Defending the UofA

[Ryno aka Menace]

The purpose of this tread is to debunk false statements you have heard, or ask general questions that you have concerning the new stadium or U of A in general.This whole eminent domain, odd corner, Nemers stuff has gotten me confused and concerned. I just don't get how someone living in the city of Akron is opposed to improvements. Don't people realize that a better university with bring more business to the city. You would think that anything that makes your city better you would be all for. Some questions I have are...Why do people have such a disconnection or dislike with the university? To me is seems unwarranted. Is it like this for Marshall, Youngstown St., Ball State or any other MAC school? (schools equal to us in size)What killed the university's attendance from the Acme Zip days till now? 20K at 1AA move up to 1A and down to 12K A Lack of a sponsor did this? atleast 5K could stick through the growing pains of moving up.People say stuff like it's a second rate college. Why? And if you really feel that way why are you opposed to improvements. Tearing down old homes and building a new stadium will help with that image. I love watching Monday Night football and hearing Jason Taylor University of AKron!My attempt to debunk myths...The stadium will cause tuition to go up. No it is privately funded and not to mention a state wide freeze on tuition hikes. The freeze hike thing is something I didn't know!Lastly....For those defending Nemer about picking on the little guy and all but lets be reasonable. His "business" plus property value included won't add up to 3 million if that place stayed open for 100 years.What is Nemers property worth? And he was awarded 3 million? Convince me that is not excessive! As far as appeal goes it is the right thing to do,I just fear it is a bad PR move to appeal.

[zen]

For those defending Nemer about picking on the little guy and all but lets be reasonable. His "business" plus property value included won't add up to 3 million if that place stayed open for 100 years.

Is that a fact?Because you state it so matter-of-factly.I'm willing to bet that you quite wrong.I think most people who you categorize as whiners or complainers are not so much anti-eminent domain as they are pro-property rights. All I have ever asked for by people on this site is to simply acknowledge (as I have) that we are not objective observers on this issue. We want a stadium. We are biased. If Waste Management Corp convinced the City of Akron to take hundreds of homes and businesses through eminent domain to put in a land fill, I think your perspective might change a little.

[g-mann17]

All I have ever asked for by people on this site is to simply acknowledge (as I have) that we are not objective observers on this issue. We want a stadium. We are biased. If Waste Management Corp convinced the City of Akron to take hundreds of homes and businesses through eminent domain to put in a land fill, I think your perspective might change a little.

zenYes we are biased. But for the most part we are all college educated. You always come up with apples and oranges comparisons. "The state using eminent domain on the campus to put in a highway" or "Waste Management Corp convinced the City of Akron to take hundreds of homes and businesses through eminent domain to put in a land fill". Things that are just way to fanciful to ever happen.Why not utilize a real comparison? The city of Akron, using eminent domain to take the poorly named "poets corner" (which having lived in the city for over a quarter century I had never even heard that area called that until this year) for the Goodyear Riverwalk project. How does the zipsnation community feel about this? A proposed 900 million - 1 billion dollar project. The city has to acquire a similar number of homes and businesses (mostly settled but there are holdouts). See, there is pro-property rights and then there is pro-citizen rights. When you live in a community and you own property in that community, you have a responsibility to do the best you can to make that property appealing to everyone. This lowers crime rates, increase property values, and is actually better for the environment. So yes, you have a right to own your property, and not have it illegally seized. You have a right to fair market value for the property if it is seized. But when your actions, and the way you handle your property violates the rights of others in the community (that is what blight is, neglect of ownership responsibilities) then yes you are susceptible to urban renewal.If you look at the common theme between both of these projects, you will see that the property owners had very little regard for their property. Period.And let's be honest. If "Poet's corner" or "the Zip Strip" looked like Highland Square, or Fairlawn. Do you think that these areas would have been susceptible to eminent domain? No. These are people that didn't care about their property enough to keep it up, then when someone wants to buy it, they suddenly think they are entitled to extra money.

[zen]

not pro-citizen's rights. You use the wrong words.When I say pro-property rights, what I mean is individual rights.When you say pro-citizen's rights, what you mean is mob rule, OR, socialism. If enough people want it or benefit by it, then it's time to start kicking people out.Well, I for one think that there are uses for eminent domain. Genuine civil needs and safety needs. I believe that if you are going to start kicking American citizens off of their property because of "we want", then you are going to have to pay a bit of a penalty.

