Brutus_buckeye

So I am on the audit committee at my kids catholic school now. WHen you receive state funds, you have to segregate them from areas where there is religious education. You can't use math textbooks provided by the state in religious education. Yes, you can talk about religion or Christianity in the same classroom, just not in that instructional period. When the speech pathologist provided by the state counsels the kids, they may work in the building but they may not discuss religious issues. This stuff is audited.

Many people go to private school because they feel the education is better than public schools. Others choose them because a deeply help religious sincerity. Others choose to go there because they may want a smaller class size or they want more individual attention. Other parents send their kids there because the kids are in class with other kids who parents are actively involved in the education. Finally others choose it based on a curriculum they desire for their kids. There are many reasons why parents may be inclined to choose a private or religious education for their children. Whether you agree with their choice or not is irrelevant. It is a choice personal to them and should be respected as such.

In the Catholic high school I went to, we learned the truth about Rosa Parks and that she was a kind old white lady who needed help riding a bus. In all seriousness. Schools should teach history without a political spin on it. Liberal or conservative, teachers should refrain from interjecting their personal politics into the matter and not push a social agenda that offends many in the community. That does not mean you have to teach America Awesome all the time and has no flaws. You still teach redlining, you teach Jim Crow and you teach about all the warts that happened throughout history. It does not mean you teach kids to self flagellate themselves because someone who died almost 175 years before they were born and that has zero relation to them but owned slaves and that these kids carry some type of guilt with them for the sins of some person with whom they never met, never knew and had no relation too.

Or maybe we just let schools teach. If some some sect teaches ideas that the majority do not agree with, then so be it. They can have their opinions (deplorable or not) and then over time, hopefully the kids educated at those schools will be able to have their own reasoning on such issues. It has been happening all the time, there is a very long history of this happening already, there really is no need to change it. you are trying to solve a problem that often gets solved on its own. We are a country that has been grounded in individual liberty. That should be respected even when we have to deal with those who may act deplorably.

It is good law though. It is good law because the majority of courts across the country have recognized it as such. If it were bad law, it would merely be a compelling legal theory that does not have the strength or basis of years of legal precedent at the highest levels. So to argue it is not "Good Law" is merely your preference that you do not like the Law and precedence that exists. It is ultimately, you saying you do not like the First Amendment and that it is not "good Law" in your opinion when there are viewpoints that you dislike.

Dont know if KC was in the mix yet, but they may not be in the running until 2023

Because 1) The legislature has decided such a number of years ago 2) The Ohio Courts have decided such going back all the way to the 1950s, 3) The US Supreme Court has essentially given their blessing to it going back to many of their cases for much of the last 60 years. So while I understand your argument, it pretty much falls flat under established law and precedent.

So you think that all schools should teach the same things and there should be 1 education czar that issues edicts on how and when and what type of material children are taught. Sounds a lot like the Nazi indoctrination system if you ask me. Maybe it is worth recognizing that there is diversity of thought in this country and that people have different goals and reasons for educating their children and want them educated in certain environments. Public schools are not for everyone. Those taxpayers should at least be able to benefit from some of their education tax dollars going back to their children. Also, those parents have a right to raise their children in the environment they feel is appropriate for them. They do not have to follow the Nazi educational system the teachers unions want to propagate. I get it. I think it is odd for parents who want to home school. I personally think they do their kids a dis-service socially. But they are not my kids and it is not for me to decide how to educate THEIR children. I send my kids to Catholic school for a variety of reasons and have been very happy with that choice. My wife grew up the daughter of a public school teacher who was a proud teachers union member so I understand that perspective too. It is certainly a dynamic matter and not something that can be painted in black and white like many in the teachers unions want to do or those on the far right. However, I truly believe we are always better when we allow for a diversity of thought and differing perspectives and better as a society for allowing this, even when I disagree with the thoughts and viewpoints being advocated by some parties. If you look at education cases and how they are handled, especially when it comes to religion, the direction of the court (even before the 6-3 conservative majority) has been to default toward allowance of exercise of religion. This is pretty much ingrained in most jurisprudence over the last century and individual liberty in general is taking a bigger place in court thought. While this is a state matter and other states handle funding for private and religious schools a bit differently, it should be noted that the default position nationally has moved more toward the individual liberty position in education matters.

It is just getting worse and worse. I spoke to an employer the other day and he was telling me that he interviewed a new physical therapist recently and her mother accompanied her into the interview. Parents involved in their college kids housing issues are not going away. College kids, especially in off campus housing can be knuckleheads. Landlords need to price that into the product. What I still cant get over is the complete tone-deafness of parents where they easily default to what junior says about the place even though junior is the one who put holes in the wall or destroyed the wood floors of the house. As I tell the parents, if you did not want to be responsible for what your drunken college child does in his house, you should not have co-signed the lease. Parents somehow still see their kids through those rose colored glasses though. When I had landlord issues in college, my parents pretty much left me on my own to figure it out.

