Brutus_buckeye

It still needs more investment, and will likely be required to keep it in a few years. However, having an existing tournament and strong corporate sponsor that draws from a 6 hour radius is a tough risk to take for a tourney owner. It would be one thing if the W&S were underperforming, but it is not. For example, Indy used to have the RCA championships and they were moved because they struggled with sponsorship and could not get the money to meet the changing tennis calendar. I would not be surprised if the W&S moves to Charleston someday, but I would still place the odds in favor of keeping it in Cincinnati.

Because a lot of different people have their own visions and views about how to spend other people's money on projects even though they do not have the capacity to develop anything close to a project of that scale on their own.

I think people speculate that it may move given the new owner once the lease expires. I would not be so certain of that. There are many advantages to keeping it in the Midwest (especially in the summer months compared to Charleston). Certainly, the stability of keeping it local is not as strong as it once was say 3-4 years ago, but there is certainly no certainty that it will move either.

I did not get a view of it. ONly from what I was told by an Eagle exec. Said it was a transformational building and it was going to be one of the signature pieces of downtown but did not quite state if it would be the tallest or just one of the top 3.

Yes they have. Manning has done a bunch of work in Oakley the last few years too.

Definitely will not happen in the next 5 years but who knows. I know the model is still on display in the executive office at Western Southern, so maybe a sliver of hope.

^ i was speaking with an exec at Eagle a few months back and he was telling me about the design for the new HQ building that they were going to unveil around 2020 before COVID hit. It was an impressive design and still a model in Barrett's office. Unfortunately, the office market right now is not conducive to such a project. Here is hoping that it can get built sometime this decade though.

This is a great project, glad to see it is happening.

AT&T was wrong about wishing your child goodnight from a payphone.

This is the key. I dont think the MLS was really encouraging expansion in Cincinnati or even St. Louis at the time and if they had their choice on markets they would have picked others first, but those markets had strong ownership groups willing to pay the price of a team.

Let's start a No to Nashville petition for MLB, LOL

I think this was a 20 years in the making. I do not necessarily blame A's leadership because they let the team wither, but the A's were a small market team for a long time. If anything it was the Giants that led to the demise of the A's. Back in the 90s the Giants claimed rights to the San Jose and all of Silicon Valley as their media market and it prevented the A's from being able to find other suitable locations in the Bay area. Their market was pretty much limited to the city of oakland and therefore had a very small media market footprint (because the rest of the Bay area was Giant's country). Without a ton of public money, it really was never going to be sustainable to keep the team in Oakland. Nashville has been lookign for a team for a while now. I hope it does not happen though. Indy is not looking for a team but I seriously doubt they would ever be considered as a serious candidate for an MLB team. Their only hope is a relocation of an existing team. Indy and Indiana as a state overlaps with Chicago, Cincinnati, St. Louis and Detroit markets for baseball fans. Neither of those markets will want to give up on their fans from the state and an established team in Indy would pull fans from all over the state. Can't see an Indy team getting much support. Just like I could never see Columbus ever getting an expansion team either for the same reasons.

I hope that they do not expand in Nashville. That has traditionally been a Reds market and would be best not to create more competition there. If they are going to go East, I would prefer a team in Montreal (again) and then go to Charlotte over Nashville. Nashville may not be in position when the time comes if the city is spending all the money on the new football stadium anyway. Also, I would love to see a team in Vancouver or even Salt Lake would be a decent opportunity. Balance out the Rocky Mtn states and West Coast.

You are probably aware already, but your blogpost was picked up and linked by some guy at SI.com or one of the other fanatic sites. your post popped up in my feed when I was surfing msn the other day and clicked on a link about the Browns stadium.

What are you trying to imply here @DarkandStormy. It is interesting that you seem to want to read something more into this than there actually is.

Not sure if this has been discussed above but why would renovating Paycor be sufficient for the Bengals but the Browns would need a new stadium altogether. They are the same age. You would think they essentially used the same construction materials. Is it just team preference as to whether to renovate vs replace or is Paycor Stadium just built a lot better than Browns stadium was?

I think you will be seeing it sometime end of this year or 1st qtr early 2nd qtr next year. I have been talking with a number of business bankers and lenders over the last few weeks and they have been frustrated on how their business has been slowing down precipitously over the last couple of months due to the high interest rates and businesses not wanting to invest in longer capital intensive projects at this time. My friends in that business lament to me that they are really struggling for business and they have already cut their loan margins to compete due to their own higher cost of borrowing. This is a thing where the slowdown in business lending will not be seen in the broader economy for 3-4 more quarters which put us into early 2024 - mid 2024. Anecdotally, I remember working at Nat City in 2007/2008 and remember the initial signs of the slowdown for the bank started back in summer 2007 and volume slowed significantly in the Fall of that year. By winter it was a trickle (now part of that was the bank had other serious issues that made them unable to be competitive on loans compared to their peers, but there were still broader economic issues too). Business lending remained a trickle through most of the first 1/2 of 2008 until the collapse in October 2008. Now, we are not looking at anything like this in 2024 but if you want to see signs of the recession coming, look at the financial sector and where lenders are lending right now and then project out 3-6 quarters.

Assuming they play somewhere else, I assume that would be in Columbus? I know it has not been mentioned but where else could it be? The MAC schools in NE Ohio have stadiums that are too small and not enough amenities to support a temporary home for the NFL T-Town does not seem like it would be appropriate either. Columbus would have the amenities and the stadium size to work. The other benefit to Columbus is that it plants the flag and further reinforces Columbus as a Browns town as it has been strongly trending toward the Bengals in recent years.

