Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Eminent Domain strikes again(A hospital? An access road? Try a "Lifestyle shopping center".)
The Cincinnati Enquirer ^

Posted on 09/24/2003 9:54:56 AM PDT by yankeedame

Wednesday, September 24, 2003

Norwood holdouts fight back

------------------------------------------------------
----------------------

They excuse city of abusing eminent domain

By Sharon Coolidge
The Cincinnati Enquirer


Carl and Joy Gamble stand in front of their Norwood home of 34 years.
They are among a group of homeowners who filed a lawsuit against the city Tuesday to fight the taking of their homes
to clear the way for an expansion of Rookwood Commons.(Jeff Swinger photo)

NORWOOD(Ohio) - Joy and Carl Gamble went to school in Norwood and greeted customers for more than 40 years at the Tasty Bird Farms grocery store until retiring two years ago.

They also raised two children in their Atlantic Avenue home and planned to spend retirement gardening in their large back yard.

But that was before the city decided the Gambles and others lived in a blighted neighborhood and were in the way of a $125 million development adjacent to Rookwood Commons.

On Tuesday, the Gambles and eight neighboring home and businesses fought back.

With help from the Washington-based public-interest law firm Institute for Justice, they filed a lawsuit against Norwood in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court. The suit asks the court to stop the city from condemning their homes and businesses.

They accuse the city of abusing the power of eminent domain, in which a government can take private property for a public purpose at a court-determined price.

"The idea that this neighborhood is blighted is preposterous," said Scott G. Bullock, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice. "This is wrong, this is unconstitutional and we're here to put a stop to it."

Ted Kiser, Norwood assistant law director, said the city would not comment because it has not had enough time to review the suit.

The issue arises because developer Jeffrey R. Anderson and Miller-Valentine Group want to build an expansion to Rookwood Commons, the region's first lifestyle shopping center.

The expansion would contain offices, condos, stores and a parking garage on a triangular piece of property bounded by Interstate 71 and Edmondson and Edwards roads. Many of the nearly 80 property owners there sold; a few have resisted.

The developers paid for an urban renewal study that found the area was "blighted," "deteriorated" and "deteriorating."

City Council adopted the study Aug. 26 and approved an agreement with developers to move forward. Tuesday night, council approved ordinances toward taking the properties.

Bullock said the urban renewal plan was unconvincing.

"It is a study specifically designed to reach a predetermined result: to declare blighted an attractive, well-maintained neighborhood of homes and businesses."

The Gambles say they'll do everything in their power to stay. They declined an unsolicited offer to sell last June. Joy Gamble won't say how much it was, only that, "my home is not for sale at any price."

Joseph Horney, who owns rental property on Delmar Avenue, said the lawsuit was necessary to protect his rights.

"Norwood took a very loose definition of blight," Horney said.

"This could happen to any(one)," said Mary Beth Wilker, owner of Wilker Design on Edwards Road. "It's not about money, it's about people's rights as Americans."

Bullock said the lawsuit is not just about the people who live along Edwards Road.

"We have to overturn the absurd use of eminent domain," he said. "This is a battle for everyone in Cincinnati and everyone in the state."

The Institute for Justice is also battling Anderson in Lakewood, Ohio, near Cleveland, where the mayor and city council want to raze houses and apartment buildings for a $151 million shopping, movie and townhouse complex.

E-mail scoolidge@enquirer.com


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: eminentdomain; propertyrights

1 posted on 09/24/2003 9:54:56 AM PDT by yankeedame
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: yankeedame
FREEEEEEDDDOOMMMMMMMM bump.
2 posted on 09/24/2003 10:09:12 AM PDT by jokar (Beware the White European Male Christian theological complex !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yankeedame
They excuse city of abusing eminent domain

The actual article headlines:

They accuse city of abusing eminent domain

3 posted on 09/24/2003 10:10:01 AM PDT by jimkress (Go away Pat Go away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: msdrby
Slippery Guv'ment Ahead
4 posted on 09/24/2003 10:10:02 AM PDT by Prof Engineer (HHD - I married Msdrby on 9/11/03. --- My Tagline is an Honor Student at Taglinus FReerepublicus!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yankeedame
Makes you wonder how much is being slipped to the council members under the table. I don't understand how something owned by a private business is public domain. I guess this means the city council is acting as an agent for this corporation and as such have filed appropriate papers with the state and federal governements.
5 posted on 09/24/2003 10:10:28 AM PDT by wvnavyvet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yankeedame
another thread on same subject (far less detail) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/988399/posts?page=1
6 posted on 09/24/2003 10:12:40 AM PDT by ctlpdad (If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yankeedame
I don't see how anyone could support this (eminent domain abuse), on the left or right.
7 posted on 09/24/2003 10:12:45 AM PDT by stands2reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yankeedame
"It is a study specifically designed to reach a predetermined result:...

All studies are designed, both by accident and intent, to reach a predetermined conclusion. The problem with these studies is that they are incomplete. They do not include comparisons and the effects of other eminent domain seizures. There is no provision for the input of an authoritative, but disinterested third party. Payment for studies with the possible result being the exercising of eminent domain, should only be paid for by the taxpayers of the authority that has such right.

8 posted on 09/24/2003 10:23:07 AM PDT by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
I don't see how anyone could support this (eminent domain abuse), on the left or right.

First off, this is another case where the traditional 'left-right' definitions are meaningless. The extremes are both State socialism, and a key element of that is destruction of the rights of ordinary citizens (in this case, property rights) in favor of power for the self-annointed elite. In today's world, the political side of this is embraced by 'the left' who like government - whether local, State, national or international - making decisions enforced by law despite the wishes of the individuals involved. The economic side of this is embraced by 'the right', who like government to enhance their profitability and provide monopolistic advantages.

So, in contrast to your statement, this sort of thing is supported by both 'the left' and 'the right' . . . with those not part of the elite squeezed out. Whether it's the heriditary aristocracy of feudalism, the Junkers of Nazi Germany, the 'nomenklatura' of Soviet Russia, or the self-styled elites of the 'blue zones' in contemporary America, look for the common denominator of using the power of government for personal advantage. It's not hard to find.
9 posted on 09/24/2003 10:36:00 AM PDT by Gorjus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: yankeedame
WTF is a "lifestyle shopping center?"
10 posted on 09/24/2003 10:47:17 AM PDT by Malacoda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Malacoda
WTF is a "lifestyle shopping center?"

A sex change clinic, a leather goods store and an adult toy store.

11 posted on 09/24/2003 11:33:32 AM PDT by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: yankeedame
"Dingall"-Norwood?
12 posted on 09/24/2003 11:34:27 AM PDT by Freakazoid (Freaking zoids since 1998.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yankeedame
Unfortunately, they are going to ultimately lose. The supreme court has already decided that property rights don't exist in this country if any level of government wants your stuff.
13 posted on 09/24/2003 12:08:41 PM PDT by zeugma (Hate pop-up ads? Here's the fix: http://www.mozilla.org/ Now Version 1.4!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wvnavyvet
See how much these #$%$#& developers are into the "public good" if the roles were reversed and the city wanted to seize their propery by eminent domain via the ex-Soviet Union
14 posted on 09/24/2003 12:12:35 PM PDT by RedMonqey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: yankeedame
bump
15 posted on 09/24/2003 12:28:44 PM PDT by RippleFire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yankeedame
The developers paid for an urban renewal study that found the area was "blighted," "deteriorated" and "deteriorating."

Deteriorating? Shockingly, it appears that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does apply to Norwood.

16 posted on 09/24/2003 12:32:34 PM PDT by Sloth ("I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" -- Jacobim Mugatu, 'Zoolander')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson