DEPACincy

How did they get your email then? Campaigns don't just send out random emails. They have a mailing list that you sign up for. You might've signed up for it unknowingly? I don't know, but it's not random.

That's what these emails are always like. Old people love that kind of stuff and old people have money. My grandma used to talk about getting letters like this from candidates and how she donated money to their campaign. The idea is to humanize them. You and I know it's all very calculated but not everyone is that savvy. They figure the savvy donors will know what they're up to and give anyway and the un-savvy ones will be inspired to give.

What you say about Lauren may be true, but I did not misread it. Here's the email exactly as I got it: From: Lauren Durham Subject: My daughter, Kathleen "Dear Paul -- I loved reading Kathleen’s dad’s email, and wanted to make sure you had a chance to read it too -- see below. Kathleen’s birthday weekend is almost over, and it’s your last chance to give! Contribute here: actblue.com/kathleen_birthday Thank you for being on this team, and thanks for helping make Kathleen’s birthday a special one. Best, Lauren Campaign Manager" How else could you interpret this message? In short: From Lauren about "my daughter" signed, Lauren, Campaign Manager. ...so half of a "political power couple" or not, this is very sloppy work. Most people that would just see that may dismiss Kathleen outright without taking the time to explore this matter as I did here. And I only did so because I was so baffled.... Sloppy campaign work ultimately reflects badly on the candidate. I would never look at this and assume that Lauren is her mother. The subject is "My daughter, Kathleen" which is what her father's email was about and this email is about that email. As straightforward as it gets. If her subject was "The Email, 'My Daughter, Kathleen'" or "Bob Klyde's Email: My Daughter Kathleen" I'd agree with you. But it wasn't. If someone sends an email under their own name, then what is in the subject line can be assumed to be related to the sender. If I sent you an email--and in the subject line, I wrote, "My Schedule Next Week", you would assume I was referring to a movie or something else about a schedule and not MY schedule next week? The only way your comment makes sense is if you know the sender and know the subject line doesn't relate to her---but as a general rule you cannot assume everyone knows everyone, so proper English or proper wording must be used. Well you signed up for her email list and you already got an email from her dad about that subject, so I think it's safe to assume that you'd understand the context. Maybe that's just me though.

What you say about Lauren may be true, but I did not misread it. Here's the email exactly as I got it: From: Lauren Durham Subject: My daughter, Kathleen "Dear Paul -- I loved reading Kathleen’s dad’s email, and wanted to make sure you had a chance to read it too -- see below. Kathleen’s birthday weekend is almost over, and it’s your last chance to give! Contribute here: actblue.com/kathleen_birthday Thank you for being on this team, and thanks for helping make Kathleen’s birthday a special one. Best, Lauren Campaign Manager" How else could you interpret this message? In short: From Lauren about "my daughter" signed, Lauren, Campaign Manager. ...so half of a "political power couple" or not, this is very sloppy work. Most people that would just see that may dismiss Kathleen outright without taking the time to explore this matter as I did here. And I only did so because I was so baffled.... Sloppy campaign work ultimately reflects badly on the candidate. I would never look at this and assume that Lauren is her mother. The subject is "My daughter, Kathleen" which is what her father's email was about and this email is about that email. As straightforward as it gets.

I’m just being honest about something Cincinnatians never talk about in my experience. Cincinnati isn't a hobby for me. I actually live in Cincinnati and have skin in the game. Brooklynites sounding off about the great change happening around them is like a rich woman complaining about how difficult it is to find household staff...it's just ‘status anxiety.’ Brooklynites aren't really complaining, they're just drawing attention to the vast array of choices that surround them in the guise of criticism. All the whaling and moaning about Brooklyn, and other expensive and/or rapidly growing places, doesn't stop billions pouring into them providing exciting new economic opportunities to the very same people who 'complain' about it all. Cincinnatians aren't talking about any of this because they don't have to. They've successfully kept out the kinds of people and activities that create the social tensions and complications that are evident in places like Brooklyn. Cincinnatians don't just talk about stopping change, they are actually able to stop it. Cincinnati's small convention and tourist trade is a clear example of this. Cincinnati has advantages with which it could grow that trade if it wanted. It’s all up to Cincinnatians. Except, despite many, many people wanting to live there, Brooklyn lost population this year. There's a lot of discussion out there about why, but many believe it is because Brooklyn NIMBYs have successfully stymied new development. I don't think Cincinnati NIMBYs can hold a candle to Brooklyn ones.

