Cranley (and thus the city) wants Oakley because it would fit in with his past support for development in the area. Enlightening article here: http://enquirer.com/editions/2002/10/22/loc_oakley22.html To be fair- someone, sometime will have to do something with that site lest it sit vacant for years.

 

 

 

 

From that 2002 article: "What we're seeing is what I consider to be a kind of political myopia," said Jon Doucleff of the Oakley Community Council. "What they're going after - national, big box retail - is an economic black hole for this city."

 

People were even thinking like we do about the site back then. BTW, he owned the single-family house I lived in during the late 2000s. Nice guy.

 

 

"Everywhere I go, people ask, `Why are you letting Newport and Norwood kick your butt?' " said Councilman John Cranley, an enthusiastic supporter of the Vandercar project.

 

Oh, I know how to not get your butt kicked by Newport. Build a Circuit City.

When is the announcement expected for Cincinnati's MLS team?

When is the announcement expected for Cincinnati's MLS team?

 

An important question to ask...if FCC doesn't make it into MLS, what happens to this stadium plan? Does the ownership still build the same sized stadium and does the city/county still put up the same amount of money for new infrastructure? Fans keep saying that this stadium is worth the investment because it will help us get to MLS. But if we remain a USL team is it still worth the investment?

When is the announcement expected for Cincinnati's MLS team?

 

An important question to ask...if FCC doesn't make it into MLS, what happens to this stadium plan? Does the ownership still build the same sized stadium and does the city/county still put up the same amount of money for new infrastructure? Fans keep saying that this stadium is worth the investment because it will help us get to MLS. But if we remain a USL team is it still worth the investment?

 

No, they will continue to play at Nippert if they don't make it into the MLS. There will be a second round of expansions (tbd date) after this first round.

When is the announcement expected for Cincinnati's MLS team?

 

An important question to ask...if FCC doesn't make it into MLS, what happens to this stadium plan? Does the ownership still build the same sized stadium and does the city/county still put up the same amount of money for new infrastructure? Fans keep saying that this stadium is worth the investment because it will help us get to MLS. But if we remain a USL team is it still worth the investment?

 

All signs seems to indicate that if a deal is struck for Newport or Oakley - it only gets built if the FC Cincinnati bid is accepted. As troeros[/member] stated, if the bid is declined then I doubt they move forward and we repeat this same process over again for the next round of expansion. At this time, MLS has only stated that will be "at a later date."

 

What could get interesting is if FCC doesn't get an MLS bid in either round, do they eventually try to push for a smaller, USL friendly, ~10,000 seat stadium someday ala what Louisville is doing?

Words cannot express how absurd it is for the City or the County to be facilitating this stadium by the payment of money. Harold Hill aka Berding already has fans referring to FC as "we" and "our" as though they somehow share in the limelight of the team. I think that Lindner knows who the owner is, and who the customers are. He just perceives the opportunity to drain the City/County coffer of a little spare change. The whole thing makes me want to vomit.

 

On a similar subject, a wise chap once said: "there is an ass for every seat."

 

Nothing could be more apropos.

Have their been any details released regarding land acquisition costs? Who would pay for the land? How much would the acquisition cost?

 

The <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/364731343/FC-Cincinnati-Public-Infrastructure-Improvements#from_embed">City ordinance</a> mentions "the approximately 15-acre former Cast-Fab Technologies, Inc., site".

 

But that parcel is - according to the Auditor - 25 acres. So what happens to the other 10 acres?

I wouldn't be so upset with the city offering the TIF alone, or even the TIF and Blue Ash Airport proceeds alone.  But adding in a dedicated funding source for 30 years of 1.5 million a year is too far IMO.

 

That is worth $45 million over 30 years, and add in the TIF and Blue Ash proceeds, that brings the total from the city at around $62 million over 30 years.  Almost as much as the city contribution to the streetcar!

Why not Hamilton county fairgrounds?

 

It was offered and rejected

I wonder if the Cincinnati Gardens site was considered at all. You know, since the Port Authority will build and own the new stadium, and the Port Authority already owns the land where Cincinnati Gardens is located, and already plans on demolishing that venue.

A few thoughts:

 

1) PBS is a nonstarter. It always has been. It wouldn't be profitable, the atmosphere would be terrible because they wouldn't draw enough to make the gameday experience anything to talk about. A bad experience leads to fewer people going to games, which leads to a worse gameday experience. Also, if they were going to use an existing stadium, they would just stay at Nippert. The only reason we are talking about PBS is because the county continues to push it even though they know it isn't feasible. They are just wasting everyone's time. MLS has all but said new teams require a new stadium. I believe there are certain instances where ownership groups overlap and they can work with new teams (like they did for Atlanta), but I don't think any of the next 4 expansion teams are going to play in an NFL stadium.

 

2) I would like to see the financial models for FCC using Nippert, but there are a lot of reasons why FCC wouldn't want to go to Nippert for MLS. They can't sell naming rights to the stadium, which potentially leaves 5-8 million on the table every year. They don't have priority for scheduling events, so a playoff push could interfere with UC Football (NYCFC shares a stadium with minority owner New York Yankees, and they've had to play several home games in Connecticut because they couldn't play at Yankee Stadium). The regular season would interfere as well, but that can be worked out since schedules are planned far in advance. They would either have to pay a lot of money to bring in a natural grass field, or they would have to play on turf forever. Turf is a nonstarter for the USMNT, and it scares away some older big European names, which damages our ability to sign big players. Some of the older players coming from Europe will either refuse to play on turf, or won't play a full 90 minutes because of the risk of injury. If the older players don't want to play on turf, I can't imagine any great player in their prime trying to play half of their games on a turf field. And we don't have the big-city amenities that would help attract a huge star like Atlanta, New York, LA, or Chicago have. Louisville City hosted the USL Final at Slugger Field last week, and they had to pay $85,000 to bring in natural grass to cover the infield for that single game, and that's just a small portion of the playing surface. Bringing in an entire surface has to be very expensive (especially if it has to be trucked in from far away since you aren't exactly growing it on campus). On top of all of this, there is no permanent space for FCC at Nippert. They don't have a locker room, they don't have an office for the coach, they barely have space to store banners at the stadium that they have to put up and take down for every match. Sightlines from the Bailey (supporter section) are really bad for the goal line closest to it, and you honestly can't see the goal line or corners unless you are in the first couple rows. There is no kitchen at Nippert, so all food must be brought in and heated, meaning they are stuck with the largely crap food that Aramark supplies (and they can't negotiate with another supplier since, you know, they don't have the rights to that). There are so many obstacles to Nippert that it doesn't make sense as a long term home for MLS. It could work for a while in USL, but even that league is looking for all teams to have a soccer specific stadium, so it's only a matter of time before USL says "no more" or possibly UC wants the stadium entirely for football or wants more money from FCC after their lease needs to be renewed. There's a lot of uncertainty with Nippert Stadium since they don't own the stadium.

 

3) Perhaps I've convinced you that there actually needs to be a new stadium in order for FCC to make it into MLS. So now we look at the proposals for a stadium. I personally don't like the Oakley site. I think traffic will be a nightmare regardless of infrastructure changes they put in. Oakley Station is a soulless wasteland that can be marginally improved if denser development is put in. The West End is unlikely right now because of the huge number of property owners, and the inability to negotiate with all of them before the expansion decision is made. Perhaps the team can submit Newport or Oakley, and then work with the property owners and update their plans with MLS (who would likely approve of the change) after they win expansion. But for the December 14 expansion decision, FCC cannot submit West End as their site. I would rather have Newport than Oakley because it is a more urban development. The riverfront garage can be used and people can cross the Roebling and Taylor-Southgate Bridges just like they currently do in reverse for Reds games.

 

Things that are unreasonable to me: saying no public money at all should be used to build infrastructure for the stadium. Disagreeing to even allow TIF money to be used for this is really short-sighted. Professional sports teams do bring in money and attention to the city that is beneficial. How beneficial can be debated, but arguing that is is all money being thrown at a rich person to make them richer is an uneducated take. Their own financial models show FCC making like $12 million in profit after 10 years if they own their own stadium. Carl Lindner III isn't doing this to make a quick buck. If this happens, he likely won't see the team make him noticeably richer. Sure, the money isn't being thrown out since it would be going into assets like the team and stadium, but there are far better ways for him to be spending his money that would get him a better return. I'm not going to claim he's doing all of this out of the goodness of his heart, but no one else can claim this is strictly a financial decision by the Lindners who are just trying to fleece the taxpayers.

 

Things that are reasonable to me: disagreeing with the "improvements" to Oakley that will increase vehicular traffic. Disagreeing with anti-pedestrian changes. Disagreeing with using the Blue Ash Airport money for this project since it could be used in other ways that I would agree are more important for the city. Using hotel tax revenue to help fund infrastructure changes to Oakley to facilitate a stadium (those dollars have to be tied to tourism related expenses).

 

And if an agreement can be reached where FCC makes money from the garage on game days, and the city/county makes the revenue from non-game days, I think that would be a fair deal as long as the city forces new development to be largely office (with storefronts) that would utilize the garage on weekdays and encourage denser development that wouldn't need its own parking. Perhaps even limiting the required parking for those buildings currently built, so they can sell off land to additional development. Oakley Station will never be great, but it can be made better.

^ If you change the equation and instead of using 75 million to build a soccer stadium for a rich billionaire but rather spend that money on the same infrastructure improvement that will bring a new Fortune 500 HQ to town (no operations) with about the same number of jobs, and o' the company gets a 80% employment tax credit,  people would jump on this in a heartbeat, but to me, the stadium deal actually would make more sense, fiscally.

 

People are just still too salty about PBS that they would rather cut off their nose to spite their face.

Two years ago I wasn't even close to being a soccer fan.  I attended 12 or so games at Nippert over the past few years because it was close to the urban core.  I clearly have a good time and the sport is growing on me but this move will probably loose me as a fan/customer.  I know their may be 10 more people that step in to take my place, but I feel that the atmosphere of the past few years will be something we look back on years from now and talk about as the best of times. 

 

The rushing of this deal AFTER the election, political back door secrets, and Berding being associated with the original Bengals/Reds stadium deal are making people see FCC in a negative light where as the past few years they have been the darling of the city.

 

If this isn't going to go in the basin between Clifton and the river, I'd be happy with just staying in the USL and Nippert. 

P.G. says he will vote no.

^ If you change the equation and instead of using 75 million to build a soccer stadium for a rich billionaire but rather spend that money on the same infrastructure improvement that will bring a new Fortune 500 HQ to town (no operations) with about the same number of jobs, and o' the company gets a 80% employment tax credit,  people would jump on this in a heartbeat, but to me, the stadium deal actually would make more sense, fiscally.

 

People are just still too salty about PBS that they would rather cut off their nose to spite their face.

 

Both generate jobs but what type of jobs also matters. With GE you generate a lot of middle class jobs. With a stadium you generate a few super high paying jobs and a whole lot of below-minimum-wage restaurant and bar jobs.

Oakley as a stadium site is almost 100% a non-starter for me. The only exception would be if it came along with BRT or LRT, full stop. I think the city is in a position to request money from the team owners for this cause, with a city match to get it done. (Think along the lines of the Detroit streetcar.) But I would be willing to compromise on this and have this be the "infrastructure" provided for the stadium. Removing bumpouts and taking away people's yards for an extra lane on Madison, though? Total non-starter. If that's what it takes to get an MLS team, screw the MLS. (Side note: Claiming the owners are willing to 100% fund the stadium when they won't be funding the parking garage is a dirty semantic trick none of us should let them get away with.)

 

It's too late to have these discussions, though. I guess something like these discussions has been taking place for months in smoky backrooms, but it's too late to get sufficient public input prior to the MLS deadline. I can't support a stadium plan that involves public financing for this round of expansion. Waiting until after the November election to discuss public funding, when the deadline is mid-December, is an irredeemable folly.

Some TV stations are reporting Dieters told Portune as early as September that having FCC playing at PBS was illegal. So that's something. But it appears Driehaus and Monzel are Yes votes for FCC.

 

Anyways with PG a no (who wrote a very well thought out rationale argument as opposed to Seelbach's insane rant) we are at:

 

PG - No

Seelbach - No

Simpson - No (probably)

Murray - Yes

Flynn - Yes

Mann - Yes (probably)

Smitherman - Yes (probably)

 

The question is how will Winburn and Young vote.

 

 

Some TV stations are reporting Dieters told Portune as early as September that having FCC playing at PBS was illegal. So that's something. But it appears Driehaus and Monzel are Yes votes for FCC.

 

Anyways with PG a no (who wrote a very well thought out rationale argument as opposed to Seelbach's insane rant) we are at:

 

PG - No

Seelbach - No

Simpson - No (probably)

Murray - Yes

Flynn - Yes

Mann - Yes (probably)

Smitherman - Yes (probably)

 

The question is how will Winburn and Young vote.

 

My guess is Winburn will be a yes vote. If they both vote no, I predict PG will change his vote after he gets a few minor concessions from the team or county.

