I thought this could be a good discussion thread.  With all the recent activity/momentum in OTR what is at stake?  What are the social and political outcomes from this...what affect will economics play?

 

This article is related to this discussion:

 

Social problems plaguing OTR stretch way beyond its borders

BY MICHAEL MORGAN | CINCINNATI BUSINESS COURIER

February 22, 2008

 

OVER-THE-RHINE - The recent "GO Cincinnati" report details recommendations for bolstering Cincinnati's economy. Among them is continued investment in Over-the-Rhine. It also recommends the creation of a city/county development authority that would permit the Cincinnati region to compete with other regions, as opposed to suburban municipalities competing with the city. Unfortunately, GO Cincinnati fails to address a major concern of the Brookings Institution study that inspired it: the regional economic drain of concentrating social service facilities in the urban core.

 

Nationally, young professionals and empty-nesters are moving back to inner cities, and they are aiding the economic and cultural renaissance of urban life in America. Studies show that they are looking for walkable, eclectic, mixed-use neighborhoods near entertainment and cultural opportunities.

 

Arguably no neighborhood in the region fits this description better than Over-the-Rhine. This leaves many people asking the obvious: If OTR has all the physical attributes that people moving to urban cores are looking for, why does it remain plagued by blight and crime? Why do roughly 500 buildings stand vacant? The most obvious reason is a legacy of bad public policy.

 

...

 

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/02/25/editorial3.html

That is a provoking article. Every 100+ social service agencies should be emailed this story. UO has gone round and round with this topic. Is helping a few people worth devastating a historic section of the city that could/should be a nice economic engine?

I would argue on how much they are truly helping to begin with.  The argument I always here, not just from social services, but outlying communities is we place the service there because that is where the homeless are.  I think it is the other way around, the homeless are here because that is where the services are.  When you look at it that way it becomes easy to understand why no other community wants to disperse those services so we are left to fight the battle alone.

The argument I always here, not just from social services, but outlying communities is we place the service there because that is where the homeless are.  I think it is the other way around, the homeless are here because that is where the services are.  When you look at it that way it becomes easy to understand why no other community wants to disperse those services so we are left to fight the battle alone.

 

Spot on...OTR has become the social service epicenter for more than just the Cincinnati MSA, but also much further.  I have read reports where people are tracked as being sent to Cincinnati from as far away as Atlanta.  Nobody wants these in their communities and even some cities (i.e. Atlanta and Phoenix primarily) work aggressively at externalizing their own micro social problems to the macro level.  Heck Phoenix has even bought 1-way Greyhound tickets to Los Angeles for their homeless.  This is a very troubling problem...and I fear that something like CityLink could only further cement Cincinnati's stature as a magnet for those who are in need of social services.

Isn't this really why Cincinnati is annexing Dayton? I kid because I love.

Isn't this really why Cincinnati is annexing Dayton? I kid because I love.

^I'll file that under constructive criticism.

Over-the-Rhine has roughly one social service agency for every one of its 110 city blocks. The number of people funneled annually through homeless shelters and transitional housing facilities for felons and sex offenders exceeds the neighborhood's population. Somewhere between 60 percent and 80 percent of people experiencing homelessness in Hamilton County are filtered through OTR - a neighborhood that only constitutes 0.5 percent of the county. The number of soup kitchens in OTR outnumbers restaurants by roughly 4-1; and the Freestore Foodbank alone serves 54,000 people a year, drawing the impoverished from a 22-county region.

 

This will not be pleasant, but the only way that we are going to make headway here is to draw attention to the failures of these social services and to a lesser extent, those who support them.  People want to feel good, feel that they are doing there part whether that truly helps the 'person in need' or not.  That is generally not the goal and this needs to be hightlighted.  The media needs to start asking the simple question of various homeless people in OTR, "how long have you been homeless?"  And when they get the answer of 1 year, 5 years, 10 years then the next question needs to be to the service, "where have you failed?" with a follow up question to its contributors "why do you continue to support them?"

 

 

How many of those 110 social services are actually for poor/disadvantaged people? For example, Vital Statistics is a social service that crosses all socio-economic boundaries and its central location makes sense.

