Brutus_buckeye

I think it is Leeper. There has been contentious issues with 3CDC and the county recently so I think it is a clash of personalities between those 2 individuals. You would have to figure that a rep from a company like Portman who does not have longstanding relationships in town is going to be a bit more deferential, since there are an outsider, whereas 3CDC has longstanding relationships with the COunty, and they have quasi government backing to get their job done, so they stand almost as an equal or independent body, so they have more liberties to challenge the commissioners than a Portman would have.

^ It is a shame, the Fontainbleau brand is Miami. Some things are not meant to be exported.

Sounds like she is trying to take on 3CDC and using this project to go after them.

^ THat would be a huge tourist draw for the region. Dayton thought they scooped Cincinnati with their Bucces but nothing like a Bucces with a river view. I hear that this Bucces may even take Semi's since they will have so many gas pumps and instead of brisket they will have a Cincinnati Chili station

I think you close down Charles street and extend over there as well. No sense in trying to squeeze it into a tight footprint when you have the ability to expand it out some. If Central is going to be narrowed, you can get some more width. Close Charles street to expand the concourses like they have in INdy, use the area where freestore is to add arena centric development or even just a plaza, relocate the Freestore to another building.

Move it flush with Court Street, narrow Central in that area to get some additional width on the block.

So riddle me this. If all the fighting is over the land where CET is located to build the arena, why not move the arena a couple blocks South toward City Hall? Those blocks are just mostly empty parking lots, the Duke substation (Which can be moved), and some run down smaller buildings that could be easily razed. This way, the arena is 2 blocks closer to the convention center, and you do not have to worry about how to develop the CET property. If an arena will fit on the block where CET sits, it will easily fit on some of the blocks just South of there (unless those blocks were all going to be used as part of the project too. I think that parking could be an issue and it could be harder to access from the highway as opposed to the CET site.

the company could theoretically pay the travel costs.

Seems like a lot of wasted space. The hallway leading to the master bedroom is useless, same with the way the entry foyer is laid out. There are too many long hallways that waste a lot of space.

There is nothing wrong with her sending her kid to private school. That does not make her a hypocrite. It is wrong for her to call private schools fascist (which also shows that she does not even understand the meaning of fascist, but it is just a cool word for progressives to throw around right now so she uses it). Support her union and support her schools. She does not need to demean those who do not share her opinion or even bring private schools into the discussion between her union and public school district.

You would be wrong on that one. I question the judgement and common sense of those who would willingly choose to go to the University of Michigan. But you are right that it does not hold a candle to Ohio State

well... um.... you know... private schools are fascist but my son's private school is the only one that isn't. They have nice kids there, and good families........ I would send him to public school but you see, as your union leader, I work lots of loooong hours to support the children and teachers in our district and with our schedule and such, it just makes more sense in this one instance that my son goes to a private school, but it is a sacrifice I make in order to better serve the needs of the community and the children at the schools that our teachers represent. If anything, I as your Union leader am putting the needs of my own children secondary to the children of this district...

Rent control was made illegal. What would be unconstitutional would have been some of the other ideas (just cause eviction for one) that they were trying to push through, which would run in direct conflict to state law landlord tenant rights (i.e regarding constitutionality. the state could certainly make a law like just cause eviction, but the local municipality could not override the state law)

I like the Model plan the best but I think they should rethink CET and expand upon that complex. Add a larger sound stage or something that can help cater to more movies coming to town.

I would keep the Times Star Building as the Courthouse. That brings people downtown (maybe not the right people, but it brings people). Alms and Doepke and the Admin building could together fetch $30 million from a developer. Could be a nice start to get financing to develop a new building on the court street lot.

I do not know much about the Alms building and that would be feasible but I have spent a lot of time in the Portune building and that is laid out in a way that could be converted IMO. The downside is that there are a lot of support beams throughout but it should not be much different than the Resnaissance Apartments on 8th street. I really like the front atrium and stair case on the first 4 floors with the window there and think that provides some cool views, I think the biggest challenge will be electric and plumbing of course for a developer. However, the county could use the sale of such assets to help finance the construction of their new admin center.

Again, you are trying to look at policy differences as not agreeing on the problem. Both sides agree there is a problem. In this case the problem is Poverty and how do you help people overcome it. That is the problem. You just disagree with some of the policy positions of Republicans but that is far different than disagreeing with the problem. Moving away from poverty, lets look at the immigration argument. Both parties have largely agreed since the Bush years that we have needed immigration reform and the immigration system was broken. There have been a number of attempts and action that has almost come to fruition that would have fixed a lot of this, but it is acknowledged that both parties agree there is a problem. The debate is over what the best policy should be for immigration. You often see the Dems pushing for some sort of amnesty and pathway to citizenship. While there are certainly an argument on that policy decision, there are also some unfairness in the model, especially for those immigrants who wait in line for years for their chance to come legally to the US. ON the far right, there is the argument to keep the borders closed for safety and not let anyone in to avoid stealing American jobs. Again there is certainly an argument there but agin there are a lot of flaws in that position too. Both of these positions (no matter how extreme each side is) are policy positions to address the problem, both sides recognize the problem but it is the policy decision that causes the disagreement.

I do not care about the BOE. They do not have many employees and outside of a couple times a year, do not bring a lot of people down there. However, the county employees need to stay downtown. Especially near the Courthouse area because there is a lot of crossover there with the Courthouse and Admin building. What i would love to see happen is they develop the lot across from Kroger into a new County admin building. Add a 8-10 story garage as part of it and then a 15 story office on the top of it. Sell the Alms and Deopke building to a developer to convert to apartments. Sell the old Admin building and develop that to apartments (with the new garage to accommodate parking for those apartments. Add street level retail off that building and it really would activate that part of Court Street at all hours.

