37 minutes ago, taestell said:

Honest question: Do residents of the other 51 neighborhoods care that Hyde Park residents are upset at City Council?

Yes, there are NIMBYs who have become BANANAs: build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything. Is it enough to make a difference, especially given that we have a non-proportional electoral method for council? I really doubt it.

 

Now this could help Charter bring back STV/RCV as they have been teasing. 

1 hour ago, taestell said:

Honest question: Do residents of the other 51 neighborhoods care that Hyde Park residents are upset at City Council?

 

I think it's important to differentiate be between residents and community leadership in those other 51 neighborhoods. Most residents likely aren't even aware that this whole HP Square development issue is a thing, much less have it influence who they vote for.

As I've mentioned in my post above, there definitely other community councils (and those neighborhood residents who pay attention) who share the same concerns that HP is facing - that no matter what they say they like/don't like, the city doesn't listen to them. So these folks would likely share those sentiments and not want to vote for those who see as being pro developer over the communities.

Some neighborhoods, like mine, have long standing policy of not getting involved in development issues in other neighborhoods - unless the issue is truly city-wide or precedent setting. In my neighborhood, that policy long predates both my and our president's time starting on our council. So in spite of some online speculation to contrary, our not sending a letter of support  for this effort was only driven by this policy.

 

Edited April 24Apr 24 by jag

There is a large facebook group called Hyde Park Moms that has mom's talking about things to do with kids from all over the tri-state despite its name. Through that group my wife brought up this development and how big it was going to be and wanted to know what I thought, so it has definitely grown beyond just their neighborhood but I'm not sure it will have a huge electoral effects, especially when the republican alternatives are more pro-development and want to reduce red tape it really only leads to who gets the democratic party support and maybe a couple Charterites. 

53 minutes ago, ucgrady said:

There is a large facebook group called Hyde Park Moms that has mom's talking about things to do with kids from all over the tri-state despite its name. Through that group my wife brought up this development and how big it was going to be and wanted to know what I thought, so it has definitely grown beyond just their neighborhood but I'm not sure it will have a huge electoral effects, especially when the republican alternatives are more pro-development and want to reduce red tape it really only leads to who gets the democratic party support and maybe a couple Charterites. 

Those moms groups are a fantastic resource for moms, but some of the craziest neighborhood/development rumors I've seen have originated from them. lol

Threatening to unseat council members over the vote is an extremely bold move and I don’t think they realize it could backfire spectacularly- if their campaign does nothing to change the next election, it basically proves to council that community councils and NIMBYs can be ignored with zero consequences.

2 hours ago, Guy23 said:

 it basically proves to council that community councils and NIMBYs can be ignored with zero consequences.

 

Back when the federal speed limit was 55mph, people thought they could drive 62mph without getting a ticket.  Then Connected Communities raised the speed limit to 65mph, and Aftab is happy to let drivers go 72mph without a ticket. 

 

 

 

 

 

6 hours ago, jag said:

Some neighborhoods, like mine, have long standing policy of not getting involved in development issues in other neighborhoods

 

 

But Aftab bought a new suit, smiled, and said our communities are connected. 

 

 

Quote

- unless the issue is truly city-wide or precedent setting. In my neighborhood, that policy long predates both my and our president's time starting on our council. So in spite of some online speculation to contrary, our not sending a letter of support  for this effort was only driven by this policy.

 

The people pointing and laughing at Hyde Park Moms will be the first ones squealing when Aftab comes to connect your community. 

 

You're insufferable. 

On 4/23/2025 at 9:42 AM, jag said:

I wouldn't say something if I hadn't witnessed it first hand. If what I post is my opinion or an assessment based my experience I specify that. I have a fair amount of experience working at the neighborhood (my neighborhood council) and at the city-wide level, having been involved with the two primary groups who work on behalf of neighborhood/community councils and neighborhood business districts for may years. I know many of the players involved on both sides and levels.

 This experience goes back to Issue 3 (original density ordinance), the ILA development, and connected communities prior to this development, and as a result I have seen comments in some of the surveys that had been done. I'm also a data scientist (Natural Language Processing) and have decades of experience with text based analytics, so I've observed the online behaviors through all these efforts. I have not seen all the communications that have been done between the residents and various city departments/staff, but have working relationships with many on the city side and their assessment mirrors what I've seen - way too much non productive feedback.

In my opinion, if that impresses you, then you either don't understand the issues, are easily impressed, or both. It's easy to rally folks by pushing the emotion & fear buttons, and this all started well before this development (Issue 3, Ila development, connected communities). I've seen many of the same themes/comments repeated in each of those situations. This was a perfect example of where the quality of the feedback >>>> the quantity of feedback. My primary issue with their messaging focuses on two items that they've promoted and used n their efforts to convince other neighborhoods/groups to support them (I got the emails):

• That the existing development approval process has changed.
  • It hasn't changed from what has been done for decades when a developer requests a zoning change and/or variance(s) to existing code elements (setbacks, height, etc.)
  • Community engagement -> Planning Commission hearing -> housing subcommittee meeting -> city council vote
•  That this situation somehow sets a bad precedent that other neighborhoods need to be aware of (connected communities, UDOD)
  • There is no precedent. UDODs take precedence over any connected communities zoning. A Planned Development is an established zoning district.

 

@Dev can vouch for my level of involvement.

I appreciate the thoughtful reply.  I think we are mostly in agreement here and largely talking past each other.  I did not opine on ILA or connected communities fwiw.

 

I should have clarified that I am impressed with the "grassroots" opposition, not HPNC specifically.  I disagree that it is easy to rally folks in any type of organized manner and they did a pretty decent job of it (again, my opinion).  It has to be like herding cats.  Any one of these people can go off the rails in public comment sessions at any time which paints the entire group with a broad brush of craziness.  They can't exhibit much control over what individual folks in the neighborhood do. They spent a lot of time, money and effort trying to oppose this at a level I have not previously seen before.  People are busier and more distracted than ever so to get them to pay attention to anything and turn out in numbers is impressive to me, even if a lot of them don't work or are retired.

 

I totally agree with your take on the precedent portion of their argument and literally laughed out loud the first time I read that in one of their emails.  They clearly played fast and loose with facts but they were trying to win so I don't blame them.  Politicians do it all the time.

 

Bottom line, I am merely giving a hat tip to the opposition.  Nothing more.

1 hour ago, tabasco said:

I appreciate the thoughtful reply.  I think we are mostly in agreement here and largely talking past each other.  I did not opine on ILA or connected communities fwiw.

 

My point for mentioning ILA and connected communities is because this didn't start with this HP Square development. The "organization" (used lightly) started back in the previous density initiatives and ILA development. The hate for PLK started with Ila, and ballooned with the square. The hate for density and city council (despite many in HP voting for current incumbents) has grown out of Issue 3 and CC. There is definitely a cumulative effect.

 

Quote

Any one of these people can go off the rails in public comment sessions at any time which paints the entire group with a broad brush of craziness

But they did go off the rails, and not only painted HP with the craziness brush, but also other neighborhood councils who now have to deal with the aftermath.

Edited April 25Apr 25 by jag

WVXU did a segment on HP square today. I was hoping for some high entertainment from the callers but it was pretty short and they only took a few calls/statements.

WVXU

Tensions flare between community councils and citywide el...

When it comes to development, how do leaders balance neighborhood concerns and the need for progress?

Learned about that after the fact, else I may have tried to call in/participate. Misleading title and not a very balanced panel/perspective, with Mark having to go against the opposition organizer and one of the more vocal community council opposition members. No one from the 37 (of 52, the majority) community councils who did not sign on/support HP were represented.

I'll go back & listen later when I get a chance.

Edited April 29Apr 29 by jag

Neighbors want to take Hyde Park Square development to the voters

By Chris Wetterich – Staff reporter and columnist, Cincinnati Business Courier

May 1, 2025

Updated May 1, 2025 6:08pm EDT

The Hyde Park Neighborhood Council wants to take a controversial $150 million development on the neighborhood square to the voters in November, where every Cincinnati voter could decide whether the project goes forward in its current form.

The group delivered its referendum petition to the city solicitor Thursday, May 1. Once the solicitor approves it, the group will try to gather 10,000 valid signatures of registered voters within the city. In order to be valid, State law requires such petitions to be signed by 10% of the number of city voters who cast ballots in the last gubernatorial election, which is 9,147.

MORE

That is a lot of signatures in 3 weeks. I am skeptical that they can pull it off.

Also - if the referendum for TQL Stadium failed I highly doubt this would succeed as it is much more localized to a specific neighborhood, where you can make the argument that TQL was more of a city-wide debate.

I can also see a lot of people having no idea what this even is when they go to vote. Asking "why am I voting on a hotel and apartment project in Hyde Park?"

What a nightmare for the developer. I get the frustrations of the local community, but feel most of them are unwarranted and a little bit of education on the development can go a long way. Meet with the community and hear them out, while also countering their concerns with attainable solutions to make the development a reality.

1 hour ago, wjh said:

Also - if the referendum for TQL Stadium failed I highly doubt this would succeed as it is much more localized to a specific neighborhood, where you can make the argument that TQL was more of a city-wide debate.

I can also see a lot of people having no idea what this even is when they go to vote. Asking "why am I voting on a hotel and apartment project in Hyde Park?"

IIRC if this makes it to the ballot, City Council would be able to edit the language as it appears to voters on the ballot so that could add more challengers for the petitioners.

Just now, Dev said:

IIRC if this makes it to the ballot, City Council would be able to edit the language as it appears to voters on the ballot so that could add more challengers for the petitioners.

Ha yes some of the wording on the ballot issues and referendums in recent years has been absurd. Paragraph after paragraph to the point where if you are not familiar with the issue going in you will have a hard time discerning what you are even voting for or against.

So a neighborhood used to getting their way, finds out that their previous tactics (whining, calling in favors) no longer work, and now resort to this. I don't think they really understand how they are perceived city-wide (hint: rich, white. older, spoiled, entitled, whiny), and will be "surprised" and "shocked" when the support they think they have isn't there.

Also, am I the only one who thinks "Save our Square" is kinda dumb? It's not like Hyde Park Square is in 'good' shape and some of the businesses keep flaming out there too. It could use a glow up and more residents supporting the already high level of businesses there.

Oh, and there would be a parking garage, that's a huge win for the square and surrounding neighbors that have their streets flooded with cars every weekend with good weather.

I think they will start to run out of steam when it becomes more widely recognized that, even if they "win" the referendum, the end result is going to be a lot more apartments and fewer parking spaces because the developers will build to right. So what are they really accomplishing other than delaying construction, the elimination of the hotel and a shorter structure? It's still going to be a massive change to the square and parking will likely end up worse than it is today and much worse with a different project that does not incorporate a garage with public spaces.*

*Parking is not an issue in the square in my opinion and likely won't be in the future. No one ever seems to mention the paid surface lot that exists behind Arthur's and the other business in that area that is never full. It's been a while since I used it but it has always been dirt cheap and not much more than a meter and possibly even cheaper than a meter given the increase in rates.

I would be willing to entertain the argument that a hotel with a large event space could produce some parking issues coincident with events but that is all hypothetical at this point without knowing the details on the event space.

I commented on an Enquirer IG post about this issue saying that this will help many of the HP businesses with more daily foot traffic and I was attacked personally about my character and that I don't "care about anyone except developers".

These people are doing themselves no favors lashing out with hyperbolic statements and reacting to everything from an emotional lens. It is wild how educated adults can act like toddlers when they do not get what they want.

Edited May 2May 2 by wjh

5 hours ago, wjh said:

These people are doing themselves no favors lashing out with hyperbolic statements and reacting to everything from an emotional lens. It is wild how educated adults can act like toddlers when they do not get what they want.

The nation’s crumbling and these folks are worried about not being able to get a convenient spot when they drive two blocks to Graeter’s.

i scream, you scream, we all scream for ice cream. Make mine a double.

9 hours ago, wjh said:

These people are doing themselves no favors lashing out with hyperbolic statements and reacting to everything from an emotional lens. It is wild how educated adults can act like toddlers when they do not get what they want.

Yes, that behavior goes back to Issue 3 (original density ordinance), continued/increased with the ILA development, then connected communities. I've called them, and a handful of the neighborhoods that supports them, out for how such feedback has done more to hurt than help.

