Streetcar Update on Development

He's spent about $500,000 renovating 40 units in the buildings, now available for either market-rate or subsidized tenants. He has at least twice that left to go.

Subsidized tenants? Huge mistake....HUGE. You want yuppies as your tenants. Yuppies want to live in a neighborhood with trendy bars and restaurants, within walking distance of places like Music Hall, and a short streetcar ride away from the riverfront. They don't want section 8 neighbors. That is completely counter to what you're trying to accomplish. You've invested alot of money hoping the neighborhood will "turn".......you want to drive the undesireable element someplace else.

I still don't get it...are there really enough people living downtown to make this thing work? What destinations exist in OTR right now?

If I'm downtown, there's nothing I can't get to without my two legs. This isn't Atlanta or NYC. I do not go more than 3-4 blocks on any given day when I'm at work.

What would I use it for?

If I come to a Reds game...I'm going to park and walk to the game. Am I really going to park, then get on the streetcar? No.

Just doesn't seem that we enough people living DT to take advantage of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sweet16

you want to drive the undesireable element someplace else.

---

As long as they don't drive them to the Westside anymore...time for another area to take a hit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drudy23

I still don't get it...are there really enough people living downtown to make this thing work? What destinations exist in OTR right now?
.

---

If you continue to see the future vision of downtown and OTR as what there exists right now, you will never get it.

What existed in Lawrenceburg before the casino went in? What existed in West Chester 20 years ago?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drudy23

I still don't get it...are there really enough people living downtown to make this thing work? What destinations exist in OTR right now?

If I'm downtown, there's nothing I can't get to without my two legs. This isn't Atlanta or NYC. I do not go more than 3-4 blocks on any given day when I'm at work.

What would I use it for?

If I come to a Reds game...I'm going to park and walk to the game. Am I really going to park, then get on the streetcar? No.

Just doesn't seem that we enough people living DT to take advantage of it.

---

Drudy, the streetcar is not being built for you and me. It's for people that live or work in downtown and Clifton and only in those areas. It's also for the property owners along the route, many of whom have friends in city government, or are on council themselves. You and I are only involved insomuch as our tax dollars will be taken by the city indirectly (funneled through the Feds) to fund construction and directly for the annual maintenance of this system. At some hypothetical point in the future we might see enough development to reverse the population exodus and increase the tax base, easing our burden somewhat, but we have to stick around for that.

The success of this project depends on development. The constant complaint I've seen from developers is that it is too difficult to build and rennovate in this city because of red tape. There is little common sense in our regulations and the process moves too slowly most times for development to be profitable, unless you have a friend in a power position.

Years ago Council and the Mayor promised to review these processes and make it easier to do business in Cincinnati. They even floated the idea of creating a one stop shop for permitting, zoning, etc. It never happened. Instead they came up with the streetcar. I hope it succeeds but I'll be very surprised if it does.

Either this is a transportation issue, in which case we need to revamp bus service, or it's a development issue, in which case we need to get rid of the obstacles for development. We'll likely see a bump from initial construction of the streetcar but in 5 years I expect we'll see about as much progress with private investment as we did 5 years after The Banks plan was first made public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sweet16

He's spent about $500,000 renovating 40 units in the buildings, now available for either market-rate or subsidized tenants. He has at least twice that left to go.

Subsidized tenants? Huge mistake....HUGE. You want yuppies as your tenants. Yuppies want to live in a neighborhood with trendy bars and restaurants, within walking distance of places like Music Hall, and a short streetcar ride away from the riverfront. They don't want section 8 neighbors. That is completely counter to what you're trying to accomplish. You've invested alot of money hoping the neighborhood will "turn".......you want to drive the undesireable element someplace else.

---

Don't be so paranoid. Not every subsidized tenant is "undesirable". 100% subsidized tenants in an area is undesirable.

Not to pick on your post specifically, but this is typical of a comment that frustrates me about Cincinnati. Here's a guy willing to take a gamble on an investment, and you've got people on the sidelines booing him, telling him he's making a huge mistake.

If you think it's such a huge mistake, jump in there and do it yourself. Otherwise, at least let him try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blobfan

I expect we'll see about as much progress with private investment as we did 5 years after The Banks plan was first made public.

