Brutus_buckeye

I had a family member essentially do that. He did not exactly quit his job but he bought the daycare center down the street so his kids could get free daycare from them. He liked it so much he owns 3 centers now and still has his full time job as a government contractor. Ironically, Elizabeth Warren (yes, that Elizabeth Warren) wrote a book around 20 years ago when she was advocating for bankruptcy reform and she said that one of the key problems leading to bankruptcy amongst families was the 2 income household and she argued that it encouraged much higher consumption and less saving. There are a lot of families that rely on grandparents to take the kids a few days a week. There is always something to be said about living closer to family if possible. My wife has turned down many more lucrative opportunities that were out of town because of the assistance that family has been able to provide with the kids.

In one sense, childcare should not be cheap but at the same time it still needs to have somewhat afforability aspects to it. If the kids are the most important thing for families we do not want to make it so cheap they cannot get quality care during the day, but at the same time, certainly has to not be a luxury only high income families can afford. I do think one thing to help would be to provide tax credits and incentives to allow one parent to stay home during the time the child is young or work part time and limit their hours to like 20 a week. This way, the spouse would not be as penalized for giving up on their career if they choose and it would make affordability more reasonable to many parents. That would just cause inflation and do nothing to actually control costs. We really do not want to do that.

Let's be real here, people making $16/hr are not placing their kids in those daycares or they are receiving subsidies to do so. It is not the $16/hr worker that is the issue, it is the middle to upper middle class family with a combined household income around $100-150k that is the family that gets squeezed the most. They make too much for subsidies but they do not make enough where one spouse can comfortably stay home or easily put money into savings at that point, especially if they have a large student loan burden between spouses.

Welcome to parenthood. I dont mean to sound trite, but this has been the case for generations of parents. Fact is, kids are expensive and daycare is even more expensive. The good news is that you get some relief in a couple years once they get to school. That being said, when our kids were younger, it was actually a bit more cost effective to have an in home nanny once you had multiple kids vs the cost of daycare (especially during the 1st year when the kid is in the infant room and that costs more) however, from what i have seen it becomes more of a wash once the kids get to older daycare programs. Definitely by 3 kids in home is most cost effective than daycare. Regarding your job and industries that pay more. While I am not an architect and not overly familiar with the business cycle in that industry, I would ask you this, are you an architect at a firm where you can move to a partner and get profit sharing some day? In general, if there is a way to move to a front facing position where you are responsible for generating revenue, those positions will tend to pay more. Whether it is in the architectural field or some other field, your background would allow you to get into a technical sales type role and many B to B sales based positions tend to pay fairly lucrative. Certainly, there are other areas either within your field or tangential to your field that could pay more, maybe on a consulting side or even a working in house for a development company who could use your services. A larger in house company could pay more and have better benefits than say a small architectural firm but career advancement may be more limited. If you are looking for more pay you will find it but it may require some tradeoffs.

He is merely the agent for service as required by the state. He represents a client who owns the property that does not want their personal address known so they use a law firm to be the agent so they do not receive a ton of junk mail. It will be a local client because most out of state clients will use CT Corp for their agent.

I do not love the garage entrance/exit on Vine Street. I would rather see it on Race or even 6th. I like what they are doing to activate the street on 6th but would rather have it establish more connectivity with Ftn Sq and the Foundry/525 Vine complexes without the garage entrance. At the same time, I get how it probably fits there functionally there better than any other place at the location so it may be the best of other potentially bad options.

I do not disagree with you. It certainly would present complications in that regard. Certainly, there are logistics that would need to be worked through to accomodate such a thing but like a minister giving a prayer at graduation, or the football coach praying before the football game, I do not think the denomination matters so much as if the understanding is that the students would need to opt in to the spirituality part of the ministry vs opt out. The challenge would be if you have a diverse school district, do you need to offer an Iman for Muslim students, Rabbi for the Jewish students, priest for the Catholics and minister for the other Christians? That certainly would be a challenge for some districts but obviously this is what happens in the military (to a reasonable degree of availability). I think if something like this happens, you wont see it in urban districts and probably very few suburban districts. It would be the rural districts that are not very diverse that would use this rule. Let's face it, you would not be getting more diverse in those districts and likely to face little resistance. That is more of an administrative point that the school district can determine on an individual basis as long as they show that the restrictions would not favor or disfavor any particular religion. There are certainly a lot of land mines to navigate with such a rule and personally, I think it is unnecessary, but at the same time, I think there are numerous precedents to create a program that would work and pass constitutional muster at the same time.

I doubt this will go anywhere. Most districts do not have the money for this which would stop it pretty much from the start. Given that the military has chaplains, I think it would not be unreasonable to presume a public school could not employ one if it is handled in the appropriate manner. Just having a chaplain on campus in an office full time to serve as a counselor to students who CHOOSE to seek him/her out is not necessarily a bad thing and would be perfectly reasonable. Having the school chaplain lead an invocation at graduation or speak to the school football tam before the game is probably ok too since that is being done anyway. However, if you expand the role to having the chaplain lead a daily prayer at school or even take an active role at most all school events could be very troublesome. If it is like the school counselor or nurse, where they are available to students who may want them, then I think it would be ok. However, I doubt most schools would want to pay for such a thing.

I am all for the Bridge Forward plan as long as it does not create more delays to the bridge and add years to the construction process.

Because it is their job to do the engineering and construction work based on the budget parameters they have to work with. If you put it to a vote, it delays things by potentially a few years and it is not worth the wait anymore. I would be extremely happy if Bridge Forward achieves 30% of their plan because that is an additional 30% of land that would otherwise have not been included in the plan if it were not for their efforts.

^ i had not heard of that as an option?? Mason seems like a good option. Yes, a urban tennis center would have been nice, but tennis fits fine in the burbs. In the US, most of it takes place in the burbs anyway. What I think they should do, besides expansion is use a lot of the golf course land to develop a tennis/pickleball inspired neighborhood akin to Summit Park in Blue Ash. They can rebuild some of the hotels near there and create a walkable community anchored around the tennis center that activates it on a regular basis.

It seems as if there is going to be demand to build the Walnut street tower at the Banks soon (or maybe even the new W&S building, I can dream cant I) as there is a flight to quality in the Class A market. Buildings like 600 Vine, 525 Vine, even Chiquita would no longer qualify as Class A+ office space and they need to develop the top quality space for the highest end tenants. Carew, Macy's and other class B properties are being retired so those tenants are backfilling 600 Vine, 525 Vine, etc so there should be some demand in the market for a new office tower of some sort it would seem.

There have been a number of articles saying $150, others say $350 and a number of numbers bandied in between. It sounded as if $150 was the number lately but who knows, the reports seem to vary widely.

It sounds like the takeaway is that the plan submitted by Bridge Forward will not be accepted however, ODOT is willing to compromise and incorporate some of the elements of Bridge Forward. Bridge Forward will not achieve all they are hoping for, but they will likely get some of what they want, albeit it sounds as if they will not get the majority of what they are seeking.

I know, I don't get it. I am too cheap for that. I would rather just run out and pick it up myself. The 20 minutes to and from are worth the door dash fees.

I just can't justify doordash or Uber and the markup they charge. If i need delivery I order Pizza or Chinese and just tip the delivery man, otherwise I am picking it up in my gasoline powered car. I do not want to pay an extra 20% to doordash to be the middle man.

I ran into one of the higher ups with Eagle about a year ago and he was saying that it was pretty much going to serve those who want a second residence (or third residence) who have something connecting them to Cincinnati. More or less the jet set crowd that does not want to own the asset and when they are done with it, do not want to have to worry about dealing with it.

But the people who will be renting in there are all extremely wealthy and have 2 or 3 other homes and this is a place for them to stay during the 2 months they are in town.

I thought I read that 75 was supposed to be routed closer to Hamilton but the residents at the time fought against it and because of it were left isolated for 50 years. It is nice to see some growth and opportunity come back to downtown Hamimlton.

If adding a heavy handed federal policy to apply uniformly nationwide in every community is your definition of a scalpel, I hate to see what you would consider the axe

Eliminating SFH zoning should not be what you go for. There should be areas where it should be curtailed and there should be areas where multi-family zoning is allowed. However, Single Family has its place. Has it been overused, yes, but there are still places where it makes good sense. Instead of taking an axe to the problem, it is always better to use the scalpel.

You could almost argue that this was possible because of the Butler County Highway that opened up Hamilton as an option to many people in the Northern burbs. As Liberty Township and some of the areas North of Fairfield grew closer to Hamilton, it makes Hamilton a more natural area that they would choose to frequent more often instead of taking the highway to another Cincinnati burb, or choosing to live in a different area with better road access. In a way, that highway has served its purpose and allowed the city to have connectivity to the region.

Except it never works out that way. Housing policy needs to be driven by local needs not a one size fits all federal approach. That will create a mess and make things much worse in the long term. Yes, the Feds can offer resources to allow local towns to offer certain programs and initiatives that support the needs of that community, but a national policy is such a horrible idea, it will create a lot of bad effects then the policy it is seeking to solve.

You miss the point of my comment. I think if you read it closer you would find that we are likely in agreement more than we disagree. I do think even in urban areas, there is still a place for single family areas. However, it is important, especially near transit corridors to allow for and do what you can to spur more dense development. There are a number of single family areas that should be expanded to more easily allow for multi-family now, and also smaller development and infill (for example, in Cincinnati, look at Walnut Hills, Evanston and areas like Covedale (in its revitalization). I see what is going on in College Hill to be a perfect example of this strategy but there you have larger developers driving the bus because they can fight for zoning changes better. My point was that you cannot have a blanket policy at the federal level and that this should be handled more on a local basis and encouraged more at the local level to target the areas that could benefit most from these policies.

Single family zoning has certainly been labeled the boogeyman by many ubranists and if they get rid of it, the housing shortage will be solved. That is such a simplistic view of things and I do not think that is the proper solution, nor would it solve the problem. Attacking single family zoning as the key problem is a scapegoat at best. Now, this is not to say that we do not need more multi family areas and neighborhoods and that we need to develop more of this type of housing but, 1) you cant get rid of all single family areas, and 2) realistically, you are not likely to get a significant mass by doing teardowns of single families in existing neighborhoods and building a 2-4 family dwelling. 3) You still will get sprawl because people with the means and money will still prefer to build larger houses in the suburbs when they want to settle down and get a house with more land and space. If anything, getting rid of single family zoning will have an effect to push the value of single family neighborhoods in the burbs with an HOA up even higher because you are essentially limiting the supply. Blanket policies always have a lot of unintended consequences. This is not to say that policies to create density in more of the urban areas do not make sense. Things like allowing ADU's and allowing for more dense construction outside of the town center are good because they allow for more density in an area where the infrastructure is there (or at least some infrastructure). Building 4 families out in Avon on Brecksville (or whatever township) does not make as much sense because the amenities that cater to the smaller unit dweller are not there yet and likely not going to be developed for a long time.