The Blog Is Back
I'll got a new blog skin and intend to resume blogging here effective immediately. First-thing-first. The Luken/McAdams/Painter misconduct scandal information will be copied to this blog.
Blog Problems
Ok. The blog looks terrible. Until I can get the code issues worked out all blogging will be done on Cincinnati Black Blog.
Mayor Mallory Update
Yeah. I know he hasn't been elected yet but I wanted to see how Mayor Mallory sounded. I just left the press conference and it cleared up a number of thing. First, Mark Mallory announced that he is indeed running for Mayor. (I certainly hope he doesn't drop out of the race.) Second, Roxanne Qualls was at the press conference, she introduced Mallory, and she endorsed his candidacy. (So much for her getting into the race, unless Mallory drops out.) Third, according to cincynation.com, Mark Painter says he hasn't made up his mind about running for Cincinnati Mayor and says he will decide by January, 2004. Nick Spencer reports receiving an email from Judge Painter reading:
Korte's quotes were accurate. But I certainly didn't imply that I would not run. It's very early--we still have a presidential election in a few months. Mallory may or not end up running. I will decide by the first of the year.
(I'll have a little more on Judge Painter and his conflicts in a separte blog later today.)
A few things I noticed about the Mallory for Mayor press conference. He had a number of elected officials and former elected officials there. Besides Qualls and, of course, his dad, former State Rep. William Mallory, Sr., there was State Rep. Steve Driehaus (a young, conservative, westside, old school Democrat), former State Rep. Sam Britton, Cincinnati School Board member Melanie Bates, a current member of the Ohio Senate and current member of the Ohio General Assembly. The National Organization for Women's Cathy Helmbock was in the house. And failed Green Party council candidate Wes Flinn was present. (The question is can Helmbock and/or Flinn help mobilize votes and funds for Mallory?)
Who was absent? State Representatives Catherine Barrett and Tyrone Yates. (Catherine Barrett got the seat from Mallory and most people believe she wouldn't be there without the support of the Mallory family. Her abscence was noticable.) The Democrats on City Council (Alicia Reece, David Crowley, John Cranley, Laketa Cole, and David Pepper.) Mark's Democratic Party co-chair Tim Burke. No one from the Baptist Ministers' Conference, or the NAACP, or the Urban League, or any of the social service agencies. No one from the business community (even though Mark's Senate district covers most of downtown). No activists (unless you include me).
The best question (there were only three) came from the Post's Kevin Osborne about whether Mark would give up his position with the Democratic Party while running for Mayor. This is important because when Laketa Cole first ran for City Council, the Democrats made a big stink about her running while maintaining a position with the Cincinnati Democratic Committee. A little free advice for Mallory: you can't talk about building coalitions without fixing any issues you have with Laketa Cole and former Mayor Dwight Tillery. Mark would be wise to acknowledge that mistakes have been made in the Democratic Party (including the attacks on Cole) and offer Tillery an olive branch. Luken will use anything to divide Mallory from potential voters.
Greg "No Reportee" Korte Catching Up on Mallory Move
So, Nick Spencer thinks my take on Mark Mallory's political announcement is "interesting if a little conspiratorial". (Look for more on Nick Spencer later today.) I wonder if he thinks the same thing about Greg Korte's story in today's Cincinnati Enquirer.
Vice Mayor Alicia Reece is still considering several options, including the mayor's office, said father and campaign manager Steve Reece. Other possibilities are Ohio secretary of state and Mallory's Senate seat, which comes open by term limits in 2006.That sounds an awful lot like what I wrote yesterday. There is nothing "conspiratorial" about it. Korte does have a few "new" pieces of information for a change. According to Korte, Judge Mark Painter said he probably won't enter the race if Mallory does. And David Pepper confirmed that he is exploring running and has sent out a fund raising letter.
