The Dubliner restaurant has become a cherished Cincinnati institution and a centerpiece in the community.  But its struggle to stay open is representative of the challenges faced by small business owners in an environment dominated by changing demographics and profit-driven corporations.

One locally-owned Irish restaurant has been a landmark and focal point a small part of the Cincinnati community since the day it opened its doors.  The Dubliner is literally unique at a time when corporate-owned chain restaurants are taking over the landscape.  It’s a gathering place for music, food, and a glass of beer – and host to everything from community council meetings to wedding receptions.  And it has been the anchor business in the small commercial district at the heart of Pleasant Ridge neighborhood.

Now the commercial real estate company that owns the property plans to evict the Dubliner.  The owner, Mike Kull, has negotiated for weeks to stay open, at least until St. Patrick’s Day.  But unless a miracle takes place this cherished restaurant will go dark permanently on Friday January 20th.

Why is this happening?  Certainly the restaurant business is unforgiving, and competition is fierce.  Early last year The Dubliner was forced to begin closing on Sundays and Mondays to deal with a fall-off in business volume. And everyone in Cincinnati is familiar with the demographic trend of growth in the outer exurbs.  Restaurants like the Dubliner are competing against Applebees and The Macaroni Grill in Westchester and Mason.  These corporate-backed giants offer the same experience from coast to coast, and people are willing to wait for hours to get a table.

This is a case study in the balance between neighborhoods and the marketplace. The success or failure of a mega-chain restaurant will have an impact on the profitability and shareholder value of the commercial enterprise that owns the property.  But the closing of the Dubliner impacts Kull’s family, who live down the street, send their kids to school around the corner, and have played an indispensable role in contributing to the success of the neighborhood – including giving help to art centers, local churches, and other small businesses. 

In spite of the apparent finality of the situation, people in Pleasant Ridge are doing everything possible to prevent this from happening. They are petitioning Dan Neyer, the real estate owner, to do whatever possible to help The Dubliner during this difficult time.  We should be concerned about Mike Kull and his family. Unless our vision for America consists of nothing more than strip malls and sub-developments we desperately need good neighbors like these in our communities.

If you share these concerns, please contact Dan Neyer:

Dan Neyer
6611 Kincaid Road
Cincinnati, OH 45213
513-731-9528

And at the very least please stop by The Dubliner this week for one hell of a party.

Note:  This article has been modified to clarify a few things.  There are no clear villains here, including Dan Neyer.  He too is a member of this local community, and has already made some considerable efforts to help the Dubliner stay afloat.  Please keep this in mind if you decide to contact the real estate company.  Many of us are disgusted with hyper-corporate exurbian America, but there might be more appropriate targets than this particular businessman.

UPDATE:  This story has been updated—read “The Ongoing Saga of the Non-Dubliner.”

Socializer!

del.icio.us

Furl It

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can log in 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!

1. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
   15 Jan 2006  at  11:28 am | #

   This reminds me of an argument I once had with someone about Wal-Mart.  He pointed out that Wal-Mart is able to sustain the economy in ways little guys can’t.  Just consider all the stock options and 401(k) investments corporate restaurant chains offer and The Dubliner can’t (or so the thinking of this pro-Wal-Mart person seemed to suggest.)

   I have established contact with an economist, and I’m going to see if he can present a concise piece on the economy of big v. small, in this corporate sense.

2. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
   15 Jan 2006  at  11:39 am | #

   But back to the point…

   I think people should rally to support The Dubliner.  In fact, maybe some will find it easier to email the developer.  I don’t have an email, but this link will take you to a webform for contacting them.

3. Andrew Warner says:
   15 Jan 2006  at  11:56 am | #

   Brendan,
   Good article. I am glad that you are rallying against big business and free-market economy now!

   Dean,
   I have contacted them through the link you have provided. When I completed the web-form a slogan popped up and it was “building relationships.” I found that rather ironic as they are ruining a staple of that neighborhood. Who are they building relationships with?

   Maybe we should have a Beacon party there where readers and writers can get together and spend our meager earnings at a business that needs it.

4. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
   15 Jan 2006  at  12:37 pm | #

   I’ll watch this thread, I want to party for a good cause!

5. Brendan says:
   15 Jan 2006  at  01:22 pm | #

   PLEASE SEE THE NOTE AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE

   Dan Neyer has already worked to help Mike Kull through a very unfortunate run of luck as a restaurateur.  If you decide to contact the commercial real estate company please keep this in mind.  There are no clear villains, although we have every reason to be concerned about exit-ramp Applebees suburbia in general - these will never replace these small neighborhood spots as the heart of our communities.

6. Adam Smythe says:
   15 Jan 2006  at  03:02 pm | #

   Brendan - You can’t have an unfettered free market economy and small neighborhood businesses. Note my emphasis is on unfettered, which is what the relentless neo-cons demand. No constraints or supports for the little guy and you’re stuck with Applebee’s. Now your favorite place gets shut down and suddenly it’s hand-wringing time. So spare us the crocodile tears. Don’t you know the free market demands sacrifices for our greater good? Hey, see you on the exit ramp!

7. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
   15 Jan 2006  at  03:22 pm | #

   Mr.Kull should’ve remained focused on the Dubliner alone, his inadequately funded venture into the corporate business world ultimately lead to the collapse of his restaurant empire.  Let’s not forget he opened the Homestead Inn in the deserted Heritage Restaurant property awhile back, now he’s lost both.

8. Brendan says:
   15 Jan 2006  at  03:23 pm | #

   Adam Smythe - If you are interested in turning this into a debate about the free markets or your interpretation of “neocon ideology” - great.  Go for it - but somebody else is going to have to play along.  My concern is for the prosperity of city neighborhoods - a topic which I write about regularly on my own weblog.  I can’t even guess from your bitter and unfunny sarcasm what your principles might be, but you certainly don’t seem like a positive person.

9. Andrew Warner says:
   15 Jan 2006  at  03:29 pm | #

   Adam,
   You make a good point. I think Brendan is making a point to the consumer though as compared to the policy makers who have the power to tamper with the free market.

   One of the points I take away from this closing and Brendan’s thoughts on the closing is that we must break our Applebee’s mentalities. People are creatures of habit and being able to attend the same restaurants wherever they go gives them some type of strange comfort.

   We as consumers need to start avoiding these corporate restaurants when we get the chance and patronize our locally owned businesses. At the same time small business owners need to provide something these corporate restaurants can’t, unique customer service and the like.

   I of course don’t advocate a complete free-market, but I do agree with Brendan that we as the consumers have the final say and should stop spending our hard-earned money at places that don’t really appreciate it.

10. Brendan says:
    15 Jan 2006  at  03:44 pm | #

    Trevor - two restaurants do not a corporate empire make.  But you’re right, the Homestead was a failed venture, and is a huge factor in this situation. 

    And thanks Andrew - you hit the nail on the head.  You can’t have a community council meeting at the Mason Applebees - in part because there’s no real community.  Consumer mentality is going to need to eventually accept the fact that the environment in which we live is the product of our collective economic choices over time.

11. Bearman says:
    15 Jan 2006  at  03:59 pm | #

    I agree that we should support local restaurants but don’t assume a chain is corporately versus locally owned as well.  So the local chains might be just as appreciative.

    Also, I disagree with your statement…

    “Restaurants like the Dubliner are competing against Applebees and The Macaroni Grill in Westchester and Mason”

    The Dubliner may be competing against the chains in Rookwood or Kenwood but I doubt they are competing against those in Westchester and Mason”

    Most of my friends tend to prefer non chains and I continually support and prefer places like Allyns, Habits, Song Long, Bangcock Bistro etc. but I also like some of the chains as well.  I love the atmosphere of Dubliner but to be honest, I think the food is just OK when I have been there so I’d probably go to P Ridges (Pleasant Ridge Chili) around there unless I plan on drinking.

12. Bearman says:
    15 Jan 2006  at  04:02 pm | #

    BTW…anyone know what happened to ZZ’s Pizza?  It seemed closed last time I went by there.

    Another great place to support is Andy’s Mediterranean Grill.  The owner seems to always be around the restaurant talking to the customers and he is a big supporter of several non profits in the area when they are in need of food donations.

13. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    15 Jan 2006  at  04:23 pm | #

    Andy’s is a really cool joint.  I love renting a hookah!

    But here is something Andy’s and The Dubliner have in common:  no access to easy parking.  I wonder if that is the rub.  It’s a reason some people tell me why they don’t go to Findlay Market.

14. Bugity Shoe says:
    15 Jan 2006  at  04:30 pm | #

    Brenson: you certainly don’t seem like a positive person.

    Welcome to Brendan’s Romper Room. Smile and let’s be “positive people.” Whatever you do, don’t make fun of him or try to steer the subject in a direction of which he disapproves. He posted first so he’s in charge and don’t you forget it!

    Now if we all sit quietly, Brendon may give us milk and graham crackers.

15. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    15 Jan 2006  at  04:49 pm | #

    Consumer mentality is going to need to eventually accept the fact that the environment in which we live is the product of our collective economic choices over time.

    Or…

    Our economic choices over time reflect those options forwarded to us.  Rather like the forbidden fruit. 

    Since the beginning we choose what is no good for us…

16. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    15 Jan 2006  at  05:13 pm | #

    I would like to see a deeper discussion of this situation. I have been both an owner of restaurant property run by others and have owned one and I know one of the owners of ZZ’s, but I don’t want to participate in a Cincinnati restaurant guide, I would appreciate it if the discussion was limited to the Dubliner and their problems.

    I have only visited the Dubliner once shortly after they opened. Unfortunately, I had just returned from a month in Ireland where my main objective was to visit Irish pubs. Not surprising,I was disappointed with the Dubliiner. The prices were high and the quality was not.

    Last week, I had a visit from a European friend that I hadn’t seen in years and I wanted to take her to a place that had a warm decor. I was going the Dubliner because it was only lunch, but then someone suggested Maggiano’s. Because of my first Dubliner impression, I opted for Maggiano’s, where I paid a higher price to be disappointed.

    Dubliner claimed to be something that it wasn’t but the public really never knew the difference. Essentially Dubliner was a typical nice bar with a typical American fare. All this was dressed up in hype that it was an Irish pub. You might ask that if the public couldn’t tell that the Dubliner wasn’t authentic Irish, what’s the difference? It is because the bar was trying to be something that it wasn’t; it didn’t have heart. Fridays and Applebee’s have developed their own identities and they spend to make that identity penetrate the entire operation and their market. Dubliner cannot afford to do that in the way that chains do it. Had the Dubliner’s owners and staff spent years developing there own identity or style, they would come across in a way that they would have a loyal following or they would start going bust in five or so years depending on their cash. There are exceptions and in the restaurant business there are many failures and few exceptions.

