^ Well put!     

Only in Cincinnati.

 

Trust me, this is everywhere, and in MUCH fuller force.

I fully grant him that he found a hot button political trump card.  Good for him.  I DO NOT grant him that he is serving the role he is supposed to be serving (helping place people in homes, while sustaining the financial feasibility of subsidized vouchers).  I don't think I have ever seen Witte use his clout as anything other than an advocate for Price Hill.  This isn't the Price Hill Housing Association he is representing.

 

I think this little shenanigan is going to bite him in his arse, or at least in a truly functioning democracy it should.  When you use a county wide organization to advocate for the interests of a VERY SMALL SEGMENT of that county, you should be booted right the heck out.  I don't attribute any higher goals to Mr. Witte because I have NEVER heard him speak out for any other community, other than in passing, than Price Hill.  My own neighborhood has its own problems with voucher subsidised housing, yet have I EVER heard him speak out about the concentration of CMHA voucher recipients in CUF?  Nope.  He failed in his run for council because his base of support is such a narrow one.  Now he is using his role in a county wide organization to advocate for that narrow base of support. 

^Well, yes.  I agree with all of this.  That's why I don't believe that anything CMHA tries to do will "ruin" the Banks project because they don't have the political clout.

 

I agree that Witte is extremely, if not entirely, parochial in his viewpoint.  But that doesn't mean he's wrong about this.  If this is a county-wide program, than it should be implemented in a county-wide manner.  I think it is a little silly and pretty immature to assume that low-income people ruin neighborhoods by their presence.  Over-the-Rhine was "ruined" by poor people but instead by the system that encouraged investment elsewhere.  It strikes me as being not unreasonable to think that the people who use CMHA for housing, if spread evenly geographically throughout the county, would ever need to amount to more than 10% of any neighborhoods residents (I'm guessing at all this).  Does anyone here know anyone who is housed in whole or in part by the CMHA?

 

Witte's argument, while verbally directed at the Banks project, is much more applicable to these suburban areas that probably aren't pulling their weight.  I remember Cranley saying something about this way back during his first council term.  I doubt much has changed in the interim.

I am friends with a few folks who are currently using or in the past have used CMHA housing vouchers.  Its an admirable program for the most part, and in my experience has been administered fairly well.  I am not thinking that voucher recipients would ruin any of these neighborhoods so long as they abide by the rules of the program (one of which being no police calls to the residence - which can cause permanent revocation of their voucher).

 

I dont' have the numbers in front of me, but I would be willing to say that no neighborhood would need to be 10% voucher recipients if they were truly spread out evenly in the county.  There are problems with this so called even spread though - the best option for these recipients is to get vouchers that they can use for housing near where the employment centers are, and further where the difference between the rental cost and the amount of the voucher is the lowest.  Needless to say, this makes a small number of neighborhoods support a larger concentraton of voucher recipients.

 

The only way to change this is to change the rental cost portion of the equation, which for CMHA means actually buying properties and renting them at well below market to create this low differential between the voucher amount and the rents.  This just isn't feasible for that organization -- and I am sure Mr Witte knows this.  Consequently, its just grandstanding, on something that can't be fixed short of CMHA actually buying expensive properties to distribute people to these other communities.  The thing he always seems to neglect is that the voucher recipients get to CHOOSE where they will live.  They could use the voucher to cover the complete cost of rent in far northwest portions of the county.  They don't though because they are willing to pay the differential between rent and the voucher amount in order to live closest to where they work.

 

I do resent political grandstanding in the manner in which he has done it.  He's an official part of the organization, its not like he couldn't have the ear of the mayor, county level executives, etc, without resorting to a cheap ploy.

11,000 people in Hamilton Cty, in section 8 according to Witte and the other CMHA guy that voted against the Banks deal, plus Mallory.    ( I would love to see a map with WHERE these Sec 8 homes are located throughout the county.)

 

Cunningham had them both on and in usual Cunningham style he made Witte sound like the one with common sense.      Willie was dogging CHMA and basically saying that the Westside is a lost cause and that we should leave the concentration there and not spread the "disease" throughout the rest of the county.   

 

"Why let these people move into Hyde Park, Oakley, and Kenwood while we have them concentrated in Western Hills."