---

Here's another one. People love to cling to past failures. The Banks is going up as we speak. The Moerlein Lager House is slated to open by August of 2011. Tenants have already signed leases for apartments to start in the spring of 2011. The renovation of Fountain Square was a tremendous success. Why is it that the people of Cincinnati seem to love failure so much?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

Don't be so paranoid. Not every subsidized tenant is "undesirable". 100% subsidized tenants in an area is undesirable.

Not to pick on your post specifically, but this is typical of a comment that frustrates me about Cincinnati. Here's a guy willing to take a gamble on an investment, and you've got people on the sidelines booing him, telling him he's making a huge mistake.

If you think it's such a huge mistake, jump in there and do it yourself. Otherwise, at least let him try.

---

No, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said it was a mistake to invest in the neighborhood (in fact I've posted earleir in this thread that I think private investment will come to OTR based solely on the streetcar). I said it's a mistake to accept subsidized tenants. Why would you invest your money into rehabbing a property only to turn around and introduce a cancer back into your finished product? You want to see your property appreciate in value......that will never happen with section 8 in or near your property.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

Here's another one. People love to cling to past failures. The Banks is going up as we speak. The Moerlein Lager House is slated to open by August of 2011. Tenants have already signed leases for apartments to start in the spring of 2011. The renovation of Fountain Square was a tremendous success.

---

Also other projects coming soon are Riverfront Park, the casino, and many many others

Downtown 2009 report:
-$116 million in completed construction and renovation project with another $1.6 billion in projects currently in progress
-More than 445,000 square feet of office expansions, renewals and relocations in 2009
-30 new retail/restaurant/entertainment establishments opened in the central business district
-140 single family homes were sold, keeping population growth consistent with projections
-$59 million economic impact of total room nights marked a record setting year for hotels
The Main Library, Cincinnati Museum Center, Krohn Conservatory and Fountain Square all posted record attendance years
-Overall crime rate for the central business district/riverfront was down double digits in Part 1 and Part 2 offenses over the past decade
-DCI’s 3rd annual pedestrian count study showed a continued increase during peak weekday times (11am to 2pm), and a total increase of 20% in pedestrians during the evening hours
-A partnership with the Hamilton County Department of Pretrial Services and the County Jail, University Hospital, Summit Behavioral Healthcare and others to identified the top 16 high risk panhandlers; placing 3 of the 16 cases in permanent housing to date

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_U72QTDcNpU...ion+Growth.JPG

http://www.urbancincy.com/2010/05/do...ing-recession/


Here is a thread discussing the current state of downtown Cincinnati. Some interesting points are made
http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/inde...ic,1333.0.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

If you continue to see the future vision of downtown and OTR as what there exists right now, you will never get it.

What existed in Lawrenceburg before the casino went in? What existed in West Chester 20 years ago?

---

What exists in Lawrenceburg now? How many of us have spent a day in Lawrenceburg not casino related?

I just don't see Cincinnati as having enough downtown residents to make this thing work. Who's going to ride the thing?

And for downtown workers? Let's suppose I work at the Fifth Third Building...where would I go where I'd need to take a streetcar? There are plenty of dining, shopping, and entertainment options within 4-5 blocks in any direction that I can walk to. Why would you venture to Clifton to go shopping or to eat lunch if you work downtown?

Tell me why the only reason you see cabs in this town is in front of hotels? Go downtown and try to flag a cab without calling for one first. Not very easy.

Why is that? Because you can get everywhere on foot....they're not necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

Here's another one. People love to cling to past failures. The Banks is going up as we speak. The Moerlein Lager House is slated to open by August of 2011. Tenants have already signed leases for apartments to start in the spring of 2011. The renovation of Fountain Square was a tremendous success. Why is it that the people of Cincinnati seem to love failure so much?

---

I don't love failure, Kahn's. I am trying to explain my skepticism about the success of the streetcar in turning around the Cincinnati economy. I'm not going to refuse to ride it if the necessity arises, simply out of spite. I voted against the anti-rail ammendment to the City charter even though I knew the likelihood of Council seeing its defeat as a greenlight for the streetcar and not a common-sense response to an unnecessary ammendment. I REALLY hope the streetcar succeeds and leads to more development and better public transportation. I've been to SF and Seattle. I lived in Paris. I know what good public transportation is and I've seen what it can do to maximize development and minimize spread.

I've also lived in Cincinnati long enough to see the same yahoos voted into Council, the same bickering, the same broken promises. It's taken 10-15 years for the red tape to ease enough for The Banks to move forward. I expect after an initial push, we'll find the same problem with this project.