Shawn Kemp, Pokey Reese, and Nick Cannon are some of the other elites doing their part to help humanity out too.

This was already addressed by the legislation that came from the Elmwood situation in OH410 Bill You can set this standard but it is only as good as the calibration on that day would be and how regularly they are inspected. My point on the inspections are that it is easy to require auditors to undertake this task but it does not always mean this is done or done to the manner that would be deemed appropriate to monitor the situation. You can pass a law, but if the people in charge do not enforce it, it does not mean much. Simply requiring a threshold is not enough, you need to have/offer much more transparency and ease of access to records for the general public (but on the flip side, will that inundate city governments with tons of FOIA requests and other records requests) Point being it is not always as easy as just passing a law. I get that it is not your job to come up with these ideas, but is it really the legislatures? Remember, many of them are not fans of cameras either. Why should they come up with a system that they do not agree with? Also, when you have local county employees or agencies who have to enforce the new laws but do not have the staff or budget to do so, how do you force the people to efficiently enforce it (yes, it would be legislated, but beyond a nominal check the box enforcement, you do not have a true watchdog who really cares about the task or puts more than nominal effort into checking the box)?

I always argue in good faith. The Elmwood place example is a typical case that was occurring with the cameras. They were ripe for abuse and were being abused. To your point, yes, the statehouse made them unpalatable for cities to use but if the true intent was safety, they could still use them. Your point is that maybe the officer does not need to stand next to the camera and could sit in the office to monitor the camera (which would be more time efficient). While I do not agree in making it easier for cities in this case since their past history shows that they abused such technology in the past, I am not going to discount the validity of your point. Assume you relax certain areas of the law to allow cameras, what would you do to ensure the proper protections to motorists under what you would propose and also to ensure you do not have such a situation like what happened in Elmwood Place, which I think any reasonable person would consider it a gross abuse of state power.

I get it, you have an opinion that disagrees with mine, yet you also provide no facts or basis other than "it will be safer" and "we can save a life" with them. The problem with your argument is that as Gramaye points out, you do not want to address the issue of what type of liberty you are willing to give up to ensure the perceived safety you seek. So the question is posed to you, at what level do you feel the violation of your liberty and due process is too intrusive vs the benefits received from increased monitoring? Regarding cases, the Elmwood Place case in Ohio sums the argument up quite well. Now, to your point, you could design the system to avoid due process violations but in the vast majority of cases that does not happen. The vast majority of these systems use a private 3rd party to monitor and issue the tickets. They are incentivized to write more tickets becuase it means more revenue for the company (and more for the city). The company that handled most Ohio cities at that time required motorists who wanted to contest their tickets to pay a $25 admin fee to get the data and there was no guarantee they would have that refunded if they won. It put a ton of roadblocks up to discourage motorists to even try and defend themselves against such charges. https://www.mic.com/articles/29661/speed-cameras-ohio-judge-rules-them-an-unconstitutional-sham Fortunately, Ohio politicians listened and placed significant restrictions on cities who wanted to use cameras going forward to protect motorists from due process violations. The ultimate result of this was that it made the use of such cameras no longer palatable by cities as the cost was not worth the benefit.

The current Ohio Speed camera law came out of the Elmwood Place situation. I suggest you google the history and report to understand how the law came to be what it is. It was ultimately a compromise between the police/municipalities and the public to allow for limited use of cameras for public safety vs a full outright ban in Ohio. Back when Elmwood installed these cameras ,their revenue for speeding tickets more than quadrupled. The department was now flush with cash from all the speeding fines, both legitimate and illegtimate. This was not necessarily malfeasance by the city for placing inaccurately calibrated cameras but it caused a host of other issues. One of them was providing notice to drivers of cameras, others involved calibration and the main one was the due process issue of being able to question the accuser since the camera was monitored by a 3rd party company who calibrated and sent the ticket in the mail. It relied on a host of factors to be correct that the current scheme (which had been blessed by a number of other states) could not necessarily comply with . It did not necessarily involve a politician getting a ticket but it was community outrage over the amount of tickets being issued to drivers who were driving reasonably whether or not they were slightly exceeding the speed limit. I do not think you can place the issue on an upset politician but rather there was a lot of public outcry over the cameras and the inability to state a defense against them in court.

Easier said than done. In many cases the legislation is already in place for much of what you propose. It just does not happen all the time. People are people, resources are limited and get prioritized, passing legislation and acting like it solves the problem is foolhardy. Enforcement requires people and it is not always as even as what you may envision in legislation. If you think it gets rid of bias, it just replaces it with bias on a different level. That is the current legislation regarding speed cameras. In Ohio, if you want cameras, you have to have an officer watch it full time. This essentially makes the cameras unpalatable for most departments because it now will cost more and take up resources vs the current system. I do not think the issue has ever been about whether the cameras are accurate. It has always been an argument about fairness. With speed cameras, the question is not whether they can be accurately calibrated but how to prove *if* they are calibrated correctly, and how to question the accuser at trial, which is difficult when you do not have an officer monitoring the cameras at all times. Back in 2016 when Elmwood Place got in trouble with the cameras, they were all calibrated by the company who installed them and the tickets were mailed out from the main office in Maryland. This created the due process issues that have been mentioned earlier.

I am not talking about the accuracy of the camera. The point in the numbers are the % of people who would put up a challenge to the ticket. What % would just pay it out (justified or not) what % will challenge it. Of those who challenge it, what % of people who are justified will take a private settlement and what % will fight it out to prove the point and seek "justice for all" My point was that the odds of getting caught on a small skimming scheme would be small especially if nobody is personally enriched in the process.