^^Yea, agree with dmerkow's comment, that type of ideology WILL not help in the city's efforts to get alot of their neighborhoods back.    Your kid from West High probably wasn't even from Western Hills and don't be so naive, that kind of incident could have happened in any city or suburban school for that matter.

 

I hope to see OTR succeed just as much as most of you, but if we take that reverse ideology and shift it to what you call the "westside" like you almost sound like you WANT to happen.........Well, that just doesn't help the problems of this city at all. 

 

If the city wants to be successful in the 21st century, they have to recognize where their biggest potential to harness that rests.  There are too many people and homes (almost 1/3 of the pop.) west of 75 to just say "let it go" or move ALL of OTR's REMAINING problems to. 

 

Michael Redmond, you kind of surprise me with that post.  That is something taken right off the Cunningham show. 

 

"Let's keep the cancer of the county contained to one area of the county" right?

 

Haven't we concluded over the last 60-70 years that DOESN'T WORK.        example:OTR

 

Yea, property values are down, but they are down everywhere.

Crime was down last year in Price Hill and is trending to be down in Westwood this year.   

 

What created the problems in OTR over the years is 20th century history!!!        We should strive to make sure that NO neighborhood in this city should have to bear ALL the types of burdens OTR has EVER AGAIN.  IT DOESN'T WORK and it is not in the best interests of the city to encourage these type of trends you describe. 

 

One can argue that the westsides NON inflated property values, STILL MANY SAFE neighborhoods, and proximity to the city could be a boon to Cincy's economy going forward in the economic state we are in.  Besides OTR doesn't even have that many more people left in it. 

 

The way I see it, MANY neighborhoods have gone through a culture shock and had to adjust over the past decades with intigrating into more diverse and dynamic neighborhoods and you will continue to see this radiate throughout and beyond the 275 belt.  Just like you see with younger people moving into OTR, I am seeing younger people move into my particular area of the westside (on an unbiased view).  My property value DROP is nowhere near the national average. I know of people who are taking up to 80,00 dollar losses in outer ring suburbs.  Mine might be pushing 5-8,000 if I had to sell it now, but houses are selling around me.  These economic problems our society created will not be building houses out in the boonies like we have been.  As a result, the patterns of our society will reverse (it maybe happening already).  The MORE DESIREABLE REAL ESTATE will be located closer to DT.  OTR should be doing pretty good by then, but I hope neighborhoods like P-Hill, Westwood, Covedale, Green, and Delhi Twp will have made up some ground that had been lost over the last 2 decades. 

 

The city SHOULD be working to really embrace the sign of the times right now AND USE THAT TO THEIR ADVANTAGE to raise population and encourage urban renewal and economic redevelopment albeit Glenway Ave !

this is not an "ideology" it is a theory and observation of how things are going. I agree that it isn't good for the city as a whole as the west side is certainly a part that needs to succeed. That being said, what part of my observations is flawed. Is crime going up? Are property values declining? Is there still the replacement demand that once existed in the West Side?

Michael Redmond, you kind of surprise me with that post. That is something taken right off the Cunningham show.

 

The difference between me saying "contain the cancer" to what could be argued as being the next path of least resistance for a voucher holder I believe two very different things. If we were to "contain the cancer" then I would say that we would have to take deliberate actions that steered voucher holders into one single place to "contain" them. This is not steering by anyone other than the voucher holder themeselves.

 

I site the West side and perhaps I should have thrown some other likely areas in as well because the West Side is not the only place that fits that mold. And while I am at it, let me tighten up my description a bit more and say that the entire west side is not equal but I will say that parts of Price Hill and Westwood are prime examples of what I was getting at.

 

almost sound like you WANT to happen.........Well, that just doesn't help the problems of this city at all.  

I knew when writing that this would come up as someone thinking that this was a desire, not just an observation. But as I said in the first paragraph of this post, am I wrong on my observations? I of course had to forecast forward and say that I believe that trends would speed up because of current economic conditions, but that is a forecast, not a wish. "don't be so naive, that kind of incident could have happened in any city or suburban school for that matter." But it didn't! And I am not so naive to think that things like this go unnoticed by a future homeowner who is looking for a neighborhood with a safe school for little Johny next year. These things have an affect and all of these things have a cumulative effect that can be devastating. For me to leave this out would naive simply through omission.

