Brutus_buckeye

If the tourney leaves, the local officials need to make it as painful as possible for him to move it. Large lawsuits should be filed, even it it will not stop it from moving. Mason needs to extract their pound of flesh on the back end for the priviledge of moving the tourney to a second rate city in North Carolina

O'Hare is one of the most congested airports plus it has a ton of weather delays, just for scheduling alone, it makes sense to route things through an airport that will not have as many potential weather interruptions. BOS, LGA, EWR, ORD are all notorious in my mind of always being delayed for weather events. I have not flown through there in a while but CLE, DET, Minneapolis are also not the best for weather no matter the time of year.

At the beginning of this year, when I listened to the radio, I had no idea who was on the Reds and who was on the other team. Now these guys are starting to become regular names.

Honestly, they should scale back Chicago and push CVG as an small alternate hub. There is so much that can be done there that would help AA traffic. 1) CVG is much less congested leading to fewer delays. 2) CVG is in a more moderate climate which will also lead to less disruption in the AA system 3) CVG has the runway capacity to allow AA to flex however needed. 4) ORD has United as a primary carrier so why go head to head directly with them. 5) AA will always play second fiddle to United in Chicago. 6) CVG is much cheaper to operate out of than Chicago and has cheaper landing fees. AA does not have to pull out of Chicago entirely, but CVG offers a great opportunity for them to compete and be successful as a primary carrier or even establish a hub imo

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2023/06/14/cvg-lands-a-new-nonstop-flight-to-cancun.html Another International Flight at CVG. It is nice to see it is on a mainline carrier instead of the discount.

While it will not be a draw to travelers like say the Bourbon Trail or horse racing but both Dayton and Columbus can get some spillover from it. As you get business travelers who may come through CVG for work in those areas (Hello Lexis Nexis), they (or their families) may hold over for a few days and may be drawn to visit places in the Dayton/Columbus area that they would otherwise skip. Right now, it seems as if it is a lost opportunity for those in Columbus and Dayton and even Indy to capitalize on the fact that there is a gateway to their region that has just opened up.

I get that part. Obviously VisitCincy is spending money on advertising but so is the Lexington and louisville agencies. To me this is a big opportunity lost for Columbus CVB to not pour money into promoting this route too. Yes, Cincy may have a lot of synergies with Kentucky, and even choose to align itself more with Kentucky than Ohio, but this still should not stop other Ohio cities (and even Indianapolis) from using the flight to promote their city too.

I read a number of these travel articles about the BA flight to Cincinnati and while of course they talk about Cincy, they also often talk about the bourbon trail and many of the cool attractions in Kentucky which often involves a 2 hour drive. Lexington and Louisville are happy to jump in and market themselves on the benefits of such a flight. What I have not seen yet, is why Columbus and Dayton do not get into the mix on this as well because the CVG flight does have tangible benefits to both cities. It is easier to fly direct to CVG and get a car and drive to columbus for business or even tourism for a day or two with the new flight. You would think there would be more marketing from other nearby Ohio cities on this flight as it does benefit them too.

The continuing wages is what crushes companies workers comp premiums. Without having to pay for time off, the workers comp costs would not be too bad.

my point was that workers comp law is a no fault law. The only factor that matters is if the person gets injured while in the scope of their employment. Even if the person is responsible for causing their own injury, the company is liable to pay under workers comp law. The big difference is that if the person is drunk, the company can fire them, but they still need to pay the workers comp claim for the injuries, the only benefit to the company is that they will not have to pay continuing wages while the employee is injured.

Nor would it prevent an employee from taking a lunch break, getting high, then getting injured on machinery when he gets back on the job. At the end of the day, the employer will still need to pay the workers comp claim.

^ and those politicians are working hard to chase off some of those Fortune 500 corporations and jobs. Texas seems to be feasting on some of California's corporate HQs. Florida seems to be feasting on IL companies in exchange for their own political malfeasance. See the letter Ken Griffin penned a year ago when he took his company out of IL, same with Boeing and Catapillar. The Chicago Board of Trade, which is the lynchpin that makes Chicago a hub for financial services has even said it will move out of the state if the city of Chicago and state legislature does not reign in some of their craziness. The thing with remote work, is that corporate HQ's are much more in play now more than ever, as well as the taxes that come with that employee base.

Some people love those hours. There is a subsect of the population who thrive at that time and would hate to be first shift. They love that it pays more and works better with their schedules. There are tradeoffs for sure but lots of people do love those hours. Heck, most news journalists work those hours. Different strokes for different folks.

it was but it was poorly crafted in a way that did not compel enforcement. Similar to the school funding issue the state Supreme court found unconstitutional years back, the court did not have the power to compel the legislature to act in the way the court (or plaintiffs) desired. In many cases this is not an issue, but in this case you have a separation of powers conflict that causes a bit of a struggle.

They crazy California laws are not enshrined in their constitution. At least when the citizens act like idiots with their referenda, there are mechanisms to stop/slow/repeal some of the lunacy and unworkable parts of the referenda. When it becomes part of the constitution, it is a lot harder.

