Cincinnati City Council

[ColDayMan]

Councilman wants city to cover fertility treatments, add childcare leave to set example

 

 

Councilman Jeff Pastor wants to expand the city’s insurance program to cover workers who need fertility treatments to conceive and potentially add months to the city’s paid family leave policy, proposals he hopes the private sector will later adopt.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2020/01/13/councilman-wants-city-to-cover-fertility.html

[ColDayMan]

City Council adds ways for tenants to pay security deposits

 

Cincinnati City Council approved three new ways for tenants to pay security deposits to landlords on Wednesday, aiming to relieve the financial pressure on low-income renters who may not have the cash available to pay an extra month’s rent in order to get an apartment.

 

The ordinance sponsored by Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld, a Democrat, passed with one dissenting vote – Councilman Jeff Pastor, a Republican.

 

Under the measure, in addition to paying a security deposit upfront, tenants can also...

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2020/01/15/city-council-adds-ways-for-tenants-to-pay-security.html

[ColDayMan]

Cincinnati councilwoman plans to resign

 

Cincinnati Councilwoman Amy Murray is expected to resign her seat on council to take a job with President Donald Trump’s administration, the Business Courier has learned.

 

It’s unclear when Murray’s resignation will take effect or who her successor will be.

 

Each council member designates other members of council to pick their successor in case they leave council. As of Friday, Vice Mayor Christopher Smitherman, an independent, and Councilman Jeff Pastor, a Republican, were the council members Murray picked to choose a replacement. A council member can change those designations at any time.

 

It’s unclear who they will choose. Murray, Pastor and Alex Triantafilou, the Hamilton County Republican chairman, did not immediately return messages seeking comment on Sunday night. Murray is expected to make an announcement about her future on Monday.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2020/02/09/cincinnati-councilwoman-plans-to-resign.html

[ColDayMan]

Councilwoman Murray details new job in the Trump administration

 

When she resigns from Cincinnati City Council, Amy Murray will become director of small business programs for the U.S. Department of Defense. 

 

Murray will lead a department that involves 700 small business professionals that will procure $70 billion in Pentagon spending. It’s about 20% of the procurement done by the Defense Department. 

 

“These are large businesses that support our men and women in the military,” Murray said, adding that the program’s goal is to maximize the opportunity for small business to contribute to the nation’s defense. 

 

“It’s another opportunity for public service,” said Murray, who will start March 16. 

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2020/02/10/councilwoman-murray-details-new-job-in-the-trump.html

 

[Guest jmecklenborg]

23 minutes ago, ColDayMan said:

Councilwoman Murray details new job in the Trump administration

 

director of small business programs for the U.S. Department of Defense. 

 

So stay at a Trump hotel and your company gets the contract.  

[ryanlammi]

https://www.fox19.com/2020/02/27/ham-co-gop-announce-replacement-departing-councilwoman-amy-murray/

 

Ham. Co. GOP announce replacement for departing Councilwoman Amy Murray

 

 

Quote

The Hamilton County GOP announced Thursday night its recommended replacement on Cincinnati City Council for Republican Amy Murray, who is stepping down midway through her second term.

 

The GOP’s search committee, which it says included members of the Charter party as well as input from Murray herself, recommends Elizabeth “Betsy” Sundermann for the post.

 

Sundermann, the GOP says, is “a longtime lawyer, magistrate, activist and community leader in the city’s west side.”

 

Hamilton County GOP Chairman Alex Triantafilou issued the following statement:

“For too many years, the city’s west side has not had a voice on City Council. With (Amy Murray) recommending Betsy Sunderman, Westsiders will have a person fighting for them once she’s appointed. This is great news for neighborhoods.”

 

[taestell]

You know, if the West Side wanted to have more of "a voice" on City Council, they could have some good candidates from the West Side run for City Council and win.

[GCrites]

^"You're from English Woods? I don't know where that is!" -- East Siders

[ryanlammi]

If he selected Reece as the replacement, there could be a gentleman's agreement that she doesn't run for mayor in 2021. I agree with Ozie Davis. He isn't organized well enough to be a good candidate in future elections. I think he would be a bad choice.

 

I think Bauman would be the best option. I have some reservations about Dillingham.

 

Not sure who else is thinking about running in 2021. There were a lot of people who applied for Murray's seat and didn't run, and I'm sure there will be a lot of Dems running in 2021 who didn't in 2017.

[Brutus_buckeye]

Reports are it could be Kearney who would be an excellent pick. I still would love to see Alecia Reese but I dont think they will wait until the County Commission primary is settled. 

