Hi,
Lakewood City Council may remain silent on this important issue but concerned citizens around the country are speaking out and politicans are listening. If we elect people to City Council that promise to protect your home from a developer's dream, then your home will be less likely of being taken from you.
In Alabama, in an emergency session, the state is the newest to show their citizens that their property rights will be respected. See: Legislature Passes Bill To Limit Use Of Eminent Domain.
I find it very odd that our Bill of Rights was developed to provide universal protection for individuals in America and the highest court in our country determines it's up to the individual states to define those protections.
As a point of further irony, New London, CT may have won their battle against citizens but public pressure and State officials force a halt to the development. See: New London Agrees To Moratorium On Eminent Domain
So those homeowners in New London can stay in their homes while here in Ohio the Norwood, Oh homeowners were forced out by private development and future blight. Why? Please help get the Gambles back into their house, contact local, state and national elected officials by using Contact your Elected Politican. This great site is a 1 stop shop for names, addresses, phone and fax numbers as well as e-mail addresses for everyone from the President to Lakewood's City Council. (PS - Norwood, Oh zip code is 45208.)
Eminent domain abuse is being curbed, outside Ohio
Moderator: Jim O'Bryan
-
Donald Farris
- Posts: 309
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:31 pm
- Location: Lakewood and points beyond
- Contact:
-
Jim O'Bryan
- Posts: 14196
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:12 pm
- Location: Lakewood
- Contact:
Wacky Judges making legislation from the bench!
What I found most interesting is how the Nationwide outcry has developed from some very interesting sources.
The move by Justice Sutters hometown to immediately use eminent domain to claim his house for a "museum." Is one of the most amusing, if this topic can be amusing.
The rush of the House and Senate to pull back Federal money from anyone using eminent domain, and the same on State levels shows that the legislators are very upset with the court making legislation from the bench.
I do not think this story is over, and it has now gotten even more national attention than when 60 Minutes visited Lakewood and Mayor Cain.
The Observer has a team of people looking at the latest rulings, and seminars on this topic which will run, when we ask the very simple question, "What Is Just Compensation?"
What I found most interesting is how the Nationwide outcry has developed from some very interesting sources.
The move by Justice Sutters hometown to immediately use eminent domain to claim his house for a "museum." Is one of the most amusing, if this topic can be amusing.
The rush of the House and Senate to pull back Federal money from anyone using eminent domain, and the same on State levels shows that the legislators are very upset with the court making legislation from the bench.
I do not think this story is over, and it has now gotten even more national attention than when 60 Minutes visited Lakewood and Mayor Cain.
The Observer has a team of people looking at the latest rulings, and seminars on this topic which will run, when we ask the very simple question, "What Is Just Compensation?"
-
Donald Farris
- Posts: 309
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:31 pm
- Location: Lakewood and points beyond
- Contact:
Hi,
Did you know?
Under Ohio law a homeowner can lose possession of his/her home for eminent domain and not be permitted access to the court determined compensation for years? In Ohio, if your property is taken by eminent domain and you follow your legal right to challenge the taking through the court system, the funds determined for your property is not available to you until you have exhausted your options.
In Norwood, Ohio, the Gambles (and others) have been forced off their property for 5 months now. The courts have prohibited their home from be demolished until the Gambles have appealed. Yet they are not allowed back into their house during this time. (I worry the house could fall in disrepair during this time.) In addition to being blocked from their home they are not permitted access to the funds Norwood has said the home is worth. This double edged blade is a feature of Ohio law designed to punish a property owner that fights the will of the city. Many people in Ohio do not kow this fact. Did you?
Did you know?
Under Ohio law a homeowner can lose possession of his/her home for eminent domain and not be permitted access to the court determined compensation for years? In Ohio, if your property is taken by eminent domain and you follow your legal right to challenge the taking through the court system, the funds determined for your property is not available to you until you have exhausted your options.
In Norwood, Ohio, the Gambles (and others) have been forced off their property for 5 months now. The courts have prohibited their home from be demolished until the Gambles have appealed. Yet they are not allowed back into their house during this time. (I worry the house could fall in disrepair during this time.) In addition to being blocked from their home they are not permitted access to the funds Norwood has said the home is worth. This double edged blade is a feature of Ohio law designed to punish a property owner that fights the will of the city. Many people in Ohio do not kow this fact. Did you?
-
Stephen Calhoun
- Posts: 208
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 6:51 pm
- Location: NEO
- Contact:
July 28th 2005, 1:16 pm
The Brazenness of Eminent Domain
by Timothy Sandefur
I am truly flabbergasted by a decision I just read out of the District Court in Hawaii. Not by the outcome, which is obviously correct, but by the cajones it requires to make the argument that the plaintiffs made.
The case involves Hawaii’s infamous rental “conversion†law, which the Supreme Court upheld unanimously in the Midkiff case in 1984. Under this law, a person renting, say, a house, can go to the city and ask the city to condemn the house and sell it to the renter for pennies on the dollar. This blatant violation of the public use clause was allowed in Midkiff on the grounds that it was a good thing to break up “land monopoly,†and whatever’s “a good thing†satisfies the Fifth Amendment’s “public use†requirement.
So now a bunch of people who are leasing condos go to the city of Honolulu and ask the city to condemn the condos and sell to them. The city agrees, and requires them all to pay $1,000 each for their participation in this theft. Then, last summer, the city council gets together and passes a resolution saying, you know, we think private takings like this aren’t such a good idea anymore, and we’re not going to do them.
So the renters sue the city for violating the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution.
Putting aside the parallel to the brazenness of a criminal suing for breach of a contract for stolen goods, the District Court properly rejects this argument on the grounds that government simply cannot contract away its authority to refrain from eminent domain. The case is Hsiung et al. v. City and County of Honolulu, No. CV 05-00104DAE-LEK, 2005 WL 1719392 (D. Haw. July 19, 2005).
But the case is very instructive, I think, on the real nature of the redevelopment/eminent domain enterprise.
Posted in The Bench by Timothy Sandefur on Thursday, July 28th, 2005 at 1:16 pm.
Trackback URL: http://positiveliberty.com/2005/07/braz ... trackback/
The Brazenness of Eminent Domain
by Timothy Sandefur
I am truly flabbergasted by a decision I just read out of the District Court in Hawaii. Not by the outcome, which is obviously correct, but by the cajones it requires to make the argument that the plaintiffs made.
The case involves Hawaii’s infamous rental “conversion†law, which the Supreme Court upheld unanimously in the Midkiff case in 1984. Under this law, a person renting, say, a house, can go to the city and ask the city to condemn the house and sell it to the renter for pennies on the dollar. This blatant violation of the public use clause was allowed in Midkiff on the grounds that it was a good thing to break up “land monopoly,†and whatever’s “a good thing†satisfies the Fifth Amendment’s “public use†requirement.
So now a bunch of people who are leasing condos go to the city of Honolulu and ask the city to condemn the condos and sell to them. The city agrees, and requires them all to pay $1,000 each for their participation in this theft. Then, last summer, the city council gets together and passes a resolution saying, you know, we think private takings like this aren’t such a good idea anymore, and we’re not going to do them.
So the renters sue the city for violating the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution.
Putting aside the parallel to the brazenness of a criminal suing for breach of a contract for stolen goods, the District Court properly rejects this argument on the grounds that government simply cannot contract away its authority to refrain from eminent domain. The case is Hsiung et al. v. City and County of Honolulu, No. CV 05-00104DAE-LEK, 2005 WL 1719392 (D. Haw. July 19, 2005).
But the case is very instructive, I think, on the real nature of the redevelopment/eminent domain enterprise.
Posted in The Bench by Timothy Sandefur on Thursday, July 28th, 2005 at 1:16 pm.
Trackback URL: http://positiveliberty.com/2005/07/braz ... trackback/