| By Jill Miller Zimon - Feb 19th, 2007 at 12:09 pm EST |
| Also listed in: AssemblyWatch | CourtWatch |
Categories: Civil Liberties/Privacy, Economic Fairness and Security, Honest and Ethical Government, Environment and Conservation, Civil Rights and Equality, Property Rights
Before providing a link to the GOP announcement about this legislation, I want to emphasize that, for Ohio-oriented news that I know I don't usually see elsewhere first, please be sure you're reading Bill Sloat's The Daily Bellwether. Fisk it like you might fisk any other blog (he took the buyout from the PD last fall), but absolutely don't miss it if you want to see original and primary source blogging. Agree or disagree with what he has there, but, again, he is blogging about Ohio-related stories that others aren't.
And so it was that I read this post of Bill's and then went to the GOP announcement to find this:On Tuesday [tomorrow], [State Senator, R-Cuyahoga Falls, Kevin] Coughlin will introduce a resolution that would place the issue of eminent domain before voters statewide. He hopes that in doing so, Ohioans will support an amendment to the constitution that would ensure the state has the authority it needs to govern the use of eminent domain. The bill Senator [Tim] Grendell [R-Chesterland] will sponsor is intended to be the vehicle by which the General Assembly will establish the uniform standards to apply statewide.
Coughlin noted that because of the home-rule provision in the constitution, municipalities set their own standards for eminent domain proceedings and there is no consistency for property owners between one community and the next.
“I believe Ohio voters want the opportunity to support private property rights at the ballot box,” Coughlin said. “Eminent domain should be used sparingly and only when it benefits the public as a whole. Our laws should reflect that and leave no wiggle room for government to abuse its power.”
“From Lake Erie to the Ohio River, all Ohioans deserve to have their private property rights respected and protected,” Grendell said.
Okay - so, standardization is becoming a four-letter word, yes? Or is it? Sometimes it's hard to figure out. Does it depend on how the legislation is drafted and how it looks after it goes through committee and amendments and reconciliation between both houses of the legislature?
Or are we firmly against anything that erodes home rule?
I'm asking because I'm not sure. I'd like to know more about how people feel about this topic. What do we believe actually would be best, if we can agree on common interests - which, the way Coughlin is couching this legislation, seems to be what he's trying to appeal to?
Comments are closed for this post.
This issue, eminent domain, strikes me as something that could apply evenly across the state assuming, of course, it's written well and with the perspective of property owners.
Still, I'd like to see the final language before signing on. I trust little Coughlin has his hands in.
Not that the effort won't have merit or any merit. I don't know. (Have I said that enough?)
But again, they're looking to the constitution - to change it - as regards eminent domain. Given the crap we've been given lately that are supposed to be amendments to the constitution, I can't imagine what the piece of work will look like.