Friday, August 7, 2009

Fox19: Streetcars are Optional

So take a stand for a safer neighborhood. Tell City Council to cancel the streetcar, not cops. Vote for the anti-streetcar charter amendment.


  1. Newsflash: "Canceling" the Streetcar project will not save $1 of revenue. If you stopped any progress on the streetcar project, you would still be faced with the same problems that we are today: Where do you make up the ~$20M shortfall in the budget.

    Again, you guys are only proficient at making up falsehoods. There's a good reason we rarely vote for your endorsed candidates. This line of thinking will only remove future options from the table, without solving any problem that we're facing right now.

    Here's an idea: actually come up with a solution to a problem, COAST.

  2. "Newsflash: "Canceling" the Streetcar project will not save $1 of revenue."
    - Newsflash - It will save millions of dollars in operating losses that will have to come from the City's already stressed General Fund

    "There's a good reason we rarely vote for your endorsed candidates."

    - I'm sure COAST is worried that you won't vote for their endorsed candidates. I bet Peter Stautberg, Ron Maag, Greg Haartmenn, Patti Clancy, Rob Goering, Maureen O'Connor, Evelyn Stratton, and Pat DeWine all (all winning COAST 2008 endorsed candidates) all shivered on election day knowing they had lost the Coleman vote.

  3. From the Cincinnati Enquirer's latest editorial:

    "In reality, the streetcar project would use dedicated capital dollars that cannot be used in the general fund for regular city programs"

    Even if the streetcar proposal fails, these cops would still be laid off and the money for the streetcar could NOT be used to rehire them or any more additional police officers.

    Quite from:

  4. CAAST -
    There are projections of a $2 million operating loss each year. Won't that come from the general fund? Aern't cops paid from that same general fund?

  5. Bris -

    There are also projections of millions of dollars of additional income coming into the city and county as a result of the project. Won't that help pay for more cops?

    And don't tell me you "don't trust the studies" unless you can back up your reasoning with facts.

  6. Ancilla -

    If we had money to spare then sure, go ahead and move forward based on projections of additional revenues. But we're in a budget crisis as it is. We can't make budget decisions based on illusory revenue projections.

    Please keep in mind that these same government bureuacrats had studies showing how the Stadiums were going to raise revenues and pay for themselves early. What is happening now? The Stadium Fund goes into the red next year as government projections of tax receipts fell well short. The County will have to pay the stadium debt off with general fund money, which will require heavy and drastic cuts to other services.

    To say that can't happen again just because some study says it won't is silly. Government projects almost always come in late, overbudget, and lacking in projected revenues.

  7. The stadium deal was a county affair, not a city one. There has been complete turnover in the county commission, and the only person on city council now who was on council during the stadium ordeal was Roxanne Qualls (she was mayor).

    Since when was streetcar financing based on increased future revenues? The stadium sales tax was based on a 3% annual improvement in sales tax revenues to pay back bonds -- the TIF financing doesn't work the same way, and even if there was no increase in revenues, $30 million in new debt is well within the city's ability to pay off with its existing capital budget. And did the stadium deal attract $50+ million in federal funding? No, and it's well-known that we're a lock for that federal money.

  8. You're right that the Stadium deal was a County affair. I pretty clearly stated that in my post. I'm simply pointing to some similiarities in the two situations.

    Don't kid yourself that this current group of elected officials is any more competant than the group that decided the Stadium deal. There's no reason to believe that this Council and Mayor (a bar owner, a former council aide, a former teacher, an aerospace engineer, a former cop,a college professor, three lawyers, and a lifelong politician) know any more about economic development than any other group.

    "Since when was streetcar financing based on increased future revenues?"
    - It's not. But you are basing the ability to pay for its operating losses on future tax revenues that would supposedly come from development that hasn't occured yet, and may not occur. (See Ancilla's prior post)

    It's not a stretch to draw a parallel between the two deals.

    What do a bar owner, a former council aide, a former teacher, an aerospace engineer, a former cop,a college professor, three lawyers, and a lifelong politician.


We follow the "living room" rule. Exhibit the same courtesy you would show guests in your home.