COLUMBUS — A provision added to the Ohio House-passed version of the state budget would prohibit local governments from using their power of eminent domain to take land for use as recreational trails.
The issue has lingered for years in the courts and at the Ohio Statehouse. Litigation has not led to clarification that walking and biking trails are a public purpose in the eyes of state law when it comes to using eminent domain.
“Recreational trails are the most requested and popular amenity in most park districts in most communities ...,” said Woody Woodward, executive director of the Ohio Parks and Recreation Association, which represents some 2,500 parks and recreation professionals.
He cited the State Committee on Outdoor Recreation Plan, the state Department of Natural Resources’ five-year strategic plan for outdoor recreation and facility investment. Trail projects topped the 2024 study.
“To have someone say this is not a public purpose doesn’t make sense,” Mr. Woodward said. “Most people would disagree with that. The reality is that eminent domain has been around for decades.”
“I’ve been in this position for almost 20 years, and I’ve seen one eminent domain case which was contentious, and that was a case in Mahoning County that led to this legislation,” he said.
The Ohio Supreme Court two years ago sent an appeal in that case back to a Youngstown-area court for further action without addressing the core question of whether the Mill Creek Metropolitan Park District had the right to use eminent domain as part of its mission to take a slice of farmland. That strip would have served as connective tissue for what would ultimately be a 100-mile trail.
Ultimately, the park district dropped the case, but the city of Toledo was watching closely because it had its own case pending at the time in Lucas County Common Pleas Court against Toledo Country Club.
That case, involving a half-acre slice of land connecting stretches of a paved bike system along Anthony Wayne Trail, was settled last fall.
The city sued in 2021 after the country club refused its monetary offer, and the club counter-sued. In mediation, the city agreed to reduce the size of the taking by a few feet, a move that did not affect the multi-use path’s original alignment.
The city paid the club $150,000, according to Law Director Dale Emch.
“The city of Toledo takes a conservative approach to property rights and uses eminent domain sparingly,” city spokesman Rachel Hart said. “While this amendment would have limited impact on upcoming projects, we are monitoring it closely as it moves through the state budget process.”
The Ohio Constitution holds private property rights to be “inviolate, but subservient to the public welfare.” It permits government to take private land for such purposes in exchange for fair compensation.
While there’s no mention of recreational trails in the constitution, Mr. Woodward said trails are mentioned as a public use elsewhere in state law.
Last session’s House Bill 64, sponsored by Reps. Darrell Kick (R., Loudonville) and Rodney Creech (R., West Alexandria), would have enacted broader reform of the eminent domain process. It included a provision to exclude recreational trails from the term “public use.”
The bill, which died in committee, was supported by the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, the Ohio Dairy Producers Association, and the Ohio Council of Retail Merchants. It was opposed by local governments, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, recreational organizations, and utilities.
Evan Callicoat, director of state policy for the farm bureau, said it was not involved in having this amendment added to the state budget, but the bureau does support it.
“We are not opposed to any type of a recreational trail, but we feel the power of eminent domain should be in the hands of elected officials,” he said. “Park districts are unelected, and this power should be the power of elected officials.”
Last session, the bureau supported an amendment to House Bill 64 that would have limited that power to county commissioners when it came to trails rather than remove trails altogether.
Mr. Callicoat said this amendment was an attempt at compromise, but the bureau supports the latest budget language.
The trail language was not part of Gov. Mike DeWine’s proposed budget. House Bill 96, which passed the House solely with Republican votes last week, is now pending in the Senate. A final budget must reach the governor’s desk by the end of the fiscal year on June 30.
The budget provision would not prohibit local governments from negotiating with property owners for the purchase of land for walking, biking, horseback riding, cross-country skiing, and other nonmotorized uses.
It is unclear whether blocking the use of eminent domain as a last resort when negotiations bog down could be seen by courts as an infringement on cities’ constitutional home-rule authority.
“Part of this is the term ‘public use’” said Bevan Schneck, spokesman for the Ohio Municipal League representing cities and villages. “We take a broad view of public use, which, I think, the U.S. Supreme Court has too. It can be a whole host of uses. When we use eminent domain, it is a last resort. Trails help to connect neighborhoods with safe routes for transportation options that are nonmotorized. That is good for the community.”
First Published April 14, 2025, 9:15 p.m.
