It's also sad, when a couple business owners hold 60 homeowners hostage and cause financial ruin for families that are trying to leave an area unfriendly to homes.  Those business owners were looking for the big payday (which they got), while using the DC lawfirm who was representing them for free. 

It's also sad, when a couple business owners hold 60 homeowners hostage and cause financial ruin for families that are trying to leave an area unfriendly to homes. Those business owners were looking for the big payday (which they got), while using the DC lawfirm who was representing them for free.

 

I think there was one homeowner in that group, IIRC. However, we don't know how many homeowners didn't really want to sell at all...but didn't want to fight.

Where is the blame for the developer holding the homewoners hostage by only wanting to sign purchase agreements contingent on buying all the individual properties. (which it was their fault to go out and purchase another house when the deal wasn't sealed on the old house). Why didn't the developer offer the holdouts enough money, or <gasp> incorporate them into the developement? Why can the developer cry to the city to use eminent domain when some owners wanted more?

 

The area was not unfrienndly to homes, merely a little noisy from I-71...in fact it was one of the nicest neighborhoods in Norwood.

 

 

 

It's also sad, when a couple business owners hold 60 homeowners hostage and cause financial ruin for families that are trying to leave an area unfriendly to homes. Those business owners were looking for the big payday (which they got), while using the DC lawfirm who was representing them for free.

 

Well, excuse them for exercising their Constitutionally-guaranteed private property rights.

^I have to back up jhansbau on this one. Although I agree that it stinks when the government forcefully takes possession of perfectly good homes, these so-called "crusaders" for the cause are often just trying to milk it for all it's worth. That doesn't make the situation right, but to make martyrs out of these people is a bit off as well. In my experience, people in those situations are all too happy to make mountains out of molehills. That's not to say that there are some out there who fight the good fight, but I'm a cynic when these people try to take the higher ground.

I definitely think some folks are milking it for all it's worth - they can take their payouts and buy two or three comparable houses anywhere in Norwood (hell, probably four or five) - but that doesn't impact the fact that their rights were pretty well trampled here.  You can't force someone to sell you their property except in certain circumstances, even if you're offering them a gold mine.  I think Norwood played pretty fast and loose with things here, best I can tell, and the developer is definitely paying the price for it now.

 

Interestingly, the houses north of Gold Star on that last little triangle of Edwards are all for sale, zoned for business, according to the yard signs.  I'd always assumed they were part of the Exchange development, but I was obviously quite wrong.

I agree. All of the homeowners received prices well above market rate for their homes. There are no sad, American-dream-threatening stories here, just greed.

Look at it this way.  Say you have invested your life in your house, and it means a lot to you.  Someone comes along and offers you fair market value for it, but you don't want to move.  Maybe they offer you double the price, but you still don't want to go.  What is the value of your property?

 

The value of a house is the price for which the seller is willing to sell and the buyer is willing to pay.  It's not a randomly assessed value by a representative of the government.

 

What a lot of you are advocating is that basically anyone's property can be taken at any time whether they are willing or not, as long as they receive market value.  In other words, there are no more property rights protections and you have to give up your property whether you want to or not, so that municipal governments can decide economic winners and losers.  If your land doesn't "pay" enough, they will go and find someone who will.

 

I know there needs to be a balance between progress on one hand and peoples' rights on the other.  Unfortunately, holdouts are always painted as "greedy"--the developers and the municipal governments never are, and the local media tends to champion the shiny new development.

I have trouble with people thinking they are entitled to sit on a piece of property they own for as long as they want, come hell or high water.

 

The need for this project had been demonstrated, it was time for the residents of this neighborhood to move on.  There are people who sacrifice their lives at war for the good of their community.  This principle is related, with a much less severe impact on the individual.

That's exactly why there's Eminent Domain.  I think everyone agrees that Eminent Domain is a necessary and good thing.  The only question is how it should be applied.  This neighborhood did not fit the statute definitions, in my (uneducated) opinion.  Neither did it fit the spirit of the law, again in my (uneducated) opinion.  ED was used to shift ownership from one private entity to another.

 

We can certainly debate these opinions - was Eminent Domain abused here, or was it appropriate?  But painting the opposite side as advocating "people thinking they are entitled to sit on a piece of property they own for as long as they want, come hell or high water" isn't helpful.  Nobody's arguing that.

I have trouble with people thinking they are entitled to sit on a piece of property they own for as long as they want, come hell or high water.

