Jump to content
cincydave8

Cincinnati: West End: FC Cincinnati Stadium

Recommended Posts

FCC made a promise when they moved here to not displace people and to be a good neighbor.  Maybe they are being better and more accommodating than a generic developer would, but that doesn't mean they should be let off the hook.  The tenants are using their leverage, good for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

If FCC did not own the building, a developer or renovator could come in, purchase the building and evict all the tenants and offer nothing in return. Legally, they would have 30 days to move and there is nothing the city could do, especially if the renovator does not change the footprint of the building, to stop them.

 

If a tenant has a fixed-term lease (6-month, 1-year, 2-year, etc, as opposed to month-to-month), then any new owner has to honor it until its term is up, unless there's an early termination clause that specifically mentions sale of the building, which I don't think is all that common for residential leases.  Otherwise tenants can only be evicted prior to the end of their lease terms due to things like non-payment, drugs, or specific lease term violations.  A change of ownership of the building is not sufficient cause to evict a tenant on good standing.  A new owner can of course offer incentives for a tenant to move out, such as paying moving expenses, paying back the amount of rent that would be owed on the rest of the lease, or finding them new housing, but the tenant isn't obligated to take any of those options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Getting a $2500 moving allowance amongst other reasonable concessions shows that FCC is trying to be a decent neighbor. The activists who are urging the tenants to act against their best interests care little about the tenants and are just using them as pawns. That is the saddest thing about the whole situation. Instead of trying to let the people who live in the building negotiate and act in their best interests, neighborhood activists show they don't care at all about the people involved but rather are simply using them to protect some power interest they have with the city and show that they are the kingmakers. These "neighborhood activists" are often influenced themselves by outside parties that don't give a damn about the neighborhood anyway.

 

^Substantiate any of this^

 

FCC put the cart before the horse and now the city and the residents have a powerful upper hand. They did things out of order, weren't patient enough to go through the required processes, and they made a mistake because they thought they were above the law. Hubris.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jjakucyk said:

 

If a tenant has a fixed-term lease (6-month, 1-year, 2-year, etc, as opposed to month-to-month), then any new owner has to honor it until its term is up, unless there's an early termination clause that specifically mentions sale of the building, which I don't think is all that common for residential leases.  Otherwise tenants can only be evicted prior to the end of their lease terms due to things like non-payment, drugs, or specific lease term violations.  A change of ownership of the building is not sufficient cause to evict a tenant on good standing.  A new owner can of course offer incentives for a tenant to move out, such as paying moving expenses, paying back the amount of rent that would be owed on the rest of the lease, or finding them new housing, but the tenant isn't obligated to take any of those options.

It has already been established that these tenants are month to month. So no the tenant is not obligated to take the incentives, but they are better than they would be entitled too under the law.

 

42 minutes ago, 10albersa said:

FCC made a promise when they moved here to not displace people and to be a good neighbor.  Maybe they are being better and more accommodating than a generic developer would, but that doesn't mean they should be let off the hook.  The tenants are using their leverage, good for them.

All FCC really needs to do is to create a sham transaction through a shell company, have an unaffiliated "investor" purchase the building, let that investor get the tenants out and does what he wants with the building, puts it in a blighted condition and then quietly passes title back to FCC. There are games that can be played to work around council on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Chas Wiederhold said:

 

^Substantiate any of this^

 

FCC put the cart before the horse and now the city and the residents have a powerful upper hand. They did things out of order, weren't patient enough to go through the required processes, and they made a mistake because they thought they were above the law. Hubris.

Substantiate what? That Josh Spring and neighborhood activists are really out for the residents instead of trying to secure their own power base. Of course that is an opinion but please, their actions are contrary to the best interests of the tenants who are being displaced, they are using them as leverage.

 

As for the zoning by the city. for the record as it currently sits, the property is not part of the zoning request. The only issue before the council is a zoning change for the allys to allow construction of the stadium. This is a losing battle for the city because FCC had reasonable reliance from them that this would get done. The city would lose this in court if it went that far and it would be malfeasance if they tried to fight this.

