CTP Endorses Issue 9
The Cincinnati Tea Party recommends that city residents vote yes on Issue 9.
Text of Issue 9:
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?
If this issue were to pass, the city would be required to hold a referendum of city voters before spending money on passenger rail transportation.
The 2009 elections are right around the corner and this is the first of many issues we plan to weigh in on. Why pick issue 9 first? Two reasons. First, it affects the streetcar initiative in Cincinnati which we’ve used many times as an example of wasteful stimulus spending. Second, we were asked to make an endorsement by our friends at COAST. As we expect this to happen more frequently, we’ve created a formal board to make these endorsements. The board consists of:
Justin Binik-Thomas
Jason Crawford
Dan Lillback
Chris Littleton
Brian Willis
Joni Wilson
Mike Wilson
It is important that when we make an endorsement, that we consider the three core values of the CTP – free markets, fiscal responsibility, and limited government. We must also make the endorsement in a way that exemplifies the standards of conduct that we try to live up to. We must be temperate, logical, and fact-based in our reasoning.
Issue 9 is not a slam dunk and we are not endorsing it without some reservations. I will do my best to highlight our thought process and why we chose to support it in the end.
The genesis of issue 9 can be traced to the plans for a streetcar system throughout Cincinnati. As is typical in these types of projects these days, a local project is dependant on state and federal funds in order for it to be completed. We understand the pressure that local governments must feel to drink from the federal trough, but we have reached a point where this is no longer sustainable. In keeping with our principle of limited, local government, we see no reason why the federal government should be funding projects that are entirely local in nature regardless of the merits of the projects themselves. Therefore, we oppose in principle local projects that obtain federal funding.
That being said, we recognize the role of government in transportation infrastructure. We understand that the federal government through powers derived from the commerce clause in the Constitution, has a legitimate role in facilitating interstate commerce through transportation infrastructure. We also believe that state and local governments – either through the people or their representatives, should have the ability to facilitate local transportation. This includes various forms of passenger rail as mentioned in Issue 9.
So to summarize where we are at right now, we oppose the streetcar project in particular because of the necessity of federal funds, but we recognize the right of the city to implement the streetcar or similar projects should they so desire.
We must then address the question of whether or not the streetcars are good for Cincinnati. In our opinion, this comes down to a cost/benefit analysis.
Mass transit rail infrastructure requires high population density to drive the ridership needed to make it useful. There is a certain level of chicken and the egg here. You can’t have the necessary density without the transportation infrastructure, but you also can’t afford the infrastructure without the density. Our problem is that Cincinnati is a mature city that does not have sufficient population density. Building a streetcar system will allow us to increase density, but that doesn’t happen overnight. Redevelopment to fully leverage a passenger rail system would take many years. In the meantime, we would have a system that will require large amounts of government subsidy to keep running. In this era where every dollar counts, we believe it is not fiscally responsible to implement a streetcar or similar project right now.
Our reservations about Issue 9 arise because the ballot language does not specifically address the streetcar project, and because it is a charter amendment. In general, we believe that duly elected representatives (Mayor Mallory and City Council) should be able to do their job and be voted out at the ballot box if voters decide they don’t like the direction. In this case though, these type of projects are costly and long term commitments that you can make a reasonable case should require special voter approval to get done.
We have concerns that this issue rises to the level of charter amendment. We wish that this issue was specific to the streetcars. Unfortunately, we don’t have our perfect situation, so we have to make a decision to endorse, stay neutral, or oppose. In the end, all this issue does is require that voters get a direct say in how their money is spent. The charter amendment can be repealed as easily as it can be enacted this year. Considering the Cincinnati Tea Party was founded on the premise that our representatives weren’t doing a good job of representing us, we think the good of this issue outweighs the bad.
September 21st, 2009 at 6:44 pm
How utterly predictable.
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:32 am
I would tend to agree… based on our values and our other statements it was predictable. Not sure about “utterly” considering we do have some reservations about endorsing it, but no point in quibbling over the qualifiers.
Any thoughts on the actual content? I’d love to get some feedback from the other side.
September 22nd, 2009 at 6:45 am
Mike,
Feedback from “the other side” would probably have been a good idea before you posted if it was a true arm’s length decision, but we’re happy to have a conversation with you about why conservatives should vote No on an issue that is one of many recent continuous California-style government referenda.
We’re voting No on Nine because we don’t want Cincinnati to be the only city in the top 25 metro areas with this handcuffing language in our charter, and we don’t like the tax increases and budget deficits that result from government-by-referendum.
Cincinnatians for Progress
September 22nd, 2009 at 7:03 am
We did research that included finding our way to your site (among others) before making a decision. Thanks for taking the time to come and post.
For the record, we had similar reservations about this being a charter amendment, but it isn’t fair to say that tax increases and budget deficits are the problem or to imply that they would occur as a result of this issue passing. Since this amendment has the potential to actually restrain spending (subject to yet another referendum), I think it tends to decrease the chance of tax increases or deficits.
California certainly has some of their issues with referenda causing mandated spending (side note – I thought their proposition system was actually introduced by progressives, so interesting that you are against it), but they have more issues with their governor and representatives spending like drunken sailors.
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:31 pm
We understand the pressure that local governments must feel to drink from the federal trough, but we have reached a point where this is no longer sustainable.
Can you provide a timeline of historical “drinking from the federal trough” to satisfy your assertion?
I’m sorry, but this argument about how you’ve been “taxed to death” and that the federal government is growing ever larger is quite a tough sell when taxes have been reduced almost every decade since Eisenhower left office, and discretionary government expenditure has likewise shifted away from local subsidy and infrastructure, and increasingly toward a handful of federal-level programs and defense spending.
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Additionally, every year that goes by your Ohio state income tax rates are reduced, with no preconditions, and many of your Hamilton County property taxes get a roll-back every few years when property values go up. When property values go down (like they may have this past year), your taxes will also go down.
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:27 pm
@Coleman – I can actually.
This chart shows the shift in funding source for state expenditures. The share of federal government funds increased from 12.9% under Kennedy to 42.5% under GWB.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/images/b2136_chart1.gif
Also, this was the first year that federal revenue was the top overall funding source for state/local governments (although not a majority).
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-05-04-fed-states-revenue_N.htm
This argument has nothing to do with the overall level of taxation and has to do with the proper balance of government between state/local and federal. Our assertion is that the federal government should not pay for transportation infrastructure that is entirely local or contained within a single state.
The point of my quoted sentence is that given that the balance is out of whack, we understand the pressure to apply for federal funds. It isn’t like Cincinnati can decide to preemptively take collect the money on behalf of the federal government and then decide how much it wants to send to the IRS so it has enough left to fund its desired local projects.
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:52 pm
I can address briefly the tax level. See the second graph at this link:
http://keithhennessey.com/2009/04/15/a-short-history-of-higher-taxes/
It shows the level of federal tax collections as a percentage of GDP. The absolute level of taxation has been remarkably stable as a % of GDP since 1945 averaging about 18%. Interestingly, this has occurred in spite of varying rates and composition.
The thing that stands out to me is that high marginal rates under Nixon and Carter produced similar tax revenue results as lower marginal rates under Reagan, but much lower rates of economic growth.
One other comment – we know tax revenues do not match expenditures, so actual federal spending as % of GDP is different than this graph. The increasing deficits under Bush 2 and then even bigger under Obama show a much larger federal government than we’ve seen since WW2.
September 24th, 2009 at 6:54 am
Great! More Suburbanites who don’t care about the city at all, doing something to help hinder progress in the city. Typical myopic short run thinking from conservatives who like to apply a one size fits all view to life.
It is good that Truman an Ike weren’t anti-government. Just think how long it would take you to get to Reds and Bengals games.
September 24th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Hi Great! Welcome to the blog.
I’m not sure you read through this post in great detail, since you’ve come to a conclusion that doesn’t match what we wrote at all.
You imply we are anti-government, yet we wrote this paragraph:
That being said, we recognize the role of government in transportation infrastructure. We understand that the federal government through powers derived from the commerce clause in the Constitution, has a legitimate role in facilitating interstate commerce through transportation infrastructure. We also believe that state and local governments – either through the people or their representatives, should have the ability to facilitate local transportation. This includes various forms of passenger rail as mentioned in Issue 9.
We actually care about the city quite a bit. A viable city at the core of our region benefits even those of us that live in the suburbs. Also, some of those who contributed to this endorsement decision do live inside the city limits.
Cites, like all other entities large or small have limited time, attention, and resources. This isn’t a question of whether or not streetcars or other form of mass transit would have benefits. They surely would. The question is whether or not this is the best use of taxpayer funds – especially given the fiscal restraints of the current environment.
Our position is that streetcars are a luxury that our unnecessary for a city/region that has our level of population density and therefore spending on them would be fiscally irresponsible and not provide the highest return on investment of taxpayer dollars. Cincinnati has better things to do with their money right now.
September 24th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Mr. Wilson,
The reality is that cities of a similar and in many cases a much lower population density than Cincinnati have benefited from streetcars. Here is a list of cities where streetcars have recently been built and their population densities. With the exception of Seattle, which has a much higher density due to the topography of the area, Cincinnati is as dense or denser than all these cities.
City Population Density persons/sq. mi
Seattle, WA 7,179.00
Portland OR 4,288.38
Cincninati OH 4,273.50
Tacoma WA 3,923.80
Kenosha WI 3,795.10
Tampa FL 2,969.60
Memphis TN 2,327.40
Little Rock AR 1,613.18
In terms of return on investment, the HDR Economic Impact Study indicated the Streetcar will have a benefit to cost ration of 2.7 to 1. I have not seen any other proposed city projects with a higher rate of return. You can read the various studies and reports on the Cincinnati Streetcar here: http://cincystreetcar.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/studies-and-reports-on-the-cincinnati-streetcar/
Finally, I will certainly agree with a statement you made “A viable city at the core of our region benefits even those of us that live in the suburbs.” That is what the Streetcar is all about. Bringing new jobs, residents, and economic activity to the urban core, which will strengthen not only the City but the entire region.
Brad Thomas
September 24th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
To Great!:
Those roads are really being used with such great teams like the Reds and Bengals.
Cincinnati needs a helluva lot more improvement than a streetcar to nowhere….
^Hawk^
III
September 25th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Mr. Hawk,
Far from being a “streetcar to nowhere,” The Cincinnati Streetcar will serve the 62,163 residents who live along the line, the employees that work in the City’s two largest employment centers (containing 54% of the jobs in the entire city), the 35,000 students of the University of Cincinnati, and the millions of visitors, hotel guests, sports fan and conventioneers that come to Downtown and Uptown each year.
Brad Thomas
September 28th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Mr. Thomas,
I read the pdf from the link you provided and found it interesting. The benefit to cost ratio of 2.7 takes into account a lot assumptions of property values and redevelopment that will occur as a result of the street cars from 2008-2042. Ridership at a fare of $1 is estimated only at 3700 riders per day which would be $1.3 mil per year. I tend to agree that this will help with redevelopment and bring more people downtown since it will be easier to get around, but with all the assumptions that are taken into account I don’t see how the city of Cincinnati can jump feet first into this without any concrete proof that the benefits will be similiar to what is in this document. What would the harm be in dedicating buses to this same route for a few years to see if the benefits are starting to be realized before spending $84 million in construction plus $3.5 million in yearly costs? This doesn’t include the disruption to traffic while the construction is going on and the loss of jobs and retail revenue as a result. With real proof the city of Cincinnati would also be much more likely to get the buy in of voters.
Joni Wilson
September 28th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Ms. Wilson,
I would like to answer your question and provide some additional information on a few items. The ridership assumption of 3700 riders per day is the projection for the Downtown/Over-the-Rhine loop only and does not take into account the connection to Uptown and the University of Cincinnati which will unquestionably increase ridership.
As for construction, it will only take about 2-3 weeks per block. During which time the sidewalk and two lanes of the street will remain open. This blog post describes Portland’s experience with construction: http://blogdowntown.com/2008/04/3254-streetcar-construction-not-your-typical-rail (Note: Portland’s blocks are 200 ft, whereas ours are 400 feet which explains the considerably shorter per block time in Portland)
The Streetcar Feasibility Study, like all studies and analyses of future projects, contains projections and assumptions, but the University of Cincinnati reviewed the studied and found it be accurate. From UC’s evaluation of the study: “It is our judgment that the HDR study is credible in its analysis of the costs and benefits of streetcars in Cincinnati and in its projections of the benefits of ridership and economic development.” http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/city/downloads/city_pdf34212.pdf
Finally I would like to answer your question: What would the harm be in dedicating buses to this same route for a few years to see if the benefits are starting to be realized before spending $84 million in construction plus $3.5 million in yearly costs?
The harm would be threefold—direct costs, opportunity costs, and lack of probative value.
