Brutus_buckeye

But legally you can’t. You can’t create a situation where one party has a 30 day obligation and make the other have a 60 day obligation. When the contract terminates it terminates for both parties at the same time. It would take a complete rework of landlord tenant statutes at the state level, which I can pretty much guarantee will not happen at this point even if it would, it is not as easy to do as you seem to want to make it out to be.

From a practical standpoint a 30 day requirement makes complete perfect sense. Legally, you can’t create a 60 day notice requirement because the lease term is only 30 days. The people who are getting 30 day notice is to leave our month-to-month tenant. They are not on an annual lease. A 30 day lease under Ohio law it’s just that, It provides tenant protections for the period of 30 days, and it provides the housing provider the guarantee of the tenants obligation for 30 days. Legally, what you are trying to suggest is creating a 60 day or 90 day requirement that a landlord must give a tenant to vacate the unit on a contract that is only effective for 30 days. The only way to accomplish that is to get rid of month-to-month leases which I don’t think many people both housing provider and resident really want to do. Because, currently as month-to-month leases are constructed, The parties are only bound by the contract for the contract term. Well it may be nice two offer a longer move out term, from a contractor shall standpoint, it’s an impossibility when you have a month-to-month tenancy. However, I will reiterate that regardless of the 30 day legal notice, most Housing providers are going to work with their residents To transition them in a reasonable manner

There is a common misconception regarding the guaranteed rate to legal representation for tenants and landlords. If you go down the election docket and any courthouse in Ohio both large and small, the vast majority of infections are due to nonpayment of rent. The only thing legal representation would do in this case is delay the process by a few weeks, drive at the cost to the housing provider which would have to be passed along to the tenant, and also drive up the cost to the taxpayer four cases that do not need an attorney because they are pretty much cut and dry From the start (if you don’t pay rent, even the best attorney is not going to be able to help you). there is a misconception about the attorney representation statistic. The reason why over 80% of the landlords have attorneys representing them is because they are holding their property in a limited liability company or some other entity. Even if they just have a four unit apartment building, they are not allowed by law to represent themselves in court Because they do not own the building, their entity does. I have Personally seen the court dismiss eviction cases because the housing provider tried to represent themselves in court and the property was titled in an LLC. These individuals needed to start over again refile the case from scratch and wait another month before they can evict the resident for nonpayment of rent. Now that individual housing provider was out an additional month to two months of rent plus additional court cost in their effort to remove the resident from the property. So again, well it is true that most housing providers have representation, it is a misleading statistic because they are not allowed to represent themselves without it

I’m just a little befuddled at the thought that the resident who is renting a property, and has the right to leave freely and move anywhere they want would be able to tell the housing provider how it needs to run its business. That is a rather troublesome proposition in my opinion. Provisions like pay to stay, just cause of action, rent control, and other things that limit the housing providers ability two properly manage the property do more in the long term to hurt residents more than help them with their housing situation. The reality is that most housing providers I’m going to work with their tenants to find solutions to the problems, but they also need to have the ability to Take back the property from the Resident when the situation in their best judgment is deemed fit. There were many consequences last year when the courts were shut down and nobody was able to be evicted for any cause. There were a lot of progressive politicians including one of the idiots running for mayor, who cheered these addiction moratoriums for all causes as a great thing when they first occurred. What he neglected To realize is that this kept many people in their apartments you were doing significant damage to the unit and the community. Domestic violence abusers, drug dealers, and even murderers we’re not able to be evicted because of the moratorium. It’s just something to think about before everybody starts jumping on The newest hot policy idea as a great improvement, because there are often a lot of negative consequences that would not be there if people actually thought through things

