Michael L. Redmond

I could find no records for such a company. I will ask around at the office what the status is with HUFF on this project.

And this does not make us anti- preservation, in fact just the opposite.

That's what I like to hear. Perhaps 3CDC and City West can serve as a catalyst to surrounding areas on the West of OTR, the north is under massive redevelopment and is pushing southward, projects like Gateway and the American Building to the South, and Main St, well we are working on that. But notice that some of this is new construction. The buildings around these developments stand the best chance to be saved. Outside investors can be pointed to these projects, and if successful, can help spur even more rehab downtown. I hate to keep coming back to Mulberry but the new construction of Vinyard Homes is what made Mulberry take off, it is what spurred people like me and the rest of the street to really begin significant investment in older homes (mine is 1865) all around the new ones. Sometimes new construction only serves to highlight the old. Now I am with Max in that I do not like the buildings on his list either, but in order to save more structures in OTR and elsewhere, you need investment and to get investment an investor must feel secure, new construction in the immediate vicinity can do this. Unfortunately CitiRama in our location is dead. I did not really tell the whole story above. An email campaign (fight) was going around debating the location. Arguments came up about it not being open to builders outside the HBA (CitiRama is HBA so that argument did not make much since) so in an effort to be fare, the city offered another developer the lots that were closest to Main. These lots were the most desirable and HBA pulled out. The question now is will this developer (Doug Spitz) build on these lots. I hope so, Doug, from what I can tell, has a line of lots going from the north side of Mulberry down the East side of Main. All of this was being done while everyone else was debating over what the facade of the homes would look like and what will happen to the basketball courts. Even without this, Vernon Rader's project on Main and Liberty may be just what Hughes needs. He is doing tremendous work on saving those buildings and it will serve as a great gateway to the Hill. The proposed CitiRama site will most likely just stay greenspace.

The bottom line is sitting back and just saying fix all buildings in OTR is a noble statement but action is a different thing all together. We can cry about losing a building and I will cry right next to you, but lets discuss reasonable, plausible solutions that are based in reality. 1612 Pleasant, what is the solution? Who is going to fix it, or is the answer just let it sit for another 20 years, hope the neighborhood turns around then, if it hasn't fallen on its own, save it? I hear complaints, not actionable solutions. I have been a proponent for CitiRama going in atop Hughes St., you would not believe the number of people who complained about design when no drawing had even been made. This new construction (in a vacant lot) could have been the catalyst to save 10 buildings on Hughes. Now the preservationist have their wish, no CitiRama, and a decaying Hughes St. If you look back at the last couple of rebuts it is simply a circular argument and this has been the problem down in OTR well before I even got here. Give me answers, not complaints.

I agree, but in reality some of these buildings must come down unless someone is willing to invest a huge amount of there own personal money into a building that will see little return. If you are willing to do this more power to you, but let some of this advocacy be supported in reality. As I said before, there are no shortage of distressed structures in OTR and I would be happy to put you into one today.

I have the ability to sell any of these buildings to you, and I will wave my fee. On Dec 19th as I mentioned above, Larry Rhodes is going to lose 4 of his buildings, 2 are asbestos, rotten framed buildings that are leaning, they are side by side on Mulberry St at 146 and 148, I am arranging for another of his buildings to be sold by mid month, are you willing to buy the other ones? Or, I know Jim, perhaps you both are willing to put in an offer. It will be torn down very soon so time is of the essence, email me and we will get the paper work under way. Max, we must be realistic in order to move forward. I want to save as many structures as possible also however sometimes it simply is not cost effective. Mulberry alone has lost 55 homes in two decades and unfortunately it will have to lose a couple more- unless of course, you would like to take me up on my offer. Grasscat, so we may have a bit of perspective, how many buildings right now are on the demo list? and how many vacant are there in OTR alone? Then lets use low ball numbers, say 15,000 acquisition, 100,000 buildout (and that is low for many of these), holding cost ie taxes, ins., and all of this is assuming you can even get a clear title. lets multiply these numbers out and you will not even be at half of what it would cost to truly save all of these buildings. Then we have to find someone who is going to move into some of these buildings that are on, say Republic or Pleasant, now you find yourself shelling out more for debt service and continued holding cost. Some buildings this is doable, but all of them? So Maximillian (if that is indeed your real name :wink:), I am ready to start the paperwork if you are. As a matter of a fact, I just thought of an example. My wife and I were going to purchase the Christian Moerline Executive Office on Elm and convert it to our private residence. 138,000 for the building, and we had two separate buildout estimates that exceeded 750,000 because someone in the past decided to take out a load bearing wall (to make room for a church) and destroyed the building from 10' beyond the facade, now that is just 1 building. So can you justify a million dollar home on Elm and McMicken? If so, I will sell that one to you also.