    From casual observation and rumors, Dubliner had unique problems such as location. I also understand they received grant money from the city, but maybe someone can confirm that. There was a nasty rumor that I heard, that someone not from Dubliner had exerted some unofficial pressue on the bar across the street to raise it’s prices. When the owner blew the people off, it seemed that every city inspector visited his bar. Someone just reminded me that some grants require that the business stay open for five years to have it forgiven. And does the Neyer that owns the building have relatives in government? Now that their might be no liens against the building, the owners have a much improved building.

    Hmmm.

    Dirty Dieter

17. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    15 Jan 2006  at  05:38 pm | #

    DD - The quality of the fare at the Dubliner hasn’t always been consistent, in my opinion - and it certainly can’t compete with an authentic Irish pub.  But statements like “the bar was trying to be something that it wasn’t” are hard to prove or disprove.  The stylings are more about an affection towards Irish culture - and for some people this might seem a little chintzy.  Who can argue?

    But the idea that they don’t have a loyal following doesn’t fit what I know from visiting the place regularly and seeing many of the same faces from the community.  The tavern was always filled with a good cross-section, from families to older folks to clusters of kids from college.  (I have never been to Ireland myself but I would expect this multi-generational quality might be the one point on which the place might actually resemble the real thing.)

    And personally I’m not dead-set against all of the chain restaurants, but the stripmall side of the city is dull and depressing.  Whenever possible I try and spend my money in places where I can be sure it’s going back into the local economy.

18. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    15 Jan 2006  at  07:35 pm | #

    I have never been to this establishment, however when the landlord elects to evict it ususlly for non-payment of rent! Let’s not blame some restaurant in Mason for putting a bar in Pleasant Ridge out of business….come on now it doesn’t jive.

    Many neighborhood bar/restaurant places do just fine these days…..in fact a Tumbleweeds just closed on Beechmont Levy. Every business is susceptible to failure.

    It’s too bad it failed, but failure is a fact of life. Hopefully the owner(s) can pick up the pieces and try again. After all in America one can have many chances to succeed.

19. Adam Smythe says:
    16 Jan 2006  at  06:33 am | #

    If you are interested in turning this into a debate about the free markets or your interpretation of “neocon ideology” - great. Go for it…I can’t even guess from your bitter and unfunny sarcasm what your principles might be, but you certainly don’t seem like a positive person.

    Brendon may not like my sense of humor, but I appreciate his offer to expand the discussion. Consider the facts:

    1) In 2001, Tom Neyer was muscled out of his job as County Commissioner job by Republican forces led by Phil Heimlich, who then won the seat.

    2) In 2004, in order to secure a majority vote for his interests, Phil Heimlich helped install Pat DeWine on County Commission to replace John Dowlin. Dowlin was unfriendly to Heimlich’s “vision,” which we now know to be influenced by a wacko religious cult.

    3) Heimlich-DeWine are now in the process of handing over the county to private interests with the support of the Reason Foundation. The Reason Foundation is a free market think tank from California, funded by Exxon and other big boys, whose business is to dismantle public government. In the case of Hamilton County, with Heimlich and DeWine in charge, the folks at Reason couldn’t ask for more malleable public officials. Don’t Phil and MIke seem to be working just a wee bit too fast to sell out the public’s interests? 

    So far the local press has ignored a closer look at the Reason Foundation-Heimlich-DeWine romance, so they can all go about their business without any serious scrutiny.

    As for the Dubliner, don’t it always seem to go, that you don’t know what you’ve got ‘till it’s gone?

    As for Brendon, you’re wrong about me not being a positive person. I believe that Ghandhi was right, that every tyrant eventually falls, including local tinpots like Heimlich and DeWine. Thanks to the internet, ordinary people like me can help make that happen.

    What could be a more positive outlook than that?

20. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    16 Jan 2006  at  09:53 am | #

    Adam Smythe says:
    16 Jan 2006 at 08:33 am | #
    is a good argument for the need for moderators of the responses.

    
    this is a good example of off-point comments to obscure the discussion.

21. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    16 Jan 2006  at  10:26 am | #

    Andrew Warner says:
    15 Jan 2006 at 05:29 pm | #

    Adam,
    You make a good point. I think Brendan is making a point to the consumer though as compared to the policy makers who have the power to tamper with the free market.

    One of the points I take away from this closing and Brendan’s thoughts on the closing is that we must break our Applebee’s mentalities. People are creatures of habit and being able to attend the same restaurants wherever they go gives them some type of strange comfort.

    We as consumers need to start avoiding these corporate restaurants when we get the chance and patronize our locally owned businesses. At the same time small business owners need to provide something these corporate restaurants can’t, unique customer service and the like.

    I of course don’t advocate a complete free-market, but I do agree with Brendan that we as the consumers have the final say and should stop spending our hard-earned money at places that don’t really appreciate it.

    
    I have a problem with

    “...we must break our Applebee’s mentalities.”

    The mentality that you speak of is a natural trait. One of the problems with out society and government is that we attempt to legislate or force away natural traits rather than recognizing them and then finding alternatives. There are things that humans do that we should live with. Does Andrew suggest that we impose penalties on restaurants that he doesn’t like? Then Andrew goes on to say

    People are creatures of habit and being able to attend the same restaurants wherever they go gives them some type of strange comfort.

    And to this, I agree. So what is Andrew advocating?

    Then I am reconfused by Andrew when he says,

    We as consumers need to start avoiding these corporate restaurants ...

    We don’t NEED to do anything of the sort. We need to let restauranteers figure out what the people want.

    I am interested in Andrew’s comment,

    “I of course don’t advocate a complete free-market,”

    I don’t know whether I agree or not but I would like to have Andrew explain further but I think that the subject might require a separate thread. In this case, I think there already was a compromize of free-market principles involved. Because of the unpublicized grants and government assistance.

22. Slade says:
    16 Jan 2006  at  10:39 am | #

    Being a former resident of Pleasant Ridge from long ago and having patronized the Dubliner, my observation is that Dubliner, just like the recently closed “Ridge Market”, faced the hard reality of demographics and the propensity for those demographics to patronize establishments like Dubliner—-or the Ridge Market for that matter.

    The target audience for Dubliner and the Ridge Market are too few, have too many other options and are too fickle to rely on long term. A five year run as an independent in the restaurant business is pretty good and their business plan should have figured in obsolescense with a plan to close and reopen under some other theme.

    Ridge Market was killed off by inconsistent hours of operation, Wild Oats, Trader Joes, Findlay Market, Kroger’s expansion of organic foods, lack of marketing outside of Pleasant Ridge, etc.

23. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    16 Jan 2006  at  11:10 am | #

    Slade - I think your comments with Ridge Market are more or less on the money, but I don’t think The Dubliner belongs to the same exact business profile.  The problem here was related to the failure of the second restaurant.  A very strong and loyal customer base exists for the Dubliner, and people drive to Pleasant Ridge specifically to go to the tavern or have dinner.  And you can’t even get near the place on St. Patrick’s Day.  All of this might (and I emphasize might) have sustained the business if there weren’t other factors.

    DD - The free market conversation is interesting, but I’m not sure it’s so simple as “let restaurateurs figure out what the people want”.  I prefer capitalism to socialism, and I know a thing or two about the business world directly - but I’m a little concerned that the default attitude comes down to cheap, chintzy, ugly and unhealthy.  I’m not a huge fan of the all-you-can-eat buffet and the lumbering line of patrons that you can always see there.  No, I don’t want to force them to do anything, but I think we can sometimes paint them a better picture of the outcome of their choices - whether it’s an image of their arteries or the mind-numbing sameness of strip mall suburbia.  The correct economic principle is opportunity cost and it has a cultural dimension in terms of the ultimate repercussions of our decisions.

24. gerard says:
    16 Jan 2006  at  11:32 am | #

    Gaaawwwd. No more trivia nights?!  ...I too would gladly attend a Beacon party night.

25. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    16 Jan 2006  at  11:40 am | #

    Dirty Dieter,
    You’re correct evaluating Mr. Smythe’s posting as “example of off-point comments” nevertheless, Mr. Smythe exposed interesting material.  If this was the old dean’s site he would’ve posted his thoughts on a new thread, now he can’t, he’s forced to this discussion, that’s how it is, that’s what we got.

    In your posting 15 Jan 2006 at 07.13pm “I don’t want to participate in a Cincinnati restaurant guide, I would appreciate it if the discussion was limited to the Dubliner and their problems.  Are you promoting philosophical analysis as more beneficial to this discussion than using real-life real time comparison?

    I like yourself dined once at the Dubliner, I too left with a bad taste of over priced mediocrity.  Pretentious nonsense about location, parking, and the like attempts to hide that unpleasant taste.  Please forgive me Dirty one as I submit another addition to “Cincinnati restaurant guide”. 

    College Hill and Pleasant Ridge are similar neighborhoods, College Hill is home to Bacalls, a restaurant of similar size with similar parking problems, that’s where the similarities end.  Bacalls has wonderful food at reasonable prices, last time I was there waited over a half hour for a table, nonetheless, I left contented, unlike the Dubliner I’ll return.  Too many past diners have had our (Dirty one and I) experience at the Dubliner, it’s unhappy fate comes as no surprise.

26. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    16 Jan 2006  at  12:38 pm | #

    trevor_moonbow says:
    16 Jan 2006 at 01:40 pm | #

    Dirty Dieter,
    You’re correct evaluating Mr. Smythe’s posting as “example of off-point comments” nevertheless, Mr. Smythe exposed interesting material.  If this was the old dean’s site he would’ve posted his thoughts on a new thread, now he can’t, he’s forced to this discussion, that’s how it is, that’s what we got.

    In your posting 15 Jan 2006 at 07.13pm “I don’t want to participate in a Cincinnati restaurant guide, I would appreciate it if the discussion was limited to the Dubliner and their problems.  Are you promoting philosophical analysis as more beneficial to this discussion than using real-life real time comparison?

    OK, I agree with your first paragraph. I am neither promoting philosophical anaysis nor objecting to it. It is needed to deal with the question at point but general real-time comparisons fail to point out specific reasons for failure. It is good to know that Bacall’s is sucessful, but do we really know that it is sucessful? A week ago, 99% of those that knew of Dubliner would have said it was successful. Is there something that ties the two together? Actually, I am not really sure that Dubliner is a total failure. Ridge Market is a total failure but I wrote that at the time that they announced the plans; that was an easy call. Dubliner still has life.

    Dubliner has or could have provided someone with a lot of good information. Someone can buy the assets now for a dime on the dollar. Someone can now rent a ready to go space for another resturant that may have not been paid for completely and is therefore subsidized. Few of you realize the immense value of being able to start another entity without having to deal with the demands of the nazis from city hall.  There are no arbitrary building code demands and the Board of Health has already approved the place.