 

Haven't we concluded over the last 60-70 years that DOESN'T WORK.

What the past 40-50 years has concluded is that project based section 8 does not work. Containment doesn't work. But what I said is a flow of vouchers into not "contained" areas, but distinct areas and this is not by anyone other than the voucher holder having the ability to move, and a landlord providing the opportunity to move into an area. This is vastly different than the system that was in place from the from 60-'00.

 

Yea, property values are down, but they are down everywhere.

Crime was down last year in Price Hill and is trending to be down in Westwood this year.

Why did you pick those two? Why Price Hill and Westwood? If you think about it, we probably picked them for the same reason. Once again, West Side is not the proper way to describe what I am speeking of but to get the thought out there "West Side" was used for expedience. Property values are not down everywhere whereas they pass that equilibrium point that I described of market rate rental vs section 8 voucher rental. But these two areas are seeing this, along with others especially Springfield Township. "I know of people who are taking up to 80,00 dollar losses in outer ring suburbs." which means nothing until you apply it to the previous value. Many of the houses I am talking about that this is happening to are valued at 80,000-100,000 to begin with and are not selling because of a myriad of reasons including being upside down due to current economic circumstances.

 

One can argue that the westsides NON inflated property values, STILL MANY SAFE neighborhoods, and proximity to the city could be a boon to Cincy's economy going forward in the economic state we are in.

So you see appreciation in the future? You see crime decreasing, schools improving, demand growing? I hope so but it just isn't the feeling I get. And this is not an OTR vs West Side argument, forget OTR, forget West Side. Where do you see voucher flows moving. They aren't moving into OTR as much any more[fact]. They aren't moving into Montgomery, Blue Ash etc[fact]. where are they going. My observation is on the table, my theory is that it continues and increases in speed. Where would you say if I am wrong that this move is taking place and what, if anything will result of this?

My property value DROP is nowhere near the national average

First, don't take this personal because you own property there, this isn't my doing and who know, perhaps I am wrong. Second, a value drop vs national average has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I am talking about increase in 1. rental 2. subsidized rental. A property owner must weigh what the market rate rental market will bear vs the subsidized market. Have they, or will they go below what market rate will pay. Also, how many people will be forced to rent as they can not sell nor afford to live in their current homes? Is this number increasing because of declines in personal wealth especially in an area that has a high amount of retired homeowners on fixed incomes? That is where theory and projection comes in but once again, mine is on the table now.

I hope neighborhoods like P-Hill, Westwood, Covedale, Green, and Delhi Twp will have made up some ground that had been lost over the last 2 decades.

I do too. This is not wishful thinking. This is about taking the information that we have from the recent past, applying information from today and making a prediction of the future. I know that this is the last thing some people want to hear especially if you are vested in the area but am I wrong when you look at my real question of voucher flows? If I am, then where are they going?

 

These economic problems our society created will not be building houses out in the boonies like we have been.   As a result, the patterns of our society will reverse (it maybe happening already).

Society/Government artificially created both supply and demand in areas like OTR and the West End through project based policy. That being undone, and a choice based system now on the part of both the recipeint and the landlord, where will the choice be made to demand, and where will the choice be to supply? Same place no doubt, but where? What conditions do you think will be present on the supply side/landlords side, to make the choice to accept vouchers? Just because voucher holders go to a specific area in mass does not necessarily mean crime rates will follow and schools decline etc. after that, but before that, does that make the economic choice clearer one way or the other for the landlord?

 

The city SHOULD be working to really embrace the sign of the times right now AND USE THAT TO THEIR ADVANTAGE to raise population and encourage urban renewal and economic redevelopment

 

not just "right now" but instead should have been working on this for the past decade. Some have and are doing just fine on both the East and West Side. But others have not, and we have 52 communities here and many other distinct little neighborhoods within those communities. Who has, who hasn't and who is feeling it now and will continue to feel it in the not so distant future? I am not cheerleading here, just curious as it affects every single one of us both positive and negative.

Not my study....2005, and is it more or less true today?  Will it increase in speed due to todays economic conditions?  Have those locations changed? 

 

Study Pinpoints Cincinnati’s Hot Spots for Housing Vouchers

 

A new study by University of Cincinnati planners pinpoints more accurately than ever before just where Section 8 housing-voucher recipients reside. Many voucher families live in areas with high concentrations of poverty and  high numbers of racial minorities.

