DEPACincy

This is right. The "gang of 5" stuff was a fake controversy ginned up by Jason Williams and others to get clicks. No one ever really cared and it wasn't that big of a deal. Plus, most of the last council is gone anyway. Landsman is the only one left (and was the second highest vote getter, further proving the texting controversy was stupid). Fact of the matter is that things are going well in Cincinnati. The city is on the rise. And the Democratic slate was fine. No one on the new council is going to blow up the progress, and in fact, several of them are capable of really accelerating it. Some people preferred Aftab and some preferred Mann but neither outcome was going to be insanely bad. So people just were not motivated. And that's fine.

This is correct. New map includes the whole city and is actually a 51-48 Biden win. Would be hard for GOP to hold on to that district for the whole decade if trends continue. It's still a sh*tty map.

Even hotter take: They are probably happier with Liz Keating on council than Dillingham. She has a reputation for being horrible to work with. Liz is a moderate who has a lot of the same policy goals as people like Landsman and Kearney.

I think that the last few elections, including Presidential elections indicate that the answer to this question is Yes. And it's not just a trend here, but across the country. The GOP is now a toxic brand in urban neighborhoods.

I'll take my trophy.

I'm surprised so many people think Betsy is such a sure thing. I really don't see her winning. There just aren't that many Republicans left in the city and the ones who do exist are more likely to be the Keating/Goodin type than the Sundermann/Trump type.

Oh interesting. I didn't even know. I always park in the northern part.

Do you think so? There's regularly ample street parking available along the roadways inside Burnett Woods. I would never park in a garage when I could just park on the street for free.

Isn't the outside just a skin? The structure is fine for residential. They'll just strip the façade and it'll look completely different.

It's a large base. They could probably put two slender towers on opposite sides. One facing Vine and one facing Race.

I mean in a dedicated lane, separated from traffic. It would still interact with traffic at intersections but you can have an on-coming train automatically trigger a green light, so travel times would be similar to completely grade-separated light rail.

There is actually right-of-way for most of the lines in the Metro Moves plan I think. But also, you could run it up the middle of any of our overly wide streets. Like the purple line could just go right up Central Parkway in the center if you reduce it to one car lane in each direction.

Very crude. But black line represents what Cincinnati could do. Brown line represents what could get built with Covington and Newport on board.

This is correct. OKI is not making the decisions. The transit authorities and the city make the decisions. OKI only comes into play if they apply for federal dollars from OKI. And I have no doubt that they would be awarded the money if they had a real plan in place to make it happen.

This has actually been discussed extensively here. The most recent conversation was not about total migration but migration of higher income, higher education workers. A category that many refer to as "high skilled", though I don't like that term. And also discussed here many times is the fact that research indicates taxes have very little to do with people's decisions on where to move. Lower income folks tend to move based on family connections mostly. People with more money and education tend to move based on amenities (and yes one of those is weather). But political culture is also an amenity. And policy decisions have a ripple effect on amenities. Like, if City A invests in a robust public transit system and City B is focusing instead on banning abortion.

Gordon and Cramerding seem to get it, in my opinion. They say all the right things regarding car dependency, density, ped safety, and public transit. My sleeper is Liz Keating. I haven't voted for an R in over a decade but she could be it. She is all in on density and ped safety. She is behind the ordinance eliminating density requirements and she also wants to reduce setbacks, decrease minimum lot sizes, and push to allow small multi-family buildings in single-family zones. Edit to add: I like Tarbell but I think he is 80? As a general rule, I'd rather someone younger get a chance to lead.

