Replies

That’s not a very good analogy. NO case can be made for the cab stand being more beneficial to the community.

As for price, it seems to me that if the Government (Buyer) and the property owner cannot come to agreement, then the disagreement needs to go to some sort of arbitration, with some built-in protections for both sides, and public, very public, oversight.

(I considered a much longer discussion of possible arbitration processes and guidelines, but realized I’d be up until dawn throwing out suggestions!)

Pre-Kelo eminent domain could only be used in narrow circumstances, where it was a necessary evil. Post-Kelo it can be used for anything, limited only by the chutzpah of the person applying it. Claims of increased future tax revenues are easily conjured out of thin air and are often proven false as they were in the case of Kelo itself. The standard for involuntarily taking property needs to be restored to it's former high level. A lot DID get done under it.

My analogy is precise. Trump wanted to take her house for a limo stand, I posit Bloomberg taking Trumps for a cab stand. One house and one stand were fancier, but functionally the same. 'NO case can be made,' is obviously false: people MAKE ludicrous cases all the time. Like the one Trump's friends made in court on her house trying to get Trump a limo stand. No GOOD case can be made for the cab stand? Probably. But perhaps one could argue Trump's accountants were so clever that the city wasn't receiving its optimal tax loot from there and might get more out of a bunch of cabbies with inferior tax accountants. Or maybe some organization just hated Trump and was out to get him without any good excuse. Pre-Kelo the law was there to protect the little guy and often did. Post-Kelo, if you've got enough dough, connections and lawyers the little guy gets trampled.