Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Breaking News:  City Council Passes Resolution Against CityLink, 8-1

Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati

This morning, we reported this follow up to Dan Klepal’s column about 5 council members standing up against the proposal for City Link.  However, Klepal did not name those who were allegedly opposed.  (Only Leslie Ghiz was named as opposed).  I just got off the phone with City Hall with the latest information.

Just minutes ago, City Council passed a resolution against CityLink, 8-1.  The only person who did not oppose CityLink in the resolution was Cecil Thomas.

Now, a resolution is not binding legislation—instead it just articulates an opinion for the public record.  This resolution was introduced by Leslie Ghiz.  (View a copy of the actual resolution:  click here.) According to Leslie Ghiz’s office, two minor changes were made.

The following line was struck:

Leslie Ghiz’s office also reports that Chris Bortz added a “whereas” inviting CityLink to engage the City in a discussion on proposal.

• Share This Article!
Listen to this article

Socializer!

Username

Password

Auto-login on future visits

Show my name in the online users list

Forgot your password?

Register

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

West End Pride says:
08 Feb 2006  at  04:40 pm | #

I heard that Cecil Thomas abstained because he was a member of a related church.  I wasn’t there but I was told it was a unanimous 8-0.

That is pretty strong.

says:
08 Feb 2006  at  04:45 pm | #

Now that everyone has voiced their opinions, the owners of the site can go ahead and build it as they originally planned. It is a permitted and legal use of the property and they are using private funds.  Council should have just kept quiet.

says:
08 Feb 2006  at  05:01 pm | #

West End Pride:  You may be right about Thomas.  Tarbell’s office told me it was 8-1 opposed, but she did mention that bit about Thomas not being “for” it due to the involvement of his church.  So perhaps his vote is in question.  But it is clear that everyone else supports this resolution in oppositioin to CityLink.

Hometown:  I agree.  This is just more of the type of grandstanding politicians like Chris Bortz said he wanted to end at City Hall.  Now, instead of debating in front of cameras, he has teamed up with Cole and Ghiz to try and ride the wave of anti-CityLink sentiment bubbling up in the West End.

I find it strange that he called on more open meetings for the community.  Wasn’t it Bortz who wanted more meetings out-of-chambers?

Still waiting to hear his stance about Sunshine Laws:  I first sent him a letter in October, which he said he would answer and did not; then I resubmitted the letter after Klepal ran that Enquirer story about Mallory’s out-of-chamber meetings, and though he said he would respond we’re still waiting!

Andrew Warner says:
08 Feb 2006  at  05:08 pm | #

Way to act strongly city council, a non-binding resolution.

Hometown is exactly right. Council just wants to get on the record as being “with the people” while not actually doing anything to help the people. This way when re-election comes around they can point to their non-binding resolutions and say they were on their side and when the people needed them, our compassionate council listened to and agreed with the resident’s concerns.

Propose a plan, give an alternative, sell the coalition a piece of land for a dollar where it is “appropriate” to have our apparent new class of “cast-offs.”

I’m glad our city is on record again voicing their opinion against people who are trying to do something good-- which they are whether you agree with them or not.

says:
08 Feb 2006  at  05:28 pm | #

This may pave the way for a Wal-Mart Superstore. It’d be great for the neighborhood.

Harlan Culpepper says:
08 Feb 2006  at  06:11 pm | #

Isn’t it interesting that Bortz, who campaigned on good open government without the antics that made politicians springboard on to other positions, co-sponsored a piece of pure theatrics?

What was wrong with letting the zoning appeals board deal with the issue, like they’re charged to do, on Monday?  Why did he allow Ghiz and Cole to politicize this issue for shameless gain?

says:
08 Feb 2006  at  06:58 pm | #

The entire West End is nothing more than cheap saloons frequented by alcoholics,and druggies.  The city government has tried for years to improve the skid row image to no avail, time to allow someone else to try.  City council should welcome outside assistance.

West End Pride says:
08 Feb 2006  at  07:30 pm | #

Thanks for your kind comments Trevor.  We have a lot of good people in my community, and we don’t wish to be a dumping ground for the region.

I welcome Council’s unanimous support.

xyz says:
08 Feb 2006  at  10:57 pm | #

city council had no business wasting time voting on this matter.

this is a zoning & legal issue - shame on them for wasting time.  there are other issues of more importance that fall under their jurisdiction that need to be addressed.  the process and charter is in place already, why waste time just to vote ‘against’ something that is none of their business?

come on council - pay attention to the real issues, and let the professional staff you pay good money for determine the process.  then let the lawyers help decide things, as that is where this battle will be determined - the courtroom, not council chambers.

hey ghiz - why don’t you do something productive rather than run around and oppose everything?

Chris Feldhaus says:
09 Feb 2006  at  12:24 am | #

Having done some research on the zoning issues, this is not correct:

“Now that everyone has voiced their opinions, the owners of the site can go ahead and build it as they originally planned. It is a permitted and legal use of the property and they are using private funds.  Council should have just kept quiet.”

