jonoh81

The intent of the amendment was crystal clear- to draw fair districts. The GOP completely failed to do that, intentionally. The point of a convention would not necessarily be about making major changes, though. No changes would be required whatsoever. It would be about assessing the state of society and whether the existing document and amendments make sense. Maybe they do, maybe some may need tweaks. Maybe we need additions. But we're not even really talking about whether we should do anything, and that's a problem.

The front garage is such a suburban feature. But it's also bad that there are no windows on the side. It's like it was built to be a rowhouse and all the other ones connected to it were torn down.

I fail to see why either the state or US constitutions should be sacred, unchanging texts. We should be having regular constitutional conventions. I also fail to see how Republicans care whatsoever about protecting the Ohio Constitution when they told Ohio voters to pound sand over an amendment that over 70% of Ohioans voted for. They do not care about protecting anything but their minority rule.

What, specifically, makes it bad? And if it ends up being a disaster, it only requires a simple majority to overturn, correct?

Where? Can you point to any specific posts then if you're not going to offer the evidence yourself? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about in terms of debunking anything. Maybe I missed it.

If they are incorrect and I am misinterpreting the data, it should be easy to show how. I have no issue being wrong, so if I am, this should be an easy layup for you. I await your debunking.

It is supported, though. Blue states subsidize red states federally. Democrats nationally produce better economic conditions than Republicans. Urban areas, not rural areas, are by far the leaders in GDP, job growth, an educated workforce, innovation, technological advancement, etc. The numbers overwhelmingly are on my side of the debate. And you still haven't answered a simple question to name any specific Republican/conservative policies that either laid the foundations for urban success or promote it today. So what exactly do you think I need to prove? A simple google search will confirm all of these things.

Let me know when you begin providing any actual data.

But you can't name any of the policies that supposedly laid those foundations? That's a problem if you're going to make such a claim. Also, it doesn't really make sense. The Overton Window has certainly shifted enormously over time, but even in 1700 or 1800, urban areas would've still been much more progressive relative to non-urban society. That's always been the case because cities breed interaction and the exchange of ideas. They are the hub of development, of education, of culture and always have been.

Yes, that's a take, but certainly not mine. I do find it quite interesting how you all love the position that minorities actually like conservative policies, but won't vote Republican because their friends/family may become angry at them over a *checks notes*... completely secret vote. I have an alternative theory... maybe it's just that embracing white supremacy is a bigger problem.

It's amazing how we constantly hear from conservatives that places like California are failed liberal states due to its progressive policies, yet every successful blue city or state is strictly the result of any and all factors *besides* actual policies. Curious!

You specifically said that Republican/conservative policies laid the foundation for urban growth. You have offered no specifics to that end, and that's what I am asking for. None of those things above are related to conservative policy, but I would certainly argue that prioritizing higher education and public funding of such institutions are not conservative in nature. Your other points basically boil down to luck of status or location, which have nothing to do with conservative policy, either. So what are the specifics of conservative beliefs or policies that enable urban areas to grow?

"Peer pressure" is certainly a take.

It's out very first Nashville-style infill.

They know it's unpopular, which is why they are engaging in anti-democratic tactics like this. It's not about the will of the people, it's about enforcing a specific form of Christian nationalism on everyone.

California has the largest population of Republican voters in the country. Just because people move from California does not make them liberal/progressive.

Neither a university nor being a capital is required for a city to grow, since there are dozens upon dozens of cities that are growing quickly without them, so this is a simplistic diagnosis of that success. You're just saying things. What foundation did Republicans provide that is responsible for urban growth today, specifically? Conservativism has never been at the forefront of innovation or technology. Hell, you guys are still denying climate change and vaccine efficacy, and you started out the American experiment by burning people accused of witchcraft, so when was this time where conservatives were busy fostering technological and research advancement? All you're really saying here is that education is important in building a strong economic foundation. Which is super ironic considering the general disdain the Right has for education, but especially higher education. If your argument is that universities and colleges are important factors in economic and social growth, why are Republicans so dead set against free college, for example? Yes, exactly, Texas is great for corporations, but I noticed you didn't mention it being great for workers. Because it's not. Companies are flocking to Texas because they can pay their employees lower wages with fewer benefits combined with less regulations and standards they have to follow. There's a reason most of the Sun Belt has worse quality of life metrics across the board than say, New York or Illinois or California, the trifecta of most hated states by conservatives.

