Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Rookwood holdouts win in Ohio Supreme CourtCincinnati Business Courier - 11:08 AM EDT Wednesdayby Lisa Biank Fasig
Link: http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2006/07/24/daily28.html
In a compelling victory for Norwood property owners, the Ohio Supreme Court today unanimously ruled that the city could not forcibly acquire their homes for economic purposes, deeming parts of the state's eminent domain laws unconstitutional and turning at least one development project on its ear.
The homes, belonging to Joy and Carl Gamble and Joseph Horney, were forcibly acquired by the city early this year after the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court cleared the way. The city's argument to take the properties, to make way for a mixed-use development that would be called Rookwood Exchange, hinged upon studies that deemed the area "blighted."
The property owners appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard their arguments in January.
The ruling may kill development of the proposed, $150 million Rookwood project, which the city said was important to helping pull it from insolvency. The project, developed in part by Jeffrey R. Anderson Real Estate, would include upscale housing, offices and retailers. Crate & Barrel was among the merchants interested in the site.
But it is a complete victory of property rights advocates, who argued that the city's demand was a violation of the residents' constitutional rights. Five property owners originally held out; three eventually settled or were paid a sum determined by a jury. But the property of one of those three, Nick Motz of Wilker Design, also had not been razed.
The three buildings now stand alone on a bulldozed, three-block area barricaded by a chain-link fence. [Poster's note: I see this property every day. What once was a modest neighborhood is now a truly blighted wasteland.]
"This is big for Joe Horney, but for Ohio it's huge," Horney said after learning of the ruling. "The Fifth Amendment, private property, it means something."
The court rule 7-0 to reverse a Hamilton County appeals court and stop the takeover of the homes. The ruling also overturned a portion of Ohio's eminent domain law and ruled that a government cannot take private property based on the economic benefits to the community.
The court said that a provision of Ohio's eminent domain law, which prohibits a judge from halting the taking of a government-acquired property before an appeal, is unconstitutional.
The judges also said that using the term "deteriorating area" as a standard for determining whether private property can be forcibly acquired, as is the case in Norwood city law, is "overly vague and therefore void."
"In addressing these important matters, we have benefited from the wisdom of other courts, which, by the masterly design of our government, are at the forefront of these critical constitutional questions," wrote Justice Maureen O'Connor. "Although the judiciary and legislature define the limits of state powers, such as eminent domain, the ultimate guardians of the people's rights, as evidenced by the appellants in these cases, are the people themselves."
Attorneys for the city of Norwood and sources at Jeffrey R. Anderson Real Estate could not be reached.
The city had paid $280,000 for the Gambles' home and $233,000 for Horney's property.
"It just feels so good to own that property. I just can't wait to go see it," Horney said.
The property owner, who took the day off of work after learning the ruling, said he is not sure if he will move back to his property, which he had rented out. There is no longer a neighborhood, so he is not sure what his options are.
But he said, he wants to be made whole, "That is my next step."
Link: http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2006/07/24/daily28.html
In a compelling victory for Norwood property owners, the Ohio Supreme Court today unanimously ruled that the city could not forcibly acquire their homes for economic purposes, deeming parts of the state's eminent domain laws unconstitutional and turning at least one development project on its ear.
The homes, belonging to Joy and Carl Gamble and Joseph Horney, were forcibly acquired by the city early this year after the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court cleared the way. The city's argument to take the properties, to make way for a mixed-use development that would be called Rookwood Exchange, hinged upon studies that deemed the area "blighted."
The property owners appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard their arguments in January.
The ruling may kill development of the proposed, $150 million Rookwood project, which the city said was important to helping pull it from insolvency. The project, developed in part by Jeffrey R. Anderson Real Estate, would include upscale housing, offices and retailers. Crate & Barrel was among the merchants interested in the site.
But it is a complete victory of property rights advocates, who argued that the city's demand was a violation of the residents' constitutional rights. Five property owners originally held out; three eventually settled or were paid a sum determined by a jury. But the property of one of those three, Nick Motz of Wilker Design, also had not been razed.
The three buildings now stand alone on a bulldozed, three-block area barricaded by a chain-link fence. [Poster's note: I see this property every day. What once was a modest neighborhood is now a truly blighted wasteland.]
"This is big for Joe Horney, but for Ohio it's huge," Horney said after learning of the ruling. "The Fifth Amendment, private property, it means something."
The court rule 7-0 to reverse a Hamilton County appeals court and stop the takeover of the homes. The ruling also overturned a portion of Ohio's eminent domain law and ruled that a government cannot take private property based on the economic benefits to the community.
The court said that a provision of Ohio's eminent domain law, which prohibits a judge from halting the taking of a government-acquired property before an appeal, is unconstitutional.
The judges also said that using the term "deteriorating area" as a standard for determining whether private property can be forcibly acquired, as is the case in Norwood city law, is "overly vague and therefore void."
"In addressing these important matters, we have benefited from the wisdom of other courts, which, by the masterly design of our government, are at the forefront of these critical constitutional questions," wrote Justice Maureen O'Connor. "Although the judiciary and legislature define the limits of state powers, such as eminent domain, the ultimate guardians of the people's rights, as evidenced by the appellants in these cases, are the people themselves."
Attorneys for the city of Norwood and sources at Jeffrey R. Anderson Real Estate could not be reached.
The city had paid $280,000 for the Gambles' home and $233,000 for Horney's property.
"It just feels so good to own that property. I just can't wait to go see it," Horney said.
The property owner, who took the day off of work after learning the ruling, said he is not sure if he will move back to his property, which he had rented out. There is no longer a neighborhood, so he is not sure what his options are.
But he said, he wants to be made whole, "That is my next step."
