November 2, 200717 yr ^ Is it too early to start drinking? I am so f*#@ing sick of people destroying this neighborhood in the name of doing "good work".
November 3, 200717 yr Maybe if HQ still sold hardware instead lite religion we'd have a real chance to fix the core. Arrgh.
November 4, 200717 yr Could there be a planning/legislative solution to this problem to circumvent the courts-or is it too late? Perhaps re-zoning the area to prevent this magnet for crime and homelessness from being built or clarifying existing zoning regulations? It would be excellent if the city could perpetually tie up the development. It seems like it has had the knack to do so elsewhere.
November 5, 200717 yr Nothing can be done administratively, as the zoning has been approved by this court decision. The only option is to appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. Any zoning change would not be retroactive, and usually requires consent by the property owner. The city has been clarifying the zoning definitions to prevent this from happening again, but its like closing the barn doors after the cows have left. The property is already purchased, so the only other option is a PR campaign to drum up negative press against it and it's backers (which will be hard because they have "god" on their side, and more importantly lots of $).
November 5, 200717 yr I just read that Covington Zoning was changed so that Homeless Shelters are not allowed anywhere within the city. Suburban cities and townships have similar restrictions. The result is that they all end up here. Although apparently this is not a shelter, but a grouping of other services. Will anyone live at City Link? http://www.citykin.com/2007/11/homeless-shelters-banned-from-covington.html
November 5, 200717 yr ^ I hadn't heard about Covington. As Citylink's plans have been presented in a number of different ways, my understanding is that there will not be an emergency shelter element included, but lots and lots of transitional housing. [snip from appeals court decision] CityLink intends to lease space in a renovated building to four main tenants: (1) Jobs Plus, which provides job placement, training and other employment services; (2) Crossroads Health Center, which provides health screenings, dental care, pregnancy tests and wellness services; (3) The Lord’s Gym, which provides weightlifting, exercise and wellness programs; and (4) City Gospel Mission, which provides long-term transitional housing for people involved in CityLink’s programs. Further, other entities, such as a cafe, a day-care center, and a barber and beauty salon will be located within CityLink. All of these entities have separate legal identities, separate governing boards, and independent control over the services they will provide to their clients. CityLink will not be open to the general public. Its services will be provided to those who stay in the transitional housing and to any other client that has completed the intake process to determine eligibility for and commitment to the services to be provided. There will be some charge for clients utilizing the cafe, which will serve breakfast and dinner, but there will be no charge for the day-care facility that will be used by clients living in the transitional housing and by CityLink’s staff and volunteers. [end snip] No matter how they spin this, it is going to bring a huge influx of people in need of services to OTR and the West End. The majority decision specifically stated that: [snip from appeals court decision] "It is clear from this undisputed testimony that CityLink was not targeting West End residents as the primary recipients of CityLink’s services. The property in that neighborhood just happened to satisfy CityLink’s needs because it was large enough to accommodate parking and it was near bus lines that will enable individuals from throughout Hamilton County to use CityLink’s services. ...CityLink would not constitute a CSF because it was not established primarily to serve the community in which it will be located." [end snip] Remember this when proponents claim it couldn't go anywhere else and will serve the neighborhood.
November 5, 200717 yr :x how do we start a petition for next years elections to stop the development of new homeless shelters and expansion of existing ones...we'll show those bastards.
November 9, 200717 yr CityLink project on hold BY DAN MONK | CINCINNATI BUSINESS COURIER November 9, 2007 Backers of the controversial CityLink project say it will be at least a year before they break ground on the social services mall planned in the West End.
March 27, 200817 yr Battle over; Citylink will be built BY SHARON COOLIDGE | [email protected] A two-year battle between the city of Cincinnati and several social services agencies over the development of a social services mall in the West End is over. http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080326/NEWS01/303260035/1056/COL02
March 27, 200817 yr The only way this news could have a positive impact would be to shut down ALL the OTHER 108 or so agencies and social services in OTR, but I know better.
March 27, 200817 yr This REALLY sucks. Suburban areas are able to block additional school parking lots, but a community council and the City of Cincinnati are not able to block this social services mall in the heart of their communities. This is just crap.
March 27, 200817 yr The only way this news could have a positive impact would be to shut down ALL the OTHER 108 or so agencies and social services in OTR, but I know better. At this point we have to say we lost the fight of stopping this but how can we either limit the damage or use it as a tool to stop future social services. Bottom line, and I know this flies in the face of the rhetoric that was coming out of the anti-Citylink group, this will absorb some, not all, social services in OTR. Look at who is part of this, some are groups who are here in OTR. If they are being pressured to relocate, which many have now for a couple of years this could give them a way out. Others who are asking to expand when arguing need, will have this to 'compete' with. Every social service here that goes to the city, or is fighting for donations now will hear a giant sucking sound emanating from the West End. We now have the task of backing out of our own rhetoric and saying that the West End and OTR by extension, is not doomed because this is being built. The realities of Citylink will have to be accepted and hedged in other ways. I am afraid that over the next few days or weeks we are going to hear horror story scenerios put out there that will only make things worse. Lets everyone try and take a different route and say that this does give other social services a reason to relocate or be absorbed by this social service mall. I say hit the blogs, write to the papers etc, put this scenario out and put pressure on the existing social services.
March 27, 200817 yr If they are being pressured to relocate, which many have now for a couple of years this could give them a way out. Others who are asking to expand when arguing need, will have this to 'compete' with. Every social service here that goes to the city, or is fighting for donations now will hear a giant sucking sound emanating from the West End. Personally, I view this as a positive step. This is the leverage necessary to begin some consolidation of those services.
March 27, 200817 yr Personally, I view this as a positive step. Let me say this, we have to make it a positive step. Alone it is not and will send the wrong message and reinforce the perception that we are a dumping ground down here. Lets put out there that we are pleased because it will allow for consolidation of the 1 per block social service problem here in OTR into the giant, 11 million dollar, 5 acre social service mall. No need for any other expansions, no need for funding outside of Citylink, no reason to stay in current locations when it is services are being duplicated only a half mile away. There should be accompanying comments about this at every site that discusses Citylink. Even the West enders should support this. By doing this and forcing not just the social services, but convincing the recipients of the service that they should go to this site, then this becomes a zero sum game as opposed to what the anti-citylink group said about busing in homeless from the entire region. Lets help fill the place up.
March 27, 200817 yr ^ Agreed There will be some consolidation pressure without any of our involvement, but we will need to constantly point to that facility whenever new facilities are being proposed. In short, lets make some lemonade people :)
March 27, 200817 yr ^New, expanded or duplication. And it is two pronged. Pressure on the service and incentive for the recipient. In short, lets make some lemonade people This goes to my point that I have been trying to make to several groups who have initiatives on the table. Be careful that if your initiative goes down, that you can back out of your rhetoric, otherwise you leave a real mess in your wake.
March 30, 200817 yr Suburban areas are able to block additional school parking lots, but a community council and the City of Cincinnati are not able to block this social services mall in the heart of their communities. This is just crap. Is there any way now, that we can enact some legislation like suburban areas, or covington to limit any new shelters/expansion of existing ones/social services (ala Free Store) USING Citylink's existence? Maybe we can make this into a political boon for OTR?
