On 10/12/2021 at 5:05 PM, DEPACincy said:

 

On the other hand, it seems like the slate card is becoming more and more influential. So who knows? My prediction is, in order of votes:

 

Kearney

Landsman

Harris

Jeffreys

Cramerding 

Goodin

Keating

Gordon

Parks

 

On 10/13/2021 at 11:00 AM, DEPACincy said:

 

I think any of the following could sneak in in those bottom spots:

 

Frondorf

Castle

Flynn

Johnson

O'Neal

Owens

 

Frondorf is well-known on the west side, and she could get enough support there to push her over the top. Castle has name recognition from her Congressional run. Flynn has name recognition as a former councilperson and a well-funded campaign. And the other three benefit from being on the Democratic slate card.

 

I'll take my trophy.

Someone not winning a trophy, Charlie Winburn:

7 minutes ago, Dev said:

At least he has a website. Scotty Johnson still has a blank, reserved GoDaddy site

 

wow. I generally lean democratic, but I don't think I've ever voted for more than 6 or 7 Dems on council. Some just don't put in the effort.

9 minutes ago, Dev said:

At least he has a website. Scotty Johnson still has a blank, reserved GoDaddy site

?

 

His website is still up. Was also available last weekend while I was doing research.

2 minutes ago, Cygnus said:

?

 

His website is still up. Was also available last weekend while I was doing research.

Oh hahahaha. His Facebook has a different link: http://www.scottyjohnsonforcitycouncil.org/

Don't you mean Meta?  😆

1 hour ago, taestell said:

My hot take: If the HCDP would have endorsed Michelle Dillingham instead of Phillip O'Neal, they would have taken all 9 seats yesterday with their 9 endorsed candidates.

I'm in the same camp. No disrespect to O'Neal, he sounds like a great person. 

2 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

Are there that many fewer Republicans in the city than 10 years ago? 

 

I think that the last few elections, including Presidential elections indicate that the answer to this question is Yes. And it's not just a trend here, but across the country. The GOP is now a toxic brand in urban neighborhoods.

2 hours ago, taestell said:

My hot take: If the HCDP would have endorsed Michelle Dillingham instead of Phillip O'Neal, they would have taken all 9 seats yesterday with their 9 endorsed candidates.

 

Even hotter take: They are probably happier with Liz Keating on council than Dillingham. She has a reputation for being horrible to work with. Liz is a moderate who has a lot of the same policy goals as people like Landsman and Kearney.

13 hours ago, jdm00 said:

Not sure what you mean by balances.  There's an 8-1 Democratic majority--almost certainly the biggest Democratic majority in city history.  

I’m not sure what that really means. At the end of the day, whether you have a D, an hour, or a C behind your name in city politics, you need to keep it local and I don’t know if Candidates are going to be constrained by party as much as they would if they were running in a state wide or national election.

 

Look at David Mann, Jeff Berding, Alecia Reese Who are Democrats that did not always align themselves in a voting bloc with other Democrats. Party affiliation does not mean the same thing in local elections

19 hours ago, jdm00 said:

It's official.  The top 8 vote-getters were endorsed Democrats.  Liz Keating sneaks in at number 9, and Michelle Dillingham led the rest of the vote-getters.  

 

A bad night for the GOP and the Charterites.  I think both groups felt like they put forward pretty strong slates. 

 

It is the first time since Cincinnati changed to a 9-seat city council that Democrats have held 8 seats:

 

 

 

Tough to look at
 

 

Edited November 5, 20213 yr by Dev
Fixed Y axis

14 hours ago, Dev said:

Tough to look at
 

 

That is pretty wild. Especially given the rampant corruption we saw on the last council - with 3 of the 9 members having been arrested by the FBI, and the "Gang of Five" ordeal. One might have expected that to rile up the voters, increase turnout, and foster sweeping changes - instead it seems to have discouraged voters. Perhaps most Cincinnatians think the system is too broken to fix? It's certainly interesting, and I'm not sure what it says about the City.

I think it's a variety of factors.  I think lots of people have political fatigue generally, and if there's an election to tune out and skip, an off-off year election is probably it.  

