PAlexander

At a certain point there's going to have to be some money spent. There's always this notion that we can get something great for cheap but that's basically incorrect. There's a better chance of getting something freaking awesome if you pay the money required for the right thing. While the CL&N line is pretty cut up, I think one of the advantages of it is that it's end points are honeypots but it travels through a barren wasteland. So if you did it the right way, you'd have an entity that redeveloped all the adjacent crap land under the auspices of the rail line, and did so with a mind of making it very dense. You've got the destinations (Downtown, Xavier; connection to Wasson-East Side line) while the rest is a pure development play. Once people see the difference the streetcar makes they are going to be a lot more hip to these types of arguments. Even if it isn't in fact a pure cause and effect relationship, the way the human mind works is to associate those types of things. That's why they can get away with saying the MLK interchange will bring X,XXX jobs.

^It's pretty obviously stupid to use that right-of-way as a bike path, but so long as we keep working to show how rail works, there's no reason that the Wasson route couldn't be used for rail even if it is turned into a bike path in the meantime. The reason why bike paths don't turn into rail isn't because of the creation of some bike lobby- it's because we still have this crazy generation of older adults who think rail is a scam to help those people or young lazy kids who don't want to drive to work both ways up hill and in the rain. Not everyone from that generation, but that is the core constituency. Once the streetcar is implemented and immediately begins to prove it's worth, the rail constituency will grow in strength.

They should really just grow some stones and simply raise the property tax rate for the entire City, then roll it back for all areas outside of the streetcar zone (I think this was a thomasbw suggestion), and dedicate that revenue to Streetcar operations. Then, with each expansion portion, you just get rid of the rollback.

^Pretty sure you're right, the height restrictions are simply on those far western blocks that are immediately adjacent to the Bengals stadium. Personally, I say build the blocks without height restrictions as high as possible, and use the ones next to the Bengals stadiums for gas stations until their next round of extortion.

Well, I'm not offended by it despite having been deployed for over 26 months during OIF. I'm much more (not offended, but annoyed) at stuff like The Hurt Locker, which just had the most ridiculously contrived scenes that bore no relationship to how things actually happened over there.

Can you say: hypocrisy? Unfortunately it's worse that hypocrisy, it's nepotism. Nepotism in the sense that the local money in this town is happy to sit back quietly and let the streetcar get built, but still supports these politicians who need to use the fear of the other to get votes and won't demonstrate any leadership. None of the major downtown property owners was willing to come out against Cranley and the anti-streetcar crowd (although I'm a little sympathetic when the only place that gives you to go is a campaign as lazily run as Qualls'; why stick your neck out for someone who isn't even willing to work for the job she claims to want?). But even then so there's a lot the local tight-knit business community could do on the transportation scene that they don't do. And I'd say that's mostly because they aren't willing to risk much unless they have a sure thing (and therefore they aren't risking anything).

At a certain point, there's going to be too many premises that we don't agree so it's impossible to have a constructive argument. I've already discussed most of your points in previous posts, particularly the one about whether or not someone should know something is going to be a bad investment. There are a ton of people saying this is obviously a bad business decision therefore this is not about race, but never establishing the standards of what an obvious bad business decision is, and then applying those standards to other City backed ventures that failed, for me to give those statements any credit. Unless one says, "this this and this were the red flags for Mahoganny's and they also were red flags at this place this place and this place," then there's no particular reason why the idea that 'this one place was obviously a bad investment' argument is any more valid than 'this one place is being subject to additional scrutiny because of race' argument (in addition, those arguments aren't mutually exclusive. It could still have been getting excessive attention because of race while being a bad choice for the City). Let's not forget that a premise the second argument is that Mahoganny's required non-traditional investment structures because of race; no one who is arguing the place got more scrutiny and talk radio bile because of race is claiming that the City investment wasn't because of race. Good Lord, man. This is the type of contempt this woman has to deal with that makes me sympathetic. War analogies are incredibly common in everyday speech; a gentleman would understand that she's comparing the idea of being constantly embattled, with little rest; that the people who dislike her are relentless and she isn't getting support and understanding from the people she expected to. She's not saying, as you imply, that she deserves some sort of public acclaim for heroism.

He went to college in Cleveland (John Carroll University) and law school in Boston. Well, not in Boston, but nearby. No, not Tufts. Anyway, I've always considered Cranley's opposition to rail to be one part political expediency and one part refusal to be seen as wrong. It's pretty incredible how he dismisses getting smacked down by the biggest local grassroots political movement since Broadway Commons. And the bike trail/running trail thing is just a joke. I guess he's just so used to being covered in flop sweat that he assumes people will be cool with jogging to the office.

