Libertarian Bill Peirce Officially Placed on BallotOhio

News Release
For Immediate Distribution
June 29, 2006
Contact: Robert Butler:
(740) 204-3036
c:(614) 805-8292
hq@lpo.org
www.lpo.org

Libertarian Bill Peirce Officially Placed on Ballot, Ohio Economist Running for Governor(Columbus, Ohio)

The Secretary of State's office reports that Ohio Economist Bill Peirce and his running mate Mark Noble have delivered 9389 valid signatures, almost doubling the official requirement to be placed on the ballot for Governor this fall.

“Ohio will grow and create jobs only when the crafty, connected, and ambitious in this state can no longer get rich by grubbing for favors in the Statehouse. I believe that smart, talented, hard-working, Ohioans; set free from bureaucracy, waste, and fraud; will bring prosperity to Ohio by using their energy to build real businesses throughout this state,” said Bill Peirce."

Burdened by scandals and a divisive primary, Ohio Republicans are looking for alternatives," notes Powell Libertarian, Robert Butler. "We are ready to become the real small-government choice for Ohio."

The Libertarian Party of Ohio was not recognized by Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, so Peirce will be listed on the ballot as "Other Party". Peirce plans to present this "Other Party"'s ideas and proposals for economic growth as he travels the state.

“I have spent my entire career studying economic development, and that’s what Ohio needs now. I’m well aware of the linkage between low employment and high tax rates,” declares Peirce, “there’s a growing consensus among many economists that economic freedom is closely linked to economic growth. The only way to get more rapid growth is to get more economic freedom.”

For more information about Bill Peirce, please visit http://peirceforohio.com

Rally to Stop Emminent Domain Abuse

For years, eminent domain abuse has plagued Americans from coast to coast. From 1998 to 2002, the Institute for Justice documented more than 10,000 condemnations for private gain—and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

This Friday, June 23, at 7:30pm at the corner of Clifton and Ludlow Ave (at the fountain across the street from the Skyline) there will be a rally to commerorate the anniversary of Kelo vs New London decision, and to honor those that have forced from their property as a result of Emminent Domain abuse.

Could your house be next?

• Currnetly, Carl and Joy Gamble of Norwood are fighting to keep their home of over 30 years. It seems that a developer with over $500 million in assets wants to build a shopping plaza and condos on their property. The city of Norwood thinks that this is groupnds to take ones property and to give it to a millionare.

• Emma Dimasi is being forced from her home of almost 50 years. The city of Cincinnati wants to re-route Dixmyth Rd so that Good Samaratan hospital can build a new wing.

Could you or a loved one be the next to be forced from their home?

Not only homeowners, but also small business owners are not safe.

• When the Contemporary Arts Center wanted to expand, a family business of over 90 years was forced out. The famous Batesakes hat store and dry cleaner was threatened with emminent domain to be forced out. Rather than fight a costly battle, they opted to move to a nearby location, however, their new location prevented them from offering dry cleaning services.

• Also in Norwood, Wilker Design was forced to re-locate so a developer could build a shopping plaza to accomidate national chain retailers. As Mary Beth Wilker mentioned, business was so good she did not have to advertise or activly market her business. She attributes her success in large part to her location. Apparently a sucessful small business is not good enough for Norwood, so she was forced to move and rebuild her client base.

• In San Diego, Ahmad Mesdaq’s elegant and profitable cigar and coffee bar, Gran Havana Cigar and Coffee Lounge, was condemned in June 2005 to make way for a Marriott Renaissance Hotel (this was done one year after Mr Mesdaq spent over $1,000,000 to remodel his business). Another Marriott is located within view of his property.

Emminent domain abuse is everybody's problem. Small businesses are hurt by this because they are being forced out to accomidate well connected businesses. Senior citizens are being forced out of their home. Property rights in Cincinnati, and across the country, are being trampled. Your house, your business are not safe until this stops.

The Truth About Emminent Domain Abuse

This article is republished from the Institute for Justice's publication CastleWatch: Month in Review (May 2006). You can visit the Institute for Justice at www.IJ.org.

In the debate over eminent domain abuse, defenders of the government’s ability to use eminent domain for private commercial development often advance myths in support of their position that eminent domain abuse does not exist. This feature is part of a regular series that explodes those myths with something much more powerful: the truth.
May 17, 2006

Myth: Where should the bar be set when cities use eminent domain? “I don’t think there’s any real definite cut-off point. The minute you do that, then you’re opening yourself up to a problem. I think certainly common sense, but then whose common sense are you going to use? Yours or mine? I suppose everybody has a difference in that.”[1] – Mayor Gary Peterson, Columbia Heights, Minn.

Reality: Arguing that there are no limits to the government’s eminent domain powers is not only disingenuous—it is dangerous. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly limits eminent domain to instances of “public use” and every state constitution includes similar restrictions. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which permitted the use of eminent domain for economic development, opened the floodgates for elected officials such as Mayor Peterson to proclaim that there is no “definite cut-off point” for when the government can condemn people’s homes and businesses for private profit. But both morally and constitutionally, nothing could be further from the truth. On the contrary, it leaves every property at risk of arbitrary condemnation at the whim of the government.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor noted this danger of the Kelo decision in her dissenting opinion (Scroll to page 27 of PDF). She wrote, “To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings ‘for public use’ is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby effectively to delete the words ‘for public use’ from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.”[2]

But even the nation’s highest court encouraged states to enact stricter limits on their respective eminent domain laws. A mere few months after the decision, the author of the majority opinion, Justice Stevens, went one step further and said he would support eminent domain reform as a legislator. Currently, local officials operate under the belief that they have license to take people’s homes and businesses as they wish, underscoring just how crucial it is for state legislatures to heed the Court’s call and public outcry by enacting meaningful eminent domain reform.

The right to keep what one already rightfully owns is fundamental. If property ownership means anything at all, it must mean being protected from tax-hungry bureaucrats and land-hungry developers teaming up to seize and bulldoze private property for private profit through the use of eminent domain. This nation was founded upon inalienable and individual rights, not some ephemeral notion of common sense that changes with the times and the needs of the well connected.

Government’s awesome power of eminent domain—called “despotic” in the early days of this country—needs limitations. It should not be subject to the arbitrary will of elected officials, as Mayor Peterson suggests. As the Constitution establishes, it should be limited to instances that are truly public uses. Only then will homes and businesses throughout the nation be safe from the government’s wrecking ball.