This situation pisses me off - I have been thinking the exact same thing - why buy, raze, or let places sit empty when you are not ready to build?  It has already been debated about UC's financial responsibility on this, but I think the project was counting on much more money from the school to get this started.  When they changed their approach when McGirr and Kull "retired" that was probably the kiss of death.  For all the preaching that Nancy has done about developing the immediate neighborhoods around campus, this missing piece of the puzzle detracts from a lot of the new development in other areas.  It is right across the street from UC and does not look that inviting, and I think it hurts the school's chances of landing prospective students.  It actually is the one area that has gotten worse than it was 3 years ago.  I guess I am surprised the school would pull back on the one of the most high-profile areas.

 

I ask this forum again:  Is it responsible for an institution of education to give millions to an neighborhood project when they are having trouble meeting the needs fo the students financially?  UC has made it very public and clear that escalated construction costs on campus have lead to budget shortfalls.  I believe that UC has made the right choice to limit their financial exposure to this project during a tight budget period.  Much work has been done by the University to address the budget shortfalls. The primary goal of UC is educating students not rebuilding neighborhoods.  Rebuilding the neighborhood is a secondary goal.  If you had a goal to buy a 2 Million dollar condo but needed medical treatments to stay alive and you only had the money to do one or the other which would you choose?  This scenario may be drastic but I think it demonstrates the tough choices UC has made at this point in time.   

^  I am simply pointing out that the school changed course, and it would have probably been better to have known this was a possibiltiy.  If that had been done, at least the old businesses could have been operating a few more years instead of the eyesores and emptiness now there.   It also might help if they clarified the reason for moving McGirr and Kull out, which seems a little fuzzy. 

more of the same

 

Delays Continue With UC's Calhoun Street Project

 

Reported by: Richard Chiles

Web produced by: Neil Relyea

Photographed by: 9News

First posted: 10/28/2006 11:02:51 PM

If you build it, they will come.

 

That was the philosophy surrounding the University of Cincinnati's $100 million Calhoun Street redevelopment.

 

But project delays have some saying time is running out.

 

and the link has the video

http://www.wcpo.com/news/2006/local/10/28/uc_calhoun.html

But this is not the gated community Salti believes UC had in mind.

 

Whatever, one person's opinion on what they think UC has in mind?  Nice reporting.  The whole article is basically conjecture and a POS.  The article is in error with the first line, calling it "the University of Cincinnati's project.....", this is simply not true.  How about doing a little bit of homework Channel 9!

I ask this forum again:  Is it responsible for an institution of education to give millions to an neighborhood project when they are having trouble meeting the needs fo the students financially?  UC has made it very public and clear that escalated construction costs on campus have lead to budget shortfalls.  I believe that UC has made the right choice to limit their financial exposure to this project during a tight budget period.  Much work has been done by the University to address the budget shortfalls. The primary goal of UC is educating students not rebuilding neighborhoods.  Rebuilding the neighborhood is a secondary goal.  If you had a goal to buy a 2 Million dollar condo but needed medical treatments to stay alive and you only had the money to do one or the other which would you choose?  This scenario may be drastic but I think it demonstrates the tough choices UC has made at this point in time.

 

What you are saying is completely logical/right, but the university cut and run so to speak on CHCRUC.  CHCRUC had money promised to them by the university, and then had it yanked away just like that.  It was an abrupt change of course that led to this current situation.

 

I personally also have a problem with the whole situation as per the guidelines set out in the UC 21 Vision Plan.  A major focus of that plan was to invest in the neighboring areas around campus in order to create a safer, more welcoming environment for current/prospective students.

 

The moral of the story is:  your mouth shouldn't write checks, that your a$$ can't cash!

UC also has to think proactively in relation to its surroundings.  They could have the coolest campus in the world, but if on the other side of the streets surrounding it is crap, it will in the long run, deter students from coming to the university. This is especially true if a student got off at the Taft Rd. exit from I-71 southbound, that is the worst entrance into campus and that is the first impression prospects get of the area around UC.  So, I still believe it behooves them strategically in the long run to address neighborhood concerns in their environs.

^I totally agree; I know the neighborhood around UC certainly came up in discussions with my friends in high school and our college choices. An urban setting is always going to deter some students, just like a college out in the middle of nowhere, I suppose.

