On the other hand, if you're being given a large sum of money and it makes financial sense to sell, you need to leave. You shouldn't be forced to but you should just do it, because there's no sentimental value in a fast food restaurant. How much were they offered?

 

I believe the jury's verdict was 1.7 million

On the other hand, if you're being given a large sum of money and it makes financial sense to sell, you need to leave. You shouldn't be forced to but you should just do it, because there's no sentimental value in a fast food restaurant. How much were they offered?

 

From what I remember I believe it's City policy to offer 1.5 times the appraised value for eminent domain cases.  That sounds like "just compensation" to me.

 

The people that ran the restaurants owned them as franchises. They lost a hell of a lot of business in this battle, and as much as I don't care for fast food being on Calhoun, I side with the Hardees and Arbys on this. The city shouldn't have tried to take private land and sell it to another private entity.

 

I believe both resturaunts were closed, but still paying their leases when the litigation began.

 

No, what I was saying is that I think Hardee's was closed before the land acquisition process even occured.  That place has been boarded up for a long while.

Well speaking of corporate, UC as well as any big university is pretty damn corporate, and I'm glad to see this blow up in their face.  It's all made more hilarious by the fact that UC can't afford to go through with even a first phase of the project due to its various problems stemming from other construction projects (also of questionable necessity).  More tragic are the various small businesses which didn't have the resources to carry on a better-organized and funded fight.

 

Also, this presumption that someone would be stupid not to sell for more than the market value of their property ignores a lot of factors.  Perhaps the owner of a $1 million property which is given an offer of $1.5 million is $2 million in debt from a previous failed business.  10 more years of business could mean they'd erase that debt then have the value of the property for retirement.  But if a business owner is bought out at age 55 and due to the nature of the business can't move with any guarantee of similar income (i.e. Acropolis Chili) then they're stuck working for someone else for the rest of their working life.   

 

If I were in charge at UC I would have worked on acquiring parcels on one block, then built what was possible on that one block.  After those apartments fill up, move onto the next one if there's still demand.  Instead, the area looks awful.  They should at the very least pave over those lots for some temporary parking. 

 

 

I philosophically agree that you shouldn't have to fork over your land so the government can sell it to someone else. Market forces should motivate someone to sell, not a planning initiative.

 

However I can tell you that there are two problems with this:

 

1) An intelligent market is a myth. There is no such thing as an intelligent market force. Pure capitalists love to say that "the market will work out such-and-such issue naturally." Translated: "Private forces with more power than you will decide the fate of this land."

 

2) In a vacuum, the idea of inviolate land ownership rights is fine. Utopian, even. However, America is but one country competing with many others who do not share the ideal of inviolate land ownership rights, and have the flexibility (sometimes abusively, sometimes not) to be as strategic and competitive as they want when it comes to modifying or redeveloping their cities. This puts us at a competitive disadvantage. That is not to say that we should or should not change our values. The fact simply exists.

 

Also, this presumption that someone would be stupid not to sell for more than the market value of their property ignores a lot of factors.  Perhaps the owner of a $1 million property which is given an offer of $1.5 million is $2 million in debt from a previous failed business.  10 more years of business could mean they'd erase that debt then have the value of the property for retirement.  But if a business owner is bought out at age 55 and due to the nature of the business can't move with any guarantee of similar income (i.e. Acropolis Chili) then they're stuck working for someone else for the rest of their working life.   

 

 

True, I agree there are too many factors involved and I've heard you can make boo-koo money with fast food joints. Realistically, with Calhoun being a college environment, its probably more suited for fast food and hole-in-the-walls but state colleges everywhere are supporting the Paneras, BW3s, Ben&Jerry's, etc. They're cleaner, more galmorous.

Well, they also attract professors and researchers into an area where they might not previously live. One of the goals of the College Town proposal here for Lexington is to achieve more housing for students, professors and faculty, and researchers, and to facilitate establishments (retail, restaurant, etc.) to support that. Having a mix of residential units, such as student housing (what is on the north side of Calhoun) and professional/faculty (what was proposed elsewhere), and a mix of retail and restaurant businesses (i.e. Panera Break, BW3, Ben & Jerry's), allows the development to cater to a broader spectrum.

