Brutus_buckeye

So it appears that this legislation is going to pass today. Not good for working class residents in the city but otherwise, it will do nothing for people and have a lot of unintended consequences. Kudos PG and city council.

So what is the over under on how long this will just be a giant parking lot? 3 years/5 years?

Pastor should not be wasting his time on this either, but at least if you look at his positions and background he is at least sincere in his position. Seelbach likes to pride himself on being the voice on these issues and now has Pastor usurping his "territory" in a sense. So he has to scramble for something that is even potentially bigger than some guy who owned slaves, no matter how absurd his position is.

And it is not a symbol of fascism. Even if it was hand delivered by Mussolini, it should stay. Even though I don't agree with removing some of the old civil war statues and such, at least those were in memorium of actual people and civil war generals who represented the South. Those, you can argue are honoring people who may not deserve such honorarium. A statue of a wolf and two Roman child gods sucking at the wolf has zero to do with fascism and even less to do with Mussolini.

Seelbach is one of the biggest jerks around. Glad he cant run again. This was such a dumb idea and also again shows what an a$$hole the guy is. He was essentially trying to steal Pastor's thunder as the most woke on council and therefore had to find this statue to get attention. I think what Pastor is doing is silly too, but at least he has sincerity about his plan. Seelbach is again just looking for a press release and to steal the spotlight from Pastor. It fits his personality as a giant a$$

I would think you would want to keep operating it until a plan is in place but what the hell do I know. As is per usual in Cincinnati, I am sure they will tear it down, and there will be another hole in the ground for 5 years while they fight over how to expand the convention center.

Are they still talking about the second tower or has that been shelved?

Mcarthy is not the right choice. He is a decent coach and would certainly improve the Brown's fortunes but you have to think that he may not have much left in the tank for another run. He just seemed to run out of energy the last few years in GB. Rivera would be a better choice for Cleveland. He put together a consistent winner before injuries in Carolina with key players ran their course. McDaniels is not coming to Cleveland. Did not come last year, will not come this year either. Bienemy would be a good choice. Andy Reid's acolytes seem to do well. The question is whether he has better options than the Browns. Yes, the talent is much improved, but the short lease and constant coaching changes that ownership makes does not do well for continuity and all things being equal would make it a less attractive opportunity.

Are these the micro apartments or are they traditional apartments?

Is this a felony or misdemeanor? It would be ironic for them to be convicted and run for election and not be able to even vote for themselves.

1) I think #1 is a bit difficult since the bottom floors in that building are pretty much used as a parking garage now. It is hard to have the ceiling height to turn it into reasonable office space. 2) Infill build on the South Lot would be ideal. A Kroger office tower would be a good fit, another apartment tower with mixed use below would be a fit (What would the big retail tenant be though?) Movie theatre would be nice too in that spot (Esquireesque theatre), hotel. 3) The building at Court and Main is not really that concerning to me. Would rather redevelop the lot on Central and Walnut into an apartment building if I had my choice.

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2019/12/13/how-does-greater-cincinnati-s-economic-growth.html?ana=e_du_prem&j=90344781&t=Afternoon&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWkRFMU9UbGhPVFF3TWpSaCIsInQiOiJod0x4a2tCdjczaFwvc1JLNlhjdWpzQTVXR0hSbkh5dXBjSXdIWloralRWVWJFV2VMbGhWV1pBK0JhMkdYTEFqWlpVSXpmTzNnbVBlRjJFNmY1RWRmbWE3K1NXdEkxcHJOUkZ6OU0wNjNNVURaN0MxQmozZFV0Tjc1Rno0M1lSNVYifQ%3D%3D

^ That is probably the best example

Right. I just used that as an example. But a better example would be the licensure requirements for selling auto insurance. But a limited lines license would require much less effort to obtain. Namely complete a form and maybe watch a webinar

In some places, there is a requirement to get a certificate to sell a limited line insurance such as this. The companies will have to have all their employees trained, but training is very short and really not very involved to truly qualify a person to sell the product. Think 30 min webinar. Unlike most insurance providers, these individuals will not need their Series 6 to sell the product.

That is another issue with it too. Do you think a property manager who is responsible for renting apartments is necessarily qualified to be selling an insurance product to an individual and to be able to explain it thoroughly and properly to that individual? On top of that, add into the fact that the tenant likely does not understand the product well enough to make an informed choice in the matter, it leads to a recipe for disaster.

It is not a meritless idea. The problem is that they are trying to mandate it in a one sized fits all approach and that causes a lot of problems. It is a product that can make sense if you 1) Live on the coasts 2) are an upwardly mobile professionals 3) Care about your credit rating 4) Don't plan on being in the same location for more than 1-2 years. The problem is that the Cincinnati market does not have a large enough concentration of these units (iit is not NYC or San Fran or LA) and the typical renter generally tends to be working class. Having the product in the community is not a bad product, but it is the mandate that causes the issue. Believe it or not, most landlords are against it because of the mandate and the fact it will cause them to offer a predatory product to their tenants. They have the best interest of the tenant in mind on this because if the tenant defaults, it makes it more difficult on the landlord. Where the landlord can be creative in getting assurances, they will, but when you lock into a mandate, it actually makes the problem worse. End of the day, this is not something most landlords would really fear. It would create an administrative burden, sure, but it would not be the end of the world. The bigger issue with the landlords is concern for their tenants.

