"The HOTTEST Places in HELL are RESERVED for
Those who in times of Great Moral Crises
MAINTAIN Their NEUTRALITY...
Dante

"Be an opener of doors for such as come after thee, and do not try to make the universe a blind alley."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

RE: Arts District Changes

A public hearing is being scheduled in May to address this issue.

Regards

Shawn W. Masters | Senior Partner

The Merlot Group, LLC

226 W Pike Street, Suite One

P.O. Box 302

Covington KY 41012-0302

859 743-1003 | Office

859 393-0383 | Mobile

866 397-6346 | Fax

smasters@merlotgroup.com

www.merlotgroup.com

From: Ken Smith [mailto:kensmithnky@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 12:11 PM
To: campaign@ricktrulley.com; carranbs@fuse.net; dunnandtitusky@netzero.net; fkuhlmann@fuse.net; fwarnock@covingtonky.com; jerrys501@hotmail.com; jksnyder@fuse.net; leapinlizzz@mac.com; lklein@covingtonky.gov; mayor@covingtonky.gov; mconnett@fuse.net; mrains@covingtonky.gov; paulalvin1950@yahoo.com; prescott_john@msn.com; raymond@murphyforcommissioner.com; scasper823@aol.com; smasters@merlotgroup.com; steveandnancy_frank@yahoo.com; swartman@enquirer.com
Subject: Arts District Changes

Covington Residents and Business Owners,

I am a resident of Greer Street in Mainstrasse, and I am very concerned about the recent proposal to create additional areas with late night bar hours. I first want to be clear that I am not opposed to bars or 2:30 licenses. I moved to Mainstrasse to take advantage of both, and I have enjoyed living there more than any place I have ever been. I do feel, however, that not every area of the city should be home to late night drinking as it can be disruptive to the residents and strains the police resources at closing time. I live a few hundred feet from Blue Bar, and parking is a nightmare most weekends already. I cannot begin to imagine having another entertainment district on the other side of my home.

I really appreciate that Blue Bar might be at a disadvantage not having a 2:30 liquor license, but so are a lot of bars like Chez Nora. I suspect the owners knew this when they bought the establishment.

I am also a huge supporter of the Arts District and fully recognize that there needs to be some changes to that zoning to allow more uses such as bakeries, etc. But to say late night drinking promotes the Arts or will attract the desired residents is beyond ridiculous. If folks who want to relocate to the Arts District cannot walk 5 blocks to Mainstrasse, I question their affinity for an urban lifestyle. I sincerely believe this is bad public policy and a personal agenda item.

Additionally, the irony of folks complaining about the bars in Mainstrasse now asking for changes to the law allowing longer hours for themselves is beyond laughable. Can we all not see this for what it is?

If someday the Arts District really takes off, then revisit the idea. Right now, I cannot imagine allowing 2:30 partying in that area. Is that really what we need? Is that the best plan we can come up with for revitalizing a neighborhood?

I have e-mailed the City Commission and Mayor about this issue outlining my concerns. While responses ranged from understanding to semi-polite dismissal to no response at all, I believe we can stop this if enough people become involved. This is an election year, and while the bar owners may have more funding to contribute than residents, we all have more votes. Chris Henry and I will be circulating petitions over the coming weeks asking for support in defeating this anti-resident proposal.

I would be more than happy to meet with anyone interested in helping with this effort. I blind carbon copied each of you (except the public officials and candidates). Please feel free to forward this message to anyone you know who might also be concerned by this proposed change.

Ken Smith
819 Greer Street

Dear Commissioners,

Thank you for hearing my comments last night about the zoning changes in the Arts and Technology Zone. I have some short, but very important points that I did not make last night. They are as follows:

The Blue Bar on Pike St. is the only reason that this 2:30 alcohol license issue is on the table.

Commissioner Shawn Masters has championed the 2:30 license issue for the Arts and Technology zone. I understand that he is close personal friends with the owners of the Blue Bar, is a regular patron there and I was told last week that he has considered purchasing part (or all) of that bar. If this is true, then his opinion should have no bearing on the Commission’s decision and he should recuse himself of any proceedings to avoid having a conflict of interest.

Two of the owners of the Blue Bar are Richard Kern and Jeff Snyder. They both spoke at the meeting last night. They purchased that bar knowing the restrictions of the current zoning. That was their due diligence prior to purchasing it.