[Big Zip]

Zen tell me you live in that neighborhood? If you dont' live in that neighborhood tell me you'll move there. Tell me you drink at Joes -- you're a regular. This is a situation where a run down area of town is going to be replaced with something that is going to benefit the city more than the land owners every considered. The land owners had their opportunity to make it a better place while they were there and they didnt'. One more thing -- can someone tell me what the parking deck cost at the corner of Spicer and Buchtel -- I'm thinking it was like $5 million of which 1/7 was paid for by the Chapel. How many spots is that - in a much more prime location. How about we use that to value the 50 spots the Nemers have and then deduct for location and the falling property values in Summit County. Tell me there lot is worth a $1 million -- I call bullshit. Thank goodness the University is appealing this decision.

[zen]

What you are saying is, because I don't live there, and because it doesn't affect me personally, I should look the other way when we evict people from their own property because you have deemed your reasons worthy.

[bigham78]

What you are saying is, because I don't live there, and because it doesn't affect me personally, I should look the other way when we evict people from their own property because you have deemed your reasons worthy.

I stood in the so called million dollar parking lot on May 25th and again on May 26th. Those properties are blighted and have been blighted for years. Many of basic repairs have been neglected and I know buildings and construction enough to know neglect that goes back further then August of last year. The so called 1 mil dollar parking should have been paved years ago.Most of the houses in that area contained lead and asbestos and cost of removing that and renovating to bring those houses up to code, is cheaper to build a new house. The area had been rundown for years and the landlord and property owners should have been taken to court years ago for renting those buildings out.This was an area begging for eniment domain. Manny's Pub doesn't even have bathroom doors. A real fine establisment who mainly serves bums and assorted derelicts these days.Most of the property owners jumped at UofA offers. Greed and not owners being driven out are why The Nemers are fighting this. The original offers they could open up shop at a couple of locations downtown or in Higland Square area and recoup any losses in no time.

[RootforRoo44]

What you are saying is, because I don't live there, and because it doesn't affect me personally, I should look the other way when we evict people from their own property because you have deemed your reasons worthy.

yep that's what i'm saying....why would you care about some run down area of town which a guy is getting extremely overcompensated for? He is winning the lottery essentially with that property. And citizens rights? That sounds like a bunch of Can't State hippie talk to me.

[g-mann17]

not pro-citizen's rights. You use the wrong words.When I say pro-property rights, what I mean is individual rights.When you say pro-citizen's rights, what you mean is mob rule, OR, socialism. If enough people want it or benefit by it, then it's time to start kicking people out.Well, I for one think that there are uses for eminent domain. Genuine civil needs and safety needs. I believe that if you are going to start kicking American citizens off of their property because of "we want", then you are going to have to pay a bit of a penalty.

When I say pro-citizen's rights I mean that the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few. I mean that not every person should not have to pay because one person is greedy. What you fail to realize, and never mention is that the 3 million, or whatever ends up being decided by the court is coming from your pocket, my pocket, and every person's pocket in the state. How is it anywhere near fair that the Nemers get well above market value?

[bigham78]

not pro-citizen's rights. You use the wrong words.When I say pro-property rights, what I mean is individual rights.When you say pro-citizen's rights, what you mean is mob rule, OR, socialism. If enough people want it or benefit by it, then it's time to start kicking people out.Well, I for one think that there are uses for eminent domain. Genuine civil needs and safety needs. I believe that if you are going to start kicking American citizens off of their property because of "we want", then you are going to have to pay a bit of a penalty.

When I say pro-citizen's rights I mean that the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few. I mean that not every person should not have to pay because one person is greedy. What you fail to realize, and never mention is that the 3 million, or whatever ends up being decided by the court is coming from your pocket, my pocket, and every person's pocket in the state. How is it anywhere near fair, that the Nemers get well above market value?

It's not fair eniment domain or not that Nemers are getting far above FMV. The jury erred basing their decision on Main St property values Vs Spicertown. This verdict needs to be greatly reduced. Joe Nemer already whinnying about they're trying to take my bar before the motion has even been accepted says his attorney must be wee bit worried about this motion.

