CRICKETS

So much public $. Sadly the elected did not use their leverage to protect the people, buildings, or neighborhood.

How do you all like that 'grass'?

Sorry for any confusion. No one is opposed to building housing. It's a question of priorities for PUBLIC INVESTMENT of very limited resources, like TIF. In this case, the CC opposed the use of TIF for this project because it isn't meeting the GREATEST need, which is housing affordable at lower incomes.

https://www.lisc.org/media/filer_public/b5/35/b5358818-59ac-47a2-bf1e-5c40405ff09f/housing_our_future_-_5-27-2020.pdf

Primary objection of those in the neighborhood opposing the TIF is that the rents are for 80% AMI and the research shows that that we don't NEED more of that - we have gaps at 55% AMI and below. The opposition was to city investment in housing that fails to meet the need!

From the Enquirer. To demolish or not to demolish? A timeline of the legal battle July 2021: Original request for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition and for new construction was heard and both were denied by the Cincinnati Historic Conservation Board (decision issued August 12, 2021). October 2021: The demolition denial was overturned by the Zoning Board of Appeals. December 2021: Neighbors appealed the zoning board’s decision to Hamilton County Common Pleas Court. February 2022: Property owner filed motion to dismiss the appeal for the opponents' lack of standing. May 2022: Historic Conservation Board denied a certificate of appropriateness for new construction again. August 2022: The hotel design by Luminaut was approved by the Historic Conservation Board in a 6-0 vote after being denied twice before (decision issued Oct. 5, 2022). October 2022: Court denied the motion to dismiss, concluding that the neighbors have legal standing to appeal a decision that would permit demolition on their historic street. Nov. 15: Demolition work began on the back portion of the building. Appellants informed the property owner and the city that they would be seeking a temporary restraining order the next morning. Nov. 16: The property owner received its demolition permit and immediately began demolishing the rear portion of the building. A temporary restraining order was issued against the developer to halt the demolition. Plaintiffs were required to deposit a temporary $100 bond with the clerk of courts. This was never paid. Dec. 1: The Hamilton County Common Pleas Court announced that it would extend the temporary restraining order by entering into an injunction on Monday, December 5, prohibiting the property owner from demolishing the building until a decision is reached in the case. Dec. 5: The court’s clerk emailed the injunction to the parties’ counsel, conditioned on the appellants depositing an $11,664 bond with the Clerk of Courts. Still, the initial $100 bond had not been paid, which was meant to make the new injunction effective through this date. Dec. 6: Demolition began at 12:20 p.m., the $11,664 temporary restraining order bond was paid by 12:55 p.m., and Moment ordered the demolition to stop around 1:10 p.m. The contractors left the site shortly after, leaving a demolished portion exposed to the elements until the next morning. Dec. 7: A tarp was placed over the hole in the building after a night of heavy rain.