It is all relative. UC students are definitely more value conscious than say Miami or Dayton students. We used to have rentals at UD and Miami years ago and were doing 9 month leases charging $7,200 per bed per student in our houses and then (especially in the case of UD students) re-renting them in the summer to those who were going to stick around for internships or Dayton Dragon players at an additional $500/month per person. Kids and their parents did not blink at paying those prices because they could all walk to class and they were with their friends. Mom and Dad were all about them having someplace nearby in a "safe" neighborhood. At UC you have students who actually pay attention to the price because many more of them pay their own way instead of relying on mom and dad.

That is not changing and has been settled standard in Ohio for close to 70 years now. Your tax dollars pay for textbooks at private and Catholic (as well as other religious sects) schools, they provide auxiliary learning like reading specialists, guidance counselors, speech therapists at those schools, and they also bus children to private religious schools. Those are all reasonable and have been established for a long time now so to argue that that should change is really unrealistic. The debate on if school vouchers should be expanded is certainly a debatable matter. I personally think it is a good thing and better for all the children involved but certainly that point is open for discussion. However, regarding funding private schools with taxpayer funds for religious schools, that ship has sailed a long time ago and it really is not changing or worth debate.

your right, without the crap on the square it does look a bit cluttered. But that is ok if they can bring people and create some form of excitement there. Times Square is cluttered too.

Too bad they can't do anything about the runway problem and the backups that happen there in the late afternoons on Fridays.

Liberty was a good stopping point when the revitalization efforts began in OTR. There was already some activity on Main but expanding to the rest of lower OTR made sense. Urban Sites was starting to do a bunch up by Findlay Market before Covid and also with Rhinegeist there that area was taking off. It seems like Covid set it back a couple years but now is starting to pick up steam again. The fight over the Liberty Row development was unfortunate as it delayed a strong connector piece but it seems like that project is finally moving forward for the better now.

First, while I personally think this is a great idea and should be applauded and encouraged, the cynic in me wonders how many years will it be before the same politicians or politicians from similar ilk are lambasting the creation of these units as unsafe, leading to blight or whatever else may be the perceived problem at that time and such politicians looking for a scapegoat and a panacea by blaming such construction of ADU units. Again, just the cynic in me.

Cincinnati is proposing some similar measures. Some of them will run afoul with established landlord/tenant laws in Ohio and will be overturned by the courts, but that wont stop some on city councils from wasting taxpayer money and passing them anyway to signal their virtues.

Less red tape to develop to bring down the administrative costs is an easy fix (you could tie it to affordability even and allow those types of projects to speed through). Government should offer more low income housing credits to encourage development. If Cities or state have the ability to do the same that would certainly encourage more low income development. Neither are phenomenal fixes and certainly come with issues too. Obviously, it would not be great if the city of Columbus offers a ton of housing credits and low income housing perks to developers because that is all that will be developed in the city and all wealthier people will go to Dublin or other suburban markets which is not good for the city either. The goal is coming up with a good mix. I was reading a report from a housing economist recently that said that the goal is housing units. It does not matter if it is low income or high income. If you build class A, then it will open up room in the existing housing stock for more middle and lower market renters. Yes, the lower income will pay higher rent than their prior place (because of supply and demand) but they also are getting a unit that is nicer than they previously would have. Instead of a unit at $600/month with metal cabinets, old gas stove, etc. they get a unit with a better kitchen, dishwasher, & newer fixtures for $800/month. Yes, the rent increase sucks but a lot of that is eaten up by inflation anyway. Ultimately, any housing, Class A or Class C helps the poor.

Its not that simple. As interest rates go up, the financing cost to build becomes more expensive and more risky. IF you are cutting your return by offering housing to lower income, you need some subsidy to make up for that increased risk. Also, you have to deal with many of these loans being floating rate and subject to further interest rate increases during the construction period plus increased labor costs given the labor crunch going on right now. It makes it more difficult to finance a project and less room for error if you create such slim profit margins for the builder.

The majority of banks their size are going to be very leveraged. At least unlike SVB they were not flush with huge deposits that were capable of running on them in a short term (as they are much more diversified on the deposit end). I dont know how involved they were in the long term treasury bond market but if they started hedging that like most responsible banks in 2022, they should be fine.

