I think it's important to point out that this project is seeking the gross majority of its funding from the Stimulus Package. Not only from the stimulus package, but from pots of money that could be used to fund something more useful--namely the streetcar. I've been told--and maybe someone can correct me on this--that the project will be 23 million dollars, and they are asking for 20 million?

Who is to say that jobs generated by this project will even be filled by people in that area!!! The conglomeration of businesses that are proposing this project employ less than 10 people who live in the City of Cincinnati as is! All of these promises that the developer is making are extremely suspect. Also interesting, is that the folks at Cincinnati Bulk Terminals (who have been in business in Cincinnati for over 100 years, and aren't occupying a site which is prime for developement) claim to be able to quickly modify their operation to fill the need this development would serve. I think it is very dangerous to circumvent the will of the community councils on a project like this, to use land which has so much potential, for a project requiring so much public funding, with so many empty promises, for a need which existing facilities can potentially meet! (sorry for the run-on)  :-o

If Cincinnati Bulk Terminal thinks they can make money doing this sort of work, go for it. Investment in logistics within the city can only redound to the benefit of the city as a whole. Cincinnati was and is an industrial city and we need to continue to make investments in the industrial and logistical capacity of the city as a priority over parks and views.

I think it's important to point out that this project is seeking the gross majority of its funding from the Stimulus Package. Not only from the stimulus package, but from pots of money that could be used to fund something more useful--namely the streetcar. I've been told--and maybe someone can correct me on this--that the project will be 23 million dollars, and they are asking for 20 million?

 

This is a real concern.  Stimulus money should not be used to benefit a single company.

If Cincinnati Bulk Terminal thinks they can make money doing this sort of work, go for it. Investment in logistics within the city can only redound to the benefit of the city as a whole. Cincinnati was and is an industrial city and we need to continue to make investments in the industrial and logistical capacity of the city as a priority over parks and views.

 

Detroit was also an industrial city, and look where blindly catering to industry got them? I totally disagree with the point of view that if something was historically an industrial area, it should always be that way. We have to accept the fact that we are in a completely new world economically. Industrial investments do not always result in jobs for local people and benefit the city as a whole. Nor should industrial investments get priority over parks and views. I would much prefer having hundreds of new HOMES built, with new, tax paying city residents in them than 40 possible jobs and a ton of noise and light polution. There's a lot of activity going on behind the scenes in Sedamsville and Lower Price Hill that this developement could destroy--not to mention making life a lot harder to live by being located in the shadow of this thing.

This is a real concern.  Stimulus money should not be used to benefit a single company.

 

Indeed! I don't think we should support a project for a private company that is GROSSLY funded by us, the public. Why not use public money for a project that a neighborhood wants which could directly benefit it and is owned by the public. I wonder if we could find one of those...gee I don't know, HOW ABOUT THE STREETCAR?! I think Cincinnatians for Progress, should hook up with the various neighborhood groups, and form an aliance against this thing. Then in turn, CFP could use their help and support for the upcoming Charter battle (which I assume people have basically taken for granted is going to happen) within the Westside.  :yap:

I would much prefer having hundreds of new HOMES built, with new, tax paying city residents in them than 40 possible jobs and a ton of noise and light polution.

 

I don't think there's any chance of hundreds of homes being built on this site.  The access to this site is less than ideal, and the housing market is kinda bad.

I strongly disagree with the notion that we can no longer be an industrial city. Detroit didn't get there because it was industrial, it got there because it slowly became a single industry town (which Cincy has never been) and was eaten alive from the inside by horrid race relations.

 

The current debacle should reveal that paper/byte industries are ephemeral. The world of making and moving stuff is real, but you must be as diversified as possible.

 

On top of that, I can't see how any American can object to gov't money used for any project at this point. We are at the far bottom of the slippery slope. It is all gov't now.

As long as it's on the West Side, I say go for it!  :wink:

I strongly disagree with the notion that we can no longer be an industrial city. Detroit didn't get there because it was industrial, it got there because it slowly became a single industry town (which Cincy has never been) and was eaten alive from the inside by horrid race relations.

 

The current debacle should reveal that paper/byte industries are ephemeral. The world of making and moving stuff is real, but you must be as diversified as possible.

 

On top of that, I can't see how any American can object to gov't money used for any project at this point. We are at the far bottom of the slippery slope. It is all gov't now.

 

We really need to work on luring tech companies. They're big, they have a lot of pull, they lure other tech companies, they carry a certain stigma about them, and they certainly aren't going anywhere (unless obviously they're acquired).

On top of that, I can't see how any American can object to gov't money used for any project at this point. We are at the far bottom of the slippery slope. It is all gov't now.

 

That statement is a bit melodramatic.  At the end of the 90s it was downsize, downsize, downsize.  These things ebb and flow.

 

But you are spot on regarding industry.  Building things people want is the heart of growth and adding value.  But every effort should be made to have public funds go to public goods, not private benefit.  That's when people get rightly pissed about government spending.

I know. I was open to a BS call.

Building things people want is the heart of growth and adding value.  But every effort should be made to have public funds go to public goods, not private benefit.  That's when people get rightly pissed about government spending.

 

Well put Lincoln! The people of this neighborhood, and their community councils do not want this massive light and noise polluter, and they will not benefit from the use of public funds to build it. Who will benefit from these funds--the developer. What would benefit them? Increased property values due to new development in those neighborhoods. What put an end to those before they've been built? This terminal.

Queensgate Terminals proposal left off of council agenda

http://www.building-cincinnati.com/2009/10/queensgate-terminals-proposal-left-off.html

By Kevin LeMaster | Building Cincinnati, October 13, 2009

 

On October 6, Cincinnati City Council's Economic Development Committee voted down a report advocating for the construction of a $26 million barge-to-rail operation to 31 acres along the Lower Price Hill riverfront, keeping the matter from being placed on the full council agenda.

 

More than a half dozen speakers from Lower Price Hill and surrounding neighborhoods spoke out against the proposal by Bluegrass Farms of Ohio, Inc. and Rail America to build Queensgate Terminals, citing concerns about light, noise and pollution for current residents, and its possible effects on more than $100 million in proposed development.

 

Instead, speakers continued to advocate for the land to be used for residential or recreational uses that could benefit the wider community and spur more rapid redevelopment.

 

In the report, City manager Milton Dohoney Jr. reiterated his argument from December 2007 that the site is ill-suited for residential or recreational use, saying that, being zoned RF-C Riverfront Commercial and RF-M Riverfront Manufacturing and surrounded by industrial uses, rezoning would result in a "significant change in land use".

 

The City's Department of Community Development has been trying to bring a container-to-barge port to the site for nearly ten years.

 

"The future land use of the property will depend on accessibility," he said. "It is unlikely that the railroads will consent to a general public track crossing for park and recreation uses. There is an increased risk of serious accidents with park and recreational uses that generate significant automotive and pedestrian traffic adjacent to four active railroad lines."

 

But to the Lower Price Hill Community Council (LPHCC), reconstruction of the Waldvogel Viaduct and relocation of the existing railroad lines farther south will eat away at the existing 31-acre riverfront, making the site unsuitable for "an international barge port to China".

 

"The City of Cincinnati contradicts its own existing plan for Lower Price Hill's riverfront if it imposes a barge port here," said the LPHCC in a media release. "Plans are approved and ready to go for the replacement of the aging Waldvogel Viaduct in Lower Price Hill. The new viaduct will be constructed 50 feet to the south of the existing structure. To accommodate that move, existing railroad tracks will likewise be moved a further 50 feet south on Lower Price Hill's riverfront. The city's viaduct plan includes a public park and bike trails for the reduced south side of the riverfront."

 

Is it neighborhood-friendly?

Dohoney called the project "neighborhood-friendly", noting its 60-foot buffer, hike-bike trail, solar panels, wind turbines, and green roofs.

 

He also pointed out that the German-made electric cranes will keep noise and emissions low, and that containers will not be allowed to be stored on site.

 

In his opinion, that would make Queensgate Terminals, which would move containers of grain (specifically soybeans) from barge to Rail – then to a Bluegrass Farms mutli-modal facility in Jeffersonville, Ohio – a much better neighbor than the current one.

 

"For the last 20 years, the site has been a concrete recycling facility that busted up concrete in between two rollers, and sounded like dynamite going off," Dohoney said. "It also blew dust all over the neighborhood."

 

While not disagreeing with that assessment, the LPHCC said that the City still refuses to hear its concerns.

 

"Neither the city manager, nor the mayor of Cincinnati has shown the courtesy to respond to letters from the Lower Price Hill Community Council, or to our June 10, 2009, 22-page, well-documented request for a comprehensive risk assessment of the safety and health hazards posed by a barge port near homes and schools," the LPHCC said.

 

Dohoney touts benefits

Ohio Governor Ted Strickland has called himself an "enthusiastic supporter" of the proposal, part the Ohio Valley Trade Corridor, a network of multi-modal centers to be located throughout the state.

 

In addition to its importance to the Ohio, Dohoney said that Queensgate Terminals and the Bluegrass Farms multi-modal project are an integral part of a massive network that would link to existing ports in New Orleans, Houston and Mobile and to two new container-to-barge terminals – the State of Lousiana's MegaPort and Lykes Brothers' Sea Point.

 

"Analysis indicates that the total economic impact, a combination of direct, indirect and induced effects, to the Greater Cincinnati area of the first five years of operation includes the creation of $105 million in total economic activity, nearly $25 million in total household earnings, an estimated total of 140 new jobs, and about a total $7 million in tariff revenues for the City," he said.

 

But of more pressing importance to the City, Dohoney maintained that there could be liability issues if it fails to negotiate the lease agreement with Queensgate Terminals, a requirement of the settlement of a 2007 court case over property takings for the Waldvogel Viaduct project.

 

"If the City does not settle the lawsuit with Queensgate, the City faces potential damages of approximately one million dollars plus any legal fees generated by the court case," he said.

 

The LPHCC has promised to continue fighting Queensgate Terminals, much as it has fought a scrap metals operation proposed for the north end of the neighborhood.

 

"The Lower Price Hill Community Council will vigorously protest the City of Cincinnati's lack of coherent management, senseless planning, and disregard for the residents and existing businesses and schools of Lower Price Hill," the LPHCC said.

So by leaving it off the agenda, does this mean the project is dead? Might be a stupid question, but I couldn't tell from the article.

I would bet that these politicians are just punting this issue away until after the election.  If they were to vote in favor of it (which I would expect many would), then they could cost themselves a good number of votes in the Lower Price Hill and East Price Hill areas.

 

With it then being winter, I wouldn't expect much to happen on this front until after the new year.

Lower Price Hill residents will just have to suck it up and realize this kind of stuff is what Cincy is made of.  Its what put this city on the map.  It's not like they will build some giant disgusting building.  I'm pretty sure they will try to make it as resident-friendly as they can.  Plus, it would be damn cool to see this facility built anyway.  Its a neat idea.

How many residents are there in LPH anyways? It's a gross area that smells and is surrounded by industry, and it's not exactly like the residential portion of the neighborhood is in great shape to begin with. These residents need to realize that they live in an INDUSTRIAL area of the city.  If you live in Mt. Adams, don't complain about the noise from the bars, if you live in Glendale, don't complain about noise from trains, and if you live in LPH/Queensgate, don't complain about fucking industry moving into an industrial area!

This entire facility is going to create about 40 jobs, thats it. On the other hand you have  a great deal of restoration going on in Price Hill, properties are selling and prices are going up. You have some new infill on State Street. Price Hill Will is doing some good rehabs.

 

A couple of people I know that used to restore over in MT Adams are now over in Price Hill. It really looks like the next neighborhood to potentially go "upscale' in the city. I've had a bunch of inquiries from people about writing restoration plans and bid specs over there who recently bought houses, and if you take the time to actually drive around there is a lot of new restoration going on.

 

People forget that Mt Adams and Columbia Tusculum were not always "upscale". Price Hill has some great architecture ,good views, and its close to the downtown.

 

A turn around of Price Hill will result in hundreds of construction/trades jobs over the next 5-10 years, you will see new business going in. More new infill and condo development.

 

In my opinion it's a good thing that the people in Price Hill are not willing to just "settle' for a business. They are looking to see if there is a higher, better use, for this site and there very well may be.

 

I've heard that there is move underway to pin the council candidates down on this issue and there appears to be an attempt to campaign against those who are in favor if it. I think a lot of people in Price Hill will vote based on this one issue. That could change the makeup of the council.

 

 

^Agreed about Price Hill (although it doesn't have the visibility or proximity to downtown or Eden Park for it to truly become the next Mt. Adams). Lower Price Hill, however, is a 180 from Price Hill. It's very run down, literally surrounded by industry, smells bad, and and is largely vacant.

Deal may end barge terminal fight

By Laura Baverman | Cincinnati Enquirer, October 14, 2009

 

A controversial $26 million barge terminal originally planned for the foot of Lower Price Hill may soon get the go-ahead, but on a new strip of riverfront land closer to downtown Cincinnati.  The settlement would end a years-long land use debate that pitted westside neighborhood activists and city leaders against private industry Hamilton County officials.

 

The city of Cincinnati and developer Queensgate Terminals say they've reached a tentative settlement that would move the project upriver to 21 acres of property east of Mill Creek and west of the Bengals practice field along Mehring Way. The city would pay $1.7 million in damages to end the four-year legal battle over the 31-acre former Hilltop Resources site. It would spend another $3.2 million acquiring land and would enter into a long term lease with Queensgate Terminals for the barge operation.

 

Read full article here:

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20091014/BIZ01/910150348/1055/NEWS/Deal+may+end+barge+terminal+fight

That is a good compromise, but I bet you will find some complaining that it will ruin our chances of Olympic stardom! :)

 

 

I still favor the original location, notably because Mill Creek has been notably industrial for the past century after the meatpacking venues moved away from the CL&N on Bloody Run to the CH&D line through the valley. Lower Price Hill does not have a historical designation because its composition and structure are too far gone, and the demographics and location are simply terrible.

Where will our Marina go?!

Lower Price Hill does not have a historical designation because its composition and structure are too far gone, and the demographics and location are simply terrible.

 

Demographics play no part in historical district designations.  The state of the building stock is really only impactful for individual building designations, not so much districts (unless you're talking about missing historical fabric...which is not the case in LPH).

I wasn't implying that, but I can see how it can be construed as such. What I meant to say, is that LPH has no historic district overlay (that I know of). LPH also has a demographic that doesn't bode well for its future or for any potential mass-restoration, such as the Gateway Quarter. It is also located in a predominantly industrial valley, near a massive sewage treatment plant that can be smelled in LPH, and rail yards.

 

The people who have opposed this envision LPH as the next OTR, with bike trails, overflowing fountains, lush green grass and new condos and developments, but in reality, that won't happen. The land is too valuable along the riverfront at that particular location to let it go to waste, as it is one of the only parcels available to build a multi-modal transport center on this scale in the city.

Knowing a handful of people who live in the heart of LPH on a personal level I can assure you know one is envisioning what you just wrote.  Their biggest concerns center around the impacts of nearby industrial uses...once of which is directly across the street from the neighborhood school and playground.  Following the Queen City Barrel explosions the neighborhood started to take a much more aggressive role.

 

With that said, I don't think they should be opposed to this project, but they should be fighting against these other uses that are immensely dangerous to the neighborhood and its residents.  There are maybe only two or three neighborhoods in Cincinnati that this is allowed to persist.

The neighborhood shouldn't be there anymore. It should go the way of Kenyon-Barr - into the pages of history.

Planned barge depot hits new snag

 

BY JAMES PILCHER • [email protected] • NOVEMBER 18, 2009

Comments (0) Recommend  Print this page ShareThis Font size:AA

The company that operates Cincinnati's biggest working barge port says it will go out of business if the city proceeds with plans to allow a competing firm to build a new $26 million public port on the riverfront.

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20091118/BIZ01/911190350/Planned+port+hits+new+snag

^The Queensgate Terminal project is absurd and will not work without the government giving QT the money to build their terminal.  The city should either buy them out for the sake of the neighborhood or fulfill the terms of the lease for QT and then lobby the state to not award funds for QT.  I've met those folks from Cincinnati Bulk Terminals and they are quality guys who could definitely handle the proposed traffic that QT says they will generate.  This is looking similar to what went down with Midland in the late 90's.

