Posted on 01/20/2006 11:41:07 AM PST by JZelle
Carl and Joy Gamble, retirees who lived in the same house in Norwood, a Cincinnati suburb, for more than three decades, did not realize their neighborhood was "deteriorating." Neither did the Norwood City Council, until it heard about developer Jeffrey Anderson's plan to build offices, condominiums, chain stores and a parking garage there. The prospect of new tax revenue opened the city council's eyes to the awful conditions in the Edwards Road Corridor. It turned out the area was plagued by "obsolete platting" (small front yards), "faulty street arrangements" (two cul-de-sacs), "incompatible uses" (businesses close to homes), "nonconforming uses" (homes and businesses that did not meet zoning and building requirements imposed after they were constructed), and "diversity of ownership" (homes and businesses owned by different people). An "urban renewal study" suggested and financed by Mr. Anderson documented these horrors, leaving the city with no choice but to condemn any property in the neighborhood whose owners refused to sell to Mr. Anderson, who had kindly agreed to reimburse any government expenses entailed by that process. After more than two years of legal challenges by the Gambles and other holdouts, the Ohio Supreme Court now must decide if there's anything wrong with this cozy arrangement.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I'll say!!!
The prospect of new tax revenue opened the city council's eyes to the awful conditions in the Edwards Road Corridor. It turned out the area was plagued by "obsolete platting" (small front yards), "faulty street arrangements" (two cul-de-sacs), "incompatible uses" (businesses close to homes), "nonconforming uses" (homes and businesses that did not meet zoning and building requirements imposed after they were constructed), and "diversity of ownership" (homes and businesses owned by different people).
An "urban renewal study" suggested and financed by Mr. Anderson documented these horrors, leaving the city with no choice but to condemn any property in the neighborhood whose owners refused to sell to Mr. Anderson, who had kindly agreed to reimburse any government expenses entailed by that process. After more than two years of legal challenges by the Gambles and other holdouts, the Ohio Supreme Court now must decide if there's anything wrong with this cozy arrangement.
Good! I'm sorry for the individuals caught up in this mess, but the SCOTUS needs another opportunity to get this right.
Like I said, we need a nationwide effort. Vote to condemn, lose your job as a city councilman. PERIOD.
From Cincinnati's WCPO, 20 November 2005:
I-Team reporter, Laure Quinlivan, voice over video: A NEIGHBOORHOOD OF 73 HOMES IS IN HIS WAY, BUT MOST PEOPLE HAVE AGREED TO SELL.
Sandy Dittoe, Norwood resident, on camera: "I'm thrilled"
I-Team reporter, Laure Quinlivan, voice over video: SANDY DITTOE SAYS HER HOUSE ON EDWARDS ROADS APPRAISED FOR 114-THOUSAND. ANDERSON WILL PAY HER 250-THOUSAND.
I-Team reporter, Laure Quinlivan, voice on camera: So you think this is a good deal.
Sandy Dittoe, Norwood resident, on camera: "It's a great deal."
[ . . .]
Jeffrey Anderson, Developer, on camera: "Five people are trying to keep us from developing something that is really to the future of Norwood. Do we want to use eminent domain against them? That was our last choice."
I-Team reporter, Laure Quinlivan, voice on camera: "But because you can't get the Gambles to sell yourself, is it right for you to go to the city of norwood and say I can't get them to sell, so take their land?"
Jeffrey Anderson, Developer, on camera: "If one person's will, ok, can dictate the entire future of this community, ok, then the answer to that is I don't know."
[ . . .]
Mike Fulmer Norwood Councilman, on camera: "So I really don't like govt taking anybody's property in all honesty."
I-Team reporter, Laure Quinlivan, voice on camera: "But you voted for it."
Mike Fulmer Norwood Councilman, on camera: "I still believe it's in the best interest of the city and the majority of the people do want to move."
Hope the Gambles have some real crackerjack attorneys. Otherwise, looks like they're gonna be moving to California.
what you said, and more........
Why can't we take the Capitol Building and put up a Mall? Does that building generate any tax revenue at all?
Nothing drives me to want a actual call to arms, and even Jefferson didn't want it to be easy. He insited things and to keep recurring. Well, now is the time to keep it from recurring. THis stuff is for the birds. They better hope they don't run into a couple of windowers willing to shoot it out. Me? I hope they run into such.
Every time I see one of these stories the first thing that pops in my mind is the first Brady Bunch movie.
Times seem to have changed rather quickly.
My main problem with this whole thing is foundational and fundamental. The single most important premise upon which this nation was founded is the rights of the individual. Those rights have been trashed the last few decades and are continuing at a constantly increasing pace.
It used to be when people said to me "folks won't stand for it!" I would say, "no, THIS GENERATION won't stand for it. The next one will". I must now amend that to, "No, they won't stand for it until they have been brainwashed by enough television shows and biased news programs. That should take at least a year...".
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.