6 minutes ago, Troeros2 said:

4EG is opening, “Pilar” an Ernest Hemingway - Key West themed cocktail bar in the new Court St district. Opening this July.

 

Hopefully this is one of many new bars to find roots in court street and we can develop a new entertainment district in the process. 

I don't know if we need another "bar" entertainment district.  Court Street is perfectly positioned to be a work-time lunch, grocery chores, and date-night dinner street.  Now, it's fine if one bar is there, but Avril's, Kroger, and a bakery + great lunch and dinner options is the perfect set up here. Something more akin to Glendale or Wyoming's business district in terms of options.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Troeros2 said:

4EG is opening, “Pilar” an Ernest Hemingway - Key West themed cocktail bar in the new Court St district. Opening this July.

 

Hopefully this is one of many new bars to find roots in court street and we can develop a new entertainment district in the process. 

 

that would pull me in by the name alone. pilar was hemingway's old man and the sea boat. i saw it in cuba on his finca vigia estate. along with hemingway and cuba, maybe it will have boat and fishing themes, food and drinks.

1 hour ago, 10albersa said:

I don't know if we need another "bar" entertainment district.  Court Street is perfectly positioned to be a work-time lunch, grocery chores, and date-night dinner street.  Now, it's fine if one bar is there, but Avril's, Kroger, and a bakery + great lunch and dinner options is the perfect set up here. Something more akin to Glendale or Wyoming's business district in terms of options.

I think adding a handful of bars along court street helps with safety. The street becomes dead when the restaurants close. By adding bars to the mix you keep the pedestrian activity up until 2:30am - which means more eyes on the street and less opportunities to commit muggings/car jacking/murder

2 hours ago, 10albersa said:

I don't know if we need another "bar" entertainment district.  Court Street is perfectly positioned to be a work-time lunch, grocery chores, and date-night dinner street.  Now, it's fine if one bar is there, but Avril's, Kroger, and a bakery + great lunch and dinner options is the perfect set up here. Something more akin to Glendale or Wyoming's business district in terms of options.

 

Why not both? A great neighborhood has a mix of bars, restaurants, groceries, and dinner places. You need to have activity on the street morning, noon, and night. 

Take with a grain of salt I guess but my friend who works  closely with 3cdc and another real estate firm said that 3cdc is pursuing that large empty lot on court street across from the downtown Kroger. 
 

From what he said 3cdc would like to move on this site and make this a flagship hotel location on the lot. 
 

I could see theoretically why 3cdc would want a hotel there. It’s kind of in the middle between downtown and otr and close walking distance to the FCC stadium and other attractions. 
 

Fingers crossed this rumor is legit because I would love to see that lot filled!

@Troeros2Have you heard anything on Garfield St?  I had heard that was moving fast to be next after Court St., but it went silent after the initial conversation.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CQB0HmXhEFd/?utm_medium=copy_link
 

it’s the little things like these that make vibrancy in a city. I’m glad to hear this will be permanent fixture as well. 

2 hours ago, Troeros2 said:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CQB0HmXhEFd/?utm_medium=copy_link
 

it’s the little things like these that make vibrancy in a city. I’m glad to hear this will be permanent fixture as well. 

I wonder if they will put a fabric top back on it?

Obviously everyone has heard about the controversy surrounding 7-9 w. Court st. 
 

The tenants were given 30 days to vacate, as dictated by Ohio law. Obviously the media latched onto this nothing burger of a story..I feel bad for the tenants at the same time, the rules are the rules. 
 

BUT regarding the development itself, 24 luxury apartments and 6 refurbished ground floor retail spaces is a huge development for court street. 
 

That building is LARGE, so this rehab will be a strong anchor in further activating court street!

5 minutes ago, Troeros2 said:

Obviously everyone has heard about the controversy surrounding 7-9 w. Court st. 
 

The tenants were given 30 days to vacate, as dictated by Ohio law. Obviously the media latched onto this nothing burger of a story..I feel bad for the tenants at the same time, the rules are the rules. 
 

BUT regarding the development itself, 24 luxury apartments and 6 refurbished ground floor retail spaces is a huge development for court street. 
 

That building is LARGE, so this rehab will be a strong anchor in further activating court street!

I agree. It is what it is. Same thing just happened to my mom who’s up in age In Western Hills. New owners that wanted to renovate and raise rent so they kicked all the tenants out. In regards to court street the tenants should have seen this coming (I’m not blaming them) but downtown and OTR is red hot and the article said they are paying approximately 600 bucks in rent a month, what a deal lol all the new construction around there plus a beautiful new Kroger on the block no way they had a chance of staying in those units.

Actually, the building is not being converted to "luxury" apartments. This developer specializes in "workforce housing" apartments which basically means the low end of market rate — so they should be affordable for employees at shops/bars/restaurants in the area, not just white collar P&G and Kroger employees.

 

Based on the extremely low rents and some of the photos I've seen, I would guess that the current landlord has not been putting much money back into the building in terms of upgrades or even maintenance. It's great that the new owner is going to invest money into modernizing the building and then keep rents relatively low when it reopens.

 

Yeah, it would have been great if the new owner would have given the existing residents more than 30 days to move. But it sounds like many of the current residents were month-to-month and either party (landlord or tenant) can terminate that agreement with 30 days notice. Curiously the Enquirer article doesn't mention the word "lease" anywhere.

The Enquirer ran a critical story on one of my projects a couple of years ago. We had given the residents one year notice as required by HUD, hired and paid for a relocation consultant, and paid moving expenses.

 

The person they interviewed and quoted extensively was the brother of our tenant, living in the unit without our consent and in violation of HUD regulations and selling things probably illegal things from the unit.

 

So much for the Enquirer.
 

On 6/16/2021 at 6:07 PM, taestell said:

Yeah, it would have been great if the new owner would have given the existing residents more than 30 days to move. But it sounds like many of the current residents were month-to-month and either party (landlord or tenant) can terminate that agreement with 30 days notice. Curiously the Enquirer article doesn't mention the word "lease" anywhere.

This seems like a scenario where 'right to return' (either as a law or simply ethical practice) would be applicable and appropriate. V&B looks to have offered other properties to transfer, I think it's only right that the current residents be offered the chance to return when renovations are done and preferably at a discounted rate if they've been long-term tenants. I'm a bit disappointed that there's not more sympathy, both here and elsewhere - I get it, they had a steal - but 30 days to leave a place you've lived 15-20 years, when it's pretty clear there's an affordable housing shortage and tough if not impossible to find alternatives, is rough. 

I just think it's important that people consider the facts rather than jumping straight to the "developers are evil", "all landlords are bad", "something something gentrification" talk that seems to be very popular these days. Some people seem to have a narrative in their minds that anytime tenants are asked to move, it's because an evil, greedy developer wants to take a perfectly fine building, kick out the tenants, and upgrade it to "luxury" status to lure in filthy yuppies who will pay 4x as much in rent. And that's just not what's happening in this case. IMO, most of the anger in this scenario should be directed at the building's former owner who did not invest in maintenance and upgrades, kept rents artificially low (knowing that this would result in...not having enough money for maintenance and upgrades), and apparently allowed all of the tenants to live there without leases. In fact, the previous owner probably used the lack of leases as a selling point, since the new owner would be able to begin renovations with only 30 days notice rather than waiting for all of the leases to end. Yes, the new owner could have, and IMO should have, given more notice — but they weren't required to by law. In the end, they're going to invest a ton of money into renovating this building and it'll still be affordable, not luxury. I hope the new owner extends the deadline for tenants who are having trouble finding a new place, helps transfer tenants into their other properties in Cincinnati, and invites them to return once the renovations are complete.

On 6/16/2021 at 3:43 PM, Troeros2 said:

Obviously everyone has heard about the controversy surrounding 7-9 w. Court st. 
 

