jag09

https://mtgis-portal.geo.census.gov/arcgis/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=2566121a73de463995ed2b2fd7ff6eb7 try this

they have the 2029 data here https://mtgis-portal.geo.census.gov/arcgis/apps/MapSeries/index.html?

And the 2020 data has Oakley at 12,556. Factor in @1000/1100 new additions for approved developments and you get pretty close to my 13,700 number. Huh, maybe I actually have a clue what I’m talking about…

Some inaccurate and/or poster’s opinion being stated as fact. The developer rescinded their version of plan for adding affordable apartments on top as their deeper research showed it not be profItable; therefore, it was never an option that OCC could vote on, nor was any residential an option. The Oakley Master plan is a guide, and what is intended is a desire to close the gap between % owned & % rental. OCC decisions show that multi-family and density both have been supported when it was reasonable. And ownership and/or single family can be more than SF zoned lots, as many of the new developments are single family attached, putting more units on single lots. The plan also urges minimizing commercial creep into residential areas, but in this situation that was overridden by several factors: DCED/city development of Kennedy connector & subsequent sale of city property to CinFed and hubbard radio, and unanimous desire of all the homeowners be able to sell & get fair compensation. The city actions made this section a bit of an island, limiting homeowners ability to sell for fair compensation on their own.

Actually 2/3x more expensive

Where?

It’s still considered active by the railroad, no interest in selling nor discussing it.

DOTE required it, not sure why.

Well you have all the answers, no need to even try to engage you further. You simply twist what I say, and discount the fact that i actually work with all the Oakley related data from numerous sources.

We don't have any type of community redevelopment corp or business group that actively seeks out investors/developers. The rising property values present a cost of entry that is too high for most of those developers who work in the "affordable" housing space, so they don't consider Oakley. They look to College Hill, Walnut Hills, Madisonville - all who have active redevelopment entities working to attract such developers. Most grant programs steer such efforts to neighborhoods that are deemed to be in more urgent need.

We're not anti-renters - I rent as does our council president. We have tried very hard to get those who rent in Oakley to engage, get involved, participate so their voice can be heard too. Multiple emails, providing flyers at rental offices, welcome emails for new renters, annual mailings to all physical addresses. Crickets. A few do engage, but >95% do not. That tract's census response rate is currently < 50%, despite targeted efforts by us & Greater Cincy Counts to reach them and encourage participation. And part of the reason to attempt to get them engaged is exactly what you stated - allow them to see what we have to offer with the hope they will decide to purchase here at some pint down the road. But there also value in trying to promote more home ownership here. You may not agree, but Oakley not really an urban core area, has long had a good mix of rentals and owned. Just want to maintain that were possible. And have no issues with the rental units going into the Neyer development, but if they opt to increase single family housing I personally see that as s good thing. And there have been several here that have indeed said Oakley should focus more on the numbers we can add because the rest of the city needs it. Sorry, not going to happen.

I too am a taxpayer. But I'm not eligible to vote on issues in front of other neighborhood/community councils. I can voice my opinion, as can anyone regarding Oakley development. I'm specifically addressing votes that come before us in Oakley, and the opinions that matter at the end of the day are those who live in Oakley, own a business in Oakley, work in Oakley, or worship in Oakley.

I won’t argue any of that, predates my involvement. From what I’m told, most of Center of Cincinnati & Oakley Station was done in spite of community opposition.

How is it reasonable to expect one neighborhood to carry the brunt of burden for the whole community? It’s not like we’ve not grown, quite the opposite. I don’t think it’s unreasonable that we should want to be able to manage this growth while maintaining those things which made us attractive to begin with.