I'm looking for a good source showing neighborhood boundaries on a street to street level.  The previous version of CAGIS had a very good way and easy way to do this but I haven't figured out how (if at all) this can be done in the new version.  Any other ideas folks?

 

Thanks!!!!

Go to the Map Labels icon and click on the"cincinnati neighborhoods" and "municipitalities and townships"option in street view.

When I do this I'm not getting it to work.  The neighborhood names come up but nothing to show me that the mt auburn/otr border runs up main, along mulberry to vine, etc.  That being said some of the other things you can do with this are pretty amazing!

OK, just got home and tried that.  My bad, I guess they did take that away. 

No worries, thanks for the help!  I'm hoping someone has something out there, or nows where  I can find it.  I really dont want to have to make my own using the auditors site.

I have the neighborhood boundaries on my transit map at http://homepage.mac.com/jjakucyk/Transit1/map.html  Does that get you what you need? 

Yes, thank you very much.  I'm updating my cincinnati step map which I'll share with everyone once I'm finished.

 

Thanks again

Yes, thank you very much. I'm updating my cincinnati step map which I'll share with everyone once I'm finished.

 

Awesome!!!

Okay y'all.  I'm freaking out right now.  I was trying to determine which neighborhood "technically" had the sinkhole that swallowed the bus and I found this little gem on the City's website.

 

According to the City of Cincinnati's Planning and Buildings department, we only have 51 neighborhoods.  In the list they have, Central Business District has been renamed Downtown, Fay Apartments has been renamed Villages at Roll Hill, and The Heights just simply doesn't exist anymore.

 

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/reports-data/census-demographics/

 

Check out the map they have for CUF: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/linkservid/B4A6AF21-9562-631F-2A0AF3EBC78FB7BA/showMeta/0/

 

Apparently The Heights was absorbed by CUF and nobody was told.

 

Does anybody know what's up with this?

There's only one "THE Heights"

I guess it makes sense to call that whole area University Heights. You know, because it contains the University (or at least West Campus). I don't know if that's what happened to The Heights, but it would make more sense than adding the space to Clifton Heights (and it's not really connected to Fairview at all so, I think that's out of the question). It would be an improvement in nomenclature, really. But we definitely need to know if there are now 51 neighborhoods!

 

From Wikipedia:

Somebody get Flynn to sort this out after he finishes with the Charter!

Cincinnati has about 12-15 neighborhoods, not 52 51.  There is absolutely no reason why this area should be thought of as four three distinct entities.  There are only a few very small, very low population areas that could be thought of as their own neighborhood.  Lower Price Hill and Mt. Adams are two examples of very small areas that are distinct from their surroundings.   

Well I will say the blanket term "Clifton" is inappropriate. Clifton is absolutely distinct from CUF and Corryville (and certainly Avondale and Mt. Auburn, parts of which occasionally get lumped in there too). Treating CUF as a single neighborhood, but acknowledging the historic separateness makes sense to me. Neighborhoods like O'Bryonville, Kennedy Heights, or the Village at Roll Hill make significantly less sense.

I've known lifers who referred to Corryville, Uptown & Clifton as Clifton.

the suburbanites call everything Clifton.

You have to remember that the 'community council' system was basically formed in the 1960's because neighborhood groups were forming and challenging city hall on variety of issues. Many to gain a share of Federal funds to rehabilitate housing. Some to fight historic preservation, Others to support it. It was a way for city leaders to 'control' certain groups like those in the West End by limiting federal funds if they misbehaved and complained too loudly. Avondale was worried about realtors trying to cause white flight. OTR was concerned about gentrification. The whole community council system was designed by the city to replace the old "ward system' of the 1920's because by the 1950's and 60's people were demanding  return of the ward system so they could elect people that represented their neighborhood.

 

Frankly its time to scrap the whole Community council system and the arbitrary boundaries created by city planners in the 1960's and 1970's . As more out of towners settle in this city I predict we will eventually go back to a representative district council.

A "representative district council" would be a disaster. In a city notorious for historic racial divisions, city government has been positively groundbreaking for its inclusiveness and integration, especially in recent years. So many cities that have a ward system have deep racial political divisions. Implementing such a system would be a huge step backwards for racial relations in this half-black, half-white city. Be careful what you wish for.