I think it is important to recognize that each side really seeks many of the same goals and that the rhetoric around them is very heated and sometimes gets out of hand. At the end of the day, it is not the goals that people fight over but the way to achieve those goals. It is the policy battle not the end result and people need to quit acting like each side is the enemy and wants to kill granny based on policy positions when at the end of the day they do ultimately share a common goal the vast majority of the time. Both Republicans and Democrats want affordable health care. They just disagree on how to get there. Both Republicans and Democrats want to help the poor, but they have different policy ideas on how to get there. Many of these goals are common, but we sometimes forget about that when arguing over policy.

It is about trying to pass what they can of the tenant bill of rights. Much of their efforts, like rent control, have been thrwarted by that damn Constitution getting in the way, but one of the things they are trying to do is provide legal rep to tenants facing eviction (not a good idea and would clog up the system, but that is for a different day). The big issue there is they need a funding source. This will likely be that source, amongst other things.

To be fair without really engaging in left v right hyperbole, I think that the big argument on the right vs left is where to draw the line on that responsibility. You see that happening displaying itself right now on the education side often over the transgender issue, but it has surfaced in many other arenas in the past such as medicine, vaccination issues, religion, etc. The big debate, and it will always be a debate, is where the parental rights end and where the state's interest as some may describe it or more accurately, the interest of the child (because we have an individual right system through the Constitution) should usurp the parental interest. That is a challenge and tough line to draw sometimes and it is not really something that will be settled ever. You are right this is a canard on the right, but it really is no different than those on the left who say Republicans want to destroy public schools and they do not believe that socieity should help those in need. That is a false argument as well. And you know what, these same issues confound many people on the right too. Those on the right want the same things, not just for themselves but for society as a whole. So to act like those on the right do not care about these issues is quite disingenuous. The argument is over how to get there. The left favors a heavy handed statist approach where government comes in and provides these goods and services as a shared cost to society. The right favors a market driven approach to solve many of these issues that tends to provide more options and choices. The thing that neither side actually has the solution to these issues, which really cannot be solved with one particular policy or plan. There is a certainly a limited role for government and oftentimes, the best solution (which still does not actually solve the problem), is often somewhere in the middle and does involve deep compromise by both sides, which is something neither side wants to do today.

But I think this is a bit misleading. What is the cost of a car? Yes, the new car prices are much higher due to safety and tougher emission standards and a number of other regulations. Also, factor in the rise of EV's and you are going to see a significant rise in vehicle cost since they are much more expensive to make. However (and this does not necessarily apply to EV's since their battery life will not last 10+ years) but it is still cheaper over the course of 10 years to own and operate a car today than it was 50 years ago.

That is a decision that each family needs to make via their circumstances. While in one sense, you get no benefit of the second income, you maintain a good benefit plan. Plus, you can continue your career if you choose and not create a gap in employment if that is important to you. On the other hand, if it does not make sense to continue to work, there is nothing wrong with such a choice. This statement really mischaracterizes things and does not really encapsulate the debate and ultimately makes those on the left look elitist and further out of touch on the subject. Acting as if the right cares little about education and childcare is a very disingenuous argument to make and really could not be further from the truth. Based on your statement, you essentially state that those on the right do not send their kids to public schools and therefore have no use for them. Statistics would prove that to be incorrect same with Childcare. You could argue that one of the big difference between the right and left is personal responsibility or lack thereof. On the left, when things are hard or difficult, the left wants government to come in and remove the burden. They feel that childcare can be outsourced and education should be too. Essentially, the left is not arguing for social responsibility, but they are arguing for an "easy button". Childcare is expensive, please remove this burden from me and raise my kids. Many on the right are strong supporters of public schools and they are strong supporters of making responsible choices to raise your children. The big difference is that when you "outsource" it to the government, the parents lose some semblance of control over what they see may be best for their kids and it gets delegated to society as a whole. While those on the left feel that they should have a uniform system as to how children should be reared, many on the right feel that it is up to the individual parents to decide how they should raise their kids and what values to instill in them. Those on the right do not see it as their business how a family in DC or California want to raise their kids, just as they do not want the values of those families dictating how they need to raise their chidlren in Ohio.

Very true, over the course of 10 years you would pay much more of a portion of your income to own a car back in the 60s and 70s than you do today. Heck, I remember as a kid all of the times our car broke down on the side of the street. I barely remember an incident like that since I have had kids

It is amusing and interesting to hear people talk about how much more expensive things are today than what they were 30-40-50 years ago. Yes, some things are more expensive, but many others are cheaper and there are other staples that are no longer needed. Cars as a portion of income are no more expensive today and (I have not checked the stats lately) to some degree cheaper than they were 50-60 years ago. $3.00 gallon gas is not really much more expensive than $.60 gas in the 1950s or $1.00+ gas in the 70s during the oil crisis. With children, people complain about the cost of diapers today, but at that time people used diaper services to wash and clean the cloth diapers which was not a cheap service. We no longer have land lines to talk to people on the phone and to call friends and family more than 30 miles away is now a free call instead of paying by the minute. heck, at that time, you would really never consider making a call to Europe and talking with someone there. Taking photos for family memories cost money and you certainly did not want to waste your film on random photos or selfies. Electronics like Tv's were such a big purchase for families, many only had 1 or 2 in the house because they cost such a big % of the persons wages that people could not easily replace them when they went bad. There was even such a thing as a TV repairman business. Point being, while we all complain about how expensive things are, in the aggregate, life really is not much more expensive if at all. It is just certain items that were luxuries or staples that we spent money on 30-40 years ago, we no longer have to because they are obsolete, and other technologies or services have taken its place. We now are devoting a greater % of our income to daycare now, or to a second car, or eating out more, but we devote much less to our phone bill or the cost of a TV and computer.