And the holdouts officially begin...

[ZachTheZip]

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/17534046.htmNot that we didn't expect it to happen, but the holdouts along exchange street have pretty much declared themselves as staying put with this story.On the bright side, the stadium drawing was the centerpiece of the front page.

[ziptrumpet87]

I think the whole area is about to get really busy with construction...Spicertown projectmore on it from the developer...ASW Spicer Village LLC

[urbanpreppie05]

Is placing them in Quaker Square an option?

[g-mann17]

Is placing them in Quaker Square an option?

Funny, but then again why not, at least as temporary housing until they can figure out if there will be room on Exchange after the stadium and Spicer Village are completed.

[ziptrumpet87]

check out the "residential" section... there are two project links for Spicer Village. One shows some of the UA property (athletic fields) and some ideas for integrating the new developments into the area, as well as some concept renderings for the buildings (far from final, I'm sure).Spicer Village architect

[ZachTheZip]

check out the "residential" section... there are two project links for Spicer Village. One shows some of the UA property (athletic fields) and some ideas for integrating the new developments into the area, as well as some concept renderings for the buildings (far from final, I'm sure).Spicer Village architect

After looking at those maps, I don't think that Spicertown will happen for a while. It is supposed to be a 40 block area. That's a massive project. If they do it by sections, people that live in areas that have not yet been developed will demand more than the people who were caught off guard when they first start it. Every block becomes more and more expensive. I am sure the city wants to help as much as possible, because this basically means tearing down an entire high-crime neighborhood and turning it into the type of "young professional" living environment the city is so desparetly hoping for.

[UA Fan]

He's willing -- even eager -- to abandon the renovation and expansion plans he has in hand for the coffee shop, pub and part of a building he leases to Chopstix restaurant in favor of one that suits the university. He will build whatever they want, he said expansively. If UA takes him to court for eminent domain -- the governmental right to acquire property for a public purpose -- a jury would side with him, he insisted. ``We are optimistic and confident that we can deal with Akron U in a wise and fair way -- hopefully,'' he said.I'm not sure why the U. wouldn't keep the strip along Exch.St. as retail/eatery space, at least the lower level(s). The recent stadium plan shows plenty of space south of the stadium for that (including some new buildings pencilled in) and it sounds like Mr. Nemer is fine with his properties being redeveloped as long as he can stay. My guess is the U. will buy the property if they can (I hope so), otherwise they'll have to cut a deal. We won't know any more about their intentions until Aug. 1...the ABJ is getting a little ahead of itself here.

[Z.I.P.]

And speaking of holdouts...How 'bout that Brady Quinn??

[BZip_08]

If UA takes him to court for eminent domain -- the governmental right to acquire property for a public purpose -- a jury would side with him, he insisted.

If I'm remembering correctly without looking in the law library, in eminent domain cases it only goes to a jury to determine disputed amounts, not to actually allow eminent domain, that's the judge's decision. And most of the judges in the area are fairly level headed and frankly they know how much a UA stadium would add to the region both financially and as a community. My heart goes out to him but Manny should get an attorney and become realistic about relocation- it will be a whole lot cheaper and easier than a court battle against UA's attorneys, they tend to hire very good ones.

[BZip_08]

