No surprise about Mahogany's. Wonder if she pocketed the grant money? We had a spirited debate on this thread about how

poor of a risk this lady was.

Unfortunately the insane amount of negative publicity scared white people away who would have had no idea it was a black-owned business.  The thing was rigged against this woman from the beginning. 

Saks, Macy's, and Nordstrom are all valiant efforts though, as they are large and profitable companies. Even though Nordstrom fell through and Sak's left, most investors would agree that they're worth the risk. However, even setting aside your opinions on the validity of subsidizing diversity and multiculturalism at The Banks, Mahogany's seemed like a horrible idea from the get go.

 

Not to pick a fight, I just think this reasoning is sort of weird.  Saks, Macy's & Nordstrom's are all profitable companies, as you say, so why should any government subsidize them at all?

 

Also, did Mahogany's seem like a horrible idea it total, or just because of the financing?  Because my experience at the Eagle leads me to believe that there is a big market for the kind of menu Mahoganny's put out.  At least that part didn't seem horrible.

I'm sure the developer don't want bad publicity. They held off as long as they could. Maybe there is a reason phase 2 has not started after all. The developers is not telling us everything.

Not to pick a fight, I just think this reasoning is sort of weird.  Saks, Macy's & Nordstrom's are all profitable companies, as you say, so why should any government subsidize them at all?

 

Because subsidies are intended to encourage behavior; they have nothing to do with the profitability of the target business.  In that particular case, they were trying to maintain the relevance of the downtown shopping experience by encouraging major retailers to locate/stay downtown. 

I'm sure the developer don't want bad publicity. They held off as long as they could. Maybe there is a reason phase 2 has not started after all. The developers is not telling us everything.

 

About a hotel down there.......it was interesting to read that an operator needs at least 400 rooms to make it work, but that

size would be too high, according to thea agreement with the Bengals.

The Banks and the Bengals are a mess right now. Why do the Bengals care about the view of downtown. When they didn't build their stadium facing downtown. I think the Bengals need to worry about winning a playoff game.  I guess no hotel or phase 2 by the all-star game

Because subsidies are intended to encourage behavior; they have nothing to do with the profitability of the target business.  In that particular case, they were trying to maintain the relevance of the downtown shopping experience by encouraging major retailers to locate/stay downtown.

 

Right, but the general thrust of the argument on this thread against subsidizing Mahoganny was all about the potential profitability of the target business.

I don't really know if it was the right concept for the Banks. Same thing with Johnny Rocket's. And maybe not even TKLTBAG. Location needs are more specific than ever since so many people just sit at home and stream Netflix every night. It's way worse than TV or VHS/DVD ever were for keeping people inside.

 

Another problem is locating in an unfinished project. Until the whole thing is finished profit potential is more limited. Same thing happened up here with Easton, the riskier businesses didn't want to open up until the blue chippers were all there and up to speed. Several didn't make it to full buildout. You need people buzzing around all the time, not just suburbanites on once-a-year excursions. Easton started out like that but now those kind of people go there once a month rather than once a year. Or even once a day if they work or live there. One advantage that the Banks obviously has over Easton is that it started out with people living and working near there already where as it took years for that to happen at Easton.

If an act of council can break (streetcar) construction contracts, then an act of council can break these ridiculous height restrictions. Fzck the Bengals.

 

Maybe we need a ballot initiative.

The Banks and the Bengals are a mess right now. Why do the Bengals care about the view of downtown. When they didn't build their stadium facing downtown. I think the Bengals need to worry about winning a playoff game.  I guess no hotel or phase 2 by the all-star game

 

It's just a bargaining chip.  This is why somebody like Mike Brown is so damn smart, because he knew that 10-20 years down the road something that the commissioners weren't going to fight over during initial lease negotiations would give him leverage in the future. 

 

You guys do realize that The Brown family came into 99.9% ownership of the Bengals in 2011 after having 0% ownership -- merely the right to buy stock in the 90s -- back in the early 80s?  These people are smart as hell. 

 

 

^From what I remember, the Bengals could have requested a new scoreboard in 2012 or so, and didn't.

I was on a plane back to Cincinnati last night and I overheard a woman in the row behind me. She was telling another passenger that she works for The Banks and was talking about Phase 2 breaking ground sometime soon. She said that while the Phase 1 apartments are 100% leased, they are only about 25% occupied at any given time, because many of them are rented out to Reds and Bengals players. Also, she claimed that many of them are rented out to suburbanites who will only come down for a game, but otherwise continue to live out in the 'burbs.