Well the lack of a representational council has caused a riot, let to white flight in the 1960's, the destruction of Kenyan Barr, the demolition of a block of Corryville for student housing, Glencoes destruction, the impending destruction of South Fairmount basin.

 

With councils totally beholding to small special interest groups and developers, neighborhoods left with no direct representation at all and Community councils in the hands of a few people with no power at all and totally beholding to city for the few thousand the city dishes out to them?

 

I'll take a representative council where I can t  someone who actually lives near me accountable any day of the week!

Sounds like you have a good punching bag to blame everything you don't like on. White flight and redlining were rampant across the country, regardless of the type of government cities had. I suspect there's about as much correlation with most of the other things you mention.

 

Regarding present-day demolitions, the unfortunate fact is most Cincinnatians simply don't care, or even support demolitions in their neighborhoods with the misguided understanding that the presence of old buildings causes crime. You and I, of course, know they are actually perhaps the greatest asset to ensure the long-term economic viability of the city. But in a democracy, regardless of a ward system or none, the demolitions would continue until minds are changed.

 

If you think wards are a safeguard against corruption, I suggest you study Chicago (among other cities).

If you think wards are a safeguard against corruption, I suggest you study Chicago (among other cities).

um, yeah, like Cincinnati

If you think wards are a safeguard against corruption, I suggest you study Chicago (among other cities).

um, yeah, like Cincinnati

 

Touche.

Frankly its time to scrap the whole Community council system and the arbitrary boundaries created by city planners in the 1960's and 1970's . As more out of towners settle in this city I predict we will eventually go back to a representative district council.

A really strange comment from an out of towner who is trying to recreate an old sub neighborhood.

It's really a shame how Charlie Luken & Valerie Lemmie eviscerated the community councils. they were almost semi kinda quasi governmental bodies that had a lot of dialogue between the cities & the hoods.

The neighborhoods, also, are not completely arbitrary. Maybe some of the slicing & dicing but that's no big deal.

Community council meetings are very poorly attended, most Cincinnatians don't even know they exist.  What's more, many city neighborhoods are dominated by renters. 

 

The advantage of a ward system isn't direct representation for a ward, it's that someone with no money has a better chance of being elected.  However, that same person with no money (Chris Smitherman) wants money (Chris Smitherman).  There is no perfect system. 

There is no perfect system. 

 

I definitely agree there. And I really think racial politics would become a sh!tshow if we had a ward system. I'd rather not poke that wasp nest.

There is no perfect system. 

 

I definitely agree there. And I really think racial politics would become a sh!tshow if we had a ward system. I'd rather not poke that wasp nest.

 

The whole issue is where are the wards?  How many wards total?  Is population roughly equal and are they redrawn after every census?  Does this not open the door for gerrymandering?  Totally ridiculous stuff like Mt. Adams becoming part of Avondale's ward?

 

 

You make districts regional in nature for example you have Riverside, sedamsville, lower price as one district. Perhaps Price Hill, Incline, Fairmount as another. Westwood probably based on pop is one district. Another would be downtown, OTR, Mt Adams , Pendleton, West End and so on.  You can successfully create districts with fairly equal population with similar areas of interest. Maybe 6 districts and 3 at large council positions. But my point is that you actually have council people LIVING in a district they represent. It also prevents stacked election where one neighborhood really turns out the vote and stacks a council with their candidates.. stops councils that are super conservative or super liberal. So you can't have a tea party council or a socialist party council.

 

The other alternative is eventually the business community will pressure for a city-county combined government and you will have suburbia dictating what happens in the city.

 

If you really want to understand the current community council history read David Hurley's "Cincinnati The Queen City", or John Emmeus Davis's book "Contested Ground".

Dan Hurley

You make districts regional in nature for example you have Riverside, sedamsville, lower price as one district. Perhaps Price Hill, Incline, Fairmount as another. Westwood probably based on pop is one district. Another would be downtown, OTR, Mt Adams , Pendleton, West End and so on.  You can successfully create districts with fairly equal population with similar areas of interest. Maybe 6 districts and 3 at large council positions. But my point is that you actually have council people LIVING in a district they represent. It also prevents stacked election where one neighborhood really turns out the vote and stacks a council with their candidates.. stops councils that are super conservative or super liberal. So you can't have a tea party council or a socialist party council.

