PLEASE READ!!!

***** ALL users will have to request a password reset BEFORE you will be able to log into the forum. See the thread in the forum issues section for further instructions. If you have issues with this, email us at admin@urbanohio.com. *****

Author Topic: Cincinnati City Council  (Read 17465 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline urbanpioneer

  • One SeaGate 411'
  • **
  • Posts: 412
Re: Cincinnati City Council
« Reply #1020 on: November 08, 2017, 01:08:43 PM »
From what I understand there are ballots yet to be counted -- some absentees that arrived after the count but are legit because their postmarks met requirements, plus provisional ballots that haven't been sorted through.  With the narrow margin of 317 votes between Pastor and Dillingham, there's a slim chance she could overtake his position.

Offline IAGuy39

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1377
Re: Cincinnati City Council
« Reply #1021 on: November 08, 2017, 02:01:04 PM »
I also agree with everything you say there.  My hope is that the progressives can put together plans for bike lanes, form based codes, etc. that are solid plans then push Mann and Sittenfeld on their side.  Before, it was tougher to push Flynn around to get that 6th vote.  We traded him for Landsman.

It is very hard for the legislative branch to tell the executive branch to do something when the executive branch has the power to either not do it, or do it incompetently.

For example, we have already passed a citywide bike plan based on public input from meetings that were held across the city. The mayor is choosing not to implement it. City Council can pass a motion saying "follow the bike plan" but motions carry no legal weight. Or they could pass an ordinance, but it would have to be something very specific, like "every road that is repaved as part of the Capital Acceleration Plan must include Complete Streets provisions for bicyclists and pedestrians." However, that ordinance could be pocket vetoed by the mayor so council never even gets the chance to vote on it. Even if council does pass it and overrules the mayoral veto, DOTE can still half-$$ it and say "we'll just add some sharrows and one mediocre crosswalk, that's good enough".

Sorry, not trying to be all doom and gloom, but I just find the idea that council will hold Cranley's feet to the fire mostly unrealistic. There are a few areas where this can happen, specifically with the budget. But for the most part it's pushing on a string.

Understood on that, but just my thinking if the council was able to get some ordinances like you mentioned which are very specific.  How can then the mayor pocket veto it after an ordinance is passed?

Sorry I know we have talked about this before but just wondering how that all works now.

Offline ryanlammi

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4828
Re: Cincinnati City Council
« Reply #1022 on: November 08, 2017, 02:34:39 PM »
^The mayor has no deadline to put legislation in front of council. Essentially a pocket veto by never having to deal with the matter.

Offline IAGuy39

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1377
Re: Cincinnati City Council
« Reply #1023 on: November 08, 2017, 02:46:14 PM »
OK thanks.  For some reason I thought that had gotten eliminated at some point by an ordinance, but it was just talk of an ordinance.

Offline brian korte

  • Kettering Tower 408'
  • **
  • Posts: 327
Re: Cincinnati City Council
« Reply #1024 on: November 08, 2017, 03:57:15 PM »
Landsman is not super progressive, but worse, he won't be standing up to John Cranley at all. They are pretty tight. There will be zero mayoral veto overrides from this Council. Landsman is much like PG - Switzerland not looking to rock the boat.


You could argue it is smart politics to not get on John's bad side because he is so vindictive and will make life at City Hall very difficult for anyone that does. But if six council members had any spine they could anything they wanted, whether Cranley agrees or not, including introducing any legislation John decides to "pocket veto."


Anyway, the next four years will be much the same as the last four. Don't expect much progressive policy out of City Hall. But your roads will continue to get paved (as if they weren't before).

Offline urbanpioneer

  • One SeaGate 411'
  • **
  • Posts: 412
Re: Cincinnati City Council
« Reply #1025 on: November 08, 2017, 06:20:11 PM »
^I noticed during the campaign that Landsman talked a lot but said very little of actual substance.  His performance on "Newsmakers" with Dan Hurley was totally uninspiring, perhaps the worst of any of the candidates I saw on the show.  I get it that those who have yet to win public office, especially after having failed in the past like he has, would maybe choose to be more cautious in order to increase their chances of victory.  But it's my fear that he'll be the weasel on council that he was as a candidate.  Your comment seems to support my fear!  Again, I'm truly hoping he'll prove me wrong though.  We'll see...

