There they go again. Special-interest groups are trying to force what they claim is another vote on the Cincinnati streetcar. But just like 2009's failed Issue 9, this second anti-rail amendment is a clever attempt to use misleading language to stop all rail in Cincinnati - including streetcars, light rail or commuter rail.
The backers of this amendment are trying to enact a 10-year ban not on "streetcars" but on "streetcar systems." And the way they define "streetcar systems" would prevent our city from pursuing any rail until 2021.
A "streetcar" is defined under both Ohio and Cincinnati law as a vehicle "for transporting persons or property, operated upon rails principally within a street or highway." This is an accurate definition of a streetcar - a rail vehicle that runs in the street.
But this anti-rail petition blocks spending not on "streetcars" but on a "streetcar system." The opponents created the broader definition of "streetcar system" to block other forms of rail transportation as well. Again, the vote would not be limited to the streetcar issue. The effect of this change to Cincinnati's constitution is much broader.
The same bunch as before are, by using confusing legal language, again trying to slip one by the voters. They didn't fool us the first time, but they keep trying.
The drafters of this amendment define a "streetcar system" as "a system of passenger vehicles operated on rails primarily in existing public rights of way." By changing "street or highway" to "public right of way" these special-interest groups have greatly expanded the scope of this anti-rail amendment.
The definition of "right of way" under Ohio law is expansive: "land, property, or the interest therein, usually in the configuration of a strip, acquired for or devoted to transportation purposes." The city (or Metro) owns the rights of way where any rail system would travel. And any trains running in these rights of way would be prohibited for the next 10 years.
This broad definition of "streetcar system" would prevent any future rail planning without first amending our city's constitution. What if someone wanted to bring back an incline, even mostly at private expense? Or if, in 2020, the federal government awarded a grant to cover 100 percent of the cost of a new rail system? The anti-rail amendment would ban federal grants or private donations as well.
Any competent attorney drafting this ballot language would first research the legal definition of "streetcar." So the drafters knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote this new, broader definition of "streetcar system." Or they are incompetent.
Either way, they are attempting to keep any rail transit from being built in Cincinnati for the next decade, leaving Cincinnatians with limited transportation options - and at the mercy of ever-rising gas prices.
They just keep trying to fool us.
Let's say NO to misleading language. If you are asked to sign a petition, say NO.
And if it comes to a vote, let's do what we did on Issue 9 - and say NO again.
The backers of this amendment are trying to enact a 10-year ban not on "streetcars" but on "streetcar systems." And the way they define "streetcar systems" would prevent our city from pursuing any rail until 2021.
A "streetcar" is defined under both Ohio and Cincinnati law as a vehicle "for transporting persons or property, operated upon rails principally within a street or highway." This is an accurate definition of a streetcar - a rail vehicle that runs in the street.
But this anti-rail petition blocks spending not on "streetcars" but on a "streetcar system." The opponents created the broader definition of "streetcar system" to block other forms of rail transportation as well. Again, the vote would not be limited to the streetcar issue. The effect of this change to Cincinnati's constitution is much broader.
The same bunch as before are, by using confusing legal language, again trying to slip one by the voters. They didn't fool us the first time, but they keep trying.
The drafters of this amendment define a "streetcar system" as "a system of passenger vehicles operated on rails primarily in existing public rights of way." By changing "street or highway" to "public right of way" these special-interest groups have greatly expanded the scope of this anti-rail amendment.
The definition of "right of way" under Ohio law is expansive: "land, property, or the interest therein, usually in the configuration of a strip, acquired for or devoted to transportation purposes." The city (or Metro) owns the rights of way where any rail system would travel. And any trains running in these rights of way would be prohibited for the next 10 years.
This broad definition of "streetcar system" would prevent any future rail planning without first amending our city's constitution. What if someone wanted to bring back an incline, even mostly at private expense? Or if, in 2020, the federal government awarded a grant to cover 100 percent of the cost of a new rail system? The anti-rail amendment would ban federal grants or private donations as well.
Any competent attorney drafting this ballot language would first research the legal definition of "streetcar." So the drafters knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote this new, broader definition of "streetcar system." Or they are incompetent.
Either way, they are attempting to keep any rail transit from being built in Cincinnati for the next decade, leaving Cincinnatians with limited transportation options - and at the mercy of ever-rising gas prices.
They just keep trying to fool us.
Let's say NO to misleading language. If you are asked to sign a petition, say NO.
And if it comes to a vote, let's do what we did on Issue 9 - and say NO again.
Post a Comment