I was on a plane back to Cincinnati last night and I overheard a woman in the row behind me. She was telling another passenger that she works for The Banks and was talking about Phase 2 breaking ground sometime soon. She said that while the Phase 1 apartments are 100% leased, they are only about 25% occupied at any given time, because many of them are rented out to Reds and Bengals players. Also, she claimed that many of them are rented out to suburbanites who will only come down for a game, but otherwise continue to live out in the 'burbs.

Not optimal. Don't know how they track who is occupying and when they are there but 25% is stunning to me.

Because subsidies are intended to encourage behavior; they have nothing to do with the profitability of the target business.  In that particular case, they were trying to maintain the relevance of the downtown shopping experience by encouraging major retailers to locate/stay downtown.

 

Right, but the general thrust of the argument on this thread against subsidizing Mahoganny was all about the potential profitability of the target business.

 

That's not what you asked, though:  "Saks, Macy's & Nordstrom's are all profitable companies, as you say, so why should any government subsidize them at all?"

 

Which implies that subsidies are supposed to make up for a lack of profitability, which isn't their intended purpose.  The argument against subsidizing Mahogany's specifically focused on profitability because of the owner's poor financial history.  If the business isn't profitable, the subsidy is a bad bet, since that business may not be around long enough to achieve the city's intended purpose.  In this case, it was to achieve a more diverse group of restaurants (and possibly clientele) at the Banks.  Basically, profitability should be a prerequisite for receiving government subsidies. 

The Banks and the Bengals are a mess right now. Why do the Bengals care about the view of downtown. When they didn't build their stadium facing downtown.

 

Define "facing downtown".  You can't see much of downtown from the stands, but you get a great view of downtown from the huge windows in the Club Lounge located on this side of the stadium:

 

http://tinyurl.com/pbjrq9n

 

A friend of mine had her wedding reception at Paul Brown Stadium and the view from those windows was fantastic.  And if you look closely, it seems like the Club Lounge only takes up the bottom 2/3 of the windows.  My guess is that offices have the upper 1/3.  So yeah, the Bengals don't care about the fans' view of downtown.  But how much do you think the view from these huge windows is worth to Mike Brown?

 

 

Sidenote: Doesn't the county technically own the naming rights to Paul Brown Stadium?  I feel like I remember Mike Brown trying to officially obtain them recently, but I don't keep up with Bengals news that regularly.  If the county does own the rights, they could trade them in favor of easing some of the restrictions of that God-awful lease.

I was on a plane back to Cincinnati last night and I overheard a woman in the row behind me. She was telling another passenger that she works for The Banks and was talking about Phase 2 breaking ground sometime soon. She said that while the Phase 1 apartments are 100% leased, they are only about 25% occupied at any given time, because many of them are rented out to Reds and Bengals players. Also, she claimed that many of them are rented out to suburbanites who will only come down for a game, but otherwise continue to live out in the 'burbs.

Not optimal. Don't know how they track who is occupying and when they are there but 25% is stunning to me.

 

Probably by getting the rent checks mailed to them rather than dropped off at the office. Especially if the return address is from a suburb.

I was on a plane back to Cincinnati last night and I overheard a woman in the row behind me. She was telling another passenger that she works for The Banks and was talking about Phase 2 breaking ground sometime soon. She said that while the Phase 1 apartments are 100% leased, they are only about 25% occupied at any given time, because many of them are rented out to Reds and Bengals players. Also, she claimed that many of them are rented out to suburbanites who will only come down for a game, but otherwise continue to live out in the 'burbs.

Not optimal. Don't know how they track who is occupying and when they are there but 25% is stunning to me.

 

Probably by getting the rent checks mailed to them rather than dropped off at the office. Especially if the return address is from a suburb.

 

And seeing low occupancy levels at the pool, fitness room, and other common areas.

I was on a plane back to Cincinnati last night and I overheard a woman in the row behind me. She was telling another passenger that she works for The Banks and was talking about Phase 2 breaking ground sometime soon. She said that while the Phase 1 apartments are 100% leased, they are only about 25% occupied at any given time, because many of them are rented out to Reds and Bengals players. Also, she claimed that many of them are rented out to suburbanites who will only come down for a game, but otherwise continue to live out in the 'burbs.

