Smitherman Says His Own Amendment Deceiving!

Chris Smitherman, Cincinnati NAACP president, and one of the leading members of the "We Demand a Vote" Coalition who worked with Anderson Township lawyer Christopher Finney to author the ballot language of Issue 9 is now calling his own amendment "political corruption."

In a press release dated October 26, 2009, the local NAACP president had this to say:

"The Cincinnati NAACP remains concerned that a Yes vote on Issues 8 & 9 mean No and a No vote on Issues 8 & 9 means Yes. "This is nothing short of madness and political corruption," Smitherman says."

How could it be "corruption," though? Smitherman himself worked with Christopher Finney to author the ballot language. He even told the Cincinnati Enquirer how proud he was of it back in June of this year. Now all of the sudden Smitherman is concerned that the voters will be fooled? Smitherman's press release continues to spiral into his own pool of confusion and self delusion when he says:

"There is no explanation for a Yes meaning No and a No meaning Yes. This is not a tradition but an attempt to trick voters. "

Who is to blame for this "trick," Chris? You helped write the language yourself! Are you being serious? We all know that Chris Smitherman is no stranger to these types of referendums and ballot language. He worked with Finney and Co. on the previous jail tax and red light camera initiatives. Now all of the sudden he's realized that his own ballot language is deceiving? You have got to be kidding me

Smitherman's half truths and exaggerations continue throughout the press release:

"...reject Mayor Mark Mallory's attempt to build a $200 million streetcar while shutting down our bus system, laying off bus drivers, and raising bus fares on the poor and disabled."

Do we have to cover this again? Smitherman has been corrected multiple times that the estimated cost of the streetcar is $128 million, $185 million with the uptown extension, not $200 million. Also, Mayor Mark Mallory is not shutting down the current bus system. Queen City Metro, our bus system operator, has said multiple times that they support the streetcar plan and have even endorsed a "no" vote on Issue 9. These kind of lies and shallow attacks are what we have come to expect from Chris Smitherman ever since he was voted off of city council. I think Bill Cunningham got it right last week when he said: "Smitherman's a clown."

Now Smitherman is confused by his own ballot language! Leaders like Chris Smitherman exercise the exact kind of antiquated, stupid thinking that has kept us "20 years behind the times."

VOTE NO ON ISSUE 9!

Image credit: The Provost of Cincinnati

How absurd is Issue 9?

Issue 9, no matter which way the 'weasel wording' lawyers and Blue Ash residents at COAST try to swing it, is absolutely absurd. Why? In a recent post, Cincy Streetcar Blog explains:

"Mandating our City Government approves projects in a different manner based on the technology used–not the purpose, not the cost, not the potential hazards, but solely on the technology employed is an absurd way to govern a city. The Anti-Passenger Rail Amendment is permanent, just a few of the consequences are illustrated above. If passed, this amendment will produce a host of uncertain and unforeseen consequences in the future."

Read the full 'absurdities of Issue 9' article here.

Images courtesy of CincyStreetcar.com

And just for good measure, I'd like to throw this one in there that I made myself:

This image is courtesy of the local blog, Queen City Discovery, which has an interesting write up on the Cincinnati Subway/Rapid Transit Line. Approved by voters in 1916, politicking similar to the methods special interest groups like COAST use now, prevented the subway from ever being completed. In the late 50's/early 60's voters didn't get to approve the highway's that replaced the subway right of ways. In the future if a regional light rail line were ever to be built, it could utilize the abandoned subway saving taxpayers and local governments millions of dollars in construction costs. Not if issue 9 passes though! No on 9!

Would Issue 9 Affect the Children's Train at the Zoo? All You Have to do is Read the Ballot Language!

It's a question Enquirer reporter Barry Horstman asked himself.

COAST lawyer Christopher Finney was quick to answer with:

"Our opponents want people to believe this would have all kinds of draconian effects," said Finney, who crafted the wording that will appear on the ballot. "They're trying to drum up hysteria rather than talk about what's actually on the ballot - the merits of the streetcar and passenger-rail transportation."