I failed to mention two things yesterday. The first is the possibility that Catherine Barrett would move up to the State Senate and Alicia Reece would take her place in the General Assembly. This is highly unlikely for two reasons. First, Reece doesn't live in Barrett's house district, so to qualify, she would have to change addresses from Integrity Hall. (Does anybody believe she resides there?) Second, Yates isn't about to let Barrett advance to the State Senate. I don't think Mallory can pull this deal off. The second is that somebody needs to run for Hamilton County Commissioner against Pat DeWine. I can see Mallory agreeing to drop his Mayoral bid for enough cash and support to mount a campaign agaist DeWine. I can also see Reece, Pepper, or Cranley agreeing to make that part of the deal. And don't count out this scenario, Luken might feel like he can't win the Mayoral primary and gently agree to move to the County Commission if he felt like he could beat DeWine and come away looking like a "good" Democrat.
Is Mark Mallory REALLY Running For Mayor or Democratic Party Musical Chairs
Do you remember playing musical chairs as a child? Someone always got eliminated because there weren't enough chairs. The announcement by Mark Mallory tomorrow signals the beginning of the Hamilton County Democratic Party's version of musical chairs. Who will get left out?
Here's the lowdown. Mallory finds himself term limited from the State Senate in 2006. He can run for the General Assembly (a position he has already served in) or he can come home from Columbus. My sources tell me Mark wants to come home and he wants to remain an elected official. Mark has made his desire known to Tim Burke and the rest of the Democratic Party where he serves as co-chair. Since the Party didn't seem interested in helping Mallory stay in office, he announced that he was considering a run for Mayor.
This is from the Whistleblower's "Real Faxes From Real Subscribers":
Quisling Charlie has till today to try to buy me off, or I'll be running my fellow DemocRAT's white ass out of town in the mayor's race next year. --Mark MalloryOf course, Mallory isn't looking for Luken to buy him off. He is, however, a young man and he has to look out for his future. (He wouldn't want to be "retired" and sitting at home like Minette Cooper, would he?) Here is the plan.
- Mallory announces he is running for Mayor.
- His competition is Charlie Luken, David Pepper and Alicia Reece. (Mark Painter, Charlie Winburn, and Christopher Smitherman may run but they aren't Mallory's primary competition.)
- Alicia Reece is term limited from City Council in 2007. Her last race would be in 2005. Everyone knows she wants to move on to higher office. (That push by Alicia's daddy to get her selected as the Vice Presidential candidate hasn't worked and the ongoing push to have her considered for Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, or Congress hasn't exactly been effective.) She could cool her heels, support Luken, and run for Mayor in 2007. That's too risky. You can't predict who competition would be then. Roxanne Qualls? Mallory? Pepper? Some new comer? So, Mallory offers Reece a deal. Sit out the Mayor's race and take his seat in the State Senate. That way she gets out of City Hall and can continue to establish/strengthen her contacts in Columbus and upstate, and SHE DOESN'T SPLIT THE BLACK VOTE. Once Reece gets out of the race, she can officially maintain a neutral position in the Mayor's race (Mallory and Luken are both Democrats after all), or she can publicly support Luken (like she did when he ran against Courtis Fuller) while secretly telling her supporters to vote for Mallory because a Mallory win means she is "moving on up" like George and Weezie.
- But there's a problem. Tyrone Yates is a State Representative and he won't let Reece walk into the State Senate. Yates might threaten to mount a campaign of his own which could be troublesome. To counter this, Mallory has to cut a deal.
- With Reece out, Mallory can cut a deal with Pepper or Luken for what he really wants. A simple seat on City Council. Whoever cuts him the best deal guaranteeing their support for his City Council run and Alicia Reece's run for State Senate (and their opposition to Yates' candidacy) gets his support and probably becomes (or remains) the Mayor.
- If Yates is swift, he can force Reece to settle on a move to the General Assembly.
When the music stops, Mallory is on City Council, Reece is in the General Assembly, Yates is in the State Senate, Pepper is still on Council, and Luken is still the Mayor.
If you've read this far you must be wondering, Nate, if Mallory really wants to be on City Council and he is the Democratic Party's co-chair, why doesn't he just say so? Well, no Mallory has ever ran for City Council and won. His brother, Judge William Mallory, Jr. ran and lost. His dad ran and couldn't get funding or support from the Party. By running for Mayor, Mallory can force the Democrats to give him the support that they didn't give to his dad and his brother or face a potential fight that could split the Party and give Republicans control of the Mayor's Office and control of City Council. If Mallory is eventually "persuaded" to leave the race, he looks like a "good" Democrat who is more concerned about the Party than himself. If they don't cut Mallory a good deal he has the potential to win. Any way you look at it, Mallory loses nothing by running.