Online taestell

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 7381
Re: Cincinnati City Council
« Reply #1026 on: November 08, 2017, 06:22:25 PM »
OK thanks.  For some reason I thought that had gotten eliminated at some point by an ordinance, but it was just talk of an ordinance.

In order to get rid of the pocket veto, we need to modify the City Charter to put a time limit on the amount of time that it takes for a Mayor to refer a piece of legislation to a Committee. The Charter Committee wanted to put this issue on the ballot along with several other changes to the City Charter (which all passed, if I recall correctly) but it didn't happen.

But if six council members had any spine they could anything they wanted, whether Cranley agrees or not, including introducing any legislation John decides to "pocket veto."

I think you are confusing the pocket veto with the actual veto. Yes, six council members can overrule a mayoral veto. But if the mayor does a pocket veto, he can keep any legislation he wants from ever being voted on in the first place. Basically, under our current system, the mayor alone has the ability to filibuster any piece of legislation he or she doesn't like. It's really quite an incredible power and it could really be abused if we got a Trumpian style mayor at some point down the road.

Online bendixondavis

  • Kettering Tower 408'
  • **
  • Posts: 362
Re: Cincinnati City Council
« Reply #1027 on: November 08, 2017, 09:20:44 PM »
Yea Pastor walked around my neighborhood (Kennedy heights) and I was out watering my plants and met him. He struck me as basically a political parrot, pretty sure he said jobs, education, roads and back to our roots all in the same sentence. I was like yeah he clearly is just saying what he needs to get elected, who knows what his real opinions are.

Offline Brutus_buckeye

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2694
Re: Cincinnati City Council
« Reply #1028 on: November 09, 2017, 08:30:37 AM »
This is why I have never liked the guy. He as a jacka$$ 15 years ago when I knew him and it is safe to say he has never grown up and matured. No different than the president only he has less power. #stilladouche

https://twitter.com/ChrisSeelbach?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Offline jmecklenborg

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 14779
Re: Cincinnati City Council
« Reply #1029 on: November 09, 2017, 10:07:49 AM »
I am not on twitter but I just looked at that link.  His response to Seth Maney was hilarious. 

Here are the winners and their respective numbers.  Seelbach is #3, which is pretty impressive. 

P.G. Sittenfeld (D): 38,594
David Mann (C,D): 34,741
Chris Seelbach (D): 29,666
Wendell Young (D): 27,353
Christopher Smitherman (I) 26,501
Tamaya Dennard (C,D): 25,145
Greg Landsman (D): 24,356
Amy Murray (C,R): 23,321
Jeff Pastor (R): 21,339


Here are the losers:
 
Michelle Dillingham (D): 21,022
Ozie Davis (D): 18,019
Lesley Jones (D): 17,656
Laure Quinlivan (I): 16,308
Derek Bauman (C): 16,157
Henry Frondorf (C): 10,389
Seth Maney (R): 9,891
Brian Garry (I): 8,792
Kelli Prather (I): 6,882
Tamie Sullivan (I): 6,023
Tonya Dumas (I): 5,913
Erica L. Black-Johnson (I): 5,306
Cristina Burcica (I): 3,973
Manuel Foggie (I): 3,402
Dadrien Washington (I): 123


Pretty impressive figures from Bauman, who was a first-time candidate, didn't have a lot of money, and didn't win the D endorsement since he challenged Cranley (huge dropoff between the 15,000-20,000 crowd and then 10,000 and under).  Same with Laure Q -- she dared to cross the Great Cranholio and paid the price. 




