<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Build On This!</title>
      <link>http://buildonthis.com/</link>
      <description></description>
      <language>en</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2008</copyright>
      <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:29:26 -0500</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

            <item>
         <title>Cleveland Construction, Inc. vs. Cincinnati, Slip Opinion No. 2008-Ohio-2337 Regarding Property Interests in Public Contract Bids</title>
         <description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled on May 20, 2008 that no property interest is created when a city does not award a public contract to the low bidder based on the city’s proper exercise of its discretion to reject bids deemed not to comply with requirements included in the bid invitation. The Court’s 6-1 decision, authored by Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger, reversed a ruling in which the 1st District Court of Appeals held that a construction company that submitted the low bid for a portion of a public construction contract had a property interest in that contract and therefore could pursue a claim for money damages  against the city of Cincinnati.  Here is a link to the decision - <a href="http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-Ohio-2337.pdf.">http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-Ohio-2337.pdf.</a>]]></description>
         <link>http://buildonthis.com/2008/08/cleveland_construction_inc_vs.php</link>
         <guid>http://buildonthis.com/2008/08/cleveland_construction_inc_vs.php</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:29:26 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>The ADA Amendments Act of 2008  - On A Fast Track To The White House</title>
         <description>By Denise J. Bleau, Esq., Buckingham, Doolittle &amp; Burroughs, LLP

The most significant Americans With Disabilities Act legislation since 1990 was passed by the House on June 25, 2008 by a vote of 402-17.  The ADA prohibits discrimination based on a disability in employment, public accommodations, and other areas.</description>
         <link>http://buildonthis.com/2008/08/the_ada_amendments_act_of_2008.php</link>
         <guid>http://buildonthis.com/2008/08/the_ada_amendments_act_of_2008.php</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:34:30 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Two recent Court of Appeals cases provide important considerations for those involved in zoning matters and purchasing and reselling subdivision lots.</title>
         <description>By James Simon, Esq., Buckingham, Doolittle &amp; Burroughs, LLP

In White Castle System, Inc., et al. v. West Chester Township Zoning Commission (June 9, 2008), 12th Dist. No. CA2007-07-157, 2008-Ohio-2738, the Twelfth District Court of Appeals examined an appeal of a decision by the West Chester Township Zoning Commission that dictated the traffic patterns and location of the drive-thru window in a proposed restaurant.  The Appellant, White Castle, argued that the location and layout of the drive-thru was not subject to the Final Development Plan requirements under “C-PUD” zoning.  The Twelfth District upheld the trial court’s findings that “a condition delineating the location of the drive-thru in order to enhance safety and aesthetics falls within the criteria to be considered and the discretion of the Zoning Commission. * * * the proposed plan advances the public health safety, welfare and morals.”  Thus, the Zoning Commission was determined to be within their statutory powers to regulate the aesthetics of the building.</description>
         <link>http://buildonthis.com/2008/07/two_recent_court_of_appeals_cases_provide_important_considerations_for_those_involved_in_zoning_matters_and_purchasing_and_reselling_subdivision_lots.php</link>
         <guid>http://buildonthis.com/2008/07/two_recent_court_of_appeals_cases_provide_important_considerations_for_those_involved_in_zoning_matters_and_purchasing_and_reselling_subdivision_lots.php</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:08:53 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Tax-Free Mortgage Workout Relief Under The Federal Mortgage Relief Act</title>
         <description>By George Weinstein, Esq., Buckingham, Doolittle &amp; Burroughs, LLP

Taxpayers may now exclude up to $2 million of qualified mortgage debt forgiveness on their principal residence without being subject to federal income tax.  The Mortgage Relief Act applies to acquisition indebtedness discharged in the years 2007, 2008, and 2009.</description>
         <link>http://buildonthis.com/2008/07/taxfree_mortgage_workout_relie.php</link>
         <guid>http://buildonthis.com/2008/07/taxfree_mortgage_workout_relie.php</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:59:45 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Recent Line of Court Decisions Alters “Under 100 Lot” Exemption to Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (“ILSA”)</title>
         <description>By:  Eric J. Neuman, Esq., Buckingham Doolittle &amp; Burroughs, LLP

In Pugliese v. Pukka Development, 524 F.Supp.2d 1370 (S.D. Fla. 2007) the Federal U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued a decision that directly contradicts existing Florida State caselaw regarding the impact of a developer’s qualifying for the so-called “Under 100 Lot” exemption from the Federal Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act 15 U.S.C. 1701 et seq. (“ILSA”).
</description>
         <link>http://buildonthis.com/2008/06/recent_line_of_court_decisions.php</link>
         <guid>http://buildonthis.com/2008/06/recent_line_of_court_decisions.php</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:08:12 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>EMINENT DOMAIN IN FLORIDA -- KELO HAS NOT IMPACTED SHOPPING CENTERS  IN FLORIDA</title>
         <description>Several of our clients who own shopping centers have expressed concern about the 2004 United States Supreme Court ruling of Kelo v. City of New London and its possible impact in Florida.  In Kelo, the Supreme Court upheld the exercise of eminent domain power by a Connecticut city, New London, to take private property owned by residents of New London in furtherance of a private redevelopment plan.  The Supreme Court ruled that the redevelopment plan was considered a public use, thereby justifying the city’s exercise of eminent domain.
</description>
         <link>http://buildonthis.com/2008/05/eminent_domain_in_florida_kelo.php</link>
         <guid>http://buildonthis.com/2008/05/eminent_domain_in_florida_kelo.php</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2008 16:57:17 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>FLORIDA MARKET CONDITIONS--First Half of 2008</title>
         <description>Due to its excellent climate and favorable job opportunities, Florida typically attracts many new, permanent residents on a daily basis who bring Florida growth and additional income.  As a result, many people believed that Florida was immune from the economic downturn afflicting the rest of the country.  Due to higher energy and food costs and the bursting of the speculative real estate investment bubble across the country, however, Florida has been impacted.</description>
         <link>http://buildonthis.com/2008/05/florida_market_conditionsfirst.php</link>
         <guid>http://buildonthis.com/2008/05/florida_market_conditionsfirst.php</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2008 16:54:18 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Legislative Update: Criminal background checks to be required on employees and contractors who work in school districts.</title>
         <description>H.B. 190 (eff. Nov. 14, 2007) – Requires private contractors who work with a school district for a “regular period of time” to run background checks on all employees assigned to a district building or project. Public owners are beginning to rely upon this newly enacted statute to require private contractors to obtain fingerprints and request both an Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation (“BCII”) and an FBI records check prior to assigning employees to work on district projects. Further, the background check must be repeated every five years for each employee, and private contractors hired by school districts must pay the cost of these checks. </description>
         <link>http://buildonthis.com/2008/04/legislative_update_criminal_ba.php</link>
         <guid>http://buildonthis.com/2008/04/legislative_update_criminal_ba.php</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:05:05 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Case Summary: Local hiring preferences can result in withdrawal of federal funds on a city project City of Cleveland v. State of Ohio, et al., 2007 WL 4123743 (C.A. 6 (Ohio)) </title>
         <description><![CDATA[<strong>Summary: </strong>When federal funds are involved on a local project, the local municipality needs to be very cautious when attempting to institute local hiring preferences. Courts will most likely side with the decision made by the federal agency provided that decision is not arbitrary or capricious.]]></description>
         <link>http://buildonthis.com/2008/04/case_summary_local_hiring_preferences_can_result_in_withdrawal_of_federal_funds_on_a_city_project_city_of_cleveland_v_state_of_ohio_et_al_2007_wl_4123743_ca_6_ohio_.php</link>
         <guid>http://buildonthis.com/2008/04/case_summary_local_hiring_preferences_can_result_in_withdrawal_of_federal_funds_on_a_city_project_city_of_cleveland_v_state_of_ohio_et_al_2007_wl_4123743_ca_6_ohio_.php</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Construction</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:51:51 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Ohio Legislature Approves Eminent Domain Bill</title>
         <description><![CDATA[The Ohio General Assembly approved a bill placing limits on the government's authority to take property for economic development purposes and governor Strickland is expected to sign the bill into law, reports the <a href="http://www.cd.columbus.oh.us/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2007/06/28/20070628-B1-01.html">Columbus Dispatch</a>.  The bill includes a requirement that at least 70 percent of properties in a targeted area be deemed "blighted" before the government can take the land.  A companion constitutional amendment failed to garner the votes needed to appear on the November ballot.]]></description>
