ForumGarden

Local and state gov'ts are abusing the concept of 'imminent domain' - an evil to be unleashed only in extreme circumstanced if at all - to steal private property from taxpaying citizens on behalf of businessmen.



If a business wants to buy property from the owner, they should negotiate for it. If the owner doesn't want to sell, that should be the end of it! However, businesses can now whine to gov't, who can steal said property for the business - with the blessing of the court! This act spits in the face of all that is American.



This is a practice that has to stop! Ohio citizens are the latest victims in this dispicable crime. Here's a timeline & link for more information.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





MULTIMEDIA• Institute for Justice brief (Microsoft Word Document)

• Norwood legal brief (PDF)

THE NORWOOD CASEEarly 2002 - Anderson Real Estate and the Miller-Valentine Group announce plans to build the Rookwood Exchange, a $125 million retail, residential and office complex just north of Rookwood Commons. The project would require the demolition of 71 houses and businesses. Developers soon begin negotiating with the property owners.

Aug. 26, 2003 - Norwood City Council adopts an urban renewal plan calling the neighborhood "blighted," "deteriorated," and "deteriorating" and approves an agreement with developers allowing the Rookwood Exchange project to proceed. The developers paid for the study.

Sept. 9, 2003 - Norwood City Council approves a resolution declaring its intent to seize the properties of the seven home and business owners who don't want to sell to the developers and move out. At this point, 64 property owners have agreed to sell.

Sept. 23, 2003 - Norwood City Council votes to seize the holdout properties by eminent domain.

Sept. 23, 2003 - The Institute of Justice, a Washington-based public-interest law firm, files a lawsuit in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court on behalf of nine holdout property owners seeking to stop Norwood's attempt to take the properties by eminent domain.

Nov. 7, 2003 - Norwood files lawsuits in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court asking for the right to seize the holdout properties.

Nov. 25, 2003 - Judge Robert Ruhlman dismisses the Institute for Justice's lawsuit, ruling that Norwood can seize the holdout properties so that Rookwood Exchange can be built. This decision is under appeal.

April 12-15, 2004 - A trial on Norwood's complaint asking to seize held to determine whether Norwood can seize the properties of the five remaining holdout home and business owners takes place before Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Beth Myers.

June 14, 2004 - Myers rules that Norwood can use eminent domain to take the properties of the five home and business owners. She said that although the neighborhood should not have been designated as "blighted," it is "deteriorating."

Feb. 2, 2005 - The last occupants of the planned Rookwood Exchange site - Joy and Carl Gamble Jr. - move out of their house.

May 20, 2005 - The 1st District Court of Appeals upheld Myers' decision that supported Norwood's use of eminent domain to seize the properties.

April 13, 2005 - Demolition crews began knocking down houses to make way for the Rookwood Exchange. They demolished all but three structures that were protected by court order until the case is resolved - the home of Joy and Carl Gamble Jr., a rental house owned by Joe Horney and the Kumon Math & Reading Center.

Sept. 28, 2005 - Ohio Supreme Court hears oral arguments about whether to demolish two of the three houses.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Latest news story

that's a Republican Gov't for ya.

Wolverine wrote: that's a Republican Gov't for ya.








http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/23/news/fo ... entdomain/

StupidCowboyTricks wrote: http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/23/news/fo ... entdomain/










*shhhh.... i'm just trying to ruffle Acc's feather a bit

Wolverine wrote: *shhhh.... i'm just trying to ruffle Acc's feather a bit
Oh! Sorry.



What the #$%# do you know about #$% Republicans, you @#$@#??? Obviously you're a #$% lib who likes to $%#$ his #$5@# all over $@#@# town!!



(How's that? )

Accountable wrote: Oh! Sorry.



What the #$%# do you know about #$% Republicans, you @#$@#??? Obviously you're a #$% lib who likes to $%#$ his #$5@# all over $@#@# town!!



(How's that? )


*prepubescent voice*

Sorry Sir.....:wah:

Accountable wrote: Oh! Sorry.



What the #$%# do you know about #$% Republicans, you @#$@#??? Obviously you're a #$% lib who likes to $%#$ his #$5@# all over $@#@# town!!



(How's that? )


What happened? I meant to post that to you.

StupidCowboyTricks wrote: http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/23/news/fo ... entdomain/
Outstanding! Thanks.



This was linked to that story:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/01/05/real_es ... y_takings/

no. using eminent domain to oust citizens and small business owners to put up some monolithic monstrousity is wrong.

*ouch. that hurt*

Eminent Domain should only be used in times of.... need(?) Expanding the downtown expressway from 4 to 8 lanes to ease congestion and increase traffic flow. fine.

Extending the runways at the airport to better serve larger planes, bringing more people to town and possibly more business opportunities. fine.

kicking people out of an entire neighborhood to put up a mall, condos, and what-not. No @#$%!&* way.

Wolverine wrote: no. using eminent domain to oust citizens and small business owners to put up some monolithic monstrousity is wrong.

*ouch. that hurt*

Eminent Domain should only be used in times of.... need(?) Expanding the downtown expressway from 4 to 8 lanes to ease congestion and increase traffic flow. fine.

Extending the runways at the airport to better serve larger planes, bringing more people to town and possibly more business opportunities. fine.



kicking people out of an entire neighborhood to put up a mall, condos, and what-not. No @#$%!&* way.Hear hear!



