Good point.

Very much like the F YOU the eastside gave to the westside over the north south airport runway

I also tend to think Section 8 Housing and other subsidized housing seems to suffer from design problems.  This type of housing does not belong in former single family housing, as giving such units some sort of green space, especially in the form of front yards is almost always a bad idea, seeing as how the tenants don't take care of it and the landlords don't seem to give a crap - there is a confusion of who owns what.  As a result, these spaces and/or front yards can become overgrown and blighted. 

 

This housing also shouldn't exist in entire apartment complexes, as these complexes can quickly and easily be type cast as 'where those people live.'  I think we need to do a better job of designing affordable units so it is not distinguishable from surrounding properties, ala City West and not allowing these spaces to have spaces/front yards in which ownership is unclear.   

 

The section 8 naturally gravitated towards the west side because property values have historically been lower than those on the east side.

 

 

And probably because the west side has a much higher percentage of rental properties.

^and because the housing stock, especially in places like Bridgetown and parts of Mack North/Mack South are attractive options for section 8, mainly because those small homes that make up the majority of Bridgetown cannot compete with the McMansions of the newer areas of Green Twshp. 

While it is true that West Side has been hit hard, the East Side and more so the center of town have been dealing with these issues even longer. Mt. Washington has had some problems as well. There is probably no worse neighborhood in terms of trajectory right now than Roselawn, especially at the northern end. Evanston seems constitutionally incapable of achieving a full rebound. At any point in the last thirty years, PRidge, KHeights, Mad-ville could have all fallen off cliff value-wise. They aren't great, but they've survived. This is what distinguishes Cincy from the harder hit cities post-urban crisis. I'd add that Cincy does benefit from having less post-WWII crap housing inside its border because that is the next ghetto (regardless of race) than most of other cities (such as Cbus and Philly to take I know well).

 

To some extent, Mt. Lookout was carved out of Linwood and the East End anyway, so it all comes around.

I understand the need and want to spread poverty around the region so it's not all concentrated in the core, but I also think the city must tread very carefully on where they put it.  There are only a couple of neighborhoods in the city limits that are seen as being places where wealthy people will live.  Hyde Park, Mt. Lookout, Mt. Adams, East Walnut Hills, and Clifton really seem to be about the only places in the city that can compete with the suburbs for wealthy families.  IMO the city should be doing everything it can to make sure that these neighborhoods stay healthy and maintain a certain image so they can attract and retain wealth in the city.

 

While this project won't kill Mt. Lookout by any means, I think the neighborhood is rightly concerned that their neighborhood is going to change in ways that they don't want.  The West Side has been battling this for a while, and if Mt. Lookout and Hyde Park follow the paths of Price Hill and Westwood, the city is in deep sh!t.

 

Do you think this is what was said about Avondale 60-70 years ago?

I understand the need and want to spread poverty around the region so it's not all concentrated in the core, but I also think the city must tread very carefully on where they put it. There are only a couple of neighborhoods in the city limits that are seen as being places where wealthy people will live. Hyde Park, Mt. Lookout, Mt. Adams, East Walnut Hills, and Clifton really seem to be about the only places in the city that can compete with the suburbs for wealthy families. IMO the city should be doing everything it can to make sure that these neighborhoods stay healthy and maintain a certain image so they can attract and retain wealth in the city.

 

While this project won't kill Mt. Lookout by any means, I think the neighborhood is rightly concerned that their neighborhood is going to change in ways that they don't want. The West Side has been battling this for a while, and if Mt. Lookout and Hyde Park follow the paths of Price Hill and Westwood, the city is in deep sh!t.

 

QFT

 

I really look down upon this measure of forced housing. We have, as a society, made massive mistakes in the past by heavily investing in subsidized housing, giving the poor and disadvantaged a safe and reliable shelter over their heads. But in the same token, we have given them an excuse to not better their environs and surroundings. By renting, you leave open the possibility that the landlord could be a slumlord; and if it is the city, then we all know that government is never efficient and is always slow to react. Continuously giving hand-outs, such as TANF, ensures that the poor will remain poor because there is no incentive to improve ones self if they are trapped in a cycle of poverty or if they are comfortable receiving essentially discounted or nearly free room, board and wage.

