COAST lawyer Christopher Finney was quick to answer with:
A "yes" vote on Issue 9 would place that vague, far reaching paragraph on the city's charter, but would it affect the little children's train at the zoo? Let's have a look.
The city of Cincinnati purchased the zoo in 1932 and run's it through the board of park commissioners. According to the COAST ballot language it seems that the zoo would fall under "The City, and its various Boards and Commissions." As seen in the above photo the train obviously carries passengers making it "passenger rail transportation." So what if the city/board of park commissioners wanted to expand or "improve" this "passenger rail transportation?" Well, according to this ballot language, since it is within the city limits of Cincinnati and owned and operated by "the city, and it's various Boards and Commissions," no money could be spent on improving the children's choo-choo train without first submitting a vote to the city electorate.
Now, Mr. Finney, if as you say this is all just "hysteria," please point out how my assessment is incorrect and how the charter amendment would not affect the zoo train. I'd like to think that this is all pretty ridiculous, but your charter amendment is so vague and far reaching that even the children's train at the zoo is affected! I'm just going off your own words here Chris. The Charter amendment is nothing but a vague paragraph. As we see thanks to Horstman's article, it's effects are far reaching and there are no details or provisions really outlining the affects of the amendment.
What if a private company such as P&G donated money to the zoo as they've often done? Could that money be used to expand the children's train which would be affected by the charter amendment? Nope, as Chris Finney told us a couple weeks ago; "any means any," no matter the funding source, a vote must be held.
Why would we ever allow something so vague and so ridiculous to become law here in our fair city? You don't have to, vote "No on 9" on Nov. 3!