March 30, 200817 yr There have been some changes to the zoning code that have been proposed to tighten it up and eliminate some of the giant loopholes that are present, including limiting the number of beds in homeless shelters, requiring a minimum square footage per resident in a shelter, and defining community and community services facility better. Some of these have passed planning commission and I believe are awaiting council approval. -- Honorable City Planning Commission March 7, 2008 SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments for §1401-01-S11 Special Assistance Shelter and §1401-01-C16 Congregate Housing. PURPOSE: To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission (CPC) on text amendments related to special assistance shelters and congregate housing. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT: § 1401-01-S11. Special Assistance Shelter. “Special assistance shelter” means a facility for the long or short-term housing for individuals who are may be homeless and who may require special services and which may include dormitory style sleeping facilities . § 1401-01-C16. Congregate Housing “Congregate Housing” means Aapartments and dwellings with communal dining facilities and services, such as housekeeping, organized social and recreational activities, transportation services and other support services appropriate for the residents. Congregate housing does not include dormitory style sleeping facilities for unrelated individuals. JUSTIFICATION: New State programs are setting up dormitory style living quarters for persons released from jail and prisons in apartments and other facilities. The proposed amendments provide the tools needed by staff to ensure that these facilities are appropriately located. PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE: A Public Staff Conference was held on November 1, 2007. Attendees representing Over the Rhine, Clifton Heights and the West End supported the changes to the Special Assistance Shelter definition, but requested that the language for the Congregate Housing definition be made stronger. Attendees felt that the Congregate Housing definition needed to be more explicit, either by clearly stating ‘long or short-term housing’ in the definition, or by defining the number of people per room and the eating facility style. Several attendees felt that objective criteria, such as the number of persons per room, would allow for easier regulation without monitoring the length of a person’s stay. Related to this, Attendees also felt that the definition for Transitional Housing should be made stronger, and include changes like those made to the Special Assistance Shelter definition. They felt that Transitional Housing should explicitly include ‘long or short term’ housing, and be described as a style of housing that offers private apartment-style dwelling units, facilitates working and job-searching during the day, and provides limited evening programming. A suggestion was also made that the term ‘barracks’ be used to describe unacceptable housing conditions and an unacceptable number of persons per room. Attendees further suggested that the definition for Community Service Facility be revised to more clearly state that “community” means more than the immediate area or neighborhood in which such a facility is located. A second Public Staff Conference was held on February 13, 2008. There was no major issue with this language, although the point was brought up that the “long or short-term” language in §1401-01-S11 Special Assistance Shelter should be deleted because this language is unnecessary to achieve the purpose of this definition. RECOMMENDATION: The City Planning Department staff recommends that the City Planning Commission approve the text amendment as written. -- Honorable City Planning Commission March 7, 2008 Cincinnati, Ohio SUBJECT: Proposed text amendment for §1419-26 Special Assistance Shelter. PURPOSE: To obtain approval from the City Planning Commission (CPC) on text amendments related to Special Assistance Shelters. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT: § 1419-26. Special Assistance Shelter. “Special assistance shelter” must be developed in compliance with the following: a) Special assistance shelters must provide at least 50 square feet per person in the sleeping facilities and b) The sleeping facilites of each Special Assistance Shelter are limited to 50 individuals. JUSTIFICATION: New State programs are setting up dormitory style living quarters for persons released from jail and prisons in apartments and other facilities. Recent amendments provide the tools needed by staff to ensure that these facilities are appropriately located. This amendment will limit the size of shelters to further mitigate potential impacts on the neighborhoods. PUBLIC STAFF CONFERENCE: A Public Staff Conference was held on November 1, 2007. Attendees representing Over the Rhine, Clifton Heights and the West End supported the changes to the Special Assistance Shelter definition, but requested that the language for the Congregate Housing definition be made stronger. Attendees felt that the Congregate Housing definition needed to be more explicit, either by clearly stating ‘long or short-term housing’ in the definition, or by defining the number of people per room and the eating facility style. Several attendees felt that objective criteria, such as the number of persons per room, would allow for easier regulation without monitoring the length of a person’s stay. Related to this, Attendees also felt that the definition for Transitional Housing should be made stronger, and include changes like those made to the Special Assistance Shelter definition. They felt that Transitional Housing should explicitly include ‘long or short term’ housing, and be described as a style of housing that offers private apartment-style dwelling units, facilitates working and job-searching during the day, and provides limited evening programming. A suggestion was also made that the term ‘barracks’ be used to describe unacceptable housing conditions and an unacceptable number of persons per room. Attendees further suggested that the definition for Community Service Facility be revised to more clearly state that “community” means more than the immediate area or neighborhood in which such a facility is located. A second Public Staff Conference was held on February 13, 2008. There was no major issue with this specific text amendment. A comment was made that 50 square feet per person in a sleeping facility is way too small. RECOMMENDATION: The City Planning Department staff recommends that the City Planning Commission approve the text amendment as written.
