[Torie]

Apparently it is well settled that government can condemn to fight blight. I suppose one can litigate what "blight" means. Oh goodie. If the government can condemn to do that, why cannot it condemn for other important public policy purposes, which as raising more tax revenue to provide more funding to fight the blight in its school system, or to reduce commute times (by e.g. having office buildings nearer to residences) so that less needs to be spent on transportation, or for cleaner air, etc? What is so damn special about blight (or roads or for government buildings etc)? Do we really want a consitututional principle that gives one recalcitrant homeowner the power to hold up the works?

[jwalsh07]

I live here Torie, there's no damn blight in New London, Ct. Submarines? Yeah, but no blight. :-}

[AntiGuv]

Both O'Connor and Thomas directly address your observation in their dissents. They do a better job than would a brief rejoinder from myself.

[AntiGuv]

The distinction is also addressed in the Petitioner's Brief and in most of the 25 amici briefs.

[AntiGuv]

FWIW, there goes my usual agreement with Justice Kennedy's view..

[AntiGuv]

From O'Connor:

The Court’s holdings in Berman and Midkiff were true to the principle underlying the Public Use Clause. In both those cases, the extraordinary, precondemnation use of the targeted property inflicted affirmative harm on society—in Berman through blight resulting from extreme poverty and in Midkiff through oligopoly resulting from extreme wealth. And in both cases, the relevant legislative body had found that eliminating the existing property use was necessary to remedy the harm. Berman, supra, at 28–29; Midkiff, supra, at 232. Thus a public purpose was realized when the harmful use was eliminated. Because each taking directly achieved a public benefit, it did not matter that the property was turned over to private use. Here, in contrast, New London does not claim that Susette Kelo’s and Wilhelmina Dery’s well-maintained homes are the source of any social harm. Indeed, it could not so claim without adopting the absurd argument that any single-family home that might be razed to make way for an apartment building, or any church that might be replaced with a retail store, or any small business that might be more lucrative if it were instead part of a national franchise, is inherently harmful to society and thus within the government’s power to condemn.

[B Knotts]

Do we really want a consitututional principle that gives one recalcitrant homeowner the power to hold up the works?

Yes.

Because as bad as that might be, the alternative is far worse.