I will ask the Chamber of commerce what criteria they used at tomorrows safety sector meeting.  Another problem is the number does not account for the size.  The Free Store may account for only 1 but are looking to expand now and does not change the number.  Also I do not know if it takes into account sub organizations within the social service such as the transitional housing component of the Drop Inn Center.  Mercy Housing may be counted as 1 but have multiple buildings on Main.  Over the Rhine Community housing may only be one but with buildings spread throughout all of OTR.

 

I am less worried about the actual number that is reported and more worried about the real impact on the ground. 

Me too. Certainly some services hold more weight than others and I'm confused as to what exactly constitutes a "social service". It just seems vague to me, although I recognize that they still need to be more dispersed.

The number really doesn't mean that much to me other than provide a helpful way to demonstrate to others in very simple terms the overload that we have here.  It could be 1 and be to many if that 1 is a Citylink and the sheer size and volume of serviced people has a negative effect on the entire surrounding area.

"Over-the-Rhine has a population of about 4,900 residents. Just one of the neighborhood's multiple homeless shelters anticipates serving 4,200 people (unduplicated visits) in 2008, and it projects finding homes for only 137 of them."

 

To me, specifics like these are more helpful in demonstrating, not just the inundation, but the failure of the services.  Well intentioned people give every year to groups like these and do not realize these stats.  I want a better OTR and that involves the dispersement of these organizations, but at the same time I would truly like to see more than 137 out of 4,200 get out of this vicious cycle.

a

I don't think high density housing inevitably fails, I just think it has a new niche. It's perfect for young people who don't have kids and want to live in the inner city and experience that lifestyle. Mt. Adams is high density but it's not struggling.

I don't think high density housing inevitably fails, I just think it has a new niche. It's perfect for young people who don't have kids and want to live in the inner city and experience that lifestyle. Mt. Adams is high density but it's not struggling.

^My mistake, I meant high density public housing/concentrating those dependent on social services in one area.  Error on my part.  High density housing can be a very good thing (ie Mt. Adams like you said).

I meant high density public housing/concentrating those dependent on social services in one area.

I think you mean project based and you bring up a good point.  If we are decentralizing public housing and dispersing it and these are many of the same people who would use some of these social services, should the social service not also be dispersed?  I say yes, and I would also say that the concentration of social services does lend to the same problem as concentrated public housing and many of the same arguments could be used.

Those high density public housing units were basically human warehousing. Chicago was nearly explicit in this.

Those high density public housing units were basically human warehousing

I would go even beyond that and say they were de facto prisons for people and kept them locked into a poverty cycle that was designed to last, not just for decades, but for generations.  We have a habit of making ourselves feel better at the expense of the people we are trying to help.

They're isolated have have a psychological effect on people. The big towers were the worst. Elevators always broken and mothers couldn't easily monitor their children who played outside. To think Le Corbusier wanted them all throughout Paris. Hah!

They're isolated have have a psychological effect on people. The big towers were the worst. Elevators always broken and mothers couldn't easily monitor their children who played outside.

 

And no one cared.  They incentivised poverty on one hand and offered slumlords guarateed money to keep them locked away in crime infested, no hope environments on the other.  The Feds woke up and realized this didn't work, I just wish that some of these social services would wake up as well and realize they are part of a system that did more to perpetuate the problems of the people vs doing anything to truly help them.  Yet they are the ones who come out as Holier than thou.

Wasn't sure which OTR Thread to post this in, but I was listening to 96 Rock this morning, and one of the DJ's from the Two Angry Guys made a comment on OTR in regarding the current development and the conviction of the kid who was charged with murder.  He said he would never go to OTR and encouraged everyone else not to go there because it is what it is.  It will always be a hot bed for crime and drugs and no matter what is going to happen (i.e. development, opening of new restaurants, streetcars), let the criminals have it and STAY OUT. 

 

That is not verbatim to exactly what he said, but that is the general gist of things.  I encourage people to email the radio station to help defend OTR and what it has become and what it will become.

^

 

 

[email protected]

Nobody should listen to Two Angry Guys for the simple reason of those hideous/terrible billboards that they posted all over town...you know the ones with those two wearing cups on the outside of their pants.  Way to fall into two cliches at once.  You've got the requisite silly/off-the-wall sports guy combined with the in your face talk-radio host.

