Category Archives: Private Property

Public Policy Radar, Private Property, Commentary, The Vote

YES on State Issue 3

This entry is part 3 of 5 in the series 2008 Election Issues

Voting MachineState Issue 3 on the November 4 ballot in Ohio has been given little attention during this tumultuous election season. No one seems to be focusing on what is possibly one of the most important issues the voters will decide next month.

This proposed amendment to the Ohio constitution would secure private property rights of Ohio citizens in relation to the use of ground water or the use of the waters of lakes or watercourses that flow through or are adjacent to their land.

This seems like a pretty inocuous, potentially superfluous, amendment. Historically, property owner rights to water were held in common law. However, given the bend to judicial activism in all levels of the judicial branch, “common” law isn’t common nor is it an adequate protection of fundamental, nigh unalienable, rights.

Therefore, the voters of Ohio have before them an opportunity to protect one of these rights through the adoption of state Issue 3. This language explicitly spells out the water rights of Ohio citizens, and prevents such rights from being impaired or limited by any other provision of the state constitution. This is an important proviso, as it trumps the “home rule” authority which Ohio’s local governments can exercise.

Language in this amendment would subordinate such property rights in the ground water to “the public welfare”, which indicates that such rights can be abrogated, but not without similar eminent domain action and compensatory payment for the loss of such property rights by the owner as currently exists for the land over which the ground water is located (already secured by Article 1, section 19 of the Ohio Constitution).

The protection of these fundamental rights to the productive use and valuation of a basic resource such as ground water is a proactive step to ensure that as Ohio’s government enters into future compacts or agreements with other Great Lakes states or as part of intergovernmental treaties with neighboring countries over water rights, Ohio property owner rights will be protected in our Constitution.

The Institute for Principled Policy encourages Ohio voters to support their water rights, and vote “YES” on State Issue 3.

Education, Public Policy Radar, Private Property

Tom DeWeese On Property Rights

At the Summer 2007 Camp American Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center gave an excellent presentation on property rights and the pivotal role they play in our personal liberties.

In light of recent attempts to rein in the states’ power of eminent domain in light of the US Supreme Court’s failure to enforce the 5th amendment guarantee against the unreasonable seizure of private property, we thought this recording would be an excellent review of the issue. Let us know what you think. Leave a comment below.

Public Policy Radar, Private Property

Update On SB 7; Passed But Changed

Senator Tim Grendel’s bill designed to muzzle the rabid eminent domain dog has passed by both houses of the Ohio legislature but has changed drastically by all accounts. We will be analyzing the passed version for changes but we suspect that local governments and developers have prevailed and gutted the bill of all meaningful protections for individual property rights.

Why do we suspect this, you may be asking? Because there was a House version of this bill as well which was essentially a paper tiger. It provided only minimal protection to the homeowner and unlike the Senate version contained no penalties for governments which attempted to strong arm property owners into selling property or outright seizing property that the government entity might want for such things as revenue enhancement and other vastly expanded seizures allowances for “public uses” which the Supreme Courts’s Kelo decision allowed. The Senate version passed there and went to the House where it was essentially mutilated in committee and passed on the House floor. It was sent back to the Senate for approval and passed in its greatly altered form without hardly a whimper of protest. All done very quickly with nearly no time for property rights activists to analyze the changes. It looks as though the “wheels were greased” by Senate leadership to make local governments happy. Not a good sign.

Very sad, if true. Watch for updates.

Taxation, Public Policy Radar, Private Property

Update on HB 47- Bill To Rein In The Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District Board

Information provided by Marlys J. Barbee, Secretary/Treasurer CITIZENS AGAINST MWCD ASSESSMENT

Policy RadarThe Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District (MWCD) is a state government subdivision which is trying to put a $270 million general tax upon the 2.1 million people of all or part of the following Ohio counties: Ashland, Belmont, Carroll, Coshocton, Guernsey, Harrison, Holmes, Knox, Licking, Morgan, Muskingum, Noble, Richland, Stark, Summit, Tuscarawas, Washington and Wayne.

The main issue is that the MWCD is allowed by the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 6101 to apply an assessment upon the people who receive a direct benefit for their “services”. However, the MWCD are trying to say ALL properties in the 18-county district are receiving a benefit, thus the “assessment” has now become a general tax. There is no vote by the people, no say in how much money is collected, no say as to who spends the money or how the money is spent. This government sub-division must be put back into the box. Their power is out of control.

Attempting to do just that, Rep. Bob Gibbs (R) of Lakeville, Ohio, has introduced legislation which would require a board of directors, not a conservancy court of judges, to perform certain functions under the Conservancy District’s law, and prohibits the levying of an assessment by such a conservancy district on real property that is not directly benefited from the assessment. There are a number of other reasons to support this legislation as we (CAMA — Citizens Against MWCD Assessment) have delved into the workings of MWCD, finding corruption and dishonesty.

This bill, HB 47, in now in the Economic Development and Environment Committee, chaired by Rep. Thom Collier. We need people to contact the committee members, asking their support of HB 47. By going to the web site, www.stopmwcd.org , you can find the names and contact information of all the committee members.

The next hearing on this bill is May 16, and we are hoping a final hearing on May 23 will bring this bill to a vote. Our opponents are using taxpayer’s money to pay lobbyists to convince these lawmakers of their “right” to do what they are doing. We as grassroots workers need the taxpayers themselves to come to our aid to win this battle.

This web site will also give you more detailed information regarding our research and concerns. The support from people all over the state of Ohio is necessary as we look forward to having this bill pass committee and go to the House floor for a vote, then on to the Senate. Most legislators know nothing about what is wrong with this one Conservancy District out of all Conservancy Districts across the state that has gone out of control as a “recreation district”.

Public Policy Radar, Private Property

Senate Bill 7- Eminent Domain Reform

Policy RadarSenator Timothy Grendell (R)-Chesterland has introduced a bill in the Ohio Senate that fundamentally changes the procedures and processes for the seizure of private property by eminent domain in Ohio for the better.

In 2005 the US Supreme Court ruled that eminent domain could be used by federal, state and local governments to obtain property on the behalf of private developers for the purpose of revenue enhancement. They ruled in the infamous Kelo v. City of New London case that this kind of seizure constitutes a public use as allowed for in the US Constitution. Of course, this is exactly the type of seizure that the Constitutional Convention intended to prohibit by limiting them to “public use” as the constitutional debate notes clearly indicate.

Some of the major problems with the current law are-

  • The definitions of what kinds of property, the condition of the property and the locations within given areas to being condemned are VERY vague and VERY favorable to the governing bodies and developers.

  • Properties are often defined as “blighted” under bizarre and unevenly applied criteria like single bathrooms and detached garages.

  • Unlike criminal cases the burden of proof on whether the property meets the already vague definitions lies with the defendent- the property owner

  • Property owners must also prove that the value “offered” for the property is not the fair market value. Sometimes governing bodies will devalue property based on having destroyed surrounding properties.

  • Property owners cannot currently seek attorney’s fees and court costs, even if the property owner prevails in proving that the seizure was improper or an undervalue

  • Business property owners are not currently compensated for loss of business and good will when their business locations are condemned and they are forced to move.

  • The term “public use” is extremely ill-defined under current law. There have been seizures on the basis that there might be some nebulous “future unforeseen need” for a property, or to provide access to privately held areas “under development”

  • There are more than five dozen governing entities which are authorized under current law to begin property condemnation procedures. Most of these are unelected bodies which are not accountable to the voters and taxpayers.

Senate Bill 7 would require the following remedies to these problems with current law-

  • Governing bodies would be required to prove that the property meets specific requirements on use of the property, the property’s condition and location of the property in order to be eligible for condemnation.

  • Specifically defines what constitutes “blight” and requires that 90% of properties in a specifically defined area meet that definition for the neighborhood to be termed “blighted.”

  • Burden of proof on property’s fair market value is shifted to the government body seeking to condemn the property

  • Property owners can seek to recover attorney’s fees and court costs if the condemning entity cannot prove its condemnation and offer are fair and proper, within specific guidelines.

  • Business property owners can seek compensation for loss of business and the good will of customers if forced to change location.

  • Defines “public use” and specifically prohibits seizure for revenue enhancement and on behalf of private developers. Condemnations for redevelopment of tightly defined “blighted areas” is still permitted.

  • This bill would severely restrict who could begin condemnation proceedings and requires that there be a formal procedure for public input on any proposed condemnation.

This bill also requires the Governor to sign off on any condemnation for Ohio’s public universities or highways.

What Can You Do?

We believe that this bill will pass the Ohio Senate fairly easily. We have reason to believe that the bill will have some trouble passing the Ohio House of Representatives in its current robust form. The Ohio House is relying on information gathered by an appointed panel on eminent domain which was appointed to study the problems caused by the Kelo decision. The panel appears to have been constituted with members who may be too friendly to the interests of the governing bodies and developers and their recommendations did not have the kind of “teeth” that appear in Senate Bill 7. We believe these teeth are completely necessary to protect the very foundation of liberty-private property rights.

Please contact Ohio House of Representatives leadership. The Speaker is Jon Hustead, the Speaker Pro Tem is Kevin DeWine, the Majority Floor Leader is Larry Flowers, the Assistant Majority Floor Leader is Jim Carmichael, the Majority Whip is Bill Seitz, the Assistant Majority Whip is Michelle Schneider, the Minority Leader is Joyce Beatty, the Assistant Minority Leader is T. Todd Book, the Minority Whip is Steven L. Driehouse, the Assistant Minority Whip is Fred Strahorn.

Please contact your own State Senator and State Representative and ask them to support SB 7, as well.

Letters are best, phone calls are next. Faxes and emails are far too easy to delete, shred or ignore. It’s hard to ignore a letter from a taxpayer.