So Eighth and State says there is a trend of more young people buying homes in suburbs, but Uber says its not a trend because a trend involves changes over time.

 

Then he says that there is a DEFINITE trend of more people moving to OTR at the MOMENT.

 

I'm so confused, I guess changes over time really just means MOMENTS when it supports your argument!

 

I think the main point is: young people have been moving to the suburbs for decades, but not so much to OTR. Since moving to the suburbs isn't a "change" it's not exactly a trend. However, moving to OTR has become a bit of a trend.

 

Besides, how would you define "moment", in this context, DanB? It's not like it's only been a week or a month that people have been moving to OTR. Not to mention that the move to OTR is consistent with the more national trend which LiG pointed out.

So Eighth and State says there is a trend of more young people buying homes in suburbs, but Uber says its not a trend because a trend involves changes over time.

 

Then he says that there is a DEFINITE trend of more people moving to OTR at the MOMENT.

 

I'm so confused, I guess changes over time really just means MOMENTS when it supports your argument!

 

How simple semantics confuses you is beyond me. Luckily, he's gently explained it all for you.

Not to a belabor the point, but most professional young adults grew up in the suburbs, so their decision to live in the suburbs is not a particularly significant development, whereas population flows to the core represent a shift away from the last 60 years of demographics.

So Eighth and State says there is a trend of more young people buying homes in suburbs, but Uber says its not a trend because a trend involves changes over time.

 

Then he says that there is a DEFINITE trend of more people moving to OTR at the MOMENT.

 

I'm so confused, I guess changes over time really just means MOMENTS when it supports your argument!

 

How simple semantics confuses you is beyond me. Luckily, he's gently explained it all for you.

 

Just being sarcastic since he contradicted himself, but I realize you wouldn't understand that.

^How easy do you think it is to get large employers to simply move into the City?  Do you have any examples of this and can you show how this was a result of the 'pro-business' policies you listed above?

 

Also, the earnings tax is the only thing you listed that is unique to the City.  Good luck getting rid of that and keeping core services at the levels people want them.  The gravy train of state and federal subsidized greenfield development is slowly disintegrating.  I'd say your analysis is deviating from the clearly recognizable trends.

 

  ^---- I didn't say large employers. I said employers.

 

  I can give you two examples of employers who located OUTSIDE of the city specifically because of policies. Since this is the internet, I don't wish to reveal any names, but I will give you a reasonable detailed description.

 

  One firm that I worked for employed 35 people. They were located in a restored building constructed about 1870, not in Over-the-Rhine itself, but nearby. Proximity to the Hamilton County courthouse was a factor why they chose this location.

    Somewhere along the way, the City of Cincinnati decided to enforce a minority-business enterprise rule. The company began outsourcing printing operations to a certified minority business. The actual cost of this operation wasn't so bad, but the company had to track it to be certified, which is a totally unnecessary business expense.

    This wasn't the only reason why the company decided to leave, but it probably contributed. The company moved to a new building in a suburban location in a township.

 

    The second example is another firm where I worked. This firm was a new startup, and located in a strip mall in a suburban location in a township. When they outgrew their rented space, they moved to a larger rented space in a suburban commercial park. In their employee manual, they specifically pointed out that they chose a location that did not have an earnings tax. This firm employed 60 people.

 

 

  "Good luck getting rid of that and keeping core services at the levels people want them."

 

  Townships are doing quite well without the earnings tax. Why can't the City of Cincinnati? 

 

   

   

Townships are doing quite well without the earnings tax. Why can't the City of Cincinnati?

 

Because townships suck up residents and jobs that used to be, or would otherwise locate in, the city, while not providing the same level of services.  The people who want those services still go to the city to use them, but they don't pay for them.  The cities in this country would have much stronger finances if they hadn't been emptied out over the last 60 years while still having to provide the same sewer, road, fire, water, and other infrastructure, all while having to subsidize further road projects that only serve suburban commuters.  This is why the streetcar project is such a no-brainer, because it encourages development of areas that are already loaded with infrastructure that is woefully underutilized, and it's all within the city limits. 

"The people who want those services still go to the city to use them, but they don't pay for them."

 

Name one service that I go to the city to use and yet don't pay!

Procter and Gamble could have easily built the Mason Business Center within the city of Cincinnati limits.  In fact, when it was built, it wasn't even within Mason.

