CINCINNATI — In close balloting, Cincinnati voters have approved the sale of the city-owned Cincinnati Southern Railway to Norfolk Southern for $1.62 billion.
With 100% of precincts reporting, Issue 22 passed by a 51.6% to 48.4% margin — 43,173 votes to 40,599.
City officials, led by Mayor Aftab Pureval, had favored the sale, which will see the proceeds placed in a trust fund to generate annual funding for Cincinnati infrastructure projects. Opponents were opposed for a host of reasons, ranging from mistrust of NS in the wake of the East Palestine derailment to the belief the city should have been getting more for the 338-mile route from Cincinnati to Chattanooga, Tenn.
“The CSR Board of Trustees are excited about the historic value this remarkable asset will now deliver to current and future generations of Cincinnati citizens,” Paul Muething, president of the Cincinnati Southern board, said in a statement reported by WVXU Radio. “[We will] secure the services of a financial advisor, as prescribed in Ohio law, who will work with the Board to develop an investment policy and then, with expert fund managers, ensure the responsible, diversified and professional management of this new financial asset.”
Norfolk Southern spokesman Tom Crosson said in a statement to WVXU that the railroad would work with the city to finalize the sale, which it expects to close in the first quarter of 2024.
NS and its predecessors have leased the railroad from Cincinnati since 1881 and agreed to the purchase last year during negotiations over renewal of the current lease, which was set to expire in 2026 [see “Norfolk Southern to buy CNO&TP line …,” Trains News Wire, Nov. 21, 2022]. The transaction has already been approved by the Surface Transportation Board [see “Federal regulators OK Norfolk Southern acquisition …,” News Wire, Sept. 20, 2023].
Time will tell. It all comes down to the way the trust is set up and managed. The lottery was supposed to be the answer to school funding yet it is not.
Railroad Workers United worked hard assisting the citizens’ groups in Cincinnati that were opposed to this sale. See our website http://www.railroadworkersunited.org and find the Save the Cincinnati Southern Campaign Page with lots of information as to why. One point – Norfolk Southern – the party who had a vested interest in the outcome of the vote – spent $4 million to influence the outcome of this election, probably a thousand times what was spent by those opposed to the sale. How different the outcome of this election might have been had this undemocratic practice been outlawed.
What’s “undemocratic”? Is there a law restricting how much money each party can spend on its own behalf?
John Pinckney, Do you think corporations are “persons” and their millions constitute “free speech”? Perhaps we should let corporations vote in these elections? Some jurisdictions in Delaware do this. Some of us believe this out-of-control corporatism is creeping fascism.
“the party who had a vested interest in the outcome of the vote – spent $4 million to influence the outcome of this election”
For a sum total of 43,000 votes? Where did they spend the money?
Population of Cincy is 301k. (28%) Pot and Abortion were on the ballot too along with a bunch of property tax updates, so if there were any conspiracies, it would be hard to find. Honestly, the only people who really had a passion about it were the people who didn’t like it.
I was asking strictly for reference to legal restrictions preventing any group or individual from expressing their opinion on the subject before the public regardless of their available resources.
Greg Spindler, “Some of us believe this out-of-control corporatism is creeping fascism.” Agreed, well said.
Bet someone/group will complain and file some type of legal action to hold up NS from taking control.
As they should, this is a terrible idea.
Mr. Gromala: None of the typical internet bickering here; I’m genuinely curious why this is a bad investment?
The math works very favorably for Cincy, which as long as the trust is managed correctly, will reap much higher income for the city than what NS was paying in the lease. I’ve seen some other people comment that “the city should’ve jacked up the rate NS was paying.” Well, sure, they could have, but NS would’ve taken the city straight to court if Cincy wanted $50 million – a 100 percent increase and still far below what the most conservatively managed trust fund would return. I don’t get the opposition.
$1.62 BILLION X 5% (my guess based on current high yield savings accounts), generated annually in a trust = approximately $81 million.
Much better than the $25 million the city was getting every year from NS, patching a lot more potholes and more new school roofs.
Smart move for both the city and NS.
Good to hear the voters’ results. Laissez faire.