Menu

by Amy Beth Graves

A rare burst of applause during a recent Ohio Supreme Court hearing on eminent domain said it all – eminent domain has hit a raw nerve in Ohio and across the country.

On Jan. 11, the court heard arguments from attorneys representing suburban Cincinnati property owners trying to save their homes and the city trying to take the land by eminent domain. The city of Norwood wants the land so a developer can build a $125 million development of offices and shops, which would bring in an estimated $2 million in tax revenue for the city.

An attorney representing Norwood told the justices that the city's officials are the best judges of how the land should be used.

"They've lived there all their lives, they've walked those neighborhoods, they've seen how it has changed," said attorney Tim Burke.

"Couldn't the same argument be made for the homeowners?" asked Justice Maureen O'Connor, causing several spectators to laugh and applaud. The outburst prompted Chief Justice Thomas Moyer to tell the audience to keep quiet or leave.

The case is an emotional one for Carl and Joy Gamble who are fighting to stop their home of 35 years from being demolished. Ohio Farm Bureau Federation was one of 13 state or national groups to file court briefs in support of the Gambles and other property owners. During a rally before the hearing, Mrs. Gamble talked briefly about the couple's struggle to save their home.

''It is our home, what's ours is ours, and it should be that way,'' Mrs. Gamble told about 50 protesters gathered on the steps of the Statehouse. ''It was a home worth fighting for, and we do want it back.''

The case is being closely watched because it is the first to be heard by a state high court since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the infamous "Kelo" case that property could be taken from landowners to advance the economic development efforts of another private entity. The Norwood case started before the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling this summer.

Dana Berliner, an attorney representing Norwood property owners, told Ohio Supreme Court justices that the city of Norwood erred in determining the Gamble's neighborhood was "deteriorating" so it could use eminent domain to obtain the properties.

Berliner said a study showed that the area in question was not blighted but concluded it could deteriorate. That's not enough of a reason for the city of Norwood to allow the properties to be taken by eminent domain, she said.

"The question is whether a city can condemn (an area) for deteriorating issues, which are present in many neighborhoods," Berliner said, pointing out that the city's definition of "deterioration" was too vague and broad.

"As members of this court drive home today, I ask you to think about which of the dozens of neighborhoods you pass would not be deteriorating under Norwood's definition," she told the justices in her summary.

Eminent domain has been an area of concern for Ohio Farm Bureau for about 10 years, said Larry Gearhardt, OFBF's director of local affairs. OFBF was active last year when state eminent domain bills were introduced after the Kelo ruling, which noted that states could strengthen their laws if they wanted to. Ohio Farm Bureau Executive Vice President Jack Fisher testified that the organization gets up to 100 calls a year from members concerned that their properties may be taken by eminent domain.

Late last year, Gov. Bob Taft signed a law that establishes a moratorium until Dec. 31 on the use of eminent domain by any entity if the primary purpose is economic development. It also created a task force to study Ohio's eminent domain laws. OFBF has been told it will be part of the task force, which will recommend updates to state law.

Caption: Protesters stand outside the Statehouse during a Jan. 11 eminent domain rally.