DEPACincy

What are you trying to argue? We all know that OH cities rely heavily on income taxes. So do a lot of the large suburbs with big employers. It's a statewide thing. It doesn't provide any evidence that people will turn away from Cleveland.

No one is arguing that this won't hurt Cleveland's budget. It is true that municipal income taxes are particularly susceptible to downturns. But that's not the ONLY argument you're making. You're saying that this will make people turn away from the city long-term. That's where you lack evidence. We don't know yet, but the data we do have (yes, from Zillow, but also from other sources that have been shared on this site) seem to point to the opposite. There has been no change in trends when it comes to where people want to live. People are still looking for more urban locations, and they are looking for cheaper cities. Maybe that'll change. Maybe it won't. But you haven't provided any evidence to support your position that it will.

That's not evidence. It says realtors are noticing the trend and then provides zero evidence of the trend. Then they interview one person. It's all anecdotal. The actual data, provided by @Clefan98 from Zillow, shows that people looking for houses are looking for a place that is MORE urban than their current location. Which makes total sense to me. Lockdown has been fine for me. I can walk to parks, I can go get carryout, I have lots of neighbors that I can do socially-distanced hangouts with on our block. I have gotten in my car, on average, once every two weeks. It's been a beautiful silver lining in all of this craziness. But if I lived out in the country, or on a one acre suburban lot in a subdivision--I would imagine I'd be going crazy. Look, I don't know what the impact will be, and neither do you. Maybe people will flock to cities, maybe they'll abandon them. Probably, not much will change when it comes to people's choice of where to live. But all I'm saying is that, so far, there's no data indicating what you're claiming. Before the pandemic, people were looking for more urban locations, and that hasn't really changed yet.

We had one last year. We've been to a few over the past couple years. I feel like they are still a thing.

There's zero evidence this is true.

I'm not sure how you got that idea. I was simply responding to what you said. I hope you think about some of your preconceived notions about renters and density. That's all.

This is a good point, and one I was curious about myself. Why was no affordable housing included in the development? I'm all for ANY development, market rate or affordable. But so many of the new developments in other neighborhoods have a mix of both. Oakley is supposedly shouldering so much "burden" with this development. Why is the burden of providing affordable units falling on other neighborhoods? Has there been ANY affordable units developed in Oakley this decade? I can't think of any.

Well I'm a career urban planner and data analyst. I'm not sure how that, or your role, is relevant to the accuracy of ACS data. But that's a digression. I'm not sure what you mean by this. My point is that there is no burden. It is a blessing. I'd gladly take the development in Northside, but the kinds of people who want to live in Oakley are more likely to end up in Blue Ash than they are Northside. And if they end up in Blue Ash because we didn't build enough housing for them in Oakley, that is bad for the city. 1,500 residents? Yes, it's like going to be more over the whole decade, but not a ton more. That's hardly evidence of a pro-growth environment. The demand is there for many more. This is exactly the opposite of what you are trying to do. How would more apartments on this site, tucked away in the corner of the neighborhood, bordering railroad tracks and Oakley Station, detract from the "character & identity" of the community? I encourage you to seriously consider that statement. Would adding more apartments here make the community less walkable? No. The opposite actually. Would it make the community less safe for pedestrians. No. The opposite actually. Would it keep small local businesses from competing with national chains? No. The opposite, because there'll be more people to walk to the small businesses! Would it increase traffic congestion? No. Because people can walk to Oakley Square or Oakley Station if they live there, instead of driving to those places from other neighborhoods like they do now! Everything you claim to try to be doing with this attitude, you're actually doing the opposite. This is the absolute worst. Because, you say that this is not a hate of renters, but it's basically like saying "I'm not racist." If you have to say it, you probably are (and no it doesn't make a difference that you yourself are a renter). Why do "long term community viability" require a balance of owners and renters? You've provided no evidence of that. There are plenty of viable, thriving neighborhoods throughout this country. I've been in a million planning meetings where a councilperson, township trustee, or planning commission member asks if we could explore provisions to require owner-occupied units, or to ask a developer about the ownership plans for units and I say "ABSOLUTELY NOT." This concern about renters not being "invested" in the neighborhood is not only unfounded, but it is discriminatory.

I'm a Cincinnati taxpayer. Last I checked, Oakley is in Cincinnati.

