Public use is a vague term. I believe that any purchase of property for a redevelopment plan is, in fact, a purchase for a public use regardless of how the land is later used -- as long as it is used in accordance with that plan. 99 times out of 100 these redevelopment plans are submitted for public comment before they are passed and the public has a right to speak out. The public also has a right to threaten to vote out any official who votes for such a plan. But as a general rule these plans benefit the public at large and thus I think that these plans in many cases have saved entire towns from ruin -- especially in the cases in which land was taken to implement a plan in which a large factory needs to be erected and land is needed to implement it.
One problem that you have is that when you discuss facilities like Wal Mart that under the first amendment facilities like Wal Mart have been determined to be public arenas and Wal Mart is prohibited from infringing upon the free speech rights of people who gather at their front doors. The same goes for Malls. So in essence, even though they are on private property, they function as a public gathering place.
The fact of the matter is that it is unseemly and may even seem unfair that the government can develop an economic plan and then condemn your house and sell the land to someone who will agree to implement that plan, but the constitution does not guarantee that all laws will be fair. It does, however, require that just compensation be given for any property it takes. And if you don't like the reasons why your local government is taking your land or your neighbor's land you are not without recourse. You can vote the bums out.
"And if you don't like the reasons why your local government is taking your land or your neighbor's land you are not without recourse. You can vote the bums out."
Ineffective measure since your property is still removed from your possession and passed on for another to possess.
If this were to happen to me, I certainly wouldn't feel any better just "voting the bums out!"
A simpler solution would be for the US Congress to pass a law that stated that the eminent domain power shall not be used to confiscate private dwellings, that federal constitutional rights are violated if it is so used.
This would provide a uniform national law that private homes are the private domain of families, and are not subject to takings, except perhaps for cases of national defense.
Then the thing that has most Americans worried would be eliminated, and the possibility for abuse by local government would be eliminated.
"It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area," he said.
O'Connor, who has often been a key swing vote at the court, issued a stinging dissent, arguing that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
Connecticut residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.
"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."
Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, added: "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."
Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.
Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, D-New London, a former mayor and city council member who voted in favor of eminent domain, said the decision "means a lot for New London's future."
"I am just so pleased to know that what we did was right," he said. "We can go ahead with development now."
The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.
O'Connor was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.(The 3 conservatives with on again/off again O'Conner were opposed to government power of private property rights.)
Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.
New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub.
More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs. Last month, the Pentagon also announced plans to close the U.S. Naval Submarine Base, one of the city's largest employers, which would eliminate thousands of jobs.
The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families. Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years.
City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.
New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.
Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.
Thomas filed a separate opinion to argue that seizing homes for private development, even with "just compensation," is unconstitutional.(Thomas is an originalist/strict constructionist....we need more like him.)
You seem to be a very go along to get along type. In the above, you crouch to lick the hand that feeds you and accept that "public use" is a nullity. Do you think that language was a nullity when it was drafted?