The Right To Keep Tires On The Roof: Cincinnati Judges Can't Find It In The Constitution

CINCINNATI (TDB) -- A state appeals court says keeping more than 100 tires on the roof violates the City of Cincinnati's fire code. It sided with city officials, who found the tires atop the building pictured above in August 2005 and ordered them removed. The owner did not comply. He was cited for failing to comply with a lawful order from the fire chief, then fought the municipal code as unconstitutional. Ohio's First District Court of Appeals ruled the potential hazard of burning tires was a legitimate governmental concern that outweighed the building owner's legal challenge. Judge Lee H. Hildebrandt Jr. wrote the unanimous decision of the three-judge panel:

"The city presented evidence that xxx's tire storage had created a dangerous fire hazard. Not only were the tires themselves a fire hazard in that a burning tire would generate more than twice the British thermal unit per pound than wood, but their combined weight could have caused a roof collapse that would have endangered responding firefighters. In addition, burning tires release toxic chemicals into the atmosphere and requires specialized equipment and resources to extinguish."

Interestingly, the four-page ruling does not delve into why the tires were up on the roof at 2724 Woodburn Ave. in the East Walnut Hills neighborhood. So that remains a mystery for now. Hamilton County tax records show the building is described as a detached retail establishment that was built in 1927. It received a 30-year tax abatement in 2003. The owners are listed as living in Sacramento, Cal., and Oregon.

Ohio Court Shucks Soybean Farmer: Claimed Shining Street Lights Shrunk Crop

COLUMBUS (TDB) -- An Ohio soybean farmer who initially won $2,235 from the state after claiming street lights shining at night along a busy highway kept his crop from maturing won't be harvesting any taxpayer cash for damages after all. If the decision had stood, it could have set a precedent making government projects bigger targets for property rights defenders.

The Ohio Court of Claims reversed the soybean decision last month in a verdict that is beginning to draw attention this week from land-use and eminent-domain watchers from across the nation.

Patty Salkin, associate dean at Albany Law School in New York's capital, plowed into the Ohio soybean ruling on her legal blog Law Of The Land. She said the court of claims decided the state's traffic safety lights weren't an illegal taking of property under the Ohio Constitution.

When The Daily Bellwether examined the court files in Columbus, it learned that farmer Ronald L. Newell contended 7.18 acres of soybeans alongside U.S. 23 in Wyandot County didn't ripen for harvest along with the rest of his crop in October 2005. The Ohio Department of Transportation agreed that its street lights shining a night probably had some effect, but it did not accept financial responsibility. Newell won an administrative decision earlier this year.

But Judge J. Craig Wright tossed it out. He said the high-mast lights didn't create an uncompensated taking for the farmer's land.

"If the framers of the Ohio Constitution intended to require compensation whenever property was damaged by government activity, they could have provided so in unmistakable language. Many states have done so. Their constitutions provide in substance that private property shall not be taken for or damaged by public use without compensation . . The court finds that although plaintiff suffered a lost of a portion of his 2005 bean crop, he has failed to prove that he incurred a harm that differed in kind rather than degree from the general public . . and plaintiff's claim must fail."