The Supreme Court originally over-extended eminent domain, and now they've upheld their stupid decision.
Eminent domain is supposed to be for building roads and parks, not for handing land over to other private individuals and corporations. That's called "theft."
Two points:
1) I wasn't fully aware of the court case details before I mouthed off the 1st time.
2) I found Justice Thomas' dissenting opinion to be very compelling.
Sorry for mouthing off without all the facts. But we must still not forget to hold the original jerks in the city council responsible.
Also, one dilemma I found is embodied in the following hypothetical scenario. Let's say the govt takes property through what is generally agreed to be a valid application of eminent domain (let's say some western land for a wildlife preserve). How long thereafter is it valid for the government to change course and decide to sell it off (let's say to local ranchers) without the claim of foul play?
Clearly 100 years later would raise no "eminent domain" hackles. Clearly an immediate resale would be like the present situation. What about a year? Five years?
I guess it would be for the courts to decide if the selloff was premeditated before the original taking.