« We'll always have Dusseldorf | Main | The embeds »
July 27, 2006
"Crookwood" Gambled and lost
NoLandGrab readers may be familiar with the Gamble case, which we've followed on these pages due to its similarity to Atlantic Yards.
The Rookwood project in Norwood, OH and Atlantic Yards both involve: * politically well connected developers, * who have used eminent domain before for other projects, * with plans to build a privately owned mixed-use development, * who own the adjacent recently developed commercial real estate, * who want the government to condemn property to expand their real estate holdings (in Forest City Ratner's case, they are already the largest private property owner in Brooklyn), * who are claiming that the neighborhood is "blighted," despite evidence to the contrary, and * in a bizarre coincidence, the Gambles' home is on Atlantic Avenue in Norwood.
Though the Gamble case was decided narrowly on matters of Ohio state law, the similarities between the two cases strikes a public-relations blow to Bruce Ratner's bid to have several blocks of Prospect Heights declared blighted, and then condemned, for his $4.2-billion highrise and arena development proposal.
Here's the coverage:
Institute for Justice (press release), Ohio Supreme Court Rules Unanimously To Protect Property From Eminent Domain Abuse
Today, in an historic ruling, the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously held that the City of Norwood could not use eminent domain to take Carl and Joy Gamble’s home of 35 years, as well as the rental home of Joe Horney and tutoring center owned by Matthew Burton and Sanae Ichikawa Burton, for private development—specifically, a complex of chain stores, condominiums and office space planned by millionaire developer Jeffrey Anderson and his Rookwood Partners.
The NY Times, Ohio Supreme Court Rejects Taking of Homes for Project
The Times points out that this case can't be appealed to the Supreme Court, where a ruling would have bearing on Atlantic Yards (drat!):
Since the Ohio case was argued based on the state’s Constitution, yesterday’s decision cannot be appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which decides matters involving federal law.
The Cincinnati Enquirer, Coming home to Norwood
After their big win, the Gambles and co- lead plaintiff Joseph P. Horney visited their homes, which have been fenced off after the remainder of the neighborhood was bulldozed. Reporters followed the homeowners to see what's left, which gives new meaning to "developers' blight."
Joseph P. Horney, the lead plaintiff in the landmark Supreme Court case, triumphantly forced open the temporary fencing Wednesday that surrounds what's left of the neighborhood, an 11-acre site. Once inside, he looked around and said, "It's painful to see the neighborhood. There's not much left of it."
...
what they fought for seems almost uninhabitable, surrounded by a desolate field of weeds and the drone of highway traffic.The houses of the three plaintiffs in the case are still standing, under a Supreme Court injunction blocking their demolition. They are the only homes left in what used to be a densely packed working- to middle-class neighborhood.
They've been fenced off, salvaged for parts and neglected for more than a year.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer, Court limits eminent domain
In a closely watched case with national implications, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that governments and developers cannot use economic benefit as the sole reason for seizing private property.
LA Times, Ohio Landowners Win Eminent Domain Case
The ruling was the first from a state high court since the U.S. Supreme Court issued a controversial eminent domain decision last summer.
...
"It's a complete vindication for every home and business owner in the state of Ohio," said Dana Berliner, a lawyer with the Institute for Justice who represented the plaintiffs."Some of the justification the city gave was that the area was 'deteriorating' because different people owned different houses, and there were cul-de-sacs in neighborhoods, and people had to back out of their driveways," Berliner said. "And what the Ohio high court said is that cities cannot use standards for eminent domain that are so vague that they could apply anywhere."
NoLandGrab: It is a widely held view that NY State's legal definition of "blight" is so vague that there isn't a neighborhood in the entire city that doesn't qualify.
AP, via Baltimore Sun, Ohio court bars taking of homes
Property rights advocates, business groups and backers of city planning were watching the Ohio case because of the precedent it could set.
NoLandGrab: Much is being made of the fact that this was the first State Supreme Court to rule following the Kelo case. It should be noted that the last state court decision on an eminent domain case was in Michigan. In the August, 2004 Hathcock ruling, the Michigan State Supreme Court overturned the historic and controversial 1981 Poletown decision, which is widely cited as the first eminent domain taking justified by economic development. That makes the state courts 2-for-2 against eminent domain abuse in recent years.
Posted by lumi at July 27, 2006 6:37 AM