PDA

View Full Version : Save The Gaslight and Everybodys Records



PM Thor
06-03-2012, 09:29 PM
I need everyones help, and quick.

Walgreens is trying to buy one entire corner of Ridge and Montgomery, and doing so would level Everybodys Records and Gaslight Cafe, along with 7 other locally owned and operated small businesses. This is a calculated move, done weeks before City Council adjourns for the summer in order to push through the sale.

Now, here are the reasons to oppose this purchase.
A. The corner is already overwhelmed with traffic, and the addition of a Walgreens drive thru, plus 2 turn ins, would be simply unacceptable.
B. There are 3 elementary schools within a block or two of the corner, the added turn in traffic would be another hazard.
C. The current Walgreens is 1/10th of a mile away. If they move, there would be yet another empty business in the close vicinity of Ridge, while driving out the locals with the move.
D. Walkability. Walgreens would not promote a walkable, neighborhood type business district in Pleasant Ridge, like we have now.

And my big one.

E. The loss of locally owned businesses. The corridor on Montgomery has been deemed an entertainment district by the city, what with a few restaraunts and the whatnot. 9 businesses, many who have been there for decades, would be forced to move. Gaslight is a cornerstone to the community.

So I ask, if you can, go and sign the petition, find out info at the Gaslight FB page, Twitter page. Do what you can.

Can you imagine if you heard Danas was being bought out? The Comet? Cityview? On and on.

Thanks for your help.

PMThor.

Porkopolis
06-03-2012, 10:18 PM
I was furious when I heard about this. I hope Walgreens is stopped in this case.

CinciX12
06-03-2012, 11:39 PM
Saw this on the news last night. The world is not in need of more Walgreens.

blueblob06
06-04-2012, 08:27 AM
So Everybody's Records has no say in the matter??? That sucks.

Help fill me in, are the businesses just renting the space and the owner of the properties is talking to Walgreen's to sell the space?

Gotta protect local business!

nuts4xu
06-04-2012, 09:28 AM
What occupies the old IGA store now? I haven't been up that way in a long time.

xu95
06-04-2012, 11:13 AM
So Everybody's Records has no say in the matter??? That sucks.

Help fill me in, are the businesses just renting the space and the owner of the properties is talking to Walgreen's to sell the space?

Gotta protect local business!

Here's my confusion on this whole thing.

a) If those local stores own those spots than the city won't be able to take them away. There is absolutely no chance they would be able to do eminent domain here.

b) someone else owns these stores and wants to sell them to Walgreen's.

I am assuming the answer is b. If that is the case, I have a hard time telling someone who owns the location to whom they are allowed to sell their property to.

If it is a, than that means that all of those stores want to sell to make a little cash and people are trying to stop them.

I'm sure I will now be told that I am a capitalist pig.

DC Muskie
06-04-2012, 11:30 AM
Whenever stories like this come up I always ask...

When was the last time you were ever in....fillintheblank?

Putting a Walgreens pretty much anywhere sucks. However Walgreens has the money to purchase buildings, level them and build their own. They did this in a neighborhood down the way from me.

Businesses close all of the time because of leasing issues. This might sound cold...but you need to accept the fact that not everybody loves Everybodys Records, and they would rather have a Walgreens that they can't walk to.

It's crazy I know. There are also people who are Phillies fans.

Snipe
06-04-2012, 12:31 PM
Can't those businesses move? Is Walgreens that evil?

I go to Walgreens sometimes. I wish one was closer to my house than Clifton. I got my children's anti-biotics at Walgreens. How many lives does Walgreens save by dispensing medication? How many lives does Everybody's Records save? I won't even ask about the Gaslight Cafe...

I get that nobody wants another Walgreens vs having cultural Meccas like Everybody's Records and the Gaslight Cafe. If I liked those stores I would say the same thing. Maybe you could hold a fund drive to buy the property and then not sell it to Walgreens. I am sure the property owner would sell it to the highest bidder, but I fear that is the problem. Capitalism is surely to blame.

I had a store once, or at least my wife had one. Now she sells everything online. We got laid waste by a Kroger Mega Store. Before that though we had some nice cheap rent. We couldn't pay what Kroger was going to pay. I don't feel like Kroger made me a victim. Sometimes that is just the way it happens? Does the world need another Kroger? Sure it does, and I actually have shopped at the Kroger. I wouldn't be surprised if the people that object to Walgreens actually end up shopping there, and probably more than they did at Everybody's records or frequenting the Gaslight Cafe.

With our widespread demographic change, we are going to see a lot of more things that "we" think deserve saving that don't get saved or go out of business. This is going to be a long process.

nuts4xu
06-04-2012, 12:39 PM
I have a friend or two that still play records, but can't see how the market is that fertile to neccessitate a whole store dedicated to selling an out of print medium.

Book stores are also closing, and that probably sucks real bad to some people too.

Just life in 2012.....

Haven't been to the Gaslight in decades. Nice little joint, but I haven't had a need to make a return trip. Hope it works out for everyone involved.

LadyMuskie
06-04-2012, 01:03 PM
On the one hand, I'm not sure how Everybodys has existed as long as it has. A record store in a century when cds aren't selling cannot be raking in tons of money. I'm guessing their rent is very low and they can't afford to pay more or move - probably because they cater to a very specific niche market that has increased slightly thanks to hipsters. If the land owner wants to sell to Walgreen's and make a tidy profit, then that's his right. Everybodys and The Gas Light have the right hire a good attorney and to form an entity that could make its own offer to buy the land.

On the other hand, Walgreen's is a behemoth in more ways than one. It's like the Walmart of pharmacies without the bad PR. It would be nice to be able to keep some of the smaller mom and pop stores around that give a neighborhood and a city its identity. Yes, Walgreen's is convenient and I shop there on occasion as well, but with one less than a mile away, I don't think any citizens of Pleasant Ridge are going to die because they can't get their antibiotics in time.

I wish the citizens of PR good luck. It's an uphill battle, and if I was serious about fighting this, I would contact a good land use attorney with a healthy working relationship with the city zoning and use office. I can guarantee you that Walgreen's has attorneys lined up from here to the moon and back. You're going to need more than just petitions to make something actually happen.

danaandvictory
06-04-2012, 01:40 PM
Can't those businesses move? Is Walgreens that evil?

There is an existing Walgreen's less than a quarter mile from the location of these businesses.

Snipe
06-04-2012, 02:17 PM
There is an existing Walgreen's less than a quarter mile from the location of these businesses.

Somebody should tell Walgreens about their error! It is going to be a disaster for them.

On the other hand, maybe they have already thought about it, and want the new location. Perhaps they have taken this into consideration.

Perhaps private property isn't all it is cracked up to be. Karl Marx didn't care for it.

The demographics are changing. More kids are born minority than born white. In the end, it will be a numbers game. It doesn't matter what the hipsters think, they don't have enough of them to be profitable. The future of profits is with the black and brown masses, and I bet they prefer Walgreens to Everybody's Records. How many Hispanics shop at Everybody's Records? Sucks for them I guess.

Maybe we should curb immigration to save Everybody's Records, and all the other Stuff White People Like (http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/).

danaandvictory
06-04-2012, 02:19 PM
Snipe's been on the bath salts again.

BlueGuy
06-04-2012, 02:40 PM
Who owns the buildings where these businesses are now? Is Walgreens somehow forcing them to sell?

GoMuskies
06-04-2012, 02:42 PM
Who owns the buildings where these businesses are now? Is Walgreens somehow forcing them to sell?

Sounds to me like the businesses have a landlord (or multiple landlords) who will sell out to Walgreens and kick the businesses out (either right away or by not renewing their leases).

UCGRAD4X
06-04-2012, 02:54 PM
While I do not believe anybody has the right or power to stop Walgreens and the property owner from making this deal - I am not opposed to applying public pressure to dissuade the parties from completing the deal.

Not in the way public sector unions dissuade voters in Wisconsin, but in a way that convinces Walgreens it may not be in their best business interest.

DC Muskie
06-04-2012, 03:38 PM
Not in the way public sector unions dissuade voters in Wisconsin, but in a way that convinces Walgreens it may not be in their best business interest.

This is funny...how would this work exactly?

"Look Walgreens, you better not purchase this building that is up for sale, because there are businesses in there that sell things nobody wants, or needs. If you go ahead and replace with a store such as your yourself that sells things that people want and need, we will be forced to try and ignore you."

If Walgreens puts a store on every block will people freak out? because I definitely feel there are too many Subway shops.

LadyMuskie
06-04-2012, 03:54 PM
While I do not believe anybody has the right or power to stop Walgreens and the property owner from making this deal - I am not opposed to applying public pressure to dissuade the parties from completing the deal.

Not in the way public sector unions dissuade voters in Wisconsin, but in a way that convinces Walgreens it may not be in their best business interest.

The only way I see public pressure working is if people stop shopping at the already existing Walgreen's store in PR. Then Walgreen's would close up shop because there is no market for them. However, they obviously believe that they can make money being in PR.

Petitions are great when it comes to elected officials and voicing your displeasure, but in this case, if the City of Cincinnati intervenes it's going to look like government is intervening in regular business to save a couple of stores who could still wind up being thrown out tomorrow if the lessor decides not to renew the lease.

