When Mahogany's was in Hamilton, I ate there several times. The food was excellent and the staff was friendly, but service was often slow.

They need to look at De'Lish or Taste in Dayton to see how a good soul food restaurant can be.

Did anyone on here actually go to this place? Their service was terrible. Probably one of the main reasons this place went under. If people experience bad service they rarely go back especially with so many other options downtown.

 

I ate there once and I don't think the food was very memorable. I was there for drinks once and the service was very slow.

 

However, I do agree that the negative publicity kept a lot of people away that otherwise would have visited, and this played a role in their decline.

Jake - the jabs are because the city awarded a grant to a business that was likely not able to survive and that they chose an owner who may have had some credit issues. Ultimately, the fact that people are crowing about this is nothing to do with Liz Rodgers, but more to do with the fact that the city, and our elected officials who are entrusted to spend taxpayers money wisely, made a deal. The complaining was about that this was a bad business deal from the beginning and that sound business principles would not have approved such a deal. So, yes, that is why you have people saying "I told you so".

 

As far as hoping for Mahogoney's to fail, I did not see that, I sensed a lot of people want it to make it for a variety of reasons, but most importantly, to show that the tax payer money is well spent. Listening to Cunningham, he is very complimentary of Liz Rodgers and praised her food and her establishment and essentially feels she was a scapegoat of poor city leadership.

 

As I have listed repeatedly now on this thread, various white-owned restaurants have been given tax breaks, grants, and sources of ancillary income that far exceed the loan given to the ownership of Mahogany's (the grant and parking lot revenue given to the Montgomery Inn Boathouse is probably the most outrageous).  Nobody even knows this stuff goes on, even though those restaurants (again, the Boathouse) are in very prominent locations.  And again, Jeff Ruby has had one of his restaurants break free and hit the exact same bridge pier twice.  Again, everyone just chuckles about it.

 

The acrimony directed at this restaurant, absolutely, positively, was a way for the talk radio shills and the area Republicans to lob some more Reagan-era race narrative and embarrass the city, and there's absolutely no way that this criticism didn't contribute to the end they were rooting for.

 

So imagine you're interested in opening a restaurant, and out of the thousands of restaurants in the area, and hundred or so to open this year, yours gets singled out and is vilified and stigmatized and its name made into a pejorative.  They made it so that people were as hesitant to say that they had been to the restaurant as they were to try it for the first time. 

 

What if the Boathouse was minority-owned and was pocketing thousands of dollars every weekend from a city-owned parking lot?  You can bet that wouldn't have lasted long. 

Jake,

 

Do you recall if the parking lot break was given to the owner of the Boathouse or Montgomery Inn?

 

 

Jake - the jabs are because the city awarded a grant to a business that was likely not able to survive and that they chose an owner who may have had some credit issues. Ultimately, the fact that people are crowing about this is nothing to do with Liz Rodgers, but more to do with the fact that the city, and our elected officials who are entrusted to spend taxpayers money wisely, made a deal. The complaining was about that this was a bad business deal from the beginning and that sound business principles would not have approved such a deal. So, yes, that is why you have people saying "I told you so".

 

As far as hoping for Mahogoney's to fail, I did not see that, I sensed a lot of people want it to make it for a variety of reasons, but most importantly, to show that the tax payer money is well spent. Listening to Cunningham, he is very complimentary of Liz Rodgers and praised her food and her establishment and essentially feels she was a scapegoat of poor city leadership.

 

As I have listed repeatedly now on this thread, various white-owned restaurants have been given tax breaks, grants, and sources of ancillary income that far exceed the loan given to the ownership of Mahogany's (the grant and parking lot revenue given to the Montgomery Inn Boathouse is probably the most outrageous).  Nobody even knows this stuff goes on, even though those restaurants (again, the Boathouse) are in very prominent locations.  And again, Jeff Ruby has had one of his restaurants break free and hit the exact same bridge pier twice.  Again, everyone just chuckles about it.

