Author Topic: Cincinnati Annexation Speculation: Norwood, St. Bernard, etc.  (Read 4705 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline ryanlammi

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4408
  • Cultural Marxist
    • Flickr Profile
Re: Cincinnati Annexation Speculation: Norwood, St. Bernard, etc.
« Reply #35 on: May 05, 2017, 12:01:22 PM »
Delhi Township seems more likely. They actually have a lot of parks bordering Cincinnati.
"We both would have looked silly if he came in, got out and came back in.

- Tim Burke, Hamilton County Democratic Party Chairman

Flickr Profile

Offline Eighth and State

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2902
  • Mill Creek Yacht Club
Re: Cincinnati Annexation Speculation: Norwood, St. Bernard, etc.
« Reply #36 on: May 05, 2017, 12:47:56 PM »
^I think Bicentennial Park in Green Township, bordering Mt. Airy Forest, is the only one actually purchased, but one of the former township trustees announced the strategy of buying a chain of parks along the border.

Online thebillshark

  • 771'-Terminal Tower
  • *******
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Cincinnati Annexation Speculation: Norwood, St. Bernard, etc.
« Reply #37 on: May 05, 2017, 01:07:24 PM »
^yes that one is off Diehl/Shepherd Creek and buts up against Mt. Airy forest. If you look on google maps there is quite the "green crescent" to the north and west of the urban core. I think it's great and would like to see as much as possible of it preserved.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2017, 01:10:40 PM by thebillshark »


Online Jskinner

  • 947'-Key Tower
  • ********
  • Posts: 1300

Offline ryanlammi

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4408
  • Cultural Marxist
    • Flickr Profile
Re: Cincinnati Annexation Speculation: Norwood, St. Bernard, etc.
« Reply #40 on: September 12, 2017, 08:41:01 AM »
lol at Indian Hill annexing into the city.

Elmwood Place is the only one I expect to happen in the next 10 years. Norwood residents often seem to hate the city and pride themselves on their independence. They would never support it.
"We both would have looked silly if he came in, got out and came back in.

- Tim Burke, Hamilton County Democratic Party Chairman

Flickr Profile

Online cincydave8

  • 0'-Surface Lot
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: Cincinnati Annexation Speculation: Norwood, St. Bernard, etc.
« Reply #41 on: September 12, 2017, 09:11:12 AM »
I just don't see why Cincinnati would want to annex Elmwood. Is their any upside other than maybe annexing the businesses south of Township avenue? Seems more likely to have them fold into Springfield TWP or whatever it would be there. The only area that really would make sense to me for Cincinnati is the Columbia TWP part between Oakley and PR. https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1712881,-84.4181312,16z?hl=en

Norwood, Amberely, St Bernard, Silverton and others will never vote to join the city. Golf Manor maybe since it's also part of CPS. I've also always wondered how Ridgewood survived not being annexed by Amberely or Cincinnati. https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1893313,-84.4327023,17z?hl=en
« Last Edit: September 12, 2017, 09:12:34 AM by cincydave8 »

Online Jskinner

  • 947'-Key Tower
  • ********
  • Posts: 1300
Re: Cincinnati Annexation Speculation: Norwood, St. Bernard, etc.
« Reply #42 on: September 12, 2017, 09:17:24 AM »
Isn't Cheviot part of Cincinnati Public Schools too?

Offline ryanlammi

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4408
  • Cultural Marxist
    • Flickr Profile
Re: Cincinnati Annexation Speculation: Norwood, St. Bernard, etc.
« Reply #43 on: September 12, 2017, 09:22:14 AM »
Elmwood Place actually has an attractive business district. With a little TLC and some outside investment, it could be a stable neighborhood of the city. The businesses south of Township wouldn't hurt either. It would put very little additional strain on the city's resources and add some nice housing stock to the city.
"We both would have looked silly if he came in, got out and came back in.

- Tim Burke, Hamilton County Democratic Party Chairman

Flickr Profile

Online cincydave8

  • 0'-Surface Lot
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: Cincinnati Annexation Speculation: Norwood, St. Bernard, etc.
« Reply #44 on: September 12, 2017, 09:55:02 AM »
Isn't Cheviot part of Cincinnati Public Schools too?

From the CPS website.... The Cincinnati Public School District covers an area of 91 square miles including all of the City of Cincinnati, Amberley Village, Cheviot and Golf Manor; most of the City of Silverton; parts of Fairfax and Wyoming; and small parts of Anderson, Columbia, Delhi, Green, Springfield and Sycamore townships.

Online jmecklenborg

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 11366
Re: Cincinnati Annexation Speculation: Norwood, St. Bernard, etc.
« Reply #45 on: September 12, 2017, 10:24:20 AM »
What's kind of amazing about Elmwood Place is how ambiguous the border is between it and Carthage/Hartwell.  I guess there is a street where one side is Elmwood and the opposite is Carthage, but I couldn't tell you which one.  If I were to guess, despite having basically the exact same sort of homes, that houses sell for slightly more in Carthage. 

