Michael L. Redmond

I do not know what the max incline is before it becomes impossible, but I will say that Sycamore can cut over to Liberty Hill and up. Vine can go straight and you are close to the heart of UC when you reach the top. But Race and Elm, I just do not get it, short of rebuilding an incline, how do you go up?

You may be right about the hill that is why I include Vine. And Vine would be my first pick. But let me stick on the hill thing for now. What is your link to uptown from Elm or Race? Vine and Sycamore, not Main, both have that access. I have no idea how you are going to do that on Race and Elm. So to me, if you look at; accessibility-Vine Uptown link-Vine redevelopment opportunity-Vine City support- (I am going to say Vine)

You mean other than being one block away from Main st. that has multiple points of interest. Only to Liberty. plus you are in closer proximity to Main and split OTR equally making it more accesible to more people, ie me who will not walk from Main to Race to ride a streetcar. Surprise, but I totally disagree. 3CDC on Main, Pauline Van der haar on Sycamore and Main, Jerry Hunderlaw on Sycamore, Doug Spitz, Main, Vernon Rader Main, Model on Main, more individual store fronts and potential office space to be filled on Main, I can go on and on. Now who is on the hillside of Renner and Mohawk? Duane??

Ok, I can understand that, but what if she proposes Vine or Sycamore? Still opposed? To me, Reading or Gilbert would not make much sense vs Vine or Sycamore. I would also argue that Vine and Sycamore both offer more of a redevelopment possibility than Race and Elm.

Considering that Race and Elm are about as far west as you can go, how does going east avoid OTR?

We could debate that all day but I am asking the question whether or not I am understanding the article. Are they saying that they only oppose the loop?

Am I misreading this or are they just saying that they believe that the importance is in getting uptown and downtown connected vs just putting a loop in OTR? The way I read it, which I admit may be totally wrong, is that a single line run through OTR, which can only be Vine or Sycamore (I say Vine) instead of a loop of Elm and Race. This makes total sense to me with 3CDC wanting that line to impact the Q as much as possible. Am I missing something because the title seems misleading, you can not avoid OTR if you want to link the two?

Also to their defense I am sure that asthetics of parking was not the only thing taken into consideration. Parking ratio and cost. If the garage does not raise your overall ratio by a reasonable amount, then the cost/benefit ratio just doesn't warrant it. When you have X dollars at your disposal, then I would much rather see a more aggressive building rehab than focusing on garage vs surface lot.

I have a 5spd, VW beetle with a turbo diesel. This is my ultimate urban vehicle. My next purchase will be a vespa with a side car.

How is the current law written? I hear constant discussions about our laws being so much more leniant than KY hence all of the marijuana buys on Cincy side. If I am smoking pot on the corner of 13th and Main, what would happen to me?

So does breathing (read the back of an aspirin bottle) but I get your overall point of severity. I believe many would argue with this unless you mean that you can not legally use steroids regularly and responsibly. First, how do you define regularly? Second, how do you define responsibly? I would argue that one could do both and would seperate that from heroin, crystal meth and many other drugs that have physical and phsycological dependencies that steroids do not. Once again, not advocating the legalization of steroids.

Ok, I will accept that, I am no doctor. So if that is a reason to keep it illegal, does that then apply to Marijuana? Marijuana Doubles Risk of Schizophrenia Study shows Marijuana causes Psychosis. Professors Say Smoking Marijuana Can Cause Psychosis ... Or drugs, you are correct in saying everything.

Weed and impotency I believe are two words I have heard in the same sentence. A synthetic testosterone can shut down the bodies production of its own testosterone but that is generally reversed when the use ends and resumes production. So I will rest in saying that we are even I guess on that point. I absolutely stand by this statement whether you say more, quicker or more regular. Did I mention that I am not actually advocating the legalizing of steroids? My point was that if you pick one drug to legalize, what arguments can you give me that I can not apply to other drugs to be legalized?

I am not actually advocating legalizing steriods but I will have to disagaree with you on this statement

Well that sounds much more compelling than my argument. Weed out and steroid in then I guess! This will really piss congress off, what will they have to do now?

