This whole Save the Bell Tower saga has made me kind of suspicious of the true intentions of First Lutheran Church.

 

How long have they known that the bell tower was basically a Jenga tower ready to topple at a moment's notice? Then they give an artificial deadline to raise an enormous sum of money to save it from imminent demolition. Add in the ridiculous request for half a million dollars from City Council in the middle of a pandemic, despite never having paid property taxes (which is their right as a non-profit, but you also don't deserve to get that property bailed out either). Now the pastor, who is not an engineer, has rejected a cheaper proposal that will meet building code requirements to save the tower.

 

I like the bell tower, don't get me wrong. It's a beautiful piece of architecture that adds a fantastic presence around Washington Park. But something just doesn't smell right with the way this whole story has unfolded.

Edited August 11, 20213 yr by OliverHazardPerry

So they are still planning on demolishing the tower just because? And the original structural engineer things it needs to be seismically braced despite Cincinnati being in the lowest rated seismic area (category A) in the USGS system?

37 minutes ago, OliverHazardPerry said:

This whole Save the Bell Tower saga has made me kind of suspicious of the true intentions of First Lutheran Church.

 

How long have they known that the bell tower was basically a Jenga tower ready to topple at a moment's notice? Then they give an artificial deadline to raise an enormous sum of money to save it from imminent demolition. Add in the ridiculous request for half a million dollars from City Council in the middle of a pandemic, despite never having paid property taxes (which is their right as a non-profit, but you also don't deserve to get that property bailed out either). Now the pastor, who is not an engineer, has rejected a cheaper proposal that will meet building code requirements to save the tower.

 

I like the bell tower, don't get me wrong. It's a beautiful piece of architecture that adds a fantastic presence around Washington Park. But something just doesn't smell right with the way this whole story has unfolded.

 

 

Oh my goodness, calm down. There is no conspiracy here.

 

Churches are volunteer, low-budget operations (well, most, including First Lutheran) and consistently have significant deferred maintenance. It should surprise no one that the church did not understand the condition of the tower. Once an engineer tells a church that their tower is collapsing, they are going to be rightly concerned about keeping people and the remainder of their facility safe.

 

First Lutheran's "artificial deadline" was based on a desire to resume in-person worship services safely. This is their primary mission, not preservation of the bell tower. The Save the Bell Tower effort, which included significant advocacy for city funding, is not the church itself but a larger community effort.

 

 

 

I wasn't trying to imply there is a conspiracy like money laundering, but that still doesn't make a compelling argument for why the city should bail out a religious organization to the tune of $500,000. The church is using the bell tower as a sob story in order to get their building back sooner. It is not actually about the architecture, but so the church can start holding in person worship services again.

 

Again, it's a beautiful building and I would hate to see it torn down. But I do not want my tax dollars going to subsidize this one denomination over the hundreds of others within city limits. 

^I guess I see it differently. The church is prepared to demolish the tower at its own expense. The church has made that decision multiple times, and the community has asked the congregation to delay to raise funds to save the tower. The church built and owns the tower, and is entitled to set the rules for how and when it is preserved.

 

I'm not saying the public funding is appropriate--but I don't feel the church is acting inappropriately. 

The church was given the opportunity to save the tower. The new engineering report allows them to save the tower. They have the funds completely allocated. The church doesn’t want to save the tower…yet they will keep all of the donations made for them to save the bell tower…can you say sketch city.

23 minutes ago, ink said:

The church built and owns the tower, and is entitled to set the rules for how and when it is preserved.

I disagree with this notion. No one at the church 'built it' since they weren't alive in 1895 and if I buy or inherit a contributing building in OTR I don't get to demolish it because I think it's too expensive to repair. It's in a protected historic district and is contributing to that district. If this was a commercial property and they couldn't keep their building in good repair and safe the city would condemn it. Then they would need to ask for help to repair it (which they did and got a good response) or the building would move to another owner.