 

Although there is no replacing homegrown establishments.

Just to clarify...the University of Cincinnati is only related to this project through a web of funding.  UC was much more involved with the development of University Park Apartments mainly because it is on UC's megablock and it is student oriented apartments...and UC controls the parking garage underneath UPA.

 

McMillan Park development is controlled primarily through CHCRUC or whatever that agency is.  Now UC does help fund that agency, but they are only as involved as their money trail.  The decisions being made their are decisions being made by CHCRUC not the university.  Furthermore, this development is geared to accomodate to university professionals, EPA employees, and so on.  The condos proposed are not meant for college students...and the higher end retail that may go in eventually is meant to diversify the retail scene in the Uptown neighborhoods.

 

The Uptown Consortium is working very hard to ensure that one new development does not bankrupt another existing area (Short Vine, Ludlow, UC Main Campus, etc).  It is all part of a larger scheme and is not big bad UC simply trying to yuppify the area for showcasing the university to prospective students.  It may work out that way, but any improvments in the area help that cause...hell improvements downtown help UC's cause to attract new/better/more talented students.

 

McMillan Park development is controlled primarily through CHCRUC or whatever that agency is.  Now UC does help fund that agency, but they are only as involved as their money trail.  The decisions being made their are decisions being made by CHCRUC not the university.  Furthermore, this development is geared to accomodate to university professionals, EPA employees, and so on.  The condos proposed are not meant for college students...and the higher end retail that may go in eventually is meant to diversify the retail scene in the Uptown neighborhoods.

 

The Uptown Consortium is working very hard to ensure that one new development does not bankrupt another existing area (Short Vine, Ludlow, UC Main Campus, etc).  It is all part of a larger scheme and is not big bad UC simply trying to yuppify the area for showcasing the university to prospective students.  It may work out that way, but any improvments in the area help that cause...hell improvements downtown help UC's cause to attract new/better/more talented students.

 

I'm all for diversification; as long as it remains DIVERSE. I'd be interested in knowing what Uptown Consortium's strategy is for that. I don't see it causing Ludlow to go backrupt but Short Vine? Well...hmm.

 

BTW I believe its CHURCURCHURCH.

Kidding.. But they should have picked a different name; when I researched College Hill I found out they have an urban development corporation under the same name in charge of Linden Park, either that or it was off by one letter.

1) An intelligent market is a myth. There is no such thing as an intelligent market force. Pure capitalists love to say that "the market will work out such-and-such issue naturally." Translated: "Private forces with more power than you will decide the fate of this land."

 

EXACTLY!  And that's why, rather than coercive government power saddled by private develpment firms, we instead use the rule of law to determine things like private property rights!

 

2) In a vacuum, the idea of inviolate land ownership rights is fine. Utopian, even. However, America is but one country competing with many others who do not share the ideal of inviolate land ownership rights, and have the flexibility (sometimes abusively, sometimes not) to be as strategic and competitive as they want when it comes to modifying or redeveloping their cities. This puts us at a competitive disadvantage. That is not to say that we should or should not change our values. The fact simply exists.

 

Ah, my friend, this is what puts us at a competitive advantage.  Investors can put their money into US businesses without worrying that the government is going to nationalize their industry and simply steal factories and merchandise and facilities and contracts.

 

^What I'm saying is that two large enterprises (Arby's and Hardee's) are the ones receiving this windfall and the taxpayers expense.

 

How is (not Hardee's or Arby's) receiving compensation for attorney's fees in a court case in which they were found in the right a "windfall"?

Ah, my friend, this is what puts us at a competitive advantage.  Investors can put their money into US businesses without worrying that the government is going to nationalize their industry and simply steal factories and merchandise and facilities and contracts.

 

Tell that to Norwood. A city in a resource-rich western nation that is about as fiscally solvent as Albania.

oh, and going back to the piece of land where the shuttered fast food restaurants sit...

