The woman is receiving death threats. That is not right over a simple grant and loan.

Quote from: unusualfire on Today at 02:12:22 PM

Anyone know what the monthly payment to the city this restaurant must pay once it's up and running?

 

No, but I hope to find out.

 

Read more: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2772.5880.html#ixzz1ntwMNxId

 

I  imagine they are paying their rent to the developer, not the City.  If you are refering to their loan payment, who knows.....

... let's hope the city seeks out some Asian, Indian, or Middle Eastern food for The Banks.  Like most people in Cincy, I can cook soul food at home no problem, I'd prefer the city attract something a bit more in-demand.

 

On that topic:  ASIAN FOOD FEST is coming to The Banks this Spring!

 

Check out their website here:  http://www.asianfoodfest.org/

and the asian cook off series is sunday at findlay market: https://www.facebook.com/events/332523623450434/

 

offtopic...

I know this sounds crazy to someone sensitive to opaque politics and liberal urban bias, but some small maneuvers like this grant are, in my opinion, a sign of leadership. The administration has a vision and makes it happen. This is why we have executives. This is why Cincinnati is getting a streetcar. It's why Chicago got Millennium Park.

 

The city is a development partner in the banks and their vision for the area is culture and entertainment. Getting this particular restaurant in there strikes them as a good fit for this vision, so they are making it happen. Just because this particular maneuver makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean it's bad leadership.

 

 

I like Mallory and Doheny particularly for these reasons, most of the time.  They relentlessly pursue their vision for Cincinnati, and make every effort to plow through the political muck to make their vision a reality.  However one thing this administration has not done well is PR and selling their vision to the region.  The city should have issued a press release when this issue first came to light saying that the city is a development partner  at The Banks, and then citing other examples of cities underwriting similar situations (assuming such situations exist).  Public perception is important, and the more often these type of situations pop up, the more irrational and undue scrutiny will be placed on all other projects.  Following through on a vision is admirable, but you have to make sure that the public understands the vision and the logic behind decisions such as these.

 

I still contest that the grant was not a prudent use of money.  A low or no interest loan is certainly appropriate, but to simply make a $600,000 grant to one business, with no expectation of repayment or any stipulations regarding growth, seems short sighted and irresponsible.  The City has every right to influence the tenants that are in The Banks, because as you stated, they are technically a development partner.  However, imo, the City should not be advocating for a particular business, in a closed, private matter.  If the administration had put out a request for proposals to local/minority owned restaurants, and Mahogany came out as the best option, that would be a more transparent and fair use of public money.  The way this went down, it seems that Mahogany was selected seemingly at random, and that it is fulfilling a particular, personal vision for what The Banks should be.  The down side of efficiency and persistence can be the loss of some of the democratic processes that we are owed and should expect, Robert Moses serving as the most drastic example of this.

 

Yes, I immediately thought of some kind of RFP process if the city fancied extending a grant to such a tenant. But as you point out, they lose efficiency doing it that way. They definitely acted more like a developer in this instance, rather than a government. Obviously government has a duty to the people to be transparent and such, but when cities become development partners and governments in general are hammered by a political climate that wants them to be run more like businesses, all I can think is "You get what you ask for!"

^this may be a "small loan" in terms of other subsidies at the Banks but I can tell you from personal experience that this is not small (the grant and loan) in connection with implementing the buildout and and start up of a 3500 square foot restaurant.  They are basically being given a restaurant (at very little risk to themselves I presume (not knowing the terms of the loan at this point)).  This makes no economic sense, especially given the signifcant number of dining facilities (some might say too many) already opening.

 

I did not know it was only 3500 square feet.  A nice restaurant can be built (from the ground up) for around $150 a square foot, $200 would be extremely upscale.  Mahogony's was given $684,000 which comes out to around $195 per square foot to finish out their space.  The city is basically paying for everything via the grant.  I guess the loan is for operating expenses.

 

Correct you are.

I lease Commercial RE for a living. The TI and FFE loan and grant the city is giving up is off of the charts bad.

I would have not loaned $$ for Toby Kieth either. The prime developer goes to their lender to get $$ for space improvements, if the Tenant has

credit and solid P/L statements of course. The Tenant Improvement $$ are amortized in the rental rate and the term of the lease.

Of course the City played lender on this deal, very stupid.

The grant $$ is equal to about 10 years of free rent. Epic fail by the city.

