RestorationConsultant

The current "water flow tunnel' built in 1908 which replaced lick run creek is currently 18 feet in diameter. The EPA consent decree calls for new deep tunnel system. The reason MSD is trying to float this daylighting is to save money and Fairmount with only 6000 houses pays so little in property taxes because they are smaller. Moody's told them they would potentially reduce the MSD bond rating because they dont have the "tax base" to support the cost of that infrastructure. It really has nothing with MSD trying to be 'green' its about saving some bucks. The housing density is not like OTR, typical lots are 30 feet wide by 100 ft deep. FYI do people know there are still houses in fairmount on septic? IF you drive that area there are a lot of vacant lots. A large portion due to demo by the city many more gone because the hydrology on which many houses were built and the lack of building codes in 1850-1890 when most of these homes were built meant many houses slid of their foundations. When this area majorly flooded the Hills were barren, today they are reforested. If we use the MSD premise that this glorified drainage ditch is an asset, The developers will magically' flock to the area and build 2-300k neo urban townhouses? facing a street with a 50K a day traffic count. I and many others are hoping that EPA seeing the considerable opposition, not to mention the likely lawsuits will order MSD to do what they should have done in the first place in 2012 when the plan will get a yes or no from EPA. Based on what I've heard on the eminent domain issue that case will take a couple of years to work its way through the courts.

Which brings to mind the questions MSD can't/won't answer. Will a daylighted stream flood? If so what happens to the recreation areas around it. What are the costs of maintaining the landscaping they promise in a flood event? Additionally what happens in drought cycles (stagnation/mosquitoes)? What about safety issues for children who will need to cross a city street with a 50K a day traffic count and will they fence the containment ponds? I have been to one of these contrainment /daylighted type areas. Pogues Run in Indianapolis. It is billed as a park but no one goes there because of the insects. This is supposed to attract development? This is poorly thought out scheme being used to largely get more federal bucks for development at the cost of demolition of historic property with a huge carbon footprint. The deep tunnel, although more expensive makes far more sense in terms of long range growth and planning for the watershed. AND we can save a historic area and restore and redevelop it. In fact the neighbors have developed an alternate plan called QC West that allows for two daylighting areas but keeps the core business district that will be redeveloped using a proven "main street" approach.

@Sherman: http://www.cnt.org/repository/Portland.pdf The city of Portland disconnected 49,000 downspots at a total cost of 2.5 Million that resulted in a reduction of 1.2 Billion Gallons of Runoff and an estimated reduction of sewer overflows by 10 percent. Portland as you know has significantly more rainfall than Cincinnati. The 'poverty numbers in Fairmount are scewed too, by some large HUD housing projects too. If we are talking sales prices for houses in the basin, per country records. leaving out the commercial stuff, vacant land. but including some of the mixed use retail/residential Did not include any pre 2000 sales just on Queen City. For example: Queen City: (address,sold date,amount) 1616 OC,4/28/2005, 59,5K... 1618QC, 4/28/2005 59,5K....1634QC, 7/27/2008, 42.5K....1645QC. 9/10/2004, 144K....1692QC, 3/2/2004, 50K... 1700QC,10/11/2004,75K... 1724QC, 1/20/2006,60K...1738QC,10/04/2000, 98,6K....1748QC, 3/8/2007,77K....1760QC,6/16/2000, 68K... 1904QC, 6/24/2005, 80K... 1938QC, 10/23/2006, 70K... 2028QC, 1/20/2006, 54,900... 2036QC, 1/12/2004, 63,5K... Doesn't look that 'poverty stricken based on what people are paying to live there. Important point ,many of the homes never sell because they stay in the same family for generations. Despite what you think about the neighborhood those people worked hard to buy those houses. You also might be interested to know we will be taking MILLIONS of dollars of property off the tax roles permanently with this 'glorified drainage ditch' when we demo 80-100 structures.. @INK , The Norwood case is profoundly relevant since city/county and EPA officials have stated publically and in print, that land will go to private developers. In fact an argument 'might' be made that the city began 'targeting' S Fairmount with VBML, condemnand demolitions ( without proper section 106 reviews, I might add) in a deliberate attempt to drive down property values to 'help' MSD with eminent domain cases. Remember this whole issue didnt start yesterday its been in the courts for years and documents go way back.

Sherman, the Portland downspout seperation program has been hailed by both EPA and just about every environmental group as a huge success. EVERYTHING MSD wants to do depends on two things: One EPA actually agreeing to it (Far from a done deal, they may in eth end require deep tunnel) and two, the city winning eminent domain cases and based on the Norwood decision most legal experts feel they really don't have a chance. In the typical Cincinnati way they plowed ahead, bought property without even considering section 106 reviews OR recognizing the level of community pushback to this plan. And the costs just keep going higher and higher as they get deeper into the details. They have no developer commitments for infill and the biggest "blight' right now are the MSD owned properties. Something ELSE brought to EPA's attention as they committed to maintain them and cut the yards as they promised to do but then they never expected to have to go through a section 106 proces until we told them I would file a lawsuit if they demoed without it and contacted the ACHP in DC about the compliency issues and EPA federal 106 review contacts. As for South Fairmount property values in S Fairmount were very stable until after the riots in 2000 when the city dumped all its low income into Fairmount. If you look at property values the average house in Fairmount sold for about 65,000 on teh basin, FAR more than they brought in OTR at the time CPA's own surveys identified numerous significant structures in the basin worthy of putting on the city historic building inventory. There have been several news articles in which I have participated in and EVERY time there is an article out I get hundreds of emails from people across the country amazed we would even think of builldozing this area and wanting to stay informed because they would love to restore these houses. As for private investment, the V&S property is restored. Numerous houses on Westwood BLVD are under restoration. The new Roosevelt private school is opening on Treemont. CPS took the old South Fairmont HS which they couldnt give away 3 years ago, spent millions on it, and have reopened it as "Quebec Academy" not to mention Orion School a private school that is doing just fine. Private and accelerated learning school development are generally considered by most to be a prime indicator of neighborhood turnaround and "market demand" Sherman, I have turned around neighborhoods FAR Worse than South Fairmount with similar socio economic problems and I've been involved in that for over 20 years. In fact I am working with several out of state developers which have toured the area, looked at buildings and determined the area is ripe for restoration development. Including a established Chicago developer who has been looking at possible conversion of large Warehouse buildings to luxury condos. In fact I have given 7 group walking tours of the area to date this summer and the response from those people who are preservationists and experts in things like Main Street development programs is that S. Fairmount is still, despite losses, largely intact and worthy of development. The core business district is far more intact that alot of OTR. Knox Hill has millions of dollars being poured into restoration (9 new restorations started this summer in a relatively small neighborhood) and I am working with a couple from out of state who just bought a vacant lot in my neighborghood and are planning on building a new luxury Victorian home (over 500K) on a lot overlooking the valley. Sherman you simply do not know all is going on and your "assumptions" about Fairmount are both short sighted and uninformed. That is the problem with the local population, they do not see historic restoration as an economic development tool, and have forgotten that areas like Columbia Tusculum and Mt Adams were not always like they are today. As for market value. Those who come in and restore, well know the financial risks they take. However I can tell you from experience that those are the people everyone ten years later congratulates for being forward thinking and ahead of the curve. Sherman you talked about being involved in one project? I've restored over 25 properties myself and work as Preservation consultant across the country in the area of neighborhood restoration and redevelopment. I've been involved in hundreds of restoration projects. I would not be putting my money in an area I was not confident would turn around, Ive been doing this way too long. What we REALLY need is less redtape and roadblocks from the city, elimination of the VBML program in favor of an orders based system, strict Federal oversite of the way this city spend CDBG funds and a streamlined permit process, not to mention a competent Urban Conservaor with a real background in Historic Preservation. The facts are, this will represent the largest loss of historic fabric this city has seen since the freeway and its demolition, would send the wrong message about Preservation in Cincinnati. And in case you didnt know it Sherman, nationally we have an awful reputation on preservation right now between the Gamble house, the Corryville demos, the CPS demos and the list goes on and on. The problem is we have invested far too heavily focused on preservation in OTR at the detriment of other neighborhoods and that MUST change if this city is to turn around. Its just a shame we have to fight the city on everything when ethy have an awful track record on development and CPA sits on its hands.

