Jump to content
Guest grasscat

Norwood: Development and News

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

rookwood_model.jpg

 

rookwood_east.jpg

 

rookwood_plan.jpg

 

rookwood_ad.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

^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

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

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...