Dewine is trying to slow all this down. Kasich's admin did a ton of work that really harmed home rule standards and curtailed power to municipalities. Dewine wants to proceed cautiously and work to try and restore some of the home rule back to the local municipalities. Now the caveat is that if the locales go too progressive, I am sure Dewine will not stand in the way of the state coming in and stopping things

or a copier business in Cincinnati. It does not get any cooler than being named after a company where you can make photocopies of inanimate objects.

Those are the only rules of the ordinance. While the language may seem inclusive, the only provider that actually meets the standards of providing the product and allowing monthly payments is Rhino. Again, you have not done sufficient research on the matter. Again it is cute how you feel I misrepresent the issue. as someone who is in housing and understands what workforce rentals encompass, I have first hand knowledge to see how this language will harm tenants long term. As someone who has studied this matter recently, I am happy to put my experience up against yours any day of the week. You tend to want to overlook many of the flaws of the legislation because it does not fit into your narrative. If it passes, it does not matter much to me, property owners will be fine and will thrive off of this. It is the low income renters who will be harmed the most by this. YOu seem to be blinded by this fact because you seem like you would rather disagree with me solely for the fact you think you are not allowed to like me instead of actually examining the legislation.

If your security deposit is more than a month rent, it legally has to be in a separate escrow with interest going to the tenant. If it is under a month, it does not need to be in a separate escrow and interest is not required to be paid. This is mainly to help the small landlords from burdensome paperwork on this. But regardless, even if it is not a separate escrow account, the security deposit is ultimately an escrow deposit. It is not a fee, and it is required to be returned upon the completion of the lease if there is no damage. Even though it may be in the landlord's personal account does not mean the funds are not considered escrow for purposes of the term. BUt no, they are not kept in a 3rd party escrow account.

The issue about having money to move because of the upfront cost really does not go away. Most rental properties in the region charge only 1/2 month or less security deposit to be competitive. Many will require 1st and last month though. Placing restrictions on security deposit such as this does nothing to stop landlords from requiring first and last month rent. So again what seems like it could be a promising idea does not really accomplish its goal. I will admit that Security deposit refunds can be subject to some abuse and there is also a wide degree of perception as to reasonable wear and tear on the property. One person's oasis is another person's dump. This lack of objectivity is what causes a ton of issues with the security deposit. The proposed legislation really does not address this. As I mentioned earlier, this is an intriguing product that could offer benefits to a class A renter who rents at the Banks or 1010 Walnut. However, to the working class, it exposes them to a potential predatory product that over time would cost much more than the traditional security deposit will. It is like taking out a payday loan of $100 and being stuck paying $200 back over the next 6 weeks. It is seductive and tempting, but when you actually examine the numbers, the payments are actually usury.

Have you read the legislation. Based on what you are stating, which you are incorrect on a number of points, you are very misinformed. I have read the legislation, read it any get back to me and we can debate the actual language. Your statement about the 3 companies in Ohio that do this is wrong. Yes, there are other companies that do this, but unfortunately, the legislation is drafted in a way to cut them out. So while you may be correct about the other companies, this legislation does not allow them to play. That is cute your partner is a housing attorney. I also have significant experience in the industry and would qualify as an expert too. The $600 deposit is a barrier, yes, but there are options in the marketplace already. It is comical that you question my accuracy on this subject when you have just read an article and have not read the actual legislation, but carry on, you're cute.

He is looking for a feather in his cap as he runs for mayor.

Again, you do not really understand this legislation. The way that it is drafted, only 1 company offers this product that would fit into the parameters of the law. Secondly, it is not being mandated that the tenant must do this, but it is being mandated that property owners need to offer a predatory product to individuals who may not truly have the understanding of what they are signing up for. It is like a payday loan if you get down to it. Do you really want to encourage those who can least afford it to sign up for a predatory product. And, that article is not quite accurate. Yes, the poor move around a lot, not by choice. The working class, permanent renting class does not move around as much and they will be renting 5-10 years or longer. If you ask the large housing providers of workforce housing and senior housing in the city, you will see a decent percentage of tenants who have been there 10 years or longer. You seem to think of the security deposit as not being returned, that is not accurate when the person pays and is responsible. As far as the $600 payment, the choice is not homelessness, and it actually protects the tenant from getting into a situation where they will actively fail. THat is not good for anyone. Most security deposits are only a few hundred dollars for working class units and many property owners allow flexibility on payment of the security deposit. Not to toot my horn, but yes, I am an expert on this issue and have been actively working on it. So yes, I have significant inside knowledge on the matter which I know you do not at this point.