After watching sadly as their neighbors' homes were bulldozed for phase three of the Rookwood commercial complex in Norwood [a Cincinnati suburb], opponents of the development finally have reason for some optimism.

The Ohio Supreme Court announced Monday that it intends to hear arguments in the lawsuit that was filed against the city of Norwood's decision to assemble property for Rookwood Exchange through the process of eminent domain, which allows governments to acquire property for public purposes such as highways, sewer plants or airports.

At the heart of the case is the question of whether a government entity -- Norwood -- can acquire property and then turn it over to a private developer on the premise that the new development will be in the best interests of the public.

Attorneys for the Institute for Justice http://www.ij.org, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that battles what it considers abuses of eminent domain law all over the country, said they were "elated" by the high court's decision to hear a case they labeled "the most important ongoing eminent domain case in the nation."

But Cincinnati attorney Tim Burke, who is acting as special counsel to Norwood in the case, said he's confident the courts will continue to side with the city as it tries to attract new investment, more jobs and more residents.

Since only three of the 69 buildings on the Rookwood Exchange site are still standing, the outcome of the case may be more important as a precedent than as a means to rebuild the neighborhood, which is bounded roughly by Interstate 71, Edmondson and Edwards roads.

"After being turned down in all the Hamilton County courts, hopefully the Ohio Supreme Court will decide in our favor that the whole thing is wrong. Everybody knows that except for greedy developers," said Joy Gamble, whose home is one of three still standing.

After 35 years in a home on Atlantic Avenue, she and her husband, Carl, moved out in February to their daughter's home in Independence, Kentucky, where they are living in basement apartment. That's been an adjustment, she said.

"It's kind of quiet and peaceful," Joy Gamble said.

"It's not like being in the center of everything, but I'm a long way from shopping and gas (is expensive). I can't walk to anything."

The city's taking of the properties for Rookwood Exchange, she said, "borders on socialism."

"The case is about what's ours is ours, and we're not sharing with anybody," she said.

The case has taken three years to get to this point, said Joe Horney, whose two-family rental property is one of the other buildings still standing on the site.

"What happened to me should not happen to any other Ohio property owner," said Horney, who now lives in St. Bernard.

"In the end, my rental property was transferred to Rookwood Partners (the developers) to build new rental property, which didn't sit too well with me."

Like the Gambles, Horney said he was forced to tell his tenants that they had to move out after the developer and the city won successive court battles, first in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court and then in the District Court of Appeals, which upheld the county court ruling.

The Ohio Supreme Court issued an injunction in February that barred the developers from tearing down the three houses -- the third is owned by Matthew and Sanai Ichikawa Burton -- until there is a final ruling in the case.

"This is a very important case -- particularly in Ohio, where the abuse of eminent domain happens all the time," said Bert Gall bgall@ij.org, a Washington, D.C., attorney who is representing all three property owners through the Institute for Justice.

Norwood moved ahead with its plan to acquire the property after a study approved by the city council and funded by the developers labeled the neighborhood as "deteriorating" for a number of reasons, including the fact that it had a diversity of ownership.

Gall found that notion "ridiculous" -- a finding that, in effect, said the neighborhood was suffering because people owned their own homes and businesses.

Burke said focusing on the Gambles, the only owner-occupants who didn't reach an agreement to sell their property, overlooks the fact that the overwhelming majority of the property owners "wanted out of that site."

"What the project is all about is turning Norwood around," said Burke, who pointed out that the city has lost 40 percent of its residents and thousands of good jobs since 1960, when its population peaked at 36,000.

Burke said the project will bring jobs, revenues and residents to the city.

Rookwood Exchange would represent an investment of more than $100 million by Rookwood Partners, which includes Jeffrey R. Anderson Real Estate, the company that built the highly successful Rookwood Commons and Rookwood Pavilion shopping centers and office building that are located just south of Edmondson Road, directly across from the Rookwood Exchange site.

Plans call for Rookwood Exchange to include 300,000-400,000 square feet of office space, 200 housing units, two 1,000-space parking garages and 200,000 square feet of retail space.

Norwood has no monopoly on the use of eminent domain in Greater Cincinnati.

In the last few years, the city of Newport created controversy and ill will in its Cote Brilliant neighborhood when it condemned a 55-acre tract that will be developed into a shopping center.

In the most recent court decision in the legal battle that ensued over the project, the Kentucky Court of Appeals ruled that Newport's use of eminent domain to acquire the properties was proper.

Copyright 2005, Cincinnati Post.

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051004/NEWS01/510040356