 

The acrimony directed at this restaurant, absolutely, positively, was a way for the talk radio shills and the area Republicans to lob some more Reagan-era race narrative and embarrass the city, and there's absolutely no way that this criticism didn't contribute to the end they were rooting for.

 

So imagine you're interested in opening a restaurant, and out of the thousands of restaurants in the area, and hundred or so to open this year, yours gets singled out and is vilified and stigmatized and its name made into a pejorative.  They made it so that people were as hesitant to say that they had been to the restaurant as they were to try it for the first time. 

 

What if the Boathouse was minority-owned and was pocketing thousands of dollars every weekend from a city-owned parking lot?  You can bet that wouldn't have lasted long. 

 

Jake - you leave a few HUGE points out of your argument.

First - the Boathouse project. - The Montgomery Inn Franchise was already one of the most successful models at the time the Boathouse opened. They had a track record and the finances/capital to weather a downturn regardless of city help. The city help incentivized them to "take that risk" but the key here is not looking at it from the Mont Inn Point of View, but if I were a tax payer, trusting the city to invest my money in a project, do I trust it on a proven concept (Montgomery Inn) or Mohagoney's. I am all for Mohagoney's succeeding, but given the nature of the business and the borrower, are they a strong credit risk. In this case the answer was no and the deal should not have been approved.

 

Jeff Ruby is the same as Mont Inn. - He had successful establishments before he went to Covington to open the waterfront again. There is no certainty of him succeeding, but he has the ability to weather the storm if business starts out slow. More importantly, when he started, he was able to find investors to be the collateral in the event he failed and could not pay back the loan. It was their money on the line, not the city's money.

 

It was a shame that she became the poster child of bad business deals here, but the outrage was with the city for being irresponsible (which you cant argue with that). People ultimately were all for Mohaganey's succeeding.

Last Saturday night was my 3rd trip to Mahogany's. Dining room was nearly full at about 5:30 and by the time we left at 7:00, there was a short wait.

 

Food was great as usual. Unfortunately, everything else was a train wreck.

 

No beer on draft as I was told their CO2 tank was empty. In all three of my visits, there were always issues with getting a draft beer. I settled on a bottle of Miller Lite. Server eventually returned and advised they were out but they had Budweiser and Coors Light.

 

The wife's cocktail took at least 15m as there was only one bartender. However, there were two floor managers roaming the cramped dining room, as well as I believe Liz Rodgers, for four servers.

 

I mentioned the dining room was cramped. Patrons sit way too close together, so much so it's impossible not to hear everything said by the people around you. At the same time, there is a raised stage area with a drum set and misc. electronic equipment taking up prime dinning space. I'm fine with having late evening musical acts, but during dinning hours, this area should be selling your product.

 

Another area in the dining room that has been previously used as the buffet area was littered with employee jackets, bags, and other personal items as well as random dishes. Not something the customer should have to sit and look at.

 

When we finally ordered our food, both of the entrees were supposed to come with two sides. Our server however said their menu is wrong and one of the entrees we ordered actually only came with one side. As the menus were well worn, I take it this was a recent change. No matter, it's something that should be addressed when you are handed your menu, not as you are ordering.

 

Mahogany's is simply poorly managed...

^What's funny is that there is a lot of difference all over this board about this restaurant.  Some seem to say the food was great, others that it sucked, there's a general consensus that the service was slow (though I'm always a little skeptical of how fast people expect the service to be at a fine dining restaurant; I prefer the service to the slower and the wait staff not to hover).  But you'd think that if this individual had any capacity whatsoever it would be with the actual running of the restaurant and the food.  And the people who went there had good and bad experiences.  There are plenty of restaurant owners who aren't that great at finance.  Hell, there are plenty of bankers who aren't that good at finance.

 

Anyway, the people "defending" Mahoganny's on this board are doing it not out of experience with the restaurant, or with restaurant financing in general; rather (at least I'm doing it) because of the seemingly cavalier way in which this particular subsidy is criticized and scrutinized when so many others pass under the radar.  If you care about subsidies, this one was relatively small, and if you care about who gets subsidies, it seems like someone without money is more worthy of a subsidy than a person or business that is making money.

and if you care about who gets subsidies, it seems like someone without money is more worthy of a subsidy than a person or business that is making money.

