Carroll Commencement
Fairborn commencement
Badin graduation
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.
Scott Elliott is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He writes about education, city and suburban issues, politics, business, workforce and consumer issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2010 > February > 04
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Martin Gottlieb: Two district-drawing plans have merit
Remapping Ohio Politics, Chapter 117.
Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern, no friend of the effort to take politics out of the drawing of congressional and legislative districts, says, among other things, that the effort lacks political pizzazz.
“You’ll attract about six votes one way or another,” he said. “It’s an issue most Ohioans don’t understand or care to.”
Long experience suggests that’s true.
And yet, really, the issue is pretty simple: If one party can draw the districts, it can maximize its power to a remarkable degree, by concentrating the other party’s reliable voters in a few districts.
If the parties must compromise, that problem is solved. But, still, the parties can collude to make nearly all districts a lock for one party or the other.
However, a way has been found to take the power out of the politicians’ hands, to simply eliminate political motivation in map-drawing.
Last year, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner sponsored a test contest promoted by a coalition of activists, including the League of Women Voters and Ohio Citizen Action.
Entrants were asked to draw congressional districts for the last decade, under certain rules, using population stats from the 2000 Census. The results were remarkable:
Not only the best entries, but the losing entries had maps that were better than the existing map by any nonpartisan standard. Far more districts were compact (as opposed to gerrymandered), and far more could be won by either party.
The case against reform is dead.
Under Ohio’s current rules, all districts in the state legislature are designed by one party (whichever has two offices out of governor, secretary of state and state auditor after the first election in the decade). Congressional districts are decided upon the way a law is passed, involving the legislature and the governor.
When last we met, the Republican state Senate had passed a credible reform measure initiated by Sen. Jon Husted, of Kettering. That left the Democratic House and the voters to act. (Reform requires changing the state constitution, which requires a ballot issue.)
Now Democratic leaders of the House have put up a plan. They missed the deadline for getting something on the May ballot, requiring a move to November. That could doom the whole thing. Partisanship will be at a fever pitch by then; one party is likely to sense victory in races for governor, etc.; that party is unlikely to want reform. If one party turns against it, look out.
What took the Democrats so long is hard to fathom, since they didn’t even have to draw up a plan. They have basically embraced one they were handed by the League and other reformers — all pre-tested and tied in a nice bow — the one used in last year’s contest.
But at least there are now two plans in the legislature, and either would be a dramatic improvement.
The Husted plan would have all district shapes determined by a seven-person commission of elected officials. At least two members would have to come from each party. Any plan would need five votes to pass, and two would have to come from each party.
That’s all good. But it still allows some leeway for the politicians to coalesce into a bipartisan interest group.
The Husted plan does say districts should be compact and competitive, where possible. And it does invite maps from citizens, which could embarrass the politicians into doing right. But it doesn’t offer much of an enforcement mechanism.
The other plan does. It defines competitiveness, compactness and other characteristics in concrete, numerical terms. It invites the public to submit plans in a contest, and it gives points, for example, for every compact district and every competitive one. Between the two plans, that’s the better approach.
Unfortunately, before the Democratic leaders embraced it, they eliminated the congressional element. They have offered no case for that. There is none. They just say that reform will be easier to pass if it isn’t so sweeping. Congressional districts should be added back in.
Beyond that, one good compromise would be to create Husted’s commission and have it work under the contest rules.
Reaching that agreement should be the easy part.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: Columns, Martin Gottlieb, Ohio government, Ohio politics
TweetGuest column: 3C line will probably suffer from too few passengers
This commentary was provided by Michael Gorman, an associate professor of operations management at the University of Dayton who worked in the rail industry for 10 years.
The $400 million dollar federal subsidy for the 3C rail plan will create badly needed jobs. But it’s short-sighted to ignore the bigger long-term commitment.
Once completed, the backers of the 3C rail plan estimate it will need a $17 million annual subsidy from Ohioans. We need to know this idea will work.
A subsidy for rail service is not by itself a bad thing. Rail service that removes cars from congested roads, and, at the same time, reduces pollution, would benefit everyone, not just those who opt to take the train.