This should not be a permitted use of the property, being as it is zoned MG.  “Transitional housing” means housing designed to assist persons in obtaining skills necessary for independent living in permanent housing, including homes for adjustment and halfway houses (Section 1401-01-T).?  This usage is allowed under the MG designation, and thus if the CityLink Center was solely for this purpose, it would be allowed.  There are specific things given for this section, many of which describe programs likely to be in the CityLink Center.  However, the facility could just as easily meet the definiton of a “Special assistance shelter”, which ?means a facility for the short-term housing for individuals who are homeless and who may require special services (Section 1401-01-S11).?  This issue is a toss-up, though clearly CityLink is choosing to designate their facility as ?transitional housing? wholly.

People can choose to designate themselves as they will, especially in a toss-up situation.  But the problem is that they are telling the community that the “transitional housing” part of the center is only a minor part of the facility.  In fact, looking at a pamphlet, the “homeless shelter” falls to second to last in their literature.  So unless they are being less than honest to the community, most of the programs that are happening in this center would not be allowed in the MG designated area, including (since it appears religious organizations are the driving force behind the CityLink facility according to their pamphlet) the use of the facility for offices, social services, and community programs.  That is what CityLink is: community programs.

So basically, they are misleading someone.  They are either telling the zoning board the accurate use of their property and then turning around and telling the community that the facility is not a majority transitional housing, or they are telling the zoning board they are using the facility mostly for transitional housing just so they can get approved. 

I know there are actual lawyers who disagree, but I feel that the possible dishonesty involved in this process is most annoying.

West End Pride says:
09 Feb 2006  at  01:43 am | #

You are spot on my fried.  That is at the heart of the zoning appeal.

The have three actual stories.  One they tell the parish (sheep stories, bahh, bahh), one they tell the West End Community, and one they tell the zoning board.

They have to be lying to most of the people, and it is my contention that they are lying to everyone.  They don’t have a busines plan, they have a concept.  A concept is different than a business plan.  They don’t even have a budget.  Imagine that.  They haven’t even raised the funds to date, and they freely admit that fact.  It is all theoretical to them.  Jesus is going to come to town, and this pie in the sky is going to taste delicious.

They claim that this center will clean up the neighborhood.  But the services that they offer are already in OTR and the West End, and those services haven’t cleaned up the neighborhood.  They aren’t inventing new services.  Soup kitchens and homeless shelters have existed for quite some time.  They haven’t to date cleaned up neighborhoods.  That is why nobody in my community buys their act.  It is pure BS. 

They will lose the zoning on Monday.  What Crossroads Community Church is doing to my community is blatently against the law.

Wate Livingston says:
09 Feb 2006  at  02:29 am | #

I believe in self-determination for all neighborhoods.

Power to the people!

Hershel Daniels, Junior says:
09 Feb 2006  at  03:51 am | #

What about the 25,000 people who experienced homelessness at some point during the year 2000. Or the local homeless population that is rising rapidly, from 10,000 in 1986 to 20,000 in 1993 to 25,000 in 2000.  Where will they stay?

Can it be that nothing has changed since President Lyndon Baines Johnson famously declared “unconditional war on poverty in America” four decades ago?

If the people in the West End does not want them then they should buy the deal from them.  They are a Empowerment Zone neighborhood. They have the power do they have the will? 

The churches can then use their profit to do good elsewhere.

Quim says:
09 Feb 2006  at  07:06 am | #

Hershel
10% of Cincinnati is homeless ?
That sounds like statistic wrangling to me. That would put more than one homeless person on every block.

Hershel says:
09 Feb 2006  at  08:09 am | #

As of the census of 2003, there are 317,361 people, 166,012 households, and 72,566 families residing in the city. There are 166,012 housing units and the racial makeup of the city is 52.97% White, 42.92% Black or African American, 0.21% Native American, 1.55% Asian, 0.04% Pacific Islander, 0.63% from other races, and 1.68% from two or more races. 1.28% of the population are Hispanic or Latino of any race.

The average household size is 2.15 and the average family size is 3.02. Although the city was ranked as one of the poorest cities in the United States in 2003, the median income for a household in the city is $29,493, and the median income for a family is $37,543. Males have a median income of $33,063 versus $26,946 for females. The per capita income for the city is $19,962. 21.9% of the population and 18.2% of families are below the poverty line. Out of the total population, 32.0% of those under the age of 18 and 14.8% of those 65 and older are living below the poverty line.

hershel

K says:
09 Feb 2006  at  09:01 am | #

Quim -
Not all of the homeless are living on the street. The Federal definition of “homeless” includes people without a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; people sharing/doubling-up in housing because of economic hardship; people living in motels, hotels, campgrounds, or trailer parks due to the lack of adequate, alternative accomodations; people living in emergency or transitional shelters; children who were abandoned in hospitals or are awaiting foster care placement; people whose regular nighttime residence is a public or private place not designed or ordinarily used for human sleeping accomodations; and people living in cars, parks, public spaces, abandoned buildings, substandard housing, etc.

Trailer Park Homeless Man says:
09 Feb 2006  at  09:44 am | #

Our shelters are running at 79% capacity.  We have excess capacity.  Afordable housing units in OTR and the West End are also around 80% capacity.  Downtown has a surplus of both shelter space and affordable housing.