Good. Nieve sheltered exurbanites here annoy the hell out of me anyway--good riddence. They can go to Bowling Green and experience the "real world". What a lot of ppl dont realize is that even though the Clifton area has some degree of crime problems, the actual campus is SUCH A BARRIER. It's literally like stepping into another world. Crime ON campus is extremely low. If you are a guy and you pass up a good opportunity at UC because you're afraid of the neghborhood then you are a sad sack wuss.

If you are a guy and you pass up a good opportunity at UC because you're afraid of the neghborhood then you are a sad sack wuss.

 

Classy  :laugh:

Seriously, Calhoun is a freaking eyesore.  Regardless of delays, the developer owes it to the community to at least raise the boarded up buildings and level everything.  While we all want it to be developed to what was proposed, at least level it like the Banks of the riverfront until the development comes.  Could you imagine if the crumbles of Riverfront Stadium lingered on the riverfront until the area was developed? 

 

It is these type of promises and dreams that create a cynical populous. 

The Cinci Kid is right, coming to UC campus from I-71 S onto Taft may be the worst/ugliest entrance to a major university that I have ever seen.  So, basically any students coming from columbus and cleveland areas to visit the campus (with thier families) are immediately exposed to unpleasantness.  UC needs to find a way to get them onto MLK as soon as possible past all the new construction and the hospitals, and then on to Jefferson with some new construction as well.  They should close down Taft at Highland on big high school visitation days ;)

I live in the area.  When they started tearing down some of my favorite businesses (Acropolis, Inn the Wood, UDF) I secretly hoped the project would fail.  I now regret thinking that.

 

Someone mentioned it earlier in the thread but I would like to know why Arby's and Hardee's still stands.  The empty lots are eyesores, but boarded-up graffiti covered buildings are even worse.  Hardee's confuses me even more.  They shut down before I even heard mention of other businesses closing.  I honestly can't remember the last time Hardee's was open whereas Arby's etc was just a few years ago.

 

 

If you are a guy and you pass up a good opportunity at UC because you're afraid of the neghborhood then you are a sad sack wuss.

 

Classy  :laugh:

Class, whats that?

 

Oh yeah Wednesday I might stop by your studio if you're not too busy or in the middle of a lecture. :]

The Cinci Kid is right, coming to UC campus from I-71 S onto Taft may be the worst/ugliest entrance to a major university that I have ever seen.  So, basically any students coming from columbus and cleveland areas to visit the campus (with thier families) are immediately exposed to unpleasantness.  UC needs to find a way to get them onto MLK as soon as possible past all the new construction and the hospitals, and then on to Jefferson with some new construction as well.  They should close down Taft at Highland on big high school visitation days ;)

 

Actually I think going up MLK from the Hopple Street exit is the ugliest entrance to campus, not that that does anything to prove UCs merits. You have the 28 dollar hotel, the check cashing place, no new development since like the 60s. Prospectives would be impressed after seeing Clifton Ave. and Ludlow ave. area though. McMillan is a little intimidating to those people but there is a portion that's vibrant with great food options. Its unfortunate that Ludlow is placed in a position where its kind of irrelevant to UC. In a way its not a bad thing because theres quite a lot of older people that live there that aren't affiliated with UC and they probably like it that way.

Actually, didn't they just build a tiny shopping center behind the new 5/3 at the Hopple exit?  I think there may be a dollar store or something in there.  Anyway, I do love the $28 motel where you can walk straight out to the White Castle for your chicken rings cravings!

Yeah they did build a new development with a dollar store and a Deveroes and its hideous.

 

 

You actually slept in that motel!? Please tell me you brought your own sheets.

 

^I don't think the $28 is for a full night.

^ I did traffic counts at that intersection of McMicken and MLK a few years back.  I used that motel parking lot as my spot to count.  During the 2 hour time period, I had 4 whores come out of the motel and asked if I need anything.  And that was during the 11:00 am to 1:00 pm time period.  In the middle of daylight.

Yeah, what is the best first impression to get someone from the highway to UC?

 

From 75 S, there's Mitchell --> Kenard --> Clifton, which is pretty except for the Kenard stretch; Mitchell --> Vine; and everything else would come up through OTR, which is beautiful but not always welcoming...

 

From 71 S, there's WHT, discussed above; Dana --> Madison/MLK, which is nice except a few stretches, but is kind of a long ways out of the way; then again downtown and OTR...