Here in San Antonio, the freeway that cuts through town is 8 lanes or more wide. I'm certain imminent domain was used to expand the original 2-lane road. I don't like it but I understand it. When congestion got too bad for even that wide freeway to handle, the city opted to go up rather than out, and built another freeway directly above the original. That's 16 lanes in the space of 8, and avoids imminent domain issues. I like that more.

imminent domain should be used for projects that better serve the "whole"

not a money hungry few.

If we could squash this emminent domain abuse, maybe Wal-Mart et al would have a harder time steam-rolling Mom & Pop stores. :-5

you may have a point there.

but i do understand why townships let "big business" kinda have their way.

increases their tax base. it does provide jobs. and it brings people from "over there" to their town to shop and spend money.

Wolverine wrote: you may have a point there.

but i do understand why townships let "big business" kinda have their way.

increases their tax base. it does provide jobs. and it brings people from "over there" to their town to shop and spend money.
Let'em negotiate in good faith, then. Imminent Domain abuse is theft and the businessmen & politicians that signed off on it should be in jail.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Here's a list of the cases the Institute for Justice is or was involved in. The cases involve New York, Minnesota, Arizona, Ohio, Connecticut, New Jersey, New hampshire, Mississippi, Illinois, Pensylvania, Utah, and Michigan.



Do you know where your state representative stands on this issue? I highly recommend you let him/her know where you stand.

no arguement here

moverguy wrote: Then we need to abolish ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCILS and stop the use of "potential" tax revenues as the means for counties and municipalities to increase taxes. BUT then they turn around and give tax abatements for the business?!!??!?!?!?!?!?!
I don't care what they do, as long as they respect the right of ownership.

As seen in an excerpt from the below article a referendum should be mandatory in instances that will disrupt lives. Majority rules is the fairest solution I can think of.



Tucson, Arizona | Published: 12.22.2005

advertisement

OAS_AD('300x250_1')

arizona

Phoenix backs out of high-rise project

PHOENIX ” The City Council on Wednesday overturned its decision to allow high-rises in certain areas of the Camelback Corridor.

The action came after a residents' group turned in enough signatures to force the matter to the ballot.

The decision effectively kills several projects, most notably a 140-foot, $200 million condominium/hotel pitched by developer Donald Trump and development partner Bayrock Group.

That's the way it works best. :yh_clap



Trump builds highrises to take advantage of the spectacular views. Never mind that the highrise block said view from the people that were there before.



Here's a good example of that 'your right to swing your fist ends at my nose' saying. That, and how neighbors take care of their own property influence the value of yours.

Far Rider wrote: Good Lord!



If that was my life long home and the Gov came to take it they'd have a fight on their hands.



Theyd be better off to bomb me out before they came in on the ground, I may not survive but I'll take out an army before they got me.



I would hope that there would be officers that woudl not remove me for conscience sake.



(I do wonder though if I'd shoot a sworn officer in the line of duty???)


Simpatico, baby. Simpatico.

Dont go acting all Italian acc.

Remember a few years back in NYC, Trump wanted to build and there was one holdout, wouldnt accept a million for his little shack. So he either built over it or that was his proposal, to just build the bldg right up around and over it, kinda hard to fight that aint it ?

Far Rider wrote:



(I do wonder though if I'd shoot a sworn officer in the line of duty???)i don't believe you would Far.

yea far

Nomad wrote: Dont go acting all Italian acc.

Remember a few years back in NYC, Trump wanted to build and there was one holdout, wouldnt accept a million for his little shack. So he either built over it or that was his proposal, to just build the bldg right up around and over it, kinda hard to fight that aint it ?
Still better than stealing the person's property. There was actually a show on HGTV for a short time about hold-outs, people that refused to sell. There were sheep farms surrounded by suburban sprawl, a house downtown with a tall hedge to fool the owner into thinking he had a neighbors, instead of a bank on one side & a supermarket on the other. It was cool.

Here's the latest. Oh this is rich! A court says this eminent domain theft is illegal - not because the citizen owned the land & didn't want to sell, not because it was for a private school & not for the general public use, not because the local gov't wouldn't make enough in taxes to justify the theft - but because the school is run by a church.



Apparently the gov't stealing private property for a church-run school violates separation of church & state. If the school were owned by a for-profit company, well that'd be okey dokey! Thumbs up for that!



AAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHH!!!!! :-5 :-5



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



STORY



PA Court Rules Phila. Redevelopment Authority Erred in Employing Eminent Domain

Philadelphia Inquirer

Tina Moore February 7, 2006



A Philadelphia agency violated the separation of church and state when it condemned a woman's home and gave it to a religious organization, a state appeals court ruled yesterday.



Commonwealth Court said in its 4-3 ruling that the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority erred in employing its power of eminent domain in 2003 to condemn Mary Smith's property in a blighted North Philadelphia neighborhood.



The city gave the land to the Hope Partnership for Education for construction of a middle school. The seizure violated a clause in the First Amendment that keeps Congress from establishing religion or preventing its free exercise, the ruling said.



Smith lives in a nursing home, but her daughter, Veronica, has lived at the family home at 1838 N. Eighth St. for 50 years, according to the ruling. The authority offered her $12,000 as compensation for the property.



[story continues....]