 

What are we still living in the 80's and 90's with that ideology Willie?      That kind of comment will only add fuel to the fire from most westsiders.

 

Pure and Simple, Witte has accomplished what he set out to achieve and that is bringing Section 8 to the forefront of discussion again.     He knows they are not going to be buying penthouses for any Sec 8 recipients.   HE ALSO KNOWS AND SAID THAT THIS WILL NOT HOLD UP BANKS CONSTRUCTION because CMHA doesn't hold that kind of power.

Cunningham dug into this guy, it bordered on getting personal, I don't see how you saw it otherwise.  In theory dispersing people via vouchers works better than concentrating them in public housing blocks but in reality I don't think it does.  Kids are influenced by their immediate surroundings (their actual family) much more than the people next door and the cycle of idiocy continues. 

Also, let me add that today I told someone that in Europe they push the poor and immigrants into public housing blocks on the outskirts of the city.  The guy goes "yeah cause the cities are nice over there".  He didn't pick up that it's a chicken & the egg situation.  The average dude can't see beyond his own neighborhood and simply doesn't understand that their home values and career prospects are directly linked to the character and perception of the center city. 

Kids are influenced by their immediate surroundings (their actual family) much more than the people next door and the cycle of idiocy continues. 

 

I sit near the fence on this issue, but you can argue that statement in reverse from the other point of view as well.

For some of these inner city kids brought up in the status quo, escaping to the burbs is there one ticket in life to make something of that opportunity.  (Safer streets / better public education)    Wheter they capitalize on that opportunity is the million dollar question that reinforces this theory.

 

 

The average dude can't see beyond his own neighborhood and simply doesn't understand that their home values and career prospects are directly linked to the character and perception of the center city. 

 

I agree 110%

 

Banks related...... this crap isn't going to effect the project.                     

The problem with concentrating low-income households is that it does just that.  Neighborhoods made up of a majority of low-income housing stand little to no chance at ever having a reasonable neighborhood business district, neighborhood school, or many other good services for that matter.  They just can't afford to do so, and the disposal income is complete absent.

 

Dispersing low-income housing works because it does not overburden one particular neighborhood.  You've got Section 8 housing directly across from the Aronoff Center...and I would argue that it's still a nice area of Downtown.

I'm surprised to hear Mallory complain about getting rid of the projects. It's not like they had been working for the past 40 years.

 

As for the bigger issue, while I don't agree with the timing or lack of tact, I don't see anything wrong with having a low income piece in The Banks, the whole idea is to blend things in. Poor people aren't inherently bad people, do it under the radar, who needs to know how much their neighbor makes? I don't see section 8 as a necessity in The Banks and certainly not in the first phase. We've still got plenty of time to hash out how it could work.

 

Boo political posturing.

I'm surprised to hear Mallory complain about getting rid of the projects. It's not like they had been working for the past 40 years.

 

I don't think that was what Mallory was saying.  Here's the quote:

 

In remarks while touring the Cinergy Center in advance of his youth job fair today, Mallory tossed out a litany of frustrations with the housing authority.

 

He said the destruction of project-based public housing – particularly in English Woods on the West Side and Lincoln and Laurel Homes projects in the West End – have had a devastating impact on residents and surrounding neighborhoods.

 

He's merely stating an observation of what happened after they got rid of these housing projects.

 

The only way to change this is to change the rental cost portion of the equation, which for CMHA means actually buying properties and renting them at well below market to create this low differential between the voucher amount and the rents.  This just isn't feasible for that organization -- and I am sure Mr Witte knows this.  Consequently, its just grandstanding, on something that can't be fixed short of CMHA actually buying expensive properties to distribute people to these other communities.  The thing he always seems to neglect is that the voucher recipients get to CHOOSE where they will live.  They could use the voucher to cover the complete cost of rent in far northwest portions of the county.  They don't though because they are willing to pay the differential between rent and the voucher amount in order to live closest to where they work.

 

I wonder if this isn't the way to go.  Although I don't believe for a second that this will happen, it seems like it would be a much more equitable way to distribute the population.  The could do a combination of vouchers and CMHA owned units.

 

I also think that, given the fact that this project is financed in part by the County, there's no reason why this they couldn't set aside upwards to ten units from the entire completed project for this purpose.  That strikes me as being reasonable.