Offline Brutus_buckeye

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2694
Re: Cincinnati City Council
« Reply #1030 on: November 09, 2017, 10:31:41 AM »
It is akin to Trump going after the gold star family. There is nothing to gain from spiking the football here. A dignified person does not need to respond especially because he won. Just shows pettiness and just being a jerk (which he is).

The sad thing about Seelbach is that he stirs things up and whenever people attempt to fight back against him, he runs back behind his shield and claims he is a victim. He has been playing this card for over 20 years now.

Offline JohnClevesSymmes

  • One SeaGate 411'
  • **
  • Posts: 455
Re: Cincinnati City Council
« Reply #1031 on: November 09, 2017, 11:14:58 AM »
Quote
Pretty impressive figures from Bauman, who was a first-time candidate, didn't have a lot of money, and didn't win the D endorsement since he challenged Cranley (huge dropoff between the 15,000-20,000 crowd and then 10,000 and under).  Same with Laure Q -- she dared to cross the Great Cranholio and paid the price.

Bauman raised over $100,000. Cranley had nothing to do with him and LQ missing the Dem endorsement. LQ missed it because she virtually disappeared from politics after losing and there was probably some resentment around that. Bauman definitely should have gotten the endorsement. Like it or not, the party wanted a ticket that reflects the diversity of the city and he was behind PG, Mann, Seelbach, and Landsman in the white male line. There is no question that if he wants it, he will get the endorsement in 4 years and likely win one of the 6 open spots. 

Online taestell

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 7381
Re: Cincinnati City Council
« Reply #1032 on: November 09, 2017, 11:17:47 AM »
People who are outraged over Seelbach's quip seem to be missing the fact that Maney singled out Seelbach during the campaign for unknown reasons, even challenging him to a one-on-one debate at one point. Which is, like, not a thing that council candidates do. Seelbach ignored Maney during the entire campaign and when all was said and done, made a little a joke about it. Was Seelbach's comment immature and inappropriate? Absolutely. But Maney playing the victim card here is a little rich.

Offline urbanpioneer

  • One SeaGate 411'
  • **
  • Posts: 412
Re: Cincinnati City Council
« Reply #1033 on: November 09, 2017, 11:18:22 AM »
I saw on Dillingham's FB page that provisional ballot totals won't be included in the final/official results for 2 weeks.

Online neilworms

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1467
Re: Cincinnati City Council
« Reply #1034 on: November 09, 2017, 11:31:36 AM »
Quote
Bauman definitely should have gotten the endorsement. Like it or not, the party wanted a ticket that reflects the diversity of the city and he was behind PG, Mann, Seelbach, and Landsman in the white male line. There is no question that if he wants it, he will get the endorsement in 4 years and likely win one of the 6 open spots.

Would you have heard the same line though if Bauman was supportive of Cranley?   I'm not so sure...

I do hope he wins next time, he's everything you guys need, plus I think he has crossover support from people who normally won't vote for someone with his politics due to his ability to talk plainly (even about sophisticated issues), his personal one-on-one style of selling himself and his background as a cop/son of a preacher.   I see him as future mayor material if he can get his vote totals up / not screw up when in office.

Offline Ram23

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5865
Re: Cincinnati City Council
« Reply #1035 on: November 09, 2017, 11:35:19 AM »
People who are outraged over Seelbach's quip seem to be missing the fact that Maney singled out Seelbach during the campaign for unknown reasons, even challenging him to a one-on-one debate at one point. Which is, like, not a thing that council candidates do. Seelbach ignored Maney during the entire campaign and when all was said and done, made a little a joke about it. Was Seelbach's comment immature and inappropriate? Absolutely. But Maney playing the victim card here is a little rich.

Maney was a first time candidate with little name recognition and a small amount of fundraising. He went on the attack against Seelbach as an attempt to earn free media time. It worked pretty well. Agree or disagree with his positions or the action itself, at the very least it's undeniable that there was a practical reason for the behavior - to get more attention during a political campaign flooded with a record number of candidates. Seelbach's response, on the other hand, had no reason or justification other than pure pettiness. It's an embarrassing look for him - it instantly reminded me of that hilarious 911 call - "I am punched!" I liked Alex Triantafilou's response to the tweet (most responses,  btw, seem to be lambasting Seelbach) - I'd love to see what's in their dossier (I'm sure plenty of us on here have at least a few ideas).

