jonoh81

Again, what conspiracy theory are you referring to? I don't think you're using that term correctly, as it implies a fantastical, illogical or irrational claim without supportable evidence, and I'm not sure how that applies here whatsoever. The claim is certainly not irrational, fantastical or illogical as we have seen Republicans go after trans care and people repeatedly, both in rhetoric and actual legislation, and it is therefore a reasonable expectation to expect them to continue that pattern. This is especially true when they literally claim they will. Those laws don't protect children, though, as they were never in danger to begin with. We've been over this multiple times. Also, why should we expect Republicans to not go after adult care when they have repeatedly enacted legislation that goes against adults making their own decisions, such as on abortion, marijuana, voting, etc.?

Immediately trying to turn this into another "both sides" post is about what I expected. On what basis should we believe that the views expressed on the link are outliers within the Ohio GOP after they just happily celebrated trashing care for trans kids and DeWine is going after adult care? I'm not just using their words, I'm using their actions.

Sorry, what is the conspiracy theory you're talking about? These were Ohio and Michigan state representatives saying this, not random people. The entire Ohio GOP has shown complete willingness to harm trans people overall, so on what basis have they earned the benefit of the doubt when some of them are giving up the whole game plan?

I think you've got that backwards. Admitting one is wrong when they are is a sign of emotional and intellectual maturity. Doubling down against the facts is not, and the facts are that at least some in the Ohio Republican Party want to ban all gender-affirming care for adults, which is contrary to the claim that it was always and only about kids.

lol... this is just pathetic. Just admit you were wrong like an adult. Pretending like water isn't wet and Republicans aren't bigots is not a good look.

It would be very cool if after this section of elevated walkway was completed, it could be gradually expanded around Downtown.

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/ohio-michigan-republicans-in-released Ohio, Michigan Republicans In Released Audio: "Endgame" Is To Ban Trans Care "For Everyone" You were saying?

I am guessing that Covid is responsible for some of the drops, considering that as more people have gone to WFH, all other methods of travel have decreased because there are just fewer people commuting overall. I wonder if we looked at 2021-2022, if we'd see any kind of increase. As for Bowling Green, it definitely seemed to fair worse than just about any other city. These numbers are based on estimates, so there is a fudge factor, but that can't compensate for that entirely.

Finally, I ranked all of Ohio's 62 cities with populations of 25K+ or more for each commuting method, and took the average rank in each of the 6 categories to create a list of what were the most car-centric cities in both 2010 and 2022. This will be top 10 best and worst. Top 10 Least Car-Centric Commuting Cities in 2010 and Average Rank Position of the 6 Categories 1. Cleveland Heights: 9.83 2. Cincinnati: 10 3. Cleveland: 11.33 4. Wooster: 11.83 5. Dayton/Kent: 14.17 6. Canton: 15.33 7. Bowling Green: 16.33 8. Columbus: 16.67 9. Lakewood: 16.83 10. Shaker Heights: 19.17 Top 10 Least Car-Centric Commuting Cities in 2022 1. Cleveland Heights: 10.17 2. Cleveland: 10.67 3. Cincinnati: 11.67 4. Dayton: 13.5 5. Kent: 15.17 6. Columbus/Lakewood: 15.5 7. Youngstown: 16.83 8. Euclid: 19.0 9. Akron/Shaker Heights: 20.67 10. Toledo: 22.67 Not a lot of surprises here. Top 10 Most Car-Centric Commuting Cities in 2010 1. North Ridgeville: 44.17 2. Perrysburg: 42.67 3. Avon Lake: 42.83 4. Beavercreek: 42.33 5. Stow: 42.17 6. Huber Heights: 42.0 7. Cuyahoga Falls: 41.5 8. Hilliard: 40.83 9. Barberton: 40.33 10. Dublin: 39.5 Top 10 Most Car Centric Commuting Cities in 2022 1. Brunswick: 45.83 2. Fairfield/Perrysburg: 40.83 3. Xenia: 40.67 4. Green/Hilliard: 40.17 5. Middletown/North Royalton: 39.5 6. Mentor: 38.67 7. Beavercreek: 38.5 8. Stow: 38.17 9. Barberton/Medina: 37.83 10. Elyria: 36.67

Biked 2010 Best 1. Bowling Green: 1.77% 2. Findlay: 1.05% 3. Sandusky: 0.99% 4. Cleveland Heights: 0.96% 5. Avon Lake: 0.75% 2022 Best 1. Cleveland Heights: 1.64% 2. Troy: 1.19% 3. Wooster: 0.77% 4. Bowling Green: 0.76% 5. Xenia: 0.75% 2010 Worst 1. Springfield/Green/Barberton/North Ridgeville/Huber Heights: 0.0% 2. Reynoldsburg: 0.01% 3. Parma/Youngstown: 0.03% 4. Stow: 0.05% 5. Massillon: 0.06% 2022 Worst 1. North Royalton/Marion/Garfield Heights/Lorain/Brunswick/Hilliard/Gahanna/Mansfield/Cuyahoga Falls/Dublin/Parma/Barberton/Green: 0.0% 2. North Ridgeville: 0.01% 3. Huber Heights: 0.03% 4. Springfield: 0.04% 5. Reynoldsburg/Westlake/North Olmsted: 0.05% Top 5 Best % Point Changes 2010-2022 1. Troy: +0.95 2. Cleveland Heights: +0.68 3. Xenia: +0.52 4. Wooster: +0.43 5. Lancaster: +0.35 Top 5 Worst % Point Changes 1. Bowling Green: -1.01 2. Sandusky: -0.89 3. Avon Lake: -0.68 4. Findlay: -0.58 5. Newark: -0.56 Avg Biked Change of all 62 Cities: -0.03 Walked 2010 Best 1. Bowling Green: 17.24% 2. Kent: 10.97% 3. Wooster: 7.41% 4. Dayton: 6.79% 5. Cincinnati: 5.29% 2022 Best 1. Bowling Green: 9.155 2. Kent: 8.22% 3. Wooster: 7.24% 4. Dayton: 6.05% 5. Cincinnati: 5.31% 2010 Worst 1. North Ridgeville/Huber Heights: 0.29% 2. Green: 0.36% 3. Mason: 0.43% 4. Dublin: 0.52% 5. Perrysburg: 0.6% 2022 Worst 1. Hilliard: 0.12% 2. Brunswick: 0.22% 3. Mason: 0.49% 4. Perrysburg: 0.5% 5. Dublin: 0.59% Top 5 Best % Point Changes 2010-2022 1. North Ridgeville: +1.51 2. Newark: +1.01 3. Warren: +0.9 4. Delaware: +0.89 5. Green: +0.87 Top 5 Worst % Point Changes 1. Bowling Green: -8.09 2. Fairborn: -3.46 3. Kent: -2.75 4. Barberton: -2.02 5. Canton: -1.82 Avg Walked Change of all 62 Cities: -0.47 Worked From Home 2010 Best 1. Upper Arlington: 7.85% 2. Dublin: 7.41% 3. Gahanna: 5.95% 4. Shaker Heights: 5.79% 5. Westerville: 5.75% 2022 Best 1. Dublin: 23.42% 2. Westerville: 21.92% 3. Upper Arlington: 21.47% 4. Marysville: 19.45% 5. Mason: 19.38% 2010 Worst 1. Xenia: 1.08% 2. Massillon: 1.12% 3. Barberton: 1.22% 4. Lima: 1.34% 5. Fairborn: 1.39% 2022 Worst 1. Sandusky: 1.54% 2. Lima: 3.38% 3. Marion: 3.66% 4. Elyria: 3.67% 5. Xenia: 3.98% Top 5 Best % Point Changes 2010-2022 1. Marysville: +17.02 2. Westerville: +16.17 3. Dublin: +16.01 4. Mason: +14.66 5. Westlake: +13.88 Top 5 Worst % Point Changes 1. Sandusky: -1.28 2. Marion: +0.96 3. Elyria: +1.57 4. Warren: +1.75 5. Lima: +2.04 Avg WFH Change of all 62 Cities: +7.16 Covid clearly affected commuting methods, with the most significant reductions in public transit usage. Still, because of a large increase in WFH, the overall % of commuters driving alone also dropped significantly.

