A wonderful turn of events for homeowners. It's about time someone stopped government from stealing property.
Stopped the lobbyists and their friends that try and control government. The courts rendered a fair and just unanimous decision for citizens.
Outstanding, they won on principle.
Now do the American thing and sell out.
Agree with Chris. Now that they've won, it's impractical to move back in, so I'd hold out for a nice amount to retire with.
Speaking of annexing, let's just annex St. Bernard along with Norwood. I dislike seeing those two big holes in the middle of the map.
two-faced tim burke got stroked on a flimsy case in which E.D. was perverted & abused and the crooked city of norwood gets what it deserves.
cudos to the two hold outs for standing firm on principle.
certainly a good decision for property rights, but disastrous for Norwood. I think it will be funny if Gamble actually moves back in. The developer can re-seed her lawn, put in a driveway and she can sit on her porch and wave at traffic.
I feel much better about Ohio now. Finally something good coming from state government. Although, it makes all the lesser and appeals courts look very ineffective for us regular Joe Blow citizens.
This raises a new group of questions now, a very interesting situation.
1)Apparantly the houses have been somewhat salvaged of many useful items and are currently not liveable. Did the owners do this before the city took them or did the city do it after they took title to them?
2) My guess is that there will certainly still be new development on that land, its inevitable. No one would move back into that now. Can they even move back? Are there still water, sewer, and gas/electric?
3) The owners now will simply have a much improved marketing position with the developers, which was taken away from them when they started the ridiculous 'deteriorating' grab. The higher price they will have to pay serves them rightly for trying the nasty approach using the city.
4) I wonder which company prepared the report which initially claimed the area was deteriorating and blighted? Was it a loacl comapany (shame on them) or was it some sort of hired gun from out of state (more likely)?
Regarding whether or not the development will happen:
I think the location is so desirable theres no way it won't continue. Its close to town, close to the freeway, close to high dollar zip codes. If it was in a part of town that was more shaky then the 'city' could worry.
I doubt anyone involved really questions whether this property will develop, and probably be built exactly like it was initially designed.
I want Crate & Barrel!
I support the ruling and improved properaty rights of home owners.
one question keeps coming to mind--what will this do to ubran revitilization in our town and others cross the state?
I seem to think that this will cause developers more pain and aggrevation, so therefore less resources dedicated to improving urbank areas. Sounds like 3CDC might have issues in OTR.
The property may not have been blighted before, but it sure is now. Maybe Norwood could restart the proceedings.
While I agree with the decision, I think it will finally play out as follows. The developers have been paying ridiculous amounts of interest on the property since they bought the other homes and they will probalby try once last time to renegotiate with the homeowners; Or more than likely, they will redraw the land plan to leave the remaining homes, but in the event the homeowners choose to sell, the homes can be torn down and the land successfully incorporated into the development.
That way, the homeowners get screwed because there will be only one buyer for the property. Jeffrey Anderson...The homes will have no value as residential property, and the developers will have the homeowners by the balls.
This is their last chance to get significant amount of money for their property.
Awesome! The developer is now free to build around those houses, which is what the whole struggle was about in the first place. Let the property owners decide what they would like to do with their properties - if they sell them, they shouldn't be forced to sell for less than their asking price.
The lawyer for the city of Norwood is none other than Mr. Timothy Burke, Chairman of the Hamilton County Democratic Party. People better learn to watch their back or the Democrats will try to take their homes.
While I'm sure the developers would like to build, leaving some nicely placed rectangles in the middle of a parking lot for the holdout houses, I doubt that feasible. It seems to me that as long as the houses are standing they still will require legal access..that means the streets will have to remain (or maybe re-worked somehow), which may be problamatic and something they would rather not have to design around.
My guess is that they will reluctantly cough up the extra bucks and get that project built..time is money and in this case and the longer its delayed the more it will cost in the end.
It'll be fun to see how this plays out. I've been following this for years.
Glad to see it. Go Gambles. And others.
Wow this site was going to be a Crate and Barrel? This would be a great new addition to the retail world of Cincinnati. Does Cincinnati have an Ikea?
Hello, guys. Sorry for my English, I'm from Spain. It's an interesting site. And I wonder, where do you live (country and maybe city)?
pride | personals
They can phase the development to provide access to all the properties. As far as I know there is only one house that is really embedded in the site and they can give access from Smith or Edwards...It does not to be a "street" per se, just access. The actual Right of Way for the streets has probably been or will be abandoned relatively soon.
Granted, the solution is not ideal for anyone, but the developers have an opportunity to stick it to the holdouts if they want to...
I imagine that once development starts and all the Tonka Toys are driving around the site, they will not want to remain there much longer.
