Categories
News Politics

City Council meeting displays public’s distaste for budget cuts

Cincinnati City Council members met for a public hearing of the Budget and Finance Committee in Lower Price Hill Wednesday night to discuss several council members’ counter-proposal to City Manager Milton Dohoney’s 2011 Mid-Year Reduction Plan.

The proposed motion, signed by council members Chris Bortz, Leslie Ghiz, Wayne Lippert, Amy Murray, and Charlie Winburn, would pass budget cuts—which largely include expected savings from job position vacancies, department reorganization, and service funding reduction—totaling savings of $5.1 million for 2011 and $8.5 million for 2012. The most notable exception in the motion would be retaining the 44 police officers that Dohoney proposed letting go (memo with complete list of numbers).

Wednesday night’s meeting was scheduled to obtain feedback from the public, as well as to vote on the 5 council members’ proposal.

In total, 34 citizens signed up to speak to the Council. Most of the citizens spoke against civil service cuts, especially regarding health care-related cuts. Children, parents, and nurses all came to speak about how important nurse services are in schools, pointing out the high rates of ADHD, asthma, and other disorders that could go untreated if school nurses were let go. One parent came to tears, saying, “My child almost died.” Another noted that if nurses disappeared from schools it would be a “lawsuit waiting to happen.”


City Council image by Zachary Schunn for UrbanCincy.

Others spoke passionately about health services, from the Cincinnati Health Department, which was scheduled for cuts, to the city’s dental access program, to health clinics. One nurse noted that the Health Department would be self-sustaining due to federal revenue by 2014, and that cutting funding would be a short-sighted move that would not only hurt citizens, but would make it difficult to build-up the department when new funding arrived.

Most citizens’ arguments were straight to the point, with one woman saying that “without Northside Health Center, I would probably be dead today…. I’m just asking that you give people a chance to live.”

A few others spoke for the homeless or in support of Cincinnati’s recreation centers and pools. Several spoke in favor of the Office of Environmental Quality, which was slated to be closed, with its services shifting to other departments. Said one citizen, “Shutting OEQ is like killing a goose that lays golden eggs.” Another pointed out the revenue that the OEQ has brought in from reduced landfill costs and federal grant money, and argued that the office’s success should lead to its expansion, not its elimination.

Notably, only one person spoke against police layoffs (which were not part of the proposed motion). No one spoke of the burdens of high tax rates, with several speaking in favor of higher fees (such as trash collection fees) and increased property and income taxes. One neighborhood representative suggested the income tax rate should be raised from 2.1% to 3.1% to help close the deficit, and another noted that the rich needed to give back to the city.

A few commended the council’s hard work in performing a “difficult task,” and others asked that they ignore their differences and work together. One citizen brought the book, “The Three Little Pigs,” and recounted its lesson of cooperation to the Council.

Overall, the attending citizens appeared largely opposed to the budget cuts. A few citizens heckled Chris Bortz, who dominated the council members’ discussion following the speakers, as well as Charlie Winburn. Bortz asked numerous questions of Milton Dohoney, which at one point prompted Dohoney’s reply: “I’m not trying to play politics or make headlines. I’m trying to run the city government.”

Councilwomen Leslie Ghiz and Amy Murray were noticeably absent from the meeting. Councilman Bortz later noted that they were “with their children,” to which Wendell Young replied: “I left my wife in the hospital… [and] I’d like to do what I came here to do.”

A vote proceeded over the objections of some council members, most notably Chris Bortz, who claimed that they “had two weeks” to vote on the resolution and the meeting had purposefully been scheduled for a day when Ghiz and Murray could not attend. (The motion was dated August 15. However, it was later found that the motion had been filed with the clerk only Tuesday, just ahead of the scheduled Budget and Finance Committee meeting.)

With Ghiz and Murray absent, the motion failed with three supporting and four against.

The meeting ended with bickering over “politics,” with Councilmen Thomas and Bortz arguing over which side was “gaming” the other. Frustrated, Vice Mayor Roxanne Qualls abruptly ended the meeting.

Citizens, obviously frustrated by the length of the nearly three-hour-long meeting, left the building largely rejoicing that the cuts to social services had failed, but knowing that a similar motion may be re-filed and that they would have to return—again—to argue against the cuts.

Categories
News Politics Transportation

Residents Take Stand Against Proposed Highway Through Cincinnati’s Eastern Neighborhoods

In December 2010, the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) published its 2011-2015 Major New Construction Project List. The list included funding to resume study of the highway component of the controversial Eastern Corridor Project. Dormant since 2006, the sudden reappearance of the highway project alarmed area residents, more than 100 of whom gathered at the Madisonville Recreation Center on August 3 for a meeting of Cincinnati City Council’s Livable Communities Committee.

On display were ODOT’s two circa 2006 Tier 1 alternatives, one of which called for the complete replacement of Red Bank Road with a fully grade separated interstate-style highway. This drawing, seen for the first time by most in attendance, emboldened suspicions that the Eastern Corridor Project is in fact a veiled attempt to extend Interstate 74 across Hamilton County.

I

“We urge ODOT to unbundle the Eastern Corridor projects and concentrate on providing transportation alternatives in this community, not another highway,” exclaimed one resident at the recent City Council committee meeting. “Reallocating resources to utilize the Wasson Line will produce more cost-effective transportation alternatives for thousands including Madisonville citizens.”

Citizen feedback generally welcomed improvements to Red Bank Road, especially a boulevard or parkway that might compare favorably to the more attractive roads in the area. Many also suggested development of better public transportation, especially implementation of light rail transit on the abandoned Wasson Road railroad.

Read UrbanCincy‘s exclusive in-depth analysis of the Wasson Line and Oasis Line.

Opposition to construction of an expressway in place of Red Bank Road was unanimous at the meeting, and citizen comments were followed by stern questioning of ODOT officials by City Council members Roxanne Qualls, Laure Quinlivan and Chris Bortz.

ODOT assured the committee that the Tier 1 alternatives on display would be reworked and that it will work closely with Madisonville Community Council and other neighborhood groups to ensure a favorable outcome. ODOT officials also remarked that the City of Cincinnati and other jurisdictions through which the Eastern Corridor Project will pass will have to approve ordinances to allow its eventual construction.

Categories
News Politics Transportation

Potential ballot proposal a serious roadblock to Cincinnati’s future

Advocates for job growth, economic development, alternative transportation and Cincinnati’s future have stepped up to the plate once again. What seemed like a grand-slam finish to beginning the first steps to rail transit in the city is now contested and seemingly up for debate. Again.

Despite clear indication from the voters, the city, and (at one time) the state and federal level that the Cincinnati Streetcar project was a positive contribution to changing Cincinnati for the better, there are those who would rewrite the rule books. The first vote was not enough. It is time for another.

A small but persistent group is at it again, collecting signatures to put yet another proposal on the ballot for the fall election.

This petition, however, would prevent ANY rail transportation systems to be funded or built until 2020. A ten-year ban would force Cincinnati to miss out on an entire generation of building infrastructure, in a time when gas prices are certainly not getting any cheaper, and Cincinnatians will be desperate for options to get around.

“Nothing even remotely like this has ever been proposed in any American city. In a era of rising energy prices, Cincinnati would be handcuffing its flexibility to develop alternative means of getting citizens to work and doing the everyday things of life,” says local transit authority and activist John Schneider. “And since regional rail lines wouldn’t be able to connect within the city limits, this has serious regional implications too.”

Cincinnatians for Progress has broken down the exact language of the ballot proposal, to demonstrate how much is at stake:

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
What it says:
: “The City shall not spend or appropriate any money on the design, engineering, construction or operation of a Streetcar System, or any portion thereof.”
What it means: This phrase prevents the city from spending any money on anything related to preparing any kind of passenger rail transit in Cincinnati.

What it says: “Further, the City shall not incur any indebtedness or contractual obligations for the purpose of financing, designing, engineering, construction or operating of a Streetcar System, or any portion thereof.”
What it means: This language would make it impossible to accept federal grants, to issue bonds, to enter into public-private partnerships for passenger rail. Even private investment in a rail system in the city limits would be illegal.

What it says: “This Amendment applies from the date it is certified to the Charter, and will continue in effect until December 31, 2020.”
What it means: The arbitrary 10-year ban on preparation is designed to force new transit planning to start from square one in 2021. Because permanent infrastructure requires many years to develop, this language would guarantee Cincinnati sees no rail-based transit for a generation.

What it says: “For purposes of this Amendment, the term ‘Streetcar System’ means a system of passenger vehicles operated on rails constructed primarily in existing public rights of way …”
What it means: The term “streetcar system” in this amendment would ban all rail that runs in on Cincinnati streets or rights-of-way. That would prevent commuter rail and streetcars alike; even restoring the city’s historic inclines would be outlawed.

What it says: “…The term ‘City’ includes without limitation the City, the Manager, the Mayor, the Council, and the City’s various boards, commissions, agencies and departments …”
What it means: Under this language, even Cincinnati’s Metro system could not consider taking advantage of future national and regional funding programs.

What it says: “…The term ‘money’ means any money from any source whatsoever….”
What it means: This language would not only lock out local, state and federal funds, but make it illegal for corporations, non-profits and individuals to pay for rail-based transit.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Says CFP co-chair Mark Schmidt: “[The ballot proposal is] the laziest piece of legislation ever written and an insult to the people of Cincinnati… especially those public servants who play by the rules and commit themselves to the slow and steady process of making this a more perfect union through the hard work of collaboration and compromise.”

The deadline to file a ballot with enough signatures is August 10th. If the measure succeeds, there is a tough road ahead to ensure that this debilitating piece of legislation does not get past.

Readers, please don’t give up. Not everyone supports the streetcar plan in its current form- this is not about the streetcar. We are tired and frustrated at the ways the realities of the situation have unfolded. It’s not fair. It’s not right.

It’s not over.

If you’ve been waiting to get involved, to help out with a cause you believe in, Cincinnatians for Progress could use your support. Sign up to volunteer, donate (time or money) to ensure our great city a chance at the future.

At the very least, continue to educate yourself and help inform others. We will see a day in Cincinnati where the economy is improved, jobs have been created, tax and population base in the city is up, and citizens are not chained to their cars in order to get where they need to go.

Comatose comic by Nick Sweeney.

Categories
Development News Opinion Politics Transportation

Replacement of Cincinnati’s infamous Brent Spence Bridge gets political

Since the late 1990s, most government agencies have posted their reports and meeting minutes online. But more than a decade into the Internet era, it is clear that most citizens never familiarize themselves with the materials on these websites. This unfortunate situation has allowed politicians and corporations to continue constructing and perpetuating narratives with no factual basis.

An example of our present dilemma is the conversation – or rather lack thereof – surrounding the Brent Spence Bridge Replacement/Rehabilitation Project, the Cincinnati area’s largest public works project in a generation. After years of inattention by the local media, the $3-plus billion project recently returned to the news after 42 year-old Westwood resident Abdoulaye Yattara, a native of Mali, West Africa, was killed in a fall from the bridge on June 24.


One alternative for an auxillary Brent Spence Bridge.

A flurry of talk radio folderol filled area airwaves during the weekend following the accident. The feature common to all of these conversations was that the public, and even most media figures, were unaware that planning has been underway for the Replacement/Rehabilitation project since 2002, an official website with project plans has been online since around 2005, and that most major decisions concerning the bridge’s design have already been made.

The failure of the local media to inform the public reached new lows on July 6, when the Cincinnati Enquirer’s “Bridging the gap of safety and need” cover story insinuated [PDF] that the existing Brent Spence Bridge will be demolished and replaced when in fact the decision to rehabilitate it after a new bridge is built next to it was made in 2006.

But this omission was not a fluke – on Bill Cunningham’s July 8 radio show, Cincinnati City Councilman Wayne Lippert was asked what the future held for the existing Brent Spence Bridge. The particular way he dodged the question functioned much like the Enquirer’s July 6 report – casual listeners were left to believe that the existing bridge will be replaced.

Politicization of the Bridge Project
Taking advantage of what the public doesn’t know and what the media fails to report, elected officials with no direct involvement with the project, especially Republicans with Tea Party leanings such as Councilman Lippert, have positioned themselves as common sense watchdogs. In a stunning contradiction of Tea Party principals, they have accused “government” of delaying taxpayer spending on a bridge project about which even the most basic details are unknown by the public.

Our local media, rather than working to debunk myths regarding the bridge project, is working in tandem with politicians to advance them. On July 8 the Cincinnati Enquirer ran yet another pro-bridge editorial that cut-and-pasted often-heard bridge talking points. Most absurd is the perpetuation of the idea that the Brent Spence Bridge occupies a special place in the national transportation network, and as such, the Replacement/Rehabilitation Project should be directly funded by the Federal Government.


Cincinnati’s infamous Brent Spence Bridge

The sober fact is that the Brent Spence Bridge, like most urban interstate bridges, primarily serves local commuters and delivery trucks. For fifteen years after its construction it was the region’s only interstate highway crossing. But between 1977 and 1979, three other interstate highway bridges opened nearby, providing numerous alternative routes through the Cincinnati area for long-distance travelers. Mid-1980s modifications to the bridge and the early 1990s reconstruction of the bridge’s hillside approach in Covington were responses to increased commuting from new Northern Kentucky suburbs, not an increase in long-distance travel.

Emergency Shoulders
The circumstances of the death of Mr. Yatarra were caused by the bridge’s lack of emergency shoulders. Certainly, such shoulders are an asset, but according to this article, 12% of deaths on America’s Interstate Highway System occur on emergency shoulders. Full paved shoulders are extremely expensive to build and maintain, which is why they were a rarity in Cincinnati and elsewhere before passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956.

Many of our nation’s famous bridges and tunnels built before its enactment still lack emergency shoulders. Some built since, such as our Brent Spence and I-471 Daniel Carter Beard Bridges have had their emergency shoulders restriped as travel lanes. With the simple act of painting dashed lines instead of a solid white stripe, each of these bridges were automatically classified as “functionally obsolete”. The insinuations of this term have been endlessly exploited by the highway lobby and the politicians they fund.

A desire for failure?
When planning for a new bridge began, the public was led to believe that the end product would unsnarl traffic, become a new symbol for the region, and be free to travel across. Ten years on, it is apparent that the project will likely be none of those things.

What is astonishing is that the same politicians and media figures who have relentlessly attacked Cincinnati’s modern streetcar project by refusing to engage facts are the same ones inventing and perpetuating myths in support of the Brent Spence Bridge Rehabilitation/Reconstruction Project.

Whereas they commonly claim the streetcar project “needs further study”, the Brent Spence Bridge apparently needs less. Whereas the streetcar will be subject to a second ballot issue this fall, they argue that the Brent Spence should receive a Federal award covering its entire cost and construction should be underway by this time next year.

Why have Lippert and other area officials, most of whom have no direct say in the bridge project’s affairs, suddenly concocted a round of free press? The answer, it appears, is that next year when the final bridge design is announced, these same characters will exploit the public’s disappointment in their broad anti-government narrative. The retention of the existing Brent Spence, the ho-hum design of the new bridge, and the specter of tolls will be blamed on a soup of high union wages, the national debt, social welfare programs, ObamaCare, and other government “spending”.

Categories
Development News Politics

State of Downtown report shows continuous improvement

Last week Downtown Cincinnati Inc. (DCI) released their annual State of Downtown Report. The report contains graphs and numbers relating to the development of Downtown. This years report suggests that Downtown Cincinnati has seen a large increase in the number of people enjoying the array of restaurants and arts in the center city.

Arlene Koth, executive president and Chief Operating Officer of DCI, said that when they looked back at the numbers in 2010, there were a few things that really jumped out to them. One such item was the amount of development happening downtown; not just the number of projects that have been completed, but also the amount of investment that has gone into the projects downtown.

According to the report, $1.4 billion in development took place in 2010. DCI says that they expect an additional $1.8 million worth of development to follow on that 2010 investment, and be completed in the next 18 to 24 months. Of those investments, cultural projects represent approximately 31 percent. Mixed-use development makes up another 23 percent. Residential (18%), office (15%) and transportation (13%)  investments then make up the rest.

DCI says that activity attendance downtown has saw a rather constant decrease from 2006 until 2009, but showed an increase in 2010. This recent increase goes follows the pattern seen recently with encouraging gains in new restaurants and residential buildings.

Downtown and its outlying neighborhoods, Over-the-Rhine and Pendleton, experienced a 35 percent population increase overall, with the majority coming in the outlying neighborhoods of the greater downtown area.

Businesses owners are trending towards buying the building in which they locate their businesses over leasing the spaces. Thus the newly renovated buildings stay intact and add value to downtown.  Koth acknowledges “though some building [renovations and leases] have stalled, other developments have helped to spark more desire in potential residents and help pull the buildings through the darkness and into the light.”

DCI is also responsible for all the people walking and biking the streets in bright orange t-shirts or electric blue jackets depending on weather conditions. These Downtown Ambassadors are employed to help keep downtown clean and safe by doing everything from walking people home to giving people directions out of downtown.

Though the increase in development and activities in downtown have affected downtown Cincinnati’s economy positively, there have been numerous battles in getting business offices sold or rented and in keeping crime low. The number of crimes has steadily decreased until 2008 when they increased by 21% from 1,153 to 1,402 in 2009. Compared to the 2001 crime rate of 2,013, the rate has decreased significantly.

Overall, downtown is blooming with even more new businesses and events that keep the core bustling and alive with activity.

Fountain Square picture for UrbanCincy by Thadd Fiala.