Streetcar Update on Development

Just having talked to someone who has a little knowledge about this, the government's own projections for this streetcar project are that, at best, the streetcar will generate around $1 million per year in revenue with starting operating costs of $3 million per year. Cincinnati is also issuing $65 million in bonds to pay for this. Those bonds have to be paid back, with interest.

So the city that can't pay its pensions goes $65 million more in debt with an operating deficit of at least $2 million per year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XU 87

Just having talked to someone who has a little knowledge about this, the government's own projections for this streetcar project are that, at best, the streetcar will generate around $1 million per year in revenue with starting operating costs of $3 million per year. Cincinnati is also issuing $65 million in bonds to pay for this. Those bonds have to be paid back, with interest.

So the city that can't pay its pensions goes $65 million more in debt with an operating deficit of at least $2 million per year.

---

But that's already been established. They know the operating costs are going to be around $3 mil a year. They hope ridership fares, sponsorship, city revenues, and assessments/improvement districts will help put a dent in that operating cost before we have to help maintain it through taxes. Fountain square redevelopment was an extremely unpopular idea not too long ago. Should we not have done it? Here is the ultimate goal:

"Mostly by reducing the burden of parking on central city redevelopment. Plus, it will improve safety by putting more people on the sidewalks 18 hours a day. This, is turn, will improve street-level retail in the area served by the streetcar, making it more attractive to live there, a sort of virtuous cycle if you will. These are well-documented effects in other cities with modern streetcars." (Protransit.com)

The key is the development around the area to increase the tax base as Kahn pointed out. Public transportation by its definition is not profitable which is why no private company will touch it anymore. But there is a reason 46 other cities are planning and fighting for money to bring systems to their city. Its the economic development as evidenced by other cities with vintage and modern streetcars.

When the streetcar line opened in Portland, no one thought anyone would ride those either. Tri-Met, the light rail agency, wanted nothing to do with them. Now Portland's streetcar carries more riders per track-mile than Portland's light rail system does.

Here are just some of the reasons I like this plan.
1) It will serve more residents along the line than any other modern streetcar in the United States did on its opening day. (Cincinnati - 20,038, Seattle - 19,977, Portland - 15,849, Tacoma - 2,924) . Roughly Half(Approximately 48%) of the households in the Census tracts along the Cincinnati Streetcar line have zero cars. Forty-seven per cent of the passengers are expected to have an income of less than $20,000 per year. In addition to that, Cincinnati's 6 mile first phase will be the longest first phase of any modern streetcar system in the US
2) 92 acres of parking lots along the route prime for development
3) The gateway quarter is starting to take off. http://www.soapboxmedia.com/devnews/...rofliving.aspx
4) Connecting our two biggest employment areas
5) The attractions/places along or right near the line (UC, The Banks, Fountain Sqaure, Aronoff, etc)
6) The studies http://cincystreetcar.wordpress.com/...reetcar/(There is a new economic impact study that was just completed on Aug 23. The results are still impressive though not as high as the one in 2007 but still impressive).
7) There are 6 fortune 500 companies( Procter and Gamble, Macy’s, Kroger, Western and Southern, Fifth Third, and American Financial) along the route. That would be more than all the other modern streetcar systems in the US combined before (Seattle - 1 - Nordstrom, Portland - 0, Tacoma - 0)
8) The casino developers are watching it very closely and have offered their support behind it. http://www.wlwt.com/money/24664655/detail.html.

Casino chiefs are also watching plans for the city's streetcar very closely, hoping that the two projects will dovetail nicely.
"We really are going to set the bar for an urban casino. I mean, there will be nothing like it in the United States," Cullen said.
9) Massive amount of people attending events downtown.
11,903,450 is the number of visitors per year to attractions along the Cincinnati Streetcar.
(Sports and Activities- 2,959,563, Fountain Square Events- 2,000,000, Libraries and Museums- 1,625,576, Festivals- 1,335,541, Cincinnati Zoo- 1,218,892, Arts Events- 940,019, Findlay Market- 758,053, Duke Energy Convention Center- 650,000
University of Cincinnati Sports- 415,806)
These figures do not include visitors to US Bank Arena, the thousands of visitors to art galleries in Over-the-Rhine or people who visit the area solely for shopping, dining or nightlife. In addition to the 11.9 million visitors a year that currently visit attractions along the streetcar line, new attractions will be open by the time the Cincinnati Streetcar, including:

Casino- 6,000,000 (proj.)
Central Riverfront Park- 1,100,000 (proj.)
Current Visitors (As of 2009)- 11,903,450
Total projected 2013 Visitors- 19,003,450
10) Since 2007, $264.8 million of projects have been completed in the center city, $1,32 billion of construction is underway and an additional $909.9 million of development is planned. 827 residential units have been built near the line and an additional 425 units are under construction. Again like Kahn said, its will simply add to the momentum.


