|
|
A controversial 20-year plan for the future of western Hamilton County is facing a skeptical review by area government leaders, some of whom feel the county is force-feeding them growth and development.
An April 19 meeting among western Hamilton County government officials designed to reach some consensus on the hilly, largely undeveloped area’s future also exposed some mistrust between those small communities and the county.
At least a few township and other local government leaders are suspicious about being asked to comment on and eventually approve a vague plan that’s already received approval from the Hamilton County Regional Planning and County Commissions. Further fueling suspicion is the fact that the plan was conceived by a 10-member steering committee three years ago rather than by the public through open-ended meetings.
“The intent was never to find out what people want,” said Whitewater Township Trustee Hubert Brown, who attended early meetings on the plan. “The intent was to sell people on growth.”
Still, last week’s meeting among all 10 western Hamilton County political subdivisions was an early step toward mending the political fragmentation that has handicapped Hamilton County and the Tristate in general for decades.
The road traveled
The Western Hamilton County Collaborative Plan has already traveled a three-year winding road but has many miles to go before it becomes an accepted plan for the future of the territory.
It began a few years ago as County Commissioner John Dowlin was talking to a township representative about an issue. Dowlin noticed that the person didn’t really care how the issue affected the other townships.
He also noticed that Warren and Boone counties were booming with new housing and business while Hamilton was relatively stagnant.
“So that’s how all this started,” Dowlin said. “I was really the instigator for (the plan).”
An October 1999 report by the Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission (RPC) highlighted the flight of residents and businesses to the counties surrounding Hamilton County from 1984 to 1997. While Hamilton County lost 70,000 residents during that period, all eight surrounding counties gained from 300 to 20,000 people.
The plan was conceived by a steering committee of 10 representatives from the county’s western side. After lots of work, it became a plan to channel growth mostly into Crosby, Green and Miami townships, located east of the Miami River, so that growth wouldn’t randomly spread over the area west.
The county kicked off the formal regional planning effort by hiring a consultant, LDR International Inc. of Maryland, for a $285,000 two-year study of the western county. The study concluded that more growth would occur there without planning than would with proper planning.
Four options were presented during public meetings: high growth, moderate growth, low growth or no plan at all. Many citizens favored low growth, including 82 percent of an audience at a meeting in Whitewater Township.
But the county opted for medium growth because low growth wouldn’t generate enough development to pay for the land preservation it specified, according to Bill Seitz, Green Township trustee and steering committee member.
“Obviously, we’re not Bill Clinton,” Seitz said. “We don’t govern by poll numbers.”
Just trying to get along
Regional planning is difficult in Hamilton County, mostly because the county and its 49 townships, cities and villages are essentially its children, each with its own wants and needs and each with its own strengths and weaknesses. Some of the kids are bigger or wealthier or healthier and more independent than the others, such as the city of Norwood. Others, such as the western townships, have less political power than cities and are more dependent on the county for infrastructure such as roads and sewers.
But two things are certain: The siblings often bicker with each other to get what they want, and this hurts regional planning.
Now, more than a year after the RPC approved and the county commission tentatively approved the collaborative plan, the western county “kids” are being asked to figure out ways to carry out the plan’s five main goals, which include:
· Preserving the rural character of the western county;
· Balancing growth with infrastructure (such as school
availability);
· Working together as a region;
· Improving environmental quality;
· Achieving more livable communities.
That’s no easy task. In fact, accommodating most of the goals seems like a long shot considering the limited land and money available and the histories of self-interest.
But, in an effort to move forward, western county officials met in Green Township on April 19. After a brief introduction by Christine Nolan, the county planner in charge of shepherding the plan through the townships, attendees split into two groups and began talking about their problems, wants and needs. The participants split into a northern group of jurisdictions and a southern group.
Colerain Township Trustee Joseph Wolterman, who represents one of the biggest kids in the western county, wasted no time getting to his concerns. A steering committee member and general plan supporter, he’s hesitant to approve the plan for fear it will relieve his township of the ability to control its zoning. The Hamilton County Commission already uses the plan as a guide during zoning change requests, Wolterman said, which might or might not match local plans.
“There’s fear that this document is going to come back and slap somebody in the face,” Wolterman said.
Nolan reassured him that the plan is only an advisory document and carried no legal mandates and that the plan still has to be shaped by the townships. That’s the point of this meeting, she said.
Wolterman also warned Crosby Township Trustee Jane Hawk-Harper that she should begin planning for development. Colerain didn’t, and it happened parcel by parcel until the township was overrun with traffic.
“To bury your head in the sand and say (growth) is not going to happen is the worst thing you can do,” Wolterman said.
A new bridge over the Miami River is in the works, as is a state study of road improvements on Blue Rock and New Haven roads running between Colerain and Crosby townships.
“We don’t see that as our problem,” said Hawk-Harper, adding that Colerain Township has been poorly planned for 15 years. “And now you expect us to help you solve it.”
“I’m saying that you’re not going to stop growth, but you can control it,” Wolterman said.
Hawk-Harper said she doesn’t see a need to change the zoning of Crosby Township, which has about 3,000 residents.
“It’s worked fine for us,” she said.
Nolan ended the exchange there, saying it was a good issue to raise and that it needs to be worked out later, maybe with a study or more discussion. Not long later, it was time for the two groups to report their progress.
The other sub-group, comprised of governments near the Ohio River such as Green Township and Addyston, made more progress on identifying goals, filling up five sheets of sketch paper. The other group didn’t fill one sheet. Still, everyone seemed hopeful that future meetings would lead to more progress, so they agreed to begin quarterly meetings.
Wary of the plan
While the plan calls for preserving the rural character and protecting hillsides, for example, these goals still need specific methods to be implemented.
In the meantime, the county is pushing for a study of a new Ohio River bridge near North Bend, which it hopes will be part of a regional study of the I-75 corridor. The main reason is potential traffic relief for I-75. And there’s the previously mentioned state study of Blue Rock and New Haven roads, which would provide an alternate route from Cross County Highway to I-74.
Although Seitz said the Ohio River bridge wouldn’t be built for 20 years even if the study began today, John Schneider, who advises Downtown Cincinnati Inc. on transportation issues, isn’t sure there will be a need for a new bridge in the foreseeable future. For now, Schneider said, local governments should be thinking about the Brent Spence Bridge, which is due to be replaced or rehabilitated in several to a dozen years. There’s a chance to turn that into a “beautiful project,” he said.
Considering the county’s interest in the bridge study and the developer-oriented RPC, among other issues, Whitewater and Crosby township trustees are skeptical the county cares what they think about the plan.
“Big money puts (development) where it wants it to be, and that’s what’s going to happen,” said Whitewater Township Trustee Ray Schaible.
While Hawk-Harper believes the vast majority of Crosby Township residents don’t want industrial or commercial development, she also believes a minority of Crosby land owners would love rapid development.
Others, such as Clare Johnson, spokesperson for the Concerned Citizens of Western Hamilton County, had issues with the planning and adoption process.
“It would seem to me that (planners) should meet with the citizens first and then the township trustees,” Johnson said, adding that she was encouraged to have been invited to the April 19 meeting.
Johnson also called attention to a successful Dowlin-led attempt to halt amendments to the plan in April 1999. Right before the RPC voted on the plan, citizens and the RPC staff suggested several additions to the it, such as a study to identify the desirable characteristics of “villages and hamlets.”
But Dowlin, Seitz, Wolterman and others sent the RPC a letter instructing them to vote either yes or no on the existing plan without considering the additions.
“I wanted to get the darn thing moving,” Dowlin said, adding that the concerned citizens wanted to start planning from scratch. “And I’m saying no.”
Also, the city of Cincinnati was never asked for its opinion on the plan, even though it will obviously affect the city, said Cincinnati City Councilman Todd Portune.
“And I really question the push for new highway construction in the county,” Portune said. “My impression is that the whole process has been very developer-driven as opposed to resident-driven.”
Wolterman said the plan was supposed to go back to the townships for approval before the county voted on it.
“For whatever reason, that process was changed,” Wolterman said.
Also, the perception exists that people were invited and hand-picked for the steering committee, he said.
“That’s when I think the mistrust and distrust came forward,” said Wolterman, who added he doesn’t agree the committee was selected to favor development.
So has there been enough public input on the plan?
“I don’t know how to answer that,” Dowlin said. “You can’t force people to come to the meeting.”
“It depends on who you ask, obviously,” said Ron Miller, executive director of the RPC. “In my opinion, there’s never enough. We did as much as we could with the time and money available.”
The good news, Miller said, is the planning isn’t over yet. He’s hoping each of the 10 western county jurisdictions will hold public hearings dedicated solely to the plan and its goals.
“Some have 10 minutes on their agenda, and some are willing to do half a day,” Miller said. There will also be a public hearing with the RPC.
Fighting sprawl with sprawl
When asked to define sprawl, Dowlin talked about development outside of the county and development that happened without long-term foresight. A good example might be the Fields-Ertel intersection at I-71 in Warren County.
Dowlin said the western county plan is an attempt to prevent low-density uncontrolled development. Right now many property owners can build one house per acre, but by using sewers to direct growth the county could allow three or four homes an acre and achieve more clustered development.
But that’s only the tip of sprawl, which is also defined by single-use zoning. This zoning separates housing from jobs and shopping centers, forcing people to drive just to get a loaf of bread or gallon of milk. Before World War II, we used to build business districts, such as Oakley or Hyde Park squares, with apartments above shops and parking on the street. But then we reconfigured our cities and built suburbs tailored to cars, making it unpleasant or even dangerous for people to walk on certain places.
And while the plan’s goals include better pedestrian mobility and traffic calming, the plan is full of single-use zoning, at least for now. Essentially, the existing plan seems to trade unplanned sprawl for more deliberate, planned sprawl.
Sprawl is also about housing that doesn’t connect to the rest of the area. Homes on cul de sacs, which appeal to peoples’ desire for a low-traffic environment, forces more traffic on feeder roads, leading officials to widen them, with the end result being traffic-clogged arteries such as Colerain Avenue. The plan’s zoning doesn’t require this type of development, but it doesn’t prohibit it either.
In any case, Dowlin said people are leaving Cincinnati for two reasons: to get bigger homes and to escape the city’s schools. The plan is an attempt to curb that exodus of people from Hamilton County.
Wolterman believes the current frustration with the plan will give way to cooperation and eventual acceptance.
“I think it’s going to have a bumpy road, but eventually people will say we have to do something and this is how we’re going to get there,” he said.
So what happens if not all of the western governments sign off on the plan?
“I think what you do is take what you’ve got,” Dowlin said.
Miller hopes people will realize that this is still a viable plan, if they participate in it. So far, only Harrison Township has made recommendations for the plan. But, Miller emphasized, the plan can and will change to meet the western jurisdictions’ wishes.
“The process is just beginning,” he said. ©
This article appears in Apr 26 – May 2, 2000.