Cities have to grow, and by the way Hyde Park has grown before this. It honestly surprised me how hard these people fight. Cities are a democracy and these people don’t own the streets, they don’t own the land, they don’t own anything but their own home, so why do they have the right to tell everyone how they should have it.

Hyde Park has been adding a lot of homes, etc., but at the same time All the homes went from Housing way more people To way less people. Density went way down. Need to add some more to keep the square vibrant and top of mind. The square needs some more diversity of uses and it can definitely grow a lot bigger.

9 hours ago, IAGuy39 said:

Cities have to grow, and by the way Hyde Park has grown before this. It honestly surprised me how hard these people fight. Cities are a democracy and these people don’t own the streets, they don’t own the land, they don’t own anything but their own home, so why do they have the right to tell everyone how they should have it.

Nope, Hyde Park has looked exactly like this forever. It was a Native American town square pre-colonies.

Being born into money and never being told no is a hell of a drug.

Edited May 3May 3 by wjh

What has this developer done to deserve extravagant zoning variances?

22 hours ago, IAGuy39 said:

Cities have to grow,

There are tons of surface parking lots and vacant lots all over the city. Thousands and thousands of them. There are always plenty of lots listed for $5,000 from Beekman St. west. I don't get why people think this specific block is the exact spot where a handful of apartments and hotel rooms are somehow going to teach those evil Hyde Parkers a lesson.

Edited May 4May 4 by Lazarus

On 5/2/2025 at 12:57 PM, wjh said:

I commented on an Enquirer IG post about this issue saying that this will help many of the HP businesses with more daily foot traffic

Except if foot traffic does actually go up, so does the rent, potentially pushing out existing businesses.

Also, if the developer sells this thing to an out-of-town owner, here come the generic chains. Hyde Park Square will turn into a generic Washington, DC-area development.

Why would foot traffic drop with more 24/7 folks being present?

Holes can be poked in anything playing the what if game.

15 hours ago, Lazarus said:

What has this developer done to deserve extravagant zoning variances?

There are tons of surface parking lots and vacant lots all over the city. Thousands and thousands of them. There are always plenty of lots listed for $5,000 from Beekman St. west. I don't get why people think this specific block is the exact spot where a handful of apartments and hotel rooms are somehow going to teach those evil Hyde Parkers a lesson.

15 hours ago, Lazarus said:

What has this developer done to deserve extravagant zoning variances?

There are tons of surface parking lots and vacant lots all over the city. Thousands and thousands of them. There are always plenty of lots listed for $5,000 from Beekman St. west. I don't get why people think this specific block is the exact spot where a handful of apartments and hotel rooms are somehow going to teach those evil Hyde Parkers a lesson.

Beekman Street? I ask again, BEEKMAN STREET? You've truly lost your mind. You really think a developer is going to be interested in building on one of the worst streets in the city? Let alone anyone even going there. Give me a break dude you're being ridiculous.

On 5/3/2025 at 9:56 PM, Lazarus said:

Except if foot traffic does actually go up, so does the rent, potentially pushing out existing businesses.

Gotcha, let's stop all development across the entire city.

Can't improve Mt Airy because Warsaw Wireless might have their rents increased.

Can't improve Hyde Park Square because Graeters might have their rents increased.

If rents increase in Hyde Park Square to match demand, then any good business that attracts people will still be in business on the square, and will probably be making more $$$, despite having higher rents.

1 hour ago, 10albersa said:

If rents increase in Hyde Park Square to match demand, then any good business that attracts people will still be in business on the square, and will probably be making more $$$, despite having higher rents.

Except "good" businesses in new buildings are almost all national chains.

Low rents (and small or sectioned spaces) = independent ownership.

High rents (and larger spaces enabled by new construction) = chains.

Jake used to make fun of people who complained about all new development. Now he is one. BANANAS

OTR has shown there is plenty of demand for locally owned businesses. There are little to no national chains in the entire neighborhood despite tons of new development.

Also, why are national chains so bad? They already exist in Hyde Park and neighboring Oakley. They still employ locals and provide food or services locals use. Not sure why they are viewed as so evil. I'd rather have a national chain in a space then it sit empty for years.

