Brutus_buckeye

Yep, I remember from back in the day, that was the illusion it was supposed to provide, but that was before the days of HDTV where you could not make out the people in the crowd very well on TV. Now, it is much harder to have that effect since you get a much crisper definition on TV. I hated it back then, but of course I found the 70s style and colors ugly. Even the old Riverfront Stadium with its different colored levels was a bit ugly too. However, it made it easy to find your seats because you could just say what color you were in to figure out your level. At least the current color scheme is more pleasant on the eyes than the 1970s colors though. However, I hope I still say that 10-15 years from now.

I was thinking the same thing. $50 million is a lot and that foundation has probably would not be able to make a gift that large.

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2023/12/13/western-southern-open-reveals-planned-changes-to.html I used to think how ugly the seats at the old RIverfront Coliseum were with the different colors disbursed throughout and the other 1970s era arenas who used the same seating design. I see that trend is coming back. SMH

My biggest issue with the Browns stadium (and Bengals too) has been the lack of use the facility gets. You get 10 NFL games a year plus maybe 1-2 playoff games. There tends to be 1-3 concerts a year there and then you get an occasional High School showcase or playoff games. If whatever gets built can monetize more events, even if they do not bring 70k fans to the area, that is still a positive. With a roof you can have the MAC championship games, a final 4 (maybe even a SuperBowl, but that is a one off). You can have a college bowl game that may bring 30k-40k fans for an event. Throw in some more concerts and even a big trade show or two in the offseason and you now create 30-40 event days per year at the facility that will draw a large crowd to downtown. That should be the goal

^ I have always hated that entrance and was puzzled by the design many years ago. It takes forever to leave the game because it creates a chokepoint at that entrance. Some of it seems like the wall could have been removed in some areas as I remember a lot of people climbing over the wall to get out when instead of waiting in line to get to Elm. Even if they only extend it 10 feet on each side, it would make a huge difference. I hope they extend it much more than that though.

Now, while I do not think a suburban stadium would be the same type of development as say the old Richfield, it still would be a poor move to move things out of downtown. Especially with more people working from home and commuting less to the cities for work, big events are some of the things that draw people to cities and create excitement for the region. They are meant to be the hub of activity. Additionally, a lot more people go to Cavs games or minor league hockey games because of the downtown location. As a visitor to Cleveland, I would be more likely to go to a Cavs or Hockey game while I would be in town because they play downtown, and 1) my business/hotel happen to be there so it is an easy walk 2) downtown is a central point that if I were staying in the burbs, I can find as a traveler who may not know his way around the region. Whereas, going to the cornfields of the old Richfield location is not something I would want to do if I were in town for a short stay. There are not going to be amenities like bars and restaurants that are walkable in the burbs, like you would have downtown. The fact is, that center city has the amenities to do this much better than anywhere in the burbs. Maybe if you had a place in University Circle, you could create a strong game day environment like that but traffic in that area would be a nightmare on game days for a football crowd. IF the Browns are talking about doing an enclosed stadium of some sort, building it anywhere but downtown would leave a ton of money and other potential on the table. You would essentially be re-creating the Ohio version of the Pontiac Silverdome or Palace.

I have not liked that area. Now I think they have built it up to something, but it would have been much better suited if they built it closer to downtown and integrated it better with downtown. ALthough, I get it that Cobb county is where the money and tix sales were coming from for the Braves. It just does not have the feel of downtown. I remember when they first proposed Ballpark village, they did a story on Cincinnati's banks development as a similar type development that ballpark village could be. The big difference is that the Banks is actually downtown in the urban footprint vs a manufactured urban envelope in the burbs.

Maybe it was the Marge Schott foundation and they just do not want any press because of her legacy. Her family had been a decent sized donor to Xavier in the past i believe.

I dont think people will quit over this, or at least quit en masse. It will lead to some lower morale for some employees for a while but those employees are typically not the top performers anyhow. The best employees will adapt and succeed no matter what the environment.

I think it depends where they are quitting from. I do not think they would be too happy if many people in the Harris Teeter division left for example. This was a company wide announcement and did not just affect the corporate HQ.

