Outcome of the 2015 Election on the Park Issue, in which we recommended a NO vote on issue 22 because, “The Green Party is opposed to a plan that would create an unaccountable slush fund, as a permanent part of our City’s Charter, that could be used to degrade the natural areas of the City’s Park System by private or commercial exploitation of our park’s natural areas.”
FYI we got 59% of the vote compared to 41% for the other side. They spent a million dollars and we spent less than $10,000. A great victory for all of us.
Here was what was on our web page before the election:
Important Action Alert for November 3, 2015 Election:
Vote NO on issue 22 about the Cincinnati’s Parks
We recommend a NO vote on issue 22 because, “The Green Party is opposed to a plan that would create an unaccountable slush fund, as a permanent part of our City’s Charter, that could be used to degrade the natural areas of the City’s Park System by private or commercial exploitation of our park’s natural areas.”
Information from the SWOHGP.ORG web page related to November 3, 2015 Election:
Vote NO on issue 22 about the Cincinnati’s Parks
The Hamilton County Green Party was very active in the campaign to save our Cincinnati Parks from being abused for the benefit of a few. When the citizens voted, we got 59% of the vote compared to 41% for the other side. They spent a million dollars and we spent less than $10,000. A great victory for all of us.
We recommended a NO vote on issue 22 because, “The Green Party is opposed to a plan that would create an unaccountable slush fund, as a permanent part of our City’s Charter, that could be used to degrade the natural areas of the City’s Park System by private or commercial exploitation of our park’s natural areas.”
FYI we got 59% of the vote compared to 41% for the other side. They spent a million dollars and we spent less than $10,000. A great victory for all of us.
Important Action Alert for November 3, 2015 Election:
Vote NO on issue 22 about the Cincinnati’s Parks
We recommend a NO vote on issue 22 because, “The Green Party is opposed to a plan that would create an unaccountable slush fund, as a permanent part of our City’s Charter, that could be used to degrade the natural areas of the City’s Park System by private or commercial exploitation of our park’s natural areas.”
Side by Side Comparison of ballot language & Charter Amendment language for Issue 22
PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT FROM PETITION LANGUAGE
TAXATION AND FINANCE Section 9.
Beginning with the levy for the purposes of use in the year 2016 the council shall levy a tax of one (1) mill upon the real and personal property in the city, to be used to fund capital improvements to new and existing city parks facilities consistent with the following requirements:
(a) Revenue generated by the levy is limited to use for the following purposes:
(1) acquisition of new parks department land and facilities;
(2) capital maintenance of new and existing parks department facilities; and
(3) payment of debt service on parks department land and facilities, including costs of issuing and managing debt instruments, which payment shall have priority over all other expenditures of levy revenue.
FROM BALLOT LANGUAGE OF Issue 22 PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTCITY OF CINCINNATI
A majority affirmative vote is necessary for passage.
Shall the Charter of the City of Cincinnati Article VIII, Taxation and Finance, be amended to add a new Section 9 for the purpose of establishing a permanent source of funding to be used by the Board of Park Commissioners for capital improvements and capital maintenance, (extra stuff added for ballot language that is not in Charter amendment:) including the acquisition of new park lands and green space, upgrades to existing park facilities and equipment, bicycle paths, and lighting and safety improvements, specifically as follows:
(a) Establish a tax levy for the benefit of the Cincinnati Parks Department for the purposes of
(1) acquisition of new parks department land and facilities;
(2) capital maintenance of new and existing parks department facilities; and
(3) payment of debt service on parks department land and facilities
at a rate not exceeding one mill for each one dollar of valuation, which amounts to 10 cents for each one hundred dollars of valuation;
———————————————————–
FROM PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT
(b) Twenty-five percent (25%) of annual levy revenue shall be made available to the board of park commissioners for any use authorized in subsection (a) except for payment of debt service.
(c) The remaining seventy-five percent (75%) of levy revenue shall be made available to the board of park commissioners to be spent in accordance with a parks capital levy program recommended by the mayor and approved by board of park commissioners, (important information that would be in the Charter but was not listed in ballot language) including but not limited to the payment of debt service. The mayor annually shall submit a proposed capital levy program for expenditure of levy revenue for levy purposes, which program shall be subject to approval by a simple majority of the board of park commissioners. Upon approval of the capital levy program each year, the board of park commissioners shall have control and management authority over the implementation of the approved capital levy program. The board of park commissioners may amend an approved capital levy program with approval from the mayor.