The direct cost would be the costs of acquiring and operating the buses. In order for the bus experiment to be as accurate as possible, the buses would have to have a similar capacity and frequency to the streetcars. I think we can all agree if the city were only running one bus along the route, it wouldn’t come anywhere close to approximating streetcar system. Similarly adding a few automobile ferries next to the Brent Spence Bridge wouldn’t accurately simulate adding additional lanes.
A single streetcar carries around 170 people. A bus carries around 45. The City plans on purchasing 7 streetcars. A bus fleet with a similar capacity would number 26.4. If you take into account maintenance and the need for spare vehicles, you could probably get away with 24 buses. Each bus costs about $350,000, so 24 buses would cost $8,400,000.00.
Operating the buses would cost money as well. Driver’s salaries are the largest operating expense in any transit system. (One of the benefits of the streetcar is that a single driver’s salary is spread over 170 passengers instead of 45.) To estimate the operating cost per bus I divided METRO’s total budget ($94.5 million) over the number of buses it operates (391) to come up with a per bus per year operating cost of $241,687.98. Based on this projection 24 buses would result in a yearly operating cost of $5,800,511.51.
Running this system for a few years like you suggested would be a very expensive test. Three years would cost $25,801,534.53 in capital and operating costs.
But there are also opportunity costs as well. The City estimates “Costs can be conservatively estimated to escalate $5.1 million each year beyond 2010.” Delaying the streetcar three years would cost $15.3 million in inflationary costs. With many construction companies in need of work and lower material prices, now is the time to build. The other opportunity cost would be the delay of benefits to City that would come from having a streetcar. I will not attempt to quantify them in this posting, but it is something of which to be aware.
Combining the direct and opportunity costs leads to a cost of the three year trial of over $40 million. The next question: would this trial produce accurate results? My belief is it would not.
The Streetcar will produce two main types of benefits—ridership benefits and economic development benefits. The bus experiment will not accurately predict either type of benefit
Ridership on the bus experiment will be lower than it would be on a streetcar. Route legibility of a bus route is worse than a streetcar. Unlike a bus, someone unfamiliar with a streetcar route can see the tracks and know where the line goes. People are more likely to get on public transit when they know where it is going.
Additionally the bus experiment assumes transit riders exhibit “mode-neutrality” when in reality they do not. Mode-neutrality presumes that a transit rider will exhibit no preference for rail over buses. This is not the case. Many visitors to New York or Chicago will take the subway or the “L” but will not ride a bus to get around. For an example closer to home, think about the airport. If you had to choose one or the other, would you rather take the train to Concourse B or the shuttle bus connection to Concourse C?
Finally you will not receive the same economic development benefits with the bus experiment as you would with a streetcar. The reason the streetcar encourages economic development is because it is a permanent infrastructure investment. The tracks are laid in the ground and will not move. People know that in 20 years the streetcar will still be running that route and make long term investments, like buying a house or opening a business, based on that fact.
By contrast, the bus experiment is not only temporary it is explicitly temporary. Anyone who could wait to make an investment along the line likely would wait until the final decision on the streetcar could be made. If an entrepreneur wanted to locate a new business along the streetcar line because it would attract more customers and make it easier to get to the store, she would likely wait until the decision had been made on whether or not to actually build the streetcar before making the investment. Fewer people will buy house or open a business along a bus route that will stop running in a few years and may or may not lead to a streetcar than would invest along an announced and funded streetcar line. Imagine if new exit was built off of I-75 that would be closed in two years if it didn’t receive enough usage, business owners would be reluctant to locate there for fear of their access being cut off. The same would be true of a temporary bus experiment.
Because there will be lower ridership, less economic development, and considerable costs, conducting a bus experiment along the streetcar line would be imprudent and the results of such experiment would not accurately predict the success of the streetcar. That would be the harm. Hopefully this has answered some of your questions about the Cincinnati Streetcar.
Brad Thomas
October 2nd, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Cut and pasted from WeDemandAVote.com
WHY THE TROLLEY SHOULD BE OPPOSED
· This project is opposed by the Cincinnati Chapter of the NAACP, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, Hamilton County Business Owners, and the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes. These groups form the WeDemandAVote.com coalition and are gathering signatures on an initiative petition to require voter approval prior to spending taxpayer dollars on rolling stock or right-of-way acquisition. However city officials continue to force this project down citizens’ throats despite widespread public opposition.