 

I don't know what the answer is, but owner's letting their buildings fall apart to a point that they ask if they can demolish said building cannot be allowed to keep happening, it just rewards neglect. This is just a very public, and tax exempt, case of an ongoing issue in OTR. 

 

Edited August 11, 20213 yr by ucgrady

16 minutes ago, Troeros2 said:

The church was given the opportunity to save the tower. The new engineering report allows them to save the tower. They have the funds completely allocated. The church doesn’t want to save the tower…yet they will keep all of the donations made for them to save the bell tower…can you say sketch city.

 

And what is your source for how they are using the funds donated? I made a personal pledge, that will only be collected should the tower be preserved. 

4 minutes ago, ucgrady said:

I disagree with this notion. No one at the church 'built it' since they weren't alive in 1895 and if I buy or inherit a contributing building in OTR I don't get to demolish it because I think it's too expensive to repair. It's in a protected historic district and is contributing to that district. If this was a private residence and they couldn't keep their building in good repair and safe the city would condemn it. Then they would need to ask for help to repair it (which they did and got a good response) or the building would move to another owner.

 

I don't know what the answer is, but owner's letting their buildings fall apart to a point that they ask if they can demolish said building cannot be allowed to keep happening, it just rewards neglect. This is just a very public, and tax exempt, case of an ongoing issue in OTR. 

 

 

I know what you are saying. This is not a typical demolition by neglect situation, however. It is not a slumlord who let a building deteriorate, more like a grandma who is living on social security and doesn't know how to properly maintain the big house her dead husband bought. 

30 minutes ago, ink said:

 

I know what you are saying. This is not a typical demolition by neglect situation, however. It is not a slumlord who let a building deteriorate, more like a grandma who is living on social security and doesn't know how to properly maintain the big house her dead husband bought. 

someone just gave grandma a grant to save her house but grandma is still declining. Makes sense. 

Edited August 11, 20213 yr by Troeros2

I think if someone got upset enough, they could potentially pursue legal action towards the church. 
 

Church organization raises funds from Public to help save bell tower…organization raises enough funds to save bell tower…church declines to save bell tower and pockets money for donations used to save bell tower.

 

They could be in serious legal trouble. 

5 minutes ago, Troeros2 said:

church declines to save bell tower and pockets money for donations used to save bell tower

Like ink asked above... do we have proof they're pocketing the donations? Or are they still in a holding tank?

23 minutes ago, 10albersa said:

Like ink asked above... do we have proof they're pocketing the donations? Or are they still in a holding tank?

 

On the website it says the money will go towards bell repairs..if bell can’t be repaired then the money will go to the church. 
 

The bell can be saved. They don’t want to. 
 

Class action lawsuit could be headed there way if they don’t return the funds raised.

When we spoke to the Pastor in June he indicated they didn’t have donations per se but rather commitments to donate pending the church having secured commitments for the full amount. Not sure there’s anything to “pocket”

 

edit: I see the part of the website now where it says individual donations will yada yada. Maybe the pastor was talking larger about institutional support when he mentioned the contingent commitments. 

Edited August 11, 20213 yr by Pdrome513

It sounds like the church is transparent in explaining where funds will go if the tower is not saved. Some folks may choose to give this way, while others may choose to pledge through the community effort. 

10 minutes ago, ink said:

It sounds like the church is transparent in explaining where funds will go if the tower is not saved. Some folks may choose to give this way, while others may choose to pledge through the community effort. 

Yes, but they are making the choice not to save the tower. The funds have been raised to save the tower via the new engineer report. They are declining to save the tower. 

our government/our money is giving churches, corporations, and religious affiliated university's daily. it's not like america needs another church tower. if the church was a tourist attraction say like the national cathedral in d.c. maybe. but it's not. 

 

Once I built a railroad, made it run / Made it race against time," marking the end of prosperous times, and changing to a wistful mood. Each of the three main stanzas end in a direct appeal to the listener, "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?" ...

 

sooner or later the trickle is going to turn into a dry riverbed.

3 hours ago, RJohnson said:

it's not like america needs another church tower.