[g-mann17]

not pro-citizen's rights. You use the wrong words.When I say pro-property rights, what I mean is individual rights.When you say pro-citizen's rights, what you mean is mob rule, OR, socialism. If enough people want it or benefit by it, then it's time to start kicking people out.Well, I for one think that there are uses for eminent domain. Genuine civil needs and safety needs. I believe that if you are going to start kicking American citizens off of their property because of "we want", then you are going to have to pay a bit of a penalty.

When I say pro-citizen's rights I mean that the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few. I mean that not every person should not have to pay because one person is greedy. What you fail to realize, and never mention is that the 3 million, or whatever ends up being decided by the court is coming from your pocket, my pocket, and every person's pocket in the state. How is it anywhere near fair, that the Nemers get well above market value?

It's not fair eniment domain or not that Nemers are getting far above FMV. The jury erred basing their decision on Main St property values Vs Spicertown. This verdict needs to be greatly reduced. Joe Nemer already whinnying about they're trying to take my bar before the motion has even been accepted says his attorney must be wee bit worried about this motion.

It's not fair that the Joe Nemer get's so much f-ing money. He didn't do anything to make that property that valuable.

[Big Zip]

Zen my point is you obviously haven't been to the area for years and it is the same reason you wouldn't live there -- it wasn't worth $3 million. I have no problem with the guy getting fair market value -- this isn't fair market value.

[bigham78]

not pro-citizen's rights. You use the wrong words.When I say pro-property rights, what I mean is individual rights.When you say pro-citizen's rights, what you mean is mob rule, OR, socialism. If enough people want it or benefit by it, then it's time to start kicking people out.Well, I for one think that there are uses for eminent domain. Genuine civil needs and safety needs. I believe that if you are going to start kicking American citizens off of their property because of "we want", then you are going to have to pay a bit of a penalty.

When I say pro-citizen's rights I mean that the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few. I mean that not every person should not have to pay because one person is greedy. What you fail to realize, and never mention is that the 3 million, or whatever ends up being decided by the court is coming from your pocket, my pocket, and every person's pocket in the state. How is it anywhere near fair, that the Nemers get well above market value?

It's not fair eniment domain or not that Nemers are getting far above FMV. The jury erred basing their decision on Main St property values Vs Spicertown. This verdict needs to be greatly reduced. Joe Nemer already whinnying about they're trying to take my bar before the motion has even been accepted says his attorney must be wee bit worried about this motion.

It's not fair that the Joe Nemer get's so much f-ing money. He didn't do anything to make that property that valuable.

You got that right. I just walked the area Memorial Day when I was in Akron for a visit. I can't believe how bad the area has gotten since I last saw it just year ago, which was b-4 the August Stadium plan being officially released. The so called 1 mil dollar parking lot is in bad need of paving and even a construction novice could see it's been that way for years. Joe Sun Grille Manny pub need all kinds of work and once again easy too see they've both needed it for years. How anyone could go into Chopstix for Chinese or Aroma for coffee is beyong me. Oh by the way did mention all the businesses were closed both Sunday and Monday Memorial Day. :blink: For businessman who claim to doing so much for UofA. Their looked like they haven't been worked on in years.

[zen]

Zen my point is you obviously haven't been to the area for years and it is the same reason you wouldn't live there -- it wasn't worth $3 million. I have no problem with the guy getting fair market value -- this isn't fair market value.

