natininja

I don't understand the hatred of hipsters, as long as they aren't snobby.

This chatter of what might work makes me wonder how much longer it will be until Johnny Rockets folds. I wouldn't give them very much longer.

^^ What about the High Street apartments?

Who are you talking to?

True all the places I mentioned I could live. As long as they have great shopping, pre war apartments/condos and good restaurants im all in! I don't understand your attraction to Cleveland or NYC, if those are your other choices. Must be family and job.

^ I would suggest you completely skip every city in this country if you want to emulate quality urbanism or progressivism. Likewise, if you wish to move to a Mecca of urbanism or progressivism, you are a fool to relocate within this country. Here, you will only find the lesser of a set of relative evils. (Evil being a metaphor.) NYC, etc., are on balance conservative and regressive.

Ha! You guys mock this idea, but it used to be the norm. Before 1850, only men who owned property and paid taxes could vote in many places. http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html Um, there were lots of ideas about voting that were mainstream before 1850 that are now rightfully deserving of mockery and scorn. Seriously! Way to make a bad argument worse.

It's been a while since I ventured into the Enquirer comment section on a streetcar article. I shouldn't have this time. But I bring you this in WTF: There is NO BUSINESS along the route. Wow.

It is a Conan O'Brien reference. There was a dog that would say x is so great... "for me to poop on"

Republicans are on a roll today.

I hope they do stay happy here. My impression is that their progressive attitude is an incredibly good fit for the city and the direction it is headed. It provides a counterbalance to the stodgy old money crowd which pervades high level management in other local corporations. I wouldn't imagine dunnhumby making the design flub that is the Great American Chubber, nor the anti-urban P&G courtyard. And I wouldn't picture them in a fight with Anna Louise Inn. And the closest we've come to a downtown, urban Kroger has been through their (for lack of a better word) prodding.

Unreal.

^ I don't think "accommodate" in this case means "bend to the will of", but more like "fit them in because it's convenient for us".

I wonder the extent to which dunnhumby is playing in the design of the apartments. I assume the apartment part will be close in look (externally) to the dunnhumby side, being technically the same building and all. I think dunnhumby, being from London, probably has a more worldly perspective on architectural quality and urban design, and a less American-individualist temperament in terms of investment in the community (endurance and place-making vs. bang-for-the-buck). Combine that with 3CDC's devotion to Cincinnati, and we could really have a modern gem coming to life. Really looking forward to renderings! :)

I thought it is going to be two towers? Nevermind, I am blind. Anyway, thanks for the pic.

Eighth and State, you are missing what "directly proportional" means. It just means there is a constant rate of increase for more money invested. It doesn't mean owning 10% of property in the city will give you 10% of all political capital. I didn't say suburbanites "want the city to fail", I said they would stifle progress. Just the fact of them living in the suburbs says that most of them are willing to sacrifice community good for personal gain, which I already made an argument for. Breaking out of abstraction, and back on topic, it is clear that suburbanites would kill the streetcar, were they given the chance. IMO this would be stifling progress, which was my claim. I am skeptical that people who live in a suburban environment, on the whole, understand how to improve an urban environment. Many probably think suburbification would be an improvement. e.g. More surface parking, less streetcar. Even with good intentions, it's backward thinking. A city with aging infrastructure can't compete with suburban aspirations.

Eighth and State, I agree suburbanites have an influence on city politics, but thankfully not enough to stop a lot of the city's current progress, including the streetcar. In my opinion, suburbanites are by and large freeloaders on the city. Most of those opposed to progress in the city, i.e. Monzel's constituency, bailed on the city because they wanted to skip out on being a fully contributing member to the Cincinnati community. They moved to avoid city taxes. (Others moved for superficial (and reprehensible) racial reasons.) Their biggest influence day-to-day is having their political identity catered to in the media. The Enquirer, 700WLW, etc., clearly cater to the suburban crowd, and the results flood the eyes and ears of Cincinnatians. The next biggest way is through money -- either political contributions or investment/withdrawal of capital in the city. Nonresidents with property and/or businesses in the city have representation directly proportional to the amount of money they have invested in the city. If they all decided to pull out at once, the city would take a massive blow. Those with a lot of capital invested in the city wield much more influence than your average citizen, so it's completely unfair to act as though citizens have some disproportionate advantage. Those with jobs in the city are represented by their employer. Their value to their employer determines the slice of their employer's influence which they wield. The city houses the majority of the region's poor, as well as the majority of the region's criminals. The city holds all the oldest infrastructure which is the backbone for the region, which suburbanites benefit from but most do not pay for. In fact, many would rather just build new with each generation, leaving rot in their wake, with no sense of ownership for the path of wreckage they leave behind. This is such a recycled argument and doesn't really belong in this thread, but you went there. I'll give you credit for this: you at least fessed up to your own opinions rather than just stating "views some people hold".

I don't see why foreign cities should be excluded. Just stipulate that it be realistic, e.g. no moving to a beach paradise with no job prospects.

Okay, thanks.

Wait, I thought council rejected the tax increase. Am I missing something?

:lol: For the uninitiated, what is the Christmas House? Never mind, got it, it's from that movie. (Which I've never seen!)

Are cameras crooked too up there in Cleveland?

^ I love the young people!

Walt Disney's Ringling Brothers Circus is coming to Ohio! Boo, it used to say "BANNED WORD" and now it filters to nothing.

Most of us are not very familiar with rural issues, being that this is the Urban Ohio forum. It would seem to me the best recourse is to start issuing fines to the owner, according to the laws of which you spoke. Rather than costing the township money, this would potentially raise revenue, assuming the fines are paid. If the fines go unpaid and/or the trailer is still not removed after citations are issued, I would think you could follow proceedings similar to an illegally parked car. Have it hauled to an impound lot and if the owner doesn't pay to get it back, eventually I guess it gets sent to the junkyard. If the laws are unclear, I suggest consulting a lawyer. As a councilmember, it would seem you have some power to enact laws to help you deal with the situation in the manner you see fit, if the current laws are unsatisfactory.