Hot News!
• Tea Party leader gets grilled by NAACP membership
On today's date in The Beacon archives, we published:
•Smitherman still saying the issue is about a “streetcar” (2009)•More on Amy Goodman’s Arrest and the Struggle for a Free Media (2008)
•Journalist Amy Goodman Unlawfully Arrested At RNC (2008)
•Seizing Illegal Guns—Thinking About 2% (2007)
•Information or Advertisements? (2007)
•Nick Lachey: “I have never supported George W. Bush.” (2007)
Contact Us
v mail: (513) 685-0678
e mail: click here
Saturday, January 26, 2008
NEW IMAGES RELEASED! Vlasta Molak’s Sky Gardens Project to Replace The Banks
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati
County activist announces interest in running for County Commish, releases new diagrams
Dr. Vlasta Molak announced her desire to run for Hamilton County Commissioner, opposing the corporate power structure that has dominated area politics for too long. “I am interested in running as an Independent either against Portune or Hartman,” said Molak, “but only if enough people want to collect the signatures (2,860 valid) for such a run, since currently I am too busy with opening of a Gaia Feast and Sustainable living Center across from City Hall.” Molak’s vision for Cincinnati includes an ecologically sustainable version of The Banks, for which she has released new diagrams.
“I have been working on my ‘green’ architect since the fall of 2001, but have been totally stonewalled both by the Council and by the Commissioners, since it would solve the problem of gentrification (and eliminate 3CDC) from OTR,” explained Molak. “Those guys (Council, Mayor and Commissioners) are not even housebroken enough to return my calls for a meeting with them.”
Here are the lastest views for Molak’s sustainable project:
For larger view, click here.
“In the last 26 years that I have been a resident of Hamilton County,” proclaimed Molak, “I have observed the City and the County wasting money on one expensive boondoggle after another, while neglecting essential services and destroying the economic base of the city in favor of rich corporations and developers who dictate the game.”
Molak is hosting a seminar in concepts for a sustainable Cincinnati at the beginning of February. Read more about that here.
• Share This Article! | Listen to this article |
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
26 Jan 2008 at 01:21 pm | #
(I posted these same comments below, but many days after the article happened so they kind of slid into comment purgatory)
I had the opportunity to discuss many items with Vlasta back in the internet’s early days on Tri-State OnLine.
She had many a good idea, but they were usually doomed by her own arrogance.
She was convinced her PhD. somehow made her a demigod of some sort and her brash and dismissive attitude toward others fostered little in the way of cooperation or support for the ideas she presented.
Its really a shame, as she has many a good idea, but here inablity to work with others, accept the fact that others might actually have a good idea, and her general arrogance in regards to her PhD., doom her to be designated a “moonbat” by the TPTB.
(added 1/26)
The likely reason no on returns her calls is that they, at best, tolerate a discussion. They won’t tolerate a lecture and, as I said above, likely consider her a “moonbat”.
If she had studied effective communication, along with risk analysis, she might actually be able to create change.
Sad.
26 Jan 2008 at 02:02 pm | #
I guess I really don’t see what is so great about her idea. I just see two mounds in between the stadiums. There is no real explanation on how it is self sustainable.
And in response to thes first post about her attitude. I find it funny that she misspelled beautiful. I guess a Phd isn’t what it used to be. That was petty I know, but just thought I would put it out there.
I wish the picture explained more. Right now it just looks like two Mt. Rumpke land fills on the river.
26 Jan 2008 at 04:35 pm | #
In reference to her spelling, please keep in mind that English is Vlasta’s second language.
26 Jan 2008 at 08:43 pm | #
I don’t think she’s ready for a comprehensive government position. Sometimes being an ardant (sp) advocate for one thing is the best a person can offer to the whole scheme of things
27 Jan 2008 at 11:39 pm | #
It did sound a little arrogant to say that she’d run if everyone else did the work. Doesn’t sound like much of a commitment. And a unique campaign strategy.
29 Jan 2008 at 01:01 pm | #
#3: “In reference to her spelling, please keep in mind that English is Vlasta’s second language.”
