Eminent Domain

(Life, liberty and property is our right)

“Ganley Motors Land Grab”

When I was thirteen years old, I felt the impact of this law. At that time I did not understand why we had to move from our home. Years later I realized that our property was used for the long term good of the general public. We were uprooted because a highway was built. That roadway serves the nation and actually the world by allowing the free flow of enterprise.

This was still a traumatic experience to be uprooted by a superior force. I remember that my parents were content where we were and it disrupted our personal happiness.  I can remember my parents complaining about the poor compensation for our home and nothing for relocation. It caused undue burdens without compensation. This was unfair.

Over the past several years I have seen the eminent domain law tainted by greed. It has come to favor the rich and powerful. This application is against the constitutional ideals of equal protection. It allows the “big fish” to swallow the “small fish”. This is greed and greed is tyranny. It disrupts the general well being.

This issue has bothered me as I have seen it’s use abused. I wanted to incorporate an argument in finalizing this book, but I could not find its relevance to this indictment.

Then fate (Gods plan) met my needs. I was given a prime example of a city full of corruption which is more concerned about building an empire at the expense of the weak and defenseless than serving their needs.

Akron mayor, Don Plusquellic, and city council of unsympathetic souls misinterpreted the eminent domain law to meet their selfish ends. They threatened the application of its use on behalf of a private concern to pressure established neighbors into giving up their properties for another mans gain. This is an infringement on equal protection under the law. It is a disruption to their domestic tranquility and general welfare. It is a challenge to their basic rights to protection of property and liberty by our state.

ART. I, SECTION 1 & 2
OHIO CONSTITUTION BILL OF RIGHTS:

Article I section 1: all men by nature are free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety.

Section 2: all political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to revoke or reform or abolish the same, whenever they may deem it necessary.

The following statement is the example of this unfair Ganley Toyota land grab. Mayor and council are more worried about money than the well being of its citizens.

Akron Beacon Journal, ART 1 NOV.17 AUTO DEALER MAY GET AKRONS AID

What makes Ganley so special??

But, Ganley said, after he shared his concerns with the city, city officials looked at ways to help. They turned to something used with success in the past - labeling the area as an urban renewal project, which gives the city broad powers to buy property at a fair market price to clear out areas deemed to be blighted.

 The designated area is bounded by Mary Avenue on the north, Elm Drive on the east, East Market Street on the west. It includes Goodyear Middle School, and a report notes that the school, built in 1918, would need $11.8 million in renovations to bring it up to standards.

Ganley said the city would buy the properties from the residents and the restaurant owner, and, in turn, he would buy them from the city. No date has been proposed for the project to begin.

It is obvious that the mayor continues to blind himself from his role as public servant to all the people. Don is an empire builder. He only worries about his mark on Akron history rather than the safety and security and well being of the general public.

Ganley and his neighbors: Ganley is not a good neighbor because he allowed the city to do his dirty work and the city officials misuse the law.

A.B.J. ARTICLE II   NOV 26

Editorial

Published Monday, November 26, 2001, in the Akron Beacon Journal.

Ganley and his neighbors

Serve the dealer, and those making way for expansion

Betty and Romie Holcomb played by the rules of the American dream. They bought a home, improved it and even offered shelter to friends and family in need. What they or their Irene Avenue neighbors could not do is alter the course of the neighborhood around them. When it changed, it left them stranded in the urban cross currents. Now, their role has changed, from mainstays in their East Akron neighborhood to roadblocks to its improvement.

At the core of the issue is the future of Ganley Toyota Mercedes-Benz, a longstanding business on East Market Street that is growing, so quickly, in fact, that it requires not only the properties owned by the Holcombs and their two neighbors, but the building housing Katmandu restaurant and a basketball court used by students at nearby Goodyear Middle School.

Ganley's owner said he plans to build a new Toyota dealership as well as expand parking for the thriving business. The dealership already has made a substantial investment in new buildings and parking. He promises a new basketball court and a driveway for the school.

City officials make clear that if Ganley cannot expand the dealership where it is, he will move to the suburbs, taking jobs and tax dollars.

The threat is credible, making this is a no-brainer in the view of city officials. They've rightly opted to help Ganley stay put. The Akron Planning Commission has approved the city's plan to declare the area an urban renewal project, enabling it to buy the homes and the business at fair market rates and then resell them to Ganley for the expansion.

The problem comes when someone balks at the arrangement. The owners of Katmandu have said they aren't interested in moving, having spent the past seven years turning the once-struggling Bavarian Haus into a going concern. Their restaurant is their investment in a comfortable retirement.

While the city must serve its larger interests, little is served by running roughshod. True success on this deal will be measured by whether elderly residents can move without the burden of a new mortgage, whether Katmandu will remain a viable business and whether its owners are adequately compensated for the loss of their nest egg.

If all goes well, a section of East Market Street that has seen better days will have a bright future. The city should take care that those who must give way can say the same.

“The problem comes when someone balks at the arrangement.” The problem was the arrangement was made outside the realm of common consideration. It was done in secret till they were ready to attack. A dictate deal, which is not fair or constitutional.

If all goes well, Ganley and the city should back off this immoral deal.

Excellent defense by Bo Bresck owner of affected business.

ART. III  “WHY YIELD?” DEC. 11, 2001—EDITORIAL

WHY SHOULD RESTAURANT YIELD TO CAR DEALERSHIP?

December 11, 2001

Section: EDITORIAL

Page: A14

In response to your Nov.26 editorial headlined "Ganley and his neighbors": I have lived in Goodyear Heights my whole life, and my wife and children were thrilled and supportive when we scraped up the money for a down payment on the venerable Bavarian Haus restaurant in 1994 and turned it into Katmandu. It took three years to pay off the business and another two to save up enough money and get financing to purchase the building. We accomplished this by having a great staff and wonderfully loyal customers.

We thought that the purchase of the building would assure a modest but adequate retirement, while working and serving customers in a place we enjoy - and doing so within four miles of home. Apparently, we were wrong. Along comes the Planning Commission and Ken Ganley to state that they need more land to expand for the betterment of Akron - and, I'm sure, a less modest retirement for the Ganleys.

Assuming the city will be fair to all concerned, the odds against being successful again in a restaurant start-up are mighty slim. The No.1 businesses that fail within the first two years are restaurants. It is very, very difficult to obtain bank financing on anything with the label ⁹⁹restaurant" attached. Indeed, even the large, well-funded, national chains are having a tough time staying in business. How much of a chance does the small independent operator have?

This building was built in 1919 and has seen a lot of history. The likelihood of finding a similar one with this much character and history is minuscule.

We sit close by three of the city's largest employers - Summa, Goodyear and Lockheed-Martin - and in the heart of a large residential center; East Market Street also has a very large traffic count. And we all know the importance of "location, location, location.

When Summa, Akron’s largest employer, bought out Jack Horner's and Joe's All-Stars restaurants up the street from me, it could have availed itself of the same "blighted area" leverage now being applied by Ganley, but did not.

We have taken great pains to build a thriving business, including spending thousands of dollars for repairs and improvements as well as buying the building, parking lots and duplex next door. We don't sell upscale cars, but we do employ nearly 20 people and serve hundreds of people every week.

I have always loved Akron and my neighborhood, and I don't want to be forced to live or work anywhere else. I am in the business that can help me and my partner realize our dreams,

Is it fair that our city can be used by one other business to unravel all that we've done here to lay a foundation for our futures?

Robert "Bo" Brescia

Akron

The first person in the next article came to the same solution for Ganley that I did.

All others all over see the evil in this action by the city.

ART. IV December  5^th editorial “What is the role of the city in this matter?”

WHAT SHOULD BE CITY'S ROLE IN BROKERING PRIVATE LAND DEALS?

December 5, 2001

Section: EDITORIAL

Page: All

When Ganley Toyota-Mercedes-Benz bought the old Geller auto dealership in 1995, Ganley knew the land situation at the location on East Market Street.

If Ganley wants the adjacent property for its business, it should work out a mutually agreeable deal with the owners. Using the city of Akron's power of eminent domain as a leverage to keep the dealership at its current location is wrong. And quite frankly, for the city of Akron to buy into this idea is equally disgusting. Using its power, the city puts all the property owners at a strong disadvantage in favor of a single business.

For the city to say the area is blighted and in need of urban renewal is ridiculous. The houses and other businesses are not new, but they are not run-down, either. They are being used and have not been condemned.

Restaurants are very difficult to keep profitable. Changing locations is often a sure death. Just take a look at all the restaurants that have come and gone in the downtown renewal project.

To ask people to leave the home that they have kept in good repair is a kick in the teeth to them personally. They too have paid their taxes, as Ganley has.

Akron has no stone to throw here. If city officials feel the area is blighted and in need of urban renewal, let them start by working with the Akron Public Schools to remove the adjacent Goodyear Middle School and build a new one at another location that is blighted.

