Local, Local, Local!

I want to see more of this type of article in the Enquirer. A locally written profile of a local musician. Actual local articles about local people is so refreshing!

Yeah, I know this is done at the Enquirer on a regular basis, it is just not done enough.

Bold Fusion 2009

This year's Bold Fusion took place this past Thursday and I again had to work, so I want to open up a post to solicit front line takes on the event.

I will point people to well done first hand take from Redkatblonde.

Other reports and background are
a report from the Enquirer,
a webpage of resources from the event, and
photos of participants.

The Cincinnati Bible War

Because I didn't grow up in Cincinnati, I didn't get the education in local and state history that a lot of you received in grade school.  So I'm always interested in learning more about Cincinnati's history.

Next week, the Ohio Supreme Court will sponsor a seminar on the "Cincinnati Bible War."  Until the 1870's, a school board policy mandated daily reading from the King James Bible in public schools.  When the board acted to repeal that rule, a local group sued in an effort to reinstate the required reading.  The case ultimately made its way to the Ohio Supreme Court, which sided with the school board.  (The court avoided the Establishment Clause issues and instead rested its holding largely on the legal authority of the school board to make such a decision, and the lack of authority for the judiciary to review it.)

The provided link will take you to an interesting (and brief) introduction to the subject, led by Linda Przybyszewski, formerly of the University of Cincinnati (and the author of a really good biography of the first Justice Harlan).  I wish I could be in Columbus Wednesday for the event.  

More Signs Of A Growing Number Of Downtown Residents

One of the ways, perhaps, to gauge the success of those who want Downtown to be a neighborhood (as opposed to merely a retail, dining, and bar district) is to look for services that cater to Downtown residents.

A few days ago, I noticed a sign in a window of a building on Plum Street just north of Fourth indicating that a veterinary clinic will soon be opening.  Building Cincinnati (in all likelihood to be announced as 2009's best blog in CityBeat's Best of Cincinnati edition next week) had this story back in January.

It seems to me that this is the type of business geared towards neighborhood residents; I'd think it unlikely people will drive downtown to have their pets cared for.  So I view this as a positive sign regarding the number of people living downtown.  At some level of population density, there should be some sort of tipping point that will have lots of resident-geared services coming downtown.

Tower Place Revisited

The power of blogging is its instantaneousness.  You can read something, react to it, and share your reaction with the universe.  And sometimes, that can be its downfall, as well.

Earlier this week, I criticized Chris Bortz and City Council for delaying action on a request by Northeastern Security Development Group to vertically divide the property that includes Tower Place Mall into two separate lots.  Since then, I've talked with (and been chewed out by) a couple of people whose opinions I respect and who know far more about real estate than I do, and it seems that Bortz is probably taking a fairly prudent course of action.  

(Mr. Bortz, by the way, graciously offered to speak with me about the issue....I called him back--in hindsight, probably when he was in the middle of Wednesday's Council meeting--but didn't start a phone tag game, because sometimes I have to pretend to actually be a lawyer who blogs rather than a blogger who practices law.)

NSD is an out-of-town development company and, as far as I can tell, doesn't have any history of development projects in Cincinnati.  So Council doesn't have any basis on which to simply trust in their promises of pouring money into Tower Place.  Granting their request would make it a lot easier to sell off the mall and retain the parking garage.  Yes, it's possible (as I pointed out) that they'll let Tower Place die in the absence of action from Council.  But Council doesn't want to act in such a way as to make it easier for them to kill off Tower Place.

So Council just needs a clear picture of what NSD has in plan for Tower Place.  They need to see a real commitment to turning Tower Place around.  No one wants to see the mall fail.  Council has limited power to help it succeed, and in this instance, they're doing what they can to make sure an out-of-town developer with no local ties doesn't turn a quick buck at the expense of a key downtown attraction.

So there you go.  I'm wrong, again.  And apologies to Council and Chris Bortz for my too-quick reaction.

NFL Rules Changes Announced

According to this story at ESPN.com, the NFL owners have decided that tackling is too likely to cause injury to their highly paid athetes. Beginning in the 2009 season, a player will be considered "down" when a member of the opposing team touches him with two hands between the knees and shoulders. Knocking a player to the ground will result in a fifteen-yard penalty and an ejection.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, when asked about the wisdom of the rules change, responded, "By the middle of the second quarter, most of our fans are too intoxicated to know what's happening on the field of play." He continued, "Fans only care that their favorite player is in the game, not what that player is doing."

New Hope For Tower Place, If Bortz Doesn't Get In The Way....

The Enquirer reports that Northeastern Security Development, the owner of Tower Place Mall, is hoping to revitalize the mall by attracting new, "unconventional" tenants. The company needs, though, to arrange some financing to make improvements both to the parking garage and the exterior of the building. As I blogged over a year ago, improvements to the exterior are much needed and would be extremely welcome.

So NSD has come to City Council looking for help. What do they want? A chunk of money? Stimulus funds? A tax break? No: they just need City Council to divide their property into two lots, one for the garage (which is profitable) and one for the mall (which currently is not). Such a division is apparently required in order to secure financing. Chris Bortz,--the chair of Council's Economic Development Committee--is standing in the way. According to the article:

At issue is whether Northeastern has a long-term commitment to the mall–or if it’s just asking for the separation so that it’s in a better position to sell the less lucrative retail space.“The question remains, ‘What if?’” says councilman Chris Bortz, who chairs the economic development committee. “We don’t want to be left in a situation where we have a dark mall and the attached parking garage is doing just fine. They may have the best intentions, but we can’t predict the future.”
Davis said the concern is unjustified. “What good is it to own a parking garage next to property that is vacant?” he said. “We’ve spent millions of dollars to buy this, and we want it to be successful. Fourth Street has great potential, and to say we helped turn Tower Place around, I’d love to put that feather in my hat.”
Bortz said he’s doesn’t plan to revisit Northeastern’s request until the council receives the firm’s plan for the mall. “It’s in a holding pattern for now,” he said.

So let's review. Tower Place Mall wants to bring new in new tenants. Its ability to do so is derived, at least in part, from its ability to secure financing to upgrade the facility. And its ability to get financing is dependent on the lot subdivision it is requesting from Council. But Bortz won't even take the matter up for consideration until Tower Place tells him who its tenants will be--which it can't do, because it's likely no one will commit until the financing is in place. Brilliant.

One wonders what the problem is here. Why does the legal division of the property make it more likely that we'll have a "dark mall" with a vibrant parking garage? That's nearly what we have now. And if NSD isn't able to secure financing, that is what we'll end up with for sure.

Chris Bortz's experience with residential development has been an asset for City Council the last few years. But this is another example of how City Council is, on balance, pretty inept when it comes to downtown, non-residential development.

For those of you who favor the streetcar (as Bortz does), remember: a streetcar is great, but no one will ride it if there's nothing to do once you get off. Tower Place Mall sits just a block off the proposed streetcar route, and if it's revitalized properly it will be a significant draw downtown.

We threw millions of dollars at Saks to stay in town. We can't help another company out with a simple administrative matter? Why does it seem lately that if a development project isn't being run by 3CDC, Council just doesn't care about it? With regional unemployment at its highest in a quarter-century, City Council should be making it easier for business to operate, not harder.