jonoh81

217 units in 12 acres would be an offensively poor use of land in Reynoldsburg, let alone in the heart of the city. When there's like 2x-3x more asphalt than building, there's a problem. Also, the enormous edge lawns could fit a few more buildings all by themselves.

Now imagine a Bridge Park instead of a McDonald's and a warehouse.

The hilarious thing is that their reasoning actually admits that drivers are the problem here. They're driving too fast and likely blowing past the light, neither of which is going to stop with an even larger intersection and wider street that *always* promote increased driving speeds. The visibility argument because of the building seems entirely made up. It's a driving problem where people are not looking into the intersection before making the turn, and are clearly going too fast when doing so. We should be narrowing the lanes here to slow cars down and doing things like pedestrian bumpouts so pedestrians are in the road for a shorter time when crossing. But nope. The solution they have is not to make walking safer, but to make it so dangerous that people will actively choose not to walk at all.

Sorry, what other one?

Columbus leadership has been absolutely terrible on this, bumbling its way from one useless study to another. They've probably spent enough on studies over the decades to have paid for 2-3 rail lines alone.

Well, I'm sure widening the road and adding more lanes will make things safer for ped... oh, oh wait. This entire project is to make driving more convenient over all other functions, including walking. That they're sacrificing one of the few remaining old buildings on this stretch- which appears to be in decent condition- just to make the intersection even more dangerous to pedestrians is pretty classic. I question whether any of these people have read anything from the last 20 years on good urban design. It's all straight out of the 1950s at this point.

The point is that you're never going to get any consistent answers to the question. Viability itself is a gray area, and as you say, science may move the bar some over time. But many still argue that viability is not really the limit, anyway, since abortions would still be allowed and supported in cases of medical emergencies, incest, rape, etc. Additionally, some belief systems would say it's not a separate human being until the moment of birth. Even so, the vast, vast majority of abortions occur before "viability", so we're essentially just talking about a tiny percentage of all total abortions. If you're against abortion and believe a fetus is a human life, you would clearly not support the viability limit, anyway, since almost all abortion occur before that.

Because if we really boil it down, it's not really about protecting "babies" for many of them. It's about having control over the choices of others. We see the same thing when people bring up "protecting the children" as the excuse for all sorts of Right-wing stuff. Look at the opposition to drag story hour, trans people in bathrooms or sports, or the recent book bans. Children, or the vague and subjective interpretation of them, are simply the cudgel to get people to behave as conservatives want.

There's no such thing as an "abortion proponent". They are abortion *rights* proponents. There is a difference. You can fully disagree with abortion, but still support the ability of people to make the choice to have one. And your point there does not in any way change what I said. People disagree, and three of the primary points of contention in the abortion rights debate is whether a fetus is a human life, when exactly it becomes one and whether that designation should necessarily interfere with the ability of someone to have an abortion. And? This person is neither the arbiter nor the last word on the abortion rights debate. That she believes a fetus is a human life is completely irrelevant to all the people who do not. This is not a popularity contest. This is about respecting the ability of individuals to make their own choices based on what they believe is or isn't right. As for this person's point about contradictory phrasing and emotional reactions, humans do this all the time on a multitude of things. It's like when conservatives call themselves "pro-life" and then don't care when actual kids die from gun violence or hunger or lack of health care in the richest, most powerful nation in human history. The forced-birth crowd ultimately doesn't care how anyone would answer that question, as they have no actual intention of respecting any position that is different from their own. The irony is that you don't even seem to realize that the subjective nature of the question- and ultimately the answers- undermines your own point about a fetus absolutely being a seperate human life. If you have to ask, are you really sure yourself?

I assume the elevator core will double as a diving platform for the splash pool.

I don't mind that you and I disagree. I mind that we are being forced into this debate in the first place by people who either can't understand or can't accept that their personal morality or religious views are not universally shared or wanted. I mind that women are being told by those people that their decisions made through their own personal morality- and with the advice and care of medical professionals- are tantamount to murder. I mind the Right-wing extremism that permeates this and so many other issues.

Of the 20 states with D+ or worse grades, 16 were deep red, 2 were somewhat purple (including Ohio if you still consider it a swing state, otherwise 17 red) and 2 were deep blue. Of the 15 that scored a B- to A+, 12 were deep blue, 2 were deep red and 1 was kind of purple. This makes it pretty clear who relies on gerrymandering a lot more.

0% chance that Republicans care what any trans people or their allies have to say about this. You are not going to sway people with an agenda of hate with pleas for empathy, compassion and reason. If they had those things, they wouldn't be trying to pass legislation like this.

I've said elsewhere that there were like 400,000 fewer blue voters in 2022 than 2018, and Vance did not get those votes. Obviously, 2018 and 2022 were for different seats, but there was no reason Dems couldn't have shown up. Had they done so as they did in 2018, Vance would've been blown out. The Dems in Ohio are about as effective as they are in Florida, and at least Florida has an excuse by being overrun with conservative retirees and MAGA. The only parts of Ohio growing are blue, and the state party can't seem to do anything with that.

It's weird how everyone who disagrees with your position has an intelligence or comprehension issue. Maybe they just don't see it the same way.

You're making it black and white yourself by constantly referring to a fetus as a separate human life. If everyone agreed with that view, no one would be having this conversation.

"Abortion as birth control" is propaganda, though. It's a description that seeks to demonize women (and the doctors who assist them) who have any abortion that would not be done for medical emergencies. It's just another way to call these women baby killers. The people who use this type of phrasing seem to forget that everyone has a different definition of what makes a baby before birth, and when exactly life begins. To suggest that women are callously killing their babies as a form of birth control is to remove all the very real nuance and gray area that exists on this issue. Furthermore, elective abortions are extremely rare in the latter months of pregnancy, and most doctors won't even perform them, anyway, even if there weren't a lot of restrictions against it. Women aren't going to wait 8-9 months to have an elective abortion.

Not sure what your argument here is. Are you saying that viability is arbitrary, so legal abortion around or after that time should be illegal? Or are you saying that the viability argument fuels the forced-birth side by giving them a reason to reject that line? Or something completely different?

I don't know if I agree that it's about preference. A lot of those older homes were in urban neighborhoods that declined from things like white flight, and for decades sat in largely declined, crime-ridden neighborhoods. It's not really about the quality of those homes, it's that the neighborhoods they were in saw little to no investment and actively stopped people from moving in. Older neighborhoods that see investment and that are maintained tend to be highly valuable and in-demand. In Columbus, those include German Village, all of the Short North, Clintonville, Grandview, Bexley, etc. The older areas that have seen little investment have fared a lot worse, like Hilltop, the Near South Side, the older parts of Linden, etc. So I don't think it's as simple as saying people don't want these old homes, they just want them in neighborhoods that are stable, safe and in good condition.

It's well-known at this point that sprawl is subsidized by urban areas, though. https://grist.org/cities/starving-the-cities-to-feed-the-suburbs/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166046202000339

I love pre-war homes, 1920s and earlier. 1950s-1970s are my least favorite by far.

I don't know what the political forum equivalent of thirsty is, but I think we're seeing it.

The people who value elbow room should pay for the costs associated with it, then. But they don't. If they did, we would start seeing what the true level of demand for it really is. I know plenty of people who "settled" out in the suburbs because they couldn't find a house in the city within their price range.

But I'm dumb, wholly misinformed and letting my emotions get the better of me for suggesting we don't allow partisan state legislatures to control voter registration. If I had only passed the bar, I could have an opinion.

Conservates are like... "I want everyone to vote, but only if you vote on election day because absentee and mail-in ballots are deep state communism." "I want everyone to vote, but we really should add more arbitrary hoops for people to jump through based on endless election fraud gaslighting." "I want everyone to vote, but we should definitely reduce the number of days and hours people can do so. And let's reduce those days and hours the most for people who vote for the dirty libs." "I want everyone to vote, but some votes should count more than others- and I really should be able to pick my voters via extreme gerrymandering and then completely ignore the majority when they seek to end the practice. Also, if you disagree with these tactics as a politician, we'll attempt to throw you out of office." "I want everyone to vote, but 18-24-year-olds aren't mature enough to make this decision even as 70 million supposedly mature adults voted for an admitted sexual assaulter and racist." "I want everyone to vote, but if I don't like who they vote for, I will foment an insurrection and commit widespread fraud across multiple states to undermine the entire democratic system to get what I want." "I want everyone to vote, but I will attempt to pass legislation to take away their citizen-initiated amendment process because the people support issues I don't like." And on and on.