January 7, 2026 • 17 mins
In his inauguration address, Mayor Aftab Purevall proposed raising the city income tax to pay for increasing policing costs. Councilmember Jeff Cramerding joins Scott to give his thoughts on the mayor's proposal, and if the tax increase has a shot at passing council.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Do you want to be an American? Good morning, Scott's
sold with you here seven hundred W. Wellwy. And grinding
it out.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Along with your getting ready for midweek here already first
week almost in the books, or at least halfway there.
Speaker 1 (00:13):
I'm being an optimist. I've been an optimist.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
This kind dropped yesterday during the swearing in of many
city officials. In order to address a thirty two million
dollar budget deficit in the coming fiscal year, Mayor after
a Purevall, wants city Council to place an income tax,
a payroll income tax, on the twenty twenty six ballot,
meaning if you work in the city, you will get
an extra tax.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
There.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
The money is going to go towards public safety and
what he called disrupting poverty whatever that means, affordable housing,
investment in the underserved neighborhood, support for minority owned business
and like Jeff Kramerding is here, council member and of
course chair Budget and Finance. Happy New year, Jeff, welcome back.
Good to have you. Hope you had a good break.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
I did. Happy New Year. It's great to be back.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Yeah, all right, So there's a lot going on here.
I think people will immediately hear new taxes and they blosh.
The big picture is compared to peer cities, hell, compared
to Ohio cities, Cincinnati is still pretty good. Now, I'll
put a astros next to that, simply because we also
have the county taxes we have. You know, pot property
taxes are driving people crazy. Right now, we're paying museum taxes,
(01:17):
school tech and let you add it all up, and
it's a pretty good chunk of money. But the bird's
eye view is that comparatively speaking among peer city, Cincinnati
is still pretty good on this right.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
Yeah. I mean, just from the city and perspective, we
are very good. You know, all of our most of
our revenue comes from the Arnis tax. We're at one
point eight. All of our peer cities in IRA at
two point five, So there's substantially bringing in a higher
tax rates than we do in the city.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
Of same time, though, you look at how much people
are going to pay more in property taxes and you
just you feel the bite. You can look at the
numbers and go, hey, that's great, but it seems like
I'm paying way more than that I should be at
this point, and I'm sure you're sensitive to that.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
I am I understand. I understand that, and in going
to or door and talking to voters that that is
a dynamic. But you have citizens that are frustrated by
you know, by by litter and by other issues, and
you say, well, we've got to keep our earn tacks
artificially low. But the tacks are too high. So that
(02:20):
puts us in a very difficult spot. But it is
the reality, and I understand it well.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
And I think this is again the timing of this
is kind of suspect too, or maybe not prime, and
that is we just had the shooting of that eleven
year old girl on New Year's Day at Laurel Park,
and two and a half years ago we had another
eleven year old boy that time murdered at the same park.
And the idea in September was, hey, we're going to
appropriate all this money five point four million towards public safety,
(02:46):
which may add to this issue of the thirty two
million dollar budget episodell get into a second, but the
takeaway I think for residents is whole hold on just
a second. We were spending this money. You gave you
one hundred fifty million to put CAM one hundred and
fifty thousand, rather put cameras in around this park, and
we haven't done that, and no one knows why, and
no one knows where the money is, and there are
a lot of unanswered questions I had, and all beyond yesterday.
(03:08):
She was confused by this. I'm sure you are as well.
And so the optics of this, said Jeff Gramerding, are that, well, great,
they're going to take more money in my paycheck. But
are they actually responsible with the money that I'm giving them?
Speaker 1 (03:18):
Now, that's a fair question for yes.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
First, I mean, what happened to the children is just unbelievable,
a terrible trategy that has to be addressed. It's important
that this has been and this has been a long
term conversation. It has to be. This conversation began with
the Cincinnati Future Session when business and civic leaders came
(03:42):
and looked at the city's budgets. The report, which was
very thorough which people should look at as a since
the Future Commission I came out in twenty twenty four
and said that there is a very real need. The
city's budget is not sustainable and they recommended two earnings
access one point five to sustained the city's budget and
(04:04):
one oh point one for housing economic development. So this
work has been ongoing for two years plus, from my perspective,
is dragged and it needs to be picked up and
needs to be at a more deliberate pace. And this
conversation is not directly related to what happened to the
(04:26):
tragic incidents.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
Yeah, it isn't, but I think of the minds of
voters like, well, wait a minute, there's no accountability for
the money that was already allocated for the cameras and
now we've got literally have blood on hands, is a sense,
because I don't know if it would have prevented the
murder of this poor girl, this child. But it's certainly
not good from an optics perspective that one hundred and
fifty thousand dollars supposed to go to cameras and no
one knows who is responsible, why it's taking some there's
(04:51):
just literally no answers. And then you come back saying, hey,
by the way, we're gonna hit you with a payroll tax.
It's not a good look.
Speaker 3 (04:57):
Yeah, I understand that. And once again it's important to
frame this in the big picture and what this money
will go for. Keep in mind that the futures commissioning
a very small earning stack, that's to still a hole,
that's an existing gap in our budget. So I want
to be very cautious. You know, if we're talking about
(05:17):
a very small earning stack, we're talking about filling that
whole continuing service as there is. There's certainly no money
for increased police or increased fire or increase public safety.
So I mean, we just need to be very careful
what we're promising and frame this very important large to beate.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Okay, so people hear this and go, all right, public safety, Yeah,
we got to spend there. And disrupting poverty and neighborhood
investment and affordable housing is big. But disrupting poverty and
support for minority owned businesses and people and desertively, So
look at it and go, what talk about accountability? Where's
that money going? Is it more programs? Is it is
(05:55):
it satisides? Is it just unaccounted for cash and we're
gonna we're going to pay off some people basically disrupting poverty. Going, Okay,
it's one of the root causes of violence. But I
also think that that is demeaning in a sense, Jeff,
because the idea is if you're poor, you're going to
turn to criminal activity, and that's just simply not true. Yeah,
a lot of the people who commit crimes are poor,
but there's a lot of people who are below the
(06:17):
poverty line are close to it, that are suffering, that
don't resport to criminal activity. The idea that we have
to pay people not to rob is I think that's insulting.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
I agree, and I think as far as we talked
about part of your expects used to fill a whole
and part of it will it would be looking back
to since the Future Commission talking about economic development and housing,
they proposed a point one for economic development housing. The
largest bucket of money I was for housing economic development
in neighborhoods like Christville and Bonto where the city Sycay
(06:50):
does not have the resources to create the development that
we want. So I think that I development like that,
proactive positivelopment is critical is the foundation for of any
crime and that's what that should be the core around
any earning stack in any conversations throughound earning stack increase.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
Council Member Jeff Cramerting, a Chair Budget and Finance, talking
about the proposed payroll tax that I have to have
mentioned yesterday and you got about I think sixty days
to come up with a plan for this whole thing.
Correct me if I'm wrong with the city. We operated
without deficits through COVID and ore's federal money there too.
But what specifically changed in the past year to create
this thirty two million dollar hole. The rumor is it's
(07:28):
police overtime, it's the crime issue.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
I would say that that that's not correct. Police overtime
is a big factor. But you know, this is the
city's budget being unbalanced is the reason I decided to
run for council four years ago. This, you know, you know,
going back, and this is in the Futures Commission. We've
been operating on about a twenty five million dollar deficit
a year and a year out and we always find
(07:54):
a way to paper overage. And this is going back,
you know ten years ago. Now the state government cut
what is called the state and local government bucks the
City of Cincinnati. It hurt other cities, That hurt all
the townships and townships and cities had to make tough decisions.
They had either had to raise taxes or they had
to cut services. Painful, but they did here in the city,
(08:16):
sin Sanni. I say, we did what we always do
the city Sincanni. We put our head in the sand
and hope the problem would go away. But it had.
So this problem has continued to grow a year and
every year. You mentioned the federal stimulus dollars. We had
that money from Washington, which let us paper it over
for a couple of years. After that. From a revenue perspective,
the city has just said boom years the last couple
(08:36):
of years, and that's let us payer over this deficits.
But the problem remains. So we can either be proactive
and address it now or wait till there's a recession,
which will happen at some point and the city's be
looking at very very real cuts and basic city services
and possibly layoffs. So that's the reason I want to
get proactive. Put a proposal in front of the voters,
(08:57):
give them all the information, put our budget out there,
which I understand nobody's aware of the realities right now.
We need to make voters citizens aware of that and
let them make a conscientious decisions.
Speaker 1 (09:08):
All right.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
So, Lyndon Baines Johnson declared the War on Poverty back
in the nineteen sixties. We saw how that worked out.
Yesterday the mayor Aftered Puirreval said, this money, the thirty
two million, good chunk of that is going to go
to public safe but also disrupting poverty.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
What does that mean?
Speaker 3 (09:25):
Can talk about what disrupting poverty means to him? From
my perspective, any earning sect needs fous on housing economics,
development in neighbors where there's not development occurring. To me,
that will be critical to turning around his neighbors and
reducing crime. That's where I'm going to be as this
conversation develops, and that's where I would encourage others to be.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
Yeah, that just kind of scares me because that's just like, Okay,
it feels good, but what does that mean disrupting We're
trying to disrupt and pay people not to be poor
for a long time. It's not working jobs in the initiative.
Work seems to be a bigger issue, and certainly a
sfordable housing fits into that as well. And I think
people hear that and they're a little bit curious at
the very least as to where their money is going
(10:07):
to wind up going, because it doesn't hit you in
the pocketbook. So if crime doesn't drop, or we don't
crush poverty, which isn't going to happen in affordable housing
has not as materializes, how are you going to measure
that success? You know it, we'll put throw money at it.
But it seems there's again back to the accountability issue.
I think that that's critical here and that seems to
be a thread throughout the conversations we have, whether it's
(10:29):
poverty or crime is we'll take the money, will spend it,
but there doesn't seem to be that much accountability.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
If it doesn't work out, what happens, I.
Speaker 3 (10:36):
Think, well, first of all, I think people should look
at the futures submission because I think that there is
a lot in there, and I think that we'll tell
people that this is a very solid foundation to begin
this conversation. You know, there's some stuff in there that
is probably gonna be a non starter. There's definitely there
is recommendations for a trash acts. There was a recommendations
(10:56):
to sell some golf courses and green spaces. We received
a lot of negative and immediate feedback on those proposals,
so we heard residents. But I think there is a
lot and that people will like and will lead to
positive change in the neighborhood. And that's me part of
the conversation and how you structure it. When we did
the railroad sale, we promised to put all that money
(11:19):
into trust and lock boxes. That's been overwhelming successful. I
think every degree that was a wise move. That money
is still in a lock box protected by city ordinance
and state ordans. So if you're talking about an earning
sex economic development, how thing you could do it the
same way. So, yes, how we do this is be
very important. The accountabilities can be very important, and that's
(11:40):
me part of the conversation. That has to be part
of the conversation.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
Where's the line Je crame and doing this right and
then driving people away. If you make seventy five grand,
you're going to pay something like one hundred and ten
extra a year, one hundred and fifties to twenty five.
We're crunching some numbers in the newsroom and this is
outline obviously, but someone like Hunter Green would pay an
extra sixty seventy thousand dollars here because of this? Is
(12:03):
there a concern you're going to drive out the desperately
needed quote unquote rich people that we often, I wait,
just tax the rich more. But what happens is we
saw in New York and other areas they move out
is Kentucky Mason and are they becoming more attractive to
people who are hiringcome earners and what does that mean
for this?
Speaker 3 (12:23):
Yeah, I think there's there's two points. First of all,
the business community I believe in the city is very
sensites that are for business leaders like Tim Spence. It's
a third to come together and say, yes, this modest
tax increase, this modest earning tax increase makes sense. I
think that is a lot when business leaders say this
makes sense, we need this development, we need some more money.
(12:45):
So that was the first thing. I think having the
business community involved at the outset without politicians is critically important.
And secondly, I'll point out, as we discussed at the
outset that our earning SAX is much lower than any
of our city. So you know, using that logic, every
everybody's choosing Cincinnati over Columbus and Cleveland. Even with these increases,
(13:07):
this takes me much lower than those other cities. So
we'll still be winning compared to our other peers.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
Right, Yeah, honesty, that's fair too, is that you know,
business is moving out, and that's what the concern is.
We've seen some high profile businesses move and it might
be because of crime, but this just adds another reason
to do that.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
That's the scary part for you guys.