They should bring the streetcar through University Plaza to Short Vine, both ways; even consider closing the street to car traffic (if feasible). As for a grocery, they could tear down that horrible building between Charlton and Daniels and build something awesome there. Also, Jake is right, they should totally reconnect Vine and Auburn. You can see the old street grid on CAGIS property map. They should go back to that, with a few modifications (like keeping Taft connected to Calhoun).

What a weird analogy. People have the terms of their loans or their contract changed all the time. All the time. Example: the mayor has not paid back a $75,000 loan and has either had the terms changed or has had a deal with the creditor so that they won't act on their legal right to collect. Most lenders have an interest in seeing their debtors actually succeed in the purpose for which they borrowed. That's why the reselling and repackaging of mortgages was criticized, because the originators had no interest in the outcome of the contracts they were originating. It's nothing like school. Disagree. The conclusion on one side of this issue is that the amount of attention paid to this specific subsidy is due to race. The premises of that argument is that other, larger or similar subsidies paid to other businesses that failed never garnered as much attention as this one. Obviously some people disagree with that argument, even so strongly as to consider it foolish.

^I remember when comments like this would get your messages deleted for, "insulting local businesses and stereotyping entire demographics of people." Reiterating the fact that there are the untold subsidies that are churned out regularly to many, many, many more well-connected local developers and entrepreneurs than this woman.

I always thought Barron was actually on Mallory's staff, but I could be wrong about that.

^ Comments like this are unhelpful for gaining Amy Murray's support as chairwoman of the City Council committee that will have to approve the April 28th application for Federal funding to get the streetcar to Uptown, assuming that is what you want. Maybe you're right, but by that logic, you seem to be saying that she's a public figure who's going to be willing to make a major change in policy, against her constituency, based on a considered, personal investigation of the effects of the policy; but she's also so lacking in confidence that a poorly worded insult on message board full of nerds will offend her so deeply that she'll go back on her dispassionate, reasoned policy change that has enormous potential consequences to her future political career?

There's something to be said for simply playing not to lose. Also, Cincinnati's business leadership, at least in their development projects with in the City, are more likely to structure deals where they can't lose, but the City sure can. As for the City's political leadership, it is certainly rather blase, but I think this insistence that the streetcar has to fail is more indicative of the weirdness of so-called conservatism. Why exactly is it conservative to oppose rail transit, urban core redevelopment, and so on? If you consider what so-called conservatives say is important to them- fiscal responsibility, keeping the old rather than the new and untried, you'd never come to that conclusion. She's a politician and she has a responsibility to the constituencies that helped elect her. Whether she is willing to break with those constituencies over one policy disagreement is her call. If you believe the streetcar is a project of primary importance, it's more important to keep in mind that her supporters are unalterably, unconvincably opposed to this project, and to keep that in mind regarding whom you support.

I kind of like the tunnel plan better. I don't like all those rail crossing gates.

The other thing to remember about Houston is that it is basically Chicago Jr., and by that I mean that there is a certain geographic inevitability to the place that means its going to be a major city, particularly with modern technology. It is the westernmost port in the U.S. on the Atlantic seaboard. So if you've got railroad which make you less depedent on watercourses, and you can dredge Buffalo Bayou to accomodate Panamax container ships, your saving dramatically on shipping costs if you're trying to take something from Europe to the California, or natural resources from the Great Plains abroad.

Also, they get around the lack of use-based zoning with restrictive covenants. Basically, the developer will put what are effective use based zoning covenants in the deeds of all the lots they sell, ensuring the developments retain the intended character. Because most people don't want to buy a house where their neighbor can become a fast food joint or a bank branch, no matter what they say about individual freedom.

^I actually had heard that the Waterfront was his most profitable restaurant. Of course, that might have meant over the course of its life, and obviously I'm only saying what I heard second-hand. But we obviously don't know these things. Clearly Bootsy's wasn't profitable. But it's not particularly insightful to presume that a restaurant which is open is profitable. Oftentimes one extremely profitable restaurant drives the rest of a group.

It is in the sense that he'd never have been part of the development to begin, and never had access to these types of development, with if he hadn't been appointed to City Council back in 2000. In fact, he resigned from Council when he did because of this development.

As a card-carrying White Bogeyman, I disagree. First, Cranley just made an announcement with tons of fanfare about increasing minority business inclusion. The idea that Mallory and Dohoney made it about race is ridiculous; however it does show how it was about race, because this woman was a proxy to attack Mallory and Dohoney; that's why she received so much attention relative to her subsidy. Second, Cranley is way behind paying off a $75,000 or so loan, yet the folks who attack this woman don't seem to be attacking John for this issue. Third, would you ever slightly alter your phrase, "The White Bogeyman had nothing to do with Rogers inability to be successful" to read something like, "The City of Cincinnati had nothing to do with Nat Comisar's (of the Maisonette) inability to be successful" or "The government had nothing to do with Jeff Ruby's (regarding Bootsy's or any venture he may have failed at) inability to be successful", and so on? The outsize attention towards this woman is 100% about race. Not ALL the attention, just the amount of attention. But if people are really worried about misspent subsidies, they need to be worried about the dudes with access to the politicians, because they get the most of them and they know how to structure the deals so they don't take the losses if the project don't deliver.

Guys, if the Bootsy's development received a single municipal tax break it received a subsidy. Tax expeditures are subsidies, plain and simple. For the sake of argument, let's all agree that this woman didn't deserve the subsidy, and the way that we know for certain that she didn't deserve it is she went out of business. Then if you apply that same logic to any other business- i.e. a venture that fails had to have signs that someone, if policing the deal correctly, could have figured out that it would fail. If we take that objective stance, these "safe bet entrepreneurs" have likely cost the City way more than this woman has.

^What's funny is that there is a lot of difference all over this board about this restaurant. Some seem to say the food was great, others that it sucked, there's a general consensus that the service was slow (though I'm always a little skeptical of how fast people expect the service to be at a fine dining restaurant; I prefer the service to the slower and the wait staff not to hover). But you'd think that if this individual had any capacity whatsoever it would be with the actual running of the restaurant and the food. And the people who went there had good and bad experiences. There are plenty of restaurant owners who aren't that great at finance. Hell, there are plenty of bankers who aren't that good at finance. Anyway, the people "defending" Mahoganny's on this board are doing it not out of experience with the restaurant, or with restaurant financing in general; rather (at least I'm doing it) because of the seemingly cavalier way in which this particular subsidy is criticized and scrutinized when so many others pass under the radar. If you care about subsidies, this one was relatively small, and if you care about who gets subsidies, it seems like someone without money is more worthy of a subsidy than a person or business that is making money.

This "strong mayor" proposal is ridiculous. I'm sorry but if you can't convince 5 of 9 people to sign off on your policies, then you're a crappy politician and don't deserve to have your policies enacted. I also think it's ridiculous that you've got these guys who have been in opposition the whole time to Mallory-Qualls, saying that they can do a better job, and then, when they get in the majority, their third proposal (after failing to kill the Streetcar and reducing the parking deal to a silly expense) is to change the way the system works. If they really thought they could do better this whole time, they wouldn't need to change the system. Finally, that Cranley quote, "I've always thought an executive mayor is better for checks and balances" is a perfect example of how much bullshit this guy spews. Checks and balances refer to checks and balances between different branches of government. Is he talking about the executive's ability to check the legislature (council)? He already appoints the committee heads, so he's already got alot of sway over policy. Now he want's to be able to hire and fire the administrative department heads as well? Also, where is the judicial check in this system that he's talking about? Finally, I'd love to know when these guys think that the City's government worked well. In the 90's, when the top vote-getter became the mayor? In the 80's, when the mayor was just a member of Council? In the 50's when we had weighted voting in council races? Because everyone likes to say the system is broken, everyone likes to say things were so much better in the past, but nobody seems to connect those two. We haven't had a strong mayor since before the 1920's. So unless these guys think that the 20th century was a lost century for Cincinnati, they are just blowing smoke.

Is following 3CDC's recommendation's an example of giving up local control? I honestly don't know because I can't tell what that means anymore. I also think it's funny how the paper had an online article describing the new parking upgrades as a political win for Cranley, in the headline. I can't remember if they described the Streetcar continuation as a political defeat, but I doubt it.

Agreed. And that was kind of the point. If Mahoganny's is indicative of anything, it's that having the City pick businesses to support is a bad idea. I just thought that picking Saks and Nordstrom's were also bad ideas, just like subsidizing the Maisonnette would have been a bad idea. What is the City good at? Or a better question, how does the City make money? The answer is through the payroll tax. What is the easiest way for the City to make money through the payroll tax? Get more people and more wealthy people to live in the City. Try to limit yourself to the most basic things that the City has the capacity to do and does well. Don't worry about entertainment districts or retail districts, let that stuff work itself out on its own. But if the developers want the City involved at that level and the City is going to do it, making sure there are procedures in there for economic inclusion is a good goal.