Michael L. Redmond

Which is the difference of my views of economic generators vs only seeing zero sum games. I do not believe so much in the latter. "Supporters tend to imply that redistribution of economic activity from the suburbs or outlying areas of a city to the downtown is desirable, while opponents generally oppose this sort of redistribution" I believe that came from the last study. I grant you that your statment may hold true in giving downtown an advantage over Mason or West Chester and firmly putting me in the supporter column but do they imply there is a big disparity between say Main Street and Vine Street? I don't believe so.

As I mentioned the other day, during the Bengals game, Cad. Ranch had done 30,000 in sales by half time and projected to do 70,000 for the day. That is an impact. The same is true for Head First, Lodge, Knock Back Nats and even Omaly's in the Alley (granted perhaps not to the extent of Cad. Ranch) J Hall also does its largest numbers on post games. Prior to an evening Reds game it is nearly impossible to get a seat at Palaminos or the bar at Mccormicks. Historically it has been part of the driving force behind clubs like Caddy's and Sleep Out Louies (and ironically also led to its demise). So I ask, is that " greatly exaggerated or even false."? Did any of the those sources you listed post any numbers of any outside venues that I just mentioned, game day vs non? And does anyone have an answer to the impact of the industry workers on the surrounding venues? And are limited on their times of opening therefor effecting the draw times of patrons, the casino is not.

I am going to have to name a drink after you. I am curious how anyone sees the casino, and their efforts to keep people locked into their four walls differs from any other large venue. The Bengals bring people in from the burbs, keeps you locked in your seat for several hours and the argument I have often heard is that they do not stick around-- not true. The Reds are the same way...come in, sit down, leave downtown. Once again, this simply isn't what happens. They come in early, visit bars and restaurants, leave the venue and visit bars and restaurants again. I have seen the numbers, they are mind blowing in their impact on entertainment revenue outside of the primary event. So how is the casino going to be different? People do not drive in and drive out with blinders on and not everyone is ready to end the night after a couple of hours at the tables. If they offer entertainment inside of the casino then the other venue owners will just have to step up and offer something different, and hopefully better in their own ways. I am a skeptic to the argument that the casino will have any different of an impact than the other major venues.

I am sure I have said it on here but I will say it again. The casino brings in much more than patrons, it brings employees...lots of employees and those employees will eat, drink and live somewhere that will not be at the place they work. Short of 5000 const workers and just shy of 2500 permanent employees makes one hell of an attractive neighbor to an entertainment dist. I was happy to get 500 employees down here from Dunnhumby, 700 from P&G and another hundred from Hamilton County and still that doesn't equal what the Casino will bring and none of those business convert a single patron of theirs to entertainment. Focus on the employees...I am. Potawatomi in Milwalkee. Great casino in downtown. I assume they still do it, but they used to have a full blown lightning and thunderstorm inside of the casino every hour or so. When I was there I spent a couple of hours in the casino (lost a bundle) and the rest of the weekend in other venues throughout downtown. Will we get some? of course. And some is more than the none we would get if it had remained a parking lot. The other thing it changes is the interest in other venues. It certainly makes the Diner more attractive. The J-Hall space has already been signed after the casino vote. The Club Red building has also sold. So if the casino can help move spaces on the front end, that will also help drive additional traffic on the back end, casino traffic or otherwise.

Yes it was continuous. The only break was the one it is currently in starting in 2007.

thats what we need, and to be honest, I think that is what will get the best results. I and everyone else at NEONS appreciate the support. The casino will be great, the streetcar will be great, but in the end it is people like you that will make NEONS.

If you had our advertising budget, you would resort to simply yelling from rooftops too. The only good way to get someone's attention using only a nickle or dime is to hit them with it. That is our advertising philosophy for the moment.