There is a push to repeal P.G.s rent insurance proposal he muscled through a few years ago. The company that promotes it has been greasing the hands of politicians to create such laws that give them a monopoly and then when the resident leaves before a 12 month period, they either have to still pay the renters choice insurance or let Rhino take them to collections. At the time a lot of housing providers were yelling to PG what a bad idea this was but he was going to push it through come hell or high water because he wanted to show that he was concerned about getting a feather in his cap dealing with renter protections and also the minority community. There were many housing providers in the community that offered workforce housing that saw this as something that was preying on low income renters and would only benefit the class A renters. I also hear the collection companies that Rhino uses are the most vicious out there. Pay to stay and right to return are troublsome for numerous reasons. Also, some of these are going to require the State's blessing if they were to ever be implemented. One thing about some of the transparancey issues. The vast majority of housing providers do not kick people out of their apartment for no reason whatsoever. Typically, the residents who are asked to leave and have their leases terminated are problem residents that cause trouble in the community. Sometimes the housing provider provides written notice as to the violations. Other times, these notices are ignored by the resident. The housing provider is loathe to evict and often times will tolerate a situation a bit longer than they should, but ultimately action becomes required to be taken and the no fault eviction (or lease termination) is the path of least resistance to remove someone who is essentially a cancer to the rest of the community. While it may sound heavy handed in the news, in reality, it is not like that, adn they are done to prevent an eviction on the record of a problem resident and allow a reasonable path for a housing provider to remove a bad resident.

Ohio law requires a formal 30 day notice be given. This does not mean that the housing provider can allow them to stay longer. it only requires that they be served with a 30 day notice. Based on the article, this housing provider was working with some people who needed a little longer to move. So, it was not a hard 30 day notice. The 30 day notice was for legal compliance purposes. City council cannot pass legislation on that. That requires state approval. Secondly, for practical purposes, The 30 day notice does not mean the resident will be set out on the street in 30 days. It means that they can be evicted if they do not work with the housing provider to set out a reasonable plan to move. So let's not act like it is a heartless 30 day period. In practicality, the housing provider does not want to file an eviction because of the additional time and costs associated with it. It behooves the parties to work together. The vast majority of housing providers are going to give people 60-90 days to move in this situation because if they go the more expensive court option, it is going to take that long (or potentially longer) to get the resident to move anyway. From a practical standpoint, the 30 day notice is merely procedural and as long as you speak with your housing provider, they generally will work with you to come up with a reasonable solution that works for everyone. The demonization of housing providers as the root of all evil is extremely missplaced. There is no need for legislation here because it is a solution that is in search of a problem.

But the thing is, you have politicians, who really know better, but pander to these activist groups and essentially are using it to extort developers and apartment investors. You are seeing it all over OTR now. No matter how small the project may be, or what the intent of the developer, or the behavior of the tenants who may be asked to leave; it does not matter. It is all about exploiting a political point and pandering to a group that will theoretically help them win an election. In the specific example, you have a group that provides workforce housing, and wants to renovate the building and keep it as workforce housing. It just so happens that even workforce housing rents are much higher than the slum rents the prior owner charged. In the end you get a safer building that is up to modern code and caters to a sustainable base of tenants for the long term (not the $2.00/sq ft luxury tenants that much of the new construction caters too). You have a developer who is trying to do the right thing but getting punished for it because of optics in having to tell an existing tenant that they can no longer live in the place they have been renting from the owner. This is a great project for Court Street, I wish the politicians would start acting like it.

Maybe he will be Da Mann?

There would be tradeoffs, both good and bad. Primary health would certainly get better. Specialty care may suffer. While I certainly prefer a more market based system, I will not stand here and tell you that the current model is the best things can be and that it does not have its problems. Any discussion over healthcare should at least acknowldege the tradeoffs that would be required by moving to a more socialized system vs less socialized. At the same time, the discussion should also admit that the current system is far from great and has many problems most specifically, cost.

I think that hospitals like the Clinic, while "non-profit" are not exactly "non-profit" Their research arms have developed many advances in techonology that have been commericalized in the for profit world. many of their execs have interests in these "for profit" businesses. In addition,, there is a lot of self dealing that occurs in some of these "non-profits" with for profit counterparts.

I think regardless of what path the us chooses with their system there are going to be trade offs. Maybe a more robust primary care system will be better, but at the same time it will most likely involve sacrificing some of the cutting edge medicine and treatments and the ability to see high end specialists in a timely manner. On the flip side, while having a robust specialist system and some of the most innovative healthcare in the world is nice, it obviously falls short when it does not adequately treat preventable conditions and allows them to exacerbate into problems that need a specialist. The catch 22

No I had a source. Someone who happened to be highly connected in the industry. Was it published no, but it is still a source on how healthcare is run. but since it does not comport with your preconceived narrative about healthcare I get how you cant acknowledge it