 

You also don't have some of the issues that have driven turnout in other off year elections.  I can't recall exactly when these things were on the ballot, but in the 2007-2013 timeframe we had at least two issues related to rail transit and the repeal of Article XII.  For 2011, you had SB 5 on the ballot statewide, which no doubt helped to goose election numbers for City Council.  

 

I would also say that, all of the corruption stuff aside (and that's a pretty big aside), things are generally going pretty well in the city right now.  The population is increasing for the first time in decades, home values are increasing, development is happening in lots of places (not just downtown).  I think if there's a general sense things are going pretty well, you don't see a lot of people fired up to get to the polls.  What are the real motivating issues right now, other than the trope of "city council is dysfunctional"?  We've gone from "downtown is dying and terrible" to "housing is too expensive and we're worried about gentrification and need affordable housing" pretty quickly.  Gun violence is still too high, and there are still too many murders, but according to the police data, through 10/23 the murder pace is below last year.  Contrast that with, say, Columbus, which had already hit its second-highest murder year ever by mid-September and was at 167--8 away from their record last year--by mid-October.  (This is not a knock on Columbus, just trying to provide an example for comparison sake, so C-bus people, no need to attack.)  If the trend were different, that might have caused some more voters to go to the polls.    

 

But who knows.  I've given up trying to predict these things.  

1 hour ago, jdm00 said:

things are generally going pretty well in the city right now.  The population is increasing for the first time in decades, home values are increasing, development is happening in lots of places (not just downtown).  I think if there's a general sense things are going pretty well, you don't see a lot of people fired up to get to the polls.

 

This is right. The "gang of 5" stuff was a fake controversy ginned up by Jason Williams and others to get clicks. No one ever really cared and it wasn't that big of a deal. Plus, most of the last council is gone anyway. Landsman is the only one left (and was the second highest vote getter, further proving the texting controversy was stupid). Fact of the matter is that things are going well in Cincinnati. The city is on the rise. And the Democratic slate was fine. No one on the new council is going to blow up the progress, and in fact, several of them are capable of really accelerating it. Some people preferred Aftab and some preferred Mann but neither outcome was going to be insanely bad. So people just were not motivated. And that's fine.

Most people outside of Twitter really didn't care about the Gang of Five thing. Most people couldn't even tell you what it was. But the Enquirer was obsessed with it because a portion of the city was obsessed with it, so they fed the beast.

 

The bigger issue - corruption from developers - kind of feels like an issue that this election won't solve. There was no rhyme or reason for the 3 different people getting arrested. PG Sittenfeld wanted to build a political machine and pick winners and losers. Tamaya Dennard was bad with money and simply took financial brides. Jeff Pastor was probably similar to Dennard, but you could kind of sense he was a little sketchy with his financier who bought him a house in North Avondale. Just a very weird guy.

 

I wouldn't say people were turned off to voting because of corruption, it just wasn't the driving force the Enquirer, Charter Committee, etc thought it would be to increase turnout. Really, this just continues the trend of the last few decades. Eventually we'll bottom out on turnout. But it appears we haven't done that yet. Some day it'll likely go back up.

 

I do think more people would turn out to vote if there were wards, but I don't know if that necessarily would make a better city council.

Lower turnout in municipal elections is a national trend. New York City had a ~24% turnout for their election on Tuesday and they have a lot more city-wide positions than just Mayor. There is research that indicates that "strong" mayor systems actually have higher turnout than "weak" mayor cities so I guess it could be worse. In general, countries with more elections, have lower turnout, which are both certainly the case in the US.

From what I have seen, cities in the US with higher turnout include ones where they have elections on even years, have merged with their county, and/or are in a universal vote by mail state. States with automatic registration also have higher turnout but I don't know if that has any downstream effects on municipal elections. A new electoral system or voting method could help but to get big numbers, changes at the State and Federal level are needed.

50 minutes ago, Dev said:

There is research that indicates that "strong" mayor systems actually have higher turnout than "weak" mayor cities so I guess it could be worse.

