Ohio Bill Prohibiting Eminent Domain for Bike Trails to be Amended

 

An Ohio bill that would prohibit the use of eminent domain to build bike trails and other recreational paths has stalled in committee and will likely be amended.

Rep. Don Manning (R-59) introduced House Bill 288 in July in direct response to eminent domain lawsuits filed by the Mill Creek MetroParks in his district, which includes Mahoning County, except for the city of Youngstown. The bill defines recreational trails as “a public trail that is used for hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, ski touring, canoeing, or other nonmotorized forms of recreational travel.”

Manning previously told The Ohio Star that his intent was to prevent any government entity from “stealing people’s land by eminent domain for something so trivial as a bike trail.”

“Even if a bike trail did rise to the level of the “greater good of all citizens, it isn’t a necessity,” he added.

Manning expected opposition from “from groups wanting to steal people’s land.” But several points raised in the House Civil Justice Committee resulted in questions by committee members that Manning wanted to address.

Several groups commented that the bill seemed to be a state-wide solution for a local issue.

Rep. Jeffrey Crossman (D-15) seemed to agree, saying the House was being asked to legislate for the entire state, but he didn’t have a clear picture as to how this all came about. Also, Rep. Paula Hicks-Hudson (D-44) also voiced her concern that a local issue was “using the state to solve it.”

At the hearing, Hicks-Hudson asked all who spoke in opposition if there was a better way than the bill to balance the competing interests, of meeting the needs of the park board as well as the residents, in such eminent domain cases.  While opponents gave a response, none really had a recommendation other than to let the legal cases play out, as provided for in the Ohio Revised Code (ORC).

Michael D. Pniewski, from the Lucas County Engineer’s office, did say that sometimes, a bit of time to get used to the proposal was all that was needed. Pniewski said that if the Engineer’s office believes they might end up in an eminent domain process, “we often put those (projects) aside until the residents have a chance to be more familiar with it.”

He explained that in one road widening project, there was a lot of resistance on behalf of the residents and the township trustees.

“So we let it sit for a bit,” Pniewski said. “As people got to know each other, a lot of the opposition went away and we’re actually implementing that project right now.”

Committee members also questioned the definitions being used. While the legislation spells out what constitutes a recreational trail, many of the bill opponents used the term “transportation trail” or “multi-use trail.”

Brian Housh opposed the measure in his roles as council President of the Village of Yellow Springs, Vice President of the Ohio Trails Partnership and Midwest Policy Manager of the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. He explained that with eminent domain, “we’re looking a necessary public use. In the case at hand, we’re looking at a trail that is creating a connection not only into a broader network but also allowing people to travel.” He said the term, “just a recreational trail,” is not how it should be viewed.

Housh testified that “most state elected officials understand that recreational trails – which also give those unable to drive a way to get access to food, medical care and
other essential services – are not frivolous amenities but rather essential assets that expand smart transportation options, fuel strong businesses and create good jobs, help retain and attract talented individuals and families, enhance regional competitiveness and promote social equity.”

He said he believes the state code already covers the issue and that “this sort of overreaction isn’t necessary.  It’s very common with a trail project to have that ‘not in my back yard'” perspective.

“This bill is an overreaction given that there is no problem to solve,” Housh said. “The ORC already includes strong protections for adjacent property owners, ensuring that they receive both due
process and just compensation regarding takings for public use/need, including a provision for elected officials to veto the appropriation.”

“To the contrary,” he added, “this bill sets a dangerous precedent of unnecessarily limiting and curtailing a fundamental power to carry out public works projects, solely in reaction to the narrow and parochial interests of a few landowners.”

Crossman asked Housh about resident concerns regarding safety.

“I understand how, for some people, change is scary,” Housh said. “But the idea that someone on a bike is going to grab a TV and ride off with it just isn’t realistic.” He added that lights and providing patrols by safety officers could address such concerns.

In light of the points raised by the committee, Manning’s office said they will hold off on further hearings in order to speak to the members one-on-one. They hope to do that over the next week or two.

It is likely they will add some amendments to address the concerns. After that, the committee will have more hearings on the revised bill.

– – –

Maggie Leigh Thurber is a writer for The Ohio Star. Email tips to [email protected].

 

 

 

 

Related posts

Comments