Here in Lakewood, Ohio, our city became divided two years ago over eminent domain, and whether it was OK to make people leave their homes for a housing/retail development. Just as the dust has settled, Lakewood has a new housing issue, minor in comparison but still full of questions about property rights versus city/community rights. This time the question is, can you force someone to leave their house so it doesn't get the wrecking ball?
Just down the road from me is a beautiful home, built in the early 1900s for a rich banker, that has changed hands over the years, ending with the current owner, who has been there since the late 1970s. Recently a sign went up saying that next week much of the contents of the house, as well as actual pieces of the house such as stained glass windows, decorative enhancements to the facade, and the wrought iron fence around it, will be sold at auction. (The home is in foreclosure, and the perception is that this is a way to get $$$ from it before it goes up for auction.)
This caught people by surprise, and the general feeling was that this would destroy a house that is a landmark in the community, even if it doesn't have official historical status. The house also sits on a double lot, which means the owner might be able to sell off part, with a new home shoehorned in to an area of early 20th-century homes.
Last night, Councilman Ed Fitzgerald convened a public meeting to talk about what if anything could be done to keep the owner from stripping much of the house bare. (The owner showed up, too, and ended up sitting right next to me, which made me feel a bit uncomfortable, although not as uncomfortable as he must have felt with the whole room talking about him.)
The consensus on city law was that little could be done at this point, as the house isn't designated historic. However, they thought they might be able to do things to prevent the demolition of the home if it came to that, or otherwise hamper the homeowner if his goal was to strip the house in anticipation of selling off the land before the bank got to it.
Emotions of many people in the neighborhood were running high.
The owner got up to speak, basically saying he wanted to stay in the house, could only afford to if he sold off assets, it was nobody's business and he resented the fact that people were attacking him with him being a 28-year resident of the city. Councilman Fitzgerald replied that it wasn't about attacking him, but that the house is an asset to the city as well as being an asset to him personally, and the city would like to preserve it if possible.
No resolution was made, although a few ideas were thrown around, and the owner agreed to talk to the city, without making any promises.
Obviously I felt for the owner's situation. You don't sell off chunks of a home you've lived in 25 years for the hell of it. But I also feel the city has a right to try to keep the house in its current condition. And it left me in a place similar to where I was when the city was ready to take homes for development last year.
When do property rights supercede the needs and wants of the greater majority? The Supreme Court just got a lot of people agitated over this question. For those on the side of unlimited property rights, I wonder how they'd feel if their neighbor never cut the grass and left 17 rusting cars piled up in their yard. At the extreme, property rights means a person could do whatever they want with a property, with no limits. And at the other extreme a city could dictate exactly what every homeowner could do, and could take homes willy-nilly. No one wants that, either.
I don't know if Lakewood can handle taking on these questions again.