I am sure Ruby pays personal property tax on the Waterfront/barge (similar to a mobile home or airplane hangar that doesn't own the land on which it sits).  I am also sure if there is any savings on real estate taxes it is more than eaten up by the maintenance of a barge.

This should serve as a lesson that our elected leaders should not be acting as venture capitalists unless they are qualified to do so. Unfortunately, none of them on council at this time have that qualification.

This should serve as a lesson that our elected leaders should not be acting as venture capitalists unless they are qualified to do so. Unfortunately, none of them on council at this time have that qualification.

 

The real lesson is don't go into ANY debt to start a business of this kind, especially hundreds of thousands of dollars.  It doesn't work, especially when you're competing in an industry where most people start with cash from investors or family money that never has to be repaid.  Those people are only paying rent, not rent + payments on a loan. 

 

Why don't people realize this?  Sit down with a piece of paper and a calculator and sketch out your numbers, then the numbers of the guy next to you at The Banks who isn't writing a $4,000 check at the end of each month.  He gets to use that $4,000 on advertising, to save for eventual renovations, or to save to start a second location.  Your $4,000 is disappearing into thin air and you have almost no money left over to do any of the things your competitor is doing. 

 

This should serve as a lesson that our elected leaders should not be acting as venture capitalists unless they are qualified to do so. Unfortunately, none of them on council at this time have that qualification.

 

The real lesson is don't go into ANY debt to start a business of this kind, especially hundreds of thousands of dollars.  It doesn't work, especially when you're competing in an industry where most people start with cash from investors or family money that never has to be repaid.  Those people are only paying rent, not rent + payments on a loan. 

 

Why don't people realize this?  Sit down with a piece of paper and a calculator and sketch out your numbers, then the numbers of the guy next to you at The Banks who isn't writing a $4,000 check at the end of each month.  He gets to use that $4,000 on advertising, to save for eventual renovations, or to save to start a second location.  Your $4,000 is disappearing into thin air and you have almost no money left over to do any of the things your competitor is doing. 

 

 

The real lesson is don't trust city council who has zero expertise in these matters. the taxpayers funded Liz to the tune of 1 Million dollars.

The other operators at the Banks have lines of credit they are using. If a family member loans you money and you don't repay the loan it is

up to the damaged party to work this out. The only operator at the Banks who is delinquent on a loan to the taxpayers is Liz Rogers.

Liz Rogers has a massive free start advantage over everybody else at The Banks. She can't run a business and turn a profit, she never has.

$300,000 loan, $685,000 Grant for a $3,500 Sq. Ft. restaurant that is absurd.

 

 

Mahogany’s makes partial payment, must make 2nd or face eviction

Tom Demeropolis Reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

 

The owner of Mahogany’s at the Banks has until March 10 to pay nearly $38,000 in rent and fees or turn over the high-profile riverfront space by noon on March 11.

 

The financially troubled southern cuisine restaurant defaulted on its lease and was threatened with eviction last month. Mahogany's has been embroiled in controversy since Cincinnati City Council approved an incentive package of nearly $1 million to help Mahogany’s open the location at the Banks.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/03/04/mahoganys-makes-partial-payment-must.html

The drama unfolds even more....true or not?

 

Embezzlement cited in Mahogany's woes

Mar. 4, 2014 

Written by Sharon Coolidge

 

 

Mahogany’s owner Liz Rogers financial woes stem from an $80,000 embezzlement by her financial manager, she told city officials.

 

But she’s working to catch up on back lease payments. Rogers, who had defaulted on nearly $53,000 in rent and faced eviction, paid half that Monday, City of Cincinnati records dated Monday showed.

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20140304/NEWS010801/303040043/Embezzlement-cited-Mahogany-s-woes

 

 

Let's stick to talking about The Banks and stop insulting local businesses and stereotyping entire demographics of people.

 

Mahogany’s gets 2 more days to pay rent, fees

Tom Demeropolis Reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

 

Mahogany’s at the Banks and the landlord of the riverfront development have agreed to give the restaurant until 5 p.m. on Wednesday, March 12 to cure its default.

 

This is an update from the most recent deal between the two parties, which called for Mahogany’s to pay nearly $38,000 in rent and fees or turn over the high-profile riverfront space by noon on March 11.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/03/11/mahogany-s-gets-2-more-days-to-pay-rent-fees.html

Mahogany’s avoids eviction, granted more time for solution

Tom Demeropolis Reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

 

Mahogany’s at the Banks will remain open past noon Thursday, according to a statement from the restaurant’s attorney.

 

The restaurant is working with landlord NIC Riverbank One LLC, which purchased the Banks at the end of 2013, to find a solution.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/03/13/mahogany-s-avoids-eviction-granted-more-time-for.html

As part of The Banks Project Bid Package 12-1, the north side of 2nd Street is under construction. Between Walnut & Main they are replacing sidewalks as well as installing pole foundations for a future streetcar stop. It appears they have widened the sidewalk by 2-3 feet. Does anyone know if they are eliminating a lane?

The north-most lane on 2nd street will be transit-only between Walnut and Main. It will be used by the streetcar, Metro, and TANK.

Nice.  Now for the caps over FWW to tie it all in  :clap:

Mahogany's gets (another) extension to pay its debt

Tom Demeropolis Reporter- Cincinnati Business Courier

 

 

Since the beginning of March, Mahogany’s at the Banks has been facing the threat of eviction from its space at the riverfront development.

 

Now, the financially troubled restaurant has been given another extension to cure its lease default, according to an agreement between Mahogany’s and its landlord, NIC Riverbank One LLC. The agreement is dated March 14 and is signed by Mahogany’s owner Liz Rogers and a representative from NIC Riverbank One.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2014/03/18/mahoganys-gets-another-extension-to-pay-its-debt.html

This should serve as a lesson that our elected leaders should not be acting as venture capitalists unless they are qualified to do so. Unfortunately, none of them on council at this time have that qualification.

 

The real lesson is don't go into ANY debt to start a business of this kind, especially hundreds of thousands of dollars.  It doesn't work, especially when you're competing in an industry where most people start with cash from investors or family money that never has to be repaid.  Those people are only paying rent, not rent + payments on a loan. 

 

Why don't people realize this?  Sit down with a piece of paper and a calculator and sketch out your numbers, then the numbers of the guy next to you at The Banks who isn't writing a $4,000 check at the end of each month.  He gets to use that $4,000 on advertising, to save for eventual renovations, or to save to start a second location.  Your $4,000 is disappearing into thin air and you have almost no money left over to do any of the things your competitor is doing. 

 

 

The real lesson is don't trust city council who has zero expertise in these matters. the taxpayers funded Liz to the tune of 1 Million dollars.

The other operators at the Banks have lines of credit they are using. If a family member loans you money and you don't repay the loan it is

up to the damaged party to work this out. The only operator at the Banks who is delinquent on a loan to the taxpayers is Liz Rogers.

Liz Rogers has a massive free start advantage over everybody else at The Banks. She can't run a business and turn a profit, she never has.

$300,000 loan, $685,000 Grant for a $3,500 Sq. Ft. restaurant that is absurd.

 

YES, YES YES !!! How many more times do we have to hear this same refrain?

 

^I remember when comments like this would get your messages deleted for, "insulting local businesses and stereotyping entire demographics of people."

 

Reiterating the fact that there are the untold subsidies that are churned out regularly to many, many, many more well-connected local developers and entrepreneurs than this woman.

Forgiving her and letting her keep the place is like lowering the grading standards so people can pass school.

 

Anyways, anybody hear of phase II start date yet?

^I remember when comments like this would get your messages deleted for, "insulting local businesses and stereotyping entire demographics of people."

 

Reiterating the fact that there are the untold subsidies that are churned out regularly to many, many, many more well-connected local developers and entrepreneurs than this woman.

 

How was that comment offensive. It pretty much stated the truth. Now the key fact he left out was that Toby Keith's got a subsidy and they have had their struggles too. Otherwise, it was a fairly accurate statement that did not attack the character of the person but the issue at hand.

 

I think his key point is that the city should not be in the business of giving loans/grants with taxpayer money to speculative projects. That is irresponsible. Would you be happy if the city directed its investments to speculative oil fracking in Eastern, Ohio, I doubt it. Yes, that would produce a good return but it is incredibly risky.

 

The opponents of this deal had no issue with the individual or race, it had everything to do with what was a prudent investment. Trying to argue otherwise is just foolish.

Forgiving her and letting her keep the place is like lowering the grading standards so people can pass school.

What a weird analogy.  People have the terms of their loans or their contract changed all the time.  All the time.  Example: the mayor has not paid back a $75,000 loan and has either had the terms changed or has had a deal with the creditor so that they won't act on their legal right to collect.  Most lenders have an interest in seeing their debtors actually succeed in the purpose for which they borrowed.  That's why the reselling and repackaging of mortgages was criticized, because the originators had no interest in the outcome of the contracts they were originating.

 

It's nothing like school.

 

The opponents of this deal had no issue with the individual or race, it had everything to do with what was a prudent investment. Trying to argue otherwise is just foolish.

 

Disagree.  The conclusion on one side of this issue is that the amount of attention paid to this specific subsidy is due to race.  The premises of that argument is that other, larger or similar subsidies paid to other businesses that failed never garnered as much attention as this one.  Obviously some people disagree with that argument, even so strongly as to consider it foolish.

Who cares. This Mahogany's situation is a distraction. Why is it taking so long to build phase 2. Not to mention they haven't built all of phase 1 (Hotel, Condominiums, Office Tower). The Banks execution just seem very sloppy and not thought out

My post telling someone that if they have an issue with posts they should click the report button was deleted?  I guess it was off-topic....

 

Anyway, there was a big crowd yesterday at a lot of the Banks establishments for March Madness.  I think that we will see everything pick back up down there as soon as baseball season arrives.  I have been jogging down in the Riverfront Park/Mehring Way area recently, and there's a surprisingly consistent stream of people out and about, even fairly late in the evening.  I think the project will just continue to gain momentum as each new piece begins. 

Who cares. This Mahogany's situation is a distraction. Why is it taking so long to build phase 2. Not to mention they haven't built all of phase 1 (Hotel, Condominiums, Office Tower). The Banks execution just seem very sloppy and not thought out

 

The entire Smale Riverfront Park will probably be completed before Phase 2 of The Banks is completed. The park keeps getting both private donations and governmental grants, while The Banks continues to be delayed for unknown reasons.

 

 

The opponents of this deal had no issue with the individual or race, it had everything to do with what was a prudent investment. Trying to argue otherwise is just foolish.

 

Disagree.  The conclusion on one side of this issue is that the amount of attention paid to this specific subsidy is due to race.  The premises of that argument is that other, larger or similar subsidies paid to other businesses that failed never garnered as much attention as this one.  Obviously some people disagree with that argument, even so strongly as to consider it foolish.

 

PAlexander - Completely disagree with you on this one as your logic is very off base. The problem with this deal is that there were so many red flags at the beginning a prudent investor would not want to invest yet the city decided to proceed forward anyway. When the city's legal department marked up the lease with their input on what should be added to provider greater security, yet council and the mayor completely ignored it, that it borders on malfeasance. People do not mind investment but they get upset when local leaders treat their tax money like their own and waste it on poor investments.  The fact that larger investments have failed is nothing but a straw man argument and irrelevant to the deal at hand here. There is never a guarantee of success when investing in a business but the key is making a prudent investment. Prudent investments fail all the time but the likelihood of them succeeding is still there. Unfortunately, the chance of long term success of Mahoganey's at the Banks was poor at best. This was not the investment city council should have been making, because as you point out, much more prudent investments have failed as well.

 

That is why this is not about race. The only people who claim this is about race are the defenders of such bad business decisions that they need to find a scapegoat to hide the fact that they were one of the Kool Aid drinkers.

It's about race to some people. Things involving minorities that aren't about race can become about race anyway even if they didn't start that way. Especially if it makes for good ratings.

 

Look at Youtube comments on videos featuring minorities. 95% of the videos aren't about race; instead they're just people doing stuff or talking about whatever. But scroll down to the comments and look at what people turn it into.

"I feel like I'm at war, like I've been deployed to Iraq," Rogers said.

 

I'm sure actual veterans of Iraq would disagree.

PAlexander - Completely disagree with you on this one as your logic is very off base. The problem with this deal is that there were so many red flags at the beginning a prudent investor would not want to invest yet the city decided to proceed forward anyway. When the city's legal department marked up the lease with their input on what should be added to provider greater security, yet council and the mayor completely ignored it, that it borders on malfeasance. People do not mind investment but they get upset when local leaders treat their tax money like their own and waste it on poor investments.  The fact that larger investments have failed is nothing but a straw man argument and irrelevant to the deal at hand here. There is never a guarantee of success when investing in a business but the key is making a prudent investment. Prudent investments fail all the time but the likelihood of them succeeding is still there. Unfortunately, the chance of long term success of Mahoganey's at the Banks was poor at best. This was not the investment city council should have been making, because as you point out, much more prudent investments have failed as well.

 

That is why this is not about race. The only people who claim this is about race are the defenders of such bad business decisions that they need to find a scapegoat to hide the fact that they were one of the Kool Aid drinkers.

 

At a certain point, there's going to be too many premises that we don't agree so it's impossible to have a constructive argument.  I've already discussed most of your points in previous posts, particularly the one about whether or not someone should know something is going to be a bad investment.  There are a ton of people saying this is obviously a bad business decision therefore this is not about race, but never establishing the standards of what an obvious bad business decision is, and then applying those standards to other City backed ventures that failed, for me to give those statements any credit.  Unless one says, "this this and this were the red flags for Mahoganny's and they also were red flags at this place this place and this place," then there's no particular reason why the idea that 'this one place was obviously a bad investment' argument is any more valid than 'this one place is being subject to additional scrutiny because of race' argument (in addition, those arguments aren't mutually exclusive.  It could still have been getting excessive attention because of race while being a bad choice for the City).

 

Let's not forget that a premise the second argument is that Mahoganny's required non-traditional investment structures because of race; no one who is arguing the place got more scrutiny and talk radio bile because of race is claiming that the City investment wasn't because of race.

 

"I feel like I'm at war, like I've been deployed to Iraq," Rogers said.

 

I'm sure actual veterans of Iraq would disagree.

 

Good Lord, man.  This is the type of contempt this woman has to deal with that makes me sympathetic.  War analogies are incredibly common in everyday speech; a gentleman would understand that she's comparing the idea of being constantly embattled, with little rest; that the people who dislike her are relentless and she isn't getting support and understanding from the people she expected to.  She's not saying, as you imply, that she deserves some sort of public acclaim for heroism.

There are far better analogies to use. And with her fabulous PR so far, she should know better. (Protip: The AMA strongly discourages anyone from making a comparison of their brand to military service or Veteran's Day. It's far too easy to slip up.)

"I feel like I'm at war, like I've been deployed to Iraq," Rogers said.

 

I'm sure actual veterans of Iraq would disagree.

 

Or any Vet of any era. Really strange statement.

Well, I'm not offended by it despite having been deployed for over 26 months during OIF.  I'm much more (not offended, but annoyed) at stuff like The Hurt Locker, which just had the most ridiculously contrived scenes that bore no relationship to how things actually happened over there.

Anyone that claims to be offended by a statement like that is just looking for something to be offended by.  It's not offensive. 

I find the lack of construction for Phase II of the Banks offensive.

 

What is the hold up!!!?

Maybe they are holding out for T-Rex Cafe!

Maybe they are holding out for T-Rex Cafe!

 

Maybe they are holding out for Shake Shack!

^I'm wondering the same thing, especially after checking out the Cleveland Flats East Bank thread.  They have built a successful first phase and are moving directly in to phase 2. That is a site that should have less built in appeal than the Banks (given it's prime location between two stadiums and a museum), but it moving at a much faster pace.  The fact that there won't be a hotel at the Banks in time for the all star game is embarrassing.  The lack of completion of phase 1 is much more distressing to me than the delayed start of phase 2.  The whole area still feels unfinished with exposed building pads, chain link fences, etc.  As it is now, I think phase 2 will look very strange without anything across the street from it...

Maybe they are holding out for T-Rex Cafe!

 

That is if it doesn't open next to the Creation Museum

I think Bob Castellini lobbied too successfully for the all star game.  It should have happened once the second phase of the Banks and the streetcar were completed, at least a year or two later.

I thought I heard that Phase 2 will start in June?

 

I'm much more concerned about why there is no hotel built yet in Phase 1. That's a nice site for a hotel. I got the impression several years ago that several brands were very interested in it. And now, nothing.

 

I'm much more concerned about why there is no hotel built yet in Phase 1. That's a nice site for a hotel. I got the impression several years ago that several brands were very interested in it. And now, nothing.