True, a lot of of the accounting functions transferred to Jax. Drucker and a lot of the top Worldpay people stayed in Cincinnati with their primary office and would travel to jacksonville as needed.

In one sense it really never left and there really was not a question about whether it was going to return back to Symmes. The CEO, and pretty much the entire C-Suite was already located here as as well as a number of other top department heads. It was the admission by FIS of a merger gone bad, that did not fit with what FIS was able to do and FIS was not able to capitalize on what Worldpay did given how each business was regulated. Stupid purchase by FIS

Looks like the Browns are trending toward a January rematch of this game in Jax (unless the Texans have something to say about this)

Fortunately for you, you do not have to rely on my word, I think the majority of voters in Ohio decided she was a bit too far out there for their liking. But again, as you often make clear, all your problems are solely the fault of Republicans.

I think most companies are going to use common sense on this issue. If you work in admin for the city, then it really is probably not a big issue and there is really no reason to test people for it. If you operate heavy equipment, then it is a bigger issue and should probably be tested for it. Just like anything, the nature of the job should determine what the requirements are in regards for marijuana. A one sized fits all approach is stupid.

I really do not care about what the rules are on this. It really does not effect me one way or another.

Or maybe the Dem candidate was just too far out there.

You do not know that though. Unless you have polled every individual voter (which you haven't) or you know their mindset on the bill when they voted for the bill. I have never claimed to know their mindset either, but I am allowing for nuance in the discussion whereas you see things purely as black and white. However, practically speaking, and statistically speaking, if you are trying to find something that will satisfy the most people, then there is nothing like the compromise process. Right now, you have a group of people who may represent 43% of the voters wishes on Issue 2 who are crafting the legislation on this. So the question then becomes is what type of legislation can you craft that may be palatable to say 60 or 70% of the state's voters. If say 57% of the voters voted for Issue 2, what percentage of that 57% would need to feel satisfied that the regs are reasonable to put the issue to bed and move on? If they make 37% of those voters happy or content with the provisions then you have a satisfied electorate. No, zealots like yourself will never be satisfied by any compromise, but now your stubborness and relegated you to an absolute minority at that point. Hence the legislative process.

That is because, as you prove over and over, you only see things as black and white and do not seem to have the ability to understand nuance. Could you possibly understand that there could be some people who supported Issue 2, who voted for it because they liked the idea of legalized marijauna better than the alternative but maybe did not love the exact language in the bill. They voted for a tradeoff. There are also people who likely voted against it that maybe did not mind the idea of legalized marijuana but did not love the exact language in the bill either? Could there be nuance in how each voter rationalizes their decision to vote for or against an issue?

Zoning requirements are really not up to the state legislature. This is a local community thing as they control the zoning laws. Local communities will always be able to issue zoning regulations as to the types of businesses in certain districts in their community. The state regs really do not affect this. Just like local cities and communities can control where strip clubs locate in their cities and where parking lots or self storage centers or warehouses are built, the zoning code can limit how many pot dispensaries. It is an area where the language of the referendum conflicted with existing rules on the books in other areas. Allocation of the tax revenue is the easiest to fix and to me would be the least worrisome. In general, most legislators like the idea of new revenue streams. If, by setting the tax rate too high, it discourages people from using the dispensaries and further perpetuates the black market, thus leading the tax revenues to come in way below expectations, it makes sense that the state would cut the tax to maximize revenues. I personally agree with you on the tax being too high, but again, when 1) there is a change in legislative session with different members who may be more for the economic benefits, and 2) when tax revenues fall woefully short because the tax was set too high, it will give officials the incentive to reduce the tax to maximize revenues.