    If Dubliner was as involved with community as is claimed, perhaps someone could ask the owners for some facts. Right now all we can do is speculate and maybe that philosophical is all we got.

27. zip says:
    16 Jan 2006  at  01:18 pm | #

    no! i love that place. wish there was some way to save it.

28. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    16 Jan 2006  at  04:00 pm | #

    Brendan—why aren’t you posting as John Galt here?

29. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    16 Jan 2006  at  04:12 pm | #

    Sid - Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks?

30. K says:
    16 Jan 2006  at  04:52 pm | #

    Brendan: Congratulations, you got the Dubliner story dead-ass wrong.

    http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060116/NEWS01/301160016

    This whole chicken-little “oh no big bad Neyer is forcing the Dubliner to close” schtick was entertaining, but pointless. I’m assuming that this is why Jason limited posting news stories, but if so, we need to have some more quality control and stop permitting this type of dangerous misinformation. Reporting on rumors is fun, but newspapers have editorial control for just this reason.

31. Andrew Warner says:
    16 Jan 2006  at  05:06 pm | #

    K,
    What did Brendan get wrong? Neyer is evicting Kull which is pretty much all Brendan said (aside from providing some commentary on the world).

32. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    16 Jan 2006  at  05:10 pm | #

    Is that really you, K?  You are usually much better.

    Firstly, Brendan even added a NOTE to the end of his article explicitly saying he did not mean to blame Neyer for anything.

    Secondly, look at the date of Brendan’s article, and the date of the Enquirer’s.  Brendan had the scoop.  For all you know, there is not an Enquirer article without Brendan giving them the tip.

33. Brendan says:
    16 Jan 2006  at  05:34 pm | #

    K - Thanks for the news.  It made my night. 

    It IS called “news” by the way.  It means more information about a certain topic that wasn’t available previously.  I understand the next accusation will be that since I added a note a few minutes after the original post I am guilty of “getting it wrong”.  This doesn’t really make sense, but if you don’t like the dynamic, real-time nature of blogs you might want to try other news sources. 

    Although ... the fact that the Enquirer published stories about The Dubliner on their website at mid-day and then again in the evening tells us a few things about how their perspective might be changing too.

    And, really, you don’t post on duplicate names do you?  Do you know there are easy ways to tell these things?

    I’ll try to publish some offensive, conservative opinion on a separate topic soon so that some of you have a better target to swing at - because some of these comments are just silly, and obviously motivated by other political differences. 

    Meanwhile, you know where to find me ...

34. K says:
    16 Jan 2006  at  06:22 pm | #

    Brendan - Yes, I have heard of ip addresses. Feel free to look mine up in the server logs. I am curious as to why you spent time talking about duplicate names, but if you think I’m someone else then that’s your problem.

    Your note/addendum doesn’t mean that you got it wrong; your inaccurate “facts” mean that you got it wrong. Your post cannot now be considered “news,” because while “news” means “new information,” “information” means “facts.” Non-factual “news” is not news. That is my problem with your article: innacuracies, not your conservative opinion of them. If you look back through the discussion, you will note that I did not weigh in on your ruminations regarding capitalism. (Check the ip logs if you don’t believe me.)

    Dean - Yes, it was a blunt comment, but the disclaimer note did nothing to alleviate the gross inaccuracies in Brendan’s port. Also, while the Enquirer may have been inspired to write the story after Brendan pointed out the issue, Brendan’s inaccuracy eviscerates his timeliness. Late news is better than news that is wrong. (See the West Virginia mining story for a case in point. Brendan’s “scoop,” such as it were, did nothing but make a bunch of people lament the permanent closing of a Cincinnati institution, a closing that is not happening.)

    Andrew - Here’s what he got wrong:

    Error #1: “unless a miracle takes place this cherished restaurant will go dark permanently.”

    Fact #1: “The Dubliner bar and restaurant will close after business Wednesday, but its new owner promises the popular Irish tavern will reopen in time for the annual St. Patrick?s Day party in March. ... The new and improved Dubliner will be open by March 1, Neyer said.”

    Discussion #1: This is what most of the fuss was about, and the most egregious part of disinformation: the Dubliner will not be permanently closing.

    Error #2: “Now the commercial real estate company that owns the property plans to evict the Dubliner.”

    Fact #2: “The Montgomery Road establishment was bought in October by Dan Neyer of Neyer Properties after a judge ordered it foreclosed upon because of unpaid debts. Mike Kull, the bar’s previous owner, said he was told Friday that he had until the end of this week to leave.”

    Discussion #2: A more subtle inaccuracy, but critical nonetheless. Neyer bought the Dubliner from Kull in a foreclosure sale. Kull was apparently allowed to run the Dubliner through the holidays, but that’s about as far as he was allowed to go. It is highly doubtful—-indeed, improbable—-that Kull is currently operating under a lease, as 30 days notice is typical for terminations of leases. Indeed, unless the lease expired on the 20th, there is no way for Neyer to terminate the lease with merely 7 days notice. Even a month-to-month tenancy (i.e. operating without a lease) requires 30 days notice.

    Primarily, however, evictions require court proceedings. An eviction requires a hearing. There hasn’t been a court proceeding since the October foreclosure sale. Saying that Neyer is evicting Kull sets Neyer up to be at fault, regardless of the disclaimer at the end of Brendan’s article, as an eviction is a dispossession of the tenant (Kull) by the landlord (Neyer). Instead, Kull was dispossessed by the bank in the foreclosure because of a failure to pay his debts. If there is any fault here, it’s Kull’s.

    There are two other sentences in the article that I found objectionable:

    Sentence A: “The owner, Mike Kull, has negotiated for weeks to stay open, at least until St. Patrick’s Day.”

    Discussion A: No kidding. St. Patrick’s Day seems to be (from the customer volume alone) the Dubliner’s biggest business day of the year. Neyer’s re-opening of the Dubliner in time for St. Patrick’s Day bears this out. Brendan’s article paints Kull’s attempt to stay through that holiday as a desire for one last hurrah before the Dubliner closes down for good, and an effort to save Kull’s family fortunes. (The latter is clearly indicated by the sentence “We should be concerned about Mike Kull and his family.”)

    Given that Kull was already foreclosed on for failure to pay his debts, trying to stay “in charge” of the Dubliner through the holiday was a crass attempt to suck the profits out of the business before Neyer established a footing. Having the holiday will start Neyer’s tenure at the restaurant off on a good footing. Yes, Kull’s family is affected by the closing of the Dubliner, but no more so than it was affected by the foreclosure sale. I’m frankly surprised Kull has been allowed to run the restaurant as long as he has post-foreclosure, but Neyer probably had to get things lined up to take over.

    When Kull lost his business in October, it was unrealistic to expect that he would be able to continue operations through a holiday five months in the future.

    Sentence B: “(Dan Neyer) is a member of this local community, and has already made some considerable efforts to help the Dubliner stay afloat.”

    Discussion B: No kidding. Neyer is keeping the Dubliner afloat by keeping it open. It will only be closed for about a month, and the food might improve. It appears that he has already done a considerable amount of work to help Kull, by allowing him to run the business for three months. We can not (and should not) expect Neyer to play the angel by paying off Kull’s debt and simply walking away.

    Overall, though, my main problem with Brendan’s article is twofold: (1) that it paints itself as fact, and not rumor; and (2) that it paints Kull as a victim. If Brendan had said “I heard such and such about the Dubliner, let’s find out if it’s true,” I would be far more comfortable with the article and the subsequent discussion about small business owners. What we should take away from this situation is that Kull lost the Dubliner through his own actions, and that he received a three month grace period that most foreclosees will never receive.

    Oh yeah, and Neyer did far more than anyone else to “save” the Dubliner because he will keep it open. Chances are that most other prospective purchasers at the foreclosure sale would not have been so inclined.

35. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    16 Jan 2006  at  06:32 pm | #

    Those are all great points, but I must wonder at the fact that the Enquirer online posted the follow up story about how the Dubliner will re-open even after they printed a piece on how it was closing.

    Hell, for all we know, Brendan’s article got so many people to email or contact Neyer that he figured it would be a good idea to give the business a go himself, especially in time for St. Patrick’s day.

36. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    16 Jan 2006  at  07:12 pm | #

    If you live in a capitalistic society and you are not a capitalist, who is to blame?

37. Brendan says:
    16 Jan 2006  at  07:27 pm | #

    K - It would have been more prudent to use the phrase “may go dark” instead of “will go dark” - but that’s about the only thing I can find wrong with the post.

    But again, K, you might want to get your news from other sources.  You make quite a bit over information that only became available late today, and saying things like “no kidding” isn’t really refuting any of these points. 

    Dean - I’m very skeptical that this discussion would have had anything to do with the arrangements that may have been taking place behind the scenes.  But there has been quite an avalanche of email on this topic in my inbox.  And there were TV crews outside the Dubliner this evening.  Many people seem to have some concerns about the restaurant and the surrounding community - and this is a great thing.

    One suspects, though, that people like “K” will find something to always complain about.

38. K says:
    16 Jan 2006  at  07:54 pm | #

    Dean - You’re right, the earlier Enquirer article ( http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060116/NEWS01/60116010/-1/all ) also said that the Dubliner was closing. It’s pretty obvious that they wrote the article after only speaking with Kull, and that the follow-up came after they spoke with Neyer. The first article says nothing about the foreclosure sale, and I am frankly surprised that the Enquirer did not report on the sale when it occurred. The case number, in case you’re curious, is A 0405802. (Mr. Kull has a number of other suits against him, a handful of which are still outstanding, but any good court-watcher at the newspaper should have taken notice when they were filed in the beginning of 2005.)

    The Enquirer conducted no investigation into the facts and took Kull at his word. The earlier article mimics Brendan’s post in painting Kull’s fate as that of a mistreated small businessman. (“Kull said he thought he was going to sign a new lease Friday, but was told instead that the landlord has a new tenant.”) Never mind that he defaulted on upwards of $750,000 in debt and lost the business in October. (His financial unaccountability makes his expectation of receiving a lease preposterous at best.) This was shoddy journalism, I agree, but at the least they corrected their mistake. Note that the second article makes no mention of the “new tenant” and downgrades the expectation of a new lease.

    Your point about Neyer giving it a shot is interesting. Neyer purchased the property through a newly-created company called “Ridge Pubs, LLC”. (Indeed, the LLC was formed only after Neyer made a bid on the property, and the bid was then assigned to the LLC.) I surmise that Neyer made the same economic judgment that many other commentators on this site made; namely, that it was the second restaurant that killed Kull’s business, and not the Dubliner itself. I suppose that we will never know if Neyer only recently decided to retain the name “The Dubliner” for his pub, but given the pre-established good will towards that name in the community, and the good reputation (amazingly, the Enquirer rated some of their food “best in the city”), changing the name would have been foolish.

