Hot News!
• Tea Party leader gets grilled by NAACP membership
On today's date in The Beacon archives, we published:
•Smitherman still saying the issue is about a “streetcar” (2009)•More on Amy Goodman’s Arrest and the Struggle for a Free Media (2008)
•Journalist Amy Goodman Unlawfully Arrested At RNC (2008)
•Seizing Illegal Guns—Thinking About 2% (2007)
•Information or Advertisements? (2007)
•Nick Lachey: “I have never supported George W. Bush.” (2007)
Contact Us
v mail: (513) 685-0678
e mail: click here
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Hey, Passenger Rail Advocates! Don’t let NAACP/COAST dictate terms of the debate
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati
Photo courtesy of here.
As we enter campaign season and consider the issue of amending the City’s charter so all passenger rail expenditures go to a public vote, it is important we engage the proper discussion surrounding what this move would mean for our City. Pro-rail advocates must avoid the pitfalls designed by COAST to trip up counterarguments. These pitfalls have been created to characterize pro-rail advocates as opposed to giving the people a voice in the direction of their community. But this strikes me as a straw man argument designed to sidetrack other motives that may be at play here—motives that authorize a very different public conversation.
Reasoning Strategies
I think the difference here has to do with inductive reasoning versus deductive reasoning. Wikipedia provides a simple set of examples to understand the difference.
Basically, inductive reasoning is where one takes a particular observation and then tries to reason inductively the nature of some basic principles. For example, one might feel a piece of ice, notice it’s cold, and then inductively reason that all ice is cold. In this example, someone took an observation, and then reasoned backwards for underlying principles as a way to characterize what’s happening. However, this strategy does not always work: just because one picture hangs from a wall by a nail does not mean all pictures do the same.
With deductive reasoning, on the other hand, one starts with an underlying premise, and then moves through premises and conclusions which follow logically. Generally, deductive reasoning is considered more philosophically sound. (If men are mortal and The Dean is a man, then The Dean is mortal.)
How does this relate to passenger rail?
Supporters of the NAACP/COAST petition have made particular observations, and then tried to reason a basic principle from them. They see that the petition gives voters a “choice,” and then conclude anyone opposing their move must be against giving people a choice. This is inductive reasoning. From a logical perspective, it is highly questionable. I think it a straw man argument. By creating this logically fallible system of inductive reasoning, they want to characterize anyone who opposes the charter amendment as opposing voter choice. That is backwards thinking, and not necessarily true or logical.
We deserve to have sensible and logical discussions, particularly as the campaign actualizes to something very real and powerful.
If we wish to reason deductively, we should establish some starting principles, and then see what logically follows. There are plenty of public statements made by COAST that create a clear set of basic principles—and these can logically lead to a very different conversation than one simply about “voter choice.” After all, if the two options provided by the petition constitute a false dilemma, then we really have not been given a choice at all.
Documenting some basic principles regarding COAST
Consider other organizations with whom COAST works closely. Here is an excerpt from a COAST newsletter distributed this week about the attempt to ban red-light cameras in Toledo:
Toledo volunteers gather to plan final month of campaign
Volunteers from throughout Toledo, along with COAST organizers from Cincinnati and Americans for Prosperity of Ohio organizers will convene Wednesday, July 8 at 6:30 PM in Toledo.
Americans for Prosperity were involved in a recent event at the beginning of June with Americans for Tax Reform. This is where COAST met with the likes of Grover Norquist, about whom they speak quite favorably. Norquist is known for starting no new taxes pledges with politicians, and for saying he wanted to destroy government.
Interestingly, COAST also issues no new taxes pledges. This is because COAST is about cutting government, and they have an anti-transit history.
In fact, a guy named Michael Valentine recently gave $10,000 to COAST. Valentine appears to be a local Republican supporter who makes his money selling radar systems for car drivers. Who would have an interest against transit and things like red light cameras if not a guy selling radar detectors to car drivers?
These facts substantiate some underlying principles that birth a radically different set of circumstances if we’re talking about deductive, and not inductive, reasoning.
1. COAST is anti-transit.
2. COAST receives contributions from people with interests in the car business.
3. COAST subscribes to an anti-government philosophy that tries to deconstruct government.
If these three things serve as a starting point, then we might conclude their political action would fall in line with their underlying principles. What we see with the NAACP/COAST anti-passenger rail petition is that it is anti-transit (and therefore pro-car), and it is designed to interfere in the regular workflow of government (and therefore working to deconstruct it).
