Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Anti-3CDC Bias is Abundant This Holiday Season

So, a report comes out naming a census track in Over-the-Rhine as the most income mixed census track in the nation based on 2005 to 2009 data and then all the biased media fingers point to 3CDC.  It doesn't surprise me that attacks will be made on 3CDC for its redevelopment efforts, but this attack is totally unfair.

Track 17, the area cited, is located in the Northeast part of OTR.  What the article doesn't mention is that 3CDC's efforts are not in that area. If they had looked in track 9 or 10, then they would have found areas like the Gateway Quarter, Main Street, Washington Park. The variances in income cited in Census Track 17 are almost totally caused by the nice homes up on Mulberry Street at the top edge of the district.  Pair this with the sparsely populated area below it and presto...the numbers fall into place giving the disparity.  When you cut neighborhoods apart, then you can find lots of things.  Hell, if 1 person making $100,000 moved to Queensgate, I think with the low population in that area, they would take over Track 17's title.

The other big bias in the article was drawing in the Metropole issue, which is not located in OTR and is a vastly different situation.  The Metropole on the surface fits the conclusion the writer had formed, so adding it in was like icing on the cake.  If you are going to draw in unrelated incidents, there is a nice empty field sitting in Norwood near Smith and Edwards that could serve someone's political agenda.

A significant part of the article attempted to look at OTR overall and provided a reasonable view on 3CDC's efforts, but this has nothing to do with cherry picking statistical and using that as the basis of the article.  That makes a biased and just false claim that 3CDC caused the disparity.  In fact with the time frame involved, 3CDC had not completed that many new locations and had at best purchased the empty, unused buildings that become the condo/apartments now flourishing.  If you want to write an article criticizing redevelopment of OTR, then start typing, but keep the misleading statistics out of it.

I do credit one thing in the article without hesitation: the photo.  The photo looks to me to be of Track 17, at least in part. In contrast, if you look at CityBeat's article on this story, then you should notice that the picture listed is not in Track 17 at all. It's of Gateway Quarter and it's inclusion with either a careless mistake or purposeful deception.  I'll let you decide on that.

7 comments:

  1. I'll assume you're right about the misleading info...but if we're going for full disclosure, shouldn't you also mention that you live in a 3CDC development in the Gateway Quarter?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The basic premise of the article is completely absurd. This sort of income integration is what should be encouraged, rather than discouraged. The "problem" is not when hundreds (or tens) of people from both ends of the income spectrum live side by side. That is the solution.

    The real problem is when income-segregated growth is promoted: When the disadvantaged have "their side of town", and the privileged have "their side of town".

    The author of the article needs to either stop concern trolling, or stop carrying water for the gated-community industry.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If I were a professional Journalist, yes, I should disclose where I live, if I live in the area in question. In this case where I live is known and is public record, so not including it is not an issue.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If anyone has any good argument against what 3CDC is doing, I would really like to hear it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't think anyone does. There's lot of complaints about displacement and social services leaving, but I think its mostly BS. Most of the housing stock in OTR was abandoned and social services come and go. Just recently United Way opened up on 12th street and another interfaith group moved into vine across from a tavola. We should be encouraging this kind of mixed income integration, not demonizing it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I wish I could have developed more housing on Mulberry Street in 2003 than the five so far. I bought an 1864 row house there in 1980, and since then over half of the housing units have fallen, burnt, or been torn down. In this Census tract 17, something like 500 of 900 units are VACANT. Is it so noble to have such poverty and decay in an area that holds so much potential for new housing and new residents? Why is it so wrong to integrate the area? Displacement of the poor from a hell hole is nt even an issue with all the vacancies and the availability of Section 8 vouchers joe gorman.

    ReplyDelete
  7. My only issues with 3CDC are that they insist the buildings they buy be vacant, thus encouraging landlords to kick out tenants. Also, they rehab places and make the rents so high that people who already live in the neighborhood can't afford to move in. I'm talking about people like me.

    ReplyDelete

Don't be an idiot or your post will be deleted.