*sigh*I only think that people who are evicted from their own property should get more than fair market value for a reason.I will try to explain that reason, and do it from two angles.1) That person owns that property. They are using it, and they have been paying taxes on it. It may have sentimental value to them, it may have financial value, and it may, in some ways, be irreplaceable. If that person was selling the property, it would come under market forces and market value would actually be culled out by the market, rather than an arbitrary appraisal. But what is important is the fact that the owner was selling it. When eminent domain is used, the owner is forcably evicted when he had no intent to sell. He should be compensated for various reasons that I have listed in other threads. Some of which are the fact that if he moves, a new location could cost more and still be less profitable (or have less personal value if it's a residence instead of a business). The university never had to try to outbid anyone for the property. They basically took it.2) "The people" don't own that property, a person does. People own their own property (unless they are renters or dependents). This is not communist system with public ownership of everything. You have your house and I have mine. You have your business and I have mine. Using the powers of government to procure land from private land owners should include some level of punitive effect. Taking land for market value only encourage government to use eminent domain more and more, and play some sortof Sim City with people's property. The people in government who make up the decisions may or may not be right in whether certain decisions help the city overall, but that's not the point. The point is property rights are being made worthless. People are being forced to sell and move when they don't want to, and that sale is not going to give them anything more than "fair market value"???? I believe that there should be a putative fee attached to all eminent domain cases. If government thinks that property is soooo damned important to steal it away from a private land owner, then it should not be allowed to take it at face value. This only encourages government to diminish the people's property rights.Just because something appears to be for the benefit of "the many outweigh the few" doesn't make it right. It makes it "mob rule".Rights are not subject to "mob rule". It's the reason minorities have protected rights. The majority could turn minorities into slaves if they had enough votes to do it in a 'mob rule' democracy. We all know that minority rights and even individual rights are protected from the oppression of the many. This is the American way. Now please remember, I am not arguing that eminent domain should be abolished. I believe their are legitimate civil and safety reasons for land use.However, I do think that there should be punitive and compensatory aspects to eminent domain, particularly when a project is not a directly civil or safety issue. Afterall, in this very case, what we have here basically comes down to is the fact that you got more people wanting to sip on beverages and watch football games 8 times a year somehow being more important than people's homes and businesses. This project is NOT decreasing traffic accidents, reducing pollution, feeding the hungry, clothing the cold or making the world a better place, and even if it was, property owners should still be compensated.I'll be going to football games, and I will be admiring the new stadium, and I will have pride for my Alma Mater. I am NOT against the stadium project, as most of you know. I have even posted pictures from the work site.It's just that, I feel it's important enough to stand up for a principle. An Idea.Some day, it could be your property that is taken. Who knows, maybe you will be happy to move. But then again, maybe you wont.

[HOLLYWOODZIPPY]

Zen-Please be careful with your use of the word evicted. There is a huge difference between being "evicted" and being compensated (as it's been said a hundred times on here) "above fair market value". You are misleading in your argument when you use that word. Eminant domain is a touchy subject and I'm on the fence about it, so I don't really have an argument either way, but these people are hardly being kicked out.

[ZipAlumn]

*sigh*I only think that people who are evicted from their own property should get more than fair market value for a reason.I will try to explain that reason, and do it from two angles.1) That person owns that property. They are using it, and they have been paying taxes on it. It may have sentimental value to them, it may have financial value, and it may, in some ways, be irreplaceable. If that person was selling the property, it would come under market forces and market value would actually be culled out by the market, rather than an arbitrary appraisal. But what is important is the fact that the owner was selling it. When eminent domain is used, the owner is forcably evicted when he had no intent to sell. He should be compensated for various reasons that I have listed in other threads. Some of which are the fact that if he moves, a new location could cost more and still be less profitable (or have less personal value if it's a residence instead of a business). The university never had to try to outbid anyone for the property. They basically took it.2) "The people" don't own that property, a person does. People own their own property (unless they are renters or dependents). This is not communist system with public ownership of everything. You have your house and I have mine. You have your business and I have mine. Using the powers of government to procure land from private land owners should include some level of punitive effect. Taking land for market value only encourage government to use eminent domain more and more, and play some sortof Sim City with people's property. The people in government who make up the decisions may or may not be right in whether certain decisions help the city overall, but that's not the point. The point is property rights are being made worthless. People are being forced to sell and move when they don't want to, and that sale is not going to give them anything more than "fair market value"???? I believe that there should be a putative fee attached to all eminent domain cases. If government thinks that property is soooo damned important to steal it away from a private land owner, then it should not be allowed to take it at face value. This only encourages government to diminish the people's property rights.Just because something appears to be for the benefit of "the many outweigh the few" doesn't make it right. It makes it "mob rule".Rights are not subject to "mob rule". It's the reason minorities have protected rights. The majority could turn minorities into slaves if they had enough votes to do it in a 'mob rule' democracy. We all know that minority rights and even individual rights are protected from the oppression of the many. This is the American way. Now please remember, I am not arguing that eminent domain should be abolished. I believe their are legitimate civil and safety reasons for land use.However, I do think that there should be punitive and compensatory aspects to eminent domain, particularly when a project is not a directly civil or safety issue. Afterall, in this very case, what we have here basically comes down to is the fact that you got more people wanting to sip on beverages and watch football games 8 times a year somehow being more important than people's homes and businesses. This project is NOT decreasing traffic accidents, reducing pollution, feeding the hungry, clothing the cold or making the world a better place, and even if it was, property owners should still be compensated.I'll be going to football games, and I will be admiring the new stadium, and I will have pride for my Alma Mater. I am NOT against the stadium project, as most of you know. I have even posted pictures from the work site.It's just that, I feel it's important enough to stand up for a principle. An Idea.Some day, it could be your property that is taken. Who knows, maybe you will be happy to move. But then again, maybe you wont.

