Yes, without a shred of doubt, if the owner does not want to sell.
Forcing an owner to sell property for the benefit of another private owner is an absolute misuse of eminent domain.
Eminent domain must be used for the limited purpose of public buildings, roads, airports, ports, schools, post offices, forts, armories and the like. Never to facilitate the profit of a crony capitalist. Shame on any proclaimed conservative who holds otherwise. For shame.
Do you support the Keystone pipeline?
If you don’t, fine.
The rest of us ugly Conservatives do. And it’s is being built by a private company.
Interesting construction and engineering background you have. You must have had to say no to a lot of projects.
According to who? Kelo didn't even break new ground. For more than a hundred years the country was using eminent domain-- with the backing of the courts-- to fix blighted neighborhoods by selling that land to private developers, or using eminent domain in order for private owners to build rail roads. Today, it's done for the oil pipelines.
Let me know when you find an actual politician who plans on putting a stop to such uses of eminent domain. None exist. Nor should they. The individaul states have created their own laws and protections to insure eminent domain is used appropriately. You don't want the federal government poking their noses in, or stupid people who think somebody's shack should hold up development of a neighborhood that is in absolute ruins.