39. K says:
    16 Jan 2006  at  08:08 pm | #

    Brendan - I complain because you post something and claim it to be “news” despite failing to do any fact-checking. You yourself did not contact Neyer, nor did you investigate why the Dubliner was closing, despite your musings on capitalism. If you had, you would have no doubt discovered the hundreds of thousands of dollars in defaulted-upon loans, the breach-of-contract lawsuits, and oh yes, the fact that the restaurant was bought by a company named “Ridge Pubs LLC”. That information has been available for months, it did not “only become available late today.”

    In case you need the Cliff-Notes version of my first comment, in addition to the erroneous reporting that The Dubliner was going to close, you also said that Kull was being evicted and that people should contact Neyer to voice their concerns. Kull is not being evicted, and it is spiteful to set up a businessman to get harrassed merely because you’re too lazy to fully investigate a story. If you had the decency to contact Neyer before you posted your “news,” you could have spared him and his company the unnecessary emails, phone calls, and letters. Now he has to spend time correcting the damaging misinformation you have sown. Congratulations.

40. Brendan says:
    16 Jan 2006  at  08:45 pm | #

    K - If you have any evidence that this businessman has been harassed, please back up this assertion with evidence.  I will apologize to him directly.  Otherwise this is just bluster.  I was trying to get this information out as early as possible based on the facts that were available, and this was accomplished.  All of this has been done as a resident of Pleasant Ridge who wants to look out for the neighborhood.  Unless you can add anything new, this is a circular and pointless discussion.  Take the last word.

41. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    16 Jan 2006  at  09:00 pm | #

    I certainly hope, K, that you are also directing this outrage at The Enquirer, too.

    After all, they delivered print papers today with the same information as reported by Brendan, only Brendan had it one day earlier.

    I applaud Brendan for breaking this story, however imperfect.  That is the power of allowing an interface for users like K to bring things up-to-date.

    To the best of my knowledge, Brendan is not being paid for his efforts.  He got wind of a story that mattered to him, and he did his part to spread the news.  That he did as good as The Enquirer is not worthy of such focused scorn.  So, again, I certainly hope you are reaming the Enquirer, too.

    If so, please provide copies of your correspondance with them.  If you like, submit them to me and I will post them in our Letters section.

42. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    16 Jan 2006  at  09:13 pm | #

    I’d like to offer a suggestion that if neighborhood bars and businesses are important to you, make sure you invest in them. Either by starting one, helping one or patronizing one. I’m not saying go out of your way, but be aware and be willing to give a new local business a try. And it’s pointless to write Dan Neyer. Dan Neyer won’t give a crap. But you can write Mark Mallory! Mark Mallory WILL give slightly more of a crap because you voted for him (or didn’t but he doesn’t know any better).

    Tell Mark Mallory that you want the to see the City Planning Dept restored, because that is the entity that supports neighborhoods and neighborhood business districts. Before the dept was hacked to pieces, it helped community councils design comprehensive plans and perform marketing analyses and much other critical work that it can’t support any longer now that it’s 1/3 its previous size. Obviously this isn’t directly related, but indirectly, you bet.

    And you could go to your next community council meeting and get involved, because every inner ring community needs help and leadership. Many are trying to determine best use scenarios of their business districts, and working to formulate strong identities that will attract and retain businesses, services and patrons. If this is important to you, sign up! And don’t worry, the ex-urbs will see these problems too, just give it time. Even in West Chester.

43. K says:
    16 Jan 2006  at  10:44 pm | #

    Dean -

    I’m so glad that you have set the Enquirer as your high water mark for success. And here I thought that you were setting up the Beacon as a news outlet to best the “corporate media” that you routinely criticize.

    I don’t remember hearing The New York Times defend themselves against the Jayson Blair scandal by saying “well, we met the standard set by the National Enquirer, so why complain?”

    I note that you compliment Brendan for besting the Enquirer by a day. If Brendan had an extra day to report on the Dubliner, why didn’t he use the time to fact-check? Brendan says that he did the best he could with “the facts that were available,” but as we all know, the facts were available to report correctly. Brendan just single-sourced the article, bias be damned.

    Brendan defends himself by saying that he got the imformation out as early as he could, and you defend him for breaking the story early. Speed? Come on. Truth is the first priority in news. You say as much every time you criticize corporate-owned media outlets. Still don’t believe me? Feel free to check out Accuracy in Media http://www.aim.org or Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting http://www.fair.org or any of the other media watchdog groups.

    Dean, if you said “oops, we goofed, sorry, we’ll try to do better” then that’s one thing. But you know the story was wrong, you know Brendan should have checked the facts, and to claim otherwise is sophistry. If this were a rumor site that would be one thing, but here I though you were trying to be a news outlet. Given how often you lambast the Enquirer, I am surprised at your reaction to criticism of the Beacon.

    Brendan, no, I don’t have any personal evidence that Mr. Neyer was harassed. Does that change anything? Look at how many emails you yourself received on the issue. What, exactly, did you intend to happen when you posted Mr. Neyer’s address and phone number? Is that really responsible journalism? Even if you intended for people to complain to Mr. Neyer when you thought he was evicting Mr. Kull, as soon as you found out the opposite (i.e. when you posted your note/addendum) you should have removed the information.

44. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    16 Jan 2006  at  11:47 pm | #

    Brendan!
    Thanks for the story. I would be pleased to learn that the for-profit media watches these blogs for leads and I would not be surprised. You brought up something that put a face on an ever present problem of a small business in a suburban setting and the discussion could still be carried on. There was really no way that I would have expected anyone to present a case such as this in the detail that would meet the criterium of a MBA case history and as of today, no one or no nawspaper has determined that level of information that Mr. K expects of you. The important issue was the failure of a business and you reported that.

    Now Mr. K , who would like us to feel that what he says is accurate to the nth degree, is full of crap as well. The due process for the evictions are no applicable in this case. This is no a residence , this is commercial property. Unless forbidden by a contract, the owner of the building can send armed thugs into the building to take possesion of the property. Now if the tenant has a lease, which is a contract, and the tenant has met all of the conditions on time, then the owner has a problem. The thirty day grace period is only applicable if it is agreed to in a contract.

    As to closing the bar, Brendan may have incorrectly used the word permanent, unless there was a prior agreement, Kull has control of the business. If Neyer does not have an agreement with Kull, Kull’s corporation can stop the sale of alcohol, which sort of kills the business,  because Kull’s corporation has the liquor license. Kull puts the license in safe keeping and Neyer has to start the application process to buy and transfer a license to that location. Unless it is going to be a black bar, Neyer may have enough time to transfer a license by St. Paddy’s Day. If it would be a black bar, Brendan’s use of the word permanent may be appropriate in Cincinnati. So for all of the criticism of Brendan, I think people in glass houses ....

45. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    17 Jan 2006  at  04:51 am | #

    The Enquirer is NOT a watermark for success, but let’s be serious… They have a longer reach than our web project.  And whatever we do to chip away at them, you need to be realistic:  they have a paid staff and we are a handful of volunteers.  Yet we scooped them twice this week, Bennett and now Dubliner.

    Therefore, precisely because you have this interest in accuracy (be it with Brendan’s use of the word “permanent” or the same report from The Enquirer), then you have a responsibility, too—namely, to take your arguments to all parties guilty of the crime.

    That’s really all I was trying to get at.  I’m sorry if that was unclear.

    So my point (which you have totally ignored) remains the same:  please issue your letters of complaint at The Enquirer and let us see them.

    It worked here, OK?  We get it.  Brendan was a bad boy.  He should not have said “permanent.”  Thank you.  We apologize.  Lesson learned.  He’ll call Neyer next time.

    What more do you want?

    Now go bother the big guys, and let us know what happens!

46. Failte says:
    17 Jan 2006  at  01:20 pm | #

    As a former 3 year employee of the Dubliner, I have to say we all thought this day would come.  When a $10 pay check gets bounced week after week something is wrong.  Don’t get me wrong- I LOVE the Dub and loved working there.  When I heard through the grapevine Mike was opening/focusing on a new place where the Heritage was and I heard from fellow Dub Staff we all thought the Dub would go under. I guess its Gaslight for now

47. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    17 Jan 2006  at  04:23 pm | #

    I’m really sad that the Dubliner is changing hands.  Whatever else you might have to say about Mike, our family has always enjoyed the Dubliner, and he has always been a decent guy to us.  I may like the new owner, but it will never be the same. 

    That said, I remember when the Dubliner first opened.  The menu was better, the food was better, and there was great energy there.  As time went on, and I’m sure that the bar end of things made a lot more money than the food, the menu was trimmed and trimmed until what was left was pretty much a bar menu.  That was really disappointing, and it meant that we didn’t go there nearly as often, since we don’t drink.  The one thing that was never all that great until more recent times was the service.  In the last year, we were lucky enough to have Scotty, and the first time he waited on us, I told him it was the first time we’d ever been there that the service was great.  He told me several months later that it had been his first day. 

    But, I digress.  It’s a sad, sad day for me, but much more so for Mike and his family, and for the neighborhood.

48. rick says:
    17 Jan 2006  at  06:44 pm | #

    sid—this isn’t brendan cull (john galt).  it’s a different brendan.

49. Patriot says:
    18 Jan 2006  at  01:09 am | #

    Dieterschmied, You are on point once again. Thanks Brendan and Dean for scooping the SpEnquirer once again. Unless Mr. K follows up with the big propaganda machine, he’ll really seem like a prick. I hope he does, I will be impressed. (They do read this blog regularly btw.)

    It’s pretty sad when the so called “paper of record”, gets scooped by a couple of part time bloggers/journalists. I think the Beacon is going to have a big year.

    Keep up the great work!

50. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    18 Jan 2006  at  10:21 pm | #

    I was one of the Dubliners largest vendors, supplying most of their beers. Let me tell you the REAL story of what happened;

    The Dubliners owners bought the former Heritage restaurant and began an extensive renovation with plans to call the new restaurant The Homestead. Well, the building is over 100 years old and was in bad repair. The Dubliner’s owners quickly got in over their heads and spent way too much money, more than they had on hand. This caused them to become delinquent on their obligations at The Dubliner, so much so that they went into default. Matters only got worse when the Homestead opened; business was poor and their costs of running a large space was high. The Dubliner’s paople offered the company that owns the building a payment plan and tried to negotiate reduced rent payments, etc. The building owners lost faith that they could rebuild their business ass they were near bankruptcy due to the Heritage/Homestead (they had already defaulted on their loans for it) and decided not to accept their offer. They looked at the decision as being prudent and they didn’t want to throw good money after bad.

    That’s all there is to it, no ‘big company pushing the little guy around’. Just a couple of guys that got in over their heads and were not very good businessmen.

51. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    19 Jan 2006  at  10:22 am | #

    I know I am coming in late to this thread, so I apologize. I have to disagree with the opinion that Dubliner competes with Applebee’s and Friday’s type restaurants. The Dubliner’s more urban location and “Irish Pubness” put it in competition more with Hap’s, Gas Light Cafe, Mulligans, Hollighans and Quatman type places.

    As a consumer I find it a relief that the “Big Chain” restaurants ignore our urban core. Our choices are much more plentiful and eclectic than those of the ‘Burbanites. But back to Dunliner’s true competition.

    Dubliner’s food was never good enough to create a local niche. Dubliner’s “Irish Pubness” was never authentic enough to compete with other long standing drinking holes like Hap’s and even Crowley’s to an extent. Especially when you are talking about overhead, a restaurant can never compete with a “Drinking Hole.” Even the Gas Light (Across the street), that serves food, never has more than two people working at a time. Prices are cheaper, expectations aren’t as high and you could drink a whole lot more for your dollar there.

    I feel bad anytime a man loses his business, especially when a family is affected. But the restaurant business is brutal. The success rate is very low for them. Dubliner just got an award from Cincinnati Magazine in December. But just ask the Maisonette, awards don’t mean much when you are competing for the consumer’s dollar.

    I would love to see Dunliner reopened for St. Patrick’s day, but I will still be taking my “Half Irish” self back to Hap’s to celebrate.

52. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    19 Jan 2006  at  07:47 pm | #

    After being told of The Dubliner’s closing midweek, I was not one bit surprised.  I use to work there part time several years back.  One of the managers (a friend back then) hired me for evening kitchen help.  I will never forget my first night there.  I walked back into the kitchen and almost went into a state of shock.  The place was a total wreck.  It literally took me several evenings of straight cleaning just to get the place looking halfway decent.  The line staff (they were to train me) used the mircrowave oven as the main source of cooking.  I couldn’t believe it and somehow feltr obligated to stay and help organize the place back to normalcy.  Even then there was issues concerning the restaurant’s solvency.  One pay week there wasn’t any money in the account to cash all of the paychecks.  Mike and the management staff scrambled to make good on the payroll.  Employees would rush to the bank on payday trying to be the first one there just so their check would clear.  There was bickering between Mike and the main manager Iain over what direction the establishment is heading.  If I recall correctly, Iain even offered to take over the fledgling restaurant but Mike hesitated and finally both parted ways.

    The point is that clearly Mr Hull try as he might was operating The Dubliner with a with major storms all around.  Finally the ship sank.  I personally liked Mike.  He gave me a job; had a pleasant personality and gave free beers after your shift.  From a organizational management perspective however, he stunk.  I could not eat anything out of that kitchen after all that I saw.  Who the heck cooks a rueben sandwich in the mic!I understand the restaurant will reopen soon under new management.  It will be interesting to see what kind of changes take place.  Best of luck—to both the new Dubliner and to Mr Hull.

53. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    19 Jan 2006  at  07:57 pm | #

    Oh yea Iain, I might not be “BETTY CROCKER” but I sure do know how to cook better than the miserable help you had going on in that dump back then.

54. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    20 Jan 2006  at  09:57 pm | #

    If you believe in buying blue, don’t give your biz to Neyer;he’s a big GOP supporter-see some of his contribution history below, from FEC:

    NEYER, DANIEL A MR.
    CINCINNATI, OH 45213
    NEYER PROPERTIES INC./EXECUTIVE

      BUSH, GEORGE W
      VIA BUSH-CHENEY ‘04 (PRIMARY) INC
    09/30/2003 2000.00

    NEYER, DANIEL A MR.

      NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
    04/21/2003 500.00
    05/21/2003 500.00

    NEYER, DANIEL A.

      NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE CONTRIBUTIONS
    11/12/2002 300.00

55. Failte says:
    21 Jan 2006  at  09:47 am | #

    Iain did leave the Dubliner Pete, but because they couldn’t afford to pay him anymore; instead one of the servers was made a manager b/c he cost less.  This was also about the same time we started having popcorn on Quiz Night- UGH

56. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    21 Jan 2006  at  04:00 pm | #

    Post 42/Hackman-
    Practice what you preach- how often do you attend your community council meetings? I’ve never seen you there.
    At least you’re consistent-you also don’t attend meetings for
    precinct execs,work your turf for Dem candidates or attend
    Progressive Democrats of Cinti meetings, which were held at the Dubliner.

57. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    21 Jan 2006  at  07:49 pm | #

    Jim, Kenny, Pete and Failte!
    I think you all summed up the situation very well.

    It’s too bad the owner never read about uncle Adolf. When you bite off more that you can chew….

    Do any of you know some of the key mistakes that were made by management? I want this to be learning experience. I may be getting back in the business. 

    For instance, the food was never good from the start. Why?

58. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    22 Jan 2006  at  02:25 pm | #

    The management did not follow through on all the day to day steps and controls necessary to run a kitchen successfully.  No standardized recipes used, poor food handling procedures & lack of good supervision.  Also, due to the large loan payments, management always ran a very lean staff.  There were not enough cooks to handle the busy times.  Catch 22, slow and spotty food during busy times meant lost business forcing management to again cut staffing.

59. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    22 Jan 2006  at  04:39 pm | #

    None of you know shit.
    Dan Neyer LIED about his intentions with the building.  He then STOLE the business out from under the current owner, without even making an offer on the existing business.

    This all started from the Ridge Market. 

    Typical Cincinnati, try to help the community and get SCREWED in the process.  One man has the guts to put his livelyhood on the line to help the community and in steps Dan Neyer to piss on the rubble.

    Maybe we should ask ourselves why we are moving the fountain 12 feet to the left, and not helping local businesses thrive.  A little help from the city of Cincinnati on the Ridge Market and it’s a whole different story.

60. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    22 Jan 2006  at  08:13 pm | #

    http://www.courtclerk.org/EKASH/rad30FE80122200231.pdf

    link to court case showing deafault on loan and order for property sale at sheriff auction

61. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    22 Jan 2006  at  08:49 pm | #

    Hey, Insider,

    On the contrary, YOU don’t know shit! I am no fan of Neyer, but he bought this business at sheriff’s sale. Mike Kull could not run his business, then made the asinine move to open The Homestead which he couldn’t afford. Take a look at this, you can see all of the lawsuits against Kull & The Dubliner:

    1. Go to this address: http://www.courtclerk.org/comp_name_search.asp
    2.Where the box says ‘company name’ type in Pleasant Ridge Pub
    3. Press submit

    You will see 31 lawsuits against Kull & The Dubliner, all for unpaid debts for loans, merchandise & services. This guy stiffed everyone that ever loaned him money pr performed services for him. The beer & wine distributors-including my company-would not take checks from him. If he didn’t have cash the driver would not deliver the goods.

62. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    23 Jan 2006  at  05:39 pm | #

    My assessment of the situation is, Mike needed to sell the building, and needed to sell it at his price, to get the Homestead off the ground. Before the Ridge Market closed, Mike had his building on the market.  He wanted to sell the building and remain as a tenant.  It didn’t happen.  He got in over his head.  There is no doubt that Mike isn’t perfect.  Neither am I, neither is anyone else.  It’s very easy to say, “That could never happen to me.  I would be smarter.  I would not make those mistakes.  I would do better.”  I’ve lived enough years with my eyes wide open to know that it can happen to just about anybody.  People get in over their heads.  People who are basically nice guys who aren’t great money managers get in over their heads every day, and guys who really are great money managers can have unexpected setbacks.  Sometimes, the miracle happens—the building sells, or an unexpected windfall comes to bail them out—and sometimes it just doesn’t, and then everyone and his brother wants to talk trash about them as if it could never happen to them. 

    People who personally got screwed have every right to be angry about it.  Who wouldn’t be?  I hate to see any business in my neighborhood fail, even if the owner was after all imperfect, human.

    When the building sold at Sherriff’s sale, I heard that the new owner wanted to keep the existing businesses in there, and had bought it to prevent it from becoming another CVS or White Castle, or something similar. 

    It’s been really hard to see all the Dubliner furniture being loaded on trucks and moved out, and even the bar itself being dismantled.  The one thing I would hate to see the new owner do is turn the place into one big bar, with no restaurant at all.  That would just stink.

    *Sigh*

    We’ll have to just wait and see.  I have no control over any of it, so I can’t make myself crazy over it.

    DJ

63. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    24 Jan 2006  at  01:52 pm | #

    #58:
    

    a.s.g. says:
    22 Jan 2006 at 04:25 pm | #

    The management did not follow through on all the day to day steps and controls necessary to run a kitchen successfully.  No standardized recipes used, poor food handling procedures & lack of good supervision.  Also, due to the large loan payments, management always ran a very lean staff.  There were not enough cooks to handle the busy times.  Catch 22, slow and spotty food during busy times meant lost business forcing management to again cut staffing.

    Thanks for the thoughtful reply to my question. What stands out is large loan payments. Once the decision to open, the loan payments are a condition beyond the control of the operation. Did the decision maker overestimate the Pleasant Ridge market? Is it that Pleasant Ridge, a Cincinnati neighborhood, cannot support such a business or any trendy business?

    1. What public moneys went in to support the opening of this business?
    2. Were the public moneys effective; did they produce something that actually served the business or was it ill-spent funds to present an image that was not required because it was thought of as “free money” from the government that was spent by government bureaucrats, who have little business sense, for non-esssential frills?
    3. There were two distinct businesses here: bar and restaurant. Was either of these viable?
    4. What interferences, beyond streetscapes, were there with decisions that should and could have been in a pure free market environment?

64. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    24 Jan 2006  at  03:23 pm | #

    Dieterschmied, I’m not sure if I am reading your post correctly.  Are you asking your questions about the Dubliner, or the Ridge Market?  Ridge Market was a lovely idea, but not very practical for the neighborhood.  My opinion, having lived in the area for 14 years is that whoever did the demographic research for Ridge Market looked only in one or two directions.  I believe they looked toward Amberly and the wealthiest segment of Pleasant Ridge and believed that was enough to sustain Ridge Market.  The larger neighborhood, looking Eastward up the hill to Kennedy Heights and Westward toward the less affluent end of Pleasant Ridge, couldn’t afford to shop Ridge Market.  A lot of people in the neighborhood either walk or take the bus.  At Ridge Market, lots of specialty and gourmet items were available, but there was no practical way to do all of your grocery shopping there.  Many items that are on my grocery list every week simply weren’t there.  Items that could be bought there, such as fresh meats and seafood, were in Ridge Market—at higher prices than many residents, including myself, could afford.  Bottom line:  My grocery bill would have doubled if I had shopped at Ridge Market for everything I could get there.  My bottom line didn’t allow for that, and I am far from alone in that.  For people who take the bus, it didn’t make sense to shop in more than one store when they could go to Biggs or Dillonvale IGA and get everything on their list in one trip.  The planners of Ridge Market seemed to believe that everyone in the neighborhood would welcome this type of market, when most residents wanted and really needed a regular grocery store, like the old IGA that was at that building before.

