JohnClevesSymmes

David[/member] Cristian also opened a new place in Hyde Park called "Forno" which is quite good. It has more of the changing, seasonal type menu thing going on.

To paraphrase the article: "Who-dey might potentially possibly sort of could be problematic, maybe, and I just want all of us to acknowledge that for a moment..."

I don't think it is fair to characterize a developer who has been developing a property that he owns for the better part of a decade and wants to continue building on that property as some kind of sad commentary. Meanwhile, the city of Cincinnati owns the strip mall and vacant lots at the corner of Whetsel and Madison, and the Ackermann group was chosen to be the preferred developer some time back.

That is my understanding as well. This speaks to a larger balance of power issue at city hall. What are the scenarios in which a super-majority of council can over-ride the mayor, and how does this compare? If a super-majority of council rejects a city manager nomination, I don't believe they can pick a different one. Not sure on this one - can a super-majority impose an operating budget?

It's still a process issue though, not a loophole. It doesn't mean that the mayor can go around council to use the funds, it means that if the mayor and a majority of council can't come to terms, then the money doesn't get spent. Did anyone think that, under Issue 22, a supermajority of council was going to be able to initiate projects? I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to, but this doesn't change the equation.

^There is always going to be horse-trading. This seems like a minor process issue.

You don't want the drunks on the thing. They won't respect it. Ride the NYC subway at 3am and you'll see the sort of idiocy we can expect here. I guess that is technically an answer to my question because you imply that no demand would make it worthwhile to operate that late.

I have been struggling with this issue and find myself on the fence. I like the concept of setting up a dedicated funding stream for parks-related capital projects across the city. I don't mind that the mayor (taking Cranley out of the equation for a moment) is given the authority to initiate the projects because any mayor is either going to have a council that rubber stamps or one that forces compromise. If, ultimately, council has to vote to approve the bonds issued for any project, I don't see how that is different than the budget process in practice. Council can wield this authority to have its say. Now put Cranley back into the equation. He figured out that a parks tax polls well and he could likely push in through this year to fund a handful of projects in the next few years. I'm sure he believes that these are good projects and that if he can be the one that makes them happen then it will help his political career. I don't have a problem with this either, in theory. In reality we have the questionable practices of the parks department, a not insignificant level of cronyism, and Cranley's "dictatorial tendencies." A "no" argument that really speaks to me (and as I write this I think this is the ultimate decider for me) is that, as others have stated, the parks are well-funded. If we are going to raise our taxes to fund something, let's look for something like the Preschool Promise or Metro Moves that could be an immediate game-changer for our city.

What is the maximum capacity of the car and what kind of demand would make it worthwhile to operate between 1 or 1:30 and 2am?

Streetcar delivery delayed http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2015/10/29/streetcar-delivery-delayed.html Disaster!!! Crisis averted.

This is the best sentence I have read so far today.

Alamo Drafthouse would be cool.

The transaction raises some red flags but I don't see how Cranley is involved in this one.

Slightly confused - was that a ribbon cutting to celebrate the completion of the improvements or announce the start of new ones?

"I just built a really solid building that COULD stand for hundreds of years, but I hope someone knocks it down in a few decades to build something else." - No one ever

Yvette Simpson was the lone vote against his appointment, and it isn't clear whether her dissent was based on his point of view on preservation or off-color jokes he made on twitter. It doesn't sound like he is going to be an anti-preservation extremist.

I agree, under the original leadership NOM was a well-executed concept. I had heard that the trucks weren't quite doing the business there that they had hoped. I love it when a good number of the trucks take over a lot in OTR, be it the 12th/Main lot for NOM, the Artworks lot for MidPoint, or that lot across from Washington Park for Lumenocity. Ideally, one of those lots could provide a permanent home for a group of trucks/carts or a rotating cast. It would be fantastic to count on something like that not only for late night snacking, but for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Being as close as possible to the CBD would help, but those lots are probably too lucrative.

I think you are right to a point, although some food trucks have established regular locations in suburban office parks. Tacos Locos has been in the same spot in Pleasant Ridge for awhile. It would be great to have at least one established "food pod" zone like those dotting Portland. I see some of the trucks at specific events, like City Flea. I don't notice them parked on Main Street as often. Part of that is that "NOM" is not happening any more (and I'm not sure how successful it really was), and I imagine part of it is that there are so many new dining options. Supposedly there are way more trucks than ever, but I can't think of any right now that excite me enough to track down.

^ They were giving him a "hard time" because he was insisting on getting the identity of the passenger, and they felt like they had the right to decline that request. I am not enough of an expert to know whether they were correct legally, but I respect the general principle expressed by the driver (to paraphrase): If you are going to write me a ticket, write me a ticket. You don't need to talk to my passenger."

^This statement is objectively false.

No, you would be able to continue east on 13th across Main, despite the jog. Making 13th one-way Westbound would be returning it to what it was before. I agree that the current setup is a disaster.

^Not to mention that the proposal includes funds for Smale, Lytle, and Zeigler Parks. This does a good job of spreading serious park/recreation projects throughout the city. You can look at it cynically or take it at face value. Probably worth doing a little of both.

"It looks like these ordinances are dead. Councilman Wendell Young is pulling his support." Looks like the petty politics finally got to Young.

Skyline Chili: Lick Shiny Lie