Page 1 of 1
Ohio Court Blocks Eminent Domain Project
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:29 am
by Martrae
Jul 26, 10:28 AM (ET)
By JULIE CARR SMYTH
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - The Ohio Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Wednesday that a Cincinnati suburb cannot take private property by eminent domain for a $125 million project of offices, shops and restaurants.
The case was the first challenge of property rights laws to reach a state high court since the U.S. Supreme Court last summer allowed municipalities to seize homes for use by a private developer.
The case involves the city of Norwood, which used its power of eminent domain to seize properties holding out against private development in an area considered to be deteriorating.
The court found that economic development isn't a sufficient reason under the state constitution to justify taking homes.
In the ruling, Justice Maureen O'Connor said cities may consider economic benefits but that courts deciding such cases in the future must "apply heightened scrutiny" to assure private citizens' property rights.
"For the individual property owner, the appropriation is not simply the seizure of a house," she wrote. "It is the taking of a home - the place where ancestors toiled, where families were raised, where memories were made,"
Targeting property because it is in a deteriorating area also is unconstitutional because the term is too vague and requires speculation, the court found.
O'Connor wrote that the court attempted in its decision to balance "two competing interests of great import in American democracy: the individual's rights in the possession and security of property, and the sovereign's power to take private property for the benefit of the community."
Good to see at least one state get it right.
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:33 am
by Gargamellow
It';s about fucking time someone with power spoke up. Thanks for this post. ED is a perfect example of just how "free" we are not.
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:41 am
by Zanchief
What's the point of having the law if they're just going to ignore it?
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:54 am
by Gargamellow
The point is that the law is unfair and unethical.
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:50 am
by Lueyen
Zanchief wrote:What's the point of having the law if they're just going to ignore it?
I don't understand what law it is you feel is being ignored here Zanchief?
The ruling made by SCOTUS last year left it for the states to decide if eminent domain encompassed more then just infrastructure and trancended to economic development.
As a side note, Oregon is putting the decision to the people of the state, as it's going to be on the ballot next time around, glad I wrote my state and federal representatives on that one 8D.
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:02 pm
by Donnel
Emminent domain for non-infrastructure reasons is a trampling of the right to own property.
What's scary is that around here we have high city officials advocating ED vs. Churches since "Churches don't contribute property tax revenue."
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:07 pm
by Arlos
Honestly, churches should be taxed the same as any other business. Why should televangelists be entitled to tax-free income? Not to mention, if churches want to get involved with politics now (see: The Christian Coalition, Pat Robertson, Falwell & his Moral Majority, etc.), they should be forced to pay for the privilage
-Arlos
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:08 pm
by Zanchief
arlos wrote:Honestly, churches should be taxed the same as any other business. Why should televangelists be entitled to tax-free income? Not to mention, if churches want to get involved with politics now (see: The Christian Coalition, Pat Robertson, Falwell & his Moral Majority, etc.), they should be forced to pay for the privilage
-Arlos
Jesus, duh.
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:08 pm
by Donnel
Churches =! televangelists
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:17 pm
by Donnel
So they should tax the ACLU Foundation as well then right?
A non-profit tax deductible contribution receiver?
And for example, the Christian Coalition is not a church, it's a 501(c)(4) civic organization. Fully legal to do all the work it does and maintain it's status.
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:41 pm
by Arlos
Technically, televangelists are representatives for Churches. They're even technically Christian.
So, why SHOULD churches be exempt from taxes? Especially now that they're starting to spend money for political purposes?
-Arlos
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:54 pm
by Donnel
Donnel wrote:So they should tax the ACLU Foundation as well then right?
A non-profit tax deductible contribution receiver?
And for example, the Christian Coalition is not a church, it's a 501(c)(4) civic organization. Fully legal to do all the work it does and maintain it's status.
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:58 pm
by Martrae
See, this is why religion is so misunderstood. Most actual churches are too busy paying the bills, running special programs for their members and sending off missionaries to worry about politics.
Televangelists are usually NOT affiliated with any 'real' church, other than the one set up for their TV show.
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 1:29 pm
by Captain Insano
arlos wrote:Honestly, churches should be taxed the same as any other business. Why should televangelists be entitled to tax-free income? Not to mention, if churches want to get involved with politics now (see: The Christian Coalition, Pat Robertson, Falwell & his Moral Majority, etc.), they should be forced to pay for the privilage
-Arlos
I agree 100 percent. Jesus needs to get audited by the IRS, ASAP.
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:07 pm
by Diekan
arlos wrote:Honestly, churches should be taxed the same as any other business. Why should televangelists be entitled to tax-free income? Not to mention, if churches want to get involved with politics now (see: The Christian Coalition, Pat Robertson, Falwell & his Moral Majority, etc.), they should be forced to pay for the privilage
-Arlos
So.... you want to tax them, but keep them out of government? Glad to see the Seperation of Church and State only applies where money isn't concerned.
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:32 pm
by Spazz
They are involved and are totally not goin away might as well tax em some and try to slow that bullshit down.
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:32 pm
by The Kizzy
Zanchief wrote:What's the point of having the law if they're just going to ignore it?
Ask Bush
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:34 pm
by Donnel
spazz wrote:They are involved and are totally not goin away might as well tax em some and try to slow that bullshit down.
If you tax em then you can't "slow that bullshit down" it would then be their right.
Note that we are all talking about tax exempt organizations taht are allowed to be political so it's a moot point.
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 5:09 pm
by Yamori
I think churches should be held financially accountable in the same way as nonprofit charities are.
Churches (or more specifically: official organizations) should need to keep books, and if the cashflow is not going into the organization's overhead (ie: building upkeep, repairs, ect) or back into the church via programs or the like (ie: just going into someone's pocket), I don't see a reason why they should be exempt from taxes.
Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 7:13 am
by Minrott
Huh. I thought that's actually how it did work.
Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 7:47 am
by Donnel
It is. At least in the churches I've been affilliated with.
Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:06 am
by Darcler
Donnel wrote:It is. At least in the churches I've been affilliated with.
Same.
Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:17 am
by Phlegm
Most the churches that abuse the tax law are ministries owned and operated by televangelists. They all have big ass mansions, vacation homes, retreats, airplanes, helicopters, and expensive cars. I guess they need all these luxuries to spread the teachings of Jesus.
Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 7:23 pm
by Phlegm
Darcler wrote:Donnel wrote:It is. At least in the churches I've been affilliated with.
Same.
Then again you get someone like this guy:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/28/priest ... index.html