 

This is the heart of our disagreement.  I don't particularly care "who" gets the subsidy, only that their financial background is sound enough for it to be a good investment.  I wasn't one of the people who was upset when this particular subsidy was awarded, but it did seem risky.  It's unfortunate that it doesn't seem to have panned out, but it's not completely surprising. 

PAlexander - I think much of the crowd on WLW does not believe the city should be in the business of picking winners and losers. Me personally, I look at it as that this is the taxpayers money and the city is not a charity and has a duty to ensure that this is not wasted, no matter how large or small it is. If it is the best interest of the taxpayer to offer the subsidy, the city better make damn sure they are doing their diligence to make sure it is not wasted. That was not done in this case. Yes, it was a small deal, but the city is not entitled to play venture capitalist with their taxpayers money. That is the issue here.

 

Do larger companies like Montgomery INn need the subsidy as much, no they don't, but it is more prudent to give them the subsidy because the taxpayers are better protected. It goes to the fact as to who the money belongs too, the city or the people. The city and elected officials are fiduciaries of that taxpayer money so they better make sure it is spent appropriately. 

 

I am all for minority businesses being successful at the Banks. I am all for Liz Rodgers being successful. However, if there needs to be outside investors to support her, it should not be the city. She needs to find someone else.

 

FWIW The last time I ate at Mahogany's (months ago) I talked to the owner about how her business was going, and she said just ok.  I asked if she felt that white people were avoiding her restaurant because of the negative press, and she said that she was having a harder time attracting and satisfying black folks.  She said they complained about the cost of the food and the cost of the parking, and that she actually did a solid business of white people in town for conventions.  This is not to say that the bad press from WLW and others didn't hurt the restaurant's chances of success, but I think the business plan was never very sound to begin with.  It sounds, to me, she misjudged her core customer base's preferences.

 

I've been to restaurants where I assumed I'd see a lot of black customers and didn't see hardly any, like Wishbone in Chicago and Mary Mac's Tea Room in Atlanta. Then I've been to restaurants where I thought I'd see a lot of white suburbanites and saw a ton of black people, like Eddie Merlot's in Montgomery. Perhaps it was presumptuous to assume that black people would flock to a soul food restaurant to eat "their food?" A lot of black people I know who are middle/upper middle class and eat out on a regular basis have excellent taste in food and don't seem any more or less interested in soul food than I do.

 

Good points Civvik.

So who would be a good fit to take over this space?

 

I think the problem with The Banks is that nobody knows what would be a good fit down there because it's not even close to being finished. We're going on 3 years since they opened Phase I and nothing has been built except for a restaurant pad.

Funny how this argument is about what she owes to others and know nothing about the loan itself. I have not seen anything reported that she defaulted on the city loan. If these media outlets had proof that she has not made good on the loan they would have reported it. But they only focused on what she owes others. The game is rigged.

>Jeff Ruby is the same as Mont Inn. - He had successful establishments before he went to Covington to open the waterfront again. There is no certainty of him succeeding, but he has the ability to weather the storm if business starts out slow. More importantly, when he started, he was able to find investors to be the collateral in the event he failed and could not pay back the loan. It was their money on the line, not the city's money.

 

Jeff Ruby has had several restaurants go out of business.  Bootsy's, Tropicana, Walnut St. Grill, and The Waterfront has been closed for years and has hit a bridge pier twice.  I've always been suspicious that he's been defrauding naive investors in these more recent restaurants...get $500,000 out of some recent Reds or Bengals player who doesn't understand how contracts work.   

 

And again talk radio gets its people mad at Mahogany's, not the bankers who caused the 2008-09 financial crisis, which destroyed so many people's careers and retirement planning. 

