Ohio Legislators Working to Restrain Eminent Domain Powers
Published Jun 20, 2007
The Newark Advocate: http://www.newarkadvocate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070620/OPINION02/706200331/1014/OPINION
Almost two years ago, in the case of Kelo v. New London, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ability of government to seize private property in order to make way for development by commercial industries in the name of economic development. The case involved the town of New London, Conn., where homeowner Susette Kelo and six other families were being forced out of their homes in order to make room for pharmaceutical manufacturer Pfizer to construct a $270 million global research center.
Traditionally, governments have used eminent domain authority only to eliminate blighted property or to build highways, schools or other public use facilities. The ruling expanded the meaning of public use and caught the attention of property owners across the nation who began to fear they could be forced to relinquish their property in the name of economic development.
When the ruling was first announced, lawmakers in Ohio became concerned about the effects it might have on property owners here in our state. A moratorium on eminent domain for the purpose of economic development quickly was enacted, and a task force was established to study the use of eminent domain during the moratorium.
The work of that task force came to fruition recently as two bills dealing with eminent domain were passed, one by the Senate and one by the House of Representatives.
In the House version, House Bill 5 no longer would those considering the use of eminent domain be able to consider whether property could be put to better use, or generate more tax revenue, in determining whether the lot in question was blighted. Property only will be allowed to be taken if it is necessary for public use. Several purposes that are not a “public use” specifically are listed. These include taking property to transfer to another individual who wants to establish a commercial enterprise, taking land purely for economic development purposes or simply to increase tax revenue. If a private developer can demonstrate the area or parcel in question is indeed “blighted,” then the local government or agency still will be able to initiate the eminent domain process. In these situations the government must have a comprehensive development plan documenting the public need before the proceedings begin.
Several other issues with the use of eminent domain also were included in HB 5. A common concern is the government or agency attempting to use eminent domain proposes a low payment for the property in question in an attempt to procure the property for less than its true value. While I support the careful use of public money, the government also has a duty to provide just compensation for property through the eminent domain process.
House Bill 5 will require that if the final award for property is more than 125 percent of the initial or revised offer, then the agency or local government will be responsible for all costs and expenses, including attorney and appraisal fees. Notification and a public comment period also would be required in most situations involving eminent domain to give affected property owners a chance to provide written comments before the proceedings begin.
In the coming weeks, the House and Senate will work out the differences in their bills and I look forward to the eventual passage of the eminent domain reform package. I strongly disagree with the Kelo decision that allowed for the taking of private property for private development, and I think the state should do all it can to protect the private property of all Ohioans.