« At Con Ed Site, Solow Takes a Cue From His Peers | Main | Rock Gets it Right »
August 9, 2006
EMINENT DOMAINIA: The Ohio effect
Orange County Register (via, BellvilleNewsDemocrat.com), Simple sense from Ohio's high court
An editorial by eminent domain expert and author Stephen Greenhut explains the difference between the US Supreme Court's Kelo decision and the Ohio State Supreme Court's decision in Norwood v. Horney.
At the heart of Kelo, the court ruled that taking property from private owners and giving it to other private owners was indeed a "public" use.
"(W)hile the city is not planning to open the condemned land ... to use by the general public," the court ruled, "this court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for ... the public.'"
Why hasn't the court upheld the simple rights outlined in the Constitution?
Well, because it stopped doing that a long time ago! There's an argument lifted right from "Alice in Wonderland."
By contrast, the Ohio Supreme Court offered a different, refreshingly easy-to-follow take on the matter, right out of the finest traditions of America's founding:
"The rights related to property, i.e., to acquire, use, enjoy, and dispose of property ... are among the most revered in our law and traditions."
The Cincinnati Enquirer, Loving baseball, Supreme Court in Ohio
Reds fan, economist and NY Newsday columnist Raymond J. Keating makes a pilgrimage to Cincinnati and finds another reason to love Ohio:
The headline read: "Norwood loses case on property seizures." Here was a blow struck by the Ohio Supreme Court for homeowners, small businesses and, contrary to the views of many local politicians, sound economics.
...
A lawyer for one developer was quoted declaring: "This is a sad day for Norwood and other Ohio cities desperately trying to revitalize their communities." Norwood officials were counting on added tax revenues.Undermining property rights, though, is not good for the economy. After all, the first duty of government is to protect private property, not steal it. Why would entrepreneurs set up shop in a place where government abuses property rights?
The Cincinnati Enquirer, The eminent domain superheroes of Norwood
Columnist Peter Bronson parties with the victorious homeowners in Norwood and takes a full accounting of what they've won:
Eminent domain is a legitimate tool, but in this abuse, the court got it right: "For the individual property owner, the appropriation is not simply the seizure of a house. It is the taking of a home - the place where ancestors toiled, where families were raised, where memories were made."
A few of those families fought back. The price of victory was steep. Although they can have their houses back, their neighborhood has been nuked.
But the court said their battle reminds us all that "the ultimate guardians of the people's rights ... are the people themselves."
Bronson also lists some of the absurd findings in the study which determined that the neighborhood was blighted.
NoLandGrab: As we scrutinize the US Supreme Court's Kelo and Ohio's Norwood rulings, keep in mind that two years ago the Michigan State Supreme Court ruled against an eminent domain seizure in the Hathcock decision, overturning their own 28-year-old precedent-setting Poletown ruling.
If you're keeping score, that's two state courts for property rights and one high court against.
Edison Sentinel, Eminent domain battle now on national stage
Long Branch, NJ has probably pulled ahead of Bruce Ratner in the race to the bottom for national eminent-domain poster child, with this week's Parade Magazine cover story.
The national outrage generated by the coverage of the Long Branch battle may be too late to save the MTOTSA members' homes, but it may steer the country's course when it comes to future cases of eminent domain abuse.
Posted by lumi at August 9, 2006 6:56 AM