Dayton937

Things to do in Dayton | Restaurants, Theatre, Music and More

Opinion

The Fire This Time

By

“Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future.” – John F. Kennedy

We have reached the tipping point as a community. The changes wrought by the global pandemic despite every rosy false projection are not going away anytime soon. Rising infection and death rates cannot be obfuscated by a reality television veneer or outright lies. The fight for racial justice and equality has exposed a raw and visceral wound that is acting like a mirror forcing us to confront the ugliest image reflected back just like the Portrait of Dorian Gray of Oscar Wilde fame. Like the character of Dorian in the novel, we cannot deny the rotting reflection of we are, a beautiful country with a decaying heart and soul. The decay comes from the poison of the original sin that haunts the founding of our country, the original sin of slavery. This sin is exacting a toll that we are in denial about paying. The bill collectors are demanding payment and we are disputing the final tally. Coronavirus is our late fee penalty on that bill.

The combined scourges of our racist past and our current undeniable diseased present are obliterating everything in its fire scorching path. The combination has exposed our collective and individual helplessness to block its inevitable conclusion. We are all staring into the heart of darkness and our fear/panic is palpable. We are looking for a lifeline to pull us to a place of safety that provides us a calming comfort. Holding out hope that maybe something of value and worth will be spared from the blaze and that we can rebuild from the ruins.

For many in our community, Dayton is and has been that safe harbor. A destination removed from the devastation. A community that is impervious to the winds of change that are sweeping our world. Our false sense of safety is rooted in the privilege of denial. Dayton has for the most part survived global conflicts, economic recessions, and societal unrest that other cities have never recovered from. This false sense of security has to lead us to encourage leadership that is more about maintaining the status quo rather than a leadership enlisted to encourage growth and Innovation. Instead, we have settled for a leadership dazed by the halcyon glow of nostalgia and myopic to the possibilities of what a visionary future may hold. Nostalgia has always been a crutch for maintaining the status quo.

Maintaining the status quo requires a certain type of leadership operating within a conducive environment. This type of leadership almost always cloaks itself in the veneer of middling respectability. A profound lack of intellectual curiosity and creative thought processes are hallmarks of their managerial style.

The twin scourges of the pandemic and racism have provided double metaphorical slaps to the status quo. Both slaps have produced a variety of responses from our leaders. Some leaders awoke from the slaps to a renewed sense of purpose, finding opportunities to deal with our problems with a certain amount of clarity and willpower. Other leaders turned their gaze inward by reflecting on and considering the severity of the consequences of their roles and looking to make amends. A small minority of our leaders punched back, obstinately refusing to address the stark reality of our challenges, retreating to a false narrative, and making decisions that dangerously contradict the harshest truths. A fatal denial that endangers us all. The danger of this approach is that our Pre-COVID world is gone up in a blaze that is leaving nothing in its wake. We cannot return to an empty lot and pretend that we have a beautiful mansion unscathed. Wake up!

The Great Reset

Yes, we are in dark dystopian times, and at times it feels as if we are being consigned to a fatalistic ending. Nihilism is a response reserved only for the privileged and over-indulged and doesn’t allow for what inevitably happens after a cleansing fire, a chance to rebuild. A massive reset that addresses a new design for our way of life. Embracing fresh ideas and concepts that provides a roadmap to a future that is inclusive, dynamic, and equal. If we had leaders who possess bold visionary and creative skills and a zest for life, we just might have a fighting chance to be reborn as a city, a Dayton 2.0. For this to happen we have to reset ourselves. We need to imbue ourselves with the ability to never accept bad and mediocre decision making. Exercise our rights as citizens to demand better from those who control the levers of power. If their incompetency causes damage or harm, exercise our rights to remove them from power. Hold them accountable at every point of their tenure.

Image courtesy of Tom Gilliam

We are all looking for inspiration and the motivation to rise up and meet insurmountable challenges head-on. We are all seeking the wisdom and guidance of exceptional leaders who will be an improvement from the gaggle of short-sighted leaders who are currently blocking our progress as we march toward a viable future. At some point, all of us have been lulled into the docile embrace of the mediocrity that governs us. We have let fear make us the pawns in other people’s games. We have let fear guide us away from who we truly are. Instead of talking about our past glories of invention and industriousness let us engage actively in the task of rebuilding Dayton from the ground up. We may be tired, battered, and burned by the fire, but we are also audaciously endowed with the forces of common sense, decency, and creative vitality that will see us through to an even unimaginably brighter future when that last ember has died. These latent powers lie dormant within all of us and the time to use those powers is now.

One of my favorite shows to watch during this period of turbulence and despair has been HBO’s West World and my favorite line from the show that I have adopted as a personal mantra is that, “This is the new world. And in the new world, you can be whoever the F**k you want.” So the question that I pose to Dayton is, who the F**k do you want to be?

Journey Into Darkness

By

“To be careless in making decisions is to naively believe that a single decision impacts nothing more than that single decision, for a single decision can spawn a thousand others that were entirely unnecessary or it can bring peace to a thousand places we never knew existed.”

― Craig D. Lounsbrough

No effective leader makes decisions in a vacuum without the benefit of reasoned dialogue, data analysis in most instances to create policies and stated actions that lead to keeping an organization moving forward. This forward motion is in service of a cause greater than self or in most cases the betterment of one’s community however that is defined. No one disputes that sometimes these decisions are difficult due to the nature of the multitude of factors that are and must be considered. This alone makes leadership a role that is not for the faint of heart.

An elected official takes on the mantle of service to one agenda and one agenda only, a desire to be in service to one’s community. A belief that they possess the skills and the sheer force of will to make systemic change and improve the conditions by which we all function and benefit from democracy. All of the campaigning on pledges to wanting to improve the conditions on the ground for all and adopt policies and practices bolster those actions drive our willingness to participate in the electoral process of our democracy. 

Transparency is one of the unspoken tenets or hallmarks of democracy. That regardless of politics or personal ideology, The transparency of our public officials in their decision making is critical in order for trust to exist. That we are all working in good faith towards this state of institutional honesty. Our trusting votes as citizens, that we place in your leadership capabilities put you in the position to craft and shape decisions that maximize our potential for greatness and on the flip side, minimize the impact of making the tough decisions.

Amid this global pandemic and the subsequent devastation that is ravaging our communities on every level, there is not one aspect of our daily lives that has not been profoundly impacted. These changes have exposed every hidden malignancy that negatively shapes our society from systemic racism to wealth inequality and public health systems failures. Daily we all are having to make difficult decisions on how we learn, how we stay alive, and how do we continue moving forward in our new reality that is rapidly becoming normalized. People are hurt and angry and have one simple request from their elected officials, to be seen and heard about the decisions that will shape their lives. decisions that you in your role as an elected official must make.

Students from Stivers School for the Arts

As the Dayton Public School board and administration roll out their decision  regarding not only the economic and professional lives of their essential workers, I beg that they consider the lasting impact of those decisions. on the students as well. These essential workers have dedicated their lives to the building of relationships with their students that may mean the difference between success and failure going forward in their lives. The shockwave of this decision to temporarily furlough educators will be felt for years to come. This is not hyperbolic rhetoric, this a clear-eyed and sober appeal to you to consider in the final hours of before the gavel comes down in parliamentarian fashion at your meeting today, that no matter which way your decision falls that “history” does indeed have its eyes on you.

An Interview with Jared Grandy- Former Community-Police Relations Coordinator

By

Daytonians joined activists around the country at the end of May in rising up against police brutality following George Floyd’s state-sanctioned murder in Minneapolis over Memorial Day Weekend. All of this led to an awakening of sorts, wherein white people rather suddenly seemed to come to an understanding that racism hadn’t, in fact, been eliminated in the 1960s and anti-Black racism continues to be a driving force in every imaginable sector of American life.

In the absence of a robust organized resistance, Dayton city leadership and police were able to squash local discontent by Sunday, May 31st, when a 7 PM curfew enforced by armored military vehicles, helicopters, and eerily fascist police announcements threatening arrest cleared the streets, paving the way for Mayor Nan Whaley to declare “Black Lives Matter” even after her city government used the very tactics activists have been marching in the streets to dismantle.

It was against the backdrop that I wanted to speak to someone who’s been at the forefront of trying to solve the problem of municipal police states since well before white people began paying attention. Jared Grandy is the former community-police relations coordinator whose resignation coincided with the national unrest over police brutality. The story he told me over a nearly 90-minute talk holds stark lessons for how high the mountain is that we must climb in Dayton if we care as much about equality and justice as public proclamations and social media say we do.

Jared Grandy

Grandy was the type of civil servant every Daytonian should want out of a city worker. Born and raised in Dayton and a graduate of our public schools who found his passion for learning at Sinclair Community College before undergraduate studies at the University of Cincinnati and law school at Northern Kentucky University, he represents the best of who we can be as a city. 

What he found, however, when he assumed the community-police relations coordinator role, however, wasn’t a welcome mat rolled out for someone with deep roots, a solid legal understanding, and a passion for the city. Instead he ran face-first into Dayton’s bipartisan white supremacist foundation.

Jared Grandy: The reason I was interested in that particular position [community-police relations coordinator], is because at the time I was naive enough to think that, you know, there was a difference that could actually be made locally.

By that time, I mean, that was 2016, so we’ve seen Trayvon Martin, Alton Sterling, Michael Brown, John Crawford, on and on and on, and I just thought this was an opportunity to make a significant difference in my local community, in my hometown, the town I know and love so much, and you know over time it just became apparent that it wasn’t the case that we were there to make any significant change. 

Jason Harrison: What made you think that? Well, how quickly did you make that realization?

Grandy: Relatively quickly. Within a few months I realized that [Dayton Police] Chief  [Richard] Biehl and the Commission to a certain extent wasn’t interested in having the difficult conversation. You would hear Chief Biehl even say to this day that the CPC (community-police council) was about mutual accountability which is another way of saying that you know the community is responsible for ending its own gun violence and we’re here to help with that process. And I don’t necessarily disagree with that, right? That idea of mutual accountability, yes, we are responsible for our community but don’t make that assumption that there aren’t people working on those issues. You know there’s pastors and youth leaders and private organizations that’s been working on gun violence in the urban environment for years across the country.

Harrison: It’s the old trope about “black on black crime.” Just because you’re not aware of the work that’s being done—

Grandy: Correct. That’s exactly it. And Chief is smart enough and savvy enough to not say “black on black crime,” you know he just says “mutual accountability” instead.

Harrison: It’s rebranded.

Grandy: Yeah. It’s just rebranded. That’s my issue with Chief Biehl specifically is he’s so good about using the same old tropes, rebranding them, sounding progressive, sounding liberal, and I think the community gets confused about what they got. With Trump, we know exactly what we have. When you tweet “when the looting starts, the shooting starts,” that’s a pretty clear message, right? But when you say, you know, we’re working on this issue, we care, you think you have somebody who’s listening and progressive but in reality the policies that are implemented are no different than what a conservative like Trump would implement. And that’s what we get stuck with. 

The Dayton Daily News reported Grandy’s resignation as the community-police relations coordinator on June 3rd, just hours before Mayor Nan Whaley held a press conference announcing five police “reforms.” The timing of the city’s press conference—just hours after the Dayton Daily report on Grandy’s resignation—raises questions about whether that press conference was intended not to begin a process of reform but to distract us from Grandy’s message. (Two of the five reforms are mere continuations of existing policy).

Aside from Grandy’s eloquent rage, what I found most interesting about the article was how Chief Biehl used time-honored tactics intended to silence, dismiss, and discredit. But the quotes attributed to the chief fail to puncture Grandy’s arguments and instead serve to highlight just how steeped in supporting status quo white supremacist notions of “objectivity” the Dayton city government is.

Responding to Grandy’s contention that the Dayton police have a “warrior-like” mentality—an accusation I’ve heard from other people close to police officers—Biehl didn’t offer a substantive response, and instead chose only to offer that “Grandy’s three-year experience doesn’t compare to the decade-long relationship his department has with the Community Police Council.”

This is the part of Grandy’s story that I think is worth every Daytonian considering, and it’s a story that every Black person in this country will find familiar. The city was hostile to the idea of meaningfully transforming the police, Grandy recognized this quickly, and left when his conscience wouldn’t allow him to continue giving the city cover for its anti-Black policies. Then that resignation is used as proof that somehow Grandy isn’t serious about making positive change, despite the fact that he’s dedicated his entire professional life to the uplift and security of Black people. 

Grandy simply wasn’t “objective” enough to do his job—which led to two separate write-ups in his personnel file—but the problem is how that objectivity has been traditionally defined in Dayton and around the country. White people have always been in charge of defining who is objective and who isn’t. They’ve even been able to define what data are and are not objective. 

When Grandy and I spoke at my personal training studio, the tense protests that had swept through the country were still fresh. So I brought up an infamous moment from Buffalo when police officers brazenly pushed an elderly man, causing him to fall, hit his head, and sustain serious injuries. Here’s how a police spokesman initially described the event:

“…a 5th person was arrested during a skirmish with other protestors and also charged with disorderly conduct. During that skirmish involving protestors, one person was injured when he tripped & fell.”

Tripped and fell. Thankfully there was a viral video to show otherwise.

Harrison: The passive language is how they’ve been able to get away with it.

Grandy: So, okay. While I was with the CPC, for two years in a row we commissioned and released this data report. Right? And the findings were that the vast majority of use of force incidents that were reported were investigated by the professional standards bureau and those officers were exonerated, right? You could look it up, but I think it was 847 instances of use of force and 841 of the incidents were exonerated.

Harrison: 841 out of 847.

Grandy: Yes. Meaning that, you know, yes, the use of force happened, but the use of force was sanctioned and all was good, right? 

Harrison: Honestly when you said that I was thinking it would be like 80 percent or something like that. That’s damn near 100 percent. 

Grandy: Almost 100 percent. I mean, for statistical purposes that’s 100 percent.

I did look it up, by the way. Grandy’s recollection was exactly right: 841 out of 847 exonerations. You can read the 2018 report here.

Grandy: I was no longer interested in commissioning that data report because the data itself was so biased and it told a false story. Because the data suggests that yes we arrest people and yes we use force but the force is necessary. If the police determine what force is necessary then of course there is going to be a bias.

Which is why I talked to Dr. Richard Stock from the University of Dayton who we paid to do the report, and he said “I can’t figure out how to account for that bias.” So I’m like I’m not doing it anymore because I’m not advancing the narrative that cops are using force legitimately for all practical purposes 100 percent of the time. 

Harrison: This is like the racist claim that like, well Black people commit more crime. 

Grandy: Yeah. For sure. For sure. It advances that. And if you read the FOP response to my resignation they use that in there. They say well Jared Grandy praised the police and reported that most use of force was legitimate. And that’s such a mischaracterization of what happened. Yes, I did at the time praise the professional standards bureau for the way they do their investigations. It was very transparent. It seemed to be thorough. But they left out the part, which never made it to Commission because Commission is this Disney presentation, you know, it’s not meant for hard-hitting conversation. It’s a PowerPoint slide for goodness sakes. Right? But you know, to take that presentation without the context of the conversations that had prior to that presentation and prior to that report where we discussed at length the implicit bias and favor of the police department in this data. So I was frustrated.