 

there are serious rumors flying around UC (specifically the Urban Planning dept. at DAAP) about Wal-Mart seriously looking at this site. I'm not so sure how I feel about that....it's such an eyesore and wasted used of space in such a high density area, and a Wal-Mart would be a major convenience for UC students; HOWEVER, I think a mixed use retail/housing/hotel/etc development would suit the area better in the long term.

 

has anyone heard anything in regards to this?

I would _highly_ doubt Wal-Mart would be looking at the site for a big-box store. Instead, they may be looking for a Neighborhood Marketplace, which are urban stores that can seemlessly fit into the landscape.

I would _highly_ doubt Wal-Mart would be looking at the site for a big-box store. Instead, they may be looking for a Neighborhood Marketplace, which are urban stores that can seemlessly fit into the landscape.

 

Wal-mart has finally grown to the point where they can't expand much more and their locations are not bringing in the profits they once were, which is probably why they're looking into smaller urban stores.

Even the Neighborhood Marketplaces are bringing in only marginal profits for many regions. We had three plans for Lexington alone, and only one was constructed. I wouldn't mind having one down here that was closer, if they provide reasonable prices and a decent selection. I can get in and get out without waiting in the cluster@#$^ that is Wal-Mart's "one checkout open" policy.

oh, and going back to the piece of land where the shuttered fast food restaurants sit...

 

there are serious rumors flying around UC (specifically the Urban Planning dept. at DAAP) about Wal-Mart seriously looking at this site. I'm not so sure how I feel about that....it's such an eyesore and wasted used of space in such a high density area, and a Wal-Mart would be a major convenience for UC students; HOWEVER, I think a mixed use retail/housing/hotel/etc development would suit the area better in the long term.

 

has anyone heard anything in regards to this?

 

This was a hypothetical exercise that was done to discuss how different places affect neighborhoods.  There is no real discussion about this; I'm assuming that you just got done discussing this with Auffrey.

I can get in and get out without waiting in the cluster@#$^ that is Wal-Mart's "one checkout open" policy.

You actually shop there??  :lol:  You may officially be the only person on this forum that supports walmart.

I haven't shopped there in over three months, and only very rarely before that. Meijer is only slightly better. I prefer to buy my goods at Wild Oats, Whole Foods or Good Foods (local co-op). But it is a cluster@#$^ when they have like 1000 employees at one store, yet there is one checkout open with 100 people standing behind it. OPEN UP SOME OTHER LINES ALREADY!

 

The Neighborhood Marketplace is a lot better, and almost reminds me of what Wal-Mart _used_ to be... when Sam Walton was alive. You can get in and out in a hurry, finding what you need in a minute, not an hour. Who needs 500 varieties of the same P&G product?

^ Well, Max ... people in the south usually are more accepting of Wal-Mart. ;)

oh, and going back to the piece of land where the shuttered fast food restaurants sit...

 

there are serious rumors flying around UC (specifically the Urban Planning dept. at DAAP) about Wal-Mart seriously looking at this site. I'm not so sure how I feel about that....it's such an eyesore and wasted used of space in such a high density area, and a Wal-Mart would be a major convenience for UC students; HOWEVER, I think a mixed use retail/housing/hotel/etc development would suit the area better in the long term.

 

has anyone heard anything in regards to this?

 

This was a hypothetical exercise that was done to discuss how different places affect neighborhoods.  There is no real discussion about this; I'm assuming that you just got done discussing this with Auffrey.

 

What a great example of how rumors can take on a life of their own.

No doubt. I nearly had a coronary.

^LOL. That would be scary. As much as I want Calhoun developed, I'd rather it remain grass and potential rather than a sprawl mart.

Actually I heard recently they're going to tear down DAAP and put a Wal-Mart there.

A vast improvement in building style.

 

 

 

 

 

_{Just keeding...}

Actually I heard recently they're going to tear down DAAP and put a Wal-Mart there.

