« Ind. Law - New scrapyard regulations passed by South Bend Common Council | Main | Law - Cameras in the U.S. Supreme Courtroom »

Sunday, April 30, 2006

Law - "Remaking cities: What price?"

"Remaking cities: What price?" is the headline to one of two major stories today in the Cincinnati Enquirer about the use of eminent domain in Ohio. To begin, take a look at this powerful photo from the Enquirer, showing the houses of the three hold-outs, who are the subject of a battle before the Ohio Supreme Court. From the story:

In a test case watched nationwide, the Ohio Supreme Court soon will decide whether Norwood had the right to take people's homes and businesses for a planned $125 million complex of trendy shops, offices and condos.

The city's action has been widely criticized in congressional committees and newspaper editorials, on talk radio and cable TV. It's unpopular everywhere, it seems, but the five streets in Norwood where it matters most.

An Enquirer analysis of property transfers found that most of the 73 former private owners in the project area willingly sold and were compensated well. The properties sold for an average of more than twice what they were worth three years before.

Six of the owners balked at selling and were awarded even more. They were given an average of three times the fair market value estimated by the Hamilton County auditor's office in 2002, the latest year for which comparisons were available. * * *

The local case gained national stature when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that New Haven, Conn., could take people's private property and give it to a private developer. The court left it to the states to set restrictions. Ohio is the first state to have a case reach the state Supreme Court.

The Enquirer has a special "Eminent Page" page, with this introduction:
The power of a government to take private property for public use goes back centuries. But when that property is someone's home and the government wants it for private development, the result can be a legal and political firestorm over the nature of private property rights versus the definition of a public use.

Today, the epicenter for that national debate is a muddy, 11-acre field off I-71 in Norwood where a city neighborhood once stood. With dozens of middle-class homes razed for a shopping an office complex, the Ohio Supreme Court is considering the rights of the few holdouts who refused to sell. And the Ohio General Assembly is considering curbs on this ancient government exercise of power - limits that some say could hinder the ability of cities to remain vital centers of commerce.

The page inclludes links to all the paper's past stories, plus an invaluable resource -- links to all the briefs in the upcoming Supreme Court case.

The second story in the Enquirer today is titled "The untold story." Some quotes from a lengthy report:

A year after they sold their properties in Norwood, the people who once owned homes and commercial buildings on 11 acres marked for the Rookwood Exchange office-retail-and-condo complex are settling into new lives.

Gone are their solid brick and wood-frame houses, sidewalks, tree-lined streets and back yards big enough for swing sets, barbecue grills and gardens. They've been bulldozed over, leaving only three houses standing in a barren landscape of muddy ground surrounded by a chain-link fence and "No Trespassing" signs.

As soon as this week, the Ohio Supreme Court could decide whether Norwood had the right to take the property of anyone who refused to sell so a deteriorating neighborhood could be used for an ultra-modern - and tax-producing - development project. It's one of the most far-reaching and heavily publicized eminent domain cases in local history.

As justices weigh the case, an Enquirer analysis of real-estate sales records provides the fullest picture yet of how properties were acquired and how former owners fared.

The analysis shows that most of the 73 property owners were handsomely compensated. On average, they were paid twice the fair market value estimated by the Hamilton County Auditor in 2002, the latest year for which comparisons are available.

Also, all but six property owners sold voluntarily. The six who refused to sell were named in eminent domain lawsuits and ultimately were awarded, on average, three times their property's value. The Supreme Court is considering the appeals of three of those owners.

Here is a list of earlier ILB entries on the Ohio case.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 30, 2006 09:58 AM
Posted to General Law Related