Trolleyites Too Snooty for Buses

Downtown, Over-the-Rhine, and Uptown already have far better transit service than Cincinnati's other neighborhoods. Buses run every two minutes along Vine and Walnut streets for most of the day. So why would these neighborhoods possibly need yet another transit system that duplicates what we already have?

Chris Bortz spilled the real reason to reporter Barry Horstman in this Enquirer Article:

Bortz added that the streetcars are "envisioned to attract a different kind of rider" - so-called "choice riders" who use public transit more as a lifestyle choice than because of economic or logistical necessity. "To a large extent, I don't think the streetcars and buses would draw from the same passenger pool."

That's a nice way of putting it. Basically that code language means the streetcar will allow well-heeled professionals in these gentrified areas to elude their bus-bound inferiors. Think of it as "separate but equal" transit.

Here it is again in plain english:

"In a city where it's hard as hell to get reliable cab service and bootlegs can be found at any Kroger in the city - how does this help inner city families without cars get to better jobs in the suburbs? Or home with their groceries? Or to pick up kids from daycare or attend an evening school or church program?

It doesn't. The streetcar doesn't address ANY real issues with transportation that people need solved. That's why so many folks, particularly black folks are against it. To the working poor the streetcar IS seen as amusement or novelty item because it has no earthly use for them. Worse, it's also seen as a way for white people to avoid them altogether on "their" streetcar while the backwards and lackluster Metro system will never be improved or updated for the working poor.

These perceptions aren't going to go away - partly because they're true and partly because there is no way to make working poor folks see that they won't be stuck with the bill for something they won't use."
-ThatDeborahGirl comment on Urbanophile Blog

If we're going to spend public money on public transit, then it should benefit the public, not just a favored few. The best way to ensure this is to subject it to a public vote. Enact the streetcar charter amendment.

Precedent for Cincinnati's Anti-Boondoggle Law

UrbanCincy is falsely reporting that Cincinnati would be unique in having an anti-boondoggle law aimed at passenger rail. They claim the "unprecedented" nature of this measure gives them the right to trample on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by radically changing the petition language from what was signed by over 11,500 citizens. But it's far from unprecedented.

Section 451.071 of the Texas Transportation Code applies to principal cities having less than 750,000 population, which is essentially the capitol city of Austin. It outlines the referendum procedure for fixed rail transit systems. And it subjects the city's authority to the will of the voters:

"If less than a majority of the votes cast are in favor of the proposition, the authority may not expend funds of the authority to purchase, acquire, construct, operate, or maintain any form of a fixed rail transit system unless the system is approved by a majority of the votes cast at a referendum held by the authority for that purpose."

Does that sound familiar? It's very similar to Cincinnati's anti-boondoggle proposal:

"The City, and its various Boards and Commissions, may not spend 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."

Clearly, voting on passenger rail transportation isn't unusual or "unprecedented." So don't let "progressers" steal your right to vote, or make a mockery of the U.S. Constitution.

The citizens of Cincinnati are legitimately petitioning their government. An amendment has been proposed, and signed as required. Now it's time to vote on that amendment; not some "progresser's" bastardization of the amendment, but the amendment as written and petitioned.

Are You Smarter Than a "Progresser"?

Photo credit: Kaye Mastin Mallory / English-Zone.ComIn one of the most bizarre political stunts of this election season, "Progress" supporters claimed that the anti-boondoggle charter amendment petition was somehow defective because three of the 11,500 signatories failed to understand it, but signed it anyway.

One of those invoking the stupidity defense was Minette Cooper, City Council Member from 1995-2003. While on council, she chaired the Finance Committee, The Health, Children and Social Service Committee, and the Economic Development Committee, and served as Vice Mayor from 1997-2001.

Another Progresser claiming cluelessness was Barbara Howard, who is a lawyer and President of the Ohio State Bar Association. She is also past president of the Cincinnati Bar Association, serves on the Board of the Cincinnati Bar Foundation as well as the Volunteer Lawyers for the Poor. She has served in the American Bar Association House of Delegates since 1986, and is currently serving as a member of the Board of Editors of the ABA Journal.

Enquirer Politics Extra blogger Barry Horstman captured the essence of the failed stunt:

"Cooper and the two other regretful petition signers asked the elections board to rescind their signatures, but were told there is no mechanism for doing so. Moreover, proponents gathered more than twice the 6,150 signatures of registered voters needed, so the potential loss of a few names is both politically and statistically insignificant.

The few sentences on the petitions clearly stated that the measure would require public approval of expenditures “for right-of-way acquisition or construction of improvements” for streetcars and other passenger rail systems. So perhaps a better question for those at the press conference is whether they are in the habit of signing things without reading them.

Cooper at least earned some points for political candor in admitting that what the event was really about was publicity."

Over at the CincyStreetcar Blog, trolley supporters touted the 29th grade reading level of the petition language to reinforce the implication that voting on passenger rail transportation is somehow beyond the intelligence of the average citizen.

Interestingly, the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution has nearly the same reading level. Click below and see if you find it too overwhelming.

Cincinnatians for Progress will stoop to any depth to prevent you from voting on passenger rail transportation. They think you're too stupid, and don't trust you to get it right. Tell them how you feel about that this November by passing the pro-vote charter amendment.