Hot News!
• Does Bortz Supportz Openness and Transparency? An open letter…
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
On today's date in The Beacon archives, we published:
•Orphans on meds and in therapy! (2008)•Commissioners Urge Comprehensive Approach to Safeguard Young Drivers (2008)
•U.S. Last in Halting Deaths by Preventable Disease (2008)
•Commissioners Require Full Disclosure, New Ethics Rules (2007)
•Moyers: For America’s Sake (2007)
•Report: Gates Foundation Causing Harm With the Same Money It Uses To Do Good (2007)
•January Monzel Report (2007)
•Anti-Wal-Mart Action Campaign for Fair Health Care (2006)
•We Don’t Need Another Hero: Reflections on Leadership (2006)
•Crossroads Community Church On CityLink (2006)
Events
 JANUARY 11 WOMEN’S MIDWINTER RETREAT 1:30 - 5 pm - Presented by: The Center Within Sisters of Charity Motherhouse, Mt. St. Joseph, situated on the hillside overlooking the Ohio River, offers us the beauty of winter. Winter is a time when the tree roots are growing in quiet hibernation, encouraging us as well to take time for prayer and inner reflection on the goodness and beauty of life within us. Come, join the circle of women on the journey of life during this midwinter season. We will together create sacred space, which includes: Song and Guided Prayer/ Reflection - Quiet Reflective time for Listening Within - Sharing our Stories (if you wish) - Celebrating our Lives Together in Ritual Led by: Kathleen Hartman Blackburn, Donna Steffen, SC, Mary Ann Humbert Held at: Rose Room at Sisters of Charity Motherhouse, 5900 Delhi Road, Mt. St. Joseph, OH 45051 - From River Road (50 West), turn Right onto Fairbanks, which becomes Delhi. Stay on Delhi until it deadends at the entrance to the Sisters of Charity Motherhouse. A parking lot is found just past the buildings. Use main entrance! Fee: $25. ($30. after Jan.3 (Mail Registration Below. Keep time, info, and directions. ) Checks/ Registration to: The Center Within, PO Box 6027, Cincinnati, OH 45206 Information: 513-751-3358, 513-681-8881, , http://www.TheCenterWithin.org |
JANUARY 19, 9 am - 4 pm ARTIN LUTHER KING JR. SERVICE FOR PEACE DAY
|
January 28 6 pm - 7:30 pm
|
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Hey Buildings and Inspections! Did you grant 3CDC a permit for that big sign?
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati
Dear Mr. Langevin,
I am writing in regards to Chapter 895 of the Cincinnati Municipal Code, specifically as it relates to 3CDC’s big screen TV on top of Macy’s.
Here is some language from Sec. 895-1-O, including rules for outdoor advertising signs:
“Outdoor Advertising Sign” means a sign or graphic image affixed to the ground or structure, visible from any street, highway or other public way or park, displaying a message or promoting goods, products, services, events, activities, ideas, opinions, and candidates for public office, except:
(a) Signs primarily intended to promote the sale of goods, products or services on the same premises as the sign. Provided, however, outdoor advertising sign shall include any sign promoting the sale of goods, products or services on the same premises as the sign but which are primarily intended to promote sale off premises.
(...)
(e) Public service signs devoted to providing information such as time, weather, or news. Provided, however, such signs shall not be used to advertise the sale of goods, products or services.
There are a number of things for which the 3CDC television has been used so far. It has advertised events happening on Fountain Square. However, this does not fall under the exception provided by 895-1-O (a), because the services being advertised are not on the same premises—namely, the Macy’s property.
The 3CDC television has also been used to show cable news, including commercials, which means it does not earn an exception to 895-1-O (e), because the sign is used to advertise the sale of goods, products or services whenever the news station moves to a commercial break.
In addition to those violations, I am wondering what permits have been granted for the construction of not only this big screen advertising sign, but also for the installation of speakers on Fountain Square—which amplify sound such as television commercials and which may be in violation of CMC 910-7.
What documentation does your office have on file regarding the permits for this big screen advertising sign? If your office has nothing on file, which means 3CDC might not have undergone a proper permitting process, what action are you prepared to take to address this potential violation?
Thank you, in advance, for your time and consideration. I am eager to study your response.
Respectfully,
The Dean of Cincinnati
• 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.
17 Jun 2007 at 09:01 am | #
Please ask about the Duke Energy Center and there streaming message center also! I looked on the EZ-Trac Website and I couldnt find anywhere they applied for a permit to put up there huge streaming message center which is lllegal according to the zoning code...There was even one time they applied for a sign permit and notes by one of the inspectors told them there was no permit needed. (Everyone else has to have a permit when they put any kind of sign up) (An ordinary business owner or private property could not stream this sign like Duke does) The Rules do not Apply to Everyone!
17 Jun 2007 at 10:11 am | #
You think you are so clever. Why don’t you wait for the response from B&I before posting this on your blog. You think you “got” 3CDC on this one, but you are wrong ONCE AGAIN. City Council passed a notwithstanding ordinance to allow this sign a couple years ago. Notwithstanding means that the sign can operate notwithstanding the CMC section you cited.
17 Jun 2007 at 10:13 am | #
I do not think I am clever. I have a section for letters. A reader left a concerned comment, so I am going to follow up. Why must I wait for a response to post. Why not post now, and later?
17 Jun 2007 at 10:20 am | #
BTW, if you know about this “notwithstanding ordinance,” why not link to it? I am not finding it at the information retrieval system at City Hall. I have searched the terms notwithstanding ordinance, and then tried all the following additions: 3CDC, Cincinnati Center City, Fountain Square Management, Macy’s, television, jumbotron, big screen.
I cannot find it.
Perhaps Langevin will write me back with a reference to the ordinance, or perhaps you will be so kind as to substantiate your claim.
17 Jun 2007 at 04:40 pm | #
Try searching for LED board. That’s what it is - not a jumbotron. Anyways, there is a notwithstanding ordinance. Looks like you missed out again. Good luck on your next try to “get” 3CDC.
