Events Calendar
In This Section
Most Read Stories
Man robbed at Tallmadge Avenue eatery
Four teens restrain man, take items from his Akron home
Police: Ohio girl dies after fall into snow bank
Another winter punch heading toward Ohio
Complaints against officer keep coming
Cuyahoga Falls residents come home to find burning couch on balcony
Blogs:
First Bell - On Education:
No City of Akron basketball tonight
Pets:
Pet telethon re-airs
The Heldenfiles:
Chipmunks "Squeakquel" on DVD/BD March 30
Akron Zips:
Late surge gives Zips ugly road win
Tribe Matters:
Blogmail response on Hafner
Cleveland Browns:
Stallworth's contract terminated
Balanced Ledger:
QB in Browns future: another mock draft
Kent State Sports:
KSU Notes – February 9
Cleveland Cavaliers:
NBA Power Rankings from Around the Internet
Buckeye Blogging:
Buckeyes grab 18 players on signing day
Varsity Letters:
Garfield at Buchtel basketball
All Da King's Men:
Palin At The Tea Party Convention
Blog of Mass Destruction:
Republican Pre-Conditions
Akron Law Café:
Citizens United v. F.E.C. (Part 4): Kennedy's and O'Connor's Basic Approaches to Constitutional Decisionmaking – Top Down and Bottom Up
Car Chase:
Collector Car Hobby Loses One of the Best—Jim Roll
Let's Talk Real Estate:
Decisions Decisions: Credit Cards or Your Mortgage?
Ohio Travels with Betty:
Loucile is looking for a Lake Erie getaway in June for three kids, ages 1, 3, and 5.
Sound Check:
Talk of the Town – Top entertainment picks for the weekend
HRLite House:
Track HR Research
Akron Gamer:
'Tecmo Bowl' recreation of Super Bowl XLIV
See Jane Style:
Do IT this week: Layering
Why not bolster property rights? Consider the fine print
Published on Friday, Oct 24, 2008
An argument for the measure holds the amendment merely would restate protections already established by the courts and contained in the compact. The truth is, that contention amounts to an even stronger argument against approval. The amendment is unnecessary.
Why include in the state constitution part of a political deal struck quickly and late in the process?
Consider opaque and problematic language lurking in the amendment, a provision maintaining that private property rights would not be limited by other sections of the constitution, including those covering the management of natural resources and home rule for local governments. All of that may reflect needless concern. Then again, here is an amendment that carries openings for unintended consequences.
We recommend a ''no'' vote on Issue 3 on Nov. 4.
Get the full article here.
Comments
Click here to post your comments
