[mad_as_he$$]

Kelo is not the decision that would be used to enforce this taking. It does not conform closely enough. Actually if i were the landowners lawyer I would hope for the Feds to try and use Kelo - you could knock that down in the first rounds of motions.

[khnyny]

Yes, you're right. The point I was trying to make is that eminent domain has been expanded and that we currently have a Supreme Court who is extrememly sympathetic to this expanded view.

BTW, the whole Kelo vs. New London development was a total failure and wasted taxpayers money to the tune of $80 million.

The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) affirmed New London’s authority to take non-blighted private property by eminent domain, and then transfer it for a dollar a year to a private developer solely for the purpose of increasing municipal revenues. This 5-4 decision received heavy press coverage because the Court sided with the city's argument that this sort of taking and private redevelopment was a public benefit. Kelo inspired a public outcry that eminent domain powers were too broad. As a reaction to Kelo, several states enacted or are considering enacting state legislation that would further define and restrict the state's own power of eminent domain. The Supreme Courts of Illinois, Michigan (County of Wayne v. Hathcock (2004)) Ohio (Norwood, Ohio v. Horney (2006)), Oklahoma, and South Carolina have recently ruled to disallow such takings under their state constitutions.

The redevelopment in New London, that was the subject of the Kelo decision, proved to be a failure and as of the spring 2009 (over four years after the court's decision) nothing has been built on the taken land in spite of the expenditure of some $80 million in public funds.