17 Jun 2007 at 05:10 pm | #
Hey Mike, why does 3CDC pretend that the city only gave them $4 million for the square when we also gave them 40 years worth of garage revenue?
How much money do you think that will be?
We’re not trying to “get” 3CDC, we just are tired of them “getting” our money, our public spaces, lying about it and having no accountability what so ever. Private planning departments are for corporate dictatorships, not well governed democratic republics.
We don’t want blaring commercials on our public spaces. 3CDC needs to go!
17 Jun 2007 at 09:22 pm | #
Hey 4CDC - you state that first paragraph in every comment you make it seems. Let’s try and stick to the topic. I realize your opinions on the 4 mil vs. 40 years. That has nothing to do with permiting for the LED board.
I’d like to see The Beacon go after Dianetics just as hard. I doubt that will happen because it’s not about the issue of blaring noise in public spaces. It’s an attack on 3CDC.
The more I think about it, the more I appreciate these attacks. Each time they are disproved, which affirms to me that 3CDC has done right and actually does follow all the rules. Keep up the good work.
17 Jun 2007 at 09:37 pm | #
I would think a sign of this size would at least need to go through the planning commission before city council could approve an ordinance of this LED sign or Outdoor advertising sign (whichever you choose to call it) The people would have then been able to express their voices about a sign like this before it went up.. I dont think there is anything in the zoning code anywhere that allows a “JumboTron”
17 Jun 2007 at 09:58 pm | #
Anon (comment #2) is right. Council passed a not withstanding ordinance making B&I irrelvant. But Dean, this is why you are not a journalist and not worthy of being treated as such. You pull the trigger and then ask qestions later.
If you want to play the game at least learn the rules.
17 Jun 2007 at 10:16 pm | #
I think there are a select few the do not like the board. I truly think that a majority of the people actually think its really cool. Most of the people I talk to say they like it.
Try this for even more proof. If you go to the Square during any given time, most of the chairs are pointed in that direction because people are choosing to watch what’s up there.
18 Jun 2007 at 12:41 am | #
Hah!
Love the Dean, love the Beacon, but now there needs to be a followup headline that just says “Buildings and Inspections: Sign is Legal”.
18 Jun 2007 at 02:37 am | #
Com’on Anon, The citizens of Cincinnati, including the Dean, have every right to Question the Corporate take-over of Fountain Square, and why the profits from the Parking Garage
are going into the pockets of “3CDC” rather than into the general operating funds of the city, when we are closing clinics and swimming pools and fire stations in order to balance the budget.
Do you know who sits on the board of directors of “3CDC? You should check it out. The list of board members reads like a list of Who’s Who in Corporate Cincinnati. Most of the members are or have been CEO’s of most of the largest corporations operating out of Cincinnati. Some are related
to City Council members. Doesn’t that set off some alarms even in your head. Go DOC Go Someone needs to investigate
this. Vera Z
18 Jun 2007 at 05:54 am | #
I just took your advice. Nothing came up. Nothing for “board,” save something from years ago by Portune about truancy. Nothing for LED board, nothing for just LED.
Any new suggestions? Why is it so hard to link to this notwithstanding ordinance?
I have never said I am a journalist, and I continue to say that I am not a journalist. I am a media activist. I play by those rules.
Vera Z, the money for parking never went to the general fund. It went to the parking fund.
18 Jun 2007 at 05:57 am | #
I also just tried searching for a notwithstanding ordinance featuring “light emitting diode,” which is my best guess for what LED means after a few seconds of Googling, and nothing came up.
18 Jun 2007 at 06:00 am | #
Happy to do that. Next time I go downtown, I’ll go past the place to see for myself what’s going on. I am no fan of Dianetics!
18 Jun 2007 at 06:19 am | #
Maybe search for Macy’s Board or something of that nature. I do know that it’s an LED board though...Maybe call downtow the City and ask about the nothwithstanding. I doubt it would be in the permitting section...or better yet, call 3CDC and ask them.
18 Jun 2007 at 06:29 am | #
Nothing comes up with a search for Macy’s.
Email is easier than calling. I can do it on my own schedule, and document the responses.
Langevin is always forthcoming. 3CDC not so much so. If there is an ordinance, I will surely be sent how to find it and I will post the results here.
18 Jun 2007 at 09:49 am | #
"If you want to play the game at least learn the rules.”
3CDC/Mike, we know the rules. Give individual members of council $42,000 like the board members of 3CDC and you can make your own rules. You can even capture revenue streams and get money from the general funds to gentrify OTR. It pays to be a rich CEO and it pays even more to own council.
Oh, and Mike, why don’t you tell me how much the 40 years worth of our garage revenue will be? Come on, you work there or at least love to kiss their asses. If you or 3CDC will just give me an answer I’ll stop asking the question. Take a wild guess Mike, you’re so smart aren’t you?
How much did we citizens really pay for 3CDC to corporatize our public space? I’ll give you a hint, it’s more than $100 million.
Yeah Dean, Mike wants you to investigate anything but 3CDC, but dianetics doesn’t take our tax dollars or garage revenue so who really gives a shit about that?
18 Jun 2007 at 10:01 am | #
Who cares if there is a nonwithstanding ordinance or not… Would a regular business owner downtown be able to get a nonwithstanding ordinance passed for a “Changable Copy Sign” which is the technical name Cincinnati calls these in the zoning code.. It is absurd there was not some kind of a public hearing on this board before it went up.. And how do we know the sign even passes code if it didnt have to go through the inspections everyone else has to go through that puts one of these signs up. (which noone would ever be able to put a sign up like this anywhere downtown unless they are involved with the corportate elite or the 3cdc) There are also size regulations to these “changable copy signs” that everyone else has to abide by (except the 3cdc of course) In my oppinion if the 3cdc is able to put one of these up in a historic area such as fountain square.. Everyone else in Cincinnati should have the same right to do so to advertise their interests… Why didnt anyone in Historic Preservation oppose this sign? The answer is.....