Yes, but with limitations. If you pass with the referendum, 1) there would be a time limit on how long it would be before the legislature could try and take a crack at repeal. This would respect the will of the people for a while and allow the law to either pass or fail the public opinion test while in place. If after say 4 years the referendum has a lot of unintended consequences, it can be repealed. However, if it has the popular results that the voters voted for when it passed, then the legislature would not try and repeal because people like it. Secondly, the state courts would always be able to strike it down if it runs into conflict with the state constitution. That would place the onus on the drafters of such referendum to craft the law very narrowly to address the specific problem at hand instead of trying to draft something that will cast a very wide net and interfere with a lot of different areas. This would also help in the first issue because if it is narrowly tailored to address a specific narrow concern, it is less likely to draw the ire of the legislature in the future. It is not easy to amend, but it is still too easy to amend, and outside interest groups with a lot of money are the ones who often fund these drives. These interest groups really have no connection to Ohio but want to craft laws that affect Ohio citizens. Marcy's Law for example, may be well intended but it was crafted by someone from California who has a lot of money and pushing to get on state ballots. This is not necessarily reflective of what Ohio needed. Should someone like that be able to influence Ohio politics like that or should it be more grass roots.

But the state constitution involves state protected rights and a framework for the whole legislative process. It is more of a guiding principle document which is used during the legislative process to craft and create laws. I do not feel the Constitution, state or federal should be used in the way to craft legislation and if amended it should have a higher threshold to amend. Laws like Marcy's law and even the minimum wage laws should not be enshrined in the state Constitution because it makes it messy and can become unyielding and also create contradictions. So yes, I think going to a 60% threshold in the process to amend the constitution is not a bad thing. However, what I would be in favor of is some type of referendum process where you can have voter approved referendum's to create legislation without enshrining it in the state constitution. This way, the will of the citizens can be protected by passing laws that they may favor but legislature will not act upon, but at the same time, they could be easier to repeal as times and sentiment changes (or the referendum runs into conflict with other established state law provisions).

@Dougal Also, it should be noted that Park Hotels is far from bankrupt but they see the asset as a drag on earnings for the next 5+ years and do not see feel it is worth putting more money into the deal to keep it afloat. In this case, they are just giving the bank the keys and walking away from the property. It is now up to the bank to re-market it how they see best fit. Chances are, it will be sold for pennies on the dollar. Heck, Park Hotels may even be the buyer of the property at that point and will now own the asset much cheaper and with a more affordable payment to reinvest in the property. The bondholders on the current loan will not be happy but they are pretty much taking their bath right now anyway so the final outcome is a bit irrelevant. Given the complex nature of these types of commercial mortgages, it is sometimes easier to turn over the keys then to try and work things out.

at the end of the day, it is the desire and ego of the owner that will dictate the final decision.

People are also not considering the tennis infrastructure already in place. Now, I admit I am no expert on Charlotte, but If you look at the club tennis scene in Cincinnati, it is very developed and there is an excellent tennis club scene in town in all areas of the city. This is the built in fan base for the tourney that has kept it strong and growing for the last 100 years. While Charlotte sizewise may be a comparable city, I would be willing to bet that their tennis infrastructure is no where near as developed as Cincinnati is and that it would be a considerable expense in order to develop this out. Similarly, this was one of the most overlooked things when FC Cincinnati came to town. Even though Cincinnati may not have checked most of the demographic boxes, it had a very large youth soccer base, was the base for SAY soccer and there were a lot of just casual soccer fans in town that were itching for a local team to support.

I have been to Charlotte many times and just do not see it as a big tennis town (no bigger than most that size). It is akin to putting a hockey team in Columbus or Atlanta. They may be nice markets and have demographic growth but, you do not have the built in base there and have to develop it from scratch. That takes a lot of money and effort to build that up. On the flip side, take FC Cincinnati as an example. You had a built in soccer market that was built to thrive despite macro demographics that may have indicated otherwise. This is what the risk would be to move the tourney to Charlotte.

I would not say Charlotte is bigger. It is growing faster, and will be bigger someday but Cincinnati is bigger and Cincinnati/Dayton (which is what you have with a facility in Mason) is a significantly larger market than Charlotte. Yes, Charlotte does have a corporate community but you would need to cultivate that (not saying it cant be done) but there is a lot of groundwork there (W&S will not follow the tourney to Charlotte). Also, in Mason you have a built in fanbase that has been coming there for 40+ years, you have a great tennis community there. This is not the case in Charlotte. You do not know if the fans will show up and continue coming back. Not saying it cant happen, and not saying that there may be a bit more upside there in the long long run, but in the short term and medium term, Mason offers more profitability for the tourney. Atlanta had tennis aspirations at times past and could not get it together.

This is my positive takeaway from what is going on. If it were Charleston, I would have been less optimistic since that is "Hometown" for Beemok. Charlotte is nice but not necessarily a city that Beemok has a fondless or love over IMO. They may be more familiar with it over Cincinnati, and there are certainly benefits to Charlotte over Cincy but it is still a rather risky and more challenging move to pull it. The only way to justify a move is personal preference only because the economics of the deal favor Mason. If Beemok is in it to make money and get a better return on their investment, then Mason is the best choice.

From what I have read, the Charlotte project is a very heavy lift to accomplish whereas Mason is an easier lift. I think the concept of a mixed use village of apartments entertainment, etc centered around tennis is a great idea. It can open it up to full use more often during the year. Revamp the golf course to allow for more development or get rid of it altogether. The city of Mason owns the golf course and if it can bring in more for redevelopment, its time as a golf center may have passed.

I get it, but who says Mason can't be transformed into that. Yes, the land is developed, but a golf course can be redeveloped for a better use. The city owns the golf course and could sacrifice it to anchor a similar development if that is what is desired. Also, to me, the big kicker is that there is no guarantee of success in Charlotte, development or not whereas in Mason you have a proven commodity. I think Beemok would prefer Charlotte all things being equal but it may be easier to keep it in Mason.