News & Views — Vote No on Issue 9 |
|
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Cincinnati Planning Commission say No on #9Click here to check out the link and see why Chairman Caleb Faux and the members of the commission voted to endorse No on #9Tuesday, July 7, 2009 Issue aims at all passenger rail, not just streetcarCincinnati EnquirerJuly 6, 2009 Link I am writing to you today to ask that you accurately report on the Anti-Passenger Rail Amendment. In recent articles (“Chamber opposes anti-streetcar measure,” July 1), The Enquirer has been calling this amendment the “streetcar measure” or the “streetcar issue” when in reality it will affect all passenger rail - not just the streetcar. It is inaccurate and misleading for The Enquirer to call the ballot initiative the “streetcar issue” when it would permanently affect all passenger rail. A ballot initiative that affected all highways would not be called the “Norwood Lateral issue,” nor would an initiative that affected all parks be called the “Eden Park issue.” Michelle Tinsley Hyde Park Friday, July 3, 2009 "Choo-Choo Train" and Hidden MotivesCityBeatJuly 2, 2009 Story The COAST/NAACP anti-streetcar petition crew is causing all sorts of debauchery and grabbing headlines for its attempt to garner support for a sweeping, all-inclusive anti-rail ballot initiative. And it is exhausting. My favorite comments on the issue have already been posted on the Cincinnatians for Progress blog and re-posted at least once (at CincinnatiBeacon.com), but I think it’s so significant that I’d like to put it here at CityBeat, too. This is an excerpt from the unabridged Enquirer editorial by Dan Mooney with Cincinnatians for Progress: “One thing particularly dangerous about a ‘referendum,’ as opposed to a race for mayor or City Council, is the amount and source of cash that can be spent to persuade the public to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ Candidates for council or mayor have strict contribution limits, and can only accept money from individual contributors or duly registered political action committees. “But if Cincinnatians vote on whether to joint the (Cincinnati-Columbus-Cleveland) high-speed connection, corporate power brokers can write unlimited checks. Watch what happens this November when proponents and opponents of casino gambling start buying millions of dollars of television time. The ‘message’ voters hear is not always what motivates these big donors. Casino ‘opponents’ will warn about the potential harm of gambling to our community’s social fabric, in ads paid for by casino operators from across the Indiana border who just don’t want more competition. The same motives will drive any passenger rail referendum in Cincinnati. Would oil companies or car manufacturers write big checks to prevent Cincinnatians from leaving their cars at home and take a train to work, Columbus or Chicago? Would Delta want to keep people flying rather than taking a train to Chicago or Cleveland? You betcha.” This is so critical to understand as this petition storm kicks up and the players seem so conspicuously strange. Why is the NAACP so invested in this petition? What does blocking rail-centered transportation alternatives have to do with the “Advancement of Colored People?” Who really are the people behind COAST, and what things do they own that they need to protect against rail transportation? The answers, of course, may be benign and entirely non-scandalous — but it's warranted (and good form, really) to inquire about such things. The rhetoric swirling around this petition and the streetcar debate is pretty ridiculous. The other day, COAST pointed out that the proposed streetcar route goes through census tract #16, or “The Worst Neighborhood In The Country." They then go on to explain, “Sheriff Leis even went out of his way to send special patrols there to augment city forces two years ago. Those patrols were widely praised at the time for a significant reduction in crime. The study range, incidently (sic), encompasses the patrol period, which leaves one wondering how much worse it was beforehand. But then again, it's hard to beat No. 1. Clearly we have a long way to go.” Heaps of academic research and real-life case studies in other cities show us that more traffic and life on a street leads to a reduction in crime, and streetcars are redevelopment projects as much as they are transportation projects that will encourage fixing up and investing in the real estate there. So, I’m pretty sure this explanation doesn’t accurately articulate their objection. And if Chris Smitherman calls the streetcar project a “choo-choo train” one more time, I’m going to freak out. What’s really going on? Thursday, July 2, 2009 Chamber Opposes Anti-Progress Charter AmendmentCincinnati Enquirer7/1/09 Story The Cincinnati USA Regional Chamber said today it opposes putting the Cincinnati streetcar proposal up for a public vote. The Chamber says the language of the proposed referendum, which would be an amendment to the city charter, is "extremely broad and would impede the city’s ability to compete effectively." The amendment would “prevent the expenditure of monies by the city for right-of-way acquisition or construction of improvements for passenger rail transportation without first submitting the same to a vote.” Rita McNeil, vice president of government affairs with the Chamber, said such language "would prevent the City of Cincinnati from spending any money on any passenger rail project unless Cincinnati voters first approve the project. And, as such, it would significantly hamper positive growth in Cincinnati." The proposed charter amendment would include, but is not limited to, light rail, streetcar and passenger train service. The Chamber's board voted to accept the recommendation as initially made by its Policy & Ballot Issues Committee, a bipartisan group of local business leaders. WVXU.comWVXU.com7/2/09 Story Cincinnatians for Progress opposes the issue. The group says it’s too broad since it would require voters to approve spending on any passenger rail project. It says that could jeopardize other rail proposals, such as the plan to connect Cincinnati with Chicago and Cleveland via high speed rail. Wednesday, July 1, 2009 Channel 5 (WLWT) Coverage of Ant-Progress Amendment on BallotChannel 5's coverage of the Anti-Progress Charter Amendment accurately portrayed this issue as one that affects ALL passenger rail, not just the Streetcar. No matter what COAST or the NAACP says, the actual language of the charter amendment states that "all passenger rail" is affected. Check it our for yourself. Tuesday, June 30, 2009 Anti-Progress Charter Amendment on BallotCincinnati Enquirer6/30/09 Story Hoping to blunt the opponents' news that they have crossed the signature threshold, groups seeking to defeat the charter amendment unveiled a long list of endorsements from elected officials and candidates who argue that the measure would slow down government and leave Cincinnati at a competitive disadvantage on major transit projects. Cincinnatians for Progress, which dismissively terms the ballot measure "the anti-progress charter amendment," said that Mayor Mark Mallory, eight of nine Cincinnati City Council members (all but Republican Chris Monzel) and 16 of 18 endorsed council candidates overall from the Democratic, Republican and Charter parties oppose the ballot question. "This charter amendment would threaten our economic development opportunities and likely cause our federal tax dollars to be invested in other communities," said Democratic council candidate Wendell Young of North Avondale. Delays in awaiting a public vote on transit issues, Young and others warn, could result in federal or state dollars available to Cincinnati being allocated to cities ready to immediately spend them. Streetcar supporters and others complain the charter amendment would establish a cumbersome, costly and time-consuming way to handle not only the streetcar project, but also other transit programs such as proposals to develop high-speed rail passenger service from Cincinnati to other Ohio and Midwestern cities. "You're building extra months and potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars for an election into the system," said Cincinnati City Councilman Chris Bortz, a leading streetcar proponent. Monday, June 29, 2009 Streetcar opposition threatens high-speed railCincinnati EnquirerJune 28, 2009 By Don Mooney, Jr, Treasurer, Cincinnatians for Progress Online Article Imagine this: Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland joins U.S. Dept. of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood later this year to announce Ohio will get $400 million in federal dollars for a Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati passenger rail line. Cincinnati will become a hub for the nation's new high-speed rail system. Cleveland and Columbus quickly begin acquiring land for rail lines, crossings, stations or parking lots. But in Cincinnati, the first call is to the Board of Elections, to schedule an election. PACs will be formed, fat cats will write checks, retired congressmen and radio talk show hosts will bloviate, and "community leaders" will herd themselves into contentious camps to feud over whether Cincinnati really wants in on this new high-speed rail thing. Cincinnati rejected those new-fangled railroads back in the 19th century. City poo-bahs thought the future belonged to the paddlewheel. Imagine the not-so-cogent arguments some will find to keep Cincinnati a passenger-rail-free zone. That scenario is what Cincinnati can expect if voters approve a charter amendment ginned up by two odd political bedfellows: Chris Smitherman, a former one-term councilman presiding over the NAACP, and Chris Finney, whose COAST organization never saw a public investment it liked. Their amendment requires an election before the city spends "any monies for right-of-way acquisition or construction of improvements for passenger rail transportation." Petitioners talk about stopping "the trolley," the streetcar from the riverfront to Clifton. But COAST admits that this is "about much more than a stupid streetcar." The amendment would roadblock the C-C-C link, paid for almost completely with our federal transportation dollars. It would also block other projects like the "eastern corridor" rail link to reduce auto traffic from our eastern suburbs, or a rail link between downtown and our airport, like those in other major cities such as Cleveland and Chicago. Cincinnati is competing with hundreds of other communities around the nation for federal transportation funds. An electoral roadblock will take Cincinnati off the funding list on the first cut. The folks behind this mischief argue that all they want is a little old-fashioned democracy. Cincinnati already has plenty of democracy. We elect nine council members every two years. We pay them to make decisions about how to spend city money on items like recreation centers, highways and rail. Cincinnati hardly needs one more roadblock to our city's progress. Don Mooney Jr. is a Cincinnati attorney and a longtime member of the Cincinnati Planning Commission, and serves as treasurer of Cincinnatians for Progress. Wednesday, June 3, 2009 New Cincinnatians for Progress aims to stop constant referendumsCincinnati Business Courier As far as Rob Richardson, Bobby Maly and Joe Sprengard are concerned, the streetcar ballot initiative isn’t about the city’s $200 million streetcar proposal, not at all. The ballot language would require a majority vote of the people before Cincinnati city government could proceed with any kind of passenger rail service or planning throughout the city. And that, they argue, could stop economic progress dead in its tracks. “We can’t limit the ability of the city to even entertain different forms of transportation,” said Richardson, a lawyer who worked locally on Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. “This is really about being a city that’s economically competitive.” Meet Cincinnatians for Progress, a new organization with broad support from the city’s political establishment. Tuesday, May 19, 2009 City plan: A streetcar named desire?City plan: A streetcar named desire?In addition to City Council, the streetcar plan’s supporters also include a new group called Cincinnatians for Progress that defines its mission as building support for proposals “that will move our community forward to make it a better, safer and more attractive place to work, play and live.” Tuesday, May 12, 2009 OverviewThis page will be updated with relevant news and views about Cincinnatians for Progress and the dangerous Anti-Progress Amendment.
|
Current News & Views
Archives
|