· 100% of the area proposed for streetcar coverage is presently served by taxpayer subsidized municipal buses. In fact, most of the proposed streetcar route directly overlaps existing bus routes, further congesting downtown streets. No plans for integration between bus and streetcar systems have been proposed.
· The route conspicuously avoids vast sections of the urban core, providing poor transportation coverage. Proponents tout the economic development potential of streetcars in other cities, but have confined the proposed route solely to portions of the urban core that are already fully developed. This plan is not “shovel-ready” because the route needs to be reworked in order to provide full transportation coverage, and full economic development coverage before it can be viable.
· Costs for the project (capital and operating) will be shouldered by all 330,000+ city residents. But the project will only serve perhaps 20,000 citizens in the urban core. Excitement among the few beneficiaries of the system is, of course, very high. However loathing for this latest political boondoggle is even greater among the much larger number of taxpayers who receive no benefit from it at all.
· Tax increment financing is well established in the project area, but provides minimal funding, due to poor route selection explained above. This is the primary source of the vast disparity between payers and beneficiaries. Proper route selection would allow most project costs to be paid for out of real property appreciation in the area served, the residents of which are also the primary beneficiaries. The current proposal cannibalizes existing infrastructure budgets in non-served areas.
· It’s estimated that 40 permanent jobs will be created as part of the streetcar program. They include 15 drivers for the seven planned cars, 10 maintenance workers, 5 managers, and 10 office and clerical staff. That’s about $4.5 million per job for a $183 million capital project.
· This project requires another year of public hearings and reengineering before it will be a viable infrastructure project, therefore it is not “shovel-ready.” This project is confined to a tiny portion of the Cincinnati metropolitan area which is already fully developed, so the stimulus effect will be negligible. Long term jobs created by this project are far too costly to justify. Therefore, this project is not suitable for inclusion in the pending stimulus bill.
October 8th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Here is a nice video about the streetcar:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRn_MQt28_g&feature=player_embedded
October 10th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Yawn! Vote Yes on 9. Stop the streetcar to nowhere!
October 13th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Far from being a “streetcar to nowhere,” The Cincinnati Streetcar will serve the 62,163 residents who live along the line, the employees that work in the City’s two largest employment centers (containing 54% of the jobs in the entire city), the 35,000 students of the University of Cincinnati, and the millions of visitors, hotel guests, and conventioneers that come to Downtown each year.
October 13th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Dear Hawk.
I think you are misinformed. Voting yes on 9 will not do a thing to stop the streetcar. Issue 9 is NOT about the streetcar, it’s about passenger rail in general, but it is much more than that.
What is at stake not only the future economic development of Cinicinnati but to a larger extent the preservation of our current electoral system.
We have a representative democracy with elected officials. If you’re not happy with the decision made by elected officials, do not re-elect them.
Asking a vote to allocate ANY monies to passenger rail would cripple the decision making and have unintended consequences: if the city wants to allocate ANY amount MONEY for an IMPROVEMENT of the safari train at the Cincinnati zoo that moves PASSENGER on RAILS, what would happen. This would require a vote as this satisfies all the terms mentioned on the ballot!
I know this is ridiculous. That’s why I would recommend voting NO on 9.
Ask yourself this. How would you vote on Issue 9 if it was worded like this:
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. the train at the Cincinnati Zoo) 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?
Issue 9 is not about the streetcar. Including the streetcar as an example is misleading.
Voting NO on 9 is not voting for the streetcar, it’s not voting against the streetcar, it’s voting in favor of our current electoral system and protect our democracy.
If we needed public vote on EVERY issue where ANY money would need to be allocated, why would we need elected representatives?
We need to let our representatives do their job.
I’m not a citizen yet, I cannot vote yet but if I can change someone’s opinion and have that person vote NO ON 9, instead of yes then my voice counts.
Maybe that person will be you Hawk.
October 21st, 2009 at 11:40 am
If I really cannot buy the stories about the enormous benefits of the streetcar, how can I afford to vote no on 9?
I don’t have a problem with mass rail, but this small scale specific project is way out of line.
So I would prefer that future mass rail projects would not all have to go up for a popular vote, but I want to make certain I get a chance to vote on this one.
So how can I vote no?
