Brutus_buckeye

While we may feel the pain right now, this obviously has not reached the tipping point yet. Many cities have their old arenas they still use for various events. Hell San Francisco still uses the Cow Palace. Portland and Seattle both have old arenas, same with San Diego and I am sure a few other cities. However, there comes a time where every arena becomes so dated it cannot compete for even regional acts anymore. How many concerts played at the Gardens in the 80s and 90s? I cant really remember anyone beyond the Shrine Circus that went there towards the end of its run.

^ I think it is a matter that Cincy needs a better arena more than the ownership group needs to expand it. They have a fully paid for arena now that, while it may not compete for the top acts and events, holds its own on a profitability standpoint now. They can pretty much guarantee their profits "as is" now and it provides a nice stable revenue stream in the future. The upgrade would potentially be more lucrative but also bring the uncertainty with it. They are trying to create more certainty before upgrading, which is why they are leaning on the city. Since there is no NBA or NHL team, it makes it difficult in this town. Louisville was a unique situation and it has come out that the project there was a huge racket job. Eventually, US Bank will become like the Gardens and not even competitive for the lowest level show, but until it does, there is not the incentive to upgrade

Just look to Warren County, they have been doing this for years. @jmecklenborg but even trade shows have a need for arena space at times and can fill a 20k seat arena (not often but possibly). We think of the GOP convention in Cleveland a few years back, but beyond that, think of an Amway convention or similar MLM companies will need to fill an arena to give the rah rah to their sales reps. Couple that with NCAA events and even AAU national events and you can have well programmed convention center and arena more often than not.

^ Indy has a vibrancy In that area because they do so much with their convention business, especially Sports related. The NCAA is based there and has a ton of events along with other sports orgs bringing people to downtown. Plus they have a ton of other groups who come in for meetings, etc. giving downtown a busy feel. They are all out of towners for the most part. Being a capital city does not hurt as well as pretty much the only city in Indiana of real size so a lot of state wide functions tend to congregate there too. Cincy could do a little better in that regard if we got our act together on the convention hotel and also coming up with a plan for a new arena in the area.

The big issue with the ROW is that the team requires it to build the stadium. Just because the city did not formally grant the ROW zoning change prior to the time the construction contract was signed, the prior votes to approve the stadium in that general vicinity creates a justifiable reliance on city councils actions such that FCC moved ahead with the project. Essentially, FCC is saying the city promised and then is going back on their promise but their actions up until that point were such that a reasonable person would think the deal is done. This is where the city runs into trouble.

Yes, but if the team wants to play the long game, it would be able to win those arguments. This could be 5-10 years but it could play out like this. 1) If you let the building become condemned and blighted and structurally unsound, it does not benefit the Plan Cincinnati 2) If you build the stadium, it changes the character of the neighborhood. Having an empty blighted building does not fit the new character, Best and most efficient use becomes something different. It may need to be torn down at that point if the building is structurally unsound. You need someone willing to develop the lot and land around it. Does something that may be soccer related offer greater benefit to the changed area than an unsound unsafe apartment building. Most likely 3) Would any development of the team at that point benefit the city and the area? Probably better than an unsound blighted old abandoned apartment building. My point is that if the city wants to delay, they can, but it only hurts themselves. The team can win in the long game and wait until the stadium is done before making a move on it.

That may be so, but at the same time does the city then want to get in a pissing match with FCC about a blighted building that needs to come down, or a blighted parking lot that would generate much more in taxes as a mixed use development or something with 100 jobs?

Substantiate what? That Josh Spring and neighborhood activists are really out for the residents instead of trying to secure their own power base. Of course that is an opinion but please, their actions are contrary to the best interests of the tenants who are being displaced, they are using them as leverage. As for the zoning by the city. for the record as it currently sits, the property is not part of the zoning request. The only issue before the council is a zoning change for the allys to allow construction of the stadium. This is a losing battle for the city because FCC had reasonable reliance from them that this would get done. The city would lose this in court if it went that far and it would be malfeasance if they tried to fight this. If the team wanted a later zoning change for the apartment building, then yes, the city would have a stronger hand there.

It has already been established that these tenants are month to month. So no the tenant is not obligated to take the incentives, but they are better than they would be entitled too under the law. All FCC really needs to do is to create a sham transaction through a shell company, have an unaffiliated "investor" purchase the building, let that investor get the tenants out and does what he wants with the building, puts it in a blighted condition and then quietly passes title back to FCC. There are games that can be played to work around council on this.

If FCC did not own the building, a developer or renovator could come in, purchase the building and evict all the tenants and offer nothing in return. Legally, they would have 30 days to move and there is nothing the city could do, especially if the renovator does not change the footprint of the building, to stop them. Getting a $2500 moving allowance amongst other reasonable concessions shows that FCC is trying to be a decent neighbor. The activists who are urging the tenants to act against their best interests care little about the tenants and are just using them as pawns. That is the saddest thing about the whole situation. Instead of trying to let the people who live in the building negotiate and act in their best interests, neighborhood activists show they don't care at all about the people involved but rather are simply using them to protect some power interest they have with the city and show that they are the kingmakers. These "neighborhood activists" are often influenced themselves by outside parties that don't give a damn about the neighborhood anyway.

Would not have even thought the Cavs would consider skipping town anytime. Considering the All Star game is coming there soon, that is usually a sign of stability.

