Brutus_buckeye

I do not disagree with that. They serve a purpose, but sometimes they are overused. In general, I prefer deferring to the property owner as to best use of the property (within certain restrictions). When it comes to places like the Dennison hotel, the neighbors should not get an absolute veto right over what the owner does with the building since they are not the ones who pay taxes on the property or contribute at all to its economic output. That is my opinion of course and I know in certain circles, like on this board that is probably a minority opinion, but that is my position. (When I run for council, I will be asking for your donation and support:) )

She received a brass Timex watch, a Candygram and a big thank you for all the union dues she had paid over the last 43 years (and the cost of the Timex watch and Candygram will be deducted from her final paycheck to go to the union dues spent on the gift).

So no, I did not shed a tear when the Denison was torn down. Oftentimes I felt it blighted whenever I walked by. I wish there would have been plans for a bigger development queued up when it was torn down but I have not felt any sadness with it being gone. If 3CDC would have rehabbed it, I would have been fine with that too, but I was not going to lose any sleep over whatever happened to that property, either renovated or torn down. IMO, it was up to the owner to decide best what they wanted to do with the property. Since after all, they were the ones paying taxes on it.

Sure it is. A parking lot may not be the highest and best use of the land, but it helps eventually get there. A parking lot produces economic output whereas a condemned building presents itself as an health and safety hazard while generating no economic value and potentially bringing down the value of other properties in the neighborhood. Better to clear the blight, make some minimal economic use of the property as a lot until it is time to redevelop it into something more purposeful.

There is some soft demand in the EV market for cars right now. https://www.businessinsider.com/why-car-dealers-worried-about-biden-ev-mandate-letter-2023-11#:~:text=Car dealers aren't happy,the brakes" on his mandate.

The thing I hate about the historical classifications is that you cannot change the exterior of the building (at least it is extremely difficult). If they could do something to make the exterior look not so drab, I think the building has some potential.

It was essentially an old warehouse, hence why you do not find much of that style in downtown. Just because there are few buildings of this style left, or even built in downtown, that does not mean it should qualify it as worth saving. And no, I dont have a say in what the board says about it, but yes, I can express my opinion that it is an ugly building and a bit of an eyesore, similar to the Denison Hotel (tearing down that building and putting a parking lot there was an improvement IMO).

Why give it historic designation? I get the tax credits but the building has no historical significance and it is an eyesore. I was hoping Drury would develop it into their hotel years ago and their plans looked promising. Not going to quibble over someone wanting to bring 100 new apartment units to town, but the building is ugly if you ask me and I would not have an issue if someone wanted to raze it and build something nice from scratch. Regardless, the building really has no historical landmark significance.

when I read this, I was thinking, gee, I have not heard of this brand. Is this a new extended stay brand by Hilton? Now it makes a lot more sense. An extended stay brand would work well in that location.

I would not be so confident on that. Also, I do not necessarily mean that the politician who reneges on the promise would lose re-election to a Republican or even another Democrat who tries to primary them, however, you will see it on the referendum side. After the Stadium tax passed in the late 90s, there were numerous other sales tax issues that came up (mostly for the jail) that failed in the aftermath. It took until Union Terminal for the county voters to justify another sales tax increase. That is another issue that voters could have a memory of too. Remember, that .25 was supposed to be rescinded after the construction was complete, but from what I remember, the commissioners kept it in place to pay for other county services. Couple that with the stadium and the failure to live up to promises and it creates distrust in political leadership, no matter what the ideology may be of the voter. That was one of the issues with the railroad sale that opponents were making. It was the lack of trust of government officials to honor the promises of the voters, even from many years ago. As a voter, no matter your political leanings, do you ultimately trust the local representatives to be good stewards of your tax money? I think that is the bigger question that really has nothing to do with political affiliation. Todd Portune was proven to be a good steward of taxpayer money. I think Driehaus has shown that she has been responsible too. Reece, despite some of her cringeworthy moments, is also someone who takes that into consideration (also it is important to remember that she came of age in politics at the time of the whole stadium issue so she is sensitive toward that). I do not think taxpayers will care too much if the county trims around the edges, but they need to keep the tax rollback in place at least from a symbolic standpoint to the local taxpayers.

