Does Cleveland Know the Secret to Building Wealth Without Gentrification? - by @nplusonemag http://t.co/7N9k21gkDl http://t.co/O2av0Y0GRl

Hmm.  Interesting thoughts there, especially from someone so out-and-out socialist, but a lot to disagree with there, too.  Or at least be very wary about.

 

First, the open decision to rely in large part of university and health care providers as anchor institutions.  I'll buy health care for a moment, but I'm much less convinced that relying on universities as drivers of follow-on cooperative businesses is going to be viable in the long term.  Ohio State might have a lot left in the tank, but the University of Akron, for example, is all but completely tapped and likely to see considerable retrenchment in external spending in the near future, particularly because, contrary to Alperovitz' socialist fantasy, there will not be massive channels of public money (by historical standards, anyway) flowing into as many of those institutions as there used to be.

 

Second, the conviction that gentrification is necessarily opposed to the anchor-institution model.  ("In highly gentrified cities this is not going to happen ... in cities where the gentry is moving in, young people, people without families, you just don’t have the political economic preconditions to attempt something like this. Nor is it is going to solve the problem of affordable housing in gentrifying areas.")  I'd be curious as to what evidence he cites for this.  That makes very little sense to me.  Some of the most enthusiastic participants in shared/cooperative-economy ventures I know are young professional gentrifiers, and while I understand that my perspective will be skewed there because most of the people I know outside of work fall into that demographic, I really think that I know enough to have a good representative sample.  Why would the kind of young professional who buys a newly renovated townhome in Tremont be unlikely to support a sustainable power cooperative like Evergreen Energy Solutions, or a hydroponic farming operation like Evergreen Green Growers?*  If his point was that gentrification makes it too expensive to support a 230,000-sf facility like what Green Growers apparently has, well that would make some sense, but his point was clearly about people, not about real estate prices.  He really has an old school socialist's contempt for corporations and for the people who make good livings working for them, and you can really see the central democratic-socialist contradiction throughout the interview: he wants corporations' money, but doesn't actually want the corporations themselves, or people associated with them.  He wants them kept in a tidy box (preferably somehow captured there by public policy that makes it hard for them to move), writing him checks, and otherwise out of sight.

 

* it's worth noting that all three of the different cooperatives he mentions (laundry, energy, produce) are apparently under the same umbrella, which he doesn't mention, nor does he mention any affiliation with it, but I admit I'm curious: http://evergreencooperatives.com/. 

 

Third, the general reliance on public money as the initial source of wealth.  ("Some cities still have a political structure that can tax, and allocations can be used for interesting purposes.")  This ties in to the point above about universities and hospitals (and indeed, one reason I half-agree with him about hospitals is that they bring in a tremendous amount of private wealth, though regulatory capture certainly helps them extract higher prices than they otherwise might), but he also mentions utilities, transportation, and other sectors that are physically difficult to move.  In fact, I almost think his article self-contradicts on a lot of these issues.  He's right that the utility sector is difficult to move and heavily supported by the government, but then he lauds the private cooperative power-sharing group Evergreen's solar cooperative arm.

 

So let me offer the capitalist supplementation to his vision:

 

Locally owned cooperatives have a potentially promising future and there is no inherent tension between them and gentrification.  Indeed, since solar power and hydroponic produce are for the moment more expensive than their conventionally generated counterparts, you will need a local population with a certain level of disposable income and the luxury of paying more than the lowest possible price for such amenities to make them viable in any given locality.  In the Green Growers cooperative, I see much the same appeal as in the CSA that I joined.  Many of my young professional peers did as well.  Obviously, those will be the people I know, but at the very least, I can say that I know a great many people who are happy to pay for cooperatively-grown food with money that they earned working for Cardinal Health, Westfield Insurance, FirstEnergy, and Bridgestone.  Would those CSAs be viable without customers who bring home corporate paychecks?  Who knows, but we can't hurt.

 

If a solar cooperative came to my neighborhood, now that I have a house in the near-burbs (with an electric car in the garage, to boot, as of yesterday), I'd be just as much a possible member as the socialist hipster down in Highland Square.  Maybe even moreso since I can afford the buy-in (though I know two very similar looking hipsters down in Highland Square, and one lives in cramped quarters with roommates and saves money via deferred personal hygiene, and one is a creative director at a highly successful local ad agency, so all old adages about judging books by covers apply).  My roof probably isn't strong enough to hold heavy solar panels, but they do seem to keep getting lighter.

