[Torie]

Well the good news for you, is that unless the plan is broad scale, in the futre subsequent more piecemeal takings, like taking a factory to put in a car dealership which generates more tax revenues, will be easily distinguishable from this case on its facts. But the general principle abopted in the earlier two decisions, really doesn't warrant that. I like the majority consider it to be quite broad gauge indeed, and the attempt to cut it back while hewing to that principle is unsatisfactory. A new princple will have to be fashioned when the piecemeal cases come down, or the O'Connor claims will prove warranted. Kennedy in his discursive way was kind of suggesting that.

Here is another thought. It seems "everybody" agrees it is just dandy constitutionally to tear down a neighborhood to build a sports stadium, because the public "uses" it (even if the stadium is privately owned). That is what happened in LA, when Dodger stadium was built (and is privately owned). But doesn't the public also use retail establishments? What is the difference?

[CindyDawg]

There isn't a difference. Both are wrong.

[Craven Moorhead]

This is my take on it. It should prevent isolated cases of ED from occuring.
Remember guys, ED is taking place now for Wal-Mart when it threatens to move just outside a city's tax base (or into another's tax base). It's ED at gunpoint, essentially.
Why? Well, cities do not survive on houses alone! Houses are tax-sinks and will always be inferior to $$$ retail.
(head hurts)

[jwalsh07]

I see no difference. None, nada, zippo. Eminent Domain is every bit as bad as RICO and the "Interstae Commerce Clause", warped beyond recognition.