Speaker 3 (13:25):
Yeah, I agree with you, don't like to raise taxes.
That's a factor. But I think, uh, having a safe,
vibor liberal city is going to be more important for
businesses and equally important for potential employees than a sect.
But that's only part of the conversation looking forward. I
don't want to west over that and say it's not
(13:47):
a factor. It's definitely got to be part of the
conversation as we've perceived for the next couple of months.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
Yeah, is the is the timing on this a little
bit sus in the sense that hey, you just got
re elected, things are great, and now we're going to
hit you with this tax took literally days the same
day that everyone is has been sworn in.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
They want to get this going within sixty days.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
So the report came out in the spring of twenty
twenty four. There was a conversation about going to about
into twenty four two years ago, there is a conversation
about going to about in twenty twenty five last year
when we are on the ballot and there is never
enough consensus to do that, which is fine, this has
(14:28):
to be done right, but you know, raising taxes, talking
about taxes is present. There's never going to be a
perfect time. So at some point of the city we're
going to have to decide to do this, be bold
and aggressive and put something before the voters. You know
as a politician that this is not going to be popular,
This is not going to be this is not going
(14:49):
to be a fun conversation. I realized that I knew
what I was getting into, but it's one that the
city has to have. So I am not wedded to
going in the spring or the all. But you know,
I will point out that this is now drug lunch
for two years. I want to get it right. And
if there's hard conversations going on, if people around the
table really look at this, that's fine. But if we're
(15:11):
just waiting for the sake of waiting, then I think
that's unacceptable.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
One of the things the Futures Commission call FORER was
a trash collection fee.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
It's never been done.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
Resalizing the water works that's going to require voter approval obviously,
and those are difficult politically because it just feels like,
you know, hey, here's another tax. One of those go
on the belt because voters might might ask reasonably, why
should we approve a tax increase, wanting to try other
revenue options.
Speaker 1 (15:35):
The Future's Commission recommended.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
Yeah, so there's a lot of recommendations. As I said,
I mean, I will not lie. The trash check received
a lot of negative feedback. So you know, I've noted
that waterworks. You know, that's very complex. It's going to
take a lot of steps. That's not a tax, but
some sort of regionalizing water works and so it's not
(15:58):
solely under the city. You know, if that's complex, but
there's no reason we should not start that conversation. These
are again difficult conversations, but you know, we're here to
have difficult conversations. So I think I know that before
this conversation, people are going to want to know that
many things are ongoing, including looking at water, including looking
into the pension system, solvents. The Office of Strategic Growth
(16:22):
definitely was a focused point of the Futures Commission that
has not been done. I would expect there to be
quick progress on that front before this thing get gets
to memental because that's one a critical item that was
in the Future Commission. There are other items in there
that are equally important that we can have to have
progress on to make this work.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
Yeah, and the Future Commission did their report. You got
sixty days to put something together per the mayor to
get it to voters. Hopefully it becomes more clear because
we honestly deserve to know what disrupting poverty means. And
you know, neighborhood investment and support for businesses and that
those are all vague and there's got to be more
specifics to that whole thing. Otherwise it just feels like, hey,
(17:02):
you're asking for money and there's going to be no accountability.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
Hopefully you can get that address.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Jeff Cramerton share a Budget and Finance of the City
of Cincinnati Council Member.
Speaker 1 (17:09):
Thanks again for the time. Appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
Ah, it's great, great to be with you and your listeners.
Speaker 1 (17:13):
See.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
Well, thanks, We've got to get a news update in
and I know it's coming at you in all directions.
The big picture, of course is yeah, these city taxes
are relatively low compared to other cities in Ohio and
certainly peer cities, so there's room there, but no one
wants to pay more taxes, and especially you know, with
property taxes and the county digging into your pocket a
(17:34):
little bit more. You know, you start talking about, now
I gotta pay for trash, I gotta pay for this,
that it all adds up, even though the technical it's not.
You know, it's just another tax I don't care what
they call it, but it just feels that way, and perception,
of course, is reality.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
Saloney seven hundred WLW
Do you want to be an American? Good morning, Scott's
sold with you here seven hundred W. Wellwy. And grinding
it out.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Along with your getting ready for midweek here already first
week almost in the books, or at least halfway there.