20 minutes ago, Cincy513 said:

OTR has shown there is plenty of demand for locally owned businesses. There are little to no national chains in the entire neighborhood despite tons of new development.

Also, why are national chains so bad? They already exist in Hyde Park and neighboring Oakley. They still employ locals and provide food or services locals use. Not sure why they are viewed as so evil. I'd rather have a national chain in a space then it sit empty for years.

3CDC intentionally doesn't rent their storefronts to national chains in OTR. So in a way, OTR is forced into a locally owned or regional chain district. I'm sure a starbucks or chipotle or something have inquired about opening in OTR, but they aren't going to rent from a random building owner, and 3CDC doesn't rent to them.

I agree that some chains are ok in a neighborhood. If it's all chains that's bad because it provides no local identity. Despite Jake's weird fearmongering, Hyde Park will never become like Columbia Heights in DC or something. That's a very weird comparison

15 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

3CDC intentionally doesn't rent their storefronts to national chains in OTR. So in a way, OTR is forced into a locally owned or regional chain district. I'm sure a starbucks or chipotle or something have inquired about opening in OTR, but they aren't going to rent from a random building owner, and 3CDC doesn't rent to them.

I agree that some chains are ok in a neighborhood. If it's all chains that's bad because it provides no local identity. Despite Jake's weird fearmongering, Hyde Park will never become like Columbia Heights in DC or something. That's a very weird comparison

Not to delve too much off topic here but SBUX and CMG rent from individual random building owners all the time. More than likely OTR just doesn't fit the profile for what they are currently looking for with new stores (and I am thankful for that). Both chains are really looking for drive thru windows at all of their new locations these days unless they have extremely high foot traffic at all days/hours in which case they can make the numbers work without a drive thru.

I think what Lazarus is getting at is the retail component could look pretty darn generic. The problem with retail like this is that the cost of building new retail vs. buying an existing asset is way skewed toward buy in almost all geographic markets right now. To make the ROIC work for greenfield retail is very difficult because of the cost of new construction. I believe that this is the reason PLK is pushing so hard for the hotel because it does bring a constant stream of visitors that eat out every meal, etc. which can help make the retail component work. And there is no doubt that the inclusion of a hotel makes adjacent space a lot more attractive for national chains. But the rents of this new space will also be difficult for local concepts to swallow especially a business that is new or not well established. It is entirely possible we could get some generic looking storefronts. Calhoun is the first thing that comes to mind as every time I am through there I think to myself just how terribly generic most of the business are. Hopefully it doesn't end up that bad but we can't really rule that out - just my 2 cents.

The phenomenon has been well documented since the middle of the 20th Century. Jane Jacobs commented on this in her The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New developments cost a lot of money, and the rent required in them is often too high for local businesses to thrive in, so you get more banks and chains in their storefronts. But that doesn't necessarily mean all of the other storefronts suddenly become unaffordable. The existing building stock has most of their original building debt paid off, they lack some newer features, and thus the value of the storefront goes down over time.

What I would actually expect to happen, is Graeter's potentially moving into the new building to provide more amenities to the neighborhood (expanded bakery items for instance, maybe a rentable private space for kids parties) at their Hyde Park location, thus opening up the current Graeter's location to another business. That business might not be able to afford the original rent Graeter's was paying, but the building owner can likely afford to lower rents to a non-chain business and still make a profit.

I don't doubt the new development will have a couple chains, but it's not like the neighborhood is going to have a swell of chains clamoring to open up in the existing buildings.

ETA: the problem is when all of the buildings in a neighborhood are brand new. Now the rents of all storefronts are high, and you get only chains and empty storefronts. A healthy mix of building ownership and building age helps a neighborhood stay lively.

I personally don't see a lot of negatives and the positives outweigh those negatives IMO.

It's pretty simple Urban Economics - Building up downtown areas as that is where the highest demand is. Developers want to build as much density as is financially feasible because there is enough demand in that specific block to use the supply (hotel, apartments, retail, parking). That is letting the market work.

If there were no zoning codes there would probably be way more intrusive developments but we all know there is a need for certain types of zoning. The zoning they are changing here isn't egregious IMO.