 

Folks have a right to own land as long as they want. Property rights are one of the foundations of our Country.

I have the right to own my house until I die.

 

The need for this project had been demonstrated, it was time for the residents of this neighborhood to move on.  There are people who sacrifice their lives at war for the good of their community.  This principle is related, with a much less severe impact on the individual.

 

Probably can demonstrate the need for any project, if you find the right consultants to perform the study. Does that mean in someone's opinion that a project is needed, your house is at risk?  ED is for and only for public good, not for taking property by government from one individual to another private individual, even if

That's exactly why there's Eminent Domain. I think everyone agrees that Eminent Domain is a necessary and good thing. The only question is how it should be applied. This neighborhood did not fit the statute definitions, in my (uneducated) opinion. Neither did it fit the spirit of the law, again in my (uneducated) opinion. ED was used to shift ownership from one private entity to another.

 

We can certainly debate these opinions - was Eminent Domain abused here, or was it appropriate? But painting the opposite side as advocating "people thinking they are entitled to sit on a piece of property they own for as long as they want, come hell or high water" isn't helpful. Nobody's arguing that.

 

your opinion was not uneducated. it was Eminent Domain abuse pure and simple

 

Little know fact, ED was used to obtain property for the Rookwood Commons Development, just on the south side of Edmondson, about where J Alexander's and the Tower is right now (FKA as Altantic Ave)

I guess I find it surprising that in this forum "Urban Ohio", which is focused on Urban development, there are so many that think that ED was misused here.  If communities are not able to use ED for the common good/progress of the community, then you're never going to get Urban Infill projects.  This is a triangle of land bordered on the South by a major shopping area, on the West and North by I-71, and on the East by a major road leading to an interstate on-ramp.  Not exactly the most residential friendly area. 

 

If 62 out of 66 property owners is deemed as too low of a standard for determining 'common good', then I'd say people shouldn't be so surprised when new retail is added in the farm lands (West Chester, etc).  I mean if you're a developer that is going to have sit on land for 2 years to start a project because you can't get the final 4 out of 66 to agree to well OVER market value for their property, then you might as well go to West Chester where you can buy a farm with only 1 owner.

 

Do I think it is unfortunate that 4 property owners were 'forced' to leave?  Sure I do, I feel especially bad for the one family who actually had to move (the 3 others, 2 businesses and a landlord).  But this is a case of property owners holding a city and developer hostage, not the other way around.  So when you get frustrated about new projects getting started in aging urban areas, keep in mind that negotiating the desires of dozens of property owners on top of the city planners and paperwork is certainly not attractive. 

You should read back thru this whole thread.  I think most folks love the development - well, love that such development is happening in Norwood, rather than far from the city.  But like it or not, Eminent Domain was abused here.  Just because I'm pleased with the results doesn't mean I can justify the means.

 

Here's two of my earlier posts on this.  I'm definitely no lawyer, and I have little knowledge of Eminent Domain, so please correct me if I'm off on anything here - but I think this whole thing tastes a bit foul, despite how much I'm happy for the development.

 

Well, according to this "Ohio State University Fact Sheet":

The types of entities authorized by the Ohio legislature to appropriate private property are summarized here:

 

State Government. The executive branch does not have authority to condemn property, but a number of state departments, commissions, boards, authorities, and officers may exercise eminent domain.

 

Local Government. Municipalities and their boards or commissions may exercise the power of eminent domain for any public purpose. County commissioners, on the other hand, may appropriate property only for specific uses, such as parks, county ditches, highways, and county office buildings. Township trustees are limited to taking property only if needed for parks, cemeteries, or certain buildings.

 

Public and Private Companies. The Ohio legislature allows a public or private company to exercise eminent domain for the purpose of providing utility services such as telephone, electric, water, and gas transporting services. Public and private companies must follow the same eminent domain procedures as a government agency.

 

From this, it looks like the only place Rookwood might fit is under Local Government: "Municipalities and their boards or commissions may exercise the power of eminent domain for any public purpose."  Those purposes have meet the definition of Public Use, and "the Ohio Supreme Court has loosely defined "public use" as a use that is required for the public’s safety, health, interest, or convenience."  The paper then lists examples: "Examples of uses deemed valid public uses by Ohio courts include streets, roads, highways, scenic and recreational uses, public buildings, water improvements, correctional facilities, airports, cemeteries, waste-disposal plants, utilities, urban-renewal projects, and railroads."

