Stop IDC

strongly oppose

Too broad in scope. New construction improves the neighborhoods

MAGA

Strongly Oppose

Opposed! no more regulation, in fact would like to see current regulations reduced to promote investment in these neighborhoods.

If you want this district to remain vital, the new housing, either through tear downs or subdividing needs to be allowed. New builds are necessary for people to want to move into these areas.

8 years ago Featured

As an Architect that works in the city, I feel many developments are vast improvements while others may need higher scrutiny. Work to better the system to streamline great projects, don't blanket stopgap by holding up everything.

Strongly oppose

Strongly oppose

8 years ago Featured

I strongly oppose IDC. We need this revitalization to keep our community thriving and to keep young and growing families from leaving and creating their homes in the suburbs, outside of the City of Cincinnati.

Revitalization from the tax abatement has been great for our neighborhood! Please don’t place undue burden on builders and future tax payers trying to improve home values and quality of life.

I am strongly opposed to the IDC. There is no statistical or factaul information to support such an invasive measure. The new homes that have been biult in these, and, all City of Cincinnati neighborhoods have dramatically enriched the communities keeping or relocating residents to the City. Many young families have come to these neighborhoods and have supported schools and business. The character and quality of the new, and often renovated homes they have bought, are of high quality and efficiently. And, in most cases alleviate parking issues by including garages and driveways where none often existed. More importantly the action is hostile and is an affront to property rights. What benefits are those in favor of the IDC making to improve the quality and Vibrance of their neighborhoods and communities. The new homes in almost every case are replacing a home that is in poor condition and obsolete. Anyone who has a property they wish to develop that meets current zoning regulations should have every right to do so. That is what is lawful! There are plenty of other problems in the zoning regulations that should be addressed far more invasive than anything the ICD would attempt to do.

We need this revitalization to keep our community thriving and to keep young and growing families from leaving and creating their homes in the suburbs, outside of the City of Cincinnati.

Signed

Decisions in these matters need to be consistent with the zoning rules. We cannot allow subjective thoughts an concerns to override what is legally right.

I have lived in Hyde Park and Mout Lookout for 25+ years, including several owning a home at Griest and Grace. I am an owner only, not a developer. The current actions are unnecessary and an unwarranted and targeted action against owners of larger parcels. It should be rejected accordingly. I have to disagree respectfully with my neighbors who requested this drastic action. If upheld, the first staff opinion under the IDC on the Grace property sets a worrisome precedent for anyone who respects the rule of law, which we all should since it protects our rights from arbitrary and subjective actions. The owner has a large property that is clearly divisible under current zoning. I appreciate the concern about the character of the neighborhood, but the renderings look consistent with Grace's character at that end of the street. With no irony intended, the city staff denies the lot split because they say the lots will be comparable to that of others and that they will “diminish variety." Absurdly, this owner is being denied the right to make the same use of its propert as others with housing that is in keeping with other homes in the area. In the end, the decision lays bare the true nature of the IDC. It is not about achieving development consistent with the neighborhood's character but stopping it. It is based on subjective factors that city staff can use to deny development rights based on prevailing whims at the time, meaning it is impossible to know what legal standard must be satisfied to achieve approval. This does profound injustice to all when the right to use property depends on whose sensibilities are offended rather than compliance with code. The decision if adopted essentially means the owner must maintain its property as double the size of everyone else's because large “estate style” lots beyond zoning requirements are a public benefit in Mt. Lookout. That results in appropriating the benefit of private ownership for the public good, but withou

It's a success story for the city of Cincinnati. Land values in Hyde Park and Mount Lookout are high and increasing. The housing stock is old and depreciating. New construction keeps property values increasing. The demand for older housing in Hyde Park and Mount lookout will sooner or later decrease as more progressive towns spur the construction of modern homes.. A zoning rule like this should enable more redevelopment of the older housing stock in Hyde Park and Mount Lookout to insure this success story continues. Redevelopment in these areas is the result of rising property values. .Don't stop redevelopment of the older housing stock. New construction is what will spur the further appreciation of land values in these neighborhoods. Don't stop the success story!

Please do not tread on me!

A more thorough analysis after proper, objective research is undertaken followed by discussion with all interested parties at the table is needed, rather than this rash decision to place yet another layer of red tape on an already burdensome process for developers, home builders and property owners. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is not the way to handle this issue and is simply unfair. If we cannot be sure what our future property rights will be, people will stop investing in the City. While I do believe there may be some changes that would benefit property owners, developers, builders and therefore the City overall, those changes should be incorporated into the zoning code and applied equally across the City so that current and potential future property owners are aware of how they may use their property. Brad Olinger Owner & President Sterling Homes

Why is City Council trying to stop the growth of our City?