Blog Envy
Brian over at Cincinnati Blog has a few comments about me, this blog, and the Cincinnati Black Blog. As usual he fails to get his facts straight (he claims the CJC's website was "suspended") and can't resist taking a personal dig at me. Whatever makes him feel good....
Brian, you know that I should be YOUR Congressman.
Three More Downtown Businesses Closing
I can't understand why downtown business owners continue to support Luken and oppose the Cincinnati Boycott. The Business Courier reports that two more downtown businesses are closing. The Courier doesn't report that AAA Unison Computer store is also closed. Luken could've stopped the Cincinnati Boycott a long time ago by entering into negotiations with boycott leaders. Instead, he chose to gamble with the livelihoods of downtown business owners. Those owners are suffering because of Luken's decisions and their continued support of the weak mayor.
Fund Established for Roselawn Drowning Hero
The Cincinnati Post reports that a fund has been set up at Fifth Third Bank for teenaged hero Thierno Barrie. I'm making my donation today!
Boycott Cincinnati website update.
During the last year, the Coalition For A Just Cincinnati -- the leading Cincinnati Boycott organization of which I serve as co-chair -- received hundreds of complaints about our website. Most of the complaints were about comments made on our message board. Well, we took the website down for a few weeks but the organization decided to put it back up.
Most of you wouldn't believe the type of email received by the CJC. Monica forwarded this one to me a few weeks ago. Check it out.
From: Jjpfaffl@aol.comThe "dark" problem?
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:14:34 EDT
Subject: Check out Davis Furniture To Close Doors After 102-Year Run
Click here: Davis Furniture To Close Doors After 102-Year Run Another victim of "The Dark Problem"
Mallory For Mayor
Mark Mallory is a good man who comes from a fine family. It looks like he may announce his plan to run for Mayor of Cincinnati on Tuesday. If the choice is Luken or Mallory, I'll vote for Mallory every time.
UPDATE: The Cincinnati Post has a story about Mark Mallory possibly running for Mayor. The time and date of the announcement differs from the Enquirer. According to the Post Mallory will make his annoucement in the West End. That makes sense to me. The Enquirer, however, says the announcement will be made in Columbia Tusculum. On this one, I'd bet the Post is right.
At Least 50 Deaths Following Taser Shocks
Last December, City Council voted to spend more than $1 million to buy 1100 stun guns (at a cost of $799 a piece) from Taser International, but not before listening to Taser president Tom Smith tell the City that no one had died after being shocked by one of their tasers and only four serious injuries had resulted after more than 3,500 taser shocks. And not before hearing a doctor on Taser's payroll tell Council that tasers pose no threat to people with pacemakers. (As usual, the lazy local media failed to investigate any of the claims made by Taser representatives. And since the purchase there has still been no investigation of Taser. The media has also failed to ask what policy, if any, has been put in place for deployment of tasers. The media printed everything Luken and Taser International said as truth.)
Now the New York Times reports that since 2001 at least 50 people have died after being shocked by a taser. Six of those deaths happened in June! As if that weren't enough, the Times further reports:
Stop right there. Before the City bought the tasers, Amnesty International, Cincinnati Cardiologist Joe Hackworth, Alicia Reece, Christopher Smitherman, Laketa Cole, and a whole host of concerned citizens begged the City to get more research before making the purchase. As usual, the hot-headed bullies at City Hall (with Luken out in front) won the battle and spent the money. Maybe the City will listen to the voices of reason next time. Probably not.Taser International ... says its weapons are not lethal, even for people with heart conditions or pacemakers. The deaths resulted from drug overdoses or other factors and would have occurred anyway, the company says.