Sorry for the length, I do not expect it to see results like Portland, but I expect it to considerably help out

I just don't see the wisdom in spending $65 million on a project which your own own projections show will lose a minmum of $2 million per year. This is particularly true when the revenues, at best, are expected to be 33% of costs. Only government would operate under that business model.

After we get our perpetually money losing streetcars, I next look forward to the "high speed" rail that will take 6 hours to get from Cincinnati to Cleveland. And that doesn't include the time to get to and from the station.

It doesn't appear to matter if these projects make economic sense; we build with the hope that "if we build it they will ride". And similar to other public transportation (Amtrak for example) after it loses millions (or billions) per year, we'll just get the taxpayers (us) to pick up the tab.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

The streetcar will also be able to take advantage of the Transit Center under the Freedom Center.

---

The Transit Center is another example of government wasting taxpayer money. How many millions were spent on that project? And does it get any use?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XU 87

The Transit Center is another example of government wasting taxpayer money. How many millions were spent on that project? And does it get any use?

---

Actually I don't believe the streetcar will use the transit center at all.

However, urbancincy had a good article on the "hidden assets" of the transit center recently

http://www.urbancincy.com/2010/07/hi...ns-of-dollars/

Very interesting read

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

In 1980, Seattle and Cincinnati had about the same city population. In 2010, Seattle boasts approximately 617,000 residents to Cincinnati's 352,000. Seattle has a long running commitment to transit solutions, including street cars and light rail, and has enjoyed a huge increase in mass transit ridership during a time that Cincinnati is seeing decreases and higher fares to offset lost revenues.

---

Seattle and Cincinnati have vastly different geography, economics and demographics.

The White City

http://www.newgeography.com/files/whitecity1.png

Quote:

---

In fact, not one of these “progressive” cities even reaches the national average for African American percentage population in its core county. Perhaps not progressiveness but whiteness is the defining characteristic of the group.

The progressive paragon of Portland is the whitest on the list, with an African American population less than half the national average. It is America's ultimate White City. The contrast with other, supposedly less advanced cities is stark.

---

...

Quote:

---

This raises troubling questions about these cities. Why is it that progressivism in smaller metros is so often associated with low numbers of African Americans? Can you have a progressive city properly so-called with only a disproportionate handful of African Americans in it? In addition, why has no one called these cities on it?

[B]As the college educated flock to these progressive El Dorados, many factors are cited as reasons: transit systems, density, bike lanes, walkable communities, robust art and cultural scenes. But another way to look at it is simply as White Flight writ large.[/B] Why move to the suburbs of your stodgy Midwest city to escape African Americans and get criticized for it when you can move to Portland and actually be praised as progressive, urban and hip? Many of the policies of Portland are not that dissimilar from those of upscale suburbs in their effects. Urban growth boundaries and other mechanisms raise land prices and render housing less affordable exactly the same as large lot zoning and building codes that mandate brick and other expensive materials do. They both contribute to reducing housing affordability for historically disadvantaged communities. Just like the most exclusive suburbs.

---

Quote:

---

In fact, lack of ethnic diversity may have much to do with what allows these places to be “progressive”. It's easy to have Scandinavian policies if you have Scandinavian demographics.

---

If I was in Seattle or Portland I would jump on the streetcar. I heard the trains in Utah are super clean and fun to get around on. It doesn't surprise me.

Cincinnatians mostly don't like public transportation as it is. We are going to put the streetcar right through Over The Rhine, which is arguably our most violent crime ridden neighborhood. How many people are going to want to jump on the trolley?

How long before someone catches bed bugs on the trolley. They are already spraying the buses and some have been pulled out of service because of bed bugs. In Britian a study found that on average every train compartment contained 200 bed bugs. Sounds like paradise.

It is folly to think that what works in Seattle or Portland will work in Cincinnati. I rode the train when I was up in Cleve Land. I was the only person on the thing. What if we build it and they don't come?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wkrq59

Just curious. Why do we need a street car that provides limited stops, uphill routes that are at best a traffic clogger, ? Why do we need a street car line that will have to have its operating costs subsidised or if they aren't, it will cost too damned much to ride?.
If it were a mass transit system such as a subway or el that could move people to and from downtown to various communities, it would make sense. But a street car line which is nothing more than a Cinderella's carriage that will supposedly invigorate redevelopment of the Over the Rhine area and Clifton or Vine Street Hill areas??? It's ridiculous.
Hey, maybe we should save the money and give it to the poor!!! Now that's a novel idea that's older than the hills on which the line will be built.:(

---

The short answer is that downtown DOES NOT need this at all. It will lose money and after the the initial newness wears off, very few will ride it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _LH

The short answer is that downtown DOES NOT need this at all. It will lose money and after the the initial newness wears off, very few will ride it.

