I don't understand why Issues 8 and 9 are written as they are. Why doesn't Issue 8 simply ban the creation of a regional water district or the sale of the water works to a private corporation? (Issue 8 as written, by the way, would not prevent the privatization of Cincinnati's water works, though I've heard no serious person propose such a thing, anyhow.) Why doesn't Issue 9 simply ban the expenditure of funds for a streetcar? Why do the drafters of these ballot issues leave open the possibility that they'll win this time, but lose a referendum in a subsequent election?

After all, the drafters of Issues 8 and 9 certainly know how to write a straightforward, no-loopholes charter amendment. When the NAACP and COAST teamed up to write the anti-red-light amendment a few years ago, it was just that. It didn't call for a separate vote on the cameras; instead, it simply banned their use to impose civil or criminal penalties.

As I was thinking about Issues 8 or 9, it occurred to me that their structure must be relatively unique. Apart from the method to amend a charter or constitution, I cannot think of federal, state, or local constitutional or charter provisions calling for a referendum before a legislature takes a certain action. (With respect to budget appropriations like that implicated in Issue 9, by the way, I believe a state-wide referendum would, in fact, be unconstitutional under state law, as the state constitution explicitly excludes those from the referendum process.) But after a little research, I realized that Issues 8 and 9 do, indeed, have a precedent: Article XI of the City Charter.

What's that? You say you don't know what Article XI is? It's been on the books for over a half-century. It says:

Any ordinance enacted by the Council of the City of Cincinnati which provides for the fluoridation of water processed and distributed by the Cincinnati Water Works must first be approved by a majority of the electors voting on the question at a special or general election before said ordinance shall become effective, and any ordinance to fluoridate the water distributed by the Cincinnati Water Works that may have been enacted before this amendment is adopted shall cease to be effective until approved by a majority of the electors voting on the question at a special or general election.

That's right: back in the 1950's, Cincinnatians vehemently opposed efforts to add fluoride to their drinking water. After the charter was amended to include Article XI, three separate referenda to fluoridate the water failed. It took the intervention of the Ohio EPA--with assistance from the Ohio Supreme Court--to improve Cincinnatians' dental health. (And proving the stubborness of Queen City residents, one report seems to suggest that in the wake of fluoridation, bottled water sales increased dramatically.)

So there you have it. Historical precedent for the two strange (from a structural standpoint) issues on this year's ballot: fluoride-alarmists!

Charter amendments ought to be straightforward and do what they intend. If selling water works to a regional water authority is a bad idea, let's just preclude it. If a streetcar is a bad idea and the only way to prevent one is a charter amendment, let's do that. But let's not waste time voting on whether to vote.

---

*Yes, I realize Issue 9 is about more than the streetcar. I suspect the bulk of its city-resident supporters, though, are concerned only with the streetcar, and not more minimal outlays for things like the Zoo train or the 3C rail line.

Great No On 9 Video!

Even though I am a PC user, this is still really funny and to the point.

Passage Lounge Coming To Downtown

Construction is in progress and the signs in the window give a hint at what is to be Passage Lounge. The location is at 601 Main Street, which is immediately on the corner of 6th Street. I couldn't find mention of this venue anywhere else on the web, so I don't know how much, if any, promotion has occurred.

This would add to the growing number of "lounges" in downtown, which I would define as an upscale bar/club, like FB, the Righteous Room, and Tonic. I've not heard mention what ever became of Bang's re-imaging, which I thought would have been completed by now. These types of clubs can be short lived, so depending on who is running this new venue, I wonder how it will compete.

This location would be across from the 580 building where plans for a Mr. Sushi restaurant were announced over the summer. I've not seen any progress on the restaurant, at least none visible from the street. Mr. Sushi was slated to open in the Fall.

For Bris Chortz and Mark Miller: Read the Law

A commenter, known as Bris Chortz, has been defending Mark Miller of COAST for the allegedly false Affidavit filed in Miller's Ohio Ethics Commission complaint against Mayor Mark Mallory.  Bris wanted to claim that my statement was incorrect when I stated filing a false Affidavit was against the law.  Well, I did a little research:

102.06 Powers and duties of ethics commission.
(A) The appropriate ethics commission shall receive and may initiate complaints against persons subject to this chapter concerning conduct alleged to be in violation of this chapter or section 2921.42 or 2921.43 of the Revised Code. All complaints except those by the commission shall be by affidavit made on personal knowledge, subject to the penalties of perjury. Complaints by the commission shall be by affidavit, based upon reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred.

The bold was added to make Bris aware of the law.  I am not making judgment as to Miller's actions, I am however pointing out the fact that I was not wrong and Affidavits in this instance are clearly covered by perjury.  I mean, if they weren't covered by perjury laws, why even have it be a sworn statement?