 

It's shocking to know that about 80% of those on modern-day welfare and SSI will remain on welfare and SSI five years from now. I'm not sure on public housing, but I would surmise it is pretty high.

 

With that, I'm not sold on the concept of public housing. It's forced class segregation, and we are disrupting the free market from operating to its fullest extent. If there is profit to be made by installing public housing, then a company would have stepped up to the plate with it. Said company could receive some government assistance and funding, but in no way should the government actually build the project because that leads to inefficiency and funding waste. And with that, there is no way we should be forcing public housing into the wealthiest neighborhoods of Cincinnati. It leads to further divide, calls of socialism (which this is) and an erosion of property values.

^and because the housing stock, especially in places like Bridgetown and parts of Mack North/Mack South are attractive options for section 8, mainly because those small homes that make up the majority of Bridgetown cannot compete with the McMansions of the newer areas of Green Twshp. 

 

CMHA came into this area the better part of 15 years ago and bought a handfull of homes.  For the most part the tenants have kept these houses up (landscaped/decorated) better than MOST flat out rental properties in that area.

 

The neighborhood has not fallen off of a cliff or gone down the path of Price Hill.  It was less concentrated than what occurred in Price Hill and parts of Westwood over the decades. 

 

So in other words, it worked!

 

I have no sympathy for these people whining in Mt. Lookout. 

First, they will NEVER see their neighborhood get as bad and go downhill as fast as what occurred in Price Hill throughout the 80's and 90's.  This was an unregulated re-concentration of all public housing from one hood into another and it failed miserably.

 

 

While it is true that West Side has been hit hard, the East Side and more so the center of town have been dealing with these issues even longer. Mt. Washington has had some problems as well. There is probably no worse neighborhood in terms of trajectory right now than Roselawn, especially at the northern end. Evanston seems constitutionally incapable of achieving a full rebound. At any point in the last thirty years, PRidge, KHeights, Mad-ville could have all fallen off cliff value-wise. They aren't great, but they've survived. This is what distinguishes Cincy from the harder hit cities post-urban crisis. I'd add that Cincy does benefit from having less post-WWII crap housing inside its border because that is the next ghetto (regardless of race) than most of other cities (such as Cbus and Philly to take I know well).

 

To some extent, Mt. Lookout was carved out of Linwood and the East End anyway, so it all comes around.

 

I agree with you about Roselawn.  Not too long ago Roselawn was a pretty stable place with a healthy mix of people.  There was a strong black population, Russian Jews that lived near the Golf Manor border, and a sizeable elderly population.  In recent years though, Roselawn is becoming Bond Hill north, and the area looks like it could really use some reinvestment.  Maddyville, P-Ridge, and Kennedy Heights all seemed like they were slipping, but it appears that they have turned it around.  The effect of the Kennedy Heights Arts Center on the neighborhood has been incredible, and with Kenwood now being the dominant force that it is, Pleasant Ridge and Maddyville are probably seeing some spill over from that success.

I think everyone needs to take a Housing class with Professor Varady in DAAP.  He is so knowledgeable and has done numerous studies on housing in Cincinnati. 

 

Sherman, if we let the free market completely control the housing market, there would absolutely be a shortage in affordable units and we would have more homeless as a result.  Why do you think there are waiting lists to get into a lot of this housing?  It's not because all the inner-city people in this country are lazy and/or stupid, its because there is a shortage in what our market is providing, resulting in the need for the government to step in.  When you let the market control housing, it seems to me (based on the past 5 years) you get a lot of speculative middle income to upper income housing and virtually zero low income.  And that's because the market is always controlled by profit and since we are all a bunch of irrational morons, that profit motive leads to a ton of speculation.  Thus, we NEED gov't subsidized housing.  But yes, we need it in smarter ways than what the past has brought us. 