Harrison: Did you find that a tension between being a city employee and doing that work?

Grandy: Yeah. I mean, yes. 

Harrison: That’s a perfect example of like, that was a big part of a conversation, but then when it comes to present it publicly there’s pressure—

Grandy: For sure. For sure.

Harrison: There’s a machine here now.

Grandy: Correct. That’s what I’m getting at. There’s a machine. Everything is hunky dory coming out of the commission. Everything is hunky dory when the mayor speaks. So as a city employee, as somebody who works directly under the commission as an HRC employee, of course. Of course I feel the pressure to get on board with that culture, because if I’m the one dissenting opinion then I am the one who is, you know, you have to get rid of that right? 

Jared Grandy is one of the rare people who has been willing to sacrifice the comfort of his public service job to sound the alarm for the rest of us, all the while offering a discomfiting glimpse inside the Democratic Party machine that stands in the way of the transformation necessary to build equality for Black people in the city of Dayton.

I asked Grandy about those personnel write-ups mentioned in the Dayton Daily News article. He said that people were more upset that that was included in the article about his resignation than he was. 

Grandy: People were a lot more offended on my behalf than I actually was. I’m like “Yes! I had a problem being objective. Like, sure, I’m a Black man, of course I’m going to side with the people every time. The thing is they wanted me to be an objective facilitator of conversation. Which at times I tried to be, but over time I realized that some of these people [from the community] wanted me to open the door for more contentious conversation so as to feel like we were making some progress because beforehand, my first year-and-a-half in, I’d invite people to CPC and kid you not, I quote, “Jared this is bullshit I don’t want to be a part of this,” right? “Because why are we here? We’re not talking any of the things that really matter to the community.” 

What Grandy did was even the playing field for ideas, such that the voice of the people was elevated to be equal to those of the officials in power. He had the temerity to declare their lens of the world as critically important in a city and a country that views the white lens as normative. 

Grandy: I wanted to give them permission to talk about the issues that they really cared about. Prior to that moment what we had, was, you know, even though we had very smart courageous people on the CPC, it’s intimidating to have the chief of police, the city manager, the commissioners, sitting there, and they took advantage of that power dynamic and they really controlled the narrative.

The Dayton Daily News article about Grandy’s resignation was a case study in attempting to control the narrative. “Grandy has struggled to maintain neutrality in his role as community-police relations coordinator and serve as a facilitator, instead of an advocate, according to a January 2020 performance improvement plan in his personnel file.”

But Grandy isn’t ashamed of those write-ups. He’s proud. And we should be too. 

Grandy: That whole article to me was like, yes, indeed, I did all of this stuff. When my grandkids read this article they’ll be proud because I’m on the right side of history.

A Big iPad … Or A Creativity Tool 

By

iPad Pro Beginning with the Apple September announcement of the new iPad Pro, I struggled to understand the value of a larger iPad. I had an iPad Air 2, and thought I fully understood the value the new split screen functionality, multitasking and other new features of iOS9. But the idea of a 12.9 inch screen and the weight that would come with it … I was very concerned the portability of this new iPad.

I am a geek and love trying new gadgets, so I found myself placing an order for a new IPad Pro at 3:00am on November 11. I was pleased to see that it would be available for pickup at the local Apple Store the same day, so I placed the order. When I arrived at the store, they had one out for demo. My first reaction was shock and awe. “This thing is so huge”, I thought to myself.

Within a few minutes, I had very own iPad Pro in my hands, and as soon as I got home I had it up and running. Setting up a new iOS device can be very quick theses days, thanks to the ability to ICloud and the restore function. I just restored all the apps and data from my iPad Air. (I am not sure that is the best thing to do, but I did it anyway … It worked).

Initial Impressions
I was so struck by the resolution and size of the screen. With 5.6 million pixels , the display is amazing. Apple didn’t change the ratio of the icons and the arrangement of the home screen. They are using the same grid that is used on the smaller iPads, and didn’t optimize the layout of the home screen. Most people just say, ‘That’s a big iPad (or iPhone)’.iPad-Pro-vs.-iPad-Air-2

Aside from the display, I was taken by how light the iPad Pro feels. Yes, it weighs more than the iPad Air, but it’s balanced and feels comfortable. I am not suggesting you can use it in one hand it for long periods, but you can prop it up and get a lot of work done.

Speedy
This iPad Pro is fast. I always felt the iPad Air 2 was impressively fast, but this leaves that device in the dust. Editing pics, video, or processing large files; the iPad Pro is an extremely fast machine. The benchmarks are better than many laptops. Check out the numbers: Benchmarks – arstechnica

Accessories
Apple sells two accessories for the new iPad. The 1st is the smart keypad. I looked at the new keypad from Logitech as well, but I found that the Smart Keypad was far less bulky and I liked the feel of the keys. That may not be true for everyone and I suggest you try it out at the store to make sure the keys feel good you. I have used this on an airplane as well as in a coffee shop. It’s my keyboard of choice for the iPad Pro.

The other accessory that is a must is the new Apple Pencil. I am not going to get into a lengthy review, but let me just say that this is one of those really game changing devices from Apple. Palm rejection is great and there is almost no latency. It’s only downfall is that it didn’t improve my drawing skills. 🙂

Sound
This iPad has great sound. It has four speakers and the stereo is great. Here is how Apple describes it:

With four new high‑fidelity speakers built directly into its unibody, iPad Pro creates an audio experience as big as its display. The new design produces an engaging soundstage with three times the acoustic output of iPad Air. But it goes even further than that. iPad Pro automatically adjusts the orientation of the high frequencies according to how you’re holding it. So whether you’re playing a game or watching a movie, the sound of iPad Pro is more immersive than ever.

It is not a Sonos system, but if you are watching a movie, it sounds amazing.

Professional Apps
Microsoft Office is amazing on the iPad. For my professional career, I find myself exchanging Word, Excel and PowerPoint files with other people. I often present from the iPad using PowerPoint. I do this directly from the iPad, or even better, using my favorite, Keynote).

In my free time, I enjoy photography. The iPad has impressed me so much in this area. Pixelmator is an amazing photo editing app on the Mac, but it’s equally impressive on the iPad Pro. It early accomodates my photo editing needs. I also enjoy Procreate.

Adobe has added several professional apps as well. This review will not attend to review specific apps, but these apps are well done and worth looking at, especially if you do that kind of design work.

iPadProGaming-620x349I use the cloud extensively, and find that I spend at least 90% of my computer time on the iPad Pro.  Using the clouds with these professional apps really makes this an amazing experience.

Is this iPad for you?
It depends. If you are fairly mobile and do a lot of email, web browsing and business documents, you may find this to be a dream machine. It’s going to be limiting for people that do heavy video editing, code large projects, or similar activities. For people that are well invested in iOS, it makes the transition easier. It may push you to find new workflows, but don’t be surprised if you discover they are better than those old workflows.

Playing Dominos with Springboro Schools – OPINION

By 1 Comment

Colorful Chalk at Chalkboard

When you were a kid, did you ever line up dominoes around the table so that you could knock the first one down and then watch the rest fall? Well in Springboro, our school board appears to view Ohio’s public school system as a long line of dominoes that begins in our community. I don’t believe they feel the primary reason they were elected was to ensure the education of our children, but rather to implement a radical political agenda. I believe they want to dismantle our school district and knock over the domino. When Springboro, a successful, affluent district falls, they will watch as 610 other dominoes, otherwise known as the public school system, fall behind it.

