All Politics are local

It's our job to protect private property rights

by Larry Metzger, CEO
Columbus Board of REALTORS®

Without a doubt one of the most important responsibilities of REALTORS® and the leadership and staff of the Columbus Board of REALTORS®, the Ohio Association of REALTORS® and the National Associations of REALTORS® is to protect, defend and preserve

Private Property Rights. Why? Because property rights underlie all other freedoms. Private Property Rights were viewed so basic to the freedoms created by our United States Constitution that in 1791 our forefathers amended it by creating the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) and included in the 5th amendment language to protect these rights and assure us that we cannot be deprived of our property without due process of law; nor can our property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Today property rights are still important to the American people. The right to own what you have created, built, purchased or even been given as a gift -- knowing that the government cannot take it from you except under stringent legal procedures -- provides material security that goes hand in hand with less tangible freedoms, such as speech and privacy.

Even though most Americans recognize the importance of Private Property Rights, we see attempts almost daily to take or erode those rights.

The Supreme Court of the United States has had an excellent history of ruling in the favor of private property rights, but in 2005 even they "took a step backwards" to reduce them. Ruling in favor of an eminent domain case (Kelo vs. City of New London) the Court ruled that local governments have the right to seize property for private economic development purposes. Although the decision narrowed the private property protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution, it also recognized that individual states could enact more stringent laws on the use of eminent domain for such purposes.

To date, more than twenty states have enacted legislation and/or constitutional amendments that either place a moratorium or prohibit on the use of eminent domain for private economic development purposes.

The state of Ohio has enacted a moratorium on any attempts to seize properties using the procedure. The legislature is currently considering legislation to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot prohibiting such use takings.

Within the last year, at least two local communities have enacted or are considering "overlays" over certain neighborhoods that would restrict the use of private property for purposes of conserving certain neighborhood characteristics or historic designations.

On January 28, 2008 the city of Columbus passed "Conservation Neighborhoods" legislation that would allow residents to designate their neighborhood as having certain distinguishing characteristics and create a procedure that could limit demolition or alteration of the real estate, rights previously enjoyed by the property owner.

The stated objectives of the legislation are:

"To promote and conserve the unique, identifying, and contributing built environment and social attributes of the neighborhoods; to stabilize the property values of neighborhoods, business district, and real property by respecting the culture, architecture, and contest of their build neighborhood; to enhance the character and diversity of neighborhoods by permitting ready clearance for certain alterations which are consistent with, and do not destroy, the unique built environmental characteristics . . ."

The city of Upper Arlington is currently considering Historic Preservation Legislation that will regulate the total or substantial demolition of more than 940 contributing structures within the Historic District; again, restricting (taking) rights that the property owners have always had. The Upper Arlington city council is currently forming a task force to study the proposed legislation.

Proponents of the "overlay restrictions" of neighborhood conservation or historic preservation legislation will argue that the impact is positive and will increase property values and therefore wealth. They argue that the net effect is an increase in value.

Yet the opponents argue that the impact is negative. They argue that the increase will raise property assessments for real estate tax purposes; and, therefore taxes; that such increases will negatively impact less affluent, older adults who can least afford additional expenses for upkeep, insurance, and property taxes.

Should the "restrictive" legislation discussed above ever be enacted? In my opinion, not without the approval of the affected property owners, or at least a super majority of the owners.

REALTORS® in every community must be vigilant and be on the lookout for such proposals. We must take an active interest our communities and monitor the actions of city councils, township trustees and county commissioners.