February 20, 2007 Phone: (614) 466-2994
Representative Bob Gibbs Introduces Eminent Domain Legislation
COLUMBUS – State Representative Bob Gibbs (R-Lakeville) today introduced House Bill 5, legislation addressing the issue of eminent domain in Ohio. The bill was introduced today as part of a package of priority bills for the Ohio House.
“The use of eminent domain by local governments as a development tool is a major issue in the state of Ohio,” Rep. Gibbs said. “This legislation will help establish consistent, statewide procedures for the use of eminent domain while at the same time protecting the rights of Ohio landowners.”
Eminent domain has become an issue of interest in Ohio with the highly publicized case of City of Norwood v. Horney et al. The case involved a challenge by several homeowners to the City of Norwood’s eminent domain action taking possession of their property in order to make way for two new city-owned parking garages and a large, privately-owned commercial development expected to create jobs and increase local tax revenues.
House Bill 5 will implement the recommendations made by the Eminent Domain Task
Force to help ensure Ohio law addresses the eminent domain clearly lays out the rights of landowners.
The task force was established by House Bill 331, introduced by Gibbs in the 126th General Assembly. A few of the task force recommendations to be included in the legislation include:
 | Public input: public agencies should be required to have a process for allowing public input before exercising power of eminent domain. |
| Sharing of appraisals: government agencies should be required to disclose the full appraisal with the landowner at the time of making their first offer for land. |
| Right to repurchase: if a project is abandoned in an early phase before transfer of title, a landowner should have the right to repurchase/right of first refusal. |
| Burden of proof: the legislature should consider establishing an initial presumption that a government’s necessity finding is valid. If the landowner makes a showing that the appropriation does not meet the necessity or public use requirement, the burden shifts to the government to prove necessity by a preponderance of the evidence. |
| Relocation/moving expenses: landowners should be compensated for actual moving and relocation expenses and services in all types of takings. |
| Revenue generation: Ohio should go on record as forbidding the use of eminent domain solely for revenue generation purposes and state that an increase in tax revenues as a result of a take is not a basis for a finding of blight (consistent with Norwood). |
| Definition of blight: The definition of blight should be rewritten and tightened to prevent eminent domain abuse that could occur under the current statutory definition. |
House Bill 5 has been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. Hearings on the bill will begin in the coming weeks