 

The other alternative is eventually the business community will pressure for a city-county combined government and you will have suburbia dictating what happens in the city.

 

If you really want to understand the current community council history read David Hurley's "Cincinnati The Queen City", or John Emmeus Davis's book "Contested Ground".

 

You act as if the needs of one area of the city are completely different than another.  That's not really the case because city governments in Ohio, and in the United States, pretty much only do three things: police, fire, road paving.  Like 90% of the budgets of municipal governments, going back to 1776, do these things and these things only. 

 

Cities in Ohio DO NOT:

Build or staff jails

appraise properties

issue dog licenses

issue their own paper currency

control their own banks

have their own air forces

maintain foreign embassies

 

 

 

JM...They are different. For example some neighborhoods are in redevelopment mode (they have direct interests in projects) others may be focused on affordable housing, others may be focused on green space development. Some may be pro density, some may be the opposite. The last election of the council and mayor was clearly a signal from the Westside that they had issues they felt needed addressing and, like it or not, it was an anti streetcar platform too. What if they had had more candidates with a stop wasting money on OTR message and gotten out just a little more voters? It very well could have happened. Imagine a city council pushing the agenda of One Neighborhood, Oh wait that's what has been happening and this election was pushback ( and dare I say a wakeup call)...but imagine if the entire council had been elected anti streetcar, anti 3CDC subsidy? Stop spending there?

 

This is my point. District representation eliminates the possibility of any one group (agenda) stacking the council in way that may not be productive for a city as a whole. Had things just been a little different they would be paving over those tracks right now and selling off the new streetcars to some other city.

>JM...They are different. For example some neighborhoods are in redevelopment mode (they have direct interests in projects) others may be focused on affordable housing, others may be focused on green space development.

 

Section 8, CMHA, all of that is federal, not municipal.  And it was John Cranley who masterminded the impaction ordinance, which intentionally undermined his own home turf on the west side. 

 

>The last election of the council and mayor was clearly a signal from the Westside that they had issues they felt needed addressing and, like it or not, it was an anti streetcar platform too.

 

A native west sider, John Cranley, fooled the west side into voting for someone who is acting to destroy the west side.  This is the same old game that west siders have played on their own for decades now.  And that's why your theory is completely wrong -- many if not most politicians exploit the very people they represent. 

 

 

>District representation eliminates the possibility of any one group (agenda) stacking the council in way that may not be productive for a city as a whole.

 

No it doesn't.  Poor people in every city who get elected to council want money.  Here the Indian Hill people dangle some carrots, and sure enough the newly minted 31st ward idiot (or in our case Charlie Winburn, Chris Smitherman, etc.) does just what the Indian Hill puppet masters ask of them.  And often that is fool their own ward into doing something that will undermine it. 

 

 

>Had things just been a little different they would be paving over those tracks right now and selling off the new streetcars to some other city.

 

Don't take that imperious tone of voice where you think you're telling me or anyone else on here anything.  I was there from the very beginning -- where have you been?  Oh yeah up on so-called Knox Hill spreading all kinds of misinformation. 

You make districts regional in nature for example you have Riverside, sedamsville, lower price as one district. Perhaps Price Hill, Incline, Fairmount as another. Westwood probably based on pop is one district. Another would be downtown, OTR, Mt Adams , Pendleton, West End and so on.  You can successfully create districts with fairly equal population with similar areas of interest.

Dude, first you complain about the problems that arose from arbitrary boundaries (which is not valid) and then you come up with a solution that absolutely draws arbitrary boundaries & tosses out decades of tradition. Look at the issues to this day that arose from colonial Europe's meddling in North Africa & the Middle East.

 

Maybe 6 districts and 3 at large council positions. But my point is that you actually have council people LIVING in a district they represent. It also prevents stacked election where one neighborhood really turns out the vote and stacks a council with their candidates.. stops councils that are super conservative or super liberal. So you can't have a tea party council or a socialist party council.

Sounds like a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.

 

The other alternative is eventually the business community will pressure for a city-county combined government and you will have suburbia dictating what happens in the city.

