April 23, 200619 yr The last clause in the 5th amendment just says, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." But state laws can establish their own rules, as long as they only offer more protection than the 5th amendment, not less - Ohio couldn't say that takings are permitted without just compensation - but they could say takings are never permitted in the state. In Ohio, the law ("§ 163.09. Valuation of property taken; how determined." - you can go to http://codes.ohio.gov, go to the revised code, Title I, section 163.09...I don't see how to permalink, at least not on a mac) doesn't really give guidance: "the court, on motion of a public agency, shall declare the value of the property taken and the damages, if any, to the residue to be as set forth in any document properly filed with the clerk of the court of common pleas by the public agency." I'm certain there are guidelines somewhere for doing this, but I have no idea where to look.
April 30, 200619 yr Remaking cities: What price? Most Norwood owners well-paid; many glad to be out BY GREGORY KORTE AND STEVE KEMME | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITERS Taxes. The military draft The death penalty. Any list of the government's most awesome powers must also include the ability to take a person's home by eminent domain. http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060430/NEWS01/604300375
April 30, 200619 yr The untold story The government wanted their homes and businesses for offices and shops. Six owners said no. And the dissention began. BY STEVE KEMME AND GREGORY KORTE | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER NORWOOD - Sandra Dittoe took the money from the sale of two houses, quit her job and bought a bar, a boat, a new car and a condo with a river view in Kentucky. Ralston and Anita Jones built a new, four-bedroom country home in Brown County, close to their daughter, son-in-law and 8-year-old grandson. http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060430/NEWS01/604300308
April 30, 200619 yr What's the big deal ? The Ohio Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on whether 75 homes and commercial buildings in Norwood were properly taken for the proposed Rookwood Exchange retail-office-and-condo project. The case at a glance: http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060430/NEWS01/604300310
April 30, 200619 yr Tiny property sold for largest return BY GREGORY KORTE | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER J. Mark Anderson, a 54-year-old real estate agent from Mount Adams, worked his way through Ohio University by surveying land. "I've always had an eye," he says. So when he got off at the Smith-Edwards exit of Interstate 71 for coffee every morning and saw a tiny 0.06-acre lot for sale, he bought it for $6,900. http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060430/NEWS01/604300309
April 30, 200619 yr Myth vs. Reality BY STEVE KEMME | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER The Norwood case shatters some commonly held myths about eminent domain. Myth: Property owners always are overmatched when battling governments that want their land. Reality: The Norwood property owners who didn't want to sell are represented free by the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit civil liberties law firm in Washington, D.C., with 50 employees and a $6.6 million budget. http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060430/NEWS01/604300306
April 30, 200619 yr I really don't have any sympathy for the homeowners, they made a financial killing. They can make new memories, or now that they got at least double their value, buy new ones as it looks like some already did.
May 1, 200619 yr The houses that are still standing are in really bad shape. They look worse than almost anything else in Norwood. I believe it when they say they're appraised at 70 something thousand. I can't imagine anyone not wanting to leave for a house worth double. I'm sorry but an old dilapidated houses only have so much sentimental value
June 7, 200619 yr This project has been bothering me for a long time. I cant seem to find any current news on it, it seems after so long that the developer would have just said screw it.
June 7, 200619 yr The project can't go forward because the Ohio Supreme Court has not yet issued an opinion.
July 26, 200618 yr Ohio Supreme Court overrules Norwood home-taking BY GREGORY KORTE | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER The city of Norwood cannot use “deteriorating” as a standard for blight to justify the taking of homes by eminent domain, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled this morning. http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060726/NEWS01/307260025
July 26, 200618 yr The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled....BIG WIN Rookwood holdouts win in Ohio Supreme Court Cincinnati Business Courier - 11:42 AM EDT Wednesdayby Lisa Biank Fasig In a compelling victory for Norwood property owners, the Ohio Supreme Court today unanimously ruled that the city could not forcibly acquire their homes for economic purposes, deeming parts of the state's eminent domain laws unconstitutional and turning at least one development project on its ear.
