Greater Cincy's Fastest Growing Suburban Residential Developments (Cincinnati, Hamilton: homes, established neighborhood)

[Joeytraveler]

Keep in mind population loss is not always a bad thing. As we as a culture demand more and more sq. ft our urban spaces will not support the number of people they previously did. My house had 8 siblings live in it for the first 60 years, followed by numerous owners and tenants, and now just me. If my house goes from 4 tenants who are causing issues, having emergency services called etc and is replaced by one person who likely makes more than the previous 4 combined the net gain to the city is greater even though the population loss is negative. Just something to consider.

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by hensleya1

Hi kg97--

Well, allow me to take some liberties and calculate a hypothetical for you, using 1990 as a base line.

Here's the actual 1990, 2000, and 2010 US Census data:

If you were to reverse Cincinnati's demographic trends from 1990 onwards - that is to say, if Cincinnati's population actually grew by an amount equal to what Cincinnati has actually lost, you get the following:

Cincinnati's metro area would be ranked #24 rather than #28 - ironically enough displacing Portland for the #24 spot - Portland being the revered golden calf of Cincinnati City Council.

The only possible falacy with this approach is the assumption of instead of a loss the City's population would have grown by the same amount the Metro area growth would have been even higher. I contend the loss of population in the City is a movement of people and not necessarily a loss to the Metro as a whole, in fact probably a gain to the exhurbs. Without these people the overall Metro growth would have been less. Similarly if the City had gained population instead of a loss that would not have been necessarily new people to the area but a relocation of people within the area, people moving back into the City. The number games are interesting but the results not always valid.

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by Dayton Sux

In the thread header, where is "Union"? (two developments in Union in the linked article). I'm pretty sure its not the Union that's north of Englewood in Mont. County.

For Northern KY, Boone County has been booming since the 1980s at least. What I continue to be suprsied is how far south this development is now, around the I-75/I-71 split, which used to be pretty much beyond the edge of suburbia. Now its starting to be edged by new development.

I am also somewhat surprised at the distance south development in NKY is now. Every time I have a reason to drive down I-71/I-75 I marvel as to how the development is spreading south. But perhaps I should not be surprised considering how far north of Cincinnati the development is also spreading in Butler and Warren counties.

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by Joeytraveler

Keep in mind population loss is not always a bad thing. As we as a culture demand more and more sq. ft our urban spaces will not support the number of people they previously did. My house had 8 siblings live in it for the first 60 years, followed by numerous owners and tenants, and now just me. If my house goes from 4 tenants who are causing issues, having emergency services called etc and is replaced by one person who likely makes more than the previous 4 combined the net gain to the city is greater even though the population loss is negative. Just something to consider.

Unfortunately population loss is a bad thing. Your argument is strictly based on the direct cost for services incurred by the City, which could be a gain. But too many requests for state, federal, etc. grants are based on population.

[Joeytraveler]

Very true, but in the same sense a city of 1 million dysfunctional people will be a mess regardless of federal funding. Going forward it seems that the federal spigot of yesteryears is no longer so perhaps it won't be as much of an issue. Another thing to consider is that population growth in this country is being driven largely by immigrants and lower economic rungs. As the affluent have less and less children, the middle class continues to disappear, what will our country look like in the future?

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by t45209

It's just that parents in Montgomery don't have to camp out for two weeks to get their kids into the right elementary school.

There is only one school that is that crazy - Fairview German Language. To get into SCPA we needed to interview with staff, and show up early on registration day to get a spot in line. Fourth grade and up would need to audition as well. Fairview is the only one that is that extreme, and of course the only one the press reports. It would be a non-story to goto North Avondale Montessori to see parents in a warm gym enjoying refreshments, provided and staffed by volunteers.

