Posted on 01/19/2006 4:43:19 AM PST by mr_hammer
Ohio Supreme Court hears eminent domain arguments
The Ohio Supreme Court last week heard arguments challenging a local government are right of eminent domain to acquire private property for the benefit of commercial development.
The court is being asked to overturn rulings favoring the city of Norwood's acquisition of private property from unwilling sellers to be developed by private investors - not the city. Lawyers for the city argue the private development project would generate more tax revenue for the municipality.
A divided U.S. Supreme Court last year ruled in favor of a government's right to eminent domain in such instances. Since then, the Ohio General Assembly enacted legislation (SB 167)placing a one-year moratorium on the use of eminent domain to acquire non-blighted land for private development. The legislature intends to study the economic development impacts of the practice.
Ohio is believed to be the first state to challenge eminent domain since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. The Society's governmental affairs team will continue to monitor the progress of the lawsuit.
I hope Ohio fairs better than Florida did with their idiot S.C. justices.
I want to know what in the hell tax revenue has to do with the public good? It is my opinion that aside from roads and some basic services most tax revenue is wasted and would be better spent and invested by the people who earned the money in the first place. Regardless nothing justifies stealing someone's property. The government does not own us. These types should be ashamed to show their faces in public and when they do they should face showers of rocks and stones for their indignant arrogance. I'm tempted to wish the most horrible diseases on these public vermin but they already have a disease that has long rotted their souls and minds and can only be cured in hell.
Eminent Domain, in its historical context has, although never popular, been an understood part of the need to develop and grow municipalities. There have always been abuses but the SCOTUS ruling facilitates rampant abuse. Now governments can with virtual impunity, simply take property and give it to their friends. This is an egregious assault on the Constitution. As it can deal with property that someone has spent their entire life working for only to see their efforts destroyed, I really believe that someone's going to snap.
"Ohio Supreme Court hears eminent domain arguments"
---
And each Justice is wondering if they want their home turned into a bed-and-breakfast by some private developer with a wicked sense of humor.
I think most states and cities have enacted stricter rules for the use of eminent domain...why is OH dragging their feet?
And all under a supposedly "conservative" and "Republican" president too. Think of what the other side would do if it were in control of things. Even worse!
:-) Any updates on the Lost Liberty Hotel?
Yes. The penniless nephew of the Forbes empire who became a gigolo and serves in the Senate.
At any point we are waiting for the Ketchup Queen to make him sleep in his car. LOL!
The government does own your property. Try not paying your property tax. Your property can be siezed and sold for the tax "owed." Who else can sell property but the owner?
Here's an update for you.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1553714/posts
Even if the hotel project is dropped it still has made its point.
The Michigan Supreme Court looked at this issue in 2004 and ruled that taking private property and giving it to another private entity was a gross violation of the state's constitution. They also wrote that the practice violated the original intent of the constitution.
The big city socialist/democrats whined and cried about it, while so-called environmentalists thumped their chests calling the decision an injustice.
The ruling by the court was unanimous.
Thanks for the update. I think that Logan Darrow Clements is also a FReeper, but I don't recall his FR name.
PS We will agree to disagree as I see Souter, Breyer, Stephens, Ginsberg and Kennedy as obtuse. The point won't be made until the hotel is in its rightful place.
...and they have that now in the form of perpetual property taxes. (rent)
Shoot. Why not just have a friend of the mayor take a $50,000 house away from a person in order to build a $500,000 home. What's the difference really?
"Shoot. Why not just have a friend of the mayor take a $50,000 house away from a person in order to build a $500,000 home. What's the difference really?"
---
None that I see.
I a developer were to buy your home a stick a pink flamingo in the front lawn, he would have increased the value of the property.
No offense to your home was meant.
I a=If a
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.