posted on April 22, 2003 04:35:32 AM new
This is nothing more than a case of eminent domain abuse! I have seen this area. Blighted? Hardly. If the mayor of Lakewood, Ohio wants to see blighted, I'll invite her into my innercity neighborhood. Someone that is pushing so hard to displace all these people from their homes and businesses, is padding her pockets with something. It doesn't matter that you don't want to sell the home you've lived in for 25 years. If the city wants it, they can just take it. What a load of crap. A rather large portion of Lakewood is wealthy. You will not find too many down and outers living there. Blighted? Ya, right. I especially like the line that "the city must sacrifice the area." Just what is the city sacrificing? Here's a link to the first article if you are interested.
Lakewood - Consultants for the city have distorted crime statistics, home values and other data used to recommend that the West End neighborhood be replaced with a $151 million complex of housing and retail and entertainment businesses, some residents charged last night.
Speaking to about 200 residents, business owners and school district officials who packed City Council chambers, many people said that West End is a historic neighborhood where residents take keen interest in maintaining property values.
But others at the meeting said the city must sacrifice the area to avoid continued economic decline, provide jobs and boost real estate values for the entire suburb.
"This city needs increased commerce," said David Stein of Chase Avenue. More business activity at West End will generate new retailers and other businesses in empty storefronts throughout Lakewood, he said.
Last night's council meeting was the first in a series that will be held to review legislation to approve the project. The deal must also be approved by the Board of Education.
Developers CenterPoint Properties, of Cleveland, and Jeffrey Anderson, of Cincinnati, have proposed to use about 20 acres near Riverside and Detroit avenues to build 200 condominiums and space for new retail and entertainment merchants.
"The Shops at West End" would essentially replace a neighborhood of four streets with about 50 homes, a series of apartments with 1,000 units and several commercial businesses that overlook the Rocky River gorge, the Metroparks and Lake Erie.
The administration of Mayor Madeline Cain has proposed providing $35 million in publicly financed loans. Real estate taxes on the improvements that traditionally benefit schools would be diverted to repay the cost of buying and clearing land and building streets, garages and improvements.
The school district will receive about $400,000 yearly from income taxes and other revenues not traditionally available to schools to replace real estate taxes lost when the existing neighborhood is leveled.
At least 20 speakers told council last night that the project should be dropped. Many cited surveys by critics that dispute a consultant's report that the area is economically blighted, a requirement for special financing plans.
"The report massaged the facts to find the area blighted," said Charlotte Krach, a Gridley Street property owner.
Cheryl
[ edited by CBlev65252 on Apr 22, 2003 04:37 AM ]
posted on April 22, 2003 06:31:01 AM new
Is it just this case that you don't agree with, because you personally know the area, or are you against ALL Eminent Domain practices?
Knowing the area, as opposed to just reading about it, can make all the difference in the world.
I did notice that out of the 50 homeowners 40 have agreed to sell, 10 are against it.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 22, 2003 07:20:43 AM new
Progress is a hard pill to swallow for some, it appears the the city is trying to improve it self and find ways to generate revenue for schools... maybe those landlords and home owners would be willing to a large property tax increase to make up the short fall in monies?
But the sad part is if those other 10 don't agree to sell the city can just condemn the property and they will not get a nice chink of change they might of gotten from the developers.
Not being from the area and just speaking from areas I have seen this take place...most in reality were crap holes and needed taken...
posted on April 22, 2003 07:49:58 AM new
That's why I asked Cheryl if it was just this case, this area. When we lived in San Jose we experienced a similar problem that involved a group of homes that were in the way of widening a major expressway that lead to the SJ airport. Old homes, badly in need of repair and there was a big stink about that too.
Here we were in a city of millions and one road leading to the airport was one lane each way. Talk about a traffic jam...it was a nightmare. In these cases I believe we need to act according to what's in the interest of the city/town as a whole.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 22, 2003 09:56:50 AM new
There is a great deal of difference between taking land for an airport access road and taking it because you can force the people there out and move other private parties in who have more money and can increase your tax base.
If this becomes common then anybody who is on the lower end of the income spectrum will be insecure if their city decides they can push them out and build more expensive homes.
I personally think it is an abuse to force people out for any PRIVATE developement. The law is for the public good - and when you stretch that to mean tearing down $100,000 houses and building $400,00 houses it means the concept of ownership is dead. It is already pretty sick in this country due to land taxes that force retirees out. As one Greek lady told me - "You Americans don't own your houses - you just rent them from your government. In Greece if an old person owns a home they are SECURE in that ownership because a home you live in is not taxed."
posted on April 22, 2003 10:41:10 AM newThere is a great deal of difference between taking land for an airport access road and taking it because you can force the people there out and move other private parties in who have more money and can increase your tax base. I know that. Just shared my own personal example of a time when it effected me personally and there was disagreement in the community on the subject.
I say...put it to a vote of the citizens. Majority rules.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 22, 2003 12:02:37 PM new
gravid you bring up some valid points... so when does your plane leave for Greece?
In fact most cities that do these improvements see a upswing in the economy and more people coming to the area...and more times than not the people make more money on their property than they would get putting it on the market.
posted on April 22, 2003 12:25:46 PM new
I don't have a problem with eminent domain as long as the property owners are well compensated. If someone is forced out of their home, they should be paid at least 200% of the market value of the property. That would lessen the pain for property owners and discourage government from taking over private property willy nilly.
I have to agree with you. I do know the area and blighted it is not. What you aren't reading are all of the seniors in those apartment buildings they are tearing down. . .what of them? They don't own the buildings so they have no say. They're just put out. No financial gain for them. Hell, they haven't even been counted. An entertainment complex? Come on. If they were taking the land for a hospital or some other facility that would be beneficial to the entire community, I think it would be a different story. It's my belief that the Big Developers come into a community, decide where they want to park their ass and everyone else has to go. Just who are the "upscale" stores going to benefit? They will benefit the wealthy of Lakewood who live along the lakeshore, that's who. You have to keep them happy, they pay a lot in taxes. There are basically 4 main roads in Lakewood. Three of these main roads are lined with businesses for miles. So saying they need to attract more business to Lakewood is just a smoke screen IMO. Lakewood was always considered a nice family oriented community, a safe place for families to raise their children. Now it seems the new mayor wants to turn it into a major metropolis. I lived in Lakewood for many years as did my mother and grandparents. I'm glad I don't live their anymore.
The one thing I will say is that the people in my neighborhood wish they lived in such "blight."
Linda has it right, a vote of the entire community! The mayor, however, has announced on TV that whether they like it or not, the city is taking their land. Nice lady.
posted on April 22, 2003 02:17:01 PM new
We were 'forced' out due to eminent domain over 4 years ago, damn Port of Seattle. I believe they thought the neighborhood was too close to the third runway thats been in the works for years and years. We did not get 200% value. We got market value, and a date on which to be out. Probably under valued. Had no choice, nada.
We lived RIGHT on a small lake with about 4 other houses... you can't even tell they were there now... they are building a new onramp for the freeway, and we heard they may put CONDOS there now.
But the Port of Seattle is THE LAW here, higher than the city or state.
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on April 22, 2003 02:35:23 PM new
i agree, we have the same problem going on in norwood ohio. the builders want the proprerty, because it is a 200 million dollar project for them, but they are trying to have the area designated as blighted. funny how the property is only valuable after the devolopers buy it, why cant they pay the owners more for the supposedly blighted property? quite a few people are mad at the people who OWN their houses, and DONT want to sell the places they have raised familys and in some cases buried them. is eminent domain the proper way to take property that will be used for commercial purposes? if it is why not compensate the current owners with a piece of the pie? are the developers that greedy? they already removed a nieghborhood that was a bit historic do they need to do it again? the first one most of the homes had rookwood throughout, a lot was just bulldozed no effort was made to remove in the haste to get it knocked down. fortunatley i got some of it out bbut there was to much to get in the timeframe i had to work in. a point to ponder if a large reserve of oil was found under pebble beach or agusta national golf or any place else the wealthy call their own would they drill for oil build a shopping mall or a public project? dont hold your breath
posted on April 22, 2003 03:16:13 PM newgravid's take is the most sensible, in my opinion. If there's a valid public need for the property, then in limited cases eminent domain (aka condemnation) may be justified.
But NOT for the benefit of developers who are just out to turn a quick buck, meanwhile turning low- and middle-income people out of their homes and ravaging neighborhoods. (There may be a case when the property is truly blighted, but you have to use a pretty strict definition of blight and according to the Plain Dealer story, it hasn't been met.)
In Florida (and maybe in other states) there's another interesting little wrinkle to the whole idea of blight and eminent domain. Seems that if an area is "blighted" a municipality can apply to create a "community redevelopment district" that forces any increased property-tax revenue from property inside the district to be retained and spent there (including not just city, but county and water management taxes - everyone except schools.) The elected officials can still set the rates, but the tax money goes back to the redevelopment authority. The authority can borrow against the revenue and commit for as long as 30 years.
