Insurance giant buys out SW Ohio women's home after 2-year court battle over historic property

• 

  Protesters shown on Wednesday, May 8, 2013, in downtown Cincinnati. The group of 150 protesters are demanding that insurance giant Western & Southern Financial Group end a two-year court fight to stop the women's home from renovating and ultimately get them to sell the property to make way for a boutique hotel. (AP Photo/Amanda Lee Myers)The Associated Press

• 

  Kate Gallion, member of Allies of the Anna Louise Inn, rallies protesters on Wednesday, May 8, 2013, in downtown Cincinnati. The group of 150 protesters are demanding that insurance giant Western & Southern Financial Group end a two-year court fight to stop the women's home from renovating and ultimately to get them to sell the property to make way for a boutique hotel. (AP Photo/Amanda Lee Myers)The Associated Press

• 

  Tatiana McCormick, 24, a former resident of the Anna Louise Inn, is pictured in front of a protest on Wednesday, May 8, 2013, in downtown Cincinnati. The group of 150 protesters are demanding that insurance giant Western & Southern Financial Group end a two-year court fight to stop the women's home from renovating and ultimately to get them to sell the property to make way for a boutique hotel. (AP Photo/Amanda Lee Myers)The Associated Press

• 

  Jim Luken, 69, of Cincinnati, parodies Western & Southern CEO John Barrett during a protest on Wednesday, May 8, 2013, in downtown Cincinnati. The group of 150 protesters are demanding that insurance giant Western & Southern Financial Group end a two-year court fight to stop the women's home from renovating and ultimately get them to sell the property to make way for a boutique hotel. (AP Photo/Amanda Lee Myers)The Associated Press

Next Slide Previous Slide

CINCINNATI –  A major insurance company has bought out a nonprofit home for struggling women in Cincinnati in a deal announced Monday, ending a bitter two-year court battle over the home's historic property in a beautiful downtown neighborhood.

Western & Southern Insurance Group bought the 104-year-old Anna Louise Inn for $4 million, according to a joint news release issued by the formerly acrimonious pair.

Under the deal, the women now living in the Anna Louise Inn will remain where they are for two years as a new facility for them is built.

Once they move out of the neighborhood, Western & Southern will be able to accomplish its long-standing goal of turning the old property into a boutique hotel.

"Our stance has consistently been that this could be a win-win, and now it is just that," said Western & Southern CEO John Barrett in a statement.

The very public dispute began several years ago when the nonprofit rejected an offer from Western & Southern and the insurer sued to stop planned renovations, leading to a protracted legal battle. Owners and residents of the Anna Louise long have derided Barrett's efforts to convert the home into a hotel, saying they amounted to corporate greed and arrogance because the home was not for sale and the women didn't want to leave.

"It's like someone coming up to you and saying, 'I want to buy your house' and you politely say it's not for sale, and they don't understand that not for sale means it's not for sale," Mary Carol Melton, executive vice president of the nonprofit that operates the inn, had said in October. "We really do believe enough is enough."

In the news release, a short statement from Melton said she was "very pleased that this has come to a mutually agreeable conclusion."

"Now, as we move forward, our women will have a beautiful new home and will continue to enjoy safe and affordable housing for many years to come," she said.

Monday's deal came less than a week after about 150 supporters of the Anna Louise protested outside a downtown courthouse, demanding that Western & Southern give up on buying the home and vowing that the Anna Louise would never give up.

The protest was one of many that have been held in the last two years. Supporters of the Anna Louise also have made an online video parody portraying a Western & Southern spokesman as a corporate fat cat hell-bent on kicking the women out of the Anna Louise, and even crashed the company's title yearly event, the Western & Southern Open.

As the world's top tennis players battled it out on the court this past summer, a plane flew overhead, trailing a banner calling Western & Southern a bunch of bullies.

At one point, the Anna Louise had considered an offer from Western & Southern to buy the property for $1.8 million, less than half its value. The inn decided against it after winning $12.6 million in federal and state tax credits for a renovation, a decision criticized by John Barrett as a taxpayer "bailout."

Days before the inn was to begin renovating, Western & Southern successfully sued to stop them, arguing that they broke zoning codes.

The Anna Louise had appealed and was rezoned but had been prevented from beginning renovations until the court fight was resolved. New arguments had been set for last week, but the home's deal with Western & Southern ends that.

The Anna Louise Inn has been housing low-income, single women in the same building since 1909, after President Howard Taft's brother, Charles P. Taft, built it for ambitious types pouring into Cincinnati to work as stenographers, bookkeepers and secretaries.

Over the years, the inn has become a haven for women looking to make a new start. Some residents are just getting out of foster care, some are between jobs, some have fled abusive relationships, and others are escaping lives as prostitutes and drug addicts. Several have lived there for decades.

During their fight to buy the Anna Louise, Barrett and others at Western & Southern repeatedly referred to the home's former prostitutes and said its residents just don't belong in the serene and lovely neighborhood.

They argued that a boutique hotel was much more suited to the area, and pointed to a University of Cincinnati study commissioned by Western & Southern that showed a hotel there could generate $355 million in economic impact over 30 years.

"It is the right thing to do for Cincinnati," Barrett wrote in an October editorial in The Cincinnati Enquirer. "No one loses with our proposal."

___

Follow Amanda Lee Myers on Twitter at https://twitter.com/AmandaLeeAP

View the original article here

Supreme Court tackles gay marriage, as advocates line up for historic argument

• 

• • 

    Gay marriage makes its way to the Supreme Court

  • 

    Battle over gay marriage heats up as issue heads to SCOTUS

The front-lines of the gay marriage debate move this week to the Supreme Court, as it considers two cases which have the potential to redefine marriage on a national level. 

The arguments come at a time of changing views, with support for gay marriage becoming a mainstream Democratic position and the issue causing a sharp divide among Republicans. 

The first case the court will take up, on Tuesday, is California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage. The court on Wednesday weighs the Defense of Marriage Act, considering a provision that defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits. 

It is the California case, though, that could have sweeping implications for the states. The judges could, if they choose to rule broadly, overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex marriages. Or, they could set back the gay marriage movement by upholding California's ban and continuing to leave the issue up to the states. 

Signaling the widespread interest in the rulings, spectators have been lining up all weekend outside the court, camping out in Washington for a chance to hear the arguments. The issue has created fault lines within the Republican Party, as some prominent members drop their opposition to same-sex marriage while others stiffen it. 

Gary Bauer, president of American Values, told "Fox News Sunday" that proponents of gay marriage are effectively asking "for unelected judges to deny the people of the states the right to decide what marriage is in their state." 

Bauer said he would prefer that every state bar gay marriage. But, acknowledging that's not likely, he said the court should let the states decide. Bauer said people are only changing their minds on the issue "because there's been a full-court blitz ... by the popular culture, by elites and all kinds of folks to intimidate and to cower people into no longer defending marriage between a man and a woman." 

But Nicolle Wallace, a former adviser to former President George W. Bush and to the 2008 McCain campaign, said those arguing against Prop 8 are in fact using a "conservative legal argument." 

"They will basically lay out the conservative case that there is not any place in the Constitution that allows for a different set of rules for a different class of people," she told "Fox News Sunday." 

"There's also a moral imperative here. If you believe, if you value and treasure and revere the institution of marriage, then you should want every family unit to be really wrapped in marriage." 

SUMMARY

The Stats on Gay Marriage

Number of states with constitutional amendments banning gay marriage: 31

Number of states where gay marriage is legal: Nine (plus the District of Columbia) 

Public opinion: 49 percent support gay marriage, 46 percent oppose, according to Fox News polling

Top Democrats who previously opposed same-sex marriage -- and had taken the more moderate position of supporting civil unions -- have in recent months and years shifted course. President Obama announced his support for gay marriage in the months leading up to the presidential election. Hillary Clinton also recently followed suit. 

But Republicans have also been crossing to the pro-gay marriage side. Wallace is among dozens of Republicans who filed a brief in the Supreme Court case arguing for Prop 8 to be overturned. One of the lead lawyers arguing against Prop 8, Ted Olson, also is a prominent conservative who was solicitor general under George W. Bush. And Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, publicly reversed his position on the issue after his son came out as gay. 

The position shifts, though, do not signal a party-wide change of heart. Many Republicans would still prefer the issue be left up to the states and are encouraging the high court justices to rule narrowly. 

"They would be far better off to decide these two cases on the narrowest possible grounds," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Sunday. A sweeping decision against gay marriage, he said, would be a "huge mistake" that would "undermine respect for the judiciary." 

Americans as a whole are likewise divided. A Fox News poll released Thursday showed 49 percent of voters favor legalizing gay marriage, while 46 percent oppose it. That marks a shift since the question was first asked in 2003 -- when 32 percent said gay marriage should be legal, and 58 percent opposed it. 

Support for gay marriage has grown the most among Democrats, and self-described moderates and independents. Still, support for gay marriage rose by 10 points among Republicans over the past decade, according to the Fox News polling. 

Gay marriage has been approved in nine states -- Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington -- and the District of Columbia. 

But 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the most recent example last May. 

The case being considered Tuesday concerns the constitutional ban on gay marriage that California voters adopted in 2008. One key question before the court is whether the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection means that the right to marriage cannot be limited to heterosexuals. 

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals previously struck down Prop 8, without making any sweeping pronouncements. The larger constitutional issue almost certainly will be presented to the court, but the justices would not necessarily have to rule on it. 

The other issue the high court will take on involves the central provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and woman. Four federal district courts and two appeals courts struck down the provision. 

Supreme Court rulings are expected in June. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Related Stories

Fox News Poll: 49 Percent Favor Gay Marriage, up from 32 Percent in 2003

View the original article here

Supreme Court tackles gay marriage, as advocates line up for historic argument

• 

  March 23, 2013: Those hoping to get a seat for the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court arguments on gay marriage line up early outside the court in Washington.AP

The front-lines of the gay marriage debate move this week to the Supreme Court, as it considers two cases which have the potential to redefine marriage on a national level. 

The arguments come at a time of changing views, with support for gay marriage becoming a mainstream Democratic position and the issue causing a sharp divide among Republicans. 

The first case the court will take up, on Tuesday, is California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage. The court on Wednesday weighs the Defense of Marriage Act, considering a provision that defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits. 

It is the California case, though, that could have sweeping implications for the states. The judges could, if they choose to rule broadly, overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex marriages. Or, they could set back the gay marriage movement by upholding California's ban and continuing to leave the issue up to the states. 

Signaling the widespread interest in the rulings, spectators have been lining up all weekend outside the court, camping out in Washington for a chance to hear the arguments. The issue has created fault lines within the Republican Party, as some prominent members drop their opposition to same-sex marriage while others stiffen it. 

Gary Bauer, president of American Values, told "Fox News Sunday" that proponents of gay marriage are effectively asking "for unelected judges to deny the people of the states the right to decide what marriage is in their state." 

Bauer said he would prefer that every state bar gay marriage. But, acknowledging that's not likely, he said the court should let the states decide. Bauer said people are only changing their minds on the issue "because there's been a full-court blitz ... by the popular culture, by elites and all kinds of folks to intimidate and to cower people into no longer defending marriage between a man and a woman." 

But Nicolle Wallace, a former adviser to former President George W. Bush and to the 2008 McCain campaign, said those arguing against Prop 8 are in fact using a "conservative legal argument." 

"They will basically lay out the conservative case that there is not any place in the Constitution that allows for a different set of rules for a different class of people," she told "Fox News Sunday." 

"There's also a moral imperative here. If you believe, if you value and treasure and revere the institution of marriage, then you should want every family unit to be really wrapped in marriage." 

SUMMARY

The Stats on Gay Marriage

Number of states with constitutional amendments banning gay marriage: 31

Number of states where gay marriage is legal: Nine (plus the District of Columbia) 

Public opinion: 49 percent support gay marriage, 46 percent oppose, according to Fox News polling

Top Democrats who previously opposed same-sex marriage -- and had taken the more moderate position of supporting civil unions -- have in recent months and years shifted course. President Obama announced his support for gay marriage in the months leading up to the presidential election. Hillary Clinton also recently followed suit. 

But Republicans have also been crossing to the pro-gay marriage side. Wallace is among dozens of Republicans who filed a brief in the Supreme Court case arguing for Prop 8 to be overturned. One of the lead lawyers arguing against Prop 8, Ted Olson, also is a prominent conservative who was solicitor general under George W. Bush. And Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, publicly reversed his position on the issue after his son came out as gay. 

The position shifts, though, do not signal a party-wide change of heart. Many Republicans would still prefer the issue be left up to the states and are encouraging the high court justices to rule narrowly. 

"They would be far better off to decide these two cases on the narrowest possible grounds," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Sunday. A sweeping decision against gay marriage, he said, would be a "huge mistake" that would "undermine respect for the judiciary." 

Americans as a whole are likewise divided. A Fox News poll released Thursday showed 49 percent of voters favor legalizing gay marriage, while 46 percent oppose it. That marks a shift since the question was first asked in 2003 -- when 32 percent said gay marriage should be legal, and 58 percent opposed it. 

Support for gay marriage has grown the most among Democrats, and self-described moderates and independents. Still, support for gay marriage rose by 10 points among Republicans over the past decade, according to the Fox News polling. 

Gay marriage has been approved in nine states -- Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington -- and the District of Columbia. 

But 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the most recent example last May. 

The case being considered Tuesday concerns the constitutional ban on gay marriage that California voters adopted in 2008. One key question before the court is whether the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection means that the right to marriage cannot be limited to heterosexuals. 

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals previously struck down Prop 8, without making any sweeping pronouncements. The larger constitutional issue almost certainly will be presented to the court, but the justices would not necessarily have to rule on it. 

The other issue the high court will take on involves the central provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and woman. Four federal district courts and two appeals courts struck down the provision. 

Supreme Court rulings are expected in June. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Related Stories

Fox News Poll: 49 Percent Favor Gay Marriage, up from 32 Percent in 2003

View the original article here