[gariharrr]

The only way to stop eminent domain from being abused by the moneygrubing politicians is to have a new amendment in the constitution.
They will always misuse power to profit from this little line in the constitution and the courts have no choice but to nod and accept it because thats what is written in const. But if one or two states started a largescale movement to either 1 take away the power of govt to use eminent domain altogether forcing the gov't either to buy at market value or look elsewhere or 2 write extreme restrictions upon it in their constitutions. Either solution would need a large scale referendum of the local populous but could be done. Rhode Island and some other state would be good catalysts in my view to start it off.

[bredkumanfirst]

forcing the gov't either to buy at market value or look elsewhere.

In theory, when the government takes your property doesn't it pay you market value? Could eminent domain be used to fix Camden? Wouldn't everybody benefit, including those who live there?

[Gozmand]

OK, to argue the other side, what if this is the case:

What if your town has not had any commercial development in 20 years?

What if your town is in debt because of budget problems and delinquent tax collection?

What if your town does not have enough money to provide things like schooling or police protection that would encourage people to come in.

What if your town had an opportunity to get a Merc research facility (no, no chemical waste, so don't go on a tangent) and not a "Wal Mart parking lot".

What if the values offered for your building were 150%-250% greater than appraised value?

Lemme give you some info from a friend on another site, see if the stuff goes through here:

Originally posted by -Gemini-

Hedge,

Some golf shows were on and the 5pm news was kicked back to 6pm. I'll try to record a noon time news program this time.


I was however able to track down some photos from google (after about 3hours of searching...uhhh)












In case people were wondering cost/per house for some of the individuals who did not want to see, it was also in this mornings paper:


[align=center]Address - Appraised - Purchase - %of appraised value
[/align]


[align=center]24 Fraser St - $74,500 - $127,000 - 170.47%
[/align]


[align=center]28 Fraser St - $72,300 - $109,000 - 150.76%
[/align]


[align=center]33 Twelfth St - $56,400 - $106,500 - 188.83%
[/align]


[align=center]34 Twelfth St - $19,100 - $35,000 - 183.25%
[/align]


[align=center]74 Tenth St - $53,300 - $117,000 - 219.51%
[/align]


[align=center]75 Tenth St - $77,200 - $118,000 - 152.85%
[/align]


[align=center]78 Tenth St - $67,100 - $94,000 - 140.09%
[/align]


[align=center]29 Eighth St - $48,300 - $123,000 - 254.66%
[/align]


[align=center]39 Twelfth St - $65,500 - $119,000 - 182.68%[/align]
[align=center][/align]
[align=center][size=xx-small][cleaned up chart for legibility -s][/size][/align]

[Reafnartefs]

Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

Jun 23, 1:12 PM (ET)

By HOPE YEN

WASHINGTON (AP) - A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.

The 5-4 ruling - assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America - was a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

The case was one of six resolved by justices on Thursday. Among those still pending for the court, which next meets on Monday, is one testing the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commands on government property.

Writing for the court's majority in Thursday's ruling, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including - but by no means limited to - new jobs and increased tax revenue," Stevens wrote.

Stevens was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing - David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. The bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projects that benefit the lower and middle class.

They were joined by Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy in rejecting the conservative principle of individual property rights. Critics had feared that would allow a small group of homeowners to stymie rebuilding efforts that benefit the city through added jobs and more tax revenue for social programs.

"It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area," Stevens wrote.

O'Connor argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Connecticut residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, added: "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, D-New London, a former mayor and city council member who voted in favor of eminent domain, said the decision "means a lot for New London's future."

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.

New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs.

City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.

New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.

Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.

The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.

---

Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All right reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

The ruling in Kelo v. New London is available at:

http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050623kelo.pdf

[Eromereorybig]

But now the Supremes have expanded "Public Use" to the broader "Public Good" ... how vague is that?

I was having a discussion about this very thing with my attorney today. I'm in the process of negotiating a lease and had a question about the eminent domain clause -- and thought I had my questions answered. Now this could seemingly change that.

Ahhhh, more attorney's fees ...........

[chuecaloversvv]

You are using an arbitrary project as an example. The law is not arbitrary. It applies to everyone. As much as we might support a particular project, it places the "absolute ownership" of any property in question. In effect, we are allowing the state to decide what happens with property everywhere and whether it is in its interest to seize it. The interest of state and citizenry is not always mutual.

I do believe that in your argument as well as BKMONKEY's you two are lining up as the NIMBYs. You agree with this ruling as long as they aren't coming to seize and bulldoze your homes. That's a NIMBY position.

Um, no.

That is not a NIMBY

That is NIMH. Not In My House.

Get your generalizations correct young man!!!!

[Gudronich]

With this as a precedent I don't see any reason why all tax exempt church and university property shouldn't be siezed and returned to the tax base as "...an economic development plan that [a city] believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including - but by no means limited to - new jobs and increased tax revenue..."

[xanax-buy-online.com]

Holdout Ends, Letting a City Seize Property in Connecticut

NY TIMES
By AVI SALZMAN
July 1, 2006

NEW LONDON, Conn., June 30 — With eviction looming, the two remaining homeowners fighting the city's plans to replace their homes with offices, a hotel and new housing agreed to settle on Friday, ending a six-year battle that led to a historic Supreme Court ruling on governments' power of eminent domain.

"We're able to move on with our lives and look forward to remaining in the neighborhood," said Michael Cristofaro, whose family was one of the holdouts.

The settlements followed months of negotiations among the homeowners, the city and the New London Development Corporation that were overseen by state mediators.

The holdout homeowners were among seven in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood who sued the city, challenging its right to seize their property through eminent domain. The case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which issued a controversial 5-to-4 ruling last year that New London could take their homes for private development.

The five other homeowners have already settled. The dollar amounts of the settlements reached on Friday were not disclosed. Susette Kelo, a lead plaintiff in the case whose pink Victorian cottage became an icon in the battle to limit eminent domain, agreed to move her house to a new lot.

Ms. Kelo has not decided where she will move the house, but the state has agreed to pay the bill, said Scott Bullock, a lawyer from the nonprofit Institute for Justice who represented her. Mr. Bullock called the resolution "bittersweet," because Ms. Kelo had wanted to stay on her property.

No one answered the door at Ms. Kelo's house on Friday, and she did not return calls seeking comment.

Mr. Cristofaro said a few small concessions by the city made the difference.

His five-bedroom clapboard house on Goshen Street will be torn down, but the family has the option to buy property in the new development at a set price. The city also agreed to move the rhododendrons, yews and other plants his father, Pasquale, planted 30 years ago and to install a plaque in the development to honor Mr. Cristofaro's mother, Margherita, who fought the condemnation of her home until she died in 2003. "It restored a lot of respect and dignity to the family," Mr. Cristofaro said.

Ronald Angelo, a state official who helped negotiate the deals, said a key element to the settlements was getting the property owners more money.

After the Supreme Court ruling, several of the Fort Trumbull homeowners vowed to stay put, but they began to settle after the city increased legal and financial pressures. On June 5, the City Council voted to begin eviction proceedings.

William Von Winkle, who owned three rental properties in Fort Trumbull, held out until June 5. In an interview at his home on Friday, he said he settled because the state was willing to give him more money.

"When you look at my property, put these on," he said, adjusting a pair of sunglasses with dollar-sign holograms over the eyes.


Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

[Grainiary]

Wow, you think a developer is going to condemn his own recently developed property. Tell me more.

[Jadldqys]

Not reading the article, Im assuming the houses will be taken from the poor and lower middle class, in order to create activities for the rich?

[AngelinaTheElf]

Hmm... I think what makes Ratner's development special, the amount of economic ativity, (jobs, housing, redevelopment, etc) that it will bring to the Downtown Brooklyn Area. It is rare to see so many politicians agree on such a topic, but it's happening. Even acorn, which is usually very suspicious of developments such as this, is endorisng Ratner.I am not in favor of using emminent domain on a regular basis, however... when living in New York, one accepts a certain risk, after all the city is always changing. As long as people are compensated (extremly compensated), then they should not be allowed to stand in the way of development (on a large scale) who determins important developments ( our elected officials, thats why they are elected.). Its important to remember that Atlantic Yards is the biggest development in Brooklyn in 25 years, and one of the key developments in Brooklyn's history. Imagine the day when we wake up and say to ourselves "we could have had all that, if it not were for that one persone who didnt feel like moving". That would be a very sad day. It is extremly important that we protect the rights of people, I am all for that, but we have to be practicall and sometimes exceptions must be made for the bigger picture. I believe that the Atlantic Yards warrents these measures due to its economic impact and its size, and I think most New Yorkers agree.

[Ehlgamxf]

What about cases, in which the city has bought out all but a few of the properties, and these individual properties refuse to sell. Should these certain individuals be allowed to halt the progress of an entire city? The court did not pave the way for any paticular action, rather it left the powers of eminent domain to our elected officials. ... .

It is true that the Supreme Court left the individual decisions on Eminent Domain actions up to the states, but that was not the central argument of the case before the Court. It concerned whether the government has the right to seize private property for use by a private developer.

