Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk
Reload this Page >

Property rights, Shmoperty rights

Other Talk "Otterville" plus Religion and Politics

Property rights, Shmoperty rights

Old 02-03-05, 08:43 AM
  #1  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: La Crosse, WI
Posts: 15,553
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Property rights, Shmoperty rights

http://www.ij.org/private_property/n.../2_2_05pr.html
Senior Citizens Forced From Their Home By Developer, Fight to Save Home Before Ohio Supreme Court
WEB RELEASE: February 2, 2005
Media Contact:
John Kramer or Lisa Knepper
(202) 955-1300
[Property Rights]

Washington, D.C.—In fragile health and unable to go on under the strain of “living under siege,” senior citizens Joy and Carl Gamble have been forced out of their home by Ohio developer Jeffrey Anderson to make way for the expansion of his $500,000,000 business empire. The question of whether the Gambles will have a home to come back to as their legal fight against Anderson and the City of Norwood continues now rests squarely in the hands of the Ohio Supreme Court after an appeal made yesterday on the Gambles’ behalf by the Institute for Justice.

On Tuesday, Anderson and the City received a “writ of possession” from the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, which would give them the power to call in the sheriff and have the Gambles removed. When the Gambles learned of that fact, they decided they had no choice but to leave.

Today, the Gambles will rent a van to move a couple of couches to their daughter’s home in Northern Kentucky where they will live for the foreseeable future. On Thursday, a large moving truck hired by the Gambles will remove all of their possessions in the event Anderson decides to bulldoze before a court decides whether they may return.

“Anderson would not agree to leave us in peace while we waited for the Supreme Court to hear our motion to keep us in our home during our appeal, and he would not tell us when or how he was going to kick us out,” said Joy Gamble. “We just could not stomach the thought of living under constant siege in our own home, subject to being forced out any time at Anderson’s whim. But make no mistake: we are not giving up the fight, and we intend to get our home back.”

“Even though Ohio courts have not yet heard the merits of the Gambles’ case to save their home, both the trial and appeals court have refused to bar Anderson from tearing down the Gambles’ home,” said Bert Gall, an Institute for Justice attorney. “Without court protection, the Gambles’ home is in grave danger of being turned to rubble.”

The trial court allowed the City’s land grab because a study, initiated and paid for by Anderson, said that the area was “deteriorating” even though, under that definition, the vast majority of residential neighborhoods in Cincinnati would be called “deteriorating.” Under that decision, it is easy for a developer with money and power to take any land that he wants.

By Friday, Carl and Joy Gamble will leave the only home they have ever owned, possibly for the last time. The Gambles want desperately to remain in their home, but they could not bear the thought of living every day in constant fear, waiting for developer Jeffrey Anderson and his partners to bring the sheriff to the door to remove – by force – them and all their personal belongings.

“We are going to continue to fight the City’s abuse of eminent domain and we intend to win our appeal,” said Carl Gamble. “Even if Anderson tears our home down, we’re going to keep fighting, not just for us, but for every American who’s had their home taken away by a bully like Anderson. We want to make sure that something like this can’t happen to anyone else.”

“Anderson did not even have the basic decency to tell the Gambles when he was going to force them out; the constant strain of uncertainty and fear was taking a real toll on their already fragile health,” said Gall. “We are going to do everything in our power to make sure that the Gambles win their appeal so that Anderson will not profit from their misery.”
Here are some pictures of the "blighted" neighborhood.
Old 02-03-05, 08:58 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 123,577
Received 24 Likes on 21 Posts
The way 'public use' has been stretched under eminent domain is a tragedy.

Those are blighted homes?
Old 02-03-05, 09:08 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Work. Or commuting. Certainly not at home.
Posts: 17,816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wow... yeah, that neighborhood is a dump... so clearly needs just a massive change... those homeowners need to be forced out... yeah... that's it...

Sad thing is they're going to get away with it.
Old 02-03-05, 09:24 AM
  #4  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Red Dog
The way 'public use' has been stretched under eminent domain is a tragedy.
...
Says it all.
Old 02-03-05, 10:35 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Un-Happy Valley, PA
Posts: 2,718
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Red Dog
The way 'public use' has been stretched under eminent domain is a tragedy.

Those are blighted homes?


Agree 100%. The Eminent Domain case law needs to be thoroughly reconsidered.
Old 02-03-05, 11:46 AM
  #6  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: NYC
Posts: 17,016
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Red Dog
The way 'public use' has been stretched under eminent domain is a tragedy.
Yes.
Old 02-03-05, 11:54 AM
  #7  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,189
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
I would want to know a lot more. Emminent domain has always been taking private land for public use. I don't see how this could qualify.
Old 02-03-05, 11:56 AM
  #8  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Somewhere out there... YES THERE!!!
Posts: 7,936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
i was wondering where our own slumlord kvrdave was
Old 02-03-05, 11:59 AM
  #9  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Work. Or commuting. Certainly not at home.
Posts: 17,816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by kvrdave
I would want to know a lot more. Emminent domain has always been taking private land for public use. I don't see how this could qualify.
Over the years, the definition of "public use" has been grossly overexpanded (to include housing developments, resorts, etc.)
Old 02-03-05, 12:00 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 40,272
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Norwood holdouts pack up, move out

By Steve Kemme
Enquirer staff writer

NORWOOD - After fighting for more than two years to stay in the house they have lived in for half their lifetimes, Joy and Carl Gamble Jr. have decided to pack up and move out.