This is a bunch of gobbledygook and I actually have no idea what you are trying to say, but I guess I'll try to respond: We were talking about people choosing to move to Ohio. I already explained to you why income and education were meaningful indicators. I have zero idea what you are trying to get at. My parents are both auto workers with a high school education. They are the most wonderful people with the highest "worth" I know. But they aren't likely moving anywhere, because like other people in their socioeconomic group they are highly tied to place. Stating this is not elitist. It is just a fact. I used BLS data. And no I did not change it from $89k to $83k. I have no idea where you got that idea. And you're the one who tried to make some weird point about gender studies majors working as baristas. I simply pointed out your bias. As far as benefit to society, are you saying that gender studies majors do not benefit society? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. Umm, what? I actually never see this. Do you? As a society we push STEM from a very young age. Our entire K-12 curriculum is built around it. Colleges invest in those degree programs much more heavily too. Many colleges don't even have a gender studies program, and among ones that do it is usually a very small department. I feel like you're living in some weird alternate "super woke" reality. The entire conversation was about policies that would make people CHOOSE not to move to Ohio. Are we actually talking about something else? I read this five times and I still have no idea what point you are trying to make. On that we can agree.

So their maximum median, gussied up with trees and a path down the middle, would look something like this...

I believe it is a continuation of the previous survey plan.

Retirees to Florida. Low wage workers to Texas. I'm not doing this at all. I'm just stating a fact about migration. The original conversation was about policies to attract folks with a choice. Those folks tend to be higher income/high education. We need workers at the lower end of the income spectrum (although we should pay them more!) but we also need workers with higher levels of education. It's the latter that we are lacking in Ohio. Refugees does not necessarily mean low income, to start. But we should accept refugees because it is the right thing to do, not just because it increases our population. In the realm of immigration generally, immigrants in Ohio tend to be more highly educated than native born citizens. Degrees are a good proxy for people with a choice on where they are going to live. It is well-established in demography and economics that people with degrees move more, and are more likely to move to places they want to move. They have more choices. So it is a good proxy on where people with choice want to live to see what the percentage of residents is with a degree. Electricians are important, and it is a trade that pays well. But every state has a similar number of electricians per capita and they don't move around a lot. So it isn't really relevant to this conversation. It is revealing that you are accusing me of elitism and you just couldn't help but make a crack at gender studies majors by using a tired stereotype. In fact, the average annual wage for people with a gender studies degree is $83k. The average annual wage for electricians is $59k, by the way. And just to further this point, I provided data on median household income as well, so I'm not sure why you ignored that?

Does it? If you dig into who is moving to places like Texas and Florida it is mostly retirees and low wage workers. California, for example, has net positive migration from Texas among folks with advanced degrees and folks making six figures. And here's the list of states with the highest percentage of residents with a bachelor's degree or higher, color coded by 2020 election vote: Washington Mass Colorado New Jersey Maryland Connecticut Virginia Vermont New York New Hampshire And here's the bottom 10, starting with 50: West Virginia Mississippi Arkansas Louisiana Kentucky Nevada Oklahoma Alabama Indiana New Mexico Now the top ten in median household income: Maryland New Jersey Hawaii Mass Connecticut California New Hampshire Alaska Washington And the bottom ten, starting with 50: West Virginia Mississippi Arkansas New Mexico Louisiana Alabama Kentucky Oklahoma South Carolina Tennessee

To be clear, this is a couple of GOP legislators who support legalization. But no way would it get through the Republican-controlled legislature. Those two are very much in the minority.

It is a fact that young people tend to be more liberal, especially socially. It is also a fact that highly educated Americans are increasingly identifying with the Democratic Party because of the GOP's backward social policies and rhetoric. So it stands to reason that the Ohio GOP's far right turn and ridiculous culture war bills are going to do nothing but repel young, highly educated workers and business people.

Unelected politicians?

Yea, Maryland has A LOT of unincorporated areas because they don't have townships and they have a strong county government. I don't think it causes confusion though. When most people are looking to relocate they don't really pay attention what kind of municipality it is (or whether it is one at all). The CDP designation is just so there is a relatively uniform way to compare data. More confusing is the different types of municipalities in each state. Pennsylvania "boroughs," Ohio "villages," New England "towns," etc.