# This can't be right! It's unconstitutional! **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 23, 2005, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-cant-be-right-its-unconstitutional/309556 "2005-06-23T17:30:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![nowayman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f1d935/32.png) [@nowayman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nowayman)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-cant-be-right-its-unconstitutional/309556/1 "2005-06-23T17:30:15Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. [http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebusiness/feeds/ap/2005/06/23/ap2108859.html](http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebusiness/feeds/ap/2005/06/23/ap2108859.html) This is against ammendment 5, isn’t it?? > [@](#): > > …nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. [http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am5](http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am5) This makes me sick. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-cant-be-right-its-unconstitutional/309556/2 "2005-06-23T17:31:49Z")
> [@nowayman](#): > > [http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebusiness/feeds/ap/2005/06/23/ap2108859.html](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](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. ---
**Author:** ![FatBaldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ecd19e/32.png) [@FatBaldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FatBaldGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-cant-be-right-its-unconstitutional/309556/3 "2005-06-23T18:05:35Z")
See [this thread in the pit](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=322457) for an ongoing discussion. ---
**Author:** ![MaryEFoo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@MaryEFoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaryEFoo)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-cant-be-right-its-unconstitutional/309556/4 "2005-06-23T18:15:37Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-cant-be-right-its-unconstitutional/309556/5 "2005-06-23T18:22:26Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![MaryEFoo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@MaryEFoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaryEFoo)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-cant-be-right-its-unconstitutional/309556/6 "2005-06-23T18:23:55Z")
> [@](#): > > See [this thread in the pit](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=322457) for an ongoing discussion. Drat, didn’t see that reference before posting. ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-cant-be-right-its-unconstitutional/309556/7 "2005-06-23T20:08:45Z")
Basically, SCOTUS said that government don’t have to justify eminent domain; it just requires just compensation. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-cant-be-right-its-unconstitutional/309556/8 "2005-06-24T00:10:40Z")
This one is closed, as it basically is a duplicate of two others. [Here’s the one in the Pit](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=322457) Or, you can take the high road and visit [Great Debates](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=303900) **samclem** GQ moderator