What right does the Cincinnati City Council have to restrict or regulate what I can and can't do with my private property?
N
Norma Palazzolo
7 years ago
I fully agree. Understanding a neighbor's concern of the land use vs property value, these properties in many cases are close to or at a cost prohibitive price for maintenance and further modernization. Also many families do not want the acreage associated with a property. This will/can eventurally create a blight to the neighborhood.
A
Anonymous
7 years ago
Featured
It is imperative that owners have the right to choose the best optimum for both their ROI and avoid the downturn of any neighborhood into ill maintained properties and/or an inordinate influx of rentals which is paramount to continued revitalization and appreciation coupled with a steady stream of increasing tax revenues for the city.
A
Anonymous
7 years ago
Strongly oppose.
A
Ann Speed
7 years ago
Slippery slope indeed, to take away property owners’ rights. We are fortunate that there are builders, developers, etc. that want to invest in our neighborhood. I fear we may lose them to other areas such as Madeira, Montgomery, etc which apparently appreciate beautiful, new growth. I hope there is a stong representation on 9/5 to express our concerns regarding loss of property rights.
A
Anonymous
7 years ago
Totally agree that property owners should have the right to decide the use of their own property.
A
Anonymous
7 years ago
Boo Hoo. I don't like multi million dollar new homes disrupting my community. Green Twp would gladly trade their mandatory HCV Low Income Housing for your million dollar properties. Get over yourself! What is the concentration of HCV in Hyde Park and Mt. Lookout? GREEN TOWNSHIP, OH
Board Chairman Lamont Taylor cast the final vote granting the approval.
"The goal is to make sure we break the cycles of poverty, that we don't concentrate poor people in any one given area," says Taylor.
Green Township Trustees say they will fight the decision and plan to opt out of a Cooperation Agreement with Hamilton County.
"We'll fight it. 68 is too much for one community especially in the short time frame they've been discussing," says Dave Linnenberg.
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development says Green Township is "first priority" to add units in Hamilton County.
HUD negotiated with CMHA to come up with a comprehensive plan to reduce the amount of CMHA units in Green Township by March 2012.
"68 stands right now as a total, we will only put no more than 32 to 45 public housing units in Green Township, that's our starting point," says Taylor.
The remaining units CMHA says will be "mixed financing" which combines CMHA owned units with market rate and affordable housing.
"If you look at the numbers, while we do have a low group of CMHA owned as so does many other townships and they are targeting us in my opinion specifically because of Arnold Barnett, the past chair of CMHA," says Linnenberg.
Arnold Barnett, a current Green Township home owner, was removed as CMHA Board Chairman two years ago by HUD.
A federal investigation led by HUD determined CMHA, under Barnett's leadership, had unfairly blocked Green Township from receiving public housing.
Currently there are 28 CMHA owned units in the area.
"This issue is not 'Why target Green Township? The issue is why should Green Township be exempt from having it's fair share of pub
G
Grant S Dowlin
7 years ago
Our Tax dollars at work to create more headaches and issues with no gain to the communities. Strongly oppose to items that lack common sense.
R
Rob Sheil
7 years ago
Too many restrictions and unintended consequences.
D
Dori Gehling
7 years ago
Opposed to regulations that infringe on a homeowner's right to obtain the highest and best price for their property and severely impact the positive growth the area has been experiencing.... IDC does both.
L
Linda Gilmore
7 years ago
Vehemently oppose this proposal; no more regulations on our right to use our property within the confines of the law. This entire procedure is just another example of wasted public money. How sad when there are so many real issues that need to be addressed in Cincinnati.
P
Park Gilmore
7 years ago
Strongly oppose the addition of this arbitrary regulation as it limits the rights of property owners AND potentially diminishes property values.
H
Harry Rueger
8 years ago
Strongly oppose
C
Carlos
8 years ago
None
R
Robert W Cettel
8 years ago
The City is just inviting multiple lawsuits.
