Ohio grapples to define 'blight'

By DAVID ANDERSON
MINUTEMAN MEDIA
A United States Supreme Court decision that government can use the power of eminent domain to take private property in order to promote economic development makes all property owners vulnerable to those who might abuse that power for political or private gain. In its ruling last year concerning the case of Susette Kelo, et al., v. City of New London, Conn., et al., the Supreme Court said it was constitutional to take private property and hand it over for private use by developers in order to economically upgrade property values and increase tax bases.
The Supreme Court ruling enables federal and local governments to condemn any piece of private property and transfer it to another private owner who promises to upgrade it. For example, modest, well-maintained homes could be taken and demolished for redevelopment into upscale condos and office buildings. Farmland could be seized in order to build lucrative subdivisions. The ruling made all private property vulnerable to being taken and given to other private property holders in the name of eminent domain.
This prompted a new law in the Buckeye State imposing a temporary moratorium on forced takings of unblighted private property for economic revitalization. The moratorium is due to expire at the end of this year. The new law also established a task force to study the eminent domain issue and make a final report of its recommendations to the Ohio General Assembly by Aug. 1.
Preliminary indications from the task force point toward using condemnation to take only blighted private property for redevelopment. But task force members don't seem to be able to establish a clear definition for "blight." Ohio's current urban renewal laws permit the use of eminent domain to redevelop blighted and deteriorating areas. At issue in Ohio is whether or not condemnation can be used to demolish and rebuild neighborhoods that aren't blighted or deteriorated but are at risk of deterioration.
Assessing risk
A group of homeowners in the Cincinnati area has brought the "risk of deterioration issue" to the Ohio Supreme Court. They challenged the city of Norwood's attempt to take their modest but well-maintained neighborhood and hand over their properties to a private developer who will demolish them in order to build a shopping mall.
City planners say the mall will enhance the city's tax base.
Norwood urban renewal planners claim the power of eminent domain can be applied to this neighborhood that isn't blighted or deteriorated but is at risk of deterioration.
In their lawsuit, the Norwood homeowners insist the city misused the intent and definition of "deteriorating" to make an illegal land grab. A ruling on the case is still pending. Meanwhile, the task force continues to search for criteria that clearly define "blight" and "deterioration." Rumors that the task force might expand blight and deterioration designations to include private property not itself blighted but located within a rundown neighborhood won't help the homeowners fighting Norwood's shopping mall plan.
It makes sense that the task force doesn't want to restrict eminent domain in ways that impede government's ability to rejuvenate blighted areas. On the other hand, it's crucial that the task force protect the rights of all Ohio citizens and property holders from those who might profiteer from expanded economic powers.
Only a few weeks remain before task force members present their final report to state legislators. Let's hope that they offer a balanced solution to the eminent domain issue before that deadline. And let's hope they bring to the table clearly defined economic takings standards that satisfy the public's need to rebuild truly blighted areas without needlessly destroying the modest and well-kept neighborhoods of average Ohio citizens.
David Anderson is a former public radio news producer and reporter in Columbus. Distributed by Minuteman-Media.org.