The tenants were given 30 days to vacate, as dictated by Ohio law. Obviously the media latched onto this nothing burger of a story..I feel bad for the tenants at the same time, the rules are the rules. 
 

BUT regarding the development itself, 24 luxury apartments and 6 refurbished ground floor retail spaces is a huge development for court street. 
 

That building is LARGE, so this rehab will be a strong anchor in further activating court street!

But the thing is, you have politicians, who really know better, but pander to these activist groups and essentially are using it to extort developers and apartment investors. You are seeing it all over OTR now.  No matter how small the project may be, or what the intent of the developer, or the behavior of the tenants who may be asked to leave; it does not matter. It is all about exploiting a political point and pandering to a group that will theoretically help them win an election. 

 

In the specific example, you have a group that provides workforce housing, and wants to renovate the building and keep it as workforce housing. It just so happens that even workforce housing rents are much higher than the slum rents the prior owner charged. In the end you get a safer building that is up to modern code and caters to a sustainable base of tenants for the long term (not the $2.00/sq ft luxury tenants that much of the new construction caters too). You have a developer who is trying to do the right thing but getting punished for it because of optics in having to tell an existing tenant that they can no longer live in the place they have been renting from the owner. 

 

This is a great project for Court Street, I wish the politicians would start acting like it. 

You can think a renovation like this is a positive development, and also think the developer is heartless for giving people 30 days who have lived in the same unit for a decade. There's no reason they couldn't give them 60 or 90 days while they apply for building permits and such.

 

Also, not sure if this is legal in Ohio, but Cincinnati should definitely pass legislation that requires 60 day notice to all tenants if a landlord doesn't want to renew their lease or allow them to stay. It's especially cruel to only allow 30 days when so many leases start on the first of the month if you are given notice on the 25th. Meaning you might not be able to find a good option until July 1, after you're asked to leave.

 

People do like to complain about individual cases instead of working toward structural solutions IMO, and it does get exhausting.

 

I also don't have a lot of sympathy for this company. They're the company who owned the buildings on Vine Street that burned down recently. Apparently B&I has had a lot of issues with them. 

5 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

Also, not sure if this is legal in Ohio, but Cincinnati should definitely pass legislation that requires 60 day notice to all tenants if a landlord doesn't want to renew their lease or allow them to stay. It's especially cruel to only allow 30 days when so many leases start on the first of the month if you are given notice on the 25th. Meaning you might not be able to find a good option until July 1, after you're asked to leave.

 

People do like to complain about individual cases instead of working toward structural solutions IMO, and it does get exhausting.

 

Exactly, I think the solution here is by passing laws giving tenants more rights, e.g. requiring 60 days notice to terminate living arrangements without leases. Hopefully this would be done at the state level so that all landlords would be on a level playing field; these rights should apply to month-to-month renters in St. Bernard or Elmwood Place, not just Cincinnati.

12 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

It's especially cruel to only allow 30 days when so many leases start on the first of the month if you are given notice on the 25th. Meaning you might not be able to find a good option until July 1, after you're asked to leave.

 

The 30 day clock doesn't start until the date the next rent check is due, even if you're renting month-to-month. So the notice is almost always longer than 30 days unless the notice is coincidentally given on the day rent is due.

 

 

3 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

Also, not sure if this is legal in Ohio, but Cincinnati should definitely pass legislation that requires 60 day notice to all tenants if a landlord doesn't want to renew their lease or allow them to stay.

 

People do like to complain about individual cases instead of working toward structural solutions IMO, and it does get exhausting.

