The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

My favorite twitter posting today:

"ProTip: building lavish taxpayer-funded stadiums for billionaires doesn't make your city look modern, it makes you look like slack-jawed, easily conned yokels."

(11-21-2017 09:24 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  My favorite twitter posting today:

"ProTip: building lavish taxpayer-funded stadiums for billionaires doesn't make your city look modern, it makes you look like slack-jawed, easily conned yokels."

MONORAIL!

So great.

I want a monorail now.

(11-21-2017 09:44 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  So great.

I want a monorail now.

Jungle Jim has one. It currently occasionally runs around his complex in Fairfield providing about daily transportation to about the same number of people as the streetcar. Maybe he can sell it to the city.

(11-21-2017 05:23 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 04:14 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 04:12 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 02:02 PM)doss2 Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 01:39 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  I laughed out loud when they released their projected monthly ridership numbers and income. Hysterical. It's been an unmitigated disaster. I watch them run empty all week long. Hardly anyone pays when they do actually ride it. The consultants who provided the initial numbers should be sued for negligence. We are approaching 30% of ridership projections and even less when it comes to operating income. It goes do n monthly.

Each month it falls deeper and deeper into the labrea tarpit of more and more lost taxpayer millions.

Only people this was good for were the LLC's of people around local government and their benefactors who knew the route ahead of time and purchased up dilapidated properties for cheap.

I have road Street Cars in SF and NO. They go someplace and they look charming.

Our "Street Cars" go virtually nowhere and are not charming.

That’s because after it was voted on twice Republicans cut the funding and half the route. It was supposed to go all the way up
The hill to UC.

Going uptown was not in any of the original official plans. Lots of talk about it though.

The plan was to run it up the hill until Kasich pulled federal money that had already been allocated to it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cincinn...p/90126302

pay wall

(11-21-2017 09:22 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 06:06 PM)doss2 Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 05:23 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 04:14 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(11-21-2017 04:12 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  That’s because after it was voted on twice Republicans cut the funding and half the route. It was supposed to go all the way up
The hill to UC.

Going uptown was not in any of the original official plans. Lots of talk about it though.

The plan was to run it up the hill until Kasich pulled federal money that had already been allocated to it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cincinn...p/90126302

And really how much would that have added?

Instead a unmitigated loss it would just be a big loss.

It would have connected the two major emolument centers of the city...and eliminated the complaint that it goes nowhere.

If the end of the streetcar line in Clifton was at the front door of the world's largest Golden Corral, another waste of private dollars managed by a public institution, the project would be evidentiary proof that planet earth has created its own black hole.

Subway is the way to go, Oh we fell for that con 100 years ago.

Oakley Community Council voted no on Cranley's TIF plan. Back to the drawing board.

(11-27-2017 07:42 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Oakley Community Council voted no on Cranley's TIF plan. Back to the drawing board.

I'm only asking this because I don't quite understand the nuance of community councils/city councils as where I grew up had no such thing. Does the community council actually have any say here, or is this basically just them shouting their disagreement without any recourse should the CC move to accept the city's funding strategy?

Thise tif funds were already committed to projects the City and the community council partnered on.

It's what I said lots of pages back. TIF funds are not magic. They take away from other commitments and those need to be made up.

No way city council votes to approve without the community council on board. That would cause serious waves. Not just bad press but bad for keeping a job in 23 months.

What Cranley will try to do is to make assurances to OCC that other funds will be made available for the other commitments and development in the Oakley Station TIF District. Then we are back to tax dollars moving around but for parties other than the Lindners for their stadium. They'll assume people are against taxpayer funding a stadium so much that they won't pay attention to their tax $$ shell game.

This thing is starting to feel like another Mike Brown stadium deal without a pesky public vote to mess with.

(11-27-2017 09:04 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  What Cranley will try to do is to make assurances to OCC that other funds will be made available for the other commitments and development in the Oakley Station TIF District. Then we are back to tax dollars moving around but for parties other than the Lindners for their stadium. They'll assume people are against taxpayer funding a stadium so much that they won't pay attention to their tax $$ shell game.

This thing is starting to feel like another Mike Brown stadium deal without a pesky public vote to mess with.

And at a fraction of the cost...but yeah, I'm thinking NKY is where it's at at this point, and it's probably better for it. That's a much better site and they seem more than happy to oblige any request of the Lindners while also having a development partner already lined up.

(11-27-2017 09:12 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 09:04 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  What Cranley will try to do is to make assurances to OCC that other funds will be made available for the other commitments and development in the Oakley Station TIF District. Then we are back to tax dollars moving around but for parties other than the Lindners for their stadium. They'll assume people are against taxpayer funding a stadium so much that they won't pay attention to their tax $$ shell game.

This thing is starting to feel like another Mike Brown stadium deal without a pesky public vote to mess with.

And at a fraction of the cost...but yeah, I'm thinking NKY is where it's at at this point, and it's probably better for it. That's a much better site and they seem more than happy to oblige any request of the Lindners while also having a development partner already lined up.

Are they happy? I haven't seen any statements either way from any NKY leaders or politicians. If you have seen quotes I'd love to see them.

If it was in the ' best interest, they'd already have signed that NKY deal. It's not. They know it's a loser compared to Oakley short and long term.

Pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered. They are being hogs. Starting to hope their feeling that they are owed something costs them the bid.

Not sure they are acting like they're owed anything, other than an open mind to a deal that is absolutely nothing like the world class abomination of a deal the Bengals got. That is being mentioned in the background of nearly every comment from the likes of Portune and Seelbach and the other pols who seem to continually misrepresent this deal. And to hear Seelbach actual say "rich WHITE men" in his comments about why the city doesn't need to "subsidize another stadium" just makes it all the more galling. I think the owners and Berding are frustrated because they have a club that has been nothing but successful and a real movement in the city and its got this golden opportunity that won't come around again, to take the next step forward. They view it as a deal where they're putting up an unprecedented amount of money towards the actual stadium and they can't get an honest discussion that doesn't involve mischaracterrizing the deal or referencing Mike Brown's historic contractual raping of the country/city. At this point, I wish they'd just say thanks for not listening and go to newport, but I suspect you're right that the deal just isn't as good there and FC "Cincinnati" in Kentucky just doesn't have the same ring to it nor does it serve the city-specific fervor that sees fans marching from bars to nippert in huge numbers.

(11-27-2017 09:23 AM)BeerCat Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 09:12 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 09:04 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  What Cranley will try to do is to make assurances to OCC that other funds will be made available for the other commitments and development in the Oakley Station TIF District. Then we are back to tax dollars moving around but for parties other than the Lindners for their stadium. They'll assume people are against taxpayer funding a stadium so much that they won't pay attention to their tax $$ shell game.

This thing is starting to feel like another Mike Brown stadium deal without a pesky public vote to mess with.

And at a fraction of the cost...but yeah, I'm thinking NKY is where it's at at this point, and it's probably better for it. That's a much better site and they seem more than happy to oblige any request of the Lindners while also having a development partner already lined up.

Are they happy? I haven't seen any statements either way from any NKY leaders or politicians. If you have seen quotes I'd love to see them.

Public opinion, not public officials. Seems to me that the consensus from the other side is fairly positive about it, while nearly everyone not having blue and orange in their twitter profiles seems to hate the public money idea over here. Having lived on that side of the river for years, a lot of people just want SOMETHING in that Ovation spot at this point.

fwiw, per Jason Williams at the Enquirer

Jason Williams‏Verified account @jwilliamscincy · 9m9 minutes ago

Stadium deal now has the votes, per my sources. Look for City Council to pass it this morning, barring any last-minute change of heart. @Enquirer

Edit: Also, per Williams, Oakley Community Council now supportive of the stadium deal.

Sounds like Ctanley did what I said. Can't wait to see where the $$ is coming from.

I was back in town this weekend, and took a good look at the Oakley site. All of the funding aside, that will be one cluster**** of a location. I get that MLS wants urban stadiums, and I actually agree. It works wonderfully in Portland, Seattle, etc. Oakley is in the city, but that's it. It isn't urban. There's very little public transit, biking to the site is less-than-ideal, there's little population density nearby, and there are no parking facilities. I'm not a fan of the suburban locations like in Dallas, Chicago, and Colorado - you lose the energy that you get in the other locales - but at least you can build your own roads, parking, etc to suit the number of fans that will be coming in. Plus, Rhinegeist > Madtree

(11-27-2017 11:01 AM)geef Wrote:  I was back in town this weekend, and took a good look at the Oakley site. All of the funding aside, that will be one cluster**** of a location. I get that MLS wants urban stadiums, and I actually agree. It works wonderfully in Portland, Seattle, etc. Oakley is in the city, but that's it. It isn't urban. There's very little public transit, biking to the site is less-than-ideal, there's little population density nearby, and there are no parking facilities. I'm not a fan of the suburban locations like in Dallas, Chicago, and Colorado - you lose the energy that you get in the other locales - but at least you can build your own roads, parking, etc to suit the number of fans that will be coming in. Plus, Rhinegeist > Madtree

I prefer MadTree personally. Rhinegeist makes too many IPAs, APAs, etc. which have no appeal to a guy that doesn't usually care for hoppy beers. MadTree seems to have a better variety. Now that I think of it, I might grab a growler of their paw paw beer this afternoon...