Ohio Supreme Court: Portion of Eminent Domain Law Unconstitutional, Norwood Taking for Development Overturned

The Ohio Supreme Court gets it right on eminent domain where the U.S. Supremes did not, ironically, in an opinion written by a woman named Justice O'Connor (you may remember that former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the dissent in last year's Kelo decision):

(July 26, 2006) In a multifaceted opinion, the Supreme Court of Ohio today clarified Ohio law on eminent domain, ruling 7-0 to reverse a Hamilton County appeals court and halt the taking of private homes by the City of Norwood to make way for a development complex. Among other findings, today's ruling: overturned as unconstitutional a portion of Ohio's eminent domain statute, established that an economic benefit to the community alone does not justify government taking of private property, and set a heightened level of scrutiny for Ohio courts to apply when considering eminent domain cases.

Justice Maureen O'Connor wrote the unanimous majority opinion that balances “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.”

The highly publicized case involved a challenge by several “holdout” homeowners to the City of Norwood's eminent domain action taking possession of their property in order to make way for two new city-owned parking garages and a large, privately owned commercial development intended to create jobs and increase local tax revenues.

[More]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
My Take on the Kelo Decision

Eminent Domain: Churches "Targeted by the Bulldozers"

Unholy Land Grab - In the Spirit of Kelo