Also I find the suggestion about the bus routes interesting. Why not dedicated high class clean-fuel (sure to be eligible for some subsidy) buses for some expanded routes? Because trolleys stopping with the same frequency are more attractive? Because tracks give the impression of permanence? Does anyone remember how long some of the old streetcar tracks were still in the ground in various neighborhoods decades after the demise of the streetcars?
And all this business about not needing representatives – they’ll have plenty to do. Lots of large spending programs. I don’t want to have to vote on all the passenger transportation projects, but is that really so bad?
October 21st, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Mr. Jackson,
I have this question for you, does it make sense to mandating our City Government approve projects in a different manner based on the technology employed? Not the purpose, not the cost, not the potential hazards, but solely on the technology employed.
If Issue 9 passes, we will be the only city in the country with such a requirement as a part of its city charter.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:52 pm
My previous post contains a typo, it should read “to mandate”
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:02 am
I don’t like it.
But I really don’t like the streetcar.
Can you guarantee me that if I vote no on 9, I’ll still have a chance to vote against the streetcar?
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Mr. Jackson,
What are your concerns about the streetcar? I would be happy to address them.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Why can’t Mallory sell this thing?
The charts look pretty, but the risks aren’t addressed (Kentucky competition, publicized crime wave, political opposition).
And the Mayor’s inability to inspire/excite everyone about this is fatal.
What has he been doing? What can’t everyone else pitch in?
How many Cincinnati voters are directly affected by this project, and view it in a positive light? Most of the projected ridership, I would imagine, comes from the central workforce, and from UC. A minority are actually city voters, which means a huge majority of city voters (from California to Sayler Park) don’t see themselves as affected by this. It is easy to tear this thing down, so work is required to change that dynamic. That has not happened, at least from what I see.
So I think 9 will pass, and the real sell job will have to begin then. Including selling me.
Shame on Mallory.
October 28th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
To Jackson,
Well, if Issue 9 passes you won’t have to worry about needing to vote on the streetcar, because that ballot measure will send a clear message to city politicians that Cincinnatians are not intersted in rail transit. It will be the 2nd time that a rail transit issue has been voted down and for the sake of their own careers, city council and the mayor will give up on bringing rail to Cincinnati.
Not only that but Issue 9 will take us out of the race for the federal stimulus dollars that are necessary to build it. As the mayor has stated, this project can not happen without federal dollars and Issue 9 will assure us that we won’t get those tax dollars (your own federal tax money) in Cincinnati.
So, what I ask of those of you who simply want “a vote on the streetcar,” Issue 9 is not the way to go. It will severely limit our options in the future and will certainly prevent the city from ever implementing passenger rail at all. If you don’t believe that, then go ahead and vote for issue 9 and come back to this thread 50 years from now remind yourself why Cincinnati doesn’t have any other form of transportation except cars.
Issue 9 puts unneccessary, expensive and time consuming restraints on our city government. If you don’t want a streetcar, fine vote against Mallory, vote against the other 7 or 8 city council members who support it. Get them kicked out of office and I assure you the streetcar will never happen. But, please don’t change our city’s charter so that we won’t be able to implement ANY rail projects EVER in Cincinnati.
That would be foolish when we don’t know what our future needs will be.
VOTE NO ON 9!!
October 30th, 2009 at 11:32 am
In addition to the concerns regarding the crippling and broad sweeping consequences of Issue 9 that have already been mentioned above (and admitted to in CTP’s reservations on the issue), there is an absolutely terrifying Op-Ed in today’s Cincinnati Enquirer.
http://cincystreetcar.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/judge-painter-issue-9-applies-to-roads-and-rail/
Judge Mark Painter notes that due to the shoddy (at best) legal language used in the ballot initiatives wording, that ALL right-of-way acquisitions (including ROADS, BRIDGES etc) would be subject to the costly ($500,000) and time consuming special elections proposed by Issue 9 (Not to mention the huge amount of frivolous and wasteful lawsuits that would be involved). Beyond just excluding our city from all passenger rail (putting our city at a great competitive disadvantage…which is unacceptable), it would force the city to waste even more tax payer money on these ineffective special elections (also unacceptable)and make us truly the laughing stock of the nation. While obviously I am opposed to wasteful spending, we need to make sure we fight tooth and nail to put our city in the best possible situation to succeed and flourish and Issue 9 is the most prominent roadblock to this in my lifetime. Regardless of your stance on the streetcar, I urge you to Vote NO on issue 9.