How does the Springboro school board want to go about toppling the district?  It appears that their plan is to knock the domino over under the guise of serving our gifted children through the introduction of a charter school into our community. Rather than investing dollars in our already strong, highly innovative gifted program, they want to create a charter school for gifted children. This will enable them to shift money away from the district, reduce the number of teachers, cut the public gifted program, produce a charter school with high test scores, lower the test scores of the district, and make the argument that our public school system is not worth funding. They will likely propose levies that fail to cover the costs of the district, claim that charter schools will generate revenue for our community, and ultimately attempt to force the hand of the community to dismantle a public school system that is arguably its greatest asset.

The school board has hired a consultant (The Callender Group) to do an impartial study of our community and our community’s need for a charter school. However, this consulting group specializes in setting up and marketing charter schools and is headed by Jamie Callender – a former Chairman of the Ohio House Education Committee who made it clear that he was morally opposed to property taxes when I spoke with him recently – which brings the idea of impartiality into question. The consulting firm has an obvious vested interest in finding a reason to say yes there is a need, and in addition they are being paid between $5,000 and $15,000 of taxpayer money just to perform the study. It is like asking the fox to audit the hen house to see if the chickens should continue to be used for eggs or served up for dinner. This is not about a local charter school. This is about dismantling public education.

MoneyHousesNobody likes to pay taxes, but if we truly value education we have to pay for it somehow. Everyone is entitled to have their own political views, but people who have a moral opposition to the way in which schools are funded should make that argument in Columbus, not by using the children of our community as pawns in a political game. What I want for my tax dollars is accountability, or stated differently – I want to know that my money is being used wisely. Springboro currently has the lowest expenditure per pupil in the region and in the top three districts in the Dayton region. This indicates to me that we are spending the least and getting the most for our money. Thus we have an extremely efficient and effective system of education in Springboro. Logic would dictate that you would build upon such a system, but that is not the direction our board has chosen. Instead they perpetuate a myth that our schools are failing in order to accomplish political gain.

In spite of the fact that we have earned an “Excellent with Distinction” ranking for multiple years running, they perpetuate the myth. In spite of the fact that our expenditure per pupil is the lowest in the region, they perpetuate the myth. In spite of the fact that our district is ranked in the top 3 in the region based on data as was published in the Dayton Business Journal, they perpetuate the myth. In spite of the fact that our test scores have continued to rise while class size has increased, they perpetuate the myth. In spite of the fact that we have an attendance rate of 97 percent, they perpetuate the myth. In spite of the fact that our schools met 26 out of 26 indicators set forth by the State, they perpetuate the myth. In spite of the fact that our ACT and SAT scores are on par with the top district in the region, they perpetuate the myth. At a time when we should be acknowledging the excellent results of our teachers and students, they perpetuate the myth.

falling_dominoes11Why are they doing so? Because, perpetuating the myth manufactures a crisis situation, and such a situation often calls for radical action. Perpetuating the myth is the sheep costume that disguises the wolf. Perpetuating the myth keeps people from getting involved. Perpetuating the myth squashes civic pride. Perpetuating the myth helps levies fail, builds public discontent, forces talented employees to leave, and uses fear to justify the need for extreme actions. Perpetuating the myth is the lever needed to tip the domino – the first domino. If it falls, others will follow.

The lever is in place. Force is being applied. The domino is beginning to tip. The question is will people push back and stop it from falling or will they do nothing and watch them all fall down.

The important thing to remember is this. It’s not dominos that we are talking about. It’s our children.

(This piece was submitted by Springboro parent David Bowman; all opinions are his and do not necessarily reflect those held by Dayton Most Metro or its other contributors – read more on his blog at DavidEBowman.com.

Additional Reading:

Springboro School Board Should Take Time To Investigate Other Reforms Before Making A Decision About Charter Conversion – Spencer Smith

A Worthy Investment – David Bowman

A Tale of Two Cities – David Bowman

Springboro Schools: Dare to Compare – David Bowman

WASTE WATCH: Springboro Exploring Charter School – WRGT-TV Fox 45 News

Springboro school board pursues charter school – Dayton Daily News

OPINION: Voting as Defensive Action – Why I’m Voting for President Obama

By Leave a Comment

Lately many people I love and admire have said either, 1) They refuse to vote, or 2) They have decided to vote for a 3rd Party candidate. Let me first discuss the issue of voting. The rationale for refusing to vote, is that “voting doesn’t matter” as expressed by the Facebook meme “If voting made a difference, it would be illegal”. While I am sympathetic to the frustration and disillusionment with the system as articulated (Citizens United, etc), I would like to offer evidence that voting does matter precisely because Republicans are going out of their way (and have been for many years) to make voting illegal. The recent Voter ID laws are simply the latest in a string of tactics designed to disenfranchise voters.  In addition to more overt attempts to marginalize voters, we’ve seen some of the same disinformation and threatening tactics used in the past, resurface in Wisconsin. Recent examples in Ohio include attempts to curtail early voting, which was thankfully overturned. We have seen ‘creative’ tactics used in “swing” states to suppress the vote. For instance, mailers sent to voters that usually vote Democrat, that have the wrong voting date or polling place. These and the billboards in Milwaukee are just the latest, in efforts sustained over decades, schemes to keep folks away from the polls. Not to mention those disenfranchised by virtue of their criminal history.

It is hard to believe that “voting doesn’t make a difference” with so much money and effort being spent to disenfranchise voters. With such abysmal voter participation rates already (Presidential elections see the most voter turnout, with the 2008 election being decided by 56.8 of the electorate, while only 37.8 voted in the midterm election of 2010), someone(s) must think it is worthwhile to further discourage voting among target populations. Perhaps voting would make even more of a difference if more people voted, not less.

Bear with me, discussing the 3rd Party vote promises to be a bit more long-winded. The reasons most often expressed for voting 3rd party include, 1) “I cannot in good conscience vote for the lesser of 2 evils” and 2) “Until things get really bad, no one will wake up”. Let me preface my comments by saying I think a viable third party would be just grand. In fact, I would love to see even more viable parties. However, we work with what we’ve got. Let me also suggest, that I am just about as idealistic as one can be. My research, activism and teaching reflect my ideals. I make no claims to being neutral, because as Howard Zinn said, “You can’t be neutral on a moving train”. I long for a just world. I believe it is possible. I believe it will take a lot of work and I’m willing to engage in that work. Most of my friends could say the same, because I have great friends.

“I can’t in good conscience vote for the lesser of two evils”. Let’s discuss this one first, because I think it is so illogical. There are two important pieces to this statement, the part about conscience and the bit about the lesser of two evils. They overlap of course, but I want to tease them apart a bit. I think most folks acknowledge that the two presidential candidates are quite different. Romney wants to move the neoliberal project along as quickly as possible by privatizing everything- in other words, profit over people. He has made this crystal clear. He doesn’t care about 47% of the population-they are disposable. He wants to rip up the last shreds of the social compact. He will repeal “Obamacare” if given half a chance. He wants to wrest from the earth every last drop of profit, climate change be damned.