July 26, 200618 yr quite a win for the rights of property owners. about time something like this happened. its unfortunate for the city of norwood, but maybe this will teach them not to eat their own. people shouldn't be forced from their homes in the name of another mall, unless the entire community of homes affected agree and willingly vacate. the government has no right to force it. i wonder what happens next. they won their case. made one hell of a point. do you turn around and sell for a huge profit? or continue to leave your property there and thumb your nose at the development? they are pretty much untouchable now
July 26, 200618 yr Wait wouldn't the property lose value now? So will all the fensing have to be moved so they can get to their property? Man it sticks out like a sore thumb..lol
July 26, 200618 yr Alright....everyone relax! Since this office complex will be having trouble breaking ground, I would suggest the potential tenants find a new location for their offices (IDK, maybe 303 Broadway....get things ready for QCS II). Its all good, no one goes to Norwood anyways :wink:
July 26, 200618 yr Whatever development was proposed for the site can now go (if it hasn't already) out to Deerfield Township or wherever - the developer can offer the sites for single family homes.
July 26, 200618 yr I'd think it would be worth more b/c the owners can demand whatever they want (b/c the city/courts can't force them out, as long as the ruling stands). Assuming the developer does not walk away from it, in which case you're right, it could be worth nothing. Honestly, if it were me I'd get with the developer and sell it. They got the ruling they wanted, and if you insist on living there you're just pouring salt on the wound (why would you wanna live there now anyway?). The developer would be in a bad situation, and this entire thing will hurt Norwood. I'd of course ask for enough cash to cover court costs, and then something ridiculously over market value for the property, b/c the point is that this kinda crap shouldn't happen in the first place. It has happened though, and there's no changing it. All you can do is hope the ruling helps to stop it from happening again, and move on.
July 26, 200618 yr I say hold out. Living in one those three homes really can give you a country lifestyle with a city feel. Sounds like a suburbanites dream. :-P
July 26, 200618 yr Mr. Anderson, I think you have a great idea. They could build the IKEA around the houses and use them as home models for their furniture.
July 26, 200618 yr You guys are crazy. I work in Rookwood, I know that the people that shop there come from kentucky, the west side, east side, central city, northern suburbs, basically everywhere. People closer to Rookwood are more likely to shop there, yes, but people get tired of going to the same mall by their house, so they venture out a bit and Rookwood being right off of 71 is pretty convenient. It's the closest mall to people that live in Clifton, Walnut Hills, Avondae, Hyde Park, Norwood, Mt. Lookout, Oakley Etc. The vitality of this area is important. Mr. Anderson, how are they going to turn the site into land for single family homes? The developers paid like double the market value of the homes, I don't think they'd build new single family homes there... next to a freeway, and juxtaposed to the crappy blighted 3 houses that are remaining.
July 26, 200618 yr I say hold out. Living in one those three homes really can give you a country lifestyle with a city feel. Sounds like a suburbanites dream. :-P You're on to something......you could re-subdivide the parcels into 1 acre lots. You could draw those West Chesterites back into the core. I can see it now: gate off the new homes from the existing neighborhoods, and set the homes off, their private roads, about 50 ft.!!
July 26, 200618 yr I say hold out. Living in one those three homes really can give you a country lifestyle with a city feel. Sounds like a suburbanites dream. :-P Your on to something......you could re-subdivide the parcel into 1 acre lots. You could draw those West Chesterites back into the core. I can see it now: gate off the new homes from the existing neighborhoods, and set the homes off, their private roads, about 50 ft.!! UncleRando, I see a great future for you as an urban planner. The NIMBYs are going to love you.
