jonoh81

I found this comment in the article funny: Dorans highlighted the builder’s commitments to reducing density, preserving green space, and mitigating construction impacts. Losing all of that and not even bothering to replace it with something actually better. The worst of all possible outcomes.

It does now.

Ironically, the broken link is really providing the best view of this project.

They're building a 1970s Ramada Inn? I don't think I've ever seen a development- even in Columbus- crap the bed as hard as this one has.

You're right, but I'd be surprised if it got any pushback at all.

They're not going to escape simply by moving to a blue state. There are national actions coming that are going to directly attack the ability of trans people to live their lives in any capacity. They didn't move far enough.

Yes, "expats" are at most temporary residents. They will not assimilate, not gain national citizenship, etc.

I think that's the difference between "expat" and immigrant. Refugees don't necessarily always return, or want to.

The US immigration vetting process is arguably already extremely thorough and one of the strictest in the world, so I'm not sure what you mean by screen and add requirements. What requirements? And how exactly would you encourage assimilation? US immigrants already follow typical patterns when it comes to longer-term assimilation. And because US culture is such a melting pot, what would "assimilation" even mean? Okay, but we don't have unlimited and unscreened mass immigration as it is, at least not in terms of undocumented immigration. And you didn't really answer whether you would support a path to legalization with the existing undocumented after a vetting process. Neither Moreno nor Trump support one, and the current anti-immigrant rhetoric has not been limited to the undocumented alone, but increasingly all immigration. And like with less extreme mass deportation efforts, legal immigrants and even natives would likely accidentally be deported. Okay, but the US has long been taking much of the world's best people in many industries, so that wouldn't be anything new. I feel like you largely sidestepped the questions I was asking. If we followed the current Trump/Moreno/GOP plan on immigration, the number of immigrants coming in would be very low to non-existent, so there would still end up being a significant labor shortage across many industries. How would that be rectified if there isn't a population to fill those positions? And if you're more open to making legal immigration much easier, why would you be voting for people who want to make it significantly harder or end legal immigration altogether?

Can I ask, how do you square the proposed mass deportation of potentially tens of millions of people from the US, a plan that Moreno supports, with the reality that with very low and falling birthrates, low unemployment and a rapidly-aging population, the jobs performed by those millions of people cannot be realistically replaced with a native workforce? How exactly do you manage to avoid crashing the economy and skyrocketing inflation due to labor and service shortages across the board? Would it not make much more sense to provide a path to legalization for the vast majority who are not violent criminals and who would otherwise be productive citizens? Or are you simply a nationalist opposed to immigration entirely, and the potential economic consequences- let alone the humanitarian ones- are inconsequential to the goal of a whiter, native-exclusive nation?

It was suggested here and elsewhere that the building was basically on the verge of collapse and too far gone to save, so it's hilarious to yet again have it confirmed that this is not a problem with the building, but poor, lazy, cheap developers who simply want to do something quick to fill a space they own. It's infuriating.

Clintonville, Central Ohio's capital of asking to see the manager, doesn't seem all that anti-police to me. Moreno is an idiot.

The only way to protect fair districts and force the state legislature to adhere to that process is to put it into the state constitution. State voters already voted to end gerrymandering, but because it wasn't in the constitution, Ohio Republicans simply ignored it because they were the ones who got to make up the rules. Now the rules are not being left up to them.

What is your evidence it wouldn't end? Michigan has a similar law and it greatly improved the situation there. The intention is for districts to be fair and as representative as possible to the overall makeup of the state. That doesn't mean that majority red or majority blue districts disappear completely, because they won't. It does mean, however, that the majority of the districts are actually competitive.

How, specifically, would ending gerrymandering promote the "dilution of minority electoral strength"? Also, do you really think anyone believes that Republicans, of all people, care whatsoever about protecting minority electoral strength? Their gerrymandering specifically puts them in a limited number of districts for a reason. And the current system disenfranchises more than just minority voters. So is that why your party is outright lying so hard about how Issue 1 actually promotes gerrymandering instead of ending it? Seems like you and your party know that the voters know exactly what it does, and the *intended* consequences is that they lose their stranglehold over state government.

Has there been any polling on Issue 1? I haven't heard anything and with Republicans straight up lying and claiming it supports gerrymandering rather than getting rid of it, there are bound to be people confused about what it does.

Worse, a lot of models have it hitting Tampa dead on. Tampa is extraordinarily susceptible to storm surge and hasn't really been tested by a hurricane of any strength directly in over a century. Anywhere it hits, though, will have double-digit storm surge even if it weakens some before landfall.

For additional context, 1920 is probably not accurate. The decade years of 1900, 1910, 1920, etc. are used as stand-ins for the actual build dates for many Columbus buildings constructed in the 19th and early 20th centuries. A lot of property records were lost in the 1921 courthouse fire, so they just kind of estimate now. The estimates can be off significantly, from my experience.

If I ever have the time and feeling insane enough, I'll go through every single one of these annexations/detachments over time and figure out the exact population for every single event date.

I got the numbers from the city's website, though I don't remember exactly where. In 2010, the area size was 227.2 square miles. In 2015, the area size had grown slightly to 228.4, but sometime between 2015-2020, there was a size decrease. I'm not sure from what exactly, but they sometimes happen. Regardless, the city's size was down to 225.9 in 2020. By 2023, it was back up to 227.2.

It declined, but not nearly as much as the other two. Consider that the current core city of Cleveland and Cincinnati are essentially the same today as they were in 1950. Between 1950-2020, Columbus lost a net of 118,771. Cincinnati lost 219,481 and Cleveland lost 544,828. The size of Columbus in 1950 was approximately 40 square miles. If you compared a similarly-sized 70 square miles, the loss in Columbus would've been less than 100K net. The same processes that caused decline in most cities between 1950-2000 also affected Columbus- suburbanization, urban renewal and highway systems that demolished tons of buildings, white flight, etc. The difference in why it declined so much less is likely because of annexation. It kept a positive image of a growing city and allowed the city to maintain a lot of services by keeping tax income flowing. Between 1950-1960 alone, Columbus grew in area by over 51 square miles. Having a more diverse, stable economy certainly helped as well. Columbus was never a Rust Belt city. In any case, annexation today is largely non-existent. The last 20 years, Columbus has added less than 1.5 square miles, and the city was the exact same size in 2023 as it was in 2010.

They would need to create intersections of retail and more density outside of just Cleveland Avenue. Linden has potential given most of it is on a grid and can be more easily adapted to density and mixed-use, but zoning codes would obviously have to change in the second phase of Zone-In. Talking about a hypothetical dining destination when the basic necessities to make that happen- infrastructure, zonine, safety, etc.- aren't in place yet seems a little premature to me.

They've really contributed a lot to my canceled projects page on my website. Does that count?

It's Arshot. 99.9% chance this never gets built, anyway.