So if violating someone’s constitutional rights is smart from the standpoint of public policy, then it would be OK? Of course not, so the fact that it was a stupid decision from a policy standpoint is clearly irrelevant. There was a public use. The city decision-makers found that they needed economic development and this particular parcel was key to their plans. Economic development has for over a century been recognized as a legitimate government function.
No it hasn't, and this is why Stevens had to admit that he got the court cases wrong when he cited pre-Berman v. Parker decisions.
The previous cases that Stevens cited did not deal with the Takings Clause, but the Due Process Clause of 14th Amendment. So it has NOT been recognized for over a century, and Berman vs. Parker dealt with BLIGHT, not economic development.
Standing up for the Kelo decision now, knowing how the development turned out and what ended up with the property, is not a defense of economic development as a justification for takings, it's a defense of the promise of economic development as a justification for takings. Essentially the local government can do ANYTHING and call it economic development.
It is a ticket for unlimited government power in seizing property from citizens.
Why in the hell are you defending this?
Why are you on a conservative site?
Why do you support the government over the individual in the face of all evidence that the decision was wrong?