Brutus_buckeye

Hollywood will always be there to some extent, but it is not going to remain as the concentrated power base it is today. taxes play a role in things, but the bigger thing is places like Netflix and Amazon and their own production companies. Yes, Netflix is in CA, but not Hollywood, they are taking influence away from the Hollywood area. The big change I think that will be happening is that the new technology lowers the cost of production of material and YouTube and the other streaming competitors out there provide more channels for distribution than were previously availalbe and only available through Hollywood connections. Now, you can set up a small studio in a garage or even a basement, have much cheaper labor costs elsewhere, including lower taxes, and still produce high quality work and have it distributed on a national platform.

A number of years ago my wife's grandfather used to winter in Florida every year. He was an accountant by trade. On one of the trips my mother in law was frustrated with the long drive she had to make to drop him off in Florida and she asked why he just did not move full time to Florida and make that his permanent residency instead of living in small town Northern Ohio where he really knew nobody anymore. After going through his head, as an accountant would, how much extra tax he was paying by keeping his permanent residence in Ohio, he changed his residency to Florida the next week.

Is there enough land to build anything substantial?

Wind and solar are not efficient enough nor reliable or proven to carry the load. WE cant have rolling blackouts because we do not have efficient capacity to store electricity during the hours or times where sunlight or wind is not sufficient. Fracking is a bridge. Eventually, it will be used up too. But we have bought ourselves 20 years of these resources to figure out more efficient ways to generate and store green renewable energy on a mass level. Much more than we have now.

What I do not understand is why the Green Energy folks are not in favor of fracking? Fracking is a means to an end. Fracking keeps fuel prices affordable for the next 20 years while technology improves so that renewable energy sources like solar and wind actually become economical in most areas of the country. Without the cheap natural gas from fracking, people would have to decide between dirty coal or rolling blackouts because the sun and wind are inconsistent generators of power at this point. Fracking bridges the gap, provides much cleaner natural gas to get us there. It should be celebrated.

Macy's may not be willing to offer them a long term lease that would allow for their respective growth planning either. If they work on a 2-3 year forecast and need to have certainty baked in, working off a month to month lease or 1 year lease is not conducive to running their business. That could be the case as well.

I think Deters has shown that he would deserve another term and Hofbauer is certainly the better candidate than McGuffey. Outside of that I do not have a problem with the other Dems on the ticket. Not a fan of Aftab, but the GOP is not seriously challenging that office right now so he pretty much is guaranteed re-election.

I listened to the interview, I think she is a bit unhinged. She appears to have an axe to grind when she was fired for cause. THat is pretty evident. She does not seem to have the supprot of the police force from what I have heard, and some of her policies may tend to over politicize the sheriff's office. I am glad you are starting to recognize that your bias may be clouding your ability to make a clear judgment on someone. I dont expect you to get there overnight though, often it will take some years and wisdom. However, you will look back upon this a number of years down the line and see the error in your ways ?

Never said that. Plenty of rational people disagree with me all the time. However, the lunatic fringe is the type of person who would be supportive of crazy Charmaine. Note the difference. ?

Anytime someone disagrees with your viewpoint it is racism, sexism or some other ism. That is the epitomy of someone who really has no ability to argue on the merits that all you are left with is to make up some ism to make you feel better. Pretty sad. It is hardly an sexism to provide a critique of her. I know you want it to be just because it seems to fit your narrative, but it is not.

Well the lunatic fringe of society can stand with crazy Charmaine. Personally, I am fine standing for someone who will run the sheriff's office in a professional manner, not seek to settle old personal vendettas and keep the county safe, along with not as likely to act completely unhinged while in office. So if that means voting for Hofbauer, than great. But if you want to support chaos, then go ahead and vote for crazy Charmaine.

This race will be a lot closer than 2018 because Schroeder is a much more likeable candidate than Aftab. She has more of a sincerity about her, whereas Aftab you always felt he was just trying to blow smoke up your a$$

She really seems to want to overly politicize the office. After listening to the interview I have serious questions as to her judgment and ability to actually lead the office. The credibility of the staff is important too and I do not think that she really engenders that, especially given the fact she was previously fired for insubordination. I think Hofbauer has a lot better credibility amongst the police force and would really represent the county quite well.

Did she go to Ursuline or something?

Hopefully she loses in November and we dont have to deal with her crap. The thing is, this is the sheriffs office. It is not supposed to be overly political. Neil ran the office in a pretty apolitical way, we should expect that no matter who holds the office. McGuffey will not be that person.

I got that impression too from what i have heard. I also heard that Aftab has been positioning himself as a kingmaker in the party and he was really pushing her candidacy.

She has an active lawsuit against the Sheriff's office that the Sheriiff would have to defend against. Should she win, she would effectively be suing herself. How on earth she won the nomination when Jim Neil was very good and comptent is beyond me.

I do remember the consolidation. All the S&Ls got wiped out off the mat. There are still quite a few community banks around, not nearly as many, where you can do loans with more of a handshake. The biggest challenge is that the FDIC regulations have tightened a lot (for good reason) to limit those types of deals. You remember the Erpenbeck scandal form 15 years ago I am sure. Those were handshake deals with the bank.

I am sure it is safe, but I am hesistant to try that place given all the lead in the buildign and that was on the grounds from its prior use. I am sure it was cleaned up, but my initial preception causes hesistation on my end.

The 1986 law also killed the real estate market because you had a ton of investors use it as tax shelters for their active income. It established passive loss rules so that you could no longer claim real estate losses against active income. There were a ton of lawyers and doctors who owned small buildings and especially slum property. They were able to offset this directly against their doctor or lawyer income and deduct it directly. The 86 law ended this and caused real estate prices to crash for a few years since it took a ton of money out of the marketplace. This was why Ramsey had his loans called.

The wealth tax that has been promoted by a number of democratic candidates is a fallacy. It has been tried in numerous European countries and has failed miserably in all of them. It has been repealed in most countries and the amount of money it has brought in has been vastly below anyone's expectations who promoted such a tax. Futhermore, it has been completley inefficient to administer costing a ton and raising a few paltry sum.

With the Cincinnati Club, Phoenix, Gramercy apartments/parking garage, etc there really is not enough there to really offer any space for streetside businesses. There used to be the Shakespheare company there and the Blue Whisp had a spot for a while, but there really was not too much retail on that block. Mostly event space and apartment.

This is a complete misconception of the 86 tax reform bill. If you look at the rate under the Obama years, the % of income tax paid by the highest earneers was pretty much in line with the taxes paid by the highest earners in the 50s 60s and 70s. The fact that the rates were 70-80% at that time was irrelevant because nobody paid them. So what the tax reform bill did was bring things in line with what was actually occurring and close a ton of tax shelters the rich used to build the generational wealth. The 86 tax reform law had to start from the premise of being revenue nuetral because you have to remember the legislature was controlled by Tip O'Neill and the Democrats at that time. So yes, while the stated tax rate for the top earners dropped considerably, the actual tax paid by the wealtiest earners did not because they were not paying 70% to begin with. Those that keep citing how taxes on the rich fell after the 86 tax reform really do not understand how the tax code actually works.

I remember going there and parking on the roof when it was an old computer store.

I had a conversation with a broker the other day who was saying the developer has been pleased with the leasing on the property and is looking to move ahead sooner rather than later with the sister building of micro apartments. Don't have details, but there appears to be some chatter.