    As for the Dubliner, I don’t know for certain, but I don’t think any public money went into it.  I believe the money all came in the form of loans.  Too many loans, really big loans.  Which was, in the end, the end of both the Dubliner and the Homestead.  As I said above, it looks like Mike just got in way over his head, probably believing that things would work out if he just had enough time.  As I said above, the Dubliner building needed to sell, and didn’t.  The sale of the building might have been enough to turn this mess around.  Losing the building to foreclosure made everything that came after inevitable.
    DJ

65. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    24 Jan 2006  at  08:45 pm | #

    DJ!

    I was only talking of the Dubliner.

    As to the market, you are right on the mark. I thought it was a stupid idea when I first heard it and then again after visiting it after it opened and I never returned because they had nothing unique. What did surprise me was that they got so many to buy in on the idea. I had spent some time analyzing Findlay Market, which cannot make it without the subsidy, my prognosis was based on knowledge of Findlay as well as many markets throughout Europe and the Americas.

    Back to the Dubliner: What was he thinking then? There must be a sickness in our society that is not unlike the scandalous use of credit cards and interest only loans. Seemingly , the only difference between Kull and the drug dealers that get shot regularly is that Kull’s dealers had a court system and fixed assets.

    From the above report that the fixtures were being carried out and the bar was beind dismantled, I can’t imagine the bar will open for St. Paddy’s Day, 2007. BTW, who took the fixtures?

    Thanks for answer my first two questions; 3 and 4 still remain unanswered.

66. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    24 Jan 2006  at  09:08 pm | #

    FYI - I stopped by tonight.  There is a large handmade sign in the window that says ‘New Dubliner’.

    They have really gutted the place.  The lights have been left on in the interior, and I’m guessing this was deliberate.  There is also a pre-printed sign about being to official bar of the St. Patrick’s Day parade.

67. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    24 Jan 2006  at  09:29 pm | #

    Dieter…  The Bar part of the Dubliner was always run very well in my opinion. Some people in the neighborhood complained about their draft prices, but the beer was high quality and the pints were imperial sized.  The service and atmosphere at the bar were top notch and I think Mike gets a lot of credit for that.  So yes the bar was viable, I always thought if you got rid of the back side of the restaurant they would have been better off.  Less overhead, lower payroll, restaurant always full etc.  As for your question 4 not sure I understand what you are asking.

68. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    24 Jan 2006  at  10:43 pm | #

    I had spent some time analyzing Findlay Market, which cannot make it without the subsidy, my prognosis was based on knowledge of Findlay as well as many markets throughout Europe and the Americas.

    Another secret to the success of Findlay market is, downtown hotels and restaurantsbuy seafood, etc there.  Country clubs in other parts of the city do as well.  My husband and I both used to work in the restaurant business, and Findlay market at the crack of dawn is a good place to hand pick what you want.  Ridge Market, of course, wasn’t surrounded by hotels and restaurants, and it wasn’t a big enough or diverse enough market to capture the country club market, either.

    Back to the Dubliner: What was he thinking then? There must be a sickness in our society that is not unlike the scandalous use of credit cards and interest only loans. Seemingly , the only difference between Kull and the drug dealers that get shot regularly is that Kull’s dealers had a court system and fixed assets.

    Not sure what planet you are on, exactly, with that comment.  While I agree that the use of credit cards can get out of control, we’re talking here about a man losing a business he has put 8 years of his life into, and a second business that he had great (perhaps not practical or realistic) hopes for.  I believe that what he was thinking, in a nutshell, was that the Dubliner building would sell, and he’d turn things around and make it work.  Maybe you’ve paid every bill on time your whole life, never gotten behind or in a hole you didn’t know the way out of.  If so, that is commendable.  Lots of people make mistakes, take risks, and when they are phenomenally lucky and it all works out, no one but their closest friends or family members ever has to find out how close it all came to crashing down around their ears. 

    I’ll just insert a quote from something that I read recently, and you can make of it what you will:

    “What happens to people that they become bitter, and why do we not turn to each other, and help?  We all walk a common path from cradle to grave, just stumble over different stones in it, trip in different holes, or drown in different puddles.”

    From the above report that the fixtures were being carried out and the bar was beind dismantled, I can’t imagine the bar will open for St. Paddy’s Day, 2007. BTW, who took the fixtures?

    I’m not sure who took the fixtures.  Mike was in the building, I believe, when furniture was being loaded.  I didn’t see him or any employees of his that I recognized the next day, when the bar was being taken apart.

    DJ

69. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    24 Jan 2006  at  11:29 pm | #

    Wow!

    I just saw some pictures on channel 9 of the inside of the bar. What I saw was malicious destruction of property. I emphasize the word malicious. I have had property in the OTR that was trashed but never to that extent and never over a period of a few days. This was vicious.

    It is too convenient to believe that Mr. Kull had nothing at all to do with it.

    If I lived in Pleasant Ridge I would be ashamed of what happened to the point that I would be up there tomorrow morning helping the new owner clean up the place. All of the discussion up to now was entertainment. Now there is a real issue of community. It will be interesting how Pleasant Ridge reacts.

70. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    25 Jan 2006  at  12:00 am | #

    kull never paid his bills SINCE THE BEGINNING, bounced $15 paychecks for neighborhood kids, never cleaned the place, but yet he drove an $80,000 Mercedes SUV.

    the new place will thrive with good management.

    the ridge market failed because they spent too much time trying to pretend that pleasant ridge is EXACTLY like affluent white neighborhoods like hyde park.  pleasant ridge is not like hyde park.  yes, there are an ever increasing number of affluent professionals, but he wonderful part about ‘the ridge’ is that the neighborhood is one of the few (if any) multi-racial community with residents across all social/financial classes that works in the entire region.

    the ridge market should have had not only the ‘yuppie’ high-end goods, but also combined them with foods & supplies that may have catered to african americans, or possibly working class folks, like the IGA that it replaced.  the couple of folks who were ‘idealists’ and running the market (but clueless about business) excluded approximately 40% of the neighborhood residents (3600 people) who didn’t fit their ‘yuppie’ mold of what the ideal customer should be. 

    with the new montessori public elementary under construction, a successful charter school, a good catholic grade school, a good mix of businesses in the montgomery road district, and skyrocketing property values - mark my words, this is a good time for neyer (or whoever) to get into the dubliner and other neighborhood businesses.  he’s a sharp guy, has made a lot of money in real estate, and knows what he’s doing. 

    watch and see - guiness will be flowing again soon at the good old dubliner.

71. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    25 Jan 2006  at  03:25 pm | #

    I looked inside the restaurant section this morning myself.  After thinking about what the bar looked like, I wanted to see if the built-in booths and tables were still there.  They were gone.  If Mike and his people did that, it’s sad.  I did hear that the new people who are going to run the Dubliner are planning to remodel the whole place, so I don’t know what to think.  I don’t know for certain who did what, or for what reason.  Dieterschmied, you didn’t say what the news story was about on channel 9.  Was it a “Look what Mike Kull did,” story, or a “What the heck are the new owners doing to the Dubliner?” story?  I didn’t see channel 9 last night.  I was focused on 19’s coverage of the Beverage Cave mess.

    Like many who were customers from the beginning, I have fond memories of the Dubliner from when my daughter was a baby.  My husband and I used to go there on Saturday afternoons, a pretty dead time, and sit in front of the fire in the bar.  We were usually the only people there at that time of day.  We’d order a pot of tea and bread and butter and relax by the fire.  We went there for dinner during busy times, too, took family from out of town there for lunch, etc. 

    As for Ridge market, XYZ, you hit it right on the head.  If half of that building had been a small neighborhood grocery with affordable prices, the other half could have catered to yuppies and it might have worked.  Vendors in the market didn’t really get it, right up to the very end, that a lot of people in the neighborhood just plain couldn’t afford to support Ridge Market.

    But, I heard an interesting rumor yesterday.  Strictly a rumor, mind you, but a daycare might be moving into the old Ridge Market building.  A crew was there yesterday removing what looked like huge a/c units from the roof.  The daycare rumor came from one of those guys.  The space seems way too big to me, so I’ll believe it when I see it.  It would be nice to see something go into the Ridge Market building that might really work, something the neighborhood actually needs.

    DJ

72. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    25 Jan 2006  at  05:48 pm | #

    DJ!

    Here is the link at channel 9 with picture:
    http://www.wcpo.com/news/2006/local/01/24/dubliner.html

73. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    25 Jan 2006  at  06:11 pm | #

    DJ - I heard the same rumor a few days ago about the Ridge Market property, but the last time I checked the ‘For Sale’ sign was still in place.  From what I heard it’s one of the better daycare providers (whatever that means).

    ALso, some of the Ridge merchants would tell you they did try to cater to the neighborhood clientele - but this never seemed very convincing to me.  Also there’s a bigger margin on a $5 jar of upscale spaghetti sauce than a $1.50 can of Ragu that is selling at the bigbox vendor for $1.19 and a smiley face - so they went with the upscale product in hopes they’d see more customers.

    Other will tell you that the Market never charged any of the vendors the right rent for the storefronts and utilities until too late in the game - at which time it was a nasty shock.  And there was never agreement on advertising.

74. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    25 Jan 2006  at  06:30 pm | #

    Dieterschmied, thanks for the link.  Front of house, the bar and dining room that I could see through the windows, was bad enough.  The kitchen looks really awful. 

    Brendan, I noticed the sign, too, but the a/c units being loaded on the truck was more activity than I had seen over there for quite awhile.  There have also been heating/a/c vans in the parking lot and guys in and out of the building over the past week. (I drive through there four times a day taking my daughter to school and back, going to pick her up and back.)

    DJ

75. xyz says:
    25 Jan 2006  at  06:37 pm | #

    heard a rumor that a new firehouse is going to be where the ridge market is - tearing down the existing and constructing new….

    who knows?

    it’s encouraging that the school is now being torn down and the new one is going up later in this year.

76. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    25 Jan 2006  at  10:33 pm | #

    Well I have been given some more information tonight and it seems to jive.

    Kull was in debt of near $700,000 that is documented in court records.
    Kull was 40 months in arrears in rents.
    Neyer owned the building for a long time prior to any foreclosure action (perhaps in another corporation).
    Neyer carried the guy for more than three years.
    When told to leave the place and equipment was trashed and/or looted. (Items attached to the building stay with the building normally at the end of the lease)

    So who was the bad guy?

    Now if Kull had squirreled away receipts for more than six months prior, his corporation can file for bankruptcy. The court won’t go beyond the six months in checking the assets of the corporation as to being hidden in Kull’s personal accounts and claimed as wages, etc.