Green Township fought a similar battle when green space along Harrison Avenue was going to be used to build a mall. The mall was supposed to house stores like JC Penney, Macy's, etc. and the residents of Green Township collectively freaked out. So they petitioned and went to township council meetings and so forth until they got the issue on a ballot and voted it down. The developers backed down without much of a fight, but now the land sits empty and word circulating is that a giant Walmart super store is going to go in there and Walmart is virtually unstoppable. So, now instead of having Macy's, Penney's, Children's Place, Gap, etc. we're going to wind up with a Walmart. Green Township would have been better off with the mall, but now they might have to be happy with Walmart. Be careful what you wish for. Walgreen's might be bad, but it could be worse.

muckem muckem
06-04-2012, 03:55 PM
Gaslight was our groups aftergame meeting spot back in The Garden days. Lots of good memories and good people that own it. I hope they are happy with the outcome.

Kahns Krazy
06-05-2012, 08:51 AM
I think UCGrad4X nailed it. When push comes to shove, private land owners can sell whatever they want to whoever they want. That doesn't mean interested parties cannot make their opinions heard. I do think this would be an overall negative impact to the appeal of Pleasant Ridge, and if I lived around there, I would be doing what

If enough neighborhood residents want to get together and petition or boycott Walgreens, that is their right.

The proximity of the existing Walgreens does make this one a particular head scratcher. Maybe they heard CVS was talking to the owners and wanted to get there first.

BBC 08
06-05-2012, 09:55 AM
But what about the Clock Tower? Will anyone save it?

Muskie
06-05-2012, 10:13 AM
But what about the Clock Tower? Will anyone save it?

I pledge $1

xeus
06-05-2012, 10:23 AM
While I do not believe anybody has the right or power to stop Walgreens and the property owner from making this deal - I am not opposed to applying public pressure to dissuade the parties from completing the deal.


I agree with this. I'm not sure what leverage there really is, as I'm pretty sure Walgreens would scoff at the idea of a boycott, and the current property owner has every right to take a good offer while the gettin's good.

As a Pleasant Ridge resident, I think this relocation of Walgreens, and displacement of small business, would suck Garvin balls. I go to the Gaslight occasionally, and Everybody's is a fixture I would hate to lose from the P Ridge business district.

Kahns Krazy
06-05-2012, 11:36 AM
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=ridge+and+montgomery+cincinnati&hl=en&ll=39.1825,-84.425758&spn=0.001622,0.004123&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=53.696917,135.087891&t=h&hnear=Montgomery+Rd+%26+Ridge+Rd,+Cincinnati,+Hami lton,+Ohio+45213&z=19

If you're not familiar with the area, here is a map. The existing Walgreens is located in the upper right of the map, with the businesses at risk in the lower left. They are actually in the same block. Closing of the existing businesses to relocate one business a few hundred feet may be beneficial to Walgreens, but will be a detriment to the neighborhood and the city as a whole.

(edit:How much of the map you see when you click the link depends on how big your display is, I guess.)

bjf123
06-05-2012, 02:10 PM
The proximity of the existing Walgreens does make this one a particular head scratcher. Maybe they heard CVS was talking to the owners and wanted to get there first.

Is the current Walgreens in the same building that used to also include Pleasant Ridge IGA? Many years ago (20+), I worked for a company that was involved with both. At that time, Walgreens' real estate plan seemed to want to colocate in strip centers with other retailers to draw traffic. That changed 10-15 years ago to Walgreens wanting to be in freestanding buildings on the corner of major roads. They did this a few years ago when they closed the Walgreens that was in the strip center on the southeast corner of Winton and Galbraith and opened a freestanding store across the street on the northeast corner of the same intersection. If I had to guess, I'd say their lease at the current location is coming to an end, so they're going to open a new store on the corner.

chico
06-05-2012, 02:22 PM
I'd hate to see the Gaslight go. They have some very good burgers. You can also place a wager or two if you know the right people - from what I hear. Bought my first CD at Everybody's but to tell you the truth I haven't been in there in years. It would be a shame if they had to vacate.

What is also interesting is that Mullaney's is on the south corner, meaning Walgreens and Mullaney's would be right next to each other. That may be another reason Walgreen's wants to move there.

UCGRAD4X
06-05-2012, 03:32 PM
This is funny...how would this work exactly?

"Look Walgreens, you better not purchase this building that is up for sale, because there are businesses in there that sell things nobody wants, or needs. If you go ahead and replace with a store such as your yourself that sells things that people want and need, we will be forced to try and ignore you."

If Walgreens puts a store on every block will people freak out? because I definitely feel there are too many Subway shops.

The businesses that are there have been there for many years and are established enough that it would seem people want them. They don't just don't have the deep pockets of a Walgreens.

That being said, bad PR would be about the only thing that might make Walgreens reconsider. Not much of a kick when it comes right down to it.

Like I said originally, if they make a deal with the property owner that is in both of their individual financial best interest, there is not much people can do - and I'm not all that sure they should. But if they want to make a public display of displeasure, go for it.

It would be nice to keep the little, locally owned and operated shops in place, but business is business when all is said and done.

And as Lady said, it could be worse. There was a time when the stores in and around that area were mostly empty - the days after the streetcars stopped running from what I understand.

I guess it is a positive that Walgreens thinks the neighborhood is worthwhile enough to make this investment.

chico
06-05-2012, 04:10 PM
I usually don't make it past Ridge going south on Montgomery, but if I recall aren't there a couple vacant buildings just south of Ridge? If there are, perhaps Everybody's and/or Gaslight could move there. Gil's is an institution on the Ridge and at one time they were on Montgomery Rd. They moved over 30 years ago and they're doing just fine.

They could even take over the vacant Walgreen's property - with more parking. I know that's more space than they need but it could spur some other businesses to locate there.

PM Thor
06-05-2012, 09:05 PM
I'm not opposed to private businesses making a private sale, but in this case it looks as if Walgreens is trying to do an end run on certain things.

Luckily they might have overlooked city zoning laws. Per Roxanne Qualls email, there would have to be a zoning change to allow a drive thru there, and she sits as the chair of that committee. Quinlivan, who remarkably takes credit for making the corridor an entertainment zone, is adamantly against the move and also is proposing an impact study which could effectively kill any sale if it went that way.
These are good developments, and we also heard from Seelbach and Sittenfeld showing concern and interest in possibly kiboshing the move. Over 1,200 signatures gathered in 72 hours will catch councilmembers attention I guess.

I am not opposed to Walgreens prospering in Pleasant Ridge, I just want them to be a good neighbor. Tear down the fugly store now and rebuild. Pleasant Ridge is a walkable neighborhood. Within a block I hit my pharmacy, my local bar, my barber, my coffeeshop, my record store, my chili shop, vegan place, on and on. I walked up there tonight, it's my "go to" area.

I went through this all when I was single in College Hill. All you have to do is go to the corner of North Bend and Hamilton to see what could happen. CVS bought one corner, it didn't do well and they left, leaving some type of flea marktet or something there. Kroger had a store, then moved, leaving an empty spot. Shulers Wigwam closed, the spot was bought by (gasp) Walgreens, and it sits empty. A very busy intersection, with 3 out of 4 empty lots.

I just don't want this to happen to Pleasant Ridge.

I HATE dayton.

vee4xu
06-05-2012, 09:24 PM
I still have some vinyls that I bought at Everybody's when I was at X and about 70% of you weren't even born. Too bad. Everybody's is a great place. The price of progress, I guess.

An X Fan
06-05-2012, 10:15 PM
As I recall reading somewhere, part of Walgreens business strategy over the last few years has been to move to prominent community corners, essentially at the crossroads of a given neighborhood. Thinking around Cincinnati, the Walgreens in Norwood moved about two blocks down to the intersection at Sherman and Montgomery. In Mt. Washington they built at the intersection of Sutton and Beechmont. And so on... essentially moving away from strip malls and toward neighborhood intersections - to be "part of the neighborhood."

It seemed like an interesting idea at the time, and it helps explain why Walgreens would want to move a stone's throw down Montgomery to the corner of Ridge and Montgomery - definitely the main intersection in Pleasant Ridge.

The Gaslight is a neighborhood fixture and would be a real loss. I think Everybody's has a loyal clientele - which probably doesn't overlap a lot with XH posters. Overlooked in all of this is Hair It Is on the corner. ;)

I have personal feelings for Gaslight, but that's about it. Hope it comes to an amicable conclusion.

UCGRAD4X
06-06-2012, 08:25 AM
Overlooked in all of this is Hair It Is on the corner. ;)

There are five or so other such establishments within a few blocks. Everybody's Records actually comprises four storefronts, one of which used to be Gils Barber Shop who moved to another location in the same neighborhood.

Kahns Krazy
06-06-2012, 09:44 AM
I'm not opposed to private businesses making a private sale, but in this case it looks as if Walgreens is trying to do an end run on certain things.
...

I went through this all when I was single in College Hill. All you have to do is go to the corner of North Bend and Hamilton to see what could happen. CVS bought one corner, it didn't do well and they left, leaving some type of flea marktet or something there. Kroger had a store, then moved, leaving an empty spot. Shulers Wigwam closed, the spot was bought by (gasp) Walgreens, and it sits empty. A very busy intersection, with 3 out of 4 empty lots.

I just don't want this to happen to Pleasant Ridge.

I HATE dayton.

I don't know that I would classify it as an "end run", as there is no end required to run around for a private real estate transaction. They don't need council's approval to buy and demolish a building.

The zoning issue is interesting. Are zoning variances typically granted in this situation? Is "zoning" really just code for "if enough people are against it, we'll claim it violates some zoning rule"?

If the concerned members of a community can band together and make things difficult enough for Walgreens to achieve their objective, they can at least have their voice heard. I do still wonder about the rights of the current property owner. If a zoning variance is denied, and has been approved in other similar situations, isn't that property owner being harmed since his property is less valuable than other similarly situated properties?

Would the existing businesses continue to survive there if their rents were adjusted to reflect the value of the real estate that Walgreens is willing to pay? Aren't there also rental units above those businesses?

Is the vocal community willing to subsidize the real estate owner to keep him/her whole? Everyone loves to sign a petition. If you were asking for a $10 donation with each signature, I doubt you'd have 1,200 signatures.

xeus
06-06-2012, 10:42 AM
[B][COLOR="Navy"]
I just don't want this to happen to Pleasant Ridge.


When did you move to Pleasant Ridge? Where do you live?

xu95
06-06-2012, 11:34 AM
I'm not opposed to private businesses making a private sale,

You absolutely are or else you wouldn't have asked people to sign a petition to keep a private business owner from selling his business.

blobfan
06-06-2012, 12:14 PM
I live in Pleasant Ridge and drive through this intersection 1-3 times a week. I just saw the article today and hope to sign the petition as soon as I can. For me the issue is the drive-thru. That intersection is not designed for that level of traffic and would have to be redesigned or would be rendered impassible at certain times of the day. Traffic would proabably move into the neighborhoods, reducing area property values and causing safetly concerns. It's not a matter of free use of private property but of managing subsequent public costs of such a change.

Looking at Walgreen's current location, I don't understand why they can't rebuild to accomodate a drive-thru. That location would be less disruptive to other traffic. What's more, go less than 3 miles down Montgomery, or less than 3 miles up and jog over to Galbraith, and you have a Walgreen's with a drive through. If you absolutely cannot get out of your car, won't one of those other locations serve? It's overkill and out of sync with the other businesses at that intersection.


...What is also interesting is that Mullaney's is on the south corner, meaning Walgreens and Mullaney's would be right next to each other. That may be another reason Walgreen's wants to move there.
My guess is this is the biggest reason they are pushing for this location.

..Thinking around Cincinnati, the Walgreens in Norwood moved about two blocks down to the intersection at Sherman and Montgomery. ...
I think that was actually an improvement to that intersection and seems to have stabilized the neighboring businesses. I can't remember what was there before but it was underwhelming. I think there was a lot more vacant or low rent property in that area when Walgreens moved than there is in PR right now.


...Is the vocal community willing to subsidize the real estate owner to keep him/her whole? Everyone loves to sign a petition. If you were asking for a $10 donation with each signature, I doubt you'd have 1,200 signatures.
I think the only beneficiaries of this move would be the property owner and Walgreens. It would be a detriment to the rest of the community.

I'm all for capitolism and reasonably free activity of business and I rarely agree in preservation for the sake of preventing change. Businesses can be moved. Rarely is a location sacred and the buildings at the corner of Ridge and Montgomery don't strike me as historic. There are other nearby locations the businesses may thrive in. But this type of major change to a neighborhood crossroads must take into consideration the overall impact to the neighborhood and I believe a Walgreens drive-thru at the corner would be a net loss for the area.

GoMuskies
06-06-2012, 12:32 PM
I don't think I've ever seen more than one or two cars at a Walgreens drive-thru.

CinciX12
06-06-2012, 12:49 PM
I don't think I've ever seen more than one or two cars at a Walgreens drive-thru.

That is what I'm thinking. I wouldn't want a Walgreens if I lived there just because I don't like cooperate chains in my neighborhood. But a Walgreens drive-thru isn't like sitting a McDonald's down in the middle of an intersection.

PM Thor
06-06-2012, 01:23 PM
You absolutely are or else you wouldn't have asked people to sign a petition to keep a private business owner from selling his business.
Not true. The impact of this type of sale reaches beyond it just being a common sale between private parties. This move by Walgreens is not a regular old sale, it would effectively redefine the Pleasant Ridge walking business district, and as such is not a typical private sale. That's why I oppose it.

I HATE dayton.

Kahns Krazy
06-06-2012, 02:03 PM
I don't think I've ever seen more than one or two cars at a Walgreens drive-thru.

Agreed. I can't imagine that the amount of vehicle traffic that this location would generate that is incremental to the traffic already going through the intersection on the way to the existing Walgreens is material. It's even possible that some traffic could actually be routed around the intersection, since the property is connected to both Ridge and Montgomery.


I'm all for capitolism and reasonably free activity of business and I rarely agree in preservation for the sake of preventing change. Businesses can be moved. Rarely is a location sacred and the buildings at the corner of Ridge and Montgomery don't strike me as historic. There are other nearby locations the businesses may thrive in. But this type of major change to a neighborhood crossroads must take into consideration the overall impact to the neighborhood and I believe a Walgreens drive-thru at the corner would be a net loss for the area.
Today 12:34 PM


I agree with you. Like Xeus said, this change would suck Garvin balls, but how does the property owner get compensated for his loss if the community says that he can't sell his property to the buyer to whom it is most valuable? Should the taxpayers compensate him? Is it just tough titties for him because the people don't like it?

DoubleD86
06-06-2012, 02:39 PM
I am torn on this subject. First, Gaslight holds a very special place to me personally. Second, I grew up in Pleasant Ridge and spent a lot of my formative years walking between my house, Nativity, and those surrounding businesses. A good friend's father owned (not sure if he still does as I have been away from PR and unfortunately not in touch with the friend as much). That area will always be home to me and very special to me.

However, I don't like the restricting of business just for the sake of "community" because often the progress in business is more beneficial to the community. Also, I don't live in PR anymore and since I am out of the state don't frequent them more than a couple times a year. So I feel like my opinion is quite biased/unreasonable for me to sit here and tell people what they should do. Still, I do think the move would hurt some of the charm of PR and also rid the neighborhood of staples of the business district. That section has everything you could want from barbers to bars to cards/comics to PRC. It even has a Walgreens a block away. What bothers me about this deal is it seems like an unnecessary move for Walgreens to make, and could lead to drawbacks for the community. You lose businesses people like and you gain traffic (however much it may be) in a walkable area.

It's a tough question. My head doesn't know what to think, but my heart sure as hell hopes it doesn't happen.

blobfan
06-06-2012, 03:19 PM
That is what I'm thinking. I wouldn't want a Walgreens if I lived there just because I don't like cooperate chains in my neighborhood. But a Walgreens drive-thru isn't like sitting a McDonald's down in the middle of an intersection.

The drive-thru alone will not add much more traffic but the Walgreens itself probably gets more traffic than the other businesses. The nature of a Walgreens is in and out, high volume. The nature of a bar or a barber shop, and even a vintage record store means longer visits and lower volume. A lot of the traffic for existing business parks on the street or comes in on foot. The Walgreens will likely have a large parking lot. It will increase traffic at that corner.


Agreed. I can't imagine that the amount of vehicle traffic that this location would generate that is incremental to the traffic already going through the intersection on the way to the existing Walgreens is material. It's even possible that some traffic could actually be routed around the intersection, since the property is connected to both Ridge and Montgomery.

Kahn's, are you familiar with this area? It's already a triangle. You can't turn left onto Ridge from Montgomery. You have to turn right on Woodburn, then left on Ridge. Traffic turning left onto Losantville already causes a back-up during rush hour. You can't turn left into Mullaney's from Ridge Northbound so having Walgreens across the street is going to hurt them. The current Walgreen's location is actual ideal because it's just past the point where traffic starts to ease and Montgomery widens a bit. I just don't see how you add a high volume business to that intersection without redoing all nearby intersections.


I agree with you. Like Xeus said, this change would suck Garvin balls, but how does the property owner get compensated for his loss if the community says that he can't sell his property to the buyer to whom it is most valuable? Should the taxpayers compensate him? Is it just tough titties for him because the people don't like it?

I don't care whether or not he is compensated. A single person's profits shouldn't be coming off the back of hundreds of other contributing members to the community. If Walgreen's wants to 100% fund a rebuilding of the intersections that would also improve the flow of traffic into and out of other businesses in the area, including Mullaney's, then I say they should be allowed. But not if it's going to cost the community more than they gain by the move.

PM Thor
06-06-2012, 03:24 PM
The rumor being bandied about is the sale price is 600k. Just under what the city gave Mahoganys for their site down at the Banks. Here's the softball, someone...anyone?

I HATE dayton

LadyMuskie
06-06-2012, 03:41 PM
Just to play devil's advocate - wouldn't changing the intersections cost far less to ALL city residents than a lawsuit against the city, which will almost definitely happen if this sale is blocked by city government? When Walgreen's and the property owner band together to fight whatever "zoning issues" Roxanne Qualls tries to come up with, the city solicitor's office will be working overtime to keep up against whatever high priced attorneys Walgreen's hires to fight on its behalf.

CinciX12
06-06-2012, 03:45 PM
The rumor being bandied about is the sale price is 600k. Just under what the city gave Mahoganys for their site down at the Banks. Here's the softball, someone...anyone?