Not optimal. Don't know how they track who is occupying and when they are there but 25% is stunning to me.

 

Probably by getting the rent checks mailed to them rather than dropped off at the office. Especially if the return address is from a suburb.

 

And seeing low occupancy levels at the pool, fitness room, and other common areas.

UGHHHHHH!!!!!

That aint cool

I was on a plane back to Cincinnati last night and I overheard a woman in the row behind me. She was telling another passenger that she works for The Banks and was talking about Phase 2 breaking ground sometime soon. She said that while the Phase 1 apartments are 100% leased, they are only about 25% occupied at any given time, because many of them are rented out to Reds and Bengals players. Also, she claimed that many of them are rented out to suburbanites who will only come down for a game, but otherwise continue to live out in the 'burbs.

Not optimal. Don't know how they track who is occupying and when they are there but 25% is stunning to me.

 

Probably by getting the rent checks mailed to them rather than dropped off at the office. Especially if the return address is from a suburb.

 

And seeing low occupancy levels at the pool, fitness room, and other common areas.

UGHHHHHH!!!!!

That aint cool

 

It's cool for the people who get to use an empty pool, fitness room, etc. whenever they want.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/future-of-the-banks-not-so-bright

 

Dan Monk has a nice cube.

I was on a plane back to Cincinnati last night and I overheard a woman in the row behind me. She was telling another passenger that she works for The Banks and was talking about Phase 2 breaking ground sometime soon. She said that while the Phase 1 apartments are 100% leased, they are only about 25% occupied at any given time, because many of them are rented out to Reds and Bengals players. Also, she claimed that many of them are rented out to suburbanites who will only come down for a game, but otherwise continue to live out in the 'burbs.

Not optimal. Don't know how they track who is occupying and when they are there but 25% is stunning to me.

 

Probably by getting the rent checks mailed to them rather than dropped off at the office. Especially if the return address is from a suburb.

 

And seeing low occupancy levels at the pool, fitness room, and other common areas.

UGHHHHHH!!!!!

That aint cool

 

It's cool for the people who get to use an empty pool, fitness room, etc. whenever they want.

 

Nothing wrong with living in a 100% leased under occupied building.  I can't imagine what it would be like if my neighbors were actually occupying their units, but it would probably be annoying. I'd have to wait for elevators and possibly hear people on my floor.  I like things quiet... or if I'm loud, no one is around to complain.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/future-of-the-banks-not-so-bright

 

Dan Monk has a nice cube.

 

Exactly the type of headline I expect from WCPO these days.

That really was a worthless article.  Nothing to back up his opinion other than one of the restaurants being told they have to vacate.  Honestly it would get an F in the journalism class at school. 

Right, but the general thrust of the argument on this thread against subsidizing Mahoganny was all about the potential profitability of the target business.

 

That's not what you asked, though:  "Saks, Macy's & Nordstrom's are all profitable companies, as you say, so why should any government subsidize them at all?"

 

Which implies that subsidies are supposed to make up for a lack of profitability, which isn't their intended purpose.  The argument against subsidizing Mahogany's specifically focused on profitability because of the owner's poor financial history.  If the business isn't profitable, the subsidy is a bad bet, since that business may not be around long enough to achieve the city's intended purpose.  In this case, it was to achieve a more diverse group of restaurants (and possibly clientele) at the Banks.  Basically, profitability should be a prerequisite for receiving government subsidies.

 

A subsidy historically is supposed to make up for a lack of profitability in the early years of an industry. 

 

Your argument seems to be that the government should attempt to encourage certain types of economic behavior in certain areas for the benefit of certain economic actors.  In the example you gave, you suggested that the City should subsidize profitable anchor chains for the benefit of the downtown retail market, presumably landlords and other retail store owners.  In the case of Mahoganny, the City is subsidizing a restaurant for the benefit of the landlords at the Banks and the other restaurants and bars in the entertainment district.

 

I guess the difference for me is, I look at the size of the subsidy given to Mahoganny and think, "I'd rather take a shot on a local business owner with a smaller subsidy" than pay out a much larger subsidy to a national chain.  A lot of people looked at Mahoganny's history and said, "This restaurant is obviously going to fail."  I'd argue that one could have taken a quick survey of the malls in the Greater Cincinnati area and said, "We just don't have the purchasing power to support more than one tony shopping area.  That area is going to be Kenwood because it is physically closest to the neighborhoods in the area with the highest purchasing power."