Richard Kern down played the “bait and switch” part of my comments. “Bait and switch” is an important part of laws regarding fraud. It is not a “cute term.”

It is very disappointing that this City Commission voted last Tuesday to begin changing the zoning regulations regarding the 2:30 liquor licenses in the Arts and Technology Zone. At least one commissioner last night seemed unaware that these recommendations were involved in the vote last week. Do all of you really understand the ramifications of your votes?

Proponents of the change say that “young urban professionals” want to party until 2:30. I disagree. The “professional” ones go to bed at a reasonable time so that they can continue on their upward mobility pattern in the morning.

The original purpose of the Arts District was to have creative people purchase and renovate buildings with first floor commercial and their living quarters above. 2:30 alcohol licenses have nothing to do with this demographic.

2:30 liquor licenses are not very “arty or technological.” They are merely a means for people who own bars to sell more liquor to drunken patrons. This is not only an unsophisticated idea, but it’s dangerous, and one serious personal injury or worse stemming from late-night drinking will be all it takes to give the entire area a black eye.

The final comment last night by Richard Kern urged the commission to not stand in the way of “change.” Not allowing 2:30 liquor licenses would be the best “change” that the City of Covington could make.

Sincerely,

Rick Hoffman, Covington Clay

16 W. Pike St. Covington, KY 41011

Socio-Economic Re-Develepment

CCCC2010 - Connett 4 Covington City Commission

We're either Open for Business as the Capitol of The South Bank or We're just a quaint RiverCity tourist attraction for visitors to Greater Cincinnati... DownTown is the CBD, CAT, WDG, CONV, ENA, MGNA, ROMA, HLRSCA... north of 12th Street. Then there's UpTown between 12th & Levassor Park ...and on out the Madison Ave Corridor to the suburbs of Latonia & So Covington, bounded by the Licking River Greenway & the South Bank Commons!

Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction... The Chain reaction of evil --hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars-- must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.

Martin Luther King, Jr. - 1963

South Bank Steel Magnolia's CARE!

"I Got BEANed... @ The Haus in the Strasse! Come get Mint-ed on Derby Day!

Riverfront Commons

By now, many of you have read about the exciting new $50 million Riverfront Commons trail project. But there is more to this effort than a four-mile walking and bike path connecting Covington to Bellevue. The impact also extends to arts, culture, tourism and health in addition to the obvious economic impact.

South Bank News Briefs

Study: Aging gay couples face fiscal burden

Andrew Noyes, Gay.com/PlanetOut.com Network

Same-sex couples face colossal fiscal burdens as they age -- including the potential loss of tens of thousands of dollars in taxes and an average of $5,000 in yearly Social Security survivor benefits -- due to the denial of their right to marry, according to new research by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).

A report to be released on Monday by HRC and the Urban Institute reveals that "widows" and "widowers" are heavily taxed on any retirement plan like 401(k)s or IRAs inherited from their partners, while heterosexual spouses can inherit the plans tax-free. Homosexuals are also charged an estate tax on the inheritance of a residence even if it was jointly owned -- a burden inapplicable for straight couples.

Don Brescia and John Spinelli, both over age 65, realized the injustice early on and were able to plan for the future. "We took care of this a long time ago because we foresaw what was in the cards," Brescia said. "We each have our own health insurance [and] long-term care -- but we're paying double -- whereas a married couple would not."

Brescia and Spinelli, who have been together for 46 years, are angry with the way the laws stand. "We've always worked, and we've always been contributors to our community," Brescia maintains.

They both have Medicare and have secured their jointly owned property through living wills, titles and deeds, but acknowledge that many same-sex couples are not so lucky. Brescia estimates that 50 percent of gay couples they know did not have the prescience to plan ahead.

Military veterans Frank Benedetti and Gary Trowbridge, who have been a couple for over 40 years, echo Brescia's sentiment. "We've honored our country's commitments and we feel like we're being ignored," Benedetti said. "It makes me angry, and I feel betrayed because we're good citizens. We vote regularly, we give to charities, we're regular church goers -- we do everything right."

Benedetti and Trowbridge have joint rights of survivorship and have made all major purchases together. To play it safe, they always carry medical powers of attorney paperwork with them when they travel and routinely make doctor's appointments together. Both receive retirement pensions and neither would have access to the other's assets should one die.

Benedetti likened the inequality to the Jim Crow laws of the 1960s, which forbade blacks and whites to intermarry and required business owners to keep their black and white clientele separate.

"Most heterosexual people don't even think about this because they're used to it being there for them," Benedetti said. "This really isn't fair or just, and we discuss this subject with everybody we meet."

The report, based on Census 2000 data and federal laws affecting same-sex couples, also showed that more than 1 in 10 same-sex couples include someone over 65 years old, and nearly a fourth include a partner over 55 years old.

"Same-sex couples pay the same taxes as heterosexual couples throughout their working lives," HRC President Cheryl Jacques said in a press release. "Yet they are denied the same protections when they most need it -- in old age and when faced with the death of a family member. That's taxation without compensation."

The report concludes that equality in access to marriage would also bring equity to the taxation of and benefits for all seniors regardless of sexual orientation. Its authors suggest a series of independent steps needed to bring equity to gay, lesbian and bisexual seniors. Among them are rewriting Social Security, federal tax, Medicaid and property laws.

Additionally, the report reveals the five counties with the greatest number of same-sex couples that include at least one senior: Los Angeles County; Cook County, Ill., Kings County (Brooklyn), N.Y.; Broward County, Fla.; and Miami-Dade County, Fla.

Human Rights:

"Sexual Orientation" vs "Sexual Preference"

As those of us in attendance know, there were only two people who spoke in opposition to passing the revised "HUMAN RIGHTS" Ordinance at last nights public hearing. While it was indeed uplifting and hopeful to hear so many of our CommUNITY, friends and neighbors speak with great conviction, emotion and urgency that our Commissioners do the "right thing" and approve the ordinance, I think it important to address the concerns of those two opposing the measure.

To do that, however, one must consider the language or semantics that have been used to cloud the true issue. First and foremost, it is a HUMAN RIGHTS ordinance not a "Gay Rights" ordinance. Second, the contested change provides for protection against discrimination in the areas of Housing, Employment and Public Accommodations. Thirdly, the protection is afforded to a class of people based on Sexual Orientation, NOT Sexual Preference. What's the difference you may ask?

We speak of Human Rights as they relate to our humanity and certain inalienable rights that our Founding Fathers spoke of when they wrote those immortal words "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL". Since that time, when the signers of that magnificent document were all Straight(?) White Anglo Saxon Protestants, our beloved country has grown into a very diverse place. It is only right and just that as we have evolved as a nation, we have taken steps to re-interpret that document and affirm that we believe now as they did then that indeed, ALL HUMANITY IS CREATED EQUAL. A Human Rights ordinance does not serve to extend any special rights to any class of people, but merely to AFFIRM that all classes of people are equally entitled to those rights in the face of those who would regard themselves as superior or more entitled because of their own prejudices.

In regard to Housing, Employment and Public Accommodations, it takes no rights away from providers of those things to discriminate fairly or to choose the best applicant. If a landlord is a bigot and doesn't want to rent to me, I would rather him say so. Since coming "OUT" and endeavoring to live as one speaker said - "A full and honest life", I've always been upfront with prospective landlords and employers. And if any other business or public accommodation doesn't want my money that's just as green as the next guy's, it's their loss not mine. Personally, I want to reserve my right to discriminate against their prejudices and not do business with or work for them anyway. In any case, especially Housing, there are so many other ways that people can discriminate legally if they so choose. My own personal experience in Covington's rental market as someone who is Gay, HIV+ and on disability, is that I experience more discrimination in Housing -legally- as a holder of a Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher than as a Gay or disabled person.

"Sexual Orientation" refers to the recognized scientific, civil and humane notion that who one is attracted to is as immutable as skin color. On the other hand, "Sexual Preference" refers to things like doing it in a public park. As far as I know, irregardless of Sexual Orientation, that is an illegal activity. The ordinance does not grant immunity or protection of ANY KIND against any act so deemed AGAINST THE LAW. The majority of us in the GLBT Community are just as offended as any other citizens by such actions. I firmly believe that if we make that clear, we will calm the fears of the Grandfather who likes to frequent Devou Park with his grandchildren.

Unfortunately, what the ordinance will do nothing about is the personal prejudices the other opposition speaker unabashedly admitted to: "Believe it or not, there are still some people out there, as archaic as it may sound, who still believe that a family consists of a daddy and a mommy and a couple of kids. And anything other than that, they find objectionable".

Michael W. Connett - Covington, Ky.

Outside show is a poor substitute

for inner worth." --Aesop