Houses Taken Away and Given to Crate & Barrel

Before you read any further, look at the houses here.  Here is an example:

Picture9

They look like normal, everyday Midwestern houses, right?  I mean, some are kind of small but several look pretty nice and all of them are in good shape with well-kept lawns, etc.

So what do these houses have in common?  They have all been condemned as "blighted" by Norwood, Ohio.  They have been seized from their owners by the city government and now, thanks to the Supreme Court's disastrous Kelo decision, they will be torn down.

OK, what's the real reason?  The real reason is that Norwood, Ohio wants a Crate & Barrel store where these houses are.  They think the Crate & Barrel is a better use of the land, and they are pretty sure that C&B will pay them more taxes than these homeowners, so they are taking people's homes and giving the land to the developer.  More here and here on this story, and Cato has a whole bunch of articles on abuse of the Constitution's takings clause here.  And you can find my Kelo articles here, here, and here.

  • http://www.fattriplets.com/?p=90 The Fat Triplets

    A blighted neighborhood? Nah, just fodder for developers via government takings!

    Warren Myers of the Coyote Blog has posted an egregious example of a government taking following the Kelo decision. We will see more shamelessly emboldened municipal governments seizing private property and handing it over to developers following thi...

  • http://jackalopepursuivant.typepad.com Dan

    Dammit! That didn't take long at all...

  • http://unrepentantindividual.com/2005/06/25/gamble-et-al-v-city-of-norwood-oh/ The Unrepentant Individual

    Gamble et. al. v. City of Norwood, OH

    Citizen with disproportionate influence and power in the political process? Check. Transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more? Check.

  • http://unrepentantindividual.com/ Brad Warbiany

    Dan,
    Those stories were from February, this isn't new since Kelo...

    But I'll bet those owners just might withdraw their lawsuit now, because Kelo has shown that it's not going to go anywhere.

  • http://grumbles.mu.nu/archives/096431.php Eric's Grumbles Before The Grave

    Round the blogosphere on Kelo

    Some more items I've picked up in blogosphere land on the Kelo v. New London decision. Are you guys getting tired of this yet? Shall I go on to other topics? De Doc talks, as I did earlier, about the...

  • http://grumbles.mu.nu/archives/096431.php Eric's Grumbles Before The Grave

    Round the blogosphere on Kelo

    Some more items I've picked up in blogosphere land on the Kelo v. New London decision. Are you guys getting tired of this yet? Shall I go on to other topics? De Doc talks, as I did earlier, about the...

  • http://grumbles.mu.nu/archives/096431.php Eric's Grumbles Before The Grave

    Round the blogosphere on Kelo

    Some more items I've picked up in blogosphere land on the Kelo v. New London decision. Are you guys getting tired of this yet? Shall I go on to other topics? De Doc talks, as I did earlier, about the...

  • http://politics.lel-hosting.com/ Matt

    Kelo hasn't actually shown that. It's just shown that the US Supreme Court doesn't believe that the 5th Amendment means anything. There are still potential state-level challenges which could be made. (I only lived in Ohio for a year, and that was in a period of near-destitution so severe that the mere thought of owning anything that the state might think worth taking would have been laughable...I therefore know next to nothing about Ohio's state law on the subject. I do know that in my original home state of Michigan, just as an example, Kelo has no effect whatsoever, because state courts have ruled that eminent domain does _not_ authorize private-for-private takings.)