Eminent Domain Victory!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 4:22 am

I'm so glad somebody in gov't still remembers who they're supposed to work for!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ohio Supreme Court Blocks Eminent Domain Project

AFX News Limited July 26, 2006

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AFX) - The Ohio Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Wednesday that a Cincinnati suburb cannot take private property by eminent domain for a $125 million project of offices, shops and restaurants.

The case was the first challenge of property rights laws to reach a state high court since the U.S. Supreme Court last summer allowed municipalities to seize homes for use by a private developer.

The case involves the city of Norwood, which used its power of eminent domain to seize properties holding out against private development in an area considered to be deteriorating.

The court found that economic development isn't a sufficient reason under the state constitution to justify taking homes.

In the ruling, Justice Maureen O'Connor said cities may consider economic benefits but that courts deciding such cases in the future must "apply heightened scrutiny" to assure private citizens' property rights.

"For the individual property owner, the appropriation is not simply the seizure of a house," she wrote. "It is the taking of a home -- the place where ancestors toiled, where families were raised, where memories were made,"

Targeting property because it is in a deteriorating area also is unconstitutional because the term is too vague and requires speculation, the court found.

O'Connor wrote that the court attempted in its decision to balance "two competing interests of great import in American democracy: the individual's rights in the possession and security of property, and the sovereign's power to take private property for the benefit of the community."

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 4:27 am

It's about time!

Oh, I hope they don't take it up to the Supreme Court, I bet they would over rule it.

ubetta · Post by **ubetta** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 4:28 am

There was a similar decision down in Florida a couple of months ago. I was wondering who pays the fees for the families...the losers? I sure hope so.

And congrats to another Supreme Court making a good decision!

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 7:26 am

One up for the common man.:-6

Diuretic wrote:

Eminent domain has its origins in Engish law.

All the land of England is actually owned by the Monarch. Freeholds and leaseholds are only rights and permissions granted by the monarchy. Technically, our good Queen could take every inch back from the people.

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 9:33 am

Bravo!

Grumpaz · Post by **Grumpaz** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 2:19 pm

This is very good to hear. We've been fighting our city off and on for years because they want to blight our area so they can put up more concrete buildings that will just stay empty.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:27 pm

Diuretic wrote: Quite right and it's traced back to William II who first pulled that one. As I indicated above he declared himself the owner of everything. Quite something. This is a very interesting article on the history of the law and land in England

http://www.kevinboone.com/land_history.html

That was brilliant, Diuretic. Well found. I've put it on my Favourites for reference.

I only came across this law when I was researching my rights as a tenant. It appears simple, but it's very complicated in its application, especially as more laws have been piled on top.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:48 pm

Diuretic wrote: Ah good, he's a very useful source, I really hope it's helpful.

Not so much useful, but I enjoy finding out this type of history.:-6

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:58 pm

Diuretic wrote: Me too. Actually though his (Kevin's) whole site, which is quite extensive, has some good practical legal info that is relatively free of jargon so it might be useful if needed. http://www.kevinboone.com/law.html

If you've got landlord-tenant problems sometimes you can find advisory groups who can help as well.

Fortunately, I have no problems at the moment. But that's a good reference.

I usually read the actual Statutorial Instruments if I need to know something specific.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 4:26 pm

Diuretic wrote: Best idea of course. Problem is that there are issues of interpretation and application and the whole corpus of the law to worry about as well. That's why lawyers like to make the law complex, so us mere mortals can't do them out of their fees

Hahaha. I like that theory. But, the real reason is in the name of reducing ambiguity. Case histories are available to read in the library as well. The solicitors ensure their income by making sure we can't get too far through the court process without them.