We could follow the honorable New York City, which has led the way in socialized housing. By controlling rent prices in an effort to provide more housing to the lower income, New York City has created artificial housing shortages with rents that are far below market value. With such low rents, supply is thereby low and demand is thereby high - basic economics will produce that. In addition, landlords have no incentive to update the properties that are controlled by rent caps because there is no realistic way to generate additional revenue unless the tenant either dies or moves (the rent is capped at a certain level until that person dies, in which time the rent will reset at the next cap level for that building).

 

If we controlled the landlords in Cincinnati through enforcement, as Chicago has done with some of its private-public housing partnerships, and set minimum standards as to how a property should appear or be designed (e.g. City West), we can have a mixture of housing that is not only affordable, by at market rate and attractive.

 

I've heard of Varady. He seems to position himself on the side of all people should have the same opportunities to live anywhere and everywhere as every other individual regardless of income or social standing, which is pure socialism. I'm on the side of Dr. Ziliak of the Center for Poverty Research that I did extensive study under, in which socialized or subsidized housing and programs have all but failed for the past 40 years, and that new, innovative methods are needed.

 

It's true that for the past decade, we have neglected housing for the lower class. A rapid increase in property taxes led to land values increasing dramatically everywhere. It's not feasible to install low income housing in West Chester because the prices for land were far too expensive, and the ROI would be very low. But if you give a tax abatement to a private developer to construct said housing in West Chester, and let a private market handle the situation, the results will be the same, if not better due to a private enterprise managing the situation. Governments are never efficient and are controlled by bureaucrats.

 

I guess this is going off on a tangent here, and is more respective of my more conservative beliefs, but I believe that entitlement programs should be eradicated or reduced. It gives individuals less incentive to work, less incentive to better one self, and a greater incentive to merely 'collect the check.' While the introduction of TANF has substantially reduced the latter from occurring too frequently, the rapid increase in the applications for SSI and other programs such as Section 8, have led to this mantra that those on welfare are lazy. Not so; while some simply do not want to work, others are trapped in a cycle of entitlement. Earn too much, and you are kicked off of Section 8 or subsidized housing and are forced to find real housing at more expensive prices and to potentially have other benefits reduced, such as food stamps; so the incentive there is to remain poor, collect the check, and to receive the hand-outs.

 

That's simplifying the issue.

The free market fails at supplying housing for low-income residents for the simple reason that they can't make money off of the deal.  In our capitalistic society businesses are out to maximize profits and minimize losses...you can't blame them for that, but at the same time you have to realize the limits of the free market's capabilities.  It's the same principle for why government builds infrastructure and provide public safety.

 

I've heard of Varady. He seems to position himself on the side of all people should have the same opportunities to live anywhere and everywhere as every other individual regardless of income or social standing, which is pure socialism.

 

This is a terrible generalization about Varady that is not even accurate.  What exactly do you mean by you "heard" of hiim?

 

I'm on the side of Dr. Ziliak of the Center for Poverty Research that I did extensive study under, in which socialized or subsidized housing and programs have all but failed for the past 40 years, and that new, innovative methods are needed.

 

To say that all the programs have been failure would be over-simplifying the issue as there are a wide variety of components that go into housing programs.  Section 8 housing programs have been successful at providing new housing choices to renters.  This has allowed these renters to choose between school districts, neighborhoods and other items like banking/financial services and grocery options.

 

The American ghettos of the past represented a terrible set of policies and agendas...but even those did achieve some success in providing thousands of low-income housing units when they were needed.  I would never call them a success, but you can't simply refer to them as an across-the-board failure either.

Varady has done some fascinating work. His first book on Wynnefield and the movement of Har Zion synagogue into the suburbs is quite good.

 

PRidge is fine (and hasn't really changed) except for one area - the bottom of the Montgomery hill. There is a lot of poor quality apartments that have attracted displaced folks from Bond Hill. KHeights is okay, the area around Zinsle can get sketchy and there has been a problem with wannabe's for at least 15 years. Mad-ville has some of the same problems as KHeights and PRidge though Madison is more of a drag than Montgomery.

