Cincinnati's Connected Communities policy could change. Give your feedback this Saturday
Cincinnatians will have another chance to weigh in on possible changes to the city's Connected Communities zoning policy. The independent working groups created last fall to review the policy will host a town hall on Saturday, Feb. 15th that's free and open to the public.
The event comes nearly eight months after Cincinnati's city council passed the controversial overhaul of the city's outdated, century-old zoning code.
Designed to address the city's housing shortage, the policy changed zoning around neighborhood business districts and major transit routes to bolster the development of more multi-family buildings.
The policy was approved after two years of public engagement but not without significant public outcry. This led three of the city's nine council members − Scotty Johnson, Victoria Parks and Vice Mayor Jan-Michele Lemon Kearney − to vote against Connected Communities. They cited the need for more engagement and the potential inclusion of an affordable housing clause.
Five volunteer committees of Cincinnati civic leaders and average citizens make up the official "Making Connected Communities Better" working groups. Since last fall, the committees have met regularly to research and create policy suggestions that address the need for accessibility, affordable housing, improved infrastructure and the preservation of neighborhood character.
'We are looking for feedback from the public,' said Vice Mayor Kearney in a press release. 'All expert and non-expert opinions on the policy suggestions are valuable."
The working group plans to share a draft report of their recommendations with the city administration, city council and the public.
More: "Change to happen overtime" Cincinnati just passed Connected Communities. What happens now?
The town hall meeting will take place on Saturday, Feb. 15th from noon to 3 p.m. at the Cincinnati-Hamilton County Community Action Agency at 1740 Langdon Farm Rd.
This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: Cincinnati's new zoning policy challenged in town hall this Saturday
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
We're all going to die but Joni Ernst wants to speed it up
By now, I'm sure you all have seen U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst's statement to an Iowa town hall audience, after a woman cried out that people are going to die because of Medicaid cuts. Ernst's response was, "Well, we all are going to die." If that ridiculously glib statement wasn't enough, Ernst's sarcastic 'apology,' given in a cemetery, was even worse. She's in a graveyard, using dead people as props, looking eerily like the crypt keeper. That apology was so insincere, it should have come with a laugh track. Ernst is saying that people are just too sensitive to understand that cutting health care is just natural selection. She should have made her video in a funeral home instead. She could tell watchers that they don't need health care because they are all going to be here soon, anyway. More: What's next for the Iowan who shouted 'people will die' at Joni Ernst over Medicaid cuts Then, Ernst told people that if they really want eternal life, maybe they should just get right with Jesus. Sen. Ernst, you're gutting Medicaid. I think Jesus said, "Love thy neighbor," not, "Strip their health insurance, and then sell them a prayer cloth on eBay." Nothing says do unto others, like gutting Medicaid while standing in a graveyard, like a ghoul. Why worry about your cancer diagnosis when you can just accept Jesus? And get ready to meet him, real soon. The Republican Party is not only pro-life until birth, they are pro-death once you can't pay your doctor bill. Opinion: Sen. Joni Ernst helps GOP find its authentic voice: 'We all are going to die.' Jesus said to feed the hungry and heal the sick. Ernst's idea of Christian charity is to hand out shovels and tell you to dig your own grave. This self-appointed apostle of corn-fed Christian virtue, with a Bible in one hand and a military budget in the other, acts like she's in the "Real Housewives of Gallilee." Ernst is the kind of Christian who invites you to Bible study, and then sends your kids to war, to keep us safe, but not safe enough to give the kids affordable health care when they come back. Jesus said to welcome the stranger and let him in. Republicans say that we can't let "woke" Jesus mess with our America First policy of arresting, detaining and deporting refugees. The next time Joni Ernst tells you about her deep Christian faith, remember, if Jesus were handing out loaves of bread and fish, Ernst would be demanding he privatize the fish market. People are gonna die, and Ernst is making sure they die faster, with the most insincere apology video the world has ever seen. No Medicaid? No problem. The cemetery is open all day long. So here's to you, Sen. Ernst. May your "We all are going to die" tour sell out fast − faster than your next fundraiser with Big Pharma. And you are right, we all are going to die. But it ain't supposed to be because of you. Mel Shuller, Montgomery This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: Joni Ernst thinks gutting Medicaid is just natural selection | Letter
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court revives straight woman's reverse discrimination claim
