GrassIsGreener

Thank you for the succinct way of phrasing what I took more words to express. A lot of the sensitivity comes from needing to prove something to all those people in their heads that they needed to be better than. Fighting over the bottom rung with stuff that doesn't matter.

Or Ohio without the "I need to speak to the Manager!" haircut.

Agree, it is a bad look, and to me seems childish, because even if you felt that way you could always just, you know, not talk about it since you don't live there anymore. It feels like someone going on and on about how over their ex they are; if you have to keep telling yourself that, maybe it isn't others that need the convincing. I think transplants do that because of a desperate need to feel a part of where they are and it's a pledge of allegiance, in a way. Other people are just small-minded and think that being from a big name city absolves them of that. I showed a coworker in NYC pictures of Sleeping Bear Dunes and purposely didn't tell her where they were. She was talking about how crazy pretty it was until I mentioned it was in MI, then all of a sudden it wasn't as cool anymore. Later that month she moved to Denver. Some people just really are afraid to live outside the lines/off-message for their age group and it's just as true in "elite" locations as it is in deep rural areas.

^There is no way to make some people from other parts of the country respond in breathless panic than to even suggest that there are positive aspects of the Midwest. They will trip over themselves pointing out all the things that it isn't, as if it were any surprise to anyone that there are no mountains there or as if literally everyone there is addicted to meth. I think the perceptions of the Midwest as a whole (and Ohio in particular) as being unlivably backwards and cultureless are so deeply ingrained in some that it is almost like getting red-pilled hearing that there are people who like living there, warts and all, and people will fight the realization accordingly. I've found this to be particularly true of the transplants from there I met living in NYC. For most it was deeply and personally important to feel that they had fled a wasteland rather than to accept that perhaps they made a personal choice that others wouldn't have made. Case in point (anecdotal, I know, but it is what I experienced. Take it for what it is): I had a 7-hour layover in JFK this weekend after an international flight and decided to meet up with my cousin who still lives in Brooklyn (we grew up together in Dayton, Centerville to be exact). He and I met up at a cool beer spot, the kind you've seen a million of pop up everywhere ('backwards' Ohio, included) and were having a good time. Got into a chat with the bartender who asked me how I knew so much about the city and I told him I was a former New Yorker. The guys response: "I can't wait to be a former New Yorker. I'm sick of this place." My cousin damn near hit the floor. He personally identifies with his decision to move there and so any time someone doesn't like it he fights it, HARD. Now, people are like that everywhere, but to jmecklenborg's point, if you're in or from Ohio, you're not expected to fight the idea that it is a shitty place whereas you're supposed to duel to the death if you're living in a place that is hot and has name recognition. Try criticizing Denver or saying that you thought it was ok but not worth the price. Same with Nashville, Austin, etc. Ohio? You're an idiot rube for liking it there. No suggestion in mind, what was said just resonated with me and I felt like I should add the above. Just to keep it Nashville-related so this post doesn't get mod-ed, people in Nashville can't take any criticism of their city that is basically Anywheresville, USA outside of a handful of places downtown and on campus at Vandy because a lot of people are moving there so that they can belong to something, one of those "movements" everyone seems to be dying to join lately. If you criticize it, you are a heretic and must be dealt with accordingly. Ohio is not like that, for better of for worse.

^^Well, I mean they are ratios, which, if you'll recall, are just a way of expressing numbers. And 1/100000 (0.00001%) and 5/100000 (0.00005%) is big relatively, but not absolutely. My point being that, sure, we can "learn something from Europe" (whatever that means), but I'm not sure that America's (and Ohio's, by extension) problems all vanish because there is a difference of 0.00004% of the population falling victim to murder between the two places. I stand by my point originally, which actually had nothing to do with murder rates anyway: the idea that one party (or country) is good and the other is bad, no crossover, no nuance, is a problem. And pretending that the Republicans are the anti-christ hellbent on destroying every life they can isn't far from the idea that Dems are all neo-communists out to brainwash everyone. People believe these things in a polarized climate. I'm not giving up on centrism because people want to get emotional. I don't think that helps. And fantasizing about copy/pasting solutions from another part of the world with different demographics is not really helpful either.

^^I think that you probably prefer using multiples instead of raw numbers because it makes the situation seem more drastic than it is. Anyway, back to the discussion of Ohio politics, as I'm sure there is a better forum to discuss European vs American homicide and/or violent crime rates.