If you're not just cynical, or rooting for failure, why do you choose the Banks as your reference instead of the more recent successful renovation of Fountain Square?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

If you're not just cynical, or rooting for failure, why do you choose the Banks as your reference instead of the more recent successful renovation of Fountain Square?

---

Most people (rightfully so) base opinions and decisions on past experience. It's no different here. We're all so cynical because this city has a track record of failures, delays, and bickering.

We'd all agree that Mick Cronin isn't going to turn into John Wooden this year. It's not because we hate UC that we think this...it's because Mick's past has shown he's pretty much an average (at best) coach.

On the flip side...would most Xavier people, if they were honest, say that Sean Miller will be successfull at Arizona? Yes. Alot still despise him...but it's been proven that he's a good coach...and success will follow.

It has nothing to do with wishing for failure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

If you're not just cynical, or rooting for failure, why do you choose the Banks as your reference instead of the more recent successful renovation of Fountain Square?

---

If I remember correctly City Council and the Mayor were not the driving forces behind the rennovation of Fountain Square but the people in those positions were responsible for the innactivity at The Banks and are the biggest proponants of the streetcar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by madness31

If you assume the slow development in economic understanding is more related to advisors then you can guess his IQ is close to the 150 genius level but if you believe it is his own issues then it would be much lower (100 - 120). If he scored well on the LSAT then it must be at least 130.

---

So you have Obama in a range of 100-150. That is a wide range. I would agree he is somewhere in there. I also think that Sarah Palin's IQ would fall within the same range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by madness31

Palin would lead to commodity inflation through a devaluation of the dollar.

---

Oh, you mean commodity inflation and devaluation of the dollar...

http://66.38.218.33/LFgif/au00-pres.gif

In 2006 when Pelosi and the Democrats took control of Congress the price of gold was in the upper $500s, say $575. Today the price of gold closed at $1268.70. The price has gone up almost $700. That is a percentage increase of 120% in four years.

I am glad to see you are concerned that Sarah Palin is a threat to the price of commodities. You even threw in that it would also happen anyway if Obama stays in office, and that it will be Republicans fault when it does.

I enjoy your arguments and you make an interesting addition to the forum, but reasoning like that makes me question your reasoning ability.

I actually fear the commodity inflation that we have already been experiencing. I also fear a collapse on the dollar. I however do not only blame Republicans.

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/...et_deficit.jpg

If you fear for the dollar or you fear for commodity inflation, I would be more scared of the Democratic Party. Maybe it is just me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

If you continue to see the future vision of downtown and OTR as what there exists right now, you will never get it.

What existed in Lawrenceburg before the casino went in? What existed in West Chester 20 years ago?

---

Interesting comparison Kahns - 1990 West Chester compared to 2010 at the corner of 14th & Vine. Not sure I follow. You see, there's more to this than rehabbing some old properties and opening some cool little storefronts. This involves more than populating those rehabbed buildings. This involves displacing a well-rooted culture from OTR - a poor population, beset with crime. Simply put, the proverbial bum on the corner doesn't turn into a shiny mailbox like in the Simpsons - he has to go somewhere. My bet is that he doesn't move into the cozy loft with exposed brick above the designer lighting boutique on Vine - more likely he finds an efficiency in Clifton Heights.

I don't understand where the OTR crime and culture of poverty are supposed to go. I suspect the Clifton Heights folks (who were generally huge advocates of this trolley) are less than pleased that Roxanne backed the Vine St route. I also think they have to wonder if the displaced OTR population will be moving up the hill a bit. Mohawk is one thing - Klotter is another! Yikes. Just ask Jim McNulty and the gang in Westwood - we've seen this before.

Great points Xeus.

The number 1 business sector in OTR is social service providers. If you do it all up ritzy you are going to have to relocate the flop houses. One of the reasons they moved the school for the arts to Washington Park is because they would then have to move the Drop Inn Center. People don't want those crazy drug users next to kids. But where do we move the Drop Inn Center? Where are we going to concentrate the homeless? Most of them have mental health problems and addiction issues. They piss and shyt all over the neighborhood. That is part of being homeless, the world is your toilet. Civilized people don't like to see other adults going to the bathroom or stepping over human feces.

So we have to move them to make OTR a success. We have to add police to drive away the crime. But just like Vortex, shutting down crime in OTR tends to make it pop up in other places. And the crazy people don't become less crazy, they just become crazy somewhere else, someone else's problem.

