Our City Online

Messageboard - General Columbus Discussion

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Weinland Park Neighbors

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Weinland Park Neighbors

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 579 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #313729

    lifeontwowheels
    Participant

    Ta-Dow! wrote >>
    To The Bristol Bar…
    First let me say that I’m a firm believer in supporting our local business’.
    However, as a resident of W.P. (I’m just north of 5th on Summit), Bristol has added to some of the aggravation of the neighborhood. I can always tell when its a Thursday night, especially at 2:00 am.
    Furthermore, being in such close proximity to the Bristol, I have stopped in for a night cap only to be snubbed by almost every bartender, and after finally placing an order, the bartender didn’t know how to make a Manhattan. Very disappointing.

    Which is weird since it’s on their signature drinks list.

    #313730

    I’m sorry to hear that; please email [email protected] with specifics and I’ll make sure to keep the noise to a minimum. We pride ourselves in being good neighbors, helping to uplift the area rather than being a nuisance.

    As for the Manhattan, I’m very surprised to hear this. Can you tell me the night and/or a general description of the bartender? I want to ensure everyone is trained properly, that’s all.

    Next time you’re in, please introduce yourself.

    #313731

    goldenidea
    Participant

    I’m a bit surprised to see GG fingered as one of the driving causes of the ongoing poverty in WP. I always viewed them as more of a bystanding support group. I rent to one of their employees and have met Randy, the lead guy, a few times. I go in there quite a bit to collect rent. My thought was when GG moved from Harrison West, it was viewed as a successful milestone that thier work was done in HW and that they were now going to focus on WP. While they have a much larger facility in WP, I’ve always assumed they would be ready to move on to another poverty hotspot when the need for them in WP was exhaused. There are plenty of neighborhoods needing their kinds of services.

    As for the WP Community Plan, my impression was that if left to the guys driving the plan, (mostly the former head of the WP Civic Association, but possibly Randy at GG, and even Campus Partners), that the stated mission was to not displace any of the existing residents of the neighborhood. It was very anti-gentrification and pro “neighborhood empowerment”. The idea was grow the neighborhood from the inside. My thought was, while admirable, that approach is not so realisitic (haven’t we tried this approach since LBJ was president?). I personally sent comments on the draft plan to the city planning department managing the production of the final version. I strongly encouraged that the plan provide for some amount of gentrification in the mission, which was added. But isn’t the plan just a document? I’d like to think that market forces can drive change.

    Gentrification is needed to really turn the neighborhood. I see gentrification starting to take root. I think the neighborhood is finally starting to go somewhere, although there’s a lot to get done. Unlike many other similar low-income neighborhoods in the city (e.g. Linden, Hilltop, the near eastside), WP seems ideally positioned to gentrify. Wagonbrenner developments of the CCF and Ault/3M sites will really help things move along. Unlike, say Victorian Village, the neighborhood cannot and will not gentrity completely, because of the significant fraction of longterm CPO housing. But I anticipate that all of the privately-held Section 8 housing will gradually convert to non-subsidized, including most or all of the larger multi-units now occupied by factions such as tenants subsizide by the mental-health agencies. Some of those conversions have already happened.

    As for my units, except for a few very low-key SSI-supported retirees, I am now able to rent to mostly young working individuals or couples, and a few OSU grad students. Eight years ago, I couldn’t come close to finding any non-subsidized tenants unless they were drug trade entrepenuers or chronic deadbeats hopping from the last unit from which they were about to be set-out. It took me a long time to learn how to operate in this market, to rigorously screen tenants and find good tenants. But it’s getting easier now!

    #313732

    the GG was a great summer getaway for myself and all the other kids in the neighborhood. as a person who was born and raised through out the short north and HW it was a life saver to us all. its a great program and organization. shame on those who despise it! you really dont want those kids with nothing to do…… trust me. it was a great place 25 years ago and im sure its just as great if not better now.