 

 

 

 

10 units is not 10% of the units however...

^These thoughts of mine come forth related only vaguely to each other.

There's tons of space for the projects in Cincinnati.  Why does Witte want that crap at The Banks when it would do absolutely no good to have it there in the first place.  The lack of common sense in some of our business interests is astounding.  It's like the building height issue.  Why would Kroger or CBS complain when they can't even see 3 blocks away at their tallest floor lol.

He said the destruction of project-based public housing – particularly in English Woods on the West Side and Lincoln and Laurel Homes projects in the West End – have had a devastating impact on residents and surrounding neighborhoods.

The hell it did.  What are the calls for service now in those locations relative to the what it was?  The project based housing itself had a devastating impact on the residents and the surrounding neighborhoods, their destruction is what allowed for these people to seek a better life and the neighborhood to revitalize.  And to put forth a proposal for any part of the Banks to be subsidized is missing the point of the whole program.  This is suposed to help people get back on their feet and close the gap in rent in order to provide a housing safety net--not put them on prime river front property.  Hell, give me a voucher!  Next we can push for Jean Robert to accept food stamps.  There should be a difference in compassion and lunacy, but this proposal sure does blur those lines.

 

Oneglove was correct, he knows better and says things like this for political reasons because of the venue that he happened to be in at the time (put him at a Home Builders function and get him to make the same statement).  And Witte is no different in that he has to say stuff like this because of his organization demands him push an agenda.  Common sense will prevail.  Politics... plain, simple and mindboggling. 

Well thank God they're still building it.  I just saw more trucks and a few bulldozers park at The Banks today.

There's tons of space for the projects in Cincinnati.  Why does Witte want that crap at The Banks when it would do absolutely no good to have it there in the first place.

 

It should be noted that Witte is not talking about "projects."  Location-based housing is no longer practiced in the US (for the large majority at least).  The programs utilized today are more user-based where the tenants can select where they live based on more free-market ideals.

 

Everyone has pretty much figured out that the old way of building "projects" was a complete and utter failure in US policy...both socially and the actual physical product.

It should be noted that Witte is not talking about "projects."  Location-based housing is no longer practiced in the US (for the large majority at least).  The programs utilized today are more user-based where the tenants can select where they live based on more free-market ideals.

 

Everyone has pretty much figured out that the old way of building "projects" was a complete and utter failure in US policy...both socially and the actual physical product.

 

Yes, and what they are now finding out is that this "free market ideal" as you call it is also a failure, because the residents and property owners do not care enough for the property or the area to take care of it.  This affects all the other residents who do take pride in their property ownership.  Besides, it's not the free market in this situation, because you are talking about public assistance.  There is nothing free market about that.  If you want to live for free, you should live where the people paying for it decide it should be.

 

 

Section 8 housing is not free housing.  The program is based upon your income level and you pay 30% of your family's income towards your rent...the rest of the market-rate price is covered through the Section 8 program (subject to Fair Market Rate as determined by HUD).

 

In a nutshell, Section 8 housing can literally be wherever a willing landlord is...thus making this more of a free-market program than anything else.  The Section 8 program has made small/average markets (like Cincinnati) more accomodating to rental property owners since there is now a guaranteed rental pool that they can attract at a FMR price range.

 

If you're upset about the properties not being maintained, then you should complain to the landlords not the tenants.  It is the landlords responsibility to maintain their properties...for both the tenants and the neighbors.  Often times many of the landlords are either from out of town, or are simply suburbanites that couldn't care less about the state of their properties as long as they are collecting their Section 8 checks.

There's definitely something to that, DanB.  But I also like programs like the one Newport is taking part in.  Unfortunately, I can't remember the name of it right now.  When they bulldozed the project that formerly stood on the proposed Ovation site, they helped many of the residents locate other housing within the city, some of which was in the form of home ownership, in houses that were being built about 6 blocks away.  The new houses aren't grand by any means, but are they are affordable at around $120k and were designed to reflect the architecture of the surrounding neighborhood.  With some sort of state or federal grant, the price of these homes was brought to under $100k.  That's a price that almost anyone can afford with a fixed rate 30 year mortgage.  I can't vouch for anyone's "pride of ownership", but it seems like eliminating that project, creating new housing on previously vacant lots, and adding homeowners to a part of the neighborhood that is mostly renters, are all marks in the "win column" for the city itself.

