Part II of Susan's interview with Bert Gall of the Institute for Justice

Susan: Is Mr. Tranter justified in taking the justices to task for knocking out the “deteriorating” designation that he claims has been the law for 50 years?

Bert: Susan, the notion that "'deteriorating' has been the law for 50 years" is absurd; as the Court noted, it had never sanctioned that label's use as a basis for the use of eminent domain.

Susan: My last question is are there any ways in which the Ohio Supreme Court ruling left you wanting?

Bert: No, because the Court's decision was, as I have already described, both thorough and comprehensive. It addressed all the issues that were before it and put forth broad holdings that will serve as strong protections of Ohio home and business owners against the abuse of eminent domain for private gain. Just as importantly, the Court's decision provided a resounding reminder to cities across the state that courts and constitutions exist to stop their wrongful uses of power -- not, as Mr. Tranter would have it, to rubber-stamp them.