 

Maybe this is a bit cynical, but I think most politically disconnected Americans only pay attention to races for a strong executive position, like President, and don't fully understand how important it is to do your research and vote for all the downballot races, and vote in offyear elections. Despite learning about the separation of powers in social studies class, I think most Americans haven't quite grokked how important the legislative and judicial branches are. It's only been in the past few years that politically disconnected Americans have started to understand the important of the Supreme Court and in the Senate's powers to choose the members of the Supreme Court. Take that to the state or local level and you're clearly going to have even fewer people that are engaged. That might also be a factor in why people tend to show up in higher numbers when there is a strong mayor on the ballot, although I know it takes a more politically literate citizen to even understand the difference between a strong mayor system and a weak mayor/council-manager system.

4 hours ago, taestell said:

 

Maybe this is a bit cynical, but I think most politically disconnected Americans only pay attention to races for a strong executive position, like President, and don't fully understand how important it is to do your research and vote for all the downballot races, and vote in offyear elections. Despite learning about the separation of powers in social studies class, I think most Americans haven't quite grokked how important the legislative and judicial branches are. It's only been in the past few years that politically disconnected Americans have started to understand the important of the Supreme Court and in the Senate's powers to choose the members of the Supreme Court. Take that to the state or local level and you're clearly going to have even fewer people that are engaged. That might also be a factor in why people tend to show up in higher numbers when there is a strong mayor on the ballot, although I know it takes a more politically literate citizen to even understand the difference between a strong mayor system and a weak mayor/council-manager system.

I have long suspected this is universally true. There are a few countries that have regular turnout above 70% for national elections but I have always doubted that their local elections have the same kind of turnout. There is just a different sense of urgency when voting for President/Prime Minister than Mayor.

I've done a little analysis to see how votes were distributed between 2017 and 2021. The bar chart shows the individual vote % that each candidate received. The line shows the cumulative.

 

In 2017, about 62.51% of the vote went to the winning 9 candidates.

In 2021, about 53.27% of the vote went to the winning 9 candidates.

 

The distribution isn't too surprising since there were more candidates on the ballot this time around.

 

Wow, great stuff. It would be interesting to see how well that trend holds up over multiple cycles though compiling all that data that would be an awful lot of work.

Seeking to boost housing production, Cincinnati City Council makes it easier to get tax breaks

 

Developers seeking to build a certain type of housing in the city of Cincinnati will automatically qualify for property tax exemptions under an ordinance unanimously approved by the City Council on Wednesday.

 

Developers who are awarded low-income housing tax credits, which carry income and rent restrictions, will automatically receive the maximum property tax exemption from the city — 15 years, with a 67% abatement. The developer still would be responsible for paying 33% of the total millage on improvements to property in lieu of taxes (PILOT) to the Cincinnati Public Schools.

 

Developers who construct a low-income project that reaches certain Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards could get an additional 10 years of tax abatement, but those still will need council approval.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2022/02/02/seeking-to-boost-housing-council-makes-it-easier-t.html

 

I have a feeling some people are going to try to spin this negatively but this is truly a positive and takes a meaningful step towards depoliticizing the tax abatement process. I have long wanted the city to define a clear set of criteria for projects worthy of tax abatements; if a new project meets those criteria, it get the abatement, and if it doesn't, it doesn't. There is no reason to go to City Council for a vote for each and every proeject when they could simply define a clear process for city staff to follow. This also takes away one opportunity for a developer to bribe City Council members for a vote in favor of their project.

Not to mention defining the criteria would take away the ability for a select few to try and be arbiters of what gets approved in certain neighborhoods. The abatement approval process is just another way for people opposed to development to lobby against it and raise non-legitimate concerns. 

We need to do the same thing with modernizing zoning codes for the same reasons.

New Cincinnati City Council will face its first, major controversial vote soon

 

Many of the most-desired historic condos and apartments in Over-the-Rhine could not be built today because they run afoul of Cincinnati’s current zoning code, which limits density.

 

For the past nine months, city government has been considering a significant change to density regulations. It would allow developers to build apartment projects twice as dense than what is allowed today, an alteration officials and developers hope will result in more affordable housing being built in a region that lacks enough housing at all income levels.