 

I'm not sure if that's the same sort of thing that Rando was referring to, but the goals seem similar.

^Similar things were done in the Gateway Quarter via Historic Tax Credits and what not to keep the prices of condos affordable (90k to mid-300's).

Yes, and what they are now finding out is that this "free market ideal" as you call it is also a failure, because the residents and property owners do not care enough for the property or the area to take care of it.

 

I would not say that.  First, I wouldn't call any program that pays for any portion of your rent "free market".  Second, you are assigning fault to the program by pointing out the shortcomings of the individual.  I see the point that you are making and would break that into two problems, both that can be associated with those either in or out of the section 8 voucher program.  The renter mentality, whether it is "low income" or not generally is different than that of an owner who is basically married to the property and has a financial loss if they destroy the place.  As for the owners, some people simply stretch themselves to a point that they can only afford the mortgage and not the upkeep.  Just because you can afford to make monthly payments does not necessarily mean that you can replace a roof if need be or hire in a painter every couple of years to keep the house looking fresh.  Those problems are not just confined to section 8 voucher recipients. 

 

The real problem with this program and most other gov. entitlement programs is that there is not enough of an incentive to get out of it.  The move away from a project based system however was definitely a step in the right direction and helped decentralize poverty, crime and the hopelessness that people felt in the inner cities of America.  It also removed the foot that was firmly placed on the back of the communities like OTR and the West End and you are seeing a resurgence of communities like ours at exactly the same time HUD made the change.  This was not just a coincidence.

HUD knows that some tenants are more responsible than others. When they created City West for example, they allowed the tenants who they knew were very responsible (paid their rent on time, didn't cause problems) live there. They were very selective and I think that's a good idea. Reward low income people who act responsibly. My family was screwed over when we rented to section 8 tenants, the front door was off the hinges, there were holes in the wall, etc when I visited the house. I was furious, because these people were only paying 300 a month while the government was paying 700.  My mom was really generous and set the rent much lower than it should have been to begin with, yet these people didn't appreciate what was given to them. Litigation is a long tedious process to recoup a loss (if you even can). Not all section 8 renters are bad but I have no sympathy for some of them that have to live under bad conditions in sub-par housing in projects; they simply can't manage having anything nice.

 

I'd also like to mention that there is no such thing as a free market. Like Randy mentioned, the Q was made possible through historic tax credits and almost every new development is subsidized, even if it means the city paying to bury power lines because God forbid rich people have to look at that.

Well I was following you up to this point.

 

I'd also like to mention that there is no such thing as a free market. Like Randy mentioned, the Q was made possible through historic tax credits and almost every new development is subsidized, even if it means the city paying to bury power lines because God forbid rich people have to look at that.

 

Much of the reason that these projects have to be subsidized (especially Q) is to offset the restrictions and thus added cost that gov has placed on the redevelopment, or development in the first place.  Compliance=$ and $=additional strings being attached.  So in that sense yes, there is no free market because it is primarily governmental forces that drives what we have to do down here on dev. vs. the market dictating.  Ironically, the Q was made both possible and necessary because of subsidies. 

The idea that any government action necessarily reduces the "freedom" of the market is absurd.  The market in question is rental properties.  The government gives a voucher to those people who qualify for the voucher, and the landlord chooses whether or not to accept said voucher and the money that comes with it.  Who exactly is being coerced in this scenario?

 

As a property owner and a college graduate, I've benefited from government subsidies of student loans and as well as government policies designed to encourage property ownership.  I'm pretty sure the money spent on home mortgages aren't taxed.  No one seems to be complaining about how this lessens the "freedom" of the market.

 

If you're upset about the properties not being maintained, then you should complain to the landlords not the tenants.  It is the landlords responsibility to maintain their properties...for both the tenants and the neighbors.  Often times many of the landlords are either from out of town, or are simply suburbanites that couldn't care less about the state of their properties as long as they are collecting their Section 8 checks.

 

This sort of behavior is common not just to landlords who rent to people in the Section 8 program.  In college it took my landlord 8 months to fix our washer/dryer.  He finally did it when I told him we would be withholding rent.  He also had a party in our apartment when we were on Winter break, and he didn't even clean up afterward.

