Paul,
You’re too quick for me. I thought of blogging on the issue first though–I thought of it before you were even born.
Anyway,
this is a big case, even though it applies only to Ohio–hopefully
other states will pay attention. It is important not only because
the court unanimously rejected the economic development arguments
(despite Kelo), but also because it makes it very clear that a vague
blight/urban redevelopment law is unconstitutional (at least the vague
provisions).
BTW: Kelo is a federal case based on the
U.S. Constitution–states, as Ohio just did, can say that Kelo is fine
and dandy but our state actually cares about property rights and our
citizens, and we won’t allow property to be seized for economic
development. Kelo is the minimum amount of rights (the floor)
states must provide, states always can provide greater rights.
NC’s urban redevelopment law was amended this session in one of the
only (maybe only) smart moves in recent memory. This was a
critical
development for property rights–only property that is a “blighted
parcel” can be taken. I haven’t jumped up and down yet because
the language of the statute is still a little muddled, but it likely
removes vague provisions such as the government being able to take
property if it might become blighted.
However, there is a lot
more to do in NC on property rights. For example, the Ohio
Supreme Court held that “heightened scrutiny” must apply when courts
look at how the government uses eminent domain. NC courts have,
for the most part, given “shortened scrutiny” (my term) to the use of
eminent domain. It would be nice if NC actually would stop giving
so much deference to local officials when they seize someone’s
property. The government should have the burden of proof to show
that taking a property is necessary and no other viable alternative
exists.
