(11-15-2017 04:33 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: You missed the dripping sarcasm
Were I more a more passionate Toledoan, I would've shived you and blown smoke from a Black and Mild in the wound for a comment like that
The wood tip black and mild is my son's gameday victory cigar down in Tuscaloosa. Apparently that is a thing. He keeps getting them taken away at the tailgates because police down there view them as potential paraphernalia.
(11-15-2017 11:14 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote: I heard the same bullish!t message yesterday as Berding pushed on May 25th, 2017.
Quote:Berding also suggested public investment would be a payback to the Lindner family for its largesse over the years.
“Carl Lindner and his family have brought thousands of jobs to the city for decades and never asked for help,” Berding said.
Riiiiight...
Not an apples to apples comparison, but it's been interesting to watch the FC Cincinnati stadium debate from my perspective. I'm a MLS season ticket holder (Portland Timbers) and unabashed soccer fan. The Timbers have a 21,000 seat stadium, 13,000 person season ticket waiting list, and they're part of this city's fabric in a way that's similar to Ohio State in Columbus. Basically, they can do no wrong. Their ownership announced plans for a stadium renovation and expansion last winter, and that expansion began last week. It's comparatively modest at $75 million total, but at no point was there a mention of public funding. The owner, Hank Paulson's son, doesn't have Lindner money, but he has plenty. And he framed the expansion as a way of investing in his business and his fans, who have essentially made his business successful. As a sports fan, the business language makes me cringe. But that's what it is, and that's how we should treat it. The county's tax dollars, especially if related to tourism, can be spent so much more effectively. Expand Findlay Market. Create a formal brewery district with incentives for new brewers to renovate buildings. Market the underground Cincinnati tours. Complete the Wasson Way Bike Trail. Just don't give away money to a billionaire, who in turn lines his own pockets.
While I think those are all nice projects, I"m not sure any of them truly promote tourism. I mean you really think people are going to fly to and stay in Cincinnati just to ride the Wasson Way Bike Trail? It could attract locals, but I don't see it bringing tourists. And if it's just locals, then you are largely just shuffling the same money to a different location.
Professional sports does, however, encourage tourism and outside money. Not as much as it likes to hype I'm sure but it does bring some. From fans to press to tv crews, you have people from out of the area coming here to spend money in the area and then leaving. That's money that wouldn't be spent here otherwise and that impacts a lot of businesses from hotels to restaurants to transportation especially when you consider the ripple effect.
If you want to change the hotel tax laws with regard to tourism, then let's debate that. But let's not forget that this money is part of a hotel tax which in part depends upon tourism. So we're talking about one of the few businesses that helps drive tourism which in turn increases hotel tax proceeds that would then be used in part to build necessary infrastructure for that business. Let me put it another way: This business helps attract the very people that primarily are actually paying the tax: tourists and out-of-towners who stay in hotels. Locals aren't the ones paying this tax. I guess if you are simply against any subsidies of any type to any business, then none of that matters. But as far as that stuff goes, this is about as reasonable of a request as you will see as I understand it.
(This post was last modified: 11-15-2017 05:39 PM by Bearhawkeye.)
(11-15-2017 03:52 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote: I would personally prefer it in Newport so it doesn't cause traffic headaches in the Oakley area. I believe one reason they've been pushing hard for Oakley is because there's only a single land owner to deal with as opposed to negotiating with multiple owners in Kentucky or Over The Rhine.
BTW, I also thought it was real classy of the Lindners to give the big middle finger to UCHealth/UC Sports Medicine and put Mercy Health on their jerseys. Way to support the local university, guys.
The fact that a regional health network is willing to pay that much to have their name on a soccer jersey is enough reason for me to never go there.
(11-15-2017 04:33 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: You missed the dripping sarcasm
I most certainly did, though I mostly missed the context of the message to which you were responding. Living in the Dayton metroplex, I’m confronted with the disparities on a daily basis. I miss Home.
(This post was last modified: 11-15-2017 05:16 PM by BearcatsUC.)
(11-15-2017 03:52 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote: I would personally prefer it in Newport so it doesn't cause traffic headaches in the Oakley area. I believe one reason they've been pushing hard for Oakley is because there's only a single land owner to deal with as opposed to negotiating with multiple owners in Kentucky or Over The Rhine.
BTW, I also thought it was real classy of the Lindners to give the big middle finger to UCHealth/UC Sports Medicine and put Mercy Health on their jerseys. Way to support the local university, guys.
The fact that a regional health network is willing to pay that much to have their name on a soccer jersey is enough reason for me to never go there.
