BY LUCY MAY
The Cincinnati Enquirer
Tens of thousands of angry taxpayers force a vote on a stadium decision made by Hamilton County commissioners.
A campaign begins, with the petitioners declaring themselves the little guys fighting Cincinnati's big-business interests. The group working to uphold the commissioners' decision argues the vote isn't about sports, it's about the community's future. Sound familiar?
This year's Issue 11 campaign, which is seen as a referendum between a new Reds stadium at Broadway Commons or on the riverfront, echoes some of the themes of the Issue 1 effort of 1996, when Hamilton County voters approved a half-cent-on-a-dollar county sales tax increase to build new homes for the Bengals and the Reds.
It's not surprising that the two campaigns resemble each other, said Stephen Bennett, a political science professor at the University of Cincinnati.
"It's not so much a case of monkey-see, monkey-do," he said. "You use what works. Or, if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Issue 11 would create a charter form of government in Hamilton County. The charter would say county commissioners can spend tax money for a new Reds stadium only at Broadway and Reading Road, the Broadway Commons site.
Adoption of the charter would effectively overturn a decision by county commissioners to build a new Reds stadium on the riverfront, in an area between the Roebling Suspension Bridge and The Crown.
Backers of Broadway Commons hatched the idea for the charter amendment after the county and Reds agreed to the riverfront -- much as a citizen initiative forced a vote on the tax itself in 1996. The campaign pushing a "yes" vote this year considers itself very different from the anti-tax group in 1996 that lost its fight against Issue 1.
"The supporters of Broadway Commons are equal baseball fanatics to any of the supporters of Baseball on Main or the "Wedge,' " said Tim Burke, chairman of the Hamilton County Democratic Party, which has endorsed the Broadway site.
Indeed, Broadway Commons supporters are passionate in their preference for the Over-the-Rhine location as a place to play baseball. The design of their Web site celebrates the storied history of the Reds franchise.
But the Broadway campaign clearly is interested in wooing the 39 percent of the electorate who voted "no" in 1996.
Broadway campaign coordinator Melisa Rottinghaus and campaign volunteer Andrew Laurens found some common ground for anti-tax voters. "It was about fiscal responsibility then, and it's about fiscal responsibility now," Mr. Laurens said.
"The final days of the (1996) campaign literally duped voters into believing this was a prudent use of our tax money," Mrs. Rottinghaus said. "The tried and true conservatives of the county just might be tired of being deceived."
Broadway Commons backers think their site is better because, they maintain, it is cheaper and faster to build on than the riverfront, complements the Main Street entertainment district and preserves the waterfront for other development.
Leading the opposition to the charter amendment is Hamilton County Commissioner Bob Bedinghaus, author of the 1996 sales tax plan and an ardent riverfront supporter. He sees Issue 11 as a campaign about finishing the job the voters set out to do with the 1996 vote.
"In my mind, this is a new race, a new campaign, and that issue (Issue 1) is behind us," he said.
His side argues that Baseball on Main is better because it is inextricably linked to riverfront development; there are better uses for Broadway Commons, such as housing; and the charter amendment raises uncertainty about the future of county government. He also disputes whether the Broadway site would be faster or cheaper to build.
The organization formed to defeat Issue 11, Move Greater Cincinnati Forward, is looking to HMS Partners for help, the same Columbus firm that helped the pro-tax side in 1996.
Campaign chairman John Schneider isn't shy about saying he's asking HMS for advice about what worked two years ago. But Mr. Schneider said his will be a very different campaign from the $1 million effort that persuaded voters to increase the sales tax two years ago.
For one thing, Mr. Schneider said his campaign isn't a bunch of downtown suits fighting for the riverfront. And he said he doesn't expect to raise nearly as much money as the pro-Issue 1 group did two years ago.
"It's not a clear choice for corporations to come down on," he said.
Mr. Bedinghaus said he doesn't expect another million-dollar campaign either, but he also doesn't expect the pro-riverfront group to have trouble raising the money it needs to win. The group recently won endorsements from the Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Cincinnati Inc., which promotes downtown development.
Mr. Bennett said the pro-riverfront group might be resisting comparisons to the 1996 effort because of the anger generated by the real price tag of the Bengals new stadium complex -- $404 million, compared with the $544 million cost estimated for both stadiums during the 1996 campaign.
Attorney Tim Mara, who led the unsuccessful anti-Issue 1 group in 1996, said he thinks those "broken promises" will work for the Broadway group.
"I think a lot of people who voted for the tax way back then will vote for Broadway Commons this time as a protest," he said.
Whatever the similarities between the stadium campaigns of 1996 and 1998, there are dramatic differences between the messages being communicated by the campaigns then and now.
In 1996, the decision was much clearer and easier for the campaigns to explain: A yes vote meant increasing the sales tax and ensuring that the Bengals wouldn't leave town for a new stadium elsewhere. A no vote was a repudiation of the tax increase and of public financing for sports facilities.
"It's no longer a question of development, yes or no," said Jeff Berding, the pro-Issue 1 campaign manager who now works for the Bengals. "It's a more complicated message of where best to develop."
"Our campaign was more black and white," he said. "This one is more gray."
And that, he predicted, will make Issue 11 a much tougher battle for both the Broadway and the riverfront campaigns.
Comparing sites
Stadium story list