---

Ultimate proof that the Streetcar is a winner... LH is against it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snipe

Seattle and Cincinnati have vastly different geography, economics and demographics.

The White City

http://www.newgeography.com/files/whitecity1.png



...





If I was in Seattle or Portland I would jump on the streetcar. I heard the trains in Utah are super clean and fun to get around on. It doesn't surprise me.

Cincinnatians mostly don't like public transportation as it is. We are going to put the streetcar right through Over The Rhine, which is arguably our most violent crime ridden neighborhood. How many people are going to want to jump on the trolley?

How long before someone catches bed bugs on the trolley. They are already spraying the buses and some have been pulled out of service because of bed bugs. In Britian a study found that on average every train compartment contained 200 bed bugs. Sounds like paradise.

It is folly to think that what works in Seattle or Portland will work in Cincinnati. I rode the train when I was up in Cleve Land. I was the only person on the thing. What if we build it and they don't come?

---

Let me ask you one simple question. If you had the disposable income to buy a four-story building in OTR that was directly adjacent to a streetcar stop and that building was zoned residential/commercial and the building could be had for next to nothing and the building was in one of the worst sections of Vine.......would you do it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

Ultimate proof that the Streetcar is a winner... LH is against it.

---

I am concerned that streetcars will be a haven for steroid users.

It's a little crazy that the streetcar is receiving more negative attention than Paul Brown Stadium before it was built.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wkrq59

Just curious. Why do we need a street car that provides limited stops, uphill routes that are at best a traffic clogger, ?

---

The limited stops is a feature, not a drawback. I was talking to a friend about this who is passionate about public transit. There's a movement to reduce the number of bus stops to make rides quicker. If the streetcar ever reaches XU, it'll be important that there aren't too many stops so it takes an hour to get to downtown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XU 87

I am concerned that streetcars will be a haven for steroid users.

---

Crap. They are coming

http://creditplushealth.org/health%2...ell%20curl.jpg

http://www.ironmagazine.com/blog/wp-...e2-202x300.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sweet16

Let me ask you one simple question. If you had the disposable income to buy a four-story building in OTR that was directly adjacent to a streetcar stop and that building was zoned residential/commercial and the building could be had for next to nothing and the building was in one of the worst sections of Vine.......would you do it?

---

What building do you have in mind? Empty buildings in Cincinnati can wind up costing a lot of money. If it is boarded up and vacant who knows what problems it has with the roof or on the inside. You may be looking at a complete rehab, and that is assuming the beams are still good. It really isn't a simple question.

I hope that the streetcar is a success. I hope the Casino is a success. I hope the streetcar corridor connects the hotels and the Casino and gives UC a boost after all they have spent recently. UC is reeling and hurting for cash after an absolute development binge. I hope it all works out and comes together.

I voted for the Streetcar. I live downtown. I work downtown. I would like to have the streetcar thrive and expand. If I was betting my money though I would bet that it is going to lose a lot of money. That is not to say that some people won't benefit. Some people surely will when you spend all that money. Always keep in mind the economic concept of opportunity cost. The real cost of something is the something else that you could have had but had to forgo. Taxpayers are going to have to give up tens of millions of dollars worth of property to build this street car. That is money they could have spent. And it looks like they are going to be shelling out millions every year to maintain it. It is like an open ended money pit.

I would love for Cincinnati to be a model city, and have politicians from all over the country coming into Cincinnati a decade from now to tour Over the Rhine, view the transformation and try to learn how we did it. I am skeptical and cynical about the outcome. Given our track record with development I don't think that is out of line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

Ultimate proof that the Streetcar is a winner... LH is against it.

---

Quite the contrary actually but nice try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _LH

Quite the contrary actually but nice try.

---

Ohhh. Stinging comeback.

I finally figured out what LH stands for. LoooHooooser.

Just the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snipe

What building do you have in mind? Empty buildings in Cincinnati can wind up costing a lot of money. If it is boarded up and vacant who knows what problems it has with the roof or on the inside. You may be looking at a complete rehab, and that is assuming the beams are still good. It really isn't a simple question.

I hope that the streetcar is a success. I hope the Casino is a success. I hope the streetcar corridor connects the hotels and the Casino and gives UC a boost after all they have spent recently. UC is reeling and hurting for cash after an absolute development binge. I hope it all works out and comes together.

