Medford authorizes eminent-domain pursuit of The Loring

Medford City Council authorized the city on October 7 to pursue eminent-domain acquisition of The Loring, the former Ramada Inn, and approved up to $67,000 for an initial 90 days of private security. The vote permits the city to pursue a legal process; it did not transfer ownership to Medford.

The Loring is at 2250–2260 Biddle Road in Medford. Fortify Holdings is identified in reporting as the property owner. The building previously housed wildfire survivors, but that past use does not establish who occupies it now.

Security plan targets the building

The authorized operation is intended to provide security around the clock. Reported measures include boarding windows, securing doors and clearing the building of people occupying it without authorization. The plan calls for a designated exit; people who leave would not be allowed to reenter.

OPB reported that Medford planned to hire Invictus Protection Agency for the initial contract and use a competitive process for any later contract. City officials have described the building as uninhabitable and unsafe, and cited safety concerns. Reporting also says the city had issued warnings and fines without resolving the conditions it identified.

OPB reported 58 police calls at the property from January 8 through September 23, 2026. Fifteen occurred before round-the-clock security ended on May 8, and 43 afterward. The figures show a difference between the two periods but do not establish that the end of security caused the higher number of calls.

Private sale remains an option

City Attorney Eric Mitton said Medford would explore alternatives, including a private purchase, before pursuing eminent domain. He reported that two real estate agents had contacted him about possible purchases. The council’s authorization therefore leaves a private sale as an option while allowing the city to prepare for a legal acquisition process.

The vote was not a court judgment or a completed acquisition. Mitton described immediate possession followed by litigation over the property’s value as a possible feature of the process, not a step the city had taken. The authorization did not set an acquisition price or determine the property’s eventual use.

Councilor Mike Kerlinger described the action as necessary to protect residents and raised concern that demolition could cost more than the property is worth. No approved demolition plan or verified demolition estimate was reported. The city’s stated next steps are to arrange the initial security contract and continue exploring potential private buyers.