I wasn't talking about population growth, but economic opportunities and growth. Cleveland has been shrinking in population for decades, but its GDP continues to grow, and it still offers magnitudes of order more jobs and economic opportunities than any red county in the state. Even if you want to say this has nothing to do with more progressive policies in cities, you would have to concede that urban places are the economic hearts of states and the nation as a whole. There can be no disputing that. I would also offer the position that the stagnation/decline in population of cities in the Rust Belt and some other places were more due to larger national trends, like offshoring manufacturing. It's not just Black people who vote for Democrats, though. Pretty much all racial minorities do in majority numbers. So do most other minority groups, including LGBTQ+, some religious demographics, etc. And so do plenty of just plain white, cis, non-minority people as well. There is a reason that Republicans would likely never win the presidency if not for the EC. Maybe you should be asking why all those groups won't vote Republican.

So you're in agreement that blue areas, even in red states, are where jobs and economic opportunities are, which attract people to them? That's the point most people are trying to make. Politics alone may not be the be all/end all to the reason why people move, but they can and do contribute to factors that create economic strength that *are* the primary reason why people move. Even at the national level, job growth, stock market returns, etc. have been stronger when Democrats have been in power. So not only do blue economics just factually work better, blue social policy is much more welcoming to more demographics. Ohio has largely been run by Republicans for decades and we have very little to show for it. Nothing's been debunked.

If you think that's for politics and not masses of retirees searching for a warmer climate, I have bad news for you. It's also just people with the mistaken belief that the South is less expensive, and it's not. Maybe it was true at one time, but not anymore. And quality of life metrics are notoriously worse across the board. People just think they're going to be on perpetual vacation living there. Also, take a closer look at those states. Where are most of the people actually moving to? It's not the deep red Texas Panhandle. It's Houston, Austin, Dallas, etc. Same situation in Florida. People are moving to urban, mostly blue areas even in overall red states. Same story in Ohio. Columbus has added more people on its own the last 10 years than just about every red county combined. I won't claim that politics alone is responsible for losses or gains, but for all the absolute hell urban areas take from conservatives, red areas should at least be able to show something positive for their supposed superior policies. Like jobs, economic growth, positive domestic/international migration... something.

From the Census data. 2015-2021 Population Change Age 24 and Under: -77,658 Most of the losses were in the 20-24 group, where the state lost 31,483. 25-54: I guess you could call this prime working age. -62,635 55-64: Transition period between late working-early retirement. +11,976 65 and Up: +203,994 So for this most recent period available, the state lost people in working ages and the young. It only gained significantly in age groups that were at or older than retirement age. So yes, the state is absolutely losing young people over time, especially in critical prime working years. That said, brain drain may be overblown, too. 2015-2021 Change for the 25+ Population HS or Less: -143024 Some College, No Degree: -62,380 Associate's Degree: +48,113 Bachelor's Degree: +207,615 Graduate or Professional Degree: +171,179 The problem with any of this data is that it predates a lot of the more recent GOP extremism. Still, the fact that the state was already losing young people even before that does not bode well for those trends. And regarding education, the 65+ age group had the largest increase in population for the Bachelor's or higher, almost double that of the 25-34 age group. Even if we assume that this growth is all new to the state- which we cannot- the youngest most educated demographic being one of the smallest comparatively also may indicate an attractability issue. Meaning that Ohio's conservative streak is much more attractive to Boomers than it is young people. Now that the state legislature is giving the state an even more extreme image, I can't see how this is going to change much in the near future.

I would personally much rather see stroads get rebuilt because they are not safe for any users, including drivers. Beyond that, though, I feel like roadways already exist and everyone has to pay for them, but only drivers are given any incentive to use them. Multi-use paths are good in areas where roadways don't exist or for recreational options like the Scioto and Olentangy trails- especially since bike paths on streets aren't meant for joggers and walkers- so I'm not against them in any way. But we should be using existing roads to add protected bike lanes pretty much everywhere as part of an overall redesign of local roads. It's pretty clear the City believes that multi-use paths are a workaround to better streets, though.

They're fine, but what's the actual cost to build them vs. just putting up a barrier on existing roadways? I kind of feel like this is meant to just avoid inconveniencing car dominance.

You're arguing from the standpoint that NIMBYs are rational, make rational arguments or can be convinced by them. I hope this works out for Granville, but it won't be without opposition.

Meh... It's a terrible project for the site.