Right, this is what I mean by right to return or some other tenant protections - which may or may not be applicable here but as a city I do think some structural changes would be helpful not only with tenant protections but some of the developer 'extortion' that Brutus references and Sycamore seems to have been unfairly treated by. The only structural renter protection I can remember within the last few years are P.G.'s 'renter's choice' (which I believe has essentially been revealed as a scam) and the rental registry and inspection pilot. There's a lot more that can be done that I don't think we have in place, such as right to counsel (Legal Aid somewhat fills this void), right to return, pay to stay (currently temporarily in place for COVID but was not enabled permanently), displacement compensation or requiring transparency around voluntary buyouts, etc. Weren't they trying to start a housing court for Cincinnati? All of this in addition to reforming zoning and subsidizing affordable housing units and allowing new construction. 

 

And @taestellfor the record I completely agree with your response and that state- or wider reform would be better than just Cincinnati and that some of the discourse has gotten out of control, quoting you wasn't intended as a slight. 

15 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

You can think a renovation like this is a positive development, and also think the developer is heartless for giving people 30 days who have lived in the same unit for a decade. There's no reason they couldn't give them 60 or 90 days while they apply for building permits and such.

Ohio law requires a formal 30 day notice be given. This does not mean that the housing provider can allow them to stay longer. it only requires that they be served with a 30 day notice. Based on the article, this housing provider was working with some people who needed a little longer to move. So, it was not a hard 30 day notice. The 30 day notice was for legal compliance purposes. 

 

18 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

Also, not sure if this is legal in Ohio, but Cincinnati should definitely pass legislation that requires 60 day notice to all tenants if a landlord doesn't want to renew their lease or allow them to stay. It's especially cruel to only allow 30 days when so many leases start on the first of the month if you are given notice on the 25th. Meaning you might not be able to find a good option until July 1, after you're asked to leave

City council cannot pass legislation on that. That requires state approval. Secondly, for practical purposes, The 30 day notice does not mean the resident will be set out on the street in 30 days. It means that they can be evicted if they do not work with the housing provider to set out a reasonable plan to move. So let's not act like it is a heartless 30 day period.  In practicality, the housing provider does not want to file an eviction because of the additional time and costs associated with it. It behooves the parties to work together. The vast majority of housing providers are going to give people 60-90 days to move in this situation because if they go the more expensive court option, it is going to take that long (or potentially longer) to get the resident to move anyway. 

 

From a practical standpoint, the 30 day notice is merely procedural and as long as you speak with your housing provider, they generally will work with you to come up with a reasonable solution that works for everyone. The demonization of housing providers as the root of all evil is extremely missplaced. 

 

There is no need for legislation here because it is a solution that is in search of a problem. 

50 minutes ago, shawk said:

P.G.'s 'renter's choice' (which I believe has essentially been revealed as a scam) and the rental registry and inspection pilot. T

There is a push to repeal P.G.s rent insurance proposal he muscled through a few years ago. The company that promotes it has been greasing the hands of politicians to create such laws that give them a monopoly and then when the resident leaves before a 12 month period, they either have to still pay the renters choice insurance or let Rhino take them to collections. At the time a lot of housing providers were yelling to PG what a bad idea this was but he was going to push it through come hell or high water because he wanted to show that he was concerned about getting a feather in his cap dealing with renter protections and also the minority community. There were many housing providers in the community that offered workforce housing that saw this as something that was preying on low income renters and would only benefit the class A renters. I also hear the collection companies that Rhino uses are the most vicious out there.

50 minutes ago, shawk said:

ight to return, pay to stay (currently temporarily in place for COVID but was not enabled permanently), displacement compensation or requiring transparency around voluntary buyouts, etc. Weren't they trying to start a housing court for Cincinnati?

Pay to stay and right to return are troublsome for numerous reasons. Also, some of these are going to require the State's blessing if they were to ever be implemented. 

One thing about some of the transparancey issues. The vast majority of housing providers do not kick people out of their apartment for no reason whatsoever. Typically, the residents who are asked to leave and have their leases terminated are problem residents that cause trouble in the community. Sometimes the housing provider provides written notice as to the violations. Other times, these notices are ignored by the resident. The housing provider is loathe to evict and often times will tolerate a situation a bit longer than they should, but ultimately action becomes required to be taken and the no fault eviction (or lease termination) is the path of least resistance to remove someone who is essentially a cancer to the rest of the community.  While it may sound heavy handed in the news, in reality, it is not like that, adn they are done to prevent an eviction on the record of a problem resident and allow a reasonable path for a housing provider to remove a bad resident. 