 

If the team wanted a later zoning change for the apartment building, then yes, the city would have a stronger hand there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

All FCC really needs to do is to create a sham transaction through a shell company, have an unaffiliated "investor" purchase the building, let that investor get the tenants out and does what he wants with the building, puts it in a blighted condition and then quietly passes title back to FCC. There are games that can be played to work around council on this.

 

If that property ends up in the hands of FCC, you can bet people would sniff that out.  There would be serious backlash, to the extent that they definitely could get the stadium delayed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

I'm sure if the team buys another building, they will require it's empty before they take control. 

 

They probably will, because it reframes the issue without actually changing the outcome in any way.

 

It's sort of like the situation with the Goetz House being demolished for The Verge. The issue was framed as, "this elderly couple needs to demolish this building so they can sell their land to these developers and make enough money to retire." A number of people who are typically pro-historic preservation fell for this sob story and supported the demolition. So, it was smart of the developers to require the demolition to happen before they bought the land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 10albersa said:

 

If that property ends up in the hands of FCC, you can bet people would sniff that out.  There would be serious backlash, to the extent that they definitely could get the stadium delayed.

That may be so, but at the same time does the city then want to get in a pissing match with FCC about a blighted building that needs to come down, or a blighted parking lot that would generate much more in taxes as a mixed use development or something with 100 jobs?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, because the city also made a promise to the West End when they had to approve the stadium contingent on the agreement with the WECC being approved.  There would be major protests of FCC and the City if they went back on that agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The only issue before the council is a zoning change for the allys to allow construction of the stadium. This is a losing battle for the city because FCC had reasonable reliance from them that this would get done. The city would lose this in court if it went that far and it would be malfeasance if they tried to fight this.

 

The city would not lose this in court because no one is owed a zoning variance. They can build their stadium within the area that has already been rezoned to PD.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, taestell said:

 

The city would not lose this in court because no one is owed a zoning variance. They can build their stadium within the area that has already been rezoned to PD.

Also. There is a second issue pending: sale of public land. No right to sale of land. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, taestell said:

 

The city would not lose this in court because no one is owed a zoning variance. They can build their stadium within the area that has already been rezoned to PD.

 

Doesn't a denial have to be for a specific reason? I agree in principle that they aren't owed a zoning variance. But the city shouldn't be allowed to deny rezone in order to get the owner of the property to do something unrelated to the property at hand. Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, breakground said:

Also. There is a second issue pending: sale of public land. No right to sale of land. 

This I agree the city could push back on. The city should never be forced to sell land. The rezone request shouldn't be denied because the owner is doing bad things at a separate property. It should be based on the merit of the application itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

 

Doesn't a denial have to be for a specific reason? I agree in principle that they aren't owed a zoning variance. But the city shouldn't be allowed to deny rezone in order to get the owner of the property to do something unrelated to the property at hand. Right?

 

There are a couple of things the City needs to look at to make adequate findings for a zoning change. One is compliance with the goals and objectives of the city's comprehensive plan. In this case, that is Plan Cincinnati and every department has to give some justification for that anyway.


Second is that the city has to make findings that conditions have changed and the current zoning no longer is a good fit for the area in question. Due to the fact that this is a stadium, the zoning would not fit.

 

Third, the rezoning has to be in the interest of the city and not negatively impact the health, safety, and welfare of the citizenry. That is a bit of a grey area since it can be argued both ways. The other thing is that it is a value argument. Developers can argue about the positive economic impact, and residents will argue about the negative livability and displacement impacts. Both are right to a certain degree so it will take a skilled Planning Commission and City Council to thread the needle. 

 

We'll see what happens...


“All truly great thoughts are conceived while walking.”
-Friedrich Nietzsche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To date the team has spent less than $5 million on land acquisition, excepting the $25 million hose job by Tri-State.  They played every trick in the book but Tri-State Wholesale held all the cards and walked away with at least $20 million more in their pocket than their property was worth.  

 

Maybe if they had been a little smarter about acquiring the Tri-State property they could have spared a few shillings for the poor people on Wade St.  Oh wait, no they wouldn't.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

Getting a $2500 moving allowance amongst other reasonable concessions shows that FCC is trying to be a decent neighbor.

 

If moving into a neighborhood and forcing all the existing residents to move counts as being a decent neighbor, I’d hate to see what you think a bad neighbor looks like. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

 

Doesn't a denial have to be for a specific reason? I agree in principle that they aren't owed a zoning variance. But the city shouldn't be allowed to deny rezone in order to get the owner of the property to do something unrelated to the property at hand. Right?