 

 

 

Jake - you are right, Ruby had several restaurants close, but the only people who lost money were his private investors in those deals. Even with the restaurant closed, they still paid on the lease. As far as defrauding naïve investors, those investors know what they are getting involved with. They are the Chris Collingsworths, Bootsy Collins's of the world who have the funds to lose and still be OK and if they don't know the risks, they can afford to hire an advisor who can advise them on the risks. There is a big difference when you are talking about taxpayer money vs private money. THat is why people are upset on the radio about this. There may be some misplaced animosity towards the owner but it is mostly disgust at the city for approving the deal even after proper due diligence suggested otherwise.

>There is a big difference when you are talking about taxpayer money vs private money. THat is why people are upset on the radio about this

 

Of course I know the difference between a public and privately funded endeavor.  But people are only "upset" because they've been programmed to be upset about the city losing inconsequential sums of money on things that involve minorities.  These losers like Brian Thomas and Bill Cunningham wake up each morning knowing they're going on the radio for 3 hours to trick middle class people into thinking poor people are wrecking the United States, not the super-wealthy who shove the risk of their activities onto the U.S. government.

 

I don't listen to wlw unless a Reds or UC game is on.  I wouldn't label myself upset either, however, it was a bad deal and one that the City should not have done.  I would love to try Mohogany's but everything I have heard about it is not good.  You keep treating this as a huge racial issue when that isn't the issue at all.  The issue was it was a bad business deal from the start and when the plan was announced there were plenty of skeptics on here and it had nothing to do with race.

I don't know but this place has received alot of scrutiny. Although it's not in Cincinnati but even the speedway which is not paying it's bills has received tons of subsidies with new interchanges and road widening all at the tax payers expense.

I don't know but this place has received alot of scrutiny. Although it's not in Cincinnati but even the speedway which is not paying it's bills has received tons of subsidies with new interchanges and road widening all at the tax payers expense.

 

I was always suspicious that they let that first NASCAR race be a logistical disaster in order to pressure the state into building the freeway upgrades and other upgrades around their site.  I mean, no complaints whatsoever from the (white) electorate when $5-10 million are laid out to improve a for-profit facility that's used (to capacity -- I'm aware that there are other race weekends) once per year.  No, I'm not in principal against them having done it, it's just necessary to make a note of it when singling out relatively insignificant loans to specific businesses. 

There is a big difference when you are talking about taxpayer money vs private money. THat is why people are upset on the radio about this. There may be some misplaced animosity towards the owner but it is mostly disgust at the city for approving the deal even after proper due diligence suggested otherwise.

 

Guys, if the Bootsy's development received a single municipal tax break it received a subsidy.  Tax expeditures are subsidies, plain and simple.  For the sake of argument, let's all agree that this woman didn't deserve the subsidy, and the way that we know for certain that she didn't deserve it is she went out of business.  Then if you apply that same logic to any other business- i.e. a venture that fails had to have signs that someone, if policing the deal correctly, could have figured out that it would fail.  If we take that objective stance, these "safe bet entrepreneurs" have likely cost the City way more than this woman has.

Just like the streetcar received outsized attention because it became a proxy for contempt towards "liberal elites," or whatever that bogeyman was, Mahogany's has received outsized attention as a proxy for contempt towards blacks. Plain and simple. It's amazing to me that people who saw the streetcar venom for what it was cannot see this.

 

Every investment is a risk; you're bound to lose some. If this is the worst investment the city has made since whenever the last time was people were making such a fuss, I'd say it's a sign the city has done a pretty damn good job with recent investments. How about making that the story?

The reasons the Mahogany deal got attention were multiple.

1) Mallory and Dohoney had to have a "minority" restaurant in the Banks. They made it about race.

2) Rogers was not very successful in Hamilton and was way behind on taxes

3) $300,000 loan and a $685,000 Grant for a smaller 3,000 ish sq. ft restaurant.

 

The City/County also wanted a Minority developer to build/own part of the Banks. That was The Dawson Co.

The reason the citizens/taxpayers did not get verbally upset about this is because The Dawson Co. has

a track record of success. The White Bogeyman had nothing to do with Rogers inability to be successful.

The reasons the Mahogany deal got attention were multiple.

1) Mallory and Dohoney had to have a "minority" restaurant in the Banks. They made it about race.

