Brutus_buckeye

The existing mile structure was a straight shot from the old Macy’s to the BJ’s brewhouse building. It was built in the 1960s as an outdoor structure That was closed in the 70s along with an enclosed wing leading towards the old Sears store. It was a one story mall until the early 90s when I second floor was built on top of the existing structure and stores added on top of the original stores. The old Dillards store was built at that time along with the parking garage. I Would guess it’s a bit like Kenwood where you have a 1960 structure that is wrapped around the 1980s expansion overlay.

Given how many groups purchased this mall over the last 15 years trying to revive it, I am a little bit of "believe it when i see it" but at the same time, this appears to be the first tangible plan put forward that does not involve putting lipstick on the pig, which is what the past owners have proposed. I am curious as to the proposal because it seems like it is trying to compete with Liberty Center a bit (but with more apartments) and I tend to think that Liberty Center has the advantage demographicwise at this point.

so it looks like they are keeping the Macy's store, the parking garage and old Dillards int the footprint. It also looks as if they may be repurposing much of the original mall footprint along the main corridor but tearing down the corridor leading to the old Sears store. It also appears they are tearing down the building where BJ's currently is located. I dont know how they will be able to keep much of the existing structure labeled "residential pavilion" these were retail stores built in the 60's as open air and then a second level was added in the early 90s on top of it. It seems it would be a difficult conversion to apartments given how it was constructed. I imagine the biggest "cost savings" and benefit to the developer was the existing parking garages that they get to reuse.

I would imagine that they would repupose the department store frames while tearing down the remainder of the mall. The interior is a pretty open space (outside of the storefronts) Not quite sure how you could repurpose much of that into apartments. I can see the department stores being salvageable though as well as the parking decks. I would imagine the mall footprint is somehow worked into the new plan. The original mall was built in the 60's and then they added a second level around 90 as well as building the old Dillard's building. I could also see that part of the complex that they will "salvage" may be some of the other outbuildings that are currently rented and on mall property but not actually part of the mall. It will be interesting to see how this looks, but I am with you, I do not see how they salvage most of the actual mall space.

In many cases it is almost easier to renew a HAP contract then terminate because unwinding it is a challenge from what i have seen.

The only thing I can think of with the HAP contract is that the property will not have any significant renovations that occur and it will not be turned into higher end apartments for the next 20 years while it is subject to the HAP contract. You will not see some major renovation to high end condos. Other than that, I dont see the problem with a HAP contract. It ensures the property is going to be maintained as is at least.

There is nothing wrong with a HAP contract. Typically, they have to be kept up according to reasonable standards and are subject to mulitple inspections every year. Tenants who rent under these contracts tend to be good tenants who in exchange for rental assistance have to keep their spaces in good condition. Having good mixed use housing in the area is a good thing.

I thought the Ohio constitution only required cities not be broken up. You are allowed to break up counties? It would make sense that this would be the case, especially because there are some cities that straddle counties and lie in 2 separate counties. In this case, breaking up county and or city could become an unachievable exercise.

Why not put the park on the other side of the Freedom Center (2nd Street side) and use it as the impetus to get caps along I-71? I like th park concept, but if people are looking to build the caps, and there is infastructure and park money available, could this create the will to actually install the caps over the highway?

The thing that gets lost in much of the conversation is the districts also need to keep a population balance. you cant have one district with 850k voters and another in ohio with 650k voters. Taking the proposed district and shifting Marysville and Urbana out of it and adding in Kenton, Findlay and Upper Sandusky could create population issues in other areas because of where the population actually lives in Ohio.

lol

Influence and direct power are two different things. The proposed map by the Democrats was what they would hope for in the ideal world. Realistically, that was never going to happen. It was out there for the public for posturing purposes and to score political points, but that was not part of the inside game that was being played. . Behind the scenes, there are Dems who hold a lot of sway in the matter. For example, (and I know she is not running) a candidate like Brigid Kelly would be able to influence republicans to keep her seat safe or safer at the expense of other democrats. There are democrats that are more liked than others and those democrats can wield a lot of influence over how their district turns out. It is not about R v D at this point. That part was decided a long time ago. The D's lost. It is about the D's in self survival mode working at preserving their own power and influence at the expense of other members of their party. So yes, they have influence

