Replies

It may be scary, but they did not "defy history." This ruling was TOTALLY in line with 170 years of history in which "developmental rights" for the "public good" superceded "pristine property rights." This includes 170 years worth of supporting "squatter's rights" and property taxes; of opposing "landed estates" and "land barons"---a trend that came straight out of the Revolutionary generation.

It's about time we conservatives figured out how to win these cases---the environmental "takings" cases too---by ditching the "pristing private property rights" arguments and arguing that private property holders DO DEVELOP LANDS BETTER AND FASTER than cities or government. In this case, specifically, they should have shown that such malls (we have one in Cincinnati that is a disaster) do NOT produce the expected revenue and therefore it IS in the "public interest" to leave the private individuals in charge of their lands.