I just spoke with a person on the West End CC who said they were successful in using the nuisance abatement law. We are exploring that option as well as media pressure for the Foundation to do something. I keep getting put off to Metro and although I have talked to Metro, I do not care who the property owner has hired as their management, I only care about the owner.

Max, I know what you mean but I do not "entirely" agree. Some buildings are beyond repair. This is the fault of the owner as each property owner has the responsibility to maintain their building so that it does not become a danger to any adjacent property. Mulberry St. several years ago had a building colapse into the street. We need to go after the property owners and save the ones worth saving however some are beyond this. This building for example will come down next year. Owner, Larry Rhodes will go to jail on Dec. 19 due to imminent danger for this and several other buildings. This building is beyond repair (you can see the back yard by looking straight through the building) and yet the owner has an estimated net worth of 42 million. If we do not find a way to unseat some of these deadbeat owners from their buildings we will lose many more. Take a look at this thread for the names of the owners of the very buildings you are talking about and lets start doing something about it. http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=5865.0

The irony of this story is the night it was on the news, we had a crack dealer pulled out of 101 Peete St, owned by the Foundation and Marge Hammelrath. New Plan To Bust Downtown-Area Crime Reported by: Tom McKee Web produced by: Mark Sickmiller Photographed by: 9News First posted: 11/22/2005 6:05:59 PM Cincinnati Police are getting a new tool to combat drug dealing and prostitution. It will make criminals less mobile and put a dent in their wallets as well. Laws to keep convicted criminals out of the neighborhood or send letters to owners of cars that frequented the area were ruled unconstitutional. end As a matter of a fact, these are the list of crimes that came out of Marges, and Jim's building recently 3/12/2005 1:01 600 Petit Theft 100 E CLIFTON AV 3/15/2005 16:59 862 Domestic Violence 100 E CLIFTON AV 3/31/2005 9:00 700 Vehicle Theft 100 E CLIFTON AV 4/6/2005 21:41 862 Domestic Violence 100 E CLIFTON AV 5/9/2005 23:19 810 Assault 100 E CLIFTON AV 6/21/2005 22:32 401 Felonious Assault 100 E CLIFTON AV 8/28/2005 15:53 1407 Criminal Damaging/Endangering 100 E CLIFTON AV 9/1/2005 21:51 802 Aggravated Menacing 100 E CLIFTON AV 9/29/2005 19:11 810 Assault 100 E CLIFTON AV 4/20/2005 21:40 810 Assault 101 PEETE ST 4/21/2005 1:54 1407 Criminal Damaging/Endangering 101 PEETE ST 10/4/2005 22:30 600 Petit Theft 105 PEETE ST 2/27/2005 21:00 401 Felonious Assault 1400 RACE ST 3/18/2005 7:55 401 Felonious Assault 1400 RACE ST 3/27/2005 11:30 600 Grand Theft 1400 RACE ST 5/11/2005 15:30 862 Domestic Violence 1400 RACE ST 7/8/2005 1:01 1407 Criminal Damaging/Endangering 1400 RACE ST 7/10/2005 11:00 401 Felonious Assault 1400 RACE ST 7/26/2005 15:10 600 Petit Theft 1400 RACE ST 8/11/2005 18:38 810 Assault 1400 RACE ST 8/12/2005 10:15 552 Breaking and Entering 1400 RACE ST 8/16/2005 14:00 810 Assault 1400 RACE ST 8/18/2005 16:05 551 Burglary 1400 RACE ST 9/1/2005 13:15 401 Felonious Assault 1400 RACE ST 9/13/2005 19:15 810 Assault 1400 RACE ST 9/30/2005 14:58 552 Breaking and Entering 1400 RACE ST I believe in addition to going after the cars, we should also go after the owners of the buildings where crime is so prolific. At some point, property owners must be held accountable for their property. If they are profiting from these buildings, they should also be exposed to consequences arising to what their tenants are doing to the surrounding neighborhood.

Sorry, I do a poor job at articulating an argument via computer.

