jonoh81

Brown can absolutely run on this issue considering Republicans have promised to continue attacking those rights and ignoring the will of the people. And they absolutely will. Also, the last time he was elected, abortion was still protected under Roe, so he didn't even need it to win.

When Democrats get frustrated, they don't sign pledges to ignore the democratic will of the voters. When Democrats lose, they don't spread claims about voter fraud or attack the US Capitol building. Losing sucks, I get it. But there's absolutely no rational excuse for what these people are doing or saying. It's a direct attack on all of our democratic rights and it's incredibly dangerous. You all are outright risking civil violence. The actual problem, though, is not that Republicans and conservatives are merely frustrated. No, they're absolutely furious that not everyone shares their personal worldview. As you just did now, implying that this vote was somehow pro-baby murder, you can't seem to grasp that most people just don't agree with you whatsoever, and like many others on the Right, can't deal with that reality in a healthy, constructive way. Your claim that progressives will try to stretch the law to absurdity, but the *PEOPLE OF OHIO* voted for this, regardless of your personal view that it goes too far. The bill was reasonable to the majority of the voters already. Your side failed to make your case and you lost. It's that simple. You don't get to just change the rules when something doesn't go your way, or endless mulligans to get the results you want. And we have already seen Republican state legislatures ignore the will of the voters. We saw it in states like Virginia over marijuana legalization, we saw it in Ohio over gerrymandering, etc. When Republicans lose now, they are increasingly giving up on the democratic system entirely. They're now trying very hard to pretend like the US never even was a democracy to justify the direction they're going in. So why should we necessarily trust that this rhetoric will "calm down" and not lead anywhere? I wouldn't and don't trust the Right, as they continuously show their hand.

It seems an increasing number of Ohio and national Republicans are saying that Ohio lawmakers should just completely ignore the results of the vote and will otherwise do whatever they can to make sure what the people voted for won't be the reality. It's all out in the open now. The Republican Party is a danger to democratic rule at every level of government.

Completely agree with you. That's been my issue with him all along as well. I just don't think Motil really offered a compelling vision, so it was the devil you know.

My main thing isn't height, it's density and maximizing site potential as much as possible. Sometimes that means height, sometimes it doesn't.

I don't like Ginther, and think city leadership could do better in several areas, but for all the criticism they get, are things really that bad in Columbus? Are we saying that we want Republicans? Or just different Democrats? Or just change to have change? I think the established candidates keep winning because the few alternatives put up just aren't that exciting, either. Motil had some good ideas, but also arguably some bad ones. I don't think competitive elections are a bad thing, but you're not going to get people to vote for change unless you give them an actual reason. I would love for some real progressives to run for mayor/city council races, but we just get more middle-of-the-road candidates who don't seem to have any clear message not only on what's wrong with the city, but what they would actually do to improve it.

Don't know where to put this, but at least in Franklin County suburbs, most Moms for Liberty candidates or otherwise far-right conservatives lost or were kicked out of school boards. Except in Grove City, where both of them won. Overall, this is good for education in the area.

Because they'll literally lose money, or more because they won't make as much as they want?

The Columbus suburban counties are gradually moving left, even though Trump temporarily stalled that process in all but Delaware County.

Clark County must have the most evenly-matched number Republican and Democratic voters in the state. In August, Issue 1 lost by a single vote. And this time, the issue results were also very close.

That confusion was by design. It didn't ultimately work, but you may be right that it had an affect as well.

Depending what the final margin is, there is maybe some slight evidence that the Right's scare tactics worked on some voters, as the margin may not end up quite as high as polling, but it still seems to be in the general range. The results are exactly why it was so important to reject August's Issue 1. Congrats Ohio, your rights are protected.

I got a response to this. My letter and map will apparently be included as part of the development commission's packets for this project's review on November 9th. I'm sure just standard procedure, but it's nice that they'll at least see it and have something to consider for comparison.

See also Worthington.

Why is that a counterpoint? It seems to be a symptom of the same problem, a general lack of push/support for mixed-use density in the region, which seems to be the case regardless of land value. I get what you're saying in that developers might be more willing to push for more significant projects with higher land values, but they're still getting shut down in a lot of locations. But as I argued earlier, lower land values doesn't prevent a higher density project if it's built in smaller phases. The current developer is already proposing 3 buildings. It should not affect financing to build those 3 in a bit different configuration that would allow other phases in the future, especially when the first phase would significantly raise land values and raise desirability in the entire neighborhood, both creating greater momentum for those next phases. I'm not blind to the challenges- including financial- of developing these types of sites. I just don't think we're utilizing all the potential options to do so in a better way.