 

Edited June 18, 20213 yr by Brutus_buckeye

2 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

One thing about some of the transparancey issues. The vast majority of housing providers do not kick people out of their apartment for no reason whatsoever. Typically, the residents who are asked to leave and have their leases terminated are problem residents that cause trouble in the community. Sometimes the housing provider provides written notice as to the violations. Other times, these notices are ignored by the resident. The housing provider is loathe to evict and often times will tolerate a situation a bit longer than they should, but ultimately action becomes required to be taken and the no fault eviction (or lease termination) is the path of least resistance to remove someone who is essentially a cancer to the rest of the community.  While it may sound heavy handed in the news, in reality, it is not like that, adn they are done to prevent an eviction on the record of a problem resident and allow a reasonable path for a housing provider to remove a bad resident. 

I don't have any problem with just cause evictions and I typically don't believe the one-sided narrative as presented in the news, but I want residents to have access to legal representation and to have and know their rights in the process. I understand that eviction is typically a last resort and don't think any well-meaning landlord would have any issues with any of these reforms if well-designed. At least last I read and wrote down, <5% of tenants had legal representation while >80% of landlords do, and <5% of hearings were in tenant favor. Transparency around voluntary buyouts would be in reference to condo conversions primarily. If the housing affordability crunch gets worse, reforms will be needed. I'm just listing some that could exist and would need to be worked out. Given that the only recent 'reform' I was able to list from memory is apparently problematic, that's not a great track record, and we can't only focus on increasing supply. 

36 minutes ago, taestell said:

 

Exactly, I think the solution here is by passing laws giving tenants more rights, e.g. requiring 60 days notice to terminate living arrangements without leases. Hopefully this would be done at the state level so that all landlords would be on a level playing field; these rights should apply to month-to-month renters in St. Bernard or Elmwood Place, not just Cincinnati.

I’m just a little befuddled at the thought that the resident who is renting a property, and has the right to leave freely and move anywhere they want would be able to tell the housing provider how it needs to run its business. That is a rather troublesome proposition in my opinion.  Provisions like pay to stay, just cause of action, rent control, and other things that limit the housing providers ability two properly manage the property do more in the long term to hurt residents more than help them with their housing situation. The reality is that most housing providers I’m going to work with their tenants to find solutions to the problems, but they also need to have the ability to Take back the property from the Resident when the situation in their best judgment is deemed fit.

 

There were many consequences last year when the courts were shut down and nobody was able to be evicted for any cause. There were a lot of progressive politicians including one of the idiots running for mayor, who cheered these addiction moratoriums for all causes as a great thing when they first occurred. What he neglected  To realize is that this kept many people in their apartments you were doing significant damage to the unit and the community. Domestic violence abusers, drug dealers, and even murderers we’re not able to be evicted because of the moratorium. It’s just something to think about before everybody starts jumping on The newest hot policy idea as a great improvement, because there are often a lot of negative consequences that would not be there if people actually thought through things

7 minutes ago, shawk said:

I don't have any problem with just cause evictions and I typically don't believe the one-sided narrative as presented in the news, but I want residents to have access to legal representation and to have and know their rights in the process. I understand that eviction is typically a last resort and don't think any well-meaning landlord would have any issues with any of these reforms if well-designed. At least last I read and wrote down, <5% of tenants had legal representation while >80% of landlords do, and <5% of hearings were in tenant favor. Transparency around voluntary buyouts would be in reference to condo conversions primarily. If the housing affordability crunch gets worse, reforms will be needed. I'm just listing some that could exist and would need to be worked out. Given that the only recent 'reform' I was able to list from memory is apparently problematic, that's not a great track record, and we can't only focus on increasing supply. 

