Brutus_buckeye

Any major expansion will come from the new land reclaimed from the 75 BSB project. That will take at least 10 years do complete. The center cannot wait 10 years at this point. You need to upgrade it now and build the hotel. Once you upgrade, then you begin to lay the groundwork for the expansion. Once they know how much land they will be able to reclaim to the west will determine how big the expansion can be (and how much they should plan for in an expansion. Remember the duke expansion opened in 2004/2005. It was already obsolete a couple of years into it. WIthin 10 years it was already in need of expansion/renovation to compete. If they do this renovation now, it will make it easier to expand in 10 years when the land becomes available.

It is actually not a bad move to build it like that. Hotels are risky and if this venture fails as a Margaritaville, it can be repositioned into another brand pretty easily. There is just something about the urban fabric that just does not really go with Margaritaville. At least the Newport one is part of an entertainment center and on water. When I think Margaritaville resort, I want sand, sun and a large pool.

I was thinking the exact same thing. It looks like an Embassy Suites. I was at least thinking it would have some sort of tropical themed colors or something to give it a resort feel.

have not been to hopkins in at least a dozen years, so I would not have noticed that change.

weather is better down there too for less weather delays.

I forget who it was but someone posted a few months back that Delta was shifting to a larger plane for the Paris flight. I guess that is what the new announcement is

As long as the D stays healthy and Watson plays like an average QB, they will make the playoffs and likely win the division.

So there is one big differentiator between the rail line and roads and streets (and the streetcar). Traditionally, it is the acceptance that cities or governments own assets to support the common good and assets that would not be efficient to be owned by the private sector (i.e. Roads, bridges, police, fire). At one time, you could make the point that the Cincinnati Southern fit in this box. However, I do not think it does in the present day. The Cincinnati/Southern railway is held for investment purposes to generate a financial return for the city so that the city could use the proceeds of those assets to spend on other projects in the general fund. Whereas, roads, bridges, the Streetcar are also assets but their purposes is more for the common good and to spur development and economic activity in the city. The Streetcar, roads and bridges are not measured by ROI, but the Cincinnati/Southern is only about the ROI at this point in its lifespan. Given that, is it really in the best interest of the city to own an asset whose sole benefit is ROI and it is an illiquid asset that carries the risk of illiquidity or is it better to divest that illiquid asset and place it into other assets that may allow for more liquidity and flexibility to take advantage of potential market opportunities if they arise. Regarding the Streetcar spending. I was not necessarily criticizing that you cant spend money from the sale on the streetcar or streetcar expansion, my main issue with promoting the streetcar is that after years of negative publicity, the wounds have not exactly healed there yet and it would not be beneficial to pushing streetcar expansion as an effort to sell it to the voters.

I get that you are all in on the non-car, public transit, expanded streetcar, etc., etc. but that is no reason to hold this hostage. You are trying to bring completely unrelated matters together and it the only goal of doing so is preventing anything from happening. It is akin the 5 year old saying if I cant have what I want, you cant get what you want. Regarding the railroad sale, vote yes or no because you agree that it is a good deal for the city or not a good deal for the city and will provide a good stable revenue stream going forward for a long time. Do not vote no because you disagree with the fact that this will go solely toward roads and not your preferred pet projects. The reality is, at this time you are not realistically going to get funds to go toward the streetcar, building sidewalks, or whatever other non road related infrastructure you may want. The political realities of it at the current time just do not allow for it. Your argument has been presented and dismissed. Just is not going to happen. So what you are left with is the opportunity for a deal that would create 55+ Million a year for roads, or remain at the current 25+ million that has no restrictions and there is a hope to get something a bit more in the future as the lease would be renegotiated (which is not a guarantee). Is a bird in the hand better than two in the bush?? I would probably say yes. So you now get $50 million that is specifically earmarked toward roads. Good/bad/indifferent, the fact is that the roads are there and must be maintained. You are going to have to budget and spend money out of the city general fund to pay for those roads whether you like them or not. No matter how much you may pout and complain about "road culture" the reality is that it exists and it is here AND your tax dollars ARE GOING TO PAY FOR THEM whether you like them or not. The big difference is now the city budget does not need to account for $50 million of road improvements in the general budget and that money can now go somewhere else. So, big picture, yes, this actually helps expand the streetcar, and yes, this money will help with other neighborhood initiatives because now you do not have to allocate as much money out of the general budget for road repairs. There are numerous reasons why you should not like this deal and there are numerous reasons to like this deal, but to vote no because it does not allocate money to other transit is not a great reason to vote no.

I never realized until a few years ago that when the space program started, it was essentially based in Cleveland (and DC). Florida was an ideal launch area but then Johnson took Mission Control to Houston. NASA in Cleveland is very understated and most people who are not from the West Side of Cleveland have little knowledge that it is there.

TBH I am fairly indifferent on the sale, but I think it is best to sell. I think that government has no business being the owners of a rail line and the risks that come with it. They are better off holding assets in financial instruments that offer a bit more liquidity and the ability to reposition the assets in the event of a change in circumstance. Owning the railroad, while profitable has a lot of risks to it for the city. The most significant is the fact that railroads are oligopolies in the US and a mature industry. If CSX does not or down the line would choose to default on the lease, it would be very difficult to get someone to replace them on that line for potentially the same rate. Being a fixed asset that is illiquid, the city could be left holding the bag should something happen. By getting out of the railroad business, the city can hold the proceeds in more liquid assets that allow it to mitigate the risk of the railroad. I do see the risks that those who are against the sale say about the funds not being used appropriately. That does happen, politicians and government bureaucrats often are not great shepherds of the public trust, which is why we are better of with limited government, but that is a debate for a different time. Ultimately, for me it comes down to the fact that the local government is better off not being tied to a fixed asset like the railroad and would be better off in more flexible financial instruments.

