[JohnBovenmyer]

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.

[Paul R.]

Sorry, I should have said “NO GOOD CASE” or something to that effect.

I do understand the point about “the little guy”: As I’ve posted before, if a highway (or a limo stand) gets plopped down on me, there’s almost no way I could recover being able to do the work I love and the life I live. It’s taken me 30+ years (40+, now that I consider it more fully) of sometimes fearfully hard work to build up what I have now*, and even if I was paid twice what my property is worth, plus loss of income for a year or two, and money to move, I’m getting old enough that I just don’t think the energy is in me to start over.

I’ve also posted regarding protections that could be added to protect the little guy from not being generously compensated.

On the other hand, I witnessed a case maybe 4-5 years back, locally, where someone was able to successfully delay for years even “public use” — improvement of a very dangerous road — to squeeze as much money out of their property as possible (from the taxpayers, I might add.) A couple people died on that road, in the meantime.

Maybe Kelo went too far — I just try to see both sides of it. And maybe the Constitution needs an amendment here to better fit modern circumstances - the founders allowed for such with good reason.

*As an aside, I’m sure I could have done “better” in the stock market! But I tend to think whatever slight measure of improvement I’ve been able to add to the lives of others is a “value” beyond money alone.

Anyway, maybe I can come back to this some other day. Responsibilities call... Thanks for the reasoned discussion. :-)