 

But the ordinance, sponsored by Councilwoman Liz Keating, has had an unusual side effect: Neighborhood associations and residents, who worry they will have to cede too much control to developers, are in conflict with community development corporations (CDCs), who believe the measure will help them continue to fuel the city’s growth. More often than not, neighborhood associations and CDCs work together on real estate projects.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2022/02/08/council-apartment-density-vote.html

 

This seems like it's DoA. It might get 5 but I doubt it'll get 6 votes. As Wetterich states, it'll be a great barometer for this mayor and council.

This is a common sense change.

 

the regulation (binding the # of units to lot size square footage) is arbitrary and burdensome. Eliminating it would be best but loosening it like this proposal does is good too. 

 

I think the regulation hurts small developers more than big developers because the big guys have the resources to navigate the system and get exemptions 

Council considers code of conduct in wake of 2020 arrests

 

Cincinnati City Council could soon approve a new code of conduct to govern itself when it comes to economic development deals and other business, a response to the 2020 indictments of three council members on federal corruption charges.

 

Council’s budget committee unanimously sent the measure to the full council for a Wednesday vote.

 

The code mandates City Council members and their staffs “recognize the charter role of the mayor, council and city manager, particularly in contracting, development projects and incentives.” It requires council members to direct inquiries from developers for financial assistance or land-use approvals to the city manager’s office.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2022/02/15/council-code-of-conduct.html

 

On 2/8/2022 at 7:14 PM, ColDayMan said:

New Cincinnati City Council will face its first, major controversial vote soon

 

Many of the most-desired historic condos and apartments in Over-the-Rhine could not be built today because they run afoul of Cincinnati’s current zoning code, which limits density.

 

For the past nine months, city government has been considering a significant change to density regulations. It would allow developers to build apartment projects twice as dense than what is allowed today, an alteration officials and developers hope will result in more affordable housing being built in a region that lacks enough housing at all income levels.

 

But the ordinance, sponsored by Councilwoman Liz Keating, has had an unusual side effect: Neighborhood associations and residents, who worry they will have to cede too much control to developers, are in conflict with community development corporations (CDCs), who believe the measure will help them continue to fuel the city’s growth. More often than not, neighborhood associations and CDCs work together on real estate projects.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2022/02/08/council-apartment-density-vote.html

 

 

If you would like to have your voice heard, I recommend you sign up to speak at the meeting tomorrow, or at least send an email to city council.

 

You can message all council members via the email address [email protected].

 

Inevitably, they are going to be bombarded by opponents to the ordinance who want to use this limitation to fight new developments at any cost. This is a no-brainer that we should be advocating for.

 

You can find the agenda here.

 

You can read the full ordinance there. It's listed as Ordinance #202200278 and it is currently the 10th item on the agenda. Council meets at 2pm tomorrow.

17 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

 

If you would like to have your voice heard, I recommend you sign up to speak at the meeting tomorrow, or at least send an email to city council.

 

You can message all council members via the email address [email protected].

 

Inevitably, they are going to be bombarded by opponents to the ordinance who want to use this limitation to fight new developments at any cost. This is a no-brainer that we should be advocating for.

 

You can find the agenda here.

 

You can read the full ordinance there. It's listed as Ordinance #202200278 and it is currently the 10th item on the agenda. Council meets at 2pm tomorrow.

It's only on the agenda tomorrow so that it can be filed with the appropriate committee. I don't think there will be any discussion or debate about it. It's my understanding that it will be sent to Reggie Harris' Equitable Growth & Housing committee which doesn't meet again until March 1st. He has stated publicly that he supports it. Landsman is the only councilmember who is not on that committee so there should be a long discussion about it. Obviously Keating is for it, but I think Jeffreys and presumably Cramerding will also support it so there should at least be enough votes to get it through committee. I don't know if they can get 6 to pass it though. Kearney voted against it at the Planning Commission and Landsman will likely vote no as well. I don't have a clue about how Parks, Owens, or Johnson feel about it.

All that being said, if you look at the legislative record document, it's already 145 pages largely because the opposition is very well organized.

34 minutes ago, Dev said:

It's only on the agenda tomorrow so that it can be filed with the appropriate committee.

