[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.

[sirthomasthemore]

Free Reign.

With due respect, you possibly don't see the legal implications here, because they seem far fetched. But the Court's decision, has just given unprecedented power to local officials.

A practical example. I own a 115 year old well maintained Victorian in the middle of Fairfield County Ct. Land is gold here. The average price of a home in Greenwich, for instance, is $1.5M.

Now, on my property, a developer could lawfully erect 6 townhouses. I pay about $9,000 a year in property tax. But 6 townhouses would net the town $54,000.00. Under Kelo, the City now has every right to come in and take my property by eminant domain based on the argument that they are taking down a 115 year old building, and replacing it with 6 new units which would benefit the municipality by the increased tax base of 45K per annum..

Do you really want to defend that?

[traviskicks]

thanks for that. I hadn't seen those perspectives. Interesting.