More (accurate) photos of 9300 Shawnee Run (Indian Hill)

Astute readers (as all readers of Cincyopolis are) found a more accurate representation of the property at 9300 Shawnee Run in Indian, home of John Barrett.  For some strange reason – yet another mystery – this photo does not appear on my computer when I complete a search for this property.  In the interests of fair and accurate reporting, I am including all photos I found.  Interesting though that all these match property improvements that involved building permits:  the picture of the house is really a picture of the frame on the garage doors that was replaced.  Pool house was also an upgrade.

more accurate

Before and after pool house renovation

poolpool house

People with big lots might also want to note that in 2009 the Auditor’s office started taking regular aerial photos of this property for comparison purposes.

Screenshot 2014-12-01 11.07.02

3 thoughts on “More (accurate) photos of 9300 Shawnee Run (Indian Hill)

  1. Dusty Rhodes

    Auditor Response

    The owner of the Indian Hill properties at 9300 and 9420 Shawnee Run Road filed in the Hamilton County Board of Revision in 2001. Based on the evidence presented to the Board the total value of both properties was reduced from $3,402,100 to $2,475,000. The owner subsequently filed for the CAUV program (Current Agricultural Use Value), a State program administered by County Auditors, according to ORC 5713.30.

    Under the requirements of the State’s CAUV program, the applicant must reapply annually to demonstrate the use continually meets the criteria established by state statute. The County Auditor’s office is tasked with physically viewing each property annually to verify it qualifies for the program. We go beyond the State’s minimum rules and regulations by asking for annual written documentation proving each application meets the State’s requirements.
    The land value for CAUV is established by soil types. The soil rates are provided to us by the State of Ohio Department of Tax Equalization.

    Many parcels on the Auditor’s website have multiple cards. Each card will have its own set of photos, so make sure you view all cards. In the case of 529-0030-0049 there are three cards, one for the main structure and the CAUV photos. Cards two and three show the other structures on this parcel. Additionally, there was a new construction value of $303,530 added to this parcel in 2011.
    Dusty Rhodes
    Hamilton County Auditor

  2. joe smith

    It is curious that you are criticizing tax abatements when you yourself are receiving a 90% abatement on your property at Park Place. The Hamilton County Auditor’s web site shows you have a $378,000 abatement on property valued at $415,000 resulting in an effective tax rate of .25% vs. 2.296%. According to the web site your tax bill is $1,164. The full cost at the standard rate would be over $9,500. Quite a savings and certainly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

    1. executivedreamer Post author

      Hi, Joe Smith. I’ve written about my own abatement several times. Very openly. Very honestly. In fact, my husband hates it when I do that. He’s Italian and Italians are not so forthcoming about personal finances. But as I’ve told him, it’s all public record. I’ve also written a piece on the sound use of abatement when it works from an economic standpoint: I used 18 E. Fourth as the example. My own building involved 10 times as many units and would be an even better example. No, Joe Smith, I’m not against all abatement and hope that you take the time to read a broader cross section of my posts. Mostly I’m dead-set against the disastrous economics that resulted from the 30-year abatement at Western & Southern’s Queen City Square with plummeting valuations in the properties vacated by Great American Financial, such as the 580 Building that went into foreclosure. Not only did the city/county lose the revenue that had been coming in to help pay for basic services. We had to give the new developer a 12 year abatement into the future. And no permanent new jobs were brought to this city to fill Great American Tower, just a shuffling of existing CBD tenants from other buildings. The only winner in this abatement was the company that got the government hand-out: Western & Southern. Bad deal. Bad, bad deal for Cincinnati.

      And one other thing, Joe Smith. Whatever I say, whatever I do – I always put my own name on my opinions. I have the choice whether or not to approve these comments and even though I suspect strongly that you are an employee of Western & Southern, I approved the post and answered for it publicly as I will continue to do.

      We’ll get these back room deals that favor the big developers changed, Joe Smith. Heart always trumps paid pr. This city isn’t stupid.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s