I HATE dayton

Are you going to sit here and claim that the City of Cincinnati has made bad business dealings in the past?? I won't stand for it. Paul Brown Stadium and Great American Ballpark are beacons of light for this city.

LadyMuskie
06-06-2012, 03:50 PM
The rumor being bandied about is the sale price is 600k. Just under what the city gave Mahoganys for their site down at the Banks. Here's the softball, someone...anyone?

I HATE dayton

So, because the city made a poor decision/poor investment at The Banks, they should do so in PR too? Two wrongs make a right?

I guess as a fellow citizen of the City of Cincinnati, I think our City, as a whole, would be better served if our government stayed out of private business sales, whether they be minority businesses or not, and focus on providing the services (like fire and police) that only a government can. And since there was just an article in the Enquirer a few days ago about the city raising taxes to provide basic services, I'm not inclined to support, and would fight in any way I could, a measure that would allow the City of Cincinnati to spend $600,000 to buy some land in PR that has been made unsellable by city council by tinkering with the zoning laws.

CinciX12
06-06-2012, 03:55 PM
So, because the city made a poor decision/poor investment at The Banks, they should do so in PR too? Two wrongs make a right?

I guess as a fellow citizen of the City of Cincinnati, I think our City, as a whole, would be better served if our government stayed out of private business sales, whether they be minority businesses or not, and focus on providing the services (like fire and police) that only a government can. And since there was just an article in the Enquirer a few days ago about the city raising taxes to provide basic services, I'm not inclined to support, and would fight in any way I could, a measure that would allow the City of Cincinnati to spend $600,000 to buy some land in PR that has been made unsellable by city council by tinkering with the zoning laws.

I think he was being sarcastic..

LadyMuskie
06-06-2012, 03:56 PM
I think he was being sarcastic..

If so, my bad.

danaandvictory
06-06-2012, 03:59 PM
When Walgreen's and the property owner band together to fight whatever "zoning issues" Roxanne Qualls tries to come up with, the city solicitor's office will be working overtime to keep up against whatever high priced attorneys Walgreen's hires to fight on its behalf.

I would be extremely surprised if attorneys in the City Solicitor's Office are paid overtime.

CinciX12
06-06-2012, 04:01 PM
I would be extremely surprised if attorneys in the City Solicitor's Office are paid overtime.

Hell no they don't get paid overtime, and they don't work it either. The City has countless disasters financially made by that office as proof.

Cheesehead
06-06-2012, 04:03 PM
Are you going to sit here and claim that the City of Cincinnati has made bad business dealings in the past?? I won't stand for it. Paul Brown Stadium and Great American Ballpark are beacons of light for this city.

You forgot the Underground Railroad Museum which has had financial issues pretty much from the get-go. At least people actually attend the stadiums.

LadyMuskie
06-06-2012, 04:35 PM
I would be extremely surprised if attorneys in the City Solicitor's Office are paid overtime.

When I was working, we dealt a lot with the city solicitor's office - particularly with land use and zoning, and they worked pretty damn hard. I don't know the pay structure, but it isn't free to the city when someone sues the city. Costs in addition to regular salaries are incurred and some of these people work (or did work) well past normal business hours.


Hell no they don't get paid overtime, and they don't work it either. The City has countless disasters financially made by that office as proof.

I don't think the solicitor's office has the corner market on financial disasters inside the city of Cincinnati. I'm just curious as to what these countless disasters are.

LadyMuskie
06-06-2012, 04:37 PM
Are you going to sit here and claim that the City of Cincinnati has made bad business dealings in the past?? I won't stand for it. Paul Brown Stadium and Great American Ballpark are beacons of light for this city.

The stadium deal was really orchestrated by Hamilton County which is why the commissioners and not city council are scrambling to find ways to pay for said stadiums.

Kahns Krazy
06-06-2012, 05:00 PM
Kahn's, are you familiar with this area? It's already a triangle. You can't turn left onto Ridge from Montgomery. You have to turn right on Woodburn, then left on Ridge. Traffic turning left onto Losantville already causes a back-up during rush hour. You can't turn left into Mullaney's from Ridge Northbound so having Walgreens across the street is going to hurt them. The current Walgreen's location is actual ideal because it's just past the point where traffic starts to ease and Montgomery widens a bit. I just don't see how you add a high volume business to that intersection without redoing all nearby intersections.
.

I am. In fact, sometime around 1980 I was pictured in a Cincinnati Magazine article about the Baseball Card Exchange. I have ridden in a Walgreens shopping cart from Molly Malones home to a friend's house on St. Patricks day. I've had many a burger and many more a pint at the Gaslight.

The location in question is right next to the Burger King, which also features a drive through, and right across the street from a pharmacy.


I don't care whether or not he is compensated. A single person's profits shouldn't be coming off the back of hundreds of other contributing members to the community. If Walgreen's wants to 100% fund a rebuilding of the intersections that would also improve the flow of traffic into and out of other businesses in the area, including Mullaney's, then I say they should be allowed. But not if it's going to cost the community more than they gain by the move.

That's just not how it works though. A single person's profits frequently come off the backs of the others in the community. You would care a lot if it were your property and it was what you were counting on for retirement. If the community gets to say that you can only put a vinyl record store in your property, guess what that does to the value?

Your solution is basically putting profits into Mullany's hands off the back of the property owner across the street. How is that fair?

paulxu
06-06-2012, 05:19 PM
I'm going to go WAY out on a limb here and guess that we are in the offseason.

chico
06-06-2012, 05:31 PM
When I was working, we dealt a lot with the city solicitor's office - particularly with land use and zoning, and they worked pretty damn hard. I don't know the pay structure, but it isn't free to the city when someone sues the city. Costs in addition to regular salaries are incurred and some of these people work (or did work) well past normal business hours.

This may be true but there is only so much the city is willing/able to do. Usually when these things pop up, the city/municipality takes a look at the cost to litigate and oftentimes decides it's not worth the fight. It happens everywhere, not just in the City of Cincinnati. And developers know it. Take a look at the nice doctors' office on the corner of Montgomery and Kugler Mill in Sycamore Township. That land was zoned as a buffer area - homes zoned for business. The current owner bought up a few properties, leveled them, then let them sit until the Township caved and allowed their variance. Now, I highly doubt the landowner in Pleasant Ridge will do something as drastic as leveling the buildings and letting it sit vacant but when money is involved nothing's out of play.

In any event, a quick glance at the County Auditor's website lists the property owner as Koesters Properties and a trustee bye the name of Dejonckheere.

Auditor's website in case you're interested (http://www.hamiltoncountyauditor.org/realestateii/ROVER30.ASP)

blobfan
06-07-2012, 04:00 PM
I am. In fact, sometime around 1980 I was pictured in a Cincinnati Magazine article about the Baseball Card Exchange. I have ridden in a Walgreens shopping cart from Molly Malones home to a friend's house on St. Patricks day. I've had many a burger and many more a pint at the Gaslight.

The location in question is right next to the Burger King, which also features a drive through, and right across the street from a pharmacy.

BK drive through is not at a corner though. Different traffic issues.


That's just not how it works though. A single person's profits frequently come off the backs of the others in the community. You would care a lot if it were your property and it was what you were counting on for retirement. If the community gets to say that you can only put a vinyl record store in your property, guess what that does to the value?

Your solution is basically putting profits into Mullany's hands off the back of the property owner across the street. How is that fair?
I'm not offering a solution but I'm also not suggesting that the community be allowed to dictate a narrow list of acceptable tenants. I'm just saying that if the change in tenant results in significantly changed traffic patterns, the owner should be responsible for the costs. And while I support reasonably free use of private property, I think the community's needs and desires do need to be taken into consideration. PR has worked very hard to make a walkable public area at that intersection and putting in a Walgreens or similar shop would destroy that vibe. This shouldn't be a surprise to Walgreens or the current property owner.

xu95
06-08-2012, 08:17 AM
Blobfan, I hope your neighbors don't sign a petition to try to stop you from selling your house if you ever want to.

nuts4xu
06-08-2012, 09:27 AM
PR has worked very hard to make a walkable public area at that intersection and putting in a Walgreens or similar shop would destroy that vibe.

Will you not be able to walk to Walgreens? How is putting a Walgreens in that spot going to "destroy that vibe" of a "walkable" public area?

Granted it isn't an outdated record store front, or an iconic bar, but if the Walgreens is going in that spot, I don't see why you won't be able to walk to it. As a matter of fact, until they close the Walgreens up the street, PR will have the unique opportunity to walk to 3 different pharmacies in a 2 block radius.

The old people sucking down prescriptions like M&M's should love this.

blobfan
06-08-2012, 03:25 PM
Blobfan, I hope your neighbors don't sign a petition to try to stop you from selling your house if you ever want to.
That's not the issue. They should be able to stop me from selling it to someone that turns it into a parking lot or an 8 story apartment building. Or at least they should be able to unless a majority of the neighbors agree to do the same thing.

Will you not be able to walk to Walgreens? How is putting a Walgreens in that spot going to "destroy that vibe" of a "walkable" public area?

Granted it isn't an outdated record store front, or an iconic bar, but if the Walgreens is going in that spot, I don't see why you won't be able to walk to it. As a matter of fact, until they close the Walgreens up the street, PR will have the unique opportunity to walk to 3 different pharmacies in a 2 block radius.

The old people sucking down prescriptions like M&M's should love this.