 

University of Cincinnati planners David Varady, a nationally respected housing researcher, and Xinhao Wang, an expert in geographical information systems (GIS),  recently published research regarding which Cincinnati neighborhoods are most likely to attract residents using Section 8 Housing vouchers.  (These housing vouchers, provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, provide rental assistance to low-income residents who are free to use the vouchers with any landlord – who passes HUD housing-quality standards – willing to accept them in lieu of cash.)

 

By applying a very precise technique – called “hot-spot analysis” – to a HUD database containing 6,000 Section 8 participants in Hamilton County, the researchers examined Cincinnati’s neighborhoods street-by-street rather than relying on broad census-tract information. They found that the areas most likely to attract Section 8 residents begin near downtown and then extend west and north, especially along the I-75 corridor and along the Mill Creek Valley.

 

...

 

http://www.uc.edu/news/NR.asp?id=2622

I'm still not sure what your point is. Are you arguing for a concerted effort to consolidate section 8 vouchers in certain parts of the West Side or are you merely observing that this is what has been happening?

 

I would argue that the foundation of a successful city is attracting and maintaining middle class families. Cities that focus on the top or bottom of the class structure in the end will lose. Likewise cities that tie their future to YPs, empty nesters or just people with children will also suffer.

 

Cincinnati weathered the main part of the urban crisis because it still had plenty of middle class family neighborhoods on the east and west sides of town. Giving that up now seems like a bad idea.

 

If I'd had to pick a part of the city that I'd be willing to over emphasize the location of the poor, it would be the entirety of the Mill Creek basin (OTR would not be in this but the West End would). I'd defend the neighborhoods atop the hills before those in the valley.

Are you arguing for a concerted effort to consolidate section 8 vouchers in certain parts of the West Side or are you merely observing that this is what has been happening?

I am saying it has been happening. I am also wondering if it isn't going to speed up. Same locations, but now only faster because many find themeselves with no other option than to accept vouchers. There isn't a way, under the current system that I could think of where you could make a concerted effort to steer.

it would be the entirety of the Mill Creek basin (OTR would not be in this but the West End would)..

Well it looks like that is the way it is shaking out right now. But once again my question is the effect that the current economic crisis has on the time frame. The motivation of a landlord may be changing considerably now and this will have huge impacts on differing neighborhoods, most of which I see on the West Side due to the age demographic and the type of housing stock.  The conditions are right in certain neighborhoods so that we may see a more rapid decline then in the past few years.

 

I'd defend the neighborhoods atop the hills before those in the valley.

In some cases I believe that train may have already sailed.  How do you defend them?  Especially now whereas even a decrease in crime rates may not be enough to change the individuals motivation of whether or not to accept vouchers.  I believe it is out of our hands to a certain extent now, a decade ago was when to take action and now some of the cards will fall where they may.  But it isn't all bad news.  Some areas will benefit from the exodus but that exodus was prompted by a recipients unwillingness to stay in what could only be described as a slum.  Even the West End had to do 60% subsidized in City West to keep voucher holders but that isn't being done elsewhere in and around OTR.

 

This isn't an impact of redevelopment, but an impact of policy and choice on the part of the recipient and the landlord.  OTR itself may have caused the exodus, but only through blight, not redevelopment and it is the lack of blight but coupled with affordability and acceptance that is attracting it to other communities and now I would argue it will be very apparent to most as it will no longer be a slow trickle, but rather a quick slide. 

 

 

I'm don't think I'd disagree, though I am probably less sanguine than you.

 

I actually am starting to think the city is being harmed by these targeted attempts to deal with specific neighborhoods, because it isn't fixing the problem. Rather it is displacing the problematic folks to neighborhoods that are currently under the city's radar. I think this is what's happening in parts of PRidge as folks have moved away from the highly policed target neighborhoods. PRidge tends to ebb and flow on this, so I'm hopeful they'll run them off pretty quickly.

I'm don't think I'd disagree, though I am probably less sanguine than you.

 

Just having a conversation, that's all. I don't know what the answer is. I understand Dohoney saying that if we have $52 then some neighborhoods should get $5 and perhaps another should not get any. There is merit to that by saying we as a city need to go all out to correct major problems and that may create an opportunity cost in another neighborhood. But on the other hand, how does a community combat concentrated areas of vouchers?