Dunno what that's got to do with the business community. The fact is, that scheme would hand the city, strongly Democrat over to non city Republicans. It would totally emasculate the black voters of Cincinnati. Business shmusiness - it's a racial/political non-starter.

CMHA as a result of their federal funding has to have demonstrated public input in decision making processes where affordable and low income projects are concerned. If we look at the recent Alaska avenue low income crap proposals you can see where when neighborhoods (not the community council) take charge of an issue their is enough pushback and projects go elsewhere. It now looks like Pendleton over by the casino.

 

I might also mention this pushback did not just cone from local residents, other community and neighborhood organization (including several on the westside) got in this fight too sending letters and emails and going over CMHA directly to the federal authorities on this.  People are starting to learn if you want action you go over the city's and county's head because the county and the city council tend to 'filter' public input to 'slant' public participation as support for projects when its really opposition.

 

I have no doubt Pendleton will fight this particularly as it dooms a bunch of historic buildings to low income wasteland status. And if Pendleton asks, the same westside  neighborhoods that supported the people over on Alaska will do the same thing.

 

As to people you call "puppets" a very derogatory term since you don't agree with their position on certain issues, both of them have been to my neighborhood, walked around, looks at issues that impact us and have asked us what are key issues are. I've had meetings with the mayor Cranly's staff people on these same issues. I would rate communication and action on issues that impact my neighborhood  a thousand percent better than when Mallory was mayor

 

Mallory, or his staff, never even returned an email and trust me Roxane Qualls would never show up in my neighborhood. To say that Windburn and Smitherman are "puppets" of Indian Hill makes no sense based on what I'm seeing because Knox Hill isn't Indian Hill and they are engaged in what is going on here.

 

Oh and as for what I'm doing in Knox Hill? We were the ones who filed the federal HUD citizens complaint that forced the city to re-evaluate over 5000 properties on the demo list at the time and force the city (Mayor Mallory and the last city council) to do a section 106 reviews, something that was not happening until we came along.

 

That action bought time for hundreds of properties (including a bunch in OTR and West End that would be vacant lots right now) to find new owners and many of them are under restoration and saved now.

 

We a were able to put enough pressure on MSD that several properties (including 4 that are national registry eligible) that would have been demoed for the MSD project were spared down in the Fairmount valley.

 

That's what I've been doing... actually getting my hands dirty , saving historic buildings getting people into my neighborhood, working with district 3 to reduce crime in our boundaries, putting on a home tour, conducting street cleanups and getting statewide and national interest in my community, and showing other neighborhood groups in this city how to do it, and fight back when they ask.

As to people you call "puppets" a very derogatory term since you don't agree with their position on certain issues, both of them have been to my neighborhood, walked around, looks at issues that impact us and have asked us what are key issues are.

 

I've been in similar meeting with Winburn.  He'll pound his fist on the table, and tell you he is on your side... but then nothing happens.  He is all bluster.

To say that Windburn and Smitherman are "puppets" of Indian Hill makes no sense based on what I'm seeing because Knox Hill isn't Indian Hill and they are engaged in what is going on here.

I'd say they are more likely thralls to the whores of Westwood & CO    .

This is getting off topic but here's some poo on CMHA since some folks seem kinda confused

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/editorials/2014/06/21/editorial-fix-section/11207429/

Has anybody contended with NextDoor's maps?

You'd think they'd just use what the city provides but they let/make the first person to join draw the map.

 

https://www.nextdoor.com/

 

John Emmeus Davis's book "Contested Ground".

 

Best retrospective of the demise of the West End.

 

John Emmeus Davis's book "Contested Ground".

 

Best retrospective of the demise of the West End.

 

Many local people have no clue about this book and if they read it they would learn how the rest of the world looks at Cincinnati. A lot of Urban Planning course curricula includes this book as part of the reading list. When you talk about what NOT to do as an urban planner, Detroit and Cincinnati are often cited as the prime examples of throwing away valuable assets just to get rid of Black people from their downtowns putting failed development in its place. It is a prime example of the shortsightedness that is Cincinnati even today, which we are seeing played out AGAIN in S. Fairmount for the MSD "daylighting project".