April 4, 200817 yr Cincinnati zoning law in question after CityLink BY LUCY MAY | CINCINNATI BUSINESS COURIER April 4, 2008 The Ohio Supreme Court's recent decision not to hear the city of Cincinnati's arguments against the proposed CityLink social services mall in the West End has left a big hole in the city's zoning code.
May 6, 200817 yr WestEnd Kid, thanks for your post and welcome. I merged the thread you created with one that already existed. You are right about word on this not getting out. I hadn't heard about this until very recently. I guess the fight isn't "sexy" enough for the local media because they assume their viewers/readers had written the West End off long ago. Jimmy Skinner, the names and addresses of the churches are listed on pages 4 and 5 of the letter in the link I posted. Considering that CityLink's own Dale Mallory is Mayor Mark Mallory's brother... ...and Mark Mallory PRETENDS not to understand why anyone in the West End would have a problem with CityLink... It wouldn't surprise me if The Enquirer was inadvertently supporting CityLink in some backroom kinda way. The Enquirer does have a reputation for catering to the city's powerbrokers, and the only news outlet reporting anything substantive about CityLink is CityBeat.
May 6, 200817 yr The only way this news could have a positive impact would be to shut down ALL the OTHER 108 or so agencies and social services in OTR, but I know better. At this point we have to say we lost the fight of stopping this but how can we either limit the damage or use it as a tool to stop future social services. Bottom line, and I know this flies in the face of the rhetoric that was coming out of the anti-Citylink group, this will absorb some, not all, social services in OTR. Look at who is part of this, some are groups who are here in OTR. If they are being pressured to relocate, which many have now for a couple of years this could give them a way out. Others who are asking to expand when arguing need, will have this to 'compete' with. Every social service here that goes to the city, or is fighting for donations now will hear a giant sucking sound emanating from the West End. We now have the task of backing out of our own rhetoric and saying that the West End and OTR by extension, is not doomed because this is being built. The realities of Citylink will have to be accepted and hedged in other ways. I am afraid that over the next few days or weeks we are going to hear horror story scenerios put out there that will only make things worse. Lets everyone try and take a different route and say that this does give other social services a reason to relocate or be absorbed by this social service mall. I say hit the blogs, write to the papers etc, put this scenario out and put pressure on the existing social services. I don't see any “rhetoric” coming out of the NoToCityLink.com group. By "rhetoric" I'm assuming that you imply that the NoToCityLink.com group is playing a game of politics vs. CityLink ??? In reality, it's the other way around. CityLink, a so-called "christian charity..." CityLink has played a dirty, nasty political game on West Enders. There’s nothing Christian about how CityLink has behaved in this never ending game. • CityLink tried to secretly infiltrate The West End Community Council meetings with Dale Mallory, who turned out to be a major CityLink backer. THIS IN ITSELF IS AN ACT OF FRAUD. http://www.notocitylink.com/ • CityLink literally hid from West Enders for quite some time, refusing direct dialogue with West End residents in any meaningful capacity. And now CityLink claims that they plan to work with the city and work with West End residents to come to an agreement? PLEASE. The time to come to the table and be forthright, honest and CHRISTIAN was 2+ years ago. • While CityLink hid from West End property owners, backers of CityLink wrote flowery editorials to the Enquirer in support of CityLink. (The editorials I’m speaking of are oddly no longer available on the Enquirer’s website.) • Probably the most pathetic piece of rhetoric out of CityLink in response to West Ender’s concern about neighborhood rehabilitation… CityLink claims “that they plan to focus on rehabilitating people’s lives…” PUHHHHHLEEEEEZZE. (or how about DUH). This lame line does not constitute an answer to the concerns of West Enders. It’s called a diversion from the real issue at hand. Which leads to the next major point of CityLink rhetoric… • CityLink has attempted to paint this issue of a “Good Christians vs. The Anti-Poor” issue. I think West Enders of all people know very well that there is a problem with poverty in Cincinnati. I mean it’s in their face every time they walk outside their homes. • CityLink has played a dirty, backhanded, nasty game of politics on the West End, and now we’re simply supposed to go forward and “make lemonade?” How can anyone in the West End trust these CityLink people ??? The NoToCityLink.com crowd is doing what anyone else in Cincinnati would and should do in this case... They're defending their neighborhood from being a dumping ground for the poor. They're defending their neighborhood from a bunch of suburbanites / non West Enders who think they know what's better for the West End than the tax paying property owners in the West End. They’re defending their right as West End property owners to model their own destiny as a neighborhood. Unlike all of the religious groups pushing for CityLink, the West End residents actually pay the property taxes in this city and they have every right to oppose CityLink and similar projects from being built on their doorstep. They have every right to insist that their own Mayor Mallory would advocate on behalf of the neighborhood… …not on behalf of Mayor Mallory’s brother Dale and a group of non-Cincinnati residents. I will agree that there is a need for CityLink, and I give the backers of CityLink credit for their bold plan (even if I don’t agree that under qualified volunteers and unqualified pastors should be treating people who are seriously screwed up). Every bit of charity helps. But there are also more appropriate places for CityLink, and the way this has been handled by CityLink and the city is just all out disturbing. The way that CityLink has handled this "game" only furthers my opinion that religious charities can use their tax exempt status to play dirty games on tax paying Cincinnatians. And the way Mayor Mallory has pretended to play both sides of the dirty game gives me no faith that he advocates for Cincinnati residents.
May 6, 200817 yr oh I should have know this was coming....here is what I meant by rhetoric (which is not a bad word by the way) and it is even in the quoted lines you mentioned. "I know this flies in the face of the rhetoric that was coming out of the anti-Citylink group, this will absorb some, not all, social services in OTR" The rhetoric that I was referring to was when it was said that this will not affect any of the current social services in OTR, hence the "flies in the face of" comment and it does not spell the end for the West End. I personally testified to city council about fighting City Link, I sent in the emails, I fought the good fight but the real problem that I have with the way that the anti-Citylink group went about fighting it was to say that if this goes in then there is basically no hope for the West End and North West OTR and investment will pull out. What now if City Link is built? Do you stand by this? Do we say don't invest, don't move to, don't even visit down here because this homeless shelter is here? No, so I ask, how do we back out of the "RHETORIC"? If you would like I could post for you many of the excerpts from emails that were sent to me and I am sure many, many others that says this very thing. So reread what you quoted from me and tell me I am wrong. At this point we have to say we lost the fight of stopping this but how can we either limit the damage or use it as a tool to stop future social services. Bottom line, and I know this flies in the face of the rhetoric that was coming out of the anti-Citylink group, this will absorb some, not all, social services in OTR. Look at who is part of this, some are groups who are here in OTR. If they are being pressured to relocate, which many have now for a couple of years this could give them a way out. Others who are asking to expand when arguing need, will have this to 'compete' with. Every social service here that goes to the city, or is fighting for donations now will hear a giant sucking sound emanating from the West End. We now have the task of backing out of our own rhetoric and saying that the West End and OTR by extension, is not doomed because this is being built. The realities of Citylink will have to be accepted and hedged in other ways. I am afraid that over the next few days or weeks we are going to hear horror story scenerios put out there that will only make things worse. Lets everyone try and take a different route and say that this does give other social services a reason to relocate or be absorbed by this social service mall. I say hit the blogs, write to the papers etc, put this scenario out and put pressure on the existing social services. and now we’re simply supposed to go forward and “make lemonade?” How can anyone in the West End trust these CityLink people :? So do we give up on the West End and walk away if and when this is built :? Is Conroy now worthless? Does Dayton St just need to be forgotten? You will have a hard time going back to people and saying buy and save this building now after painting a wasteland scenerio post CityLink.
August 14, 200816 yr Dansby leaving 3CDC to lead CityLink http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/08/11/daily37.html Darrick Dansby is leaving the Cincinnati Center City Development Corp. to become executive director of the controversial CityLink social services development in the West End.
August 14, 200816 yr Interesting. Maybe he's a double agent and will destroy CityLink from the inside.
August 14, 200816 yr Interesting. Maybe he's a double agent and will destroy CityLink from the inside. highly unlikely.
August 14, 200816 yr I've always thought they need to widen the streets there...it would be a shame if they had to destroy city link in the process by eminent domain for road building ;) who wants to get a truck and some equipment and dress up like the city? thats what the boss would have done back in the day.