My son and I had this same discussion and he changed my opinion with the same reasoning. In addition he brought up the point that some property is in the family for generations and no matter what the condition the property has a special significance to that family.

[zen]

Zen-Please be careful with your use of the word evicted. There is a huge difference between being "evicted" and being compensated (as it's been said a hundred times on here) "above fair market value". You are misleading in your argument when you use that word. Eminant domain is a touchy subject and I'm on the fence about it, so I don't really have an argument either way, but these people are hardly being kicked out.

I can agree with you, technically.It is probably a bad choice of words.I think that I am only trying to express the fact that the property owner basically has no choice in the matter.Take the money and leave.

[ZachTheZip]

Zen-Please be careful with your use of the word evicted. There is a huge difference between being "evicted" and being compensated (as it's been said a hundred times on here) "above fair market value". You are misleading in your argument when you use that word. Eminant domain is a touchy subject and I'm on the fence about it, so I don't really have an argument either way, but these people are hardly being kicked out.

I can agree with you, technically.It is probably a bad choice of words.I think that I am only trying to express the fact that the property owner basically has no choice in the matter.Take the money and leave.

In most cases, your argument would be valid and I would agree with you. The problem when using it in this particular case is that the Nemers agreed to leave, without a fight. They had the choice to challenge UA's aquisition of the property, but they did not. They only raised a stink when they saw UA's offer for compensation. In my mind, you can't agree to vacate a property and then complain when you find out aren't offered what you think you should be owed. If they were worried about not getting compensated as much as they wanted, they should have fought to keep the U from taking the property in the first place.

[zen]

The problem when using it in this particular case is that the Nemers agreed to leave, without a fight. They had the choice to challenge UA's aquisition of the property, but they did not. They only raised a stink when they saw UA's offer for compensation.

If that's the case, then you are right. My arguments are on shaky ground.I can't understand how someone would agree to having their property be acquired without agreeing to a price.Hell, I had a developer come and ask me about my property. I gave him a tentative verbal agreement to sell only if he gave me more than a certain amount. He never got back to me. Apparently it was too high. But I gave him the price I did for a reason. I found a property that I liked for a variety of reasons. I told him that it would be hard for me to take market value and turn around and find another place for the same price that I was as happy with, which is the reason my house wasn't for sale. I wasn't lying when I told him that. I really do think I would have a hard time finding a place like the one I have now if I was given 'market value', and that's why I have no regrets. If the nemers agreed to sell to the UA without even agreeing to a price or other conditions, then they are just plain stupid in my opinion.

[Wally B]