 

it is displacing the problematic folks to neighborhoods that are currently under the city's radar.

Not displacing nor all problematic. This is one of the reasons I threw this out here in the first place. It was neglect and terrible policy that drove targeted neighborhoods down to the point that when the policy was abated, then no one wanted to live in that neighborhood. Then you get into simple economic decisions primarily on the part of the landlord. Good supply created elsewhere will reduce demand for the bad supply we had in OTR . Don't you think the Robininis would love to have all of their buildings filled in OTR. Even more than that, it was most evident this was happening when Denhart went bankrupt immediately after this rule change because he could not fill his buildings. http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2001/08/19/fin_land_shifts_for.html

These people did not just disappear. They, just like you or I, made the decision to move to a community that was safer but not necessarily safe. They had a voucher and said I can move to community A that has been neglected for 50 years or community B that has been kept up with the same voucher. That is not displacement or gentrification as they were the ones who made the decision, and development simply followed.

 

I ask though, what does Cincinnati look like in 5-10-20 years from now? Many said 80 years ago there was no way Mt. Auburn, Avondale, OTR, West End etc could ever fall the way it did.

I'll give you this,  They are valid and interesting questions yet I hope the chips don't fall that way.      I know we probably ride the same line when it comes to vouchers.

I think fundamentally the white flight type of shift is done. If you haven't left by now, why the heck leave. The harder nut is the NORC's (parts of the west side are certainly within these bounds) - Naturally occurring retirement communities. Those will transition irrespective of what the city does. I don't think any east side neighborhoods fall within this - PRidge, Oakley, even Madville and KHeights are quite integrated age wise.

 

At some point we also have to consider whether smaller houses will return to vogue. I continue to believe that places filled with post-war housing - esp. 50ish - 70ish will fare the worst in a flat market.

I think fundamentally the white flight type of shift is done. If you haven't left by now, why the heck leave.

That was a shift grounded primarily in a desire to live in "white neighborhoods" I am talking about a need to make a change due to economics. 

 

At some point we also have to consider whether smaller houses will return to vogue. I continue to believe that places filled with post-war housing - esp. 50ish - 70ish will fare the worst in a flat market.

Good point.  Also smaller yards etc will be a factor to many retirees as upkeep becomes more and more difficult.  Condos come to mind (Surprise surprise huh!), but you could be correct in that this could offset much of what I am saying.  But on the other hand, with retirement accounts diminishing (which could change on a dime) will that affect population movements?  I could see a move out of a house of any kind into a rental as more and more people look to cash out any equity they have in their home and pay rent just to affect their own personal cash flow.  Sale/lease backs might be the wave of the future for some, but most will look at rental communities for those that could unload their home

 

Cincinnati weathered the main part of the urban crisis because it still had plenty of middle class family neighborhoods on the east and west sides of town. Giving that up now seems like a bad idea.

What would have happened in Cincinnati had there never been project based section 8.  What if in the 60's we went straight into a voucher system, where would they have elected to go?  Situations were different then I know, but we talk about the damage the other way caused, would vouchers have caused less?  I think the answer is yes to some degree but I absolutely believe that we would be looking at a fundamentally different Cincinnati today.  Vouchers can only go where they are accepted and today it seems obvious where they are flowing from and where they are flowing to.  What does this do to what we know of Cincinnati's makeup?  I believe it will be paradigm shift similar to the one we saw with the introduction of project based policy on inner cities.

I know we probably ride the same line when it comes to vouchers.

I don't doubt that for a minute but there are some realities that we are going to have to face sooner rather than later here.

It would have been fascinating to consider, because it would have complicated a lot of the school district issues. Instead of forcing a large part into of the population into the same schools, the dispersion may have had a more even effect across the region and undermined the ability of some to flee to 'better' meaning whiter schools.

Even more than that Dmerkow, would that have changed student enrollments at various schools across Cincinnati. If it would have then, it certainly will now and are we building schools today that are reflecting this ongoing change, or are we being caught by surprise. Bloom Middle School closed out of nowhere a couple of years ago. Shrinking enrollment certainly in OTR yet we are still planning to rebuild Rothenburg (which has greater sqft) although Vine St Elem has the capacity somehow to hold three schools in its current location.

 

These are primarily the kids of voucher holders and when a voucher holder moves, I would hope they would take their kid with them yet generally speaking, the incoming residents do not have children. Are we building the necessary school capacity in these communities and are we appropriately scaling back in others?

Zoning proposals put social service agencies on edge

 

Twenty-nine proposed amendments to Cincinnati’s zoning code could dramatically change how and where social services are delivered throughout the city.

 

The amendments still are making their way through the city’s legislative process. The planning commission hasn’t reviewed them. And Cincinnati City Council will have final say, probably in 2009.

 

But the recommendations discussed at a meeting Nov. 12 have some providers worried that the changes aim to zone certain social services out of business.

 

...

 

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/11/24/story12.html

Some, such as supportive housing agencies, would have to be 1,000 feet away from another, similar facility and at least 500 feet away from schools, single-family residential district boundaries and riverfront residential and recreational boundaries.

 

This seems to be pretty reasonable.

 

“It’s like any other service provider,” he said. “McDonald’s doesn’t build out in the middle of the country so people will come to it. They build their restaurants where their customers are.”

 

Bortz argued that every neighborhood in the city, and nearly every corner of the county, has poor residents.

 

“One or two or three social service agencies will not destroy a neighborhood, but 150 might,” he said.

 

Bortz for Mayor

Agencies rip city zoning proposal

 

New rules proposed for Cincinnati’s social service agencies drew more than 200 people tonight to a debate over protecting neighborhoods from too many agencies and troubled clients.

 

Opponents say the rules unfairly crack down on groups trying to help the city’s least fortunate.

 

The 32 zoning changes would require human service facilities to file “good neighbor” plans with the city, detailing the number of clients to be served weekly and how agency officials would control litter, security, loitering, noise and crime. Facilities also would have to be separated from any other facility by at least 500 feet and install landscaping buffers if they abut single-family housing.

 

...

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090210/NEWS0108/302100080/1055/NEWS

I attended the meeting and thought city planning did a very poor job on explaining why they propose the plans, "voids in the city’s zoning code" doesn't explain very much. I don't think the word deconcentration, or neighborhood burden, or anything similar was even mentioned. Elizabeth Brown probably said it best when she said the city may be able to justify it, but probably only enough to ensure years of legal battles.

 

I agree with a lot of the philosophies that city planning is presenting but limiting churches is probably not the smartest thing to do from a legal standpoint.

Well that was a slanted article.

 

I was there as well, and spoke in favor, at least until I couldn't take it anymore and left after four hours.

 

About 95% of the people speaking against the proposed changes are employed by social service agencies.  Most were ill informed about the details, and claimed that no regulation is necessary. These "poverty pimps" have shown little concern for the residents they impact, and have chosen not to regulate themselves.  This is an imperfect first step, but something has to be done.  They brought this problem upon themselves when the CityLink decision eviscerated the zoning code.

I agree that it was a slanted article, but it reflected that 95% of the crowd, so it's hard to really fault the article for that. They reported on what happened. And I'm sorry I didn't get to see you speak I stayed for about 3 hours.

I do understand the numbers, but as you mentioned the article was published before the meeting was even over.  A number of the speakers in favor didn't get a chance to speak until later.  At 9:30PM, by my tally it was about 40 to 13 against, which isn't quite the same.

 

The article also did not mention these changes were the result of months of work by residents and social service providers, working along with the planning department.

I suppose I might find objection to the zoning modifications, except for the fact that these social services have all but dug the hole they are now falling into.

 

The 32 zoning changes would require human service facilities to file “good neighbor” plans with the city, detailing the number of clients to be served weekly and how agency officials would control litter, security, loitering, noise and crime. Facilities also would have to be separated from any other facility by at least 500 feet and install landscaping buffers if they abut single-family housing.

 

Controlling litter, security, crime and noise is something that should be expected and required from each law-abiding tenant and owner. You don't get a free pass because you house homeless individuals or because you are a social service agency.

 

Church members expressed concern the proposals would stop them from doing outreach work, such as offering meals to homeless people or counseling to pregnant mothers.

 

How does controlling your clients stop the social service agency from conducting outreach work? And yes, they are clients of what is essentially a business -- not residents, as they are transient.

 

Elizabeth Brown, executive director of Housing Opportunities Made Equal, said the proposals would discriminate against people with disabilities.

 

How?

 

Scott Gehring, of the Volunteers of America, testified that the changes would dismantle Cincinnati’s social services network. Agency officials are concerned about neighborhood crime too, he said, but “the social service agencies are not the source” of crime.

 

Bullsh!t. The Drop Inn, for instance, does not refuse any client into their agency. Those who have dealt drugs, or are on drugs, are admitted. Drunks are admitted. Police records show that the Drop Inn is one of the most frequented stops by the Cincinnati Police Department for a variety of infractions. And the other nearby agencies are not much better. Washington Park is one of the top hot-spots as well... as it is in the center of all of this activity.

 

If these agencies could control their clients by enforcing basic moral and social morals -- such as rejecting those with a history of drug addiction or those who are visibly high and/or drunk, they might receive a warmer reception.

^ The question becomes how much of this is a zoning issue?

It's a zoning issue because the discussion at hand is the spatial arrangement and clustering of these agencies.  The other items just fall in line with how they are enforced as land use types (typical of anything else like a school, SF residential, business, etc).

OTRF head calls social service deconcentration 'a critical first step'

 

In a letter to Cincinnati City Councilmember Roxanne Qualls, Over-the-Rhine Foundation executive director Michael Morgan calls the deconcentration of social services "a critical first step" to move forward to a better, healthier city.

 

Morgan has volunteered his time and legal education during months of zoning text amendment meetings to help fix what he calls "a broken social service system".

 

The 24-member Social Service Committee, formed to make zoning text recommendations following a council resolution last June, was largely composed of employees of social service agencies, who sought input from non-committee agencies and toured many of the local facilities.

 

...

 

http://www.building-cincinnati.com/2009/02/otrf-head-calls-social-service.html

^That's fantastic.

 

"There is one social worker employed in Over-the-Rhine for every 1.5 resident(s)," Morgan says.

That quote is sad. There is no efficiency to be gained by employing 1.5 workers for each homeless individual. What that indicates to me is that there is waste -- workers could be better utilized doing other tasks, or not being employed at all. A ratio of say, 5 to 1, would be better.

^

Just to clarify, there is not 1.5 worker per each homeless individual.  Those workers include the county folks in the Alms and Deopke building and all social service workers whether they deal directly with the homeless or not.

 

All of Mike's points are still valid, just wanted to make sure we use correct numbers.

Social services amendments to take more time

 

Proposed text amendments that would dictate the number and location of the City's social services will not be discussed by the City Planning Commission (CPC) for "several weeks", according to a communication to City Council from city manager Milton Dohoney, Jr.

 

The memo is in response to a letter written to Councilmember Roxanne Qualls by Over-the-Rhine Foundation executive director Michael Morgan calling the deconcentration of social services "a critical first step" to fixing "a broken social service system" and improving the health of the City.

 

On February 10, the City Planning Commission reviewed 32 proposed text amendment changes compiled over several months by a 24-member Social Service Committee, a body composed of representatives from social service agencies, residents, and other community stakeholders.

 

...

 

http://www.building-cincinnati.com/2009/03/social-services-amendments-to-take-more.html

'Add Market-Rate Housing and Stir'

Discussing the effectiveness of housing as a tool to end poverty

 

Reduce crime, preserve architecturally significant buildings, support social diversity and create a beautiful community in which everyone is welcome — these appear to be the goals of development efforts in dilapidated urban neighborhoods such as Over-the-Rhine.

 

When concerns are raised about displacing existing poor residents, developers argue that these people will be raised out of poverty as a result of neighborhood revitalization. More businesses will mean more employment opportunities, better housing choices will mean more homeownership and less crime will mean a more diverse population of residents, a beneficial influence for underprivileged children.

 

It sounds as though everyone is included in and benefits from these projects. Still, Tom Dutton, director of the Miami University Center for Community Engagement in Over-the-Rhine, went looking for proof of the supposition that mixed-income housing can help alleviate poverty.

 

...

 

http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-17379-add-market-rate-housing-and-stir.html

That conversation took place Feb. 26, but the end result wasn’t what Dutton expected. In addition to inviting Fraser and his Vanderbilt University colleague, Edward Kick, Dutton brought together social service providers, developers and others with a stake in the success of Over-the-Rhine.

 

Not sure who he brought together at this meeting, but none of the the developers and other stakeholders in the neighborhood that I know have heard about it until now.

This is classic academic crap - speaking as an academic.

Protest targets controversial VOA center

By Eileen Kelley

[email protected]

 

Protest Pictures - http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Avis=AB&Dato=20090408&Kategori=NEWS01&Lopenr=904080807&Ref=PH

 

OVER-THE-RHINE - The hot-pink sandwich board dangled just inches above the ground.

 

But the little girl, just 8, roared in a larger-than-life way as she led the pack up the hardscrabble streets in Over-the-Rhine letting neighbors - a halfway house - know they are no longer welcome here.

 

"Hey, ho ho, the VOA has got to go," Ellen Walter bellowed. Her sandwich board read: "Help me stay safe."

 

A group of about 75 strong joined Ellen.

 

...

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090408/NEWS01/904090337/1055/NEWS

 

Did anybody go to the party in Washington Park today? It was one of the craziest things I've seen in a long time.

I was wondering what was going on. I noticed a ton of cops there, and was suspecting at first that they were doing a major cleanup.

***sorry if I offend anyone***

 

Re: Washington Park - the group in the park this weekend was Crossroads Mega Church.  Every once in a while they like to come on down and hang out in OTR with the Homeless people, pretending like everything is fine (as long as homeless people stay down here instead of Oakley/Hyde Park/their church), and they can just visit for the day.  They just ultimately perpetuate the issue of concentrated services in OTR.

 

 

The effort is called Go Cincinnati.

 

"Each year, an army of volunteers impact Cincinnati through various service projects in a one-day, citywide blitz of compassion. Working alongside other churches, we love on hundreds of community-based organizations throughout our city.

 

Last year, over 4,000 people from Crossroads and other partner churches went out into the city to serve the homeless, pray with the broken, paint schools, clean camps and help make a difference in our city. This year we're upping our impact: 5,000 volunteers at over 200 projects around the city."

 

http://www.gocincinnati.net/

 

I was happy to see it, they did a good job. Regardless of what the underlying goal may be, the result was still the same. 

But the effect is only temporary. These "blitzes" are similar to the traffic patrol "blitzes" the State Highway Patrol conducts on holidays. They get traffic to slow down around the sighting of a police cruiser, but everyone speeds back up to the 85th percentile within a few miles. Only <1% of drivers are actually ticketed.

 

The same goes with these "blitzes." Good intentions, but the statistics do not lie: Washington Park is still no better than it was the previous night. Without permanent intervention, and a major overhaul of that area, these are only band-aid fixes.

Even a permanent intervention and major overhaul of the area only solves the problem to a certain degree.  Most likely it just solves the issue for that particular locale.  The real problem is that there are people in our community that are so down on themselves and are so lacking and out of touch with the rest of society that they feel no other option than to resort to drugs, violence and a life that is deemed to be inappropriate by the rest of us.

 

It is a sad situation and I feel that the people who think they can help solve the problem by serving up soup or painting a building are sorely mistaken at the realities and complexities of life.  Ask the people of Price Hill what the major overhaul of Cincinnati's West End has done to their neighborhoods.  You don't have to agree with them, but they see a direct correlation...and just because we demolished the projects and replaced them with something "nicer", doesn't mean that the problems that go along with those projects have disappeared.

 

It's not easy to solve or address these tough issues, but at some point there is going to be a time where we have to...what better time than now?

I have seen the "paint crew" painting over unpainted brick in OTR..."a historical district sin".  Crossroads is the same church bringing CITYLINK to the west end. I had church members flick me off as they headed to service at crossroads. I held the sign "Not near our schools". A group of us mainly from Brighton and Klotter picketed for a few weeks about 3 years ago. Glad I didn't go to washington park this weekend!

anyone know when the OTR 5k is this year?

pretty sure its june 20th

But the effect is only temporary...Good intentions, but the statistics do not lie: Washington Park is still no better than it was the previous night. Without permanent intervention, and a major overhaul of that area, these are only band-aid fixes.

 

They canvassed a large area of OTR picking up garbage, weeding, cleaning out lots that had been both overgrown and some dumped on.  That is very welcomed help, regardless of how often it is.  I, and many others on here participate twice a year in the Great American Clean Up and we turn in literally tons of garbage, not a waste of time, not a wasted effort.  If anyone wants to help clean up OTR, I thank them because that means it is that much less garbage that you and I will eventually have to pick up.  As for the permanent fix, leave that to 3CDC, not Crossroads.