 

From 71/75 N, there's assorted downtown --> OTR; 75 --> Hopple; 71 --> Reading --> WHT...

 

^I don't think the $28 is for a full night.

The $28 dollars is for half an hour.  I don't know that from personal experience, a cop told me.

^I don't think the $28 is for a full night.

The $28 dollars is for half an hour.  I don't know that from personal experience, a cop told me.

Surrrreee ...a cop told you :]

 

Lol just playing :]

>Nieve sheltered

 

Spell check. 

 

UC, or whoever is actually in control of all this land, needs to immediately make a decision on what to do with the lots.  Plant grass or pave some of the property for parking.  This project likely isn't going to get off the ground for years and portions could not see action for more than a decade.  The City of Cincinnati disastrously demolished the 5th & Race Tower in the summer of 1999 without having an absolute contractual guarantee that Nordstrom would build, but to its credit paved the pit almost immediately after Nordstrom pulled out of the deal.  Similarly the Queen City Square lot has sat empty as a pseudo-park for decades, a somewhat similar situation. 

   

 

 

Plant grass or pave some of the property for parking. 

 

I agree with you.  Leaving it in the current state is the worst possible thing to do.  If it was leveled and had grass it least it would be a temp greenspace.  Or if they added a temporary surface lot that would help some of the businesses located there until they have something concrete in place.

Calhoun project hits roadblock

McMillan Park redevelopment plan in limbo

BY JON NEWBERRY | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

 

For years, community planners have touted McMillan Park as a bustling complex of condominiums and shops bordering the University of Cincinnati's Clifton campus, replacing aging fast-food restaurants and rental housing that had taken over Calhoun Street.

 

The fast-food joints are gone, helped along by the city of Cincinnati's threat to seize properties owners wouldn't sell.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061118/BIZ01/611180346/1076/BIZ

This'll happen but the original plan is gone.

Tony Brown, president and CEO of Uptown Consortium, said McMillan Park is saddled with a $20 million funding gap, mostly caused by the cost of underground parking. Underground parking spaces cost between $25,000 and $35,000 apiece, he said, but they're necessary to make the condos viable.

 

Damn those parking requirements...first the Banks...now McMillan Park?!?!?!  Places with adequate alternative forms of transportation actually have lower parking requirements for developments as a result.  We really need to get our crap together and quit hurting the projects that we DO have...much less the ones we COULD have.

The good is that there are still people working on this, and it is nice to get an update.  The bad is that I do not think Monica Rimai has the passion for the development like her predecessors did, and I guess I do not trust her comments. 

Smart cities invest continually invest in infrastructure and beutification.  That way they offer long lasting amenites.  We're a dumb city and a dumb region.  We needed transportation improvements 15 years ago, every year that this waits the region suffers.  Costs for underground parking in this area are outrageous and reflect major shortsightedness.

Calhoun Street project in court

BY GREGORY KORTE | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

Both sides in a Clifton Heights eminent domain dispute argued their case before a three-judge appeals panel this morning, and both cited another Greater Cincinnati eminent domain case – Norwood v. Horney – as bolstering their argument.

 

The Ohio Supreme Court’s July 28 decision that struck down the use of eminent domain for economic development in Norwood was a sweeping property rights decision.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20061207/NEWS01/312070019/

:bang:

^^ the properties aren't in clifton, they are in clifton heights. 

 

Unlike norwood v. horney, the properties in Clifton heights were declared blighted.

I am confused, what are they fighting for?

Well its obviously the 'in' thing to do now in regards to property acquisition.  You are seeing this fight in even the most legit uses of eminent domain across the nation.  It is all getting rediculous, and something needs to be (counter lawsuit against the rediculous plaintiffs that waste taxpayer dollars ie: the Dismasi's)!  Until someone has their feet held to the fire expect these rediculous challenges to continue to occur.  :|

Owners, city refer to same land case

Both sides use Norwood eminent domain ruling to back dispute in Clifton Heights

BY GREGORY KORTE | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

 

Both sides in a Clifton Heights eminent domain dispute argued their case before a state appeals court Thursday, and both cited the same Norwood case as precedent.

