Hyde Park Square / Rezoning Issue is on the ballot

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Here's your Channel nine. First one to weather orcast. We
got a partly cloudy day, rising humidity is what they're saying,
and a high at eighty seven cloud and a slight
chance rain every night down is sixty nine. Got a
good chance of rain tomorrow, low and maybe some storms
eighty two. The high tomorrow, scattered showers overnight with cloudy
skis at a low of sixty eight, and then more

(00:21):
showers and storms are expected on Friday. Friday's high seventy eight.
It's seventy four right now. It's hyper traffic from the.

Speaker 2 (00:29):
UCF Traffic Center. Amillians of Americans are living with Alzheimer's
or other dementias. Find answers from leading brain help experts
and do you see help? Learn more at U seehelp
dot com. Eastbound two to seventy five, crews continue to
work with an accident. Before you get to forty two,
they are over on the right hand side. Traffic is backing.

(00:50):
I'm close to seven forty seven southbound seventy fives slows
through Lachmann northbounds running heavy from Buttermilk into town. Chuck
Ingram on fifty five kars station.

Speaker 1 (01:02):
Hey thirty here fifty five KR City Talk Station and
not Happy Wednesday Invitational listener Lunch today Mattree Brewery, Summit
Park location. Looking forward to that. Love the fellowship at
listener lunch and if you haven't been to one, maybe
come up to the show up today and welcoming back
to the fifty five KRC Morning Show. One of the
more prominent figures behind the signature drive to save Hyde
Park Square, John Zinser, Welcome back to the fifty five

(01:24):
KRC Morning Show and a big congratulations see you and
all the signature gatherers for really hitting a home run
and getting way more than was needed to get on
the ballot this November.

Speaker 3 (01:34):
Thank you, Brian, and I'm no more significant than all
three hundred for the people who are out there more
than three hundred collecting signatures. I really appreciate it having
us back.

Speaker 1 (01:43):
And as you mentioned last time, you were on folks
from all kinds of neighborhoods throughout the city of Cincinnati.
We're backing this because you know, as I mentioned before,
I think it's there. But for the grace of God,
go iy. It happened to bond Hill, it happened to
Hyde Park. Since the city Council, you know, modifying the
zoning rules to help well connected developers do what they
want in the face of what their own constituents wanted.

(02:06):
I mean, I just I get so irked by this
John that they absolutely flat out refused to listen to
the throngs that showed up in opposition to this hotel
and apartment and underground parking. I mean, it's described as
a boutique hotel. It's not like that's going to solve
the homeless problem or the housing shorts in the city
of Cincinnati. Plus, I mean when you look at the

(02:27):
designs and the drawing of it, yes, it is about
the size in many cases. Inspite what council Member Mika
Owens said.

Speaker 3 (02:33):
About it, I'm with you. We're really proud of the
twenty two different neighborhoods that were represented in the among
the collectors, the circulators of petitions, and we had signatures
from all over the city. And you're word that may
be a really good one, right there is. People are irked,
people would like to be heard. We gave City Council

(02:54):
chance after chance after chance, starting in January at the
Planning Commission and Staff meeting, more than seven hundred emails,
sixty people speaking against, four people speaking for That was
a really good chance where we could have just said,
you know what, this isn't the right way to go,
let's do something else. They didn't. Here's the really good

(03:15):
news today though, we are giving City Council yet another chance.
They have a wonderful second opportunity today to begin the process.
They could excuse me, repeal the decision from April twenty third,
and everything could get started. We want the smart development.
We're open to the developer engaging with us and sticking

(03:37):
to the zoning, and that could happen. All City Council
has to do is repeal their decision. They have that
opportunity now, and if they don't, and I have to say,
I really wonder I don't have a crystal ball. I'm
not going to try to predict what city Council would do.
We are ready and waiting to go into a ballot drive.
I feel very comfortable that we can motivate the same

(04:01):
kind of response we got for the signatures, to turn
out voters and have people say you have to listen
to the neighborhoods. You have to listen to the people.
You can't just listen to the developers.

Speaker 1 (04:13):
Yeah, and this concept really, this voter initiative, the citizen
initiative to have control over their lives. I think it
just it transcends development. I mean, you're taking a stand
against the council who won't listen. I don't care what
issue it is. I mean there was no question, go ahead.

Speaker 3 (04:33):
Yeah, you and I touched on this once before. I
believe in a twenty twenty four Plan on Engagement for
the City, ten glossy pages, beautifully produced, the words neighborhood
council and community council don't appear once. This administration and
this iteration of city council is very clear that they

(04:56):
know what we need and they don't need to hear
from us. Yeah, they really want our vote, they really
don't want our voice. Is how it feels. And that's
what this is really about. And that's why I have
such comfort about November. If it comes to that again,
I think city councils should do the right thing and
repeal this right now. But if they don't, I think

(05:18):
citizens are going to show up. And if I ask
you the question, hey, do you want to say in
what goes on in your neighborhood or do you want
a developer to make a little bit more money. I
think I'll get the right answer to that most times.

Speaker 1 (05:31):
Joh with our question. And you know what, this is
kind of like it's supposed to be. And I think
council and the mayor of lost the concept of representative democracy.
The citizens of the city of Cincinnati didn't elect this
group to be dictators and control exclusively the direction of
the city. They're there to represent the will of the citizenry,

(05:51):
which differs from neighborhood to neighborhood. That's what irked me
about the connected communities thing. They shoved down everythy so
they didn't listen to any local communities about that. Embrace
the concept. Others outright wanted to reject it, but they
all wanted control locally. And all the communities are different
in many respects. I mean the Hyde Park is a
great illustration of that. You're not the same as Bond Hill.

(06:13):
You guys have different needs and different ones and different
desires by the citizens. But again it's the citizen who
should control. Conceptually, the direction of the city goes well, and.