Sure, Bris and his fellow COAST supporters (I would surmise Bris is a member of COAST, maybe even Miller himself) can quibble over whether Miller knowingly filed a false statement.  Or they can quibble over the meaning of 'false.'  Language to them is fungible after all, judging by how they wrote Issue 9, and then claim it means something other than what it says.  If a perjury violation needs to be considered , then that is a matter for the justice system to determine, not mine.  A prosecutor could be satisfied by questioning Miller or his attorney that if Miller's address is incorrect on the Affidavit, that it was just a typo.  I know I make those all the time, but if I were to make that type
of 'mistake' on an Affidavit, and then release it to the public, I might either check the details and correct it first, or at least note the error.  At a minimum,  I think the OEC should reject the Affidavit on the grounds that it doesn't meet the requirements of a Complaint.  Miller could just reissue a new copy with a corrected address, and may have already done that, but just hasn't published that version.  I'm not going to wait around for anyone from COAST to admit to any mistakes.

Deters Power Grab

County Prosecutor Joe Deters must really like the Bengal's Stadium Lease since that's the last time the Prosecutor Lawyers did work on Riverfront Development for the County. That was back in the 1990's when Joe was the Prosecutor, before quiting for higher state office. In case your wondering, most consider the Bengal's lease to have given away the farm and first born of every county resident and handed them over to Bengal's owner Mike Brown.

If Joe Deters gets his way, his criminal lawyers will begin doing the work that private development lawyers are doing. We are going to get lower quality legal advice with this action. Why? Well, you don't hire a foot doctor if you need brain surgery.

Deters is trying to build up power. He's not up for reelection until 2012, so I guess he thinks he has a free hand to do what ever he wants. It is a tradition in Hamilton County to have despots in the Prosecutor's office. Leis, Deters, Allen, and now Deters again all have acted like they are above the law and have no to answer too. Because local political parties on the county level are dysfunctional, this office has become one where you don't have to worry about reelection because deals will be made to prevent an competition.

Harris Announces 2010 Budget Plan

Council Member Greg Harris has done something no other candidate has done: provide a 2010 budget plan that includes adjustments that make up the 51.5 million dollar projected deficit. He does it without layoffs. He does list a Trash collection fee which would fill a gap. That will surely get screams from the right wing, but once the election passes, I think their scream will subside on fee increases.

I am most pleased with Greg for being complete. He had the courage to do this now, before the election and he actually provided numbers that will add up to the deficit. Other candidates have presented cuts they would make, but they cite cutting some minor program or perk that adds up to a few hundred thousand dollars, nothing close to the full budget deficit.

Many of the cuts Greg proposes are going to face huge challenges, but I think Greg is willing to work with everyone. What we don't need is more Grandstanding from Ghis, Monzel, Berding, and the FOP Officers playing the role of chicken little. Since we are so close to the election, I don't predict big political pushes to attack Greg, since those council members are not safe enough to focus on getting out their base.

Greg's action to publicize his realistic plan is what we want from our council. Greg is governing. He is being upfront, but will be smart and will not negotiate with the Unions in the media. We need to keep Greg on council.

Saturday at Grammer's: NEIN ON NINE!

Fun Party this Saturday at Grammer's: NEIN ON NINE! all in the effort to defeat Issue 9.

The ville have beear.

Is Cunningham Against Issue 9?

The Phony Coney is reporting that local talk radio host and regular city basher Bill Cunningham is against Issue 9. The Provost links to the podcast with Cunningham's comments. Is this for real? Does Cunningham actually oppose Issue 9? This isn't April 1st is it? I didn't just teleport to Bizzaro World, did I?

The Phony Coney: Miller's Not Home?

The Phony Coney brings to light an important item that allegedly was overlooked by Mark Miller before filing his affidavit in an attempt to smear the Mayor. The question is out there: Where does Mark Miller actually live? Does he even know? Can we trust anything he says if he can't get his address correct?

Council: Handicapping the Race

Predicting who will win City Council is both easy and very difficult. It is easy to get those who are locks to win and likely to win. After that, it is all open ended. It is a fool's errand to try and predict the actual order of finish to any level of accuracy, so don't look for that here. What I have done, instead, is create tiers and grouped candidates based on their likelihood of being in the top nine. Here is my take on the race, two weeks out. Each group is in alphabetical order.

A Lock to Win:
Roxanne Qualls

Likely to Win:
Chris Bortz
Laketa Cole
Leslie Ghiz
Cecil Thomas

In the Mix:
Jeff Berding
Kevin Flynn
Greg Harris
Chris Monzel
Laure Quinlivan
Bernadette Watson
Charlie Winburn


Strong Finish, But Out of the Money:
Tony Fischer
Nickolas Hollan

The Rest:
Anitra Brockman
Amy Murray
LaMarque Ward
Wendell Young
George Zamary


As far as order goes, as I mentioned, there is no way to know. I would say anyone not in the mix could be as high as 13 or 12. A good measure of a candidate that does not win is their placement. If you get anywhere from 10th to 13th, you had a good run and are a contender for 2011.

There are of course two weeks to go, so anything could happen, but usually doesn't.

Minor note: I will go out on a limb here and say the Mayor Mallory will be reelected. The only speculation will be what percentage Wenstrup has to reach in order for Alex Triantafilou to claim the GOP is on the rise in the City. I would suggest that anything less than 50.000001% of the vote would be a sign that the GOP is not on the rise in Cincinnati.

Issue Three Narrowly Ahead in Poll

In a Poll of 800 likely Ohio voters 48% favor Issue Three, 44 Oppose, with a margin of error at 3.5%. This vote is going to be close.