Funny.

xeus
06-08-2012, 08:41 PM
Blobfan, I hope your neighbors don't sign a petition to try to stop you from selling your house if you ever want to.

Blobfan is a hottie. I could definitely see her neighbors trying to keep her from moving.

PM Thor
06-08-2012, 10:03 PM
The issue is simple. Walgreens wants to move. The corner in question is in an entertainment district and would effectively redefine the corridor. The owner is obviously allowed to sell, bit will the city step up and help the businesses stay there?

Im not talking blocking.g the sale, Im saying they float money to those businesses in order to buy the corner themselves. Hell, some of those businesses will fail probay, but revamping the community as a whole in order to avoid that scenario is not a road I want to explore.

I HATE dayton

nuts4xu
06-09-2012, 01:18 AM
Im saying they float money to those businesses in order to buy the corner themselves.

Does this happen often? Where a community will just "float money" to counter an offer like the proposed from Walgreen's?

It seems if the offer from Walgreen's is a good offer, with reliable financing, there is really no grounds nor reason for a community like Pleasant Ridge to step in and pay the bills of a used record store and a community watering hole.

Walgreen's won't violate any community standards, and won't be selling meth to kids or anything. So I can't imagine why anyone has grounds to stand in the way of their offer to purchase the corner.

Can you elaborate on who is "they"? The City of Cincinnati? Why would "they" have a preferrence to whether it is a Walgreen's or a record store paying the rent on the property? Does a Burger King, a record store, and 2 bars really define an area as an "entertainment district"?

Do those few business really have that much of a hold on the area? Seriously, I don't get it, what am I missing?

UCGRAD4X
06-09-2012, 11:17 AM
Enquirer story today says the owner has not been contacted by Walgreens - Everybody's Records lease is up and owner is trying to get them to renew.

bjf123
06-09-2012, 01:10 PM
You mean the facts being espoused in this Internet forum weren't completely accurate? I'm shocked, shocked I say. Then again, it is a report from the Enquirer, so who knows how accurate that is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LadyMuskie
06-09-2012, 01:33 PM
The issue is simple. Walgreens wants to move. The corner in question is in an entertainment district and would effectively redefine the corridor. The owner is obviously allowed to sell, bit will the city step up and help the businesses stay there?

Im not talking blocking.g the sale, Im saying they float money to those businesses in order to buy the corner themselves. Hell, some of those businesses will fail probay, but revamping the community as a whole in order to avoid that scenario is not a road I want to explore.

I HATE dayton

I don't think the issue is simple. If I'm reading this correctly, you want the City of Cincinnati, and all of its residents - even those of us who don't live in PR - to prop up businesses that can't afford to stay where they are.

As a firefighter in said city, you can't complain then when the city chooses to do these kinds of idiotic things and then turns around and wants to cut fire and police positions, or renegotiates contracts because the money that should have been used for that was used to save businesses that are failing. There is only so much money to go around and report after report indicates that the city is overspending already. You've indicated in the past that you're against the streetcar, but now you're indicated that you are for the city spending money to "float" money to businesses that will "probably fail" since those businesses are in your community. I can't reconcile that.

If these businesses are likely to fail, if they can't afford to buy the property themselves or sign a long term lease, then I guess capitalism and survival of the fittest has won the day. If these businesses go under, the money which the city floated will not be repaid and the citizens of this city, like me, who have no vested interested in this so-called entertainment corridor will lose, big time, once again. Additionally, who's to say when the city should stop "floating" the money. If we prop them up for a year, and they can't afford to stay put next year, do we float more money? If we help them buy the land, but they can't afford to pay the taxes on it, do we give them the money for that too? Do we save these businesses at any cost? And if so, why?

Plenty of businesses go under each and every day, and while it stinks, it is part of life.

Kahns Krazy
06-09-2012, 01:54 PM
Enquirer story today says the owner has not been contacted by Walgreens - Everybody's Records lease is up and owner is trying to get them to renew.

I happened to be out last night with someone with some first hand knowledge of the situation. I think the truth is somewhere in between the rumours in the first post of this thread and the Enquirer story.

She did indicate that at this point, a Walgreens on that corner is very unlikely because the owners are not selling, but that there is a price that would make it happen.

PM Thor
06-10-2012, 10:07 PM
Lady, your premise is flawed. These businesses aren't failing, they are being run out by money they can't contend with, right now. Are some of them going to fail? Of course, you can't expect 9 businesses all to succeed for years upon years. But right now, if comparing the money the city is floating to one specific business with a questionable owner down on the Banks with a row of fairly well established businesses in PR, I think it's pretty easy to pick where the city should be floating loans. Also, I'm not saying to take advantage of the idiocy we all see in the leadership of this town, I'm just saying that these people at city hall are throwing cash around willy nilly, and there are some spots in this town where it's easy to try to support the locals. To me, and yes, I am biased, this PR debacle is a clear example where the city should support the local community over a "chain".

And as for whether or not the owner of the buildings had an offer, what has been quoted is that they didn't have an offer "pending". That's wholly different from them being contacted, back and forth, etc. It's double speak.

We shall see, but I hope Walgreens fails.

I HATE dayton.

boozehound
06-11-2012, 09:05 AM
Blobfan, I hope your neighbors don't sign a petition to try to stop you from selling your house if you ever want to.

This is a pretty good analogy, I think, for this situation.

Regardless of how well Gaslight and Everybody's records are doing if Walgreens offers the landlord enough money I don't see why he wouldn't have the right to sell. What if that money allows him to retire early? Should he be deprived of that and 'forced' to continue leasing to Gaslight Cafe and Everybody's Records because people don't want to destroy the 'charm' of Pleasant Ridge?

If somebody wanted to make me an offer I couldn't refuse on my home and my neighbors were trying to block it because they didn't like the person buying my house I would be incredibly pissed off.

94GRAD
06-11-2012, 10:58 AM
Enquirer story today says the owner has not been contacted by Walgreens - Everybody's Records lease is up and owner is trying to get them to renew.

The owner of Everybody's building is not the same as the owner of Gaslight's building.

xeus
06-11-2012, 11:13 AM
The owner of Everybody's building is not the same as the owner of Gaslight's building.

And there are two other owners involved as well - the VFW hall, and the building around the corner on Ridge.

There are a lot of pieces that have to come together for this to work out for Walgreens.

danaandvictory
06-11-2012, 11:21 AM
This is a pretty good analogy, I think, for this situation.


I don't think it's a good analogy at all. For Walgreen's to go in at that corner requires a zoning variance. It's not as simple as a building owner just selling out - it affects zoning decisions made by the community at large. It has a knock-on effect to the entire Pleasant Ridge community in terms of traffic. You making a private sale of your home to another residential homeowner has no such effect. But if you wanted to sell your home to a developer that was going to bulldoze the existing structure and put up an apartment complex or a fast food restaurant, that decision might violate the law. I think that's what the dynamic is here.

LadyMuskie
06-11-2012, 12:33 PM
Lady, your premise is flawed. These businesses aren't failing, they are being run out by money they can't contend with, right now. Are some of them going to fail? Of course, you can't expect 9 businesses all to succeed for years upon years. But right now, if comparing the money the city is floating to one specific business with a questionable owner down on the Banks with a row of fairly well established businesses in PR, I think it's pretty easy to pick where the city should be floating loans. Also, I'm not saying to take advantage of the idiocy we all see in the leadership of this town, I'm just saying that these people at city hall are throwing cash around willy nilly, and there are some spots in this town where it's easy to try to support the locals. To me, and yes, I am biased, this PR debacle is a clear example where the city should support the local community over a "chain".

And as for whether or not the owner of the buildings had an offer, what has been quoted is that they didn't have an offer "pending". That's wholly different from them being contacted, back and forth, etc. It's double speak.

We shall see, but I hope Walgreens fails.

I HATE dayton.



My premise is that city council should stay out of all private businesses. Two wrongs don't make a right. As a resident of this city, I have no desire to support businesses that can't support themselves at The Banks, Pleasant Ridge, Hyde Park, Westwood or anywhere else. Sometimes, life sucks and things change. People bitch and moan when government horns in and regulates this or that, raises taxes, etc., but when it comes time to be bailed out or floated money, then it's all acceptable and it's council choosing local businesses over a national chain. What it really is, is city council tossing money at one more project that will not make the city as a whole a better place to live, or create a net gain for the city. Moreover, every time some so-called entertainment corridor in some city neighborhood is threatened, the city will be expected to bail those businesses out too. Meanwhile, there's no money to do the things that actually need to be done to keep the city running smoothly.

If these businesses can't afford to compete with Walgreen's, then that's a real bummer, but that's also the way the ball rolls sometimes in a capitalistic society. I can't afford to compete with Bill Gates, but that doesn't mean anyone should be floating me money that I can't afford to repay so that I can keep my store open for a few more years.

If PR wants to keep these businesses (and I can understand why you would want to), then the neighborhood should band together and raise the money to buy the land and put it in a trust or something. When a local swim club (located in the city limits) on the west side was in danger of closing after 80 years (far longer than Everybodys has been open), the residents and members came together, raised the money to keep the pool open and put the ownership in a non-profit with a board of trustees. You can't keep expecting the city to bail every business out just because it has sentimental value. There's just not enough money for that.

waggy
06-11-2012, 01:20 PM
Selling the property, and building (or rebuilding) on the property are two separate things.

nuts4xu
06-14-2012, 08:49 AM
I'm just saying that these people at city hall are throwing cash around willy nilly, and there are some spots in this town where it's easy to try to support the locals.

You are out over your skis on this one Thor.

If city hall is throwing around cash "willy nilly", the same city hall that works out the budget for your place of employment, then why on God's green Earth would you want them "floating loans" to this group of buiness owners? So we can face more cuts on police and fire departments? You want some rolling blackouts in exchange for a used record store?

They have a potential buyer and the businesses are not being forced out. There is no reason to have the city stick their collective noses in this situation. The city has no dog in this fight.

boozehound
06-14-2012, 09:10 AM
I don't think it's a good analogy at all. For Walgreen's to go in at that corner requires a zoning variance. It's not as simple as a building owner just selling out - it affects zoning decisions made by the community at large. It has a knock-on effect to the entire Pleasant Ridge community in terms of traffic. You making a private sale of your home to another residential homeowner has no such effect. But if you wanted to sell your home to a developer that was going to bulldoze the existing structure and put up an apartment complex or a fast food restaurant, that decision might violate the law. I think that's what the dynamic is here.

Depend on the homeowner. If they person they want to sell to doesn't want to do any maintenance and wants to party 5 nights a week that could certainly have a negative effect on the neighbors.

Also, in the Pleasant Ridge example isn't the land already zoned for business?

nuts4xu
06-14-2012, 09:25 AM
doesn't want to do any maintenance and wants to party 5 nights a week

That sounds like me.

My landlord takes care of the maintenance at my house now, and I like to party.

I am a GREAT neighbor in spite of my extra cirricular activities. Just ask Gladdenguy....he is my neighbor for 18 home games every year.

Kahns Krazy
06-14-2012, 09:32 AM
Depend on the homeowner. If they person they want to sell to doesn't want to do any maintenance and wants to party 5 nights a week that could certainly have a negative effect on the neighbors.

Also, in the Pleasant Ridge example isn't the land already zoned for business?

This is the part I don't get. How can there be a zoning issue about a pharmacy with a drive thru when you have a restaurant with a drive thru on one side and a pharmacy on the other side, neither of which seems to have a detrimental effect to the neighborhood.

danaandvictory
06-14-2012, 03:49 PM
Depend on the homeowner. If they person they want to sell to doesn't want to do any maintenance and wants to party 5 nights a week that could certainly have a negative effect on the neighbors.

It could, but there's no real legal way to get them to stop unless they are violating civic ordinances. Which again limit your right to use your private property based on shared and established community values.

PM Thor
06-14-2012, 10:32 PM
Meh, the sale isn't going to happen, and there are plenty of reasons why not, zoning, entertainment district, etc. Im glad about it.

Also, I would prefer if the city floated a loan to the group in PR with the support of the locals over them giving loans to places like Mahogany, if they are going to spend it, there are better ways to spend it.

Nuts, we actually do have rolling brownouts in the city, up to 5 fire companies a day right now. Nobody is raising a stink because it's a better solution over permanent closures. Sucks and isn't really safe, but it's the lesser of two evils.

I HATE dayton.

Kahns Krazy
06-15-2012, 08:14 AM
Meh, the sale isn't going to happen, and there are plenty of reasons why not, zoning, entertainment district, etc. I HATE dayton.

The reason it isn't going to happen for now is because the owners aren't selling to Walgreens. If Walgreens gets to the right price or waits until the current owners are looking to retire from the landlord business, it will happen.

danaandvictory
06-15-2012, 08:55 AM
This is the part I don't get. How can there be a zoning issue about a pharmacy with a drive thru when you have a restaurant with a drive thru on one side and a pharmacy on the other side, neither of which seems to have a detrimental effect to the neighborhood.

The pharmacy down the street is sort of apples and oranges as it doesn't impact the intersection of two major thoroughfares. I don't know the zoning ordinances for the City chapter and verse but there may be some provision for that.

As for the other pharmacy, perhaps it was in place before the current ordinances and was grandfathered?

Kahns Krazy
06-15-2012, 11:21 AM
I really don't understand the big deal about the drive thru. The Walgreens in Hyde Park Plaza does not have a drive thru. The Kroger pharmacy does. I can count on one hand the number of times I have seen a car in the Kroger pharmacy drive thru. It has zero impact on traffic. For a pharmacy, it's a convenience for those customers who have a physical disability. Walgreens doesn't really want anyone using the drive thru. They want you coming in the store.

What's happening here is exactly what builds strong communities. The current owners are members of the community, and they would prefer to maintain the community as is. That's all it takes. It doesn't take zoning fights, or "floating loans" (what does that mean?). If the ownership changes their mind and chooses to exit the community, or take the maximum payout, then other forces in the market take over. Is someone willing to pay a premium to preserve a greasy spoon and a vinyl store? If so, that's great. If not and Walgreens wants to pay more to put a store on that corner, that's what our free market says should happen.

bobbiemcgee
06-15-2012, 03:15 PM
The reason it isn't going to happen for now is because the owners aren't selling to Walgreens. If Walgreens gets to the right price or waits until the current owners are looking to retire from the landlord business, it will happen.

Walgreens rarely buys locations nowadays. The way most of these deals go down is that a syndicate will build the store to Walgreens specs. In exchange, Walgreens agrees to a VERY long term lease, sometimes up to 75 years NNN with cola provisions. The syndicate assigns the lease to their bank, along with the building and/or land. Walgreens probably has 1st right of refusal in the event of a default, although they would never exercise it if the location turns out bad.
The current owners can decide they want to lease their land under the building, if acceptable, perhaps providing an income stream and tax avoidance on the sale, that would be way better than their current record etc. sales. Deals like this are why Romney is rich.

Kahns Krazy
06-18-2012, 08:52 AM
You might find lease terms over 15-20 years on infrastructure projects, but I'd be surprised if there is anything anywhere close to that long in commercial real estate. Any public company has to disclose any long term lease obligations, and any lease that qualifies as a capital lease has to go on the books as a fixed asset regardless of who owns it. Pretty much anything over 20 years in commercial real estate is going to be a capital lease. It's possible that the lessee would have predetermined lease renewal options going out for a long period of time, but those are generally pretty worthless.

The technicality of who owns it on paper doesn't change who is setting the value of the property. Walgreens determines the market value because they are the ones paying for it.

Romney made most of his money acquiring and divesting companies. He may have done some balance sheet restructuring with real estate as one part of a strategy to maximize the selling price of an organization, but I wouldn't say it's accurate to say syndicated real estate investing is how Romney made his money.

PM Thor
06-19-2012, 04:41 PM
"Floating loan" ie. What the city did for Mahogany on the Banks there Kahns. And no, the sale won't happen as simple as one would expect from private owner to private owner. The Impact Study and other hoops that must be jumped through guarantee that.

I HATE dayton.

Kahns Krazy
06-20-2012, 08:28 AM
The city issued a grant and a loan to a minority business owner to cover startup costs for a new business. The reasons given (not saying I agree) were to encourage minority businesses and to continue to encourage new business and development along the riverfront, which generates more tax revenue for the city.

I fail to see how the Pleasant Ridge situation is similar in any way. We have existing businesses, owned by white people, and you're proposing the city invest money to stop potential development on the corner. If anything, that costs the city money. Why on earth as a taxpayer would I want my city to do that?

For the record, while I do support judicious use of some taxpayer money to encourage minority business ownership, I think this Mahogany's deal is horrible. I wouldn't use that as a supporting argument for anything.

Snipe
06-20-2012, 09:13 AM
Walgreens rarely buys locations nowadays. The way most of these deals go down is that a syndicate will build the store to Walgreens specs. In exchange, Walgreens agrees to a VERY long term lease, sometimes up to 75 years NNN with cola provisions. The syndicate assigns the lease to their bank, along with the building and/or land. Walgreens probably has 1st right of refusal in the event of a default, although they would never exercise it if the location turns out bad.
The current owners can decide they want to lease their land under the building, if acceptable, perhaps providing an income stream and tax avoidance on the sale, that would be way better than their current record etc. sales. Deals like this are why Romney is rich.

The whole reason to lease is that you can walk away. That is the same as rent vs buy. I would be surprised if anyone leased for 75 years. That would most likely be way more expensive than just buying the property.

Who in their right mind would lease for 75 years? I would love to be the landlord, because I would be dead when it ended and I wouldn't care one bit about what happened after that. I think this is crazytalk.

PM Thor
06-20-2012, 09:21 AM
I'm not using Mahoganys as an example of how to spend city money, in fact, I think it's a terrible idea. With that being said, I was pointing out that if the city is going to support businesses, it would be better to support those ones that are already established and supported by the surrounding community over supporting a shady owner with a history of business failure behind her.

Kahns, you call this proposed sale "developing" the corner, I see it as the exact opposite, it's not developing the area, and actually helps to destroy the locality and communal aspect one gets from that corridor.

Luckily at the council meeting yesterday a majority agreed any drastic change to Pleasant Ridge would need to be focused on more closely and so...
ORDINANCE, (EMERGENCY) submitted by Vice Mayor Qualls from
Charles C. Graves III, Director, Department of Cincinnati of
City Planning and Buildings, ESTABLISHING Interim Development
Control District No. 69, Pleasant Ridge Neighborhood Business
District, as an overlay district for a period of ninety (90)
days, pursuant to Chapter 1431, Interim Development Control
District Regulations, of the Cincinnati Zoning Code.

The above ordinance has been unanimously approved by the Livable Communities Council and will now go before City Council (This process is almost just a formality seeing as 6 council members make up the committee). This means that any new construction, demolition, or changes in use within the IDC boundaries will have to go before the Planning Commission for a public hearing. Following the 90 day Ordinance, City Council may extend the IDC an additional 9 months. The extension Ordinance would come back for Council approval in September. This will allow the Department of City Planning and Buildings to continue working on the Form-Based Code study and adoption and give the neighborhood the option of adopting their own Form-Based Code if they desire.

I HATE dayton

Snipe
06-20-2012, 09:23 AM
For the record, while I do support judicious use of some taxpayer money to encourage minority business ownership, I think this Mahogany's deal is horrible. I wouldn't use that as a supporting argument for anything.


Blacks were enslaved by Whites. I get that. That doesn't make the Mahogany deal any better. It still looks bad.

I am OK with programs for minority business ownership and affirmative action, but I think it should be restricted to American born blacks. "Hispanics" are prime beneficiaries today, and they were not the target of the programs. The large influx of low skilled, low educated workers also drives down wages for the working class while driving up unemployment.

Affirmative action was made for blacks because of the whole slavery deal, and the Mexicans are going to bust the whole system. We don't really owe anything to the Mexicans, though I am sure they think differently.

I bet Mahogany goes out of business at great expense to the taxpayer. Mahogany, for those who don't know, is a synonym for Black, as it is the darkest wood. The owners of Mahogany didn't pay taxes and should either be in jail or in court for the taxes. Instead our city gave them a huge "stimulus". I don't expect this to end well.

Snipe
06-20-2012, 09:24 AM
I don't remember what city Mahogany left, but I bet those folks are glad to be rid of them.

Kahns Krazy
06-20-2012, 01:08 PM
I'm not using Mahoganys as an example of how to spend city money, in fact, I think it's a terrible idea. With that being said, I was pointing out that if the city is going to support businesses, it would be better to support those ones that are already established and supported by the surrounding community over supporting a shady owner with a history of business failure behind her.

You don't really care how the city supports anything, except when it affects you directly. There is no logical civic basis for taxpayers to support existing business. There is simply no payback for the taxpayer. The taxpayer may have an interest in funding the one-time startup costs of a business to reap the long term tax benefits of the incremental commerce that business creates.

The Mahogany's investment is a horrible one. There is no mechanism for the city to recover its money in the event that the restaurant is a success. The gain for the city is limited to incremental taxes from employees and sales in the restaurant, and any (likely not measurable nor material) increase in property values.

However crappy that use of tax dollars is, it is still superior to using tax dollars to support an existing business. There is zero return on that. It is simply taking tax dollars from some people and giving it to others.

King Kenny
06-20-2012, 01:39 PM
BK drive through is not at a corner though. Different traffic issues.

I'm not offering a solution but I'm also not suggesting that the community be allowed to dictate a narrow list of acceptable tenants. I'm just saying that if the change in tenant results in significantly changed traffic patterns, the owner should be responsible for the costs. And while I support reasonably free use of private property, I think the community's needs and desires do need to be taken into consideration. PR has worked very hard to make a walkable public area at that intersection and putting in a Walgreens or similar shop would destroy that vibe. This shouldn't be a surprise to Walgreens or the current property owner.

Couldn't agree more. Vibe should always be our guidepost in real estate dealings. Right up there with karmic convergence.

King Kenny
06-20-2012, 02:55 PM
I'm all for capitolism and reasonably free activity...

Funny how people always say this prior to restricting the economic activity of another. Bet it isn't so reasonable to the one who is being restricted.

This entire thread has an anti-chain subtext. Reminds me of the South Park where they boycott the chain and patronize the mom-and-pop til it is so successful that it becomes a chain they must boycott.

KC4X
06-20-2012, 03:51 PM
I don't remember what city Mahogany left, but I bet those folks are glad to be rid of them.

Admittedly, I don't know the whole story about Mahogany (tax issues, etc.), but they are leaving Hamilton, OH. Seriously, do you think there's a big draw to Hamilton for Soul Food? I think they could do well at the Banks. I know I'm going to at least try it at some point when I'm downtown, but I probably wouldn't have traveled to Hamilton to try it.

There's a good soul food restaurant in Hyde Park (Chicago) that I love to visit every now and then when I'm in Chicago. It's not something I'd eat frequently because it's generally not very light or healthy, but sometimes I just want a stick-to-your-ribs kind of meal.

boozehound
06-20-2012, 03:55 PM
Admittedly, I don't know the whole story about Mahogany (tax issues, etc.), but they are leaving Hamilton, OH. Seriously, do you think there's a big draw to Hamilton for Soul Food? I think they could do well at the Banks. I know I'm going to at least try it at some point when I'm downtown, but I probably wouldn't have traveled to Hamilton to try it.

There's a good soul food restaurant in Hyde Park (Chicago) that I love to visit every now and then when I'm in Chicago. It's not something I'd eat frequently because it's generally not very light or healthy, but sometimes I just want a stick-to-your-ribs kind of meal.

I'm just glad that I will be able to take a trip to the Underground Railroad Freedom Center and then have dinner at Mahogany! It'll be like a tour of "things that shouldn't be taking up space at the banks but are, and also happen to be in some way subsidized by the City".

Kahns Krazy
06-20-2012, 03:59 PM
Everything at the banks is heavily subsidized by tax dollars. If it was viable privately, it would have happened in less than 20 years. Mahoganys stands out because they received additional incentives beyond the infrastructure investements that support all of the businesses down there.

PM Thor
06-20-2012, 04:34 PM
You don't really care how the city supports anything, except when it affects you directly. There is no logical civic basis for taxpayers to support existing business. There is simply no payback for the taxpayer. The taxpayer may have an interest in funding the one-time startup costs of a business to reap the long term tax benefits of the incremental commerce that business creates.

The Mahogany's investment is a horrible one. There is no mechanism for the city to recover its money in the event that the restaurant is a success. The gain for the city is limited to incremental taxes from employees and sales in the restaurant, and any (likely not measurable nor material) increase in property values.

However crappy that use of tax dollars is, it is still superior to using tax dollars to support an existing business. There is zero return on that. It is simply taking tax dollars from some people and giving it to others.

So I guess you oppose every time the city or state throws tax incentives at businesses to stay in the city or state, respectively. Good to know. Hey is Cincy going to try to stop the outsourcing of Cincy Bells call center to Puerto Rico by the way?

And you don't know what I support or don't support in this town. I start threads here that affect me directly, no doubt, but you are making assumptions and generalizing what I do and do not support based on this board.

Like you always do.

I HATE dayton.

PM Thor
06-20-2012, 05:13 PM
Funny how people always say this prior to restricting the economic activity of another. Bet it isn't so reasonable to the one who is being restricted.

This entire thread has an anti-chain subtext. Reminds me of the South Park where they boycott the chain and patronize the mom-and-pop til it is so successful that it becomes a chain they must boycott.

Of course, I disagree. It's not an anti chain subtext, it's an anti-destroying the business district subtext.

If there were comparable restaurant/entertainment businesses going in, along with a realistic option to move the current businesses within that corridor, the backlash probably wouldn't be so big, so I wouldn't say it's anti chain.

I HATE dayton.

Kahns Krazy
06-21-2012, 11:38 AM
So I guess you oppose every time the city or state throws tax incentives at businesses to stay in the city or state, respectively. Good to know. Hey is Cincy going to try to stop the outsourcing of Cincy Bells call center to Puerto Rico by the way?

Tax incentives are reductions to tax liabilities of a business. That is not what you are talking about when you suggest the city "float a loan" of $600k to the business owners of Everybody's records and the Gaslight. There is no way those businesses are generating in excess of $600k in city tax revenues.

But generally, yes I am opposed to that. From a "city" perspective, I don't care if Cincinnati Bell relocates their call center to Puerto Rico. It is not in the best interest of our city to attempt to give up what it would take to keep an operation from outsourcing overseas.

Moreover, once you start offering incentives to existing businesses, what business wouldn't qualify? Should the Graeters in Hyde Park Square get a loan "floated" to them simply because they are a cornerstone of the area? How do you set these loan floating rules? Why didn't the camera store that was once next to Habits in Oakley get a loan floated to them? That was an established business that had been there for years. It's now an empty lot.

I don't remember the outrage when Xavier bought then bulldozed the Norwood cafe. Was that not an established business that contributed to the "walkability" of the area? Why didn't the city of Norwood float them a loan to save that neighborhood business in the face of the big corporate behemoth?

King Kenny
06-21-2012, 01:15 PM
Of course, I disagree. It's not an anti chain subtext, it's an anti-destroying the business district subtext.

If there were comparable restaurant/entertainment businesses going in, along with a realistic option to move the current businesses within that corridor, the backlash probably wouldn't be so big, so I wouldn't say it's anti chain.

I HATE dayton.

Anytime you read "locally owned", then it is at the expense of a chain. Just look at how Dillonvale fought the Target in favor of the existing, "local" IGA. I seriously doubt if there would be a hue-and-cry if Mullane's went on the corner and violated the ET zoning. Hell, they may even be permitted the dreaded drive-thru.