    #313733

    berdawn
    Member

    goldenidea wrote >>
    I’m a bit surprised to see GG fingered as one of the driving causes of the ongoing poverty in WP. I always viewed them as more of a bystanding support group. I rent to one of their employees and have met Randy, the lead guy, a few times. I go in there quite a bit to collect rent. My thought was when GG moved from Harrison West, it was viewed as a successful milestone that thier work was done in HW and that they were now going to focus on WP. While they have a much larger facility in WP, I’ve always assumed they would be ready to move on to another poverty hotspot when the need for them in WP was exhaused. There are plenty of neighborhoods needing their kinds of services.
    As for the WP Community Plan, my impression was that if left to the guys driving the plan, (mostly the former head of the WP Civic Association, but possibly Randy at GG, and even Campus Partners), that the stated mission was to not displace any of the existing residents of the neighborhood. It was very anti-gentrification and pro “neighborhood empowerment”. The idea was grow the neighborhood from the inside. My thought was, while admirable, that approach is not so realisitic (haven’t we tried this approach since LBJ was president?). I personally sent comments on the draft plan to the city planning department managing the production of the final version. I strongly encouraged that the plan provide for some amount of gentrification in the mission, which was added. But isn’t the plan just a document? I’d like to think that market forces can drive change.
    Gentrification is needed to really turn the neighborhood. I see gentrification starting to take root. I think the neighborhood is finally starting to go somewhere, although there’s a lot to get done. Unlike many other similar low-income neighborhoods in the city (e.g. Linden, Hilltop, the near eastside), WP seems ideally positioned to gentrify. Wagonbrenner developments of the CCF and Ault/3M sites will really help things move along. Unlike, say Victorian Village, the neighborhood cannot and will not gentrity completely, because of the significant fraction of longterm CPO housing. But I anticipate that all of the privately-held Section 8 housing will gradually convert to non-subsidized, including most or all of the larger multi-units now occupied by factions such as tenants subsizide by the mental-health agencies. Some of those conversions have already happened.
    As for my units, except for a few very low-key SSI-supported retirees, I am now able to rent to mostly young working individuals or couples, and a few OSU grad students. Eight years ago, I couldn’t come close to finding any non-subsidized tenants unless they were drug trade entrepenuers or chronic deadbeats hopping from the last unit from which they were about to be set-out. It took me a long time to learn how to operate in this market, to rigorously screen tenants and find good tenants. But it’s getting easier now!

    I don’t believe than anyone has “fingered GG as a driving force for poverty”. What has been stated is that they benefit from keeping as many poor neighbors as possible; they are complicit, based on their work during the neighborhood plan. CPO does not own housing, actually, OCCH no longer “owns” all the subsidized units…interesting that they are no longer the owners of record, but a number of subsidiaries, based at their address is. GG, along with OCCH, and people like Robert Schilling (and assorted not-Robert, but also named Schilling individuals) own well more than 100 units in WP.

    The neighborhood plan IS just a document, but one that is supposed to provide guidance over time. Leaving housing to market forces will result in another HW, IV, or VV…gentrified neighborhoods with no commitment to affordable housing. Maintaining the status quo results in an easy location to house those most and an easy paycheck for those whose organizations benefit most from a large, poor population.

    #313734

    berdawn
    Member

    CDS sherman wrote >>
    the GG was a great summer getaway for myself and all the other kids in the neighborhood. as a person who was born and raised through out the short north and HW it was a life saver to us all. its a great program and organization. shame on those who despise it! you really dont want those kids with nothing to do…… trust me. it was a great place 25 years ago and im sure its just as great if not better now.

    despise…who said that??? take a fucking tranq and re-read what those of us who live here have said: 1) GG does great things for the people who live here who need their services. 2) they were instrumental in keeping the huge percentage of subsidized housing in WP. 3) they benefit greatly from maintaining the status quo re housing and are actively hostile to additional owner occupied housing.

    #313735

    jimbach
    Participant

    DCist wrote >>
    Also, I understand the sentiment that mandating the status quo number of subsidized units remain so, however, if all of the housing in all of Columbus was unsubsidized and closed to Section 8 these people wouldnt have anywhere to go.

    This would be a relevant and useful comment if anyone in this thread were suggesting that no housing in Columbus be subsidized. What most of us who own homes and live in Weinland Park would like is that there be a greater dispersal of subsidized housing throughout Columbus, rather than being concentrated in just a few neighborhoods. That is the current situation, and it’s not working very well for my neighborhood.

    #313736
    Jimmy Mak
    Jimmy Mak
    Participant

    jimbach wrote >>

    DCist wrote >>
    Also, I understand the sentiment that mandating the status quo number of subsidized units remain so, however, if all of the housing in all of Columbus was unsubsidized and closed to Section 8 these people wouldnt have anywhere to go.

    This would be a relevant and useful comment if anyone in this thread were suggesting that no housing in Columbus be subsidized. What most of us who own homes and live in Weinland Park would like is that there be a greater dispersal of subsidized housing throughout Columbus, rather than being concentrated in just a few neighborhoods. That is the current situation, and it’s not working very well for my neighborhood.

    +1

    #313737

    jimbach wrote >>

    DCist wrote >>
    Also, I understand the sentiment that mandating the status quo number of subsidized units remain so, however, if all of the housing in all of Columbus was unsubsidized and closed to Section 8 these people wouldnt have anywhere to go.

    This would be a relevant and useful comment if anyone in this thread were suggesting that no housing in Columbus be subsidized. What most of us who own homes and live in Weinland Park would like is that there be a greater dispersal of subsidized housing throughout Columbus, rather than being concentrated in just a few neighborhoods. That is the current situation, and it’s not working very well for my neighborhood.