 

 

I'd have to hear what Carter or Anderson had to say about their experience getting tenants in that space so far. This is not exactly a conventional development.

Cunningham was running the numbers on what it takes to make a restaurant break even, leaving out these two rather obvious factors:

 

1. Restaurants on the banks will benefit from 100 events per year.  Some of those events will overlap already-busy Fri-Sat, but will boost sales on otherwise dead weeknights and Sundays. 

2. Mahogany's in Hamilton runs a catering business.  Presumably, the new restaurant will as well, perhaps bringing $100,000 in additional revenue per year over, say, Willie's Sports Bar.  Also, the catering at The Freedom Center is currently handled by B&B Riverboats.  I have witnessed in person the heated arguments between members of the Bernstein family and the Freedom Center people.  I have no doubt that the Freedom Center is sick of dealing with those people.

 

As he was inexplicably figuring out the exact number of people Mahogany's would need to serve for a week, the worst assumption he made was that 50% of the business would come on Friday and Saturday. Maybe for Willie's in Kenwood or whichever one he still owns, but wouldn't Mahogany's be served by a fairly large downtown lunch crowd and weekday games during the Reds season? The Streetcar thread made me painfully aware that people won't walk more than 3 blocks for lunch, but I imagine they'll be able to make a decent amount of revenue during weekdays for these reasons.

 

What price would you pay for a little diversity and a fantastic mix of restaurants at the Banks? Would you rather complain about how the vast majority of the tenants are going to be national chains? Maybe it's not going to maximize the potential ROI for the grant and the loan, but I think this restaurant is going to be a success, and I'm happy to see it coming to the Banks.

 

Yes, I immediately thought of some kind of RFP process if the city fancied extending a grant to such a tenant. But as you point out, they lose efficiency doing it that way. They definitely acted more like a developer in this instance, rather than a government. Obviously government has a duty to the people to be transparent and such, but when cities become development partners and governments in general are hammered by a political climate that wants them to be run more like businesses, all I can think is "You get what you ask for!"

 

No business would ever give someone $1 million to build a restaurant knowing it'd be impossible to recoup that money.  I like the fact that the city is (sometimes) run as a business, which is why I'm even more appalled at this grant situation.  I'm sure there are any number of places that could locate at the Banks, without a huge grant, and drive just as much economic benefit.  The only difference is that in the current case, the city is out almost a million dollars.

^How exactly do you know they will not recoup the money??? Toby has been there what 2 weeks and you think it will make money in the long run? Dick Clark American Bandstand didn't make money but had raves reviews when it opened.

Dick Clark's got rave reviews because the company behind it hired PR people to create a hype campaign.  Except when you got there you realized it was just burgers and fries with The Four Seasons playing.

^How exactly do you know they will not recoup the money??? Toby has been there what 2 weeks and you think it will make money in the long run? Dick Clark American Bandstand didn't make money but had raves reviews when it opened.

 

The city won't recoup money because the bulk of the money was a grant.  There's no terms for it to ever be repayed.  The tenant won't be paying the city anything; the rent will go to the developer, the loan of $300,000 is all the city well ever see back. There might be some profit by way of taxes or other auxiliary benefits of attracting a crowd, but that would have existed had anyone located there without a grant.

I don't know how much lunch crowd they will get there.  I went to lunch at Toby Keith's last week.  It's a nice space, and the food was fine--certainly up to expectations.  There were some folks there, but it was certainly not crowded for lunch.  But I work on 4th street, as close to the Banks as you can conceivably get, and on the walk there my co-workers were talking about the distance.  That walk over Fort Washington Way is, at least psychologically, a big distance to downtown workers. 

I don't know how much lunch crowd they will get there.  I went to lunch at Toby Keith's last week.  It's a nice space, and the food was fine--certainly up to expectations.  There were some folks there, but it was certainly not crowded for lunch.  But I work on 4th street, as close to the Banks as you can conceivably get, and on the walk there my co-workers were talking about the distance.  That walk over Fort Washington Way is, at least psychologically, a big distance to downtown workers. 

 

yup, Streetcar will help bridge that.

Ram32 do you actually think this is the first grant that the city has ever given out? The grant is for construction and stationary inside the restaurant that can be reused.

Ram32 do you actually think this is the first grant that the city has ever given out? The grant is for construction and stationary inside the restaurant that can be reused.

 

In an interior fit out like this, there is maybe $50,000 worth of interior construction that could ever be reused by another tenant.  Restaurants are designed to fit their clients needs, and are quite specific, except for some kitchen and restroom equipment.  The city is giving $195 per square foot to create a luxury restaurant for a tenant that has proven they can't pay their taxes.  I think my anger is justified, but it is all said and done, so I guess the only result is that I'm that much less likely to go to The Banks.  And if there's outrage on a very liberal, urban forum like this - I can only imagine how most Cincinnatians reactions are.

I agree this company should  not be given the grant and loan but no real reason to be so mad when there are more important issues around and the looming $150 million for repairs to Union Terminal, $160 million in repairs to Music Hall. A looming 3 billion dollars in repairs for the sewer system. 2.5+ billion to replace the Brent Spence. Yet you pick on a small small tiny business.

I agree this company should  not be given the grant and loan but no real reason to be so mad when there are more important issues around and the looming $150 million for repairs to Union Terminal, $160 million in repairs to Music Hall. A looming 3 billion dollars in repairs for the sewer system. 2.5+ billion to replace the Brent Spence. Yet you pick on a small small tiny business.

 

I don't understand this statement. We also have a huge national debt and global climate destabilization so I guess we should never debate small issues? It is arguable that the city should not have given the grant or should have chosen another restaurant. Certainly there are strong arguments in favor, but the opposition should not be disregarded. The debate in this forum has helped me shape my own point of view on the subject and helped me articulate pros and cons with less informed individuals. Ram23's anger is definitely shared by other reasonable, intelligent people. 

No business would ever give someone $1 million to build a restaurant knowing it'd be impossible to recoup that money.  I like the fact that the city is (sometimes) run as a business, which is why I'm even more appalled at this grant situation.  I'm sure there are any number of places that could locate at the Banks, without a huge grant, and drive just as much economic benefit.  The only difference is that in the current case, the city is out almost a million dollars.

 

Obviously the plan is for the City to recoup the money through the increase in payroll tax, sales tax and property values that will result from having a successful business where there was no business previously.  It's the same theory underlying every City expenditure from Convergys to the Streetcar.  It's not that hard to figure out.  I think you're completely misunderstanding investment works.

 

You say, "I'm sure there are any number of places that could locate at the Banks, without a huge grant, and drive just as much economic benefit."  But what evidence do you actual have for this belief?  There are plenty of possibilities to test your theory.  Toby Keith's got a subsidy.  Did Holy Grail get a subsidy?  Did Johnny Rockets get a subsidy?  The stadium across the street got a subsidy (albeit from the County).  The whole Banks project sat empty for years after the highway was rebuilt until finally a deal was worked out in which, I suspect, Carter/Dawson got grants, tax credits or guaranteed loans (or some combination of all three) in order to build.

 

While I think the Banks project has been pretty good, anyone who remembers what was down there prior to 1996 can't honestly say that some private developer should just swoop in to do X.  The opportunity to do just that has been there for decades and it never happened.  These are facts.

Ram32 do you actually think this is the first grant that the city has ever given out? The grant is for construction and stationary inside the restaurant that can be reused.

 

In an interior fit out like this, there is maybe $50,000 worth of interior construction that could ever be reused by another tenant.  Restaurants are designed to fit their clients needs, and are quite specific, except for some kitchen and restroom equipment.  The city is giving $195 per square foot to create a luxury restaurant for a tenant that has proven they can't pay their taxes.  I think my anger is justified, but it is all said and done, so I guess the only result is that I'm that much less likely to go to The Banks.  And if there's outrage on a very liberal, urban forum like this - I can only imagine how most Cincinnatians reactions are.

 

^This. Add me to the list of people who will refuse to dine at this establishment.

 

I hope that the day I start my business, as a minority Asian, that I am given preferable treatment by the city of Cincinnati. As someone who has an excellent credit rating (700+), has not missed a payment on the house, and has the liquidity and cash to open a storefront, that I am given not a loan but a grant by the city in the sum of $100,000 so I can rent a swanky building in OTR.

 

But in seriousness, the grant is being given out to a business that isn't accredited by the BBB, can't pay their taxes, and yet my taxpayer dollars are going to a "minority"-owned business that can't hold up their end of the bargin. In reply to unusualfire, there is no guarantee in the grant that the restaurant equipment or furnishings must be kept if Mahogany's goes out of business. Just as with any business, if it goes bankrupt or loses too much money that they are forced to close, then business assets - such as equipment and furnishings, can be sold off or auctioned.

 

I actually agree with... Smitherman on this issue. The business has not shown that it is responsible with its money, that it can't pay its taxes as it should, and that the city is so antsy in bending over backwards in the name of "minority"-inclusion that it is blindly accepting deals that it knows has a strong risk of failure. A bank - in a free market, wouldn't loan, and neither should the city - in the form of a grant.

I don't understand this statement. We also have a huge national debt and global climate destabilization so I guess we should never debate small issues? It is arguable that the city should not have given the grant or should have chosen another restaurant. Certainly there are strong arguments in favor, but the opposition should not be disregarded. The debate in this forum has helped me shape my own point of view on the subject and helped me articulate pros and cons with less informed individuals. Ram23's anger is definitely shared by other reasonable, intelligent people.

 

This is a good point.  There's no reason that being angry at the small expenditure to help Mahoganny is made less valid because the state/feds are willing to spend billions of dollars to replace the Brent Spence bridge for no particular reason (jmecklenborg has laid out this argument pretty thoroughly, so I'm not going to rehash it).  Those expenses are entirely independent of one another.

 

So your point is absolutely valid.  However, it also misses the point most people are trying to make.  it is completely understandable that someone questions Ram23's anger over this expenditure when he hasn't displayed nearly the same anger over far greater expenditures made by the City and the government.  If he doesn't come up with a clear and logical explanation for the discrepancy people will decide not to take this complaint seriously.  The argument isn't about whether he's right, it's about what exactly are the foundations for his argument.  Why so angry about this and not the other ones?  That's a completely legit question to ask.  Presently he's failed to articulate any understandable position.

I actually agree with... Smitherman on this issue. The business has not shown that it is responsible with its money, that it can't pay its taxes as it should, and that the city is so antsy in bending over backwards in the name of "minority"-inclusion that it is blindly accepting deals that it knows has a strong risk of failure. A bank - in a free market, wouldn't loan, and neither should the city - in the form of a grant.

 

But you are being subsidized by the City because you purchased a tax abated home.  The City didn't vet you as a purchaser, they had no way of knowing that you would reliably make all your payments or be able to hold the job that your loan to purchase your house was predicated on.  I don't see any functional difference between the subsidy these folks will receive than the one you are presently getting, except that because these people have a specific skill set the City wants they have decided to take what looks like a greater risk, and 6 out of 9 elected officials looked at and signed off on Mahoganny. 

 

Regardless, you are both being subsidized by the City.

Let's get back on topic and leave the personal comments out.

Whatever happened to judging a restaurant by food quality and dining experience as opposed to credit rating and grant money?

 

Last time I checked cash was not edible.

Whatever happened to judging a restaurant by food quality and dining experience as opposed to credit rating and grant money?

 

Last time I checked cash was not edible.

 

Homer: Oh $20, but I wanted a peanut.

Homer's Brain: $20 can buy many peanuts.

Homer: Explain how?

Homer's Brain: Money can be exchanged for goods or services

Homer: Woo-hoo!

 

Uh, hey, yeah so this Mahogany's controversy is interesting and all, but does anyone know when that Huey's 24/7 diner is supposed to open?

 

Cause Joe's Diner on Sycamore is still on their winter hours, Johnny Rocket's is only open when they feel like it and Holy Grail is good, but Cincinnati needs more diners.

 

Edit: BTW, while you may or may not agree with how the whole financing thing is being handled, why would you not give the business a try? My parents lived in Fairfield and my sisters attended school in Hamilton. They rave about the other place these people own.

Huey's (as well as The Wine Loft and La Crepe Nanou) are owned by Doyle Restaurant Group Inc. who experienced financial issues and pulled out of the development.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/print-edition/2012/02/03/banks-pullout-brings-suit.html

^Bummer. The Huey's concept sounded cool. Im just gonna open up my own diner. Master of Puppets on every joke box, every day, every hour.

^ Wine Guy replaced two of the Doyle store fronts. Supposed to open this summer,

Is the Banks only residential, bars and restaurants? Where is the retail?

So your point is absolutely valid.  However, it also misses the point most people are trying to make.  it is completely understandable that someone questions Ram23's anger over this expenditure when he hasn't displayed nearly the same anger over far greater expenditures made by the City and the government.  If he doesn't come up with a clear and logical explanation for the discrepancy people will decide not to take this complaint seriously.  The argument isn't about whether he's right, it's about what exactly are the foundations for his argument.  Why so angry about this and not the other ones?  That's a completely legit question to ask.  Presently he's failed to articulate any understandable position.