Sorry for this gigantic copy paste, but it's all about eminent domain. Many thanks to UA's Law Review for their great researchExcerpts from the University of Akron’s Law Review regarding Eminent Domain“The power of eminent domain is the inherent power of every sovereign government totake private property for its own use.17 Eminent domain is recognized in both the UnitedStates Constitution18 and the Ohio Constitution.19 The only limitations placed on agovernment exercising this power is that the owner is entitled to procedural due process,20 which means the property is to be taken for a "public use,"21 and the owner isentitled to "just compensation."22 Because these limitations are generally interpretedvery loosely, eminent domain is arguably one of the most intrusive powers held by agovernment.23 Furthermore, the power of eminent domain can be delegated by any stateto a sub-unit of the state, such as a municipalities, counties, and townships.24”“It is generally agreed that the standard measure for just compensation is the "fair marketvalue" of the taken property.74 However, problems tend to surface in determining the fairmarket value of certain property, depending on the type of property being taken.75 TheUnited States Supreme Court recently addressed the problems associated with makingthis determination in United States v. 564.54 Acres of Land.76 In this case involving thetaking of certain land owned by a non-profit organization, a unanimous Court stated thatthe goal of the Fifth Amendment's Just Compensation Clause is to "put the owner ofcondemned property 'in as good a position pecuniarily as if his property had not beentaken.'"77 The Court determined that this value would be the fair market value of theproperty.78 By accepting this standard as the appropriate measure of compensation, theCourt rejected a method of determination that would have been more sensitive to theproperty's value to the private owner or the government taker.79This objective market value is not only accepted by the federal courts, but it is generallythe measure of compensation required by the courts of Ohio as well.80 Specifically, Ohiodefines the fair market value as the price that would be agreed upon at a voluntary sale bya willing buyer and willing seller.81 Ohio also focuses on an objective standard andrejects a subjective value placed on the property, such as the willingness or nonwillingness to part with the property,82 or any sentimental value placed on the property by the owner.83 Finally, it should be noted that according to the Ohio Constitution, the determination of what is just compensation is left to a jury.84”17. Cooper v. Williams, 4 Ohio 253, 287 (Ohio 1831), aff'd, 5 Ohio 391 (1832) (thepower of eminent domain is an inherent power); 1 Nichols on Eminent Domain, § 1.11, at1-7(3d ed. 1981); William B. Stoebuck, A General Theory of Eminent Domain, 47 Wash. L.Rev. 553, 560 (1972) ("Neither the United States Constitution nor, as far as is known, anystate constitution contains any express grant of this authority. That explains why thecourts have spoken of an `inherent power.'").18. See U.S. Const. amend. V ("nor shall private property be taken for public use, withoutjust compensation"); U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 ("nor shall any State deprive anyperson of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law").19. Ohio Const. art. 1, § 19.Private property shall ever be held inviolate, but subservient to the public welfare. Whentaken in time of war or other public exigency, imperatively requiring its immediateseizure, or for the purpose of making or repairing roads, which shall be open to the publicwithout charge, a compensation in money shall be made to the owner, in money, and inall other cases, where private property shall be taken for private use, a compensationtherefore shall first be made in money, or first secured by deposit of money; and suchcompensation shall be assessed by a jury, without deduction for benefits to any propertyof the owner.Id.20. U.S. Const. amend. V; U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.21. U.S. Const. amend. V (". . . private property taken for a public use"); City of EastCleveland v. Nau, 179 N.E. 187, 188-189 (Ohio 1931); Cincinnati v. Louisville & N.R.Co., 102 N.E. 951, 953-54 (Ohio 1913); Dayton v. Bauman, 64 N.E. 433, 433-34 (Ohio1902). See also Ohio Const. art. I, § 19 ("Private property shall ever be held inviolate, butsubservient to the public welfare").22. Chicago, B. & Q. R.R. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 239 (1897) ("ince theadoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, compensation for private property taken forpublic uses constitutes an essential element in 'due process of law,' and without suchcompensation the appropriation of private property to public uses . . . would violate theprovisions of the Federal Constitution." (quoting Scott v. City of Toledo, 36 F. 385, 396(C.C.N.D. Ohio 1888))); Ohio Const. art. I, § 19 ("a compensation therefor shall first bemade in money, or first secured by a deposit of money").23. See infra notes 28-38 and accompanying text.24. See Nash v. Clark, 75 P. 371 (Utah 1904), aff'd, 198 U.S. 361 (1905); 38 O. Jur. 3d,Eminent Domain § 15 (state departments, commissions, boards, authorities, and officers),§ 16 (counties), § 17 (townships), § 18 (districts, local commissions, boards, andauthorities), § 19 (municipal corporations), and § 20 (private and public corporations)(1982).74. United States v. 564.54 Acres of Land, 441 U.S. 506, 509 (1979); Masheter v. C. H.Hooker Trucking Co., 250 N.E.2d 621, 623 (Ohio Ct. App. 1969); In Re Appropriation ofEasements for Highway Purposes, 193 N.E.2d 702, 707 (Ohio Ct. App. 1962) (fairmarket value is primary factor in determining just compensation). But see City ofCleveland v. Langenau Mfg. Co., 128 N.E.2d 130, 131 (Ohio Ct. App. 1954) (fair marketvalue is just one means, and not exclusive criterion, in determining just compensation);Crafton, supra note 15, at 889-93 (arguing for a more definitive test for justcompensation than standard fair market value).75. See Edwin M. Rams, Valuation for Eminent Domain (1973) (presenting a compilingof the problems involved in determining the fair market value of different types ofproperty subject to condemnation proceedings).76. 441 U.S. 506 (1979).77. Id. at 510 (quoting Olson v. United States, 292 U.S. 246, 255 (1934)).78. Id. at 511-12.79. Id. The Court also recognized that occasionally the fair market value could also beadjusted downward under certain conditions. Id. at 512-13 (citing United States v. Cors,337 U.S. 325 (1949)). The Cors case revolved around determining the value for a tugboat confiscated by the United States government for a war related use in 1942. Cors,337 U.S. at 327. Here the market price was inflated at the time due to the short supply oftugs and the high need for them by the government. Id. The Court held that higher costsrepresented by increased demand of tugs by the government, and the short supply ofproduct, would not be calculated into the otherwise objective fair market value. Id. at333.80. See, e.g., Masheter v. Brewer, 318 N.E.2d 849, 851 (Ohio 1974); In Re Appropriationfor Highway Purposes, 234 N.E.2d 514, 520 (Ohio Ct. App. 1968); Masheter v. Yake,224 N.E. 2d 540, 541-42 (Ohio Ct. App. 1967).81. Masheter v. Ohio Holding Co., 313 N.E.2d 413, 416 (Ohio Ct. App. 1973), cert.denied, 419 U.S. 835 (1974) (voluntary sale); Naftzger v. State, 156 N.E. 614, 615 (OhioCt. App. 1927) (willing buyer and purchaser); Ohio S. R. Co. v. Snyder, 5 Ohio Dec. 480,482 (Ohio P. Ct. 1899).82. Trustees of Cincinnati, Ohio S. R. Co. v. Garrard, 8 Ohio Dec. Reprint 389, 390(Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. 1882).83. Ohio S.R. Co., 5 Ohio Dec. at 483.84. Ohio Const. art. I, § 19 ("and such compensation shall be assessed by a jury").