So looking forward, do you see a shift in districts? Things are changing. Two venues in Mt. Lookout will probably close. We have a casino going in about 2 blocks or so away from Main St. New restraunts/ bars opening in OTR including Senate, NEONS, Lavo, Grammers, plus a couple more that can announce on their own good time. All in addition to Pitifuls, Mixx, Miltons and Courtyard. I see, not the Main Street Entertainment Dist. but the OTR Entertainment Neighborhood. The difference will be more diverse in offerings and locations that are spread throughout OTR, not just in the 1200 block of Main. So is this a bad thing? Is this counter to what the residents want to see? Not the one's I know. Take a look at the bigger picture within a mile radius. Mt. Adams is going strong, Newport on the Levee, the CBD (say what you want about Cad. Ranch but I heard last night from a source they were at 30,000 in sales by half time and expected to do 70 for the night). All of this in such close proximity has a multiplier effect on the ability for any one venue here to draw patrons. Now is a great time to be downtown for both residents and venue owners. This city once closed at 6:00. Not any more. Its funny that you say that because here we are on page 13 of the "Cincinnati Nightlife" thread. I haven't visited the Dry Cleaning Thread on UrbanOhio yet.

I knew that would raise an eyebrow. Millions and MLTs are owned by Steven Sykes Valentino. Steve also ownes ORP realty. http://www.kypost.com/content/wcposhared/story/I-Team-Condo-Conundrum/ALDEV2TcIEC4mE1gq9NB9w.cspx

Many people who are interested in OTR today got their first introduction to it because of some of those bars. The clientele that was brought in every weekend by places like NEONS, Japps, Stowes (RBCs), Jeff. Hall, Westminsters, etc were all people who were never going to step foot in OTR otherwise. The Main Street Entertainment Dist. in many ways paved the way for the redevelopment that is happening now because it provided a level of familiarity with OTR to many that wasn't all negative. You and I have a very different perspective on the history of Main Street. Most people, understandably so, look only at the back end offering of the business and equate the quality/type of that offering to the success or failure of the business. When lease amounts go from near zero to 14-20,000 a month and other places like Newport on the Levee get hot and offers a Main St. anchor a deal he can not refuse (which cost us two venues), Mt. Adams returns, Mt. Lookout throws their hat in the ring (and that is about to go away), coupled with a riot (which did less harm than reported), the selling of business by good operators to incompetent ones (not going to name names), the practice of a certain out of town landlord to take huge deposits upfront from clubs he knew would default in the matter of months--all of this led to vacancies on Main. The downfall needed to happen, we needed to reset both the tenants and the landlords. Kaldis? Take the Cake? New York Dry Cleaner? Those all went out so should I deduce that these are failed business types based on that? Miltons, 9 years and counting. Pitifuls, 10+ years, NEONS, 25 years...what does that tell you? It tells me that it is not an either/or proposition. What coffee shop, boutique, or bakery would you put in a 12,000 sq ft space with a liquor lic? Then what boutique are you going to put in the 10,000 sq ft space next to that, also with a liquor lic.? The highest and best use for the 1200 block Main St. is bars and nightclubs. Short of a Plasma center, what else are you going to put in there? I have probably lived in OTR and the CBD longer than you and I am pretty sure I have more interaction with both the new and the old residents as well. We have store front after store front in the Q, Main St, and the CBD, all of which can handle all of the grocery, dry cleaner, lower-mid priced restaurants that you are talking about. So where are they? Where is the dry cleaner to replace New York? Where is the grocery store who is so desperately looking for a space? Why is Terry Danzilo's phone not ringing off the hook for low to mid priced restaraunts? Is it all because they just want to move into the old J Hall space? Only the Exchange space will do? No. And to sit back and say we will only have these types of business and are willing to just sit on vacancies for years and years is not acceptable or good for the, how did you put it, "viable method for gaining long-term viability for a neighborhood". I am an OTR resident. All of my partners are OTR residents. We all said that if something isn't done soon on spaces like NEONS or the Diner, they will be lost forever. It is that attitude that the only good bar is no bar that has influenced perspective tenants to go elsewhere. That day is over, a new generation of neighorhood friendly entertainment venues is coming back to Main, and NEONS is not the only ones who have signed.

As a long time OTR resident myself (and longer time CBD resident), I will respond to this statement tomorrow.

