Jump to content
Guest grasscat

Norwood: Development and News

Recommended Posts

Norwood plaintiffs' attorney seek $850G

BY STEVE KEMME | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

November 29, 2006

 

NORWOOD – Attorneys for the parties involved in the landmark Norwood eminent-domain case will argue in court today whether the law firm that successfully represented the holdout property owners should be paid more than $850,000 in attorney’s fees and costs.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061129/NEWS01/311290017/1056/COL02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norwood, developer protest fees sought in landmark court case

BY STEVE KEMME | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

November 30, 2006

 

NORWOOD - Attorneys for the parties involved in the landmark Norwood eminent-domain case will argue in court over whether the law firm that successfully represented the holdout property owners should be paid more than $850,000 in attorney fees and costs.

 

Attorneys for the losing parties in the Ohio Supreme Court case - developers of the proposed Rookwood Exchange office-retail-condo development, and the city of Norwood - say the Institute for Justice of Washington, D.C., did not charge the holdout property owners fees and merits no compensation.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061130/NEWS01/611300369/1056/COL02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats going to happen to the neighborhood (what's left of it) that they (the developers) destroyed. I would think they could switch gears and build a new townhouse condo development with new smaller retail on Reading Road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think they could switch gears and build a new townhouse condo development with new smaller retail on Reading Road.

 

Do you mean on Edwards Road or on Edmonson Road?  Reading is at least a mile and half away from the sight, on the other side of some pretty dense happy-Norwood housing...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect at this point that the potential payoff of getting more retail and office space in there is worth holding on for a few years, seeing what happens.  Once you invest in a few townhomes and a strip mall, you're kinda tied in...but playing the waiting game now does make sense - all it costs to wait are some property taxes and the opportunity costs of the money.  Meanwhile, you've got an appreciating asset mitigating both of those losses, and the potential for a ginormous payday if you can get the homeowners to sell in the next five or ten years.

 

Of course, that's assuming that you can't build around them.  Here's a post I had upthread:

 

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.

64493222.jpg

 

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

original.jpg

 

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."

 

 

Note - I think that $1MM/year in taxes thing is way, way, way off...how many properties were there?  I can't find the number off-hand, but 67 sticks in my head...taxes on each developed lot were around $3K-$4K/year...so if there were 67 lots at $4K/each, that's $268K/year; even 150 lots at $4K is only $600K...and I'd assume they can request a re-appraisal of the land value, and get the per-lot taxes down to the $250 range, like the other undeveloped lots are, and drop the tax bill into the tens-of-thousands range.

 

By the way, this reminds me of the brilliance of Uncle Rando - 'The Chateaus at Rookwood Exchange':

 

rookwoodexchange.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge: Developer owes lawyer fees

BY STEVE KEMME | SKEMME@ENQUIRER.COM

January 26, 2007

 

NORWOOD – A Hamilton County judge ruled today that the Institute for Justice is entitled to be compensated for attorney fees and expenses connected with their work in the Norwood eminent-domain case.

 

The Institute for Justice, a civil-liberties law firm in Washington, D.C., represented for free several property owners who fought Norwood’s seizure of their property by eminent domain.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070126/NEWS01/301260039

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's next for Norwood?

Three experts envision use for idle land

BY STEVE KEMME | SKEMME@ENQUIRER.COM

 

 

 

NORWOOD - The barren acreage near the bustling commercial area beside Interstate 71 at Edwards and Edmondson roads looks like the land that time forgot.

 

It's been almost two years since the Rookwood Partners spent more than $20 million to buy and demolish all but three houses in the 75-parcel chunk of land in Norwood.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070218/NEWS01/702180355

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the three different ideas for the site, from three professionals in different fields with different agendas...clearly a difference between the three, and somewhat noticeable.

 

I may be biased, but I like Menelaos' idea the best!  Go Planners!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eminent domain hold-outs give up

BY STEVE KEMME | SKEMME@ENQUIRER.COM

March 30, 2007

 

NORWOOD – Joy and Carl Gamble Jr. have reluctantly decided to give up plans to move back into the home that they spent three years fighting to save from demolition in the landmark Norwood eminent domain battle.

