The Ohio Supreme Court strikes a major blow for property rights

The Weekly Standard reports:

the Buckeye State did just that. In a unanimous 7-0 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in favor of Norwood property owners who were challenging the confiscation of their land through eminent domain. (Norwood is a suburb surrounded by Cincinnati.) It marked the first eminent-domain ruling by a state supreme court since Kelo, and will surely set a precedent for other states wrangling over this issue. "It gives guidance to courts for the future," says Dana Berliner, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, which litigated the case in behalf of the appellants.

The decision in Norwood v. Horney was an amalgam of several rulings, all of which laid out benchmarks for judging the legality of property seizures.

First: The Ohio High Court implicitly rejected the rationale behind Kelo. "Although economic factors may be considered in determining whether private property may be appropriated," wrote Justice Maureen O'Connor, "the fact that the appropriation would provide an economic benefit to the government and community, standing alone, does not satisfy the public-use requirement of Section 19,
Article I of the Ohio Constitution." In Norwood, the demolition of property was to make room for a sprawling, $125-million project known as Rookwood Exchange, which would include office space, luxury condos, and retail stores.

Second: The court called for "heightened scrutiny when reviewing statutes that regulate the use of eminent-domain powers." The city of Norwood had, on the basis of a study funded by Rookwood Partners, the private developer, declared the relevant neighborhood to be "blighted" and "deteriorating." A trial court later ruled that Norwood had abused its discretion in finding the location "blighted" but was correct to deem it "deteriorating." The "deteriorating" standard was considered sufficient to trigger the city's eminent-domain power.

The Ohio Supreme Court said this was rubbish. "We find that Norwood's use of 'deteriorating area' as a standard for appropriation is void for vagueness," wrote Justice O'Connor. "We further hold that the use of the term 'deteriorating area' as a standard for a taking is unconstitutional because the term inherently incorporates speculation as to the future condition of the property to be appropriated rather than the condition of the property at the time of the taking."

Eminent Domain is just organized theft on a grand scale.