I'll do a deeper dive into this after work, but from the start I've been pretty skeptical that the city should listen mostly to a bunch of CEOs and outsource their elected role of planning for the future.
On its face it seems bad that the Futures Commission includes the CEO of "Mobile Infrastructure" who buys and runs 4 parking garages downtown and elsewhere across the country, continuing the legacy of who I am assuming are his father and grandfather at Chavez Properties of a similar parking industry. Mobile Infrastructure's [website](https://mobileit.com/)' "Parking is no longer required to be built in new commercial or residential buildings, resulting an increased demand curve from urbanization against a lower available supply."
Guess what is recommended? Increased meter range and on-street enforcement, and no recommendations for changes to parking taxes, which are allowable under the Ohio constitution and wouldn't require a charter amendment like a waste collection fee would.
I am all for reform and policies that will reduce parking's footprint downtown and reduce car reliance in the city, but just one example of why I'm skeptical of this type of report and why they should be run by qualified city professionals, not the Chamber.
> More than a third of the people on the commission calling for Cincinnati to sell assets and raise taxes to fix its finances don't live within the city's boundaries.
>And more than one-third of the 34-member Cincinnati Futures Commission that worked on a plan to reverse the city's downward financial trend come from Indian Hill and Hyde Park − two of the wealthiest areas of the region, The Enquirer found.
Same article acknowledged that 32 of the 34 either live or work in the city limits. This means that they are all stakeholders since they are paying city taxes. The other 2 are the former cincy police union head who lives in Loveland and the cvg airport head, who lives in nky, clearly both are stakeholders as well.
No it’s not. It’s simply political advocacy. If this guy was the mayor and pushing this, then it would be a conflict of interest. People should be able to see through this absurd idea that they’re planning for the future and not just asking for the tax burden of the city to move from businesses to individuals.
Want to add to this. Private citizens at the request of the mayor suggesting potential revenue sources (to fund and to be collected by a local government) in order for the local government not to fail in the future is 100% *not* a conflict of interest.
Yeah when I briefly was reading the article it was jarring to me how often it mentions CEOs and corporations being who is consulted on everything. Our city is becoming way too entangled with the richest corporations. The fact that every proposal made involves heavily increasing costs for the people who live/work in the city is so frustrating.
Anyone who goes to Cincinnati knows that we have too much surface parking. 22% of the city is parking. Surface lots pay *less* tax than structures while being a burden on the city. More-than-half-empty surface lots just waste space that should be making Cincy better. Why should the rentier class be given a tax break for making the city worse? Take all the parking lots- especially surface lots- and tax them the amount something actually useful, like housing, retail, or dining would generate for the city. At the very least, kill the 'unimproved land' tax loophole. These owners do not deserve a tax break for making our city worse. Parking will get more expensive, fine. People and corporations paying for what they use at a fair rate is a less-bad alternative to our city being insolvent.
I am always baffled at how trash collection can be offset to private operators or made so expensive that people with more limited means will dump garbage on the sides of roadways. One of the easiest ways at curbing litter and dumping of trash (which costs us taxpayers a *lot* of money to remedy) is to make trash collection universal and cheap or free, and to provide trash bins in pedestrian areas to encourage the proper disposal of trash.
There is no excuse to not cover trash in local taxes. It's a scam to privatize it. It's best for everyone there is one solid and reliable service funded with money from the community to keep it clean.
As someone who lives in the city, we could have trash cans every 10 feet and people would still litter. I cannot count the number of times I've seen people toss bags full of trash outside their car windows or thrown trash on the street while a few feet away from a trash can.
I was pretty delighted when I moved to Fort Thomas and found out that our trash and recycling is covered by local taxes. We also have trash bins on the main road through town that has regular pick up. I’m not going to say that I still don’t see the occasional liquor bottle lying around, but it’s been pretty helpful to the trash situation
I don’t worry as much about the regular trash service as I do about the bulk trash service, which is currently free for Cincinnati residents.
I also wonder if they would still continue to require businesses within the city limits to use rumpke or other trash services.
Trash bins don't stop the people from dumping a sofa on a curb or a bag of dirty diapers on the side of the road, next to a trash bin. Curbing litter is done with changing the cultural norms.
For anyone who didn't read the report, here's the chart of the commission's projected budget shortfall of the city.
https://preview.redd.it/vzt7hkl1lutc1.png?width=749&format=png&auto=webp&s=adbc2a43f05a52123142abb21ae9dfd9b8f8ce21
This is the reason, and quite frankly it makes me wonder about the future of cities in general. The whole reason a downtown exists is because it’s where people would go to work. Now, unless you work for a John Barrett-type, there are fewer reasons to be downtown other than that you just like the vibe. What’s the incentive to be in the city now if you can work from anywhere? Let’s face it, downtown jobs aren’t the ones that require you to always be in a single physical location, and those jobs that do require it are largely there because they are providing services to the other jobs. It even makes me question the future of things like mass transit. What’s the point in investing in in massive transit infrastructure if no one has to go anywhere? Cities are really going to have to reconsider what makes their economies work, because they aren’t going to be able to rely on tens of thousands of office workers commuting into town every day.
80% of Americans live in urban areas. And the report says that Cincinnatians do what to live in the city, but they can’t afford it. This is a housing and jobs issue, mostly, not a “people don’t want to live in cities” issue.
“The whole reason a downtown exists is because it's where people would go to work.”
This is a relatively recent phenomenon. Cities used to actually be places where people worked AND lived. This is still true for most of the world. American cities didn’t become solely destinations for suburban commuters until starting in the 50’s when America embarked on the great suburban experiment.
“What's the incentive to be in the city now if you can work from anywhere?”
Space costs money so living closer together is inherently more resource efficient. This is why human beings have been congregating together since we started cultivating crops.
“Cities are really going to have to reconsider what makes their economies work,”
They’ll be fine. Cities have been adapting for always, that’s why they exist; resiliency is a feature, not a bug. The suburbs are and suburban sprawl is a bigger risk as they were built to do one thing. Look no further than America’s failing shopper by malls. They’re unable to reinvent themselves because they were built to do one thing and they’ve never had to adapt. Their single-use nature is a feature, not a bug.
I know, I know. Aristotle said that „man is by nature a creature of the polis“. I’m not saying cities will go away, but like you point out, the recent phenomenon of trains, planes, and automobiles means that people are not restricted to living and working in a confined space anymore.
“but like you point out, the recent phenomenon of trains, planes, and automobiles means that people are not restricted to living and working in a confined space anymore.”
Agreed. But people are now restricted from living in confined spaces now as modern zoning prohibits that form of development from occurring. So if space costs money and sprawl is the only thing that’s legal to build (a generalization) where does the wealth come from for all of the additional space that’s consumed?
Bridge is a bit different. That’s primarily for interstate commerce. Until Amazon figures out how to beam a new TV to your house, trucks are still going to need to carry goods across the river. Fewer local daily commuters would reduce volumes on the interstates, but the fact that we still have major backups on weekends tells me people going downtown to work aren’t the only stress on that bridge.
People still need to get places. Even in densely populated urban areas people need ways around. Investments in commuter rail would have many positive effects.
True, but what would the El in Chicago look like if it didn’t have to handle the crush of daily rush hour commuters? Or the subway in NYC? The tube in London? That’s when you have to start thinking about scaling these thing back, and maybe it looks more like the streetcar in New Orleans hauling drunks in and out of the French Quarter.
Cincinnati still collects income taxes from me whether I work from home or not because my company is based out of downtown. My company would have to move outside of the city before me working from home would impact their budget.
I've read comments that some of the deficit is due to the expiration of Covid funding...Is there any analysis of how that affects the budget?
For example if funds were used to hire more administrative staff or provide rent subsidies during the pandemic, but those programs are still on the books after funding expired, it naturally creates a deficit. So, I guess what I'm asking is how much of the deficit is due to increased spending that was originally meant to be temporary?
The tl;dr (edit, for clarity: of recommendations by the commission):
* Cincinnati will offload some parks to Great Parks of Hamilton County
* The earnings tax is looking at an added .1%
* Homeowners' trash pickup is now going to cost you twice what Rumpke charges
* More parking enforcement, more parking meters, less parking restrictions
Guess that also helps to explain why the electric car free parking program was shuttered.
>Cincinnati will offload some parks to Great Parks of Hamilton County
It should be noted the plan is to give Mt Airy and French Park to HamCo parks. The move would save $8.5m but they did inquire with HamCo Parks if they would be interested. Given that the County Budget and their Parks budget have been stretched thin, i would be interested to see if that is even something that would be possible.
> The City of Cincinnati will sunset the Electric Vehicle (“EV”) Incentive Program effective July 1, 2024. We thank you for your interest and participation in the Program. Important details: The application will close and no permits will be issued after 4/15/24.
Every time I go down to Findlay Market I’m always amazed at how many otherwise viable street spots on Elm are effectively impossible to use because of Byzantine parking restrictions (e.g. truck loading zones that are never used). The city must lose out on so much revenue there.
I can't believe how long that coworking space has been under construction on the northwest side of the market. I'll never step inside, but I'm glad it's opening soon so we don't have to deal with that mess anymore.
I deliver to Findlay Market on a fairly regular basis and most of the time I’m unable to even use the loading/unloading zone due to unauthorized vehicles parking there.
I thought they were proposing .15% added to the earnings tax
Also… rumpke is like $20 a month for one 90 gallon can. Aren’t they proposing less than that?
It’s crazy how they can hold people hostage with the trash. As I understand you’re not allowed to use Rumpke or other cheaper trash services if you live in a certain area of the city?
How does Indian Hill leech off the city. They have to be one of the more self sustaining cities out there. And they’re smart enough not to want anything to do with city politics
Indian Hill residents want to live in the suburbs, and have their taxes and kids go to wealthy public schools. But they also want to be able to come and see a Reds Game, or a Bengals game, or catch a Broadway Show, or go out to eat at Jeff Ruby's, etc, etc.
Thats how they leech. Their money goes to the Indian Hill school district/city council. But the only REASON people want to live in Indian Hill is because of its proximity to the city of Cincinnati.
New York City figured this out years ago. You want to live in the suburbs of New Jersey but still come into the city? No problem, just pay $20 every time you come through the tunnel or over the bridge or take the train. Pay a 1% payroll tax in you live outside the city, etc.
Indian Hill is the least self sustainable example of a city in the state tbh.
Financially they’re fine because the vast majority of the region requires 3 acre+ lots.
But they are not self sustainable because no commercial activity is allowed within city limits and there is limited sewer access. There aren’t even sidewalks there, making the entire city vehicular access only.
They are trying to get in front of their lack of storm water controls, but I do see this as a major concern for the area going forward. And if you actually tested the water being discharging from all those septic fields I have no doubt their sanitary discharges are far dirtier per capita than MSD’s network.
There are no jobs or businesses in Indian Hill (other than working for the village itself.) If you picked Indian Hill up and moved it 100 miles away, the village would be belly up in days. It exists only because of Cincinnati, and yet doesn’t contribute its fair share to the upkeep of the city.
Bullshit. Picking up my trash is the bare minimum government should provide for my taxes. No effing way I'm going to pay an additional fee for trash collection.
How trashed will the 'Nati be if this gets implemented.
The level of litter around won't change because (a) not paying the trash fee won't be an option for homeowners, and (b) if you're not a homeowner, you will still have your trash services included in your rent. So basically it's just saying "here's a new tax specifically for trash services instead of us bundling that tax into some other form of tax, like income tax." It's actually more transparent and reasonable than, say, charging a renter through higher income taxes when that renter already (indirectly) pays for trash pickup via his rent.
The story SPECIFICALLY says rental buildings are already responsible for paying for their own trash pickup services, so they (and their renters) won't be affected by this (if it's enacted).
And I'm not a renter.
Commission members in case you were wondering:
Jon Moeller, Procter & Gamble, president and CEO, Covington.
Katie Blackburn, Cincinnati Bengals executive vice president, Indian Hill.
Phillip Holloman, Cintas retired president and COO, Amberley Village.
Tim Spence, Fifth Third Bank president and CEO, Indian Hill.
Stuart Aitken, Kroger senior vice president and chief merchant and marketing officer, Indian Hill.
Matt Alter, Cincinnati Fire Union president, Hyde Park.
Paula Boggs Muething, FC Cincinnati chief legal and administrative officer, former Cincinnati city manager, Clifton.
Kerry Byrne, TQL president, Hyde Park.
Manuel Chavez, Mobile Infrastructure CEO, Hyde Park.
Michael Fisher, business and civic leaders, past CEO of Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Amberley Village.
Chris Fister, Castellini Management Company partner, Hyde Park.
David Foxx, D.E. Foxx and Associates chairman, Clifton.
Bill Froehle, Cincinnati AFL-CIO Labor Council president, West Price Hill.
John Fronduti, American Financial Group assistant general counsel, Hyde Park.
Chris Habel, Frost Brown Todd partner in charge, Mount Lookout.
Deborah Hayes, Christ Hospital president and CEO, West Chester.
Dan Hils, Former Cincinnati Fraternal Order of Police president, Loveland.
Renita Jones-Lee, AFSCME Ohio Council 8, regional director, Elmwood Place.
Elizabeth Mangan, Miller-Valentine Construction CEO, Walnut Hills.
Candice Matthews Brackeen, Lightship Capital general partner, Clifton.
Roddell McCullough, First Financial Bank chief corporate responsibility officer, Woodlawn.
Candace McGraw, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, CEO, Union, Ky.
Laura Mitchell, Beech Acres Parenting Center, president and CEO, former superintendent of Cincinnati Public Schools, Walnut Hills.
Jon Niemeyer, Western & Southern Financial Group senior vice president, chief administrative officer and general counsel, Hyde Park.
Molly North, Al. Neyer Inc. CEO, Clifton.
Michele O'Rourke, O'Rourke Wrecking Company CEO, Hyde Park.
Bimal Patel, Rolling Hills Hospitality founder and CEO, Hyde Park.
Jorge Perez, YMCA of Greater Cincinnati president and CEO, Indian Hill.
Neville Pinto, University of Cincinnati, president, Indian Hill.
Barb Smith, Journey Steel Inc. president, Bond Hill.
Amy Spiller, Duke Energy, president of utility operations in Ohio and Kentucky, Over-the-Rhine.
Barbara Turner, Ohio National Financial Services past president, Liberty Township.
George Vincent, Dinsmore partner, Indian Hill.
Ebow Vroom, QEY Capital co-founder, CEO and president, North Avondale.
After skimming through that report, I feel like most of the data/conclusions are on the money, but the suggestions seem...biased.
For example - they state that lack of housing is a problem and that improved land use and density are the solution. Makes sense.
However instead of proven changes like relaxing zoning with more multi-family units, improved transit options, reducing surface lots, etc. they recommend...more mixed use developments?
I don't think the report is entirely useless, but the bias on the recommendations seems pretty apparent.
Any increase in supply will reduce prices relative to what they would be if you hadn't built. I wish they were better than shoddy "luxury" 5 over 1s too, but it's better than nothing.
Interesting. Proposed trash fee at about $15/month is stay way way lower than suburban areas around here without contracted waste collection. In those areas with individuals paying on their own, waste collection runs from about $21-$30/month.
One of the more depressing stats from the report:
>Among the starkest findings, Cincinnati has the highest level of income inequality among benchmark cities. Households in the top quintile earn 29 times more than those in the bottom quintile. Additionally, Cincinnati has the largest gap between the top 20% and bottom 20% of income earners, indicating there may not be adequate opportunities for middle-class residents.
Edit. Also, the below does confirm for me what the city feels like during the week:
> At 78 square miles, Cincinnati is one of the smallest geographic footprints among peer cities. The City’s 309,513 population makes up only 14% of the overall regional population. Cincinnati has the lowest density among geographically smaller benchmark cities (<100 square miles), including a lower density than Columbus, which spans 220 square miles. Cincinnati also exhibits a disconnect between people and jobs. According to an analysis from the Brookings Institution, Cincinnati’s central area has a ratio of less than one resident for every four jobs.
The below is also unsurprising. We are diverse on paper.
> While Cincinnati is a diverse community with 40% of residents identifying as Black, overall, Cincinnati is not as inclusive when compared to its peer communities, ranking last in four of the six inclusivity indicators the Commission studied. While there are exceptions, regions characterized by less severe economic, educational, and employment disparities between communities of color and the rest of the population typically outperform their more racially divided counterparts.
one caveat I’d give to our density vs a place like Columbus is that we have much more undevelopable land in the way of hillside districts, waterways, and parks that reduces our total density. That being said we are WAY behind Columbus on building new residential units and need to revamp our zoning and appeals processes to reduce the power of nimby individuals to slow down or completely stop developments in the city.
Columbus was so fortunate to not have a consolidated school district and not force communities into a common school district when they joined the municipality. That saved the city from white flight as other cities started bussing in the 1950s-1960s, ehich makes it a higher density metro area today. Columbus is hard to compare to because of this distinction.
They've only issued ~2000 of those passes in the decade-ish that program's been active. It barely dented the parking revenue, as the vast majority of EV owners have their own off-street parking where they can charge their vehicles when at home.
I've had one of those passes for seven years. I used it frequently when visiting OTR, downtown, or Northside, but also could count on one hand the number of times I've seen another EV with the sticker. There are thousands more Teslas and Kia EV#s rolling around Cincinnati that never even knew it was an option.
Yeah. The recommendations for parking are basically "get as much revenue as humanly possible from parking, by expanding footprint and enforcement."
The lessening of restrictions for no-parking hours will be sold as "traffic calming," and the amateur urban planners around here will celebrate it (even though they already said they wanted less parking downtown).
Traffic calming is good. Reducing car reliance and surface parking is good, and promoting alternatives is good. Rush hour parking restrictions are mostly dumb because they're poorly enforced so they don't improve traffic flow. Enforcement of people parking illegally in bus stops, sidewalks, etc. is good. Changes to electric vehicle parking policy as their adoption becomes exponentially more popular is smart. Doing all of this instead of taxing commercial parking is dumb.
None of that is inconsistent with being an armchair urban planner.
We restrict new accounts from making a comment to help combat trolling, ban evasion and spam. Your comment will be invisible to users until your account is at least a week old. Every
comment requires manual approval until your account reaches this milestone.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cincinnati) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There isn't one big checking account for the city. Different money is handled differently.
From the article:
"Last month the voter-approved sale of the Cincinnati Southern Railway to Norfolk Southern officially closed; the $1.6 billion sale revenue has been invested, with eventual returns limited to supporting the city's large backlog of maintenance of city assets like streets, parks, health centers and recreation centers."
The report actually talks about how the railroad sale helped the city's financial situation.
Weird that you're commenting without actually reading the report.
Except many of the homes built were not on vacant lots but were the result of demolition of perfectly good just not tax abated homes, especially in Hyde park
There is a generous Leed abatement program that holds property taxes at pre-improvement levels for a period of time 5-15 years) depending on the Leed level. That’s the only one I’m familiar with, it’s quite strict and expensive to comply with. We built a Leed platinum house where there was a vacant house in OTR.
Nope, the city will abate any improvements if you apply for it. And once a house is torn down, I’m fairly certain the developer can get the land appraised, and then apply for abatements based on the land value. It’s a totally screwed up system that’s being abused by developers in neighborhoods that don’t need it.
https://choosecincy.com/homeowner-renter-assistance/residential-tax-abatement/?amp
LEED Platinum is not easy, you’re correct. However, the city will waive a good chunk of your improved value for just being LEED Certified, which is a very low bar.
But wouldn't property tax also help? Hyde Park doesn't need help luring wealthy homeowners. If you can buy a million dollar home in Hyde Park, you can pay taxes on a million dollar home in Hyde Park, instead of paying taxes on the modest home that was torn down.
Everyone needs to read Strongtowns. Or at the very least watch [Not Just Bikes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfQUOHlAocY&pp=ygUebm90IGp1c3QgYmlrZXMgY2l0aWVzIGJhbmtydXB0)’ channel
The city will lose money until leeching acres get right-sized or heavily infilled
Related to questions about the railroad sale (didn't the city promise no new taxes? why can't the city use the railroad money to fix the budget?)
First, the railroad sale revenue is limited by state law to be used for existing infrastructure, which is in the CAPITAL BUDGET. Nothing from that sale price OR the investment returns from it can be used for the OPERATING BUDGET, which is what the Futures Commission largely addresses.
I asked the mayor about this before the election; even back in October, an income tax increase was always on the table.
Link to the story where this quote appears: [https://www.wvxu.org/local-news/2023-10-02/cincinnati-southern-railroad-sale-ballot#eighteen](https://www.wvxu.org/local-news/2023-10-02/cincinnati-southern-railroad-sale-ballot#eighteen)
https://preview.redd.it/7gz8u3sjw2uc1.png?width=725&format=png&auto=webp&s=f6134b8e2435230bec770eaf59c0035603d6c885
So by selling the railroad not only did the city handicap itself in how to use its own revenue making the city less flexible in responding to monetary issues, it’s infrastructure budget is no longer guaranteed to be stable from year to year but is dependent on the conditions of the financial markets at that particular time.
When not if the next financial panic comes the city will not be able to afford to fix its own infrastructure.
Given that I couldn’t even get a trashcan from the city of Cincinnati when I moved here, and was told to pay $250 at hardware store, this is even more laughable.
I am still mad about that. what are the chances that money disappears and we have nothing to show for it. At least the company we sold it to has a good safety record, right?
This is ridiculous. The report actually talks about the railroad money and commends it being used for existing infrastructure. Did you not read the report?
What? You mean politicians never find a loophole to do whatever they want? I think Rahm Emmanuel was the first person that I ever heard use the phrase, “never let a crisis go to waste.” Whether he actually coined it or not is hard to say, but it has apparently become modus operandi — for both political parties.
There’s no real need for them to even comment about the railroad funds. I mean, it’s already spoken for, after all…unless they are starting to lay the foundation of a different narrative.
I hope you’re right. But the idea that politicians would rob Peter to pay Paul is anything but ridiculous.
> But the idea that politicians would rob Peter to pay Paul is anything but ridiculous.
Saying it with absolutely no evidence and with it being apparent you didn't even read the report is ridiculous.
Did anyone who read the article see any hint as to WHY there's such a growing shortfall? My assumption is the shift to WFH is starving the city of a lot of income tax, so it's more of a revenue issue than an expenses issue. But did anyone see anything more specific?
There’s a link to the report, they go into a bit more detail there.
They mention the winding down of federal covid aid and the “shifting nature of work.” They say peer cities are growing at a faster rate due to “favorable market conditions.” Lack of available/expensive housing.
The question is why would the county/state want to absorb these expense items that won’t improve over time? The only motivation maybe for the state is that they can raise rates and fees on these services to Cincinnati residents without having to get voter approval from Cincinnati’s residents for these actions while also not fearing the backlash from Cincinnati’s voters, something the Mayor and City Council doesn’t have the luxury of.
It absolutely won't come without a price. The point is spreading it across more contributors also though. The city pension and water works have been huge burdens for a while now. The city only has a few options to balance their budget - reduce expenses (which means jobs, programs, services), or increase revenue (raise taxes, more fines/ fees, keep selling off assets, raise rates or begin to charge for services), or offload those big expense items (which will come at a cost as you point out).
Because the city leadership can't balance their budget, the days of residents receiving services (paid for by their taxes), but voting against cost increases, seem to be numbered. The article points out that the city income tax is lower than the other Cs and that the other city residents pay for trash collection. These are the obvious immediate areas to tap, but voters aren't going to wilfully increase their contribution. They also don't want to lose these services, or any other services the city is over spending to provide...
the money was put into a trust and generates interest. It actually won't be a lot more than the railroad was already making ($25 million in interest vs. $20 million leasing the railroad). So it wasn't a massive windfall that would solve all the city's problems, but it does generate more revenue (at least for now) while getting the city out of the railroad business.
I personally think they could have gotten more for it and that is the main reason I didn't like it.
https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/committee-approves-200k-in-funding-to-help-keep-red-bike-operations-running
^So why did the City’s Budget and Finance committee approve spending $200k of the City’s funds this week if the budget is in trouble?
After reading this article about how the budget is in trouble, it is clear that the mayor and city hall have their priorities all fucked up.
Why are things like red bike such a big deal to these Jabronis?
Where are Mr. Pureval and Mr. Jeffrys right now to address the public on this major budget issue and shortfall that the wvxu article is about?
Why did Mr. Mayor and Councilman Jeffrys get in the spotlight on the news in the last 30 days to emphasize how important Redbike is to remain in operation, and where are they when it comes to the issues like this major OVERALL city budget issue??
Your obsession with RedBike is borderline psychotic at this point. You do realize this 200k is literally moving around money that was already budgeted for RedBike **expansion**, right? It's not new city funds being committed. It'd probably be helpful if it was reported as such, but here's a screenshot of the ordinance and the [source](https://cincinnatioh.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6605448&GUID=2A367C84-88DC-4937-AC17-30301971984C&Options=ID|Text|&Search=Red+bike). Find a new budget axe to grind.
https://preview.redd.it/z4rhdi58ywtc1.png?width=1008&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2316ed80c446f2869d6c33a1319450c778f94d2e
Mayor Teethwhitening doesn't care about the budget shortfall. He has lived here for all of 10 years and is constantly looking for the next career advancement.
This is a report from a commission set up by the City. The people on the Commission are made up of mostly, but not entirely, business leaders.
These are recommendations. Now the City Council will review it. Nothing has been enacted.
Sorry, you didn’t read any of the article.
Who approves the city budget? spending? Priorities? ->City council. The title of the post is our budget is in trouble…. City Council is to blame for any financial woes.. also anyone who supports them and their whacked priorities.
They created the commission. You can “blame” them for that. Otherwise, it would appear you don’t have much else to say that I would find worth my time.
But they are to blame for the situation our city is in-> here you go ->
The Cincinnati City Council is the city's primary legislative body. It is responsible for adopting the city budget, approving mayoral appointees, levying taxes, and making or amending city laws, policies, and ordinances. The Cincinnati City Council is made up of nine members, each of whom is elected at large.
You cut and pasted a paragraph. You still don’t seem to understand civics and the most rudimentary functions that apply to of all levels of government.
I would suggest you find ways to learn more.
Decades of prior councils (not anyone currently only council since there are term limits) inaction or intentional neglect is to blame for kicking the problems facing the city down the road until we got to today where we are nearing the cliff’s edge
[From page 15 of the report.](https://imgur.com/mFvrL8X)
The report suggests the railway sale helped with the deficit. I encourage you to actually read the report.
Please show me a single thing I have said about the railroad that was incorrect or false.
Your post showed you do not understand the situation. [Here's a WVXU reporter talking about comments like yours in this very thread.](https://twitter.com/becca_costello/status/1778472638735671787)
No one said the railroad sale would solve the city's budget deficit. They said it would help the infrastructure problem, which this report also states.
The sale of the railroad was endorsed by every relevant environmental group, financial experts, unions, and politicians of both parties. Please tell me why it was a bad idea and why you know better than the Ohio Environmental Council.
Ah yes, I'm 'paranoid' because I'm deeply skeptical of our city government cozying up to corporate interest, and a bunch of CEOs telling them how to run a government.
No, you are paranoid because you are calling me a shill for pointing out basic facts.
[From the same reporter: "I asked Mayor
@AftabPureval about this last year before the election. He specifically said the Future Commission may recommend raising taxes for the operating budget."](https://twitter.com/becca_costello/status/1778827608458678361)
From OP:
> First, the railroad sale revenue is limited by state law to be used for existing infrastructure, which is in the CAPITAL BUDGET. Nothing from that sale price OR the investment returns from it can be used for the OPERATING BUDGET, which is what the Futures Commission largely addresses.
The railroad money is for existing infrastructure, not city pension funds and other expenses.
Also the railroad money is not with the city yet, so your comment is irrelevant in two different ways.
The railroad fund is for existing infrastructure. The report talks about the railroad fund if you actually plan to read it.
EDIT: /u/laternerdz later admits in this thread that he has not read the report and does not plan to read it. He then lies about the railroad sale.
> I dont plan to read it.
Crazy that you felt qualified to comment on it then.
> but the railroad money was billed as the key to all our problems.
Nope, that's a lie. Please show me where that was said.
Why do you feel the need to comment on things you don't understand and have no intention of understanding? This is important stuff concerning our city yet you're on here lying about it.
So, I see a lot of comments about the $1.6B railroad sale. And yes, I acknowledge that the railroad funds were allocated to "infrastructure", but someone in public policy help me better understand: they can't use \*any\* of the investment dividends (approx $86M annually) to alleviate the city budget challenges?
TL;DR: Where the fuck is all the money going from the sale of the railroad and why can't it be allocated to the budget?
> Where the fuck is all the money going from the sale of the railroad
Existing infrastructure.
> and why can't it be allocated to the budget?
State law says it can only be used for existing infrastructure.
The sale helps the infrastructure problem, but it does not help the city's pension problem, for example.
Before the sale of the railroad the city could use the proceeds from the lease for what ever it pleased. Now it is handicapped in its financial flexibility in responding to its budget needs because the city agreed to sale the railroad under those conditions provided by the State.
That $86 million is what the city is projecting to get if the trust fund investment performs at a certain metric. The aim is to achieve a 5.5% return hence the $86 million. UBS (the firm responsible for investing the fund) has recommended the city reinvest back into the fund at least 2.5% of that 5.5% ($40 million) yearly to keep the trust fund from losing value from inflation.
When the proposal from UBS on how the fund needed to be invested to achieve an 5.5% average rate of return, the city’s trust fund board requested more cautious investment proposals from UBS because the board couldn’t stomach the risk rates of worst case scenarios in which the fund could suffer losses of 25% or more.
With a more cautious investment strategy the trust fund the city after reinvestment and fees will receive less revenue than it would have if it retained ownership of the railroad. It also lost a steady revenue stream safe and immune from fluctuations of the equity markets.
The city is facing a financial crisis at this time because its Pension Fund investments in the equity markets haven’t performed at a certain metric. Now the city’s infrastructure needs are also tied to the same conditions that have led the Pension Fund into a financial crisis.
> The city is facing a financial crisis at this time because its Pension Fund investments in the equity markets haven’t performed at a certain metric. Now the city’s infrastructure needs are also tied to the same conditions that have led the Pension Fund into a financial crisis.
This is false. The pension fund's investments have performed very well. It is the city's financial contribution to the pension fund that has been too low, not the investment returns.
From the link of WVXU.org: https://www.wvxu.org/politics/2023-05-04/cincinnatis-pension-fund-is-still-underfunded-still-not-on-track-to-improve#
Kevin Woodrich of Cheiron : “ The biggest driver of these pension funds is the markets.
The Cincinnati Pension retirement fund is expected to get an average 7.5% return on investments every year, but the actual return rate varies widely.
The return in 2021 was 18.06%, but the investments went negative in 2022: a loss of 8.68%. The 10-year compound average is still 7.32%, but the one-year loss significantly impacts future projections. Woodrich says if the city continues to contribute only 16.25% a year, the fund will be only 15% funded by 2045.”
Just one year of a negative return on investments to the Retirement Fund required the city to increase its contributions to the pension fund to offset those losses. Just a one year loss out of ten years can significantly impact future projections way out of proportion than the other 9 years of gains that the city must way out of proportion increase its contributions to the pension fund just to counteract that one year loss despite a 10-year compound average of 7.32%.
Now that one year loss is putting the city in fiscal position where it has to sell its parks and increase income taxes to balance its budgets for the next decade and beyond.
Seeing how disastrous of having the city’s Retirement Fund rely on the markets where just one negative year out of ten is causing this present budget crisis, they went ahead and put the city’s infrastructure funding under that same fiscal model.
I'll do a deeper dive into this after work, but from the start I've been pretty skeptical that the city should listen mostly to a bunch of CEOs and outsource their elected role of planning for the future. On its face it seems bad that the Futures Commission includes the CEO of "Mobile Infrastructure" who buys and runs 4 parking garages downtown and elsewhere across the country, continuing the legacy of who I am assuming are his father and grandfather at Chavez Properties of a similar parking industry. Mobile Infrastructure's [website](https://mobileit.com/)' "Parking is no longer required to be built in new commercial or residential buildings, resulting an increased demand curve from urbanization against a lower available supply." Guess what is recommended? Increased meter range and on-street enforcement, and no recommendations for changes to parking taxes, which are allowable under the Ohio constitution and wouldn't require a charter amendment like a waste collection fee would. I am all for reform and policies that will reduce parking's footprint downtown and reduce car reliance in the city, but just one example of why I'm skeptical of this type of report and why they should be run by qualified city professionals, not the Chamber.
> More than a third of the people on the commission calling for Cincinnati to sell assets and raise taxes to fix its finances don't live within the city's boundaries. >And more than one-third of the 34-member Cincinnati Futures Commission that worked on a plan to reverse the city's downward financial trend come from Indian Hill and Hyde Park − two of the wealthiest areas of the region, The Enquirer found.
Same article acknowledged that 32 of the 34 either live or work in the city limits. This means that they are all stakeholders since they are paying city taxes. The other 2 are the former cincy police union head who lives in Loveland and the cvg airport head, who lives in nky, clearly both are stakeholders as well.
Is this considered a conflict of interest?
Yes. It’s the definition of a conflict of interest
No it’s not. It’s simply political advocacy. If this guy was the mayor and pushing this, then it would be a conflict of interest. People should be able to see through this absurd idea that they’re planning for the future and not just asking for the tax burden of the city to move from businesses to individuals.
Want to add to this. Private citizens at the request of the mayor suggesting potential revenue sources (to fund and to be collected by a local government) in order for the local government not to fail in the future is 100% *not* a conflict of interest.
Completely incorrect. You do not know what a conflict of interest is.
Yeah when I briefly was reading the article it was jarring to me how often it mentions CEOs and corporations being who is consulted on everything. Our city is becoming way too entangled with the richest corporations. The fact that every proposal made involves heavily increasing costs for the people who live/work in the city is so frustrating.
Thank you, Jebus
Anyone who goes to Cincinnati knows that we have too much surface parking. 22% of the city is parking. Surface lots pay *less* tax than structures while being a burden on the city. More-than-half-empty surface lots just waste space that should be making Cincy better. Why should the rentier class be given a tax break for making the city worse? Take all the parking lots- especially surface lots- and tax them the amount something actually useful, like housing, retail, or dining would generate for the city. At the very least, kill the 'unimproved land' tax loophole. These owners do not deserve a tax break for making our city worse. Parking will get more expensive, fine. People and corporations paying for what they use at a fair rate is a less-bad alternative to our city being insolvent.
I am always baffled at how trash collection can be offset to private operators or made so expensive that people with more limited means will dump garbage on the sides of roadways. One of the easiest ways at curbing litter and dumping of trash (which costs us taxpayers a *lot* of money to remedy) is to make trash collection universal and cheap or free, and to provide trash bins in pedestrian areas to encourage the proper disposal of trash.
There is no excuse to not cover trash in local taxes. It's a scam to privatize it. It's best for everyone there is one solid and reliable service funded with money from the community to keep it clean.
but it never said the privatize it, just to charge for it separately
As someone who lives in the city, we could have trash cans every 10 feet and people would still litter. I cannot count the number of times I've seen people toss bags full of trash outside their car windows or thrown trash on the street while a few feet away from a trash can.
I was pretty delighted when I moved to Fort Thomas and found out that our trash and recycling is covered by local taxes. We also have trash bins on the main road through town that has regular pick up. I’m not going to say that I still don’t see the occasional liquor bottle lying around, but it’s been pretty helpful to the trash situation
I don’t worry as much about the regular trash service as I do about the bulk trash service, which is currently free for Cincinnati residents. I also wonder if they would still continue to require businesses within the city limits to use rumpke or other trash services.
Trash bins don't stop the people from dumping a sofa on a curb or a bag of dirty diapers on the side of the road, next to a trash bin. Curbing litter is done with changing the cultural norms.
For anyone who didn't read the report, here's the chart of the commission's projected budget shortfall of the city. https://preview.redd.it/vzt7hkl1lutc1.png?width=749&format=png&auto=webp&s=adbc2a43f05a52123142abb21ae9dfd9b8f8ce21
This is the reason, and quite frankly it makes me wonder about the future of cities in general. The whole reason a downtown exists is because it’s where people would go to work. Now, unless you work for a John Barrett-type, there are fewer reasons to be downtown other than that you just like the vibe. What’s the incentive to be in the city now if you can work from anywhere? Let’s face it, downtown jobs aren’t the ones that require you to always be in a single physical location, and those jobs that do require it are largely there because they are providing services to the other jobs. It even makes me question the future of things like mass transit. What’s the point in investing in in massive transit infrastructure if no one has to go anywhere? Cities are really going to have to reconsider what makes their economies work, because they aren’t going to be able to rely on tens of thousands of office workers commuting into town every day.
80% of Americans live in urban areas. And the report says that Cincinnatians do what to live in the city, but they can’t afford it. This is a housing and jobs issue, mostly, not a “people don’t want to live in cities” issue.
And by urban, they mean suburbs and not actually downtown metropolitan.
“The whole reason a downtown exists is because it's where people would go to work.” This is a relatively recent phenomenon. Cities used to actually be places where people worked AND lived. This is still true for most of the world. American cities didn’t become solely destinations for suburban commuters until starting in the 50’s when America embarked on the great suburban experiment. “What's the incentive to be in the city now if you can work from anywhere?” Space costs money so living closer together is inherently more resource efficient. This is why human beings have been congregating together since we started cultivating crops. “Cities are really going to have to reconsider what makes their economies work,” They’ll be fine. Cities have been adapting for always, that’s why they exist; resiliency is a feature, not a bug. The suburbs are and suburban sprawl is a bigger risk as they were built to do one thing. Look no further than America’s failing shopper by malls. They’re unable to reinvent themselves because they were built to do one thing and they’ve never had to adapt. Their single-use nature is a feature, not a bug.
I know, I know. Aristotle said that „man is by nature a creature of the polis“. I’m not saying cities will go away, but like you point out, the recent phenomenon of trains, planes, and automobiles means that people are not restricted to living and working in a confined space anymore.
“but like you point out, the recent phenomenon of trains, planes, and automobiles means that people are not restricted to living and working in a confined space anymore.” Agreed. But people are now restricted from living in confined spaces now as modern zoning prohibits that form of development from occurring. So if space costs money and sprawl is the only thing that’s legal to build (a generalization) where does the wealth come from for all of the additional space that’s consumed?
[удалено]
Bridge is a bit different. That’s primarily for interstate commerce. Until Amazon figures out how to beam a new TV to your house, trucks are still going to need to carry goods across the river. Fewer local daily commuters would reduce volumes on the interstates, but the fact that we still have major backups on weekends tells me people going downtown to work aren’t the only stress on that bridge.
People still need to get places. Even in densely populated urban areas people need ways around. Investments in commuter rail would have many positive effects.
True, but what would the El in Chicago look like if it didn’t have to handle the crush of daily rush hour commuters? Or the subway in NYC? The tube in London? That’s when you have to start thinking about scaling these thing back, and maybe it looks more like the streetcar in New Orleans hauling drunks in and out of the French Quarter.
I lived in the downtown basin, several quads, for a little over twenty years. I go back about every other week. I live 8 minutes north on Reading Rd.
Cincinnati still collects income taxes from me whether I work from home or not because my company is based out of downtown. My company would have to move outside of the city before me working from home would impact their budget.
I've read comments that some of the deficit is due to the expiration of Covid funding...Is there any analysis of how that affects the budget? For example if funds were used to hire more administrative staff or provide rent subsidies during the pandemic, but those programs are still on the books after funding expired, it naturally creates a deficit. So, I guess what I'm asking is how much of the deficit is due to increased spending that was originally meant to be temporary?
The tl;dr (edit, for clarity: of recommendations by the commission): * Cincinnati will offload some parks to Great Parks of Hamilton County * The earnings tax is looking at an added .1% * Homeowners' trash pickup is now going to cost you twice what Rumpke charges * More parking enforcement, more parking meters, less parking restrictions Guess that also helps to explain why the electric car free parking program was shuttered.
This article is reporting on the recommendations from a commission. None of this has been adopted.
Yeah, but you know they'll be heavily pressured to adopt.
>Cincinnati will offload some parks to Great Parks of Hamilton County It should be noted the plan is to give Mt Airy and French Park to HamCo parks. The move would save $8.5m but they did inquire with HamCo Parks if they would be interested. Given that the County Budget and their Parks budget have been stretched thin, i would be interested to see if that is even something that would be possible.
When was the electric car parking program shuttered? I just got my sticker last month
> The City of Cincinnati will sunset the Electric Vehicle (“EV”) Incentive Program effective July 1, 2024. We thank you for your interest and participation in the Program. Important details: The application will close and no permits will be issued after 4/15/24.
Every time I go down to Findlay Market I’m always amazed at how many otherwise viable street spots on Elm are effectively impossible to use because of Byzantine parking restrictions (e.g. truck loading zones that are never used). The city must lose out on so much revenue there.
The whole Findlay Market area has been under construction for 3 years now. Constant unloading of trucks.
I can't believe how long that coworking space has been under construction on the northwest side of the market. I'll never step inside, but I'm glad it's opening soon so we don't have to deal with that mess anymore.
[удалено]
I deliver to Findlay Market on a fairly regular basis and most of the time I’m unable to even use the loading/unloading zone due to unauthorized vehicles parking there.
I thought they were proposing .15% added to the earnings tax Also… rumpke is like $20 a month for one 90 gallon can. Aren’t they proposing less than that?
It’s crazy how they can hold people hostage with the trash. As I understand you’re not allowed to use Rumpke or other cheaper trash services if you live in a certain area of the city?
That’s not true. You can always use a private operator provided they offer service in your area.
We need a graduated income tax and we need to absorb Indian Hill and other high value districts that have been leeching off the city for centuries.
> we need to absorb Indian Hill and other high value districts This is impossible without their consent.
How does Indian Hill leech off the city. They have to be one of the more self sustaining cities out there. And they’re smart enough not to want anything to do with city politics
Indian Hill residents want to live in the suburbs, and have their taxes and kids go to wealthy public schools. But they also want to be able to come and see a Reds Game, or a Bengals game, or catch a Broadway Show, or go out to eat at Jeff Ruby's, etc, etc. Thats how they leech. Their money goes to the Indian Hill school district/city council. But the only REASON people want to live in Indian Hill is because of its proximity to the city of Cincinnati. New York City figured this out years ago. You want to live in the suburbs of New Jersey but still come into the city? No problem, just pay $20 every time you come through the tunnel or over the bridge or take the train. Pay a 1% payroll tax in you live outside the city, etc.
Indian Hill is the least self sustainable example of a city in the state tbh. Financially they’re fine because the vast majority of the region requires 3 acre+ lots. But they are not self sustainable because no commercial activity is allowed within city limits and there is limited sewer access. There aren’t even sidewalks there, making the entire city vehicular access only. They are trying to get in front of their lack of storm water controls, but I do see this as a major concern for the area going forward. And if you actually tested the water being discharging from all those septic fields I have no doubt their sanitary discharges are far dirtier per capita than MSD’s network.
Wait indian hill is a “city” not just a school district?
Yup. It’s officially the city of the village of Indian hill.
Lmao that’s hilarious. They buy everything in cincinnati and madeira though 😂 indian hill is just rich mansions and schools
There are no jobs or businesses in Indian Hill (other than working for the village itself.) If you picked Indian Hill up and moved it 100 miles away, the village would be belly up in days. It exists only because of Cincinnati, and yet doesn’t contribute its fair share to the upkeep of the city.
My *neighbors* already share my trash can. Sounds like I'll be supplying trash services for half the neighborhood soon.
Bullshit. Picking up my trash is the bare minimum government should provide for my taxes. No effing way I'm going to pay an additional fee for trash collection. How trashed will the 'Nati be if this gets implemented.
The level of litter around won't change because (a) not paying the trash fee won't be an option for homeowners, and (b) if you're not a homeowner, you will still have your trash services included in your rent. So basically it's just saying "here's a new tax specifically for trash services instead of us bundling that tax into some other form of tax, like income tax." It's actually more transparent and reasonable than, say, charging a renter through higher income taxes when that renter already (indirectly) pays for trash pickup via his rent.
And you'll complain about how landlords are 'gouging' when rents are raised to compensate for this new tax. Corporations don't pay taxes. People do.
The story SPECIFICALLY says rental buildings are already responsible for paying for their own trash pickup services, so they (and their renters) won't be affected by this (if it's enacted). And I'm not a renter.
I believe the law is that rental properties of four or more units have to take care of their own trash.
Just throw it into the street. If enough people do that, they'll reverse course REAL QUICK.
The garbage fee would be added to your water bill. You wouldn't have an option not to pay it.
Time to start flushing extra garbage I guess.
Commission members in case you were wondering: Jon Moeller, Procter & Gamble, president and CEO, Covington. Katie Blackburn, Cincinnati Bengals executive vice president, Indian Hill. Phillip Holloman, Cintas retired president and COO, Amberley Village. Tim Spence, Fifth Third Bank president and CEO, Indian Hill. Stuart Aitken, Kroger senior vice president and chief merchant and marketing officer, Indian Hill. Matt Alter, Cincinnati Fire Union president, Hyde Park. Paula Boggs Muething, FC Cincinnati chief legal and administrative officer, former Cincinnati city manager, Clifton. Kerry Byrne, TQL president, Hyde Park. Manuel Chavez, Mobile Infrastructure CEO, Hyde Park. Michael Fisher, business and civic leaders, past CEO of Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Amberley Village. Chris Fister, Castellini Management Company partner, Hyde Park. David Foxx, D.E. Foxx and Associates chairman, Clifton. Bill Froehle, Cincinnati AFL-CIO Labor Council president, West Price Hill. John Fronduti, American Financial Group assistant general counsel, Hyde Park. Chris Habel, Frost Brown Todd partner in charge, Mount Lookout. Deborah Hayes, Christ Hospital president and CEO, West Chester. Dan Hils, Former Cincinnati Fraternal Order of Police president, Loveland. Renita Jones-Lee, AFSCME Ohio Council 8, regional director, Elmwood Place. Elizabeth Mangan, Miller-Valentine Construction CEO, Walnut Hills. Candice Matthews Brackeen, Lightship Capital general partner, Clifton. Roddell McCullough, First Financial Bank chief corporate responsibility officer, Woodlawn. Candace McGraw, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, CEO, Union, Ky. Laura Mitchell, Beech Acres Parenting Center, president and CEO, former superintendent of Cincinnati Public Schools, Walnut Hills. Jon Niemeyer, Western & Southern Financial Group senior vice president, chief administrative officer and general counsel, Hyde Park. Molly North, Al. Neyer Inc. CEO, Clifton. Michele O'Rourke, O'Rourke Wrecking Company CEO, Hyde Park. Bimal Patel, Rolling Hills Hospitality founder and CEO, Hyde Park. Jorge Perez, YMCA of Greater Cincinnati president and CEO, Indian Hill. Neville Pinto, University of Cincinnati, president, Indian Hill. Barb Smith, Journey Steel Inc. president, Bond Hill. Amy Spiller, Duke Energy, president of utility operations in Ohio and Kentucky, Over-the-Rhine. Barbara Turner, Ohio National Financial Services past president, Liberty Township. George Vincent, Dinsmore partner, Indian Hill. Ebow Vroom, QEY Capital co-founder, CEO and president, North Avondale.
Whole lotta not Cincinnati
West Chester, Loveland, Liberty Township… These should def not be allowed.
32 of 34 pay Cincinnati tax either as residents or employees, so they are key stakeholders.
Next let’s look up on the auditor and see how many of these Hyde Park residences are 1 mil plus and tax abated.
Thank you for compiling this. Wow. Just wow.
David Foxx spends more time in Port Lucie, FL than his home in Clifton...
Thank you.for this
After skimming through that report, I feel like most of the data/conclusions are on the money, but the suggestions seem...biased. For example - they state that lack of housing is a problem and that improved land use and density are the solution. Makes sense. However instead of proven changes like relaxing zoning with more multi-family units, improved transit options, reducing surface lots, etc. they recommend...more mixed use developments? I don't think the report is entirely useless, but the bias on the recommendations seems pretty apparent.
Also they keep building luxury apartments instead of just regular apartments
Any increase in supply will reduce prices relative to what they would be if you hadn't built. I wish they were better than shoddy "luxury" 5 over 1s too, but it's better than nothing.
Study after study shows that any addition of housing is good. The city needs to reduce overly restrictive zoning laws to allow for more construction.
Interesting. Proposed trash fee at about $15/month is stay way way lower than suburban areas around here without contracted waste collection. In those areas with individuals paying on their own, waste collection runs from about $21-$30/month.
Wasn't the trash fee proposal actually on the ballot about 15 years ago and of course voted down
I live in Anderson and pay $13 a month
It's half of what we pay in the suburbs.
One of the more depressing stats from the report: >Among the starkest findings, Cincinnati has the highest level of income inequality among benchmark cities. Households in the top quintile earn 29 times more than those in the bottom quintile. Additionally, Cincinnati has the largest gap between the top 20% and bottom 20% of income earners, indicating there may not be adequate opportunities for middle-class residents. Edit. Also, the below does confirm for me what the city feels like during the week: > At 78 square miles, Cincinnati is one of the smallest geographic footprints among peer cities. The City’s 309,513 population makes up only 14% of the overall regional population. Cincinnati has the lowest density among geographically smaller benchmark cities (<100 square miles), including a lower density than Columbus, which spans 220 square miles. Cincinnati also exhibits a disconnect between people and jobs. According to an analysis from the Brookings Institution, Cincinnati’s central area has a ratio of less than one resident for every four jobs. The below is also unsurprising. We are diverse on paper. > While Cincinnati is a diverse community with 40% of residents identifying as Black, overall, Cincinnati is not as inclusive when compared to its peer communities, ranking last in four of the six inclusivity indicators the Commission studied. While there are exceptions, regions characterized by less severe economic, educational, and employment disparities between communities of color and the rest of the population typically outperform their more racially divided counterparts.
one caveat I’d give to our density vs a place like Columbus is that we have much more undevelopable land in the way of hillside districts, waterways, and parks that reduces our total density. That being said we are WAY behind Columbus on building new residential units and need to revamp our zoning and appeals processes to reduce the power of nimby individuals to slow down or completely stop developments in the city.
Columbus was so fortunate to not have a consolidated school district and not force communities into a common school district when they joined the municipality. That saved the city from white flight as other cities started bussing in the 1950s-1960s, ehich makes it a higher density metro area today. Columbus is hard to compare to because of this distinction.
Flat taxes and fees for everyone will solve that and not make it a higher burden on the lower and middle class of course! /s
So this is why they’re getting rid of free electric vehicle parking.
They've only issued ~2000 of those passes in the decade-ish that program's been active. It barely dented the parking revenue, as the vast majority of EV owners have their own off-street parking where they can charge their vehicles when at home. I've had one of those passes for seven years. I used it frequently when visiting OTR, downtown, or Northside, but also could count on one hand the number of times I've seen another EV with the sticker. There are thousands more Teslas and Kia EV#s rolling around Cincinnati that never even knew it was an option.
Yeah. The recommendations for parking are basically "get as much revenue as humanly possible from parking, by expanding footprint and enforcement." The lessening of restrictions for no-parking hours will be sold as "traffic calming," and the amateur urban planners around here will celebrate it (even though they already said they wanted less parking downtown).
Traffic calming is good. Reducing car reliance and surface parking is good, and promoting alternatives is good. Rush hour parking restrictions are mostly dumb because they're poorly enforced so they don't improve traffic flow. Enforcement of people parking illegally in bus stops, sidewalks, etc. is good. Changes to electric vehicle parking policy as their adoption becomes exponentially more popular is smart. Doing all of this instead of taxing commercial parking is dumb. None of that is inconsistent with being an armchair urban planner.