    Now if this were the situation in say in the OTR’s drug environment, there would be no need for the courts.

    If Kull owed you 3/4 mill, what system of justice would you prefer?

    It happens more than most believe.

77. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    25 Jan 2006  at  11:45 pm | #

    Dieter-
    People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. There’s plenty of history on you in the courts system, and you’re a slumlord to boot.

78. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    26 Jan 2006  at  05:21 am | #

    BFD!

    What?
    That is pure slander or I should say libel. But you hide like a roach. Lte’s see some facts or crawl back into the woodwork.

    While I am here,
    Some facts from the county auditor’s site:
    Parcels 124-0002-0023(restaurant) and 124-0002-0024 (parking lot) were conveyed to on 9-3-98 and still remain in the name of Pub Ventures Ltd. The sales price for both properties was $205,000. The tax mailing address is Ridge Pubs LLC on Red Bank Road. On 12-30-05, approximately four years of back real estate taxes were paid up (approximately $31,000.) and this is probably the impetus related to the foreclosure action that was mentioned earlier.

    If anyone need to know more about the two corporations, they can check with the Sec. of State.

    I had also been told last night, contrary to what DJ thought,  that there was grant money involved in the amount of approximately $500,000. Some one might confirm that with the city, I have done enough on this.

79. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    26 Jan 2006  at  05:26 am | #

    If anyone knows who BFD is, I would like to know. His email is xxxxxxxxxx .
    Mine is .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) .

    [This post has been edited by an administrator.  Dieter—it is unlikely that the email left by “BFD” is accurate.  I think the anonymous user copied someone else’s.  If you want me to remove the BFD comment, let me know.]

80. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    26 Jan 2006  at  12:56 pm | #

    Just keep in mind that if you were evicted from an apartment, you wouldn’t leave your bed, washer and dryer, artwork, television or anything else that you had personally purchased behind, nor would you be expected to.

81. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    26 Jan 2006  at  04:38 pm | #

    Pal!

    You are speaking of a residential rental. It is different for commercial. And if one has a lease that the tenant and owner had agreed to, unless it is forbidden in the Ohio Landlord Tenant Law, yes, personal property could be required to be left in the apartment.

    And much to the dismay of many landlords, tenants often do leave those items behind. Have you never seen a set out?

82. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    26 Jan 2006  at  06:11 pm | #

    I guess that would require having an actual signed lease then, wouldn’t it?

83. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    26 Jan 2006  at  11:46 pm | #

    Dieter, your post above confuses me.  If Dan Neyer already owned the building, then wouldn’t the mortgage have been in his name?  Wouldn’t the foreclosure have been against him rather than Mike Kull?  If that were the case, then how would it work for Dan Neyer to lose the building to foreclosure, then turn around and buy the foreclosed property at sherriff’s sale?  If Mike Kull was a tenant all along, not the owner of the building at all, then there would be a lease, correct?

    I’m not a lawyer, so this is a murky area for me, but I’ll put forth what I believe and we’ll see if anyone else can be more specific.  In a lease situation, as I understand it(unless otherwise spelled out), any items not semi-permanently affixed/bolted to the walls/floor/ceilings are the property of the tenant.  Built-ins, items bolted to walls etc, are considered part of the building.  For example, pictures hanging on walls, tables, chairs, benches and most appliances brought in by the tenant are “loose” items.  A non-free-standing bar is considered “permanent.”  (Any apartment dwellers reading this:  DO NOT make a built-in bookcase or bar in your apartment.  You will just be making a gift of it to your landlord.)  Here’s where it all gets very sticky.  If a person is the owner of the building when all of the improvements are made, there would seem to be no reason for him to keep everything “loose” so that it can be taken out later.  The building, and everything in it, at least at that time, belongs to him.  When a mountain of bad financial decisions comes crashing down, the former owner doesn’t have a lease with the new owner.  So now, what belongs to whom?  What a mess.  Figuratively and literally.

84. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    27 Jan 2006  at  12:01 am | #

    DJ - If I can just pipe in here - these are good questions.  And certainly restaurants have exchanged hands in the past, so this has to be a fairly common situation.  I wonder if anyone can shed light based on how the business usually or sometimes works ...?

    Also, any Pleasant Ridgers who might be posting (or lurking) on this thread - check out ‘Bert’s Daughter Café’ on Ridge.  It just opened it’s doors.

    And ... I’m toying with the idea of starting a PR-only blog.  Nonpolitical, just neighborhood issues, with comments, but actively policed for crude, unnecessary, or you’d-never-say-that-in-front-of-your-mother commentary.  If anybody would support this - send me an email, please.

85. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    27 Jan 2006  at  12:57 am | #

    much like DJ - I’m not a lawyer, and looking at the pictures and walking past, it’s
    definatly a mess, but from my dealings in renting (non-commercial) as long as the building itself isn’t damaged all I was personally at risk for was my deposit.  I haven’t been privvey enough to see inside the whole building, but all I see is garbage/blank dry wall(esque) spots even with the bar being gone.  Not that I’m happy the way things look, but I don’t see any major damage done to the interior at all, other than the garbage.  I’m sure commercial and residential have their own dealings, but I’ve only dealt with the latter.  Lets hope things work out at least adult-like for both sides.

86. Mike says:
    27 Jan 2006  at  12:43 pm | #

    I heard a story about when the bar was being removed. Dan came in with a sherriff to complain about it, and Mike told him he had the receipt and contractors stuff proving it was his. Sherriff told Dan there wasn’t anything he could do about it, and left.

87. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    27 Jan 2006  at  05:54 pm | #

    DJ!

    The foreclosure probably was a tax forclosure in which the defendant is the owner of the property. In order to determine other’s rights or claims to the property, a title search is done so that any that have a claim against the property are put on notice that the forclosure is happening. Others may have a claim because they did work on the building or that they put attachments such as the bar in the building. Some have recorded liens and they may need to be aware of an action so that there is no clouds on the title because someone should have been notified. To be safe, anyone that has a hint of a claim should be notified.

    The owner of the building is a corporation and I assume it to be a corporation that Neyer is associated with based on the claims of others that Neyer owns the building. Actually, it is the corporation that owns the building and Neyer may own the corporation or part of the corporation.

    The reason the mortgage would not be in his name is the same reasons one has corporations: anonymity and limited liability.

    As to the question about permanent versus free-standing improvements in a leased or rented property. In commercial relationships anything goes if the parties agree. Generally speaking , if you rent an apartment and hang a picture on the wall you could be responsible for the costs or repairing the nail hole. Normal wear and tear are commonly excluded from having to be repaired when the apartment is returned. The landlord gave you his property for a specific amount of time and it is up to the tenant to return the property in the same shape as it was when the tenant took possession.

    Selling the or losing the property has no effect on a rental agreement or lease; the new owner is obligated to honor an existing lease.

    New guy!
    You liability for damages is not limited to your security deposit. If damages exceed the amount of the security deposit, the the landlord can demand the full cost of the damages caused by you or your guests and your security deposit is only a down payment.

88. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    27 Jan 2006  at  06:01 pm | #

    Mike says:
    27 Jan 2006 at 02:43 pm | #

    I heard a story about when the bar was being removed. Dan came in with a sherriff to complain about it, and Mike told him he had the receipt and contractors stuff proving it was his. Sherriff told Dan there wasn’t anything he could do about it, and left.

    I don’t buy it! Pleasnt Ridge is not patroled by the sheriff; the building is in the city. If the bar was legally Mike’s, he can file criminal charges but it is probably just a civil matter. Don’t give it too much thought there are just too many rumors.

89. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    27 Jan 2006  at  11:12 pm | #

    So, Dieter, are you saying that Dan Neyer owned the building through an anonymous corporation, didn’t pay the real estate taxes for 4 years and the city foreclosed?  Then he turned around and repurchased the building at the sherrif’s sale?

90. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    28 Jan 2006  at  09:51 am | #

    The damage pictures are nothing but a sympathy ploy.  Look closely -  It’s only trash.  Not damage.  Besides, you can take anything that is a part of doing business for your business that isn’t permanently attached as I understand it.

    The fact is, they wanted to steal the business out from under the Kull family.  They hired an ex-employee with Neyer as the principal investor.  Shady?  It’s only shady because Neyer never made an attempt to buy the business outright, instead he snuck around lying about his intentions and then went for the kill.  No one, NO ONE is arguing Mike has made any good decisions when it comes to money.  The point is - if you are a “neighborhood” guy like Neyer who has kids at the same school as Mike (a church school, btw) there are ways of dealing with this situation other than selling the business to an ex-employee while lying about your intentions up front.

    If you were in that situation, would you hand over anything that could possibly help the slimy new owners?

    Whole thing = ugly. 

    Bottom line.  The new owners got only a small portion of what they deserve.  Go ahead, open any other kind of restaurant or business and the whole story changes - but opening another Irish bar and calling it The Dubliner!?!?  You can not say that isn’t downright evil and underhanded.

91. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    28 Jan 2006  at  01:05 pm | #

    That certainly puts a new spin on things.  I’ve felt all along that the only decent thing to do would have been to offer to buy Mike’s business from him.  As Dieter observed above:

    And does the Neyer that owns the building have relatives in government? Now that their might be no liens against the building, the owners have a much improved building.
    

    There is something that smells a little funky about not offering to buy the business from Mike.  And keeping the Dubliner name, too.  There is a very funky rotten smell about that.

    As for Dieter’s assertion that Neyer had owned the building for years, before all of the “stuff” hit the fan, I really think that is untrue.  As I have always understood it, Pleasant Perk (the other business in the building), and the upstairs apartment tenants as well, all had Mike Kull as their landlord, the guy they paid their rent to.

92. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    28 Jan 2006  at  08:23 pm | #

    Ridiculous, my question to you is what happens to the proceeds from the futrue sale of all the restaurant equimpment, fixtures etc. removed from the Dubliner?  Does the money go to the creditors.  In this whole mess they seem to me to be the ones really being screwed.  Also, how do you know Neyer never attempted to buy the business?  Maybe they could not come to agreement on price.  Also, how do you know Neyer lied about his intentions? Is this first hand knowledge or heresay?

93. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    29 Jan 2006  at  12:06 am | #

    DJ says:
    28 Jan 2006 at 01:12 am | #

    So, Dieter, are you saying that Dan Neyer owned the building through an anonymous corporation, didn’t pay the real estate taxes for 4 years and the city foreclosed?  Then he turned around and repurchased the building at the sherrif’s sale?

    The corporation is not anonymous; the stockholders could be.

