Previously on WMD, we received the views of Jeanette Moll on the subject and I asked that Paul Phillips to get on the record as well. Here is his reply:
“To WMD, I greatly appreciate your interest in my response. I’ll try to provide your readers with a more substantive answer than Ms Molls emotionally appealing but otherwise, uninformative explanation.
You are absolutely correct, eminent domain is a huge issue in our district and is frequently addressed in Ohio Farm Bureau meetings which I attend but have yet to see my opponents. At the annual Tuscarawas meeting, again at which I was the only candidate, a great explanation of Ohio ’s current law was provided. It goes something like this:
In 2005, the US Supreme Court in “Kelo v City of New London ” ruled in a 5-4 decision that economic development is a legitimate public use. This meant that the taking of private property in order to give it to another private entity for economic development is permissible. However, and this is key, the Court noted that individual states were free to enact legislation to be more restrictive.
In 2006, the Ohio Supreme Court, in “City of Norwood vs Horney”, ruled that while economic development in itself, may satisfy the Federal Constitution for public taking, it does not satisfy Ohio’s Constitution.. The Court focused on the term “blighted property” (used as an exception to this rule) which it said was too vague, as it included property that was merely deteriorating.
For your readers, the final piece of recent history is SB 7, signed into law last year which describes the current law in Ohio . A major piece of this bill is that agricultural land can not be deemed “blighted”, which was great news to Ohio farmers.
In summary, highway development, which Ms Moll advocates strongly in other venues, is a sensitive issue for people who value property for more than just it’s economic worth. Ohio property owners need to be wary, but should take comfort in knowing our laws are more sensitive to this issue and the US Supreme Court gives states the ability to act as they see fit.
So, I regret Dave Hall’s decision to base his support on a candidate’s response to a specific local issue in which she played an active role as a participant. I think if he had explored our overall understanding of Ohio Eminent Domain Law as it pertains to all of us, he might have had a different view of the candidates’ relative awareness. Dave Hall is highly respected and I hope he is successful as he’d be a great State Representative. I look forward to future opportunities to work with him on this and other issues.
Very Respectfully,
Paul Phillips
