2013 Election (Cincinnati, Prospect, Clifton: move, light rail, suburbs)

[hensleya1]

And I would applaud Cranley for standing up to Obama, Ray LaHood, and the rest of utterly misguided folks who think a streetcar is the silver bullet that will save Cincinnati. What will save the city however, is right in the area itself - the people that make the city up.

3CDC is an excellent start. I would use the money saved by cancelling the streetcar - that is, the millions of dollars in yearly operating costs that the city will no longer incur - to start neighborhood development corporations, with the precise same goal of coordinating public and private dollars to redevelop each neighborhood.

As to the streetcar rails, I care deeply enough about Cincinnati's success that I would happily volunteer myself to go and rip those rails right out of the ground.

Just to be clear: Cincinnati is not Portland. Any time somebody holds up Portland as a model for Cincinnati, I stop taking them seriously.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by progmac

Well, you've got Mt Washington and Mt Airy. There are some new infill cul-de-sacs here and there. Cincinnati, by and large, is pretty urban. Even Saylor Park, though it is far away, is a pretty dense little area (although it no doubt voted Cranley). What am I missing here? This isn't like Toronto or Columbus where areas with suburban character have substantial voting power.

The areas certainly function as a typical suburb, though what's ironic is that the suburbs in Columbus wouldn't necessarily fight so much against the city. It's a much more cordial relationship.

[Briolat21]

Well, at least I'm glad to know now that not only are the areas outside of the city limits considered unimportant and despised by the urbanites on this board, but the actual residential areas of the City itself are also tarred with the "suburban" denigration.

The population of this region, is mostly found outside of the urban core. Which is to say, most people have voted (with their feet/pocketbooks) for a more residential living situation.

Perhaps you should explain to Hyde Park, Oakley, Pleasant Ridge, and Northside (the areas so often touted on this site as great places to live) that you prefer they pound sand because they are too suburban to be actually counted as part of the city?

What's ridiculous is my husband and I would like living in a downtown urban core, but are so turned off by the pretensious attitudes of the hipsters pushing their own agendas .. that we won't consider it. Tolerance means just that - tolerance for all views, not just people who see the world exactly as you do.

[t45209]

Originally Posted by Briolat21

What's ridiculous is my husband and I would like living in a downtown urban core, but are so turned off by the pretensious attitudes of the hipsters pushing their own agendas .. that we won't consider it. Tolerance means just that - tolerance for all views, not just people who see the world exactly as you do.

That's just cutting your nose off to spite your face. If you want to do it, then just do it. I think you'll find that there are more than enough urban core dwellers who do not fit your description in order to make it a tolerable experience.

[bertwrench]

Originally Posted by Coseau

The 401 k retirement system was not designed for the average worker in mind but for high salaried top level executives and CEO's of corporations so that their retirement funds could be portable in case they went to work for another corporation.

You need to stop listening to the rhetoric coming out of some groups that don't want you to think for yourself. Your assertion could not be farther from the truth. 401ks were created so the average working man and woman could save pre income tax in the hopes that when they retired they would be in a lower tax bracket. 401k's are all about tax code not some form of CEO welfare as you claim.

I worked many years in a unionized shop that had a 401k system that everyone in that shop was saving a huge nest egg and some were over 1 million dollars. These were average middle class citizens who paid into the system for years along with an amount from the company. These guys are going to be way better off at retirement than if they had a pension, and this savings was possible even in a small manufacturing plant because of the 401k.

Imagine if the city put away into a 401k just a fraction of what they do for the pensions, every single one of the city employees who spent their working years there could retire millionaires. Every single one of them. Don't be jealous of those on Wall Street getting wealthy from the markets. Join them and become partial owner of a company too by purchasing securities.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Briolat21

Well, at least I'm glad to know now that not only are the areas outside of the city limits considered unimportant and despised by the urbanites on this board, but the actual residential areas of the City itself are also tarred with the "suburban" denigration.

The population of this region, is mostly found outside of the urban core. Which is to say, most people have voted (with their feet/pocketbooks) for a more residential living situation.

Perhaps you should explain to Hyde Park, Oakley, Pleasant Ridge, and Northside (the areas so often touted on this site as great places to live) that you prefer they pound sand because they are too suburban to be actually counted as part of the city?

What's ridiculous is my husband and I would like living in a downtown urban core, but are so turned off by the pretensious attitudes of the hipsters pushing their own agendas .. that we won't consider it. Tolerance means just that - tolerance for all views, not just people who see the world exactly as you do.