         <link>http://buildonthis.com/2007/06/ohio_legislature_approves_emin_1.php</link>
         <guid>http://buildonthis.com/2007/06/ohio_legislature_approves_emin_1.php</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2007 11:09:56 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Ohio Legislature Considers Homeowners&apos; Association Law</title>
         <description><![CDATA[Real estate attorney David Lindner reports that the Ohio General Assembly is now considering <a href="http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=127_HB_220">H.B. 220</a>, which would establish Ohio's first planned community law.  The proposed law would clarify and expand the powers of homeowners' associations.  Check back for further updates as the bill proceeds through the legislative process.]]></description>
         <link>http://buildonthis.com/2007/06/ohio_legislature_considers_hom.php</link>
         <guid>http://buildonthis.com/2007/06/ohio_legislature_considers_hom.php</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:16:32 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Flats Eminent Domain Case Nearly Settled</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1181896289245061.xml&coll=2">The Cleveland Plain Dealer</a> reports that developer Scott Wolstein, the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, and all but one property owner have reached a settlement in the eminent domain case pending in the Cuyahoga County Probate Court.  Owner James Kasouf refused to settle, arguing that his property is worth substantially more than he was offered in settlement.  The trial will resume on August 1 to resolve his claim.]]></description>
         <link>http://buildonthis.com/2007/06/flats_eminent_domain_case_near_1.php</link>
         <guid>http://buildonthis.com/2007/06/flats_eminent_domain_case_near_1.php</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:02:32 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Ohio Senate Passes Restrictions on Eminent Domain</title>
         <description><![CDATA[The Ohio Senate passed a pair of measures yesterday that could severely limit the power of a city to take property for economic development.  The first measure provides a definition for the term "blight," which is a prerequisite for a taking.  The second measure would allow voters to pass a constitutional amendment to override the home rule provision of the Ohio Constitution to permit uniform state regulation of eminent domain instead of the piecemeal approach that has been used.  The House will vote next week on its own eminent domain proposal.  <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/118068743593520.xml&coll=2">Click here</a> for additional information from the Plain Dealer.]]></description>
         <link>http://buildonthis.com/2007/06/ohio_senate_passes_restriction_1.php</link>
         <guid>http://buildonthis.com/2007/06/ohio_senate_passes_restriction_1.php</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2007 10:41:36 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Eminent Domain Battle over Cleveland&apos;s Flats Project Is Heading to Trial</title>
         <description><![CDATA[The Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority is suing to take nine properties by eminent domain for a planned redevelopment project by developer Scott Wolstein.  The case will be heard in Cuyahoga County Probate Court and several weeks of testimony are expected, reports the <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/117861332762500.xml&coll=2">Cleveland Plain Dealer</a>.  If the court finds that the taking is justified, the value of the properties will be determined by a jury.  Opponents contend that the use of eminent domain in this case is not for the benefit of the public, but for the benefit of a private developer.  Proponents argue that the redevelopment of the run-down east bank of the Flats will benefit the entire city.]]></description>
         <link>http://buildonthis.com/2007/05/eminent_domain_battle_over_cle.php</link>
         <guid>http://buildonthis.com/2007/05/eminent_domain_battle_over_cle.php</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Eminent Domain</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2007 09:02:34 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Ohio Supreme Court to Hear Minority Bidding Case</title>
         <description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court of Ohio will determine whether the city of Cincinnati can bypass low bidders on a construction project in favor of small and minority owned businesses, reports the <a href="http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070503/NEWS01/705030410">Cincinnati Enquirer</a>.  Cleveland Construction sued the city after its low bid was rejected in favor of a higher bid from a contractor that used small business and minority subcontractors.]]></description>
         <link>http://buildonthis.com/2007/05/ohio_supreme_court_to_hear_min.php</link>
         <guid>http://buildonthis.com/2007/05/ohio_supreme_court_to_hear_min.php</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Construction</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2007 09:01:54 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
   </channel>
</rss>