 

You could say that about every historic building in OTR. "What's the point in saving this one Italianate building? it's just like every other one in the neighborhood."

 

The value in a historic district does not come from a single building, but from blocks of intact structures that together create a place where people want to live, tourists want to visit, businesses want to invest, students want to study, etc.

13 hours ago, RJohnson said:

our government/our money is giving churches, corporations, and religious affiliated university's daily. it's not like america needs another church tower. if the church was a tourist attraction say like the national cathedral in d.c. maybe. but it's not.

What an ignorant misunderstanding of what makes historic districts like OTR work...being an attraction by itself isn't at all what matters. 99% of OTR's architecture isn't "destinations" like the national cathedral. Doesn't make saving it any less important.

 

This is the type of thinking that resulted in so many cities being destroyed after WWII. Insert "your opinion is bad and you should feel bad" meme here.

1 hour ago, jmicha said:

This is the type of thinking that resulted in so many cities being destroyed after WWII. Insert "your opinion is bad and you should feel bad" meme here.

 

Ahem.

 

save all the church steeples you want, just not with public money. this particular tower seems to be just a talking point. a way to claim superiority over something you don't agree with. if a church wants to repair a tower then by all means raise the money and fix your tower. just not with tax dollars. there are lots of historic buildings all over the country. Due to this thing called "time", sooner or later everything will become historic and private companies all over ohio will want tax payers to save each particular pet structure. And, america doesn't need another church tower like it or not. Church towers were designed for one reason, that being "my wee wee is bigger than yours". Sunday comes around every week. 11am comes around the same time everyday. if your flock can't remember that the church needs their tithe then the sermons are a waste.

 

2 hours ago, RJohnson said:

save all the church steeples you want, just not with public money. this particular tower seems to be just a talking point. a way to claim superiority over something you don't agree with. if a church wants to repair a tower then by all means raise the money and fix your tower. just not with tax dollars. there are lots of historic buildings all over the country. Due to this thing called "time", sooner or later everything will become historic and private companies all over ohio will want tax payers to save each particular pet structure. And, america doesn't need another church tower like it or not. Church towers were designed for one reason, that being "my wee wee is bigger than yours". Sunday comes around every week. 11am comes around the same time everyday. if your flock can't remember that the church needs their tithe then the sermons are a waste.

 

You keep saying "America doesn't need another church tower" as if this is a new tower they need money for...this is keeping something that's been around longer than any of us.

 

And no, not every structure becomes historic simply due to age. What a preposterous notion.

 

This isn't saving a "pet structure" it's trying to keep a piece of the urban fabric intact, a fabric that was already heavily deteriorated because of people with your same mindset. Do you not understand how historic districts work? The sum is greater than the individual pieces? 

2 hours ago, jmicha said:

You keep saying "America doesn't need another church tower" as if this is a new tower they need money for...this is keeping something that's been around longer than any of us.

 

And no, not every structure becomes historic simply due to age. What a preposterous notion.

 

This isn't saving a "pet structure" it's trying to keep a piece of the urban fabric intact, a fabric that was already heavily deteriorated because of people with your same mindset. Do you not understand how historic districts work? The sum is greater than the individual pieces? 

well save it then. just keep tax dollars out of this silliness. old buildings do not become futurism, so that makes them historic. you do realize im stating my opinion. much like you stating your opinion. to me, calling this a piece of urban fabric is preposterous notion. the city changed the names of streets in the past. streets chris-cross one another and that makes them fabric. this mustard stain, this heavily deteriorated piece of fabric is, i suppose, privately owned by a church. if the church doesn't pay taxes then it is outside of the law. if its outside the law then public money should not be used for its rehabilitation. Is this building on several historic registries? is there a sign or something outside the building that calls it historic?  has it won architectural awards? i'd be the first to admit i don't know. i'm a historic relic and would gladly call myself part of the urban fabric it someone gave me $500,000 for a rehab. i'd jump on that in a minute. 