I voted for the Streetcar. I live downtown. I work downtown. I would like to have the streetcar thrive and expand. If I was betting my money though I would bet that it is going to lose a lot of money. That is not to say that some people won't benefit. Some people surely will when you spend all that money. Always keep in mind the economic concept of opportunity cost. The real cost of something is the something else that you could have had but had to forgo. Taxpayers are going to have to give up tens of millions of dollars worth of property to build this street car. That is money they could have spent. And it looks like they are going to be shelling out millions every year to maintain it. It is like an open ended money pit.

I would love for Cincinnati to be a model city, and have politicians from all over the country coming into Cincinnati a decade from now to tour Over the Rhine, view the transformation and try to learn how we did it. I am skeptical and cynical about the outcome. Given our track record with development I don't think that is out of line.

---

I think its good to be skeptical and cynical to some degree about the outcome. By itself, the streetcar just doesn't make sense. But when you take into account all the development and the momentum going on downtown at the moment, I think it becomes a worthwhile investment. In a way, the anti-streetcar people have really helped this project. Some of their concerns caused the supporters to go back and look at the drawing board to help perfect the route and plan.

I'm honestly surprised it has gotten to the construction phase. They could have given up after the first round of federal funding passed them by. COAST and the NAACP celebrated like Lindsay Lohan at the Jersey Shore house. Second round odds didn't look to great either. Cincy - as well as St Louis,Charlotte, Dallas, Ft Worth- had to beat out many other cities fighting for similar streetcar systems to get federal funding including Los Angeles and DC with only 5-6 being ultimately chosen. I really do think Cincy's streetcar line is in much better position to succeed than most being proposed around the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snipe

What building do you have in mind? Empty buildings in Cincinnati can wind up costing a lot of money. If it is boarded up and vacant who knows what problems it has with the roof or on the inside. You may be looking at a complete rehab, and that is assuming the beams are still good. It really isn't a simple question.

I hope that the streetcar is a success. I hope the Casino is a success. I hope the streetcar corridor connects the hotels and the Casino and gives UC a boost after all they have spent recently. UC is reeling and hurting for cash after an absolute development binge. I hope it all works out and comes together.

I voted for the Streetcar. I live downtown. I work downtown. I would like to have the streetcar thrive and expand. If I was betting my money though I would bet that it is going to lose a lot of money. That is not to say that some people won't benefit. Some people surely will when you spend all that money. Always keep in mind the economic concept of opportunity cost. The real cost of something is the something else that you could have had but had to forgo. Taxpayers are going to have to give up tens of millions of dollars worth of property to build this street car. That is money they could have spent. And it looks like they are going to be shelling out millions every year to maintain it. It is like an open ended money pit.

I would love for Cincinnati to be a model city, and have politicians from all over the country coming into Cincinnati a decade from now to tour Over the Rhine, view the transformation and try to learn how we did it. I am skeptical and cynical about the outcome. Given our track record with development I don't think that is out of line.

---

My question was meant to be more conceptual. In other words if you and me and the guy down the street are all willing to invest our private dollars in development that we wouldn't otherwise do (wouldn't do without some kind of stimulus, read streetcar), then I think you can consider the streetcar a success. Is there redevelopment momentum currently in OTR? YES. Is it moving fast enough for me to speculate and invest in property there? NO. Could the streetcar change my thinking? Absolutely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyTwoTimes37

I think its good to be skeptical and cynical to some degree about the outcome. By itself, the streetcar just doesn't make sense. But when you take into account all the development and the momentum going on downtown at the moment, I think it becomes a worthwhile investment. In a way, the anti-streetcar people have really helped this project. Some of their concerns caused the supporters to go back and look at the drawing board to help perfect the route and plan.

I'm honestly surprised it has gotten to the construction phase. They could have given up after the first round of federal funding passed them by. COAST and the NAACP celebrated like Lindsay Lohan at the Jersey Shore house. Second round odds didn't look to great either. Cincy - as well as St Louis,Charlotte, Dallas, Ft Worth- had to beat out many other cities fighting for similar streetcar systems to get federal funding including Los Angeles and DC with only 5-6 being ultimately chosen. I really do think Cincy's streetcar line is in much better position to succeed than most being proposed around the country.

---

I'm rooting for the streetcar but expect it to fail. Many supporters believe it will spur development but development is already taking place without it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _LH

I'm rooting for the streetcar but expect it to fail. Many supporters believe it will spur development but development is already taking place without it.

---

That's where you are wrong. Development is happening because of it. Even before it was a done deal people were angling in anticipation.

All the development that has happened in the past ten years has been led by different leaders within the city that are trying to turn things around and bring more people and services back into the urban core. The streetcar is a service that accelerates that all the more. And they've been trying to get some form of this accomplished for 20+ years.

Again, read the article and you can see all the wheeling and dealing that's happening just to gain a foothold around this service that's going to provide an anchor for more services to attract residents and visitors.

