From Cincinnati.com

 

"Under Brickstone's relocation plan, residents will be able to move to a property owned or managed by the Model Group or take a Section-8 housing voucher that can be used at any qualifying unit in Hamilton County. Brickstone has said the locations of the Model Group units have yet to be determined, but a majority of units are available in Over-the-Rhine's Gateway Quarter and East Walnut Hills."

Metropole residents play race card

Aided by the Legal Aid Society of Southwest Ohio and by the Greater Cincinnati Coalition for the Homeless, Metropole Apartment residents are fighting the planned relocation of approximately 208 residents to properties managed by the Model Group in East Walnut Hills and in Over-the-Rhine's Gateway Quarter.

 

And already, the race card has been used and abused.

Do we know where they are suggesting moving these people? Just because they are tenants in this building doesn't mean that they don't have rights.

 

Actually, it kind of does. Tenants only have rights to the extent of their lease, and even those are quite limited when the building changes ownership.

 

Bottom line: if 3CDC wanted to, they could just wait 1 year until all the leases expire and provide ZERO relocation assistance. 3CDC is being amazingly generous with their current plan. They are doing far more than they have to. Frankly, given the undisputed evidence of a criminal element among the tenants, I think 3CDC is being too generous with their relocation plan. I wish they'd implement some strict oversight to ensure that problem tenants are not granted relocation assistance.

Paid relocation costs. Section-8 vouchers. One year relocation timeline and free assistance. Rent stabilization. Larger, safer and cleaner units.

 

That's more than I get out of my lease!

If the tenants really are close to work and services that they receive and have routines then being moved to East Walnut Hills could be an issue.

 

I realize that this website is full of planning and developing people that are primarily interested in the redevelopment of the city.  I applaud and appreciate that sentiment.  I also tend to lean towards bleeding heart liberal and would like to see the development proceed with care towards these tenants.

 

I hope 3cdc continues to treat them with respect and i hope these folks are moved to a location closer to where they are now than EWH.

 

I have a feeling people might react differently if their grandmother was in that building.

Paid relocation costs. Section-8 vouchers. One year relocation timeline and free assistance. Rent stabilization. Larger, safer and cleaner units.

 

That's more than I get out of my lease!

 

Agreed. If my landlord decided to sell my building and turn it into a hotel, I'd have exactly 30 days to pack up my stuff and get out, and I'd have to cough up my own moving expenses, as well as the application fee, broker's fee, security deposit, etc. for a new apartment. Sorry, but I have a hard time feeling too bad about the plight of the Metropole residents... And I don't think my liberal credentials are seriously in doubt around here.

presumably you are in a better position to find new accommodations and pay those fees.  You also may have better access to transportation to get the places you need to go in the course of your day.

 

Not to mention that you'd be pissed off too if that happened.

^Really?  Isn't that the essence of sympathy?  Also, those guys are usually old ex-offenders, pretty much the most despised element of our society.  It doesn't cost much to understand how someone who lives there might not want to move, and might be concerned that they would even be able to find a similar place.

 

The thing that is most obnoxious about this conversion is that 3CDC is turning what is currently a building in use and giving it another function, when there are plenty of available and attractive vacant buildings a block away.  I understand that it might be cheaper to redo the Metropole than say, the Enquirer building or the Crowne Plaza Hotel, but it strikes me that you would be adding more value to the City by refurbishing a vacant building.  Also, that block of Walnut is thriving.  Let's spread some of the love around to the next block.  I think we'd get more bang from our buck there.

 

Just a thought, but in retrospect, doesn't the Aronoff Project seem like a huge waste?  The building is attractive enough, but when you think about how the Emery is lying vacant just a few blocks north, and all the empty lots and underused buildings that could have been built on or refurbished while preserving the buildings that existed on that block of 7th, doesn't it all seem sort of silly?

It doesn't matter, diaspora. They own the building. They are being MORE than generous by offering FREE relocation assistance, rent compromises (e.g. caps), MUCH better living conditions, section-8 vouchers... I wish I can get that in the free market economy!

 

Of course we are in a better position, but we don't get these handouts. But if you cannot find a new place to live, or work with Brookstone in finding a new place to live in a YEAR, then you are either too damn lazy, incompetent, or you just really love the Metropole that much and want to fight it till the very end.

 

The Metropole may be convenient for some, but it is on public transport routes. So are the other properties.

 

If my building went condo, should I complain and then charge of racism to the Legal Aid Society? How does that work since I am Asian and my building owner is white? I wonder if I can get away with that?

Of course we are in a better position, but we don't get these handouts. But if you cannot find a new place to live, or work with Brookstone in finding a new place to live in a YEAR, then you are either too damn lazy, incompetent, or you just really love the Metropole that much and want to fight it till the very end.

 

I think a decent amount of those guys are ex-offenders, and probably registered sex offenders as well.  It's not super easy for them to find places to live, or work for that matter.  Also, the one bedroom efficiency apartment flop house style of living isn't a product that is offered much in this town.  It's somewhat unique to the Metropole and the Dennison Hotel.

I have a feeling people might react differently if their grandmother was in that building.

 

I'd never allow my grandmother to live in that building.  Have you heard about the living conditions in there?  (Does anyone have pics?)  3CDC wouldn't be doing the current residents any favors by letting them stay.  I find it hard to believe that wherever they are relocated would be anything short of an upgrade.

It's actually pretty disgusting, Jimmy. I went in there to look at a unit (when I was wanting a property in DT over a year ago). Shared bathrooms. Rooms no bigger than my office cubicle. No central A/C and heat. Cockroaches and rats in the hallways and the room they showed me. Leaky windows. Prostitutes in the building. And what I am certain were lookouts or drug dealers in the lobby and hallway.

Yes, these people should be thankful for 3CDC's largesse.

 

I'm not here to argue, but i don't see how demonizing these people really helps when it's pretty easy to see why they might be pissed off.

^I think it's the racism accusation that has people miffed.  3CDC is doing far more than they are required to do.  It's totally reasonable for the Metropole residents to be upset, but falsely charging an organization with racism because you're PO'd is just wrong, particularly when that organization is bending over backwards to help you make the best of a bad situation.

 

//EDIT: And this totally ignores the issue where "crying wolf" like this, on a cultural level, completely undermines the very real (albeit improving) problem with racism that America is still struggling with.

The building I live in got sold a few months ago, and I got the shaft in comparison to what Metropole residents are getting.  I think most people will be fine with this whole redevelopment, and only a few will kick up any dust, and even fewer will pay attention to it. 

i think it's interesting that the 1 year relocation timeline is considered generous in this thread when 3CDC is merely giving the amount of time required by law.

 

I have a feeling that these "benefits" are merely what is required of them and probably have sunset provisions built in that will stop the benefits after a period of time.

^ diaspora. You are incorrect. They are going above what is required by law.

incorrect about what part? the one year? that appears to be required.

^ 30 day is standard for most residential leases, even in NYC. It may be even less for an SRO occupancy, which is basically a flophouse.

 

I went in there to look at a unit (when I was wanting a property in DT over a year ago). Shared bathrooms. Rooms no bigger than my office cubicle. No central A/C and heat. Cockroaches and rats in the hallways and the room they showed me. Leaky windows. Prostitutes in the building. And what I am certain were lookouts or drug dealers in the lobby and hallway.

 

In addition to all that, I'm guessing the building in its current state doesn't come anywhere close to meeting modern life safety standards, and there's a good chance the place is loaded with mold and/or asbestos. If a major fire breaks out and this building turns into another Paxton Hotel or if residents start getting sick with respiratory problems, the same people who are fighting tooth-and-nail today to preserve the status quo will no doubt be screaming bloody murder because the tenants weren't moved into safer facilities.

Here's a link to the article where it says that under federal guidelines tenants are given one year to move.

I believe that's a misstatement by the enquirer. The former owner had HUD waive the HAP contract for the building. (This is why the tenants are suing HUD only. They have no conceivable grounds to sue 3CDC). 3CDC is now helping the tenants switch over to modern Section 8 vouchers from their current building-specific HAP subsidies. It's my understanding that there's zero obligation to give them a year window or really any assistance at all.

 

I'll admit that my Ohio specific knowledge isn't perfect, so don't hold me to this, but I believe this is where they stand:

 

- The old owner got a HUD waiver already. 3CDC buys the building without any obligation to continue the HUD contract

- Consequently, 3CDC is not beholden to previous leases. The tenants are officially considered "month-to-month" and 3CDC can kick them out with 30 days notice. Period. Same as any other apartment that's sold to a new owner.

- As others have mentioned, the Metropole is supposedly so nasty on the inside that 3CDC could probably have it condemned immediately anyway. So they could probably get people kicked out even faster.

 

But again, 3CDC is doing none of this. They are being quite proactive and frankly, in their effort to be nice, are going to be giving a lot of assistance to criminals and people abusing the system, as well as the deserving folks.

the enquirer articles go pretty far into depth about the HAP contracts.

 

Unlike a Section-8 housing voucher that residents can take with them to a location of their choosing, HAP contracts provide a housing subsidy that is specific to a building. In most cases, the federal government will not allow the transfer of the contract to other developments.

 

But an earmark passed by Congress as part of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 grants the Model Group and one other Columbus-based entity the right to break up and transfer the contracts.

From what I've heard on the street, the Metropole is condemnable and a fire hazard...

Then the rehabilitation will be a great thing and the residents will all be better off being moved.

 

That's a great end result. But how we get there does matter.  The means tell us a lot about what we value...more so than the ends.

3CDC is committed to making the transition as painless and smooth as possible. That said, they are being given a year to relocate, which abides by federal policy, and no laws, guidelines or policies are being broken in this manner. What is disturbing, in my opinion, is that the race card is being whored out in every imaginable circumstance.

 

Gateway Quarter/redevelopment

Metropole

Banks (lack of minority inclusion)

West End redevelopment

Lower Price Hill/Queensgate development

Streetcars

Light rail

 

etc.

Sherman, excellent point.  The reckless use of the race card undermines the African American community more than it helps it.  I am still utterly baffled how the streetcar is racist but Smiteran seems to think so.

Then the rehabilitation will be a great thing and the residents will all be better off being moved.

 

That's a great end result. But how we get there does matter. The means tell us a lot about what we value...more so than the ends.

 

Seeing that the Metropole is meant for people that don't even have enough money to pay monthly rent, I can't imagine too many of the residents have been there for long enough to establish a real bond with the place.  Look, the building was sold and is changing uses.  The residents are being offered assistance and one year to move into better conditions.  I can understand why the residents would be pissed about being forced to move, but seeing that they don't own thier homes, do they even really have a leg to stand on?  The feds and the taxpayers are basically paying for these people to live there.  This building has been tied to crime and prostitution in the past, and is obviously not the best use of space for this location.

^Large projects like this that are by their very nature, transformational have to go through a series of checks and consideration for groups affected by this, the poor, is one of them.  In Cincinnati, you check down, on race, poverty and such things or you get burned later.  Importantly, holding developmental interests accountable to a broader swath is perfectly reasonable, in fact, commendable.

 

All in all, it looks like the majority of these issues are going through the right checks.

They are RENTERS! unbelievable argument

 

Renovating this spot on Walnut rather than somewhere else a few blocks away adds to existing features and is helping to turn the area into a destination

>The means tell us a lot about what we value...more so than the ends.

 

This building is populated by a large number of drug dealers, drug addicts, pimps, and prostitutes. Poverty pimps always find the one sad case and trot them out for the cameras. 

Renovating this spot on Walnut rather than somewhere else a few blocks away adds to existing features and is helping to turn the area into a destination.

 

I'd argue that this place is already a destination, and that you'd rather add something new a block or so away, to expand the circle, and to utilize a building that is currently getting no use.  Just a thought.

This building is populated by a large number of drug dealers, drug addicts, pimps, and prostitutes. Poverty pimps always find the one sad case and trot them out for the cameras.

I would also suggest that how we treat the worst among us tells us a lot about what we value.

 

I don't know any of these people or what they may or may not have done.  Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

 

As long as these people are treated fairly i don't have a problem with it...although i do agree with LincolnKennedy that maybe spreading development might be good.

I'd argue that this place is already a destination, and that you'd rather add something new a block or so away, to expand the circle, and to utilize a building that is currently getting no use.  Just a thought.

 

I might agree with you if this were a smaller property.  But it has a disproportionate impact on that block any way you measure it.  It's street frontage alone is about 1/3 of the entire west side of Walnut.

 

More generally (and not responding to your comment) - this block in the center of our downtown should be solid gold in an economically healthy Cincinnati, and with this conversion it almost will be that.  Every city needs a safety zone for venti-caramel-soy-frappacino drinkin' foo-foo people and their big checkbooks, and ours ain't done, yet.  It was bad policy to convert Metropole to its current use, and I'm happy it's going to go back to what it was originally designed for. 

 

If that makes me sound like a bigot so be it, but I'll also say that, living in Gateway, I'm happy to welcome those people from the Metropole who aren't criminals to our neighborhood, cause I think that's what OTR should be - re-developing with a healthy mix of races and incomes.  But 6th and Walnut?  No way.

Most retail consultants will tell you that synergy of uses is important, as is having having complementary uses adjacent or facing each other on opposite sides of a street. So there IS merit to having everything in one node, or little district.