Columbus leadership hands out incentives and tax breaks like candy. If they're going to do it, I would rather see them do it to get better projects like this accomplished. Also, as I said earlier, the developer isn't obligated to build out the entire site all at once. We have see the same thing in GY and Jeffrey Park, where the developer has only gradually filled in the site over a number of years. There would theoretically not be much, if any, difference between them building the 3 buildings in their proposal vs. 3 buildings in a more dense, mixed-use layout that could be filled in when finances supported it. It would just take the City pushing and promoting that kind of outcome, and at this point, they've basically just been allowing whatever gets proposed.

Done: Here's what I wrote. Hi, I recently read about the proposal to build a residential complex at 1160 Camden Avenue in Milo-Grogan. I have some concerns, but perhaps not what you might usually hear regarding new development. My concern is that the proposal for the roughly 12.6-acre site is vastly inferior for the potential of such a large, vacant site so close to Downtown. The current proposal calls for 217 units in 3, 4-story buildings, giving a density of just over 17 units/acre. From what I can tell, the total footprint of these buildings represents less than 25% of the total acreage, leaving 3/4s as either asphalt or largely unusable grass space. Even if my math is slightly off, the very low density being proposed for the site is an embarrassment when Columbus is experiencing a housing crisis and rapidly-rising housing costs. Every news article that comes out says that Columbus has to build many more housing units than it currently is to match existing and future demand, so I would hope that the city and the Development Commission would push back against such a shocking waste of land in the urban core of the city. Additionally, the proposal misses several other opportunities. For example, Camden Avenue, Leona Avenue, Shoemaker Avenue and Olmsted Avenue all currently terminate in dead-ends. The proposal does not seek to really do anything about this despite all 4 streets connecting to the site. In fact, from the renderings I've see, at least one of the residential buildings sits right in the path of Leona Avenue and displaces the street slightly north for no apparent reason. The rest of the streets seem to just terminate in surface parking lots. Overall, it's a terrible layout. In about 10 minutes, I created a layout that would solve all potential issues that I hope at least some elements would be considered when reviewing whether the current iteration of the project moves forward. Here is that layout: https://arcg.is/19Kv5m0 The new layout would do all of the following: Creates 2-4 acres of new park space for the neighborhood. These parks would provide a buffer for new housing and the active rail lines on the north and east. The parks could contain any necessary retention ponds for the development, increasing their potential recreational use. Consolidate the massive amount of surface parking across the site into a single location in the NE corner, which could be either a parking garage or large surface lot that could later be developed. Or the large single site could be divided into two smaller, strategic locations in the development. Adds 5 new 4-5-story residential buildings with 500-700 new units. Creates 2 zones for about 30-40 single-family homes, townhomes or duplexes, depending on lot size and style. These would offer a transition from the largely single-family neighborhood to the greater apartment density to the east. Extends the 4 existing streets further east to the railroad tracks, with a new north-south connector to eliminate all existing dead-ends. The streets would remain in a more traditional grid pattern rather than adding unnecessary suburban-style curves and offsets. Obviously, the current developer may balk at any such changes to their layout, but it would be deeply irresponsible for the project to be allowed to move forward as-is. Milo-Grogan deserves better, and the site is more than large enough to create a truly transformative development for this long-neglected area. The City is currently working on updating zoning across the city to encourage better development, but we shouldn't allow poorly considered projects like this to get a pass in the meantime. Thank you for your consideration and time, I encourage anyone else who wants this to be better to write to the Commission as well.

This is what this development should really look like. https://arcg.is/19Kv5m0 It took me all of 10 minutes to make. Extend the existing street grid east to the railroad tracks with a new north-south connect for the 4 existing roads. 2-4 acres of new parks/playground areas spread across 2-3 accessible locations that provide a buffer to the railroad lines. Build a parking garage in the NE corner that could handle at least 500 cars. I even made it so the space is large enough to be built as a surface lot to save money, that way it could be developed later. Build 2 transition zones of single-family housing/townhomes or duplexes with 30-40 homes. And then 5 4 to 5-story apartment buildings with 100-150 units each. This would result in closer to 600 units across the 12 acres. So instead of 18 units per acre as the current plan provides, it would instead be closer to 48. With this fairly straightforward plan or some iteration of it, all needs are satisfied. Parking is available, there's new park space for Milo-Grogan, transitions between the single-family section and higher density apartments, an extended street grid that eliminates dead-ends, and triple the residential units for what will eventually be a much more popular neighborhood given its proximity to Downtown. I know this isn't Sim City, the mention of which seems to imply that such development is merely fantasy instead of completely realistic and what should be expected of a site of this size and location. There is no reason we should be allowing any developer, local or otherwise, to build like this. It's arguably disrespectful to say long-ignored Milo-Grogan deserves less simply because it's not already a popular, thriving neighborhood. Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox, but this thinking annoys me to no end.

Half of Gravity is located beside an active rail line. So are parts of Downtown and the Arena District. So is Grandview Yard. There are tons of examples of brand new, dense multi-use development or otherwise vibrant neighborhoods built right next to active rail lines with little to no buffer. And I fail to understand why 217 units next to active railways and industrial sites is fine, but 2x-3x that would be a problem? In both cases, the situation would be the same. You're right, I'm probably actually underestimating the total amount of wasted land, whether for parking or unusable green space. It's about a 12.6 acre site. A previous plan for the site called for 324 units across 12 3-story buildings, or an average unit count per building of 27. With that plan, the land used for buildings only covered about 2.816 acres of the 12.6-acre site. This is based on the square footage given for the building footprints. The current plan only has 3 buildings and contain just 217 units. The buildings themselves are larger, with an average unit count of about 72 units and 4 stories instead of 3. The article doesn't specify- and I couldn't find- the plan for the amount of land each building takes up, but it's obviously larger than any of the 12 buildings from the previous plan. However, given the extra floor of height, the maximum size they could be is probably about 3x the size of the 12 previous buildings, or about 0.63 acres each. I would even grant up to 1 acre each for a total of around 3 acres of land being used for actual residential development. Which leaves 9.6 acres that is either green space or parking. Parking/roads and greenspace look roughly equal from the rendering with perhaps a slight edge to greenspace, which suggests that just under 5 acres of parking/road are part of the project. So I may have slightly exaggerated the amount of asphalt, but not by all that much. And the overall part of the site being used for housing is less than 25% of the total acreage of the site. That's terrible.

Where did I say that? I said that underutilized properties and vacant land could be infilled with greater density, the same thing happening in all of Columbus' more popular neighborhoods. A lot of the houses in this area are century-old 2-story fourquares, which I am not advocating be demolished, but there are also plenty of other lots that could be replaced with better development. Why so opposed to using land more efficiently in an urban area where there is high demand for housing, yet relatively few options?

Milo-Grogan is absolutely an urban neighborhood. The fact that most of it is single-family homes is irrelevant to that. The single-family sections are actually also ripe for redevelopment. There are a lot of underused, relatively large lots filled with small, single-story, mid-century bungalows. There's a lot of infill potential for those specific lots with small apartment buildings, duplexes, etc. And honestly, that's exactly what we should be encouraging- to replace low-density, non-historic housing development. Also, the map really emphasizes how this is the largest tract of vacant land in the entire neighborhood. 217 units and 6 acres of surface parking is a joke.

Yep. Here's the thing, if the developer doesn't have the finances to fill in the site currently, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from building out only part of the site now and part later. It sometimes feels like these developers are just rushing to develop their sites and using a lot of useless filler- like parking lots and unusable green space- without any real thought to the actual potential or even the amount of money they could earn back if they waited to develop the full site. Here, they could still build the 3 residential buildings, but in a better configuration that would allow more development at a later date. And if for some reason they didn't have the finances later to do so, the site would not already be filled, so a later developer could finish it out. It's just so illogical the way we allow land to be wasted like this when there are win-win solutions for everyone.

Who determines whether it's needed in this or other instances? A lot of people in Clintonville say we don't need density on High Street. Are they right? This isn't specifically about density, anyway. It's about good land use. Having 6 acres of a 12-acre site be surface parking is a very poor use of valuable- and limited- urban land, even if there wasn't a housing and affordability crisis. The fact that there is makes this layout even more embarrassingly bad. It's also just bad environmentally to have so much impermeable surface that increases runoff. Also, if we want more transit options than just a bus, we need to build the kind of neighborhood density that can support it. We should be thankful for good development, not just any development.

Cedar Fair will still be the majority owner, AFAIK, so hopefully they won't take on any of Six Flags' poor habits and strategies. Also, hopefully that won't mean any name changes.

Not getting your point. So we can only have density if it exists on a main corridor? Also, there are literally 4 streets that intersect the site, and if planned correctly, another outlet could lead directly to 5th Avenue, so if this is a concern about traffic being concentrated on small streets, that seems wildly misplaced.