Who knows...Again, Norwood was in the wrong to declare the area "blightd", but the city is in dire need for tax revenue that will be good for the entire city. Do a few need to suffer for the greater good?
Igon,
You can't really believe anyone will occupy those houses again? Theres just no way. The only way I can see that happening is if they need to have someone living there in order to keep the city from declaring some new 'dangerous' condition existing at the addresses that might require the city to demolish them.
The questions is whether or not the city/utilities have to still provide essential services to the homes, ie street access, gas, electric, sewer, fire hydrants.
I agree Ralph; There is no way anyone can live in those houses, but these sellers seem to be pretty hard headed, so you never know...
I hope they were fighting on principal alone.
"I wonder which company prepared the report which initially claimed the area was deteriorating and blighted? Was it a loacl comapany (shame on them) or was it some sort of hired gun from out of state (more likely)?"
I don't recall the name of the firm that did the study, but they were hired by Norwood and paid by the developers.
The developer is Miller Valentine.
You know, the ones who refused to pay appropriate taxes since the land they grabbed was now worth less than when they started to refer to it as "blighted". Sweet, huh?
Some balls, those guys! So what's not to love here?
Well, I wouldn't pay taxes on the 'top dollar value' of that property either, seeing that its future was in limbo (as it eventually turned out to be too). I don't blame them for trying to have it reduced towards its more realistic value.
Ralph,
Let's review:
1) The area was designated as blighted when, in fact, it was not. This would appear to be operating in bad faith.
God forbid that anyone would suggest such a thing.
2) Miller Valentine is not in the business of guessing about development.
The usual process is to force out property owners after you make it almost impossible to go on living where they chose to live. The property owners, for the most part, did not want to move.
This was done to them, not for them and not at their behest. They had legal title to their property. Ownership is ownership or no one owns anything they have paid for. Legal title then is meaningless.
3) Since Miller Valentine and the City of Norwood chose to force the property owners out and started demolition around the hold-outs, one may assume that both parties were quite confident about their eventual success in forcing all owners to leave for this private development. No one went into this with any idea that there would be any protracted fight.
Successful developers don't waste time and money prepping property in order to spend more later. "Limbo" is not a word in any developer's vocabulary. This kind of thing affects profits and that has to be recoupped for everyone to make the projected amount of money on the project.
4) Since both parties had initiated these events and knew ahead of time that there would be demolition, how is it possible that Miller Valentine suddenly announced that it had found (surprise!) a drop in tax value from the results of their own work.
Example: I go into a produce store and deliberately squash all the tomatos. Then turn around and tell the store owner that I refuse to pay full price for these items because I just noticed that they are damaged.
Do you think that is fair to the store owner, who received the items in good shape and who intended to receive full market price for them?
In other words, if I am a purchaser, is it right for me to enter the store and then damage the items for sale in order to stiff the owner out of his expected proceeds?
5) So, Ralph, I think we see the wondrous ways of the developers who enter an area, attempt to have it designated as "blighted" when it is not and then take the property for private development.
They know the tax value when they come to the dance.
Eminent Domain was to be used for public projects, not for private development. Paying off property owners for the construction of a much-needed public road would be an appropriate example of an application for Eminent Domain. Using the principle for private benefit goes against the intent of the principle.
I am sure Miller Valentine is pleased that you have sympathy for them but they have come up against the reality of the misuse of a legal principle. Let them pay the taxes as they should. Norwood needs tax income and now the developers have decided not to pay in full.
Does it strike you as a little odd that this very successful developer suddenly has a total loss of foresight and never saw this one coming? Think it might have had something to do with the property owners fighting back and suing in court? Court costs are high, you know.
This and many other cases are now attempting to reverse the recent trend of the wholesale seizure of private property for the benefit of developers and private businesses.
There are many cases still pending from property owners who wish to be permitted to stay in their homes.
Do you own a home, Ralph? Does the title to the home mean anything to you? It should. It is the bedrock of the "ownership society" that Bush has sung about in the past.
Could it be that in this great nation a title to a house means nothing? I sure hope not, Ralph.
mc,
I don't know what your beef is with me. I agreed that the developer was a jerk about how they went about getting the eminent domain thing done.
All I said was that if the County had an excessively high value placed on the property, and that value assummed full title to the 3 holdout buildings, then they had every right to question the auditors value and petition to have it lowered. Just as anyone would.
Just because someone is a jerk doesn't mean they should lose the same rights that everyone else has.
You mean we missed out on a Crate & Barrel so some old folks don't have to move?! Aww mannn.....!
Thanks, Ralph. That was the response I expected.
Commenting by HaloScan