Speaker 1 (00:13):
I'm being an optimist. I've been an optimist.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
This kind dropped yesterday during the swearing in of many
city officials. In order to address a thirty two million
dollar budget deficit in the coming fiscal year, Mayor after
a Purevall, wants city Council to place an income tax,
a payroll income tax, on the twenty twenty six ballot,
meaning if you work in the city, you will get
an extra tax.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
There.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
The money is going to go towards public safety and
what he called disrupting poverty whatever that means, affordable housing,
investment in the underserved neighborhood, support for minority owned business
and like Jeff Kramerding is here, council member and of
course chair Budget and Finance. Happy New year, Jeff, welcome back.
Good to have you. Hope you had a good break.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
I did. Happy New Year. It's great to be back.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Yeah, all right, So there's a lot going on here.
I think people will immediately hear new taxes and they blosh.
The big picture is compared to peer cities, hell, compared
to Ohio cities, Cincinnati is still pretty good. Now, I'll
put a astros next to that, simply because we also
have the county taxes we have. You know, pot property
taxes are driving people crazy. Right now, we're paying museum taxes,
(01:17):
school tech and let you add it all up, and
it's a pretty good chunk of money. But the bird's
eye view is that comparatively speaking among peer city, Cincinnati
is still pretty good on this right.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
Yeah. I mean, just from the city and perspective, we
are very good. You know, all of our most of
our revenue comes from the Arnis tax. We're at one
point eight. All of our peer cities in IRA at
two point five, So there's substantially bringing in a higher
tax rates than we do in the city.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
Of same time, though, you look at how much people
are going to pay more in property taxes and you
just you feel the bite. You can look at the
numbers and go, hey, that's great, but it seems like
I'm paying way more than that I should be at
this point, and I'm sure you're sensitive to that.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
I am I understand. I understand that, and in going
to or door and talking to voters that that is
a dynamic. But you have citizens that are frustrated by
you know, by by litter and by other issues, and
you say, well, we've got to keep our earn tacks
artificially low. But the tacks are too high. So that
(02:20):
puts us in a very difficult spot. But it is
the reality, and I understand it well.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
And I think this is again the timing of this
is kind of suspect too, or maybe not prime, and
that is we just had the shooting of that eleven
year old girl on New Year's Day at Laurel Park,
and two and a half years ago we had another
eleven year old boy that time murdered at the same park.
And the idea in September was, hey, we're going to
appropriate all this money five point four million towards public safety,
(02:46):
which may add to this issue of the thirty two
million dollar budget episodell get into a second, but the
takeaway I think for residents is whole hold on just
a second. We were spending this money. You gave you
one hundred fifty million to put CAM one hundred and
fifty thousand, rather put cameras in around this park, and
we haven't done that, and no one knows why, and
no one knows where the money is, and there are
a lot of unanswered questions I had, and all beyond yesterday.
(03:08):
She was confused by this. I'm sure you are as well.
And so the optics of this, said Jeff Gramerding, are that, well, great,
they're going to take more money in my paycheck. But
are they actually responsible with the money that I'm giving them?
Speaker 1 (03:18):
Now, that's a fair question for yes.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
First, I mean, what happened to the children is just unbelievable,
a terrible trategy that has to be addressed. It's important
that this has been and this has been a long
term conversation. It has to be. This conversation began with
the Cincinnati Future Session when business and civic leaders came
(03:42):
and looked at the city's budgets. The report, which was
very thorough which people should look at as a since
the Future Commission I came out in twenty twenty four
and said that there is a very real need. The
city's budget is not sustainable and they recommended two earnings
access one point five to sustained the city's budget and
(04:04):
one oh point one for housing economic development. So this
work has been ongoing for two years plus, from my perspective,
is dragged and it needs to be picked up and
needs to be at a more deliberate pace. And this
conversation is not directly related to what happened to the
(04:26):
tragic incidents.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
Yeah, it isn't, but I think of the minds of
voters like, well, wait a minute, there's no accountability for
the money that was already allocated for the cameras and
now we've got literally have blood on hands, is a sense,
because I don't know if it would have prevented the
murder of this poor girl, this child. But it's certainly
not good from an optics perspective that one hundred and
fifty thousand dollars supposed to go to cameras and no
one knows who is responsible, why it's taking some there's
(04:51):
just literally no answers. And then you come back saying, hey,
by the way, we're gonna hit you with a payroll tax.
