[snowsislander]

Without having read the opinion (I don't see it on the Court's slip system), it appears that the definition of "public use" in the 5th Amendment has shifted from the direct use of the public at large ("...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation") to a more derivative "public good" derived from "more taxes collected are more 'public good' created". But let's see what the opinion actually says, and maybe there is a further legal basis for this appalling decision.

But I have to say that the notions of property seem to have gone back to the days of the English monarchy, with the new-old doctrines of property somehow being capable of itself being 'criminal' and thus forfeitable, and now an eminent domain that appears to be capricious in the extreme.

[Publius Valerius]

it appears that the definition of "public use" in the 5th Amendment has shifted from the direct use of the public at large ("...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation") to a more derivative "public good" derived from "more taxes collected are more 'public good' created". But let's see what the opinion actually says, and maybe there is a further legal basis for this appalling decision.

That's exactly what the Court held in the 60s in a case in Michigan when a city took some blighted land for redevelopment. In my opinion, I think the fellow that argued the case for the landowners really dropped the ball. He argued that the tax benefits to the city were speculative, therefore it wasn't a public use. I think he should have argued, simply, that public use means a school or a courthouse or whatever. Attack the very heart of the issue, don't dance around it.

[junta]

George Soros and ilk are smiling today, they practically have written this opinion. Remember "International Law" Ginsberg?

[Dat Mon]

You said..."it appears that the definition of "public use" in the 5th Amendment has shifted from the direct use of the public at large ("...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation") to a more derivative "public good"

EXACTLY. IMO...this ruling goes against constitutional principles..and is truly dangerous...because of the case in Connecticut that was the basis of this decision.

The property that will be seized through eminent domain does not have to end up as commonly held by the government...and thus indirectly by the public as a whole...but it can be property that is taken from one PRIVATE individual...and given to another PRIVATE entity..be it an individual, private company, or a publicly traded company. This IMO far exceeds the original intent of eminent domain law.

[Churchjack]

From the sickening decision:

'Indeed, while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed "use by the public" as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the "use by the public" test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?),7 but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society.'

Insane. Just insane.