Speaker 3 (06:23):
It's specifically neighborhood by neighborhood as you're saying, we have
fifty two fantastic neighborhoods across the city, and many of
them were represented in this effort, from Mount Washington all
the way to Salor Park. They showed up because they
agree with what you're saying. Of we should get a say,
and it's not just being you know, don't. I don't

(06:44):
want to split a hair here. I know City Council listened,
but I know we weren't heard. And I've seen plenty
of op eds and plenty of Reddit pieces that say, oh,
they just don't like the answer. Oh, Hyde Park, it's
just another nimby thing. This is anything but not in
my backyard. This is not in our city. We want

(07:07):
a representative government that not only listens or shows up
and sits in the room while we're talking, but communicates
and engages. And that's what we're asking from the developer
as well. City Hall and the developer, in my opinion,
have engaged in this in a very similar manner. They
want to do what they want to do. They have
not engaged in real dialogue. We certainly sat down with

(07:30):
many different council members at different times. Some of them
took the time to come out to the square, etc.
But we were not heard. The way to do this
was to stop it and say no, we have we're
not giving the PD, We're not giving planned development just
because somebody asks for it, and we really want to
see that change. And again, city Council has the opportunity.

(07:55):
We don't have to wait until November to move forward
with this development. We are good for smart development and
the zoning is fine. The local zoning could work. We
have had other developers say I could make money within
the local zoning. Sure they could make more money. Why
don't we just let them build one hundred stories and
see how much money they could make off of that.

(08:15):
So our goal right now, I would encourage city Council
to hear us do the repeal, do the right thing.
That would help the developer to get started on the process.
It would help the citizens to both feel heard and
know that the current zoning is being respected and that
there'll be some engagement from day one. We've only asked
for one thing, that zoning be respected and we engage

(08:37):
with the developer in the process. That's all we've asked for.
And eighteen four hundred plus people said, yeah, we should
even vote on that rather than this just going through.

Speaker 1 (08:49):
Amen to that. Well, I think illustrative of the attitude
of council when I asked, I believe about repealing it,
because the various council members were asked about that, why
just throw in the t O and just repeal the
variance of the zoning. Council member Mika Owens quoted as
saying the following, we are leaving all options open. There's
where the sailing part comes in. During tough decisions, I

(09:11):
have centered myself in my values. The high park development
required me to critically to do it critically centering values
around accessible housing for all, support for small businesses, and
more spaces for the people of our city to gather
in community. Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. This
referendum is not about the height. This referendum is on

(09:32):
development as a whole. I will always to stand behind
projects that share my values for collective and collaborative growth
for the people of the city of Cincinnati. I mean,
it's all about what she wants.

Speaker 3 (09:44):
Apparently I hear those two minds in there. That last
line about collective and collaborative. There was nothing collective or
collaborative about this process either. The developer or city council.
The other piece that's in there. There's nothing in here
about housing that actually is going to work for the community,
that what we actually need in this city. This is

(10:06):
a this is a money making, profit driven piece for
the developer, and that is fine. I want developers to
make a good, solid profit. That makes great sense, but
it shouldn't be quoaked in, oh, we're getting city housing.
Now you're getting a hotel, and you're getting stuff that's
going to be beyond the price range of the vast

(10:26):
majority of citizens of this city. That's not answering the
issue of the moment.

Speaker 1 (10:33):
It isn't well. Her values for collective and collaborative growth
apparently don't mean collaborating collaborating with the citizen ry. Johnson's
or is you pointed out?

Speaker 3 (10:41):
Those are two bad choices of words and those pieces.
Have you ever been to Hyde Park Square, for say,
the Farmer's Market on Sunday or even just a regular
summer weeknight. There are people in the square all the time.
It is one of the most livable community places in
this city, and it's a real treasure. And this would

(11:03):
quite simply change that forever. It would be a complete
change in how people could live there. We would actually
lose what I think she's saying. She's very much for
of places where people can gather.

Speaker 1 (11:18):
Well, let's hope they do the right thing. Actually, I
believe repealing the zoning variants and going back to the
square one will probably help them in their re election
efforts in November. But let them sink or swim on
the weight of their own decision making.

Speaker 3 (11:32):
I'm not a political expert, but I can't imagine any
of their political directors are going, oh, yeah, this is
a great issue for us. For the seven people who
voted the way they did. I don't think they want
to be going looking for getting re elected with us
walking around behind them saying you voted the wrong way
on this, and that all those people from all those
neighborhoods with them. I really hope they will help us,

(11:55):
help the developer and help themselves by doing the right
thing and.

Speaker 1 (11:59):
Repealing Well, it's a good campaign for Corey Bowman. I
don't care how you feel one way or another about
Corey Bowman, but he has at least that issue to
run on the current circumstances. John's Inzer, I'm really impressed
by you and the team and the hard work that
you put into this, making a stand for the right
thing and standing up to a councilor who obviously is
not listening. This is a true showing of representative democracy

(12:22):
and action and the people wanting the representatives to do
what they want and go in the direction they want.
So great illustration of what can be done when you
put some effort behind it. John, keep up the great work,
and let's hope they repeal it, but if not, we're
off with the polls in November.

Speaker 3 (12:38):
Thank you, Brian. It is a great team and we
really appreciate your support.

Speaker 1 (12:41):
I'm happy to be here to let people know about
it and talk about it, because again you can tell
by my agitated voice that it really really irked me
to know end John, good luck. We'll talk again before November.
If they don't repeal it, I'm certain of that.

Speaker 3 (12:54):
Thank you, Brian.

Speaker 1 (12:55):
Thank you eight forty two fifty five krs the talk
station don't go away.

Speaker 3 (12:58):
I happy right back for your information.