Reminder: center in the U.S. is far-right in nearly every other country on the planet. We don't need to be like every other country. If we wanted to be Europe people would have just stayed over there. Ah, yes, why bother trying to learn from other modernized countries that don't have mass shootings on a weekly (daily?) basis, problems with providing healthcare to their citizens, terrible maternity/paternity leave policies, etc. etc. Republicans - we're the best let's not waste energy trying to take good ideas from other countries lol As opposed to the daily knife attacks in Europe? Or shootings in a grocery store? Europe isn't the perfect place a lot of liberals insist on believing it is. Homicide rates in Europe as a whole are no where near US level. Not even close. And ours are nowhere near the Third World. It's the difference between 5/100000 and 1/100000. A 4 people out of 100000 difference isn't exactly enough to make me think that our county is a failure. Either way, my point was that worrying about how quickly we can turn the US into Europe ignores the fact that they have their own problems. And thinking that just voting Dem alone is going to help them doesn't fix it. So I get that people on this forum hate Republicans, but the idea that our country would be perfect if only Dems were in power doesn't really hold a lot of water. Nor does the idea that the Republicans are some sort of ideological monolith any more than the Dems are. Or that other countries don't have crazies and/or problems. EDIT: clarity

And just to avoid derailing the conversation: As for crime, parental leave, sick time, wages, etc: How much light is there between Cordray and Kucinich? Also, Dewine doesn't really strike me as a super right-wing ideologue, but I'm not enthused about Husted. I guess it makes his ticket cover the whole right. What plan is there on the Dem side to cover as much of the left as possible? I know center-left isn't trending well right now, but where are those voters going to go if given the choice between Cordray and Kucinich if they're both courting the Sanders crowd?

Reminder: center in the U.S. is far-right in nearly every other country on the planet. We don't need to be like every other country. If we wanted to be Europe people would have just stayed over there. Ah, yes, why bother trying to learn from other modernized countries that don't have mass shootings on a weekly (daily?) basis, problems with providing healthcare to their citizens, terrible maternity/paternity leave policies, etc. etc. Republicans - we're the best let's not waste energy trying to take good ideas from other countries lol As opposed to the daily knife attacks in Europe? Or shootings in a grocery store? Europe isn't the perfect place a lot of liberals insist on believing it is.

Reminder: center in the U.S. is far-right in nearly every other country on the planet. Insomuch that that was ever true (as much as we may have joked about it before), not so much anymore. In the case of Germany, the stuff coming out of the CDU (center-right) now that conservatives smell Merkie's blood in the water is pretty much in keeping with the more conservative parts of the GOP, especially now that the AfD (far right) is polling in third place, right behind and occasionally equal to or ahead of the SPD (center-left). Focus on traditional male-female families, insisting that Islam is not part of Germany and never has been, focusing on immersion into the "Leitkultur", etc. And France (Les Republicains/Laurent Wauqiez). And Italy (Lega (Nord)). And Japan (Abe would not make a lot of American liberals happy). And Canada (Doug Ford/Jordan Peterson (albeit not a politician) and Stephen Harper wasn't all that long ago). In this age of needing to be very careful about how things and people are portrayed, the "America bad, World Good" stuff just doesn't cut it anymore. It belies the fact that the trend just started earlier here and is alive in well in other countries, including some of the European social democrat utopias we all know and love. Btw, the immigration systems most other countries use would make American liberals apoplectic. EDIT: To keep it on topic so the above doesn't get removed, Kucinich's populism is indeed finding an in with Ohio voters if he's polling alongside Cordray. I bet most people assumed Cordray was going to be a shoe in.

And (sorry, just thought of it) what precedent is there for working class housing being new other than the old "company town" model? Won't building more luxurious housing for more well-heeled people put downward pressure on other areas that aren't building it?

^^I understand that, but what's your solution? Which level of government is supposed to impose maximum lot sizes and minimum unit numbers on municipalities who otherwise don't have them? Which layer of government is going to force developers to build affordable housing that they make a loss on and in what areas? Who gets to decide that? I'm not saying you're wrong, but more that the reason this is a problem everywhere that is growing quickly is because there isn't really a mechanism to control this without imposing solutions that seem to make the problem worse other than just sprawl out of control. So, yes, Grove City will eventually have no room. Or Blacklick. Or any other suburban community or cheap place to live. Who is going to force them to start doing teardowns to make up for their lot sizes being too large? Won't happen because homeowners will bitch up a storm. So then what? Where are these apartments for the working class (who, true, don't care about whether or not the area is cool are not) going to be built? Again, I get what you're saying about the need for cheap housing for service workers, but where exactly ought it be built, by whom, and with what guarantee that they will be filled by the "right" people?

Furthermore, unless people in the more desirable/more easily accessible neighborhoods all of a sudden become OK with suburban style cheap material apartment buildings going up next to them, I don't think there's much that developers/the city can do to make the city more affordable for the most poor, unless of course you start using coastal-style interventions to artificially insert affordable housing into non-affordable neighborhoods, which of course comes with its own discussion of whether those help and, if so, whom.

Also, again, what's wrong with buying a home in Grove City, or the older parts of Hilliard, or near Morse/Indianola, or Reynoldsburg, or Berwick, or so on and so forth, OTHER than people just don't think it's cool enough. I'm not ready to declare an affordability crisis in Central Ohio solely because developers aren't building either miraculously cheap units in hot neighborhoods or sprawling out into Richland County all to make people avoid the awful fate of having to buy a house in a perfectly good, safe area that isn't "desirable" enough because it's post-war suburbia 15m away from SN by car. Edit: I chose those locations because a house can be found for <$200k in those areas.

I'll pile on with some older guy ranting of my own. I mean, look, I get it, it sucks that I can't afford to buy the place I used to live in when I was living in SN circa 2007 anymore (when I was paying $300/person for a 2BR), but on the same token, I'm not sure that it's such a big deal that I can't have a "starter home" in any of the hottest neighborhoods in Columbus. And keep in mind when Sears kit homes were being sold for $2100 in 1908 (approx $55k in 2017 dollars), the average household income was about $750 PER YEAR (approx $20k in 2017). So those kit homes were still quite an investment. That is to say, these weren't starter homes. It's hard for us to imagine just how much higher the average standard of living has risen. Our great-grandparents lived in a world in which most people would be living in what we would call poverty, not worrying about whether or not it was fair that they couldn't buy their first home in the most in-demand neighborhoods in the state. The concept of a starter home being of preferred size, shape, style, neighborhood and cost doesn't really have a precedent to it, or at least much of one. I know few of our parents bought their first house in the exact neighborhood and/or street that they wanted to. Like, I'm sorry that people of a certain age missed their chances to buy into SN and German Village when prices were lower. Why not get that "starter home" in Hilltop now and get in early? Or is it really that bad that someone who wants to get in on the property ladder and invest in real estate should have to own their first home in Blacklick and not on 3rd Ave in Harrison West? EDIT: punctuation

It's in Harrison, not Newark, and the stadium area is seeing a ton of TOD from the PATH station. (You can see the arena at the end of the street here.) That new TOD development is also COVERED in garbage, as is the new riverfront park immediately accross the river from it. I was there this weekend and easily half the people walking to the stadium commented on how much trash was everywhere. Totally anecdotal, but just happened to experience what you two were mentioning this weekend and you're both right: tons of new development, but a generally gross area. But, then again, huge swaths of urban Tri-State are covered in trash and feel rundown even when they're new.

Good pick on her part ;) Not to simply volunteer ColDayMan[/member] but I'm sure that he (along with myself) would be happy to give a tour if she's ever checking out the area! I will absolutely let you all know if she decides to follow through! Having received a ColDayMan tour in the past (albeit AGES ago and of Columbus) I am sure that with all the things going on now she would find something to like. I mean, I'll just say this: when my parents first mentioned moving from Centerville to South Park I thought they were joking, not because I don't have faith in South Park, but they were just people I never thought would ever consider living in the city. Sure enough, they are living in South Park and love it. I made sure to pass her that little tidbit as well! ;-)

I just had a bizarre moment of coincidence. Literally right after reading this and the Cleveland thread discussing increasing numbers of people moving from other states, my coworker (in NY) turns to me and starts talking about how she's looking for a house and she's tired of living in NYC (as am I). I ask her where she is thinking without mentioning any particular state. Her response? "Dayton, Ohio." I was completely thunderstruck. And before anyone asks, yes, I tried to talk it up as much as possible.