[Zipsrifle]

Huh?!, What? Oh, yea, wasn't there was a thread around here somewhere? Now I know why I didn't become a Lawyer.

[Z.I.P.]

Here's the bottom line on ED (er, uh, eminent domain, that is). The university can take the property in short time, and let the courts or negotiation determine what constitutes just compensation down the road. If the property owners want to delay the inevitable, that is.Build it, and they will go.

[zen]

out of that, I take this as most crucial:

a unanimous Court stated thatthe goal of the Fifth Amendment's Just Compensation Clause is to "put the owner ofcondemned property 'in as good a position pecuniarily as if his property had not beentaken.'"77 The Court determined that this value would be the fair market value of theproperty.78 By accepting this standard as the appropriate measure of compensation, theCourt rejected a method of determination that would have been more sensitive to theproperty's value to the private owner or the government taker.79

How I read that to mean is, 'just compensation' is determined by fair market appraisal, and not it's value to the land owner or it's value to the 'taker'.What this means to me is that the land owner is screwed, really.For example, if I own a corner shop, and I make 350,000 dollars a year in net profit, it doesn't matter, because that the property is only appraised at 150,000 dollars and that is all I will get for it. I stand to lose my 350k profit every year. What is more, the property could be worth even more than that per year to the taker (or in this case, the end owner, the university), but that doesn't matter either. The current owner only gets fair market value.It's great for the university, but as a constitutional libertarian, I find it very hard to believe that this is what the founders intended.If I own a home that has been in my family for 4 generations, that fact does matter in eminent domain. The fair market value is all I get. It really sux, in my opinion.