 

To each his own. 

  In the case of Mahoganny, the City is subsidizing a restaurant for the benefit of the landlords at the Banks and the other restaurants and bars in the entertainment district.

 

Except that's not the reason that Mahogany's received the subsidy.  The Banks was not struggling to find tenants, and given the developers preference for low risk chains, they probably were never stoked about the idea of having Mahogany's there to begin with.  Also, The clientele for Mahogany's is not the same crowd that populates most of the other restaurants and bars at the Banks, so I don't buy that it received subsidy to benefit the other establishments down there.

 

I think that subsidies are generally used to lure businesses that wouldn't necessarily choose to open in a given location.  You incentivize Nordstrom to come downtown because it would greatly help the retail scene, and establishes downtown as a retail force in the region.  Nordstrom seeks subsidy for a downtown store because they know that location wouldn't be as profitable as a location at Kenwood, and they need a way to justify their decision.  The subsidy doesn't allow Nordstrom to make money downtown if it wasn't going to already; it just helps bridge the gap between what they could be making elsewhere.  It's the same thing you see with corporate relo's. Companies can choose any city or state to locate in, and they can generally make money wherever they are.  The subsidy just sweetens the pot and makes one location a bit more appealing than another.

 

Mahogany's is not some desired tenant that communities were fighting over.  It was subsidized because it was a black owned soul food restaurant, and the previous city administration placed a high value on diversity.  This isn't inherently bad (IMO), but they were irresponsible in that they subsidized a business owner who was already a financial liability. They should have been extra careful with this subsidy as it used grant money in addition to loans.  The small business grant that Mahogany's received has greatly diminished the city's capacity to give to other small businesses, and we are about to have nothing to show for it.  That is fiscal irresponsibility no matter how you slice it.

If Mahogany's tanks and the city's out $300,000, that's still a fraction of the cost of Cranley's outrageous streetcar "pause", and a fraction of the money he gave away from the pension fund back in 2003 to cultural events and groups.   

I know people with student loan debt not many fractions less than the Mahoganys deal. Maybe the Enquirer can do several exposés on that issue. Not an ethical equivalent, but would sure put $300k in perspective.

Without going all the way back in the thread, wasn't most of the money given to Mahogany's for tenant improvements?  If it was, hopefully another user could use at least some of what is there and it wouldn't be a total waste even though it likely belongs to the building owner now.

I know people with student loan debt not many fractions less than the Mahoganys deal. Maybe the Enquirer can do several exposés on that issue. Not an ethical equivalent, but would sure put $300k in perspective.

 

Wow, I didn't think of that, but it's a great point. 

  In the case of Mahoganny, the City is subsidizing a restaurant for the benefit of the landlords at the Banks and the other restaurants and bars in the entertainment district.

I think that subsidies are generally used to lure businesses that wouldn't necessarily choose to open in a given location.  You incentivize Nordstrom to come downtown because it would greatly help the retail scene, and establishes downtown as a retail force in the region.  Nordstrom seeks subsidy for a downtown store because they know that location wouldn't be as profitable as a location at Kenwood, and they need a way to justify their decision.  The subsidy doesn't allow Nordstrom to make money downtown if it wasn't going to already; it just helps bridge the gap between what they could be making elsewhere.  It's the same thing you see with corporate relo's. Companies can choose any city or state to locate in, and they can generally make money wherever they are.  The subsidy just sweetens the pot and makes one location a bit more appealing than another.

 

Anybody who thinks that any of those subsidies for downtown department stores were about "establishing downtown as a retail force in the region" is ignoring what was happening to retail when they began.  Forest Fair Mall has never, ever, panned out, because the retail market went bust immediately after it opened.  All the other Malls in the region went down hill as well.  Even properties that have, over time, been successfully redeveloped, like Beechmont Mall, for example, don't have the amount and diversity of retail that was there back in the 80's.  The places that are humming are basically food courts with some attached stores.  Look at Newport- it's a safe place for pre-teens to walk around without their parents.  All those downtown department store subsidies were band-aids pure and simple.  And they failed utterly in both making downtown a place that people go for high-end shopping as well as keeping the customers for the myriad other smaller shops that existed on 4th Street or Race Street or the like.  Downtown Cincinnati started loosing its luster in the 90s and lost it a really fast pace, and so the subsidies succeeded in their actual goal, which was to make the politicians who approved them seem like they weren't incompetents who were presiding over rapid decline.  But it certainly didn't keep downtown as the major high-end shopping destination. 

