LICKING COUNTY, Ohio — Eminent domain is the legal taking of private property assuming the entity taking the land can prove it’s for the public good and compensates the property owner fairly.
In 2016, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that eminent domain cannot be used solely for economic development. According to the Institute of Justice, “Ohio’s eminent domain law continues to allow a combination of subjective factors (such as age and obsolescence, dilapidation and deterioration, excessive density, faulty lot or street layout) to be used by condemning authorities to take property for private gain.”
Ohio has a long history of using eminent domain for land acquisition.
In 1960, the Akron Innerbelt was designed by the Ohio Department of Transportation to connect downtown with the growing suburbs. Highway planners chose a route that cut straight through a predominantly Black community and wiped out more than 100 businesses and more than 700 homes.
The project was never completed and became a “highway to nowhere”.
In 2017, ODOT began to decommission the highway.
In December 2023, the city apologized and is now working on a project to reconnect the community, but the damage was done.
Currently, a dispute regarding Mill Creek Metropolitan Park District’s right to take land from private property owner in Mahoning County continues to weave its way through the courts after it began in 1993.
A property owner argued a proposed bike path would cut off six acres on one side of her property which has been in the family for 100 years.
The Mahoning County Common Pleas Court found the park district’s petition to take the property for a bike path was authorized.
An appeal was made in the Seventh District Court of Appeals. That court ruled the park didn’t have the power to take the property.
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled last year that the case be returned to the trial court.
In Licking County there’s a property fight of another kind. It’s believed to be the longest land trust dispute in county history.
It involves a 177-acre plot on Dutch Lane.
For more than six decades, no one wanted to develop it. The land was rented as farmland. It’s controlled by a trust. When Intel announced it was moving nearby, the land suddenly became valuable.
In March, Licking Rural Electrification, also known as The Energy Cooperative, needed land for a substation. When the trust that controlled the property disputed the land value, the utility took them to court using eminent domain and won. The trust would get in excess of $400,000 for four acres of land.
But the land was never to be sold. It was supposed to be donated, according to the Will of Perry L. Miles dated in September 1961.
Miles was no average Licking County resident. His teenage years were spent here and he would go on to become Brigadier General Perry Miles. His decorated career involved a purple heart, distinguished service cross, distinguished service medal, silver star and more.
“He served with Douglas McArthur. He had the first black infantry unit in the United States,” says Connie Ryan one of the few living descendants of General Miles.
Miles’ will states the property should be “preserved as the Longwell-Miles Memorial Estate for the purposes of” religious, educational, and recreational good and benefit to the resident of Johnstown, Liberty Township and surrounding communities.”
Ryan feels that the spirit of the will has been violated.
The descendants accuse the trust of mismanagement, of failing to carry out this war veteran’s wishes by maintaining the home on the property that he wanted to turn into a museum to showcase his war memorabilia.
10TV sent an email to the lawyer of the trust for comment, but he declined.
The descendants learned the trust allowed most of the belongings to be sold at auction.
“The roof is leaking, there are broken windows. Feces, urine. We couldn't sleep for days. It made us so sick we went upstairs. His uniform was laying on the floor with his medals still on the uniform with raccoon poop. It was so disgusting,” says Ryan.
When the family learned the trust was in talks to give the property to the Licking Park District to build ball fields and trails, another controversy erupted.
“The trust came to the Park District and said would you be interested in receiving it and we said yes and developed a plan for it,” said Jim Kiracofe, the board chairman for Licking Park District.
The descendants got wind of the idea and contacted the Johnstown-Monroe School District asking them to step in.
“That property should go to the village of Johnstown and Liberty Township and the surrounding area. The will said the land was not be sold,” says Ryan.
The school district says it wants to use the remaining land to build a school, ballfields, and a museum to honor General Miles.
“We believe it's best in our hands. We must capture what the essence of Johnstown is. We need to respect our legacy we need to respect the military history of this town,” said Superintendent of Johnstown-Monroe School District Phillip Wagner.
“It’s a big mess,” says Kiracofe.
The Ohio Attorney General submitted a court brief stating the Johnstown group has no legal standing.
The battle over General Miles’ property raises questions about the protection of property rights.
If his will couldn’t stop the taking of a portion of his land, what chances do other property owners have?
Columbus attorney Joe Miller specializes in eminent domain cases and has won cases to stop it from happening.
“You can’t protect yourself from the actual act of eminent domain. What you can do is contest the necessity or the public purpose,” he says.
That means proving the taker of the land isn’t taking property for the public good.
Even Ohio’s Farmland Preservation Act, designed to preserve farmland, isn’t a safe harbor.
According to the state’s website, “…an agricultural easement may be extinguished by eminent domain proceedings under applicable state or federal law."
While Ohio’s eminent domain law says homeowners must be given fair and just compensation for the taking of their land, Miller says it’s not a given.
“Local government, and ODOT and other utilities you’d be surprised don’t always treat landowners fairly,” he says.
How unfairly?
We found a 2021 case in Washington County, Ohio. Ohio power tried to use eminent domain to take private property for transmission lines.
When it came to compensating the property owner, the utility admitted it came with a number based on “who the property attorneys are.” Translation, if you don’t have an attorney you may get low balled.
“If you are represented by counsel, you are going to be treated more fairly,” said Miller.
As more development moves into Licking and Delaware counties, homeowners whose land is in the path of progress may find themselves with an offer they can’t refuse. Miller says, “Be suspicious. Think about how your property is being devalued because of the project."
A bill before in the Ohio legislature is looking closely at eminent domain.
Substitute House Bill 64 is sponsored by Representative Rodney Creech, (R-West Alexandria) and Rep. Darrell Kick, (R-Loudonville).
“As a large landowner in Holmes County property rights are important to me. With Intel coming to Licking County, which I represent, what I’m trying to do is help landowners have a little more say in what happens,” said Kick.
The bill has bipartisan support.
Several organizations including the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, City of Grandview Heights, the Ohio to Erie Trail Fund, the Ohio Parks and Recreation Association and AEP, oppose the bill.
Delaware County Commissioners are also against it. In a letter opposing the bill, the commissioners said if passed it would “increase litigation and costs for all parties involved and make it “unduly burdensome to proceed with necessary public improvement project. A report by the Castle Coalition reviewed each state’s use of eminent domain. Ohio received a B- grade.
A previous version of the bill excluded recreational trails from the definition of “public use,” meaning that property could not be taken by a government agency for recreational trails. According to the Ohio Farm Bureau, “The current version of the bill narrows this language, allowing for a taking for the purpose of creating recreational trails, but not in cases where the property is not adjacent to a public road and where the property’s primary use will be for a recreational trail.”
Other changes to the original bill involve payments. In the original version of the bill, a government entity would not have been allowed to reduce an offer made to purchase property before proceedings commenced if the reduction was based on hard-to-discover issues with the property.
The current version would exclude this provision, restoring an agency’s authority to reduce offers. The current version of the bill would exclude this provision, restoring an agency’s authority to reduce offers. Substitute House Bill 64 would also make changes to compensation and awards landowners could receive if the issue goes to court. The state of Michigan already has this protection in place.
In Michigan, condemning agencies are required by statute to reimburse property owners for certain fees and costs: First, when a property owner successfully challenges the condemning agency’s right to acquire the property, the court “shall order” the agency to reimburse the owner for the reasonable attorney fees and other expenses incurred in defending against the improper acquisition.