On one side of the debate stands the forces of the entrenched status quo; demanding that the historical order and hierarchy be left undisturbed, that "we elect leaders to make these decisions..."
Opposing the status quo are those who believe in the sanctity of the rights of the people; and that foremost among them are the rights of petition and referendum, in essence, the right of the people to speak their will directly.
The great irony of the debate is that Cincinnati, once a great bastion of progressive thought - the home of the Charter form of government - has been in recent years portrayed as anti-progressive, ultra-status quo.
And yet here we stand today with a judicial ruling that states unambiguously that indeed, the progressive spirit of Cincinnati's Charter survives. And that the Charter means what it says. "The initiative and referendum powers are reserved to the people on all questions which council is authorized to control by legislative action..." means exactly that. Whatever council can do legislatively, the people of Cincinnati can do or undo on their own, through the powers of initiative and referendum.
Somehow this is too much progressivism for some.
We note that Mallory didn't shed any crocodile tears in 2011 as Union firefighters and cops used those very rights to overturn Senate Bill 5.
Perhaps Mallory and Qualls and their supporters just forget the importance of being progressive.
Or, perhaps the goose's sauce doesn't taste as sweet on the gander?