If a crazy man is pissing and crapping in Hyde Park the police will pick him up and drop him off at the Drop Inn and let him wander around OTR. It is our cesspool of humanity. Now we are going to move that cesspool somewhere else and those people will not be pleased.

This isn't Seattle or Portland. The people living in OTR are largely just short of hopeless. The government footprint is massive. So many of them can't even feed themselves, make enough to pay the rent without assistance or function in society. It is high in crime, low in parenting and the schools suck. And then we have riots and white people drug out of cars and beaten with pipes. I am sure every other close neighborhood is looking forward to their new guests if they are heading their way.

I live in the West End and I think we will become a major dumping ground for the homeless, crazies and the drug addicts. The concentration of crazy homeless people, poverty and social service agencies crippled OTR. Any community that gets that new designation is never going to recover.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snipe

Great points Xeus.

The number 1 business sector in OTR is social service providers. If you do it all up ritzy you are going to have to relocate the flop houses. One of the reasons they moved the school for the arts to Washington Park is because they would then have to move the Drop Inn Center. People don't want those crazy drug users next to kids. But where do we move the Drop Inn Center? Where are we going to concentrate the homeless? Most of them have mental health problems and addiction issues. They piss and shyt all over the neighborhood. That is part of being homeless, the world is your toilet. Civilized people don't like to see other adults going to the bathroom or stepping over human feces.

So we have to move them to make OTR a success. We have to add police to drive away the crime. But just like Vortex, shutting down crime in OTR tends to make it pop up in other places. And the crazy people don't become less crazy, they just become crazy somewhere else, someone else's problem.

If a crazy man is pissing and crapping in Hyde Park the police will pick him up and drop him off at the Drop Inn and let him wander around OTR. It is our cesspool of humanity. Now we are going to move that cesspool somewhere else and those people will not be pleased.

This isn't Seattle or Portland. The people living in OTR are largely just short of hopeless. The government footprint is massive. So many of them can't even feed themselves, make enough to pay the rent without assistance or function in society. It is high in crime, low in parenting and the schools suck. And then we have riots and white people drug out of cars and beaten with pipes. I am sure every other close neighborhood is looking forward to their new guests if they are heading their way.

I live in the West End and I think we will become a major dumping ground for the homeless, crazies and the drug addicts. The concentration of crazy homeless people, poverty and social service agencies crippled OTR. Any community that gets that new designation is never going to recover.

---

I think the goal is to move the poor one town over...make them someone else's problem. DC has been gentrifying for years and has successfully moved a lot of the city's poor (and the associated crime) to Prince George's county in Maryland.

Maybe Cincinnati could push OTR residents far enough west that they become Delhi's problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dc_x

Maybe Cincinnati could push OTR residents far enough west that they become Delhi's problem?

---

As long as we're pushing them west, let's push a bit harder and make them Indiana's problem.

CityLink Snipe, CityLink.

The Drop In Center will be moved. The backdoor shenanigans are already in play, it's just the proposed sites are still in flux. I can't really substantiate any of the rumors that I've heard about it, but if people heard half the things I have heard about this move, they would vote everyone out of City Hall, burn down the place and 3CDC, and salt the Earth. It's going to be a disaster.

I HATE dayton.

I guess I just don't buy the argument that crime is a static quantity, and you can't reduce it, you can only move it. I don't think the bum becomes a mailbox, but I think there is room to bring the overall level of crime down, not just move it around. I think that is achieved by decentralizing the existing criminal element and making it more difficult for the culture to continue like it has been allowed to for so long.

Just to be clear, I don't think the streetcar is the magic solution. I think the problem is ignoring the city core. The streetcar, and the projected private development surrounding the streetcar line combined with other ongoing projects like the Banks, the Quarter, Fountain Square and , are a step in reversing the deteriorating conditions in downtown and OTR.

If you have rats in your basement, do you just accept it, because setting out traps and poison in your basement won't affect the overall rat population?

Quote:

---

The Drop In Center will be moved. The backdoor shenanigans are already in play, it's just the proposed sites are still in flux. I can't really substantiate any of the rumors that I've heard about it, but if people heard half the things I have heard about this move, they would vote everyone out of City Hall, burn down the place and 3CDC, and salt the Earth. It's going to be a disaster.

