[TheOtherOne]

Here is what gets me.

1. This basically imposes some obligation to use your own property in a way that maximizes public benefit; or risk

2. Someone can come along and tell the government that they could do more public good with your property.

3. The notion that a person cannot use their own land in way of their choosing (even if the only beneficiary is the owner), but the use must benefit the government or risk a 'better citizen' convincing the government that they should get your property...for the public good...is communism

4. It is always open to opinion as to what the best public use is for a certain project. By associating public benefit with an increase in the tax base, the new 'rule' espoused by the high court, it necessarily puts uses that do not provide maximum taxes in a detrimental position.

This is communism. The property is yours until we decide we can do something better with it.

[freeeee]

Nice post. You quickly and accurately summed up the core of the issue. Those responsible will never call it communism, they'll call it something else, that's how they operate. Nevertheless, communism has some defining characteristics when it comes to private property (or lack thereof), and this "Americans are sharecroppers" decision has all of them.

As my tagline for some time now has read:

"Owning" property in the US just means you have one less landlord.