For the rest, I will just do top 5. Carpooled 2010 Best 1. Lorain: 13.34% 2. Springfield: 12.85% 3. Marysville: 12.2% 4. Canton: 11.92% 5. Hamilton: 11.44% 2022 Best 1. Springfield: 13.38% 2. Marion: 12.81% 3. Lorain: 12.57% 4. Hamilton: 12.24% 5. Mansfield: 11.86% 2010 Worst 1. Dublin: 4.19% 2. Stow: 4.46% 3. Avon Lake: 4.79% 4. Cuyahoga Falls: 5.01% 5. Upper Arlington: 5.04% 2022 Worst 1. Green: 2.84% 2. Upper Arlington: 3.78% 3. Westerville: 3.84% 4. Avon Lake: 4.05% 5. Hilliard: 4.08% Top 5 Best % Point Changes 2010-2022 1. Cuyahoga Falls: +2.81 2. Akron: +2.8 3. Lima: +2.39 4. Marion: +1.92 5. Youngstown: +1.83 Top 5 Worst % Point Changes 1. Marysville: -7.74 2. Canton: -4.34 3. Bowling Green: -3.74 4. Xenia: -3.46 5. Massillon: -3.12 Avg Carpooled Change of all 62 Cities: -0.72 Public Transit 2010 Best 1. Cleveland: 12.0% 2. Cincinnati: 9.67% 3. Euclid: 8.6% 4. Lakewood: 7.83% 5. Shaker Heights: 7.73% 2022 Best 1. Cleveland: 7.55% 2. Cincinnati: 5.94% 3. Euclid: 5.53% 4. Dayton: 5.04% 5. Shaker Heights: 4.73% 2010 Worst 1. Perrysburg: 0.0% 2. Findlay: 0.1% 3. Lancaster: 0.11% 4. Marion: 0.12% 5. Marysville: 0.15% 2022 Worst 1. Wooster: 0.0% 2. Perrysburg: 0.06% 3. Marysville: 0.1% 4. Fairfield: 0.11% 5. Medina: 0.13% Top 5 Best % Point Changes 2010-2022 1. Warren: +1.08 2. Lima: +0.91 3. Youngstown: +0.75 4. Marion: +0.74 5. Fairborn: +0.57 Top 5 Worst % Point Changes 1. Lakewood: -5.27 2. Cleveland: -4.45 3. Cincinnati: -3.73 4. Cleveland Heights: -3.7 5. Euclid: -3.07 Avg Public Transit Change of all 62 Cities: -0.66

I don't know where to put this, so... I recently looked at commuting data for all Ohio cities with populations of 25K or more. Specifically, I was interested in how the means of commuting in these cities had changed between 2010 and 2022, the latest year available for the data. I compared the following categories: Drove Alone, Carpooled, Public Transit, Biked, Walked and Work From Home. There's an additional "other" category, but it's mostly insignificant and doesn't really affect the data too much, so I didn't bother with it. Top 15 Best and Worst Cities for Drove Alone as a Share of Total Commuters 2010 Best 1. Bowling Green: 67.25% 2. Cleveland: 69.53% 3. Cincinnati: 71.09% 4. Dayton: 73.32% 5. Cleveland Heights: 74.43% 6. Kent: 75.27% 7. Wooster: 75.45% 8. Shaker Heights: 76.78% 9. Lakewod: 76.95% 10. Springfield: 77.52% 11. Canton: 78.32% 12. Youngstown: 78.48% 13. Euclid: 78.9% 14. Sandusky: 80.04% 15. Columbus: 80.76% Best 2022 1. Cleveland: 66.76% 2. Cincinnati: 67.35% 3. Kent: 67.6% 4. Cleveland Heights: 68.23% 5. Westerville: 70.06% 6. Dayton: 70.35% 7. Shaker Heights: 71.09% 8. Dublin: 71.58% 9. Lakewood: 71.92% 10. Columbus: 71.94% 11. Upper Arlington: 72.43% 12. Youngstown: 72.71% 13. Wooster: 72.77% 14. Mason: 73.26% 15. Euclid: 73.39% 2010 Worst 1. Avon Lake: 89.85% 2. Stow: 89.59% 3. Cuyahoga Falls: 89.56% 4. Beavercreek: 89.2% 5. Green: 89.05% 6. North Ridgeville: 88.97% 7. Perrysburg: 88.2% 8. Hilliard: 87.9% 9. Brunswick: 87.84% 10. Mentor: 87.81% 11. Huber Heights: 87.43% 12. North Olmsted: 87.18% 13. Barberton: 87.0% 14. Parma: 86.63% 15. Mason: 86.51% 2022 Worst 1. Xenia: 87.68% 2. Brunswick: 83.99% 3. Middletown: 83.77% 4. Garfield Heights: 83.59% 5. Barberton: 83.51% 6. Fairfield: 82.75% 7. Green/Elyria: 82.61% 8. Mentor: 82.37% 9. North Royalton: 82.08% 10. Sandusky: 81.89% 11. Huber Heights: 81.67% 12. Kettering: 81.6% 13. Fairborn/Medina: 81.16% 14. Findlay: 80.8% 15. Mansfield: 80.74% Top 5 Best % Point Changes 2010-2022 1. Dublin: -14.91 2. Westerville: -14.3 3. Mason: -13.25 4. Avon Lake: -12.14 5. Upper Arlington: -11.39 Top 5 Worst % Point Changes 2010-2022 1. Bowling Green: +7.76 2. Xenia: +2.28 3. Sandusky: +1.85 4. Canton: +0.9 5. Garfield Heights: +0.39 Avg Drove Alone Change of all 62 Cities: -5.58

Since it wasn't taking up any metro park land, any objections were misguided at best, and ultimately I don't think that's what caused the change.