There was an article in the business courier probably about 5-7 years back where it listed all major league cities in the country and their capacity to add an extra team and the type of team it could support. it took into account major college sports in the landscape too. Cities with MLB and NFL used the most bandwidth for support than NBA and NHL and MLS cities. it showed that Cincnnati with NFL and MLB could not support another team and ran a deficit (hence the push on regionalism) Columbus had capacity but not enough to add an NFL, MLB or NBA team. It was an interesting analysis. Fast forward to 2019 and there is a 3rd team in town, so it shows, if there is a will there is always a way.

^ It is not just Bob from Mason. It is Ceirra who is relocating for a job from DC or Eric who graduated Harvard and has a opportunity with a major firm in Cincinnati. THey both spent most of their young adulthood living in a city urban setting. Heck Cierra even grew up in a tri-level townhome in DC similar to what they have in City West. Coming to the area, this makes them interested in taking a look at the West End instead of focusing on OTR and Prospect Hill only or alas, looking across the river in Newport or Covington. There is a lot of competition in neighborhoods of similar character out there, this helps the area get noticed.

WHile it will be a detriment for some. It will be an overall boon for the neighborhood. It puts it on the map. It gives people a reason to go there and check it out and say, "gee, it may be cool to live down here someday" whereas, the West End now does not have something to really attract people. You have to know about it and seek it out on purpose. There is not a job center there, there is not entertainment or chic restaurants that will pull people to the neighborhood. The West End is nice now with City West and has a quiet neighborhood feel to it, but it is not much different than the suburbs such as Oakley or Pleasant Ridge. Yes, you can walk to Music Hall or the Park, but there is not something that is really going to specifically pull people to the neighborhood. It does not have to be a stadium but something for an anchor to get people to consider an area they never did before.

did they take the link down, it does nto seem to be working?

I In the big picture, if this allows the area to turn into a vibrant neighborhood, it will be a win for the region.

Didn't Southgate house close a year or two ago? Would this project essentially replace some of the acts that went there?

Council is involved solely because there are a lot of egos there who like to grandstand and take full credit for a project that they really did little if anything ----- cough - P.G. ----- Cough cough-----

There are 2 zoning issues. The one you cited asking for additional properties to be rezoned. That was withdrawn but it is certainly the part that the city has leverage on and control of. The second issue is the right of way on the actual stadium footprint. Essentially, cant build the stadium without the zoning change for this area. This is where the team has the leverage. This is the main issue for the team at the present. The other zoning matters they can deal with later.

^ That is what some in council are trying to hang their hat on to get them to negotiate. Obviously, they prefer not to have a court case as it takes time and will cost money, but with any breach of contract case such as this, the city would ultimately be responsible for the damages. MLS would not yank the team, but whatever penalties they have to pay would be essentially damages the city would be obligated for if they lost in court. Both sides will ultimately agree to work together (hopefully the saner heads will prevail) Fortunately, there are at least 1-2 of the progressive wing that still has some pragmatism.

^ Yes and no. When the footprint of the stadium was approved, and rushed through council to allow construction to begin, there was a reasonable reliance that council would approve the required zoning changes that would need to be done in order to complete the project. FC was able to move ahead with the reasonable reliance that they zoning would be approved given prior promises by council. This concerns the actual footprint only (not the apartment building which appears to be an ancillary issue) This reasonable reliance is what the team will essentially win on if the case has to go to court. City council has no leg to stand on here. They can stymie and delay and cost FC and the taxpayers more money in legal fees to defend a dawg of a case (and hope to settle on their favorable terms), but in the end, it is a losing case for the city. THe apartment issue is a case they can stand their ground on since the stadium can be constructed without the apartment building being torn down and tenants displaced. Now practically speaking, it is probably best to tear the apartment building down, but the city can block the change there since there was never a reasonable reliance that the building be torn down in order to operate the stadium.

Yes and no. The team is entitled to a zoning change from council because they reasonably relied on that in getting the stadium off the ground and approved in the first place. So to your point about zoning FC has a strong case and a winning case over any zoning change required in the actual footprint and build of the stadium. As to the apartments that are outside the footprint and not necessarily required to be torn down, council does have a say in the zoning there because there reasonable expectation that these buildings were ever in the footprint of the stadium. In other words, council can try and stymie and delay but they are fighting a losing battle on the stadium zoning issue, not so much on the apartment building issue.

^ Why build it if it will not help the area gentrify? You have a crime ridden neighborhood wasting away that needed a catalyst for development and this is that catalyst. A few renters have to move. Whether it is FC or an enterprising landlord, the results would be the same. There is a reason why OTR has become a destination. It is because the smart city leaders realized the likes of Buddy Gray and Josh Spring were a bunch of giant know-nothings and quit listening to them. Now, you have an urban core that is coming back. The key is that you need city leaders that can do the right thing instead of just pandering to a special interest class who constantly comes with their hands out asking for a cut that they are not entitled too thus derailing the potential deal. if I were in Lindner's position, I would have taken my money and stadium to NKY with city council acting as irresponsible as they were and still are.

What city council is doing is disgraceful. Yes, people will have to move. That is inevitable whether FC Cincy owns the buildings or a private landlord. Gentrification is a good thing. It means neighborhoods left to die are seeing reinvestment. You cant reinvest in a neighborhood without turning some of it over. The Buddy Gray, Josh Spring idea of keeping a neighborhood solely for the poor yet at the same time expecting capital come in to support it does not work. You cant have it both ways.

I like the perspective you get from the garage to the rest of downtown. It provides some cool new views.