• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

Mine and yours, never ours

The backlash against the Supreme Court's horrendous Kelo decision continues, and this has to count as a major victory:

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Wednesday that economic development isn't a sufficient reason under the state constitution to justify taking homes, putting a halt to a $125 million project of offices, shops, and restaurants in a Cincinnati suburb that officials said would create jobs and add tax revenue.

The case was the first challenge of property rights laws to reach a state high court since the U.S. Supreme Court last summer allowed municipalities to seize homes for use by a private developer.

Let's do a rousing rendition of the old Woody Guthrie song, with slightly altered lyrics: "My land is my land, your land is your land . . . "

Comments

Doug
Fri, 07/28/2006 - 4:59am

After reading the Kelo decision, I have a hard time seeing this as a backlash against the decision, anymore than legislative action restricting eminent domain. They just seem like entirely appropriate examples of our federal system of government at work.

Kelo merely decided that, giving due regard to prior case law and the text of the due process clause, if the legislature of Connecticut passed legislation saying that a comprehensive economic development plan involving public & private elements such as that underway in New London was a "public use," then the U.S. Constitution -- given it's prior blessings to railroads, telephone companies and the like -- wouldn't say otherwise.

This prompted an appropriate response in state legislatures from policymakers who thought it was bad public policy to use the eminent domain power in this fashion. And the Ohio Supreme Court apparently decided that its Constitution guaranteed stronger private property rights than the federal Constitution does. Again, entirely appropriate.

Something of an aside, but it's my hope that the lawsuits involving the Bush administration's warrantless wiretaps of U.S. citizens provokes a similar outcry of concern for the sanctity of our right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures with no warrants issuing for such searches absent probable cause supported by oath or affirmation particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Jeff Pruitt
Fri, 07/28/2006 - 5:49am

I've always found the "add tax revenue" argument somewhat disturbing. Let's use restaurants as an example. At what point does a community become saturated w/ restaurants? I mean there's only a fixed amount of dollars the community is willing to spend on eating out. I just don't see how adding a new establishment automatically means you will increase tax revenue. It seems more like a zero-sum game to me. You're just shifting the amount of taxes paid from one restaurant to another. Anytime a business relies solely on local income as its means of support I don't think you can automatically assume that it's adding to the state or locality's overall tax revenue...

Bob G.
Fri, 07/28/2006 - 6:35am

They pave paradise....and put up a parking lot!

B.G.

Quantcast