They don't just "take" the property from someone.  The property owner will be compensated.  The constitution does not give the people an unlimited right to have property and hold it forever even if that property is needed for a public use--it gives them the right to be fairly compensated for the property. 

 

The alternative would be simply unworkable.  Imagine a highway that zig-zags like a piece of spaghetti instead of going reasonably straight, because some of the property owners didn't want to sell out, and there were "other options" before the last resort of ED--such as creating a zig zag highway....

 

They are taking it if the owner doesn't want to get rid of it.  Just because they aren't compensated doesn't mean it isn't taken from them.  If I walk up to a kid and take their toy but throw some money at them I think people would still consider it stealing.

 

And the Supreme Court has ruled that takings are constitutional (5th Amendment) so long as the owner is properly compensated and the taking is to promote some public purpose. You can dislike it all you want, but its legal, and not stealing.

 

 

On transportation projects, the city can do a "quick take" -- take control of the land and buildings and have a court to decide the compensation to the property owner later. This won't hold up the project.

In Ohio, Streetcars are utilities, not transportation projects. I think in Oregon the law reads that streetcars and light rail are considered transportation projects, and the policy of the state explicity favors transit. That's not the case in Ohio. Honestly, I don't know exactly how an eminent domain case might turn out, but I don't think it works the same way as a taking for a highway project.

 

 

Operations are well over a year away, anyway, so it's encouraging that they're working on acquiring the space already. There's time.

I am also familiar with a few cases of eminent domain, albeit not in Ohio, and it is very possible for the land to be taken and used prior to most of the court proceedings. The question is generally "how much should be paid for the property?", which can be figured out in retrospect.

 

In the event that ownership of the land for the proposed maintenance facility goes to eminent domain, the City of Cincinnati will likely end up with the property at a fair price. That's not really a problem. The problem is that it could be tied up in court for a year. Thus, there has to be enough time in the schedule to allow for this.

 

The procedure would go something like this:

First, the City approaches the property owner and offers payment for the land. If the property owner accepts, all is well. If he counter-offers and the City accepts, all is well. But if the property owner refuses, then the city must either take it by force or forgo. In the event that the city initiates eminent domain procedings, then the city has to prepare a case, file a lawsuit, and get a court date scheduled. This can take a year. So, assuming eminent domain, count on a year for court and a year for construction, and if the city starts today we have the maintenance facility opening in 2014 at the earliest. Anything eariler is unrealistic. 

 

So, assuming eminent domain, count on a year for court and a year for construction, and if the city starts today we have the maintenance facility opening in 2014 at the earliest. Anything eariler is unrealistic.

 

2014 is fine.  Streetcar won't be starting operations until late 2014/early 2015 anyway.

 

Either way-  It won't take that long and the company (based in California apparently) will settle.

Sounds like Eighth & State, Esq. is back again...

 

 

 

Sounds like Eighth & State, Esq. is back again...

 

 

 

 

Operations are well over a year away, anyway, so it's encouraging that they're working on acquiring the space already. There's time.

I am also familiar with a few cases of eminent domain, albeit not in Ohio, and it is very possible for the land to be taken and used prior to most of the court proceedings. The question is generally "how much should be paid for the property?", which can be figured out in retrospect.

 

In the event that ownership of the land for the proposed maintenance facility goes to eminent domain, the City of Cincinnati will likely end up with the property at a fair price. That's not really a problem. The problem is that it could be tied up in court for a year. Thus, there has to be enough time in the schedule to allow for this.

 

The procedure would go something like this:

First, the City approaches the property owner and offers payment for the land. If the property owner accepts, all is well. If he counter-offers and the City accepts, all is well. But if the property owner refuses, then the city must either take it by force or forgo. In the event that the city initiates eminent domain procedings, then the city has to prepare a case, file a lawsuit, and get a court date scheduled. This can take a year. So, assuming eminent domain, count on a year for court and a year for construction, and if the city starts today we have the maintenance facility opening in 2014 at the earliest. Anything eariler is unrealistic. 

 

I don't want to sound like a jerk here, but this would be just about as simple a case as you can find.  It would really come down to presenting evidence from each side on what the value of the property is/should be for purposes of the compensation.  You're probably talking a couple of expert reports and depositions of same on valuation issues.  And presumably some of this information would be exchanged before a suit was even filed in the course of negotiations. 

 

If it took longer than six months, I would be shocked. 

If it took longer than six months, I would be shocked. 