There is a common misconception regarding the guaranteed rate to legal representation for tenants and landlords. If you go down the election docket and any courthouse in Ohio both large and small, the vast majority of infections are due to nonpayment of rent. The only thing legal representation would do in this case is delay the process by a few weeks, drive at the cost to the housing provider which would have to be passed along to the tenant, and also drive up the cost to the taxpayer four cases that do not need an attorney because they are pretty much cut and dry From the start (if you don’t pay rent, even the best attorney is not going to be able to help you). 
 

there is a misconception about the attorney representation statistic. The reason why over 80% of the landlords have attorneys representing them is because they are holding their property in a limited liability company or some other entity. Even if they just have a four unit apartment building, they are not allowed by law to represent themselves in court Because they do not own the building, their entity does. I have Personally seen the court dismiss eviction cases because the housing provider tried to represent themselves in court and the property was titled in an LLC. These individuals needed to start over again refile the case from scratch and wait another month before they can evict the resident for nonpayment of rent. Now that individual housing provider was out an additional month to two months of rent plus additional court cost in their effort to remove the resident from the property. So again, well it is true that most housing providers have representation, it is a misleading statistic because they are not allowed to represent themselves without it

36 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I’m just a little befuddled at the thought that the resident who is renting a property, and has the right to leave freely and move anywhere they want would be able to tell the housing provider how it needs to run its business.

 

Right now there is a 30 day requirement. Do you think that should be abolished? Isn't that having a renter "tell the housing provider how it needs to run its business"?

10 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

 

Right now there is a 30 day requirement. Do you think that should be abolished? Isn't that having a renter "tell the housing provider how it needs to run its business"?

From a practical standpoint a 30 day requirement makes complete perfect sense. Legally, you can’t create a 60 day notice requirement because the lease term is only 30 days. The people who are getting 30 day notice is to leave our month-to-month tenant. They are not on an annual lease. A 30 day lease under Ohio law it’s just that, It provides tenant protections for the period of 30 days, and it provides the housing provider the guarantee of the tenants obligation for 30 days. Legally, what you are trying to suggest is creating a 60 day or 90 day requirement that a landlord must give a tenant to vacate the unit on a contract that is only effective for 30 days. The only way to accomplish that is to get rid of month-to-month leases which I don’t think many people both housing provider and resident really want to do. Because, currently as month-to-month leases are constructed, The parties are only bound by the contract for the contract term. Well it may be nice two offer a longer move out term, from a contractor shall standpoint, it’s an impossibility when you have a month-to-month tenancy. However, I will reiterate that regardless of the 30 day legal notice, most Housing providers are going to work with their residents To transition them in a reasonable manner

2 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The only way to accomplish that is to get rid of month-to-month leases which I don’t think many people both housing provider and resident really want to do.

 

Just make it month-to-month, with a law that the following month is the earliest possible termination. Rolling month-to-month with a one month buffer. This isn't rocket science.

 

30 days isn't a magic number. We aren't telling them to change the number of hours in a day.

22 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

 

Just make it month-to-month, with a law that the following month is the earliest possible termination. Rolling month-to-month with a one month buffer. This isn't rocket science.

 

30 days isn't a magic number. We aren't telling them to change the number of hours in a day.

But legally you can’t. You can’t create a situation where one party has a 30 day obligation and make the other have a 60 day obligation. When the contract terminates it terminates for both parties at the same time. 
It would take a complete rework of landlord tenant statutes at the state level, which I can pretty much guarantee will not happen at this point 

 

even if it would, it is not as easy to do as you seem to want to make it out to be. 

Edited June 18, 20213 yr by Brutus_buckeye

you can. You love to just say things that are patently false.