 

P&G is bringing 600 new jobs to Winton Hill.  Still within the city, but those jobs could easily have been located downtown.  I wonder why not?

Just being sarcastic since he contradicted himself, but I realize you wouldn't understand that.

 

You've been on this forum long enough to know what happens when someone decides it's okay to sass a Mod. Knock it off or have some time off.

City parks, museums, and other downtown attractions like stadiums, restaurants, Findlay Market, etc.  There's all the attendant services required to support those things, like road maintenance, plowing, police and fire protection that is paid for out of city funds.  Yes, some of those things do make money on their own regardless of who purchases their goods/services, but everything else necessary for their operation comes from the city tax base.  Think of all the roads Cincinnati has had to widen over the years to try to get suburbanites to come back into the city to work or play, while at the same time enabling them to move farther out.  In many cities the libraries would be another example, but that's not quite the case here since it's a countywide system. 

That's my point, my payroll taxes already pay for most of those things, the stadia are county owned, and the money we spend when we go downtown contributes to all of the things you mentioned.    Whom do you think supports the city tax base?  Every penny we spend goes to something that the businesses we frequent have to pay.  You act like the city is widening roads for suburbanites out of the goodness of the city leaders hearts.  Do you not think the county contributes through our property taxes?

People who neither live nor work in Cincinnati (and thus don't pay the payroll tax) still come downtown or to the UC area to get or do things they can't find where they live out in the suburbs.  Conversely, few people go to White Oak, Indian Hill, or Delhi because there's no reason to.  Parks are the best example because they don't have an admission fee and there's separate city and county park systems.  So anyone who goes to Eden Park or Ault Park or Mt. Airy Forest and lives in the suburbs is getting the benefits of those places while not having paid into them through property taxes and/or the payroll tax as much as city dwellers. 

 

Property taxes are the primary source of the city's funds for stuff like this.  I believe the payroll tax mostly funds Metro, but I could be wrong about that.  Yes, the stadiums are owned by the county, and the interstates by Ohio, but most roads in the city (or anywhere) are owned by the municipality and must be maintained 100% by them.  Money is wasted by governments simply "getting people into town" so they can spend money and generate tax revenue then leave again.  When those people don't live in the city, or work in the city either, that's a lot of effort for very little return. 

Money is wasted by governments simply "getting people into town" so they can spend money and generate tax revenue then leave again.  When those people don't live in the city, or work in the city either, that's a lot of effort for very little return. 

 

Wasted by generating funds?  That's funny.  Also, I don't think the city has a property tax.  That would be the county.  Again, for the most part, everytime a suburban resident comes into the city,  they spend money supporting SOMETHING within the city, and everybody benefits.  I'm sure the city wouldn't want it any other way.  They don't want us to spend our money elsewhere.

If you have to build/upgrade/widen a road, and roads are a lot more expensive than most people realize, to try to lure people into the city who might or might not spend money, and which is just as likely to encourage existing residents to move away, then it is a waste.  We had fewer roads and a privately operated and funded streetcar system in this city with some 200,000 more residents before the 1950s.  Now we have more and bigger roads, fewer residents, and proportionately higher tax burden.  You think that's a good thing? 

 

    "Now we have more and bigger roads, fewer residents, and proportionately higher tax burden."

 

  Agreed. Furthermore, the City of Cincinnati itself was responsible for a lot of those bigger roads.

 

    In 1930, for example, the streetcar system was starting to show some financial stress, but no one yet had any idea that the streetcar system would barely last 20 more years. In those days, the City of Cincinnati (not the feds, or the state, or the county) built the Western Hills Viaduct, Columbia Parkway, Central Parkway, and countless other highway projects that facilitated development in the suburbs.

 

    Perhaps more importantly, the City extended sewer and water utilities well outside of the core city.

 

    All of this happened before I was born. I can't change the past. We make mistakes, and we learn from them.

 

    Or do we? In addition to the complicated overlapping jurisdictions of the feds, state, county, library, parks systems, etc., the City of Cincinnati is STILL subsidizing development outside of the City of Cincinnati! Why do they do that?

 

    In my humble opinion, stopping subsidizing new development outside of the city, as well as stopping subsidizing social services for low-income people (the opposite of the demographic that we want) inside the city will do more for the city than the streetcar will.

^---- I didn't say large employers. I said employers.

