Another point I don't get is that one article stated the houses had been stripped somewhat and left in disrepair. Seems like the owners are not getting back the same homes they were forced to sell.  In the end I think they will end up selling for quite a pretty penny just to be done with it.

plus all the utilities/roads/infrastructure has been removed from that area.. how can you move back into that?

plus all the utilities/roads/infrastructure has been removed from that area.. how can you move back into that?

I think that is probably all part of the developers' plans.  Make the neighborhood "unliveable" so even if they did lose the court case, the residents have little choice but to sell.

 

Anyone know which one is the Gambles' house? 

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.

Take one for the team and move the hell out of the City?

 

Norwood couldn't balance the books based on what they were generating in taxes from the existing 2 Rookwoods, Cornerstone, The offices in and about the old GM plant (Central Parke?), and what could be built on the brownfield north of the Lateral? Most inner ring 'burbs would give their collective left nut for that kind of tax base.

Most inner ring 'burbs would give their collective left nut for that kind of tax base.

 

Wouldn't we all.....(great line by the way)  :laugh:

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.

Take one for the team and move the hell out of the City?

 

Norwood couldn't balance the books based on what they were generating in taxes from the existing 2 Rookwoods, Cornerstone, The offices in and about the old GM plant (Central Parke?), and what could be built on the brownfield north of the Lateral? Most inner ring 'burbs would give their collective left nut for that kind of tax base.

 

I think I already stated that I agree with the court's decision. I just wish they'd sell it for the benefit of the area, that's all. If I lived in a house worth 80k and someone offered me 200k for it I'd leave in a heart beat. No paying for inspections or giving 7 percent to a realtor either. Sounds like a good deal to me. I don't think you should be able to force someone out of their house, I'm just saying I can't understand why they're so adamant about staying when they're being given such a big incentive. My guess is that they want more money. Owners know developers aren't going to build around it because it's tacky and developers know the owners aren't going to live there when there isn't even any infrastructure or an existing neighborhood. Catch 22.

I'm just saying I can't understand why they're so adamant about staying when they're being given such a big incentive. My guess is that they want more money.

 

As I said above, pure seething hatred would be enough to motivate me.

 

Though for love of the city, I might see selling if it was a deal like this: take the $200K for the house, plus attorney's fees; then require they donate half a million dollars to an Eminent Domain Abuse legal defense fund/lobbying group.

 

I suddenly feel really bad for the native Americans :[

If I lived in a house worth 80k and someone offered me 200k for it I'd leave in a heart beat. No paying for inspections or giving 7 percent to a realtor either. Sounds like a good deal to me. I don't think you should be able to force someone out of their house, I'm just saying I can't understand why they're so adamant about staying when they're being given such a big incentive.

 

I agree with this statement.  If someone offered me 2x or more what my house is worth, I would most likely sell.  But I don't think someone should be forced just so someone can build another "lifestyle center."  It's great that the homeowners won, but I can't imagine living in those homes again.  I've never felt that attached to a building before.

 

Most inner ring 'burbs would give their collective left nut for that kind of tax base.

 

Wouldn't we all.....(great line by the way)  :laugh:

If you want this line to sound even funnier, picture Ned Flanders saying it!  :laugh:

 

 

Owners know developers aren't going to build around it because it's tacky and developers know the owners aren't going to live there when there isn't even any infrastructure or an existing neighborhood. Catch 22.

 

I wouldn't be too sure about that, don't forget they are already in the hole to the tune of $20 million (I believe this is what the article said).

Most inner ring 'burbs would give their collective left nut for that kind of tax base.

 

Wouldn't we all.....(great line by the way)  :laugh:

If you want this line to sound even funnier, picture Ned Flanders saying it!  :laugh:

 

Mr Sparkle said it ;-)

"I am disrespectful to dirt"

 

^David, sorry didn't mean to vent atcha, shoulda read your other posts...I was reading/posting at work...tsk tsk...so I was scanning the posts

 

Developer's fault. They assumed the ED would work for them so they bulldozed the neighborhood that they owned outright. My guess is that it will turn into the high density rez, like the condos across from Hyde Park Plaza.

Owners regain domains

Title transfer should be soon

BY STEVE KEMME | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

 

NORWOOD - The Ohio Supreme Court took more than six months to decide that Norwood illegally seized three pieces of property to make way for a $125 million complex of offices, stores and condos.