On a different note. Many of you don't seem to understand the concept of taxes. On one hand we have people griping about police,fire and other city people loosing their jobs, and on the other hand griping that the city has to lower the tax bar if they expect any business to want to bother to do business with it. People are complaining that we have an area that has been neglected and isn't worth an attempt to save it with public dollars, yet everyone acknowledges that even if they had the funds they'd be uncertain about investing in that area unless they knew it was going to turn around completely outside of their purchase.

Well, that's really going to get us somewhere, isn't it?

This is a big-assed city with services that cost a lot to maintain. Paying for that means taxes from businesses and residents. That simple. Sometimes to bring more businesses and residents on board we have to offer amenities that are attractive to people. It's obvious some investors are pleased as punch the streetcar is going to be there. Whole neighborhood groups were lobbying for which route it would take.

We haven't seen anybody raise a finger to improve these areas forever and you want to say the streetcar isn't a motivator?

The only two groups that have been facilitating any significant development have been UC (using tax dollars to help make way for other bank loans) and 3CDC, which although is privately funded, they are merely guiding mostly independent developers through the process by assisting them with loan applications and grant funding (taxes).

Building something worthwhile can't exist on private funding alone. Taxes help at all sorts of junctures and they always have. Otherwise, we'd all still be living on a farm, lighting a candle on our way to pissing in an outhouse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirthought

Building something worthwhile can't exist on private funding alone. Taxes help at all sorts of junctures and they always have. Otherwise, we'd all still be living on a farm, lighting a candle on our way to pissing in an outhouse.

---

My house was built without government funding, as is every house in my neighborhood. In fact, I would bet that 99% of homes are built without government funding. I suspect most of downtown, with the exception of some government buildings, were built without government funding. I wonder how Edison invented the light bulb without government asistance or Ford started up an auto company without the government. The same goes for Gates, or Carnegie, or Vanderbilt, or Rockefeller, or Jobs, or Walton or ........

And where does government get its money? If you say mostly from people or companies in the private sector, you may move to the front of the class. So we take money out of the private sector, and use most of it to either redistribute income or spend it on pet projects which benefit a few at the cost of many.

Government is usually a hindrance to economic advancement, not a helper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XU 87

My house was built without government funding, as is every house in my neighborhood. In fact, I would bet that 99% of homes are built without government funding. I suspect most of downtown, with the exception of some government buildings, were built without government funding. I wonder how Edison invented the light bulb without government asistance or Ford started up an auto company without the government. The same goes for Gates, or Carnegie, or Vanderbilt, or Rockefeller, or Jobs, or Walton or ........

And where does government get its money? If you say mostly from people or companies in the private sector, you may move to the front of the class. So we take money out of the private sector, and use most of it to either redistribute income or spend it on pet projects which benefit a few at the cost of many.

Government is usually a hindrance to economic advancement, not a helper.

---

The people who built your home or sold you the land; the people who built the buildings downtown; the scientists who invent things... are almost 100% getting government assistance along the way. Whether that is via a grant, tax break incentive, or special loans. If it doesn't happen directly with them it's happening with third parties they buy materials from or other innovators they are gaining knowledge from.

And if that isn't the case, the roads they drive their materials on, the schools their employees learn in, the utilities that connect to public water, gas, etc, and the (relative) protection of their community from fire or crime is handled by government. It's all necessary to getting the job done.

You're really stretching things to support your argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XU 87

You're really stretching things to support your argument.

---

Says the guy who argues that the streetcar is a bad idea by pointing out that his residence in the suburbs was built without government money :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=XU 87;212064]"My house was built without government funding, as is every house in my neighborhood."

Guessing there are no Fannie or Freddie backed mortgages in your neighborhood, plus no FHA or VA. Fact is, no mortgages get done without adhering to their guidelines so they can be charged back or sold to Freddie and Fannie before your lender goes belly up.

[QUOTE=bobbiemcgee;212176]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XU 87

"My house was built without government funding, as is every house in my neighborhood."

Guessing there are no Fannie or Freddie backed mortgages in your neighborhood, plus no FHA or VA. Fact is, no mortgages get done without adhering to their guidelines so they can be charged back or sold to Freddie and Fannie before your lender goes belly up.

---

Freddie and Fannie went bankrupt and only still operating because the taxpayers (you and I for example) have contributed hundreds of billions of dollars to keep them afloat.

Yet another example of government waste and fraud. And another example of government ignoring market principles and then when their decisions fail, they just look to you and me to pay the tab. Life is good when you can spend other people's money.

