Cincinnati Fourth Most Likely City to Belly-up (Kenwood, Wilson: lease, crime)

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by Cincy-Rise

... But you're missing my point. Based on your methodology, not mine, no new icecream shops should open up because there already is one??? ... And still going off your methodology, an icecream shop earning more business because it's on a streetcar line is worse off than an icecream shop already in existence?

... Based on what you're saying it sounds like we just need a much larger system in place to make investing in city limits more appealing than investing outside of city limits.

If we were face to face, I would be speaking very slowly. The so called business expansion to be realized by the streetcar is utterly illusory. People have so much money to spend. They spend it all and then some. A new streetcar will not cause them to spend more than they already do on anything, be it ice cream, slurpies, rent or anything else. It will just move business from one place to another. Benefit to Elm Street, detriment to Sixth Street. Zero sum gain.

[Cincy-Rise]

Wilson, read this very clearly ...

So ... Are you against any new investments or development if it is already in operation or established?

*Btw, I'd say residential versus commercial investment has more payoff.

If I were looking at buying a condo near downtown and it were between Newport or on a streetcar line on Vine, there's no question ... Vine, hands down.

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by Cincy-Rise

Wilson, read this very clearly ...

So ... Are you against any new investments or development if it is already in operation or established?

*Btw, I'd say residential versus commercial investment has more payoff.

If I were looking at buying a condo near downtown and it were between Newport or on a streetcar line on Vine, there's no question ... Vine, hands down.

I am against paying a $128 million and a lifetime obligation of $3-5million per year to move development from point A to point B

[Cincy-Rise]

^ but you're not against opening up a new business that's already in the city correct? I just want you to make this clear for myself and anyone else that's interested.

Btw, this is a yes or no question. Let's pretend the streetcar is not even in question.

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by Cincy-Rise

^ but you're not against opening up a new business that's already in the city correct? I just want you to make this clear for myself and anyone else that's interested.

I just told you what I am opposed to in relation to this expenditure. See above.

[Cincy-Rise]

Okay good. I'm glad we can agree then to quit with the "divert development and shopping from one part of Cincinnati to another" B.S.

[Sarah Perry]

Please keep this thread going. Every time I see the title on the list, I picture Santa on a bar stool, tipping a cold one.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Tubby513

Raise my taxes...I'll gladly pay a little more if everyone else will to keep my city going strong, keep all current services alive, and keep projects in line.

Don't worry -- that is under consideration, indirectly if not directly.

City council may either charge for garbage collection or privatize it. This is a defacto tax increase.

Now to your point, YOU may find it acceptable to raise taxes but remember, no one except a few city officials is required to actually live in the city.

City taxes are already substantially larger than those of other juristictions in the region. Go ahead and raise taxes even higher and watch the exodus.

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by The Don

Don't worry -- that is under consideration, indirectly if not directly.

City council may either charge for garbage collection or privatize it. This is a defacto tax increase.

Now to your point, YOU may find it acceptable to raise taxes but remember, no one except a few city officials is required to actually live in the city.

City taxes are already substantially larger than those of other juristictions in the region. Go ahead and raise taxes even higher and watch the exodus.

If you have a building full of people who live in WestChester and Florence and the like and if you take that space in Cincinnati everyone has to pay $2,000 per year for the pleasure of driving into Cincinnati and waiting for the trolley to clear the tracks. I think most employers are protective of their employees money.

Now, let's guess if Jeff Wyler who makes a couple million dollars a year wants to headquarter his business in Cincinnati so he can pay $40,000 per year in City taxes. Hmmmmm. I wonder?

Oh, what the heck. Let's just raise taxes.

[kjbrill]

I do not agree employers are protective of their employees money. But I do agree employers are protective of their employees attitude, and a lot of that has to do with their overall degree of taxation plus general living environment. An unhappy employee is going to yield an unhappy employer.