Smart investments in rail in other regions have reduced the need for some highway investment, revived moribund downtowns and limited urban sprawl.
The success of the plan depends entirely on ridership. But how will riders benefit?
It may be a boon to students and the elderly. Some will take the train because it’s fun, or because it’s ecologically friendly. But we can’t build a passenger rail network based on the people who fall in these categories; there simply won’t be enough riders to justify the investment.
The vast majority of projected riders will have a choice, and these riders will look for convenience, economy and fast service. I don’t think they will find it.
For example, under the proposed 3C schedule, a family of four going from Dayton to Cincinnati to spend a day at the zoo would drive to downtown Dayton at 8 a.m., take the 8:24 train for 1.5 hours to downtown Cincinnati, take a bus to Clifton, and be at the zoo no earlier than 10:30 a.m.
They will have to leave the zoo at 3:30, so they can make the last train at 4:15 and are home by 6 p.m.
Total transit time: 5 hours. Total cost: $73. (Four round-trip train tickets at roughly $60, bus fare at $8 and Dayton parking at $5.)
Compare that to driving less than two hours in a car for about $60 ($.51 per mile based on IRS estimates and $10 in parking).
Bengals and Reds fans heading to a 1 p.m. game will have to get there three hours early or risk missing kickoff or the first pitch. They had better hope there’s no overtime or extra innings — they’ll have to miss those to make the train.
The per-mile cost for a commuter or solo business traveler might be lower via rail, making it potentially attractive. But the proposed schedule would get a Daytonian to the train station in Sharonville no earlier than 9:37 a.m., and the rider will need to be back on board by 4:48 p.m. for the trip home.
3C rail planners have optimistically estimated annual ridership will include 35,000 Dayton riders, and that 500,000 riders from this service area — roughly one out of every 14 people — will ride the trains each year. Will you be one of them?
Without sufficient ridership, the proposed benefits to Ohioans are diminished because benefits of reduced traffic congestion and smog are generated when trains are well-used. If ridership is low, the high fixed costs and up-front investments of rail cause the cost per-passenger to skyrocket.
The challenge facing 3C planners is to create a system that provides convenience at a reasonable price to encourage ridership. I hope they succeed, but I’m not sure enough Ohioans will find the proposed rail system either fast or frequent enough to be worthwhile.
Permalink | Comments (13) | Post your comment | Categories: Economy, Energy, Guest Columns, Transportation
TweetGuest column: Overall, passenger rail line will be good for Ohio
This commentary was provided by Steve Harrod, assistant professor of operations management at the University of Dayton. He specializes in transportation issues.
Will the 3C Corridor be a success?
That depends on how you define “success.”
After 30 years of frustration and false starts, this train would be the first north-south passenger service in Ohio since 1971. That is an achievement in its own right.
It also would be the most visible passenger train in Ohio, because shockingly, it will operate during the day. Readers may be excused if they are unaware that Ohio has any passenger trains at all, as these trains slip through in the middle of the night on their way to Chicago or Washington.
Will your son or daughter come home more often by train from Ohio State? Yes.
Will some business people enjoy working on their laptop while rolling toward Cincinnati? Yes.
Will the service stimulate real-estate development adjacent to stations? Yes.
Will it make money? No, and this question irritates me to no end.
If the 3C service had begun last year, it would have carried 478,000 passengers at an average ticket price of $25. Each one of those tickets, on average, would have required a government subsidy of $35. For many readers, this is evidence of failure, but, again, define your measurements.
The “profit” measurement for passenger rail is biased. None of our transportation modes is self-supporting, and the subsidies to automobile use are especially tenacious and far-reaching.
Our automobile transportation system is hard-wired into every aspect of our economic system. Zoning laws require properties to provide parking according to a formula. That “free” parking at your local McDonald’s is included in the cost of your “value meal.”
My local township spent approximately $4 million on road maintenance last year, and the majority of this was raised from property taxes, not fees directly tied to car ownership. Those roads required police and fire rescue services, and those too are funded by property taxes.
Oh, and by the way, railway lines are subject to property taxes, too.