I drive through Hyde Park all the time and Erie isn't a super busy street. Observatory can definitely be certain times of day and this will add to it but Erie itself has a lot of room on it. This is all anecdotal but I never see all the parking taken up 5 pm most days (don't go by on the weekends).

Adding supply to high demand areas is simple economics and letting the market work. When those areas build up it spreads it out to other areas to improve. That's where you start to see now a lot of redevelopment in Madisonville, etc. in areas that have a lot of abandonment and crime. This all adds to it, and does across the city.

What is built next to UC and builds up that area of town also has a trickle down affect to Walnut Hills and Evanston and very north OTR, etc. What is going up around Findlay Market and the success of the market has a trickle down. Certain high demand nodes that get built up to their full potential make for a better overall city and the people that pay $3k a month for the rent of those apartments won't be paying $2500 or buying a house in East Hyde Park now, leaving that open for another person to get into the neighborhood.

Activists wheel in signatures in effort to repeal $150M Hyde Park Square development

Activists turned in more than double the signatures they need to repeal a controversial $150 million mixed-use development on Hyde Park Square Friday, May 23, putting them in a strong position to take the measure to the ballot in November.

The group Save Hyde Park Square said they would bring 18,300 signatures of registered voters in Cincinnati to overturn City Council's approval of the development to City Hall. They needed 9,147 valid signatures for the proposal to appear on the Nov. 4 ballot along with the mayor's race and City Council election.

The Hamilton County Board of Elections will determine whether enough of the signatures are valid. Typically, ballot campaigns want to turn in far more signatures than they need in order to account for voters who may not live in the city or are not actually registered to vote. If Save Hyde Park Square is successful, it will trigger a rare, if not unprecedented, vote on a single real estate development project.

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2025/05/23/hyde-park-square-development-signatures-nov-ballot.html

On 5/23/2025 at 10:40 PM, ColDayMan said:

Activists wheel in signatures in effort to repeal $150M Hyde Park Square development

Activists turned in more than double the signatures they need to repeal a controversial $150 million mixed-use development on Hyde Park Square Friday, May 23, putting them in a strong position to take the measure to the ballot in November.

The group Save Hyde Park Square said they would bring 18,300 signatures of registered voters in Cincinnati to overturn City Council's approval of the development to City Hall. They needed 9,147 valid signatures for the proposal to appear on the Nov. 4 ballot along with the mayor's race and City Council election.

The Hamilton County Board of Elections will determine whether enough of the signatures are valid. Typically, ballot campaigns want to turn in far more signatures than they need in order to account for voters who may not live in the city or are not actually registered to vote. If Save Hyde Park Square is successful, it will trigger a rare, if not unprecedented, vote on a single real estate development project.

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2025/05/23/hyde-park-square-development-signatures-nov-ballot.html

I was in Ault park and there was a guy grabbing signatures. He was talking someone else but I was hoping he’d try to stop me just so I could tell him I’m for the project. Wish they would only allow signatures of people who actually reside in Hyde Park and not the city. Going to assume it’s going to be on the ballot in November.

12 minutes ago, Ucgrad2015 said:

I was in Ault park and there was a guy grabbing signatures. He was talking someone else but I was hoping he’d try to stop me just so I could tell him I’m for the project. Wish they would only allow signatures of people who actually reside in Hyde Park and not the city. Going to assume it’s going to be on the ballot in November.

The ones (4 different pairs) who approached me did not live in HP and were charter party members. CP had definitely hijacked this ballot petition for political reasons, I doubt most care about HP, just looking to paint the incumbents as bad and their candidates as the good guys...

Edited May 26May 26 by jag

Board of Elections reveals whether Hyde Park activists gathered enough signatures for repeal vote

Activists turned in enough signatures to trigger a public vote on whether to repeal City Council's approval of a controversial $150 million mixed-use development on Hyde Park Square, the Hamilton County Board of Elections revealed Monday.

The Board of Elections found that Save Hyde Park Square had 13,434 valid signatures, more than the needed 9,147 valid signatures for the proposal to appear on the Nov. 4 ballot along with the mayor's race and City Council election.

The group delivered 18,300 signatures of registered voters in Cincinnati to overturn City Council's approval of the development to City Hall May 23.