My argument then would simply be that it is illegal, cigarettes and alcohol are not. The law has been written and there now has to be a change in that law. No change for cigarettes or alcohol law. I am saying that if you are going to change this law for the reasons of non chemical addiction, then legalize the steroid. Anyone with me? Doesn't kill, not chemically addictive, makes sports more entertaining but I guess weed does as well from the user/spectator perspective

I would relate this to anything else that is illegal and the backlash it causes then. I can not get a pain killer prescription and it is illegal so I go underground. I can not purchase a gun because of a felony conviction (just an example) so I go underground. I am 16 years old and can not legally buy alchohol, I find a way. I can go on and on and on. What I am saying is what argument can you give me for this one thing, weed, that I can not apply to anything else. Legalize it because someone will get it illegally otherwise I just do not feel is a compelling argument. On the other hand, you should like my argument-legalize and don't tax, or just leave it illegal, hardly enforced, but illegal.

So do we legalize across the board and just tax? I feel that tax is so misused (there is a law to change, tax law) and is a poor deterrent as it basically says anything is ok, as long as you can pay. There are laws governing each of these (fatty foods are coming) The tax that I pay on top of any of these, and I pay taxes for all but the last, does not factor into my usage. I drink, tax be damned. I choose not to smoke, tax be damned. I watch cable, and do not even understand the taxes I pay for it. If taxes are a limiting factor, as I said, why tax income, why tax property, why have a sales tax? We loose site of the why? If you want weed to be legal, make it legal. If you want cigarettes use to go down because it kills people, then make it illegal. Do not say we are going to tax our way to right and wrong.

I may be able to name a few controlled substances that will not directly kill you as well. How about Steroids?

I have a bit of a problem with the tax thing. If you are saying that we tax something to discourage it, then why tax income? We use laws and controls to limit use, we use taxes for us to pay for public services.

I really do not care one way or the other so long as you do not purchase or consume it outside the front door of my house. That being said, what argument can you give for the legalization for marijuana that I could not turn around and apply it to every other illegal drug for its legalization?

I will try not to go off on a tangent but how do you have 108 social services in one neighborhood yet still have panhandling, or people sleeping in parks or on business's steps? The next law I would put in place, (it will never happen) is to distribute social services throughout all communities, instead of concentrating all in one or two. A city as a whole should shoulder the problems of its people, not just a single community. Something has to be done differently because everyone looses the way it is.

I think that reasonable people can disagree on the casino issue and make sensible, logical arguments on either side. In the case of my community, when the casino issue comes up, I have to ask myself what is my real motivation for wanting, or not wanting it here. From an ownership side I would fight tooth and nail to get a casino, as it is best for me financially, but from a resident perspective, it has little upside with the exception of ease of use. If ease of use is my driving issue then I personally may have a problem. So why not leave the casino as a destination? Why not leave the cities like Vegas or Atlantic City who is very adept at tackling the ancillary issues associated with having a casino, or multiple casinos be the destination for those of us who wish to gamble recreationally? If the question is, what law should we change, I say lets change a law that undeniably will have a positive impact on the cities. Nuisance abatement laws would be very high on my list. Number one complaint of at least our inner city in Cincinnati is panhandling and loitering. If just those two simple things could be agressively enforced, then we would be a long way towards attracting residents and businesses to our urban core. Sometimes the smallest, simplest issues are the ones that can have the greatest affect. I would say terms vs rate. If we allowed property owners to move into a fixed vs adjustable would solve the issue more than a short term rate lock.

How do you go to the voters asking for a levy when you are sitting on non producing assests? I do not know why they own anything, do a sale leasback on all facilities and use the capital raised to offer a better education to these students. You will attract more families and businesses to the area, you will decrease the tax burden on the residents plus it allows for the board of education focus on what it should focus on, education. This gets a huge amount of capital upfront to the school board, creates an opportunity for the public to invest in the property, the yield does not have to be much as you are dealing with a high credit tenant but it is a feel good, safe investment. The schools could apply that money towards debt and increasing educational opportunities for Cincinnati children. I guarantee you will get a charter school sale exemption in this case as the use is uninterrupted. It makes all the sense in the world, which is exactly why this will never happen. (please do not confuse my above argument with what to do with vacated buildings)

This may not have been renamed because of anti-German histeria but look at the corner of Frintz and E. Clifton at 72 E Clifton. Ingraved in the building is Buckeye Street, the original name of E. Clifton. There is nothing visable there now but Antique street off of Mulberry was a paver design that was suposed to be representative of the "old style" way of pavestone, hense the name Antique Street. If anyone knows how to post them on here, I have some pics of Mulberry in 1927 with the names written under the houses of the people who lived there at the time. It was primarily Italian, not German.