This taxpayer says: "NSP Real Estate Waste"

Hi Nelson.

Gentlemen
    Don’t you care where and how 2.1 million dollars of NSP1 has been spent?
At every City Council meeting we hear “We don’t have the money” to do that project and yet if you look at the spread sheets that is not on accurate statement.
We have the money to do a great many things however we have not used the funds frugally to get the biggest bang for the buck and therefore needs go unmet.  
    Believe me this plan with all this waste would never work in the real business world.

Tudor
No I believe it is you that needs the reality check.
Have you seen these records?
Are you in the construction business?

If you think I'm incorrect post your numbers and prove your point.

A related question:

Well Mike I'm sure that low income family that is a friend of the City will reeeeeally enjoy livivng in this all new house. How was this property sold since it was never put up for sale?

I know I bring in a private sector mindset to this debate, and maybe that's a good thing. The first thing or commitment I would require before ny money is spent (yes I know they have already spent $275,000), is how many years commitment Cincinnati State intends to make? I said this a few months ago, but don't have an answer---is it 3 rs, 5, 10-20? As a consequence, would not that define the lease terms and the city's willingness to put bonds on the line for the years of commitment? To my knowledge, that question has never been answered.

Then, we have your questions to debate. I think the pt above goes to the heart of that as well. How long is Cinci State willing to commit? 3, 5, 10, 20, 50 years? If its short term, who would build a building (new) lease for a short-term commitment? If they commit for 15-20 years, would it not be a better idea for State to build out by the highway, have a totally green building, and also be able to drawl off the highway travelers who may want a meal, and enjoy a lower cost I assume, because the staff are students, and then you have a small presence, if desired, for a hospitality portion, new, maybe on the lines of a low-end Marriott, like a bed and breakfast, which also gives the hospitality students some on the job experience )or even better, they partner with the Drury Inn, and the hotels already out there for coop programs for the students?

At the end of the day, I think the question remains where it began. What is the attraction of The Manchester, needing renovation $$$, and no longer has its base, which was small anyway. Is the attraction historic (a Golden Lamb to CS), or another motivation.

It would be interesting to see what language and guidelines is in the PAC deal, probably gives him as much time as needed without penalty, without immediate payback. Is he above 5 tenants yet?

What about an assisted living facility, a homeless shelter, if Cinci State punts?  

guys im a local contractor who has worked on two of these projects. i do not think the numbers shown are correct, and i can find out.the city is not tryin to make a profit on these houses but any money from the sale goes back in to another house.So they want these dollars to go as far as they can so they can do more houses. From what i can tell these jobs seem to be well run and were bid out to many different general contractors.I havent seen any waste.Really seems like a good program, im sure you guys will enjoy tearing me to peices but at least on this one im actually involved and have an informed educated opinion.

8/10/2010		$425.00	Appraisal for 2317 Wilbraham	Voucher #132700
8/17/2010		$1,200.15	Admin for p/e 5/15/2010 for KF	Voucher #133379
8/19/2010		$1,094.04	Admin for p/e 7/10/2010 for KF
8/19/2010		$525.00	Title work for 718 17th, 502 15th & 411 Yankee (demo candidates)
8/19/2010		$846.80	Admin for p/e 6/26/10 for KF	Voucher #133701
8/19/2010		$988.57	Admin for p/e 7/24/10 for KF
8/19/2010		$990.40	Admin for p/e 6/12/10 for KF
8/19/2010		$1,093.79	Admin for p/e 5/29/10 for KF
9/2/2010		$176.40	Admin for JD p/e 7/24	Voucher #135133
9/9/2010		$438.20	Admin for JD & $350 for appraisal for 2534 El Camino	Voucher #135615
9/16/2010		$7,881.26	Admin for p/e 5/29 - 8/21	Voucher #136672
9/21/2010		$2,413.64	Admin for p/e 9/4/10	Voucher #137238
9/28/2010		$1,142.44	Admin for p/e 9/18/2010	Voucher #138031
11/15/2010		$861.54	TJ Admin for p/e 10/16/10
11/15/2010		$186.00	NSP Realtor RFP Ads	Voucher #142283
11/15/2010		$186.00	NSP Realtor RFP Ads
11/17/2010		$337.18	NSP Realtor RFP Ads in Cinci Enquirer	Voucher #142530
11/29/2010		$574.21	Admin for p/e 10-30 and 11-12-2010	Voucher #143323
12/8/2010		$303.18	Admin for p/e 11/27/10	Voucher #144191
1/12/2011		$18,616.56	Admin expenses for staff from 9/18/10 through 12/25/10	Voucher #146940
1/26/2011		$643.83	JD Admin for p/e 1/8
1/26/2011		$447.03	JD Admin for p/e 1/22	Voucher #147887
1/28/2011		$2,903.15	Admin for p/e 1/8/11
1/28/2011		$2,978.24	Admin for p/e 1/22/11	Voucher #148138
1/28/2011		$2,800.29	Admin for p/e 12/25/10

plum--I believe you might have the issue backwards. The city is losing HUGE $$ on the sale of these homes.

If I am not mistaking if (and that would be a big if) made money on a house - the money has to be returned and can not be reinvested in another project.

When the request for these funds were originally drafted - back when Ginger was still in control - there was never going to be a case of profit on any of these homes.  The idea was to spend the money or it had to go back - so they did not care.  They did not even listen to other ideas of how this money could have been used to stabilize the neighborhoods.  Remember they hired an outside expert to right this up the way they wanted it.