Streetcar Update on Development

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wkrq59

As far as laying off the police officers, that is an operating expense.

[COLOR="Blue"][B]KK, tell that to a young, enthusiastic police officer just hired or with little seniority who has just been laid off and has no idea when, or even if he'll get his job back.

---

Q, the math is really quite simple, emotional pleas aside. The City is $50 million in the hole in its General Fund. The General Fund is comprised of something like 70-80% police and fire expenditures (ie. payroll, ie. police and fire jobs). There is no more fat left to cut outside of police and fire, so we don't have any other options but to cut police and fire jobs. Or we could raise taxes by $50 million, yeah I'm sure that would be popular with the Council members and the public. We actually have a higher police officer ratio per capita than any other city in the United States, so the policy solution is really pretty cut and dry.

The streetcar will have a limited impact on the City's General Fund deficit. TIF, one-time federal & state grants, and Capital funds are the streetcar construction sources, and none of these are dollars that we would want to "return to taxpayers". Those funds are designated for economic development investment.

And I'm sorry, but the Bengals stadium debacle and the Freedom Center have absolutely zero relevance to this discussion that I can see, unless there is something I'm missing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

Moreover, a vast majority of the capital expenditures in a typical budget year benefit far fewer than a public transportation system does. Here are some examples from the 09-10 budget:

~$8,000,000 for renovations to the Ohio Veterans Home in Sandusy, Ohio. This is a 427 bed nursing home.
~$21,000,000 for renovations at Miami University, including $6.5 million on Laws Hall alone. The entire school is less than 16,000 students.

---

And therein lies part of my argument. If we get our streetcars, Miami gets their building, and Kentucky gets their new courthouse, and Missouri gets their new bike trail, and New York gets their new ...... And it goes on and on until one day we realize that our federal government is $13 trillion in debt and our city leaders are trying to figure ot how to pay for the upside down pension plan.

Yet we keep spending more and more taxpayer money on relatively worthless projects which benefit a select few people. It's wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wkrq59

As far as laying off the police officers, that is an operating expense.

[COLOR="Blue"][B]KK, tell that to a young, enthusiastic police officer just hired or with little seniority who has just been laid off and has no idea when, or even if he'll get his job back. :

---

I would have no problem facing that young, enthusiastic officer and explaining that the reason he's being laid off is a declining tax base, and that the best hope for building the police force back up is to attract new tax paying businesses and residents, not to raid the capital fund to delay the inevitable.

Why aren't you outraged at the $10 million dollars of capital funding that went to rehab the Ohio Veterans Home during a time they were laying off police officers? What about the $14 million that went to the Central State Student activity center? Those are your tax dollars. Central State has 2,171 students. Why is the outrage only aimed at the dollars that are actually being spent in our city to develop our city to the benefit of all of the city residents?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XU 87

And therein lies my argument. If we get our streetcars, Miami gets their building, and Kentucky gets their new courthouse, and Missouri gets their new bike trail, and New York gets their new ...... And it goes on and on until one day we realize that our federal government is $13 trillion in debt and our city leaders are trying to figure ot how to pay for the upside down pension plan.

Yet we keep spending more and more taxpayer money on relatively worthless projects which benefit a select few people. It's wrong.

---

That is an entirely different argument, one which we are in much closer agreement on. However, I don't want Cincinnati to stand on principle and refuse to take advantage of the dollars that are being spent, because they're being spent one way or another.

Again, if you want to incentivize new business why not first reduce the tax and regulatory burden rather than shell out millions which must be borrowed for an uncertain infrastructure project? They have such a mixed record.

But if you still insist on proceeding and they are true to their name, you should start selling the Most Valuable Kids for funding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

That is an entirely different argument, one which we are in much closer agreement on. However, I don't want Cincinnati to stand on principle and refuse to take advantage of the dollars that are being spent, because they're being spent one way or another.

---

So how or when does it stop? How can one complain about Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" when that person wants federal money for a trollley? The attitude now is, "I know our government is going to spend taxpayer money like crazy so I at least want my share."

We can't keep up this mindless spending on local pet projects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by American X

Again, if you want to incentivize new business why not first reduce the tax and regulatory burden rather than shell out millions which must be borrowed for an uncertain infrastructure project? They have such a mixed record.

But if you still insist on proceeding and they are true to their name, you should start selling the Most Valuable Kids for funding.

---

There's only so much the city has control over when it comes to incenting new business to come to the city, and one of the biggest complaints from business is that Cincinnati doesn't have the young professional residential base to hire from. Would you locate your business in an area that doesn't have the right resources, incentives or not?

To be competitive, one of the things the city needs is more young professionals. In today's environment, more young professionals are seeking an urban lifestyle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XU 87

So how or when does it stop? How can one complain about Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" when that person wants federal money for a trollley? The attitude now is, "I know our government is going to spend taxpayer money like crazy so I at least want my share."

We can't keep up this mindless spending on local pet projects.

---

You shut off the flow at the dam. You don't stand down river with your hand in the water.

Edit: I also disagree that the expenditure in this case is "mindless", but we've already covered that before.

I've also noticed that opponents of the streetcar like to refer to it by other names. Be it "choo-choo" , "traffic clogger", "Cinderella carriage" or "trolley", it's a pretty lame tactic to attempt to paint the proposal as something other than what it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

There's only so much the city has control over when it comes to incenting new business to come to the city, and one of the biggest complaints from business is that Cincinnati doesn't have the young professional residential base to hire from. Would you locate your business in an area that doesn't have the right resources, incentives or not?

To be competitive, one of the things the city needs is more young professionals. In today's environment, more young professionals are seeking an urban lifestyle.

---

Fine, but you can do more than one thing (not an either-or proposition). It seems more sensible to first take measures which do not require the large outlay of funds the city does not have. If you see a significant uptick, then proceed with the streetcar. It seems the streetcar is based more on hopeful wishes than viability.

The city only has so much control? Um, the city controls the zoning, licensing, taxation, etc...