But I repeat- my house was built without government funding. Somehow, someway, I managed to buy and live in a home without government assistance. My neighbors have done the same. Shocking, I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

Says the guy who argues that the streetcar is a bad idea by pointing out that his residence in the suburbs was built without government money :rolleyes:

---

No, I was responding to the claim that we would be living in grass huts and still lighting candles if it weren't for government "investments" and spending programs.

The government is essentially a general manager. It produces nothing. It only exists by taking a piece of the action. It should never be in debt.

I agree that Freddie and Fannie are a huge problem and should be done away with. Those supporting this argument should know that this would cause extreme pain in the housing market for many years as prices decline dramatically until buyers can make a 20% down payment. It is possible that PMI could still work or that mortgages could be sold to investors without the 20% down but after the fraud of only a few years ago investors would likely demand more safety and expect a large down payment.

Most business expansion is now down with government aid and has been done that way for a number of years. Cities want a new plant or a new office building and they often add capital to the project to get companies to choose their city as a place to build/expand. Other tax incentives are also frequently used. Personally I think this should be illegal as all cities are forced to participate if they want growth. Business tax rates should be taken to 0 in the US to encourage growth but to ensure companies also hire here there might need to be taxes on goods produced over seas by american companies. The rate shouldn't be high enough to make the company uncompetitive but should be enough to bring revenue back home and lower the tax burden on US citizens.

The government must shrink but a large portion of this shrinking must be military spending. Some programs need eliminated but mainly programs need to be run more efficiently and better meet their objectives without the fraud and other obuse. Social Security needs to be phased out and personal responsibility needs to be the focus. At the same time national healthcare must be a priority. Health problems shouldn't prevent someone from starting a business and a low IQ shouldn't prevent someone from having a chance at a healthy life. The Federal government should stay out of roads but should focus on rail - subways, passenger trains, etc. The government should also focus on power grids, renewable energy and other projects that will make the US competitive for decades and centuries to come.

Unemployment benefits have saved the economy from complete collapse but this too must be done away with. This again is to push personal responsibility. People can't plan for cancer and other expensive illnesses when working a job that doesn't offer good health insurance but they can plan for losing a job for a year. If people don't plan ahead then they will suffer but it is not the government's job to save people from themselves but to give them an opportunity to succeed (crime fighting, healthcare, public transit, national defense).

For the record incomes grow faster under Democratic presidents for all income brackets then under Republican presidents (especially middle class and below). The stock market also grows faster under Democratic presidents then under Republicans. The most likely reason for this is that Democrats inact policies that help the middle and lower economic classes participate in the economy (minimum wages, targeted tax credits/incentives, housing programs, etc). If Republicans would recognize this benefit then the country could probably achieve some of the efficiencies I am looking for. If they work with the democrats to close harmful loopholes and encourage savings within the programs then we can start to repair the debt problems. It is probably too late for this fix but it wouldn't hurt to try. Military budget will have to be cut in half.

Yes, Freddie and Fannie are essentially bk, but sorry virtually no mortgage lending gets done without them, FHA and VA. There are no financial institutions who want to hold a bunch of mortgages nowadays without guarantees. Sorry, but you can't get a decent price for your home when nobody can get financed. Without the govt backing of your neighborhood's mortgages (yes, I am assuming some are guaranteed by the above which would be well within the norm), you'd need 50-60% down and then try to find a bank with depositor's funds that is willing to make a loan. Then you have a situation where a loan may be funded through the bank's borrowings thru the fed funds windows, i.e. fed funds

Guess your hood is different but not supported by the facts:.

"As of 2008, Fannie Mae and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) owned or guaranteed about half or 56.8% of the U.S.'s $12 trillion mortgage market."

" In fact, I would bet that 99% of homes are built without government funding. "

12 Trillion in govt backed mortgages would not support your assumption. After WWII, nearly every single GI came home and got a VA mortgage. Builders don't build without a guarantee of funding @ the end. When the bank approves your loan, they do so by adhering to fed guidelines, i.e. they can submit your package to the feds (govt guaranntee) and get a check after it closes. Do you think a bank nowadays wants a bunch of 4% 30-40 yr. mortgages on their books? Hell no. Banks don't lend much residential mortgage money, if any, anymore without the Govt backing them up.

Freddie and Fannie are in reality the US Treasury. Just one pen stroke away. See GM, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirthought

Building something worthwhile can't exist on private funding alone. Taxes help at all sorts of junctures and they always have. Otherwise, we'd all still be living on a farm, lighting a candle on our way to pissing in an outhouse.

---

That is hilarious.

How did we even have farms, candles or outhouses without the government?