 

Bond Hill is an interesting mix because its the heart of the black middle class, but also has plenty of problem areas. Roselawn sadly has a less attractive housing stock than Bond Hill (nearly all postwar) and a bigger business district which can be problematic.

 

Point being, none of these issues are at play in a purchase of a couple apartment buildings in Mt. Lookout. It will be interesting to see how the race component will be dealt with because Mt. Lookout is pretty close to some pretty poor folk in Linwood and the East End.

The free market fails at supplying housing for low-income residents for the simple reason that they can't make money off of the deal.

The free market directs a property owner to put their property to the highest and best use in order to maximize price. That use may be to cater to a low income as that is what the neighborhood and property will bear. Section 8 has historically distorted that by offering a higher price for less than best use and fundamentally changing the dynamics of neighborhoods thereby destroying it. Not all low income properties have to accept Section 8 yet they still exist and always have.

 

Section 8 housing programs have been successful at providing new housing choices to renters. This has allowed these renters to choose between school districts, neighborhoods and other items like banking/financial services and grocery options.

That is due to a recent change to vouchers in 2000 due to the failure of project based that preceded it. It is over simplified in only that it doesn't distinguish between project based and vouchers. The failure of project based was not in the housing itself but rather the motivations of crime and poverty containment that it sought. The Housing Authority has a fundamental conflict in goals to the free market forces that naturally drive a neighborhood up or down.  Public housing was a tool for social manipulation rather than a benevolent means of providing a home to those who needed it. Thankfully, today we are moving in a direction that is seeing choice introduced into a system that oppressed families into living in both crime and dilapidation for generations. This is allowing for natural movements into market places that have been artificially protected for 40 years from those that have been artificially depressed for the same amount of time.

Even this is not the full extent of the manipulation of the market as we are now seeing some building rehabs funded by low income tax credits that keep a building low income for a period of up to 15 years regardless of market demand. So we do have price controls in effect dependent on the funding sources. Some would say this is good in that it keeps low income inventory (in places that have an over abundance of low income inventory) yet what does that do to adjacent properties that used private monies to fund a rehab for the purposes of market rate rental or ownership? One move of manipulation has countless unintended consequences so the choice comes down to who do you trust more, local market forces or centralized bureaucracy?

Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority details spending

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2009/04/27/story3.html

 

The Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority wants to spend nearly one-third of its federal stimulus money on kitchen and bath upgrades and another third on new windows and doors.

CMHA pick a surprise

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20090523/NEWS0108/905230366/

Hamilton Co. sheriff’s auctions give peek at housing market

Business Courier of Cincinnati - by Jon Newberry

 

With unemployment rising and broad sectors of the economy in tatters, forced sales of foreclosed properties seemingly ought to be booming. But they’re not, at least not in Hamilton County.  The number of houses sold at the weekly sheriff’s sale public auction has actually fallen by 23 percent through the first four months of the year, from 1,016 in 2008 to 780 in 2009. Likewise, the number of properties appraised for sale dropped off 28 percent, from 1,987 to 1,437, according to Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office data.

 

Don’t take that as a sign the housing slump has bottomed out, however. One reason for the decline in activity is that a lot more sales orders are being withdrawn, said Deputy Mike McAdams, who handles the sheriff’s sales with Sgt. Rick Snow.  McAdams speculated that many of the recent withdrawals are related to foreclosure moratoriums being instituted by lenders. While sales and appraisals are down, year-over-year withdrawals jumped by more than 50 percent through April, to 1,143 from 754.

 

Read full article here:

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2009/05/25/story21.html

New Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority chairman has blazed his own quirky trail

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2009/07/20/story2.html

 

Arnold Barnett slapped the table with his brand new walnut gavel, opening his term as chairman of the Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority with these prophetic words: “Let’s rock and roll.”