Obama is no progressive, but his vision is fundamentally different. He actually acknowledges  climate change. He is the first president to be able to get some sort of health care reform passed, no mean feat in this political climate. Some folks suggest he used all his political capital on this venture and that it was a waste, since we didn’t get universal healthcare. Those in need of health care, that are now gaining coverage, probably think differently. Obama assumes that government plays a role in protecting its citizens, not just through the military (I know, this one is a sore spot-I hate drones), but also through social welfare programs and education. I am suggesting that there are many ways in which he falls short of what I would describe as progressive, but he is most definitely the lesser of two evils. I think all of us who would describe ourselves as some sort of left of center are in agreement on this point. So my real confusion with this statement, “ I can’t in good conscience vote for the lesser of two evils”, is that knowing that one candidate is “less evil” than another, we can somehow describe this as a calculation based upon good conscience.  Particularly, when any alternative candidate that might be more closely aligned with our ideals and goals has no hope of being elected? How is that really different from voting for the greater evil or not voting at all? Wallerstein (2004) conceptualizes voting as defensive action, because “The world’s populations live in the present and their immediate needs have to be addressed” (p. 272). But, he reminds us, we don’t engage in electoral action to prop up the existing system, “but rather of preventing its negative effects from getting worse in the short run” (p. 272). We can hold a different vision for the world and still vote for “less evil”.

This brings me to the final point. “Until things get really bad, no one will wake up”. This argument, this one, makes me splutter in indignation. I wonder whom “we” mean when we say things have to get bad. Get bad for whom? Whose son or daughter? Whose parents? Things are already pretty bad for too many people. There seems to be this desire to rush the “revolution” through human misery (see, http://revs4romney.org/, for instance). Really? How is this different from Right wing propaganda suggesting we all take our lumps for the good of the market? Sure, they argue, some folks will have to tighten their belts, but that’s the price of progress (remember the applause for, “some will die”?). In other words, how are we any different from the ‘other’ side if we make this sort of argument? The hard-line adherence to a radical philosophy is one of the critiques of the Occupy movement I find relevant to this discussion. Journalists, primarily, have criticized the OWS movement for being too theoretical, or too ideologically rigid, for caring more for theory than for people, for eschewing praxis in service to process. It is certainly worth consideration in relation to voting or voting third party.

So here is where I lose my radical credentials, I suppose. Letting my emotions get the best of me (Because of course emotion is bad/feminine, and rationality is good/manly). However, I am not willing to sacrifice my brothers and sisters to any cause, with the knowledge that is exactly what I would be doing! Chomsky argues, for the same reasons as Wallerstein, that if we live in a swing state, we should vote for Obama.

In a recent interview, Cornell West argues similarly, despite his repeated and pointed critiques of the Obama administration, “We have to prevent a Romney takeover of the White House. No doubt about that. It would be very dangerous in terms of actual lives and actual deaths of the elderly and the poor. Those people who are dependent on various programs would have to deal with the ugly damage of the further redistribution of wealth from the poor and working people to the well off” [emphasis added]. It doesn’t get much clearer than that. I must, in good conscience vote for the lesser of two evils.

Voting matters. Voting, while not direct action, is defensive action. Voting is an act of solidarity with our brothers and sisters. Voting for the lesser of two evils is a sort of praxis. Voting is not where it ends, however. Voting in and of itself is not enough. To have a true democracy, we must work, shift, push, from outside the system as well, toward the world we would like to see (A third party, economic democracy, etc.) These scholar/activists also make this clear. Voting is but a beginning. But it is a beginning.

 

OPINION – Lack of details and potential impact to Cooper Park mean NO on Dayton Metro Library’s Issue 70

By 4 Comments

Early 20th century Downtown Dayton Library in Cooper Park

A little girl checks a book out of the library.  It is a story about the queen of Daytonia.

The queen realizes it is a great responsibility bestowed on her, and she must keep her kingdom safe and happy.  The King of Daytonia really rules the kingdom, but the queen has a lot of power.  King has strict rules, and the queen wants people to be happy and go along with the rules.

After listening to her subjects, the queen realizes that there is a desperate need in the kingdom for new libraries. So she sets about building one big library and several small ones.  She finds some consultants that tell her it will cost 230 million in gold.  The queen knows that the King will not giver her permission to spend that much of his gold, so she tentatively asks him a series of questions (through polling) to find his spending limit.  After a lot of hinting around, she figures out that the limit is probably 187 million in gold.

How will you reduce the price of the libraries you want to build? asks her good friend Belinda.

“I will just make the work go faster and really push the workers to be efficient.  If I do it faster, I don’t spend as much money.” replied the queen.

Belinda was dubious.  She knows that you can go fast and do less, or go cheap and go slow (or do less), but has never seen anyone go fast and cheap and do the same amount of work.  “Can you still build all the buildings and make sure that the kingdom is not filled with empty buildings?”  Of course replied the queen confidently.

Belinda was concerned.  She knew that the big library was very important to the kingdom.  She knew that the plan the queen had come up with for the big library was not very detailed.

“Are you going to build the library in the same place?  Because so often it floods.”

“Oh yes, and I think it would be super if we provided space underground for all of the horses to be parked while the people were in the library.” Replied the queen.

“But couldn’t the horses drown if they are so close to the water underground?”

“I don’t know…” said the queen.  “Maybe we could build them a room on the first floor in the open garden to put the horses… and build more space for the library on top. We will figure it all out later.”

Belinda was confused.  The horses always parked on the street and there was a lot of space there to look out over the garden where the children played and the people of the kingdom enjoyed their lunch.  It seemed like it might upset the people if the garden is ruined.

Belinda tried a different tactic.  “Wouldn’t it be easier to just build a new library in a safer place and build exactly what the people want?”

“Belinda, I would do that we can’t build that for 90 million in gold, which is how much we can spend on the big library.  That would cost 96 million in gold.  I can renovate the existing library for less money and just use the garden and current land because it is “free.””

Belinda was thoughtful for a moment.  Perhaps the queen had a good idea, but still… only a difference of 6 million in gold?  Belinda thought maybe it would make more sense to spend a little more money to get something perfect.  She wanted to know more.  She asked…

“How much of the garden would you use?” “Oh, I don’t know…” said the queen.

“How much would you save if you just used the parking space that is already available for the horses?”  “$7 million in gold” said the queen.

What will the library look like?  “Oh, I don’t know.” said the queen.

“Will it have all the important new features that the kingdom wants?” asked Belinda.

“Oh certainly.” said the queen.

“Tell me how the 90 million in gold would be spent…”

“Well, I can give you some rough estimates from the consultants, but I don’t really have any details” said the queen.

Belinda shook her head and said.  “My dear queen, I think a new library is a great idea.  But I know the king and he will want more answers before he will approve spending all that gold.”

“Well, I am going to ask anyway.” said the queen testily.  “We can just figure out the details later.

Belinda said “Dear queen, the king would be foolish to give you that money without a way to hold you accountable.  You need a detailed plan and a timeline that makes sense, and to be 100% certain you could deliver what is truly needed – and best for all -to take on such a project.  The big library must be built very thoughtfully.”

Cooper Park

The little girl put the book down and went to eat dinner with her parents.  As she ate she saw saw a page of facts about the library being proposed for downtown Dayton.

  • $87,687,798 is the budget for the new main library and should reflect the actual  requirements for the facility, but in fact is based on a “price per square foot estimate.”  There is no detail to what this number means, it is just a high level estimate.
  • Members of the Board of Trustees for the library even questioned why we would renovate the library rather build new to save only 6.5 million of a hypothetical, high level budget estimate.
  • From the plan: The current building has a number of issues that prevent it from being a candidate for expansion” with the most significant being that “Now the library is literally floating on top of aquifer and 25% of the main library’s space is regularly at risk of damage from flooding.”  This would make underground parking as proposed in the plan nearly impossible.  Significant, under-utilized parking exists all around the library today.
  • The plan includes a 100,000 square foot expansion of the library that would be built on existing green space in Cooper Park, which the library leases from the city for free.
  • The city has said they are not aware of any plans that encroach on Cooper Park.  The executive director was quoted by the Dayton Daily News saying “About half of Cooper Park, which abuts the library, will be preserved under the current plan…”   Despite strong resident resistance to losing much of the park, the plan says, well “at least a portion of Cooper Park and many of its signature trees will remain in tact.”  (Dayton Daily News – Oct. 26, 2012)
  • Cooper Park has benefited from improvements being made by the city as part of the Patterson Blvd. project.  New paving, new lights and improved amenities will all be finished in 2012 – but that money will have been wasted if the library decimates Cooper Park during the library renovation.  Residents expect to see property value increases due to the park renovations – some estimated up to 10% based on studies for the Trust for Public Land.  All property value increases (and derived tax benefit for the city) would be delayed at least 4 years.