Nobody lived in a house until Fannie and Freddy came along? Was the house invented by the United States Government?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbiemcgee

Yes, Freddie and Fannie are essentially bk, but sorry virtually no mortgage lending gets done without them, FHA and VA. There are no financial institutions who want to hold a bunch of mortgages nowadays without guarantees. Sorry, but you can't get a decent price for your home when nobody can get financed. Without the govt backing of your neighborhood's mortgages (yes, I am assuming some are guaranteed by the above which would be well within the norm), you'd need 50-60% down and then try to find a bank with depositor's funds that is willing to make a loan. Then you have a situation where a loan may be funded through the bank's borrowings thru the fed funds windows, i.e. fed funds

Guess your hood is different but not supported by the facts:.

"As of 2008, Fannie Mae and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) owned or guaranteed about half or 56.8% of the U.S.'s $12 trillion mortgage market."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbiemcgee

" In fact, I would bet that 99% of homes are built without government funding. "

12 Trillion in govt backed mortgages would not support your assumption. After WWII, nearly every single GI came home and got a VA mortgage. Builders don't build without a guarantee of funding @ the end. When the bank approves your loan, they do so by adhering to fed guidelines, i.e. they can submit your package to the feds (govt guaranntee) and get a check after it closes. Do you think a bank nowadays wants a bunch of 4% 30-40 yr. mortgages on their books? Hell no. Banks don't lend much residential mortgage money, if any, anymore without the Govt backing them up.

Freddie and Fannie are in reality the US Treasury. Just one pen stroke away. See GM, etc.

---

Homes and Mortgages existed before Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They have been built after their creation as well. We would still have homes if the government did not interfere with the housing market. If Fannie and Freddie go away, people will continue to live in homes. Mud huts are not in our future.

The United States Congress does subsidize the home ownership and mortgage industries. It is debatable if this has been a good thing. Without government involvement banks would want high downpayment (say 20% or more), higher interest rates, interest rates that are variable to market conditions, shorter terms, and prepayment penalties.

I can lock in on a 30 year loan at around 4% so right now. What bank in their right mind would want to agree with that on their own accord? If rates fall I can prepay and get out of the deal at no cost, and if rates rise the bank is screwed. That type of system doesn't work without massive government involvement, and it is precisely government involvement in the mortgage industry that has created the system. The mortgage meltdown can also be layed at the feet of government for the same reasons. We wouldn't have anything like this system without the feds.

But just because the government creates perverse incentives though taxation and subsidy doesn't mean that government is responsible for all the human achievement. I take advantage of long-term, low-interest loans like anyone else. I am sure 87 has benefitted from the program as well. You would be a fool not too, and your tax dollars are paying for it anyway. The government doesn't create those benefits out of nothing, they create benefits for some by forcibly taking away the property of others. Their is no other way around it.

I would still live in a house without the government intervention, and 87 would too. Forgive us if we don't bow down or get on our knees to pay homage to the great big government. I can't believe some of what I read these days.

And one of the reasons that business have left cities are because of the high cost tax/regulatory environment. When business leaves the tax base shrinks and the existing people have to pay even more for ever expanding government. Look at the growth of Mason and West Chester or parts of the Northern Kentucky business corridor. Did all of those developments arise because of those little local governments? That is silly.

Most projects get done in Cities because they realize that they have high tax/regulatory environments and any sane person wouldn't invest in them unless they get a tax break or a subsidy. It also allow the local pols and city officials to extract gratituties because you can't get a deal done without their blessing. Try getting a permit if you piss off the wrong people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snipe

That is hilarious.

How did we even have farms, candles or outhouses without the government?

Nobody lived in a house until Fannie and Freddy came along? Was the house invented by the United States Government?

---

I was going down the same thought process as you. Income taxes at the federal level weren't enacted as we know them today until the very early 20th Century. Washington, D.C. as late as the days leading up to WWII was back water, even with Roosevelt's enactment of the New Deal.

People used to take care of their own needs; they used to manage their affairs in a way where they were more self-sustaining, looking to solve their problems on their own before going to outside sources for help.

Had liberals made up 100% of the population of the Mayflower:

1. The extent of the United States would have maybe reached to Western Massachusetts (it would have been too much work and risk and self-sacrifice to push farther out, and they would have been too concerned about Springfield becoming too warm from global warming);

2. Great Indian nations would still comprise the balance of U.S. territory, except for Alaska and Hawaii, which would never have made it into the US anyway;

3. The citizens of 1 and 2 would share pipe smoking; and

4. They would conduct trade through barter economies in order to "take care of one another."

John Adams, who was very much self-made, would crap himself if he came back today. I believe Jefferson would even shake his head if he were to come back.

Anyone who doesn't believe any of that should check out the case of David Martin, who has fought since 2004 to open up the Queensgate Terminal container shipping operation.