 

Therefore, this article seemed a little schizophrenic to me, like his ideology was pushing him to try to make enemies that actually aren't necessarily opposed to his more practical goals.  He doesn't mention cooperative financial services, but that's what credit unions are, and they've been around for a very long time, and Firestone Federal Credit Union basically has my business until they do something to lose it.  We get produce from a CSA (and often from local farmer's markets as well).  I'd be very interested in looking at the economics of a power cooperative, and I've been making the case for years about how distributed solar generation is an absolutely vital development for the long-term sustainability of our suburbs (which is important, much as we might like to restrict the further growth of suburbs, because the existing ones aren't going to be dynamited or anything).  Cooperative structures have a great deal of promise.  Yet my household's money is corporate to the core: I work for a white collar law firm (i.e., a corporate partnership serving primarily other corporations and the people who own them), and my wife works for Bridgestone (hence my access to that FCU).  And I would only live downtown in a residence that Alperovitz would describe as "gentrified."  More importantly, so I think would most of the people with the disposable income necessary to make the small-scale initial capital contributions that a lot of his cooperative ventures require, and the slightly-above-bare-market-minimum prices for the goods and services such ventures will be providing for some time yet.

^^ Very good, and I can only add one thing.  The author's assumption that a large medical complex will not move or significantly downsize is fundamentally no stronger than the idea that a corporation will not.  This is especially true if "single payer" happens, as I expect he supports.

 

Not only would this remove much of the medical facilities to enrich their neighbors, but one must consider that the more involved the federal government gets, the more one must take into account the "aristocracy of pull".  Advocates of socialized medicine often speak of "underserved areas".  That would imply there are "overserved" areas and guess who that might be....

Even in a socialized system, though, the Cleveland Clinic would still be there.  Democratic socialists actually often love massive established flagship organizations (unless those organizations think about moving, of course), and you'd hardly expect that to change when those same democratic socialists controlled those flagship institutions directly.  Large, consolidated entities are easier to monitor and control from the outside (even if they can sometimes be very unwieldy from the inside).

 

The places that are really threatened by the creeping socialization of medicine are the holdout independent specialist clinics, especially places with elective procedures like the ophthalmology clinic in exurban Green where I got my LASIK done.  Midscale providers like the Crystal Clinic might fare slightly less poorly (but still not well).  The flagships are in the best position in a socialized system, which is one reason why there is such intense pressure in the industry in the age of Obamacare to join one of those flagships (witness Akron General just affiliating with the Cleveland Clinic).

 

Obviously, there would be budgetary pressures, but even within a socialist system, a consolidated Cleveland Clinic-University Hospitals-Summa would be in a good position to punch with anyone in the country in bureaucratic funding battles, just like even with state aid to higher education dwindling, OSU is still able to punch for a decent slice of the smaller pie.

 

That said, I don't want to get this thread too far off topic.  The real issue is that whether socialized or privatized or somewhere in between, even the Cleveland Clinic can't drive the entire Cleveland economy.  Nationwide Realty Investors has done fantastic work with the Arena District in Columbus, and begun another promising project at Grandview Yard (both of which Alperovitz looks like he'd oppose, because "gentrification"), but you have to take a step back and realize just how small those projects are on the scale of the entire city.  It has altered the psychological map of the city far more than the physical one, because of the Arena District's visibility.  Sort of the like the Statue of Liberty--it's actually a lot smaller than your mind can lead you to think it is.

 

This is why I'm skeptical of his anchor-institution policy.  It's not just that anchors can be unstable (see, e.g., many of the stores that used to anchor malls ...), it's that even when they're there and healthy and strong, it's still possible to put too many expectations on them an overburden them (see, e.g., LeBron James).

So what on earth is "housing justice?"  The term came up in the University Circle thread and I would quote the comment but it's now locked.

 

Call me cynical but I strongly suspect this is a case of adding the world justice to another word or phrase and then operating as if it is such.  What is the standard, philosophy, and principles of "housing justice?"  Would anyone care to indulge me?

Just like "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" it's a self given name to further their cause by looking like a good thing.