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/new-maps-spark-debate-over-majority-minority-districts https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/09/it-time-rethink-hyper-minority-districts/620118/ Here is an article that describes the challenges faced nationwide. This is obviously concerning detroit but it is going on in most states. In many cases it really is not reported or covered because it involves a much more in the weeds debates that do not necessarily garner headlines because it is more the saussage making type story that will come out years after the fact if at all. - While this involves Detroit, the same considerations are going on in Ohio, even if @DEPACincy may try and say otherwise. As posted here a week or two ago by someone there was a draw your own redistricting map and the biggest challenge was creating one that respected some of the majoity-minority districts. Think of it from a practical point - If you have a district that is a +50 or higher D, as an incumbant you do not have to heavily campaign and you have a pretty good gig going. Even if your party is in the minority in your state, do you (in your own self interest) want to give that up to make your district much more competitive? So from that legislators POV you have them working in their own self-interest (which is difficult to prove but it is there). Secondly, these seats were traditionally created as carve outs to allow African American's representation in Congress when at the time you could not get white people to vote for a black person for office. This was the way to help change that and was part of the VRA act. Even though those rules do not necessarily apply anymore, and American views on race have changed considerably, there is stil a preception that a majority black area should have a black representative. A second practical point. While there may be a lot of partisan screaming going on to the media, generally, the majority of people in office generally get along even if they are members of the opposing party. In general, on the majority of issues, they need to build consensus to get things done and get some of their key initiatives included in bills. Much of this does not get media attention because it is boring. These legislators, even from different parties are known and they have established relationships with key people from both parties. There is a bit of a deference given to those lawmakers that you dont touch the general makeup of their district and such changes involve more nibbling around the corners of their district. If it means sacrificing another D in the process, privately, they are ok with that.

There was input and a lot of pushback coming from many of the majority-minority districts. Part of the biggest challenge to achieve some of the desired results of making it more even to the actual electorate involved breaking up the majority-minority districts. While those districts would still have leaned strong D, they would lean less D than they do currently, and more concerning to the incumbants of those districts was that, while strong D, they may no longer be majority-minority or barely majority-minority. So you in these cases you have really strong pushback from the minority community that even though the district is a heavy solid D district, it is split 50% minority/50% white and therefore, you no longer guarantee a minority candidate is elected. This is more heavily exacerbated on the state house side of things, but certainly comes into play during the Federal redistricting too.

California voters chose the independent commission. However, before people get crazy about the gerrymander let's put things into a bit of a perspective here. Are the new maps better than the prior 10 years. I think that would be a true. There is no longer a snake like district along the lake. Other districts are a bit more straighforward. This is an improvement. Also, keep in mind that there are a number of Democrats who are strongly supportive of their districts and protective of territory. This makes it difficult to break up majority/minority districts and create a map that would allow dems to be more competitive statewide in other districts. By creating a couple of districts that are +50 D it allows those politicians to have a very safe path toward election. These D's have a lot of pushback on breaking up their districts to allow for more competitive seats statewide. Even though the GOP controls the process, there is Dem input into it and part of the pushback that has led to the districts does come from these strong D districts.

bUCkeye STATE

I get it, but Burrow gave it a legitimate shot to try and win the job. I agree fields is a better example but it seems like ewers may be thinking too short term instead of the long game

I question the short sighted decision making process on his end. leaving HS a year early to cash in on the short term NIL deals. While nice, those could have been more lucrative down the line. Furthermore, while immensely talented, there are a lot of talented QB's around who never develop to their potential Is sitting for another year really going to hurt him that much or would developing his talents with one of the best QB rooms around be better for him? If his goal is to start in the Fall, is that guaranteed going into a new system? Certainly at Texas that seems like a possibiliyt since they are bare in the QB room but nothing is a guarantee. It just seems like his short term decision making may be detrimental to his long term growth.

I knew you were not serious but figured it was worth understanding the actual elements of a murder case since that seems to be lost on a lot of people.

Considering you need intent for murder, if you do not know about it, you can't commit murder. Now, there are certainly other crimes there, but to answer your question, you have to know what you are doing to commit murder.

There is no negotiating going on either and zero inventory on the lot. You either pay sticker (or what they tell you to pay) or you do not get the car. You also have to wait 3 months for delivery too.

I was thinking the same thing. The UC move was in poor taste and just as time may heal the wounds and I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt he does something sleazier and leaves Notre Dame when they still could make the playoffs. How crappy is that abaondoning your team before the season is settled.

That is the biggest thing on Baker. In his prime and healthy he is a #7-12 QB. That is not top QB level but still too good to give up on completely. I also think his intangibles and leadership are strong. However, Watson is a top 3-10 QB with a higher upside. He is a difference maker if he would ever be cleared by the league. I do not know if Wilson gets you there anymore. He is in his 30's now and is probably subject to diminishing returns going forward.

It is interesting that the city would want to spend the resources on the cameras given they need to pay an officer time to monitor it on location and then have to pay the camera company a hefty fee. It may be a loophole, but it is designed to make is quite uneconomical for the department to run the cameras

Do you think Mayfield is a good long term option if healthy? This was the worst possible situation to evaluate him for a second contract. He is certainly not having a good year, but a torn labrum along with his other injuries certainly influence that. As much as I hate to admit it, the guy is a hell of a competitor and I think demonstrates good leadership that can help the Browns excel. I do not think he is a phenomenal QB, but is quite effective when healthy and given the opportunity to win. He was very good last year, but mediocre in year 2. I dont know how you can pay him big money to stay with this year's results, but I dont know how you can let him go either. To me, he has this Drew Brees factor that will make him a decent long term QB. May not ever reach HOF numbers but I dont think I could give up on him yet. Also, looking at the QB pool in college this year, there are no real standout candidates and I do not know if anyone in next year's class has stood out yet either. CJ Stroud is a work in progress, so is Bryce Young. There is no Trevor Lawrence coming down the pike in 2022/2023 drafts.