www.channelcincinnati.com/news/5061659/detail.html

State Senate Freezes Eminent Domain Seizures

POSTED: 3:22 pm EDT October 5, 2005
UPDATED: 3:31 pm EDT October 5, 2005

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The Ohio Senate unanimously approved a bill Wednesday designed to prohibit state and local governments from taking property for use by private developers until 2007.

The legislation approved 29-0 follows last summer's 5-4 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that said such eminent domain seizures were constitutionally protected but also noted that states could enact their own, tougher laws.

Lawmakers' approval of the measure comes as the Ohio Supreme Court considers a similar issue involving Norwood's takeover of a neighborhood just off Interstate 71, claiming it was deteriorating.

The measure is a reasonable response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision because it creates a committee to study the issues presented by the court's ruling, said bill sponsor Sen. Tim Grendell.

"We have to find ways to promote economic development that doesn't sacrifice private property rights that have been the mainstay of this country since its inception," he said.

Texas passed a law in August banning such seizures and several states are considering similar bans.

Grendell, a Republican from northeast Ohio known for his attempts to limit government, said those bills are knee-jerk reactions that could create unintended consequences later.

A lawyer representing the developer trying to build the Rookwood Exchange complex in Norwood said eminent domain can be an important tool for cities faced with declining revenue.

The bill's sponsor, Tim Grendell, is running for Ohio Attorney General.  He is great on gun and other conservative issues.  Link - Grendell for Attorney General

Quoted: The bill's sponsor, Tim Grendell, is running for Ohio Attorney General.  He is great on gun and other conservative issues.  Link - Grendell for Attorney General

I just receieved a brochure from his campaign office. Looks like a pretty down to earth guy.

The town in which I live recently exercised eminent domain to take land that the city water well field was located upon. They had a lease on the land that ended, and wanted to buy it. The great grandson heirs to the property decided to hold out and jack prices to some obscene $45,000 an acre for farmland that generally goes at around $3500 an acre.

They ended up paying them $4500 an acre after exercising ED.

I think that is a fair use of eminent domain.

We've got the same problem down here. Three or four local families that purchased the land for $50 per acre and now that development is coming that way, it $45,000 per acre. Land here is about the same as yours; 3.5 per acre. Those families control most of the usable land.

We've lost malls, Budwiser, Home Depot, Lowes and such over this nonsense.

End result: No growth. The developers go someplace else and the city starves.

I have mixed feelings about this.

Quoted: The town in which I live recently exercised eminent domain to take land that the city water well field was located upon. They had a lease on the land that ended, and wanted to buy it. The great grandson heirs to the property decided to hold out and jack prices to some obscene $45,000 an acre for farmland that generally goes at around $3500 an acre. They ended up paying them $4500 an acre after exercising ED. I think that is a fair use of eminent domain.

Yes a well field is PUBLIC use. A shopping mall is private use and the local .gov should not steal land to give to the developer.

Yet another reason to love my beloved state.

I suppose it beats my plan: Live where nobody else wants to, and shoot people who start thinking it's a good place to build a shopping center.

Quoted: We've got the same problem down here. Three or four local families that purchased the land for $50 per acre and now that development is coming that way, it $45,000 per acre. Land here is about the same as yours; 3.5 per acre. Those families control most of the usable land. We've lost malls, Budwiser, Home Depot, Lowes and such over this nonsense. End result: No growth. The developers go someplace else and the city starves. I have mixed feelings about this.

So, based on this particular situation, economic developoment is being stopped for the good of many because of the price? Where is the line of authority when the holdouts are detrimental to things which could benefit the community as a whole? Yet, it's theirs to set whatever price they choose. It's a free market.

Quoted: Quoted: We've got the same problem down here. Three or four local families that purchased the land for $50 per acre and now that development is coming that way, it $45,000 per acre. Land here is about the same as yours; 3.5 per acre. Those families control most of the usable land. We've lost malls, Budwiser, Home Depot, Lowes and such over this nonsense. End result: No growth. The developers go someplace else and the city starves. I have mixed feelings about this. So, based on this particular situation, economic developoment is being stopped for the good of many because of the price? Where is the line of authority when the holdouts are detrimental to things which could benefit the community as a whole? Yet, it's theirs to set whatever price they choose. It's a free market.

how would you feel if it was your land that had been in your family for generations?

Quoted: Quoted: The bill's sponsor, Tim Grendell, is running for Ohio Attorney General.  He is great on gun and other conservative issues.  Link - Grendell for Attorney General I just receieved a brochure from his campaign office. Looks like a pretty down to earth guy.

Ramjet, I was fortunate enough to have Tim Grendell sit with me at the Ohioans For Concealed Carry picnic.  Talking with him for about an hour, I know he is the real deal.  

Quoted: I think that is a fair use of eminent domain.

In a free society, these two phrases are mutually
exclusive.

Quoted: www.channelcincinnati.com/news/5061659/detail.html State Senate Freezes Eminent Domain Seizures POSTED: 3:22 pm EDT October 5, 2005 UPDATED: 3:31 pm EDT October 5, 2005 COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The Ohio Senate unanimously approved a bill Wednesday designed to prohibit state and local governments from taking property for use by private developers until 2007. The legislation approved 29-0 follows last summer's 5-4 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that said such eminent domain seizures were constitutionally protected but also noted that states could enact their own, tougher laws. Lawmakers' approval of the measure comes as the Ohio Supreme Court considers a similar issue involving Norwood's takeover of a neighborhood just off Interstate 71, claiming it was deteriorating. The measure is a reasonable response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision because it creates a committee to study the issues presented by the court's ruling, said bill sponsor Sen. Tim Grendell. "We have to find ways to promote economic development that doesn't sacrifice private property rights that have been the mainstay of this country since its inception," he said. Texas passed a law in August banning such seizures and several states are considering similar bans. Grendell, a Republican from northeast Ohio known for his attempts to limit government, said those bills are knee-jerk reactions that could create unintended consequences later. A lawyer representing the developer trying to build the Rookwood Exchange complex in Norwood said eminent domain can be an important tool for cities faced with declining revenue.

Legislation like this should be passed in EVERY state.

If the courts refuse to protect the Constitution, we ought to redouble our efforts to do so in the legislative and executive branches.

Make sure they don't insert a loophole, like here in Texas, that exempts the state.   Our glorious "conservative" governor is in the midst of land grabs for the Tans-Texas Corridor.  This is a pet project that the voters shot down but is going ahead anyway.  The contracts have been awarded secretly and many details are still not public.  The state still can, and no doubt will, take all the land they need through eminant domain.  Normally this would be a separate issue except that the majority of the corridor development will be by private developers.  Oh, and Perry is supposedly going to work for the biggest one named when he is out of office.  Big shocker.

Quoted: Make sure they don't insert a loophole, like here in Texas, that exempts the state.   Our glorious "conservative" governor is in the midst of land grabs for the Tans-Texas Corridor.  This is a pet project that the voters shot down but is going ahead anyway.  The contracts have been awarded secretly and many details are still not public.  The state still can, and no doubt will, take all the land they need through eminant domain.  Normally this would be a separate issue except that the majority of the corridor development will be by private developers.  Oh, and Perry is supposedly going to work for the biggest one named when he is out of office.  Big shocker.

If you can, please post links or references.  Not disagreeing with you at all, curious to find out more info.

TXL

Quoted: Make sure they don't insert a loophole, like here in Texas, that exempts the state.   Our glorious "conservative" governor is in the midst of land grabs for the Tans-Texas Corridor.  This is a pet project that the voters shot down but is going ahead anyway.  The contracts have been awarded secretly and many details are still not public.  The state still can, and no doubt will, take all the land they need through eminant domain.  Normally this would be a separate issue except that the majority of the corridor development will be by private developers.  Oh, and Perry is supposedly going to work for the biggest one named when he is out of office.  Big shocker.

God, I hate Perry. Not a big surprise though the state always exempts itself when creating new laws.

Quoted:
We've got the same problem down here. Three or four local families that purchased the land for $50 per acre and now that development is coming that way, it $45,000 per acre. Land here is about the same as yours; 3.5 per acre. Those families control most of the usable land.

We've lost malls, Budwiser, Home Depot, Lowes and such over this nonsense.

End result: No growth. The developers go someplace else and the city starves.

I have mixed feelings about this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




I have NO mixed feelings about that whatsoever.

FUCK the developers. HOORAY for private land ownership and the right to do with it AS YOU PLEASE.


If the developers want the land bad enough, they should damned well expect to pay through the
ass to get it...and if the owner doesn't want to sell, the developers can go pound sand up their asses and build on THAT little lot!

I have witnessed my county go through a HUGE growth phase in just the past few years, and it's
not slowing down. This was once almost paradise, with endless square miles of unspoiled Florida
forests, wetlands, and the like, and miles of beaches with no buildings on them, and housing
that was affordable and built on nicely sized quarter acre lots. Now, it's almost wall-to-wall
housing developments, MASSIVELY inflated housing prices, to the point that I may NEVER be
able to afford to buy the house I grew up in, at market value, and what they have built is cracker
box, mass-produced cookie cutter houses built on zero lot lines. Stuff all the houses you can
onto an acre of land, charge out the ass for them, and screw anything resembling a QUALITY
way of life. If you stick your hand out your bathroom window at the same time your neighbor does,
you're shaking hands.

Anyone here ever play the game MDK?

I SO want to see a bunch of City Minecrawlers rip out eighty percent of this county's development,
if not even more!

I hate developers with a passion usually reserved for anti-gun groups.

CJ

Preach it brother! Developers suck