Comments on: “Ohio city uses eminent domain to seize land outside its borders”

By: November 18 roundup - Overlawyered

November 18 roundup - Overlawyered — Wed, 18 Nov 2015 05:30:03 +0000

[…] “Ohio court says city can’t use ‘quick-take’ to seize property” [Watchdog, earlier on town of Perrysburg’s effort to seize property in adjoining Middleton […]

By: mojo

mojo — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:55:07 +0000

Seems different, since the land is in another incorporated boundary – I don’t think the Cascade crest was.

Anybody think of simply buying it from the other city? Offer to pay for map changes, etc.

By: No Name Guy

No Name Guy — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:10:15 +0000

Yeah…..here in the Soviet of Washington, jurisdictions using condemnation proceedings outside their boundaries isn’t all that unusual. Examples include the City of Seattle Utilities and it’s Skagit River hydro project (back in the day), plus all the high tension transmission lines that run the 100+ miles from there into the city limits. There’s also the watersheds for the Cities of Seattle, Tacoma and Everett – all are up near the Cascade crest and well outside of the respective city limits.

Perhaps Ohio has a different law where this isn’t permissible.

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 23:48:31 +0000

Am I mistaken in thinking that Los Angeles used the same technique to acquire sites like Mono Lake from which it obtains its water supply?

By: ras

ras — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 22:43:11 +0000

30-40 feet of precedent can stretch a lot farther than that.

By: mojo

mojo — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 14:49:40 +0000

We’re talking what, 30-40 feet? Let’s not go crazy.

By: CarLitGuy

CarLitGuy — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 14:31:46 +0000

“Execution first, trial later!” (with apology to Lewis Carroll).

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 13:56:32 +0000

Wouldn’t they need to annex it first?