 

What happened to Herschede, Gidding Jenny, Dino's, Sterling Cut Glass, Florsheim, and myriad other local retail power houses that sat between McAlpin's and Lazarus and Pogue's and Elder-Beerman?  You guys are just too young to have any familiarity with downtown shopping was actually like back prior to the mid nineties to understand the scale of failure of all those subsidies.  They were all sold as a way to keep all that activity and all those institutions and every one of them crapped out.  The idea that one restaurant given a $300,000 subsidy because they were African-American owned was a stupid fiscal decision because it crapped out 3 months later, but Saks stringing along the public for decades at the tune of millions of dollars to maintain a glorious tradition of upscale destination shopping was a sound fiscal decision is nuts.  All those retail subsidies failed- downtown is not a destination for upscale shopping.  We just got lucky that it started turning a corner recently for other reasons that basically have nothing to do with any plans made by the City.

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.

 

 

Without going all the way back in the thread, wasn't most of the money given to Mahogany's for tenant improvements?  If it was, hopefully another user could use at least some of what is there and it wouldn't be a total waste even though it likely belongs to the building owner now.

 

If RSF of that space is about 3,000 RSF, guessing, and she got a grant of $685,000 that is $228 per RSF for TI's. That is a massive amount. She probably used some

of that for FFE also, not just TIs. I just don't think that Rogers knows how to run a restaurant and compete with the others near her. I think another operator

could step in that space and be successful. 2 Saturday's ago I walked into the Yard House at 10:30 PM and in the main area every single table and bar stool

was occupied. No Reds, No Bengals, just a cold Saturday evening.

http://www.urbanspoon.com/r/32/1545055/restaurant/Cincinnati/Mahoganys-Cafe-and-Grill-Hamilton

http://www.urbanspoon.com/r/32/1694308/restaurant/Downtown/Mahoganys-at-the-Banks-Cincinnati

Your argument seems to be that the government should attempt to encourage certain types of economic behavior in certain areas for the benefit of certain economic actors.  In the example you gave, you suggested that the City should subsidize profitable anchor chains for the benefit of the downtown retail market, presumably landlords and other retail store owners.

 

Downtown retail wasn't my example, I just replied to your question about why the city would subsidize a "profitable business".  And I never said they should have subsidized large department stores, just why they did it.

 

I guess the difference for me is, I look at the size of the subsidy given to Mahoganny and think, "I'd rather take a shot on a local business owner with a smaller subsidy" than pay out a much larger subsidy to a national chain.

 

But unless the goal of the subsidy is to foster local businesses at the Banks, you're letting emotion and preference guide your decision rather than solid financials and potential ROI.  A subsidy is essentially a bet; the city was betting on Mahogany's to be successful and increase the diversity of options at The Banks.  For whatever reason it wasn't successful, so it appears the city lost this bet. 

 

 

I'd argue that one could have taken a quick survey of the malls in the Greater Cincinnati area and said, "We just don't have the purchasing power to support more than one tony shopping area.  That area is going to be Kenwood because it is physically closest to the neighborhoods in the area with the highest purchasing power."

 

Fair enough.  But Kenwood isn't within Cincinnati.  So if the city of Cincinnati wants to encourage high end retail within its own borders, using a subsidy is a viable method of doing so.  It wouldn't make sense for the County or State to do it, but it's perfectly understandable for the city.

 

 

e idea that one restaurant given a $300,000 subsidy because they were African-American owned was a stupid fiscal decision because it crapped out 3 months later, but Saks stringing along the public for decades at the tune of millions of dollars to maintain a glorious tradition of upscale destination shopping was a sound fiscal decision is nuts.

 

You're the one who keeps going back to city's history with Saks.  No one has touted that as an excellent example of how a subsidy is supposed to work.  The fact remains that the owner of Mahogany's had a shaky financial history that served as a red flag (which was ignored).  Now it looks like they're going out of business.  I'm not sure what else there is to say.

e idea that one restaurant given a $300,000 subsidy because they were African-American owned was a stupid fiscal decision because it crapped out 3 months later, but Saks stringing along the public for decades at the tune of millions of dollars to maintain a glorious tradition of upscale destination shopping was a sound fiscal decision is nuts.