 

There is a difference between the city building infrastructure and doling out grants directly to single persons.  That simple difference is the basis of the anger over this grant.  Building The Banks directly employed thousands and created direct revenue generation for the city.  Offering cheap loans to tenants is a break-even on paper, but entices more tenants to seek out space at The Banks.  Giving direct grants to tenants who have not demonstrated their value only benefits the single owner.  Your point that I shouldn't be upset because it's "only" $600,000 is absurd.  That money comes out to $195 per square foot to finish out a restaurant. Adjusted to scale, that's far more bloated than the Brent Spence project.

 

Whatever happened to judging a restaurant by food quality and dining experience as opposed to credit rating and grant money?

 

Last time I checked cash was not edible.

 

I've never judge a restaurant this way before because I've never heard of such a small, single place getting that large of a startup grant before.  I'm fairly sure it's unprecedented here in Cincy, as is the anger over it.

I don't know how much lunch crowd they will get there.  I went to lunch at Toby Keith's last week.  It's a nice space, and the food was fine--certainly up to expectations.  There were some folks there, but it was certainly not crowded for lunch.  But I work on 4th street, as close to the Banks as you can conceivably get, and on the walk there my co-workers were talking about the distance.  That walk over Fort Washington Way is, at least psychologically, a big distance to downtown workers. 

 

yup, Streetcar will help bridge that.

 

I agree.  I think that capping FWW would be an even bigger help, psychologically.  Toby Keith's is no farther for lunch for me than Izzy's (in fact I'm guessing it may actually be closer), but with the highway, it sure seems farther. 

^ hell, even just one cap, that is temporarily a lawn would go really far at promoting pedestriansim from the CBD to the Banks by downtown workers.

 

I'd be fine with building the Caps piece meal as opposed to one massive project.

I'll also note one concern- three of the four bridges crossing FWW have "good/excellent" ratings while the main street bridge has a a significantly worse rating- my memory almost says its rated as poor. Anyone know why?

I don't know how much lunch crowd they will get there.  I went to lunch at Toby Keith's last week.  It's a nice space, and the food was fine--certainly up to expectations.  There were some folks there, but it was certainly not crowded for lunch.  But I work on 4th street, as close to the Banks as you can conceivably get, and on the walk there my co-workers were talking about the distance.  That walk over Fort Washington Way is, at least psychologically, a big distance to downtown workers. 

 

yup, Streetcar will help bridge that.

 

I agree.  I think that capping FWW would be an even bigger help, psychologically.  Toby Keith's is no farther for lunch for me than Izzy's (in fact I'm guessing it may actually be closer), but with the highway, it sure seems farther.

 

 

I was there this week for lunch on thursday, nice sunny day. It was not packed but comfortably filled. Bar was emtpy excpet a maybe 8 people (the bar is huge).

^ did you love that bar? Did you also love the grill?

^ did you love that bar? Did you also love the grill?

 

It really wasnt too bad, would you find me there on a fri or sat night? no.

I'll also note one concern- three of the four bridges crossing FWW have "good/excellent" ratings while the main street bridge has a a significantly worse rating- my memory almost says its rated as poor. Anyone know why?

 

Main Street is rated at 92.0. All of the FWW Bridges are rated as functionally obsolete, but are fine - as of 2009. Most of the others are in the 89-92 range. It's just expected deterioration.

 

2nd Street over the Transit Center is down to 78 as of 2009, mainly because of corrosion and water leakage down into the Center - which was noted in at least one Enqurier article. It isn't supposed to be failing this quick. Parts of the sidewalk and landscaping have been sinking, but some of that is being repaired.

 

Vine over the Rosa Parks parking garage is down to 80.5, which was only built in 2002.

I don't know how much lunch crowd they will get there.  I went to lunch at Toby Keith's last week.  It's a nice space, and the food was fine--certainly up to expectations.  There were some folks there, but it was certainly not crowded for lunch.  But I work on 4th street, as close to the Banks as you can conceivably get, and on the walk there my co-workers were talking about the distance.  That walk over Fort Washington Way is, at least psychologically, a big distance to downtown workers. 

 

yup, Streetcar will help bridge that.