2) Rogers was not very successful in Hamilton and was way behind on taxes

3) $300,000 loan and a $685,000 Grant for a smaller 3,000 ish sq. ft restaurant.

 

The City/County also wanted a Minority developer to build/own part of the Banks. That was The Dawson Co.

The reason the citizens/taxpayers did not get verbally upset about this is because The Dawson Co. has

a track record of success. The White Bogeyman had nothing to do with Rogers inability to be successful.

 

As a card-carrying White Bogeyman,  I disagree.  First, Cranley just made an announcement with tons of fanfare about increasing minority business inclusion.  The idea that Mallory and Dohoney made it about race is ridiculous; however it does show how it was about race, because this woman was a proxy to attack Mallory and Dohoney; that's why she received so much attention relative to her subsidy.

 

Second, Cranley is way behind paying off a $75,000 or so loan, yet the folks who attack this woman don't seem to be attacking John for this issue.

 

Third, would you ever slightly alter your phrase, "The White Bogeyman had nothing to do with Rogers inability to be successful" to read something like, "The City of Cincinnati had nothing to do with Nat Comisar's (of the Maisonette) inability to be successful" or "The government had nothing to do with Jeff Ruby's (regarding Bootsy's or any venture he may have failed at) inability to be successful", and so on?

 

The outsize attention towards this woman is 100% about race.  Not ALL the attention, just the amount of attention.  But if people are really worried about misspent subsidies, they need to be worried about the dudes with access to the politicians, because they get the most of them and they know how to structure the deals so they don't take the losses if the project don't deliver.

But, like PAlexander said, there have certainly been many more investments the city "should have known" would not have turned out well (like maybe Bootsy's) but never received the same level of scrutiny and media attention.

 

Choosing a minority business was not simply an act of charity, but to enrich the culture of the Banks. But WLW wants to say "Seeeee? Affirmative action is holding the white man who should have received that money down." If there were another black-run, black-culture-themed business in the running for that money and that spot, one with a better financial record, maybe they would have won over Mahogany's. But it was a gamble, in an attempt to make the Banks a higher-quality spot. And we'll never know for sure the extent to which the initial demonization led to the business failing. It would be naive to say there was no effect.

>Second, Cranley is way behind paying off a $75,000 or so loan, yet the folks who attack this woman don't seem to be attacking John for this issue.

 

Yeah, the Qualls campaign dropped that a month before the election, it should have been a bombshell, but the local media absolutely didn't care. 

 

 

But, like PAlexander said, there have certainly been many more investments the city "should have known" would not have turned out well (like maybe Bootsy's) but never received the same level of scrutiny and media attention.

 

Choosing a minority business was not simply an act of charity, but to enrich the culture of the Banks. But WLW wants to say "Seeeee? Affirmative action is holding the white man who should have received that money down." If there were another black-run, black-culture-themed business in the running for that money and that spot, one with a better financial record, maybe they would have won over Mahogany's. But it was a gamble, in an attempt to make the Banks a higher-quality spot. And we'll never know for sure the extent to which the initial demonization led to the business failing. It would be naive to say there was no effect.

 

Then why don't you blame the city more for not having a transparent process for finding a 'black-run, black-culture' business that had a good financial record? I agree with some here that certain right wing mouthpieces have used this situation to criticize wasteful spending, and I agree that it would be naive to assume that race has nothing to do with this situation.  I think that makes the city's lack of due diligence even more inexcusable.  The city had to know that there was going to be a lot of controversy about this subsidy given the fact that the subsidy was tied to a diversity initiative, so it makes it extra baffling that they chose to proceed even after discovering the poor financial record of Liz Rogers.