 

Those who know him well say you can count on “Arnie B.” to shake things up at one of the nation’s largest low-income housing agencies, which provides subsidized rentals to roughly 16,000 local families. True to form, in that first meeting on June 23, Barnett formed a new subcommittee of the CMHA board dedicated to enforcement.

Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority adds many to vendor list, gives out 76 deals

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2009/08/10/story4.html

 

The Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority has awarded 76 contracts totaling $1.1 million for projects funded by federal stimulus dollars.

 

The agency, which provides subsidized housing to roughly 16,000 local families, reports that minority-owned businesses claimed 32 percent of total dollar volume and 16 percent of all contracts awarded to date.

Housing authority accused of racism

Policies aimed to drive poor blacks out of suburbs, complaint charges

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090818/NEWS0108/908190347/1055/NEWS/Housing+authority+accused+of++racism

 

Cincinnati's housing authority discriminates against poor African-Americans, conducts improper inspections of homes and encourages "racial vigilantism" through its policies, a federal complaint claimed Tuesday.

 

Three low-income Cincinnati residents filed the complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in hopes of convincing federal officials to intervene and, possibly, to take over the Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority.

"The complaint says the program calls for "unreasonable inspections" of homes and subjects tenants to eviction for offenses such as loud music and foul language."

 

What's wrong with that? If you want to live in subsidized housing, then you should follow the landlord's rules. I lived in several apartment complexes, that if you were blasting music until 2 AM in the morning, you would receive a warning. Any more within six months and you'd be given the boot.

 

Heck, I live in the Emery in OTR right now. There was some nut who moved into my old unit on the 6th floor (the one with the very open floorplan and 25 ft. ceilings) who decided to host raves. He also played his music continuously throughout the night. My friend -- who lives next door -- complained a few times and the guy was evicted. That was that. Don't want to play by the rules, then please move out and seek somewhere else.

 

"Newman said several policies, including one that gives preference to tenants with jobs, slows voucher approval and denies housing to qualified residents."

 

What's wrong with that? One of the biggest issues that I have with subsidized and public housing is that it can become a free rider issue. People who pay into the system (taxpayers) who see only little return if the tenants are unemployed. Being unemployed also begs the question of how they are affording the unit in the first place, or how they fell into the loophole.

 

"Every time there's a problem it's race in this country," Barnett said. "You get some flaming liberals who want everything one-sided, and that's what we've got in this complaint."

 

Outside of the "flaming liberal" bit, I agree. This city uses race as a scapegoat far too many times. Public housing. An OTR shooting (remember the shooting at Tucker's?). The shooting that led to the 2001 riot. The streetcar. The gentrification. Just attend any local NAACP meeting with Smitherman present... and you'll see just how bad it really is.

I don't have an issue with the loud music bit, but foul language?!  That seems awfully subjective to me.

I am pretty sure it is an exaggeration, but that is my opinion in that they (the complainers) have no merit to base their accusations from. You cannot get evicted for foul language anywhere.

If you can get evicted for loud music, then why couldn't you be evicted for foul language.  In many cases foul language is used during emotional situations and would potentially cause a disturbance.  Since you can't really regulate the volume of people's voices, you could potentially regulate the content (just ask the FCC).

Blasting loud music in a building, much like the other regulations that you read when you sign the lease for any unit, is an evictable offense. My building's lease statement has a lot of prohibitions, including drug use and excessive, loud music. Some apartment complexes ban indoor smoking because of the costs involved to eradicate the smoke. These have been found to not be violations of the First Amendment, considering it is not a restriction of free speech.

 

I'm not for sure on the status of the foul language, but I suspect that there are other concerns that can arise during the use of what I assume is loud foul language inside and outside of the complex (e.g. grounds). I think that if anyone seriously challenged that, and had valid proof that they were evicted for that, it would be in violation of the First Amendment.

I'm not sure why you're still talking about the loud music.  I agree with you there and find it to be a pretty non-controversial issue.  My concern is the subjectivity associated with evicting someone for using foul language.

As I stated, I don't think that actually happened. No landlord or public housing management would teeter on the constitutionality of free speech by evicting someone for "foul language." If they were evicted, it was for other reasons.

