Federal Flip-Flop on Flippers in Cleveland

[marmar]

from the Next American City blog:



When we speak of federal urban policy our conversation is typically limited to the actions and policies of the legislative and executive branches of our government. It’s rare that we mention the judiciary—I have once this year—but that does not mean the judiciary branch isn’t quite important when it comes to urban policy issues. Think, for instance, of the argument put forth in Freakonomics, that Roe v. Wade is the sole reason for the massive drop in urban crime that happened in the first half of the 1990s—essentially, there were less unwanted children. It certainly wasn’t an intended consequence of the decision, but it led to safer streets nationwide, and took New York from the days of New Jack City to Sex and the City, for better or worse, in about a decade.

The judicial branch also makes actual urban policy decisions, too. Take, for instance, the case of the Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. The case, argued in 1926, essentially established the constitutionality of modern zoning ordinances. Euclid, a suburb of Cleveland, established zoning laws to regulate land use, and avoid becoming as heavily industrial as nearby Cleveland. They were sued by Ambler Realty, who owned 68 acres of land, and claimed the zoning laws had greatly devalued their property. Euclid lost the case, initially. Eventually, the Supreme Court overturned the ruling, and in doing so, established precedent for localities using their police powers to create and enforce zoning laws.

Nowadays in Cleveland, it’s not easy to imagine anyone wanting to turn down a potential employer, industrial or not. And a new court case in Ohio, borne out of its economic woes, has echoes of Euclid v. Ambler, but with more modern problems, specifically a gargantuan financial services industry that a more conservative judiciary seems all too eager to please, instead of the places they serve. The details and outcome of the case are as complicated as the mess they came out of, and it seems that the end result of the ruling might be a partial stripping of Cleveland’s police powers.

Back in 2008, a non-profit called CHRP—the Cleveland Housing Renewal Project (pronounced “chirp”)—filed two simultaneous lawsuits against lenders Wells Fargo and Deutsche Bank, under Ohio Revised Code 3767.41, which allows private citizens, municipalities and non-profits to file civil suits—instead of criminal suits—against owners of properties deemed to be public nuisances. CHRP filed suit against Wells Fargo for 11 of their abandoned and foreclosed homes in Cleveland, and sued Deutsche Bank for 26 of theirs, claiming all were public nuisances. .........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://americancity.org/columns/entry/2736/