 

It's expected to take considerably less time to work out the details of transferring the properties back to their previous owners. The principals in the case also will determine what needs to be done to restore the properties to livable condition if any owners want to move back.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060728/NEWS01/607280378

Update due on eminent domain law

BY GREGORY KORTE | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

 

At the end of its 58-page decision on eminent domain Wednesday, the Ohio Supreme Court added a footnote that could substantially raise the stakes for lawmakers trying to reform the state's decades-old eminent domain statute.

 

"Footnote 16," as it's already being called, was a coded message to lawmakers: Reform the law allowing government takings, or the courts may strike down Ohio's eminent domain law.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060728/NEWS01/607280377

I say build around the homes.  It sounds like the Gambles may be the only ones who don't settle, and they're property isn't the one that's right in the middle.  Throw up a 15-foot concrete block wall on three sides of their lot so no one has to see it and be done with it. Some day, they will sell and then the site can be developed as an out building.

^or better yet...a surface lot!  They'll probably be needing more parking by that time  :wink:

I think if anyone decides to stay in those houses, they will kick themselves later down the road. Either when the development continues, around their home (perhaps with concrete walls or a parking lot), or when they try to move later down the road. Nobody would ever buy a house in the middle of a parking lot, and the developer could refuse to buy it later out of spite. The should sell now while they have the upper hand, could backfire on them if they hold out.

Norwood site to stay vacant

Developers have 'nothing on drawing board' after ruling

BY STEVE KEMME | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

 

NORWOOD - The 11-acre site in Norwood that has been the focus of a three-year eminent-domain battle will stay vacant for the immediate future.

 

The developers of the planned $125 million Rookwood Exchange commercial development said Friday that they have no immediate plans to build anything on the parts of the property that they still own.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060729/NEWS01/607290368/1077

"One consequence of this decision will likely be the discouragement of investment in urban areas where it is necessary to assemble a multitude of small lots," she said.

 

100% Agree, this is a terrible blow to urban redevelopment.

One of the houses is right up against Smith Road; I mean like 5 feet from Smith Road.  It's right in front of you when you exit Rookwood Pavillion. I'm really interested in finding out if they sell out or not. If the person that owns that house loves it so much they need to give it a major facelift. That's like loving your car but not changing the oil in it. That house looks like its about to collapse. I bet these people are just waiting for a better offer.

These people had to strip their houses bare, and then haven't been allowed to touch them house in a year...we probably ought not judge their housekeeping skills based on that example...and keep in mind, it's that Smith Road has been expanded to 5 feet in front of the house, not the other way around...

 

But yeah, they certainly look a little lonely and run-down - and the big chain-link fence around it only increases the effect...

 

RV

...but weren't those houses appraised around the vicinity of 80k? Or was that the value assesed after damage was done?

The appraisals from 2002 were generally in the $80K-$100K range.  I'm not going to say the street looked like a stretch of Observatory or something, but they were perfectly nice looking Norwood-type homes.  I was just saying that the current state of them isn't representative of how they were kept when folks could still live in them, that's all...just objecting to "That's like loving your car but not changing the oil in it."  It's not fair to say that if you haven't had access to the car for a year!

 

Homeowner eager to return

 

By Terry Kinney

Associated Press

 

Norwood city officials once told Joy Gamble her neighborhood was "deteriorating" and would serve a higher purpose as a $125 million complex of offices, shops and restaurants.

 

Now that the city's seizure of her home has been ruled illegal, Gamble looks forward to moving back to a neighborhood leveled by bulldozers.

 

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060801/NEWS01/608010371

Soooo..since there is no longer any housing there and nothing is being built, not only is Norwood not getting commercial taxes but no property tax either. Bigger deficit?

Soooo..since there is no longer any housing there and nothing is being built, not only is Norwood not getting commercial taxes but no property tax either. Bigger deficit?

The developer is paying property taxes on the parcels they own, even if vacant, IIRC their last bill was over one million dollars for the parcels owned

"Oh, gosh, yes," Joy Gamble said. "Everybody's home and business in Ohio is safe. You don't have to worry if somebody who's got more money than you wants your property."

 

Whether you like it or not....I believe this statement is sumed up as a capitalistic venture.  Those with more money have more power.  This is just the way it goes, and everybody is not safe, because power and money will not go away and will continue to have significant influence across America. :|

I think the developer should turn the land into a pig farm or have dirt track racing events. They need to generate some revenue to pay those taxes. ;-)

"Oh, gosh, yes," Joy Gamble said. "Everybody's home and business in Ohio is safe. You don't have to worry if somebody who's got more money than you wants your property."