Also, "walkability" is just more New Urban nonsense that never works. I'd love to put a pedometer on the obese that claim to walk everywhere, every season.

I think a good neighbor is one that provides tax revenue. A business that stands on its own without the aid of government. Sorry if chain drugstores aren't glamorous. Btw, how did that boutique market with the Dilly Deli booth do in that space? All you walkers couldn't support it and it went under. There weren't enough of you buying your radicchio and frozen custard.

Let's Occupy that Walgreens. I'll stop by Radio Shack and get the megaphone. Heck, I bet they don't even pay a"living wage." Whatever that is.

PM Thor
06-21-2012, 04:05 PM
Nope, you are wrong, this isn't about it being anti chain. It's about the community wanting that strip to stay the way it is because it works. The reason that market went under is because it sucked and was overpriced. Pretty simple, and businesses fail all the time like that. There are plenty of other spots nearby for Walgreens to move, just no need to remove the best example of local businesses succeeding while at the same time effectively redefining that business district.

As for the attacks on walkers, I don't get that. I walk or (gasp) bike up there all the time, as do most of my neighbors. "Walkability" has in fact worked there, even if you dont think so. We support the local businesses because they are our neighbors and friends (full disclosure, Gaslight is owned and operated by close friends). We came together as a community, got involved and are defining our neighborhood as we see fit. You can't get more grassroots than that, and I like the way this event has consolidated the neighborhood into a true community determined to make the best out of the entertainment district.

Khans, as for the Woods getting leveled, you ask "where was the outcry?". You just made the point for me. There wasn't an outcry because it didn't have the backing of the neighborhood. If it did, then maybe people would have cared enough to put up a fight.

And there's the difference. In Pleasant Ridge, over 1100 people signed the petition to get this thing rolling. That happened over a weekend. That's how a community mobilizes if it feels that the events happening around it are going to adversely affect the neighborhood.

People bitch when no one gets involved in their community. Then people bitch when people get involved in their community and influence how the neighborhood determines what it will be. I guess it's just that people bitch.

I HATE dayton.

PM Thor
06-21-2012, 04:14 PM
I think a good neighbor is one that provides tax revenue. A business that stands on its own without the aid of government. Sorry if chain drugstores aren't glamorous.

Interesting. I wonder if you would feel the same way if a halfway house or a methadone clinic were to be built on your street. I bet they would make great neighbors and you would be fine with them moving in.

You should ask Snipe about City Link and see what he thinks about that.

I HATE dayton.

waggy
06-21-2012, 08:16 PM
My grandma used to walk Lester all the time. From the bottom of the hill. Probably every dern day. This was back when the automobile was new, and she didn't have one.

She didn't wear boots, but she could've probably kicked you ass. She used to make strudel too. OMG it was the bomb.

She also kept Barq's stocked. Not just root beer, but grape and lemon lime and.. They had all sorts of flavors. Good stuff. They had giant glass bottles. I think you turned 'em back in, and they washed and reused them. You didn't get a new bottle every time.

bobbiemcgee
06-22-2012, 09:39 AM
You might find lease terms over 15-20 years on infrastructure projects, but I'd be surprised if there is anything anywhere close to that long in commercial real estate. Any public company has to disclose any long term lease obligations, and any lease that qualifies as a capital lease has to go on the books as a fixed asset regardless of who owns it. Pretty much anything over 20 years in commercial real estate is going to be a capital lease. It's possible that the lessee would have predetermined lease renewal options going out for a long period of time, but those are generally pretty worthless.

The technicality of who owns it on paper doesn't change who is setting the value of the property. Walgreens determines the market value because they are the ones paying for it.

Romney made most of his money acquiring and divesting companies. He may have done some balance sheet restructuring with real estate as one part of a strategy to maximize the selling price of an organization, but I wouldn't say it's accurate to say syndicated real estate investing is how Romney made his money.


The whole reason to lease is that you can walk away. That is the same as rent vs buy. I would be surprised if anyone leased for 75 years. That would most likely be way more expensive than just buying the property.

Who in their right mind would lease for 75 years? I would love to be the landlord, because I would be dead when it ended and I wouldn't care one bit about what happened after that. I think this is crazytalk.

Lots of Walgreens with 75 yr. leases:

http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/17696401/North-Central-St-and-Arch-St-Burlington-IA/
and Bain, some in conjunction with Vornado Realty, had many leases on buildings in a Mall Co. I worked for, specifically many free standing Toys R' Us and Sports Authority's. The value is in who is signing the contract. Corporate guarantees from Walgreen's carry huge weight. They aren't going to default unless some of Snipe's predictions come thru. and then who cares? It can be traded around just like a stock. Yeah, you would be dead, but Walgreen's will still be paying or making a deal to buy it out, etc.,etc.

Kahns Krazy
06-22-2012, 09:56 AM
"Description
This is a brand new Walgreens with a 75 year lease renewable after 25 years with ten five year options. The rent is still being negotiated and is at $ 575,000 now but will probably increase to $605,000. The sight is projected to be finished at the end on 2012."

That is a 25 year lease. If WAG can walk away after 25 years, calling it a 75 year lease is just silly.

bobbiemcgee
06-22-2012, 10:29 AM
That is a 25 year lease. If WAG can walk away after 25 years, calling it a 75 year lease is just silly.


"This is a brand new Walgreens with a 75 year lease renewable after 25 years with ten five year options."

Call it what you want. 25 yrs. @ 605,000 (if they get it) would be guaranteed by a Co. with 14 billion in net worth. My guess it would be renewed if they are still making money @ that location. I'm sure they would have "first right of refusal" to buy it if the owner agreed but they probably have that now. What would the Building/Land be worth in 2037? Renewable lease rate? Have no idea.

As I said, the lease is pretty much the same as a corporate bond to be traded about. But it is a 75 yr. renewable after 25 just like a 30 yr. home loan with a 5 yr. balloon is not a 5 yr. loan.

Kahns Krazy
06-22-2012, 10:40 AM
As I said, the lease is pretty much the same as a corporate bond to be traded about. But it is a 75 yr. renewable after 25 just like a 30 yr. home loan with a 5 yr. balloon is not a 5 yr. loan.

A 5 year balloon loan is in fact a five year loan. It must be paid off at the end of five years. The payments during the five years until the balloon are based on a a 30 year amortization schedule, but the term of the loan is 5 years.

A renewal option on a lease is nothing at all like the fixed liability at the end of a 5 year balloon. The mortgage holder is obligated to the balloon payment, either by paying it out, or by refinancing the balloon payment. Walgreens has no obligation beyond the initial 25 year term. If anything, the renewal options are a detriment to the landlord because they reduce the marketability of the property.

bobbiemcgee
06-22-2012, 11:15 AM
Meant only as to similiarity in their option to renew between lender/customer or lessee/lessor. Obviously, with a mortgage you have to pay it off, renew, or get out. Lease = renew or get out of the building or exercise some pre-existing purchase agreement.

Anyway, going back to my original point, Walgreen's ain't buying your property, they are the tenant.

Kahns Krazy
06-22-2012, 11:46 AM
Meant only as to similiarity in their option to renew between lender/customer or lessee/lessor. Obviously, with a mortgage you have to pay it off, renew, or get out. Lease = renew or get out of the building or exercise some pre-existing purchase agreement.

Anyway, going back to my original point, Walgreen's ain't buying your property, they are the tenant.

There is no "get out" or "renew" option in a mortgage.

Saying Walgreens doesn't buy the property because they finance it is like saying I didn't buy my house, USBank did. As you pointed out, Walgreens guarantees the payment stream. For the purposes of this story "Walgreens wants to buy and bulldoze Everybody's Records" is accurate enough. Your point that it will in fact be a syndicated group of investors that will buy and destroy it is technically true, but they are only doing it because Walgreens wants them to.

Technically, it won't be either of those groups that does the bulldozing.

bobbiemcgee
06-22-2012, 12:40 PM
There is no "get out" or "renew" option in a mortgage.

Saying Walgreens doesn't buy the property because they finance it is like saying I didn't buy my house, USBank did. As you pointed out, Walgreens guarantees the payment stream. For the purposes of this story "Walgreens wants to buy and bulldoze Everybody's Records" is accurate enough. Your point that it will in fact be a syndicated group of investors that will buy and destroy it is technically true, but they are only doing it because Walgreens wants them to.

Technically, it won't be either of those groups that does the bulldozing.

What? You can't have an option to renew in a mortgage? I've handled thousands of them over the years, mostly by mail. Look up "existing mortgage modification (renewal) and extension agreement." Usually one page.

Just about anything in finance can be negotiated. You act like Walgreen's is acting alone. Somebody has to be willing to negotiate with them for this to even happen. Blame the greedy landlord/property owner(s), blame the customers who will frequent it, blame the contractor, blame the city. Free will's a bitch.

Call it semantics, whatever you want.

Kahns Krazy
06-23-2012, 02:16 PM
I think we agree that if a Walgreens gets built on that corner, Walgreens is the primary driver behind that construction even though they likely won't own the building. There aren't a group of speculators out there building a pharmacy and hoping a Walgreens will move in.

bobbiemcgee
06-23-2012, 04:00 PM
Sure. There has to be a primary tenant with a good balance sheet. I used to do a few of these deals involving Denny's Restuarants. Two of them just renewed the leases after 20+ yrs. Difference was, everybody wanted it there. (small towns/semi-rural areas)