 

An extreme example is Findlay Market. Imagine the foot traffic if it were at, say, 5th and Race.

Most retail consultants will tell you that synergy of uses is important, as is having having complementary uses adjacent or facing each other on opposite sides of a street. So there IS merit to having everything in one node, or little district.

 

Though my Uncle Jack once told me, "Never badmouth synergy", I can't really agree, even if you add the opinion of the average retail consultant.  It still seems to be better to utilize a vacant building a block away.

 

I might agree with you if this were a smaller property.  But it has a disproportionate impact on that block any way you measure it.  It's street frontage alone is about 1/3 of the entire west side of Walnut.

 

I guess I didn't really make explicit the point that everything new and yuppie that has been built up in this block has come after the Metropole became housing for degenerates (except perhaps the Aronoff).  Seeing how it hasn't effected this block negatively from an investment standpoint, once again, why not use an abandoned building, or a surface parking lot, either of which are easily found merely a block away from this site (unless of course this building, for some reason, is the only one that works in terms of cost)?

 

Obviously this is an academic discussion, but it seems like you could have had an absolute positive by putting this in an abandoned building instead of simply a net positive by changing the use.

 

If anyone is to blame for the Metropole being redeveloped, I would put the blame on the prior owners who let the building get in its current condition, then selling it.  Sherman has seen the inside of this building and posted about it, and no one should be living in those conditions.  I find it more upsetting that the owners allowed roaches and rats to run around the building where humans live.  I cannot be upset with the owners who are offering relocation assistance to a better place for the same amount of money. 

 

I do not live in rent now, but I have in the past.  I'm pretty sure if my old apartment had been sold to a new owner that I would have been on my own to find a new place.  There would have been no guarantee that I would find a better place for the same amount of money.  It does not sound like 3CDC is mistreating the current residents of the Metropole.

Obviously this is an academic discussion, but it seems like you could have had an absolute positive by putting this in an abandoned building instead of simply a net positive by changing the use.

 

You can't quantify this kind of thing. Often in development 1+1=3.

 

Renting is a fundamentally transient way of living. The axiom in this argument might be that low income people's "right to a home" is the circumstance of having a home, not a geographic location.

... Every city needs a safety zone for venti-caramel-soy-frappacino drinkin' foo-foo people and their big checkbooks, and ours ain't done, yet.

 

...living in Gateway, I'm happy to welcome those people from the Metropole who aren't criminals to our neighborhood, cause I think that's what OTR should be - re-developing with a healthy mix of races and incomes.  But 6th and Walnut?  No way.

 

When the Aronoff was first proposed to be built, many supporters of Music Hall were worried that it would draw away support.  Now it is occuring.  And why should people going to a Broadway show have a rich safety zone around it, but not Cincinnati Opera or Symphony fans?  The Opera is suffering, and the Ballet has moved shows to the Aronoff probably because of the stigma around Music Hall. 

 

Metropole residents should be able to stay in the CBD, not because they have something owed to them, but because it benefits all of us to have a rich, diverse downtown.  Small, cheap housing is a necessary component of downtown living that is NOT being built, and is in fact being eliminated.  I think we will suffer for this lack of foresight.

^So the Aronoff "deserves" to have some poor people next to it? Sorry I'm not being snide, I'm trying to connect your first and second paragraph and synthesize your argument.

 

I do not feel that poverty is a necessary component of diversity. That could lead to celebrating poverty. We as planners push for economically integrated neighborhoods because it promotes stability, not because being poor is something to embrace.

I'd rather have the people who wash the dishes, sweep the floors etc etc live near where they work, including near where I live.  That is the kind of city I prefer, and I will continue to push for it.  Today OTR is the place for the poor, tomorrow it will be some other place.  This is not a way to build a good city IMO.  After the Metropole closes, I bet there will be less than 200 places in the CBD for the poor, and those will be gone in the next few years probably.  SROs and really small apartments make the most sense downtown, near services, jobs and transit.

^ I bet you are right, someday there may be no low-income housing in the CBD at all. The point with economically mixed neighborhoods is to make sure people have access to services, not to draw arbitrary lines and say that there needs to be such-and-such. Actually, the CBD is far from an ideal residential neighborhood. There is limited day-to-day retail and grocery and a lot of the social services are over in OTR.

 

Most planners today concede that the destiny of American CBD's might not be mixed-use meccas. Even European cities have business and cultural districts with only limited residential services.

This building is populated by a large number of drug dealers, drug addicts, pimps, and prostitutes. Poverty pimps always find the one sad case and trot them out for the cameras.