 

Property rights advocates hailed the Ohio Supreme Court's July 28 ruling, which struck down the use of eminent domain for private development in Norwood, as a sweeping property rights decision. [/color]

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061208/NEWS01/612080385/1056/COL02

In the case of Calhoun Street, why are they suing?  Are they seeking money or the land back?

they just want money.  The real issue is that the property owners want the value of the land if it were developed to it highest best use and the city says they should get the value of the land as it was.

“If you’re even vaguely familiar with the Clifton Heights neighborhood, it fits the definition of deteriorated,” Nestor said.

 

I sure hope he meant specificly the block that is sitting empty.  If not than I'm sure he just offended alot of property owners of the neighborhood, including myself who frequents the neighborhood often...mostly for Chicago Gyros.

^if you look at the definitions in the city municiple code defining deteriorated, it does fit the definition.  Age of over forty years and inadequate parking are both factors than lead to something being called 'deteriorated'.

those are ridiculous criteria rooted in outdated urban renewal thinking.  i know there are other characteristics that they factor in, but based on those alone, 99% of the country's best neighborhoods could be considered 'deteriorated'.

yep

As much as I hate to say it, I hope the city loses this case then.  Hopefully that will force them to rethink and rewrite the current definition of 'deteriorated.'  It's not like this would set back the project start time or anything.  Since it should have started over 2 years ago.

The real issue is that the property owners want the value of the land if it were developed to it highest best use and the city says they should get the value of the land as it was.

 

There is absolutely NO reason why the former property owners should get compensated for what the land will be worth after further improvements!!!  That makes absolutely no sense at all.  The owners put forth NO backing, money, or effort towards the further improvement of the land.  Therefore, all they should receive is due compensation for the current value of their property...thats how capitalism works!  You can go into low value areas...take a risk and then reap the rewards....these idiots are not the ones taking the risk; therefore they should not be able to cash in on the payout!!!!

UncleRando nailed this one! I wasn't living in Cincinnati before all the buildings where taken down, but from what's standing there now, this block was blighted and deteriorating. This will only delay the project longer. I don't understand why things take so long to get done in the city, but in the suburbs, buildings can be completed in a matter of months. And for those saying that this will be of higher quality than suburban building projects, I don't think quality of building has anything to do with it, case in point is Stratford Heights, piece of shit that took 2 years to build.

I don't understand why things take so long to get done in the city, but in the suburbs, buildings can be completed in a matter of months.

 

That's because out in the 'burbs they're building on previously unused greenland...not wrongfully taking away some family run restaurants and businesses that took generations to build up.  I'm all for the use of eminent domain for the betterment of the general public.  Along with giving up one's personal space for the betterment of all.  But what I'm not for is the government taking away one's personal space and property for the betterment of a select few, which this project is intended for.  I feel bad for cities such as Cincinnati, Norwood, New London, etc. because they have to resort to such low ball efforts as what they did here, because federal and state planning regulations have decimated them to do so.  But, you have to deal with the cards you are given, and taking private propety for private use that only 25% of the workers at the targeted instituions could afford to live in, is border line dictatorship.

 

And let me make this clear, I'm not sticking up for the fast food chains there were previously there, or the ones that are currently taking this to court.  I don't believe they should receive further payments, since they've obviously given up on their properties long ago.

The stories referred to park land being counted as deteriorating - what park?  The nearest park I know of is Inwood, on the other side of frickin' Vine Street...

 

Mohr37:

As much as I hate to say it, I hope the city loses this case then.  Hopefully that will force them to rethink and rewrite the current definition of 'deteriorated.'  It's not like this would set back the project start time or anything.  Since it should have started over 2 years ago.

 

You can take heart, because the Ohio Supreme Court has already decided that 'deteriorated' is an inadequate reason for taking private property.  This Calhoun project stuff happened prior to the Norwood case that resulted in that ruling, but City Council is not about to try this kind of thing again - not because they'll learn a lesson by losing this case, but because it's not lawful to do so anymore.

 

Rando:

There is absolutely NO reason why the former property owners should get compensated for what the land will be worth after further improvements!!!  That makes absolutely no sense at all.  The owners put forth NO backing, money, or effort towards the further improvement of the land.  Therefore, all they should receive is due compensation for the current value of their property...thats how capitalism works!  You can go into low value areas...take a risk and then reap the rewards....these idiots are not the ones taking the risk; therefore they should not be able to cash in on the payout!!!!