 

I could be wrong but I don't see too many workers around 4th st hopping on the streetcar to take it to the banks for lunch.  I also don't see too many people wanting to pay money to ride the streetcar to/fro lunch, especially for shorter distances.

I don't know how much lunch crowd they will get there.  I went to lunch at Toby Keith's last week.  It's a nice space, and the food was fine--certainly up to expectations.  There were some folks there, but it was certainly not crowded for lunch.  But I work on 4th street, as close to the Banks as you can conceivably get, and on the walk there my co-workers were talking about the distance.  That walk over Fort Washington Way is, at least psychologically, a big distance to downtown workers. 

 

yup, Streetcar will help bridge that.

 

I could be wrong but I don't see too many workers around 4th st hopping on the streetcar to take it to the banks for lunch.  I also don't see too many people wanting to pay money to ride the streetcar to/fro lunch, especially for shorter distances.

 

I agree.

I don't know how much lunch crowd they will get there.  I went to lunch at Toby Keith's last week.  It's a nice space, and the food was fine--certainly up to expectations.  There were some folks there, but it was certainly not crowded for lunch.  But I work on 4th street, as close to the Banks as you can conceivably get, and on the walk there my co-workers were talking about the distance.  That walk over Fort Washington Way is, at least psychologically, a big distance to downtown workers. 

 

yup, Streetcar will help bridge that.

 

I could be wrong but I don't see too many workers around 4th st hopping on the streetcar to take it to the banks for lunch.  I also don't see too many people wanting to pay money to ride the streetcar to/fro lunch, especially for shorter distances.

 

But those who already have metro passes will. I and many in my office included.

^how ofter will the street car run?  If you have to wait ten minutes (say you just miss the last one) for it and can walk it in that amount of time or less would you do so...especially given the limited time one has for lunch?

It'll run every 15 (??) minutes, so yeah, If I just missed one, i'd probably just walk it, or go somewhere closer. I'm at 5th/Vine, so it isn't much of a walk down there - about 10 min. But that crossing over FWW feels like forever because you're out in the open.

I actually agree with... Smitherman on this issue. The business has not shown that it is responsible with its money, that it can't pay its taxes as it should, and that the city is so antsy in bending over backwards in the name of "minority"-inclusion that it is blindly accepting deals that it knows has a strong risk of failure. A bank - in a free market, wouldn't loan, and neither should the city - in the form of a grant.

 

But you are being subsidized by the City because you purchased a tax abated home.  The City didn't vet you as a purchaser, they had no way of knowing that you would reliably make all your payments or be able to hold the job that your loan to purchase your house was predicated on.  I don't see any functional difference between the subsidy these folks will receive than the one you are presently getting, except that because these people have a specific skill set the City wants they have decided to take what looks like a greater risk, and 6 out of 9 elected officials looked at and signed off on Mahoganny. 

 

Regardless, you are both being subsidized by the City.

 

A tax abatement is a FAR cry from a hand out, which is what a grant essentially is.  This grant far exceeds the actual investment being made by the owners.  Why can't you see this?  I believe that most of us who are mad about the hand out given to this business in relation to the economic impact it will generate would not be nearly so ticked off if more of the grant were in the form of a loan.  A loan has a certain degree of accountability tied to it.  There is no such tie when money is just given to an entity.

 

In my initial reply, I noted that the tax abatement requires that the owner actually purchase the house - which requires a high credit score, a low debt ratio and that you have been current on your payments and taxes. That's just to obtain a loan. The fact that Mahogany's couldn't even obtain a loan is telling - they aren't listed with the BBB and can't pay their taxes, yet that is good enough for the city? A tax abatement is a form of an investment to the developer (in this case, a single person who restored my house) that mostly guarantees a positive ROI. It is available for any increased valuation that results from the improvements to the property for both new construction and renovation - and in my case, that was for 10 years. The renovation abatement is 100% of the property’s increased value up to about $300,000 for a term of 10 years.

 

A commercial tax abatement for renovation requires that the business demonstrate that they will be financially viable without the abatement. Take for example a typical business that wants to invest $1 million to renovate its commercial property - they can receive abatement for 75% of the new value for a term of 12 years.

 

Market value of new investment: $1,000,000

Assessed value of new investment (35%): $350,000

Commercial property tax rate: 0.077444543

Property tax on new investment: $27,105

Annual abatement (75%): $20,330

Total abatement (12-year term): $243,960

 

For new construction, that abatement is a term of 15 years.

