It’s worth revisiting the oral argument in City of Norwood v. Joseph P. Horney et al, which took place before Ohio’s high court on January 11. One exchange in particular captures the passions stirred by the controversy over eminent domain.Maybe it's time for a constitutional admendment abolishing eminent domain.
Attorney Timothy Burke, arguing for the city, explained that the neighborhood could be taken and handed over to the developer because it was deteriorating owing to a “diversity of ownership”—that is, lots of people owned their own homes. Asked by one of the justices why the city government alone should be allowed to control property ownership, Burke replied, “These are the folks who live there. They’ve lived there all their lives, they’ve walked those neighborhoods, they’ve seen how it has changed. They’ve made a decision.” Another justice interjected, “Counselor, couldn’t the same argument be made for the homeowners?”
The packed courtroom erupted in laughter. And then applause. After the arguments were concluded, one of the justices could be heard over an open mike asking his colleagues, “Is this as big a crowd as we’ve ever had?”
The Court unanimously blocked the city’s efforts to seize the properties.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Kelo decision impact update
The American Thinker reports: