Response from: Mike (Check me out!)

Well, maybe I'll get this thing started. If it turns I'm the only one voting, I'll have to change tack. My vote goes for: Irshad Manji

Response from: Patricia H. Lee

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.

Response from: Lebale (Check me out!)

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.