 

Mahogany's couldn't demonstrate that their business will be financially viable, in essence. They applied and were denied the abatement, and thus requested a grant. They couldn't obtain a commercial loan from a bank. That's troubling. Did they even apply for a Grow Cincinnati Loan Fund or a MicroCity Loan Fund?

People will walk to The Banks. There was no reason to go down there at lunch time until very recently. All you have to do to predict this behavior is look at other cities with similar destinations. People walk blocks and blocks at lunch in Chicago to sit in Millennium Park on a nice day, or get something to eat. I'm proof of that.

In my initial reply, I noted that the tax abatement requires that the owner actually purchase the house - which requires a high credit score, a low debt ratio and that you have been current on your payments and taxes. That's just to obtain a loan. The fact that Mahogany's couldn't even obtain a loan is telling - they aren't listed with the BBB and can't pay their taxes, yet that is good enough for the city? A tax abatement is a form of an investment to the developer (in this case, a single person who restored my house) that mostly guarantees a positive ROI. It is available for any increased valuation that results from the improvements to the property for both new construction and renovation - and in my case, that was for 10 years. The renovation abatement is 100% of the property’s increased value up to about $300,000 for a term of 10 years.

 

A commercial tax abatement for renovation requires that the business demonstrate that they will be financially viable without the abatement. Take for example a typical business that wants to invest $1 million to renovate its commercial property - they can receive abatement for 75% of the new value for a term of 12 years.

 

Market value of new investment: $1,000,000

Assessed value of new investment (35%): $350,000

Commercial property tax rate: 0.077444543

Property tax on new investment: $27,105

Annual abatement (75%): $20,330

Total abatement (12-year term): $243,960

 

For new construction, that abatement is a term of 15 years.

 

Mahogany's couldn't demonstrate that their business will be financially viable, in essence. They applied and were denied the abatement, and thus requested a grant. They couldn't obtain a commercial loan from a bank. That's troubling. Did they even apply for a Grow Cincinnati Loan Fund or a MicroCity Loan Fund?

 

 

EXACTLY Sherman!!!  Look at the investment already made in order to obtain the abatement in you example.  An abatement is just "less tax paid".  That's very different from "monies handed over for free".  This is a HORRIBLE deal for the city.

 

 

I don't know how much lunch crowd they will get there.  I went to lunch at Toby Keith's last week.  It's a nice space, and the food was fine--certainly up to expectations.  There were some folks there, but it was certainly not crowded for lunch.  But I work on 4th street, as close to the Banks as you can conceivably get, and on the walk there my co-workers were talking about the distance.  That walk over Fort Washington Way is, at least psychologically, a big distance to downtown workers. 

 

yup, Streetcar will help bridge that.

 

I could be wrong but I don't see too many workers around 4th st hopping on the streetcar to take it to the banks for lunch.  I also don't see too many people wanting to pay money to ride the streetcar to/fro lunch, especially for shorter distances.

 

I agree.

Caps, please. With buildings on them. Buildings that extend over current lanes of traffic to the north and south.

I don't know how much lunch crowd they will get there.  I went to lunch at Toby Keith's last week.  It's a nice space, and the food was fine--certainly up to expectations.  There were some folks there, but it was certainly not crowded for lunch.  But I work on 4th street, as close to the Banks as you can conceivably get, and on the walk there my co-workers were talking about the distance.  That walk over Fort Washington Way is, at least psychologically, a big distance to downtown workers. 

 

yup, Streetcar will help bridge that.

 

I could be wrong but I don't see too many workers around 4th st hopping on the streetcar to take it to the banks for lunch.  I also don't see too many people wanting to pay money to ride the streetcar to/fro lunch, especially for shorter distances.

 

I agree.

Caps, please. With buildings on them. Buildings that extend over current lanes of traffic to the north and south.

 

The Buildings have a 4 story maximum, and due to ventilation issues (discussed previously thoroughly on this thread) there is almost no chance they would be residential (cancer rates in the towers built over the interstates in NYC are supposedly statistically significantly higher than nearby rates not over interstates). 

 

I don't see high demand for adding 4 more blocks of 4 story retail or office space when the Banks is already adding a ton of it.

FWW needs caps even if it's only with parks to start with and I think there's already a caps thread.

TKILTBAG awnings look like complete trash.  Im not sure why crappy corrugated metal is OK just because its a country bar. The lack of effort for exterior of their space is something i can quite understand considering how much money they seem to have thrown at their interior.