I also wasn’t aware that people living in trailer parks are homeless K.  I am hoping that you give an exemption to my doublewide.

K says:
09 Feb 2006  at  10:12 am | #

Trailer Park -

Hey, if you have a beef with the way the census counts the homeless, take it up with them.

Nate Livingston says:
09 Feb 2006  at  01:30 pm | #

I see a new day brings a new set of lies from Chris McCarty (aka West End Pride) and the anti-CityLink crowd.

1. The vote at Council wasn’t “unanimous”. According to the Clerk of Council’s office, the vote tally was 8-1. Cecil Thomas didn’t abstain, he voted against it.  Why does McCarty continue to tell these lies?  Talking to these people is like talking to a parrot. Even when confronted with the facts, in this case the fact that Thomas voted against the resolution, they keep putting out the misinformation.

2. The West End Community Council never voted against the location of CityLink at their December 2005 meeting. That’s why Council took that line out of the resolution. I was there at the community council meeting. A large group of loud, mostly white people (I’d call them a mob) who didn’t live in the West End, and weren’t members of the Community Council demanded to vote. Dale Mallory refused to let them vote because they weren’t members and don’t live in the community. Why does McCarty continue to tell this lie.

3. The CityLink organizers DO HAVE A BUSINESS PLAN, even though that’s not necessary for them to build the center or gain approval from the zoning board. This is just another silly lie from McCarty who is apparently upset that CityLink opponents haven’t been given copies of CityLink’s business plan. Ask yourself, would you give your sworn enemies copies of your business plan?!

4. CityLink organizers have never claimed that the CityLink Center, by itself, will clean up the neighborhood. That’s just another of today’s (or yesterday’s) lies.

5. CityLink opponents haven’t provided a single, shred of evidence that the CityLink Center will be funded by tax dollars.

6. In the past, CityLink opponents claimed that Carl Lindner and 3CDC were funding the project. To date, there hasn’t been any evidence produced to support this claim.

7. The resolution passed by Council is shameful. In it, Council makes the following statement: “WHEREAS, under the zoning code, permitted uses in Manufacturing General subdistricts do not include either “Community Service Facilities,” defined as “noncommercial facilities established primarily for the benefit and service of the populations of the communities in which they are located,” and which include offices of non-profit civil, religious, welfare or philanthropic organizations, nor ‘Special Assistance Shelters,’ defined as ‘facilities for the short term housing for individuals who are homelessand who may require special services....’” This is totally irrelevant because (1) CityLink isn’t going to be a “special assistance shelter” like the Drop-Inn Center (the opponents know this but keep repeating it over and over again hoping it’ll come true) and (2) CityLink isn’t intended to be a “community service facility”.

cramer says:
09 Feb 2006  at  01:40 pm | #

I thought this article in the New Yorker was fascinating and relevant to this discussion.

Million Dollar Murray

Chris Feldhaus says:
09 Feb 2006  at  02:24 pm | #

Nate:

Reading your statements about CityLink, I have to admit you have some persuasive arguments.  Particularly in regards to it currently being an empty building right now, a possible magnet for criminals itself.  Also, numbers 1, 2, 4, and 5, I have no qualms with.

Number 3: So telling the zoning board the plan for using the land isn’t necessary?  I may be misunderstanding you on this.

6: Lindner is in fact against CityLink.

7:  OK, CityLink may not be a special assistance shelter, and it may not be a community service facility, but what is it then?  You’ve previously said elsewhere it is also not a homeless shelter (at council yesterday, I think), but the only allowable use in the MG district is transitional housing ("housing designed to assist persons in obtaining skills necessary for independent living in permanent housing, including homes for adjustment and halfway houses”, Section 1401-01-T of the Zoning Code).  Unless every other service in CityLink is “incidental” to the transitional housing, it is not allowed. 

The dominant forces behind this are churches, and that raises another question: is this a religious assembly under the zoning code?  A ?religious assembly? use is defined as ?an establishment for religious worship and other religious ceremonies, including religious education, rectories and parsonages, offices, social services, columbaria, and community programs (Section 1401-01-R7).?  That calls into question the whole facility if you ask me. 

I also have to ask, if the driving force is volunteers, why isn’t this a community service facility?  Under section 1401-01-C14 of the Zoning Code, a Community Service Facility is ?established primarily for the benefit and service of the populations of the communities in which they are located, such as YMCA or YWCA facilities, boys and girls clubs and offices of community councils, non-profit civic, religious, welfare, or philanthropic organizations.?  This is not allowed in an MG district.

Also, the medical facilities aren’t allowed unless incidental to transitional housing. 

So I guess I wonder, what is this facility?

West End Pride says:
09 Feb 2006  at  02:41 pm | #

Northside Nate, you have no idea who you are dealing with and you are out of your league.

Go fetch some coffee for the law dog, and ask your buddy Dale how the impeachment is going.  And tell Dale he sure knows how to throw a pep rally.

Quim says:
09 Feb 2006  at  07:52 pm | #

Thanks Cramer.
That was an interesting article.

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

<b>

<i>

<u>

quote

code

@

<a>

Close Tags

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: