[goldstategop]

Its a clear abuse of eminent domain. Private property can only be acquired by the government for a public use, e.g a road, a dam, a public hospital, or something that has a public benefit. It cannot seize property to further a private interest. Here's to hoping Freeport's local government gets bitch-slapped down big time.

[eastforker]

It is abuse but according to the article it is not the first time this has happened either.

[Glenn]

It cannot seize property to further a private interest.

It can, it has, and it will continue to.

The courts favor the government in these disputes. They are on the same team. That fat pension has to be paid for one way or another.

[libertylover]

Its a clear abuse of eminent domain. Private property can only be acquired by the government for a public use...

I took it the marina was going to be a city, i.e., public facility. Am I wrong? At least the city has to buy them out with eminent doman.

A far worse situation IMHO is when the EPA says you can't build such and such here because we have to protect the "bugeyed cockroaches" or something. Then the owners are SOL with the property; they can't develop it and they can't sell it because no one would want land that can't be developed. It should be considered seizure and the owner compensated under the ??? Amendment but it doesn't happen that way.

[Little Ray]

Won't happen. Revenue generated from taxes is considered a "public use." If one use of a site generates more tax revenue than another, then that misbegotted ruling allows the gub'mint to steal the land to increase their tax revenue.

Never mind that the marina is probably NOT going to generate a hoped for tax revenue. Do they have shortage of slips in Freeport?

[RightWhale]

That's right. It should be that way. It is like the gov't is partners in the development--a massive ethics violation.