There is a big difference between an NCAA tourney locker room and the locker room for the Golden State Warriors. The Warriors home locker room costs millions of dollars more than it would be to have a locker room for the NCAA tourney. NCAA teams who play in NBA arenas are not using the home team locker room anyway, so again that is an easy cut without sacrificing any value to the arena. Doing some value engineering in luxury suites to make them nice but not ostentatious is a worthwhile savings too. Corporate suite holders will use the suite maybe a dozen or so times per year with concerts, etc. vs 60+ times a year with an NBA/NHL tenant. You have to also build it and price it so the corporate group finds the value there. If a suite cost a company $500k per year, what do they get for that and how does it compare to the same value you would get for FC, Reds, Bengals, etc. You dont need to go over the top when your events cant deliver the value.

To your point, obviously, Cincinnati will not get all concerts that currently skip town (As you mention, Columbus and Indy still dont get all the concerts) but what % realistically will we start to get with a new arena?? If that plus some additional events like NCAA events or potentially Arena Football/G League are enough to justify the arena, then I am fine with that proposition. But to your point, the benefits need to be kept in perspective. I am sure we will hear a lot of complaining the first time Lady Gaga announces a tour skipping the new Cincinnati arena in favor of Columbus or Indy.

I never meant to imply that. You build the arena with the state of the art seats and scoreboards. Your value engineering is behind the scenes in some of the luxury suites and locker rooms, etc. that cost significant money to build out but would receive little usage. The average fan does not notice that difference.

NCAA has said it will not come to Heritage Bank. Locker rooms are not up to standards, too small and dated. To your point, a new arena could host NCAA events including Frozen 4 and Women's Final 4 again. Those are huge events, much bigger than Gaga because they draw a crowd that comes for multiple days and makes long weekends out of the event. NCAA events run at least 3 days and many people will extend a day on each end. Regarding the Cyclones, it depends who owns the team. If Nederlander owns the Cyclones (i forget the ownership structure) then it will likely stay at Heritage for as long as possible since operating costs would be more efficient there (Similar to what the Gardens did in the 90s with the Mighty Ducks). But that does not mean another minor league team like NBA G League or Arena Football could fill that void.

I think you are misinterpreting my point. You build it right, you have an arena built to modern standards, but without a major tenant, some of the bells and whistles at say a Chase Center in San Fran may not be there. That still does not make it a very modern up to date arena. Some of these bells and whistles, often behind the scenes are not noticed by the general public anyway. You still build the arena based on what you have and how it finances currently. It is not being "so Cincinnati" it is building as to what the situation requires. For example, you are not building an A++ locker room for NBA and an NHL team as part of the process because we do not have an NBA or NHL team in Cincinnati. you spec it for that in case it happens in the future but you save a few million by not initially equipping the locker room to NBA quality from day 1. That does not mean that it will not be suitable for preseason NBA/NHL games, it just wont have all the bells and whistles of the home NBA locker room that hosts the team for 40 games a year. The other thing you cannot have (as a matter of practicality) is that without a major pro sports tenant is the continual updates that occur every 4-5 years at these arenas often at the behest of the pro-team. Things like million dollar locker room upgrades, upgrades to lower level suites and bars, various amenities to the super high end fan. This will happen less often, but it still does not mean the arena will not be a first class arena for many years to come for the regular fan. Part of the need for that arms race is that those NBA/NHL teams need to push the luxury envelope to get the high end customer to pay extra for season tix, etc. Not necessarily the same situation for an arena without a major tenant. You are still building to modern standards from the start. That is the point. In an ideal world, a state of the art arena is used to house a major league sports team. We do not have that in Cincinnati. So, without that option, the justification for such an arena is economic development and tourism. While I am sure that if an NHL/NBA team wanted to come to town, we would not turn them away, but realistically, the arena will not host these events on a regular basis. Therefore, the primary goal of the arena is to host events that come to town on a travelling basis. Big concerts, RNC/DNC, NCAA tourney 1st round and Suite 16 rounds, assisting with large conventions like World Chioir Games or other large speakers, Pro-Sport exhibitions like NBA/NHL preseason games, WWE major events and a number of smaller minor league and traveling events. The goal is to bring people to the arena and sell hotel nights. this is the same goal as the Convention Center. The Convention Center hosts meetings and traveling events that bring people to town. Yes, they offer a bit of a different scope than an arena, but the overall mission is the same. Without a major tenant, the business model is pretty similar, both places are essentially renting space.

The stadium tax is going to have to pay for improvements to GABP and Paycor. There will not be any leftover for new arena construction. The new arena will need to be privately held (Lindner group or Hard Rock) or part of a convention center expansion project to finance it through hotel/convention taxes. Heritage was always privately built and funded. There is nothing to say a new arena cant be done the same way. All repairs and updates to Heritage were done with private money. Now, some of that may not have been wise but regardless, it was done. Back in the late 90s a new owner completely renovated the building to what it is today with all new seats, etc. It went bankrupt a few years later which did not look good, but the arena survived. If you build it, it will take care of itself. Will it be the nicest best in class arena? no, but it will be a major improvement from what we have.