 

this is the last we're going to discuss the merits of this particular building and I will suspend anyone who continues it. This argument is not leading to anything. Obviously you can still post news or updates about the effort.

Sound to announce that, “Please” will close permanently. 
 

The owner states that it doesn’t make much sense to reopen with the ongoing pandemic and restaurant staffing crisis.

 

Truly upset as this was one of the finest restaurants in otr if not all of Cincinnati. 

 

2020 census data shows that otr has lost 44 percent of its black residents and now is majority white.

 

2020 Census data shows that OTR lost 44% of its black residents from 2010 to 2020. Now White residents = 47% vs Black Residents at 43%…compared to 2010 of 72% black residents vs. 25% white residents in 2010.

Edited August 13, 20213 yr by richNcincy
Poor choice of words for opinion.

On 8/10/2021 at 6:53 PM, Troeros2 said:

The save the bell tower team needs us to email the church leadership to save the bell tower.

 

 

I will share this once more for visibility purposes.

 

if you haven’t do so already, please email the pastor that you want the bell tower saved. One email by itself is a small droplet of water, but if many email then it becomes a roaring tide. 
 

It’s not to late! The demo people aren’t scheduled to arrive yet, so let’s do our best to reach out and save the bell tower! 

2 hours ago, Troeros2 said:

 

2020 census data shows that otr has lost 44 percent of its black residents and now is majority white.

 

2020 Census data shows that OTR lost 44% of its black residents from 2010 to 2020. Now White residents = 47% vs Black Residents at 43%…compared to 2010 of 72% black residents vs. 25% white residents in 2010.

 

OTR's black population has been declining at about 2,000 individuals per year since at least 1990. People are going to try and blame this on gentrification but I don't think it's as severe of a cause for the out-migration as people are going to say that it is. 

59 minutes ago, BigDipper 80 said:

 

OTR's black population has been declining at about 2,000 individuals per year since at least 1990. People are going to try and blame this on gentrification but I don't think it's as severe of a cause for the out-migration as people are going to say that it is. 

Do you have access to those numbers per year, and also to total population per year? With what I know of OTR population, the gentrification (in the displacement sense) argument doesn't fly, simply because there was nothing significant to gentrify (again, people-wise) in the first place, especially following the flight that occurred after the riots. The choice for a neighborhood in that position is to let it disappear...or inject capital. And that's where we are now...

Does the percentage change mentioned above have more to do with black residents leaving...or white residents moving in? I assume That 2000 leaving/year over 30 years must have some sort of front loaded weight on it, which is why I ask about yearly numbers.

 

Saw this interesting chart:

http://twitter.com/ChrisCinciBiz/status/1425918330414718976

 

 

Edited August 13, 20213 yr by LAW 21

On 8/12/2021 at 6:54 PM, Troeros2 said:

Sound to announce that, “Please” will close permanently. 
 

The owner states that it doesn’t make much sense to reopen with the ongoing pandemic and restaurant staffing crisis.

 

Truly upset as this was one of the finest restaurants in otr if not all of Cincinnati. 

 

Truly devastating news. Please was my favorite restaurant in Cincinnati and the place I'd always take out of town guests to blow their minds, and I'd been enjoying Ryan's cooking since Please was a series of pop-up dinners.  It was up for a regional James Beard award and on the cusp of really breaking through as a restaurant of note regionally/nationally. But running a small upscale restaurant is really, really difficult.

 

I'm hopeful that Ryan Santos will eventually re-emerge with a different project that's more sustainable for himself personally.

