Brutus_buckeye

cbus does have parking out the wazoo but people are 1) lazy and do not want to walk even a block if they do not have to and 2) people do not want to pay for it. That makes building a garage difficult to recoup ones investment (surface lots are cheaper to build). However, retail will not come back downtown until people live down there (en masse again). No one lives in high rise office towers so beyone the 8-5 workday it is a desolate area. Look at Cleveland along E 9th street. Look at Cincy along E 5th near all the high rises. Pretty buildings but adds no life to the street.

Didnt think they had the worlds fair anymore. Thought it was pretty much done when it came to Knoxville TN 25 years ago

lets face it voters are irrational, it is not about who can do the job better but rather about who sells the job better. Strickland had very little to do with NCR leaving, Their CEO wanted no part of Dayton from the start, but because he was in charge, he unfairly gets the blame. However, the reverse can be said that Bush was not solely responsible for the economy tanking in 2008, there were many Dems to share equally in the blame, but again he was in charge so he takes the blame. Just the way things are, sometimes you just have to chalk it up to circumstance.

So I guess she was ignorant when she voted for Obama in 08 then based your last statement.

^^ She claims to have voted for Strickland in 2006 and Obama in 2008, i would not call her a partisan. You could call her many other things, but that does not really say partisan

Personally, I think Deweys would work better at Ft. Square than it would at the Banks. A Ruby place would be good down there. Afterall, he has 3 other places in the downtown area and they seem to do fine (although for some reason he has not had much success in Newport).

I am not saying there is no correlation but I think it is very minimal. The states with the population growth (FL, TX, AZ, NC, SC, AL, TN, NM, etc) all may have much lower tax burdens but the things that are causing their net inmigration are 1) immigrants from Latin America (both legal and illegal) and 2) The snowbirds desire for warmer climates, and 3) Shutting down of old line manufacturing with creation of jobs in the service sector where location was not nearly a factor oon where to live and the creation of ancillary jobs in those areas from it. Not to say business tax environment is not an improtant issue because people will locate where the jobs are but from a personal tax point, I do not think most people consider it / and are in position to consider it. Unless you are one of the people in the highest tax brackets, then it really does not matter too much where you live for tax planning purposes. Therefore, there is only going to be a small percentage of people affected by this. This is not enough to explain the gains that are occurring in such states. Therefore, I think the majority of it is explained by immigration and people's desire to live in a warmer climate in general if given the choice.

"Just out of curiosity (I'm taking a risk here and asking a question to which I genuinely don't know the answer), can you name a *single* pair of states in which there is greater internal migration from the lower-tax one of the two to the higher-tax one? If your dream of a high-tax/high-service state were actually feasible in practice, shouldn't at least *one* state have been able to pull it off by now and be successfully attracting people away from states that offer lower levels of service?" I think that while this factor may be an important issue to many people when talking about an environment they like to live, it is probably not a high priority to them when deciding where to locate. For example, most people choose to live near family, jobs, good weather, shopping or entertainment. Tax and public services are pretty low down on the list when considering a place where to live. Plus they are often complicated and poorly communicated so people do not think about them when deciding where to live. I would think that the only people who really would give this thought are more senior citizens who may choose to relocate to Florida for the positive tax environment down there, and even then, I would say that is a minimal number.

I thought the banking area was more the eastern end of 5th Street with PNC, US Bank, and 5/3 all having their HQ's there. That said, I think for condos, I would agree with you, balconies are important. For rental apartments it would be good because they offer living in the center of the city. Lytle tower apts on 4th street as well as the Shilleto Lofts do not offer balconies and they seem successful

No need, you have already sold me on him

so does this mean it will be built or are there still other hoops first?

The parking lot will not go away for a long long time. The city does not own the lot and it is owned by a series of convoluted trusts and other instruments. Therefore, multiple parties need to get together to sell it once a buyer would be found. THere are restrictions in the trust that require it to be a parking lot, so whatever everyone's ideas are for taht block, keep dreaming because it will be a parking lot for a long time.

it was more of a gallery space than a museum. there were a few large rooms where it displayed exhibits and there were offices scattered throughout some of the mercantile center complex. It is nothing like it is now, where there is actually muesum and event space.

That is pretty cool, all the big banks in Cincinnati moved their flagship to newer buildings in the 1970's 80's. The US bank building in St. Louis has a cool old building. Has anyone been there.

Dan: Let it go, there is no sense in arguing with them. They know what they know, no sense in confusing them with logic and common sense.

I do not think the streetcar will be an issue with car adverstising, the amount of cars it will take off the road would be minimual given it s limited scope. I could see light rail being a much bigger threat for the car ads

Well said

you do not have to agree with me. You just have to be use well reasoned logic in forming an opinion and then understand why the opposition may think like they do instead of calling them a bunch of fools and morons because they do not feel the same way about the issue as you do. (BTW, you does not mean you personally)

Coming from a level headed reasonable thinking Ohioan.

I think that Portman's opinion is probably in line with most level headed reasonable thinking Ohioians, so I guess that is a pretty centrist statement on his part.

Seanmcl: you seem to think that because I have a different opinion than you I apparently completely misunderstand the facts. -- That is a very closeminded view points you have. Just because I do not agree with you does not make my viewpoint wrong or even out of touch. I have read the facts, and 1) the projections of 400,000 rail passengers using this is just unrealistic. In fact, most projections by proponents of big projects such as this are vastly overstated (becuase there is really no way to get a true assessment). 2) other states with success at similar projects have not met the estimates they orginally stated for ridership either. Now even with these numbers, that does not mean that in theory, a high speed rail line is not a good idea, but given the fiscal challenges facing our state, it is not the best use of funds at this time in my opinion. If the ridership numbers do not materialize per the estimates, this could saddle the state with a significant ongoing operating burden. Although it may not be the popular opinion on this site, it is a very pragmatic one. So instead of jumping up and down and calling any detractor names, maybe try and understand their viewpoint since, the supporters of this provision are in the minority, and it may help you win the battle of public opinion if you reach out to them intead of bash them.

This will not happen, although it will be nice to have, it is too expensive and not practical. If high speed could be done from the beginning it could have a chance but no one is going to take a 6 hour ride from Cinci to Cleveland. If you really want to ride a train that bad, you can go to the passenger dinner train at Barbeque Revue.

I think my posts have been taken a little out of context because I offer a different point of view on the subject. I am not anti-rail. As you can see prior posts, I strongly support light rail and streetcars as the first step toward achieving better transportation. In fact, in theory and principle, I think that the 3C rail is a good thing and it would be something I would like to support. My point has been that now is not the right time to do this, and the benefit that will be received by this does not justify the cost at this point. While it would be great for business travelers, practicality is that many business travelers who do not work in city centers will be able to take advantage of this. If you go visit a client in the suburbs or a remote location, the train does not work because it will not effectively take you to your client. Now long term, it could encourage people to move and locate in the urban core but initially it would be lightly used by business travelers (who do not work in the urban core) due to the lack of conveinence. Also, citing figures about all the people who do not have an automobile in a city does not justify ridership figures for the train. Just because they do not have a vehicle does not mean that they would have any reason to travel on the train to Cinci, col or CLeveland. This is akin to saying that just because I have a car, I benefit the city of Cleveland because I have the option to drive there whenever I want. I have not been to Cleveland for 10 years even though I could go at anytime. This figure works better when you are speaking about light rail since it would allow people a chance to get the needed services, goods, etc in an efficient manner. Not so much the case with the regional train. I know that the 400 million will be spent by other states if Ohio does not use it. I personally think the money should be used for many other projects first. Light Rail or Streetcars would be a much better idea too.

Well, in that case, screw the trains, lets go with horse and buggies, they do not emit any global warming pollution either.

To answer your questions 'I'll use my car from Cleveland to Cincy." Q- why are so many people talking about riding the whole length of the line when there are many interim trips from Cleve and Cincy to Columbus; the state capital in the center of the state but also the site of 55,000-student OSU. (and college students tend to be low-percentage car owners and high-percentage transit/train users. What about commuter-type trips from Dayton to Cincy or Columbus? "Whether it is Clev to Cincy or Cleve to Cbus, it is the same thing, why would the average (non-college student) person take the train when they could drive there quicker, possibly cheaper, and on their own schedule. Well there may be 55k students at OSU, the do not all come from Cincy or Cleveland and the majority of them would not be on or close enough to the train line to make it worth their while. For example, why would I drive from West Chester to Cincinnati to catch a train to Columbus (I know the train may run through West Chester but I am trying to demonstrate a point). There are not enough college students to create a critical mass to justify the cost of this boondoggle." Q- Why do naysayers always equate driving to riding a train, where stress is lower and relaxation is higher? "There are certain intangibles and benefits to riding a train or taking Greyhound, and there are certain benefits to driving. For those who would prefer to sit and not drive, then there is nothing wrong with that, it is their choice. Some people prefer to drive, that is their perogotive too. I personally think a rail system would be a nice thing to have and a good asset, however, given the cost of the project and the ROI, there are a lot of other more important ways that this money could be spent than using it on a project that will benefit only a small amount of people (unless everyone is forced to use it, which does not say much for a capitalistic society)" Q- 327, why make the chicken and egg argument. Why not say 3-C's can encourage mass/rail transit in our big cities rather than saying the trains won't be successful because of underdeveloped local transit? And even w/o any rail building, this should, at the very least, help light the fire under state pols to increase operating funding for our local mass transit systems... "It is not a chicken and egg argument & not about lighting a fire under local pols. If your best hope is putting faith in the local pols, then you will be waiting a long time. The reason why local traiins/transit work is because there is a critical mass of people within a certain distance that will supply the ridership for the train and it is more conveinient for them to take the train than to drive. People in Chicago take the train, not because they necessarily love the train, but it is a more conveinient way for them to get around town. People in Cleveland take the Rapid for the same reason, hence why the biggest crowds during non-rush hour times are people going to sporting events (more conveinient than driving and finding a parking spot). This is not the case out in the suburbs where the majority of people in Ohio live. The train serves little benefit to them because it is not conveinient for them." Q- Why not focus on the TOD/focused development potential of 3-Cs over the sprawl created by the existing all freeway system? This should be even MORE of an issue in a struggling-financially state like Ohio? "There are many important issues facing a struggling state like Ohio. Most people on this forum thing the Choo Choo is the panacea to cure all of Ohio's problems. Building a train is not the cure all to Ohio's problems. THere are better ways to spend the money at this time then building the train. Maybe, if the state were not broke, the schools did not need fixing and there was a huge surplus of cash on hand, then maybe spend the money. Now is not the time." Q- why are people so hyper-focused on the$400M + operating costs (yearly) for the trains, when maintaining our roads, even the parallel I-71 is so much more? "Because we already have the roads and will still need to maintain them even if the trains are built. The argument that all the 3C people say is that it is much cheaper than maintaining the roads. Well, newsflash, just because we build a choo choo train does not mean that the roads are going away and everyone is going to flock to the train. The $400 million will be used to operate the train, in addition to the costs used to maintain the roads, bridges, and airports. In an ideal world, we would not have dismantled the train system 50 years ago, but we did, and even if that was a mistake, we must live with it now." Just some Q's for thought...