---

Thor, man in the know. Aren't you the same guy that said people were going to start burning to death left and right when the fire department budget was cut? Forgive me if I don't get caught up in your hyperbole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xeus

Interesting comparison Kahns - 1990 West Chester compared to 2010 at the corner of 14th & Vine. Not sure I follow. You see, there's more to this than rehabbing some old properties and opening some cool little storefronts. This involves more than populating those rehabbed buildings. This involves displacing a well-rooted culture from OTR - a poor population, beset with crime..

---

All true. I wasn't trying to draw a direct comparison between 1990 West Chester and present day OTR. I was responding to someone who made the argument that investing in OTR made no sense because there wasn't anything there. Places change. Populations change. Infrastructure changes.

I don't get the argument that the poor population - and in particular the criminal population - somehow has exclusive rights to OTR. It hasn't always been that way. Do we as a city just give up on an area because the crime rate has risen?

Snipe, I do not only blame the Republicans for the commodity inflation as the Dems definitely played a role. You are a bit off on the timing of the Dems taking control of congress as the election would have been in November of 2006 and not at the beginning of 2006. That puts the gold price according to your chart at about 650. Considering it started around 250 to 300 when Bush took office with a Republican majority I'd say the Bush years were a disaster for inflation and during complete Republican control it was a mess with well over 100% in 6 years.

The two biggest factors for the commodity inflation was the war and the collapse of the debt bubble. The debt bubble is primarily the fault of Greenspan which was condoned or encouraged by Clinton and Bush. The War was primarily Bush and the Republicans but most Democrats went along with it too. The debt created by the war plus the uncertainty of oil supplies pushed commodities higher. This war was terrible for the country in so many ways it is pathetic that it was allowed to happen. Spending is the most detrimental long-term impact but obviously the loss of life and injured soldiers is horific.

The intitial Obama budget was inherited due to the bank bailouts Bush signed into law before he left office. This was another blunder of historical proportions and set the stage for continued inflation for years to come. Because inflation does not occur immediately and stop abruptly you could argue the inflation from 2000 to 2004 was due to Clinton/Greenspan and 2004 to current was Bush/Greenspan (give or take a year). In addition to the budget and war Obama inherited he also inherited a collapsing economy so you cannot blame him or the Democrats for the budget gaps. There was nothing anyone could do to avoid deficits or produce jobs. While some uninformed talking heads or "analysts" argue the infrastructure spending didn't stimulate it did same hundreds of thousands of jobs. While I hate unemployment benefits due to my believe that they discourage personal responsibility, the extension of these benefits also saved hundreds of thousands of jobs. I would also argue that the bank bailout did the same thing but it guaranteed the prolonging of this crisis. Without the bailout the banking system would have collapsed and jobs would have been lost and a deep recession/depression would have occurred but the system would have cleansed itself in the matter of a few years. growth would have resumed from a healthy economic base, compensation for executives to movie stars to athletes would have become more reasonable. The corruption would have been reduced dramatically from the system. Instead the bad debts went to the government, companies were left with the good assets and crazy bonuses were paid to the leaders that destroyed the companies and required federal assistance to avoid bankruptcy. The corruption continues and the US government is now in a huge financial hole while dealing with the after effects of a financial collapse. Deleveraging will continue and jobs will be slow to come by. The economy will peak and go into a new recession well before the stock market can regain lost ground and definitely before the lost jobs can be recovered. Joblessness will rise and stocks will test old lows and possibly set new ones.

Commodity inflation is here to stay for at least another decade with some ups and downs along the way but if drastic steps are taken by the government it will lead to a currency collapse rather than the somewhat orderly decline over the past decade. That is what I fear from the Republicans - they believe so strongly in their ideology without reflecting on changing conditions that a collapse become more probable under their leadership. Buy gold, silver, paladium, crops, oil, nat gas, etc as neither party can stop inflation. I didn't mention China and the emerging markets but they obviously play a role in commodity inflation due to demand. China and Japan however have been adding stability to the US currency by holding huge dollar reserves. Should China ever get enough internal demand to sustain its economy, the US will become their servant. They will simply need to threaten to sell dollar assets and cause a currency collapse and the US will have no choice but to comply.

The US must get ahold of their budgets but they have to do it through more effective governing. Stop the fraud, remove the waste, incentivize management, get control of educational and healthcare costs. Pot must be legalized to reduce government costs and raise taxes. I'd argue for legalizing all drugs as it appears to be a war that can't be won and it goes along with personal responsibility but that is a bit to radical for most. I'd say the same about prostitution but both are the libertarian side of me. Taxes must go up for the wealthy, $250 being the correct starting point is debateable, but someone must sacrifice. I'm all for cutting individual taxes once the budgets are under control but you must cut spending first.

The other item to keep in mind about the deficits graph, in addition to the impacts of the recession, is that social security and medicare become larger portions of the budget each year. Holding spending flat in all other areas would still result in higher deficits than the year before. I suspect Ron Paul was the only candidate for president last election that wouldn't have had crazy deficit numbers.

I'm guessing this is something most of you don't want to hear but legalizing abortion has helped to reduce the crime rate. Should this ruling ever be overturned you will see a spike in crime years later as more parents and/or children become desparate and look for easy ways out of their situation.

The streetcar is unlikely to reduce overall crime unless it dispurses the negative influence on some of those that may get involved in criminal acts if associating with the wrong people. There is also the potential monetary gain from rising home values that could help some families get on their feet. These are long shots and most likely the crime does shift to a new area or remains where it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by madness31

I'm guessing this is something most of you don't want to hear but legalizing abortion has helped to reduce the crime rate.

---

I suppose if we legalize murder, theft and assault, the crime rate would be reduced even further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XU 87

I suppose if we legalize murder, theft and assault, the crime rate would be reduced even further.

---

I think he was restating the theory of a chapter from Freakonomics that most aborted babies are from low income mothers and therefore more likely to be criminals which in turn lowers the crime rate because there are less would be criminals in the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Juice

I think he was restating the theory of a chapter from Freakonomics that most aborted babies are from low income mothers and therefore more likely to be criminals which in turn lowers the crime rate because there are less would be criminals in the country.

---

If you read his second sentence, I think he was actually arguing that if abortion were to become illegal, people will still have illegal abortions and therefore we would have more crime.

I think if we try to run a streetcar on the track of this thread, it will derail on Day 1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

I think if we try to run a streetcar on the track of this thread, it will derail on Day 1.

---

But at least we wouldn't be losing $2 million a year

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xeus

But at least we wouldn't be losing $2 million a year

---

The federal interstate highway system 'lost' over $40 billion in 2008 (before the stimulus spending that will likely dramatically increase that figure). I guess that thing is a bad idea too.

Actually I was simply basing my comment on the fact that crime rates have fallen in the years since abortion was made legal. Of course the decreased crime isn't necessarily due entirely or at all to the abortion ruling but it does make sense in theory that it would help.

The wealthy definitely have their share of abortions as Daddy's little girl can't be pregnant at 15 but there would also be plenty of low income families taking advantage of this option as well. Add on top of that the illegal abortions that are not happening and you definitely avoid those crimes.

I'm personally against abortion but I see the advantages. What I don't understand is the argument used in defense of making them legal. There are some societal benefits but the "its a woman's body she can do what she wants" argument is so inconsistent with so many other laws that it makes no sense to me at all. I believe people are put into mental facilities when they attempt suicide and I'm pretty sure cocain, weed, prescription drugs without a prescription are all illegal and those are all choices people are making regarding their own body. I'd even accept the argument that America is a society of selfish culture where people can make billions of dollars and pay a 15% tax rate (true story - hedge fund manager John Paulson a year or two ago (rate currently being protected by the Republicans)) so why not allow someone the right to cancel a pregnancy.

This is a wierd thread. We appear to have several debates going on at once.

1. Streetcar
2. Gentrification of OTR (related to the Streetcar but not really 100% the same issue)
3. Abortion. I'm not sure where that one came from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boozehound

This is a wierd thread. We appear to have several debates going on at once.

1. Streetcar
2. Gentrification of OTR (related to the Streetcar but not really 100% the same issue)
3. Abortion. I'm not sure where that one came from.

---

Isn't the off-season grand?

Don't forget Sarah Palin vs. Barack Obama's IQ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

The federal interstate highway system 'lost' over $40 billion in 2008 (before the stimulus spending that will likely dramatically increase that figure). I guess that thing is a bad idea too.

---

You have a knack for making some pretty off-the-wall comparisons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xeus

You have a knack for making some pretty off-the-wall comparisons.

---

I actually think the point being made is valid. Publicly financed transportation is very expensive and always has both pros and cons.

Actually, using "losing" to describe the budget of the streetcar is comparing it to a for-profit venture. We wouldn't say the police department is "losing" $130 million a year. Comparing a for-profit venture to public transportation is a lot more off-the-wall to me than comparing two public transportation projects of different scales.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

The federal interstate highway system 'lost' over $40 billion in 2008 (before the stimulus spending that will likely dramatically increase that figure). I guess that thing is a bad idea too.

---

I think it is fair to include automobile subsidies in this discussion. A lot of the subsidies could be done away with toll roads, but people don't like toll roads. Some cities in Europe charge a per day amount to drive within the city limits. I read about that a couple years ago. With GPS tracking and electronic funds transfers, getting people to pay for use of roads is getting easier and easier from a technological perspective. I suspect in the future people will pay more for the roads that they drive on through some sort of toll or direct user fee. The tremendous subsidies that we pay for autos also had something to do with the death of trasit service providers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

Actually, using "losing" to describe the budget of the streetcar is comparing it to a for-profit venture. We wouldn't say the police department is "losing" $130 million a year. Comparing a for-profit venture to public transportation is a lot more off-the-wall to me than comparing two public transportation projects of different scales.

---

Also of interesting historical note is that private for-profit companies used to provide public transit in Cincinnati and all over the nation. Cincinnati used to have 100 million users over a year, they used to deliver them on time and on schedule for a profit with no public subsidy. Today Cincinnati Metro only serves out 25 million trips, and the fares only pay around a third of the total cost of operating the government owned system, which gets the rest from taxpayer subsidies. Something that was once provided by the private market for a profit is now provided by the government at a substantial loss.

I read a paper by the Reason Foundation that charted the increase of costs for publicly run bus systems since subsides begand in the mid-60s. The costs outpaced every cost of living indicator including medical costs. It was a PDF so I couldn't post the graph. They also note the difference between private bus companies has not risen so much per mile, because they don't get the subsidies.

Cincinnati Metro has a monopoly too. You can't get a bus and start your own route. They would arrest you and impound the bus. It wouldn't even matter if you demanded no public subsidy or rape of the tax-payer.

You have to wonder about the wisdom of having the government run the transit. It is just another thing it doesn't do well.

Another historical note is the bus boycotts during the civil rights era. The privately owned companies didn't want to discriminate against their customers. People enacted laws to make them. They still refused and they threatened to arrest the owners. The owners even fought the racist Jim Crow legislation in court. The real racism there was done by the government, not the private market.

And then their is Amtrak.

Our government has a lousy record in transit, as with most endeavors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kahns Krazy

Actually, using "losing" to describe the budget of the streetcar is comparing it to a for-profit venture. We wouldn't say the police department is "losing" $130 million a year. Comparing a for-profit venture to public transportation is a lot more off-the-wall to me than comparing two public transportation projects of different scales.

---

If the new trolley nets negative $2 million, it's not appropriate to refer to that as "losing" money? How does the projected budget for the streetcar differ in any material way from the budget a private developer would have used? The bottom line is the same whether it's a for profit or municipal undertaking.

A police department is a necessary municipal function. A trolley is not. We already have a public transportation system in place. We don't need a trolley. We don't need to try to be like Portland. We need to take care of our existing neighborhoods before dumping a bunch of money into trying to bring back a ghetto. If people want to live downtown, that's fine - there are some great places. But I'd rather see the city spend money to keep our neighborhoods safe than to build a trolley for the residents of Vine and Liberty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snipe

Cincinnati Metro has a monopoly too. You can't get a bus and start your own route. They would arrest you and impound the bus. It wouldn't even matter if you demanded no public subsidy or rape of the tax-payer..

---

How many things are you going to make up in this thread? Have you ever heard of Executive Transportation? You may have, since you rode one to Pittsburgh with some other XH members. They run regular routes to the airport. Have you heard of Megabus? They run regular routes out of Cincinnati as well. To my knowledge, no employees of either company have been arrested nor have any busses been impounded. The building I work in provides regular bus service to downtown and Eden Park. The perimeter downtown parking lots provide shuttle service to downtown. The Dupree house runs a regular bus service. I'm pretty sure I can go on and on.

If you can come up with the Cincinnati or Ohio code that makes it an arrestable offense to start a transportation business in Cincinnati, I'll march on Fountain Square with a sandwich board that says "Trolleys are a stupid waste of money" on the front and "Snipe is a genius of development" on the back. Otherwise, please stop making shit up, or I'll kidnap your kids and hide them in the Northern Kentucky Business Corridor.