They never knew it was going up! If 3cdc would have had to apply for a permit everyone that might have opposed it would have been notified and there would have been a public hearing.... The 3cdc can do what they want to do and are not held to the same standards as everyone else! There is no such thing as an LED in the zoning code… It is either classified as an outdoor advertising sign or a changable copy sign. City Council should not be bypassing the building dept for the 3cdc… They should have to file a building permit like everyone else does!
18 Jun 2007 at 10:04 am | #
§ 1427-03-C1. Changeable Copy Sign.
“Changeable Copy Sign” means a sign or portion thereof with characters, letters, or illustrations that can be changed or rearranged by mechanical, electronic or manual means.
(Ordained by Ord. No. 303-2006, § 1(Exh. A), eff. Nov. 25, 2006)
18 Jun 2007 at 10:06 am | #
§ 1427-03-R2. Roof Sign.
“Roof Sign” means a sign erected on or above the roofline of a building or structure.
(Ordained by Ord. No. 303-2006, § 1(Exh. A), eff. Nov. 25, 2006)
Roof Signs are also not allowed for the “average” citizen
18 Jun 2007 at 10:08 am | #
§ 1427-09. Prohibited Sign Types, Locations, and Message.
The following signs, sign types, sign locations, and sign messages are prohibited:
(a) In any public park or on any public property without the permission of the City of Cincinnati.
(b) On any traffic control sign, utility pole, street sign, or tree.
(c) In any location where the view of approaching or intersecting traffic would be obstructed. A sign may not be located so as to interfere with the safe movement of vehicles or pedestrians entering, leaving, or crossing a public right-of-way.
(d) A sign affixed to a vehicle or trailer, unless the vehicle or trailer is used in ordinary course of business for the transportation of persons or materials and not for the primary purpose of advertising.
(e) On any property without prior authorization granted by the property owner on which any sign is displayed.
(f) Moving, flashing or animated signs, balloons, gas inflated signs or similar inflated signs, portable signs, searchlights, streamers, spinners, flags (other than those specifically permitted herein), outdoor image projections (signs projected from an external light source onto a building or structure) or any other similar devices.
(g) Roof Signs.
(Ordained by Ord. No. 303-2006, § 1(Exh. A), eff. Nov. 25, 2006)
No Roof Signs unless you are the 3cdc!!!!
18 Jun 2007 at 10:11 am | #
Sec. 895-5. Construction of Signs.
No person shall construct an outdoor advertising sign:
(a) As a roof sign.
(b) Within 200 feet in any direction of any school or hospital other than advertising benches located within 50 feet of a bus stop sign.
(c) As a double-faced, side-by-side, stacked, or decked sign, with a combined sign face area of more than 150 square feet.
(d) With a face area greater than 672 square feet inclusive of any border and trim, but excluding the base or apron, cutouts, supports and other structural members.
(e) Closer to the street than the building set-back line, except for advertising benches, and no portion of any outdoor advertising sign may be placed on, or extend over the right- of-way line of any street or highway.
(f) On any publicly-owned real property without permission.
(g) In any park, parkway, or playground under the jurisdiction of the board of park commissioners or the recreation commission, the establishment of which has been authorized by council, or within 200 feet in any direction of the boundary of any such park, parkway or playground, except advertising benches located within 50 feet of a bus stop sign.
(h) As a ground sign more than 40 feet above the grade of the lot or location being occupied by such sign, or the average natural grade at the sign location, if higher. Provided, however, in the instance of a street or highway which is higher than the grade of the lot or location to be occupied by the sign, the height shall be measured from the center line of the pavement at such location, but in no event shall the maximum height exceed 40 feet.
The provisions of this section shall not apply to signs lawfully constructed prior to March 25, 1989.
(C.M.C. 895-5; ordained by Ord. No. 65-1989, eff. Mar. 25, 1989; a. Ord. No. 384-1991, eff. Oct. 18, 1991; a. Ord. No. 186-1996, eff. June 12, 1996)
No Outdoor Advertising Roof Signs..... Unless you are the 3cdc!!!!!!!
18 Jun 2007 at 10:17 am | #
§ 1427-31. Signs in Historic Districts or on Landmarks
Signs in historic districts or on historic landmarks require obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness and shall be in conformance with any applicable guidelines for the district. See Chapter 1435 Historic Landmarks and Districts.
(Ordained by Ord. No. 303-2006, § 1(Exh. A), eff. Nov. 25, 2006)
18 Jun 2007 at 10:23 am | #
Even if the Dean finally does find this notwithstanding ordinance, the big-screen TV is a bad idea. How much is person-to-person interaction reduced in any home when the TV is on? The TV interferes with the public enjoyment of the space. I can watch TV at home. Now, if I meet someone that I want to talk to in Fifth Third Plaza (formerly known as Fountain Square), we have to talk above the TV.
18 Jun 2007 at 10:28 am | #
I would say this LED AKA Changable Copy Sign or Outdoor Advertising sign (whichever it would be classified as is bigger then the sign Regulation for regular people of 24 square feet wouldn’t you????? Its ok if you are the 3cdc though!(It is even a Regulation for Public and Semi Public Organizations) Is the 3cdc classified as a public or semi public institution or are they classified as “Private” Who the hell knows! Dean please review all of these sign regulations and exemptions and go to the municipal code online… They have exemptions for public institutions to all of these rules.. I dont know what 3cdc would be classified as though…
Entry Feature Sign Identification Sign for Non-Residential Principal Uses in SF and RM
Districts Changeable Copy Sign for Public and Semi-Public Uses Home
Occupation
Sign Sandwich Board Signs for Principal Non-Residential Uses
Sign Types
Permitted Ground or Wall only Ground or Wall only Ground or Wall only Wall or Window only N/A
Maximum Area Per Sign Face 1 square foot per dwelling unit or 1 square foot per commercial tenant up to 25 square feet 24 square feet for public and semi-public uses; 12 square feet for all other non-residential uses 20 square feet 2 square feet 6 square feet
Maximum Number of Sign Faces 1 2 2 1 2
Maximum Number of Signs One sign for every intersection between a subdivision or planned development interior street and a pre-existing perimeter street or along the street frontage of a multi-family development One per building One per site One per dwelling unit that has an existing and permitted home occupation use One per business establishment
Maximum Sign
Height 6 feet 6 feet 6 feet The ground or first floor only unless a use is located in the second floor or higher of a building and has no first floor occupancy 3 feet
Maximum Sign
Width 12 feet 12 feet 10 feet None 2 feet
Minimum Sign
Setback Twice the proposed sign height for a ground sign. None for a wall sign. Twice the proposed sign height for a ground sign. None for a wall sign. Twice the proposed sign height for a ground sign. None for a wall sign. None N/A
Illumination
Permitted External only External only External or Internal None None
GRAPHIC LINK:Figure 1427-33 Examples of Entry Feature Signs
(Ordained by Ord. No. 303-2006, § 1(Exh. A), eff. Nov. 25, 2006)
18 Jun 2007 at 10:40 am | #
Here’s the link to the notwitstanding ordinance. Note, the permits still have to be be issued by B&I. The ordiance simply says that B&I can make an exception in this case.
http://city-egov.cincinnati-oh.gov/Webtop/ws/council/public/documents/Record?rpp=10&upp=0&m=1&w=NATIVE('DOC_DESCRIPT+ph+words+''LED''')&order=native('doc_no/Descend')
For future reference, I found this by going to http://city-egov.cincinnati-oh.gov/Webtop/ws/council/public/documents/SearchForm and searching LED.
18 Jun 2007 at 06:00 pm | #
I knew it was LED
By the way, the LED board has always been a part of the project, even from the very early renderings. The Historic Preservation Board has always known about it as well as the public.
I will agree with Mr. Patton that I don’t like the fact that it’s always showing TV. I thought the purpose was to promote the region. I would like to see more of this. I don’t know what that would like, but I know it wouldn’t be Comedy Central
18 Jun 2007 at 09:05 pm | #
"By the way, the LED board has always been a part of the project, even from the very early renderings. The Historic Preservation Board has always known about it as well as the public.”
Mike, you know the Historic Presevation Board and the public opposed moving our Fountain from it’s famous location. The water feature on the corner of Vine and 5th was supposed to help fill the void, but plans were changed, just like when 3CDC took over the permitting process. We’ve been lied to over and over.
18 Jun 2007 at 10:02 pm | #
Mike is right. The LED board was part of the renderings which were shown to the public at numerous meetings when this project was first envisioned. I am curious did any of the bloggers here upset by 3CDC ever participate in these numerous meetings? Or did they get upset at 3CDC only later after the project received approval and started construction? The reason I ask this, is because I remember distinctly that 3CDC made a very concerted effort to reach out to the public and many other groups to get buy-in on the design of the square. I think they reached out to hundreds of citizens(if not more)on this.
4CDC - If you are going to talk about the revenues from the garage don’t forget that 3CDC paid $7.5 million to the City for the lease of the garage. A couple concepts to think about 1) you need to use net present value of future cash flows, 2) net revenues are different than gross revenues, 3) the garage has operating costs and capital repair costs like the $3 million the City was already planning to invest in the garage to make basically minor but needed repairs; and 4) (this is more for Vera Z) net proceeds from the garage go to paying off the debt used to finance a portion of the $40+ million investment on the square and the garage as well as for capital replacement and repair of the garage in order to continue to maintain and protect the City’s asset (NOTE: this means that the net proceeds do NOT go into the “pockets of 3CDC")
Dean - Lastly I have been reading your site for several months now and generally you DO act like you are so clever and you constantly jump to conclusions and big conspiracy theories to prove your case. I am glad you say you are a media activist rather than a journalist because your bias is so very clear. What I find sort of funny is how you are so wrong in so many of your assumptions. However, what is not funny is how your incorrect assumptions mislead other people who read this site. You should post a new headline on your main page to clear this issue up in my opinion. Now that would be responsible “media activism”.
18 Jun 2007 at 10:10 pm | #
That water feature was taken out of the project because of cost. You complain all the time about money. I would think that this is something you’d be in favor of. I’m sure there were tons more items that never made it through the process. That’s why there is a process. Plus, it’d be absolutely stupid to have a water feature on the corner and encourage kids to play at the intersection of 5th & Vine. Real good idea.
By the way, the Fountain had been moved before so there really wasn’t anything sacred about that spot. It’s in a much better place now...but this is about the LED board anyways. Once again, lets stick to the topic.
And of course it turns out that 3CDC followed the rules, didn’t lie to anyone about the board, had always planned on it, executed it, got a permit, and even took it to Council for approval.
By the way, 4CDC sounds like you’re “for” 3cdc...as in in favor of them. I kind of like that name.
19 Jun 2007 at 01:05 am | #
JoDo, The official classification for 3CDC is “Non-profit Corporation. Vera Z
19 Jun 2007 at 06:40 am | #
I never gave the LED board much critical thought until, as explained in another recent thread on this site, I read the rules for submitting content. The application really emphasizes that the LED board does not constitute “public access.”
That got me thinking about public versus private spaces. And I thought—well, the board is on private property, so the public should not expect public access to it.
Then, I realized the speakers have been installed on metal poles all over Fountain Square, which is my public property. Maybe the initial renderings had pictures of small speakers on poles, but I never noticed.
Anyway, on that strand, someone started posting about the Outdoor Advertising Sign issue. So I thought I’d ask Langevin himself. It looks, now, like Langevin gave 3CDC a notwithstanding ordinance—and really that seems to raise more questions than it answers.
What inspections, if any, did the board undergo? Is it fair that a large and powerful corporation like 3CDC can just have the rules changed for them so easily?
Why should I announce my bias? It is completely obvious to anyone who knows how to read, and if that doesn’t work I let you post your comments.
Lastly, Anon #30, you’re not entirely accurate about the garage money. Yes, they paid 7.5 million into the City’s parking budget. But they were paid $4 million from the City. So in terms of overall dollars, 3.5 million enters the City from 3CDC.
The money was placed in the parking fund to offset the hit to the City’s overall parking system given a loss of the FSQ revenue for 40 years. This loss will equate to system-wide parking increases as the $7.5 million dries up.
Overall profits pay down the garage debt. But how much do they pay themselves in the process for the next 40 years?
