Replies

The principle is simply this. the Government CAN take your land. Period. While there may be some argument that it must be for "Public Use" what constitutes public use is vague and I would suspect that if the Government wanted to take your land for development purposes knowing that the taxes it will reap will be higher for the new use than for the old use, then the taking will be considered for "public use" because it benefits the public at large at the expense of the individual land owner.

The alternative to that is that they could simply rezone your property from residential or agricultural to commercial and you'd suddenly find yourself taxed out of house and home without any recourse whatsoever. At least if the government condemns your land it is required to pay you just compensation. If they simply rezone it, then you are going to be required to pay taxes that you never intended and unless you personally take the initiative to put the land to its highest use, you will likely have to sell it at a loss.

Nothing in the constitution prohibits the government from taking your land for whatever purpose it sees fit. The only constitutional proviso that must be fulfilled is that you must receive "just compensation."

Admittedly taking land in order to fit it to some redevelopment plan and to sell it to a private company or investor who agrees to implement that development plan is a novel approach to the idea of "public use." But the definition of "public use" is not to be found in the constitution and in a broad sense it is simply up to the "public" to determine whether or not a specific use of a property is for "public use" or not.

Now you may not like this decision, but you are not without rememdy. You and the good people of the State of Ohio are free to draw up a constitution that provides more protection for private property owners than the US Constitution. The Good people of the State of Ohio are free to amend their constitution to define "public use" in regard to eminent domain in such a way as to prevent cities and counties or even the state from taking your property in such a manner and for such reasons.

Still having problems with "public" and "private" are you? Also, with this decision and the Raich decision, any well financed interest can simply get your merely local statute over turned by a higher court.

what constitutes public use is vague

Not at all. It is the use of the word 'public' that is the problem. We use it two ways, one technical, the other in street talk.

If somebody says he is the public and has a right to drive his car on the public road, he is mistaken.

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

You seem to be missing my point, P-M.

If they take your property because WalMart can build a box store there and bring in a lot of taxes and provide a hundred jobs or so, there is only one question to ask.

Is WalMart a government entity?

If it is then it is a PUBLIC use. If it isn't, then the government is simply transferring property to a more preferred private or corporate entity.

You said..."Nothing in the constitution prohibits the government from taking your land for whatever purpose it sees fit. The only constitutional proviso that must be fulfilled is that you must receive "just compensation."

The assumption of Eminent Domain was always that the land taken would serve the needs of the public as a whole...and would be held by the government...thus indirectly publicly owned.

Highways and utility right of ways have a precedent....but not without court actions of course. In 'urban blight' areas many of the homes were already owned by the city through delinquency of taxes or had been condemned for unsafe conditions or violations.

In this ruling...none of that applied. This ruling allows private property in good standing to be seized and then sold to another private individual...for an implied public benefit...which is nebulous at best.

How do you assess the fair market value of such property? If a developer plans on putting a multimillion dollar resort on it...isn't the fair market value the value to the developer?

If I own prime waterfront property worth 100k undeveloped...why should a local government force me to sell it to a developer who will then turn around and resell my property for a handsome profit? Why cant I sell it later on myself and reap that profit. What if I cant afford to buy another prime waterfront property in that area?

In this case...it never is "just compensation".

Since property values are continually increasing...why not have large land development companies come in and buy entire towns. Raze the town and put in a planned upscale community. All the resident will have to relocate of course. It can be done at any time or place now. Does anything in this ruling prohibit such a thing?