[P-Marlowe]

Then I would take the side of the dissent. If the government takes the land pursuant to a government development plan, then the government usually (undoubtedly) retains an interest in the land in the title so as to ensure that the purchaser does not deviate from the public development plan. Usually there is a forfeiture clause put in to ensure compliance with the purposes of the plan.

If, on the other hand, the Government forces you to sell directly to the private developer because the developer has a plan for its own benefit, then there is no public trust created and thus I do not believe that there is any way to say that the taking is for a "public use."

I have to agree that this is not constitutional. I had thought this was just another economic development plan implemetation, but it isn't. I would join the dissent in this one.

[RightWhale]

If, on the other hand, the Government forces you to sell directly to the private developer

There is no way to force that except by the methods of the Godfather. I don't believe we have descended to horse heads already.

[redgolum]

Then I would take the side of the dissent.


I was beginning to wonder there! I figured you hadn't read the case yet.