[dropshadowbox align=”left” effect=”lifted-both” width=”250px” height=”” background_color=”#ffffff” border_width=”1″ border_color=”#dddddd” ]“About half of Cooper Park, which abuts the library, will be preserved under the current plan…” Tim Kambitsch, director of the Dayton Metro Library[/dropshadowbox]The concept of the levy is solid, but the implementation details are too light for voters to make an informed decision or to hold the library accountable to the promise that the levy holds for the main branch.  The plan to renovate the existing facility (vs. build new) does not make sense financially (nor does the parking component) given the loss in property values and income tax revenue over the next four years, nor has it been fully vetted.  With a little creativity and additional time, I am confident that the library can come up with a facility plan that gives us a new building, possibly cheaper, while still meeting all of the site selection criteria identified for a main branch.  This could allow the expansion of green space rather than the retraction of it.  Please vote no on Issue 70 so that we can get the library and green space that we deserve downtown.

Editor’s Note – this article does not necessarily reflect the opinions of Dayton Most Metro or its contributors.  Your opinions are welcome in the comment section below.

Response to Mayor Leitzell’s Occupy Dayton Article

By Leave a Comment

(The following was submitted by Shawn Cassiman – a member of Occupy Dayton since its inception. She is involved in the education working group, the process and facilitation group, and others as the need arises and time allows.)

Reading Mayor Leitzell’s perspective on Occupy Dayton illustrates the nature of truth as partial (i.e. there are many truths) and contextual. My version of the truth bears some similarity to Mayor Leitzell’s, but not much. However, before I address the content, I would like to address the tone.

The Mayor begins his missive by describing “truths, half truths, and outright lies”  associated with the events that lead to Occupy Dayton leaving Dave Hall Plaza, and then declares his narrative the truth. He goes on to discuss his efforts to “educate” Occupy Dayton on local government and permitting processes, while referring to the “mostly” young people of the movement. In fact, as he may have noticed at the General Assembly meeting he attended, the average age of our members is probably somewhere in the mid-thirties. There are retired people, working professionals, students, working–class and under and unemployed people that identify with Occupy Dayton. Some of the youngest members of our group might be the “campers” that were arrested after not being given a chance to leave their location-despite claims otherwise.  It is unsurprising that campers would be young, since frequently young people are more willing and able to endure the physical conditions required by the camp experience. It is also unsurprising that many young people would be attracted to the Occupy movement, since we, as a society, have gone busily about the business of criminalizing youth. There are few safe spaces for young people to gather without drawing suspicion. It is no wonder that young people seek a space that offers them a sense of community and equal participation in decision-making when they have few other places to turn. However, to dismiss the movement as “mostly young people” serves distinct discursive purposes; it trivializes the experiences and contributions of young people, while continuing to perpetuate the stereotype of young people as dangerous.

It is true that Occupy Dayton did not apply for a permit. Perhaps Mayor Leitzell is unaware of the symbolism associated with this occupation movement? By eschewing the permit application in the process of occupation the movement draws attention to some of the very problems identified in the Occupy Wall Street Declaration such as the erosion of our rights, for instance, the right to peaceably assemble. The occupation also draws attention to the continued privatization of public space-the relationship between corporation and government. This is why many chants you might overhear at Occupy events include phrases such as, “Whose streets? Our streets!”  Ours. The people’s. Not the corporation’s.

The Mayor also condescendingly suggests that Occupy Dayton’s “complaint is with the federal government”. While I certainly agree that there is much to complain about in relation to the federal government, our local government must not attempt to absolve itself of responsibility to its citizens. Some of the same practices we might identify at the federal level certainly occur locally. In fact, after the campers voted to move to Dave Hall Plaza (at the suggestion of the DDP, City and County) in order to ease the minds of the public and not interfere with the “Grand Illumination”, they were then served, simultaneously, with two documents; 1) a ‘reminder’ of city park rules, and 2) a notice that the county was in the process of changing the ordinance on Courthouse Square in order to ban any activity between the hours of midnight and six am. The ACLU has registered a complaint as a result and had a representative in attendance at the second meeting of the County Commission dealing with this topic. Despite many people speaking out against the new regulations of Court House Square the vote passed unanimously in less than a minute. The erosion of rights is not only a federal problem. Occupy Dayton did not have an opportunity to move back to Courthouse Square. Perhaps you’ll pardon me for thinking that was the plan all along. As for “understanding the system”, I believe this sort of practice contributes all to well to our understanding of the system.

The (second) Death of Passenger Rail in Ohio

By 126 Comments

3C Rail Plan – Worth Saving?

Last year, many Ohioans (especially students, urban dwellers and young professionals) cheered loudly when it was announced that Ohio would receive $400 million to modify and improve freight rail tracks to accommodate a new passenger rail system called 3C which would connect Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati.  Of course, Daytonians were a bit put off by the obvious exclusion of a “D” in the name, but the thought of passenger rail becoming a reality was enough to offset any hard feelings.  Proponents point to the ability to work, read or relax while commuting that would be a huge plus with the many who currently drive between cities for work, and that with rising gas prices it would eventually be cheaper than driving.  They argue that the necessary operating subsidies pale in comparison to the amount of public money poured in our roads and highways every year (which incidentally played a significant role in killing trains the first time).  They claim that 3C would put Ohio in the 21st century and connect it with neighboring states (many with their own passenger rail plans).  And they point to the opportunities for economic development that would likely occur near the proposed train stations – most being in struggling urban cores like Dayton.  According to the 3C is ME section of the official ODOT website (obviously taking a pro-side), the train would reach speeds of 79 mph and also act as a boost for jobs and economic development:

  • Ohio’s $400 million investment will result in 255 immediate construction jobs over a two-year period
  • Well-studied U.S. Department of Commerce data also predicts the $400 million investment will create approximately 8,000 indirect and spin-off jobs in Ohio

Of course, that was before last Tuesday when Governor Ted Strickland (a champion for 3C) was defeated in his first

Ohio Governor-Elect John Kasich - "Passenger rail is not in Ohio's future."

re-election bid by staunch conservative John Kasich.  Kasich made no bones about his feelings against 3C during his campaign, and predictably and abruptly announced within hours of his win that “passenger rail in Ohio was dead”.  He, along with many of his fellow conservatives across the state, insist that Ohio does not have the density necessary for passenger rail to make sense, and more importantly – Ohio cannot afford the estimated $17 million annual subsidy to keep the system running after it is built despite the once-in-a-lifetime federal grant of $400 million.  Others against the rail plan claim that it will not be fast enough to compete with automobiles as a viable inter-city transportation option and will not have schedules that accommodate most peoples’ needs.  They point out that added to the cost of transportation from train stations to final destinations (made more challenging by decades of sprawl patterns in Ohio cities), passenger rail will not be cost-competitive with simply driving.  Not to mention that many if not most Ohians will rarely find a need to use the rail system anyway.

