Brutus_buckeye

I would be interested to look back at NFL first round draft picks over the last 20 years and see how many of them were hits, in that they lasted long enough to receive a 2nd contract from their teams and continue to start. I would almost wager that the ratio is somewhere in the 1:3 range (it may be a bit higher for first rounders, although the injury bug can derail some players who have breakout seasons). If that is the case, 3 first round picks for a proven elite QB is a bargain.

How solid is Nashville's plan though? Do they have the financing all in place for the new stadium. I am not surprised to hear this news. The hotel was going to be a major issue going forward. It would have been really helpful if they were a year ahead on this and had firm commitments in place already or even ground broken on the facility.

This is separate from the hotel that did not get approvals across from the stadium?

^ You figure they would use the whole block just to create additional meeting space for large conventions. I guess they will still have that with the proposed footprint but it seems like you can never have enough options in the convention business.

Wow, this might actually happen without much of a gap. I figured that this would take longer than the new bridge with the way things work around here.

Because state landlord tenant law dictates this and home rule is not able to override state law. also home rule pretty much concerns health, safety and zoning matters. Short term rentals are governed under the landlord tenant law. Therefore it is an overreach of municipalities to try and regulate

^ The key players who are pushing cities to limit AirBNB is the hotel industry because it cuts into their market share and some local housing advocates who somehow fear that an airbnb unit takes away an affordable housing unit from a poor person. The Hotel industry argument has some merit, but at the same time, hotels still enjoy inherent advantages that AirBNB rentals do not so it really is an apples and oranges comparison. A hotel license allows the proprietor certain advantages an AirBNB does not enjoy so it is worth it for large AirBNB providers to register as hotels. t Also to the points addressed above, the other scare tactic issues cited to limit these types of rentals are often already accounted for under the law so such restrictions on AIrBNB citing this legislation is rather redundant. One other interesting development that is likely going to be coming in the pipeline is the restrictions on "pay to stay" in the eviction process. The larger cities like Cleveland Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati have "Pay to Stay" laws that prevent a property owner from evicting a resident if they can come up with the full payment by the eviction date. In most areas of Ohio, a property owner can refuse the payment to force the person out. There is a conflict in law where the judges in Hamilton County are refusing to enforce this law because they believe that it is in contradiction to state landlord tenant law and the city does not have the authority to do this. Judges in Dayton and Cleveland have allowed these laws so there is a conflict that will 1) either be addressed directly by the legislature in specifically banning cities from these types of laws or 2) the the Supreme Court in resolving the conflict

Wasn't he a poster on this site a while back?

Memphis used to be the largest city in Tennessee not too long ago. What happened to make it seem like a dying town?

You forgot “in the Bible and wrapping himself in the shroud of TurinYou forgot “in the Bible and wrapping himself in the shroud of Turin

No plan is perfect, it appears that the person who designed the plan may have missed or underestimated the need for that connection (heck it may be there and just not visible). I do think if they get rid of it and re-route people through 8th street it will create a lot of West Side opposition to kill the project along with all the businesses along river road that rely on shipping. While the design may be beneficial, I would not be so quick to dismiss the concerns of the west side and cast them aside so quickly because you generally like the plan. I am sure there could be tweaks that would allow for the connector to remain even if it means reclaiming slightly less land.

It is pretty heavily used by the West Side as it is the only connector to allow people from Delhi, North Bend, Saylor Park access to 75 and the bridges. Plus the trucking traffic is significant so I would think it would be important.

But right now River Road is a divided highway with a concrete median until you get through Lower Price Hill. There are a lot of Trucking terminals down there especially with the train terminal, it makes sense to allow the trucks easy access to the interstates when picking up freight. It looks like this removes that access point when coming from 75. In addition, it makes it more difficult for those in Delhi and the West Side to access the bridge and cuts off their access some. that would be concerning if that is true.

^ The one concerning thing is that I do not see access to River Road under this configuration. Is that exit ramp eliminated? It seems as if you can access it via FWW but not 75 anymore. That would be problematic.

Even listening to Vance now, he seems like he is being led by political consultants (good or bad) and that he is not necessarily being authentic to his core beliefs. Clearly, he is indebted to Trump for fighting for Kavanaugh who I am sure is a close ally to his family, given his wife's connections, but listening to him, you sense that some of his positions are less about what he believes and more about what may garner media attention and press to push his campaign. I circle back to election night where he was giving his victory speech and he thanked his campaign manager for pushing him in certain directions where he was not comfortable going at first. He clearly was choosing his words carefully there, but it seems like his political positions and convictions are not as genuine as say Mandel or Gibbons who (love them or hate them) was a bit more authentic. It was also interesting that when the campaign started, Vance was positioning himself more along the lines of Timken who was in that more pragmatic moderate lane but then had to tack strongly toward Trump as the summer of 2021 wore on. Timken did this too, but not as well as Vance did. Of course, we cannot discount the Trump endorsement as we would be saying JD who now if not for that.

That is a heck of a lot of land they can reclaim downtown and open up for some cool development. Could be a cool corporate campus too if you can attract someone like an Amazon to come to such an area with a ton of jobs (longshot I know). How hard will it be to do the FWW playbook from the 90s to make this happen?

Ryan certainly has a chance but he is running as the underdog. Ironically, 30 years ago, it was the Republican who would have had to run as the Ryan type of campaign to win the broad appeal (like Voinovich and Dewine had to do). now it is the democrat that must moderate their position to win in Ohio. it can be done in the right environment. Look at Kentucky as the example. I still think as of now Vance wins. The thing that will help Vance is his Appalachian roots and the appeal thst has toward voters in SE and Eastern Ohio whom were once solid Dems

I think the Republicans really got screwed by the Majewski win. ALthough, stranger things have happened. and the district is a bit different than last time. I think Gesiotto will be a tough campaign and certainly the GOP could have nominated a better candidate, but with the way Stark County and some of those counties have been trending lately, a Trumpian populist has as strong of a shot as anyone. It is no longer the district that elected Anthony Gonzalez and has certainly become more populist. I think Gonzalez saw this a year or so ago and why he decided to get out while the getting was good. In the first, Chabot will win this year and retain his seat. At some point in the next 10 years the seat will go blue, but this is not the year.

what does this have to do with Cranley?

I appreciate your position on the matter. While you see my reasoning, I will concede to you that all of these polls have been taken under the current law where abortion is allowed in every state so the Pro-Choice crowd is not a motivated or moved at the polls by politicians who want to restrict the right. Now, if it is taken away, does that create a different level of engagement than you currently see? I don't know. In my opinion, I still do not think you see the same single issue voter on the pro-choice side as you do on the pro-life side and that is partly just on how the issue directly impacts people. Inflation touches everyone, taxes touch everyone, military spending, social welfare effectively touch everyone. Also, it is important to remember that eliminating Roe v Wade will likely not affect 1/2 the states and probably less than 1/2 the population as the larger Blue states will not see any significant changes in abortion policy. The most restrictive states will likely be smaller states and states where the majority of the population is more prone to be pro-life. So at the end of the day, how much outrage will strong pro-choice activist X living in Cali or New York truly have over a Misissippi ban on the procedure when it does not directly affect them or their close friends?

Let's break this down a bit. The numbers do show that people in Ohio oppose the heartbeat bill with 40% in favor. That is a strong opposition of it. Now the heartbeat bill is a pretty restrictive bill which means there are likely many other voters who would not go so far as to support the heartbeat bill but be open to other restrictions on abortion. How big is that? Probably at least 10% which makes it a 50/50 split. Now of those who say they support abortion with minimal restrictions, say the other 50%, how many of them are actually passionate about that position. I would argue you would get another 10-20% falloff there. So realistically, you have a strong passionate core on both sides and it is pretty squishy in the middle. The statistics have shown this has not changed much over the last 20-30 years so it is pretty even. Over the last 20-30 years Ohio has become a bit more aggressive in the abortion battle staking out pro-life positions. Over that period, the electorate has not offered much more than a whimper. The politicians who pushed these bills have not been punished at the polls and have won re-election in many cases and yet the politicians keep moving move and more to the pro-life side. At the same time, the Democrat side has moved more and more to the left on the abortion issue and has eschewed restrictions of any kind under most circumstances. They have pushed laws in New York and California and other more liberal states where they have had power. If these were so popular in Ohio, you would see voters moving to embrace these issues or at least pushing their Republican representative to temper their positions so they would remain in power. The fact is that in Ohio, that is not the case. It is one thing to claim pro-life or pro-choice in a poll, but another thing to consider it at the voting booth. Based on the way the elections have turned out, for the majority of voters, abortion does not really move the needle. You have a very passionate pro-life side that almost treats abortion as a single issue, but for everyone else, the abortion debate is jumbled in the mix and you would likely find many Pro-Choice minded voters treating it as a throw-away to other more important issues to them. That is why the polls about voters in favor of Roe V Wade do not mean much because the majority of the voters are not single issue voters who hold abortion as a litmus test. I would argue that to those who do, the pro-life side has a much larger base in that area.

I heard on the news today that Dewine received more votes in the primary than Whaley and Cranley combined for what that is worth.

I have seen a number of groups that have paid prices or done things that make no economic sense other than they have cash that is getting 0% return parked where it is and by parking it into a property even vastly overpaying for it, a 3-4% return still looks good for them and their investors.

Maybe W&S just needs a place to park cash so they are putting into this project.

I so not see this resonating with state voters in a state who generally favor more abortion restrictions. New York or California, I could see, but statewide in Ohio, I do not see it having much of an impact. Also, Dewine is too popular with moderates for how he handled COVID and he has been open about his right to life stance for a long time now. That is a national matter. It may come into play more with the Senate election, but you have an incumbent governor who has never kissed Trump's ring and even took some hostile positions against Trump, I do not see how this effects the governors race. Whaley certainly is determined to make this an issue and try and tie the governor to it. I think it is too far removed at this point and the public does not really seem to care about it unless it shows a direct tangential line to the governors mansion. That is going to be hard to show at this point. It is far different than in 2006 when Taft's administration was stained by the coingate and a couple other scandals that were directly connected to people in the governors office. Whaley will be lucky to get 40% of the vote unless something major happens to cause Dewine to implode