 

Get some creativity.

^agreed, I don't like them, but I like the music format

Fair enough

just want to be alerted with updates on this in my Show new replies to your posts

He said he would never go to OTR and encouraged everyone else not to go there because it is what it is.  It will always be a hot bed for crime and drugs and no matter what is going to happen (i.e. development, opening of new restaurants, streetcars), let the criminals have it and STAY OUT.

 

96 Rock's advertisers should receive a letter from the OTR Chamber, OTR Foundation, and OTR Community Council asking them to urge the station to issue an appology.  We will never get one, but it would certainly be a shot across their bow and they would think twice before saying crap like this that hurts the development, new restaurants, and streetcar along with a lot of other efforts here.

Let's face it.  No one wants to live around "those" people.  All the white males that support the Streetcars won't admit it, but having too many of "those" people around is uncomfortable for them.  The claim that 3CDC and Streetcars and the Bortz family doesn't want to gentrify OTR of "those" people is a joke.  What is funny is that liberal types that promote green building and streetcars and sustainable communities do it because thay really don't like black.  The 3CDC, Bortz's and Model Managements of the world like green building.  Green as in the most amount of green they can put in their pockets.

"Those people" that you are referring to are, for the most part, not residents of Over-the-Rhine.  The people selling drugs and participating in criminal behavior are from other areas that come to OTR to serve their clientle...which interestingly enough is also not from the area.

 

The neighborhood is trying to rid itself of those "bad" people...but being poor is not directly related to being a bad/undesireable person.  I think the majority of people who advocate for OTR would also advocate for inclusionary practices so that those lower-income residents aren't displaced by the new investment in the neighborhood.

 

To be honest it is more of a rich/poor thing than a black/white thing.  You can see the same thing in the predominately white East End neighborhood.

Cincyboondoggle,

 

(if you do not mind, I would like to continue this discussion in great detail. Addresses and names when talking about any accusations about what is happening in OTR. This way both you and I can verify any information as opposed to presenting baseless accusations that can not be backed up with fact.)

 

No one wants to live around "those" people. All the white males that support the Streetcars won't admit it, but having too many of "those" people around is uncomfortable for them.

 

I live at 103 Mulberry. Both of my next door neighbors at 97 and 109 Mulberry are black. Directly behind me is 101 and 105 Peete that is a 16 unit section 8 building that is all black. I just sold 95 Peete, that is directly adjacent to my home to a black lady who is moving here from Boston. So I will have to disagree with that statement.

The claim that 3CDC and Streetcars and the Bortz family doesn't want to gentrify OTR of "those" people is a joke

First, Bortz is associated with Towne Properties and in some ways a competitor of 3CDC although Towne has nothing in OTR. Second, 3CDC does not kick people out of buildings, they let the existing leaseholders fufill their leases and simply do not take new leases on buildings they are rehabbing. Third, 3CDC also has an affiliation with Mary Burke and Karen Blatt (white people) to create 22 new low income housing and Model, which is another dev. under 3CDC is creating a section 8 building right now on the corner of 14th and Race.

 

look it up....

Business Courier of Cincinnati - by Lucy May Senior Staff Reporter

Friday, March 7, 2008

The Over-the-Rhine Community Housing Network is working with the Cincinnati Center City Development Corp. to develop a new type of housing for the city's chronically homeless.

 

Model Managements of the world like green building...liberal types that promote green building and streetcars and sustainable communities do it because thay really don't like black

Model is the largest property owners in Cincinnati right now and own more section 8 buildings(that they purchased from Tom Denhart, another white guy), even across the street from me at 88 Mulberry, and they are primarily black tennants.

 

I am trying to think, what black landlord owns any section 8 buildings in any real numbers in OTR to help out the poor? Art Reckman, white, Mary Burke, white, Karen Blatt, white, Robinini's are Indian I believe.   West End at City West which was an HBA project (bunch of primarily white builders) is 60% subsidized housing. There is B2B but they also are one of the developers under 3CDC. I can go on if you like.