 

There are definitely housing policies that can be instituted in cities that could help people stay in their homes. San Francisco just voted on an 18-month ban on development in the Mission District (it failed). Some would argue that is housing justice.

 

I think good policies would be requiring developments that get a certain amount or type of city financing (grant, tax abatement, etc) to develop a certain amount of affordable housing for a designated time frame so a city isn't funding the pricing out of long time neighbors. And I would say that is "housing justice" since it is using the government's money to prevent the displacement of low income residents. But if you want to build a high end development and don't want any low rents, you can make the money on your own. I'd call that justice. It also doesn't prevent free markets, but ties strings to "free" money from the city.

 

There's also "environmental justice" which protects poor residents form things like heavy industry opening up and polluting near poor schools or neighborhoods (as they often do since those residents have lower voter turnout and less money to donate to campaigns of the politicians who approve of these projects).

There are definitely housing policies that can be instituted in cities that could help people stay in their homes. San Francisco just voted on an 18-month ban on development in the Mission District (it failed). Some would argue that is housing justice.

 

The counterpoint to this is that development bans do exactly the opposite that their proponents think they will do.  Rising rents and housing values follow from increased demand and not enough supply to meet that demand.  Moratoriums on new units exacerbate this and the Bay has nearly choked itself to death by not allowing new supply.

 

Still, I would have a hard time characterizing a building moratorium as "justice."  i.e. redress for a particular harm.

 

I think good policies would be requiring developments that get a certain amount or type of city financing (grant, tax abatement, etc) to develop a certain amount of affordable housing for a designated time frame so a city isn't funding the pricing out of long time neighbors. And I would say that is "housing justice" since it is using the government's money to prevent the displacement of low income residents. But if you want to build a high end development and don't want any low rents, you can make the money on your own. I'd call that justice. It also doesn't prevent free markets, but ties strings to "free" money from the city.

 

Ok, I hear ya a little clearer here but I still don't think it comes close to the concept of "justice."  This just looks like contractual obligations to me.  If the City is going to lend money to development projects, they are completely free to set the terms of the loan as they wish - that's just plain old contract negotiation.  "Justice" would come from the redress if one side breached the terms of the agreement.  One could make the argument that government shouldn't be involved in lending money to real estate developers at all but that's a whole different kettle of fish...

 

There's also "environmental justice" which protects poor residents form things like heavy industry opening up and polluting near poor schools or neighborhoods (as they often do since those residents have lower voter turnout and less money to donate to campaigns of the politicians who approve of these projects).

 

I'd have to see some specific examples to get a better idea about this but the nuisance cause of action comes to mind here.  Nuisance has provided people a way to successfully sue polluting factories for a long time - if I'm not mistaken, I think there are other tort actions that can cover this as well.

 

"Environmental justice" seems vague and more akin to a political slogan than a concrete concept.  But sure, if you can prove a particular injury and the proximate cause of that injury is a polluting factory, you have (and should have) a legal action that can mete out "Justice" (redress for a particular harm) provided the rest of the elements are met.

^Yeah I'm not arguing that renters have a right to stay where they are and at the price they are paying now. But a city should be concerned with all citizens' needs, and spending city money to help develop luxury units in a historically poor neighborhood is putting the high income residents above the low income residents. Obviously you cannot make everyone happy all of the time.

 

I'm most familiar with gentrification in Over-the-Rhine. And I would love to see some more effort to maintain existing residents. Moving is costly and can lead to homelessness to those who have no money to spare. The city shouldn't be providing large amounts of money in the form of grants to developments in the neighborhood without providing at least some requirements that the development or its developers provide some reduced-income units for qualifying renters. If the city is giving a developer the same deal as they would in other neighborhoods (like a tax abatement on improvements) then there shouldn't be additional requirements.

 

Other examples include instances where the city has spent money stabilizing a building that is about to come down. Then they sell the building for $1 to a developer to make $2500/month apartments or $300k condos. There should be a couple strings attached to the $1 sale that require at least a certain percentage of that development or a future development (I understand not every building is fit for family units or smaller units that would be affordable) be affordable to low income residents.

 

As for Environmental Justice, the best example I can think of on the top of my head is a proposed incinerator in Baltimore. Basically, the state exempted this development from rules requiring a certain distance between it and a public school. The community was dividing. Those looking for work at any cost supported building and operating and incinerator. This project would have never been proposed in a wealthy part of town. Politicians basically tried to shoehorn this project in to provide jobs without caring about the environmental impacts on the health of residents nearby.

 

Here is an article about it: http://grist.org/climate-energy/baltimore-youth-get-another-big-win-in-fight-against-incinerator/

 

The project is basically killed, but it's one example where without environmental justice advocates, the community likely would have had a waste-to-energy incinerator building within a mile of a poor neighborhood's public school. Justice is a broad term here and not used in relation to going to court and receiving it from a judge.

So what on earth is "housing justice?"  The term came up in the University Circle thread and I would quote the comment but it's now locked.

 

Call me cynical but I strongly suspect this is a case of adding the world justice to another word or phrase and then operating as if it is such.  What is the standard, philosophy, and principles of "housing justice?"  Would anyone care to indulge me?

 

It's the real estate equivalent of Norman Krumholtz's implacable opposition to the public transit system responding to the preferences of "fat cats".  Indulged, it would have similar results.

SixthCity[/member], I don't necessarily disagree with much of your substance, but you have a bizarrely legalistic view of "justice," IMHO. Courts, criminal laws, and legal causes of action are politically sanctioned methods of obtaining justice, but it seems awfully narrow to define "justice" as being a function of them.  Seems pretty clear to me that people use "justice" as a heavier word for "fairness." You are free, of course, to argue against anyone's sense of fairness, but the semantic attack seems slightly obtuse.

The problem I have with the anti-gentrification a.k.a. "housing justice" crowd is that they want to act like housing is a special sector that should not be subject to rules of economics. Which makes sense for the few of them that are self-described socialists and want to put an end to personal property rights. (Obviously that's never going to happen in America.) But the idea that housing should remain privately owned but rent should be capped...it doesn't really compute. It's like they're saying, "I want to live in the cool part of town where rents are expensive but I don't want to pay for it."

 

If you want to drive down housing costs, you need to add more supply. One way of looking at this is to allow more development and more density in desirable neighborhoods. But at a larger scale, what needs to happen is that more neighborhoods need to be made desirable. The neighborhoods that are rising in value the most right now are the ones with good urban form, walkability, close proximity to business districts, and/or great transit access. So... let's build more neighborhoods that have these characteristics.

I have a question with this whole argument. How many of the existing residents are renters in these situations? My point is, homeowners in neighborhoods with gentrification would experience similar positive wealth with their own property value.

 

Unless the vast majority of the existing residents are renters, I don't see all the issues people are mentioning.

SixthCity[/member], I don't necessarily disagree with much of your substance, but you have a bizarrely legalistic view of "justice," IMHO. Courts, criminal laws, and legal causes of action are politically sanctioned methods of obtaining justice, but it seems awfully narrow to define "justice" as being a function of them.  Seems pretty clear to me that people use "justice" as a heavier word for "fairness." You are free, of course, to argue against anyone's sense of fairness, but the semantic attack seems slightly obtuse.

 

Sure - I think you've cut to the heart of the issue.  Which is, that people label anything they like as "justice" or even "fairness" (which has arguably less curb appeal) and then want to enjoy the benefits of misusing a term that has real substance.

 

Courts, criminal laws, and legal causes of action don't give rise to justice - it's exactly the opposite.  The philosophical roots of "justice" have given rise to our criminal codes and common law, which over time, have been gently refined.  "Justice" as commonly understood in our society is rooted in thousands of years of built upon philosophical debate that has been codified and I would argue, an innate sense of human morality.

 

So I am wildly skeptical when someone claims that they should be able to live in their apartment at static rent levels in the name of "Justice" or "fairness."  What is the principle that is founded upon?

So I am wildly skeptical when someone claims that they should be able to live in their apartment at static rent levels in the name of "Justice" or "fairness."  What is the principle that is founded upon?

 

Almost no one argues this. The few that do are very loud and outspoken, though.

 

There are definitely policies that can be in place to help a transition happen smoothly without violating the property rights of building owners.

 

And most places where this is an issue are extremely high renter populations (Over-the-Rhine, Harlem, Mission District, etc).

^ makes much more sense.

If you want to drive down housing costs, you need to add more supply. One way of looking at this is to allow more development and more density in desirable neighborhoods. But at a larger scale, what needs to happen is that more neighborhoods need to be made desirable. The neighborhoods that are rising in value the most right now are the ones with good urban form, walkability, close proximity to business districts, and/or great transit access. So... let's build more neighborhoods that have these characteristics.