Housing boss wants more Hyde Park units

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090820/NEWS01/908210341/Low-income+housing+in+Hyde+Park?

 

The chairman of Cincinnati's housing authority board has recommended buying more property in Hyde Park for low-income tenants.

 

Arnold Barnett said he made the request for two reasons:

 

• Hyde Park, one of the city's most affluent neighborhoods, has few subsidized housing units compared to other neighborhoods.

 

• It's where Robert Newman lives.

^ So yeah, that's a shocking abuse of power.

 

First of all, you have the chairman of CMHA implicitly acknowledging that public housing is detrimental and something that even a pro-public housing attorney wouldn't like in his neighborhood. But more importantly, you have the stunning abuse of power that would have him attempt to make public housing decisions based on personal spite and/or punishment.

 

On the bright side for Hyde Park residents, this means that CMHA won't be able to breath near Hyde Park without getting their asses sued off. What Barnett claims to have done is totally illegal. Even if he gets fired CMHA will now have an increased burden of proof to show that any new project in the Hyde Park area wasn't prompted by an inappropriate personal vendetta.

 

So yeah. I dare CMHA to plan any new public housing in Hyde Park. You will be sued and you will lose.

Foul language in itself may not be grounds for eviction, but screaming foul language out in the hallway at 3AM certainly would.

LOL :D

 

"It's where Robert Newman lives."

 

But come on, as funny as that really is, public housing should not be forced upon any neighborhood and market forces should be allowed to work in effect here. There is a reason why people move to Hyde Park, and why people would be pretty effed if there is subsidized or public housing next door ruining their home values. Bad, bad, bad idea.

But come on, as funny as that really is, public housing should not be forced upon any neighborhood and market forces should be allowed to work in effect here. There is a reason why people move to Hyde Park, and why people would be pretty effed if there is subsidized or public housing next door ruining their home values. Bad, bad, bad idea.

 

"Market forces" is an easy response, but how can that be achieved when the deck is already stacked against low-income housing units?  What has been successful elsewhere is a policy of requiring a per capita amount of low-income housing for each neighborhood.  If a particularly affluent neighborhood doesn't like the idea then they can buy their way out of it, with that money then going to the neighborhood that takes on those additional units.  While not completely "free market" it is a decent hybrid approach.

^so, you're only talking about requiring a certain % in an apartment building, right? because there's no way you could put that restriction on a landlord with a single occupancy house.

"Market forces" is an easy response, but how can that be achieved when the deck is already stacked against low-income housing units?  What has been successful elsewhere is a policy of requiring a per capita amount of low-income housing for each neighborhood.  If a particularly affluent neighborhood doesn't like the idea then they can buy their way out of it, with that money then going to the neighborhood that takes on those additional units.  While not completely "free market" it is a decent hybrid approach.

 

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

 

Thank you Karl. 

 

Again, lets see how you feel once you finally own some property.  These property owners are already paying for it in the form of property taxes.

 

I think any housing project that recieves city/state/fed money should have a certain percentage of the units reserved for low income.  For example, the Gateway Quarter projects have gov't money, and thus some should (are?) be made affordable to those with lower incomes. 

 

One good way to make affordable housing is to allow secondary residences or grandmother's quarters on all single family lots.  Some neighborhoods like Mt Lookout have alleys in which small residences could be rented out back.  The city of Vancouver did this and it has been very successful at adding affordable, small rental units throughout neighborhoods.  Apparently many people were already doing it illegally before it finally was made legal.

I would say that if we are going to direct so much of this to low-income folks, we should return the imbalances in the rules that prevent students (esp. grad students) from taking advantage of these places.

^so, you're only talking about requiring a certain % in an apartment building, right? because there's no way you could put that restriction on a landlord with a single occupancy house.

 

It's a regulation put on communities.  Legally speaking affordable housing should be treated at the very least with the same legal standing as adult businesses.  You have to allow for those uses to exist, then the market determines where they locate.  In the scenario I propose above it would go step further and say how much each community should be responsible for.  Given that it is a regional issue, it should be dealt with on a regional level.

 

Again, lets see how you feel once you finally own some property.  These property owners are already paying for it in the form of property taxes.

 

Feel free to call me names.  The facts are what they are.  Concentrated low-income housing does not work.  Not providing low-income housing does not work.  So that means you need to provide it and you need to disperse of it in a thought out way.

 

Regulating that each community should its fair share of the low-income housing burden would prevent any community from being targeted by the free market and thus over-concentrating the housing as was done by the government in the mid-twentieth Century.  So instead of name calling, why not be productive and add something to the conversation.  I look forward to hearing your solution(s).

So in your mind, making sure that EVERY neighborhood has some portion of an undesirable element, is better than just a few?  Is that your idea of equality?

 

Other than a few concentrated areas of public housing, what exactly in your mind explains how great neighborhoods have been destroyed in the Cincinnati area?

 

How do you explain the migration northward of the Jewish population of the city? A strong force in Avondale, which then relocated out towards Roselawn, and now is moving even further northward?  Anyone you know want to move to either of those communities?  Want to discuss Price Hill again?  I guess all of this is a vote for concentrating public housing!

People don't like a lot of things.  In communities I work for down here in the Atlanta metro they don't like the idea of having moderately priced retail offerings.  In other places they don't like the idea of registered sex offenders living within a mile of where they do.  You can like whatever you want to like.  The fact of the matter is that poor people need places to live too.  Not everyone can afford that $175,000 with the Honda.

 

What I'm proposing is that each community take responsibility for their fair share of the affordable housing problem.  If Hyde Park, Indian Hill, Mt. Lookout, West Chester, Delhi or Price Hill don't want to take on those affordable units then fine...they're just going to have to pay so that some other neighborhood takes on a greater load to pick up their slack.

 

Is it fair that the westside has been dumped on over the years with the affordable housing load for a 2+ million person region?  Of course not.  But things could be much better had there been a cap for the westside where they didn't have to exceed and if they did they got paid to do so...that money could then go to things like Code Enforcement, lead paint clean up, or whatever it is the community wants.

 

The dispersal of affordable housing is a positive thing for a couple of reasons.  One is because it more appropriately distributes the affordable housing across the region so that those individuals have access to the jobs they qualify for.  Another is that a little injection of affordable housing is actually not all that damaging to a neighborhood and its property values.  It becomes damaging when there is a heavy consolidation of those units.

 

Once again, look forward to hearing your idea(s).  I know your very good at belittling others and their ideas, so spare me further evidence of that.

Chicago tried concentrating all their low-income residents into a few isolated pockets of the city. It didn't work out so well for them.

 

I actually do think cap and trade is probably a very good way to deal with these issues. The poor generally require more services, but we all share in being a part of a county or city that has to spend money so why not allow some form of cap and trade to work.

How do you explain the migration northward of the Jewish population of the city? A strong force in Avondale, which then relocated out towards Roselawn, and now is moving even further northward?  Anyone you know want to move to either of those communities?  Want to discuss Price Hill again?  I guess all of this is a vote for concentrating public housing!

 

What happened in Avondale was the result of redlining. As you stated, Avondale was a predominantly wealthy Jewish neighborhood. In the 50s-70s, redlining forced the majority of blacks who didn't want to live downtown and were pushed out of the West End when I-75 went through into Avondale. Discriminatory lending and sales practices of that time led to Avondale's downward fall, NOT section or public housing.

The limited amount of public housing that should be provided should be simple and effective, but not luxurious or extravagant.  Living in a neighborhood like Hyde Park is luxurious and extravagant.  While centralization isn't successful, public housing should be built in places where it is economically efficient, especially because taxpayer dollars are being spent.  You can house a family in any number of Cincinnati neighborhoods for a much lower price than you can in Hyde Park. 