What would her fist language be? Moonbat Mumbo Jumbo? I love it when fringe candidates run for office, it gives the corporate owned candidates so much more credibility.
30 Jan 2008 at 12:59 pm | #
“and eliminate 3CDC from OTR…”
This demonstrates how stupid and ignorant Vlasta is. 3CDC is privately funded and purchasing buildings and redeveloping them IN A FREE MARKET. In other words, this is not illegal or unethical activity. The alternative is to let them rot until they fall over and all we’re left with is rubble.
No one is “stopping” you Vlasta. Put together a valid business plan, go to the bank and get the funding, and proceed with your “plan”. THAT’S WHAT 3CDC DID!
30 Jan 2008 at 02:39 pm | #
Anonymous, the city of Cincinnati has given 3CDC tens of millions of dollars and they don’t have to abide by the same rules as everyone else. That is not what happens in A FREE MARKET. In other words, 3CDC’s gentrification isn’t illegal activity, that however doesn’t mean it is ethical.
3CDC board members donate large amounts of corporate cash to the campaign funds of local politicians. This why the city got rid of the planning department and is letting 3CDC make decisions. 3CDC is using public funds and they prevent public oversight and leave citizens completely out of the decision making process.
It is wrong to assume that 3CDC’s vision of an OTR for rich YP’s is the only way that OTR could be redeveloped. 3CDC didn’t just go to a bank with a business plan, they went to the politicians they invested in and got public funds and special privileges.
3CDC’s PR people at Margaret Buchanan’s Enquirer misrepresented the true costs of their Fountain Square deal. Neglecting to tell the public that they are losing a $100 million dollar revenue stream isn’t very honest of 3CDC, their paper and the politicians they own.
31 Jan 2008 at 10:55 am | #
Justin…you are misinformed. Grossly misinformed. You don’t understand economics, finance, or urban planning.
First, the city has NOT given tens of millions of dollars to 3CDC. If grants are available, I’m sure they applied for them like any other agency or business. And all of this would be public record. You can go to City Hall and ask about money used for redevelopment.
The city got rid of the planning department BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T DO ANYTYHING. It was not successful. And you are missing the point with ‘oversight’. If private money is being used to develop private property, IT DOESN’T REQUIRE OVERSIGHT. And if any public money is used for ANY project, IT GOES THROUGH A PUBLIC PROCESS (in other words, oversight) AND IS OF PUBLIC RECORD.
As far as vision, 3CDC is following the OTR plan made up years ago. I suggest you read it and then follow what they are doing.
As far as Fountain Square, the public is not losing millions of dollars in revenues from the garage. If you took the time to research the LACK of revenue from the garage prior to the redevelopment, you would see the city got a sweetheart deal. The project was $42 million - $38 WAS PRIVATE. $7 millions was paid for the garage. The $4 million of public money had already been set aside TO FIX THE GARAGE.
I’m not sure if you’re just ignorant or a liar. Regardless, either one is unacceptable. Get the facts straight…and get over it. Aren’t you embarrassed by how wrong you are?
31 Jan 2008 at 04:16 pm | #
This is from the Business Courier (BC).
anonymous/3CDCer, In other words, after 3CDC’s plan fell with a “thud” in front of the public. 3CDC guarded their plan (that still included moving the Fountain which wasn’t a popular idea) and they brought it straight to the politicians that they give large campaign contributions to. Then council rushed 3CDC’s plan through leaving the public’s opinions and concerns ignored and unaddressed.
(Maybe council liked the “water feature” 3CDC said they would put at 5th and Vine that never materialized, but probably not as much as the hundreds of thousands of dollars 3CDC board members dump into city council auctions, I mean elections.)
I’ve been to 3CDC’s public input sessions and they are a joke. One time they took comments from the audience for ten minutes and then presented their plan.
You say that the garage had a “LACK” of revenue, but a quick google search brought me to this article. Chad Munitz who worked for the city as the Development Director and now after this deal (hear that swooshing sound?) works for 3CDC, said this to the (BC).
Did that say $1 million-a-year OPERATING PROFIT? Oh, wait there’s more.
That’s $1.8 million in revenue a year according the BC. But wait, they raised the parking fees already and over the rest of the 40 year term of the lease they will likely raise the parking fees (and revenues) even more.
3CDC gave the city $7.5 million and the city gave 3CDC $4 million + a revenue stream of $1-1.8 million a year for 40 years. (Keep in mind parking fee increases over that period will generate more revenue.)
Though 3CDC received public money for this project, when we asked them what the estimated revenue from the garage over the 40 year term of the lease was, they said it was “private information”. The city wasn’t helpful either, but they made it clear that the parking fund was taking a hit and fees would go up in the city’s other parking garages as we reported here earlier. And there’s more.
And as part of 3CDC’s sweetheart deal the city is giving them another $500,000 a year for 40 years. (That’s $20 million!)
And then there’s millions more from the city to 3CDC.
As I said, the city gives 3CDC tens of millions of dollars and government handouts and sweetheart deals are not part of the “free market”. Cities have planning departments for a reason. The reason 3CDC replaced our planning department is because corporate CEOs (most of whom don’t live in our city) control our political system and quasi-governmental organizations like 3CDC take away public input, oversight and resources.
Now you were saying something? And please, if you have the nerve to call me an ignorant liar, at least have the courage to do it behind your own name. Or are you too embarrassed?
31 Jan 2008 at 09:29 pm | #
The Department of City Planning was re-instated last September.
01 Feb 2008 at 12:31 pm | #
Justin - again - you are talking out your a**. You piece together unrelated items to try and make a case without really knowing the facts.
The BC article you mention actually proves my point. 3CDC released the plan - they got feedback - and revised it. That’s called public input.
Regarding the garage - go down to City Hall and ask to see the parking revenue. Then - and this gets difficult for you, so pay attention - subtract expenses. You’ll see there was hardly ANY profit. You do understand the difference between revenue, expenses and profit, right?
The $4 million was already earmarked for the garage. It HAD to be fixed. But guess what, $4 million wasn’t enough.
Finally, the less than $500,000 a year the city provides is for utilities, safe and clean, continued improvements, etc. Similar to fees they were paying before. Are you beginning to get it now?
Regarding the TIF money. The city has had TIF districts for developers for years. No one used them. 3CDC is using them for development. They are not “handouts”. They are tools for redevelopment that are turning this city around. I don’t know where you live, but I live downtown. I’ve seen the changes. It’s working. As more people move downtown, city tax revenues will increase. The city has benefited from the $45 million renovation which spawned another $50 million in development around the Square. There has been $70 million invested in OTR in the past few years. GET A CLUE!
Finally, who I am is not relevant to the fact that you are either a liar or ignorant. You decide.
01 Feb 2008 at 02:43 pm | #
anonymous/3CDCer, first, I have posted articles that prove that the city has given 3CDC tens of millions of dollars. You said they did not and are obviously grossly misinformed. Again, this is NOT THE FREE MARKET. Those are called government subsidies. The Fountain Square deal would be called a no bid contract.
Second, 3CDC’s plan fell with a thud. Whatever “revisions” were made there wasn’t much of a difference. If 3CDC was really interested in public input, they would’ve brought their “revised” plan back before the public for input or approval. They didn’t, instead they guarded it and brought it straight to council-which they’ve invested heavily in-to push it through.
Having been to many of 3CDC’s so called “public input” sessions I can tell you that the are not really interested in public input at all, they just want to say they got public input and move forward with their plans. I overheard a 3CDC employee telling the facilitator how he wanted to limit comments etc.
Since you claim to be so informed and I suppose you work in the Kroger building, why don’t you tell us how much the profits were from the garage. Do you have a number or did you just pull the word “hardly” from somewhere down south? Should we trust an anonymous troll with a smart mouth or the BC? I’ll go with the latter.
I know for a fact that there were profits. Please tell us how much more the profits are now that they raised the parking fees. You do understand that when you raise parking fees in a profitable garage you make more profits, right?
I know the garage had to be fixed and the city payed more than $4 million to have the garage fixed. Council gave away a revenue stream that was about $1 million a year. The city should’ve taken out the loan instead of corporatizing the garage and our public square.