 

  I can give you two examples of employers who located OUTSIDE of the city specifically because of policies. Since this is the internet, I don't wish to reveal any names, but I will give you a reasonable detailed description.

 

  One firm that I worked for employed 35 people. They were located in a restored building constructed about 1870, not in Over-the-Rhine itself, but nearby. Proximity to the Hamilton County courthouse was a factor why they chose this location.

Somewhere along the way, the City of Cincinnati decided to enforce a minority-business enterprise rule. The company began outsourcing printing operations to a certified minority business. The actual cost of this operation wasn't so bad, but the company had to track it to be certified, which is a totally unnecessary business expense.

This wasn't the only reason why the company decided to leave, but it probably contributed. The company moved to a new building in a suburban location in a township.

 

So your example is that you are assuming that this company decided to leave because of some city rule that says that your firm had to do business with a minority owned firm?  I don't understand your example and it seems illegal unless the firm was receiving contracts from the City government.

 

[quote author=Eighth and State link=topic=18957.msg489477#msg489477

The second example is another firm where I worked. This firm was a new startup, and located in a strip mall in a suburban location in a township. When they outgrew their rented space, they moved to a larger rented space in a suburban commercial park. In their employee manual, they specifically pointed out that they chose a location that did not have an earnings tax. This firm employed 60 people.

 

Jeff Jacucyk already laid out all the ways in which people can enjoy City of Cincinnati services without paying for them.  Your second example is one where the business is locating in a township simply to avoid paying any municipal taxes.  As I said before, this arrangement exists solely as a result of the post-War state and federal largesse and planning priorities, and this largesse, particularly on the state side, is slowly coming to an end.  The reason there as so many little municipalities in HamCo & Cuyahoga County is because these places were settled at a time when the only way to pay for local public goods was through incorporation.

 

[quote author=Eighth and State link=topic=18957.msg489477#msg489477

  "Good luck getting rid of that and keeping core services at the levels people want them."

 

  Townships are doing quite well without the earnings tax. Why can't the City of Cincinnati?

 

No, they aren't doing very well.  Lakota School District, in West Chester township, just put up a school levy that got crushed.  I understand that schools are funded differently than other typical municipal services, but this is the type of situation that is going to emerge in the suburbs more and more frequently.

 

Also, I don't think the city has a property tax. That would be the county.

 

The City has a property tax rate that I believe exists within a limit defined by the county.  The majority of property taxes generally go to pay for school systems, regardless of which district you live in.  But the City definitely has a property tax, otherwise they wouldn't be able to abate properties as an incentive for corporations or new construction, and they wouldn't be able to vote on that rollback they do every year (the county has a rollback as well).

 

Perhaps more importantly, the City extended sewer and water utilities well outside of the core city.

 

The city is making a lot of money (and I think it should) on these water and sewer charges.  I don't see it as a mistake.

 

 

  "You are assuming that this company decided to leave because of some city rule that says that your firm had to do business with a minority owned firm?"

 

  Certainly that wasn't the only factor. In addition, two employees's vehicles were damaged in the parking lot, the door was tagged, there was a prositute that hung around the front steps, the City did a terrible job of snow removal (it has since gotten better,) there were drug deals in the neighbhorhood regularly, employees were complaing of having to run up and down stairs all day, the building didn't lend itself to an office very well, the roof leaked, and there wasn't enough parking.

 

    Still, I can remember the day when the owner found out about the minority rule. "It has to be a CERTIFIED minority," he said, "otherwise it doesn't do us any good." I don't know the reason for the rule; all I know it that it made my job more difficult, and the owners weren't happy about it.

 

    Small cost? maybe, but still totally unnecessary. Suburban businesses don't have to put up with this stuff. 

 

    "Lakota just put up a school levy that got crushed."

 

    School levies are generally doing poorly everywhere. This make sense, since only one in four households has any children at all in them. In 1960, a lot of these suburban school districts had half of their population enrolled in school.

 

    Unincorporated Hamilton County is gaining residents and businesses, at the expense of the City of Cincinnati. How can you say that the suburbs are not doing very well?

>City of Cincinnati (not the feds, or the state, or the county) built the Western Hills Viaduct,

 

While the city did build many of the viaducts by itself (Liberty (wrecked), first 8th St., Hopple, Gilbert, Ludlow), the Western Hills Viaduct cost was split between The Union Terminal Company, the B&O, and the City.  This is how the city ended up owning this ridiculously large piece of infrastructure.  I believe the state built and still owns the second (existing) 8th St. Viaduct.  The Union Terminal Company built the Waldvogel Viaduct but now the city owns it and is paying most of its replacement.     

