Eminent Domain Task Force Status Update

Kimberly Brown
Bricker & Eckler LLP
May 2006

Read the Task Force Report

Senate Bill 167, which placed a 14-month moratorium on the use of eminent domain to acquire private property for purely economic development purposes in response to Kelo v. City of New London (2005), 125 S. Ct. 2655, also established a task force to hold public hearings and make recommendations to the General Assembly on potential changes to eminent domain law in Ohio. The Task Force recently issued its initial report and continues to consider what, if any, procedural changes should be recommended to the General Assembly.

The Legislative Task Force to Study Eminent Domain and its Use and Application in the State of Ohio consists of 25 members appointed either jointly by the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House, or by the Attorney General of the State of Ohio, the Governor of the State of Ohio, the Director of the Department of Development, or the Director of the Department of Transportation. The Task Force held its first meeting on February 16, 2006 and the “First Report of the Task Force to Study Eminent Domain” was issued on March 31, 2006.

The Task Force heard from a variety of people representing different sides of the debate prior to issuing its First Report. Specifically, representatives of municipal government, urban planning, and economic development organizations, as well as individuals who were adversely impacted by what they felt was the misuse or abuse of eminent domain, private property rights advocates, representatives of small businesses and experts on the legal, historical, and academic aspects of eminent domain, all made presentations to the Task Force. Recommendations made to the Task Force ranged from taking minimal or no action in response to Kelo, passing a constitutional amendment to prohibit all takings of unblighted private property when the taking will ultimately result in the property being vested in another private owner and establishing a clear, statewide standard of blight.

The Task Force considered three basic options for recommendations in its First Report: take minimal or no action, pursue procedural changes, and pursue policy changes. The Task Force found that a majority of the Task Force supports the concepts of policy and procedural changes in some form. While many members of the Task Force evidently support a uniform, statewide standard of blight, many other members believe that local communities need the flexibility to address issues of blight, which may vary from community to community. Further, a major difference of opinion apparently exists among members of the Task Force regarding how blight should be defined, whether a percentage of blight should be defined, and if so, what the percentage should be. Accordingly, the Task Force’s First Report recommends that “the General Assembly consider establishing a statewide standard of blight and that any use of eminent domain for purposes of economic development or urban renewal is subject to a minimum standard of that definition of blight in the area to be redeveloped.” The Task Force further recommends, “that a number of procedural changes be considered in the eminent domain process.”

The Task Force is to consider additional potential recommendations by August 1, 2006. Notably, the Task Force unanimously agreed that neither SJR 6 nor HJR 10, two proposed constitutional amendments, as written, are necessary or appropriate to protect private property rights in Ohio.

See July 2007 update to this article