The rationale that an increase in the tax base is a public good can be applied to any piece of property in the U.S.

The concept of property rights is suddenly not so sacrosanct.

[QHdy5Z3A]

Alas no.... I am not a NIMBY or a NMH

Infact I believe Ratner's development is a exellent example of how this should be done. He went around the area, paying people off to avoid using emmient domain. His offers were so high that many of the people in the are could not refuse. This is why Ratner now owns most of the area. He has even offered the people who live in apartments (people that he has no obligation to) temporary apartments, and permanent new ones in the Atlantic Yards. However, for the few (an I mean few) people who stand in the way, simply on the premise of principal, this is when emminent domain should be used. If someone is forced out of their homes they should be compensated several times the value of their homes. However, as the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, these people with no reason besides belief (no financial reason) cannot be allowed to stand in the way of a MASSIVE development that could change the face of a city. Its like a mouse derailing a train.

Why is it that Ratner is such a great guy for buying people out, but people who won't "sell out" are standing in the way? Another plan, called The Unity Plan (which I found equally uncompelling) was also presented. Explain to me why Ratner Ratner's property, such as the aethetically offensive Atlantic Center shouldn't have been condemned, seized and given over to another developer? How do you argue for Ratner's footprint conveniently skirting around other sites owned by other major developers? The "footprint" was very selective in what parcels he would raid and what parcels he would not.

I am actually in favor of a development at the yards, the only thing Ratner did not do that might have made me reconsider him was offer up Atlantic Center. Considering everyone talking about "public benefit" and "community benefit" that place was a blight from the moment it opened. You can go back and read media reports on the negative impact that building had on the whole neighborhood. You can visit it and see the big wall it through up against Clinton Hill and Fort Greene. The footprint of the Atlantic Yards project could have been shifted and enlarged by simply giving up that building - which Ratner DID NOT WANT TO DO. So, if he wasn't willing to sell out his space, why are we stealing from property from people who are taking the same position?

[Dominick Yo]

In my opinion it means the Nets move to Brooklyn is a lock now - Most important thing to happen to Brooklyn development in 50 years.

[Ifroham4]

Hello All,

My Town of Brighton (NY) where I reside (I reserve
the word "live" for places like Anna Maria Island
at the mouth of Tampa Bay in Florida) is embroiled
in its own Eminent Domain case that by the day is
becoming more (in)famous in its own right with the
potential to rival Kelo vs. City of New London
(Connecticut) in the annals of famous Eminent Domain
cases.

Here are a couple of posts with respect to my
town's Eminent Domain case which segues into a
couple others of mine as well.
The Brighton (NY) case has the billing of
Government versus Religion; but in reality it is
a case of right and wrong.
I hope my efforts in my own little way of sowing
the seeds of thought and consideration which
indeed include a fair amount of sarcasm and
cynicism, ultimately will result in a country
whose rules and laws that are more fair and just.
Anyway, if I have miserably failed in this regard
at least I got some good typing practice in and
always welcome correspondence with new friends
sharing ideas and perspectives about different
things.
Regards,
Joel S.
jrs_14618@yahoo.com
================================================== =
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/blogs/brighton/
JoelS said...
The Brighton Eminent Domain issue
has evolved into a government vs.
religion issue but it is really a
right versus wrong issue!
The town offered original owner
Groos $1,340,000 and church bought
land (because town screwed up and
didn't formally condemn property)
at open market price of
$2,100,000.
Per New York State code
bargaining is supposed to be
conducted by government entity
whatever it may be; town city
etc. in good faith and justly
compensate owner for land.
Tell me? How can with a straight
face Town of Brighton can claim
bargaining in good faith only
offering original owner a little
more than half the value of the
property on the open market???
That is exactly what Supervisor
Frankel maintains and she claims
in Town Hall meeting last night
(08/23/06) and she can't discuss
it even though owner is now Faith
Temple Church and offer to
original owner has been released
See a pattern here of lack of
honesty and integrity?
The only more disproportionate
fair shake to original owner
is probably the first and
greatest of all U.S. Eminent
Domain cases: the Indians
selling Manhatten Island for
$24 worth of trinkets. There
has been some ridicle on them
for this but probably seeing
the the ships, guns and technology
of the European invaders, the
invaders easily convinced them
that was the best deal they were going to get.
Probably the initial offer was $20
and they let they raised it to
$24 just so history will show them
in a good light.
Brighton is just following a long
standing American tradition of
screwing the origninal landowner
out of their just compensation.
I explain in more detail in
Rochester Democrat and Chronicle
Forum link:
http://cgi.democratandchronicle.com/...board=Brighton
Joel S
24/8/06 10:01 A
================================================== ==
================================================== ==
http://cgi.democratandchronicle.com/...board=Brighton
Brighton Eminent Domain Open Letter to Town Judg
Aug 23rd, 2006, 3:13am
Dear Hon. Mr. Dollinger,

Last November on the eve of elections you made
a political call to me that I should vote
Democratic for Brighton Town Board and yourself.

