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!

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.