What is funny is that liberal types that promote green building and streetcars and sustainable communities

What is even funnier is that I sat on the Orange County Republican Executive Committee in 2000 and offered a position paper to the CATO Institute on 527's in 2001. A liberal? not exactly. For green building, streetcars and sustainable communities, absolutely because I, like most people, probably even you, want a better and safer place for my family. Efficient vs Non Efficient housing is a matter of common sense, not political view point.

 

Now I have a question for you. Why do you hate people of different colors so much? Why be a racist in a community that is reaching out to others of diffent colors and different income levels? Why do you fear this? Why does having "those" people around uncomfortable for them you? It is sad and I am embarrassed for you.

 

 

OTR is a great neighborhood because of the different income levels and diversity of peoples. The only people I don't want to see in this neighborhood are drug dealers, gangs, prostitutes, and the people who come here for those reasons to harm themselves and others.

Wasn't sure which OTR Thread to post this in, but I was listening to 96 Rock this morning, and one of the DJ's from the Two Angry Guys made a comment on OTR in regarding the current development and the conviction of the kid who was charged with murder.  He said he would never go to OTR and encouraged everyone else not to go there because it is what it is.  It will always be a hot bed for crime and drugs and no matter what is going to happen (i.e. development, opening of new restaurants, streetcars), let the criminals have it and STAY OUT. 

 

That is not verbatim to exactly what he said, but that is the general gist of things.  I encourage people to email the radio station to help defend OTR and what it has become and what it will become.

 

Thank you for posting about this.  I will certainly be emailing those jerks and giving them a piece of my mind.

Also, I wanted to comment on some of the comments made.  Its such a shame that there are so many uneducated, close minded, racist and stubborn people living in Cincinnati who just love to take the opportunity to say nothing but negative things about over the rhine simply because they think it is nothing but a big, bad, black neighborhood.  Its time to stop living in the past and realize that now a days civilized people get a long with one another and respect each other as human beings.  I too don't care who lives in my neighborhood in terms of race/ethnicity.  All I care about it that everyone gets along and respects one another.  I too want to see crime, drugs, violence and prostitution removed from the neighborhood.  This doesn't mean remove all the non-white people.  If you think that way you should seriously seek help, because you are sick.

Over the Rhine is already and amazing place and its going to continue to grow and become safer and more full of life.

>Let's face it.  No one wants to live around "those" people.  All the white males that support the Streetcars won't admit it, but having too many of "those" people around is uncomfortable for them.  The claim that 3CDC and Streetcars and the Bortz family doesn't want to gentrify OTR of "those" people is a joke.  What is funny is that liberal types that promote green building and streetcars and sustainable communities do it because thay really don't like black.  The 3CDC, Bortz's and Model Managements of the world like green building.  Green as in the most amount of green they can put in their pockets.

 

 

Boondoggle, some people exist who fit your description, but they do not post on this site.  If you are expecting a stereotypical responses by people who post on this forum you're wasting your time.  And you have not given a reason for your recent appearance on this site and so we can only be suspicious that you are laying some kind of trap.         

 

 

Over the Rhine is already and amazing place and its going to continue to grow and become safer and more full of life.

And not because it is any one anything, but a mix of everything.  I think we have probably seen the end of Boondogle already.  I was hoping for a few good rounds of back and forth but oh well. 

 

 

If there is a premium to be placed on a historic neighborhood it'll probably manifest itself in higher rents and more owner occupied.  OTR will very likely have $800+ single bedrooms in the future standard. Probably when the neighborhood is healthy which will be hopefully in 5 - 10 yrs some of that low income housing will be made into at market or above depending on location.  I think that alot of the low income housing discussion is a temporary fix to satisfy people in the neighborhood.  At least this is what I envision for some of the main district areas that are already sprouting up.  I could see some parts of west OTR/West End remaining more accessible/section 8 but the future of that area is at level rents and more owner occupied.  Some of those 3 stories should be converted to single owner.  The commercial splits will of course remain rentals or management.

Over the Rhine is already and amazing place and its going to continue to grow and become safer and more full of life.

And not because it is any one anything, but a mix of everything.  I think we have probably seen the end of Boondogle already.  I was hoping for a few good rounds of back and forth but oh well. 