Reese is right on this. This is the issue that got Portune in office many years ago. It was making sure that the taxpayers received the benefit of their bargain. And yes, it sometimes may mean a cut in services in the short term. Memories are long, especially on the stadium issue. How many other sales tax levies have failed in the past because of animosity toward the stadium deal. To her point, if the county reneges on their deal with the taxpayers, it may bite them years down the line.

that is certainly a tradeoff that those in the area need to figure out what they want more. If they want a ton of residents with minimal restaurants and bars, then certainly STR are not a good fit for the area. If people want to live in an entertainment destination and want to be in an area where they are around a ton of entertainment options, bars, breweries, etc. then you make the tradeoff to have more STRs and deal with the problems that go with it. As OTR has become an entertainment destination, STR are an important part of that fabric. If you want a more traditional neighborhood, then maybe Mt. Lookout or Hyde Park or Norwood would be a better fit

To be fair, I did minimize the significance of the downtown Kroger and gym options downtown (mostly in the CBD). I do not have a dog in the fight necessarily, but ultimately, my point was that AirBNB does not destroy the neighborhood, it just changes the types of businesses that would be there.

It is certainly industry specific. To your point, short term rentals do not benefit dry cleaners, hair salons, local pharmacies, and small boutiques. However, they do benefit the restaurant, bar, brewery, entertainment venue, gallery, etc. I don't think you can make the argument that Short Term Rentals will cause the neighborhood to fail and drive away all the businesses. Certainly some businesses would suffer while others would thrive. I would say that the overall dollars spent would increase in an area with a lot of short term rentals. More dollars spent is obviously beneficial to the economy as a whole, but there are certainly drawbacks to the neighborhood that should be discussed too.

Ohio landlord/Tenant law is not as flexible as New York would be. Cities can take some actions, and can certainly do things like taxation and some fees to limit the profitability of AirBNB, they can impose inspection requirements to create additional burdens, but they cannot ban them on their own. THey would need help from the state to do some of this, which is probably not going to happen on that front. Just because it works in New York or California does not mean it will work in ohio, and vice versa. Each state offers its own uniqueness.

I think things should be put in perspective a bit. Yes, occasionally, an AirBNB weekend stay, like any hotel, can get loud or rowdy because of Alcohol involved. Such is life in the city. The same happens frequently with apartments when people have guests over. The bigger issue is that you have a building with shared walls and floors and sound travels. Yes, you will have this more in a hotel or AirBNB, because the venue encourages people to "Pregame" before going out for the big night out. However, this is not too much different than a group of 20 something people getting together in their apartment on Friday or Saturday night and doing the same thing. The key difference is that there is a bit more accountability because the person can be evicted (if the landlord cares to do something about it) vs the AirBNB tenant just losing their deposit. Looking at your situation about the person dying in the building next door, that is likely nothing to do with AirBNB and more to do with that individual's state of mind when he died. He could have just as easily been a permanent resident next door and did the same thing. Did the fact that it was Air BNB make the area less safe? Probably not. I get it that you get frustrated by seeing a ton of new faces and only having them there for the weekend. It does not foster a neighborly environment and you never get to know your neighbors because the building is transient. Some people do not have an issue with this while others may. To that, it is time to vote with your feet and find a better area of town or even better block that better suits your needs. Regarding regulations, while council can pass some regulations regarding AirBNB's and taxing them, their hands are tied in many areas when it comes to getting rid of them. Legally, there are limited options that city council can do in the area. It is best to accept that fact and know you will just have to live with them as long as you live in OTR.