 

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/georgia-notice-requirements-terminate-month-month-tenancy.html

Quote

 

Notice Requirements for Georgia Landlords

 

In most situations your landlord does not need to give you a reason, although acting on a discriminatory motive is illegal. A landlord can simply give you a written notice to move, allowing you 60 days as required by Georgia law and specifying the date on which your tenancy will end.

Your landlord may legally provide less notice in specific circumstances--for example, if you have not paid rent, if you have violated other terms of your rental agreement (for example, bringing in an unauthorized tenant), or if you have violated basic responsibilities imposed by law (such as by dealing drugs on the rental property).

 

Notice Requirements for Georgia Tenants

 

It is equally easy for tenants in Georgia to get out of a month-to-month rental agreement. You must provide 30 days' notice (half the notice that landlords must provide). Be sure to check your rental agreement which may require that your notice to end the tenancy be given on the first of the month or on another specific date.

In some situations, you may be able to move out with less (or no) notice—for example, if your landlord seriously violates the rental agreement or fails to fulfill legal responsibilities affecting your health or safety.

 

 

13 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

It would take a complete rework of landlord tenant statutes at the state level, which I can pretty much guarantee will not happen at this point 

 

even if it would, it is not as easy to do as you seem to want to make it out to be. 

Nice edit.

 

It's actually really easy.

 

Section 5321.17 | Termination of tenancy.

 

Quote

(B) Except as provided in division (C) of this section, the landlord or the tenant may terminate or fail to renew a month-to-month tenancy by notice given the other at least thirty days prior to the periodic rental date.

 

Just change this to say 30 days for a tenant, and 60 days for a landlord. lol. I completely rewrote landlord tenant statutes at the state level!

 

46 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

Nice edit.

 

It's actually really easy.

 

Section 5321.17 | Termination of tenancy.

 

 

Just change this to say 30 days for a tenant, and 60 days for a landlord. lol. I completely rewrote landlord tenant statutes at the state level!

 

Not that easy. You just turned a month to month lease into a 2 month lease. an unintended consequence on your end for sure. 
 

you have created a situation where housing providers would adjust the contract to only offer 60 day terms or it would get rid of shorter terms altogether and have a non-auto renewal period at the end. 
 

there are other flaws with what you propose too but I don’t need to get into all of that here. 

ultimately, by seeking to solve a problem that does not exist, you are restricting the flexibility for the many other renters who may have a desire to have a shorter term lease. 
 

One of the big flaws with PG and his renters choice bill, as it was originally written was that it would make it impossible for residents who elected that option to ever go on a month to month lease. 

 

do you really think that is a good deal for renters?  In perspective probably not is what most people would say. 

Also, to your point on the statute crafting, One of the biggest areas where housing providers can’t get into trouble Centers around the unequal term of the lease. Many leases our 12 months with an automatic month-to-month renewal, they also have provisions requiring a 60 day notice if the tenant chooses to vacate. That is perfectly fine when it’s under the year term, but once it goes to month-to-month such a provision will get thrown out if the housing provider will try to enforce it. The principle being that you can’t have a month to month lease with a 60 day notice. Because that Actually changes it from a month to month to a 60 day terms.

Georgia law has an unequal requirement from tenant to landlord for month to month lease termination. Georgia still has month to month leases. Landlords simply have to give a 60 day notice if they aren't going to let you renew your month to month lease. You love to just say things without anything to back it up. Exactly what I said can happen. It exists in other states

1 minute ago, ryanlammi said:

Georgia law has an unequal requirement from tenant to landlord for month to month lease termination. Georgia still has month to month leases. Landlords simply have to give a 60 day notice if they aren't going to let you renew your month to month lease. You love to just say things without anything to back it up. Exactly what I said can happen. It exists in other states

I am not saying that it can’t happen, I am just saying that there are clear flaws to what you’re proposing from a practical standpoint. Just because Georgia law has it does it make it a good idea. I also believe there are similar provisions in Washington and other states. I will say that you have to be careful how their laws are worded, and some states provisions can certainly run into trouble if they are not crafted properly. It’s nowhere near as easy as just adding a line 2 sections 5317 as you try to do

