The following information comes courtesy of Greater Ohio and was part of that group's 7-28-06 enewsletter.

Ohio Court Limits Eminent Domain
Next question: What is "blight"?

The Ohio Supreme Court’s recent decision in Norwood v. Horney will have important implications for property owners, developers and older communities seeking to grow tax base.

The court unanimously ruled that economic development alone does not justify using government powers of eminent domain to seize property for redevelopment by private entities. However, the draft decision (pdf) does not altogether eliminate economic development as a supporting reason.

How Ohio defines "blight" will be key

The decision also has importance for the Eminent Domain Task Force designated by the Ohio Legislature to make recommendations by August 1. One of the key issues for the task force will be the definition of “blight,” which is currently a legal justification allowed by the state. See proposed definitions here.

Eminent domain not the only form of "taking"

Earlier in July (2006) the task force engaged in lively debate about the root causes behind cities’ efforts to grow local tax base through eminent domain. The discussion was prompted by testimony from Cleveland State University professor Tom Bier, who said state policies supporting new development of greenfields constitutes a “taking” of property value from individuals living in older communities.

Ohio big cities lead nation in population loss

Bier cited some startling statistics on population and household income losses in Ohio’s urban counties, while “ring” counties have experienced fast growth:

• Cincinnati (along with Detroit) now leads the nation in population loss, while Cleveland is in fifth place.
• At the same time, counties such as Medina, Delaware and Warren are dealing with record growth – and accompanying challenges to local government services – due to families moving from Cuyahoga, Franklin and Hamilton Counties respectively.

Read Bier’s testimony and some of the responses from legislators, who challenged his position that the state had caused the problem and should take a much more active role in solutions.

Media coverage from around the state on the Norwood decision here.