The trouble with choices
A crazed killer might give victims a choice—death by strangling or drowning. But naturally we would not commend such a killer for offering choices—particularly if the outcomes of these alleged choices are undesirable.
So just because the anti-rail petition gives people choices, that does not mean that the nature of these choices is productive.
For example, what would we expect the City to do if putting any expenditure on the ballot for a public vote? Should they ask the voters for a blank check? Imagine the field day opponents would have with that one! Who wants to give City Hall a blank check?
Should they put a dollar amount on the ballot? What if the real expenditures go a few dollars over that amount? What then? Another vote? Or a lawsuit against the City with a big payout for someone like Christopher Finney?
The alleged “choices” built into this ballot are not good choices—like death by strangling and drowning are both bad choices.
Conclusion
Rail advocates need to make sure they don’t allow NAACP/COAST activists to define the discussion as being about “voter choice.” Voter choice is a meaningless concept when the design of the choices is inherently undesirable. Instead, they need to emphasize the nature of right-winged organizations like COAST, showing how this petition drive advances interests that ultimately have nothing to do with empowering the people of Cincinnati. The “voter choice” mantra is a straw-man argument meant to obfuscate other agendas.
• Share This Article! | Listen to this article |
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
02 Jul 2009 at 10:18 pm | #
Here’s my rule of thumb, short & sweet: Keep your distance from anything involving Chris Finney.
02 Jul 2009 at 11:04 pm | #
Some people really are against voter choice. People that use the fear tactic of “California style government” or “rule by referendum” which they say would cause “chaos” are against voter choice. These people say we have representative government (we don’t) and that voters have a choice and that is when they vote for council. (In California people voted for high speed rail because there was Proposition 1A.)
However, I know for a fact that council didn’t go around campaigning about being for the streetcar. Most people believed the Mayor when he said he was going to give all the neighborhoods money. They had no idea that he would fail to ever bring that up again and suddenly a streetcar would be his priority.
There’s nothing wrong with opposing the passenger rail transit amendment because it is broader than the streetcar, but most of the people that oppose it would have also opposed an initiative that was specifically about the streetcar. There’s also nothing wrong with being for it. I think both sides need to be honest about what it is.
They opposed the jail tax ballot initiative, PR and the Red Light Camera petitions. They are against voter choice. Many of them engage in political bigotry against Independent candidates too.
02 Jul 2009 at 11:36 pm | #
Justin I don’t think that is totally fair. I realize you are talking about some people in our coalition,
I wouldn’t be opposed to citizens collecting signatures to put an issue on the ballot about the streetcar,
I would have voted for the streetcar in such an event, but I’m not opposed to citizens petitioning the
government. I voted against the jail tax, against the Red Lights, and for PR. If we should judge coalitions
by the few members we find disagreeable than why have you been so defensive of the NAACP/COAST coalition?
03 Jul 2009 at 04:25 am | #
Yeah Justin - “rule by referendum” works so well. Remember Issue 3 and Article 12? Perhaps you should look that one up in Cincinnati History. After all many of the same people were involved who are involved with COAST
And there are many people who have been misled into signing a petition that they believed was ONLY against the streetcar and not passenger rail throughout the state. The petition is actually bordering on FRAUD due to its language and the way its promoted.
And to lump everyone together like that is misreprenting the facts. I suppose you mean that Dean opposed the jail tax ballot initiative, PR and the Red Light Camera petitions?
Theres nothing wrong with petitioning a cause when its DONE CORRECTLY, THE ISSUE IS PRESENTED CORRECTLY, ITS NOT MISREPRESENTED, AND THE LANGUAGE IS WRITTEN CLEARLY ABOUT THE ISSUE AT HAND WITHOUT HIDDEN RAMIFICATIONS TO OTHER PROJECTS.
03 Jul 2009 at 07:30 am | #
Yes, but fortunately that has nothing to do with the anti-rail passenger petition. I think it’s also possible that some of the tactics you mention are the unfortunate result of pro-rail people falling for the pitfall designed by COAST—which has been explained extensively in the main article. Hence my call not to engage the issue on their terms.
That is all very fine. However, this article has nothing to do with streetcars per se.
When people are being for the amendment, it is my position they should know exactly what they are supporting, and why it has even been offered for their support in the first place. Someone may choose death by strangling over death by drowning, but that does not mean the choice itself was a good one. I also covered all this in the main article.
Hitler was a vegetarian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler’s_vegetarianism
Vegetarianism is not bad just because Adolf Hitler agreed with it. Similarly, the fact that other totally unrelated issues had certain supporters has absolutely no relationship to the matter currently at hand.
03 Jul 2009 at 10:05 am | #
What does Hitler being a vegetarian have to do with this topic? When you connect two totally unconnected ideas to make a point it makes you sound desperate in your attempt to rationalize your point of view. Besides, it makes no sense.
Back on topic, yes Smitherman and COAST are the leading voices on this issue because they represent the voices of the people.
Deductive Reasoning:
1.City Council voted to spend almost $200 million dollars on a street trolley without citizen input.
2. NAACP and COAST reacted to their vote.
3. Petition was drawn up using legal language that would prevent such a vote from being inacted without citizen input.
4. Citizens responded by signing the petition indicating that they think its a good idea to vote on this.
5. Those in opposition to citizen input formed CFP with a stated goal to stop referendums which prevent the government trumping citizen’s rights to vote on issues they feel important.
6. Confusion about Obama rail plan announced in Spring 2009 being affected was thrown into the discussion by the opposition because they have no convincing argument why the entire city needs to foot the bill for 5 miles of track.
7. Citizens have spoken. The issue will be on the ballot in November.
You’re right Dean. From the logic trail I think its fair to say that those in opposition to the referendum don’t want choice, they want to fight, fight, fight for Towne Properties and other developers to fleece the city in effort to attract people to live in their OTR condos. Smitherman and COAST on the other hand have given the voters an opportunity to be heard. THANK YOU!!!
03 Jul 2009 at 10:29 am | #
I know you have trouble following along, so let me break it down for you. It has nothing to do with this topic, and everything to do with this comment left by Justin:
Justin seemed to indicate that because “they” had the opposite stand on other issues with which I agreed with the NAACP, that the current position was more of their “political bigotry.” I merely indicated that a person’s positions on one issue does not make their position on another wrong. While I would never stand with Hitler as part of vegetarian activism, vegetarianism is not bad just because Hitler supported it. It was an example.
I have no desire to fight for Towne Properties, and in fact I have filed inquiries with the City Solitor regarding Bortz’s role in supporting the streetcar. So there goes that theory.
Now, your seven point argument misses some important aspects—particularly when you get to number three. The deletion is so glaring, that your point number four cannot stand:
By virtue of your statement in #1, you frame this issue to be about the streetcar. So, in line #3, when you say that the language would prevent “such a vote,” it is clear that, once again, like all the other anti-rail petition advocates, you are being dishonest. Here is a more accurate #3:
Now, it is generally understood that Christopher Finney drafts the NAACP petition language. So why do we get the leap from #1 to #3, from the streetcar to all passenger rail projects?
The move makes perfect sense, however, when viewed from COAST’s starting points as a right-winged political advocacy group. Because they are anti-transit, pro-car, and for deconstructing government, the language you reference in #3 makes perfect sense. Therefore, the language misconstrues the nature of the “choice” being offered the voter. I covered all of this in the main article.
By the time you get to #4, it is predicated on so many fallible premises that it has no credibility:
The very fact citizens signed because they wanted to vote on the streetcar indicates the dishonest engaged by the NAACP and COAST regarding the nature of this petition drive.
03 Jul 2009 at 12:48 pm | #
Good idea. Thanks.
Today’s vocabulary word: Psephophobia. It’s the irrational fear of voting. Some mistakenly call this “progress.”
03 Jul 2009 at 01:41 pm | #
Some people think shutting down city pools and rec centers is progress as well.
03 Jul 2009 at 01:51 pm | #
Mark, you apparently don’t know how to read clearly. If I gave you a vote on whether to die by strangling or drowning, would you be celebrating the fact that I gave you a choice—or, instead, would you rightly recognize that the choice given was an unnecessary and contrived false dilemma.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html
Example from above source:
1. Either 1+1=4 or 1+1=12.
2. It is not the case that 1+1=4.
3. Therefore 1+1=12.
Mark Miller’s thinking:
1. Either person X supports the charter amendment, or person X has a fear of voting.
2. It is not the case that person X has a fear of voting.
3. Therefore person X supports the charter amendment.
More logically fallacies from COAST.
03 Jul 2009 at 01:54 pm | #
UCstudent, I’m glad you understand what the word some means please explain it to Wolfie. I’m not aware of your “coalition” and made no statement about a coalition. I stand by my statement and think it was fair.
Yes, as you know I agree with that. I also agree that the issue is bigger than just being about voter choice. I don’t see how choosing one’s death is relevant to this topic.
Saying that some of the people that are against this petition aren’t for voter choice would be accurate for some of the people that are against this petition. I specifically described the people that try to make others fearful of “California style government” and “rule by referendum”.
As I said, some people are just against the petition drive because the language is broader that the streetcar and I said there’s nothing wrong with that. If you are one of those people I’m not talking about you. I’m talking about people that say referendums will lead to “chaos” and that we elect council to make all the decisions. As you may recall we had some Democrat brag to us about how his daddy helped knock an Independent off of the ballot. I believe it is accurate to say that some of these people are against voter choice and yes that does have to do with this topic.
03 Jul 2009 at 01:55 pm | #
Interestingly, in their attempt to make fun of The Beacon, they have quoted out of context from this article and made an appeal to absurdity—another logical fallacy.
http://coast-usa.blogspot.com/2009/07/psephophobia.html
Why is COAST so bent on avoiding their motives?
03 Jul 2009 at 02:00 pm | #
I do remember that guy. It was amazing how proud he was for being anti-Democratic.
And I agree that some pro-rail advocates have fallen for COAST’s pitfall. They are not taking the debate on the proper terms, and they are making the wrong points. They are taking this debate on the terms presented by COAST. But I do not believe what COAST says. I believe the choice given by virtue of this amendment is a bad choice, as explained above. Giving people a bad choice, and then heralding themselves as champions of voter empowerment is dishonest.
03 Jul 2009 at 02:17 pm | #
What I meant by coalition was CFP and the campaign against the charter amendment of which I am a part of. If you call it undemocratic and repressive based oin the motives of a few of the members than is it fair for me to call COAST/NAACP’s coalition all the negative qualities that I attribute to a few people in that coalition? They are against many basic services you and I both strongly support and I’m sure you would agree that they’re not well intentioned.
03 Jul 2009 at 02:38 pm | #
UCstudent, I am judging CFP based on the their comments in the media and on their website. They say they are against “California style government”. As I said, I think this issue is broader than just voter choice, but they have come out against referendums, not just this charter amendment. I didn’t say they are all Democrats because Rob Richardson is. They claim referendums are “dangerous”. That’s what they’ve told the media and put on their website.
If you don’t share those core views then maybe you should work to oppose the amendment without identifying yourself as a part of CFP. That’s your decision.
The We Demand A Vote Coalition’s website doesn’t say anything about human services or basic services etc. They are specific to issues that the groups involved agree upon. CFP doesn’t appear to be just about this ballot initiative. They are generally opposed to ballot initiatives.
03 Jul 2009 at 02:44 pm | #
You are helping to circulate petitions written by COAST, should I judge the ballot initiative by what is written on their website?
03 Jul 2009 at 03:28 pm | #
I have helped circulate the NAACP’s petitions, not COAST’s. You should judge the ballot initiatives by the language that is written on them. I think it is fair to judge groups based on what they say to the media and on their website. Do not pretend that I’m a member of COAST.
03 Jul 2009 at 03:43 pm | #
Let’s be more specific: you helped circulate petitions bearing the name of NAACP officials as the circulating committee, including language written by one of COAST’s premier leaders.
03 Jul 2009 at 03:48 pm | #
I thought it was a coalition of NAACP & COAST?? COAST has a long anti public transportation history, and the language of the ballot initiative seems to confirm such a position. I heard Smitherman with my own ears say that if rail is such a good idea than private dollars can fund it, that further confirms my suspicion. I know I would be wrong in assuming your association with the petition makes you against public transportation, so don’t you think that perhaps you’ve misjudged many of those who have joined CFP’s growing coalition? CFP is not against private citizens’ right to petition their government, they do however oppose bad governance, such as an amendment that is perceived to give voter choice but in reality is a clever measure to hinder the expenditure of public dollars (state & federal included!) on public passenger rail.
03 Jul 2009 at 05:12 pm | #
Finney is a member of the NAACP too as you know. As I said you should judge organizations based on their statements to the media and on their websites. You should judge ballot initiatives by their language.
Is COAST anti-transit? I think so based upon their record. Is CFP against referendum’s? I think so based on their statements to the media and on their website.
Here’s how the Business Courier covered them.
CFP posted the story on their website and didn’t say that report was inaccurate. And there’s this from their website:
In California their referendum style of government also resulted in Proposition 1A passing which is high speed rail. They passed rail which we all know has magic in it so tax increases and budget deficits will go away-if what we’re being told by streetcar advocates is accurate-because of this style of government.
And there’s this from Dan Mooney:
I don’t know who all has joined CFP’s coalition and I specifically said some people, as in not all people opposed to this charter amendment really are against voter choice in general. I haven’t said that anyone that opposes this charter amendment is anti-voter choice, but some people are as I said.
I don’t care if you oppose the amendment or not. Feel free to work your ass off opposing it.
03 Jul 2009 at 05:41 pm | #
Justin, do you admit that giving people a so-called “choice” is rendered meaningless if the “choice” offered is a bad one, like in the example in the main article?
03 Jul 2009 at 05:48 pm | #
I reject your comparison of this choice to choosing two ways to die. Whether or not this choice is a good one or not is subjective isn’t it?
03 Jul 2009 at 05:48 pm | #
Also, the language is just so different…
http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/prop/
03 Jul 2009 at 05:50 pm | #
I did not ask if you accepted or rejected the comparison. Unless you can show the analogy is false, that is not the point.
The point is whether or not the choice is a good one. Maybe it is subjective. I would hope, however, anyone with a thoughtful and reasoned subjective opinion would be able to state their rationale.
03 Jul 2009 at 05:50 pm | #
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy
03 Jul 2009 at 07:01 pm | #
Yes the language is different. I never suggested otherwise. I simply pointed out that CFP doesn’t like giving voters a choice. They say it is “dangerous” and “California style government” as if that is such a terrible thing.
I’ll say it one more time. I don’t have a problem if people oppose this charter amendment because it is broader than than streetcar, but CFP really does oppose voter choice. Do you disagree?
03 Jul 2009 at 07:09 pm | #
Yes wholeheartedly. Are you saying that CFP objects to all issues on the ballot other
than the election of representatives? That is absolutely ludicrous, and pure fiction. They
certainly do oppose having frivolous referendums that would be mandated by a charter
amendment.
03 Jul 2009 at 07:28 pm | #
Fine. Shame on them.
Now, what about the fact that the choice COAST has crafted here is not a good choice? What rationale can you offer for your subjective opinion?
03 Jul 2009 at 07:40 pm | #
Yes, they are against voter choice and shame on them for that. That was the point I was making. I’m glad we got that straight.
03 Jul 2009 at 07:42 pm | #
This is only my opinion, but I think you are over thinking this. There is no clear message in this ballot initiative and I would be highly surprised if this passes. Give the voter “in mass” a bit of credit. Both sides are going to have votes that are not well thought out, but “in mass” there usually is a rational thought behind the result.
Besides, if you want to defeat the status quo that will undoubtedly have more money behind it, then you better have a clear message. It doesn’t guarauntee victory, but it is necessary for victory.
04 Jul 2009 at 12:47 am | #
Can you explain how you made that leap of logic? That is almost too ridiculous to rebut, but did you ever stop to “reason” that people who didn’t buy his radar detectors could go to jail if caught speeding if they couldn’t afford to pay the ticket(s)? If buying radar detectors keeps people out of jail shouldn’t he have been in favor of the jail? COAST was against it.
And just how does a radar detector keep a red light camera from taking pictures of cars going past the white stop line at an intersection? It doesn’t.
The proposed choo-choo is definitely NOT for transit, it’s an attraction. However, if Mr. Valentine and others were against transit as you suggest, shouldn’t they take a stance against Metro or Greyhound? They haven’t.
You keep alleging, but where have you seen in COAST literature any statement that they are against other types of rail besides the street car/trolley? Not your deduced or inferred logic nor your misrepresentation of what you say they want. Please provide a link. Thanks.
04 Jul 2009 at 07:57 am | #
Did you just say people with speeding tickets go to jail? And that a guy selling radar detectors would support a jail because he keeps people out of it? That is almost too ridiculous to rebut.
It does not, nor did I suggest it did—and further your point has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I’m not talking about the Streetcar. I’m talking about President Obama’s intercity rail line and the Eastern Corridor rail project.
Most certainly. How about several?
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2002/06/25/loc_transit_proposal.html
http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Louis_Stephan_218448910.aspx
On the loss of the light rail issue in 2002:
VOTERS SAY NO TO HIGHER TAXES - PROPOSED LIGHT RAIL SYSTEM LOSES BIG | Cincinnati Post. Wednesday, November 6, 2002
http://alrt1.homestead.com/
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/10/08/loc_sortalouis08.html
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2002/10/08/loc_light-rail_opponents.html
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2002/10/07/loc_light-rail_plan_tax.html
Then, of course, the real money shot. You gotta read the whole thing, but some good quotes:
http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-1947-news-sorta-troubling.html
Naturally, Louis denies writing most of these things, but defends things like the use of the word “youts.” And the position on the Freedom Center is exactly in line with the position of his cronies at COAST and The Whistleblower.