    I agree totally, however, so many neighborhoods that used to have their share such as VV, IV, and HW, have effectively almost eliminated much of the subsidized housing that used to be common in all three of those areas. (That happened while there were still other places for people who had these vouchers to go to.) Subsidized units are and will be disappearing in East Franklinton because their published plan on the City of Columbus website, or at least my reading of it, has most of it being taken out of the river front where it’s been for decades, and now in KD the administration sold Poindexter and Sawyer and all of those people have been relocating themselves. Next on the list is Lincoln Park off Lockbourne Road. We are talking about 100’s of families. Those of us left such as Hilltop and WP are two of the only places left close to the city that have units available. Linden and Columbus east of Nelson Road are already crowded with these vouchers. Whereas in the past, relocations have been more public, such as the big resettlement they did in the Short North when the city sold Taylor Towers at Summit and 1st, These more recent ones have not been and neighborhood leaders/organizations have not been contacted or worked with to assist in this mass resettlement effort. The Dispatch stories run over the summer were for many the first time they even heard this was going on. So how do neighborhoods such as Weinland Park, South Linden, North Linden, Driving Park, Olde Orchard, Olde Towne East, Merion Village, Hungarian Village, Highland West, Westgate, and others demand some parity in all of this?

    #313738

    jimbach
    Participant

    GeoffreyCMH wrote >>
    So how do neighborhoods such as Weinland Park, South Linden, North Linden, Driving Park, Olde Orchard, Olde Towne East, Merion Village, Hungarian Village, Highland West, Westgate, and others demand some parity in all of this?

    Based on my experiences with the way these things work, there’s no practical chance of this happening. These neighborhoods are full of poor people, and as a rule, poor people don’t vote. Politicians have very little incentive to pay attention to the needs and wishes of nonvoting adults. In addition to this, those of us in neighborhoods like WP who oppose the status quo are tiny minorities within our neighborhoods. The percentage of owner-occupied housing in my area is what, less than 20%? So we probably don’t even represent the majority view of the neighborhood by a long shot.

    In addition to this, as the recent election has amply demonstrated, Columbus city government is effectively under one party rule. That being the case, there’s very little chance that dispersal of S8 housing could ever become an electoral issue in Columbus. No Democrat would run against the status quo (on this issue), and it’s hard to imagine that a Republican could or would imagine or achieve success using it.

    The only other alternative would be the middle-class, taxpaying, voting residents in places like Clintonville and German Village telling their representatives, “Please, we beg of you, please move poor drug dealers and sex offenders into our neighborhood. We implore you!”

    Now, do you see that happening?

    #313739

    berdawn
    Member

    I probably already said this, but “section 8” includes two types of subsidized housing. Most people are familiar with the voucher system, which pays market rate rent for low income families who can use them with any rental property.

    The other, which is at issue in WP, is site-based, federally supported subsidized housing units. These units are reviewed every 20 years and in WP are owned by the Ohio Capital Corp for Housing (or apparently, now, one of their subsidiaries). This type also includes Sawyer and Pointdexter village, except those units were operated by the Columbus Housing Authority directly. The majority of the OCCH units were removed from the near east side when they purchased the portfolio from Broad Street. The units along 11th may be removed by the feds. the rest are here to stay.

    #313740

    coolbuckeye
    Participant

    Good point about the two different S8 forms in the area. The property owners that supply S8 housing through the voucher system will rent to the most profitable consistent renter. Given the perception of the area, normal market rate rental units are not perceived as an economically feasible option. I think there are two approaches to dealing with the concentration of S8. Approach #1 would be to reduce the existing S8 population. This is a tall order and not in the best interest of the current residents of said S8 housing. Approach #2 would be increasing the population of non S8 residents with projects like the wagenbrenner company beginning on the SE and NE part of WP and Campus Partners playing a role in the northwest portion. This option addresses the concentration issue and alters the perception of the area, hopefully leading to interest from the private market where the bulk of economic stimulus would be allocated into the area.

    #313741

    coolbuckeye
    Participant

    Then you got a whole host of issues with the S8 population that must be addressed. The number one issue that should be addressed is involvement from within. Current residents MUST take ownership of their neighborhood, MUST register and vote, and MUST self advocate for the needs of the community. The WP football and cheerleading program is a great example of that. Go Dawgs!

    #313742

    berdawn
    Member

    coolbuckeye wrote >>
    Good point about the two different S8 forms in the area. The property owners that supply S8 housing through the voucher system will rent to the most profitable consistent renter. Given the perception of the area, normal market rate rental units are not perceived as an economically feasible option. I think there are two approaches to dealing with the concentration of S8. Approach #1 would be to reduce the existing S8 population. This is a tall order and not in the best interest of the current residents of said S8 housing. Approach #2 would be increasing the population of non S8 residents with projects like the wagenbrenner company beginning on the SE and NE part of WP and Campus Partners playing a role in the northwest portion. This option addresses the concentration issue and alters the perception of the area, hopefully leading to interest from the private market where the bulk of economic stimulus would be allocated into the area.

    I’m with you about increasing market rate so that the ratio is more balanced (and I think I have been pretty clear that subsidized housing should remain in WP~albeit a much smaller percentage than current) I’m curious to see what happens with Waggonbrenner. Originally, this was proposed to be an income-based, if outright subsidies were unavailable, project.

    #313743

    coolbuckeye
    Participant

    I’m curious to see what happens with Waggonbrenner. Originally, this was proposed to be an income-based, if outright subsidies were unavailable, project.
    My understanding is that that is still the case.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 579 total)

The forum ‘General Columbus Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: