jim uber

I think the future is in the Internet and drones. I will never have to leave my chair, so we should stop investing in all land-based public rights of way except those used for Internet traffic.

I saw it slightly differently when I reviewed it frame-by-frame. I see Tensing reach into the car and Dubose, reacting to that, either put his foot on the gas or simply took his foot off the brake, moving the car forward slowly, which is when Tensing instantly reached for his gun and shot him. From there, a dead Dubose had his limp foot on the gas pedal and the car drove drown the street and slammed into the corner. You can tell by the video with the engine revving in a stopped car the Dubose's foot was on the gas pedal while slumped over the steering wheel. Yes I completely agree, he wasn't dragged. I guess you see what you want to see even when it's frame-by-frame video. I was surprised at how it affected me to view it. It generated a gut level anger toward Tensing. And really sadness about this guy, Dubose, who was maybe a little drunk or maybe a little high, but driving slowly and just a couple blocks from home, and completely passive. And he gets shot in the head. It's murder in my book, and I hope Tensing spends his life in prison. It's also one of the only times I can recall my feelings being so in sync with Joe Deters.

Yes, I notice that every time I walk past people who are waiting around for their valet parking attendant at Taft's Ale House. They often look like they feel a little out of place, and I'm guessing that they wouldn't want to be walking any where around there to get their own car. But that will be different as soon as the 15th and Race project starts/finishes, just like all of the other streets. But still, I somehow think that Main will be a little different still, even when things are stitched together. I hope so.

^ MOTR is our favorite bar, hands down. Nearly always interesting music, and the crowd varies in amazing ways based on who is playing. MOTR would never exist on Vine. I agree, it's difference should be celebrated and not worried about.

^ My guess is that you are going to feel out of place, and probably not much that can be done about it. As for where you saw the homeless folks hanging out, I think that may be where they line up to take showers. At least I know there is some place on Main St. where the homeless go to get clean, brush their teeth, etc.

Oh man, a structural engineer would have to say "I need to analyze it" but that bridge was a railroad bridge. The side that isn't being used (outside of the pedestrian portion) has massively deep beams. And it all looks to be in a well maintained condition. I'd say there wouldn't be any problem putting a modern streetcar on it (not to mention a hotel ;-) )

The issue I have is that there is a certain human element to the job that cannot be removed. No matter how great of training or people you hired, people make mistakes, and occasionally those mistakes are something as terrible as this. If there really was nothing UC Police could have done to stop that incident from happening, they shouldn't be responsible for financial compensation. That's essentially finding someone guilty without any evidence. Of course if they settle out of court (which is how this would likely end), that's their option and isn't an official admission of guilt. None of this is to say that systemic problems in the department could have contributed, but it should have to be shown. Also, that doesn't leave the individual officers with immunity. I feel badly for the officer in this case also. I haven't seen the video of course, but it seems unlikely that he behaved anything like that prick in Texas who just shot the dude running from him in the back, several times. I'm guessing it was a very unfortunate combination of adrenaline and poor judgement. But training is important, and I'm sure that it varies considerably. We've seen first hand in Cincinnati what the effects of monumental shifts in policy and training can and do have on police operations, acceptance in the community, through the efforts of the collaborative agreement. If you didn't live here for a significant period of time prior to, say, 2005, then you wouldn't appreciate it. But the changes in policy about use of force and engagement were fundamental. We can't assume just because UC is in Cincinnati that their police training is anything like the CPD, even though it obviously passes for approved training. You seemed to be arguing above that the officer should accept blame if he is at fault, uniquely, and the institution should be held relatively unaccountable. But then refer to the vagaries and inherent difficulties of the job, which I agree with, that should let you lean the other way away from making the officer solely responsible. It's really untenable as a policy, I think, but I'd prefer that in these cases it be the institution that is somehow held up to blame first, unless the officer is just behaving wildly outside of the bounds of acceptable practice. Because I don't think it's fair to lump all the blame on that person, in general, because of the inherent risks of the job. I prefer that because it's how policy changes will be made most rapidly, and policy is what is most important

I am no expert, but UC shelled out 2 Million in that taser death a few years ago, and there was no criminal conduct by the UC cop.......so if this case is about criminal conduct by a UC Cop, gotta think get the checkbook out. The University President has been backtracking on UC police policy for the last week. He has asked to be part of the collaborative, to have their officers jointly trained with Cincinnati Police, and pulled them back on campus. And Cranley has said openly that "reform" is needed. If the video shows that Mr. Dubose did not have to die, then reform is the right thing to do, and it would give the family some measure of peace while helping the community. And, in that case, a just compensation of Mr. Dubose's family is also right, and shouldn't be thought of in any negative way, in my opinion.

^ wasn't burned down. the kitchen area was destroyed.

City manager: UC shooting 'not a good situation' http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/07/27/uc-police-shooting/30730139/ But he said he's heard what it shows and said, "My reaction is that it is not a good situation." "It's a tragic situation," Black said. "Someone has died that did not necessarily need to die." Well that's by far the most information about this video that we've heard thus far.

^ Of course not; and I'd never assume that. Narrowing further, the disagreement is over your statement "where he had to make that decision." I am not at all sure about that, and moreover am obviously suspicious of it. That is why I stated that you must have a lower bar for escalation of use of force. I think that is a fair characterization.

There's a reason why police policies are very specific about escalation of use of force. That was one of the big deals in Cincinnati's collaborative agreement. You and others obviously have a much lower bar for justifying lethal use of force, than I am comfortable with. And there are reasons why President Ono requested from the City that UC police officers become part of the collaborative, directly as a result of this incident.

^You're getting into the weeds. It breaks down to this: you either think that the guy is at fault because of his past actions and because he didn't comply like you or I would, or you think that the professional police officer that initiated this contact, because of a missing front license plate, is responsible for managing situations like this so that they do not escalate into lethal force. I'm amazed to say that I agree completely with Cranley on this one issue, when he said that UC police reforms are called for, and that a traffic stop should never escalate to lethal use of force. They are talking now about bringing UC police into the collaborative agreement, which makes perfect sense. It's also exactly what I had mentioned in my post above. This whole situation is just ridiculous and I can't believe people can even bring up a persons past traffic violations etc in the light of him being shot in the head. Like I said before, the video had better show some compelling reasons for killing him. At least from that we'll know what happened in this case.

Ah, "rules aren't being followed." I was in Austria one time and when parking my car they had an attendant who was watching to make absolutely certain that I didn't approach any of the white lines. Then I went to Seoul where they park cars and bikes all over the sidewalk and double park them on the street and they make it all work pretty seamlessly and efficiently by communicating, instead of rules. I'm sorry, enforcing the rules you are talking about in the way you seem to want them enforced, isn't ever going to make a fun and prosperous society, or a safe one, either.

No, it's not relevant, so what is your purpose? And are you really trying to suggest that something like the education of police officers is made equivalent by virtue of an Ohio law? I just don't know how to respond to that.

This is so frustrating because it is so senseless. A police officer is trained in making traffic stops. What's the protocol? How in hell do you, as an officer, ever get in the way of the car? Wouldn't protocol demand the officer always maintain a certain distance between him/herself and the car? Whenever I've been stopped the officer stands away from the door, so he can see you and your hands clearly and, presumably, be out of the way in case I decided to take off. (After which, by the way, he wouldn't shoot me, but instead would follow me safely and report my location and license plate.) I'm sorry, but this business about the driver and his car being more dangerous than a gun just isn't right by me. This video had better show something so aggressive that the officer clearly had no choice. Based on the description of the person killed, and the way officials are reacting, I'm not betting on that happening. What would that look like? It would have to be something like the driver grabbing him forcefully by the shirt and attempting to hold him, while he drove off. Anything else, like him attempting to shove the officer away or opening his door into the officer, would in my mind just call for the officer to do something sane like get out of the way and go to step two. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if UC police training tactics need to be overhauled, not to mention hiring practices. As far as I'm concerned, if UC police are going to be allowed to parole our streets and engage citizens like this, then they should be subject to the same hiring and training practices that the CPD uses.

^ Much, much less than demolition, hauling, and building a new (inferior) wood framed structure with brick veneer, just to get back to the same point as above -- a shell without any mechanicals. And that doesn't include the greenhouse gas generation that's external to that whole economic system. Of course neither of those options make any financial sense right now. Then again saving any single building in OTR never made any financial sense until you factored in the possible future worth.

I think this is true in OTR (there are several factors related to geography). You can play with points related to the amount of requested credits as a percentage of total project expenses (0-10). Plus theres a 4-pt category for job creation which is sort of a mystery to me. It seems that you only get them if you've got signed leases before you even begin construction, but some people get those points. Also, the top vote getter in each jurisdiction gets 15 points for jurisdictional balance, so the more jurisdictions there are applying, the more spread out the awards will be. If you are in a jurisdiction that doesn't send many applications, this would be a huge benefit.

For those interested in applying or details... As someone who just lost out on round 14, I can say it is very competitive, and increasingly so. There is a point system. There is also a small projects category that sets aside a certain amount of funding and allows individuals like me to compete successfully for these credits, against the big developers. Last round, small projects ranked 68 and up got funded. This round the cutoff increased to 75. The scoring is pretty well prescribed. The one variable that you have under your control is how much tax credits you ask for, as a percentage of the total project cost. If you decrease the amount you ask for, you increase your points. What you are seeing with the increased competition is that the tax credit percentage is going down, with developers calculating how much they have to give up in order to win the credits. So theres that market interaction built into the ranking system, which is sort of interesting.

I really like some modern infill in historic neighborhoods, but that's yucky.

I've posted my detailed costs for 1527 elm up thread. About $100/ft.

^That's really great. BTW isn't is "Smitty's"

If P&G were to obtain any benefit from the skywalk they would need to maintain a secured entrance since it will now be publicly accessible. I'm not sure expense and risk would be worth being able to provide conditioned space access for their out of town visitors.

Ah I see. Still, I imagine this would promote even further accelerated growth in otr no? CDF funds many projects in OTR, and has for years.

Not soon enough, probably