A small moving van on Wednesday took some of the Gambles' possessions from their Atlantic Avenue house while they live temporarily at their daughter's house in Independence.

A large moving van will be there today to take the rest. The Gambles will move out on Friday.

"It's a very unhappy situation here," Joy Gamble said. "We're in our late 60s. It's a heck of a thing to be going through at our age."

The Gambles and four other property owners have waged a legal battle for two years to try to stop Norwood from using its eminent domain power to seize their property and turn them over to the developers of the proposed Rookwood Exchange.

This development, a $125 million complex of offices, shops, housing and restaurants, is expected to generate about $2 million a year in earnings tax revenue for financially struggling Norwood.

The Institute for Justice, a civil liberties law firm in Washington that has been representing the holdout property owners for free, still has pending court appeals.

But the Gambles' decision to leave means the end of this legal fight could be near.

During the contentious eminent-domain battle, 66 other families in the triangle-shaped neighborhood between Edwards and Edmondson roads and Interstate 71 have been eager to sell to developers and move out. But the legal battle has kept them in limbo and forced some families to pay two mortgages a month.

The Gambles' neighbors are not shedding any tears for them. Some blame them for the long delay and are angry with them.

"I don't have feel any sympathy toward them at all," said Anita Jones, who lives on Garland Avenue, one block from the Gambles. "In fact, they aggravate me."

Her husband, Rolston, needs an oxygen tank. They have been waiting for two years to close a deal on a house near a daughter in Mount Orab.

But they couldn't close until they sold their Norwood house.

"We've been sweating this out," Anita Jones said.

Paul Triance, who lives a few doors from the Gambles, was glad to hear they're leaving.

"It's a very happy day that they're moving out," said Triance, who lives with his wife, Lisa, and their two children. "It's been difficult for us. You hope nothing breaks down in your house. You basically just exist, waiting until the final outcome."

Seventeen months ago, Bob and Donna Laake moved out of their house in the proposed Rookwood Exchange site and bought a house in another part of Norwood.

"We thought we would make payments on two houses for just a couple of months," said Donna Laake, who is Norwood's health commissioner. "But we've been doing it for 17 months."

The Gambles don't walk away empty-handed. A jury awarded them $280,000 in a property valuation trial. The developers also agreed to give them $2,500 for moving and storage expenses.

"We lost - somewhat," Joy Gamble said. "We're still going to fight it. But we have to get out of our house."

Bert Gall, an attorney for the Institute for Justice, criticized the Rookwood Exchange developers, Jeffrey R. Anderson Real Estate and the Miller-Valentine Group, for not allowing the Gambles to stay in their house until the Ohio Supreme Court rules on their motion to stop their home from being demolished while their appeal in another court is decided.

"It's cruel to insist that they must leave while their motion before the Ohio Supreme Court is pending," Gall said.

The Institute fights eminent domain actions throughout the country. The law firm has an eminent-domain case before the U.S. Supreme Court that has similarities to the Norwood case.

Richard Tranter, attorney for the Rookwood Exchange developers, declined to respond directly to Gall's statements about the developers.

"Rather than dignify Mr. Gall's comments with a direct response, I merely note that the Institute continues to pour gasoline on a matter that has been resolved," Tranter said. "The focus now should be the 66 property owners who are counting on us to close on their properties without further interference or delay imposed by the Institute."

Donna Laake, who moved into the neighborhood in 1975, said it was a wonderful place to live. But the noise, traffic and lights brought on by the growing commercial development hurt.

"It's a shame they couldn't have picked up the whole neighborhood and moved it somewhere else," Laake said. "But we still keep in touch with our old neighbors. The friends we had when we lived there are still our friends."
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.d...WS01/502030390

As usual in these questionable eminent domain cases, there's a sympathetic homeowner, a bunch of neighbors who want to go along with the exercise of eminent domain and are being held hostage by the holdout, and a use of eminent domain that benefits the municipality to some extent but also helps out a private company a whole lot. There's no easy answer.
Old 02-03-05, 12:05 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 123,577
Received 24 Likes on 21 Posts
Originally Posted by JasonF
There's no easy answer.

Yeah there is - if the main beneficiary is a private entity (and none of this the business provides jobs to the public bullshit), then the taking should be considered unconstitutional. Pretty damn easy if you ask me.
Old 02-03-05, 12:12 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 40,272
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Red Dog
Yeah there is - if the main beneficiary is a private entity (and none of this the business provides jobs to the public bullshit), then the taking should be considered unconstitutional. Pretty damn easy if you ask me.
The article I quoted says Norwood is financially struggling. What does that mean in this case? Beats the hell out of me. But if Norwood is on the verge of bankruptcy and needs to increase its tax base, it seems to be in the public interest to engineer the kind of commercial development at issue in this case.

