ED4ED
Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:42 pm
Taking this out of the traffic thread. 
I dare say since I was introduced to the topic a few years ago, I have followed it very carefully. I get calls weekly from home owners losing their family home/farm/business. They are devastated and often in tears. They don't understand how this is happening to them. The story is always the same and they want help.
I can't remember one of them that wanted to eliminate zoning, stop pollution or anything else. They just want to save their home or business or farm and are outraged - they never thought this could happen in America. I don't want pollution or any of those other things - I just think that the right to own your own home or business is a very important civil right that Americans have. And government should not be able to take your home or buisness and give them to someone else that is richer or more politically connected. The pollution issue, zoning issue is a fiction that is portrayed by the proponents of eminent domain. I have said that zoning the river side of Sloane multiple family and then blighting them because they were single family homes was unfair. But I'm not against zoning, just using it arbitrarily and to discriminate against residents.
Julie and I heard testimony on both sides almost every 2 weeks in Columbus since the task force began and we attended the National convention. There we heard from the NAACP, the Council of Churches, the Small Business Administration, a group representing Latin Americans. Not groups advocating pollution etc. It is the non profits, the minorities, the politcally weak that get hurt consistently. Farmers are up in arms about it. Luckily for them, the task force said that farm land can't be blighted and so they are now safe. But the Ohio Farm Bureau had about 100 calls on ED a year. Trust me if our state politicians hadn't gotten calls from "everyone that lives on a lake" they wouldn't have had a moratorium and a task force.
One of the people who testified was a doctoral student and this was his dissertation. He found that when Eminent Domain was for Economic Development that the people were paid less for their property than when it was for the tradition public purposes.
In being objective, most people favor eminent domain when there is true blight - or for a true public purpose. They want the definition of blight to be fair and reasonable. Not 10 year old homes, cul de sacs, detached car garages or other nonsense. Luckily the task force rejected having multiple (as few as 2) people's names on the title as an automatic condition of blight. State Senator Grendell said his wife would kill him if he voted that her name on the title made them blighted. But that was one of the possible definitions and the General Assembly could still re-enact that one.
And I like developers, I like them a lot. I have never said this is developers against home owners. Using our President's phraseology, it is farmers, business people churches, non profits and homeowners against "evil doers".
Both my children are planning to have careers in development. But just like in any profession there are good ones and bad ones. While I haven't always been the Mayor's biggest proponent - I have to say he is doing a great job of finding responsible, moral, creative developers. One of the reasons that city think about using this draconian tool is they haven't thought of how else to increase development without it. I have submitted an article that talks about how Anaheim is doing a great job of this and their are easy ideas that we can incorporate here in Lakewood.
Thanks for the info. Unfortunately an issue like eminent domain isn't as simple as developers v homeowners. ED is a small piece of a much larger and in my opinion, more frightening land use agenda. If it was simply about big bad developers wanting the homes of poor homeowners the Seirra Club wouldn't have weighed in on the side they did.
The current drive to eliminate eminent domain as a land use regulation is the first step in a national agenda that is intended to eliminate zoning regulations, pollution regulations, wetland protections, wildlife regulations and so on. This plan is old, well developed and extremely well funded.
Suzanne
I dare say since I was introduced to the topic a few years ago, I have followed it very carefully. I get calls weekly from home owners losing their family home/farm/business. They are devastated and often in tears. They don't understand how this is happening to them. The story is always the same and they want help.
I can't remember one of them that wanted to eliminate zoning, stop pollution or anything else. They just want to save their home or business or farm and are outraged - they never thought this could happen in America. I don't want pollution or any of those other things - I just think that the right to own your own home or business is a very important civil right that Americans have. And government should not be able to take your home or buisness and give them to someone else that is richer or more politically connected. The pollution issue, zoning issue is a fiction that is portrayed by the proponents of eminent domain. I have said that zoning the river side of Sloane multiple family and then blighting them because they were single family homes was unfair. But I'm not against zoning, just using it arbitrarily and to discriminate against residents.
Julie and I heard testimony on both sides almost every 2 weeks in Columbus since the task force began and we attended the National convention. There we heard from the NAACP, the Council of Churches, the Small Business Administration, a group representing Latin Americans. Not groups advocating pollution etc. It is the non profits, the minorities, the politcally weak that get hurt consistently. Farmers are up in arms about it. Luckily for them, the task force said that farm land can't be blighted and so they are now safe. But the Ohio Farm Bureau had about 100 calls on ED a year. Trust me if our state politicians hadn't gotten calls from "everyone that lives on a lake" they wouldn't have had a moratorium and a task force.
One of the people who testified was a doctoral student and this was his dissertation. He found that when Eminent Domain was for Economic Development that the people were paid less for their property than when it was for the tradition public purposes.
In being objective, most people favor eminent domain when there is true blight - or for a true public purpose. They want the definition of blight to be fair and reasonable. Not 10 year old homes, cul de sacs, detached car garages or other nonsense. Luckily the task force rejected having multiple (as few as 2) people's names on the title as an automatic condition of blight. State Senator Grendell said his wife would kill him if he voted that her name on the title made them blighted. But that was one of the possible definitions and the General Assembly could still re-enact that one.
And I like developers, I like them a lot. I have never said this is developers against home owners. Using our President's phraseology, it is farmers, business people churches, non profits and homeowners against "evil doers".
Both my children are planning to have careers in development. But just like in any profession there are good ones and bad ones. While I haven't always been the Mayor's biggest proponent - I have to say he is doing a great job of finding responsible, moral, creative developers. One of the reasons that city think about using this draconian tool is they haven't thought of how else to increase development without it. I have submitted an article that talks about how Anaheim is doing a great job of this and their are easy ideas that we can incorporate here in Lakewood.