 

>Columbia Parkway,

 

The city applied for and was awarded in 1936 federal funds for construction of the viaduct and the first stretch of the parkway east to, I believe, Delta Avenue. This was all built 1937-38 with the New Deal funds. Subsequent stretches of the parkway built after WWII *were* built primarily with city funds. 

 

The McMillan St. bridge was built with federal funds during this same time period. 

 

 

>Central Parkway,

 

Yes, the parkway was built completely by the city by a single bond issue and a 10-year tax assessment zone. Victory Parkway was built piecemeal with park bonds from 1912-1929

 

 

>nd countless other highway projects that facilitated development in the suburbs.

 

Right, the city partially funded the Millcreek Expressway, FWW, and many of the 1950's road improvements like the Dooley Bypass, MLK, etc.  All these problems went away with the snap of a finger when the interstate highway act was passed.  Cincinnati paid its Millcreek and I-75 debt with Southern RR funds.  I'm not sure when those bonds were paid off, but if they were 30 year bonds, it would have been roughly around 1990.   

 

I always love how people cite that the subway bonds weren't paid off until 1966.  Cincinnati and every other city is constantly issuing 30-50 year municipal bonds.  We actually made out really slick with the subway bonds after they were refinanced at like 1% during WWII, meaning whatever debt was still outstanding in 1945 was zapped to basically nothing by that insanely low rate and the devaluing of US currency right after the war. 

 

 

 

 

I doubt the city makes much money on water and sewer line extensions.  I don't know the finances of such utilities, but the fact that they're not private companies suggests they're not very commercially viable.  Also, if it was such a lucrative thing for the city to extend sewer lines, then why is MSD billions of dollars in the hole for Clean Water Act compliance?  I think it's just a case that it's easier to extend an already large system than to build new and completely self-contained ones.  It also probably helps that the Cincinnati Waterworks can draw from the Ohio River while most other municipal water systems around here would have to draw from aquifers, which is a more difficult proposition. 

 

Also, don't underestimate the importance of sewers on encouraging suburban sprawl.  In fact, that may even be a bigger factor than roads/highways.  Look how long it took development to really start exploding along the I-74 corridor.  The highway has been there for more than 30 years, yet it's only in the last 10 or so that things have really started to get out of control up that way, and that's because sewer lines were installed.  This may also be another component of the Indian Hill development "shadow" on the east side of town.  I know Indian Hill doesn't have sewers, and that might extend to Camp Dennison and Miamiville and that overall area of the Little Miami watershed. 

The first developments at Rybolt had their own small sewer plants.  They are now being transfered over to the sewer system.  I know the residents of one of the condo complexes are up in arms over having to pay around $300 to connect to the sewers when they will see no advantage in their condos.  These people go nuts over a one-time $300 expense but then must own multiple cars to get to and from their hilltop prisons.  If they really want to save money, they should move to the city, refuse to take a job off the bus line, and ditch a car or three.   

 

 

  The city brings in revenue from water and sewer, and supposedly they provide the service at cost.

 

  The key is that they are not watching their marginal costs very well. It costs more to serve an outlying suburban area with large lots far away from the river than it does to serve a densely built up area in the core near the river, yet they charge essentially the same. Thus, city residents and businesses are subsidizing suburban residents and businesses. Furthermore, the city is still expanding service while the core is emptying out, adding more infrastructure without adding more ratepayers. If the city charged for service what it actually cost, there would be a tendency for residents and businesses to locate in the core for less expensive services.

 

    It is NOT lucrative to extend sewer and water lines.

 

    MSD is in the hole for clean water act compliance because combined sewers, which have been discharging to the streams since they were constructed as far back as the 1880's, have been declared in violation of the clean water act. This is a separate issue from extensions.

 

 

  "Bottom line: people want roads, sewers, and services but they don't want to pay for them entirely with user fees."

 

    The game is to move around such that someone else is paying for the services. This applies to utilities, parks, libraries, or whatever.

 

    The Hamilton County Park District, which is partly funded by a county-wide levy, did a study and found out that 50% of the people using the parks were from Butler County.

Unincorporated Hamilton County is gaining residents and businesses, at the expense of the City of Cincinnati. How can you say that the suburbs are not doing very well?

 

I'm pretty sure that Hamilton County is losing people, but that the City of Cincinnati is gaining people.  If the rest of incorporated Hamilton County accounts for the losses, it is merely a factor that our federal and state led regime still favors greenfield development over redevelopment, and consequently the only greenfield areas in HamCo are also in townships.

The key is that they are not watching their marginal costs very well. It costs more to serve an outlying suburban area with large lots far away from the river than it does to serve a densely built up area in the core near the river, yet they charge essentially the same. Thus, city residents and businesses are subsidizing suburban residents and businesses. Furthermore, the city is still expanding service while the core is emptying out, adding more infrastructure without adding more ratepayers. If the city charged for service what it actually cost, there would be a tendency for residents and businesses to locate in the core for less expensive services.

 

MSD is owned by the County and the County has a contract with the City to operated the district.  It took five seconds to look that up on the web.

 

So the City, despite what you consistently claim, isn't doing any of this extension.

 

  The City of Cincinnati is losing population. Hamilton County (which contains the City of Cincinnati) is losing population. Unincorporated Hamilton County (Hamilton County minus the City of Cincinnati and all other municipalities) is gaining population.

 

  Data comes from the Hamilton County Data Book and is based on the Census through 2000.

 

  Cincinnati Water Works is owned and operated by the City of Cincinnati.

 

  MSD is owned by Hamilton County and operated by the City of Cincinnati, by agreement signed in 1968. All MSD employees are City of Cincinnati employees. The director of MSD is a City of Cincinnati employee.

 

  The City of Cincinnati is losing population. Hamilton County (which contains the City of Cincinnati) is losing population. Unincorporated Hamilton County (Hamilton County minus the City of Cincinnati and all other municipalities) is gaining population.

 

  Data comes from the Hamilton County Data Book and is based on the Census through 2000.

 

How nice - you are only 10 years out of date.  If I had to base my arguments on the state of things 10 years ago, then I'd have to change a lot of what I was saying.  You, however, seem to have arguments that are rooted so deeply in history that current events don't matter.  That must be convenient.

 

I admire your tedious persistence.  However if I had a kid graduating from college right now, I wouldn't advise them to buy "more home for the money" in the suburbs.  Between likely changes in energy costs, and changes in what's considered to be a desirable lifestyle (including mass transit), I think they'd lose their shirt before their kids needed to go to college. 

 

That's just from sticking my finger in the air and sensing the winds.  I think you might sense it, too, but are reluctant to admit it.

 

   Cincinnati Water Works is owned and operated by the City of Cincinnati.

 

   MSD is owned by Hamilton County and operated by the City of Cincinnati, by agreement signed in 1968. All MSD employees are City of Cincinnati employees. The director of MSD is a City of Cincinnati employee.

 

Good job figuring out how to look these things up.  Now figure out exactly how the sewer district decides to expand, and then we can talk about that.

>Because townships suck up residents and jobs that used to be, or would otherwise locate in, the city, while not providing the same level of services.

 

Does anyone know if there was a follow-up after it was discovered about a year ago that certain townships were receiving the sheriff's services without paying in?  I believe there were three of them, probably Crosby, Whitewater, and one more. 

 

 

 

Townships are doing quite well without the earnings tax. Why can't the City of Cincinnati?

 

Don't most cities have an earnings tax?  When I was in high school, I worked in Cheviot.  I had Cheviot taxes deducted from my pay check.  After college, a friend of mine worked in Blue Ash.  He had to pay taxes to Blue Ash.  My brother worked in Hamilton, and he paid taxes in Hamilton.  As West Chester gets larger, what do you want to bet that they try to pass an earnings tax as well? 

 

  "How nice - you are only 10 years out of date."

 

  What can I say? It's 2010, and the 2010 Census results haven't been published yet. 2000 is the most recent decennial Census data. The Census publishes intermediate year estimates, but those estimates are also based on the 2000 Census.

 

  "Now figure out exactly how the sewer district decides to expand, and then we can talk about that."

 

  Quest - Unsewered Areas of Hamilton County Summary, 1993

 

  page 1:  "In 1993, the Hamilton County Board of Commissioners recognized the need for a plan for wastewater management in areas of the County which are unsewered....These unsewered areas comprise approximately 90,000 acres or 35% of the total land area of the county."