 

I won't even mention how insulted I am at the reason for this proposal.  The lawsuit is out of line and a waste of time, but retaliating with an even more absurd move is almost shocking.  Step aside from the debate about public housing (there's another good thread on here about this topic) and ask just what in the world is going on here?!

^Herein lies the problem.  While it may be less expensive to house somebody in Price Hill than it is in Hyde Park, that does not necessarily mean it is the most cost-effective place to house them.  What if their job is in Hyde Park.

 

This is the main issue with the spatial mismatch that is seen all across America.  The service sector jobs are in different places than where people working at those jobs are living.  As a result those people are either put in a position of spending too much of their limited income on transportation costs, or settling for no job whatsoever.  The way in which our current social programs are set up doesn't encourage work within these conditions.  If you're a single mother and want to work, you have to commute somewhere else taking up time and money.  This unnecessary expense for transportation plus the additional costs for daycare offset the gains experienced by working at the service sector job...creating a vicious cycle of poverty.

 

In the end we want our cities to work in an efficient manner like they used to.  Unfortunately now the shopkeeper can't afford to live upstairs, the factory worker lives 30 miles from the plant and is forced to drive a personal automobile to get to/from, and the most affluent are housed tens of miles away from their job location as well.  It's a giant mess, and the point is that there are externalities that exist with affordable housing programs that should be considered.

This is why rich neighborhoods used to have poorer neighborhoods nearby (and often literally in the back streets). Richmond VA gives a really vibe on this - Monument Ave near VCU. The help had to live somewhere.

If there is a 10,000+ person waiting list. Where are the 10,000+ people living now? I say send most section 8 to Alaska, North Dakota or the rural area's 30 miles from town. Just keep the ones that want to follow the rules and not commit crimes. It is time for them to pay their fair share and shape up or get out.

Good. Let us get the Feds involved with this, because if the Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority thinks that it can simply plop Section 8 housing in the middle of upper-middle and high-income neighborhoods (screwing with the free market system), and that it can simply plop Section 8 next to its detractors and get away with it, then they deserve every bit of possible punishment that they can get.

 

Feds called into Hyde Park-Section 8 fray

By Dan Horn, Cincinnati Enquirer, September 1, 2009

 

A Cincinnati lawyer called for a federal investigation Tuesday into whether the chairman of the city's housing board retaliated against him by threatening to put more public housing units in his neighborhood.

Advertisement

 

Robert Newman said he filed the formal complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in hopes the agency would take "remedial action" against the Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority and its board chairman, Arnold Barnett.

^I'm curious Sherman...why is it contrary to the free market system to locate affordable housing in an upper-middle income neighborhood?  Shouldn't the free market be locating housing needs where they are needed?  If that's the case then if there are working class jobs in this area that create demand for affordable housing nearby, then it would seem to be a correction to the failures of the almighty free market.  Is your position that affordable housing should be consolidated in the poorest areas of town only?

In my opinion, the free market will locate low-income housing where land values are not exceedingly high and affordable. In Cincinnati, that may be in the West End or in Lower Price Hill, or in areas further from the core, such as in Fairfield, College Hill or near Eastgate. Governments should not artificially lower land values by installing subsidized housing to appease a particular demographic when other lands are readily available -- but this can be taken on the flip side. Should governments be involved in subsidizing housing in raising land values? An example of this is the Gateway Quarter, where most of the development projects coming online require some sort of subsidy.

 

In my commentary against Section 8, here is what happens when you plop Section 8 in the middle of a middle-income neighborhood and/or in a more desirable location:

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090915/NEWS0107/309150052/1055/NEWS/Girl+allegedly+stabbed+walking+from+fight

 

The apartment complex where the girl was stabbed and where the fight took place caters to Section 8. People interviewed (in the news programs) and people who commented on the article have stated they moved away from certain areas to move away from the crime, only to find out that many of these suburban complexes host subsidized housing whereas it is not readily apparent. The fact that they have major gang issues at Lakota high and middle schools is pretty bad, given that many who attend these schools moved further out to avoid crime, have more land, have a shorter commute, and so on, only to have it migrate further north.