It's not a good look.
Speaker 3 (04:57):
Yeah, I understand that. And once again it's important to
frame this in the big picture and what this money
will go for. Keep in mind that the futures commissioning
a very small earning stack, that's to still a hole,
that's an existing gap in our budget. So I want
to be very cautious. You know, if we're talking about
(05:17):
a very small earning stack, we're talking about filling that
whole continuing service as there is. There's certainly no money
for increased police or increased fire or increase public safety.
So I mean, we just need to be very careful
what we're promising and frame this very important large to beate.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Okay, so people hear this and go, all right, public safety, Yeah,
we got to spend there. And disrupting poverty and neighborhood
investment and affordable housing is big. But disrupting poverty and
support for minority owned businesses and people and desertively, So
look at it and go, what talk about accountability? Where's
that money going? Is it more programs? Is it is
(05:55):
it satisides? Is it just unaccounted for cash and we're
gonna we're going to pay off some people basically disrupting poverty. Going, Okay,
it's one of the root causes of violence. But I
also think that that is demeaning in a sense, Jeff,
because the idea is if you're poor, you're going to
turn to criminal activity, and that's just simply not true. Yeah,
a lot of the people who commit crimes are poor,
but there's a lot of people who are below the
(06:17):
poverty line are close to it, that are suffering, that
don't resport to criminal activity. The idea that we have
to pay people not to rob is I think that's insulting.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
I agree, and I think as far as we talked
about part of your expects used to fill a whole
and part of it will it would be looking back
to since the Future Commission talking about economic development and housing,
they proposed a point one for economic development housing. The
largest bucket of money I was for housing economic development
in neighborhoods like Christville and Bonto where the city Sycay
(06:50):
does not have the resources to create the development that
we want. So I think that I development like that,
proactive positivelopment is critical is the foundation for of any
crime and that's what that should be the core around
any earning stack in any conversations throughound earning stack increase.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
Council Member Jeff Cramerting, a Chair Budget and Finance, talking
about the proposed payroll tax that I have to have
mentioned yesterday and you got about I think sixty days
to come up with a plan for this whole thing.
Correct me if I'm wrong with the city. We operated
without deficits through COVID and ore's federal money there too.
But what specifically changed in the past year to create
this thirty two million dollar hole. The rumor is it's
(07:28):
police overtime, it's the crime issue.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
I would say that that that's not correct. Police overtime
is a big factor. But you know, this is the
city's budget being unbalanced is the reason I decided to
run for council four years ago. This, you know, you know,
going back, and this is in the Futures Commission. We've
been operating on about a twenty five million dollar deficit
a year and a year out and we always find
(07:54):
a way to paper overage. And this is going back,
you know ten years ago. Now the state government cut
what is called the state and local government bucks the
City of Cincinnati. It hurt other cities, That hurt all
the townships and townships and cities had to make tough decisions.
They had either had to raise taxes or they had
to cut services. Painful, but they did here in the city,
(08:16):
sin Sanni. I say, we did what we always do
the city Sincanni. We put our head in the sand
and hope the problem would go away. But it had.
So this problem has continued to grow a year and
every year. You mentioned the federal stimulus dollars. We had
that money from Washington, which let us paper it over
for a couple of years. After that. From a revenue perspective,
the city has just said boom years the last couple
(08:36):
of years, and that's let us payer over this deficits.
But the problem remains. So we can either be proactive
and address it now or wait till there's a recession,
which will happen at some point and the city's be
looking at very very real cuts and basic city services
and possibly layoffs. So that's the reason I want to
get proactive. Put a proposal in front of the voters,
(08:57):
give them all the information, put our budget out there,
which I understand nobody's aware of the realities right now.
We need to make voters citizens aware of that and
let them make a conscientious decisions.
Speaker 1 (09:08):
All right.
Speaker 2 (09:08):
So, Lyndon Baines Johnson declared the War on Poverty back
in the nineteen sixties. We saw how that worked out.
