natininja

^ Advance to the UO Hall of Fame: It's like the Super Friends' Hall of Justice:

You've come under reasonable suspicion. Draw a Chance card and pray it's an immigration document. Huh? This isn't UrbanArizona.

There's one problem with this thinking: the building will last much longer than the recession. No one looks at a building in a skyline and thinks "oh, that one's not so nice, but considering it was built during a recession, it's pretty good looking." Either way, I'm not complaining. It could look way, way, wayyyyy worse! It has some nice features. Overall, it improves the skyline. A net positive is never anything to shake a stick at, and experiencing such an improvement during a recession is really nice.

The fact still remains that they didn't receive the last round of federal funding due to a lack of commitment shown by the city. At least that's what they say they were told. So it seems reasonable to take the 6 votes if you can get them. It can work doubly as a "C.Y.A." move, as well. So much the better for the mayor, I suppose.

Is it any more disinjenuous than intentionally withholding a winning vote to make it look better at a later date? What is disingenuous about that? Especially when he is totally honest about the reason?

Peak oil struck while you were still bickering about 3C. Game over. Oh, and BTW:

Point taken, but couldn't the money be funneled back into highways?

Citations, fines, seizures. I have. This is one kind of thing the public should be talking about. Why aren't the newspapers talking about such things? Everything is so one-sided and short-sighted, makes me sick.

^ Why just gas taxes? Why not revenue generated by the highway patrol? The goal should be to make highway costs explicit by making highways more self-sufficient. Siphoning money from the highway patrol into municipal budgets just clouds the issue more, making funding inexplicit and enabling public delusions of cost and benefit. Also, this is off-topic...probably should go into the Actual cost of driving thread.

Lots of fines do go to municipalities, though, right? Why are we discounting this money? If we count revenue made by businesses and local taxes as benefits for rail transit, we must also count revenue generated for municipalities when it comes to analyzing highway spending. Money for taxpayers is money for taxpayers, however you cut it. This smacks of a double standard. I think it would be more honest to just count all revenue generated by the highway patrol as off-setting the cost of the highway patrol, regardless of where that money actually ends up.

One big factor, I think, is how long it will realistically take before CUT becomes viable. If within a few years, it might be best to just end the line at Sharonville for the time being. If, on the other hand, a CUT stop is 10 or so years away, an alternative stop is probably prudent. Many cities have multiple train stations, so a 20-year station may well turn into a permanent fixture if, in 20 years, rail transportation picks up the way most of us expect it to. As for the best location of a temporary station? I'm not really sure. I see pluses and minuses of all those discussed. It would be nice to have some experts lay out on the table a pro/con analysis of all the potential locations. I'm afraid decisions are being made without much attention to detail. Bond Hill is more central, closer to I-71 and dense population. A Lunken station would tie rail to air, at least to a small degree, and lend itself to an easy (relatively) light rail stop coming from downtown. If the temporary station becomes permanent, I can see both possibilities being complementary to CUT. Edit: If the Enquirer were worth its salt, it would provide us with such a pro/con analysis of station locations. Instead, the paper cannot get beyond disputes about whether the money that is available should be available, and provoking the lowest level of discourse possible among readers in the comments section. Basically, the paper functions as a tabloid rag, turning the issue into a gossip feast, rather than a tool towards/for an informed citizenry.

He seems to be pretty sure the 4-story is toast (oops, pun).

I was factoring this stuff in when I was saying "a competitive team" ... it doesn't matter how good your team is, if you can't get into a BCS bowl you're uncompetitive.

Why? They might get a higher level of LEED certification with a "green roof" ... or, uhh, a green tiara.

You spelled Proctor wrong.

Haha, thanks. I totally ripped the formatting from the Lunken thread. You caught me! ;-)

Tuesday, April 27, 2010, 2:30pm EDT Banks developers unveil new brand, websites Business Courier of Cincinnati The developers behind The Banks project on Cincinnati’s riverfront on Tuesday unveiled a new website, new images of what the first phase of the project will look like and a new branding and marketing campaign. The new campaign centers around the tagline “It’s happening on the river,” and it includes a new logo, marketing materials and an overall brand identity. It’s all unveiled on the project’s new website, which was developed by Strata G Communications, according to a news release by the project’s master development team of Carter and the Dawson Co. Read more

I'm pretty sure tedolph was talking about true high-speed rail.

I hope you're right.

It won't draw them on its own. A competitive team is necessary to go along with the facilities.

The 40th anniversary of the Kent State shootings will be next week. Is there anything planned?

I think there will come a time when high speed trains make much more economic sense than air travel for long trips. I'm not sure when that will be. If we don't have high speed trains at that time, it will be like reverting back to old technology. The effective size of the country will be greatly expanded, and business will be impeded. Then we'll be stuck trying to build it all at once.

So the question is: if this happens, will all the investment in new practice facilities amount to a boondoggle? I'd say so. It won't help UC be competitive, and it won't draw major recruits. (It certainly won't keep Kelly around.) Thus next to no potential for ROI. Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl...nice while it lasted.

It's for the practice field, right? The one the guy who bolted town said he wanted? I'm worried the team won't be competitive, that it will be too hard to keep the momentum from the last two seasons. There's an article on the Enquirer site today which talks about how the Big East might dissolve, leaving the Bearcats without a way to compete with BCS teams. The author was saying if the Big 10 decides to increase its numbers significantly, the other bigguns will likely follow suit, and our only hope would be to get picked up by the ACC.

I'm afraid this may be a real boondoggle.