But Taser has scant evidence for that claim. The company's primary safety studies on the M26, which is far more powerful than other stun guns, consist of tests on a single pig in 1996 and on five dogs in 1999. Company-paid researchers, not independent scientists, conducted the studies, which were never published in a peer-reviewed journal. Taser has no full-time medical director and has never created computer models to simulate the effect of its shocks, which are difficult to test in human clinical trials for ethical reasons.
What is more, aside from a continuing Defense Department study, the results of which have not been released, no federal or state agencies have studied the safety, or effectiveness, of Tasers, which fall between two federal agencies and are essentially unregulated. Nor has any federal agency studied the deaths to determine what caused them. In at least two cases, local medical examiners have said Tasers were partly responsible. In many cases, autopsies are continuing or reports are unavailable.The few independent studies that have examined the Taser have found that the weapon's safety is unproven at best. The most comprehensive report, by the British government in 2002, concluded "the high-power Tasers cannot be classed, in the vernacular, as `safe.' " ... A 1989 Canadian study found that stun guns induced heart attacks in pigs with pacemakers. A 1999 study by the Department of Justice on an electrical weapon much weaker than the Taser found that it might cause cardiac arrest in people with heart conditions. In reviewing other electrical devices, the Food and Drug Administration has found that a charge half as large as that of the M26 can be dangerous to the heart.
Apparently sensing that Cincinnati is led (if you can call it leadership) by a bunch of fools, the Taser representative came to town and simply lied about injuries resulting from the use of their product. They guessed that the City wouldn't bother investigating their company or their product, and they knew the City wouldn't insist (as suggested by Reece) on a "hold-harmless" agreement. The City could probably prevail in a fraud lawsuit, but that would require Luken and the six goofballs who voted in favor of the purchase to admit that they were deceived.
How long before Reece's concern that someone is going to sue the City for arming the cops with these dangerous weapons, for failing to investigate tasers before purchasing and placing them on the street, and for failing to give cops appropriate guidelines for when to use tasers? The City probably can't prevent lawsuits but they can insist Chief Stricher immediately prepare a deployment policy for taser usage.
Greg Harris For Congress?
This story is an example of why the Cincinnati Enquirer is a terrible paper. The AP story hit the wire early Friday morning. I saw a version of the story on cincynation.com which linked to the Cleveland Plain Dealer. So the Enquirer is late with the story. Then they don't add any local information. Rob Portman is mentioned in the story (he has more than $1 million in the bank) but his opponent, Charles W. Sanders, isn't. The AP story is focused on Congressional incumbents fundraising advantage over non-incumbents but the 1st District incumbent Steve Chabot isn't mentioned in the story nor is his opponent. I checked the Federal Election Commission's website and found that Greg Harris has done virtually no fundraising. This guy has raised less money than most City Council candidates! I talked to one of Greg's supporters yesterday (one who had actually donated money to his campaign) and he told me that Greg is a nice guy but nobody expects him to defeat Chabot unless Chabot died or got involved in a sex scandal. (And this was a Greg Harris supporter.)
Some of you may know I considered running for Congress this year and was discouraged from doing so by the Hamilton County Democratic Party. During a candidate interview, I was told by Tyrone Yates, Tim Burke and others that whoever ran against Chabot needed to raise at least $1 million to be competitive. They felt that Greg would do a much better job of fundraising since he ran with the Party's endorsement last time. I could've still ran in the primary and beat Greg but I had other priorities at the time. Greg Harris is not a serious candidate for Congress. Democrats deserve better.
What Was The City Drinking When They Approved Seymour Project?
I don't think it was Jim Beam. One of my favorite local reporters, Kevin Aldridge, reports the City is being sued by Jim Beam. Kevin doesn't tell us that the lawsuit was filed over a week ago on July 9th or that it was filed in the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court, but since when do you expect the Enquirer to give you all of the facts? Maybe they think people don't care about when a suit was filed or where it was filed. I wish I had the ability/knowledge of how to post pdf attachments like the smoking gun. If the City did breach it's contract with Jim Beam it could cost us taxpayers $500,000 plus attorney fees. Just one more expense for the expensive Seymour Avenue Project.