Yesterday the mayor Aftered Puirreval said, this money, the thirty
two million, good chunk of that is going to go
to public safe but also disrupting poverty.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
What does that mean?
Speaker 3 (09:25):
Can talk about what disrupting poverty means to him? From
my perspective, any earning sect needs fous on housing economics,
development in neighbors where there's not development occurring. To me,
that will be critical to turning around his neighbors and
reducing crime. That's where I'm going to be as this
conversation develops, and that's where I would encourage others to be.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
Yeah, that just kind of scares me because that's just like, Okay,
it feels good, but what does that mean disrupting We're
trying to disrupt and pay people not to be poor
for a long time. It's not working jobs in the initiative.
Work seems to be a bigger issue, and certainly a
sfordable housing fits into that as well. And I think
people hear that and they're a little bit curious at
the very least as to where their money is going
(10:07):
to wind up going, because it doesn't hit you in
the pocketbook. So if crime doesn't drop, or we don't
crush poverty, which isn't going to happen in affordable housing
has not as materializes, how are you going to measure
that success? You know it, we'll put throw money at it.
But it seems there's again back to the accountability issue.
I think that that's critical here and that seems to
be a thread throughout the conversations we have, whether it's
(10:29):
poverty or crime is we'll take the money, will spend it,
but there doesn't seem to be that much accountability.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
If it doesn't work out, what happens, I.
Speaker 3 (10:36):
Think, well, first of all, I think people should look
at the futures submission because I think that there is
a lot in there, and I think that we'll tell
people that this is a very solid foundation to begin
this conversation. You know, there's some stuff in there that
is probably gonna be a non starter. There's definitely there
is recommendations for a trash acts. There was a recommendations
(10:56):
to sell some golf courses and green spaces. We received
a lot of negative and immediate feedback on those proposals,
so we heard residents. But I think there is a
lot and that people will like and will lead to
positive change in the neighborhood. And that's me part of
the conversation and how you structure it. When we did
the railroad sale, we promised to put all that money
(11:19):
into trust and lock boxes. That's been overwhelming successful. I
think every degree that was a wise move. That money
is still in a lock box protected by city ordinance
and state ordans. So if you're talking about an earning
sex economic development, how thing you could do it the
same way. So, yes, how we do this is be
very important. The accountabilities can be very important, and that's
(11:40):
me part of the conversation. That has to be part
of the conversation.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
Where's the line Je crame and doing this right and
then driving people away. If you make seventy five grand,
you're going to pay something like one hundred and ten
extra a year, one hundred and fifties to twenty five.
We're crunching some numbers in the newsroom and this is
outline obviously, but someone like Hunter Green would pay an
extra sixty seventy thousand dollars here because of this? Is
(12:03):
there a concern you're going to drive out the desperately
needed quote unquote rich people that we often, I wait,
just tax the rich more. But what happens is we
saw in New York and other areas they move out
is Kentucky Mason and are they becoming more attractive to
people who are hiringcome earners and what does that mean
for this?
Speaker 3 (12:23):
Yeah, I think there's there's two points. First of all,
the business community I believe in the city is very
sensites that are for business leaders like Tim Spence. It's
a third to come together and say, yes, this modest
tax increase, this modest earning tax increase makes sense. I
think that is a lot when business leaders say this
makes sense, we need this development, we need some more money.
(12:45):
So that was the first thing. I think having the
business community involved at the outset without politicians is critically important.
And secondly, I'll point out, as we discussed at the
outset that our earning SAX is much lower than any
of our city. So you know, using that logic, every
everybody's choosing Cincinnati over Columbus and Cleveland. Even with these increases,
(13:07):
this takes me much lower than those other cities. So
we'll still be winning compared to our other peers.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
Right, Yeah, honesty, that's fair too, is that you know,
business is moving out, and that's what the concern is.
We've seen some high profile businesses move and it might
be because of crime, but this just adds another reason
to do that.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
That's the scary part for you guys.
Speaker 3 (13:25):
Yeah, I agree with you, don't like to raise taxes.
That's a factor. But I think, uh, having a safe,
vibor liberal city is going to be more important for
businesses and equally important for potential employees than a sect.
But that's only part of the conversation looking forward. I
don't want to west over that and say it's not
(13:47):
a factor. It's definitely got to be part of the
conversation as we've perceived for the next couple of months.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
Yeah, is the is the timing on this a little
bit sus in the sense that hey, you just got
re elected, things are great, and now we're going to
hit you with this tax took literally days the same
day that everyone is has been sworn in.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
They want to get this going within sixty days.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
So the report came out in the spring of twenty
twenty four. There was a conversation about going to about
into twenty four two years ago, there is a conversation
about going to about in twenty twenty five last year
when we are on the ballot and there is never
enough consensus to do that, which is fine, this has
(14:28):
to be done right, but you know, raising taxes, talking
about taxes is present. There's never going to be a
perfect time. So at some point of the city we're
going to have to decide to do this, be bold
and aggressive and put something before the voters. You know
as a politician that this is not going to be popular,
This is not going to be this is not going
(14:49):
to be a fun conversation. I realized that I knew
what I was getting into, but it's one that the
city has to have. So I am not wedded to
going in the spring or the all. But you know,
I will point out that this is now drug lunch
for two years. I want to get it right. And
if there's hard conversations going on, if people around the
table really look at this, that's fine. But if we're
(15:11):
just waiting for the sake of waiting, then I think
that's unacceptable.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
One of the things the Futures Commission call FORER was
a trash collection fee.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
It's never been done.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
Resalizing the water works that's going to require voter approval obviously,
and those are difficult politically because it just feels like,
you know, hey, here's another tax. One of those go
on the belt because voters might might ask reasonably, why
should we approve a tax increase, wanting to try other
revenue options.
Speaker 1 (15:35):
The Future's Commission recommended.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
Yeah, so there's a lot of recommendations. As I said,
I mean, I will not lie. The trash check received
a lot of negative feedback. So you know, I've noted
that waterworks. You know, that's very complex. It's going to
take a lot of steps. That's not a tax, but
some sort of regionalizing water works and so it's not
(15:58):
solely under the city. You know, if that's complex, but
there's no reason we should not start that conversation. These
are again difficult conversations, but you know, we're here to
have difficult conversations. So I think I know that before
this conversation, people are going to want to know that
many things are ongoing, including looking at water, including looking
into the pension system, solvents. The Office of Strategic Growth
(16:22):
definitely was a focused point of the Futures Commission that
has not been done. I would expect there to be
quick progress on that front before this thing get gets
to memental because that's one a critical item that was
in the Future Commission. There are other items in there
that are equally important that we can have to have
progress on to make this work.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
Yeah, and the Future Commission did their report. You got
sixty days to put something together per the mayor to
get it to voters. Hopefully it becomes more clear because
we honestly deserve to know what disrupting poverty means. And
you know, neighborhood investment and support for businesses and that
those are all vague and there's got to be more
specifics to that whole thing. Otherwise it just feels like, hey,
(17:02):
you're asking for money and there's going to be no accountability.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
Hopefully you can get that address.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Jeff Cramerton share a Budget and Finance of the City
of Cincinnati Council Member.
Speaker 1 (17:09):
Thanks again for the time. Appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
Ah, it's great, great to be with you and your listeners.
Speaker 1 (17:13):
See.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
Well, thanks, We've got to get a news update in
and I know it's coming at you in all directions.
The big picture, of course is yeah, these city taxes
are relatively low compared to other cities in Ohio and
certainly peer cities, so there's room there, but no one
wants to pay more taxes, and especially you know, with
property taxes and the county digging into your pocket a
(17:34):
little bit more. You know, you start talking about, now
I gotta pay for trash, I gotta pay for this,
that it all adds up, even though the technical it's not.
You know, it's just another tax I don't care what
they call it, but it just feels that way, and perception,
of course, is reality.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
Saloney seven hundred WLW
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Two Guys, Five Rings: Matt, Bowen & The Olympics
Two Guys (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers). Five Rings (you know, from the Olympics logo). One essential podcast for the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics. Bowen Yang (SNL, Wicked) and Matt Rogers (Palm Royale, No Good Deed) of Las Culturistas are back for a second season of Two Guys, Five Rings, a collaboration with NBC Sports and iHeartRadio. In this 15-episode event, Bowen and Matt discuss the top storylines, obsess over Italian culture, and find out what really goes on in the Olympic Village.