I feel for anyone who is forced to move. But should one homeowner (or 4, in this case) have a right to stand in the way of saving a town from financial ruin?
Old 02-03-05, 12:16 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 123,577
Received 24 Likes on 21 Posts
Originally Posted by JasonF
The article I quoted says Norwood is financially struggling. What does that mean in this case? Beats the hell out of me. But if Norwood is on the verge of bankruptcy and needs to increase its tax base, it seems to be in the public interest to engineer the kind of commercial development at issue in this case.

I feel for anyone who is forced to move. But should one homeowner (or 4, in this case) have a right to stand in the way of saving a town from financial ruin?

"Saving the town from financial ruin." That is entirely speculative and thus should not be a consideration.
Old 02-03-05, 12:17 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Formerly known as "brizz"/kck
Posts: 23,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Red Dog
Yeah there is - if the main beneficiary is a private entity (and none of this the business provides jobs to the public bullshit), then the taking should be considered unconstitutional. Pretty damn easy if you ask me.
Old 02-03-05, 12:18 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Formerly known as "brizz"/kck
Posts: 23,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by JasonF
The article I quoted says Norwood is financially struggling.
Boo-fucking-hoo.
Old 02-03-05, 12:37 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,189
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
I know that when the government took land along the Columbia River for the dams, the agreement specifically said that if the land were ever to be disposed of or no longer owned by the Army Corps of Engineers, that the previous owner would have the right to repurchase it at the same price (around $8-$35 per acre).

It seems unbelievable how emminent domain has been redefined.
Old 02-03-05, 01:02 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Duran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Columbia, MD
Posts: 8,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by JasonF
The article I quoted says Norwood is financially struggling. What does that mean in this case? Beats the hell out of me. But if Norwood is on the verge of bankruptcy and needs to increase its tax base, it seems to be in the public interest to engineer the kind of commercial development at issue in this case.
Or maybe they should spend less money.
Old 02-03-05, 01:42 PM
  #18  
Enormous Genitals
 
Bandoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a small cottage on a cul de sac in the lower pits of hell.
Posts: 33,548
Received 20 Likes on 13 Posts
Red Dog is 100% correct. The minute you expand "public interest" in eminent domain proceedings to include financial needs of the municipality, you open the door for any municipality to force private landowners to sell their property to a corporate entity whenever the minucipality "needs" more cash.

Un-fucking-constitutional. I don't see how there can even be a question about this.
Old 02-03-05, 01:56 PM
  #19  
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 2,893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by kvrdave
I would want to know a lot more. Emminent domain has always been taking private land for public use. I don't see how this could qualify.
Las Vegas uses this all the time. That's how they are constantaly bulldozing stuff to make way for the new mega-resorts.
Old 02-03-05, 02:00 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What are shmoperty rights?
Old 02-03-05, 02:02 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 123,577
Received 24 Likes on 21 Posts
Originally Posted by natevines
What are shmoperty rights?
In this day and age, it means the same thing as 'property rights.' Absolutely nothing.
Old 02-03-05, 03:28 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 29,904
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Tough call. I mean they are getting nearly $300,000 which must be a lot more then it is worth or more then four families would be fighting. Obviously this is an emotional issue rather then financial issue for these folks.

However it is their property that they purchased in good faith. Agree it is tough to take it away, but they are not really taking it away. They are forcing a sale at what appears to be a very good price.
Old 02-03-05, 03:30 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 123,577
Received 24 Likes on 21 Posts
Originally Posted by Sdallnct
Tough call. I mean they are getting nearly $300,000 which must be a lot more then it is worth or more then four families would be fighting. Obviously this is an emotional issue rather then financial issue for these folks.

However it is their property that they purchased in good faith. Agree it is tough to take it away, but they are not really taking it away. They are forcing a sale at what appears to be a very good price.

They could be receiving $3 billion for their property and it would not change my opinion that they should and do have the right to not sell (since the property is not going toward a 'public use.') That doesn't mean that I think the owners would be smart to refuse such money.
Old 02-03-05, 09:31 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 29,904
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Red Dog
They could be receiving $3 billion for their property and it would not change my opinion that they should and do have the right to not sell (since the property is not going toward a 'public use.') That doesn't mean that I think the owners would be smart to refuse such money.
Well I'm not sure what "public use" has to do with it. Either they are forced to sell their property or they are not. Would it make them "feel better" if it was for public use? To me being forced to sell is being forced to sell. Besides who gets to decide what is public use? You could make an arguement that almost anything is public use and where do you draw the line?

Don't get me wrong, I'm on the fence with this. But IMHO either the government can force you to sell or they cannot. There should be no "exceptions" as you can always make an arguement for an "exception".
Old 02-04-05, 08:53 AM
  #25  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 123,577
Received 24 Likes on 21 Posts
Originally Posted by Sdallnct
Well I'm not sure what "public use" has to do with it.

Read the 5th amendment.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.