 

I thought ordinances started in the committee and were then referred to full council. I see now on the full agenda packet that it's being referred.

 

I suppose this might be sent to full council because it was reviewed by Planning Commission (who essentially punted to council)? Or is every proposed ordinance first sent to full council to be referred to committee?

1 hour ago, ryanlammi said:

Or is every proposed ordinance first sent to full council to be referred to committee?

That's how I understand it. The way I look at it, the Mayor is referring it to a committee, not city council. I don't think a chair of committee can create an ordinance internally to their committee. I think they have to file with the clerk as a member of council, then the Mayor sends it to a committee.

It seems based on the maps that it really does not change many areas where single family housing it, it primarily only allows areas where multi-family exists to be denser than would have been allowed previously. This really should not create neighborhood opposition but of course with any change, it will. 

I am writing an email now.  I would appreciate it if anyone knows in advance when this will be discussed in committee because I will definitely go to speak.

22 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

It seems based on the maps that it really does not change many areas where single family housing it, it primarily only allows areas where multi-family exists to be denser than would have been allowed previously. This really should not create neighborhood opposition but of course with any change, it will. 

 

It's specifically only changes to multi-family zones. Single family zones stay 100% the same as before. And height restrictions, set backs, parking requirements, etc. all still apply as they did. This only eliminates or reduces the minimum lot area required for each unit, which is such a ridiculous requirement if you meet all the other limitations in each zone.

 

If any single family zones get upzoned in the future, they would apply to the area, but that's not a very common thing. 

21 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

 

It's specifically only changes to multi-family zones. Single family zones stay 100% the same as before. And height restrictions, set backs, parking requirements, etc. all still apply as they did. This only eliminates or reduces the minimum lot area required for each unit, which is such a ridiculous requirement if you meet all the other limitations in each zone.

 

If any single family zones get upzoned in the future, they would apply to the area, but that's not a very common thing. 

So you are taking a property that could hold 30 apartment units and instead developing 60 or 70 on the same plot of land . It does not affect anyone. If anything, it will be beneficial to the current owners because it will remove random strips of land whose sole purpose is to create enough acreage to add density. 

Based off my experience at community council meetings this will be attacked because people believe increased density equals increased traffic, more difficult parking and unsavory 'transient' people in their neighborhoods (whatever that means but I've heard it multiple times). Most of this is just people being fearful of change but I also think this ordinance could tap into something many people do care about; reducing corruption at the city level. Someone mentioned this before but the fact that this will keep developers from being tempted or needing to bribe council members seems like a huge benefit that needs to get more focus instead of all the 'negatives' I listed above that will be the main talking points. 

 

I find it interesting that it was mentioned above that the opposition is well organized when I would  assume the group of Towne, Uptown, 3cdc, Eagle, model group, neyer, plk, etc  all want this ordinance to happen and those companies represent some powerful people in the city. 

19 hours ago, ucgrady said:

I find it interesting that it was mentioned above that the opposition is well organized when I would  assume the group of Towne, Uptown, 3cdc, Eagle, model group, neyer, plk, etc  all want this ordinance to happen and those companies represent some powerful people in the city. 

For what it's worth, 3CDC has written a letter of support for the ordinance. I don't remember seeing any of the other groups in there.

On 2/8/2022 at 7:14 PM, ColDayMan said:

New Cincinnati City Council will face its first, major controversial vote soon

 

Many of the most-desired historic condos and apartments in Over-the-Rhine could not be built today because they run afoul of Cincinnati’s current zoning code, which limits density.

 

For the past nine months, city government has been considering a significant change to density regulations. It would allow developers to build apartment projects twice as dense than what is allowed today, an alteration officials and developers hope will result in more affordable housing being built in a region that lacks enough housing at all income levels.