[t45209]

Originally Posted by TomJones123

There is only one school that is that crazy - Fairview German Language. To get into SCPA we needed to interview with staff, and show up early on registration day to get a spot in line. Fourth grade and up would need to audition as well. Fairview is the only one that is that extreme, and of course the only one the press reports. It would be a non-story to goto North Avondale Montessori to see parents in a warm gym enjoying refreshments, provided and staffed by volunteers.

Regardless, it's still harder to do in the city. If I live in Price Hill, do I want to truck my 6-year old to North Avondale to go school?

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by t45209

Regardless, it's still harder to do in the city. If I live in Price Hill, do I want to truck my 6-year old to North Avondale to go school?

School bus dude. They do provide those for kids attending magnet schools.

It does take more work. It's obviously not your cup of tea, and that's cool. I know parents who live in Cincinnati so they can get their kids into a particular school. There are also a lot of kids coming out of district at my kids school. So there are more sides to the story than what's normally discussed on city data.

Personally, my son's school and quality of the education he is getting was the final straw that kept me from moving back to NYC, or to South Philly.

But I have before, and will readily concede again, that it's easier to live in a small suburban cul de sac and just send your kid to the local school. That works for some, but not us. We are very involved in his school and education. Some of the schools in the area are to jock oriented for me. I want more for my son than after school sports.

So, here we are again, back to different strokes.

[SWOH]

Interesting how this thread has evolved. A lot of points I would like to touch on which were discussed throughout the thread:

1. Locations - An issue was addressed that only two communities in the article were listed as Springboro. That is correct, but there was a third which is in Clearcreek Twp., within the Springboro city school district.

2. Schools - a lot of people do not want to send their kids to private school when they can move to a decent district where public school is "free" (taxation issues are a whole different ballgame...). Schools like the Ursuline Academy in Cincy charge $16,000 per year in tuition per child! That's a lot of cash. Currently, I attend a public college in Ohio, and my yearly tuition is not that much higher than Ursuline's. Just a thought - good public schools are essential for establishing a good family-friendly community because there are a lot of families that cannot afford to spend $16,000 per year per child for schooling.

3. Urban Demographics - as mentioned earlier, I'm a college student. Once I leave college, I have no interest whatsoever in living in a suburb. I'm looking for walkability, good urban amenities, entertainment & nightlife. School quality is nowhere on the radar, nor should it be as far as I am concerned. What we forget is we need a good area for yuppies so they in turn will get married, stick around, and have kids. Otherwise, stagnation occurs.

[hensleya1]

Originally Posted by OHKID

2. Schools - a lot of people do not want to send their kids to private school when they can move to a decent district where public school is "free" (taxation issues are a whole different ballgame...). Schools like the Ursuline Academy in Cincy charge $16,000 per year in tuition per child! That's a lot of cash. Currently, I attend a public college in Ohio, and my yearly tuition is not that much higher than Ursuline's. Just a thought - good public schools are essential for establishing a good family-friendly community because there are a lot of families that cannot afford to spend $16,000 per year per child for schooling.

Hi OHKID--

Well, the real cost of private school is that the taxpayer is paying for schools twice.

Check out the local millage rates.

http://www.hamiltoncountyauditor.org...xpaid_2013.pdf

In most school districts, the massive majority (some 70%) of all property taxes go to the schools.

If you have a house assessed at say, $200,000 in Cincinnati, then you'll pay at 75 mills about $5,000 a year in property taxes - some $3,500 goes towards subsidizing CPS.

If your child winds up in a terrible school, that $3,500 is lost to you forever plus the many thousands it takes to send the child to private school. Unless Kasich's tax plan picks up some steam, as he's looking to expand voucher programs - essentially allowing you to take your tax dollars elsewhere if the school is under-peforming.

I'm still in school as well, and I seriously doubt (even with a professional degree) that I could afford the taxes on a house, savings for retirement, the college fund, and private school the whole way given the economic trends and lack of jobs out there. So if I were to get old and married, you can be damned sure that a guaranteed good school district is near the top of my list.