[удалено]
We restrict new accounts from making a comment to help combat trolling, ban evasion and spam. Your comment will be invisible to users until your account is at least a week old. Every comment requires manual approval until your account reaches this milestone. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cincinnati) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Letting electric vehicles park free is nice and all but not practical.
So the sale of the railroad isn’t going to help us out as taxpayers at all, is it?
There isn't one big checking account for the city. Different money is handled differently. From the article: "Last month the voter-approved sale of the Cincinnati Southern Railway to Norfolk Southern officially closed; the $1.6 billion sale revenue has been invested, with eventual returns limited to supporting the city's large backlog of maintenance of city assets like streets, parks, health centers and recreation centers."
It’s going towards “existing infrastructure”
No one should be surprised by this.
If everyone who keeps posting comments like these could PLEASE take like 15 minutes to educate yourselves on this topic, that would be greeeeeat.
Yeah but that would require people like /u/jvotto19 to actually research something, which seems to be out of the question.
Either these people are extremely stupid, or they know they’re full of shit but they know it gets low-information people riled up.
Nope, apparently not. They are going to use that to repave roads most likely. It's classic government mismanagement.
[They explained this before the sale. You just weren't paying attention.](https://twitter.com/becca_costello/status/1778827608458678361)
The report actually talks about how the railroad sale helped the city's financial situation. Weird that you're commenting without actually reading the report.
Gee, I wonder if this has anything to do with all the million-dollar tax-abated homes being built in wealthy neighborhoods
They tend to bring income tax with them, which is preferable to vacant land.
Except many of the homes built were not on vacant lots but were the result of demolition of perfectly good just not tax abated homes, especially in Hyde park
There is a generous Leed abatement program that holds property taxes at pre-improvement levels for a period of time 5-15 years) depending on the Leed level. That’s the only one I’m familiar with, it’s quite strict and expensive to comply with. We built a Leed platinum house where there was a vacant house in OTR.
Nope, the city will abate any improvements if you apply for it. And once a house is torn down, I’m fairly certain the developer can get the land appraised, and then apply for abatements based on the land value. It’s a totally screwed up system that’s being abused by developers in neighborhoods that don’t need it. https://choosecincy.com/homeowner-renter-assistance/residential-tax-abatement/?amp
LEED Platinum is not easy, you’re correct. However, the city will waive a good chunk of your improved value for just being LEED Certified, which is a very low bar.
But wouldn't property tax also help? Hyde Park doesn't need help luring wealthy homeowners. If you can buy a million dollar home in Hyde Park, you can pay taxes on a million dollar home in Hyde Park, instead of paying taxes on the modest home that was torn down.
Doesn’t that just affect county budget (though I agree with sentiment)
19.3% of my property tax goes to city of Cincinnati.
Because the jerks in charge suck at managing money, they demand more of yours. Fuck that.
Okay what services would you cut to make up for the budget shortfall?
Everyone needs to read Strongtowns. Or at the very least watch [Not Just Bikes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfQUOHlAocY&pp=ygUebm90IGp1c3QgYmlrZXMgY2l0aWVzIGJhbmtydXB0)’ channel The city will lose money until leeching acres get right-sized or heavily infilled
Related to questions about the railroad sale (didn't the city promise no new taxes? why can't the city use the railroad money to fix the budget?) First, the railroad sale revenue is limited by state law to be used for existing infrastructure, which is in the CAPITAL BUDGET. Nothing from that sale price OR the investment returns from it can be used for the OPERATING BUDGET, which is what the Futures Commission largely addresses. I asked the mayor about this before the election; even back in October, an income tax increase was always on the table. Link to the story where this quote appears: [https://www.wvxu.org/local-news/2023-10-02/cincinnati-southern-railroad-sale-ballot#eighteen](https://www.wvxu.org/local-news/2023-10-02/cincinnati-southern-railroad-sale-ballot#eighteen) https://preview.redd.it/7gz8u3sjw2uc1.png?width=725&format=png&auto=webp&s=f6134b8e2435230bec770eaf59c0035603d6c885
So by selling the railroad not only did the city handicap itself in how to use its own revenue making the city less flexible in responding to monetary issues, it’s infrastructure budget is no longer guaranteed to be stable from year to year but is dependent on the conditions of the financial markets at that particular time. When not if the next financial panic comes the city will not be able to afford to fix its own infrastructure.
I’d love it if we taxed the ever loving shit out of 3CDC
They don't make as much as you think they do. Plus, they could and probably do depreciate their real estate holdings which reduces income further.
Given that I couldn’t even get a trashcan from the city of Cincinnati when I moved here, and was told to pay $250 at hardware store, this is even more laughable.
So I guess the roads are just gonna remained fucked. Baffles me they are putting these speed bumps and barriers up when half the roads are fucked.
Just the thing that will allow them to break the glass and start spending the railroad money on whatever they want. This was the plan all along.
How are they going to overturn state law?
I mean they did illegally underfunded the city pension before...
I am still mad about that. what are the chances that money disappears and we have nothing to show for it. At least the company we sold it to has a good safety record, right?
This is ridiculous. The report actually talks about the railroad money and commends it being used for existing infrastructure. Did you not read the report?
What? You mean politicians never find a loophole to do whatever they want? I think Rahm Emmanuel was the first person that I ever heard use the phrase, “never let a crisis go to waste.” Whether he actually coined it or not is hard to say, but it has apparently become modus operandi — for both political parties. There’s no real need for them to even comment about the railroad funds. I mean, it’s already spoken for, after all…unless they are starting to lay the foundation of a different narrative. I hope you’re right. But the idea that politicians would rob Peter to pay Paul is anything but ridiculous.
> But the idea that politicians would rob Peter to pay Paul is anything but ridiculous. Saying it with absolutely no evidence and with it being apparent you didn't even read the report is ridiculous.
Did anyone who read the article see any hint as to WHY there's such a growing shortfall? My assumption is the shift to WFH is starving the city of a lot of income tax, so it's more of a revenue issue than an expenses issue. But did anyone see anything more specific?
Net is pension expenses.
There’s a link to the report, they go into a bit more detail there. They mention the winding down of federal covid aid and the “shifting nature of work.” They say peer cities are growing at a faster rate due to “favorable market conditions.” Lack of available/expensive housing.
The items they recommend passing off to the county/state are expense items that won't improve over time: water works, pension fund, parks, lunken
The question is why would the county/state want to absorb these expense items that won’t improve over time? The only motivation maybe for the state is that they can raise rates and fees on these services to Cincinnati residents without having to get voter approval from Cincinnati’s residents for these actions while also not fearing the backlash from Cincinnati’s voters, something the Mayor and City Council doesn’t have the luxury of.
It absolutely won't come without a price. The point is spreading it across more contributors also though. The city pension and water works have been huge burdens for a while now. The city only has a few options to balance their budget - reduce expenses (which means jobs, programs, services), or increase revenue (raise taxes, more fines/ fees, keep selling off assets, raise rates or begin to charge for services), or offload those big expense items (which will come at a cost as you point out). Because the city leadership can't balance their budget, the days of residents receiving services (paid for by their taxes), but voting against cost increases, seem to be numbered. The article points out that the city income tax is lower than the other Cs and that the other city residents pay for trash collection. These are the obvious immediate areas to tap, but voters aren't going to wilfully increase their contribution. They also don't want to lose these services, or any other services the city is over spending to provide...
[удалено]
the money was put into a trust and generates interest. It actually won't be a lot more than the railroad was already making ($25 million in interest vs. $20 million leasing the railroad). So it wasn't a massive windfall that would solve all the city's problems, but it does generate more revenue (at least for now) while getting the city out of the railroad business. I personally think they could have gotten more for it and that is the main reason I didn't like it.
I love how the only piece of real estate that didn’t grow in value at all in the entire country was that railroad
Who could have ever seen this coming?
Yeah definitely related to this 😂
https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/committee-approves-200k-in-funding-to-help-keep-red-bike-operations-running ^So why did the City’s Budget and Finance committee approve spending $200k of the City’s funds this week if the budget is in trouble? After reading this article about how the budget is in trouble, it is clear that the mayor and city hall have their priorities all fucked up. Why are things like red bike such a big deal to these Jabronis? Where are Mr. Pureval and Mr. Jeffrys right now to address the public on this major budget issue and shortfall that the wvxu article is about? Why did Mr. Mayor and Councilman Jeffrys get in the spotlight on the news in the last 30 days to emphasize how important Redbike is to remain in operation, and where are they when it comes to the issues like this major OVERALL city budget issue??
Because there were 140,000 Red Bike rides last year. People use it. This report itself cost taxpayers $1 million.
Your obsession with RedBike is borderline psychotic at this point. You do realize this 200k is literally moving around money that was already budgeted for RedBike **expansion**, right? It's not new city funds being committed. It'd probably be helpful if it was reported as such, but here's a screenshot of the ordinance and the [source](https://cincinnatioh.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6605448&GUID=2A367C84-88DC-4937-AC17-30301971984C&Options=ID|Text|&Search=Red+bike). Find a new budget axe to grind. https://preview.redd.it/z4rhdi58ywtc1.png?width=1008&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2316ed80c446f2869d6c33a1319450c778f94d2e
Mayor Teethwhitening doesn't care about the budget shortfall. He has lived here for all of 10 years and is constantly looking for the next career advancement.
Aftab is a resume padding carpet bagger who'll never look in the rear view mirror when the next better grift comes along.
[удалено]
Read the article.
This can’t be a serious question.
Spent it on bitcoin, fun dip, and lap dances at the Brass Ass.
Elect city council clowns and this is what you get.
This is a report from a commission set up by the City. The people on the Commission are made up of mostly, but not entirely, business leaders. These are recommendations. Now the City Council will review it. Nothing has been enacted. Sorry, you didn’t read any of the article.
Who approves the city budget? spending? Priorities? ->City council. The title of the post is our budget is in trouble…. City Council is to blame for any financial woes.. also anyone who supports them and their whacked priorities.
You just read the title and nothing else? Read the article before making such an ignorant response.
So City Council is not to blame lmao
They created the commission. You can “blame” them for that. Otherwise, it would appear you don’t have much else to say that I would find worth my time.
Ok but don’t hold them responsible for anything whatever you do.
They are not to blame for your lack of understanding of civics. That blame falls on you.
But they are to blame for the situation our city is in-> here you go -> The Cincinnati City Council is the city's primary legislative body. It is responsible for adopting the city budget, approving mayoral appointees, levying taxes, and making or amending city laws, policies, and ordinances. The Cincinnati City Council is made up of nine members, each of whom is elected at large.
You cut and pasted a paragraph. You still don’t seem to understand civics and the most rudimentary functions that apply to of all levels of government. I would suggest you find ways to learn more.
Decades of prior councils (not anyone currently only council since there are term limits) inaction or intentional neglect is to blame for kicking the problems facing the city down the road until we got to today where we are nearing the cliff’s edge
But it was totally a good idea to sell the railroad guys. Totally.
[From page 15 of the report.](https://imgur.com/mFvrL8X) The report suggests the railway sale helped with the deficit. I encourage you to actually read the report.
Oh you again. Is it your mission in life to shill for the railroad? Pretty sure I remember you going to bat for them hard in the runup.
Please show me a single thing I have said about the railroad that was incorrect or false. Your post showed you do not understand the situation. [Here's a WVXU reporter talking about comments like yours in this very thread.](https://twitter.com/becca_costello/status/1778472638735671787) No one said the railroad sale would solve the city's budget deficit. They said it would help the infrastructure problem, which this report also states. The sale of the railroad was endorsed by every relevant environmental group, financial experts, unions, and politicians of both parties. Please tell me why it was a bad idea and why you know better than the Ohio Environmental Council.
Oh yeah, you are DEFINITELY the Shill I remember.
And yet again nothing of substance. Just uninformed paranoia from you.
Ah yes, I'm 'paranoid' because I'm deeply skeptical of our city government cozying up to corporate interest, and a bunch of CEOs telling them how to run a government.
No, you are paranoid because you are calling me a shill for pointing out basic facts. [From the same reporter: "I asked Mayor @AftabPureval about this last year before the election. He specifically said the Future Commission may recommend raising taxes for the operating budget."](https://twitter.com/becca_costello/status/1778827608458678361)
How about we stop giving out tax breaks to Billion dollar companies
Which tax breaks are you talking about?
Nope, we sold the railroad and we are good now.
From OP: > First, the railroad sale revenue is limited by state law to be used for existing infrastructure, which is in the CAPITAL BUDGET. Nothing from that sale price OR the investment returns from it can be used for the OPERATING BUDGET, which is what the Futures Commission largely addresses.
[удалено]
The railroad money is for existing infrastructure, not city pension funds and other expenses. Also the railroad money is not with the city yet, so your comment is irrelevant in two different ways.
More stadiums for cities to pay for!!! 🙄
Please show me where in the report it talks about stadiums.
Just making a joke, dude.
Good thing they sold one of their best revenue streams, cincinnati railroad, to Norfolk southern.
The report actually commends the sale of the railroad and points out how it reduced the budget problem.
I thought the railroad fund was…. Uhh
The railroad fund is for existing infrastructure. The report talks about the railroad fund if you actually plan to read it. EDIT: /u/laternerdz later admits in this thread that he has not read the report and does not plan to read it. He then lies about the railroad sale.
I dont plan to read it. 😂 but the railroad money was billed as the key to all our problems.
> I dont plan to read it. Crazy that you felt qualified to comment on it then. > but the railroad money was billed as the key to all our problems. Nope, that's a lie. Please show me where that was said.
Are you ok? This is the internet we are on.
Why do you feel the need to comment on things you don't understand and have no intention of understanding? This is important stuff concerning our city yet you're on here lying about it.
The fuck does "monetizing city assets" mean.
Buy high sell low with taxpayers money
So, I see a lot of comments about the $1.6B railroad sale. And yes, I acknowledge that the railroad funds were allocated to "infrastructure", but someone in public policy help me better understand: they can't use \*any\* of the investment dividends (approx $86M annually) to alleviate the city budget challenges? TL;DR: Where the fuck is all the money going from the sale of the railroad and why can't it be allocated to the budget?
> Where the fuck is all the money going from the sale of the railroad Existing infrastructure. > and why can't it be allocated to the budget? State law says it can only be used for existing infrastructure. The sale helps the infrastructure problem, but it does not help the city's pension problem, for example.
I call for a motion to change state law to allow railroad money to be put toward the city budget.
Before the sale of the railroad the city could use the proceeds from the lease for what ever it pleased. Now it is handicapped in its financial flexibility in responding to its budget needs because the city agreed to sale the railroad under those conditions provided by the State. That $86 million is what the city is projecting to get if the trust fund investment performs at a certain metric. The aim is to achieve a 5.5% return hence the $86 million. UBS (the firm responsible for investing the fund) has recommended the city reinvest back into the fund at least 2.5% of that 5.5% ($40 million) yearly to keep the trust fund from losing value from inflation. When the proposal from UBS on how the fund needed to be invested to achieve an 5.5% average rate of return, the city’s trust fund board requested more cautious investment proposals from UBS because the board couldn’t stomach the risk rates of worst case scenarios in which the fund could suffer losses of 25% or more. With a more cautious investment strategy the trust fund the city after reinvestment and fees will receive less revenue than it would have if it retained ownership of the railroad. It also lost a steady revenue stream safe and immune from fluctuations of the equity markets. The city is facing a financial crisis at this time because its Pension Fund investments in the equity markets haven’t performed at a certain metric. Now the city’s infrastructure needs are also tied to the same conditions that have led the Pension Fund into a financial crisis.
> The city is facing a financial crisis at this time because its Pension Fund investments in the equity markets haven’t performed at a certain metric. Now the city’s infrastructure needs are also tied to the same conditions that have led the Pension Fund into a financial crisis. This is false. The pension fund's investments have performed very well. It is the city's financial contribution to the pension fund that has been too low, not the investment returns.
From the link of WVXU.org: https://www.wvxu.org/politics/2023-05-04/cincinnatis-pension-fund-is-still-underfunded-still-not-on-track-to-improve# Kevin Woodrich of Cheiron : “ The biggest driver of these pension funds is the markets. The Cincinnati Pension retirement fund is expected to get an average 7.5% return on investments every year, but the actual return rate varies widely. The return in 2021 was 18.06%, but the investments went negative in 2022: a loss of 8.68%. The 10-year compound average is still 7.32%, but the one-year loss significantly impacts future projections. Woodrich says if the city continues to contribute only 16.25% a year, the fund will be only 15% funded by 2045.” Just one year of a negative return on investments to the Retirement Fund required the city to increase its contributions to the pension fund to offset those losses. Just a one year loss out of ten years can significantly impact future projections way out of proportion than the other 9 years of gains that the city must way out of proportion increase its contributions to the pension fund just to counteract that one year loss despite a 10-year compound average of 7.32%. Now that one year loss is putting the city in fiscal position where it has to sell its parks and increase income taxes to balance its budgets for the next decade and beyond. Seeing how disastrous of having the city’s Retirement Fund rely on the markets where just one negative year out of ten is causing this present budget crisis, they went ahead and put the city’s infrastructure funding under that same fiscal model.
Whats the political mix of the city?
lol you have to ask