From the Statehouse 2007 No. 13
by Jennifer Garrison
Jun. 22, 2007
FROM THE STATEHOUSE – June 21, 2007
Last week the Ohio House voted out Amended Substitute House Bill 5, a bill to limit the use of eminent domain. I received many e-mails and letters from area residents since June, 2005 and therefore I want to explain in detail the proposed changes to Ohio’s use of eminent domain.
By way of background, in June, 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court in the Kelo case held private property may be taken for the purpose of economic development, even when it is not in a blighted area and when the property is ultimately transferred to another private person. The court in Kelo also ruled each individual state is free to recognize its own laws regarding the protection of private property and how eminent domain is to be used. As a result of the Kelo case, Ohio placed a moratorium on eminent domain takings through the end of 2006, and set up a task force to determine the use and application of eminent domain.
The section of the Ohio constitution dealing with the taking of private property is Article I, Section 19, which basically says, private property may be taken for a public- use, and compensation shall be given.
While a task force worked on the eminent domain issue, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in the City of Norwood case. Amended Substitute House bill 5 incorporates the holding in the Norwood case. Specifically, the bill says an economic benefit of the government and community alone does not satisfy the public-use requirement of the constitution to take private property. The bill forbids the taking of private property solely for government revenue generation purposes. The bill requires in any taking the agency must show by a preponderance of evidence that a taking is necessary.
The bill requires when property is taken because of an economic benefit to the government or community, the property must be at least 50% blighted. Where there is a finding that the area is blighted, the agency must develop a comprehensive development plan for the property, including 2 studies documenting the public need, and where applicable, the legislative governing body must obtain a resolution affirming the public need.
This bill also requires notice and opportunity for public comment. The bill requires an appraisal of the property in question and requires a copy of the appraisal be provided to the owner.
Additionally, Amended Substitute House Bill 5 prohibits agricultural land from being determined to be blighted unless there is an environmental or public health hazard that cannot be corrected under its current ownership.
Finally, this bill encourages the Supreme Court to adopt a procedural rule requiring expedited appeals in eminent domain taking actions. I voted ”yes”. The bill passed.
The Senate passed out of its chamber Senate Bill 7, its eminent domain bill, which differs from House Bill 5 in a number of ways. In particular, it requires a higher % of the area to be blighted before the State can take the property for public-use.
In the coming weeks it is possible that House bill 5 and Senate bill 7 will be reconciled and a bill limiting eminent domain will make its way to the Governor’s desk.
You can reach Jennifer Garrison at her Columbus office at 614-644-8728 or in the district at 740-373-2414 or by e-mail at jennifer@jennifergarrison.com. Her website is <a href="/a>