 

Higher Density would be great for San Francisco, where the number of undesirable neighborhoods is approaching 0, more desirable neighborhoods great for Cincinnati where there is an abundance of underutalization.

 

Also one thing not brought up is desnification/walkability of suburbs too.  Big chunk of San Frans problem has to do with Mt View not wanting to build housing (though that's changing but its a slow long process all the way around - the city shouldn't carry the whole burden of the Bay Areas issues).

I made a map of demographic changes in all of Franklin County's census tracts since 1990.  They show some interesting and surprising things.  In the urban core, it is not just a matter of whites replacing others, as that is happening in relatively few tracts. 

 

http://allcolumbusdata.com/?p=5026

 

In terms of the number of tracts being integrated, I looked also looked at Cuyahoga and Hamilton counties to see how many tracts were integrated in 2014.

 

I didn't do maps for Cuyahoga or Hamilton counties because I cannot find decent black tract maps that I can edit.  I did, however, look at the demographics of every single tract in each of the 3 counties.

 

Here is the bottom line.

 

In Cuyahoga County, there were 104 integrated tracts of 444 county tracts, representing 23.42%. 

In Hamilton County, there were just 36 of 222 that were integrated, representing 16.22% of the total.

In Franklin County, there were 93 of 284, representing 32.75%.

 

This was in 2014.  I am working on the numbers for earlier years to see how this total is changing over time. 

 

Another thing I noticed is that, within the integrated tracts, Cleveland's had the most that included a sizeable Hispanic population, while only Columbus had a sizeable Asian component. 

 

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-englewood-starbucks-opening-0928-biz-20160927-story.html

 

So this is an interesting investment. For those who don't know, Englewood is among the most dangerous neighborhoods in Chicago, if not country, and is as economically depressed and violent as you can imagine.

 

So will this be a success or failure? Appropriate inside and parking lot security are key (we obviously don't want another Steelyard Wal-Mart). Adaptability is also essential (example: the University Heights Whole Foods had to close the Cedar Road doors to counteract liquor theft).

 

There is a fantastic independent coffee shop nearby (Kusayana coffee), so good neighborhood-supported businesses can survive the area. It's kind of exciting (though to be frank, I'm awfully cynical).

 

The area won't gentrify solely due to Whole Foods of course, but the word gets thrown out a lot here -- and I had to put this post somewhere  :-o :-o :-o

 

It would be cool if all the people in Cincinnati who complain about gentrification in Over-the-Rhine started paying attention to the areas where displacement is actually occurring, like in Newport, where a housing project is being demolished for a highway.

It would be cool if all the people in Cincinnati who complain about gentrification in Over-the-Rhine started paying attention to the areas where displacement is actually occurring, like in Newport, where a housing project is being demolished for a highway.

 

100% agree. If it's not OTR, the anti-gentrification crowd is usually silent. Total double standard.

^ I feel like I've told this story in another thread, but I'll post it here. When I was growing up on the east side of Cincinnati, there was a mobile home park in Milford on State Route 28 right by I-275. Around the time I was in high school, the residents were kicked out and the land was replaced with a strip center containing a Lowe's, Chipotle, Fifth Third Bank, IHOP, and other stores of that nature. What's funny is that I didn't hear a single person talk about "gentrification" or "displacement" when that happened... because if it happens in a suburban or rural area, everyone ignores it or even approves of it. And in Cincinnati, you can narrow it down even further and say that the focus is only on OTR. When "gentrification" or "displacement" (which are not the same thing, BTW) happens in other neighborhoods, no one usually notices. I'm very pleasantly surprised that the Enquirer wrote a story about the people that are losing their homes in Newport.

It's 2016 going on 2017 and many move-in ready houses are still listed in Cincinnati and across the river for under $75,000.  That's pretty much the lowest in the United States. 

There's a house I just looked at listed for $50k. By no means is it swanky, but you have a kitchen, living room, two bedrooms, a back yard, and is move in ready. You could probably talk them down 10% or so and end up getting a place with a ~$250/month mortgage.

^ I feel like I've told this story in another thread, but I'll post it here. When I was growing up on the east side of Cincinnati, there was a mobile home park in Milford on State Route 28 right by I-275. Around the time I was in high school, the residents were kicked out and the land was replaced with a strip center containing a Lowe's, Chipotle, Fifth Third Bank, IHOP, and other stores of that nature. What's funny is that I didn't hear a single person talk about "gentrification" or "displacement" when that happened... because if it happens in a suburban or rural area, everyone ignores it or even approves of it. And in Cincinnati, you can narrow it down even further and say that the focus is only on OTR. When "gentrification" or "displacement" (which are not the same thing, BTW) happens in other neighborhoods, no one usually notices. I'm very pleasantly surprised that the Enquirer wrote a story about the people that are losing their homes in Newport.

 

 

That happens a lot in the USA.

 

Where I am from, they tore out about 100 mobile home units and are tearing down longtime local establishments to creat a "downtown" in an immediate suburb of Cedar Rapids.  I think they tore out the apartments in 2011 and when I went back recently they had torn everything else down, but they kicked all those residents out in 2011 and just getting around now to build the "downtown".  It wasn't even like there was any crime at all there, I think they are trying to tear out the old part of the city which was many trailer homes and apartments as it expands outward.  Trailer parks get a bad rep but most of them are just fine, I grew up playing in the trailer park communities, even though we lived in a house close by. 

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0388898,-91.6731994,3a,75y,24.66h,78.82t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s47K4M7kxjEb0o6SRgAqaLg!2e0!5s20120501T000000!7i13312!8i6656

 

They then suggested re-building this community about 2.5 miles to the northeast and the people of that suburb pushed back so hard they couldn't get it to pass.  Who knows where they ended up.

 

They are also going to build a highway exit ramp close by and tear out the trailer park community there as well, which is much bigger than this one.  They are going to build commercial ammenities, which I would guess consist of some gas stations. Sad deal how that happens and that is big scale displacement, especially for a place like Iowa.

 

 

It's 2016 going on 2017 and many move-in ready houses are still listed in Cincinnati and across the river for under $75,000.  That's pretty much the lowest in the United States. 

 

Appalachia has a lot of livable houses at $35K since there are almost no jobs.

^ I feel like I've told this story in another thread, but I'll post it here. When I was growing up on the east side of Cincinnati, there was a mobile home park in Milford on State Route 28 right by I-275. Around the time I was in high school, the residents were kicked out and the land was replaced with a strip center containing a Lowe's, Chipotle, Fifth Third Bank, IHOP, and other stores of that nature. What's funny is that I didn't hear a single person talk about "gentrification" or "displacement" when that happened... because if it happens in a suburban or rural area, everyone ignores it or even approves of it. And in Cincinnati, you can narrow it down even further and say that the focus is only on OTR. When "gentrification" or "displacement" (which are not the same thing, BTW) happens in other neighborhoods, no one usually notices. I'm very pleasantly surprised that the Enquirer wrote a story about the people that are losing their homes in Newport.

 

That area has actually been through TONS of changes in the past 20 years. The area always had economic activity during that time but much has been torn down and rebuilt. That's kind of unusual in a lot of those types of areas... usually they just become abandoned over time.

 

 

The other thing that can happen to trailer parks is that they get shut down for water, sewer and environmental violations. A lot of older trailer parks that opened in the '50s and '60s and haven't been upgraded much have all kinds of very expensive-to-fix problems. I saw 3-4 trailer parks in Pickaway County shut down in the '90s because they got old.

It's crazy the price difference say in the outer area of Covington vs Oakley.  It seems the homes are of similar quality and size

 

Covington 3 Bed 2 Bath, $95k with probably $25k-$50k in reno for kitchen, 95k

 

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/NKY/456756/212-W-33rd-St-Covington-KY-41015

 

Oakley 3 Bed, 2 Bath with probably $75k in reno needed, 175k

 

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/CIN/1493448/3777-Ferdinand-Pl-Oakley-OH-45209

 

Of course, all about location, but it is crazy how much less expensive Covington is than some of Cincinnati's in city neighborhoods are

It's crazy the price difference say in the outer area of Covington vs Oakley.  It seems the homes are of similar quality and size

 

Covington 3 Bed 2 Bath, $95k with probably $25k-$50k in reno for kitchen, 95k

 

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/NKY/456756/212-W-33rd-St-Covington-KY-41015

 

Oakley 3 Bed, 2 Bath with probably $75k in reno needed, 175k

 

https://www.sibcycline.com/Listing/CIN/1493448/3777-Ferdinand-Pl-Oakley-OH-45209

 

Of course, all about location, but it is crazy how much less expensive Covington is than some of Cincinnati's in city neighborhoods are

 

 

Exactly.  On the west side or in Kentucky people sometimes live in modest homes that they inherited, but on the east side of Cincinnati people buy houses en masse with inherited money.  That's how prices get out of hand. 