 

Normally, it’s up to the applicant to prove that there are site specific challenges that can’t be worked around in order to be granted a variance. If the development can go forward without this parcel, and FCC doesn’t adequately argue why they need these buildings, the city would be completely within its right to deny the request for a variance. Of course we still haven’t seen a final site plan, so I don’t know if anyone knows what the plans actually are for this site...

 

The people arguing against the tenants here are largely the same people who argued against the school board’s complaints, the symphony’s concerns about noise, etc. In isolation, each of these issues seem pretty small and maybe even petty if you’re a staunch FCC supporter. But when you look at this situation from the start, it’s clear that FCC has handled this stadium project about as poorly as an organization can. They came up with this plan at the last minute and then expected everyone to just roll over and let them do whatever they wanted so they could make the supposed deadlines established by MLS, which we all now know were false deadlines. Sorry, but that’s not how things work, and they shouldn’t work that way. You can’t totally ignore the concerns of community members and other institutions in the area that you’re moving into and then label them as obstructionists when they don’t play along with everything. Again, we still don’t have a final site plan or even know what this stadium is going to look like and it’s actively under construction. That alone wouldn’t fly in most cities. FCC has gotten more passes than they should have throughout this ordeal, and I don’t feel a lick of sympathy for whatever minor roadblock these poor people of the West End are throwing up at the moment. 

Edited by edale
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, edale said:

 

If moving into a neighborhood and forcing all the existing residents to move counts as being a decent neighbor, I’d hate to see what you think a bad neighbor looks like. 

John Cranley 🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JYP said:

 

There are a couple of things the City needs to look at to make adequate findings for a zoning change. One is compliance with the goals and objectives of the city's comprehensive plan. In this case, that is Plan Cincinnati and every department has to give some justification for that anyway.


Second is that the city has to make findings that conditions have changed and the current zoning no longer is a good fit for the area in question. Due to the fact that this is a stadium, the zoning would not fit.

 

Third, the rezoning has to be in the interest of the city and not negatively impact the health, safety, and welfare of the citizenry. That is a bit of a grey area since it can be argued both ways. The other thing is that it is a value argument. Developers can argue about the positive economic impact, and residents will argue about the negative livability and displacement impacts. Both are right to a certain degree so it will take a skilled Planning Commission and City Council to thread the needle. 

 

We'll see what happens...

Yes, but if the team wants to play the long game, it would be able to win those arguments. This could be 5-10 years but it could play out like this.

1) If you let the building become condemned and blighted and structurally unsound, it does not benefit the Plan Cincinnati

2) If you build the stadium, it changes the character of the neighborhood. Having an empty blighted building does not fit the new character, Best and most efficient use becomes something different. It may need to be torn down at that point if the building is structurally unsound. You need someone willing to develop the lot and land around it. Does something that may be soccer related offer greater benefit to the changed area than an unsound unsafe apartment building. Most likely

3) Would any development of the team at that point benefit the city and the area? Probably better than an unsound blighted old abandoned apartment building.

 

My point is that if the city wants to delay, they can, but it only hurts themselves. The team can win in the long game and wait until the stadium is done before making a move on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, edale said:

 

Normally, it’s up to the applicant to prove that there are site specific challenges that can’t be worked around in order to be granted a variance. If the development can go forward without this parcel, and FCC doesn’t adequately argue why they need these buildings, the city would be completely within its right to deny the request for a variance. Of course we still haven’t seen a final site plan, so I don’t know if anyone knows what the plans actually are for this site...

 

There are two different issues. The issue at hand is the vacation of city owned ROW adjacent to the site and the inclusion of that ROW into the PD. The second issue is the residents of the buildings and the inclusion of them in the PD.  The team withdrew their application for the rezone of the residential buildings. So as of now, those properties are not up for consideration.

 

I don't think the city should use that issue to decide if the vacation of stub roads and alleys and implementation of them into the PD is acceptable. I get the desire to stick it to the team and not give them anything, but I have to imagine that using the technically unrelated issue to stick it to them is probably illegal. The city could still argue that the inclusion of the alley and street into the PD is not in the public interest, but I don't think it's legal for the cit to use the tenants in the other property to deny a change to what they are requesting.

 

I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong, but it feels like that's opening the door for the city to discriminate against people they don't like by "arbitrarily" denying requests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, edale said:

 

If moving into a neighborhood and forcing all the existing residents to move counts as being a decent neighbor, I’d hate to see what you think a bad neighbor looks like. 

There's like 15 people that have to move, lets calm down with claiming all the existing residents have to go.  People and/or businesses had to move for the Bengals stadium as well and somehow the world kept spinning.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

 

There are two different issues. The issue at hand is the vacation of city owned ROW adjacent to the site and the inclusion of that ROW into the PD. The second issue is the residents of the buildings and the inclusion of them in the PD.  The team withdrew their application for the rezone of the residential buildings. So as of now, those properties are not up for consideration.

 

I don't think the city should use that issue to decide if the vacation of stub roads and alleys and implementation of them into the PD is acceptable. I get the desire to stick it to the team and not give them anything, but I have to imagine that using the technically unrelated issue to stick it to them is probably illegal. The city could still argue that the inclusion of the alley and street into the PD is not in the public interest, but I don't think it's legal for the cit to use the tenants in the other property to deny a change to what they are requesting.

 

I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong, but it feels like that's opening the door for the city to discriminate against people they don't like by "arbitrarily" denying requests.

The big issue with the ROW is that the team requires it to build the stadium. Just because the city did not formally grant the ROW zoning change prior to the time the construction contract was signed, the prior votes to approve the stadium in that general vicinity creates a justifiable reliance on city councils actions such that FCC moved ahead with the project.

 

Essentially, FCC is saying the city promised and then is going back on their promise but their actions up until that point were such that a reasonable person would think the deal is done. This is where the city runs into trouble.

Edited by Brutus_buckeye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cincy513 said:

There's like 15 people that have to move, lets calm down with claiming all the existing residents have to go.  People and/or businesses had to move for the Bengals stadium as well and somehow the world kept spinning.  

 

Not sure using the Bengals stadium as a precedent does any favors for FCC. That project was wayyy over budget, and is one of the worst stadium deals in the country, from the taxpayers and city perspective. Of course, Jeff Berding was also responsible for much of that mess, and he used many of the same tricks then, too. Only with the Bengals, the sense of false urgency came from the threat of the Bengals leaving, while he used the threat of FCC missing out on an MLS bid this time around. He's a snake oil salesman, but it seems like the majority of people have fallen for his tricks once again. And the local media is either too hapless or in the pockets or scared of FCC leadership (Lindners) to do any real reporting on any of this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, edale said:

 

Not sure using the Bengals stadium as a precedent does any favors for FCC. That project was wayyy over budget, and is one of the worst stadium deals in the country, from the taxpayers and city perspective. Of course, Jeff Berding was also responsible for much of that mess, and he used many of the same tricks then, too. Only with the Bengals, the sense of false urgency came from the threat of the Bengals leaving, while he used the threat of FCC missing out on an MLS bid this time around. He's a snake oil salesman, but it seems like the majority of people have fallen for his tricks once again. And the local media is either too hapless or in the pockets or scared of FCC leadership (Lindners) to do any real reporting on any of this...

 

The Hamilton County Commissioners put a 1/2 cent sales tax into effect in early 1996.  Per state law, citizens had 30 days to get a huge number of signatures in order to put the matter on the ballot (upwards of 100,000 signatures).  They succeeded and it was put on the May 1996 ballot.  Then, despite that effort to halt the stadiums, the tax was approved.  So the whole effort led by Tim Mara and Tom Luken to put the matter on the May 1996 ballot cost the project about six months.  Ultimately the county ended up spending much more on the land because of limited negotiating time and much more on the stadium for all of the overtime.    

