MY NEIGHBORHOOD PARK IS ON THE LIST OF PROJECTS:
WHY SHOULD I VOTE NO?
Proponents of Issue 22 are touting an impressive list of at least 15 parks projects (totaling more than $88M). However, none of these projects is guaranteed funding. Wording of the charter amendment includes no specific projects. Instead, money raised through the tax hike will go into a fund to be spent by mayoral appointees to the park board at their discretion ... anywhere, at any time and on any project of their choosing.
If you are considering a vote in favor of Issue 22 because you support one of the identified projects, please don't be fooled. Your favorite project may not see a dime. One of the chief proponents of Issue 22 admits as much in an interview with Cincinnati Business Courier:
Asked whether voters should view the project list as being set in stone or could see additions or subtractions, (Mayor) Cranley said, “No, they’re not set in stone.” —Cincinnati Business Courier
In fact, proponents of Issue 22 are so eager to link specific projects to the initiative in the minds of voters, and to imply that every voter will benefit from improvements in his or her neighborhood park, that they make this promise on their website: "If your neighborhood is not among those represented by these first projects, it will be!"
It's a promise nearly impossible to keep, even if the proposed tax hike were doubled, tripled, quadrupled or more. Your neighborhood park may, or may not, benefit from this initiative. You don't know, and neither do the mayor and his park board appointees. And that's the point: Issue 22 asks you to pay upfront, then find out later if you will get a return.
Please don't vote for Issue 22 because you are in favor of Wasson Way Trail, Burnet Woods Redevelopment, Roselawn Neighborhood Center or any other projects currently (but not permanently) linked to arguments in favor of the issue.
YOU SAY PROJECTS COULD DESTRY ACRES OF TREES:
WHY WOULD A PARK BOARD CUT DOWN TREES?
Well, we can't answer that. (We are as perplexed as you are.) However, we can tell you that projects under consideration would, indeed, result in the loss of acres of trees. The trees would come down to make room for parking lots, paved walkways and commercial projects that include restaurants, bars and more. Proponents of Issue 22 have been outspoken (in the Cincinnati Enquirer and elsewhere) in their support of “parkenomics,” or the ability of parks to spur economic activity through the addition of commercial enterprises and user-fees (more about those below).
For example, in Burnet Woods, planned relocation of a park road through heavily-wooded areas means tearing down trees, a move we see as inconsistent with the Audubon Society’s designation of the park as a important birding area. In Mount Airy Forest, a planned beer garden similar to Munich’s would do the same.
YOU SAY ISSUE 22 COULD MAKE ENJOYMENT OF CITY PARKS LESS ACCESSIBLE TO SOME RESIDENTS: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?
A number of the projects beloved by supporters of Issue 22 include commercial/business enterprises, as well as 'enhancements' supported by user fees (a 'pay to play' system in our public parks!).
Former vice mayor Marian Spencer, a one-time supporter of the tax hike, took a closer look at the initiative, then wrote this in a editorial that appeared in the Cincinnati Enquirer:
“This new levy does not guarantee that new park projects will be free. 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.”
Another project, also in Smale Riverfront Park, includes marina-building, a benefit only to those park users fortunate enough to afford a boat.
WHO WOULD CONTROL THE MONEY RAISED THROUGH THE TAX INCREASE?
We're glad you asked! Control of your tax dollars would lie in the hands of the mayor (pictured) and his appointees to his park board. Although we're in disagreement with our friends on the other side of the issue, this is one point we all agree on: The money would be controlled by a small group of like-minded people. Here is how supporters of Issue 22 answered the same question on their website:
WHO HAS CONTROL OVER THE MONEY?
Issue 22 ensures that all funds generated from the Levy will be under the control of the Park Board. Projects that require the issuance of debt require joint approval of the Mayor and the Park Board and City Council must issue the bonds.
YOU NEVER DESCRIBE ISSUE 22 AS A LEVY. WHY NOT? WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LEVY AND A CHARTER AMENDMENT, ANYWAY?
We don't call Issue 22 a tax levy ... because it isn't a typical levy. Instead, Issue 22 is a PERMANENT TAX in our CITY CHARTER. What does that mean for you? It means Issue 22 never expires, never requires renewal and is never subject to taxpayer/voter/citizen oversight. Annually and in perpetuity, you would pay money into a fund for this mayor, and future mayors, to spend at their, and their appointed park boards', discretion. Even the staunchest supporter of our current mayor's ideas for city parks should see that this is not a good deal. Love this mayor, but you might disagree with the next, and the next after that, and the next after that ...
This tax hike, unlike previous city and county levies, has no built-in review of spending. Nor does it include a built-in trigger to end it, as levies typically do. The only way to 'un-do' Issue 22 is through another citywide vote to repeal the permanent charter amendment.
We don't like it, but this is one of the aspects of Issue 22 that the folks on the other side get giddy about. Their literature is full of promises based on the forever-flow of cash into park board coffers.
Proponents of Issue 22 write excitedly about collecting and spending your money for years to come, including these passages:
"There will be many more (projects) since the levy, if passed, will provide funding for these kinds of park projects in perpetuity."
"This is only the beginning of the power of this levy ... That’s because if passed, the levy will provide funding for these kinds of projects in perpetuity."
Us? Well, we're significantly less thrilled about a charter amendment that never again goes before voters and becomes a permanent annual taxpayer payout. We call that bad government.
SUPPORTERS OF ISSUE 22 COMPARE THE COST OF THE TAX TO THE COST OF A MONTH OF LATTES: IF IT'S NOT THAT MUCH ANYWAY, WHY NOT LET THE PARKS HAVE IT?
We're not sure where you're buying your lattes, but we're pretty sure this tax hike will run you more than your morning shot of caffine. Issue 22 would cost homeowners $35 for every $100,000 of their assessed home value this year, and the next, and the next and the ... (see above). This is on top of the taxes you already are paying, including tax monies that already support city parks.
MORE TAX HIKES TO COME
Issue 22 comes at a time when voters are being asked to do more. This year, Hamilton County added a quarter cent sales tax to raise money to repair Union Terminal. Tax increases also are being discussed for universal preschool and to support the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority. (Neither appears on the Nov. 3 ballot, but they're coming soon.) Water and sewer increases have been coming yearly to support aging systems and county commissioners are talking about charging people a 911 fee for every parcel of land they own.
We can't help speculate that Issue 22 was drafted quickly (and poorly) to get ahead of other anticipated tax initiatives. It's the only reasonable explanation for a proposal that fails to identify expenditures -- in other words, that fails to tell taxpayers upfront and in detail what they're getting for their their money.
WHAT ARE YOU? A BUNCH OF PARK-HATERS?
We love our city parks and that's precisely why we oppose Issue 22. We don't want to see more pavement, fewer trees, and commercial enterprises that exclude some residents from enjoying city parks. Most of us also are supporters of our own 'pet parks projects' that directly affect us in our own neighborhoods. We believe there are much better ways to ensure that new parks projects get off the ground and that existing projects can grow to serve more of our citizens, such as private giving through park foundations. Some of us might even find ourselves arguing in the future in favor of a parks tax, but it would need to be much clearer about its goals and would need to include some recourse for those of us footing the bill. Handing a pile of tax dollars to mayoral appointees, crossing our fingers, and hoping for the best just doesn't work for us.