 

My family was screwed over when we rented to section 8 tenants, the front door was off the hinges, there were holes in the wall, etc when I visited the house. I was furious, because these people were only paying 300 a month while the government was paying 700.  My mom was really generous and set the rent much lower than it should have been to begin with, yet these people didn't appreciate what was given to them. Litigation is a long tedious process to recoup a loss (if you even can).

 

From what I've heard, it is quite difficult to actually get someone evicted, and if they damage your property in excess of the rent deposit, the owner is generally screwed out of the difference (of course, there are also owners who make it a principle not to return rent deposits).  When it comes down to it, the people who screw things up are typically the lazy and the criminal, and most of government is devoted to cleaning up after these types who come from all income groups.   

The idea that any government action necessarily reduces the "freedom" of the market is absurd.  The market in question is rental properties.  The government gives a voucher to those people who qualify for the voucher, and the landlord chooses whether or not to accept said voucher and the money that comes with it.  Who exactly is being coerced in this scenario?

 

As a property owner and a college graduate, I've benefited from government subsidies of student loans and as well as government policies designed to encourage property ownership.  I'm pretty sure the money spent on home mortgages aren't taxed.  No one seems to be complaining about how this lessens the "freedom" of the market.

 

First sentence first.  Government intervention into any market by definition reduces the freedom of that market.  Second, rental was one of the markets in question until subsidies came up as it applies to the Q and other developments.  Third, I am not sure who said they are being coerced to accept vouchers.  Fourth, what we are complaining about is the encouragement and discouragement of property uses in different areas by the gov. and how this does lessen the freedoms of the market because it is governmental, not market forces that are doing the influencing.

 

Ok, let me retract number three to a point.  Low income tax credits.  Model has a few that they have rehabbed using these tax credits under the agreement that they keep that building low income for a period of up to 15 years.  Does the market get to dictate who occupies the building?  Does the market get to dictate what the rent is?  If this were a "free market" then we would not have to distinguish daily that this buidling is or is not "market rate".  In OTR they are also mostly historic buildings meaning they have additional requirements they must meet when rehabbing the buildings.  Someone once said on here that Compliance=$ and $=additional strings being attached.  Its a vicious cycle.

 

I'm pretty sure the money spent on home mortgages aren't taxed.  No one seems to be complaining about how this lessens the "freedom" of the market.

You are not taxed on the interest portion of your personal home loan which is meant to be an inducement to participate in one market over another.  I do not see how this goes to your argument as this simply illustrates that the gov is the big shiny glove over the invisible hand .  We still pay property tax, fines, meet building, zoning and historic codes, subject to seizure and or imprisonment for non compliance to any of those.  So does the market dictate what is built where? Not entirely.  Free? Not exactly.

Michael, I enjoy your posts and your contribution to the forum, but man, it's like you shotgun eight cups of coffee before you write.

 

First sentence first.  Government intervention into any market by definition reduces the freedom of that market. 

 

Well, my argument is that no, that's not true.  You want to parse definitions?  Government "intervention" can include government expenditures.  How can the government provide essential services without participating in the market?  Also, what is the best way to define market freedom?  I would suggest that the proper way is to say that, the lower the costs of entering any market, the greater the freedom of said market.  So, getting into the home owners market- low, therefore nearly free, getting into the hedge fund market- high, therefore very unfree.  And certain markets become freer over time and via technology.  A perfect example is the stock market.  Forty years ago the stock market was an extremely clubby group of insiders that one could only access through high fees and personally knowing a stock broker.  Now, one can buy individual stocks without a broker and with minimal brokerage fees.

 

You are not taxed on the interest portion of your personal home loan which is meant to be an inducement to participate in one market over another.  I do not see how this goes to your argument as this simply illustrates that the gov is the big shiny glove over the invisible hand.  We still pay property tax, fines, meet building, zoning and historic codes, subject to seizure and or imprisonment for non compliance to any of those.  So does the market dictate what is built where? Not entirely.  Free? Not exactly.

 

These costs that you described are those that exist for the purpose of paying for the government which regulates the market and makes it a neutral, non-violent place where the participants can trust the information they receive to make their economic decisions.  We have building codes and courts to avoid a pure caveat emptor environment.  Also, as we all know, the behavior of ones neighbors can dramatically effect the value of our properties, and therefore there must be a way to redress grievances between property owners that both parties will find to be fair.  Hence government.

