Brutus_buckeye

The question is what does a new arena bring to the table. NCAA tourney and Sweet 16 rounds, Hockey Final 4, a few extra concerts. Jake is right, is it worth 300-400 million for this? KC did that recently, but they did not build 2 new stadiums in the last decade. Maybe in 2025 it may be worth the capital investment. Unless we are going to really push for an NBA or NHL team it is not worth it. I don't think there is the desire to push for either. I know KC built their arena in hopes of getting the NBA back and that has not happened yet and does not look like it will. I do not see UC Basketball as the same draw as Louisville ball because, Cincy is a major league city and U of L is the only thing happening in Louisville. There is more diversity in Cincy to spread the dollars around. Therefore, even UC would not be a large enough tenant to support a 300-400 million upgrade of the arena. There needs to be an NHL or NBA team for that. To be honest, NHL is attainable. Columbus may not like it but there are enough marginal NHL teams out there that would jump at a package to go to a better revenue market or better arena lease. If there was enough support for that it could be a possibility.

I think it will go to Cincinnati or KC. Cleveland may be hard depending on the dates because of the Cavs potentially in the arena at that time. Dallas and Texas have been done by the GOP too much. KC provides that nice median. USBank arena sucks but it is not an eliminating factor. It all depends ultimately on which group is able to secure the funding for it.

Jake, wouldn't that mean tearing down busken?

Thank you for the correction re PNC Center. PNC Bank has their offices in this building hence the name, they have no offices in the old Central Trust tower and moved out in the 1970's when the PNC Center was built (although Provident and National City had a bunch of space there at one time but I think that has been consolidated). In General I think most people think that 4th and Vine is the Bank's building but they just lease signage space there since it is a prime location to get their name on the Skyline and their main office does not have much visibility

Point of reference - The building you describe as the PNC Tower or Central Trust Tower is actually the 4th & Vine tower. The PNC Tower is actually at 5th and Main. The PNC tower does not have a logo on it.

Disagree. The conclusion on one side of this issue is that the amount of attention paid to this specific subsidy is due to race. The premises of that argument is that other, larger or similar subsidies paid to other businesses that failed never garnered as much attention as this one. Obviously some people disagree with that argument, even so strongly as to consider it foolish. PAlexander - Completely disagree with you on this one as your logic is very off base. The problem with this deal is that there were so many red flags at the beginning a prudent investor would not want to invest yet the city decided to proceed forward anyway. When the city's legal department marked up the lease with their input on what should be added to provider greater security, yet council and the mayor completely ignored it, that it borders on malfeasance. People do not mind investment but they get upset when local leaders treat their tax money like their own and waste it on poor investments. The fact that larger investments have failed is nothing but a straw man argument and irrelevant to the deal at hand here. There is never a guarantee of success when investing in a business but the key is making a prudent investment. Prudent investments fail all the time but the likelihood of them succeeding is still there. Unfortunately, the chance of long term success of Mahoganey's at the Banks was poor at best. This was not the investment city council should have been making, because as you point out, much more prudent investments have failed as well. That is why this is not about race. The only people who claim this is about race are the defenders of such bad business decisions that they need to find a scapegoat to hide the fact that they were one of the Kool Aid drinkers.

How was that comment offensive. It pretty much stated the truth. Now the key fact he left out was that Toby Keith's got a subsidy and they have had their struggles too. Otherwise, it was a fairly accurate statement that did not attack the character of the person but the issue at hand. I think his key point is that the city should not be in the business of giving loans/grants with taxpayer money to speculative projects. That is irresponsible. Would you be happy if the city directed its investments to speculative oil fracking in Eastern, Ohio, I doubt it. Yes, that would produce a good return but it is incredibly risky. The opponents of this deal had no issue with the individual or race, it had everything to do with what was a prudent investment. Trying to argue otherwise is just foolish.

The unnverving thing is that as dense as the downtown looks from some of the photos (it reminds me of parts of Chicago) you would expect to see a lot of people on the streets, or at least some people. I know it was cold out, but it is amazing the dearth of people on the street even on a weekend day. It looks as if the place is frozen in time.

Nice Photos of downtown Cleveland in July.

Looks like Albertsons beat Kroger to the punch on this.

Jake - first of all, P&G is not paying impoverished wages to tear down jungles, that is Greenpeace propaganda. Palm oil is a commodity and sold on a commodities market, P&G pays the market price for it. These farmers choose to tear down their jungles to earn money based on the going rate for the commodity. So if these local farmers are acting illegally in their country, then it is up to the laws of their country to be enforced. Greenpeace, essentially acts like a petulant child who acts out and pouts when it does not get its way. To be honest, its act is getting old and tired. The best way to deal with the petulant child is to show it proper punishment such that its actions will not be rewarded. Greenpeace is allowed to have a voice, however, expressing its voice in a negative manner that causes destruction and panic to those around it is not how we do things in a civilized society. When they learn that they are welcome to come back and sit at the adult table.