 

Well we are too good for a location next to Crosley Tower, but no, DAAP is the one taking over. RIP East Burnett Woods! :evil:

 

A vast improvement in building style.

_{Just keeding...}

 

Haters... :roll:

There is actually an in-town Target in Philly near the Ikea in South Philly that is two stories. . . It would provide plenty of space for tail-gating when the Bearcats win the national championship. . .

I saw a multi-story K-Mart somewhere in NYC.

UC eager to see razed site get developed

So far, investment there has proven money drain

BY CLIFF PEALE | CINCINNATI ENQUIRER

October 20, 2007

 

UPTOWN - Three local developers are competing to try to rescue one of the city's most controversial development sites, a 3.2-acre strip just south of the University of Cincinnati that has eaten up millions of dollars from UC's endowment yet remains empty.

 

North American Properties, Towne Properties and Vandercar Holdings presented their plans to the Clifton Heights Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., which owns the site, and UC's top officials last week. They hope to reach a decision this fall.

UC covering development debt

BY CLIFF PEALE | CINCINNATI ENQUIRER

December 5, 2007

 

UPTOWN - The University of Cincinnati is lending more than $1 million to bail out a neighborhood development group that already owes the school more than $32 million.

 

The Clifton Heights Community Urban Redevelopment Corp. worked out a private deal to settle about $2.3 million in debt it owed companies for services ranging from engineering to architectural work.

oops.

Developer picked for land near UC

BY CLIFF PEALE | CINCINNATI ENQUIRER

January 8, 2008

 

UPTOWN - Towne Properties will get the next crack at developing the vacant area between Calhoun and McMillan streets in Clifton Heights.

 

The selection of the company only starts what could be months of negotiations on a contract.

This is GREAT news...I am very pleased that they chose Towne over Vandercar...VERY pleased.

Towne properties will get it done and they will do it right

If this piece of Calhoun can get developed with a good mix of stores and restaurants, the area around UC will be incredibly dynamic for prospective students.  Seeing a lively and fun neighborhood in this part of Clifton Heights, coupled with the already solid blocks of Calhoun, and then the Ludlow business district would be incredibly promising to any high school senior imo.  Also, if the streetcar actually happens, and OTR is cleaned up and connected, you have a situation that is hard to beat at an Ohio university.

Towne properties will get it done and they will do it right

 

I was about to post the same thing!

If this piece of Calhoun can get developed with a good mix of stores and restaurants, the area around UC will be incredibly dynamic for prospective students.  Seeing a lively and fun neighborhood in this part of Clifton Heights, coupled with the already solid blocks of Calhoun, and then the Ludlow business district would be incredibly promising to any high school senior imo.

 

Also, the land Marge Schott used to own that the Kroger sits on was sold; I think Kroger wants to upgrade the current Kroger on that site. Hopefully that comes to fruition.

you could run a streetcar directly up vine, through recently connected short vine, past university hospital and the VA to the zoo.  Corryville explodes. Short vine especially.  Corryville is the 'pearl district' of uptown

Towne Properties picked to develop site near UC

BY CLIFF PEALE | [email protected]

 

 

Towne Properties will get the next crack at developing the vacant area between Calhoun and McMillan streets in Clifton Heights.

 

The company's selection only starts what could be months of negotiations on a contract. Financial problems that have delayed the project for half a dozen years and a stagnant development market remain as barriers.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080109/NEWS01/801090354/1056/COL02

That was posted a little bit ago^

That was posted a little bit ago^

 

I posted the first version...which is often modified/expaned upon for the actual print publication.  The full article is what TCK posted...it includes more information.

That was posted a little bit ago^

 

I posted the first version...which is often modified/expaned upon for the actual print publication.  The full article is what TCK posted...it includes more information.

 

Thanks for watching my back Rando! :-D

 

Towne is the right pick, they almost always come through, they care a lot about the City and do high quality work.