 

Prepare for the worst, and hope for the best. Over the years, it has gotten harder and harder for governments to obtain property. Sometimes there are multiple mortgages, and there is a lot of beauracracy to go through before contacting the owner. Sometimes the election cycle plays a part, because judges like to put off controversial cases until after the next election. Sometimes it's just a big hassle to track down an out-of-town owner. All of these things take time, and money, and that's before the city even gets to court!

 

On the contrary, I would be shocked if it took less than six months. The City of Cincinnati doesn't have a reputation for getting things done fast.

No, really.  I don't know if you practice in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, but they do not have a reputation for letting things drag out, particularly if there's not a lot of stuff to be figured out. 

 

And there's not really going to be the controversy associated with it that you would have with, say, the Norwood cases--in terms of purpose, who is going to own the property, etc. 

No, really.  I don't know if you practice in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, but they do not have a reputation for letting things drag out, particularly if there's not a lot of stuff to be figured out. 

 

He doesn't practice. He's not a lawyer... he just plays one on the interwebs...

The reason the Norwood case was such an issue is because it was illegal - the city of Norwood declared the area blighted so they could take the property and hand it over to a private party. The handing it over to a private party was the park the courts determined to be illegal.

 

In this case, the land would be taken for a PUBLIC PURPOSE. If it were to go to court, the only matter would be determining value, not whether or not it can be taken.

Just to put things in perspective, the Brent Spence Bridge is going to result in 50-100+ properties being taken by eminent domain (depending on the alternative selected)

 

And I don't necessarily agree with that either so unfortunately it doesn't provide prospective.  One is just a lesser evil (hyperbole used there).

 

Thanks for the perspective. Please keep providing more. The ability to put things in context seems to be an attribute missing in many streetcar opponents.

 

I'm not an opponent, I'm a strong proponent who just happens to dislike eminent domain.

 

They don't just "take" the property from someone.  The property owner will be compensated.  The constitution does not give the people an unlimited right to have property and hold it forever even if that property is needed for a public use--it gives them the right to be fairly compensated for the property. 

 

The alternative would be simply unworkable.  Imagine a highway that zig-zags like a piece of spaghetti instead of going reasonably straight, because some of the property owners didn't want to sell out, and there were "other options" before the last resort of ED--such as creating a zig zag highway....

 

They are taking it if the owner doesn't want to get rid of it.  Just because they aren't compensated doesn't mean it isn't taken from them.  If I walk up to a kid and take their toy but throw some money at them I think people would still consider it stealing.

 

As to your second paragraph, like I said, I know there are times when eminent domain is the only option.  But a zig zag highway reference doesn't really apply here.  I don't know the circumstances here so maybe someone can fill me in: what other options were explored and what made them choose this location?  Were there other locations but the city didn't like the price tag,or didn't like the location as well as this location?  Or was this the only legitimate option?

 

Yeah, well, that's why they call it a taking. Again, the constitution doesn't ensure that your tangible assets can't be taken from you. It just ensures that there is value to these things, that you have the right to lawfully claim them, and that you live in a society that recognizes this and that you can thus claim compensation for your loss.

 

This whole whine against eminent domain will, I suppose, always be with us. But we couldn't have a functioning society without it.

The reason the Norwood case was such an issue is because it was illegal - the city of Norwood declared the area blighted so they could take the property and hand it over to a private party. The handing it over to a private party was the park the courts determined to be illegal.

 

I know this is totally pedantic, but that's not at all what it was.  The taking of property and handing it over to developers happens all the time and has been upheld as legit.  That's how public housing projects got built and how many "redevelopment" plans go forward.  After all, while states and cities do have their own transportation departments and crews to build roads and sewers and other such infrastructure, they aren't building contractors or developers.  They need to get someone else to actually build buildings and the rest of the development anyway.

 

The Norwood case was struck down by the Supreme Court because Norwood declared the neighborhood to be deteriorating.  Not deteriorated, not blighted, but deterioratING.  It was a case of semantics.  They also ruled that "economic development" by itself is not sufficient to justify a taking of property, and that was the only criteria being used for the project. 

 

Regarding the parking situation, I'm all for removing parking minimums, but I think imposing maximums is just another evil side of the same coin.  Enforcing arbitrary minimums or maximums both distort the market and create unexpected consequences.  I say just remove the regulation and see what happens rather than totally flip-flopping and likely incurring a lot of political fallout.  Parking maximums also sound a lot like "the damn socialists are waging a war on cars," whereas urbanists and libertarian types can both get behind the removal of parking regulations even if it's for different reasons. 

Cincinnati's rejected streetcar bids

Business Courier by Lucy May

 

Everybody knows you can’t have a winner without, well, losers. That’s life, and that’s business.

