This week, I read a story that discussed how the state of Ohio had given money through a tax credit program to several Cincinnati projects, one of which was for a new city convention center. However, the state denied FC Cincinnati a request for $26.4 million dollars to “bolster its…mixed-use entertainment district”. I understand being angry at the rejection. Who wouldn’t want additional money from the city or state? But when I saw FC Cincinnati’s response to this, I was a bit surprised:

The club’s chief development officer Chad Munitz expressed his disappointment in a statement to The Enquirer: “Our project adjacent to TQL Stadium in the West End is the definition of a transformational mixed-use development project and without these tax credits, we will have to revisit the project’s timing and funding strategy.” — Cincinnati.com, 01/29/24

So, is FC Cincinnati saying that they won’t move forward without this extra money? Because we never heard FC Cincinnati say anything about this additional taxpayer money being mandatory when the stadium contract was negotiated. In 2017, the team’s Principal owner, Carl Lindner III, mentioned to the Cincinnati Enquirer that they were “looking to develop an appropriate public-private partnership that’s possible without new taxes or increases on our people”. At the time of these comments, 2017, Cincinnati’s city leaders were trying to figure out how to get out of a $32 million budget deficit. I will also just ignore the fact that in 2018, the mayor increased property taxes because of a significant number of projects that needed work, includes stadium-related items.

“The return on the investment is worthy of a partnership…A third party, a public authority, can own the stadium. The county doesn’t have to own the stadium. Taxpayers don’t have to be responsible for cost overruns. Taxpayers don’t have to be responsible for bells-and-whistle upgrades, and taxpayers don’t have to be on the hook if a…public funding source underperforms” — FC Cincinnati President and General Manager Jeff Berding, Cincinnati.com, 10/27/17

This is the same team who originally claimed that a new stadium by itself would be an “economic driver” to the surrounding area? Better yet, building a new stadium was “guaranteed to bring dividends” to the area.

When FC Cincinnati introduced plans for a potential mixed-use development, they told city leaders that the “developments would be handled by outside investors”. Outside of that, it is difficult to find any example of the team discussing finances for this mixed-use development. I continue to find article after article of the team talking about how this mixed-use development will be complete with a “hotel, apartments, office space, retail, restaurants, music/entertainment venues and a plaza”. But the section of who pays for what must have been torn out.

Let’s focus on what we do know, then. We know that FC Cincinnati has plans for an entertainment district, a 150-room hotel tower, 450+ apartments, 85,000 square feet of commercial and retail space and up to 600 parking spaces. Last year, FC Cincinnati asked the city to make major changes to the stadium agreement. The team wanted additional land to be deemed as “planned development” and for the boundary of the development to be increased further north. FC Cincinnati also asked the city to sell and vacate a number of properties around the stadium. Once all of these changes were made, FC Cincinnati would not only “remain in control of the entire development site” but also planned to “acquire privately held parcels within the planned development zone”.