Events Calendar
In This Section
Most Read Stories
Police accuse bank robbery suspect of gobbling up note (with dashcam video)
Man found dead in North Akron home is identified
Dad accused of forcing son into field, killing him
NFL star Chris Spielman's wife loses cancer battle
Coventry man killed in crash at I-77 ramp
College student mistaken for deer, shot to death
Man allegedly paid teens to spit in his face
Retired firefighter who broke color barrier among those being honored
Indians add 7 players to 40-man roster
Blogs:
Pets:
Cat-loving chihuahua suckles seven abandoned kittens
The Heldenfiles:
Friday Night Notebook
Patrick McManamon:
For your Saturday entertainment …
Akron Zips:
Two blowouts, one night
Tribe Matters:
Seven players added to Tribe’s 40-man roster
Cleveland Browns:
Holmgren expresses interest in Browns position
Kent State Sports:
Singletary update
Cleveland Cavaliers:
Gameblog: Cavs at Indiana Pacers – Here’s to LBJ and Free Throws
Buckeye Blogging:
OSU – Michigan college football rivals meet in Baghdad
Varsity Letters:
Bowling season starts today
All Da King's Men:
Headed For Disaster
Blog of Mass Destruction:
Will Health Care Reform Pass?
Akron Law Café:
Federal Judge Declares DOMA Unconstitutional
See Jane Style:
Vintage Chic
Car Chase:
TIME TO GET YOUR COLLECTOR CARS WINTERIZED
Let's Talk Real Estate:
Silverdome Potentially SOLD!
Ohio Travels with Betty:
George is looking for a Thanksgiving buffet in Akron.
Sound Check:
Steely Dan Plays "The Royal Scam" at E.J. Thomas Hall
HRLite House:
Colloquium at University of Akron
Akron Gamer:
Nintendo's Mario endures even as games come and go
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.
