Brutus_buckeye

1) Because K-12 is compulsory and college is not. It is up to the individual to choose their path 2) Along with the compulsory nature of it, k-12 involves minors whereas colelge is an adult decision (oftentimes the first adult decision the individual will make). You are not their parent, while some may make bad decisions, you have to allow them to make that decision. It is not for you to choose for them. 3) College is not for everyone. SHould be be encouraging college when the student is better served by other options (i.e. military, trade school, entering the workforce straight from HS, etc.) Paying for college incentivizes that when there are a lot of students that are not college material. Sending 100% of students to 4 year colleges from your district is really a giant disservice to the community and those students because 100% of those students do not belong in college (this is true regardless if you come from Indian Hill or Cleveland Public) 4) The fact that people choose college allows colleges to operate with a lot of freedom and autonomy. If you make it free and essentially fully subsidized by taxpayers, you are going to open up pandoras box to a lot more viewpoint scrutiny. You are seeing a lot of the anti CRT protests now, just imagine if they are fully subidized by the state, you would see a lot more of that at the college level even. 5) It would create significant challenges to many private colleges and may put many of them out of business. 6) It is going to water down the educational product as more and more resources will need to be devoted to students who do not need to be in college. There are many other reasons why free college may be a noble idea, but it is not a good idea.

Certainly there are problems with student loans but free college is not the answer. It will only create a watered down dilluted product with costs that skyrocket more out of control than they already are. The point above is correct about the burden of student debt being absorbed by those who drop out or went to a phony online college. These issues can certainly be addressed however, in some cases the student needs to bear some responsibility. I know when I took out loans, I better finish my program because I understood being stuck with a mountain of debt and never earned a thing out of it. I do feel that the real problem is that there are a lot of young people that are pushed toward college when that should not be where they need to go. School districts are too focused on trying to raise their "college" numbers they do not care about what is best for the kids but more about how they can report that xx% of our kids went to 4 year college after graduation. Nobody follows up to see how many of them bombed out in the first semester. Focusing on directing students toward their right path should be what districts focus on instead of pushing them all to college and forcing them to take on student loans when that may not serve their best interests. High schools have a of the blame to share in these cases. Colleges too, because of the easy free money that they rely on and the fact they really do not have to show results to get that money, only enrollment. In these cases, I do feel for many students. But in general, I do not feel for those who take student loans to get their education. It is their choice, and while it may lead to tougher times in their 20s and early 30s, if they are persistent, they will be much better off in their 40's and 50's

They should have went with the Steamers as a nod to the old industrial history and all the ships that would steam into port on Lake Erie 😀

The Guradians of the Tribe

COAST was certainly a player at that time. They were certainly against it, but if you remember back to that time, they were not the only party involved, there were others that spoke out against it. Many African American leaders were against it at the time for the reasons that the burden of revenue would be unequally paid by minorities in the community. Think about it, even at that time (around 2006-2008 period I believe) COAST certainly had more power, but it was still not super strong in the city limits. They would not be able to move the needle on their own. Now, I believe Smitherman was in charge of the NAACP at that time so that certainly played a role, however, To say COAST was solely responsible is incorrect, but yes, they were actively against it against it too.

Remember the main reason why they were banned was not about safety, but more to do with lack of due process, and the regressive nature of enforcement that tended to be disparate against low income and minority populations

Not really reasonable. If you are in position to offer a fringe benefit becuase of the nature of your business, you should not be required to pay extra for those who do not elect to take part in that fringe benefit. It is like asking airlines to compensate their employees more if they choose not to take advantage of the free flights available to them or requiring colleges to pay professors more if their children do not take advantage of the free or discounted education benefits of the institution available to employees. It is bad policy.

Columbus also suffers because it seems like a lot of its, and Ohio in general's idenity amongst those on the coasts and internationally revolves around Cleveland. So many people I speak to about Ohio who are not too familar with it or know very little about it always ask how we deal with so much snow all the time, or how close we are to Canada, or how the river caught fire, or if we are all Browns fans. For such a long time Cleveland was such an indellable behmouth over Ohio that it was Ohio's idenity. Cincinnati was always just the sleepy city in the Southern part of the state that did its own thing, but Ohio for so long revovled around Cleveland. I think you also see that with the migration patterns. The people coming to Columbus were coming more from Northern ohio and bringng their Cleveland culture with them. I think that may have contributed to the "lack of idenity". Plus, with Austin, you have a lot more people relocating there from all over the country whereas a lot of Columbus's growth is from other parts of Ohio, mostly northern Ohio.

