The Nati Life

I don't think anyone can show me development near a streetcar that was not also caused by massive government subsidies. Given their presence, one cannot attribute causality to the streetcar. If anything, it indicates that massive subsidies spur development. Well, the subsidies are already in place here, and those subsidies wouldn't go away. So if anything, development subsidies are givens in smaller cities, and what is needed is a catalyst (see FS) to spur development. The catalyst in this case is the streetcar. It will drive the market, as consumer/resident tastes and preferences are shifting toward that lifestyle.

I'm not sure where the whole homeless person anecdote is going... What does the projected lost revenue have to do with anything? The city doesn't take that loss, 3CDC does. They pay $500,000, what they always paid - 3CDC covers everything beyond that. And 3CDC gave the city $7.5M for the revenue rights. Paint and lights were badly needed. So was the security system, waterproofing, elevator renovation and payment system. The restaurant, added retail, square redesign, fountain restoration were all added bonuses I guess. Most probably couldn't tell ya what the old rates were... they never had much of a reason to park there until all the new entertainment and cultural venues went up. Those that did park under the old rates (if there was an increase) realize the cost is offset by the benefits renovation. But either way, $.50 an hour seems like a steal to me.

I'd tell you what I heard of you, but I'm trying to keep this civil. Zing.

I do like his slideshow because it's an accurate and true representation of the streetcar experience (I know - I've been), which is very important to relay to the audience. Before you continue to criticize it, I suggest you go and get an opportunity to see why streetcar advocates are so zealous about promoting it, and why we want it so badly here. Are you afraid that if you go, you'll be converted? Hmmm... As for your slideshow. First, pit bulls are illegal in the city, so it probably wouldn't be on there. And if he paid to be on the streetcar like everyone else, he deserves to ride the thing. Part of the reason for the streetcar (which goodness knows why you and your buddy Smitherman can't understand this) is to provide cheap public transit. And you DO know that 3CDC put up $38M for the square right? And the city put up $4M, right (which was a fraction of the amount it would have cost to repair the garage ONLY)? And what we ended up with was a drastically improved, welcome square that spurred tens of millions of economic activity and immesurable vibrance. Sounds like a boondoggle to me! And as for parking, I can park there for $4 flat on nights and weekends, in the safest, cleanest, easiest and best-run garage in the city. Probably should have done your research. Not a joke.

Does anyone else feel like Haap really doesn't believe all he is saying? Maybe it's just me, but I get the feeling that given his self-stated "pro-transit" stance, his seemingly-genuine desire for the city to succeed, and care for energy efficiency, that he would really be pro-streetcar. Think about it. Was he REALLY the best person to debate John? Does he have any sort of political capital? What does he stand to gain by voicing his opposition? Perhaps website traffic and subscriptions? I don't know about the rest of you, but since the debate, I've gone to his website for the first few times. Frankly, prior to the debate, I've never heard of the guy. Just a thought...

Dean - I enjoyed your post accusing the UC radio DJs of being biased. I'm so glad you brought this up, as it gives us yet another pro-streetcar point. Students and young people LIKE streetcars (gasp!)! What a wonderful thing it would be for young people to WANTto live here because of the streetcar. UC (and XU and NKU, for that matter) bring in many students from outside the region. Wouldn't it be wonderful that they stick around upon graduation after being exposed to our city? If they live here and enjoy a true urban experience (which is absolutely contingent upon a car-free lifestyle), perhaps they would be less inclined to move to cities like Chicago or DC. To me, the environmental concerns are a wash. The true argument here is that providing a true urban lifestyle will attract residents = increased tax base = economic development, (and so on and so forth). I'd be interested to see your response on this, and why you think that it's so terrible for young people (who we're so desperately trying to attract) to like the streetcar. By the way, I was at the debate, and wondered to myself why you were so ill-prepared. It seemed as though your response to many of John's points were "I don't know! More research needs to be done!" The fact is, the research has been done, and to report otherwise is irresponsible and a slap in the face to audience members who took time out of their day (took off work to get there at 4:00) to see an intelligent debate, yet seemed to be more informed of the subject matter than you were.

If you haven't checked the "stimulus watch" lately, I highly recommend you do so! Last time I checked, the "yes" vote was roughly 2:1. Now, the "no" vote took a HUGE spike over a short period of time. Not to mention that there's a lot of hyperbole and strong language for the "points against" section. I smell something fishy... or Smithery... http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/view/3393

It's all fake ... He likes the city and hopes the Banks and Streetcar goes through. Cunningham is just a wanna-be Limbaugh. It's all for ratings. The listeners are robots, therefore they can't read in between the lines. Exactly. Even in his interview in Cincinnati Gentleman (which is a great publication by the way), he said it's all his radio personality. He is a brilliant entertainer in that regard. He knows how to push peoples' buttons. I agree with about 40% of what he says, but I find him hilarious/sick/twisted/intelligent. He does love the city and wants it to succeed.

This isn't meant to be a slight, but rather an honest question. Has anyone ever heard any "success stories" from the Drop-in or places like it? I would think they would receive more funds and donations if they publicized stories of turning around peoples' lives. I think the sweeping assumption is that these places serve as a stopgap rather than helping to solve peoples' problem ("give a man a fish..., teach him to fish..."). It seems as though they focus on complaining that they're being forced from the neighborhood (and bear in mind, they won't be FORCED to do anything) rather than showing they're a valuable asset to the community.

In short, he's a city councilman who isn't qualified to be one...

Rando - a week and still nothing?

Any updates? I haven't heard of anything for some time now...

Agreed, but I live in that part of Oakley. The YPs are coming, even dramatically in the last 9 months or so. But we are in desperate need of a streetscape upgrade! And Animations is probably the best bar around! Despite the horrific name. When the owner of a bar gives out free pizza at midnight on Saturdays and you can buy a Little Kings at the bar, it doesn't get much better than that!

Been inside - quite unimpressed

Wow, I almost responded to this wondering what the hell you were talking about, then I realized you were being facetious.

Seriously, why do they need 4 separate theatres on one site? This seems absurd to me. I'd much rather see one joint theatre and have the groups rotate between there, Aronoff, Music Hall, Taft, etc. Probably unrealistic. But they said having these 4 venues could have up to 784 performances in a year??? That's over 2 per day! Do these companies draw enough individual base to pull this off? Wouldn't you venture to say that a lot of their base overlaps? Not sure how they can support such huge separate investments. I would like to see something to this effect done on that site. Some arts-related venue could help get the thing off the ground. Although, I would rather see a movie theatre there than anything.

I think St. Xavier High School actually owns that lot, not the church. Well, when you get down to the nitty gritty, the Jesuits own the lot, St. Xavier High School, XU, and St. Xavier Church. It's all one big happy Jesuit group of properties. ^Conspiracy, I tell ya!

Anyone have an "after" photo?

I thought the same thing!!! If I hadn't read the headlines, I would have sworn that's where the rendering was.

^ I think that is correct. Plus, they're quoting $5 per sf lease rates for the first year, and $10 each year thereafter, which is dirt cheap, and a good reason why some of these businesses that are start-ups will be successful.

Oh come on, a toilet's a toilet!

^ yes, they are. Any word on the one that crosses Race to the same lot?

http://natilife.blogspot.com/2008/06/cincy-quips-vol-6.html Even back then, we had a "third-rate mass transit system!" (2:18 in)

Really, what we need are multiple transit modes. And centers.

Could anyone explain this to me???