Coughlin to Rally Support for Property Rights

Via email:

In an ongoing effort to ensure equal protection of property rights across the Ohio, State Senator Kevin Coughlin (R-Cuyahoga Falls) continues to fight for necessary eminent domain reforms through passage of Senate Joint Resolution 1 and Senate Bill 7. Both proposals are based on recommendations made by the Eminent Domain Task Force, a panel of legislators, state agency leaders, attorneys, small business owners, homebuilders and other interested parties, charged with studying the overall impact of state laws governing the use of eminent domain.

Together, SJR 1 and SB 7 create a two-pronged approach to protecting private property rights. SJR 1, which is sponsored by Sen. Coughlin, places a constitutional amendment before Ohio voters to give the state the authority it needs to enact uniform state standards to govern the use of eminent domain.

“Home rule power raises questions about whether the General Assembly can regulate municipalities when it comes to eminent domain,” said Coughlin. “This amendment to Ohio’s Constitution will eliminate the gray area and give every Ohioan piece of mind that their property will be protected, no matter where they live.”

SB 7, legislation sponsored by State Senator Tim Grendell (R-Chesterland), makes the nuts and bolts changes to Ohio law ensuring that private property owners have stronger protections against overzealous government land grabs. The bill prohibits the conveyance of property to a private commercial enterprise, updates the definition of blight, requires that unelected boards and commissions (including port authorities) have the approval of their legislative authority prior to commencing a take and establishes a uniform procedure for all takings.

Coughlin, a co-sponsor of SB 7, says it moves Ohio in the right direction, but it alone cannot ensure uniform protection for all owners of private property, unless SJR 1 is amended into Ohio’s Constitution. Under Section 3, Article 18 of the Ohio Constitution, municipal corporations are granted “home rule” power, giving them the authority to create localized rules within their territorial boundaries.

“An overwhelming majority of Ohioans support the protection of property from Kelo-like takings,” added Coughlin. “However, recent history has shown that Ohioans are reluctant to amend our constitution. I will travel all across Ohio this year with a message that SJR 1 is critical for the protection of our property rights.”

To understand the full scope and impact of both proposals, the Senate State and Local Government Committee has held hearings on SJR 1 and SB 7, listening to passionate testimony and debate from all sides of the eminent domain issue. The opponents, representing municipal interests, suggested during testimony that they would abide by statutory changes made by the General Assembly but were not in favor of a constitutional amendment.

In response, Coughlin pointed out that recent history indicates that the General Assembly and property owners can not count on the promise of cooperation from municipalities. Legislation prohibiting residency requirements as a condition of employment for municipal employees was challenged in court by the City of Cleveland on the grounds that the Legislature could not regulate what traditionally falls under the “home rule” authority of the municipality. Currently, there are still several court cases pending on the issue.

“Without SJR 1, Ohio will look like a patchwork quilt of private property rights," Coughlin said. "Those living in non-chartered localities would enjoy the protection of objective and uniform blight standards and procedures. Property owners in chartered cities would be held to whatever standard the municipality feels appropriate. That's why SJR 1 is so important and why I will be taking that message around Ohio this year."