Badin vs. Fredericktown
Miamisburg graduation 2012
Valley View vs. Greenville
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 > October > 06
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Martin Gottlieb: Kasich pitch on trains not really about speed
2010 ELECTION
In the fight about passenger trains in Ohio, the two sides have not only differing views, but different information.
Some are on e-mail lists that are put out by opponents. These feature articles and studies with the bad news: about Amtrak’s costs to taxpayers, about bad service high ticket prices or low usage on this or that line, about cost overruns, slow speeds, unmet expectations and scandals.
But there are mailing lists on the other side:
about train usage being higher than ever, about how young people are moving to places with good train service, about how economic development follows train service, about how speeds are increasing (and plenty of people ride the slower trains anyway), about the huge government subsidies for auto travel that make the subsidies for trains look tiny.
As usual in today’s politics, people only feel obliged to know the case for their side. The other side is somebody else’s responsibility. With John Kasich, though, one gets the feeling he isn’t on either mailing list.
In a televised debate, the Republican candidate for governor said he was against 3C, the plan for passenger train service from Cleveland to Cincinnati via Dayton, to be built with federal stimulus money. He put his opposition in terms of speed. He derisively referred to 3C as a “39-mile-per-hour high-speed train.” That’s the main case most critics make: too slow to generate ridership.
To those new to politics, that phrasing might raise the possibility that he’ll change his mind now that the officially projected average speed for the line has been raised to 50 mph, with future increases reasonably expected.
Average speeds will be higher in the middle of the route: 61 mph between Columbus and the suburbs of Cleveland. All told, the Cincinnati-Cleveland run will be 90-minutes shorter than originally projected. The average approaches car speeds, figuring traffic delays and stops.
But 3C supporters should not get their hopes raised about Kasich. After the TV debate, but before the news broke about the 50 mph speed, Kasich and Gov. Ted Strickland met with this newspaper’s editorial board. Kasich was asked how he would counter the argument made by 3C supporters that, in order to get to high-speed trains, a region must first have conventional trains to demonstrate the demand.
(Supporters say that all high-speed systems started as conventional systems.)
Some 3C opponents respond that a high-speed system couldn’t be built on the current tracks, that it would be a matter of starting from scratch.
But Kasich didn’t make that point. He said he was just against the whole idea of passenger trains — high-speed or conventional — seeing no need in Ohio.
His position isn’t about conflicting sets of information. He said it was just a “philosophical” difference between him and the governor.
Given government subsidies for other forms of transportation, the philosophical dispute seems to involve special antipathy to trains. Ohio once had 2,800 miles of “interurban” electric rail lines connecting various cities. But the auto age came along, and the lines became unprofitable. Many were eventually torn up.
Passing up the 3C opportunity now seems likely to produce the same kind of amazed regrets that a lot of people feel about that story now.
There’s a last-chance feel to this. How is Ohio ever going to get the public to go along with spending state money for trains after rejecting a gift of the construction money now?
Republican candidates for governor in other states — California, Florida, Wisconsin — are also against accepting stimulus money for trains. But their projects involve more state money or less crucial connections (Milwaukee-Madison).
The 3C connection is one of the best ideas out there, given the population density of line and given that Ohio is behind other states. But those kinds of distinctions aren’t being made. Instead we get “philosophy.”
Permalink | Comments (49) | Post your comment | Categories: Columns, Elections, Martin Gottlieb, Ohio politics, Transportation
TweetEditorial: Mandel plays gutter politics, Boyce worse
2010 Election
The race for state treasurer between Kevin Boyce and Josh Mandel is thoroughly awful. Neither candidate has much experience in banking, and the debate has been ugly and partisan. But the deciding factor is the performance of the incumbent, Mr. Boyce, a 38-year-old former Columbus city councilman.
In less than two years since he was appointed, several of his decisions raise red flags and his explanations often don’t add up. Some examples:
• In his first six months, Mr. Boyce’s office spent more than $32,000 on promotional items with his name on it.
• A significant number of Mr. Boyce’s hires are personal friends or have political connections. He hired the 24-year-old son of two top advisers to Gov. Ted Strickland; the 22-year-old daughter of Toledo’s former mayor and the sister of Cincinnati’s former mayor.
He also hired former Democrat Party staffers and personal friends from high school and his church. Mr. Boyce says qualifications were the only factors in each case and that he didn’t know some of the connections critics have cited.
• One case of close personal connections is particularly cozy. Noure Alo, a personal friend of Deputy Treasurer Amer Ahmad, was hired as a lobbyist by a Boston bank just days before it landed a $1.27 million contract with Mr. Boyce’s office. Mr. Alo’s wife also landed a job as an administrative assistant in the treasurer’s office. Mr. Boyce says the timing of these hires was coincidental.
• Mr. Mandel’s staff counts eight people at the director level of Mr. Boyce’s office or campaign who have departed, and he claims they are fleeing because of “ethical” lapses.
Mr. Mandel has not provided evidence for that charge, but Mr. Boyce recently responded that many of those individuals were fired or asked to leave. When the Cleveland Plain Dealer called several of them and researched their personnel files, there was little evidence that anyone was fired. Most reported they left on good terms, contradicting Mr. Boyce.
• Mr. Boyce claims he has created thousands of jobs as treasurer. But his office was, in many cases, just the agency that passed through the funding for them.
Mr. Mandel, a 32-year-old state legislator from suburban Cleveland, has plenty of complaints to work with. Unfortunately, his campaign raises doubts about his judgment.
In campaign literature, he refers to Mr. Boyce’s friends as “comrades” and relentlessly repeats an allegation that the only place one job was posted was in a “mosque.” The wording of a TV ad seems intentionally designed to leave the impression that Mr. Boyce is a Muslim. (He is Christian and Mr. Mandel is Jewish.
An ex-Marine and Iraq war veteran, Mr. Mandel is shamelessly appealing to stereotypes and fears about Islamic fundamentalism.
Mr. Mandel also has criticized Mr. Boyce for outsourcing work. In some cases, out-of-state firms have been the low bidder and won contracts with Mr. Boyce’s office. When asked if he would reject cost-saving low bids in favor of more expensive contracts with companies closer to home, Mr. Mandel admits he likely would pick the lowest bid, just as Mr. Boyce has.
Mr. Mandel and his campaign have made your vote in this race a tougher choice than it should be. Nonetheless, Ohio needs a change in the treasurer’s office. Mr. Mandel is the only choice for change.
Letters of recommendation for the candidates can be found here.
Permalink | Comments (13) | Post your comment | Categories: 2010 endorsements, Editorials, Ohio politics, Scott Elliott
TweetEditorial: Keith better for auditor
2010 Election
Click here to read letters of support for these candidates.
It’s never easy to get voters’ attention for low-profile elective offices. Give Harry Bossey credit for trying, but he’s swinging recklessly.
Mr. Bossey is a Republican who wants to unseat Karl Keith, Montgomery County’s Democratic auditor who has been on the job for 10 years. Mr. Bossey hopes to tap property owners’ resentment of property taxes generally and the specific fact that, though housing prices have fallen, homeowners haven’t seen their property taxes quickly drop with the market.
About the appraisal process: By law, the auditor appraises properties every six years and then updates that assessment three years later. The last update was in 2008; the next big, comprehensive appraisal will be in 2011.
This means that the appraisal of your property is based mainly on what was happening in the market in 2005, 2006 and 2007. Mr. Keith is quick to add, though, that because prices were starting to dive even in 2007, the appraisals he set in 2008 were — with the state’s approval — generally discounted the values by 10 percent. But then, in the fall of 2008, the economy and the real estate market really tanked.
Notwithstanding the depressed market, most homeowners haven’t seen cuts in their property valuations or taxes, even though houses around them aren’t selling or are going for bargain prices. But keep this in mind: the fact that the county is always playing catch-up with regard to the market value of property is frustrating when the prices are going down, but when values are increasing, property owners effectively get a tax break.
If homeowners thinks an old appraisal is off the mark, they can appeal the valuation. Montgomery County had in the neighborhood of 6,100 appeals in 2009, about double the largest number it has ever had before.
Mr. Bossey sees the situation as the fault of Mr. Keith. But he’s oversimplifying to a fault. Mr. Keith doesn’t control the timing of the appraisal process, and the number of appeals isn’t an indictment of him either in an especially chaotic market.
Mr. Bossey, a certified accountant who has an import-export business in Miamisburg, really goes overboard in his charges that Mr. Keith is favoring Democratic officeholders and contributors whom he says are paying less in property taxes than some of their neighbors.
When pressed about his allegations, Mr. Bossey insists he isn’t suggesting illegality, just that Mr. Keith isn’t being fair. That’s disingenuous. After an interview in which he flung his charges, Mr. Bossey thought better of them and retracted some. He’s sticking to his complaint, however, that Mr. Keith’s friends know of opportunities for tax breaks that others don’t.
A Democratic activist, Mr. Keith has long been a fixture in county government. He’s knowledgeable about his office and local government. He also is active in the state auditors association, which — to the good — offers professional development.
On the other hand, the group goes to bat for auditors every time somebody dares to question why Ohio’s 88 counties need to elect an auditor who doesn’t really audit. (Besides overseeing property appraisals and property tax assessments, county auditors have bookkeeping and record-keeping responsibilities for the county, and they verify that gas pumps and grocery scales are accurate. They also license dogs.)
Republicans collectively — and Mr. Bossey specifically — are doing a public service by challenging Mr. Keith. County administrative offices — if they’re not watched — can get sleepy or become havens for political hangers-on.
The challenge itself is not where Mr. Bossey is going wrong. Rather, his problem is that he doesn’t inspire confidence with allegations he can’t support.
Mr. Keith should keep his job.
Permalink | Comments (10) | Post your comment | Categories: 2010 endorsements, Editorials, Ellen Belcher, Montgomery County
TweetEditorial: O’Connor, Lanzinger are best choices
2010 Election
Click here to read letters of endorsements for each of these candidates.
In the legal community inside and outside of the state, the Ohio Supreme Court is known for at least two things. Interest groups spend obscene amounts of money to elect members of the seven-member court, and the court has had an especially impressive chief justice.
When Chief Justice Tom Moyer died unexpectedly in April, he was the longest-serving justice in the United States. Mr. Moyer, who was chief for 23 years, was admired for that longevity, but, more important, for his sense of fairness and legal scholarship.
Regardless of who wins the election to succeed Chief Moyer, the court will be in the hands of someone less able.
Gov. Ted Strickland appointed Eric Brown to step in to serve as chief after Mr. Moyer’s death. Mr. Brown was serving on the Franklin County Probate Court and was already the Democrats’ candidate to replace Chief Moyer, who was facing mandatory retirement. But the appointment gave him a new political advantage in his race against Justice Maureen O’Connor, the Republican in the contest.
Things have not gone well since the appointment.
The chief justice is perceived as believing he can make decisions about hiring and firing people and the court’s budget without asking the other justices. They don’t believe that Chief Brown has the authority he thinks he does. Mr. Moyer would be sick.
This is just not the way he operated. He first won his seat because a shamelessly political Democrat (Frank Celebrezze) was running amok. Chief Moyer spent two decades trying to restore integrity and credibility to the court that is the final arbiter of the biggest legal fights in the state.
Mr. Brown is showing the wrong instincts. Though he has judicial experience and his more liberal views deserve consideration on a court that is decidedly conservative, he’s blown his chance.
Justice O’Connor, who was Gov. Bob Taft’s lieutenant governor and a former Summit County prosecutor, doesn’t have Chief Justice Moyer’s patience, deftness or intellect. She is, however, rated “highly recommended” by the Ohio State Bar Association. Chief Brown is rated “recommended,” a grade below. When the bar association looked over the candidates, Justice O’Connor had to have benefited by comparison to Chief Brown.
The big thing that recommends Justice O’Connor is that, since 2003, she’s seen how a Supreme Court should be run.
The other race
There’s a second contest that pits Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger against court of appeals Judge Mary Jane Trapp.
Both women are “highly recommended” by the state bar association, and some people think it’s a shame that the two are running against each other. It is a difficult choice, but Justice Lanzinger, a Republican, gets the highest marks.
She won her seat six years ago, and this will be her last term because of the rule that judges can’t run again once they reach 70. She jokes that Judge Trapp, a Democrat, can have her job in six years.
Justice Lanzinger points out that she is the only justice on the court who has served as a municipal, common pleas and court of appeals judge. Her point is that when the court is deciding whether a judge handled a case properly, she knows what it’s like to have been on the front lines.
Justice Lanzinger is a former elementary school teacher. She is precise, always prepared and infinitely patient. She is a conservative, but she’s not a partisan.
Judge Trapp, 54, was first elected in 2006 to the court of appeals that’s based in Warren. Before that, she was in private practice. She has been president of the state bar association.
It’s hard to label her because she doesn’t have the record of decisions that Justice Lanzinger has (Justice Lanzinger supported caps on damages in civil cases; she said police have to get a warrant before searching people’s cell phones).
Judge Trapp complains the current court is “too results-oriented.” That suggests she believes the law doesn’t support or require some of the more controversial rulings the high court has made. She’s effectively telegraphing that she’d come down on the more liberal side in debate.
Justice O’Connor and Justice Lanzinger are the best picks.
Permalink | Comments (5) | Post your comment | Categories: 2010 endorsements, Editorials, Ellen Belcher, Ohio government, Ohio politics
Tweet