There is a push from the progressive side for Dillingham, and I hope to God it is not her. 

 

Whomever it is should be someone who understands the business community and has a good working relationship with them. The one thing about PG is that he understands the business community. Kearney and Reese do. Tamaya did not, although to her credit she was trying and making an effort. Dillingham has her constituents that she cares about and everyone else be damned. She would be a horrible member of council. 

[ColDayMan]

Pastor, Smitherman agree on Murray replacement

 

Vice Mayor Christopher Smitherman and Councilman Jeff Pastor will appoint Betsy Sundermann to fill Councilwoman Amy Murray's seat when she resigns tomorrow.

 

Sundermann, a Hamilton County magistrate, is expected to be sworn in at Wednesday night's council meeting.

 

The Business Courier obtained a copy of paperwork Smitherman and Pastor signed appointing Sundermann. Pastor made the announcement after signing it at the Economic Growth and Zoning Committee, which Murray chairs.

 

On Monday afternoon, Murray reiterated, after a weekend of controversy, that Sundermann was an "excellent choice."

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2020/03/03/pastor-smitherman-agree-on-murray-replacement.html

[Brutus_buckeye]

I dont know much about how she will be on council but Betsey is a very nice person. Glad she has this opportunity

[ColDayMan]

Councilman wants free parking next to restaurants

 

Cincinnati Councilman Chris Seelbach wants the city to offer free pick-up parking spaces next to and near restaurants in the city that currently have metered parking spaces in response to the ban on dine-in eating throughout Ohio because of the coronavirus 2019.

 

Seelbach has introduced a motion directing the administration to use best practices to make the changes, with the amount of time, number of meters affected and other details to be determined.

 

Council is expected to take up the motion today at its 1 p.m. Budget and Finance Committee meeting on Monday, but Seelbach said the administration already is making plans to implement it.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2020/03/16/councilman-wants-free-parking-next-to-restaurants.html

[ColDayMan]

City to free up parking spaces for restaurant pickup and delivery

 

The city of Cincinnati will make an unspecified number of metered parking spaces available for restaurant pickup and delivery in an attempt to boost the industry while dine-in services are banned by the state in response to the coronavirus disease 2019.

 

Each meter selected will be available for free parking for 15 minutes. It is soliciting input from business owners about where the free zones should be.

 

Businesses that want a pickup and drop-off area near their business should call 513-352-6280 to speak with a parking facilities supervisor or email [email protected].

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2020/03/17/city-to-free-up-parking-spaces-for-restaurant.html

[ryanlammi]

Now they should make transit free to help people who can't afford cars. I don't think the city has that power, but still.

[GCrites]

And that way people aren't touching fare boxes and machines.

[Ram23]

Chris Seelbach wants to cancel... William Henry Harrison? He apparently came to this decision after reading about him on Wikipedia this morning:

 

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2020/06/14/william-henry-harrison-statue-cincinnati-city-council-seelbach/3187875001/

 

 

[Guest jmecklenborg]

3 hours ago, Ram23 said:

Chris Seelbach wants to cancel... William Henry Harrison? He apparently came to this decision after reading about him on Wikipedia this morning:

 

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2020/06/14/william-henry-harrison-statue-cincinnati-city-council-seelbach/3187875001/

 

 

 

He inherited slaves, just like George Washington.  Are we going to hurry up and cancel Washington Park in OTR, assuming that it's named after George Washington (honestly I don't know)?

 

Speaking of moving statues to Pyramid Hill, shouldn't that name be cancelled since slaves built the pyramids?

 

It's easy to sit around and say that you would have been on the right side of history back whenever.  All of these people, in their tireless effort to illustrate how perfect they are now, insinuate that they would have been similarly perfect in any situation in the past.  No, they wouldn't have.  Participating in society forces us into bad situations throughout our lives. 

 

 

[E Rocc]

5 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

He inherited slaves, just like George Washington.  Are we going to hurry up and cancel Washington Park in OTR, assuming that it's named after George Washington (honestly I don't know)?

 

Speaking of moving statues to Pyramid Hill, shouldn't that name be cancelled since slaves built the pyramids?

 

It's easy to sit around and say that you would have been on the right side of history back whenever.  All of these people, in their tireless effort to illustrate how perfect they are now, insinuate that they would have been similarly perfect in any situation in the past.  No, they wouldn't have.  Participating in society forces us into bad situations throughout our lives. 

 

 

 

Best summation I've seen yet of what I call retroactive virtue signalling.  

Lincoln was against slavery, but a supporter of what was politely called "repatriation".  As were some activist free blacks.   Today, it's just about the most racist thing one can advocate.