The "coalition" can fight this out as much as they want, bring some much needed negative press to the area, sue a school, ok. I am part of the OTRCC, and hope to have a board seat soon I sit on the MT. Auburn Leadership Counsil with Larry Oliver-Prospect Hill I am Captain of the Mulberry/McMicken Sector (where Rothenberg sits) I am part of the OTR Chamber I am on the Foundations email list and know most of the members (I know, I fight with them daily about some of their holdings) I sit in on Brewery District meetings (and if it isn't on John Donaldsons email updates for OTR I am convinced it doesn't exist) You would think I would be in the loop It constitutes at least half of my job. But never the less, thank you for being thorough in your response, I am not questioning your motives personally but the collective intentions of the "Coalition" I think it is truly unfortunate that it is coming to a law suit, and I mean for the entire area. I will post the upcoming articles that are inevetibly going to be printed to show how unfortunate it really is.

inkaelin, Not for Pendleton residents but yes for Washington Park. It seems that now things are heating up a little bit some things will become a little more apparent. Just keep in mind what my argument has been all along, this is not about Washington Park or Mercer Commons or 22 or 6 buildings, not about crime rate, it is about Pendleton. "is pendleton doing what is best for OTR or what is best for Pendleton?"

"That's a nice theory, but in actuality we now have more kids than Rothenberg can handle." Hey, guess what, SCPA can handle 350 more students than Rothenberg. That real estate agent they hired I believe is Christine Schoonover. Now what is the condo queen doing working on an old school project at SCPA? I got work that Christine was meeting with the Foundation a month or two ago. (I to work for HUFF) Why not be open. Bringing legal action against CPS working to find fair market value on the SCPA PR campaign to push Rothenberg as the neighborhood school I Team investigative report to put public pressure on CPS Hiring in a HUFF residential agent "I think really, fundamentally, they're trying to paint our coalition into 'save-our-green space, we-like-our-front-lawn,' " he says. "First and foremost it's about the safety of the kids, and second it's the lack of fiscal responsibility." Well, you are half right. I just got off the phone with another Broadway resident who is a community insider and Foundation outsider, we agree, why did this information about green space not come out in the "save our buildings campaign"? And what is the plan for Old Woodward? Why will no one just say it?

