DEPACincy

If Richard Cordray were Governor we'd still have Intel. But I agree that a far right guy like Renacci would have disastrous consequences for business in this state. I also agree Trump would've probably been re-elected if he was competent at managing the pandemic.

I live on a yield street as well. It's great.

I hope they mean two 10 foot travel lanes and two 10 foot parking lanes.

When a public company selects a site they always have to talk about how great the regulatory environment is. It's just to puff up the politicians and shareholders. It doesn't matter if it's true.

Urban Sites has a relationship with OTRCH and NEST has a lot on their plate already. They are really focused on the Stagecraft building right now, among other projects.

Those are just massings. They will have windows and some balconies.

The pastor is the one who created the dichotomous ultimatum. Sure, I'd love to have them stay. But if he's saying that the choice is the church or the building, of course I'll take the building. A church is just a collection of individuals. They come and go. They can recreate their community elsewhere if that's what they feel is the only choice.

Church or building? That's easy. Save the building.

This is true. But given the language of the opinion and O'Connor's concurrence I would bet that the congressional maps are going to be overturned as well.

I will note there are still tons of good deals to be had in other neighborhoods. You can buy a nice house in Northside, Westwood, or College Hill that would cost you $100k more in a similar Columbus neighborhood and $300k more in an east coast city.

At the same time, the A Tavola owners opened Taglio in OTR. I'd say there are more restaurants opening in OTR than closing. Pearl Star is amazing Meat and Three is awesome. The Empanada Box. The list goes on.

If I remember correctly, the Artistry was not trying to go after the top of the market. They should be a little more affordable.

I feel like there's more active developments right now than at any point since I moved here. In OTR, but also Downtown, Northside, Covington, Newport, Oakley, etc. The city feels like it's booming. I don't understand your sentiments at all.

It looks like this is almost all apartments and restaurants, where Liberty Center is heavy on retail.

I have to admit I've never been inside the Tri-County Mall. But comparing the aerial to the site plan, it looks like they are actually tearing down most of the mall? So not really a repurposing as much as a rebuilding/redeveloping.

It's not horrible. I think a wider median with a path down the middle would've been a lot better. You see a lot of people walking their dogs in the current median and it's not really wide enough to provide a good buffer. It also still has too many travel lanes and could use bumpouts. But overall, not horrible.

Tying the number of units to land area on top of all the other dimensional restrictions is really silly I think. What is the actual purpose of the regulation? It is just another way to limit density arbitrarily. I think we absolutely need to do a lot more, including eliminating single-family zoning, but this is a great start.

Yea, someone entered the map into DRA, which has 2020 data, and it showed 9-7 in a neutral year. So there's been a slight shift since they made that.

No. It wouldn't. The compact map ends up 10-6 in a neutral year but the data is old. Based on 2020 data it would be 9-7. Yes, it could possibly go 13-3 for Republicans in a really good year. But the 2010s real map is guaranteed 12-4 Republican every time and the new map is 13-2 in a neutral year and, at best, 11-4. Those are not natural outcomes. They are due to some of the worst gerrymandering in the country. You could generate a random map and 99 percent of the time it would be more proportional than what we got. That's deliberate.

Just to add to this: That 538 compact while following city/county borders map would be 9-7 in favor of Republicans in a neutral year if you analyzed it using the latest data. It has 16 districts instead of 15 because it's old. But the point still stands that it would actually reflect the make up of Ohio voters, which are about 55/45 Republican. So let's use the 538 map! If we all like it so much, let's go for it. But here's the problem. It's very similar to the map that was actually proposed by Dems here, and it was a non-starter for Republicans.

Lol, no that app actually proves what I'm saying! Forget the algorithmic map, because it doesn't make sense to draw districts that way. It's just a thought experiment. But look at the compact map that also follows county/city borders. That map has a Hamilton County district that looks almost exactly like the one that Dems proposed. Yes, it would be competitive still, but the 538 data is several years old now. It has moved left. It would be a Likely D district now. In other words, it would actually reflect the political makeup of Hamilton County voters. I'm not saying we should gerrymander Hamco for Ds. I'm saying we should create compact maps that follow communities of interest and city/county borders, because that's what the Ohio Constitution says we have to do. And Republicans in Ohio did not do that.

I'm still very confused. I didn't contradict anything you just said there. I'm very familiar with the PA 3rd district. I used to live there. Of course there are lots of D wasted votes. And yes, Republicans do have an advantage in these cases because of the Dem geography problem. I didn't say otherwise. But in the R gerrymanders we've seen around the country, there's a huge difference between the popular vote in states and the number of Republican seats. Far beyond what you'd see based on the natural advantage Republicans have. Just to stick to the same example, Dems do have a lot of wasted votes in Philly, but the PA map is still a 9-9 map in a roughly 50/50 state. Because having compact, fair districts will get you pretty close in most cases. The PA map, though, was not drawn by Republicans. It was drawn by the Supreme Court after they threw out the previous Republican gerrymander. Go look at how the districts were drawn before, and how they cracked Delaware, Montgomery, and Chester Counties to dilute Democratic votes. If Republicans love compact districts, why didn't they draw compact districts around Philly? The packed voters in Philly and then cracked the Dems in the surrounding counties. It comes down to this: Brutus et al. have argued that compact districts naturally favor Republicans and that's why we have such lopsided outcomes. That's not true. We have lopsided outcomes because of gerrymandering. We seem to all agree that compact districts are good, even if they would still favor Republicans just a tad because of Dem wasted votes in urban areas. So let's do that! But that's not what Republicans do when they have the power to draw the maps. They instead crack Democratic votes like they did in the PA map that was struck down.

I'm still confused. You are going to have to explain it to me like I'm five because I don't see where they made any of the points in the 538 article. They argued that compact districts would naturally favor Republicans. That's not true, and the 538 article actually confirms that. Dem voters are densely concentrated, but that's exactly why it is easy for the GOP to gerrymander by cracking them into many districts. See Hamilton County as an example. A compact district would be blue but they drew three ridiculous districts instead to dilute the population. The other thing they argued is that the VRA was considered when drawing Ohio's districts and that hurt Dems too. That is also not true. The people that drew the maps testified under oath that racial demographics were not considered at all. Also, there's really only one district in Ohio where it might come into play anyway. In no way do VRA considerations end in a 13-2 map like the one we got.

In what way have I argued against any of that? I think we might have a miscommunication here.

It's like you didn't even click the link directly above your post. If "concise, geographically sensible districts" benefit Republicans, how come they never draw them in states they control? How come the court-ordered compact map in Pennsylvania took the state from 13R-5D to 9R-9D?