[FreeReign]

Well, it is a land grab by well-heeled interests through the instrument of local government. It is a power grab by government because they hold the power of eminent domain, and that power has been expanded.

The power has been expanded??

The USSC held that "public use" equals "public purpose" many years ago. I believe it was in the 1890's. I'd have to look up the case.

Government power has not been expanded.

BTW, would you feel better if the New London urban renewal project created government owned buildings instead of privately owned buildings?

[oblomov]

Yes, I would feel better. At least it would be public, not that I think that we need more lands to be owned by the government. In any case, the government realizes no tax revs from government buildings. If a private developer comes along and extends the promise of greater revs, then the governemtn just becomes a means of transferring property to the developer. It's insidious, and it was not precedent until June 23, 2005.

Before Kelo, the two most recent relevant decisions were Berman and Midkiff. Midkiff was more of a special case, and though abusive, it didn't introduce an element of moral hazard. Berman was the ruling that held that "blight" could be used as justification for condemnation.

This post at SCOTUSblog was the most heartening thing I've read on the subject. It gave me hope that the backlash to Kelo might produce political action, despite the opposing intentions of our rulers. The perfect storm? I hope so.