 

I guess we need to add "lifestyle shopping centers" to the list...

 

Anyway, I assume it's probably more nuanced than this, and I'll try to go back and read up on how this particular case interfaced with Eminent Domain law, but if anyone else has something to throw in, I'd love to learn from folks who know how this stuff works!

 

From what I gather from reading back thru the newspaper articles posted here, the city exercised its right to Eminent Domain for the public use of "urban renewal". And apparently to qualify for urban renewal, the area involved must be considered deteriorating or blighted. Judge Myers ruled that the area was not "blighted" or "deteriorated", but that it was "deteriorating" (actually, she ruled that Norwood abused its discretion in finding the area "blighted" or "deteriorated", but did not abuse its discretion in finding the area to be "deteriorating"). And apparently some of the reasons for finding the area to be "deteriorating" are the development that's been going on around them:

But under cross-examination by Tim Burke, attorney for Norwood, Phillips admitted that noise can be a deteriorating condition, the construction of Interstate 71 created dead-end streets with inadequate turn-arounds, and the widening of Edmondson Road significantly reduced several front yards.

 

So an Interstate constructed in the 1970's is suddenly deteriorating the area...and then you develop around the area, which deteriorates it...I took 30 feet of your front lawn, so therefore your property is deteriorating. Let me take the rest of it now!

 

I love what Rookwood does for the neighborhood - upscale retail and dining and office space in a blue collar neighborhood helps home values, roots the community, builds the tax base, diversifies the economy...not all of it is upscale, either - Rookwood Pavilion has a TJ Maxx and a Steinmart and a BW3's and a Boston Market and a SuperCuts, lots of places for every budget...it's not out in Sprawlville, and it's an asset to Cincinnati and Norwood both. And Rookwood Exchange is a natural extention.

 

However, it does seem like an abuse of Eminent Domain. The only reason the area's blighted is because there's been business built around it. That just doesn't seem fair. Eminent Domain, by its very nature, isn't fair - but when it's a road or a utility, that's a lot different than when it's a shopping mall...

I guess I find it surprising that in this forum "Urban Ohio", which is focused on Urban development, there are so many that think that ED was misused here. If communities are not able to use ED for the common good/progress of the community, then you're never going to get Urban Infill projects. This is a triangle of land bordered on the South by a major shopping area, on the West and North by I-71, and on the East by a major road leading to an interstate on-ramp. Not exactly the most residential friendly area.

 

Your opinion. It was a rather nice residential area, given the location. Some well kept houses back there.

 

If 62 out of 66 property owners is deemed as too low of a standard for determining 'common good', then I'd say people shouldn't be so surprised when new retail is added in the farm lands (West Chester, etc). I mean if you're a developer that is going to have sit on land for 2 years to start a project because you can't get the final 4 out of 66 to agree to well OVER market value for their property, then you might as well go to West Chester where you can buy a farm with only 1 owner.

 

Do I think it is unfortunate that 4 property owners were 'forced' to leave? Sure I do, I feel especially bad for the one family who actually had to move (the 3 others, 2 businesses and a landlord). But this is a case of property owners holding a city and developer hostage, not the other way around. So when you get frustrated about new projects getting started in aging urban areas, keep in mind that negotiating the desires of dozens of property owners on top of the city planners and paperwork is certainly not attractive.

 

There are plenty of underutilized areas (brownfields etc) that can be developed. Look at Cinti Mills and the Old Ford Plant in Fairfax.

Yes Rookwood Exchange is a nice project, but its up to the developer to assemble the property, and when they can't scale back the development to fir the property they have in hand. I think its very shortsighted by the City to place such emphasis on "revenue" to be gained from a  commercial development. I think the forecasts are overestimated and the City will be back in the same finacial boat a few years from now. Norwood should continue the good work they are doing getting jobs back into the city (Convergys), there is a VAST vacant parcel just to the north of Norwood Lateral by Montgomery Road...no ED required.

 

Now, what if White Castle wanted to locate a store on a corner and needs two houses, one won't sell, would it be fair to use ED to obtain that house? What if it where a small office building to be developed? Does the sheer size of Rookwood mean its OK to use ED? Since when does a commercial development fit under "common good"?

Here is a shot of Rookwood Cornerstone...

 

^ There's a Cornerstone thread:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=1811.0

 

To clarify on the vacant land issue, it seems like developing vacant land in lieu of a developed area is a better idea than taking through eminent domain, but consider these issues:

 

1) Vacant land is not free. You still have to pay for it. Normally, someone who has amassed such a great chunk of land in the middle of a large city is going to hold you hostage over the price. Thus, either you're paying an outrageous price or you still have to use eminent domain.

 

2) Vacant land, if not vacant because of a shrewd landlord's high asking price, is probably vacant for a reason. Some have suggested using vacant brownfields. Well, they call them brownfields for a reason. They're normally contaminated or have some other defect that makes them unattractive for development. Further, it's going to cost a pretty penny to clean up whatever defect is there. Probably more expense is involved with this than with acquiring the land.

 

3) Vacant land does not always have the infrastructure necessary and in place to support a large development. You have to have a way for large amounts of people to ingress and egress, provide sewer and water, electricity, and other necessities. These all cost money.

 

4) Developers are not idiots (most of the time) at least not if they're successful. They take into account many properties, areas, costs, and opportunity costs. They also do not go looking for bad PR. I suggest they probably looked into local vacant properties and found them not to be a viable option.

 

So, while using vacant land seems the simple solution, I have my doubts.

To clarify on the vacant land issue, it seems like developing vacant land in lieu of a developed area is a better idea than taking through eminent domain, but consider these issues:

 

1) Vacant land is not free. You still have to pay for it. Normally, someone who has amassed such a great chunk of land in the middle of a large city is going to hold you hostage over the price. Thus, either you're paying an outrageous price or you still have to use eminent domain.

 

2) Vacant land, if not vacant because of a shrewd landlord's high asking price, is probably vacant for a reason. Some have suggested using vacant brownfields. Well, they call them brownfields for a reason. They're normally contaminated or have some other defect that makes them unattractive for development. Further, it's going to cost a pretty penny to clean up whatever defect is there. Probably more expense is involved with this than with acquiring the land.

 

3) Vacant land does not always have the infrastructure necessary and in place to support a large development. You have to have a way for large amounts of people to ingress and egress, provide sewer and water, electricity, and other necessities. These all cost money.

 

4) Developers are not idiots (most of the time) at least not if they're successful. They take into account many properties, areas, costs, and opportunity costs. They also do not go looking for bad PR. I suggest they probably looked into local vacant properties and found them not to be a viable option.

 

So, while using vacant land seems the simple solution, I have my doubts.

 

I agree with your points, and add that 2) is, IMHO by far the most common reason for the existance of vacant parcels in urban areas, but the three most important things in development are location, location, location. That assemblage of parcels for Rookwood is important for one reason, proximity to money (and the interstate), typically brownfields are in old rusty parts of the cities. The developer is in a race to get the bricks and mortar down to "beat" other high profile re developments in the area.

 

I still stand by my opinion, if the developer can;t assemble all the parcels they need, tough shit

From the 5/21/05 Enquirer:

 

Eminent domain taking is upheld

Appeals court finds Norwood acted properly

By Sharon Coolidge

Enquirer staff writer

 

The city of Norwood properly used eminent domain when it seized five properties off Interstate 71, saying the homes and businesses on the land were deteriorating and posed a danger to the community, the 1st District Court of Appeals ruled Friday.

 

Norwood handed over the land to Anderson Real Estate and Miller-Valentine Group after seizing the properties, citing a study that found the property was deteriorating. They are building a $175-million complex of offices, shops, residences and restaurants. The developers have bought 65 other properties in the area bounded by I-71 and Edmondson and Edwards roads, most of which have already been razed.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050521/NEWS01/505210418/1056/rss02

A story from the 6/24/05 Enquirer about yesterday's court decision, touching on the Norwood case:

 

Court: Cities may seize homes

'Eminent domain' includes economic development

By Steve Kemme

Enquirer staff writer

 

In a case similar to Norwood's attempt to take land for a shopping center, the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday supported the right of local governments to seize homes and businesses for economic development.

 

In a 5-4 ruling, the court's majority said the general public good - including the creation of more jobs and tax revenue - which might result from a commercial development project justifies a local government's use of eminent domain to take private property for the development.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050624/NEWS01/506240374/1056/rss02

 

thats a pretty amazing image

This appeared in the "Briefly" section of the 7/6/05 Enquirer:

 

 

Eminent domain appealed

 

Less than two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the benefits of economic development, such as more jobs and tax revenue, are a public good that justifies the use of eminent domain, the Institute for Justice has asked the Ohio Supreme Court to accept a similar local case involving two properties in Norwood...

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050706/NEWS01/507060362/1056/rss02

 

Houses stand stubborn

 

By Steve Kemme

Enquirer staff writer

 

NORWOOD - The three houses sit in isolation in the vast expanse of empty land cordoned off from Edwards and Edmondson roads by a chain-link fence extending around half the block.

 

It's as if the three houses were mysteriously plopped at random in a grassy field right next to a busy, fast-growing commercial area.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050927/NEWS01/509270361

I don't see them winning.  However, the state is looking at a moratorium on eminent domain that might prevent this travesty in the future.

Norwood houses' fate up to court

Ohio justices hear arguments in case

 

By Steve Kemme

Enquirer staff writer

 

 

THE NORWOOD CASE

Early 2002 - Anderson Real Estate and the Miller-Valentine Group announce plans to build the Rookwood Exchange, a $125 million retail, residential and office complex just north of Rookwood Commons. The project would require the demolition of 71 houses and businesses. Developers soon begin negotiating with the property owners.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050929/NEWS01/509290340/1056

This is dumb. They can't live there anymore anyways...bulldoze the houses and give the people way more money then they should get for those houses anyways and move on.  It's becoming an eyesore.

The Gambles and Horney said they're fighting to get their houses back and for the principle involved, not for money.

 

Get their houses back? Are they kidding? What are they going to do? Live on little islands in the middle of a parking lot? I can understand their position, but I think its a bit too late

>Get their houses back? Are they kidding? What are they going to do? Live on little islands in the middle of a parking lo

t? I can understand their position, but I think its a bit too late

 

Well then The Man won, you can't fight city hall, etc.  Out of 70 homes, did this developer really think there weren't going to be a hanful of people that would take this as far as it can go?  The ED situation in the country is a major, major issue with massive implications.  The only industry with ED rights are the railroads, and they hardly ever use them anymore.  We are now essentially giving ED rights to ANYONE WITH $.  All the urban neighborhoods bordering the interstates in the United States are now at risk of being declared "blight" and turned into suburban-style shopping plazas. 

Norwood case in high court

Ohio justices will hear appeal of eminent-domain ruling

 

By Kevin Osborne

Enquirer staff writer

 

 

NORWOOD - A 3-year-old lawsuit involving property owners who want to prevent the city from demolishing their homes to make way for development is headed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

 

The court agreed Monday to hear an appeal.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051004/NEWS01/510040356/1056

Property rights bill advances

Ohio intends to clarify eminent-domain laws

 

The Associated Press

 

 

COLUMBUS - The Senate unanimously approved a bill Wednesday designed to prohibit state and local governments from taking property for use by private developers until 2007.

 

The legislation, approved 29-0, follows last summer's 5-4 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that said such eminent-domain seizures were constitutionally protected but also noted that states could enact their own, tougher laws.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051006/NEWS01/510060351/1077/news01

Any new info on this?  Can the developer press on or is this still tied up in the courts?

The developer is holding until the issue is decided by the supreme court, it is on the back, back burner until then.

From the 1/8/06 Enquirer:

 

Eminent-domain case goes to court

By Steve Kemme

Enquirer staff writer

 

NORWOOD - The bitter, lengthy legal fight over Norwood's right to take private property for a $125 million retail, residential and office complex resonates far beyond this financially struggling city.

 

Municipalities, property owners, developers and state lawmakers nationwide are watching to see whether the Ohio Supreme Court sides with Norwood and the Rookwood Exchange developers or with three property owners - an elderly couple who have lived in their house for 35 years, a man with a rental house and a couple who operated a small math and reading center.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060108/NEWS01/601080394/1077

---

LINK:

Cincinnati Enquirer: Norwood case legal briefs (1/8/06)

 

Rookwood heads for showdown

Development fight hits court Jan. 11

Lisa Biank Fasig

Staff Reporter

 

 

After more than two years of legal battles and millions of dollars in investments, the fight to build a $150 million, mixed-use development in Norwood could end with 30 minutes of argument in the state's highest courtroom.

 

The project, to be called Rook­wood Exchange, would include up to 1 million square feet of offices, stores, restaurants and condominiums on what was once a middle-class, three-block neighborhood.

 

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2006/01/09/story1.html

From the 1/12/06 Enquirer.  Also posted in the eminent domain thread in Ohio Politics:

 

What limits on eminent domain?

Norwood case is key national test

By Jon Craig

Enquirer Columbus Bureau

 

COLUMBUS - The Ohio Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on whether it was legal for Norwood to seize two homes and a business for economic development. It's the first test nationwide of last year's landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling on property rights.

 

Justices focused on Norwood's definition of eminent domain that it argues allowed it to take "deteriorating" property. State law typically protects neighborhoods unless they are deemed "blighted."

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060112/NEWS01/601120364/1056/rss02

 

From the 4/3/06 Enquirer:

 

 

Norwood mall: Lower taxes

Rookwood Partners says property is overvalued

BY GREGORY KORTE | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

 

When Rookwood Partners bought 83 parcels in Norwood for a new shopping center - using the city's power of eminent domain to take eight of them - it paid $21.6 million.

 

But after getting its first tax bill, the developer has filed a complaint with county tax assessors, saying the property is worth less than $3.2 million.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060403/NEWS01/604030338/1056/rss02

 

I bet the prior property owners are laughing their ass off now.

How long is this going to take before a decision is made?  I can't believe it is taken so long.

This is NOT the eminent domain thread.  This is the Rookwood Exchange project thread.  The eminent domain thread is in Ohio Politics.

Well there is eminent domain news and discussions all over this thread, if there is another one, where is it so we can clean these up into one discussion.

The only eminent domain news in this topic is eminent domain news that pertains to this project only.

 

The Newport Pavilion thread has eminent domain news regarding that project.

 

Etc.

 

The thread in Ohio Politics is regarding the state task force, state legislation, and eminent domain talk in general.

 

Well I could have worded it better, I was not implying that this was the thread for "all" eminent domain talk.

 

Anyway, does anyone have an update?

I work in Rookwood and although I hate to see housing demolished, I really think it would be a good investment.  Anyone here who thinks Norwood would be prostituted to Hyde Park consumers is entirely wrong. We did surveys to see what zip codes were coming to Rookwood and believe me they're coming from all over.  Eastside,Westside,Kentucky,and to a lesser extent the whole northern metro area.  Rookwood is actually doing really well as a mall considering it's in competition with NOTL, Crestview Hills, Cinci Mils, Tri-County, Eastgate, Northgate, Deerfield, and Kenwood.  Despite the fact that we've opened a new store each year in the same metro area, our sales have been a lot higher than the 20 percent decline they expected.

 

You have Fidelity investments, smithbarney, probably a whole lot of firms with peopel that would want to live in very close proximity. I think those residential units would do really well. There's J.Alexanders, Max and Ermas, some pub--i don't remember the name lol. Not to mention a giant ass Gold's gym.  I think it would be prime location to have a condo tower or whatever they plan on putting there, along with office space and more retail. I'm all for it.

I don't see anything wrong with being Hyde Park's playground.

Rookwood's great just a quick jump on the Norwood lateral and I'm there, its about the only place i actually drive to anymore.

I guess i could ride the 51.

Guys I'm sorry but a small town with a multimillion dollar deficit, ugly housing, low income, businesses failing, city debating on whether or not they should risk purchasing a third ambulance, and relying on Carl Lindner to donate police radios, NEEDS to take whatever opportunity they can get at economic development. Although it sucks that the government can take your land, that's the story of this country, and those houses were shit anyway;they're not missing much. If those people took better care of their houses then they would have a more effective counter arguement. As long as the people are heavily compensated for their properties, and as long as it's blighted or low quality housing I have nothing against it. I didn't read all of the pages, is there anything saying how much the people were offered for the houses?

I think the people were offered quite a bit for those houses.  However, I don't like the way the whole thing was handled.  Were those houses really in that bad of shape?  I know one of their "flaws" was having a small yard, but I don't think that's a bad thing.  Not everyone wants a huge yard.  I don't like the idea of the government making people sell their land just so someone can build more shopping.

 

That said, I do go to Rookwood sometimes.  It's an okay place to shop, but most of their restaurants are just average. 

^The houses had small yards in part because some of the yard was stripped away by eminent domain in the first place...here's a summary I wrote up of my understanding of it, from this time last year.

Is there some kind of formula to determine how much the city or developers have to pay the property owners for their property? Like 2x the market value or something like that? Or is it something that city or developers negotiate first with the property owners and if they decline the offer, the city decides how much they get if they override it?  Does a town of a smaller calibur, say 2500 people, have the same eminent domain rights as a larger city? Do counties have eminent domain rights?

I believe they are only obligated to prove that they offered "fair market value".  I don't think that there is any number set in stone.