Brutus_buckeye

I would be surprised if you have the news on the convention hotel today, and surprised that it was suggested it would be out today anyway. 1) you would have heard a news conference scheduled on the matter and we have not heard anything yet. 2) why drop a big story like this on a Friday when people are not paying attention as much. You would figure Monday or Tuesday is the time to make such a big announcement and then the story has more traction for a few more days.

The one thing I do not understand (and maybe I am just overthinking this), is why is this not bigger news? You would think it would be the lead story on the radio or local news, but the only place this is posted is in the Business Courier. There is not even a press release from GE about this yet stating officially they are moving the HQ to Cincinnati. Furthermore, this is not a big secret considering the business courier article is not one of their typical breaking news articles. This article has been in the works for a few weeks (or at least a number of days) given the fact it is the main feature of the weekly edition. When the courier does this type of article, it is usually more of an "in depth" piece on how the deal came together, etc. It is not necessarily to break news. Why are there no other outlets reporting on this yet?

GE in Boston is GE Healthcare, GE Energy and GE Aviation. These companies are all splitting apart. I think GE Healthcare is staying in Boston (i could be mistaken), GE Energy will be HQ somewhere else and GE Aviation is renamed GE Aerospace and will be located in Cincinnati where the current GE Aviation division is based. This is great news for the profile of the city and certainly enhances the value of the city. Will not bring a lot of jobs, maybe around 100, but the jobs that will be created will be very high paying executive jobs. if you combine this with the Kroger/Albertson's executive jobs that will likely relocate to the region, you probably get 250-350 well paid executive/upper management level positions, which is good for the economy. Maybe it will lead to a few more non-stop destinations from the airport, but that would likely be minimal. It may actually lead to less air service from CVG to Boston as there will likely be less GE travel from CVG/Dayton to Boston (although GE still has a large presence in Lynn MA). The biggest benefit will be the suppliers and other related companies that will locate in the region near GE to be close to them and take advantage of their talent in the region and the raise in profile for Cincinnati. Even though this news is not entirely surprising and was a likely result of the spinoff, it is still a huge win for the region.

Part of me really likes the Portman design, although I think it would be best if it were taller, I like how it integrates with the street on the lower levels. Second I like the Inland design I think

I would highly doubt that and would question the dubious sources he may have used here. Just using HUD numbers for housing vs parking leaves out a ton of the story.

With the rents you pay to be in Kenwood, you need to move a lot of volume. Gotta keep packing them in there :)

Looks like RallyHouse has already moved outside the mall into the old Pier 1 location. Much bigger space and probably cheaper overhead.

You have to figure the birth rate will start to fall even more in the next 10 years because of Gen Z being such a small generation to begin with. Even if they average 2.5 kids it will still be hard to sustain the growth with the smaller number in that generation. When the millennials start having grandchildren then the population will naturally rise simply because they are such a large generation.

we need more highways not less. Less trains more interstates

What you are missing is that prior to that, Fannie/Freddie had regulations and rules that they would not underwrite sub-prime borrowers. Because of the change in government policy they lowered the threshold and started accepting sub-prime loans and packaging them in securities with prime loans. I dont think you can blame the sub prime lenders for going after a new line of business that was now available to them. It was a policy of the government implemented by putting pressure on Fannie/Freddie to lower their underwriting standards to accept these loans. Fannie/Freddie complied, especially because they could make a lot of money themselves and offload the risk to the market. Further down the food chain, the other banks joined the party as well as the sub prime lenders because the chief gatekeeper pretty much encouraged those standards. Yes, sub-prime lenders may not have had the same requirements, but prior to the late 90s they were not allowed to play in the Fannie/Freddie playhouse.

I would not necessarily stereotype it like this. There were a lot of people that contributed to the problem. Certainly, there were a portion of middle class white suburbanites who would buy a $300k home on a $15/hr wage or people with an inconsistent income based on commission. Certainly, a lot of developers, rehabbers, flippers, urban poor paid a role too. But most importantly, the biggest issue was the lack of gate keeping from the lenders and regulators at the time. There was still plenty of regulation to stop this but regulators were looking the other way because the edict was to drive up homeownership rates

Certainly the lack of regulation contributed to the problem but you fail to properly connect the dots. The policies of the Clinton admin in the late 90s were designed to force Fannie and Freddie to increase the home ownership rate nationwide. While sub-prime loans existed before and served a purpose, the policies created to encourage home ownership forced these agencies, under pressure from the executive branch to get the homeownership rate up. They could not accomplish this under their current underwriting standards so they had to relax those standards and start accepting loans that would have been kicked back or not eligible for 30 year Fannie/Freddie financing only a few years prior. Fannie/Freddie then opened the spigot for the originating banks to start accepting these types of loans because their policies encouraged them. Furthermore, they put pressure on the banks to expand their lending to lower income neighborhoods to expand home ownership there and tick up home ownership rates. Initially, this led to a speculative bubble as there was a surge of demand for easy to get loans. With home prices rising, there was little concern about default because the collateral of taking back the home would make the banks and Fannie/Freddie whole on their guarantee to Wall Street. In order to continue to satisfy this demand and the push from the government to get more loans underwritten, they relaxed their standards even more. For banks like National City or Washington Mutual, they recognized the money that could be made by underwriting subprime loans in mass volumes. This was great fee income for these banks, especially since they could just sell the paper after closing. It was a great business, until the bubble burst and rates started to rise and people could no longer afford their properties. National City had to claw back a ton of loans that they underwrote which put them underwater. So Yes, while regulation was soft, and there are certainly more regulations today, a lot of it could have been avoided in the first place is the regulators at the time actually worked to enforce the regulations on the books instead of trying to arbitrarily pump up home ownership rates without qualified buyers.

As Warren Buffet pointed out, "your home is a place to live, it is not an asset" At the same time, what home ownership does create is a forced savings account if people properly pay down the mortgage. there are lots of reports that lament the savings rate in the US as pathetic. Homeownership creates a forced savings, even if equity does not rise or rise faster than inflation in many cases. Oftentimes, if someone gets in a pinch and has to move or downsize, they may be able to pull out some equity on the sale of their house to help sustain them as they downsize. One of the biggest problems that happened during the housing crunch is people were too quick to treat their homes like an appreciating piggy bank and used equity lines to buy expensive toys or do major home improvements that were not necessarily prudent at the time.

I think what you saw in the 2008/09 housing crash and the Clinton era experiment making home ownership more easy for everyone was that the equilibrium for home ownership vs renters in this country is in that 65-67% range and the rest are renters. When the policies of the late 90s that led to the irresponsible no doc loans pushed ownership rate up to 69-71% range the new home owners were too marginal to afford the upkeep of the properties and were often buying inflated properties that carried high maintenance/repair costs without the financial means to make it happen (let alone pay the monthly mortgage and fees). Currently, homeownership rates are sitting around the historical equilibrium so any new efforts to try and push those rates up should be slapped down as irresponsible.

Yes, but those issues were resolved to the city's satisfaction yet there were continued complaints by local citizens. What was the issue keeping it in court (since the city did not have an issue at that point)

CVG as a former Delta Hub is the reason for the Amazon Hub. It had a highly developed runway system that could fly worldwide but was way underutilized since Delta scaled down operations. It put it in the perfect spot to land Amazon. The only other comparable facility would have been Memphis but they already had a huge Fedex presence so they likely were not in consideration. So in that area, Delta helped us land the Amazon hub. That being said, we need more regional connections. I know the option of flying to Cleveland or Nashville or Indy will never return, but it was nice to have options to fly to Grand Rapids or other smaller markets like Syracuse, Rochester or Buffalo when you needed (at least on a limited basis). Would love to see more options like that happen again.

What was the biggest issue that the people who wanted to stop this project did not like about it? What is their goal? Do they not like infill or want to preserve the old buildings? It seems like there are a few obnoxious parties in the area that want to sue over every potential development in OTR even if it is on an empty parking lot.

Yep, it looks like that is the new parking garage entrance.

good to see this. I thought last year the project was going to get cancelled.

This would be such a beautiful hotel conversion and the layout of the building looks like it would convert well to a modern hotel (Long and more narrow structure). the thing that I never loved about staying in converted old buildings is that many of the rooms have weird layouts, a ton of wasted space on each floor from the elevator setup or few exterior windows from my room

Do you think they could do the project with them continuing to operate in the same space? I cant see them cutting power to the entire complex at all times and you would think that much of the work could be done around the current space.

Would like to see either American or (preferably Delta) make CVG a focus city again (if not mini hub). Wishful thinking i know. I really miss having Comair and the 600 daily flight option. Prices did suck at that time, but back in the day, I loved the weekend saver flights on Delta and was able to take a lot of last minute trips that way.

Also of note, he more or less allowed himself to be traded from Denver to the Rams in the season before because of the Super Bowl run. Yes, the Rams were renting the player for 1/2 a season, but a veteran like Miller would likely have protested a trade to a team like the Dolphins, Texans, Bears, or Falcons (all large market teams but not contenders). Also worth noting is that the Broncos were at least playoff competitive until late in the 2021 season last year, so Miller was at least on a team competing for a wild card. To you point, as a free agent, Miller would not have signed with the Jags (too unproven), Texans (not a competitor), or Bears (not competitive) unless they paid him a premium higher than the Bills. Winning is contagious and once you have it, it is easier to keep that ball rolling in a positive direction for many reasons.

winning builds the brand. Builds the retail sales, allows you to charge higher ticket prices. Now you are playing at the margins but it still adds value. The biggest reason why the Cowboys are so valuable are: 1) Jerry owns Jerryworld 2) Market size The Browns will never be able to overcome those two things, but where they add value by winning is 1) Goodwill, merchandise sales, etc. 2) increased ticket sales, 3) increased out of market/international interest. More importantly, the value of winning and exposure also lets the Browns compete better for free agents at more favorable rates than other teams. All things being equal, would a impactful level free agent, for the same amount of money sign with Cincinnati of Cleveland?? You tax rates are essentially the same (although tax burden in Cincinnati will probably still be less since many athletes can live in Kentucky). Both are colder weather cities (although again Cincinnati is considerably milder, most key players are leaving town in the offseason anyway). Both cities are similar sized markets. All things being equal, the Browns would have to pay a slight premium for the same player than the Bengals now simply because of winning. That matters to the bottom line.

It would be nice to have, but not something to hold the project hostage about. The key is to build the bridge and get the project done. If you can get an extra few acres of land out of it, then it is a plus, but if it involves creating 3-5 years worth of delays, it is not worth it and the bridge forward people need to accept the wins they already have achieved.