Old AmrapinVA

Phil Jackson Part II? I may be alone on this, but i consider Phil to be one of the most overrated NBA minds in the history of the game. He won all 11 of his titles on the coattails of Jordan and Kobe/Shaq and then Veteran Kobe. Now he is in a leadership role and his franchise is crumbling beneath him. Interesting he never saught out a coaching job where he had to "build something" and take on a new challenge (a la Terry Francona with the indians). Maybe he did that in his first job with the Bulls...but ever since 1993 or whenever the Bulls won their first title...you really havent seen any seen anything special. Like Popovich, for example...he built a monster in SA. When guys like Duncan and Robinson get old and eventually retire, he gets a new group of guys to buy into his program and become incredible team players and then eventually excel individually. Yeah, I agree with you. I'm talking about Phil as the Knicks GM not as the coach of the Lakers. I think Magic will find it much harder than it looks.

His mastery of that tactic has probably lifted his D enough that he may now be considered the GOAT. Especially when you consider that Jordan had dispensations well beyond "superstar rules" when the NBA needed his marketability desperately. If the Cavs beat GSW again with Durant it's not even a question about GOAT anymore. Jordan never faced a team with that level of talent in his career. The 80s Celtics and the 90s Pistons, Rockets, Jazz and Knicks aren't even close. No disrespect to those teams either, it's just a matter of fact.

Korver has definitely found his rhythm. Cavs are playing better as a team with Love out. See if this trend continues.

Phil Jackson Part II?

People haven't move on from race they're just getting better at hiding it. I'm not talking about Republicans, I'm talking about Californians in general who move there. The Intermountain West is their version of Parma. Hell you could argue Oregon and Washington are a part of that as well. Anyways, this conversation is going to get cut. We're on the Ohio: General Business thread. I didn't even notice until now. :)

Boise is great for them because it's small and white. Some white people in Cali get sick and tired of the traffic and minorities. It's Cali people "Making America Great Again" for sure. Same goes for Salt Lake, Spokane, Bozeman, on and on. It's about as shameful as it can get IMHO considering the history that made those places "high quality".

Ken, do you know any more about this? When I pull up Kronenberger on the Google machine I see there is a Mr. Kronenberger as CEO of Klosterman Baking Company of Cincinnati. For that name in relation to Cleveland I get a bunch of CPAs.

I'm not sure how they can accomplish this without a lot of visible signage. Put yourself in the shoes of an unfamiliar driver...I'm thinking overhead signs would be the safest (and ugliest) option. What about gates which open from an overhead sensor? Or is that even uglier?

This is cold water, but fact. From an apt POV, Michelle notes low area rental rates per construction costs. The only way to raise those rates is wage growth, which would require a lot more effort to bring in businesses, which would require significant turnover at city hall. But I applaud Stark too. At least he's trying, at least he's hopeful and gives hope to others. You're touching the third rail on your first sentence. Everything in Cleveland is a ok. All cities are struggling to get financing, the dozens of cranes in the DC area are on optical illusion. Things are bad everywhere. ;) Why are you comparing the nation's capital to a mid-market Midwestern city? I don't see many cranes in Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Cincinnati and so forth. Detroit isn't mid-market. I really don't want to compare. I want Cleveland to look like Toronto and tell my friends here in the DC area about that. Why should some Clevelanders settle on the fact that Detroit has no cranes as a benchmark and not ask why it could do better? I'll be honest, I don't get the mentality. I'll stop here, don't want to go off the reservation.

This is cold water, but fact. From an apt POV, Michelle notes low area rental rates per construction costs. The only way to raise those rates is wage growth, which would require a lot more effort to bring in businesses, which would require significant turnover at city hall. But I applaud Stark too. At least he's trying, at least he's hopeful and gives hope to others. You're touching the third rail on your first sentence. Everything in Cleveland is a ok. All cities are struggling to get financing, the dozens of cranes in the DC area are on optical illusion. Things are bad everywhere. ;)

Headline is misleading. Financing is going to (possibly) close in the spring. Construction "soon after" doesn't necessarily mean they're aiming for a spring start. Makes better click-bait though.

It's not about missing Mean Mr. Mustard's. High St. from Lane to 11th used to cater to students at OSU. Some of these new developments will not. The fact that we're comparing the off campus area to Worthington is somewhat making my point. It's great there's still "shitty" off campus housing. I'm sure as this gentrification progresses of off High St. those areas will go too. BTW that housing is there because not all students have access to a trust fund.

It's just not factual to believe the existing older housing can ever command the rent these new apartments will. The developers are catering to a different level of clientele and will force poorer students who can't afford to live on campus to move further away. I never implied that the existing older housing will command the rent that high-end new builds will. Quite the opposite. What I said was that the older housing would still have increased in price more than it actually has if there were not new supply coming on the market to absorb the higher end clientele, because then those people would still bid up the best available units and so on down the line. I think the hope (justifiable or not) is that neighborhoods like Weinland Park will start seeing more housing go to lower-income students as the overall campus footprint expands. The upscale clientele doesn't need to live right next to campus and probably many don't now but $$$$ are what drive these developments even if the cost is the uniqueness of OSU campus life. Nothing can be done about it now anyway, it's already happening.