I know. I’m having difficulty wrapping my head around that. $5m a year to have your company’s name on a jersey? Not to mention this is not a national name.
(11-15-2017 04:33 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: You missed the dripping sarcasm
I most certainly did, though I mostly missed the context of the message to which you were responding. Living in the Dayton metroplex, I’m confronted with the disparities on a daily basis. I miss Home.
Last night 50 said that we were going to become Dayton or Lexington if we didn't have an MLS team. I was just poking a little fun.
(11-15-2017 04:33 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: You missed the dripping sarcasm
I most certainly did, though I mostly missed the context of the message to which you were responding. Living in the Dayton metroplex, I’m confronted with the disparities on a daily basis. I miss Home.
Last night 50 said that we were going to become Dayton or Lexington if we didn't have an MLS team. I was just poking a little fun.
(11-15-2017 11:14 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote: I heard the same bullish!t message yesterday as Berding pushed on May 25th, 2017.
Quote:Berding also suggested public investment would be a payback to the Lindner family for its largesse over the years.
“Carl Lindner and his family have brought thousands of jobs to the city for decades and never asked for help,” Berding said.
Riiiiight...
Not an apples to apples comparison, but it's been interesting to watch the FC Cincinnati stadium debate from my perspective. I'm a MLS season ticket holder (Portland Timbers) and unabashed soccer fan. The Timbers have a 21,000 seat stadium, 13,000 person season ticket waiting list, and they're part of this city's fabric in a way that's similar to Ohio State in Columbus. Basically, they can do no wrong. Their ownership announced plans for a stadium renovation and expansion last winter, and that expansion began last week. It's comparatively modest at $75 million total, but at no point was there a mention of public funding. The owner, Hank Paulson's son, doesn't have Lindner money, but he has plenty. And he framed the expansion as a way of investing in his business and his fans, who have essentially made his business successful. As a sports fan, the business language makes me cringe. But that's what it is, and that's how we should treat it. The county's tax dollars, especially if related to tourism, can be spent so much more effectively. Expand Findlay Market. Create a formal brewery district with incentives for new brewers to renovate buildings. Market the underground Cincinnati tours. Complete the Wasson Way Bike Trail. Just don't give away money to a billionaire, who in turn lines his own pockets.
While I think those are all nice projects, I"m not sure any of them truly promote tourism. I mean you really think people are going to fly to and stay in Cincinnati just to ride the Wasson Way Bike Trail? It could attract locals, but I don't see it bringing tourists. And if it's just locals, then you are largely just shuffling the same money to a different location.
Professional sports does, however, encourage tourism and outside money. Not as much as it likes to hype I'm sure but it does bring some. From fans to press to tv crews, you have people from out of the area coming here to spend money in the area and then leaving. That's money that wouldn't be spent here otherwise and that impacts a lot of businesses from hotels to restaurants to transportation especially when you consider the ripple effect.
If you want to change the hotel tax laws with regard to tourism, then let's debate that. But let's not forget that this money is part of a hotel tax which in part depends upon tourism. So we're talking about one of the few businesses that helps drive tourism which in turn increases hotel tax proceeds that would then be used in part to build necessary infrastructure for that business. Let me put it another way: This business helps attract the very people that primarily are actually paying the tax: tourists and out-of-towners who stay in hotels. Locals aren't the ones paying this tax. I guess if you are simply against any subsidies of any type to any business, then none of that matters. But as far as that stuff goes, this is about as reasonable of a request as you will see as I understand it.
I haven't lived in Cincinnati for two decades, so I was merely spitballing at prospective projects that I know. Take Wasson Way out of the equation. When Cincinnati gets written up nationally, publications cite the renaissance of Over the Rhine, they suggest taking the red bikes to breweries, they talk about the parks on the rivers. Collectively, those are the things that broaden the city's appeal to tourists. I'm not at all against subsidizing businesses, but I'd much rather it be done on a targeted, micro level rather than $75 million for one.
(11-15-2017 11:37 AM)geef Wrote: Not an apples to apples comparison, but it's been interesting to watch the FC Cincinnati stadium debate from my perspective. I'm a MLS season ticket holder (Portland Timbers) and unabashed soccer fan. The Timbers have a 21,000 seat stadium, 13,000 person season ticket waiting list, and they're part of this city's fabric in a way that's similar to Ohio State in Columbus. Basically, they can do no wrong. Their ownership announced plans for a stadium renovation and expansion last winter, and that expansion began last week. It's comparatively modest at $75 million total, but at no point was there a mention of public funding. The owner, Hank Paulson's son, doesn't have Lindner money, but he has plenty. And he framed the expansion as a way of investing in his business and his fans, who have essentially made his business successful. As a sports fan, the business language makes me cringe. But that's what it is, and that's how we should treat it. The county's tax dollars, especially if related to tourism, can be spent so much more effectively. Expand Findlay Market. Create a formal brewery district with incentives for new brewers to renovate buildings. Market the underground Cincinnati tours. Complete the Wasson Way Bike Trail. Just don't give away money to a billionaire, who in turn lines his own pockets.
While I think those are all nice projects, I"m not sure any of them truly promote tourism. I mean you really think people are going to fly to and stay in Cincinnati just to ride the Wasson Way Bike Trail? It could attract locals, but I don't see it bringing tourists. And if it's just locals, then you are largely just shuffling the same money to a different location.
Professional sports does, however, encourage tourism and outside money. Not as much as it likes to hype I'm sure but it does bring some. From fans to press to tv crews, you have people from out of the area coming here to spend money in the area and then leaving. That's money that wouldn't be spent here otherwise and that impacts a lot of businesses from hotels to restaurants to transportation especially when you consider the ripple effect.
If you want to change the hotel tax laws with regard to tourism, then let's debate that. But let's not forget that this money is part of a hotel tax which in part depends upon tourism. So we're talking about one of the few businesses that helps drive tourism which in turn increases hotel tax proceeds that would then be used in part to build necessary infrastructure for that business. Let me put it another way: This business helps attract the very people that primarily are actually paying the tax: tourists and out-of-towners who stay in hotels. Locals aren't the ones paying this tax. I guess if you are simply against any subsidies of any type to any business, then none of that matters. But as far as that stuff goes, this is about as reasonable of a request as you will see as I understand it.
I haven't lived in Cincinnati for two decades, so I was merely spitballing at prospective projects that I know. Take Wasson Way out of the equation. When Cincinnati gets written up nationally, publications cite the renaissance of Over the Rhine, they suggest taking the red bikes to breweries, they talk about the parks on the rivers. Collectively, those are the things that broaden the city's appeal to tourists. I'm not at all against subsidizing businesses, but I'd much rather it be done on a targeted, micro level rather than $75 million for one.
Yeah, I can buy that as part of the overall appeal for a few out of towners to consider a weekend or whatever in Cincinnati, but it's not like there are no other cities with a nearby body of water or a wealth of breweries or even a cool fancy farmer's market. Those are things you do when you are visiting Cincinnati, but they aren't big enough to be the main reason to visit Cincinnati. It's just hard to see any of them really moving the needle that much to be a difference maker. I'm not saying that MLS will have them flooding in, but it is the kind of thing that people will specifically come for on road trips etc. while also enhancing our overall appeal to the more casual visitors.
And let's not forget that big corporations do take notice of professional sports and culture when they are looking at where to put their headquarters and offices so as to appeal to the premiere employees from around the globe in many cases. I know we've heard forever that soccer is the future, but it does seem to finally be getting a bit of traction. It doesn't hurt their case that baseball seems to be struggling with the younger generation and football is struggling with concussions and politics and more importantly attendance and viewers. If Newport works, I personally don't have a problem with it. But I do think we will be kicking ourselves as a region over the next few decades and perhaps much longer if we let MLS slip through our fingers. The iron is hot right now...
I was thinking a compromise might be in order where the city uses parking revenue to build the parking garage and gets to collect the revenues to at least partially offset it. Then use half the $2.7M tax proceeds per year for 30 years for the other FCC infrastructure - which would still leave half for targeted projects like the Convention Center upgrades and perhaps the projects you mentioned if they were considered to aid tourism. FCC covers the remaining infrastructure costs and thus has the incentive to do it as efficiently as possible. But that might make too much sense to actually work...
(This post was last modified: 11-15-2017 11:35 PM by Bearhawkeye.)
It's amazing how Berding and Lindner are getting self-avowed anti-government spending uberconservatives like Bill Cunningham and Chris Smitherman to buy into the FCC framing hook, line, and sinker.
Listening to them you'd think the county does $75 million dollar giveaways to every fast food franchise that opens on a vacant lot.
Can all of the G5-owning, aflluent, well-to-do posters on this thread that are poo-pooing the FCC's use of the infrastructure budget advise which uses of said budget should be deemed "acceptable" and can be proven to enhance income for the city of Cincinnati?
/
Nippert Defilement - Saw it Tonight