Sherman, I just read your article on your site and it became the topic of conversation amongst several current and former bar/club owners I know, all of whom have or had places in OTR and the CBD. Have you ever considered that there is an obsolescence built into the business plan intentionally (and I am speaking primarily of clubs). The average club will be "hot" for approx 2 years. Knowing this, would you even consider writing a long term lease. Even if there were options that could be exercised, wouldn't it be best for the club owner to make those options as short as possible. What I am getting at is there is such a things as a business model that folds by design. http://urbanup.net/index.php?q=blog&id=125

it is a short, flat walk to NEON'S.

I am not defending the VBML and this seems way off topic from Clyffside but.... The city wants proof of funds that you are financially able to do the repairs that you say you are going to do to get it to minimum VBML standards (which are pretty low). You can have the bank issue a verification of funds that does not state any account numbers whatsoever or even specific dollar amounts and only that you are do have enough funds (perhaps more, perhaps not) to do the repairs that you outline in your application. Generally that is a requirement by lending institutions as well but if the property is in the VBML process there has either been a complaint or the city has deemed it to potentially be unsafe (or there has been numerous police calls for break ins) Yes, they do want to make sure that if your building falls on someone that you do have something in place to pay for the damages, not to you, but to the other person. Once a new CO is pulled and all work is completed, the VBML fees are returned to the property owner. That is an incentive to get a CO and not just sit and pay a VBML year after year on a vacant property. I have done my fair share of property valuations and I can tell you that although there is a disclosure requirement for such a district, it in no way directly affects the value. You are attributing a direct cause/effect relationship to the two yet there are too many other things at play that truly directly effect values including the simple fact that the reason that a distressed area has someone to write for a historic district means that more and more people who tend to be people who care about revitalization and restoration were already moving into the area increasing demand and adding tangible value into the properties. The hidden cost as I said above to such a district is the discouraging of new const. development especially when all things are equal between two streets except the designation. Have you applied for a waiver of VBML? In the end, short of going to the Ohio Supreme Court and spending some God awful amount of time and money, you may just want to get a waiver.

And yet projects that we are working on in OTR are exponentially higher both in cost and volume. You are preaching to the choir here. I deal with VBML's, yet I manage. I deal in a blighted neighborhood, yet I manage. I have located my business in OTR, yet I manage. I am restoring my home in OTR, yet I manage. I have to deal with the often difficult and rarely equal dictates of Historic, yet I manage. I have sat in Milton Dohoney's office along with every council member all the way to the mayors to get projects underway, yet I manage. I even have to deal with bureaucracies on the state level for both funding and licensing that you probably never have nor ever will have to deal with and all the while, I manage. OTR is not easy, development itself is not easy. Have you even applied for a waiver of VBML? If indeed there are all of these properties that you are going to be working on in OTR, then what was the reasoning of the board to deny your waiver. Let me know because I personally know a couple of people that sits on that panel and I will find out why someone like me can get one but you somehow can not. That should really speed up development. Here on the hillside of OTR and Mt. Auburn is where the our historic district stops. I have dealt with more developers who refuse to work within the district due to the sometimes unnecessary and usually uneven rulings by the historic review boards. It is easier and more cost effective to simply move up one street than have to deal with that extra level of bureaucracy. This is one of the reasons why Dorsey and Boal have seen a greater number of new const. homes than other streets just to the south. Even const. on Mulberry stopped because of its inclusion into the historic dist. which saw Jerry Hunderlaw move his development further north on Sycamore vs more on Mulberry. In some ways you are simply falling into the same mindset of those who brought us the VBML. The "I know better on how to deal with your property than you do" mindset. The VBML was put in place to help discourage the investment speculators who would just sit on decaying properties. Historic was also put in place to discourage those who would rehab a property that was not to some review boards liking. Both have two things in common, both discourage, and both have the unintended consequence of discouraging the wrong people. Be careful for what you wish for.

Well we work with more condo projects than just about anyone in the city and I can tell you, the suggestion on Clyffside would not only have an appraisal issue, but a whole host of other buyer financing issues as well and that is if, and I do mean if, you could find the buyers in the first place. I went to Ed Cunningham and 'suggested' he remove my inspector and he obliged. Its all in how you handle them...I did so sternly.

