Irony in the name
An 80-year-old woman has been ordered to move out of her Clifton house after a battle with the city of Cincinnati over eminent domain.
It’s for a Good Samaritan Hospital.
7 Responses to “Irony in the name”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
March 16th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
If a friggin’ hospital doesn’t count as “public use,” then what in the world would? It would be okay if they booted her for a park, but not for a hospital?
March 16th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Is it a privately held hospital? Then no.
March 16th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
The Constitution doesn’t say “public ownership.” It says “public use.”
March 16th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
So, a grocery store? It doesn’t say privately owned for pay services either. Gimme a break.
March 16th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
To be clear, the article says:
The city wants to use the land that her house sits on to relocate Dixmyth Avenue. Dimasi says it’s just a way to help Good Samaritan Hospital.
…
The Hamilton County Magistrate found this street project promoted public safety.
Knowing nothing else (and given that the article also says Ohio has a law prohibiting eminant domain to give to private entities), this may well be legit.
March 16th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Manish, could be. The way I read it was that the land was taken for the hospital.
March 16th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
Just because you don’t like the way the amendment is worded doesn’t mean it isn’t worded that way. Most reasonable people would consider an open-to-the-public hospital, even a privately-operated one, to be legitimate “public use.” And if Manish is right, then there’s even less controversy.