 

So in the spirit of good, old-fashioned American competition, we here at the Business Courier present you with some images of the streetcars that the city of Cincinnati didn’t pick for the first phase of its $110 million streetcar project.

 

We got the images through an Open Records request filed in February. We received the final batch of records on the day of Mayor Mark Mallory’s State of the City address, during which, coincidentally, the mayor announced the winning vendor. (See previous line re: that’s life, and that’s business.)

 

Cont (includes 7 photos)

 

 

Here are some drool-worthy pictures for your Wednesday morning.

 

nice greenery, although the vehicle is from the late 60's:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/frederikb/7045920683/#in/photostream

 

this is a bit more sleek and modern:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/72821071@N06/7042582561/#in/photostream

Off-street parking regulation changes have been moved to here: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,27142.msg610866.html#msg610866

 

Form-based code discussion has been moved here:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,16546.0.html

Are you telling me there are no other choices to house this facility?  So a select group of people essentially made the decision that they can take this property away from someone because they'd rather have a maintenance facility there.  I'm sorry, I know there may be a few good uses for eminent domain, but IMO it needs to be a last result and all options should be explored first before people can take property away from someone else.  Was that the case here?

 

The power of eminent domain is long established.  Like, hundreds and hundreds of years long.  The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified by enough states to go into effect in 1791.  That altered eminent domain (at least with regard to the federal government) so that the government had to justly compensate the property owner.  That means that prior to the 5th amendment, the government could just take it for public use without compensation.  Well into the late 19th century and early 20th century the 5th amendment became enforceable against the states through the the 14th amendment.  Even later still, the 5th amendment was held to apply to regulatory takings, essentially, regulations that prevented the full and fair use of property (to a certain extent).

 

So, just to put things in perspective, the position that private property rights trump public use rights is quite a recent development.  The rights of corporate communities to regulate land use has been around for over five hundred years, and even then, the first corporate charters were merely recognizing ancient privileges that had existed well before the charters had been issued.

8th and State, You ARE in charge of what you do and how you work to influence your neighborhood and city. That is why the streetcar plan exists in the first place; a few people put themselves in charge of making it happen. Without such initiative the human race itself wouldn't ultimately exist. While I'm sure you could come up with reasons not to breath or blink ever again, you should put the enormous amount of effort you put into trying to convince others that all human actions are pointless and doomed to failure into pursuing one of the issues you allude to. Even doing nothing is doing something; it's accepting what others have done.

^Let me say it a different way. If I was the mayor or a councilman on City Council, I would put my priorities on a different project other than the streetcar. That said, I am not opposed to the streetcar project, and in no way am I trying to impede it.

 

The reason why it's important to write down the project risks is to be prepared to address them. You've probably heard of Murphy's Law: "What can go wrong, will go wrong." The way to deal with Murphy's Law is by preventing things from being able to go wrong, not by hoping that things won't go wrong.  During Desert Storm, General Norman Schwartzkoff said in a press conference that you "Prepare for the worst and hope for the best."

 

One way to deal with uncertainties is to keep options open. What if the maintenance facility goes to eminent domain? A poor strategy would be to assume that the property owner is going to accept the first offer by the city, and do it cheerfully, because if this assumption turns out to be wrong, the project could be delayed by a year. A better strategy is to assume the worst case, and build a year into the project schedule from the get-go.

 

Writing down the risks is not a sign of despair; it is a method to identify which efforts warrant the most attention.  In my opinion, for example, more effort should be applied to the Duke issue than the bicycle issue, because the Duke issue has a greater chance of delaying the project.

UrbanOhio.com [email protected]

 

11:18 PM (1 minute ago)

 

to me

A reply has been posted to a topic you are watching by Eighth and State.

 

*oh well*

 

 

>If I was the mayor or a councilman on City Council, I would put my priorities on a different project other than the streetcar.

 

Like what?  What capital project is more important than reintituting rail transit in Cincinnati? 

^Well there's an invitation to take this thread right off topic. Let's just say that I would put priorities elsewhere, and not necessarily into a capital project. Not all problems can be solved by building something, but new construction makes a good photo op. But I'm not the mayor, so it doesn't matter.

 

 

 

 

Do something, anything positive. Even if others think its negative. Work for what you think is good. That is the only way anything ever happens. Playing the role of the unpaid consultant who offers 'advise' no one wants is a waste of valuable knowledge. It's not what you know, its what you can do with it that matters. If you haven't done anything with your knowledge, you've wasted it.

Never saw this article before. In it, it mentions a theory John Schneider has about local rail opponents planning to attack the streetcar via the state legislature. What's that all about?