 

On 7/8/2021 at 4:26 PM, jwulsin said:

Latest HCB packet has details of a proposed renovation of several buildings near the "curve" of Vine St hill. The project is proposed to include 17 apartments in 4 buildings, across 5 street addresses, fronting both Vine St and Ohio Ave. Details of project start on page 44 of HCB packet:

https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/buildings/historic-conservation/historic-conservation-board/july-12-2021-case-materials-and-staff-report/

 

Overview of project:

• 2014 Ohio - 2 units with first floor storage and a unit on each of the 2nd and 3rd floors
• 2016 Ohio - 4 units, 1 per floor
• 2025 Vine - 3 units, 1 per floor
• 2027 Vine - 4 units, 1 per floor
• 2029 Vine - 4 units, 1 per floor

 

 

2025 Vine is listed for sale now. Maybe they couldn't get financing?

 

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/2025-Vine-St_Cincinnati_OH_45202_M48045-57935

1 hour ago, ryanlammi said:

 

2025 Vine is listed for sale now. Maybe they couldn't get financing?

 

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/2025-Vine-St_Cincinnati_OH_45202_M48045-57935

That was definitely a tricky/ambitious project… would require a lot of owner equity in order for a bank to lend towards a project like that. 

15 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

 

2025 Vine is listed for sale now. Maybe they couldn't get financing?

 

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/2025-Vine-St_Cincinnati_OH_45202_M48045-57935

 

I feel that they found something more costly then removing that delicious flaky lead paint somewhere in the building and couldn't finance it any more like @jwulsin said. 

So update on bell tower:

 

the church leadership again denied to reconsider their stance and will proceed with demo.

 

in the news letter sent out by the save the bell tower group it sounds like the money they raised to save the tower won’t be returned.

 

I don’t think the church realize what they just stepped into. They literally committed fraud and could face legal action because of this. They essentially raised money to fix the tower, found an alternative plan - raised enough funds and instead said we are just going to keep all the funds and proceed with demolition of the tower.

 

The church group can’t possibly be this dumb can they? 

13 hours ago, Troeros2 said:

So update on bell tower:

 

the church leadership again denied to reconsider their stance and will proceed with demo.

 

in the news letter sent out by the save the bell tower group it sounds like the money they raised to save the tower won’t be returned.

 

I don’t think the church realize what they just stepped into. They literally committed fraud and could face legal action because of this. They essentially raised money to fix the tower, found an alternative plan - raised enough funds and instead said we are just going to keep all the funds and proceed with demolition of the tower.

 

The church group can’t possibly be this dumb can they? 

I honestly feel like their is something fishy going on. They make a statement saying that it’s going to be demolished assuming there would be some sort of fundraiser but when they actually get all the money needed their like no we are still going to demolish it.

 

Why couldn’t they have stated when they first came out with the news that even if they would raise all the money that the tower would still come down. it would have saved a lot of time and energy these people wasted to try and get it saved. 

2 hours ago, Ucgrad2015 said:

I honestly feel like their is something fishy going on. They make a statement saying that it’s going to be demolished assuming there would be some sort of fundraiser but when they actually get all the money needed their like no we are still going to demolish it.

 

Why couldn’t they have stated when they first came out with the news that even if they would raise all the money that the tower would still come down. it would have saved a lot of time and energy these people wasted to try and get it saved. 

I agree...something is fishy. I said as much in an email to church leadership. They should let the sunshine in. Right now, they're behaving like corrupt politicians.

turns out the tower (of babel) is a smelly fish tale. a church took money and delivered nothing... oh the horror.

 

On 8/21/2021 at 6:07 PM, TheCOV said:

I agree...something is fishy. I said as much in an email to church leadership. They should let the sunshine in. Right now, they're behaving like corrupt politicians.

 

 

Yeah, I recommend everyone to send the pastor an email:

 

[email protected]

 

At the very least this might help them understand not only does this come across as super shady, but as a church group who is already struggling with attendance and financial support, this will only hurt them more in the future. Any good will or trust towards this church for future financial support will be gone..at least for the immediate community that surrounds the church. 

Just because you don't like the decision, it doesn't mean any corruption occurred. 

 

Do you even know what was denoted to the church (actually received--not just pledged) that you are so concerned about? Lots of the money raised was tax credits and pledges that the church will never receive if the demolition moves forward.

 

I suspect that First Lutheran regrets ever cooperating with the Save the Tower folks because now the public is turning on them.

16 minutes ago, ink said:

Just because you don't like the decision, it doesn't mean any corruption occurred. 

 

Do you even know what was denoted to the church (actually received--not just pledged) that you are so concerned about? Lots of the money raised was tax credits and pledges that the church will never receive if the demolition moves forward.

 

I suspect that First Lutheran regrets ever cooperating with the Save the Tower folks because now the public is turning on them.

I know quite a few people who donated hundreds of dollars, including myself through the church website. I would like my money back. I’ve reached out multiple times to the church and they don’t respond to my emails. 

2 hours ago, ink said:

Just because you don't like the decision, it doesn't mean any corruption occurred. 

 

Do you even know what was denoted to the church (actually received--not just pledged) that you are so concerned about? Lots of the money raised was tax credits and pledges that the church will never receive if the demolition moves forward.

 

I suspect that First Lutheran regrets ever cooperating with the Save the Tower folks because now the public is turning on them.

Its fraud if the Church does not turn over the donated monies.Seems thier intention is to keep the monies as well.I recieved this message.

 

 

I saw your message. I am a member of the save the bell tower team. I wanted to say that I empathize with your anger on this. 

I think to your point at least some people made donations through the FLC website thinking that their donation was definitely going to the bell tower. And not that it could be kept by the church for other purposes.

The whole thing is ridiculous between you and I. We have more than enough money to make the repairs, and they simply won’t allow us to. We don’t know why, because they have shut off communication with us. We are all incredibly frustrated on our team, but also trying to keep SOME kind of decent relationship with the church so they don’t tear it down out of spite.

Not to try to start something here, but the Ohio AG is in charge of regulating charitable solicitations. And, they take it pretty seriously.

10 hours ago, 1400 Sycamore said:

Not to try to start something here, but the Ohio AG is in charge of regulating charitable solicitations. And, they take it pretty seriously.

I guess someone should reach out to them and see if they can investigate first Lutheran…it didn’t have to be this way.

On 8/21/2021 at 1:20 AM, Troeros2 said:

So update on bell tower:

 

the church leadership again denied to reconsider their stance and will proceed with demo.

 

in the news letter sent out by the save the bell tower group it sounds like the money they raised to save the tower won’t be returned.

 

I don’t think the church realize what they just stepped into. They literally committed fraud and could face legal action because of this. They essentially raised money to fix the tower, found an alternative plan - raised enough funds and instead said we are just going to keep all the funds and proceed with demolition of the tower.

 

The church group can’t possibly be this dumb can they? 

 

 

Does anyone have a copy of the newsletter?

Groups raise $1.4M to save iconic Over-the-Rhine bell tower but uncertainty lingers
 

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/08/25/first-lutheran-church-bell-tower.html

Apparently the church wants the church to be earth quake proof that’s why they decided to demo the tower…even though the last earth quake hasn’t occurred in 250 years lol.

 

The church has also cut off all communications with the public even though money has been donated to save the tower and they can save the tower right now if they want..can someone say lawsuit coming their way? 

To me, it has been very clear from the very beginning that the church does not care about saving the tower and is not going to exert an ounce of effort to save it. Once there was public outcry, they essentially said, "if somebody else wants to pay for it, fine." But now, after thinking it over a bit, the church most likely doesn't want to deal with months of construction and is just using the earthquake-proof thing as a (bad) excuse. It's a real shame because this could be a great opportunity for the church to forge a stronger connection with the local community, and it looks like their decision to demolish is going to do the opposite.

The Betts House (1804 masonry structure) survived the 1812 new madrid earthquake and as mentioned before Cincinnati sits in the lowest risk USGC earthquake zone in the country. Smells like BS. 

I did appreciate this shade from the Business Courier:

 

Quote

The nearest active fault line to Cincinnati is the New Madrid, about 350 miles west of Cincinnati. The last major earthquakes, those of 7.5 or higher on the Richter scale, on that fault line were in 1811 and 1812, according to a 2008 University of Cincinnati discussion. Another inactive fault line is located just south of Lexington. Minor earthquakes around 5 on the Richter scale have occurred in the Midwest over the last 40 years.