Considering the small size of the Delta Cincinnati hub there has to be valuable cargo for the airline to keep flying the 767 or they would have switched it to a 757 long ago.

It's just not factual to believe the existing older housing can ever command the rent these new apartments will. The developers are catering to a different level of clientele and will force poorer students who can't afford to live on campus to move further away. OSU is a giant land grant college which used to have an active campus scene right across the street. The gentrification of this neighborhood will kill that, it already has towards south campus. Kids go all the way to Clintonville to have fun now. The only time anyone from OSU went to that area in the 90s was to hit the White Castle there along with the handful of over 21 bars. I think these new developments look great now but will be a mistake in the long term. I'll end my thoughts here, don't want to go off the reservation.

I disagree. I think it has to do with a demographic shift towards kids with parents that earn more money, especially students from China. Many want nice new places and complete segregation of classes, just like home. One way to get rid of the unwashed masses is to build new places that cater to the upper class only. I see this off campus development trend happening at more American colleges than just OSU. Affordable apartments are disappearing everywhere. It's a bit disturbing to me. Looking at it another way: The student population is roughly the same as when I went there in the 1990s yet there is a lot of new housing being built even while most of the older stock remains. The new apartments can't be just for students. Parents from Asia will buy some of those apartments so they can have a place to stay to visit and monitor their children. They'll be investment properties and as this trend expands it's killing the American college campus scene.

There is certainly a good amount of higher end/higher cost housing being constructed around OSU, but very little of it is replacing more affordable housing options. Much of the development has been along commercial corridors or on underutilized property. I do not have any data, but my gut would suggest that the 1960's and 70's era apartment buildings are less demanded with this new product, thus creating a more affordable housing option just a block off of High or Lane. , Are college students going to move into some of these new places? I do wonder about that. I just hope the ground retail isn't just Starbucks and other bland national chains. What made High St. so unique could disappear quite quickly this decade.

Over the last 15 years there are many, many companies that use a third party to "lease" time on a Jetstream or other private jet and share the aircraft with others. It offers a convenience factor airlines can't match, even in First Class. Even non-corporate schlubs use 'em. :laugh: And, yes, they do cross the pond.

What's next for High? An Alfa Romeo dealership? Tiffany's or Gucci? How about a Burberry? Watching the gentrification of the neighborhood is depressing to me. I was fortunate to be able to go to OSU when I did. Looks like community college is where kids with little means go to get an education now. Where do kids with limited means live? Hilliard? Assistance only goes so far unless you are very poor or are talented enough to get a great scholarship. Anyway, it is what it is. Carry on, not trying to move the thread off it's subject.

It's less because it's not the same issue. METRO is not complying with a safety requirement they promised the FTA they would meet. Therefore, the fine structure is different. If METRO had a similar arrangement with the FTA as RTA/Cleveland did I'm pretty sure the same action would have been taken.

Somebody mentioned upthread the FTA wouldn't financially hurt a large city transit system like they are attempting to with the RTA and the closure of Superior. That's not true: FTA to withhold 5% of FY2017 funding from D.C., Maryland and Virginia http://www.metro-magazine.com/government-issues/news/719991/fta-to-withhold-5-of-fy2017-funding-from-d-c-maryland-and-virginia While 5% may not sound like all that much ridership is down 20% across the system from last year. METRO is in a financial death spiral that would put even RTA's to shame. The FTA is not just picking on Cleveland.

There's a casino in the south Baltimore suburbs called Maryland "Live!". I was wondering if that was the same outfit as well.

Exactly. I think sometimes people here get too caught up in whether something fits their personal taste or if they would use it themselves when the real question should be "does it work?" In fairness, people are now assuming Live! is going to be built because Jarboe has reported on it and Stark has promised it. Yet this project still has the same financing issues as yesterday, nothing has changed. Article was a little light on why this whole thing keeps getting pushed back considering she was talking to the man in charge.

No cities in Africa, no cities in Asia, no cities in South America, no cities in Latin America. Basically Western/Northern Europe, Canada and the largest city in Australia. Sounds about right for the Davos crowd. "Reputability" and "level of trust" are just really idiotic criteria. Rome (#8) has a high-moderate level of crime including theft, robbery and vandalism. Not to mention serious problems with corruption and bribery. I didn't even think about that. Even though Tokyo is the safest city in the world if you're a Europhile responding to this survey you'll pretend Copenhagen is. Edit: From the article: On top of trust, esteem, admiration and respect, cities are also rated on their economy, business environment and the efficiency of their administration. My bad, they aren't even looking at safety. Yeah, you could put cities in any order with those categories. Then I look and see that there are only 55 cities ranked and Seattle, a smaller city, is on the list. This tells me the survey excluded a lot of larger population centers making it less global and more selective.

No cities in Africa, no cities in Asia, no cities in South America, no cities in Latin America. Basically Western/Northern Europe, Canada and the largest city in Australia. Sounds about right for the Davos crowd.