The garage was redone and no money was spent on making it safer for the disabled. The garage is dangerous for them and even though Channel 5 reported on that fact, 3CDC hasn’t fixed it. It’s missing curb cuts, no mirrors, no proper signage and not enough handicapped spaces.
I also know that the city was paying $500,000 and the city will continue to pay that. My point is it’s not a good deal. The city payed a lot more than just the $4 million you claimed and we’ll continue to pay more in all the city owned parking garages thanks to this deal. You can ask Joe Grey if you don’t believe me. Are you beginning to get it now?
When the city gives out TIF money it is giving out handouts. It’s tax payer money that is given away to developers, again that’s not the FREE MARKET. They are being subsidised. I have decided that you are a ignorant.
01 Feb 2008 at 06:32 pm | #
First, quit quoting news stories to ‘prove’ your point. You criticize local media for being in 3CDCs pocket, then you try and use it when it suits you. In other words, you are contradicting yourself. Also, news stories don’t always get the facts straight. So as I’ve suggested, get off your lazy a**, go to City Hall, get all the records related to any deal with 3CDC, and THEN present your case.
Two, quit mixing issues. When 3CDC uses its own money to buy buildings for sale, THAT is a free market in action. If they make use of public funds in any way, shape or form, they do so within the guidelines for those funds. So your problem does not rest with 3CDC, it lies with how the city has allocated funds.
Three, the burden of proof lies with you. YOU are making the accusations. YOU do the leg work. But I doubt you will. You are too lazy - or too stupid - to do so.
You can’t deny this is working. I think that’s what really bothers you. You were wrong and can’t admit it. YOU DON’T GET IT.
01 Feb 2008 at 09:34 pm | #
anonymous, first, why should I quit using news stories to prove my point? I just proved you wrong with them and you won’t admit that I was right and you were wrong. 3CDC has gotten tens of millions of dollars in handouts and as I said, that is not the free market.
I have gone down to City Hall so I would not be grossly misinformed like you obviously are.
I have criticized the Enquirer for failing to report important details like the give away of 40 years of garage revenue and for writing glowing reviews of everything 3CDC plans to do or does without disclosing the fact that Maragaret Buchanan the president of the Enquirer is on 3CDC’s board. That’s a blatant conflict of interest.
Buchanan’s Enquirer never prints any comments from critics even when it involves safety concerns, like the dangerous garage they failed to make safe for the disabled.
If you were paying attention you would know that I used the Business Courier as a source since they have provided much more information about 3CDC’s schemes. That doesn’t mean that they don’t have a corporate bias also, just that they have given us more information.
You’re implying that they got something wrong without any evidence to support your position. The burden is on you and you obviously don’t have any idea what you’re talking about.
Second, I’m not mixing issues. I said, “the city of Cincinnati has given 3CDC tens of millions of dollars and they don’t have to abide by the same rules as everyone else. That is not what happens in A FREE MARKET.” And then I backed it up. I didn’t have to go to City Hall to do it and even if I had you would still be ranting without knowing what you’re talking about.
To recap for you, 3CDC is getting public funds for all of their projects and they get special deals from the city. THAT IS NOT THE FREE MARKET!
The problem rests with 3CDC and their failure to be honest and transparent. And with the city for allocating public funds to them and allowing them to act as our unaccountable planning department.
The best you can do is call me an ignorant liar that is lazy and stupid, but you have failed to prove anything you’ve really been arguing with me about. If that is all you are capable of doing then your comments aren’t really worth posting here.
Kevin, I know that the Department of City Planning was re-instated in Septmeber, but 3CDC still has more influence and actually controls things. That department hasn’t been fully funded the way that I think it should be. But thanks for the info anyway.
02 Feb 2008 at 02:09 am | #
Justin - where can you prove that the City has given 3CDC tens of millions of dollars? Every thing that I’ve read leads me to believe that you’re not even close on this one.
Its really hard to take anything you write seriously when so often your facts and arguments are so far off.
03 Feb 2008 at 07:22 pm | #
3CDC Mike, 3CDC’s Fountain Square deal alone has the city giving 3CDC tens of millions dollars, plus there are millions more going to them for the Gateway projects. You have failed to prove any of my facts wrong in any of our discussions. What are you talking about?