 

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/blogs/lyndon-henry/cincinnati-streetcar-project-breaks-ground.html

I don't think I've ever seen this thread quite for this long. 

or quiet for this long!

Glad someone broke radio silence, but I was hoping my question had been answered. :(

 

Seems like the national media is more savvy than most of us here at this point.

Negotiations with Duke Energy described as, "fruitful" by city staff in update to Council.

or quiet for this long!

 

Ooops. 

Tarbell scooped up property near streetcar

 

It seems former Cincinnati City Councilman and “Mr. Cincinnati” Jim Tarbell still keeps tabs on what the city is up to.

 

Hamilton County property records show he recently spent $255,000 for two Jackson Street buildings — right near one of the proposed streetcar stops.

 

Tarbell bought 1209 Jackson St. on Sept. 29, 2011 for $165,000 and 1211 Jackson St. for $90,000 on Feb. 3, the records show.

 

Cont

No SORTA board members should be able to own property near a (potential) transit stop.

Looks like he's confident about construction then.

No SORTA board members should be able to own property near a (potential) transit stop.

 

You're being sarcastic right?

Looks like he's confident about construction then.

 

He bought in September, too, before the election.

No SORTA board members should be able to own property near a (potential) transit stop.

 

You're being sarcastic right?

 

Of course. Otherwise, just about no one living in the county could serve on the board.

:)

 

Oh by the way! In light of this Tarbell article, I've just been informed by a friend that this forums very own thomasbw (Brad Thomas) was just confirmed to join the SORTA board!

 

Congrats!

:)

 

Oh by the way! In light of this Tarbell article, I've just been informed by a friend that this forums very own thomasbw (Brad Thomas) was just confirmed to join the SORTA board!

 

Congrats!

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,1939.msg616581.html#msg616581

CREEPILY phrased the same- haha.  I always forget the SORTA thread exists- and from the looks of it, so do lots of other people.

>No SORTA board members should be able to own property near a (potential) transit stop.

 

Should ODOT employees be permitted to own property near interstate highways?  FAA employees & airports? Military brass and military bases?  Park administrators and parks they control? 

:)

 

Oh by the way! In light of this Tarbell article, I've just been informed by a friend that this forums very own thomasbw (Brad Thomas) was just confirmed to join the SORTA board!

 

Congrats!

 

I hope he moves as far away from any bus stop or station!

Looks like he's confident about construction then.

 

That's already an extremely bustling area.  Go down there tonight and try to find a place to park, then spend 2 hours waiting for a table at any place half a block away on Vine.  Streetcar or not, those are hot properties, which makes COAST's "complaint" that much more absurd. 

Looks like he's confident about construction then.

 

Streetcar or not, those are hot properties, which makes COAST's "complaint" that much more absurd.

 

Which means Barry Horstman is writing an article as we speak and 700wlw is going to blast cincinnati all day today

Tarbell scooped up property near streetcar

 

It seems former Cincinnati City Councilman and “Mr. Cincinnati” Jim Tarbell still keeps tabs on what the city is up to.

 

Hamilton County property records show he recently spent $255,000 for two Jackson Street buildings — right near one of the proposed streetcar stops.

 

Tarbell bought 1209 Jackson St. on Sept. 29, 2011 for $165,000 and 1211 Jackson St. for $90,000 on Feb. 3, the records show.

 

Cont

 

Perhaps nothing makes me happier for Cincinnati than to see the floodgates open in the comment section and a tide of people willing to show their faces and criticize the Enquirer's crappy reporting AND coast in the same breath.

Looks like he's confident about construction then.

 

That's already an extremely bustling area.  Go down there tonight and try to find a place to park, then spend 2 hours waiting for a table at any place half a block away on Vine.  Streetcar or not, those are hot properties, which makes COAST's "complaint" that much more absurd. 

 

I live in Columbus now, so it's a bit harder for me to pick up on hotspots around the 'Nati like I used to. I'll be in Cincy for a day sometime in the next month or so to do some business and poke around, though.

Looks like he's confident about construction then.

 

That's already an extremely bustling area.  Go down there tonight and try to find a place to park, then spend 2 hours waiting for a table at any place half a block away on Vine.  Streetcar or not, those are hot properties, which makes COAST's "complaint" that much more absurd. 

 

I live in Columbus now, so it's a bit harder for me to pick up on hotspots around the 'Nati like I used to. I'll be in Cincy for a day sometime in the next month or so to do some business and poke around, though.

 

You'll probably like what you see. 12th and Vine has to be one of the busiest corners for dining/nightlife in all of Cincy.  Jackson is a half block away, and if I'm correct the back of the properties in question open up to the 3CDC parking lot that's on 12th and vine.  They have some amazing potential.