And what will the state of Cincinnati politics be when I’m 72 years old and this deal allegedly ends? Does our City have a history of remembering the history of things?
19 Jun 2007 at 11:23 am | #
Hey Dean of Cincinnat, I hate to tell you this, but Fountain
Square ceased to be public property when City Council allowed
it to be leased by 3CDC. Part of the deal was that 3CDC would
not only refurbish the Square, but would maintain and manage it for the duration of the lease, (the next 40 years?). Fountain Square has been, I’m afraid, effectively “Corporatized”. I don’t like it any more than you do, but 3CDC officially manages Fountain Square. Fountain Square is no longer a part of the “Commons”. 3CDC became the “deciders”
while we were looking the other way.
On the other hand, it should still be subject to building codes and noise restrictions, like any other downtown business
or Corporation.
19 Jun 2007 at 02:30 pm | #
Non-WithStanding Ordinance= We City Council would not grant this for anyone else and could not grant this for anyone else the proper way, yet you the 3cdc are not ordinary people and therefore we give you “special” rights to do whatever you want because you are the 3cdc. However if we grant this do not make a big deal about this nonwithstanding ordinance because we dont want anyone to know we did this and B and I would not and will not ever be able to grant such a request! Imagine if one of the Mom and Pop Stores in Over the Rhine wanted to put up a rooftop JumboTron on their building… Think they would be able to take the same route and have it granted in such a manner? I dont think so… they would be held up and forced to spend hundreds and thousands of dollars in appeals or variance hearings and the final answer would be Denied!
19 Jun 2007 at 05:07 pm | #
Anon/3CDC troll, if you were to be honest you would tell the truth, which is when 3CDC took their crappy plan to the public it fell with a “thud” according to the “liberal” Business Courier. That’s why city clowncil asked that they bring it straight to them and they rammed it through in a hurry without any public hearings. The group that raised the $3 million to have the fountain redone in 2001 weren’t happy and as I said earlier, neither was the Historic Preservation Board or the rest of the public. Instead of public “buy-in”, the public was sold out!
And further more, those so called “rap sessions” about OTR were complete BS. They actually asked for input before they showed us their plans in the first one. Then they made a concerted effort to keep public comments to a minimum.
The city gave them $4 million right back. If I give you $7.50 and you give me $4 back, how much money are you left with? (hint: $3.50)
In reality they gave the city $3.5 million and were given an annual revenue stream worth at least $100 million, but don’t take my word for it, just ask 3CDC what their estimated revenue will be with higher parking rates and inflation over that period. Just kidding, don’t waste your time becuase they say it’s “private information”.
Keep in mind 3CDC kept the elevator near the Westin out of the deal. They’re only interested in privatizing revenue and not costs or liabilities.
Index for inflation at a conservative 2% per year with the $1.8 million that was estimated in the Business Courier, grows to $3.8 million in year 40. For a total of $110,898,041 over the 40 year period. That’s a lot of lost revenue for the people of Cincinnati and certainly more than $4 million we were told about.
That doesn’t consider any parking rate increase which we’ve already seen. That’s one hell of a deal, don’t you think? At least for the CEOs that own our politicians anyway.
19 Jun 2007 at 11:03 pm | #
4CDC - Nice math, but once again a couple concepts to think about:
1) you need to use net present value of future cash flows, 2) net revenues are different than gross revenues, 3) the garage has operating costs and capital repair costs like the $3 million the City was already planning to invest in the garage to make basically minor but needed repairs; and 4) net proceeds from the garage go to paying off the debt used to finance a portion of the $40+ million investment on the square and the garage as well as for capital replacement and repair of the garage in order to continue to maintain and protect the City’s asset
Your math still does NOT take into consideration the points above.
As for the $4 million contribution, if the City was planning to put $3 million into garage repairs anyway, the fact they gave $4 million and got a $40 million development out of it including the square is quite a bargin. That figure doesn’t even include all of the investment to the buildings surrounding the square. When you present your math you exclude these facts only providing an incomplete picture.
By the way, what parking rate increase are you refering to?
Vera Z. - Fountain Square itself is still public and has not been leased to 3CDC for 40 years. Please get your facts straight.
20 Jun 2007 at 06:17 am | #
4CDC - do you have a saved list of comments somewhere on your hard drive? That way you can copy and paste them over and over and over again. You say the same thing all the time. How ‘bout sticking to the topic, leaving OTR to the discussions pertinent to OTR, and actually having an intelligent debate? Here’s one of your favorite lines..."When 3CDC took their plan to the public it fell with a “thud.”
20 Jun 2007 at 09:54 am | #
Sorry Anon, I could be wrong about the number of years the lease was for, I’ll try to get that information and post it. I do know, however that with that lease of more than 30 years, 3CDC, a private corporation, was given the authority to decide
what activities or what events may or may not be allowed to take place there. They make the rules. The Square is open to
the public only because they decided it should be. As long as
they hold the lease, it is not public domain.
You are free to correct me if you can prove me wrong.
Vera Z
20 Jun 2007 at 01:23 pm | #
Vera Z, you are correct. It is a 40 year lease on our square and garage.
anon, please get your facts straight before you try to correct Vera Z. She obviously pays more attention than you.
20 Jun 2007 at 09:31 pm | #
Anon2,
I obviously pay more attention than you! It is not a 40 year lease on the Square. It is a five year management agreement. There is a 40 year (or less) lease on the garage and there is also a 40 year (or less) air rights lease which is solely on the space occupied by the garage entrance/exits, bathrooms and other garage related things that stick “above ground”.
The Square is and will remain a public space. See link for some documentation:
http://city-egov.cincinnati-oh.gov/Webtop/ws/council/public/child/Blob/18610.pdf?rpp=-10&m=1&w=doc_no='200600703'
My facts are straight and therefore I didn’t “try to correct Vera Z."… I did correct her (and you).
20 Jun 2007 at 11:35 pm | #
Any word from Langevin yet? I think the dean should keep going at this strong
21 Jun 2007 at 10:40 am | #
Update:
http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com/index.php/content/comments/3cdc_and_city_councils_idea_of_an_emergency/
21 Jun 2007 at 01:33 pm | #
Anon, your link doesn’t work so I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Are you saying that after the 5 years are up the city will be doing the permiting process again?
Everything I have seen says that 3CDC will be managing things for the term of the lease which is 40 years. I still need to see some proof from you so please try to link again.
Thanks!
21 Jun 2007 at 05:09 pm | #
Anon2,
Sorry about the link. Use this http://city-egov.cincinnati-oh.gov/Webtop/ws/council/public/documents/Record?rpp=10&upp=0&m=6&w=NATIVE('DOC_DESCRIPT+ph+words+''fountain+square''')&order=native('doc_no/Descend')
Then click on get documents and read the transmittal.
21 Jun 2007 at 05:21 pm | #
anon, it still doesn’t work. If you copy the link and the click on the <a> it will let you put it into word. I think it just might be too long is the problem.
Thanks
21 Jun 2007 at 08:29 pm | #
OK, try this. Use one of the bad links above and when it takes you to the error page click on the Search Items button and then enter item #200600703. Then click on documents and read the transmittal.
21 Jun 2007 at 08:51 pm | #
Dean,
Thankyou for starting this up and it is very “Shocking” how they even admitted in this ordinance that it isnt something that is allowed by the code yet they went ahead and did it for the 3cdc anyway.. And regardless what Anon has to say something shouldnt be used as an emergency unless it is truely an emergency! City Council thinks they can get away with murder and alot of the time they do.. When you are on their side it is nice to have such corrupt friends, but when you are not they can make your life a living hell with their draconian law they have written up in the municipal and zoning code! I hope the Dean continues to go after this issue! The same rules need to be applied to everyone even if you are the 3cdc… and if city council wants to make something “withstanding” they should make the same issue “withstanding” to everyone that makes the same request after the fact!
21 Jun 2007 at 09:12 pm | #
An emergency ordinance is really just a procedural legal thing. It means that an ordinance will take effect immediately after passage rather than waiting 30 days to be on the books. An ordinance that is not an emergency does not get any more or any less scrutiny than an emergency ordinance since they both are required to go through the committee process (unless City Council suspends the rules which is actually more rare under this Mayor and City Council) In fact with an emergency ordinance there is one more role call vote of City Council involved so I would imagine it is more of a hassle for them.
Let me explain it this way. Can you imagine if a company made a business decision and then had to wait 30 days before they could implement the decision? That would not make practical sense. With the “emergency” clause all it means is that the ordinance takes effect without delay.
21 Jun 2007 at 10:01 pm | #
To put this discussion back into perspective we’re talking about a big TV on top of a building that you can choose to not look at if you don’t want to.
21 Jun 2007 at 11:27 pm | #
Hey Dean O’C’, I would like to add my thanks to Jodo’s. This is a topic that deserves/needs further investigation. I’m not
just talking about the LED board but about City Council’s practice of showing favoritism to Corporations and their CEO’s
over the years. For example the Millions of Dollars paid to
Lazaurus, who later sold out to Macy’s; the millions of dollars given to Kroger to build their garage and condminiums;
and Dean, I wish you or someone on your staff would check out
Who is now sitting on the Board of Directors of 3CDC.
By the way Anon, I tried both your links and all I got was an Error message each time.
Anytime I try to get information from or about 3CDC I have trouble connecting. Is there something they are trying to hide? Vera Z
22 Jun 2007 at 06:23 am | #
To put this discussion into proper perspective, we’re talking about corporations getting special favors from City Hall.
22 Jun 2007 at 08:05 am | #
We are also talking about the code being bent by favoritism to the corporations and well connected and the code being used to the T against any non connected person that attempts to do something and also the code being twisted and broken by city council themselves by simply using the words “NonWithStanding” Instead of typing the word LED into the database looking for this ordinance I think maybe we should type “Nonwithstanding” to study other ways this powerful and sometimes illegal word is being used as well!
22 Jun 2007 at 03:46 pm | #
Jodo and the Dean are correct. It is about the unequal protection and application of laws and authority. It is about the manner that the City of Cincinnati uses their authority. How can anyone of morals respect the City of Cincinnati’s administration or elected officials or even the people of Cincinnati. The authority that is misused comes from the people and while the people can delegate authority, they cannot delegate responsibility.
When I was reading the ordinances posted by Jodo, I could not help to wonder how the public can accept all of the restrictions of these ordinances without concern for the liberty that they proclaim to be so important in America. The City of Cincinnati doesn’t even try to hide its disdain for liberty. I find it ironic that they have even a street called liberty. And “zoning laws” are nothing more than property theft under color of law.
I don’t really care what laws this city passes, withstanding or not withstanding; I have no respect for this city or its laws.
Dieter
22 Jun 2007 at 05:32 pm | #
Mike, that’s a good idea. If you read the truth enough you might start to believe it, unless you really work for 3CDC like I think you do. Please stop pretending that they had any public support for what they’ve done to our square and that they aren’t going to make huge $$$ off of our garage revenue and I’ll stop correcting you.
To put this in perspective for you, you can’t help but hear the blaring commercials that now invade our public space. It’s bad enough 3CDC stole our garage revenue, but stealing our peace and quiet is really a giant load of horse shit.
3CDC has got to go!
23 Jun 2007 at 04:10 pm | #
Vera Z,
OK, try this. Use one of the bad links above and when it takes you to the error page click on the Search Items button and then enter item #200600703. Then click on documents and read the transmittal.
After reading that it is clear that the management agreement lasts 5 years and it is not a lease.
23 Jun 2007 at 11:42 pm | #
4CDC - how can they make tons of $$$ of the garage if they’re a non-profit?
Whoever commented as a 5/3rd employee is right. They don’t have blaring TV anymore. Alot of times on the square you can’t even hear the speakers.
By the way, you’re in the middle of a bustling city...there is no peace and quiet.
24 Jun 2007 at 01:14 am | #
OK Anon, I admit it I was wrong. 3CDC did enter into a 5 year management agreement with the city, including the taking over of the permit process; But… What happens at the end of the 5
years? Why did they find it necessary to have a 40 year lease? It seems like they’re in it for the long haul.
