IndyArms 10,186 Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 Ohio Court Hears Case on Eminent DomainThe First Since Controversial Supreme Court Ruling By ANDREW WELSH-HUGGINS, AP Kiichiro Sato, AP Plaintiff Joy Gamble, center, rallies with supporters outside the Ohio Statehouse in Columbus. Talk About It: Post Thoughts COLUMBUS, Ohio (Jan. 11) - Joy and Carl Gamble say they just wanted to retire peacefully in the dream home where they've lived for more than 35 years, but the Cincinnati suburb of Norwood had other plans for their property. Using its power of eminent domain, the city planned to take the neighborhood, which it considers to be deteriorating, and allow a $125 million development of offices and shops to rise in its place. The two sides took their argument to the state Supreme court on Wednesday in the first challenge of property rights laws to reach a state high court since the U.S. Supreme Court last summer allowed municipalities to seize homes for use by a private developer. "It is our home, what's ours is ours, and it should be that way," Joy Gamble told about 50 people who rallied before the hearing. "It was a home worth fighting for, and we do want it back." The Gambles' attorney, Dana Berliner, argued in court that almost all neighborhoods in Ohio and across the country could meet a condition of deteriorating as Norwood was using it. Tim Burke, representing the city, told the court that "deteriorating" is a common measure when applied to redevelopment projects in cities. Legislatures are rushing to pass their own laws because Justice John Paul Stevens, author of the majority decision in the federal court's 5-4 ruling, also noted that states have the ability to pass laws with stronger protections if they wish. So far Alabama, California, Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin have proposed bills, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In Ohio, a new law stops local governments from seizing unblighted private property for use by private developers while a committee studies the issue. The Gambles' lawsuit was filed before that law was passed and before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled. The city and a private developer contend that Norwood had the right to acquire the property. They also argue that eminent domain applied not because the area is "blighted," but because it is "deteriorating." How the Ohio court deals with the issue of blight has important ramifications for municipalities around the country, said Steven Eagle, a George Mason University law professor who studies property rights. "Every jurisdiction allows condemnation to relieve blight," Eagle said. "If blight is going to be vaguely defined, then it could be open season for condemnations for redevelopment." A ruling in favor of the Gambles would be an important first step in setting limits that courts around the country could follow, said Karen Harned, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business' Legal Foundation. The group worries that the small businesses it represents could be overtaken by bigger development. A decision in favor of Norwood would help slow the knee-jerk reaction of many states to the U.S. Supreme Court decision, said Daniel Lindner, a lawyer representing the American Planning Association. The Gambles, in their 60s, hoped to live comfortably in the home they had bought in 1969. They sold their small Cincinnati grocery store, Tasty Bird Poultry, and retired five years ago. Instead of a comfortable retirement, however, they watched their neighborhood disappear as neighbors sold willingly to developer Rookwood Partners. The Gambles temporarily left their home to live with a grown daughter in Kentucky but vow to return should they win the case. Joy Gamble speaks bitterly about the couple's ordeal and what it meant to see their home of 35 years, purchased after years of savings, in danger of demolition. "When the municipalities and the people that have lots of money decide they want what you have, you don't own it," Gamble said. "You bought it, you paid for it, you kept the taxes up, you kept the appearance up, but it wasn't yours." Seems to me... That this is going to get WORSE before it gets better... I tell ya what... They already TOOK 8 FEET of my FRONT YARD when they widened the road... now my yard in front, JUST OFF MY FRONT STEPS is only NINE FEET!!! When you step off the last step, you got 9 feet till you hit pavement! and a foot and a half closer is all gravel and crud weeds cause the grass wont gro there due to the shit from the shoulder!!! my kids cant play in the front yard... My pets are liable to get whacked by cars... and I had NO SAY in that... nothing I could do... tough shit, wider road, have a NICE DAY... If it ever came to them wanting to take my house... FUCK THAT... they would be met with bullets till they either killed me, or I ran out... and that last one would have MY NAME on it, for sure... after such a fiasco... I cannot believe that they would allow such horseshit rulings to pass... this one goes to *PROVE* that laws are *NOT MADE BY THE PEOPLE* are not *VOTED ON MY THE PEOPLE* and are not *FOR THE PEOPLE* It disgusts me! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pistonring8 1 Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 If you did defend the seizure of your property with firearms, it would draw so much media attention that you would probably be the latest human interest story. More likely to come off as a deranged and disgruntled citizen instead of a folk hero, but you might actually keep your property out of the whole mess. I would have to love the land I was sitting on an aweful lot to take up arms and patrol the borders. Most of the time, a big developer will just keep throwing money at you until you leave. Like most people, I can be bought unless I have a strong bond to the property that can't be broken by financial compensation. Wittling away at your front yard is a whole different ball game. Thats just plain mean man. They send a crew out to your home to help you donate a chunk of yard for roadway improvement without compensation. It decreases the overall value of your property, and can even make the property undesireable to a potential buyer because of the distance of the road from the house. Thats crap! I feel for you on that one man. I would be upset about that shit too! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
M15A4spr 0 Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 If you did defend the seizure of your property with firearms, it would draw so much media attention that you would probably be the latest human interest story. More likely to come off as a deranged and disgruntled citizen instead of a folk hero, but you might actually keep your property out of the whole mess. Not to worry, he won't do a damn thing. Gun owners are all talk, hell Americans are. Hate to say it, but it's true. In kalifornia I saw gun owners wearing the lame "bullets first" t-shirts picking up AW registration forms. I've seen "cold dead hands" wearers refusing to sign petitions, and we all know registration is taking place in numerous places nation wide. It ends as long has been said "Not with a bang.". Quote Link to post Share on other sites
danny boy 0 Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 Indy, you should have been monitarily compensated for the road, which you correctly state you can do nothing about. Look into it, government is good at having money waiting for you without telling you about it. This is supposed to be a big topic for the upcoming West Virginia Legislature, but We'll see. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bvamp 604 Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 The indian nations are now seizing thier reservation land back. unlike the govt. however, these guys come to you, heres your fair value, get out this month, we will be abck with a bulldozer. and then plow down these moillion dollar homes and whatnot. brother has told me some interesting stories that hes heard from other members of his nation, and I tell ya, its quite something. M15A4: I hear you, talk is cheap. you can say anything, its when it comes down to it what you do that matters. Indy: did they rezone your property for you? and did they lower your taxes from the lost property? It would be funny if they did that up and down the road a couple of times (widen), and then come back and say "zoning laws say that you cant have a house without this much land, and you dont have that much land anymore, so you have to knock the house down". Unlike most, I dont have a family and kids to worry about, like most of the guys out there that have the same intentions I do. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wolverine 10,360 Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 Well I have a couple of observations. The first is to examine your property title and deed. Don't be shocked to find that the county has easement rights from the center of the road to the the edge of the property annexed. Hell, even utilities can have easement rights. This is something important to review before you buy because what you see may not be what you are getting when you lay out your purchase cash. Second, some weeks ago I posted a article summarizing a recent Supreme Court (SC) ruling on Eminent Domain (ED). The SC expanded past domain rights of turning urban blight into a renaissance zone to a much broader property rights matter. Now the county or state can take your property without discussion if it will increase the tax base for said county. In other words if they want your property to put up a business that will pay more taxes than you they can do it. Or they can seize your 1,500 square foot home, demolish it, and build new 4,000 square foot homes that will result in a better tax base for the local and state gov't. In other words the Supreme shitheads just gave away your constitutional rights of private property for the greater good as someone else sees it and fuck you. Nice huh? In my book this is a huge issue and major erosion of our independence and freedom as individual citizens. As I said before if you want anything politically done in this country you have to buy it. Wolvie Quote Link to post Share on other sites
G O B 3,516 Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 When I was a kid, the county widened the road in front of my Dad's house illegally. Then a couple years later went to do it again. My Dad sent a letter to the county council, and the zoning comission. The law required a 35" set back ,and the first widening went to that point. My Father argued that if they took any more, it would make his home in violation of county setback law, therefore they would have to buy the house and land . Since the wider road and smaller setback would have made the property legal only for commercial development, he argued that the higher commercial value would apply, even thogh the property was residential. They DID NOT widen the road further. KEEP FIGHTING! G O B Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IndyArms 10,186 Posted January 13, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2006 Indy: did they rezone your property for you? and did they lower your taxes from the lost property? It would be funny if they did that up and down the road a couple of times (widen), and then come back and say "zoning laws say that you cant have a house without this much land, and you dont have that much land anymore, so you have to knock the house down". YES and NO... they RE assessed it... and FUCKING DOUBLED MY ASSESSMENT!!!!! I fought that... got it down from 62K to like 53K... considering I paid 30K for the house that they had a HARD TIME selling at that price... and doing 10K worth of work to it, I dont see how they think its worth over 60K ... but hey... whatever... As far as talk is cheap... ya know... if they were going to throw money at me... and it was A LOT... yeah, I would move too!!! fuck yeah I would... But if they are saying you get NOTHING... GET LOST... then FUCK THAT... I got NOTHING TO LOSE Then... I worked my ass off for my home for my family... if they were to put me out on the street so they can build something else... thats when the bullets would fly... at the first dozer that tried to nudge close enough... A .50 BMG would finally be used in a CRIME BY A CIVILIAN... let me tell you... Think about it... if they came to your house, said you and yours gotta leave... tough shit, have a nice day... I dont think... well, I HOPE you wouldnt tuck tail and slink away... ya gotta fight back... one way or another... you cant let them win, even if you know they will in the end... you have to give em your best shot. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Cobra 76 two 2,677 Posted January 13, 2006 Report Share Posted January 13, 2006 Dude that sucks! What a shitty new year this is turnig out to be... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
G O B 3,516 Posted January 13, 2006 Report Share Posted January 13, 2006 (edited) IndyArms, You need to use the right tool for the job! The .50 isn't the propper tool. What you would need is the ACLU- get Smileyguy and friends together and chain yourselves to the porch rail. Make a GREAT lead item on the 6 o'clock news. Name the politicians that approved the land grab in your interviews with the national news. Do it nude if that is what it takes to get national coverage. Sell rights to get chained with you on E-GAY! Run a live webcam feed so that the truth doesn't get "edited". G O B Edited January 13, 2006 by G O B Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bvamp 604 Posted January 14, 2006 Report Share Posted January 14, 2006 ralph nader. sounds like his type of class action lawsuit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IndyArms 10,186 Posted January 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2006 Sounds more like a FUN TIME FREE FOR ALL... lots of wild hookers, booze, guns, and loud music... with the live feed cam, and all that shit... Who said we CANT ENJOY OURSELVES while we raise holy hell stink?!!?!?? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dinzag 31 Posted January 14, 2006 Report Share Posted January 14, 2006 Sounds more like a FUN TIME FREE FOR ALL... lots of wild hookers, booze, guns, and loud music... with the live feed cam, and all that shit... Who said we CANT ENJOY OURSELVES while we raise holy hell stink?!!?!?? O.K. man...I need a map! It's party time!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bvamp 604 Posted January 14, 2006 Report Share Posted January 14, 2006 yeh, its too bad you are too close to the road to discharge a firearm now, though..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pistonring8 1 Posted January 15, 2006 Report Share Posted January 15, 2006 yeh, its too bad you are too close to the road to discharge a firearm now, though..... OMFG!!! Now thats funnt! We just had an interesting case up here about 5 miles from my house. Theres a race track/flea market/mobile home park thats all sitting together on a rather nice piece of land right off a main highway. A major corp. has been petitioning to buy the land for about 10 years now. Well, finally this year, they got the approval from the powers that be. The only problem is the 60 or so residents in the mobile home park. All of the homes in the park (except one) are from the 1960's and 70's. This corporation offered $7,000 for each home in the park and all the tenants agreed except for the one that just put in a newer single wide. He was offered the same $7,000 with the understanding that the corporation does not want the homes that are there. They gave everyone $7,000 whether they took thier home with them or not, as long as they left. The man with the newer single wide, happily agreed and used the cash to buy a sliver of land to drop his house on a few miles away. The land was provided by the county at a reduced price. So far, everyone is happy and they haven't torn anything down yet. But the media jumped on the situation like a pack of wolves. They interviewed the guy on his front porch, making sure to focus the camera in on the NRA sticker in his front window. Much to the media's dissapointment, the guy said that he didn't care, it was a crappy house anyway and if he hadn't been offered that piece of cheap land, he would have stayed with a friend until he found another place.....lol.... Sorry news crews, no drama here! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
G O B 3,516 Posted January 16, 2006 Report Share Posted January 16, 2006 That's what I am saying. The "news" will make a big deal out of it FOR you, all you need to do is jazz it up so that you get good "sound bite".--'Local homeowner has front porch taken for new highway, see how cruel county forces children to trade yard for freeway ramp-DETAILS AT 11'. G O B Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.