The 'carbon footprint' of demolition of 100 structures, the brownfield remediation requirements (removal of contaminated soil and trucking in new clean soil)is huge . Consider the average old house weighs in at between 60-250 Tons of material will have huge impact on our landfill and much of it will require special remediation. No where in the 'cost of the project' is this cost disclosed nor the SECTION 106 review and possibility that some houses will be required to be moved because they are historic. Also the huge legal fees because some owner will not sell and have retained attorneys meaning eminent domain lawsuits which the MSD is likely to loose based on the Norwood case. The'architectural rape" of a historic town ( thats what S fairmount was before it was annexed) for this "boondoggle' is absurd . Especially since Congress may defund EPA after 2012.

@Mr Sparkle...the primary water feeds are S.Fairmount part of Westwood and part of Price Hill. Other parts of those areas are "on the other side of the hill" and feed to different areas in terms of runoff/watershed. Almost all of these properties have combined drownspouts that feed into the sewers. If we take the approach used by cities like Portland, Toronto and others and seperate the downspouts a large portion of that will not be direct runoff because it gets absorbed 'locally' on the lot. The city still needs to seperate the sewer runoff at street level of course. One very important thing to remember is that there is less density in the area as it stands right now. Via demolition the city has removed a number of old apartment buildings and run down multi families (that used ro be single family homes). The population is less now tham it was 10-15 years ago. If that is combined with code changes requiring water permeable parking surfaces and watersheds as part of any commercial renovation or future development, you can control the runoff. Our neighborhood Knox Hill is already helping residents separate downspots and build rain gardens. You also have a lot of restoration going on where formerly 2-3 unit buildings are going back to single family. The PRIMARY reason for this ridiculous daylighting plan is all the Federal money from CDBG,NSP etc that the city and county can legally "skim" for salaries. Its not about quality of life, its another city/county "urban renewal" scheme that will decimate a historic area and 'hope' developers will come. We know what the city track record is on that.

The problem is Sherman, they are proposing more density. MSD acquired 84 properties at the city forfeiture sale, many of them "View' lots' overlooking this development that have been vacant for years because the builders at the time didnt know how to build on a hillside (they do now). The city is planning on "gentrifying" Fairmount by building a bunch of Neo urbanist crap that will fill the hillsides, Picture MT Adams. Remember the county landbank? That where these properties are going. Forget the wooded hillside on Knox Hill overlooking Harrison. Its will all be filled with condos. Wonder why Fairmount was so targeted with VBNML's and demos? Not because the buildings were bad but because the city wanted to clear them for redevelopment. Their problem is Knox Hill will be a national historic distruict by the time EPA approves this project (IF they do). So will alot of properties in the valley they want because the owners are submitting their homes for nomination. I think its funny the way the playing the "tree huggers" by talking about greenspace. You will have the hillsides convered with luxury "tacky" condos and houses overlooking a glorified drainage ditch if MSD , the city and county get their way. They will add more denisity and the hillsides overlooking this project will be developed. Ironically Histroic Preservation woudl preserve the hillsides. Thats the plan to rebuid the city/county tax base. Not by fixing historic houses already there but by bulldozing and infill. Those are the facts, its all tied into the Moody boind rating for the project. Fortunately there is a Federal court to fight it.

And the buildings occasionally flooded and are still standing, Lick run wasnt a stream as much as it was a drainage ditcch The trolley has a raise crank that allowed it to go through standing water. This project has less to do about fixing the problem but more about another attempts at "Urban renewal' and ask yourself what 'developer' will build 200-250K single family infill overlooking a 'glorified drainage ditch witha 50,000 car a DAY traffic count. One all the traces of historical homes and buildings is removed. This is all about the city and county geting a bunch of Federal money to cover administartive costs and offset salaries for a bunch of peopel who sit around and "Plan' things".

Its not a simple solution but a viable one given the lack of density and lot size to roof ratios in Fairmount. We have consulted experts in the field who have calculated it would work in Fairmount. You are right probably not in an area like OTR but then Fairmount is not OTR. We are proposing two retention areas one where the ARBYS/Ralleys/ United is and one further east by the athletic field where MSD originally indicated they wanted to start daylighting. There are two potential historic relocations west of there, both frame and could be moved cheaply or "given away' to someone willing to move them. We have already located viable sites close by. S Fairmount is a viable potential historic district with several 'clusters" already identified on the city and state historic building inventory list. There are sufficent vacant lots to provide off street parking (with permeable pavement) to provide for business parking and with a Main street program there are already people, willing to invest in the area as part of a historic based development. This can be done, it is just slightly more complicted that the "bulldoze it and developers will come approach" which Cincinnati has NEVER been effective at. We even have a 'rebranding' proposal to elimate the 'Fairmount stigma" called "Queen City West" or QC WEST for short With Knox Hill about ready to submit our national district application there will be a strong anchor on the Hill , overlooking the valley. Sedamsville further west has alreay submitted their registy application. The city, and county, is so locked into its "Blight=Bulldozer' mentality that using historic Preservation as an economic development tool is a real problem for then. On the other hand Federal funds are involved, that means section 106 review. We have identified 39 properties eligible for historic nomination and another 25 contriburing NOT including those across the street from the proposed development trhat woudl be part of a larger national historic district. MSD's proposal looks like a boondoggle, The carbon footprint of demo of 100 structures,. brownfield remediation and landfill impact is HUGE,. Doubtful EPA would approve that given Congress wants to cut them out of existence anyway. Some property owners are ready to hire property rights attorneys and eth businnes have retained legal counsel. I am traveling to DC to meet with our attorneys who are experts in prioperty rights and eminent domain cases The Norwood eminent Domain case has changed the level for determination. MSD has already indicated this is part of a larger privately funded development which means in Court they are dead in the water on the legal issue of eminent domain because the Norwood case already set precedent that you can not take property in anticipation of private developmet Smart money is to work with the neighborhood and compromise and not assume Cincy and county Urban planners have all the answers. BECAUSE if EPA denies the daylighting its DEEP Tunnel at 250 Million and Moodys has indicated they will reduce the county bond rating and that will cost more money and raise sewer bills dramatically Our proposal is cheper, more effective and less carbon footprint and it preserves historic architecture. They just dont like it because its not their idea.

NY TIMES picked up the Greenwire feed http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/08/22/22greenwire-creek-restoration-keys-cincinnatis-battle-agai-17408.html?pagewanted=1 Given Greenwire is very "pro-green", I think we got in some good arguments regarding the carbon foorprint, landfill impact, and potential cost of moving properties that are national registry eligible, which are things MSD and the county commissioners are ignoring but will come into play because of section 106 issues . I have received over 1400 emails this week from preservationists across the country supporting saving Fairmount. Many asking where CPA is on this (something I'd like to know too as you would think they would be more vocal about the largest loss of historic architecture since the freeway). But is politics as usual with them..no guts! Unless the hurricane interferes with my plans I will be traveling to Washington DC next week to meet with our legal experts, reprsentatives of several congressman and some EPA officials. This is far from being a 'done deal' by MSD and I believe we have a good chance to save the core business/residential district as MSD MUST have EPA approval and I think we are getting some strong support against MSD's plans, The whole CSO issue could be resolved by doing what Portland, Toronto and other cities have done and that is removing downspouts that drain into the sewers on residential property at CONSIDERABLY less cost than deep tunnel or daylighting without the negative historic and landfill impacts.