I hope those idiots get to rot in a jail cell for a few years to know that their actions have consequences and that they know there will be more than a slap on the wrist in the future for such antics. They are being obnoxious about it, and there was damage caused. It caused a panic, it diverted important police resources, it could have caused severe injury to a bystander. These are not the type of acts that are acceptable if you want to be a credible organization. Sending them to the state penitentiary for a while may not reform the organization but it may reform these few idiots who will learn a lesson from this. Seriously? I'd rather people do what they did than drive drunk. A drunk driver only rots in jail if they actually kill someone. What they did was a terrorist act. A drunk driver deserves to be in jail if they cause physical damage to a property too. That is a different argument for a different time though. Just because you don't agree with P*G does not give you the right to destroy their property in a criminally malicious way as part of your demonstration. Free speech has a responsibility aspect to it and the problem is that these idiots will use this to create a bigger splash in the future if they don't see there are serious consequences for their actions. As to the individuals involved here, it will suck to be them, but hopefully a long jail sentence will deter future members from such actions. Absolutely NOT! "Terrorism is the systematic use of violence (terror) as a means of coercion for political purposes." These people are not terrorists. They risked their own lives, trespassed, and caused property damage. The punishment should be equivalent to those charges. A large fine to cover the court costs and property damage and pay some damages to P&G. "Terrorism is the systematic use of violence (terror) as a means of coercion for political purposes." lets see, in this case, while they did not use violence to accomplish those means, they did create panic in the area. Their actions were in reckless disregard for the safety of those around them. People could have been seriously injured in the act or from the results of their actions. Ryan - Terrorism in the sense of someone strapping a bomb to themselves, no it is no where near that level and you are right is not in that ballpark. However, given the heightened sense of security around here since 9/11, the thought of people breaking into a building to cause criminal mischief, no matter whether their intentions are non-violent can cause an extreme amount of panic by those on the ground or in the building and hence it is to a certain level terroristic. They need to be punished hard for this and spend jail time for these actions. It is not the first time they have done this and they need to think twice before pulling this crap again.

Absolutely not. I would hope you have enough common sense that you don't sympathize with those fools.

I hope those idiots get to rot in a jail cell for a few years to know that their actions have consequences and that they know there will be more than a slap on the wrist in the future for such antics. They are being obnoxious about it, and there was damage caused. It caused a panic, it diverted important police resources, it could have caused severe injury to a bystander. These are not the type of acts that are acceptable if you want to be a credible organization. Sending them to the state penitentiary for a while may not reform the organization but it may reform these few idiots who will learn a lesson from this. Seriously? I'd rather people do what they did than drive drunk. A drunk driver only rots in jail if they actually kill someone. What they did was a terrorist act. A drunk driver deserves to be in jail if they cause physical damage to a property too. That is a different argument for a different time though. Just because you don't agree with P*G does not give you the right to destroy their property in a criminally malicious way as part of your demonstration. Free speech has a responsibility aspect to it and the problem is that these idiots will use this to create a bigger splash in the future if they don't see there are serious consequences for their actions. As to the individuals involved here, it will suck to be them, but hopefully a long jail sentence will deter future members from such actions.

I hope those idiots get to rot in a jail cell for a few years to know that their actions have consequences and that they know there will be more than a slap on the wrist in the future for such antics. They are being obnoxious about it, and there was damage caused. It caused a panic, it diverted important police resources, it could have caused severe injury to a bystander. These are not the type of acts that are acceptable if you want to be a credible organization. Sending them to the state penitentiary for a while may not reform the organization but it may reform these few idiots who will learn a lesson from this.

Or it is such a good project it does not need anymore subsidies and that additional subsidies can be applied to other worthy projects. Who cares the reasoning, it only matters the result.

This should serve as a lesson that our elected leaders should not be acting as venture capitalists unless they are qualified to do so. Unfortunately, none of them on council at this time have that qualification.

Guys, if the Bootsy's development received a single municipal tax break it received a subsidy. Tax expeditures are subsidies, plain and simple. For the sake of argument, let's all agree that this woman didn't deserve the subsidy, and the way that we know for certain that she didn't deserve it is she went out of business. Then if you apply that same logic to any other business- i.e. a venture that fails had to have signs that someone, if policing the deal correctly, could have figured out that it would fail. If we take that objective stance, these "safe bet entrepreneurs" have likely cost the City way more than this woman has. But the big difference and what you fail to realize is that level of risk in the venture. Who are the financial backers besides the city, what other people have skin in the game. What is the business risk to the city. It is not about the amount of money that was lost but it is about the process, or lack of process that was used in the vetting process. That is the problem with it. The difference between this and Bootsy's (and I do not know the details about Rodgers) is that on the surface, Bootsey's had financial backers with deeper pockets who could sustain deeper losses, they may have had to put more of their own money at risk, there was a track record of prior successful management on a larger scale, likely no prior judgments or liens against the principles, etc. When you go into a project that does not make business sense, you are not being responsible to your constituents.

A lot of it stemmed from the Who incident in the 70's when the city banned festival seating. It really hurt the concert industry here and even after it was repealed, after more than a generation of lost concerts, Cincinnati was off the radar completely. It is going to take years and work to build that back up again.

The edge was a warehouse behind the Taft Museum where they were going to add 8 floors and turn it inot luxury condos before the market crashed. It was a neat project but too bad it did not happen.

Jake - you are right, Ruby had several restaurants close, but the only people who lost money were his private investors in those deals. Even with the restaurant closed, they still paid on the lease. As far as defrauding naïve investors, those investors know what they are getting involved with. They are the Chris Collingsworths, Bootsy Collins's of the world who have the funds to lose and still be OK and if they don't know the risks, they can afford to hire an advisor who can advise them on the risks. There is a big difference when you are talking about taxpayer money vs private money. THat is why people are upset on the radio about this. There may be some misplaced animosity towards the owner but it is mostly disgust at the city for approving the deal even after proper due diligence suggested otherwise.

If the GOP picks Ohio, doubt the dems will. If GOP goes somewhere else there is a pretty good chance the Dems go to Ohio. I would love Cleveland to get the Dem convention but if not them, Columbus is good too. I am pulling for Cincy for the GOP but if not, I would rather see Columbus.

PAlexander - I think much of the crowd on WLW does not believe the city should be in the business of picking winners and losers. Me personally, I look at it as that this is the taxpayers money and the city is not a charity and has a duty to ensure that this is not wasted, no matter how large or small it is. If it is the best interest of the taxpayer to offer the subsidy, the city better make damn sure they are doing their diligence to make sure it is not wasted. That was not done in this case. Yes, it was a small deal, but the city is not entitled to play venture capitalist with their taxpayers money. That is the issue here. Do larger companies like Montgomery INn need the subsidy as much, no they don't, but it is more prudent to give them the subsidy because the taxpayers are better protected. It goes to the fact as to who the money belongs too, the city or the people. The city and elected officials are fiduciaries of that taxpayer money so they better make sure it is spent appropriately. I am all for minority businesses being successful at the Banks. I am all for Liz Rodgers being successful. However, if there needs to be outside investors to support her, it should not be the city. She needs to find someone else.

As I have listed repeatedly now on this thread, various white-owned restaurants have been given tax breaks, grants, and sources of ancillary income that far exceed the loan given to the ownership of Mahogany's (the grant and parking lot revenue given to the Montgomery Inn Boathouse is probably the most outrageous). Nobody even knows this stuff goes on, even though those restaurants (again, the Boathouse) are in very prominent locations. And again, Jeff Ruby has had one of his restaurants break free and hit the exact same bridge pier twice. Again, everyone just chuckles about it. The acrimony directed at this restaurant, absolutely, positively, was a way for the talk radio shills and the area Republicans to lob some more Reagan-era race narrative and embarrass the city, and there's absolutely no way that this criticism didn't contribute to the end they were rooting for. So imagine you're interested in opening a restaurant, and out of the thousands of restaurants in the area, and hundred or so to open this year, yours gets singled out and is vilified and stigmatized and its name made into a pejorative. They made it so that people were as hesitant to say that they had been to the restaurant as they were to try it for the first time. What if the Boathouse was minority-owned and was pocketing thousands of dollars every weekend from a city-owned parking lot? You can bet that wouldn't have lasted long. Jake - you leave a few HUGE points out of your argument. First - the Boathouse project. - The Montgomery Inn Franchise was already one of the most successful models at the time the Boathouse opened. They had a track record and the finances/capital to weather a downturn regardless of city help. The city help incentivized them to "take that risk" but the key here is not looking at it from the Mont Inn Point of View, but if I were a tax payer, trusting the city to invest my money in a project, do I trust it on a proven concept (Montgomery Inn) or Mohagoney's. I am all for Mohagoney's succeeding, but given the nature of the business and the borrower, are they a strong credit risk. In this case the answer was no and the deal should not have been approved. Jeff Ruby is the same as Mont Inn. - He had successful establishments before he went to Covington to open the waterfront again. There is no certainty of him succeeding, but he has the ability to weather the storm if business starts out slow. More importantly, when he started, he was able to find investors to be the collateral in the event he failed and could not pay back the loan. It was their money on the line, not the city's money. It was a shame that she became the poster child of bad business deals here, but the outrage was with the city for being irresponsible (which you cant argue with that). People ultimately were all for Mohaganey's succeeding.

Jake - the jabs are because the city awarded a grant to a business that was likely not able to survive and that they chose an owner who may have had some credit issues. Ultimately, the fact that people are crowing about this is nothing to do with Liz Rodgers, but more to do with the fact that the city, and our elected officials who are entrusted to spend taxpayers money wisely, made a deal. The complaining was about that this was a bad business deal from the beginning and that sound business principles would not have approved such a deal. So, yes, that is why you have people saying "I told you so". As far as hoping for Mahogoney's to fail, I did not see that, I sensed a lot of people want it to make it for a variety of reasons, but most importantly, to show that the tax payer money is well spent. Listening to Cunningham, he is very complimentary of Liz Rodgers and praised her food and her establishment and essentially feels she was a scapegoat of poor city leadership.