 

The part of this whole situation that irks me the most is the grant money.  With loans there is at least a means for recourse, no? Mahogany's received an almost $700,000 non-recoverable small business grant.  That small business grant fund is almost entirely depleted now, meaning money that could have been instrumental for dozens of small businesses trying to get off the ground is now unavailable.  To me, it's inexcusable to use that much of the grant money on ANY one business, let alone one with such a spotty financial record.  I have very little sympathy for the failure of Mahogany's because even if they did fight an initial uphill battle because of the bad press they received when they opened, they received almost a million dollars (!) to open! If you can't make a business work with a million dollars assistance, you probably are not fit to run a business. People have short memories, and I bet if the food was consistently good, and the service was good the general public would have forgotten about the controversy.  Hell...I know plenty of urbanists and Cranley haters who have no problem frequenting Public House.  Most people don't let ideology get in the way of good food/drinks/experience.

 

It seems that there are many here on UO who are simply apologists for bad business and bad government.  You can be a liberal, progressive person who supports the idea of subsidy for diversity and still view this situation as the bad deal that it was.  Finances aside, think about what this whole saga does for the prospects of future investments in black owned businesses? You don't think that this story is going to be brought up for years to come when the city wants to subsidize a small business?  This set a terrible precedent that the city now has to live with.  This wasn't a high risk/high reward scenario- it was high risk/low reward, and the city made a big mistake.

^ Fair enough, maybe the administration could have found a better locally-owned business to represent local culture (as opposed to Holy Grail, which is great but it is generic), or maybe not, but it doesn't excuse WLW throwing meat to the racist sharktank for ratings. It's no wonder there weren't a ton of African-American entrepreneurs jumping at the chance to open a business at the Banks, when you have a culture that allows WLW to pander to bigots. Who wouldn't want to leave?

But, like PAlexander said, there have certainly been many more investments the city "should have known" would not have turned out well (like maybe Bootsy's) but never received the same level of scrutiny and media attention.

 

Choosing a minority business was not simply an act of charity, but to enrich the culture of the Banks. But WLW wants to say "Seeeee? Affirmative action is holding the white man who should have received that money down." If there were another black-run, black-culture-themed business in the running for that money and that spot, one with a better financial record, maybe they would have won over Mahogany's. But it was a gamble, in an attempt to make the Banks a higher-quality spot. And we'll never know for sure the extent to which the initial demonization led to the business failing. It would be naive to say there was no effect.

 

Then why don't you blame the city more for not having a transparent process for finding a 'black-run, black-culture' business that had a good financial record? I agree with some here that certain right wing mouthpieces have used this situation to criticize wasteful spending, and I agree that it would be naive to assume that race has nothing to do with this situation.  I think that makes the city's lack of due diligence even more inexcusable.  The city had to know that there was going to be a lot of controversy about this subsidy given the fact that the subsidy was tied to a diversity initiative, so it makes it extra baffling that they chose to proceed even after discovering the poor financial record of Liz Rogers.

 

The whole thing would be something that nobody would know or care about if it wasn't for WLW. Even the Enquirer would have only done a story or two on it because nominally, articles about government subsidies are boooooooooorrrring to most people. The Mahogany's story would be secret in Columbus for example -- Columbus is all secrets. And we don't have a WLW; well, we do, but all they talk about is Cincinnati.

There is collateral for the loan. Her house.

 

Anyone with bad credit can put up enough collateral for any loan and get the loan.

 

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/mahogany-s-banks-location-scrutinized

Also the grant paid for building out the space.  That included plumbing, electrical, probably a walk-in cooler that can be used by another tenant, especially a restaurant. 

There is a big difference when you are talking about taxpayer money vs private money. THat is why people are upset on the radio about this. There may be some misplaced animosity towards the owner but it is mostly disgust at the city for approving the deal even after proper due diligence suggested otherwise.

 

Guys, if the Bootsy's development received a single municipal tax break it received a subsidy.  Tax expeditures are subsidies, plain and simple.  For the sake of argument, let's all agree that this woman didn't deserve the subsidy, and the way that we know for certain that she didn't deserve it is she went out of business.  Then if you apply that same logic to any other business- i.e. a venture that fails had to have signs that someone, if policing the deal correctly, could have figured out that it would fail.  If we take that objective stance, these "safe bet entrepreneurs" have likely cost the City way more than this woman has.