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current designs of the stadium are garbage.  That thing is going to stick out like a sore thumb in a historic neighborhood.  I would like to see a brick facade, and a design that references the old brewery buildings that used to face Central Parkway.  But more importantly, the city should demand an actual site plan before approving the variance.  The potential front buildings on Central parkway are super important to making this somewhat fit into the neighborhood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

The Hamilton County Commissioners put a 1/2 cent sales tax into effect in early 1996.  Per state law, citizens had 30 days to get a huge number of signatures in order to put the matter on the ballot (upwards of 100,000 signatures).  They succeeded and it was put on the May 1996 ballot.  Then, despite that effort to halt the stadiums, the tax was approved.  So the whole effort led by Tim Mara and Tom Luken to put the matter on the May 1996 ballot cost the project about six months.  Ultimately the county ended up spending much more on the land because of limited negotiating time and much more on the stadium for all of the overtime.    

 

 

Besides that @edale completely skirted around @Cincy513‘s point about acquisition and relocation.

 

Besides that, the urgency of the Bengals move was real. Prove me wrong on that point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Months ago I posted images of a stadium with street facades from OTR. I was banned from posting for 2 weeks and accused of trolling. The stadium site is not in OTR it is in the west end area which has undergone many upgrades in the last 20 years. The area including Linn Street has multiple housing and retail shops that are nothing like OTR. They are modern or new looking. The corner of Liberty and Central Parkway is not, nor does it look like the famed OTR. There is a beer factory on one corner, the ugly very strange Warner Brothers/Paramount/Universal building and a one building college that recently was reworked to look more contemporary. Then there is a strange radio tower building, the police station, the WCET building and surrounding parking lots. The overall effect is just plain ugly. The stadium will be beautiful. The area will become part of the semi downtown or maybe an inviting entrance to the downtown. Face it, the things are looking up for that area of town. People on this forum talk about how Central Parkway should be developed with mid-rise buildings. That look could continue around the bend to include Central Parkway and continue past the stadium to Tanners Hill area.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rabbit Hash said:

Besides that @edale completely skirted around @Cincy513‘s point about acquisition and relocation.

 

Besides that, the urgency of the Bengals move was real. Prove me wrong on that point. 

 

Move...to where?  Cleveland?  The move of The Browns to Baltimore scared the hell out of Cincinnatians.  But how many moves happened after that?

 

1997: Houston Oilers to Tennessee Titans

 

THEN A 19-YEAR GAP

 

2016: St. Louis Rams to Los Angeles

2017: San Diego to Los Angeles

2020: Raiders to Las Vegas

 

 

Delete the Los Angeles situation and only two teams have moved since the 1996 vote, which was 23 years ago this May. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2019 at 4:51 PM, edale said:

 

Not sure using the Bengals stadium as a precedent does any favors for FCC. That project was wayyy over budget, and is one of the worst stadium deals in the country, from the taxpayers and city perspective. Of course, Jeff Berding was also responsible for much of that mess, and he used many of the same tricks then, too. Only with the Bengals, the sense of false urgency came from the threat of the Bengals leaving, while he used the threat of FCC missing out on an MLS bid this time around. He's a snake oil salesman, but it seems like the majority of people have fallen for his tricks once again. And the local media is either too hapless or in the pockets or scared of FCC leadership (Lindners) to do any real reporting on any of this...

All I mentioned was the fact the bengals new stadium forced existing businesses to move and life went on. We didn’t hold up the stadium construction because some bar had to move. These residents have no legal rights so they’re using the media to extort FCC just like other individuals and businesses have already done. Why exactly is our city government giving handouts to some catering business? How’d it work out when a handout was given to a business at the banks based off the owners skin color and not the actual quality of their business? FCC helped dig their grave by rushing this stadium but I can understand their frustration when everyone just wants to get their handout.

 

This stadium deal couldn’t be more different then Paul Brown though. The city and county are on the hook for a fraction of the cost since the team is paying to build the stadium. Not to mention the team is responsible for all future upgrades unlike Paul brown. To compare this stadium to the Paul brown deal is just stupid. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2019 at 10:51 AM, Cincy513 said:

There's like 15 people that have to move, lets calm down with claiming all the existing residents have to go.  People and/or businesses had to move for the Bengals stadium as well and somehow the world kept spinning.  

 

On 5/18/2019 at 2:50 PM, Cincy513 said:

This stadium deal couldn’t be more different then Paul Brown though. The city and county are on the hook for a fraction of the cost since the team is paying to build the stadium. Not to mention the team is responsible for all future upgrades unlike Paul brown. To compare this stadium to the Paul brown deal is just stupid. 

 

Is this what the kids call a self own? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I think he means that the public funding deals themselves are completely different, which is accurate. The deal with the Bengals for Paul Brown Stadium is among the worst agreements in the history of stadium funding. By comparison, the public funding for FC Cincinnati is relatively innocuous. Now, it's still more public money than the city/county should have spent, but it's not even in the same ballpark as the PBS deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, edale said:

 

 

Is this what the kids call a self own? 

I clearly meant they cannot be compared financially.  Did you even read my posts?  Or did you just bold those two lines so you could make some stupid retort about being owned? Guess I'll go ask my friend who owns a house in the West End where he's planning on moving.  You know since according to you FCC is "forcing all the existing residents to move."  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Cincy513 said:

I clearly meant they cannot be compared financially.  Did you even read my posts?  Or did you just bold those two lines so you could make some stupid retort about being owned? Guess I'll go ask my friend who owns a house in the West End where he's planning on moving.  You know since according to you FCC is "forcing all the existing residents to move."  

 

You introduced the comparison to PBS to say "people and businesses had to move and the world kept spinning." I said, I don't know if drawing a comparison to PBS is fruitful for FCC supporters, seeing how it was a complete disaster. You reply back with "To compare this stadium to the Paul brown deal is just stupid." Since you introduced the comparison in the first place, you are calling yourself stupid. That is all. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new Stargell Stadium is quickly taking shape.  It could end up looking really nice and do a good job filling in the long-vacant large block where public housing stood until about 2002. 

 

IMG_1502_zpsnrlo77md.jpg

 

IMG_1501_zpsiiiqmstt.jpg

 

This phone photo doesn't show it, but the eastward view is going to be dramatic because of the grid shift at John St. 

IMG_1500_zpsoasok00b.jpg

 

IMG_1499_zpsikj4lxiu.jpg

 

IMG_1497_zpscae1cqte.jpg

 

IMG_1495_zpsi1q4lwqp.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw on twitter that the Revelation Baptist church just sold to West End Holdings. Is there anything left that hasn't changed hands in the superblock now besides the Ballet and the three big ones along Ezzard Charles (Dist1, Chore Monster & Taft) ? https://www.google.com/maps/place/John+St+%26+W+Liberty+St,+Cincinnati,+OH+45214/@39.1137981,-84.5247625,80a,35y,126.2h,63.11t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x8841b400dc8532eb:0xc6ebc7ce70936365!8m2!3d39.1134453!4d-84.5243342

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a friend who owns a building to the east of that church, and he has not sold.  The Port Authority tried to take the property a few months ago, and he fought them off.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SleepyLeroy said:

Just saw on twitter that the Revelation Baptist church just sold to West End Holdings. Is there anything left that hasn't changed hands in the superblock now besides the Ballet and the three big ones along Ezzard Charles (Dist1, Chore Monster & Taft) ? https://www.google.com/maps/place/John+St+%26+W+Liberty+St,+Cincinnati,+OH+45214/@39.1137981,-84.5247625,80a,35y,126.2h,63.11t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x8841b400dc8532eb:0xc6ebc7ce70936365!8m2!3d39.1134453!4d-84.5243342

 

 

Yes.  Three people are still living in homes they own in the 400 block of Bauer. 

 

Additionally, a gentleman named Lloyd Tate owns the vacant lot at the SE corner of Central Ave. & Bauer.  People have been trying to contact the guy for a year but he is not responding. 

 

There is also a rogue entity named Odd Lots, LLC, that owns a 20x90 lot at the NW corner of Central Ave. & Wade.  This LLC got the lot for free from the Auditor in 2015.  The lot immediately north of that WAS LOST TO THE AUDITOR IN DECEMBER 2018 FOR NOT PAYING TAXES.  So some IDIOT stopped paying the $60 in annual property tax and lost a lot that was worth roughly $50,000. 

 

How does this sort of thing happen? Well it's possible that they didn't know they owned it.  The two lots I briefly owned near the stadium site were each owned by companies that didn't know they owned them.  One got one of the lots when they bought another company and the other bought out somebody else's real estate portfolio and never got in the car and looked at it.  The guy owned it for 10 years and literally never drove by it. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...