I can tell you what will likely happen if that is the case in Ohio, it would lead to fewer and fewer options for tenants and they would be the ones who suffer the most. Would there be still opportunities to get a month-to-month lease? Of course, but practically speaking you will have more housing providers quit offering month-to-month options or auto renewal options. Well it might pose an inconvenience to the housing provider, the tenant is one that suffers the most in these scenarios. For every restriction you try and put on, businesses will adjust accordingly. Ultimately, at the end of the day it removes options available from the tenants who truly need them the most. You are trying to solve a problem that does not exist and in its place you are seeking to create many additional problems and unintended consequences by trying to solve such Issue that does not really need solving 

 

 

Ok

On 6/12/2021 at 10:01 PM, Ucgrad2015 said:

I wonder if they will put a fabric top back on it?

Ask, and ye shall receive:

I really love court street architecture. I can’t wait for 3cdc to fill up the vacant store fronts

and really create a new level of constant foot traffic. 
 

I really hope in the near future the rest of court street can be rehabbed besides these initial blocks. 
 

With proper infill and preservation this street, fully revitalized, can be such a gem for this city. 

Edited June 22, 20213 yr by Troeros2

On 3/21/2019 at 1:31 PM, taestell said:

Here’s a revised version of my proposal. It’s basically what Lammi proposed above except that I added a bump-out in front of 3CDC’s Court Street Condos project, allowing any ground-floor restaurants to have a larger outdoor space, and have perpendicular parking on the south side of the street since there is so much space to fill. In this scenario I would probably suggest truck loading / food truck parking on the north side and 2 hour parking on the south side.

 

Just stumbled upon my "proposal" for Court Street from the first page of this thread and was surprised by how much it resembles what was actually built. However they didn't add any parallel parking on the north side of the street and only added about 1/3 as much perpendicular parking on the south side of the street as what is shown. So, they made it even more pedestrian-oriented that I was optimistically hoping they would!

On June 13, a car show was held on Court Street. It was not very well attended, probably because it was held on the same weekend as the Concours d'Elegance, a major car show held annually at Ault Park. But 3CDC intends to make this a monthly event. The next one is on July 11, which is also the same day at Second Sunday on Main just around the corner. I'm glad to see them trying out different types of activities on Court Street compared to what they do at Fountain Square, Washington Park, and Ziegler Park.

 

 

I think until there are more businesses on court street than these events will be largely ignored.

 

I know 3cdc signed 4eg newest bar, but there are still so many now leasing signs all over court street. 

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/07/02/bebos-opens.html
 

milk shake and burger bar opening on court street. 

 

also, there will be another car this weekend on court street.

 

we are definitely blessed as a city to have 3cdc. I don’t know how Cincy would be like without them pumping all of these transformation projects. 

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/08/04/iconic-butcher-shop-expanding-as-part-of-58m-cou.html
 

Really excited to hear Avril Bleh expanding into the neighboring buildings on court street and that they will use the floors above their space for 14 new condos. 

Art on Vine and the monthly car show will both be held on Court Street this Sunday, August 8. That's also the same day as Second Sunday on Main, so a great day to walk around and explore the urban core.

New permanent art sculptures installed on Court street.

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/CTFtl3VLDVO/?utm_medium=copy_link

 

Neat part is that they illuminate and will help provide additional lighting to the area at night. 

Kroger façade improvements

The Kroger facade is awful, needs a revamp that will tie it into the streetscape 

Sorry, should have written "improvements"

three funny mirrors like the ones you see at carnivals would make people happy and tie the streetscape

 here is the link to some great wall art.   this will make people stand in awe. they will go inside and buy kroger only products.     https://fb.watch/8uA7NQzGLd/

Historic is turning loose some properties. This was put up on Loopnet over the weekend.

https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/122-128-West-Court-and-920-924-Race/24255530/