I could not agree more......... Over-the-Rhine neighbors vote to sue schools By Stephanie Dunlap Photo By Matt Borgerding One of the problems with plans to sell certain buildings owned by Cincinnati Public Schools is the effect on the already limited green space in the inner city, according to Ty Provosty (right). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The only thing they seemed to know for sure was that money gets attention. An alarmed group of about 25 Over-the-Rhine and Pendleton residents, entrepreneurs and property owners raised their hands Sept. 7 in a pledge to scrape up the $23,000 it could cost them to sue Cincinnati Public Schools (CPS). Chris Rose, who owns property, raises two kids and plans to open a business in Over-the-Rhine, offered to help put together a fund-raiser. "The lawsuit's the only way these people are going to understand," he said. The first thing the Greater Over-the-Rhine and Pendleton Schools Coalition wants the school board to know is that they've had it with decisions made behind closed doors. They've been riled ever since CPS chucked painstaking plans the community drew up for the neighborhood and its schools in favor of recommendations from Cincinnati Center City Development Corp. (3CDC), a two-year-old private, nonprofit development corporation headed up by many of the city's business elite. 'Go look it up' Washington Park Elementary School had been slated to move to a Central Parkway location, but 3CDC decided the site would better suit a new School for Creative and Performing Arts (see "Taking Over the Park," issue of July 14-20, 2004). Instead, 3CDC chose a site for Washington Park called Mercer Commons, a cluster of 22 historic, mostly vacant buildings sandwiched between Vine, Walnut, 13th and 14th streets. Then the school board recently moved to begin immediately considering the sale of 16 school buildings that don't fit into CPS' 10-year, district-wide plan. Two of those buildings, the current Washington Park and SCPA , either include or abut green spaces that might lose out to commercial redevelopment (see Porkopolis, issue of Aug. 24-30). "People who don't live in the city don't get that green space is fundamentally important in an urban environment," said Ty Provosty, the Pendleton Neighborhood Council president and architect who ran the Sept. 7 meeting. The board's rush to consider the sales was prompted by a rider attached to the new state budget allowing CPS to bypass a law requiring that surplus buildings first be offered to charter schools. The waiver, which expires Dec. 31, allows the schools to be sold to commercial interests. But the waiver includes three ridiculously specific criteria because it was meant to apply to just one school near Columbus, according to coalition lawyer Tim Mara. CPS' interpretation of the rider is too broad, he says. Coalition members think CPS is moving so quickly to sell to commercial developers because it wants to thwart potential competition from charter schools, something school board member John Gilligan previously told CityBeat. But CPS spokeswoman Janet Walsh says it's the best way to get the most money for the cash-strapped school district. "We'd be very disappointed if legal action materialized, because we really feel that it's in the best interest of our district and our taxpayers to at least explore this window of opportunity that we have to potentially sell property that is no longer needed for schools," Walsh says. The board hasn't officially declared those 16 schools surplus properties and is still only investigating their possible sales, she says. The board's loose interpretation of the waiver's specific language is one of two components of the proposed lawsuit. But even more frustrating is the board' reluctance to turn over relevant documents, which violates the Ohio Public Records Act, Mara says. Walsh also rejects charges of deliberate obfuscation. "We are a public institution and we do our business in public, and anyone is very welcome to come to our board meetings," she says. But Mara says the board refused his requests for documents showing how those 16 schools comply with the waiver's specific requirements. "The response we got from the school board is, 'Go look it up at the county courthouse,' '' he says. He estimates a title search would cost at least $1,000 per school, while the cost of obtaining copies of documents from CPS would be much less. Coalition members also believe Mercer Commons is too dangerous for a new Washington Park School. Pendleton resident and architect Ken Jones gathered police statistics comparing crime around Mercer Commons to the area surrounding Rothenberg Preparatory Academy, where they'd prefer CPS focus its plans for an Over-the-Rhine elementary school. Depending on the category of crime, in the first seven months of this year the Mercer Commons reporting area logged between two and six times the calls for service as the area around Rothenberg. But Walsh says crime around Mercer Commons is drawn by vacant buildings that would no longer be vacant once the school moved in. "Unfortunately the current Washington Park site also has issues," she says. "We certainly would not move forward on a proposal to create a school if we thought the environment would be unsafe for students or our staff." 'I'll chip in' Many coalition members want CPS to renovate Rothenberg first, then reassess Over-the-Rhine's demographics, believing declining enrollment might make Washington Park School unnecessary. That could save the historic buildings on the Mercer Commons site from demolition, they say. Not everyone at the meeting agreed. Pat Clifford, who runs the Drop Inn Center homeless shelter, thinks plans for a second elementary school in Over-the-Rhine shouldn't be tabled. "The common myth is that, in the indeterminate future when everything is so gentrified -- which we've been of course waiting for for the last 20 years -- there will be no kids, it'll all be empty nesters, et cetera, et cetera, so we won't need as many schools," he said. "That's a nice theory, but in actuality we now have more kids than Rothenberg can handle. What if your theory of development doesn't happen?" Either way, coalition members were doubly upset to have just recently learned of the board's June 27 decision to put Rothenberg's renovation on hold. The delay is for financial reasons but won't be as long as coalition members think because the board restructured the phases of its facilities plan, Walsh says. Members of the coalition are also upset by the disparity between the prices CPS paid to acquire land for the new SCPA and Mercer Commons and the price it's asking for the old SCPA. Drawing from numbers reported in the Cincinnati Business Courier, Jones estimates that CPS paid $35-$36 per square foot for the Mercer Commons land and $41-$42 for the new SCPA's parcels. But CPS might be offering the old SCPA property for a little as $9 per square foot, Provosty says. "Let's start saving our $9," he said at the meeting. "I'll chip in mine, I tell you." Walsh doesn't know where he got that number. "My understanding is there's not an asking price out there," she says. Provosty later explained that he found a minimum bid price of $3 million for SCPA on a leaked document generated by CPS and a real estate agent it hired. "We didn't invent those numbers," Provosty says. "Those are the numbers from them." The document lists the minimum bid prices for Washington Park and Vine Elementary schools as $1 million and $450,000, respectively. The minimum bid price for Winton Place Academy, whose potential sale also has the Winton Place community up in arms, is $650,000. The Over-the-Rhine coalition hopes to hook up with the disgruntled residents in that neighborhood. The tension of gentrification runs through the conflict. Some aren't impressed by the coalition's green space concerns. Sarah Poole of Pendleton wrote in an e-mail that she's infuriated by "most of them caring more about trees and places for their dogs to poop, than caring about what's best for CPS and the neighbor people and kids." Provosty bristles at similar characterizations. "I think really, fundamentally, they're trying to paint our coalition into 'save-our-green space, we-like-our-front-lawn,' " he says. "First and foremost it's about the safety of the kids, and second it's the lack of fiscal responsibility." Mara suggested that the coalition give the school board until Monday to respond, while he prepares the lawsuit. ©

That is great news!

Also part of my point. Everyone please keep in mind that my inquiry into this is limited to this thread. That was my point when saying I am not on the news, in the news paper, or at public meetings acusing people of impropriety. The first argument was that 3CDC did not approach the various community groups for input. Well why has Pendleton or the Foundation not approached the Mulberry/McMicken Sector to discuss a proposed school realignment that would happen in our own backyard? I had to hear about it on Channel 9. I have read the OTR Comprehensive plan (I had to for another project currently in the works). I understand why people are doing what they are doing by offering other solutions to the 3CDC proposal, I am simply offering yet another possibility however I am doing it just on this board instead of broadcasting around the City like the Foundation is doing. My objective is to get both schools under consideration, they are not, Rothenburg is all you hear mentioned. Once again, let me reiterate that this is confined to only this thread. If I am wrong or misguided, well maybe a handful of people know. This is different from the tact that others have taken in this matter. As to the 10 million "A number of corporate and private funders that are putting…there is over $30 million dollars of private money going into the school for performing arts." I went to Walnut Hills High School, I know all about private dollars funding most, if not all improvements. " Most of the $12 million for the new facility has been raised by private donations from the Walnut Hills Alumni Foundation". Sounds like SCPA has the wherewithal to do 10 million, Hell, my high school art museum cost more than that. I to have lived in various parts of "downtown" for 12 going on 13 years. I to believe in saving OTR however the Foundation does not get carte blanche authority in all things OTR. It is my OTR also and I have had to fight the Foundation on other matters where they have "saved" buildings and it turn out as a negative for the community. (somehow, I think you know what I am talking about) I am only asking a question, expanding the conversation to include more possibilities than what are currently being discussed and I am doing it in a quiet manner. If the Foundation or Pendleton wants me to show up at their meetings, I can, along with the rest of the residents of the hillside that have some reservations about reopening Rothenberg as a school. One last question in closing. What is the ultimate plan for Old Woodward. I just haven't actually heard it yet. Surely you don't want to see the building sit empty. Ok, make it 2 last questions, 4:20 in the morning? SomewhereOTR, We need to get you out more.

Max, I am responding to an I-team report offering Rothenberg as an alternative. This is not my story, I am responding to a story started by people who are pushing an agenda different than that which is being portrayed in the media. You did not see my face on WCPO, you do not see me yelling at Steve Leeper at OTRCC meetings, you do not see me showing up at CPS meetings and demanding they listen, you do not hear me accusing Western Southern of impropriety. Is this how you save buildings? Is this how you turn around OTR? This is my point, is Pendleton and the Foundation doing what is best for OTR or what is best for Pendleton. Change to what is where I would like to debate Ty. I am not slinging "poo" nor am I about to sit back and let Pendleton decide what happens on our hillside without some input from us.

Sure, Rothenburg or SCPA, but lets put both on the table. My only point is Pendleton is pushing Rothenburg, not even mentioning SCPA. I am just saying lets debate them both.

The school board has not said Rothenburg be the only neighborhood school. (perhaps in the past) but the latest plan that I have heard is that Rothenberg is off the table (this from some people in the know). SCPA, the residents want condos, I do not blame them. Rothenberg, I to would prefer condos, but my question is why are the residents of Pendleton not even mentioning their site and only mentioning Rothenberg. Jimmy, Developers are also salivating over Rothenberg, Vernon Rader had even mentioned his desire to turn them into condos. Neither site is lacking in developer intrest. The question is, which becomes high end residential to help the community, and which becomes a school (which also helps the community). Had it been anyone other than Ty who gave that tour of Rothenberg I probably wouldn't have thought anything about it. It probably would have raised some eyebrow's if I were to give a televised tour of SPCA and promoted it to become the next school and not mentioned Rothenberg. And Don, You can call me by name, I am not ashamed that I would prefer condos Renovating SCPA achieves the same thing (preserving building) Renovating SCPA as a school instead of selling it a two parcels can save that greenspace. Pendelton is upset with the CPS board for not committing to keep this greenspace but I am saying let CPS keep it, reopen SCPA as a neighborhood school (with the developments already taking place in the area enrollment will go up) CPS will get their money by selling Rothenberg to a developer. why are they not even mentioning SCPA, this is my question? Both of these guys live right down the street from it. Why do they not want to see the school back there? And Jimmy, these are residents, not school board. "Rothenberg is right for our community, and I hope you reconsider the decision" This tells me that they are trying to convince the school board otherwise as they do not want Rothenberg. -- sometime soon. Do you think they are going to mention SCPA then? Pendleton is trying to strong arm the CPS and I just want for us to explore the reasons why. In my opinion it comes down to their desire to make SCPA condos, and keep their park, which is fine but we want the same for Mulberry Hill. My point is, is Ty and Jones doing what is best for OTR or Pendelton? P.S. In the effort to be thorough, crime stats SPCA location SEX RACE Offense Title SECNO SECCODE CHRGCODE ADDRESS NEIGHBORHOOD M W ASSLT LAW OFFICER 2903013000 ORCN 845 1310 SYCAMORE ST PENDLETON F B ASSLT KNOW VIC HARM 2903013000 ORCN 812 1310 SYCAMORE ST PENDLETON M W CRIMINAL TRESPASS 2911021110 ORCN 2610 1310 SYCAMORE ST PENDLETON Rothenberg location 1 5 2005 M B AGG BURG INFLCT HARM 2911011110 ORCN 550 E 1 5 2005 M B 2ND ADULT CURFEW VIOL 9110270000 CMCN 2738 E MCMICKEN AV OVER-THE-RHINE 1 5 2005 M B 2ND ADULT CURFEW VIOL 9110270000 CMCN 2738 E MCMICKEN AV OVER-THE-RHINE 1 5 2005 M B DRUG ABUSE SCH 1 2 2925011100 ORCN 1882 E MCMICKEN AV OVER-THE-RHINE 1 5 2005 M B TRAFFICKING-SHIP,TRNSPORT,DIST 2925003120 ORCN 1860 E MCMICKEN AV OVER-THE-RHINE 1 5 2005 M B NO CRIMINAL RECORD 2925011440 ORCN 1870 E Clifton AV OVER-THE-RHINE 1 8 2005 M B JUV VIOLATION OF COURT ORDER 0 2617 E CLIFTON AV OVER-THE-RHINE 1 8 2005 M B ASSLT KNOW VIC HARM 2903013000 ORCN 812 E CLIFTON AV OVER-THE-RHINE 1 12 2005 M B DRUG ABUSE SCH 1 2 2925011100 ORCN 1882 144 E CLIFTON AV OVER-THE-RHINE 1 12 2005 M B TRAFFICKING-SALE LSS THN BULK 2925003110 ORCN 1859 E CLIFTON AV OVER-THE-RHINE 1 13 2005 M B AGG BURG INFLCT HARM 2911011000 ORCN 550 E CLIFTON AV OVER-THE-RHINE 1 13 2005 M B OBSTR OFFICIAL BUSIN 2921031000 ORCN 2413 E CLIFTON AV OVER-THE-RHINE 1 13 2005 M B NO CRIMINAL RECORD 2925011440 ORCN 1870 E CLIFTON AV OVER-THE-RHINE 1 13 2005 M B DOMESTIC VIOLENCE-KNOWINGLY 2919025000 ORCN 862 E CLIFTON AV OVER-THE-RHINE 1 15 2005 M B NO CRIMINAL RECORD 2925011000 ORCN 1870 E CLIFTON AV OVER-THE-RHINE 1 16 2005 M B OTHER OFFENSES NOC 0 2601 E CLIFTON AV OVER-THE-RHINE 1 26 2005 M B POSS DRUG PRAPHNALIA 2925014000 ORCN 1887 E CLIFTON AV OVER-THE-RHINE 1 26 2005 M B DRUG ABUSE SCH 1 2 2925011100 ORCN 1882 E CLIFTON AV OVER-THE-RHINE 1 26 2005 M B POSS DRUG PRAPHNALIA 2925014000 ORCN 1887 E CLIFTON AV OVER-THE-RHINE Well I will stop here. Now somebody remind me what was the name of the report on Channel 9. CPS didn't do there homework, come on, 3vs 44. For those of you who live around here, Rothenberg is a haven for drug sales, it is getting better, hence the arrest but don't argue crime stats.

My question is why is there no mention of SCPA as a possibility, even the Cincinnati Presevation Assoc says SCPA is a possibility. The groups are questioning the whole project, from the moving of the social services, the schools, market rate housing, you name it, they oppose it.

What is the plan for the old SCPA site in Pendelton? And I do have a reason for asking........... "We don't plan to tear SCPA down," said district spokeswoman Christine Wolff. "Our intention is it will be adapted to some other use when we no longer need it. Likely, it would be sold for some other use." Tuesday, January 6, 2004 Cincinnati Enquire Now in the Channel 9 piece, Ty from Pendleton gives a tour of Rothenburg; safer, closer to a residential neighborhood, Mulberry Hill. But what about the old SCPA site in his sector? Why was that not mentioned as an alternative, its bigger, and just as pretty. Here is where I am just missing the boat, there was no mention of Pendelton, and the Foundation (which are basically the same) concern over loosing there park as well as part of this deal. That whole beef that they have with the school board never came up. Mabey someone can explain this to me on why Pendelton residents do not want a neighborhood school in their back yard but are willing to put one in our's. VS "approximately 1,000 kids in SCPA's student directory" or so says City Beat, a bit bigger, a bit nicer, and granted-no view, but Ty, why not mention this? Rothenburg as a school or condos it really is ok with me either way (although I do prefer condos) but why was only half the story told. Is the Foundation and other community groups like Pendelton doing what is best for OTR as a whole or what is best for Pendelton? And if this deal with 3CDC dies, what happens to the West side of OTR? Is there another group that has redevelopment plans? or are they just hung out to dry? The Foundation also wanted to fight Citirama at the top of Hughes St, now that plan is dead, any other takers? NO. Well that easy piece of new development is dead and we are stuck with nothing. Is this the fate the 3CDC issue? My point is, is all of this fighting for the good of OTR or just a few on Broadway?

Well who is going to send out the first letter? If no other takers, I'll do it :evil:

There are renovations being done now on Mcmicken and Lang, I did not think this was Model but I will try and find out.

Under the line "the following problems have come to our attention" A reference Fire Codes Vacant Buildings Vacant and Unsecured Buildings (OFC F105) Accumulated Waste and Waste Receptacles (CFPC 1219-5 & OFC FM-318.1) General Maintenance (CFPC 1201-21) Building Codes CBC Section: 1117-51.1, Maintenance of Accessory and Appurtenant Structures: CBC Section: 1117-47.1, Maintenance of Foundations, Floors, Roofs and Exterior Walls: CBC Section: 1117-45.1, General Maintenance and Repair: CBC Section: 1117-45.2, Supplied Fixtures and Equipment: I.E. downspouts or gutter and if we do not get a favorable responce to the letter, step 2 Complaints can be filed by calling the City’s Customer Service Call Center at 591-6000 or through the website at [email protected] and identifying the conditions which are in violation of the various codes, such as high weeds and grass, excessive litter on private property or the dilapidated condition of a house. Complaints can only be accepted on the conditions which can be seen from the public areas, or which the complainant can legally provide access to view. Responsible departments: Buildings & Inspections, Health and Public Services Step 3. If all else fails send an email to this address, Eric Otto is one of the building inspectors for OTR [email protected]

This is the city's vesion of a complaint letter. Lets just modify this and start sending them out. Dear Neighbor: Keeping our community safe and clean is a responsibility we all must share. This includes the duty of all community members to maintain their property and to comply with the established laws and ordinances of the City of Cincinnati. These laws and ordinances are established for our safety and compliance with them will ensure that we can maintain a high quality of life for our entire community. It has come to our attention that the following condition(s) exists on your property which affects the quality of life of our community and appears to be in violation of an established ordinance(s) of the City of Cincinnati: We would appreciate if you would act immediately to correct this condition. A notification of this condition is being forwarded to the appropriate city department for follow-up action, should this condition not be corrected. This letter does not immune you from receiving a citation if your property is investigated and code violations are found. If you require information or assistance regarding this matter, you can contact (community council representative) or the appropriate city department by calling 591-6000. Please help keep Cincinnati a first-class city by correcting these conditions and thus improve the quality of life for the entire community. Your Concerned Neighbor,