 

Every time I raise that point, it is usually countered by the argument that there are so many new hotels opening downtown, that the Banks just got passed over.  Indeed, there are a lot of hotels opening downtown in the next few years: the Renaissance, Hampton Inn, Holiday Inn, new hotel at the Anna Louise Inn site, Mariott at the SCPA building, etc.  In my opinion, though, none of those sites has the built in appeal that The Banks theoretically should.  The site it situated on top of parking, is literally right next door to probably the biggest demand driver for hotels in the region (ballpark), is surrounded by bars and restaurants, and would have great city, river, and park views.  The only somewhat plausible scenario I have heard so far that would explain the lack of hotel is that the height restrictions make it very hard to reach the number of rooms needed to make the hotel profitable. If that's the case, grant a fucking variance, and get the damn hotel built.

I think Bob Castellini lobbied too successfully for the all star game.  It should have happened once the second phase of the Banks and the streetcar were completed, at least a year or two later.

Honestly I like to see cranes. It shows the city is on the move.

Can someone please explain the height restriction with the Bengals?  Doesn't the city own naming rights, and wouldn't give into some restrictions because of that.  But my question is, why hasn't the city done anything with the naming rights?  Why is it still called Paul Brown Stadium, the city doesn't want to cash in on the naming rights?  I don't understand.

The county owns the stadium. The city has no say.

I believe the Bengals (or the Brown family) bought the naming rights (not for a huge sum if memory serves) and named the stadium after Paul Brown.

The height restriction I referenced in my post was not the one in the Bengals lease.  I believe they only have control over heights on the western portion of The Banks.

^Pretty sure you're right, the height restrictions are simply on those far western blocks that are immediately adjacent to the Bengals stadium.  Personally, I say build the blocks without height restrictions as high as possible, and use the ones next to the Bengals stadiums for gas stations until their next round of extortion.

Poured concrete on northern side of 2nd Street are complete in between Main and Walnut. I hope they plant some trees and flowers in the dirt area between the sidewalk and the wall.

I believe the Bengals (or the Brown family) bought the naming rights (not for a huge sum if memory serves) and named the stadium after Paul Brown.

 

The Bengals have control over naming rights, and selling naming right to whoever. At this point I guess they don't need the money.

^Pretty sure you're right, the height restrictions are simply on those far western blocks that are immediately adjacent to the Bengals stadium.  Personally, I say build the blocks without height restrictions as high as possible, and use the ones next to the Bengals stadiums for gas stations until their next round of extortion.

 

Here is what I don't understand, the lease is between the County and The Bengals. If the County does not own the western portion it would make the height

restrictions unenforceable. The County could "sell" in some capacity the western portion to whatever developer they want.

 

I own 2 parcels of ground at 1 and 2 Main st. I build a building and lease it to Acme, and agree in the lease not to build a building at #2 Main.

I sell #2 Main to another entity and they build another building there. ACME's lease provision in unenforceable?

Is the new sidewalk all concrete?  No replacement pavers?  No trees?

Is the new sidewalk all concrete?  No replacement pavers?  No trees?

 

I was disappointing when I walked down the the banks a few days ago and yes, it is all concrete now.  No pavers or greenery whatsoever.  Hopefully some trees do get planted between the sidewalk and FWW. 

 

Im sure it is all concrete now because they had to rush to get it done before reds season started unfortunately.

Did they have spots though for street trees? A lot of times you can tell they plan on putting them in, such as the spots along Mehring Way, but put a temporary layer of concrete there until they do tree plantings. I hope so as having pure concrete on that road is just awful. It's already an ugly street and uncomfortable to cross and at least having trees like along 3rd makes it a little less terrible. The caps can't come soon enough...

^Pretty sure you're right, the height restrictions are simply on those far western blocks that are immediately adjacent to the Bengals stadium.  Personally, I say build the blocks without height restrictions as high as possible, and use the ones next to the Bengals stadiums for gas stations until their next round of extortion.

 

Here is what I don't understand, the lease is between the County and The Bengals. If the County does not own the western portion it would make the height

restrictions unenforceable. The County could "sell" in some capacity the western portion to whatever developer they want.

 

I own 2 parcels of ground at 1 and 2 Main st. I build a building and lease it to Acme, and agree in the lease not to build a building at #2 Main.

I sell #2 Main to another entity and they build another building there. ACME's lease provision in unenforceable?

 

It's probably some type of restrictive covenant and stays with the deed no matter who owns or leases the land.