 

 

 

Do you honestly believe that OTR can truly be a great mix of yuppies and poor people? I know what the professionals are saying, "we're not displacing anyone, those buildings are vacant" but the problem is supply and demand. The neighborhood is being developed very aggressively. Demand will increase drastically as it becomes more gentrified. Unless theres still a lot of public housing, I don't see how it could end up being mixed income. I totally dig the lowering of crime but there are a lot of people who profit from this aggressive gentrification, so it's in their interest.

"Let's face it.  No one wants to live around "those" people.  All the white males that support the Streetcars won't admit it, but having too many of "those" people around is uncomfortable for them.  The claim that 3CDC and Streetcars and the Bortz family doesn't want to gentrify OTR of "those" people is a joke.  What is funny is that liberal types that promote green building and streetcars and sustainable communities do it because thay really don't like black.  The 3CDC, Bortz's and Model Managements of the world like green building.  Green as in the most amount of green they can put in their pockets."

 

Sorry, I find diversity in races and ethnicities to be quite appealing. As a "liberal type" that has promoted sustainable building practices, I really do enjoy being around African-Americans, along with Asians, Mexicans, Latinos, and so forth. I set no particular preference on the basis of their skin color, heritage, ethnicity or any of the like, and to make such a broad generalization that liberals are closet racists is tomfoolery.

 

Being sustainable and incorporating "green" design elements, and aiming for LEED certification is not a guaranteed method for great revenue. Constructing such structures only greatly exaggerates expenditures, as sustainable/green building materials are often more expensive than conventional products. Factoring in items such as solar panels, green roofs, rainwater collection systems and so forth, the costs only increase. Developers often pass on the costs to the buyer or renter, but the overall profit margin is lower.

 

When you drive into Suburb U.S.A., do you note these sustainable or dense construction projects? Or houses that are LEED certified -- which really isn't that difficult to do? No.

 

As for OTR on the whole, supply and demand will drive gentrification. As we have seen already, cities are willing to experiment and implement with mixed-income units -- and Cincinnati has been one of the forebears of this trend. Not only are they profitable, they integrate varying income classes in a neighborhood, decrease crime, and increase desirability in a locale ("Poverty and Discrimination" by Kevin Lang). And the bonus is, is that developers receive additional government funding to construct these projects, along with other incentives.

Given a decade or so and a streetcar and no more riots and a decent economy and not losing a major corporation from downtown, OTR starts heading for Mt. Adams status, which is starting to fill up. I'd agree that the West End will take up a lot of the serious poor along with sectors of Lower Price Hill, Cumminsville, Avondale, and probably a couple other places as well (Price Hill and Springfield Twnship, I'm looking at you).

David, there just aren't that many poor people living in Over-the-Rhine.  Under 5,000...and there are plenty of derelict properties a few blocks away in the West End.  A complete yuppification of Over-the-Rhine #1 isn't going to happen with the speed it happens in New York City and the people displaced will literally only have to move a few blocks.  It's not a big deal.  What is a big deal is that buildings are still being lost at a rapid rate as long as this nonsense continues. 

It doesn't matter if the population is 1k people or 10k people, it'll still displace people. Don't get me wrong, I agree with the argument regarding social services and the trouble it's causing in the area but gentrification is happening at a fast rate.

I'm pretty sure there was/is Section 8 housing directly across the street from the Aronoff Center Downtown.  This mix can very well work, but there has to be a concerted effort to make it work.  So far City West has done pretty good as well.

We must give OTR 110% of our attention NOW,  the buildings that have been sitting vacant for 20+ years are collapsing.

I'm pretty sure there was/is Section 8 housing directly across the street from the Aronoff Center Downtown.

The Metropolitan and the Dennison both and those are just the big ones.

 

I know what the professionals are saying, "we're not displacing anyone, those buildings are vacant" but the problem is supply and demand. The neighborhood is being developed very aggressively.

The supply is in the neighborhood of 500 vacant buildings and the demand at places like Gateway has been approx 70 units (I am including some pendings), not buildings.  I think we have a lot of supply to work through and a lot of supply is being redeveloped into low income housing--OTR Housing Network and Model Management on Mulberry, Peete, E. Clifton, Republic, and Pleasant.  And think about it, who is emptying these buildings.  Why did Denhart go bankrupt?  Why are the Robininis having to sell of their buildings at Frintz and E. Clifton?  The people who occupied those buildings are choosing to live someplace better than in a neglected, delapidated building in the middle of the hood.  The buildings are emptying themeselves because of peoples power to exercise a voucher elsewhere.