If this piece of Calhoun can get developed with a good mix of stores and restaurants, the area around UC will be incredibly dynamic for prospective students.  Seeing a lively and fun neighborhood in this part of Clifton Heights, coupled with the already solid blocks of Calhoun, and then the Ludlow business district would be incredibly promising to any high school senior imo.

 

Also, the land Marge Schott used to own that the Kroger sits on was sold; I think Kroger wants to upgrade the current Kroger on that site. Hopefully that comes to fruition.

 

A number of properties along Short Vine near the Kroger have been acquired for that project (2602 Vine for one), and with 5/3 moving to the Schiel school site when SCPA is done, there is a lot of land around there for a bigger project.

I'm very happy to finally see some progress on what I think is quite possibly one of the most crucial projects for UC right now. This site really does hurt the university's image. I hate to say it, but it really does scream "ghetto", which is the image UC is really trying to move away from. I am a freshman at UC, and my dorm looks out over this site, which is an absolute mess. The rest of the area has progressed very nicely and is thriving -- this site is really the last piece in the puzzle in making this area really come together.

I am a freshman at UC, and my dorm looks out over this site,

 

You must be stayin' in Calhood! lol

I'm very happy to finally see some progress on what I think is quite possibly one of the most crucial projects for UC right now. This site really does hurt the university's image. I hate to say it, but it really does scream "ghetto", which is the image UC is really trying to move away from. I am a freshman at UC, and my dorm looks out over this site, which is an absolute mess. The rest of the area has progressed very nicely and is thriving -- this site is really the last piece in the puzzle in making this area really come together.

 

It is unfortunate that many students think this way and refer to, what they call Clifton, as the ghetto.  I always say, "last time I checked most ghettos don't have a Panera Bread, Urban Outfitters, Starbucks, American Apparal..."

 

Not to mention but there is about 0% vacancies for retail (aside from the new stuff at Calhoun Marketplace), the rents at University Park go for roughly $2/sf, and it is relatively safe.

 

With that said, it would be symbolic to get rid of one of the few existing reminders of that area's somewhat ghetto past.  It would really be making a statement.

I'm very happy to finally see some progress on what I think is quite possibly one of the most crucial projects for UC right now. This site really does hurt the university's image. I hate to say it, but it really does scream "ghetto", which is the image UC is really trying to move away from. I am a freshman at UC, and my dorm looks out over this site, which is an absolute mess. The rest of the area has progressed very nicely and is thriving -- this site is really the last piece in the puzzle in making this area really come together.

 

It is unfortunate that many students think this way and refer to, what they call Clifton, as the ghetto.  I always say, "last time I checked most ghettos don't have a Panera Bread, Urban Outfitters, Starbucks, American Apparal..."

 

Not to mention but there is about 0% vacancies for retail (aside from the new stuff at Calhoun Marketplace), the rents at University Park go for roughly $2/sf, and it is relatively safe.

 

With that said, it would be symbolic to get rid of one of the few existing reminders of that area's somewhat ghetto past.  It would really be making a statement.

 

and it isn't in Clifton. 

^I think it's funny how guys are more afraid of Burnett Woods than girls are.

 

If they call it ghetto and crime ridden again, just call them a pansy. I bet they'll stop making that ridiculous remark.

Burnett Woods was scary 7 or 8 years ago, but the park district has done a really good job on the park over the last few years. They cut back a lot of the undergrowth and scared off most of the homeless folks. There are a couple places around UC that made me nervous (mostly the area in front of the Thai place and going to parties in University Heights). The main strip isn't really ghetto, rather it is a prime example of failed urban renewal and the outsized plans of the previous UC regime (and the real results of the fight over eminent domain, like the field in Norwood).

(mostly the area in front of the Thai place and going to parties in University Heights).

 

University Heights?

 

I find that area one of the safest. . .CUF and Corryville scares me much more than University Heights. University Heights includes Stratford Heights, almost all of the fraternities, and some of the better apartments around campus. To me, it is the safest area.

I'm thinking of the area along Wheeler and heading down East Clifton. Nearly all of the folks I know of who have been mugged were in that neck of the woods.