Does it though? You could almost argue the reverse. Does having a permanent apartment resident spur street life or does tourism and visitors? There are a lot of people who work 9-5 or even longer during the week, they spend their evening hours preparing a small quick dinner for themselves, going to the gym (which is not walkable), driving to the Kroger (in Hyde Park or Newport), and then spending many of their weekends doing activities that are not in OTR. Yes, they may occasionally go to a local pub for a drink or they go to one of the local restaurants but how regularly are they doing this? AND when they do this, how much are they spending? Whereas, you have the AirBNB crowd that comes to town for various reasons, but they are there to spend money at the local establishments. The bars and restaurants get more money per capita on the people going out for their bachelorette party or FCC soccer game or whatever other reason brings them to OTR. They are more likely to find a local breakfast spot on their visit (because majority of them wont cook in their AirBNB unit) and spend money there. You can argue that the AirBNB transient visitor will spend more money in the area than a regular resident who is there every day. Now there are certain businesses that obviously do better with long term renters than weekend visitors. If you are looking for more of a M-F boutique crowd, then certainly a more residential community would be a benefit, but if you are looking for more of a nightlife, eclectic restaurants and bars, galleries, and other attractions; then the short term rental market caters to that better. I think the bigger question is what type of mix and what type of economy that people in OTR seek?

I could see a townhome project or something smaller being built in the West End or near City Hall first to test the waters on the condo market before I could see someone going all in on a highrise conversion like Carew Tower or new project like that. There have been numerous glizty condo projects proposed in the last 15 years downtown and none have come to fruition (See SKyhouse, the project before Artistry which i forget the name, The Edge) to name a few. If you look that the list of canceled projects on the forum, it is littered with condo projects that never took off. they are a tough lift.

https://www.wlwt.com/article/frontier-airlines-cvg-airport-crew-base/45907914 BIg news at CVG. Looks like Frontier likes Ohio

I like the proposal, although I would love it to be more like 10-12 stories. Pretty much the same height or as close to the same height as the garage portion of the tower next door. This will cover up some of the faux window wall on the garage next door. However, it is a good project for that corner given the smaller footprint and lack of what can be built in that particular space.

The one drawback of pushing it a couple of blocks South is that it does not allow as easy access from the highways for people coming into games and would be more likely to cause a traffic backup Not the end of the world but that would be a bit of a concern, plus there is a bit more residential housing in the area South of WCET vs the site that Berding and Co are proposing.

I look at Gainbridge in Indy as an example. On the upper levels, the concourses are small and pretty tight. On the lower levels, there are very narrow areas and then there are areas where it offers a lot of space, and then there is more of a general concourse area in by the main entrance that offers a ton of space to gather inside. I can see this as a model.

I get it, I hated my liberal arts classes and just found them to be an annoyance and means to an end. I got very little out of my foreign language requirement at the time and as a business major, did not see the need to take philosophy or even a history class. However, as I got older, i see the value in the knowledge and while I may not remember a lick of Spanish from college, these courses do (in a collective manner) teach you how to think critically and also engage with people who have varying interests. It may not have done anything for my technical skills, but it helps me relate to clients, engage with those who may have a variety of interests and be a more well rounded adult.

I agree with you on the value of a liberal arts education and the benefits of training in liberal arts fields. I do not think that is the biggest issue with small town colleges though. From what I have heard from some administrators is that the enrollment cliff that is beginning now and the changing demographic of college students will drive students to colleges in more metro markets vs small college towns. A liberal arts college like Thomas Moore in Cincinnati, or a Baldwin Wallace or John Carroll in Cleveland, or a Capital, Ohio Wesleyean or Otterbein in Columbus are poised to do fine because they offer the ability and options for students who may want to commute, or work part/full time during college and there is appropriate off campus housing in the area for students so college do not have to invest in and maintain a large physical plant of buildings. Whereas, schools like Hiram, Mt. Union, Heidelburg, Ohio Northern, Wooster etc. will struggle because of the capital costs of maintaining their physical plant and attracting students who may not have immediate job prospects in the local area both during and after college