 

But the big difference and what you fail to realize is that level of risk in the venture. Who are the financial backers besides the city, what other people have skin in the game. What is the business risk to the city. It is not about the amount of money that was lost but it is about the process, or lack of process that was used in the vetting process. That is the problem with it.

 

The difference between this and Bootsy's (and I do not know the details about Rodgers) is that on the surface, Bootsey's had financial backers with deeper pockets who could sustain deeper losses, they may have had to put more of their own money at risk, there was a track record of prior successful management on a larger scale, likely no prior judgments or liens against the principles, etc.  When you go into a project that does not make business sense, you are not being responsible to your constituents.

 

 

Successful people such as Ruby sometimes have to close locations. It's a normal course of business in some industries.

>Second, Cranley is way behind paying off a $75,000 or so loan, yet the folks who attack this woman don't seem to be attacking John for this issue.

 

Yeah, the Qualls campaign dropped that a month before the election, it should have been a bombshell, but the local media absolutely didn't care. 

 

 

 

Is Cranley's loan from the city/taxpayers?

It is in the sense that he'd never have been part of the development to begin, and never had access to these types of development, with if he hadn't been appointed to City Council back in 2000.  In fact, he resigned from Council when he did because of this development.

So it's 100% leased? Why are no unites being constructed now? Yes i'm aware about the hotel that is delayed and that the Brown family is trying to block it, but their is other area's they can focus on.

 

What ever happen to the low income units?

Does anyone know if a lot has been selected for development after Phase 2? Or is a a phasing plan available somewhere online? It seems Phase 2 will finally get underway this spring with the post below, and I was wondering what the next steps are moving forward.  Will the developers look to finish earlier phases like the office tower, hotel, townhouses first before moving to another lot?

 

Word on the street is that an email went out prohibiting parking on the west riverfront parking deck starting at the end of March to monthly pass holders.

I'm not sure about the developers, but wasn't there recently an article about getting ready for the next phase of the garage? I don't recall which block this was however.

Successful people such as Ruby sometimes have to close locations. It's a normal course of business in some industries.

 

I get the sense that The Precinct, his first restaurant, is probably what's keeping his whole empire afloat.  He probably got the building for really cheap way back, whereas he's paying rent everywhere else and/or calling the coast guard every few months because oops he did it again.  The Precinct still has the best location because it's on a very prominent street corner so people are continuously reminded that it exists, but it's a street corner too small for a CVS which is why the police station is still there. 

 

I think we're also forgetting two things about The Banks:

1. it's new construction so the decor of the various restaurants is all canned

2. the restaurants on Freedom Way, including Mahogany's, have very poor visibility from the rest of downtown. 

 

What's more, the two restaurants that face downtown are Toby Keith's and Crave.  You can barely tell Toby Keith's is even there.  And Crave's corner location points away from 1-way traffic on 2nd St. AND Main. 

 

Compare what we have there to something like a Hard Rock Cafe.  There would be a giant guitar hanging off that building, possibly a revolving sign with neon.  There would be no mistaking what is there, and the appearance of the building would look fun and inviting.  That's how Hard Rock Cafe keeps getting people to pay too much for hamburgers and fries. 

 

Because the whole thing with restaurants is that the food is ancillary to the atmosphere, and the atmosphere begins outside.  Especially if you get 'em buzzed and dim the lights, people don't care what the food tastes like.  They think they know but they don't know. 

 

 

 

John, I think all of Ruby's restaurants are profitable. The Waterfront probably was not. If and when The Waterfront reopens at the Dock between the Marriott

and Embassy Suites that location is much better than the old location. He will make money there.

^I actually had heard that the Waterfront was his most profitable restaurant.  Of course, that might have meant over the course of its life, and obviously I'm only saying what I heard second-hand.  But we obviously don't know these things.  Clearly Bootsy's wasn't profitable.  But it's not particularly insightful to presume that a restaurant which is open is profitable.

 

Oftentimes one extremely profitable restaurant drives the rest of a group.

Mahogany's is out of time at the Banks

Staff Cincinnati Business Courier

 

Mahogany's owner Liz Rogers faced eviction from her restaurant's space at the Banks if she didn't pay back rent or move out on Monday, WCPO reports.