 

page 2: " The QUEST report provides a comprehensive plan for this network in order to accomodate both existing and future developments."

 

page 8: "In the past, in common with many other metropolitan areas, Hamilton County has seen a net population shift from the central urbanized area to the suburban townships. This trend will likely continue, which will maintain pressure for development in the unsewered areas of the County. QUEST provides planning for the future construction of trunk sewers throughout the unsewered areas of the County. This construction will facilitate increased population growth in the unsewered areas."

 

Table 2, page 9:

 

  Approximate 1990 population of unsewered portion: 60,000.

 

    Estimated Ultimate Build-Out Population of Unsewered Portion: 562,800.

 

Page 13: "The trunk sewers and other facilities will be constructed through MSD's Capital Improvement Program."

 

page 15: "In 1994, construction of the Taylor Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant was completed. The plant is located at the intersection of Harrison Avenue with East Miami River Road..."

 

page 16: "The total estimated project cost for the Taylor Creek Drainage Basin is $30,681,000."

 

Page 59: Sewer needs as expressed by property owners and developers will be a major consideration in the project nomination process." 

 

---------------

 

  The Taylor Creek basin is, of course, the location of the Harrison and Rybolt area, which has exploded in development since 1993.

 

   

 

 

 

 

  "As West Chester gets larger, what do you want to bet that they try to pass an earnings tax as well? "

 

  As for the moment, West Chester cannot pass an earnings tax, because in Ohio townships do not have the authority to pass an earnings tax. There is a possibility that West Chester will incorporate, or alternatively, townships will be granted the authority to pass an earnings tax.

Speaking of the Census, just when IS the 2010 Census data supposed to be available anyway? 

 

  Don't know. The Census is still conducting field surveys. There is supposed to be a press conference tomorrow for the Census to give a status report.

Usually first numbers show up in the fall of year, w/ most coming out next spring. I'd add that with the ACS replacing the long form, we won't be waiting for ten years for a lot of population data.

 

   Cincinnati Water Works is owned and operated by the City of Cincinnati.

 

   MSD is owned by Hamilton County and operated by the City of Cincinnati, by agreement signed in 1968. All MSD employees are City of Cincinnati employees. The director of MSD is a City of Cincinnati employee.

 

Good job figuring out how to look these things up.  Now figure out exactly how the sewer district decides to expand, and then we can talk about that.

 

I will add that the City of Cincinnati used to have a policy of only constructing water and sewer services for areas within the city.  The policy basically made it so that in order to get those services, landowners had to allow their land to be annexed into the city.  I can't remember if it was state legislation or the state supreme court that outlawed this practice, likely because they feared having Cincinnati become too large a city and overshadowing the rest of the state.

 

  ^--- Some cities still have policies like that.

 

  Just for fun, can you imagine what the City of Cincinnati would be if the boundaries were taken as the water service area? The city would have a population of about a million.

Pretty sure Columbus and San Antonio are two cities that have that policy.

You don't want that.  It makes sense at first but in practice it's a bad situation. Columbus basically can't do what Cincinnati's doing right now with the streetcar because the city itself is mostly suburban. Also, I am very much opposed to a merging of the county and city police forces. 

 

 

Columbus did not expand it's schools along w/ the city boundaries - so many Cbus residents send their kids to suburban schools. It changes the debate about urban/suburban competition in interesting ways.

Columbus did not expand it's schools along w/ the city boundaries - so many Cbus residents send their kids to suburban schools. It changes the debate about urban/suburban competition in interesting ways.

 

Excellent point. 

 

I will add that the City of Cincinnati used to have a policy of only constructing water and sewer services for areas within the city.  The policy basically made it so that in order to get those services, landowners had to allow their land to be annexed into the city.  I can't remember if it was state legislation or the state supreme court that outlawed this practice, likely because they feared having Cincinnati become too large a city and overshadowing the rest of the state.

 

I'm pretty sure that the practice of annexing based on water supply was outlawed as a result of Columbus' actions, not Cincinnati's.  A lot of HamCo suburban cities have their own water companies (for example, Indian Hill and Wyoming) and they pay a lot more for it.  I suspect the other older towns had their own water facilities as well but the poorer ones eventually sold theirs off to CWW or merged with other suburban water companies.  Guesses all, not original research.

