From The Cincinnati Enquirer:
Recommendations from a state task force studying eminent domain could allow private entities — like utilities and cemeteries — more leeway in taking private property than government agencies.
State Rep. Bill Seitz, R- Green Township, successfully derailed a recommendation that would have required private companies and organizations to hold public hearings before using eminent domain.
The task force voted 19-6 to require public involvement early in the process for government agencies that take land, but did not extend that requirement to non-governmental entities.
"I don't want to sit here on the last day of a multi-month task force and make changes to long-settled law about the ability of private entities to take land for purposes that have been around since the invention of gas lights," Seitz said. "It's not our job to tell private entities with eminent domain powers for public use how to go about it."
It is the responsibility of Mr. Seitz and every other public servant to ensure that the rights of our citizens are protected. I understand the objection, but the move would seem prudent and might eliminate nasty court battles by opening lines of communication. In addition, to not do so would signal that the entities listed are automatically to be trusted and immediately places the homeowner in the position of underdog.
The task force will also recommend that the Ohio General Assembly consider shifting the burden of proof in an eminent domain case from the property owner to the government.
Good, then why not do the same in the cases listed above and shift the burden of proof to the entities listed?
The task force -”” which is expected to meet all day today in order to keep a Tuesday deadline -”” also adopted several other recommendations made by Hamilton County Probate Judge James C. Cissell this morning. They include:
Government agencies should be required to share their appraisals with property owners before initiating court action.
Property owners should have the right to repurchase property from the government if the project is abandoned.
Courts should allow an expedited appeal on the government's right to take -”” replacing existing law that a taking cannot be appealed until after a jury trial on amount of compensation.
No changes to the "quick-take" provision that allows the state to take property immediately for roads or other public emergency. That was the mechanism Cincinnati City Council used to take the home of Emma Dimasi, an 80-year-old widow who lived in her home for 47 years, for a $4 million Dixmyth Avenue widening project. Her case is still on appeal.
I stated at the outset of this commission that I worried about the General Assembly's ability to adequately protect the rights of property owners and I am being proved correct. There is still more time, but color me skeptical.
Meanwhile, The Toledo Blade wants to criticize the decision in full force, but cowardly resorts to conservative bashing:
By ruling in favor of three Cincinnati property owners who refused to be bought out for an upscale $125 million development, a politically aware Ohio Supreme Court has emerged in the forefront of a national backlash against the concept of eminent domain.
Fortunately, the court's unanimous decision keeps eminent domain alive in Ohio as an important tool of last resort for aging cities to use in revitalization efforts, as Toledo did in taking property for construction of the Jeep North auto plant in 1998.
Despite the populist appeal inherent in the decision, we continue to believe that eminent domain is fair and proper if used sparingly and only when owners of property are justly compensated, as specified in the U.S. Constitution.
That is so kind, but nowhere in the federal or state constitutions does it give the government the authority to steal land from its citizens and give it to corporate donors.
Ruling in the case of a development in Norwood, an enclave of 22,000 surrounded by the city of Cincinnati, the court issued an unmistakable retort to a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld government power to seize property solely for private economic development purposes. In that 5-4 decision, the nation's highest court left states the leeway to set limits, and the Ohio court responded by summarily reversing a half-century of state law.
Halting use of eminent domain has become a cause celebre for conservatives, especially in the year since the U.S. Supreme Court decision in its now-famous case, Kelo vs. New London, out of Connecticut. That ruling raised protests from property rights advocates, whose howls changed to cheers after Wednesday's ruling in Ohio.
"A smashing victory for property owners, and for common sense," was the verdict from the conservative Weekly Standard. Ken Blackwell, Republican candidate for governor, quickly praised the decision.
Ironically, the Republican-dominated state court — six GOP justices and one lone Democrat — has weakened what once was an article of faith among champions of the exercise of government power to aid private enterprise.
In the Norwood case, the developer was able to buy 66 of 69 parcels of property they sought in an older neighborhood to install a mix of offices, condominiums, and shops like Crate and Barrel. The development was expected to generate $2 million a year in tax revenue.
While it is true that Ohio is dominated by Republicans, there are enough Democrats and RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) around that the defense of liberty remains a full-time job.
Reporting for duty.