Pardon the pun, but in spite of all these favors, road financing is headed for a train wreck. Highways are supposed to be funded from fuel taxes, but those tax revenues have been declining in proportion to vehicle miles traveled, which are also in decline due to the recession.
The Ohio Department of Transportation projects a middle-range scenario of a $1.5 billion deficit in the state highway fund by 2017. The federal highway trust fund is facing billions upon billions of shortfall right now.
But is it only about money? What about the value or quality of life received from this subsidy?
To see a vision of the future, visit that auto-centric land, sunny San Diego. It made public policy and real-estate development commitments to rail more than 30 years ago.
Eleven trains a day connect San Diego to Los Angeles. These trains are popular. The downtown station, a short walk from the ocean, is surrounded by beautiful new condominium towers.
At the station you can catch a streetcar that will take you to the convention center, hotels, some of the best nightlife in California or the Mexican border.
The 3C Corridor will be a success. It will be a fundamental amenity that will enhance the quality of life in the major metropolitan areas of Ohio. It will stimulate denser, urban housing and commercial development.
It will provide more alternatives, more mobility, and, in that sense, it will also be a tangible expression of the American dream of freedom and opportunity.
Permalink | Comments (27) | Post your comment | Categories: Economy, Energy, Guest Columns, Local Business, Transportation
TweetEditorial: New poor put pressure on suburbs
Five years ago, West Carrollton’s school breakfast program was small and not on Superintendent Rusty Clifford’s mind very often.
Today, feeding kids before school is a priority, and lots more qualify for the federal program.
Five years ago, the district also didn’t offer language classes for kids learning English. Today, it has four teachers dedicated to that, and a fifth is needed.
“The demographics have shifted dramatically in the 11 years I’ve been here,” Mr. Clifford says.
Last month, a slew of new poverty data said Dayton and its suburbs are experiencing big jumps in poverty. Both the city and its surrounding communities ranked in the top 10 in the country for poverty growth in their respective categories. Managing the increase is putting new pressure on communities that have historically not had to deal with significant clusters of poverty.
Consider schools, for instance, since they are among the first to feel the effects when family incomes drop. Kids start showing up at school unprepared, with too few supplies, lacking coats, even hungry.
According to Ohio Department of Education poverty statistics, West Carrollton had the fastest growth in school poverty in the Dayton area during the past five years, jumping 29.4 points to 49.4 percent. Roughly every other child is now poor.
“We definitely notice it,” Mr. Clifford says.
Right behind West Carrollton is Dayton. Though the district was reporting that a troubling 62.5 percent of kids were in poverty in 2005, that figure has jumped to a stunning 89 percent today.
It’s a remarkable figure. Nearly nine out of every 10 Dayton schoolchildren come from a family that qualified for free or reduced lunch, meaning that, for a family of four, their household income was below $41,000.
Rounding out the top five biggest poverty-gainers in the Dayton area during the last five years are Mad River (up 18 points to 41 percent); New Lebanon (up 17 points to 40 percent); and Troy (up 14 points to 36 percent).
Clearly, the problem has remarkable breadth. The top five include Dayton, two contiguous suburbs, an outlying suburb and a self-contained small city.
Indeed, poverty reaches into every type of community in the Dayton area. Of the 41 school districts in Montgomery, Greene, Miami and Warren counties, only five — Oakwood, Centerville, Springboro, Mason and Bethel — have a poverty rate below 10 percent.
Those facing new poverty challenges could learn from West Carrollton. In 2004, the community embraced a program that focuses on helping children learn 40 specific attributes that can help them in life. About 22 can be learned in school. They include qualities such as being committed to learning and motivating yourself to achieve.
But others are community-based. They include connecting children with adult role models and instilling community values.
Mr. Clifford credits this effort with helping the district’s state report card rating actually improve even as its student body was becoming poorer. That’s a real achievement.
Communities dealing with big poverty pressures for the first time have to start right away to rally community resources to support poor families.
Permalink | Comments (4) | Post your comment | Categories: Economy, Editorials, Education, Scott Elliott, Suburban Communities
Tweet