July 26, 200618 yr I say hold out. Living in one those three homes really can give you a country lifestyle with a city feel. Sounds like a suburbanites dream. :-P You're on to something......you could re-subdivide the parcels into 1 acre lots. You could draw those West Chesterites back into the core. I can see it now: gate off the new homes from the existing neighborhoods, and set the homes off, their private roads, about 50 ft.!! Excellent idea - plenty of room for three+ car garages for oversize Hummers, etc. They could even leave some room around the edges near the highway for an ATV trail. The $$$ folks would pay to live there would keep the developer from loosing whats left of his shirt! :jo:
July 26, 200618 yr Wow, this is disappointing. But if you go back over the last 6 pages, you shouldn't be surprised by my thoughts. I think the community is bigger than the 3 homes. This is a setback for older communities trying to reinvent theirselves. And if someone wanted to offer me twice market value for my house I would have no problems selling it to a developer. I hope something can happen quick before we find the northern burbs luring Crate N Barrel away from the inner core. I always say that if the interstate was to be built today it could never happen or would be delayed till the year 2100 after all the law suites are settled.
July 27, 200618 yr This could have an impact on that proposal to partially demolish the Wayne & Wyoming interesection in Dayton for a new Kroger. (and that pix Dfly posted..wow! Its been a long time since I've been to Joeseph-Beth, apparently!)
July 27, 200618 yr This is really a blessing in disguise. Norwood could have the best of both worlds: allow the current property owners to stay, as well as, get new development/residents into the area. Here is my proposed phase I of 'The Chateaus at Rookwood Exchange':
July 27, 200618 yr I've tried to follow all the articles on this case, and I can't remember anyone with the Norwood government or their attorneys ever arguing that the eminent domain should be permitted due to increased economic value for the community. And the reason that hasn't been argued in court (as far as I've seen - please, correct me if I'm wrong) is because economic impact is already not a permitted reason to exercise eminent domain in this state. Now, I agree with them striking down "deteriorating" as a basis for using eminent domain - that's an ambiguous standard, and gives too much power to the state, seems to me. Not sure why that isn't a legislative issue, but whatever, I'm fine with it. And I agree with the due process violation argument. That seems like a no-brainer. But how does this have a diddly-god-damn to do with Kelo? Was Norwood ever arguing it should be permitted based on economic impact? Did I completely miss that? (BTW, I love the Chateaus at Rookwood Exchange...)
July 27, 200618 yr Here's a post upthread I had regarding what I thought were the legal arguments in play here: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=2694.msg31253#msg31253 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! So it seems like the Supreme Court said that "deteriorating" is inadequate to qualify as an "urban renewal" basis for eminent domain. Which I applaud. But maybe Norwood added "economic improvement" to their arguments once Kelo had come down?
July 27, 200618 yr Its great that this case was won, however, it will set a standard more so for future projects than this one. Its stupid for those owners to stay, their neighborhood is gone. Just give the 3 owners left a good amount of money and then build the project.
July 27, 200618 yr ^I don't know...if I were these owners, I imagine I'd do everything in my earthly power to bend the developers over. They destroyed the neighborhood - literally destroyed it. Years spent in court, years spent being strong-armed by outsiders and by your own municipal government? If I could make the developers who paid millions and millions of dollars sell the land at what, 20 cents on the dollar, if that, just to get a little cash back out of it? Man, I'd be really, really tempted... As a Cincinnatian, I hope you're right - I hope the homeowners sell out for some large figures, and that Rookwood Exchange can proceed apace. But I can understand if they're tempted simply to move back in and watch the neighborhood fill back up with housing...
July 27, 200618 yr I don't know if anyone has seriously suggested this in the previous pages...but why can't they just develop around them? Fort Hamilton Hospital wanted to extend their parking lot and had trouble acquiring a couple homes. They paved over the rest of the block, leaving the homes standing there alone, surrounded by blacktop.
July 27, 200618 yr Wow. Wanna know something interesting? 79 percent of people on the Enquirer's website disagreed with the court's decision and there were thousands of people that responded to the poll.
July 27, 200618 yr Well to be honest. For the survival of Norwood. I think they should have been able to buy the property through Eminent Domain. This was only affecting a very few people( tax payers that pays about 2k a year in Norwood city taxes), compare that to the development which would have meant 3-5 milllion a year in new taxes to the city. The biggest loser here is the Citizens of Norwood.