    I don’t think it is a case of Neyer not paying the taxes. Often the tenant agrees to pay the taxes because the tenant often improves the value of the property and therefore causes the taxes to increas so it seems reasonable for the tenant to pay the taxes. It’s called a “net net net lease”. No matter who was to pay the taxes, is not important. The taxes go with the building and cannot be negotiated away nor be waived. There are some penalties for late payment, but they are tolerable.
    The auditor’s records show that the building was not purchased; it is in the same name as it was for about the last eight years.

    Often when a building is being foreclosed and someone comes in and pays the taxes and the court costs, the case is dismissed. Normally it is the state that brings the foreclosure suit and if the state is paid, there is no reason for the state to continue, but other defendants might want the case to continue for various reasons.

94. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    29 Jan 2006  at  01:35 pm | #

    Hmmmm, all very interesting stuff.  Especially since it was very clearly stated by a person who claimed to have first hand knowledge that the property had been foreclosed upon and Neyer bought it at sherrif’s sale in order to “save” it.  This was, supposedly, to keep it from being purchased at the sale by someone who might want to tear the building down and make it a CVS or something equally ugly.  It was clearly stated at the time that this was being done to preserve things as they were, Dubliner and Pleasant Perk staying in place.  Somewhere along the way, misinformation is being deliberately distributed, or there has been some tweaking, some “spin” put on what actually happened.

    In any case, why would Pleasant Perk and the apartment tenants have paid their rent to Mike if he was not the owner?  It just doesn’t add up.

95. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    29 Jan 2006  at  01:42 pm | #

    And as for the “net net net lease” described above, it sounds pretty much like “Screw screw screw the tenant” to me.  If any landlord of mine had every told me: “Here you go, improve the property to your little heart’s content, which will benefit ME in the end, and while you’re at it, pay the real estate taxes, too.” I’d have told him to go screw himself.  Sorry if anyone finds that offensive.  I find the whole concept of net net net lease offensive. 

    DJ

96. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    29 Jan 2006  at  02:12 pm | #

    DJ!

    You are failing to distiguish between a commercial lease and what lease or rental agreement that you are probably familiar with, a residential lease.

    In commercial lease the parties can agree to anything legal.

    Given the scenario of your last question, If I were Kull, I would find it advantageous to lease the entire building and then sublet to the other tenants. The owner avoids having to deal with tenants. Kull would have control and the power to select who his neighbors would be. There is no tenant complaining behind his back to an owner or manager or police. The way people are, he would almost certainly have one tenant that would complain about the noise or people pissing in the parking lot as they are on a Wasson road pub.

    Remember, unless a lease was recorded, the terms of the lease are private. Most of what had been posted here have been rumors.

97. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    29 Jan 2006  at  04:29 pm | #

    Dieter, I understand the difference between commercial and residential leasing.  What I don’t understand is why any commercial tenant would agree to the net net net lease idea you described above.  There is no benefit that I can see for a commercial tenant to make extensive improvements to a building he does not own, which as I stated above, will benefit the building owner in the long run, and then also pay the real estate taxes on top of it.  Legal or not, it doesn’t make sense for a tenant, commercial or otherwise, to improve the building, and then, in some reverse logic that it’s his “fault” that the value of the building has increased, which benefits the OWNER, he should pay the taxes as well.  He should have to pay the taxes as some some sort of penalty for improving the building for the owner?  That’s all I was saying.  It may be very well be legal.  I’ll take your word for that.  It just doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense.

98. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    29 Jan 2006  at  10:05 pm | #

    DJ!

    Each of those “net"s refer to something that the owner does not wish to be responsible for. The first “net” ccould be water, the second taxes, the third some other utility and it doesn’t have to be limited to three but after three nets, it is no longer common knowledge, so we stop at three.

    As to improving another’s building, it is quite common. A bar’s decoration life is often ten years. That is to say after ten years, the bar, store, etc. becomes stale and the point at which that determination is made is very subjective. If the owner has to determine what the cost of renovation that a tenant has in mind it would take a long time and an army of lawyers to agree on a lease. It is easier to have the tenant pay for his own repairs and renovation.

    You have a hang up over this issue but you need to understand that the “custom” renovation is to the tenant’s wishes and the next tenant may not have the same taste and maybe the next tenant wants to do another type of business. What use is an oak bar to the owner, especially when he rents to a clothing store?

99. failte says:
    01 Feb 2006  at  01:01 pm | #

    They hired an ex-employee with Neyer as the principal investor.

    Ridiculous what former employee?

100. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
     03 Feb 2006  at  11:51 pm | #

     Anybody who thinks Mike Kull’s problems started in 2005, or whenever he took over the Heritage, is living in a fantasy world. He hasn’t been paying on his 700,000.00 loan for years; he’s not paid property taxes for years. He and his wife wrote notes personally guaranteeing the 700k loan, they knew exactly what they were doing. What happened to the money?? Did the Dubliner undergo some extensive renovation back in 2002 - 2003 that I missed? Where’s the money???? (BTW, the loan was backed by the SBA, so we taxpayers helped subsidize it.)

     He apparently had another investor in the Dubliner who got nailed to the tune of 100,000.00 to get out of the lawsuit the bank had against the Dubliner.

     Kull wised up when he signed the lease on the Ridge Market. He signed off as a corporation (Improve Pleasant Ridge, or whatever their corp name was), not as an individual. When the market went belly up, the building owner was left holding the bag, not Kull, even though he orchestrated the whole mess. The corporation conveniently disappeared.

     Nice guy. Bounce checks to the employees, suppliers, contractors. Forget about paying on a loan six months after he takes it out. Get investors involved in another failed restaurant.

     Hey, maybe the Kulls can blame it on Father Marc at Nativity, and go hold a protest!! Yeah, that’s the ticket! Maybe they can get Patty whats-her-name to write an article in the Enquirer about how great Mike Kull is (oh wait, that article’s already happened).

101. former server says:
     04 Feb 2006  at  05:32 am | #

     dear malibu -

     As a past server, I’m not going to pretend in the least that Mike was a good money manager.  However, anytime a personal paycheck bounced he immediatly payed it out of his wallet.  It was an issue with us servers for a while, but I had zero problems the past few months, if not the past year.  I’m not sure if he was just in over his head or didn’t have a proper accountant, but I was never hurt for money and I worked there for about a year with no true troubles.  I’m clueless about his loans/liens for the building, but out of personal experiance I’ve never had a better boss.

     As to the apparent pissing contest going on, it sickens me on both ends.  To know that Mike would leave the place looking as it did, and for the new owners to call out the news saying “look how bad off we are, pity us”.  I was personally very friendly with a lot of the regulars who’ve been going there for 5+ years and they are disgusted too - to the extent of planning on never returning.  To which end they draw that line I’m not sure - but it’s not a pretty situation either way, no matter whose side of the story you believe.

     I’ll miss my experiance at The Dubliner - I’ve never been closer to a restaurant family than that place, which is beyond rare - things won’t be the same when they reopen, good luck to them though. As for me, I’m going to leave my thoughts of how things were as how they were - there’s no replacing what I’ve been through. Slainte.

102. malibu says:
     04 Feb 2006  at  12:05 pm | #

     All,
     Mike Kull owned the building through his corporation (Pub Ventures) up until October. Neyer bought it at the sheriff’s sale. The judgement against Kull for defaulting on the loan goes back over a year. It took the last year to get the judgement enforced, and the building sold. Kull had it on the market for four or five months before the sheriff’s sale, asking 790,000.00 for it. Anybody who would have paid that much for it would have had a screw loose. That’s why it didn’t sell.

     Kull already had a 125,000.00 judgement against him for an earlier case. How he managed to get together financing to buy the Heritage is beyond me.

     I don’t think Kull’s problems are over by a long shot. He and his wife personally (not through a corporation) guaranteed the loan. The bank is almost required to enforce that, otherwise it would be a 300,000.00+ loss for the bank. Guess who would pick up the tab for that write-off? If you said “you and me”, go to the head of the class.

     And I’m sure the Feds will take a long, hard look at someone who takes out a 700,000.00 loan, defaults on it, doesn’t pay thousands of dollars of real estate taxes, routinely bounced checks to employees, etc.

     I though bouncing checks was a criminal offense.

103. the redhead \thick swiss says:
     08 Feb 2006  at  03:54 am | #

     as far as what everyone has said MIKE KULL is an amazing person, a great friend, and an amazing boss if anyone wants to talk shit talk to the people who stood behind him for years and you will get an entire differet story he really is amazing . BARB, you got exactly what you wanted, now take the business and dont BITCH . but let me promise you, you will never have the business, friends, relationships, and NEVER,NEVER,NEVER, ever understand the FAMILY that we had there, and we will CONTINUE to have the FAMILY and the FRIENDSHIP with out the building . good luck ever competing with that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

104. xyz says:
     08 Feb 2006  at  11:04 pm | #

     if you take more money out of the business than comes into the cash registers, you fail.

     too bad, but not paying your bills, tax evasion, defaulting on a federal loan, all while driving an 80k car = trouble.

     the new owner will be successful, as long as the money going out is less than the money coming in.

     income-expenses=profit.

     you can be a ‘nice guy’ and a ‘good person’, but if you don’t pay your contractors, designers, suppliers, and staff it’s stealing.

     best of luck to the former owner - i hope that he and his family land on their feet.

105. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
     13 Feb 2006  at  03:38 pm | #

     Note:  I wrote the original article here.  I have noticed that other people have decided to add my email address to their comments.  My name is my real name, and I don’t hide behind aliases to make accusations either here or on my own weblog.  You can rest assured that ‘malibu’, ‘xyz’ and ‘a.s.g.’ are not speaking for me.

106. ridge supporter says:
     15 Feb 2006  at  09:48 pm | #

     Someone Hurt by Kull
     Cincinnati, OH Flag for Review | Reply » 10 hours ago
     Someone who knows wrote:
     The closing of the Dubliner has nothing to do with corporate giants like Applebee’s and Macaroni Grill and everything to do with Mike Kull’s poor and often unscrupulous business management. Trying to make it sound as if this were a classic case of the little guy being forced out by the big guy is enough to turn the stomachs of anyone who actually knows this man and his business “ethics”. To feel sorry for him is to greatly misplace compassion. Instead, feel sorry for his employees, most of whom stood by him, believed in him and worked their butts off for him even when lied to and grossly unappreciated. Feel sorry for his patrons who have spent their years and dollars contributing to this establishment and feel sorry for his daughters who have this man as an example in their lives, but don’t feel sorry for him. The things we do have a way of coming back on us.
     Mike Kull owes me and my company $20,000 worth of equipment he didn’t feelk like he had to pay for. That is what he did with the Dubliner. It wasn’t taken from him, he didn’t pay for it.

107. malibu says:
     16 Feb 2006  at  02:09 pm | #

     Brendan,
     I didn’t intentionally use your email address. I never entered one, and yours populated automatically. Not sure whats up with that…