The 45209 zip code and Oakley do not line up perfectly. I used the city's definition of Oakley, which is Census Tracts 52, 53.01, 53.02, and 54. That's just, like, your opinion. But it's all besides the point. More residents is good for the city, and if there is demand to live in Oakley, we should encourage it. I can't, for the life of me, fathom why you would want to limit the number of people living on this site. It's right next to a regional shopping destination. These people could live there and walk to it, or they could live in Northside, Norwood, Pleasant Ridge, etc. and just drive to it--which would add tons more traffic to Madison.

The population of Oakley is about 1,500 higher than it was in 2010. 2010: 10,429 Latest Estimate: 11,979

Why do you hate renters? Pretty intense to say that growth "destroys" a neighborhood. I'd gladly take thousands more residents in my neighborhood to support our business district, contribute to the tax base, and add to the street life.

Interesting. Thanks for the explainer. Though I'll say that the way the Dayton townships did it seems more common. All the cities and villages in Athens County also seem to still be a part of the townships surrounding them. It also looks like Hilliard is still a part of Norwitch Twp, Grove City is still a part of Jackson Twp, and Dublin is still a part of Washington Twp. Ditto for Delaware County townships. Here is a list of biggest population gains this decade in OH with townships included. Townships are highlighted: EDIT: It does appear that Deerfield Township excludes the City of Mason in these numbers. So maybe it's a Cincinnati/Southwest OH phenomenon to create paper townships and withdraw from the surrounding townships.

Yes, off-topic. I'll just say that the state house elections were basically 50/50 in 2018 and I expected Dems to win the state house vote in 2020. Although, since the state house is heavily gerrymandered, there will still be a clear Republican majority.

This is why Ohio is not a permanently red state, as some people now claim. Urban areas growing, rural areas shrinking.

That's true. Although, weirdly, Hamilton County townships don't seem to follow this rule. For example, Mt. Healthy, North College Hill, and Greenhills are incorporated cities within Springfield Twp. But their populations don't count toward Springfield Twps like they do in other counties. This always confused me.

Here is the 50k+ places in Ohio, with townships included. Townships are highlighted.

Townships aren't included. There's a separate category for "minor civil division" that includes townships. You can scroll down and select New Jersey. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-total-cities-and-towns.html

We bought our house in Northside, Cincinnati last summer. We put offers on two other houses in the neighborhood, above asking, and got outbid. We came in $10k above asking on the house we got. They had 5 offers on the first day it was on the market. Many of our neighbors are new Cincinnatians. Seems like a lot from California. We have multiple families who moved here from California just on our block.

It is probably the case for Lakewood that the new households are smaller than the old households. A wealthy, college-educated family comes in with their 1.5 kids and fixes up a house that used to house a family of 6. My neighborhood in Cincinnati (Northside) has seen its population drop over the past few years as the number of housing units has slowly increased. But the poverty rate dropped significantly over that same time period and the percentage of the population with a degree skyrocketed.

Is there any actual data that shows an explosion in thrift store shopping?

The Reinventing Metro plan is not evolving. It has been up on the website for months. BRT is still in there. It's not going anywhere. Just because he didn't mention it in this press release doesn't mean anything. He's talking about the most immediate changes. BRT was always going to be a few years down the road.

DOTE leadership is stuck in the stone age. But lots of folks at SORTA are very progressive and knowledgeable. However, the environment they operate in makes their jobs almost impossible. SORTA has been held back by a lack of funding, thanks to local, regional, and state politicians, for years. Once consumer spending returns and this money starts flowing in, everyone is going to be beyond impressed with how well SORTA performs.

There are actually lots of people in the business community who see the value in improved transit. The leadership at Kroger and P&G know it is necessary to attract top young talent. And there are folks like George Vincent who you wouldn't expect to be pro-transit but very much are. No doubt they are also happy about the lower earnings tax too. I'm actually surprised that the lower earnings tax wasn't a bigger part of the marketing for this. I talked to lots of folks in the city who didn't know that they would actually be getting a tax cut if this passed, even though they just voted on Issue 22. You have to spell these things out for people. Most are not paying attention. Issue 7 did poorly in a lot of burbs where lots of people are paying the earnings tax. It should've killed in those areas.

Not true. Even when they rolled it out they called it a "pre-BRT" demonstration project. They never said it was BRT as far as I can remember.