The school building probably needs more repair than all the homes and other businesses combined, a product of neglect for many years.

Removing the school would allow the homes and businesses to stay where they are and would let city officials show that they are behind education by replacing old buildings that are in need of millions of dollars of work to bring them up to standards.

It would also give the folks at Ganley plenty of additional room for expansion.

As another alternative, the city should find an area that is blighted - an area where buildings are not used and in need of serious repair. It should use its power of eminent domain to remove these buildings and offer this parcel to Ganley in exchange for Ganley's present buildings.

This, too, would allow the homeowners and businesses no disruptions in their current location.

Let's give the homeowners and small businesses a chance to fulfill their American dreams undisturbed.

Jon Zurell

Medina

INVOLVE CITY RARELY, AND ONLY AS A LAST RESORT

I once thought that city government used the power of eminent domain to take private property for a needed government project that would benefit the majority of the city.

Lately, I have read that the city of Akron wants to use its power of eminent domain to take private property for a private enterprise. The story said that this would benefit the city by improving the area and creating more jobs and more tax dollars.

The city should not use eminent domain to take property for a lesser price than a private enterprise could afford to pay on the open market. If it would be beneficial to the city that the private enterprise acquire the property and some of the property owners just plain refuse to sell, then maybe the city is justified in taking the property.  

Because the properties are being taken from the owners, they should be paid a fair price. A fair price for the properties should take into consideration much more than its taxable value. Consideration should be given to location, potential income from property, the condition of property, the cost of buying replacement property, the owners' feelings about moving, the cost of moving and the like.

Property rights are one of our most important rights. The free-enterprise system this country was built on should usually prevail.

Rarely should government use eminent domain to take property for a private enterprise. Never should government play reverse Robin Hood.

Frank Offenbeher Akron

UNFAIR TO GIVE ADVANTAGE TO ONE OVER ANOTHER

My family and I spent years developing a clientele so that when we opened our business, we would have a base on which to build. We searched for the right location for our business. After all this work, I don't think the city should have any say in the expansion of one business over another.

What makes Ganley more important than another business?

There are apartments over some of the businesses. Does it sound

right that for one company, everyone else should be put out?

These people made lives and have friends, family and jobs there.

Most are taxpayers. Where are their rights?

There are businesses there, such as Katmandu, that have worked for years to establish a clientele. Now the city is telling them:

Thanks for your business and tax dollars, but this other company is more important than yours.

Is that the kind of message we want to send to ~ture business owners - that no matter how hard they work, the city is just going to come along and shut them down when it feels like it?

Brad & Diane Hynde Akron

LET OPEN MARKET FORCES DECIDE PROPERTY OWNER

Eminent domain is the right of a government to take private property for public use. Nowhere in the definition does it say ~~for private use." So in no way, shape or form should the city be involved in private real-estate deals.

Let Ganley negotiate with individual owners and, if need be, call on the city for advice - and maybe to mediate. But in no way should Akron be strong-arming Ganley^ts neighbors to sell their property.

William H. West Tallmadge

MCE WORK TO HIRE CITY AS YOUR REAL-ESTATE AGENT

I am opposed to the city of Akron acting as a real-estate agent for the Ganley dealership. The city is essentially labeling this area blighted in order to broker a better deal for Ganley.

The reality is that GanIey⁹s neighboring businesses and homeowners are sitting on prime commercial real estate, and the city has no business forcing them out if Ganley ean⁹t negotiate the deal itself.

The city is using strong-arm tactics on behalf of one business over the interests of another business and homeowners. This is immoral and corrupt and ought to be illegal.

Mike Monaco

Tallmadge

ART V “More Descent”

RESIDENTS BLAST PLAN FOR GANLEY EXPANSION

December 11, 2001

Section: METRO

Page: Dl

Julie Wallace, Beacon Journal staff writer

It's the uncertainty that's getting to Betty Holcomb of Irene Avenue.

Holcomb knows the city wants to buy her East Akron house so the nearby Ganley Toyota Mercedes-Benz dealership at 1345 E. Market St. can expand there rather than move outside the city. And she knows the City Council last night gave its OK to the first step of that process - creating an urban renewal area that encompasses her home and two others on Irene Avenue, as well as the Katmandu restaurant on East Market Street and some other nearby properties.

--

But as far as where she and her 68-year-old husband, Romie, will go, and how much money they'll get to facilitate that move, neither one knows.