 

 

  "Now figure out exactly how the sewer district decides to expand, and then we can talk about that."

 

  Quest - Unsewered Areas of Hamilton County Summary, 1993

 

  page 1:  "In 1993, the Hamilton County Board of Commissioners recognized the need for a plan for wastewater management in areas of the County which are unsewered....These unsewered areas comprise approximately 90,000 acres or 35% of the total land area of the county." ...

 

So did you see any mention of the City of Cincinnati's sewer expansion policy in all that?

 

I can't speak for municipalities who sold out their water systems to the CWW, but there's actually a surprising number of independent water districts in Hamilton County.  Aside from Indian Hill and Wyoming that were already mentioned, there's also Terrace Park, Norwood(!), Lockland and Reading (which might share Wyoming's system), Glendale, Loveland, and most of the far western areas of the county like Harrison, Cleves, North Bend, and Addyston. 

 

What is interesting is that there used to be independent sewer districts that were eventually brought under MSD.  Municipal treatment plants had been built in Lockland, Wyoming, College Hill, Glendale, and Mt. Healthy between 1909 and 1927.  Many were closed shortly thereafter because of the horrible pollution already present in the Mill Creek where their plants discharged.  It was argued that there wasn't much reason to clean the sewage that even untreated wasn't as bad as the creek.  By the close of WWII all those treatment plants had all been closed and the sewer networks were connected to the Mill Creek Interceptor, which unfortunately is still overwhelmed by combined sanitary, storm, and industrial flows.  A great resource for understanding the combined sewer problems, and the difficulty in fixing them, is Stanley Hedeen's book "The Mill Creek:  An Unnatural History of an Urban Stream."  It's a surprisingly enjoyable read, despite the rather bleak subject.   

 

  "So did you see any mention of the City of Cincinnati's sewer expansion policy in all that?"

 

  The City of Cincinnati's policy is to let MSD deal with it. The City of Cincinnati has neither an expansion policy nor an urban growth policy; they simply don't have a policy regarding sewer extensions.

 

  "Never build anything underground - you won't get credit for it." - former Ohio governor James Rhodes.

 

    That said, the director of MSD is a city employee, who answers to the City Manager. Since MSD went through 6 directors in 8 years in the 1990's, it is obvious that the relationship between the City Manager and the director of MSD has not been smooth. (The current director has been there for about 5 years.) While the director doesn't necessarily have 100% control, he certainly has a great influence. The current director of MSD has an expansionist policy.

 

   

 

 

"despite the rather bleak subject."

 

Bleak? Why, sewer and water utilities are at least as interesting as street railways, have a longer history, a greater value, and arguably have more influence on development than transportation. There hasn't been as much written about them because most of the infrastructure is underground and out of sight.

 

   

It's bleak because its focus is really on Mill Creek itself, though the sewer system in the valley is intimately related to it.  Reading about the types of industrial pollutants that have been dumped into the thing (which Hedeen goes into in amazing detail on) is pretty gross and disheartening.  He goes into detail about the natural history of the area as well (and he even has another book that explores that aspect of the whole region), and reading about the early dense hardwood forests, farms and orchards, and the relatively pastoral quality of the valley until about the mid 1800s as compared to what it is today is also rather sobering. 

 

  The water quality in the Mill Creek has been getting better since about 1940.

 

    What is Hedeen's other book?

For a guy who posts frequently and often quotes other people's posts, you seem to have an extremely strange habit of missing the point.

 

"So did you see any mention of the City of Cincinnati's sewer expansion policy in all that?"

 

  The City of Cincinnati's policy is to let MSD deal with it. The City of Cincinnati has neither an expansion policy nor an urban growth policy; they simply don't have a policy regarding sewer extensions.

 

You'd been complaining about what the City does to drive people to leave, to the point of building them their own sewer lines.  I mention that the City doesn't run the sewers, and now you're answering my snide rhetorical question?

 

 

"despite the rather bleak subject."

 

Bleak? Why, sewer and water utilities are at least as interesting as street railways, have a longer history, a greater value, and arguably have more influence on development than transportation. There hasn't been as much written about them because most of the infrastructure is underground and out of sight.

 

Jeff answered you, but it seemed pretty obvious that he was referring to the pollution as bleak and not the subject of municipal sewer systems.  This is an urban nerd forum, after all.