 

You're the one who keeps going back to city's history with Saks.  No one has touted that as an excellent example of how a subsidy is supposed to work.  The fact remains that the owner of Mahogany's had a shaky financial history that served as a red flag (which was ignored).  Now it looks like they're going out of business.  I'm not sure what else there is to say.

 

This is the post that started my responses:

Saks, Macy's, and Nordstrom are all valiant efforts though, as they are large and profitable companies. Even though Nordstrom fell through and Sak's left, most investors would agree that they're worth the risk. However, even setting aside your opinions on the validity of subsidizing diversity and multiculturalism at The Banks, Mahogany's seemed like a horrible idea from the get go.

  In the case of Mahoganny, the City is subsidizing a restaurant for the benefit of the landlords at the Banks and the other restaurants and bars in the entertainment district.

I think that subsidies are generally used to lure businesses that wouldn't necessarily choose to open in a given location.  You incentivize Nordstrom to come downtown because it would greatly help the retail scene, and establishes downtown as a retail force in the region.  Nordstrom seeks subsidy for a downtown store because they know that location wouldn't be as profitable as a location at Kenwood, and they need a way to justify their decision.  The subsidy doesn't allow Nordstrom to make money downtown if it wasn't going to already; it just helps bridge the gap between what they could be making elsewhere.  It's the same thing you see with corporate relo's. Companies can choose any city or state to locate in, and they can generally make money wherever they are.  The subsidy just sweetens the pot and makes one location a bit more appealing than another.

 

Anybody who thinks that any of those subsidies for downtown department stores were about "establishing downtown as a retail force in the region" is ignoring what was happening to retail when they began.  Forest Fair Mall has never, ever, panned out, because the retail market went bust immediately after it opened.  All the other Malls in the region went down hill as well.  Even properties that have, over time, been successfully redeveloped, like Beechmont Mall, for example, don't have the amount and diversity of retail that was there back in the 80's.  The places that are humming are basically food courts with some attached stores.  Look at Newport- it's a safe place for pre-teens to walk around without their parents.  All those downtown department store subsidies were band-aids pure and simple.  And they failed utterly in both making downtown a place that people go for high-end shopping as well as keeping the customers for the myriad other smaller shops that existed on 4th Street or Race Street or the like.  Downtown Cincinnati started loosing its luster in the 90s and lost it a really fast pace, and so the subsidies succeeded in their actual goal, which was to make the politicians who approved them seem like they weren't incompetents who were presiding over rapid decline.  But it certainly didn't keep downtown as the major high-end shopping destination. 

 

What happened to Herschede, Gidding Jenny, Dino's, Sterling Cut Glass, Florsheim, and myriad other local retail power houses that sat between McAlpin's and Lazarus and Pogue's and Elder-Beerman?  You guys are just too young to have any familiarity with downtown shopping was actually like back prior to the mid nineties to understand the scale of failure of all those subsidies.  They were all sold as a way to keep all that activity and all those institutions and every one of them crapped out.  The idea that one restaurant given a $300,000 subsidy because they were African-American owned was a stupid fiscal decision because it crapped out 3 months later, but Saks stringing along the public for decades at the tune of millions of dollars to maintain a glorious tradition of upscale destination shopping was a sound fiscal decision is nuts.  All those retail subsidies failed- downtown is not a destination for upscale shopping.  We just got lucky that it started turning a corner recently for other reasons that basically have nothing to do with any plans made by the City.

 

I don't necessarily agree with all of the tactics the city used with Saks, but I really think that if Nordstrom had been built at 5th and Race Downtown retail would have turned around. We would have had Saks, Nordstrom, and Macy's all on the same intersection. 

 

I really don't understand why there's such a defense of Mahogany's on this board.  The grant they received has all but depleted the small business grant program from which it came, which could have provided help to several other small businesses.  By choosing to use so much money on a known financial risk is irresponsible.  I also don't really see why pointing out that some people have student loan debt approaching the loan amount Mahogany's received is relevant.  Just because some individuals are fiscally irresponsible, it makes it OK for the city to be too? Hopefully anyone with that much student loan debt is going to have a high paying job, and the debt will be a worthy investment (hard to see that being the case...). The city's investment obviously was not a smart one.

e idea that one restaurant given a $300,000 subsidy because they were African-American owned was a stupid fiscal decision because it crapped out 3 months later, but Saks stringing along the public for decades at the tune of millions of dollars to maintain a glorious tradition of upscale destination shopping was a sound fiscal decision is nuts.