Who is 3CDC anyhow? How did they get to take over the re-
developing of Fountain Square? They did not exist as a corporation until July of 2003. Vera Z.
24 Jun 2007 at 10:58 am | #
Mike, 5/3’s CEO is on 3CDC’s board and has loans and can refinance whenever and as many times as they want without any public oversight. People get salaries and $100 million that would’ve gone towards the parking fund has been diverted to them to spend on whatever they want. The public’s not allowed to know where our money went.
They still have commercials being played out of speakers. I went down to see a friends band play on Friday and it was cancelled because of weather. It was a beautiful night though. It reminded me of how the old stage was much bigger and partially covered. The new stage sucks and the sound has horrible echo’s. 3CDC really screwed things up.
Fountain Square used to be peaceful and quiet. I went down there all the time. The city ain’t that bustling. There’s some car noise but it’s not as loud as blaring commercials.
25 Jun 2007 at 07:49 am | #
FYI- 3cdc was created in July of 2003. It was recommended by The Cincinnati Economic Development Task Force to increase the
effectiveness and efficiency of development activities in the city. Can anyone out there tell me Why that Task Force was formed and who was on it? I just got off the 3cdc web site where I was trying to get an updated list of the 3cdc board of directors but to all of my questions, with the exception of a brief mission statement all I got from my search was “Information not found”. It does seem to me also that they are trying to hide something from the public Vera Z
25 Jun 2007 at 08:12 pm | #
Vera Z,
It was Mayor Luken’s taskforce co-chaired by Valerie Lemmie (City Manager) and George Shaffer (5/3rd CEO). The taskforce made many recommendations which were implemented to make the City more efficient and effective in its development activities. The task force was formed because there was a perception that the City was doing a bad job with development.
One of their other recommendations was the One-stop Business Development and Permiting Center. The One-stop benefits anyone who needs a permit from a mom and pop shop to a homeowner to 3CDC.
I think that the reason 3CDC has a Board of Directors from the business community is because the business community actually cares about the vibrancy of the City and wanted to invest their money to ensure that it is vibrant. The seed money from 3CDC was funded by the private sector. Also, the private sector continues to invest money in 3CDC projects.
As for the 40 year GARAGE lease issue, in order to sell debt to fund the project they needed to be able to control the garage for that period of time. So it was a legal, financial thing. If the City no longer wants 3CDC to operate the square (different then the garage) after 5 years. The City can end its management agreement.
4CDC,
Sure 3CDC can use garage revenues to cover a portion of salaries related to running the garage and Fountain Square, because that is what the City did in the past… used garage revenues to pay City salaries to run the garage. What a concept!
26 Jun 2007 at 01:40 am | #
Thanks, Anon. I do think it’s strange that George Schaefer, CEO of Fifth Third Bank, who was appointed Co-chair of this Task Force, was also on the Board of Directors of 3CDC. The Fifth Third Bank is located, as you know, on Fountain Square. The Task Force was responsible for the creation of 3CDC, Conflict of Interest, maybe? Vera Z
27 Jun 2007 at 07:58 pm | #
The BOD of 3cdc and family contributed over $100,000 to council elections in 2005.
The money only flows through 3cdc. it goes to George Shaffer (5/3 CEO) and his savvy friends.
27 Jun 2007 at 10:04 pm | #
standard procedure for filing a permit
27 Jun 2007 at 10:24 pm | #
This is what 3cdc board of directors payed to purchase the people we elect to protect our interests. WAKE UP!
2005
Berding....$36060
Cranley....$19300
Malone.....$14950
Monzel.....$13125
Bortz......$10100
Ghiz........$7850
Eby.........$5000
Crowley.....$4375
Cole........$3900
Tarbell.....$3250
$117910
2003
Dewine.....$21300
Ghiz........$9250
Cole........$1000
Crowley.....$ 250
Cranley....$24000
Connelly....$3000
Tarbell.....$4050
Pepper.....$18450
Monzel.....$23000
Trauth.....$19000
Reece.......$3300
Witte.......$3000
Malone......$8700
$138300
14 Jul 2007 at 11:26 pm | #
Whenever there is a sweetheart deal cut, as it seems one has been cut here, it’s always almost impossible to cover all the tracks, dot all the “i"s and cross all the “t"s. The law is generally unkind to those who would skirt it.
One of the reasons for the inspection permit process is to advise the city of improvements to real estate so that property taxes can be raised or lowered according to improvements or dis-improvements.
Generally, I have noted the appraisal on new or additional construction matches the amount expended for such improvements, and often a plus factor that considers the commercial usage of any such improvement. The whole appraisal business is a black art, if that’s not now a socially unacceptible expression.
Cincinnati Dean likely has uncovered a rather substantial pot of gold for the city’s coffers when Macy’s (or the owner of the real estate involved with Macy’s) is required to annually pay the increased property tax that is wholly due for this substantial bit of newly appraisable real estate.
Given the nature of the obvious intent to bestow from well within a sweetheart deal upon 3CDC yet again, one has to wonder about the financial arrangements made between 3CDC, the owner of the Macy’s property, and if the finacial arragement is even enough to cover the increased property tax costs?
The first required bit of investigative information here is the address of the building so it can be looked up on the County Auditor’s site to determine the owner. And then there must be a way to see if the property taxes have been raised timely and proportional to this new construction.
The Hamilton County Auditor, Dusty Rhodes, is a fine and excellent man. And I’m sure he’d be willing to help out if anyone gets stuck wondering where the information is hidden.
Don Robertson, The American Philosopher
15 Jul 2007 at 04:21 am | #
FYI Capital and Operating Funding for 3CDC Projects.
The City of Cincinnati has commited to invest $100,000,000 over five years to support Center City Plan projects. {begining in 2003} This amount $20,000,000 is consistent with the city’s annual capital investments in city development projects. Funds will primarily come from Downtown and Over- The-Rhine Tax increment financing {TIF}districts. In addition
Over-The-Rhine eligible for Empowerment Zone Funds and Federal
Community Development Block Grants.
