A vote would have been a wasteful and futile effort. Middletown v. Ferguson, 25 Ohio St. 3d 71 (1986). Regardless, the economics of the project would need to account for the cost and time necessary as a hedge to educate the voters (as opposed to three public bodies and elected executives) and counter the disinformation from out-of-city, out-of-county and out-of-state operatives using this issue to advance their own self-interests by holding the project hostage to create a slush fund for themselves.
The attempt to get the City to "negotiate over [the benefits] with the petition's sponsors" (mimicking the GCC's expressed desire in its recent op-ed to "negotiate") lays it bare. The petition's sponsors, the GCC, the SEIU or their lawyers are not legitimate. They failed to present any concrete alternatives even worth negotiating. How does negotiating with a self-selected special interest group serve to further the direct democracy espoused here anyway?
Our elected city and county officers with the authority to negotiate this project did their job. The terms were disclosed, written into law and voted on publicly. The Supreme Court said the charter (not the constitution) allows for a referendum here. The merits of the deal could have won at the ballot, but the vote was not legally significant (under the constitution, not the charter). The economics did not include an issue campaign or lengthy court battle, and negotiations are not part of a voter referendum. Now, the project is dead.
In the end, the opponents succeeded in promoting themselves and increasing their brand familiarity. Whether that familiarity is net favorable or unfavorable will bear itself out.
Let me simplify it for the confused mind: we elect people to represent us, but some special interest group thinks they should have to "say okay" first and creates delays to kill the project because their egos were hurt. This had nothing to do with public policy. It was about a few personalities exploiting ignorance and misinformation to promote themselves.
Recent Comments
Not sure the neighborhood needs that intense of use there.
The attempt to get the City to "negotiate over [the benefits] with the petition's sponsors" (mimicking the GCC's expressed desire in its recent op-ed to "negotiate") lays it bare. The petition's sponsors, the GCC, the SEIU or their lawyers are not legitimate. They failed to present any concrete alternatives even worth negotiating. How does negotiating with a self-selected special interest group serve to further the direct democracy espoused here anyway?
Our elected city and county officers with the authority to negotiate this project did their job. The terms were disclosed, written into law and voted on publicly. The Supreme Court said the charter (not the constitution) allows for a referendum here. The merits of the deal could have won at the ballot, but the vote was not legally significant (under the constitution, not the charter). The economics did not include an issue campaign or lengthy court battle, and negotiations are not part of a voter referendum. Now, the project is dead.
In the end, the opponents succeeded in promoting themselves and increasing their brand familiarity. Whether that familiarity is net favorable or unfavorable will bear itself out.