 

Because of serious health concerns, the Gambles have agreed to sell their house in Norwood to the Rookwood Partners for $650,000 – $370,000 more than the value a jury had placed on their property in the early part of the eminent-domain court fight.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070330/NEWS01/303300032/1056/COL02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norwood holdout still unwilling to let go of property

Third house to be razed, but rental owner digs in

BY LISA BIANK FASIG | LFASIG@BIZJOURNALS.COM

April 27, 2007

 

NORWOOD - The developers of Norwood's long-quandaried Rookwood Exchange project will soon raze one of the last key properties that stood in the way of their development, but that isn't persuading another of the two remaining building owners to sell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that there is a time when this man needs to step back and realize this house is in the middle of a field with no road connection (or utilities?), maybe I am just not clear on what he is holding out for. If they never give in to him wanting a stake in the development, is he just going to selfishly keep this giant eyesore for years to come?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who knows but the city of Norwood needs all the finances it can get...these people, if they choose to sell, will already have made double what its worth...i feel bad for the city of norwood who desperately need that revenue for their city

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy epitimizes what disgusts me the most about these eminent domain rulings.  It is rewarding those bum landlords that do nothing more than collect a rent from the property.  They let the thing border along the line of being blight, and do nothing to add value to the neighborhood.  This guy does not live in the house...I'm sure the real residents across the street would like for the a-hole to sell so that disgusting piece of property can be developed.

 

Like I said...

 

bum landlord = GOOD

someone looking to invest in the urban core = BAD

 

Well done!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a chance these property owners are holding out for more money? Obviously they know the developers are at their mercy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Uh...that is exactly what they are doing. One wants a steak in the development (more money) and the other says they will sell although the price isn't high enough (more money).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone needs to tell him there's no need for that, since he can already get a delicious hardwood grilled steak from J. Alexander's right across the street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading through this stuff makes me want to jack that guy in the face. Him owning a rental house in the middle of a chained-off field is more important than the city of Norwood not sinking. I’ve never seen such selfishness!! I hate that he sits there and says that he’s doing this because he believes in the cause. Like he cares about eminent domain. Just give him his $1,000,000 and tell him to shut up. Sorry, I just get aggravated. These sort of people are making it so hard and undesirable for developers to invest in urban areas. Good going buddy, you’re really making the world a better place with your heart felt and deep rooted values.  :whip: :whip:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much more money do they want?!?  they already are getting a ton more than what its worth?!??  The neighborhood is gone.  I could understand if there was a neighborhood left, but cmon, theres nothing, they don't live there, the offer is more generous than anything they will ever get.  Any citizen of Norwood knows the community needs the revenue and needs the finances to better the city.  Its just being selfish at this point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norwood house tangled in divorce

Couple spars over ownership in eminent domain dispute

BY LISA BIANK FASIG | LFASIG@BIZJOURNALS.COM

May 4, 2007

 

NORWOOD - A rental property that for years has been the center of an eminent domain fight between its landlords and the city of Norwood is now in the midst of a second dispute, this time between the man and woman who own it.

 

Those owners, Joe Horney and his wife, Carol Gooch, are in the midst of divorce proceedings. And both, it turns out, want full ownership of that house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poster punks Rookwood

Sign pokes fun at Norwood development site

BY STEVE KEMME | SKEMME@ENQUIRER.COM

May 15, 2007

 

NORWOOD - Coming soon! ... Our First 24 Hour Super Mega Mixed-Use Complex!

 

At first glance, the large color poster seemed to be announcing a long-awaited major commercial development on the vacant 10-acre site at Edwards and Edmonson roads, the object of the landmark Norwood eminent domain battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly..I could see Norwood turning into that, in the future. Because of certain opposition to revitalization!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norwood Mayor Tom Williams said he'd like to find out who put up the poster and see them charged with criminal mischief, a misdemeanor.

 

Norwood Mayor Tom Williams is an idiot.  Get over it and work to get the property developed instead of hiring CSI to investigate the creators of the posters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eminent domain ruling due next month

BY STEVE KEMME | CINCINNATI ENQUIRER

August 21, 2007

 

NORWOOD – Attorneys argued in court Tuesday over how much one of the victors in the Norwood eminent domain case should be compensated for damage to the house they had converted into a math and reading learning center.

 

Attorneys for Norwood and the Rookwood Partners said Sanae Ichikawa-Burton and Matthew Burton must pay back the $96,000 that had been withdrawn from money the Rookwood Partners had set aside to buy their property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But she said she was happy she and her husband persisted until they won a Ohio Supreme Court ruling that makes it more difficult for governmental entities throughout the state to take private property for commercial development.

 

Great, so you made it more difficult for older cities to reinvent themselves and you made the community suffer.  This decision only encourages developers to stay away from older communities and encourages sprawl.  I am a supporter of eminent domain and think the court decisions of Norwood & Clifton Heights does a disservice to not only the communities but to the state as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teardown leaves just one building

THE ENQUIRER  

 

One building remains on the 10-acre site that was the focus of a lengthy eminent-domain fight.

 

The former Kumon Math & Reading Center on Edmondson Road was torn down Thursday. Rookwood Partners bought the building last week for $650,000.

