Brutus_buckeye

The NFL may appeal simply because of the optics, but playing it out, what would the result of an appeal be. Likely, what happens is Watson gets suspended 12 games to a year by Goddell. At which case Watson then appeals the matter to Federal court and starts week 1 and plays every week of the 2022 season while the Federal court hears the case (like what Brady did). Then the case gets settled in the offseason and chances are the Federal Court would side with Robinson and re-instate the 6 game suspension that Watson serves in 2023. Does this help the NFL? - Certainly it helps the optics that they are doing something and trying to fight against sexual assault. However, they spend a lot of money in legal fees on what is likely a fruitless case. They still get the blame for allowing him to play even though the NFLPA and the court's essentially are mandating such. Their hands are tied. I do not think they really can improve the optics much on this and they are better off having Watson gone concurrently instead of having this drag on into 2023, IMO Does the Appeal hurt Watson more? - certainly, he likely prefers to have this behind him and to move on with his life after 6 games. Also, if this drags into 2023 and he has to serve 6 games at that time, he now forfeits much larger game checks. It is clear financially why he wants to accept this and move on. Practically speaking, this seems like a no win situation for the NFL if they appeal. It probably behooves them not to appeal.

To me 6 games feels right. Optics wise, the NFL will likely appeal, but I do not think they win. As a Bengal fan, I was hoping for a longer suspension, but that had nothing to do with the justice of it. If think the NFL certainly will face criticism on this and of course Watson and the Browns will be seen as villains throughout the national media for the foreseeable future (but the Browns are often treated with disdain by the national media so nothing is new there). Based on the facts and prior precedent, from the perspective of the arbitrator, 6 games feels right. From a justice perspective, 6 games feels right, it is a significant suspension but keeps in perspective the fact that there were no criminal charges (and to your point a few weeks back, the Browns clearly did their homework).

But if I go West of 75 I may fall off the side of the earth.

^ Norwood needs this. Their tax base struggles, although it has been better lately as opposed to a decade ago. Bad leadership in the mayors office created a lot of their mess. The Rookwood developments have certainly helped, but the old housing stock kept it struggling for the tax dollars to effectively operate at times. Getting a larger tax base there can only help.

I dont think they need to build a dorm. I thought part of the problem is the either Siddall or Calhoun (I forget which one) is undergoing renovations and is closed for the year. That takes a few hundred beds out of the mix just by that alone. I think they redid Calhoun last year so this year they were supposed to start on Siddall from what I remembered reading a while back. once both of those are back in full circulation, the housing problem dissipates.

You have to figure that they have the space they need with the evendale operation being based here since forever. Can’t see a tower for them as it does not necessarily fit the model of their industry either. They are an industrial company now, not a financial.

They have not committed to the location of the new HQ yet. It is in Boston now, but that could change once everything is spun off. It makes sense that it would likely move since the current GEAE is based here and would not really make sense to keep the Boston HQ going without any operations there or other subsidiaries to oversee. It may not move right away, but could see it happening within a couple years after the spin off. I am sure that even after the spin off there will still be a number of consolidated services between all 3 companies to unwind.

I think the stations don’t want to be downtown because of ease of access issues for their vehicles, etc. running to a breaking story is easier when they do not have to navigate the parking garages etc.

Really, what role did the Texans truly have in this? Watson got his own massage therapists, he paid for them himself. When Watson gets, sued everyone who touches him gets sued, hence the Texans, and they will have to pay to defend themselves no matter if they are guilty or not, it will still cost the Texans 10s of thousands to defend. It is easier to settle in that case does not mean they did anything wrong, just send it to insurance and have them deal with the issue. The Texans obviously touched Watson so they were sued. Who knows if a jury would find some potential liability on the Texas if Watson said that he used Texans facilities for massages, etc. So I can see where there could be some liability there.

Apartments appreciate in price because of the rents they generate and the P&L that is created by the property. As rents go up and expenses go down the stream of income created by the apartment increases, and theoretically, it will annuitize over time. People are paying for a steam of income over time. With an owner occupied condo, the person lives there and is not creating an income stream (it comes from their job) so the asset does not rise in value. Land tends to be pretty stable and flat unless there are periods of speculation. Apartments do not increase in value because of the land (although in some cases that can be a factor, it generally means that the property could probably better better suited for something besides an apartment at that point).

From what I understood, the issue with condo vs Multifamily apartment was that the shared wall and separate ownership vs apartments have common ownership. also, back in 2008 condos had some of the highest default rates making it harder to finance newer projects where apartments had a major shortage. Regulators made a big push at that time for multi family policies to promote apartment construction. so there were a number of factors that encouraged construction of apartments vs condos the last decade

The issue is the shared wall component from what I understand and how it was explained to me. it creates a lot of risk and can lead to deterioration of other individual assets in the condo community through no fault of their owners. I think that is why Fannie/Freddie do not love to finance such developments and the rest of the banks take their cues from them. Now, this is separate than getting a Fannie/Freddie loan to purchase a condo which is done all the time for condo buyers.

The problem with condos, especially in getting people into the homeownership route, is the condo fees that can vary widely depending on the condo. Condo A selling for $150k and condo B selling at 150k are vastly different opportunities when you factor in the condo fees on the project. A new purchaser who may not understand the condo dynamics could walk into a bit of trouble in some of these cases. Regarding why condos are not as popular in the US, the main reason is that they are much harder to finance and the various rules for lenders make it difficult to build them. Back in 2008 they had a much higher default rate than other types of residential asset classes. I could be mistaken but I vaguely remember reading something about how Fannie and Freddie are not set up to easily finance condo projects which limits the ability to build them.

It is a 150 room hotel, right? 4 -5 stories seems like the right height for a project like that. I would prefer something taller too though. Something in the 8-10 story range would feel more appropriate. 1) you should at least go as tall as music hall and TQL, 2) it is not in OTR but the West End and therefore, less to worry about disturbing the OTR architecture.

I think they are one in the same. Back in the late 90s, you had certain areas which were rental areas or renters were right on the fringe of middle class/poverty line. While the goal to increase homeownership was a noble one, it required a lot of lenders to cut corners and push through marginal loans to meet the goals of HUD at the time. While it offered opportunties for the poorer individual to achieve homeownership, it also pushed and encouraged the Chad and Karen's to move up into artificially inflated more expensive property. When you have millions of renters out there who will no longer be renters because they are going to get into a low level/entry level house, it pushes the value of those houses up because of the increased demand. It encourages others to move, pushing values up across the board and creates a supply shortage. The problem was that the supply shortage was created with fictitious money that was never going to be able to be paid back and it caused the whole thing to come crashing down. The Chad and Karen's were really no different than the person in poverty buying the house. It had nothing to do with Chad and Karen, just like it had nothing to do with the person in poverty who gets a 200k home loan. the people were just vessels for the loan, the loan. The market did not care about the borrower at the time, it only took the theory that the asset was all that mattered and the asset would only increase in value no matter what the borrower did.

Homeownership rates in this country have hovered around 64-67% in the modern era. Back in the waning days of the Clinton admin, there was a huge push to increase homeownership rates across the country. In the early 2000s the fruits of this policy began to matriculate and homeownership rates did increase a few % points. However, we all know what happened in 2008 because of this policy. In order to raise homeownership rates, lenders needed to engage in riskier underwriting to qualify the borrowers and in turn it artificially inflated Home values for everyone else leading to a crash. One of the key lessons learned is that 1/3 of the housing population being renters is probably a good thing

So worst case scenario is 3000 intel jobs plus (+10k auxillary jobs for the region/OH outside of Intel) best case scenario is about 10,000 Intel jobs, correct?

So if the bill does not pass, is the project dead or will Intel just scale it back a bit? It seems as if they are doing work out there already?

Is 180 Walnut on the table anymore? I thought they were full speed ahead and going to break ground 1st qtr this year and have not heard anything.

Ryan is doing a good job trying to define himself Vance is doing a lousy job of trying to capitalize on the GOP momentum and define his rival. Vance is running a poor campaign in the general so far. It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the Fall

Are these the lines reccomended by SORTA? What goes into how the routes are developed? Would it have been possible or feasible to route a BRT through Delhi too/instead? It seems as if that area is on an island and cut off. Plus it would be a benefit of some sort to have some connection to Mount St. Joe

Pittsburgh always had one of my favorite skylines, but when I was there about 6 years ago, I felt that the street life in the downtown core was extremely lacking.

I love downtown St. Louis but I think their skyline sucks.

Are they keeping their location on Paxton next to HP Kroger or moving it to the new location? Parking was always such an issue at the old location, but it has been on that corner for over 20 years now so it is known on that space.

Nkudkwe may be a slimeball, but he is allowed to be one. He is not an elected official who has a fiduciary duty to represent the citizens of Cincinnati. If Ndukwe wants to be a slimeball, thst is solely his business. PG should have known better or made better decisions. He now has to deal with the consequences quenches. also, regarding Householder, it is similar because he essentially shook down Forst Energy do and got them to give millions to his PAC to curry favor and interest with other office holders. He wanted to be a kingmaker. Now to your point, PG did not take money and actually get Ndukwe a development t deal, but that is not necessary to prove extortion. Like Householder, PG was building up a PAC so that he could deploy it and play kingmaker amongst other democrats in the Stste and nationally. He wanted them to kiss his ring, just like Householder wanted the Republicans in the state to kiss his ring.