Agree with you both -- people are reading into the court ruling things that are not there. That is not unusual on here anymore -- just more of the hand wringers on here going off the deep end with a few facts in their hand -- they feed off of each other it seems. I admit I don't have enough facts to get specific such as the price the homeowners were offered, etc.
Did they never hear the words "urban development" which has been around for ever. Those were private building contractors that came in after the Government took the property.
Rape has been around for millennia -- I guess it ought to be legal, too.
The more I think about it the more I agree with your above opinion.
It is strange to hear a bunch of conservatives crying for a public outcome as opposed to a private outcome when it comes to Eminent Domain and urban renewal. A renewed urban core is better for the public. Why shouldn't the final ownership of such an urban renewal be private.
Think of it this way. What if we had Eminent Domain to build roads and then we sold off those roads to private companies who ran those roads instead of big government.
That said, New London seems to being doing well with urban gentrification without Eminent Domain. Add to that a bunch of crooked politicians and Chris Dodd's good old Pfizer expanding into town and I'm still inclined to say that this ED in this case is not needed.