 

Whether you like it or not....I believe this statement is sumed up as a capitalistic venture.  Those with more money have more power.  This is just the way it goes, and everybody is not safe, because power and money will not go away and will continue to have significant influence across America. :|

 

We can all rest a little easier tonight knowing that some developer can not come along and offer us 1.5X or 2X the value of our home for some econ dev project.  :sleep:

They can come and make all the offers they want. The point of all of this is that if you decide to decline the offer, the city can't come along and force you to sell via eminent domain. I don't see the problem with that.

>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.

 

Anyone who bothers filling out an online poll is an idiot.  Improve your world with truth and honesty, not childish emotional swells.  Polls from legit sources like the Enquirer (that's a joke, people) are just the facade of truth and science.  Yes/No answers are usually useless since nearly every matter is infinitely complicated and two people often have totally different opinions of an observed event if kept blind of others; once momentum builds, which it does almost immediately, a poll is useless. 

 

Where I grew up, a homeowner refused to sell when our church wanted to expand its parking lot.  The lot was built in a U around the house and its backyard, I always admired the defiance.  Someone suggested trying to buy the house when the owner finally died and turn it into a childcare spot during church services but intead the church just mowed it down and made the lot bigger.   

 

Perhaps these wounded soldiers will become the home of small businesses like a dentist's office or even better, I hope one becomes The National Museum of Eminent Domain!  Well at least put a historic marker there when and if these are bulldozed.     

 

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but here's my understanding:

 

Red = Horney's rental house, which he's probably going to sell.

Green = The Burton's Kumon Math Center, which they're going to sell.

Blue = The Gamble's house, which they're planning to move back into.

 

Now, here's a picture Monte posted upthread with Rookwood in it:

 

So, were the plans really to have no surface parking?  And if so, is it really impossible to work it out such that the surface parking surrounds her house?  So she can live there, you can develop, and then when she does sell some day, you can pave it over?  I can't imagine folks who have $20MM invested, and are paying $1MM in property taxes/year, are honestly sitting there without a plan, just saying, "oh, well.  Darn."

 

Like I said before, there is no way the developers are walking away from the $20M on the table. This lady will be bought out or built around.

From the 8/4/06 Enquirer:

 

Court victors throw a party

Question remains: Need they repay developer's money?

BY STEVE KEMME | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

 

NORWOOD - The celebration in the small parking lot behind a Norwood bar Thursday was an ordinary, no-frills cookout.

 

In the sweltering heat, it featured roasted chicken, corn on the cob, soft drinks and a large fan spraying cool mist.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060804/NEWS01/608040396/1056/rss02

 

Billy Cunningham was interviewing mayor Tom Williams yesterday, so I took a late lunch, and took notes during the interview.  I'm not a trained reporter, so I wasn't fast enough to get real quotes - sorry about that...anyway, nothing really surprising, except for one interesting accusation...

 

I'll hit the interesting accusation first.  He said that he believes there may have been other developers behind the scenes stoking the fires early on.  Cunningham used the term "queering the deal," which Williams agreed with.

 

Other item of scandalous interest - some caller said he had a friend who was on Norwood's city council, who said he was promised a condo by the developers in exchange for his vote, and that others took the developers up on that offer.  Mayor Williams told the guy, then you need to walk straight down to the county prosecutor's office right now and tell them what you know.  But don't sit around spreading stories of corruption like this - if you believe it, report it; if not, then don't spread lies.

 

 

So, other than that, there was nothing new.  He said they followed the law, which was why the Supreme Court decision was so surprising.  The trials were patient, thorough, concise, the judge was top notch, everyone had a chance to have his views heard.  The decision was upheld over and over in higher courts, because Norwood followed the laws on the books, did everything openly, everything up and up.  Then all of a sudden, Kelo came along, and made the issue a political football.

 

(The rest of this will not read like a narrative - again, I'm not a trained journalist!  So pardon me for the scatter-shot approach)

 

He said, Norwood is urban - they don't have cornfields to develop into.  They're trying to transition from blue collar to mixed use, and he said, "which is the only tool we have."  I don't know if he meant mixed use was the only tool they have for growing the tax base, or if eminent domain is the only tool they have for remedying the lack of cornfields - it wasn't clear.

 

Of the three remaining homes, only one is a single-family homeowner.  He said the business and the rental property owners "hooked their wagons to the Gambles," implying their cases wouldn't have looked as good politically as a home owner-occupied by a 65 year old couple.

 

When he first met the developers after the ruling, he was amazed - they were perfectly calm.  They knew they'd done everything by the book, but they'd lost, and that happens.  They have no plans now, except to follow the law.  When asked what they can do with the land now, his only suggestion was "winter wheat?"  The developers have no plans to offer anything to any of the property owners.

 

That's about it...personally, I can't believe they're going to sit on a $20MM investment...the opportunity costs of that money have got to be well north of $1MM/year - in real estate, maybe twice that.  Plus property taxes...but who knows how long this will play out...

Eminent-domain fight ends

But 'blighted' tag lingers on

BY STEVE KEMME | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

 

NORWOOD - They stood in the shadows while the national spotlight shone on Norwood's eminent-domain case.

 

Their homes and businesses are in a kind of no-man's land.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060818/NEWS01/608180393

Norwood repeals renewal plan

'Blighted' label removed outside Rookwood site footprint

BY STEVE KEMME | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

 

NORWOOD - Reacting to the Ohio Supreme Court decision regarding Norwood's eminent-domain case, City Council on Tuesday repealed its urban-renewal plan, which was intended to pave the way for the $125 million Rookwood Exchange office-retail-condo complex.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060823/NEWS01/608230382/1056

Blah blah blah, just let us know where the residents sell and a development rises from the field. ;)

Norwood suit may be history

BY STEVE KEMME | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

 

NORWOOD - A lawsuit filed by four Norwood property owners three years ago challenging the "blighted" tag the city slapped on their properties may soon be dismissed by a Hamilton County Common Pleas judge.

 

Attorneys for the four property owners and for Norwood jointly filed a motion Tuesday asking Judge Robert Ruehlman to dismiss the suit because the issue is moot.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060830/NEWS01/608300354/1077/NEWS01

Norwood property ordered returned

BY STEVE KEMME | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

September 6, 2006

 

NORWOOD – The Ohio Supreme Court today ordered the former property of Sanae Ichikawa-Burton and Matthew Burton on the proposed Rookwood Exchange office-retail-condo site to be returned to them.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060906/NEWS01/309060019/1056

Good luck XU.

Reluctant sellers to get house back

Court ruling follows eminent domain decision in Norwood

BY STEVE KEMME | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

September 7, 2006

 

NORWOOD - In a postscript to its landmark decision in the Norwood eminent-domain case, the Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the former property of Sanae Ichikawa-Burton and Matthew Burton on the proposed Rookwood Exchange site to be returned to them.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060907/NEWS01/609070344

Here is some info, obviously dated, that came across in the 5th and Race thread.  I rechecked and did not even see these renderings posted here before, nor do I recall ever seeing them.  I also do not recall Flaherty and Collins ever being a partner in the Rookwood Exchange project.

 

Rookwood Exchange Apartments

Northeast quadrant of I-71 (Exit 6) and Edmondson Road

Cincinnati, Ohio

 

276 Luxury Units, Multifamily-over-retail

 

Description: One- and two-bedroom apartments ranging from 644 to 1,253 square feet. Rents ranging from $975 to $1,750 monthly.

 

Amenities Include: Covered, controlled-access parking attached to the apartment; two levels of on-site retail (apartments located on third level): shopping, restaurants, and entertainment; clubhouse featuring: state-of-the-art fitness center, business center, rooftop terrace with resort-style swimming pool and sundeck, theatre room, billiards, and coffee bar. Also featured is a wine cellar, concierge, and a tanning area. Guest suites are also available.

 

Groundbreaking Date: February, 2005

Clubhouse/First Unit Completion Date: September 2006

Construction Completion Date: December 2006

 

 

 

 

Oversized crap.

However, I like higher density in almost all cases!

I definitely expected some tall towers like the ones in East Walnut Hills. Oh well.

From the 10/12/06 Enquirer:

 

 

Escrow holding up Norwood properties

Attorneys meet on eminent domain funds

BY STEVE KEMME | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

 

NORWOOD - Disputes over money must be resolved before the three properties involved in the Norwood eminent-domain case can be returned to the previous owners as ordered by the Ohio Supreme Court in its landmark decision this summer.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061012/NEWS01/610120350/1056/COL02

 

Eminent-domain victors get keys back

BY STEVE KEMME | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

 

NORWOOD - The owners of the three properties involved in the Norwood eminent-domain case now can enter their dwellings any time they want.

 

On Friday, attorneys for the developer who lost the precedent-setting eminent domain battle in the Ohio Supreme Court turned over the keys to those properties and to the gate at the entrance of the 11-acre site.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061021/NEWS01/610210361/1056/COL02

Is this project going to happen, or is it shut down for now.

that's why its in this "abandoned projects" section. Unless you have news otherwise.....

I think something is going to happen, the developers are just being mum about the whole thing.  they are not going to just walk away from their investment.