Although the American government/judicial system is
still the best in the world, in my humble opinion
it is still pretty perverse that the system allows a
judicial entity (i.e. of course; a person) such as
yourself should have a political party affiliation
because political parties have agendas and as far as
I know and understand judges aren't supposed to be
bias - y'know that blindfolded lady (liberty?)
holding the balance? A better representation with
this aspect would have her peeking under the
blindfold.

But, alas, that the way it is so we do the best
we can to work within this important blemish
on again, we can both agree the overall best
system in the world ...

If I remember correctly we got into a heated
"discussion" about the Brighton Eminent Domain
issue. You mentioned you really didn't know
that much about it and really couldn't comment
on it until you knew more.

"Here's more" I assure you Your Honor in very
short order.

One major aspect was I was contending now that at
the time since there were new owners the public
should be able to see the light of day of the offer
made to original land owner Mr. Groos.

Well, through hard fought Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) requests I got my wish! I was not
privy to the information per Brighton Town
attorney William Moehle [sp?] the issue was still
being resolved/under litigation in the courts; but
inexplicably the town indeed released the
information.

For reasons I still cannot comprehend why, the
offer to Mr. Groos was not released when I asked
for it as the new owners/(Faith Temple) held title
to the land long before I ever made my request or
for that matter why the offer is still not
considered to be a "state secret" as the town is
still invvolved in the court cases with respect to
the property.

Whatever .. I got what I wanted. I assumed the
price the Church paid for the land would be a
secret as well as, again, the property is still
under litigation but in a Sunday August 13th, 2006
Rochester Democrat and Chronicle (D&C) front page
news story they related the price the church paid.

I'm assuming even if you don't know the whole
story, nuances and intricacies for the case it has
turned into a religion versus government issue to
the citizens of Brighton and the rest of the country
as this case is becoming more famous/well known by
the day.

But, Your Honor it is not a religion vs. government
issue: No, It started simply a right and wrong issue;
that a land owner should be rightfully compensated
for his land.

Funny in the Madam Chairwoman's Frankel's self-
righteous declarations in Brighton Town meetings
that the acquisition of the land is a noble
undertaking and so in the public interest that it is
worth Eminent Domain proceedings initiated by the
town she sure doesn't seem to remark much about
this aspect.

Could it be because the Town only offered original
land owner Mr. Owner [should read Groos] slightly
more than half what Faith Temple Church the new
owners paid for his property? It is under these
auspices that Brighton was willing to "take" the
property under Eminent Domain (very appropriate
legal term as you should know)

The town offered $1,137,000 and the church paid
$2,100,000 on the open market.

I mention in another post in this Rochester
D&C Brighton town online forum, where I will be
posting this letter as well that this is a TRUE
open Brighton Town Forum free of restrictions and
censure versus the Open Forum section of Brighton
Town Hall meetings.

For your convenience here is the URL to the
Rochester D&C Forum:

http://cgi.democratandchronicle.com/...board=Brighton

So, pray tell Your Honor (no pun intended) is/was
the offer to the original land owner made in the
spirit of bargaining in good faith and fairness
to set the negotiation standard at such a
ridiculous amount; a little more than half what the
property is worth on the open market with the teeth
of Eminent Domain ever presently snarled in the
background? Fangs salivating.

Whoa! Your Honor, I know. I understand. Your reply
to this letter/post if there is to be one at all is
going to be (paraphrasing) due to your position as a
judge and the potential for the public to perceive
your impartiality is compromised you can't respond
and you will have to recuse yourself on this one.

Of Course!

Oh, I understand but what I also know is you are
someone who makes judgmental "fairness calls" all
day long. You are/would be the best person to ask.
It's inherent in your title.

It is an interesting rhetorical question to what
extent your Democratic party affiliation would have
in a hypothetical response. How could you sugar
coat a blatant inequity to make it palatable? If
you see enough inequities being committed by others
in your political party would you change over and
become a Republican or go independent?

In closing, I would have never considered writing
this letter had you not initiated your call to me
last November. Next big election around let's be
honest; you are on short leash to discuss anything
substantial. You are very well versed in legal
profession of the nuances and intricacies of
ambiguity and how to "stay safe" deflecting
answering any questions outright.
Masters of such verbal parrying and deflection
which drives members of congress on both sides
of the aisle nuts go on to become Supreme Court
Chief Justices; case in point Chief Justice
John Roberts.