My source was a CEO of a health insurance system. For reference sake, you hear stories on how so many people in Canada and Europe talk about waiting in line for months to get into a doc to see someone for their disease. You hear many expats talk about how they breezed throguh the ER and did not have to wait to see the doctor too. The difference is that the ex-pats were going to a primary care doc and the others needed specialty care. The bottleneck and problem with the European models are that they really do not have extra capacity for specialty care. They do primary care very well under their model. So, you can have great easy access to health care in those countries but the caveat is you better not get cancer or some other rare disease because you will be waiting forever in those cases.

not a socialized v unsocialized argument, but one of the key reasons why you see the rise of NP's and PA's in the primary care field and fewer doctors is that there is a shortage all over the country of primary care doctors. NP's and PA's can earn 2/3 -75% of what a primary care physician earns so there is a disincentive to become a GP in the US and those who have a desire to pursue a Primary Care path typically now become an NP or PA. It is much cheaper on the practitioner to earn the degree that way and they can provide essentially 90% of the same services. Doctors in this country, or those who come to this country to practice are incentivized to pursue fellowships and specialist certifications because they pay significantly higher. The US medical system is really a specialist system. It provides the best specialized healthcare in the world, which is why everyone comes to the US for specialized medical services. The world class research and development of procedures and practices that occurs in the US is not able to be duplicated by the other countries who have socialized medicine. Countries like Canada and the UK place a much larger emphasis on primary care. Their primary care is definitely more efficient and better than in the US which relies on specialists a lot more. The downside is, that if you need someone who specializes in a certain field like oncology or sports medicine, the waiting list to get into those specialists can be significantly long in those countries. The pay is not significantly better for GP's in Europe from what I understand, but the pay is also not significantly better than a GP if you are a specialist in Europe. That is why many of the specialists try and come to the US to practice. There are more orthopedic specialists in Brooklyn NY than in the entire Eurozone.

When I was living up there, they had just lost TRW and one other company, plus their big steel company (i forget the name now) was in bankruptcy and being sold. They had Eaton, Scott Fetzer i believe (which was going to be short lived Encylepedias on their way out) Key and Nat City. Also, Rubbermaid had just merged and moved from Wooster and JM Smucker was not what they are today either. All in all, it has been a nice rebound for Cleveland.

Cincinnati has been struggling of late with emerging public companies. They are above their weight on the 500 but have struggled for years beyond that. Columbus is evident based on the growth you have seen in that market. The interesting thing is that much of Columbus's businesses seem homegrown and you really do not see them poaching companies from other markets (outside of a takeover). Cleveland has had the most dramatic turnaround IMO. I remember yeas ago they were losing all their F500 companies (I believe around 10 years ago they were down to around 3 or 4 and they seem to be really bringing things back up in their market. Toledo is also the biggest surprise for me. If you throw in Findlay as part of that market, they have 9 for NW Ohio. That is pretty impressive The other (not surprise) but thing that stands out is how Dayton has been decimated businesswise. They do not have any F1000 companies for a city of around 1 million.

Most likely. Given the going concern letter that went out last week, the leadership team's time appeared numbered.

I remember hearing whispers from a few years ago about how he was likely not going to be capitalized enough to make the deal work. It appears that is likely what is happening.

I suggest you look at photos from the 80s then, probably the closest you will come for the time being :) lol

While I hate that they got rid of the breezeway, they essentially needed to do this to keep the building from becoming functionally obsolete. By modern tower standards the lobby was small and cramped and it did not offer a good layout for security and even a modern atrium that is common in most office towers today. It was very utilitarian in design in that regard, i.e. enter through the doors and the main elevator is right there. It had low ceilings for an atrium area of an office and definitely was a bit dated for what office tenants want today. Contrast that with the Great American Tower and it is a huge difference. Even 1980s and 90s buildings offer a lot more openness (US Bank, First Financial, Scripps). The other building that reminds me most of 5/3 is the Macy's building.

Probably not since it is still a fairly commercial district and the residential parts are further back and insulated.

I am going out on a limb and guess you were working for David Falk??

I think it was designed by the same person around the same time as Key tower. It appars a bit less boxy but in the same vein.

Would have been nice to have that built when it was proposed. Looked better than the what eventually was proposed for FSW and obviously much better than what was actually built.

Just released Rendering of New WS HQ 😉