so have you called your legislator to complain about this, or do you just choose to whine about it on a random forum and resort to your tired trope of blaming Republicans for all the world's problems? Do you really believe this crap?? You are not in the minds of the voters. Is this what all of them asked for? Like all issues and candidates, you vote for the one that you feel is best. Certainly some voters voted for this because it had everything they wanted in the bill. Others voted for it because they may have preferred it over other alternatives. However, that does not mean they wanted it exactly as it is. It really does not work like that. The voters knew the legislature had to draw up the rules once this passed and they knew that the legislature was going to make changes. The extent of those changes may have been unknown, but it was well publicized that the legislature would make changes. SOme of them had to be made to square it with other laws in the ORC. But to act as if everyone who voted for this wanted it "as written" is patently false. The only thing we do know is that the majority of Ohio voters want legal weed and to be able to buy it and use it legally for recreational purposes. How that happens depends on the voter's preferences of which you really do not know what they are. So to summarize your black and white point, If you voted for Issue 2 you must be a Democrat or Progressive, if you voted against Issue 2, you are an evil Republican. You do realize that Ohio, is a Republican state, the passage of Issue 2 does not signal some changing of the guard, it means that there are a lot of GOP voters who like to use marijuana. The fact that this won in pretty much every county in the state does not mean these voters are going to vote D for all their candidates in the future, they are simply a bunch of Republicans who want recreational marijuana. In the debate, there were certainly some GOP Senators who did not like this at all. There were other GOP Senators and legislators who have no problem with this. As they teach you in civics 101, the legislation process is about compromise, I suggest you revisit that class as you seem to have forgotten how that process works. It is ok for a Senator to say he hates the new law and want to curtail it, that is his opinion. Fortunately, there are enough other Senators who may not agree with that position. However, compromise is good for everyone. In your opinion. At halfway (and it is more like 75% to be realistic when this is all settled) the majority of Ohioans will likely be fine with the proposals. If 40 something percent is against this and around 60% are for it in some capacity, then the vast majority of the 60% will be fine with something that gives them the majority of what they want. Yes, there will be some miserable people out there that are not happy unless they get 100% of what they want, but the vast majority will be happy to have the option to use and grow marijuana in their homes and purchase it at retail outlets.

I do not disagree with you here. Certainly, voicing your opinion to the legislature is important because it helped to moderate things. My initial point was that there were a lot of people who were outraged that the legislature was considering certain changes and treating the debate as fait accompli. My main point was (if you were not going to voice your opinion to someone in power) complaining about something that has not happened and may not happen is a waste of time. If, you were working the channels to accomplish moderation in the proposed regs, then wait and see what comes from things before getting outraged. We were witnessing the sausages being made and while it did not look pretty, the result usually is not the same as the hyperbole you hear in the hearings, and initial proposals. There was going to be a lot of horsetrading back an forth on this. Certainly some people care about the tax as significant others are all in on the Home Grow issue. You have to figure there will be substantive changes from this, but things like tax rates are easily to be tweaked and the legislature has every incentive to do so and it is a purely market driven function. I do not worry much about that because if the tax is set too high, it discourages people from entering the field and would encourage a high black market. If this happens, you would think the legislature would want to maximize the potential tax revenue and lower tax rates to achieve efficient market policies. Something similar happened with the sports gambling law and I believe it happened years back when fracking became law. Just because certain regs get passed right now, does not mean that things cant get changed later. If the referendum gets proponents 80% of the way there now, understand that it is not too difficult to change things later as they make sense to all involved. I do, but the sponsors of the referendum also knew that as a referendum, it was up to the state to write the rules and they likely were aware that some of the proposals would get rolled back some as the regs were developed. However, a lot of this can be revisited and reworked in time on a one off basis as the advocates decide to push for it. In the big picture, what would be most important to proponents of the bill is that it creates a legal and regulated environment that further pushes those who are skeptical of the rules to realize that their fears maybe misplaced and to later revisit the idea of further relaxing some of the initial regulations.

The answer is you have to see what comes out of it, right now you are just speculating on the noise. I assume you will take any potential changes as not doing the will of the voters. That is not necessarily the case. If say, the only change from the Senate cuts the amount of home grown plants from 12 to 6, is that really a huge deal? Probably not. And remember, there is nothing wrong with starting slower and expanding and growing things over time. You just like to blame Republicans for all the ills of society and your own personal life.

As usual, you are wrong again. but again, its all about Republicans in your imagination I guess.

But not in covington? It seems like the best and most effective streetcar option would be through Newport and then across the licking into Covington and then across the Clay Wade bailey Bridge. Would it make sense to build in Newport alone? Would the purpose of going to Newport be to spur Covington on?