The Cincinnati Dealer - Norwood Houses Endanger Future Parking Lot

Norwood Houses Endanger Future Parking Lot

By Burt Safer | Dealer staff writer

Wed, May 25, 2005

NORWOOD - The few houses still standing at the site of the impending Rookwood Exchange strip mall represent a threat to future parking spaces, driveways, boutiques, and steakhouses, the First District Court of Appeals ruled on Friday.

According to Judge Mark Painter, "The area around these homes and businesses has been completely bulldozed. There's lots of mud, plus some really dirty construction vehicles. Gross! Also, people are actually driving their cars nearby. It just doesn't get any more blighted than that, folks."

Developer Jeffrey Andersen applauded the judge's decision. "Yeah, I agree that traffic in the area has been a real problem ever since they built Rookwood Commons, I mean, ever since I built Rookwood Commons," said Andersen.

"If these people were to actually hold onto their properties, as they desire, the traffic at my new Rookwood Exchange will further blight their properties." said Andersen, "The area is clearly not suitable for any other property owners. Well, except for the people who'll buy my new condos. You're okay."

Due to the convenient shopping attractions at the clusterfuck that is Rookwood, many Hyde Park residents regularly commit what used to be a social faux pas: entering Norwood.

Because of small roads that were already woefully insufficient for Rookwood Pavilion and Rookwood Commons, some say the entire Rookwood development will actually be blighted, once Rookwood Exchange is built.

None of the "properties" that Andersen has usurped were ever any more blighted than the rest of Norwood. For this reason, several Oakley and Hyde Park residents are petitioning the city of Cincinnati to declare all of Norwood a blighted area, and to seize the city, by eminent domain.

Quick Poll

A weighted voting system, Proportional Representation (PR), may be on the ballot. How do YOU feel?

	This poll is invalid since I can't rank my choices.
	Leslie Ghiz is my #1, but I can't decide who to rank #2, Pat Fischer or John Eby.
	I can understand why the NAACP supports PR, since Charlie Winburn would likely replace Laketa Cole on council in 2009.
	I prefer the current model of electing the same 9 people every two years.
	I'm torn about PR. I would love to rank Sam Malone in dead last on a PR ballot, but I don't know if I could stomach voting for him.
	Does this mean Justin Jeffre and Michael Earl Patton will stop running for Council after they discover they still can't win under PR? Then I'm all for it.
	This system will only encourage more crazy people to run for City Council... and so I support it.
	Call me old-fashioned, but I would prefer it if the candidates with the most votes win.

What Grinds Your Gears?
Send your column and an optional photo to This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it . We love photos.