Groups file brief in support of case questioning Kent’s zoning restrictions

The Institute for Justice and The Buckeye Institute have filed a brief in support of a landlord seeking to overturn what they have dubbed “unconstitutional zoning restrictions” in Kent.

Reed Havel, a landlord, challenged a Kent law that bars more than two unrelated people from living together in areas zoned for single-family housing. He mounted his challenge after being denied a rental license for a home that he planned to rent to four unrelated people.

The case is now pending before the Supreme Court of Ohio.

“The Ohio Supreme Court has clearly ruled that private property rights are fundamental rights deserving of meaningful protection by Ohio courts,” David C. Tryon, director of litigation at The Buckeye Institute, said in a release. “Among these rights is the right to lease one’s property, and this case presents the court with the opportunity to protect property owners from overzealous governments seeking to impose unconstitutional zoning restrictions.”

The groups cite Norwood v. Horney, among other cases, in their filing to argue that private property rights are fundamental rights. As such, they contend that Ohio courts must give “meaningful scrutiny” to any interference with those rights.

In the Norwood case, the Northeast Ohio city of Norwood planned to use eminent domain to seize a residential neighborhood in purported decline and give the property to a private developer.

They wrote that Norwood’s “command that Ohio courts must provide meaningful protection for fundamental private property rights is more broadly relevant and applies here.” The brief adds that “the right to lease property is well-recognized and deeply rooted in the country’s history,” noting that “zoning is a relatively modern invention.”

“Although Norwood involved eminent domain, its direction that courts must be vigilant in protecting private property rights extends to other contexts,” they wrote. “After all, in reaching its holding, this Court articulated and relied on Ohio’s longstanding reverence for fundamental private property rights generally.”

The group added that “whether viewed as a right to establish one’s household or the right to lease property, the rights at issue here are well-recognized property rights. And those rights should be protected against interference in the name of zoning.”