 

But the ordinance, sponsored by Councilwoman Liz Keating, has had an unusual side effect: Neighborhood associations and residents, who worry they will have to cede too much control to developers, are in conflict with community development corporations (CDCs), who believe the measure will help them continue to fuel the city’s growth. More often than not, neighborhood associations and CDCs work together on real estate projects.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2022/02/08/council-apartment-density-vote.html

 

The city has sent out notice that this item will be discussed at the Equitable Growth & Housing Committee on March 15th at 1 pm. It is chaired by Reggie Harris and has 8 members. Landsman is the only one who is not a member. As a reminder, the city's page for this item is here

On it's face I'm for this ordinance, but the skeptic in me wonders if there is some unintended consequences. For instance the RM0.7 zoning has the increase in density, but also moves from unlimited height to 50' height. RM0.7 exists in parts of OTR, West End and CUF so maybe the 50' isn't a huge deal but it's strange that it's in there. I also don't really like this graphic which seems to be showing us why it's good but to me is just increasing the surface area and setbacks. So I'm confused on the intention here vs the reality.

Again maybe I'm just a cynic but this graphic makes it seem like the reality be more smaller units in smaller footprints with more surface parking, since the density goes up but the offstreet parking requirement remains the same? If the intention is to urbanize and increase density the parking requirement needs to be lessened or removed. 

Edited February 25, 20223 yr by ucgrady

I agree that it's a very bad graphic. The real impact will not be nearly the drastic difference we see in the graphic. We also need to be removing parking minimums in any building under X units and any development in a designated business district. Hopefully this passes and an elimination of parking requirements also passes. I know these things bring out the worst in our neighbors, though, and will face fierce opposition.

And maybe adding the caveat of "we are allowing more density but we are limiting height" is just a way to try and stave off opposition because neighborhood groups will undoubtedly equate the words density and skycraper. 

On 2/25/2022 at 11:37 AM, ucgrady said:

And maybe adding the caveat of "we are allowing more density but we are limiting height" is just a way to try and stave off opposition because neighborhood groups will undoubtedly equate the words density and skycraper. 

So far I haven't seen anyone complain about the new height requirement but people unironically refer to the PLK development in Hyde Park as a 'high-rise' even though it's only 6 floors. It's mostly just comments that the higher density from the smaller units will make traffic worse, make flooding worse, remove existing affordable units, and only benefit developers.

Edited February 28, 20223 yr by Dev

Very hot debate today. Vice Mayor Kearney made it very clear she will not support this without an explicit requirement for affordability and against removing the community's input. Parks and Johnson also want an affordability requirement, though Johnson doesn't seem concerned about engagement. Kearney and Parks are clearly hard noes.

I was only listening in the background so I missed what Owens said. Jeffreys spoke in favor of it and of course Keating did too. I didn't hear Cramerding say anything. Landsman was not present, as he is not a member. Form based code was eventually brought up with some comments in favor of it.

Affordability requirements should not be tied to zoning.

19 hours ago, taestell said:

Affordability requirements should not be tied to zoning.

Harris tried to make this argument repeatedly but it didn't work. His was essentially saying that affordable housing is only made via subsidy, not zoning policy.

In the newest Historic Conservation Board hearing, there is a single item on the agenda. The redevelopment of 100 East Clifton.

 

 

 

The reason for the hearing?

"The applicant requests a variance to allow an increase in density from 6 to 7 apartment units in the Over-The-Rhine Historic District."

 

According to CAGIS, the lot goes the entire length of Frintz Street from E. Clifton to Peete Street, and actually consists of two buildings. The building facing E. Clifton is 4.5 stories. The one facing Peete Street Street is 3.5 stories with a basement.

 

 

The deeded acreage is 0.1 acres, or 4,356 square feet. According to the zone it is in (RM0.7), which is the highest allowable multifamily residential district, you are allowed to build one unit for every 700 square feet of lot area. This means they are only allowed to build 6.22 units, which is rounded down to 6 units between these two large buildings.

 

These are the real impacts of zoning rules that the NIMBY's were fighting to preserve this month. This developer now has to go through months of public hearings to add a single unit to two buildings that would have historically probably housed 20 units. The developer now has to fight to have 7 units in this development. Will it be permitted? Probably. But the hearing isn't for another 5 weeks. And then they have to go to Planning Commission. We're wasting everyone's time by artificially limiting density in our densest neighborhoods.

^Agreed. And furthermore, this project has already gone before the HCB. The only revision in this latest request is changing a property manager's office to an apartment.