Never been a bigger bait and switch project than this. Massive high-rise project to low-density, terribly-designed suburbia.

Wait, *that* is the layout? Another spectacular waste of space. It's a bit contradictory for city officials to keep claiming there's a huge housing crisis that has to be addressed and then continuously rubber stamps every proposal that uses like 50% of their sites for surface parking and useless green space setbacks. I don't think the new zoning codes are going to fix things like this. It's not a zoning issue, it's a zero standards issue.

Ohio State itself has literally wiped out perhaps hundreds of homes over the last several decades, and many more were demolished by 1960s-1980s-era horrifically plain apartment buildings. Most of those latter demolitions were just 1-2 houses a pop, but they definitely added up. I'm all for densifying these areas where possible- vacant lots or otherwise replacing said existing mid-century crap, for example- but I don't like the idea of just continuously tearing down the original buildings everytime someone has a proposal. I generally hate these commissions because they're always so anti-density, but not in this case. I'm tired of Columbus losing its historic fabric because developers are too lazy or cheap, or when the city gets lobbied that a building is somehow an "imminent" community hazard.

You should be. We should strive to have a city of architectural heritage and interest beyond cookie cutter 5 over 1s. We should be able to see the potential of these buildings beyond their current state. Look at what happened to the old power plant in the Arena District. Adaptive reuse should always be the first option before demolition is ever considered. You may not particularly like the building as it is now, but do you think it has less potential value than the featureless parking garage that may replace it, especially where there are already multiple other ones within a block?

There is no probably about it, it could absolutely happen that way in some form with the space they have even with the existing building. Demolition is lazy, and the building itself does not stand in the way of either proposed project with the right layout. I am not overestimating the southern lot size. It is larger than the Goodale Garage site, which again is like 700 spaces, well over 100 more than what is being proposed. But this is not really an argument of what could be done or what should be done, but whether the city will once again roll over and just allow whatever is being proposed. God forbid Columbus maintain more than a handful of its old buildings and incorporate them into architecurally interesting projects. Here is the basic layout I was just talking about. Red is the 15-story, Green is the parking garage, yellow is the patio/outdoor event space, Orange is the SW building, Pink is the Broad entrance and Black are garage entrances.

The Goodale parking garage is what, 6-7 levels with like 700 spaces, and it takes up just 0.8 acres, which would be less than 1/3rd of the SW site. 250 High is 12 stories and takes up only about 0.7 acres. The parking lots in front of and behind the SW building are both larger than either of those sites, at about 0.9 acres each. You could actually wrap part of a 15-story around part of the SW building and get a full acre or more, which would be larger, again, than the adjacent 12-story site for Gravity 2.0. Here's a pretty easy site plan: -Use the front parking lot and part of the west parking lot for a 1-acre plot for the 15-story. This building would have retail-restaurant-bar space along Broad. -A Broad Street auto entrance would go on the east side along the railroad tracks leading to the back where the large parking garage could go. The garage would have access from both Broad and State. -There is actually enough room in the large State Street lot to even build housing or retail to hide the garage behind it, thereby activating that section of State Street. -Furthermore, I believe the tunnel under the railroad tracks still exists, which would connect the Peninsula garage to this site as well, providing potential for even more accessible parking. -The SW building would be fully renovated into event, restaurant or bar space. Perhaps even some kind of West Side market, with the remaining west side parking lot be converted into a large patio/bar area similar to what they did at Jackie O's. Some of you are really underestimating the size of this site and the obvious potential. There is no reason the warehouse building must be torn down, and if anything, keeping and renovating it would create an asset.

Why do affordable housing projects all basically look like the majority of market-rate or "luxury" apartments being built? Or better question, why do all the "luxury" projects look like affordable housing at luxury prices?

Exactly. The SW site is about 3 acres, like 2/3rds the footprint size of the old City Center garage. Look at the size of 250 High in comparison. As I said before, that's more than big enough for a 15-story, garage and the existing building. This seems like another completely unnecessary demolition.

This is not a legitimate debate. This is about a bunch of people who are weirded out that trans people exist trying to justify why they should be discriminated against and refused medical care. You act like "many people are saying" lends some legitimacy to your position, but it doesn't. This isn't a high school popularity contest. The questions you think are important have already been answered by people who know better. As I told Yabo, the existing system in place to handle people with gender dysphoria is not broken, is well-established, and it functions as intended. Kids with gender dysphoria are not getting handed out sex changes and they're not making decisions by themselves without professional and parental involvement. You think a bunch of random people who have no idea what they're talking about should have the right to step into all of that, inject their ignorance and make an already difficult situation even worse. I'm definitely going to have to continue to disagree with that. There is no legitimate debate to be had about how much you and people like you are hurting these people. We're talking about the US. For example, in your articles, one of the changes being implemented was more psychological care before the use of hormones. That's already done in the US. It sounds like parts of Europe are just getting closer to the system the US has long had, which again, functions extremely well. They are not, however, questioning the entire use of gender-affirming care for minors and young adults. The concensus is that gender-affirming care works, and polling of people who have received this care has consistently been overwhelmingly positive on the results. The only question is sometimes exactly what that care should entail on a case-by-case basis. The US system is very good at determing that. So no, these links do not support your case for bans, and none of the countries in question have banned gender-affirming care in the way that Republicans have or have promoted. Again, the question is not about whether gender-affirming care works- it does- but exactly what that looks like for each individual and whether some nations- again, not the US- don't have enough checks in their own systems to ensure the best possible care and outcomes. Except your own supposed evidence doesn't support the Republican position, so maybe you should go back to the drawing board on how you can justify harming trans people. There are legitimate parts of all this that can be debated, but not whether gender-affirming care itself should be banned. The World Athletics Council are not medical professionals. They are, like most people, simply reacting to political and social pressure from people who don't have any real understanding of the issue. First of all, there are very few trans athletes to begin with. In Ohio, I believe only 7 exist in middle or high school sports this season. Most schools and many districts have never had a single one, and it's not much more common at the professional level. Second, the few trans that exist in sports lose all the time in competitions. We hear all the time about when they win because that feeds into the narrative of competitions and the dreams of cis girls being destroyed left and right by the trans cabal, but trans women also just regularly lose. Third, the entire concept of "competitive advantage" is arbitrarily applied to begin with. Even among the cis population, there can be and are vast physical differences between individual competitors. Men can beat women, women can beat men. There was just a video that anti-trans people hated showing a professional female athlete easily beating a man in a race. Michael Phelps had a body that was much more physically built for swimming than his competitors, and he certainly was incredibly dominant. No one cared, but Leia Thomas has become the demon of women's swimming and part of the rallying cry against trans competitors. How we view competitive advantage is incredibly biased against trans people. If they don't lose 100% of the time, it means that they're destroying the sport, but we revere every cis athlete who far exceeded their own competitors. People being terrible and discriminatory against a minority is hardly new territory, especially on the conservative side of things. I expect that, in the future, this will be viewed no differently from all the other forms of bigotry you all once championed- well, still do in most cases. You say you haven't advocated for bans, but you sure do spend a lot of time arguing with me and others in favor of them and defending them from criticism, so forgive me if I think this is some classic gaslighting from you. Minors aren't making these decisions. How many times does this need to be repeated for you to stop making this dishonest argument? Minors are not walking into clinics demanding hormones and surgeries. They cannot even if they wanted to. No one is suggesting they should be allowed to do this, and that's not how the existing system works to handle gender dysphoria cases. The fact that you continuously engage in this type of false reality despite repeatedly being corrected just shows me you're not arguing in good faith. There is no common ground here and there will not ever be any common ground so long as you continue to peddle discrimination under the guise of reasonable debate. You always trot out this stuff about "just trying to understand", but I've seen this way too many times to know how disingenuous it really is. Reason would support a system that allows parents and medical professionals to make decisions on what is best for a child with gender dysphoria, not the ignorant views of politicians or the public. Until you can understand that, we have nothing to agree on.

I can't reason you out of a position you didn't reason yourself into. If you don't think bans on medical treatments, for example, isn't an attack on the rights of privacy, choice and life, liberty and happiness, there's nothing I could say to convince you.

Always so many words to basically let us know you don't know what you're talking about and are pulling false realities out of thin air to compensate for that ignorance. I don't think there's a single thing you said that is supportable. They are merely things you and a lot of other people believe. I'm not sure it would matter if you did know what you were talking about, though, because you will always defend the indefensible when it comes to the Right.

Nah, it's not just my opinion. Bans on the affective treatment of a real medical condition is actively harmful and we know exactly how. Bans on people from participating in social activities because of that condition is tangibly cruel. The people that support this, that make excuses for it, are not good people.