WOW!!!! :blink: interesting posts! Personally, from my UA experiences in the early 9o's i can honestly say that the only reason those businesses existed was to bleed UA students dry. They took advantage (rightfully so) of operating in an already blighted area w/ no competition. Remember how barren Main St. was before Polsky Hall opened? Before the original face lift and stadium projects? I used to frequent Aroma's until i was treated to poor customer service by the management. My friends still refer to it as the fish sandwich incident. I wanted a sandwich and something to drink, they only offed sticky buns so meandered over to McD's for a crappy sandwich and then purchased an overpriced cup of iced tea at Aroma's. They told me to leave even though i was purchasing their sh** instead of the reasonably priced McTea. (i pleaded my case to no reason and gladly would have supported their establishment if they offered a similar option) So i stood outside for all of 3 minutes until i had consumed the sandwich before returning to play gorilla chess. Sun Grille, Splash and all the others were dives as well, and no they didn't offer the area a campus feel. Probably as big a problem if not bigger than the location of the Bowl. Sure my story sounds petty and a little retarded on my part but you have to understand that as a kid in the 8o's i used to eat dinner with my father several times a week at the old Jack Horner's when it still had a lunch counter, left over from the days when my dad worked in the rubber shops. The counter was frequented by several patrons who could only be described as slum lords. These were individuals who had either inherited properties or purchased derelict homes as the local economy collapsed (loss of blue collar workers and related families, the real demise of support for UA athletics since they tend to coincide?? Think about this, older retiree's stayed, young families moved away and local population actually shrunk for a period of about 15years) Anyways, i essentially grew up listening to the tales of these bastards who charged UA students exorbant rates for derelict properties while spending nothing to maintain them and brgged about it while flushing A LOT of cash. Some might call that profiteering, but it's a simple case of economics, due to the rust belt economy there was no competition in the form of new housing and UA was classified as a commuter school so dorms were difficult to fund. Ten years later when i myself "commuted" to class, the housing and community situations had only gotten worse. So now the city and university are teaming up to renew the area and the slum lords are crying foul....... i have little pity. Yes, i'm sure they feel their property is worth 3mill, but they already earned that on the backs of the community which i GUARANTEE they do not live in themselves. Akron is full of old blighted neighborhood built during the period when the rubber factories were expanding at an incredible rate. The community needed cheap and affordable housing for the mill workers and got it. They weren't meant to last for 50 years, or be nice. After all, Akron was a dirty town filled with acrid yellow sulfur pollution that smelled like rotten eggs. In the next 25 years all these neighborhoods will have to be replaced or torn down as they finally fall apart. The city, community, and university will be better off for it. On occasion, eminent domain will have to be used, a sad unfortunate but necessary part of the process as a few of the old slum lords try to hang on. You'd think they'd be smart enough to get ahead of the curve, but the truth is they are smart enough not to!MARK MOTHERSBAUGH - My home town (think of Devo, and the old 8o's punk scene in Downtown at the old Portage and Anthony Wayne hotels! the city chased all the bars and music clubs out of downtown blaming them for the Main St. shopping districts demise! it quickly turned into a ghost town)My home townIs the greatest in the landThe people all thereThey treat you all squareAnd give you a place to standMy home townIt's more than a town you knowIt's my home townIt's my home townIt's Akron, Ohio!My home townIt's a special kind of placeHard working folksWith chips on their shouldersPeople crammed in sub-human spaceMy home townIt's more than a town to meIt's more than plainIt's a city of painIt's one big factory!Akron's past ills were uniquely captured in popular music. If you'd like other reference downloads for your iPod look up "My City Was Gone" and "Downtown (akron)" by the Pretenders!

[Ryno aka Menace]

For those defending Nemer about picking on the little guy and all but lets be reasonable. His "business" plus property value included won't add up to 3 million if that place stayed open for 100 years.

Is that a fact?Because you state it so matter-of-factly.I'm willing to bet that you quite wrong.I think most people who you categorize as whiners or complainers are not so much anti-eminent domain as they are pro-property rights. All I have ever asked for by people on this site is to simply acknowledge (as I have) that we are not objective observers on this issue. We want a stadium. We are biased. If Waste Management Corp convinced the City of Akron to take hundreds of homes and businesses through eminent domain to put in a land fill, I think your perspective might change a little.

I see where you are coming from and understand your point but please tell me that you don't believe that after his business pays supplies, employees, taxes, etc. that he is making 3 million dollars...ever! Hypothetically lets say he makes 40K a year off that place a year he would have to own and run it for 75 years!! He don't make 40 and he damn sure won't be running the pub for 75 years.

[zen]

He was making significantly more than 40k per year, net. I would be shocked if he made that little.

[RACER]

the guy got three million dollars for a run down building.i just dont'get how people are complaing about eminet domain when the guy got three million dollars.it's not like the u of a kicked him out,and he got nothing.the u of a should do everything they can to get the judgement reduced.like one poster said the before the beacon ran a story about this,and the u of a is using eminet domain to screw people.once the stadium is built im sure they will run stories on how great the new stadium is for the akron community.

[Buckzip]

the guy got three million dollars for a run down building.i just dont'get how people are complaing about eminet domain when the guy got three million dollars.it's not like the u of a kicked him out,and he got nothing.the u of a should do everything they can to get the judgement reduced.like one poster said the before the beacon ran a story about this,and the u of a is using eminet domain to screw people.once the stadium is built im sure they will run stories on how great the new stadium is for the akron community.

Nemer is a greedy SOB. He is way overcompensated and you guys still defend the POS...

[apalmison]

..and the saga continues:Rulings likely in land case involving UAInteresting quote in there:"Last week, according to Warren Mendenhall, the attorney for Joe and Mona Nemer, a university attorney told him that UA would walk away from the purchase of his clients' property rather than pay $3.1 million."