They've started to rip up the ugly cement foundation already...weeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Just a lot of Vivarin, can't stand the coffee.  This conversation about Section 8 vouchers vs project based has gone a lot further than I had anticipated.

 

How can the government provide essential services without participating in the market?

Government can regulate a market, which is fine and good, without being an active participant in the market.  The government has taxing powers, however taxing of certain items over another in order to influence one product type over another  or to manipulate demand is not because they are just trying to pay for basic services.  If that were the only concern, then have a fair, across the board tax that is equal to everyone one and on everything.  You really cut to the heart of the matter though in that tax should be a funding mechanism for essential services, not a market steering tool.

 

Also, what is the best way to define market freedom?

A free market is a market that is allowed to function without manipulation from an external force ie government.  Once again, the governments job is to regulate a market to insure that it is fair and can function properly for all.  But what is going on in what we are discussing here is participation as a force to manipulate both supply and demand of market segments.  That is not a "freely" functioning market.

 

A perfect example is the stock market.  Forty years ago the stock market was an extremely clubby group of insiders that one could only access through high fees and personally knowing a stock broker

Ok, if you want to use that example and apply it back then would the government purchasing large blocks of stocks, discounting them and then making them available to only a specific group of people who could not (and perhaps should not) participate in the market at its current price be a free market?  And what does that do to forces that should be affecting cost?. Is that market then more or less "free"?  Remember, this is exactly what has happened in the past with the project based section 8 program.  It was what it was and has now changed to vouchers which in my opinion is a better system, but does not change whether the market is any more or less freely functioning, it is the same.

These costs that you described are those that exist for the purpose of paying for the government which regulates the market and makes it a neutral, non-violent place where the participants can trust the information they receive to make their economic decisions.

Actually the cost I described were property taxes that are primarily to pay for our school system that has nothing to do with the regulation of the market.  Even that puts a premium on one location over another and can to be abated to influence demand for one location over another and up till last year benefited one product over another as well (new const 15 year, rehab 10 year).

 

regulates the market and makes it a neutral, non-violent place where the participants can trust the information they receive to make their economic decisions.

Now that is the governments job.  But keep in mind that I was objecting to the use of the term free market as it applies to section 8 vouchers vs project based section 8.  If what you said above was all that the government did, and the courts did nothing but insure this then yes, it would be a free market.  But when the government is an active participant then no, it is not a free market as you described it so eloquently above.  Now don't get me wrong, I am not complaining about the market as it is, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking it is something that it is not.  A government that can manipulate, is a government that can be manipulated itself.

 

LK,

I wrote this one before my caffeine.

OK, on a more humerous note, from the Cincinnati Dealer: <a href="http://www.cincinnatidealer.com/content/view/645/27/">good humor</a>.

 

Pete Witte Searches For Next Bad Idea

By Burt Safer | Dealer staff writer    Mon, Apr 21, 2008

 

 

petewitteCINCINNATI - It has been a week since Pete Witte's last bad idea, and he is searching for new ones.

 

"In 2008, I'm on a roll," said Witte, "First, I sided with the housing agency in their refusal to transfer an abused woman, then I suggested that we run a streetcar line from Uptown to Bond Hill, and another streetcar from Westwood to Mount Washington."

 

"My latest idea of Section 8 housing at the Banks was a fantastically bad idea, but now I'm got the itch for another really bad idea."

 

Part of the benefit of Witte's bad ideas is that they get more attention than good ideas, especially supremely bad ideas like Witte has had this year.  Who knows, the next bad idea may even earn him a quotable on the Pete Witte ThinkExist quotables page.

This thread is getting super off-track. Can the public housing posts be put in their own thread?

I agree with you however it was public housing that had been proposed for the Banks.

I can sum this up without all the fancy talk.  If you put section 8 housing at The Banks, it will be a secluded section of which nobody will walk and garbage will be everywhere.  Section 8 WILL NOT be anywhere near The Banks ever.  Witte wants attention, he got it...and its not what he thought it could be.  Period.  End of story.  Lets drop it and talk about the cool stuff happening like THE BULLDOZER DOWN THERE TODAY FINALLY TURNING OVER DIRT! http://207.250.90.73/view/index.shtml

touché!  Very cool video.

