Yes, any use of real property that is not netting maximal tax revenues for a government body is now in danger of being taken and given to new "owners" who will make the funds flow faster.
In fact, if you look at my posting #592, you can see two governmental bodies in South Carolina arguing as to who will reap the direct benefits from condemning a piece of real property in South Carolina that belongs to another state, Georgia.
Now extend that same situation to a city/county situation, where a county decides it wants to raze a neighborhood for a baseball stadium, and the city wants to raze it for a Super China-Mart. At least we won't have to worry about clogging the courts up with the "owners" complaining, since after this ruling, it appears that only the governments involved have any stake in the condemnation of real property.
In fact, today's decision is so far-reaching that it's hard to imagine any "abuse" of such a sweeping eminent domain power, since unless a condemnation approaches the "bright line" of taking from one individual A to give another individual B, the Supreme Court has declared that it is clearly allowable under the Fifth Amendment. Thus, by definition, it's not an "abuse" to use condemention as it is clearly now allowed.
This is an appalling decision. In the over 200 years of our history, it's hard to think of a materially worse one.
Thank you. I had to skip over many postings after I heard Cavuto. I will definitely go back and read yours.
From the rest of what you said, it certainly looks as though I had it pretty well right.