Filed in archive
Social Enterprise
by Editor on April 17, 2006

Okay, so I only had two people vote in our first Robin Hood Awards, and they each voted for two different people. An appalling turnout, or simply a statistical dead tie, it's your call. We are just getting underway here, so bare with me. Since this is my blog and I sort of make the rules (other than the ones imposed by the ruthless wizards that run Creative Weblogging) I'll do something different this time around and make a call on that tie in the last vote between Jamie Oliver and Helmy Abouleish and go with Oliver since he was on CBS's 60 Minutes last night. So that means Oliver goes on to this, not yet second, round.
For those not familiar with what I'm doing here, the Robin Hood Awards are something I came up with last week to highlight social entrepreneurs that I find in my scavenging. What I ask is for people to write the name of the social entrepreneur they'd like to vote for in the comment section below. Whoever gets the most votes moves on to the next week and into the next round. I'm not really sure how this will work down the line, but maybe I'll tally up those with the most votes from each week, as well as ones who have advanced into a next round, and have a vote for the Audeamus Social Entrepreneur. Other ideas are always welcome.
So, to this week's, not yet second, still not first round awards ...
*From last week, advancing on is Jamie Oliver for his work training unemployed teens at his restaurant Fifteen and for tackling the poor nutritional standards of British school lunches. See this story at Spiked and also the 60 Minutes piece I caught from last night.
*Second this week is John Hope Bryant, founder of Operation Hope, who's social entrepreneurship works to empower low-wealth communities largely through banking education initiatives across the United States. More on Bryant at the weblog Cobb or Bryant's own blog as well.
*Next is Irshad Manji, author and reformer called "Osama Bin Laden's worst nightmare" by the New York Times. Manji has set up something called Project Ijtihad, an initiative to develop the world's first leadership network for reform-minded Muslims. This from the website:
Ijtihad (pronounced "ij-tee-had") is Islam's lost tradition of independent thinking. In the early centuries of Islam, thanks to the spirit of ijtihad, 135 schools of thought thrived. Inspired by ijtihad, Muslims gave the world inventions from the astrolabe to the university. So much of we consider "western" pop culture came from Muslims: the guitar, mocha coffee, even the ultra-Spanish expression "Ole!" (which has its root in the Arabic word for God, "Allah").
*Fourth on my list this week is Charles Best, CEO and Founder of DonorsChoose and Spring 'Social Entrepreneur in Residence' at Pace University's Wilson Center for Social Entrepreneurship. DonorsChoose helps individual donors attach themselves to specific public schools and programs through project proposals that teachers submit and which online 'citizen philanthropists' can fund. Find out a lot more here at the 4Nonprofits blog.
*Next is Summer Rayne Oakes, a model and social entrepreneur who has broken out into sustainable eco-fashion trends. More here at the Lazy Environmentalist.
*Our final SE up for voting this week is Liz Green who, in 2000, formed the 'Potluck Society,' an employment initiative for residents of the Downtown Eastside district of Vancouver, British Columbia. At her Potluck Cafe, Green helps provide training and employment for up to ten former "at-risk" residents of the area, many who are considered "unemployable" because of drug and mental health issues. More on Green here at Global National.
All right. That's it for this week. Be sure to vote and when you do write the name of the person you are voting for in the comment section below.
Permalink: The Robin Hood Awards Round #1.5
Tags:
social
entrepreneurs
Trackback: http://publish.creative-weblogging.com/publish/mt-tb.pl/20278
Mr Wong
Vote for The Robin Hood Awards Round #1.5:
|
Rating: 7.75 out of 4 vote(s) cast.
|
Response from:
Mike
(04/19/06 7:14pm)
Response from:
Patricia H. Lee
(08/05/06 6:29pm)
Press Release
OHIO SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN THE TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY IN AN AREA PURPORTED TO BE “DETERIORATING”
UNDER SECTION 19, ARTICLE 1 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION
WASHINGTON, DC, AUGUST 4, 2006
With trends showing an alarming rate of homes and small business property taken by state actors for assorted public or private benefits, on July 26, 2006, the Ohio Supreme Court refused to uphold two such eminent domain actions.
In the historic opinion, Norwood v. Horney, _Ohio St.3d____, 2006-Ohio-3799 --- City of Norwood, Appellee, v. Horney et al., Appellants (Nos. 2005-0227 and 2005-0228) and City of Norwood, Appellee, v. Gamble et al., Appellants, (Nos. 2005-1210 and 2005-1211), Judge O’Connor of the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the two lower court cases holding that “although economic factors may be considered in determining whether private property may be appropriated, the fact that the appropriation would provide an economic benefit to the government and community, standing alone, does not satisfy the public-use requirement of Section 19, Article 1 of the Ohio Constitution.”