I drove up I-71 this morning and kept an eye out for this spot.  Highway visibility is significantly hampered by the various railroad overpasses.  Sure, you will be able to see a stadium there, but it's not going to be anything like what exists in a lot of other places.  Also, I'm not sure that visibility for ancillary development is going to be any good either.  Office buildings in this location won't have the visibility of the Kenwood Collection or Rookwood, for example. 

Yeah, pretty much all you can see is Mt. Meijer.

^Not only that but, how much more do we need to open up office development in the 71 corridor when we already have now the MLK interchange?  I know Rookwood is filled up now mostly, but just wondering on demand for that and then will it pull developments away from MLK or downtown?

I wonder if the Cincinnati Gardens site was considered at all. You know, since the Port Authority will build and own the new stadium, and the Port Authority already owns the land where Cincinnati Gardens is located, and already plans on demolishing that venue.

It would be awesome if this whole thing was a charade and they actually built this there and spurred development around that site and the ones close by in bond hill

Everyone always talks about the "huge" number of property owners for the West End site. But take a look at this rendering of the West End site and then pull up CAGIS. I count 6 property owners: Board of Education, City of Cincinnati, Lighthouse Ministries, Provident Bank, Run in Run Out LLC, and Brooks Stoney Lee. The vast majority of the space is owned by the board of education. Is it really unrealistic to buy these properties? If FCC really wanted this area, the song and dance routine with Oakley and Newport would be exactly the thing to make Lighthouse ministries not hold out on a good offer (for a crazy high offer).

It looks like there is also a PNC Bank parcel too. I'm not sure why Provident Bank is listed still as owners (since they were bought out by National City, then PNC) but the Elder Carl Lindner used to hold controlling interest in Provident Bank (conspiracy theories anyone?). Maybe all of these are PNC controlled?

^ That's a good looking site.

What was with Seelbach's bizarre anti-stadium rant?

 

I'm told the Mayor could bring Council a "deal" tomorrow that could recommend using somewhere between $15,000,000 and $75,000,000 of tax payer money to build a new Soccer Stadium. (Enquirer & WCPO reporting numbers)

 

Let me be clear: Bring me a $15,000,000 to $75,000,000 deal to fight poverty, address addiction or build a new District 5 police station, upgraded firehouses or replace the Western Hills Viaduct, you've got my support.

 

I've spent a lot of time in the last 7 years listening to Cincinnatians about what they want City Hall to focus on.

 

Not once, not a single person...has said building a brand new soccer stadium is a priority, especially given the current arrangement working very successfully.

 

Why do they want a new stadium? Because the value of the team increases exponentially if they are accepted into Major League Soccer. And MLS requires a soccer specific stadium.

 

And if they get the tax-payer funded new stadium...and into the MSL...

 

Guess what that does?

 

Makes wealthy white guys...more wealthy.

 

No thanks.

 

I do not like the implication that if the owners happened to be a different race or gender, they might garner his support. There are plenty of reasons to oppose spending on infrastructure for a new stadium... but the fact that the owners are white men is not among those reasons.

^ Seelbach, what a hypocrite and a clown.

 

I wonder if some of this is just to spite Cranley. If it was being pushed by Simpson or one of the progressives, would Seelbach have been for it?

 

Maybe, they can throw in one of his $50k public toilets and it may change his mind.

I'm reading elsewhere that FC Cincinnati hired Chris Finney.  So there will be no opposition from COAST.

 

The fix is in. 

Cincinnati councilman Sittenfeld will oppose FC Cincinnati stadium plan; where do others stand?

 

With six days until the vote, only four of the nine Cincinnati City Council members have said where they stand on Mayor John Cranley’s plan to spend $52 million of taxpayer dollars to build infrastructure that will support a new soccer-specific stadium for FC Cincinnati and other, later development.

 

Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld announced Tuesday morning that he would oppose the plan as drafted today, saying that the club has failed to adequately answer questions raised about the deal and that it's being rushed through.

---------------------------------------------------------------

David Mann (D): UNDECIDED

Charlie Winburn ®: UNDECIDED

P.G. Sittenfeld (D): NO

Chris Seelbach (D): NO

Amy Murray ®: YES

Kevin Flynn ©: YES

Christopher Smitherman (I): NO RESPONSE

Yvette Simpson (D): NO RESPONSE

Wendell Young (D): NO RESPONSE

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/11/21/cincinnati-councilman-sittenfeld-will-oppose-fc.html

FC Cincinnati signs option for Oakley stadium site

 

 

FC Cincinnati owners have signed an option to buy a site in Oakley to build a soccer stadium, filling one of the key remaining criteria needed to win a Major League Soccer expansion franchise.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/11/21/exclusive-fc-cincinnati-signs-option-for-oakley.html

FCC has signed an option to buy the Cast-Fab site, though the purchase option and final purchase price haven't been disclosed. The asking price was $17 million:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/11/21/exclusive-fc-cincinnati-signs-option-for-oakley.html

^^ Why would an MLS FCC be playing NYRB2?

^^ Why would an MLS FCC be playing NYRB2?

 

There's a good chance MLS may accept NYRB2's bid as well as ours.

Has FCC said how they'd make the numbers work for the Newport site? Who would fund infrastructure and parking?

This Oakley deal absolutely reeks of typical Cranley cronyism.  The fact that it's being rushed makes it seem especially stinky.

This Oakley deal absolutely reeks of typical Cranley cronyism.  The fact that it's being rushed makes it seem especially stinky.

 

 

Cast Fab site was just purchased for less than $2 million. Now it's gonna go for $17mill? Cranley must be friends with the owner.

 

With cranley structuring the deal so the port owns it, will taxpayers now have to pay for the environmental remediation that suddenly pops up??  I'd bet Cast Fab is a suspect site for this.

 

Run from this deal. It's awful.

 

Has FCC said how they'd make the numbers work for the Newport site? Who would fund infrastructure and parking?

 

Berding knows he is dealing with children and does not even have to describe the pretend competition as even a horse, much less a stalking horse.

^ Is there some sort of standard for what is "routinely covered by governments?" Is he just talking about other stadium developments? I've known developers who wanted to do something as small as add a single traffic light - the government didn't pay for anything. All of the cost is passed on to the developer, in addition to fees.

 

WCPO dug into this. They found an old memo where the city explained that they do not pay for the infrastructure costs of new developments:

 

As stated above, transportation improvements that are required to address traffic generated by a specific development is a cost that is borne by the developer with public funding reserved for transportation improvements that address more general and area-wide transportation needs. There are several recent examples of developer-borne improvements. As part of the development of a Walmart and Kroger in Westwood, Glen Hills Way was built to connect Ferguson and Boudinot to provide access to the new development. As part of this project, Boudinot was widened and the traffic signal modified at the intersection of Boudinot, Crookshank and Glenway. The Drexel housing development at Paxton and the Hyde Park Plaza required the traffic signal to be rebuilt to incorporate the new driveway and added traffic of the development. University Hospital was required to widen Albert Sabin Way and modify the existing traffic signal at Burnett and Albert Sabin Way to accommodate the additional traffic demands caused by the construction of a new parking garage for their employees. Each of these transportation system improvements was totally funded by the developer of the project.

Jeff Berding makes my skin crawl...

Since we haven't heard anything about the environmental cleanup necessary at the Cast-Fab site, FC might be using this all as an elaborate ruse.  If they get the team in December, they might "discover" in early 2018 that the site needs extensive cleanup, and then pivot to the site where they have planned to build all along. 

 

That deal will be better for the public than the current deal, so they'll look like heroes. 

This Oakley deal absolutely reeks of typical Cranley cronyism.  The fact that it's being rushed makes it seem especially stinky.

 

If you look at the other deals out there for the other cities, their teams are not bringing anywhere near as much to the table as the Cincinnati group. People need to take a deep breath and not be stupid on this.

^They seem to be very well-funded.

This Oakley deal absolutely reeks of typical Cranley cronyism.  The fact that it's being rushed makes it seem especially stinky.

 

If you look at the other deals out there for the other cities, their teams are not bringing anywhere near as much to the table as the Cincinnati group. People need to take a deep breath and not be stupid on this.

 

Cincinnati is gaining nothing from this random unwalkable suburban location any more than any other random unwalkable suburban location.  Surely there is a random suburban location where this thing could be built where much less site prep would be necessary.

 

The dead Glenway Crossing, for example:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Glenway+Crossing/@39.1309134,-84.6166293,795m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x8841ca0c50c5b44b:0xa241d1c94a0d5318!8m2!3d39.1309093!4d-84.6144353

 

 

 

jmecklenborg[/member]

 

1) Glenway Crossing is a horrible location that does not offer highway access and is not easy to access by road or walking. It is like saying that they should play in the Elder Pit (or in your case, St X high school) just because it is there.

 

2) Oakley is a vibrant neighborhood that has infrastructure there and the contiguous land. The largest season tix fan base lives there. There is walkability. It is not like Mapfre in Cbus which is a giant field, surrounded by slum property and highway. Oakley offers amenities for fans before and after the game. Adding this could contribute to its density. More apartments and hotels in the area will be built and more people will live there to enjoy walking to games and such. Heck, it could even be open to the public on non game days (like UC does Nippert) to allow the residents to use the stands for exercise and other activities. They could have Wi-Fi and meeting areas for local entrepreuners like CrossRoads does to encourage more business development in the area.

 

Point being, Oakley has a bit of an infrastructure built up already to allow the stadium to build off this more. GlenCrossing or other suburban areas do not offer this.

 

And for the record, Yes, I would prefer OTR or Newport first and foremost but I am not going to say no when you have someone willing to pay 200+ million to develop the property

The problem is someone comes along and takes the team away if its not in the core. You get to keep the team if you build a downtown stadium 12 years later for twice as much.

If you suggest that the stadium can't help motivate other types of investment if it were built on the west side, then you concede that it won't in Oakley.  In which case it doesn't matter where it is built and should be put in a place where it only requires $10 million in "infrastructure", not $75 million. 

 

Fact is that this thing *would* kick off a lot of investor interest in the long-beleaguered West End.  If the city is going to drop big public dollars, it should be in a place where it actually kick starts ancillary investment. 

 

With or without this stadium, Oakley is till "Oakley".  A bunch of massively overpriced "starter homes" for people whose parents gave them $50,000 wedding gifts. 

 

 

I couldn't believe how much the place I was renting was worth when I looked it up. It was a one-bedroom house (second "bedroom" had an outside entry door therefore didn't count) and it was 10 years ago.

The problem is someone comes along and takes the team away if its not in the core. You get to keep the team if you build a downtown stadium 12 years later for twice as much.

 

That is patently untrue and the situation In Columbus is apples and oranges. If you think the Crew are moving because of the lack of a downtown stadium in CBUS you are delusional. This is just a smokescreen to get them to move because the owner wanted to move them to Austin the day he bought the team. He has set the bar so high in Columbus that he knows the city will never meet what he wants so he can move the team. It is called negotiating in bad faith.

 

The difference between Cincy and CBUS is local ownership. All those families live in Cincy and will continue to live here. That makes a huge difference. What happens 25 years later, of course we cant predict that however, I have a lot more faith in the long term stability of the franchise when you have a local ownership group instead of a carpetbagger from California who does not know Columbus from Kalamazoo.

 

If you suggest that the stadium can't help motivate other types of investment if it were built on the west side, then you concede that it won't in Oakley.  In which case it doesn't matter where it is built and should be put in a place where it only requires $10 million in "infrastructure", not $75 million. 

 

Fact is that this thing *would* kick off a lot of investor interest in the long-beleaguered West End.  If the city is going to drop big public dollars, it should be in a place where it actually kick starts ancillary investment. 

 

With or without this stadium, Oakley is till "Oakley".  A bunch of massively overpriced "starter homes" for people whose parents gave them $50,000 wedding gifts. 

 

 

 

jmecklenborg[/member] - The big plus Oakley has is highway frontage and a central location. No where on the West Side can you get this. If you had a good spot in Montfort Heights, I could at least see the merits in your point a little better but Oakley and Glen Crossing are not even in the same ballpark because of the transportation issue alone.  I would absolutely love to see the stadium on the West End or OTR but I am not going to let the deal slip away because it does not align completely with my vision (especially since I am not the one investing $200 million)

This Oakley deal absolutely reeks of typical Cranley cronyism.  The fact that it's being rushed makes it seem especially stinky.

 

If you look at the other deals out there for the other cities, their teams are not bringing anywhere near as much to the table as the Cincinnati group. People need to take a deep breath and not be stupid on this.

 

Um, what? You're the one that shared this article with me:

 

San Diego

Stadium cost: $200 million

 

Team's contribution: The entire $4 billion redevelopment project and stadium will be privately funded. San Diego State University would be kicking in $100 million to use the 32,000-seat facility for football.

 

What will the public pay for? Nothing. In fact, the city currently loses $12 million a year maintaining the current Qualcomm Stadium, which would be replaced in this project.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/insider/fc-cincinnati-wants-75m-heres-what-other-cities-will-kick-in-for-new-mls-stadiums

^ I was referring to the finalists - San Diego dropped out a while back.