I am not talking about the acquisition and build out side, I am talking about the buyer financing. Some of the things you mentioned above would prohibit most buyers from buying your product, I am in the same boat. I am renovating my home on Mulberry with the ever present problems from city and am fighting a VBML on a commercial interest on 12th. Par for the coarse but with adversity sometimes comes opportunity. We too have been known to dable in Real Estate right here in OTR

And it probably would have bankrupted you. Having the financing to build it is one hurdle, the buyer having the financing it to buy it is another. Holly and I were brought in by Duane very early on to look at the feasibility and we passed. (I think we were with HUFF at the time, before Holly became a rep for 3CDC). Christine Schoonover was brought in and she passed. You have to have a good understanding of not just what sounds good as a proposal, but what will sell--not just to the buyer, but the banks. Your proposal sounds even further off than Duane's. Even your commercial component presents complications when the total number of units is brought down to 6 or 7, potentially making your ratio of commercial to residential too high. And the pricing?? What are you basing that off of? We have one 398,000 condo that has been sold at Gateway and that is on Main. Are you saying that you can do 6 or 7 of those at Clyffside? I am having a hard time with your logic. How do you define a 3CDC product? Like Urban Sites, Like B2B, Like Model, Like Eber, like Huber? and even then there is a tremendous difference between buildings within the same developer. Are you only talking about competing on price just at a much higher level in a less developed area? That isn't being competitive, that is being foolish. Sorry to be so harsh but it is easy to be on the outside looking in and saying I would have done this or that but until you put real skin in the game, it is just one person saying I would have done things smarter...but not. Duane at least rolled the dice. I believe the property is available now so if you would like to give it a go, now is your chance. We will do a follow up critique in a year or two...so go and prove me wrong.

There was no way that condo buyers were going to get financing. It isn't as simple as building them as they get sold, they had to meet presale requirements that were simply unrealistic for that project. It was a great idea on paper but in reality there was little to no chance that Duane could pull off that project. He has vision, he has heart but unfortunately that isn't enough on something like Clyffside.

It was a brief conversation about this, but Ginsburg seemed to think that this would be getting some real push back. I am not necessarily against it but its affect on putting out items like sandwich boards, parking signs, or any of the various signage on Main St (which is uniform) is a bit hard to swallow, especially without having any input before it was passed. But we will see. I have no details.

That is a question for Jim Moll. I am not in the rental business but I am sure he could give you a ball park. I put his number in one of the previous post.

I was in a meeting with Ginsburg a few days ago and he mentioned that the city had just passed a right of way law that would severely limit the number of benches along with everything else that would typically go on the sidewalk, including any signage and newspaper stands. I do not know if that had an affect on the decision for the quarters usage of benches, but it may have.

People will complain about lights as they did on Main. They will complain about trees as they did on Mulberry. They will complain about progress in general as they did in the early days of 3CDC. Everyone has their different visions of the way they want to see other people's properties and projects go, but in the end, it is undeniably progress. So I say remove the lights, dig up the power lines, chop down the trees and lets see if we can manage to get a consensus on the way that the Q should be done. Shouldn't take long I would imagine.

I would say because of the concentration of section 8 in that area is over abundant. That stands both as an argument for your going section 8 as an income producing property owner and a reason to go market rate as someone who hopefully wants to positively affect the area. Not all section 8 is bad, however when looking at E. McMicken you will tend to get a negative element (not just through your tenants directly but through the people who visit your tenants ((those who are not necessarily on the lease)). If you are looking on the far east side of McMicken, towards Main, your chances of leasing to market rate tenants (assuming you produce a quality product) are very good. We who live in the immediate area, myself included, would rather see market rate tenants move into the area to give greater diversity through areas like McMicken and E. Clifton. The social services here always preach having an economically diverse community and as it stands now, McMicken needs more market rate and less Section 8 to achieve that diversity.

I am sure that the city could dial them down to Main Street levels if enough people ask and you will get Main Street results, but hey, lets complain.