August 14, 200816 yr ^Thanks buzzkill. sorry I'm not my usual puppydogs and daisies self. ;-) though he could take it down via the incompetence route.
August 14, 200816 yr I still think there is enough room next to crossroads Church for Citylink. Hell I'll even chip in a few bucks to build it there.
August 15, 200816 yr I still think there is enough room next to crossroads Church for Citylink. Hell I'll even chip in a few bucks to build it there. I got 5 on it ...
February 9, 200916 yr Tuesday at 5:30 is a zoning board meeting which will discuss the zoning amendments related to CityLink, I saw an email encouraging pastors to come and bring their congregations. Sounds like it will be a good time! Remember the popcorn!
February 9, 200916 yr ^ They actually will apply to all social service agencies within the city. Currently, CityLink will not be affected as it will be grandfathered in. Kind of like closing the barn doors after the horses are gone. That is not to say they the changes aren't important, they are extremely important. The meeting is in Council Chambers on the third floor of City Hall at 5:30PM. Here is the agenda, which includes a very detailed legal history of the CityLink saga as well as the proposed changes: http://www.scribd.com/doc/11951594/Proposed-Text-Amendments-for-Social-Service-Uses-21009
February 9, 200916 yr McMicken; Thanks for posting that document. I am about a quarter of the way through reading it. Do you have an opinion on the end result? Will it have much effect?
February 9, 200916 yr If you're not as adventurous as Jskinner, a summary was included in the email I was sent circulating through local churches. I'd still suggest reading as much of the original document as you can since it has good background and legal information but the information summary seems pretty logical (though tone is a bit fire and brimstone). Seems like an imperfect, though reasonable, conditional zoning to try and mitigate common problems associated with social service agencies. What Do These Text Amendments Mean To You?? If you are a “Religious Assembly” that currently offers social services or community programs, you will become a “non-conforming use”. If you are a “Social Service Facility” whose current operations will not meet the requirements of the proposed amendments, you will become a “non-conforming use”. What is a “non-conforming use”? o May continue exactly “as is”. o Cannot expand building. o Can add services within existing building but only with approval of Hearing Examiner following public hearing. o Depending on location, may be able to substitute use with Hearing Examiner approval following public hearing. o If building is “substantially” destroyed, it cannot rebuild. What if you decide to relocate your social service facility to another location in the City? If the use is under 25,000 square feet it must: + Be permitted in the zoning district. + Must meet “service goals” established in text amendments. + Must be operated by nonprofit/charitable organization in Ohio. + You must document that there is not another social service facility within 500’. + You must provide buffer yards. If the use is over 25,000 square feet it must: + Be permitted in District or approved by the Hearing Examiner as a Conditional Use follow a public hearing. + Must meet “service goals” established in text amendments. + Must be operated by nonprofit/charitable organization in Ohio. + You must document that there is not another social service facility within 1,000’. + Must document that the site is 500’ from any schools, Single Family Residence District or Riverfront/Recreational District. All social service facilities must supply a “Control Plan” that includes: 1. Facility description 2. Management plan 3. Litter control plan 4. Security plan 5. Loitering and noise control plan 6. Crime prevention plan through environmental design 7. Point of contact The “Control Plan” is to be reviewed and approved by the Director of the Department of City Planning and Building. If ALL of these requirements are met/approved, THEN you can move forward with the project.
February 9, 200916 yr McMicken; Thanks for posting that document. I am about a quarter of the way through reading it. Do you have an opinion on the end result? Will it have much effect? I think these proposed regulations close some glaring holes in the zoning code, and generally improves the code as a whole. I think it is a good effort to minimize concentration of social service agencies and hold them accountable. In the current code, there are numerous loopholes that allowed them carte blanche to do whatever they want. At a minimum, they currently aren't even being held to the same standards as a typical resident or business. I do worry about the possibility of locking the current social service agencies into place by making it a bit harder for them to move. However, this ensures no more concentration takes place. I also haven't seen any social service agency on its own try to deal with this issue, so I think they have brought this upon themselves. I don't see this as dramatically changing anything in the short term, but long term it will have a positive impact on the city.