Actually it was OTRADOPT that filed the suit. That all I intend to say about this topic. On other news there is a meeting Thursday by MSD on 8/11. 6-9 PM, Robert Paideia Academy, 1702 Grand Ave. It will cover the whole watershed. A total of three workshops will be held culminating in a master plan. This is your chance to be heard on this project and voice Preservation concerns and at least go on record as trying to shape the future of this project , This project if it happens the way MSD wants it to, will result in the destruction of 80 plus structures built between 1850-1915 , Mostly Victorian era structures and will represent the largest loss of architecture in Cincinnati since the freeway was built. We need the Presrvation communities input and we need to promote the idea of "daylighting" East of Grand only, save the historic business/residential district and enact a downspout seperation program to seperate downspots from internal drains that run direxctly into the sewer system. Portalnd was able to remove 1.2 Billion gallons of rainwater fronm their CSO by this method. Other cities like Toronto are doing the same thing yet MSD has totally ignored this option. EPA will ultimatley have to sign off on this alternative plan and we need to insist that historic architecture be saved, There is some remarkable buildings in that basin that we should not lose.

Actually The individual in question on the incorporation represented the LLC principals as agent in the acquisition of a property on Dayton street in the West End which fell through due to dispute between the city and Duetsche Bank. the LLC was originaly incorporated to acquire that building which the owner junped though many hoops in an attempt to acquire. ( I actually was blind cc'd on all this so I actually have supporting documentation here). For the record I advised the people who bought 1737 ELM against acquiring it as I felt the restoration costs far exceeded the value odf the building. These people try to save buildings no one else would do. I respect that. FYI: The date of filing for OTRADOPTS articles of incorporation do not mean that same is a nonprofit. That only occurs once that is granted by the state, and IRS, and that can take some time. The IRS only recognized OTRADOPT as a non profit in JUNE 2011 well after the contract with the buyers of the property . Legally OTRADOPT was not an indentified legal non profit by the IRS, at the time the contract was excecuted. Look I am not pointing fingers here I am simple stating the legal facts. I believe there was a serious lack of communication, very bad contracts and covenants concerning this property. Legaly the facts are the facts, OTRADOPT was not a legal non profit at the time the contract was executed. The paperwork is sloppy and there is a real problerm here. I am not accusing antyone of dishonesty I am just saying its a is legal mess and I do not understand why the parties cant reach an agreement since I belive both parties hace a committment to the building. Fron a strictly legal standpoint,in court,OTRADOPT will lose and I don't feel that helps preservation in Cincinnati, especially since the people who adopted it have already spent thousands clearing up lliens OTRADOPT should have caught in the title search. HAD they done a thorough search in the first place. Lost of mistakes made here on both sides. These buildings typically have issues going back decades and title search is a complicated process BUT Mr. Klinger is charging the buyers several thousand dollars in consulting fees to deliver clear title. I actually have a copy of the contract. He didnt delivera free and lien clear title. Of course they are upset. There are no winners in this situation and the preservation commuunity goal should be an effective resolution to the problem. BUT if you dont have the paperwork I have,you should not make assumptions about what is actually going on.