It looks so lonely though.

Banks Czar Named

http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/gov/2008/04/banks-czar-named.asp

 

The Enquirer is pursuing the full story, but here's a fairly comprehensive release from Cincinnati and Hamilton County. He'll make $175,000.

 

Banks Project Executive Named

 

Deatrick Brings Large-Scale Project Expertise to the Banks Project

 

Cincinnati, OH (April 21, 2008) - The City of Cincinnati and Hamilton County today have jointly appointed John F. Deatrick as the public parties’ project executive for the Banks, Cincinnati’s new premiere riverfront development.

 

“John has the solid experience in large-scale public project management and effective team building to successfully bring the Banks development to reality,” said City of Cincinnati City Manager Milton Dohoney, Jr. “There are only a handful of professionals in the country who can navigate the complex arenas of a project like this. John can do it and keep his eye on the finish line. We’re excited to have him on board.”

someday i aspire to be the czar of something

Increased activity this morning.  http://207.250.90.73/view/index.shtml

That site is so large, it makes full-size bulldozers look like Toyota Yaris's.

 

 

I wish they'd go crazy and bring like 15-20 bulldozers on site.

 

 

 

All my 27 years this place has been a mudpit.  It's going to be awesome and yet, very strange to finally see it developed.  When they get that first garage in, no more half green/half brown muddy shite hole.  I think I might have to go down there and just stand for 45 minutes in disbelief lol.  I can't wait. 

I can watch the progress daily from my office.  It's about as exciting as watching a "mudpit" dry.  Right now there is one large excavator digging stuff out and then a concrete crumbler pulverizing the large chunks of Riverfront foundation dredged out of the ground.  There is an additional excavator and 2 dozers sitting idle.  At this point, they have dug a trench that almost stretches from main to Walnut.  I mean, this is just necessary site prep work to remove the foundation...I believe a landscaping company has the contract.  The real excitement comes when they start building the garage.

hoo boy will that be something to watch. :sleep:

I believe a landscaping company has the contract. 

 

Evans Landscaping

I believe a landscaping company has the contract. 

 

Evans Landscaping

 

 

You know, I was thinking the other day about this and Evans Landscaping was one of the companies that came to mind... Isn't it amazing how this city looks to and trust local businesses over national chains? I know landscaping is kind of in a different boat, but the comment above holds water in almost every category.

All my 27 years this place has been a mudpit.  It's going to be awesome and yet, very strange to finally see it developed.  When they get that first garage in, no more half green/half brown muddy sh!te hole.  I think I might have to go down there and just stand for 45 minutes in disbelief lol.  I can't wait. 

 

Sh!t, I'd stand there with ya!!      Let me know!   I have a new cooler on WHEELS and I am needing a reason to fill it up with frosty beverages and tote it around.  (Should be legal) :wink:

I was thinking about the Banks today and it made me think of Coyoacan in Mexico City. Basically it is this very trendy colonia in the city (with the Frida Kahlo museum and other trendy bars). They have this fountain dedicated to coyotes in the center of the Coyocan square, with I'd say about 50 temporary stands (like at a festival) where people just sell do-dads, trinkets, and other touristy stuff    all around the fountain. The place is completely loaded with 16-25 year olds at all times. Its really beautiful, charming, and I think it would work well there. Maybe instead of Coyotes they could do the whole omage to Rome and have some wolf depiction. Just a thought.

 

http://static.flickr.com/103/262767212_394558c1be_m.jpg

Maybe instead of Coyotes they could do the whole omage to Rome and have some wolf depiction. Just a thought.

 

A giant Pig Fountain, the size of say,  Butter Jesus up in West Chester would be a nice addition to our city.

 

^ I'm guessing that the giant pig fountain suggestion was meant in jest. However it's not a bad idea.

 

A city shouldn't be scared of making a whimsical, or even self-effacing, statement with its public art. Heck, look at the "maniquin piss" in Brusslels.

It needs little wings, and maybe a water feature coming out of its snout ;)

 

But anyway, I'm originally from a city that once decorated its downtown with dozens of manatee statues (one dressed as a "elvis" manatee if I recall) so my tolerance for the absurd is rather high.