No one said that the people in the suburbs don't matter, and I personally don't despise suburbanites even though I think their choice of lifestyle and development are wholly unsustainable and a big reason why cities struggle to pay the bills. I also do not feel like the development direction of a city's urban core should be dictated by people who actively choose not to live or invest there. Cities fell apart because people abandoned them. Now that younger generations, in particular, are finally interested in rebuilding, the people who left, at least in some cities like Cincinnati, are still trying to hold the city back. That's not a positive at all. And for the record, there are plenty of good people who live in the city and aren't some kind of stereotypical hipster.

[Ohiogirl81]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

No one said that the people in the suburbs don't matter, and I personally don't despise suburbanites even though I think their choice of lifestyle and development are wholly unsustainable and a big reason why cities struggle to pay the bills. I also do not feel like the development direction of a city's urban core should be dictated by people who actively choose not to live or invest there.

Blah, blah, blah. Whether you like it or not, "suburbanites" living in Madisonville, Linwood, Westwood, Covedale, Mt. Washington, Mt. Airy, Mt. Healthy, and California have as much right to determine the course of the city, and how their money is spent, as do people living in Over-the-Rhine, downtown, and Walnut Hills.

[kjbrill]

bertwrench ...

You are exactly right. The 401K plan was originated to help the little guy and at the same time give companies relief from the problems of funding traditional pensions.

My employer, I only had one for 45 years, had both a traditional pension and a 401K plan. The company contribution to the 401K was on the modest side but it existed. I felt I was an idiot if I did not contribute to the 401K.

The biggest downside to the 401K is the money is put into investments, which can not only gain in value but lose value. Just prior to my retirement 10 years ago my 401K took a big hit, losing almost 40% of its value due to my not reacting fast enough to switch to a low return fixed interest base. Most plans have different levels of investments you can select from.

At the same time I retired there were many others who took early retirement based on incentives the company offered. One was a lump sum payout based on years worked. At 45 years I got one of the largest. The company managed to get the payout classified to qualify as a retirement benefit and eligible to be rolled into an IRA, which I did.

Simultaneously with our retirement the company terminated their traditional pension plan. Of course those already having a vested interest in the pension just remained at that level. The pension termination just meant no new obligations would be incured by the company. In return the company increased their contribution to the 401K plan considerably to make it the primary vehicle for future retirees.

There are Federal limits on the maximum you can contribute to a 401K plan in a single year. There are also limits on the company match. My daughter worked for awhile for an outfit whose company match was 2:1. Again, an idiot if you didn't contribute. What kind of outfit does a 2:1 match?, it was a union.

[Sarah Perry]

Originally Posted by progmac

I would love to hear from other city residents that are unhappy with neighborhood services. I consider both you and henslaya Cincinnatians in general, but there is no way that you speak for people living in Cincinnati neighborhoods. Saying services aren't good and the neighborhoods are forgotten about. You don't know that, how could you?

Well, you'll love to hear from me.

I've lived for going on 14 years within the city limits in an inner-ring suburb. I'm good with the trash pick-up and winter street clearing. I haven't had to use police or fire, although the reports about the newly implemented fire station brownouts with inevitable increased response times are concerning. What I DO have extensive experience with is code enforcement and support for neighborhood revitalization. Code enforcement is beyond lacking, more along the lines of abysmal and nearly non-existent. I won't get into specific stories here, but if you could hear some of them you'd either find them laughable or unbelievable. In the case of one problem neighbor, they repeatedly dealt with a complaint by phoning the neighbor, asking if the situation was occurring, and when she said no, closed the case. Does that seem like effective enforcement to you?

If the neighborhoods around a thriving urban core are rotten, Cincinnati cannot move forward. I really believe Cranley's election was partially a statement on that.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81

Blah, blah, blah. Whether you like it or not, "suburbanites" living in Madisonville, Linwood, Westwood, Covedale, Mt. Washington, Mt. Airy, Mt. Healthy, and California have as much right to determine the course of the city, and how their money is spent, as do people living in Over-the-Rhine, downtown, and Walnut Hills.

If you want to throw your hat in with the destructive, backwards tea party fanatics, you can enjoy Cincinnati stagnating developmentally. And that positive growth last year? I wouldn't expect a lot more of that come 2020. This is the choice your city has made with the elected leadership. It's not about just the streetcar, which wasn't meant to be the "silver bullet" some are suggesting. Progressive, forward-thinking policy will put your city on the map. This crap? Yeah, good luck with that.