 

While it is unclear if the conditions were satisfied by the restaurant, a fourth notice of default was sent by landlord NIC Riverbank One LLC demanding that Rogers pay half of the rent on Monday and the other half by March 10 or move out. Each payment would be $26,422.25.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/morning_call/2014/03/mahoganys-is-out-of-time-at-the-banks.html

^I actually had heard that the Waterfront was his most profitable restaurant.  Of course, that might have meant over the course of its life, and obviously I'm only saying what I heard second-hand.  But we obviously don't know these things.  Clearly Bootsy's wasn't profitable.  But it's not particularly insightful to presume that a restaurant which is open is profitable.

 

Oftentimes one extremely profitable restaurant drives the rest of a group.

 

According to that blog post on the state of Covington's floating attractions, the rent for the Waterfront was only $75K a year. That is quite low for that kind of restaurant square footage let alone on something novel like a boat.  I know of some spots in mall food courts that are paying about the same.

^I actually had heard that the Waterfront was his most profitable restaurant.  Of course, that might have meant over the course of its life, and obviously I'm only saying what I heard second-hand.  But we obviously don't know these things.  Clearly Bootsy's wasn't profitable.  But it's not particularly insightful to presume that a restaurant which is open is profitable.

 

Oftentimes one extremely profitable restaurant drives the rest of a group.

 

According to that blog post on the state of Covington's floating attractions, the rent for the Waterfront was only $75K a year. That is quite low for that kind of restaurant square footage let alone on something novel like a boat.  I know of some spots in mall food courts that are paying about the same.

 

I think Ruby owns the boat/barge, and the "lease" is for dock space at Covington Landing. Covington gets a cut of his gross revenue also.

Almost seems more like a loan repayment program.

Ah yes otherwise no property taxes on the water.

Charlie Winburn has been making some interesting comments today:

 

"Winburn: I'm not sure @TheBanksCincy is really, really, really gonna make it. It's not a destination. It's not exciting." --@cindiincincy

 

Way to have faith in your city. There are tons of things that can be improved to make The Banks succeed. But apparently Winburn has already written it off as a failure.

Charlie Winburn has been making some interesting comments today:

 

"Winburn: I'm not sure @TheBanksCincy is really, really, really gonna make it. It's not a destination. It's not exciting." --@cindiincincy

 

Way to have faith in your city. There are tons of things that can be improved to make The Banks succeed. But apparently Winburn has already written it off as a failure.

 

Winburn is a coot, but he also said,

Cindi Andrews ‏@cindiincincy 1h

 

We need to stand behind Toby Keith; we need to stand behind Johnny Rocket's; we need to stand behind Mahogany's, Winburn says.

 

Cindi Andrews ‏@cindiincincy 59m

 

Mahogany's is only biz at The Banks that the city has an active loan out to.

Expand

 

Cindi Andrews is a good tweeter. nice find thanks

Ah yes otherwise no property taxes on the water.

 

Every little bit helps. I checked out the Precinct, The county has that valued at $881,000 and he pays

over $27,000 in real estate taxes annually. Have to think boat/barge maintenance on a large restaurant has to

be pretty significant.

Does Kentucky have property taxes on business possessions like it has personal property taxes on individual possessions like cars and motorcycles?

Does Kentucky have property taxes on business possessions like it has personal property taxes on individual possessions like cars and motorcycles?

 

No idea.

Does Kentucky have property taxes on business possessions like it has personal property taxes on individual possessions like cars and motorcycles?

 

It does have something called a "gross receipts tax".

700WLW has now dedicated 3 hours of today's programming to slamming Mahogany's.  The day began with Scott Sloan complaining that the restaurant was empty last night before The Eagles concert at US Bank Arena while there were "2 hour waits" at all of the other restaurants. 

 

9am hour continued with a visit from Chris Smitherman kissing white Cincinnati's white butt.  Then Sloan returned to the topic in the 11am hour.  Then Cunningham dedicated an hour to it after lunch. 

 

It goes on and on and on.