Offline ryanlammi

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4828
Re: Cincinnati City Council
« Reply #1036 on: November 09, 2017, 11:49:56 AM »
Maney's tactic backfired for what I would assume to be his urban base. Many people refused to vote for him who would otherwise have likely campaigned on his behalf. He burned a lot of bridges with his petty attacks on Seelbach. Seelbach didn't handle the situation with grace and should have continued to ignore him. No excuse for his lack of professionalism.

Offline Brutus_buckeye

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2694
Re: Cincinnati City Council
« Reply #1037 on: November 09, 2017, 11:51:04 AM »
Just knowing Seelbach from many years ago, it is par for the course with him. I have always found him to be completely full of himself and a jerk. I don't say this lightly around people I have met face to face

Offline edale

  • Kettering Tower 408'
  • **
  • Posts: 378
Re: Cincinnati City Council
« Reply #1038 on: November 09, 2017, 11:56:15 AM »
Quote
Bauman definitely should have gotten the endorsement. Like it or not, the party wanted a ticket that reflects the diversity of the city and he was behind PG, Mann, Seelbach, and Landsman in the white male line. There is no question that if he wants it, he will get the endorsement in 4 years and likely win one of the 6 open spots.

Would you have heard the same line though if Bauman was supportive of Cranley?   I'm not so sure...

I do hope he wins next time, he's everything you guys need, plus I think he has crossover support from people who normally won't vote for someone with his politics due to his ability to talk plainly (even about sophisticated issues), his personal one-on-one style of selling himself and his background as a cop/son of a preacher.   I see him as future mayor material if he can get his vote totals up / not screw up when in office.

He's abrasive as hell. I think he's highly unlikable, though I do agree with most of the policies he supports.   

Offline JohnClevesSymmes

  • One SeaGate 411'
  • **
  • Posts: 455
Re: Cincinnati City Council
« Reply #1039 on: November 09, 2017, 12:19:26 PM »
Quote
Would you have heard the same line though if Bauman was supportive of Cranley?   I'm not so sure...

Since that is completely hypothetical, it is hard to say. If Bauman was an avid Cranley supporter, then I suppose Cranley might have lobbied on his behalf. That said, I don't recall hearing about Cranley inserting himself into the process or making any comments on the nature of the slate. Probably did not want to draw attention to the fact that none of the non-incumbents (that I can think of - correct me if I am forgetting someone) officially endorsed him.

Online neilworms

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1467
Re: Cincinnati City Council
« Reply #1040 on: November 09, 2017, 12:40:33 PM »
Cranley is closely aligned with state party leadership.  One call to David Pepper and he could work the whole chain down to the local level.

Offline jmecklenborg

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 14779
Re: Cincinnati City Council
« Reply #1041 on: November 09, 2017, 07:03:19 PM »
Cranley is closely aligned with state party leadership.  One call to David Pepper and he could work the whole chain down to the local level.

David Pepper was beaten by Mallory back in 2005 and so anyone affiliated even loosely with him or any of his allies (Qualls, Quinlivan, Seelbach, etc.) will be barred from the inner sanctum.  That's why Bauman failed to get the FOP or D endorsement and that's why he didn't win despite putting in 100X more work than, say, Sittenfeld.  Quinlivan, similarly, was left out in the wilderness. 

At this point it's pretty obvious that Sittenfeld, Mann, and now Seelbach are winning reelection based on name recollection alone.  It's kind of amazing thinking back to Quinlivan's light questioning of the police contracts back around 2012-2013...if she hadn't done that, she would have easily beaten Amy Murray in 2013 and been reelected easily once again in 2017. 

When a city is just basic services, and 50% of those employees are in police/fire unions, you can't tick them off under ANY circumstances. 