Interesting. I happily stand corrected!

PPP polls usually add about 2 to 3 percentage points for the Dem so I'd say this race is a complete tossup at this point.

I like the comment about fiscal responsibility. It blows my mind that people don't realize that it is the sprawling development patterns in a place like West Chester that are fiscally irresponsible, not the provision of public amenities (which pale in comparison cost-wise) like a trail!

Anybody know how to pronounce this?

^^That's true. But how is it related to him complaining about the parking situation?

I'm sympathetic to him but some of his quotes have rubbed me the wrong way too. Certainly I understand that he wants this thing done fast because it will undoubtedly give his business and the other businesses in the area a big boost. But I don't think the demolition of the garage is the reason business is hurting. There are TONS of places to park in the vicinity. We need to get a way from the mindset that endless parking is necessary for downtown to succeed. We have plenty.

Townships with thousands of acres of low-density sprawl will start running into money problems when the development stops. In the Philadelphia area townships that have always been primarily suburban sprawl bedroom communities have in the past several years tried to attract more mixed-use and commercial development to shore up their finances and many have faced push back from NIMBYs who don't want to see any kind of density.

Actually, he is more connected than anyone you know or could talk to. I don't like him either, but he is ultimately connected. That's like saying Sean Hannity is a good source because he's "connected." Well yea, he is more connected than anyone I know. But you still can't believe anything he says on air.

There's less infrastructure per person. In a dense urban neighborhood you might have 100 people living along the same length of street where you would have like two families in the burbs. That can be extrapolated to water/sewer lines, electric lines, police service, fire service, etc. It takes a lot more money to cover a low-density, spread out area. And concerning the old infrastructure: The infrastructure in the burbs will be old one day too. Indeed, we're starting to see this be an issue in many older burbs. And there' MUCH more of it to deal with. Plus, the big infrastructure costs in the city often are there to serve the burbs. In Cincinnati it's the bridges and viaducts that are the huge expenses we're all worried about right now. Well if everyone lived in the basin (which I realize is not desirable) we wouldn't need viaducts and bridges. They mostly serve to get folks from the burbs to the city. EDIT: I would add highways to that too. Expanding I-75 through the heart of the city isn't to serve city residents. It's to get people from Butler County downtown.

As a straight comparison of hard data seldom collected in so convenient a format, I think it's a very useful display. I suspect it will be a starting point for lots of studies. I wouldn't call it a straight comparison of hard data as much as I would a propaganda tool.

Not to mention it closes at 5 pm everyday and is closed on Sundays. So basically it isn't ever open. I had no idea that it was only open 11a-5p 5 days/week (30 hours/week). Not sure what is 'normal' for a museum but as a comparison the Cincinnati Art Museum is open 39 hours/week. It seems so weird to be closed on Sunday. I work every weekday (like most people) so I basically have a six hour window each week that I could potentially go.

Not to mention it closes at 5 pm everyday and is closed on Sundays. So basically it isn't ever open.

It definitely is not a uniquely "Ohio" problem... I think it has more to do with whether or not there are other competing interests for land use. In an urban area like downtown Philly, there are lots of constraints that limit how hospitals grow outwards. In a place like Durham, NC... Duke Hospital can grow like a blob more-or-less unrestrained by other land use competition. In Denver, the main hospitals moved out of downtown to suburban Aurora (about 10 miles east of downtown) so they could have a massive campus where they could grow with fewer constraints. This is a good point. I don't REALLY think it is unique to Ohio. I definitely overstated that. But it feels frustratingly bad in Ohio. One thing about the uptown hospitals in Cincinnati is that they WERE surrounded by an urban area and we have mostly obliterated it, tearing down all the buildings and turning the streets into highways. One would expect hospitals in Denver or Houston to be located in suburban-like settings based on the history of those cities. But Cincinnati is almost as old as the major east coast cities so there is a defined, built-out street grid and a very urban feeling core. We haven't respected the established built environment at all.

Kroger owned the land where their tower now stands dating back to the 1800s. It was built in the mid-1950s before freeway plans were solidified and any construction had begun. It was assumed that Central Parkway would get direct access to and from the Millcreek Expressway (I-75) and the planned Northeast Expressway (I-71). It's no accident that Central Parkway was instead completely cut off from the freeway network and the cross-town "distributor" was built on the riverfront, not in place of Central Parkway or Liberty St. In Zane Miller's late 1990s Over-the-Rhine book, he speculates that at the same time Over-the-Rhine was left to decline on purpose, rather than being preserved in amber (there was a push to create a draconian French Quarter-type historic protection), in order to devalue the north half of Downtown Cincinnati. Class A office space pays the highest return for capital invested. An office tower can go up profoundly in value if high-dollar long-term leases are in place. An apartment tower usually can't skyrocket in value in the same way, and construction of a condo tower is something different entirely. The location of Class A office is controlled with height limits. Limits were instituted in Cincinnati in the 1960s AFTER the rogue Kroger tower went up on Central Parkway. But height limits are just paper -- a freeway or subway would always create pressure for those limits to be changed. Interesting history, I appreciate it! But I still don't get how the subway would've hurt Fountain Square's office district. First, a Fountain Square station was planned for it, no? Second, even if it completely bypassed the square it makes it easy for folks to get downtown and they can easily walk a couple of blocks. If anything, it would expand the office district, but not kill the lower CBD by any means. The completion and subsequent expansions of subways in other cities didn't make their traditional office centers less important. Instead, they made them MORE valuable. And yes Class A office space pays the highest return by far, but no one wants to work in an office ghetto. That's why office space in OTR is at a premium right now and the CBD has vacant office buildings scattered throughout. Granted, they probably didn't think of this 100 years ago, but in 2018 it is obvious that if the city elite want the office space in the CBD to remain valuable we need to encourage a ton of residential development throughout the basin, including in the lower CBD.

As someone who has lived in multiple "eds and meds" towns it feels like a uniquely Ohio thing. Philly has done the best at developing areas around their hospitals I think. Here are some examples. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital (multiple buildings) and Wills Eye Hospital (curved building) fit in perfectly to the urban fabric: Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and Children's Hospital of Philadelphia share a huge campus in the right of the photo but notice they didn't blow the streets out into huge multi-lane highways and they have mostly fit into the neighborhood. You can actually walk and bike around them and not feel like you're going to get hit by a car:

If the fact that Arthur Laffer and Steven Moore are involved didn't tell you everything you need to know about this "tool" then the fact that New York and California rank at the bottom but Alabama is 20th and Indiana is 3rd should clue you in that this thing is pretty useless as a predictor of any useful economic indicator.

Wow, that's really conspiratorial. What evidence do you have that the demise of the subway had anything to do with concerns that Fountain Square would suffer? If the "blue bloods" are adamently against the success of Central Parkway then why is Kroger's HQ there? Built all the way back in 1954? And why would Kroger build a brand new store and apartments there? If the "blue bloods" were so concerned about Fountain Square remaining the center of the city wouldn't they be investing in apartments around there instead of throughout the CBD and OTR? Your theory seems to have a lot of holes.

There's a lot of research out there that shows it's an unconscious thing. If they're not used to walking that far and they look at a map they might balk at the idea. But if they have a friend convince them to walk from Pendleton to Central Parkway just one time they'll enjoy that walk and be willing to do it again. They won't think, "geez I want to walk a half mile" but that's what will happen. Heck, folks do it now for Reds and Bengals games. I live in the northern part of downtown and people park up there and walk down to the stadiums.

Not really. The northbound track is on Elm. The southbound track is on Race, a block (400 feet) further east. The Race St. stations at Liberty is over 1,000 feet from the stadium and the Race station at Washington Park is more like 1,500+ feet. I foresee a lot of people hailing a cab on Central Parkway. The stadium will be on Central Parkway. That's one block from Elm and two from Race. It's a 3 minute walk from the proposed southeast corner of the stadium to the 14th and Elm stop. It's 5 minutes from the northeast corner of the proposed stadium to the Elm and Liberty stop. It's a (slow) 8 minute walk to the 12th and Race station. It takes 10 minutes to walk from Nippert to the corner of MLK and Clifton Ave.

There are literally two streetcar stations one block from where the stadium will be.