A recent article in CityBeat highlights the NAACP's efforts, in conjunction with COAST, of course, to throw a bureaucratic wrench into future municipal transit improvements involving a specific bit of technology, rail.
They interviewed transit experts Chris Smitherman and Jason Haap (editor of the Arkham Beacon), the latter mistakenly described as a "political activist" (he prefers "media activist"). This gives some insight to the twisted mind of Mr Smitherman.
He says, "a $200 million streetcar system is not a priority for our tax dollars when the city is facing budget problems and City Council continues to cut basic services to citizens".
This obviously misses the point that the $180,000,000 is expected to have an economic return (estimated at $1,400,000,000) creating jobs and generating tax revenue, thus employing citizens and enabling the government to provide needed services throughout the city. It also ignores the fact that construction costs are low right now making it a good time to invest. It also ignores the opportunity to take advantage of the transit-heavy economic stimulus plan being proposed by president-elect Obama.
The article states that Smitherman believes the money could be better spent elsewhere, such as in neighborhood business districts, but fails to cite any specific plans. The city has invested in neighborhoods with efforts like facade improvements in struggling neighborhoods like Northside and College Hill. There is not much money in these projects and results are there but are minimal. Not recognizing the dire straits of OTR and the potential of riverfront development and tying the two together is the typical status quo oriented thinking that continually holds the city back and the OTR neighborhood (and surrounding neighborhoods) in perennial blight.
This thought, "Streetcar systems are a risky gamble that have failed in some cities, he says, and Cincinnati’s mostly would benefit people who own property along the proposed route" is kind of contradictory. Is the plan doomed or will it benefit people ?
Apparently, if it does benefit people, it's the wrong people. Smitherman and Haap express an almost obsessive hatred for Councilman Chris Bortz.
Smitherman claims, "the mayor and City Council have been remiss in allowing Bortz to head the economic development committee". This seems to stem from the same neocon belief in an idiot-savant sort of politician that put George W Bush into office, an extension of Ronald Reagan's Hitler-like contempt of the "expert".
Smitherman, in reference to the two riverfront stadium deals, states, "They don’t have a history of being accurate with their predictions". nevermind the legislature advocating the streetcar plan was not the legislature that advocated the stadiums (different people oversaw each stadium).
It also ignores the fact that the investment in the stadia were dependent on the performance of the principals of the respective teams. That is - 2 people, while the streetcar plan depends on the performance of, literally, hundreds of residents, property owners and businesspeople. Spreading the risk, like in a mutual fund, is generally considered safer than throwing all your investment into one potentially high gain stock.
Smitherman states, "A better model of economic development would be one that doesn’t displace residents in the process".
OTR is a virtual ghost town, the Banks doesn't exist yet and nobody, AFAIK, is getting displaced in the CBD. The lack of residents in OTR is a major lure of the area for people engaged in a black market that frequently erupts into violence.
Smitherman mistakenly makes this assertion so common amongst people who have no understanding of government finance, "The problem is, there’s only one checkbook and we all put our tax dollars in that bucket".
Government bodies do have general funds, but not spending comes from that pot.
Regarding the actual ballot initiative, this statement by Haap,“These critics make a charter amendment into a bigger deal than they should. Any amendment can be revoked at a later time. So it’s not like red-light cameras, for example, will be banned forever. If a group really thinks red-light cameras can save our city, they can petition to get their issue on the ballot and change the charter.”, snarkiness aside, makes it clear the motives of these groups is to harass, stall and inflate the costs of government. This idea is straight out of Che Guevera's book, Guerilla Warfare. While I have great respect for Guevera, his success in Cuba is probably not something we want here. Havana's camel buses, anyone ?