July 27, 200618 yr http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060727/NEWS02/607270426/-1/NEWS Article published Thursday, July 27, 2006 CINCINNATI-AREA PROPERTY CASE Justices block seizure of residence; unanimous decision limits use of eminent-domain law By JIM PROVANCE BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU COLUMBUS — Economic development alone cannot justify government’s forced bulldozing of private homes, the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously ruled yesterday in a nationally watched case. While a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling found last year that government’s taking of nonblighted properties for more lucrative private development does not violate the U.S. Constitution, such property acquisitions can violate Ohio’s Constitution, the state’s high court said.
July 27, 200618 yr Coming home to Norwood Decision a blow to city's recovery BY GREGORY KORTE / ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER Property rights advocates hailed Wednesday's Ohio Supreme Court ruling - striking down the city of Norwood's use of eminent domain for a developer - as a victory for property owners in Norwood, in Ohio and across the nation. But the three Norwood property owners who took their case to the state's highest court may have won the war but lost the battle. http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060727/NEWS01/607270350
July 27, 200618 yr Anticipated revenue from tax turns to dust BY STEVE KEMME | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER NORWOOD - The Rookwood Exchange, a planned $125 million complex of offices, retail and condos, was supposed to help pull Norwood out of its financial crisis. The prospect of receiving $2 million a year in revenue from that project dissolved - at least for now - with the Ohio Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday that the city couldn't take the land by eminent domain. http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060727/NEWS01/607270399
July 27, 200618 yr Momentum building for backlash States already addressing property rights issues BY MARGARET A. MCGURK | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER The Ohio Supreme Court's decision Wednesday in favor of homeowners in a hard-fought Norwood eminent-domain case will reverberate across the country. The Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs, a conservative think-tank based at Ohio's Ashland University, was among several groups - including the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation and Ohio Association of Realtors - that filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the homeowners. http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060727/NEWS01/607270398
July 27, 200618 yr The Burtons have said they're not interested in moving their business back into the house. Horney said he might sell his rental house. The Gambles said they eventually plan to move back into their house. Why come back? You would be living in a mud field, earlier they said it was not about the money, but principle. Well, you won, now let the development move forward and I am sure they will finally sell and for even more money. No one else but the Anderson/MV development team will be buying their homes any time soon, and as for that rental property? Good luck renting that thing out! Dump it? Build around? Buy them out? BY STEVE KEMME | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER NORWOOD - The developers of the planned Rookwood Exchange office-retail-condo project aren't saying what they will do with the 11-acre site that's been the focus of a three-year eminent-domain battle. But Norwood leaders feel confident some kind of commercial development will be built there. http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060727/NEWS01/607270397
July 27, 200618 yr lol. What a mess. Norwood is in a 2-3 million dollar deficit. Come on you guys..take one for the team. Just do it. Please.
July 27, 200618 yr lol. What a mess. Norwood is in a 2-3 million dollar deficit. Come on you guys..take one for the team. Just do it. Please. I think in the end I agree, but to them, the "team" just literally detroyed their neighborhood. I don't know about you, but if someone did that to my neighborhood, I would never forgive the sons of bitches. I would take that hate to my grave with me.
July 27, 200618 yr The developers had placed in escrow accounts $500,000 for the Burtons' property, $280,000 for the Gambles' and $233,000 for Horneys'. So what happens if they already started spending the money for a new place to live? If they touched the money at all that means they aren't allowed to get their property back right? and what about the 74 other owners who sold out already, does that mean the developer must give them their titles back too?
July 27, 200618 yr So what happens if they already started spending the money for a new place to live? If they touched the money at all that means they aren't allowed to get their property back right? ??You can't spend money when it's in escrow - it (the $$$$) is usually set aside with a third party pending the outcome of the trial/appeal.
Create an account or sign in to comment