By Susan Vela
The Cincinnati Enquirer

NORWOOD - Until developers came up with plans to build swanky offices, shops and condos on the streets where they live, residents on Dacey, Garland and Atlantic avenues didn't give "blight" much thought.

That was the term for rundown, inner-city tenements. The word for homes and buildings with shattered windows, peeling paint and kids too scared to play outside.

Little of that was reflected in their middle-class neighborhood, these neighbors thought. After all, their tidy, older homes typically sell for more than $100,000.

But today, "blight" has become a fighting word on these streets. City officials are considering designating the neighborhood "blighted" as a prelude to eminent domain - a government move that would force residents out so work can start on Rookwood Exchange, a $125 million complex of offices, apartments, condos, shops and restaurants.

No one knows if that will happen. But as plans progress and fears mount, the future of 79 mostly residential properties is tied to increasingly complex questions vexing homeowners and cities across the land: What exactly is blight? And when can government use the term to justify displacing whole neighborhoods for development deemed in the public good?

"Anybody can see it isn't blighted. Just walk down the street," says Carl Gamble, who lives in a 1920s-era home on Atlantic Avenue. "What right (do developers have) to ruin the lives of people in the area?"

His wife, Joy, spent the summer chewing on Tums and waking up at 3 a.m., wondering how she and her husband could save their home. "When your roots go down deep, you don't want to move."

The elderly couple is hoarding their retirement money in case they have to fight a blight designation in court.

Loose definitions

The Gambles aren't alone. People in several other Greater Cincinnati communities are trying to evade the designation. Home and business owners have angrily confronted local government officials. Lawsuits have been filed.

Governmental bodies can take land by eminent domain for public uses including new roads, municipal buildings and public garages. They also can invoke eminent domain over areas deemed blighted. Property owners are supposed to be paid market value, and the public is supposed to benefit when neighborhoods are cleaned up.

Increasingly, however, cities, villages and state agencies have been trying to use their eminent domain powers to displace residents for commercial developments that include shopping centers, movie theaters and office towers. People don't understand how these developments possibly could be considered public uses.

Part of the problem stems from confusion over what, exactly, constitutes blight. There is no precise, universally accepted standard. Definitions in Ohio and Kentucky law include words like slummed, deteriorated, dilapidated, unsafe, unsanitary, inaccessible and a menace to public health, safety, morals and welfare.

People living in targeted areas say that loose interpretations are allowing municipalities to seize attractive properties and hand them over to builders promising developments that could generate millions in tax revenues.

"The trend nationwide is to designate blight on really flimsy rationale," says Dana Berliner, a lawyer with the Institute for Justice, a Washington, D.C.-based group that fights abuses of eminent domain. She's seen neighborhoods deemed blighted simply because homes have sagging screens and poor insulation.

"If you are a home or business owner, you do not want your area designated as blighted, no matter what they tell you. It means that it's up for grabs," Ms. Berliner says.

Sam Staley, president of the Buckeye Institute, a Columbus think tank, has testified in blight cases in court.

"Really anybody's property is at risk," he says. "There's a lot of pressure on the cities to be viewed as pro-business. That ends up being shorthand for doing whatever it takes to get investment in certain areas. (But) you're talking about throwing people out of their homes."

Blight as weapon

Residents in targeted neighborhoods worry that "blight" has become a weapon, used unfairly by developers who covet their property and by city officials too eager to bring in new development. Residents resent the implication that their homes are somehow substandard.

Property owners in Norwood point with pride to their investments: interior renovations, freshly painted siding, new garages. Graffiti is non-existent, and most calls to police are for traffic problems.

Anderson Real Estate and Miller-Valentine Group had hoped to have agreements-to-sell from everyone in the neighborhood by year's end. So far, the developers have agreements from 60 percent of property owners. The developers have asked the city to consider a blight study so, if needed, they can get hold-out properties through use of eminent domain. The request is pending.

Ed Foster, who refuses to sell his Dacey Avenue home, compared developers' tactics to someone trying to buy a used car.

"If you're trying to buy somebody's car and they don't want to sell, you say it's rusted (and) it ain't no good," says Mr. Foster, one of about 30 members of Citizens Against Eminent Domain Abuse, a grass-roots group.

"If that's the only route they've got to make us leave, then that's the dirty way to do it."

Some have questioned the group's motives, accusing members of merely bartering for better sale prices.

Joe Horney, a St. Bernard resident and group co-leader, concedes it's hard to separate anger from true feelings. But, he adds: "I truly am very upset that (blight) has been brought up. There are no signs of blight anywhere in the neighborhood."

Other Tristate communities face similar challenges.

In Newport, officials have started buying more than 100 properties in the Cote Brilliante neighborhood. Elected officials envision this hill of modest homes becoming Newport Promenade, a $110 million endeavor to include upscale shops, restaurants and homes.

Attorney Kurt Meier represents residents who filed a federal lawsuit that fights the blight designation that made the acquisitions possible.

"A blighted neighborhood has such deplorable conditions as to not be repairable," he says. "What's happened now is cities have said they'll just blight it (and) take it."

In Evendale, controversy swelled after an urban renewal study deemed commercial properties along Reading Road as blighted. Property owners objected, saying the study damaged their property values and was aimed at allowing the village to get their land for its own purposes. Village administrators said they merely conducted the study for future revitalization efforts.

Greg Dale of McBride Dale Clarion, who was involved in the Evendale study, said it entailed walking through the area, eyeballing the properties' exteriors and collecting all documentation that would indicate whether there are tax delinquencies and health, fire and safety violations.

But, in the end, declaring eminent domain is up to the city council, he says.

Tough decisions

Norwood officials, who desperately want the millions in tax revenues that Rookwood Exchange would bring, are grappling with eminent domain procedures and hoping that avenue won't be necessary.

But Brian Copfer of Miller-Valentine is growing impatient.

"Municipalities ... all want more Miller-Valentines and Jeff Andersons to come into the cities and revitalize them, but we're finding out that there's some tough decisions that maybe they didn't think about," Mr. Copfer says.

"We would prefer if (this Norwood neighborhood) was a rundown industrial building oozing with some toxic material, where everybody was going to pat our back at the end of the day and say, `Thanks a lot.' But unfortunately that's not the case."

Jeffrey Anderson, a developer with Anderson Real Estate, points to the bumper-to-bumper, rush-hour traffic along Edwards Road as a blight factor. Residents agree that the strip virtually has become an I-71 on-ramp. They also complain of tall weeds and streets in dire need of improvements.

"I think more than anything, that you'd want to look at the highest and best use of the area. With the amount of traffic ... the best use of the property is no longer single-family residential," Mr. Anderson says.

Ward representative Cassandra Brown says she hasn't decided how she might vote on a blight designation.

"If you drive up and down the streets, you'll find some homes that aren't in the best of shape," she says. "Right now, I don't think I can make a judgment. I'm someone who looks at the facts ... presented to me by experts."

Jim McBreen, who has agreed to sell his home on Atlantic Avenue, regrets having to leave a neighborhood where residents care for their homes, rake each other's leaves and shovel each other's drives.

But he is especially bothered that elected city officials might choose to pursue a blight designation to make way for development.

"It's an insult to the people who have lived here for a number of years, who I see working on their houses," says Mr. McBreen, who has lived here for 10 years. "If they do that, it means they'll sell out anybody. If they did it once, they can do it again."

E-mail svela@enquirer.com

The Cincinnati Enquirer