Jump to content
Guest grasscat

Norwood: Development and News

Recommended Posts

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...