The Court in a fifty-eight (58) page opinion went on to apply heightened scrutiny when reviewing statutes that regulate the use of eminent-domain powers; considered the use of ‘deteriorating area’ as a standard for determining whether private property is subject to appropriation void for vagueness and inherently speculative. Furthermore, the Court severed, as unconstitutional, provision R.C. 163.19 from the rest of the statute. This provision prohibited a court from stopping the taking and use of property appropriated by a government after the compensation for the property had been deposited with the court, but prior to appellate review.
“We are thrilled that the Ohio Supreme Court has critically reviewed and decisively rejected provisions of this draconian eminent domain statute,” says Patricia H. Lee, National Institute for Urban Entrepreneurship, President. “No-one should lose their home or business because they happen to be located in a ‘deteriorating area.’ This case stops a reverse Robin Hood approach to private property ownership.”
O’Melveny & Myers, L.L.P., Brian P. Brooks, and Garrett W. Wotkyns, urged reversal of the two lower court actions on behalf of amici curiae Ohio Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and National Institute for Urban Entrepreneurship.
About the National Institute for Urban Entrepreneurship
The National Institute for Urban Entrepreneurship is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization which partners with universities, nonprofits, business, community organizations, and individuals to advance entrepreneurship among disadvantaged groups. NIUE was founded in 2003 by attorney Patricia H. Lee, Esq. to be an advocate and catalyst for strategies to create a culture of entrepreneurship, innovation and private sector economic growth in urban communities. More information about NIUE is available at www.ni-ue.org.
OHIO SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN THE TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY IN AN AREA PURPORTED TO BE “DETERIORATING”
UNDER SECTION 19, ARTICLE 1 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION
WASHINGTON, DC, AUGUST 4, 2006
With trends showing an alarming rate of homes and small business property taken by state actors for assorted public or private benefits, on July 26, 2006, the Ohio Supreme Court refused to uphold two such eminent domain actions.
In the historic opinion, Norwood v. Horney, _Ohio St.3d____, 2006-Ohio-3799 --- City of Norwood, Appellee, v. Horney et al., Appellants (Nos. 2005-0227 and 2005-0228) and City of Norwood, Appellee, v. Gamble et al., Appellants, (Nos. 2005-1210 and 2005-1211), Judge O’Connor of the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the two lower court cases holding that “although economic factors may be considered in determining whether private property may be appropriated, the fact that the appropriation would provide an economic benefit to the government and community, standing alone, does not satisfy the public-use requirement of Section 19, Article 1 of the Ohio Constitution.”
The Court in a fifty-eight (58) page opinion went on to apply heightened scrutiny when reviewing statutes that regulate the use of eminent-domain powers; considered the use of ‘deteriorating area’ as a standard for determining whether private property is subject to appropriation void for vagueness and inherently speculative. Furthermore, the Court severed, as unconstitutional, provision R.C. 163.19 from the rest of the statute. This provision prohibited a court from stopping the taking and use of property appropriated by a government after the compensation for the property had been deposited with the court, but prior to appellate review.
“We are thrilled that the Ohio Supreme Court has critically reviewed and decisively rejected provisions of this draconian eminent domain statute,” says Patricia H. Lee, National Institute for Urban Entrepreneurship, President. “No-one should lose their home or business because they happen to be located in a ‘deteriorating area.’ This case stops a reverse Robin Hood approach to private property ownership.”
O’Melveny & Myers, L.L.P., Brian P. Brooks, and Garrett W. Wotkyns, urged reversal of the two lower court actions on behalf of amici curiae Ohio Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and National Institute for Urban Entrepreneurship.
About the National Institute for Urban Entrepreneurship
The National Institute for Urban Entrepreneurship is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization which partners with universities, nonprofits, business, community organizations, and individuals to advance entrepreneurship among disadvantaged groups. NIUE was founded in 2003 by attorney Patricia H. Lee, Esq. to be an advocate and catalyst for strategies to create a culture of entrepreneurship, innovation and private sector economic growth in urban communities. More information about NIUE is available at www.ni-ue.org.
Response from:
Lebale
(10/29/06 1:11pm)
This provision prohibited a court from stopping the taking and use of property appropriated by a government after the compensation for the property had been deposited with the court, but prior to appellate review.
Subscribe
Use the search to look for other interesting posts
| RSS | See all blog subscribe options |
|
What is RSS? | |
| Yahoo! |
|
| Addthis |
|
| Bloglines |
|
| Newsletter | |
| Follow us on Twitter! |
















My vote goes for: Irshad Manji