I would also suggest that how we treat the worst among us tells us a lot about what we value.

 

I don't know any of these people or what they may or may not have done. Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

 

Just walk the beat with a D1 cop, or check their crime logs. The Metropole is a hotbed of crime, prostitution and drugs. Heck, when I was being given the "tour" of the Metropole, I could easily identify the pimps, whores and other unsavories just lingering in the hallway and lobby.

I think there is two kinds of poor. At least in this country. Lazy poor and the disabled poor. The disabled needs a place close to everything. The lazy do not.

How would any neighborhood or street ever improve without some change? At what point would this building's conditions have to creep to in order for the naysayers to agree that something finally has to be done? There is no reason why any humans in a modern American city should have to live in a building like this that Sherman has described. 3CDC is being more that fair in how they are handling this, and there are many places for these people to go that will be a win-win for them. my only question is where are these pimps, prostitutes, and drug dealers going to spread out to after they move out? At least they were all concentrated in this building before.

>I would also suggest that how we treat the worst among us tells us a lot about what we value.

 

The Dean likes to use the phrase "least amongst us".  It's designed to shut down debate. 

 

 

>I don't know any of these people or what they may or may not have done.  Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

 

Yes.

 

I do not feel that poverty is a necessary component of diversity.

 

This is most definitely a component of diversity, and in fact was the key point in Aaron Renn's "The White City" article (http://www.newgeography.com/content/001110-the-white-city). 

 

You can't have a truly diverse neighborhood in Cincinnati if people living below the poverty line aren't there.  I'm not saying that that should be a goal for anyone or institution in particular, only that you'd be avoiding the most seminal dividing point for people in the local area.  I don't see how one could honestly say a neighborhood is diverse if poor folks aren't living there.  The fact is is that most people don't actually want their neighborhood to be diverse.

...the CBD is far from an ideal residential neighborhood. ..

I think it is an ideal place to live myself.

 

I think there is two kinds of poor. At least in this country. Lazy poor and the disabled poor. The disabled needs a place close to everything. The lazy do not.

Where would Charles Bukowski live?

The fact is is that most people don't actually want their neighborhood to be diverse.

 

That is complete bullsh!t and the only reason you slam that statement in there is because you don't want to engage in civil debate and want to end it with just that.

 

The people who are opposed to the Metropole redevelopment have used those tactics to label me and 3CDC supporters as "anti-poor," "disability haters," "racists," "yuppies," and so on, and it gets tiring when there are MANY other factors that goes into this. It's a free market, and they don't like how capitalism works.

The fact is is that most people don't actually want their neighborhood to be diverse.

 

That is complete bullsh!t and the only reason you slam that statement in there is because you don't want to engage in civil debate and want to end it with just that.

 

The people who are opposed to the Metropole redevelopment have used those tactics to label me and 3CDC supporters as "anti-poor," "disability haters," "racists," "yuppies," and so on, and it gets tiring when there are MANY other factors that goes into this. It's a free market, and they don't like how capitalism works.

 

Dude, look at any suburb.  Most of them aren't terribly diverse (particularly in terms of economic diversity), and are built by the current parameters of the market, which is what I suppose you are talking about when you say something like "how capitalism works".  As for not wanting to engage in civil debate, I'm interested in any statement where I used the words "anti-poor" "disability-hater" "racist" (I know I used "yuppie", largely in reference to the term being used in a previous person's post) to refer to people who are in favor of this development.  My whole point is that it seems it would have been better to use one of the many empty buildings or surface lots for this project that currently exist in the area.  That's been pretty explicit in every one of my posts.

I never stated that you used those words, but that are some of the replies I've received on UrbanUp and on other sites, and in real-life when I've attended these meetings to and asked questions. These people aren't interested in debate, or in reality -- they don't understand that they are renters, that their slumlord is letting their building deteriorate to the condition that it is condemnable. That their rooms are no bigger than my office cubicle and that is okay?

 

The Model Group is giving them a much larger living arrangement, providing them with FREE relocation assistance, and holding their rents wherever possible. And even giving them Section-8 vouchers. Of course that is not the free market or capitalism in effect, so they are going above and beyond to give these tenants, many who are hard on their feet (and others who are drug dealers, prostitutes, pimps...) a better place to live.

 

People who don't understand how a free market or capitalism works are the ones who complain -- and if we are dealing with people who are undereducated or uneducated, then they will be suckered by groups claiming to be legitimate -- the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Homeless Coalition, who are feeding them with crap they don't need to hear.