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 The developer rescinded their version of plan for adding affordable apartments on top as their deeper research showed it not be profItable; therefore, it was never an option that OCC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.

Actually, I think it’s an educated opinion. I’m a PhD Data Science guy, an active community council member for past 20 months, and was very active in the master plan process going back an additional year. So part of what I could contribute is bringing the applicable data to the table so it could help form better decisions and more proactive thinking. I’m very familiar with the tracts, the differences with community council boundaries vs statistical ones, etc. The city has never been able to reconcile that 2010 number when I ask about it. The point that you and others are missing is: - There 52 neighborhoods in the city, why must the burden fall on Oakley? - We’re not anti-growth, as evidenced by the number of developments and residents that have been added in past decade - We prefer that the growth include more owners vs renters to help get a more balanced ratio. Our challenge is to manage the growth while trying to maintain the character & identity that make it a community that people want to be part of. At some point things like walk-ability, pedestrian safety, ability of small local businesses to compete with national chains, traffic congestion are negatively impacted with uncontrolled growth. Long term community viability requires a better balance of owners vs renters. This is not a hate of renters - I rent, as does our council president - but reality is most renters aren’t as invested in the neighborhood as owners are.

Well, as a volunteer member of the Oakley Community Council, my obligation Is to represent the community to the city. In that capacity, In the final analysis the opinions of actual residents and business owners do carry heavier weight than outsiders. That doesn’t mean we don’t consider outside opinions when issues are being discussed, but in the end we’re the voice of the community.

Your opinion, which is fine, but unless you’re an Oakley resident or business owner then it’s not really taken into consideration.

Yes, the first diagram is the latest that Neyer has shared/presented publicly to the community. The one included in the packet is more detailed and is the result of a series of meetings with various city departments. Things like width of streets, sidewalks, emergency/sanitation access, utilities placements, etc. are in the latest. Neyer is scheduled to present at the next public OCC meeting and I’d assume they will have updated plans to share.

Actually, the 2010 census number for Oakley 45209 is 9605. The latest ACS estimates are only thru end of 2018 (and are lower than actual), do not include 2019 growth, nor the projected impact of the numerous developments in process right now. My estimates puts total at closer to 13,700. Time will tell what the 2020 census counts show us - our tract that is predominantly rental properties is lagging in its response rate.

We’ve accepted plenty of growth already - at least +3200 since 2010. It’s not our responsibility to carry the burden for the rest of the city, especially not at the risk of destroying our neighborhood in the process. We will continue to push for more owner occupied over rentals, as that the very clearly stated will of the community. If the city wants to increase its population, it needs to invest in other neighborhoods to make them attractive options.

We can only control we we have responsibility for.

Actually, Millworks would have still been predominantly commercial/retail, but would have used existing buildings and would have been a much more enjoyable (and walkable) experience.

Understand, I was just providing input that the layout - specifically as it relates to the “g” and “t” sections - could be changing. And a pedestrian tunnel from end of 34th to Oakley Station is being investigated. The community goal, as outlined in the master plan, is to reduce the gap in rental vs. owner occupied %, so more single family and owner occupied properties the better. We’ve already added considerably to the city population, let other neighborhoods do their share.

The mix of multi-family and single family may change, so the internal development plan could change before it gets to the city for final approvals. Neyer is now saying 65-100 single family units vs. just 65 previously, but there has been no formal presentation to community council nor official confirmation that they are in fact upping the number for this section. My speculation only: they getting more interest in single family from potential development partners and buyer inquiries. This would not be a bad thing IMHO.