1) It would never pass if you included the streetcar. 2) You now have a fund that can pay for dedicated repairs to the roads and you do not have to find it from other sources 3) Having a dedicated fund to repair roads allows you to re-allocate other funding that would go to the roads to other resources, so it is a shell game and really does not matter.

I thought the hotel was going to have 800 rooms based on what they said in the renderings. Did it get scaled down recently?

If Hockey is the end game for the Lindner ownership group, you will probably see them tip their hands in the next couple years with a move like buying the Cyclones and moving them up a level or investing in local hockey youth clubs.

Because PHX is a top 15 media market and they can theoretically make more money on TV deals and media deals than they can getting butts in the seats. Although, that did not stop Atlanta from moving to Winnipeg.

Meg Whitman is an interesting investor. She obviously is someone who is very well known and connected with a lot of wealthy individuals out on the West Coast, but she obviously loves what the Lindners are doing here and has that P&G connection to the city and has spent time here in the past so she has familiarity with the town. I would love her to take a larger role, even as some sort of civic leader and help develop more business opportunities in the core since she appears to want to invest her money in town.

I agree, the best use is as much of an extension of the convention center. Heritage does not provide this extension. The location in between TQL and the convention center would, as would Longworth Hall. Plus, you could also integrate Paycor into some potential convention pitches better too. Having something to add convention space to run 2-3 conventions simultaneiously or even run AAU sporting tourneys in a compact space would be very beneficial.

And while overall I agree with the sentiments of @Gordon Bombay, there is something to be said that a new arena built privately would be the catalyst for the owner to try and relocate a NHL or NBA team. Lindners are good business people, but I cant see them wanting to spend the money on the NBA with the current valuations. NHL is much cheaper and more affordable but it seems as if it is not a growing enterprise like the NBA or even MLS. With that said, I cant see the Lindners as the group to bring a 4th professional franchise to town.

She came out on the radio today and reluctantly admitted it was Leeper she was talking about. She was a bit hesitant to do so but she said it anyway.

Not at the current time, but also remember that nobody in 2010-2015 thought we would ever have an MLS team. In the arena wars cities play off each other all the time for that battle. While a team may only relocate here for say 20 years, it is still an asset worth having for that time. Look at the fortunate cities to get a team solely because they have had an arena at the right time for the team to relocate. - OKC got their team because of an arena, same with Memphis, the Panthers are in Carolina because of an arena. Indy has an NFL team because they had an arena. Kansas City was close to getting another NBA team because of the arena. Not saying that if you build it they will come, but if you have it and can make use of the asset in the mean time, it just opens up more opportuntiies.

I think it may be a pipe dream to get an NBA or NHL team here, stranger things have happened and we should not completely shut the door on the idea. If you have an ambitious enough owner, things can happen. Maybe Dr Troendle is a big NBA fan or something. I would not see Indy as an issue either. Louisville has been seriously considered as an NBA expansion city a number of years back so I do not think the NBA is too concerned or heavily prioritizing the Indy market. NHL is harder because Cincy is a much bigger basketball town than hockey town so it would be a much harder lift to generate the support for an NHL team with the other competition in town. Columbus is not a huge factor (heck, who knows if Columbus will be there in 20 years, it is not like they have a huge passionate following like Pittsburgh or Detroit have, most of the people around here who go to Blue Jacket games are fans of the visiting team more than Columbus)

I cant see NHL coming here. There is just not enough hockey infrastructure in town to support it (Maybe that will change, especially if the market starts growing much faster but that is still too early to predict). If anything, I could see NBA here before NHL (because there may be more moneyed individuals in town willing to bring in an NBA team), because the growth for NBA is much better than NHL projections.

If I were going to rank the sites 1A) New land next to convention center from I-75 project - This is really not feasible because a project located here cant really happen for another 10 years. 1) West End (solely because FC is likely to come up with the money), although I think you move it South toward City Hall a few blocks 2) Casino, because it ties into it for programming, easy access from 71, and can further integrate with that neighborhood 3) Renovate Heritage on existing site - Because it is there 4) Longworth Hall - Keep the existing building and integrate it into a new arena 5) P&G site. it can integrate with the Casino area fairly well The rest of the sites are non starters because there just is not enough room around the old Millenium site and they have already committed to build the new Hotel on the Convention place site so that eliminates consideration for an arena. One other issue i have is why build a new arena smaller than the old arena. Build it to 20k seats. While I have no preconceptions that we would ever get an NBA or NHL team, let's not close that avenue down completely as well as holding larger arena events that need 20k+ seat capacity. 20k + creates flexibility. We have plenty of arenas in the 10-12k capacity already, lets build a big one if you do it like the YUM Center size.

There are typically enough republicans to get one seat on council if they concentrate together though. Especially if the more Republican voters only vote for less than 9 candidates, it would only serve to help Keating.

I thought she said "If an African American behaved in such a way"