Jeff Levine, a partner at Strauss Troy and attorney for the Hyde Park Neighborhood Council who instructed circulators on the proper collection and filing of the petitions, told the Courier that the collection of the signatures in three weeks, with a 73% validity rate, is "unprecedented in Cincinnati and a clear testament to the city's widespread opposition to this dramatic zoning overhaul."

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2025/06/02/save-hyde-park-square-development-november-vote.html

9 hours ago, ColDayMan said:

Board of Elections reveals whether Hyde Park activists gathered enough signatures for repeal vote

Activists turned in enough signatures to trigger a public vote on whether to repeal City Council's approval of a controversial $150 million mixed-use development on Hyde Park Square, the Hamilton County Board of Elections revealed Monday.

The Board of Elections found that Save Hyde Park Square had 13,434 valid signatures, more than the needed 9,147 valid signatures for the proposal to appear on the Nov. 4 ballot along with the mayor's race and City Council election.

The group delivered 18,300 signatures of registered voters in Cincinnati to overturn City Council's approval of the development to City Hall May 23.

Jeff Levine, a partner at Strauss Troy and attorney for the Hyde Park Neighborhood Council who instructed circulators on the proper collection and filing of the petitions, told the Courier that the collection of the signatures in three weeks, with a 73% validity rate, is "unprecedented in Cincinnati and a clear testament to the city's widespread opposition to this dramatic zoning overhaul."

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2025/06/02/save-hyde-park-square-development-november-vote.html

Most of the time people just sign them just to appease whoever is asking them to sign. Most of these people who signed prolly don’t give a rats butt about this project.

You can't ignore the face that the Charter Committee eagerly joined in this effort, not so much in support for HP, but rather as a political opportunity to paint the existing/incumbent council members as the bad guys & position their candidates (yet to be named?) as the neighborhood friendly alternative.

This sets such a bad precedent for the city. Now you're going to have so many other developments delayed by ballot initiatives. God help us if we try to extend the streetcar or anything like that.

Guys, it is easy to forget that we are in a pro development echo chamber here. This project is widely opposed whether you want to believe it or not and there is a growing wave of resentment from motivated voters toward the way that this council and mayor have handled zoning and development. For context, the 13,434 valid signatures that they collected in 3 weeks is almost 60% of the turnout (22,704) of the May election. Turnout will be higher in November but it will still be pathetically low and there are single issue highly motivated voters that will turn out to vote against this development.

I will go on record now with a prediction: voters will vote to repeal the zoning ordinance.

It's possible that this issue could even flip 1-2 seats on council to independents or charterites but I am not willing to predict that will happen at this point due to a lack of viable candidates.

The developers will then build to right and put together what is still a good development with some more apartments and about the same amount of retail. All will not be lost with this outcome and it will still bring a drastic change and breathe some much needed life into the square.

3 hours ago, tabasco said:

It's possible that this issue could even flip 1-2 seats on council to independents or charterites but I am not willing to predict that will happen at this point due to a lack of viable candidates.

This is my big fear. Sure, city council isn't full of people who are eager to do anything at all but I would hate to see a few seats go over to NIMBYs that would try to overturn things like Connected Communities or try to derail any other big projects that the city desperately needs.

4 hours ago, JaceTheAce41 said:

This sets such a bad precedent for the city. Now you're going to have so many other developments delayed by ballot initiatives. God help us if we try to extend the streetcar or anything like that.

This isn't the same thing at all. Any streetcar extension would be a city-backed effort built in the public right-of-way and would have nothing to do with zoning.

In Hyde Park, City Council has approved a project with zoning variances above and beyond the relaxed terms enabled by "connected communities" IN VIOLATION OF THE EXISTING PROCESS with respect to community councils and pre-existing documents created by a lengthy effort by that council. What is the purpose of a community council if the city can go completely over its head, in violation of the process, without repercussions?

Community councils have very little power. They shouldn't get a veto over every project or city action or else nothing would ever get built because of the NIMBYs who occupy like 95% of the community councils.

18 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

What is the purpose of a community council if the city can go completely over its head, in violation of the process, without repercussions?

I agree, we should probably just remove them from the zoning process all together and let building and zoning departments do their job. The only additional departments in the processes that should be involved in my opinion are for historic districts or similar overlays that are actually enforceable.