Edited June 15, 2020 by E Rocc

[Guest jmecklenborg]

3 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Best summation I've seen yet of what I call retroactive virtue signalling. 

 

There has been some research into why so many idolized figures (Mother Theresa, JFK, MLK, etc.) did bad stuff in their personal lives.  It turns out that people "compartmentalize" their own self-view, and when they do something good on one hand they are much more willing to dismiss a "white lie" with the other.  Most people (myself included) are fine with eating something unhealthy (pizza, beer) on a day when we exercised.  It's like that. 

 

Another thing - pretty much everyone agrees that it's supremely inappropriate to speak ill of the dead on the day of their funeral.  For example, one of my uncles said some stuff critical of his dad (my grandfather) when the news was announced that he had died.  What he said was true but...that's not the time of the way to do it.  The push-back was because of that, not because of what he said.  Similarly, a lot of cultural protesting intentionally violates the unwritten rules regarding criticism of people and issues.  That poor form intentionally irritates the general population and motivates some to act out in a backlash (i.e. defend "the flag").  The instigators of the whole thing then brandish their iphones and say gotcha.    

 

 

 

 

 

[DEPACincy]

9 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

He inherited slaves, just like George Washington.  Are we going to hurry up and cancel Washington Park in OTR, assuming that it's named after George Washington (honestly I don't know)?

 

Speaking of moving statues to Pyramid Hill, shouldn't that name be cancelled since slaves built the pyramids?

 

It's easy to sit around and say that you would have been on the right side of history back whenever.  All of these people, in their tireless effort to illustrate how perfect they are now, insinuate that they would have been similarly perfect in any situation in the past.  No, they wouldn't have.  Participating in society forces us into bad situations throughout our lives. 

 

 

 

It is disingenuous to argue "he just inherited slaves." The man's life work was to expand slavery into the Northwest Territory. It is what he is known best for. 

 

And I don't think anyone who is arguing against honoring bad people is saying that they, themselves, are perfect or would've been on the right side of history. I don't know if I would've been on the right side of history. My family came from Virginia. Lots of my ancestors owned slaves. But my third great grandfather fought in the Union Army and was vehemently anti-slavery. So it is a mixed bag. One thing I do know, is that we should definitely not HONOR people for being on the wrong side of history. There's too many good people that were on the RIGHT side that deserve to be honored. 

[Dev]

The vast majority of Confederate statues were erected by people and organizations who wanted to re-write history and reassert white supremacy. Removing them is a symbolic gesture sure but it's still a public rejection of the white supremacy that they were promoting.

So who put this statue up and what were they advocating? The article is quite vague.

[Guest jmecklenborg]

1 hour ago, Dev said:

So who put this statue up and what were they advocating? The article is quite vague.

 

It honors "Ohio's First President".  He's also buried in a mausoleum right on the Ohio River near the Indiana state line.  I went there about 20 years ago and recall that the thing seemed to be very rarely visited and minimally maintained.  

[Guest jmecklenborg]

1 hour ago, DEPACincy said:

 

It is disingenuous to argue "he just inherited slaves." The man's life work was to expand slavery into the Northwest Territory. It is what he is known best for. 

 

I don't believe that he or anyone prominent actively tried to expand slavery into the Northwest Territory states after the act passed in, I believe, 1789.  If someone knows otherwise please direct us to a source.  

 

Also, drawing on another moral dilemma, I think everyone will agree that removal of natives from Ohio and the rest of the Northwest Territory was inevitable, whereas other military action throughout history wasn't inevitable.  Do we judge military officers who were involved in inevitable events in history as harshly as those who caused trouble that was their own invention (i.e. Adolf Hitler)?

 

I myself faced a moral dilemma this past weekend.  Someone in my life who is an alcoholic reached out for help with money.  Is it my fault if she ends up homeless?  Is it my fault if she dies from alcohol she bought with borrowed money?  Twitter, tell me exactly what to do.  Right now.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DEPACincy]

23 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

I don't believe that he or anyone prominent actively tried to expand slavery into the Northwest Territory states after the act passed in, I believe, 1789.  If someone knows otherwise please direct us to a source.  

 

 

It is amazing that you don't know this history. I was told that if we put up statues to people it will "preserve history" and if we take them down that history will be forgotten. It seems that this statue hasn't done its job. 

 

The thing that he is most famous for is arguing that the provisions in the Northwest Ordinance that prohibited slavery should be REPEALED. Like, if there is one thing people learn about him, it's that he died in office right away. If there are two things, it's that he died in office right away and that he fought for the expansion of slavery. 

In 1801, Harrison moved to the Indiana Territory where he was appointed as Governor. In 1803 Harrison lobbied Congress to repeal Article 6 of the Northwest Ordinance, in order to permit slavery in the territory. He argued that it was necessary to make the region more appealing to settlers and would make the territory economically viable. He was able to convince Congress to suspended the article for 10 years, during which time the territories covered by the ordinance were granted the right to decide for themselves whether to permit slavery. Harrison tried to have slavery legalized outright, in both 1805 and 1807. This caused a significant stir in the territory. When in 1809 the legislature was popularly elected for the first time, Harrison found himself at odds with them as the abolitionist party came to power. They immediately blocked his plans for slavery and repealed the indenturing laws he had passed in 1803. President Thomas Jefferson, although a slaveholder, did not want slavery to expand into the Northwest Territory. Anti-slavery churches in Indiana organized citizens to sign a petition and organizing politically to defeat Harrison's efforts to legalize slavery.

 

https://potus-geeks.livejournal.com/151743.html

[ucgrady]

13 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

Speaking of moving statues to Pyramid Hill, shouldn't that name be cancelled since slaves built the pyramids?

I am for pulling down statues of racist assholes of the past 99% of the time, but I have to admit this sentence made me laugh. 

Edited June 15, 2020 by ucgrady

[JaceTheAce41]

2 hours ago, ucgrady said:

I am for pulling down statues of racist assholes of the past 99% of the time, but I have to admit this sentence made me laugh. 

 

Yeah but two things.

1. The Egyptian pyramids weren't built by slaves and 2. A pyramid is a shape.

 

 

[Guest jmecklenborg]

4 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

It is amazing that you don't know this history. I was told that if we put up statues to people it will "preserve history" and if we take them down that history will be forgotten. It seems that this statue hasn't done its job. 

 

The thing that he is most famous for is arguing that the provisions in the Northwest Ordinance that prohibited slavery should be REPEALED. Like, if there is one thing people learn about him, it's that he died in office right away. If there are two things, it's that he died in office right away and that he fought for the expansion of slavery. 

In 1801, Harrison moved to the Indiana Territory where he was appointed as Governor. In 1803 Harrison lobbied Congress to repeal Article 6 of the Northwest Ordinance, in order to permit slavery in the territory. He argued that it was necessary to make the region more appealing to settlers and would make the territory economically viable. He was able to convince Congress to suspended the article for 10 years, during which time the territories covered by the ordinance were granted the right to decide for themselves whether to permit slavery. Harrison tried to have slavery legalized outright, in both 1805 and 1807. This caused a significant stir in the territory. When in 1809 the legislature was popularly elected for the first time, Harrison found himself at odds with them as the abolitionist party came to power. They immediately blocked his plans for slavery and repealed the indenturing laws he had passed in 1803. President Thomas Jefferson, although a slaveholder, did not want slavery to expand into the Northwest Territory. Anti-slavery churches in Indiana organized citizens to sign a petition and organizing politically to defeat Harrison's efforts to legalize slavery.

 

https://potus-geeks.livejournal.com/151743.html

 

Outstanding.  

 

According to the following list, Washington Park is named after George Washington (the slave owner).  So it and everything else named after him (hundreds if not thousands of places and things) must be renamed, or at least renamed after George Washington Carver.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memorials_to_George_Washington

 

Come on everyone, jump to it!  Lively now!  

 

 

[DEPACincy]

57 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

Outstanding.  

 

According to the following list, Washington Park is named after George Washington (the slave owner).  So it and everything else named after him (hundreds if not thousands of places and things) must be renamed, or at least renamed after George Washington Carver.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memorials_to_George_Washington

 

Come on everyone, jump to it!  Lively now!  

 

 

 

Or, and I know this is hard, but nuance is a thing that exists. 

 

If you go to Mt. Vernon, they talk to you extensively about Washington's slave ownership. A friend of mine used to be a tour guide there, and white people would regularly confront her for sharing these uncomfortable truths. They came there to learn about the greatness of Washington, not about who he truly was. If you visit the original President's House in Philly, the entire area is dedicated to his slaves and their lives. You learn that Washington would rotate his slaves between Philly and VA so he wouldn't have to free them. If you go to Washington's birthplace in the Northern Neck of Virginia, they also cover the atrocities of slavery comprehensively, and I'm sure many people get mad about that too. All of these places serve, not as just a monument to Washington, but as honest accounts of his triumphs and failures. Slave ownership was one of those great failures. His greatest failure probably. And yet, he also did great things, which we can also recognize and we do. 

 

Before today, you knew nothing about Harrison, except that he was Ohio's first President. You didn't even know what he was most famous for. And not only did you not know it, but you doubled down when confronted with that reality. Instead of, you know, just googling it. You've probably walked by that statue a million times and never bothered yourself to actually seek out our history.

 

 I'm not even sure that I think the Harrison monument needs to be removed. I would be just as happy, probably more so, with a, historical marker explaining how he was one of the worst presidents and how his only great policy pursuit was to expand slavery. His presidency did nothing but bring us closer to eventual Civil War. But it is really amazing to me how you can be so SURE that you are right, even when confronted head on with your gap in knowledge here. The fact that learning about who the man REALLY was didn't budge your opinion at all should really worry you. You're so damned caught up in BEING RIGHT that you're not willing to learn.

[Guest jmecklenborg]

^You can't thin-slice the slave-owner ham and say this far but no farther.  We either accept that streets and places can be named after people who owned slaves and or all of them need to be renamed.  We need to either accept that a statue or monument dedicated to a figure who owned slaves can stand on public ground or it can't.  

 

Who was worse - the guy who owned 25 slaves for 1 year or the guy who owned 1 slave for 25?   

 

Who was worse - the guy who inherited 70 slaves or the guy who worked 7 days a week for 7 years to buy 1?  

[Brutus_buckeye]

As usual Chris Seelbach is good at being an moron and an a$$. 

The man has a statue not because he owned slaves or donated money. He has a statue because he was president for 40 days. It celebrates the fact that he was president. It does not offer commentary on the man himself. Secondly, I highly doubt anyone is offended by being in the park since 99.99% of people who visited the pace knew little about Harrison to begin with.

 

The litmus test by those on the know nothing left that they are trying to establish is just absurd. Nobody can pass a purity test and everyone is a flawed individual. You put a statue of the man to celebrate an accomplishment. In Harrison's case, that was being president for 40 days and being the first person from Cincinnati to hold the office. The statue does not need to recognize everything he did in life (that is what gravestones are for) but it simply recognizes one of the accomplishments he made in life that helped move the country forward.  

 

Thomas Jefferson for example owned slaves, but he was also extremely influential to the founding of the country that recognizing him with a statue for those reasons is appropriate. We would not be here if it were not for Jefferson's efforts. That does not mean he was a pious man perfect in every way. He was human like everyone else. We can recognize his flaws but still celebrate his accomplishments. 

 

Where does this stupidity stop? Do you remove MLK's name from things because he was not a supporter of LGBTQ rights and spoke out against them?  

 

You should be able to recognize the person's accomplishments in society without subjecting them to a purity test. Nobody is pure so quit trying to hold people to that standard. 

[GCrites]

Until recently the narrative surrounding WH Harrison mostly revolved around how he got sick from his inauguration speech in the winter then died after a very short time in office. I don't think many people knew anything else.

[DEPACincy]

14 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

^You can't thin-slice the slave-owner ham and say this far but no farther. 

 

Who says you can't? You? 

 

We literally do this in everything we do in life. Nothing is black and white. Life is full of shades of gray. If you can't see that, I feel sorry for you. 

[DEPACincy]

11 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The man has a statue not because he owned slaves or donated money. He has a statue because he was president for 40 days. It celebrates the fact that he was president. It does not offer commentary on the man himself.

 

Maybe it should? Why should we celebrate him for holding the office for 40 days? Especially if he got there through forcefully advocating for slavery and directly contributed to our eventual Civil War. 

 

11 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The litmus test by those on the know nothing left that they are trying to establish is just absurd. Nobody can pass a purity test and everyone is a flawed individual.

 

Nobody is actually doing this. You're arguing against a straw man. 

 

11 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

In Harrison's case, that was being president for 40 days and being the first person from Cincinnati to hold the office.

 

He wasn't from Cincinnati. He was born in VA. He bought a house in North Bend. That's as close as he got to being from Cincinnati. 

 

11 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The statue does not need to recognize everything he did in life (that is what gravestones are for) but it simply recognizes one of the accomplishments he made in life that helped move the country forward.  

 

What did he actually do to move the country forward? He actually held it back. And directly contributed to it almost being torn apart. He fought passionately for an evil institution. That was his greatest accomplishment. 

 

11 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Thomas Jefferson for example owned slaves, but he was also extremely influential to the founding of the country that recognizing him with a statue for those reasons is appropriate. We would not be here if it were not for Jefferson's efforts. That does not mean he was a pious man perfect in every way. He was human like everyone else. We can recognize his flaws but still celebrate his accomplishments. 

 

That's exactly what we do. I see you didn't read my comment about George Washington. 

 

11 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Where does this stupidity stop? Do you remove MLK's name from things because he was not a supporter of LGBTQ rights and spoke out against them?  

 

When did MLK speak out against gay rights? I'd really like to know. Because I have never come across this. Coretta Scott King has been a lifelong LGBTQ rights activist and has said many times that MLK would've been supportive of the fight for marriage equality. 

 

11 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

You should be able to recognize the person's accomplishments in society without subjecting them to a purity test. Nobody is pure so quit trying to hold people to that standard. 

 

This is true. And NOBODY is doing that. What were Harrison's accomplishments that make him worthy of honor? You guys keep saying liberals are trying to establish purity tests but you guys are the ones who are ignoring nuance. It can both be true that some slave owners did great things worthy of celebration, but that others' accomplishments failed to outweigh their failings. It has been explained to you and @jmecklenborg multiple times that Seelbach is not saying Harrison's statue should be removed because he was a slave owner, but that it should be removed because he dedicated his life to pro-slavery advocacy. That's a HUGE difference. But you guys ignore the actual discussion because it doesn't fit your narrative.

[ColDayMan]

Reports: Cincinnati city manager leaving for Virginia

 

City Manager Patrick Duhaney is leaving Cincinnati and taking the same job in Virginia Beach, Va., according to media reports in that city.

 

Rumors have been spreading Tuesday morning at Cincinnati City Hall about Duhaney leaving.

 

The Virginia Beach City Council is set to vote at 1 p.m. on Duhaney's appointment. That city has been without a manager for 10 months. Duhaney would be the first African American city manager there.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2020/06/16/cincinnati-city-manager-leaving-for-virginia.html

[Brutus_buckeye]

1 hour ago, DEPACincy said:

 

 

 

 

When did MLK speak out against gay rights? I'd really like to know. Because I have never come across this. Coretta Scott King has been a lifelong LGBTQ rights activist and has said many times that MLK would've been supportive of the fight for marriage equality. 

 

 

 

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55efa8b5e4b0c21dd4f4d8ee/t/55f03e34e4b07334ec9e7e20/1441807924727/Martin+Luther+King’s+advice+to+a+young+man+with+homosexuality_c.pdf

 

I would think many in the LGBT would be outraged if this article came out today.

[Brutus_buckeye]

1 hour ago, DEPACincy said:

 

 

This is true. And NOBODY is doing that. What were Harrison's accomplishments that make him worthy of honor? You guys keep saying liberals are trying to establish purity tests but you guys are the ones who are ignoring nuance. It can both be true that some slave owners did great things worthy of celebration, but that others' accomplishments failed to outweigh their failings. It has been explained to you and @jmecklenborg multiple times that Seelbach is not saying Harrison's statue should be removed because he was a slave owner, but that it should be removed because he dedicated his life to pro-slavery advocacy. That's a HUGE difference. But you guys ignore the actual discussion because it doesn't fit your narrative.

The problem is you seem to want to take Seelbach at face value, That slimeball does not deserve to be taken at face value. 

He barely knows much about Harrison, and i would wager his "research" is likely reading Wikipedia. 

he is sayng the statue should be removed because he ultimately lived at a time where slavery was legal and he was supportive of that at one time in his life. Seelbach seems to not think that any person who supported slavery has redeemable qualities. He really is nothing but a bully who is destructive. 

 

I have no problem removing condederate statues and the like. However, there needs to be common sense. Seelbach wants to tap into mob mentality to bully people around. That is what he is doing here.

[DEPACincy]

48 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55efa8b5e4b0c21dd4f4d8ee/t/55f03e34e4b07334ec9e7e20/1441807924727/Martin+Luther+King’s+advice+to+a+young+man+with+homosexuality_c.pdf

 

I would think many in the LGBT would be outraged if this article came out today.

 

Yes, they would not be happy. It's also not 1958. That someone didn't understand homosexuality in 1958 is not at all surprising. He was in no way an anti-LGBTQ activist though, which is what you were trying to claim. Do you ever get tired of twisting and spinning things to meet your worldview? 

[DEPACincy]

34 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The problem is you seem to want to take Seelbach at face value, That slimeball does not deserve to be taken at face value. 

He barely knows much about Harrison, and i would wager his "research" is likely reading Wikipedia. 

he is sayng the statue should be removed because he ultimately lived at a time where slavery was legal and he was supportive of that at one time in his life. Seelbach seems to not think that any person who supported slavery has redeemable qualities. He really is nothing but a bully who is destructive. 

 

I have no problem removing condederate statues and the like. However, there needs to be common sense. Seelbach wants to tap into mob mentality to bully people around. That is what he is doing here.

 

So I should not trust his statements on the issue, and instead trust your INTERPRETATION of his statements. Because you know what is truly in his heart. It seems like Seelbach is not the one who is a slimeball. You guys are constantly doing the things that you accuse the other side of doing. It's really quite impressive.

[taestell]

19 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

According to the following list, Washington Park is named after George Washington (the slave owner).  So it and everything else named after him (hundreds if not thousands of places and things) must be renamed, or at least renamed after George Washington Carver.

 

King County, Washington was originally named after William Rufus DeVane King, who was briefly a US VP, and for a longer period of time was a slave owner. In 1986, it was "renamed" after Martin Luther King Jr. whose face now appears on the county's flag.

[Cincy513]

I really could care less about the statue.  I live right by the park and walk past it all the time.  If it was taken down I'm not sure I'd even notice.  I'm not sure why we should be spending money taking down a statue right now though when the city is in a financial crisis.

 

Also, now that Denard is gone Seelbach is by far the worst member of council.  The two of them just like(d) hearing/seeing their name in the media.  They have accomplished little to nothing during their time on council.  

[ucgrady]

Maybe they are expecting to find some bourbon under the statue of Harrison? https://www.delish.com/food-news/a32868428/kentucky-confederate-statue-bourbon/

[DEPACincy]

32 minutes ago, Cincy513 said:

I really could care less about the statue.  I live right by the park and walk past it all the time.  If it was taken down I'm not sure I'd even notice.  I'm not sure why we should be spending money taking down a statue right now though when the city is in a financial crisis.

 

This is a fair and measured point. I really do think just adding a plaque explaining who he really was would be a good compromise. 

 

33 minutes ago, Cincy513 said:

lso, now that Denard is gone Seelbach is by far the worst member of council.  The two of them just like(d) hearing/seeing their name in the media.  They have accomplished little to nothing during their time on council.  

 

I disagree with this. Seelbach  has given LGBTQ folks representation in a city that, for too long, was hostile to their existence. Also, before he was on council he helped get Article 12 repealed, which was a huge deal. He has also been a leading voice for revitalization in OTR and he is always on the right side of urbanist issues. If Mary Kuhl hates you, you're doing something right!

 

https://www.cincinnatimagazine.com/citywiseblog/chris-seelbach-getting-past-gay/?utm_campaign=Social Media 2020&utm_content=131671383&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&hss_channel=tw-32264744

[Brutus_buckeye]

1 hour ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Yes, they would not be happy. It's also not 1958. That someone didn't understand homosexuality in 1958 is not at all surprising. He was in no way an anti-LGBTQ activist though, which is what you were trying to claim. Do you ever get tired of twisting and spinning things to meet your worldview? 

You have proved my point though. King was an influential leader but was also in an era that may not have been as enlightened in certain areas as people are today. Would he be different toward the LGBT community if he were alive today? probably. 

However, the same can be said for the likes of Harrison and other leaders of their time who may have condoned slavery as it was the law of the land and common for the time. Just as you can give MLK a pass, you should also give Harrison the same benefit of the doubt. 

1 hour ago, DEPACincy said:

 

So I should not trust his statements on the issue, and instead trust your INTERPRETATION of his statements. Because you know what is truly in his heart. It seems like Seelbach is not the one who is a slimeball. You guys are constantly doing the things that you accuse the other side of doing. It's really quite impressive.

Well, I did know him personally, so my impression of him is not based on what he does in the media. There are few people that I hold in such low regard, and he just happens to be one of them. 

[DEPACincy]

2 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

You have proved my point though. King was an influential leader but was also in an era that may not have been as enlightened in certain areas as people are today. Would he be different toward the LGBT community if he were alive today? probably. 

However, the same can be said for the likes of Harrison and other leaders of their time who may have condoned slavery as it was the law of the land and common for the time. Just as you can give MLK a pass, you should also give Harrison the same benefit of the doubt. 

 

Harrison was not someone who "may have condoned slavery as it was the law of the land and common for the time." The law of the land in the Northwest Territory was that slavery was BANNED. The leaders who wrote the Northwest Ordinance recognized years before Harrison became governor of the Indiana Territory that slavery was bad and should not be allowed. Harrison was an activist who fought FOR slavery. He tried to have the law changed to allow it. And he openly advocated for its expansion and against giving any rights to free black people. I don't know why that is so hard for you guys to understand. 