I think Queen City Square had quite a few pages back in the day going back to the inception of Urban Ohio. Probably would have had more if the site had been around longer.

^ I wish it were more in the 4-5 story range, but it still is a nice project

I would say that applies to almost all 17-24 year old males regardless of ethnicity.

I am not going to get greedy, I will settle for a drum shaped hotel, maybe a saxaphone, a 50 story microphone shaped hotel will work too.

Early boomer kids were certainly part of gen x. Children in the late 60s and 70s were gen xers but the mid to late baby boomers born in the late 50s and 60s were certainly having millennials

late 80s and early/mid 90s was the peak period where the millenials were being born. Millenials are the largest generation so you have a ton of baby births during that period. Even though those parents having these babies were only having 2-3, there were so many of these boomers that it naturally led to a lot of kids being born.

I believe it is called supply and demand. It does not matter what the minimum wage is because the market is what really determines it. Even before the pandemic, places like McDonalds had to pay more than minimum for people to work there.

Its a labor shortage. The available labor is not willing to work for the iniital wage because they have other options. When the economy is in the tank, there is no such thing as a wage shortage. Funny how the market works better than govenrment.

He is a clown and a turd and much worse because he is just a horrible human being, not because he proposed this tax. While I certainly do not disagree with much of your point, I will say that given there was a promise to repeal .3% of the earnings tax for the transportation levy, it is a a bit early to talk about adding new taxes back. However, I do not disagree wiht your point about introducing it to the voters.

Do they own the old Delta call center or do they lease it?

I do not love the move. For a company of their size, it just does not scream corporate HQ. THey ave nice buildings and glad they will be put to good use, but it does not scream growing company to me.

I still can see nice big signage overlooking the highway and GABP on this too. That would attract a lot of eyeballs on a daily basis. Do you know if the glass building on 3rd was included in the deal?

He gets nervous when he knows there is more room to tax people for pet projects. The tax rollback was burning a hole in his pocket. Thankfully, we only have 4 more months of this clown until he is termed out.

It seems like an odd location for a corporate HQ. Although, I know they like to have visability and being able to plaster their logo on the front side of the building visible to all the cars passing along FWW and people walking to Reds and Bengals games will be priceless for them.

I am not saying that it can’t happen, I am just saying that there are clear flaws to what you’re proposing from a practical standpoint. Just because Georgia law has it does it make it a good idea. I also believe there are similar provisions in Washington and other states. I will say that you have to be careful how their laws are worded, and some states provisions can certainly run into trouble if they are not crafted properly. It’s nowhere near as easy as just adding a line 2 sections 5317 as you try to do I can tell you what will likely happen if that is the case in Ohio, it would lead to fewer and fewer options for tenants and they would be the ones who suffer the most. Would there be still opportunities to get a month-to-month lease? Of course, but practically speaking you will have more housing providers quit offering month-to-month options or auto renewal options. Well it might pose an inconvenience to the housing provider, the tenant is one that suffers the most in these scenarios. For every restriction you try and put on, businesses will adjust accordingly. Ultimately, at the end of the day it removes options available from the tenants who truly need them the most. You are trying to solve a problem that does not exist and in its place you are seeking to create many additional problems and unintended consequences by trying to solve such Issue that does not really need solving

Also, to your point on the statute crafting, One of the biggest areas where housing providers can’t get into trouble Centers around the unequal term of the lease. Many leases our 12 months with an automatic month-to-month renewal, they also have provisions requiring a 60 day notice if the tenant chooses to vacate. That is perfectly fine when it’s under the year term, but once it goes to month-to-month such a provision will get thrown out if the housing provider will try to enforce it. The principle being that you can’t have a month to month lease with a 60 day notice. Because that Actually changes it from a month to month to a 60 day terms.

Not that easy. You just turned a month to month lease into a 2 month lease. an unintended consequence on your end for sure. you have created a situation where housing providers would adjust the contract to only offer 60 day terms or it would get rid of shorter terms altogether and have a non-auto renewal period at the end. there are other flaws with what you propose too but I don’t need to get into all of that here. ultimately, by seeking to solve a problem that does not exist, you are restricting the flexibility for the many other renters who may have a desire to have a shorter term lease. One of the big flaws with PG and his renters choice bill, as it was originally written was that it would make it impossible for residents who elected that option to ever go on a month to month lease. do you really think that is a good deal for renters? In perspective probably not is what most people would say.