Teenaged Hero Dies
This story tears me up. You've got Thierno Barnes, a teenager who sees his buddy drowning and even though he can't swim still jumps into the pool to help his buddy's life. There are a lot of negative stories about teenagers, but this young man demonstrates that some of our kids are courageous. This young man died a hero. If his family needs financial help, I hope everyone contributes.
HUD: City Must Repay $4M Huntington Meadows Grant
The Cincinnati Post is reporting that the Department of Housing and Urban Development is demanding the repayment of nearly $4 million in grants given to the City of Cincinnati to renovate Huntington Meadows and maintain the site as low-income housing for at least five years after the renovations were completed. Apparently, HUD spent the last two years investigating whether the City did enough to keep Huntington Meadows open and decided they didn't.
What are they thinking at City Hall? Looks like John Cranley and the Impaction Ordinance crowd are about to get the city's finances impacted by HUD. But guess what? The City's finances are generated by people like you and me. When the City repays HUD, ultimately, you and I are writing the checks. And the $4 million HUD is owed is no small payment. HUD outlined three reimbursement options. 1) The City can repay the $4 in one lump sum from non-federal sources. 2) The City can agree to an annual reduction in HOME grants. 3) The City can substitute the 264 low-income units elsewhere.
The last option is the best option because it replaces the low-income housing that was lost when Huntington Meadows closed. Housing for the poor should be the goal. But even HUD, without dealing with the anti-poor crowd at City Hall, concedes that this option is unlikely. While HUD shouldn't let the City continue to believe it can take federal funds designed for low-income housing and spend them on housing projects that benefit people of all income ranges, it also should not punish poor people who had nothing to do with the current situation, and in fact did their best to fight against the City's efforts. (I guess some might hold the poor responsible for helping elect the current City Council even though it is more likely that they didn't vote at all.)
Kevin Osborne gets kudos for mentioning this:
A group of former tenants at Huntington Meadows is suing the city in federal court, alleging local officials conspired to evict people unnecessarily as part of their plan to build upscale housing there.The reason Kevin gets kudos is because the lawsuit is relevant to the story, yet some local reporters would've left this information out of the story anyway.
Among the lawsuit's claims is that Vice Mayor Alicia Reece improperly used her office to gain financial benefit for herself and her family by pushing for the complex's demolition.
Joining the tenants as a plaintiff is a California firm which offered to buy the site and maintain it as low-income housing, only to be ignored by city officials.
The lawsuit alleges that the city violated several state and federal laws by denying residents equal protection under the law and through breach of contract and abuse of process.
Tenants allege the evictions were pushed through solely to advance a plan that Reece got City Council to approve in 2000 for redeveloping the Seymour Avenue business district in Bond Hill.
Getting rid of the low-income apartments would increase the value of surrounding properties, attorneys said.
Those properties include Integrity Hall, a nearby conference center owned by Reece's father, Steven Reece.
Kevin should stop, however, printing Reece's lies. When Kevin writes, "... city attorneys issued a legal opinion stating she [Alicia Reece] had no conflict of interest in voting on either the earlier Seymour Avenue plan or the latest Huntington Meadows proposal, Reece said" he might as well be stating a fact. There is a Complaint pending with the Ohio Ethics Commission challenging Reece's voting and financial involvment with the Seymour Avenue project. No one has ever produced any letter from the City's attorney advising that Alicia was free of conflict. Having published several stories on Alicia and the conflict of interest problems with the Seymour Avenue/Huntington Meadows project, wouldn't you think that a news reporter would demand to actually view the alleged letters before printing that Alicia says they exist?
The bottom line: Stealing from the poor is a sin and a crime and someone should go to jail for this. I certainly hope the Justice Department is investigating!
UPDATE: The Cincinnati Enquirer has a shorter version of the story.
Greetings
Hello! Welcome to my new blog. If you are reading this blog, you probably know a little bit about me. (I'm sure many of you think you know things about me, but probably don't really know me at all.) This blog will let me publish my thoughts on a wide variety of issues that impact me personally or the all of us who live in the the greater Cincinnati area. Of course, I won't limit my comments to local issues or things which impact the Black community. I will post my thoughts on anything and everything that I think is appropriate. I certainly hope you enjoy your time here and contribute your feedback.
