Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:45:05 EDT
Subject: eminent domain
To: reysmont@yahoo.com
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060726/ap_on_re_us/development_fight&printer=1;_ylt=AkRm2iCdJVTWLhdOdrpCboFH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-
Yahoo! News
Back to Story - Help
Ohio court blocks eminent domain project
By JULIE CARR SMYTH, Associated Press WriterWed Jul 26, 10:28 AM ET
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."
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
Date:
Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:18:15 -0400
From: "John Reddick"
To: "Jordi Reyes-Montblanc"
Subject: Fwd: eminent domain victory in Ohio Supreme Court
Jordi, FYI
An important, unanimous, decision in Ohio, tossing out the use of
economic development alone as justification and sharply curtailing
blight definitions, requiring heightened scrutiny.
A summary of the decision, and a link to the full text can be found at:
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/Communications_office/summaries/2006/0726/050227.asp
For us in New Haven, who have been working on the Campion case, the
violation of equal protection through vague standards has been a
central issue. These excerpts are particularly noteworthy:
"Statutes that regulate the use of eminent domain powers are subject to
a legal doctrine (the "void-for-vagueness doctrine") that
invalidates statutes found to be overly ambiguous. "
"The use of the term "deteriorating area" as a standard for a
taking is unconstitutional because the term inherently incorporates
speculation as to the future condition of the property to be appropriated
rather than the condition of the property at the time of the taking."
This is in stark contrast to the blight standards used in NYC.
In case you missed yesterday's paper, see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/nyregion/25blight.html?ex=1154059200&en=4adf5ffe287bd584&ei=5087%0A
No comments:
Post a Comment