jdm00

Well, Germany is the only European country mentioned there. In the post-WWI era, Germany did not allow private ownership of guns until 1956. And they have about 4 million licensed gun owners (with far more restrictions on those owners) as compared to the approximately 75 million gun owners in the U.S. I don't think it's close to as "heavily armed" as the U.S.

Davis had a ton of success at Miami--took a program people said should be given the death penalty and built it into a National Championship team (though he left before they won). Of course, college does not necessarily translate to the pros.

Don't know if those of you following the draft saw this, but I thought this was pretty funny. It's been making the rounds at various sports sites. (Note: It has negative reaction to the Weeden pick, but that is not why I am posting it.) http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52641

Heckert's quote when asked if the Browns would have taken Weeden if Wright was available seems pretty telling. "We didn't have to make that decision." If Weeden was the plan all along, wouldn't you just say that? I get what HTS is saying, but it sure sounds like the thought was Wright at 22--maybe with a plan to get Weeden later.

Pete Prisco of CBS Sports also gives the Bengals' draft an A+: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/story/18883097/draft-grades-bengals-haul-gets-high-praise-saints-flunk-the-weekend An A from "the Czar" at Fox Sports: http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Czar-NFL-Draft-grades-per-team-042812 An A+ from the Sporting News: http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2012-04-28/nfl-draft-2012-grades-bengals-cowboys-patriots-packers-steelers An A from Mel Kiper at ESPN: http://www.cincyjungle.com/2012/4/29/2986196/2012-nfl-draft-grades-mel-kiper-jr-gives-the-bengals-an-a I really am almost in shock at this draft.

Chris Burke's Draft Grades: http://nfl.si.com/2012/04/29/2012-nfl-draft-grades/#more-4991

Bengals are getting generally rave reviews for their draft. Chris Burke of Sports Illustrated gave them an A+ and said they drafted 9 potential starters. Mayock of NFL Network also said that they had one of the top drafts (along with the Eagles, I think). I haven't read anything that doesn't list them as one of the winners of the weekend. Now, take that for what it's worth--until they play on the field, it doesn't matter. As a Bengals fan, it's almost like Bizarro world. I saw someone on Twitter yesterday (totally forget who) who said, "Imagine you've been in a coma for three years, and you wake up to learn the Bengals have suddenly become a good drafting team. You wouldn't understand it."

Not wanting to get into the political ramifications, but part of the reason that murders are so much rarer in European cities is that there are far fewer guns. I don't think it's disputable that guns are a far more effective method to kill someone than a knife. I remember visiting some friends in London a few years ago--they were talking about how "knife crime" was the biggest thing to fear. While knife attacks are terrible, they are also not nearly as effective for killing someone (or many people at the same time). When you get rid of one of the main means, you should have far fewer murders. (Not advocating one way or the other on the gun ownership question.)

Why is it too skinny? Because cars can't travel at 35 mph through it? Tell most European cities that. I agree it's too skinny. You couldnt' make it two way unless you ended all on-street parking there. I guess that would be okay--hadn't really thought about it. But there's no way you can fit two cars down 14th between, say, Vine and Walnut. You can only get one down there now one way with the parking (and there are always cars parked there). The other option is to make it two-way, keep a lane of parking, but have a situation where if two cars end up on it at the same time trying to go through in opposite directions, one of them has to back up and let the other out. Generally, people won't use it, but it keeps it useable and keeps the parking available. Might not be viable with the American legal system, but it's done on old city streets in Europe. It works if people aren't trying to zip all over with their car. I don't think this would work, especially if the idea is that one of the cars might have to backtrack back into Vine Street.

Why is it too skinny? Because cars can't travel at 35 mph through it? Tell most European cities that. I agree it's too skinny. You couldnt' make it two way unless you ended all on-street parking there. I guess that would be okay--hadn't really thought about it. But there's no way you can fit two cars down 14th between, say, Vine and Walnut. You can only get one down there now one way with the parking (and there are always cars parked there).

I live in OTR, and it doesn't feel dangerous to me.

Yes, they could have, though they'd played in NJ for years by then. I was responding less to your point about construction of a stadium than to your statement that you don't know how people could be NY sports fans, apparently because they cross the river to NJ for the games. My point (poorly made) is that I don't think the stadium being in New Jersey has had a negative effect on the fandom of or identification by NYC residents with either team.

Ooops.

^Not sure what statistics you are using, natininja. 72 homicides in 2010, down to 66 in 2011, and the rate is dropping again this year (I think I saw we are currently down 24% vs. a year ago in the homicide rate). I think things are moving in the right direction.

I don't think I've ever seen this thread quite for this long.

Isn't their current arena just a couple years old? I guess the Nets will need another new arena to call home in another couple years...?? You know, to stay fresh?? I wouldn't feel like the move was such a raw deal if they kept the NJ name. The NY Giants, Jets, and Red Bulls play in NJ, after all. I don't know how anyone could be a NY sports fan. Or NJ, really. The sense of community is too diluted, especially when the teams are statewide or they play in a different municipality/state. If NKY got a basketball or hockey arena, I wouldn't want the team to have Cincinnati's name attached. And I would be less of a fan if the Cbus Blue Jackets were the Ohio Blue Jackets. (Or, heaven forbid, if the Reds/Indians/Bengals/Browns/Cavaliers went statewide.) It's one of the fallacies of being a Buckeyes fan, especially if you're not an alum. I think the Giants and Jets are a different situation. Both of the played in NYC for years (the Giants for decades). I think most people in NYC understand that they play in New Jersey because building these stadiums (at least with any semblance of cost effectiveness) is not really possible in a lot of the parts of NYC.

^Yeesh. It's responses like that that make it seem like there's some credence to Matthew Hall's attacks on you in whatever thread that was. If you really only want to post numbers, what difference does it make that he is posting the year-to-date job numbers for the 3-C's? I have to be honest, while I find the 5-year comparison numbers helpful, the year-over-year numbers are not nearly as helpful as the month-to-month numbers posted in the format he just did for 2012. It's like when I hear about car sales--year-over-year numbers are nice, but it also helps to see how things are going chronologically, too. Not sure why you'd be so upset about those numbers posted in this thread.

Yeah, that's right--it makes a lot of sense for both spots.

But that also correlates to the population--we have six of the top 20 midwest economies because we have six significant metro areas.

I think they've been using part of the site to stage some stuff for the park construction--I often see them moving large stone/concrete forms from the lot behind where the building was torn down to the park. I assume as the park gets more complete, things will start picking up.

Don't know if this one has been posted, but not liking that Toledo and Dayton are both on the list. Of course, Indy, Atlanta, Houston, and Kansas City all made the list, too. "The 10 Emptiest US Cities - CNBC" http://www.cnbc.com/id/44860467?slide=2

Understanding your points, Sherman, did you actually read all the way through the article? He comes out basically on historical factors--older cities, especially developed near ports (whether ocean or river) tend to be more walkable because they were older with more industrial economies, as opposed to cities in the south, which tend to be more recent and have grown up in an area where, for many decades/centuries, the focus was more agrarian (which obviously leads to less density). I think that makes sense.

No, really. I don't know if you practice in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, but they do not have a reputation for letting things drag out, particularly if there's not a lot of stuff to be figured out. And there's not really going to be the controversy associated with it that you would have with, say, the Norwood cases--in terms of purpose, who is going to own the property, etc.

In the event that ownership of the land for the proposed maintenance facility goes to eminent domain, the City of Cincinnati will likely end up with the property at a fair price. That's not really a problem. The problem is that it could be tied up in court for a year. Thus, there has to be enough time in the schedule to allow for this. The procedure would go something like this: First, the City approaches the property owner and offers payment for the land. If the property owner accepts, all is well. If he counter-offers and the City accepts, all is well. But if the property owner refuses, then the city must either take it by force or forgo. In the event that the city initiates eminent domain procedings, then the city has to prepare a case, file a lawsuit, and get a court date scheduled. This can take a year. So, assuming eminent domain, count on a year for court and a year for construction, and if the city starts today we have the maintenance facility opening in 2014 at the earliest. Anything eariler is unrealistic. I don't want to sound like a jerk here, but this would be just about as simple a case as you can find. It would really come down to presenting evidence from each side on what the value of the property is/should be for purposes of the compensation. You're probably talking a couple of expert reports and depositions of same on valuation issues. And presumably some of this information would be exchanged before a suit was even filed in the course of negotiations. If it took longer than six months, I would be shocked.

Moreover, this entire discussion may well be academic. It sounds like they are still negotiating. Hopefully they can agree on a price.