[No URL available]

 

"April 29, 2012 8:00 PM

Streetcars desired: M1 Rail hopes to hop on Cincinnati's order

By Bill Shea

 

(graphic caption

Cincinnati's website shows the streetcars that M1 Rail is eyeing.

 

(article)

The Motor City is looking to the Queen City when it comes to downtown streetcars.

 

The choice of vehicles also may save Elmo, Snoopy and Captain Underpants parade floats.

 

M1 Rail, the private consortium of investors seeking to build a $137 million, 3.3-mile modern streetcar line on downtown Detroit's Woodward Avenue between Hart Plaza and New Center, told the U.S. Department of Transportation in a recent report that it's in talks with the city of Cincinnati about possibly piggybacking its streetcar order.

 

M1 is looking at both off-the-shelf purchase of six streetcars or attaching its vehicle needs to another system's order, which is a common practice in the transit industry because it can reduce turnaround time and cost.

 

Cities that have rail vehicle orders in process that M1 is looking at include Portland, Seattle, Tucson, Salt Lake City and Cincinnati.

 

M1 has taken a special interest in Cincinnati's $20 million procurement of five streetcars for its $110 million plan to install a 3.8-mile downtown line using a blend of bonds, taxes and private donations. Groundbreaking on the project took place in February, and the line is supposed to be running by 2014.

 

Earlier this month, Cincinnati selected Elmira, N.Y.-based CAF USA, a subsidiary of Spain's Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles S.A., as its preferred vendor to manufacture the five streetcars, with an option for up to 25 more cars. The city and company are in talks for a final contract, and delivery is expected to take 18 months.

 

Cincinnati's streetcars are very similar to what Detroit is seeking.

 

"The Cincinnati RFP requested delivery of five vehicles with similar specifications as M1 Rail would utilize for its preferred vehicle," M1 said in its report.

 

The model used in M1's report is the Siemens S-70 Ultrashort -- manufactured by Germany's Siemens AG.

 

The cars are double-ended, with operating controls at both ends and passenger doors on either side, and are powered by aerial electrical lines.

 

The low-floor cars allow passengers to step directly onto the trams from elevated boarding platforms alongside the trains. Each seats 60 people, with room for 120 more standing.

 

The Woodward project is funded largely by private backers and is seeking $25 million in federal stimulus funds.

 

Under "Buy America" requirements triggered by the use of federal money, the streetcars for the Detroit and Cincinnati projects must be at least 60 percent manufactured domestically.

 

M1's infrastructure plan calls for four electrical substations along the line, each connected by underground wiring, to power the streetcars.

 

However, about 1.5 to 1.8 miles of the system would not use overhead wiring, meaning the annual Thanksgiving Day parade on Woodward would still be able to use its large character balloons -- something that had been in jeopardy and under discussion in recent years.

 

Both the Siemens and the CAF USA streetcars have the ability to forgo aerial wires for long stretches.

 

"We'll be in fantastic shape and appreciative," said Tony Michaels, president of The Parade Co.

 

A message was left for M1 President Matt Cullen.

 

Much like Detroit, Cincinnati abandoned streetcars in the 1950s, switching to trolley coaches (buses powered by overhead lines). City and business leaders have been pushing for several years to build a streetcar line in a bid to boost economic development, which has been slowed in Cincinnati's central business district because of its proximity to the beleaguered Over-the-Rhine neighborhood.

 

Detroit's transit backers have touted similar goals. M1's report to Washington, required as part of its bid for federal financial aid, predicts that the Woodward line will "create more than $444 million of project benefits associated with economic development, travel time savings, safety and infrastructure benefits for the region."

 

Also last week, M1 said it would subsidize the operational costs for the rail line for up to 10 years -- putting to rest one of the project's biggest question marks.

 

^Here's a link to the story, for what it's worth: http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20120429/SUB01/304299993/streetcars-desired-m1-rail-hopes-to-hop-on-cincinnatis-order

Nice.  Bill and I were HS classmates and we keep in touch on FB.  Thanks for posting.

 

Hey, Bill!

Channel 19 just did a story on the city's attempt to purchase the property at the north end of the route as a car barn and pulled quotes from UrbanOhio - a few posters were mentioned.  Just kind of funny to watch....

Channel 19 just did a story on the city's attempt to purchase the property at the north end of the route as a car barn and pulled quotes from UrbanOhio - a few posters were mentioned.  Just kind of funny to watch....

 

DO NOT read the fox 19 comments on facebook.

 

Its incredible how angry people are who don't live even close to the city