04 Jul 2009 at 08:01 am | #
Also, Justice, it looks like you are avoiding my comment #7—which rebuts extensively your comment #6.
04 Jul 2009 at 05:30 pm | #
Capias warrants are issued all the time when people cant afford to pay tickets before the two week period and don’t show up to court. Timothy Thomas who had seat belt and/or head/tail light violations was one such violator and he got shot to death, so what’s your point?
Exactly what was I supposed to address in all your rambling in post #7? You are all over the place so please specify.
Thanks for all the links! They were a little outdated from 2001 and 2002, but still appropriate. To be honest, I was really in favor of the Obama High Speed Rail Plan to stimulate the economy, but some of the info you linked reinforces the original reasons why the people voted down light rail in the first place. I know light rail differs from high speed, but were you aware that in one of the links the FTA official who used factual data reported that a Hamilton County rail plan “Costs too much and serves too few”? The estimated cost of a Hamilton County rail system in 2002 that was expected to be completed in 2031 was 2.6 billion dollars and would reduce 8800 cars off the highway. Last week I read a story by CFP posted on the Enquirer website that said the Obama plan “MIGHT” come our way and the Governor would say $400 million was available for it. If Hamilton County alone cost 2.6 billion 6 years ago, how far will $400 million dollars go statewide? Not very! I see nothing wrong with the voters having a say in the expenditure if and when it ever comes about since we are going to have to pay the lion’s share of the costs.
04 Jul 2009 at 05:57 pm | #
But don’t you understand that such is a separate issue entirely? Look at all the public statements from NAACP and COAST regarding these petitions. They keep referring to them as the “trolley” petitions. Smitherman endless talks about the OTR “choo-choo train.” By doing so, they obfuscate the scope of their own petition language.
You might be fine with giving the voters a say on that particular issue—but that is not the point. The NAACP and COAST have not engaged the discussion according to the parameters they designed. That is dishonest.
So ask yourself: why do they refuse to address the actual scope of the petition. Why not get in front of this as a about giving people a choice on all rail projects, including Obama’s, and not just about the streetcar?
How can anyone, in good conscience, support a movement based on misinformation and half-truths? How can anyone claim to be giving voters a choice when they don’t even tell the whole truth about the nature of this so-called choice?
05 Jul 2009 at 12:36 pm | #
What exactly is it that you want? You are all over the place with your reasons for supporting the amusement ride (not transit). First, it was the potential to interfere with the Obama high speed rail plan. Next, you said all rail plans would be affected; when the FTA official said it would not affect any project as you claimed, then it was the language of the petition that you have problems with. You have continued to find any opening you could to poke holes in the pro-citizen movement. The people will have a say and their voice will be heard either in favor or against the wasteful spending. Instead of going after COAST NAACP, and taxpayers who want to vote on the issue, you can also add to that list all the city workers who are now facing layoffs, furloughs and underfunding of the retirement system. Will you also claim that they are misleading the public?
To date, I haven’t read anything about how those REAL problems will be addressed. Will council and the mayor cut police and fire to fund a choo-choo train for Towne Properties and other developers?
05 Jul 2009 at 02:19 pm | #
Source, please.
06 Jul 2009 at 09:37 am | #
{ersonally I think the petitions should be thrown out because of the false and misleading ways they were publicized.
I wonder if the attorney gerneral can get involved?
06 Jul 2009 at 11:54 am | #
I’d like to learn more about an FTA official’s supposedly saying the COAST ballot issue wouldn’t affect other forms of passenger rail in Cincinnati.
This is, of course, one of the tactics they used against MetroMoves in 2002—saying the FTA considered the rail plan to be “the worst in the country.”
FTA said no such thing, and ALRT,the PAC that opposed MetroMoves, was found guilty of violating Ohio’s election law by attempting to influence the outcome of an election by making a false statement. ALRT’s leader, Stephan Louis, was found personally guilty. Someone said they recently saw Louis collecting signatures in Northside. Connect the dots.
06 Jul 2009 at 10:58 pm | #
On another thread (there have been so many dealing with this issue) someone else said that, not the FTA.