opinion

Cranley trying to have it both ways on streetcar

Millard Rosselot is an Over-the-Rhine resident.

Mayor John Cranley's recent comment that Over-the-Rhine residents should pay more for streetcar operations because the streetcar has increased their property values struck me as complete political buffoonery.

It is interesting to me how an early argument against building the streetcar that suggested no one will pay to ride it through an empty, undesirable neighborhood began to fade as the area along its path has become less empty and more desirable by the day. Next came the argument that the increased residential and commercial development which has occurred is largely a coincidence and not related to the streetcar.

Now, the mayor is twisting himself into knots by seeming to tout the streetcar's effectiveness as a stimulator of development while he seeks to effectively double-tax the citizens who are "benefiting" from it by residing or doing business in the neighborhood. He goes on to say that "the people who are benefiting most are buying ... condos – tax-abated properties – having the city invest $150 million in a streetcar that goes right by their house, and then on top of that ... they want to be able to park in the public right of way at a huge subsidy."

From my perspective, this is entirely backward. First of all, the entire purpose of tax abatements is to incentivize building, rehabilitation and property ownership, which is beneficial for the government entity doing the incentivizing. The streetcar also was conceived with the clearly expressed purpose of increasing development along its route through new construction, redevelopment and property ownership. Now that this development is occurring, the mayor seems to miss no opportunity to antagonize the very people whom these development strategies have helped bring to the neighborhood. This would not seem to be a good strategy for maintaining our current momentum.

Secondly, with my most recent tax bill and W-2 as primary exhibits, I would contend that it is the city (all of us!) who are benefiting most from the development that the streetcar has contributed to. Whether the property I purchased will benefit me personally by increasing in value is very uncertain. What is certain, however, is the fact that my "tax-abated" property now contributes nearly seven times the amount to our city than the abandoned property that existed prior to redevelopment.

Finally, if having the highest residential parking fee in the entire country is still considered a "huge subsidy," I have to assume the mayor believes that, because of all the new development (due in part to the streetcar), the city now has a much more valuable asset in on-street parking. Even more impressive, this is an area which, until very recently, had many unmetered streets, and many of those that were metered had largely nonfunctioning meters.

This more valuable parking asset is of course in addition to the higher taxes now being collected per parcel due to increased property values and increased income tax collected per resident due to increased income levels, and on top of that, more total residents in OTR – which is why residential parking permits are even a topic of discussion.

So, with his recent comments regarding residential parking, the mayor, apparently, now believes the value added to the city by the resurgence of OTR is even greater than anyone could have hoped. Whether another individual with different lifestyle priorities can understand it or not, my presence as a property owner and taxpayer in OTR is just one example of many that the streetcar is a significant factor in helping to increase population, vibrancy and the tax base in OTR and therefore the city as a whole.

I'm glad the mayor is finally in agreement.