 

Yeah well you go more then 4-5 blocks south in Covington and it gets bad real fast.  People will obviously pay more to live in nicer and safer neighborhoods. 

Well maybe if you are talking more about the inner city area I would agree, but if you compare say this area with College Hill, the home prices are 30-40% lower with probably the same or less of a commute to downtown Cincinnati.  And I would guess there is probably more crime in College Hill than in this area.

 

All that said, these are more suburban areas, not exactly a walkable area.  And in my opinion the Ohio side has more going on entertainment wise than the NKY side, but it's a bit crazy you get the same house, with probably better yard, for about 30-50% less.

I think it's less about crime and more about 'culture'. Once you get away from the super nice parts of Covington (Licking-Riverside Historic District and Mainstrasse), it gets real Kentucky real fast. Other than a small black pocket on the eastern edge of the city, and random Hispanic pockets scattered about, it's very white, and pretty Appalachian.  For being so close to Cincinnati, it has a totally different vibe.  Also, a lot of people simply don't want to live in Kentucky, for one reason or another.  I, personally, think Covington is beautiful, but I just wouldn't want a Kentucky mailing address.  I don't want to live in a deep red state, don't want to live in a 'Southern' state with a legacy of slavery and what not, and I want to have a say in the political landscape of Ohio and Cincinnati.  Kentucky is basically a non-starter for me for those reasons.

I think it's less about crime and more about 'culture'. Once you get away from the super nice parts of Covington (Licking-Riverside Historic District and Mainstrasse), it gets real Kentucky real fast. Other than a small black pocket on the eastern edge of the city, and random Hispanic pockets scattered about, it's very white, and pretty Appalachian.  For being so close to Cincinnati, it has a totally different vibe.  Also, a lot of people simply don't want to live in Kentucky, for one reason or another.  I, personally, think Covington is beautiful, but I just wouldn't want a Kentucky mailing address.  I don't want to live in a deep red state, don't want to live in a 'Southern' state with a legacy of slavery and what not, and I want to have a say in the political landscape of Ohio and Cincinnati.  Kentucky is basically a non-starter for me for those reasons.

 

Well I think everything would change in Covington and change quickly if we had a subway line link it with Cincinnati.  A line from Latonia north through Covington then under the river then north to UC and the hospitals puts all of that Kentucky housing within a 15-minute transit ride of the region's #1 and #2 jobs centers.  But people like Stephen Frank march around pretending that Covington is A-OK. 

 

If you work in Ohio and live in Kentucky do you have to pay state taxes in both?  How does that work?  I've never lived on a state line before.

If you work in Ohio and live in Kentucky do you have to pay state taxes in both?  How does that work?  I've never lived on a state line before.

 

I worked in Kentucky twice while living in Ohio but I honestly can't remember how it worked.  I think you had to pay the municipal earnings tax but you were exempted from the state tax if you made less than some threshold. 

I know I got a bill from the Commonwealth after I filed my 1040 the year I worked in Florence but can't remember if Ohio taxes also got taken.

If you work in Ohio and live in Kentucky do you have to pay state taxes in both?  How does that work?  I've never lived on a state line before.

 

Ohio and Kentucky have a reciprocal agreement - if you live in one state and work in the other, your employer is not required to withhold income tax for the state the employer is in. I don't know if your employer withholds for the other state, or it it is entirely up to you to take care of it. You only pay income tax to the state you reside in. I think you still do pay city income tax in the city your employer is in, though.

Does Kentucky collect municipal taxes then distribute them to the municipality? The money I sent wasn't directly to the City of Florence, but would be a realistic amount for municipal taxes.

Is there any real benefit to that 'highway' they are displacing those people for? It just follows the Licking and some railroad tracks to 275 past unbuildable hillsides and industrial sites.