[Brutus_buckeye]

2 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Harrison was not someone who "may have condoned slavery as it was the law of the land and common for the time." The law of the land in the Northwest Territory was that slavery was BANNED. The leaders who wrote the Northwest Ordinance recognized years before Harrison became governor of the Indiana Territory that slavery was bad and should not be allowed. Harrison was an activist who fought FOR slavery. He tried to have the law changed to allow it. And he openly advocated for its expansion and against giving any rights to free black people. I don't know why that is so hard for you guys to understand. 

You clearly are missing the point. He advocated for an opinion at the time that was not accepted.  There was a schism in thought at the time, but at the same time, he was not fighting for something illegal. He was guilty of pushing the wrong thought in the marketplace, and he lost that battle. He is allowed to be wrong, nobody is perfect. He does not get honored with a statue for that. He gets a statue because he was president. The rest is left to the history books. 

 

[DEPACincy]

13 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

You clearly are missing the point. He advocated for an opinion at the time that was not accepted.  There was a schism in thought at the time, but at the same time, he was not fighting for something illegal. He was guilty of pushing the wrong thought in the marketplace, and he lost that battle. He is allowed to be wrong, nobody is perfect. He does not get honored with a statue for that. He gets a statue because he was president. The rest is left to the history books. 

 

 

No, YOU are missing the point. I can't believe I have to keep making it. He fought to make slavery LEGAL in a place that it was ILLEGAL. "He was not fighting for something illegal" is a LIE. And not only did he advocate for enslaving other human beings, he made it his premier policy position. His actions led to a CIVIL WAR. This is so dumb. I feel like you're just trolling at this point. 

[Brutus_buckeye]

I get the point completely, you seem to be the one with a revisionist sense of history. What i said was that he may have been on the wrong side of history on that issue, but that is not why he had a statue. It is much different than Confederate Generals who have statues and such because not only were they on the wrong side of history but their key accomplishment was fighting for that right. 

 

Harrison's act of being president of the US had nothing to do with fighting for slavery. They are separate parts of his life and separate points altogether. 

We can agree to disagree on this that is fine. As mentioned,  I think Seelbach is simply stirring the pot with his bully antics like he always does. 

[Jimmy Skinner]

Harrison was part of two significant battles against Tecumseh and the Shawnee without which Ohio would not have become a state.  We should have a statue of Tecumseh in the same park, and an explanatory plaque in the middle.

[DEPACincy]

3 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

No, YOU are missing the point. I can't believe I have to keep making it. He fought to make slavery LEGAL in a place that it was ILLEGAL. "He was not fighting for something illegal" is a LIE. And not only did he advocate for enslaving other human beings, he made it his premier policy position. His actions led to a CIVIL WAR. This is so dumb. I feel like you're just trolling at this point. 

 

This is why arguments with conservatives on this site are so stupid. @Brutus_buckeye @jmecklenborg we could have a legitimate discussion about whether his advocacy for slavery is disqualifying when it comes to whether or not he should be honored. You COULD take the position of "being a slavery advocate is not that bad" or "we should honor him despite the fact that his biggest achievement was fighting to expand slavery in the Northwest Territory" but you won't, because you actually understand that it is morally repugnant. Instead you guys try to lie about the actual facts and say "he just happened to own slaves," "he just inherited slaves," or "everybody had slaves back then." You cannot have your own facts guys. These are the facts:

 

1. William Henry Harrison was born in VA and lived in OH. 

2. He was president for only 31 days. A presidency where he had no significant policy achievements. 

3. He advocated and fought for the expansion of slavery into territory where it had already been decided that slavery was not going to be legal. 

4. He advocated for the denial of rights to free black people in a place where they had been granted those rights. 

5. He was out of step, morally, with the leaders of that era in the part of the country where he lived. Folks like Manasseh and Ephraim Cutler, Rufus Putnam, etc. recognized the evils of slavery and fought to have it excluded from the Northwest. 

6. His biggest achievements were fighting at Tippecanoe and advocating for slavery. 

7. Historians agree that his election and the subsequent elevation of John Tyler to the Presidency led directly to the Civil War. 

 

Ok, we cannot debate these things. They are facts. If you want to argue that he should still be honored, go ahead, tell me why. But do not tell me that was a product of his time, that he was "merely a slave owner," that he "just inherited slaves," or that slavery was tangential to who was or why he has been honored. Slavery earned him the Presidency. His fighting for it appealed to Southerners and got him elected. It is the defining characteristic of his legacy. So stop lying.