The following article is ‘hot off the press.’ The article is reprinted from The Eagle, the Quarterly Newsletter of the Eagle Forum in Ohio, Volume 9, Issue 3. Eminent domain has "evolved" to now mean that the government can (mis)appropriate private property and sell it to another private party. The purpose of this scam is to boost the revenue of a city or other government entity.
Ohio Eminent Domain Bill Passes
"Ohio Senate Bill 7, an eminent domain reform act, was signed into law on July 10. Some municipal officials have said that S.B. 7 makes it too difficult for cities to acquire land by eminent domain. Others, like Steven Anderson of the Castle Coalition, believe that the new law does not go far enough to protect private property from government takeover: “Unfortunately, so many real protections for homeowners and property owners were whittled away during legislative wrangling that the bill changes very little for Ohioans and makes this legislation one of the wakest reform measures in the nation.” A project of the Institute for Justice, the Castle Coalition (www.castlecoalition.org) is a citizen groups that tracks and fights eminent domain abuse.
"The debate over the proper use of eminent domain has intensified since the U.S. Supreme Court, in Kelo v. City of New London (2005), ruled tat government entities could take private property for the purpose of increasing tax revenue or jobs. About forty states have responded with new regulations that increase property rights protection. Last year the Ohio Supreme Court, in Norwood v. Horney, rejected the abuse of eminent domain by a Cincinnati suburb. The court called the right to keep and own property a “fundamental right” That is an “integral aspect of our theory of democracy and notions of liberty.”
"The original (Senate) version of S.B. 7 was actually a very strong piece of legislation, but the House watered down the bill. S.B. 7’s original language would have prevented most of the abuse of eminent domain. The bill required 90% of the properties in an area to be blighted before eminent domain could take place, and the definition of “blight” used very objective criteria. The weakened House language, however, reduced the percentage of blighted property to 70%, and (according to Anderson) the criteria for blight are “so vague and amorphous that they can literally apply anywhere” Anderson says that the bill’s broad definition of blight makes it an extremely easy standard to meet.”
"In short, it appears that strong restrictions on eminent domain are still lacking in our state. Anderson says “Ohioans must demand reform until all property in the state is protected.”"
"The debate over the proper use of eminent domain has intensified since the U.S. Supreme Court, in Kelo v. City of New London (2005), ruled tat government entities could take private property for the purpose of increasing tax revenue or jobs. About forty states have responded with new regulations that increase property rights protection. Last year the Ohio Supreme Court, in Norwood v. Horney, rejected the abuse of eminent domain by a Cincinnati suburb. The court called the right to keep and own property a “fundamental right” That is an “integral aspect of our theory of democracy and notions of liberty.”
"The original (Senate) version of S.B. 7 was actually a very strong piece of legislation, but the House watered down the bill. S.B. 7’s original language would have prevented most of the abuse of eminent domain. The bill required 90% of the properties in an area to be blighted before eminent domain could take place, and the definition of “blight” used very objective criteria. The weakened House language, however, reduced the percentage of blighted property to 70%, and (according to Anderson) the criteria for blight are “so vague and amorphous that they can literally apply anywhere” Anderson says that the bill’s broad definition of blight makes it an extremely easy standard to meet.”
"In short, it appears that strong restrictions on eminent domain are still lacking in our state. Anderson says “Ohioans must demand reform until all property in the state is protected.”"
No comments:
Post a Comment