It is a sad situation and I feel that the people who think they can help solve the problem by serving up soup or painting a building are sorely mistaken at the realities and complexities of life.

 

Are you saying its better to do nothing?  Please share with us the complexities of life as you know them.

But the effect is only temporary...Good intentions, but the statistics do not lie: Washington Park is still no better than it was the previous night. Without permanent intervention, and a major overhaul of that area, these are only band-aid fixes.

 

They canvassed a large area of OTR picking up garbage, weeding, cleaning out lots that had been both overgrown and some dumped on. That is very welcomed help, regardless of how often it is. I, and many others on here participate twice a year in the Great American Clean Up and we turn in literally tons of garbage, not a waste of time, not a wasted effort. If anyone wants to help clean up OTR, I thank them because that means it is that much less garbage that you and I will eventually have to pick up. As for the permanent fix, leave that to 3CDC, not Crossroads.

 

A change of heart, perhaps? I seem to remember getting into an argument with you a few years ago about kids from a local Highschool coming down to OTR to work on a building and clean up the area.  You said it just perpetuated the image that OTR was a charity case and that you'd rather not have them down there.

 

I too think this clean up is a good thing, and I wish they would do it more.

>It is a sad situation and I feel that the people who think they can help solve the problem by serving up soup or painting a building are sorely mistaken at the realities and complexities of life. 

 

Poverty in Biblical times was something quite different from what it is now.  People had no access to modern medicine and good, productive people were often lost in their prime due to accidents and bad luck, leaving extended family to raise children or the children to raise themselves (aka "street urchins").  Being homeless today is limited pretty much to the mentally ill, which means coming down on the weekend and handing out sandwiches doesn't achieve a damn thing.   

It is a sad situation and I feel that the people who think they can help solve the problem by serving up soup or painting a building are sorely mistaken at the realities and complexities of life. 

 

Are you saying its better to do nothing?  Please share with us the complexities of life as you know them.

 

No, I'm saying that people are mistaken if they think that they are truly helping solve a problem by serving soup or painting a building.  Life is much more complex than superficial attempts can even begin to solve.  Where was I unclear in my original comments?

But the effect is only temporary...Good intentions, but the statistics do not lie: Washington Park is still no better than it was the previous night. Without permanent intervention, and a major overhaul of that area, these are only band-aid fixes.

 

They canvassed a large area of OTR picking up garbage, weeding, cleaning out lots that had been both overgrown and some dumped on.  That is very welcomed help, regardless of how often it is.  I, and many others on here participate twice a year in the Great American Clean Up and we turn in literally tons of garbage, not a waste of time, not a wasted effort.  If anyone wants to help clean up OTR, I thank them because that means it is that much less garbage that you and I will eventually have to pick up.  As for the permanent fix, leave that to 3CDC, not Crossroads.

 

A change of heart, perhaps? I seem to remember getting into an argument with you a few years ago about kids from a local Highschool coming down to OTR to work on a building and clean up the area.  You said it just perpetuated the image that OTR was a charity case and that you'd rather not have them down there.

 

I too think this clean up is a good thing, and I wish they would do it more.

 

 

Is the issue that they're picking on OTR and not other areas of the city?  I can't speak because I'm not familiar with Crossroads, but if they're just going down to OTR annually and not Avondale, Bond Hill, Price Hill, West End, Camp Washington, etc as well then I could see the issue that some people are having in regards to perpetuating a stereotype. 

 

 

 

Side note, as this is the right thread...is there an exact date when they're going to begin the park?  Or is it not even a done deal yet?  I'd REALLY love to see that move forward.

Being homeless today is limited pretty much to the mentally ill, which means coming down on the weekend and handing out sandwiches doesn't achieve a damn thing.

 

Except to the hungry person eating it.

^Give a man a fish, feed him for a day...teach a man to fish, feed him for a life time.

If everybody helped out in some way, the neighborhood could only benefit.  Why belittle a group for trying to do something, just appreciate it and keep working to get more people and organizations involved.

Side note, as this is the right thread...is there an exact date when they're going to begin the park? Or is it not even a done deal yet? I'd REALLY love to see that move forward.

 

My guess is that the park will start when the drop-inn moves.  So in Cincinnati-speak: "When Pigs Fly"