1737 is in Court. OTRADOPT is suing to get it back and the people who bought it have filed a complaint with the state attorney generals office against OTRADOPT because their were unpaid liens against the building that OTRADOPT was supposed to take care of once they were known and never did. They are out thousands paying those liens out of pocket, plus they have filled out the paperwork for a Tax Appeal (granted), VBML Waiver and it turned out OTR ADOPT was not even incorporated as non profit at the time of sale (althought the paperwork was signed as such),so there is a problem with that and enforceablility of the covenants and the purchase contract. I've seen the covenant/contract and its not worth the paper its wriitten on, I dont know who prepared it for OTRADOPT but its not enforceable due to the language and as soon as OTRADOPT failed to clear the liens they were in technical breach so its anyones guess as to how they plan to get it back. I assume the owners are filing a countersuit againsty OTRADOPT for the unpaid leins, additional title and insurance fees. They owners put in a new meter base and paid to have the building cleared out of all the debris that was in it. The owners have applied for a permit for the roof on the front building and new box gutters but can't do anything because of the stop work order issued because the Brick contractor (recomended by OTRADOPT) never pulled a permit to do the work and now the entire rear wall with have to be taken completely down and rebuilt from ground up. The people who bought it hired a structural engineer who issued a report to them on what the have to do now because the rear wall was not done properly and because of the stop work order it was not completed. That has caused a roof issue and a problem with the courtyard wall. Which will add tens of thousands to the cost of the rear building. Their new architect is working on the plans submission and they have been trying for weeks to get the stop work lifted so they can start getting stuff done. Its avery sad situation in my opinion. I was trying to work with both sides to try and resolve the situation to no avail, so looks like everyone is headed to court and they will fight it out there. That, is whats going on with 1737 ELM.

4 or 5 projects on Elm right now which one are you talking about as the link you gave just goes to the blog?

Actually you can take one of those tenements and usually get a perfectly good single family home out of them. In fact many of those "tenements" were not built that way. They were built as single family homes (usually for teh shop owner who owned the building). Now single family meant more that a family of 4, It was usually a family with 4-5 kids and one parents lived with you and maybe even some uncle ot aunts. It was the large "european extended' family. I've looked at dozens of buildings in OTR and West End and when you take away the remuddlings done in the late 1890's (remember many of these buildings were built between 1860-1870), The remuddlings done in the 1920's when they were divided again and the remuddling in the 1970-80's when many were made just 'rooming houses', you get back to a workable single family home with 6-8 bedrooms or so. Now from that base and not changing walls, you add in the things you need for a modern upscale home today, Home office, media room, family room and a few luxury size bathrooms and closets connected to bedrooms. Basicaly re-adapting existing rooms and you have a luxury home. There is a House on Dayton street in West End, that is 17 units right now , Rooming houses with shared baths , common room kitchens etc. A real hodgepodge, HOWEVER, it was built as asingle family home. Infact Ive looked at witha cluient considering buying it to turn it back to original. I know of house right now, formerly 7 large apartments that is going back to one grand 7000 square foot home. The market is there. Its just the latest of 6 conversions back to single family in the last few years over there that i know of.

The problem is the 'assumption' that only 3CDC can do projects in OTR. I'd love to see some competition in OTR for development. But 3CDC's 'prefferred developer' status gives them a competitive edge. The back room relationship with city official's does not help other developers either. The Redtape/Roadblocks placed by city inspections and permits discourages development in my opinion. I also believe we need more 'spot' development rather than the 3CDC block at a time approach. Some real restoration would be nice. Many of these buildings would lend themselves to a 3-4 bedroom luxury townhouse over a retail use. If you look at Indianapolis as an example. The Glove factory in Lockerbie atarted out as smaller condos Much like 3cdc is now doing. Today there are far fewer units as many have been 'combined' to form larger units. The market was actually better for larger units than was originally predicted. More diversity in my opinion is needed and I do not think 3CDC should geta free pass on demo of historic architecture JUST because they are 3CDC.

Mercer Common is a product of "New Urbanist Herd architecture" . You see this 'crap' in every major city. It has no soul and frankly no place in OTR. You can go to Atlanta. Indianapolis, Baltimore and its already out of fashion. So much of my business these days is trying to design/restore rooms back into open concept lofts because in many other major markets they are worthless and design traditional reskins facades for what I call "Bettlejuice" new urbanist design houses. Prediction: we are getting close to 'condo glut' in OTR. Looking forward there is need for single family townhouses and upscale residences. There is a limit of "20 somethings" willing/able to buy this entry level New Urbanist architecture. For OTR to be sucessful long term we need high level architecture. Frankly I'd rather see the original buildings redeveloped and quality infill townhomes built there that what we will look back on in 20 years and say 'why did we let that crap be built" It looks very similar to low income housing projects I've seen. OTR deserves better in my opinion

We are doing a free Architectural walking tour of the Fairmount Business/residential district starting at 9:30 and meeting in front of the Orion Academy. 1798 Queen City. By our current count there are 40 plus structures eligible as contributing and the area would appear to meet the requirements for national Historic district. There are some incredible buildings you would not expect to still be there. Big meeting Tuesday Evening (14th) where MSD presents their plans seeking 'community input' ay 7:30 at Orien Academy. All told this will be the largest loss of historic fabric since the highway was built. I expect this to be a long drawn our preservation battle.

There will be an FREE Architectural walking tour of Endangered Fairmount this Saturday June 11th at 9:30 AM (rain date Sunday). We will meet in front of Orion Academy 1798 Queen City. Knox Hill Neighborhood Association is sponsoring the free Tour. Attendees will see an outstanding collection of Italianate, Second Empire, buildings, a Queen Anne mansion, and the outstanding V&S colonial revival building and their one of a kind ART DECO annex. The loss of these buildings would be the largest loss of historic fabric since the freeway demolitions . It is very important to save this area and we have developed an alternative plan that allows the daylighting East of Grand but preserves the historic buildings as patr of a alternative developmet plan we call " Historic QC West" I have attached some photos. A FRACTION of what you will see! There will be presentation of the MSD proposal at the S Fairmount Community Council Meeting Tuesday 14th at 7:30 at Orion Academy

Knox Hill Neighborhood Asociation has mede two requests regarding thr MSD Lick Run project. From Ed Cunningham: A list of all properties demoed during a period of 2009-2010 with Federal dollars as well as teh number of VBML'issued in 2009-2010 AND the number of Condemn Orders issued by his department in South Fairmount From Larry Harris: (the Urban conservator), copies of section 106 reviews done on property in South Fairmount using federal CDBG or NSP funds. It will be interesting to see what their reply is.

Yes Dmrkow they are, However they can bury underground it's just that their bond rating will go down slightly because the city has already decimated property values to the point they have insufficient revenue. There are ways to get the stormwater to grand and then daylight sparing historic property. However this whole thing has become a "gentrification scheme": City inspectors with VBML and condemn demos are driving property values down. The fact is they have lied about the real reason for daylighting, they have used city inspections to drive down values so MSD can get them cheap and they destroy a neighborhood in the process. They have NO INTENTION of moving any of the hsitroic property ecause they want that land for 'new urbanist crap liek 3CDC is building all over OTR. I want my neighorhood to improve but dont intentionally drive the poor out and destroy property values just so MSD and eth city can make a financial windfall on the other side. Can we trust peopel like that who lie to us, who lack integrety? I dont think so,

For the last week Ive had a team of people investigating this lick run project. We uncovered several things but in a nutshell: MSD, city inspections, project groundwater, the council and mayor have been lying to Westside residents for some time now. Here is what we found. 1.) city was told by Moody's the City Bond rating entity that an underground project would result in a lowered bond rating for the city because there was insufficient property tax base to support the cost. 2.) The plan then became to "daylight" lick run, demo the ENTIRE fairmount basin all the way up to white and creaet a water development similar to saylor park in Baltimore while maintaining this was an "open process", hold public meetings and "engage' the community in discussion all the while knowing the plan 3.) At the Cleveland confernce OCTOBER 2010 EPA's Brook Furio outlined this "land scheme' of gentrificction and using the lick run watershed to bring in developers to "upscale' things. This plan was obviously put together some time ago 4.) It "appears" city inspections deliberately targeted Fairmount for enforcement, passing out VBML's , condemn orders and demo like candy, with little or no Section 106 review resulting in the demolition of viable historic structure adjacent to the proposed develeopment 5. The city placed 91 properties on the forfeiture sale coming up at MSD's request because they knew why MSD wanted them. Basically on every level the city has lied. The plan has been to demo all along, the meetings project groundworks is holding to get community input are nothing more than "theatre" and there was no plan to save anything. In fact my section 106 review requests have created a real problem for them. This 'appears" to be the city engaging in deliberate redlining using city inspections to drive down property values so MSD can buy them cheap. S fairmount experienced a 16 percent drop in valeu N Fairmount experienced a 32 percent drop in value. As you know assessed value play a big part in eminent domain. Fairmount property owners have lost millions of dollars in property value because of this scheme. On my blog today: http://victorianantiquitiesanddesign.blogspot.com/2011/05/msd-land-grab-pat-2-msd-and-inspections.html I am sending our research to the Department of Justice and State AG's office to see what they think. But last time I checked Ohio has a sunshine law and the feds have a problem with redlining, especially when federal monies are used to do it! Maybe we can stop these back room deals someday!