However, I think it's a legitimate question. Let's take a look at the ballot language proposed by COAST:

"The City, and its various Boards and Commissions, may not spend any monies for right-of-way acquisition or construction of improvements for passenger rail transportation (e.g., a trolley or streetcar) within the city limits without first submitting the question of approval of such expenditure to a vote of the electorate of the City and receiving a majority affirmative vote for the same."

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!

COAST Caught Confused and Contradicting Their Own Charter Amendment

Today the City Council of Cincinnati Rules Committee held a meeting to discuss various subjects, but the main topic of the day was the approval of the Nov. 3 ballot language of the COAST/NAACP backed charter amendment. The ammendment would require a public vote on all passenger rail projects within the city limits of Cincinnati, regardless of where the funding comes from.

I took the #1 Metro Bus from the stop near my apartment to Government Square and enjoyed the cool weather as I walked to City Hall for the 10:00 A.M. meeting of the Rules Committee. Councilman Berding began the meeting at around 10:15 A.M. As the meeting started and the committee began discussion I could hardly hear over the two men talking amongst themselves and cracking jokes in the seats in front of me. That's when I noticed it was no other than COAST attorney Christopher Finney and former Mayor of Cincinnati Tom Luken:

Councilman Berding went over the various other discussion topics of the day as the gentlemen in fron to of me continued their discussion. Most topics were put on hold to address the issue most had signed up to talk to the committee about: the ballot language of COAST's charter amendment. The ballot language reads as this and read as this on the petition COAST circulated:

"The City, and its various Boards and Commissions, may not spend any monies for right-of-way acquisition or construction of improvements for passenger rail transportation (e.g., a trolley or streetcar) within the city limits without first submitting the question of approval of such expenditure to a vote of the electorate of the City and receiving a majority affirmative vote for the same."

The Committee opened the floor to those who had signed up to speak and express their opinions to council:

This woman spoke of how she had gone to visit her daughter in Seattle and was amazed at the amount of development along the Seattle Streetcar line.

Councilwoman Roxanne Qualls listened as Mr. Rockwell expressed his concern to the committee over whether or not the charter amendment would affect the proposed 3C corridor project and future high speed rail projects being pushed forward by the state and federal governments.
Mr. Rockwell wasn't the only confused citizen there. COAST had promoted this petition as a an "anti-streetcar" amendment and even more citizens came forward today to express how they felt they had been duped by petition volunteers just like the folks we heard from last week.
At the conclusion of speakers, all of whom were citizens opposed to the charter amendment (none had come forward to support the amendment), Councilman Berding invited Christopher Finney to come forward and answer some legal questions the committee had in regards to the charter amendment. At this point, council members Leslie Ghiz, Cecil Thomas and Vice Mayor David Crowley had joined the meeting.

Councilman Bortz listened as Mr. Finney answered questions that were put forward to him.

As Mr. Finney spoke, Councilwoman Ghiz was busy checking something on her phone. In the past, using Mobile Twitter has gotten her into some trouble. I checked her Twitter account though, no Tweets during the time the meeting took place. Perhaps she was playing Brickbreaker on that pink Blackberry Curve of hers?
The meeting became heated when Councilwoman Roxanne Qualls posed a question towards Mr. Finney, the attorney representing COAST who authored the charter amendment. Councilwoman qualls wanted to know if the charter amendment affected the use of stimulus dollars from the federal and state levels. Mr. Finney replied with: "any means any," referencing the line from his charter amendment. Despite more questioning by Qualls as the amendment is not specific on funding sources, Mr. Finney intently kept answering with the words "any means any." Mr. Finney through his repeated phrase confirmed that any funds whether they be local, federal or state dollars, could not be used on rail projects within the city. This means that Cincinnati could be kept out of serious consideration for a stop on the proposed 3C corridor and Midwest Hub High Speed rail, which would link Cincinnati with other major cities.
Wait a second, I could have sworn just the other day that COAST said this charter amendment wouldn't affect the 3C plan. Wait! They did:

From the COAST blog on August 27, 2009.
Despite COAST claiming less than a week earlier that this charter amendment would have no affect on the 3C project because this is a "city law," Christopher Finney sat right in front of City Council saying otherwise. "Any means any." All sources of funding would be affected in regards to any and all money spent on passenger rail.
The discussion became even more heated as Vice Mayor David Crowley began questioning Mr. Finney, claiming that Mr. Finney's wording of the ballot language was what had been confusing voters and had been misleading to petition signers. Finney, began to raise his voice in opposition to Mr. Crowley as Councilman Berding asked Chris to lower his voice and calm down.

Councilwoman Ghiz was still hard at work on Brickbreaker:

My high score is 4440, wonder what hers is?
As Mr. Finney returned to his seat, former Cincinnnati Mayor and Congressman Tom Luken raised his hand and began to speak. He had to be reminded by Councilman Berding that if he had wanted to talk he had to sign up before the meeting started like all the others did. Mr. Luken continued to speak upon which he was warned by Berding that he was "out of order." "The last thing I want to be is out of order" joked Luken as he smiled at Mr. Finney who was now being joined by Leisure Suit sporting COAST treasurer Mark Miller.

In the end, despite testimony by confused citizens and citizens who had felt COAST petitioners misled them, Councilman Bortz summed up that 11,000 signatures had been collected with the ballot language as shown above. The Rules Committee passed on the measure, leaving the language unchanged. The ballot language will proceed to the full council session on Wednesday and the state attorney generals office later in the week.
Please keep in mind that the ballot language as it stands today would affect ALL passenger rail in this city, not just the proposed streetcar project. As Mr. Finney told us today: "any means any." That means any money we have whether it be capital funds, federal dollars, state dollars, etc. can't go towards the research, planning, development, construction of any type of rail project without first going to a public vote. No other city in the United States has such a broad measure on passenger rail like this and such a measure could effectively keep Cincinnati out of consideration for the proposed 3C corridor and Midwestern Hub high speed rail projects. Your taxes are not going to be raised for the streetcar and Capital Fund money to be spent on the streetcar's construction could not legally be diverted towards the city's general budget.
Even COAST is confused by their own charter amendment. They claim it will have no affect on ohter rail projects while their own attorney today told us that "any means any." When the people who authored such a broadly worded amendment don't get it, who would? This charter amendment is deceptive, too general and completely sidesteps the ideals of representative democracy set forth by our founding fathers. Take a stand and vote no on the COAST charter amendment!

Did COAST Mislead Petition Signers? Citizens say: "Remove Our Signatures"

A snippet from the story by Channel 5 WLWT:

"CINCINNATI -- At least three people have asked the Hamilton County board of elections to remove their names from a petition that places a transit issue on November's ballot."

"Attorney Barbara Howard said she asked officials to remove her name because she believes she was misled by the man who collected her signature.

"The representation he made to me that this was in favor of streetcars," Howard said."

On message boards and blogs discussing the streetcar issue, there have been numerous claims and accusations stating that COAST might have been intentionally trying to mislead potential petition signers into thinking it was a pro-streetcar amendment. These quotes are from a large streetcar debate/discussion on UrbanOhio.com:

"The same tactics that some have gushed over in this thread previously - standing outside of bars to get intoxicated people to sign their 'trolley petition,' not mentioning to these same people that if you actually support the street car then you shouldn't sign"

"Streetcar *ahem* passenger rail petition guy is out from of arbys downtown (6th and Vine). I tried to convince people not to sign it. He is preying on the people near the bus stop."

"They are COMPLETELY misleading people into signing something much bigger than they are telling them. My sister-in-law was approached by one of these petition gatherers in Clifton the other day and she was simply asked "Would you like to sign the Trolley Petition?" Luckily for her she knew from me that this was actually the petition that would alter the city's charter amendment and she kindly said no."

"He was asking people if they were registered in the city, and then he would say "Would you like to sign a petition for the streetcar?". Most people just sign anything and with that type of wording it sounds like the petetion is pro-streetcar."

"I was in town this weekend for Easter, and went down to Findlay before heading to the Reds game on Saturday. I grabbed some food and saw a guy getting people to sign a petition "For the Streetcar". I went up and called him on it and I was able to get several people not to sign the petition after telling them he wants to stop the streetcar from being built. By using some clever language he was tricking people to sign it."

Until now these claims seemed to lack validity, however as the recent story from Channel 5 shows, it seems more and more citizens feel that they have been duped by COAST.

COAST's attorney Chris Finney stated in the article:

"This is really electioneering, politicking by our opponents, to suggest that," said Chris Finney, attorney for the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes. "There's nothing in the charter amendment that prevents anything; it requires a public vote."

Chris, buddy, I don't think these folks are trying to "politick" you, they're quite upset. They're upset because they believe you and COAST mislead them. It seems now that citizens are coming forward maybe the claims from Urban Ohio and others have some validity.

Perhaps COAST has been intentionally misleading petition signers?

If you feel you've been deceived and would like to inquire about having your signature removed from the petition, contact the Hamilton County Board of Elections.

Full WLWT article with video here.

More lies from the good folks at COAST.

Fact Checking and Research Still Comes Hard for Local Special Interest Group.

I recently came across something I agreed with COAST on; Steve Driehaus. Unfortunately, the very next day COAST proved that even though I see eye-to-eye with them on one thing, they're still flat out liars when it comes to the streetcar issue.

On August 12, 2009 at 7:00 A.M. COAST linked to an editorial and claimed the Cincinnati Enquirer said to "Stop Trolley Proposal Dead in it's Tracks." Actually, though, the editorial says "Put Streetcar Project on Hold," not what COAST claimed. The editorial also notes that they "do not oppose a streetcar system," just feel that the project should be put on hold until there is a "solid economic outlook." Maybe if members of the COAST blog team had taken the time to read the Enquirer instead of making up quotes, they would have also seen that the Cincinnati Enquirer also considers their charter amendment to be a "Poison Pill" for Cincinnati.

Oh, but there's more!

Eight minutes later, in reference to Mayor Mallory's recent trip to Portland, COAST was back with more lies claiming: "COAST estimates that the City spent more than $10,000 in tax dollars on the junket." It should be noted though that again, had COAST taken the time to actually research the subject, and not just make up "estimates," they would have learned the trip was paid for by money inserted by a settlement with Duke Energy into the Businesses and Jobs Attraction Account (a total of $750,000 was inserted into the account), not a single tax payer dollar! They could have easily taken two minutes to read the Enquirer, like I did. However, that form of truth isn't convenient for COAST, so they'd rather make something up.

Even today the Cincinnati Enquirer (a paper that has traditionally endorsed conservative candidates the past few elections) and Cincinnati Business Courier question COAST's charter amendment and rightfully so. They've shown just how dangerous and ridiculous the proposed amendment is for this city.

Enquirer: Amendment is about 'less,' not 'more.'

Even if you're NOT a streetcar supporter, here's why you should oppose the COAST/NAACP backed passenger rail charter amendment!

Posted in the editorial section of our hometown newspaper, the Cincinnati Enquirer, is an honest writing about the dangers of the proposed COAST/NAACP backed passenger rail charter amendment. The editorial outlines that not only would the amendment most likely kill the streetcar project, but would keep Cincinnati out of consideration from other passenger rail projects that are being moved forward with by the federal and state governments to connect other major cities. Here's a little excerpt:

"A "Yes" vote on the Charter amendment effectively means "No" on the streetcar, but its faux-populist "let the people vote" cachet might draw support from people who otherwise might favor a streetcar. A "No" on the amendment, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily translate into streetcar support."

Now the Cincinnati Enquirer, who has traditionally not been a fan of the streetcar, is opposed to the dangerous and deceptive charter amendment proposed by special interest group COAST and their lawyer leader Chris Finney. Read the full editorial here and see the truth for yourself: 'Poison Pill' Amendment is About 'Less,' not 'More.'

Additionally, the Cincinnati Business Courier believes that from an economic and business standpoint, the Cincinnati Streetcar is: "Exactly the game changer Cincinnati needs."

Portland Voted on Passenger Rail Transportation

Why aren't we?

In a recent post to their blog, COAST tries to make it seem like they're all the sudden "pro streetcar" and really just about "demanding a vote." However, just read a few posts below on their site and and you can see their true feelings and their immature anti-streetcar propaganda campaign (complete with pictures of a scantily clad Xenia Warrior Princess using a sword to kill a streetcar). 

It's true, the citizens and taxpayers of Portland, Oregon voted on the construction and subsequent expansion of their rail transit systems. Why? Because those projects required the raising of additional taxes. Will the construction of a Cincinnati Streetcar system require the raising of your taxes or will you even be taxed for it's construction? NO! If it was going to require a raise in taxes, the motion to construct such a system would be put forth the voters. The streetcar system will be paid for by capital funds (these funds can not be reallocated into the general budget to make up for the city's current deficit), private donations and federal stimulus dollars (if passed up, these dollars will go to other city's, not back to the citizens of Cincinnati). That's why this issue is not being placed on the ballot, because your tax dollars are not being touched to fund it.

COAST wants to claim that their charter amendment wouldn't "block" transit, it would "enable" it. Nothing could be further from the truth! The generally worded anti-passenger rail amendment would require any rail project in the city limits to be voted on in a taxpayer funded city election. That means, any project that would come forward would be delayed for months while a vote at taxpayer's expense was organized.

COAST had a vote, it was called "election day." Since they didn't like the outcome, they feel they can nitpick and chose what issues that want to vote on and amend. They don't care what the citizens want, they don't care about how democracy works, they only want to pass measures that benefit their special interest group! Say no to special interest, say no to the anti-passenger rail amendment!

Thank you to everyone who has written in with emails of support! We, the citizens of Cincinnati stand firmly against COAST's antiquated, stupid thinking!

Mallory: "Yes" Vote Would Kill Streetcar

COAST/NAACP continue to mislead the voters!

The folks over at COAST like to throw around the word "boondoggle" a quite a bit. They claim the proposed streetcar route, if built, would be a "boondoggle" to the taxpayers despite the fact that our taxes would not be raised, nor would our tax dollars be used to pay for it's construction (the construction of the system would come from already collected capital funds and private contributions). 

In their most recent post, COAST claims the citizens have suffered through three major "boondoggles" already: 

 - A "Union Terminal Boondoggle."  

COAST unfortunately failed to look into this one and realize that Union Terminal was built privately, costing taxpayers nothing. Today, after it had been abandoned and the taxpayers voted to save the building in 1986, it exists as the Cincinnati Museum Center, one of the most popular and highly attended tourist attractions in the region.

- A "Subway" Boondoggle

Voters in 1916 approved a six million dollar bond issue to approve the construction of a Rapid Transit Loop around our great city. We can go round and round about the politics and reasons for it's abandonment, but if the current COAST/NAACP anti-passenger rail amendment passes on election day, it would prevent the subway from ever being used for it's original purpose. 

- A "Riverfront Transit Center" Boondoggle

Opened in 2002, the Riverfront Transit Center, lays beneath 2nd street currently run by System Parking who has a contract with the city. COAST considers the transit center to be a boondoggle because of it's underutilization, however their very own charter amendment would help keep the transit center from ever being utilized for it's fully intended purpose. 

As Mayor Mark Mallory said on July 28, the proposed charter amendment would end "all talk about rail" in this city. Not only would a "yes" vote kill the streetcar, but it would work to prevent Cincinnati from ever having rail as an alternative to fix it's traffic problems, but keep Cincinnati out of the proposed high speed rail network and 3C corridor, which would connect our city with other major cities! 

Do you really think the federal government when planning this project is going to sit back and say "well we'd like to include Cincinnati, but we have to put off planning for another year while they vote on it?" No, they won't even bother asking the question, they'll just pass us over or let some other nearby city take our opportunity. Don't let Cincinnati miss out on a great opportunity to make progress and become a competitive major American city yet again!

Kill the Charter Amendment!

Vote 'No' on the anti-passenger rail charter amendment.

CAAST Launches "Who is Chris?" Contest.

CAAST today launched the "Who is Chris?" contest. Cincinnati NAACP President Chris Smitherman, is one of the leading proponents of the "Anti-Passenger Rail Charter Amendment," claiming the building of the Cincinnati Streetcar is not in the best interest of the citizens of Cincinnati. Unfortunately, Chris Smitherman is playing the citizens of Cincinnati. You see, Smitherman assumed he and his cronies would be receiving a good amount of  proceeds from the sale of the Blue Ash airport for the boondoggled Glencoe Housing Project (which has been stalled since 2002). When the Streetcar plan came to fruition, Smitherman lost any chance of ever getting the money he had already promised. However, despite his vocal opposition to the streetcar proposal, Chris Smitherman wouldn't mind seeing it built as his own family would greatly benefit from the construction of the streetcar.

Chris was silent about "demanding a vote" and opposing the "trolley" as his brother stood behind Mayor Mark Mallory on Thursday, June 11, 2009 while the Streetcar Development Team was announced. Smitherman's family concrete company, Jostin's Concrete, is part of the development team and would no doubt profit from the streetcar's construction. If the streetcar is built, it could greatly benefit the citizens of Cincinnati and provide a contract for Smitherman's family company, yet if the proposed "Charter Amendment" passes and the streetcar plan fails, Cincinnati and it's citizens would be kept further in the past with none of the plan's financial resources being diverted back to them, but instead back to Smitherman and his support of the failed 'Glencoe Hole' development.

No matter what, Chris wins, yet the citizens of this city stand to lose a lot. So, all in good fun, "Who is Chris?" Which business minded, money oriented comic book villain reminds you most of Chris? Lex Luthor or King Pin? Feel free to gives your own suggestions as well!

Newsbreak: Governor Concerned Charter Amendment Could "Exclude Cincinnati."

Ohio Governor Ted Strickland

Ben Fischer of the Cincinnati Enquirer did a great job blogging about the Governors recent speech in Loveland, Ohio. Strickland, When asked about the charter amendment ballot initiative being pushed by COAST and the NAACP, Strickland had this to say: “I think Cincinnati and Cincinnatians would have to obviously make the decision if they want to be excluded from a system that will be interconnective, not only with Columbus and Dayton and Cleveland, but Chicago and other major, major cities as well."

Acknowledging the people's right to vote on the issue if and when the petition is verified, Strickland also added that he hopes voters in Cincinnati realize the COAST/NAACP charter amendment could "potentially have a detrimental effect upon the city." Strickland also acknowledged he "would have to look at the legal implications" of the amendment, but let's take a look at the current ballot language: 

The City, and its various Boards and Commissions, may not spend any monies for right-of-way acquisition or construction of improvements for passenger rail transportation (e.g., a trolley or streetcar) within the city limits without first submitting the question of approval of such expenditure to a vote of the electorate of the City and receiving a majority affirmative vote for the same.

With that kind of ballot language, Cincinnati could be delayed from or potentially kept out of consideration for not only the proposed Ohio "3C" High Speed Rail project, but a national high speed rail network connecting it to other major cities. Even if Cincinnati was featured in those networks, an amendment to the city's charter like this could further complicate and delay Cincinnati's involvement in maintaining and improving the project, making other cities and locations nearby better candidates. Apparently this charter amendment isn't just about the streetcar, it affects all passenger rail projects. Maybe we should heed the Governor's warning and take a good hard look at the legal implications?