Connecting the Dots on the Norwood Eminent Domain VictoryWednesday, July 26, 2006
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati
Like most rational human beings, I was thrilled to see this WCPO report announcing the victory of property owners over corporate developers who tried to pull eminent domain for building offices and a strip mall. But what really seems interesting is connecting the dots on some of the players who tried to threaten private property rights in Ohio, including our old friend Richard Weiland.
First, check out this hack-job of a report by none other than Kimball Perry. Perry’s hook to the article makes rather definitive statements about the case, acting as if everything were a done deal:
Perry buried any reference to an Ohio Supreme Court hearing between pro-developer propaganda:
“It’s clearly a complete victory for the city,” said Norwood’s attorney, Tim Burke. “We’re now in a position where four judges have looked at the city’s right to take property and all four said Norwood acted properly.”
Let’s see whether the Ohio Supreme Court agrees, countered John Kramer, spokesman for Institute for Justice, a Washington, D.C. agency fighting eminent domain cases nationally.
“It was just a rubber stamp basically of the City Council (decision),” Kramer said of Friday’s decision.
“This is the worst example of (using government power to seize private property to sell to a developer) that we have seen nationwide. It’s purely for private development.”
Rookwood Exchange is to include 200 condominiums and apartments, retail space and 550,000 square feet of office space. It is expected to add $1.8 million annually in earnings tax revenue to Norwood, a city so financially strapped that it has sometimes struggled to pay its employees. The development also will generate an additional $300,000 per year for Norwood schools.
Even check out the verb tense in the last paragraph above: for Perry, this is a done deal. (He should have written, “Rookwood Exchange hopes to include...” or “Rookwood exchange proposes...") Turns out he was wrong. But that’s not the real meat of our story.
The developer hoping to build Rookwood Exchange is Jeffrey Anderson. In short, Anderson wanted to jump on the bandwagon of taking a Hyde Park subdivision’s name to encourage upscale shopping in Norwood—which people in Hyde Park would otherwise associate with low-class.
Now, surely we all realize that any private developer hoping to push a corporate agenda through government processes will need a lobbyist. Enter our good friend Richard Weiland, the listed agent for Jeffrey Anderson.
Some will be wondering, so what? Who cares? These are good questions. But for now, I’m just noticing whenever these players from the inner-sanctum show up. We must watch them—stake them out in their natural environment—if ever we are to learn the secrets of their society.
|  del.icio.us |  | Furl It |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can log in above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
26 Jul 2006 at 03:26 pm | #
BTW, I didn’t know Hamilton County Democrats hated property owners and loved corporations… What’s Tim Burke doing there, representing Norwood against its citizens?
26 Jul 2006 at 03:51 pm | #
That’s exactly what corporate Democrats do. Anybody who thinks these Democrats are any better than the Republicans is a fool. Tim Jurke is as much of an asshole as Phil Heimlich.
26 Jul 2006 at 04:07 pm | #
Shit! I gave away my stop-Norwood tee shirt. This was a very significant move by the Ohio Supreme Court. I did not think they had the balls to take that stand even though the State’s constitution is very specific about property rights. That is, it is very clear unless you stand to gain through manipulation the meaning of the term , general welfare.
I am actually proud of our Supreme Court!
Damn! To think it happened in Ohio. Now if some of that were to seep down to Cincinnati, we might have something.
26 Jul 2006 at 04:09 pm | #
Tim Burke is a lawyer. Tim Burke is a partner in Money, Burke and Fisher LLB. What do you expect?
26 Jul 2006 at 06:28 pm | #
I expect, Dieter, that the person running the Hamilton County Democratic Party should professionally seek to represent the interests of the people and not corporations. Stereotypically, anyway, that is supposed to be the difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Of course, I don’t know if I believe much in that difference these days… At least not when I think about Tim Burke.
26 Jul 2006 at 08:34 pm | #
Tim Burke should represent the people the way he represented the West End citizens with his support of CityLink ?
yeesh
It’s no wonder the local Dems are in the tank.
The one party that really stood up for the people on this issue were the Libertarians.
26 Jul 2006 at 08:41 pm | #
it’s all Mallory’s fault!
26 Jul 2006 at 10:44 pm | #
Has anyone thought of the fact that the republican majority supreme court ruled AGAINST a prominent democrat in this case? Can you imagine if the casewasrepresented by a prominent republican? I think that’s the only reason they ruled against the “corporate” power.
as for burke represetnign big business against the “little guy” - he did it the case between tri health and the old lady in clifton also. In that case, he won for the big corporation, also.
Does the democratic platform include a positionon eminent domain?
and, i think the families who own houses should now, go ahead and sell their properties at a price the “market conditions” bear. they have proven their case, they have proven their point and they have set precedent in ohio. excellent job - now move out and let the development proceed - it’s time they think about the good of their community and not themselves. (It wouldn’t be a sell out on their position at all --great job “little guys”!)
27 Jul 2006 at 05:37 am | #
A ‘democratic’ judge recuses herself? A Republican majority with or without the recusal?
Then these Republican judges sound more like true Democrats than a ‘prominent’ Democrat who has helped sell Socko Wiethe’s Democrats down the pike for personal gain and glory.
I took the following from a summation of The Supreme Court of the State of Ohio:
“In addressing these important matters, we have benefited from the wisdom of other courts, which, by the masterly design of our government, are at the forefront of these critical constitutional questions,” O’Connor wrote. “Although the judiciary and legislature define the limits of state powers, such as eminent domain, the ultimate guardians of the people’s rights, as evidenced by the appellants in these cases, are the people themselves.”
“Justice O’Connor’s opinion was joined by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, Justices Paul E. Pfeifer, Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Terrence O’Donnell and Judith Ann Lanzinger, and Judge James Brogan of the 2nd District Court of Appeals, who was assigned by the Chief Justice to sit for Justice Alice Robie Resnick, who recused herself.”
Eminent Domain as part of a platform position? Try the Hamilton County Democrat Platform at http://www.hamiltoncountydems.org/dem-platform.html
and see what you think.
Follow that with
http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-3799.pdf
which is approximately 58 pages of background of how this body of justices reached their decision in a Unanimous fashion. You may find that justice IS a harsh lady at times, but in this case, one advocate, perhaps justice ruled for THE CITIZENS justly.
You, however, sound very Burke-like in your whine; do you not realize the party of John Wiethe, Sid Weil, John Kennedy and the former Democrat named Mallory (fill in the first name of any you can) has been sold to the highest bidders of lobbyists named Weiland, Aronoff, Finan, Glover,Tibbs and others? Do you not know that true Democrats in this county are left in limbo to try and placate themselves with the chant of ‘it will be better in a few years’. Burke has helped in the design and demise of his own party, and elected leadership along jackass lines continue to fail to connect with the average citizen except in poor speeches that cannot raise the raise the standard for people who truly work and believe democratically with a big D. Tim’s bringing in the old Sinclair dinosaur to replace the favored burro-like mascot.
This group calls for support of Strickland, Brunner, Cordray, Sykes yet Burke aligns them with a Weiland and his minions who supports Heimlich, Chabot, Schmidt,Boehner.
Call yourself Democrat here and you are a laughing stock to be lead by Burke. The state ODP is no better in lackluster leadership with the same lobbyist leanings. Sorry folks but the OneParty State of Ohio, the one where it took Libertarians and Greens to do Democratic business in a call for a recall and recount of votes......is closed to the business of citizens, closed to true Democrats. Apply to a party that really values ALL workers and citizens, or choose to toil in under lack of leadership for the people.
Democrats. where ARE your true leaders when you need real Democratic work done? Hiding behind their rhetoric? Or connecting with the citizens? You have lost your hearts and gotten old beyond your time, become complacent waiting for someone else to lead you out
of hell? You deserve you disconnection. Ted Strickland will win, inspite of you, not because of any Democratic prominence on the part of Burke and his cronies....but they will be sure and take the credit.
27 Jul 2006 at 07:05 am | #
One Advocate, I highly doubt that if Tim Burke were a Republican that this case would have been decided another way. Its funny how so many people feel that the Dems are betraying their party (as do the rep).
In fact, if you look at the National sites for the parties someone could make an argument that in this case Democrats and Republicans were acting according to their national policy.
From Dem Party
From Rep Party
Maybe instead of just automatically voting for the person that represents your party, we should look at the individual and decide whether or not their values align with our own. No party has a lock on good ideas or bad ones.
27 Jul 2006 at 07:51 am | #
Lawyers are paid advocates. No one should ever forget that. It’s part of the job to set your own feelings aside.
When it comes to lawyers who are politicians, we can only hope that they understand where their job ends and civil service begins.
27 Jul 2006 at 09:22 am | #
While I am glad that the property owners won this case, I have to say that they seem a little wacko. The Gambles are going to move back into the shamble of a house, closed and neglected for a year or more, in this desolate weed infested lot that once was a neighborhood. They might be playing a strategy to get a big payday from the developers, I hope they are at least, but they are insistent that they are going to live in this house. They say it is the first home they bought, and they are going to live the rest of their days there.
If this is the case it seems that this will be a Pyrrhic victory for the Gambles. A home in a dead neighborhood that looks like a war zone isn’t my idea of living. Let’s hope that they are playing a game of brinkmanship with the developer.
27 Jul 2006 at 09:50 am | #
Doesn’t sound too insane to me. Plenty of open green space. All the screwed up neighbors who don’t care about the place have left. They can make all the noise they want, who’s going to complain?
27 Jul 2006 at 11:32 am | #
They could plant some trees around their yard, their real close to shopping and the highway and they have a lot of privacy.
“Maybe instead of just automatically voting for the person that represents your party, we should look at the individual and decide whether or not their values align with our own.”
The Dems and Repubs don’t have any values. They only value more contributions for more power. When was the last time they did anything in the interest of real people?
“No party has a lock on good ideas or bad ones.” The Dems are the party of no ideas and the Repubs are the party of bad ideas. Put them together and we’re fucked.
27 Jul 2006 at 12:45 pm | #
The Gambles, old and worn out, in retirement wanted to enjoy their remaining years in leisure and comfort in the home they had lived and raised a family. Who, other than Tim Burke and Gary Powell could reasonably question their desire?
It is unlikely Norwood or Jeffery Anderson would have pursued the dubious Rookwood venture with out assurances from Tim Burke and Gary Powell, I can hear those two now, “we have precedents, the law is on our side, trust us, we will be victorious, I assure you this is the correct action”
Anon #12 points out “The Gambles are going to move back into the shamble of a house, closed and neglected for a year or more, in this desolate weed infested lot that once was a neighborhood “ that is correct. Let us not forget the Gambles were forced off their ancestral lands, driven away, made homeless, by the deeds of Tim Burke and Gary Powell. For years the Gambles have been forced to lead a nomadic existence wandering amongst friends and family for shelter.
Tim Burke and Gary Powell are responsible for the condition of the Gambles home, they should apologize assuring the Gambles they will be made whole again
If not I would encourage the Gambles to file suit seeking damages for what they have had to endure, compensatory damages of a few million seems reasonable, and to assure this doesn’t happen again punitive damages in excess of 100 million would be a worthwhile precedent.
27 Jul 2006 at 02:11 pm | #
Trevor, cut the hyperbole. ‘Ancestral lands’? Give me a brake.
Hey, I’m glad that they won, but let’s look at some hard facts; The Gambles were offered 3 times what their house was worth. They lived in an aging lower middle class neighborhood that was landlocked by a highway and development, in fact they have a highway right in their back yard. not the easiest neighborhood to sell on the real estate market. 75 other families jumped at the chance to sell their aging homes, took the cash and moved to nicer homes in a better neighborhoods. Personally I think they Gambles are wacko for not doing the same, however I do agree with them on the principal of eminent domain being used for private development. If they do indeed plan to live in this dead neighborhood then indeed they are beyond wacko.
Burke and his partner gave sound legal advise to Norwood, regardless of how reprehensible the issue itself was. The SCOTUS, as well as 3 lower court rulings were on their side. An attorney’s job is to give counsel on the law and advocate for their client, and that’s what they did.
Burke is a lousy, impotent party leader, and should resign, or be forced out, for a myriad of reasons. Burke’s practice of law however is not one of those issues.
27 Jul 2006 at 03:36 pm | #
"The Gambles were offered 3 times what their house was worth.”
Only after holding out.
“They lived in an aging lower middle class neighborhood that was landlocked by a highway and development, in fact they have a highway right in their back yard.”
That’s a lie, the highway isn’t right in their backyard. It was
actually a pretty quite neighborhood. My freind grew up there and I had family that lived on the other side of the highway before they were pushed out by threats of emminent domain.
“not the easiest neighborhood to sell on the real estate market.”
obviously the land is worth a lot of money.
Clearly the land is worth a lot and for some that’s not the issue.
“75 other families jumped at the chance to sell their aging homes, took the cash and moved to nicer homes in a better neighborhoods.”
A lot of people got scared by the threat of emminent domain. Not everybody cares about the money. Across the highway there were several residents that had lived there for 50 years. When your 90 years old you don’t care to move to a nicer home. You are comfortable where you raised your kids and grandchildren. You shouldn’t be forced out by greedy assholes like Tim Burke.
27 Jul 2006 at 09:12 pm | #
...now move out and let the development proceed - it’s time they think about the good of their community and not themselves.
Wow. Spoken like a true socialist. Glad I don’t live in your world. Are you on the taxper’s dime, too?
Thank goodness for the Gambles, et al. If people like One Advocate [/i,]were running the show, no one’s personal/property rights would be safe.
Good of the community. That’s funny!
27 Jul 2006 at 10:12 pm | #
Let the nut jobs move back in. The developers should just build around them and leave them swinging in the wind.
Incidentally I drove by the ‘neighborhood’ on my way home-in fact they do have a highway in their backyard. They should have taken the money and run.
28 Jul 2006 at 08:28 am | #
don’t forget they wandered 40 years, had to eat locusts and honey to survive, and were given small pox infested blankets by the city of Norwood. Wait a second that was a bunch of other people...my bad.
28 Jul 2006 at 11:50 am | #
No they don’t have a highway in their backyard. They have several acres of open space. They can do what they want with their house and more power to them.
Those greedy developers screwed most of the neighborhood, but you can’t fool all the people all the time.
29 Jul 2006 at 02:17 am | #
Know nothing Chuck said: “No they don’t have a highway in their backyard. They have several acres of open space.”
The Gamble’s lot is only 0.103 acre, that’s about 1/10th of an acre, hardly ‘several acres’. And I-71 is only 2 houses away. Sounds lovely. They are a couple of nutjobs.
Take a look at the Gamble’s property and see for yourself.
29 Jul 2006 at 10:48 am | #
stupid fucking Anon, there is about 11 acres of open land surrounding their house. Why do you care if people want to live in a house that they’ve owned for decades? You’re a nutjob.
I had freinds that lived in that neighborhood, it was quiet. My freind lives closer to the highway on the other side and it’s not that loud. They could put up a privacy fence and some trees and be fine. Sorry greedy asshole developers!
29 Jul 2006 at 01:39 pm | #
The 11 acres of land is only going to be open temporarily. Do you really think that this developer, after putting 25 million into this property, is going to walk away? They are going to build around the Gamble’s, just like Trump did to that old lady who held out in Atlantic city. Her house is now surrounded by concrete on 3 sides. The Gambles are going to suffer the same fate. They will really be up a junction then.
And they do in fact live next to the highway, Aside from noise they are treated to exhaust fumes. Now they are going to be living in a parking lot. Let’s hope for their sake that they are playing a machiavellian game of brinkmanship for more money, like the other two homeowners are apparently doing. If not, well then they deserve to live in a parking lot.
30 Jul 2006 at 10:41 am | #
anon, you really have a problem with people who fight to keep the land they’ve owned for a long time because it is an inconvience for the greedy little developer.