It was a 26 Million Dollar Development that got approval from the State of Ohio and Hamilton County Commissioners. A judge has since said that the city could be on the hook to the tune of millions of dollars for violating his property rights. He has been tied up in court since 2004, and all he wants to do is invest 24 million into a business in our city.

Meanwhile, the Port Authority of Cincinnati just gave a terminal project the go-ahead for one of his competators. Nobody was even talking container terminal until he came along, and now somebody else is using his plans and developing his project.

Quote:

---

The Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority is partnering with Cincinnati Bulk Terminals LLC to develop a $19.7 million shipping terminal on the Ohio riverfront.

The multimodal port facility would accommodate cargo shipments by rail, barge and truck – with two specialized cranes for loading cargo containers, according to a six-page proposal submitted to the Ohio Department of Development in April.

The proposal comes five months after Cincinnati City Council rejected a similar proposal by Jeffersonville, Ohio, entrepreneur David Martin, who now accuses the Port Authority of stealing his plan.

“They’re taking our models. Our electric gantry cranes, our track layout are all in that application,” said Martin. “It’s really hard to believe.”

...

But Martin, the man behind Queensgate Terminals is angered by the new Port Authority plan, claiming it’s a ripoff of his idea, which the city prevented him from building.

Martin’s plan called for immediate construction of container-on-barge facilities. The CBT and Port Authority proposal calls for such development over time. The Hatfields argue its existing cranes can handle current demand for container shipments. If demand grows, it would add higher-capacity cranes to meet the demand.

“I haven’t been treated fairly since we came down to Cincinnati eight years ago,” said Martin, who acquired an option to buy land west of CBT’s site in 2004. He’s been battling neighborhood groups, city council and city lawyers ever since.

“This was a private piece of property,” said Martin. “It was zoned properly and the city took it away. Now they want to do my project. It’s very upsetting.”

Martin finds it particularly upsetting that CBT is a partner because its owners called his cargo-container facility a pipe dream when they lobbied city council to vote against Queensgate Terminals last November.

---

It is quite a story.

And if you read the link you can see all the public goodies that go into the funding for the terminal his competitor will be building with his plans...$5 million from the Ohio Logistics and Distribution Stimulus program, 3 million in brownfield redevelopment grants, and CBT & The Port Authority (TAXPAYERS!) would provide another 6.7 million. Those dollars add up.

The guy came here 8 years ago with an idea and some capital. He brought some property and tried to give it a go. They shut him down, stole his idea and give millions of taxpayer dollars away to his competators.

And when the new terminal is built I will have to listen to more leftist big-government psycho-babble about how nothing good would ever come about without government funding...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snipe

parts of the Northern Kentucky business corridor. Did all of those developments arise because of those little local governments? .

---

What is the Northern Kentucky business corridor?

Snipe is 100% correct. Lets not kid ourselves. Not many people from Indianapolis, Chicago, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, etc, are going to say, "Look, Cincinnati has a new streetcar....lets move there".

I do think that the streetcar will help revitalize OTR and draw people from Hyde Park, Oakly, the suburbs, etc.

So Cincy is spending a lot of cash to move people from the metro area to OTR and downtown. It's not an economic net benefit. Indeed, government is not creating wealth. But I'm okay with that. I think it's important for a city to have a strong downtown area.

(lots of young people do seem to move to Portland because they love public transport....but the streetcar won't get us close to being there, maybe it is a step in the right direction)

"Homes and Mortgages existed before Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They have been built after their creation as well. We would still have homes if the government did not interfere with the housing market."

Sure, just 12 Trillion dollars less of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbiemcgee

"Homes and Mortgages existed before Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They have been built after their creation as well. We would still have homes if the government did not interfere with the housing market."

Sure, just 12 Trillion dollars less of them.

---

Fannie came first. It was government owned. Freddie came along to support mortgages primarily originated by thrifts, initially, if I recall correctly.

Fannie was government-owned upon its inception, but both Fannie and Freddie became Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) along the way - both issued common stock in the market, but retained an "implicit" federal guaranty so as to keep their funding costs at the most competitive levels available in the marketplace.

Both GSEs served and still serve a valuable purpose: to create liquidity in the residential mortgage marketplace. bobbiemcgee has it right. They could not function to the degree of effectiveness that they've functioned at without the implicit guaranty. Otherwise, their respective charters are what got them into trouble: limited scope of available powers and market options coupled with the pressure to increase quarter-to-quarter earnings for the holders of their shares of stock eventually moved them into riskier ventures, in addition to Bill Clinton making them go there.

I simply believe government can and should play a role in some key aspects of our lives - protecting us, building infrastructure, providing other services that only a government can provide due to scale, even both these GSEs, given their contributions to home ownership - but I still believe people should not be conditioned to depend on the federal government to support their ability to exist.