City council to vote on river port issue

Wednesday, November 25, 2009, 10:30am EST

 

 

Cincinnati City Council will vote this afternoon on a motion that would scuttle a legal settlement through which a Jeffersonville, Ohio, entrepreneur is hoping to establish a container-shipping port on the Cincinnati riverfront.

 

David Martin negotiated a memorandum of understanding with city attorneys in October that calls for the city to cancel its current lease with an existing barge operator, Cincinnati Bulk Terminals. It also calls for the city to contribute $4.7 million toward the development of a new port facility by Martin’s company, Queen City Terminals LLC.

 

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2009/11/city_to_vote_today_on_river_port_issue.html

Cincinnati may miss opportunity with new Marine Highway program

By Randy A. Simes, UrbanCincy | April 12, 2010

http://www.urbancincy.com/2010/04/cincinnati-may-miss-opportunity-with-new-marine-highway-program/

 

This past Wednesday, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced a new initiative aimed at moving more cargo by water to avoid congested U.S. highways. America’s Marine Highway program will be administered by the Department’s Maritime Administration (MARAD) and, according to Federal officials, identify rivers and coastal routes that can carry cargo efficiently, bypassing congested roadways and reducing greenhouse gases.

 

“For too long, we’ve overlooked the economic and environmental benefits that our waterways and domestic seaports offer as a means of moving freight in this country,” said Secretary LaHood, speaking to transportation professionals at the North American Marine Highways & Logistics Conference in Baltimore, MD. “Moving goods on the water has many advantages: It reduces air pollution. It can help reduce gridlock by getting trucks off our busy surface corridors.”

 

In Cincinnati the Ohio River provides such opportunity allowing cargo to bypass the heavily congested Interstate-75 on its way to southern sea ports by taking the marine highway to ports located in New Orleans. When combined with shipping costs five times less on water than by freight truck, or three times less than freight rail, river port projects like the proposed Queensgate Terminals project become more and more attractive.

 

The new federal regulation will allow regional transportation officials to apply to have specific transportation corridors or projects designated by the DOT as part of a marine highway. Such a designation would result in preferential treatment when it comes to future federal assistance from the DOT or MARAD.

 

“There are many places in our country where expanded use of marine transportation just makes sense,” said David Matsuda, Acting Administrator of the Maritime Administration. “It has so much potential to help our nation in many ways: reduced gridlock and greenhouse gases and more jobs for skilled mariners and shipbuilders.”

 

So far in 2010, Secretary LaHood has announced $58 million for the start-up or expansion of Marine Highway services awarded through the DOT’s TIGER grants program. Congress has also allocated an additional $7 million that will be awarded by MARAD later this year.

 

As the Federal looks to expand the usage of the nation’s Maritime Highways, Cincinnati is struggling to work out an arrangement for the development of the Queensgate Terminals project that would create a 31-acre, $26 million high-tech transfer facility along Cincinnati’s riverfront immediately west of the Central Business District.

 

The project has been held up by a slew of public resistance from west side residents, and a litany of legal troubles surrounding the sale of the land. A recent settlement forced the City of Cincinnati to deposit $1.68 million into a court escrow account for the losses incurred by the developer since September 2005 after the City had agreed to sell the property, then retracted the sale agreement.

 

The legal and political battles have caused so much trouble in Cincinnati that the whole project may in fact be in jeopardy. During this time the State of Ohio has pledged $9.5 million towards the proposed South Point barge terminal further upriver in Lawrence County – a move that could place potential funds for a Cincinnati barge terminal in limbo.

 

In an economy moving cargo shipment off of the roads, and onto trains and barges, Cincinnati may miss capitalizing on its central and prominent location along rail and water corridors, and may continue to overlook the environmental and economic benefits the Ohio River provides.

$20 million terminal eyed for Cincinnati waterfront

By Dan Monk, Cincinnati Business Courier | May 7, 2010

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2010/05/10/story3.html

 

The Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority is partnering with Cincinnati Bulk Terminals LLC to develop a $19.7 million shipping terminal on the Ohio riverfront.  The multimodal port facility would accommodate cargo shipments by rail, barge and truck – with two specialized cranes for loading cargo containers, according to a six-page proposal submitted to the Ohio Department of Development in April.

 

The proposal comes five months after Cincinnati City Council rejected a similar proposal by Jeffersonville, Ohio, entrepreneur David Martin, who now accuses the Port Authority of stealing his plan.  “They’re taking our models. Our electric gantry cranes, our track layout are all in that application,” said Martin. “It’s really hard to believe.”

 

Read full article here:

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2010/05/10/story3.html

^This deal with Cincinnati Bulk Terminals is much better and makes much more sense than the Queensgate Terminals proposal.  Two big reasons: 1) We are working with a long-term and proven local company with CBT; 2) We will end up using that Olman property for an appropriate use.  Anyone who thinks people are going to want to put offices under huge power lines when there are numerous empty offices downtown are kidding themselves.

 

I don't really get why David Martin would be so annoyed, since if he's primarily a soybean farmer he can still use this facility to move his product.

I understand why David Martin is annoyed.  He came to Cincinnati with this idea for a multimodal shipping facility at a logical location... and the city said, "Great idea! Except we're going to build it over here instead, and, oh yeah, we're going to have someone else operate it."  I think the CBT deal will be a good facility, but I still don't understand the opposition to Martin's original location.

^There were many problems with Martin's idea- the bend in the river at the Queensgate site was a bad place to dock barges, the fact that it conflicted with the already approved changes to River Road (which included pushing River Road a bit further south), the lack of space for warehousing the massive influx of soybeans that were supposedly going to be coming from his proposal, and the fact that his plan basically required a ton of public money for what was in theory an all-inclusive modern agriculture port, despite the fact that numerous port facilities already existed on the river in Hamilton County (I'm pretty sure they are all in Cincinnati as well).

 

The CBT site doesn't sit at the bend, doesn't conflict with the River Road improvements, will be using the site re-developed by Jim Olman for additional storage and train track space, will be paid for by the Port instead of the City (an important distinction) and will be partnered with a responsible local business with a very long track record of success in this department, unlike the relatively untested David Martin from Jeffersonville.  It's kind of like the opposite of the Banks project in the sense that here, picking a local company as partner was a better move than not (whereas with the Banks, Atlantic Station was a pretty good match in the type of development we were looking for).

 

It seems silly to be pissed that someone 'stole' your idea because they were able to execute it and you weren't.  It's not like CBT doesn't know about agriculture shipping or that it exists, or that it can pay off to use state of the art, cutting edge equipment when you build new.  Also, since the whole theory of his project was that we would see an upsurge in soy exports after the Panama Canal widening was complete, he can still use this new facility to sell his soybeans. 

$20 million terminal eyed for Cincinnati waterfront

By Dan Monk, Cincinnati Business Courier | May 7, 2010

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2010/05/10/story3.html

 

The Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority is partnering with Cincinnati Bulk Terminals LLC to develop a $19.7 million shipping terminal on the Ohio riverfront.  The multimodal port facility would accommodate cargo shipments by rail, barge and truck – with two specialized cranes for loading cargo containers, according to a six-page proposal submitted to the Ohio Department of Development in April.

 

The proposal comes five months after Cincinnati City Council rejected a similar proposal by Jeffersonville, Ohio, entrepreneur David Martin, who now accuses the Port Authority of stealing his plan.  “They’re taking our models. Our electric gantry cranes, our track layout are all in that application,” said Martin. “It’s really hard to believe.”

 

Read full article here:

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2010/05/10/story3.html

 

Does anyone know the status of this project? I'm guessing it never moved forward?

 

Also, since the west side was opposed to the original Queensgate Terminals plan, saying that the site would be better suited to a park or residential towers, have those communities proposed any usage of that site?

There are several articles on Building Cincinnati about it. The last one appears to be this:

http://www.building-cincinnati.com/2011/02/city-queensgate-terminals-likely-to-go.html

 

I'm guessing this was the result of the trial:

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/1/2013/2013-ohio-4219.pdf

 

Sorry, I don't have a full grasp on everything that happened to give you a summary. Basically, my understanding is that council backed down in the face of NIMBY opposition, thereby essentially Crancelling the project before Crancelling was a thing.