 

Sunday, August 19, 2001

Land shifts for a landlord

He gathered a big block of low-income housing with federal help, but now the government is changing the rules

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2001/08/19/fin_land_shifts_for.html

 

 

So does this mean that I, who moved into a vacant house on Mulberry "displaced" anyone?  OTR redevelopment is more than about section 8 vs Market rate.  There are market rate-affordable housing that allows for a "soft second" which is a fogivable second mortage to those who fall below the median income levels.  This allows for an in between as well as opposed to simply "rich vs poor".

 

I totally dig the lowering of crime but there are a lot of people who profit from this aggressive gentrification, so it's in their interest.

A lower crime rate is in everyones interest, regardless of your income.  As a matter of fact, I would say that it is in the lower incomes person interest even more so as the vast majority of crimes were taking place against them, not just by them.

We have section 8 at the top of Milton st and Boal st in Prospect Hill (a so called gentrified area.) I have talked with some people who live there in section 8, they and their children decided on the area because they heard that it was a clean safe neighborhood. We all watch out for each other, and attend the same neighborhood parties and functions regardless of income levels or education.

It is generally the people who live here who do not have an issue with it and the people who are looking from the outside in who say it is impossible.  That is probably the reason they are living on the outside because they themselves would not want to live next to someone different from them.  OTR is for every race, sexual orientation and income level, but sadly still not for everyone.

It is also worth noting that the quality of housing in OTR for the poor is scraping the bottom in quality, while there are plenty of other neighborhoods around the city that have better housing for the same price if not better.

All of this logic, and first-hand experience is overwhelming.  Can't we just get back to seeing who can shout the loudest?

It is also worth noting that the quality of housing in OTR for the poor is scraping the bottom in quality, while there are plenty of other neighborhoods around the city that have better housing for the same price if not better.

When you look at it this way, and I do, how then does it sound when people say that we should keep the poor in OTR and in the West End?  They themeselves are constantly looking to better their own situation for their own families, but not the poor--keep them here, lock them into a de facto prison and do not let them escape.

 

I have no doubt that the history of OTR will be rewritten.  I have no doubt that it will be said that OTR was a place where the poor lived in harmony in all those beautiful lofts until 3CDC moved in and kicked them all out.  People even believe this today because they either forget what it was or blinded by their own agendas.  If you want to be upset with someone, be upset with the people who want to keep the poor here and thereby keeping them out of their community.  I hear gentrification every day when we have a voluntary exodus.  I hear NIMBY everyday when we have a social service for every block of OTR.  I hear kicking out blacks when we still are an overwhelmingly black community.  Be upset with those people.  Call them the racist, call them the gentrifiers, call them the NIMBY's, call them the people who will do anything to stop a community that has been decimated with crime and neglect from getting back onto its feet again and be a safe and clean environment for everyone.

 

I hope one day no one will say that OTR is a white community, a black community, a rich community, a poor community but instead a community that I, regardless of who I am, would want to live in, would want to raise my children in, and would be proud to tell anyone this is MY COMMUNITY!

>It doesn't matter if the population is 1k people or 10k people, it'll still displace people. Don't get me wrong, I agree with the argument regarding social services and the trouble it's causing in the area but gentrification is happening at a fast rate.

 

 

Slow down.  Let's say 5,000 live in Over-the-Rhine right now.  How many of the adults grew up there?  How many of their parents grew up there?  How many multi-generational storefront businesses will get pushed out?  The answer to those questions is virtually zero because hardly anyone or any business fits that description.  It's not like we're talking about pushing Manhattan's Chinatown off the island or anything like that.     

 

 

 

For the area around the Findaly Market and south of it  I notice what seems like a lot of abandoned housing, those old tenanment style apartment buidings.  This concern:

 

We must give OTR 110% of our attention NOW,  the buildings that have been sitting vacant for 20+ years are collapsing

 

...is valid, just based on observation.  Loose enough of the urban fabric and the neighborhood will lose its dense character, which is one big thing that makes it unique.