Is there any real benefit to that 'highway' they are displacing those people for? It just follows the Licking and some railroad tracks to 275 past unbuildable hillsides and industrial sites.

 

No.  I bike down there a few times per year and there is very little traffic on the 4-lane highway between Newport and I-275.  This extension is saving drivers 5 minutes of stop sign stops and maybe 4 stop lights on their way to Bobby Mackie's and The Playpen. 

If there weren't so many damn one-ways there people wouldn't beat on the few roads they can trust as badly.

The Bubble -- it's Brooklyn...with a bubble on it:

This short film from (I think) 2016 makes fun (pretty effectively) of the pedal wagon crowd by simply letting the camera run:

Denver built a record number of apartments in 2016, and rent is now dropping at the fastest rate in 36 years

 

It's so odd to me that the social justice and anti-gentrification crowd usually fights new development, especially anything called "luxury." Gentrification is actually caused by the lack of housing in desirable areas, which allows landlords to raise rents. And when you build new "luxury" apartments or townhomes, higher income people gobble up that new housing stock, keeping existing lower priced housing on the market for people with lower incomes.

^I am fervently YIMBY, but to be fair, you are completely ignoring the spatial aspect. New development both has localize effects and wider housing market effects. It's completely possible for a development wave to simultaneously reduce rent pressure in a city overall (which is great!) while leading to increased rent pressure in specific neighborhoods (which triggers response from parochial interests).That is not a justification for anti-development policies, but pretending that all parochial concerns are imaginary, which some YIMBY folks do, is a bit obtuse.

To state the obvious: The reason that certain neighborhoods feel the rent pressure more than others is because they are very desirable. They have the qualities that many urban residents want in a neighborhood: walkability, vibrancy, unique businesses, historic architecture, etc.

 

If we focus solely on the rising rents in those neighborhoods, we are missing the larger picture, which is that we need to make more neighborhoods desirable. If Cincinnati still had 30+ vibrant neighborhoods business districts, OTR wouldn't be feeling all the pressure. We are finally starting to see major developments come to other neighborhoods like Pleasant Ridge and Walnut Hills and Northside, and that is going to take some of the pressure off of OTR.

 

Unfortunately we continue to build a lot of junk in Cincinnati. When big spaces open up for development, we build 1950's style subdivisions and big box strip centers, instead of new urbanism. We also failed to implement form-based codes in our existing urban neighborhoods, so we often end up with suburban infill. Therefore, anyone who desires an urban lifestyle is restricted to just a handful of neighborhoods, which is going to cause redevelopment to accelerate in those neighborhoods, resulting in rising rents.

To sum it up another way, my problem with a lot of the anti-gentrification crowd is that they think the solution is to block good things from happening. They protest new developments, renovations to existing buildings, and sometime even things like parks and grocery stores in urban neighborhoods. But that's not going to work, because people that have money and want to live in urban neighborhoods will find a way to do so. The only solution that doesn't result in people getting kicked out of their homes is to build enough urban housing to meet the demand. And that has to happen in two ways: by adding more housing stock to existing "hot" neighborhoods, and by making sure other neighborhoods meet some of that demand (as I posted above).

Oakley Station + Center of Cincinnati was a disaster for that part of Cincinnati because the new site for multiple big box retail eroded traditional retail in the traditional business districts like Oakley Square.  That big piece of land should have had zero retail, or at least big box type retail. 

kind of simplified, but decent:

 

 

thank goodness for the new brooklyn

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/goodness-new-brooklyn-article-1.2938132

kind of simplified, but decent:

 

 

thank goodness for the new brooklyn

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/goodness-new-brooklyn-article-1.2938132

 

From the NY Times, last week:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/upshot/a-secret-of-many-urban-20-somethings-their-parents-help-with-the-rent.html?_r=0

 

 

No denying that gentrification isn't driven just by higher wages -- it's also people inheriting money or people who are partially or fully supported by their parents well into adulthood. 

 

 

Well I always hear stories about how people in the Baby Boomer generation used to be able to get a good paying job right out of college (or sometimes even high school) and be able to afford a decent starter home in a decent neighborhood in their early 20s. So overall, I don't think young people today are living any more "extravagantly" than young people in previous generations. It's just that a lot of young people now have lower paying jobs and many of them therefore are relying on their parents for help with rent or a mortgage down payment.