[UA Fan]

You're not really losing your income by e.d. though because you have every right to take the payment for your property and buy another property to continue the business. The risk is in whether you can find an equally profitable location but in reality with the redevelopment of the area bringing in more customers there will now be even more viable opportunities for business owners. I don't think the founding fathers would have meant for an individual property owner to impede the progress and good of the greater community...they were some very wise dudes.

[zen]

I don't think the founding fathers would have meant for an individual property owner to impede the progress and good of the greater community...they were some very wise dudes.

wow, what you just said sounded an awful lot like communism to me.Switch up a few words and you got "greater good" of the community superceding property rights.What the founding fathers intended was for a citizen not to get in the way of civil necessity. If we NEED a highway for civil order and even safety concerns, and my land is right smack in the middle of it's path, I can understand that.Debating eminent domain in THIS topic puts me at a great disadvantage, because we all WANT the stadium, and I know it really makes the issue emotional and difficult to be objective for us.I feel very safe in my opinion that what the founders did NOT want was for government to be able to freely take private property from citizens for profitable gain for the community. Okay, just because I'd like a playground for my kids, it doesn't mean the city takes the Johnson's and the Jone's houses away from them to build one. But if we have been having a lot of fires that we can't respond to and there is no where to build a fire station, building a firehouse different.Bringing in a new mall raises our tax base, but how many people from the community basically get kicked out to make room for private developers to get richer? The Franklins, McCains, Jeffersons, Johnsons, Luthers and the Millers wont be coming to your summer barbeque because they couldn't find homes for sale in town after the mall kicked them out. They wont be going to your kid's school, and they probably will be avoiding the town that kicked them out because it makes them sick to see it again. The Johnsons had their home in their family for three generations, and all he got for it was street value.Anyway, I'm not even arguing if eminent domain should go away or not.All I am saying is that part about people only getting "fair market value" really really sux.If your home has sentimental value, or if your business is in a critical location for your particular market, that has no bearing on your compensation. WTF!If you were sitting on a corner lot next to the highway as an investment, and you were banking your retirement on selling it to as gas station, and the city uses eminent domain to let a private developer put a gas-and-shop mini-mall in there (for the community's sake, because there is no where to shop or buy gas for 15 miles or 5 exits on the highway, so says the state) there and all you get is $20k even though you have been paying taxes on it for 10 years, you GOT SCREWED because eminent domain only has to give you fair market value which to them equates to a 200ft x 400ft grassy lot, and takes into no account what you paid nor what is going to be done with it.

[g-mann17]

If your home has sentimental value, or if your business is in a critical location for your particular market, that has no bearing on your compensation. WTF!If you were sitting on a corner lot next to the highway as an investment, and you were banking your retirement on selling it to as gas station, and the city uses eminent domain to let a private developer put a gas-and-shop mini-mall in there (for the community's sake, because there is no where to shop or buy gas for 15 miles or 5 exits on the highway, so says the state) there and all you get is $20k even though you have been paying taxes on it for 10 years, you GOT SCREWED because eminent domain only has to give you fair market value which to them equates to a 200ft x 400ft grassy lot, and takes into no account what you paid nor what is going to be done with it.

Eminent Domain takes into account the property value and any structures on said property. It's not just a "here is 20 grand for your $100,000 worth of property" it's "Here is a $110,000 for your $100,000 worth of property." A lot of people are going to try and hammer me for saying you are going to get more then what it's worth. But truthfully you do: Stow/Munroe Falls wanted to build a road through a friend of my family's property, they offered him 60 for land that was worth 40, they ended up not using his land after they did a traffic survey for the area and said an additional road was not necessary.I also saw a lot of "what the fore-fathers intended" comments. If you look through our history plenty of private property was "bought" through bloodshed to build forts roads, towns, private investments. Ask a Native American about westward expansion and what they received for their land. That was all done from "interpretation of what the fore-fathers intended." And yes, it is very much the same thing. Except now you don't get SAR's blankets in exchange for your "hard earned" property you get money and media attention and everyone feeling sorry for you because someone wants to pay you for your rundown property that you say you are going to fix but you haven't during the 20 years you have owned it despite urban renewal grants that were available to you.Ok rant over