March 12, 201411 yr This is starting to look like a poker game, where Cranley is trying to bluff to get them all in.
April 15, 201411 yr GE ain't gonna wanna hear either about Cranley or why that 30-story (+) residential tower @ 4th & Race ain't gonna happen. (Agreed?) Cranley needs to be kicked to the curb and booted into history. (AGREED?)
April 15, 201411 yr He's running out of deals/contracts to break from the Mallory admin, so hopefully he comes up w/ some (positive) ideas of his own soon.
April 15, 201411 yr Supposed to break ground in July 2014 Last I heard the City (Cranley) wouldn't pay for Paragon to move, then the developer stepped in and said they would pay. But I never heard confirmation that everything was resolved and it was ready to go in July. Was there ever final confirmation that this project is a go?
April 15, 201411 yr ^ You said it all, natininja; Cranley may be dumb, but he ain't stupid. (And, as you observed many months ago--on this upcoming special day, this political opportunist will be the first one to "cut the ribbon" of Cincinnati's new streetcar--and he won't blink an eye.) :roll:
April 15, 201411 yr Cranley is such a child. Anyway, I think the forward progress downtown has such good momentum that even Cranley can't stop it. Its clear he's not a city boy and could care less what happens down there. He has no clue what an urban core truly is or how important it is. 4Th and Race will happen. There's too many that care outside of the Cranlenator. Just my rant.
May 9, 201411 yr Cincinnati serves eviction notice to Paragon Salons Erin Caproni Paragon Salons is continuing its operations at its Fourth and Race location despite an eviction notice served May 3 by the city of Cincinnati. Co-owner Steve Celek said he received a “typical business eviction notice” that gave the company three days to move out of its space following a lawsuit Paragon filed against the city in March. http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/05/09/cincinnati-serves-eviction-notice-to-paragon.html
May 9, 201411 yr Don't plan on seeing anything happening for the next two years on this. Unless a miracle happens and everyone plays nice.
May 10, 201411 yr I wonder if a nail house treatment is in their future? A simple structure like this could be selectively demolished while the suit is ongoing, for instance.
May 11, 201411 yr It's not dead today just on hold indefinitely which will, in turn, kill it. Good luck fighting the lease.
May 11, 201411 yr It's not dead today just on hold indefinitely which will, in turn, kill it. Good luck fighting the lease. How long is the lease? I don't see why they refuse to move. The developer is even offering to pay to move them. I just don't get it.
May 11, 201411 yr It's not dead today just on hold indefinitely which will, in turn, kill it. Good luck fighting the lease. How long is the lease? I don't see why they refuse to move. The developer is even offering to pay to move them. I just don't get it. Its Cranley's way or the highway.
May 11, 201411 yr It's not dead today just on hold indefinitely which will, in turn, kill it. Good luck fighting the lease. How long is the lease? I don't see why they refuse to move. The developer is even offering to pay to move them. I just don't get it. Its Cranley's way or the highway. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that all Paragon has to do is move and then the project can proceed.
May 11, 201411 yr It's not dead today just on hold indefinitely which will, in turn, kill it. Good luck fighting the lease. How long is the lease? I don't see why they refuse to move. The developer is even offering to pay to move them. I just don't get it. Its Cranley's way or the highway. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that all Paragon has to do is move and then the project can proceed. They were going to move until Cranley broke the previous deal from the Mallory admin & now is holding everything up.
May 12, 201411 yr I heard from a pretty reliable source that Cranley refused to meet with the owners. Apparently they requested to meet with him he flat out ignored them. That doesn't sound good.
May 12, 201411 yr This is really troubling. Why would Cranley want to kill this project? It makes no sense.
May 12, 201411 yr This is really troubling. Why would Cranley want to kill this project? It makes no sense. Much like the streetcar, Cranley knows he won't be able to take credit for its eventual success. Many of his actions have illustrated his arrogance and this one continues to build upon that. He does not want the previous administration to get credit for any more successes, even if it is in the best interest of the city. Cranley may have the cities best interest in mind when he makes his decisions, but first and foremost he has his own self-image in mind. With this project in particular, he can hold it up and risk stopping it altogether (should investors get fed up waiting on it and invest in something else) while making the Salon owner look like the cause (how the Enquirer seems to be painting the picture so far).
May 12, 201411 yr Also someone who donated to his campaign might be planning a similar apartment project. If Cranley can keep this one held up until the friend's project gets off the ground, or even until the end of his reign, then he gets a pat on the back from one of his scumbag buddies.
May 12, 201411 yr I don't know if you guys look at FYI memos to council, but on the council's website you can go to council online. If you click the FYI Memos and then leave the search criteria blank, you can get a list in reverse chronological order. The most recent one lays out the city's strategy. It's not something I've seen reported anywhere, and therefore can't have been Cranley's idea.
May 12, 201411 yr Also someone who donated to his campaign might be planning a similar apartment project. If Cranley can keep this one held up until the friend's project gets off the ground, or even until the end of his reign, then he gets a pat on the back from one of his scumbag buddies. So let's just connect some dots and suspect that one of Cranley's "buddies" just might be John Barrett himself. (Makes sense, doesn't it? After all, in Barrett's powerful grasp, Cranley's nothing more than just another perfect tool.)
May 12, 201411 yr I don't know if you guys look at FYI memos to council, but on the council's website you can go to council online. If you click the FYI Memos and then leave the search criteria blank, you can get a list in reverse chronological order. The most recent one lays out the city's strategy. It's not something I've seen reported anywhere, and therefore can't have been Cranley's idea. Here is a link: http://city-egov.cincinnati-oh.gov/Webtop/ws/fyi/public/fyi_docs/Blob/3215.pdf?rpp=-10&m=1&w=doc_no%3D%272717%27 This is a really weird strategy: 1) the City is taking the position that Paragon has no right to occupy the space and does not consider them a tenant. (Doesn't Paragon have a lease through 2017? Doesn't that give them a right to occupy the space?) 2) Since the City doesn't consider Paragon a tenant they have refused to accept any rent from Paragon. So far the have foregone $100,000. (If the City feels like they would be conceding a point if they collected rent, why not put the rent into an escrow account until the matter is settled? It seems really irresponsible to turn down money that could be used to offset City expenses just to make a legal point.)
May 12, 201411 yr Sounds like someone with money and lawyers might be advising and/or paying off the owners of this salon to act the way they are in order to enable their greater strategy.
May 12, 201411 yr I heard from a pretty reliable source that Cranley refused to meet with the owners. Apparently they requested to meet with him he flat out ignored them. That doesn't sound good. Having read the memo posted above, considering the pending legal matters, it makes sense that Cranley wouldn't meet with them. Sounds like someone with money and lawyers might be advising and/or paying off the owners of this salon to act the way they are in order to enable their greater strategy. My gut tells me occam's razor applies here. My guess is Paragon just doesn't want to move unless they get a sweet deal. Based on that memo, it is worth it for them to sit tight and hold out because they don't have to pay rent.
May 12, 201411 yr Sounds like someone with money and lawyers might be advising and/or paying off the owners of this salon to act the way they are in order to enable their greater strategy. Perhaps so...but, then again, why is anyone still fighting over a hair salon-vs-a thirty-story high rise w/an urban grocery?! Geezus, relocate that friggin' hair salon somewhere else and build this thirty-story resident high-rise now!
May 12, 201411 yr Can we please get a permanent city manager? I'm not comfortable with Cranley having so much influence over the "interim" manager who decides these strategies. "Cranley will have to rein in his dictatorial tendencies," as the Enquirer put it.
May 12, 201411 yr I hardly think that there will be a different permanent manager besides Stiles. The Mayor chooses the manager and council approves. Council has said nothing but good things about Stiles and Cranley has 5 votes, easily.
