PAlexander

Apparently it's logistically really difficult to institute this (2/3 of property owners in the district or something have to sign). I would sign up if I were included in the district, but I don't think I am on Mulberry Street. Well, certainly making a slight attempt is better than no attempt at all. Also, with 3CDC owning so many properties (and other groups such as Urban Sites and Model as well), it seems like this is a better candidate for a SID than most. Also, thomasbw once mentioned raising property taxes across the board in the City to pay for operations, and then instituting a rollback for the amount raised on any property not within the zone as a way to work around the SID. Whether or not this is possible, it would be nice to see some sort of movement from supporters and die-hard complainers to put the operating costs on the properties that are primarily benefited, not simply because they are the primary beneficiaries, but also to give some of those owners/tenants a push to shift out of cars.

Let's not forget that the difference is a crazy small part of the budget and all the brohaha (yeah, I wrote it "bro" on purpose) could be fixed by a property tax on the area that services the streetcar.

It's too easily confused for Lyft moustache. What's a lyft moustache?

Honestly, I can't see any reason for what Cranley is doing with this budget than simply pretending that he's the President of the United States. All this crap that the majority wants is such small potatoes there's absolutely no reason for this fighting. He's like a child who thinks he's more powerful when he puts on a cape- he thinks he's more prominent than he is when he engages in these types of fights.

That's great. Maybe you're right about the Mason thing. If that's actually how it worked out, then fantastic. But it's only to Cincinnati's gain if the City recoups more tax revenue than amount the spent/abated.

Sounds like a pretty decent way to spend $700,000. It's funny how this is being presented as a politicians selling out to a corporation (i.e., the union) but the 9-0 vote for the bridge to Cincinnati State that costs millions of dollars isn't, even though it is intended to benefit one corporation, Cincinnati State. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122012/century-foundation-study-how-unions-increase-wages

That is not true. The only institution that looks at what a buildings value is based on tenant occupancy are banks when it comes to borrowing for a loan because they want to see that the building has a current flow of income, but it doesn't change the value of the property. I have owned apartment buildings and my family and friends still own apartment buildings and trust me when I say they have tried to get their taxes lowered because of low occupancy when there was a slump and it doesn't work that way. The city will not lower you taxes just because you have issues renting to people or because you're not making enough income on you buildings. Now when a building is converted from office to living space yes there is a different tax structure. But the gains that the new office building bring in far out weighs that variance. We would never be allowed growth and our downtown market would be stagnant because of hanging on to something much smaller. If Great American pulled 1000 out of that building, but in turn put 2000 in the new tower only filling it 1/2 way, then that means you probably pulled another 2000 or so from other areas. All of those areas that QCS pulled from get back filled with tenants that do not require or want to pay the sq ft price that QCS charges. There are always people coming into the market to fill what somebody else left. Go check some of the valuations for buildings where tenants left for QCS and see if the valuations have changed. That's the metric that matters. I'm not sure how you believe that consolidating all the downtown American Financial Corp workers to one building from four or five, and moving Frost, Brown, Todd from the corner of Main & Fifth to Sycamore and Fourth makes any difference for the City in terms of revenue if those spaces aren't occupied. Unless you're adding workers into the slack you've created, you can't be making any extra money. The reason the City abates properties is because the payroll tax is more valuable to the City than the property assessment. So unless you're adding workers, you're not making any money. That's why the GE news was such a big deal, because it unequivocally brings new workers into the City.

^I believe, though I'm not certain, that the $700,000 difference is basically the amount that would be contributed to the state pension fund by the new employees under the management option. More people paying into the pension fund is a good thing. It's crazy that anyone is complaining about the $700,000 at all. This is municipal budget peanuts, going to actual individual workers as deferred comp that will be spent and taxed as income as soon as they get it, consequently going back into the economy. It's like a tax abatement for people instead of properties. It's ridiculous that there is arbitrary $4.2 million ceiling on these expenses that is just accepted as gospel for some reason.

Ranting, discussuing issues... 6 of 1. I believe I understand how the TIF works. You seem to imply that because it is simply tax money that wouldn't be there if it weren't for the development then it doesn't count as public spending I disagree, because, the development wouldn't be there without the TIF money! The other part that I believe you're forgetting is this project, as far as I'm aware, just moved companies from other downtown office buildings. That means those other property owners can (and do) get their tax liability reduced because their building are now worth less. So are you accounting for those losses? Yeah, it is super confusing. Bottom line is that the Port Authority owns the building but W&S is the master lessor. So the question remains for those who think this was a great deal for the City: why did the company that spearheaded the project to build Queen City Square decide to simply be the master lessor of the complex, rather than the outright owner?

What public money was spent on QCS besides the $3.7M for streetscape improvements? Out of the $322 million for the project, American Financial contributed $318. There were TIF bonds that were issued by the port, but besides the $3.7M the city paid out for the streetscape improvements, the city has gotten that back in just 6 months after opening due to the $7.7M in annual tax revenue. http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/05/26/daily31.html http://urbanup.net/cities/ohio/cincinnati-ohio/downtown/queen-city-square/ https://cincyopolis.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/wtf-hamilton-county-board-of-revision-the-real-cost-of-30-year-abatements/

I understand the desire of the people of Norwood to get rid of the Lateral, but that highway actually makes some sense. What's crazy to me is how they could basically eliminate I-71 from Ridge Road to downtown, replace it with three light rail lines on existing rail right-of-way (CLN, Wasson, and that one that goes from Xavier to Reading Road. Yes, I realize they are cut up in places and the Reading Road one isn't totally connected to Xavier) but no one would ever contemplate doing that. Heck, they could even add a line that goes to Ivorydale's Vine street that connects to that Xavier hub. I recognize 2002 was a crappy year, but there were certain things about that MetroMoves plan that were really poorly marketed. Honestly, the best thing that came out of it was the recognition that the County is never going to share any costs of transit.

Wow, that is harsh. I don't see it that way. In recent years, we've seen several C-ish level office buildings--i.e. Enquirer Building (hotel), Bartlett Building (hotel), Federal Reserve Building (apartments)--converted to other uses using local tax abatements and state/federal tax credits. We will soon see the Union Central Life Annex (residential), Merchants Building (residential), Baldwin Piano Building (residential), P&G Sycamore Building (hotel), and Ingalls Building (eventually something) get converted with the same funding formula. Even the 580 Building is partially converting to residential without significant subsidy. Sure, Queen City Square had an impact on the market and I can understand why some building owners may not think that is a good thing as rents stay low, but overall I think it is a good thing for the city. The space is being back-filled slowly but steadily and downtown is all the better for it. I'm not saying I'm right. I'm simply saying that, unlike the development that's been going on in OTR, whatever is happening downtown is relatively ad hoc, much more driven by corporate demands, and not really the best focus for public funds. So the question is- what sort of time frame for that back-fill is worthwhile for the City? Think about OTR. 3CDC was created in 2003, partly in response to the 2001 riots, and (I'd argue) had begun amassing significant properties starting 2005. So you've got a 10-15 year time frame from beginning of the plan to the a clear return on ones investment. It's largely controlled by a central authority, who rolls out different sections of new residential every so often in order to manage the growth and keep the values stable. It's pretty clear that none of this would have happened as quickly and with such a conscious effort at historical preservation (as poorly executed as it sometimes is) without this central actor. The back-fill from these 3CDC is two-fold in my opinion: 1) you have random individual building owners who are able to jump on the train, and 2) private developers are searching for "the next OTR". This is what I believe you see happening in Walnut Hills. Lots of individual action, some significant subsidies for specific historical buildings, a robust nonprofit development company. As for the downtown stuff, it all seems rather random. Our minds naturally want to seek patterns and order and cause & effect, but is it really there? The Enquirer building had been sitting empty far before Queen City Square. Were there still offices in the Bartlett Building? Just because one project came before the other doesn't mean that the following projects wouldn't have happened without the first. It seems far to similar to the arguments for the MLK interchange: "If we build it they'll add 4,000 new jobs!" Those hospitals weren't going to move, and nobody adds a job just because you don't have to drive six extra blocks from Taft (and who knows, maybe folks will still drive those blocks from MLK just to find parking). Finally, places like QCS and the Dunnhumby building are being pretty heavily subsidized and they are building on parking lots. Also, the residential portion of the dunnhumby building got scrapped almost immediately after it gained approval. And we're still adding parking, parking, parking everywhere when we are about to start the streetcar system. My point is simply that I wish there was an easier way to find out if these downtown office subsidies are worth it. They don't seem like it to me, and as much as I want to be optimistic about the future (and I am) when we have such limited funds for development the City needs to put them where they have the most impact, not vanity projects for developers and politicians.

I don't. I was talking to someone, who it was I honestly can't remember, who mentioned that as the reason why so many hotels had been built recently. I think he was in development but I really can't recall. The reason it stuck with me was because his statement reiterated something I had heard years before from a guy fairly high up at Western/Southern who described the soon to be Phelps Hotel rehab to me as, "a hotel for P&G". While there may be increased tourism in Cincinnati (I actually heard people conversing in French outside 1215 Wine & Coffee this evening) I seriously doubt that is the reason any of the other downtown hotels have come up. 21c probably happened because the original one was in Louisville, but all those national chains that have put in hotels downtown in recent years are likely doing it for the same reason, and I doubt it is primarily increased tourism. Maybe. I'm not sure if that is the best analogy, particularly when you're dealing with all the public funds spent on QCS. But even if that is a good analogy, the problem with QCS is that we spent a bunch of public money to create slack in the market and now we don't have public funds to shift the slack to the residential market. It wasn't well thought out, it wasn't part of a public plan, and it wasn't designed for the City to make more money than we put into it. It was a vanity project, and everyone fell for it.

Even that has a silver lining as ideally some of those buildings should be converted to Residential since demand is so high for it. I'm kind of shocked so many are hotels and not residential. Yeah, the amount of new hotels that have sprung up the past four years has been wild.

Crazy that people complain about $800,000 and Council votes 9-0 for that stupid Cincy State bridge.

^Guys, it's not about this. There are several reasons why the Mallory administration made such progress in the City: (1) He was elected directly because of the poor race relations in the City. Black folks have different priorities than the conservative white folks who are smaller in number but always come out for elections. Check out the results of the 2003 Council elections and read some of the newspapers from 2001-2005 and you can see how that was the primary issue. Remember when Damon Lynch ran for Council? Once Mallory was elected, the present feeling of the need for changed subsided considerably, and more conservative councils were elected (the exception being 2011, when Senate Bill 5 drove a ton of Democrats to the polls that cycle). Even with Mallory's election there was still this slight bit of anger and frustration that remained in the black community, and Smitherman has used that to propel himself. (2) Milton Dohoney as City Manager. Dohoney understood what was freaking obvious to all- a City lives and dies by its payroll tax receipts. He inherited several projects that were in existence- the Findlay Market revitalization, the Banks project, 3CDC (which nobody on this forum remembers that Mallory opposed 3CDC while running and then subsequently dropped any opposition to it immediately after taking office) and the numerous transportation plans that had been in existence. Aside from taking the Collaborative Agreement seriously (which Luken's administration hadn't), Dohoney clearly understood that all these disparate projects that were in differing stages would all be connected by the downtown-OTR loop streetcar, which was, at least in part, a plan sitting on the shelf when he moved into his office. And, unlike MetroMoves, it was something the City could build simply by working with the Feds, no other government's cooperation was required. (3) Let's not forget that there were a couple of dumb things the Malllory administration did. #1 is not building the Downtown-OTR loop as soon as possible. Huge mistake that wasted tons of years and money. It's so obvious that people aren't going to be able to appreciate a new project until they actually see how it works. Also, being involved in the Queen City Square Building was a bonehead play. It totally wrecked the downtown real estate market. Ever wonder why, all of the sudden there are tons of hotels being built downtown when prior to 2005 not a single new hotel had been constructed in God knows how long? It's a combination of the increase in outsourced consulting work for major corporations like P&G (the Phelps Residence Inn exists because P&G is across the street) and Kroger and the massive increase in empty office space downtown.

Dude, you need to identify some actual facts at some point in your arguments. Which biennial budgets are you talking about where Mallory & Dohoney got into this fiscal mess? Why were those budgets significantly different from previous budgets? You keep insinuating some specific fiscal issue that is attributable to Mallory and Dohoney but never actually identify it. Until you actually show how they created a fiscal mess through their budgeting, everyone is going to take the much simpler and comprehensive argument that the Recession and loss of state funds is what caused fiscal problems during those years. This "streetcar is not going to profitable" line is ridiculous. From the same perspective, the MLK highway interchange is not going to be profitable, and that is way more expensive. Finally, you say that calling the streetcar transformational is over the top, but your unsupported counterfactual that GE wouldn't be moving to the Banks if Mallory was still mayor is something we should take seriously? You base this assertion on personal interactions with senior business leaders and a vague reference to "damage that Mallory was causing at the end of his tenure"? You haven't said anything substantive at all. Anyone paying a slight bit of attention to the GE Banks selection process knows that it was a combination of the fact that GE already has a presence here with aircraft engines, state tax breaks and the fact the CEO grew up here that were the reasons Cincinnati was chosen. As for why the Banks specifically was chosen, you'll have to provide something substantive to attribute that to Cranley when the entirety of the Banks build out began during Mallory's terms. Mallory wasn't the greatest mayor ever, and he should have worked much harder to get the Streetcar up and running and not let Qualls add Phase 1b to the project. But you need to actually point to specific things and build a case, or be a gentleman and concede when someone makes a pretty good point that perhaps a huge reason for the fiscal problems during that time period was the biggest recession since the Great Depression.

Well, Cincinnati could always be the first. While Cranley might have some desire to prevent light rail along this corridor, it seems to me that this is being pushed as simply a project that can be completed relatively easily and parked into talking points under his "Record" or "Accomplishments". This 'Hyde Parkers fighting against rail' theory sounds pretty loopy internet conspiracy to me.

First, Cranley was the head of the finance committee for basically Mallory's whole first term. The chair of the finance committee sets the agenda for the budget. They were allies during this time. Read the papers. Understand how the process actually works. Second, remember all that "structurally balanced budget" malarkey? Cranley's last budget wasn't structurally balanced. The reason why you don't hear that term thrown about so much now is because it was always just a term that the conservatives used to ding the liberals on council. The conservatives are in power now, so no one uses it as a way to ding them. Third, Cincinnati had a riot in 2001 because of the terrible relationship between the black community and the police. The collaborative agreement was signed in 2001-2002 but wasn't implemented until Mallory came into office. Read that Atlantic story. It's amazing. The improved police-community relations is the best thing that has happened in the City in twenty or thirty years. Fourth, Mallory's election in 2005 wasn't a fluke, it was a function of the issues that were present in the City at the time and the demographics. Pepper (who's a pretty good politician) wanted to build a new jail as County Commissioner in 2007. He had a pretty good plan. Read the Atlantic article. Turns out that by implementing the Collaborative Agreement & community oriented policing, the City was able to both reduce crime & arrests. I guess we didn't need to spend millions on a new jail, no matter how sensible the plans were, we just need to treat citizens with equal respect. Fifth, the Streetcar was the second best thing to come out of the Mallory/Dohoney administration. It wasn't unique to them, they just realized it was both doable by the City as a City (and not in conjunction with the County a la MetroMoves or SORTA funding, always a dead end) and that it complemented what 3CDC was doing, as well as all the Findlay Market rehab that had already occured. It's easier for the City to act as a residential real estate developer and attract people to move within its territory and have businesses follow (this is obviously what happened in the suburbs) than it is to try to entice business to move, because they'll just play the tax credit game (witness Omnicare). Sixth, Cranley should be proud of the pension agreement. That is a great thing for the City and something he worked hard to bring about. Mallory may have been silly in many ways, but the achievements of the Mallory/Dohoney administration are objectively far more substantial than anything Cranley has so far done or proposed. Attributing some sort of fiscal responsibility to him is ludicrous because it completely ignores the previous eight years he spend in politics, and who his allies were at that time.

This is one of the few times I actually agree with Cranley. Resident permit parking is stupid in my opinion. Every place I've ever seen it implemented created this silly effect where on street parking was empty during the day when everyone had driven to work and packed with residents and non-residents in the evening when the residency enforcement ceased after 5:00 pm. When they put it in over near the old SCPA those streets went from being packed during the day to nearly empty. Totally inefficient.

I know they'll never do this but I'd like this project just a little if after these exits opened they closed off the Taft & McMillan exits.

^Totally agree that there have been signature projects such as the ones you describe. I just think that urbanism needs to be defined above all by how its principles serve the people in a city, and I think Chicago actually falls far short (and the worst & most suburban thing about it, purposefully so) in providing the same type of urban value to all of its residents. Cranley isn't an evil genius. He actually isn't that smart or compelling, when you think about how he was able to get David Mann to almost wreck the streetcar project in December of 2013, and now he seems to be a huge supporter (and is weirdly lauded by Streetcar supporters despite costing the City a million dollars and not being a political newbie such as Kevin Flynn). He just learned from Tom Luken and his experience in 2001 that you can be successful (which translates as not lose your election) if you are willing to fall back on people's baser instincts. Qualls ran a terrible campaign and basically sabotaged herself (and the streetcar project she became so identified with) when she helped delay construction by insisting on 1b. This thing is going to be wildly successful and popular. The croakers will still sound loud because the media provides them an echo chamber. You want to avoid hack politicians like Cranley? Then stop voting for additional strong mayor powers. Guys like him win executive offices like the mayoralty because they rely on the hard core wankers who show up to vote in every election and then the slide into office with a resounding mandate given to them by just over half of 28% of the eligible voters. I mean, think how crazy it was that that guy got defeated on his signature issue within a month after winning election. It's because he never had broad-based support to begin with.

The additional striping is used a lot at school crossings and where there aren't traffic signals or in general where they want to make the crosswalk more visible. They need to add these types of signs to the middle of all crosswalks were there is no other signal for cars:

Come on. The Chicago Machine is pro-urban? Police black sites? (Yes, I know it was the 90's, but it was still Daley Jr., the previous mayor). Incredibly terrible finances? Closing down tons of schools? I think Chicago is one of the worst run cities in the country, and that doesn't help urbanism. Cranley isn't starting a "machine". Or, if there's any "machine" quality to him, it's that he represents a return to the Lukens. But Cranley always adds his own petty fights to anything he touches in a way Charlie never did (though Tom obviously did, and I'm too young to remember James). John represents a full-throated endorsement of real estate developer focused politics. That's exactly the Daley/Rahm type of politics that exists in Chicago.

I've never understood why rail could be blocked "forever" on this route. Even if it is turned into a trail, why can't the trail simply be appropriated for public use as transit at some future date?