nothing says public park like a chain-link privacy fence

While everyone is debating Issue 22, the Cincinnati Parks Levy, I hope they keep in mind the levy will only fund capital costs, not operating costs. Which means the city can build new parks, but not pay for ongoing operations.
What does this mean?
There are clues, our tone-deaf and relentlessly ill-equipped one man disaster "Accidental Tourist" of a mayor says he thinks private events like ones at Washington Park will pay for operations. So while we are paying for these new parks, the mayors buddies will be putting chain-link privacy fences around them and hiring hamfisted security guards to keep the public out. This is what we will be paying for, big money guys using dog parks as their smoking area and a permanent levy funding the mayors private checkbook.
Vote no on 22!
Washington Park
[where: 45202] best place to learn how to live downtown cincinnati ohio the ethos of Cincinnati
5 comments

6 comments:

  1. After looking at my property tax bills I calculated that this permanent tax will more than double what I am paying to the parks already. This levy also commands City Council to appropriate at least 2.3 million dollars every year to the parks. Does City Council have any say in how this money is spent? NO! Do the taxpayers have any say in how this money will be spent? The Parks Board will take input. That's it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. cranley won't be mayor forever. Don't vote against it just to hurt him if you think it can benefit Cincinnati under its next mayor. Instead, devote your efforts to getting rid of cranley. cranley is awful and must go for Cincinnati do develop, but there are various ways to do that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And that is exactly why people who support the mayor should not vote yes.
      He won't be mayor forever.
      This is a poorly conceived issue the whole way around.

      Delete
    2. Matthew, no matter who is mayor, this issue fundamentally changes who has the power of the purse in our government. The amendment to our Charter states that Council MUST pass the ordinances that fund these capital improvements chosen by the mayor and his appointees at the Park Board. If we are ever in a situation where we need to cut funds out of the budget, Council should have the authority to decide where to do that. Beyond that, even when we have a new mayor, Bob's point is still valid!! How will we maintain all these new capital improvements?

      Delete