May 12, 201411 yr So then upgrade his status. If what you're saying is true, the only reason I can see for keeping him as an interim manager is for Cranley to hold the possibility of selecting someone else over his head to keep him under Cranley's finger.
May 12, 201411 yr I don't expect that it will change after he's made permanent after a paper search for a new manager costing a few hundred thousand dollars. The Mayor/Manager roles are so screwed up that it lets the Mayor sort of decide how involved he'll be.
May 12, 201411 yr Correct me if I'm wrong - but if the hair salon has paid rent, but it has been returned - technically wouldn't that amount eventually add up to the cost of a buildout and/or relocation? It'd be best if they can just agree after being there that they relocate, with some assistance on a new location from the developer and saving rent so this can move forward...
May 24, 201411 yr Fourth & Race deal reflects complex questions Bowdeya Tweh, [email protected] 11:05 p.m. EDT May 23, 2014 One of downtown Cincinnati’s most high-profile real estate developments has become entangled in myriad questions that threaten to further stall the project’s progress. Officially, Indianapolis-based Flaherty & Collins Properties has an agreement with the city to raze the Pogue’s Garage at Fourth and Race streets and build a $97 million high-rise with luxury apartments, a grocery store and 1,000 parking spaces. http://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2014/05/23/fourth-race-deal-reflects-complex-questions/9526105/
June 6, 201411 yr According to the March 4 story by Chris Wetterich, the developer was trying to get New Market Tax Credits for this project. The Courier is reporting that Cincinnati didn't get any New Market Tax Credits this go around. http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/morning_call/2014/06/cincinnati-shut-out-of-federal-tax-credits.html?ed=2014-06-06&s=newsletter&ana=e_cinci_rdup
June 9, 201411 yr New info.... I think this project is gonna happen, I hope. http://m.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/06/09/fourth-and-race-deal-gets-overhaul.html
June 9, 201411 yr I'm happy to see things are moving forward, but not at all happy to see a potential downsizing by a third and it appears the grocery store might be in jeopardy. That's a huge downgrade. Hopefully in the end the sizing doesn't change that much from the original intention.
June 9, 201411 yr So far, the only thing that's for certain is Cranley's ongoing destruction of progress in Cincinnati, including right here.
June 9, 201411 yr So basically remove all the things worth getting excited about to make the project as lame as possible.
June 9, 201411 yr I don't know if I'd go that far. A 20ish story residential tower replacing the worst garage downtown is still a big deal. It would be a great project and a huge asset, but would be a massive lost opportunity if we lost the grocery store and the extra height 100 units would allow.
June 9, 201411 yr Hopefully 3cdc will get a deal worked out. If the developer thinks a grocery store on the first floor is market worthy hopefully they do that.
June 9, 201411 yr Honestly, other than the fact it was announced as part of this project, this doesn't seem like an ideal spot for an urban grocery store. Somewhere more central would provide access to downtown residents and attract more OTR residents.
June 9, 201411 yr Anyone else feel there is a "follow the money trail" conspiracy to why the grocery store component requirement was removed? If nothing else Cranley cares about his political future, and heeding the call of those with deep pockets and long-standing political clout in Cincinnati is a wise move on his part.
June 9, 201411 yr Anyone else feel there is a "follow the money trail" conspiracy to why the grocery store component requirement was removed? If nothing else Cranley cares about his political future, and heeding the call of those with deep pockets and long-standing political clout in Cincinnati is a wise move on his part. Yea, it does seem a little bit like this whole thing was orchestrated to keep a grocery store OUT of this development. Kroger does seem to be interested, at least somewhat, in a downtown Cincinnati grocery store. Could this whole debacle be on Kroger's behalf? http://www.wcpo.com/money/local-business-news/kroger-co-kr-harris-teeter-acquisition-could-lead-to-new-downtown-cincinnati-store
Create an account or sign in to comment