This is a really short and probably garbled explanation, I know. But the end result is that the money (known as Tax Increment Financing or TIF) often ends up right back in the pockets of the developers. So you often see this nasty progression: 1) A developer decides to build a project. 2) They get their pet city commissioners to declare it blighted. 3) The commission institutes condemnation procedures to force out unwilling sellers. 4) If the owners are really stubborn and can afford lawyers to fight condemnation, they stand little chance of getting fair value for their land becuase it's "blighted." 5) The city can use TIF money to cover the costs of the condemnation proceedings and the final purchase price!
The end result: The developer gets TAX MONEY for throwing taxpayers off their land!
BTW, gravid, how much longer are you going to be "gravid?" Are you a scientific miracle in the making?
[ edited by msincognito on Apr 22, 2003 03:19 PM ]
posted on April 22, 2003 03:35:05 PM new
Our house was not in a low income area, it was a very small area on a lake, with only 4 nice homes on it.
And when a gov't agency (Port) bought and used eminent domain as a guise for then reselling to developers, its plain ass wrong. And yes we all fought it, but it was a losing battle from the start.
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on April 22, 2003 08:28:57 PM new
twelvepole - If you are so bent by any thought that our system is less than perfect or could not learn from others that you have to immediatly call for the offender to be expelled you must have less confidence in it's stability than me. What else would explain the crazed panic defense?
I have to assume that you are also personally above any fault or change or your personality would be strangly split.
Yes if I don't like the current property tax system I have simply rejected all of western civilization you hold dear, and am a pinko antichrist scum.
What a head case..........
posted on April 23, 2003 07:16:12 AM new
When I hear people compare other countries to what goes on here, it makes me laugh...
It may not make people happy, but Eminent Domain helps more than it hurts and those that may have got hurt in the past... think of all the good it did for the community...
It is a good system to revitalize neighborhoods that the present residents cannot do... either with property tax increases or on their own...
I will agree it is not perfect, but nothing on this earth is... but it is good enough.
posted on April 23, 2003 09:28:10 AM new
Twelvepole
It hurts MORE than it helps when you rip out homes belonging to the elderly to erect an entertainment complex and upscale stores. Lakewood is hardly in the poor house. Money will first be taken from the school system for this project with the ever so familiar promise to pay it back ten fold. I've heard that one before - like all the money the schools have made over the lottery? I will agree that in some instances, it is benficial to the community and the surrounding areas.
Lakewood is a community of just over 56,000 with 69 acres of parks, indoor and outdoor ice rinks, indoor and outdoor pools, and other recreational activities. This link will show you the drawing of what is called the "West End Project."
This is nothing more than an attempt to rid Lakewood of the lower income citizens to replace them with the Yuppies and those in the upper income bracket. “By no means does this survey of the entire West End District diminish the respect and empathy that we have for the individuals in this area who take good care of their homes and are assets to our community,” Mayor Cain said. Ya, right. 94% of the buildings in the area were found to be functionally outdated. So what, so is mine. I wish I could find photos of the area to share with you. For now, this will have to do:
I'd say 90% of Lakewood are old historic homes. Out of that probably 80% are functionally outdated. The only difference is that most of that 80% are owned by the "well-to-do." I guess it's okay for them to be functionally outdated. Heaven help me, because not only is my home functionally outdated, so am I. LOL
Cheryl
[ edited by CBlev65252 on Apr 23, 2003 09:35 AM ]
posted on April 23, 2003 09:42:00 AM new
I read the following very interesting opinion this morning:
"Lakewood’s actions have been recognized by national watch group. Please check out the Institute for Justice’s latest newsletter
In the February 2003 edition of their newsletter there is an article Castle Coalition Defends Property Rights Across the Nation. In it there is a picture of the beautiful of the homes the administration would like to raze for a strip mall. In it, “The City of Lakewood, Ohio, said a neighborhood was blighted because many of the homes did not have attached garages or central air conditioning, while the City of Evendale declared a whole commercial strip blighted because about half of the properties are within a 500-year flood plain (probably half of Ohio, if not more, is within a 500-year flood plain!). These governments nakedly abuse blight laws to force out small home and business owners to make way for their favored projects.”
If you do not have central air conditioning and an attached garage in your home in Lakewood, you need to let the city know you do not think your home is blighted. The act of blighting an entire neighborhood based on these things called functional obsolescence has already been committed. We need to convince City council to rescind their blight determination of the Scenic Park area Now.
This weekend, take your family on a drive through the Scenic Park area and see for your self what a beautiful area of Lakewood this is.
Go West on Detroit and get in the left lane when you are in front of the Bonnie Bell building. Please notice the new construction going on in the Bonnie Bell courtyard. It’s not even built yet, but it’s blighted. Travel straight onto Detroit road extension and take the first left up Graber Rd. See the homes citizens of Lakewood have sweated and toiled to fix-up and make their own. Do you see how any one of these could be your home? Explain to your children how America is a place where government can’t take your home from you just to give to someone else. Drive through the other streets of Scenic Park and see what a nice quant neighborhood it is. I think it is really the epitome of what is Lakewood.
After visiting the quiet side streets, venture back out onto Detroit and turn left, like you’re headed to Rocky River. At the light turn right onto Sloane. Notice the houses on the left with the view of the River. These homes are considered blighted. Now notice the houses on the right with no view. These homes are not blighted.
This whole blight study is a charade. It has less to do with blight than which land the developers want."
posted on April 23, 2003 10:08:30 AM new
A local college has taken up the habit of eminent Domain in our community. Homes and land that have been in families for years are being "stolen" from them at cut rate prices with no choice in the matter. all for "the greater good" is a load of BS. The only way eminent Domain is a good thing is for trashed and ignored properties. These were good homes with good people that didn't have the right family name. You do not get fair market value and these were not crap homes and land. Total abuse of the system !!!
posted on April 23, 2003 01:00:47 PM new
How about some documentation there tomyou about not fair market value?
In all cases I have seen the people that were willing to sell made more than their homes would of brought on the market... in some cases as much as 150%, on the other hand those that held out and lost got just market value and at the appraised value the property at the time...considering it had become condemend property by then.... they screwed themselves.
posted on April 23, 2003 01:06:51 PM new
One of our local cities is currently trying to claim that a long stretch of vacant land that's in the clear path of growth is "blighted" and must be incorporated into a CRA. I can hardly wait to see the blight study - are they claiming there's too much crime among the pine trees?
twelvepole, You seem to be saying that because eminent domain is good in some cases, it should be permissable in all cases. (After all, gravid did acknowledge that it was sometimes acceptable.)
The fact is that it's not so cut-and-dried. I think there should be a process, but it has to be carefully done so it's not abused. I saw one serious case of abuse a few years ago - a nearby city tore down several homes and essentially cut a neighborhood in half to benefit the developers of a new mall in the area. This despite the fact that everyone knew the only impact from the new mall would be that all the stores from the old mall would move. The predictions came true; the old mall is now half-empty. Property values dropped dramatically in thhe part of the neighborhood that was cut off and it is now, in fact - surprise! a slum: One created by, not cured by, condemnation.
Because developers know that their "pet officials" can be relied on to force people out, they often don't offer fair market value for properties. And the whole issue of fair/not fair sale prices ignores the fact that many people love their homes and don't want to leave. My parents still live in the house they bought in 1960 and they would be devastated if they were forced out of it.
[ edited by msincognito on Apr 23, 2003 01:09 PM ]
posted on April 23, 2003 01:32:53 PM new
Well Twelve being as I was in Real Estate for several years and being as I am aware of the specific properties and the values of the land and said property giving documentation wouldn't be a problem. That is why lawsuits have been filed. The property owners hired three seperate companies to do market analysis on the homes and land and the top one showed 80% of fair market value and the low showed 74%. Being done by nuetral individuals and being very aware of the specific situtation (which obviously you are not) I have all the proof in this case I need. I would be willing to bet it is settled out of court because the University is getting VERY bad publicity and needs to wash their hands of this as fast as possible. The President of the University has already resigned (fired) and the city members that backed this are in deep trouble as well. You can blow smoke out your but all day long on this one but this is a case of the property owners getting the shaft and fighting back.
posted on April 23, 2003 01:38:38 PM new
And of course the values do not take into consideration the fact that the property was all rezoned and due to this the value spiked greatly just because of the rezoning ( which did not meet the cities master plan and was done at a non publicized council meeting) Every case is different and I was sharing this as an example of the propety owners being shafted. Sure there are times that it is benificial and fair but not in all cases and this is one of them.
posted on April 23, 2003 02:41:04 PM new
twelvepole
You do know how to keep a debate alive! Did I fail to mention: "Revenue from real estate taxes on improvements would be diverted from the schools to buy and clear land, build public garages and improve streets and other public property."
Now, do you feel the deal is fair? Do you really expect everyone to believe that the schools will get that money back and more? This has happened over and over again in communities across the country. Many, many people are displaced from homes they've had in their families for years. I will stand firmly on my belief that my land is my land and no one elses. Unless I fail to maintain my land in accordance with the laws, or pay my property taxes, NO ONE has the right to take it away from me.
As mentioned earlier, of course I would sell if there were mitigating circumstances. Just what do you think they will get for their home now that the area has been dubbed "blighted"? I'm sure that sent the market value plumeting lower than the market already is. How convenient to offer to buy the homes with the market for them in the toilet now.
Cheryl
