Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

      
Post Reply 
City wants to seize half of house
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
ctipton Offline
Jersey Retired
Jersey Retired

Posts: 32,482
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 140
I Root For: UC and the Reds
Location: Cincinnati West Side

DonatorsDonators
Post: #1
City wants to seize half of house
City wants to seize half of house
Homeowner says rest of his property would be unusable and wants city to buy all of it


[Image: bilde?Site=AB&Date=20120309&...half-house]
The Enquirer/Carrie Cochran
J J Valentine sits on his driveway Wednesday at the Oakley house he owns. He sits at the point that would divide his property, according to city plans.

Written by
Jane Prendergast

If only someone would rent a house with its front torn off.

That would solve JJ Valentine’s problem, which is that the city of Cincinnati wants to take by eminent domain about 40 percent of his Oakley property – including the front of the house. The lot is in the path of the Kennedy Connector project. But Valentine still owes a mortgage and the city’s $40,000 offer doesn’t begin to cover it.

So lawyers for Valentine and the city are debating: When is a half really a whole?

“If this goes the way they want it to, I’d basically be paying the city to take it from me,” Valentine said. “When you owe more on a property than they’re offering, I just don’t know what to say.”

He figures with his mortgage, legal fees and taxes, he needs just over $200,000 – “just to walk away without a penny in my pocket.”

The city, in 2009, offered Valentine $147,000 for 3343 Ibsen Ave. Since, the amount was reduced once engineers decided the city only needed part of the property. The remaining property, the city says, could be used for a commercial business – it sits behind the Center of Cincinnati shopping area.

But Valentine and his lawyer, Daniel McCarthy, say the amount that would be left would be too small to use for anything. The law calls that an “uneconomic remnant.”

The city filed suit against Valentine in January.

“The closer a road project gets to someone’s home, the less they like it,” said John Curp, city solicitor. “We understand that.”

Eminent domain is the legal process by which a government can acquire private property – with “just” compensation – for a public use. Most Cincinnati cases involve taking slivers of property for road widenings, park projects and sewer projects – smaller “takes” than at Valentine’s property, Curp said.

The bigger cases, like the Kennedy Connector, are much less common, he said. Among them: the massive Metropolitan Sewer District improvement project in South Fairmount; and the repair of the Western Hills Viaduct.

“It’s not a question of if the city can take it,” Curp said, “it’s a question of what the value is.”

The city used to employ eight people full-time in its real estate office. Most have been laid off, Curp said, so some cases are now sent to outside lawyers.

The $30 million Kennedy Connector project, discussed for years and delayed, is now expected to start construction in the spring with an end date of sometime in late 2013. It will connect Madison Road and Ibsen to Kennedy Avenue and Duck Creek Road, as well as to Interstate 71 and the Norwood Lateral. Engineers say it will alleviate congestion and support future development along Ridge Road.

In the scheme of acquisitions even for this project, the Valentine property one is small. The city has paid millions so far, including $3.2 million to the Ibsen Company and $975,000 to Crossroads Community Church.

Valentine’s former next-door neighbor got $168,000 and three owners directly around his property at 3343 Ibsen Ave. got $146,000, $154,000 and $160,000. Officials say every acquisition and offer are different, depending upon details of the project and how much land the city needs.

Valentine’s house, a three-bedroom built in 1923, was last valued at $102,820 by the Hamilton County auditor. Its lot is 37 feet by 165 feet.

Valentine first bought the house in 1995, then sold it and bought it back again, as Tradewinds Properties LLC, in 2004 for $305,000, according to the Hamilton County Auditor’s site.

The city tells Valentine it’s not responsible for him being under water with his mortgage. While that’s true, McCarthy said, the man still deserves a fair deal. They’re still hoping to settle, but will take their lawsuit to a jury trial if need be.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120.../303090176
 
03-10-2012 06:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


beck Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,334
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 44
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #2
RE: City wants to seize half of house
Perhaps he could just ask the City for a $500,000.00, unsecured loan to fix the half of his house these numb nuts leave him.
 
03-10-2012 07:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BearcatsUC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,801
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 72
I Root For: UC
Location:
Post: #3
RE: City wants to seize half of house
The neighbors surrounding him accepted $146,000 to $168,000, but this guy bought his house back for $305,000 as an LLC? Am I the only one who thought this was an eye opener? His comment about "owing more than what they're paying" is meaningless. Some bank is going to take a huge hit, and he's going to walk away from it. How in the hell did that mortgage ever get approved? I'd love to know which bank lended the money.

No house in that area is worth $305,000. Guess he figured it would turn into a commercial development and his gamble lost.

I bet that offer for $147,000 is looking a lot better now. The title of this article is misleading.
 
(This post was last modified: 03-10-2012 11:33 PM by BearcatsUC.)
03-10-2012 11:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


ctipton Offline
Jersey Retired
Jersey Retired

Posts: 32,482
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 140
I Root For: UC and the Reds
Location: Cincinnati West Side

DonatorsDonators
Post: #4
RE: City wants to seize half of house
(03-10-2012 11:20 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  The neighbors surrounding him accepted $146,000 to $168,000, but this guy bought his house back for $305,000 as an LLC? Am I the only one who thought this was an eye opener? His comment about "owing more than what they're paying" is meaningless. Some bank is going to take a huge hit, and he's going to walk away from it. How in the hell did that mortgage ever get approved? I'd love to know which bank lended the money.

No house in that area is worth $305,000. Guess he figured it would turn into a commercial development and his gamble lost.

I bet that offer for $147,000 is looking a lot better now. The title of this article is misleading.

How is the title misleading?
 
03-11-2012 12:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BearcatsUC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,801
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 72
I Root For: UC
Location:
Post: #5
RE: City wants to seize half of house
(03-11-2012 12:52 AM)ctipton Wrote:  
(03-10-2012 11:20 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  The neighbors surrounding him accepted $146,000 to $168,000, but this guy bought his house back for $305,000 as an LLC? Am I the only one who thought this was an eye opener? His comment about "owing more than what they're paying" is meaningless. Some bank is going to take a huge hit, and he's going to walk away from it. How in the hell did that mortgage ever get approved? I'd love to know which bank lended the money.

No house in that area is worth $305,000. Guess he figured it would turn into a commercial development and his gamble lost.

I bet that offer for $147,000 is looking a lot better now. The title of this article is misleading.

How is the title misleading?

It allows bad reporters to mislead gullible readers into asking why the title is misleading.

Some of the comments following the article:

Quote:Karl Kauffman · Top commenter · Owner and Founder at Paramount Orthotics, LLC

The transfer history of this property explains exactly what's going on here. Purchased by Valentine for 40K in '95, appraised at around 78,400 in 2002, then resold to Valentine by his holding company for $305K in 2004.

I'm behind the city on this one 100%. Nice try Mr. Valentine

Valentine was offered much more for the property and he apparently didn't bite. The property isn't worth anything close to $305,000 and the $147.000 he was originally offered was more than fair, and this guy is wasting city resources by now bitching that he's losing money.

The slant against the city in this article is ridiculous.
 
(This post was last modified: 03-11-2012 01:02 AM by BearcatsUC.)
03-11-2012 12:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.