 

I agree and disagree...first, I disagree with your argument based on capitalism.  At its most basic root, capitalism is about supply and demand.  The capitalism argument would say that Hardee's and Arby's could hold out forever and ever, until they chose to sell their product.  When you throw the strong arm of government takings into the mix, any appeal to capitalism goes out the window.

 

That being said, eminent domain is lawful (setting aside whether it's lawful in this case or not), and the standard for compensation is left ambiguous.  Here's what I wrote over in the Norwood thread:

 

The last clause in the 5th amendment just says, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."  But state laws can establish their own rules, as long as they only offer more protection than the 5th amendment, not less - Ohio couldn't say that takings are permitted without just compensation - but they could say takings are never permitted in the state.

 

In Ohio, the law ("§ 163.09. Valuation of property taken; how determined." - you can go to http://codes.ohio.gov, go to the revised code, Title I, section 163.09...I don't see how to permalink, at least not on a mac) doesn't really give guidance: "the court, on motion of a public agency, shall declare the value of the property taken and the damages, if any, to the residue to be as set forth in any document properly filed with the clerk of the court of common pleas by the public agency."  I'm certain there are guidelines somewhere for doing this, but I have no idea where to look.

 

 

From what I've read, the idea of having to pay the future, developed value for eminent domain land seems kind of novel - though please, if anyone has any knowledge to the contrary, I'd be thrilled to read it...I've spent a few hours looking for information on valuing taken property to no avail, so anything someone knows would be very appreciated!

 

I'd imagine that the idea here for the property owners is that, yes, the taking already happened, but hey, if they'd have tried to pull this today, it would be illegal...how about we not reward the developers just because they broke the law before it was illegal?

But, you have to deal with the cards you are given, and taking private propety for private use that only 25% of the workers at the targeted instituions could afford to live in, is border line dictatorship.

 

I have to object to "border line dictatorship" - I mean, you could say the exact same thing about the takings clause of the 5th amendment.  Or about the new smoking laws, or manditory seat belt laws, or zoning laws, or any of a host of laws.  Describing them as overbearing government is one thing - but these are our elected leaders setting policies and executing them.  This has nothing to do with dictatorship, borderline or not.  I agree with your sentiment, but I honestly think calling elected representatives dictators, when they're just trying to follow the laws, and they go to court like everyone else, and they follow the rules set down, and you can vote them out of office, and we're talking about gray and changing areas of law - I think it's supremely unhelpful to call the folks one disagrees with dictators.  If for no other reason than it leaves us no words to describe real dictators...

 

I'm completely with you on your argument - that the standard should be the betterment of the general public, the betterment of all, not of a select few.  (And maybe that's why the future value of the land seems like a novel concept - because how do you establish the future value of a park or a cemetery or a county municipal building?)  But I'm just off the bus on the hyperbole...

well actually alot of those things are dictatorial by definition.

like the smoking ban which is the majority trying to impose itself on the minority and hopeully the courts will do their job and stop that from happening. if you want something like retail space...pay them more for the property and they'll cave, if you want a non smoking bar go to one or open your own. its nobodies business what a person does with their own business. people dump on the courts but one of their jobs. is to elimintate double standards from harming those who are in the minority. UC can put up or shut up on this project and so can the whiney non smokers who are too lazy to go 5 extra minutes to another bar so they have to ruin it for others.

Yes, by definition, those things are dictatorial - in the extremely narrow sense of the government dictating what you may or may not do.  But under that definition, speed limits and industrial zoning are dictatorial.

 

Nobody brings up "dictatorship" in that extremely narrow sense - they're rhetorically invoking images of Mussolini and Pinochet and Mao.  It implies that the takings clause of the 5th Amendment is borderline Stalin - and that's what I'm objecting to.  Because Eminent Domain law and public smoking ordinances are governmental regulation, and that's all.  It may be unwise, it may be overbearing, but it ain't a frickin' dictatorship.

 

>manditory seat belt laws

 

The seat belt law is just giving officers an additional "probable cause" to pull over people, just like having one of your license plate lights out.  And of course there's no sensor and there's no way a camera can record that a person had their seatbelt on or off, meaning the police can now pull over anyone and write on the ticket a lack of a seat belt as probable cause. 

Jake - that's true now, but not when it was passed.  They didn't allow primary enforcement of it for what, 10 or 15 years?

 

And that is a little beside the point...I wouldn't call the seat belt law dictatorial either...