How did a private gas company come to be able to exercise the power of eminent domain?

Factual Questions
21

To my knowledge Wal-Mart was not even remotely connected to the Kelo case. There was basically an area in downtown New London on the waterfront where a developer wanted to build a somewhat “upscale” shopping plaza, the developer would have developed commercial real estate and then rented it to various businesses.

I didn’t like what happened in New London, but I begrudgingly had to agree with the SCOTUS on that one. A plain reading of the constitution does not specify what is a justifiable “public use” under the takings clause, so I do think logically you are forced to conclude it is up to the legislature to decide what is a valid “public use” and what isn’t.

That doesn’t mean you have unaccountable government. Legislators are extremely accountable, moreso than any Federal judge (who is essentially unaccountable), legislators can be removed by a simple election and they are forced to endure them at regular intervals.

In the case of New London, the group opposed to this plan eventually took two seats on the city council. They also gained a great deal of attention that influenced the Governor to step in. When New London initially won their court case they then turned around and tried to force the homeowners who had been living on the land for the prior 5 years to pay 5 years worth of “back rent.” While I don’t know all the details, after the Governor of the state got involved the city of New London ended up paying to actually relocate Kelo’s house (the named plaintiff) and paid all the other homeowner’s a substantial settlement–more than one would have received under normal eminent domain statutes.

So in fact the city of New London, while they got what they wanted in moving the residents, they ended up paying through the nose for it, at a far higher rate than they would have if not for the public outcry. Finally, in a twist of irony or what have you, the developer who wanted the property could never secure financing for his project and the seized land was never developed into commercial real estate at all, and the land now sits vacant. So New London city gained virtually nothing from the matter, and most of the residents forced out of their homes took their money and left the city, denying New London any further tax revenue from them.

22

I’m generally a states rights guy, but I found that decision to be outrageous. Whatever the founders meant by the term “public use” they certainly didn’t mean any possible use which could be construed to benefit the public as a whole. That reduces the term to absurdity. I can’t conceive of any transaction where it couldn’t be argued that the proposed use was better for the public than the current use (increase tax revenue for the city, blight, etc.).

It turns the idea of private property ownership on its head to suggest that you can have your own home taken away from you at the whim of a politician who thinks it can be put to better uses.

The whole point of the BOR (as applied to the states in the 14th) was to protect from a tyranny of the majority. Why all of the deference to local governments in this arena but not others? For example, why isn’t the argument, “Well the framers didn’t define freedom of speech, so that is up to the local city council to decide” analogous to yours in this area?