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080229/NEWS01/802290434/1056/COL02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Victory leaves land in limbo

By Steve Kemme • skemme@enquirer.com • July 22, 2008

 

NORWOOD - In a rural setting, few would take note of an 11-acre site with nothing on it but a vacant, boarded-up two-story house and an expanse of high grass and weeds.

 

But in the bustling urban environment at Edwards and Edmondson roads in Norwood, the site provokes a lot of puzzled looks and questions.

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080722/NEWS01/807220302/1055/NEWS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully this means it will developed as we are heading out of the current bust, so it can be the hotspot of the next boom, rather than being built at the end of the bust. It can get the new hot stores as opposed to the same old that it would have been filled with now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^At the same time, look at how much money Miller-Valentine Group and other parties have already spent on this project during the bust. Not to mention the bad PR stigmatizing that plot of land. I wonder how many people in the area will refuse to shop or rent office space there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Not many if there is money to be made

 

btw, anyone else notice how there is an oregon state running back in the "Cincinnati Bearcats Ringtones" ad at the bottom of the page?  how does that go unnoticed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many people in the area will refuse to shop or rent office space there.

 

I would be surprised if a significant number of people refuse to shop there.  People tend to have short memories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also don't think that many people were that emotionally involved with the events that transpired.  I could only imagine those who were displaced being ticked enough to avoid, but even most of them agreed to sell before things got nasty.

 

Neighbors seem to welcome the idea of getting rid of the current eyesore...so overall I'm just not sure who would be avoiding the place due to the site's history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should at least put some horses out to graze.     

 

It would add to the dynamics of the neighborhood well!!  Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good riddance, now tear the house down so development can finally happen. This court case will forever haunt inner ring suburbs and while people beat their chest for individual property rights, if you can't reinvent the older inner ring suburbs, they will be doomed. Sometimes progress is inconvenient and while it can be disputed that a commercial purpose to include retail is not progress, in the end, the remaining property owners ended up affecting the neighborhood around them with a wasteland in the otherwise decent property market of Oakley, Hyde Park & eastern Norwood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see what happens and how soon, given the crappy economy.  $1.25MM, the guy made out though!  They should have paid him years ago.

 

Norwood eminent domain fight ends - by Laura Baverman

 

 

A four-year eminent domain battle came to an end Wednesday when Rookwood Partners reached a settlement with the last remaining property owner at its Rookwood Exchange site in Norwood.

 

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/09/01/daily21.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This court case will forever haunt inner ring suburbs and while people beat their chest for individual property rights, if you can't reinvent the older inner ring suburbs, they will be doomed.

 

I strongly disagree. The recent push against eminent domain will actually be the savior of inner ring neighborhoods in the long run.

 

For every good project that can't happen, there will be 100 disasters averted. For every beautiful urban mixed-use center, there would have been 100 failed "urban renewal" schemes, strip malls, and outright suburbanization of old urban neighborhoods.

 

I come from a city down South that had almost half of its downtown totally flattened by eminent domain. Hundreds of residents and businesses (an entire urban neighborhood) were pushed out for surface parking lots and suburban-style medical office parks. This didn't happen in the 60's ... it was the mid-1990s.

 

I understand that it can be tempting to justify eminent domain - especially when you love the proposed project, and the holdouts are clearly annoying NIMBY's or profiteers. However, I urge everyone to focus beyond the merits of one particular development like Rookwood Exchange and remember the larger picture. I'd wager that Cincinnati has had plenty of people in power who would gladly flatten OTR for a nice lifestyle center, if only they had the ability.

 

(Edit: By the way, I say all this as someone who now lives less than a mile from the Rookwood Exchange site, and would obviously benefit from this project, if it ever happens.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd wager that Cincinnati has had plenty of people in power who would gladly flatten OTR for a nice lifestyle center, if only they had the ability.

 

They had the chance to do so back in the urban renewal days...you know, when the flattened the West End.  The days of large-scale urban renewal are over.  70 of 77 properties here were acquired through regular means.  It was 7 property owners who held out and drug this whole process through the mud.

 

Regardless of whether you support the means of eminent domain or not, the laws have been upheld on more than one occasion stating that it is a legal use of power to use eminent domain for economic development purposes.  Furthermore, it has also been stated and upheld that properties can be designated as "blighted" if said properties are in a state of decline even if they aren't "blighted" yet.  Since these properties were seeing falling values and were being surrounded by "unattractive" uses for residential development the case was made that these were "blighted" as per the legal definition.

 

If you disagree then fine, but from my understanding it is not the role of the lower courts to overturn legal standing.  The courts did not do their job here and they caved in to political pressure being felt nationwide.  The case was denied by the Supreme Court, that is where it should have ended.  Unfortunately for us, our judicial system failed us.  No one should be happy with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...