M
Mike Corson
8 years ago
No more Regulations! Let the communities improve.
L
Louis Fender
8 years ago
Strongly oppose this regulations/proposal.
J
Joe Worrall
8 years ago
STOP THE MADNESS!! Hasn't the city done enough to screw things up??!! Next thing you know they'll want to build a streetcar...........
Sarah Fogarty
What right does the Cincinnati City Council have to restrict or regulate what I can and can't do with my private property?
I fully agree. Understanding a neighbor's concern of the land use vs property value, these properties in many cases are close to or at a cost prohibitive price for maintenance and further modernization. Also many families do not want the acreage associated with a property. This will/can eventurally create a blight to the neighborhood.
It is imperative that owners have the right to choose the best optimum for both their ROI and avoid the downturn of any neighborhood into ill maintained properties and/or an inordinate influx of rentals which is paramount to continued revitalization and appreciation coupled with a steady stream of increasing tax revenues for the city.
Strongly oppose.
Slippery slope indeed, to take away property owners’ rights. We are fortunate that there are builders, developers, etc. that want to invest in our neighborhood. I fear we may lose them to other areas such as Madeira, Montgomery, etc which apparently appreciate beautiful, new growth. I hope there is a stong representation on 9/5 to express our concerns regarding loss of property rights.
Totally agree that property owners should have the right to decide the use of their own property.
Boo Hoo. I don't like multi million dollar new homes disrupting my community. Green Twp would gladly trade their mandatory HCV Low Income Housing for your million dollar properties. Get over yourself! What is the concentration of HCV in Hyde Park and Mt. Lookout? GREEN TOWNSHIP, OH Board Chairman Lamont Taylor cast the final vote granting the approval. "The goal is to make sure we break the cycles of poverty, that we don't concentrate poor people in any one given area," says Taylor. Green Township Trustees say they will fight the decision and plan to opt out of a Cooperation Agreement with Hamilton County. "We'll fight it. 68 is too much for one community especially in the short time frame they've been discussing," says Dave Linnenberg. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development says Green Township is "first priority" to add units in Hamilton County. HUD negotiated with CMHA to come up with a comprehensive plan to reduce the amount of CMHA units in Green Township by March 2012. "68 stands right now as a total, we will only put no more than 32 to 45 public housing units in Green Township, that's our starting point," says Taylor. The remaining units CMHA says will be "mixed financing" which combines CMHA owned units with market rate and affordable housing. "If you look at the numbers, while we do have a low group of CMHA owned as so does many other townships and they are targeting us in my opinion specifically because of Arnold Barnett, the past chair of CMHA," says Linnenberg. Arnold Barnett, a current Green Township home owner, was removed as CMHA Board Chairman two years ago by HUD. A federal investigation led by HUD determined CMHA, under Barnett's leadership, had unfairly blocked Green Township from receiving public housing. Currently there are 28 CMHA owned units in the area. "This issue is not 'Why target Green Township? The issue is why should Green Township be exempt from having it's fair share of pub
Our Tax dollars at work to create more headaches and issues with no gain to the communities. Strongly oppose to items that lack common sense.
Too many restrictions and unintended consequences.
Opposed to regulations that infringe on a homeowner's right to obtain the highest and best price for their property and severely impact the positive growth the area has been experiencing.... IDC does both.
Vehemently oppose this proposal; no more regulations on our right to use our property within the confines of the law. This entire procedure is just another example of wasted public money. How sad when there are so many real issues that need to be addressed in Cincinnati.
Strongly oppose the addition of this arbitrary regulation as it limits the rights of property owners AND potentially diminishes property values.
Strongly oppose
None
The City is just inviting multiple lawsuits.
No more Regulations! Let the communities improve.
Strongly oppose this regulations/proposal.
STOP THE MADNESS!! Hasn't the city done enough to screw things up??!! Next thing you know they'll want to build a streetcar...........
This is not fair !