In DaytonMostMetro.com’s first debate column, we’ve invited Shanon Potts and Teri Lussier to share their opposing views on this hot local topic, which can be read by clicking on the tabs at the top of this story.  We hope that this is the first of many op-eds about local issues to be featured here, and we invite you all to chime in with your own opinions in our comment section.

Pro

Shanon Potts is an Assistant City Attorney at City of Dayton and 2010 Chair for Generation Dayton.

Hearing of plans to connect Ohio’s major cities with passenger rail service made me want to dance and sing, “Come on, ride the train, hey, ride it, woo woo!” High-speed rail is a key transportation component in the world’s developed countries and failure to make proper investments in a passenger rail system now is a mistake. Unfortunately, Ohio’s Governor-elect, John Kasich, recently proclaimed the train dead, stating, “Passenger rail is not in Ohio’s future.”

Young adults favor transportation choice now more than ever. Probably not unlike many other children of the eighties who grew up in small Midwestern towns, I was not aware of transportation alternatives. Amish traveled by
horse and buggy, only conductors rode trains, and everyone else traveled on roads in automobiles. Roads unfriendly to pedestrians and cyclists. I first learned of Amtrak from students from other countries while studying
abroad. Despite growing up with a narrow view of transportation, it is a mindset that can be overcome through education and life experiences, or simply a more open and creative mind.

Unfortunately passenger rail was dead in this state well before many of us (young adults) were born. Eighty years ago we had an extensive rail network. It was privately owned and operated and tax paying. In the name of national defense and security, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 was signed into law. It was the beginning of the end for passenger
rail. Governments began subsidizing highways and roads by the billions while at the same time forcing rail out of business. Now the cost of some highways and roads are covered by taxes and tolls. Investment in highways, roads and bridges continue, mostly to the exclusion of all other forms of transportation.

Passenger rail failed because our government got in the business of subsidizing highways and roads. The possible unintended consequence was flight from cities as policy began to favor transportation by automobile over all other forms of transportation. There is no better time than now to level the playing field to restore prosperity, investment and business growth to Ohio’s largest cities and to allow all Ohioans to reap the rewards. It is time to move Ohio forward into the 21st Century by laying the necessary foundation for modern, high-speed passenger rail service.

The cost seems so little for all that we stand to gain. Investment in the infrastructure for high-speed passenger rail equals job creation and economic growth. An estimated 255 new jobs will be created over the first two years. The United States Department of Commerce predicts an additional 8,000 jobs from organic growth and an $18 million economic impact on the Dayton Region. The cost that opponents are whining about subsidizing amounts to $1.50 per year for taxpayers and only 0.005 of our state’s transportation budget.

Failure to invest now will cost more in the long run. The State of Ohio competed against other states and received a $400 million dollar award to upgrade freight rail and to build a passenger rail system. In letters dated
November 8, 2010, Governor-elect Kasich asked Governor Strickland to terminate all contracts relating to his passenger rail program, and he informed President Obama that he would terminate all work on Ohio’s
passenger rail program. What Ohio stands to lose, another state stands to gain. In a November 5th letter to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, New York Governor-elect Andrew Cuomo volunteered to accept Ohio’s
$400 million award in anticipation of the position Governor-elect Kasich would take in order to create jobs for New Yorkers and to stimulate economic growth in upstate New York.

It is not only about the missed opportunity to create jobs or economic growth or the loss of $400 million to another state. As an advocate for young professionals in Dayton and Ohio, the worst pain is the thought of Ohio being left behind as other states advance further into the 21st Century.

Seventy three percent of Ohioans between ages 18 and 34 support passenger rail in Ohio. This support for passenger rail is evident in my own home and amongst young adults I talk with. My husband and I looked forward to reading a book or working on a laptop while traveling to Columbus from Dayton and back to visit family. Despite our concerns over slower speeds up front, we deemed it worth the investment over the long-term. Even if it took a little longer to reach our end destination, we would value our spare time. A young man opposing my viewpoint on rail changed his tune as he imagined taking the train from Dayton to Cincinnati for concerts or to watch professional sports teams while enjoying a few adult beverages.

Unfortunately, voter turnout among young adults ages 18-29 was especially low this year. Young adults who choose not to vote seem to fail to realize the role political policy and decision-making plays in their future, or are disenfranchised by the political scene. Regardless, more than 220,000 students are within less than 10 miles of the proposed train stations that compose the Ohio Hub. Young talent attraction and retention, also known as the brain drain, has been and still is an issue for Ohio. It would be nice if transportation policy reflected a desire to solve this issue.

As young adults we are advised to save and invest in our retirement despite other expenses in our lives, such as  substantial student loan repayments. While we pay down our debts we still invest to secure our future. Similarly Governor-elect Kasich should at least consider investing in high-speed passenger rail infrastructure for our future, despite the budget shortfall he so desperately seeks to balance. It is time for Ohio to end its monogamous love affair with highways, roads, bridges and automobiles, enter into the 21st Century, and “Come on, ride the train, hey, ride it, woo woo!”

Con

Teri Lussier is a Realtor, creator of TheBrickRanch.com and DMM Contributor.

What is it that makes passenger rail so much sexier than cars? Trains have appeal, nostalgia, I keep hearing they are better for the environment, and besides all that, two words: Cary Grant. Trains? Oh yes. Every day of the week and twice on Sunday! The emotional appeal of the 3c Passenger Rail is strong, then. Undeniable. I don’t know a single person who wouldn’t want a clean, efficient, uber-sexy, train in their city to travel hither and yon. What kind of people are they that would willing force an end to a passenger rail? Neanderthals, no doubt. Uninformed, unimaginative, cretins? People who are secretly jealous of Cary Grant? How about “pragmatic”.

When I agreed to write this, I had to do my research. I didn’t realize the facts were so definitive against it, because I like the idea of passenger rail service in Ohio, but that’s just it- I like the idea of it. The trouble is that I can’t find a study that shows passenger rails in the United States are solvent. They could be, some day, maybe, depending. From Cleveland.com:

“Illinois — which has a similar population density to Ohio — paid $12 million a year in operating costs to its Amtrak regional services until 2006 when the state’s four regional rail lines were greatly expanded.

George Weber, bureau chief for Illinois state’s bureau of railroads, estimated that since adding seven state-sponsored trains a day to the four that were running, the state is seeing about 10 to 15 percent more riders per train.

“When you start increasing the frequency, you definitely begin to see the ridership curve start to rise,” he said.

Weber said the state subsidy of the four rail lines rose to $28 million a year, but could dip this year depending on the cost of fuel.”

The fact is that I cannot find any solid, measurable, definitive benefits of passenger rails for the vast majority of citizens, except for the warm and fuzzy emotional benefits: “We like it.” and “Europe has them.” However, I did find plenty of solid reasons not to build this. Here. And here. And here. And as much as a train ride with Cary Grant might give me a thrill… Hmmm. Not only am I happily married, but facts is facts.

“Let’s have a true accounting, of what the problem is here. Let’s put the money in that.” –Charlie LeDuff

Two-Way Streets Equal All-Way Confusion

By 11 Comments

Photo by jamestraceur on flickr

So, if you haven’t noticed, construction crews are busy messing up converting 18 blocks of downtown Dayton’s one-way streets into two-way streets.

Am I the ONLY one who doesn’t like this idea?? (Don’t answer that, no one asked me anyway.)  But seriously.  WHO are they doing this for?  If you already live, work, or frequent downtown Dayton, like moi, then you already know which streets are one-way and you drive accordingly. It’s not that hard.  If you don’t already live, work, or frequent downtown Dayton, GET A MAP or a GPS!  Again, not that difficult.  I mean, were there a HUGE rash of crazy traffic accidents downtown because people didn’t know which side of the street they should be driving on???  If so, there must be a cover-up because as you know the local news around here covers every fender-bender and flat tire in the region.

2nd Street in the good ol' days. *Sniff* Photo by DDFic on flickr

So, my dear City Commissioners or whoever the heck decided this was a good idea – here’s what you have done.  I, Jenny Rapson, a life-long resident of Dayton who drives through downtown several times a week, NO LONGER KNOW WHERE THE HECK I AM GOING.  At 32 years old, I am already set in my ways, and one of my ways was ONE-WAY streets downtown.  Now, we may have a rash of fiery traffic accidents because the routes I have been driving my whole life are now totally different. AND?  MY GPS DOESN’T KNOW IT YET, EITHER!

Let me reiterate: you have confused and irritated the people who were already frequenting downtown.  Good luck luring all those new customers with your shiny two-way streets.  I’m sure your really good idea will work.

I’m just a *smidge* grumpy about the directional street changes downtown.  How do you feel about them?

Dayton in the Thick of the Battle for Baby Vanessa

By 27 Comments

A hotly-contested custody case that has garnered national attention is heading from Orange County, California,  back to where it started – here in Dayton.

Stacey Doss, a single woman from Orange County, adopted daughter Vanessa at birth  in June 2008. Vanessa was born in Dayton and her birth mother had been matched with  Doss through a California adoption agency.  Although the birth mother signed a document under penalty of perjury stating that she did not know who the birth father was, she was lying.  While Stacey took Vanessa back home with her to California, thinking all was well, the child’s birth father Benjamin Mills, Jr., began taking steps to try and get her back.  Because of this, Stacey’s adoption of Vanessa has never been finalized, and now Vanessa is in danger of being taken from the only home she has ever known.

If the facts about Benjamin Mills, Jr. were not the facts, I might be outraged for him.  After all, his biological child was put up for adoption without his knowledge.  But the facts are these: Mr. Mills has four other children, none of whom he has custody of. (His mother has custody of Vanessa’s two full-siblings). Mr. Mills has a felony criminal record, (which if you’re so inclined you can look up on Montg0mery County’s website) including a conviction for domestic violence against the birth mother for which he served eight months in prison.  (It has been reported by several media outlets that in this instance Mr. Mills pulled the birth mother around by the hair so violently that police found clumps of bloody hair strewn about when they arrived.) Mr. Mills has a child endangerment charge on his record.  Mr. Mills has a very long misdemeanor record.  The Dayton Daily News has reported that Montgomery County Children Services currently has an open case involving Mr. Mills’ older children.  With these being the facts about Mr. Mills, it seems clear to me that he never would have received custody of Vanessa at the time she was born – so why should he receive it now?  And why is he fighting to have his daughter taken away from a loving, stable home, when he clearly cannot provide this for her?

On July 2, California courts ruled that this case belongs in Ohio – and so does Vanessa.  Stacey Doss has been told she has until July 16th to surrender her daughter, who will then be taken by Montgomery County officials and placed in foster care here.  This, to me, is the truly mind-boggling element of this case – why traumatize a two-year-old child by putting her in foster care when she has a perfectly happy home to live in while this case is decided?  It is cruel and unusual punishment to take this child from Stacey Doss’ home – temporarily or permanently.

Doss has filed an emergency appeal to keep Vanessa with her in California with hopes that it will be heard before the 16th.  In support of Stacey and Vanessa Doss, some Dayton locals, including myself, will be holding a candlelight vigil on Thursday July 15th (the eve of the deadline for Vanessa to return to Ohio) from 8:30-9:30 at the Deeds Carillon.  I hope that many of you can join us for what is a support rally not only for Vanessa, but for the best interests of the child in cases like these.

Vanessa’s custody case will be heard in Montgomery County courts on July 29th and 30th, and tensions in the community, and between the the parties involved will surely be heating up between now and then.  The question is, who will Montgomery County law and judges protect – the “rights” of an unfit biological parent, or the best interests of an innocent child?  Only time will tell if justice will be done for Vanessa.

When Street Art & Government Clash

By 5 Comments

OD Knit Graffiti - photo credit: Delectable Dayton

The City of Dayton seems to be stuck somewhere between two forces.  The first is a government mired in an old bureaucratic attitude and uncreative culture with strict rules that focus on regulating instead of facilitating, perhaps from a different era when old captains of industry controlled things in the community.  The other is a new generation of a few progressive-thinking city staffers & officials, a citizenry made up of those who create music and art, and those who enjoy living where creativity (sometimes spontaneous) is embraced and encouraged.  The same subset of city residents that actually CHOOSES to live in the city for the love of an urban environment, despite the enormous challenges that the city faces.

Last month, the Delectable Dayton blog did some great reporting on the spontaneous “knit graffiti” (or “yarn bombs”) that popped up in the Oregon District, and the subsequent heavy-handed reaction by public works employees who allegedly responded to a few complaints by removing this spontaneous street art and threatening to bill the “offending artist” for said removal.  The final chapter in this saga ended with the issue moving from the stand·pat publics works department to the more progressive planning department and a call for this kind of situation to be resolved in the future by community stakeholders instead of city staff.  This was a great example of an issue going viral on the social networks (Facebook, individual blogs, etc.), and the social network reaction is what caused the change in this incident’s trajectory within the city government.  Yes, the more progressive factions of the city government are very plugged into online social networks and I predict we’ll see more actions and reactions come from these online discussions.

Getting back to the OD yarn bomb incident – it is my opinion that we must have a major shift in attitude when it comes to street art in this town.  While the old guard tends to favor more planned, less risque and established out-of-town artists when it comes to public art, the new generation of creatives wants public art to be more spontaneous, thought-provoking, unique and most importantly – done by local artists.  This isn’t to say that city government has always come down against this new generational attitude as Garden Station is a perfect example of city government acting as an enabler.  But other efforts such as c{space have run into a strange combination of conflicting attitudes within city government; regulators vs facilitators, squashers vs champions, traditional vs progressive.  And then there is the OD Yarn Bomb Incident.

Street art can be controversial yet it is important to any urban environment – it differentiates an authentic downtown from the more sterile environments found in typical suburban shopping malls and corporate-driven lifestyle-centers like The Greene.  Nothing against those environments – different strokes for different folks.  But the more diverse lifestyle options a region can offer, the stronger it will be in attracting a talent base necessary for economic growth – and a strong, viable and authentic urban core is an absolute necessity to any region’s economy.  So how do we strike the proper balance between encouraging our local artists when it comes to spontaneous public art, and ensuring that we are creating a truly inspiring urban environment that doesn’t offend the sensibilities of the average resident or visitor?

A possible solution to the public art dilemma could come in the form of a public street arts council – a group of community stakeholders (local artists, residents, business owners) that could be responsible for evaluating potential planned public art installations and quickly approving permits to local artists.  Organization and communication could be done easily, cheaply and rapidly online as opposed to traditional committee meetings and public townhalls.  And this same council and communication system could be used to handle spontaneous street-art incidents, perhaps with online polls that empower citizens to evaluate – hopefully with a sensible yet more laissez-faire attitude than a government bureaucracy.  Whereas typical vandal graffiti would get a majority thumbs down, completely harmless street art like knit graffiti would likely get a pass (as can be seen by the quick poll set up at Delectable Dayton).

As our city continues its transition from old to new economy, we must be looking forward and implementing solutions such as these – lest we lose for good those who make our city more interesting and those who truly appreciate our urban core.

UPDATE: In case some of you haven’t actually clicked on the links in this post, check out the simple solution that Bristol implemented to deal with rogue street art after the fact: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/aug/31/graffiti-art-bristol-public-vote