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday revived a woman's claim that she was discriminated against at work because she is straight. The unanimous ruling could make it easier in some parts of the country for people belonging to majority groups to bring such 'reverse discrimination' claims. It overturns precedent in some lower courts that says someone from a majority group has to meet a higher bar than someone from a minority group for a case to move forward. Marlean Ames sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace, after a lesbian woman obtained a promotion she had applied for. She was later demoted, and her old position was taken by a gay man. Writing for the court, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the test had no basis in the text of Title VII or cases that have interpreted it. "We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs," she wrote. The ruling means Ames' case will return to lower courts and edges closer toward a trial or settlement. "We're of course pleased that this is the end of quite a long journey for Ms. Ames," said Xiao Wang, one of her lawyers. "This was a major legal hurdle in front of her. This is something she is incredibly pleased about." Ames has worked at the department since 2004, but the dispute arose after she began reporting to a lesbian woman in 2017. She was denied the promotion she sought two years later and demoted soon after that. She was at work on Thursday when the Supreme Court ruled. The state says Ames was demoted because new leadership in the agency wanted to restructure its operations to focus on sexual violence in the juvenile corrections system. Ames had led a program aimed at combating rape in prison but was seen as difficult to work with, according to the state's court papers. Officials involved in making those decisions are straight, the state has pointed out. Lower courts, including the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled for the state agency. Ames then turned to the Supreme Court. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court sides with straight woman in decision that makes it easier to file ‘reverse discrimination' suits
The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a straight woman in Ohio who filed a 'reverse discrimination' lawsuit against her employer when her gay boss declined to promote her. The ruling will make it easier to file such suits in some parts of the country. Despite the politically divisive debate playing out over workplace diversity efforts – a fight that has been fueled by President Donald Trump – a unanimous coalition of conservative and liberal justices were in the majority. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the opinion for the court. 'Our case law thus makes clear that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group,' Jackson wrote. Marlean Ames started working for Ohio's state government in 2004 and steadily rose through the ranks at the Department of Youth Services. She claims that in 2017, she started reporting to a gay boss and was passed over for a promotion that was offered to another gay woman. Ames is challenging a requirement applied in five appeals courts across the nation that 'majority' Americans raising discrimination claims must demonstrate 'background circumstances' in order to pursue their suit. A plaintiff might meet that requirement, for instance, by providing statistical evidence documenting a pattern of discrimination against members of a majority. Ames couldn't do that and so she lost in the lower courts. An employee who is a member of a minority group does not face that same initial hurdle. The requirement was rooted in the notion that it is unusual for an employer to discriminate against a member of a majority group. But neither federal anti-discrimination law nor Supreme Court precedent speak to creating one set of requirements for a majority employee to file a discrimination suit and a different set for a minority employee. During oral arguments in the case in late February, it was clear Ames had widespread support from the justices. Citing the 'background circumstances' requirement, the Cincinnati-based 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for Ohio. Federal appeals courts based in Denver, St. Louis, Chicago and Washington, DC, applied that same standard, according to court records. At a moment when Trump has politicized workplace diversity efforts, both the court's conservative and liberal justices – as well as the attorneys arguing the case – appeared to agree that the 6th Circuit's analysis was wrong. The case landed on the Supreme Court's docket last fall, about a month before Trump was elected on a pledge to clamp down diversity and inclusion efforts in both the government and the private sector. The administration has taken a number of steps in that direction, including but attempting to cut funding to entities federal officials allege have supported DEI efforts. Many of those actions are being reviewed by courts. But Ames' case was more procedural. Notably, both the Trump and Biden administrations agreed that the 6th Circuit should reconsider its approach. CNN's Hannah Rabinowitz contributed to this report. This story has been updated with additional developments.