FROM BALLOT LANGUAGE
(b) Twenty-five percent of the annual revenue generated by such additional levy shall be made available to the Board of Park Commissioners for any purpose permitted by section (a) except for the payment of debt service on parks department land and facilities;
(c) Seventy-five percent of the annual revenue generated by such additional levy shall be used in accordance with a capital program recommended by the Mayor of the City of Cincinnati and approved by the Board of Park Commissioners; and
————————————————————————-
FROM PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
In addition to and separate from the park (the ballot language left off the fact that this money would be for “Capital building & maintenance only with no money being allocated for the day-to-day “Operation Budget” for the new or existing Cincinnati Park Properties:) capital levy revenue described above, council shall fund the annual parks department capital budget at an amount not less than 2016 funding levels, adjusted annually for inflation. For the avoidance of error, the capital budget funding level in 2016 is deemed to be $2,300,000 for purposes of this section.
FROM BALLOT LANGUAGE
(d) Beginning with fiscal year 2016, the Council of the City of Cincinnati shall appropriate no less than $2,300,000.00 per year to the Cincinnati Parks Department and such appropriation shall be adjusted annually to reflect inflation?
Cincinnati Enquirer article:
Marian Spencer: Parks levy is bad policy
Marian A. Spencer 1:37 p.m. EDT September 7, 2015
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2015/09/06/marian-spencer-parks-levy-bad-policy/71809526/
Local civil rights activist Marian A. Spencer, a Charter Committee board member, has provided The Enquirer this letter she sent to Parks Director Willie Carden on Friday.
It is with regret that after carefully reading the text of the Parks levy that I cannot support it. This action is difficult for me because when asked for my support last June, I was unaware that this would be a Charter amendment rather than a normal property tax levy, or that its income would be used only for capital projects.
I returned to Cincinnati just this week and have spent a great deal of time studying the Parks levy. Had I known the details earlier I would have notified the campaign immediately. You need to know my decision before next Tuesday’s Cincinnatus Association luncheon. Due to the Labor Day holiday this letter will not be received before Tuesday.
The primary reasons for my change of heart are:
1. As a 75-year member of the Charter Committee, vice mayor and council member I have always stood for good government. A property tax levy should not be in the city charter. Voters should have an opportunity to renew (or deny) any tax levy in future years. This one is permanent. It is bad policy.
2. My late husband Donald and I always wanted the parks and all their activities to be open and accessible, free of charge to everyone. Donald fought so effectively to keep Krohn Conservatory free that they didn’t charge there until after he had died. This levy does not guarantee that new park projects will be free and open to everyone. The new carousel at Smale Park, while truly lovely, is an example. Many children cannot afford to ride, let alone have their parents pay for parking to get there.
3. This park levy should not be for capital projects only. What about personnel to manage them? Large projects such as bike trails or significant other changes to our beautiful parks should be initiated by our citizens and adopted by council through the normal budget process.
I am sorry for my confusion about the content of the levy. I had not seen its content at the time I supported it, therefore I am compelled to withdraw my support. The timing is very difficult for everyone, because I have been out of the city for two months, with no local news readily available. Please discontinue to use my name in your Pro Parks levy campaign literature or any future community gatherings.
Tim Mara OpEd in opposition to issue 22 Cincinnati Park levy
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2015/08/11/opinion-cranley-plan-hurt-parks-help/31456689/
Over-the-Rhine resident Tim Mara is an attorney who is active in many environmental organizations.
The proposed Cincinnati Parks Levy is, in actually, a proposal which could devastate our park system. It is a scheme to open up our treasured parks to development for the profit of a few. Although some of the projects listed by levy proponents – such as the bicycle trails – are worthy of public support, much of the tax revenue would be used to destroy acres of trees in our parks to provide sites for restaurants, beer gardens, and other so-called improvements that should have no place in our historic city parks.
An example is Burnet Woods, where the mayor’s proposal calls for a restaurant and additional park roads and parking lots that can only be implemented by clearing wooded areas. The wholesale loss of trees could ruin Burnet Woods as we know it and destroy the habitat for some of the 150 species of birds found in the park. The list of birds found in the park is so impressive that Burnet has been designated by the Audubon Society as an “Important Birding Area,” a rare honor for such an urban location.
Our parks department is in desperate need of additional revenue to repair park roads, update restroom and picnic facilities, and plant thousands of new trees to replace those lost to the emerald ash borer. But, as proposed, the park levy would instead repurpose and exploit our parks as business opportunities. Tax proponents are counting on park supporters to back the levy out of the mistaken belief that by doing so they are supporting the environment when, in reality, they are being duped into enabling the city to transform these quiet nature preserves into something quite different. Mayor John Cranley cites Washington Park as the model for what our parks would become if the park levy passes. But be careful for what you wish. Washington Park has been transformed into the functional equivalent of a county fairgrounds or amusement park, with concerts several days a week and an almost-constant menu of other programmed activities. Similarly, the mayor wants to transform other parks into places “bursting with activity” as a catalyst for development.
Our parks have been and should remain beyond the reach of developers and their business ventures and in the safe hands of those who cherish the natural environment for all it has to offer. In our zeal to support our city parks let’s not unwittingly provide the money for their undoing.
This link will take you directly to the Main Menu for the SWOHGP web page Navigator