Offline ColDayMan

  • ♫ An Apollo Legend ♫
  • Administrator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 21685
    • UrbanOhio
Re: Cincinnati City Council
« Reply #1042 on: November 09, 2017, 10:22:54 PM »
Just knowing Seelbach from many years ago, it is par for the course with him. I have always found him to be completely full of himself and a jerk. I don't say this lightly around people I have met face to face

So basically you are to Seelbach as Jake is to Cranley.  Mortal enemies.
"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Offline Brutus_buckeye

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2694
Re: Cincinnati City Council
« Reply #1043 on: November 12, 2017, 09:02:53 PM »
Not quite. I knew him as an acquaintance many years ago. Always thought he was completely full of himself and a giant A$$.  I may not agree with his politics, that is true, but I also do not think much of him as a person. Contrast that with Yvette Simpson, while I do not necessarily agree with her politically on many things, I think she is a heck of a good person and truly cares about more than herself

Offline ryanlammi

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4828
Re: Cincinnati City Council
« Reply #1044 on: November 13, 2017, 07:29:28 AM »
Quinlivan's light questioning of the police contracts back around 2012-2013...if she hadn't done that, she would have easily beaten Amy Murray in 2013 and been reelected easily once again in 2017. 

Technically Quinlivan wouldn't have been eligible for reelection in 2017 since she had served 4 full years before the 4 year terms were put in place. So 2013 would have been her last year.

Offline ColDayMan

  • ♫ An Apollo Legend ♫
  • Administrator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 21685
    • UrbanOhio
Re: Cincinnati City Council
« Reply #1045 on: November 13, 2017, 12:36:24 PM »
Not quite. I knew him as an acquaintance many years ago. Always thought he was completely full of himself and a giant A$$.  I may not agree with his politics, that is true, but I also do not think much of him as a person.

So, again, you are to Seelbach as Jake is to Cranley.  Personal reasons aka "full of himself and a giant a$$."
"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Online taestell

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 7381
Re: Cincinnati City Council
« Reply #1046 on: November 24, 2017, 02:50:07 PM »
All votes have been counted and the results are in. Jeff Pastor received 223 more votes than Michelle Dillingham, giving him the ninth seat on City Council.

Online taestell

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 7381
Re: Cincinnati City Council
« Reply #1047 on: January 17, 2018, 04:46:53 PM »
Kristen Wiig is starring in a new sit-com based on a book written by Council Member PG Sittenfeld's sister:

Apple Orders Comedy Series Starring Kristen Wiig

Apple has placed an order for a 10-episode half-hour comedy show starring Kristen Wiig, reports Variety. The show is said to be based on the upcoming "You Think It, I'll Say It" short story collection by Curtis Sittenfeld.

Curtis Sittenfeld's book features 10 stories that "upend assumptions about class, relationships, and gender roles in a nation that feels both adrift and viscerally divided," according to its description on Amazon. It was created by Colleen McGuinness, who worked on "30 Rock," "Mercy," and "About a Boy."

Offline Ram23

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5865
Re: Cincinnati City Council
« Reply #1048 on: February 06, 2018, 09:10:16 AM »
Jeff Pastor and Chris Seelbach got into it on Twitter yesterday:

https://twitter.com/votePASTOR

https://twitter.com/ChrisSeelbach

The short version: Seelbach tried to call out Murray and Pastor for missing a meeting because they attended the president's visit. Pastor called Seelbach out for his "Hipster Liberal Racism." A Business Courier reporter chimed in mentioning that the committee meeting in question only needs a quorum of 5 to vote, so 3 other people were absent as well. Seelbach walked right into this one, I'm not sure why he bothered with picking this fight.

Offline ryanlammi

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4828
Re: Cincinnati City Council
« Reply #1049 on: February 06, 2018, 09:14:59 AM »
Both Seelbach and Pastor look really bad coming out of this. It's embarrassing on all sides. No one wins, and it just sets the next 4 years up to be miserable for all of us.