Ohio Supreme Court rejects Eminent Domain

Discussion in 'Homesteading Questions' started by Bluecreekrog, Jul 26, 2006.

  1. Bluecreekrog

    Bluecreekrog Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    403
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Location:
    S Oh.
    Just watched the late news and the State Supreme Court upheld the homeowners right not to sell and the City Of Norwood cannot take the property thru eminent domain. The proposed site is a $125 million shopping center expansion. 3 homeowners have fought the city and developer for more than 2 years, all the other property owners (around 30) took the citys offer and left, the sold houses have all been demolished and the streets are gone too, just 3 houses sitting in a field. One homeowner said he's willing to sell, but its going to cost them a lot more than the $150,000 offered. I take this ruling as a positive statement on a homeowners right not to be forced to settle for minimum value on their property, simply because someone thinks it would make a nice spot for a Walmart or subdivision.
     
  2. Red Devil TN

    Red Devil TN Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    266
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2006
    Location:
    TN
    Links will help, great decision and a good chance for the SC to fix it's abominable goof from last year.

    http://www.ij.org/private_property/norwood/7_26_06pr.html

    http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149189627164&path=!nationworld&s=

    http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2006/07/24/daily28.html

    and the Kelo decision:

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108

    Now just remember the Ohio case was based on the Ohio constitution, not the United States' one.

    Article I
    Bill of Rights (Ohio Constitution)
    Sec. 19. Private property shall ever be held inviolate but subservi-
    ent to the public welfare. When taken in time of war or
    other public exigency, imperatively requiring its immediate
    seizure or for the purpose of making or repairing roads,
    which shall be open to the public, without charge, a compen-
    sation shall be made to the owner, in money: and in all
    other cases, where private property shall be taken for pub-
    lic use, a compensation therefor shall first be made in
    money, or first secured by a deposit of money; and such
    compensation shall be assessed by a jury, without deduction
    for benefits to any property of the owner.
     

  3. Mike in Ohio

    Mike in Ohio Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,143
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2002
    I heard the news on the radio this morning....looking forward to seeing the details. This could be great for the little guy.

    Mike
     
  4. Ed0517

    Ed0517 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    58
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    thing about some of this, though, is the SCOTUS can rule "the state decides this" so ED for private users can be legal in CT but illegal in Ohio, etc. If the Ct constitition says they allow it for tax base benefit, but Ohio says no, ED can mean 2 different things in the 2 states. The "public use" interpretation is big.
     
  5. jnap31

    jnap31 garden guy

    Messages:
    3,516
    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Location:
    AR (ozarks)
    This is great news
     
  6. rootsandwings

    rootsandwings Well-Known Member Supporter

    Messages:
    1,068
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2004
    Location:
    ohio
    Yay! I'm so happy for them! Something good about Ohio finally!
     
  7. HermitJohn

    HermitJohn Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,519
    Joined:
    May 10, 2002
    Yes our national rental politicians want a constitutional amendment to prevent homosexual marriage but dont seem interested in a constitutional amendment to take care of the emminent domain issue nationally once and for all. Shows where their priorities are!!!!!!

    Anyway good decision by the Ohio supreme court! A smart president might be offering one of them next open seat on Federal Supreme Court. Alas again we just have rental presidents anymore.
     
  8. Lynne

    Lynne Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,775
    Joined:
    May 10, 2002
    Location:
    Maryland
    Great news! Score one for the little Guy!

    And will they still want to live there once development starts? The developer will not just let the ground sit. Let's see...surrounded by..... car lots, convience stores, townhomes....?
     
  9. RedTartan

    RedTartan Icelandic Sheep Supporter

    Messages:
    3,344
    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Location:
    Northeast Ohio
    WOOHOOOOO!

    I'm feeling incredibly thankful for this development. Eminent domain really scares me...

    :) RedTartan
     
  10. Bluecreekrog

    Bluecreekrog Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    403
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Location:
    S Oh.
    I'm sure the city will appeal, if they lose the appeal, they will have to reconnect these houses to the grid. Currently the city has removed all utillities, including sewers and streets.
     
  11. HermitJohn

    HermitJohn Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,519
    Joined:
    May 10, 2002
    Not to mention rental costs for loss of use to the owner and any damage to house from disconnection of utilities. Sure good lawyer could think of more. More likely since only those 3 homeowners left, the city or developer will be forced to bargain with the owners as to purchase price as they should have to in any private developement. There is some logic in using eminent domain for public infrastructure and even thats iffy in my opinion, but for private commercial developement, either bargain in good faith with the property owner for the land or build around them or develope somewhere else. Some private developer wanting to sell more yuppie crap to more yuppies doesnt have any more rights than any other private citizen.