[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.

[Fury]

Re: 179 - Good post.

I'd recommend the book written by Carry Okie. It's must reading after the decision of the USSC.

What concerns me is that depending on the state, many of the agencies that would make decisions on zoning and planning are appointed positions. You can't vote out these folks.

I've always maintained the most powerful people in a town, village, etc are the folks on the planning/zoning boards.