http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebusiness/feeds/ap/2005/06/23/ap2108859.html
This is against ammendment 5, isn’t it??
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am5
This makes me sick.
They have to pay the property owners “just compensation”. That makes it constitutional.
Apparently.
See this thread in the pit for an ongoing discussion.
Local, state and Federal gov’ts have been taking private property by “eminent domain” all along, ie for highways and other public works. They have to pay for it (and the owner can take it to court to try to improve the price the gov’t intends to pay).
But doesn’t this new decision extend that to private for-profit developments?
Makes me very uneasy.
Opening up the opportunity for a business to persuade the local gov’t to hand them a lucrative set-up on a platter just increases the temptation for corruption.
Well, to play devil’s advocate, the justification is that even though office parks and shopping areas are for-profit private businesses, they contribute to the public good by bringing in tax revenue and jobs.
It’s certainly conceivable to envision a scenareo where you have an old run-down waterfront neighborhood that could be revitalized by new development. Should that neighborhood suffer perpetual blight because a couple of people don’t want to sell a few ramshackle shacks? Even if they would be replaced by a waterfront mixed-use commercial district that would revilalize the community?
Drat, didn’t see that reference before posting.
Basically, SCOTUS said that government don’t have to justify eminent domain; it just requires just compensation.
This one is closed, as it basically is a duplicate of two others.
Or, you can take the high road and visit Great Debates
samclem GQ moderator