Offline mrnyc

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 10243
    • friends of the highline
Re: Cincinnati Annexation Speculation: Norwood, St. Bernard, etc.
« Reply #46 on: September 12, 2017, 10:40:23 AM »
a friend of mine had a house up in hartwell. it's kind of a quirky area. is that an actual neighborhood in cinci or a burb?
"That whole rural thing. It's a joke." Ed Koch

Offline jjakucyk

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 2335
    • Cincinnati Traction History
Re: Cincinnati Annexation Speculation: Norwood, St. Bernard, etc.
« Reply #47 on: September 12, 2017, 11:11:14 AM »
a friend of mine had a house up in hartwell. it's kind of a quirky area. is that an actual neighborhood in cinci or a burb?

Neighborhood

Online jmecklenborg

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 11366
Re: Cincinnati Annexation Speculation: Norwood, St. Bernard, etc.
« Reply #48 on: September 12, 2017, 11:16:56 AM »
Houses in that area are unbelievably cheap.  Everything up there is still selling at 2010 prices. 

Offline mrnyc

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 10243
    • friends of the highline
Re: Cincinnati Annexation Speculation: Norwood, St. Bernard, etc.
« Reply #49 on: September 12, 2017, 11:22:19 AM »
yeah i was going to say that. it's a very nice neighborhood with well-kept, substantially solid craftsman housing.
"That whole rural thing. It's a joke." Ed Koch

Offline Ram23

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 4966
Re: Cincinnati Annexation Speculation: Norwood, St. Bernard, etc.
« Reply #50 on: September 12, 2017, 11:31:59 AM »
Hartwell is a well kept secret, IMO. It's right next to Wyoming, where houses of a similar quality and size sell for 5X as much just a few blocks away. I think schools are the primary factor, there. Wyoming is typically one of the best districts in the state, whereas Hartwell is Cincinnati Public Schools, one of the worst, so it doesn't attract many families.

Offline E Rocc

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 7842
  • Defender Of The Sprawl
Re: Cincinnati Annexation Speculation: Norwood, St. Bernard, etc.
« Reply #51 on: September 12, 2017, 12:02:09 PM »
Kind of funny, in the Columbus area annexation is a matter of standard practice, in the Cleveland/Akron/Canton area it's a filthy word that's highly effective at sabotaging even the most benign regionalization discussions.   I would suppose in Cincinnati it's somewhere in the middle.
"I mean, this man just can't be president of the US. I mean, they got this button, it's in a briefcase, he's gonna find it."
- P. J. O'Rourke

Offline oakiehigh

  • The majority of sprawl in this country is produced by those who are fleeing from sprawl.
  • 1450'-Willis Tower
  • *********
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Cincinnati Annexation Speculation: Norwood, St. Bernard, etc.
« Reply #52 on: September 12, 2017, 12:04:23 PM »
The Cagis site gives a nice detailed look at the boundries.

http://cagisonline.hamilton-co.org/cagisonline/index.html
...there's a reason that Elm Street and Main Street resonate in our cultural memory. It's not because we're sentimental saps. It's because this pattern of human ecology produced places that worked wonderfully well, and which people deeply loved. - Jim Kunstler

Offline GCrites80s

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 6748
  • Running Free
Re: Cincinnati Annexation Speculation: Norwood, St. Bernard, etc.
« Reply #53 on: September 12, 2017, 12:36:17 PM »
Kind of funny, in the Columbus area annexation is a matter of standard practice, in the Cleveland/Akron/Canton area it's a filthy word that's highly effective at sabotaging even the most benign regionalization discussions.   I would suppose in Cincinnati it's somewhere in the middle.

It's been a long time since Columbus has annexed another municipality though. I think the last time that happened was the annexation of Hanford Village in 1955. It was loccated between Driving Park and Bexley.

Online Jskinner

  • 947'-Key Tower
  • ********
  • Posts: 1300
Re: Cincinnati Annexation Speculation: Norwood, St. Bernard, etc.
« Reply #54 on: September 12, 2017, 12:50:16 PM »
Isn't Cheviot part of Cincinnati Public Schools too?

From the CPS website.... The Cincinnati Public School District covers an area of 91 square miles including all of the City of Cincinnati, Amberley Village, Cheviot and Golf Manor; most of the City of Silverton; parts of Fairfax and Wyoming; and small parts of Anderson, Columbia, Delhi, Green, Springfield and Sycamore townships.

Hmm.. I bet the part of Sycamore that is CPS is the weird leftover piece just south of Cross County Hwy (around Chaucer Drive)

Offline jjakucyk

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 2335
    • Cincinnati Traction History
Re: Cincinnati Annexation Speculation: Norwood, St. Bernard, etc.
« Reply #55 on: September 12, 2017, 04:01:40 PM »
The more I hear about this the less convinced I am it's a good idea.  The article talks about how Cincinnati should take the high road and be the regional leader by taking on these struggling municipalities.  As if central cities haven't suffered enough.  If you want to make that argument, then St. Bernard should be on the docket too, but since it has a decent tax base due to the Ivorydale factories it's left out of the conversation.  Talk about a double standard. 

Since they're independent, we can see clearly that these entities are not solvent.  The reasons behind that are varied, but annexing them won't fix it.  The supposed efficiency of combining services and "eliminating waste" looks to me to be nothing more than a fantasy.  Eliminating a couple of offices and redundant employee positions is only going to save enough money to pave a street for a couple blocks.  Maintaining the built infrastructure (streets, pipes, curbs, lighting) is killing a lot of these towns and nobody realizes it.  Annexing places like this doesn't make the problem go away, it just hides it.  If we were to de-annex most of the city's neighborhoods, we'd find that downtown, OTR, and maybe parts of Uptown are about the only places carrying their own weight, and then by a very large margin (downtown alone yields 25% of the city's property taxes but doesn't consume even a tiny fraction of that amount of infrastructure or services). 

Offline ucgrady

  • 555'-LeVeque Tower
  • ***
  • Posts: 339
Re: Cincinnati Annexation Speculation: Norwood, St. Bernard, etc.
« Reply #56 on: September 12, 2017, 04:51:06 PM »
Well the fact that this study was done by a 'conservative think tank' makes me skeptical that what it is proposing is intended to be positive for the city of Cincinnati, or any center cities in similar positions. Cities taking on more debt while counties and states leverage more control is in conservatives best interest.

Offline taestell

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5970
    • UrbanCincy
Re: Cincinnati Annexation Speculation: Norwood, St. Bernard, etc.
« Reply #57 on: September 12, 2017, 05:18:43 PM »
Conservative doesn't necessarily mean anti-city. People like Aaron Renn (author of this report) and Chuck Marohn of Strong Towns have been making the case for many years about how growing our cities is more fiscally responsible than encouraging endless sprawl like we have been doing for decades.
Check out my photography on Flickr or Instagram | Twitter: @urbancincy & @taestell | The UrbanCincy Podcast (iTunes)

Offline jjakucyk

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 2335
    • Cincinnati Traction History
Re: Cincinnati Annexation Speculation: Norwood, St. Bernard, etc.
« Reply #58 on: September 12, 2017, 07:11:00 PM »
Conservative doesn't necessarily mean anti-city. People like Aaron Renn (author of this report) and Chuck Marohn of Strong Towns have been making the case for many years about how growing our cities is more fiscally responsible than encouraging endless sprawl like we have been doing for decades.

Yes but they also fall into the usual trap of "I don't know what the solution is, but it's not this" that many pundits seem to like.  Chuck especially is very allergic to the idea of solutions at all, preferring the term "rational responses."  Ok, what rational responses then?  Even that seems to be hard to tease out of him.  Strong Towns has really started going off the deep end of "hurr durr big gubmint bad" in a very off-putting and tired rhetorical kind of way. 

Offline taestell

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5970
    • UrbanCincy
Re: Cincinnati Annexation Speculation: Norwood, St. Bernard, etc.
« Reply #59 on: September 12, 2017, 08:52:21 PM »
Yeah I don't read many Strong Towns articles anymore but I definitely don't agree with them 100% of the time. As a conservative-focused group, they are almost exclusively going to advocate for investments that have a positive ROI. I think it's important to keep that in mind, but IMO that should not be the be-all, end-all factor for every single decision a city makes. So, bringing it back to the topic at hand, there may be some areas that Cincinnati could/should annex that would not necessarily increase the city's ROI but would be good for other reasons...for example, increasing our city's population might give us more clout in certain contexts.
Check out my photography on Flickr or Instagram | Twitter: @urbancincy & @taestell | The UrbanCincy Podcast (iTunes)

Offline jjakucyk

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 2335
    • Cincinnati Traction History
Re: Cincinnati Annexation Speculation: Norwood, St. Bernard, etc.
« Reply #60 on: September 12, 2017, 09:05:11 PM »
...for example, increasing our city's population might give us more clout in certain contexts.

That's about the only benefit I can come up with.  The thing is, Norwood is the only potential to really boost the numbers by any meaningful extent, and even then it's barely 20,000.  Any of these other places are just rounding errors unless you really get aggressive in assembling a lot of them together at once. 

Online jmecklenborg

  • 2717'-Burj Khalifa
  • **********
  • Posts: 11366
Re: Cincinnati Annexation Speculation: Norwood, St. Bernard, etc.
« Reply #61 on: September 12, 2017, 10:11:07 PM »
Annexing Norwood would surely make the matter of building a light rail network a lot easier.  Otherwise, COAST, et al., can get Norwood to block progress through charter amendments and other nonsense. 

Offline Brutus_buckeye

  • 947'-Key Tower
  • ********
  • Posts: 1434
Re: Cincinnati Annexation Speculation: Norwood, St. Bernard, etc.
« Reply #62 on: September 12, 2017, 11:53:17 PM »
I thought I remember that one of the motivations of repealing the estate tax was to coerce some of the non-viable or barely viable communities in the city to merge. The benefit was that it would help streamline muni taxes because there would be fewer different reporting districts and make Ohio a better place to conduct business.

Remove Ads