 

You're the one who keeps going back to city's history with Saks.  No one has touted that as an excellent example of how a subsidy is supposed to work.  The fact remains that the owner of Mahogany's had a shaky financial history that served as a red flag (which was ignored).  Now it looks like they're going out of business.  I'm not sure what else there is to say.

 

This is the post that started my responses:

Saks, Macy's, and Nordstrom are all valiant efforts though, as they are large and profitable companies. Even though Nordstrom fell through and Sak's left, most investors would agree that they're worth the risk. However, even setting aside your opinions on the validity of subsidizing diversity and multiculturalism at The Banks, Mahogany's seemed like a horrible idea from the get go.

 

My point was that the risk involved in subsidizing Saks and Macy's was less than the risk of subsidizing Mahogany's, given the owner's financial history and track record. If the city government is going to be involved in the act of subsidizing businesses, I'd say a profitable international corporation is a better bet than a small business owner with bad credit and a history of backed taxes.

 

Whether the city should be doing any of these things at all is another discussion altogether.

Guys Mahogany's will not make or break The Banks or the city. WAY too many other issues to deal with than this.

Guys Mahogany's will not make or break The Banks or the city. WAY too many other issues to deal with than this.

 

Agreed.  And that was kind of the point.  If Mahoganny's is indicative of anything, it's that having the City pick businesses to support is a bad idea.  I just thought that picking Saks and Nordstrom's were also bad ideas, just like subsidizing the Maisonnette would have been a bad idea.

 

What is the City good at? Or a better question, how does the City make money?  The answer is through the payroll tax.  What is the easiest way for the City to make money through the payroll tax?  Get more people and more wealthy people to live in the City.  Try to limit yourself to the most basic things that the City has the capacity to do and does well.  Don't worry about entertainment districts or retail districts, let that stuff work itself out on its own.  But if the developers want the City involved at that level and the City is going to do it, making sure there are procedures in there for economic inclusion is a good goal.

If Mahogany's is indicative of anything it's that WLW is petty and racist.

If Mahogany's is indicative of anything it's that WLW is petty and racist.

 

If you listen to WLW, they actually say that they enjoy Mahogany's and that the food is good. They even defend the owner and say that she was railroaded by the city. I would not call that a racist slant or racist view on their part.

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.

The difference between the Banks and the places in OTR is the rent is going to be much higher at the Banks which makes it harder for a small business to sustain itself down there. That is why it is full of national chains for the most part and OTR is mostly locally grown places.

 

The other issues are that it does well on game days/event days, but otherwise, it relies on the local residents for business. WIth all the competition on that block along with competing against the rest of the business district establishments there are bound to be some casualties. The biggest thing here is that all parties, the owner, but mostly the city, in its effort to find a small minority business did not place it in a place to succeed. It may have done better at Fountain Square or OTR or somewhere where the overhead may have been cheaper.

 

I think when people trash this deal, it is less to do with the owner, or racist overtones, but everything to do with prudent business practices and the city's lack of ability to approach the issue from a business standpoint.

If Mahogany's is indicative of anything it's that WLW is petty and racist.

 

If you listen to WLW, they actually say that they enjoy Mahogany's and that the food is good. They even defend the owner and say that she was railroaded by the city. I would not call that a racist slant or racist view on their part.

 

Seriously?  Talk radio has been out to destroy this restaurant for years and now they're taking a victory lap.  Dozens and dozens of segments, and countless jabs while talking about some unrelated situation. 

 

What other restaurant has been harassed to this extent?  Jeff Ruby's restaurant has broken free and hit the same bridge pier twice and the white people think it's cute.  The Mike Fink has been sitting next to the suspension bridge for the past two years looking like absolute crap and talk radio hasn't even once called out the Bernstein family. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If Mahogany's is indicative of anything it's that WLW is petty and racist.

 

If you listen to WLW, they actually say that they enjoy Mahogany's and that the food is good. They even defend the owner and say that she was railroaded by the city. I would not call that a racist slant or racist view on their part.

 

I don't listen to wlw too often, but for the most part what I hear was more aimed at Mallory-Dohoney and council for doing this deal.

 

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.

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.

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?

^Isn't that how they got in the predicament in the first place? We can think all we want. It's up to the businesses to decide with their studies. Look at all the failed places in NOTL. How many did a real study?

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.