The private sector will create The Center City Development Fund, with the goal of raising $50 million in private sector capital to help fund Center City projects.
In the meantime, at least through 2008, We the People of Cincinnati, are paying 3CDC $20 million per year while our basic services go begging. And who knows what will happen
in 2008. Will we continue to pay for another 5years?
15 Jul 2007 at 03:31 pm | #
Well this is all very interesting indeed.
If Macy’s, is “Federated Department Stores” at 7 WEST SEVENTH ST - CINCINNATI, OH 45202, then they apparently don’t pay any property tax.
The building is apparently owned by “SEVEN WEST SEVENTH INC” but the tax bill, which apparently goes unpaid is sent to “Federated Department Stores”.
Neither do I see any appreciable increase in the property’s assessment between 2006-2007 this despite the absence of any payments made upon this parcel.
Does the City of Cincinnati allow this enterprise to exist property tax free? Apparently.
I’m not that familiar with Macy’s, or the big board, so someone will have to check it out who is. There is a picture of the building on the Auditor’s site, so one can verify what I found and perhaps add some enlightment as to what the deal is here?
http://www.hamiltoncountyauditor.org/realestate/
Don Robertson, The American Philosopher
16 Jul 2007 at 02:38 am | #
Hey Mr Robertson,
I remember when Macy’s was Shilito’s and was located on the corner of Seventh and Race Streets. Then it was sold to Lazarus, who conned City Council into giving them money; the millions of dollars to move to 5th and Vine. Then Lazarus
somehow consolidated with Federated Department Stores, which also owned Macy’s in New York. I’m not sure how it became Macy’s or why they are not paying taxes. If anyone out there can unravel this mystery I would like to know as well. Thanx
Vera Z.
16 Jul 2007 at 03:25 pm | #
The problems with any policy that gives to any business such perks as a pass on real estate taxes are that 1) it requires every other taxpayer to shoulder the burden of this enterprise, and 2) it makes the city uncompetitive for any similar business trying to compete with that enterprise.
The effect of such a policy amounts to nothing less than giving Macy’s the potential to locally monopolize because it excludes by making uncompetitive all other similar businesses. Competitors are essentially asked to pay a part of Macy’s share of the property tax, and as such, they too will ask for similar perks.
The real miscarriage of governance here isn’t so much the perk, it’s that Federated Department Stores is not a local company. Profits are being siphened out of Cincinnati by this company and this Cincinnati money is then sent to NYC’s economy.
This is a wholesale waste of what little economic incentive money Cincinnati has to spend.
This ill-conceived strategy is a common enough mistake, however, as all too many municiaplities waste countless millions of taxpayer dollars attempting by a bidding war of economically suicidal proffers to attract businesses into their economy.
It’s a waste because this misguided emphasis overlooks the baby in the bathwater of local entrepreneurs who will keep the money circulating in the local enonomy, and who will also keep in the local economy their best paying jobs and talent.
Don Robertson, The American Philosopher
16 Jul 2007 at 09:57 pm | #
Hey, we have kind of wandered off the subject; or have we? I guess the sign atop Macy’s is an example of the favortism of coporate interests over the needs of the people of Cincinnati.
This has been going on for so long that we have come to accept
it as “Politics as usual”.
From the stadium, to Federated Department Stores, to the Kroger garage on Vine Street, to Macy’s, to 3CDC; we contiue to throw money at large corporations by the millions and withhold funding for the most basic needs and necessary programs in our neighborhoods. How can we change this? There
is an election coming up this November> Think about who you are voting for, what you are voting for: Politics as usual or real change. Cast your vote/s for the people of Cincinnati.
16 Jul 2007 at 10:32 pm | #
We’re all reading about the escalating depth of the bubble in real estate.
The problems that have spawned the bubble have been exacerbated by four trends, 1) the rise in interest rates due to a decline in the availability of investment capital, 2) an insincere, even fraudulent, looking-for-a-government-bail-out attitude of the financially strapped CDO (commercial debt obligations) community, 3) an under estimation of the demographic problem that the parents of the baby boomers (85 and up) who still own a significant portion of real estate in this country, real estate that is coming on the market with increasing rapidity due to the final arbiter of life’s great gifts.
And finally, 4) property taxes that are escalating, and will continue to escalate for at least the next fifteen years, far faster than inflation whether or not real incomes continue to decline as they are projected to do.
The biggest problem is clearly property taxes. The property tax problem is by far the most formidable. With some pain, everything else can be handled by the free and open marketplace. All levels of government, however, simply must get their financial houses in order to reduce the burden of property taxes upon the fiscal assets of every community.
The problem with property taxes rising as they are, and as few realize, is that at some point, if property taxes get high enough, which is where they are heading, real estate simply has no value at all.
Some might say, that’s impossible. Everyone has to live somewhere! But the phenomenon is exactly what happened during the Great Depression when governments were modest in comparison to the size they are today.
We’ve all heard stories of real estate being giving up to property taxes during the depression. We all also always assumed it was because the owners couldn’t afford their property taxes. The truth however, was that the property taxes were so high, the property wasn’t worth hanging onto any longer.
Here’s a list from a small midwest lender, Indymac, that apparently doesn’t focus on Cincinnati, but it’s a good sampling. Note in this list the range of property valuations.
http://apps.indymacbank.com/Individuals/Realestate/listings.asp?PType=ALL&City=&State=ALL&Zip=&BedroomMin=0&BedroomMax=NOMAX&BathroomMin=0&BathroomMax=NOMAX&PriceMin=0&PriceMax=NOMAX&submit1=SEARCH+CRITERIA+::
Quite remarkably, these are all foreclosed properties and they appear to lean toward the higher end of real estate marketplace valuations. Now, consider, as you’ve looked at the list of these properties, how much are the property taxes on those higher-end properties?
That’s the problem in a nutshell.
It’s why what we’re seeing here discovered in this comment thread is so discouraging. Finding the unbelievable example we’ve found here, is like seeing gasoline poured on the fire that is burning down Cincinnati.
Don Robertson, The American Philosopher