I covered this today on my Blog. City is already at demo stage . http://victorianantiquitiesanddesign.blogspot.com/2011/05/msd-lick-run-project-is-demo-at-this.html There has been NO section 106 reviews in fact I think they were caught with their pants down . They want to meet with Knox Hill about or concerns, ONCE I mentioned the 106 review. I had already contacted Larry Harris and no one had put him in the loop, he didnt even have a list of proposed demos. There are roughly 2 dozen properties mostly along Westwood that would be demoed under this plan. A handful of these maybe 4-6 are Historic eligible under section 106 for study for relocation. Typically this kind of Federal Funds project allocates for some relocation of historc buildings. Indianpolis relocated 16 properties as part of the Canal project which recieved Federal funds so Cincinnati has NO EXCUSE! I have no doubt the city doesnt want to move anything but since this is Federal they are not getting a way with wholesale demo because we can tie this up at state and Federal levels for 106 reviews of their decisions for some time. The BIG problem is there is no 'historic overlay' for the properties opposite of the planned development where there area lot of potentially historic properties. Without an overlay, there is zero protection and intsead of the nice brick lined "Hyde Park" concepts they are selling it could be demoed for strip centers instead. A usual the south Fairmount Community Council is clueless. City is going to have to provide REAL TRANSPARENCY on this with real Section 106 reviews and some promises IN WRITING, to protect the other side of the street from investor/speculator demos or thsi project is about to get slowed way down. Ive attached the first round of demo proposals. 3 of these probaly have historic significance, one is an easy move . We are not yet to the Great houses and buildings, so we need to set a standard early on if we want to save the ones that should absolutely be saved!

Recieved letter from project groundwater that will involve the proposed demolition of 8 properties on Queen City between White and Quebec and 1 on Quebec. Mary Lynn Lodar [email protected] Is the contact person. I have notified them that Knox Hill will be providing input regarding section 106 review on these properties and may request a cost feasibility study on relocation if we determine any of these properties may be of significant value. She responded that they are aware of the 106 review requirements. Who will conduct the 106 review is not yet determined and Larry Harris had no info at all. They are only proposing a two week notification prior to demolition and I intend to notify OHPO and the Feds that 2 weeks is not adequate on a project of this scope. They are a couple of years out before they would need to demo, are only in acquisition phase and have not even settled on a plan (at least publically) I am supposed to have phone conference with them later this week. I plan on surveying the area on Saturday once I have an address of properties involved to see if there is anything significant. I may need to volunteers to do some historic research to get as much ammo as possible. The most significant properties I believe are on Westwood, but there may be viable property and there is plenty of vacant lots for a move. I am prepared to make this as difficult as need be if they plan on tearing down anything significant that could realistically be saved. It strikes me that a historic overlay is needed for those corriidors Will keep everyone posted!!!

The meeting was moved to the site. Camera Crews on site nowand I know they are trying to pursue legal remedies to stop demo, but I dont know if they will be sucessful. These "back room deals' violate state ethics laws and I hope the AG's office and the State Ethics Commision decide to investigate CPS and the city's role in this.