February 11, 200916 yr Not a great story from the Enquirer on tonight's meeting, but since this is just discussion on social services in general lets move the conversation over here and save this thread for construction specific information on CityLink. http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,15415.msg367137.html#msg367137
February 25, 200916 yr Just stumbled across these on Building Cincinnati... http://www.building-cincinnati.com/
February 25, 200916 yr For some reason, I was thinking this was further west. But at the junction of Lynn and Central? Bah. The land could be put to better use. I bet the Dayton Street Historical District is outraged at this proposal. I do like the amendments to the zoning.
March 25, 201015 yr Contentious CityLink plans to raise up to $15 million Project’s opponents want manufacturer on site instead Business Courier of Cincinnati | By Lucy May | March 24, 2010 Leaders of CityLink expect to launch a capital campaign in the fourth quarter of this year to raise between $10 million and $15 million for the controversial social services development. If all goes as planned, construction on the social services mall would start sometime in 2011, said CityLink Executive Director Darrick Dansby... http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2010/03/22/story8.html?b=1269230400%5E3055331
March 30, 201015 yr Eventually Cincinnati will need to coordinate all the homeless services like Portland, OR is doing in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/realestate/commercial/24portland.html/">this $47 million project.</a> The Resource Access Center, a $47 million complex that will provide affordable housing and a shelter and services for homeless people, is the focal point of a 10-year plan to end homelessness here. The eight-story, 106,000-square-foot center, which will open next year, is expected to help catalyze development in the north end of Old Town/Chinatown, a neglected area that supporters say is poised for significant growth.
June 28, 201113 yr CityLink construction to start in July 1:39 PM, Jun. 27, 2011 Construction of a long-planned, one-stop shop of services for the poor will begin late in July in the West End, offering help from job preparation to health care to financial advice. Congregations at Crossroads Community Church celebrated the news about the future CityLink Center at weekend services. Their church is leading the effort with $10 million in funding, supported by several social-service agencies. http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110627/BIZ01/106270311/CityLink-construction-begin?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Business
June 28, 201113 yr CityLink construction to start in July 1:39 PM, Jun. 27, 2011 Construction of a long-planned, one-stop shop of services for the poor will begin late in July in the West End, offering help from job preparation to health care to financial advice. Congregations at Crossroads Community Church celebrated the news about the future CityLink Center at weekend services. Their church is leading the effort with $10 million in funding, supported by several social-service agencies. http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110627/BIZ01/106270311/CityLink-construction-begin?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Business Terrible article with awful language. Gotta love the hacks at Gannett.
August 1, 201113 yr Awful. This is one thing that could help retard growth in the basin area and threaten the viability of Dayton Street being the tourist destination it deserves to be.
August 20, 201113 yr Update: Groundbreaking ceremony occured. Doesn't look like much has happened other than that. http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2011/08/10/work-starts-at-citylink-social.html http://communitypress.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20110810/BIZ01/308100086/CityLink-starts-construction?odyssey=nav%7Chead Disclosure: I live in the West End, on Central Avenue, so this site is just a few hundred yards from me and I go by there every single day at least a few times. Hot topic of discussion amongst the neighbors and I. I'll post updates as more happens.
February 5, 201213 yr I just read through all 9 pages of this thread. Pretty crazy stuff haha However, after pulling up their website and reading through all the services they offer, etc. I am confident this will NOT have a negative impact on the community. It seems as though they have changed their focus from ending homelessness/drug addictions to ending poverty. Nothing about the facility is made for the homeless, but instead seems to be targeted at the working poor. People with jobs, living in low income communities. It's targeted at moving people up the working ladder and doesn't even seem to have any drug rehab type programs anymore. http://citylinkcenter.org/ http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/cincinnati_stories/citylink-releases-photos-of-new-facility I don't believe that CityLink, especially in its final incarnation, will mean the end of Cincinnati or the West End and has the potential to actually help. And that's a great thing!
February 7, 201213 yr Given that most of their users probably don't own automobiles, and the building's location within a neighborhood in the urban core, it would have been nice to get a more urban design that engages the street instead of some drop-off circle and parking lot.
Create an account or sign in to comment