Tell you what; might as well take my name off
your call list so never again we mutually will
waste our time.

Sincerely and yes, Respectfully,

Joel S.

[corolaelwis]

Rider - I think in essence you are saying that Ratner should condemn his own development (Atlantic Center) to build Atlantic Yards. Illogical in any development plan to say the least. Your opinion on Atlantic Mall may be the majority here, but lets get real on development please.

He absolutely should have. It hasn't been able to hold a tenant, except Pathmark, and the DMV is now a major tenant. He wasnts to build up. He can start on his own property. Atlantic Center is reviled. It would've been hard to argue with the bigger plan had he chipped in his own blighted dump for redevelopment as well.

[TeemFilla]

I think alot of people are simplu overacting to this verdict. In my opinion, this verdict simply affirms the rights of communities to develop areas which are blighted or not of much public use. Yes, while the argument can be made that cities are now able to buldoze low income houses for rich town houses, another equally compelling argument can be made. What about cases, in which the city has bought out all but a few of the properties, and these individual properties refuse to sell. Should these certain individuals be allowed to halt the progress of an entire city? The court did not pave the way for any paticular action, rather it left the powers of eminent domain to our elected officials. Officials, can now use their judgement, according to how they see fit. These elected officials will be kept in check by votes, if the power of eminent domain is abused then people will retaliate. The bottom line is.. all the judgment said is talk to your local officials not us... .

[LookSe]

America`s public enemy No. One: The SCOTUS !

If you think the SCOTUS is not Americas most formidable domestic enemy, and that a number of its members are not using their office of public trust to advance the fortunes of the rich and powerful, I suggest you study the following opinion: KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al.


Justice O'Connor sums up the tyranny of the majority in the following words:


Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded--i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public--in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings "for public use" is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property--and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent.

Also see the dissenting opinion of Justice Thomas:

Long ago, William Blackstone wrote that "the law of the land ... postpone[s] even public necessity to the sacred and inviolable rights of private property." 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 134-135 (1765) (hereinafter Blackstone). The Framers embodied that principle in the Constitution, allowing the government to take property not for "public necessity," but instead for "public use." Amdt. 5. Defying this understanding, the Court replaces the Public Use Clause with a " '[P]ublic [P]urpose' " Clause, ante, at 9-10 (or perhaps the "Diverse and Always Evolving Needs of Society" Clause, ante, at 8 (capitalization added)), a restriction that is satisfied, the Court instructs, so long as the purpose is "legitimate" and the means "not irrational," ante, at 17 (internal quotation marks omitted). This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a "public use."

I cannot agree. If such "economic development" takings are for a "public use," any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution, as Justice O'Connor powerfully argues in dissent. Ante, at 1-2, 8-13. I do not believe that this Court can eliminate liberties expressly enumerated in the Constitution and therefore join her dissenting opinion. Regrettably, however, the Court's error runs deeper than this. Today's decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning. In my view, the Public Use Clause, originally understood, is a meaningful limit on the government's eminent domain power. Our cases have strayed from the Clause's original meaning, and I would reconsider them.


JWK
ACRS

The servant has become the master over those who created a servant.

[Gastonleruanich]

Alas no.... I am not a NIMBY or a NMH

Infact I believe Ratner's development is a exellent example of how this should be done. He went around the area, paying people off to avoid using emmient domain. .

But don't you see that by that statement, you are reinforcing Brooklyn Rider's point that the particular example of Ratner's project does not justify the far-reaching implications of the ruling.

The original intent of the project was to use Eminent Domain to acquire the property, but as the CT case moved to the Supreme Court, Ratner saw the threat and began to buy up property.

[kristloken]

Well...you could make the case that building a Wal Mart is "for the public good."
Let's say that those corporatistas down in Bettonville decide to plop one of their stores in your town. Your house and back yard are needed in order to create a 500-car mega parking lot. You refuse, but town officials step in, and argue that because Wal Mart offers cheaper goods than the other stores, it will lead to a lot of purchases, and in turn more tax revenue that can be used to help the town. But in reality, they are just helping to put up another store that hires people for minimum wage and no health-care (forcing you, the tax-payer to pay for their welfare and emergancy needs). Why should a town have the right to take your house just to build another Wal Mart? This ruling will only benefit corporations and screw the prinicipal of private property. Condemning people's land for parks and highways is one thing (and skyscrapers and stadiums are a gray area, considering Manhattan's density and the lack of open space) because those things WILL benefit the public, but condemning property to give money to private entities is wrong.