The now-retired couple bought their home 30 years ago, and they fear having to take on a mortgage on a fixed income.

"I feel we've been taken advantage of - that our rights have been taken away,” said Holcomb, 70. "If a robber comes and takes your stuff, you can at least call the police. Who do we call out for here?"

Holcomb and other property owners in the area - as well as a contingency of people from around Summit County who object to the city intervening on Gauley's behalf - shared their opinions during a public hearing yesterday afternoon before the council's Planning Committee and again last night before the City Council.

Holcomb told the council that representatives from Ganley never once made an offer on her property - a point picked up by many of those who followed her to the microphone for their allotted three minutes of time to express their opinions.

Kathy Townend of Kryder Avenue was one of them.

"I don't understand why Mr. (Ken) Ganley hasn't talked to these owners, made them an offer?" she said. "why doesn't Ganley relocate?"

Former Councilman Patrick D'Andrea questioned the wisdom of the city using its power to seize land for public good - the requirements of eminent domain - from one property owner to benefit another.

D'Andrea represents the owners of Katmandu. In addition to the restaurant, they also own an apartment building and some other property nearby - all of which will be cleared away for the Ganley expansion.

"My clients are supportive of Akron... but we don't want this future to ride on their backs," D'Andrea said.

Councilman Bruce Kilby, D-10, tried to get the council to postpone the vote - asking for time while the city negotiates with the property owners. It was met with an outbreak of clapping from the audience, but he was the lone member of the council to vote for it.

James Phelps, the city's deputy mayor for economic development, told the afternoon session that he's confident the residents will be satisfied with the financial package that will be presented to them in 30 to 45 days.

It will include the amount the city will pay for their homes, plus relocation expenses and additional money that is available to help get them into another home without a mortgage.

"when we've had situations like this, there's nothing to replace the heartache of dislocating someone's life, but it comes close," Phelps said.

Councilman John Otterman, D-at large, said he's committed to making certain the residents don't get the raw end of the deal.

"I'll go out to their homes personally," he said.

As far as the restaurant the city has a possible location in mind that could become its new home. All that will be hashed out in the near future, he said.

Otterman, who heads the Planning Committee, collected the residents for an impromptu chat session following the public hearing yesterday afternoon.

He told them that be and other members of the City Council several others joined in on the conversation - will make certain the residents are satisfied in the end.

"We need to make sure you are not going to bed every night worrying," he said. "We can see the anxiety. The people who live here are going to have to walk away feeling good about the situation."

In other business, the City Council:

+ Approved a plan to redraw the city's 10 wards to reflect the population shifts shown in the 2000 U.S. Census. The city charter requires the City Council to even out the population of the wards each decade.

This year, it meant carving some homes out of Ward I and Ward 7, both of which were over the 21,707 population threshold, and adding some people to Ward 3 and Ward 10, both of which were too small.

In secret council worked this plan and now that it is highly unpopular they want to show concern and compassion. They would not have had this problem if they knew how to lead with compassion. For this treachery they need recalled. Councilman Bruce Kilby tried to warn the affected people. Gary Moneypenny of the Springfield police ran against Bruce Kilby. Moneypenny signs were everywhere. The signs won the election. Gary Moneypenny is not a moral man in my opinion.

 As stated earlier, at first I missed what had been developing over this issue for a period of time. As soon as I became aware, I had a friend collect all relevant material from the Beacon Journal archives. My next move was to go talk to the affected people personally.

I went to the Katmandu restaurant first to meet the owner Robert “Bo” Brescia. While talking to him while ordering lunch he received a call from “Fortune” magazine about this issue. All what I read in the paper, he confirmed in person.

Next I would travel over and meet Ronnie and Betty Holcomb (nice people). People wanting to live their life where they are comfortable. They had put a lot of time and love into fixing up their dwelling to satisfy their needs. They are content where they live. It is their home.

Betty was a working person as well as her husband. They got their life needs met honestly.

Ronnie had served in Korea. He risked his life and limb for the American ideal. His war experience was not easy. We should not ask him to have to fight for his rights at this late date in life.

Betty showed me her paper work from a legal group working to defend against these illegal land grabs.

I came to realize an issue important to me was affecting the spirit of many fair-minded citizens.

This issue will not go away. We are looking for our enemies outside ourselves, but if we conquered the internal corruption and purged our wonderful ideals, we would win the world over. It is all related. If our policies are to bully our own, of course those policies are how we deal with the rest of the world.

Tom Kiss
January 2002